^ PRINCETON, N. J. if. Presented by Mr Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. Ag:!cw Coll. on Baptism, No. RHANTISM VERSUS BAPTISM, OR INFANT SPRINKLING AGAINST CHRISTIAN IMMERSION; IN WHICH THE ARGUMENTS FOR THE FORMER PRACTICE ARE EXAAIINED AND CONFUTED, AXD THE SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY FOR THE LATTER CLEARLY EXHIBITED. IN THE FORM OF A TRIAL. SEACOME '^ELLISON, AUTHOR OF A LETTER TO JOSEPH JOHN GURNEY, ESQ. BAnTIX0ENTE£ .h BAHTISMA i.^^wov. " And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being BAPTIZED with the BAPTISM of John. '—Luke vii. 29. TANTISMOT .ps-.TVOv:.^ XaXoL-v.* ^api TO-/ "A,3sX. " Ye arc come .... to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of SPRINKLING, that speaketh better tidngs than that of Abel." — Heb. xii. 22. 24. LONDON; PUBLISHED BY GEORGE WIGHTMAN. WAUGHAND INNES, EDINBURGH; GEORGE GALLIE, GLASGOW; D. MARPLES AND CO., LIVERPOOL. 1835. D. MAld'LKS AND CO., I'RINTEUS, LIVERPOOL. PREFACE. The present Publication has been undertaken after looking over the works of several eminent theological writers, in which the validity of the rite of Infant Baptism is stated, and warmly defended. Upon a candid and deliberate view of the subject in all its bearings, and an imjiartial examination of the arguments by Avhich this doctrine and practice are supported, it ap- peared to me that the whole was founded on error; and that neither great talents nor literary acquirements were requisite to show this in a clear light. On a comparison of the arguments used by the different Authors in svqjport of this rite, and for the overthrow of the ordinance maintained by the Baptists (so called), I found that not any two were agreed upon the meaning, or the application, of the Scriptures brought forward in confirmation of their opinions ; and that each one not only differed with most of his fellows, but very frequently with himself, in one part or other of the same work. From whence I inferred, that little more Avas required to show the fallacy of their system than to place their respective arguments and opinions in juxta-position, by which their discrepancies would become apparent. This I thought might be most effectually accomplished by bringing the controversy on the subject of Baptism before the public in the form of a Trial in a court of judicature, which plan I have adopted. I have taken for the foundation of the trial, A 2 the Scriplave fact, that tlic Lord of life and ghjrv has, by his last Will and Testament, which he commanded to he published to all the world, bequeathed unto his children infinitely great and glorious blessings : I have endeavoured to show — that none but his true and legitimate oflspring can lay any claim to the heavenly treasure;* — that there is no way of proving our legitimacy, and by consequence esta- blishing our title to this patrimony, but by acquiring a perfect knowledge of the Will — its precepts and require- ments, the covenants it contains, and the privileges it confers; — and that this knowledge, to be of any avail, must be of that influential kind which evinces itself by a uniform practical conformity to all its ])rovisions. I have supposed the two parties, the Pa3dobaptists and the Baptists, to be claimants under the same Will, each questioning the other's title — each endeavouring to establish an exclusive right. The former, being the most numerous and influential, I have made the Plaintiffs — the latter, the Defendants. After giving a general view of the controversy, in the assumed capacity of Counsel for the Plaintiffs (the chief of the statements being taken from writers on that side), the several authors whose works I have consulted are intro- duced in succession, as Witnesses in support of the allega- tion contained in the speech, each one being supposed to give his evidence i/i propria persona, as we find the subject treated in his work ; the extracts from w hich are very copious, and are given verbatim, nothing being omitted which in my estimation could in any way affect the argu- ment. This method (though it has much increased the size of my book) I thought desirable, as the reader will find in it an epitome of all that has been written in favour of Infant Sprinkling. Although I have not omitted anything of im- portance that I found in the woi'ks mentioned, on this par- * Sue John iii. f«. V. licular subject, yet it cannot be supposed that I have given every sentence which they contain ; nevertheless, I have not designedly suppressed any thing that made in favour of their cause: and, if my opinion may be taken, I conceive a reader, having gone through the evidence as given on the trial, will ai'ise from the perusal of it with as perfect an understanding of the subject as if he had read every syllable of the works from which the extracts are made; with this advantage, that he will have escaped the labour, and con- sequent weariness, of wading through a great mass of irre- levant and uninteresting matter, and the subject will be more vividly impressed upon his mind. The Authors' names, the titles of their works, and the order in which their evidence is given, are as follow : First Witness, Rev. Adam Clarke, liL. D. F. A. S.; Com- mentary on the New Testament. Second Witness, Rev. William Burkitt, INI. A.; Expository Notes upon the New Testament. Third Witness, Rev. Richard Mant, D. D., M. R. I. A., Chap- lain to His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury (now Lord Bishop of Down and Connor); Two Tracts, intended to convey Correct Notions of Regeneration and Conversion. Fourth Witness, Rev. Thomas Scott; Holy Bible, with expla- natory Notes ; and his Life, by his Son. Fifth Witness, Rev. Timothy Dwight, S. T. D., LL. D ; System of Theology. Sixth AVitness, Rev. Ralph Wardlaw, D. D. ; Dissertation on Infant Baptism, second edition. Seventh Witness, Rev. Greville Ewing; an Essay on Baptism. Eighth Witness, Rev. Micaiah Towoood; Dissertations on Christian Baptism — recommended by the Revds. David Bogue, D.D., J. Clayton, sen., B. Cracknall, D. D., J. Dcpre, D.D., T. DuRANT, T. Haweis, LL. B., M. D , J. Hooper, A.M., S. Lowell, T. Raffles, D. D., LL. D., J. P. Smith, D.D., and W. Thorpe. Ninlli Witness, Rev. Richard Watson ; Theological Institutes. Tenth Witness, Rev. John Stev.art, D.D.; A Letter ad- dressed to Mr. Henry Paice. Every one who will take the trouble to examine the ori- ginals, may judge of my impartiality ; and should it be found that I have suppressed any thing that would mate- rially have weighed against my views, I trust the candour of the reader will not impute it to design ; but to the weak- ness of human nature, which makes us blind to our own errors, while we are peculiarly quick-sighted in discovering those of others. After giving the extracts from these several works (which the reader may pass over, if he please, as they do not affect the argument), I have, in the assumed character of Counsel for the Defendants, recapitulated, and put under distinct heads, the remarks of the several authors upon each passage of Scripture supposed to favour or oppose their particular views ; so that in this part of the work there is a repetition of all the arguments which are of any weight, upon which I have taken the liberty to comment freely, and, as will doubtless be thought by some, with too much acrimony. Upon a subject of such infinite importance, however, it would ill become me (being confident that I have the Scrip- tures on my side) to " speak smooth things^' or treat the matter lightly. I am defending the cause of truth against those who would throw a veil over it, and have not been very ceremonious in the use of terms. Having thus canvassed the arguments of my opponents, I enter upon my defence, in which I state my views of baptism — its importance and divine origin, deduced wholly from The Bible — the infallible record, in which we find every thing given in such plain, positive, decisive language, that none can (except wilfully) misunderstand it ; and I trust the conti'ast which this presents to the proba- bilities, the possibilities, the doubts, perplexities, evasions, contradictions, and conflicting sentiments of our opponents, will show on which side the truth lies. After this, I give a brief account of my own experience, in the character of a Witness for the Defendants ; and conclude with a short address to the Court and Jury, in the assumed character of Judge. I do not come forward as the advocate of the Baptists, either Particular or General — open or strict communion- ists, — their conduct, with few exceptions, being in many respects indefensible. They are justly and ably reproved in a work lately published, entitled, " Modern Immersion not Scripture Baptism :" and, however much I difter from the author in his main subject, I ])erfectly agree with him in his strictures upon those whom he calls his Baptist Bre- thren, for whose edification I transcribe a sentence or two from the work. " By adopting the plan of open communion, they practi- " cally concede the validity of our baptism, as respects both " the mode and the subject. As they profess to act only from " plain examples or apostolical precepts ; and as they can " find neither in the New Testament for receiving persons at " the Lord's table, after Christian baptism was instituted, who "in the judgment of the first Christians were not baptized, " we must take it for granted, notwithstanding all their eva- " sions on this subject, that they consider P^dobaptists really "baptized. The majority of the Antipoedobaptists are advo- "cates for strict communion, and consequently will suffer " no Paedobaptist to sit down with them at the Lord's table, "because in their opinion he has not been baptized. In this "they act in harmony with their own scheme of interpreting " the Sacred Volume in respect of positive institutions, seeing, " as said before, they can find no precedent in the New " Testament for admitting people to this sacrament who, in " the judgment of the apostles, were not scripturally baptized. " These very persons, however, will admit Psedobaptists into "their pulpits, and listen with delight to their discourses — "will cordially unite with iheni in ])raycr, and singing the " praises of God. liut can they find any precedent for such "a practice? Did the aj^ostlcs adopt or sanction such a "procedure? Will our brethren point out an instance, in "which the first and inspired ministers of Christ tolerated "persons whom they deemed unbaptized to preach in their " churches, or to lead the devotional services of their solemn " assemblies ? " But I come forward to vindicate the ordinance of the house of God, as instituted by himself, established by his beloved Son, and administered by, or through the direc- tion of, the apostles ; and as the subject has employed the pens of the ablest writers on both sides, I pretend not to have made any new discoveries. My object has been to maintain the truth of God, to divest the subject of the mysteries in which it has been involved, and to place it in a somewhat different point of view ; " not with enticing words of man's wisdom," for I possess neither an inventive imagination, nor power of language; but I am sensible it cannot suffer even in my feeble hands, for " God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to con- found the things which are mighty ; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are." * I am aware that I am pursuing an impopular course — that I entertain opinions which will be derided, even by many who agree with me in the general view of the subject — that my hand is against every man, consequently every man's hand will be against me. Yet I am not disheartened by this ; but am bold to declare — that I make faith in our Lord * I Cor. i. 27, 28. IX. Jesus Christ, i. c. faith in tlic true and proper sense of the word, — that which " worketh by love," which is manifested in the first place in the ordinance of baptism, as stated in the New Testament, — a, sine qua non of Christianity; that no unbaptized person can be in a scriptural sense a Christian; and that whoever sets light by this ordinance, or substitutes any thing in its place, cannot, according to the Divine Testimony, be a genuine professor of the gospel, however celebrated his character, or however numerous his adherents. Our Lord declares, " He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved;" and the apostle says, " with the heart man believeth nnto righteousness ; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation ;" * that " without faith it is impos- sible to please God;"t and that " whatsoever is not of faith is sin." X All religious rites and ceremonies, therefore, performed or observed by any individual beiore he is the subject of faith, are declared to be sinful, and consequently hateful to God. Such is the case with Infant Sprinkling. Here I take my stand ; and until the passages just quoted are expunged from the Bible, I maintain that those who practise that rite practise it in violation of the laws and ordinances of that Book, and thereby take upon themselves an awful responsibility. I may be thought singular in these particular views ; indeed I know few persons, if any, who go with me to their full extent, and estimate so highly the importance of this ordinance : but if there were not another person in the world who thought with me, that would neither shake my faith, nor abate my confidence in what I have advanced. I do not pin my faith upon any man's sleeve ; nor call any man master. My opinions are not gathered from the writings of men — they are the result of a diligent searching of the Word of God ; and 1 feel I must either retain them or renounce the * Rom. X. 10. f Heb. xi. 6. t Rom. xiv. 23. X. authority of the Scriptures, for there appears to me no alter- native. When I commenced this controversy, six of the Authors whose works I have brouglit forward were living; the sub- sequent decease of two of them has occasioned no alteration in my jjlan. I have made no distinction between the living and the dead. And although I have been very free in my animadversions U])on their works, yet I bear them no ill- will ; on the contrary, I wish that they and all their adhe- rents should be happy, both in this life and in that which is to come. But I know that the only way of insuring hap- piness is by a scriptural regard to the commands of God ; without which there can never be any true peace of mind. This is what I have endeavoured, to the best of my ability, to inculcate in the following work ; and if only one soul shall, through this means, be brought to rely wholly on the Divine Testimony, it will be of more importance than to "gain the whole world;" and for all the time and labour I have spent, I shall consider myself abundantly rewarded. As I before observed, I may be thought singular in my opinions : whether there be any who perfectly accord with me in every thing that I have here advanced, I have yet to learn. I therefore implicate no man, nor body of men ; every individual who shall read my book may decide for himself ho^v far he can go with me, and whether I have departed from the standai'd of Divine Truth, by which Standard only we shall be judged. Lit/icrland, near Liverpool, July, 1835. CONTENTS. ?> Page Speech of Counsel for the Plaintiffs — the Case stated . . 1 First Witness, Rev. Adam Clarke 17 Second Witness, Rev. William Burkitt 41 Third Witness, Right Rev. Dr. Mant 63 Fourth Witness, Rev. Thomas Scott • 88 Fifth AVitness, Rev. Dr. Dwight 106 Sixth Witness, Rev. Dr. Wardlaw 144 Seventh Witness, Rev. Greville Evving 171 Eighth Witness, Rev. Micaiah Towgood 202 Ninth Witness, Rev. Richard Watson 241 Tenth Witness, Rev. Dr. Stewart ........ 286 Speech of Counsel for the Defendants, containing a Com- mentary on the Evidence for the Plaintiffs .... 313 Cause of the Defendants stated, and defended .... 558 Personal evidence adduced 59 1 Conclusion, Speech of the Judge 604 **^ -V ERRATA. Page 40-2, line 2G, for " it was those only," read '' it was not those only." Page 402, line 29, for " that apostle," read " the apostle." Page 497, line 32, for " benefit to unbelievers," read " no benefit to unbelievers. THE TRIAL. My Lord, and Gentlemen of the Jury, I feel myself highly honoured in being selected from among all my learned brethren to plead this great cause before you, which I may very properly, by way of preeminence, designate The Cause, for it is without a parallel. Compared with this, all the causes that have here- tofore been brought before a court of judicature sink into insignificance, and appear less than nothing and vanity. Notwithstanding, I do flatter myself that I shall be able to bring it to a successful issue ; particularly as I see before me an enlightened and impartial judge, and an attentive and intelligent jury ; who will, I am persuaded, do my clients strict justice. This cause has agitated the w^orld for nearly eighteen hundred years ; and although the generality of christians have long been reconciled to the views which we take of it, there are still a few individuals, composing a small, illiterate, factious party, who by arrogating to themselves the right of private judgment, in opposition to the decision of the learned of all ages, continue the agitation, and have prevented its being wholly set at rest. For as often as my clients en- deavour to show unto the world the errors of their oppo- nents, so often one or other of them attempts to counteract their design, and sometimes in so specious a manner as to make our cause appear at least questionable. To bring, then, the controversy to a termination, to silence for ever the party, and to consign to oblivion them and their delusive B doctrines, is the object for which I present myself before you. This trial, Gentlemen, arises out of a difference of opinion entertained, as I have before stated, by two opposite parties, on the express meaning of two particular clauses in a Will or Testament, which conveys the richest gifts ever be- queathed to man. I believe it is the opinion of many of the defendants, and some even go so far as positively to assert, that unless the commission be executed according to the strict letter of the Will, or in that particular way in which they contend the gi'eat Testator designed that it should be observed, the party so neglecting, or refusing to comply, or substituting any other thing, does thereby for- feit all his right and interest in the said Will. And fur- ther, they affirm that the particular clauses in question are expressed in language so plain and familiar, and in terms so direct and positive, that none but such as are either wilfully blind or perversely obstinate can put thereon any other con- stniction, than that which to them appears to be their plain, simple, and obvious meaning. But it will appear in the course of this trial, from the evidence I shall be able to adduce, (supported by the greatest authorities in the land, and by men the most celebrated in every country in Chris- tendom for learning, erudition, and deep research, who have flourished throughout the whole of the period that this cause has been the subject of discussion,) that the clauses in question do admit of a different construction, and may be differently interpreted. The first of the clauses to which I allude, is thus ex- pressed in the Will — "Go ye therefore, and teach all na- tions, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded }ou."* The second, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."t Now, Gentlemen of the Jury, before I proceed any furtlier, it will be necessary to inform you of the manner in whicli my clients have jnoceeded to acquire a knowledge of the • INfatt. xxviii. 10,20. f ^fark xvi. 16. general bearing of the AVill, and of these intricate clauses in particular; which has been as follows. The greatest portion of them, under the special favour and protection of, and aided by, the state, have joined together, and spared neither expense nor labour to ascertain their true meaning. For this purpose, towns have been set apart, and sumptuous colleges have been erected and richly endowed, for the instruction of youth ; to which the nobles and rich men of the land have sent, and still continue to send, their sons. To be well instructed in the nature and design of this Will has been thought a matter of such importance, that, to induce the youths to study it mth diligence and attention, the highest offices of the state are proposed to them as rewards for their attainments therein ; and the gi'eatest honours that the king can bestow are confeiTcd upon the most eminent, even the dignity of taking precedence of all the nobles of the land. With such inducements to study, and such advantages as these, it is natural to conclude that they, and they only, are likely to attain a correct understanding of the clauses; and we accordingly find that, with few exceptions, they have been unanimous in declaring that the word " baptize," in the said clauses, signifies no more than the sprinkling of a few drops of water upon the face of an infant, which they contend is the baptism therein commanded, and that in this manner it is effectually administered. And in order to make the second clause accord with the first, three persons, named sponsors, are appointed, who are denominated godfathers and godmothers ; if the child be a boy, two of the former and one of the latter ; if a girl, two of the latter and one of the former ; and these, at the christening of the child, engage to believe for it, become its sureties, and promise in its name that it shall renounce the devil and all his works, and conduct itself in a manner becoming an heir of the great promise. Should the child be healthy, there is a clause limiting the term of this guarantee to the period when it shall become of age ; but if it should be of a sickly constitution, this clause is then omitted ; I presume, on the supposition that the child is not expected to live. Now, Gentlemen, I appeal to you if any better scheme could pos- sibly be devised by man ? For all the children of parents of this persuasion are assured of their heirship ; while, on the contrary, if left to themselves (as our opponents, I under- stand, mean to argue that they ought to be), perhaps not one of a thousand of those who are now considered as faithful observers of all the precepts of the Will would so much as conform to the very first of its requirements. Tliis shows the necessity and utility of our plan ; and the great advan- tage of it is, that when they die, they are reckoned a part of one great family, and their remains are interred with the following endearing declaration of the minister — "We com- mit the body of our dear brother to the ground, 'in sure and certain hope of the resuiTcction to eternal life.'" In daily witnessing this last ceremony, those present are led to see, that all so dying are in reality the true heirs ap- pointed by the Will. What a consoling circumstance to all the by-standers, to know that, in their turn, the same thing will be said of each of themselves ! Thus you see. Gentlemen, that my clients show the same christian charity to all their members ; and this they are constrained to show, for it would be " a conceit which revelation warrants not, and which reason and experience disclaim," to have two kinds of services for baptized christians. They there- fore in every instance "meekly beseech the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ to raise us from the death of sin unto the life of righteousness ; that when we shall depart this life, we may rest in him, as our hope is this our brother (or sister) doth." Could we. Gentlemen, have gi-eater induce- ments than these, to be attached to our beloved church, and to uphold her to the utmost of our power ? All my clients, however, are not exactly of one opinion — they differ in trifling things ; a portion of them, instead of sending their children to the public colleges, send them to private academies, which they think answers the same pur- pose ; they sprinkle their infants, but with some of them sponsors arc dispensed with • though I am informed, in such cases, that it is understood, or implied, that the parents take upon themselves the responsibility, though not under the name of sponsors. Others again make a difierence in children ; they make their qualification for induction into this heavenly family to depend upon the faith of their parents. Some of these, in- stead of sprinkling, pour water upon their infants, but only on such whose parents they denominate believers. Yet, although there is this difference among my clients, the majority of them allow each other a claim under the Will. Gentlemen, my clients do not bring forward this cause, because they feel any doubt of their claim. They are satisfied that they are the true heirs ; they therefore do not wish to have their minds disturbed. They are neither envi- ous nor jealous ; on the contrary, they seek your verdict to confirm their claim, in order to convince their misguided opponents that they take a MTong view of the Will; that they do not understand its requirements; and, conse- quently, that their claims are not legitimate. We wish it as a means of opening their eyes; as a means of showing them that they are in the wrong path ; in order that they may retrace their steps, and return into the bosom of mother church, or into that of some of her daughters, whose views of the Testator's ordinance are much alike, although their form of worship differs ; any of which, I think I may with safety say, would receive them back with open arms ; asking few or no questions, either why they had dissented from them, or why they saw good to return to them. Now what can be more liberal than the conduct of my clients, espe- cially as they are by far the most numerous, the most intel- ligent, the most learned, and the most respectable party } Indeed I might say that we are almost the only party, for our opponents are little more than " as the small dust of the balance." You may then ask, Why moot the question, seeing our adversaries are so very few as to be scarcely worthy of notice ? I will inform you, Gentlemen ; few as they are, they are a troublesome sect, the general disturbers of our peace and quiet. If they would enjoy their own opinions, without obtruding them upon others, and let us take our own way, all would be well ; but this they will not do. They, as I before observed, are continually contradicting our state- ments, and thus their doctrines obtain publicity, which occasionally coming to the ears of some of my weak and hypochondriacal clients, excite such an enquiry as this — 'Ah, if 1 should not be right, what will become of me?' It is true their fears generally subside with the return of their good spirits ; yet if we should be able to set this ques- tion at rest, it will be a consummation which we devoutly desire ; and I make no doubt that your verdict will accom- plish this gi'eat and good work. I am sure there has been enough said and written on this subject to convince any body of people, who could be con- vinced at all, that they are in en-or ; but our opponents are an opinionated, and, generally speaking, an illiterate party. Few of them know any language except their mother tongue, and many of them scarcely that ; yet they have the vanity to think that they have amved at a better compre- hension of the true meaning of the Testator than all the gi'eat and learned men of the nation. Nothing more, then, can be done with such an obstinate sect ; to reason with them is next to useless ; and we have little expectation that even the decision of this court will produce any effect upon their understanding. Yet, Gentlemen, your verdict in our favour will answer three good purposes. In the first place, it will lull to rest and peace the doubts and fears of our weaker brethren, who have incautiously listened to their ensnaring counsels. In the second place, it will prevent others from being led away in a similar manner. And in the third place, it will be a means of enabling us to pass the remainder of our days in tranquillity. This ti'ial, strictly speaking, is only upon the two fore- mentioned clauses ; yet the whole of the Will is of such vast importance, that in the course of the proceedings other clauses, bearing upon this question, will be brought more or less under your consideration. I wish you, ho\vcvcr, to keep your attention principally fixed upon these two. The Will has been so generally published, that almost every one in this country, who is desirous, may be made acquainted with its provisions. Yet it has been doubted by some, whether it would be wise to let the imlearned form their own opinions of the nature of its contents. Others think it the better plan, that they should receive instruction through those who have made it the particular study of their lives ; and they argue that it is not possible that the illiterate can understand that which but few men of the greatest learning have yet attained unto. I myself have heard a great deal on the subject of this Will, and have often looked into it ; but I must confess that I do not clearly understand it ; and though I believe I have an equal interest therein with others, I have hitherto, in a great measure, submitted my judgment to those whose peculiar business it is to intruct me. Indeed I feel very thankful that I am under the care of that church, which makes members of all indiscriminately who are brought unto it in their infancy ; and as their power to do this is shown to rest upon the best authority, I have no anxiety on my own part upon this subject. Many of my clients do not confine themselves to the Will alone as a directory for their conduct, they look also to the manner in which it was acted upon by those who imme- diately followed the companions and personal adherents of the Testator. And for further instruction, they take the opinions and practices of succeeding generations, which have been carefully handed down even to the present time. In this, I think they manifest their wisdom, as well as their modesty; and I am sure you will agree with me, that this is the best mode that could be adopted, and more likely to conduce to a correct judgment in the case, than by pursuing the opposite principle, that of rejecting all human authority, and confining themselves entirely to the Will, seeing that it was published nearly eighteen hundred years ago, and that in a language now nowhere spoken by any people. My witnesses will, in the course of the trial, point out to you several little words, apparently of trifling signification, 8 but which they have found to be of the first importance ; for by giving them a different construction from that in which they now stand in the text, and to Avhich they are naturally convertible, several passages connected with these two clauses obtain a meaning very different from that which is generally put upon them by the ignorant. They will also shew, that even the word " baptize " itself has no precise significant meaning when applied to the ordinance in ques- tion, but may with the greatest propriety be substituted for other words of the same language, conveying a very different sense. Thus, when my clients sprinkle a child, though the Greek language supplies them with a word that expresses the act with the utmost precision, they still use the word baptize, because it is the word employed by the Testator : but it will appear evident to you all, Gentlemen, by what shall further be advanced, that the meaning of this word cannot be determined from the Will itself; and this, as I before hinted, proves their wisdom. The terms of the Will, then, being given in ambiguous language, the only way that we can anrive at a certain knowledge of its true bearing is by an appeal to antiquity, in order to ascertain how it was understood and acted upon in those early times ; and to do this, I am happy to say we are prepared. Be- sides, we have a very striking fact for our guidance ; which is, that we can prove to a certainty, that, nearly four thou- sand years ago, Jewish infants were circumcised, by the command of God, when they were eight days old, and thus brought into covenant with him; and that all t^at were proselyted to their religion were also circumcised. Now it appears, from ancient history, that the Jews made additions to the command, purely of their own invention ; and to the ceremony of circumcising their proselytes, they added that of baptism, or they washed them, sprinkled, or poured water upon them — history does not particidarly specify which: but it appears that when the great Testator came into the world, he saw good to abrogate the Jewish rite of circum- cision, which was observed by the conmiand of God, and to retain that use of water which the Jews observed uj)on 9 mere human authority; thus graciously accommodating the laws and institutions of the new kingdom which he came to establish to the predilections of the people among whom he came. For he was well aware, from the obstinacy which they had always shown, that if he had attempted to establish any new order of things he should not succeed with them even in this case. Hence many of our wise and learned men call baptism only a boiTowed rite, and say, that as the Testator took up and continued that rite which the Jews had established without any direction or command ; so they, in like manner, may attach that meaning to the word baptize which may best suit the prevailing customs and tastes of the several countries of the world, thus adapting it to the tem- pers of all mankind. This being the case, Gentlemen, my clients contend that 'as regards institutions and ceremonies of order, the' Will * proclaims its own insufficiency. The apostle enjoins upon the brethren to submit themselves to the rulers, which would be worse than useless, if the rulers had no lawful authority to command any thing beyond the letter of the Scripture. — The reason and mercy of this are obvious, in a religion which was designed to extend to the north and the south, to the east and the west ; a religion which was to gather its converts from the most cultivated, and the most barbarous of human tribes, and assemble its congregations in every varying latitude, from the burning sands of Guyana and Peru to the icebergs on the coast of Norway. 'It follows, then, that the' Will ' was never designed to be a sufficient guide in all the details of management in the church of Christ. It is all-sufficient in principle. It in- vests the church rulers with true authority to enter into details, and it binds the members of the church to yield submission to the details so prescribed, though they be not written in the' Will. — 'Therefore general orders are indis- pensable as the ground-work of delegated authority. To THIS INFIRMITY OF HUMAN MANAGEMENT THE LoRD HAS CONDESCENDED, IN THE HISTORY OF HIS CHURCH. He has employed the instrumentality of human rulers. — General 10 orders arc given in the ' Will : ' delegated authority is entrusted to the rulers of the christian church: and every regulation, every ceremony of the church, decreed by those rulers (and not contradicted by Scripture), comes to the mind, and commands the obedience, of a christian church- man as if it were a precept of Scripture — so long as the laws and ceremonies introduced by the ruler are confined to matters which the ' Will ' has left undetermined, or wholly unnoticed, they are to be obeyed for conscience' sake, by all christian men.' — Therefore, ' we ought to acqui- esce in such rules as have been agreed upon by common consent, and which arc recommended to us by long prac- tice, and that are established by those who have the lawful authority over us. Nor can we assign any other bounds to our submission in this case, than those that the Gospel has limited. JVe must ohey God rather than man ; and we must, in the first place, render to God the things that are God\s, and then give to Cwsar the things that are Ca3sar''s. So that if either church or state have power to make rules and laws in such matters, they must have this extent given them, that till they break in upon the laws of God and the Gospel we must be bound to obey them. ' But this, after all, is to make us the judges. In this one ]ioint undoubtedly it is. And to this end is the ' Will ' put into our hands, not as an all-sufficient guide to supersede a living voice, a delegated authority, and a discretionary power; but as a rectifier, an infallible standard, in opposi- tion to which. Christian governors ought not to command, nor Christian men to obey. — But,' Gentlemen, ' let no man imagine that he has any scri])tural right to disobey a law of the state, or disregard a ceremony of the church (however he may personally dislike it, or however inexpedient, or absurd, or vexatious he may consider it), merely because there is nothing concerning it in the ' Will. ' On the con- trary, if there be nothing concerning it in the ' Will, ' then it is clear it cannot be contradictory to the ' Will : ' and in that case, the enactment of the riUer (as I have already liroved) gives it the authority of the ' Will ' itself 11 ' Surely, then,' Gentlemen, ' I may anticipate yom' agree- ment with me in the conchision, that the common cry against many of the ceremonies of the church, Where do you find them in the Bible ? is altogether unworthy of a place in the disputation of Christian men of enlarged and enlightened minds. The question is not. Are these ceremonies pre- scribed in the Bible ? but. Are they contradictory to the Bible ? It is not. Have the rulers authority to act ? but. Have they transgressed the scriptural limits of their autho- rity?- ' The church has scriptural authority to decree rites and ceremonies, in addition to what is contained in Scripture, provided there be nothing in them " contrary to God's word written." — Ceremonies in addition to, and not in opposition to the Bible, if decreed by the ruler, must be received, adopted, and practised, for the same conscience' sake. — ' To deny her this power, would be to supersede the use of the church altogether — the very pui-pose for which' the Testator 'instituted this society is defeated; since if she has any authority at all (which he expressly gave her), and has none in matters determined in Scripture, she must have it in things ewKletermined in Scripture. — ' In matters of discipline, the positive institutions of the church make things right and wrong which were left unde- termined in Scripture — to consider things which were originally indifferent, as indifferent after the church has enacted regulations respecting them, is an offence against Christ himself, the head of that body: — unreasonable and unscriptural is it in any man to say, I will not conform to such or such a ceremony of the church, because there is no mention made of it in the Scripture. He has the Bible in his hand, commanding him to obey the rulers of the church : the rulers say, Do this ; and he replies, No, I will not do it, because it is not specified in the Bible ! Tlie soldiers and servants of the Gentile centurion shall rise up in judgment with such a man, and shall condemn him.' * These are only a portion of the arguments that we have * Rev. Hugh M'Neile, M.A. 12 to bring forward to combat the new tangled notion of our opponents, who deny the legality of sprinkling infants. When or whence they obtained the idea of baptism, I imagine cannot be ascertained. It seems to have dwelt in obscurity for a time, till at last it burst forth from its solitude in the sixteenth century, and made considerable progi'ess in Germany, extending its influence into Holland, Britain, and other countries, in all of which it still maintains its ground.' I call it a new-fangled notion, because ' pa^dobaptism appears to be as ancient as the apostolic age, while anti- pa^dobaptism appears only a modern invention. In Dr. Wall's defence of his learned and elaborate History of Infant Baptism, he affirms, anti-pasdobaptism does not ap- pear to have been practised till after the middle of the eleventh century ; and that by a people few, ignorant, and quickly converted.' As the evidence from history enters so essentially into the merits of the question now before this court, I cannot do better than quote from the writings of the learned Dr. Osgood. ' We (says he) acknowledge, indeed, that during the ages of darkness which preceded the Protestant Reformation, the institution, as well as the doctrines, of Christ, Avere exceed- ingly corrupted by the mixture of human inventions. We learn from history the origin of these corruptions, and that, in each successive age, there were witnesses against them, whose testimony shews that they never were, even at the season of the thickest darkness, universally received. I shall now prove that infant baptism stands not on the foot of these corruptions, was not introduced on them, and during the course of many revolving ages was not scrupled by a single Christian. Of the writings of the primitive fathers, the im- mediate successors of the apostles, some scattered fragments only have reached modern times : yet in these fragments, we have unquestionable evidence that infant baptism was the general practice in the very century after the apostles. They had been dead about forty years when Justin Martyr pub- lished his " Apology," in which he mentions some " aged 13 Christians who were made disciples in or from their in- fancy." This is understood as implying that they were baptized, as that was the known method of making visible disciples. Trenwun, who was born before the death of St. John, is yet more full in his testimony. Origen was bom about one hundred years after the decease of the apostles, and from whom we have these w^ords : " The church re- ceived a tradition or order from the apostles to administer baptism to infants. About fifty years after this, or one hundred and fifty years from the apostles, baptism being then universally considered as supplying the place of cir- cumcision, a question arose, whether it ought not, as cir- cumcision was, to be deferred till the eighth day after the birth of the child. For the discussion of this question, a council of sixty-six bishops, or pastors of churches, were assembled at Carthage. In their result, they gave it as their opinion that ' baptism ought least of all to be referred to a new-born infant ;' and as to its being put off to the eighth day, they add, ' there is not one that ajij^roves of it : it appears to us all, who are here met in council, far otherwise.' Undoubtedly some of the elders upon this council could remember wdiat the practice of the church had been for seventy or eighty years before, at Avhich period there were probably many living who were born within the age of the apostles, and who must have known what their practice had been. If the baptising of infants had not originated with the apostles, is it credible that all the churches of Christen- dom should have so soon and so universally departed from the apostolic institution.? If so sti'iking and notorious an innovation had been attempted, is it not beyond all belief that it should have been every where received, wdthout a single objection from any of those myriads of saints, con- fessors, and martyrs who lived in the purest ages of the church ? ' The learned Dr. Wall, who inquired most accurately into this subject, says, " For the first four hundred years, there appears only one man, Tertullian, that advised the delag of infant baptism, in some cases ; and one Gregory, that did, 14 perhaps, practise such delay, in the case of his own chil- dren : but no society, so thinking, or so practising, nor any one man saying, that it was unlawful to baptize infants. In the next seven hundred years, there is not so much as one man to be found, that either spoke for, or practised, any such delay, but all the contrary. And when, about the year 1130, one sect among the Waldenses declared against the baptising of infants, as being incapable of salvation, the main body of that people rejected their opinion ; and those of them that held that opinion quickly dwindled away and disappeared, there being no more heard of who held that tenet, until the rising of the German A.nti-pffidobaptists, in the year 1522." ' This account, by Dr. Wall, brings us down to the ara of the Protestant Reformation. Amidst the commotions attend- ant upon that great revolution, sprang up the founders of the present sect of Anabaptists. " Soon after Luther's appear- ance," says Dr. Robertson, in his history of Charles V., " the rashness or ignorance of some of his disciples led them to publish tenets no less absurd than pernicious ; which, being proposed to men extremely illiterate, but fond of novelty, and at a time when their minds were turned wholly towards religious speculations, gained too easy credit and authority among them. The most remarkable of their religious tenets related to the sacrament of baptism, which, as they con- tended, ought to be administered only to persons gTown up to years of understanding, and should be performed, not by sprinkling them with water, but by dipping them in it. For this reason they condemned the baptism of infants, and, re- baptizing all whom they admitted into their society, the sect came to be distinguished by the name of Anabaptists. To this peculiar notion concerning baptism, they added other principles, of a most enthusiastic as well as dangerous nature. By a monstrous and almost incredible conjunction, voluptu- ousness was engrafted on religion, and dissolute riot accom- panied the austerities of devotion. Luther, who had testified against this fanatical spirit on its first appearance, now deeply lamented its progi'ess, and exposed the delusion with great strength of argument, as well as acrimony of style." 15 Not Luther only, but Calvin, Melancthon, BuUinger, Zuin- glius, Gualter, Slcidan, Zanchy, and indeed all the eminent reformers, united their voice in bearing solemn testimony against the principles of this sect, reprobating them in terms of great severity. ' Having found their way into England, some of them very early appeared in America, formed a society at Swansea, and another at Boston, in the year 1665. Of this last, Dr. Mather relates, " that they admitted into their society per- sons whom our churches had excommunicated for moral scandal, and employed them as adminstrators of the two sacraments." From such an origin and such beginnings has this sect arisen. If there be any truth in history, their opinions are wholly modern, and unknown to antiquity. If infant baptism be a human invention, and an absolute nullity, as they pretend, it is certain that, three centuries ago, there was not a society of baptized Christians in the world, nor had been for many preceding ages. What then are we to conclude } Did the church of Christ remain, during the lapse of centuries, overpowered by the (/afes of hell. If we could suppose this, yet would it not be more difficult still to suppose, that it was at length recovered by the madmen of Munster, the German Anabaptists ? ' Though the ' Will ' itself be, at last, our only sure guide, yet it is a satisfaction to know in what sense our fellow- christians understand it with reference to any disputed points, and how they have been understood by the church of Christ in fonner ages : and if we be able, as in this ' cause ' con- cerning infant baptism, to trace the practice of it up through all preceding ages to that of the apostles, it must be allowed a strong presumptive argument in favoiu* of its having origi- nated with the apostles themselves.' I have before told you, Gentlemen, that I hare often looked into this Will ; although, on my own account, I think it unnecessary, being quite at ease respecting my future prospects. Neither do I think it my province to enter into it more fully ; my business is to point out to you the state of the case, and to inform you, that we have custom and pre- 16 cedent on onv side, which generally in this conntiy decide most cases. — You must be well aware that this Will is divided into two parts, designated the Old and New Testa- ment ; these again are subdivided into different parts, called books ; these again into chapters and verses, for the facility of reference to any particular part. — I think it well to mention this ; as each of you is furnished with a copy, you can turn to the different passages quoted by the witnesses, and so each judge for himself of their bearing. I have studied the brief put into my hands with the greatest attention ; and there find that my clients can bring forward such a mass of circumstantial evidence, as I am satisfied shall confound our opponents, and set the question at rest for ever. I am persuaded, Gentlemen, the more you hear of this great Will or Testament, the more you will be convinced of its vast importance ; for if it be possible to make it appear that those whose cause I advocate have no interest therein, it could not be a just one, as it would exclude from an interest in its bequests the majority of the christian world, which we are all certain could never have been the intention of the Testator. I am quite at a loss to imagine upon what ground my learned friend is going to take his stand, or what evidence his ignorant clients can supply to enable him to shake the testimony of my witnesses. I really feel sony that he should have undertaken such a hopeless cause. Being young in the profession, he may probably think it will give him an opportunity of shewing his legal ingenuity; and that if he can succeed in making ' the worse appear the better cause,' he may thus obtain a legal reputation. I shall not take up more of your time, neither shall I think it necessary to appeal to you again, being confident that, from the evidence that will now be produced, you can do no other than give a verdict in my favour. I shall therefore call my witnesses, who will confirm by their evidence what I have stated to you, in this my humble and imperfect appeal. FIRST WITNESS, I, the First Witness called in favour of the Plaintiffs, can- not appear before this honourable court, " without a measure of anxiety ; for though perfectly satisfied with the purity of my motives, and the aimplicity of my intention,^'' I am far from flattering myself that the evidence that I am about to give will afford me pleasure. " The " court " will no doubt find" therein "many things defect ire, and perhaps some incorrect. — My endeavour to be as concise as possible," will, " no doubt, in several cases produce obscurity. What- ever errors may be observed must be attributed to my scan- tiness of knowledge, when compared with the learning and information necessary for" the required testimony on such a momentous trial. " I shall bring every thing as much as possible within the reach of comparatireli/ simple pcojile, or those ivhose avoca- tions prevent them from entering deeply into suhj cts of this kind;" and, in giving my evidence, " shall study rather to be useful, than appear to be learned." I have no other pretensions in coming before you than that the testimony I shall give may be " as a help to a better understanding of the Scriptures. If there be but a few spots, such as may be fairly attributed to human frailty, the " candour of the court " will pass them by, in favour of the general \nm- ciple." And I trust it will not be thought iiTcvclant, if I state in few words the manner in which I have investigated those Sacred Writings. "My education and habits from early youth led me to read and study the Bible, not as a text-book to confirm the articles of a preconceived creed, but as the revelation from God to man. Conscious that Translators in general must have had a particular creed, in reference to which they c 18 would naturally consider every text; and this reference, however honestly intended, might lead them to glosses not always fairly deducible from the original words ; I come before you to give my evidence as free from bias and sec- tarian feeling as possible. " Those who have compared most of the European Trans- lations with the original have not scrupled to say that the English Translation of the Bible, made under the direction of King James the First, is the most accurate and faithful of the whole. Nor is this its only praise : the Translators have seized the very spirit and soul of the Original, and expressed this almost every where, with pathos and energy. Besides, our Translators have not only made a standard Translation, but they have made their Translation the standard of our language : the English tongue in their day was not equal to such a work; but God enabled them to stand as upon mount Sinai, to use the expression of a learned friend, ' and crane up their country's language to the dignity of the originals, so that, after a lapse of two hundred years, the English Bible is, with very few exceptions, the standard of the purity and excellence of the English tongue. The Ori- ginal from which it was taken is alone superior to the Bible translated by the authority of King James.' This is an opinion, in which my heart, my judgment, and my conscience coincide. " Notwithstanding all the helps which the various MSS. and ancient versions afford for the illustration of the sacred text," this court must not imagine " that in those MSS and versions which do contain the ivhole of the sacred text there is any essential defect, in matters that relate to the faith and practice, and consequently to the salvation, of the Christian: — there is no such MS — there is no such version. So has, the Divine Providence ordered it, that although a number of mistakes have been committed by careless copyists, as well as by careless printers, not one essential truth of God has been injured or supprest. In this respect, all is perfect: and the way of the Most High is made so plain, even in the poorest copies, that the wayfaring man, thougl 19 a Ibol, utterly destitute of deep leaniing and critical abilities, need not err therein. "The New Testament, but which should rather be translated the New Covenant, including a testamentary declaration and bequest, for this is precisely the meaning of this system of justice, holiness, goodness, and truth, — the term New Covenant seems to mean, that gi'and plan of agreement, or reconciliation, which God made between him- self and mankind, by the death of Jesus Christ ; in conse- quence of which, all those who truly repent and unfeignedly believe in the great atoning sacrifice are purified from their sins, and united to God. "John was sent to prepare the way of the Lord, by preaching the doctrine of repentance, and was surnamed the baptist, because he required those to be baptized who professed to be contrite because of their sins. " In what form baptism was originally administered has been deemed a subject worthy of serious dispute. Were the people dipped or sprinkled (for it is certain BaTrrw BaTrrj^^cj mean both) ? They were all dipped, say some. Can any man suppose, that it was possible for John to dip all the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judea, and of all the country round about the Jordan ? Were both men and women dijDped ? for certainly both came to his baptism. This could never have comported either with safety or with decency. Were they dipped in their clothes .'' This would have endangered their lives, if they had not with them change of raiment ; and as such a baptism as John's (how- ever administered) was in several respects a new thing in Judea, it is not at all likely that the people would come thus provided. But suppose these were dipped, which I think it would be impossible to prove, does it follow that in all the regions of the world men and women must be dipped, in order to be evangelically baptized ? In the eastern coun- tries, bathings were fi'equent, because of the heat of the climate, it being there so necessary to cleanliness and health ; but could our climate, or a more northerly one, admit of this with safety for at least three-fourths of the year ? We may 20 rest assured that it could not. And may we not presume, that if John had opened his commission in the North of Great Britain, for many months of the year he would have dipped neither man nor woman, unless he could have pro- cured a tepid bath ? Those who are dipped or immersed in M^ater, in the name of the Holy Trinity, I believe to be evan- gelically baptized. Those who are washed or sprinkled with water, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, I believe to be equally so. If Christ embraced little children, why should not his church embrace them ? why not dedicate them to God by ba])tism ? whether that be performed by sprinkling, washing, or immersion ; for we need not dispute about the mode : on this point, let every one be fully jjersuaded in his own mind. I confess it appears to me grossly heathenish and barbarous, to see parents who profess to believe in that Christ who loves children, and among them those whose creed does not prevent them from using infant baptism, depriving their children of an ordi- nance by which no soul can prove that they cannot be pro- fited; and through an unaccountable bigotry or carelessness withhold from them the privilege of even a nominal dedi- cation to God ; and yet these very persons are ready enough to fly for a minister to baptize their child when they suppose it to be at the point of death. " Here I would earnestly recommend " to the notice of this court " the observations made by Dr. Lightfoot, who has spoken well on the subject. 'Both dipping and sprink- ling are legitimate forms; and either may be used, as the consciences or religious prejudices of the parties may direct: but the thing itself, and its great reference, are of the utmost importance. Baptism is a standing proof of the Divine authenticity of the Christian religion. " ' That the baptism of John was by plunging the body, (after the same manner as the washing unclean persons, and the baptism of proselytes, was,) seems to appear from those things which are related of him ; namely, that he baptized in Jordan; that he baptized in Enon, because there was much water there ; and that Christ, being baptized, came up 21 out of the water : to which that seems to Le parallel, Acts viii. 38, Philip and the Eunuch went down into the water, 8fc. Some complain that this rite is not retained in the Christian church, as though it something derogated from the truth of baptism ; or as though it were to be called an innovation, when the sprinkling of water is used, instead of plunging. " ' That the notion of washing in John's baptism differs fi'om ours, in that he baptized none who were not brought over from one religion, and that an irreligious one too, into another, and that a true one. But there is no place for this among us, who are born Christians ; the condition therefore being varied, the rite is not only lawfully, but deservedly, varied also. Our baptism argues defilement indeed; — but this is to be understood of our natural and sinful stain, to be washed away by the blood of Christ and the grace of God ; with which stain indeed they were defiled, \^ho were bap- tized by John. But to denote this washing by a sacra- mental sign, the sprinkling of water is as sufiicient as the dipping into water, when in truth this argues washing and purification as well as that. " ' Since dipping was a rite used onli/ in the Jewish nation, and proper to it, it were something hard, if all nations should be subjected under it; but especially when it is neither necessary to be esteemed of the essence of baptism, and is moreover so harsh and dangerous, that in regard of these things it scarcely gave place to circum- cision. " ' We suppose that men, rcomen, and children came to John's baptism, according to the manner of the nation in the reception of proselytes ; namely, that they, standing in Jordan, were taught by John ; that they were baptized into the name of the Messias, who was now immediately to come ; and into the profession of the doctrine of the gospel concerning faith and repentance ; that they plunged them- selces into the river, and so came out. " ' To the objection, Jt is not commanded to baptize infants, therefore they are not to he baptized ; — I answer. It is not forbidden to baptize infants, therefore ihey are to be 22 baptized : and tlie reason is plain ; for when psedohaptisni in the Jewish church was so known, usual, and frequent, in the admission of proselytes, that nothing almost was more known, usual, and frequent, there was no need to strengthen it with any precept, when baptism was now passed into an evangelical sacrament. For Christ took baptism into his hands, and into evangelical use, as he found it; this only added, that he might promote it to a worthier end and a larger use. The whole nation knew well enough that little children used to be baptized ; there was no need of a precept for that, which had ever by common use prevailed. For since it was most common in all preceding ages that little children shoidd be baptized, if Chiist had been minded to have that custom abolished, he would have openly forbidden it. Therefore his silence, and the silence of the Scripture in this matter, confirms psedobaptism , and continues it to all ages.' " Our Lord said to his disciples, ' Go ye therefore into all nations, baptizing them,' &c. Because I have the autho- rity, and can send whomsoever I will, to do whatsoever I please — teach ; make disciples of all nations ; bring them to an acquaintance with God who bought them, and then baptize them in the name of the Father. It is natm-al to suppose, that adults were the first subjects of baptism; for as the gospel was in a peculiar manner sent to the Gentiles, they must hear and receive it, before they could be expected to renounce their old prejudices and idolatries, and come into the bonds of the Christian covenant. But certainly no argument can be drawn from this concession against the baptism of children. When the Gentiles and Jews had received the faith and blessings of the gospel, it is natural enough to suppose they should ^^^sh to get their children incorporated with the visible church of Christ; especially if, as many pious and learned men have believed, baptism succeeded to circumcision, which I think has never yet been disproved. The apostles knew well, that the Jews not only circumcised the children of proselytes, but also baptized them ; and as they now received a commission to teach and 23 proselyte all the nations, and baptize them in the name of the Holy Trinity, they must necessarily understand that infants were included ; nor could they, the custom of their country being considered, have understood our Lord differ- ently, unless he had, in the most express terms, said, that they were not to baptize children ; which neither he nor his apostles ever did. And as to the objection that the baptized were obliged to profess their faith, and that, there- fore, only adults should be baptized, there is no weight at all in it; because what is spoken of such refers to those who only at that period of life heard the gospel, and were not bom of parents who had been Christians ; therefore they coidd not have been baptized into the Christian faith, foras- much as no such faith was at their infancy preached in the w^orld. Teaching them to observe all things.^ Men are ignorant of divine things, and must be taught. Only those can be considered as proper teachers of the ignorant, who are thoroughly instructed in whatsoever Christ has commanded. Persons who are entrusted with the public ministry of the word should take care that they teach not human creeds and confessions of faith, in place of the Sacred Writings ; but those things, and those only, which Jesus has com- manded. " He that credits the gospel as a revelation from God, and is baptized, takes upon him the profession of it, obhging himself to walk according to its precepts : he shall be saved — redeemed from sin here, and brought at last to the enjoyment of eternal glory. But he that believeth not shall be damned, because he rejects the otily provision that could be effectual to his soul's salvation. " It is said, Luke vii. 29, 30, ' All the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John, But the pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.' John preached that the divine wrath was coming upon the Jews, from which they might flee by repentance ; chap. iii. 7. The Jews, therefore, who were baptized by him 24 with tlic baptism of repentance, did thereby acknowledge, that it is but justice in God to punish them for their wdckedness, unless they repented, and were baptized in token of it. The will of God was, that all the inhabitants of Judea should repent at the preaching of John, be baptized, and believe in Christ Jesus. Now, as the pharisees and lawyers did not repent, &c- at John's preaching, so they did not believe his testimony concerning Christ: thus the ivill, gracious counsel, or design of Go.!, relative to their salvation, was annulled or frustrated. They disbeliev d his promises, despised the Messiah, and disobeyed his precepts. " It was John's business to proclaim the gospel of the grace of God, and to point out that lamb, or sacrifice of God, which takes away the sin of the world. They were to repent, and be baptized, in reference to the remission of sins. Repentance prepared the soul for it, and baptism was the type and pledge of it. "It is not clear that Christ did baptize any with water, but his disciples did; and what they did by his authority and command, is attributed to himself. It is a common custom in all countries, and in all languages, to attribute the operations of those who are under the government and direction of another, to him by whom they are directed and governed. " ' John baptized in ^non, because there was much water there.'* Whether the ceremony was performed by dipping or sprinkling, this was equally necessary, when such multitudes were baptized. But as the Jewish custom required the per- son to stand in the water, and having been instructed, and entered into a covenant to renounce all idolatry, and take the God of Israel for their God, then plunge themselves under the ivater. It is probable the rite was thus per- formed at ^non. " In John iii. 5, Jesus says, ' Except a man be bom of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.' So by the baptism of water a man was admitted, when he became a proselyte to the Jewish religion. The * John iii. 23. soul was considered as in a state of defilement, because of past sin ; now, as by that water the body was washed, cleansed, and refreshed, so by the influences of the Holy Spirit the soul was to be purified from its defilement, and strengthened to walk in the way of truth and holiness. When John came baptizing with water, he gave tlie Jews the plainest intimations that this would not suflice; that it w'as only typical of that baptism of the Holy Ghost, under the similitude of fire, which they must all receive from Jesus Christ. See Matt. iii. 11. Those that have never had any other baptism than that of water, may take Jesus Christ's word for it, they cannot, in their present state, enter into the kingdom of God. It is Jesus only who baptizes with the Holy Ghost.* He who receives not this baptism, has neither right nor title to the kingdom of God ; nor can he with any propriety be termed a Christian, because that which essentially distinguished the Christian dispensation from that of the Jews was, that its author baptized all his followers ivlth the Holy Ghost. " When Paul came to Ephesus, he asked ' certain dis- ciples, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed ?' For it was the common privilege of the disciples of Christ to receive, not only the ordinary graces, but also the extra- ordinary gifts, of the Holy Spirit : and thus the disciples of Christ differed from those of John, and of all others. John baptized with water; Jesus baptized with the Holy Ghost. And to this day, the genuine disciples of Christ are distin- guished from all false religionists, and fi-om nominal Chris- tians, by being made partakers of this Spirit; which en- lightens their minds, and convinces of sin, righteousness, and judgment ; quickens their souls, witnesses to their conscience that they are the children of God, and purifies their hearts. "These Ephesians said unto Paul, 'We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them. Unto what then were ye baptized } and they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized wdth the baptism of repentance, saying unto the * John i. 33. 26 people, lliat tliey should believe on Him which should come after him, that is on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."* " As there is no evidence in the New Testament of persons being rehaptized, unless this be one, many criticisms have been hazarded to prove that these persons were not re- haptized. I see no need of this. To be a Christian, a man must be baptized into the Christian faith : these persons had not been baptized into that faith, and therefore were not Christians. They felt this, and were immediately baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. This is a plain case : but let one instance be produced of a person being rebaptized, who had before been baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity, or even in the name of Jesus alone. In my view, it is an awful thing to iterate baptism, when it had been before essentially performed: by 'essentially ])erformed,' I mean administered by sprinkling, washing, or p)lunging, by or in water, in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, being in- voked at the time. Whoever has had this, has the essence of baptism, as far as it can be confen-ed by man : and it matters not at what period of his life he has had it : it is a substantial baptism, and by it the person has been fully consecrated to the Holy and Blessed Trinity : and there should not be an iteration of this consecration on any account whatever. It is totally contrary to the canon law ; it is contrary to the practice of the purest ages of the Church of God; it is contrary to the New Testament; and tends to bring this sacred ordinance into disrepute. " From Acts i. 5, we may learn, that baptism does not always mean being plunged or immersed in water; for as this promise most evidently refers to the communication of the Holy Spirit, which ' sat upon each as a cloven tongue of jirCy this certainly has more affinity to sprinkling than to plunging. However, the mode of administering the sign is of very little consequence ; and which is the best mode, is exceedingly dubious. The stress should be laid on receiving the #^m^ signified — the Holy Ghost, to illuminate, * Acts xix. 1 — 5. 27 regenerate, rejine, and pnrify the heart. With this, sprinkling or innnersion are equally efficient : without this, both are worth nothing. " A little further on in the Acts we are told, ' then they that gladly received his word were baptized : and the same day there were added to them about three thousand souls.' When a Jew' had been baptized in the name of Jesus, it was the criterion of his conversion, and he was then excluded from all communication with his countrymen ; and no man would have forfeited such privileges, but on the fullest and clearest conviction. These three thousand were not converted under one discourse, nor in one place, nor by one person. All the apostles preached, some in one language, and some in another ; and not in one house ; for where was there one, at that time, that could hold such a multitude of peoj^le ? For out of the multitudes that heard, three thousand were converted ; and if one in Jive was con- verted, it must have been a very large proportion. The truth seems to be this. All the apostles preached in differ- ent parts of the city, during the course of that day ; and in that day, three thousand converts were the fruits of the conjoint exertions of these holy men. " Then we have Philip asking the Eunuch, * Understand- est thou what thou readest? and he answered. How can I, except some man should guide me ?' This is no proof that * the Scriptures cannot be miderstood without an authorised interpreter,' as some of the papistical writers assert. How could the Eunuch know any thing of the gospel dispensation, to which the Scripture refeiTed } That dispensation had not yet been proclaimed to him ; he knew nothing about Jesus. But where that dispensation has been published, where the four Gospels and the Apostolic Epistles are at hand, every thing relative to the salvation of the soul may be clearly apprehended, by any simple, upright person. There are difficulties, it is true, in different parts of the Sacred Writings, which neither the Pope nor his conclave can solve ; and several which even the more enlightened Protestant cannot remove : but these difficulties 28 do not refer to matters in which the salcat'ton of the soul is immediately concerned ; they refer to such as are common to every ancient author in the universe. These difficulties, being understood, add to the beauty, elegance, and justness of the language, thoughts, and terms of expression ; and these, only the iew who are capable of understanding, are able to relish. As to all the rest, all that relates io faith and practice, all in which the ]n'esent and eternal interest of the soul is concerned, ' the wayfaring man, though a fool [quite illiterate], shall not err therein.' "After Philip had 'preached unto him Jesus,' ' the Eunuch said. See, here is water, what does hinder me to be baptized ? Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest; and he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And they went down both into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch : and he baptized him.' (They aliglded from the chariot into the water.) When Philip was instructing him, and he professed his faith in Christ, he probably plunged himself under the water, as this was the plan which appears to have been generally followed among the Jews in their baptisms : but the person who had received his confession of faith, was he to whom the baptism w'as attributed, as it was administered by his authority. " The baptism of the Spirit did not supersede the baptism by water ; nor indeed can it. St. Peter commanded the Gentiles to be baptized, after they had received the Holy Ghost, see Acts x. 48 ; in other cases, they were baptized before, see Acts xix. 4 — 6, where the disciples who had received only the baptism of John were baptized again with water, in the name of the Lord Jesus : and after even this, the a])ostles prayed, and laid their hands on them, before they were made ])artakers of the Holy Ghost. So we find that Jesus had his water baptism, as vacII as John : and that even he who gave the baptism of the Holy Ghost required the administration of ivater baptism also. Baptism, as well as the Supper of cur Lord, were intended not only to be means of grace, but standing, irrcfrayablo pro(fs of the 29 truth of Christianity. To ' be baptized in the name of the Lord,' implied their taking upon them the puhllc profession of Christianity, and beheving in Christ Jesus as their Saviour and Sovereign. " Paul, ^vl•iting to the Romans, says, ' Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death ? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death : that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.' * " Every man who believes the christian religion, and receives baptism as the proof that he believes it and has taken up the profession of it, is bound thereby to a life of righteousness. ' To be baptized into Christ ' is to receive the docti'ine of Christ crucified, and to receive baptism as a proof of the genuineness of that faith, and the obligation to live according to its precepts. ' Baptized into his death.' That as Jesus Christ, in his crucifixion, died completely, so that no spark of the natural or animal life remained in his body ; so, those who profess his religion should be so completely separated and saved from sin, that they have no more connexion with it, nor any more influence from it, than a dead man has with or from his departed spirit. " ' We are buried with him by baptism into death.' It is prohahle that the ajjostle here alludes to the mode of admi- nistering baptism by immersion, the whole body being put under the tvatcr, which seemed to say. The man is drowned, is dead ; and, when he came up out of the water, he seemed to have a resurrection to life; The man is risen again, he is alive ! He was therefore supposed to throw off his old gentile state, as he threw ofi' his clothes, and to assume a new character, as the baptized generally put on new, or fresh garments. I say it is probable that the apostle alludes to this mode of immersion ; but it is not absolutely certain that he does so, as some do imagine ; for in the next verse, our being incorporated into Christ by baptism is also denoted by our being planted, or rather grafted, together in * Rom. vi. 3, 4. 30 the likeness of his death : and Noah's :ixV Jioatiiuj upon llie water, and sprinkled by the rain from heacen, is a figure corresponding to baptism :* but neither of these gives us tlie same idea of the outward form as hunjing. We must be careful, therefore, not to lay too much stress on such circumstances. Drowning among the ancients was consi- dered the most noble kind of death ; some think the apostle may allude to this. " Writing also to the Colossians, Paul says, ' Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncir- cumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses.' Alluding to the immersions practised in the case of adults, wherein the per- sons appeared to be buried under the water, as Christ was buried in the heart of the earth. His rising again the third day, and their emerging from the water, was an emblem of the resurrection of the body, and, in them, of a total change of life. They were quickened, changed, and saved, by means of faith in Christ Jesus ; which faith was produced by the operation or energy of God. Believing, is the act of the soul ; but the grace or power to believe, comes from God himself. " The doctrine of the resun-ection of our Lord was a gi'and doctrine among the apostles ; they considered and preached this as the demonstration of the truth of the Gospel. The multitudes who embraced Christianity, became converts on the evidence of this resurrection. This resuiTcction was considered the pledge and proof of the resurrection of all believers in Christ, to the possession of the same glory into which he had entered. — The baptism which they received, they considered as an emblem of their natural death and resun'cction. " The sum of the apostle's meaning in 1 Cor. xv. 29, ' What shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all ? ' appears to be this ; If there be no * 1 Peter iii. 20, 21. 31 resurrection of the dead, those who, in becoming Christians, expose themselves to all manner of privations, crosses, severe sufferings, and a violent death, can have no com- pensation, nor any motive sufficient to induce them to expose themselves to such miseries. But as they receive baptism as an emblem oi death, in voluntarily going under the water; so they receive it as an emblem of the resurrectio7i unto eternal life, in coming up out of the water : thus they are baptized for the dead, in perfect faith of the resurrection. " Ananias said to Saul ' Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins :' as much as to say, Take now the profession of Christ's faith most solemnly upon thee, by being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Let this washing of thy body represent to thee the washing away of thy sins : and know, that this washing away of sin can be received only by invoking the name of the Lord. "In John i. 12, 13, we are told 'As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name ; which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God;' who were regenerated, not of bloods — the union of father and mother, or of a distinguished or illus- trious ancestry ; for the Hebrew language makes use of the plural, to point out the dignity or excellence of a thing: and probably by this the Evangelist intended to shew his countrymen, that having Abraham and Sarah for their parents would not entitle them to the blessings of the new covenant; as no man could lay claim to them, but in con- sequence of being born of God : therefore, neither the will of the flesh — any thing that the coiTupt heart of man could purpose or determine in its own behalf; nor the will of man — any thing that another may be disposed to do in our behalf, can avail here : this new birth must come through the will of God — through his owti unlimited power and boundless mercy, prescribing salvation by Jesus Christ alone. " ' There is no respect of persons with God.'* The * Rom. ii. 11. 32 Righteous Judge will not act according to any principle of ]3artiality ; the character and conduct alone of the person shall weigh with him. He will take no wicked man to glory, let his nation or advantages be what they may ; and he will send no righteous man to perdition, though brought up in the very bosom of gentUism. And as he will judge in that day according to character and conduct; so his judgment will proceed on the gi'ound of the graces, privileges, and blessings, which they had received, improved, or abvised. And as there is no respect of persons with God in judg- ment, so there can be none in the previous administration of his saving blessings ; he that will be condemned for his unrighteousness, will be condemned on the ground that he had sufficient grace afforded him for the salvation of his soul : and his condemnation will rest on the simj^le prin- ciple, that he abused the grace Vthich was sufficient to save him, by acting in opposition to its dictates and influence. No man, in that great day, shall be brought to heaven through any partiality of the Judge ; and no man sent to hell because God did not afford him sufficient grace ; or because he had made a decree, which rendered even his use of it ineffectual to his salvation. In reference to the great design of God in the salvation of man, it shall be said, in time, at the day of judgment, and throughout eternity, Tpikre is no kespect of persons with God. " ' Jesus said' unto Nicodemus, ' Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born again when he is old ? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb and be born?' Every man must have two births — one from heaven, the other from earth ; one of his body, the other of his soul : without the first, he cannot see nor enjoy this world ; without the last, he cannot see nor enjoy the kingdom of God. x4s there is an absolute necessity that a child should be born into the world, that he may see its light, contemplate its glories, and enjoy its good ; so there is an absolute necessity that the soul should be brought out of its state of darkness and sin, through the light and power of 33 the grace of Christ, that it may be able to sec, or to discern, the glories and excellencies of the kingdom of Christ here, and be prepared for the enjoyment of the kingdom of glory hereafter. The Jews had some general notion of the new birth ; but, like many among Christians, they put the acts of proselytism, baptism, &c., in the place of the Holy Spirit and his influence : they acknowledged that a man must be born again, but they made that new birth to consist in pro- fession, confession, and external washing. But this neiv birth implies the renewing of the whole soul in righteousness and true holiness : it is not a matter that may be dispensed with : heaven is a place of holiness, and nothing but what is like itself can ever enter there. It is probable that Nico- demus was pretty far advanced in age at this time ; and from his answer we may plainly perceive, that, like the rest of the Jews, and like multitudes of Christians, he rested in the letter, without paying proper attention to the spirit ; the shadow, without the thing signified, had hitherto satisfied him. Our Lord knew him to be in this state, and this was the cause of his pointed address to him, ' Ail thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things ? ' Hast thou taken upon thee to guide the blind in the way of truth, and yet knowest not that truth thyself.'' Dost thou command pro- selytes to be baptized with water, as an emblem of a new birth, and art thou unacquainted with the cause, necessity, nature, and effects of that new birth ? How many masters are there still in Israel who are in this respect deplorably ignorant; and, strange to tell, publish their ignorance and folly in the sight of the sun, by writing and speaking against the thing itself I It is strange that such people cannot keep their own secret. " In the Acts of the Apostles, * we read, ' A certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thy- atira, which worshipped God, heard us ; whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. x^Vnd when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us saying, If ye have judged me * Acts xvi. 14, 15. D 34 faithful to the Lord, come into my house and abide there.' As she was a sincere worshipper of God, she was prepared to receive the heavenly truths spoken by Paul and his com- panions : and as she was faithful to the grace she had received, so God gave her more grace, and gave her now a divine conviction that what was spoken by Paul was true ; and therefore she attended unto the things ; she believed them, and received them as the doctrines of God ; and in this faith she was joined by her whole family ; and in it they were all baptized." " Further down in the same chapter, we read of the con- versation between Paul, Silas, and the jailor. 'Sirs, what must I do to be saved ? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes ; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believ- ing in God with all his house,' Thus, by teaching him, and all that were in his house, the doctrine of the Lord, they plainly pointed out to them the way of salvation ; and it appears that he and his whole family, who were capable of receiving instructions, embraced the doctrine, and shewed the sincerity of their faith by immediately receiving baptism. And, by the way, if he and all his were baptized straightway, — immediately, instantly, at that very time, — it is by no means likely that there was any immersion in the case ; indeed, all the circumstances of the case — the dead of the night, the general agitation, the necessity of despatch, and the words of the text, — all disprove it. The apostles, there- fore, had another method of administering baptism, besides immersion, which, if practised according to the Jewish formalities, must have required considerable time, and not a little publicity. As the Jews were accustomed to receive whole families of heathens, young and old, as proselytes, by baptism, so here, the apostles received whole families, those of Lydia and the jailor, by the same rite. It is therefore 35 pretty evident that we have in this chapter very presumptive proofs — 1st, That baptism was administered without immer- sion, as in the case of the jailor and his family ; 2d, Tliat children w ere also received into the church in this way ; for we can scarcely suppose that the whole families of Lydia and the jailor had no children in them; and, if they had, it is not likely that they should be omitted ; for the Jewish practice was invariably to receive the heathen children with their proselyted parents. The jailor believed — brought them into his house — washed their stripes — and set meat before Ihem. " ' Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house : and many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed, and were baptized.' Crispus held an office of considerable consequence ; and therefore his con- version to Christianity must have been very galling to the Jews. It belonged to the chief, or ruler of the synagogue, to preside in all assemblies, interpret the law, decide con- cerning things lawful and unlawful, punish the refractory, excommunicate the rebellious, solemnize maniages, and issue divorces; and ' many of the Corinthians,' to whom the sacred historian refers, were probably Gentiles, and were the fruits of the apostle's labours, after he had ceased to preach among the Jews. "From 1 Cor. xvi. 15, we learn that 'the family of Ste- phanas' were the first converts in Achaia ; probably converted and baptized by the apostle himself. They were the chief instruments of supporting the word of God in Achaia, of which work they themselves were the Jirst-fruits. " Jesus Christ never saved a soul which he did not (jovern : nor is this Christ precious or estimable to any man who does not feel a spirit of subjection to the divine will. ' And he called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, and said, Verily I say unto you, except ye be con- verted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever, therefore, shall humble himself, as a little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child, in 30 my name, receivetli me.'* As mucli as to say, ' Unless you be saved from those prejudices which are at present so baneful to your nation, (seeking a temporal, and not a spi- ritual kingdom,) unless you be clothed with the spirit of humility, ye cannot enter into the spirit, design, and privi- leges of my spiritual and eternal kingdom. The name of this kingdom should put you in mind of its nature. — 1. The king is heavenly ; 2. His subjects are heavenly-minded ; 3. Their country is heavenly, for they are strangers and pilgrims upon the earth ; 4. The government of this kingdom is wholly spiritual and divine. Be as truly without worldly ambition, and the lust of power, as little children are, who act among themselves as if all were equal. So great is the dis- parity between the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of this world, that there is no way of rising to honours in the former, but by humility of mind, and continual self-abase- ment. Thus our Lord shews them, that they were all equal, and that there could be no superiority among them, but what must come fi'om the deepest humility : he intimates also, that wherever this principle should be found, it would save its possessor from seeking worldly honours, or earthly profits, and from seeking to be a fuler over his brethren, or a lord in God's heritage. As our Lord considers a little child an emblem of a genuine disciple, so by the term ' one such little child,' he means a disciple only. ' "Whosoever Anil shew unto such a child-like, unambitious disciple of mine, any act of kindness for my sake, I will consider it as done to myself.' But, on the contrary, ' whoso shall offend one of these little ones,' — whosoever shall cause one of the least of those who believe in me to be stumbled — to go into the spirit of the world, or give way to sin, — such an one shall meet with the most exemj^lary punishment. " Matthew tells us, f ' Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray:.. ..and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said. Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come \mto me ; for of such is the kingdom of heaven : and he laid his hands * Matt, xviii. 2— o. f Matt. xix. i:i— 15. 37 on them.' Or the kingdom of heaven is composed of such. This appears to be the best sense of the passage, and utterly ruins the whole inhuman, diabolic system of what is called non-elect infants' damnation ; a doctrine which must have sprung from Moloch, and can only be defended by a heart in which he dwells. A great part of God's kingdom is composed of such literally: and those only who resemble little children shall be received into it. It was a common custom among the Jews to lay their hands on the heads of those whom they blessed, or for whom they prayed. This seems to have been done by way of dedication, or conse- cration to God — the person being considered as the sacred property of God ever after. Often, God added a testimony of his approbation, by communicating some extraordinary influence of the Holy Spirit. This rite has been long prac- tised among Christians, when persons are appointed to any sacred office. But this consecration of children to God seems to have grown out of use. It is no wonder that the great mass of children are so wicked, when so few are put under the care of Christ, by humble, praying, believing parents. Let every parent that fears God bring up his children in that fear ; and by baptism let each be dedicated to the Holy Trinity. "Wliatever is solemnly consecrated to God abides under his protection and blessing. " 'The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife :'* or rather is to be reputed as sanctified, on account of his wife ; she being a Christian woman, and he, though an heathen, being by maiTiage one flesh with her ; her sanctity, as far it refers to outward things, may be considered as imputed to him, so as to render their connexion not unlaw- ful. The case is the same when the wife is an heathen, and the husband a Christian. The word sanctification here, is to be applied much more to the Christian state than to any moral change in the persons. " ' Else were your children unclean. ' If this kind of relative sanctification were not allowed, the children of those persons could not be received into the Chritian church, nor * 1 Cor. vii. 14. 38 enjoy any right or privileges as Christians ; but the church of God never scrupled to admit such children as members, just as well as she did those who had sprung from parents both of whom were Christians. The Jews considered a child born out of holiness, whose parents were not proselytes at the time of their birth, though afterwards they became proselytes. On the other hand, they considered the children of heathens born in holiness, provided the parents became proselytes before the birth. " ' The children of Israel ' ' were all baptized unto Moses ' — rather into Moses — into the covenant of which Moses was the mediator : and by this typical baptism, they were brought under the obligation of acting according to the Mosaic pre- cepts, as Christians receiving Christian baptism are said to be baptized into Christ, and are thereby brought under obligation to keep the precepts of the gospel. " It is manifest from Scripture that the miraculous cloud in the wilderness performed a three-fold office to the Israel- ites. 1. It was a cloud in the form of a pillar, to direct their journey ings by day. 2. It was a pillar of fire, to give light to the camp by night. 3. It was a covering for them dming the day, and preserved them from the scorching rays of the sun, and supphed them with a sufficiency of aqueous particles, not only to cool that bm-ning atmosphere, but to give refreshment to themselves and their cattle ; and its humidity was so abundant, that the apostle here represents the people as thoroughly sprinkled, and enveloped in its aqueous vapour ; for he represents the whole camp as being sprinkled, or immersed, in the humidity of its vapours, and expressly calls it a being under the cloud, and being bap- tized by the cloud. " Noah believed in God, walked uprightly before Him, and found gi'ace in his sight ; he obeyed Him in building the ark, and God made it the means of his salvation from the waters of the deluge. Baptism implies a consecration and dedication of the soul and body to God the Father, Son, and Holy Sj)irit. He who is faithful to his baptismal covenant, taking God through Christ, by the Eternal Spirit, for his portion, is saved here from his sins ; and, througli the resur- 39 rection of Christ from the dead, as the well gi'ounded hope of eternal glory. This is all plain : but was it the deluge itself, or the ark, or the being saved by that ark from the deluge, that was the antetype of which St. Peter speaks ? Noah and his family were saved by ivater ; i. e. it was the instrument of their being saved, through the good provi- dence of God. So the water of baptism, typifying the regenerating influence of the Holy Spirit, is the means of salvation to all those who receive the Holy Spirit, in its quickening, cleansing efficacy. Now, as the waters of the flood could not have saved Noah and his family, had they not made use of the ark, so the waters of baptism saves no man, but as it is the means of his getting his heart purified by the Holy Spirit, and typifying to him that purification. The ark was not immersed in the water ; had it been so, they must all have perished ; but it was home upon the water, and spri)ikled with the rain that fell from heaven. This text, as far as I can see, says nothing in behalf of immersion in baptism; but is rather,/rom the circumstances mentioned" before, " in favour of sprinkling. "■ I may be here allowed to notice, that it is worthy of remark, that in all the revivals of religion with which we are acquainted, God appears to have made very little use of human eloquence, even when possessed by pious men. ' Not with wisdom of words,' but by his own nervous truths, announced by plain common sense, though in homely phrase, have been the general means of the conviction and conversion of sinners. Human eloquence and learning ha^e often been successfully employed in defending the outworks of Christianity ; but simplicity and truth have preserved the citadel. " As we have one only God, and one only Saviour and Mediator between God and man, and one only insj)iring Spirit, so there is but one church, in which this ineffable Jehovah performs his work of salvation. That church, how- ever scattered and divided throughout the world, is but one building, founded on the Old and New Testament ; having but one sacrifice, the Lord Jesus, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world. 40 "Of this glorious church, every Christian soul is an epitome; for, as God dwells in the church at large, so he dwells in every believer in particular ; each is a hahitation of God through the Spirit. In vain are all pretensions among sects and parties to the privileges of the church of Christ, if they have not the doctrine and life of Christ. Traditions and legends are not apostolic doctrines, and showy ceremonies are not the life of God in the soul of man. " Religion has no need of human ornaments or trappings ; it shines by its own light, and is refulgent with its own glory. Where it is not in life and power, men have endeavoured to produce a specious image, dressed and ornamented with their own hands. Into this God never breathed, therefore it can do no good to man, and only imposes on the ignorant and credulous, by a vain shew of lifeless pomp and splendour. This phantom, called tt'ue religion, and the church, by its votaries, is in heaven denominated vain superstition — the speechless symbol of departed piety. " Under the dispensation of the Gospel, of which Christ Jesus is head and supreme, neither circumcision — nothing that the Jew can boast of, nothing that the gentile can call excellent — availeth anything, can in the least contribute to the salvation of the soul. * But a new Creature :' hut a Qiew creation, not a new creature merely, (for this might be restrained to any new power or faculty,) but a total renewal of the whole man — of all the powers and passions of the soul ; and as creation could not be effected but by the power of the Almighty, so this change cannot be effected but by the same energy ; no circumcision can do this ; only the jDower that made the man at first, can new make him. Thus, as the thorough conversion of the soul is compared to a new creation, and creation is the proper work of an All-tvise, Almighty Being ; then, this total change of heart, soul, and life, which takes place under the preaching of the gospel, is effected by the power and grace of God : this is salvation ; and salvation must ever be of the Lord, and there- fore men should apply to Him, who alone can work this wondrous change." SECOND WITNESS. I, the Second Witness, think it " my highest ambition " to serve the plaintiffs. "A fervent desire to further their" cause "has jjut me upon redeeming the time for this work;" and, " as religion did always consist in an imitation of God, so we may imitate him now wdth much more ease and greater advantage, since his Son was manifest in the flesh and dwelt among us : for he was pleased to become man on pm'pose to shew us how we might become like unto God, by a daily imitation of his holiness. This considera- tion has induced me to set before " this court " the example of the Holy Jesus. — I must acknowledge I have constantly preached three times a week (besides occasionals), and visited as often a populous and a scattering parish from house to house: which has allowed me little, too little time" to give such an evidence as this important case requires ; " and I heartily wish this duty had fallen upon some that had more leisure and greater abilities. — I do not" come before " you to deny the lawftilness of baptizing by immer- sion; but I cannot assert the absolute and indispensable necessity of it. — I do not oppose the lawfulness of dipping in some cases, but the necessity of dipping in all cases. " The apostles and first planters of the gospel had a commission fi-om Christ, to go among the pagan Gentiles, without limitation, to preach the gospel. The second branch of their commission was to baptize : where observe the encouraging promise made by Christ, ' he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;' that is, he that receiveth and embraceth the gospel preached by you, and thereupon becomes a proselyte and disciple of Christ, and receives baptism, the seal of the new covenant, shall for all his former sins receive pardon, and, upon his perseverance, 42 obtain eternal life ; but he that stands out obstinately and impenitently, shall certainly be damned. The two damning sins under the gospel are infidelity, and hypocrisy — not receiving Christ for their Lord and Saviour by some, or doing it feignedly by others. Happy are they in whom the preaching of the gospel produceth such a faith as is the parent and principle of obedience. He that so heUeveth and is baptized shall he saved. It is not said, He that is not bap- tized shall be damned; because it is not the want, but the contempt, of baptism that damns, otherwise infants might be damned for their parents' neglect. " It is a vain thing to expect exemption from the judg- ments of God, because of outward privileges enjoyed by us. If we be not born again of the Spirit, it will avail us nothing to be born of Abraham's flesh ; if Abraham's faith be not found in our hearts, it will be to no advantage to us that Abraham's blood is running in our -s eins. " John admitted persons into the church by washing them with water — he baptized into the name of Christ who was to come ; the apostles baptized into the name of Christ already come. The preaching of the doctrine of repentance is absolutely necessary, and the indispensable duty of every gospel minister. The baptism of repentance, says the learned Lightfoot, belongs to children, though they know not what repentance means, because it engages them to repentance when they come to years to understand that engagement; for thus it was with children circumcised, they became debtors to observe the whole law, though they knew not what the law meant, yet circumcision bound them to it, when they came to years of discretion. " The publicans were baptized of John, and justified God, that is, they looked upon John as a prophet sent of God ; they owned his ministry, received his message, and sub- mitted to his baptism. Those who believe the message that God sendeth, and obey it, justify God; they who do not believe and obey, accuse and condemn God. But of the pharisees and lawyers it is said, ' they rejected the counsel of God against themselves.' And this rejection of Christ at 43 the great day, will render our condition worse than the con- dition of heathens that never heard of a Savioin-; than the con- dition of Jews, which crucified their Saviour ; yea, than the condition of devils, for whom a Saviour never was intended ! The publicans and common people, being conscious to them- selves of their sin and guilt, did approve of this counsel which God sent them by his messenger, and submitted to this baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, to which God by the Baptist now called them.* " When Paul found certain disciples at Ephesus that were only baptized unto John's baptism, but had not so much as ' heard whether there be an Holy Ghost,' they were not ignorant of the essence or person of the Holy Ghost, but had not heard of the effusion of the extraordinary and miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost ; for it was a received opinion among the Jews, that, after the death of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the Holy Ghost, or the spirit of prophecy, departed from Israel ; and they never heard that he was returned, or of his being gi\'en anew with his mira- culous gifts. Here Paul tells them that John's baptism and Christ's were the same for substance, and had both the same end, though they differed in some circumstances. The dis- ciples of John believed in Christ to come, the disciples of Jesus believed in Christ as already come, and were bap- tized in that faith, and the ordinance sealed unto both the remission of sins ; yet it being essential to Christian baptism, to baptize in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, thereby professing ourselves to be buried and risen with Christ, and John's baptism having not this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus ; that is, in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is the essence of Christian baptism. " In the Epistle to the Colossians, ii. 12, the apostle com- pares baptism with the Jewish circumcision, and shews that the signification and spii'itual intention of both was one and the same, obliging all persons who took the outward sign upon them, to put off the old man, and put on the new ; to * Luke vii. 29. 44 die unto sin, and live unto God. Accordingly, the ancients made use of divers ceremonies in baptizing adult and grown persons, thereby to represent the death, burial, and resurrec- tion of Jesus Christ. Immersion, or putting the person three times under water, either as our Saviour was under the earth three days, or in allusion to the three persons of the Trinity, in whose name we are baptized ; and likewise emersion, then coming up out of the water, resembling our Lord's arising out of the grave. Baptism under the new Testament succeeds circumcision under the Old, and is a rite of initia- tion to Christians, as circumcision was to the Jews ; for the apostle here proves, that by virtue of our spiritual cir- cumcision in baptism, we have no need of the outward cir- cumcision in the flesh. Baptism is undoubtedly Chrisfs ordinance for infants of believing Christians, as circumcision was of old for the infants of believing Jews. For if, under the gospel, infants be not received by some federal rite into covenant with God, they are in a worse condition than children under the law ; and the apostle could not truly have said, we are complete in Christ, that is, as complete without circumcision, as ever the Jewish church was with it, if we had not an ordinance, to wit, baptism, as good as their abrogated ordinance of circumcision. And the Jews would certainly have objected it to the reproach of Chris- tianity, had not the Christians had a rite of initiation for their children, as they had of circumcision, which sealed the covenant to themselves and their little ones, and was the door by which all persons entered into the Jewish church. " In John iii. 22, 23, the ordinance of baptism is adminis- tered by the disciples, even in the presence of Christ him- self; for ' Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples : ' this is called the baptism of rej)entance, of which children, as well as others, were capable subjects, because baptism doth not require children's repentance at present, but engages them to repentance for the time to come ; as children that were circumcised were obliged to observe the whole law, but could not perform it till they came to understand it. " Baptism is a solemn ordinance and sacred institution of 45 Jesus Christ, which is not to be administered to any out of the Christian church, until they profess repentance, faith in Christ, and sincere obedience to him : and to persuade them to repent and be baptized, Peter tells them, ' the promise is to you, and to your children,' to you Jews of the seed of Abraham, and to your seed ; and to as many of the Gentiles and their seed as shall be called by the preaching of the gospel to profess faith in Christ. By promise is meant the gi'acious covenant of God, whereby he offers pardon and peace to such as will accept them. This acceptance is two- fold— cordial ; which entitles a person to all the benefits of the covenant, temporal, spiritual, and eternal: professional only ; which entitles a person and his seed to church pri- vileges only. Hence, when God takes believing parents into covenant with himself, he takes also their children or seed into covenant with himself likewise ; and if so, then the seal of the covenant, which is baptism, ought to be applied to them. It is evident, that under the Old Testament children were in covenant with God, as well as their parents. And do we any where find that ever they were cast out under the gospel ? " As I before said, the second branch of the apostles' power was to baptize in the name of the whole Trinity ; ' baptizing in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:' where note, that all adult and grown persons are to be first taught and instructed before they be baptized. But it follows not from hence that the children of such parents may not be baptized before they are taught; for the apostles were to baptize all nations, of which children are a chief, if not the chiefest part. Besides, those that were proselyted to the Jewish religion, though before they were circumcised themselves they were instructed in the law of God, yet when they were circumcised themselves, their children were not denied circumcision at eight days old. In like manner, we have no reason to deny the children of baptized parents, who are in covenant themselves, the sign and seal of the covenant, which is baptism, God having assured his people that he will he the God of them and of their need. If this privilege be denied, the children of 4(r Christian parents are in a worse condition than the children of the Jews, and consequently infants are in a Avorse condi- tion since Christ's coining than they were before, and the privileges of those that live under the gospel are straiter and narrower than of those that lived under the law. The third branch of the power which Christ delegated to his apostles, was by their ministry to press upon all their converts an universal observance of, and obedience to, all his commands ; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I command you: where note, that preaching is the ordinary and instituted means to convert nations to God. That preaching must not only go before baptism, but follow after it. Obedience must be pressed upon, and practised by, all those that enter into covenant with God ; otherwise they lie under a gi'eat condemnation. " Some say, Christ did neither baptize infants nor com- mand them to be baptized. That is not to be wondered at, if we consider that they had already entered into covenant with God by circumcision ; and Christian baptism was not instituted ; John's baptism was the baptism of repentance, of which infants were incapable. " ' Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus ; for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ : ' then all believers are the children of God, because they are baptized into Christ, and have put on Christ; that is, they are admitted into the Christian church by bap- tism, they profess Christ's holy religion ; and if they live as they profess, they put on Christ. Now, since the coming of Christ, there is no difference or discrimination between one nation and another, no regard to any national privileges, either of Jew or Gentile, no distinctions of conditions, either bond or free ; or of sexes, either male or female ; but, circum- cised or uncircumcised, we are all one as good as another in respect of outward privileges, but being sincere believers we are all equally accepted of God in Christ. So that no external privilege nor prerogative whatever, without faith in Christ, is any whit available to salvation ; none are debarred fi-om Christ, nor more nor better accepted with him for any 47 of these things: both the circumcised and uncircumcised arc his, if believing in Christ. " The jailor was brought to see and acknowledge that the doctrine taught by Paul and Silas was the truth of the Eter- nal God ; who by the miraculous earthquake testified unto him that they were his true and faithful servants, which led him to ask what he must do to attain salvation. They answered him, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved and thy house ; that is, if you and your family receive the doctrine of Jesus Christ, and regulate your lives according to it, you shall be saved. Trembling sinners are always inquisitive ; an awakened conscience will put a man upon enquir}', what he should do. And the chief thing which the trembling soul enquires after, is the business of salvation; they must be directed to Jesus Christ, and to faith in him, as the only way to obtain salvation by him. Now the jailor believing, he and his whole house were baptized. The apostle denied not baptism to the jailor's household, upon the jailor's sincere profession of the Christian faith ; yet no doubt he promised to use his utmost endeavour to bring them to the knowledge and obedience of Jesus Christ. It is very improbable that the jailor and his household were baptized by dipping: we do not deny the lawfulness of bap- tizing by immersion, but we cannot assert the absolute and indispensable necessity of it. Paul, who was newly washed, and his sores dressed, occasioned by stripes, cannot be sup- posed either to go out himself, or to carry the jailor and all his family, in the dead of the night, to the river or a pond, to baptize them ; neither is it in the least probable, that St. Paul himself was baptized by dipping: see Acts ix. 18, 19 ; ' he arose and was baptized ; and when he had received meat he was strengthened.' The context may convince us that he was baptized in his lodging, being sick and weak, having fasted three days, and being in a very low condition; it was no ways probable that Ananias should cany him out to a river in that state, to plunge him in cold water. Dip- ping, then, surely cannot be so essential unto baptism, as for want of it to pronounce the baptism of all the reformed 48 churches throughout the world to be null and void, as some amongst us do. " Although Christ converted Paul himself, yet Ananias, as his minister, must instruct him ; by Christ is grace infused, but by his ministers increased. " The work of the ministers of the gospel is now to wit- ness for, hereafter to witness against ; now they witness for God and his truth, and persuade sinners to believe it ; here- after they will witness against sinners, for not believing and obeying the truth of God. What a sad consideration is this, and with what a heart must a poor minister study, when he considereth that every sermon that he preaches must be brought in for a witness against many, if not most, of his hearers ? The advice which Ananias gave to this new con- vert, to take upon him the badge of Christianity, to wit, baptism, was, ' Arise, and be bajDtized, and ^vasll away thy sins.' " Although baptizing was God's ordinance, and St. Paul, as Christ's minister, had a commission and sufficient author- ity to baptize ; yet the providence of God so ordered, that he baptized very few, lest any should say he baptized in his own name. Among those few he baptized, here is a whole household mentioned, 'the household of Stephanas.' St. Paul makes honourable mention of Stephanas and his house; they were the first fruits of Achaia, i. e. the first there converted to Christianity. Lydia, by reason of her faith in Christ, having a right to baj)tism, all her family, upon her under- taking to bring them up in the knowledge of Christ, were admitted to the ordinance with her. The jailor and his house, Lydia and her house, are all baptized. The opening of the heart to receive Jesus Christ is the peculiar effect of the sovereign power and omnipotent gi'ace of God. Where learn, as Abraham, and others under the Old Testament, were to bring their housoholds into covenant with God by circumcision, so did those that had households under the New Testament endeavour to bring their whole families into God's covenant by baptism. Paul is here making a com- parison between baptizing and preaching (1 Cor. i. 14 — 17), 49 and the preference given to the one before the other : ' Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach ;' that is, rather to preach than to baptize ; this was his great business, his principal work ; though baptizing was within his commis- sion, yet it was not that, but preaching the gospel, to con- vert souls to Christ, that he was called after such a wonder- ful manner, and endued with such extraordinary gifts for the performance of it. " To be baptized into Christ, is by baptism to take the name of Christ upon us, to be incorporated, ingrafted, and implanted into the church of Christ, being made visible members of his mystical body by baptism : to be baptized into Christ s death, imports our being conformed to him in the likeness of his death ; our being engaged to die unto sin, as Christ died for sin. Learn by this, that the death of Christ was a lively representation of the death of sin ; and believers are to imitate his death, in their dying daily to sin. The argument to move us to die unto sin, is drawn from our baptism ; tve are buried tvith him by baptism into death. The apostle alludes, no doubt, to the ancient manner and way of baptizing persons in those hot countries, which was by immersion, or putting them under water for a time, and then raising them up again out of the water ; which rite had also a mystical signification, representing the burial of our old man sin in us, and our resun-ection to newness of life. The metaphors of burying and rising again do imply and intimate thus much ; burial implies a continuing under death ; thus is mortification a continued act, a daily dying unto sin ; rising again supposes a person never more to be under the power of death. " We are told, Acts ii. 41, ' Then they that gladly received his word, were baptized : and the same day there was added unto them three thousand souls.' We need not enquire, whether the apostles did it by dipping or sprinkling, both being lawful : but this may be said, it is hard to guess how such a quantity of water could be brought to the place as might serve for the decent dipping of three thousand persons in so short a time. And, upon supposition that the water E 50 was not brought to tliem, but they Mcnt down to that, baji- tizing so many by clij)ping would have required a \\eek, rather than a day, to dispatch it in. " It is said. Acts viii. 12, ' But when they believed, Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.' Mark, 1. Believed, and then baptized: these were adult, or grown persons, not infants ; and they were heathenish idolaters, strangers to the covenant, and there- fore must believe the gospel, and profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, before their baptism. 2. The persons baptized were women, as well as men : women, under the gospel, are capable of the seal of the covenant, as well as men. Under the la^v they were ; then they were circumcised in the men ; now they are baptized for them- selves ; ' they were baptized,' &c. " The Eunuch is instructed before baptized ; it was not forced upon him by Philip against his will. It is conviction, not compulsion, that must induce assent ; after he had been instructed, he desired baptism ; his qualification was, believ- ing with the whole heart ; only that faith gives a right to baptism, and entitles to salvation. This Eunuch believed with his whole heart that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. This gave him at once a right to baptism, and a title to heaven. The manner of the administration, he went down into the water, and was baptized by Philip : in those hot countries it was usual to do so, and we do not oppose the lawfulness of dipping in some cases, but the necessity of dipping in all cases. In sacraments, it is not the quantity of the elements, but the significancy of them, that ought to be attended to : as in circumcision, it was not the quantity of the flesh cut off; so in baptism, a few drops of water poured upon me, doth signify and seal, and convey and confirm to me, a right and interest in all the benefits of my Saviour's death and resurrection, as fully as if, with Jonah, I were plunged into the main ocean. Crispus and his house- hold were brought to believe, and were baptized ; after whose example many of tlie peo]ile in Corinth believed also. 51 " Saul, as soon as converted, takes upon him the badge of Christianity by baptism ; listing himself thereby a soldier rmder Christ's exalted banner, and entering himself a member of that church which heretofore he had made havoc of. " In Romans ix. 6, 7, it is said, ' they are not all Israel which are of Israel : neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children ; but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.' Learn hence, that the promises of God to his children and people are firm and stable ; they shall not be made void, but be accomplished and made good to those that have a title to them, and interest in them, and fulfil the conditions of them. " Not as though the word or promise of God has taken no effect : all are not Israel that are of Israel." That as all were not true Israelites of old that did bear the name of Israelites ; so all are not true Christians at this day who take upon them the name of Christ, and bear the name of Christians. Men are very prone to bear up themselves upon the piety of their ancestors, though strangers in practice to their piety; as the Jews boasted they were of the seed of Abraham, but did not the works of Abraham ; whereas men are so far from being God's chil- dren because they had godly parents, that Christ told the Jews, who came forth out of Abraham's loins, that they were of their father the devil.* "In Romans iv. 11 — 13, the apostle declares the reason why, and the end for which, Abraham was circumcised, seeing he was jastified by faith in the promised Messiah long before circumcision. He tells us that Abraham received circumcision as a sign and seal of the covenant made with him, and to his seed. Gen. xvii., and as an obligation that the righteousness of faith was the true way for a sinner to become righteous ; which righteousness Abraham had ob- tained whilst he was uncircumcised, that so he might be the father, in a spiritual sense, of all believers, both Jews and Gentiles, who imitated him in his faith, and in the holiness and obedience of his life. By the appointment of God he was circumcised. Sacraments must be of divine * John viii. 44. 52 institution, not of himian invention. The church can make no sacraments ; her duty is, with care and caution, to admi- nister them. The elements are cyphers ; it is the institution malc out of. Now let us see what will be the true import of the passage according to this mode of construing the words in question. And they went down both into the water, hath Philip and the Eunuch — that is, they were both plunged ; and he bap- tized him — that is, Philip plunged the Eunuch. And when they were come up out of the water, that is, when they had both been plunged the second time, and risen up from their immersion, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip. In other words, both were plunged twice ; and the Eunuch the third time. " Thirdly. I conclude, as I think, with certainty, that these words have no reference to the immersion of either ; but are barely descriptive of the fact, that they went down to or into the water ; in which, perhaps, they waded a little distance. " Another text of same nature is Rom. vi. 4, ' Therefore we are buried with him by baptism unto death.' The word buried is here supposed to denote immersion. In the next verse it is said, ' for if we are planted together in the like- ness of his death.' Our opponents are bound to shew that this figurative expression, which refers to the same thing, does not as strictly signify the mode in which baptism is received as the word buried ; and, if it does, to point out the particular mode of administering baptism denoted by the word planted. ^ 143 "These are among the texts most frequently alleged by those with whom I am witnessing against. I do not suppose that they are regarded as being of any great importance to" the trial. " Their principal strength lies, as I conceive, in their own view, in what they suppose to be the original meaning of the words BaTrrt^o) and BaTrrw ; and these texts are pressed into the service as auxiliaries. If, then, their prin- cipal support fails, as, if I mistake not, I have shown that it does, these texts will be alleged without success. The general conclusion, therefore, appears to me to stand on solid ground ; to wit, that baptism is in the Scriptures instituted as a symbol of the affusion of the Spirit of God upon the soul in regeneration, and the cleansing of its sins by the blood of Christ; and that the mode in which it is administered is not in the Scriptures exhibited as a subject of serious importance, and is no where declared to be immer- sion." SIXTH WITNESS. I, the Sixth Witness, shall " endeavour to adhere to the Latin maxmi, familiarly rendered in English — 'Soft words and hard arguments.' Whether I shall succeed or fail, the " court " must judge. To the blessing of the Lord I humbly commend" the evidence that I am about to give, "in the conviction, — a conviction that has gained strength by every new examination of the subject, — that the cause " of the plaintiffs " is his, and that its opponents, however plausible their scheme may be rendered, have not a foot-breadth of solid scriptural ground to stand upon. " As a Poedobaptist, I am accustomed, along with my brethren of the same persuasion, to administer the ordinance of baptism, as occasions present themselves, both privately and publicly, to the infant children of believers, and we are countenanced in so doing by oui* churches and congrega- tions. " I am satisfied, that the argument respecting the validity of infant baptism is far from being so difficult and formidable, as, from the numberless pamphlets and volumes that have been written upon either side of the question, many are ready, without further enquiry, to suppose."' And " there are too many, especially of the young, who, in the outset of their Christian profession, have not their minds directed at all to the subject. It is an unexamined point. And these persons, when, in this state of want of knowledge and information, they hfippen to fall in with a baptist friend, a baptist book, or a baptist argument, feel themselves unprepared to meet what is new and startling ; their minds are in danger of being immediately unsettled, and of hastily adopting what is presented to them with no little plausibility, and possibly too with much imposing confidence. 145 " Nothing can be easier, on such a subject, especially now, when we have so much criticism about it made up by others and ready to our hand, than even for the veriest sciolist to make a mighty parade of learning. On no sub- ject, it is granted, and especially on no subject that involves the obligation of conscience towards God, are we to allow ourselves to be determined by the weight of names and of human authority. 'He that judgeth is the Lord;' and ' What saith the Lord ? ' ought to be our sole enquiry. " We state our argument thus. Before the coming of Christ, the covenant of grace had been revealed ; and under that covenant there existed a divinely instituted connexion between children and their parents ; the sign and seal of the blessings of the covenant was, by divine appointment, administered to children, and there can be produced no satisfactory evidence of this connexion having been done away- ' And I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, to be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee.' As to this pro- mise, which certainly sounds very like one of the ' exceeding- great and precious promises ' of the new covenant, it is of essential consequence first of all to notice, that in what- ever sense God promises here to be a God to Abraham, he promises in the same sense to be a God to his seed. The promise is one. No hint is ever given of his being the God of Abraham in one sense, and the God of his seed in another. Now who are the seed to whom Jehovah thus engages to be a God ? Surely to the seed specified in the terms of the covenant. And who are they ? Have we not the answer given us by inspired authoritv, in the ajjostle's interpretation of the words ' Thou shalt be a father of many generations.'* ' Therefore it is of faith, that it might be of grace, to the end 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.' If this means, as Paul teaches us, his being the spiritual Father of believers in all nations, then must not these be the seed of Abraham * Rom. iv. 16, 17. L 14C to whom he promises to be a God ? If objections are brought to this, they ought I think to be brought against the apostle. " Circumcision is most expressly pronounced hy the apostle to have been a sign and seal of spiritual blessings, and espe- cially of that first blessing of the gosjDel covenant, justijica- tion hy faith. 'Abraham,' says he, 'received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had being yet uncircumcised, that righteousness may be imputed to them also;' the meaning of which words evi- dently is, not that the sign of circumcision was to Abraham the seal of his own personal justification, for this would be incompatible with subsequent tj'ial and with his ' giving diligence,' like other believers, ' to make his calling and election sure,' inasmuch as it is impossible to arrive at a gi'eater degi'ee of certainty than that which is given by the sealed testimony of God ; but rather that it was the seal of that covenant according to whose provisions all sinners, believing as he believed, were, like him, to be justified by faith. To this covenant, according to the apostle, circum- cision was annexed. " It was with this covenant then, which the apostle so explicitly declares to have been the covenant of grace ' con- firmed before of God in Christ,' that the right of circumcision was connected. If the connexion between pai'ents and chil- dren recognised in that ordinance had belonged only to the old or Sinai covenant, and if the ordinance of circumcision, instead of being of ' the fathers, ' had been exclusively of Moses, pertaining solely to that temporary dispensation of which he was the mediator, we should then have seen a good reason why both the connexion itself, and the ordi- nances that marked it, should have ceased together, when the dispensation came to a close with which they were associated. But if circumcision was not of Moses, but of the fathers, if it originally pertained to a covenant that never ' decayeth or waxeth old,' and if under that covenant chil- dren were connected with their parents in the application of the sign and seal, then we must insist upon it that the burden of proof rests upon our opponents. To speak of the 147 abolition, tacit or express, of the old economy, the Mosaic dispensation, is nothing to the purpose, because the apostle assures us, that the covenant of circumcision, so far from being a part of the law, and partaking of its temporary and evanescent nature, was a covenant which existed long before it, which could not be disannulled either by its introduction or its cessation, but which continues to this day. By con- founding this covenant with the law, and including any part of its gracious provision in ' that which decayed, and waxed old, and vanished away,' you set the law against the pro- mises of God,' and throw into confusion and inconclusiveness the simple and beautiful reasoning of the apostle. That the particular rite is changed, we have abundant evidence; and satisfactory reasons for the change might be assigned, although it does not come within our province with cei'- tainty to assign them, nor can they be reasonably demanded of us. " I am aware, indeed, how frequently and how confidently it has been alleged that the words of institution, as they have been improperly called (T say improperh/, because baptism was not at that time first instituted, but had been practised before), involved a repeal, by declaring that none are to be baptised but such as are capable of being taught. The well known words are, ' Go ye, therefore, and teach (or disciple) all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.' " The reply to this is simple and satisfactory ; although I am aware how strongly a certain habit of mind in viewing a particular passage tends to prevent the clear perception of the validity of any reasoning directed against the sense thus habitually and systematically affixed to it. Suppose the ordinance of circumcision had been to continue, and the command had run in these terms, ' Go ye, therefore, and disciple all nations, circumcising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things,' &c. Had such language been used, we should have known that children were to have been the 148 subjects of the presented rite as well as their parents ; — the previously existing practice would have ascertained this. Now should we have been sensible, even with this know- ledge, of the smallest impropriety or inconsistency in the use of such language ? Would it have appeared to us, even in the slightest degree, contradictory or incongruous? Would it have been understood by the apostles as necessarily ex- cluding children ? Would they certainly have inferred from it that, although the same rite was to continue, there was to be a change in the subjects of it ? that none now were to be circumcised but those who were capable of immediate instruction in the will of Christ, and practical compliance with it ? No, there is nothing in the terms of the com- mission that could at all have led them to such a conclusion. They would without hesitation have gone on to circumcise children with their parents as formerly, teaching the parents the mind and will of Christ, and charging them to instruct their rising offspring. And if a commission to circumcise given in these terms would not have been understood as necessarily excluding children, it can never be shewn that a commission in the same terms to baptize must have been so understood. The j)ractical evidence that the apostles did not so understand it, will be afterwards considered. In the mean time, permit me to observe, we have in a parallel passage of Scripture most satisfactory evidence of the just- ness of these remarks. I refer to Gal. v. 2 — 5 ; ' Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the wdiole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law ; ye are fallen from grace.' In the 27th verse of the third chapter of the same epistle, the apostle says, ' for as many of you as have been baptized into Jesus Christ (or ye whosoever have been baptized unto Jesus Christ) have put on Christ.' From this expression it has been very confidently argued, that adidts only were baptized, because of ' putting on Christ ' adults only were capable. Now let this principle of interpretation, or of inference, be 149 applied to the passage quoted from the 5tli chapter. It is an address to adults ; it expresses things of which adults only ivere capable. Are we then to infer from this, that adults only were circumcised ? We certainly ought, on the same principle on which we infer from the other that adults alone were baptized. There is precisely the same ground in the former case, as there is in the latter. Yet we know that in the latter the inference would be contrary to fact; for nothing can be more certain, than that, when Gentile converts were circumcised, it was in conformity with Jewish practice, along with their children. " It is by many strongly denied, that any peculiar regard or favour is shewn to children on account of their parents, as being inconsistent with the freedom of divine grace. But that God does shew such regard to children for the sake of their parents, we find both intimated and exemplified in many parts of Scripture history. God represents himself, Exod. XX. 5, 6, as ' visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate him, and shewing mercy unto thousands (of gene- rations) of them that love him and keep his commandments.' Now without entering into any discussion of the precise or full meaning of these expressions, I would merely remark, that the latter surely cannot be considered as less consistent with the freedom of mercy, than the former with the strict- ness of justice. There is an expression also used by Paul, respecting the Jews in their present state of unbelief, which appears to me inexplicable, except on some such principle : ' As touching the election,' says he, ' they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.'^ If a peculiarity of regard is not in these words expressed towards the natural seed of Abraham, God's friend, for the sake of him, and of their other godly fathers, with whom Jehovah established his covenant, I am at a loss to imagine what meaning the expression can have. " I have endeavoured to shew that the covenant made with Abraham was the gospel covenant, the covenant of grace, under which we live, and which is the basis of the * Rom. xi. 28. 150 New Testament Church ; that the ordinance of chxumci- sion was attached to that covenant, and, as the sign of its blessings and the seal of its ]>romises, was by divine com- mand administered to children : that although there is abundant evidence of a change in the rite or ordinance, there is none whatever of any such change in its administration as excludes children from being any longer the legitimate subjects of its observance. " It has been alleged that, in regard to infant baptism, the Netv Testament is silent, and this silence alone is stiffi- cie?it to set it aside. We deny the truth of the affirmation that the New Testament is silent on the subject. We think it contains intimations of the connexion of children with their parents in the promises of the covenant, and the bless- ings of the kingdom of heaven, and also of the apostolic practice in regard to their baptism, exactly such as the circumstances of the case might have led us to expect. " The Baptists prove adults to have been baptized on a profession of faith, but they do not disprove the baptism of the children of proselytes. ' Yes,' say they, ' they do dis- prove it ; for, as to the baptism of any besides the believing adults themselves, the Scriptures are silent. They speak nothing concerning the baptism of infants ; therefore infants ought not to be baptized. Now this is what we deny. It is precisely here that we are at issue. We say they are not silent. We affirm that there is abundant evidence of THE FACT, THAT INSTEAD OF ANY CHANGE EXCLUSIVE OF CHILDREN HAVING TAKEN PLACE UNDER THE NeW TESTAMENT DISPENSATION, THE CHILDREN OF CONVERTS TO THE FAITH OF THE GOSPEL WERE ACTUALLY BAPTIZED ALONG WITH THEIR PARENTS, IN THE TIME OF THE APOSTLES AND THE APOSTOLIC CHURCHES. " We ought to bear in mind what was the previous state of things in regard to children, and their connexion with their parents in the application of the sign and seal of the covenant — what this was I need not repeat; I merely remind" this Court " of it. The connexion and symbolical recognition of it existed not only amongst Jewish families themselves, but 151 extended to the case of Gentiles professing the faith of Abraham — proselytes to Judaism. A head of a family was received into the community of Israel, with liis household. When I say, with his household, I mean his infant children, and such of the adults as professed the same faith with him- self. What I wish" this Court to bear in mind "is simply this, that the connexion of children with their parents, of which I have been speaking, existed of old, and was inter- woven with all the thoughts, and feelings, and practices of the ancient church. It had place in the reception of pro- selytes. It pervaded and characterized the entire style and language of their sacred books. The connexion of this observation with our argument will appear immediately, when we have remarked, — The language of the prophets, in looking forward to New Testament times, appears to assume, or even to affirm, the continuance in those times of the same connexion that existed of old. " The language of the New Testament intimates the con- tinuance of the same connexion, and intimates it exactly in such a way as, from the previous state of things, might have naturally been expected. " I have before observed, how the burden of proof lies on the side of the opponents of infant baptism. They seek a precept in positive terms — Let the infant children of pro- selytes to the faith of the gospel be baptized with their parents. But we demand a precept in similar positive terms — Let the children of proselytes be no longer admitted, as formerly, to the sign and seal of the blessings of the covenant of God. We call for the production of an express declaration that such admission is inconsistent with the spi- rituality of the new dispensation. But no such thing is ever said ; no hint of such a thing is ever given. So far from it, that let us remark in general terms how the case stands. After finding the connexion in question pervading the Old Testament in the manner we have stated, — the children of the professed people of God circumcised with their parents, and the children of Gentile proselytes to the faith of Abraham introduced with their children by the same rite to the pri- 15-2 vileges of the ancient churcli, — wc then come forward to the history of the new dispensation. If this previous state of things were really inconsistent with its spiritual nature, it seems not unreasonable to expect that the language on this point should be plain and decisive. But what is the fact ? Instead of plain and decisive intimations of this inconsis- tency, and of the necessary discontinuance of the practice, we meet with language in ])erfect accordance with the pre- vious state of things — precisely such as writers w^hose minds are habituated to it w^ould naturally use, and such as readers in similar circumstances could not understand in any other w^ay than one. — 'They brought young children to him^ that he should touch them ; and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the king- dom of God. Verily I say unto you. Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them :' ' Jesus said to him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham:' — 'Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, for the remis- sion of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Ploly Ghost: for the promise is to you and to your children, and to all that are afar off", even as many as the Lord our God shall call:' — 'A certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, who worshipped God, heard us; whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended to those things which were spoken of Paul. And when she w^as bap- tized, and her household, she besought us,' &c. : — 'They said unto him. Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be ^aved, and thy house : and they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house : and he was baptized, he and all his, straightway :' — 'I baptized also the household of Stephanas:' — 'The unbelieving hus- band is sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbelievhig wife is sanctified by the belie\ ing husband : else were your 163 children unclean ; but now are tliey holy.'* It is not on one or another of these texts, taken separately, that I am resting my argument under this particular. It is on the intimation which, when taken together, they so clearly afford of the continuance of the same state of things in regard to families as formerly. " I shall now" request the attention of the Court " to two or three of the psssages taken separately. ' Then Peter said, Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord your God shall call.'f " These words were addressed by a Jew to fellow Jews. How would such an audience understand them .? When they heard of a promise to tliem and to their diUdren, could their minds fail, on such an occasion, to go back to the promise of the co^■enant made with their fathers, and declared to be to them and to their seed after them } And in that case there was but one sense in which the hearers of Peter could understand the designation ' your children.' And if they did so understand his words, they must have conceived of them as assuming and intimating the continuance of the same connexion. Are we then to suppose that this ' holy man of God, speaking as he was moved by the Holy Ghost,' would, without explanation or restriction, at the very 'begin- ning of the Gospel,' in his first address to his countrymen, when a right impression was of so much consequence, employ expressions that were fitted to convey to their minds a false and worldly view of the nature of the Messiah's kingdom } 'And they brought young children to him,' &c.:{: Of this kingdom of God, young children (infants) are here most explicitly declared to be subjects — partakers of its privileges and blessings. If, as some allege, the phrase ' of such' means of persons possessing the dispositions of children, it * Mark x. 13—16; Luke xix. 9; Acts ii. 39.; xvi. 14, 15, ami 31—33; 1 Cor. i. 16 ; vii. 14. f Acts ii. 38, 39. + Mark x. 13— IG. 154 means this beyond all question, inclusively of children them- selves. If not, the reason for receiving them would have been as applicable to lambs or doves, as to children : besides that the words which follow ascertain their being included — 'Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child fi. e. surely, as a little child receives it), he shall in no case enter therein.' The Sovereign of this kingdom, then, distinctly recognizes little children among his subjects." Let this Court " recollect, then, the previous state of things; and let me ask it. Is this at all like the language of exclusion ? The persons by whom these children were brought to Jesus, professed, in the very act of bringing them, their faith in him, and the value they set on his blessing. " ' Jesus said unto him. This day is salvation come to thijs hoitse, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham :' — ' When she was baptized, and her household:'' — 'Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house ;' — ' He was baptized, he, and all his, straightway.' — I bap- tized also the household of Stephanas.'' " These passages, relating to families, I take of course together. The general argument from them, arising from the continuance of a phraseology corresponding to the previous state of things, I have before considered. As to that view of the argument, I feel no anxiety about the question, whether there were infant childi'en in those families or not. As the passages, however, have been the occasion of no small con- troversy, a few additional observations are indispensable. " In the first place, then, there is one point of fact unde- niably clear, namely, that the apostles baptized households or families. As to this, there can be no question. It should be noticed, too, that a man's house {oiKo^) most properly means his children, his offspring, his descendants, — and is generally used to denote these even exclusively. " Secondly ; to an iinprejudiced reader of the New Tes- tament, it must, I think, be equally clear that the baptism of families is mentioned in a way that indicates its being no extraordinary occurrence, but a thing of course. This is 155 remarkably the case as to Lydia. ' The Lord opened her heart, that she attended to the things which were spoken by Paul. And when she was baptized, and her family, she besought us saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there.' I cannot but consider any person unreasonable, who will not admit that the mode of expression here is one which woiild naturally be used respecting a thing that was customary. And it is worthy of notice, moreover, that the baptism of her family is immediately connected in the record with her own recep- tion of the truth, and that upon her own faithfulness to the Lord she founds her plea for their coming under her roof. Similar remarks might be made as to the case of the Philip- pian jailer, who was baptized, he and all his, straightway. Thirdly ; having thus the unquestionable fact of the hap- tism of families, a fact according with the ancient practice of the circumcision of families, and supported by the use of a word that properly denotes a man's children or offspring, we are warranted to assume that such was the usual practice, unless our baptist brethren can shew that the cases of Lydia and Stephanas were in the circumstances of them extraor- dinary, and therefore not fair specimens of what was cus- tomary. Here is the turning point on this part of the argu- ment ; if they cannot make out this, or if they cannot make it out without unnatural straining and inadmissible supposi- tions, our ground is firm. " We know the strength of attachment to ancient institu- tions felt and manifested by the Jewish converts to the faith of the gospel, their extreme reluctance to part even with those observances which belonged exclusively to that system of shadows, of which the body was Christ. They were still ' zealous for the law :' and they shewed their zeal by their indignation at Paul, for having, as they had been informed, taught their countrymen that they should not ' circumcise their children, neither walk after their customs.' Is it likely, then, nay, is it at all concei^'able, on the supposition of the new system entirely excluding children from its appropriate rites, that not a hint should appear of any one having been 150 startled by the change, — that not a symptom shoukl have discovered itself of any disposition to object or complain ? That to Jewish eyes it must have appeared an innovation of no trifling magnitude, v^dll not be questioned by any one who duly considers how strongly the connexion, supposed to be disannulled, was sanctioned in their minds, by the sacred jorovisions of God's covenant with their venerated fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ; how firmly it was settled in their practice, not only by the regidar circumcision of their own offspring, but also by the admission of Gentiles by famiUes into the connnunion of Israel; and how intimately it was incoi"porated with all their most favourite and cherished conceptions. " Another remarkable circumstance akin to the preceding is, — that when the Judaizing teachers insisted on the Gen- tile converts submitting to circumcision, — although there can be no doubt that this was done in every case, in connexion iv'tth their children: — yet when the doctrine and practice of these perverters of the gospel came to be discussed in the assembly of the apostles, and elders, and brethren, at Jeru- salem, no notice whatsoever is taken of the inconsistency with the spirituality of the new dispensation of administering any sign to children, on the admission of their parents into the Christian commonwealth — or of treating them as if they continued to have any connexion at all with their parents, in reference to the blessings of the covenant or of the church of God. " Now, surely, if such connexion really was inconsistent wdth the spirituality of the Gospel and the New Testament Church, it must have been an error of no trifling moment ; and it is reasonable to conclude, that, upon an occasion which brought the subject so immediately and formally under notice, some disapproval should have been intimated and recorded of the error itself, and the practice founded upon it; and the absence of all such intimation is a collateral evidence, that there was no such inconsistency, and that children were to be held and treated as sustaining the same covenant relation to their parents as formerly. I hope I ani 157 clearly imderstood. When these Judaizing teachers insisted on the circumcision of Gentile proselytes to the faith and profession of the gospel, they, doubtless, administered the rite according to the instituted and universal practice, the children being circumcised with the parent. " Let it be further considered, that we have no recorded instance of the baptism of any person grown to manhood, that had been born of Jewish converts or of Gentile prose- lytes to the faith of Christ; — nor have we, in any of the apostolic epistles to the churches, the remotest allusion, in the form of direction, or of warning, to the reception of such children by baptism into the Christian church upon their professing the faith in which they had been brought u\). " Our baptist brethren present us, in sup]iort of their system, with instances of the baptism of adults. They would do something more to their purpose if they could produce one or two examples of the baptism of such adults as those mentioned ; these would be in point. But nothing of the kind is to be found — ^ nothing in the form, either of fact, or allusion, or advice, or precept. " The circumstances of the early history of the Church, after the apostolic age, are unaccountable on antipa;dobaptist principles ; because Origen, Cyprian, Justin Martyr, and Austin say, in their day it w^as the custom to baptize infants. " It has often been asked by antipajdobaptists. What are the uses of infant baptism ? What good ends are answered by it ? It ought first to be observed, however, that with regard to all such questions as the one so often put, and so confidently answered, there is obviously a previous question, Is it, or is it not, a divine institution ? If it be once shewn to possess the authority of the Supreme Lawgiver, it will not be disputed that our first and immediate duty is com- pliance. " We however fi-eely admit, it is reasonable to expect that there should be some uses apparent of whatever the God of infinite wisdom enjoins ; and, on the present occasion, we feel no difficulty in meeting the enquiry. Of baptism, as administered to infants, we are at no loss to point out uses 158 which we conceive to be of no trivial magnitude. We shall endeavour to shew these by considering it in the two following lights — First, As a memorial of fundamental truths: — Secondly, As a remembrancer of important duties, and AN encouragement TO THEIR PERFORMANCE. " In considering infant baptism in the former of these views, it becomes necessary to take some notice in the first place of the general signification of the rite itself It appears then to me very evident that the emblematic signifi- cance of baptism is to be found in the purifying nature of the element employed in it, in the cleansing of water. Almost every instance in which the ordinance is spoken of, or alluded to, with any intimation of its meaning, might be adduced in proof of this. The following passages are but a specimen of many : ' And now w hy tarriest thou ? arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the the name of the Lord.'* ' Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify ^ndi cleanse Mhy the washing of water through the word : that he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish.' t In this latter passage, spiritual purification is no doubt intended : but it contains such an allusion to the ordinance of baptism with water, as leads us to conclude that this spiritual purification is what it is designed princi- pally to represent. — A similar allusion there seems to be in Titus iii. 5 ; * Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the ^cashing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost. " From these and other passages, it appears that baptism, by the emblem of the cleansing virtue of water, denotes the removal of sin in its guilt and in its pollution. " But according to the views of our Baptist brethren, washing or cleansing, so far from being the exclusive, is not even the principal, but only a secondary meaning : whilst the general tenor, of the language of Scripture, as well as a number of particular passages, seem to place its symbolical * Acts xxii. 16. f Eph. v. 25, 26. 159 meaning in the nature of the element employed, it is by them placed principally, and by some of them, indeed, as would appear from their manner of expressing themselves, almost solely, in the mode in ivMcli that element is used. " The passages refeiTed to by them in support of this notion are the two following ; ' Know ye not that so many of us as were bajDtized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death ? therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death : that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.'* ' Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him, through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.'f In these passages, our brethren conceive there is an obvious reference to the mode of baptism by immersion. " Two things may just be noticed here, before proceeding to the explanation of the passages. The first is, that it is obviously incorrect to speak of the ordinance as exhibiting the death of Christ, as well as his burial and resurrection ; for whatever resemblance fancy may imagine to the two latter, there is scarcely no representation of the former. The death can only be considered as implied in the burial. The second is, that even to the burial and resurrection of Christ, the immersion of a body under water, and its emersion from it, bear but a very indistinct and remote resemblance. The mind may easily indeed habituate itself to the idea of like- ness between being let down under earth and raised out of it, and being let down under water and raised out of it. But where is the likeness between the latter of these and the carrying of a body by a lateral door into a cavern hewn out of a rock, and that body reviving and coming forth by the same door ? I confess this resemblance, on which so much stress is laid by our Baptist brethren, has always appeared to me but a far-fetched fancy. I shall say nothing stronger, lest I should possibly be in the wrong in so considering it. " ' To be baptized into Christ ' is to be baptized into the faith of him as the Messiah, into the faith of his divine * R(im. vi. 3, 4. f Col. ii. 12. 1()0 mission, cliaracter, and work. To be ' baptized into his death,' is to be baptized into the faith of his death, in the view which the gospel gives of it, as the death of a snrcty or substitute making atonement for the sms of those for whom he died. Now by being thus ' baptized into his death,' says the apostle, we are ' buried with him.' The simple meaning of this expression evidently is, that by being baptized into the faith of his death, as the death of our surety and substi- tute, we become partakers with him in it. When the apostle, pursuing his beautiful illustration of this spiritual connexion of believers with Christ, and the practical obligations thence arising, says, in the 8th verse, ' Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him,' he uses a phrase of equivalent import with the one before us. To be dead with Christ and to be buried with Christ, are the same thing. The latter of the two phrases appears to be used in the fourth verse, chiefl}^ for the sake of completing the afpostle's figure, as it was necessary, in order to Christ's rising, that he should he laid i?} the grate : so in the figure, it is necessary that we should be viewed as buried icith him, in order to our rising with him to ne^vness of life. "The simple meaning is this: since in our being baptized into Jesus Christ we were baptized into his death — into the faith of his death, as the death of a surety, we may be con- sidered as by faith partaking with him in his death, as buried with him, and that with the special end of our rising with him in a spiritual resemblance to his resurrection, and ' walking in newness of life.' Now it is quite obvious that the argument of the apostle has not the remotest connexion with the mode of baptism. There is not the most distant occasion for the supposition of any such allusion, in order to render the passage intelligible, nor does the allusion when supposed impart to it any addition of force or propriety. The meaning does not in the least degree depend on the manner of performing the ceremony ; it turns entirely on its being baptism into Chrisfs death. Provided it was this, it makes not the smallest difference to the apostle's statement. 161 or argument, or conclusion, whether we suppose it to have been by immersion, by pouring, or by sprinkling. " The same observations apply with at least equal, if not greater force, to the parallel passage. Col. ii. 12. Believers are there said to be ' risen,' as well as ' buried, with Christ in baptism.' They were not baptized into the faith of Christ's death alone, as the death of their surety ; they were bap- tized also into the faith of his resurrection, as the resuiTec- tion of their surety. And as by the former they became, in virtue of their connexion with him as a surety, partakers with him in his death, so by the latter they became in the same way partakers with him also in his resurrection. Being baptized into the faith of both, they had, by faith, fellowship or union with him in both. How is it accordingly that they are said to be ' risen with him' ? It is ' through the faith of the operation of God, who raised him from the dead;' that is, through the faith of his resun'ection, effected by the operation or mighty power of God. Their being 'risen with him in baptism ' does not therefore refer to any emblematic representation of a resuiTcction in the mode of the ordi- nance ; but to their being one with him in his resmTCCtion, through faith in him, as the surety of sinners. And with this view they might, with perfect propriety, be said to be ' risen with him in baptism,' whatever was the mode of its administration, provided only it was baptism into the faith of his resmTCCtion. " It has indeed been alleged, that in whatever sense believers are said to be buried and risen with Christ, they could not be represented as so buried and risen in baptism, unless there were in that ordinance some representation of that burial and resunection. I observe, in reply, 1st, Al- though the expression in Col. ii. 12 is, ' buried with him in baptism,' yet in Rom. vi. 4, it is different, ' buried with him by baptism into his death,' which does not at all imply any such similitude in the ordinance, but directs the atten- tion to that into which they were baptized; which, indeed, as I have noticed, is the point on which the Avhole reasoning turns. 2dly, Although it was, strictly speaking, in believing M 162 that these converts became partakers with Christ in his death and resurrection ; yet it is not unusual to speak of things taking place in baptism, which properly took place hy faith, because baptism was the first public declaration of the faith of the converts, and of their belonging to the body of Christ. It is on the same principle that they are spoken of as, in baptism, 'washing away their sins,' and 'putting on Christ.' 3dly, In Rom. vi. the language of the whole passage is figurative. " Being myself thoroughly convinced that the significance and appropriateness of the rite arise from the cleansing nature of the element employed, and not from the mode of its application, I am disposed to consider the mode as of comparatively inferior importance. It is in the application of water, as the emblem of the purifying influence of the Spirit of Truth, that the ordinance properly consists. A baptist brother may smile at me when I say, that on this ground I have no hesitation in admitting immersion to be valid baptism. " Even were it to be admitted that immersion is the original or primary import of the word baptism (which is only the Greek word Anglicised), yet the sole enquiry ought to be, not what is the strict, original, etymological sense of the word, but what is the sense in tvhich it is used by the Scripture writers. And it has long appeared to me, that the reading and comparing with each other of such texts as the following,* should be enough to satisfy any candid man, that sprinkling and pouring, so far from being without the countenance of these writers in their use of the term, are uniformly recognised by them, in their incidental explana- tions of it, as its true and proper coimterparts. "'As Peter began to speak, the Holy Spirit / T-'^"^- x^^iv. 5—9. II Matt. xii. 4. 239 ment in the Christian church), was yet, when abused to superstition, broken down by Hezekiah, and actually destroyed.* " Now, if under the Jewish ceremonial and weakly dis- pensation, such liberty was indulged to human prudence and convenience, as to dispense with and set aside its ritual injunctions ; and this, when they were injoined under so awful and severe a penalty ; how absurd is it to imagine, that our divine lawgiver Jesus Christ has, under his infinitely more free and spiritual dispensation (under which our state is as much freer than that of the Jews, as the state of sons is than that of servants ; or of friends, than that of slaves), tied us up to a strict and invariable exactness, as to merely ritual observances ; and that no considerations of decency, health, convenience, or mercy, ought now to substitute the form of sprinkling the baptismal water, instead of a total immersion into it ? "Total immersions are, in this country and age, an unusual, a troublesome, a scarcely modest and decent, and in many cases a cruel and a very dangerous thing — especially, as the form of pouring is every whit as significative as that of dipping can be. " Our Divine Legislator hath taught us to reason thus — When the strict observance of a merely ritual command will be attended with danger and great inconvenience to the dis- ciples, it may lawfully be waived ; or thus — Baptism was made for man, and not man for baptism. If, therefore, through any change of national custom, or of climate, the form of dipping in baptism should become odd and unbecoming, hazardous to the health, or troublesome to the disciples, it might then innocently be waived, and a form less burthen- some and disagreeable be substituted in its room. " And here I" may "ask — Whether a strict adherence to dipping the baptized, would not, probably, be attended with as much danger and inconvenience to the bodies of the disciples now ; as a strict observance of the sabbatical rest would have been to the twelve apostles, when going through * Numb. xxi. 8, 9; 2 Kings xviii. 4. 240 the field of corn ? In other words — Whether it be not as much mercy to excuse some at least (viz. new bom infants, weakly and unhealthy persons, and even all others through- out the winter season, in these northen and cold climates), from being totally plunged in baptism ; as it was to excuse the twelve for plucking and rubbing the corn on the sabbath day. " It enters into the nature of things ritual and circum- stantial, to be mutable, transient, and liable to be changed. As they are often but an adoption of some national custom (which is apparently the case as to the institution of baptism), or, an accommodation of a common usuage to some purpose in religion : so they are alterable in their nature ; and are themselves in some measure to be accommodated to prevail- ing customs and tastes ; to the several countries, climates, and tempers of mankind. " To conclude: — If after" this my evidence, " any still think it their indispensable duty to baptize by immersion only, let them, by all means, thus baptize; but then, we beseech them to forbear all severe censures of those who are not dipt. Let them not represent us as persons unbaptized — withdraw from our churches ^refuse Commvuiion with us, at the com- mon table of our Lord, upon so trifling a difference. This, surely, were to dishonour our sacred religion ; and too natu- rally brings not only Christian baptism, but Christianity itself, into manifest contempt. " Let us therefore, according to the apostolic precept — receive one another, hut not to doubtful disputations. — To maintain an unity of spirit, by mutual forbearance, and to live together in perfect charity, is a matter of infinitely more importance, than the quantity of water, or the manner of its application, with which a person is baptized. ' For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.' ' And the end of the commandment is charity ; out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned.' NINTH WITNESS. I, the Ninth Witness, shall endeavour " to follow a course of plain and close argument, " while giving my testimony on the subject now before the Court. " It shall be my sincere aim to discuss it with fairness and candour ; and honestly, but in the spirit of ' The Truth,' to exhibit what I believe to be the sense of the Holy Scriptures, to whose authority I trust I shall unreservedly subject all my opinions. " Baptism we have called a federal transaction ; an initia- tion into, an acceptance of, the covenant of grace, required of us by Christ as a visible expression and act of that faith in Him, which He has made a condition of that salvation. It is a point, however, of so much importance to establish the covenant character of this ordinance, and so much of the controversy as to the proper subject of baptism depends upon it, that we may consider it somewhat at large. " The Church of Christ, in its largest sense, consists of all who have been baptized in the name of Christ, and who thereby make a visible profession of faith in his divine mis- sion, and in all the doctrines taught by him and his inspired Apostles. In a stricter sense, it consists of those who are virtually united to Christ, as the members of the body to the head ; and who, being thus imbued with spiritual life, walk no longer ' after the flesh, but after the Spirit.' It is obli- gatory on all who are convinced of the truth of Christianity to be baptized ; and upon all thus baptized frequently to partake of the Lord's Supper, in order to testify their con- tinued faith in that great and distinguishing doctrine of the religion of Christ, the redemption of the world by the sacri- ficial effusion of his blood ; both of which suppose union with his church. If baptism be the door of admission into R 242 the church, some must judge of the fitness of candidates, and administrators of the rite must be appointed: — and since this institution has the authority of Christ and his apostles, it is no more a matter of mere option with Chris- tians whether they will be subject to government in the church, than it is optional with them to confess Christ by becoming its members. " The church is a society founded upon faith, and united by mutual love, for the personal edification of its members in holiness, and for the religious benefit of the world. It cannot employ force — the only door of the church is faith, to which there can be no compulsion ; ' he that believeth and is baptized ' becomes a member. They are to seek the intimacy of friendly society among themselves, and, except in the ordinary and courteous intercourse of life, they are bound to keep themselves separate from the world ; they are enjoined to do good unto all men, but, ' specially to them that are of the household of faith;' and they are forbidden ' to eat' at the Lord's table with immoral persons, that is, with those who, although they continue their Christian pro- fession, dishonour it by their practice. — Baptism is to be administered ; but the manner of this service may be pre- scribed by a church, since the Scriptures have not deter- mined it. " By circumcision the Jews received the seal of the cove- nant, and were brought under the obligation of the whole law ; they were made by it debtors to it ; and when by their sins they had provoked God's wrath, they were reconciled to him by their sacrifices, with which atonement was made, and so their sins were forgiven them. — Now, in the new dispensation, though our Saviour has eased us of that law of ordinances, that grievous yoke, and those beggarly elements, which were laid upon the Jews ; yet since we are still in the body subject to our senses, and to sensible things, he has appointed some federal actions, to be both the visible stipu- lations and professions of our Christianity, and the convey- ancers to us of the blessings of the gospel. And the saving 243 benefits of the covenant of grace are made expressly to depend upon a true faith. " The ohliyation of baptism rests upon the example of our Lord, who, by his disciples, baptized many that by his discourses and miracles were brought to profess faith in him as the Messias ; — upon his solemn command to his apostles after his resurrection, ' Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:' — and ujjon the practice of the apostles themselves, who thus shewed that they" under- stood what baptism meant. " Thus St. Peter, in his sermon upon the day of Pentecost, exhorts, ' Repent and be bap- tized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost.' " Several passages of Scripture, and the very nature of the ordinance of baptism, will, however, shew that baptism is to the new covenant what circumcision was to the old, and took its place by the appointment of Christ. This may be argued from our Lord's commission to his apostles, ' Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father,' &c. ' teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.'* ' Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature ; he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.'f By what means, therefore, were 'all nations' now to be brought into the church of God? — Plainly, by baptizing them that believed the ' good news,' and accepted the terms of the new covenant. This is apparent fi*om the very words ; and thus was bap- tism expressly made the initiatory rite by which believers of 'all nations' were to be introduced into the church and covenant of grace ; an office in which it manifestly took the place of circumcision, which heretofore, even from the time of Abraham, had been the only initiator}' rite into the same covenant. Moses re-enacted circumcision ; our Lord not only does not re-enact it, but, on the contrary, he appoints another mode of entrance into the covenant in its new and * Matt, xx^iii. 19, 20. f Mark xvi. 1-5, 16. 244 perfected form, and that so expressly as to amount to a formal abrogation of the ancient sign, and the putting of baptism in its place. The same argument may be maintained, from the words of our Lord to Nicodemus, ' Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.' If then he declares that no one can ' enter' into that church but by being ' born of water and of the Holy Spirit,' which heavenly gift followed upon baptism when received in true faith, he clearly makes baptism the mode of initiation into his church, in this passage as in the last quoted ; and in both he assigns to it the same office as circumcision in the church of the Old Testament, whether in its patriarchal or Mosaic form. " A further proof that baptism has precisely the same federal and initiatory character as circumcision, and that it was instituted for the same ends, and in its place, is found in Colossians ii. 10 — 12. Here baptism is also made the initiatory rite of the new dispensation, that by which the Colossians wei'e joined to Christ, in whom they are said to be complete ; and so certain is it that baptism has the same office and import now as circumcision formerly, - — with this difference only, that the object of faith was then future, and now it is Christ «9 come, — that the apostle expressly calls baptism ' the circumcision of Christ,'' the circumcision insti- tuted by him ; which phrase he puts out of the reach of frivolous criticism, by adding, exegetically, — 'buried with him in baptism ;'' for unless the apostle here calls baptism the ' circumcision of Christ,' he asserts that we ' put off the body of the sins of the flesh,' that is become new creatures by virtue of our Lord's o\^'n personal circumcision ; but if this be absurd, then the only reason for which he can call baptism the ' circumcision of Christ' or Christian circum- cision, is, that it has taken the place of the Abrahamic circumcision, and fulfils the same office of introducing believing men into God's covenant, and entitling them to the enjoyment of spiritual blessings. " But let us quote Galatians iii. 27 — 29 ; ' For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ ; 245 there is neither Jew nor Gentile, there is neither bond nor tree, there is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus ;' ' and if ye are Christ's,' by being thus ' bap- tized^ and by '' puU'm(j on'' Christ, 'then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.' " The argument here is also decisive ; it cannot be denied that it was by circumsion, believingly submitted to, that ' strangers' or heathens, as well as Jews, became the spiritual ' seed of Abraham,' and ' heirs' of the same spiritual and heavenly ' promises.' But the same office in this passage is ascribed to baptism, also believingly submitted to ; and the conclusion therefore is inevitable. — It was thus that the Abrahamic covenant was offered to the acceptance of all who heard it, and thus that they were to declare their accept- ance of it. In the same manner, there is a standing offer of the same covenant of mercy wherever the gospel is preached. The *good news' wdiich it contains is that of a promise, an engagement, a covenant on the part of God to remit sin, and to save all that believe in Christ. To the covenant in this new form he also requires a visible and formal act of accept- ance, which act, when expressive of the required faith, makes us parties to the covenant, and entitles us, through the faith- fulness of God, to its benefits. ' He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;' or, as in the passage before us, ' As many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ; and if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.' " Noah building of the ark, and entering into it with his family, are therefore considered by St. Paul as the visible expression of his faith in the ancient promises of God respecting Messiah ; and for this reason, baptism is called by St. Peter, without any allegory at all, but in the sobriety of fact, ' the afititype'' of this transaction ; the one exactly answering to the other, as an external expression of faith in the same objects and the same promises. " But the apostle does not rest in this general representa- tion. He proceeds to express, in a particular and most forcible manner, the nature of Christian baptism, — ' not the 246 putting away of the filth of the flesh ; but the answer of a good conscience towards God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.' The meaning of the apostle is, that baptism is not the putting away the filth of the flesh, not a mere external ceremony ; but a rite which demands or requires something of us, in order to the attainment of a ' good conscience.' What that is, we learn from the words of our Lord — it is faith in Christ ; ' He that helieveth and is baptized shall be saved;' which faith is the reliance of a penitent upon the atonement of the Saviour, who thus submits with all grati- tude and truth to the terms of the evangelical covenant. And we know, from the instance of Philip and the Eunuch, that there was an explicit requirement of faith, and as explicit an answer or confession ; ' and Philip said. If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest ; and he answ'ered, I believe that Jesus is the Son of God.' Every admini- stration of baptism indeed implied this demand. We see how St. Peter preserves the correspondence between the act of Noah in preparing the ark, as an act of faith by which he was justified, and the act of submitting to Christian baptism, which is also obviously an act of faith, in order to the remission of sins, or the obtaining a good conscience before God. This is further strengthened by his immediately adding, 'by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:' a clause wdiich our translators, by the use of a parenthesis, connect with ' baptism doth also now save us ;' so that their meaning is, we are saved by baptism through the resurrection of Jesus Christ ; and as he ' rose again for our justification,' this sufficiently shews the true sense of the apostle, who, by our being ' saved,' clearly means our being justified, by faith." " The text, however, needs no parenthesis, and the true sense may thus be expressed. " The antitype to which water of the flood, baptism, doth now save us, not the put- ting away of the filth of the flesh, but that which intently seeks a good conscience towards God, through faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. But the whole passage can only be consistently taken to teach us that baptism is the outward sign ol' our entrance into God's covenant of mercv, 247 and that, when it is an act of true faith, it becomes an instrument of salvation ; like that act of faith in Noah, by which, when, moved with fear, he ' prepared an ark to the saving of his house,' and survived the destruction of an unbelieving world. " From what has been said, it will then follow, that the Abrahamic covenant and the Christian covenant is the same gracious engagement on the part of God to show mercy to man, and to bestow upon him eternal life, through faith in Christ as the true sacrifice for sin, differing only in circum- stances; and that as the sign and seal of this covenant, under the old dispensation, was circumcision, under the new it is baptism, which has the same federal character, per- forms the same initiatory office, and is instituted by the same authority. For none could have authority to lay aside the appointed seal, but the Being who first instituted it, who changed the form of the covenant itself, and who has in fact abrogated the old seal by the appointment of another, even baptism, which is made obligatory upon ' all nations to whom the gospel is preached, and is' to continue to ' the end of the world.' " This argument is sufficiently extended to show that the" defendants " have in vain endeavoured to prove that baptism has not been appointed in the room of circumcision ; a point on which, indeed, they are bound to employ all their strength; for, the substitution of baptism for circumcision being established, one of their main objections to infant baptism, as I shall just now show, is rendered wholly nuga- tory ; as baptism, both as a sign and seal, presents an entire correspondence with the ancient rite of circumcision. " As A SIGN ; under this view, circumcision indicated, by a visible and continued rite, the placability of God towards his sinful creatures ; and held out the promise of justification, by faith alone, to every truly penitent offender. It went further, and was the sign of sanctification, or the taking away the pollution of sin — as well as the pardon of actual offences, and thus was the visible emblem of a regenerate mind, and a renewed life. This will ap])ear from the fol- •248 lowing passages: 'For he is not a Jew which is one out- wardly in the flesh ; but he is a Jew which is one inwardly ; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter, Avhose praise is not of men, but of God.'* 'And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.'f ' Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah, and inhabitants of Jerusalem.' |. It was a sign also of peculiar relation to God, as his people. ' Only the Lord had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day. Circumcise, therefore, the foreskin of •your hearts, and be no more stiff-necked.' § " In all these respects, baptism, as a sign of the new covenant, corresponds to circumcision. Like that, its admi- nistration is a constant exhibition of the placability of God to man ; like that, it is the initiatory rite into a covenant which promises pardon and salvation to a true faith, of which it is the outward profession ; like that, it is the symbol of regeneration, the washing away of sin, and ' the renewing of the Holy Ghost;' and like that, it is a sign of peculiar relation to God, Christians becoming, in consequence, 'a chosen generation, a peculiar people,' — his ' church'' on earth, as distinguished from ' the world.' ' For we,' says the apostle, ' are the circumcision,' we are that peculiar people and church now, which was formerly distinguished by the sign of circumcision. " But as a sign, baptism is more than circumcision ; be- cause the covenant, under its new dispensation, was not only to offer pardon upon believing, deliverance from the bondage of fleshly appetites, and a peculiar spiritual relation to God, all which we find under the Old Testament ; but also to be- stow the Holy Spirit, in his fullness, upon all believers ; and of this effusion of ' the power from on high,' baptism was made the visible sign; and perhaps for this, among some other obvious reasons, was substituted for circumcision, because * Rom. ii. 28. f Deut. xxx. 6. ^ Jcr. iv. 3. i) Dcut. x. 15, Id. 249 baptism by effusion or jjour'wf) (the New Testament mode of baptizing, as we shall afterwards show) was a natural symbol of this heavenly gift. The baptism of John had special reference to the Holy Spirit, which was not to be administered by him, but by Christ, which should come after him. This gift only honoured John's baptism once, in the extraordinary case of our Lord, but it constantly fol- lowed upon the baptism administered by the apostles of Christ, after his ascension, and the ' sending of the promise of the Father.' ' Then Peter said unto them. Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, for the remission of your sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.'' Of this great new covenant blessing, baptism was therefore eminently the siyn; and it represented ' the poimng out'' of the Spirit, the ^descending'' of the Spirit, the 'falling' of the Spirit ' upon men,' by the mode in which it was administered, the POURING of water from above upon the subjects baptized. " As a seal also, or confirming sign, baptism answers to circumcision. By the institution of the latter, a pledge was constantly given by the Almighty to bestow the spiritual blessings of which the rite was the sign, pardon and sanctifi- cation through faith in the future Seed of Abraham. Baptism is also the pledge of the same blessings, along with the higher dispensation of the Holy Spirit, which it specially represents in emblem. Thus in baptism there is, on the part of God, a visible assurance of his faithfulness to his covenant stipulations. But it is our seal also ; it is that act by which we make ourselves parties to the covenant, and thus ' set to our seal that God is true.' In this respect it binds us, as, in the other, God mercifully binds himself for the stronger assur- ance of our faith. We pledge ourselves to trust wholly in Christ for pardon and salvation, and to obey his laws; — ; ' teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.' In that rite also we undergo a mystical death unto sin ; a mystical separation from the world, which St. Paul calls being 'buried with Christ, in or by baptism;' and a mystical resurrection to newness of life, through Christ's resurrection from the dead. 250 " If, then, we bring all these considerations under our view, we shall find it sufficiently established that baptism is the sign and seal of the covenant of grace under its perfected dispensation; — that it is the grand initiatory act by which we enter into this covenant, in order to claim all its spiritual blessings, and to take upon ourselves all its obligations ; — that it was appointed by Jesus Christ, in a manner which plainly put it in the place of circumcision; — that it is now the means by which men become Abraham's spiritual chil- dren, and heirs with him of the promise, which was the office of circumcision, until the ' Seed,' the Messiah, should come; — and that baptism is therefore expressly called by St. Paul ' the circumcision of Christ,' or Christian circum- cision, in a sense which can only import that baptism has now taken the place of the Abrahamic rite. " Accordingly we find that baptism was formally made the right of initiation into this covenant for the first time, when our Lord gave commission to his disciples to ' go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,' — 'he that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved.' John's baptism was upon profession of repentance, and faith in the speedy appearance of Him who was to baptize with the Holy Ghost and fire ; and our Lord's baptism, by his disciples, was administered to those Jews that believed on him as the Messias, all of whom, like the apostles, waited for a fuller development of his character and offices. For, since the new covenant was not then fully perfected, it could not be proposed in any other way than to prepare them that believed in Christ, by its partial but increasing manifestation in the discourses of our Lord, for the full declaration both of its benefits and obligations ; which declaration was not made until after his resurrection. " That believers are the proper subjects of baptism, as they were of circumcision, is beyond dispute. As it would have been a monstrous perversion of circumcision to have admi- nistered it to any person, being of adult age, who did not believe in the true and living God, and in the expected '251 ' Seed of Abraham,' in whom all nations were to be blessed ; so is faith in Christ also an indispensable condition for baptism in all persons of mature age : and no minister is at liberty to take from the candidate the visible pledge of his acceptance of the terms of God's covenant, unless he has been first taught its nature, promises, and obligations, and gives sufficient evidence of the reality of his faith, and the sincerity of his profession of obedience. Hence the admini- stration of baptism was placed by our Lord only in the hands of those who were ' to preach the gospel,' that is, of those who were to declare God's method of saving men through faith in Christ, and to teach them ' to observe all things whatsoever Christ had commanded them.' Circum- cision was connected with teaching and belief of the truth taught, and so also is Christian baptism. " The question, however," which I now come here to prove, " is, whether the infant children of believing parents are entitled to be made parties to the covenant of grace, by the act of their parents, and the administration of baptism ? " In favour of infant baptism, the following arguments may be adduced. Some of them are more direct than others ; but " the Court " will judge whether, taken altogether, they do not establish this practice of the church, continued to us from the earliest ages, upon the strongest bases of Scrip- tural Authority. " As it has been established that baptism was put by our Lord himself and his apostles in the room of circumcision, as an initiatory rite into the covenant of grace ; and as the infant children of believers under the Old Testament were entitled to the covenant benefits of the latter ordinance, and the children of Christian believers are not expressly ex- cluded from entering into the same covenant by baptism ; the absence of such an explicit exclusion is sufficient proof of their title to baptism. " For if the covenant be the same in all its sj^iritual blessings, and an express change was made by our Lord in the sign and seal of that covenant, but no change at all in the subjects of it, no one can have a right to carry that 252 change further than the Lawgiver himself, and to exclude the children of believers from entering his covenant by baptism, when they had always been entitled to enter into it by circumcision. This is a censurable interference with the authority of God; a presumptuous attemjDt to fashion the new dispensation, in this respect, so as to conform it to a mere human opinion of fitness and propriety. For to say, that because baptism is directed to be administered to believers when adults are spoken of, it follows that children who are not capable of personal faith are excluded from baptism, is only to argue in the same manner as if it were contended, that because circumcision, when adults were the only subjects, was only to be administered to believers, therefore infants were excluded from that ordinance; which is contrary to the fact. This argument will not certainly exclude them from baptism by way of inference, and by no act of the Maker and Mediator of the covenant are they shut out. " If it had been intended to exclude infants from entering into the new covenant by baptism, the absence of every prohibitory expression to this effect in the New Testament must have been misleading to all men, and especially to the Jewish believers. " Baptism was no new ordinance when our Lord instituted it, though he gave to it a particular designation. It was in his practice to adapt, in several instances, what he found already established to the uses of his religion. A parable, for instance, was a Jewish mode of teaching. Who taught by parables equal to Jesus Christ? And what is the most distinguished and appropriate rite of his religion, but a service grafted on a passover custom among the Jews of his day ? It was not ordained by Moses tltat a part of the bread they had used in the passover should be the last thing they ate after that supper, yet this our Lord took as he found it, and converted it into a memorial of his body. The ' cup ol blessing' has no authority whatever from the original insti tution, yet this our Lord found in use, and adopted as a memorial of his blood : taken together, these elements form 253 one commemoration of his death. Probabihty, arising to rational certainty, therefore, woukl lead us to infer, that whatever rite Jesus appointed as the ordinance of admission into the community of his followers, he would also adopt from some service already existing — from some token familiar among the people of his nation. "In fact, we know that 'divers baptisms'' existed under the law, and we have every reason to believe that the admission of proselytes into the profession of Judaism was really and truly marked by a washing with water in a ritual and ceremonial manner. I have always understood that Maimonides is perfectly correct, when he says, ' In all ages when a heathen (or a stranger by nation) was willing to enter into the covenant of Israel, and gather himself under the wings of the majesty of God, and take upon himself the yoke of the law — he must bejirst circumcised, and secondly, rap- TiZED, and thirdly, bring a sacrifice ; or if the party ivere a woman, then she must bejirst baptized, and secondly, bring a sacrificed He adds, ' at this present time (the temple being- destroyed) there is no sacrificing, a stranger must be first circumcised, and secondly baptized.' Doctor Gill has ven- tured the assertion, that ' there is no mention made of any rite or custom of admitting Jewish proselytes by baptism in any writings or records before the time of John the Baptist, Christ, and his apostles, nor in any age after them for the first three or four hundred years, or, however, before the writings of the Talmuds.' But the learned doctor has not condescended to understand the evidence of this fact. It does not rest on the testimony of Jewish records solely ; it was in circulation among the heathen, as we learn from the clear and demonstrative testimony of Epictetus. "Those who could think that the Jews could institute proselyte baptism, at the very moment when the Christians were practising baptism as an initiatory rite, are not to be envied for the correctness of their judgment. I see no reason for disj)uting the assertion of Maimonides, notwithstanding Doctor Gill's rash and fallacious language on the subject." " This baptism of proselytes, as Lightfoot has fully 254 shewed, was a baptism of families, and comjjreliended their infant children ; and the rite was a symbol of their being washed from the pollution of idolatry. Very different indeed, in the extent of its import and office, was Christian baptism to the Jewish baptisms ; nevertheless, this shev^•s that the Jews were familiar with the rite as it extended to children, in cases of conversions from idolatry ; and, as far at least as the converts from paganism to Christianity were concerned, they could not but understand Christian baptism to extend to the infant children of gentile proselytes, unless there had been, what we no where find in the discourses of Christ, and the writings of the apostles, an express exception of them. In like manner, their own practice of infant cir- cumcision must have misled them ; for if they were taught that baptism was the initiatory seal of the Christian cove- nant, and had taken the place of circumcision, which St. Paul had informed them was ' a seal of the righteousness which is by faith,' how should they have understood that their children were no longer to be taken into covenant with God, as under their own former religion, unless they had been told that this exclusion of children from all covenant relation to God was one of those peculiarities of the Chris- tian dispensation, in which it differed from the religion of the patriarchs and INIoses } This was surely a great change, a change which must have made great impression upon a serious and affectionate Jewish parent, who could now no longer covenant with God for his children, or place his children in a special covenant relation to the Lord of the whole earth ; a change indeed so great, — a placing of the children of Christian parents in so inferior, and, so to speak, outcast a condition, in comparison of the children of believ- ing Jews, whilst the Abrahamic covenant remained in force, — that not only, in order to prevent mistake, did it require an express enunciation, but in the nature of the thing it must have given rise to so many objections, or at least inquiries, that explanations of the reason of this peculiarity might naturally be expected to occur in the writings of the apostles, and especially in those of St. Paul. On the contrary, 255 the very phraseology of these inspired men, when touching the subject of the children of believers only incidentally, was calculated to confirm the ancient practice, in opposition to what we are told is the true doctrine of the gospel upon this point. For instance : how could the Jews have under- stood the words of Peter at the Pentecost, but as calling both upon them and their children to be baptized ? — ' Repent and be baptized, for the promise is unto you and to your children :' for that both are included may be proved, says a sensible writer, by considering, " 1. The resemblance between this promise, and that in Gen. xvii. 7, ' To be a God unto thee, and unto thy seed after thee.' — The resemblance between these two lies in two things : each stands connected with an ordinance, by which persons were to be admitted into chiu'ch fellowship ; the one by circumcision, the other by baptism. Both agree in phrase- ology; the one is 'to thee and to thy seed,' the other is to ' you and to your children.' Now every one knows that the word seed means children ; and that children means seed ; and that they are precisely the same. From these two strongly resembling features, viz. their connexion with a similar ordinance, and the sameness of the phraseology, I infer that the subjects expressed in each are the very same. And as it is certain that parents and infants were intended by the one ; it must be equally certain that both are intended by the other. " 2. In order to know the sense in which the speaker must have understood the sentence in question, — ' the promise is to you and to your children,' — we must consider who the speaker was, and from what source he received his religious knowledge. The apostle was a Jew. He knew, that he himself had been admitted in infancy, and that it was the ordinary practice of the church to admit infants to member- ship. And he likewise knew, that in this they acted on the authority of that place, where God promises to Abraham 'to be a God unto him and unto his seed.' Now, if the apostle knew all this, in what sense could he understand the term children as distinguished from the parents ? I have •25G said that children and seed mean the same thing. And as the apostle well knew that the term seed intended infants, though not mere infants only, and that infants were circum- cised and received into the church as being the seed, what else could he understand by the term children, when men- tioned with their parents ? Those who will have the apostle to mean, by the term children, adult posterity only, have this infelicity attending them, that they understand the term differently from all other men ; and they attribute to the apostle a sense of the word, which to him must have been the most forced and infamiliar. " 3. In what sense his hearers must have understood him, when he said, ' the ]:)romise is to you and your children.'' " The context informs us that many of St. Peter's hearers, as he himself was, were Jews. They had been accustomed for many hundred years to receive infants by circumcision into the church ; and this they did, as before observed, because God had promised to be a God to Abraham and to his seed. They had understood this promise to mean parents and their infant offspring, and tliis idea was become fatniliar by the practice of many centuries. What then must have been their views, when one of their own community says to them, The promise is to you and to your children ? If their practice of receiving infants were founded on a promise exactly similar, as it was, how could they possibly under- stand him, but as meaning the same thing, since he himself used the same mode of speech. This must have been the case, unless we admit this absurditv, that they understood him in a sense to which they had never been accustomed. How idle a thing it is in a Baptist to come, with a lexicon in his hand, to inform us that Ttx:va, children, means posterity ! Certainly it does, and so includes the youngest infants. " But, the" defendants " will have it that TEitva, children, in this place, means only adidt posterity. And if so, the Jews to whom he spoke, unless they understood St. Peter in a way in which it was morally impossible they should, would infallibly have understood him \\ rong. Certainly, all men, when acting freely, will understand words in that way 257 which is most familiar to them ; and nothing could be more so to the Jews, than to understand such a speech as St. Peter's to mean adults and infants. " To this I may add, that St. Paul calls the children of believers holy, sepai'ated to God, and standing therefore in a peculiar relation to him ;* a mode of speech which would also have been wholly unintelligible, at least to a Jew, unless by some rite of Christianity children were made sharers in its covenanted mercies. "Infant children are declared by Christ to be members of his church. " That they were made members of God's church in the family of Abraham, and among the Jews, cannot be denied. They were made so by circumcision, which was not that carnal and merely political rite which many Baptist writers, in contradiction to the Scriptures, make it, but was, as we have seen, the seal of a spiritual covenant, comprehending engagements to bestow the remission of sins, and all its con- sequent blessings in this life, and in another the heavenly Canaan. Among these blessings was that special relation which consisted in becoming a visible and peculiar people of God, his church. This was contained in that engagement of the covenant, ' I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people ; ' a promise, which however connected with tem- poral advantages, was in its highest and most emphatic sense wholly spiritual. Circumcision was therefore a religious, and not a mere political rite, because the covenant, of which it was the seal, was in its most ample sense spiritual. If therefore we had no direct autliority from the words of Christ to declare the infant children of believers competent to become the members of his church, the two circumstances, — that the church of God, which has always been one church in all ages, and into which the Gentiles are now introduced, formerly admitted infants to membership by circumcision, — and that the mode of initiation into it only has been changed, and not the subjects (of which we have no intimation), — would themselves prove that baptism admits * 1 Cor. vii. 14. s 258 into the Christian church both believing parents and their children, as circumcision admitted both. The same church remains; for 'the olive tree' is not destroyed ; the natural branches only are broken off", and the gentiles graffed in, and ' partake of the root and fatness of the olive tree,' that is, of all the spiritual blessings and privileges heretofore enjoyed by the Jews, in consequence of their relation to God as his church. But among these spiritual privileges and blessings, was the right of placing their children in covenant with God ; the membership of the Jews comprehended both children and adults ; and the grafRng in of the gentiles, so as to par- take of the same ' root and fatness,' will therefore include a right to put their children also into the covenant, so that they, as well as adults, may become members of Christ's church, have God to be ' their God,' and be acknowledged by him, in the special sense of the terms of the covenant, to be ' his people.' " But we have om* Lord's direct testimony to this point, and that in two remarkable passages ; ' And Jesus took a child and set him by him, and he said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name, receiveth me : and who- soever shall receive me, receiveth him that sent me ; for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great.'* We grant this is an instance of teaching by parabolic action. The intention of Christ was to impress the necessity of Inunility and teachableness upon his disciples, and to afford a promise, to those who should receive them in his name, of that special grace which was implied in receiving himself. But then, were there not a correspondence of circumstances between the child taken by Jesus in his arms, and the dis- ciples compared to this child, there would be no force, no propriety, in the action, and the same truth might have been as forcibly stated without any action of this kind at all. Let then these correspondences be remarked, in order to estimate the amount of their meaning. The humility and docility of the true disciple corresponded with the same dispositions in a young child ; and the ' receiving a disciple in the name'' * Luke ix. 47, 48. 259 of Christ corresponds with the receivmg of a child in the name of Christ, which can only mean the receiving of each with kindness on account of a religious relation between each and Christ, which religious relation can only be well interpreted of a church relation. This is further confirmed by the next point of correspondence, the identity of Christ both with the disciple and the child — 'Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me ; ' but such an identity of Christ with his disciples stands wholly upon their relation to him as members of his mystical ' body, the church.' It is in this respect only that they are ' one with him;' and there can be no identity of Christ with Mittle children,' but by virtue of the same relation, that is, as they are members of his mystical body, the church ; of which membershij), baptism is now, as circumcision was then, the initiatory rite. That was the relation in which the very child he then took up in his arms stood to him by virtue of its circumcision ; it was a member of his Old Testament church ; but, as he is speaking of the disciples as the future teachers of his perfected covenant, and their reception in his name under that character, he manifestly glances at the church relationship of children to him, to be established by the baptism to be instituted in his perfect dispensation. " This is, however, expressed still more explicitly in Mark x. 14. Here the children spoken of are ' little chil- dren,' of so tender an age, that our Lord ' took them up in his arms.' The purpose for which they were brought was not, as some of the " defendants " would suggest, that Christ should heal them of diseases ; for though St. Mark says, ' They brought young children to Christ that he might touch them,' this is explained by St. Matthew, who says, * that he should put his hands upon them and pray;' and even in the statement of St. Mark (x. 16,) it is not said that our Lord healed them, but ' put his hands upon them, and blessed them,' which clearly enough shows that this was the purpose for which they were brought by their parents to Christ.' Nor is there any evidence that it was the practice among the Jews for common, unofficial persons to put their 260 hands upon the heads of those for whom they prayed. The jiarents here appear to have been among those who beheved Christ to be a prophet, ' that prophet^ or the Messias, and on that account earnestly desired his prayers for their chil- dren, and his official blessing upon them. That official blessing, — the blessing which he was authorised and em- powered to bestow by virtue of his Messiaship, — he was so ready, we might say so anxious, to bestow upon them, that he was ^ much displeased'' with his disciples, who 'rebuked them that brought them,' and gave a command which was to be in force in all future time, — ' Suffer the little children to come unto me,' in order to receive my official blessing, ' for of such is the kingdom of God.' The first evasive criticism of the " defendants " is, that the phrase ' of such ' means of such like, that is, of adults being of a child-like disposition ; a criticism which takes away all meaning from the words of our Lord. For what kind of reason was it to offer for per- mitting children to come to Christ to receive his blessing, that persons not children, but who were of a child-like dis- position, were the subjects of the kingdom of God? The absurdity of this is its own refutation, since the reason for children being permitted to come must be found in them- selves, and not in others. The second attempt to evade the argument from this passage is, to understand ' the kingdom of God,' or the ' kingdom of heaven,' as St. Matthew has it, exclusively of the heavenly state. We gladly admit, in opposition to the Calvinistic Baptists, that all children dying before actual sin committed are admitted into heaven through the merits of Christ; but for this very reason it follows that infants are proper subjects to be introduced into his church on earth. The phrases, the ' kingdom of God,' and 'the kingdom of heaven,' are, however, more frequently used by our Lord to denote the church in this present world, than in its state of glory ; and since all the children brought to Christ to receive his blessing were not likely to die in their infancy, it could not be affirmed, ' that of such is the kingdom of heaven,' if that be understood to mean the state of future ha]ipiness exclusively. As children, they might all 261 be members of the churcli on eartli, but not all as children members of the church in heaven, seeing they might live to become adult and be cut away. Thus, therefore, if children are expressly declared to be members of Christ's church, then are they proper subjects of baptism, which is the initiatory rite into every portion of that church which is visible. " But let this case be more particularly considered. Take it that, by the ' kingdom of God,' or of ' heaven,' our Lord means the gloiified state of his church ; it must be granted that none can enter into heaven who are not redeemed by Christ, and who do not stand in a vital relation to him as members of his mystical body, or otherwise we should place human and fallen beings in that heavenly state who are unconnected with Christ as their Redeemer, and uncleansed by him as the Sanctifier of his redeemed. Now this relation must exist on earth before it can exist in heaven, or else we assign the work of sanctifying the fallen nature of man to a future state, which is contrary to the Scriptures. If infants, therefore, are thus redeemed and sanctified in their natm*e, and are before death made ' meet for the inheritance of the saints in light,' so that in this world they are placed in the same relation to Christ as an adult believer, who derives sanctifying influence from him, they are therefore the mem- bers of his church — they partake of the grace of his covenant, and are comprehended in that promise of the covenant, ' I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people.' In other words, they are made members of Christ's church, and are entitled to be recognised as such by the administra- tion of the visible sign of initiation into some visible branch of it. If it be asked. Of what import then is baptism to children, if as infants they already stand in a favourable relation to Christ } the answer is, that it is of the same import as circumcision was to Abraham, which was ' a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncir- cumcised : ' it confirmed all the promises of the covenant of grace to him, and made the church of God visible to men. It is of the same import as baptism to the Eunuch, who had faith already, and a willingness to submit to th« rite before 262 it was administered to him. He stood at that moment in the condition of an accepted candidate; he was virtually a member, although not formally so; and his baptism was not merely a sign of his faith, but a confirming sign of God's covenant relation to him as a pardoned and accepted man, and gave him a security for the continuance and increase of the gi*ace of the covenant, as he was prepared to receive it. In hke manner, in the case of all truly believing adults applying for baptism, their relation to Christ is not that of mere candidates for membership with his church, but that of accepted candi- dates, standing already in a vital relation to him, but about to receive the seal which was to confirm that grace, and its increase in the ordinance itself, and in future time. Thus this previous relation of infants to Christ, as accepted by him, is an argument for their baptism, not against it, seeing it is by that they are visibly recognised as the formal mem- bers of his church, and have the full gi'ace of the covenant confirmed and sealed to them, with increase of grace as they are fitted to receive it; besides the advantage of visible con- nexion with the church, and of that obligation which is taken upon themselves by their parents to train them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. " In both views, then, ' of such is the kingdom of God' — members of his church on earth, and of his church in heaven if they die in infancy, for the one is necessarily involved in the other. No one can be of the kingdom of God in heaven, who does not stand in a vital, sanctifying relation to Christ as the head of his mystical body, the church, on earth ; and no one can be of the kingdom of God on earth, or member of his true church, and die in that relation, without entering that state of glory to which his adoption on earth makes him an heir, through Christ. " The argument from apostolic practice next offers itself. That practice was to baptize the houses of them that be- lieved. "The impugners of infant baptism are pleased to argue much from the absence of all express mention of the baptism of infants in the New Testament. This, however, is easily 263 accounted for, when it is considered, that if, as we have proved, baptism took the place of circumcision, the baptism of infants was so much a matter of course as to call for no remark. The argument from silence on this subject is one which least of all the " defendants " ought to dwell upon, since, as we have seen, if it had been intended to exclude children from the privilege of being placed in covenant with God, which privilege they unquestionably enjoyed under the Old Testament, this extraordinary alteration^ which could not but produce remark, required to be par- ticularly noted, both to account for it to the mind of an affectionate Jewish parent, and to guard against that mistake into which I shall just now show Christians from the earliest time fell, since they administered baptism to infants. It may further be observed, that, as to the Acts of the Apos- tles, the events nan'ated there did not require the express mention of the baptism of infants as an act separate from the baptism of adults. That which called for the administration of baptism at that period, as now when the gospel is preached in a heathen land, was the believing of adult persons, not the case of persons already believing bringing their children for baptism. On the supposition that baptism was administered to the children of the parents who thus believed, at the same time as themselves, and in consequence of their believing, it may be asked, how the fact could be more naturally ex- pressed, when it was not intended to speak of infant baptism doctrinally or distinctly, than that such an one was baptized ' and all his house;' just as a similar fact would be distinctly recorded by a modem missionary, writing to a church at home practising infant baptism, and having no controversy on the subject in his eye, by saying he baptized such a heathen, at such a place, with all his family. For, without going into any criticism on the Greek term rendered house, it cannot be denied that, like the old English word employed in our ti'anslation, and also like the word family, it must be understood to comprehend either the children only, to the exclusion of the domestics, or both. " If we take the instances of the baptism of whole ' houses,' 264 as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, they must be under- stood as marking the common mode of proceeding among the first preachers of the gospel when the head or heads of a family believed, or as insulated and peciUiar instances. If the former, which, from what may be called the matter-of- course manner in which the cases are mentioned, is most probable, then innumerable instances must have occurred of the baptizing of houses or families, just as many, in fact, as there were of the conversion of heads of families in the apostolic age. That the majority of these houses must have included infant children is therefore certain, and it follows that the apostles practised infant baptism. " But let the case of baptism of houses mentioned in the New Testament be put in the most favourable light for the purpose of the " defendants, " that is, let them be considered as insulated and peculiar, and not as instances of apostolic procedure in all cases where the heads of families were con- verted to the faith, still " they are " obliged to assume, that neither in the house of the Philippian jailer, nor in that of Lydia, nor in that of Stephanas, were there any infants at all, since, if there were, they were comprehended in the toJiole houses w^hich were baptized upon the believing of their respective heads. This at least is improbable, and no intimation of this peculiarity is given in the history. " The" defendants, " however, think that they can prove that all the persons included in these houses were adults ; and that the means of shewing this from the Scriptures is an instance of ' the care of Providence watching over the sacred cause of adult baptism ;' thus absurdly assuming that, even if this point could be made out, the whole controversy is tenninated, when in fact this is but an auxiliary argument, of very inferior importance to those above mentioned. But let us examine their supposed proofs. ' With respect to the jailer,' they tell us, ' that we are expressly assured that the apostles spake the word of the Lord to all that were in his house ;' which we grant must principally, although not of necessity exclusively, refer to those who were of sufficient age to understand their discourse. And ' that he rejoiced. 265 believing in God with all his house ;' from which the infer- ence is, that none but adult hearers, and adult believers, were in this case baptized. If so, then there could be no infant children in the house ; which, as the jailer appears from his activity to have been a man in the vigour of life, and not aged, is at least far from being certain. But if it be a proof in this case that there were no infant children in the jailer's family, that it is said he believed and all his house, this is not the only believing family mentioned in Scripture from which infants must be excluded. For, to say nothing of the house of Lydia and Stephanas, the noble- man at Capernaum is said to have believed, ' and all his house.''* So that we are to conclude that there were no infant children in this house also, although his sick son is not said to be his only olfspring, and that son is called by him a child, the diminutive term vaihov being used. Again, Cornelius is said to be ' one that feared God, and all his house.''f Infant children, therefore, must be excluded from his family also ; and also from that of Crispus, who is said to have believed on the Lord with all his house ; which house appears, from what immediately follows, to have been baptized. These instances make it much more probable that the phrases, 'fearing God with all his house,' and 'be- lieving with all his house,' include young children under the believing adults, whose religious profession they would fol low, and whose sentiments they would imbibe, so that they might be called a Christian family, than that so many houses or families should have been constituted only of adult per- sons, to the entire exclusion of children of tender years. In the case of the jailer's house, however, the Baptist argument manifestly halts ; for it is not said, that they only to vvhom the word of the Lord was spoken, were baptized ; nor that they only who 'believed,' and 'rejoiced,' with the jailer, w^ere baptized. The account of the baptism is given in a separate verse, and in different phrase ; 'And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes ; and was baptized, he and all his,'' all belonging to him, * John iv. 53. f Acts x. 2. ' 26(5 ' straightway ;' where there is no limitation of the persons who were baptized to the adults only, by any terms which designate them as persons ' hearing,' or ' believing.' " The next instance is that of Lydia. The words of the writer of the Acts are — 'who, when she was baptized, and her house.' The great difficulty with the" defendants " is, to make a house for Lydia without any children at all, either young or old. This, however, cannot be proved from the term itself, since the same word is that commonly used in the Scripture to include childi'en residing at home with their parents ; ' one that rideth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity.' It is, however, con- jectured, first, that she had come a trading voyage from Thyatira to Philippi, to sell purple ; as if a woman of Thy- atira might not be settled in business at Philippi as a seller of this article. Then, as if to mark more strikingly the hopelessness of the attempt to torture this passage to favour an opinion, 'her house' is made to consist of journeymen dyers, employed in preparing the purple she sold ; which, however, is a notion at variance with the former ; for, if she was on a mere trading voyage, if she had brought her pui-ple goods from Thyatira to Philippi to sell, she most probably brought them ready dyed, and would have had no need of a dying establishment. To complete the whole, these journey- men dyers, although not a word is said of their conversion, or even of their existence, in the whole story, are raised into ' the brethren ' (a term which manifestly denotes the mem- bers of the Philippian church) whom Paul and Silas are said to have seen and comforted in the house of Lydia, before they departed. " All, however, that the history states is, ' that the Lord opened Lydia's heart, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul,' and that she was therefore ' baptized, and her house.' From this house, no one has the least authority to exclude children, even young children, since there is nothing in the history to warrant the above- mentioned conjectures, and the word is in Scripture used expressly to include them. All is perfectly giatuitous on the 267 part of the" defendants: "but, whilst there is nothing to sanction the manner in which they deal with this text, there is a circumstance strongly confirmatory of the probability that the house of Lydia, according to the natural import of the word rendered house, or family, contained children, and that in an infantile state. This is, that in all the other instances in which adidts are mentioned as having been baptized along with the head of a family, they are mentioned as ' hearing,' and ' believing,' or in some terms which amount to this. Cornelius had called together ' his kinsmen and near friends;' and while Peter spake, ' the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word, and he commanded them to be bap- tized.' So the adults in the house of the jailer at Philippi were persons to whom * the word of the Lord' was spoken ; and although nothing is said of the faith of any but the jailer himself, — for the words are more properly rendered, ' And he, believing in God, rejoiced with all his house,' — yet is the joy which appears to have been felt by the adult part of his house, as well as by himself, to be attributed to their faith. Now, as it does not appear that the apostles, although they baptized infant children, baptized unbelieving adult servants, because their masters or mistresses believed ; and yet the house of Lydia were baptized along with herself, when no mention at all is made of the Lord ' opening the heart' of these adult domestics, nor of their believing ; the fair inference is, that ' the house' of Lydia means her chil- dren only, and that, being of immature years, they were baptized with their mother, according to the common custom of the Jews to baptize the children of proselyted gentiles along with their parents, fi'om which practice Christian baptism appears to have been taken. " The third instance is that of ' the house of Stephanas,' mentioned by St. Paul* as having been baptized by him- self This family also, it is argued, must have been all adults, because they are said, in the same Epistle, f to have ' addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,' and further, because they were persons who took * a lead ' * I Cor. i. 16. f 1 Cor. xvi. 15. 2G8 in the affairs of the church, the Corinthians being exhorted to ' submit themselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us and laboureth.' To understand this passage rightly, it is, however, necessary to observe, that Stephanas, the head of this family, had been sent by the church of Corinth to St. Paul at Ephesus, along with Fortunatus and Achaicus. In the absence of the head of the family, the apostle commends ' the house,' the family, of Stephanas, to the regard of the Corinthian believers, and perhaps also the houses of the two other brethren who had come with him ; for in several MSS. marked by Griesbach, and in some of the versions, the text reads, ' Ye know the house of Ste- phanas and Fortunatus,' and one reads also,' and of Achaicus.' By the house or family of Stephanas, the ajjostle must mean his children, or, along with them, his near relations dwelling together in the same family ; for, since they are commended for their hospitality to the saints, sei'vants, who have no power to shew hospitality, are of course excluded. But, in the absence of the head of the family, it is very improbable that the apostle should exhort the Corinthian church to ' submit' ecclesiastically, to the wife, sons, daughters, and near relatives of Stephanas ; and, if the reading of Gries- bach's MSS. be followed, to the family of Fortunatus, and that of Achaicus also. In respect of government, therefore, they cannot be supposed ' to have had a lead in the church,' according to the Baptist notion, and especially as the heads of these families were absent. They were, however, the oldest Christian families in Corinth, the house of Stephanas at least being called the ' first-fruits of Achaia,' and emi- nently distinguished for ' addicting themselves,' setting them- selies on system, to the work of ministering to the saints, that is, of communicating to the poor saints ; entertaining stranger Christians, which was an important branch of prac- tical duty in the primitive church, that in every place those who professed Christ might be kept out of the societ}" of idolaters ; and receiving the ministers of Christ. On these accounts, the apostle commends them to the special regard of the Corinthian church, and exhorts ' that you range 269 yourselves under, and co-operate with them, and with every one,' also, ' who helpeth with us and laboureth ;' the military metaphor contained in ETa|av, in the preceding verse, being here earned forward. These families were the oldest Christians in Corinth ; and as they were foremost in every good word and work, they were not only to be commended, but the rest were to be exhorted to serve under them as leaders in these works of charity. This appears to be the obvious sense of this otherwise obscure passage. But in this, or indeed in any other sense which can be given to it, it proves no more than that there were adult persons in the family of Stephanas, his wife, and sons, and daughters, who were distinguished for their charity and hospitality. Still it is to be remembered, that the baptism of the oldest of the children took place several years before. The house of Stephanas ' was the first-fruits of Achaia," in which St. Paul began to preach not later than a. d. 51, whilst this Epistle could not have been written earlier than a. d. 57, and it might be later. Six or eight years taken from the age of the sons and daughters of Stephanas, might bring the oldest to the state of early youth, and as to the younger branches would descend to the term of infancy, properly so called. Still further, all that the apostle affirms of the benevolence and hospitality of the family of Stephanas, is perfectly consistent with a part of his children being still very young when he wrote the Epistle. An equal commendation for hospitality and charity might be given in the present day, with perfect propriety, to many pious families, several members of which are still in a state of infancy. It was sufficient to waiTant the use of such expressions as those of the apostle, that there were in these Corinthian families a few adults, whose conduct gave a decided character to the whole ' house.' Thus the arguments used to prove that in these three instances of family bap- tism, there were no young children, are evidently very unsa- tisfactory, and they leave us to the conclusion, which perhaps all would come to in reading the sacred history, were they quite free from the bias of a theory, that ' houses,' or ' fami- lies,' as in the commonly received import of the term, must 270 be understood to comprise children of all ages, unless some explicit note of the contrary appears, which is not the case in any of the instances in question. " The last argument may be drawn from the antiquity of the practice of infant baptism. " If the baptism of the infant children of believers was not practised by the apostles and by the primitive churches, when and where did the practice commence ? To this question the Baptist writers can give no answer. It is an innovation, according to them, not upon the circumstances of a sacrament, but upon its essential principle ; and yet its introduction produced no struggle, was never noticed by any general or provincial council, and excited no contro- versy ! This itself is strong presumptive proof of its early antiquity. On the other hand, we can point out the only ancient writer who opposed infant baptism. This was Tertullian, who lived late in the second century ; but his very opposition to the practice proves, that that practice was more ancient than himself; and the principles on which he impugns it, further shews that it was so. He regarded this sacrament superstitiously ; he appended to it the tritie immersion, in the name of each of the persons of the Trinity ; he gives it gravely as a reason why infants should not be baptized, that Christ says, ' Suffer the little children to come unto me ;' therefore they must stay until they are able to come, that is, till they are grown up ; ' and he would prohibit the unmarried, and all in a widowed state, from baptism, because of the temptations to which they may be liable.' The whole of this is solved by adverting to that notion of the efficacy of this sacrament in taking away all previous sins which then began to prevail, so that an induce- ment was held out for delaying baptism as long as possible, till at length, in many cases, it was postponed to the article of death, under the belief that the dying who received this sacrament were the more secure of salvation, Tertullian accordingly, with all his zeal, allowed that infants ought to be Ijaptized if their lives he in danger, and thus evidently shews that his opposition to the baptism of infants in 271 ordinary rested upon a very different principle from that of the modern Anti-psedobaptists. Amidst all his argmnents against this practice, Tertullian, however, never ventures upon one which would have been most to his purpose, and which might most forcibly have been urged, had not baptism been administered to infants by the apostles and their imme- diate successors. That argument would have been, the novelty of the practice, which he never asserts, and which, as he lived so early, he might have proved, had he had any ground for it. On the contrary, Justin Martyr and Irengeus, in the second century, and Origen, in the beginning of the third, expressly mention infant baptism as the practice of their times, and, by the latter, this is assigned to apostolical injunction. Fidus, an African bishop, applied to Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, to know, not whether infants were to be baptized, but whether their baptism might take place before the eighth day after their birth, that being the day on which circumcision was performed by the law of Moses. This question was considered in an African synod, held A. D. 254, at which sixty-six bishops were present, and ' it was unanimously decreed, That it was not necessary to defer baptism to that day ; and that the grace of God, or baptism, should be given to all, and especially to infants.' This decision was commvmicated in a letter from Cyprian to Fidus. We trace the practice also downwards. In the fourth century, Ambrose says, that ' Infants who are baptized, are reformed from wickedness to the primitive state of theii" nature ;' and at the end of that century, the famous contro- versy took place between Augustine and Pelagius, concern- ing original sin, in which the uniform practice of baptizing infants from the days of the apostles was admitted by both parties, although they assigned different reasons for it. So little indeed were TertuUian's absurdities regarded, that he appears to have been quite forgotten by this time ; for Augustine says he never heard of any Christian, catholic or sectary, who taught any other doctrine than that infants are to be baptized. Infant baptism is not mentioned in the canons of any council ; nor is it insisted upon, as an object 272 of faith, in any creed ; and thence we infer that it was a point not controverted at any period of the ancient church ; and we know that it was the practice in all established churches. Wall says, that Peter Bruis, a Frenchman, who lived about the year 1030, whose followers were called Petrobrussians, was the first Anti-paedobaptist teacher who had a regular congregation. The Anabaptists of Germany took their rise in the beginning of the fifteenth century ; but it does not appear that there was any congregation of Ana- baptists in England till the year 1640. That a practice which can be traced up to the very first periods of the church, and has been, till within very modem times, its uncontradicted practice, should have a lower authority than apostolic usage and appointment, may be ])ronounced im- possible. It is not like one of those trifling, though some- times superstitious additions, which even in very early times began to be made to the sacraments ; on the contrary, it involves a principle so important as to alter the very nature of the sacrament itself. For if personal faith be an essen- tial requisite of baptism in all cases ; if baptism be a visible declaration of this, and is vicious without it ; then infant baptism was an innovation of so serious a nature, that it must have attracted attention, and provoked controversy, which would have led, if not to the suppression of the error, yet to a diversity of practice in the ancient churches, which in point of fact did not exist, Tertullian himself allowing infant baptism in extreme cases. " The benefits of this sacrament require to be briefly exhibited. Baptism introduces the adult believer into the covenant of grace, and the church of Christ ; and is the seal, the pledge, to him, on the part of God, of the fulfil- ment of all its provisions, in time and in eternity ; whilst, on his part, he takes upon himself the obligations of stead- fast faith and obedience. " To the infant child, it is a visible reception into the same covenant and church — a pledge of acceptance through Christ — the bestowment of a title to all the grace of the covenant, as circumstances may require, and as the mind of 273 the child may be capable, or made capable, of receiving it ; and as it may be sought in future life by prayer, when the period of reason and moral choice shall arrive. It conveys also the present ' blessing' of Christ, of which we are assured by his taking children in his arms and blessing them ; which blessing cannot be merely nominal, but must be substantial and efficacious. It secures, too, the gift of the Holy Spirit, in those secret spiritual influences by which the actual regeneration of those children who die in infancy is effected ; and which are a seed of life in those who are spared, to prepare them for instruction in the word of God, as they are taught it by parental care, to incline their will and affections to good, and to begin and maintain in them the war against inward and outward evil, so that they may be divinely assisted, as reason strengthens, to make their calling and election sm'e. In a word, it is, both as to infants and to adults, the sign and pledge of that inward grace, which, although modified in its operations by the difference of their circumstances, has respect to, and flows from, a covenant relation to each of the three persons in whose one name they are baptized, — acceptance by the Father, — union with Christ, as the head of his mystical body, the church, — and 'the communion of the Holy Ghost.'' To these advantages must be added, the respect which God bears to the believing act of the parents, and to their solemn prayers on this occasion, in both which the child is interested ; as well as in that solemn engagement of the parents which the rite necessarily implies, to bring up their child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. " To the parents it is a benefit also. It assures them that God will not only be their God, but ' the God of their seed after them ; ' it thus gives them, as the Israelites of old, the right to covenant with God for their ' little ones,' and it is a consoling pledge that their dying infant offspring shall be saved ; since he who says, ' Suffer little children to come unto me,' has added, ' for of such is the kingdom of heaven.' They are reminded by it also of the necessity of acquainting themselves with God's covenant, that they may diligently T '274 teach it to their children ; and that, as they have covenanted with God for their children, they are bound thereby to enforce the covenant conditions upon thera as they come to years, — by example as well as by education ; by prayer as well as by profession of the name of Christ. " The mode of baptism remains to be considered. Al- though the manner in which the element of water is applied in baptism is but a circumstance of this sacrament, it will not be a matter of surprise, to those who reflect upon the proneness of men to attach undue importance to comparative trifles, that it has produced so much controversy. The ques- tion as to the proper subjects of baptism is one which is to be respected for its importance ; that as to the 77iode has occupied more time, and excited greater feeling, than it is in any view entitled to. It cannot, however, be passed over, because the advocates for immersion are often very trouble- some to their fellow-Christians, unsettle weak minds, and sometimes perhaps, from their zeal for a form, endanger their own spirituality. Against the doctrine that the only legitimate mode of baptizing is by immersion, we may first observe, that there are several strong presumptions. " 1. It is not probable, that if immersion were the only allowable mode of baptism, it should not have been expressly enjoined. " 2. It is not probable, that in a religion designed to be universal, a mode of administering this ordinance should be obligatory, the practice of which is ill adapted to so many climates, where it would either be exceedingly harsh to immerse the candidates, male and female, strong and feeble, in water, or, in some places, as in the higher latitudes, for a gi-eat pai't of the year, impossible. Even if immersion were in fact the original mode of baptizing in the name of Christ, these reasons make it improbable that no accommodation of the form should take place without vitiating the ordinance. " 3. It is still more unlikely, that in a religion of mercy there should be no consideration of health and life, in the administration of an ordinance of salvation, since it is cer- tain that in countries where cold bathing is little practised. 275 great risk of both is often incurred, especially in the case oi' women, and delicate persons of either sex, and fatal effects do sometimes occur. " 4. It is also exceedingly improbable, that in such cir- cumstances of climate, and the unfrequent use of the bath, a mode of baptizing should have been appointed, which, fi'om the shivering, the sobbing, and other bodily uneasiness produced, should distract the thoughts, and unfit the mind for a collected performance of a religious and solemn act of devotion. " 5. It is highly improbable, that the three thousand con- verts at the Pentecost, who, let it be observed, were baptized on the same day, were all baptized by immersion ; or that the jailer, and ' all his,' were baptized in the same manner m the 7iigJit, although the" defendants " have invented a 'tank or bath in the prison at Philippi,' for that purpose. " Finally, it is most of all improbable, that a religion like the Christian, so scrupulously delicate, should have enjoined the immersion of women by men, and in the presence of men. In an after-age, when immersion came into fashion, baptisteries, and rooms for women, and changes of garments, and other auxiliaries to this practice, came into use, because they were found necessary to decency ; but there could be no such conveniences in the first instance, and accordingly we read of none. With all the arrangements of modern times, baptism by immersion is not a decent practice ; there is not a female, perhaps, who submits to it, who has not a great previous struggle with her delicacy ; but that, at a time when no such accommodation could be had as have since been found necessary, such a ceremony should have been constantly performing wherever the apostles and first preach- ers went, — and that at pools and rivers, in the presence of many spectators, and they sometimes unbelievers and scoffers, — is a thing not rationally credible. " We grant that the practice of immersion is ancient ; and so are many other superstitious appendages to baptism, which were adopted under the notion of making the rite more emblematical and impressive. We hot only trace 276 immersion to the second century, hut immersion three times, anointing with oil, signing with the sign of the cross, impo- sition of hands, exorcism, eating milk and honey, putting on of white garments, all connected with baptism, and hrst mentioned by Tertullian ; the invention of men like himself, who with much genius and eloquence had little judgment, and were superstitious to a degree worthy of the darkest ages which followed. It was this authority for immersion which led Wall, and other wi'iters on the side of infant baptism, to snn-ender the point to the Anti-pa?dobaptists, and to conclude that immersion was the apostolic practice. Sevei'al national churches too, like our own, swayed by the same authority, are favourable to immersion, although they do not think it binding, and generally practise effusion or sprinkling. " Neither Tertullian nor Cyprian was, however, so strenu- ous for immersion as to deny the validity of baptism by aspersion or effusion. In cases of sickness or weakness, they only sprinkled water upon the face, which we suppose no modern Baptist would allow. Clinic baptism, too, or the baptism of the sick in bed, by aspersion, is allowed by Cyprian to be valid, so that ' if the persons recover, they need not be baptized by immersion.' Gennadius, of Mar- seilles, in the fifth century, says, that baptism was admini- stered in the Gallic church in his time indifferently, by immersion or by sprinkling. In the thirteenth centmy, Thomas Aquinas says, ' that baptism may be given not only by immersion, but also by effusion of water, or sprinkling with it.' And Erasmus affirms, that in his time it was the custom to sprinkle infants in Holland, and to dip them in England. Of these two modes, one only was primitive and apostolic. AYhich that was we shall just now consider. At present it is only necessary to observe, that immersion is not the only mode which can plead antiquity in its favour, and that, as the superstition of antiquity appears to have gone most in favour of baptism by immersion, this is a circum- stance which affords a strong presumption that it was one of those additions to the ancient rite which superstition origi- 277 nated. This may be made out almost to a moral certainty, without referring at all to the argument from Scripture. The ^ancient Christians,' the ^primitive Christians' as they are called by the advocates of immersion, that is, Christians of about the age of Tertullian and Cyprian, and a little downward, whose practice of immersion is used as an argu- ment to prove that mode only to have had apostolic sanc- tion, baptized the candidates naked. Thus Wall, in his History of Baptism: 'The ancient Christians, when they were baptized by immersion, were all baptized naked, whether they were men, women, or children. They thought it better represented the putting off of the old man, and also the nakedness of Christ on the cross ; moreover, as baptism is a washing, they judged it should be the washing of the body, not of the clothes.' This is an instance of the manner in which they affected to improve the emblematical character of the ordinance. Robinson also, in his History of Baptism, states the same thing : ' Let it be observed, that the primitive Christians baptized naked. There is no ancient historical fact better authenticated than this.' ' They, however,' says Wall, ' took great care for preserving the modesty of any woman who was to be baptized. None but women came near till her body was in the water, then the priest came, and putting her head also under water he departed, and left her to the women.' Now, if antiquity be pleaded as a proof that immersion was the really primitive mode of baptizing, it must be pleaded in favour of the gi'oss and offensive cir- cumstance of baptizing naked, which was considei'ed of as much importance as the other; and then we may safely leave it for any one to say, whether he really believes that the three thousand persons mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles were baptized naked ? and whether when St. Paul baptized Lydia, she was put into the water naked by her women, and that the apostle then hastened ' to put her head under water also, using the form of baptism, and retired, leaving her to the women ' to take her away to dress ? Immersion, with all its appendages, dipping three times, nakedness, unction, the eating of milk and honey, exor- 278 cisni, &c. bears manifest marks of that disposition to improve upon God's ordinances, for which even the close of the second century was remarkable, and which laid the foundation of that general corruption which so speedily followed. " But we proceed to the New Testament itself, and deny that a single clear case of baptism by immersion can be produced from it. The baptism of John is the first instance usually adduced in ])roof of this practice. The multitudes who went out to him were ' baptized of him in Jordan ;' they were therefore immersed. " The second proof adduced by the Imraersionists is taken from the baptism of our Lord, who is said ' to have gone up straightway out of the water.' * Here, however, the ]3repo- sition used signfies from, and oive/Sti a^ro ra v^aroc, is simply ' he went up from the water.' We grant that this might have been properly said in whatever way the baptism had been previously performed ; but then it certainly in itself affords no argument on which to build the notion of the immersion of our Saviour. The great passage of the Immersionists, however, is, ' And they went down both into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and he baptized him ; and when they were come up out of the water,' &c.t This is relied upon as a decisive proof of the immersion and emersion of the Eunuch, If so, however, it proves too much, for nothing is said of the Eunuch which is not said of Philiji. ' They went down both into the water;' 'and when they were come up out of the water;' and so Philip must have im- mersed himself as well as the Eunuch. Nor will the prepo- positions determine the case; they would have been employed properly had Philip and the Eunuch gone into the water by partial or by entire immersion, and therefore come out of it on dry land ; and with equal propriety, and according to the habitual use of the same prepositions by Greek writers, they would express going to the water, without going into it, and returning j^>-ow< it, and not out of it; for w; is spoken of place, and properly signifies at ; or it indicates motion towards a certain limit, and, for any thing that appears to the con- + Matt. iii. 16. f Acts viii. 38, 39. 279 traiy in the history of the Eunuch's baptism, that limit may just as well be placed at the nearest verge of the water as in the middle of it ; thus the LXX. say, ' The king sent E.ab- shakeh from Lachish {m) to Jerusalem,'* certainly not into it, for the city was not captured, ' The sons of the prophets ' came (»?) to Jordan to cut wood, f They did not, we sup- pose, go into the water to perform that work. Peter was bid to ' go («?) to the sea, and cast a hook,' not surely to go into the sea ; and our Lord ' went up (st,-) to a mountain,'| but not into it. The corresponding preposition, w, which signifies, when used of place, y>-o?«, out of, must be measured by the meaning of n.;. When uq means into, then ek means out of, but when it means simply to, then ex can express no more than from. Thus this passage is nothing to the pur- pose of the Immersionists. " The next proof relied upon in favour of immersion is John iii. 22, 23. The Immersionists can see no reason for either Jesus or John baptizing where there was much water, but that they plunged their converts. The true reason for this has, however, been already given. Where could the multitudes who came for baptism be assembled \ Clearly, not in houses. The preaching was in the fields ; and since the rite which was to follow a ministry which made such impression, and drew together such crowds, was baptism, the necessity of the case must lead the Baptist to Jordan, or to some other district, where, if a river was wanting, foun- tains at least existed. The necessity was equal in this case, whether the mode of baptism were that of aspersion, of pouring, or of immersion. "The" defendants, however, "have magnified JEnon, which signifies the fountain of On, into a place of ' many and great waters.' Unfortunately, however, no such power- ful fountain, sending out many streams of water fit for jDlunging multitudes into, has ever been found by travellers, although the country has been often visited ; and certainly if its streams had been of the copious and remarkable cha- racter assigned to them, they could not have vanished. * Isaiah xxvi. 2. f 2 Kings vi. 4. t Matt; v. 1. 280 It rather appears, however, that the ' much water,' or ' many waters,' in the text, refers rather to the whole tract of country, than to the fountain of On itself; because it appears to be given by the Evangelist as the reason why Jesus and his disciples came into the same neighbourhood to baptize. Different bajjtisms were administered, and there- fore in different places. The baptism administered by Jesus at this time was one of multitudes ; this appears from the remarks of one of John's disciples to his master : ' He that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.' The place or places, too, where Jesus baptized, although in the same district, could not be very near, since John's disciples mention the multitudes who came to be baptized by Jesus, or rather by his disciples, as a piece of information ; and thus we find a reason for the mention of the much water, or many waters, with reference to the district of country itself, and not to the single fountain of On. The tract had ])ro- bably many fountains in it, wdiich, as being a peculiarity in a country not generally so distinguished, would lead to the use of the expression ' much water,' although not one of these fountains or wells might be sufficient to allow of the plunging of numbers of people, and probably was not. Indeed, if the disciples of Jesus baptized by immersion, the Immer- sionists are much more concerned to discover ' much waters,' ' many w^aters,' ' large and deep streams,' somewhere else in the district than at ^non ; becavise it is plain, from the narrative, that the number of candidates for John's baptism had greatly fallen off at that time ; and that the people now generally flocked to Christ. Hence the remark of John (iii. 30), when his disciples had informed him that Jesus was baptizing in the neighbourhood, and that ' all men came to him' — 'He must increase; I must decrease.' Hence also the observation of the Evangelist, in the first verse of the next chapter, ' Tlie Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John.' " As these instances all so ])lainly fail to serve the cause of immersion, we need not dwell upon the others. The 281 improbability of three thousand persons being immersed on the day of Pentecost, has been already mentioned. The baptism of Saul, of Lydia, of the Philippian jailer, and of the family of Cornelius, are all instances of house bap- tism, and for that reason are still less likely to have been by plunging. The Immersionists, indeed, invent ' tanks,' or ' baths,' for this purpose, in all their houses ; but as nothing of the kind appears on the face of the history, or is even incidentally suggested, suppositions prove nothing. " Thus all the presumptions before mentioned, against the practice of immersion, lie full against it, without any relief from the Scriptures themselves. Not one instance can be shewn of that practice liom the New Testament ; whilst, so far as baptism was emblematical of the pouring out of the Holy Spirit, the doctrine of immersion wholly destroys its significancy. In fact, if the true mode of baptism be immer- sion only, then must we wholly give up the phrase, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which in any other mode than that oi' j)Oi(rt?i(/ out was never administered. " The only argument left for the advocates of immersion is, the supposed allusion to the mode of baptism contained in the words of St. Paul.* It is necessary, however, to quote the next verses also, which are dependent upon the foregoing ; ' For if we have been planted together,' still by baptism, ' in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection ; knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin.'f Why then do not the advo- cates of immersion go forward to these verses, so insepa- rably connected with those they are so- ready to quote ; and show us a resemblance, not only between baptism by im- mersion and being buried wuth Christ, but also between immersion and being ' planted with Christ'.? If the allusion of the apostle is to the planting of a young tree in the earth, there is clearly but a very partial, not a total immersion in the case ; and if it be to grafting a branch upon a tree, * Rom. vi. 3, 4. f Rom. vi. 5. 7. 282 the resemblance is still more imperfect. Still fmlher, as the apostle in the same connexion speaks of our being ' crucijied with Christ,' and that also by baptism, why do they not show us how immersion in water resembles the nailing of a body to a cross ? " But this striking and important text is not to be explained by a fancied resemblance between a burial, as they choose to call it, of the body in water, and the burial of Christ ; as if a dip or a plunge could have any resemblance to that separation from the living, and that laying aside of a body in the sepulchre which burial implies. This forced thought darkens and enervates the whole passage, instead of bringing forth its powerful sentiments into clearer view. The manifest object of the apostle, in the whole of this part of his epistle, was to shew, that the doctrine of justification by faith alone, which he had just been establishing, could not in any true believer lead to licentiousness of life. 'What then shall we say ? Shall we continue in sin that grace m.ay abound } God forbid ! How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein.?' The reason then which is given by the apostle why true believers cannot continue in sin, is, that they are ' dead to sin,'' which is his answer to the objection. Now, this mystical death to sin he proceeds to attribute to the instrumentality of baptism, taking it to be an act of that faith in Christ of which it was the external expression ; and then he immediately runs into a favourite comparison, which, under various forms, occurs in his writ- ings, sometimes accompanied with the same allusion to baptism, and sometimes referring only to 'faith' as the instrument, — a comparison between the mystical death, burial, and resurrection of believers, and the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. This is the comparison of the text; not a comparison between our mystical death and baptism ; nor between baptism and the death and burial of Christ ; either of which lay wide of the apostle's intention. Baptism, as an act of faith, is in fact expressly made, not a figure of the effects which follow, as stated in the text, but the means of effecting them. ' Know ye not that so many of 283 us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death ?' we enter by this means into the experience of its efficacy in effecting a mystical death in us ; in other words, tve DIE with him, or, as it is expressed in verse 6, ' our old man is crucijied with him;'' still further, 'by baptism,' through , or by means of, baptism, ' we are buried with him ;' we not onh^ die to sin and the world, but we are separated wholly from it, as the body of Christ was separated from the living world when laid in the sepulchre. The connexion between sin and the world and us is completely broken, as those who are buried and put out of sight are no longer reckoned among men ; nay, as the slave (for the apostle brings in this figure also) is by death and burial wholly put out of the power of his former master, so ' that we should not serve sin ; for he that is dead is freed from sin.' But we also mystically rise with him, ' that like as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life,' having new connexions, new habits, new enjoyments, and new hopes. We have a similar passage in Col. ii. 12, and it has a similar interpretation. In the preceding verse the apostle had been speaking of the mystical death of Christians, under the phrase, ^putting off the body of the sins of the flesh;'' then, as in his Epistle to the Romans, he adds, our mystical burial with Christ, which is a heightened representation of death, and then also our rising again with Christ. Here too all these three effects are attributed to baptism as the means. We put off the body of sin ' by the circumcision of Christ,' that is, as we have seen, by Christian circumcision or baptism; we are buried with him b} baptism ; sv being obviously used here, like ^*^-, to denote the instrument ; and by baptism we 7'lse with him into a new life. " Now, to institute a comparison between a mode of baptism and the burial of Christ, wholly destroys the mean- ing of the passage ; for how can the apostle speak of bap- tism as an emblem of Christ's burial, when he argues from it as the instrument of our death unto sin, and separation from it by a mystical burial } Nor is baptisin here made 284 use of as the emblem of our spiritual death, burial, and resuiTection. As an emblem, even immersion, though it might put forth a clumsy type of burial and rising again, is wanting, in not being emblematical of death ; and yet all three, our mystical death, burial, and rising again, are dis- tinctly spoken of, and must all be found represented in some TYPE. But the TYPE made use of by the apostle is mani- festly not baptism, but the death, the burial, and the resuiTec- tion of our Lord ; and in this view he pursues this bold and impressive figure to even the verge of allegory, in the suc- ceeding verses. ' For he that is dead is freed from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him : knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dietli no more : death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once : but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God : likeavise reckon ye also your- selves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.' " In the absence, therefore, of all proof, that, in any instance found in the New Testament, baptism was admi- nistered by immersion ; with so many presumptions against that indecent practice as have been stated ; with the decisive evidence also of a designed correspondence between the baptism, the pouring out, of the Holy Sjjirit, and the baptism, the pouring out, of water ; we may conclude, with confidence, that the latter was the apostolic mode of admi- nistering that ordinance ; and that first washing, and then immersion, were introduced later, towards the latter end of the second century, along with several other superstitious additions to this important sacrament, originating in that < will worship,' which presumed to destroy the simplicity of God's ordinances, under pretence of rendering them more emblematical and impressive. Even if immersion had been the original mode of baptizing, we should, in the absence of any command on the subject, direct or implied, have thought the church at liberty to accommodate the manner of apply- ing water to the body in the name of the Trinity, in which the essence of the rite consists, to difi'ei-ent climates and 285 manners ; but it is satisfactory to discover that all the attempts made to impose upon Christians a practice repul- sive to the feelings, dangerous to the health, and offensive to delicacy, is destitute of all scriptural authority, and of really primitive practice. To say that it figures our spiritual death and resurrection, has, we have seen, no authority from the texts used to prove it ; and to make a sudden pop under water to be emblematical of burial, is as far-fetched a con- ceit as any which adorns the Emblems of Quarles, without any portion of the ingenuity. TENTH WITNESS. I, the Tenth Witness, beg to state that, " It was far from my intention to have" come before this Court to give my tes- timony, " had not the officious zeal and triumphs of" our opponents " become quite intolerable. To be attacked as an individual, and that publicly from the press, I cannot help calling unhandsome. The principles ('of the mode of bap- tism') no doubt may be attacked in this way, if they be thought wrong ; but" as 1 am " only one of thousands who hold them," I cannot surely for this be a sinner above all that dwell round me. — "Necessity, therefore, is upon me; and I am obliged either to defend them, or submit to be trampled under foot. — Nothing has been preached by me, but what I publicly profess to believe, and am solemnly bound by my ordination vows to declare. — To provoke a controversy is by no means my desire, and especially a religious wrangling like this. Our opponents " always begin by tiiisting to an arm of flesh ; they take care not to quote Scripture texts in sup- port of this opinion (that ^aTrrt^o signifies to dip, and that £*? signifies into), nor yet to give Matt, xxviii. 19, according to " their " translation, and tell the people what it says they are to be dipped into. They are never informed that the baptismal statute (which is considered by men of" their " persuasion as containing a complete directory for every thing necessary to the right administration of baptism,) con- tains not one word about water, nor any thing like dipping into water. No, this would make discoveries, and therefore common men, who always understand the element to be water, are left in pious ignorance about these things. Thus the system is patched out, and becomes passable. " As Paedobaptists maintain that a person may have all 287 that is essential to baptism by being either sprinkled or dipped, it ^all not be of much consequence, on my principles, whether an instance of this kind can be given or not. If jSaTTTt^w can be shewn to signify sometimes one thing, and sometimes another ; and if it can be shewn that in the New Testament it will neither bear to be translated to dip, nor to sprinkle, when employed to express the ordinance of bap- tism; it will be quite enough for my purpose, but it will not do for " theirs. " Dipping is of such importance, according to" their " system, that there can be no Christian baptism, unless the whole body be immersed in water. Boi.7m^u, then, the particular word which the Spirit of God employs to express this ordinance, must signify to dip, and always to dip, when expressive of this ordinance, or their cause is lost. This is plain, for if it signifies sometimes to dip and some- times to sprinkle, baptism may be administered cither way, at least so far as this word is concerned. And if in relation to this ordinance it will neither bear to be translated to dip, nor to sprinkle, then this leading word in the baptismal statute leaves us at liberty, unless we have a positive com- mand for dipping somewhere else ; and this I believe they will not so much as pretend is the case. On the scriptural meaning then of this particular word the controversy turns, and without its aid they have nothing left that can support their system. Going down to the water and coming up from the water will do nothing, if (SaTrri^w does not dip the whole body when the person is there." I shall "then proceed to examine whether the New Testament meaning of this word be to dip or immerse the whole body, and whether it always signifies so when connected with baptism. And pray, recollect, that if it does not, and if but one instance can be found against" them, " dipping as the only mode of baptism is a lost cause. " Now in the New Testament we may find plenty of passages where this particular word occurs, and so need not perplex poor people with quibbling about the criticism of learned men. This word ^aTrrt^w occurs about seventy times in the New Testament. It is the only word, so far as I can 288 discover, which the Spirit of God employs to express the ordinance of baptism, and it is never, in one instance, trans- lated to dip or innucrsc. Of this " they " can perhaps satisfy themselves by searching the Greek New Testament; and if" they " find there one single instance, in which it is either translated to dip, or can be fairly shewn to signify the immersion of the whole body," they " will find what I cannot. " There are, perhaps, cases in which it is doubtful, such as Mark vii. 4," but " there is not one decisive enough for them ; and," be it remembered, " they should all be decisive on their side, for ten, or even twenty, will not save " their " system, " But let us try an instance or two, that the world may know whether we prophesy out of our own hearts, or whether we speak according to what is noted in the Scriptures of Truth. And as this task is put upon me, I would refer for one instance to Acts i. 5; 'For John truly baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.' This instance I select for three reasons. The first is, that the passage is mentioned at least six times in the New Testament. The second is, that it refers to John's baptizing in Jordan, on which so much has been built. And the third is, that scriptural history tells us particularly in what manner this promise was fulfilled, when the disciples were baptized with the Holy Ghost. Let us then look up the passages, and see whether it was by dipping or sprinkling? and here we shall have the certainty of Scripture explaining Scripture for our guide. Look to Acts i. 8, and you will find in what way Christ, when he mentioned the promise, meant this baptism with the Holy Ghost to be administered. Now nothing, one would think, could be more certain than the speaker's explanation of his own words, and he says, in regard to the mode of this baptism, ' ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come vpon you^ This then will not do for dipping, or they must adopt a new mode. The next passage in which this baptism is mentioned, is Acts ii. 3; it contains the accomplishment of what Christ had said, and what do they find done ? ' There appeared unto 289 them cloven tongues, like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.' This will not do either; for as to the foolish notion of being immersed in a sound which filled the house, it will be of no service to dipping, till you put people into a dry baptistry, and pour water about them. Besides, it was not the sound of the wind, but the symbol of tongues, which was the emblem of the Holy Ghost. " The third account we have of this matter is in Acts ii. 17, 18, were Peter explains it to be the fulfilment of a particular prophecy, and tells us in what way God himself said the disciples should be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Now pray notice the words ; ' And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my S]:)irit upon all flesh : and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: and on my servants and on my hand- maidens I will j»02«- out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy.' Look forward to verse 33, and you find Peter again mentioning this baptism of the Holy Ghost, and he tells his audience that Christ shed forth that which they saw and heard. But " they " know shedding forth will not do for dipping. There are still two or three passages more where this baptism is mentioned. These are Acts viii. 16 ; X. 44, 45; xi. 15, 16. In all these places the mode of baptism with the Holy Ghost is particularly mentioned, and in all of them we are assured it was by pouring out,, and falling upon, and never by dipping or immersion. ' While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost /I?// on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost' 'And as I began to speak (says Peter), 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.' " Now," Gentlemen, " does it not appear from these pas- sages that " the sentiments of the Baptists " are the doctrines u 290 of men, opposed to the declarations of the great God ? " Let them " examine them : they will bear examination, and bring conviction of" their " error too, if they are not refusing to be ashamed. " These are all the accounts I can find of this matter. They all, you see, notice the particular mode in which men were baptized with the Holy Ghost ; and they all, w'ith one consent, declare it was not by dipping, or any thing resem- bling it, but by pouring out and falling upon ; and this is just sprinkling, in other words. Now, whether this is not an instance of the above Greek word literally signifying sprin- kling, or pouring out upon, I leave to " themselves. " When they have given as clear an instance from the New Testa- ment of its signifying dipping, we shall be equal. No — equal ! what did I say ? " They " will then have proved that baptism may be administered either by dipping or sprinkling, because /SaTrn^w signifies both. They will then have proved our opinion to be right, and " theirs, " that dipping is the only mode of baptism, wrong. " But," Gentlemen, " 1 assure you it will be easier " for our opponents " to propose queries than to produce such examples. They are rather scarce in the New^ Testament, unless they take /Scxtttw to dip, which w^ord some have made to lie horribly for God, but wdiich, since it is never employed to express the ordinance of baptism, wall only bear to be produced for an example oi ^cx-xri^u among those who cannot distinguish one Greek word from another. " But perhaps we are making conclusions too fast. Let us see if /SaTTTt^w in the above example will not bear to be rendered to dip, to plunge, to immerse. This has been attempted, and in this way the jjassage will read thus — ' John truly plunged you imth water, but ye shall be plunged with the Holy Ghost.' Or perhaps " they " will object to this, and say it should be translated ' plunged in w^ater, and plunged in the Holy Ghost.' Well, let them have it all " their " own way, it still sounds rather uncouth. But this is not the worst of it, for it gives the direct lie to the passages 291 I have quoted, as containing the Scripture history which we have of this baptism. It says to Christ,* The Holy Ghost did not come upon the apostles, for they were plunged in the Holy Ghost. It says to God,t The Holy Ghost shall not be poured out upon all flesh, for all flesh shall be plunged in the Holy Ghost. It says to Peter and those of the cir- cumcision who believed, J You were all in a delusion, for " we " know better than you, although you were eye witnesses, and " we " insist that on the Gentiles was not poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. Alas," Gentlemen, " this really will not do : the Scriptm-e cannot be broken : Christ cannot bear false witness : God cannot lie : Peter and the circum- cision who believed could not be so easily deceived as " they " and " their " learned men. There is not a single instance of dipping in the Holy Ghost in all the Bible, and the baptism mentioned in these passages was, beyond all peradventure, jDcrformed by sprinkling, or pouring out, and falling upon. " John baptized with water in the same way, for the very same words are used with regard to both baptisms. Look at the passage carefully — 'John truly baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.' But they were baptized by the Holy Ghost by pouring out, and falling upon, and therefore, by a parity of reasoning, John bap- tized in Jordan in the same way, by pouring out and making to fall upon. He went down to the river, or say a little way into it, and by pouring water on the individuals who con- fessed their sins, and submitted to the ordinance, he baptized them. This I am sure " they " will allow was as easy a mode as dipping them bodily in the river ; and whether it was not as likely, I leave these considerations to determine. " In the mean time, let me ask again, if Acts i. 5 is not an instance such as " they " demand ? Any instance is all " they " ask, and one instance is quite enough for my purpose ; for if /3a7rTt^w does not always signify to dip or immerse when connected with this ordinance," their " cause is undone. * Acts i. 8. f Acts ii. 17. % Acts x. 44. 292 There may then be baptism according to the meaning of this word, when there is no dipping, although " their " doctrine expressly asserts that there can be no such thing. " Lest, however," they " may think there are no more instances in Scripture in " our " favour, I am willing to let " them " take any one " they " please, and I persuade myself it will prove against them. The doctrine of dipping I hum- bly think cannot be proved from the Bible, and therefore, instead of furnishing us with instances from this sure word of prophecy," they " always attempt to put us out of our senses with what" they " call the opinions of learned men. Scrip- tural exarajiles of this word, however, are the only things which furnish a ground of faith for a common man. And I am quite satisfied, for my part, that the faith which stands on the wisdom of learned men was never designed for com- mon people : and this " they " know wall not do for dipping. Well, what example will " they " give a poor unlettered man, to persuade him they are right ? Is it, ' And were all bap- tized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea'?* This is certainly a passage on which much stress has been laid ; and this I acknowledge, that sea sounds well, and there would at least be water enough. " But permit me to remark, if this was dipping, it was dry dipping, for we are told that the children of Israel on that occasion ' went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground : and walked upon dry land in the midst of the sea.'t Now when " they "dip in a dry baptistry, and the people walk in the midst of it on dry ground, this example will do, but not till then. Indeed it is highly probable, from the great hosts of Israel which passed through the Red Sea, that they occupied such a space of ground, that many of them were not within a quarter of a mile of the watery walls, either on the right hand or the left ; and therefore, how they could be plunged in the sea I leave sages to determine. " But if ^siTTTi^w here signifies immersion, they were also plunged into the cloud, and how this ha])pen6d I cannot tell. The sacred historian says, the Lord went before them * ] Cor. X. 2. t Exodus xiv. 22, 29. 293 in a pillar of cloud by clay, to lead them the way, and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light ; and on this occasion the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them ; but at what time the Israelites were above it, and plunged into it, he does not say ; and yet" this Court knows that "nothing short of this will come up to the idea of dipping or immersion. I rather think that none of the Israelites were permitted to approach near this sacred symbol of the divine presence, and much less to metamorphose it into a plunging place. " But let us try " their " primary and most natural mean- ing of words in translating the verse ; perhaps this will make things better. Now here is the Greek verb /SaTrTt^a, the pri- mary and most natural meaning of which, according to the most eminent and learned authors of different countries,'' they " say is to immerse, to dip, to plunge. And here is the Greek preposition e*?. which " they " say naturally expresses the idea of into. Translate the verse in this learned way, then, and it will read, ' and were all plunged into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.' " Alas," Gentlemen, " we have all been in a mistake together. The passage says nothing, it seems, about plung- ing in the cloud and in the sea, but into Moses; and this was certainly a strange element ! And were all plunged into Moses ! " Really, I pity the poor man ; and yet, perhaps," they are " not less objects of pity whose meaning of words makes Moses' body a baptistry for all the children of Israel. Nay, let me seriously ask " them, " if this primary and most natural meaning of words does not make some eminent and learned authors, of different countries, appear to have strange head pieces ? " I shall honestly acknowledge there is certainly a par- ticular and specific use of water in the ordinance of baptism. Nay, I have no hesitation in declaring this to be my humble opinion, that the particular and specific use of water in baptism is to apply it to the body, so as to represent the application of Christ's purifying blood and Spirit to the soul. 294 Well, let rue ask, then. In what way are these said in Scrip- ture to be applied to the soul for cleansing it from sin ? This ought certainly to be the way in which water should be applied to the body to represent that cleansing. " And I am much mistaken indeed, if " they " can find one instance of dipping in the blood and Spirit of Christ for this purpose in all the Bible. Scripture never speaks in this style, so far as I know, nor even suggests such an idea as plunging in the precious blood of the Son of God. No, sprinkling with this precious blood is sufficient to sanctify the whole man, and therefore sprinkling is the usual style in which Scripture speaks on this subject. Hence it calls this blood * the blood of sprinkling,* — says, men are 'elect through sanctification of the S2:)irit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ :'t and assures us it is by this mode of application ' our hearts are sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with jjure water.' % " This was the way, too, in which the application of Christ's blood and Spirit were typified under the Old Testa- ment. Accordingly, if you read of the cleansing of the leper, which strikingly represented our cleansing from sin, you find this was the direction which the priest received ; ' And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy, seven times, and he shall pronounce him clean.' § In a similar way, the Levites were to be cleansed; for says God to Moses, ' Thus shalt thou do unto them, to cleanse them; sprinkle water of purifying upon them.'|| And what shall I say more ? in the blood of the passover lamb, there was no dipping of the Jews ; for they kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood : H nay, we never read of such a thing as dipping the whole body in any blood, which was appointed to typify the precious blood of the Son of God. With the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer, they sprinkled the unclean. ** ' Moses took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, (and did not these typify *Heb. xii. 24. f 1 I'et. i. 2. + Heb. x. 22. § Lev. xiv. 7. || Numb. viii. 7. f Heb. xi. 28. ** Heb. ix. 1.3. 295 the blood and Spirit of Christ ? Well, how were they ap- plied ?) and sprinkled the book, and all the people : he sprinkled likewise with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry.'* And now, if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer, sprinkling the un- clean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh ; is not the blood of Christ, who, through the Eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God, sufficient, when applied the same way, to purge the conscience from dead works, to serve the living God ? The passage certainly intimates so much, and the man who says nothing less than dipping the whole body will do to represent the application of Christ's blood to the whole soul, says he is wiser than God, and dares to assert that the Most High has appointed an impro- per type for representing what is signified in baptism. Nay, this dipping doctrine does more ; for when God says, ' I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean,' f and declares, 'Christ shall sprinkle many nations,';}: it says, ' Lord, this will not do. SjDrinkling will never make them clean. They must be wholly under the water. And this I insist upon, as the only way in which that cleansing can be represented in baptism.' " If I am asked, what is the most natural and determinate sense of the verb ^ccim^u, I say, as employed to express the ordinance of baptism, it signifies the application of water to the body, so as to represent the application of Christ's blood and Spirit to the soul ; and there is no single word in the English language, so far as I know, which comes up to its full meaning. The verb to wash, perhaps, comes nearest it, and our translators of the Bible have sometimes rendered it into English by this verb (to wash), but in general they merely give it an English form; and when employed to express the ordinance of baptism, they always do so : and, believe me, they had as much learning, and sense too, as all" the eminent authors of our opponents " put together. They thought before they wrote, and tried their translation by the text, which some men seem never to have done. I * Heb. ix. 19—21. f Ezek. xxxi. 25. % Is. lii. 15. 296 have now told" them, " frankly and fearlessly, what I think is the determinate meaning of this word /SaTTTi^w, and what is the specific use of water in baptism: and I could almost appeal to" themselves, " if this be not a fair argument, and a legitimate conclusion. Those baptized by the Holy Ghost* were all bajjtized by shedding forth, and pouring upon, and not one of them by plunging. The thing represented in baptism, is the application of Christ's blood and Spirit to cleanse the soul from sin ; and this the Scripture represents as effected by sprinkling, and never by dipping. Therefore, dipping in baptism is completely at variance with the Scrip- tures, and the sprinkling of that precious blood which it is intended to represent. "This, however, is not only an argument Avhich proves" them " wrong, but which, at the same time, proves from Scripture, and without any aid from eminent authors, that Piedobaptists are right. It affords to some of us a satis- factoiy reason of the hope that is in us, though w^ e could say no more; and yet, perhaps, they will find some more can be said. "But the" defendants "seem to have so little idea of what is right and wrong according to Scripture, that I must inform" them. — "Though I had said that the word /SaTrn^w neither signified dipping nor sprinkling, but that it left the mode of baptizing a matter of indifference ; it would only have been saying, that Scripture does not expressly enjoin every thing respecting the worship of God, and the adminis- tration of divine ordinances. And are " they " prepared to deny this .^ Well then, let me ask, whether it hath enjoined" them " to dip people in a river, or in a baptistry ; in their own clothes, or in a linen gown .? And let me ask, also, whether it hath enjoined" them " to let down people into the w^ell like a dead body into the grave, that they may be buried in baptism : or whether it hath directed them to lead them down like a living subject, and (\.\\) them as a nurse dips a child ? " It will b(^ in vain to plead, from Honi. vi. 3, 4, and Col. * ^(.'Is i. r,. 297 ii. 12, that there must be a resemblance, in baptism, to a burial and resurrection, for where is this resemblance in" their " mode of dipping ? a living person walks into the water, till it reach his loins, and submits to be ducked by a minister; and is this like putting a dead body into the grave ? Those who can see a resemblance here to the mode o( burial, either in Britain or Judea, must see as far as the man who made Pharaoh's horses ministers of the gospel. Besides, the burial alluded to in these passages is that of our blessed Lord; and how his body was laid in a sepulchre hewn out of a rock, neither they nor I can tell. We can only tell with certainty that it did not step down into this sepulchre, and that we have no reason to think it was deposited after the manner of dipping ; and therefore to talk of imitating, in baptism, what we know nothing about, but this, that we do not imitate it, is very near akin to nonsense.'"' Let our opponents " tell us honestly, then, do " they " mean, by thus rendering the Greek prepositions into and out of, that the one signifies into the water, so as to be wholly immersed in it ; and the other signifies out of, so as to come up again ? If" they " do not mean this," they " mean nothing with which Psedobaptists will find any fault. According to the use of these Greek prepositions in the New Testament, there is no necessity for supposing that the per- son who went (ej,) into the water, and came (sk) out of the water, wet even the soles of his feet. But although they should suppose that u; took a man in to the knees, or even to the loins, it would never prove that he went over the head. Nay, at this de])th he might be sprinkled with fully as much ease as he could be dipped, and the baptizer would have this advantage, there would be no stooping in order to reach the water. " This, then, is the point" they " have to prove, that u? takes a man over the head, and st brings him up again out of the water. Keeping this in view, then, let us jjroceed to try their natural ideas by the New Testament ; and here there will be no need to look long, in order to find plenty of examples of these prepositions. Look to Matt. v. 1, and" -298 they " will find one quite to " their " purpose. ' And seeing the multitude, he went up into a mountain, and when he w^as sat, his disciples came unto him : and he opened his mouth and taught them.' Now, here is the Greek preposi- tion £»?, and it is rendered into, exactly as they want it. Well, does it mean that our blessed Lord went into the mountain, so as to be up to the knees, or loins, or over the head : and that in the heart of the earth his disciples came unto him ? Alas ! Sirs, I fear much that your natural ideas were never gathered from the New Testament, for into, here, does not signify that so much as one inch of our Lord's body was in the mountain ; and consequently ej?, as I have said, may be used in describing the administration of baptism, and yet not suggest that the person baptized wet the sole of his foot." Let them " look forward to Matthew xv. 24, and" they " will find another example of this Greek preposition ; ' I am not sent but' (ek, into) — I shall translate it in" their " own natural way, that there may be no mistake, — ' I am not sent but into the lost sheep of the House of Israel.' Now do they think our Lord went into their bodies to preach the gospel to them ? T rather think their natural ideas would multiply miracles unnecessarily. But let us take another example, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every thing may be established; and for this" they "have only to look forward to Matthew, xvii. 27, ' Go thou (sic) to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the first fish that cometh up.' Here the preposition is used in relation to the sea or water, and so must be an example in point. And what does it say .? That Peter was ordered to go nnder the water, and cast an hook and catch a fish. This is " their " natural idea, if the preposition have anything to do with dipping ; but it is cer- tainly an idea, to say no worse of it, which set Peter on a new mode of fishing. " And as to the preposition w, it is not one whit more in their favour. Only try how naturally these pages wall read in their way ; ' She was found with child (ex) out of the Holy Ghost.'* ' The tree is known (ex) out of his fruit.' f ' All * Matt. i. 18. f Matt. xii. .33. 299 these have I kept (w) out of my youth,' * And do " they really think, " when it is said ' The queen of the southcame (ek) from the uttermost parts of the earth,' t that she came out of the ground, or from under those parts of the earth, as a dipped person comes from under the water? — No indeed," their " natural ideas are at open war with the Bible, for these are a mere specimen of the examples which might be pro- duced against them ; and therefore the best apology I can make for such ideas is, that they arise from a natural igno- rance of the Greek particles. " But where are these Greek particles used in describing the administration of baptism ? It is not, I am sure, in Mat- thew iii, 16, nor yet in Mark i. 10, where our Lord's baptism is mentioned, for there" they " find no such prepositions, nor indeed any Greek word which ' naturally expresses the idea ' that our blessed Lord was in the water at all. It only says, according to the Greek, that he went up from the water immediately after he was baptized, and says nothing about whether he was in the water, or only at the side. Yet it would be quite imnecessary to tell us that any body came up straightway from under the water, for we all know, if they stopped there any time they would be drowned. " But there is another passage, which speaks about going down to the water, and coming up from the water ; and there is only one, so far as I know, in which these prepositions are both used. It is in Acts viii. 38 — 39, and is thus trans- lated; ' And he commanded the chariot to stand still, and they went down both (ek) into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch : and he baptized him. And when they were come up (ek) out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip,' &c. What water this was we cannot tell, only it was in the way from Jerusalem to Gaza, and might either be a spring or a rivulet; for I scarcely think there was any river in that desert. But be this as it may, you have seen that the prepositions e*j and w, in the New Tes- tament, ought frequently to be rendered simply to 3iudfrom; and therefore we have no more proof from this passage that * Matt. xix. 20. f Matt. xii. 42. 300 Philip and the Eunuch were in the Avater, and came out of the water, than we have that our Lord was in the mountain, or that the queen of the south came out of the heart of the earth. But supposing that Philip and the Eunuch went both of them literally into the water, and came literally up out of the water, what does this prove ? That they were in to the ankles, or the knees perhaps, and that is all. " Now there the Eunuch might be sprinkled as easily as at the side, for there would not be so far to stoop for the water ; and as the people then wore sandals for shoes, and a sort of petticoat for small-clothes, the Eunuch, although he had been in the water, would neither have been obliged to strip, nor submit to any inconveniency, on the supposition that he was sprinkled. But if he was wholly immersed in the water, he must either have stripped naked, or changed his clothes, or made a wet chariot, though we should speak of no other consequences; and that he did any of these, the silence of the passage, and the circumstances of the case, make very improbable. " Nay, that u^ here cannot signify over the head, the pas- sage makes abundantly plain ; for it tells us repeatedly they went down hoth into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and therefore both were equally deep. But I sup- pose" they (the ministers) " do not usually go under the water" themselves " every time" they " dip an individual; and yet" they " must do so, before ug, in this solitary passage, be of any service to " their " cause. Some folks would almost suspect that the Spirit of God had foreseen what use they would make of this passage, when it is so particularly said, ' They went down both into the water, hoth Philip and the Eunuch.' " And now what becomes of their system } BaTrn^w does not signify to dip in the New Testament, and s'i does not take a man over the head ; and without the assistance of these two words, you cannot find the doctrine of dipping in the whole Bible. I only wonder how any person, who can ex- amine the New Testament for himself, can be of these sen- timents. And were it not for the high respect I have for 301 many excellent and worthy men who have adopted them, I should thmk it impossible for any thing but the most unblush- ing ignorance to say, this is the apostoUcal, the scripUiral, and the only mode of baptism. Prejudice and party, howevei", are powerful things, and I have no doubt that sincerity and truth are the distinguishing excellencies of many who differ in opinion from me. Besides, great men have not always time to examine little things, and ponder every prmciple they adopt. "But perhaps I have not exactly understood" their mean- ing, "for" they " speak as if ej? and eh were commonly used in describing the administration of baptism, and I have found only one solitary passage in which they are both used. Et;, however, is frequently used along with /5«:7Tt^i; in describing the administration of this ordinance, and per- haps it was here they meant we should also show that it did not naturally express the idea of into. Now this will be easily done ; and it will afford me an opportunity of showing, that if common men woidd only translate scripture in the way our opponents do, they would soon see the nakedness of the land. " Let us try, then, a passage or two ; and that these may be as unexceptionable as possible, I shall select only some of" their " favoiu'ite texts. We shall begin with the bap- tismal statute, as they call it, which is the very corner stone of the building. Now what does it say, according to " our opponents' " most natural signification and natural ideas ? ' Go ye therefore and teach all nations, dipping them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'* Here T would ask. Did they ever try their own translation of ^a.-Ttn^o} and st? ? They are both here, and they bring certain strange things to our ears ; for they say the apostles were to dip people into a name — ' Teach all nations, dipping them into the name,' &c. How do " they " perform this experiment ? for to me it appears imprac- ticable. A sand baptism is nothing to this. With " their " sentiments, I could not for my neck know how to baptize * Matt, xxviii. 19. 302 by dipping into a name, it is such an uncommon element. Surely much learning doth make " them " mad. Dipping then mto a name ! and yet, if" their " sense is not to be suspected, this was the ordinary way the apostles did : for, according to " their " translation of the Greek text, we are told of some* who had not received the Holy Ghost, only they were dipped into the name of the Lord Jesus ; and again we read of others f who were dipped into the name of the Lord Jesus ; and Paul says, ' I thank God that I dipped none of you but Crispus and Gains, lest any should say that I had dipped into my own name. % A name, therefore, seems to have been the ordinary element in which people were dipped in baptism, according to their meaning of /SaTrrt^u and £*? ; but how the experiment was performed, and this natural idea was reduced to practice, is above my capacity. " Let us examine another passage, where these words are used in describing the administration of baptism ; and as there is a second text, which is bomb-proof according to " their " system, we shall take it. This is found Rom. vi. 3, 4, and it contains the words in question over and over again. And pray what does " their " meaning of words make it ? Translate it, and see ; ' Know ye not that so many of us as were dipped into Jesus Christ, were dipped into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by dipping into death.' Alas," Sirs, "things grow worse and worse, the more you bring them to the test : and sure I am, if any thing could put a man or a system to the blush, it must be such miserable murdering of the word of God as this. Can " they " really look these passages in the face (and they are the very pride of" their "party) — I say, can" they " really look them in the face, and say again ^ocTm^u naturally signifies to dip, and «? naturally expresses the idea of into ? If they can, there is only one thing more to be wondered at, and that is, how any man with their sentiments can maintain there is only one }node of baptism. For though we were to say nothing about water or sand, here" they " can prove from Scripture that there is one mode of bap- * Acts viii. 16. f Acts xix. 5. I 1 Cor. i. 14, 15. 803 tism which consists iu dipping into a name ; another which consists in dipping into Christ ; a third which consists in dipping into death; and we found a fourth which was per- formed by dipping into Aloses' body. Now " let them follow out their "principles, and furnish us with an example of them in real life. If they be practicable, I am certain the practice will do more for Pjedobaptists than all the books that can be written on the subject. A few dippings into death will do the business, though they should try no other mode. " But" they " cannot live according to what they profess;" their " system is impracticable, and can exist only in theory. They cannot dip people into a name, into Christ, and into death. The thing is impossible, and the idea is horrible. Only think in what figure and form of dress believers are made to appear by " their " murdering this text. ' For as many of you as have been dipped into Christ, have put on Christ.'* Besides, I must remark that express and implicit commandment men, like" them, " have no scriptural warrant for water baptism at all." (I do not intend " to deny that there was a command for using water in John's baptism ;f nor yet that a duty may be inferred from Scripture, as well as enjoined by an exj)ress command. Hence Paedobap- tists think it sufficient that they have scriptural examples to warrant their using water in baptism. But this will not do for those who admit of nothing short of express and explicit commands for positive institutes : such men as say, ' If revelation in regard of positive institutes be not express and explicit, I see not how we can he obliged to observe them. A law in this case is in effect no law, and where there is no law, there is no transgression.'' J Although they demand from us an express and explicit command for infant baptism, and say. To go beyond or come short of what is expressly and explicitly noted in the Scriptures of Truth with respect to a positive institute, is to set aside the institution itself, and practise a human rite; yet" they "do not remember that there is no such command for dipping into water in Christian * Gal. iii. 27. t John i- 33. 304 baptism ; and therefore, on their own princi])les, if they clip into it, they set aside the institution itself, and practise a human rite. They have no command to dip into any thing but into a name; 'Go ye therefore and teach all nations, dipping them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' " They " must, therefore, either renounce their own sentiments, published to the world, or renounce water baptism as an ordinance of God, and betake themselves to dipping into a name. This is" their " case, if consistency were there characters, and this a consequence resulting from " their " principles ; that all of them who have been dipped into water are unbaptized, for they have only been practising a human rite. " Since 1 began, therefore, to examine the Greek New Testament carefully on this subject, I have a thousand times wondered at the wisdom of Dippers in never attempting to dip into their own doctrines as exhibited there. They never try their own translations, nor shew us to what extravagant lengths their doctrines would lead. " Our opponents tell us that, according to learned authors, /SaTTTk^w signifies to dip, and aq signifies into ; and then, taking this for granted, all goes on smoothly. In this way the sentiment has received an astonishing currency among common and conscientious men. Deluded with the dogmas of dipping, they never read of John baptizing in Jordan, or in Enon, near Salim, because there was much water there, but they immediately think that every person who went to hear a sermon by the side of a river, went over the head. It never occurs to them that Judea was a country which was parched with thirst. That John preached in a place proper for accommodating the multitudes which flocked to him from Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the regions round about Jordan. Such a midtitude must assemble in a wilder- ness, or they would destroy their neighbour's property ; and such a multitude, assembled in a wilderness, must have much water to drink, or they would die for thirst. But, I say, these things never occur to " them. They " think of Judea as if it were Great Britain ; and because none baptize by rivers, 805 now but dippers, tliey think it must have been so then. Thus the pious cheat proceeds without detection, and many good and gracious souls who cannot read Greek, and who do not remember that John baptized with water, in the same way that the disciples were baptized with the Holy Ghost, are led away with the delusion. Nay, they do not remark that as such multitudes never flocked to the apostles after our Lord's death, such places were never chosen for their accommodation. After the baptismal statute was given,* T think we only read of one individual who was baptized in any thing like a river. And if the Eunuch was really bap- tized in a river, it was merely for this reason, that it was the first water he came to, after he professed his faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. " I shall honestly acknowledge that if all the baptisms we read of in the New Testament had been administered in Jordan, or by the side of rivers, I should have thought it a strong circumstance. Even the accommodation of a large audience in a parched land, would not have accounted suffi- ciently for it. But when I read of the thousands which were baptized at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, where we find no account of either river or pool where the multi- tude were assembled ; f when I read of both men and women being baptized at Samaria, and no mention of any such thing ; % and when I read of Cornelius, and his kinsmen, and near friends, at Csesarea, being baptized in a house, and nothing said but ' Wlio can forbid water that these should not be baptized .'"§ Yes, when I read of not one after the ascension of Christ that came up from any water, except the Eunuch, this last shadow of proof evanishes like the morning cloud and the early dew. I cannot interpret these words ' Who can forbid ^vater that these should not be bap- tized?' as meaning, Who can hinder these people from going to a river or pool to be dipped ? The water was certainly to be brought where these converts were, and a baptistry would have been rather an unhandy article to carry into a house. Nay I cannot think that when Peter saw that on * Matt, xviii. 19. f Acts ii. 41. + Acts viii. 12. § Acts x. 27, 47. X 306 these gentiles was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost, he would baptize them in any other way with water, than that in which he knew they had been baptized with the Holy Ghost. Besides, when scripture mentions such circumstances as these, ' He riseth from supper, and laid aside his gar- ments, and took a towel and girded himself;'* and again, ' The witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet whose name was Saul.' f I say, when we read of clothes being so particularly mentioned in such cases as these, is it not very strange, if persons Avere dipped in baptism, that we never in one instance read of them either wetting their clothes, or changing them, or having any garments prepared for the occasion ? And if dipping was the order of the day, is it not as strange that we never read of any one person, who was led from the place where he was converted either to a baptistry or a river to be baptized. Nay, we read no- thing about baptistries or ])ools for the purpose, but wherever persons professed their faith in Christ there they were bap- tized, according to the history we have in the Acts of the Apostles. Now these appear to me circumstances of some importance, as you cannot suppose that persons unacquainted with the gospel, and its ordinances, could prepare baptistries before it was preached unto them, and so have all things in readiness for an ordinance day. "I have now gone through all of" their "scriptural queries on the subject, and every thing I have seen ad- vanced as Scripture proof that dipping is the only mode of baptism : and if my prejudices are not uncommonly strong, it is as pitiful a cause as ever Scripture was brought to prove. This, however, would not be worth noticing, if the pitiful proof were not made to support a doctrine which unchurches almost the whole world. With them, if there be no dipping, there is no baptism. If there be no baptism, there is no visible church membership. This sweeping doctrine, then, declares the visible church of Christ is con- fined to those who are dipped. All else, though eminent as a Harvey, a Henry, or an Owen, or any body else, are not * John xiii. 4. f Acts vii. 68. 307 so much as visible church members, and if they went to heaven, it was not through the medium of the visible church. This is an awful doctrine, and should not be supjDorted by slender proof. Nothing but the clearest evidence should convince any man that a doctrine so unchristian could ever be countenanced by Christ. " If Pajdobaptists were not able to prove their opinions clearly, there would still be this to recommend them, that they are charitable ones. With them, the particular mode of baptism is not a matter of such importance. For they allow that a person may have all that is essential to baptism by being either sprinkled or dipped, and that godly persons of every Christian denomination are visible chiuxh members. Yes, whoever believes in Christ, and brings forth the fruits of righteousness in his life — whoever manifests the truth of his faith by a conversation becoming the gospel, whether he have been dipped or sprinkled, or wherever he be found, we esteem him a man of God. But with them, nothing will do without dipping or being wholly under the water. This is a something which shuts the doors of the visible church, and says. Stand by, you shall not enter in here. And if this be not putting things out of their proper ])lace, and giving the same importance to the tithing of mint, and anise, and cummin, as to the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith, some of us are mistaken. " The Bible is the book of faith, and what cannot be proved from thence, all the lying wonders of the world will never make better. There are a kind of fairy regions where fiction and fancy find a place, and the inventions of men are interwoven with the institutions of God. This is a favourite soil for the seeds of error, and those roots of bitterness which have sprung up and troubled the church : and travellers from these regions can lie shamefully for their party, and not one soul in a thousand find them out. Common men seldom have it in their power to search into the truth of their story, and see the wonders of this far famed land. Lest any of us, then, should be tempted to trip on this enchanted ground, as some have done before us, we shall stay by the Bible, and 308 then every man who has a Bible can search it, and see whctlier these things be so. " They ask, Do not all the inofesscd Christians in Asia, all hi Africa, and about one-third part of Europe, that is to say, about one half of what is called the Christian world, baptize by immersion only ; and may not the Greek church be supposed to understand the meaning of the Greek word tSocTTri^u), at least as ^cell as the most learned men in this country ? Do not the Danes, the Swedes, the Germans, and the Dutch render the word jScx-ttti^uj by expressions that signify to dip ? Asia and Africa arc not very Christian quarters of the globe. And yet though all these professors should dip who dwell in the regions of darkness and horrid cruelty, they would be very improper examples for the enlightened churches of Great Britain to imitate. As those of the Greek church, however, are to be our safest interpreters of l3a,-TrTi^u;, they should have told us in what part of the world persons of that communion understand the Greek New Testament any better than themselves, and I am sure that is not pro- foundly. In Russia, and the most of those places where the Greek church prevails, I fear they scarcely know what jSaTTTt^w is ; and even in Greece at present, perhaps you will find, on examination, that the Greek which the apostles wrote is nearly, if not altogether, an unknown tongue. For what purpose, then, do " they " speak vain words, and blind the world with the breath of their mouth ? " Our opponents bring forward what they call a very remarkable declaration of Dr. Wall, which says, ' All those countries in which the usurped poioer of the pope is, or has formerly been owned, have left off dipping of children in the font, but all other countries in the world, ivhich never regarded his authority, do still use it."" And I would have said, it is very remarkable indeed ! for America never owned the pope's authority, and yet there you find they have left off dipping children in the font. In Britain, too, where the Bible is better understood than in any country in the known world, the people in general, since they disre- garded the pope's authority, have left off dipping children 309 in the font. But almost all the professed Christians in Asia, in Africa, and about one-third part of Europe, either own or have owned the pope's authority, or are very nearly allied to popery, and yet they tell us gravely that all these baptize by immersion only. I fear, in the abundance of their zeal, they have overdone the matter; and though we should not suppose fonts for dipping to be popish, they have proved contrary to their purpose that dipping, and not sprin- kling, is a limb of antichrist. "But, whatever they may have proved, their design in mak- ing this quotation is abominable. It is a dastardly attempt to do with sprinkling, what the persecutors did with the martyrs, when they clothed them in the skins of wild beasts, that the dogs might worry them. " They also quote from the Book of Common Prayer ; but they should have been so honest as to have told us, thai though in one case it authorizes either dipping or sprinkling, in another, it authorizes sprinkling only, and now a more enlightened age has established the last as a general practice. " I have been even asked, ' Can Psedobaptists give any good reason for the application of water to the face, rather than to the feet, seeing there is a precedent for the latter in the New Testament, but none for the former ? ' " I shall tell them one good reason. We think both un- dressing and uncovering in a place of worship very indecent ; and could not, before a multitude, uncover a lady's feet to baptize them. These things are only fit for the feelings of such men as can print and publish without provocation, and openly challenge Pa^dobaptists by the lump. But where is the precedent for feet baptism in the New Testament } I fear, w^hen they seek for it again, they will find it has run away. Do they mean that our Lord's washing the disciple's feet is the instance ? Why, there is not one w^ord about baptism in the whole chapter : and if they wanted merely an instance of water employed to a particular part of the body, they certainly must be grossly ignorant of even the Gospel according to John, wdiich they quote, if they could 310 not find an instance in which water was applied to the face. Let them look to John ix. 6, 7, and say, if the blind man did not apply water to his face, when he washed away the clay from his eyes. Now, do they think any man could trust them in quoting from church history ; or even from professed Christians in Asia, and Africa, and Europe; — Danes, and Swedes, and Germans, and Dutch, when their assertions contradict the very Bible ? " But I shall tell them another good reason we have for applying water to the face, rather than to the feet. We think the Scripture has not specified any particular part of the body, and in this case we are left at liberty to apply it to any part we think proper, or the whole. Now, we think it more proper to apply water to the skin in baptism, than to the clothes, and as without uncovering or undressing (which we count an abomination in the house of God) we could not apply it to the skin, except on the face. " But I might say further, we find many instances in the Scripture where a part is expressive of the whole, and there- fore we think the face, which is the most expressive part of the man, sufficient to express the whole man. Do they know of no instance in which a man was said to be baptized when water was applied only to a part ? Let them read, in the Greek text, Luke xi. 38, and you will find one. Tliere our blessed Lord was invited to dine with a Pharisee ; ' Now the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the traditions of the elders ;' but our Lord, who did not follow these superstitions, did not wash his hands at this Pharisee's house before he ate, as was the custom; and what is said? 'The Pharisee seeing, wondered that he had not first been (E/SaTTTJo-Sn) haptized^ before dinner.' Perhaps some gentlemen do not know this passage, who make their people laugh at sprinkling, by call- ing it a baptizing of the finger ends only. I rather suppose there was not much more among the water, in this washing of hands before meat, and yet the Scripture calls it baptism, and the baptism not of hands merely, but of the whole person. 311 "And now, what shall I say to the qnevy" of our oppo- nents, "who cry out, 'Can any Ptcdoba])tist furnish an answer that will not be in favour of immersion as the only proper mode of administering baptism ?' I shall only say, this looks very like the language of Goliath of Gath, who defied the armies of Israel, and said, ' Give me a man, that we may fight together.' And really," Sirs, " it reminds me of the minister's head that rang because it was empty. Be assured that whoever take upon themselves to challenge a whole body of men to answer such " a question, " it is only the thistle in Lebanon saying to the cedar in Lebanon, Give thy daughter to my son to wife:* and the world will understand it so. "'I shall beg leave to remind' our opponents 'of some principles, according to one of their own writers, which may be of use to them. He says, ' The Scriptures are our only sure guide in matters of religion. Our obligations, in regard to faith and practice, extend only to those things which are noted in the Scriptures of truth. Our practice, in positive institutes, must be regulated by ivhat is expressly and expli- citly noted in the Scriptures of truth.'' Now, on these prin- ciples let them prove the doctrine of dipping, and" they " will do far better than they have ever yet done. But, let them remember, they will be expected to keep to the point, and furnish some evidence that they have read the Greek New Testament on the subject. For my style, I should make an apology. It is that, in religious controversies, of which my own mind does not approve, but here I plead necessity. It appears necessary to suit our language to the callousness of some of" our opponents, " in order that our answers maybe felt; — and — Titus i. 10 — 13, seemed also to justify something of the kind ; but I am sorry when there is occasion for such severity. "And now," gentlemen, "having troubled" the Court " so long, I shall take my leave by relating a whale-fishing story. I have been told, that at the commencement of this trade, an amazing number of lives were lost by the following cir- * 2 Kings xir. 9. 312 cumstance : Whenever the whale came to the lop of the water, after receiving the har])oon, she immediately aimed a stroke with her tail at the boat, and often sent the whole crew to the bottom. At last, however, they invented this stratagem to preserve their lives. Having provided them- selves with a sufficient number of tubs, they no sooner struck a whale, than they hove out a few of these, and the whale, mistaking the tubs for the boat, spent her strength in beating them to pieces, and the boat was preserved. " Now," gentlemen, " controversies or trials of this kind are the devil's tubs, and so long as we and others spend our strength on these, Satan's kingdom will be safe. But I hope the world will take no offence at the mild, and merciful, and peaceful religion of the blessed Jesus, because, ' there is sometimes a strife among the disciples who .shall be ac- counted the greatest.' They well know that on these two commandments, love to God, and love to our neighbour, hang all the law and the prophets ; and that the minister who does not bend all his force to this point, and make all his ministrations bear on this great object, mistakes the end of his office. Yes, our great business is to do good, and pro- mote peace, by preaching the gospel of the kingdom. We are to be peace-makers, and not pests to society." COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANTS. It now becomes my duty to address yom* Lordship and the Gentlemen of the Jmy on behalf of the defendants : and I think myself happy that 1 have to ansvrer this day the accusations brought against them ; more especially because I know you to be expert in all questions which have been, or may be, brought before you, relative to this gi-eat cause. " Wherefore I beseech you to hear me patiently." I shall have to trespass very much upon your time, owing to the great length of the evidence given by the witnesses for the plaintiffs, to a great part of which I must of neces- sity reply. I am exceedingly sorry that you have been so long detained listening to arguments and statements in sup- port of a claim, which will appear in the sequel to be without foundation, and the invalidity of which it is my duty to expose. I entertain no personal hostility towards any of the plaintiffs ; but still I have too much regard for the honour of my King to permit his laws to be impugned with- out doing my utmost to silence those who contemn them. There is not. Gentlemen, a cause on record in any way similar, or worthy to stand in comparison with the one before you ; we have, therefore, no precedents for our guide, but those which we deduce from the Will. Nevertheless, the precepts and examples therein contained are sufficient to enable me to establish om* claim ; and I shall regard all which the learned counsel and his witnesses have ad- vanced to the contrary, drawn from other sources, as of no authority. " To the law and to the testimony : if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." * * Isaiah viii. 20. 314 As regards the pretended insufficiency of the Scriptures, I shall have to show elsewhere that the statement is without foundation. Every thing which is necessary for us to believe and to practise is to be found therein, no matter in what part of the globe we may be situated. My learned opponent boasts of being a member of the Church of England. Hear, then. Gentlemen, the testimony which that church gives of their all-sufficiency, and contrast it with what he has ad- vanced. " Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation, so that whatever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man. Voluntary works besides, over and above God's command- ments— cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety. Things ordained by general councils as necessary to salva- tion have neither strength nor authority, unless it be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture."* I feel my inability to do justice to The Great Cause ; but 1 pray, " with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly to make known the mystery of the gospel, "f and thus convince you, by indubitable evidence, that om* claim is valid, and that its foundation " standeth sure." Evidence, Gentlemen, from profane history, let it be ever so w^ell authenticated, cannot be admitted; much less then that which is collected from mutilated books, the scat- tered fragments of which only remain. My learned opponent says, that " if by these fragments we be able to trace the practice of infant sprinkling, through all preceding ages, to that of the apostles, it must be allowed a strong 'presumptive argument in favour of its having originated with the apostles themselves." But this avails him nothing; for even if it could be proved to be coeval with the apostolic age, yet it would be no argument at all in its favour, without undoubted apostolic authority; for in less than forty days after Moses had gone up to Mount Sinai, the Jews turned idolaters : yet the idolatry did not originate with Moses. And if he could trace the practice of infant sprinkling even * See tlic 6th, I4th, and 21st Articles. \ Eph. vi. 18, 19. 315 up to the apostolic age (which he cannot do), it would not only prove that the antichristian practice prevailed at that time, but it would confirm the truth of the prediction of the Apostle Paul, who said, " I know this, that after my depar- ture shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your ownselves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw disciples after them."* We have instances, Gentlemen, under the old dispensa- tion, which prove, that after God had given to his people insti- tutions, they disregarded them, and substituted something else in their stead. These are examples to us which clearly show that no length of time can weaken or vary the laws of God, and that for whatever period of time they may have been neglected, disregarded, and despised by the world, they will none the less be regarded by all who shall inherit the promises. For nearly a thousand years, the Jews had neglected to keep the feast of tabernacles acccording to the command : but when they returned from the Babylonish captivity, " all the people gathered themselves together as one man — and they spake imto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded to Israel ; and Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with under- standing. And they found written in the law, which the Lord had commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths, in the feast of the seventh month : and that they should publish and proclaim in all their cities, and in Jerusalem, saying, Go forth into the mount, and fetch olive branches, and pine branches, and myrtle branches, and palm branches, and branches of thick trees, to make booths, as it is wnitten. So the people went forth and brought them, and made themselves booths. — And all the congregation of them that were come again out of the captivity made booths, and sat under the booths ; for since the days of Jeshua the son of Nun, unto that day, had not the children of Israel done so. And there was a very great gladness." f * Acts XX. 29, 30. t Neh. viii. 1,2, 14—17. 31() Again, " Shaphan the scribe shewed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes. And the king commanded — Go ye, enquire of the Lord for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, con- cerning the words of this book that is found: for great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according to all that which is ivritten concerning us.""* * And the king — made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord, and to keep his commandments, and his testimonies, and his statutes, with all their heart, and all their soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people stood to the covenant. — And he put down the idolatrous priests, whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense in the high places in the cities of Judah, and in the places round about Jerusalem ; them also that burned incense unto Baal, to the sun, and to the moon, and to the planets, and to all the host of heaven. And all the houses also of the high places that were in the cities of Samaria, which the kings of Israel had made to provoke the Lord to anger, Josiah took away. And the king commanded all the people saying, Keep the passover unto the Lord your God, as it is written in the book of THIS COVENANT. Surely there was not holden such a passover fi-om the days of the judges that judged Israel," t <• e. about eight hundred years. And again; Hezekiah, "in the first year of his reign, opened the doors of the house of the Lord, and repaired them. And he brought in the priests and the Levites, and gathered them together — and said unto them. Hear me, ye Levites, sanctify now yourselves, and sanctify the house of the Lord God of your fathers ; and carry forth the filthi- NESS out of the holy place. For our fathers have trespassed, and done that which was evil in the eyes of the Lord our God, and have forsaken him, and have turned away their * 2 Kings xxii. 10—13. f 2 Kings xxiii. 3, 5, 19—22. 317 faces fi-om the habitation of the Lord, and turned their backs. Also they have shut up the doors of the porch, and put out the lamps, and have not burned incense, nor offered burnt- offerings in the holy place unto the God of Israel. Where- fore the wrath of the Lord is upon Judah and Jerusalem, and he hath delivered them to trouble, to astonishment, and to hissing, as ye see iv'ith your eyesT* " So they established a decree to make proclamation throughout all Israel, from Beer-sheba even to Dan, that they should come to keep the passover unto the Lord God of Israel at Jerusalem : for they HAD NOT DONE IT OF A LONG TIME IN SUCH SORT AS IT WAS WRITTEN." t Here are three remarkable instances of the Jews, as a nation, neglecting, for hundreds of years, to keep the feasts, according to the command of God, and afterwards returning to their true observance. Add to which the signal punish- ment inflicted upon them for neglecting this precept, " the land shall keep a Sabbath unto the Lord."| They were sent into captivity for seventy years, because, contrary to the command, they had without intermission, for the space of four hvuidred and ninety years, sown their fields, pruned their vineyards, and gathered in the fruit thereof; a seventh part of which time they had deprived the land of its rest. They were therefore driven from it, " until the land had enjoyed her Sabbaths: for as long as she lay desolate, she kept Sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years." § These exam]:>les shew us the folly and wickedness of dis- regarding the commission of the Testator, and that, though it may have been set at nought for nearly seventeen hundred years, that circumstance can neither weaken its force, nor be any excuse for prostituting the sacred ordinance. The Jews, as you all know, were, and still are, delivered " to trouble, to astonishment, and to hissing," because they departed from the true worship of God. They are living witnesses of this truth ; and their example ought to be a warning to the plaintiffs not to sin after their manner. The book of the law was then neglected, as the gospel is now ; * 2 Clii'on. xsix. 3 — 8. f 2 Chroii. xxx. 5. X Levit. xxv. 2. § 2 Chi'ou. xxxvi, 21. 318 and as the Jews were blinded and kept in ignorance of the law of God by the priests substituting traditionary legends in its stead ; so the people of the present day, A\ilh all their boasted independence and knowledge, are kept in ignorance of the truth of the gospel, by their priests substituting in its room SCRAPS of tradition, handed down from the ancients ; and persuading them that " the Will is not an all-sufficient guide," and that " they ought to acquiesce in such rules that are recommended to them by long practice; and that are established by those who have the lawful charge over them." But as they have followed for so long a time the evil example of the Jews, I would counsel them to follow it no longer, but to imitate their example when they returned from Babylon, and gather themselves together as one man, and speak to their priests, and those who rule over them, and say. Read out of the Will of the Testator what the Lord has commanded to all that can hear with imderstanding ; for great is the wi'ath of the Lord that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of the Will, to do according to all that which is written concerning us ; that we may find what is written in the Will, and pro- claim throughout the earth, saying, Keep the ordinance of the Testator, as it is written in the book of the covenant.* You have no doubt observed, Gentlemen, that neither my learned opponent nor his witnesses bear us any good will. This is not surprising ; their dislike of us may arise from a feeling of envy; for they must be conscious, notwithstanding their boasts, that they cannot overturn the foundation on which we stand. Great admissions in our favour have been extorted from the witnesses, who have, occasionally, even condescended to flatter us. But neither their admissions nor flattery shall induce us to treat the commandments of our Lord with so little respect, as to allow that they may be observed, or omitted, or varied, at the pleasure or caprice of any man, or body of men. And though we sincerely ^^^sh that all our fellow-men were in possession of the " one thing needful," we have too much regard for the honour and * Sec also Josh. i. 7, 8. 319 veracity of the Testator, to suppose that he should so far deny himself, as to treat with favour and affection those who trample upon his edicts ; when he has declared that those who honom* him he will honour, and that those that despise him shall be lightly esteemed.* The baptism which the Testator has expressly commanded is that of believers, and believers only : his example, together with the practice of the apostles, clearly indicate that the word baptize signifies the putting under water of a believer by the individual who baptizes ; and that no other action can express its import. We therefore assert, that unless the ordinance be administered according to the letter and spirit of the commission, it is not only not available, but that it is a rebellious act. ' Christ honoured the institution, by being himself baptized of John, in Jordan, typical of the over- whelming sufferings which he had in prospect ; knowing that after being plunged in the deepest sorrows, and buried in the earth, he should rise again, and ensure a joyful resuiTcction to all his redeemed.' But there is not a passage in the will which authorises the baptism of infants, neither can all the ingenuity of men wi*est one to that puipose, although they have been attempting it for nearly eighteen hundred years. I know only of two reasons for christening infants, in the pre- sent day; the one is, because it is an old custom, the other, because people have not the courage to leave the beaten track. " O that they were wise, that they miderstood this, that they would consider " and read the Will, and judge for themselves ; then they would no longer regard, or jjractise, thisabomination. What you have heard in this court. Gentlemen, must con- vince you that it is almost impossible for a variety of witnesses, speaking under a variety of circumstances, so to concoct a tale, w hich has not truth for its basis, as to impose upon a jury. AVhen witnesses contradict each other, and each one frequently himself, it must cany a strong conviction to the minds of all, that the object they seek to obtain is an unjust one ; as, on the contrary, the harmony of evidence on the other side will tend to convince all that the object sought is * 1 Sam. ii. 30. 320 justifiable. We shall apply this rule to the case before us. If it can be shown that the witnesses in the first place are consistent with each other, and in the second that each is consistent with himself; or, on the contrary, discordant in both instances ; it will be no difficult matter to determine on which side the truth lies. And I trust, through the blessing of the Most High, so to convince you of the clearness of our cause, as to make your decision on this important subject an easy task. The learned gentleman says, that if it were possible to make it appear that his clients had no interest in the Will, the majority of the Christian world would be excluded. Well, if this be the case, where lies the fault ? Does it not lie with themselves ? The Will is sufficiently clear and explicit. The Testator declares it is " all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge."* And he asks this question, "What could have been done more to my vineyard that I have not done in it .f* " f I believe few are hardy enough to say that more could have been done, without depriving them of their free agency. And what if my learned opponent does not consider the decisions of the Will just, does his opinion make them the less so ? If he do not live to think otherwise, it will at the last day be made manifest that he has been mistaken ; and his misery will be much enhanced, fi-om the conviction that it has been entirely through his own wilful rejection of the plainest injunctions. But now, if he thoroughly understood its precepts, he would be convinced that it excludes no one ; for "God that cannot lie" has said, that " your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins" have made him hide " his face from you, that he will not liear."| The Testator persuades, admonishes, and encourages every one to come to him, in the way of his appointment, and it is only those who refuse that he threatens "with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power."§ " You, Gentlemen, have no doubt been careful not to allow your judgments to be misled by the sophisticated * Prov. viii. 9. f Isaiah v. 4. + Isaiah lix. 2. § 2 Thcss. i. 9. 321 reasoning of the plaintiff's counsel ; or by the questionable evidence adduced by the several witnesses. In viewing the case, you must divest your thoughts of the long space that has intervened between the first publication of the Will, and the present time, with all the supervening canons and traditions of men; and judge of it in the same manner as you would if it had been published only as yesterday. Neither length of time, nor place, nor circumstances, can affect its requirements in anywise ; " The counsel of the Lord standeth for ever ; the thoughts of his heart to all generations."* This is a case that differs from every one that has yet come before ajury ; you are not to judge of the claims of either party from their own testimony, even if that were consistent with itself in every particular, any further than their evidence is borne out by its exact accordance with the whole tenor of the Will. No evidence is to be received, however specious it may appear, that is not fully supported and sustained thereby in every particular : and to be inqiartial judges in this case, you must yourselves be divested of all preposses- sions or preconceived opinions, and bring every doctrine to the test of that unerring standard, the Book of Life. This is all-sufficient to guide your judgment, and not yours only, but that of every one in the Court ; for none can possibly err who are directed by its infallible dictates. I shall pass over all that my learned opponent has said of a personal nature, both as respects my clients and myself; replying only to what bears directly on the subject. He has informed you of the nature of the plaintiffs' claim, and read to you the two clauses on wdiich they attempt to main- tain it. I am sure it has been to you a wearisome duty to listen attentively to the arguments advanced by himself and his witnesses, in order to wrest the plain meaning of the plainest Scripture texts. Their main object is to prove, that sprinkling water, or pouring it, on an infant's face, is ful- filling the first clause. They touch very slightly upon the second and principal one, (some of them not even noticing * Ps. xxxiii. 11. Y 322 it) whether designedly or otherwise, is only known to them- selves. It is this clause which clearly defines that which gives a title to the privileges of, and constitutes a man, an heir ; and while any one remains ignorant of this, he cannot expect to be a partaker of the promise. This, on Scripture principles, is undeniable and incontrovertible. The act itself is of great moment, being commanded by the Testator, and is only exceeded by that of which it is a figure. It is doAvn- right folly to attempt to prove, that an infant can believe by proxy, or that a few drops of water sprinkled on its face can make any difference between it and one upon which this mock ceremony has not been performed, or that it can affect the child in anywise, either temporally or spiritually. Yet these things must be proved to your satisfaction before the plaintiffs can establish their claim. You could not. Gentle- men, I am persuaded, before you heard the evidence here adduced, have thought it possible that men liberally educated, possessing splendid talents, who are acute reasoners upon all other subjects, could advance such absurdities ; absurd- ities emanating from colleges and academies, and absurdities too attended with the most baneful consequences, which not only prevent men from listening to the plain instructions con- tained in the Will, with that simplicity which the Will itself requires, but which throws an air of mystery around these instructions, that blinds the eyes of their disciples, so that they cannot see the true light. " It is sufficiently notorious that the truths of the gospel are not taught in our leading public schools ; on the contrary, they may be considered as the fountain-head of that error" which prevails to so great an extent among the plaintiffs. I would not here be thought to decry human erudition ; to it we are indebted for our excellent translation of the Will, so ably and deservedly praised by the first witness. But, Gentlemen, it is one thing to translate the Will, and another " to be filled with a knowledge of His will, in all wisdom and spiritual understanding." * Learning, when rightly applied, is a great blessing. But, in all the public and private institutions for human learning, though the knowledge * Col. i. 9. 323 of the Will is professedly taught, yet it is taught only " by the precept of men." And it is to them that are so taught that the Testator says, " This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."* If my learned opponent would allow me to give him a word of advice, I would entreat him, and all who hear me, not to take the opinion of any man (however wise, or learned, or celebrated he may be, he is still only a man), but to search the Scriptures for themselves, looking for divine illu- mination ; for it is only by their own diligent searching, with humble and earnest prayer to Him who giveth every good and perfect gift, that they can ever be brought to a true, just, and saving knowledge of the truths therein contained. But they require the whole soul to be called into action, with all the ]3owers of the mind, together with undivided attention. All are clearly told, " Ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart." f I am far from denying that man may be a means of instructing his fellow man. But this instruction must be conformable to the Scripture standard, and every doctrine and practice tried by that test. And I would further advise both him and them not to trust those teachers who profess to do such great things for them, lest they may find, when it is too late, that they have been " trusting in the staff of a broken reed." J And I will ask my opponent whether, if this were a human will, in which he is informed that a valuable legacy is left to him, he would not diligentlj^ examine it, to ascertain the extent and value of the bequest, and not trust to any individual, whatever confidence he might repose in his assertion ? I am sure he would. In all common cases of life, the very cir- cumstance of being informed that he had been remembered in such a man's will, would make him anxiously desirous of perusing it; he would not trust to the report of any one. And why then is it that we are so indifferent respecting our interest in this, on which our eternal happiness depends ; and compared with which, millions of worlds are absolutely * Matt. XV. 8, f). t .Tor. xxix. 13. + !»• xxxvi. G. 324 nothing ? It is the effect of a fatal infatuation, with which the great enemy of sonls has bewitched manMnd at large ; who, unless the Lord graciously awaken them to a sense of the danger of neglecting the one thing needful, suffer themselves to be entirely engrossed, during their whole lives, with the cares and vanities of this world. We need not so much wonder that the ordinance of bap- tism, as instituted by the great Testator, should have been corrupted, when we compare the length of time since his death, with the proportionately short period that has elapsed since a command was given by a national church to admi- nister the invention of man as its substitute; the practical administration of which at the present time differs almost as much from that ordained by canon law as this does from the original institution of the Testator; notwithstanding an imposing and powerful hierarchy was then established, liberally supported to watch over its interests, and see that no innovations should be suffered to creep within its pale. One of the witnesses has complained that the people at large are lamentably ignorant of the nature of christening^ and that multitudes are quite regardless of the obligations which it implies ; I shall therefore give a more detailed account of its administration, by what is called the Esta- blishment, than my learned friend has given. But first I shall call your attention to the words god- father and god-mother, and I have no hesitation in saying that I do not understand their full import; to me they appear to imply an arrogation of Deity. But, whatever may be the meaning and import of the words, they have no foun- dation in Scripture ; and every repetition of them is taking " the name of God in vain." I sliall therefore in future call them sponsors, and proceed with the ministration. " The people are to be admonished that it should be administered but upon Sundays and other holy days, when the most number of people come together, as every man present may be put in remembrance of his own profession. And the curates of every parish shall often admonish the people that they defer not the baptism of their children 3-25 longer than the first or second Sunday next after their birth. And also they shall warn them, that, without like great cause and necessity, they procure not their children to be baptized at home in their houses. But when need shall compel them so to do, let them not doubt but that the child so baptized is lawfully and sufficiently baptized. Yet, nevertheless, if the child, which is after this sort baptized, do afterwards live, it is expedient that it be brought into the church, to the intent that the congi-egation may be certified of the true form of baptism privately before used." These instructions I am told have been often disregarded ; and Smidays and holidays are rarely preferred before other days, except by the poor, who make a convenience of them. The children of the opulent have been, without either great cause or necessity, christened privately at home, and not brought before the congregation. Again, the priest is commanded to take the child into his hands, and (if it may well endure it) he shall dip it into the water discreetly and warily ; but if it be certified that the child is weak, it shall suffice to pour water upon it. These precepts are now wholly disregarded, sprinkling in all cases having superseded them. When the child is sprinkled in the church, the sponsors promise in the child's name to renounce the devil and all his works, only so long as it is vuider age ; but in the ministration of private baptism there is no stipulation — the sponsors remain liable for the man : few, I dare say, either know, or mind, this further liability. Sometimes great men request still greater men to become sponsors for their children ; these perhaps have not the opportunity, or it may be have not the inclination, to attend themselves, they therefore name others to represent them ; and thus the child becomes a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven, by the proxy of a proxy. It may sometimes happen, that the parties never see the child, either before or after the cere- mony. This inconsistent conduct is winked at, as it prin- cipally occurs among the higher orders. Sometimes a child is accepted as a sponsor for a younger child. But 320 the church has in this case omitted to state whether the older child or its sponsors are the sureties, or whether all the parties are alike responsible. It appears that the framers of the various administrations were fearful that the old vicious ceremony of christening, newly got up, would not at the time of the Reformation be readily received in all its parts ; therefore, " to take away all scruple concerning the use of the cross in baptism, the true explication thereof, and the just reason for retaining it, may be seen in the 30th canon, first published in the year 1604 :" which no doubt was considered better authority than that of the Will itself. Then, lest any one should entertain a doubt of the future happiness of their children who die in infancy (which it was not unreasonable to question, from the corruption and sinfulness of that nature which they are said to bring with them into the world), they are told that it is certain, by God's word, that children which are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved." Some may wonder how it has happened that the passages of Scripture here alluded to have not been pointed out ; but the reason is obvious, they are not to be found from the beginning to the end of the Bible. And now. Gentlemen of the Jury, let me seriously ask you what becomes of those unfortunate children who, through the neglect of their parents, or through any unavoidable cause, die without the benefit supposed to be attached to this ceremony ? It being clearly evinced, by the hurried manner in which it is ordered to be performed over a dying child, that, should it expire before it is "lawfully and sufficiently baptized," its future happiness would, at least, be doubtful; for the first lawful minister that can be procured, is to " say the Lord's prayer, and so many of the collects appointed to be said before the form of public baptism as the time and present exigence will suffer," that is, so many of them as can be run over while life con- tinues. It would be very hard and unjust, that a poor innocent should be condemned for a neglect that it could not prevent. But this cannot be, it being quite contrary to the tenor of both Testamentss. In the Old it is expressly 327 said, " The son shall not bear the iniquity of his father ; " and in the New, "Every man shall bear his own burden : — for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."* Infants cannot " sow to the flesh," consequently they are inca}3able of committing iniquity : and although they are, through Adam's transgression, subjects of physical evils even to the deprivation of their natural life, they cannot fall under condemnation, that being the consequence of actual personal transgression alone, of which they cannot be guilty. We are no where told in the Scriptures what will be the state of those who die in innocency ; this is one of the " secret things" that " belong unto the Lord our God."t But we may rest assured, from his revealed Will, that he is " a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he;" I and that he, having created men to be happy, none can possibly be miserable but in consequence of their own wilful violation of his laws. It would be impious to suppose that inftmts and innocents should be otherwise than in a state of felicity throughout eternity, seeing that the Testator, through his death, has redeemed all from the power of the grave who have " not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression;" as well as from eternal death, all those who, though they have followed his example, and violated the commands of God, yet through grace have believed to life everlasting. I am convinced that no man, who is capable of reasoning upon the subject, unless he suffers his understanding to be clouded by tradition, can seriously think that any thing done to or for an infant, by its parents or others, can affect its future state, or in any way influence the allwise and merciful Creator to jilace the child in a different position from that in which it would have stood if it had not been the subject of such a ceremony. The positive declaration of the word of God sets the matter at rest. " Behold (says he), all souls are mine ; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine ; the soul that sinneth it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the * Gal, vi. 5, 7. f Dent. xxix. 2r>. X Deut. xxxii. 4. 328 father bear the iniquity of the son : the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."* In the two preceding methods of administering the rite called baptism, the command is positive, to dip in the one case, and pour water upon the child in the other; yet this command is now universally disregarded. Then comes a third, styled the " baptism of those of riper years ;" and although this ought to be reckoned of greater moment than either of the other two, it is left to the discretion of the priest, either to dip the person or pour water upon him. Here, again, the priests show their contempt for the commands of the church, and merely sprinkle the individual. Indeed, the first method is become so obso- lete, that, if I recollect right, when a candidate (arrived at manhood) expressed, some years ago, a desire to be dipped, it was thought necessary to ask the bishop's consent before the ordinance could be administered in that way : but, perhaps this might be only a scheme of the priests, to obtain instruc- tion how to administer the rite, the font in the church not being suitable for the purpose. These candidates, having arrived at years of discretion, are capable to answer for them- selves; yet they, as in the case of infants,, cannot be christened without the aid of sponsors, although, in addressing all pre- sent " as beloved," the priests say, " doubt ye not, therefore, but earnestly believe, that he will favourably receive these -^xe?>ex\i persons, truly repenting, and coming unto him hy faith ; that he will grant remission of their sins, and bestoio upon them the Holy Ghost.'"' Surely, after thus repenting, believing, and receiving the gift of the Spirit, they might be suffered to go alone. But, no ! The sponsors must be admonished thus : " Forasmuch as these persons have promised to renounce the devil and all his works, before you, their chosen witnesses, you must remember that it is your part and duty to put them in mind what a solemn vow, pi'omise, and profession they have now made." This is a strange proceeding; and I can only compare it to the manner in which, in some countries, a wild elephant is subdued, by placing him between two tame ones, * Ezek. xviii, 4, 30. 329 who compel him to go with them. It must be confessed, this reclaiming of a human being is an improvement upon the method adverted to ; for in addition to a sponsor on each side to remind him of his own promises, they have one also to lead him. I know that it is highly improper to speak lightly on serious subjects ; but to deride a solemn mockery I have a precedent in Elijah, which precedent I shall think a sufficient justification, whenever 1 ridicule the proceedings of the plain- tiffs or their witnesses. The prophet, when he was about to perform a miracle before four hundred and fifty of Baal's prophets, which they first attempted to do, but could not succeed, " mocked them, and said, Cry aloud, for he is a god : either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked."* So all who become sureties for infants, or chosen witnesses to direct the steps of another, with those that administer such unautho- rised rites, must either suppose the Almighty to be asleep, or that he does not take cognizance of the profanation of his sacred ordinance. It would be better for men not to vow more than they are able to perform : for the Will says, " When thou shalt vow a vow unto the Lord thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it; for the Lord will surely require it of thee.f " It has been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shall perform to the Lord thine oaths : but I say unto you. Swear not at dlV'X It is not in the nature of things that these baptismal vows, as they are called, can be paid. I believe the fact is, they are seldom or ever thought of afterwards. As far as regards myself, I can speak positively ; for I do not recollect that I ever knew eve7z the names of my sponsors, and yet I have been told that I was regularly christened. I have read in an old author, who was familiar with the Scriptures, that " infant sprinkling was entirely the Avork of man ; that the devil had no hand in it ; for it never entered into his head that man- kind should ever become such fools as to be gulled by so absurd a thing." * 1 Kings xviii. 27. j- Dcut, xxiii. 21. I Matt. v. 33, 34. 330 After the ceremony of christening a child, the sponsors are thus admonished : "Ye arc to take care that this child be brought to the bishop, to be confirmed by him, so soon as he can say the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Command- ments, in the vulgar tongue ; and be further instructed in the Church Catechism, set forth for that purpose," part of which is as follows: — Quest. — What is required of persons to be baptized? Ans. — Kepentance, whereby they forsake sin : and faith, whereby they stedfastly believe the promises of God, made to them in that sacrament. Quest. — Why then are infants baptized, when by reason of their tender age they cannot perform them ? Ans. — Because they promise them both by their sureties : which ]3romise, when they come of age, themselves are bound to perform. Here it is clearly acknowledged, that the clause, " He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved," must be fulfilled, before any one can show a claim to the promise. But in what a manner ! The children are taught to lie, and say they pro- mised by their sureties. The sureties promise for the child, but it is absurd to say the child promises by them, at a time when it cannot speak. And how are they to fulfil the pro- mise made in their names ? by being taught to SAY the Creed, &c. — as if repeating a creed could make a believer. It might be possible to make a parrot repeat all this, and then, on the same principle, it would be as good a Christian. My learned opponent tells you, he is very thankful that he belongs to a church, whose ministers declare that all whom they inter are heirs of the kingdom. I confess it has often struck me with surprise, how intelligent, conscientious men can recite the same words over all men indiscriminately, whatever their previous character may have been ; " We commit his body (i. e. the body of our dear brother) to the ground, in sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life." This, to say the least of it, can be no incentive to the bystanders " to live soberly, rigliteously, and godly in this present world,"* * Titus ii. 12. 331 seeing that all are in like manner consigned to the grave, " in sure and certain hope." And the faciUty with which a criminal, who confesses his crime, is passed into eternal glory, has brovight forth the remark, that " Newgate is a railway to heaven." " The knowledge of God cannot be learned by rote, nor taught by the mechanism of a creed." This can be obtained only by a sincere and diligent study of the Scriptures, with fer- vent ])rayer and sujjplication for the illumination of His Holy Spirit, to give his word access to the soul, by which the under- standing is enlightened, and the individual is enabled to say, " I have more understanding than all my teachers ; for thy testimonies are my meditation."* One of the northern witnesses says, " there is an undefined and unsettled laxity of opinion in their southern brethren, which ajjpeai-s highly pernicious in its practical consequences ; and that he has never been able to find any thing like fixed and precise ground among them, on which they place their warrant for baptizing, each party having different reasons, until they go so far as to concur with the established church, and administer it to all who apply." While the northern brethren, in their turn, make the salvation of the child to de- j)end in measure on the faith of the parent ; thus frustrating the will of the Testator. You will have observed, Gentlemen, that all the witnesses dwell much more upon the manner of applying the water (endeavouring to prove that it should be by sprinkling or pouring it on a child's face) than upon the import of the ordinance : all of them, except the second, third, and fourth, appearing wilfully blind to the positive require- ment of previous faith, without which none can be scripturally baptized. Neither can any be acknowledged as heirs of the kingdom until they have believed to the saving of the soul, and have professed their faith in baptism. Baptism, as well as faith, being peremptorily required by the Testator. I shall here beg leave to state, that in the course of my de- fence, and in answer to the plaintiffs' witnesses, I shall fre- quently have occasion to use the peculiar terms, words, and * Psalm cxix. 99. 33-2 phrases which so often occur in the Will, on the right con- struction of which terms so much depends. Thus I shall often use the words Old and New Testament, Old and New Dispensation, the Scriptures, the Word of God, the Bible, &c. ; and, instead of the word Testator, the Son of God, our Lord, &c. And as I shall often refer you to the Will, I beg your most serious and unbiassed attention to its simple and plain import. You are not to be guided by detached passages solely, but are to judge of its true meaning by comparing one part of it with another, and by taking it as a whole. It was made with perfect skill and judgment, and its requirements are so plainly expressed by the Testator, that he has said, " the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein."* The Will, as we now have it for general reading, not being in the language in which it was first published, it may be necessary that I should state to you, my Lord, and Gentlemen of the Jury, — not for your satisfaction, for you are well acquainted with the fact, but to remove any doubts upon the subject from the minds of those who have not the same oppor- tunity of knowing, — that the correctness of our present trans- lation is fully admitted by our opponents. The first witness they brought forward asserts this in the following manner: — " Those who have compared most of the European transla- tions with the original, have not scrupled to say that the English translation of the Bible, made under the direction of King James the First, is the most accurate and faithful of the whole. Nor is this its only praise : the translators have seized the very spirit and soul of the original, and expressed this, almost every where, with pathos and energy. Besides, our translators have not only made a standard translation, but they have made their translation the standard of our language. The English tongue in their day was not equal to such a work — but God enabled them to stand upon Mount Sinai, and crane up their country's language to the dignity of the original ; so that, after a lapse of two hundred years, the English Bible is, with very few exceptions, the standard of the purity and excellence of the English tongue. The original, * Isaiuli xxiLw 8. 333 from which it was taken, is ahmc superior to the Bible trans- lated by the authority of King James." This is an opinion in which my heart, my judgment, and my conscience coincide. " Notwithstanding all the helps which the various MSS. and ancient versions afford for the illustration of the sacred text," this cou* nuist not imagine " that in those MSS. and versions which do contain the whole of the sacred text, there is any essential defect in matters that relate to Xhe faith and practice, and consequently to the salvation, of the Christian. There is no such MSS. ; there is no such version. So has the Divine Providence ordered it, that although a number of mis- takes have been committed by careless copyists, as well as careless printers, not one essential truth of God has been injured or suppressed. In this respect, all li^ perfect ; and the way of the Most High is made so plain, even in the poorest copies, that the wayfaring man, though a fool, utterly des- titute of deep learning and critical abilities, need not err therein.'''' But independenly hereof. Gentlemen, you and I, " who by reason of use have" our "senses exercised,"* having obtained perfect knowledge, and satisfied our minds, from the general tenor and bearing of the Will ; and having sought divine aid and spiritual illumination, according to the way therein prescribed; have arrived at a satisfactory con- clusion, amovmting to an absolute certainty, that our cause is the cause of The Church, whereof it is said, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."* We are convinced that the baptism which we practise is so clearly defined, that we deem the changes introduced, and so tenaciously defended, by the plaintiffs, not only an insult to the Testator himself, but an insult to common sense. I make these remarks, in consequence of several of the witnesses having attemjitcd to defend their conduct herein by a difTerent rendering of the Greek particles si? and w, connected with the word ^^nn^w ; which words, one and all of our opponents candidly admit, are correctly rendered in our English Bibles : and certainly our translators, who were, I believe, all Pa^dobaptists, would * Heb V. It. f Mutt. xvi. 18. 334 not have so rendered them in the places in question (in opposition to their own sentiments and practice), if without violence to the text they could have been otherwise ren- dered. So that I consider all a]3peals from our authorised version to the originals as nothing but paltry evasions, and futile attempts to bolster up a bad cause. Their boasted assertions, and the bold front which they assume, have not prevented the truth from occasionally breaking out; and although they " wrest " the meaning of the word baptize, " as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction;"* they are nevertheless all constrained to allow that my clients, by being put under water, are veril}^ and truly baptized, agreeably to the true meaning, intent, and spirit of the commission. Is it possible, then, that the Lord should make use of a word of such ambiguous meaning, upon which depends our scriptural entrance into the church of Christ ; a word by which the Testator points out the way in which he will have his disciples to follow him ; that might be taken in senses so very opposite to each other as immersion and sprinkling ? If it be so, the Psalmist could not have said, " The law of the Lord is perfect," for no man can understand it : but we shall shortly prove that the former only is its true, literal, and precise meaning. Yet were we even to admit that the word could be so rendered as to accord wdth the practice of our opponents, it would not help their cause, so long as they administered it by unauthorised agents to unqualified subjects. I shall therefore at present take no further notice of this method which our opponents have adopted of getting over their difficulties. Now, Gentlemen, how are w^e to reconcile what the first witness says of the way of the Most High having been made so plain, with the evidence given by himself and his asso- ciates ? Evidence so contradictory in itself, as demonstrates it unworthy of credit. I might here, without proceeding another step, call u]ion you for your verdict ; but I am desirous to take the oppor- tunity which they have so gratuitously put into my ]iowcr, * 2 l\t. iii. IG. 335 to expose the fallacy of their reasoning. This I shall do with all plainness of speech and freedom of expression, without ceremony, and without fear or dread ; notwith- standing the vituperation of one of the wdtnesses, who charges us with unchurching almost the whole world. To this charge we might plead guilty, disregarding the sentence which our opponents might pass upon us. But w'e deny the imputation ; w^e do not unchurch those w^ho differ from us ; that entirely rests wdth themselves ; they are the arbiters of their own state. We only show, by the Will, that The Church does not recognize them. Our showing this does not in any wise alter their position ; for how is it possible to unchurch those, who, according to the prescribed rule, have never been received within its walls. You will have observed, Gentlemen, that the Abrahamic covenant of circumcision appears to be the foundation upon which the plaintiffs build their superstructure of infant sprin- kling. On this foundation they "build — wood, hay, stub- ble," materials which cannot stand the fiery test, which " shall try every man's work, of what sort it is."* Circumcision and baptism are so totally different, that no inference can be drawn from the former for the observance of the latter. This I hope to make evident, to the satisfaction of the Court, when I enter upon the defence of my own prin- ciples respecting them ; andshall,therefore,forthepresent,pass over all that my opponents have advanced upon this subject. I shall now proceed to point out to you, in as concise a manner as my ability shall enable me, the conflicting evidence of the witnesses, in order that you may, at one view, see the w^eakness of their arguments, and how rarely it is that any two of them agree upon any one subject. The First Witness says, it is certain that /SaTrrw and jSaTTTt^w mean both dipping and sprinkling, both being legiti- mate forms. Those who are dipj)ed, or immersed, he believes to be evangelically baptized. The Second does not deny the lawfulness of baptizing by immersion in some cases, but not in all. * 1 Cor. iii. 12, 13. 33f) The Fourth attaches no great importance to the question of immersion, or sprinkling, or pouring, but says that immer- sion is doubtless baptism. The Fifth says that baptism may be administered indif- ferently, either by sprinkling, affusion, or immersion, the mode is not of serious importance ; the words jSaTrrw and /SoiTrrj^w being capable of denoting any mode of washing. The Sixth does not deny that the verbs /SaTrra; and /SaTTTi^o) signify to dip, or immerse ; but is disposed to consider the mode of comparatively inferior importance. He has no hesi- tation in admitting, on certain grounds, immersion to be valid baptism, though he tells you that it is not the scriptural mode. The Seventh says that there are many instances in which iSaTTTt^o) signifies to immerse, that is to pop in, to plunge, or sink completely under water : and that the general under- standing seems to be, that immersion is its original meaning. Speaking of the body of professors of which he is a member, he says that they find little or no fault with ihe principles and practice of Antip^dobaptists, and that they have said, some of them at least, that immersion is no doubt baptism ; that the careless and timid see that all allow immersion to be right ; and that all allow that Antipsedobaptists are themselves bap- tized. But the other mode (pouring out) he acknowledges is by some contested — therefore, says he, the timid prefer immer- sion, on the principle of taking the safest side of a difficult question. The Eighth, that the mode of baptism h a trivial circum- stance ; the word /SaTTTi^w does not necessarily, nor constantly, signify to dip, hni frequently signifies an application of water by sprinkling or pouring. The Ninth, that against the doctrine that the only legiti- mate mode of baptizing is by immersion, he observes, there are several strong presumptions, and that it is not a matter of surprise that such a comparative trijle as the mode of bap- tism should produce so much controversy. The Tenth, that if /3a7rTK^w can be shown to signify some- times one thing, and sometimes another; if it can be shown, in the New Testament, that it will neither bear to be trans- 337 lated to dip nor to sprinkle, when employed to express the ordinance of baptism ; — if it signifies sometimes to dip and sometimes to sprinkle, baptism may be administered either way ; — if it will neither bear to be translated to dip nor to sprinkle, it leaves us at liberty. So far as he can discern, BocTTTi^ui, is never in one instance translated to dip ; yet he allows that a person may have all that is essential to baptism by being dipt. Now, gentlemen, note these admissions ! The First Witness says, that those that are immersed in water, he believes to be evangelically baptized. The Second, that he does not deny the lawfulness of bap- tising by immersion. The Fourth, that immersion is doubtless baptism. The Fifth, that baptism may be administered by immer- sion. The Sixth admits immersion, under certain circumstances, to be valid baptism. The Seventh, that immersion is no doubt baptism. The Tenth, that Pajdobaptists maintain that a person may have all that is essential to baptism by being dipt. And this is the evidence of men who have come before you to invalidate our claim ; they have done their utmost to arraign the Will of the Testator, but they have shown themselves powerless, having been constrained to bear witness to the truth ; their evil intention is turned against themselves ; as it is written, " Surely the wrath of men shall praise thee." * Our claim is established by the Will, and we need not that help which their consciences compel them reluctantly to afford us. Nevertheless, it shows you that our cause is founded upon a rock, " our enemies themselves being judges." I shall now point out to you their several opinions respect- ing baptism, and their reasons for departing from its correct observance. The First Witness said, That John baptized hy plunging the body in water, seeing that he baptized in Jordan, * Ps. Ixxvi. 10. z 338 because there was much water there. That Christ, being baptized, came iip out of the water. And that there is a parallel case in Acts viii. 38. Philip and the Eunuch went down into the water, &c., but he said the reason of this was, none were baptized but those that were brought over from an irrelhjious religion to that of a true one. But that there is no place for this among us, who are born Christians. That the condition, therefore, being varied, the rite is not only lawfully, but deservedly, varied also. That, moreover, the act of immersion is so harsh and dangerous, that it scarcely gives place to circumcision ; and besides, had John opened his commission in this country, he would have dipped neither man nor woman for many months in the year. The Fourth; If a few texts seem to allude to baptism by figures taken from immersion, how many speak of bap- tism of the Holy Spirit under the idea of pouring out upon us ! The Fifth ; Baptism is nowhere in the Scriptures declared to be immersion. It is unsuitable as an ordinance of public worship, particularly in a nation whose manners are like ours ; there is a degree of impropriety in the practice, which is very unhappy, and of a nature very unfortunate, and directly opposed to every religious feeling, endangering the health and life of those who are so baptized. But these considerations, he acknowledges, form only a presumptive argument ; and he adds, God has an unquestionable right to require us to undergo this exposure, or any other, according to his good pleasure. The remarks of the tSiXTH are intended to show, from the plain statements of the New Testament, that baptism was performed by sprinkling or pouring; and that if it were even admitted that immersion is the primary import of the word baptism, yet that sprinkling and pouring are uniformly recog- nized by the Scripture writers as its true and proper coun- terparts. The Seventh declares, that Independents have not left this ordinance in so vague a condition as the Episcopalians have done ; he throws quite a new light upon the subject, 339 and endeavours to show that the word baptize has never yet been properly analyzed ; it has (says he) been shown to signify pouring out ; and he remarks (and very truly), that " there is a difficulty of conceiving how so extraordinary a transition should have taken place, as that of the derivative pouring out, from the primitive plunging in.'''' But being wedded to the luode oi pouring upon, he substitutes the word " pop," his definition of which sets all argument at defiance; for, according to his view, it means ornamenting and bespat- tering, washing away what was found adhering, or covering with what was not there before ; in short, that it means every mode by Avhich water and dkt can be applied, as well as immersion, wholly or in part. This Witness does not know if any thing is to be found, among all the corruptions and enormities of an idol's temple, equal to an immersion before the church ; and he " certainly thinks" our "baptism to be the human improvement of a superstitious age, and to partake of all the monstrosity in its form, and all the cruelty — which might be expected from such an origin." The Eighth pretends to no certainty that John did not baptize at all, but thinks it possible he might use both modes. He tells you, that bajjtism was no new institution ; and that should immersion be allowed to have been the only ancient, apostolic, and scriptural mode of baptizing, yet a strict adherence to it is not obligatory on us, but tliat this circum- stance may very laivfully amd^tly be exchanged for that of sprinkling or pouring. To imagine (says he) that our Lord intended absolutely and immutably to bind down his followers to dipping only, is quite repugnant to that mild, generous, and free spirit which his religion everywhere breathes. Total immersions, he observes, are troublesome, a scarcely modest and decent practice, and, in many cases, cruel and danger- ous; and that it would be rash and criminal for a minister to immerse the most worthy, as he could not do it without apparent hazard, not only to his own life, but to that of the baptized. If, therefore, baptism should (says he) become ODD and UNBECOMING, or hazardous to the health, it might 340 then i?inocently be waived, and a form less burdensome and disagi'eeable be sxibstituted. The Ninth tells you "that baptism was no new ordi- nance ; and that since the Scriptures have not determined how it is to be administered, the mode may be prescribed by a church." He denies that a single clear C3i&e of baptism by immersion can be produced from the New Testa- ment ; that not one instance can be shown of that practice from it. He designates it harsh, showing no consideration to health nor life — opposed to decenaj, repulsive to the feelings, dangerous to health, offensive to delicacy, and destitute of all scriptural authority. Gentlemen, you have heard all the harsh epithets which these witnesses have applied to the baptism of the Scripture. It is (say they) superstitious, monstrous, immodest, unbe- coming, indecent, rash, criminal, dangerous, hazardous to health, repulsive to the feelings, and offensive to decency. What is the object which they have in view in thus scan- dalizing the ordinance of the Lord, by which he was himself sanctified for the work appointed him of his Father ; and which, by his own observance, he sanctioned ? Is it not their design to throw discredit upon the ordinance itself, to raise a dust to blind the eyes of their votaries, and, by thus representing it in an odious light, to draw off their attention from the main argument? The question is not whether it be all that they represent it, but whether it be or be not the command of God — whether the way we practise the ordi- nance be or be not according to the Divine precept and example. The majority of these witnesses, as you have heard, acknowledge our practice to have all the essentials of baptism ; and if it have, how dare they to desig- nate it in the manner before stated } They wilfully de- part from the plain, simple, and express command, and obstinately persevere in their violation of it. And, not content with so doing, they throw opprobrium upon the conduct of the Lord himself, who unquestionably was bap- tized with the baptism which they thus vilify. And here I will ask these bold men, how they will stand before his 341 bar, when he shall reprove them and set these things in order before their eyes ? Three of the witnesses, you observe, find the ground they had taken untenable ; they therefore shift it. The First says, that " the condition being varied (i. e. we being all born Christians), the right is not only lawfully, but deservedly, varied also." The Eighth says, that " should immersion be allowed to have been the only mode, a strict adherence to it is not obligatory on us." The Ninth, that " even if immersion had been the original mode, we should, in the absence of any command, direct or implied, have thought the church at liberty to accommodate the mode — to different climates and manners." The Testator pronounces the most dreadful anathemas upon those who either add to, or take from, his words. Josiah was praised above all the kings of Judah ; and for what } because " he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord ; and turned not aside to the right hand or to the left."* But the plaintiffs, instead of taking him for an example, speak after the manner of Naaman, though in a more positive way. He only asked, " Are not Abana and Pharphar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel } " But they presumptuously assert, that " sprinkling of water is as sufficient as the dipping into water, when in truth that argues washing and purification as well as this." Not to obey, is to withdraw ourselves from that allegiance which we profess to owe to our Governor. Not to submit to his laws with a child-like disposition, is in fact to arraign him before our bar, and tell him what is just and right that ho should enjoin, and that if it be not according to our tastes, we are determined not to obey him. To reject his ordi- nance, because we consider it not suitable to our country, is only to oppose our shallow reasoning to his wisdom and authority. The Will informs us that Eve placed more reliance on the father of lies, than she did upon the God of truth; he said, "Ye shall not surely die;" therefore she eat of the forbidden fruit, and we her children are still suffering * 2 Kings xxii. 2. 342 in consequence of that one act of disobedience. And we have thousands of living witnesses around us to prove, that a people which God had chosen for himself lost their earthly inheritance by their disobedience; a sufficient proof to us that none will be held blameless who profane his ordinance, whether through ignorance or design. As "all men in this country are supposed by one of its maxims to know what is the law, and as alleged ignorance will not exempt them from punishment if they transgress," so every one that has the Will, and can read it, will be left without excuse. We read that the " people and the Publicans justified God, being baj^tized with the baptism of John." But that " the Pharisees and Lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him." * But we nowhere read that the latter, or that even the chief priests, the elders, or the scribes found any fault with the nature of his ordinance ; they would not believe that it was from heaven, neither would they believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. They accused him of blasphemy, and, judging him to be guilty of death, they slew him. By this it a])pears that their actions were in unison vi'ith their words ; but can we say this of the witnesses in this cause } No ; on the contrary, they profess to acknowledge him as their Redeemer, and that the ordinance of baptism was from heaven, but instead of justifying God, as the Publicans did by being baptized, they not only reject his counsel, but " they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame," f by calling his ordinance of bap- tism, as administered by John and the disciples (as before stated), harsh and dangerous ; unsuitable as an ordinance of public worship; a subject which cannot be expatiated upon; directly opposed to every religious feeling; endangering health and life ; an enormity not to be found among all the corruptions and enormities of an idol's temple ; the human improvement of a superstitious age ; a monstrosity ; repug- nant to the mild spirit of the gospel, troublesome, scarcely modest, cruel and dangerous, criminal, hazardous to the life * Luke vii. 29, 30. f Heb. vi. 6. 343 of both baptizer and baptized ; harsh, shewing neither con- sideration to health nor life ; opposed to decency, repulsive to the feelings, dangerous to health, offensive to delicacy, destitute of scriptural authorily ; a pious cheat, a pitiful cause ; and even preparing for it in the house of God an abomination. Yet, Gentlemen, can you believe it possible that some of these very men will invite those whose practice they thus condemn to preach in their pulpits ; to assist at the ceremony of opening any newly erected place of wor- ship ; and to offer up the ordination prayer at the induction of any of their own ministers into their clmrches. But this is only a part of their inconsistency ; they carry it still further, by addressing those whom they accuse of idolatrous worship, in the following manner ; " My dear and respected Antipaedobaptist brethren ; Fellow-Chx'i^imn^ ; Godly per- sons ; Our brethren ; Christians of the Antipasdobaptist per- suasion ; Excellent Christian characters ; We regard many of you as saints and fait/iful in Christ Jesus ; Let us receive one another, and live together in perfect charity." Why it would be quite as appropriate to apply these soothing expressions to the priests of Juggernaut, and invite some of them to assist at their ordinations. You will naturally ask. Why do they use this charitable, fawning language ? I will tell you ; They have found they cannot silence us by scriptural argument, nor yet by vituperative epithets, and they are now attempting to cajole us by flattery : thus tacitly acknowledging that those they call their baptist brethren are right. It is clear, by then- evidence, that neither their own nor their converts' consciences are at ease respecting this ordinance. One admits that all allow immersion to be right, but that sprinkling is contested, and that the timid join the Antipasdobaptists on the principle of taking the safest side — of (" what the sophistry of men have made ") a difficult question. One, that the advocates of immersion are often very troublesome to their fellow-Christia.ns, and unsettle toeak minds. One acknowledges that when the controversy, " whether baptism should hi administered to infants, or only to adults," fell in his way, he was almost 344 ready to conclude that the Antipaedobaptists were right, and that this gave him great uneasiness. Another feels satisfied that the validity of infant affusion is not so difficult and formidable as many are ready to suppose, by the numberless volumes that have been written upon it ; but that there are too many, when, in a state of want of knowledge, they happen to meet with a baptist friend, a baptist book, or a baptist argument, feel themselves unprepared to meet what is new and startling ; their minds are in danger of being immediately unsettled, and of hastily adopting what is pre- sented to them with no little plausibility, and possibly too with much imposing consequence. Another is aware that many have been long ago shouting victory, and admits that Antipsedobaptist sentiments are making considerable pro- gress ; he allows that Christians are actually beginning to despair of any result from the existing controversy, and that it should humble us all fi. e. " those that are in error ") to see the battle continuing to rage without the smallest appearance of termination. If this witness had been familiar with the Will, he would have known that the battle will continue to rage, and with increasing success, until " the kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ."* Then those that have believed on the Lord, and followed him in all the ordinances of his house, according to the sionple and plain direction given in his word, will join, and cry Victory with a voice as loud as to reach the ends of the earth. Even now, he is sensible that the united voices of the aniichristian world cannot silence their victorious shouting. Another tells you, that " Many pious but weak minds have been greatly disturbed, not to say distressed, with scruples on this head. When they hear it confidently affirmed, that baptism evermore and constantly implies dipping — that no person ever was, or can be baptized, who has not been dipt — and, consequently, that themselves are as really unbaptized as Pagans or Turks, it fills them with concern; and they doubt whether they are not wanting in obedience to an express command and insti- * Rev. xi. 15. 345 tution of Christ." Why are these weak and pious people so distressed? And why these doleful lamentations on their behalf? Are none of these learned doctors able to set their minds at ease, and extinguish their doubts and fears ? No I For the effulgence of the light as it shines in the Will still continues to penetrate the mists and clouds with which they, by sophistry and perverted logic, have environed it. This light, after it strikes the eyes of pious people, occasions (so long as they retain any regard for the Will) pain and misgivings of heart. But respect for the word of God, Gentlemen, is represented by my learned opponents as weakness in those who are affected by it; and it is only when these u-eak people are emboldened through their writings or discourses to the set the Will aside, that they deserve, in their estimation, to rank with those who have become " strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might." * The Tenth and last Witness informs you, That common and conscious men are deluded with the dogmas of dipping ; that many good and gracious souls, who cannot read Greek, and do not remember that John baptized with water in the same way that the disciples were baptized with the Holy Ghost, are led away with the delusion." Here, Gentlemen, you have a new doctrine, a sweeping condemnation of the great bulk of mankind : for how few there are, who have now the word of God in their hands, that can read Greek. Is it then necessary. Gentlemen, to understand Greek to be pre- served from delusion ? We apprehend the learned witness is under a greater delusion than many of those whom he thus denounces. " iVb^ »wawy wise men after the flesh — are called." This Witness accuses my clients of not honestly quoting case from the Book of Common Prayer, which authorizes sprink- ling only. But as we have already stated the " Ministration of Baptism," as prescribed by the Church of England in that book, the above charge of disingenuousness, therefore, will not apply to us. In it there is no authority to sprinkle either * Eph. vi. 10. 346 child or man. Sprinkling is a manifest departure from the rule laid down by the church. I am glad, however, that this accusation has been made, as it gives me an opportunity of pointing out to all parents, members of that Establishment, the v^nrong its ministers have done, and are doing, to all their children, by christening them in an illegal manner : for if parents believe the Prayer Book, their children's eternal happiness is jeoparded — not one, so christened, being lawfully and SUFFICIENTLY baptized. Consequently, the parents cannot partake of the assurance, that " It is certain by God's Word, that children which are" lawfully baptized, " dying before they commit sin, are undoubtedly saved." They must, if they read with attention, know that it is very particular in this respect ; for it says, when a child has been christened at home, and " do afterwards live, it is expedient that it be brought into the church, to the intent that the congrega- tion may be certified of the true form of baptism, privately used — and the minister shall examine and try whether the child be lawfully baptized or no. — Because, some things ESSENTIAL to this sacrament may happen to be omitted, through /"ear or haste, in such times of extremity. — But if the minister shall find all is " not " well done," nor " according to DUE ORDER, then let the priest baptize it, in the form before appointed for public baptism of infants ; saving that, at the DIPPING of the child in the font, he shall use this form of words — If thou art not already baptized, I baptize thee, &c." Therefore, by the laws of the Church, no healthy child can be legally christened without being dipt, neither can one that is " privately baptized," and " do afterwards live," be reckoned lawfully baptized, unless its true form of baptism be certified in the church, before the congregation. How this can be called a more enlightened age, which sets both the law of God and man at defiance, I am at a loss to imaaruie The last Witness admits that there is no single word in the English language which comes up to the full meaning of the verb /SaTTK^c; ; and that it is the only word which the Spirit of God employs to express the ordinance of baptism. 347 He says, that " in all the accounts he can find of this matter, the particular mode in which men were baptized with the Holy Ghost, was not by dipping, or any thing resembling it, but by pouring out, and falling upon; and that this is just sprinkling in other words." I wonder he woiUd thus expose himself; for every body in the Court must know, that pouring out and sprinkling are two as distinct and different opera- tions as pouring out and baptizing. In fact, if he were not sensible that his cause rests upon an unstable foundation, he would not have attempted to screen himself under the cloak of charity. He acknowledges, that if all the baptisms mentioned in the New Testament had been administered in Jordan, or by the side of rivers, he would have thought it a strong circumstance ; but that when he does not read that any came up from any water, after the ascension of the Tes- tator, except the Eunuch, this last shadow of proof vanishes as the morning cloud and as the early dew. Is this a legiti- mate conclusion, Gentlemen? If all the instances of bap- tism recorded in the New Testament had been mentioned as administered in Jordan, or by the side of a river, it would afford, in his view, presumptive evidence in our favour ; but because this is omitted, excepting in one instance, in all the cases that took place after our Lord's ascension, all that occurred previously are therefore to be disregarded as of no authority.? In all the places where there is given a detailed account of the circumstances attendant on baptism, they agree in the same j)articulars, that there was abundance of water, that the parties went down into it, and came up out of it. Particulars sufficient, and sufficiently often repeated, to satisfy every humble follower of the Testator that, in the places where they are omitted, the omission does not infer any departure from the ordinance as previously administered. Let our opponents deny this if they can ; but let them re- member, they must give us scriptural authority for their objections. Now, Gentlemen, mark the incongruous statements of these Witnesses respecting baptism, and the origin of its institution ! 348 The Tenth humbly thinks the doctrine of dipping cannot be proved from the Bible. The First brought forward four incontrovertible proofs from the Bible that plunging the body in water was the baptism commanded by the commission ; and said, that in several respects it was a new thing in Judea. The Ninth denies that a single clear case of baptism by immersion can be produced from the New Testament ; and says, that baptism was not a new ordinance. The Seventh says, that baptism was a new ordinance. The Third, that Christ adopted baptism. The Eighth says that it was practised ages before the birth of John. The Second, that it was not instituted until after the time of John. The Fifth, that baptism is nowhere in the Scriptures declared to be immersion. The Fourth, that immersion is doubtless baptism. And that " John was singular in baptizing all his disciples, though baptism had been before in use." The Sixth, that baptism was performed by sprinkling or pouring. The Seventh, that pouring upon was the only scriptural mode. The Eighth, that dipping was not the only mode. The last three are Independents ; and be it remembered that one of them declared that his community had not left this ordinance in so vague and ambiguous a condition as Episcopalians or Presbyterians have left it ; and this is the way they have taken to convince us that they have not done so. Now I will ask any of this persuasion, whether in or out of Court, which of the three things, dipping, sprinkling, or pouring upon, is the baptism instituted by the Testator ? and, if he trusts to these teachers, I defy him to answer the question. Every wise man, hearing this evidence, will leave such teachers to themselves, and neither adopt sprinkling, pouring, nor dipping, until he learns, from the Will itself, what baptism really is, what it is to believe, and what it is to be 349 enabled to say, with the Eunuch, " I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. What does hinder me to be baptized ?" Their contradictory statements give us reason to conclude that they are "not taught of God," otherwise they would speak one language, " the language of Canaan :" as it is written, " I will turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent.''''* Agreeably to this, Paul, writing to the Corinthians, says, " Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same THING ; and that there be no divisions among you ; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment." t You will recollect, Gentlemen, that the evidence of the Seventh Witness differs from that of all the others. He tells you that he " is persuaded that the word baptize has never been properly analyzed" — that it has been substituted for the xerh pop — that he feels himself supported in affirm- ing that the term pop is the root of the word — and that when the Court keeps in mind his explanation, and aj)plies it to baptism, poptism, it wall be furnished with a key which will natiu'ally and consistently account for all its much-dis- puted acceptations. And further, " We are led to conceive (says he) of baptism, as the pouring out of water from a cup on the turncd-up face of the baptized ; and whether he be adult or in infancy, the water may thus not only wet the surface, as a figure of washing, but be drunk into the mouth, as the emblem of a principle of new life." Here, Gentlemen, we have a new light thrown upon the ordinance ; and I will leave it to you to suggest to this witness, if it would not be an improved and more effectual plan to pop the water at once into the mouth ; for if it be necessary that it shoidd be drunk in order to complete the figure, it ought not to be left to chance, whether or not the parties may at the time open their mouths. The Ninth Witness said, that baptism was no new ordi- nance when our Lord instituted it. • Zeph. iii. 9. f 1 Cor. i. 10. 350 When we consider that the Testator has attached so much importance to his ordinance, we may rest assured that he has declared his will in language that cannot be mistaken. To suppose it possible that he could give a commission to his apostles, on subjects involving the eternal happiness of all mankind, in terms so undefinable, ambiguous, and uncer- tain, as these Witnesses wish to make it appear, is not only preposterous, but it is a reflection on his wisdom and pro- vidence. One and all of them allow that baptism is, according to the tenor of the Will, required of every professed follower of Christ ; yet they not only will not practise it, but they vilify it in every possible way that their ingenuity can devise. Still they are not content without substituting something in its place ; for they are not satisfied that the eternal felicity of either man or child is secured unless he be christened before he dies. Thus they presumptuously dare to change the ordinance, and adopt substitutes, upon which they are neither uniform nor agreed. It is pitiable to think that people will allow themselves to be kept in bondage by such men as these ; men who pro- mulgate a spurious doctrine, and practise a mock rite. It may be said of these priests, as Jeremiah said of the priests of his time, " They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying. Peace, peace, when there is no peace." * They also " beguile " them " with enticing- words, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." f Both the teachers and the taught would do well to study Deut. xxxii. 28, 29. Gentlemen, you have heard our Lord accused of not knowing, or not considering, that his ordinance is in many respects unsuitable for the people of the present day, par- ticularly for those inhabiting cold countries ; and his wisdom impugned for not naming the degree of latitude where bap- tism should cease, and sprinlding commence. One told you that we may rest assured that our climate, or a more northerly * .Ter. vi. 14. f Col. ii. 4, 8. 351 one, could not admit of it with safety for at least three-fourths of the year; and that as dipping was a rite used only among the Jews, it were hard if all nations should be subject under it, especially when it is not to be esteemed of the essence of baptism. Another, that he did not see the necessity of it in all cases. Another, that the quantity of water and mode of application seem to be merely circumstances, varying as occasion may require. Another, that in a nation whose manners are like those of the United States of America, and where bathing is not a standing custom, there is a degree of impropriety in the practice. Another, that total immer- sions in England are cruel and dangerous ; and to imagine that our Lord iijtended ahsohdehj and immutably to hind down his followers of all nations and of all ages to the Jewish form of baptizing (supposing it to have been dipping only), is quite repugnant to that mild and free s]3irit which his religion everywhere breathes. Another, that it is not probable that, in a religion designed to be universal, a mode of administering the ordinance should be obligatory, the practice of which is ill adapted to so many climates, where it would be exceedingly harsh to immerse male and female, strong and feeble, in water (and in the higher latitudes for a great part of the year impossiblej, since it is certain that, in countries where cold bathing is little practised, great risk of both health and life are often incurred, and fatal effects do sometimes occur. Now, Gentlemen, you will please to obsei've how manfully the Seventh Witness again withstands the others. He before sljowed to them and us, that neither sprin- kling nor pouring could be derived from the verb jSccTm^u ; and he here declares that cold bathing is a bracer and a luxury, and that in his opinion no great hardship could be expe- rienced in ANY climate were the practice enjoined every day : and he is sure that it would be an extraordinary constitu- tion which could not at any age well endure to be plunged once in one's life time. Yet notwithstanding this his candid admission, he goes beyond the other nine in degrading the ordinance, by saying that he does not know if there be such 352 an enormity to be found, as an immersion before the church and before the workl, among all the corruptions of an idol's temple. These Witnesses remind me of the tale of Mahomet and the pig. The prophet told his followers that one part of it was not to be eaten, thinking that that would prevent their eating any part. But it had the contrary effect ; for one chose one part, and another, another part, until the whole pig was eaten ; still each one flattered himself that he had left the prohibited part untouched. But these people, more incon- sistent than even the followers of Mahomet, reject the ordi- nance of baptism, as being unsuitable to this or that climate, because, in their wisdom, they deem it not suited to every climate. And yet. Gentlemen, these Witnesses, who revile the ordinance of the Testator in such unmeasured terms, would have us believe that they are true followers of the precepts of that Will, which points out no other ' way of of salvation ' than that of believing to the saving of the soul; making manifest that faith, in the first instance, by a public profes- sion thereof in the ordinance of baptism as therein inculcated, and ever afterwards walking as "becometh the gospel of Christ." The conduct of these men is aptly described by the prophet, " They swear by the name of the Lord, and make mention of the God of Israel, but not in truth nor in righteousness." * The Testator exhorts, persuades, and ad- vises all men to " turn at his reproof," to obey his laws, to respect his ordinances, and trust in him ; and promises that " he that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved." On the other hand, he warns and threatens, and also declares, that the "feai-ful, and unbelieving — and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burnetii with fire and brimstone." f He has given no discretionary power to change his ordinances : having made baptism the only way of entrance into his house, it is binding on all those who are desirous of partaking of its j)rivileges. They have it in their power to reject it, as the plaintiffs do ; and in * Is. xlviii. ]. f Rev. xxi. 8. 353 this respect he leaves them to their own free choice (as it is written, I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing : therefore choose life, that thou and thy seed may live) ; declaring that " Blessed are they that do his com- mandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city ;"* but that " Cursed be he that doeth the work of the Lord deceitfully ;" — " that maketh the blind to wander out of the way." Is there not, Gentlemen, great perversity in the reasoning of the Witnesses, who condemn as dangerous that which is performed in obedience to a divine command ; and which is generally allowed to invigorate the constitution when used as a matter of pleasure, or for healthy recreation ? I now. Gentlemen, call your attention to the evidence given on John iii. 22, 23. The Eighth Witness does not apprehend that John baptized the multitudes by dipping ;■ he says, " there were other necessary and important uses for many waters — other weighty and just catiscs why John should choose this well watered and fruitful country for the scene of his ministration." The Tenth says that " it never occurs to our opponents that Judea was a country parched with thirst ; that John preached in a place proper for accommodating the multi- tudes which flocked to him ; that such a multitude must assemble in a wilderness, or they would destroy their neigh- bours' property ; and that such a multitude, assembled in a wilderness, must have much water to drink, or they would die of thirst. They think of Judea as if it were Great Britain ; and because none baptize in rivers now but dip- pers, they think it must have been so then." The Seventh, that "he sees nothing concerning immer- sion, but a plain reason why two large companies should have been attracted to the neighbourhood of each other, where they might act without interference, whilst separately engaged in making the same religious use of water," The Fourth, that " Water was the outward sign ; but * Rev. xxii. 14. 2 A 354 whether the rite was admmistered by immersion or not is incapable of decisive proof." The Ninth, that " the preaching was in the fields ; and since the rite which was to follow a ministry which made such impression, and drew together such crowds, was hap- tisniy the necessity of the case must lead the Baptist to Jordan, or to some other district where, if a river was wanting, fountains at least existed. The necessity was equal in this case, whether the mode of baptism were that of aspersion, of pouring, or of immersion." The First, that " whether the ceremony was performed by dipping or sprinkling, much water was equally necessary, when such multitudes were baptized ; but as the Jewish custom required the person to stand in the water, and having been instructed, and entered into a covenant to renounce all idolatry, and take the God of Israel for their God, then plunge themselves under water, it is probable that the rite was thus performed in ^Enon." These contradictory assertions are made on these plain words ; " After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea; and there he tai'ried with them, and baptized. And John also was baptizing in .Enon, near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came and were baptized." Four of the witnesses have not ventured to speak upon this text; and the plaintiffs' cause would not have suffered loss if the other six had followed their example. Their conflicting statements show that they do not, or pretend not to, understand the passage. One says — John chose a fruitful country; another, that it was a wilderness he chose ; anothei-, that the Testator and John chose this place that they might act without interfering with each other; while two insist that whether the cere- mony was performed by dipping or sprinkling, much water Avas equally necessary. The reasons given by the three former are directly at variance with each other; and the reasons of the last two are eminently absurd, for they, as well as you and I, know that a few pails of water, used as sparingly as it is at the present day, would suffice to have 355 sprinkled all the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And another asserts that it cannot be proved whether or not John immersed his converts. One of them charges us with ignorance of the nature of the land and climate of Judea, which he represents as a country parched with thirst. We, in our turn, Gentlemen, charge him with ignorance of the book of God, which describes it in different language, as "a good land, a land of brooks of water, of fountains and depths that spring out of valleys and hills. A land of wheat and barley, and fig trees, and pomegranates ; a land of oil olive, and honey."* We are clearly and positively informed that John chose this place solely on account of there being much tcater there, for the convenience of baptizing those that believed the gosjDel ; and none of the witnesses have dared to gainsay it. Indeed only one of them gave an opinion of the nature of the religious use the " two large companies made of water," and the Scriptures furnish us with no foundation for this opinion as we have no instance mentioned in the Will of any person baptizing himself Here, Gentlemen, I cannot refrain from remarking that the evidence of this witness is partial. He it was who told you, that he had not studied the Bible as a text book to confirm the articles of a preconceived creed, but as the revelation from God to man ; and that he came before you to give his evidence a.sfree from bias and sectarian principle as possible. Now I have no hesitation in saying, and I am persuaded it is also the opinion of the court, that in this instance at least, he has departed from his avowed principles ; for where can we find in the whole compass of the Will, so much as the shadow of authority for that which he attributes to the disciples of John, and those of our Lord, the act of " plunging themselves under water." Is it not evident from this that he has read the AVill with a strong bias of tradition on his mind ; that he not only speaks under the influence of prejudice, but that the strong enmity he bears to the ordinance of our Lord is hereby manifested ? For though he is compelled to admit that the only legitimate * Deut. viii. 7. 8. 356 use of the miicli water of ^Enon could be solely for the pur- pose of administering the ordinance of baptism, yet, like the Scribes, who said that our Lord cast out devils by Beelzebub, so he says the converts were not plunged by John, but that they plunged themselves. I shall here read an extract from a recent publication, which, being written by a Vicar of the Church of England, shows you that the ministers of that communion are begin- ning to see that they are not acting in accordance with their own rubric : and let us hope. Gentlemen, that this is only a prelude to their seeing, that, even if they were so acting, they would not be acting in conformity with the Will, and that when they are led to see their error, they may be brought to acknowledge it, and no longer prostitute the sacred ordinance of the Testator. 'My object (says he) is to restore this act of consecration (baptism) to its original design, — to render it a solemn and sacred dedication to God. It has been very generally con- sidered, within the last three hundred years, that it makes no difference whether it be done by sprinkling, or affusion, or washing the body in pure water. Nor is the washing the body in pure water a point of mere indifference. The form and mode of initiation into the church of Christ are in their consequences of high and solemn importance — in regard to baptism, the outward and visible sign becomes an integral part of the ordinance itself. The custom of the primitive church gives no sanction to baptism by affusion or sprin- kling, except in cases of necessity. In the reign of Eliza- beth, immersion came by degrees into disuse; and Calvin directs that the minister should pour water upon the infant, and this was the first public form of baptism which prescribed affusion. The Salisbury Missal, printed in 1530, expressly requires and orders dipping. And in the first Common Prayer Book of Edward VI. the general order is to dip the child — the rubric only allowing, if it be weak — it shall suffice to pour water upon it. However, it being allowed to weak children, many fond ladies at first, and then by degrees the common people, would persuade the minister that their children were 357 1,00 tender for dipping. But what princi]ially tended to confirm this practice was, that several of our English divines flying into Germany and Switzerland during the bloody reign of Queen Mary, and returning home when Elizabeth came to the throne, brought back with them a great love and zeal to the customs of those Protestant churches be3'oud sea. They thought they could not do the Church of England a greater service than to introduce a practice sanctioned by so great an oracle as Calvin. Afterwards, when the directory was put out by the Parliament, effusion began to have a show of establishment, it being declaimed not only lawful, but sufficient and most expedient, that children should be baptized by pouring or sprinkling of water on their face ; and, as it were for the further prevention of immersion or dipping, it was particularly provided that baptism should not be administered in places where fonts in time of Popery were unfitly and superstitiously placed ; and accordingly they changed the font into a basin, which being brought to the minister in his reading desk, and the child being below him, he dipped in his fingers, and so took up water enough just to let a drop or two fall on the child's face. Our divines, at the restoration, understanding a little better the sense of Scripture and antiquity, again restored the order for immersion, ' The very Avord baptize properly means to wash a person in water, by dipping or immersion. It is evident that it was by this mode that John baptized all who came to him, and that their bodies were washed with water. There can be no question but that John himself, and those who were baptized of him, went into the water, " they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins." And it is said of Jesus, " that he went up straightway out of the water." — "John also was baptizing in ^'Enon, because there was much water there." We cannot but infer that in these cases their bodies were actually washed, and we find that the same mode of admitting new converts into the covenant of grace was continued. The word baptism has, no doubt, sometimes figuratively another meaning; but as to the 358 admission into the church, it implies that the body was washed with water. It was in this manner that the Eunuch was baptized. It has been contended, in opposition to all authority, that no particular direction being given in Scrip- ture, we may allow immersion, affusion, or aspersion to be equally valid. Such observations have been made more to confirm a custom that has unwarily crept into the church, than to maintain the truth itself. But this is not the way to preserve the church in its primitive and pure state. To keep it pure, we must appeal to " the law and to the testi- mony."— There can be no doubt but the word baptize implies more than affusion or sprinkling; and that it means to wash or bathe. Nor is such baptism to be considered as a mere point of indifference. There is great reason to infer that the ordinance of baptism in latter times has been greatly degraded — in many churches, especially in the Church of England (in opposition to the rubric of that church), from the very circumstance of sprinkling being so commonly received ; and from this circumstance also it has lost much of its solemnity as a sacrament of Christ. ' It is but too evident that the mode of baptism by sprin- kling has — degenerated to " a mere form of godliness, without the power thereof" In all ordinary cases, — although — we know the practice is widely different, it (the rubric) presumes that the child is baptized by immersion. In point of fact, it is generally allowed by all who have attended to the question, that immersion was in all ordinary cases the received mode of Christian baptism in the primitive church. — They (the fathers) speak of " the immersion in water as a descent into the grave, and the rising again out of the water as a resur- rection from the dead." They refer to the words of the apostle, Rom. vi. 4, 6, and Col. ii. 12. There is another point in respect to baptism which is of very high moment, that it be ministered in public. The church of Christ has observed it from the beginning as a public act. It is evident that the baptism of Christ and the baptism of John were always observed as public acts.'* * T. H. Kingdon, B. D. 359 Tims it has been publicly stated by a minister of the Esta- blishment, that the ordinance of baptism in latter times has been greatly degraded — especially in the Church of England. But if the learned Divine had delayed his pub- lication a little longer, he might have given such a striking proof of this as no good Churchman even could gainsay. I refer to the sprinkling of the wife of the Michigan Chief, Mak Coonse, who died at Lambeth ; and who, according to the newspapers, " was received into the Christian Church, and baptized on Sunday morning (Jan. 22d, 1835), a few hours before death, by the name of Antoinette O Whow O Qua." If any of you, Gentlemen, have not heard of this cir- cumstance, you will naturally presume that she was, accord- ing to the twenty-seventh Article, christened as " a sign of regeneration, or new birth." But no such thing; she was christened ' in consequence of the apprehensions of the chief that she would not be buried as became her station !' i. e. in the church-yard, as a Dear Sister. Contrast the conduct of this poor, ignorant, superstitious creature, with that of a clergyman of the Church of England. She, a Pagan, chose to die, rather than offend (as she thought) the Great Spirit, by taking medicine with the intention of evading his sum- mons. He, calling himself a Christian minister, chose to transgress the law of his church, by which he had sworn to be guided, rather than hurt the pride of an Indian Chief (And, for any thing we know to the contrary, with the sanction of the heads of the church, for you will recollect, Gentlemen, this occurrence took place at Lambeth ! ) The law runs as follows ; " When any such persons as are of riper years are to be baptized, timely notice shall be given to the bishop, or whom he shall appoint for that purpose, a week before at the least, by the parents, or some other discreet persons, that so due care may be taken for their examination whether they be Siifficiently instructed in the principles of the Christian religion ; and that they may be exhorted to prepare them- selves with prayers and fastings for the receiving of this holy sacrament." On this, the Record Newspaper, of the I2th February, 360 makes the following remark. ' But if the case were one of such extremity that a week's notice was impossible, and this is a circumstance not provided for by the Rubric, did the poor Indian express a desire to be admitted into the Christian Church? did she answer the questions appointed to be asked? or was not the ceremony merely intended as a passport to what is called Christian burial in conse- crated ground ? We (says the Record) think this subject ought not to pass vvdthout inquiry, if our bishops and clergy would guard the rites of the church against profanation, and if they would not sanction the pernicious and soul-destroying figment, that any mere external ordinance'can make a man a Christian ? ' And in the same newspaper we read, that ' On Monday the remains of the young Indian, Nee-mee-nam-quam, were interred in the burying-ground of Waterloo Church. The poor Indian died from the effects of intoxication, and he was baptized by a popish priest. His funeral obsequies were performed in the Waterloo-road Church, and we find, as might have been expected, a strange mixture of Paganism and Christianity — a mixture such as might have been expected among the Jesuits of China or Paraguay, but one which we did not expect to have seen so soon introduced into the diocese of London.' We next come to John iii. 5 ; " Jesus answered, Veril}^, verily, I say unto thee. Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." All the Witnesses who spoke upon this passage took a dif- ferent view of it, and, in my opinion, none of them enter into its true meaning. The First says that he who has never had any other baptism than that of watei*, cannot, in his present state, enter into the kingdom of God. He who receives not the baptism of the Holy Ghost, has neitlier right nor title to the kingdom of God, nor can he, with any propriety, be termed a Christian. The Third makes no scruple of considering these words as indicating the sacrament of baptism, because he believes 361 it to be the doctrine of the Bible ; and he is sure that it is the doctrine of the Church of England ; agreeably to which, he conceives it to be the opinion of the generality of the national clergy, that by that sacrament Ave are made Chris- tians, and are born anew of water and of the Spirit. The Fifth says that to be bom of water is to be baptized. To be born of the Spirit is to be regenerated. The indis- pensable condition of entering the visible kingdom is here made by our Saviour baptism. The indispensable qualifi- cation for admission into the invisible kingdom is regenera- tion.— Baptism, therefore, is here made by Christ a con- dition absolutely necessary to an authorized entrance into his visible church. The Seventh says, " Nay, that without baptism w^e are taught that no man can enjoy the salvation of God." The Eighth, that " From our Saviour's own words, Mark X. 14, and John iii. 5, pvit together, the right of infants to baptism may be also clearly inferred. For, in one they are declared actually to have a place in God's kingdom or church ; and yet into this kingdom or church, the other as expressly says, none can be admitted without being bap- tized." The Ninth, " If, then, our Lord declares that no one can" enter " into that chirrch but by being ' born of water and the Holy Spirit,' which heavenly gift followed upon baptism, when received in true faith, he clearly makes baptism the mode of initiation into his church in this passage, as in Markxvi. 15, 16, and in both he assigns to it the same office as circumcision in the church of the Old Testament." The expression, to be born of water, in this passage, is symbolical, " water" being substituted for the " word ;" which is clearly shewn in Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, V. 26; "That he might sanctify and cleanse it (the Church) with the washing of water by the ■word.'''' Also by our Lord's words, " Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken to you," * And by Peter, " As new-born babes (says he to the strangers) desire the sincere milk of the tvord, that * John XV. 3. 362 ye may grow thereby."* It is the written word of God, being made clear to our understanding by the influence of his Spirit, that brings us to a true knowledge of him. And by this word, and through this influence, we are born again. For, ' it is by his word alone that the saving knowledge of the Father and the Son is conveyed ; and by the Spirit, operating with the word, the eyes of the understanding are opened, the affections are drawn, and the word finds access to the mind.' ' Thus he unites the light and the power, for the one never operates without the other.' When we are thus renewed in the Spirit of Him that created us, we come forward, and esteem it our greatest privilege to make a con- fession of our faith in his name (agreeably to his exj)ress command) in the ordinance of his own appointment, and therein declare that we go down with him into the grave, and rise again with him to newness of life ; as it is expressed in Rom. vi. 4. There is no allusion whatever to baptism in this passage ; even if there were, it gives no support to the statement of the Third Witness ; for what he advances is directly at vari- ance not only with that particular text, but with the whole tenor of the Will. And though, according to him, it is the doctrine of the Church of England, and the opinion of the generality of her clergy, that a child is born of water and of the Spirit by being christened, it does not follow that it is the doctrine of the Scripture. No wonder, then, that they who maintain such doctrines should be charged (as he him- self asserts that they are) " with blindness and ignorance ; with innovating on evangelical truth ; with being opposers of the doctrines of the gospel, and patrons of an heathenish superstition." According to the Seventh and Eighth Witnesses, All children must be for ever shut out of the kingdom, whose parents or friends neglect to have them sprinkled. Of the wickedness of such sentiments I have previously remarked, and shall therefore not detain you now by again noticing them. * 1 Pet. ii. 2. 363 The Ninth, by assigning to baptism the same office as circumcision in the chm-ch of the Okl Testament, shows him- self completely ignorant of the design of both ordinances. For neither Jew nor Jewish proselyte was required to believe be- fore he was circumcised. But the contrary is the case under the present dispensation. For no one can be scripturally baptized until he believes to the saving of his soul. Circum- cision introduced the natural seed of Abraham into all the immunities of a typical church. Baptism introduces his spiritual seed into all the immunities of the church of which the former was only a figure. The First Witness plainly infers that christening a child makes no alteration in its state ; for it is clear that it can have no other baptism than water. Consequently, he goes beyond the Fiighth Witness ; for he shuts out of the kingdom even christened children ; and, what is still more strange, he says they cannot with any propriety be termed Christians, although he had previously asserted that " we are all born Christians." These six Witnesses, from an erroneous view of the passage before us, give it as their opinion that to " be born of water " is to be christened. This substitution for baptism, being of men, and by them applied to subjects for whom baptism was never intended, is derogatory to the honour of God ; and on this account it cannot be too much stigmatized. It is vain. Gentlemen, to expect scriptural evidence from men who christen infants, because the administration of that rite alone clearly implies that they neither know what the purport of baj)tism is, nor who are the proper subjects of it. But it appears to be the prevailing opinion of all the Witnesses that baptism is a positive requirement, and that it cannot be dis- pensed with. I shall now call your attention to the first of the clauses which occasioned the present appeal to this Court. " Go ye therefore, aud teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, aud of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."* And likewise to the clause, Acts ii. 41, which gives us the * Matt, xxviii. 19. 364 first information of the apostles executing the order of their Divine Leader. " Then they that gladly received his word were baptized : and the same day there were added unto them three thousand souls." * You will no doubt have observed, Gentlemen, that how- ever much these Witnesses have varied, the one from the other, and each from himself, upon nearly all the points of this controversy, there is still one subject upon which they are all unanimous, and that is, in charging the Testator with inditing his Will in language so ambiguous, that we cannot arrive at any solid conclusion, or decisive detei*mination, what he does, or does not, require of us, for they all vaiy more or less in their views of it ; and this is a natural con- sequence, while they will not receive it in its direct, plain, and simple meaning, in the simplicity of little children ; as our Lord says, " Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein."t But all men who are sincere and unprejudiced will allow, that the commission is given in language so express, in words so plain and familiar, that none can mistake them, but such as willingly suffer themselves to be deceived by the sugges- tions of the evil one. And I think I cannot err in asserting, that when this cause is moved into a higher Court (and moved it finally and inevitably must be), however the plain- tiffs may now stifle the stings of conscience, under pretence that they cannot determine what is required of them ; they will find to their confusion, in the day of the heart-searching scrutiny, that such excuses will not avail. According to the Will, the Testator and his disciples met with much more opposition from the Scribes, Pharisees, Priests, devout women, and chief rulers, than they did from the mass of the people. So now, the body of those who call themselves professors of the gospel, together with most of those who are called good and pious Christians, have a more deadly hatred to the Divine Institution than is to be found among the people at large. Nevertheless, they ought to know, that whoever has the Will (and can read it,) will be * f Acts ii. 41. f Murk x. 15. 365 judged by itj as it is said by the Testator, "The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him at the last day."* The Tenth Witness taunts the defendants with not quoting Scripture texts, nor yet giving Matt, xxviii. 19. But here he errs; the defendants do abide by INIatthew's relation of the commission, as well as by that of ]\Iark, both being Scripture texts ; but as the latter mentions the promise as well as the commission, his words are rather more ex- planatory, they are these — "Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Now I am persuaded, Gentle- men, that you would think it impossible, if you had not heard the evidence, that the ingenuity of these witnesses could so far distort the plain relation of either of the Evan- gelists as to make the world believe that the commission, in its " favourable and large sense,"t directs the christening of an infant, and promises that, if it shall die before it commits actual sin, it shall undoubtedly be saved. I here challenge them, one and all, to produce one text of Scripture where such a practice is commanded, or such a promise annexed thereto. But it verifies the words of Jeremiah; "The pro- phets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so.":j; You are aware, Gentlemen, that during the Testator's life he foresaw that the purport of his will would be perverted ; and that, in order to preserve its purity, he said to his disciples, and to all who should tread in their steps, " Ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you : and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." § It is clear these witnesses have not received this power, because they do not understand, or more properly will not understand, his Will ; consequently they cannot be true witnesses. We may take the evidence of one of themselves in support of this assertion. " Only those (says he) can be considered as proper (witnesses unto him, or) teachers of the * John xii. 48. f Eighth Witness. % Jer. v. 31. § Acts i. 8. 366 ignorant, who ai'e throughly instructed in whatsoever Christ lias commanded."* And that these witnesses are not so instructed is evident, from what follows. The First says that it is natural to suppose that adults were the first subjects of baptism, as they must hear and receive the Gospel before they could renounce their old prejudices. That the apostles received a commission to teach and proselyte all nations, and then baptize them. The Second, that all adult and grown persons are to be FIRST taught and instructed, before they be baptized, as the apostles were by their ministry to press upon all their converts an universal observance of, and obedience to, all the commands of Christ ; preaching must not only go before baptism, but follow after it ; obedience must be practised by all those that enter into covenant with God. The Fourth, "that as the words (teach and teaching) might have stood in the same order if it had been a com- mand to go and convert all the nations to Judaism, circum- cising them in the name of the God of Israel, and teaching them to observe the law of Moses, no arguments hence can fiiirly be adduced respecting the subjects of baptism. For in this case it would have been understood, that the adult males must be circumcised on a profession of the Jewish religion, and their infant offspring at the time appointed : and in like manner, all adults admitted into the church from among the Jews and Gentiles, must be instructed into Christianity before they were baptized, though their infant offspring might be baptized also : and the case is exactly the same still." The Fifth, that Christ directs his apostles, and all his succeeding ministers, to teach all nations, &c. In obedience to this command, the apostles accordingly baptized all those who were made disciples. The Ninth, that the obligation of baptism rests upon the example of our Lord, and upon the practice of the apostles themselves, who thus showed that they did understand that baptism plainly meant, baptizing those that believed the • First Witness. 367 "good news;" and that it was thus expreashj made the initiatory rite by which believers of all nations were to be introduced into the church; and that believers — are BEYOND DISPUTE THE PROPER SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. Now, Gentlemen, mark their perversity. They go on and tell you, that as the commission does not expressly exclude infants it must include them : and thus, by adding a meaning to the clause which it neither expresses nor implies, they put the child upon an equality with the believing parent, while it is incapable of being taught, or proselyted, or instructed, or preached into an understanding thereof, or of practising obedience, or of believing the " good news." — Thus they contradict themselves, and show beyond dispute that infants are i}ot the proper subjects for l)aptism : and that they themselves are yet ignorant of the first principles of the doctrines of Christ. The Sixth and Eighth Witnesses thought that if cir- cumcision had been to continue, and the command had run in these terms, " Go ye therefore, teach, discij^le, or proselyte all nations, circumcising them, &c." we should have known that children were subjects of the prescribed rite ; and that the word teach does not necessarily exclude infants, the previously existing practice would have ascertained this. The Tenth acknowledges it to be above his capacity, yet is not satisfied until he has tried to weaken its force, by turning it into ridicide. But, 'ridicule, sneers, and contempt are not arguments,' and are never resorted to in a good cause. The cause which is based on truth has no need of such equivocal support. Now, Gentlemen, I will suppose that a king appointed a number of learned men to go throughout his dominions, to teach his j^eople, giving them authority to make Doctors of Divinity of all those whom they taught. And I will suppose that these men, being either ignorant of their commission or neglecting to enquire into its true import, made D.D.s of all the children of those parents on whom they had pre- viously conferred the degi'ce ; imagining that the " commission admitted of so favourable and large a sense as to include 368 their infants." Would not these witnesses themselves con- demn such an absurd act ? I am sure they would. And yet it is neither more " contradictory nor incongruous" than their own conduct, in sprinkling or affusing the offspring of those whom THEY call believers ; the two cases are exactly parallel. Or suppose that the heads of the established church were to have (if they have not already) their eyes opened to see, that sprinkling is not baptism ; and that christening a child is not in accordance with the commission ; and that, seeing this, they were desirous of effecting a change in the administration of what they call baptism, but that, either through prejudice or the fear of startling the people by so extensive an innovation, they saw good to continue the rite, but to change the subject; and should therefore issue an order to the clerg}', enjoining them to teach those under their care, sprinkling them, &c. Would not the clergy naturally con- clude, from the simple fact of the promulgation of the order, that a change from the accustomed practice was contem- plated ? And would they not perceive, that as there were no new directions given respecting the rite, the proposed change could only regard the subject, and that they were thenceforth to discontinue the sprinkling of infants, and sprinkle those persons only who should be previously instructed by them ? It is said by the Second Witness, that " Some say that Christ did neither baptize infants, nor command them to be baptized. That that is not to be wondered at, if we consider that they had already entered into covenant with God by circumcision, and christian baptism was not instituted ; John's baptism was the baptism of repentance, of which infants were incapable." The Evangelist Mark asserts that "The voice of one crying in the wilderness. Prepare ye the way of the Lord," was " the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ." John was commissioned by the word of God to baptize, and the Tes- tator established the institution by being baptized of him ; thus it was a christian ordinance. If children were not ba})tized, for the reason he states, upon the same principle 369 their fathers ought not to have been baptized ; for the Will does not s])eci(y that either the Testator or John baptized any but those who had previously been circumcised. As far as repects repentance, there was no difference between Johns baptism and that of the Testators, If children could not then be baptized, because they were incapable of repent- ance, the same cause, still existing, forbids them to be bap- tized now. Gentlemen, you may recollect that the Fourth styled himself an honest witness. I appeal to you and ask, has his evidence justified this assumption ? What difference could it have made in the nature of the commission if it had been said, " Go ye, circumcise," &c. ? The command to teach would still retain its full force; and every individual incapable of instruction would thereby be excluded. This single word Teach (even if we could bring forward no other proof) shows the difference between the rite of circumcision and the ordinance of baptism. For, as far as we can gather from the Scriptures, not only no insti'uction was required previ- ously to circumcision, but every Jewish male, every male born in the house of a Jew, and bought by a Jew of any- stranger, " MUST NEEDS BE CIRCUMCISED."* The Sixth is of opinion, that if the commission had been given in the same words, substituting circumcise for baptize, that " we should have known that children were to have been the subjects of the prescribed rite." But I am unable to discover what difference this substitution could possibly make ; the discipline would still precede the circumcision ; and the true heirs would still see nothing improper in the use of such language, though they would see the same " impropriety and incongruity" in circumcising any one before he has been discipled. The Seventh asserts that " there is ample room for sup- posing family baptism to be included in the comprehensive terms of our Saviom-'s final commission." The commission includes every individual of every family upon the earth, who is capable of understanding and believ- * Gen. xvii. 12, 13. 2 B 370 ing tlie gospel ; who can be taught all things commanded by the Testator to be observed. " If" any part of the commission (says the Eighth Wit- ness) can be said to exclude infants, it must be the word teach." Exactly so, Gentlemen ; and it does most certainly exclude them. It is absolute, and all the sophistry of all the plaintiffs combined, with all the laboured statements of these their Witnesses, cannot in the least degree weaken its force. It presents a barrier to their unhallowed footsteps which they shall never be able to pass. This Witness, as well as the Ninth, impugns the wisdom of the Testator, not because he did not clearly define the proper subjects for baptism, but because he did not name those that were not. Not considering that those who do not answer to the descrip- tion must necessarily be excluded. " Friend, how camest thou in hither, not having on a wedding garment ?"* It is the general opinion of the Witnesses, that baptism took the place of circumcision; therefore, as the Jewish infants were commanded to be circumcised, so the children of the present day ought to be christened. This is an egre- gious error of our opponents (as I hope hereafter to prove), although it is constantly put forth by them as one of their main supports. " While (says the Seventh Witness) the Holy Spirit glorifies the Saviour in the case of saved hearers, by accom- panying the preaching of the gospel with a quickening, a converting influence, he equally glorifies him in the case of saved infants, by anticipating, not only in the order of nature, but in the order of time also, the plujsical power of hearing the gospel.'''' And a learned Bachelor of Divinity,t iii ^ work recently published, says, that " there is some reason for what Augustine asserts, that ' Our mother the church lends to them the feet of others, that they may come ; and the heart of others, that they may believe ; the tongue of otiiers, that they may confess ; that seeing they are bur- dened by another's sin, they may be saved by another's con- fession.' " The same gentleman has also further published, * Matt. xxii. 12. f Francis Russd Hall, B. D. 371 that " if we baptize infants, and they are not to be baptized, our baptizing them, if it can do them no good, can do them no hurt. But if they ought to be baptized, and we do not baptize them, we do them inconceivable hurt. We keep them from a mean of grace ; we keep them from Christ ; we hinder them from receiving the Spirit; we hold them in the bond of iniquity; we let them remain in the power of the wicked one ; we shut them out of the clnu'ch of God, and thrust them from the ordinary way of becoming the sons and daughters of the Almighty." Such and similar nonsense, adduced by some of the ablest and most strenuous defenders of christening, is surely proof sufficient that the rite is of man, and not of God. To make this gentleman's reasoning good for any thing, he must show upon what authority the saying of Augustine rests, as his individual authority is worth nothing ; all the premises are defective, in that they stand in need of proof. Nor can it be made intelligible, by any power of language, how one person can by any pos- sibility perform the offices here specified for another, seeing that they are all of a spiritual nature. No man " can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him."* We now come to Acts ii. 41. The First Witness merely remarked that three thousand were converted on that day. The Second could not guess how such a quantity of water could be procured for their decent dipping ; but he supposed that if they even went to the water, it would require a week rather than a day to despatch it. The Fourth says " it is at least highly probable that they were not baptized by immersion." The Fifth concluded those persons were not immersed, because, within the utmost part of that day, there w^as not time under any circumstances to jjerform it. The Seventh received no conviction that Peter sent away one in- dividual drenched and dripping, the scarcity of water making it incredible. As all the pools in Jerusalem united ivoidd have been quite inadequate to immerse them. The Eighth said that there was not the least presumption that they were * Ps. xlix. 7. 372 immersed. The Ninth, that it is highly improbable that they were all baptized by immersion. Here, Gentlemen, you have the evidence of seven of the witnesses (the three others being silent on this clause), who are anxious to make it appear that the apostles executed their commission in the first instance on record by sprinkling their converts ; but all that they bring in support of this opinion are merely nega- tives. The Eighth tells you there is no presumption; the Ninth, that it is highly improbable that they were immersed. The Fourth, that it is highly probable they were not. The Seventh, that all the pools in Jerusalem would not suffice for that purpose. The Second supposes, and the Fifth concludes, that there was not time in one day to immerse them. Then comes the question, Were they baptized, or were they not ? It is evident that these witnesses are either ignorant of the matter, or else they do not tell the whole truth. Every unprejudiced man must confess, that in a city like Jerusalem, which was then so plentifully supplied with water, there must have been a sufficiency, not only to baptize three thousand, but to bap- tize all the inhabitants thereof. And that the plea set up by the plaintiffs, that there was not a sufficiency, is too puerile to deserve notice. Indeed I cannot refrain from saying that it is absolutely contemptible. To make their statements worthy of being received in evidence, they must show that, in a city where there was a sufficient supply of water for all the domestic and religious purposes of a million and a half of people, enough could not be found to baptize three thousand. I appeal to you, Gentlemen, as candid and impartial men, who are sworn to give a verdict according to the strength and veracity of the evidence adduced, if it be not incumbent upon the plaintiffs to establish beyond a doubt that the three thousand could not have been baptized in Jerusalem merely on account of the scarcity of water. But as it appears the witnesses are unanimous in their opinions that it was by some application of water, — but in what manner they have not the courage to say, although we know that, by raising the above difficulties in the way of immersion, they 373 intend to make iis believe that it was by sprinkling that the three thousand were in one day added to the church, — I shall here, in re])ly to the second and fifth witnesses, show that the administration of the ordinance of baptism, as instituted by the word of God, requires much less time than the administration of the rite as instituted by man. The pattern of baptism is clearly shown to us, once for all, in the case of the Eunuch, who was baptized almost as quickly as Philip spoke the words, " If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest." And if the apostles had been aided by the hundred and twenty disciples which were then at Jerusalem (and it is certain they had all the aid that was necessary), they would with all solemnity, and in due order, with ease to themselves, have baptized the three thousand after the same manner in a few hours. We have now, Gentlemen, removed all the difficulty attending this particular circumstance, — we would hope, even from the minds of our opponents ; for as men pos- sessing rational faculties they cannot but perceive that the difficulties originate entirely with themselves, and that they arise from a partial and prejudiced view of the case. We did not feel ourselves under any obligation to do this; it was sufficient for us that the Will declares that the three thousand were baptized : and we know that it would not be baptism unless every individual of them was put under water. Unaccountable as it may appear, we assert, that even if it were stated that the circumstance here recorded had transpired in the sandy deserts of Arabia, we should still maintain that they were all baptized ; (for as the Lord appointed the ordinance, he would also provide the means for its accomplishment, according to the strict letter of his Will, by causing waters to spring up in the desert;) rather than believe that his disciples should, under the most press- ing necessity, make a mockery of his ordinance in the way stated by our adversaries. In the Book of Common Prayer, we find three different forms for conducting the administration of (what is there called) baptism ; but that called the " Administration for 374 such as are of Riper Years " is here the most suitable to our purpose, as all the witnesses admit by their silence that the three thousand were adults ; and besides, it is the form practised by the second witness himself Some of the plain- tiffs have no written directions that I am acquainted with ; they, I suppose, perform the rite according to their own fancy ; but I presume that when they do administer it in their best fashion, it does not take up less time. I shall therefore describe the episcopal mode of christening an adult. " When the sponsors shall be ready to present the con- verts at the font, the priest shall ask whether any of the persons here presented be baptized or no: if they shall answer. No; then shall the priest address them — Then shall the priest say. Let us pray, and here all the congregation shall kneel. Then [after two prayers] the people shall stand up, and the priest shall say, Hear the words of the Gospel written by St. John, in the third chapter, begirming at the first verse. After which he shall say this [long] exhorta- tion following. Beloved, &c. After that there is a short prayer. Then the priest shall speak to the persons to be baptized on this wise. Well beloved, &c. ye must also faithfully for your part promise, in the presence of these your witnesses, &c. Then shall the priest demand of each of the persons to be baptized, severally, these questions following. Dost thou renounce the devil and all his works, the vain pomp and glory of this world, with all covetous desires of the same, and the carnal desires of the flesh, &c.? Dost thou believe, &c. } Wilt thou be baptized in this faith ? Wilt thou then obediently keep, &c. ? Then shall the priest SAY two prayers, the one containing four requests, the other beseeching that the water may be sanctified to the mystical washing away of sin. Then shall the priest take each per- son to be baptized by the right hand, and placing him conveniently by the font, according to his discretion, shall ask the sponsors the name, and then shall dip him in the water, or pour water upon him, saying, I baptize thee, &c. Then shall the priest say, AVe receive this person into the 375 congregation, &c.; and here the priest shall make a cross upon the person's forehead, in token that he shall not be ashamed, &c. Then shall the priest say. Seeing that these persons are regenerate, &c. Then shall be said the Lord's prayer, all kneeling. Then another prayer. Then all stand- ing up, the priest shall use this exhortation following, speak- ing to the sponsors first. Forasmuch as these persons have promised in your presence to renounce the devil and all his works ; — ye must remember that it is your part and duty to put them in mind what a solemn vow, promise, and pro- fession they have now made before this congregation, and especially before you their chosen witnesses, &c. And then, speaking to the new baptized persons, he shall proceed and say. And as for j'ou who have noAV by baptism jout on," &c. Now, Gentlemen, consider the great length of this service, with all the interruptions likely to arise from the confusion occasioned by the assembling of nine thousand sponsors ; and then say, if the rite that the second witness is in the habit of administering would not have taken, with the assist- ance of the hundred and twenty disciples, " a week rather than a day to despatch it"? But this is not all; there might have been a great difficulty in procuring sponsors, and one day would scarcely be sufficient to collect such a num- ber, as many of the Jews would probably have refused to stand ; as I am told is now the case with many Protestants, who are so far enlightened as to be afraid of taking the responsibility which promising and vowing for another necessarily entails upon them, and that many even have qualms of conscience respecting the christening of their own chikh-en. Gentlemen, contrast this with the simple administration as appointed by the Testator, and it will clearly appear on which side the difficulties j^reponderate. Some of the witnesses imagine that Judea has never been a well watered country, because modern travellers find it a thirsty land. Are they ignorant of the prophecy of Moses, who said, that " the stranger that should come from a far land shall say — that the whole land thereof is brimstone, 376 and salt, and burning, tliat it is not sown, nor beareth, nor any grass growetli thereon;"* and that the reason of the earth being so cursed was, " because they (the inhabitants) have forsaken the covenant of the Lord God of their fathers"? Let the plaintiffs and their zeifnesses yonder this, and profit thereby ! Having now shown to you. Gentlemen, that these Wit- nesses do not, or affect not to understand the nature of the command contained in the first clause, on which the plaintiffs ground their claim, I shall proceed to show you that tliey are equally ignorant of the nature of the promise contained in the second. In this clause, Gentlemen, are summed uj) all the other spiritual promises which the Will contains, and which is of the first consequence to man, as pointing out to him the only " way of salvation" revealed therein. Four of the Witnesses say that " He that credits the gospel as a revelation from God, and is baptized, shall be saved — redeemed from sin, and enjoy eternal glory; but he that believeth not shall be damned, because he rejects the ONLY provision that could be effectual to his salvation :"f that " He that receiveth and embraceth the gospel, and is baptized, shall obtain eternal life:" J that " On the belief of the gospel, Christ has made the salvation of the whole human race absolutely to depend ; and every one who reads the gospel must know, that to be baptized in the name of Christ is to make a public and solemn profession of faith in Him as the redeemer of mankind :" § that " Baptism is a rite which demands or requires something of us, /. e. faith in Christ; which faith is the reliance of a penitent upon the atonement of our Saviour. We know, from the instance of Philip and the Eunuch, that there is an explicit requirement, and as explicit a confession ; he that believeth, and is bap- tized, becomes a member of the church." || Now, Gentlemen, you would not think it possible that the same four men who gave this evidence, would turn round, and in the same * Deut. xxix. 22, 23. f First Witness. + Spcoml Witness. § Fifth Witness. II Ninth Witness. 377 breath tell you, that what they had before said, " that the baptized were obliged to profess their faith, and that there- fore only such as could make this profession should be bap- tized—that there is no weight at all in it, because what is spoken of such refers only to those who at that period of life heard the gospel, and were not born of parents who had been Christians." That, "although adults are to be first taught and instructed before they be baptized, it follows not from hence that the children of such parents may not be baptized before they are taught." " That it is true that infants are baptized in consequence of a profession of faith, but it is the profession of their parents, not their own, " That " We gladly admit that all children, dying before actual sin committed, are admitted into heaven; hence it follows that infants are proper subjects of baptism." Here, Gentlemen, they plainly con- tradict their former statements, or the preceding assertions are destitute of meaning: they are, however, expressed in very positive terms ; both opinions cannot be correct ; one must be absolutely false ; and we leave it to you to determine as the Will dictates, and to give your verdict accordingly. It is remarked by the Second Witness, that " It is not said, he that is not baptized shall be damned, because it is not the want, but the contemj^t, of baptism that damns, otherwise infants might be damned for their parents' neglect." And the Foueth spoke much after the same manner. We may infer from these remarks, that christening is not recpiired, and that it is a useless rite ; for the law that does not con- demn children for their parents' neglect, cannot save them through their parents' attention. The obvious reason wh}^ it is not so said is this, If the word had been repeated in the condemn atoiy clause, it would be doubtful whether faith was required at all, or only baptism. The words of the promise. Gentlemen, are as perspicuous as words can possibly be. " He that believeth, and is bap- tized, shall be saved." The incontrovertible import of which is, that a person must believe before he can be scripturally baptized. If it had been written, ' he that believeth not, and is not baptized,' the meaning would have been equivo- 378 cal, for until he does believe, he ought necessarily to remain vmbaptized, being under condemnation, and by consequence unable to make the required confession. And these wit- nesses would gladly have taken advantage of the repetition, and have said, that if even faith were required, every one ought to be baptized, whether they had faith or not, as that would be complying with a part of the requisition. This would have been a better pretext for christening infants than any which the witnesses have brought forward ; because they might very well say, Children are capable, in the simple sense of the word, of being baptized, though they are not capable of believing. And it would appear far more specious than receiving their profession by proxy, or of anticipating their physical power of hearing, or of even admitting that if they die without sin they shall be saved, and therefore are fit subjects for baptism. The Ninth Witness asserts, that because children are innocent they are fit subjects of baptism. But you know very well. Gentlemen, that the Will asserts exactly the con- trary. It states that baptism is the appointed ordinance by which those who repent and believe the gospel are to confess their faith, and witness to the world that they have received the pardon of their sins. It is an ordinance applicable only to such. And although we cannot say that it distinguishes believers from unbelievers in the eyes of mankind, — for many, we are sorry to say, walk so as to throw a discredit upon their profession, and in works deny the Son of God, — yet we can say, notwithstanding, that none can positively be reckoned among the redeemed of the Lord, even here, but such as have confessed him in the ordinance of baptism. The Seventh Witness wishes to enlighten us by saying, that we are apt to be led into a mistake respecting the case oi saved infants, from misunderstanding the expression, " He that believeth shall be saved." (" Here he wilfully takes away from the words of the book.") This relates to those who are of age to hear the gospel ; but there are many who could never be saved, were this the only way of salvation. Mark now his inconsistency ! He still makes it the only 379 way, when lie says, " the Holy Spirit glorifies the Saviour in the case of saved infants, by anticipating the physical power of hearing the gospel ^ and consequently of believing it by implication. I confess. Gentlemen, that I cannot con- ceive how the physical power of hearing the gospel can be anticipated. How an individual can hear before he is possessed of the power of hearing. The Lord has n it been pleased to reveal what his designs are in regard to infants, therefore these witnesses are determined to make up the deficiency ; and all their confused mode of reasoning arises from assuming doctrines not found in the Scriptures. They bring infants into the world as sinful creatures, children of WTath, deserving of eternal punishment ; and as there is no way of salvation from guilt but by faith in Christ, and as it is repugnant to their natural feelings and to common sense (setting aside the word of God) that creatures should be punished for sins which they did not commit, they devise such plans as their hearing, and of course believing, by anticipation, as the means of procuring them a place in the heavenly kingdom. Paul might have been describing these witnesses, in his first epistle to Timothy, when he says, " If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth ;"* for they consent neither to the words, nor to the doctrine, of the Testator ; they reject his ordinance, and set up a rite of their own, by which they pretend to give to the infants of christened parents a privilege above that of others; and thus they make such parents believe, that if their children die in infancy they " shall undoubtedly be saved." We do not read that there will be any distinction made in the case of infants in the world to come. " God hath made of one blood all nations of men ;"t and those who die in infancy we * Tim. vi. 3, 5. t ^cts xvii. 26. 380 have reason to believe will be all alike happy. For being all under the curse fi. e. subject to physical evil and to temporal death) brought upon all mankind by the sin of Adam, they shall be all alike redeemed therefrom by the death and resurrection of Christ ; — " for as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive," no matter what their parents may have been, whether believers, nominal Christians, Jews, Mahometans, pagans, or savages ; — all in his sight are upon a level. But these witnesses make a distinction ; and although they dare not assert, in a straightforward and manly manner, that heathen children, /. e. those who go hence unchristened, are condemned — they imply it, by telling you, that " the church of God never scrupled to admit a child when only one parent was a christian."* That " the christian church now admits the children of christian parcnts."t That " the infant children of believers are the proper subjects of baptism.";}; That " infant baptism is in the Scriptures conjined to the children of professing Christians."^ "That baptism ought to be confined to the children of believers only."|| "That there is a warrant to baptize a believer's family, however young." " That the infants of believers have a right to christian baptism."^! That " St. Paul calls the children of believers 7io/^."** Here they assume that some children ai-e born heirs to a spiritual king- dom, as some others are to an earthly one ; \\'\\h this marked difference, that in the latter case, if the child live, and the estate be not alienated in the mean time, he is certain to possess it; while in the former, if he does not die soon after he is christened, the probability is that he will lose it. For these witnesses, notwithstanding their cunning device, gua- rantee the child's spiritual inheritance only during his childhood, as he is, according to them, lost as soon as he becomes an actual sinner. But how is it, Gentlemen, that the world puts confidence in men who one minute say that children of believing parents are entitled to the promise, and the next as positively con- * First Witness. f Second Witness. J Fourth Witness. § Fifth Witness. || Seventh AVitness. ^ Eighth Witness. ** Ninth Witness. 381 tradict it, by asserting, " That having Abraham and Sarah for their parents would not entitle them to the blessing." " That none become children of God by natural propaga- tion ; that grace runs not in the blood." f " That the new birth is not derived from natural descent, nor Irom human CONTRIVANCE."]: "That mere natural relation to Godly parents cannot save them."§ "That in no case can they become sons of God from carnal descent."? |1 But wherever there is inconsistency, Gentlemen, there will be found prevarication. And thus the witnesses have sub- verted that part of their evidence in which they a])peared to be the most unanimous, and on which the ]:)laintiffs chiefly establish their system. But, in fact, there is little unanimity among them, any further than they are all fully determined to disobey the commands of the Testator. One of them- selves said, that his hreiliren acted upon no fixed princi})le. And how can they, when their system is founded on error ? It may fitly be compared to the house the foolish man built upon the sand, and, like it, it will ere long be destroyed. For the rain is descending, the floods are swelling to under- mine it, and the wind is blowing with increasing fury tliat shall beat it down. These arc symbolical of the going forth of the gospel in the power of the Spirit, which will discover the fallacy of the system by which these men have deceived themselves and their followers. This they might now dis- cover, if they did not willingly shut their eyes. Indeed one of their most strenuous advocates (the Sixth Witness) has exposed the bubble, and shown you that the officious zeal of the plaintifls' witnesses is already bringing on and hastening its dissolution. And in order that every one, in and out of this court, may make his observations a way-mark to warn them of the folly and danger of adopting such a perilous system, I shall here repeat his words; "We (says he) con- sider baptism as an ordinance for believers and their CHILDREN. I am aware, indeed, that I do not express the sentiments of all Pa^dobaptists, when I say, that the admini- * First Witness. f Second Witness. % Fifth Witness. § Sixth Witness. || Seventh Witness. 382 stration of it to children ought to be confined to those of believers only, for I am well aware of the different senti- ments entertained, and the different course pursued, by many (I might I FEAR SAY 15Y most) of my Pa)dobaptist brethren in the south of Great Britain. I cannot but think them VERY FAR in the wrong: and I have never been able to FIND ANY THING LIKE FIXED AND PRECISE GROUND amongst them on this subject. Some place the warrant for baptizing in a willingness to be instructed: some, in a general pro- fession of Christianity, and of faith in the Bible : others, in the attendance of the party applying for it at church, and bringing his family with him, so as to put them in the way of good : while others still, I believe, go so far as to concur with the Established Church of England, and administer it to all who apply, considering it as the privilege of the CHILD, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE PROFESSION AND CHARAC- TER OF THE PARENT AT ALL. Now in all this (says he) there is an UNDEFINED and unsettled laxity, which appears to me highly pernicious in its practical consequences ; and which, moreover, tends to weaken, and even, if followed fairly out, to overthrow, the whole of the argument for INFANT baptism that is founded on the covenant relation, so distinctly recognized in Scripture, between parent and child." This is the witness. Gentlemen, who told you that mere natural relation to godly parents cannot save children. Is not this denying the covenant relation between parent and child ? And does not this overthrow the whole of the argu- ment for infant baptism which is founded upon that cove- nant ? And does not this witness follow fairly out that which his southern brethren leave short, when he acknow- ledges it to be evident " that pouring a little water on an infant's ftice can in itself do it no good".'' Certainly he does. For although it is clear that the mere use of water can do no imbeliever any good, yet without baptism there is no way for believers being scripturally introduced into the Church of Christ. In this sense we deem it indispensable. But to the plaintiffs it is worse than useless ; for what they call ba])tism is an act of rebellion, inasmuch as it supersedes the 383 ordinance of the Testator. The way in which they apply water, and the objects to whom they apply it, arc unknown by the commission ; consequently, so long as they continue in this their rebellion, they exclude themselves from any participation in the promised blessings. The Tenth Witness winds up the evidence by telling you, that " every thing he has seen advanced, as Scriptvu'e proof that dipping is the onlt/ mode of bajjtism, is as 2^^tiful a cause as ever Scripture was hroiiyht to prove. This, how- ever (says he), woidd not be worth noticing, if the pitiful proof were not made to support a doctrine which unchurches almost the whole world. With our opponents, if there be no dipping, there is no baptism ; if there be no baptism, there is no visible church membership. This sweeping doctrine then declares the visible church of Christ is confined to those who are dipt. All else, though as eminent as a Ilervey, a Henry, or an Owen, or any body else, are not so much as visible church members, and if they went to heaven, it was not through the means of the visible church." These declamations. Gentlemen, are of little weight in this important trial. What if Hervey, Henry, Owen, and this Witness, be of one opinion, does it prove any more than that they have all disobeyed the commandment.? And what if all the unbaptized be shut out of the visible church, does that in the least detract from the importance of the ordinance? No, They remain without of their oivn free choice. The whole world, except his own family, rejected the preaching and warning of Noah ; and every one knows the dreadful consequences that followed. And what if (as this Witness says) our testimony concerning baptism unchurches almost the whole world, is this any argument against it ? Is it not rather in unison with the words of the Revelator ; " all the world wondered after the heasf''?* Baptism, Gentlemen, is a peremptory requirement. It is in Scripture so perfectly united to believing, that they can never be separated but by Him who saw good to join them together; and this He will not do while the world exists. It is therefore futile to advance * Rev. xiii. 3. 384 human authority as proof in such a case, or any men, how- ever celebrated, as examples. "Call no man — father upon the earth !" This cause admits of no precedents, save those which are drawn from the Will ; and we do not read therein of any being made members of the visible church previously to their being baptized in water. Those who reject the counsel of God, do it at their own peril. The Will excludes no one ; on the contrary, it exhorts " every one to repent and be baptized." Paul tells us, that " God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their tres- passes unto them" — " we are (says he) ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us : we pray you, in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God." * AVe, therefore, after the example of the apostle, pray these men to lay aside the arms of their rebellion, and " Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and" they "perish from the way."t I have to apologize, Gentlemen, for detaining you so long upon this clause, seeing that the plaintiffs have no interest therein. For it is an incontro\ertible fact, that those who do not baptize according to the commission have " neither part nor lot in" the promise. And that they do not so baptize, is manifest. For whosoever christens either child or adult, sets the commission at nought ; and thereby shows that he will be saved by a way of his own, and not accord- ing to the way appointed by the Testator. Now, Gentlemen, I call your serious attention to the evidence given on that passage which points out to us, in the plainest possible manner, the proper subjects of baptism, and the accurate order in which the ordinance ought to be administered. In this passage, all the circumstances attend- ing the administration thereof are stated in so exact and in so regular a manner as to furnish a perfect example for us to follow; an example to which all believers are required to conform, before they can enjoy the promised blessing ; an example so complete in all its parts, that no one can mistake it, but such as wilfully close their eyes, and reject the counsel of God. You are doubtless aware that I allude to Acts viii. * 2 Cor. V. 19, 20. f Psalm ii. 12. 385 38, 39, to obscure the perspicuity of which, the Witnesses have recourse to a species of reasoning derogatory to the honour of the Holy Spirit, and dishonouring to themselves as men professing to be faithful. 1 must excejot the Second Witness from this charge. He allows the passage to retain its true import. He says, " After the Eunuch was instructed, he desired baptism ; his qualification was, believing with all the heart: only that faith gives a right to baptism, and ENTITLES to salvation. He believed with his whole heart that Jesus Chi'ist was the Son of God. The manner of administration — He went down into the water, and was BAPTIZED BY PhILIP." The First Witness asserts that "the Eunuch probably plunged himself, as this was the plan which appears to have been generally followed among the Jews; but the person who received his confession of faith was he to whom the baptism was attributed." This is wresting the Scriptures ; the fact denies the as- sumption. For where was the necessity of Philip accom- panying the Eunuch into the water, when he had already received his confession in the chariot. However, we have the admission of this Witness of the body being put under water. But why should he suppose that the evangelist took no part in the transaction ? It cannot help his cause. For if it even were the practice of the early Christians to plunge themselves, that practice must exclude infants, unless th^re had been an exception in their favour to the general rule, and they were privileged by having some one to plunge them. The Fifth says, "To the translation no reasonable objec- tion can be made ;" but still he objects to our construction of the passage ; and then gives us a most absurd view of the transaction. You will observe, Gentlemen, that they are not our words which he turns to ridicule, but the words of the Holy Spirit : hear how he proceeds ; " they went down both into the water ; that is, they were both plunged." Do the words here used convey any such meaning ? Is going into the water to the knees, the loins, or the breast, plunging 2 c 386 in the water ? Will any one who is acquainted with the meaning of the word say so, except for some sinister motive ? If he even insist that going into the water step by step, until a convenient depth is attained, be phmging, it is not the same act whicli is next recorded. He proceeds, " And he baptized him ; that is, PhihjD plunged the Eunuch." This unquestionably is the plain, simple, and grammatical mean- ing of the phrase. But you will observe that the admission is made by way of sarcasm. And being in company with the former, and the subsequent absurd conclusion, the whole transaction is hereby represented as a triad of absurdity* He continues ; " And when they were come up out of the water, &c., that is, when they had both been plunged the second time, and risen up from their innnersion, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip. In other words, both were plunged twice, and the Eunuch a third time." Now, I appeal to the Court, and ask if any but the most inveterate jester would treat the Word of God in the profane manner that this Witness has treated it. Is walking into the water, baptizing in the water ? or coming up out of the water after the act of baptism, plunging ? Is going down into, coming up out of, and baptizing in the water, the same act, signify- ing precisely the same thing ? None but such as are deter- mined to persevere in an obstinate cour-e of error, can pos- sibly view the account which this Witness gives of this plain, simple narrative, and the pun which he makes upon the words " into," and " out of," any otherwise than a wilful misrepresentation. The Sixth, that " Philip and the Eunuch descended toge- ther into the water; that Philip baptized him, but in what way not a hint is given." Gentlemen, can you believe this Witness is sincere when he makes this statement, " not a hint is given " ? it is true, not a hint to favour his views, and therefore he declares no decision can be drawn therefrom ; and yet he tells you, he " intended to show, from the plain statements of the New Testament itself, that baptism was performed by sprinkling or pouring." " Let it be supposed (said the Seventh) that the baptizer 387 led the person to be baptized, not only to the water, but into it, the question returns, what did he do with him there? I answer (says he) that all the language of Scripture which relates to the act of baptizing informs me, that he took a handful of water, and poured it upon his turned-up face. This is the act of baptizing." No believer in Christ can resist the evidence contained in this verse, when viewed in connexion with other parts of Scripture relating to baptism. And every candid mind that searches the Will with a sincere desire to his own salvation, must acknowledge that it is amply sufficient, without any comment, to exhibit the nature and import of the admini- stration of baptism. Yet see the perversity of these men ! How obstinately they shut their eyes against the light of the Divine Word, which shines here with the utmost refulgence! The Sixth asserts, that there is not a hint given how the water was applied; and the Seventh as positively asserts that it was by pouring upon. Was it needful for both indi- viduals to alight from the chariot, and to go down both into the water, merely to have a handful poured on the uplifted face of the Eunuch ? If the Holy Spirit had intended to show that the water was to be povired upon us, he would have stated it in plain language : he would not have particularized the unnecessary circumstances of descending from the chariot, going down into, and coming up out of, the water ; the natural tendency of which, if the case were so, is to lead us to a widely different practice from that which the text inculcates as it now stands; and these Witnesses would have been the first to scoff at the idea of individuals going down to, and into, the water, for the piu-pose of obtaining a few drops to sprinkle their faces, or a handful to affuse them. The Eunuch exclaimed with joy, " See, here is water fi. e. a body of water sufficient for the purpose of baptism), what doth hinder me to be bap- tized ? " The nature of the ordinance having been explained to him, he knew that a handful of it would not suffice. The Ninth differs both from the First and Fifth. He says that " This passage is relied upon by the defendants as a 388 decisive proof of the immersion and emersion of tlie Eunuch. If so (says he), it proves too much ; for nothing is said of the Eunuch which is not said of Philip ; and so Philip must have immersed himself (once) as well as the Eunuch," And accordingly he says, " this passage is nothing to the purpose of the IMMERSIONISTS." Gentlemen, is not this a palpable falsehood ? Is it not said that he baptized him ? Will he assert that the pronouns he and him relate to both individuals, as both baptizing and being both baptized ? The Eighth says, that " The circumstance of Philip and the Eunuch going down into the water, and coming \\\) from it, does not with any certainty prove that he there dipt him ; for as waters run in the valleys, they might go do\^ni from the chariot to, or into the rivulet, (for geographers find hut little streams there) and Philip baptized by pouring water on him." These two witnesses also differ ; neither of them will allow that the Eunuch was baptized, and neither of them dare assert, in plain, unequivocal terms, that he was sprinkled. " But supposing (says the Tenth) that Philip and the Eunuch went both of them literally into the water, and came literally up out of the water, what does this prove ? That they were to the ankles, or to the knees 'perhaps, and that is all. Now there the Eunuch might be sprinkled as easily as at the side, for there would not be so far to stoop for the water ; and as the people then wore sandals for shoes, and a sort oi petticoat for small-clothes, the Eunuch, although he had been in the water, would neither have been obliged to strip, nor to submit to any inconvcniency, on the supposition that he was sprinkled." Mark, Gentlemen, the words " submit to inconveni- ENCY ! " See what Paul submitted to for the defence of the truth.* Yet this witness would not have the Eunuch to be put to the trouble of even changing his clothes in order to be inducted into the Church of Christ, through which church only lies the appointed way to eternal glory. The Fourth says that " men will form their conjectures * 2 Cor. xi. 23—28. 389 concerning the mode in which Philip baptized him, according to their different sentiments on that subject." This is the Witness, Gentlemen, who trusts his efforts to explain the Holy Scriptures "have been conducted from proper motives, and in dependence on the Lord; the Witness who confidently appeals to his heart-searching Judge that, " as far as he knows, he has not kept back the sense of any passage." What were his motives for leaving this part of his evidence so inconclusive is not for me to determine. But I shall trespass upon your time while I ask him a few questions. Is not the account which the sacred historian gives of this transaction sufficiently explicit to convince us that Phili]) administered the ordinance by putting the Eunuch under water .'' Wit. I cannot say that it is, because I am not quite satisfied upon that subject. Coun. Say rather that you are not satisfied that he sprin- kled him ? Is it at all probable that both Philip and the Eunuch should go down into the water for that purpose ? Be candid ! Have you not before declared that immersion is doubtless baptism ? And if it be doubtless baptism, why entertain a doubt of it in this instance, where all the circum- stances are so clear as to put the matter beyond all dispute ? Wit. I think it more convenient to suffer ever}^ person to form his own opinion thereon. The case of the Eunuch furnishes an example how far men will wander from the right path, after they have once made up their minds not to walk in it. They turn away from the plain, simple course, and consequently every step they take removes them to a gi'eater distance from the " mark," and they " go astray like lost sheep." Well might the prophet Isaiah exclaim, " Behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people."* The word baptize is univocal, otherwise it would not have been used by the Testator to specif}^ his ordinance. None of the Witnesses deny that Philip and the Eunuch * Is. Ix. 2. 390 " went dowTi both into the water," but they profess very different views of the purpose for which they went down. Seven of them are opposed to the second, who has not suffered his prejudices to warp his understanding, but takes the correct view of the subject: and whatever these seven may say against the administration of the ordinance as com- manded by the Testator will not, I am sure, prejudice you against the cause of truth ; for we are exhorted by Paul to "Let no man deceive us with vain words."* If, when these Witnesses are called to the bar of God to answer for their conduct in this particular ; if they can say with a clear conscience that they have not been able, with all the light and infoimation given to them in his word, to arrive at any other conclusion than that the word baptize, in every place where it occurs in the New Testament, as applied to the initiatory ordinance of the Christian institution, means no more than to sprinkle the face with a few drops of water, and principally the face of a new born infant, the Lord will not exact more from them than is right. They shall, though in error, be beaten with few stripes. For he " who knew not his Lord's will, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes." But with regard to the proper subjects for baptism, they are wholly Avithout excuse^ as they cannot here plead even ignorance, for there is no instance recorded in the Will of any individual being bap- tized who was not either a genuine or a professed believer in the Testator. Here then they know their Lord's will, but still " commit things worthy of stripes ; " and he tells us, and them also, what must inevitably follow. This passage is of the first consequence, as it hands down to us a perfect pattern of the administration of baptism as commanded by the Testator. A pattern that we can no more depart from, and be held guiltless, than could Moses have departed from the pattern shoAvn him in the mount, and which the Lord impressed upon his mind when he said, " And look that thou make them after their pattern." f It is impossible that we can either worship God in an acceptable * Eph. V. 6. f Exod. xxv. 40. 391 manner, or believe in the promise of the Testator, miless we clearly understand what baptism is, who are the subjects, and what the pvirport of it. This being the case. Gentle- men, the plaintiff's can have no claim until they are better instructed, until they have " their understanding opened " to behold the ordinance in its true light, and are made meet for its administration. We now come to the cases of Cornelius, of the jailer, Crispus, Stephanas, and Lydia, of the baptism of whose households you have heard so much. And as it is from the account the Will gives of them, that the principal arguments for the christening of infants under the new covenant dis- pensation is founded, I shall comment on the evidence of each Witness as given upon each transaction, and begin with Cornelius. The First says, that " the baptism of the Spirit did not supersede the baptism of water, nor indeed can it." Nothing can be clearer than this. The instance before us is the only one recorded in the Will of any individual re- ceiving the baptism of the Spirit previously to baptism in water. And the conduct of the apostle, as here mentioned, evidences the indispensability of the ordinance, and is a convincing proof that the command of the Testator respect- ing baptism peremptory, is in every case that can possibly oc- cur. Peter knew that until they were baptized with water, he could neither acknowledge them as brethren, nor eat BREAD with THEM AS DISCIPLES. This Witness also says, that " to ' be baptized in the name of the Lord,' implied the taking upon them the public profession of Christianity ; and believing on Christ Jesus as their Saviour and sovereign." In this instance, infants are irrefragably excluded ; they could neither believe in Christ, nor make the required profession, consequently they could not be partakers of the Holy Spirit. The Third says, that " the apostle, considering that this gift of the Holy Ghost was only to enable them to speak with tongues, not to regenerate them, inferred from thence that they ought the rather to be baptized — to be born of water and of the Spirit." 392 This Witness appears to be wiser than the Spirit of God, who dictated the Will. For the Will informs us, that when Peter rehearsed the case to the disciples at Jerusalem, " they held their peace from further contention, and glorified God, saying. Then hath God also to the Gentiles gi-anted repentance unto life."* Such a visible and particular inter- position of the Most High, antecedent to baptism, was never witnessed, either previously or subsequently; doubtless it was for the purpose of overcoming the prejudice of the Jewish people against the Gentile nations. The Fourth, " These wordsf contain a plain and con- vincing demonstration of the falsehood of the Quakers' doc- trine, that water baptism is unnecessary to them who have received the inward baptism of the Spirit ; since the apostle here not only declares, that water baptism ought therefore to be administered to these persons, because they had already been baptized with the Holy Ghost; but also commands them to be baptized on that account. Cornelius must him- self be saved — by the words which Peter would speak to him, and by faith in those words ; and thus also salvation would come to his family." It is difficult to determine whether this Witness intends to state, that salvation came at that time to the family of Cornelius ; or that it should come at some future period, when the younger branches should have understandings capable of receiving it. I think the latter is the most pro- bable. He appears angry with the Quakers because they do not see the great importance of the ordinance of baptism ; an ordinance which he himself, in another part of his evi- dence, appears to treat lightly. Hear what he says on this subject. " Neither yet did he (Christ) simply bind the grace of God to baptism, as if it was absolutely and without any exception necessary; seeing, in another place, he ascribes regeneration to the Spirit without any mention of water. Whatever ignorance (says he) of the precept, or mistake about the nature of it, renders not men in- capable of baptism by the Holy Ghost, can never render them * Acts xi. ]8. f Acts X. 47. 393 incapable of the salvation promised to the baptized. If, however, baptism, and being ' born again,' be terms of the same meaning, or if one invariably accompanies the other, so that all who are rightly baptized are regenerate, and none else ; then all who die nnbaptized all over the earth, and in every age of the world without exception, are shut out of heaven ! A proposition far more dreadful than any held by the most unfeeling and presumptuous supra-lapsarian Calvinist." This Witness professes to have a sovereign regard for the word of God and the ordinances of his appointment. What is the design of the observation just quoted? Is it not to throw discredit upon His commandments ? To make it manifest that they may be disregarded with impunity ? Does it not show that whoever insists upon their unqualified observance is denounced by this Witness as dreadfully unfeeling and presumptuous ? It is imjjossible that any man can be brought to a saving knowledge of the Scriptures, and at the same time remain ignorant of the obligation he is under of confessing his faith in this divine ordinance. But the Lord will be justified when he speaks, and be clear when he judges.* The Fifth opposes the Third, by saying that " It is evi- dent that adults were baptized by the apostles after they were either really or apparently regenerated ;" but remarks, " that a profession is not a necessary qualification for baptism in all cases, because Cornelius and his house made none ;" yet he acknowledges that, even in this case, " they indeed gave evidence," which is tantamount to a profession ; and then adds, " that at the present time it is indispensable in all cases where adults are concerned. It is however true (says he) that infants are baptized in consequence of a profession of faith ; but it is the profession of their parents, not their own." We are not sure that Cornelius and his household made no profession at their baptism, and we will not believe it upon the credit of this Witness. They were baptized " in the name of the Lord," and doubtless made that confession of their faith in his name (of which they had then a miracu- lous evidence) which all others had made who had been pre- * Ps. li. 4. 394 viously baptized. We find confession of sin and profession of faith in tlie Messiah, mentioned in connexion with bap- tism, in numerous instances ; and though this is not invari- ably the case, it cannot be inferred from thence that they are not necessary. The several instances on record, where a verbal profession of faith accompanied the administration of the ordinance, and this being in conformity with the commis- sion, is authority sufficient for us to demand it in every instance, and we therefore deem no baptism valid, where THIS IS OMITTED. As to infants making confession by proxy, the wonder in my mind is, that a rational being should advance such an absurdity. The Seventh states, that " as certainly as the Acts of the Apostles is of the same authority with the four Gospels, so certainly the argument from Scripture, in favour of infant baptism, is direct and obvious ; and for this reason, that baptism was administered to believers and their houses, as in the case of Cornelius and others." Before Ave can admit that this argument is direct and obvious, we must have direct and positive proof that there were infants in this household ; and not only that there were infants therein, but that they were also baptized. For, as certainly as the Acts of the Apostles is of the same authority as the four Gospels, so certainly is the argument from the Scriptm'es manifestly opposed to infant sprinkling, as in the case before us. The Will asserts, that " Cornelius feared God, with ALL his house." Infants could not, by any possi- bility, be here included. So that the Scriptures, in this (and every other) instance, so far from giving the shadow of countenance to the practice of the plaintiffs, are diametrically opposed to it ; and the following observation of this Witness, that "We have ample room for supjjosing family baptism to be included in the Saviour's commission," is equally opposed to "The Truth." What is here predicated of the household of Cornelius, is incompatible with the supposition that it contained infants. The Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word (that is, upon those who heard it with understanding), and they spake witli tongues and magnified 395 God. After being baptized, they prayed Peter to taiTy cer- tain days. How a man can, by any ingenuity of reasoning, by any inference drawn from this record, show the slightest shadow of authority for the baptism of infants, is to me incomprehensible ; and I am sure it must be equally so to the Court. The Ninth says "That the impugners of infant baptism are pleased to argue much from the absence of all express MENTION of the baptism of infants." This is the fact, Gentlemen; we do argue from the total absence of any mention whatever of infant sprinkling, either direct or implied. And can any argument be more conclu- sive, on a subject that concerns the worship of the true God ; who, in every age of the world, has given ample instruction for the time being in what manner he would be worshipped ? Commanding his people neither " to add unto the word," nor " diminish aught from it." But the defendants, Gentlemen, take higher ground even than this. They assert that the tenor of the commission absolutely excludes children; and this, as already shown, is con'oborated by the naiTative. before us. The defendants are assm*ed, first, that if the term house- hold be considered as including every individual which composed the house, in all the families under conside- ration, infants formed no part of them ; for otherwise the whole house could not have been baptized: and secondly, that neither Cornelius, Lydia, the jailer, Crispus, nor Stephanas would have presented them for that purpose. Neither would any of the apostles have baptized them. This is not a bare assertion ; for they would not so act without a divine command; and no such command has yet been produced. This Witness thinks it absurd to assume, that even if it could be proved that there were on children in any of the said houses, it would be in favour of the defendants ; he thinks this but an auxiliary argument, of very inferior importance, as he tells you he has proved that baptism took the place of circumcision, and conse- quently that the baptism of infants was so much a matter of course as to call for no remark in Scripture history. If this 39G is an auxiliary argument of such very inferior importance, why does he take so much trouble to overthrow it ? Is it from a feeling of compassion towards his weaker brethren, who possibly may not view it as an argument of such little importance — an argument so easily disposed of, that he affects to contemn it; notwithstanding he gives sufficient reason to conclude that he believes the plaintifi''s cause depends mainly upon these very circumstances : but as he proceeds he finds the difficulties increase upon him ; he therefore makes a virtue of necessity, turns round, and tells you he has established his cause independently of the baptism of houses. But where is the proof of it, Gentlemen ? Is it not yet wanting ? Then he tells you, that " it is much more probable that the phrases ' fearing God with all his house,' and ' believing with all his house,' included young childi'en under [the term] believing adults — than that so many houses or families should be consti- tuted only of adults." You see. Gentlemen, a case of such infi- nite importance as the taking upon ourselves the profession of the name of Christ, rests here upon a probability that house- holds, the members of which are said to believe in God, and to fear God, included infants. The probability is, that they did not ; for it is no uncommon circumstance for families to be without young children, or even without children at all ; and if there were any in these families, the certainty is, that they were neither baptized, nor included in the phrases before mentioned. Gentlemen, you will nowbe pleased to turn to the 16th chap- ter of Acts, where you will find the account of the Philippian jailer, who " came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, and brought them out, and said. Sirs, what must I do to be saved ? And they said. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house ; and they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that WERE IN THE HOUSE. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes, and was baptized, he and ALL HIS, straightway — and rejoiced, believinCx in God WITH ALL his HOUSE." It is here expressed as clearly as words arc capable of expressing any thing, that the jailer 397 and ALL his family believed and were baptized. Hear the testimony of the Witnesses. The First admits that " the jailer and all that were in his house were taught the doctrine of the Lord, and were baptized in consequence of their faith." Consequently they ^^ere all capable of receiving instruction. But lest you should think he goes too far by making this admission, he insinuates, that there might be children in the house which were not included in the word all ; because he can scarcely SUPPOSE, that the whole families of Lydia and the jailer had no children in them. He asserts that all the circumstances disprove that there was any immersion in the case, and that the apostles had another method of administering baptism. Because, if they administered it according to the Jewish formalities, it must have required considerable time, and not a little publicity. And that if the jailer had had children, it is not LIKELY that they would be omitted. But as all this rests upon an if^ it is just as likely to be on the other side ; consequently his argument is not worth a rush. He informs you that the Jews were accustomed to receive whole families of heathens, young and old, as proselytes, by baptism ; so here (says he) the apostles receive whole fami- lies, those of Lydia and the jailer, by the same rite ; which rite, he previously informed you, was by plunging : so that even here, were we disposed to attach any importance to what he states, he shows that the jailer and all his house believed and were baptized. We may reasonably conclude, from the doubtful manner in which he expresses himself, that his words are not in unison with his convictions, but that his mind is evidently under the influence of a powerful bias. How dare he say that the apostles " had another method of administering baptism," when Paul, who was concerned in this transaction, posi- tively asserts that there is but " one baptism" ? Consequently, one baptism can only be administered one way. He says, that " it is by no means likely, that there was any immer- sion in the case; that the necessity of despatch, and the words of the text disprove it." 398 The words of the text, Gentlemen, so far from disproving, positively assert that the>' were baptized; and it is foolish- ness to say that the necessity of desiaatch disproves it. There was none of the necessity which he insiiuiates. The doors of the prison were opened by God, and none could shut them until the purpose for which they were so opened had been in due order accomplished. He is anxious to induce a belief that they were not baptized ; but he has not the bold- ness to assert that they were sprinkled. The Second " does not deny the lawfulness of baptizing by immersion," yet he asserts that it is very improbable that the jailer and his house were baptized by dipping, and that it is not in the least probable that Paul himself was so baptized, because it was no ways probable that Ananias should cany him to the river to plunge him. And he further asserts that there is no doubt that the jailer promised to use his utmost endeavour to bring his family to the knowledge and obedience of Jesus Christ, and that on this account Paul baptized his whole house. See here, Gentlemen, we are again environed with probabilities on every side, and then assailed with gratuitous assertions, not one of which has any foundation in the Will. Can you, Gentlemen, allow the plain, direct, and manifest commands of God to be set aside in this manner, and made a dead letter? No. Your verdict will show this to be impossible. By his own statement, this Witness believes that Paul was satisfied with the jailer's sole security for bringing up his family in the nurture of the Lord ; yet he requires for the same pm-pose three sureties for every individual. Is there not in this a great degi'ee of inconsistency. " Dipping then, surely, (says he) cannot be so essential imto baptism, as for want of it to pronounce the baptism of all the reformed churches throughout the world to be null and void, as some amongst us do." The baptism (as it is called) of the reformed churches. Gentlemen, is not baptism ; this is the very thing that we arc contending against. Baptism, in the scriptural sense of the term, considered as the christian initiatory ordinance, is 399 putting a believer under water. This only is baptism; and we contend that this baptism is required of every believer upon his taking upon himself the profession of Christianity, and that whatever is substituted in its stead is a mockery of the Divine Name. And here I openly, fearlessly, and advisedly assert, without dread of contradiction, that (according to the commission of the Testator and the promise thereunto affixed) baptism is so indispensably necessary, that no individual, so long as he lives in the neglect of it, can establish his claim to " an inheritance among all them that are sanctified."* But it is useless^ Gentlemen, to take up more of your time with this part of the Witness' evidence, which furnishes you only with probabilities and improbabilities, in addition to the IPS and presumptions of the Witness who preceded him. The Fourth says that "Paul and Silas exhorted the jailor to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and assured him that in so doing he would certainly be saved. They also included his household in this assurance ; not that his faith could save them, but his example might lead them to be- lieve in Christ also, and have the benefit of the means of grace for their salvation. They then instructed him and all his family more fully in the doctrine of the gospel, and the Lord so blessed the word that he was immediately humbled and softened ; and then, professing faith in Christ, he was baptized in his name, and at the same time all his household was baptized likewise, — and his trembling was turned into joy. ' He rejoiced with all his house, having believed in God.' The language (says he) concerning the baptism of believers and their households, so much accords with that concerning the circumcision of Abraham and his household, in con- nexion with other Scriptures, and with the general and early use of infant baptism in the primitive church, that it must be allowed strongly to countenance the sentiments and practice of Paedobaptists. It seems also most probable, to me at least, that Paul and Silas — did not baptize him and his family by immersion." * Acts XX. 32. 400 Careless and inattentive hearers may imagine that this is a fair representation of the Scripture account of the transac- tion now under consideration. But you, Gentlemen, who listen with attention, will discover its disingenuousness. He says, that the baptism of the jailer's household strongly countenances the practice of psedobaptists. But how does he make this appear? By transpositions and interpolations of the text. Is this unintentional ? Is this statement con- ducted from a pure motive, with a sincere desire to establish truth ? Can he appeal to " his heart searching Judge, that he has spoken word for word what he believes he would have him speak ? " Observe, Gentlemen, how he trans- poses the text; the "Jailer rejoiced (says he) with all his house, having believed in God." Thus insinuating that the whole family rejoiced, but that only the jailer believed. As is generally the case with those who wish to conceal the truth, he betrays himself by inadvertent declarations, for he tells you that Pavxl and Silas " instructed the jailer and all his family more fully in the doctrines of the gospel;" conse- quently we must conclude that they were of a proper age to receive instruction ; and it follows, that being so instructed, and having the same evidence of the immediate interposition of the Almighty power in the behalf of the apostles as the jailer himself had, they were converted to the faith, and made a confession thereof in the ordinance of baptism. The Fifth attempted to prove, in the case of Cornelius, that a profession was not, in all cases, a necessary qualifi- cation for baptism ; and here he denies that faith is a pre- requisite, because it is said of John, that " he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb." But this is nothing to the purpose; what is said of John is said of him as the great precursor of the Testator, and not as an ordinary child ; but even this is not to be taken literally from the day of his birth, but from the time that he was capable of understanding. As it is said of him, " the child grew and WAXED strong in spirit, and was in the desert till the day of his showing unto Israel."* This Witness is of opinion * Luke i. 80. 401 that what was true of John, can be true of any other INFANT. This being the case, why does he not act accord- ingly, and receive all that are brought to him, and not confine christening to the infants of professing Christians? It would have been singularly strange that Paul and Silas (who had been loosed from the stocks in a miraculous man- ner, and called by God to administer the ordinance of bap- tism,) should be ignorant of the character of the persons whom they were called to baptize. They " spake as the Spirit gave them utterance ;" they knew their commission, and obeyed its precepts. Will this Witness assert that they spake to children, that they baptized children, and that chil- dren believed ? No, he was aware this would be contested, and therefore he very prudently and modestly gives up the point, and takes another view of the question, saying, " there is strong reason to believe that in some or other of these fami- lies, and not improbably in all, there were childi-en too young to be baptized on their own profession." The Seventh, " does not believe that the jailer was im- mersed, because, although he is said to have ' brought them out,' it was evidently only out of the inner prison." But, Gentlemen, it is further said, that " he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes ; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway." Now comes the question, whither did he take them ? No doubt where there was water to wash the apostle's stripes, and where there was a sufficiency to baptize them. We are not required to prove how, or where, the water was obtained. It is sufficient for our cause that the Will declares that they were baptized : (we have before stated what we mean by baptism) therefore water must have been somewhere found for that purpose. For ourselves, we see no difficulty in the case; it is our opponents who create the phantasm. We leave it to the Divine Fomidcr himself. He provides the means to accomplish his own designs. The Ninth observes, that it is "at least very far from BEING certain" that there were no infant children in the house, because he assumes the jailer to have been a man in the vigour of life. Assumptions again, Gentlemen ! But 2 D 402 admit his assumption to have been well founded, what does it prove ? There are thousands of men in the vigour of life who have no children. In effect, it is evident that he is con- vinced the words " he believed and all his house," excludes infants, and thus he, like the Fifth, is driven off his ground, and, like him, has recourse to the same evasion, viz., that even if it can be proved that the jailer had no infant children, his is not the only believing family mentioned in the Will from which infants must be excluded. Observe now, his prevari- cation; " It is not (he states) said that they only to whom the word of the Lord was spoken, were baptized ;" and further, that " The account of the baptism is given in a separate verse, and in a different place — where there is no limitation of the persons who were baptized to the adults only, by any terms which designate them as persons ' hearing ' or ' believing.' " Here again. Gentlemen, difficulties increase upon him. First, he attempts to make it evident that there were young- children in the jailer's family, because, forsooth, he was in the vigour of manhood ; finding that this would not serve his purpose, he has recourse to other of the believing families, where there must then have been children, which were said to be all baptized ; but as several statements are made of these families which are inapplicable to infants, we must have them removed out of the way until the apostle has left off speaking, and afterwards have them brought to him to be baptized ; for he says that it was those only to whom the word was spoken that were baptized; of course the children must have been taken out of hearing during the time that apostle was speaking. Is not this serious trifling with the Divine Records ? In Acts xviii. 8, it is written, " And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord, with all his house ; and many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed, and were baptized." TheThird, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Tenth Witnesses do not notice this circumstance, nor the clause wherein the baptism of the individuals here introduced is mentioned (indeed several of them do not notice the others) ; the Seventh freely acknow- 403 ledges that he does not know that there is such a clause in the Will ; and all that the Ninth has to say upon it is coupled with the case of Cornelius : therefore, from the silence of five of them, and nothing being said by the First but of Crispus only, we infer that they all (except the Seventh) cither find it too critical a point to touch upon, or else that they agree vWth the Second and Fourth, the latter of which asserts that " Crispus and all his family had embraced the gospel j" and the former, that " Crispus and his household were brought TO BELIEVE, AND WERE BAPTIZED." We have next Paul writing to the Corinthians thus, " And I baptized also the household of Stephanas." Upon this clause, The First Witness states that they were " probably con- verted and baptized by the apostle himself" The Second asserts that " St. Paul makes honourable mention of Stephanas and his house ; they were the first- fruits of Achaia, i. e. the Jirst there converted to christi- anityr And The Fourth, that " the several persons belonging to his family were qualified for usefulness, and ought to have possessed gi-eat influence in that church, as they were the oldest converts in all Achaia; and as they had habitually devoted themselves to every service, by which they could minister to the good of their brethren." Here, Gentlemen, you have two of the plaintiffs' witnesses testifying that the family of Stephanas were all coverted to Christianity ; and one, that they were probably all converted and baptized by the apostle himself The conclusion then certainly is, that there were no young children in this house- hold. The Seventh merely asks, " is this a proof that they had among them no infants, because they addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints ? You will think it is so. Gentle- men, unless he proves that infants were capable of minister- ing to them. All the others passed the clause unnoticed, except The Ninth, who, as usual, puts forth all his strength, and 404 " darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge," * in order to 251'ove that Stephanas had children of all ages. " How forcible are right words ; but what doth your arguing re- prove ?"t What can be plainer than the words of the apostle, " I beseech you, brethren (ye know the house of Stephanas * which I baptized,' that it is the first-fruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints), that ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us and laboureth." % From these words, is it not evident that there were no children in the household of Stephanas? or that what is said of it, both with regard to baptism and the other circumstances therein stated, has no reference to them ; and is it not manifest that if it did con- tain children, they had attained to sufficient age to confess their Lord and to be baptized? And it is certain that whether the house of Stephanas consisted of children, relatives, or domestics, they were the ' first-fruits,' and consequently the oldest Christians, in Achaia. They were helpers and labourers with Paul in the gospel vineyard, and as such the Corinthians were exhorted to submit themselves to their advice, as experienced Christians, in all matters per- taining to the worship of God. Wliat can be more prepos- terous than the attempt of this Witness to prove from these words that Sylvanus had a wife, and sons, and daughters ? Paul's epistle is addressed to the church at Corinth, which he would not require to be subject to young Christians, the oldest of whom, by the Witness' own account, could not be more than eighteen ; because in the same chapter that Paul beseeches the Corinthians to submit themselves to the house of Stephanas, he exhorts them not to despise Timothy (on account of his youth), whom by way of pre-eminence, he styles " my own son in the faith." § According to this Witness, " to understand the passage rightly, it is neces- sary to observe that Stephanas, the head of the family, had been sent by the chmxh of Corinth to St. Paul at Ephesus. In the absence of the head of the family, the apostle com- mends ' the house ' (the family of Stephanas) to the regard * Job xxxviii. 2. f .Job vi. 2.5. t 1 Cor. xvi. 1.5, 16. § 1 Tim. i. 2. 405 of the Corinthian believers." But the true reading of the passage, Gentlemen, is exactly the contrary of this. Paul exhorts the Corinthians to submit theinselces to the family, not to take the charge of it. Another stumbling block of this Witness is, that as " servants have no power to show hospitality," therefore " they of course are excluded." How can this be, Gentlemen ? Was not Joseph Potiphar's slave ? And was not " all that Potiphar had put into Joseph's hand ? " And was not Joseph at liberty to show hospitality to any he pleased ? Surely then Christian servants, who are the " Lord's free men," might, as occasion required, be directed and entrusted by a believing master to administer to the necessities of the poor saints. What would be thought of a witness in a civil cause, who should come into a court of justice to give evidence upon oath as to the number, age, and sex of a man's legitimate children, giving also the dates when they were respectively baptized, though, on being cross examined, he could not so much as show that the man was ever married, or that he ever had had a child. Would he not, to say the least of him, be expelled from the court. But in this all important case, the learned Judge, and you, Gentlemen of the Jury, think it serves the cause " of truth " to listen patiently to such unwarrantable statements, in order to give the Wit- nesses an opportunity of exposing the weakness of their cause, and thus effectually guard the world against their vanities. We now come to the case of Lydia, which I purposely kept back for the last, as it is upon the baptism of her household that the plaintiffs chiefly fortify themselves; this they think an impregnable tower, because there is nothing said of their hearing or believing ; for which reason, more of the Witnesses spake upon it than upon any of the four other cases. Mounted upon this rock, even the Sixth claps his wings, and begins to shout victory : but still there is no proof of there being unbelievers in her family, any more than there is of there being unbelievers in that of the others. In fact, the subjects of baptism are so clearly defined in the 406 commission, that there was no necessity to particularise them in any instance : yet to guard the unwary against the cavils of unbelievers, the qualifications of the individuals, or that which constituted them fit subjects for baptism, are again pointed out, in four of five cases which are now under consideration. And why, I will ask, was it thought of so much importance by the sacred historian to mention par- ticularly the opening of Lydia's heart, previously to her being baptized, if those whose hearts were still unopened might be partakers of the same privileges that she thereby enjoyed? These Witnesses, by their statements, imply that believers have a delegated power to grant to, or withhold from, their children and dependants the enjoyment of the promised possession. But every believer in Christ knows, as well as he knows his right hand from his left, that those only are the subjects of baptism whose heart the Lord opens. In Acts xvi. 13 — 15, it is said, "And on the Sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made ; and we sat down and spake unto the women which resorted thither. And a certain woman, named Lydia, a seller of pm-ple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us ; whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us saying. If ye have judged me faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us." I shall here just remark, that the Witnesses generally argue that the term house, or household, must of necessity include little children : but this, as every body in the court must know, is not the case. Families without children are so common, as scarcely to call for a remark. Of twenty- five that I am in the habit of associating with, only nine of them have any children under ten years of age. Of the remaining sixteen, some have none whatever, and the others none but such as have arrived at years of understanding. This is a fact, Gentlemen, and a fact which sets at nought all the reasonings and conclusions of the plaintiffs dravra 407 from the mention of households being baptized, even if we had not another argument in support of our cause. For until they can adduce unquestionable evidence that the households in question contained children in an infantile state, and that the infants were also baptized, we pay no regard to their arguments, nor to any statements which are not based upon a more solid foundation. The First Witness comes, in very few words, to a correct conclusion upon this clause. He says, that " Lydia attended to these things ; that she believed them, as the doctrines of God; that in this faith she was joined by her whole FAMILY ; AND THAT IN IT THEY WERE ALL BAPTIZED." The Second says truly, that " the opening of the heart to receive Jesus Christ is the peculiar effect of the sovereign power and omnipotent giace of God ; and that Lydia's faith in Christ gave her a right to baptism." If, then, the faith that gave her a right to baptism could only be communi- cated by omnipotent power, how is it possible that she could communicate it to her children ? The idea is absurd. Yet this Witness tells you, that " all her family, upon her undertaking to bring them up in the knowledge of Christ, were admitted to the ordinance with her." We should feel obliged if our opponents would produce this undertaking of Lydia's, as with all our searching, and we have taken some trouble, we have not been able to discover it. We do not believe that either Lydia, or any other believer, ever gave such an undertaking. Believers are admonished to bring their children up " in the nurture and admonition of the Lord:"* but to give them the knowledge of Christ is the prerogative of God, and nothing less than that knowledge can make them fit subjects for baptism. The baptism of Lydia's household is the leading precedent or excuse for the open, bare-faced manner of making people believe that their children are made heirs of God by sponsors or parents undertaking to believe for them. " Woe to the rebellious children, saith the Lord, that take counsel, but not of me; and that cover with a covering, but not of my Spirit, that * Eph. vi. 4. 408 they may add sin to sin."* As their fathers did, so do they. See, Gentlemen, the fatal effects of prejudice. This Witness, because he was taught in his early days that a child can believe by proxy, still believes it ; and instead of studying the Scriptures with the simplicity of a little child, he, as well as the other Witnesses, his brethren, study them to see how far they can be made to tally with their preconceived opinions. The Fourth, that " Lydia was led to embrace the gospel, and was baptized with her household ; the adult part of which, no doubt, were instructed in Christianity along with her ;" and that " there is no proof that there were any children in her family." Is not this. Gentlemen, tantamount to a direct assertion that her household, like Lydia herself, had their hearts opened previously to their being baptized ? The Sixth and Seventh say that the baptism of families is mentioned in a way that indicates it to have been no extra- ordinary occurrence, but a thing of course, and remarkably so, as in the case of Lydia ; that from the account given of this and other cases, it is evident that the administration of baptism to families was nothing new. They were not sin- gular cases, nor rare cases, nor cases to be accounted for and justified by any peculiarity of circumstance, such as had not happened before, and might not soon happen again; and that unless the defendants can show that these cases were in the circumstances of them extraordinary, and there- fore not fair specimens of what was customary, our ground IS FIRM. Now, Gentlemen, I shall endeavour to convince you that their gTound is not firm, although you may think it unneces- sary, as it has been clearly shown, by one or other of the Witnesses themselves, that the five households believed ; consequently, the baptisms of these families would not be mentioned as matters of course, but as extraordinary occui-- rences, even in the instance of that of Lydia. The book of the Acts of the Apostles is a very brief history * Isaiah xxi. 1. 409 of what took place in the going forth of the gospel, during the jDcriod of time which it embraces. In selecting the events that are noticed therein, the Holy Spirit directed the writer of them to those which are the most illustrative of the power of God in giving success to his Word. It is plain, if we read the whole of Acts xvi., that the conversion of both the households was as much an extraordinary occur- rence, as that of the conversion of Lydia, or of the jailer; both were the effect of an extraordinary interposition of the Most High God. And the mission of the apostles into Macedonia, whither they were called from Troas across the .^gean Sea, was altogether special and extraordinary. Now, Gentlemen, if we take the whole into our view, cause and effect, is it not clear that the Almighty intended us to regard these as extraordinary exercises of his power, producing an extraordinary effect? It would now be thought, by tliose who know the truth, a very uncommon occurrence for a whole household to believe, and become the followers of Christ; wherever such a circumstance occurred, it would be mentioned as something very unusual ; and such is each of these cases, mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, as I shall proceed to show you. An angel of God appeared to Cornelius, saying, " Send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon — he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do." Peter fell into a trance, and it was shown him, by a vision from heaven, that all national distinctions shoidd cease — that the Gentiles were to enjoy the same privileges as the Jews ; and he was exhorted not to call those common whom God had cleansed. Peter returned with the men whom Cornelius had sent; and the Holy Ghost, to give him a still further assurance that the heathens were to be brought into the same fold as the Jews, fell upon them while Peter was yet speaking, and they ALL spake with tongues, and magnified God. And is this one of the cases that had in it nothing extraordinary ? This, the only one upon record in which the Holy Ghost is said to be given to any before they were baptized? This, the most extraordinary case that is related in the 410 Acts of the Apostles ? This, that never happened before ? And, the purport for which the angel spake to Cornelius, for which the vision was shown unto Peter, and for which all the household spake with tongues, being accomplished, This, that shall never happen again ? Only Peter saw the vision of the great sheet, wherein were all manner of four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. But " when he was come up to Jerusalem, he rehearsed the matter to them of the circumcision from the beginning;" and then said, "And, behold, immediately there were three men already come unto the house where I was, sent from Caesarea unto me. And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. More- over, these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man's house. And he showed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him. Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon — who shall tell thee words whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved. And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water ; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ ; what was I, that I could withstand God? When they heard these things, they held their peace."* Therefore, by Peter's own testimony of the vision which he had, and his account of the down-pouring of the Spirit, which was witnessed by the six men that went with him, the apostles and brethren that were in Judea, were con- vinced that " Christ Jesus had broken down the middle wall of partition between" Jew and Gentile. f In the case of the jailer, we have another extraordinary manifestation of Divine inteiiDosition to confirm the apostle's mission. The foundations of the prison were shaken by an earthquake ; and by the power of God were all the doors opened, and every one's bands loosed ; yet not a prisoner escaped: and still, according to the account of these wit- * Acts JOth and 11th ch. f Epb. ii. 11. 411 nesses, this was not a singular case, nor a rare case — only a matter of course. It is evident that the miracle was not per- formed for the sole purpose of liberating Paul and Silas, nor for the salvation of the jailer only, but also for the salvation of his household ; and for a further confirmation that Paul and Silas were the ministers of the true God, and that the messages they brought were dictated by the Most High. We have no account of such a circumstance having happened be- fore ; and we may be certain the like will never occur again. There are no particulars given of the conversion of Ste- phanas and his household; it is only said that they were the first-fruits of Achaia, who became all teachers and labourers with Paul. This also is a singular circumstance. "And Crispus, the chief ruler of the syniigogue, believed on the Lord, with all his house." This is a singular and very rare case. At one time, during our Lord's ministry, the Pharisees inquired, by way of triumph, " Have any of the rulers believed on him?" This was to choke the incipient faith of the officers that were sent to take him. It may be sup- posed that not one instance of the kind could be produced, and as those people, who knew not the law, were denounced as accursed, these officers would in consequence feel alarmed lest they should fall under this malediction. Some of the Pharisees, notwithstanding, did believe, yet they did not confess Him ; but here we have an instance of a Chief Ruler not only believing, but also confessing him in the ordinance of his house. From the striking manner in which the case of Lydia is expressed, there was in it something very particular. We may be certain that Paul had sufficient testimony to convince him not only that the Lord had opened her heart to attend to the words which he spake, but that the members of her house also were under the same influence. I have thus shown that the calling of the households of Cornelius, Lydia, the jailer, Crispus, and Stephanas, together with themselves, were in their circumstances extraordinary cases of divine interposition, and not merely, as stated by the Witnesses, matters of course (a mode of speaking of the divine 412 procedure, if not profane, at least very indecorous) ; and that consequently the plaintiffs' ground is not firm. I there- fore would advise them to move from it as quickly as possible, lest, when too late, they should find it like that upon which stood Korah, Dathan, and Abiram ! The Seventh Witness is certain that Lydia was the only believer, because she said. If ye have judged me to be faith- ful, come into ^ny house. The certainty thereof plainly indi- cates that our opponents are sorely pressed, it being made to depend upon a simple and familiar mode of expression every day used, and which cannot without violence be con- strued to signify any thing of an exclusive meaning. Here, Gentlemen, you have an instance of the miserable shifts to which the plaintiffs are reduced, when they resort to such a prop in order to support their tottering cause. This Witness is certain that Lydia was the only believer in her house, and yet her household were baptized. Dare he assert that she was the only one in the family arrived at years of discretion ? If not, unbelieving adults must have been baptized ; and, re- pentance and faith, previously to baptism, whereon our op- ponents, with all their laxity in such cases, insist, must in this instance have been dispensed with by the apostles. " Having thus (proceeds the Sixth) the unquestionable fact of the baptism of families, a fact according with the ancient practice of the circumcision of families, and sup- ported by the use of a word that properly denotes a man's children or offspring, we are wan'anted to assume that such was the usual practice." We do not deny that the word, in the place here men- tioned, might include the children of the individual ; and we will go further, and say that it might include also servants and inmates. But we do deny that young children are included in four of the cases, and ground our denial on the following reasons. All the house of Cornelius were saved by the word that Peter spake unto them. Paul and Silas spake to the jailer, and " to all that were in his house : he set meat before them, believing in God with all his house." Crispus believed in the Lord with all his house. 413 I (says Paul) baptized the houseliolcl of Stephanas, and they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints. Neither is the baptism of houses a fact according with the ancient practice of the circumcision of families. Under the old dispensation, only males could thus be received into covenant : under the new, both males and females are bap- tized, but neither one nor the other until their hearts are opened. " Although (says he) there is abundant evidence of a change in the rite, there is none whatever of any such change in its administration as excludes children from being any longer the legitimate subjects of its administration." But why does he christen females ? Are we any where told in the Will that by any outward rite they were made members of the Jewish community ? If, as he endeavours to show, "the covenant made with Abraham was the gos- pel covenant under which we live, and which is the basis of the New Testament church ; and the ordinance of cir- cumcision was attached to that covenant as the sign of its blessing and the seal of its promise;" why, if there be only a change in the rite, does he vary the subjects of its admini- stration ? By not christening all the children born of his flock, he neglects the most essential part of the command, the only part on which an anathema was pronounced, which is, " the uncircumcised man-child shall be cut off from his people." According to his own evidence, he leaves them exposed to this dreadful curse ; aye, and he leaves in jeo- pardy some of his christened ones too, for I presume he does not christen them all according to the law of circum- cision, i. e. on the eighth day, which was of the first importance. Add to which, he christens a female child, for which the Lord gives him no authority; and he leaves the servants unchristened, which the law commanded to be cir- cumcised. In fact, he neither takes the law nor the gospel for his guide. If, as a matter of course, all the family were made meet for baptism through the faith of its head, was there any necessity to repeat, upon four different occasions, that the household also believed ? No. It was mentioned in order 414 to warn the unlearned, that they might not be seduced by the sophistry of men, and through their teaching be made to believe that the word house denoted young children. The angel said to Cornelius, Simon shall tell thee words whereby thou and all thy liouse shall be saved. This makes it as clear as the sun at noonday that these families were bap- tized in accordance with the Testator's instruction, " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;" for which reason, these Witnesses say very little upon the promise, nay, some of them pass it unnoticed ; and this Witness is one of them. And why do they not notice it? The reason is plain ; it presents an obstacle which their sophistry cannot surmount. The Eighth says that "the instance of Lydia strongly FAVOURS our practice, whose faith alone is mentioned." This, Gentlemen, is catching at a straw ; for he may rest assured that if it had been discovered that any of her house- hold had been baptized in unbelief, it would afterwards have been said of them, that they had " neither part nor lot in this matter;" as in the case of Simon the sorcerer, who was at the time of his baptism (even though it is declared that he believed, and of course had made a profession to that effect,) "in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity."* The Ninth, after an arduous but fruitless attempt to prove that there were unbelievers in some of the four houses, turns suddenly round, and informs you, that there is a circum- stance strongly confirmatory of the prohahility that the house of Lydia, according to the natural import of the word ren- dered house or family, contained children, and that in an infantile state. This is, that in all the other instances in which adults are mentioned as having been baptized along with the head of the family, they are mentioned as " hearing," and "believing," or terms are used which imply this. Thus he gets himself into a labyrinth. He asserts that the apostles did not baptize the unbelieving adult servants belonging to these families, but that they did baptize their infant children. How can this be, Gentlemen, when it is positively stated in * Acts vii). 13—23. 415 the Will that all the house of Crispus and Cornelius were baptized, as well as the jailer and all his? The circum- stance he mentions, instead of confirming the probability that the house of Lydia contained infants, confirms the fact that it did not ; for why should Lydia's house differ from the others, especially as her case is mentioned in a similar way. The Lord opened Lydia's heart, and she was baptized, and her household. The jailer said. What must I do to be saved ? Believe on the Lord Jesus (was the reply), and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. The expressions are the same in effect. Yet he admits the jailer had no children. After all. Gentlemen, you percei^'e that this is but STRONGLY CONFIRMATORY of a PROBABILITY. The ad- verb strongly, however, being here introduced, affords a strong presumption that this Witness is not himself perfectly convinced of the cogency of his reasoning ; and to us, who require incontestible demon sti'ation, it is literally good for nothing. This, therefore, which he stated to be an auxi- liary argument, I have proved to be no argument whatever. And what we may call his chief argument is of little more weight ; for if, as he asserts, he has established his case by proving from the Old Testament alone, independently of proofs from the New, that baptism took the place of circum- cision, he forsakes the gospel, which remains and cannot be shaken, and cleaves to the law, which has now vanished away ; thus seeking for the living amongst the dead. None of the Witnesses ventured an opinion whether Lydia had a husband, or any of the said four men had wives, except the Ninth, and he only incidentally, in the case of Stephanas. Now, Gentlemen, is it not natural to presume, that, if these Witnesses had come hither to bear true testi- mony relative to the forementioned cases, they would have said no more than this — that there are instances where the word house or household may include children ; but as we have no means of ascertaining that either Cornelius, the jailer, Lydia, Crispus, or Stephanas were married, we cannot without peijuring ourselves say, whether they had children at all, much less in an infantile state. If they had so said. 416 they would have shown themselves upright men, and you would have listened to them as such. I know it is in vain to argue the point, that there either were, or were not, females in any of these four houses, there being no proof either way : but as 1 am allowed to give an opinion, I think there were none, — at least, in some of them, — because there is no allusion to any. The Levitical law made a difference between males and females, and the animals offered for sacri- fices chiefly consisted of males. Male children were circum- cised, and all the first-born of them were set apart unto the Lord. And it is said, " When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons shall be for the Lord by thy estimation. And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old — fifty shekels of silver. And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels. And if it be of five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels." * Now, if the four houses contained no women, (and from what is said of Cornelius, it appears his did not ; for he was told to send men to Joppa, and he sent two of his household servants, and a devout soldier of them that waited upon him continually,) people might imagine that a difference still remained ; but this is not the case, " For," now " ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ ; there is neither male nor female : for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." f As a proof of this, we have Lydia and her household mentioned in terms of nearly the same import as the men and their households. Paul says, " And on the Sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made ; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither ;" plainly intimating that there were no men in the company besides himself and his companions. And from the concise and simple narrative of the transaction, it appears that Lydia and her household were there and then baptized ; consequently it follows that her household must have consisted of females, who were at that time called of * Lev. xxvii. 2—5. f Gal. iii. 26—28. 417 God fi-om among the women who resorted to the river side. The case of Lydia's household must not be taken as an isolated case, as a case that differed from the others, because believing and baptizing are inseparably connected, and the former universally preceded the latter, and must precede it, until "the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, — with the trump of God."* It is contrary to the plain dictates of the Will to believe, that after Paul had had evidence that the Lord had opened the heart of Lydia, and thus prepared her to confess her faith in the ordinance of baptism, he would have baptized her household, unless he had been equally convinced that their hearts had in a similar manner been opened also. This example, like the others, was set us to show, that no individual whatever can be scripturally baptized until after he is taught of the Lord. John wrote " unto the elect lady, and her children," and said, " I rejoiced greatly that 1 found of thy children walking in truth;" surely then, as John was so particular, mentioning the children of this one family, Paul and Peter would have been equally so, if there had been children in any of these five. You observed that the Fifth Witness brought forward the following passages, to prove that Paul, in his ignorance of the jailer's family, used the word house to express his children, in the manner in which it was customarily used by his countrymen. " Come thou and all thy house into the ark." t " Let thy house be like the house of Pharez, whom Tamar bare unto Judah, of the seed which the Lord shall give thee of this young woman." | "Therefore, behold I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam — him that is shut up and left in Lsrael; and will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as a man taketh away dung till it be all gone."§ " Behold, I will take away the posterity of Baasha, and the posterity of his house ; and will make thy house like the house of Jero- boam." II " And I will make thy house like the house of Jeroboam, and like the house of Baash?," &c.11 These * 1 Thess. iv. 16. f Gen. rii. 1. + Ruth iv. 12. § 1 Kings xiv. 10. II 1 Kings xvi. .3. ^ 1 Kings xxL 23. 2 E 418 passages make nothing in favour of the plaintiffs, but against them. In the first, although there were children, they were nearly a hundred years old. In the next, there were none (in Boaz's house) at the time the words were spoken; and what is said of the other houses relates to all the posterity of Jeroboam, Baasha, and Ahab. Consequently there can be no parallel here, unless he can prove that Paul baptized all the descendants of the jailer's house. Now, Gentlemen, I will not only prove to you, by the following passages, that the words house and household do not " properly denote a man's childi'en ;" that they are not generally used (as the Sixth Witness asserts they are) to denote these even exclusively ; but that when it is intended particularly to show that the house did contain children, the children are mentioned as well as the house ; and that wherever either house or household is mentioned in relation to believers, children, by the manner of expression, are uni- formly excluded. " For I know him, that he will command HIS CHILDREN and HIS HOUSEHOLD after him."* &c. " And Joseph nourished his father, and his brethren, and all his father's household with bread," &c. " And four parts shall be your own, for seed of the field, and for food, and for them of your HOUSEHOLDS, and for food for your little ones." f " And thou shalt bring thy father, and thy mother, and thy BRETHREN, and all thy father's household, home unto thee." % "And thou shalt have goat's milk enough for thy food, for the food of thy household, and for the mainte- nance for thy maidens." § " And there were bom unto him seven SONS and three daughters. His substance also was seven thousand sheep, and three thousand camels, and five hundred yoke of oxen, and five hundred she asses, and a very great household." 1| " Then I took Jaazaniah, the SON of Jeremiah — and his brethren, and all his sons, and the WHOLE house of the Rechabites. — And I set before the SONS of the house of the Rechabites," H &c. " It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as * Gen. xviii. 19. f Gen. xlvii. 12. 24. X Josh. ii. 18. i, Trov. xxvii. 27. || Job i. 2, 3. % Jor. xxxv. 3. 5. 410 his Lord. If they have called the master of the house Beel- zebub, how much more shall they call them (the twelve disciples) of his household." * " Who then is a fliithful and wise servant, whom his Lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season." f "Cor- nelius called two of his household (which were) servants." X " Salute Appelles, approved in Christ. Salute them whicJi are of Aristobulus' household. Greet them that be of the household of Narcissus, which are in the LoitD."§ " Let us do good unto all men, especially unto them which are of the HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH." || " Now, therefore, ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God." % " All the saints salute you, chiefly they that are of Cajsar's house- hold."** " Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well." ft Notwithstanding you have been told that these (of the five households) are only auxiliary arguments, they are those upon which the plaintiffs chiefly build their doctrine of infant sprinkling. And you must think it strange that they will hazard their claim to the bequest, that is, their eternal salvation, upon evidence so weak and inconclusive — evi- dence which I have proved by the Will to be false, and which in fact is overturned by other portions of the evidence adduced by themselves. But, Gentlemen, you must think it still more strange that the majority of the people of Great Britain, of each class, should suffer themselves, by " much fair sjjeech," to be decoyed into devious paths by men such as these witnesses. We now come to consider the following passages ; " And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, and said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be con- verted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Wliosoever, therefore, shall humble himself, as this little child, the same is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little * Malt. X. 23. t ^I«tt. xxiv. 45. X Acts x'. 7. § Rom. xvi. 10, II. II Gal. vi. 10. 51 Eph. ii. 19. »* I'bi]. ir. 22. ff 1 Tim. .3. 12. 420 child in my name, leceiveth me."* "Then were brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them and pray : and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer the little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me : for of such is the kingdom of heaven. And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence. "f "And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them ; and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them. Suffer the little children to come unto n^e, and forbid them not : for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them." I "And they brought unto him also infants, that he woidd touch them : but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not : for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you. Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall in novrise enter therein." § I shall here beg to remind you. Gentlemen, that it is your province to keep in mind the whole bearing of the Will, and to draw your conclusions accordingly. There is nothing ambiguous in the Testator's words, " of such is the kingdom of heaven;" and ' reason requires that a sound, honest mean- ing be given to plain language.' These passages are not of such imjDortance to the plaintiff's cause, as they by their Witnesses wish to make it appear ; but still it is my duty to bring them again before you. Compare what the Testator said to Nicodemus, with what he said in these passages to his disciples, and you will clearly perceive that the term little children is used in an emblematical sense only. To the former he said, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." — " Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." » Matt. XTiii. 2—5. + Matt. xix. 13—1.5. + IMark x. 13—16. § Taike xviii. 1.5 — 17. 421 To the latter, " Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." " Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me : for of such is the kingdom of heaven," Here are four different modes of expression, but they have only one ten- dency ; for it is as impossible for a child to be born again in the emblematical manner spoken of by the Testator, as it is impossible for a man to be literally transformed into a child. This is demonstrated by the following passage, " That which is born of the flesh, is flesh" — /, e. in the usual course of nature ; for even if it were possible for a man (as Nicodemus inquired) to enter again into the womb, and be born, he would still remain a natural man. " And that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit," i. e. born anew by the power of the Spirit of God; translated into the heavenly kingdom; made " heirs of the righteousness which is by faith."* Are children capable of being thus made.'' ' Of such, ^ then, can mean no other than those who are taught by the word, through the influence of the Spirit. These are compared to little children, because like them they receive instruction with a willing and unprejudiced mind. None other, according to these passages, can, compatibly with the promise of the Testator, ' enter into the kingdom of heaven.' This appears to me to be the opinion of the First Witness, who says, " As our Lord considers a little child an emblem of a genuine disciple, so by the term ' one such little child,' he means a disciple only?'' If then children are only emblems of disciples, they cannot in reality be " disciples indeed.'''' It is also said, that " who- soever shall do and teach " his commandments, " shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." f And further, that " whoever will be chief among you, let him be your ser- vant." X This the Testator illustrated when he washed the disciples' feet, and said, " Ye call me Master and Lord ; and ye say well ; for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done unto you." § * Heb xi. 7. f Matt. v. 19. + Matt. xx. 27. § John xiii. 1:3—1.5. 422 Thei'e is some little vai'iation in the accounts given of these " little children" in the different Gospels ; but all our Lord's words and actions relating to them were designed to incul- cate a spirit of humility and innocent simplicity, and to show that without it none can be his disciples. His touching and laying hands upon them, was to manifest the great estima- tion in which he held innocence, meekness, humility, and a teachable disposition, qualities which childi^en possess in an eminent degree ; he therefore held them up as fit emblems of the subjects of his kingdom. But it is in vain to reason upon the import or extent of our Lord's blessing, as it is nowhere revealed unto us ; and being nowhere revealed unto us, we may rest assured that a knowledge of it would neither benefit us nor our children. Every thing essential to our happiness, either as regards our present or future state, is revealed in a light as clear and bright as that which " shined round about" Paul, when he was first brought to the know- ledge of the Lord. But the plaintiffs are not satisfied with this silence of the Divine Testimony ; they are determined to supply what in their wisdom appears to be wanting. They therefore tell us that infants were brought to Christ to be " preserved from Satan's power:"* "to be made par- takers of the blessings of his (Christ's) kingdom :" f " to re- ceive his official blessing ;" | Well, even if it were so, is this any reason why they should arrogate to themselves the power of the Testator ; and pretend to transform those into children of light, " by sprinkling a few drops of water upon their faces, who (according to their view) are by nature bom in sin, and the children of wrath"? Surely the water must have a magical effect ! But I am at a loss, Gentlemen, to see any efficacy whatever in the operation : neither does it appear that the Ninth Witness sees any; for he boldly asserts that "all children, dying before actual sin committed, are admitted into heaven." Since (says he) all the children brought to Christ, to receive his blessing, were not likely to die in their infancy, it could not be affirmed that ' of such ' is the kingdom of heaven, if that be understood to mean the * Second Witness. f Eighth Witness. % Ninth Witness. 423 state of future happiness exclusively. As children they might all be members of the church on earth ; but not all as children members of the church in heaven, seeing they (all) might live to become adult, and be cast away." Here, Gentlemen, mark his inconsistencies ! All are saved who die in infancy : therefore the christened have no advan- tage over the unchristened, all being without distinction saved. And further, it appears that this blessing of Christ ^^•ould affect those only who died in infancy, as they might all become sinners, and be cast away. " None (says he) can enter heaven, who do not stand in a vital relation to him, as members of his mystical body." The unchristened do not (by his own account) stand as members, therefore they cannot enter. He makes even our Lord's blessing inefficacious, if they did not die in childhood; thus bringing down the power of the Lord to his own level; making the blessing of the Saviour equally inefficacious with sprinkling. On the other hand, if they died in infancy, they were saved, independently either of his sprinkling or the Lord's blessing. To suppose that children could receive of his Spirit, is contrary to the tenor of the Will ; for we do not read of its being given to any but such as were capable of understand- ing his word ; it is only by the spiritual application of it to the heart, that any one can be enlightened. Even the apos- tles, who had been taught by the Testator himself, could not at that time, from the weakness of their understanding, bear many things which he had to say to them. * Is it not, then, incongruous to suppos ethat the Testator communicated to children that Spirit, which he did not communicate unto his disciples until after his ascension into eternal glory? Those whom our Lord compares to the children who were brought to him, were no more children in years, than those were children in years to whom Paul writes thus ; " Brethren, be not children in understanding ; howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men."t The Testator said, " Behold I send you forth as sheep in the midst of * See John xvi. 12. f 1 Cor. xiy. 20. 424 wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and liarmless as doves."* Now, as our Lord compares his disciples to sheep and doves; if, as it is asserted, infants are fit subjects of baptism, because he, in the passages under consideration, represents his disciples as such, with respect to their characters and disjDositions ; so it might with equal propriety be inferred, that lambs and doves ought also to be sprinkled. The Eighth Witness remarked, that "The Ufjht of nature itself seems plainly to have taught, that young children should be openly devoted to God. It was the custom (says he) of the Romans, on the ninth day from the child's birth, for its friends and relations to bring it to the temple, and before the altars of the gods to recommend it to the protec- tion of some tutelar deity. A ceremony of the same nature was also performed among the Greeks." If he had not after- wards told you ' that baptism now succeeds to circumcision,' you might have naturally concluded that he had borrowed the ceremony of christening from the Greeks and Romans. These Witnesses amuse their flocks with plans and schemes for the salvation of their infants, by telling them that their ' children which are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, shall undoubtedly be saved.' And thus they attempt to put the finishing hand to what they hereby insi- nuate the Almighty has left defective. The plaintiffs must believe that the child will be lost unless it is christened ; or why, as the First Witness remarked, do they " fly for a minister to baptize it when they suppose it is at the point of death ? " But observe their inconsistencies, Gentlemen ! After they, by this ceremony, have made an infant meet to be received into their church, they do not know what to do with it; they therefore leave it, like what is fabled of Mahomet's coflSn, suspended between the earth and the sky. On the one hand, they make the infant a member ; and on the other, they refuse it membership. They introduce it into the church, by a rite in which it can take no part; and they refuse it the * Matt. X. 16. 425 privilege of membership, by withholding from it the bread and wine of which it is capable of partaking, even in an infantile state. There is in this an inconsistency which none of them can reconcile ; and it operates against their system so powerfully, that it cannot be overcome. Of this their Fifth Witness has shown that he is fully sensible, by leaving upon record in this Court the following avowal : " This objection (says he) has in my view a more serious import than any other which has been alleged, and I acknowledge, without hesitation, that the conduct of those with whom I am in immediate communion, and, so far as I know them, their opinions also, with regard to this subject, are in a greater or less degree erroneous and indefensible." And one and all of them are constrained to confess, that after all their solemn pretensions, they are not empowered to remit one sin. For as soon as the child arrives at an age to be able to know good from evil, their handy work is completely marred ; he is found to be " in evil case ;" and the noble structure which they have reared crumbles into dust. Itinay then be inquired, What benefit does the child derive from being sprinkled at so early a period, the advantages and privileges of which have been so much lauded by our opponents ? We can without hesitation safely reply, Not any ; " no, in nowise." Christianity, Gentlemen, is a per- sonal matter, lying wholly with the individual himself and his Creator. Nothing done for him by another can affect his eternal state, as an infant, in any way : but if in after life, under the influence of false teaching, he should place any reliance upon the supposed eflScacy of this rite, so far from being a blessing, it is a curse and a snare to him ; because it induces a false confidence, which soothes him into a persuasion that he is in the way of life, having been, as he supposes, made a child of God : although, according to the Scriptures, he is far off from Him, not having as yet made one step towards the knowledge of his name. Our Lord said to Nicodemus, " Except a man be born again, he can- not see the kingdom of God." This was said to a Jew who had been circumcised ; and, as our opponents affirm that 426 baptism has come in lieu of circumcision, and is intended to answer the same purpose under the Christian dispensation, as that rite did under the Jewish ; then it follows, that if by baptism men are made new creatures under the new dispen- sation, they were by circumcision so made under the old. But our Lord's declaration shows that they were not so made ; that a new birth was necessary to those who had been previously circumcised ; that circumcision did not effect that purpose ; so in like manner would infant sprinkling be equally inefficacious, even if it had the sanction of a divine command. But this, as we have already shown, is not the case. Still it may be (as it has been) said, that if sprinkling a child does it no good, it can at least do it no harm. If our acquiescence in this sentiment will strengthen the cause of our opponents, they are at liberty to make the most of it, for in this we perfectly agree. They may plead, that they who practise infant sprinkling are on the safe side, at least so far as the infant is concerned ; for according to our admis- sion it cannot injure the child, while according to their's it is of vital importance; and therefore they think they cannot be wrong in attending to it. We readily grant, as before inti- mated, that the mere ceremony cannot injure the individual ; unless in after life it lead him to rest in carnal security, and thus go down to the grave with " a lie in his right hand." Gentlemen, in v.diatever light we view the ceremony of infant sprinkling, the consequences are of fatal tendency, both to the christeners and the christened. It is a system of falsehood throughout. The priest, in the first place, causes the sponsors to promise before God what he knows it is im- possible they can perform. He puts to them the question following, " Dost thou, in the name of this child, renounce the devil and all his works ?" They severally answer, " I renounce them all." Then as soon as the child can well speak, the parents, the schoolmaster, and the priest teach the child to utter a falsehood, by putting to it the question, " Who gave you this name } " To which it is taught to answer, " My godfathers and my godmothers, in my baptism, WHEREIN I WAS MADE a member of Christ, the child of God, 427 and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven." And " upon Sundays and holidays, the curate shall dihgently instruct and examine the child," and make him repeat this glaring falsehood as often as he shall think it convenient. When the child is thought sufficiently versed in these things, " The curate shall" make it known to the bishop " in writing with his hand subscribed thereunto ;" and the bishop crowns the whole by saying to the child, " Do ye here, in the pre- sence of God, and of this congregation, renew the solemn promise and vow that was made in your name fi. e. to re- nounce the devil and all his works), confirming the same in your own person.?" To this he answers, as previously taught, " I DO." " And (it is said) there shall none be ad- mitted to the Holy Communion until such time as he has been confirmed, or be ready and desirous to be confirmed." Then he may, if he think proper, eat of The Supper for the first time : or if he think otherwise, he may continue to live, as he lived before, in the neglect thereof; it being optional with himself to eat of it, or decline it ; for whether he eat, or eat not, he is an acknowledged member of the Church of England. Now, Gentlemen, observe what a contradiction is involved in the Kubrick : it says a child is, and it teaches a child to believe, that it was made a member of Christ, &c. when it was christened; yet it does not acknowledge him as such until after he is, or is ready to be confirmed. This, as the Fifth Witness truly asserts, " is irreconcileable with any scriptural views of the nature and importance of the sacra- ment." This incongruity is little observed; parents send their children to be confirmed, as they do to be christened, as a matter of course ; and as a matter of course they are confirmed, " heirs of God," notwithstanding all the ini- quity that they may have committed since they were christened. And this involves a still greater contradic- tion ; for the Rubric does not guarantee their salvation any longer than they remain free from actual transgression : nevertheless the children are informed that "all things" essential to their salvation " have been done as they ought 428 to be :" and they are warned (according to the Fh'st Witness) that " it is an avvi'ul thing to iterate baptism." Thus the solemn mockery is completed; but an awful responsibility is hereby incurred by those who administer the rite. They will have to answer for all the fatal conse- quences resulting therefrom. " Because they have trans- gressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the ever- lasting covenant.'''"^ Listen, Gentlemen, to what has been said by a clergyman of the Established Church; 'All sponsors are believers; all the baptized are regenerate ; all the confirmed forgiven ; all the catechumens elect; all kings religious; all the dead subjects of thankfulness; — to the total oblivion of the pre- sent and eternal distinction between the saved and the lost. The consequence glares and blazes, in the feelings of self- satisfaction which our poor deluded victims enjoy, as sup- posing all their sins are blotted out, — not by having bold- ness to enter into the holiest by the new and living way, but as obeying the demands of the church ; and in such demand seeing nothing to disturb a guilty, nor to soothe a penitent mind ; I mean seeing nothing of this with such distinctness as would be the case if the liturgical language were as clear, cautionaiy, and guarded as we adopt in protecting our worldly interests.' On the one hand, the witnesses endeavour to persuade you that they were believing parents who brought their children to the Lord ; and that no children will be saved unless they are devoted to God by sprinkling : and on the other hand, most of them either assert, or give you reason to conclude, that they derive little or no benefit therefrom. The First says, " Let every parent that fears God bring up his children in that fear, and by baptism let each be dedicated to the Holy Trinity. Whatever is solemnly consecrated to God, abides under his protection and blessing." Here, Gentlemen, he clearly implies that the heirship is secured to all those who are thus dedicated ; and that con- • Is. xxiv. 5. 429 sequent]}' those who are not so dedicated suffer loss to an equal extent as the others are advantaged thereby. But what proof does he bring of either of these positions ? Why this, that " no soul can prove that they cannot be benefited" by being sprinkled. Thus the proof amounts to no more than a mere negative, and consequently leaves both the christened and the unchristened, much in the same state as they were before. And further, in another place, he implies that this dedication is merely a nominal thing. The Second, that " as all that were without the ark pe- rished, and all within the ark were saved; so all that are ingrafted into Christ by faith, whereof baptism is a seal, are saved, whilst the unbelieving and unbaptized perish. Bap- tism is such a mean of spiritual salvation now, as the ark was of Noah's and his family's salvation then." If christening then be considered, like the ark, the means of salvation, all the unchristened must undoubtedly perish. But lest this should be deemed too bold an assertion, he qualifies it, by adding that unchristened infants are not damned, it not being the want of christening which co«(/' wise ; but as he is from custom determined to have the rite performed, all the advantages thereof are to be appro- priated by the parents. The Fifth says, that when children die in infancy, and are scrlpturally dedicated to God in baptism, there is much, and very consoling, reason furnished to believe that they are accepted b(!yond the grave. And mark. Gentlemen, he * Jer. xxxi. 16— !7. 431 fiirther says, " there is (he thinks) reason to hope well con- cerning other children dying in infancy ;" and he implies that children are not entitled to baptism in their own right. What are we to make of this indecisive manner of giving his evidence ? There is much hope, he says, of the chris- tened ! There is reason to hope well of the unchristened ! Observe, then, the great value of this dedication ! It amounts, according to his opinion, to tlie difference between " much hope," and the " reason to hope well" ! The Sixth, that " baptism teaches very s'lgmficanily that even from the womh children are the subjects of pollution ; that they stand in need of participation in the pardon of original apostacy, and of purification from the inherent de- pravity of their nature, in order to their entering hea- ven AND seeing God." Gentlemen, is not this a singular mode of proceeding ; first to institute a rite, that shall indicate the existence of a thing, and then, from that infeiTed existence of the thing, to assume the necessity of the rite? All that has before been stated in favour of these little innocents being proper subjects of baptism, because they were ' of such ' that composed the kingdom of heaven, is forgotten. They are now the subjects of pollution from the womb, standing in need of pardon for original apostacy : so that they vvho were before christened for their meetness for the kingdom of heaven, are now chris- tened to purify them from inherent depravity. The evidence of this witness, like that of the preceding one, is vacillating ; after all we have heai'd of the necessity and utility of christening infants, he says, " We (the plain- tiffs) do not consider the outward rite as essential to salva- tion ; far be it from us to deny that infants may be acknow- ledged to be of the kingdom of God without baptizing them; — far be it from us to pass any sentence of exclusion against the children of our Baptist brethren." Now, Gentlemen, this infant sprinkling, or effusion, must be either right or wrong ; it is either required by the Testator, or it is not. If he think that it is required, he is bound, as a professing minister of the Gospel, to declare it, and warn those whom he calls his 432 Baptist brethren of their cruelty to their childi-en ; he ought not to ' halt between two opinions,' endeavouring to con- ciliate parties so much opposed to each other. He should manfully support the cause which he came hither to defend, and not compromise it. But if he find the position he has taken untenable, let him relinquish it at once, and acknow- ledge that he is " wrong." Does not his own conduct sufficiently show the folly of the system ; and that it deserves all the ridicule with which he says it is assailed } He excludes a portion of the children of his own congregation, by not applying to them the SIGN, which he applies to those "who (according to him) are capable of the thhig signified ;" and this merely because he does not reckon their parents believers : thus tacitly avowing that the cliildren of such parents are not " subjects of the kingdom ; " and yet he does not pass sentence of ex- clusion against the unchristened children of his opponents. Is there not an incongruity here, which he would do well to explain? It appears to him that "infant baptism" is the privilege of the parent, rather than that of the child ; will he say that the child enters heaven through the privilege granted to the parent ? And if the rite be requisite, to cleanse it from its original apostacy ; will he say that those can enter heaven who have never been "purified" thereby \ Let him answer these questions ! The Seventh, that " without baptism, as the sign of the covenant of God, we are taught that no one can enjoy the SALVATION OF GoD. It coiTCsponds in this respect with what is said. Gen. xvii. 14, "The uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul SHALL BE CUT OFF FROM HIS PEOPLE; HE HATH BROKEN MY COVENANT." No assertion can be jjut in stronger language. Now mark how he qualifies it ; " We mean not (says he) to assert, that baptism is absolutely indispensable to salvation." And mark again his wavering; " But cer- tainly (says he) there is a meaning not to be desjrised in the two following passages, John iii. 5, and Mark xvi. 16, in which the ordinance, as well as the blessing it comprises, is 433 expressly mentioned." You see, Gentlemen, that he is bewildered, the subject is above his comprehension. The Eighth, that "it is most evident that infants maybe, yea are to be, received in Christ's name ; and by this we are to understand, receiving them as belonging, or standing in some peculiar relation, to Christ; an infant can no other- wise STAND, than by being solemnly devoted to him, and admitted into his kingdom and church — that as they are con- demned through the first Adam, and treated as sinners, so they should be justified through the second Adam, and treated as righteous. But if they were to be treated as righteous, and to be solemnly declared apart of that society, or church, whom Christ came to save, they were to be baptized, for BAPTISM WAS THE CEREMONY IN WHICH ALL who by God's command had a right to salvation, were to be admitted into the church, and solemnly declared of the number saved." This witness does not understand the text* upon which he argues. He does not distinguish between a babe in years, and a babe in Christ. The meaning of " receiving one such little child," is made plain to the most common understand- ing, where it is said, " Whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones," meaning his disciples, or any righteous man, " a cup of cold water only, in the name of a disciple — he shall in no wise lose his reward." But no unbaptized person can, according to the Will, be either received, or acknowledged, as one of these little ones. Infants, it is true, are condemned through the sin of Adam, but their condemnation extends no further than subjecting them to tem])oral death ; and even when they are ' taken away,' it may be said of them, as it is said of the righteous, " they are taken away fi-om the evil to come."t Adam's sin does not, and cannot, subject them to the second death. This death is reserved for those only who are capable of committing sin, those who die in their sins through unbelief. It is for them to be ever dying, and never knowing release from pain. Now, Gentlemen, observe that this witness, in one part of * Matt, xviii. .5. f Isa. Ivii. I. 2 F 434 his testimony, would in his way lead you to suppose that infants are to be received in Christ's name ; that they have a KIGMT to salvation ; and that their being baptized is a solemn declaration that they ai^e of the number saved. Then he gives you his definition of the word salvation, as he here uses it, which is this — a probability that " the dying infants of good men, which, according to God's com- mand, have been solemnly devoted to him, whom he hath acknowledged for his children, and to whom he hatli by a sacred covenant promised to be a God ; will someivhere or other be placed in a state of probation, under circum- stances far more advantageous and favourable than others." Here, Gentlemen, another new doctrine is advanced, — one directly opposed to all scripture testimony on that subject, — a probation in the world to come ! This, however, is but the natural consequence of dissenting from the Will : and the evidence of the Witnesses, departing as it does from this invariable standard, is but a labyrinth of errors. Sensible of the awkwardness of the position in which they stand, they have recourse to one artifice after another to relieve themselves from embarrassment. The Ninth Witness says that " No one can be of the KINGDOM OF GoD IN HEAVEN, wlio docs uot stand in a vital, sanctifying relation to Christ, as the head of his mystical body, the church on earth, the initiatory rite into every part of ivhich church is baptism." According to the reasoning of this Witness, therefore, every infant who dies unchristened, never having been in- ducted into the visible church, is shut out of the kingdom of heaven. Yet he contradicts himself, when he says, " We willingly admit that all children, dying before actual sin committed, are admitted into heaven through the merits of Christ." Thus he vitiates his own evidence ; and, after taking up so much of your time in the vain endeavour to prove the necessity and utility of sprinkling infants, he turns round (as in other instances, according as it suits the point which he wishes to establish), and tells you it is a useless rite, the unsprinkled, as well as the sprinkled, being saved. 435 And what could you expect, Gentlemen, but prevarication, from a Witness who came into Court predetermined to sup- port a doctrine, which, if we may judge from other parts of his evidence, he knew to be indefensible. This Witness continues, " Since all the children brought to Christ to receive his blessing were not likely to die in their infancy, but some might live to become adult, and be cast away; it could not be affirmed that" such " were of the kingdom of heaven." And again ; " the previous relation of infants to Christ, as accepted by him, is an argument for their baptism, not against it ; seeing it is by that that they are visibly recognized as the formal members of his church, and have the full grace of the covenant confirmed and sealed unto them ; with increase of grace as they are fitted to receive it: besides the advantage of visible connexion with the church, and of that obligation which is taken upon them- selves by their parents to train them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. In both views, then, of such is the kingdom of God, members of his church on earth, and of his church in heaven, if they die in infancy, for one is necessarily involved in the other." We cannot, scripturally speaking, say that infants have the same previous relation to Christ that believers have. For the Testator said, " My mother and my brethren are those which hear the word of God, and do it." * Infants cannot be included in this relationship ; why then are they chris- tened ? By his own showing, if the unchristened die in infancy, they are on a par w ith the christened ; and if they do not die in infancy, their cases are similar : tlierefore whether they die or live, there is no difference between them; save and except that the christened are " visibly recognized as the formal members of the church on earth." Mark, Gen- tlemen, FORMAL members only. Behold, then, the extent of this their so much boasted privilege ! Again, according to the Will, baptized believers go on increasing in the know- ledge of God, until they are filled with the knowledge of his will, in all wisdom and spiritual understanding." f But this * Luke viii. 21. f Col. i. 9. 436 the Witness reverses in the case of sprinkled infants ; they have first the full grace of the covenant, conjirnied and sealed unto them ; and then, if they live, they go on decreasing it, until they lose it altogether. The Tenth, as far as I am able to understand him, did not come hither to bear evidence either for or against the use, or the abuse, of infant sprinkling ; but to endeavour to prove that being put vmder water is not the only baptism which the Testator required of the heirs of his kingdom. He does not understand the import of this great and primary New Testament ordinance, as instituted by the Word of God ; but, being " wise in his own conceit," he fancies that the way in which the Holy Spirit introduces, in several passages, the words baptized and baptizing, gives him a fair opportunity of turning it into ridicule ; he will find, however, that such conduct will not add to his popularity in this Court, what- ever it may do elsewhere. Now, Gentlemen, although it appears to be pretty gene- rally supposed, by the majority of the plaintiffs, that the eternal state of an infant is not secure without a little of the helping hand of man previously to its departure hence, it does not appear to be the opinion of any of their Witnesses, except the Third; and he only thinks so because it is accord- ing to the twenty-seventh article of his church ; and because " ONE OF HER MOST HIGHLY ESTEEMED BISHOPS" Cautions parents not to deprive their children, by importune delay, of the advantages attendant on their being dedicated. I presume it is thought politic to let the people remain in ignorance on this subject; although sometimes it is incau- tiously let out in other places, as it has been in this Court? that christening an infant is altogether a useless ceremony. For instance, expressions such as the following have occa- sionally fallen from ministers of the Establishment, when they happened to arrive a minute or two too late, i. e. after the child has died. " Well, poor innocent, we have no fear of its happiness ; although it is a pleasant thing to devote it to the Lord ! " Devote what ? A dying child ! Notwithstanding this expression, — we have no fear of the 437 happiness of the departed innocent, — what follows is ex- pressive of some anxiety as to its future felicity ; for unless the child could be benefited by the dedication, why should it afford the minister any pleasure ? In times now happily gone by, the national religion was supported by the sword — but we can never be sufficiently thankful that we are placed under a mild and liberal govern- ment, which permits every man to sit " under his vine and under his fig-tree," none daring to make him afraid ; he may- stand up in his Master's cause without fear, and not only even question (upon scriptural authority) the polity of that church which is supported by the state, but give his opinions all the publicity in his power. We therefore, with humble boldness, withstand the jilaintiffs, because we deem them worthy of blame. Our contest is not against worldly powers ; we seek not in any way to deprive them of their revenues, nor to intermeddle with the management of their spiritual or tem- poral affairs ; but we contend " against the rulers of the dark- ness of this ^A'oiid, against spiritual wickednesses in high places,"* — against those who have gained an ascendancy over men's minds, — those who propagate eiTor under the semblance of trutli. " The weapons of our warfare," Gen- tlemen, " are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds," f — " the opposition of science, FALSELY so Called." It is in vain for our opponents to attempt to alter the form, or to take a stone here and there out of this strong hold, replacing it by another, by way of strength- ening the building, or beautifying its exterior. The structure is not based upon a solid foundation, therefore neither repairs nor beautifying can preserve it ; it must ultimately be levelled with the ground; and the " Word of Truth," according to the commission given to Jeremiah, shall be fulfilled. " See (saith the Lord), I have this day set thee over the nations, and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant.";!; Or, as it is said in Ezekiel,§ "I will overturn, overturn, overtvmi it ; and it shall be no more, until he come whose * Eph. vi. 12. t 2 Cor. x. 4. X Jer. i. 10. § Ezek. xxi. 27. 438 right it is ; and I will give it him." In short, Dagon must fall " upon his face to the ground before the ark of the Lord," * and not even a stump be left to him. The First, Second, Third, and Sixth Witnesses admit that the Testator instructed his disciples that they should be converted, and become as little children. The Fifth says that " such an interpretation is undeserv- ing of refutation." The Eighth, that " if our Lord meant his disciples to understand ' of such,' to mean of a child-like disposition, his conduct would be extremely absurd.'''' The Ninth, " The absurdity that ' of such,' means of such like, is its own refuation." But, Gentlemen, I ajjpeal to you, and ask if the absurdity be not in the opposite in- ference ? To affirm that the conduct of the Lord, under any circumstances, could be absurd, 1 consider a very great licence, and to savour of blasphemy. When his name is called in question, it should be with the most profound reverence and humility. Although the First, Second, and Sixth admit that in one sense the words ' of such ' applied to a disciple, yet they say or intimate that in another they applied to children, and were designed to show that the kingdom of God is composed ^ of such ' Uterally. According to the Fourth, the kingdom of heavenly glory is chiefly constituted of such. Then, if they be correct, and the kingdom of heaven is composed of infants, and they themselves are to become like ' such ' infants, the same question as Nicodemus put to our Lord may well be put to them — " How can these things be ? " And you. Gentlemen, will naturally enquire, " Are ye masters in Is- rael, and know not these things .'"' f This is the reason why the plaintiffs take upon themselves to give to infants such a qualification as the whole bearing of the Will shows to be impossible ; as impossible, indeed, as it would be for men to enter the invisible kingdom, who were debarred therefrom until they should be previously transformed into children in years. And after all this, they * 1 Sain. V. 4. t See John iii. 9—10. 439 tell you that the induction in question is unnecessary ; or, that if it be omitted it does not much alter their case. I shall here make a remark upon the following question put by the Second Witness ; " If Christ denies not infants the kingdom of heaven, which is the greater, what reason have his ministers to deny them the benefit of baptism, which is the less ?" Even here. Gentlemen, 'you will observe there is an IF, and until the God of truth shall be pleased to change this if into a certainty, the conclusion can have no foundation : for although the plaintiti's witnesses bring forward many passages by which they pretend to prove the salvation of infants, it yet remains one of those " secret things" which belong to God. Men may conjecture, but God has nowhere expressed it in his word. If we take upon ourselves to assert that the words " of such is the kingdom of heaven," are to be understood of infants literally, and that they are in a state of salvation, still we must confess it is in a way unknown to us; for the Testator has not informed us of any other way of sal- vation, but by faith ; and it is impossible that infants can have faith. We know that baptism is only a sign, and we know also that the sign cannot be administered, according to the true intent of it, to any but those who have faith in the thing signified' ; for none can be scripturally baptized until they are taught from " the Oracles of God." But why speak of chil- dren being in a state of salvation, when they have never com- mitted sin, are not under its dominion, and consequently are not exposed to the second death,which follows the commission of it; for " sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death."* The Third Witness says that " every unbeliever, and every sinner, although made by baptism a member of Christ, and a child of God, must be in a certain sense converted, if he would ultimatehj succeed to his inheritance of the kingdom of heaven." Now, Gentlemen, what is this, but telling all those who have been brought up under the fos- tering care of the Church, (and who have been made to say a thousand times, " I heartily thank our heavenly Father that he hath called me to this state of salvation, through * James i. 15. 440 Jesus Christ our Saviour,") that the Church has deceived them, that it has not made them actually what it professes to have made them ; that in their present state they have no claim under the Will, and that if they shall ultimately suc- ceed to it, they must be converted and taught of God. In short, it is a candid confession that his predecessors, who built the tower, " did not first sit down and count the cost;" for certainly all that behold it may take up the language of mockery, and say, " These men began to build, and were not able to finish."* They for a time have deceived the inexperienced, by putting on their edifice a fair outside ; but the messengers appointed to make known the purport of the Will, by the power given them by the Testator, have scraped off the " untempered mortar " with which the builders "daubed it," and thus exposed to general view the weakness and unsubstantial form of the superstructure. It is the word going forth in power that shakes it, and stone after stone is falling, in such rapid succession, as to surprise even the descendants of the early architects. What remains of it is " as a bowing wall, and as a tottering fence ; " t a monument of the folly of the builders. The time is fast approaching, which, according to the prophecies of Daniel and of the Revelator will bring destruction upon every house which is not esta- blished upon the Rock of ages, and they shall be desolate, like the proud city of which Seraiah said, after he had bound a stone to the prophetic book, and " cast it into the midst of Euphrates, Thus shall Babylon sink, and shall not rise from the evil that I will bring upon her." | " Then (it is said in Zephaniah) will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve HIM WITH ONE CONSENT." § I now shall draw your attention to the evidence given on 1 Cor. vii. 14 ; " For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband : else were your children miclean, but now are they holj^" The First Witness says, that "if this kind of relative sanctification were not allowed, the children of those parents * Luke xiv. 29. f Psa. Lsii. 3. + Jer. li. 63, 64. § Zepli. iii. 8, 9. 441 could not be received into the Christian church." To this I answer, that the New Testament nowhere informs us, either directly or indirectly, that the church of Christ ever received into its communion infants of any sort ; and whatever Ter- tullian may say of infants being consecrated, it can be no argument with men who are determined to abide by the plain and simple import of the Will, The quotation from his work only shows us that he considered every one to be a Christian, wdio merely adopted the name, and refrained from some of the enormities of the heathen. The Second, that " the children of believing parents are not common and unclean, like the children of infidels." But God showed Peter, by a vision, that the Gentile was no more unclean than the Jew. And it is neither a " bold practising" upon the Scriptures, nor a "wracking," nor a " wresting" of the word of God (as this witness asserts that it is), to maintain, that the children being called holy means no more than that they are legitimate, by the same rule as the husband or wife being called sanctified meant nothing more than that the calling of the one did not annul their marriage contract. It is contrary to the Will to suppose that the calling of the one could confer any inherent sancti- fication on the other. And it is manifest that it did not, because it is said in the next verse but one, " For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband ? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wdfe ?" And it would not be forcing the Scriptures to say, what knowest thou, O wife, or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt be made instrumental to the salvation of thy children } The apostle Paul, so far from making any difference as to children, declares that " God hath made of one blood all nations of men," and that " there is no dif- ference between the Jew and the Greek;" consequently, there can be no difference in their children, so long as they remain in an infant state. This witness accuses the Jews of "bragging" of " their natural birth and descent from Abra- ham, as being of his blood and offspring;" and asserts that " men become not the children of God by natural propaga- 442 tioii," and that " no external privilege or prerogative what- ever, without faith in Christ, is any whit available to salva- tion." Y<'t, Gentlemen, this is he who asseverates, that the HOLY seed of Christians is not common and unclean like the children of infidels, but seminally holy; for which reason he says they "ought to be admitted to baptism, and receive the sign of the Christian covenant, the laver of regeneration, and so be entered into the society of the Christian church." 'The sanctification of the unbelieving wife to the believer, being opposed to the legal uncleanness of an alien to a Jew, must relate purely to the marriage relation, and signify that she was a lawful wife to him ; even as the meats formerly held unclean by the law of Moses, were now sanctified to him, or made lawful for his use.* And of what other sanc- tification or holiness can we suppose an unbeliever capable ? The apostle further observes, that unless their unbelieving wives were thus sanctified, their children also would be unclean. The uncleanness of the children, being stated as a consequence of the supposed unlawfulness of the unbelieving party, must necessarily signify illegitimacy ; for though they were begotten in marriage, yet upon supposition that the marriage itself be unlawful, they must in consequence have been an unlawful issue : and their being called holy can signify nothing more than their being legitimate — as opposed to their uncleanness as before explained. As the unbelieving party is sanctified, only in respect of being a lawful husband or wife to the unbelieving one, so the children can have no holiness in consequence of this, but that of being a lawful issue.' Surely, then, this affords no argument for the chris- tening of children. In fact, I cannot see how the apostle could have expressed himself in a clearer manner, unless he had accommodated his language more to the understanding of these witnesses, and substituted the word ' bastards ' for 'unclean,' and 'lawful' for 'holy.' We were previously led to believe that sprinkling infants succeeded to circumcision ; biit now w^e are told, by The Eighth Witness, " that our Lord himself, when an * 1 Tim. iv. 3—5. 443 infant, passed under a sacred ceremony, of the same nature with our infants when we bring them to be baptized ; and that the several Scriptures (1 Cor. vii. 14, and Luke ii. 22, 23.) being impartially \^eighed, the propriety and fitness of bringing children to baptism seems to be established beyond all rational doubt." But, Gentlemen, this is not a legitimate inference. In the former text, we are not told that the children were subjected to any ceremony : but in the latter, we are informed that our Lord, like every other Jewish male that opened the womb, was called holy ; that he was brought by his parents to Jerusalem ; and that on the forty- second day after his birth they presented him to the Lord, and offered a sacrifice " according to that which is said in the law, * A pair of turtle-doves or two young pigeons.' " Now if the plaintiffs take this as their authority, they depart from it in a very unaccountable manner. They not only pay no regard to the forty-second day after the birth of the child, but they reckon all the successive children holy, whether male or female, as well as the first. Whereas, according to the law of purification,* if the}' take that as a precedent for their unscriptural rite, they should only bring the first- born to be christened, and that onhjm the event of its being a male, and even then only on the forty-second day. And if they take the law of circumcision for their authority, they ought to christen on the eighth day, and only on that day, and then the males only. But, in fact, they neither follow the law of purification, nor yet that of circumcision. They pay no attention either to the forty-second, or to the eighth day, but blend the two rites together, and follow the example of neither. The Fourth says, " Something more must be meant by the believer 'sanctifying' the unbelieving party, than merely legalizing the marriage ; for that would have been valid and lawful if both had been unbelievers, and the children would not really be more ' holy ' in respect of their nature if one parent was a believer, than if both were unbelievers. But as the word ' unclean' is frequently used in a relative sense, * See Lev. 12th chapter. 444 denoting unfit to be admitted unto God's ordinances, and ' holy,' the contrary, — as in this sense the male children of the Jews were ' holy,' and so the partakers of circumcision, while those of the Gentiles, and even such as had one idola- trous parent, were ' unclean,' and excluded from circumci- sion,— I cannot (says he) but conclude — that the baptism of the infant oifspring of Christians is here evidently referred to, as at that time customary in the churches ; and that the Corinthians knew that this was not objected to, when only one parent was a Christian." Paul, in answer to some questions that had been pro- posed by the Corinthians respecting marriage, says, " that this is good for the present distress — for a man so to be" (unmarried) , And to the unmarried and widows, he says, "It is good for them if they abide even as I." But although he gave this advice, it was not to affect those vrho had been already married, whether believers or unbelievers. He admonishes these to remain as they were. Therefore, in the event of a husband or wife being called of the Lord, it should make no difference in the marriage relation ; for if that should disannul the marriage contract, the children would thereby be rendered illegitimate. But if the unbeliev- ing husband or wife chose of their own free will to "depart" from the believer, " a brother or a sister was not under bondage in such cases;" and where that was the case, the separation would not affect the legitimacy of their children. Whatever state a believer was in when he was called, he was to use no unlawful means to change it. " Art thou called being a servant ? Care not for it." " Is any called in uncircumcision ? Let him not become circumcised." The Corinthians did not doubt the marriage of unbelievers being legal ; their doubt appears to have been, if one of them were to be called of God, whether that circumstance would make it illegal. Paul tells them it would not, " else were your children unclean," or illegitimate. And he shows that one of them being called was an advantage, as it might be the means in the hands of God of saving the other. Every Jew was commanded to circumcise his child. We do not read 445 in the scriptures of any exception. Nor do we read of chil- dren under any circumstances being reckoned ceremoniously unclean ; nor of any children being called " holy," except " the male that openetli the womb." These only were de- voted to the Lord. But, Gentlemen, I am taking uj) your time unnecessarily. The Lord said to Abraham, " Every man child among you shall be circumcised — he that is born in thy house, or bought with money of any stranger which is not of thy seed." * Here you see a child was to be cir- cumcised, both of whose parents were idolaters. The New Testament gives no instructions either directly or indirectly respecting infants; whatever meaning, therefore, we may attach to the term " holy," in the passage before us, it can have nothing to do with bajjtism. But if, as the wit- nesses say, the rite of sprinkling succeeded to circumcision, and if it ought to be administered to the same subjects as circumcision was under the old dispensation, how does it happen. Gentlemen, that this witness argues that it ought only to be administered to the children of Christian jiarents, or to childi'en one of whose parents at least was a Chris- tian ; and more especially as he acts contrary to his own principles, and christens every child that may by chance be brought to him for that purpose ; although in most cases he well knows that the parents are unbelievers? We now come to the clause in 1 Cor. x. 1, 2 ; "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea. And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." On which. The First Witness remarks, that "The children of Israel were all baptized unto Moses. Rather into Moses, — into the covenant of which JNIoses was the mediator ; and by this typical baptism, they were brought under the obligation of acting according to the Mosaic precepts ; as Christians, receiving Christian baptism, are said to be baptized into Christ, and are thereby brought under obligation to keep the precepts of the gospel." This is a correct explanation of the * Gen. xvii. 10— 12. 446 passage, and he would have been wise if he had contented himself with this explanation ; but his head being filled with the idea of sprinkling infants, he, like the other Witnesses, supposes that the cloud, the symbol of God's presence, was only a common cloud, containing aqueous vapours. This to me appears contrary to the fact, as it is said, " the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way ; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night."* "And in the morning ye shall see (the cloud) the glory of the Lord." f It shows a perversity of disposition in any one who imagines such a cloud as this to be composed of " aqueous particles^'' or that from a cloud which was the symbol of God's presence should descend rain ; and more especially to plead this circumstance as an excuse for sprinkling infants. But this is of the same cha- racter as other parts of their evidence. They compare the bright shining light of the dispensation of our Lord, with the " blackness, and darkness, and tempest of Mount Sinai. "| Besides, if the cloud performed the threefold office, and supplied the Israelites with a sufficiency of " aqueous par- ticles, not only to cool the atmosphere, and to give refresh- ment to themselves and their cattle, but to supply them so abundantly as thoroughly to envelop or suffuse them ; why did they murmur on the third day because they had no water? Or where was the necessity of the Lord supplying them with water out of the rock, if, as this Witness states, they had such an abundant supply from the cloud ? Did he never read Isaiah's allusion to this cloud ? " The Lord will create upon every dwelling-place of Mount Zion, and upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day, and the shining of a flaming fire by night ; for upon all the glory shall be a defence." § Or what does he mean by saying the apostle represents them as being sprinkled or immersed ? the terms are not synonymous. He came hither to prove that they were sprinkled. The Second says, " Their passage seemed to be buried in the waters, as persons in that age were put under the * Exod. xiii. 21. f Exod. xvi. 7—10. + Heb. xii. 18. § Isa, iv. 5. 447 WATER when they were baptized." Now, if in that day, when people were put under water, they were said to be baptized, and if this " were a figure to which our baptism answers," how comes it to pass that the word baptize has not the same meaning now as it had then ? A satisfactory answer to this question will show that it means immersion, in ALL CASES where it is applied to the ordinance of the Tes- tator. And it will also show that sprinkling a child is not figurative of the baptism he describes. The Fourth, " Thus they (the Israelites) were initiated by baptism into the true religion, under the instruction of Moses, the type of Christ; by the overshadowing cloud, and by the waters of the sea: and the whole nation, men, women, and children, w'ere acknowledged as the visible church of God, in a manner which resembled that by which all pro- fessed Christians were admitted into the church at baptism." I presume he means, that the children, by passing with their parents through the Red Sea, were thus acknowledged as a part of the visible church of God ; and consequently that it is a precedent for the induction of infants by the rite of sprinkling into the same church. But if, as he says, it was a resemblance of the baptism of professed Christians, how can it at the same time resemble infant sprinkling? things so entirely different from each other. The Fifth Witness informs us, that "there is no account whatever in Exod. xiv. 19, 20, of the baptism mentioned by St. Paul, but that svhat Moses omitted, Asaph has particu- larly recorded, in the 77th Psalm ; and he adds, ^^ happily for ns, we have so particular an account of this transaction." But, unfortunately for our opponents, he is mistaken, Asaph is commemorating the great power of God, and commences with the actual deliverance of his people from Egyptian bondage — " Thou hast with thine arm redeemed thy people, the sons of Jacob and Joseph;" then the account of their passage, "The waters saw thee, O God, the waters saw thee; they were afraid ; the depths also were troubled ;" then the account of the seventh sign, by which God showed his great power unto Pharaoh, " The clouds poured out water ; 448 the skies sent oxit a sound: thine arrows also went abroad. The voice of thy thunder was in the heaven : the lightnings lightened the world : the earth trembled and shook." Now, Moses particularly describes the terrific sign, in the ninth chapter of Exodus : " I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people. To-morrow, I will cause it to rain a very grievous hail, such as hath not been in Egypt since the foundation thereof, even until now. And the Lord sent thunder and hail, and the fire ran along upon the ground, and the Lord rained hail upon the land of Egypt. So there was hail, and j^re mingled with the hail, very grievous. And Moses spread abroad his hands unto the Lord : and the fhu?ider and hail ceased, and the rain was not poured upon the earth." This account has no relation to the crossing of the Red Sea ; none of these dreadful signs either preceded or accompanied that event. When the people murmured, being afraid of the Egyptians, the order given to Moses was simply this, — " Speak unto the children of Israel that they go forward : but lift thou up thy rod, and stretch out thine hand over the sea, and divide it: — and Moses stretched out his hand over the sea ; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground : and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand and on their left." This witness asserts that the Israelites were not even sprinkled by the sea, much less immersed, and that there is no account that they were baptized in the cloud (unless the account given by Asaph be admitted — this I have shown you related to the seventh sign) ; his evidence, then, goes to prove that the Israelites were not literally baptized cither by the cloud or the sea — consequently, there was no cleansing accomplished by the sprinkling of rain. This will sufficiently answer The Seventh Witness, and prove to you that the Israel- ites, having their children with them, when alluded to by Paul, is no figure of infant sprinkling. 449 Tlie Eighth imagines, that " the same instrument was employed to keep the waters divided, as was em]3loyed to divide them ;" and that consequently, as a matter of course, the Israelites " must have been sprinkled with the spray of the tossing waves." Thus he plainly implies that the Almighty had not the same power over the spray as he had over the body of the waters. Is it not strange that ignorant man will not allow him " who spake and it was done; who commanded and it stood fast,"* the merit of performing a complete miracle ? Who but men like these could conceive of sprays flying from a wall of " congealed " water ; or that the same mighty power which " made the waters stand as an heap,"t could not still the tossing waves? Yet this Witness, in his great wisdom, asserts that " here (in this clause) there is another incontestible evidence of scripture baptism without immersion." This "incontestible evidence," I grant, is of equal authority with all that the witnesses have brought forward in support of their cause ; but, like every other part of it, it flills before the word of God, even as Dagon fell before the Ark. The way in which the Tenth Witness speaks of this text is in my view impious. And having before called your atten- tion to the manner in which he treats different passages, which he either does not, or pretends not to understand, I have only to request your attention to my former remarks. Mark now, Gentlemen, the contradictory opinions of the Witnesses ! The First says that they (the Israelites) were sprinkled or immersed by the cloud ; he says nothing of the sea. The Second, that they were sprinkled by the cloud, and seemed to be buried in the waters. The Eighth, that they were aff'used by the cloud, and sprinkled by the sea. The Fifth, that, according to Asaph, the clouds poured forth water upon them. If the evidence of these four witnesses be true, there is no reliance to be placed upon the testimony of the Almighty. * Psa. xxxiii. 9. f Psa. Ixxviii. 13. 2 G 450 He said that " the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea, upon dry ground." They say that the sprays from the sea, and the waters from the cloud, wet the Israelites ; of course, the same sprays, and the same pouring down, woidd wet the earth, and consequently they did not go over on dry ground. The next passage to which I shall call your attention, is 1 Peter iii. 21 : " The like figure whereunto, even baptism, doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God), by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Upon this, The First Witness observed, that " Noah believed God, and obeyed him, in building the ark, and that God made it the means of his salvation from the deluge ; that the waters of the flood would not have saved him, had he not made use of the ark ; so the water saves no man, but as it is the means of getting his heart purified by the Holy Spirit. The ark was not immersed, but sprinkled with the rain that fell from heaven." And this he thinks conducive to the plaintiffs' claim, being, " from the circumstances, in favour of sprin- kling." But he sees nothing in the text in behalf of immer- sion in baptism. It would have been as good sense if he had said, he sees nothing of immersion in immersion, or of baptism in baptism. The text was not intended to explain the import of the word baptize ; but to show us, that the unbelievers of the former world were under condemnation, and that as Noah was saved by believing God, and mani- festing his faith by building the ark, and entering into it as he was commanded, so the unbelieving world is now under condemnation, and there is no way of escape for any, but by repentance, and faith in the Son of God ; that faith being avowed, by a public confession, in the ordinance of baptism. Hence the figure; as Noah was saved by believing and passing through the flood in the ark, so we shall be saved by believing and passing through the water in baptism. The Second spake boldly and truly: he informed you " that as all that were without the ark perished, and all within the ark were saved, so all that are ingrafted into 451 Christ by faith, whereof baptism is a seal, are saved, whilst the unheUeving and unhaptized part of the world perish." And he exhorted you to learn by this, that " outward bap- tism ALONE saved none, but the inward only ; — that the sign and singular effect of inward baptism, is the answer of a good conscience towards God." Now, Gentlemen, mark his wavering and inconsistency ! " We must not," he tells you, " conclude with the Anabaptists, from this text, that baptism can be of no saving advantage to infants, because they cannot at present make this answer of a good conscience." Did he not so conclude it, when he stated that outward baptism alone saved none ? Those who understand the Scriptures do not argue (as alluded to by this witness) that because an infant Jew had not the inward circumcision, he ought not to have been admitted to the outward. The Jewish church was a worldly sanctuary ; circumcision entitled the individuals to all its benefits, and their temporal rights were held under this proviso ; for unless they had the sign of circumcision in the flesh, they were to be cut off from the people of God. But at the present day a child has nothing depending on his being christened; on the contrary, ninety-nine times at least in a hundred it is injurious, for it begets an impression on the mind (though of an indefinite nature) that some privilege is thereby conferred, and this, remaining to the end of his life, in a manner renders the man indifferent to his real interests. The defendants therefore dare, and do, assert, that the answer of a good conscience is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, and EXPRESSLY REQUIRED ; and that without it baptism is a mockery. Every Jewish male was commanded by God to be circumcised : but baptism, as I before observed, is a different ordinance. The Testator does not require infants to be baptized. (Christening a child is required by man only : in this he usurps the prerogative of Christ, and would induce you to believe, though he dare not positively assert it, that without his helping hand, the child would be lost.) But he does require believers to confess their faith in baptism ; and I cannot think it possible that any man can receive the Gospel and reject this ordinance. 452 The Fourth says that " Christ is the true ark. His church is within the ark, and therefore safe. Into this ark men enter by faith ; this faith Jews and Gentiles professed, when by baptism they were admitted into the Christian Church ; and thus the baptismal water formed as it were the sign of their safety. It was not (he further adds) the mere outward administration of baptism which could effect this, unless it were also rightly received. It was, therefore, ' the answer of a good conscience towards God,' which saved ;" and having so said, he asserts that " the argument concerning the baptism of infants born of Christian parents is not at all affected by it." Here we are informed that it is through faith men enter into this ark ; which faith both Jews and Gentiles professed in baptism. Yet this does not affect the argument for the sprinkling of those infants who are born of Christian parents. How are we to reconcile these con- tradictory statements ? It is impossible that an infant can, by any means, or in any way, be the subject of faith ; it is a folly, therefore, for the plaintiffs to put a difference between the children of men, whether born of believers or inibelievers. According to — The Seventh, "Peter's language implies, that being saved by water in the ark was a figure, and expresses that being saved by baptism is a corresponding figure." The Eighth, " The circumstance or state of those in the ark is said to be a figure or resemblance of Christian bap- tism ; but they were not dipt into the water, and taken up again, but only had water poured down upon them." ' The ark of Noah, Gentlemen, is represented as a figure ; and baptism is represented as another figure of the same thing ; i. e. the salvation of God by Jesus Christ.' It is then by baptism that believers enter " the narrow way which leadeth unto life."* The ark and baptism being like figures, it follows, that as all were shut out of the ark who did not believe the preaching of Noah, so all will be shut out of the kingdom of heaven who do not believe the gospel. * Matt. vii. 14. 453 The Ninth says, that " Noah biiikling the ark, and enter- ing into it \\ ith his family, are considered by St. Peter as the visible expression of his faith in the ancient promises of God respecting Messiah ; and for this reason baptism is called by St. Peter, without any allegory at all, but in the sobriety of fact, the antitype of this transaction ; the one exactly answering the other, as an external expression of faith in the same objects and the same promises." This is plain language, Gentlemen, by which the Witness not only acknow- ledges that the Apostle Peter in this figure has a direct allu- sion to baptism, but that baptism necessarily implies an accompanying expression of faith in the same object and the same promises — hereby showing, as we maintain, that faith, confession, and baptism are so compacted as to be inse- parable. Gentlemen, you have heard a great deal said by the Wit- nesses upon the two following clauses : " Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, ^vere bap- tized into his death ? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death : that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." * " Buried with him in ba])tism, wherein also ye are risen with him, through the faith of the operation of God :" f and you will naturally wonder what these passages have to do with the christening of a child ; seeing that they speak of baptism as an act of faith — a dying unto sin. Infants cannot believe, neither can they die unto that in which they never lived ; consequently these texts can have no allusion to them. Our opponents show their enmity to Christ by putting captious questions ; thus we are asked why we do not go forward to the 5th and 6th verses of the 6th of Romans, and show a resemblance, not only between baptism by immer- sion and being buried with Christ, but also between im- mersion and being planted with Christ ; and how baptism resembles the nailing of a body to the cross. | These ques- tions, Gentlemen, come with a bad grace from those who * Rom. vi. 3, 4. f Col. ii. 12. + Ninth Witness. 454 have not even attempted to show, by way of strengthening their own cause, that sprinkling bears a resemblance to any of them ; nevertheless, I shall respond to their call. Believers being literally baptized in water into Jesus Christ, are figuratively baptized into his death. " Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death : that like as Christ was raised vip from the dead — even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death," namely, 'by dying unto sin: if, as Christ died, we die ; he a natural death, we a figurative one ; he for sin, and we to sin ; he by way of expiation? suffering, and making satisfaction for sin,' we by self-denial and refraining from sin ; we are ])lanted by baptism " in the likeness of his resurrection," and ''^ grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." * ' We experience the power of Christ's death and resuiTection, by enabling us to die to sin and live vmto God, only by virtue of a REAL IMPLANTATION into Christ by an operative and lively faith ;' whereby we become " like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season ;"t And by subduing our corrupt desires, our old man is cruci- fied with him. Paul says, " But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world." % In this passage Paul implies, that as the Lord was crucified for him upon the cross, so he is figuratively crucified unto the world, and the world unto him. An expression similar to that of being baptized into his death, and thus in measure being set free, as he who is dead is freed from sin. It may be said of Paul, that he lived a life of perpetuated crucifixion, being continually persecuted by the professedly pious and devout, — they who paid tithes of mint, and anise, and cum- min: and if he were now living among us, the same descrip- tion of characters would still persecute him, so far as their power of annoyance extended. Some of the Witnesses told you, that the " immersion of a body under water, and its emersion from it, bear but a very * 2 Pet. iii. 18. f Ps. i. 3. + Gal. vi. 14. 455 indistinct resemblance to the death of Christ :" that " except- ing washing and anointing was a part of the same process, there is no point of resemblance between the burial of Christ and our baptism :" and that, " though immersion might put forth a clumsy type of burial and rising again, it is wanting in not being emblematical of death." Now what in nature can be more emblematical of death ? for if the body be kept under water only for a few minutes, life would be extinct, so that it would cease to be a figure by becoming a reality — a more striking emblem of death therefore could not be devised : and rising again out of the water, represents, in the same striking manner, a resurrection to new life. This is according to the view that the apostle takes of it ; " We are buried with him by baptism into death ; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life," How then can it be said of this ordinance, thus represented by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that it is a " clumsy type of a burial and resur- rection " ? I shall now run over the evidence upon the two clauses given by each of the Witnesses, and show their equivocations and contradictions. The First is very fearful of committing the plaintiffs. He tells you that " it is probable that the apostle here alludes to the mode of administering baptism by immersion — that it is possible that the apostle here alludes to this mode, but it is not absolutely certain." We may be sure, Gentlemen, that when a man is resolved to repress his convictions, he will never arrive at an absolute certainty on a subject which he hates. Observe now his remarks upon 1 Cor. xv. 29. Here he says, as " they receive baptism as an emblem of death, in voluntarily going under THE WATER, SO they receive it as an emblem^ of resurrection unto eternal life, in coming up out of the water." Upon the meaning of this text we have no probabilities ; we may therefore conclude that he has come to something like cer- tainty. And as the apostle uses the like expression m. the same sense in both places, we may rest assured, that if this 456 Witness were free from prejudice, he would not have said upon the former texts, that it was possible, or that it was PROBABLE, but that it was absolutely certain. The Second informs you, that "We are incorporated, ingrafted, implanted into his church by baptism ; that by baptism we are made visible members of it ; and that we are baptized into Christ's death, by dying unto sin, as Christ died for sin. That there is not a doubt but that the apostle alludes to putting persons under water, and raising them again out of the water, which mystically signifies the burying of the old man sin, and our resurrection to newness of life ; and that believers are to imitate his death by their dying daily to sin." Mai'k, Gentlemen, it is believers who are to imitate his death by baptism ! not infants, by being sprinkled. Yet observe how he afterwards contradicts him- self! "Baptism (the same baptism just now spoken of), under the New Testament, succeeds circumcision under the Old, and is a rite of initiation to Christians, as circumcision was to the Jews ; therefore baptism is undoubtedly Christ's ordinance for infants of believing Christians, as circumcision was of old for the infants of believing Jews." How the same person can hold opinions on the same sub- ject so much at variance with each other, I am unable to explain ; to me there ajjpears a perfect incongruity ; and the mind must be strangely constituted that can maintain such opposite views, as " that believers are to imitate his (Christ's) death, by dying unto sin," and that " therefore baptism is undoubtedly Christ's ordinance for the infants of believing Christians." The Third means (I presume) to imply that we are figu- ratively buried with him, by being literally put imder water ; and that, by being raised up out of it, we are born to newness of life. The Fourth says, that " great stress has been laid upon the expression, 'buried with him by baptism into death ;' as proving that baptism ought to be performed by immersion, to which the apostle is supposed to allude. But we are said also to be ' crucified with Clnist,' and circumcised with him, 457 without any allusion to the outward manner in which cruci- fixion and circumcision were performed : and as baptism is far more frequently mentioned with reference to the ' pouring out' of the Holy Ghost — and as the apostle is evidently treating on the inward meaning, not the outward form, of that ordinance — no conclusive argument is deducible fi'om the expression, showing that immersion is necessary to bap- tism, or even, apart from other proof, that baptism was generally thus administered. " Instead of the outward sign of circumcision, baptism had been substituted ; which some suppose to be meant by the 'circumcision of Christ:' this represented that death and burial with him from former confidences, and sinful and worldly pursuits. The baptism of Jews and Gentiles, when converted to Christianity, implied their death ' unto sin and new birth unto righteousness.' The same inward change had been signified by circumcision, which was administered to adult proselytes, and then to their infant offspring : so that no argument here can be adduced against the baptism of infants." The apostle is unquestionably treating of the inward meaning or spiritual design of the ordinance, as figurative of the death and resurrection of Christ ; and believers dying to sin, and rising through faith to newness of life : this is most significantly set forth by the body being put under, and again raised out of water; which the apostle terms being buried with him by baptism unto death, and raised with him to newness of life. The expressions "buried in baptism," and " raised to newness of life," undoubtedly have allusion to baptism as administered to believers, and to none be- sides ; otherwise the words would be wholly without mean- ing. The attempt of this witness to defeat the import of these expressions relative to baptism, by drawing a com- parison between the allusion made by the apostle to cruci- fixion, in which no mention is made of the manner whereby that punishment was inflicted, completely fails, there being no parallelism on the two cases. Baptism w^as a figurative ordinance, a type of a spiritual operation on the soul — cruci- 458 fixion was a capital punishment, inflicted by an executioner, for the destruction of natural life : no allusion, therefore, is made to the manner of execution, but to its consequences. And as the Lord Jesus was actually put to death on the cross, so his people are said to be crucified with him (figura- tively), when the body of sin is destroyed — when, through grace, they are delivered from the service of sin, by dying thereto, and living unto God. With regard to circumcision, which this witness introduces in connexion with crucifixion, does the omission of the mode in which that rite was per- formed necessarily imply that the terms used by the apostle, significative of the administration of baptism, have no mean- ing, but are merely expletives ? If so, there is an end to the argument : for, upon the same principle, no fact can be established, however well attested, and seen by thousands of people, all bearing testimony to it, if some one historian living at the time omits the mention of it. In this way, infidels fi-equently assail many of the facts recorded in the Scriptures; and to this way our opponents frequently resort. The Sixth says, " this resemblance, on which so much stress is laid by our brethren, has always appeared to me but a far-fetched fancy. I shall say nothing stronger, lest I should possibly be in the wrong so considering it." And, further, that " as it was necessary, in order to Christ's rising, that he should be laid in the grave, so in the figure, it is necessary that we should be viewed as buried with him, in order to our rising with him to newness of life. Now (says he) it is quite obvious, that the argument of the apostle has not the remotest connexion with the mode of baptism." As this witness has some compunction of conscience, occasioned by the lightness of manner with which he treats this subject, we will leave him to the operation of his convictions, which may, perhaps, produce a salutary effect: and as, in our comments upon the evidence of the preceding witness, we have shown that the words in question have an important and distinctive meaning, it is needless to repeat them here. The Seventh informed you, that " to many, these texts present no difficulty. They have been accustomed to think 459 baptism and immersion to be synonymous terms." We agree with those who think the terms are synonymous, though the simple act may in one case be a mere nonentity, and in another valid baptism. An unbeliever may be immersed, but, not being a proper subject for baptism, he cannot, in the scriptural signification of the term, be said to be bap- tized. But when a believer is so baptized, he is inducted into The Church, and becomes a genuine follower and disciple of Christ. Strictly speaking, according to the true import of the word, only a believer can be said to be bap- tized. Witness what Paul said, on finding certain people, whom he supposed to be disciples, because they had been immersed ; " Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed ? " They answered, " We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost" — thus showing that they were unacquainted with the import of the ordinance, and that they had been immersed by some ignorant or false teacher. But after they had been taught of Paul they were BAPTIZED — and the Holy Ghost came on them.* Does not this prove that, though these people had been previously baptized, their baptism was a nullity ? This witness speaks upon the clauses before us in a modest and becoming manner; thus, " All allusions of Scripture are admirably correct, and whenever we meet with any which seem to be exceptions fi-om this character, we have much reason to suspect that the difficulty is owing to our own inattention and ignorance." Paul's allusion is very plain ; he says, " Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound ? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin (having been figuratively buried with him by baptism unto death), live any longer therein?" The Eighth tells you, " the apostle is not speaking con- cerning the external and ceremonial part of Christian bap- tism, but concerning the internal and moral part : not con- cerning the application of water, which has no power to kill or destroy the body of sin, but concerning the regenerating influences of the Spirit, by which Spirit the Scriptures often speak of Christians as baptized." * Acts xix. 1 — 6. 460 The apostle is here speaking of literal baptism, bajitism in water, as figurative of the death and burial of Christ, not the baptism of the Holy Ghost ; and no one who reads the Will for instruction can mistake the one for the other. This witness appears to grant that the two texts, Rom. vi. 3, 4, and Col. ii. 12, " favour the mode of dipping;" but in making this admission, he wishes the defendants to allow that the several texts he has mentioned equally favour sprinkling or pouring. Thus he is wishful to compromise, and makes the overture, by saying, " If any still think it their indispen- sable duty to baptize by immersion only, let them, by all means, thus baptize ; but then we beseech them to forbear all severe censures of those who are not dipt." We do not hold any opinions upon this subject but such as we obtain from the plain testimony of the word of God ; neither do we use any harsh terms but such as are derived from the same source. If that word condemns all who depart from its ])lain and positive precepts, how dare we harbour the idea that the Lord will hold those guiltless who disregard his injunctions, when he declares that he will " remember their iniquity and visit their sins."* The Ninth asks, " How can the apostle speak of baptism as an emblem of Christ's burial, when he argues from it as the instrument of our death unto sin, and a separation from it, by a mystical burial ? " Gentlemen, the apostle says, that when a believer is bap- tized, he thereby figuratively shows that he is dead to sin, is buried with Christ, and is risen again to newness of life. But this witness says that " the baptism here made use of is not an emblem of our spiritual death, burial, and resurrection." For " as an emblem, even immersion, though it might put forth a clumsy type of burial and rising again, is wanting in not being emblematical of death." The believer dies a tem- poral death only ; he rises again to eternal life. But it is for the unbeliever to die a second, as well as a temporal death, — for the man who, by "turning of things upside down," t perverts the gospel of Christ. What does he mean * Jer. xiv. 10. -f- Isa. xxix. Iti. 461 by baptism not being an "emblem of spiritual death"? There is no such thing as spiritual death: a man born of the S])irit " lives for ever."* Baptism is an emblem of the death of the old man; and rising again out of the water is an em- blem of spiritual life in the new. The Tenth turns the commission of the Testator into ridicule, and treats the subject in a manner little short of profanation ; so that I am at a loss for terms sufficiently reprehensible of such conduct. I shall therefore take the advice which Solomon gives me; "Answer not a fool accord- ing to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him."t Eight of the Witnesses either assert or imply that there is no salvation without baptism ; yet, instead of inculcating the divine command, they, as well as the remaining two, pawn upon their followers a spurious rite, attaching to it a counterfeit requirement, in the place of, and in opposition to, the ordinance of the Testator, the observance of which he requires of those only " that believe to the saving of the soul." I shall therefore address the people of this day, in words that were spoken of old, for they are perfectly applicable to the present times ; " O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." X I have now, according to my notes, commented upon all the New Testament passages which are brought forward by the Witnesses to prove that children are proper subjects of baptism ; and I trust that I have not only satisfied you that they are inapplicable to their purpose, but that they have left the plaintiff's claim just as they found it, i. e. unsub- stantiated. Indeed, they do not pretend to show that infants can receive any benefit fi'om being christened, but upon the supposition that they come into the world in a state of con- demnation, guilty creatures, deserving of God's wrath ; and that they remove this guilt, and make them new creatm-es, by a rite invented by men like themselves. We are next told, in triumphant language, by the Sixth and Eighth Witnesses, that " there is not the remotest allu- * John vi. 51. f Prov. xxvi. 4. % I®*- i"- ^2. 462 sion, in the form of direction, or of warning, to the reception of such children by baptism into the Christian church, upon their professing their faith in which they have been brought up." That there is " not in the whole Scripture one instance of such practice, no, nor any shadow or appearance of it." " Our Baptist hrethren^^ says the Sixth, " would do some- thing more to the purpose, if they could produce one or two examples of the baptism of such adults as those mentioned." And the Fourth says, " that the consideration that we do not read in the New Testament of one single instance in which the children of Christian parents were baptized adult, strongly countenances the practice of pyedobaptists." This is another instance, Gentlemen, of their petty sub- terfuges. What says the Testator ? " Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them." Baptizing whom ? Those unques- tionably that are taught. This command determines who are, and who are not, to be baptized. The Will takes no cognizance of the children of believers, any more than of those of unbelievers; neither do many of the Witnesses. Peter expressly declares, that God put no difference between the Jews and the Gentiles;* and the whole bearing of the Will irrefragably proves that none can be scripturally bap- tized but those whose hearts have been previously purified by faith. It is not said, in so many words, that Timothy was baptized ; but we have presumptive proof, amply sufficient to satisfy the most upright jury that ever was empanelled, that he confessed his Lord in the ordinance of baptism. He had the gift of God by the putting on of Paul's hands ; and we know that the practice of this ordinance was subsequent to baptism, t We know also that the Testator was baptized when about thirty years old, and before he entei'ed upon his ministry ; consequently no one can be duly commissioned to preach his gospel until he has followed his example. Timo- thy was a minister, and therefore must have been baptized ; and not only baptized, but ordained ; as he was, by the "laying on of the hands of the presbytery ." | Besides, Paul gives him the following charge, " Fight the good fight of * Acts XV. a f See Acts viii. 17; and xix. 6. X 1 Tim. ir. 14. 463 faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses."* Now, all who are familiar with the Will must know, that no one but a baptized believer can fight the fight of faith, or lay hold on eternal life; — no one but he who commences that profession by manifesting his regards for the institutions of the Lord's house, and following him in the way of his commandments; — no one but he who pi'oves the sincerity of his love by w^alking " worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work;" f and who not only does not compromise, but who stands firm in defence of, the faith ; " holding fast the form of sound words." Now we will suppose that it had been written thus — "And Timothy was baptized, notwithstanding the unfeigned faith which was in him, which dwelt first in his grandmother Lois, and his mother Eunice." What would be the conse- quence ? Would not these Witnesses turn round and say, As this is the only instance mentioned, it must have been a singular and rare case, and therefore not intended as a pre- cedent for us to follow } Of this we have an example in the Tenth, who will not believe that the numerous baptisms which took place after the ascension of the Lord were admi- nistered in rivers or pools, because he reads of no other coming up from any water except the Eunuch ; for which reason he says, " this last shadow of proof evanishes like the morning cloud and the early dew." But I shall here demand of the plaintiffs and their wit- nesses, and challenge them to show, that any believer in Christ ever brought his children to be baptized, or that the apostles ever baptized an infant of any description ; for on them the onus of proof lies. It is true the Eighth Witness does venture to bring forward, though in a very modest manner, one case, — which we may be very certain he believes to be the only one that holds out even the shadow of a shade of what he wishes to establish, — that of Lydia ; which in- stance, says he, " strongly favours our practice." Mark, Gentlemen I he only pretends to produce one instance, and * 1 Tim. vi. 12. f Col. i. 10. 464 this one, even in his estimation, only strongly favours, it does not at all prove, the point at issue. And indeed how can it ; when there " is nothing of the kind to be found," — nothing in the "form," either of "fact," or "allusion," or " advice," or " precept;" nothing relating more to her chil- dren than to her husband ; and nothing whatever indicating that she had either husband or child? And yet, Gentlemen, is it not astonishing, as being at variance with common sense, that these witnesses will take this solitary case as a precedent for christening infants (or rather as a cloak for the practice) ; and reject the clear and simple commission of the Testator, which commands them to baptize believers? For the latter they have a positive precept, which is undeniable, and ex- amples to follow, described in language so plain, that no one who is wishful to understand them can possibly en*. For the former, they have only a forced and constrained sense put upon a single passage of Scripture, which at the best amounts to no more than a mere negative in their favour. But this is a proof that the rite of christening was first esta- blished, and afterwards texts were sought out to give it a fair external appearance— or rather a text, for upon this one they chiefly rely. Thence the Eighth Witness tells you that the instance of Lydia strongly favours their practice. And the Ninth, that there is a circumstance strongly con- firmatory OF THE PROBABILITY that the house of Lydia contained children. But, Gentlemen, what says the First Witness ? Why this, " that Lydia believed the things spoken by Paul, and received them as the doctrines of God ; that in this faith she was joined by her whole family; and that in IT they were all baptized !" I shall here make a few remarks en the reasons assigned for, and the supposed utility of, christening infants. The First Witness spoke so little in favour of his own doctrines, that he ought not to call those " heathenish and barbarous," who do not follow his plan : neither ought he to accuse them of " unaccountable bigotry " for withholding from their infants nothing more than what he himself calls " the privilege of a nominal dedication : " the utility of which 465 according to his own showing, is very questionahle : for all he says in its praise is, " that no sonl can prove they cannot be benefited" thereby. Whatsoever (in relation to the things of God) is not of faith, is sin. It is therefore incum- bent upon all who practise the rite of infant sprinkling to show that it is commanded by God. The Second is not much more encouraging: all he pro- mises to do is, to place the children of nominal Christians in the same situation as Jewish children were placed under the law ; but even this he will not undertake of himself, without the guarantee of three proxies. The Third has confidence in his own creed. He tells us we are not naturally men without birth, so neither are we Christian men in the eye of the church but by new birth ; nor according to the manifest ordinary course of divine dis- pensation new bom, but by that haptism which both de- clareth and maketh us Christians. This Witness speaks with confidence, and expresses his opinion in plain language ; and this opinion con'esponds with the doctrine taught by the church catechism, that by bap- tism, infants, fi-om being children of wrath, are regenerated and made heirs of the kingdom of heaven. As we have be- fore given our sentiments upon this subject, we shall not repeat them here. The Fourth cannot think there is much utility in chris- tening infants, because he does not believe that, even if they die unchristened, they will be " slnit out of heaven." Be- sides, he says, it is " not the privilege of the infant, but the duty of the parent is the grand thing to be ascertained." Consequently, however the parent may act, the child that dies in infancy cannot thereby suffer loss. This and the preceding Witness are ministers of the Establishment; and have both sworn the same oaths, that they were moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon themselves the office of the ministry : yet one states that baptism transforms a child of hell into a child of heaven, thus plainly implying that an unbaptized child cannot be saved ; and the other, that such a 2 H 46G proposition is far more dreadful than any held by the most unfeeling Supra-lapsarian Calvinist. The Sev^enth, that " there is unmixed joy at the baptism of an infant." AVhether the joy be unmixed or not, I cannot pretend to say; but where there are the means, tliere is generally a rejoicing on the occasion, often a revelling, and frequently a drinking to the new-made Christian. In the report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons, christenings are placed very prominently among the remote causes of drunkenness. The Eighth says that infants are most certainly in a state of condemnation, in consequence of the first sin, sentencing women to conceive and bring forth in sorrow ; and afterwards states that they are to be baptized in consequence of being righteous. What a palpable contradiction is here ! In the first place, they are declared to be in a state of condemna- tion ; in the second, they are declared to be righteous, and by consequence fit subjects of baptism. The Ninth tells you that " the child is interested in the believing act of the parents, as well as in the solemn engage- ment to bring it up in the nurture of the Lord." Gentlemen, I am obliged to confess my want of capacity to comprehend the meaning of this sentence. Are we to understand by the expression, " the believing act of the parent," that by having his infant sprinkled, he believes that he thereby constitutes him a child of God ? If this be what is meant, does his belief of it, or his doubt of it (which opi- nion I am informed is not very uncommon), affect the con- dition of the child in the sight of God ? Will he reject or receive it on that account ? And how, if it shall die in in- fancy, does the parent's solemn engagement affect its eternal state ? As no opportunity has been afforded to put this engagement into execution, it can only be prospective of the child's arriving at maturity ; and even then, this solemn en- gagement cannot be of advantage to it, unless it be strictly fulfilled, and the individual evinces a teachable disposition. We cannot see the necessity of a conscientious parent binding 467 himself by an oath to perform a duty incumbent upon him, whether he swears to perform it or not. It will, perhaps, be expected that I should take some notice of the doctrine of Original Sin. I am not ashamed to confess myself ignorant of the meaning which is generally attached to the term. That we are considered as sinners so far as to subject us to the same death that Adam suflbred for his first offence, I admit ; but that we are treated as actual sinners, for personal violations of the law of God, on account of his sin, and shall hereafter suffer in consequence thereof, I do not believe. If I understand these Witnesses, they sprinkle infants, to cleanse them from " inherent sin ;" and that they take for their precedent, and as a plea for their conduct in this respect, the Israelites, who under the old dispensation circumcised their male children. If this be the case, they act inconsistently ; for when the rite of circumci- sion was instituted by God, he said, " I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed — and I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land of Canaan. — Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou and thy seed after thee. — This is my covenant : — Every man child amongst you shall be circumcised."* Is there any thing here whereby the most scrutinizing observer can realize the existence of native moral pollution, and say that original sin was the cause of the rite being instituted ? But suppose it were ad- mitted that this was the cause (though I do not admit it), what was to remove the original sin from those who died under the age of eight days ? It would be incompatible with the justice of God to condemn them, when it was contrary to his law to circumcise them before that time: therefore, unless it can be proved that these perished in consequence of dying in their original sin, because they died uncircumcised, it cannot be proved that they who were circumcised were cleansed from it by their circumcision. But it would be still more incompatible with his justice to condemn female chil- dren for their original sin, when he had instituted no rite by which to cleanse them from it. * Gen. xvii. 7 — 10. 468 The Jews entertained a false opinion, which became a pro- verb among them. But for this they were reproved by the Lord, who said, " What mean ye that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge? As I live, saitli the Lord God, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine ; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right, and hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to idols, &c. — hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my judgments ; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord God. If he beget a son that is a robber, a shedder of blood, &c. and that doeth not any of those duties, &c. — shall he then live.? he shall not live: — he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him. Now, lo, if he beget a son, that seeth all his father's sins, Avhich he hath done, and considereth, and doeth not such like — he shall not die for the iniqmtij of his father^ he shall surely live. As for his father, because he cruelly oppressed, &c. — lo, even he shall die in his iniquity. Yet say ye, Why ? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father.? When the son hath done that which was lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. The soul that sinneth it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son."* From these Scriptvn-es, it is manifest that no man can come under condemnation through Adam's transgression ; and it is equally manifest that every one stands in his own individual capacity in the sight of God, and is accountable only for his own sins. Therefore any rite founded upon the contrary sup- position, as infant sprinkling professedly is, is worse than use- less, and, as I have before observed, may be attended with the most fatal consequences. The doctrine of original sin is, I believe, principally built upon the following passage ; " I was shapen in iniquity, and * Ezck. chap, xviii. 469 in sin did my motlier conceive me." Of this the Eighth Witness gives a good explanation ; he says it was " alluding to the bitter sorrows in which, in consequence of the first sin, the woman is sentenced to conceive and bring forth." There was no original sin in Adam and Eve, yet they fell in the same manner as all their progeny have fallen. The Testator " was made of the seed of David according to the flesh ;"* " like unto his brethren ;''''\ and " was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."| But if, as these witnesses affirm, we come polluted into the world, the Testator must have come into it in the same state, (which is contrary to the testimony of the Scripture, which declares that he was " holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners,"§) or he could not have been made like unto us : both these testimonies cannot be true — their evidence must be false, or there is no Spirit of truth. It is said in the prophets, " O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself .''' \^ This corresponds with what Solomon says, " God hath made man upright, but they have sought out many inventions." % And the same question may be asked now as in the days of Jeremiah ; " Hath a nation changed their gods, which are yet no gods ? but my people have changed their glory for that which doth not profit."** He must be very credulous who supposes that children come into the world in a state of pollution, under con- demnation for sin ; and yet thinks that the judgment may be evaded, and the guilt removed, by merely sprinkling a iaw drops of water on their faces. A man who can seriously entertain such an idea must have a very mean opinion of the omnipotent, unchangeable Jehovah : " Thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes."tt I shall now. Gentlemen, bring to your remembrance what has been advanced on the subject of Regeneration ; a doctrine upon which the Witnesses are as much at variance as they are upon the other clauses of the Will. The Third asserts, that all are regenerated to whom bap- * Rom. i. 3. t Heb. ii. 17. I Heb iv. 15. § Heb. vii. 26. || Hos. xiii. 9. ^ Eccles. vii. 2!). ** Jer. ii. 11. ft r«- 1- 21. 470 tisin is rightly administered. But as his arguments are chiefly drawn from the Liturgy and the Articles of the Church of England, which are of no authority with us, we think it unnecessary to reply to them. The Fourth says, that " unless it can be proved that cir- cumcision was not the sign or sacrament of regeneration, even as baptism now is, I cannot see how the argument can be answered: and all the common objections against infant baptism, as administered to subjects incapable of the profes- sions required, and the benefits intended, bear with equal force against infant circumcision." The Jews, as a body, declared themselves, in numerous instances, to be unbelievers. "When they were about to enter the promised land, none of them above twenty years of age (with the excei^tion of Moses, Aaron, Miriam, Caleb, and Joshua,) believed that the Lord was able to subdue the inha- bitants, and give them quiet possession of it. And there was a time when Elijah thought that he was the only believer among them. This shows that their being circumcised was no sign of their being regenerated. And we have millions of living witnesses around us to prove, that what the plaintiffs call baptism is no sign of it. How can the objections against infant baptism bear with equal force against infant circum- cision, when the latter was strictly commanded by God, vmder an awful denunciation ; and the former, by implication, as strictly forbidden? Is it not said in the commission, Teach all nations, baptizing them } But it is for him who affirms, and not for him who denies this, to prove that either circumcision was, or that baptism is, a sign of regeneration. The Fifth asserts, and asserts truly, that " In eveiy point of view, the doctrine that baptism is regeneration, that it in- sures or proves that it is attended or followed by it, either regularly or commonly, is erroneous, unfounded, and un- scriptural. So far (says he) is this from being the doctrine of the Scriptures, that according to them, adults can never offer themselves unless already regenerated. ' The answer of a good conscience' cannot be given by him who is not rege- nerated : and it is evident (says he) that no person loho is 471 unregenerated can declare that he renounces Satan and he lieves in Christ;'''' that "God has nowhere promised that children shall be regenerated either in, or by, the adminis- tration of this ordinance ; accordingly, a great multitude of the circumcised children of the Israelites, and of the baptized children of Christians, in every age and church, have plainly lived and died unregenerated." And yet he says, " God has required believing jjarents to dedicate their children to him in baptism." Here the evidence of this Witness is diametrically opposed to that of the Third. Yet he says it is required by the Lord that believers should dedicate their children to him in bap- tism ; though he does not make it appear in what manner the child is benefited by it. The evidence for this require- ment not being produced, it is unnecessary to follow his statement any further. It may be said to — The Sixth, " Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye ? " * If this Witness, contrary to the Will of the Testatoi", affuses a child, what does it matter if the ceremony be accompanied with fewer absurdities than that of the sprinkling of the Episcopalians ? And though he does not think with them that christening is regeneration, yet if he practises the rite on which the assertion is founded, is not his absurdity as unwarrantable as that of the Church of Rome, the communion which he styles anti-Christian ? And is not his affusion a remnant of the superstitious practices of that church ? The Episcopalians act consistently with them- selves, though unscripturally. They show clearly, by re- quiring sponsors to believe for the child, that faith should precede baptism, and that all that do believe, and are bap- tized, are regenerated. They are not so unfeeling as to refuse a child that which they think a spiritual benefit, because its parents do not belong to that class of persons who make a particular profession of Christianity ; on the contrary, they instruct the people to bring their infants without delay, lest * Matt. vii. 3. 472 they should die im christened, and by consequence leave the world unregenerated. According to the Seventh, " the union of believers with Christ, which is signified by baptism, is regeneration." An infant is not a believer, therefore it is not in spiritual union with Christ ; and consequently there can be nothing signified by its affusion. But still it is as innocent as Adam was before his transgression, although exposed to the loss of its natural life through his disobedience. And according to the Eighth, " infants cannot enter the kingdom of God, except they have been born again of the Spirit." It is only through faith in the Son of God, that any soul can be created anew ; therefore as infants are incapable of being thus newly created, they cannot by any possibility be regenerated. Baptism is not a token of regeneration, for thousands of unregenerate persons may have been baptized, yet none can be acknowledged as regenerate, so long as they neglect to confess their Lord, by being baptized in his name. Now, Gentlemen, you will be pleased to recollect, that The Ninth Witness enumerated the several blessings that christening conveys to infants, by which, if they die without sin, they are actually regenerated. By this it is implied that if they live to commit sin they become unregenerate ; the new life becomes extinct, and the secret spiritual influ- ences which they are said to have received, become fainter and fainter, as they increase in years, until at length they disappear altogether. Thus the imaginary advantage which infants are said to derive from their christening appears, by the Witness's own account, to benefit the child only so long as it remains iiTesponsible for its actions. It is unnecessary for me to comment at large on the dis- cordant views which these Witnesses take of the ordinance of baptism. One says all are actually regenerated thereby. Another, that it is only a sign of regeneration. Another, that it neither insm*es nor proves regeneration. Another, that it is a practical testimony of the necessity of regeneration. Another makes it the appointed token or emblem of the re- 473 generating Spirit. And another says that it secures the gift of the Holy Spirit, for the regeneration of such as die in in- fancy. Which of these opinions, among such a variety, are we to adopt ? Our opponents are so much divided upon this fundamental point, whereon all the importance of the ordi- nance depends, that we cannot have any regard for a super- structure erected upon a base composed of such heterogene- ous elements, elements absolutely dcsti'uctive of each other, and must therefore crumble into dust. My object in this place being merely to show the discrepancy of the evidence of my opponents' witnesses, I shall not further discuss the merits or demerits of their individual opinions. Having now, to the best of my recollection, commented upon the evidence on each text upon which more than one of the Witnesses have spoken, I shall next briefly run over their evidence separately, not so much to comment upon it, as to point out how each, in numerous instances, has contra- dicted himself: thus showing the waverings, prevarications, and evasions by which they have endeavoured to divert your minds, and perplex your understandings. I shall select from my notes their principal incongruities, which being brought fresh to your recollection, their inconsistencies v^"ill thereby become more manifest. The First says, that " persons who are entrusted with the public ministry of the word, should take care that they teach not human creeds, and confessions of faith, in jjlace of the sacred writings; but those things, and those only, which Jesus has commanded. Where the four Gospels and the Apostolic Epistles are at hand, every thing relative to the salvation of the soul may be clearly apprehended by any simple up- right PERSON. " It was John's business (says he) to proclaim the Gospel of the grace of God. They (the inhabitants of Judea) were to repent and be baptized, in reference to the remission of sins. Repentance prepared the soul for it, and baptism was the type or pledge of it. The baptism of John was by plunging the body, as seems to appear from those things which are related of him, viz. that he hajjtlzed in Jordan, 474 that he baptized in /Enon because there was much water there, and that Christ being baptized came up out of the water. To which that seems to be a parallel, Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, &c. As they (the followers of the Lord) receive baptism as an emblem of death, in volun- tarily GOING UNDER THE WATER, SO they receive it as the emblem of resurrection unto eternal life, in coming up out of THE WATER." Here he asserts that faith necessarily precedes baptism, and that John's baptism was a pkniging of the body — a voluntary going under the water. Mark, now, Gentlemen, how soon this plain, clear, upright, and confident declaration is changed for confused, obscure, equivocal, and doubtful language ! " It is probable that this rite was thus performed in ^non — that the eunuch pro- bably plunged himself — that, it is probable that the apostle (speaking of being buried by baptism unto death) alludes to this mode of immersion, but it is not absolutely certain — which is the best mode of administering the sign, whether sprinkling, washing, or plunging, is exceedingly dubious. " Would any one, who should meet by accident with these two paragraphs separately, imagine that they proceeded from the same individual .? " Baptism (says he) implies a consecration and dedication of the soul and body to God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Whatever is solemnly consecrated to God abides under his protection and blessing." Christening, which, according to this Witness, is another term for consecration, is general in this country; therefore as the great mass of the people are thus dedicated to God, they are under his peculiar care and blessing. That all his creatures, among whom are the indi- viduals here spoken of, are under his providential care, there cannot be any doubt, for " he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good." But the lives and conversation of the great body of the people give us no reason to conclude that they are " the blessed of the Lord ;" for they openly declare, if not in words, at least by actions, that they " desire not the knowledge of his ways :" therefore his proposition cannot be admitted, being unsupported by proof. 475 " How many masters (he asks) are there still in Israel who are in this respect (with the nature of baptism with water, as an emblem of new birth — and with the cause, necessity, and effects of that new birth) deplorably ignorant; and, strange to tell, publish their ignorance and folly in the sight of the sun, by writing and speaking against the thing itself! It is strange that such j^eople cannot keep their own counsel.'''' Is he not, Gentlemen, in this instance, pourtraying his own character ? " The Apostles (he says) must necessarily understand that infants were included in the commission — it being said. Teach, make disciples of all nations — and then baptize them. This deduction, Gentlemen, is no doubt so clear and mani- fest from the premises, that it cannot fail to strike the Court with irresistible force, especially when it is considered how peculiarly the capacity of infants is suited for the compre- hension of doctrines so sublime. Again, he says " It is natural to suppose that adults were the first subjects of baptism — and as to the objection that the baptized were obliged to profess their faith, and that therefore only adults should be baptized, there is no weight at all in it, because what is spoken of such refers to those who only at that period of life heard the Gospel, and were not born of parents who had been Christians. And yet (mark the contradiction, Gentlemen,) he says, " that having Abra- ham and Sarah for their parents, could not entitle them to the blessings of the new covenant, as no man could lay claim to them, but in consequence of being born of God ; therefore (says he) neither the will of the Jlesh, any thing that the cor- rupt heart of man could perform or determine in its own behalf; nor the will of man, any thing that another may be disposed to do in our behalf, can avail here." And again. Gentlemen, mark, " There is no place for John's baptism among us, who are born christians :" yet, says he, " Those that have never had any other baptism than that of water, may take Jesus Christ's word for it, that they cannot enter into the kingdom of God : it is Jesus only who baptizes with the Holy Ghost: he who receives not this 476 baptism, has neither right nor title to the kingdom of God, nor can he, with any propriety, be termed a christian. To he a Christian, a man must he haptlzed in the Christian faithr In the first place, he says that we are horn Christians ; in the second, that no man can be called a Christian who is not baptized with the Holy Ghost. Can these two declarations be reconciled with each other ? Lastly, he says, " Under the dispensations of the Gospel, neither circimicision — nothing that the Jews can boast of, nothing that the Gentile can call excellent, availeth any thing.'''' Nothing "but a total renewal of the whole man — of all the powers and passions of the soul ; and as creation could not be effected but by the power of the Almighty, so this change cannot be effected but by the same energy : no circumcision can do this, only the power that made the man at first, can new make him. Thus, as a thorough conversion of the soul is compared to a new creation, and creation is the proper work of an Allwise, Almighty Being ; then this total change of heart, soul, and life, which takes place under the preaching of the Gospel, is effected by the power and grace of God — this is salvation." We agi'ee with this Witness, that no outward rite or cere- mony can avail any thing to any soul, without this complete renewal of the heart, this new creation of the whole man. It must be clear to every rational being, that this cannot by any possibility take place in infancy, nor before the understanding is matured ; for it is through the enlightening of the mind by the Word and Spirit of God that the soul is renewed : " For vnih the heart man believeth unto righteousness ; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."* " Baptism (he proceeds to say), to be ^ essentialhj performed,^ must be administered by sprinkling, washing, or plunging, by or in water : the name of the Father, &c. being invoked at the time. Whoever has had this, has the essence of baptism, as far as it can be conferred by man : and it matters not at what period of his life, he has had it : it is a substan- * Iloin. X. 10. 477 tial baptism, and by it the person has been fully consecvated to the holy and blessed Trinity." As the mode, the time, and the subject are matters of such little importance with this witness, so must also the character of the operator be — whether a son of Belial or a child of God. In fact, his character is of the least importance of the whole. At the time of its christening, the child is a mere passive instrument, a very automaton ; therefore it is certainly of no consequence to it when, where, how, or by whom the rite is performed. But to assert that such a performance has all the essentials of the baptism established by our Lord and Saviour, is to pour contempt upon it, and thus insult him to his face. The Second prefaced his evidence by saying, " I do not come before you to deny the lawfulness of baptizing by im- mersion," fi. e. of baptizing by baptism,) " nor to oppose the lawfulness of dipping in some cases ; but I cannot assert the absolute and indispensable necessity of it in all cases." Here, Gentlemen, he makes sprinkling the exception, and yet in every instance acts upon the exception as if it were the rule ; though all he can advance in support of his practice is mere negative authority. His open declaration that he can- not assert immersion to be necessary in every case, is a tacit acknowledgment that it is necessary in some. Moreover, he says that " all those who would be accepted of God unto righteousness and life, must be such as do believe in Christ with the heart, and openly comfess with the mouth that he is the Son of God." And you are well aware. Gentlemen, that that confession, to be available, must be made in baptism. " The apostle Paul (says he), in Rom. vi. 4. alludes, no doubt, to the ancient manner and way of baptizing persons — which was by immersion, or putting them under w'ater FOR A time, and THEN RAISING THEM UP AGAIN OUT OF THE water: representing our resurrection to newness of life. After the Eunuch had been instructed, he desired baptism ; his qualification was, believing with the whole heart. He went down into the water, and was baptized by Philip. Per- sons in that age were put under the water when they were 478 baptized." Yet in the face of these, his admissions, he turns round and asserts, that " It is very improbable that the jailer and his household were baptized by dipping — neither is it the LEAST probable that St. Paul himself was baptized by dipping." Here he states the qualification necessary for baptism, and that all the baptized were originally put under water; and in another place, that both the cloud and the sea had some resemblance to our being covered with water in baptism. But when he mentions particular instances of baptism, he says that it is improhahle that the individuals were baptized according to the rule that he himself lays down. " It is not to be wondered at (says he) that Christ did neither baptize infants nor command them to be baptized, when we consider that they had already entered into cove- nant with God by circumcision." We have been repeatedly told that sprinkling occupies the place under the New Testament dispensation which circum- cision occupied under the Old. And we are here informed that the Testator did not order infants to be baptized, because they had already entered into covenant with God by circum- cision. Now, Gentlemen, we will take these Witnesses on their own ground, and show you the absurdity of their state- ments. There cannot be a question but that the law of circinncision was in force until the crucifixion of our Lord ; and consequently that eveiy believing Jew, who was baptized under his ministry, or under that of John, must have been the subject both of circumcision and baptism. Then, by a parity of reasoning, should not every sprinkled individual, upon arriving at mature age, and becoming a believer in the Gospel, be in like manner also baptized ? " John's baptism was (says he) the baptism of repentance, of which infants were incapable. Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples ; this (says he) is called the baptism of re- pentance, of which children loere capable subjects, because baptism doth not require children's rejjentance at present, but engages them to repentance for the time to come. The baptism of repentance belongs to children, though they know not what repentance means. The preaching of the doctrine 479 of repentance is absolutely necessary, in order to the pre- paring the hearts of sinners for the receiving Christ Jesus and his holy doctrine. Preaching must not only go before baptism, but follow after it. All adult and grown persons are to be first taught and instructed before they arc baptized. But it follows not from hence that the children of such parents may not be baptized before they are taught. Men become not the children of God by natural propagation, but by spiritual regeneration. Religious parents propagate cor- ruption, not regeneration. Baptism is undoubtedly Christ's ordinance for the infants of believing Christians. Men are so far from being God's children, because they had godly parents, that Christ told the Jews, who came forth out of Abraham's loins, that they icere of their father the devil.'''' Mark, Gentlemen, the c. ntradictions and inconsistencies of this Witness. Children are incapable of John's baptism, but they are capable of our Lord's baptism ! Yet he says they were both baptisms of repentance ; and in another place, that " they were both the same for substance." Again, he says baptism is Christ's ordinance for the children of be- lievers : yet he tells you they are no more God's children on that account, than were the natural descendants of Abraham, of whom Christ said they were of their father the devil ; and in another place, that " since the coming of Christ, there is no difference or discrimination between one nation and another — no regard to any national privileges, either Jew or Gentile — no distinctions of conditions, either bond or free — but, circumcised or uncircumcised, we are all one as good as another, in respect of outer privileges." "Men (says he) are most forward to that service of God which is of man's finding out, and setting up ; man likes it better to worship a God of his OWN making, than to worship the God that made him: and likes any way of worshipping, which is of his own framing, more than that which is of GocPs apjyoint'iny. Ah, wretched heart of man (he exclaims), which, whilst it seems very zealous to worship and honour God, both not zeal to do it in any other way than in that which reflects the highest dishonour upon him." 480 Gentlemen, I shall leave you to judge, from his testimony, if he be not one of those who, in thus judging others, condemns himself — for he that judgeth doeth the same thing. The Third Witness asserts, that " God was pleased to instiUite a new ceremony, whereby mankind at large were to be admitted into covenant with him. For this purpose Christ ADOPTED baptism, which had been consecrated by his brethren after the flesh to a similar use. He kept the cere- mony, says Bishop Tajdor, that they who were led only by outward things might be the better called in, and easier en- ticed into the religion, when they entered by a ceremony which their nation always used in like cases; and therefore without change of the outward act, he put into it a new spirit." Here he is at variance with himself, as well as with the bishop ; for how can the adoption of an old established ceremony be called a ceremony newly instituted ? Or how can the Witness say that "it was to this sacrament of baptism, the institution of which he was anticipating, that our Saviour alluded in John iii. 3 — 8, when according to the Witness' own statement it had been instituted ages long before ? But, even if this Witness were consistent with himself, as well as with the bishop, and the bishop's reasoning were in accordance with the premises laid down, yet, inasmuch as his premises are defective, having no authority from the Will, all the reasoning- built upon them, however specious, must be inconclusive. This Witness further says, that " it is the doctrine of the Church of England, that by the sacrament of baptism we are made Christians ; and that if the work of regeneration is not effected by baptism, it is almost impossible for any sober man to say when and by what means it is : and that we are thus left without any other guide, than the very questionable criterion of our own imaginations, or our own feelings, to determine whether we are in possession of that which our Saviour has pronounced to be an indispensahle requisite of salvation. It is the doctrine of the Holy Scriptvn-es that we are by baptism made heirs of salvation through Christ." You could scarcely believe. Gentlemen, if you had not heard it yourselves, that a chaplain of the Archbishop of 481 Canterbury could utter such nonsense — that a man has no knowledge of his being regenerated but upon the doubtful evi- dence of a fellow creature, who informs him that he had been christened in his infancy ; and that this is the only authority he can ever have, as proof of a spiritual operation in his own soul, upon which depends his eternal happiness or misery. Gentlemen, this is not the language of Scripture, and there- fore shows that the Witness is not taught of God. The Lord says, " My people shall know my name — •! am he that doth speak: behold it is I."* Hear how John addressed believers in his day ; " I write unto you, little children, be- cause your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake. I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. 1 write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father." f " He that believeth on the Son hath the witness in himself." | " We KNOW that we have passed from death unto life." "And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us."§ "Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. "|| " Knowing, brethren beloved, (says Peter) your election of God."1[ What, if Bishop Beveridge does prove that the opinions of the early Christians uniformly support the doc- trine, it shews nothing more than that if baptismal regenera- tion be (as some affirm that it is) the Diana of the clergy of the present age, it was so in the time in which the bishop lived, and that he was one of her votaries. Now, Gentlemen, note, by what follows, how he contra- dicts his former assertion ; " It is (says he) an uncharitable, and a cruel insinuation — that our church knows of no dis- tinction, but that between professed Christians and professed heathens, Jews, &c. : and that she really considers all, who are her nominal members, in such a sense in a state of salva- tion, as that they will escape future punishment, and obtain everlasting happiness, whatever he their characters. God * Is. lii. 6. + 1 John ii. 12, 13. + 1 John v. 10. § 1 John iii. 14, 24. II 1 John iv. 13. ^1 Thess. i. 4. 2 I 482 forbid (says he) that we should be justly exposed to so for- midable an accusation ! Let us rather trust, that whilst with the church we maintain the regenerating efficacy of baptism, to those who die before they commit actual sin, — that none who have arrived at maturity, and are capable subjects, are in such a sense Christians, as that they will obtain ha])piness and heaven, except those who are mjiuenced by Christian principles, and exhibit a Christian conduct, who are peni- tent BELIEVERS, and habitual observers of God's laws." If baptism be regeneration, it must be efficacious through every period of life, and not in infancy merely. Regenera- tion is being born of God, and whosoever is born of God overcometh the world. But we find there is no victory over the world but by faith ; without it, the Scriptures uniformly declare no change can be wrought in the soul. Yet this Witness confers regeneration upon unconscious beings ; and from the scope of his ai'gument, it is evident that the efficacy of the regenerating principle, communicated at baptism, be- comes weaker and weaker, as the powers of the mind are developed; and by the time the individual arrives at maturity, it is entirely evaporated. Can this be the regeneration that is spoken of in the Will ? No, Gentlemen ; you are aware that the regeneration, therein mentioned, is the life of God in the soul ; and where it exists, it is a living principle, which can never become extinct ; it is a " being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever," * But thoiigh this Wit- ness acknowledges that none are Christians but such as maintain a Christian conduct through life ; yet he himself will, without distinction of character, repeat over the body of any deceased individual whom he may be called to inter, the follovving words : " Forasmuch as it hath pleased Almighty God of his great mercy to take unto himself the soul of OUR DEAR BROTHER ; WO therefore commit his body to the ground — in sure and certain HorE of the resurrection TO ETERNAL LIFE." But I may here be permitted to remark, that by some * 1 ret. i. 23. 483 clergymen this expression is qualified thus : " In these words there is not the most remote allusion to the particular lot of any individual, for we pretend not to decide upon the final state of any man. The words are not in sure and cer- tain hope of his or her resurrection to eternal life, but of the resurrection of eternal life." This is a petty quibble, and car- ries deceit on the face of it. Hare not the words a direct reference to the individual then and there interred, as the subject of the hope? and are not these express words for the consolation of the survivors, that they soitow not, as it is said, " as others which have no hope?" But whoever makes this assertion is evidently ashamed of his profession, and invents this fable, for it is nothing better, to get out of a dilemma, and to gloss over the inconsistency of his own con- duct, as well as that of the church to which he belongs. To me it is a matter of astonishment how any conscientious man will voluntarily place himself in such circumstances, as to be under the necessity of repeating such a form of religious ser- vice, which makes no distinction between those whom he may consider to have died in the faith, and the most profane and abandoned profligate ; or even a professed infidel, who may have died, as there are instances on record, with blas- phemy on his tongue. " It is (says this Witness) a remark of a learned prelate (Bishop Randolph), to whom many of us are indebted for in- struction in sound tlieology, that ' we are not told in Scrip- ture to divide our hearers, being believers in Christianity in common, into classes of converted and unconverted. There is, indeed, a conversion from infidelity, or a conversion from sin, or course of sinning. But that, among men baptized as Christians, taught fi'om their infancy to believe the doctrines and practise the duties of Christianity, a conversion also at some period of the life is necessary to stamp them true Christians, is an unheard of thing in the gospel, and is plainly a novel institution of man.' To contend, as is stated to be the opinion of our self -denominated evangelical hrethren, by their apologist,* that in order to a state of salvation, a change * Overton. 484 of mind, of views, and dispositions must be effected in every person, wherever born, however educated, or of whatever ex- ternal conduct, is a conceit which revelation warrants not, and which reason and experience disclaim." Is not the " Order for the Burial of the Dead" grafted upon such reasoning as Bishop Randolph's? Does he put any difference between the dead who have been baptized as Christians ? Is not his reasoning in accordance with the "Burial Service," which excepts only those " who die un- haptized^'' who have been ^^excommunicated,'''' or have " laid violent hands on themselves ? " This Witness is very fearful lest you should not believe that "regeneration by baptism" is a dogma of the Church of England; and in order to convince you that it is, he makes the following quotations from her liturgy, interspersed with his own remarks : — " We call upon thee for this infant, that he coming to thy holy baptism may receive remission of his sins by spiritual regeneration. The passage needs no comment. But when the child that has been privately baptized is admitted into the public congregation, a prayer is offered — not as in the former office that he may be born again, but that he, being born again, &c. — the congregation is required to give thanks that the child is by baptism regenerate. This great variety of expression, wherein the same doctrine is so repeatedly conveyed, proves (says he) to my mind most satisfactorily how tenacious the Church of England is of baptismal rege- neration. This variety we trace still further exemplified in the ministration of baptism to such as are of riper years. Thus, instead of the Gospel from the lOtli chapter of Mark, the passage selected is the conversation wherein Christ asserts to Nicodemus the necessity of the new birth. It must be enough barely to quote this passage ; it would be an insult to any man's understanding to attempt to make it clearer. If a bare statement of this fact does not convince a man, nothing I am persuaded can convince him, that it is by baptism, in the judgment of the Church of England, that a man is born of water and of the Sjnrit. I proceed to show 485 (says he) by a still greater accumulation of proof, what her doctrine is : — After being baptized, the first religious duty in which the church requires a child to be engaged, is the learning of his catechism — the very first thing that she teaches him is, that ' In his baptism he was made a member of Christ,' &c. ; and being interrogated what is its inward and spiritual grace, he is instructed to answer, ' a death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness.' Had it been the inten- tion of the composers of the catechism, as, indeed, I doubt not that it was, to assert most unequivocally the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, how could it have been more directly asserted ? plainer language cannot be found. " The next religious office, in which the child is engaged, is the order of confirmation ; wherein he ratifies and confirms the vows made for him by his sureties. The bishop, who presides at the office, is directed to pray, — ' who hast vouchsafed to regenerate these thy servants by water and the Holy Ghost.' The assertion is plain and direct : the church affirms by the mouth of one of her (jovernors, and she affirms it in the most solemn prayer — not with a view to blessings contingent — but with a view to those which at baptism they actualhj receive. In the collect for Christmas-day, the peti- tion is exclusively for daily renovation : the notice of our regeneration,, and of our adoption — retrospective, and as a grateful acknowledgment of a blessing once conferred, and not to be repeated. In the articles of our church. Christians universally are designated by the appellation of those ' who are baptized and born again.' — Such are the doctrines of our church with regard to regeneration." You observe. Gentlemen, how zealous this Witness is to convince us all, that "Baptismal Regeneration" is the only regeneration recognized by the Church of England. I shall not attempt to argue the point with him. I leave it to those of his own brotherhood who hold an opinion quite the con- trary. They must settle the difference among themselves. But this much I will take upon myself to say, that if it is the doctrine of the Church of England (which I do not question), it is not the doctrine of the Holy Scriptures ; for the former 486 asserts, that all the christened infants, all the confinned of all ages, and all the chi-istened in " riper rears," are regenerated ; whereas the latter says, by the apostle James, that " of his own will begat he us with the word of tiiith." * Now mark how this great champion of episcopacy over- throws the whole system of the Church of England ! He asserts that " al:most every soul (against whose prejudices, pride, and corrupt passions, the gospel militated,) must have been converted from his errors, whether in principle or in practice; his heart must have been opened and softened, and rendered capable of receiving fresh and totally different im- pressions, before he could become a believer in the truth, or a performer of the duties of the gospel. Every man who now also is under the influence of similar prepossessions, must now also undergo a similar change. Every unbeliever and every sinner, although made by baptism a member OF Christ and a child of God, must be in a certain sense converted, if he would ultimately succeed to his inherit- ance of the kingdom of heaven." Let this assertion be compared with what he has previously said of regeneration, and say, Gentlemen, if they can be re- conciled. But, independently of what he has before stated, the sentence just now adverted to contains assertions wholly incompatible with each other ; and directly opposed to the Will, which declares that " Whosoever is born of God, doth not commit sin ; for his seed remaineth in him : and he can- not sin, because he is bom of God." f The evidence of the Fourth Witness is conclusive for my clients. From the tenor of it, it is clear that he has no confidence in his own creed. He told you that at one time he was very uneasy " whether baptism should be administered to infants, or only to adults professing faith ;" and that " he became even afraid of administering it, or the Lord's Supper." Under these circumstances then he ought to have refrained from both, " for whatsoever is not of faith, is sin." | He attempted to still his conscience, by saying to himself, " He that believeth sbaU not make haste." But this passage he * James i. 18. f 1 John iii. 9. t Rom. xiv. 23. 4S7 misapplied ; for not being, according to his own confession, a believer, the text did not apply to him. He ought to have made haste to " relinquish his station," because it required of him duties which he could not conscientiouslj perform. In not doing this, it is evident he was trying to serve two masters ; he had a desire to leave the society in which he moved, and seek for instruction among those who, at the time, appeared to him better acquainted with the Will ; but he continued where he was, stifling his conscience, and clinging to the system which his heart told him he ought to relinquish. Cleaving to the principles which he had ad- vanced, in preference to following the requirements of the Will, it was not likely that he should " receive satisfaction from reading books on both sides of the question." These could only bewilder him. If he had applied himself solely to the study of the Scriptures, with the disposition therein recommended, he would have arrived at a satisfactory con- clusion ; and not have remained in the perplexing state of doubt and uncertainty which is so apparent from his testi- mony. This he professed to do, as he says that he laid " aside all controversial writings, and determined to seek satisfaction on this question, as he had done on others, by searching the Scriptures and prayer." But there can be little doubt that, upon this subject, at least, he deceived himself; for the sequel shows that the enquiry was made with a strong bias in favour of preconceived opinions, and not with that impartiality which the importance of the question de- manded. He did not seek to be convinced of his error, but to find something to confirm him in it. In this he was certain to succeed, though that it was not to his satisfaction he clearly evinces, when he says that he " came to a conclusion that the infant children of believers, and of all who make a cre- dible profession of faith, are the proper subjects of baptism, and that he had never afterwards been much troubled about it." This monosyllable, MrcH, speaks volumes. It demon- strates, in the clearest manner, that he had still misgivings of mind — that, having found no authority for his conduct in 488 the Will, his mind was ill at ease. It is evident that his faith and practice were not fonnded upon an impregnable rock, which no storms could shake ; and there can be no doubt in the mind of every thinking person, who has heard his evidence, that if he had come to the study of the question free and unprejudiced, the conclusion at which he would have arrived would have been the reverse of what he states it to have been. He would have said, "The antipa^dobaptists are right," He told you that " immersion was doubtless baptism ;" how then can sprinkling be baptism, when the words have a distinct and separate meaning ? " I can (says he) confidently appeal to my heart-searching Judge that 1 have, as far as I know, written word for word what I supposed he would have me write, without adding^ altering, or keeinng hack, the sense of any passage willingly, to serve any personal end, or party interest, from fear of incurring reproach, or opposition, or desire of conciliating the favour of any man, or set of men whatever ; and that the mistakes which have been made were involuntary, the effects of ignorance and error, and not of design." In addition to that part of his testimony which I have previously touched upon, I shall now. Gentlemen, bring again before you the following statements, which you have heard from his mouth, in the hope that I may be able to convince you that a great portion of his evidence does not accord with his solemn affirmation. " They were baptized by him (John) in, or at, the river Jordan. Immersion is doubtless baptism — but whether the rite was administered by immersion or not, is incapable of decisive proof" Has he not here, to suit his particular views, made an addition to the text, which, if he had been desirous of doing justice to himself, he ought to have left untouched ? " Baptism (says he) is — that profession of faith in Christ, which is REQUIRED OF ALL wlio embrace Christianity. But if men truly believe in Christ, profess openly faith in him, and partake of his sanctifying Spirit, they will doubtless be saved, even — should they fall into any mistake about the ex- 489 ternal mode of administering that ordinance : and if men believe and are baptized, it does not follow, from the order of the words in the text, that baptism is invalid because it was previous to believing." Gentlemen, does not this manifest design ? Can this be the effect of ignorance ? " The words (says he) perhaps may more correctly be ren- dered, ' He that shall believe .and be baptized.' " I do not see what material difference this rendering makes ; but if he would speak openly, may we not presume that he would say the words might be rendered, " He that shall believe after he has been christened shall, without being baptized, be saved"? He says that " faith is more expressly required to salvation than baptism." We readily admit that there is much more said of the former than of the latter ; and that there are pas- sages where salvation is said to be by faith, without any allusion to that ordinance. Nevertheless, in most of the dis- courses delivered by the apostles, we find that baptism is invariably connected with believing ; that it is by them made essential to the profession of Christianity. And what saith the Lord ? " He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved." This is the great promise on which we found all our hopes — the promise which as expressly prescribes bap- tism, as it requires faith. And if baptism may be dispensed with, why, I will ask, was it ordained by the Testator, and enjoined upon his disciples ? Let our opponents answer the question ! You will recollect, Gentlemen, that this Witness made no remark upon the passage, " John was baptizing in ^non, because there was much water there. " The reason is ob- vious ; he knew much water was not required for sprinkling. Now mark ! when he wishes to make you believe that the three thousand, on the day of Pentecost, were sprinkled, he says, " As so great a number were baptized on this occasion, and as they were not by the river Jordan, ' where there was much water,' but in the midst of a populous city, it is at least highly probable, that they were not baptized by im- mersion. " If this inference be legitimate, then the opposite one, that 490 John baptized in the river Jordan, is irrefragably estabhshed; much water being required for that purpose, the ordinance was consequently administered where it was to be found. But now, because it was administered in a situation where water it is supposed could not be easily obtained in sufficient quan- tity, the apostles, therefore, must of necessity use economy, and abstain from a lavish use of so scarce an article. Accord- ingly, he would have us believe that the apostles sprinkled the three thousand; which not only answered the same end as baptizing them, but prevented an unnecessary waste of water. " The expression (says he), * of such is the kingdom of heaven,' seems to mean that little children are admissible into the visible church of the New Testament dispensation." This is his testimony before the Court. But you. Gentlemen, who have read his ' Force of Truth,' know that in applying the words ' Suffer little children, &c.' to himself, he gives a different and more correct definition of them. " I was (he therein says) very far indeed from being a little child, sitting humbly and simply at the Lord's feet, to learn from him the very first rudiments of Divine knowledge ; I had yet no abiding suspicion that all which I had heretofore accounted w'isdom was foolishness, and must be unlearned and counted loss. In short, I gradually sa^v more and more my need of instruction, and was at length brought to consider myself a very novice in religious matters. Thus I began experimen- tally to perceive our Lord's meaning, when he says ' Except ye receive the kingdom of God as a little child, ye shall in nowise enter therein.' For though my proud heart was con- tinually rebelling, and would fain build up again the former Babel of self-conceit, yet, I trust, I have from this time, in my settled judgment, aimed, and prayed to be enabled, to consider myself as a little child, who ought simply to sit at the Master's feet, to hear his words with profound submis- sion, and wait his teaching with earnest desire and patient attention." From this observation, it is evident. Gentlemen, that this Witness does not consider the Scripture phrase, " little chil- dren," as applicable to infants, or children young in years ; for even after he himself had arrived at manhood, he found 491 that he had still to leam to become, in the scriptural accep- tation of that terra, a little child ; hereby making it manifest that when he is free from ]3rejudice, he can view the subject in its true light ; but that when he has a point to establish, then every word and sentence has a constrained meaning forced upon it. In regard to Christian confidence and consolation, this Witness remai'ked, that it had been said, referring to him, that ^^ deep th'mkers and highly gifted persons are seldom favoured with such joy and peace in believing as are expe- rienced by common minds ; that men must always pay the penalty annexed to preeminence above their fellows." From the manner in which this is mentioned, we presume that this Witness expresses the actual state of his own mind, and that it is not to be supposed that he stands alone in this predicament, but that what is stated with reference to him, prevails generally among those with whom the observer is personally acquainted, those whom he knows by report, and with whose writings he may be conversant, — many of them, no doubt, celebrated for the profoundness of their under- standing, the strength of their capacity, and the depth of their knowledge in the things of God. To many this may appear paradoxical, and excite an enquiiy how such a state of things can exist ; but I confess I was neither startled nor taken by surprise by such an extraordinary announcement. I do not deny that these individuals have studied the word of God, and thought deeply upon many of its doctrines; yet it is evident, from the tenor of their conversation and writings, that that they do not derive the consolation which the reception of that word imparts. Here now we have the explication of this seeming mystery — that there is a penalty attached to the deep study of it ; and that men of enlarged minds must be content to pay this penalty — that is, to forego the consola- tions of a Christian, for the sake of standing higher in society than their fellows. Does not the remark verify the saying of our Lord, "No man can serve two masters?" With such men as these, every thing relative to the ways of God retrogrades — as they advance in years, they regress in spirituality — as their knowledge increases, so their con- 492 solation diminishes. An infant, by virtue of a rite of man's invention, is made a child of God, an heir of heaven, created anew in Christ Jesus to eternal life ; but as he in- creases in years, and advances in wisdom and in stature, he recedes in the way of life — he pines away — the vivifying prin- ciple gradually decays, and after a little time becomes extinct. In like manner, in after years, when the word of God is received into a common mind, the consolations are bright and daz- zling ; but if the individual should be so unwise as to reflect deejDly upon the subject, and to examine seriously the foundation of his faith, the light diminishes in proportion to the extent of his enquiry, and at length not a spark re- mains. Is not this granting a triumph to infidelity, by practically inferring that the word of God will not bear strict scrutiny and impartial examination, but that it fails in the most essential point — the giving a "knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins?"* And yet these individuals vn'ite in its defence, and in proof of its divine authority. But — We do not so read the word — we read that " the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day."t We do not so learn Christ — we learn that he " was not yea and nay, but in him was yea." | Wisdom says, " Blessed is the man that heareth me, watch- ing daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors. For whoso findeth me, findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the Lord." § Again, it is said, " Wisdom is the principal thing: therefore get wisdom." || And again, "Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for under- standing; if thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasure ; then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God." % The apostle Paul declares of himself, that he pursued this course — " I follow after (says he), if that I may apprehend that for which also T am apprehended of Christ Jesus." And again, " I press toward the mark for the prize of the ?iigh calling of * Luke i. 77. f Prov. iv. 18. + 2 Cor. i. 19. § Trov. viii. 35. II Prov. iv. 7. 51 I'rov. ii. :J — 5. 493 God in Christ Jesus."* Does this bespeak the reflection of a common mind — a mind void of deep thought ; possessed of no gift to elevate him above the common rank ? Further, our Lord says, that " Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will show you to whom he is like: he is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock." t The foundation, then, being nothing less than Christ himself, the Rock of Ages, is stable ; and the superstructure raised upon it, being composed of rich materials, such as gold, silver, and precious stones, obtained by deep searching in the mine of God's Word — all dross, alloy, and impurity being separated from it by the " refiner's fire," the power of earth and hell united cannot shake it, nor affect it in any way ; the build- ing, being of God, " a house not made with hands," stands impregnable for ever and ever. Gentlemen, I must confess to you, that I was shocked when I heard this Witness make the following statement. "With a heart full of pride and wickedness — my life pol- luted with many unrepented, unforsaken sins — after having concealed my real sentiments under the mask of general expressions ; after having subscribed articles directly con- trary to what I believed ; and after having blasphemously declared, in the presence of God and of the congregation, in the most solemn manner, sealing it with the Lord's supper, that I judged myself to be ' inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost to take that office upon me^ not knowing or believing that there was an Holy Ghost — I was ordained a deacon." Evidence, Gentlemen, from a source like this, is inadmis- sible ; more especially as he not only did not evince his repentance, by " relinquishing the station" which he obtained in such an iniquitous manner; but to gain preferment he asserts that he would again subscribe (if it could be done with an understanding that he may subscribe without believ- ing every part), although he confesses that the creeds and articles do not accord " with true, unadulterated Christianity^'' and which he says would then be a farce. * Phil. iii. 12. 14. t Lul^e vi. 47, 48. 494 The Fifth Witness informed you that " he had preached the gospel thirty-four years," and that " one consideration furnished him with a satisfactory hope, that what he had taught is substantially at least the truth of God; which is this — the substance is the same with that which is found in almost every Protestant creed; and with the scheme adopted in every age by that part of the Christian Church which has gained every where the apjsropriate name of orthodox." This I suppose. Gentlemen, is the reason why the plaintiffs have been at the expense of subpoenaing him from the other side of the Atlantic ; this it is that makes him popular ; and for this cause they republish his works here, and promote the sale of them by all the means in their power; as they do also those of others who have written in support of their system. These productions are read with avidity by the multitude, and by them the system is u])held ; and this confirms the saying of the apostle, " They are of the world, therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them." * Now, Gentlemen, observe what this Witness states else- where— " All things (says he) which the Sacred Book con- tains, are to be received as they are. Our own opinions are implicitly to bow before them ; and we are ever to be ready to believe what we think ' the foolishness of God, to be wiser than man' — than all the substituted opinions of ourselves or others. ' Let God be true,' ought to be our invariable language ; but every man who opposes his decla- ration, ' a liar.' The gospel contains whatever it expresses, and whatever it implies ; but it contains nothing more. Nothing more then can be lawfully inculcated by a7ty teacher as a part of the gospel. — The sense we cannot change at all, for one which we conceive will better suit and support any part, or the whole, of a preconceived system ; a doctrine of our own lyMlosophy, or a tenet of the church, sect, or party to which we belong. Thus saith the Lord, is to every Christian a pole star, an infallible guide over the ocean of doubt. To know that any thing is the will of God, is enough. * 1 John iv. 5. 495 He obeys, and asks no reasons to prove his obedience wise and safe. No man ever oheys in a scriptural sense until after lie believes. The rules given by God alone render baptism lawful in any case ; no qualifications in any person render him a proper candidate for baptism in any other sense than as they jalace him within those rules. AVithout these rules, regeneration would not render his baptism lawful. The apostles were directed to make disciples of all nations, and THEN to baptize them. The Scriptures teach us that the gospel is the great instrument of regeneration. Every one who reads the gospel must know, that to be baptized in the name of Christ, is to make a public and most solemn pro- fession of faith in Him as the redeemer of mankind. It is evident, beyond controversy, that adults were baptized by the apostles AFTER that they were either really or apparently regenerated. He who, understanding the nature and autho- rity of the institution, refuses to be baptized, will never ENTER either the visible or invisible kingdom of God. As he refuses to become a member of the visible, he will cer- tainly BE SHUT out of the invisible kingdom. Considered with a reference to a case of this nature, the passage (He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that belicveth not shall be damned) may be justly construed in the literal manner; for he who persists in this act of rebellion against the authority of Christ, will never belong to his kingdom, a public declaration of our cordial belief in the doctrines and precepts of the gospel, is what is usually called a Profession of Faiths Now, Gentlemen, I ask if this evidence be not altogether in favour of my clients? and though the success of our cause does not depend upon any concessions made by our oppo- nents, yet I might say that this is of itself sufficient to justify me in calling upon you for a verdict in our favour. — After such a declaration as that just mentioned, I cannot comprehend how the same individual can stand up and defend the prac- tice of infant sprinkling, unless it be to show his talent in disputation, or more properly in sophistry ; to show us how ingeniously he can make it appear that all his own words, 496 as well all the plainest and most positive declarations of Scripture, have no meaning, or a meaning directly the reverse of that which every man of common understanding believes them to convey. Speaking of circumcision, he said, that that "covenant was a covenant of grace, in these terms, ' I will be yoiu- God, and ye shall be my people.' The conditions of it were, on the part of man, that he should believe in God, especially in the Redeemer, with an evangelical faith ; and on the part of God, that this faith should be counted to the believer for righteousness. Of this covenant, circumcision was oi-iginaUy the seaV Yet in another place he says, that " circumcision was not, and could not he intended to be, a seal set by God upon the actual existing evangelical faith of those who were circumcised ; because a part of those who were first circum- cised, and almost all those who were circumcised after- wards, were at the time of their circumcision unpossessed of, and incapable of this faith." " Infant baptism is (he says) in the Scripture confined to the children of professing Christians. Infants are baptized in consequence of a profession of faith ; but it is the profes- sion of their parents, not their own. Infants can be received as belonging to Christ, in no other manner than that of receiving them into the church. — Children can come to Christ in the present world, so as to constitute a part of his kingdom, in NO other manner than by becoming members of his visible church." Now observe. Gentlemen, according to this Witness, the very men who profess such friendship for children are their greatest enemies ; insomuch as they prevent them, so far as in them lies, from entering heaven in the appointed way, which way, according to their own showing, is through the visible church. He says, that " all baptized persons are, by that class of Christians to whom he has attached himself, considered as members of the Christian Church ; yet those who are baptized in infancy are not treated as if they pos- sessed this character; particularly they are not admitted to the sacramental supper, nor made objects of ecclesiastical 497 discipline." To which he adds, this objection has, in his view, " a more serious import than any other which has been alleged, and I acknowledge (says he) without hesitation, that the conduct of those with whom I am in immediate communion, and so far as I know them, their opinions, also, with regard to this subject, are in a greater or less degree ERRONEOUS and INDEFENSIBLE." And observe, flirther, the result of other parts of his evidence. He says, in the first place, that " The rules given by God alone render baptism lawful in any case." He has not shown in what part of the Will these rules are given to christen children ; and until he points out the clause in which it is positively commanded, we must consider it an antichristian rite. In the second place, he says that " salvation is proffered by God on his own terms only." Then, if I may so express myself, the terms are, believing and being baptized. In the third place, "That which, on the part of mankind, makes them God's children, is their own voluntary gift of themselves." " Infants are altogether passive ; " therefore infants cannot be his children on this principle. In the fourth place, "On the belief of the Gospel, Christ has made the salvation of the whole human race abso- lutely TO DEPEND." Infants are a part of the human race, they are incapable of faith, therefore their salvation cannot rest on this foundation. In the fifth place, that " Christ declares that ' he who be- lieveth not,' whether baptized or not, shall be damned." As children are incapable of belief, the text can have no reference to them, and as by his evidence baptism can be of benefit to unbelievers, it can be of no benefit to them. In the sixth place, that " God has no where promised that CHILDREN shall be regenerated." Therefore, according to his doctrine, not one child, whether sprinkled ox unsprinkled, will be saved; fpr he affirms that " regeneration is the indispensable qualification for admission into the invisible kitigdom of God.^^ 2 K 498 I shall here advert to a ch'cumstauce stated by this witness, which corroborates what I have said of the fourth, respect- ing his manner of searching the Will. "A man (says he) employed in supporting a darling point, will, when hardly pushed, very naturally feel, that, as he undoubtedl}' must be right in his own system, so the Scriptures must some where declare that which he at the time wishes to teach. With these views he will naturally hunt for the passages which come nearest to the doctrine in question, and will as naturally believe that the meaning which he wishes to assign them is their true meaning. Hence he will attribute to them the implication which he wishes to find." But this does not apply to himself. He is candid : he tells you plainly that he had been compelled to give up opinions which he had previously entertained, and that whether he had " adopted better in their place is yet to he determined ; " and further that what he teaches accords in substance with every Protestant creed. It is evident from this that the foundation of his faith rests more upon the doctrines and precepts of men, than upon the infallible record of the word of God. Had he made that and that only the foundation of his faith, he would not have stood in doubt of his real cha- racter in the sight of God. It would not then have been said of him (according to his own avowal), that he never spoke of himself " as a Christian" — that he did not know that he had " any -personal interest in the mediation of Christy Can the evidence of a Witness like this have any weight with a conscientious jury ? If he express himself with so much uncertainty on a subject of such momentous import, and on which all believers can speak with unwavering con- fidence, (after the manner of the apostle, " We know that when he shall appear, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is ;"* " and we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son .lesus Christ ;")t — What regard can be * 1 Johuiii. 2. f 1 John v. 20. 499 paid to his evidence on othei* doctrinal subjects? It is clear that he himself has no confidence in them ; conse- quently, Gentlemen, you cannot be expected to give cre- dence to his testimony. Baptism he says is nowhere in the Scriptures declared to be immersion ; and yet he tells you water may be administered by immersion, implying I presume that immersion is baptism. He would fain have you believe that there were young children in the houses both of Cornelius and the jailer; yet he appears willing to concede the point in the former instance, and in the latter he acknowledges that the household were baptized in conse- quence of their faith. How is it possible that any individual can understand the Will, when the world in general, and the learned in pai"- ticular, all take different views of it, and scarcely any two of them exactly agree upon any one point? This is a question very often asked ; and why it is not understood, is well answered by this Witness, in that part of his evidence which I have just recapitulated. And still better by A. Knox, in his correspondence with Bishop Jebb, in which he says, " The simple, direct view of Christianity has very seldom been taken. Most men, in all ages, have sat down to the gospel with a set of prc^judices, which, like so many inquisitors, have laid the Christian religion on a bed like that of Procrustes ; and as it suited them either mutilated it by violence, or extended it by force." Of this the Witnesses have given you a good specimen. But Bishop Jebb goes far beyond them ; " It is (says he) my wish and prayer, that I may be saved from the simplicity of Bible religion." The first part of the question is answered by Solomon as follows ; " My son, if thou vn\i receive my words, and hide my commandments with thee ; so that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding ; yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding ; if thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures ; then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God." * * Proverbs ii. 1 — 5. 500 The Sixth Witness has no confidence in his " hard arguments," for he did not know whether he should " suc- ceed or fail." Consequently he " has " not " the witness in himself," or he would have known that having truth on his side he would ultimately overcome. He told you that, " As a Paedobajatist, he is accustomed, along with his brethren of the same persuasion, to administer the ordinance of baptism, to the infant children of believers ; and that they are coun- tenanced in so doing by their churches and congregations." Mark, Gentlemen, not by any direction from the Testator ! Also that " there are too many, when in a state of want of knowledge they happen to fall in with a Baptist friend or a Baptist argument, are in danger of being immediately unset- tled, and of hastily adopting what is presented to them with no little plausibility, and probably too with much imposing consequence." If these be his believers of whom he is here speaking, it shows upon what a sandy foundation their faith is built: but whether they are or are not, it indicates how little the plaintiffs are conversant with the creed which they at the commencement of their formal profession pretended to believe. And is it any wonder that the minds of his hearers should be kept in an unsettled state, when he tells them " that the sign of circumcision was not to Abraham the seal of his own personal justification ; for this would be incompatible with subsequent trial, and with his giving diligence, like other believers, to make his calling and election sure ?" Is it becoming a professor of the gospel, or is it any indication of his being a believer, to say this of him, whose faith was counted to him for righteousness ; in whom all nations are to be blessed, and who in the Will is styled "Faithful Abraham?"* What is it to believe? Is it not to know and be assured that we are "justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus ?"t to "know that we have passed fi'om death unto life ;" X and that " our life is hid with Christ in God."§ He says, that " We have abundant evidence that the par- ticular rite is changed;" but "none whatever of any such * Gal. iii. 0, 8, t). f Romaus iii. 24. + 1 John iii. U. § Col. iii. 3. 501 change in its administration, as excludes children from being any longer the legitimate subjects of its observance." He is well aware how difficult it would be to confirm one of his assertions without contradicting the other. Or wliy, when he brought forward the Testator's commission, did he keep back the promise attached to it. He knows well that infants are incapable of being taught; and consequently that they are excluded from that particular promise. He thinks it strange if the reception of children with their parents were inconsistent with the spirituality of the gospel that, in the assembly of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem, no notice whatever was taken of the inconsistency of admi- nistering any sign to children on the admission of their parents into the Christian commonwealth. Does not this very omission in the letter of the apostles to the Gentile converts show unequivocally that the rite of christening children was not then practised .? If it had been, would not the apostles have written them to abstain therefrom, as well as " from pollutions of idols and from fornication ?" Every thing relat- ing to the true worship of God is stated in plain and express terms, and there is nothing left for our invention. Therefore to introduce a rite into his church without his authority for so doing, is to offer an insult to his wisdom and prescience ; as if he could not have foreseen what would be wanting, or had not wisdom sufficient to provide for it, but left it to his people to remedy the defects which should be discovered in after time. Further (says he), " the circumstances of the early history of the church, after the apostolic age, are unaccountable on antipeedobaptist principles ; because Origen, Cyprian, Justin Martyr, and Austin, say that in their day it was the custom to baptize infants." We have invariably denounced the appeal to the uncertain traditions of men ; and even these witnesses never admit the authority to which they now appeal, when it makes against their particular views. But here, because it lends them some support, it is unques- tionable, and ought by all means to be admitted ! But we say, " to the law and to the testimony : if they speak 502 not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."* " It has often (he said) been asked, ' What are the uses of infant baptism ? "What good ends are answered by it ? ' It ought first to be observed, however, that with regard to all such questions as the one so often put, and so conjidently answered, there is obviously a previous question ; Is it or is it not a divine institution ? We, however (says he), freely admit that it is reasonable to expect that there should be some uses apj^arent of whatever the God of infinite wisdom enjoins ; and on the present occasion we feel no difficulty in meeting the enquiry. Infant baptism contains a constant memorial of original sin. It teaches very simply, but very significantly, that even from the womb children are the sub- jects of polution : that they stand in need of pardon of the original apostacy." Yes, Gentlemen, we reiterate both these questions — What is its use ? Is it a divine institution ? He does not enter into the proof of the latter question ; neither do we, as we have previously given unquestionable authority that it is not a divine institution. But our opponents may say, that though it be not a divine institution, it nevertheless has its use; that many good and important ends are answered by it ; and therefore, upon that account alone, it is deserving of consideration. Now what is its use? and what important end does it answer .'' It is (he says) " a constant memorial of original sin; it teaches — that even from the womb children are the subjects of pollution, and that they stand in need of pardon of the original apostacy." Well, even if these things were real, substantial existences (which they really are not, in the sense in which these Witnesses consider them), the infant could not be benefited by the memorial — he is uncon- scious of the design of all this antiscriptural ceremony ; he knows nothing of what is going forward ; he has the sensation ai-ising from a few drops of water falling on his face, but why or wherefore he is so treated, he knows not. And as the in- struction that is thus supposed to be afforded has relation only • Isiiiuh viii. 20. 503 to children, it cannot benefit the spectators who are become adult, and who being conscious and accountable beings, are standing in a different capacity. Can there be any instruction conveyed to the beholders by the exhibition of a bowl of water, and the sprinkling of a few drops of it upon an infant's face, further than pointing out the folly of the system ? An infant cannot be an apostate — it has no faith to forsake j and who but the plaintiffs could imagine that " the Lord" who proclaimed himself, '* The Lord God, merciftd and gracious, long suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,"* could condemn an innocent for the apostacy of Adam ? " The doctrine of baptismal regeneration (says this Wit- ness) is in many respects as pernicious in its tendencies, as it is ABSURD on principles of reason, and destitute of foun- dation in Scripture ; it is a doctrine of the Chiuch of Rome, and it harmonizes well with the innumerable absurdities of that antichristian communion ; it is contained also in the articles and baptismal service of the Chm'ch of England, constituting one of the remnants of popery of which there are too many in her constitution. The only wonder is that any man of common sense should have mentioned it." This is strong language. Gentlemen, as applied to the community to which he belongs ; and, as far as it goes, I desire nothing more favourable to the cause which I am advocating. The iconder is, how he can continue a public minister of a community, other public ministers of which, as you have heard in evidence, hold the very doctrines which he denounces as remnants of popery. But there is another wonder, Gentlemen, i. e. that he himself should, after the manner of those whom he denounces, not only adopt the same tradition, original sin, but apply the same antichristian rite to cleanse from it. If he affuses a child, merely to show " the necessity of regeneration," does he not at the same time show that the child is not benefited by the effusion ? because it only points out the necessity of an operation which it is not able to effect. Yet, says he, " there is surely no contradiction nor * Exodus xxxir. 6. 504 incongruity in infant baptism — nothing certainly in it to warrant the scorn and ridicule with which it has been assailed." It is not, as we have shown, in accordance with the Divine Testimony ; consequently it merits all the obloquy that has been cast upon it. " Let it not (says he) be said, that the ground of ridicule is, that infants are incapable of that faith which the New Testament affirms to be necessary to baptism, and of which baptism is the profession. It has often been remarked, and it has never been satisfactorily answered, that this mode of reasoning, if valid for the exclusion of infants from baptism, must be equally valid for their exclusion from salvation. — If it be a correct syllogism — believing is necessary to baptism; infants are incapable of believing ; therefore no infants ought to be baptized. The following must be correct to. Believing is necessary to salvation ; infants are incapable of believing, therefore infants cannot be saved." This analogy would be perfect according to our views of right reason, if the two cases were exactly parallel, /. e. if it can be proved that the salvation of innocents and that of sinful beings are one and the same thing. Or, that the deliver- ance from the effects of temporal death, introduced by the sin of Adam ; and the deliverance from eternal death, the punishment due to our personal offences, are synonymous. This I apprehend our opponents are unable to prove. Until they do so, we must deny the legitimacy of their reasoning. And although, as I have before stated, the Scriptures are silent with regard to the future state of infants ; I have no doubt that all who die before they commit personal transgressions, will be eternally happy. " Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right." * He who " is righteous in all his ways ?" " To the children of godly parents (he says) I would briefly, but affectionately say ; you enjoy, or you have enjoyed ^ a most precious privilege ; a blessing for which you cannot be too thankful." Gentlemen, mark this, he says, you enjoy, or have enjoyed ! What ? The privilege of being christened, respecting which he afterwards tells them, that " if from * Gen. xviii. 2o. 505 that circumstance they fancy themselves Christians, they are in the same fatal error in which the Jews were, who imagined themselves children of Abraham and of God, because they were circumcised." " I speak not (says he) of vows made by your parents in your name ; and far less, of god-fathers and god-mothers stepping in between you and them, and taking upon themselves the gratuitous responsibility in your behalf; because I find none of these things in my Bible, and regard them, along with some other practices, as inventions of men, human appendages to a simple institution." These concluding observations bring to my recollection an anecdote I have heard of two ministers, the one an Epis- copalian, the other an Independent. The latter was the guest of the former- and during his visit, he witnessed the christening of a child by his friend. After the ceremony was over, the following dialogue took place. Ind. I am surprised, brother, that you should imagine sponsors can believe by proxy for the infant. Epis. Why so, brother ? Ind. Because I do not find these things in my Bible. Epis. Oh ! There you are mistaken. Ind. Indeed I am not. Epis. I am sure they are to be found there, or they would not be in the rubric. Ind. Nonsense, there is nothing of the sort. Epis. Nothing of the sort ? There must be, or the learned and good men who instituted the ceremony would not have required them. Ind. Brother, let me remove your delusions ? Sponsors are not mentioned in the Bible; they are an invention of men, one among a numher of other relics of popery that still remain in your Church. Epis. (In a passion) I say that they are mentioned in the Bible ; and if you will find me the passage where sprinkling an infant is commanded, I will engage to find sponsors for their proxy, either in the verse preceding, or the verse fol- lowing it. The Seventh Witness told you that he " had long felt 506 himself particularly called upon to give his evidence upon this subject; that Christians were actually beginning to despair of any result from the existing controversy," and that " several churches have been formed of late years on an understood acknowledgment, that the Word of God gives no explicit instruction to his people on so rudimental a subject as the ordinance of baptism. Every member is therefore left to do respecting it, that which is right in his own eyes : it is agreed, whatever each may think or do for himself, that that ordinance shall in no form and in no case be admitted into any part of their public worship." These are just such churches, Gentlemen, as you would naturally expect to spring from the preaching of men like the plaintifTs witnesses. Could any thing better be expected from their conflicting sentinaents ? Here is a specimen of churches formed upon the principle of that universal, but spurious charity, by which the ordinances of the Lord's house, and his positive commandments, shall be compromised ; and by general consent never be named among professors, lest it should disturb the peace and har- mony which now prevail amongst them. Now, Gentlemen, I call your particular attention to the second sentence which this Witness uttered, as it shows, in a striking manner, the evil effect of sprinkling infants. " Rea- sons says he) may be assigned, though not to justify, yet to account for, much of the ignorance which prevails among Christians respecting baptism. When they first have their attention directed to the observance of ordinances, they do not usually take much notice of baptism, which they believe they have already received ; but rather of the Lord's Supper, which they desire to partake of as the highest privilege of saints on earth." To be reckoned one of the family of the Most High, is certainly our highest privilege ; but it behoves us to examine ourselves, and see that we have on a wedding garment, ere we presume to sit down at his table ; lest we should find ourselves in the same situation as the man who is mentioned in the twenty-second chapter of Matthe\v. To whom did 507 our Lord say, " This do in remembrance of me " ? Was it not to the twelve baptized disciples ? And was it not to men who were " sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints," — whom Paul admonished respecting their manner of partaking of the Supper — men who " believed and were baptized ? " * Is it not evident, then, from these examples, that no person who has not been baptized after he believed, can sit down at the Lord's table without subjecting himself to the denunciations of Paul ? See now in what an awful situation this Witness places himself and his followers. He it is that affuses them in infancy ; he is the cause of the litde notice they take of baptism, and he it is who makes them believe that they have already been baptized ; consequently, it is through his instructions that they eat and drink unworthily. Never- theless, being of age, they are, conjointly with himself, responsible for their acts. He does not deny that " antipaedobaptist sentiments have for several years been making considerable progress ;" but this he attributes, not to the force of truth, but to " the mixture of error and inconsistent practice in those who before held the truth generally on the controverted subject." I think, Gentlemen, we may safely assert that the progress is accelerated by the force of truth, and the inconsistency of those who sprinkle children ; for as soon as a person discovers for himself that there is no real comfort to be derived from the doctrines which these Witnesses teach, he will naturally flee to the only sure guide, the Bible (this being acknowledged by all of them to be the standard of truth). And if he searches it with his whole heart, and with fervent prayer, it will not be long before he will be led to see that the baptism of a believer is according to the commandment of the Testator ; and that the christening of an infant is " after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." f " It unfortimately happens (says he) that the ordinance of baptism has come into Protestant churches, with an uncom- monly LARGE SHARE OF THE SUPERSTITIOUS ABSURDITIES OF * Acts xviii. 8. f Col. ii. 8. 508 THE Church of Rome. Who can be surprised (says lie) at the number of an tipa) dob ap lists in the southern part of the Island, where it is a general system to baptize all chil- dren ; where the whole service is a transaction between a priest and certain sureties, called god-fathers and god- mothers ; where the priest is made to talk as if to the child ; and the sureties are made to answer in his name ; where a formal bargain is struck, between Christ on the one hand, and the child on the other, in consideration of certain pro- mises to be performed by each party to the other ; where the priest must pray that the water to be used may be made holy ; where he is directed to dip the child, and yet uniformly pours water upon it ; w^here, after baptism, the priest makes a cross upon the child's forehead, and gives thanks to God for his regeneration ? " This Witness, like his brother who preceded him, rails against the practice of the Established Church, which is very unbecoming in them both. They ought first to correct their own practice, before they find fault with hers. What if she be called the elder daughter of the Church of Rome ; is not their church a younger branch of the same family ? They are not only of the same stock with her whom they accuse, but are even more inconsistent than she is ; they make a difference between the infants of professors, and the infants of those who have not made a profession, which she does not; and in this her departure from the tenor of the Will, which puts no difference between them, is not so wide as theirs. It declares that " God hath made of one blood all nations of men." * " Have we not all one father ? hath not one God created us." f Job says, " Did not he that made me in the womb make him ? and did not one fashion us in the womb ? " % (or did he not fashion us in one womb?) " However interesting (says he) the occasions for adult baptism may so?netimes be in themselves," they " generally arise out of circumstances to be remembered with regret. But there is unmixed joy in the baptism of an infant." Is * Acts xvii. 26. f Mai. ii. 10. + Job xxxi. 15. 509 not this "perverse disputing — and destitute of the truth"? Every regenerated man must certainly look back with regret at his past sinful life ; but when he knows, and declares in the ordinance of baptism, that his sins are, through the mercy of the Lord, blotted out, he has unmixed joy, and his fellow-Christians rejoice that another sinner is delivered from condemnation — another prodigal reclaimed, and restored to the paternal roof of his heavenly Father, But what joy can be experienced at the christening of an infant ? It has no sins to be blotted out, no faith to profess. It was held guiltless before the ceremony ; and by the ceremony it is not made more acceptable ? For what purpose then is it afiused? Merely to delude its deluded parents. I shall here (in reference to that part of this Witness' evidence where he said, " in thirty years ministry it has happened to me to baptize three adults,") put this question to him; Would he, before he had affused these three adults, have affused their offspring ? According to his profession he would not. Then did he not " sit in judgment on a whole lineage" of three families, " the history of which for a very limited period must have been unknown to him?" Why then does he accuse the defendants of wholly omitting a rite, which he himself will perform in particular cases only ; and for which particular cases, even, he has no authority from the Will ? I shall here introduce a passage from the evidence of this Witness, which contains his observation upon a text of Scripture discovering great fertility of imagination. " We may now understand (says he), also, the benefit connected with the extensive administration of baptism. It is this, that in the house of a believer ' a remnant shall be saved.' TJiis exceeding great and precious promise, of which baptism is a sign, is not limited to one generation, but abides with the family in every successive descent, as long as it shall exist upon earth.'''' How such an inference as this can be drawn from the words " a remnant shall be saved," ^' I am at a loss to deter- * Rom. ix. 27. 510 mine. It is certainly at variance with the testimony of the Evangelist John, who declares that " as many as receive Christ — are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." " While the Hol}^ Spirit (says he) glorifies the Saviour in the case of saved hearers, by accompanying the preaching of the gospel with a quickening and converting influence, he equally glorifies him in the case of saved infants, by anti- cipating, not only in the order of nature, but in the order of time also, the physical power of hearing the gospel. What can he mean. Gentlemen, by " anticipating the phy- sical power of hearing the gospel ? " The word of God affords no answer to this question. Our Lord says, " He that hath ears to hear, let him hear;" but he never calls upon any one to hear who has not a capacity for hearing. He never requires impossibilities. Gentlemen, I shall next give you a specimen of his logic. " Nay (says he), without baptism, we are taught that no one can enter into the kingdom of God. We mean not to assert that baptism is absolutely indispensable to salvation. But certainly there is a meaning not to be despised in the two following passages ; " Except a man (any one) be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."* " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned."t From this text, some (says he) infer, that a person must actually l)elieve else he cannot be baptized. With as much reason they might infer that a person must actually believe, else he cannot be saved, especially as it is added, " He that be- lieveth not shall be condemned." But it is acknowledged that infants shall not be condemned, because they do not believe. No objections can therefore be brought fi'om this text against the baptism of infants." I am persuaded. Gentlemen, that neither this nor any other text will have any weight with this Witness. Our Lord says, " He that believeth not shall be damned ; " he says it would be equally as unreasonable to conclude from * John iii. 5. f Mark xvi. i6. 511 this text that a person cannot be saved without faith, as it would be to conclude a person must believe before he can be baptized ; therefore as it would be absurd to believe the one, it must be equally absurd to believe the other. Thus he sets at nought our Lord's declaration. Having given you a specimen of his logic, I shall now give you a specimen of his manner of treating the administration of the various baptisms mentioned in the Will ; a manner which does not bespeak him an " able minister of the New Testament." " I believe (says he) that John frequented the Jordan, as the most convenient place, not only for multitudes to attend him, but also for having water — to baptize them — that the whole language of Scripture relates to the place, and not to the act, nor the mode of baptism." Speaking of our Lord's baptism, he thinks the passage ought to be thus translated, " and immediately coming from the water." " Now (says he) it surely will not be said that Philip had occasion to go further with the eunuch than John did with our Saviour." He says, "When I read that John w^as baptizing in .^non, because there was much water there, I see nothing concern- ing immersion ; such indeed is the general scarcity of water in the Holy Land as to render immersion, so often as was required during the days of the Testator and his apostles, ALTOGETHER INCREDIBLE. " When I read in the 2d of Acts, of three thousand being baptized, / receive no conviction that Peter sent away so much as one person drenched and dripping. " When I read Acts x. 47, / believe that Peter proposed that water should be brought for affusion, not that they should be carried to a bath, a pool, or a river. " I have precisely the same persuasion when I read Acts xxii. 16. " When Lydia was baptized and her house, I no more believe that she and her family were immersed in the river, than the jailer and his family were immersed by Paul and Silas. Water was brought to wash their stripes, and water was brought to baptize them." 512 Speaking of the defendants, he says, " I certainly think your baptism to be the human improvement of a superstitious age, and to partake of all the monstrosity in its form, and all the cruelty of unwarrantable exclusion in its diminished administration, which might be expected fi'om such an origin. Nay (says he) I know not if anything like 'it' is to be found among all the corruptions and enormities of an idol's temple." He could say nothing worse of the practice of those who "built the high places of Baal — to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech." * Therefore with equal propriety he may say to them (after the manner of his address to the defendants), " My dear and respected" antichristian "brethren of the Molechite per- suasion (for I trust you will still permit me so to call you) must not suppose that I charge them with any want of a sense of propriety, or delicacy, in the animadversions which I feel it my duty to make on their method of" worshipping Molech. " I give them full credit for acting according to their conscience in this matter ; and I am well aware, that Avhen a man is brought to think that he is serving God, it is impossible that he should for a moment admit the thought, that the service is not every thing that is solemn and lovely." And it would be no more contradictory in him, to say to the Molochites, than to the defendants, " I regard many of you as SAINTS and faithful in Christ Jesus. If he think believer's baptism that enormity which he describes it to be, he ought not to fawn in the manner he does upon those who practise it ; he should be candid, and tell them of their errors ; and until they renounce them, he should separate himself from them. But he may rest assured that his flattery will never cajole any one worthy the name of a follower of Christ. At the conclusion of his evidence he called upon Christian parents to give thanks for the baptism of their families; and on their children to give thanks for the baptism of their infancy: and then he warned all men not to trust in the observance of ordinances, either for the salvation of their own souls, or * Jer. xxxii. .35. 513 for that of others. Now, Gentlemen, if chihU-en are not reckoned Christians before they are christened, it is very evident by this that they are not so reckoned by being christened, seeing there is nothing to work a change bnt the mere observance of the rite, upon which, according to his own avowal, no reliance is to be placed. He further says, that many are disposed to think themselves Christians, because they were baptized in iheir infancy, thereby imply- ing that they neither ai'e now, nor ever were, Christians. " Many (says he) desire to have their children baptized, that they may not be reproached as Pagans, who show no desire that either themselves or their children should obtain mercy of the Lord, or live in his fear and service." Here, Gentlemen, I shall take my leave of this Witness, being well assured that this part of his evidence will have the greatest preponderance with you. The Eighth, introduced himself to the Court by a flatter- ing recommendation from eleven of his brethren. He told you there are four dispensations under which religion has prin- cipally subsisted since the fall; the first of which was — The dispensation of the Light of Nature. " Let it then be inquired (said he), What judgment doth Reason, or the Light of Nature, pass upon their case (that of infants) .? " Uncharitable people might suppose from this that the Witness and his constituents are the disciples of Tom Paine. We are not so uncharitable ; nevertheless, we are of opinion that sentiments like these, coming from a professed minister of the gospel, cast a suspicion on whatever he may have stated in this Court — for at what time, since the creation of Adam, were the people of God left to the Light of Reason or oi Na- ture? Was it Reason, or the Light of Nature, that revealed to Eve that her seed should bruise the serpent's head } Was it by Reason, or the Light of Nature, that " Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous" ? Was it by Reason, or the Light of Nature, that " Enoch was translated that he should not see death"? Was it by Reason, or the Light of Nature, that Noah had intimation that the Creator of the 2 L 514 world was about to destroy it ? Was it by Reason, or the Light of Nature, that he " became heir of the righteousness which is by faith" ? But it is downright folly to reason with any one on this subject. There never was a period of the world in which the Lord's people were left to the Light of Nature. The Lord conversed immediately with Adam; Enoch prophesied of the Testator, and " walked with God." Noah was said of the Lord to have been upright, and he also " walked with God." You have observed, Gentlemen, that the chief of his argu- ment, except what Reason supplied him with from the Light of Nature, was taken from the covenant of circumcision ; and that he intended to prove that Jewish infants, on account of their being circumcised, were more favoured, while in an infant state, than the uncircumcised infants of the heathen ; and that from the tenor of his evidence, we must conclude that he accounts every Jew, and every proselyte who cir- cumcised his child, a believer; therefore, as every Jewish male child was circumcised, it follows that the descendants of Israel were a nation of believers. The Jews were more highly favoured than any other people. " For Avhat nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them?"* Yet by their disobedience they lost all their privileges. Is it not declared that " Manasseh made Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to err, and to do worse than the heathen"?! And is it not said by the Almighty, " Therefore will I cast you out of this land into a land that ye know not, neither ye nor your fathers; and there ye shall serve other gods day and night ; where I will not show you favour"?:]: Where, then, was the difference between the heathen and the unbelieving Jews ? and where was the dif- ference between their children, notwithstanding that Jewish males were circumcised at eight days old ? " We are not (says this Witness) to imagine that all infants, dying such, but those of believers, or all which die unbap- tized, will be annihilated, or never rise again ; but the supe- rior advantage to believers' infants above others is; L That * Deut. iv. 7. t 2 Chron. xxxiii. 9. + Jer. xvi. 13. 515 with respect to these, God has been pleased to lay hhnself under a more particular covenant or promise of a resurrection to a future happiness ; whereas the others are left more to his uncovenanted mercj. And, 2. Their circumstances, in a future state, may, agreeably to all the moral perfections of God, be supposed more happy and advantageous than theirs who were never thus so solemnly devoted to him." Now, Gentlemen, note his account of the supposed value of this superior advantage to sprinkled infants ! "All rational creatures (says he), there is reason to believe, are somewhere or other placed in a state of discipline or rROBATioN, before they pass into a state of fixed and unal- terable bliss. Infants dying such, therefore, there is ground to presume, pass into such a state. Now as, in our present state of trial, some are placed in circumstances far more advantageous and favourable than others, so probably is it in the state to which dying infants pass. Abraham's posterity were put in circumstances more favourable for attaining virtue and happiness, than other nations of the eai'th, on account of their father's piety. The same may be justly hoped as to dying infants of good men, who, according to God's com- mand, have been solemnly devoted to him, whom he hath acknowledged for his children, and to whom he hath by a sacred covenant promised to be a God." Would you have believed. Gentlemen, if you had not heard the evidence, that there could be found in England, in these which are termed enlightened days, eleven public Protestant professors of the Will, who would recommend a witness to the notice of this Court in support of such a dogma, when there is nothing of the sort to be found in the Will — nothing in support of, or to give the most distant coun- tenance to, the doctrine of there being any state of probation after this life — nothing but what declares that the final state of every individual is unalterably fixed, and finally deter- mined, the moment that life becomes extinct ? Paul says, " Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Xiord in the air; and so shall we ever be with the Lord."* * 1 Thess. iv. 17. 516 " We shall not all sleep, Lut we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump."* " Absent from the body — present with the Lord."t Solomon says, " Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom in the grave, whither thou goest." X "If the tree fall toward the south, or toward the north, in the place where the tree falleth, there it shall be."§ And David says, " They (the wicked) shall never see light." It must. Gentlemen, be evident to you all, that this Wit- ness is convinced he could not from the Will make out a clear case for the plaintiffs ; otherwise he would not show the leanness of their cause by bringing to his aid " Apostolic Tradition" and "Authentic History." While he himself acknowledges that, so far as respects the first ages, there is little more of what he calls authentic history handed down, than the author's names, and a few pieces of their works. Add to which, he acknowledges also, that it was a credulous age, and that no less than ninety different heresies sprang up in the three first centuries ; about one half more than we number in this country at the present day. But, Gentlemen, even if the proof were clear, that it was the practice at that time to sprinkle infants, this could not in the least influence your verdict. The Will is not to be set aside by any thing gleaned from ecclesiastical history, be it ever so well authen- ticated ; for if it could be proved to a certainty, that it was practised, even in the days of the apostles, what would it avail? It would only be an evidence of the truth of John's testimony, who said that " even now (in his day) are there many antichrists." It may be presumed, from prophecy, that the body of the people will be better informed a hundred years hence, than to christen infants ; although they will have abundance of authentic history in proof that sprinkling was generally practised a century before. I shall here state his six queries, " which are soon to lead to an easy issue of the cause," and shall answer each of them in succession. * 1 Cor. XT. 51, 52. f 2 Cor. v. 8. + Eccles. ix. 10. § Eccles. xi. 3. 517 1. Are not infants, in the eye of the Christian law, under a sentence of condemnation, and treated as sinners ? " Ans. I do not exactly comprehend the term " Christian law," but I suppose that by it he means the gospel dispensa- tion. I therefore, in answer to this question, say that inlants, having no knowledge of moral right or wrong, cannot be con- sidered as sinners ; sin is the transgression of the law, there- fore, being innocent — having no consciousness of guilt, they cannot come under condemnation. " Nevertheless death reigns — even over them that have not sinned after the simili- tude of Adam's transgression;"* and they are, therefore, in common with every living creature, subject to the dissolution of their bodies. But " as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive." f 2. " Are they not consequently, in the eye of that law, capable of justification, and of being treated as righteous .?" Ans. Infants, never having transgressed the law of God, can have nothing laid to their charge from which to be jus- tified. Adam, the head of the creation, having sinned, all the creation suflered, and through his transgression lost their natural life. Having violated the law of God, he brought death into the world, and therefore could not hand down to his posterity what he had lost. Christ came to restore all things. Infants, by their union to Him, the second Adam, are delivered from the dominion of death. " Therefore, as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condem- nation ; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men to justification of life." X 3. " If then they are capable of justification and remission, is it not MOST highly eeasonable, and even necessary, to suppose that the Christian law, which is a manifestation of God's richest mercy to mankind, has made provision for it, and given some token of it ? " Ans. Infants are incapable of committing sin, and there- fore have none to be remitted. By their union to the second Adam, they will participate in the blessings of the resur- rection life, which are secured in Him, and shall enjoy them to all eternity. Thus ample provision is made for them. * Rom. V. 14. t 1 Cor. 15. 22. I Rom. v. 18. 518 4. " Were not infants of believers taken into covenant with God; and did not they stand in a more innnediate relation to him than the infants of the nnbelieving Canaanites, Mo- abites, &c. both under the Abrahamic and Mosaic dispen- sations ? And was not this a peculiar honour and advantage to those infants ? " Ans. It was a peculiar honour and advantage to be born the children of God's chosen people, for to them only " were committed the oracles of God;" but this did not secure their eternal salvation, nor make any difference between them and other children, while they remained in an infantile state. Their immediate advantage was being born subjects of the land of Canaan, which was in a peculiar manner under the immediate providence of God, and where his mind and will were made known. But in other respects they were uj)on equality with the heathen. For Paul says, that " he is not a Jew which is one outwardly;" but that "cir- cumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter." Children cannot be circumcised of heart, therefore there can be no spiritual difference in infancy between one child and another. 5. " Are not infants of us, Christians, as capable of this favour, viz., of being taken visibly into God's covenant, as their (the Israelites') infants were ? but if ours are not, is not here an important circumstance, in which both the Abra- hamic and Mosaic dispensations were more favourable to mankind, and manifested greater grace than the dispensation of Jesus Christ?" Ans. There neither is now, nor ever was, a spiritual cove- nant made with children, as children, of the present or former dispensation. Nevertheless, the children of these days are as much more favoured than those of old, as the present dis- pensation exceeds in glory that of the past ; i. e. if they live to be instructed into it. The spiritual covenant is described by the Lord thus ; " I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people."* Infants are incapable of being brought into this covenant. * Jer. xxxi. 33. 519 6. " Are not the infants of Christians (who are now an holy priesthood, and who succeed to all the privileges of the Jewish Church), are not, I say, their infants as capable of being discipled, as the infants of the Jewish priesthood were of being enrolled in the temple register, and entered as ministers to Aaron, and as keeping the charge of the sanc- tuary ? and are not infants as capable, under the Christian covenant, of being baptized, as they were of circumcision both under the Abrahamic and Mosaic?" Ans. The infant children of the Levites were born to serve in the priest's office at the appointed time ; yet their circum- cision differed nothing from the children of the other tribes. But no man's child is born a Christian ; neither is it in the power of man to make a Christian minister. It is impossible to disciple infants, that is, to make Christians of them ; they may, as they grow up, be instructed in the principles of the gospel ; as Paul may plant, and ApoUos water, but God only gives the increase. They are capable of, and may be registered, for the purpose of referring to their lineage, their age, &c. For the same purpose the infants of the Levites were enrolled in the temple register. We have daily instances of the sprinkling of infants, but it has never been proved that it was commanded, though we have ample proof that circum- cision was, yet no proof that it was attended with any spiritual advantage to the child. Circumcised Judah is classed with uncircumcised " Egypt, and Judah and Edom, and the children of Amnion, and all that — dwell in the wil- derness. For all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart;" and " I, saith the Lord, will punish all them that are circumcised, with the uncircumcised." * " The commission (says he) so far from concluding any thing against the baptism of infants, strongly favours and supports it. Our Lord's silence as to their admission is a strong and a most manifest presumjotion in their favour ; and his not excluding or excepting them from the Christian cove- nant, is in all equitable construction a permission or order that they should be admitted into it." * Jcr. ix. 25, 26. 520 How can this be, Gentlemen ? Moses was not forbidden to smite the rock, there was no exception made to his smiting it ; the simple command was, " Take the rod, and speak ye to the rock before their eyes :" However, he smote it ; and what was the consequence ? He was deprived of the honour and gratification of leading the people into the promised land — a people who had professed subjection to him, but who had tried, provoked, and grieved him for forty years. Moses did not act as these people act. It was, we may presume, in a moment of excitation that he smote the rock twice; and spoke unadvisedly with his lips. But these people coolly and determinately tell you, and year after year systematically and treacherously deceive their fellow crea- tures by telling them, that, not to prohibit a thing is, in fact, to permit it. Yea, to order it ! Against whom was the dreadful curse pronounced in Isaiah Ixv. 12? Was it not against a people which, to judge from their actions, argued after the manner of this witness ; " A people that burnt incense upon altars of brick." Yet we do not read in the Old Testament that they were expressly forbidden to make altars of brick ; the prohibition was implied in the command, " Thou shalt make an altar to burn incense upon : of shittim-wood shalt thou make it,"* &c. By the same rule, then, the act of christening infants, although it is not forbidden in the New Testament, is as much in opposition to, and defiance of, the divine command, (teach all nations, baptizing them,) as was that of Moses smiting the rock ; or that of the Israelites burning incense upon altars of brick. A total silence in the word of God respecting any rite or doctrine, is a suffi- cient indication or warning that he never intended us to practise the one, or believe the other. The commission is — " He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved." And " This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws in their mind, and write them in their hearts : and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his * Exod. XXX. 1. 5-21 neiglibour, and every man his brother, saying, know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more." * Hence it is manifest that these promises are individually experienced, and that he in whose heart these laws are thus written, must know that the " God of peace" will preserve him blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. He therefore con- fesses him in the ordinance of baptism, professing entire dependence upon him for life and salvation. But this can- not be done by any one for another. It is altogether of the Lord's good pleasure to write his laws in the heart of any individual; and every soul that is so blessed to Him ascribes all the glory. " The salvation of the righteous is of the Lord." f " It is (says he) a rational act of worship for parents, from the very dawn or first beginning of life, to devote their children to God, and to the peculiar influences of his Spirit." And he shows the rationality of the act thus. " The light OF NATURE itsclf sccms plainly to have taught this. It was the custom of the Romans, on the ninth da}' from the child's birth, for its friends and relations to bring it to the temple, and before the altars of the gods to recommend it to the protection of some tutelar deity. A ceremony of the same nature also was performed among the Greeks." And so the light of natm-e, perverted to idolatrous purposes, must be the guide to those who have the divine revelation. Surely, after this, we cannot be thought illiberal for saying, that sprinkling a child partakes much more of a heathen rite, than of a christian ordinance. Hitherto, Gentlemen, this witness has been endeavouring to prove that the advantage of sprinkling is exclusively for the infant of the believer. Now mark how he changes sides, and goes off to the opposite extreme ; saying, " By infants of believers are not to be understood only their natural offspring, but any infants which are their property, or mem- bers of their household, or whose religious^ education they * Heb. viii. 10—12. f Psa. xxxvii. 39. 522 will solemnly undertake. Foundling infants, therefore, are very rationally brought to baptism by those who will engage solemnly for their Christian education." Here, then, we see all the so much boasted privilege of a believer's child at once reduced to nothing ; we see it brought to the lovk^est level, and placed upon a par with \he foundling of a prostitute. What better proof can we have, that this Witness, and his constituents, believe, notwithstanding all their laboured arguments to the contrary, that there is no difference in children while in their infantile state ? Yet, would you believe it, these are the people who are continually finding fault with the Established Church ? Is it becoming of them so to do, when they themselves proclaim their unity — the union of Independents with Episcopalians ? To be sure, there is this difference between them; the latter are the most cautious ; they will not christen a child unless three sponsors can be found, to assist each other in the work, and engage for it, to renounce the devil and all his works ; so that if one, or even two die, the child is not left destitute ; while the former leave the important trust of making the child a Christian to the solemn engagement of one individual only. This Witness must surely be conscious that he was bearing false witness, or he would not have pleaded, as an excuse for his own error in changing the ordinance of the Testator, what he thinks errors in the Israelitish family. They are the following — 1. The children of Israel, not being circumcised during their journey in the wilderness. 2. David and his men eating the shew-bread. 3. Hezekiah destroying the brazen serpent. What is his object in bringing forward the two instances of a departure from the strict letter of the law ? (For as to the third which he names, it does not aj^pear to be a breach of any law, but a wise measure for the prevention of idolatry.) Is it not to obtain a degree of countenance for his o\\n depar- ture from the express commands of the Testator ? That as the deviations from the law, in these two cases, were over- 523 looked by the Great Lawgiver ; so the deviations of profess- ing Christians may be also overlooked. Is not this a full acknowledgment, Gentlemen, that he does not profess to abide by them ? What then becomes of all his sophistical reasoning, in proof, either that he does abide by them, or that he has a precedent for departing from them ? Has he not, in one instance or the other, taken much imnecessary pains ? You will have observed, Gentlemen, that he does not contend that the word baptize does not mean to immerse ; but that immersion is not its only meaning; but even here he is so careful of committing himself, that from the unde- cided manner in which he speaks, he leads you to conjecture that he believes it to be its only meaning. For instance, he says, " it may be strongly presumed that plunging was not practised either by John or oiu* Lord." That " if the word baptize will at all admit of this sense (sprinkling or pour- ing)." That " should immersion be allowed to have been the only scriptural mode of baptizing, it may lawfully be exchanged for sprinkling or pouring." " The commission (he says) is delivered in such general terms as to be capable of admitting infants." This I deny ; the promise affixed to it (to which he did not dare to allude) independently of the word " Teach," confines it to Believ- ers ONLY. The following is a short summary of his " manly and conclusive reasoning." That, " From the light of nature the pious parent has nothing wherein to trust but the uncove- nanted mercy of God." That, " Reason surmises and hopes that the Almighty Re warder can give to their harmless babes j^leasures and entertainments abundantly to counterbalance the sufferings of their present state ; but cannot certainly conclude." That, " From the covenant established with the cattle and the fowl, God may be said to establish his covenant with infants." That, " It may be justly lioped that the dying infants of good men, when in a state of lyrohation., are put in circum- 524 stances more favourable for attaining virtue and happiness than others." That, " The practice of baptizing infants was primitive and apostolic, as proved by apostolic tradition." That, " It was likewise the constant, ever prevailing custom of all the ENEMIES of Christianity, both Jetvs and Pagans^ to admit infants to a participation of their religious cere- monies." That, " Baptizing into the name, signifies commending a person to Xhe. patronage, of him in whose name he is baptized. The Romans and Greeks recommended their infants to some tutelar deity.'''' That, " Judith not going over head, when she washed in a fountain, is one clear and incontestible proof that bap- tism is not overwhelming." These are some of the examples of that " direct appeal to Divine Revelation and authentic history," which he told you his eleven brethren were satisfied he would make, and which they would most cordially unite in publishing and circulating, to the extent which its merits deserve. Now, Gentlemen, you will be pleased to notice the manner in which he closed his evidence. " To conclude (says he) ; if after this any still think it their indispensable duty to bajjtize by immersion only, let them by all means thus ba])tize ; but we beseech them to forbear all severe censures of those who are not dipt. Let them not represent us as persons unbap- tized — withdraw from our churches — refuse communion with us at the common table of our Lord, upon so trifling 'a difference." What inference is to be drawn from this appeal at the conclusion of his labours ? By every means in his power, he has sought to uphold a system which he espouses ; to prove the perfections of the superstructure, and the stability of the foundation upon which it rests. But it appears to me that he has not advanced sufficient to satisfy even himself, much less to satisfy this Court. Is there not a lurking sus- picion in his own mind that he is in error ; for had he the conviction that he stood upon a rock,he would have made no 525 such concessions to his opponents ; nor woukl he have desired conditions of peace on such dishonourable terms as a compromise of the commandments and ordinances of the Testator; neither woukl he have denominated the observ- ance or non-observance of them a matter of trifling mo- ment— for to this the difference between us amounts. And I may very well state, in the words of this Witness, that if the Church of Christ were to admit the plaintiffs to the Lord's table, " tliis surely were to dishonour our sacred religion ; and too naturally brings, not only Christian baptism, but Christianity itself, into manifest contempt." The Ninth Witness has detained you. Gentlemen, a greater length of time than any of the other Witnesses ; yet after all his learned and toilsome disquisitions to prove that pouring water upon an infant is (he does not attempt to prove that sprinkling is) baptism ; he is conscious that his arguments are controvertible, and that those of his oppo- nents cannot be overthrown. Mark, therefore, the salvo he now applies to his conscience, for his disregard of the Lord's commandments ! " Even (says he) if immersion was in fact the original mode of baptizing in the name of Christ, these reasons (the exceeding harshness of immersing, male and female, strong and feeble, in water) make it improijable that no accommodation of the form should take place with- out vitiating the ordinance." Notwithstanding that he has detained you so long, I shall not think it necessary to occupy any great length of time in following him throughout his tergiversations. I shall only bring again before you the following propositions as stated by him, conscious that the contradictions involved in them will be sufficient to invalidate his evidence. '• Baptism was expressly made the initiatory rite by which believers of all nations were to be introduced into the church and covenant of grace." " Baptism is an initiation into, and acceptance of, the covenant of grace, required of us by Christ as a visible expression and acceptance of that faith in Him which he has made a condition of that salvation." 526 " The church of Christ, iu its largest sense, consists' of all who have been baptized in the name of Christ, and who thereby make a visible profession of faith in his divine mis- sion, and in all the doctrines taught by him and his inspired apostles." " In a stricter sense, it consists of those who are vitally united to Christ, as the members of the body to the head ; and who, being thus imbued with spiritual life, walk no longer after the flesh, but after the Spirit." " It is obligatory on all who are convinced of the truth of Christianity, to be baptized." " If baptism be the door of admission into the church, some must judge of the fitness of the candidates." "The church is a society founded upon faith, and united by mutual love. — It cannot employ force ; the only DOOR of the church is faith, to which there can be no com- pulsion— he that ' believeth, and is baptized,' becomes A member." The baptized " are bound to keep themselves separate from the world, except in the ordinary and courteous inter- course of life." " The saving benefits of the covenant of gi'ace are made expressly to depend upon a true faith." " The obligation of baptism rests upon the example of our Lord, who by his apostles baptized many that by his dis- courses and miracles were brought to profess faith in him as the Messias." " By baptizing them that believe the ' good news,' and ACCEPT the terms of the new covenant, are all nations now to be brought into the church of God." " Baptism — is not a mere external ceremony, but a rite which DEMANDS or requires something of us — what that is we learn from the words of the Lord ; it is faith in Christ. ' He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved.' " " We know, from the instance of the Eunuch, that there was an explicit requirement of faith, and as explicit an answer or confession." " Peter preserves the correspondence between the act of Noah, in preparing the ark, as an act of faith by which he 5-27 was justified, and the act of submitting to Christian baptism, which is also an act of faith in order to the remission of sins." " BajDtism is the outward sign of our entrance into God's covenant of mercy, and that when it is an act of true faith, it becomes an instrmnent of salvation ; like that act of faith in Noah, who prepared an ark to the saving of his house." " Baptism is made obligatory upon ' all nations to whom the gospel is preached,' and is ' to continue to ' the end of the world." "Baptism is our seal, by which we make ourselves parties to the covenant, and thus set to our seal that God is true." In baptism — "we undergo a mystical death unto sin; a mystical separation from the world, which St. Paul calls being 'buried with Christ in or by baptism;' and a mystical resurrection to newness of life, through Christ's resurrection j&'om the dead." " Baptism is the grand initiatory act by which we enter into this covenant, in order to claim all its spiritual blessings, and to take upon ourselves all its obligations. It is the means by which men become Abraham's seed." " Our Lord's baptism by his disciples was administered to those Jews that believed on Him as the Messias ; all of whom, like the apostles, waited for a fuller development of his character and offices." "That believers — are the proper subjects of baptism- — is beyond dispute." "Faith in Christ is — an indispensable condition for baptism, in all persons of mature age. — Hence the admini- stration of baptism was placed by our Lord only in the hands of those that were to preach the gospel, and 'to teach them' to observe all things whatsoever Christ had commanded them." Now, Gentlemen, I appeal to you if any one of his twenty-two propositions can be made to quadrate with the sprinkling of an infant.'' — if all of them do not more or less accord with the baptism of a believer ? and, consequently, 528 if his evidence is not decidedly in our favour? Is it not clear that his views of baptism are at variance with his practice, and opposed to his prejudices, which he permits to preponderate against the clearest evidence from the Will ? He dare not assert that baptism was originally administered in any other way than as it is now administered by the defen- dants. Yet mark how he vilifies the sacred ordinance — how he proclaims his rancorous hatred of it as practised by the servants of, and as observed by, the Testator himself ! — It is (says he) satisfactory to discover that all the attempts made to impose upon Christians a practice repulsive to the feelings, dangerous to the health, and offensive to delicacy, is destitute of all Scriptural authority, and of really pi'imitive practice. To say that it figures oiu* spiritual death and resurrection, has, we have seen, no authority from the texts used to prove it ; and to make a sudden pop under water to be emblematical of burial, is as far fetched a conceit as any which adorns the Emblems of Quarles, without any portion of the ingenuity." At length. Gentlemen, we come to the Tenth (and last) Witness, whose evidence throughout was umbecoming that of a professed minister of the gospel ; and does no credit to the cause it was brought to support. Indeed, I cannot con- jecture what object the plaintiffs had in view in bringing him forward. All he attempts to prove is, that to immerse is not the sole meaning of the verb (Bcx-Tm^u} w'hen applied to the initiatory ordinance; as if this was the only point in dispute. But, Gentlemen, you require more than this. It must be proved to your satisfaction who are the proper subjects of baptism — to wdiom the ordinance ought to be administered, as well as the specific meaning of the Avord with reference to its administration. We may gather from his evidence, that he volunteered his services on the ground that he felt himself hurt at having been personally alluded to, in a certain publication, as " a sinner above all that dwell" round him ; when he " is only one of thousands who hold the principles" of pa^dobaptism. He told us that he preached nothing but what he was 529 solemnly bound by his ordination vows to declare. But he ought to have told us the nature of those vows, lest we should think them similar to the oaths of the Fourth Witness; or like those exacted by a northern church, which dismisses its ministers, not because they do not preach the gospel, but because they do not preach according to their ordination vows. Now, although the Witness in this respect has left us in the dark, we are authorized to declare, from the tenour of his evidence, which we may conclude is in accordance with that vow, that he bound himself to " teach for doctrines the commandments of men." I shall pass over his elucidation of the verb l3