'•^s 
 
 
 
 ■ty,K,\ 
 
 1 * •' 
 
 1 ■ ■• , 
 
 
 ■i 
 
 
 
 
 1' ^ 
 
 
 I: % '■'■ 
 
 

 ! 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 CL 
 
 
 ,^ 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 
 Q. 
 
 
 '^ 
 
 
 T3 
 
 
 
 
 J5 
 
 
 1 
 
 ^S 
 
 •-3 
 
 Q. 
 
 
 
 
 . . 
 
 
 *& 
 
 ^ 
 
 o 
 
 
 fe 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 1 ^^"^ 
 
 . 
 
 
 ! O 
 
 
 c 
 
 fcj) 
 
 0) 
 
 ^ 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 
 O 
 
 :3 
 
 1 
 
 o 
 
 ^ 
 
 £ 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 00 
 
 >> 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 _Q 
 
 Si 
 
 *f» 
 
 
 13 
 
 «:i 
 
 -k 
 
 
 0) 
 
 ;§ 
 
 1< 
 
 
 5 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 0) 
 
 ^ 
 
 <^^ 
 
 al 
 
 
 
 
 r.x.. 
 
 o ^ 
 
 
EVILS 
 
 OF 
 
 DR. HOWELL'S BOOK 
 
 ON THE 
 
 "EVILS OF INFANT BAPTISM." 
 
 BY REV. B.-^McMILLAN. 
 
 FIRST PUBLISHED IN THE TRUE BAPTIST. 
 
 EDITED BY A. KEWTOX. 
 
 NEW YORK: ' 
 PUBLISHED BY M. W. DODD, 
 
 BRICK CHLRCH CHAPEL, CITY HALL SQI'ARK. 
 
 1855. 
 
Entered, according to Act of Congress, in tlie year 1854, by 
 
 M. W. DODD, 
 
 In the Clerk's Office for the Southern District of Nuw York. 
 
 STttttBOft-PED BY 
 
 THOMAS B. SMITH, 
 216 William St., N. Y. 
 

 
 ^ 
 
 
 This Review of Howell's Evils of Infant Baptism 
 was first published, in consecutive numbers, in tlie 
 True Baptist. It was written by the Rev. E. 
 McMillan, of Gallatin, Tennessee. It is believed 
 to be richly worthy to appear in this more accept- 
 able and permanent form, and is now ofi"ered to the 
 friends of truth as a most satisfactory and unanswer- 
 able refutation of the pretences of the objectors to 
 
 Infant Baptism. 
 
 The Editor. 
 
Digitized by tine Internet Archive 
 
 in 2011 witii funding from 
 
 Princeton Tiieological Seminary Library 
 
 littp://www.arcliive.org/details/evilsofdrliowellsOOm 
 
INTRODUC 
 
 The volume* entitled, "■ The Evils of Infant 
 Baptism," was written by one of the ablest ministers 
 in " the Southern Baptist Church," and it is issued 
 by two public societies approved and supported by 
 the denomination. "We are well certified by these 
 facts that the work is approved by the Immersionist 
 church, and that it is the ablest they can produce on 
 the subject upon which it treats. We are happy here 
 to meet the whole strength of the denomination, and 
 to be able to measure the length, breadth, depth, 
 and height of the argument against infant baptism. 
 
 We do not admire the style in which the work is 
 written. It is easy and plain ; but there is a vast 
 
 * The Evils of Infant Baptism, by Robert Boyte C. 
 Howcil, D.D., (pastor of the Second Baptist Church in 
 Richmond, Ya.) Third edition. Charleston, S. C. : South- 
 ern Baptist Publication Society. Richmond, Ya. : Baptist 
 Sunday School and Publication Society. A. D. 1852. 
 
VI INTRODUCTION. 
 
 deal of repetition, and frequently the author betrays 
 great carelessness in contradicting his own state- 
 ments. There is very little of the suaviter in modo 
 towards his opponents. They are sometimes called 
 " pious," and that sweet word " brethren" is several 
 times applied ; but there are so many abrupt and 
 gruff sentences, that the reader can hardly give the 
 author the credit of much sincerity in the use of 
 that endearing term. The estimate of the argu- 
 Client can be better made out, when we shall have 
 completed our review. We may, however, be per- 
 mitted here to say, that on receiving the work we 
 expected to meet something of a much higher order, 
 in an argumentative point of view, than we have 
 found. 
 
 The work consists of twenty chapters. Nineteen 
 of these treat of the same number of supposed 
 " evils of infant baptism ;" and the twentieth chap- 
 ter recapitulates, and concludes with a pathetic ad- 
 dress to Immersionists to labor for the conversion 
 and salvation of Pedo-baptists and the world. 
 
 We propose to review the work chapter by chapter 
 in the order pursued by the author. 
 
CHAPTER- i 
 
 PAGK 
 
 "Infant Baptism is an evil; because its practice is unsupported 
 by the Word of God." 9 
 
 CHAPTER 11. 
 
 "Infant Baptism is an evil ; because its defence leads to most in- 
 jurious perversions of the Word uf God." . ... 22 
 
 CHAPTER in. 
 
 "Infant Baptism is an evil; because it engrafts Judaism upon the 
 Gospel of Christ." 36 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 " Infant Baptism is an evil ; because it falsifies the doctrine of uni- 
 versal depravity." 71 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 "Infant Baptism is an evil; because the doctrines upon which it 
 rests contradict the great fundamental principle of justification 
 by faith." 84 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 " Infant baptism is an evil ; because it is in direct conflict with the 
 doctrine of Regeneration by the Holy Spirit." .... 92 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 " Infant Baptism is an evil : because it despoils the Church ot tnose 
 peculiar qualities which are essential to the Church of Christ." . 101 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 " Infant Baptism is an evil ; because its practice (?) perpetuates 
 the superstitions by which it was originated." . . . .121 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 "Infant Baptism is an evil ; because it subverts the true doctrine 
 of infant salvation." 137 
 
via CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER X. PAGB 
 
 "Infant Baptism is an evil ; because it lends its advocates into re- 
 bellion against the aulhorily of Jesus Christ." .... 151 
 
 CHAPTER XL 
 
 " Infant Baptism is an evil ; because of the connection it assumes 
 with the moral and religious training of children." . . . 160 
 
 CHAPTER Xn. 
 
 "Infant Baptism is an evil; becunse it is the grand foundation 
 u;jon wliich rests the union of Church and State." . . . 163 
 
 CHAPTER Xni. 
 
 "Infant Baptism is an evil ; because it leads to religious persecu- 
 tions." 166 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 "Infant Baptism is an evil ; because it is contrary to the princi- 
 ples of civil and religious freedom." 179 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 "Infant Baptism is an evil ; because it enfeebles the power of the 
 Church to combat error," 183 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 "Infant Baptism is an evil; because it injures the credit of re- 
 ligion with reflecting men of the world," 187 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 " Infant Baptism is an evil ; because it is the great barrier to Chris- 
 tian union." 192 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 " Infant Baptism is an evil ; because it prevents the salutary impress- 
 io.-i which baptism was designed to make upon the minds of both 
 those who receive it and those who witness its administration." 196 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 "Infant Baptism is an evil: because it retards the designs of 
 Christ in the conversion ol the world." 201 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 "Recapitulation, with concluding address." . . . . ; 207 
 
^j:% 
 
 
 INFANT BAPTISM IS AN EVIL ; BECAUSE ITS PRACTICE IS UNSUP- 
 PORTED BY THE WORD OF GOD." 
 
 Ir infant baptism's practice is wanting in such 
 support, it must be conceded that it has gone out of 
 the way. But its lawless conduct not being pointed 
 out, we have no opportunity to judge of the propriety 
 of its behavior. 
 
 Instead of treating of " its practice," the author 
 proceeds to condemn the conduct of the people who 
 practice it. His method seems to us rather awk- 
 ward. He undertakes to prove the negative 2^ro2:)osi- 
 tion, " Infant Baptism is unsupported by the Word 
 of God," and thence to infer that it is " an evil." 
 
 The argument in logical form stands thus : 
 
 Whatever is unsupported by the Word of God is 
 an evil. 
 
 But infant baptism is unsupported by the Word 
 of God. 
 
 Therefore, infant baptism is an evil. 
 
 The conclusion will certainly follow if the minor 
 premise be proved, and the extension of the major 
 
 !*• 
 
10 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 premise be limited to matters of religion. Other- 
 wise the reasoning will not be conclusive. We have 
 nothing to do, then, as reviewers, but to examine 
 the proof of the negative jproiwaition. 
 
 1. The first proof is in the following style : " Is 
 infant baptism supported by the Word of God ? I 
 aver that it is not. It is nowhere commanded. 
 It is nowhere, in any form, divinely authorized," 
 etc. This same idea is bandied back and forth 
 in seventeen periods as dogmatic and pointed as 
 these. The author seems to be conscious that his 
 readers will doubt his sincerity, and he wishes to 
 guard that point well. This is the only conceivable 
 use of repeating dogmatically the same idea over 
 and over so often. AVe might be as dogmatic as he, 
 and say — Infant baptism is supported by the Word 
 of God. I aver that it is. It is often commanded. 
 It is in its Scriptural form divinely authorized, etc. : 
 But there would be as little authority in our dogma- 
 tism as in his. 
 
 2. In his next step towards proof, our author con- 
 tradicts himself He says of the advocates of infant 
 baptism : " It turns out that no two of them have 
 been able to harmonize, either as to what may be re- 
 garded as testimony in the premises, or the class of 
 infants divinely authorized to be baptized ! Each is 
 in collision with every other." And on the same 
 page he tells us — " Wall, Hammond, and others," 
 agree in one view of the subject. " Owen, Jennings, 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 11 
 
 and many others,''^ agree in another view. " Beza, 
 Doddridge, and their associates/' hold another view. 
 '' Wesley and his disciple?' " agree in still another. 
 And thus he goes on to enumerate nine theories, 
 each of which, he says, is supported by a numerous 
 class. It will be observed that it is not simply these 
 classes that are in conflict. It is " individual con- 
 flicts" the author is speaking of, when he says, '' No 
 two of them have been able to harmonize," and 
 " Each is in collision with every other." A writer 
 so reckless in the statement of facts deserves little 
 confidence. And an examination of all these writers 
 will show that they harmonize better than the writers 
 who advocate immersion. It would be easy to pa- 
 rade thirty diSerent views concerning immersion. 
 Then, if difi'erence among its advocates proves the 
 want of Scriptural support, Imraersionists must give 
 up immersion to-day, and practice it no more for- 
 ever. *' Happy is he that condemneth not himself in 
 that thing which he alloweth " If Immersionists 
 may diff"er without invalidating the argument for 
 immersion, Pedo-baptists may also differ without in- 
 validating the argument for Pedobaptism. Let this 
 argument stand in its logical form, and we shall see 
 how boyish it is. 
 
 Wherever there is a diflference of opinion there is 
 no valid argument : 
 
 But there is a difi'erence of opinion among Pedo- 
 baptists : 
 
12 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 Therefore, there is no valid argument among 
 Pedo-baptists. 
 
 And as there is difference of opinion on almost 
 everything under heaven, there is scarcely any truth 
 on earth ! Especially, as the author differs with 
 himself there is no truth in him, on his own theory. 
 
 3. The third proof that infant baptism is not sup- 
 ported by the Scriptures is deduced from the fact 
 that " very many of the most learned and pious 
 Pedo-baptist biblical critics, themselves candidly 
 confess that infant baptism is not distinctly enjoined, 
 uor directly taught in the Word of God." On this 
 extract we remark : 
 
 (a.) Although the author designed, in the use of 
 the words distinctly and directly^ to secure for him- 
 self a back door of recreation in the hour of neces- 
 sity, yet in his recklessness he closed it against him- 
 self; for he says, " It is confessed by its advocates 
 that it (infant baptism) is not found in the inspired 
 pages — It is acknowledged that the Word of God 
 does not teach infant baptism." Can we wonder 
 that the world does not respect Christianity, when a 
 D.D., a pastor of a prominent Christian church, will 
 venture into daylight with such assertions before 
 God and the world ? 
 
 (b.) The Pedo-baptist writers here referred to, are 
 conceded to be both " learned and pious." We 
 wish the author, in his next edition, to tell us what 
 his notions of piety are ; since in his view a " learn- 
 
EVILS OF DR. EOWELL. 13 
 
 ed and pious" man may practice for religion wbat 
 he confesses to be not supported by the Word of 
 God! 
 
 On examining the authors here referred to, it will 
 be found that, although they do not believe that in- 
 fant baptism is " distinctly enjoined, nor directly 
 taught," they believe it is clearly involved in other 
 commands, and indirectly taught in the example of 
 the Apostles ; and the author knows all that very 
 well ; but refuses to let his own witnesses state all 
 their testimony. An advocate who can thus trifle 
 with testimony, may serve the purposes of a party 
 that are afraid of broad daylight ; but he will hold 
 no enviable position in the esteem of high-minded 
 gentlemen. These " learned and pious Pedo-baptist 
 biblical critics" believe, with Immersionists, that 
 no one is to be received in the name of Christ with- 
 out baptism ; and that when he commands us to re- 
 ceive little children in his name, he commands us to 
 baptize them. This is not a distinct command ; but 
 it is necessarily involved in the command to receive 
 them in his name, if Immersionists are orthodox in 
 refusing to receive any one in his name without bap- 
 tism. The Apostles practiced it. They baptized 
 households, when the parents believed, without men- 
 tioning or intimating faith in any of the household 
 except the head of the house. Then here it is in- 
 directly taught in apostolic example. 
 
 (c.) The author here attempts to prove by human 
 
14 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 testimony that " inftmt baptism is unsupported by 
 tiie Word of Grod !" and he knows, and the world 
 knows, that his witnesses believe, declare, and prac- 
 tice the contrary ! Let conscience — let his own 
 conscience — answer what credit is due to one who 
 will take such ungenerous steps. Human testimony ! 
 and he vociferating for the Bible alone ! But let us 
 have the third argument in form. 
 
 Then, whatever is declared by " learned and pious 
 Pedo-baptist biblical critics" is true: 
 
 But these critics declare that " infant baptism is 
 unsupported by the Word of God." 
 
 Is this the best the whole immei'sing church can 
 do in argument ? To undertake the proof of a 7ieg- 
 ative in religion, and that by human testimony on 
 the other side of the question, is surely the last re- 
 sort in a desperate pressure. 
 
 But these critics declare that Dr. Howell's doc- 
 trine is erroneous. 
 
 Therefore it is true that Dr. Howell's doctrine is 
 erroneous. 
 
 There, now, Doctor, your gun shoots as hard one 
 way as the other. 
 
 4. Immediately after his parade of human testi- 
 mony on the other side of the question to prove his 
 divine negative, our author calls our attention to 
 " the great Protestant principle in religion," which 
 declares *' The Word of God is a perfect rule of faith 
 and practice." After declaring his reverence for 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 15 
 
 this principle, and notifying us, '• For mj^self and my 
 brethren — we are not Protestants," he proceeds to 
 inyeigh heavily against Protestants for practicing 
 infant baptism on human authority without the sup- 
 port of the Scriptures ! It would be just as decent 
 in us to upbraid Immersionists with the same thing; 
 but there is no argument on either side. Here is 
 the attitude in which the thing stands: 
 
 The advocates of infant baptism believe the fa- 
 thers were men of truth and common sense. They 
 were men competent to give testimony concerning 
 facts that occurred under their own observation ; 
 and intelligent Immersionists view them in the very 
 same light. The Pedo-baptists come forward with 
 certain texts of Scripture, which they believe give a 
 clear support to the doctrine of infant baptism ; and 
 now they adduce the testimony of the fathers de- 
 claring the fact that infants were baptized in their 
 churches, and that the practice had prevailed in the 
 churches generally from the time of the Apostles. 
 They offer this testimony not to prove the divine 
 authority for the rite ; but to prove that the early 
 fathers understood the Scriptures as they do, and by 
 this means they suppose they increase the probability 
 that their understanding of the Scriptures is correct. 
 
 Immersionists take exactly the same course to 
 prove immersion. They also cite texts of Scripture 
 to prove immersion ; and attempt to support their 
 interpretation of these texts by a reference to the 
 
16 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 testimony of the fathers, showing that immersion 
 was extensively practiced at an early day. 
 
 If in such cases we should charge them with a re- 
 sort to human authority, they would repel the charge 
 with warmth, and complain grievously of injustice. 
 '' Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto 
 you. do ye even so unto them." 
 
 They " are not Protestants !" Then they have no 
 objection to the decree of Charles Y., that no 
 Roman Catholic should be allowed to turn Lutheran, 
 and that the Reformers should deliver nothing in 
 their sermons contrary to the received doctrine of 
 the Roman Catholics ! This is a new idea borrowed 
 from the Campbellites. Until recently, Immersion- 
 ists claimed to be Protestants. Lately they have 
 taken it into their heads that they are much older 
 than the Reformation, and that their fathers could 
 look with indifference on the oppressive edicts of 
 Catholic tyrants. Then, who are theyl They can- 
 not be successors of the Waldenses, who practiced 
 infant baptism, by sprinkling and pouring. Besides, a 
 respectable Immersionist says, that the descendants 
 of the Waldenses " were reckoned among the Pro- 
 testants with whom they were in doctrine so con- 
 genial." Even the Menonites, according to the tes- 
 timony of Mr. Gan, one of their own ministers, 
 practiced the various modes of sprinkling, pouring 
 and immersion. Who, then, have the Immersiouists 
 got to be at last ? Not Protestant ! 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 17 
 
 After all this ado, our author proceeds to insist 
 that all inference from the sacred Scriptures is 
 wholly unauthorized. In this he differs very widely 
 from his Master, who confuted the Sadducees by an 
 inference deduced from the words of God to Moses 
 — " I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." 
 He differs greatly from Paul, whose epistles through- 
 out are so many chains of connected reasoning from 
 the Scriptures. If inferences from the Bible are 
 unlawful, our pulpits must be closed ; for preaching 
 consists of little else. He says, " In the Gospel 
 every duty is distinctly enjoined." Then, in the 
 next edition of his work, the author will confer a 
 favor by telling us in what part of the Gospel he is 
 '• distinctly enjoined" to baptize females, to plunge 
 them into creeks, or to admit them to the commun- 
 ion of the church — to hold " Baptist associations" — 
 to write and publish a book on " the evils of infant 
 baptism," etc. Especially we should be gratified to 
 learn in what part of the Gospel it is " distinctly 
 enjoined " — Dr. Hoivell^ thou shall remove from 
 Nashville to Richmond. Verily, " thou that judg- 
 est doest the same things." He need give himself 
 no trouble about apostolic example, and general 
 instructions. These we know. We demand a dis- 
 tinct INJUNCTION in each of these cases. 
 
 5. Our author's next argument is deduced from 
 the apostolic commission, " He that believeth, and 
 is baptized, shall be saved." He tells us — " The 
 
18 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 persons to be baptized are minutely described. They 
 are believers. A law to baptize believers is neces- 
 sarily confined in its administration to believers. It 
 embraces no others," &c. This idea is repeated 
 twelve times. 
 
 When we examine the words of the commission, 
 we find the Saviour describes not the persons who 
 shall be baptized^ but who shall be saved. Believ- 
 ing and being baptized are both attributes belonging 
 properly to the subject of salvation. He does not 
 say that every believer shall be baptized, nor that 
 baptism shall be administered to none but believers, 
 nor that any one, who is baptized, shall be saved, nor 
 that any one, who is not baptized, shall be lost; but 
 simply that the baptized believer shall be saved. To 
 any man, then, who seriously examines the text, it 
 must be plain that the intention is not to define the 
 subject of baptism, but the subject of salvation. 
 Let me offer for consideration another sentence in 
 the same regimen — " He that is industrious and fru- 
 gal, shall be rich." Does the speaker here describe 
 the subject of frugality, or of wealth ? 
 
 Our author goes on to show, that baptism admits 
 the party baptized into the visible church, and de- 
 notes his consecration to Grod ; and from these facts 
 argues that infant baptism is " unsupported by the 
 Word of God." 
 
 This reasoning is seen to be a great fallacy, if we 
 recollect that infants are declared by the King him- 
 
EVILS OF DR, HOWELL, 19 
 
 self to belong to his kingdom, and therefore should 
 be bajDtized in acknowledgment of the fact. It is 
 the act of the parent to make this acknowledgment 
 and consecration. The infant is incapable of con- 
 fessing itself to be a human being; but others ac- 
 knowledge that truth, and regard it as a member of 
 human society. Suppose now there were a law that 
 every citizen of the State is to be denoted by print- 
 ing the letter A upon his forehead ; would it be 
 proper to place that letter A upon the forehead of 
 every infant born in the State? Then why question 
 the right of infants to baptism, unless the intention 
 be to question their right to stand in the kingdom 
 of God ? If they be proper subjects of salvation, 
 they must be proper subjects of baptism ; because 
 that is plainly the force of the words, " He that be- 
 lieveth and is baptized shall be saved." If infants 
 are numbered with the saved in heaven, why should 
 they not be numbered with them on earth ? These 
 are points for consideration. 
 
 6. Still another argument to show that infant bap- 
 tism is unsupported by the Word of God," is this — 
 " It betrays ministers into the most fearful presump- 
 tion, [and it] must create in the minds of the j!;eo^/e 
 generally^ who are under its influence, a want of 
 proper respect for the Word of God." This is simple 
 impudence. Until recently, Immersionists drank 
 more alcohol than all other Christians together, and 
 even yet they are behind most others in the reform. 
 
20 EVILS OF DR, HOWELL. 
 
 They have been generally very deficient in training 
 their children to study the Scriptures. Many have 
 no Sabbath, and few of them hare risen to eminence 
 in scriptural knowledge ; and yet our author, who 
 must know these facts, ventures into open daylight 
 before the world with the assertion that those who 
 practice infant baptism want " proper respect for the 
 Word of God." It would be about as true to declare 
 that rain prevents the growth of vegetables. 
 
 He says — " It never can be recognized as baptism 
 by the people of God." Then, plainly, he means to 
 say that Immersionists are the only people of God : 
 because all others do so recognize it. In this he 
 assumes to play the judge, and forgets that he him- 
 self is to stand before the Judge. Ah ! Doctor, 
 your arm is too tiny to fling the flickering bolts of 
 heaven. When you say " Infant baptism necessarily 
 destroys respect for the Word of God," you certaiuly 
 destroy respect for yourself among the well-informed. 
 
 I will close my remarks on the first chapter with 
 a notice of one other extract : 
 
 " Infant baptism is not according to the law of 
 God. It is a violation of the law of God. It is a 
 transgression of the law of God. 
 
 " Therefore, infant baptism is a sin against God." 
 
 This extract much resembles the ravings of a 
 guilty boy, who knows that his crimes are about to 
 come to light. He pleads his innocencp thus : — I 
 did not do it. I am not capable of it. I could 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 21 
 
 not do it. I never thought of it. It did not come 
 into my mind. Nobody believes it. No one can be- 
 lieve it^ Sf'C. How different is the language of con- 
 scious innocence, which makes its denial with dig- 
 nity, and when further questioned, replies, " I have 
 told you already ; wherefore would you hear it 
 again ?" If there be any argument in such a bluster 
 of words, it would be easy for us to overthrow im- 
 mersion by the same process : — '' Immersion is not 
 according to the law of God. It is a violation of 
 the law of God. It is a transgression of the law of 
 God. Therefore, immersion is a sin against God." 
 But such assertions we should view as mere dicta- 
 tion, attempting to lord it over the conscience of 
 others. It is all assumption ; and its author is more 
 of a braggadocio than of a reasoner. There is 
 no evidence, there can be no conviction, and to at- 
 tempt to supply the place of evidence with authority^ 
 is the proper business of an autocrat or a pope. 
 
CHAPTEK II. 
 
 " INFANT BAPTISM IS AN EVIL ; BECAUSK ITS DEFENCE LEADS TO 
 MOST INJURIOUS PERVERSIONS OF THE WORD OF GOD." 
 
 In the introduction of this subject the author 
 says, '• It is the process by which the churches which 
 practice it, receive their entire membership." It is 
 hard to conceive how any man could live in Christen- 
 dom as long as Dr. Howell has, and still be able to 
 say that Pedo-baptists " receive their entire mem- 
 bership" by infant baptism. If he really supposes 
 that they receive no members but those who were 
 baptized in infancy, he is deplorably ignorant of the 
 facts around him — too ignorant, surely, to write a 
 book about them. If he knows the facts in the case, 
 and still asserts that all they receive were baptized 
 in infancy, I deliver him over to the judgment of 
 the people and of God. 
 
 In remarking on- the commission as given by 
 Matthew — " Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, 
 baptizing them in the name," etc., he says, " The 
 order is plainly as imperative as the commands 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 23 
 
 themselves." After repeating this idea four times, 
 he proceeds to argue, that as infants are baptized be- 
 fore they are taught, it is a violation of the divinely- 
 appointed order, and is, therefore, a violation of the 
 command itself This is the first instance in the book 
 of anything like an argument, and we must treat it 
 with respect. We observe, then, 
 
 1. The order here spoken of is a mere fancy; for 
 the participle — " baptizing" — agrees in case with the 
 nominative to the verb — " teach" — and in gram- 
 matical order, may just as well be placed before as 
 after the verb. 
 
 2. His rule would force the author into the doe- 
 trine that no one is ever clothed with Christ until 
 he is baptized. Gal. 3 ; 27, and if never baptized, 
 he never can can be clothed with Christ, and must 
 be morally naked forever. 
 
 3. The Saviour did not here institute baptism ; 
 but merely commanded his disciples still to admin- 
 ister it. They had already baptized under his in- 
 structions, according to the ancient usages of the 
 church of God. He plainly did not describe here 
 the subjects of baptism ; but left them to be guided 
 in that particular by the instructions which they had 
 already received ; and, of course, they would not 
 refuse to admit as members of his kingdom such 
 little ones as those about which he before gave them 
 charges so solemn. 
 
 4. Our author sneers at the idea of making one 
 
2-1 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 a disciple by Ibaptisin. If one may be a t^e disciple 
 without baptism, let him explain how it is that he 
 refuses to receive as disciples all who are not im- 
 mersed. No one can be openly Christ's disciple but 
 by baptism. If, then, a disciple is a learner, and if 
 training up children " in the nurture and admoni- 
 tion of the Lord" is to make them learners in re- 
 ligion, their young discipleship is as properly com- 
 menced with baptism as that of any others. Do 
 adults cease to learn after baptism ? 
 
 5. No one contends that adults are baptized until 
 they voluntarily agree to be disciples ; because their 
 discipleship depends on their own voluntary' action. 
 But infants are to be made disciples by the instruc- 
 tions of their parents preparatory to a right choice 
 when they come to maturity. That it is the duty 
 of parents to forestall the discipleship of their chil- 
 dren none can deny ; and of course none can deny 
 the propriety of baptizing them, since every such 
 denial involves also the denial of their right to teach 
 them the ways of the Lord without first obtaining 
 their consent. To baptize them without their consent 
 is surely no more an infraction of tlieir liberty than to 
 teach them without their consent. Indeed, they are 
 incapable of consent, and to their parents they are 
 committed to be trained to the exercise of a propor 
 consent. Their baptism, then, is the solemn conse- 
 cration of them as young disciples to be trained to 
 know and confess the Lord. The baptism of adults 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 25 
 
 usually takes place as soon as they consent to be 
 learned, and the teaching and learning follow baptism. 
 
 Our author concludes this argument with a quite 
 pathetic lamentation over the blindness of " great 
 and good men." Whenever men begin to argue in 
 earnest, their charity will certainly gain the ascend- 
 ency over their lower passions ; and if our author 
 could get the idea that he is a partaker of a com- 
 mon weakness with those over whom he laments, he 
 might profitably spend in self-examination a part of 
 the time thrown away in lamenting over others. 
 
 After quoting the views of men on the import of 
 Peter's words — ' The promise is to you and your 
 children" — showing that some believe " the promise" 
 is that made to Abraham ; and others, that 'uade 
 by Joel concerning the gift of the Spirit. Our 
 author, of course, gives his verdict with thoso who 
 refer '' the promise" to the gift of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 It is but just to concede that there are rome 
 plausible reasons for this view of the text ; but it 
 must be admitted, that the word is so often applied 
 emphatically by the Apostles to the covenant of cir- 
 cumcision, that it forms a very strong probability in 
 favor of the other view. Be this as it may, if our 
 author could demonstrate that Peter here alluded 
 to " the promise" of the gift of the Holy Spirit, he 
 cannot thence conclude, as he does, that the Abra- 
 hamic covenant has been annulled ; since Paul ex- 
 pressly declares, " That the blessing of Abraham 
 3 
 
26 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ, 
 that we miglit receive the iiromise of the Spirit 
 through faith. And if 3-e be Christ's, then are ye 
 Abraham's seed, and heirs according to t/ic inomiseT 
 Gal. 3:14, 29. 
 
 Then our author cannot boast that he has " dis- 
 posed of the chief Scripture ground" on which in- 
 fant baptism rests. For if by faith in Christ we 
 become the children of Abraham, and heirs to the 
 promise made to him, we must inherit the privilege 
 conferred on him. Then let us question the Bible 
 here. Did God sustain the same relation to Abra- 
 ham and his infant children ? Answer — I will " be 
 a God unto thee and thy seed after thee ; and he 
 that is eight days old shall be circumcised among 
 you — and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt 
 me and you." Gen. 17 ch. 
 
 But was not circumcision a mere national dis- 
 tinction ? Ans. — '• He received the sign of circum- 
 cision, a seed of the righteousness of faiths 
 
 Then does God also sustain to believers and their 
 children under the gospel the same relation as to 
 Abraham and his children before the law ? Ans. — 
 " If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, 
 and heirs according to the promise." 
 
 Over these eternal bars our author never can 
 climb. 
 
 The following is the rendering the Doctor gives 
 to 1 Cor. 7: 14 — "The unbelieving husband is 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 27 
 
 sanctified to the wife, and the unbelieving wife is 
 sanctified to the husband, else were your children 
 unclean, [to you,] but now are they holy." As thus 
 rendered, our author proceeds to argue that the 
 Apostle means to teach that the marriage relation 
 sanctifies the unbelieving party to the believing, and 
 on the same ground the children are holy to the 
 parents. To sustain himself, he quotes several 
 authors, and says, " Upon this point, therefore, we 
 are certainly right." 
 
 It is very strange that one who makes his appeal 
 to the Bible, and rebukes others so fiercely for ap- 
 pealing to human authority, should conclude he is 
 " certainly right," because he agrees with great men ! 
 But our author does not mark closely what Paul 
 says. He says that children would be unclean^ if 
 the unbelieving party were not sanctified by the be- 
 lieving. Now, it is plain that where both parties 
 are unbelievers, neither can sanctify the other, so 
 that their children must be unclean [to them] by his 
 own showing. But that is not the fact. Unbelievers 
 do not regard their children as unclean [to them.] 
 
 The rendering here given is forced and unnatural, 
 and would never occur to one who had no purpose 
 to serve by it. It also compels one to foist into the 
 text the words to you. Our common translation is 
 far more natural and proper, and leads us into no 
 difficulty. The plain and obvious import of the text 
 is, 'that those children whose parents are both un- 
 
28 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 believers are in some sense unclean^ but those who 
 have even but one believing parent are in some 
 sense holy. This sense has been shown in the True 
 Baptist, vol. 1, pages 345-353. 
 
 The Doctor seems to think the advocates of infant 
 baptism attach much importance to " a holy pedigree." 
 If he will take tlie trouble to seek correct informa- 
 tion, he will find that it is not to "a holy pedigree" 
 we look, but to a holy example and holy instruc- 
 tions. We have before proved, as in the case of 
 Abraham's lineal descendants and those of all be- 
 lievers, that grace does not follow the line of natural 
 generation; but that of proper instruction. God 
 says of Abraham — " I know him, that he will com- 
 mand his children and his household after him, and 
 they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice 
 and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon 
 Abraham that which he hath spoken of him." 
 
 Here the Doctor may please to note that the bless- 
 ing goes not by " pedigree," but by wholesome re- 
 straints and instructions as well to his household as 
 to his children ; and to this day we baptize wards 
 and servants as readily as children.* Then our 
 Doctor is shamefully ignorant of facts, or deplorably 
 regardless of justice to others. 
 
 In the close of his remarks on 1 Cor. vii. 14, our 
 author gives us what he deems a poser. It is this : 
 " If, then, you baptize the child upon the faith of 
 * True Baptist, pp. 309-315. 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 29 
 
 its mother, you must, to be consistent, baptize the 
 unbelieving husband upon the faith of his wife, since, 
 if the child is holy^ so also is the unbelieving father 
 sanctified^'' Let us try the validity of this argu- 
 ment by applying it to another subject. Then it 
 will run thus : 
 
 If you allow the mother, upon her authority as a 
 mother, to chastise her delinquent child, you must, 
 to be consistent, allow her to chastise her delinquent 
 husband ; since, if the child be delinquent, so is also 
 the father a transgressor . . . Woe to the Doctor 
 and all other husbands, if the authority of his own 
 logic were established. To make his argument valid, 
 he must provo that the wife has authority over her 
 husband's conscience to command and control it by 
 example and instruction, as she commands and con- 
 trols the conscience of her children during their 
 minority. And since the believing husband sancti- 
 fies the wife also, he must prove that the husband 
 has the same authority to control his wife's con- 
 science as to control that of his own children. Then 
 the husband and the wife would each possess abso- 
 lute, parental authority over the other ! God save 
 the family and the state from Immersional policy, 
 and the world from Immersional logic ! If the hus- 
 band were a minor, like an infant, under the control 
 of his wife, it would be very proper to baptize him, 
 not " upon," but under ^ the faith of his wife. But 
 as this is not the fact, he can no more be baptized 
 3* 
 
30 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 ■under the faith of the wife than the son grown to 
 self responsibility can be baptized under the faith of 
 his mother. 
 
 The next passage that receives the attention of 
 our author is Matt. xix. 14, where it is declared of 
 little children, " Of such is the kingdom of heaven." 
 He admits that the phrase " kingdom of heaven" 
 means the Christian church ; but how to keep the 
 little intruders out, while the Master stands at the 
 gate rebuking his disciples and bidding the *' little 
 children" welcome, is rather hard for him to con- 
 ceive. After shuffling about ia great perturbation, 
 he makes the learned discovery that toiouton^ " such," 
 does not mean same; but really means " such;" and, 
 of course, that the kingdom of heaven, or Christian 
 church, does not consist of the same as little children, 
 but only of " such" as little children ! That is, little 
 children make no part of those who are in the king- 
 dom, but those who are in it are, in some respects, 
 like little children. On this view of the subject, let 
 us remark : 
 
 1. If we should accuse the Immersers of preach- 
 ing infant damnation, the color would rise in their 
 faces, and they would complain vehemently of perse- 
 cution. Still, in this work, accredited and published 
 to the world as the true statement of their doctrines, 
 it is distinctly denied that infants make either part 
 or parcel of the kingdom of God ! If, then, they do 
 not belong to this kingdom, how, in the name of 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 31 
 
 reason, are they to have a place in it ? Our doctrine 
 is, that all infants do belong to this kingdom ; and 
 that therefore all parents ought to confess this truth 
 by baptism, the only authorized acknowledgment of 
 the fact. But such is the opposition of Immersion- 
 ists to this doctrine of infant baptism, that they will, 
 under the rebuke of Jesus, refuse to infants a place 
 in his kingdom. 
 
 2. If those who do compose this kingdom are like 
 little children in disposition, and for that reason are 
 admitted into it. we should like to have the ground 
 explained, on which the little children are excluded. 
 If the admitted adult is just like the infant in cer- 
 tain respects, on what ground is the infant excluded, 
 when he is admitted to have the very same disposi- 
 tion ? Our author says little children love, believe, 
 obey, and receive the instruction of their parents ; 
 and the same affections in adults towards God form 
 their qualification for the kingdom of God ; but he 
 forgets that God has made the little child responsible 
 to the parent, and requires it to exercise towards its 
 parent the same feelings he requires adults to exer- 
 cise towards himself. 
 
 By his own showing, then, the little child yields 
 the same obedience as the adult; and our Lord 
 teaches that this obedience is so much more perfect 
 in the little child than in the adult, that he sends 
 the latter to the former for an instructive example. 
 God has required the child to love, obey, and believe 
 
32 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 its parents — duties suited exactly to its powers — and 
 will he not reward that little one's obedience with a 
 place in his kingdom, when he receives into the same 
 kingdom the sinner, who returns to duty under the 
 influences of his saving grace ? What strange hal- 
 lucinations come over the mind from opposition to 
 infant baptism ! 
 
 When Jesus tells us that we must " receive the 
 kingdom of God as a little ckild^''^ the plain import 
 of his words teaches that a little child does receive 
 the kingdom of God ; and in this very respect it is a 
 proper example to the adult. Do little children re- 
 ceive the kingdom, and are they still excluded from 
 it? Immersionists say they cannot enter. Christ 
 says, " Of such is the kingdom of heaven" — they re- 
 ceive it. Then they shall enter and triumph over all 
 their opponents, and sing their victory over doctors 
 and preachers in the glories of the kingdom forever 
 and ever. 
 
 3. But Immersers say that none are to enter the 
 kingdom but believers. Then they will be so good 
 as to remember that none are to be saved but be- 
 lievers. If the want of personal faith excludes them 
 from the church, it will also exclude them from 
 heaven. Here again is infant damnation as rank as 
 the fumes of tophet. If they apply to infants one 
 passage, that is spoken of adults, they open the flood- 
 gates which sweep them to hell. We can never see 
 clearly till we allow God to speak for himself. When 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 33 
 
 he speaks of infants, let it stand firm as the everlast- 
 ing hills — " Of such is the kingdom of heaven." 
 And when he says, " He that believeth not, shall be 
 damned," let no rash mortal try to turn the curse 
 aside to the head of an infant, unless he be willing 
 to incur the peril of being himself swallowed up and 
 consumed by the fearful denunciation. 
 
 Does the Bible teach that all who die in infancy 
 enter immediately into the kingdom of heaven ? All 
 creation answers, Yes. Then does the Bible teach 
 that young infants are believers in Christ ? Not an 
 affirmative is heard. Are there any in heaven ap- 
 pointed to the special care of infants'? Jesus an- 
 swers, '• Verily I say unto you, their angels do al- 
 ways behold the face of my Father." There these 
 cherubic nurses will lead and teach them, while the 
 Holy Spirit enlightens and guides their souls to the 
 exercise of every holy afiection. so that all they shall 
 ever learn or know, will be to love, believe, and obey 
 Jesus Christ ; and yet the baptism of water is deemed 
 too pure for them to receive, and the church on earth 
 too holy to give them a place ! No ; the whole se- 
 cret is. Immersionists are afraid of strangling them 
 in the awkward mode of immersion, and rather than 
 give up that human invention, they will exclude in- 
 fants from the kingdom of heaven; and the more 
 consistent among them boldly and publicly preach, 
 that there are " infants in hell no more than a span 
 long 1" 
 
34 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 But it is a little amusing to see how our author 
 disposes of Matthew Henry's, and Dr. Clarke's com- 
 ments 6n this passage. He quotes Henry's first, and 
 lays him out with three exclamation points, as fol- 
 lows : " Look at this gloss ! Ponder it ! How pre- 
 posterous !" This is all he says about it, and, poor 
 mortal, it is all he can say. What a picture of vacu- 
 ity any one must present, when ojffering such excla- 
 mations in the room of solid argument ! 
 
 He then quotes from Dr. Clarke, and abolishes 
 his views with two exclamations of greater length, 
 thus : " These, and such like, are the Pedo-Baptist 
 interpretations of the passage in question ! They 
 are publlslied to the world, and received, and de- 
 fended, as expressing its true sense !" and thus he 
 confutes Dr. Clarke. 
 
 But after getting away from these comments into 
 another paragrah, the Doctor seems suddenly to grow 
 bold, and turning about, he dilutes the comments of 
 these great men with a quantity of his own thoughts 
 as weak as water, thrown in among the words of the 
 commentators ; and we expected some demonstration 
 at the close of this paragraph ; but every word of 
 refutation is in these two exclamations — " What per- 
 versions ! What falsifications of truth !" Yet Im- 
 mersionists will open their mouths, I dare say, and 
 stare with profound astonishment at the wisdom, 
 which is seen neither by themselves nor any body 
 else ! Why, the man wonders mightily at the follies 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 35 
 
 of other people. He must, therefore, be very wise 
 himself. But his wonder is so great he can give no 
 utterance to his thoughts ! No, friend, he has no 
 thoughts. If he had, they would find utterance. 
 He quotes from other arguments, which he knows 
 he cannot answer, to make you believe that he is can- 
 did. He then wonders over them to make you be- 
 lieve he is so astonished at their weakness that he 
 cannot utter a word, when, in reality, he is so con- 
 founded that he has not a word to say. Whenever 
 our author can think of anything plausible, he man- 
 ifests no trouble in utterance. The profusion of ex- 
 clamations comes from no deep resources of wisdom, 
 but from the empty vaults of conscious inability. 
 This is the best the whole denomination can do — to 
 use exclamations for arguments. If they had argu- 
 ments we should hear them. Let them stand, then, 
 and wisely wonder, while we proceed in the light of 
 clear argument, always drawn from the Bible, to 
 place the truth before the world. Already increas- 
 ing light, has forced them to educate their ministers, 
 and the same light as it approaches a more perfect 
 day, will compel them to abandon their errors. 
 
CHAPTER HI. 
 
 "INFANT BAPTISM IS AN EYIL ; BECAUSE IT ENGRAFTS JU- 
 DAISM UPON THE GOSPEL OP CHRIST. 
 
 The word Judaism is usually employed to denote 
 all the ordinances and ceremonies of the Jewish 
 Church before the coming of our Saviour ; but our 
 author seems to confine it to only a few of these. If 
 everything contained in Judaism is to be condemn- 
 ed as opposed to the gospel of Christ, we must view 
 the law as being against the promises, and discard 
 from our creed the fundamental doctrine of the uni- 
 ty of God, and Jesus must then take the character 
 of the destroyer of the law, and not its fulfiller. 
 It must be remembered in this sweeping condemna- 
 tion, that baptism itself is one of the most promi- 
 nent and oft repeated ordinances of the Jewish ser- 
 vice ; and if Judaism is to be indiscriminately 
 condemned, then adult baptism goes with infant 
 baptism. 
 
 The chapter before us opens with the declaration 
 that there are but two theories of church organiza- 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 37 
 
 tioD, which are consistent with themselves. " The 
 former is Baptist. The latter is Roman Catholic." 
 Now we know why " the Baptists are not Protest- 
 ants" — They are consistent with themselves, like 
 the Roman Catholics. Neither of these are denom- 
 inations. They are both consistent cJatrclies. " Be- 
 tween these two," says Dr. II., " and partaking more 
 or less of both, stand all the various Protestant 
 denominations. Their evangelical spirituality is 
 ' Baptist.' Their other characteristics, and especial- 
 ly their infant baptism, is Roman Catholic, or rather 
 Judaism, of which Popery is confessedl}^ a continu- 
 ation." It would be hard to guess who in creation 
 ever confessed that except Dr. H., and he had better 
 been confessing something else. But let us examine 
 the points, 
 
 1. Popery a continuation of Judaism ! Popery 
 contains fur more of Paganism than Judaism. What 
 part of Judaism authorizes prayers for the dead, the 
 invocation of saints, the worship of images, absolu- 
 tion by a priest, indulgences, counting beads, the 
 confessional, purgatory, transubstantiation, or, in- 
 deed, anything else that is peculiar to Popery? 
 Charity itself forbids us to attribute this slur on all 
 the Protestant churches to ignorance in our author. 
 Why do we protest against Popery if we partake so 
 largely of it ? Judaism was peculiar in its attach- 
 ment to ordinances, and we cheerfully leave it to the 
 enlightened world to say if Immersionists and Ro- 
 4 
 
88 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 man Catholics do not make more ado about ordi* 
 nances than all others. The Immersers admit no 
 one to partake with them of the emblems of the Sa- 
 viour's dying love, unless he has been immersed in 
 water. Thej preach more about ^immersion than 
 about anything else. It is rarely omitted in a single 
 sermon. Compare these facts with the fastidious ad- 
 herence of Jewish formalists to the outward things 
 of the law, and it will be easy to determine where 
 Judaism reigns. 
 
 2. " Their evangelical spirituality is Baptist !" 
 An arrogant assumption, iadeed ! Luther getting 
 " evangelical spirituality" from Munzer ! and Meth- 
 odists, Congregatioualists, and Presbyterians bor- 
 rowing evangelism from Campbellite, Mormon, Two- 
 seed, and other Dippers ! What an idea ! Borrow 
 " evangelical spirituality" from Autinomian, Sabbath- 
 breaking Dippers ! fromlmmerslonist ministers una- 
 ble to write their own name to a bond ! and boasting 
 that they have no "larnin" — that they "never rub- 
 bed their backs against college walls !" From 
 " Baptists," rent into a thousand schisms about mis- 
 sions, temperance, the resurrection, two-seedism, &c. ! 
 " Baptists !" who, until quite recently, would sooner 
 excommunicate a man for uniting with a Temperance 
 Society, a Sunday School, or a Bible Class, than for 
 drunkenness ! They the fathers and conservators of 
 evangelism ! They the fountain of " evangelical 
 spirituality !" and this day their bigotry will more 
 
EVILS OF DR. 'lIOWELL. 39 
 
 promptly excommunicate a member for celebrating 
 a Saviour's love with other Christians than for gross 
 immoralities ! 
 
 These are dreadful facts ; but they are known to 
 the world. They are facts over which we should 
 draw the veil of cliarity forever, especially, since of 
 late years there has been a decided improvement in 
 the intelligence and the morals of Immersionists ; 
 but when they come forward before the world with 
 the arrogant claim of being the fathers and only 
 supporters of '-evangelical spirituality," the claims 
 of religion require that their self-conceit be exposed, 
 and their own good demands that they be reminded 
 of the hole of the pit from whence they were digged. 
 They owe a debt of gratitude also to the steady pi- 
 ety of those whom the}' scorn. But for the learn- 
 ing and "evangelical spirituality" of others, the 
 light of " the Baptists" had sunk in darkness, an- 
 tinomianism, fatality, and formalism. I am well 
 aware that there are individuals in the Immersing 
 churches to whom the foregoing facts do not apply. 
 Still they contribute their money and lend their in- 
 fluence to circulate such intolerable slander and in- 
 sult on all other Christians; and they must be held 
 responsible for it until they publish to the world 
 their protest against the circulation of the slanders 
 of this book published by their own denominational 
 societies. I ask them to look back but a few years, 
 and consider what the Immersionist church then 
 
40 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 was, and say, in the light of facts, if it be decent in 
 them to claim the credit of all the " evangelical 
 spirituality " which shone with steady lustre among 
 others, when Immersionists were sunk in all the im- 
 morality and ignorance which are naturally engen- 
 dered by antinomianism and fcitality. Immersionists 
 must know, then, that they cannot practice with im- 
 punity such intemj^erate slander on others. 
 
 That the world may see the truth of what I here 
 assert, and that the Immersers may better appre- 
 ciate their obligations to others, I beg leave to intro- 
 duce the testimony of an Immersionist writer on this 
 subject, who, it will be seen, is better informed as to 
 the fticts than our author. It is as follows : 
 
 " Previous to the commencement of the present 
 century, our theology was principally of that cramped 
 and crabbed kind now usually known as Hyper-Cal- 
 vinism ; the aspect of our churches was repulsive to 
 all who had been brought up within their pale, and 
 of these an immense proportion, as they grew up, 
 entered the world and were lost to the Saviour's 
 kingdom. The sad prominence which was given to 
 the fatalistic principles of a pseudo-Calvinism, equal- 
 ly deterred the bulk of religious professors from 
 seeking the conversion of their own children and 
 attempting to make any conquests in the unbelieving 
 multitude around. Happily for us, the sledge-ham- 
 mer of the Northamptonshire theologian shattered 
 this system to pieces, and then, to complete the 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 41 
 
 work, the simple-minded devotion of William Carey, 
 the practical logic of such men as Sutcliffe and Ry- 
 land, and the angelic piety of Samuel Pearce, cast 
 in the seed of better sentiments. It was an appeal 
 to Christian sympathy from the aberrations of 
 Christian doctrine, and the effect was triumphant. 
 The debates of theologians might have led to the 
 ruin of existing organizations, without building up 
 anything better; but commiseration for the spiritual 
 condition of the heathen awoke the slumbering life 
 of the Church ; life produced harmony of belief; the 
 soul-benumbing dogmas which had so long held it in 
 bondage were cast off, and a glorious fabric was com- 
 menced, which is still going on, destined to receive 
 its top-stone some day. London partook of this 
 influence, and owes to it, at this hour, any extending 
 signs of life which seem to appear. 
 
 " The numerous class of churches within the me- 
 tropolitan boundaries of which I have already spoken, 
 as still retaining much of what was harsh and repul- 
 sive in the theology of the kst century, continue, for 
 the most part, to stand aloof from Missions, but 
 still, from time to time, a secession is taking place ; 
 one after another shows symptoms of relenting; per- 
 haps a collection on behalf of the Foreign Mission is 
 allowed. This is a small thing, but it is enough ; 
 the thin edge of the wedge introduces the thicker 
 part, and the moment such a collection is systemat- 
 ically allowed, the church which grants the boon fixes 
 4* 
 
42 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 also its own destiny. The process may be a lengthy 
 one, but sooner or later its old trammels will be 
 thrown away, and it will stand forth as a champion 
 for truth and salvation in a dying world." 
 
 This Immersionist does not seem to think that 
 other Christians were much indebted to " Baptists 
 for evangelical spirituality." 
 
 As our author does not inform us wherein the 
 other Christian denominations resemble Roman 
 Catholics, except in infant baptism, we may content 
 ourselves for the present with knowing that none of 
 us have more resembled them in immorality than 
 the Immersers ; and we rejoice in bearing testimony 
 to their improvement of late in " evangelical spiritu- 
 ality;" and while we thank God for that, we rebuke 
 them before the world for arrogantly claiming the 
 praise of all the piety found in other churches. If, 
 instead of slandering their benefactors, by the light 
 of whose piety they have been elevated to intelli- 
 gence and a better morality, they would now unite 
 heart and hand with those who have helped them, to 
 enlighten and save others, they would be rendering 
 better service than in proud, empty boasts of them- 
 selves, and detraction of others. 
 
 It is surely the lowest species of reasoning to find 
 the condemnation of a point in the fact that it is 
 held by Eoman Catholics, since they are known to 
 hold many fundamental truths. There is little 
 doubt but the Greek church is even more corrupt 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 43 
 
 than the Catholic, and jet it practices both immer- 
 sion and infant baptism. The Mormons, also, who 
 are nothing superior to the very worst of men, ad- 
 here with great tenacity to immersion. Now, if im- 
 mersion is not to be abandoned, because it is 
 practiced by bad men, let Dr. Howell, in his next 
 edition, show how the same argument avails against 
 infant baptism. 
 
 In considering the argument for infant baptism 
 drawn from the Abrahamic covenant, our author saj-s, 
 " It proves immeasurably too much." This sense- 
 less, but popular, aphorism is in the mouth of every 
 sciolist. When such a one wishes to appear pro- 
 found, and knows nothing else to say, he is sure to 
 begin with this or some kindred saying. '' It proves 
 too much " ! Too much of what ? Does it prove 
 too much truth ? or too much falsehood ? No argu- 
 ment ever can prove that to be true, which is false. 
 Then there can be no danger of proving too much 
 falsehood ; and none but the guilty will be likely to 
 suffer with the apprehension that any argument can 
 prove too much truth. 
 
 Unless, then, this argument proves too much for the 
 Immersionists to answer, it is difficult to see in what 
 sense the terms can be used, and even this, I appre- 
 hend, might be done without much endangering the 
 highest happiness of the human family. 
 
 But our author shall say what this argument 
 proves, that ought not to be proved. 
 
44 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 1. He thinks the principles involved in the argu- 
 ment for infant baptism, which is drawn from the 
 Abrahamic covenant and circumcision, would prove 
 episcopacy also, which is one thing too much. Let 
 us briefly examine this point. This argument for in- 
 fant baptism runs thus : 
 
 The church has always existed under the same 
 covenant ; for in all ages " they which be of 
 faith are blessed with faithful Abraham — that 
 the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gen- 
 tiles through Jesus Christ — and if ye be Christ's, 
 then are ye Abraham's seed and heirs according 
 to the promise : therefore it is of faith, that it 
 might be by grace, to the end that the promise might 
 be sure to all the seed ; not to that only which 
 is of the law, but to that also which is of the 
 faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all." — 
 See Gal. 3 : 9, 14, 29. Rom. 4 : 16. Now as every 
 Gentile believer becomes a child of Abraham, and 
 an heir of every blessing promised to him in the true 
 sense of the promises, we argue thus : 
 
 Jewish circumcision before Christ was one out- 
 ward seal of faith. 
 
 Baptism has always been an outward seal of faith. 
 
 Circumcision and baptism are, therefore, outward 
 seals of the same thing. 
 
 But in the days of circumcision it was adminis- 
 tered as a seal to infants. 
 
 Since, then, baptism is a seal of the same thing, 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 45 
 
 and all believers inherit the same blessing under the 
 same covenant with Abraham, their children must 
 also receive the seal of faith, which is baptism. 
 
 According to Dr. Howell, the argument for epis- 
 copacy runs thus : 
 
 *' In the Jewish church there were three orders in 
 the ministry, each a grade above the other in dignity 
 and authority ; the chief priests, the common priests, 
 and the Levites. There are. therefore, three orders 
 in the ministry of the Christian church. It is the 
 same church and under the same covenant." 
 
 Thus Dr. H. thinks the argument proves " too 
 much." It proves episcopacy, which ought never to 
 be proved by anybody, or by any argument ! But 
 if we mean to be candid men, we must never object 
 to the point established by an argument. We must 
 examine the argument itself, and see whether it be 
 valid. If it be valid, let it stand with all that it 
 proves, as truth. If the argument be found invalid, 
 let it be rejected as worthless, and proving nothing 
 at all. If a valid argument prove episcopacy, let 
 episcopacy stand as true; but never let us reject an 
 argument, because it proves some point which we do 
 not wish to have proved. This is ^;r^'?({<r/zce, and 
 must forever prevent our receiving the truth, even 
 when proved. This method would put an everlast- 
 ing period to all reasoning; since every one must 
 have an equal right to choose for himself what he 
 would not agree to have proved to him ; and on our 
 
46 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 author's ground, he might conclude that any such 
 point is " too much " to be proved, and so reject it. 
 When he argues for immersion, I might dispose of 
 his whole argument, by simply remarking, That is 
 " too much." 
 
 The only case in which we may assail the point 
 supposed to be proved by any argument, is in what 
 logicians call the reductio ad absurdum^ where we 
 demonstrate the conclusion to be an absurdity, and 
 thence infer the unsoundness of the argument, on the 
 ground that no sound argument can prove an absur- 
 dity to be true. In all other cases we examine the 
 argTiment itself. But our author seems to admit 
 the proper connection between the terms of the argu- 
 ment under consideration, but objects to the conclu- 
 sion, simply on the ground that it proves what ought 
 not to be proved. He makes no attempt at the 
 reductio ad absurduin^ and well for him he does 
 not; for no one can show that episcopacy is a blank 
 absurdity. 
 
 As to the three orders in the ministry of the Jew- 
 ish church, we find them all in the Immersion ist 
 church. There is the chairman, or moderator, of 
 their Association, answering exactly to the Jewish 
 " high priest." There is the great body of the min- 
 istry, or elders, answering exactly to the "common 
 priests." There, also, are the deacons, answering 
 exactly to the Levites. Immersionists also believe 
 that their elders are cpiscopoi^ that is, huhops. So 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 47 
 
 there is the episcopacy of the Old Testament and 
 the New in the Immersionist church ! and it is no 
 wonder the Doctor admits the argument as valid, 
 sound and logical, since it is the corner-stone of his 
 church polity. But it is truly wonderful that he re- 
 jects infant baptism, simply because it is " too much ;" 
 since he admits that the principles of the argument 
 are the very same in both cases. 
 
 But Dr. H. may plead that although he uses the 
 simple term " episcopacy," he means diocesa7i " epis- 
 copacy." Well, well, with that we have nothing 
 to do at present. But if the Doctor admits the 
 validity of the argument as proving diocesan episco- 
 pacy, he ought to become a prelatical Episcopalian, 
 and drop what he now deems as scriptural episco- 
 pacy, instead of complaining that the argument 
 proves " too much." If my argument related to 
 that form of episcopacy instead of infant baptism, I 
 should think it worth while to raise these questions — 
 How fir are the Jewish priests the representatives 
 of the Christian ministry, and how far did they rep- 
 resent the mediatorial offices of Jesus Christ? Did 
 the chief priest, or high priest, the ordinary priest, 
 and the Levite, occupy different grades of the same 
 office, or were they appointed each to the discharge 
 of sjjeci/ic duties, co-ordinate in importance ? How 
 far were the prophets the representatives of the 
 Christian ministry 1 Are not all believers priests in 
 the very same sense ? 
 
48 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 Now, as the complaint of our author is not against 
 the soundness of the argument, but simply that it 
 " proves too much," and as its validity in relation to 
 their ecclesiastical polity is admitted by him and the 
 whole '• Baptist church," I leave it for him and them 
 to answer the questions relating to diocesan episco- 
 pacy, and to invalidate all its force in support of that 
 form of episcopacy, or to continue their wail that it 
 " proves too much." Our conclusion is, that by our 
 author's own showing, the same argument that 
 establishes the polity of " the Baptist church," also 
 proves infant baptism. 
 
 2. Another point which our author deems as 
 proved by the same argument that proves infant 
 baptism, he thinks is quite "too much." It is this : 
 " The Jewish church was a national church, and the 
 Christian church is the same church ; therefore the 
 Christian church must be a national church. You 
 will perceive, therefore, that we have a divine com- 
 mand for the union of church and state." 
 
 As we can think of no more direct way of con- 
 vincing our author that this syllogism is incorrect, 
 we beg him not to be displeased while we evolve its 
 beauties on himself, thus : 
 
 The Eight Reverend John Hughes, Bishop of 
 New York, is a D.D. 
 
 But Ilev. R. B. C. Howell is the same : 
 
 Therefore Rev. R. B. C. Howell, D.D., is the 
 Right Reverend John Hughes, D.J)., Bishop of 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 49 
 
 New York. That is " too much," to be sure ; but 
 the good of it is, there is no truth in the argument. 
 Yet it is the same argument as that by which Dr. H. 
 would prove that the Christian church must be a na- 
 tional church, because it is the same church as the 
 Jewish, The Jewish church was the same church 
 after it was united with the state as before that 
 union. When it is said that the church is the same 
 in all ages, the plain import of the language is, that 
 the church has alwa^^s stood under the same consti- 
 tution, the same fundamental laws, and is the same 
 body in the sense that the state remains the organic 
 body so long as the fundamental principles of the 
 constitution remain the same, though it pass through 
 many generations, and though its statutory laws be 
 often repealed and re-enacted. Nor can the vicissi- 
 tudes of adversity, prosperity, declension and prog- 
 ress, affect its identity. Factitious circumstances, 
 or external appendages, can no more change the 
 identity of a church, state, or other body politic, 
 than a man's office or clothing can change his per- 
 sonal identity. The circumstance of a church being 
 united to a state, or disunited, affects its identity no 
 more than the mixture of sand and sugar affects the 
 nature of one or the other. 
 
 Our author asks, " Are you a Pedo-baptist ? To 
 
 be consistent you must be a Papist. — Infant baptism 
 
 — popery, the union of church and state, the mass, 
 
 cardinals, robes, all — stand or fall together." We 
 
 5 
 
50 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 would respectfully remind oiir author that the day 
 is rapidly hastening when the church and state, puri- 
 fied and elevated, shall again be lost in a grand and 
 holy union — when the kingdoms of this world shall 
 become the kingdoms of our Lord. Then, if infant 
 baptism and the union of the church and state 
 " stand or fall together," infant baptism will stand 
 aloft, when the kingdom of Christ makes this happy 
 and glorious union. Amen! let the day hasten; 
 then, by their own admission, the Immersers will 
 cease to exclude infants from the church and king- 
 dom of our Lord Jesus Christ-<-then the church and 
 the state shall be one, and the Immersers, swallowed 
 up in the glory, shall forget their exclusive bigotry, 
 and practice infant baptism in the union of church 
 and state during the long millennial reign. This 
 may now be deemed " too much " to be proved ; but 
 if Dr. H. has not admitted '^ too much " in saying 
 that "infant baptism and the union of church and 
 state — stand or fall together," the conclusion is just 
 as certain as that the church and state will be one 
 under the millennial reign of Christ. 
 
 3. Our author, in the next place, grows rather 
 vehement against Judaizing teachers; and if there 
 were any now in tlie church who insisted on circum- 
 cising their infants, or adults — if any wished now to 
 introduce the tabernacle, or temple service into the 
 church, we should say that his exhortation, if couched 
 in more respectful language, would do good. It 
 
EVILS OF DR. nOWELL. 51 
 
 may, perhaps, be beueficial to tliose branches of the 
 Immersionist sect Tvho, even yet, are so wanting in 
 " evangelical spirituality " as to teach that baptism 
 is essential in order to pardon and salvation^ which 
 was a doctrine of formalist Jews. He says: " As 
 some of the Canaanites were leffc in Israel, so Juda- 
 ism remained in the church to try the faith of the 
 people of God." It is true that some among "the 
 Baptists," Episcopalians, Roman Catholics, and the 
 Greek church, still give an undue importance to 
 ordinances, and exclude all others from their fellow- 
 ship on account of some ritual dogmas of their own; 
 but the light is increasing, and those baptized in in- 
 fancy are brought up to understand the gospel bet- 
 ter; and, on the whole, we are encouraged to hope 
 the day is not far distant when these errors will give 
 way to " evangelical spirituality." 
 
 4. The next position of our author is, that the 
 argument for infant baptism, drawn from the Abra- 
 hamic covenant, " fails entirely ; because it perverts, 
 and renders wholly unintelligible, the true scriptural 
 analogy of the church." He says: " Pedo-baptists 
 call the argument for infant baptism, which we are 
 now combating, analogy ; but it is in truth identi- 
 ty.'''' The language is here very loose — no Pedo- 
 baptist would use it. The argument is neither 
 analogy nor identity ; but is drawn by analogy from 
 the same principles, and the identity of the church in 
 all dispensations is a necessary part of the argument. 
 
52 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 When the Imiiierslonists prove that we Gentiles 
 do not become the children of Abraham and heirs 
 of all the blessings promised to him, we shall be 
 compelled to give up the identity of the church, and 
 then we must give up this argument for infant bap- 
 tism, drawn not from the identitij^ but the analogy^ 
 of circumcision and baptism, as being, both of them, 
 seals of faith in Christ. Our author tells us : " The 
 whole Jewish church, therefore, was a figure, or 
 type, of the Christian church." Then, we ask, 
 where are the infants ? A strange sort of type, this, 
 if infants are not permitted to enter the Christian 
 church, when the type contained them. 
 
 But our author, foreseeing this difficulty, sets 
 forth a rule in hermeneutics which he does his best 
 to establish by human authority, because no divine 
 authority could be found. The law he gives us in 
 these words: " No ea;te;-?i<2/ institution, or fact, in the 
 Old Testament is a type of an external institution, 
 or fiict, in the New Testament. External institu- 
 tions and facts in the Old Testament are invariably 
 types of internal and spiritual institutions and facts 
 in the New Testament." 
 
 I must confess that I am at a loss to determine to 
 my own satisfaction the meaning of this language. 
 I suppose that a " spiritual institution " is intended 
 for some outward institution, having a spiritual 
 meaning. I know of no institution which h spiritual 
 in the proper sense of the word, which, so far as I 
 
EVILS OF DK. HOWELL. 53 
 
 know, is always used to denote something incorporeal, 
 not material, or visible — something refined from ex- 
 ternal things. Then, it seems to me that, while 
 many of our institutions have meanings truly refined 
 and spiritual, they themselves are of necessity con- 
 fined to what is material and visible, I remark, 
 then, that Jesus our Saviour was a visible person, 
 and that in heaven He still wears this visible body 
 with the scars of His crucifixion in it. In this very 
 body He was openly and visibly crucified on the cross 
 before the eyes of the multitude. Abraham, Moses, 
 David and others, were visible persons, and per- 
 formed visible acts, typical of Him and His acts. 
 The bleeding lamb and other sacrifices were visible 
 types of Him who not only ofi"ered His soul to God, 
 but His body was crucified, and His real, visible, 
 material blood flowed out in sight of His crucifiers 
 and others, as did the blood of the typical sacrifices ; 
 and Paul tells us that " the bodies of those beasts, 
 whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the 
 high priest, were burned without the camp," and in 
 fulfilment of that type Jesus "sufiered without the 
 gate." 
 
 No matter, then, how many, nor how great, are 
 the human names brought forward in support of this 
 hermeneutical law, it must be set aside as unconsti- 
 tutional, and, therefore, null and void ; and of no 
 'more force than if the same had never been enacted 
 by great men. And, indeed, so obviously is this rule 
 5* 
 
64 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 opposed to the general tenor of the Scriptures, that 
 our author contradicts it himself on the next page, 
 where he says : " They [the sacrifices] were all types, 
 and pointed to the great sacrifice in the person of 
 Christ, to be in the fulness of time offered by Him 
 on the cross." He then tells us, '• In the Jewish 
 church ofi"erings were presented to God in behalf of 
 the people by the priests only ; [but] in the Christian 
 church sacrifices are spiritual — the sacrifices of G-od 
 are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart." 
 It is unutterably strange that one of such standing 
 would venture to quote from Ps. 51 : 17, these words 
 to prove that all spirituality is in the Christian 
 church, and that there was none in the Jewish. Can 
 it be that Dr. H. supposes all his readers to be so 
 ignorant of the Bible as not to know that Old Tes- 
 tament saints understood the ofl"ering of spiritual 
 sacrifices to God ? 
 
 It is not only vain and foolish, but it is wicked, 
 thus to slander the holy prophets, who warned the 
 people not to trust in oblations, but to ofi'er, in faith 
 and deep repentance, the pure affections of the heart 
 to God. The Immersionists very well know that in- 
 fant baptism will be practiced so long as the inspired 
 and holy prophets are revered. They know that 
 their only prospect of success in argument against it, 
 is to bring reproach on the prophets to whom Christ 
 and the apostles referred for authority. They scan- 
 dalize as sensualists the men who lived and walked 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 55 
 
 by faith — " who through faith subdued kingdoms, 
 wrought righteousness, obtained promises," &e. A 
 large part of the work before us is merely a tirade 
 of abuse on God's church and God's prophets, Moses 
 in particular, and on God's ordinances. Infant bap- 
 tism can never be banished in this way. There is 
 yet too much reverence for God's Word for even 
 professed Christians to stigmatize it out of the esteem 
 of the men of faith in God. 
 
 But the reader is curious to know what use the 
 Dippers have for the law, which we have been exam- 
 ining. It is this: 
 
 Abraham's natural children were the types of 
 Christ's spiritual children, and as Abraham's young 
 children were to be circumcised, so Christ's young 
 children are to be baptized ! Abraham's babes were 
 not types of the natural offspring of believers in the 
 church, but of those born of the Spirit. 
 
 I have already shown that the principle, or rule, 
 under which this reasoning takes place, is un scrip- 
 tural, and, therefore, the reasoning itself must be 
 erroneous. But, the position here taken, I wish to 
 offer the following remarks : 
 
 (a.) If it were true, Abraham must be more 
 properly a type of the Holy Spirit than of Christ, 
 since all the spiritual children who fulfil the types 
 of Abraham's natural children, are begotten by the 
 Spirit. I need not say that this is altogether con- 
 trary to the Scriptures. All see it. 
 
56 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 (b.) If this theory were true, no one should be 
 baptized until the eighth day after the new birth — 
 or, if we take a day for a year, as is usual in the 
 types, no one is to be baptized till eight years after 
 he is born again. All this is contrary to the prac- 
 tice of the apostles, and that of the Iraraersionists 
 themselves, which proves they do not believe it. 
 
 (c.) On these principles it would be unlawful to 
 baptize females when born again ; because the fe- 
 male children of Abraham, who^ according to our 
 author, are the types of regenerated females, were 
 not circumcised. 
 
 (d.) If, as our author declares, circumcision alone 
 introduced the natural children of Abraham into the 
 Jewish church, then no female ever was a member 
 of that Church. This is contrary to a thousand re- 
 corded facts, and proves our author^s theory to be 
 false. Baptism was initiatory then as now, and fe- 
 males were introduced by baptism. No one at any 
 time could visibly enter the kingdom without being 
 born of water. Circumcision sealed one's faith in 
 the promise that the Son of God should be born of 
 the seed of Abraham ; and it taught that he was not 
 to be begotten by man, but by the power of the 
 Holy Ghost. Baptism always sealed one's faith in 
 the forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ, and on 
 that account it has always been regarded as initiatory. 
 From the earliest times it was administered to in- 
 fants, without regard to sex, and still continues so 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 57 
 
 to be administered. We have abundantly proved 
 already that infant baptism was administered at 
 least as early as the days of Jacob, and has been 
 continued without intermission to the present time. 
 
 (e.) Our author would do well, while railing on 
 Judaism, to remember that baptism was the most 
 prominent ordinance in that system, and no ordi- 
 nance was more abused. Most of the Levitical or- 
 dinances ceased at the coming of the Saviour ; be- 
 cause, as types, they were fulfilled ; and could be of 
 no further use. Bat baptism, pointing to the for- 
 giveness of sins, has for us the same significancy as 
 for them. Ancient saints believed and were bap- 
 tized, and their children also, and ever since, in every 
 age, men believe and are baptized, and why should 
 not the children be still baptized as formerly ? 
 
 (f.) Although our author's theory, making Abra- 
 ham's adult children the types of adult believers, 
 and his infant children the types of newly-converted 
 persons, addresses itself pleasantly enough to the 
 fancy, it has nothing for the understanding. It is at 
 variance with all the facts in the case. It is a 
 glorious truth that the children of Abraham were 
 typical — they were in the house of bondage — they 
 passed through the sea, the wilderness, the Jordan, 
 and entered Canaan. All this is admitted to be 
 typical ; but to descend, as our author does, to point 
 out the representative character of each particular 
 class, and individual, is as fanciful as to attempt to 
 
58 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 show the typical character of the roots, tendrils, 
 leaves, buds, bark and iBbres of the vine; because 
 Jesus chose it and its branches to illustrate the liv- 
 ing union between him and believers. He also 
 chose the ripe harvest of standing corn as an illus- 
 tration of the condition of the world in relation to 
 the preaching -of the gospel ; but it would be deemed 
 very fanciful to take license from that fact to spirit- 
 ualize the dry blades, chaiF, beards, and stubble. 
 
 (g.) Dr. H. says: "A correspondence exists in 
 several respects between circumcision and baptism ;" 
 and although he allows both to be initiatory, he can- 
 not think that they should correspond in respect to 
 introducing infants visibly into the church ! But 
 if he admit that they correspond in any respect, why 
 deny that they do in this ? Indeed, he is hard 
 pressed here. His only alternative is to set forth 
 the natural infants of Abraham as types of the 
 spiritual infants of Christ. We should be pleased 
 in the next edition of his " Evils of Infant Baptism," 
 if the Doctor would show us what typifies the natu- 
 ral children of believers ; since they compose a large 
 part of the blessing promised not only to Abraham, 
 but to other believei*s generally. He will surely be 
 compelled to give up this theory. 
 
 4. The next step in our author's progress is to 
 attack the unity of the church in all ages. 
 
 (a.) He asks, " If they (the ancient and present 
 church) were the same church, why did Christ deny 
 
E\^LS OF DR. HOVrELL. 59 
 
 it, when he told the Jews that Jds was a church un- 
 like theirs f "' AYe auswer that we know of no such 
 denial, and the Doctor will be again compelled to 
 call in human authority to sustain his assertion. He 
 gives no allusion to scriptural authority, and can 
 give none. 
 
 (b.) Note these words — " the Jewish church and 
 the Christian church the same ! It is not the Epis- 
 copalian, the Presbyterian, the Congregational, the 
 Methodist, nor any other Protestant church, since 
 Judaized as all these churches are, they fall far 
 short of the Jewish church. Only the Catholic is a 
 tolerable copy of the origini^l." Fie ! fie 1 upon the 
 man ! Where was his piety gone, when he wrote 
 such words about the church that contained all the 
 men of renowned faith in ancient days 1 The church 
 in which David and Asaph sang — the church in 
 which Isaiah preached, and Job endured, and Jere- 
 miah wept, and Daniel prayed — ^the church of God 
 — the church with which Grod dwelt, to which God 
 spake by urim and thummim, by prophets and wise 
 men. This is the church of which, in the esteem 
 of an Immersionist minister, the Roman Catholic is 
 the only tolerable copy ! And why ? Because it 
 contained infants ? Then, sir, don't go to heaven ; 
 for you will find them there thick around the throne, 
 and making a large part of the church in glory. But 
 there is not an infant in hell, nor " the Baptist church." 
 
60 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 Show me how a single infant can enter either, and I 
 will give it up. 
 
 (c.) He asks again, " Why did Messiah deny it 
 [the unity of the church] on another occasion, when 
 he said : " The law and the prophets [the Jewish 
 church] continued until John, since whom the king- 
 dom of heaven [the Christian church] is preached, 
 and all men press into it." 
 
 Here he garbles and alters the Word of Grod so aa 
 to make it suit his case. The law and the prophets 
 were not the Jewish, any more than the New Testa- 
 ment and elders are " the Baptist," church. The 
 Saviour, in the words quoted, merely states where 
 the dispensation of the law and the prophets termi- 
 nated, and New Testament preaching began. He 
 asserts that every man was pressing into the king- 
 dom of God even then ; and our author and most 
 of his church deny that the kingdom of Grod was 
 come until the day of Pentecost. How could men 
 be pressing into it, before it had come ? There is 
 not a word in the Bible about organizing a new 
 church at the close of John's ministry. The gospel 
 was preached to the very same church, which Christ 
 found in existence when he came, and both Jesus 
 and John baptized at the same time, receiving the 
 baptized into the same church ; and yet John's min- 
 istry belonged to the dispensation of the prophets, 
 while Jesus preached the kingdom of heaven. Here^ 
 then, the two dispensations were united, and the 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 61 
 
 converts of both were received into the same church, 
 which proves the unity, instead of the diversity, of 
 the church.— See John, 3 : 22, and Matt. 21 : 31, 
 32. 
 
 (d.) Again, Dr. H. asks, " Why did Paul deny 
 tlie identity of the Jewish and Christian churches by 
 comparing the former to Hagar and her posterity, 
 and the latter to Sarah and hers ?" 
 
 Any one who will take the trouble to turn to Gal. 
 4 : 24, &c., will see that Agar is not the Jewish 
 church, but she answers to " Jerusalem ivlvch now 
 is, and is in bondage with her children,"' refusing to 
 believe the fulfilment of the law by the promised 
 seed. Sarah, the free woman, and type of Jerusa- 
 lem above, is the mother of all believers of both 
 dispensations, and secures to all her posterity the 
 right of introducing their infant offspring into the 
 same church with themselves ; while Agar, the slave 
 of her own unbelief, cuts off both herself and her 
 children from the covenant of mercy, and trusts in 
 vain external ablutions instead of the blood of 
 sprinkling. Sarah and her infant children stand un- 
 der the Abrahamic covenant, whose gracious bless- 
 ings " came on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ ;" 
 but Agar stands under the covenant of works in ex- 
 ternal bondage. 
 
 What shocking perversions of God's Word Im- 
 mersionists do make in order to get round infant 
 membership ! Just see how our author makes Agar 
 6 
 
62 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 the mother of the Jewish church, when every one 
 knows that she was the mother of Tshmael, and Sarah 
 was the mother of the Jews. When the Jews per- 
 secuted, rejected and crucified the Great Seed, 
 promised to Sarah, the mother of all believers, they 
 joined themselves to persecuting Ishmael, and God 
 cut them off from his church. Then, says Paul, 
 they were like Agar in bondage under unbelief Fie ! 
 fie ! to represent Moses, and David, and Daniel, as 
 the children of Agar ! and for no other reason than 
 to escape infant baptism ! 
 
 This concludes the evidence for two churches, both 
 of which, I suppose, must be the one body and bride 
 of Christ, and these proofs are plainly on the other 
 side of the question. 
 
 5. The next step in the progress of the work be- 
 fore us, is an attempt to prove that the covenant 
 made with Abraham in Gen. xii. &c., was essentially 
 different from that in the xvii. Let us first have our 
 author's views in his own words ; and then compare 
 them with the Scriptures. " Abraham," he says, 
 " was concerned in two covenants, which were made 
 at different times, and related to different things. 
 The former had regard to Christ, the latter to his 
 natural posterity. The one was the covenant of 
 grace^ the other tJte covenant of circumcision, and 
 [they were] dissimilar in character. The covenant 
 of the law [or circumcision] constituted the dispen- 
 sation of Moses, and was the covenant of the Jewish 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 63 
 
 church ; the covenant of the gospel (that made with 
 Abraham before circumcision was instituted) is the 
 covenant of grace and redemption, the covenant of 
 the Christian church." The gospel covenant — was not 
 really made with Abraham, but — was '' confirmed to 
 Abraham of God in Christ — it was previously made. 
 The same covenant was announced to Adam in Eden. 
 The covenant of circumcision was tnade^ in the true 
 sense of that word, imth Abraliam^ twenty-four years 
 after the promise above referred to." These ex- 
 tracts, it is hoped, will clearly show the present im- 
 mersional view concerning the covenants. On these 
 views I wish to offer the following remarks : 
 
 (a.) This view is very different from that usually 
 taken by Christians. The great body of the church 
 have understood the Scriptures as teaching that God 
 created Adam under the covenant of works compre- 
 hended in the ten commandments — that God the 
 Father and the Son entered into a compact for the 
 redemption of sinners, which is, therefore, called the 
 covenant of redemption — and that God in Christ 
 has formed and published a new constitution for sin- 
 ners who believe in Christ. However, let us appeal 
 to the Bible. 
 
 (b.) Our author says that the latter covenant 
 found in Gen. 17th chapter, "was 7nade with Abra- 
 ham in the true sense of that word ;" but that the 
 former was merely confirmed to him. The Bible 
 says of the latter, " I will make my covenant between 
 
64 
 
 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 me and thee — I will establish rny covenant between 
 me and thee." — Gen. 17: 2, 7. 
 
 Of the former, it says : " In the same day the 
 Lord made a covenant with Abraham." If, then, 
 we make distinctions here, the latter m^st have the 
 preference as to confirmation ; because it was estab- 
 lished^ and the other was simply made^ which is the 
 very reverse of what our author declares. An ex- 
 amination of the original will fully sustain this re- 
 mark. So fearfully do men wander in the dark, when 
 they forsake God's Word, and try to defend their 
 theories by their own conceits. 
 
 (c.) But Dr. II. and the Immersion ists say that 
 there were two covenants made with Abraham — the 
 one of grace, the other of words — that they were 
 " dissimilar in character" — the one '• had regard to 
 Christ," the other "to Abraham's natural posterity." 
 Let us see what the Bible says about this point. 
 
 THE FORMER. 
 
 Gen. 12: 2. — "I will make 
 of thee a great nation." 
 
 13: 16.— "And I will 
 
 make thy seed as the dust of 
 the earth : so that if a man 
 can number the dust of the 
 earth, then shall thy seed be 
 numbered also." 
 
 THE LATTER. 
 
 Gen. 17: 2, 4.— "I will 
 multiply thee exceedingly, 
 and thou shalt be a father 
 of many nations." — Gal. 3 : 
 1*7, 18. 
 
 IV : 6.—" I will make 
 
 thee exceeding fruitful, and 
 I will make nations of tiiee, 
 and kings shall come out of 
 thee."— Rom. 4: 17. 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 65 
 
 THE FOEMER. 
 
 15: 5. — "Look now 
 toward heaven, and tell the 
 stars, if thou be able to num- 
 ber them ; and he said unto 
 him, so shall thy seed be." — 
 Rom. 4: 18. 
 
 Gen. 12: 3. — "I will bless 
 them that bless thee, and 
 curse him that curseth thee." 
 
 12 : 1. — "Get thee out 
 
 of thy country, and from thy 
 kindred, and from thy fa- 
 ther's house, unto a land that 
 I shall show thee." 
 
 12: v.— "Unto thy 
 
 seed will I give this land." 
 
 13: 15.— "All the 
 
 land which thou seest, to 
 thee will I give it, and to 
 thy seed forever." 
 
 15: 18.— "Unto thy 
 
 seed have I given this land 
 from the river of Egypt to 
 the great river, the river 
 Euphrates." 
 
 THE LATTER. 
 
 17: 16.— "I wiU 
 
 bless her (Sarah), and she 
 shall be a mother of na- 
 tions." 
 
 Gen. 11: 7. — "I will be a 
 God to thee and thy seed 
 after thee."— Heb. 11: 16. 
 
 17: 7, 8.— "And I 
 
 will establish my covenant 
 between me and thee, and 
 thy seed after thee in their 
 generations for an everlast- 
 ing covenant, and I will give 
 unto thee and thy seed after 
 thee the land wherein thou 
 art a stranger — all the land 
 of Canaan for an everlasting 
 possession, and I will bo 
 their God." 
 
 Let tlie reader notice that, in both transactions, 
 the land of Canaan is distinctly granted to Abraham 
 and his seed forever. Let him also notice that in 
 both Abraham receives the promise of an innumer- 
 able posterity. Let him then read Romans, 4th 
 
66 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 chap., and Gal, 3d chap., and notice how the Apos- 
 tle quotes, in the same strain of argument, from one 
 or the other of these interviews between God and 
 Abraham ; and he will surely be convinced that the 
 whole constitutes one and the same covenant, more 
 and more developed. 
 
 Notwithstanding these luminous facts stand blaz- 
 ing in the Bible, Dr. H. and the Immersionist church 
 declare, in the work before us, that there were '' two 
 covenants dissimilar in their character^'' — That in 
 Gen. 17th, " nothing whatever is said regarding Mes- 
 siah." — That this covenant is distinguished from the 
 other by the promise " that his descendants should 
 be numerous, prosperous, and happy ; in the second 
 place, that they should possess a specified terri- 
 tory," &c., all of which the reader sees for himse(f, 
 is as distinctly promised in chs. 12, 13 and 15, as in 
 ch. 17. What is to be thought, and said, of a man 
 who will write statements contrary to the very kiier 
 of the Bible, and of a church which will print and 
 circulate them before heaven ! Shame ! eternal 
 shame ! Can it be wilful perversion 1 how is it ? 
 
 Our author acknowledges that the covenant re- 
 corded in the 12th, 13th, 15th and 22d chs. ''is the 
 covenant of grace in Christ Jesus — [and] has bap- 
 tism annexed," which, however, " was not visibly ad- 
 ministered until after the law." He surely has for- 
 gotten that Jesus began his ministry, and preached 
 the kingdom of God, and baptized before the close 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 67 
 
 of John's ministry. So he is wrong, even granting 
 his own ground. But when we remember that every 
 pro-nise found in Gen. 17th ch., where circumcision 
 is instituted, was made to Abraham before, and that 
 circumcision is merely added as the seal of faith in 
 these promises, that faith under the gospel, or new 
 covenant, has always been reckoned for righteousness 
 unto the justification of sinners, and that the Immer- 
 sionists, with all their hatred of infant baptism, are 
 compelled by the burning light of the Bible, to ad- 
 mit that baptism was annexed to the covenant prom- 
 ising Abraham a numerous posterity and the land of 
 Canaan — Gen. 12th ch. — we have the highest assur- 
 ance that infant baptism is scriptural. We see also 
 how vain is the attempt to make a distinction where 
 there is no difi"erence. The promises are in the same 
 words throughout the intercourse between God and 
 Abraham, and if baptism be annexed to the promise 
 in the twelfth chapter — " I will make of thee a great 
 nation [and] unto thy seed will I give this land'' — 
 it must also be annexed to the promise in the seven- 
 teenth — " I will make thee exceeding fruitful [and] 
 I will give to thee and thy seed after thee all the 
 land of Canaan." From this conclusion the Immer- 
 sionists can never escape. They admit, in their own 
 book, that baptism is annexed to the first promise, 
 and, of course, it must be annexed to the other, con- 
 veying the same idea, and in almost the same words, 
 and they are at last forced to the admission that, if 
 6* 
 
68 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 the covenant, in chapter seventeenth, still obtains, in- 
 fant baptism must follow of course. Then let them 
 notice that it is established for an "everlasting cov- 
 enant," and both it and the former grant to Abra- 
 ham and his seed the " land of Canaan for an ever- 
 lasting possession !" The prophets tell us also that 
 Israel shall yet be gathered to that very land, and 
 again possess their ancient inheritance according to 
 this promise. Either, then, there is but one covenant, 
 and infant baptism is secure ; or there will be two 
 covenants having the very same promises, and both 
 administered at the same time, and infant baptism 
 safe under one of them. So infant baptism stands 
 secure, do as they will, unless they recede from their 
 own admission. 
 
 Dr. H. further says, " Circumcision and baptism 
 are both types; but they are not the same type in 
 different forms, since circumcision, according to Paul, 
 was a type of regeneration by the Spirit, and 
 baptism, as John avers, is a representation, or t^^pe, 
 of the burial and resurrection of Christ." — 1 John, 
 5:8, I see no proof in the passage cited that bap- 
 tism is a type " of the burial and resurrection of 
 Christ." Be this as it may, the Doctor admits that 
 circumcision is " a type of regeneration by the Spirit," 
 and the same Paul also teaches that " he saved us 
 by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the 
 Holy Ghost." — Tit. 3 : 5. Then baptism is also a 
 type of regeneration. If one type of regeneration 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 69 
 
 was applied to infants, why may not the other ? 
 Again — The Doctor elsewhere admits that " baptism 
 is the seal of faith," and Paul says (Rom. 4: 11) 
 that circumcision was also '' a seal of the righteous- 
 ness of faith." If one seal of faith be applied to 
 infants, why may not the other? 
 
 In the conclusion of this chapter, our author grows 
 warm, and very properly exhorts us to " cast out the 
 bond-woman and her son." This, by the grace of 
 God, we purpose to do. Doctor, will you also open 
 the door, and take in the free woman and her little 
 Isaac ? It is a hard-hearted practice you Immer- 
 sionists have, of shutting out the lambs of the flock. 
 The poor little things are exposed to dogs and wolves 
 without. Open the door, and take them in. The 
 dear little creatures are hungry without, and they 
 belong to the kingdom and fold of Christ. Let them 
 come in and be nourished by their mothers. Give 
 them food and drink, that they may grow thereby in 
 the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Dear little 
 ones ! what have they done to shut them out ? Im- 
 mersionists are the only shepherds in God's universe 
 that shut out the lambs ! It is unnatural. It is 
 cruel. It wounds the Saviour. He loved them. 
 He took them in his arms. He blessed them, and 
 said they belong to his kingdom. Then baptize 
 them, as you do all the rest who belong to his king- 
 dom. Don't make your church childless like the dark 
 world of woe. Make it bright and joyful, like heaven, 
 
70 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 with infant songs. It is a great corruption of the 
 gospel church to pervert its covenant so as to shut 
 our dear little children out of the pale of the cov- 
 enant, and to exclude them from the visible assembly 
 of the saints. You need not circumcise them now. 
 The Saviour has come, and all that pointed as type 
 to him is fulfilled and set aside. But baptism in his 
 name yet prevails. They have the name of their 
 earthly father by birth. Give them the name of 
 their heavenly Father in a birth by water. That 
 name will do them more good than their earthly 
 father's name ; and you would deem it a great mis- 
 fortune for your son to be deprived of your name. 
 Then don't cheat him out of his Saviour's name. 
 
CHAPTEE lY. 
 
 " INFANT BAPTISM IS AN EVIL ; BECAUSE IT FALSIFIES THS 
 DOCTRINE OF UNIVERSAL DEFRAY ITT." 
 
 In resumiDg our review of this v.'ork, the reader 
 may find it to his advantage to recollect, that Dr. 
 Howell attempts in the preceding chapter to show, 
 tliat there were two distinct covenants established 
 with Abraham, one of which he calls " the covenant 
 of grace," and admits that it is perpetual, and '• has 
 baptism annexed " as its seal. The other he calls 
 " the covenant of the law," and says that circum- 
 cision was its seal This is new ground, an original 
 discovery, and is the keystone of the Doctor's arch, 
 the fundamental principle of the whole book. " The 
 old Baptists " used to consider the covenant as one; 
 but denied the perpetuity of its obligation. They con- 
 tended that the covenant was a political arrangement, 
 relating entirely to the Jewish state. From this 
 ground they were beaten by force of arms, and com- 
 pelled to retreat in the direction of Jordan. The 
 burning edge of Paul's sword forced them to capitu- 
 
72 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 late, and confess that ^- tliey wblcli be of faith are 
 blessed with faithful Abraham — and if ye be Christ's, 
 then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to 
 the promise. Therefore it is of faith, that it might 
 be by grace ; to the end that the promise might 
 be sure to all the seed ; not to that only which 
 IS OF THE Law, but to that also which is of 
 THE faith of Abraham." I say the sword of Paul 
 drove the old Baptists from the position that the 
 covenant was temporal, and related only to the Jews. 
 But our modern Dippers of new translation propen- 
 sity and notoriety, have made another intrenchment. 
 They tell us there were two covenants made with 
 Abraham, the one carnal and temporal — " the cove- 
 nant of the law " — confined to the Jews, and having 
 circumcision as its seal ; the other " the covenant of 
 grace," which " has baptism annexed." But the 
 sword of the Lord and of Paul is still upon them. 
 Paul truly declares that there were " two covenants," 
 but he tells us plainly that one of them is '' from the 
 mount Sinai," and is typified by Agar, the bond- 
 maid, and the other is "the promise" given to 
 Abraham, and is typified by Sarah, the free woman; 
 and all believing Christians " are the children of 
 promise " in the same sense that Isaac was.* Dr. 
 Howell and the Dippers say the two covenants were 
 given to Abraham ; but Paul says the covenant of 
 grace was given to him, and that of the law was 
 * Gal. 4: 22-30. 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 73 
 
 given to Moses at mount Sinai, four hundred and 
 thirty years afterward ! So doctors will differ, and 
 there is a wide difference between Howell and Paul. 
 We have no fears for the issue. Paul stands aloft 
 on mount Zion, and Howell, with the Dippers, is re- 
 treating down the dark valley of the Jordan. But 
 they must not escape. The interests of the King, 
 who claims little children as heirs of his covenant, 
 and members of his kingdom, require us to pursue 
 them in the same spirit of divine conquest with the 
 sword of the Lord and of Paul. 
 
 They confess that the " covenant of grace " given 
 to Abraham " has baptism annexed,'' but they deny 
 that infants are included in that covenant ; and thus 
 endeavor to escape the conclusion, that infants are 
 to be baptized. But in the chapter before us we 
 have a labored effort to prove the doctrine of univer- 
 sal and total depravity, and that infants are partakers 
 of that depravity. Now, admitting all this to be 
 proved, it follows irresistibly that infant sinners are 
 saved hy grace^ or they are not saved at all. But 
 if they are not within the covenant of grace,. they 
 cannot be saved by grace, because the covenant can- 
 not operate beyond its own limits; and therefore in- 
 fant sinners cannot be saved. But if infants are 
 saved by grace, they are plainly within the operation 
 of the covenant of grace ; and if, as Dr. H. admits, 
 "the covenant of grace has baptism annexed," in- 
 fants being within the operation of that covenant, 
 7 
 
74 
 
 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 are entitled to baptism ; and it is a fearful breach of 
 the covenant for parents to refuse or neglect it. 
 Then, by their own admissions, the Dippers are 
 forced to take infant baptism, or infant damnation ; 
 and the Bible commands them to take infant bap- 
 tism. Put away, then, the human notion of clipping^ 
 and take plain Bible baptism. Then you will not 
 be afraid of drowning your infants, and when that 
 fear is gone, you can see that the " covenant of 
 grace," which " has baptism annexed," embraces your 
 children, and they can be saved, and ought to be 
 baptized. 
 
 But again. In this device to escape the doctrine 
 of infant baptism, the Doctor and the Dippers tell 
 us that circumcision was not annexed to the cove- 
 nant of grace given to Abraham, but to the covenant 
 of the law. Here the divine sword is upon them 
 again ; for it is certain that circumcision was given 
 to Abraham the father of the ftiithful, and to Isaac, 
 the free-born son of promise, and heir of all the 
 blessings promised to Abraham. If the law had 
 circumcision, it was borrowed from the covenant. 
 Although embraced in the law, it was not of the law. 
 It was given as soon as there was an heir to inherit 
 the promises. It foreshadowed the fundamental 
 truth that Messiah was to descend from the great 
 patriarch in the female line by the power of the 
 Holy Ghost, without being begotten by man. It 
 was " a seal of the righteousness of faith," and " the 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOAYELL. 75 
 
 law is not of faith."* Notice — it is " a seal " — that 
 is, one seal ; for baptism was anotlier seal of the 
 same covenant. Then, it is plain that our author 
 in taking the position that circumcision, which is 
 near four hundred years older than the law, was of 
 the law, is egregiously mistaken, and is again com- 
 pelled to retreat before the sword of the Lord and 
 of Paul, and where he will make his next intrench- 
 ment remains to be seen. It is plain that if infant 
 baptism ever be disproved. Dr. H. must write a new 
 book, and take ground entirely different. In his 
 next work he must prove that baptism is not annexed 
 to the covenant of grace, or that all dying in infancy, 
 being beyond the operation of the covenant of grace, 
 are eternally damned in hell for sins which tliey 
 never committed. I forewarn him that either prop- 
 osition will be hard to sustain; and he would do 
 well to surrender at discretion to the power of divine 
 truth, and cease from his feeble warfare. 
 
 If I have attained any definite understanding of 
 the book under review, its fundamental principle is 
 here demonstrated to be opposed to the Scriptures, 
 and the key-stone of its arch is broken to pieces. In 
 the light now afforded, it will be easy to dispose of 
 all the vapor found in the fourth compartment of 
 this strange conception. 
 
 Here our author lays out a large amount of gra- 
 tuitous labor to prove that all men are sinners, and 
 Eom. iv. 11. Gal. iii. 12. 
 
76 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 that everybody believes that all men are sinners, 
 and that all infants are as deeply depraved as any 
 others. After all this, he comes forth in great 
 authority with the startling announcement, that infant 
 baptism " falsifies the doctrine of universal depravity." 
 This is certainly one of the strangest conceits that 
 ever was cherished by a sane man. If baptism 
 had been appointed as an ordinance of sinless angels, 
 and we applied it to infants, he might say with some 
 face, that in administering it to infants, we deny 
 their sinfulness. But when it is admitted by him- 
 self, and all Christians, that it is an emblematic 
 washing away of sin, and he knows, and quotes these 
 views from every quarter, and still charges on this 
 ordinance the denial of human depravity, heavenly 
 charity itself must pronounce such shuffling and quib- 
 bling to evade the truth as utterly unworthy of a 
 child of God, AVhen Dr. Howell dips a man in 
 water for baptism, does he mean to deny that that 
 man is a partaker of the common corruption of our 
 nature ? Is this the view of all those who are cir- 
 culating his book ? Shame ! shame upon you ! can 
 you get nothing better than this to circulate ? Then 
 quit, and go home. Baptism proves that a man is 
 not depraved ! ! How, then, can it prove that an in- 
 fant is not depraved ? Fie ! fie ! 
 
 But our author and his party shall speak in their 
 own words. They say, " We see in the children of 
 all classes the same inclination to evil, and the same 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 77 
 
 estrangement from Grod, more or less strongly de- 
 veloped. The children of religious parents are in- 
 volved in the same depravity to an extent fully as 
 great as those of others/' " Our brethren, them- 
 selves, notwithstanding the doctrine of the holiness 
 of the children of believers, maintain and emphat- 
 ically teach universal depravity. They earnestly 
 teach, that the children of believers are federally 
 holy, and for these and like reasons, are baptized. 
 Persons cannot have, at birth, all these endowments, 
 and be at the same time wholly corrupt. Are such 
 corrupt and depraved persons holy ? Are they born 
 members of the church ? Are they naturally inher- 
 itors of all the blessings of the covenant of grace ? 
 It is impossible. Both these propositions cannot be 
 true. The one falsifies the other." Such, and much 
 more, is their language on this point. 
 
 The chief difficulty here seems to be in reconciling 
 the facts of depravity and holiness in the same per- 
 sons. To a reader of the Bible, one would not sup- 
 pose this would be a great task. I should think 
 any plain Dipper could easUy explain to us how the 
 same people could be a " holy nation," and still be 
 both " stiff-necked " and " rebellious " — how the 
 " holy seed," contrary to the divine command, 
 " mingled themselves " with other people, — how Paul 
 could say, " Else were your children unclean, but 
 now are they holy." If the Dippers do not under- 
 stand how to reconcile such simple statements of the 
 7* 
 
78 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 Bible as these, thej will find it a healthful exercise 
 to study it a little, and then they will cease to com- 
 plain of our contradicting ourselves in such state- 
 ments. But our Doctor may go back to his own 
 third chapter and read his own dissertation on the 
 words of Paul, calling the children of believers 
 " holy," till he can understand how such a one can be 
 holy and still depraved. 
 
 In his own words, just quoted, he declares that 
 the infants of believers are as deeply depraved as 
 others, and in his third chapter he admits Paul very 
 properly calls them lioly^ and now he comes to us 
 with the annunciation, that this is contradictory, — 
 " The one falsifies the other." He must be very for- 
 getful. Pity that one whose memory is so bad as to 
 forget his own words so soon, should undertake to 
 enlighten the world by book-making. 
 
 As to the complaint that corrupt and depraved 
 infants are members of the church, I remark, that 
 there is surely no evidence that they possess more 
 corruption or depravity than many who are dipped 
 into the church of Immersionists. If one can be 
 dipped into the church and still possess so much 
 depravity and darkness, as to declare that men and 
 infants cannot be holy, while subjects of a sinful 
 nature, I cannot see why innocent babes may not be 
 baptized into the visible kingdom of our Lord. As 
 to their being born in the church, it is obvious to 
 common sense, that if the parents are members of 
 
EVILS OF DR. HO^TELL. 79 
 
 the churcli at the birth of the. children, the children 
 must be born in the church. This is a simple, un- 
 deniable fact. It can no more be controverted 
 than the fact, that all children are born members of 
 that community of which their parents are members. 
 To talk of the children of church members being 
 born out of the church, is as absurd as to say that 
 the children of Americans can be born Europeans, 
 or Asiatics. But the fact of their being born within 
 the visible church, no more argues that they are 
 born of the spirit, than the fact of immersion and 
 membership with Dippers proves any one to be 
 spiritually regenerated. 
 
 Our author proceeds next to notice " two other 
 collateral and disastrous consequences " of infant 
 baptism. " The former is the absurdity^ that religion 
 is hereditary ; and the latter, that children of be- 
 lievers have no need of the regenerating influences 
 of the spirit of God !" 
 
 He argues that if the children of believers are 
 heirs of spiritual blessings by virtue of their birth, 
 religion must be conveyed by regular generation, and 
 of course there can be no need of regeneration by the 
 divine spirit. The reasoning would be exactly the 
 same, if some Asiatic should say, " Inasmuch as 
 Americans believe, that by virtue of their birth their 
 children are heirs to all the blessings of American 
 freemen, there can be no need for deeds of convey- 
 ance and for teachers in America ; because property 
 
80 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 and education, with all tlieir attendant blessings, 
 are conveyed by natural generation !" 
 
 God save the people from the policy and the logic 
 of Dippers ! All men know that by bii'th children 
 become heirs to all the possessions of their parents ; 
 but who else than a Dipper would ever think of con- 
 veying a house, a tract of land, or even an education, 
 to a child by natural generation ? ! ! 
 
 As property is conveyed to the heir by title-deeds, 
 and education, with its train of blessings, is conveyed 
 by long,*patient and laborious teaching, and God's 
 blessing; so the inheritance of heaven, the comforts 
 of religion, the faith of the gospel, the renewal of the 
 heart, and all that appertains to the salvation of the 
 soul, are conveyed to the heirs of glory by means of 
 direct instruction, and especially by pious example 
 in reading the holy Scriptures, in daily thanksgiving, 
 praise, confession, and prayer to God, and in the 
 regular discharge of all the duties of religion in 
 presence of the children, with the addition of God's 
 blessing in all these things. So religion forms no 
 exception to the rules of common sense. The in- 
 heritance is by birth, and the conveyance by instruc- 
 tion, with God's blessing. No man can deny but the 
 children of the pious enjoy great advantages in these 
 respects. God himself explains the manner of con- 
 veyance ; when speaking of Abraham, he says, '' For 
 I know him, that he will command his children and 
 his household after him, and they shall keep the way 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 81 
 
 of the Lord, to do justice and judgment, that the 
 Lord may bring upon Abraham that ivhich he hath 
 spoken of him.^^ — Gen. 18: 19. Here it is plain 
 that while birth makes the children heirs, instruction 
 with the divine blessing makes the conveyance ; and 
 there is not a word about conveying God's blessing 
 by " natural generation^" as the Dippers improperly 
 allege- 
 When men professing Christianity, under guise of 
 searching for truth, employ all their ingenuity to per- 
 vert and ridicule doctrines they cannot confute, men 
 of the world who scorn such trickery, become scep- 
 tical, and Christ bleeds at every pore with sorrows ex- 
 ceeding death itself. Dr. Howell knows very well 
 that no Pedo-baptist ever advocated the doctrine that 
 religion is conveyed by " natural generation," and if 
 he can review this chapter of his book without com- 
 punction and shame, it must stand as a melancholy 
 demonstration of the alarming hardness of heart 
 which he has acquired by trifling with truth while 
 professing to give a true account of the sentiments 
 of others. 
 
 The next example is in these words — " Pedo-bap- 
 tists allege, that the children of the flesh of believ- 
 ers, are the heirs of the covenant, and for the very 
 reason that they are the children of the flesh." It 
 is difficult to conceive any excuse for sophistry so 
 glaring as this. In the first member of the sentence 
 the children of believers are represented as the heirs 
 
82 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 of the covenant, and in the second memheY faith is 
 not only kej^t out of view, but the reason of this 
 heirship is expressly referred to the Jlesh. Nor can 
 he here mean the literal flesh. The word is used 
 also to denote the corrupt propensities of our nature, 
 and our author so uses it here in order to cast odium 
 on the doctrine, that the children of believers are 
 heirs of the covenant. This is plain from the fact 
 that he is here discussing the relations of Ishmael 
 and Isaac to the covenant; and it is impossible but 
 our author knows that Isaac descended as literally 
 from the literal flesh of Abraham as did, Ishmael. 
 Then he would make tlie child of unbridled lust au 
 equal heir with the child of promise ! All this iu 
 the face of known focts, not because he believes it, 
 noi because he supposes we believe it ; but out of 
 simple malice, to cast odium, in view of the ignorant, 
 on a subject which he feels unable to confute. If 
 Dippers desire to retain so much of the respect of 
 their opponents as will give them any power for 
 good over them, and to convince the world that they 
 love truths it is time tliey were learning to give 
 views of others with candor, and to meet them witb 
 argument rather than ridicule. It will require but 
 little study for any man to make the proper distinc- 
 tions between birth and education, blood and exam- 
 ple, an heir and a possessor, a literal birth within 
 the visible church and regeneration by the Spirit, the 
 bastard of a slave and the child of promise in wedlock. 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 83 
 
 In conclusion, let me give a short extract merely 
 as a sample of the railing of the author and his com- 
 peers : " If the infant children of believing parents 
 are ' holy,' are ' in the covenant of grace,' are ' born 
 in the church,' then, of course, their nature is pure. 
 The work of the Spirit is not necessary to cleanse 
 their hearts and fit them for a higher life. — All this 
 they are carefully taught from childhood. Are they 
 not likely to believe it ? If they do, they cannot 
 also believe that they have a depraved and corrupt 
 heart. Thus infant baptism inculcates a religion 
 that is neither moral nor spiritual, but merely phys- 
 ical. It is therefore a most revolting evil. 
 
 In opposition to all this bluster, I place the public 
 and known morality and spiritual religion of Pedo- 
 baptists and their children ; nor do I at all fear the 
 result of a comparison in these respects with Dippers 
 and their children. 
 
CHAPTEE Y. 
 
 " INFANT BAPTISM IS AN EVIL ; BECAUSE THE DOCTRINES UPON 
 WHICH IT RESTS CONTRADICT THE GREAT FUNDAMENTAL 
 PRINCIPLE OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH," 
 
 Infant baptism plainly rests on the representa- 
 tive character of the believing parent : and I was 
 curious, on reading the caption of this chapter, to see 
 what stratagem would be employed by our wily Dip- 
 per to exhibit even the appearance of a contradiction 
 between the representative character of parents and 
 the doctrine of justification by faith. But not a word 
 upon that point is to be found in all the chapter ! 
 What, then, the reader will ask, is the course of the 
 argument? Well, in the first place we have a toler- 
 ably correct statement of the doctrine of justification 
 by faith. Then follow some bold assertions that 
 infant baptism supplanted the doctrine of justifica- 
 tion by faith, and introduced all the corruptions of 
 popery ; but not a shred of proof is oflfered. Then 
 Luther's experience is detailed with a short account 
 of the reformation from popery. In the next place 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 85 
 
 our author quotes largely from " the creeds of the 
 Protestant sects," in order to prove that they all be- 
 lieve the doctrine of justification by faith. After- 
 wards he quotes from the same creeds to prove that 
 they all believe that baptism regenerates and justi- 
 fies infants, and then concludes as might be expected. 
 
 To set him right here it will be necessary to notice 
 but a few examples of the many that tend to the same 
 point. 
 
 In speaking of the "formularies" of "all the 
 Protestant sects," he says : " Infant baptism finds a 
 place there, sustained by all the doctrines with which 
 popery had surrounded it." Does Dr. Howell be- 
 lieve that Protestants baptize infants with the sign 
 of the cross, salt, priest's spittle ? &c. If he does 
 believe it, he is too ignorant to deserve credit. If 
 he does not believe it, he alone has the right to ex- 
 plain why he uses the words " sustained by all the 
 doctrines with which popery has surrounded it." 
 
 But he proceeds, with many protestations of can- 
 dor, to give his readers a true statement of the doc- 
 trines of " the Protestant sects," by veracious ex- 
 tracts from their several creeds, showing that they 
 all believe that baptism both regenerates and pro- 
 cures pardon to both adults and infants. 
 
 The Westminster Confession of Faith says, that 
 
 baptism is " a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, 
 
 of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God 
 
 through Jesus Christ to walk in newness of life. 
 
 8 
 
86 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 By the right use of this ordinance the grace prom- ' 
 ised is not only offered, but really exhibited and con- 
 ferred." 
 
 In a note to the word " exhibited," the Doctor 
 says, " Used in the technical sense of the Latin ex- 
 hibere^ to apply or convey." 
 
 On this note I would remark — 1. The Latin ex- 
 hibere has no such meaning, technical or otherwise, 
 as any one may see for himself by consulting a Latin 
 dictionary. It means to shoiv^ to represent^ &c., as 
 does its English derivative. 2. It is a scandalous 
 piece of indecency to attempt thus to deceive the 
 confiding illiterate of his own party. 3. Such con- 
 duct is as wicked as it is dishonorable. 4. There 
 are several convincing proofs that the author is 
 aware of all these facts. 
 
 As to the quotation from the Westminster Con- 
 fession of Faith, it is only necessary to call the at- 
 tention of the reader to three observations : 
 
 1. If the declaration that baptism is a sign of 
 remission of sins, &c., proves that those who adopt 
 it believe that baptism procures pardon of sin, then, 
 on precisely the same principle, those who believe 
 that dipping is a sign of the death, burial, and res- 
 urrection of Jesus Christ, must believe that dipping 
 kills, buries, and makes alive. This view gives to 
 dipping more of the prerogatives of God than those 
 ascribed to baptism, even by our censorious author. 
 If there be no difference between being the sign of 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 87 
 
 a thiDg and effecting that thing, then truly to say 
 that baptism is " the sign of remission of sins," and 
 of " his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ to 
 walk in newness of life," must be the same as to say 
 that baptism renews our sinful nature and justifies 
 our souls from all sin. Then the 5?o72-board at the 
 forks of the road is the road itself, and we may 
 travel hundreds of miles on that short sign ; and 
 red clouds in the morning are storms of wind and 
 rain, while red clouds in the evening are calm and 
 beautiful sunshine ! Of course, when dipping is a 
 sign of death, it kills the old man of sin ; and when 
 it is a sign of the resurrection, it renews the spirit 
 unto life eternal, and when it refers to Christ in death 
 or life, it is Christ; and this accounts for the wor- 
 ship paid to it by some of its devotees. 
 
 2. Our opponents seem to feel particular disiike 
 to the teaching of the Westminster Assembly, when 
 they say, " By the right use of this ordinance the 
 grace promised is not only offered, but really exhib- 
 ited and conferred." 
 
 But if the grace promised and ofi"ered in baptism 
 be not " exhibited" (represented, shown,) and " con- 
 ferred" upon the recipient " by the right use of this 
 ordinance," it will certainly be hard to show when 
 such grace will be bestowed. If the promised grace 
 does not come in the right u^e of baptism, it must 
 in the wrong use of it, or never. Nor can I see 
 what all this quibbling means, unless the Dippers 
 
88 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 intend to say, that the grace promised in baptism is 
 conferred only on those who neglect it altogether, or 
 on those who so misuse the ordinance as to substitute 
 dipping for it, and that with a view of killing the 
 flesh and raising the spirit to life. As this view 
 would expel from the scheme of salvation both the 
 atonement of Christ and the renewing of the spirit, 
 it proposes emphatically a wrong use of the ordi- 
 nance ; and if the blessing is not to be attained " by 
 the right use of this ordinance," it must come by 
 some such ivrong use, or by entire neglect of it. 
 
 If such be not the meaning of the Dippers in com- 
 plaining of the right use of baptism, it belongs to 
 themselves to state definitely what they do mean. 
 
 3. But the sly deceit of our author in attempting 
 to fasten on the Westminster Assembly the odious 
 doctrines of baptismal justification and baptismal 
 regeneration, appears in glaring colors, if we turn to 
 the 28th chapter of the Confession of Faith, from 
 which he makes the quotations under consideration. 
 Between the two quotations made by him, stand 
 these words : " Although it be a great sin to contemn 
 or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are 
 not so inseparably annexed to it, as that no person 
 can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all 
 that are baptized, are undoubtedly regenerated." 
 One who, by garbling quotations and purposely sup- 
 pressing the words of a book can attempt, before the 
 public, to falsify its teaching for the purpose of in- 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 89 
 
 juring others rather than to benefit himself, may 
 serve the interests of a party, and be sustained by 
 it ; but the impartial tribunal of the God of truth 
 will be swayed by no such influence. The author 
 should solemnly pause to inquire how far this con- 
 duct agrees with the ninth commandment. 
 
 In the quotations of our author from the " Thirty- 
 nine Articles," and from the " Methodist Articles of 
 Religion," baptism is said to be " a sign of regener- 
 ation," &c., and to answer his allegations here would 
 be merely a repetition of what has been said. 
 
 Yet, from the simple declaration that baptism is a 
 " sig)i of regeneration," our author declares that all 
 the Protestant sects in their " confessions'' teach, 
 therefore, the justification of the sinner by baptism. 
 '• The child, therefore, in baptism, is pardoned of 
 sin, is regenerated, is adopted, is received into the 
 church, received into the favor of God, and is sav- 
 ed," and he might just as well have continued — 
 And when you obtain the merchant'' s sign over his 
 door, you have got him, vAth his clerks, books, cash, 
 goods, house and all. What a grand conception ! 
 
 But our author asks — " Do I deal justly with the 
 several sects?" Yes; the proof ojf his justice is 
 found in the fact that Moehler, a Roman Catholic, 
 said that the Augsburg Confession so expressed it- 
 self on this point as " to enable Catholics to declare 
 themselves tolerably satisfied with it." Dr. H. 
 knows very well that few of the Protestants of this 
 8* 
 
90 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 country receive the doctrine of the Augsburg Con- 
 fession on this point. He knows that they declare a 
 different doctrine ; and still he does not scruple be- 
 fore the intelligence of the world to saddle them 
 with a doctrine so repugnant to their published 
 creeds. 
 
 Still he acknowledges himself that they " continue 
 to protest that they do not attribute to baptism any 
 justifying or saving power." But he continues : 
 " Do they not ? I have fairly recited the very wards 
 of their Confession of Faith?'' No, Doctor, you 
 have ^'■fairly recited" no such thing — you suppressed, 
 in the midst of your quotation, the very words that 
 deny the charges you are making, and you falsified 
 the words you quoted by telling the people that 
 " exhibit" means " to apply or convey'' ! ! ! and by 
 saying that the words " baptism is a sign of regener- 
 ation," &c., mean that baptism regenerates, justifies, 
 &c. Fie ! fie ! upon you for it ; and by the way of 
 showing " the sects" what sort of man you are, I 
 will close the review of this chapter with a few of 
 your amiable words. " But Presbyterians, Congre- 
 gationalists, and Methodists, do not surely believe 
 these baptismal doctrines ! Many of them, I admit, 
 earnestly deny it. Gladly would we credit their dis- 
 avowals. They deny that they believe these doc- 
 trines, and yet they continue to publish them to the 
 world. They deny^ they affirm^ they again deny, 
 and again affirm. The same contradictions which so 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 91 
 
 strikingly mark their Confessions and Catechisms, 
 we find pervading all their teachings and practice ;" 
 and thus you go tottering along for four pages of 
 simple railing, frequently approaching to buffoonery, 
 and sometimes to scurrility. I am sincerely ashamed 
 to see a professing Christian behave thus before the 
 world. 
 
CHAPTER YI. 
 
 " INFANT BAPTISM IS AN EVIL ; BECAUSE IT IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT 
 WITH THE DOCTRINE OF REGENERATION BY THE HOLT SPIRIT." 
 
 In tins chapter we have little else than a repeti- 
 tion of the same matter reviewed in the last. Here 
 the Dippers are informed that their " brethren of 
 all the Protestant denominations teach that tve are 
 regenerated by the Sjoirit of God^ and they also teach 
 that ive are regenerated by bajotism /" — Baptism 
 and regeneration are not now esteemed by them 
 as separate and distinct things, but are declared es- 
 sentially identical. This statement is not hazarded 
 carelessly. It is made after mature thought and full 
 investigation. I am aware it is not a light imputa- 
 tion. I shall therefore sustain it by the " amplest 
 evidence ;" and where now is the " amplest evidence" 
 " in proof of so grave a proposition" ? Wh}- — j5rst. 
 The Augsburg Confession says that " sin causes 
 eternal death to those who are not born again by 
 baptism and the Holy Spirit." Very well Does 
 that prove that we are regenerated in the same sense 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELt. 93 
 
 by baptism and the Holy Spirit? Our Lord says, 
 " Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, 
 he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Does 
 Jesus, then, teach regeneration by baptism and the 
 Holy Spirit ? I think not ; nor do I think the 
 words cited from the Augsburg Confession contain 
 any sach idea. If a man be born of water, he cer- 
 tainly is born again ; though not from above. If 
 one be born of the Spirit, he also is born again, and 
 born from above. Regeneration is a word used by 
 Christians to denote the new birth by the grace of 
 God. To confound that with the birth by water, 
 evinces great ignorance, or displays the small arts of 
 the sophist and pettifogger. The latter is true in 
 this case. The very same low sophistry would con- 
 vict the Divine Master of the same error charged on 
 his humble followers. And this is the kind of " am- 
 plest evidence" which a grave D. D. brings " in proof 
 of so grave a proposition" ! 
 
 2. " The Thirty-nine Articles embrace in sub- 
 stance the declarations of the Augsburg Confession," 
 and add, " There is no condemnation to them that 
 believe and are baptized." And does our grave 
 Doctor think that these words contain the doctrine 
 of baptismal regeneration ? Does not the Saviour 
 himself say, " He that believeth and is baptized shall 
 be saved" ? Does He teach baptismal regeneration ? 
 Reader, these words constitute the whole proof 
 offered from the Thirty-nine Articles. It would 
 
94 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 seem that the Dippers believe that there is con- 
 demnation to them that believe and are baptized. 
 What do they mean in circulating this book? Do 
 they mean to say ih^X faith and baptism are of no 
 avail unless a man be dipped ? I can make nothing 
 else out of this language. 
 
 3. " The Methodist Articles of Religion assert 
 that baptism is a sign of regeneration, or the new 
 birth." This is all of " the amplest evidence in 
 proof of so grave a proposition" which is adduced 
 against the Methodists ; and the quotation of such 
 
 words in proof of that point "is a sign qV 
 
 well, it is of no use — the Doctor will take privileges 
 — and — and — so he gets the present praise of his own 
 party, he exercises little concern about consequences. 
 
 The quotations from the Westminster Confession 
 are the same that I remarked upon in the previous 
 chapter. 
 
 After his quotations from the "• creeds," our author 
 takes a ramble among the writers of Christendom, 
 and finds some high-church men with decided Catho- 
 lic tendencies, who really do maintain the doctrine 
 of baptismal regeneration. The language of the 
 rest he generally perverts in the same manner as he 
 perverted the creeds. When an author says that 
 baptism " denotes regeneration" — is the " sign of 
 regneration" — " seals the covenant," &c., &c., he is 
 set down as advocating regeneration by baptism. 
 With the Dippers, to denote means to do, a sign is 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 95 
 
 the thing itself, a seal is the same thing exactly as 
 the obligation to which it is appended ; and to ex- 
 hibit means to ajoply or convey. If God confers a 
 blessing in connection with the right use of baptism, 
 that means, with them, that Grod has nothing to do 
 with it, but that baptism by itself confers that bless- 
 ing. These are only a few examples of the fairness 
 of Dippers towards the friends and advocates of 
 Scriptural baptism. 
 
 But I must give the reader another extract in the 
 words of the author. It is this : " I have myself 
 often heard them assure these same baptized children 
 when grown up, who had been regenerated in their in- 
 fancy, that they must yet be regenerated, or they could 
 not be saved ! The attitude in which they are thus 
 placed is most perplexing and pitiable. They sol- 
 emnly declare to the world that they do not believe 
 the very dogmas, that in their books they solemnly 
 declare they do believe ! They repudiate them, and 
 adhere to them. These are the teachings of the 
 Confessions — the Bohemian, the Saxon, and all the 
 others. Their lessons cannot readily be mistaken. 
 The fact is now placed beyond a question, that 
 whatever they mxiy avow, or maintain at other times ^ 
 whenever this ordinance is in question, they all con- 
 nect infant baptism and regeneration?'' 
 
 Now, reader, remember that these charges are 
 made deliberately, after full investigation, and I 
 have shown you all along the full results of this in- 
 
yb EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 vestigation ! You -will also decide in the premisea 
 with what sincerity the author applies the words 
 Christian brethren^ to those against whom he prefers 
 charges of such monstrous heresies, and such deceit 
 in denying and avoiving these heresies ! He comes 
 up with the sweet word brother on his lips, only that 
 he may minister his blow with more certainty. I 
 wish every reader to procure the book, and read it 
 for himself ; for in the short space of a review I can 
 give but a small idea of the amount of obloquy thrown 
 on those who delight, in God's own appointed way, to 
 acknowledge that their children belong to his kingdom. 
 If in the division of " the great city" into " three 
 parts," — Russia, France, and England — we have 
 visible demonstration that the seventh angel has 
 poured his " vial into the air," it is a not less strik- 
 ing fact that this irritating book is, as it were, sown 
 broadcast over the land. There is in it nothing to 
 convince — nothing even to puzzle one, who is only 
 moderately acquainted with the Scriptures. To 
 convince his opponents is plainly no part of his de- 
 sign. The object before him appears on the very 
 surface of the work. It is to rouse the hatred of 
 his own church against all others, and to excite the 
 prejudices of the world, so as to throw them beyond 
 all religious influence from Pedo-baptists. He seems 
 not to have conceived the idea, that the world is 
 large enough to give scope and employment to the 
 most enlarged zeal of Dippers, without offering any 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 97 
 
 liinderancG to the good which others might do. No 
 sig7i is more infallible than that the man who mis- 
 represents his opponents, is conscious of his utter 
 inability to meet them. 
 
 Finally, the Dippers suppose that all our errors, 
 alleged or imaginary, are the fruit of the misconcep- 
 tion of the intention of baptism. They say, '• The 
 Lord's Supper being commemorative of the suffer- 
 ings and death of Christ, they thought that sufficient 
 for Him, and so removed baptism from its legal 
 place, as a concurring witness, and not only without 
 authority, but expressly against authority, made it 
 a witness, and significant of regeneration. Here the 
 perversion commenced. The work of deterioration 
 then rapidly progressed. With them baptism was 
 now regeneration, and regeneration was baptism." 
 
 Now, while more than nine-tenths of the Pedo- 
 baptists utterly deny the charge of holding baptism 
 and regeneration as the same thing, they do believe, 
 as stated, that baptism is a sign and symbol, and 
 figure, of regeneration, in the proper sense of these 
 terms ; and as we are here charged with doing this 
 " without authority," we deem it proper to show our 
 authority, such as it is. Then we set down the 
 proposition to be sustained in these words : TJie gift 
 of the Holy Ghost to reneiv, purify and sanctify the 
 hearty is symbolized by baptism ivith water. 
 
 The following is some of the authority on which 
 we rely. 
 
 9 
 
98 
 
 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 Matt. 3 : 11, " I indeed baptize 3^011 with water; 
 but He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." 
 John, then, began this shocking corruption of the 
 ordinance. He did not dij) into ivater^ but baptized 
 with it ; and then stated the contrast between his 
 baptism and Clirist's, to be not in the design, but in 
 the substance employed, — Christ would baptize with 
 the Holy Ghost, not to represent his own death, but 
 the power of his life, transferred into the renewed 
 heart. This is no dipping authority, to be sure ; 
 but nothing the worse for that. See, also, Mark, 1 : 
 8; Luke, 3: 16; John, 1: 26. 
 
 Ver. 14. "I have need to be baptized of Thee, 
 and comest thou to me ?" If John had understood 
 baptism as ^r^ferring to the death of Christ, what 
 idea would he have had in refusing to symbolize 
 that death at the request of the Saviour ? It is as 
 plain as daylight, that John viewed Jesus as* more 
 pure and holy than himself, and therefore desired 
 to be cleansed and purified more thoroughly by Him. 
 
 Acts, 1:5. " For John truly baptized with 
 water ; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, 
 not many days hence," Here again the baptism of 
 water and of the Holy Ghost are placed as correl- 
 ates, but not a word of allusion is made to the 
 Saviour's death as the thing symbolized by either. 
 Indeed, the living Spirit imparting divine life to 
 man would be a very unsuitable emblem ht death. 
 
 Think ! just think, of the quickening Spirit of 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 99 
 
 God as the emblem of a grave in whicli dead men are 
 to be buried ! How revolting are the associations 
 of immersion ! But bedewing baptism is the ap- 
 propriate and beautiful emblem of the descending 
 Spirit imparting new life to men, as the dews to 
 vegetation. Nature and grace having the same 
 Author, are much alike. 
 
 Acts, 11 : 15, 16. " As I began to speak, the 
 Holy Ghost fell on them as on us at the beginning, — 
 then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that 
 he said, John indeed baptized with water ; but ye 
 shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." Here 
 baptism and the gift of the Holy Spirit appear to 
 be so intimately associated in the mind of the apostle 
 Peter, that the one suggests the other ; and yet Dr. 
 H. deems it a great corruption of the ordinance to 
 teach that it refers to the purifying agency of God's 
 descending Spirit ! How immersion corrupts the 
 imagination ! 
 
 Titus, 3:5. " According to his mercy he saved 
 us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of 
 the Holy Ghost." Here the reader can see for him- 
 self that both regeneration and the renewing of the 
 Holy Ghost are expressly called ivashing — baptism. 
 Dr. H., then, does great injustice to his own standing 
 as a scholar and theologian, when he hazards the as- 
 sertion that Pedo-baptists have corrupted the ordi- 
 nance of Christian baptism by teaching that it refers 
 to regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost. 
 
100 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 I greatly regret his recklessness, and hope these 
 kind strictures on his work may cause him to see and 
 retract his errors. Faithfulness to hini, frequently 
 requires a measure of rebuke from me, which no- 
 thing but an earnest desire for his good could cause 
 me to administer. When he does violence to the 
 plainest language of his opponents ; puts sentiments 
 into the mouths of the dead, which would fill them 
 with horror, and calumniates the living — ^justice to 
 society, as well as his own good, requires that his 
 sectarianism and party zeal be exposed. Lovers of 
 pure truth will be careful to give correct statements 
 of the points they oppose, and never will ascribe to 
 opponents sentiments which they disclaim. This is 
 as unmanly as it is unchristian. When will partisans 
 learn this truth ? 
 
CHAPTEK YII. 
 
 " INFAXT BAPTISM IS AN EVIL ; BECAUSE IT DESPOILS THE CHTTECH 
 OF THOSE PECULIAR QUALITIES WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL TO THE 
 CHURCH OF CHRIST." 
 
 In this chapter we have a strange medley of 
 sublime truth and childish mistakes, with here and 
 there a dash of perversion sujfficient to fill the dullest 
 stupor with astonishment. One, on reading these 
 perversions of the language of others, finds a difl&culty 
 in deciding whether to refer them to prejudice, or a 
 disposition to place his opponents in an unfavorable 
 light, No one who will read three pages of the 
 work can for a moment admit that our author cannot 
 understand plain English, and still no man could be 
 more unfortunate than he in setting forth the real 
 ideas of his opponents. He is less disposed to allow 
 them the most favorable construction of their words 
 than any controversialist we remember to have read. 
 It would seem that he has no wish to convince them, 
 but merely to enrage his own party against them. 
 Sometimes, also, one is tempted to believe, that his 
 9* 
 
102 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 perversions are intended to provoke bis opponents 
 to the use of such language as will prejudice their 
 own cause. Be this as it may, we hope to be able 
 to rebuke him with a measure of the sharpness he 
 deserves, without offending against decency, or Chris- 
 tian charity. 
 
 This chapter is especially characterized by great 
 looseness of style. Take one example — " The true 
 visible church of our Lord Jesus Christ upon earth 
 is necessarily spiritual and pure. If deprived of 
 these qualities, it is evidently no longer his church." 
 It would seem, then, that if " the true visible church 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ upoii the eartW-^ be not 
 both " spiritual and pure," it cannot be " the true 
 spiritual church of our Lord Jesus Christ upon the 
 earth^'' upon the sea, or in the air. And if not the 
 true spiritual church of our Lord Jesus Christ, then 
 from the language before us, it must be his false 
 spiritual church. Of course our Lord Jesus Christ 
 has " upon the earth" two " true visible" churches — 
 one a " true visible" false church, both " spiritual 
 and pure," and the other a " true visible" true 
 church, both " spiritual and pure." This species of 
 boyislp trifling occurs so often that it amounts to a 
 positive fault. If it were the blundering of one of 
 the fraternity who had "never rubbed his back 
 against\ollege walls," it might pass without notice ; 
 but it is a shame for a learned Doctor of Divinity 
 to indulge in such reckless inattention, of which he 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 103 
 
 can find no example in the Bible ; but his book af- 
 fords hundreds. 
 
 But with the title of this chapter before us, we 
 naturally inquire, How does infant baptism " despoil" 
 Christ's church of its essential features ? Dr. How- 
 ell shall tell — " The true visible church of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ upon the earth is necessarily spiritual 
 and pure. If deprived of these qualities, it is no 
 longer his church. None others can enter his church, 
 since it is his purpose to perpetuate in his body 
 these holy qualities. We are now prepared to in- 
 quire into t/ie effect produced upon the character of 
 the Church by infant baptism. It sets aside all the 
 laws of membership enacted by Christ for her pres- 
 ervation and glory. It proceeds upon others of its 
 own creation and substitution. It brings into the 
 body, not the spiritual and the pure only, but also 
 all classes of men; and it thus impresses upon it 
 such a character as effectually destroys its claims to 
 be regarded as the true visible church of Christ. It 
 is thenceforth necessarily carnal and unholy. It is 
 not the church of Christ.''^ 
 
 On these extracts, I offer the following remarks : 
 1. The Doctor, in these definitions, describes 
 rather the church triumphant than the church mil- 
 itant — what the church ought to be, rather than 
 what it really is. He himself allows, that under the 
 phrases, " kingdom of heaven'' and '' kingdom of 
 Godj" our Lord describes the visible church. When 
 
104 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 we turn to His inspired descriptions, we read that 
 " the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was 
 cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind." It 
 is like " unto a man which sowed good seed in his 
 field, but while men slept, his enemy came and 
 sowed tares among the wheat" — like unto " ten vir- 
 gins, and five of them were wise and five were fool- 
 ish."* Here the Saviour describes the visible church 
 as it really is, and if this description be true, Dr. 
 Howell's is a mere fancy sketch, worth nothing at 
 all. It is mere fiction. It answers to nothing in 
 creation here below. It does not suit his own im- 
 mersion church. It is impossible for the Doctor 
 himself to regard as " spiritual and pure" all who 
 have been dipped into his church ; and if " none 
 others can enter [Christ's] church," it is certain that 
 the church of Immersionists is not Christ's, because 
 many of the sensual and impure have been dipped 
 into it, and still remain in it. The writer knows 
 some who were dipped into it while drunk. He has 
 known their preachers to be ministering in the pulpit 
 with bottles of " the good critter" in their pockets, 
 and the reverend pastors themselves boasting in a 
 staggering " liberty" about the altar of the Lord! 
 By his own definition, then, our author excludes his 
 own denomination from all participation in the king- 
 dom of Christ, since the sensual and impure still 
 enter into that sect also. They are not " spiritual 
 * Matt 15 : 24, 25, 4Y, and 16 : 1, 2. 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 105 
 
 and pure," altliongli dipped into a *' faction." or 
 " worldly corporation," calling itself " the only body 
 of Christ upon earth." It cannot be the body of 
 Christ by its own showing; for it is printing and 
 circulating a book that condemns itself, and " if it 
 condemns itself, Grod is greater than it, and will also 
 condemn it." It receives and retains hypocrites in 
 its communion, and calls them brethren, just because 
 they have been immersed, while it excludes from the 
 name, communion, and all privileges of the church 
 those whom it acknowledfjes to be regenerated by the 
 Spirit of God, for no other reason than simply be- 
 cause they have not been immersed. It puts a higher 
 estimate on an outward dash into the water than on 
 the pure inward graces of the Spirit of life from 
 Christ; for it receives all the unregenerate hypo- 
 crites that submit to be dipped, while it unhes- 
 itatingly excludes the regenerated from all partici- 
 pation in its communion. 
 
 Not one of these charges is our own. They are 
 all the certain consequences of their own positions 
 and definitions. We feel far more charitable towards 
 them ; and knowing the imperfections of humanity 
 and the definitions of the Scripture, we have ever 
 been disposed, with all their errors, to regard them 
 as a portion of the visible church of Christ ; because 
 a large proportion of their body give, as we think, 
 satisfactory evidence that they are born of the Spirit. 
 But let their own doctrine be true, that the visible 
 
106 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 church consists entirely of the " spiritual and pure," 
 and that " none others can enter" it, and the Dippers 
 henceforth make neither part nor parcel of that 
 glorious body. 
 
 2. Another point in the extract before us is this. 
 " It [infant baptism] sets aside all the laws of mem- 
 bership enacted by Christ." 
 
 This declaration is made on the simple authority 
 of the Dippers. But it is directly opposed to the 
 authority of Christ, who solemnly declares, in oppo- 
 sition to the worldly wisdom of his disciples, that 
 infants belong to his kingdom, and are a part of his 
 visible church. He says they receive his kingdom 
 in such a manner as to afford an instructive example 
 to adults. He invites them to himself, takes them 
 into his arms, and blesses tliem. How can they 
 come to Christ, and still be out of his kingdom ? 
 Does Christ go out of his kingdom to receive them ? 
 Does he bless those who are out of his kingdom? 
 What good will it do for Christ to receive and bless 
 them, if they are still to be shut out of the kingdom 
 of heaven ? But how can they be received openly, 
 and acknowledged as members of his kingdom, with- 
 out baptism ? He commands us to receive them in 
 his name. Is there any way to receive them in his 
 name but by baptism ? Can any one be received in 
 his name without baptism ? Then it is not infanl 
 baptism, but the Dippers, that "set aside all the 
 laws of membership enacted by Christ." 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL, 107 
 
 3, Our extract further says: " It [infant baptism] 
 brings into the body, not the spiritual and pure only, 
 but also all classes of men." Well, then, it makes 
 the church answer exactly to the description given 
 by her King, It " is like unto a net that was cast 
 into the sea, and gathered of every kind," and facts 
 testify that it gathers at least as many of the *' spirit- 
 ual and pure " as any of its antagonists and haters 
 can boast But our author intends here more thaa 
 he says. He further declares — " The doctrine 
 taught by Pedo-baptists would bring every child 
 upon earth into the church," What a calamity this 
 would be ! Just think of it ! All the children of 
 earth put under religious training ! and not one left 
 for the devil, or the Dippers! By solemn vows 
 every one is to be trained to read and study the 
 Bible, and to know baptism, but remains forever 
 ignorant of dipping, immersion, and the like! But 
 still he goes on — '• It blots out every vestige of the 
 church itself, by wholly destroying its visibility! 
 No living being would be out of the church — [what 
 a pity !] The church is the world, and the world is 
 the church. Either there is no church, or no 
 world 1" Then we shall hear sore and bitter wailing 
 among the Dippers about the time that all come to 
 " know the Lord, from the least to the greatest," — 
 when the kingdom of Christ, extending from shore 
 to shore, shall embrace all mankind, infants and 
 adults. Oh ! how their hearts will ache ! That 
 
108 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 *' corporation," wliich they have misnamed the 
 " church of Christ," — while all others are called 
 " sects " or " parties " — will have passed away for- 
 ever ! All, from the least to the greatest, will then 
 be in the church ! and there will then, according to 
 their wail, be " no visible church on earth," — fall of 
 impure, unholy infants ! " Every vestige of the 
 [dipping] church blotted out !" Alas ! alas ! " What 
 do we now see ? The spirituality of the church is 
 gone ! The purity of the church is gone I The 
 msibihty of the church is gone I The chitrch itself 
 is gone ! — destroyed by infant baptism !" Come, 
 then, all ye devils in hell, and all ye wicked of earth, 
 to swell these doleful lays ; for " as truly as I live, 
 all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the 
 Lord ;" and there will then be no church, [of Dip- 
 pers,] because the least one on earth shall then be in 
 the church 1 
 
 But seriously — Can Dr. Howell persuade himself 
 that the visibility of the church depends on its con- 
 trast with the world ! Can the church be seen no 
 longer, when everybody gets into it ? Tut, tut ! 
 Doctor, you surely have Ketter sense than that. 
 Come, put away your raillery, and go to work like a 
 Christian philosopher. The busy world is not going 
 to stop to listen to your ill-natured wail about the 
 babes. The dear little innocents will never corrupt 
 the church, nor destroy its visibility. If any, for 
 want of proper training, openly sell their birthright 
 
EVILS OF DR. KOWELL. 109 
 
 for sinful pleasures, they instantly cease to be mem- 
 bers of the visible church, as did Esau. If afterward 
 they repent, and desire to be re-united to the church, 
 we do not suppose that there is any more necessity 
 to re-baptize them than there is to re-immerse those 
 who, in similar circumstances, return to the Dippers. 
 Concerning a church practicing Pedo-baptism, our 
 author asks, " Will she not prefer a learned, or an 
 eloquent, to a converted ministry ?" Ans. I am 
 not aware of any such preference. The ministry of 
 Pedo-baptist churches have long been as remarkable 
 for their jfj/ezf?/ as for their learning ; nor am I aware 
 that there is any incompatibility between learning 
 and piety. As far as my knowledge of men extends, 
 the learned are not more vicious than the ignorant. 
 I know many Pedo-baptist ministers, who are in every 
 way qualified to figure in the learned professions, 
 where they might accumulate handsome fortunes, 
 that still content themselves in poverty to preach 
 Christ crucified. I never knew one of them oppose 
 Bible Societies, Sunday Schools, Missions, Temper- 
 ance, &c., and this is a vast deal more than any man 
 can say of the Dipping preachers. The Pedo-bap- 
 tists are at least as diligent in examining candidates 
 for the ministry on their experimental acquaintance 
 with religion, as any other branch of learning. And 
 finally, Dr. Howell speaks of Pedo-baptist ministers 
 as both " learned and pious," and says further, " The 
 great body of them, [the Pedo-baptist ministry,] and 
 10 
 
110 
 
 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 especially of those connected -with the denominations 
 I have named, are converted men." The testimony 
 of an enemy is good. These words were forced from 
 bim by a world of facts around him. 
 
 Then shame on the breath that gave utterance to 
 the question, and that gave forth so much obloquy 
 upon the " Protestant ministry." Let his own testi- 
 mony to the purity of the Pedo-baptist ministry 
 stand to rebut the scandal he has uttered, saying, 
 " Infant baptism blots out every vestige of the 
 church." If it has not blotted out the piety of the 
 ministry, one vestige still remains, or else piety in 
 the ministry is no mark of the true church. How 
 is that. Doctor ? 
 
 After representing infant baptism as corrupting 
 and scandalizing the church, destroying her spiritu- 
 alit}', giving to her a corrupt, wordly, ambitious 
 ministr}^, and blotting out " every vestige of the 
 .church itself,'' our author seems to have been di.s- 
 mayed by a host of facts presenting themselves on 
 every side ; and in his terror at their appearance, 
 without recanting one of the ugly ill-natured charges 
 he had made, he proceeds forthwith to give four 
 reasons why our Pedo-baptist churches are not cor- 
 rupted and blotted out ! 
 
 " The first [reason] is, the great Baptist principle, 
 with which they are unceasingly in contact." 
 " Baptist principle !" Thought you said that is not 
 English. None but the learned know what Baptist 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. Ill 
 
 means. Say Dijyper principle^ in plain English, so 
 that all may understand you. The " Baptist prin- 
 ciple " has saved all from corruption ! ! and what is 
 that precious salt, the " Baptist principle " ? The 
 only thing in which they differ from all others is 
 dipping their members into water ; and how that 
 has saved all the other churches from ruin, no one 
 can conceive. We have felt more of their influence 
 in opposing education, Sunday School, Missionary 
 and Temperance Societies, than in anything else; 
 but when, by Grod's help, we rolled these benevolent 
 operations upon them, they joined with the rest to 
 help them forward. What infinite self-conceit to 
 imagine that they have saved every branch of the 
 church from ruin, because they fell in with the rest, 
 when they could not help themselves ! 
 
 " The second of these causes is the universal diffu- 
 sion of the Bible." And who did all this ? The 
 Dippers ? No, verily. Thousands all over this land 
 remember well their determined opposition to the 
 diffusion of the Bible. Their own church members 
 were found destitute of the Scriptures. Many of 
 them did not possess the New Testament ; and when 
 supplied by our distributors, they burnt the hook of 
 God. Nor was this done by one or two. Many 
 Dijipers burnt the Bible ; and the reason they 
 assigned was, that it taught sprinkling and infant 
 baptism ! There are yet living witnesses all over 
 this country to prove these facts. And now, for- 
 
112 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 sootl), tlicy are the people that have saved all the 
 rest from corruption, by cliflFusiDg the Scriptures ! 
 And this day, before God and the world, they are 
 the avowed opponents of our old English Bible, for 
 the same reasons which induced them to burn it, 
 when given to them as a gratuity by Pedo-baptists. 
 These scandals might sleep forever in the grave of 
 oblivion, if the church of God did not need them for 
 her vindication, and the Dippers for the rebuke of 
 their pride and insolence. 
 
 " The cause [of keeping Pedo-baptist churches 
 from corruption, and having every vestige of the 
 church itself blotted out] is found in the character 
 of our Pedo-baptist ministry. Their religion and 
 good sense lead them to discard, except in its forms, 
 the puerilities of their disting-uishing rites." And 
 these are the same men who, a little while ago, were 
 corrupted by infant baptism, and led to aspire more 
 after learning and eloquence, and fame and power, 
 than after piety! Our learned divine cannot re- 
 member one hour what he wrote the hour before. 
 One hour they are corrupting the church, and the 
 next they are purifying it ! They are '' learned and 
 pious " practitioners of "puerilities" too "absurd 
 and foolish " to be regarded by the commonest minds 
 as worthy of a place anywhere, except in the darkest 
 corruptions and the weakest superstitions of heathen- 
 ism ! These ministers cannot possess all these 
 traits. One set of them fiilsifies the other ; and the 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 113 
 
 Doctor will confer a favor, if iu the next edition he 
 tells us in good earnest what be wishes the people 
 to believe concerning Pedo-baptist ministers. Are 
 they really "learned and pious," possessed of '-'re- 
 ligion and good sense," or are tbey the abettors of 
 " corruption and superstition," the dupes of •' folly " 
 and weakness — " puerility " ? 
 
 The fourth and last excuse (of the " spirituality 
 and purity " of the ''■ corrupt and superstitious 
 Pedo-baptist churches) is the revivals of religion 
 which have so long and so extensively prevailed in 
 our country." But who, we ask, were the agents, 
 under God, for the promotion of these revivals? 
 The world knows that when they had progressed so 
 far among Pedo-baptists that they resulted in all 
 those stupendous plans of modern benevolence, hav- 
 ing for their object the conversion of the world, the 
 Dippers were so sunk in antinomianism and fatality 
 that they opposed them every one with all their 
 might. Nor did they yield to the true spirit of ag- 
 gressive Christianity until it threatened their ex- 
 istence. The gospel did conquer their ignorance and 
 sluggishness, be it recorded to the praise of divine 
 grace. But it must achieve still another victory. 
 As soon as their people began to be educated, they 
 were more and more persuaded that our good Bible 
 teaches sprinkling and infant baptism. To rid them- 
 selves of this difficulty, and preserve their existence, 
 they wage war against baptize^ alleging that it is too 
 10* 
 
114 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 much like tlie Greek original hcqjtAzo^ and they de- 
 cidedly prefer the Latin immerse, which is so far 
 separated from the original as to be deemed safe to 
 their interests. Presently, however, they find this 
 Latin leads too near to Rome. In this extremity they 
 call for the word <:/?)?, which is so much unlike the 
 original baptize, that it is deemed trustworthy as a 
 vehicle of their distinguishing idea of the initiatory 
 ordinance of Christianity. — Instead of uniting with 
 others in the glorious achievements of the world's 
 conversion, they are perpetually retarding the work 
 by thrusting forward their antinomianism, their op- 
 position to benevolent efforts, their new-translation 
 whims, their immersion dogmas — a man cannot 
 enter into the kingdom of God unless he is immersed, 
 dipped, or plunged ! Thc}^ cannot be persuaded to 
 go on to perfection ; for they must always be laying 
 again the foundation of immersion, dipping, &c., and 
 can never advance from these useless dogmas to 
 work directly for the salvation of the world, Thus 
 they hinder the work of revivals and the conversion 
 of the world, by keeping the people agitat<3d about 
 water ! 
 
 If our author will employ a little more industry 
 in collecting facts, and a little more care in his in- 
 ductive processes, he will find that the true reason 
 of the " spirituality and purity " of the Pcdo-bap- 
 tist churches is found in the fact that from childhood 
 they are taught the holy Scriptures, which are able 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOV'ELL. 115 
 
 to make them wise unto salvation. He will find that 
 in the great revivals which have blessed our land, 
 nearly three-fourths of those who profess religion 
 were baptized in infancy, while, perhaps, hardly one- 
 tenth of all the children born are baptized. On in- 
 quiry, he will find that while baptized children, on 
 the Sabbath, were generally studying the Bible, the 
 children of Dippers were generally fishiftg, robbing 
 birds' nests, orchards, and melon patches, dragging 
 farmers' plows from their fields and hanging them in 
 trees, turning cattle out of the pastures, tying brush 
 to colts' tails, and perpetrating all manner of small 
 villany. Their parents taught them that if they 
 were of the elect, " the Lord would bring them in, 
 in his own good way and time." They held the same 
 doctrine in regard to the conversion of the world. 
 But the power of divine evangelism found in the 
 Pedo-baptist churches, with God's blessing, producing 
 revivals, and extending the circulation of the Scrip- 
 tures in spite of infidels and Dippers, they have been 
 much improved of late years. The work now to be 
 done for them is by the power of Bible truth to 
 drive them up out of the water upon dry land in open 
 sunshine, where they can be warmed into holy zeal 
 for the salvation of the world. They must be driven 
 from their new-translation mania, and taught to let 
 our English Bible read baptize — like the original — 
 and put their Latin at the bottom of the sea, where 
 it belongs. Then, if they must dip instead of bap- 
 
116 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 tize^ let tlicm clip away ; but by all means aid in 
 distributing the Word of God according to the 
 original. That will soon teach their own children 
 the difference between dijj and baptize^ and then the 
 Dippers will pass away, and the churches will have 
 rest, and walking in the fear of the Lord, and the 
 comfort of the Spirit, and the light of the Bible will 
 be multiplied. Let them study these things, and we 
 shall have no more complaints about the corrupting 
 influences of infant baptism. Men do not gather 
 grapes of thorns, nor figs from thistles. 
 
 After charging all manner of corruption on infant 
 baptism, and then giving four reasons why it does 
 not corrupt, our author, through twelve pages of his 
 work, goes on again .to accuse infant baptism of all 
 the corruptions of popery, and every species of un- 
 godliness in the church. But we find nothing here 
 worthy of attention. He perverts every author he 
 quotes. Examples : He finds infant baptism men- 
 tioned by early Christian writers, and corruptions in 
 the church prevailing at the same time. He as- 
 cribes, without any authority, these corruptions to 
 infant baptism, and then concludes, " See here lohat 
 afoul thing infant haytism is /" When it would 
 be just as relevant for one to look for some mention 
 by the fathers, of the sanctifying influences of the 
 Holy Spirit, and a contemporary mention of some 
 flagitious iniquity, — then exclaim, " How dreadful 
 a doctrine is that of the S^nriVs injluences .'" Or 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 117 
 
 one might note the fact of women's rights and spirit- 
 rapping as contemporary with the circulation of Dr. 
 Howell's book on the imagined " evils of infant bap- 
 tism," and then wisely exclaim, " See here tlte fruits 
 of this corrupt and corrupting book .'" 
 
 When Dr. Wisner speaks of the neglect of parents 
 to fulfil the vows they made at the baptism of their 
 children, our author seizes upon it as a proof of the 
 corrupting influences of infant baptism ! All the 
 mischiefs of what used to be called '* the half-way 
 covenant " introduced by formalists, are also lugged 
 into the argument, and set down as proofs of the 
 corrupting influences of infant baptism. No serious 
 man can read such perversions of facts stated in the 
 plainest words of authors, such sophistry and shame- 
 less deceit, without inquiring what must necessarily be 
 the efi"ect upon the ^oral character of those who re- 
 ceive them as truth. 
 
 If infant baptism has been turned from its proper 
 purpose by some who have espoused it, it is no more 
 than has happened to every doctrine of religion. 
 The miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit furnished 
 occasion for pride, ambition, and contention in apos- 
 tolic churches. — 1 Cor. 14th chap. From the doc- 
 trine of God's renewing grace has been drawn a plea 
 for deferring the claims of repentance. God's pro- 
 tecting care of his people has been thought to favor 
 sloth and indifierence. The purest revivals of re- 
 ligion have furnished a cloak for fanaticism ; and 
 
118 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 Cliristian liberty, for licentiousness. But wlo that 
 possesses the smallest particle of candor, or common 
 honesty, would think of oiSering such perversions as 
 arguments against these precious doctrines of the 
 Bible 1 If such corruptions by men do not corrupt 
 other Scriptural doctrines, with what face can they 
 be urged against infant baptism ? Is this the best 
 Dippers can do ? 
 
 In the next place we are told that " against this 
 deterioration and moral death in Pedo-baptist 
 churches, as such, there is no possible remedy — [but] 
 do corruptions, no matter of what character, invade 
 Baptist churches ? They contain inherently all the 
 elements of restoration." In support of these alle- 
 gations, it is asserted that Pedo-baptist churches are 
 filled with immoral, irreligious members, who will 
 always vote to sustain their own corruptions; but 
 the " Baptist churches," having none but the '' spir- 
 itual and pure " in them, can easily put out all the 
 corrupt and irreligious ! This is beautiful ! 
 
 Dr. H. ought to know that the baptized infants*in 
 Pedo-baptist churches have no more to do with gov- 
 ernment than infants in a family. They are sinners 
 in the church, as they are in a family, and are under 
 governors and teachers till they come to maturity, 
 and give evidence of piety, when they are admitted 
 to full fellowship, as they are to full citizenship at 
 the same period of life. Until all this is done, they 
 have no more vote in the church than in tlie State. 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOAYELL. 119 
 
 We have always much less fear of their corrupting 
 the church than of those who enter it in after-life 
 without the advantage of early and thorough train- 
 ing. Just so in the State, we always appreliend 
 more danger from foreigners, who come in without a 
 thorough understanding of our republican principles, 
 than from our own children, who have been trained 
 from the cradle to know the rights and duties of 
 citizens. But Dr. Howell's argument goes to prove 
 that our only danger in the State is from our native 
 citizens, who have been corrupted by education and 
 diligent training ! That we are perfectly safe under 
 the rule of foreigners, who know nothing of our 
 language, manners, customs, nor government, till 
 they come among us (!) What does he mean ? 
 What is he writing for ? Shame ! fie ! scandal on 
 the man, who can totter along in this manner, with- 
 out thinking of the fatal stabs he is administering 
 to his own cause. His church will surely suppress 
 the work, and get a new one written, or quit alto- 
 gether. 
 
 This long chapter closes as follows : *' With Bap- 
 tists, I remark in conclusion, are lodged, as you 
 must plainly see, the only conservative influences 
 now existing in the universe, [heaven, earth and 
 hell.] It is ours, with the blessing of God, to save 
 from being quenched, that truth which is the world's 
 only hope, [and very lately we turned more out of 
 the church for joining Bible Societies and Bible 
 
120 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 classes.] It is ours, also, to save the Pedo-baptists 
 themselves, of all classes, from the consequences of 
 their own errors, [for the fools think they can find a 
 way to heaven without passing through Jordan.] It 
 is ours to spread the gospel throughout the round 
 earth, [and let the jlat one sink, and the ohiate 
 spheroid go to the Pedo-baptists.] How exalted, 
 therefore, how responsible, how far-reaching is our 
 "mission .'" [Yes, *' exalted" to the bottom of Jordan, 
 " responsible" for altering the Bible, and •' far- 
 reaching" over sea and land to proselyte other 
 Christians into the water.] 
 
CHAPTEE YIII. 
 
 " INFANT BAPTISM IS AN EVIL ; BECAUSE ITS PEACTICE (?) PER- 
 PETUATES THE SUPERSTITIONS BY WHICH IT WAS OPvIGINATED." 
 
 Our author sets out with the annunciation that 
 there is no mention of infant baptism by the earlier 
 Christian fathers : 
 
 " Origen, who lived in the middle of the third 
 century, was the first to defend it." 
 
 Deceitful ! How many Christian writers flourish- 
 ed before Origen ? Be candid, be sober, be honest. 
 Origen was certainly one of the earlier Christian 
 fathers. He was born in A. D. 185, and died in 
 A. D. 253, only three years after the time that our 
 author represents him as in the full career of life. 
 It is plain that Dr. H. designed by the words here 
 quoted, to make on the common reader's mind the 
 impression that Origen flourished full half a century 
 later than he did. 
 
 And " Origen was the first to defend it" ! Then 
 it was certainly practiced before that period, and no 
 one before had any occasion to defend it ; because 
 11 
 
122 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 no question about it had as yet been sprung. But 
 no one can believe tliat it could have been intro- 
 duced at any time without controversy. If, then, 
 " Origen was the first to defend it," and there is not 
 the remotest hint that it was introduced in his day, 
 the evidence is pretty clear from Dr. Howell's own 
 showing, that it must have prevailed in the church 
 from time immemorial. This we showed to be fact 
 in the first volume of the True Baptist. 
 
 We wish here to repeat that our appeal is not to 
 the church nor to the fathers, but to the Bible. 
 
 When the proof of the historical fact is complete, 
 we mtist go to the Word of Grod, the foundation of 
 authority, to ascertain whether it be riglit, or not. 
 If infant baptism were practiced by the earlier 
 Christians without divine authority, their example 
 could furnish no law for us. If they neglected or 
 contemned a divine ordinance, that would afford no 
 shield of protection to us in imitating their rebellion. 
 Still, be it known that we are not afraid of the testi- 
 mony of the fathers, and as our opponents are not 
 content to remain on the consecrated ground of di- 
 vine truth, we are willing to meet them on any arena 
 they prefer. 
 
 Dr. H. says, " Origen was the first to defend it." 
 Then who was Origen? He was born A. D. 185, 
 and of course came to maturity about one hundred 
 years after the death of the apostle John. He was 
 a man of great learning. He became pious in early 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 123 
 
 life. He became a prominent and very influential 
 Christian minister, and was well acquainted with the 
 practices of the church from the days of the apostles. 
 Let Dr. Howell and the Dippers explain it to com- 
 mon sense how it is possible for such a man to be 
 so deceived in reference to such an ordinance as in- 
 fant baptism. Origen, in defending this ordinance, 
 appeals to the Scriptures, the example of the apostles, 
 and the practice of the church. How was it possible 
 for Origen to make such an appeal before the thou- 
 sands of Christians then living, unless it was known 
 to all that the ordinance had been practiced as he 
 declared? If it were a human invention, Origen 
 and thousands of others must have known the fact; 
 and if it could be supposed that he was sufficiently 
 corrupt to conceal the fiict. and to attempt to deceive 
 and corrupt the church, still there were then living 
 thousands of aged Christians who personally kne^v* 
 the practice of the church in this respect from the 
 age next succeeding the apostles. Why did none 
 of them contradict Origen ? Why did no one leave 
 it on record, that infant baptism was foisted into the 
 church at such a time, and by such a man ? Had 
 no one in that age except Origen " rubbed his back 
 against a college wall" ? 
 
 Dr. Howell has no right, in the absence of proof, 
 to affirm that infant baptism had been foisted into 
 the church at this early day. If he affirm, he is 
 bound by every rule of honorable controversy to 
 
124 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 support his affirmation by competent testimony. 
 There is no such testimony, or the Doctor would 
 have produced it. He admits that it was practiced, 
 and that Origen defended it as early as the year 
 252. But he attempts to prove that it was unknown 
 to the church before this period, and the proof is in 
 these words : 
 
 "It was," as he [Origen] tells us, " a subject of 
 'frequent inquiry among the brethren,' consequently 
 it must have been a new topic. ' Brethren' did not 
 understand it." 
 
 In all the annals of controversy a more miserable 
 fetch cannot be found. There was " frequent in- 
 quiry among the brethren" about infant baptism, 
 and that proves that it was " a new topic" ! Well, 
 then, it must still be " a new topic ;" for now there 
 is at least as much inquiry as there was sixteen hun- 
 dred years ago. But why does not our author, like 
 an honest friend of truth, tell his readers the ques- 
 tions in reference to infant baptism, which were agi- 
 tated in Origen's day ? Bid those questions relate to 
 the divine origin of the rite, or to the time of admin" 
 istering it, and the eifocts tliat followed ? 
 
 But again, our author tells us that infant baptism 
 was not mentioned by any of the earlier Christian 
 writers ; but " Origen was the first to defend it." 
 He dares not say that Origen introduced it, but 
 merely defended it. Then it is plain, from his own 
 showing, that it had been introduced before it was 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 125 
 
 defended. Again he declares tliat Justin Martyr 
 does not mention infant baptism, and argues from 
 his silence that the rite was not practiced in his clay. 
 Then of course he must admit that Justin would 
 have noticed the fact if it had been foisted into the 
 church in his day. 
 
 Then let us put the Doctor's historical facts to- 
 gether, that we may see how they look. Justin Mar- 
 tyr was beheaded about A. D. 167, and according to 
 Dr. H., infant baptism was up to that time unknown ; 
 but Origen found the practice so prevalent, when he 
 came on the stage of action, that he defended it as 
 an apostolic ordinance, which had been in use all the 
 while. Now, if Justin was beheaded in A. D. 167, 
 and Origen was born in A. D. 185, then, by Dr. 
 Howell's own account, infant baptism must have been 
 introduced, and become prevalent in the church, 
 without exciting any controversy, in the short space 
 of 38 years, which intervened between the death of 
 Justin and the maturity of Origen ! And (what is 
 entirely unaccountable here) Ireneus, a learned and 
 pious minister, was in the prime of life and full ac- 
 tivity during this whole period. He studied under 
 Polycarp, and Polycarp studied with the Apostle 
 John ; and yet Dr. Howell's account of the intro- 
 duction of infant baptism would place it in the time 
 of this holy and vigilant man, without an utterance 
 from him against the abuse. Dr. H. himself, no 
 matter how much he tries, cannot believe that amat- 
 11* 
 
126 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 ter so important as infant baptism could have been 
 foisted into the church in the da3^s of the immediate 
 disciples of the apostles, without meeting the decid- 
 ed opposition of such men as Ireneus, Theophilus of 
 Antioch, Philip of Gortyna, &c. These men were 
 decided opponents to every departure from apostolic 
 usage. Yet not a man among them questioned the 
 lawfulness of infant baptism. Some thought it ought, 
 like circumcision, to be administered on the eighth 
 day after birth, others believed convenience might 
 regulate the time. Some supposed that our Lord's 
 words to Nicodemus justified the conclusion that the 
 divine Spirit always accompanied baptism, and of 
 course that the baptized, whether infants or adults, 
 were cleansed from all sin which had been previous- 
 ly committed; others ascribed no such effects to bap- 
 tism. These are the points to which " frequent in- 
 quiry among the brethren" chiefly related. Then, 
 on his own ground. Dr. H. is utterly at fault. 
 
 Still again, our author's whole argument, from the 
 silence of Justin Martyr and Ireneus, is as baseless 
 as the dreams of night ; Justin, born in the days of 
 the Apostle John, speaking of those who were mem- 
 bers of the church in his day, says : " A part of 
 these were sixty or seventy years old, who were made 
 disciples to Christ from their infancy." By all ac- 
 quainted with the language of the fathers, it is known 
 that they, like ourselves, apply the words " disciples 
 of Christ" only to those who are baptized. If Jus- 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 127 
 
 tin wrote these words even as late as the year he was 
 beheaded, there were then in the church persons who 
 had been baptized in infancy during the life of the 
 Apostle John. 
 
 Ireneus, born A. D. 97, before the death of the 
 Apostle John, says : '■ Christ came to save all per- 
 sons who by him are born again to God ; infants, and 
 little ones, and children, and youth, and elder per- 
 sons ;" and he himself tells us that by being " born 
 again" he means baptized ; because it is by baptism 
 that we are visibly born into the church, I quote 
 these passages not as authority for infant baptism. 
 For authority I appeal to the Bible alone. But our 
 opponents dash off into the writings of the fathers, 
 and there practice the same wily arts of perversion 
 which they display on. our modern creeds. They as- 
 sert that by the testimony of the fathers infant bap- 
 tism was unknown until the middle of the third cen- 
 tury. I go to the fathers and prove by their direct 
 testimony that there were then living in the church 
 persons who had been baptized in their infancy be- 
 fore the death of the Apostle John. They may 
 just as well quit their vagaries, and go back within 
 the sacred precincts of the Bible. If it sustains 
 infant baptism, we will not ask leave of the fathers 
 to practice it. If it gives us no authority for the 
 rite, we will not seek the protection of the fathers. 
 
 Dr. Howell, then, must not assert that no one men- 
 tions infant baptism before the middle of the third 
 
128 
 
 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 century. It is wrong. On liis own showing, his as- 
 sumption is false, and the presentation of all the 
 facts places him in a deplorable condition. Besides, 
 he often tells us that infant baptism is of Popish 
 origin — is a Popish superstition, &e. ; and here he 
 himself proves that it was practiced at least three 
 hundred and fifty years before tJie.re was a Fope I 
 One who takes so little care of himself, must not 
 wonders if others care as little for him. Let him 
 know that God can give up the foes of his truth to 
 contradict and confute themselves, and thus to neu- 
 tralize their own influence. 
 
 In the beginning of this chapter, we meet this con- 
 temptible assertion — " Infant baptism is the off- 
 spring of superstition,''^ with half a page of similar 
 stuff. Dr. Howell and the Dippers would do well 
 to recollect that Christ requires us to receive little 
 children in his name, and that there is no authority 
 to receive any in His name without baptism. Is it 
 superstition to obey Him ? Is it a superstition to 
 regard infants as being within the constitution of 
 divine grace and the kingdom of God ? Is it super- 
 stition to acknowledge these great truths by bap- 
 tism, as God has appointed ? It is very fine, indeed, 
 for such words to be used by those who " dreamed" 
 some queer thing, and in consequence joined the 
 church at the next " monthly meeting," — for those 
 who "heard the Lord from the fork of a big poplar," 
 or " from the heart of a black-berry patch," call 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 129 
 
 tliem to 2')reac/t tJie gosjjel — for those who, for fear of 
 ''bad luck," could not be persuaded to begin any 
 work, or set out on a journey on Friday, but have 
 no objections to Sunday. TJiey talk about super- 
 stition ! 
 
 After two pages of sheer abuse, our author comes 
 to tell us wherein this superstition consists : 
 
 '- The opinion began to prevail as early as the mid- 
 dle of the second century, that there is in baptism 
 some mysterious, secret, inexplicable efficacy, which 
 conveys the grace of Grod to the soul of the recipi- 
 ent ! No one, whether adult or infant, was consid- 
 ered safe who should die without having obtained 
 the benefits of these cleansing influences. These 
 were, mainly, the superstitions that originally pro- 
 duced infant baptism. From this accumulation of 
 theological impurities, like Python from the mud of 
 the deluge, sprang infant baptism." 
 
 Here it is again. Every reader will remember 
 how zealous our author was, in the third chapter of 
 this very work, to convict infant baptism of a denial 
 of human depravity. Now he tells us that it origin- 
 ated in a superstitious belief that baptism will 
 cleanse depravity from the soul ! He certainly took 
 lessons from Proteus, when he should have been 
 studying the Bible. He says that infant baptism 
 originates in a superstitious notion of cleansing from 
 guilt, and yet utterly denies that there is any guilt ! ! 
 Now, let us have one thing or another. It is in- 
 
130 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 effably puerile to continue blustering before the 
 Christian public. We have proved by his own wit- 
 ness, Justin Martj^r, that infant baptism was prac- 
 ticed in the Christian church before the death of the 
 apostle John ; and in the extract before us he says 
 that the superstition from which it sprang " began to 
 prevail as early as the middle of the second cen- 
 tury." How could infant baptism spring from an 
 error that was not in existence for nearly a century 
 after the time we have proved it to be practiced ? 
 "We shall not now be surprised to hear that the sus- 
 pension bridge is the cause of the great falls of 
 Niagara. 
 
 It would be very easy to prove that the super- 
 stition to which Dr. H. refers is the mother of im- 
 mersion ; and that it waged war with infant baptism, 
 but was never able to expel it from the church. 
 Immersion has ever been the foe of baptism, and 
 especially of infant baptism. When men began to 
 attribute to baptism the divine power of washing sin 
 away from the soul, and of purifying the heart, they 
 supposed, of course, that these effects varied with 
 the quantity of water. They removed baptism from 
 its place as an emblem of the blood of sprinkling, and 
 installed it with all the honors of an agent in the 
 office of the Holy Spirit. The first step taken, the 
 downward progress was easy. The intention of the 
 ordinance being overlooked, the change of its out- 
 ward form would follow of course. 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 131 
 
 It was thought that a dipping being a much more 
 thorough washing than sprinkling, must be prefer- 
 able ; and so it is, if baptism be a real ivashing^ in- 
 stead of an emblematic cleansing^ referring to the 
 sprinkled blood of atonement. It was this very 
 superstition which, with Peter's extravagance, cried 
 out, " Lord, not mj feet only, but also my hands and 
 my head." If a little water be good, a great deal 
 is better. Immersion is the spawn of this supersti- 
 tion. Still these ancient Dippers acknowledged that 
 sprinkling is the proper, Scriptural baptism ; and 
 they referred to the Scriptures for proof on this 
 point, but defended immersion solely with the philos- 
 ophy that if a little water does good, much will do 
 better. The same argument is the principal sup- 
 port of immersion to this day. It has continually 
 opposed infant baptism either with a denial of human 
 depravity, or a denial that infants are within the 
 range of the covenant of grace, or the kingdom of 
 God. 
 
 Our author shows that some of the fathers advised 
 to defer the baptism of infants, unless in the case of 
 approaching death ; and he argues from this fact that 
 they disapproved of infant baptism. If he had been 
 so candid as to give his readers all the facts in this 
 case, he would have saved himself the trouble of 
 forming this argument from human authority. I do 
 suppose that Dr. H. knows very well that these 
 fathers believed that baptism, and especially im- 
 
132 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 merslon, has the effect to wash away all the guilt 
 contracted ujd to the moment of its administration — 
 and that for sins committed after baptism, other 
 specifics were recommended. As infants were deemed 
 incapable of using other remedies, it was considered 
 best to defer their baptism as long as safety would 
 allow. TJiis is the reason why it ivas delayed. No 
 one questioned the divine origin of infant baptism. 
 We are compelled to say that the Doctor's shuffling 
 here savors more of special pleading than the grave 
 and candid discussions of a Christian teacher in 
 earnest to bring forth to open daylight '• the truth, 
 the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." 
 
 Dr. Howell next takes a sweep round Carthage, 
 Milan, Constantinople and even as far as Alexandria 
 in Egypt, calling in his travels on the catechumeni- 
 cal schools, established for the training of young 
 men in Scripture doctrine. Everywhere he goes, he 
 finds infant baptism practiced with a view to cleanse 
 the infant from the guilt of sin. From this fact he 
 concludes that the ordinance had its origin in this 
 superstition. How logical ! But stay. Was not 
 adult baptism, in all these places, administered with 
 the very same intent ? Dr. H. knows it was. Then, 
 I ask, does it follow that adult baptism originated in 
 the same superstition ? 
 
 Not a hint can he find about the origin of infant 
 baptism. His own witnesses testify that it has been 
 practiced from the days of the apostles ; and yet, 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 133 
 
 when he finds baptism administered with supersti- 
 tious views, the same fact proves the human origin 
 of infant baptism, and the divine origin of adult 
 baptism ? What does Dr. H. mean ? and what is 
 the matter with him ? I know Dippers who plunge 
 people with a view to wash away their sins ; but 
 really, it never occurred to me that this fact proves 
 the human origin of immersion. How does Dr. H. 
 view that fact ? 
 
 Dr. Howell's investigations simply prove that a 
 foolish superstition had engrafted itself upon the 
 ordinance of Christian baptism, and appeared as much 
 in the baptism of adults as in that of infants. When 
 will Christian men secure the esteem of honorable 
 men of the world by such devices in argument as 
 that in the example before us ? 
 
 The next step in the work before us is to prove 
 that '• infant baptism does overwhelm and destroy 
 the Scripture doctrine of predestination." 
 
 Then it seems that " sprinkling a little water in a 
 babe's face" is what the Dippers call ^^ overwhelm- 
 ing.'^'' Then it is not so far from immersion, after 
 all. And it not only overwhelms, it destroys — 
 obruit — " the Scripture doctrine of predestina- 
 tion !" — Infant baptism must be a deep and rapid 
 stream, and what is very strange, it runs backward 
 into all eternity, and sweeps before it the counsels of 
 the Lord ! How could it rise in the third century ? 
 The Dippers, with all their water propensities, might 
 12 
 
134 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 do well to keep aloof, as this clestnietive stream 
 might bear them, no one knows whither. 
 
 And after it has " overwhelmed and destroj^ed the 
 Scripture doctrine of predestination," it is rash, if 
 not foolish, in Dr. H. to make any attempt to arrest 
 its progress, unless he deems himself stronger than 
 " The Scripture doctrine of predestination." 
 
 Our author continually supposes that all Pedo- 
 baptists hold that the faith of the parent is trans- 
 ferred to the infant, in order to qualify it for baptism. 
 That some who practice infant baptism should not 
 understand it, is no more to be wondered at than 
 that some of those who practice immersion should 
 misapprehend it. Still, to bring up any practical 
 misapprehension of some, as an argument against 
 any ultimate principle, is the last and weakest effort 
 of sophistry. With the great body of Pedo-baptists, 
 faith is no more a qualification for baptism than for 
 a place in the kingdom of God. They hold that of 
 right baptism belongs to every member of that king- 
 dom, and that every infant, of course, has a right to 
 baptism, as an open declaration that it belongs to 
 God in the kingdom of his Son. 
 
 But as 'baptism is a solemn covenant transaction, 
 in which those coming to it engage to be the Lord's, 
 none but believers are competent to enter into it. 
 One who does not believe God's covenant cannot en- 
 ter into it; but he that believes it, enters into it 
 heartily. The Lord's covenant is, that He will bless 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 135 
 
 the means of religious instruction -which He has ap- 
 pointed, and make them effectual to salvation. Then, 
 he that believes this covenant, properly engages that 
 his children shall forever be the Lord's. He has 
 unwavering confidence in the means of training which 
 God has appointed and promised to bless. He be- 
 lieves that God will make those means effectual to 
 the conversion, sanctification and salvation of his 
 children; and he is therefore competent heartily to 
 declare, by baptism, that his children are the Lord's, 
 and that confiding in the blessing of a covenant- 
 keeping God, they shall forever be the Lord's. Not 
 so with the unbeliever. He has no confidence in 
 God's promises, nor in his appointed means. He 
 disagrees with God. He thinks it best not to tram- 
 mel the mind of his children with religious instruc- 
 tion, but to leave them to themselves. Then it is 
 plain that he is not competent to enter into cov- 
 enant with God in regard to things in which he has no 
 faith, and, indeed, is opposed to God. Of course, 
 his children cannot partake of these benefits, although 
 theirs by eternal right ; because their unbelieving 
 parents refuse to agree with God as to the proper 
 course of religious training. The covenant engage- 
 ment is ratified and sealed by baptism, and the bless- 
 ing is secured by fulfilling the covenant in a proper 
 course of religious training. For all this, none but 
 believers are competent; and therefore no children 
 but those of believers are to be baptized. If the 
 
136 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 children of unbelievers suffer, it is not the fault of 
 God, or the gospel; but of the unbelief and obsti- 
 nate rebellion of their wicked parents, who refuse to 
 employ God's means for the salvation of their chil- 
 dren. 
 
 It must be known to Dr. H. that Pedo-baptists as 
 readily administer the ordinance to servants and 
 wards of believers as to their own children. They 
 never inquire whether the parents of such children 
 are or were believers, or not. If the children have 
 secured to them a religious education, it is all that 
 is required ; because the blessing comes through in- 
 struction, and not by natural ties. This is the reason 
 why Pedo-baptists have ever been so diligent in the 
 religious instruction of their families. Why, then, 
 the perpetual repetition of the insane slang about 
 "grace, faith and election being propagated by 
 natural generation " ? 
 
 I conclude the review of this chapter with another 
 sample of the Christian courtesy of Dr. Howell and 
 the Dippers. Here it is : 
 
 " Infant baptism must, and does still, look for 
 support to the superstitions by which it was origin- 
 ally produced. Whoever submits to such supersti- 
 tions in one department of religion, will soon be 
 ready to give up his judgment and common sense in 
 all the others. Thus a downward progress is com- 
 menced, which cannot be arrested short of the dark 
 caverns of popery." 
 
CHAPTEE IX. 
 
 " INFANT BAPTISM IS AN EVIL ; BECAUSE IT SUBVERTS THE TEUE 
 DOCTRINE OF INFANT SALVATION." 
 
 This chapter is marked by bold assumption and 
 magisterial dictation excelling anything of the sort 
 I remember to have read. The subject is intro- 
 duced with these questions : — " Of departed infants, 
 what is the eternal destiny ? Are they happy or 
 miserable ?" The answer is : " We believe that all 
 infants are saved unconditionally." As the word 
 "unconditionally" means "without condition," I 
 supposed at first that the Dippers mean to say that 
 infants are saved without regard to the merits of our 
 blessed Saviour, whose righteousness is the sole con- 
 dition — or term forming the ground — of our ac- 
 ceptance with God. This view also accords exactly 
 with their former declaration in this book, that in- 
 fants are not within the covenant of grace, or the 
 kingdom of God. 
 
 But, by reading further, I am led to believe, that 
 by the erroneous use of the word " unconditionally " 
 12* 
 
138 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 they mean ivUhout faith and repentance^ wliicli are 
 by some writers called " proximate conditions " of 
 salvation. The Christian world will certainly liail it 
 with gladness as a new era in the progress of Chris- 
 tianity, that even the Dippers, through their public 
 societies, have at last conceded the doctrine of in- 
 fant salvation. Our author makes a bold flourish, 
 with bold declarations, that they have always be- 
 lieved this doctrine ; but he offers not a word of 
 proof, not a single quotation from one of their au- 
 thors, ancient or modern, to sustain his bare asser- 
 tions. The public know (for they have not spoken 
 in secret) what has been their former teaching on 
 this subject. Still, if even now they are willing to 
 abjure their errors, let us not jDursue them with their 
 former sins and heresies. Let these be forgotten, 
 and let us strive to understand what they now be- 
 lieve. They shall speak for themselves : 
 
 " We believe that all infants are saved uncon- 
 ditionally, through the application to them, by the 
 Holy Grhost, of the redemption of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ. Thus it is that, being redeemed by the 
 blood of Christ, they are saved by the infinite grace 
 of God. To prepare them for happiness, it is evi- 
 dent that the redemption of Christ must be applied 
 by the Holy Spirit, to their purification from sin. 
 Otherwise they would be incapable of eternal life." 
 
 In these extracts we submit tlie following re- 
 marks : 
 
EVILS OF DR. KOWELL. 139 
 
 1. Here our author repeats, three times, the con- 
 ditions^ terms, or grounds, on which infants are sav- 
 ed ; and yet declares they are saved " uncondition- 
 ally." The conditions — terms forming the ground 
 — are the atoning blood of the Redeerper, the grace 
 of God, and the application of them by the Holy 
 Spirit. Without these conditions, he teaches that 
 they cannot be saved, and still avers that they " are 
 saved unconditionally " ! If Dippers would only 
 study enough to express their own views with per- 
 spicuity, they would understand others better. 
 
 2. The extracts before us says, " We believe that 
 all infants are saved." This is undoubtedly on the 
 other extreme ; for it is certain that many infants 
 grow to maturity, sin and die without repentance, 
 and thus are forever lost. Our author complains 
 bitterly of Presbyterians for saying that " elect in- 
 fants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by 
 Christ through the Spirit." But he does not state 
 what point here presented is obnoxious, nor do we 
 intend here to enter into a defence of any of the 
 points presented ; but we remark, that on the points 
 of being saved through Christ, and by the renewing 
 of the Spirit, our author seems to agree with them 
 in his language just quoted. He certainly will not 
 deny that some die in infancy, and the only other 
 point is " elect infants." Right or wrong, the world 
 knows, that Presbyterians believe in election. They 
 here teach, that while some of the elect grow to ma- 
 
140 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 turitj, are converted, sanctified and saved, tlirough 
 the atonement of Christ, others of them die in in- 
 fancy^ and are saved through the same atoning 
 blood, and the same forgiving spirit. They do not 
 affirm that any who die m infancy are lost; but only 
 that the class of the elect who die in infancy are 
 saved. No infant damnation can be wrung from the 
 passage, and no one who regards his reputation as a 
 linguist will deliberately assert it. The only differ- 
 ence, then, between Presbyterians and Dippers on 
 this point is, that Dippers believe " all infants are 
 saved," and Presbyterians believe that while many 
 infants grow to maturity, and die in unbelief, all the 
 " elect infants dying in infancy^ are saved,'' and 
 plainly, that none but " elect " ones<r/o die in infancy, 
 the Lord taking them from the evils that might pre- 
 vent their salvation. How, then, does " infant bap- 
 tism subvert the true doctrine of infant salvation "? 
 3. In the extracts before us, it is further declared, 
 " that the redemption of Christ must be applied [to 
 infants] by the Holy Ghost, to their purification from 
 sin." Now, for the Holy Spirit to purify from sin 
 by applying the blood of Christ to the heart, is the 
 most prominent idea expressed by being baptized 
 with the Holy Ghost, and is also the great idea sym- 
 bolized in baptism with water. If Christ baptizes 
 infants with his own blood and Spirit, why may not 
 his servants baptize them with water, as Peter did, 
 when he saw the Holy Ghost fall on his hearers as 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 141 
 
 on the disciples at Pentecost, and he remembered 
 the word of the Lord, " John indeed baptized with 
 water ; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy 
 Ghost-^ Again, the blood of Christ that effects this 
 purification of the infant's heart, is expressly called 
 " the blood of sprinkling." If, then, as Dr. Howell 
 himself declares, infants are purified by the blood 
 of sprinkling, applied by the Holy Spirit in his bap- 
 tismal cleansing, why in the name of all common 
 sense ma}^ the}'- not be sprinkled with clean water as 
 a sensible illustration of these divine effects ? Cer 
 tainly, on his grounds, infant baptism must stand ini 
 movable. Since, then, infant baptism so beautiful 
 ly symbolizes the purification from sin and the sal 
 vation of infants by the blood and Spirit of Christ 
 it would be difficult for any one to show how it '• sub. 
 verts the true doctrine of infant salvation." Are 
 philosophy and geometry '•' subverted" by t\\Q figures 
 and diagrams used to illustrate them? Immersion 
 backwards into cold water really seems to give the 
 mind a slant in the same direction. 
 
 4. In the extracts before us, it is declared that 
 " infants are saved by the infinite grace of God." 
 This doctrine is repeated throughout the chapter. 
 To infants, our author applies the words of Paul — 
 " Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." 
 We may cheerfully admit as true, the conclusion to 
 which he arrives, without assenting to the process 
 * Acts, 11 :15, 16. 
 
142 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 wliicli conducts him to the result, or even the prem- 
 ises from which he sets out. All that we care here 
 to notice, is the admitted fact, that " infants are 
 saved by the grace of God." 
 
 It may now be remembered that, on pages 97, 98, 
 and in other parts of this work, our author condemns, 
 as a fearful error, the doctrine that infants are in the 
 covenant of grace, or in the kingdom of God. Then, 
 we greatly desire to know what ideas the Dippers 
 entertain about the covenant of grace, and kingdom 
 of God. In its most comprehensive sense, the king- 
 dom of God embraces the whole church, militant and 
 triumphant, visible and spiritual. The declaration 
 that they are no integral part of the kingdom of 
 God, shuts infants out of bliss forever, unless per- 
 sons may be saved without being in the church either 
 here or in heaven. But, if they belong to the king- 
 dom of God, either visible or spiritual, that fact en- 
 titles them to baptism, and they must have it, or be 
 defeated of their rights. 
 
 By the covenant of grace all Christians (if I un- 
 derstand them) mean to comprehend all those stipu- 
 lated principles, which God has published to the world, 
 as the rules that direct and limit the bestowment of 
 his saving grace upon mankind. An unbelieving or 
 an impenitent adult is beyond the covenant of grace ; 
 because he stands outside of the rules by which the 
 grace of God operates to the sanctification and salva- 
 tion of sinners. To be a partaker of saving grace, 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 143 
 
 sucli an adult must come witliin the regulations of 
 grace. He must open his heart to Him that knocks. 
 He must " be converted, and become as a little 
 child," — must come into the kingdom of God's dear 
 Son, where grace is dispensed to the purification and 
 salvation of the soul. Otherwise, saving grace does 
 not reach him. It cannot overstep its own bounds, 
 although it can purify and save any sinner who will 
 come within its rules. Now, if infants are not within, 
 the covenant of grace, how in the name of common 
 sense can they be saved by grace ? If they, like im- 
 penitent adults, are out of the covenant of grace, I 
 can see no way for either grace or salvation to reach 
 them. It is plainly absurd to think of grace as op- 
 erating beyond its own covenanted limits, and equally 
 absurd to suppose that infants, by faith and repent- 
 ance, may be brought within the range of divine 
 grace. Then infants must be born within the cov- 
 enant of divine grace, and must remain in that rela- 
 tion until, by personal sin, they forfeit its advantages, 
 or they must be saved without grace, or they must 
 be damned for sins which they never committed ! ! ! 
 One of these alternatives must be taken. If in- 
 fants are born within the covenant of grace, its pro- 
 visions may reach them, and they may be saved. In 
 that case they ought to be baptized ; for even Dr. 
 Howell admits that the covenant of grace " has bap- 
 tism annexed." Whenever adults are converted and 
 become as little children in the covenant of grace 
 
144 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 and kingdom of God, tliey become proper subjects of 
 baptism. They are not baptized to bring them into 
 the covenant, but to testify that they are in. So 
 infants, being within it during their personal inno- 
 cency, should be baptized to testify that they are in it, 
 and are entitled to its benefits until, by voluntary 
 transgression, they forfeit these favors. If infants 
 are holy enough to be saved, they are exactly holy 
 enough to be baptized. The best saint on earth is 
 not released from his fallen nature, until death brings 
 him a discharge. Infants are partakers of the same 
 fallen nature, and death brings to them also a release 
 from the lusts of the flesh, and puts them into a 
 state, where every faculty and every susceptibility 
 of the mind may be developed, expanded and sanc- 
 tified by the Holy Spirit, without the counter work- 
 ings of the flesh, as in the case of the believer who 
 has, through Jesus Christ, won the victory over sin 
 and Satan. As the infiint is not a personal trans- 
 gressor, no personal repentance is necessary. By 
 virtue of Christ's mediatorial rights, having purchas- 
 ed for all the free grace unto justification of life, the 
 infant, though inheriting a fallen nature, is born with- 
 in his kingdom and the operation of his saving grace, 
 purchased by his own blood, and ought to be baptiz- 
 ed as sucb. If he does not live, like Esau, to sell 
 his birthright in this grace, he is saved by it, of 
 course. If he live to act in his own voluntary per- 
 sonality under the influence of his fallen nature, he 
 
EVILS OF DR. PIOV.'ELL. 145 
 
 will disinherit himself by sin ; and before he can 
 again enter into the covenant and kingdom of God's 
 free grace, he must repent and become such as he 
 was when a little child. He then re-enters the king- 
 dom, and if baptized in infanc}^, he surely needs a 
 repetition of the ordinance no more than a h3'-pocrite, 
 who was dipped into some immersion-church, needs 
 again to be dipped when he conies to be truly con- 
 verted. Each merely owns and ratifies the obliga- 
 tion of the act already performed. 
 
 If " infant baptism subverts the doctrine of infant 
 salvation," because it declares the infant then to be 
 in the kingdom of heaven, then adult baptism must 
 subvert the true doctrine of adult salvation by de- 
 claring him also to be at that time in the kingdom. 
 Then, to get an objectionable baptism, we must in- 
 stitute one to declare that the subject is out of the 
 kingdom ; and then have him saved by grace beyond 
 the limits of grace, and that " unconditionally" upon 
 the conditions of Christ's merits and the Spirit's 
 grace ! Woe to such intolerable nonsense. 
 
 Our author, feeling himself unable to meet the 
 argument of Pedo-baptists, goes to the more congenial 
 work of heaping opprobrium on his ojDponents. He 
 says: "Methodists and Presbyterians scarcely know 
 themselves what they believe on the subject" of in- 
 fant baptism. There are two ways of accounting for 
 these words. Either Methodists and Presbyterians 
 are, sure enough; monstrous blockheads, or Dr. How- 
 13 
 
146 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 ell is incompetent to distinguish between blockheads 
 and men of sense. Modesty suggests that this del- 
 icate question be left to the arbitrament of a disin- 
 terested world. 
 
 Dr. H. notices the solemn disavowals of Method- 
 ists and Presbyterians concerning their belief in 
 any regenerating or sanctifying energy of baptism, 
 and thus says ". 
 
 " They will certainly resent the suspicion that 
 they suppose infants may, under an}^ circumstances, 
 be lost. But let an unbaptized child of theirs be 
 sick, and in danger. The utmost trepidation arises. 
 Alarm reigns. Ah ! disguise it as you may, the old 
 superstition is still in their hearts (the hearts of 
 Methodists and Presbyterians). They believe — and 
 they must evince the fact — that there is in baptism 
 some sort of a mysterious, sacramental efficacy, that 
 eifects for good the destiny of the child in another 
 word !" 
 
 And is there no way for Dr. Howell to defend the 
 Dippers without treachery to every principle of hon- 
 or ? A few chapters back, Methodists and Presby- 
 terians were " learned and pious," " intelligent." 
 "evangelical," "spiritual" minded, and "pure" 
 Christian men and women. Now they are such ig- 
 noramuses they " scarcely know themselves what 
 they believe," and so deceitful, withal, that they 
 will even *' resent the suspicion" of holding their real 
 sentiments ! So " pious" and so destitute of truth 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 147 
 
 as to " disguise" their own views ! Waging exter- 
 minating war on Dippers, and j^et so awed by their 
 greatness as to try to conceal from them, by deceit, 
 the sentiments for which they are said to contend ! 
 Ah ! Doctor, " disguise it as you may," you are speak- 
 ing out of the abundance of your own heart ; and 
 you are filled with consternation on meeting the 
 eternal truths of Pedo-baptists, and knowing you 
 never can refute them, you charge upon them such 
 little, silly superstitions as can be exposed by any 
 boy ; and then, proclaiming a victory for yourself, 
 you proceed to your own laudation. We challenge 
 you to put away your petty sectarianism, and come 
 out into the open field of honorable controversy, 
 meeting, like a fearless warrior, the sentiments we ad- 
 vance-, and the arguments we use, without the de- 
 ceitful play before the public of manufacturing, your- 
 self, sentiments and arguments for us, which you 
 deem it easy for you to confute. 
 
 And you can conceive of no way to explain the 
 " trepidation" and '• alarm" of Pedo-baptists, when 
 an unbaptized infant is about to die, except the be- 
 lief " that there is in baptism some sort of sacra- 
 mental efficacy." Why, sir, since I commenced the 
 review of this chapter of your book, such a case oc- 
 curred, and to test the truth of your allegations, I 
 asked the father, who came for me, if he supposed 
 that baptism would have any sanctifying or saving 
 efficacy upon his dying babe. His agonized reply 
 
148 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 was, "Oil! no; but it may liave some on me. I 
 Lave not yet discharged my duty. This infant is 
 the Lord's, and I have not yet by baptism made the 
 proper acknowledgment of this great trutli." Dip- 
 pers suffer no " apprehension," or " alarm'' on such 
 occasions; because they have shut infants out of the 
 covenant of grace, and the kingdom of God; and 
 have, to a fearful extent, hardened their hearts 
 against the tender sympathies of the gospel by ex- 
 cluding, from the kingdom of God and the com- 
 munion of saints, the millions of God's own regen- 
 erated children, who refuse to submit to the human 
 dogma of dipping in green and stagnant ponds, in- 
 stead of the sprinkling of clear water, as the Lord 
 has appointed. — Ez. 36 : 25. 
 
 In the next place, our author tries his skill at 
 perverting the several words of " the Protestant 
 sects." His spite seems more particularly angry at 
 the Westminster Confession of Faith, and to expose 
 his unfairness here, will sufficiently vindicate all. 
 From this book he quotes and argues as follows : 
 
 " The visible church consists of all those through- 
 out the world that profess the true religion, together 
 with their children, and is the kingdom of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of 
 which there is no ordinary possibilitj^ of salvation. 
 It follows, of course, necessarily, that the children 
 of those who do not ' profess' — are not in the church, 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 149 
 
 and for them there is no ordinary possibility of sal- 
 vation." 
 
 Here we may remark that the word " ordinary" 
 means " according to established order." Now, has 
 Christ established it as a rule and order of his 
 kingdom, that all who believe in him, shall confess 
 him before men, separate from the world, and unite 
 with his church ? If so, this is the " ordinary" way 
 of salvation. If others are saved, it is plainly in 
 an extraordinary way. If, then, the declared order 
 of salvation requires believers to unite with the vis- 
 ible church, without excluding from eternal life be- 
 lievers, idiots, or infants, not possessing such advan- 
 tages, then, plainly, the book is right. But if the 
 established order of salvation be out of the church, 
 then, plainly, the book is wrong. Dippers, in con- 
 demning this sentence, seem to favor the doctrine, 
 that the established order of salvation is out of the 
 dvurch^ and, of course, other things being equal, an 
 adult or an infant is safer out of the church than in 
 it ! If this be not the point of the remarks, I do 
 not understand them. 
 
 A few words by way of illustrating the refined 
 manner in which the Dippers speak of others, shall 
 close our review of this chapter : 
 
 " It is affirmed that they do not, especially among 
 us, [our influence is so great,] credit this doctrine of 
 baptismal efficacy, nor believe that baptism is neces- 
 sary to the salvation of infants. If not, they do not 
 13* 
 
150 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 believe their hoolcs ! If not, they do not believe 
 their teachers ! Why do they still hear, and sustain, 
 and obey them ? We have now seen that the whole 
 Pedo-baptist world make the salvation of infants 
 conditional [on baptism]. If Pedo-baptist doctrines 
 on this subject be true, untold millions of infants 
 are damned ! Never did the human mind conceive 
 of doctrines more absurd and revolting." 
 
 This is only a small sample of the stuff found in 
 this chapter. They certainly more resemble the 
 ravings of a bad temper than the sober diction of a 
 gentle follower of the lowly Jesus. The author 
 himself is better informed, and this whole display is 
 for sectarian display, regardless of the judgment of 
 God. 
 
CHAPTEK X. 
 
 " INFANT BAPTISM IS AN EVIL ; BECAUSE IT LEADS ITS ADVOCATES 
 INTO REBELLION AGAINST THE AUTHORITY OF JESUS CHRIST." 
 
 Why, asks the reader, are not Pedo-baptists as 
 obedient to their Lord and Saviour as Immersion- 
 ists ? No, no, say our opponents. We Dippers are 
 the only people on earth who obey Christ. Charity, 
 humility, zeal and meekness are nothing without 
 immersion. No obedience can be rendered without 
 immersion. To be "pious and evangelical" without 
 immersion, is dreadful rebellion. Nothing will do 
 but immersion. But let us see, in the words of our 
 accusers, what rebellion we are guilty of: 
 
 " 1. Infant baptism leads its advocates into re- 
 bellion against the authority of Christ in regard to 
 the persons to be baptized. These are described 
 definitely in the apostolic commission." 
 
 Then let us look closely at each clause of this 
 commission with true intent to find the " definite 
 description." (a) " Go ye into the world." This 
 clause answers the question, where are we all to go ? 
 
152 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 Ads. "Into all the world." (5) "And preach the 
 gospel to every creature." This clause answers three 
 questions. What must we do ? Ans. " Preach." 
 What must we preach ? Ans. " The gospel." To 
 I whom must we preach the gospel ? Ans. " To every 
 creature." 
 
 What is the gospel ? Ans. (c) " He that believ- 
 eth, and is baptized, shall be saved ; but he that be- 
 lieveth not, shall be damned." Then, who are to be 
 
 baptized ? Ans. . Well, then, who are to be 
 
 saved? Ans. " He that believeth, and is baptized." 
 What do you observe in regard to the time of these 
 three facts? Ans. "Is baptized" is in time past, 
 "believeth'' is in time present, and '' shall be saved," 
 in time future, and baptism in the order of time is 
 placed jQrst by the Lord himself; because it always 
 had been administered in infancy. He does not here 
 describe the proper subject of baptism, but the proper 
 subject of salvation. It is an unfounded and incon- 
 siderate assumption, that these words describe the 
 subjects of baptism, [d) The last clause, " But he 
 that believeth not, shall be damned," forbids bap- 
 tism to no one, but describes the qualification for 
 damnation — unbelief And by it the unbeliever 
 shall be damned, whether baptized or not. Even 
 the reputed potency of immersion cannot save him. 
 Then they are rebelling against Christ who enact 
 their own mistakes and thoughtless blunders into 
 laws to govern him and his church. The subjects 
 
EVILS or DR. HOWELL. 153 
 
 of baptism were described long before Christ sent 
 his disciples into all the world ; and he chose to 
 make no change in the ancient law on this subject. 
 He simply gave baptism in charge to them, without 
 defining the qualifications, as thej had already been 
 baptizing under his direction by the rules that had 
 always regulated the ordinance. The ancient rules 
 provide that all shall be baptized who come into the 
 visible church, whether they be infants, unbelievers 
 who profess faith, or true believers, who from the 
 heart abjure sin and Satan. Accordingly, we find 
 that the adult women and their infant children, who 
 came into the house of Jacob after the slaughter of 
 the Shechemites, were baptized before they united ia 
 the visible worship of the God of Abraham.* 
 
 The children of Israel, adult and infimt, were every 
 one baptized unto Moses, at the Red Sea, by God 
 himself, with rain showered upon them, on dry 
 ground, between two walls of ice ; and it was in- 
 tended as an example for our imitation, j- When the 
 kingdom of God was formally organized at Mount 
 Sinai, the adults all solemnl}' professed obedience, 
 saying, "All that the Lord saith, will we hear and 
 do," and Moses, by God's express command, bap- 
 tized the whole nation, infants and adults, and organ- 
 ized them into the visible kingdom of the Lord, when 
 
 * Gen. 34 and 35. f Exod. U: 22; 15: 8- Ps. 11: 17. 
 1 Cor. 10; 1, 6. 
 
154 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 the Lord came down, took the kingdom, and gave 
 laws to the people.* 
 
 The baptism of infants and adults was ever after- 
 wards practiced in the church. When Jesus con- 
 versed with Nicodemus, he declared that no one 
 could enter the visible kingdom except bj baptism. 
 And repeatedly he declared of infants that they were 
 in the kingdom, and, of course, that they had been 
 baptized. Accordingly, when the apostles went out, 
 in obedience to their Lord's great commission, they 
 baptized the households of Lydia and the jailer.f and 
 many others, without a word about professing faith, 
 except by the parents. An adult ought not to be 
 baptized without faith ; because he cannot enter into 
 the kingdom of God without faith ; but an infant, 
 being born spiritually within the kingdom in personal 
 innocency without faith, ought also to be baptized 
 without faith, to place him visibly wlie^e he is really. 
 If he die in infancy, he is saved because .he dies 
 within the kingdom. If he dies out of the kingdom, 
 he must be lost. These principles are so plain to 
 every reader of the Bible, that it is needless to dwell 
 upon them. 
 
 Then, it is plain that the Dippers rebel against 
 Christ in refusing to recognize as members of his 
 kingdom those whom he has plainly commanded them 
 to receive in his name. If we consider the plainness 
 with which this command is given, and the perspicu- 
 * Exod. 19. f Acts, 16. 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 155 
 
 itj with which are recorded so many examples of its 
 fulfilment, it is amazing to view the obstinate preju- 
 dice and blind fanaticism with which it is opposed- 
 How terrible is the rebellion of those who not only 
 break this command, but teach others to condemn it; 
 and foist their own prejudices into the place of 
 Christ's laws ! They shut the kingdom of heaven 
 against infants, and will not allow them a place in it, 
 either visibly or spiritually, and when, by bare shame, 
 they are forced to admit that those dying in infancy- 
 are saved, still they invent for it schemes of their 
 own by which infants are represented as saved by 
 grace, quite out of the covenant of grace, and placed 
 among the redeemed, while they are out of the king- 
 dom of God ! This awkward and foolish philosophy 
 of their own they place before the people as the 
 teaching of divine wisdom ; and thus with " their 
 puerilities," they scandalize Christ and his gospel. 
 They are the " rebels." 
 
 2. " Infant baptism offers an indignity to the au- 
 thority of Christ by dispensing with the appointed 
 profession of faith as a condition of baptism." 
 
 This is a simple begging of the question at issue. 
 Who " appointed " a profession of faith as a " con- 
 dition of baptism" ? Our author gives us no au- 
 thority but his own. In vain we look for it in the 
 apostolic commission. Inspired examples do not 
 sustain the assumption. The Shechemitish infants 
 in the house of Jacob made no profession of faith 
 
156 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 when tliey were made clean to appear before God at 
 Bethel. The infants in the arms of their parents 
 at the Red Sea, whom God, for an example to us, 
 baptized unto Moses, made no such profession. The 
 infants at Mount Sinai whom Moses by baptism sanc- 
 tified, organized with their parents into the visible 
 kingdom of God, made no such profession. Again, 
 and again, they stood before the Lord to enter into 
 covenant with Him, to obey Him and to be His people. 
 All the men of Israel stood with their captains, elders, 
 and officers, theiv little oJies, wives, and strangers, from 
 the hewer of wood to the drawer of water — they all, 
 great and small, entered into covenant with the Lord 
 and were baptized by sprinkling with water as well 
 as blood/* without one word of profession from the 
 infants. 
 
 Lydia's and the jailer's households made no pro- 
 fession of faith, when they were baptized with their 
 parents by the commissioned apostles.j- 
 
 Then go your way with your " appointed condition 
 of baptism," till you learn to talk as the Bible does. 
 You " appoint" your own rules ; and then brand 
 with rebellion against Christ those who refuse to 
 bow to your dictation. Bo you mean to usurp his 
 throne ? Beware, mortal, beware ! Bow to His 
 rule, and give your folly to the winds. 
 
 3. " It also perpetuates the change of form, and 
 thus wholly abolishes baptism itself. This [immer- 
 
 * Deut. 29 : 10, 11. Heb. 9:19. f Acts, 16. 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 157 
 
 bIod] is the form of Christiau baptism. It is the 
 invariable form. Baptism is but a form. The 
 form is the thing. Take away the form and nothing 
 is left. Destro}^ the form and you destroy baptism." 
 
 In all these variations of the very same idea, it is 
 made sufficiently plain that Dippers do not believe, 
 that there is an}^ sense, meaning, or design, in im- 
 mersion. It is nothing — absolutely nothing, but 
 '■' form''^ Take '' form"' away, they say, and no- 
 thing at all remains. Then plainly God never 
 appointed it ; for there is wisdom, signification, 
 illustration, — there is sense and there is mean- 
 ing — there is intention and design. There is light, 
 life, power, to stir the soul — in all of God's ordi- 
 nances. Immersion is a senseless, lifeless thing — 
 nothing '•' but form." It is a body without a soul. 
 It contains no renunciation of Satan, no obligation 
 of obedience to Christ, no death to sin, no burial 
 of the old man, no resurrection to new life, no birth 
 into the visible kingdom. " The form is the thing.. 
 Take away the form and nothing is left." We al- 
 ways knew this was the view of the Dippers ; but we:- 
 had not expected yet to find so bold an avowal of it.. 
 They have been a little reserved on this point here- 
 tofore. But Dr. H. has boldness for anything. If 
 his boldness were placed under the restraints of 
 Christian humility, he might be a noble specimen 
 of humanity. 
 
 Well, the Dippers may continue their soulless, 
 14 
 
158 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 senseless " form," but we shall still adhere to the 
 Scriptural sprinkling of clean water, which, with life, 
 meaning and stirring power, speaks so beautifully of 
 the cleansing blood that sprinkles our hearts from 
 an evil conscience. Dippers may walk the banks of 
 Jordan and stare at their own image in the water ; 
 but our eyes shall be turned to the Hermon of glory, 
 whence comes the spirit of life like the refreshing 
 dews of heaven. And it is set down as an evil for 
 which infant baptism is to answer, that it excludes a 
 senseless form, that has nothing at all in it ! This 
 is a praise instead of a fault. 
 
 Our author further says : 
 
 " To immerse infants would be, to say the least, 
 very inconvenient, and not always, perhaps, entirely 
 safe." 
 
 Yes, everybody knows that ; and it is an un- 
 answerable argument against immersion. The God 
 of mercy never did appoint as an ordinance of re- 
 ligion a senseless form, that would endanger the 
 life of those that are by it to have a visible entrance 
 into His kingdom. And Dippers, for pure love of a 
 mere form, without sense or design, will exclude 
 from the kingdom of Grod those who belong to it by 
 the solemn declaration of Christ ! They know that 
 if they admit them to be in the covenant of grace, 
 they must baptize them ; because that " covenant 
 has baptism annexed " They know that if infants be 
 in the kingdom of God, they must be baptized ; 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 159 
 
 because tliey cannot visibl}- enter it except they be 
 " born of water." So, for the sake of immersion, a 
 mere form^ they dispense with baptism altogether, 
 and exclude infants from the covenant of grace and 
 the kingdom of God. Immersion is evil, and only 
 evil, and that continually. What a pity that God's 
 people should cling to such an evil ! a dead/o/-;?i — 
 an invention for exclusiveness. 
 
 4. " Infant baptism prevents the obedience to 
 Christ of believers." 
 
 And how, pray, does it do that ? Why, they re- 
 fuse to desecrate baptism with a mere form desti- 
 tute alike of sense and design. Where has Christ 
 required believers or anybody else to practice im- 
 mersion, or any other senseless yb/v?^ ? 
 
 With the exception of the usual flings, jibes, and 
 sneers, the foregoing items include the whole matter 
 of this chapter. 
 
CHAPTER XI. 
 
 "infant baptism 13 AN EVIL; BECAUSE OF THE CONNECTION 
 IT ASSUMES WITH THE MORAL AND RELIGIOUS TRAINING OF 
 CHILDEEN." 
 
 After a careful study of this chapter we are un- 
 able to see any definite object which the author 
 would have placed before his mind. There is no 
 show of argument. He seems to us to have turned 
 his pen loose, and rattled along at random, caring 
 nothing for what he said. Meagre as it is, we must 
 take it. It is the best they can give, all that we can 
 get. 
 
 1. We have a dish of Baltimore statistics, pur- 
 porting to show the relative numbers of conver- 
 sions in Sunday Schools conducted by the several 
 churches in that city, in which the Dippers claim 
 the banner, of course. This argument (pardon the 
 abuse of the word) is an attempt to settle a doc- 
 trinal question by statistics, got up by a party for 
 their own jDurposes, in a single city ! It leaves the 
 Bible out of the question ; and, when reduced to 
 logical form, runs thus : 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 161 
 
 Whatever is done iu Baltimore is authoritative 
 for Christendom, 
 
 But in Baltimore the Dippers excelled all others ; 
 Therefore infant baptism is a nullity ! Bravo ! 
 
 2. In the baptism of children, so far as we know, 
 Christian parents publicly declare their purpose of 
 training up their " children in the nurture and ad- 
 monition of the Lord." This our author thinks is 
 extremely frivolous. He says, '- And what do they 
 vow ? Why, that they will really do what God 
 Almighty has commanded them to do !" He then 
 proceeds to sneer at the idea, that Christians will 
 vow to fulfil their obligations. What does he 
 mean ? Men of God in ail ages have vowed. What 
 would he have us to vow % If we must not vow to 
 do our dut}', we must either vow to do wrong, or not 
 vow at all. Paul had a vow upon him at Cenchrea. 
 Did he vow to do something wrong, or to do his 
 duty % The Dippers may answer that. 
 
 3. Finally, our author says, " Infant baptism 
 leads, in moral and religious training, directly into 
 deception regarding the way of salvation. Other 
 sinners may require to be born again ; but these 
 have been purified by baptism. They are not ex- 
 horted to personal religion ; but warned against per- 
 sonal apostasy ;" with a great deal of the same kind. 
 
 He shall answer this slander himself. On page 
 140 he contradicts every word of this foul Billings- 
 gate. He there says : 
 
 14* 
 
163 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 *• They [Pedo-baptists] preach to all alike, and 
 boldly declare to sinners of every class, that if they 
 arc saved at all, it must be alone by the grace of 
 Grockr in Jesus Christ our Lord, whom they can ap- 
 proach only as penitent believers^ and whose Spirit 
 must renew and sanctify their hearts^ 
 
 There is Dr. Howell versus Dr. Howell ; and he 
 may settle the quarrel he has got up with himself, 
 as best he can. 
 
jDHAPTEE XII. 
 
 "INFANT BAPTISM IS AN EVIL; BECAL'SE IT IS THE GRAND 
 FOUNDATION UPON WHICH RESTS THE UNION OF CnUECH AND 
 STATE. " 
 
 This chapter is really the poorest thing purport- 
 ing to be an argument that we ever have read. It 
 consists merely of quotations from history, with 
 broad and sweeping assertions. We must give a 
 few examples to show the public what sort of attack 
 satisfies our opponents : 
 
 1. The first position to prove that infant baptism 
 " is the grand foundation upon which rests the union 
 of Church and State, is the fact that all State 
 churches have practiced infant baptism. 
 
 Every one can see at a glance, that it would 
 be just as logical to conclude that infant baptism 
 is the grand instrumentality for keeping every 
 man's head on his shoulders ; for every individual 
 who was ever known to practice that ordinance 
 did have a head. It is but a few years since the 
 Dippers warned the people, that the Bible Society 
 would unite Church and State. Then came the 
 
164 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 work of Sunday Schools, and they were almost con-, 
 vulsed with fear for the liberties of the country. 
 Then came Education and Missionary Societies, 
 when the Dippers grew frantic, and declaimed with 
 vehemence against the dangerous institutions. But 
 when Temperance began to close the doggeries, 
 one could not repress sympathy on 'hearing their 
 doleful lamentations. Liberty was gone ! Church 
 and State almost united ; and the earnest creatures 
 really seemed to believe it ! But finding themselves 
 unable to stay the flood of light and liberty, and 
 having excommunicated many of their best members 
 for uniting in these noble institutions, they at last 
 fell in, and went quietly to work with others ; and 
 seem already to have forgotten their old croaking. 
 Some State churches practice dipping. Is dipping, 
 then, the " grand foundation upon which rests the 
 union of Church and State" ? • 
 
 Again, " He who defends infant baptism, defends 
 the union of Church and State. Destroy infant 
 baptism and you destroy the union of Church and 
 State." 
 
 We are opposed to the establishment of any 
 Church by State authority or legislation. But we 
 ardently hope to see the State and Church in a 
 glorious " union" governed by the laws of Christ, 
 whose kingdom shall so fill the earth as that the 
 State will be last in the blessed union. 
 
 To make the Church dependent on the State, or 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 165 
 
 the State dependent on the Church is wicked ; but 
 to unite these two institutions of God under the reign 
 of Great Immanuel, will be the consummation of 
 the latter-day glory. When that glory comes, ac- 
 cording to Dr. Howell's own showing, infant bapti.sm 
 must everywhere prevail. If he were as much op- 
 posed to State establishments as to the blessed 
 '• union" of the two into one happy organization, ap- 
 plying no laws but Christ's, he would be a pretty 
 orthodox American. 
 
 That happy " union" will come in spite of Dip- 
 pers and immersion, and then all the children will 
 grow up in the church, and they will never learn 
 anything else but to be in the church ; because Satan 
 shall be bound, and the Dippers will be converted 
 to sprinkling clean water just as sure as Ezekiel's 
 prophecy is the truth of God. Then there will be 
 none to molest or destroy in all the mountain of the 
 Lord. 
 
 Why, it would be no worse in me to try to prove 
 that famine is caused by the Dippers in abusing the 
 water ; because famines have more or less prevailed 
 in " every country" where Dippers are found ! This 
 is really all we find in the twelfth chapter. Wherever 
 he finds State establishments, he finds infant bap- 
 tism ; therefore, infant baptism produces State es- 
 tablishments. The sun also shines wherever it is 
 practiced ; is it the cause of sunshine ? 
 
CHAPTEE XIII. 
 
 " INFANT BAPTISM IS AN EVIL ; BECAUSE IT LEADS TO RELIGIOXTg 
 PERSECUTIONS." 
 
 This is a long chapter ; but the whole argument 
 is comprehended in one proposition. Infant baptism 
 is made responsible for every evil that existed in all 
 the countries where it existed. A more vicious 
 mode of reasoning never was adopted. Every one 
 at all acquainted with the history of persecution, 
 knows that it alwa^^s sprung out of contracted bigotry 
 entirely independent of any forms of baptism. Nor 
 are the martyrs free from blame. They were often 
 as bigoted as their persecutors ; and would have per- 
 secuted, if they had possessed the requisite power. 
 They often coveted persecution as a means of enrol- 
 ling their names among the martyrs. By many, to 
 be persecuted and slain for their religion, was deemed 
 to be the highest attainment in Christian perfection. 
 Others thought they verily did God service in ex- 
 terminating heretics from the earth. Both were in 
 error. Greater meekness in the persecuted would 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 167 
 
 often have allayed the fury of the persecutors, and 
 more forbearance from those in power would some- 
 times have won over to unity those who were put to 
 death for their obstinacy. 
 
 " The first argument " adduced in the chapter be- 
 fore us, to prove that " infant baptism leads to re- 
 ligious persecutions," is in these words : " It brings 
 into the church the whole population of the country 
 where it prevails. All are baptized and admitted to 
 membership ;" and of course will just go to killing 
 one another ! 
 
 On this puerile jibe, I remark : 
 
 1. It is not true in point of fact. If we begin 
 with the first mention of the ordinance, and follow 
 the history of the church down to the present day, 
 we shall not be able in a single country, even where 
 it has prevailed, to find " the v/hole population " in 
 the church. It is astounding that any man should 
 venture on such an assertion. 
 
 2. If the assertion were true, it is impossible to 
 conceive what would induce the people to persecute 
 one another on account of a rite in which they are all 
 agreed. There is nothing to persecute for. There 
 must of necessity be a difference before persecution 
 can exist. 
 
 3. In the very terms of this proposition there is a 
 contradiction as palpable as if he had said, '• Where 
 the people are all united, and agree in the same views, 
 there must of necessity be division, strife and murder." 
 
1G8 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 4. In support of this argument our author refers 
 to the persecutions in the days of Constantine. But 
 our author and every one else must know that infant 
 baptism had not the remotest connection with the 
 persecutions of those times. He himself admits that 
 " infant baptism became general " at that time, and 
 of course it could not result in persecution. Be- 
 sides, it is not once mentioned as a cause of persecu- 
 tion. The persecutions of these and subsequent 
 times were the fruit of attempts to bring men to 
 miiformity of views, not on the subject of inf^mt 
 baptism in which they were " generally agreed ;" but 
 on the subject of the power of the emperor and the 
 bishops in ecclesiastical matters. The men of faith 
 appealed to the "Word of God as the sole authority in 
 determining what duties and what homage man is to 
 render to God. The party possessing pagdn sympa- 
 thies were not brought into the church by infant 
 baptism, but by the victory of Constantine over 
 Licinius. They claimed for the emperor and the 
 priesthood the power of enacting by statutory laws, 
 what should be the faith, the worship of the people. 
 Those who loved the Word of God would not, could 
 not^ yield such power to man. It gives the creature 
 preference to the Creator. It is idolatry. These 
 principles have formed the ground- work of all the 
 persecutions waged by one nominally Christian party 
 against another. The party in power have ever 
 claimed the authority to direct by law the faith, duty 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 1G9 
 
 and worship, wliicli the other party are to yield to 
 God. Infant baptism has caused no persecutions, 
 has contributed to the formation of no such opinions, 
 and nothing can be more superstitious than to 
 ascribe the persecuting spirit in the man to the 
 sprinkling of a few drops of water into the face of 
 the babe. It is as weak as it would be in me to 
 ascribe the persecuting spirit to immersion, which 
 began to spread considerably about the time to 
 which Dr. H. refers. The doctrines of the trinity, 
 universalism, praying to the saints, &c , &c., were 
 also prevailing to some considerable extent at the 
 same time. Why not refer persecution to them, or 
 some of them, as fairly as to infant baptism ? 
 Co-existende is not causation. 
 
 In the next place our author raises a mournful 
 wail over the poor Dippers, who " were hunted down 
 and destroyed like wild beasts." This is but too 
 true ; in a different sense, however, from that here 
 presented. The Dippers in the sixteenth century, 
 to which he refers, were so much like " wild beasts," 
 that it became necessary to destroy them to j>reveut 
 the destruction of civil society. 
 
 They then, as in more modern times, despised the 
 written Word of God, and claimed to have immediate 
 inspiration by the Holy Spirit. Some of them then, as 
 recently, actually '• burnt the New Testament," alleg- 
 ing that " The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." 
 Tens of thousands are now living who have heard 
 15 
 
170 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 them declare how God spoke audibly to them on 
 various subjects, and how He called them to preach 
 the Gospel. Three hundred 3'ears ago they used the 
 very words which are yet in the mouths of their 
 brethren. They constantly proclaimed as a truth 
 unknown to Pedo-baptists, that there is " one bap- 
 tism," and "but one." Then they cried to Pedo- 
 baptists, " AYoe, woe, woe !" as one of their number, 
 stripped naked, did in New England, in the public 
 congregation on Sunday, in the days of the persecu- 
 tion of Dippers in the " colonies." She — for it was a 
 woman ! was smartly persecuted with rods on her 
 bare back for her Christian delicacy ! As now, so 
 then, they proclaimed " the baptism of adult be- 
 lievers only." " Infant baptism," they said, " is a 
 horrible abomination, a flagrant impiety, invented 
 by the wicked spirit, and by Nicholas IT., Pope of 
 Home." The Dippers still say it is a popish inven- 
 tion, " defended by Origen " nearly three hundred 
 years before the first pope was seated in the chair ! 
 They then, as now, exhorted everybody that had 
 been baptized in infancy to come forward and " re- 
 ceive at their hands the true baptism" [immersion]. 
 They said. " "We must form a church composed of 
 saints only," infants not being " saints." I have 
 thus, briefly, in their own words, given their distin- 
 guishing views, that all may know that they agree 
 with Dippers of this generation and this country. 
 They of our day sometimes disown their brethren of 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 171 
 
 tlie sixteenth century, when their deeds are brought 
 to light. In this case it will be hard to escape ; for 
 Dr. H. not only endorses the company, but names 
 and approves several prominent individuals of them, 
 viz. : Mantz, Grebel, Blourock, Koubli, Brodtlein, 
 Herjer, &c. 
 
 Let us now set Dr. H. right in a few particulars, 
 and then we shall be ready to inquire into the per- 
 secutions which these " poor creatures endured." 
 
 1, Dr. H. represents the Dippers as saying to the 
 assembled people, " Give us the Word of God, and 
 not the word of Zuingle. Do you keep the doctrines 
 of Zuingle ; as for us, we will keep the Word of God." 
 These, truly, are the words of the Dippers ; but they 
 are here made to mean a very different thing from that 
 which they intended. By " the AVord of God" they 
 meant not the Bible, which '• they burnt ;" but the 
 " inward revelation " received by them from the 
 Holy Spirit. Zuingle's was the written word. 
 
 2. He represents the Dippers as reminding the 
 reformers of their own doctrines about the purity of 
 the church, when Zuingle pettishly answered, '• It 
 is impossible to make heaven on earth. Christ has 
 taught us to let the tares grow among the wheat." 
 These words of Zuingle were in answer to the words 
 of Grebel, " Let us found a church in which there 
 shall be no svi^ Grebel was one of the Dippers 
 who despised the written word, and boasted of the 
 inward word, delivered by the spirit ; and so far was 
 
172 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 lie deceived, as to suppose that from the moment of 
 immersion, he and his brethren lived " without sin." 
 That is the thing to which Zuingle " pettishly 
 answered," as Dr. H. would have it. 
 
 3. Dr. H. laments dolefully over " fourteen men 
 and seven women who were arrested " at Zurich, 
 " and imprisoned on an allowance of bread and water 
 in the heretics' tower. After a fortnight's confine- 
 ment, by removing some planks in the floor, they 
 managed to effect their escape during the night. But 
 Dr. H. omits to tell his readers how these brethren 
 of his lied to the people, saying, " An angel had 
 opened the prison and led them forth" ! 
 
 Come Dr., you claim these men as our [your] 
 " bretliren," and you must tell the '' whole truth." 
 
 4. Dr. H. says : '' The council [of Zurich] over- 
 come in argument, and put to shame by truth, now 
 resorted to other measures. They condemned Mantz 
 to be drowned, and the sentence was immediately 
 executed. Blourock was scourged with rods, and 
 banished by the ^nous Froteslants.'^'' 
 
 It is true that these two Dippers were treated as 
 here described ; but the cause of it was very different 
 from that here assigned. These " brethren " of Dr. 
 Howell, " maintaining, that the Lord had exhorted 
 them to become like little children — began to clap 
 their hands [at the close of Zuingle's discourse] and 
 skip about in the streets, to dance in a ring, sit on 
 the ground, and tumble each other about. Some 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 173 
 
 burnt the New Testament — others falling into con- 
 vulsions, pretended to have revelations from the 
 Holy Ghost." They proclaimed death and destruc- 
 tion to their Pedo-baptist neighbors, frightened the 
 ignorant, and disturbed continually the public peace. 
 One Thomas Schucker, a member of the fraternity, 
 put some gall into a bladder, and proclaimed to his 
 brother Leonard, " Thus bitter is the death thou art 
 to' suffer." He then in a sepulchral voice said, 
 " Brother Leonard kneel down." Leonard knelt. 
 Then, "Brother Leonard, arise." Leonard stood 
 up. The whole company were now at the highest 
 pitch of excitement. But Thomas assured them 
 that " nothing will happen but the will of the Father," 
 He commanded his brother again to kneel down, 
 and while his brother was kneeliog before him, he 
 caught up a sword, and with one violent blow severed 
 his head from his body, exclaiming : " Now the will 
 of the Father is accomplished." The Dippers 
 allowed him to escape, but justice overtook him at 
 St. Gall. They kept society in a ferment with their 
 disorderly conduct, and by discarding the Bible, and 
 proclaiming their own inspiration, proclaiming also 
 the " day of the Lord," and the judgment of all who 
 would not be immersed. The civil authorities arrested 
 them. But " when they were summoned before the 
 tribunals, they declared they did not recognize tJie 
 civil authority.'''' As Mantz, one of the leaders, was 
 particularly noisy about immersion, they sentenced 
 15* 
 
174 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 him " to be drowned." Blouroek, the other leader, 
 was not so forward as Mantz, and he was scourged 
 with rods. 
 
 But as the Dippers raise a wail so sorrowful, loud 
 and long for their poor, persecuted brethren, let us 
 inquire still further into this matter. They pro- 
 claimed " infant baptism a horrible abomination," 
 and said, '' We must form a church composed of 
 saints only." One of them, George Jacob, said to 
 the people, " I am the door. Whosoever entereth by 
 me shall find pasture. I am the good shepherd. 
 My body I give to the prison ; my life I give to the 
 sword, the stake, or the wheel. I am the beginning 
 of the baptism and the bread of the Lord." They 
 proclaimed to their followers : " We must fall upon 
 every ungodly practice, and overthrow them all in a 
 day." They forthwith entered the churches, pillaged 
 them, and can'ied away what they chose, and broke 
 or burnt the rest. God, they said, required them to 
 do all this. They everywhere declared that they 
 were taught inwardly by the Holy Ghost, and had 
 no need of the written Word. 
 
 Dr. Howell says, that the Reformers themselves 
 at first hesitated, and so they did, like wise men, 
 until they examined these extraordinary pretensions. 
 As soon, however, as they found by the written Word 
 of God, that these besotted bigots were the dupes 
 of their own fanaticism, they hesitated no longer. 
 On this occasion Melancthon said, '' On the one hand, 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 175 
 
 let US beware of quencliing the spirit of God, and on 
 the other, of being led away bj the spirit of Satan." 
 While the Dippers were carrying destruction all 
 around, Luther said, in reference to them, " I will 
 preach, discuss and write ; but I will constrain none ; 
 for faith is a voluntary act." Yet Dr. Howell rep- 
 resents these Dippers as the fathers of religious 
 liberty, and says they were persecuted by Luther 
 and Melancthon ! 
 
 Because the reformers practiced infant baptism 
 according to the convictions they received from the 
 written Word of God, the Dippers accused them of 
 " forming churches that were not pure and holy." 
 They gave way to all the intoxication of fanaticism, 
 and cried, '• Tlie Spirit ! the Spirit ! and spoke only 
 of an internal revelation from God," disregarding 
 the authority of " the written Word." They de- 
 clared themselves authorized by God himself to 
 destroy all who were opposed to tliem, and to estab- 
 lish a pure church of believers only ; and they got up 
 furious mobs to destroy both Church and State. 
 Some of the civil rulers now thought of punishing 
 their wickedness ; but Luther said, " Let them 
 preach what they please, for it is the Word of God 
 that must march in front of the battle, and fight 
 against them." The Dippers cared nothing for the 
 Word of God. They had a word in themselves, 
 which they believed to be far more authoritative 
 than the Bible. Nor did they stop with mobs and 
 
176 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 threats. The}^ carried fire and sword over tlie land. 
 Luther then said to the civil rulers : " If you do 
 not put a mad dog to death, you will perish, and all 
 the country with you." This is what Dr. Howell 
 calls persecution ! He would be willing to have 
 these fanatical Dippers to have killed every one who 
 would not submit to immersion. They did butcher 
 thousands; but he is not satisfied with that, but 
 complains that they were persecuted, because they 
 were not sufiered to devastate the whole country. 
 Here are the words of the Dippers on this occasion : 
 " Like Joshua, we must put all the Canaanites 
 [Pedo-baptists] to death." They made one of their 
 number king, to rule in the name of the Lord, and 
 issued a proclamation, of which the following is a sam- 
 ple : " How long will you sleep ? Arise, and fight 
 the battle of the Lord. The time is come. On, 
 on, on I Draw, draw, draw ! Heed not the groans 
 of the impious ones [Pedo-baptists]. They will im- 
 plore you like children ; but be pitiless. Draw, 
 draw, draw! The fire is burning; let your sword 
 be ever warm with blood. Draw, draw, draw I" 
 These, reader, are the words of these poor, meek, 
 gentle Dippers, who were so " cruelly persecuted " 
 and "liunted down and destroyed like wild beasts." 
 The Dippers drove furiously onward. Fire, blood 
 and carnage marked their path. The mild and pious 
 elector, Frederick, desired to reclaim these deluded 
 fanatics, and was willing to make concessions to 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 177 
 
 pacify tbeir wrath ; but nothing would do. They 
 had a revelation from God by the Holy Spirit to 
 destroy the Canaanites, and they were determined to 
 obey the call of God. Even on the day of battle, 
 when a rainbow appeared over them, the leaders 
 assured them that this was a token from God that 
 victory would that day perch on their standard. 
 They madly persisted, rejecting every overture, till 
 many of their followers were slain, the leaders be- 
 headed, and the rest routed and scattered. After 
 all this, it is no wonder if civil rulers for a long time 
 watched their movements with suspicion, and even 
 kept them under wholesome restraint. These were 
 dark da3's for humanity. We never thought of hold- 
 ing the Dippers of the present day responsible for all 
 the outrages and the fanaticism of their fathers in 
 these dark times. But if Dr. Howell and his two 
 publication societies become the apologists of these 
 fanatics, and attempt to charge on infant baptism as 
 persecution the reduction of these lawless murderers 
 to order in civil society, they must expect to be ex- 
 posed for their folly. And should they persist in 
 their advocacy of these disturbers of the peace, just 
 because they practiced immersion and opposed infant 
 baptism, they must not wonder if they excite the 
 vigilance of those in this free country, who know the 
 price of liberty. He represents the Dippers as the 
 fathers of American Liberty ! when all the country 
 knows that, at the time of the revolution, the Dip- 
 
178 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 pers did not form a tithe of a tithe in the population ! 
 They the fathers of American liberty! They, in 
 common with all others, love to enjoy it. Nor had 
 we suspected them of any feelings inimical to it ; but 
 a few such chapters as this would bring us to a seri- 
 ous pause. We had not supposed that one man in 
 our country would appear as the advocate of the ex- 
 travagances or the persecutions of the dark times that 
 have gone before Christianity has made great progress 
 in all its evangelical denominations, and light has in- 
 creased. These advantages have resulted from the la- 
 bors of no single denomination ; but each has brought 
 its contribution. How contemptible and puerile, then, 
 for one to come forward claiming for itself all the 
 praise of the ameliorated condition of the world ! 
 It is unworthy of the age in which we live ! It is a 
 mournful proof that the Dippers are still behind the 
 times. May God grant them the understanding of 
 His written Word, as well as the inward enlighten- 
 ing of His Spirit, and the proper discernment of the 
 signs of the times ! 
 
CHAPTEE XIY. 
 
 "IKFANT BAPTISiT IS AX EYIL ; BECAUSE IT IS CONTRARY 
 TO THE PRINCIPLES OF CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM." 
 
 A FEW extracts will exhibit the whole strength of 
 this chapter : 
 
 " Infoiit baptism is the first step in the process, 
 which soon enslaves the mind, and throughout after- 
 life leads captive all its powers. The child, without 
 its knowledge or consent, has been subjected to the 
 ordinance, in which he makes a profession of re- 
 ligion.'' 
 
 On page 206 of this work the author says : " In- 
 fant baptism offers an indignity to the authority of 
 Christ, by dispensing with the appointed profession 
 of faith." Here he says, that in it the infant " makes 
 a profession of religion." There the Doctor is again 
 at fiiult with himself; and, as it is no part of our 
 busine-ss to reconcile his conflicting statements, we 
 leave this work to some leisure hour of his own 
 study. 
 
 But what is that terrible " process " of which in- 
 
180 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 fant baptism is tlie " first step " ? Why, it is tlie 
 training of the child in the religious views of the 
 parent. Dr. H. says, " Infant baptism places men 
 in this condition," where they are subjected to be 
 trained in the religious views of their parents ! This 
 is a very great mistake ; for everybody knows that it is 
 hy hirtli children come under the control of their 
 parents. If, then, the Dippers are opposed to hav- 
 ing children under the control of their parents, they 
 must publish a book against our being born of our 
 parents, and try to persuade the people to be born 
 of some one else than parents, or not to be born at 
 all ! If parents abuse their power, and enslave the 
 minds of their children, let them^ and not bajJtism^ 
 answer for it. Facts would show that there arc more 
 people perfectly free who were baptized in infancy, 
 than who were immersed in adult age. 
 
 Again : " Infant baptism is at the foundation of 
 the slavery of the nations No choice is left to the 
 child." 
 
 It is very superstitious to suppose that baj^tism, 
 administered at any time of life, will take away the 
 power of choice. But if simple baptism, with a few 
 drops of water on an infant, will deprive him ever 
 afterwards of the power of choice, one might fairly 
 conclude that immersion would destroy choice and 
 reason both in an adult ; and there are some facts 
 that have a squinting that way. 
 
 Still again: " His church is selected for him; he 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 181 
 
 is bound hand and foot in hopeless slavery.*' Yes, 
 poor fellow, and the half is not told ; for he has no 
 chance of choosing the family, the country, or the 
 state, in which he is to be born and reared. If 
 many a poor child were permitted to choose his own 
 parents, many, no doubt, would be born in different 
 circumstances ! And then the dear little creatures 
 are sent to what school, and taught what branches, 
 tlie parent pleases ! Ah, Doctor, this is a terribly 
 enslaved world ; and none are more abject than those 
 who are under the iron dominion of prejudice, and 
 partyism, and bigotry. They lose their eyes with 
 their liberty. 
 
 A fourth time : '• In America, the very atmosphere 
 we breathe is essentially anti-Pedobaptistic," and 
 that infant baptism " has not its full effect among 
 us, is attributable mainly, if not wholly, to the Bap. 
 tist element which everywhere so strongly pervades 
 the public mind." 
 
 What puerile bravado ! Why, a single denomina- 
 tion of Pedo baptists — the Methodists — far outnum- 
 bers them. Their influence is nearly twice as great. 
 Then, the other Pedo-baptist denominations can 
 outnumber them, perhaps, twice again; and yet the 
 '- Baptist element " is so very prevalent, that the vital 
 air is impregnated with so strong an anti-Pedo-bap- 
 tist miasm as almost to suffocate independence of 
 thought ! Such vanity and egotism must soon illus- 
 trate the principle that '^ pride goeth before destruc- 
 16 
 
182 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 tion, and a hauglitj spirit before a fall." Are Dip- 
 pers, in such conceited boasts, meditating the meas- 
 ures of former times, when they thought to awe the 
 world into acquiescence in their infiillibility under 
 the inspiration of the Holy Spirit ! Let them try 
 their old game, and they shall soon see whether they 
 can carry by force what their arguments fail to 
 achieve. 
 
CHAPTER XY. 
 
 "infant baptism is an evil; because it enfeebles the 
 
 POWER OF the church TO COMBAT ERROR," 
 
 This chapter is another long one, with almost no- 
 thing in it. Some assertions, assumptions, and 
 charges without proof, a ramble over the old ground 
 of persecution, and a braggart peroration, make up 
 the chapter. It is amazing that any Christian should 
 turn from the Bible to the vicious abuses of its doc- 
 trines among men of corrupt minds, in order to con- 
 fute its teachings. The simple question before us is, 
 Does the Bible authorize infant baptism ? If bad 
 men practiced the baptism of their infants, the same 
 men also observed the Lord's supper. Nor did they 
 abuse infant baptism more than the other ordinance. 
 But their abuse of the one, or the other ordinance, 
 forms no argument against either. The fact merely 
 proves that they are bad men, not that these are bad 
 doctrines or bad ordinances. 
 
 Again : If persecution waged by Pedo-baptists 
 forms an argument against infant baptism, then the 
 
184 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 torrents of blood which the Dippers of the sixteenth 
 century caused to flow, must furnish a very deep, dark, 
 red argument against immersion ! But when we ar- 
 gue against immersion, we do not introduce the ig- 
 norance, bigotry, superstition, and blood-shed of its 
 devotees in different ages. The argument would be 
 invalid. We never appeal to these facts but to place 
 the Dippers in the very position in which they at- 
 tempt to place us, so as to open their eyes to the value 
 of their own argument. If we must answer for all 
 tbe bad behavior of those who have practiced in- 
 fant baptism, then, plainly on the same principle, they 
 must answer for all the atrocious wickedness of those 
 who have practiced immersion. If the corrupt Latin 
 church practiced infant baptism, it must be remem- 
 bered that the corrupt Greek church practiced both 
 infant baptism and immersion. So the Dippers, on 
 their own principles of argument, are held to a 
 double responsibility for atrocities and villanies as 
 deep and dark as hell itself They must see that 
 they are undermining a mountain, and the sooner 
 they succeed the sooner they must be crushed be- 
 neath its massive rocks. 
 
 Having offered these remarks on the general prin- 
 ciples of this chapter, Ave now propose very briefly to 
 review a few only of those unworthy jibes in which 
 Dr. Howell is so prolific : 
 
 "Infant baptism, whenever operating without re- 
 straint, inevitably corrupts the communities that 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 185 
 
 practice it." To this bold assertion we oppose the 
 pure and staid morality, intelligence, and virtue of 
 Scotland, New England, and Pedo -baptists generally. 
 We declare that in the practice of infant baptism in 
 this free country we have felt none of the imagined 
 *' restraint" of the self-conceited Dippers ; and we 
 are ready any day to compare moral standing with 
 them by exhibiting equal numbers of families on 
 each side of the question from any part of our ex- 
 tended country. 
 
 Dr. H. says that at the time of the reformation 
 the Dippers " were found in every place, gallantly 
 battling in the cause." No; they were " gallantly 
 battling " for their own infallibility under the imme- 
 diate inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and as " valiant- 
 ly battling" against the written Word of God^ and 
 the civil rights of their opponents, as we have al- 
 ready shown. 
 
 Again : " The reformation has proved a failure." 
 Croakers have been uttering that a long time ; but in 
 what is its failure ? It has failed to establish im- 
 mersion, the infallibility of the Pope, the inspiration 
 of Dippers, and many other things which it never 
 undertook. But it has not failed to diffuse the Bible, 
 religion, civilization, science, liberty, and literature, 
 the things at which it had ever aimed. What have 
 the Dippers achieved in these several departments ? 
 
 Dr. H. represents all the Pedo-baptists as yielding 
 the question of the Scriptural authority of infant 
 16* 
 
186 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 baptism. This, we suppose, must have been intended 
 io raise the horrors of those of his own party who 
 happen to live in corners remote from the light; and 
 be no doubt hopes that being of his own party they 
 will forgive him for saying in the former part of his 
 book, that they all appeal to the Scriptures in sup- 
 port of this doctrine. 
 
 " The doctrine of hereditary claims to the cov- 
 enant of grace is an appalling abuse among Presby- 
 terians and Calvinists generally." So says Dr. H. 
 But as he has no more authority to assert this than 
 bis " brethren" of the sixteenth century had to as- 
 sert their own infallibility, and as we have as much 
 authority to deny as he has to affirm^ a simple de- 
 nial will be a sufficient reply to this " appalling" as- 
 sumption. 
 
 These are poor materials for an argument to prove 
 that infant baptism " enfeebles the power of the 
 church to combat error ;" but this is all we find^ 
 and being the best the Dippers can offer in a region 
 so scanty of materials, they must be excused for do- 
 ing no better. 
 
CHAPTER XYI. 
 
 "infant baptism is an evil; because it injures the CREDrr 
 OF religion with reflecting men of the world." 
 
 Our Doctor's "reflecting men" are those pseudo- 
 philosophers — free-thinkers — who are governed more 
 bj their own reason than bj '• the wisdom which is 
 from above." They are represented as being oifend- 
 ed by the simple rite of infant baptism, which " in- 
 jures the credit of religion among reflecting men of 
 the world." Perhaps the doctor has not been inform- 
 ed that the same men are equally offended, when they 
 see " men and women taking a mere pinch of bread 
 and a small sup of wine" in commemoration of the 
 Saviour's death, '• as if any one could believe that 
 such a thing can make them holy." The doctor and 
 his " reflecting men of the world" must learn to lay 
 their pride and reason at the foot of the cross before 
 any of them can be saved. When God commands, 
 we shall not wait to ask what " reflecting men of the 
 world" will think of us if we obey. They must yield 
 to Godj not God to them. And pray, what is done 
 
188 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 to the honor of religion when '' reflecting men of the 
 world" see Christian pastors courting their approba- 
 tion in order to swell their party numbers ? Such a 
 church may have a name, a form, and numbers, and 
 " worldly" laudation ; but piety can flourish only 
 where the Will of God is supreme. 
 
 But let the Doctor tell us how infant baptism thus 
 "injures the credit of religion among reflecting men 
 of the world." 
 
 " It does so, in the first place, because it is really 
 in itself irrational." 
 
 Well, this is assuming a great deal. Are Dr. H., 
 Dippers, and "reflecting men of the world," the only 
 creatures that God has endowed with reason ? How 
 exquisitely modest in them to condemn as " irration- 
 al" all the great lights which have shined in Pedo- 
 baptist churches ! The highest wisdom that we have 
 discovered, is to obey Him who commands us to re- 
 ceive little children in His name, and who tells us 
 of but one way to place his name on any one by 
 baptism. Until Dr. H. can tell another way of trans- 
 ferring the name of Christ, he may pay his homage 
 to "reflecting men of the world;" but Jesus shall 
 have ours. 
 
 " In the second place, infant baptism injures the 
 credit of religion because it is practiced without any 
 authority" ! ! 
 
 This is a mistake, for the Apostle Paul, in the 
 tenth chapter of his first epistle to the Corinthians, 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 189 
 
 declares that their " fathers were all baptized" at the 
 Red Sea, and this, among other things, was intended 
 as an example for our instruction and imitation ; and 
 Moses says that at the time of this model baptism 
 they had among them little " ones." Now, if some 
 of them were little children, and they were all — 
 every one — baptized, and that by a divine example 
 for us to follow, with what face can it be said that 
 " it is practiced without authority" ? True, we have 
 no authority from Dr. Howell's " reflecting men of 
 the world ;" but we have ^hat is far better — the au- 
 thority of a divine example, and the approbation of 
 men as reflective and far more pious — men as honest, 
 studious, and thoroughly learned — the preceptors 
 of his "reflecting men of the world." 
 
 '• Infant baptism, in the third place, injures the 
 credit of religion by casting suspicion on the whole 
 subject." 
 
 Here Pedo-baptists are represented as deceitful. 
 Take his own words : " If I find a man equivocating, 
 and double-dealing with me on one subject, I suspect 
 he may on another ; and if T detect him so acting 
 in several instances, I withdraw my confidence from 
 him entirely," This is applied to Pedo-baptists gen- 
 erally. Leaving all mankind to judge here, and 
 God hereafter, whether we deserve such blurs, we 
 may try the Doctor's rule on himself. 
 
 If he " withdraws his confidence entirely" from all 
 who are guilty of " double-dealing," he must have 
 
190 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 lost all confidence in himself long ago ; for at one 
 time he says Pedo-baptists are " learned and pious," 
 at another, he declares they are " irrational" and 
 " corrupt." Now he says many of them deny " bap- 
 tismal regeneration;" again, they " all proclaim it as 
 a condition of infant salvation." Once he says in- 
 fant baptism dispenses with a " profession of faith ;" 
 again, he declares that in it the infant " makes a 
 profession of religion." The time would fail me 
 here to record the one tenth part of his "double- 
 dealing." If, then, other men adopt his rule, and 
 " withdraw [their] confidence entirely from him" he 
 will be in a deplorable condition. It is very " ir- 
 rational" for any man to contradict himself so often 
 in one small book. What will "reflecting men of the 
 world" think of it 1 " Suspicion is awakened, and 
 men of the world are repelled by it from religion." 
 
 " Finally, infant baptism, as practiced among us, 
 is a well-arranged sectarian device." 
 
 Wonderful ! Dangerous thing that ! There are 
 Congregationalists, Methodists, five bodies of Pres- 
 byterians, Episcopalians, &c., &c., who practice it ! 
 What a " sectarian device" ! All but the Dippers 
 hold to the faith ; and if we count the Greek church, 
 three-fourths of the Dippers themselves practice it ! 
 Why, it is almost like the Bible — all cling to it but 
 the Dippers; and of late years, since they threw 
 away the foolish notion of their own inspired infalli- 
 bility, and ceased, like Roman Catholics, to burn the 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 191 
 
 written Word of G-od, they adopt the Bible, except 
 in regard to such things as *' awaken suspicion in 
 men of the world, and repel them from religion." 
 When they shall have learned to take the Bible as 
 the only rule of faith, and teach " reflecting men of 
 the world" to reflect on the authority of God instead 
 of their own conceits, they, too, will gain a position 
 whence they can see the wisdom of the rite. 
 
 If infant baptism, practiced by so many denomi- 
 nations, all having communion with one another, be 
 a sectarian device, what is immersion, practiced by 
 a siogle party, and that party so exclusive as to de- 
 bar all the rest from Christian fellowship, claiming 
 exclusively for itself all the prerogatives of the 
 Church of God ? 
 
CHAPTEE XYII. 
 
 "infant baptism is an evil; because it is the GaEAT 
 BARRIER TO CHRISTIAN UNION." 
 
 Our author's strength seems to be on the wane, 
 and his chapters are growing very short. The fol- 
 lowhig extracts exhibit the whole strength of this 
 one. 
 
 " Christian union and infant baptism never can 
 exist together. But Christian union is imperative 
 upon us alh Whatever prevents it is an evil In- 
 fant baptism prevents it. Therefore infant baptism 
 is an evil" 
 
 There is a mistake in this syllogism. Everybody 
 knows that if we should give up infant baptism to- 
 day, the Dippers would suifer no union or commun- 
 ion with us until we were immersed. A dozen of 
 denominations, containing a dozen times as many 
 numbers as the Dippers, must yield their consciences 
 and their intelligent convictions to satisfy the rabid 
 sectarianism of one party in order to secure Chris- 
 tian union ! Here is a sharp smack of that same 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 193 
 
 old inspired infallibility, which the Dippers have 
 ever claimed for themselves. Even when thej have 
 been forced to acknowledge the supreme authority 
 of the written Word, they have found out the device 
 of claiming to be the only infallible expounders of 
 that Word, which in effect is no better than the old 
 claim to inspiration. Pedo-baptists, in Christian 
 liberality, have been willing for Dippers, to follow 
 their own convictions in regard to the subjects and 
 the mode of Christian baptism ; and for centuries 
 they have held out to them the right hand of fellow- 
 ship, but all to no purpose. In vain do we entreat 
 — in vain does Christ command and pray that his 
 disciples be one in love and union. The Dippers will 
 consent to nothing short of our yielding the liberty 
 wherewith Christ has made us free — the liberty of 
 thinking for ourselves. If we would yield our re- 
 sponsibility to Christ, consult the whims of '• reflect- 
 ing men of the world," hold ourselves answerable to 
 Dippers, take for truth infallible all they say, con- 
 trary to conviction and conscience leave our children 
 out of the church, uninstructed in what we believe 
 to be God's will revealed in the Bible, and then, un- 
 der their mandate, exchange the sprinkling of clean 
 water for a dii) even in some green pool, or stagnant 
 pond, all would be right with them, and we then 
 might have union ; but whether it would be Chris- 
 tian icnion, would still recjuire to be left to their 
 decision without a murmur from our consciences. 
 17 
 
194 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 Then it is plain that it is not infant baptism, nor 
 even immersion, that prevents '• Christian union." 
 It is phiiulj the arrogant claim of the Dippers to 
 infallibility. Then we will correct the syllogism : 
 ' Whatever prevents Christian union, is an evil. 
 But the arrogance of the Dippers prevents it. 
 Therefore the arrogance of the Dippers is an evil' — 
 a flagrant sin against the love of God. 
 
 The arrogance of the Dippers " is therefore an 
 offence against Christ, an offence against the peace 
 and harmony of his people, an offence against the 
 souls of men." And who is responsible for this 
 monstrous evil ? Those, of course, who introduced 
 it, and who still adhere to " its practice." '' For all 
 its calamities they must account to God and men. 
 We solemnly declare ourselves innocent of its enor- 
 mities. We never can approve it." This is Dr. 
 Howell's gun, turned upon himself And because 
 he and his party do not approve infant baptism, we 
 are to have no Christian union ! They cannot leave it 
 to the Master to judge ! they must take that matter 
 into their own hands ! 
 
 They cannot abominate infant baptism more than 
 we do immersion ; but having borne our testimony 
 against it, we leave it for the Master to judge be- 
 tween them and us, and we extend to them over and 
 beyond what we deem a hurtful error, the right 
 hand of fellowship. They, sullen and moody, say in 
 effect, " We are the people, and you are in error. 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 195 
 
 We are infallible expounders of God's Word, and 
 you are ' irrational.' Put away your unreason- 
 able obstinacy, and yield conscience, intellect, emo- 
 tion, and will, to our infallible understanding of 
 God's Word, and we can have union ; but on no 
 other terms." This is the language of their con- 
 duct, and they cannot deny it. 
 
CHAPTER XYIII. 
 
 " INFANT BAPTISM IS AN EVIL ; BECAUSE IT PREVENTS THE SALU- 
 TARY IMPRESSION WHICH BAPTISM WAS DESIGNED TO MAKE 
 UPON THE MINDS OF BOTH THOSE WHO RECEIVE IT AND THOSE 
 WHO WITNESS ITS ADMINISTRATION. 
 
 This chapter is introduced with a just account of 
 the impression intended to be made on the mind of 
 the recipient, and of those who witness it ; but it is 
 contended that immersion alone is suited to make 
 such impressions. The oft-repeated idea of '' the 
 watery grave" is the only reason offered for the prefer- 
 ence given to immersion. Let us once more remind 
 our opponents that this idea of burial, by every fair 
 rule of interpreting the apostle's words, is found not in 
 the manner of baptizing, but in the visible eff'ect pro- 
 duced by baptism. After baptism the old man is to 
 be seen no more. He is dead. He is buried. The 
 old man is buried ; and if buried mean immersed^ 
 then it is the old man that is immersed. But bap- 
 tism is applied not to the old man, but to the nev. 
 When the new man is baptized, the old one is buried, 
 and the burying is the effect of baptism, and not the 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 197 
 
 manner of baptism. There is also an effect on tlic 
 new man. He rises to view in a new life. Baptism 
 places liim among the saints, where he never ap- 
 peared before. He is like one just born into a 
 famil}', where he never was a member before. He is 
 like one raised from the dead to take his place in 
 society. Then the burial and the resurrection are 
 visible effects of baptism, and not the manner of 
 bajJtizing. 
 
 It is plain, then, that the proper " impression" de- 
 pends on a proper conception in the premises. If 
 the proper conception of baptism be that of a burial 
 rite performed on the old man to displace him from 
 society and from view in corruption and death, then 
 the preference must be given to immersion ; and it 
 is to be administered to the old man^ not to the be- 
 liever, who is already " born of God," and is the 
 new man. But if the proper conception of baptism 
 be the cleansing of the neiv man from the corruption 
 and death of the old man with an effectual applica- 
 tion of " the blood of sprinkling" by the bedewing 
 Spirit descending from above and imparting life, 
 then baptism is to be administered by sprinkling 
 clean water, not on the old man^ but on the new — 
 on all who stand in the new kingdom of grace ; 
 whether believing adults, or innocent babes who 
 have not by personal transgression departed from 
 the kingdom of God. 
 
 Our author tells of tears which have flowed on 
 17* 
 
198 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 witnessing immersion. If tears contain any scrip- 
 tural argument, we could record as many and as 
 large ones that have appropriately accompanied the 
 sprinkled drops of baptismal water. But tears 
 merely prove the earnestness and deep feelings of 
 those who shed them, and, although valuable for 
 other purposes, they can contribute little with men 
 of sense to settle controversies about doctrine. 
 
 Dr. H. says, " But the sprinkling of a babe de- 
 stroys every salutary result." This is true, no doubt, 
 in regard to those who have prejudices against it. 
 The same is true of immersion in regard to those 
 who do not believe it to be the way of baptizing. 
 If the sprinkling of babes must be discontinued, 
 because dipping Christians disapprove it, then im- 
 mersion must be discontinued, because baptizing 
 Christians disapprove that; unless Dippers are en- 
 titled to special privileges. 
 
 If tears would answer for arguments, they are 
 not wanting in relation to the baptism of infants. 
 Nor do we doubt but with God the tears of his 
 Pedo-baptist children are as carefully bottled as 
 those of his dipping children. A peculiar notion 
 this, that no one's tears are noticed but those of 
 Dippers I There is the old odor of their inspired 
 infallibility. 
 
 Our author thinks no "salutary" or "lasting" 
 impression is made by infant baptism. We fear he 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 199 
 
 is not informed on that subject. The writer, now 
 " sprinkled with gray hairs," remembers well an ap- 
 peal of his venerable mother in early childhood. 
 He had been guilty of some delinquency, when his 
 mother, having pointed out the sin, said, " My dear 
 child, when you were an infant, you were the Lord's 
 — you were born his. I stood before God, before 
 the church, and before the minister, and said you 
 were the Lord's. In your baptism I vowed that by 
 the help of His grace you should always be the 
 Lord's. You were baptized in His holy name ; be- 
 cause you were His. In His name the church re- 
 ceived you, and the water which is an emblem of 
 Christ's precious blood that cleanses our sinful na- 
 ture, was sprinkled upon you. You have no liberty 
 to sin. How can you forsake God, and His church, 
 and His blood ? How can you sex've Satan ? If 
 you have sinned, repent of it, and the blood of Christ 
 will cleanse you. But do not falsify your mother's 
 vow and bring a double curse upon your own head !" 
 She shed tears too ! 
 
 The effect of that appeal to his early baptism 
 cannot be effaced from his mind, " while his being 
 lasts." Nor is this a solitary case. If the argu- 
 ment required it, thousands of similar eases could 
 be produced. But it needs it not. Such facts may 
 serve to encourage and comfort others, but they can- 
 not be adduced as inspired authority to settle con- 
 
200 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 troversy. For tliat purpose we must appeal to the 
 written Word of God, not to the " tears" or " joys" 
 or " indelible impressions" of Dippers, or anybody 
 else, even " reflecting men of the world." 
 
CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 " ES'FAXT BAPTISM IS AX EVIL ; BECAUSE IT RETARDS THE DESIGNS 
 OF CHRIST IN THE CONVERSION OF THE WORLD." 
 
 After, an excellent exhortation concerning the 
 conversion of the world, Dr. H. suddenly breaks off 
 as follows : " She [the church] is quarrelling about 
 fictions ! She has abandoned the nations to perish 
 in their sins ! Infant baptism, like the touch of a 
 torpedo, has benumbed all her powers." 
 
 As Dr. H. admits no one to be in the church but 
 those who are dipped ; and as he declares that the 
 conversion of Pedo-baptists, as well as the rest of 
 the benighted, belongs to the Dippers, we suppose 
 that he means to say, that they are " quarrelling 
 about fictions." This is a wonderful concession ; but 
 it is no less true. They have so caricatured the 
 views of others as to turn the whole into mere 
 ''fiction;" and they are "quarrelling" about that in- 
 stead of laboring for the conversion of the world ! 
 But how has infant baptism benumbed them ? The 
 heathen do not practice it. Why do they not go to 
 
202 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 work on them instead of standing here in a quarrel 
 with us about our duty to God and our children. 
 Tliey quarrel not much like men that are '■'- benumb- 
 ed." They more resemble the spiteful, meddling 
 people, who wish to compel all others to do as they 
 please. 
 
 The Pedo-baptists have long been zealously en- 
 gaged in efforts to enlighten and convert the world; 
 but the Dippers throw every obstacle in the way. 
 At first they tried to persuade the people that 
 all the moneys collected for Bible Societies and 
 Foreign Missions were employed in " speculation." 
 When beaten back from that low slang, they said 
 it was of no use, for the Lord would " convert the 
 heathen in his own good way and time." When 
 they were forced to acknowledge that NOW is 
 his "good time," and the agency of the church is 
 his '-good way," they then wanted a new Bible with 
 dip in it. Baptize is too much like the original 
 Greek word. It would lead the people away from 
 their dearest dogma — immersion. They would pre- 
 fer some Roman or Saxon word. This Bible word 
 will never do for them. Still Pedo-baptists moved 
 forward with the Bible in their hand. The Dippers 
 became alarmed. They held a convention and delib- 
 erated what must be done. 
 
 A master spirit said they must denounce Pedo- 
 baptists as sects^ speaking all manner of diversities, 
 and constituting Babylon^ and no part of God's her- 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 203 
 
 itage on earth. Then they must call upon all to 
 come and be immersed, on peril of eternal damnation, 
 &c., &c. He concluded by saying that the necessi- 
 ties of the work before them required that they 
 should have evangelists to go out and convert the 
 people, then pastors to instruct them after they were 
 converted ; and, finally, strong men to go before and 
 pull down the walls of Babijlon. To this counsel they 
 agreed, and they went to work accordingly. Since 
 that we have learned that the committee to pull 
 down the ivalls of Babylon^ for want of proper in- 
 struction, are wasting all their strength against the 
 eternal ramparts of New Jerusalem ! Truly, they 
 are " quarrelling about fiction'' ! Dr. H. seems to 
 be on this committee. Well, stand there and quar- 
 rel. We know what we have to do. 
 
 Let us now proceed to the particular specifica- 
 tions. 
 
 " Infant baptism retards the designs of Christ in 
 the conversion of the world by placing Baptists 
 [Dippers] and Pedo-baptists in conflict with each 
 other." '• In conflict" ! and is that the work of in- 
 fant baptism % No, verily. Pedo-baptists are willing 
 that Dippers should work with all their might for 
 the conversion of the world. There is room enough 
 and work enough for all. But the Dippers, not con- 
 tent to labor for the conversion of the world, are 
 mainly employed in efi"orts to proselyte other Chris- 
 tians to the WATER. They would rather let the 
 
204 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 heathen go to hell than to heaven by means of a 
 Bible with haiotize in it, Thej must alter it to dip^ 
 or the heathen must have no Bible. It is their ar- 
 rogance which puts them " in conflict" with others. 
 They are infallible. The rest are in error, are 
 "irrational." 
 
 " Infant baptism retards the designs of Christ in 
 the conTersion of the world, by diverting from the 
 work, the time, the talents, the learning and the 
 money of the church." Yes, if the Dippers would 
 yield their obstinate opposition, there would not be 
 so many ministers needed at home, and of course 
 more might be sent to the heathen. But they think 
 everybody ought to yield to their dictation ; and oth- 
 ers, loving liberty too well to give it up, will hold 
 on to their own convictions of duty. The Dippers, 
 conceiting that they are infallible, take it hard that 
 all the world do not yield to this. This keeps them 
 in a fret, and much " time, talent and money" are 
 spent in " quarrelling about [the] fiction" of their 
 right to the claim of infallibility. 
 
 " Infant baptism retards the designs of Christ in 
 the conversion of the world, by giving the name of 
 Christians to the abandoned and profligate merchants, 
 and sailors, and soldiers, and others in foreign lands. 
 They really are, for the most part, members of Pedo- 
 baptist churches, into which they were received in 
 infancy." 
 
 Dr. H. must certainly know that the heathen are 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 205 
 
 unacquainted with the disputes of Christendom about 
 baptism. He must also know that all men who go 
 from Christian lands are called Christians by the 
 heathen without the slightest reference to baptism. 
 He ought to know that when one who was baptized 
 in infancy becomes openly immoral, he, by the fact, 
 ceases to be even a visible member of the church, just 
 as Esau when he sold his birthright. If he would 
 put himself to the trouble of a little inquiry, he would 
 find some of the most abandoned and abominable that 
 ever disgraced the Ciiristian name in heathendom^ 
 were at the time dipped members of that church 
 which claims to be the only exponent of Christianity 
 on the earth ; and some of these atrocious sinners 
 are now missionaries and ministers ! He may here 
 have his own words back: "Religion must be set 
 forth and practiced in a plain, cwndid, open, ingenu- 
 ous, honest manner. If I find a man equivocating 
 and double dealing with me on one subject, I suspect 
 he may on another ; and if I detect him so acting in 
 several circumstances, I withhold my confidence from 
 him entirely." 
 
 We conclude with another specimen of Dr. H.'s 
 bare assertions. 
 
 '• Infant baptism has done more, directly and indi- 
 rectly, than all other corruptions combined to over- 
 throw truth, to turn men away from vital religion, 
 to pollute Christianity, to enfeeble her power, and 
 to keep back the hour of her final triumph. Infant 
 18 
 
206 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 baptism is the most pernicious lieresy that ever found 
 its way into the church of Christ." 
 
 Dogmatic dictation can be afforded much cheaper 
 than vigorous argument, as everybody knows ; and 
 those who cannot afford the latter, often abound in 
 the former. The moral purity of Scotland alone 
 will be a sufficient refutation of all such gasconade. 
 
CHAPTEE XX. 
 
 "recapitulation-, with concluding address." 
 
 After looking over this chapter with some care, 
 we concluded that with a little emendation it will do 
 pretty well, and we therefore transcribe it, indicating 
 the correction of errors in the composition by italics. 
 It is as follows : 
 
 The evils resulting to the church from the arro- 
 gant claims of Dippers to infallibility have now, in 
 most of their forms, passed successively in — under? — 
 review. They have been considered calmly, dispas- 
 sionately, but — and ? — faithfully, and as demanded by 
 the written truth of our Lord Jesus Christ. If I 
 have '^nothing extenuated," neither have I ''set down 
 aught in malice." Let them be here briefly recapit- 
 ulated. 
 
 The arrogance of the DijiiJers is an evil, because 
 its practice — the j^ractice of it ? — is unsupported by 
 the Word of Grod, which gives all judgment to the 
 So?i ; because its defence — tlie defence of it ? — leads 
 to most injurious perversions of Scripture ; because 
 
208 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 it engrafted Judaism upon the gospel of Christ, hy 
 leading Dippers to siqipose that they are the only 
 people of God^ as did the bigoted Jews ; because it 
 falsifies the doctrine of universal depravity, 5?/ ^?^- 
 ducing them to deny their liability to err like other 
 men ; because it contradicts the great fundamental 
 principle of justification by faith, and ascribes it to 
 immersion ; because it is in direct conflict with the 
 doctrine of the work of the Holy Spirit in regenera- 
 tion, ascribing the neiv birth to dipping ; because it 
 despoils the church of those peculiar qualities which 
 are essential to the church of Christ, namely^ the 
 embracing of all God's people in one brotherhood of 
 universal Christian felloioship ; because its practice 
 — the practice of it? — perpetuates the superstition 
 that originally produced it, namely^ the notion that 
 a great deal of ivater is necessary to ivash aivay sin ; 
 because it subverts the Scripture doctrine of infant 
 salvation, by excluding them from the covenant of 
 grace and the kingdom of God ; because it leads its 
 advocates into rebellion against the authority of 
 Christ, by excluding from His covenant and kingdom 
 those ivhom he declares to be heirs of Ids salvation ; 
 because of the connection it assumes with the moral 
 and religious training of children, assuming that 
 their liberty is to be consulted as to what they are to 
 be taught^ ivhen they knoio not hoiv to choose^ and 
 ■ never can know till they are taught ; because it is 
 the crand foundation on which rests the union of 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 209 
 
 Church and State, — establishment of the Church by 
 the State ? — foj- in all such establishments one jmrty 
 claims infallibility^ and excludes the rest ; because 
 it leads to religious persecution, /or the i^ersccutor 
 always assumes that he is infallibly right ; because 
 it is contrary to the principles of civil and religious 
 freedom, tvhich can exist only ivhere all have equal 
 claims ; because it enfeebles the power of the church 
 to combat error, ivhich can be effected ivith the ivrit- 
 ten Word of God alone ; because it injures the credit 
 of religion with reflecting men of the world, icho al- 
 ivays despise to see ivealc mortals claiming infalli- 
 bility ; because it is the great barrier to Christian 
 union, assuming to decide itself ivhat others must 
 believe; because it prevents the salutary impression 
 which baptism was designed to make upon the minds, 
 both of those who receive it and those who witness 
 its administration, since it maJces baptism to be'-'- no- 
 thing but for m^'' destitute of all meaning and design^ 
 for nothing else but to avoid the instructive method 
 of Bible sprinkling ; and because it retards the de- 
 signs of Christ in the conversion of the world, by 
 struggling to keep the Bible from the people^ till it 
 can by its oion infallibility put a Latin ivord in 
 2olace of God^s original Greek. These mainly are 
 the charges I prefer against this flagitious arro- 
 gance of the Dippers., and I believe that I have 
 proved each one of them conclusively. If so, it is a 
 18* 
 
210 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 great and unmitigated evil. It not only does no 
 good, but it does evil, immense evil, and only evil. 
 
 In closing this discussion, may I not, in the first 
 place, address a few words to my dipping brethren 1 
 
 Will you not here pause, and, with the Bible in 
 your hand, prayerfully re-examine this whole subject ? 
 You have, vei'y probably, never, at any time, given 
 it a careful investigation ; for the Bible condemns 
 illihercdity in tlie i:)lainest terms. You found it in 
 your church ; and, very naturally, feeling a prejudice 
 in favor of whatever she approves and observes, you 
 received and adopted it. You have since practiced 
 this exclusive spirit, under a sort of indefinite im- 
 pression that, although you do not yourself compre- 
 hend with any clearness how, yet it is defensible by 
 the Word of God ; since ive must separate from the 
 world .^ and all not dip)2)ed are yet in the icorld. 
 This, I know, is the position occupied by thousands 
 ^;^ your church. You do not design to depart from 
 the gospel. Least of all, do you imagine that in 
 this matter you are committing an injury in any 
 way. The enormous evil it briugs upon you, upon 
 your children, upon the church and upon the world, 
 is a great fact to which jowc attention has not hith- 
 erto been called. You have regarded it with favor ; 
 because it is observed by your church ; because great 
 men practice and defend it; because it is a time- 
 honored work to exclude God* s people, which has come 
 down to you through a period of fifteen centuries, 
 
EVILS OF DK. HOWELL. 211 
 
 or more; and you inactice it^ because jou have 
 thought that if it does no good, it will do no harm, 
 since they can commune icith God all alone. But 
 great men and good men — as great and as good as 
 any that have defended and practiced this sectarian 
 arrogance — have also practiced and defended all the 
 corruptions of popery. If, on this account, you re- 
 ceive this exclusive spirit, you are obliged, for the 
 same reasons, to receive all the corruptions of popery, 
 and that excludes God^s own people. That, too, is 
 a time-honored institution, clothed with the sanction 
 of more than twelve centuries. High position, great 
 learning, venerableness, brawling ignorance, never 
 can give authority to anything which is in itself false 
 and injurious. Ours is not the age, nor the country, 
 nor is religion the theme, in which such arguments 
 can be respected. Because our fathers were gov- 
 erned by kings and emperors, who, as they were 
 taught by good and great men, " ruled by divine 
 right," shall we be monarchists? We choose in 
 politics to exercise our own judgment, and we reject 
 as baseless all these antiquated pretensions. Shall 
 we be less wise in religion, and allow priests to dic- 
 tate our faith ? Here, too, we will look not to men, 
 but to God's Word ; not to antiquity, but to divine, 
 written, revelation. Our appeal is " to the law and 
 to the testimony." If we — they ? — speak not accord- 
 ing to these — tJds Word ? — it is because there is no 
 light jn us — them ? 
 
212 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 Does sectarian exclusivcness do no harm ? I per- 
 suade myself that no one who reads these pages will 
 ever agaiu urge that fallacious plea. Every de- 
 parture from truth must be an evil, and this is one 
 1 of the most melancholy of them all. Will you not, 
 my brother, ascertain for yourself its character, and, 
 renouncing it, return cheerfully to the Word of 
 God, and the communioit of all His peopled It is 
 "a perfect rule of faith and practice," a7id the love 
 of God's 2^eo2-)le 'promotes the love of God Himself. 
 If you and all others do so, no more will be heard 
 of the injurious and deprecated custom. Even now, 
 in our country at least, it is losing its hold. Among 
 all evangelical Christians it is rapidly waning. 
 Multitudes of the best members in the immersing 
 churches, of all sects, utterly refuse to beheld hack from 
 communion with all tJieir dear brethren. Will you 
 not also abandon this bigotry ? In maintaining this, 
 or any other error, you cannot possibly have any inter- 
 est. Review prayerfully, and in the light of the 
 divine Word, your opinions and practices in the 
 promises. I am sure you must desire to know the 
 truth, and to obey the truth; and itivill be iiecullar- 
 ly delightful.^ by holy baptism^ folio iving Godh ex- 
 ample., to receive your own dear offspring in your 
 Saviourh name. It may cost you some labor, and, 
 perchance, demand sacrifices at your hands. But 
 will you shrink from it on these accounts ? Let the 
 "love of Christ constrain " you in this work. Bear 
 
EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 213 
 
 your cross, and mortify the jiesh. Great ivill he 
 your reward. Give up every error j^romjotly. And 
 may God enlighten and guide you into the knowledge 
 of His will, and into a humble, holy and ready 
 obedience in all things. 
 
 May I, in the second place, appeal to persons 
 who, although liberal in principle, are yet members 
 of immersing churches ? 
 
 This class of persons is much more numerous than 
 has generally been imagined* Many of them are not 
 aware that they approximate our principles. They 
 have derived all their knowledge of them through 
 immersing churches; and such have been the repre- 
 sentations, that they suppose us to be almost any- 
 thing else than what we really are. It has ever been 
 our lot, as it is of all God^s j^eojjle, to be traduced^ 
 and exhibited in false lights, by sectarian hypocrites 
 and bigots. Even their ministers — this is the most 
 charitable construction — are strangely ignorant of 
 us. Not a few, however, know that they do really 
 hold our opinions. By all those who occupy the 
 contradictory position now indicated, I would gladly 
 be heard. 
 
 What apology have you for practicing in your re- 
 ligion one set of principles, while you really believe 
 another ? Do you tell me that it is more convenient 
 for you to be a member of an i?Ji??iersing church, or 
 that your family are members of such a church, and 
 it is not desirable that you should separate from 
 
214 EVILS OF DK. HOWELL. 
 
 them ? or tbat there is no liberal church near your 
 residence, or that there are some things among 
 Fedo-bajytisis that you do not like, or that our social 
 relations are not congenial, or that you are not sec- 
 tarian in 3'our feelings, and wish to evince your lib- 
 erality by remaining v)ith the exdusionists ? One 
 or other of these, or some like reason, for the aban- 
 donment of your faith, is, alas, but too often heard ! 
 Are any such suflScient to reconcile you to a relation 
 which must result in serious injury to your growth 
 in grace^ since it violates your own principles and 
 ideas in the perpetuation of the most disastrous 
 evils? Can 3'ou continue to believe one thing, and 
 to profess and practice another and opposite thing ? 
 Such inconsistency speaks little for your Christian 
 conscientiousness. You probably require baptism 
 for yourself, having received a dipjnng in the ^ilace 
 of it. You think every other believer, as a believer, 
 ought to be baptized ; but you, at the same time, re- 
 fuse your countenance to those whose liberal opin- 
 ions and open communion agree with your own 
 v^e^vs of duty to God^ and still you uphold those who 
 maintain the contrary ! 
 
 By your presence, your influence, and your money, 
 you support what you do not believe, and are now 
 convinced Christ does not authorize; and, by with- 
 drawing them all from tJte True Baptists, you oppose 
 what you do believe, and are assured your Saviour 
 has enjoined! 75 this obedience? Consider^ my 
 
EVILS OF DR. EOWELL. 215 
 
 brother, what you are doing. You renounce dose 
 communion, and you at the same time vigorously 
 uphold it ! You believe it is wrong and a sin, and 
 you in the meantime do all you can to fasten the 
 evil upon the church and the world. " Come out of 
 Jier, my people, tha.i ye be 7wt partakers of Jier sinsP 
 She claims to le tJie only true church, yet shuts out 
 GocVs people. SJie has held communion with those 
 who burnt the Neiv Testament, because they ivere 
 immersed ; but she exclude^ the best saint witliout 
 it. In her communion, immersion holds a higher 
 place than the greatest virtues. She denies that God 
 is the God of tlie infant in tJie same sense that he is 
 tlie God of its believing parent. Slue shuts the in- 
 nocent babe out of tlie kingdom of God and tlie cov- 
 enant of his grace. SJie claims authority to alter 
 the original baptize into the Latin immerse. These 
 are great sins. You cannot consent to be a partaker 
 of them with her. Then come out promptly. 
 
 When remonstrance is offered on this subject, you 
 should not reply that it is inconvenient for you to 
 separate from your family and friends — that you do 
 not like Pedobaptists, icho, in the ivide range of their 
 liJberality, love you. If you are no sectarian, you 
 should separate yourself at once. Can you suppose 
 yourself thus justified in departing from what you 
 believe the law of Christ ? I appeal to your judg- 
 ment and your heart. I ask you affectionately, but 
 candidly, whether you can reconcile it with your duty 
 
216 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 and consistency louger to continue in your present 
 contradictory position ? How can you be liappy or 
 useful as a Christian, thus daily sacrificing truth and 
 conscience to mere worldlj^ considerations ? Do you 
 ask what you must do ? I answer, be true to Jesus 
 Christ. Be honest with yourself and others. Will 
 this require you to change your church relations ? 
 And what then ? You may feel that it will be a 
 painful sacrifice. It may be even difficult. Pride 
 will oppose it. You will be appalled by the odium 
 it will bring upon you. The love you bear to those 
 with whom you are now associated, and who v/ill 
 frown upon you, will plead against it. How can you 
 surmount these barriers ? Nothing but the firmest 
 purpose, sustained by the grace of God, can carry 
 you forward. On the other hand, however, you have 
 the most animating encouragements. Christ, who 
 died to save you, demands your fidelity. Truth 
 claims your love and obedience. The honor and ad- 
 vancement of religion call you to act, and to act 
 promptly, vigorously and effectually. The cause of 
 Christ protests against your present course, and 
 claims your protection. These are sufficient. Leave 
 the icater and come to Christ. Leave sectarianism 
 and come to goierous love. Christ and his lave 
 will bear you on triumphantl}-. Do not, I entreat 
 you, refuse to consider this subject. Dare to be 
 consistent. Dare to honor and obey, as well as love 
 our Lord Jesus Christ. Remember tJuit indisput- 
 
EVILS OF DR. IIO'.VELL. 217 
 
 ahh truths TJtcre is not onesingh infant in hdl^ imr 
 in the immersion ckurch — not one ! But in Jieaven^ 
 and all the Pedo-baj^tist cliurdies, the dear little 
 innocents Jmve a place. Come ! you wish^ I knoiv^ 
 to have your i^recious babes icith you %n the king- 
 dom. Leave the Dippers to-day. 
 
 And now, my beloved Pedo-baptist brethren, what, 
 in conclusion, shall I say to 3'ou? IVe are one in 
 aim, love and communion. During many a weary 
 century has our venerated church struggled onward 
 against every opposition. She has been denounced 
 and proscribed by every despotism, national and 
 ecclesiastical, from the corrupt p)opes to the fanatical 
 Dijjpers. All the powers of earth have been per- 
 petually combined, and have exerted their utmost 
 energies, for more than eighteen hundred years, to 
 destroy her ; but still there she stands, ivith lier in- 
 fants in leer arms — a p)ilgrim yet I Her home is in 
 lieaven. She, with her scorned babes, ivill reach it 
 safely. God has been, and still will be, our " refuge 
 and strength, a very present help in trouble." Tlie 
 gaAcs of hdl have not prevailed, and never shall, 
 against tlie church. That little band has become a 
 great army. " The days of our mourning are [al- 
 most] ended." The time of triumph draws nigh.. 
 Your advanced position, your disciplined array, youi* 
 growing power and resources, furnish sufficient in- 
 dications that Grod is about to introduce, through 
 your instrumentality, that general return to iDrim.i- 
 19 
 
218 EVILS OF DR. H0\7ELL. 
 
 tive order, wliich is to herald the conversion of the 
 nations, xvlhen^ according to his Word, God " wi/l 
 sprinkle clean water ii-pon you " and your little 
 ones. This work is to be done, and it must be, for 
 the most part, done by you ; since it never can be 
 accomplished by those who adhere to immersion. 
 How can they hope to demolish popery, when they 
 strive, to perpetuate in their own organizations the 
 very keystone of its strength, namely, exclusiveness 
 and human infallibility ? 
 
 The sjyirit of arrogance was the chief instrument 
 that brought it into being, and if continued, will 
 certainly build it up again, the same in substance, if 
 not in name. Who can reasonably look for ultimate 
 triumph in a conflict with infidelity, by those who 
 cherish among themselves a spirit of exclusiveness 
 the very reverse of that compreliensive charity ivhich 
 is the distinguishing feature of the Gospel ? This 
 is but the labor of Sisyphus repeated. The stone of 
 victory, rolled almost to the mountain-top, will re- 
 bound, and fall back into the abyss of narrow sec- 
 taria7%ism. Such efforts, to be successful, must 
 begin at the foundation. The axe must be laid, and 
 used too, at the root of sectarian jwide. Human 
 infallihility, that old upas-tree — which, with its 
 death-distilling branches, ungodly church-member- 
 ship, blood-shedding religions, popery, every species 
 of exclusive dogmatism, and scepticism, has for 
 
EVILS OF DR. IiOWELL. 219 
 
 fourteen centuries, and more, shaded and blasted 
 the world — must come down, before the pure light of 
 heaven and the sweet breath of life can circulate 
 freely over the expanse of darkened and diseased 
 humanity. You must not only enlighten and guide 
 the heathen and Mohammedan nations to Christ, but 
 you must purify Christendom, papal and clipping ; 
 nor will you find the latter achievement less diflaculfc 
 than the former. How exalted is the mission 
 assigned you from on high ! How gloriously it is to 
 effect the destinies of the world ! Yours is a loftier 
 aim than mere patriotism and philanthropy. You 
 seek the temporal good of nations, and of the whole 
 race. But you stop not here. You labor for the 
 eternal salvation of men. It is yours to carry the 
 news of everlastiog life to all the perishing ; to fur- 
 ish every family on the face of the earth with the 
 Word of God in its own language, mid not hi the 
 language of Dippers; to send to every neighbor- 
 hood a preacher of the gospel ; and to erect there a 
 temple in which the children of men shall learn the 
 anthems of the blessed above, and become meet to 
 join the General Assembly and Church of the First 
 Born, whose names are written in heaven. Do you 
 properly appreciate your obligations ? Up, then, 
 and to your high and holy calling. God himself is 
 with you. He will be your strength. He will honor 
 your works of faith and labor of love with triumph- 
 
220 EVILS OF DR. HOWELL. 
 
 ant success. Dippers shall abandon immersion^ 
 give up their stringent sectarianism^ receive the babes 
 in the name of the Lord ; and earthy redeemed from 
 bigotry and idolatry^ shall be filled icith love^ and 
 the communion of saints shall be universal. Amen. 
 
 TUE END. 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 THE TRUE BAPTIST. 
 
 It is proposed to re-publish, in a neat octavo volume, the 
 Discussions on the Baptismal Question, as contained in the 
 various numbers of "The True Baptist," a periodical edited 
 and published at Jackson, Miss., by the Rev. A Newton, D.D. 
 So eminently successful has Dr. Newton been in commending 
 his views to those interested in the various points associated 
 with the discussion of this question, in Christian doctrine and 
 polity, that pressing calls have been made upon him from 
 many quarters for their re-issue, in a more permanent form. 
 
 It has been determined, in response to their calls, to re- 
 publish his Discussions in a form becoming their importance, 
 and at a price that will encourage the wide circulation of the 
 volume. The time of publication will be somewhat i-egulated 
 by the promptitude with which subscribers' names for the 
 work are sent in, and the number called for. It is expected 
 that many will be taken in lots, for gratuitous circulation. 
 An admii-able opportunity is here presented for engaging in a 
 remunerating business, in obtaining subscribers for this forth- 
 coming work. Applications to be made to Dr, Newton, at 
 Jackson, Miss., or the publisher, W. M. Dodd, New York. 
 
The following opinions, embracing but a portion of the com- 
 mendations given of this work, by the Press of the country 
 various Ecclesiastical Bodies and distinguished individuals, 
 will show the estimate put upon it by those familiar with 
 its character. 
 
 OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. 
 
 From the Presbyterian Herald, Louisville, Ky. 
 
 The editor [of the True Baptist] handles the subject of Bap- 
 tism and its cognates with more ability and adaptedness to the 
 assumptions of modern immersionists, than any writer with 
 whom we are familiar. All who desire to make themselves 
 familiar with this controversy — and it is one which the arro- 
 gant assumptions of the opposite party will force all, sooner or 
 later, to examine — would do well to avail themselves of its 
 sssistance. 
 
 From the Nashville and Louisville Christian Advocate. 
 
 Dr. Newton is an able writer, and the number now before 
 us shows much ability and research. We hope it will have a 
 wide circulation. 
 
 From the Banner of Peace, Nashville, Tenn. 
 
 "We welcome the True Baptist with a hearty good will, 
 •wishing it the most successful and useful career — which ma}* 
 be predicted with great confidence by all who know the 
 ability of its learned, pious, and indefatigable editor and pub- 
 lisher. 
 
 From the Southern Christian Advocate, Charleston, 
 
 "We recommend heartily the circulation of the True Baptist 
 -wherever the Baptismal controversy has attracted attention. 
 
The style of discussion which it adopts, and the sterling ability 
 and research which characterize its articles, particularly as to 
 the new version of the English Bible, will recommend it to all 
 who wish to keep up with the current history of the times. 
 
 From the Christian Observer, Philadelphia. 
 
 We would esteem it a good work to promote its circulation 
 in every part of our «ountry. 
 
 From the Presbyteriari Witness, Knoxville, Tennessee. 
 
 There is a great deal of ability in the True Baptist. It 
 shows thought, and research, and candor, and courtesy * * * 
 It is filled with *' thoughts that breathe and words that burn" 
 — burn, because they are true words, uttered in an elevated, 
 courteous. Christian temper. * * * * Its spirit is so differ- 
 ent from that manifested by the opposition, that it must com- 
 mend itself to unprejudiced, liberal-mmded Christians every- 
 where. 
 
 From the Texas Presbyterian. 
 "We have no hesitation in pronouncing this to be the best 
 work of the kind published. We would be glad to learn of 
 its extensive circulation in Texas. 
 
 FroTn the Richmond Christian Advocate. 
 We have several times noticed this really valuable publica- 
 tion. Its discussions are more thorough and searching than 
 any that have ever fallen under our notice. The great masters 
 of the immersional theory are subjected to tests of Scripture 
 argument, learned criticism, and logical exposition of the 
 falsity and fallacy of their own principles that leave them 
 high and dry on texts in which they supposed they had 
 " much water," or water enough to float whole navies for the 
 defence and support of their system. To express half the plea- 
 sure we derive from the perusal of its convincing arguments 
 against the doctrines of the Baptist Church, on the mode and 
 subjects of baptism, would seem to be a fulsome panegyric. 
 * * * * We heartily commend this monthly to all who 
 desire a thorough work on the baptismal controversy. 
 
Front the Ladies^ Pearl, Nashville. 
 
 The editor gives unmistakable evidence of being an efficient 
 and experienced writer. It is devoted exclusively to the sub- 
 ject of baptism, and will, we have no doubt, give the advo- 
 cates of immersion, as the only mode, not a little trouble. It 
 should be taken by every minister and member of the church 
 who wishes to be thoroughly informed on this subject, whether 
 Baptist or Pedo-Baptist 
 
 From the Eastern Clarion, Paulding, Miss. 
 True Baptist. — It is published monthly in the city of Jack- 
 son, and is edited by the Rev. A. Neutox, a classical scholar, 
 and a gentleman of fine scholastic attainments and general 
 literary accomplishments. Not being theologians, and having 
 nothing to do with religious controversy upon doctrinal points, 
 we will not pretend to an expression of opinion upon the con- 
 troversial merits of the 2 r tie Baptist. All who would thorough- 
 ly investigate the question of Baptism should subscribe to Dr. 
 Kewton's work. 
 
 From the Br orison Republican, April 20, 1824. 
 The True Baptist. — We have had laid upon oiir table the 
 first volume of this work neatly bound in cloth. The reputa- 
 tion of the author, Rev. Mr. Newton, as a ripe and finished 
 scholar, a profound theologian, and a sincere Christian, gives 
 assurance that his writings will be read with profit and plea- 
 sure by these who may wish to acquaint themselves with all 
 th€ arguments, for and against Immersion, 
 
 Frojn the Brandon Repuhlican. 
 It can be safel}' recommended to friends and foes — to the 
 former, because it embraces doctrines in accordance with their 
 perception and well-adapted to strengthen their principles, 
 and to the latter, because it is an open exponent of principles 
 and can be accredited as a standard work. 
 
 From the St. Louis Presbyterian. 
 The True Baptist we have received in exchange from the 
 time of its beginning, up to the present ; and we have all along 
 been led to admire the ability and learning displayed in con- 
 
ducting the controversy. We do not see how our Baptist 
 brethren can withstand such a battery, so well manned. 
 
 Dr. Newton, by this publication, is rendering an important 
 service to the cause of truth, and deserves to be well sustained. 
 "We think the extensive circulation of this publication would 
 accomplish a good work, and we therefore recommend our 
 readers who are interested in the baptism controversy to sub- 
 scribe for the "True Baptist," as one of the best means of in- 
 forming themselves on the subject. 
 
 From the Grenada Rep%ihlican. 
 
 True Baptist. — The ability with which it is conducted 
 should cause it to be sought after and read by all interested 
 in a thorough knowledge of the subject of baptism. Even 
 those who differ with the views entertained by Dr. IS", should 
 read it, in order that they may see the strong points against 
 them made by a masterly mind. To those who agree with 
 the Doctor in opinions, this periodical must be most acceptable 
 and invaluable, on account of its thorough research and un- 
 surpassed ability. 
 
 From the Lexington Advertiser. 
 
 The True Baptist, published at the City of Jackson, under 
 the supervision of the Rev, A. Newtox, strays occasionally 
 into our office. It is a chaste, erudite, and graphic perio- 
 eical, fully sustaining the high reputation of its talended 
 editor, of whom it may be emphatically said, " non tetigit 
 quod non ornavit" 
 
 From the Cumberland Presbyterian, St. Louis. 
 
 The True Baptist. — This esteemed periodical, published by 
 Rev. A. ISTewton, Jackson, Miss., is the most thorough investi- 
 gator of the doctrine of Christian baptism, that we have ever 
 read. The last three numbers, in one, are before us. Published 
 monthly at $1 50 per year. 
 
OPINIONS OF ECCLESIASTICAL BODIES. 
 
 The Synod of Mississippi (N. S.), at tlieir session held in 
 October, at Grenada, adopted resolutions in whioh they 
 "earnestly commend the True Baptist to the attention and 
 patronage of all liberal-minded and truth seeking people, as a 
 work, whose style of discussion is chaste and dignified, con- 
 ducted in a spirit of conciliation and brotherly love, and better 
 calculated than any other, to present the truth at this period 
 in the history of the church."' 
 
 The Synod of Mississippi (0. S.), Resolved, That this Synod 
 do most cordially approve a periodical entitled " The True 
 Baptist," published by Rev. A. Newton, D.D., in the city of 
 Jackson, as an able exponent of the proper mode and subjects 
 of baptism ; and recommend the same to the patronage of the 
 members of the churches under our care, and to the public, as 
 well adapted for the dissemination of sound and scriptural 
 views of that subject. 
 
 3fississippi Annual Conference. — Resolved, That we cordially 
 recommend to the members of our church "The True Baptist," 
 published by Di\ Newton, of Jackson, Miss., as a work emi- 
 nently calculated to assist in arriving at satisfactory conclusions 
 on the mode and design of baptism, and subjects connected 
 therewith. 
 
 Union Presbytery of C. P. Church. (Miss.) 
 Whereas the Rev. A. Newton, of Jackson, Miss., is publish- 
 ing a work, entitled "The True Baptist,'' devoted to the dis- 
 cussion of the subjects, design, and mode of Baptism, therefore, 
 
 Resolved, That we recommend it to the public as a work 
 calculated to concentrate the light to a focus on those subjects, 
 and as a valuable addition to a family library. 
 
COMMENDATIONS FROM EMINENT CLERGYMEN, 
 AND OTHERS. 
 
 Extract of a letter from Rev. C. Tli. Marshall, of Yicks- 
 burg, Miss. 
 
 As the Editor has signall}^ fulfilled his promises respecting 
 its freedom from the too common spirit of sectarian violence 
 and the villanous slang in which both parties have so often 
 disgraced the columns of Christian journals, he has demon- 
 strated the practicability of discussing this remarkable question 
 ■with the candour, calmness, courtesy, and forbearance of a^ 
 Christian gentleman. 
 
 The " True Baptist " should be read by everybody that 
 feels the slightest interest in the merits of the subject of its 
 investigations. I am sure an abler or more satisfactory source 
 of information cannot easily be obtained. And no candid and 
 well informed opponent can deny the marked ability, judicious 
 spirit, and sound learning which characterize its pages. I 
 hope our Methodist friends will give it a careful reading as 
 well as thousands of Baptists, among whom are a multitude 
 of enlightened and eminent Christians, who, though their views 
 cannot be changed on the subject of immersion, may see in 
 its pages many reasons tor a charitable judgment of those 
 who from the most sacred convictions are compelled to reject 
 that method of baptism. 
 
 Extract of a letter from Rev. J. H. C. Leach, D.D., of Farm- 
 yille, Va. April 7 th, 1854. 
 
 I consider the True Baptist decidedly the best work on 
 the subject of Chr. Baptism that I have ever read. It pre- 
 sents the subject in all its relations, and especially in its 
 controverted points, with clearness, precision, and candor j- 
 and in my judgment leaves nothing for further argument or 
 controversy. 
 
8 
 
 From John A, Brown, Esq., Philadelphia. 
 
 Philadelphia, 9th September, 1854. 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 I have read this work with care and pleasure, and 
 consider it a most able and satisfactory exposition of the 
 proper mode and subjects of Baptism, and hope that the re- 
 publication of it may meet with the success which it deservedly 
 merits. 
 
 Your obedient, humble servant, 
 
 JOHN A. BROWN. 
 M. W. DoDD, New York. 
 
 Lynchburg, August 22, 1854. 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 With much pleasure I learned a few days? 
 since, that you were about to republish from the "True 
 Baptist" Dr. A. Newton's discussions on the " Mode and Sub- 
 jects of Baptism." It will, in my opinion, be, " The Book for 
 the Times" on the subject of which it treats; being a most 
 candid and thorough discussion of the points at issue ; racy, 
 dignified, and eminently perspicuous in style ; and in argu- 
 ment, so logically powerful, as, in my judgment, to be anni' 
 hilating. 
 
 With true Christian chivalry, the writer faces his opponents, 
 — they are such men as, A. Campbell, Carson, Cox, Howell, 
 Judson, <fec., <fec. ; and with the sword of truth turns their own 
 weapons upon themselves, and makes them by turns contra- 
 dict and confute themselves and one another. Such a work 
 ought to be in the hands of every Christian ; and it will in my 
 opinion obtain a circulation, in extent unprecedented, when- 
 ever the Christian community comes to know its merits. 
 
 I have no doubt that thousands of copies will be sold in 
 Virginia. 
 
 I am with much respect. 
 
 Yours, <fec., 
 
 J. D. MITCHELL, 
 Pastor of 2nd Presb. Ch., Lynchburg, Va 
 
9 
 
 Froyn Rev. Dr, Potts, of Kew York. 
 M. W. DoDD, Esq. 
 
 Dear Sir, 
 I am much pleasured with the acuteness, originality, honesty, 
 and force of this book. In all essential points, it fully accords 
 with my own views of the truth on the subject of which it 
 treats. 
 
 GEO. POTTS. 
 
 The following unsolicited commendation has been very 
 kindly furnished by the llev. Messrs. Campbell, Scott, and 
 North, of New Orleans : 
 
 The undersigned is a subscriber to the True Baptist, pub- 
 lished by the Rev. A. Newton, D.D., of Jackson, Miss., and has 
 received its monthl}^ numbers regularly since its commence- 
 ment ; and, so far as the work has progressed he can confi- 
 dently and cheerfully recommend it as an able and, on some 
 points, a very original discussion of the subject on which it 
 treats; and from the acknowledged piety and talents of the 
 learned editor, and from his having made it a prominent 
 study for a series of years, and, in the meantime, his having 
 discussed it triumphantly before crowded audiences, he enter- 
 tains no doubt that the conclusion will equal the commence- 
 ment, and the whole constitute a work that will be read as 
 long as the Baptish controversy shall continue to be agitated 
 in the Church, 
 
 ALEXx\NDER CA31PBELL. 
 
 In the above views of Rev. Dr. Campbell, I, as a subscriber 
 to Dr. Newton's work, cordially concur. 
 
 W. A. SCOTT. 
 
 Knowing, from a long personal acquaintance with Dr. New- 
 ton, the kindness and candor of his nature ; and having been 
 also a subscriber to his work from the beginning, I cheerfully 
 concur with the foregoing gentlemen in their recommendation. 
 
 NATHANIEL G. NORTH. 
 
10 
 
 From the Rev. Dr. Drake, of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
 Natchez, Miss. 
 
 Natchez, Miss., September 21, 1854. 
 
 W. K DODD. 
 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 I can with heart}- good will recommend its 
 publication. 
 
 Yours respectfully, 
 
 B. M. DRAKK 
 
 Sir, — Understanding that you are about to publish Vol. I., 
 of the "True Baptist," a work of rare merit b}- my friend, the 
 Rev. Dr. Newton, I would hereby, with many others of my 
 brethren in the ministry, express my high gratification at the 
 prospect of its publication. 
 
 Such a worlc, from its clear and forcible expositions of divine 
 truth, must commend itself to all whose minds are free from 
 sectarian prejudice, and open to the teachings of that truth, 
 concerning the mode of Christian baptism. 
 
 JOHN F. EDGAR, 
 Pastor 1st Rres. Ch. 
 
 Nashville, Tenn., Nov. 22, 1854. 
 
 M. W. DoD», Esq. 
 My dear Sir, — I am gratified to learn that you propose the 
 publication of a re-arrangement of the matter of Vol. I. of 
 " The True Baptist," by Dr. Newton of Mississippi. 
 
 I have had occasion to read some of the articles in this first 
 volume, touching the mode and subjects of baptism, and have 
 been struck with the thoroughness of the discussion and with 
 the cumulative evidence against immersion. I commend it 
 heartily to all pastors and students of theology, and am per- 
 suaded that it needs no more than an introduction to their 
 notice to ensure its extensive circulation. 
 
 I am very truly yours, 
 
 T. J. SHEPHERD, 
 Pastor of the Buttonwood-street Presb. Ch. 
 
 Philadelphia, 5th September, 1854. 
 
11 
 
 From Rev. De. Boyd, Winchester, Va. 
 
 My dear Sir, — I am gratified to learn that you propose to 
 publish another edition of the VoL L of " The True Baptist,"' 
 edited by Dr. Newton of Mississippi. In my judgment it is a 
 work eminently deserving general circulation. The discussion 
 of the design, subjects, and mode of baptism is clear, thorough, 
 and comprehensive. It is conducted throughoiit in a spirit of 
 candour and Christian kindness, characteristic of those who are 
 confident that they are defending the truth, and not error. I 
 shall be glad to see the book issued in a style corresponding 
 with its merits, and to know that it has an extensive sale. 1 
 am persuaded that it will become a standard work on the 
 subject of which it treats. 
 
 Yours respeetfullv, 
 
 A. M. M. BOYD. 
 
 Winchester, August 17, 1854. 
 
 The Rev. Alex. Newton, D.D., of Jackson, Mis?., has done 
 good service to the cause of truth, and especially to those 
 branches of the church who practise Infant Baptism, by the 
 publication of the "True Baptist." I have been highly grati- 
 fied in the perusal of several Nos. of this able work, and re- 
 gard it as one of the best popular indications of our views 
 on this subject against the assaults of Baptist writers and 
 preachers ; and as eminently fitted to do good in every part of 
 our land. I should be very happy to see it issued in a per- 
 manent form, and widely circulated. 
 
 EDWIX F. HATFIELD, 
 Pastor of the Seventh Presb. Ch. 
 
 New York, August 18, 1854. 
 
 Frcfin Prof. H. B. Smith, Esq., 
 New York Union Theological Seminary. 
 Dear Sir, — I have examined considerable portions of the 
 work, and the arguments seem to be conducted with learning 
 and acuteness. It is particularly full upon the scriptural 
 question. New points of view are presented and enforced with 
 ability. I should think that it was worthy of republication 
 and of more extensive circulation. 
 
 Respectfully yours, 
 
 HENRY B. SMITH. 
 New York, September 18, 1854. 
 
0'y 
 
 X;':!!*!;rr;:'tii'firi^ii- 
 
 ■X-,: 
 
 ^'Mm''' 
 
 '^'''^'^■^' M 
 
 //