Ai •^> .?U \'*^^^% IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) !.0 I.I 1.25 ^ lis. IIIM U i 1.6 6" r %".>>' "^^z %V /. c^. c*. ^^:>:'^' / op, M Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14530 (716) 872-4503 m iV V \\ ^9) V *^4. (i^ >..-!^ ^, fl^ » ^'^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut canadien de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the beat original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D D D Q Coloured covers/ Couverture de couieur r~~\ Covers damaged/ D Couverture endommagee Covers restored and/or ■-•minated/ Couverture restaur4e et/ou pelliculde □ Cover title missing/ Let! ire de couverture manque □ Coloured maps/ Cartes g^ographiques en couieur □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couieur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) □ Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couieur ~^ Bound with other material/ Relid avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along .ntericr margin/ Lareliure serree paut causer de I'ombre ou de la distorsion le long de la marge interieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout^es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le taxte. mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas iti filmdes. L'Institut a microfi'me le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a ete possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m^thode normale de filmage sont indiqu^s ci-dessous. □ Coloured p&gex/ Pages de couieur [~T] Pages damaged/ n Pagds endommagies Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaur^es et/ou pelliculdes r~71 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ vZJ Pages ddcolcre^s, tachet^es cu piquees r~y| Pages detached/ Pages detachees 0?r Showthrough/ ansparence I I Quality of print vanes/ Tha tot Quality in^gale de I'impression Includes supplementary materii Compiend du materiel supplementaire ' edition available/ e Edition disponibie n~| Includes supplementary material/ □ Only edition available/ Seu n Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totaiement ou partieilement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., cnt ^td film^es d nouveau de facon a obtenir la meilleure image possible. Tha pos oft filnn Ori( beg the sior oth( first sior or il The shal TIN whi Mai diff( enti beg righ reqi met Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplementaires; Wrinkled pages may film slightly out of focus. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film^ au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X B^==r:rT= J .■;..'..MSi i 1 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Harold Campbell Vaughan Memorial Library Acadia University L'exemplaire filmA fut reproduit grAce d la g6ndro8it6 de: Harold Campbell Vaughan Memorial Library Acadia University The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol -—^-(meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Los images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetd de l'exemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim6e sont filmds en commen^ant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la der> ;dre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration. soit par le second plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmds en commenpant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminent par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboies suivants apparattra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — ► signifie "A SUIVRE ", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre film^s A des taux de rdduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul cliche, il est film6 A partir de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut en has, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 i 1 I ^ / //. TREATISK ^A'<4y ON '^'^, BAPTISM; oi?.- I IN'CLUDINO • l I y RBrvTATzonr OP TUB ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON THE SAME SUBJECT BT Tn» REV. G. BUJtNSt D, D. XiATB SSINZSTBR OP SAINT ANDREWS CHURCH, SAINT JOHN, N. B. BY JOHN GEORGE NAYLOR, Minister of the Gospel. " Every plant, which my heavenly Fathtr hath not planted, thall be rooted «/>."— Jtsus. c ^AriA OOLLEGE LIBH. ' ^ PRINTBD BT ANDREW CARRI80N, AT TUB OFFICE OF THB CITY eAZITTf^ No 10, South Market Wharf. 1832. ^■ 3 \ w H It the folic were oc Joha, a pamphl( the 8ubj( displayed But alas I could r pain and particula fute or el the desig gaziae. my in ten a particul tists. Th with the with rem My con tic in the aroi notice of t sioning ni( I now eml lowing paj THEr designedly was from '. positions c both as to ii To change change an o God. ADVERTISEMENT. 4' J the rl':::!,'z:zT:: ^i? ^r^ ° °^ '^^ -^'- ^^ •^--^^ - Joha. and. ere I had beeu Ion. in the c tv '- ""^ ' ' pamphlet on Baptism, by Doctor Lis ' '21^^^''^' '" 7'' ^ the .ubject was i„,partially considered and 1T ^. •''" J""'^ '''" displayed. I exp Jed a perusa Jo'^d b^V^ °°^ °^^ ^*• But alas' not L h,^ T ! Tf ^ accompanied with pleasure. "sts. Ine sermon produced a nowaifni-ff—. c. me xjap- was from Isaiah 2i «; ».tu i . "«""*" suojecr. 1 he text *"" "aiaQ ^4, 5,— •• They have changed the ordinance " Th* change an ordinance imvuzm the nnfi....u,. .r,....*: . .'' ^'^ G»d. ' " ^ ">/ vr;ri5f, anrf M •^enaipe to hal .„h„rl,e„ for Scotland ,Zl'^:,Z " .", 'd' .'h ""'" ""'»' "lien llie Ddoiot's 1,„„|, r,,.,, ,,„„ ', "'■ ""' ' ''«»>i i» llie city reived no i.nn.sdi.le repi" '' ""' " " "'"•""' ""' " ""■W tav' 1" lljo Kdvertisemenl lo his pamnhlet Dr K... This work is the'„,ore valuable «, M ' r '"'"''°° °^ ^''*' ^^^d^-"' fT somo years. ' " "''' ^^ ''''' «» ^«"ded Pa^do-baptist 5^oin< John, March 10, 1832. ^* ^' ^' I Chap. I. ON THE MODE OF BAPTISM. SecTioj* I. Much has been written on the subject of baptism, and nota httle that has tended rather to obscure, than to re- lieve It of imaginary difficulties. Truth may easily be injur- ed by the rery means adopted to support it; while error, by the same means, is invested with importance, and acquir^ the semblance of a character which is not its own. Hence the necessity, in attempting to ascertain the correctness of any proposition, of proceeding as much as possible uncumbered by extraneous matter, that the mind, being free from irrelc- >^nt ideas, may facilitate the conclusions of the judgment. 1 his IS seldom more needful than when duty is the question. But It IS to be feared, that both baptists and podo-baptists, by referring their differences to considerations too remote, have, though undesignedly, placed truth in the shade, and shrouded her with questionable evidence. Hence, in lieu of confining the evidence of truth on this question to the New Testament. It has been sought with too much confidence, and by the pal t^uT% '""i P^"iP"^^^' fr°"^ a corrupt age, or an ancient author. Far be it from me to depreciate below their real value the testimony of the Fathers, but surely, neither their opinion, nor their practice is necessary, to prove a duty of religion. If such evidence be really indispensable, then what course must be pursued by the way-foring man, whose prac- tice depends on his knowledge of the bible ? ^ The ordinance of baptism, both as to the mode and sub- ject, IS plamly revealed or it is not; if the former, we shall have no difficulty, unless shackled by previous opinion, to find nn%C "^7^'^' j ^^^|!^t-<^^5 ^^ :n.ohes a serious reflection who ^ . T ""^ ^"' ^^'■:"" legislator. Let a plain man, wiiosc heart elows with mttv -r. a^A ^^.a - -^ .. tKp XTsw/ iStS' 6 mcnt on the subject of baptism for himself, and we mar be almost certain ot the conclusion to which he will blbSht rhe .mmers.on of believers will be too prominenrto 3e his observation, while infant sprinkling, '^.ot nm^in/toTis notice, w.ll secure no favor in his judgment. HenT U s the plmnness of revelation in their faior,^hat univer"al?y Iffl ds satisfaction to the baptists; while its total silence on St tr".': r^-;"'^r'i ". ^^'^^^ """^^^^- of p.do.baptists "u tlon he authority of their system, and rendersit easily accomitaWe "that few comparatively, even of fhe most respeLblememberl of hose churches which have adopted the practice ofbfent that /hi?J"''"f *'1 ioWom^g pages, the reader will observe, doni r ^°"^""^ ^y^^^^^s much as possible to the tZ dence of scripture ; and, except when necessity required me n reKvmg to Dr. Burns on Ihat question, hav^e n^o led h S n^to the maze of antiquity, My object has been to render im^ S. Jersrih"'"? ''" °"^^??°P^^ ^'^'^ of baptism, Zl DeJlc^ers as the only proper subjects. In pursuing this nlnn With respect to the mode, I have endeavour^ed to as^ce^tl the criptural and real import of the verb haptizo, an" o sZ^^^^^^ It with evidence as ample as this treatise would allow. ^ tists on'tV° A ^°fy^^^ *'>e ^orld, that the opinion of bap- tists on the mode of baptism is restricted to immersion. The radical nieamng of ^.ay,^/.^, and the metaphors used in tie •istent with the sense of the former, and the significancy of the latter. Believing that the Saviour in commanding Lt tism commanded immersion, they consider the mode essen whi/aMt'""^-f ''" ordinance.^ They dare not, U.erefor"e Tf-dutv h^f "'''^'' immersion, not merely as a circumstance att^trorV"'^^ '"'?°n' °^ the verb baptize, claims the serious of reSn T^ ^""°^'^ °^ ^^'''''' ^' ''^^''' to a practice ot religion, aad imports the mode of that practice. If it be SeS'ff "''"'"^ ^'J^^^ ^' ^^"g'^t, a/ on that meaning tlr ht f^'T/ "'°^l °^ ^"Ptism. That it imports ac? not\\l\r"'fi'''^' though some assert that the action is no simple, and others attribute to the verb the idea of effect. ed a ^p't^'P'5' '"J^" ?"S^" of language, to have contain- ed a spe cific idea, th ough owing to the poverty of language, •lideDr. Burns ou Bap. p^jja P. they have frequently been madt to expnsi a meaninff foreign from their own. When used in their proper tense, they con- vey their original idea ; when diverted from that sense, their meaning Irequently depends on the circumstance in which they are used. Now baptiifo is either simple or compound: It the former, no diversity of action is implied; if the latter, a diversity ofaction is included. This can be known only by referring to the root, or to the usage which it has acquir- ed. It IS a derivative of BaptOy the primary meaning of which is to dip ; but there is not the least reason to conclude either Irom Its root, or its termination in zo, that it is not strictly umvocal. The usage which it has obtained, both in the sa- cred and classic page, in lieu of affording evidence against, abundantly confirms the simple meaning of the verb. If th:« be false, it can easily be shown; if it be correct, the strict idea ot tiie verb is ascertained. None that I knew of, directhj attach the Idea of sprinkling to the action of the verb, but some, sup- posing an effect produced by the action, argvje from that ef- fect to a mere application of water, and so invest the word with a diversity of meaning. For instance, baptizein means to dtp, to dip is to wash, that mode, therefore, which will pro- duce the f/^c^ of dipping is equivalent to the mode of baptism —An application of water, without restriction to mode, is to baptize. Now this is absurd. It would as much prove, that to baptize is to pollute, as that it means to wasL It is confounding the effect with the action, and attributing to the verb that which belongs only to the element. If a person be clipped m mire, is he washed? or in dissolved wax, is ha cleansed? Such reasoning destroys all distinction in lan- guage, and makes it a region of uncertainty. ^aptizein is to dip, without the least reference to element vlh wu •n'^^'' ""^ cleansing or of substance is not in the T f ^^^ vvill contend that the verb to eat, contains the Idea of food ? or that to run, contains the idea of legs ? These verbs have a simple meaning; the first a certain action, and the other swift motion. I will give two examples* of the strict and simple impoit oUaptizo, that may serve as a spe- cimen of many more which the limits of this treatise will not allow me to adduce. Josephus referring to the murder of young Aristobulus, says x—barountes aei kai baptizontes, oi enpaidta nechomenon ouk anekan eos kai jmntopasin apop- TfT' . •"• ^''f !^'"g ^i"^ 'Jown always, as he was swimming, and baptizing him as m sport, they did not give over till they • Th«. example, are taken from Mr. Carson'i wcrk on baptii m, paget 64, M. ^I'Tm^'^L "'PPT-"' 8i'fnff«««b„,h^ *es«„,fd, *oliptZ7r!a-J:^'-Z^' '""'«-<«'"'8 "^ S,e^ >" » ™™»»tnnce that affects the n»tive1«port of A,r«h».^T/ "•"■'"' '? *>• """' i" » secondary ,c„se ?, 4T„TS„ ofir^VXToVr / "of t1 1"- anS Itfirfortt™'™,'" '""'''^ the-actioH? iu'originVl ~., j»>.. i.'K4 ii'i..* ',.*:;'.i(" -„j the b«t composition, that a word is impropsrly us«t! mhtv Another might ensil^ ijo had, merely to produce a powerful effect. But do we ever, on that account, question the natire mennmg oi the word, or argue that its primary sens* is ne- cessarily ciianged ? Then why should we adopt a method of argument in this caic, whicli we must abandon in any oth«ri» No person will contend that the radical sense of a Hebrew verb IS changed, because it is occasionally used for Siomethinjr foreign from its meaning. OlleP, though in one place it niay mean to decollate, does, not change its primitive mean- ing ^orfw^//. Nor because LUeH is used for, to borrow^ it Its simple sense, to join, changed by that usage. Ami be- cause ^tf;7/is;o IS improperly used, where its'primitive actim )» not preserved, no more proves that the verb includes diver- sity oi action, than that the verb itself is not active. Wordg are very frequently used to serve the purpose of an author, and to express a sense that they do not originally mean. Ihe person, therefore, who instead of ascertaining the mean- ing ot the verb by referring to the root, asserts its meanin/f trom the circumstance where it is figuratively used, expose* himselt to error, and acts contrary to a known rule of verbal interpretation. Yet has this unphilosophical method been a- dopted, to elude the evidence in favor of immersion. The reader will observe as he proceeds, thot these ob-. servations on the word, are more fully elucidated in the exam- ination ot those passages of scripture where it occurs. Ample evidence might be easily adduced, to confirm the facts, that the proper import of baptizo is only to immerse. Pcedo-bap- tist writers, when referring to the etymology of the word, and the ordinance with which it is connected in the scriptures support the proper meaning of the term without the least equil vocation. That some of them think it a generic term, I rea- dily admit, though even these allow, that thejrst ami primary meaning of the verb is to immerse. They found their error opon an imaginary effect, produced by the verb, and frcui that, in defiance of testimony, argue for a mere application of water. But others, submitting to the force of evidence, not- withstanding the danger to which their system of sprinkling is exposed, exclude every idea from the verb but to immase. 1 he quotations we adduce from pasdo-baptist authors are of the latter sort, and prove that they believed only in immer- sion, whatever they rnJ^rht practise. Salmasius :—'' Baptism is immersion ; and was adminis- tered in ancient times, according to the force and meaning q£ the "« not in Mark 7th chap. *th. verse, otherwise than appears to some."— Institut Hist. LccLEs. Vet et. Nov. tLt. torn. iii. secul. Miss KoGERs-«None, of old, were wont to be sprink'ed- 'urefo^'ntm "^^^^^^ ""--vmced by demonstration 'of scripl ture for infant spnnkhng. It ought to be the church's part tne cliurcLs « ^se ofhcer he is, to a disorderly error if he i ToXt'l /""^^^--hichistodip. Ti4them^^^^^^^^^^^ « Ar tT^r '\'*'' '"'"'^^^ '^^^^^'^ baptizo deno- tes tt.ionha Greeks wanted not other words to express ^y other act besides dipping, if the institution codd bear t i^spr nThwT ;^/^^^"-''l - resurrection of ChHst b Todn t r?f ^^M'^^^^'^J^i/ and 5av>^e^r. confirm that wav. ihich wa t ' '' '' 'Tt'^ ^!-i^ ''""'"''"^ ^« the ordinance ; hot or^oTd" \\T^ '''> "A^^""' '"^^J^^^°" of countries EiJ^s" DEt'^'^S ^"^^^^ r^^-- ^ I'-- OK John, ^c! ras it^ik^cT'"''''" ''"'l ^^^ ^'"''^^ h^"-^ »«^^^ haptizestlai, as It differs from r,?;,^^,M«/, verse the 3d,) signifies not on- polls, that being taken and thrown into the sea, ehaptizeto he was immersed ail over, and so the baptisms o^^cupr&c. in them ul V ''"' '' ''""^"^ '"'^ ^^'^^^^'"^ «^^ --- '-^^ ng wa er"lr;i^i"? '-^"^ P'^''! «^"th^ ha.ulshere. by immersioS hem" AnLf M ^"^Tr\ '' "^S^T"" '' pouring water on tnem Annot. Mark, 7th chap. 4th verse. fi^rm ;{;r''''7r~" ^^ '"^^ consider the ;;ro;;^;. meaning of the TurSy T'^'''^; ^t'-^PPe^rs therefore from the very torn of admmistering baptism in the beginning; whereas we i-EIGH s CiUT. LOND. 1646. AKOKTMors :-«.• That the letter of the c.crlpfurc i. in fa- i ^ 669. are not to jrsion." — by which aptized in er, which FH vol. 1 nowhere 7th chap. NSTITUT. § 138. prinked ; of scrip- ;h's part : betrays r, if he minister izo deno- express I bear it. Christ is lat way. linance ; Duntries, HN, &c. izesthai, not on- of Eu- 'zetOj he &c. in riijsinij nersion ater on ^ of the jeiy act le very le cus- eas we s in fn- 11 Torof baptists, (or as they are still tihsuv^lt^ called Anabap- tists,) cannot without evasion and equivocation be denied." London Review, for June 1776. Alstedius:— 5a;;//zem, to baptize, signifies only to immerse, not to wash, except by consequence."—" Lex Theol. cap. l-Z. p. 221. Grotius :— In his annotations on Matthew, Sd. chap. 6th verse, says « That baptism was accustomed to be per- tormed by immersion and wojf 6v^^r/tt5/ow, is evident, both from the meaiiing of the word, from the places chosen for the administration of this rite, and from the many allusions of the Apostles, which ca?inot refer to sprinkling." Lawson :— « John the baptist, that is John the dipper ; so called, because he was authorized to baptize in water. Such as rliantize or sprinkle infants, have no command from Christ, nor example amongthe Apostles, nor the first primitive christians for so doing. See the author of rhantism, that is sprinkling; not Christ, nor the Apostles, but Cyprian ; not in the days of Christ, but some two hundred and thirty year* a,ner.'*—.Baptismalogia. Dr. Towerson:— « But, therefore, as there is so much reason to represent the rite of immersion, as the only legitimate right of baptism, because the only one tliat can answer the ends of its institution, and those things which were to be signified by it ; so especially if (as it is well known and un- doubtdedly of great force,) the general practice of the pri- mitive church was agreeable thereto, and the practice of the Greek church lo this very day.*-~ON Ch. Catech. art. Bap. These learned authorities, as the reader may observe* oy rleap the mounds of prejudice and system, and present us with the truth. Abiding by the strict etymology of the term, and the evidence of scriptur., they appear not to have enter- tained the idea, that baptizo is either a frequentative, generic^ or diininiiuve verb. Indeed, it is difficult to see, how any person, who has subjected his mind to research, and serious attention to the subject, can possibly entertain any other opi- nion. He must be closely wedded to the system of sprink- ling, who, with the evidence before him, feels not that system falling from his own hand. We have heard of the influence Ot education. nffVlP nnf-4»nr'ir nf orro** oTT^ r\f ^\-,c>. !ii>r>'^<">»-^<^n.)- influence of questionable motives, but which of these is the most powerful in confining the mind to an hypothesis once entertained, it is, perhaps, impossible to say. Should the Thes I iin. are tu ese ei;im[>lB«, with tlic cxceiitioB of th« three lait fiein «ibb» on baii. ken fiyni i?»olh — \'v\. I. 12 reader inquire, how tli« authorities above, with not a few of s similar description, adopted in practice what they opposed in sentiment, this is a problem far which I can afford him hg possible solution. Their reasons for such a method of pro- 'Cedure, lie not within the limit of my comprehtnsion. There is an argument, to which I have not hitherto al- Inded, derived from n source which must render it rather dif- iicult to resist.— An argument, were there no other to be had> that might satisfy the mind of an unprejudiced inquirer after the meaning of the verb. Baptizo is a Greek word, relating to the ordinance of baptism. How do the Greeks baptize? As they have ever done, by immersion ! Do they understand their own language ? 'I'his impudence itself dares not ques- tion. The fact of their having always baptized by immersion, IS, surely, decisive as to the meaning of the term. Suppose the Greeks were disputing about the import of an En- glish verb, that related to a practice of religion, what better method could they possibly adopt, than to appeal to the learn- ed religionists of England, and, after examination, allow the result of that appeal to settle the dispute ? Let the par- ties in the present question adopt the same reasonable me- thod, and baptism is immersion I But no I an opinion must be defended ; therefore, the practice of the Greek church IS to be suspected, though it is supported by the additional •evidence of Greek etymology. It were natural to expect, after such a thorough and con- tinuous discussion of this subject, that those whose time is devoted to Grecian literature, would be able to find another meaning to the verb under notice, if it contained one. But the authors of two or tliree Greek and English lexicons, which have been recently published, restrict the meaning of the verb to immersion. But what can linguists and the evi- *lence of philology do against the Hercules of prejudice ? Section 2. The attention of the reader, hitherto, has not been turn- ed to the direct evidence of scripture. If the word from the pen of an inspired writer, and the place selected for rise or- dinance of baptism, contain proof for any tliin<.v, it is in iavor of mraersion. While the conduct of apostles is h precedent for us, we do not think dieir example^ are ambigu- ous, nor that they rouKi use ]an,. Campbell: Jle .hafl bapti,. you in the 5£ly Mt "itifiXizt y9\x ifi the boolygaoit «li4ll£«." Others UgTo tranilated it the ranae. 14 «"d walk abon uma" wC5^.r td'ht r" ■!5""'''"' one of their greatest luxuries^ Burfhic • *? considered this position witE another •thev'w.r^ 1, ■ « ""'"""g one sup- to immerse. ' ^ "'" b»pt>zed, and to baptize is -iAnZ'bZS^'^f l\''«"l.'i"^^^' fro-" Mr. Beck- us, that " Mr BZh Th. „/ . u "" *"' "^ Christ, informs asserts thafall ^ode^ of pSatZ°"°''^>''P''« »■"■» to be the least re^HE? ?j P^'™"''^ 'n «««. are not christian baptisl Xh h, 1^""' '" *' P"f''™ance of h.s system from thebaptismsinll"„:!dt„:^.''SS^^^^ n-eaningrfthT;* TnTthf '" f ''f'"' ^^P-ds o" t^e cientlyfxplainsUsi^po,^ Mr 81,1?°'"'*"'^ *'°'""' »"«- the difference betwern*^ tte two „?n°« r^"'™"^'''"-"' 'hat in favor of the »»X of the mher Ifh '"''"'?"' "^o"" claim to the baptism of .r„hn i , f V ^° ^''" "•signed his Christ, the of sTou d 1 1 •T,"'^ T""'''^'"'' "' "'at of easilyima-ine theDr Jn '^ '*,'''°,"'* P''''^^- 1 could john^cco°rd7dti?the''::;„":i;5;^r.i; %-^«;„<>^ tavor of 1 iiersinn • th^^Je^ ^^ • , *^^"' ^"" was in makean„p„l':S;for'htstn«'' '"'™'''"=" ^r. Booth to inEni"^j:,';°™^^»P'f»?. John ad. chap 23d. ver. ter there, f Utr/ioH Z'^t'' T"-^ ']'""' ""^ """^h »'«- for John LtiziuBin Enon t! ^""''.i^ the reason assigned and the word^E^annears t'nh •"'%'''°™ ™= ""'•• "»ter, resolved if possib.e-rbwl'e-l'hVrf^fr^i'A'ftor^^^ — .'U.ns uu bap. page 59. temporary It a change ho resided lat he had heir dress, idered this J one sup- baptize is ^r. Beck- thing but, he « does from that r the dif- [i informs ist cause, Bj are not mance of stitute of :ruing to )f course 5 on the n, suffi- red that e of one ned his that of I could pted by was in both to Jd. ver. Jch wa- ssigned water, :t. But ivor of 'ely can- ant i(\- of 'cr. Sep. hnp. Ist chap. S4I •igniff 15 immersion, somt paedo-baptists affirm that hudata polla means waw waters; hence, they construe them into a number of small rivulets too shallow to immerse ! But this wretched whmialiords no relief, and proves too feeble to support their unwarrantable conclusion. Do paedo-baptists think that John required many waters for the convenience of pouring? or if he merely sprinkled the people, that many waters were neces- sary { That opinion must be liable to suspicion, which sup- presses the dictates of reason. Keep to the etymoloffv of baphzo and all is easy. There will be then no necessity for committing an assault on the word of God, nor of forcing an unnatural construction. John baptized where there was much water tor the convenience of immersion. « Then they who gladly received his word, Acts 2d. chap. 41st ver. were baptized ; and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." Dr. Burns * seems to beg leave of absence from the evidence afforded by this passage, by the gratuitous assumption, that « under our l-ord s commission we find only one instance of baptism re- corded, m which our translation leads to the conclusionlthat the subject was immersed." Here the etymology of baptizo is overlooked, while he presumes a practice oppolite to itf im- Ko ;• ,^V«P^'ze is to immerse, but three thousand were baptized, therefore, three thousand were immersed. But the objection of p^do-baptists here, is not so much against the verb, as to difficulties which exists no where but In their own imagmationu So many, they affirm, could not be baptized in one day. The text does not say they were. But, suonosin^ t:L:r'l''l ^^f ^?"^ '^ ^°"^ ^here were K a? postles, and the three thousand, give them only two hundred and fifty each. I once baptized, ?n an awkward bapSsterv ninefeen persons in eight minutes and a half. The ^S disciples were most likely at Jerusalem during the Pentecost andweread ofo«. hundred and twenty assembledCetheJ' auVhI°'" fl H^ Spiritdescended. ''so far as the^:^^^^^^^^ quibble relates to labour and time, it is easily disposed of! Ihe administrators, whose number was not few, had the dav before them, and would feel no difficulty in discharlg ^^^^^^ duty. But paedo-baptists cannot find wof«r ..,^.:L. :_ Jerusalem to immerse such numbersT" irwas a^Sr^Teaso^ ofthe year, how could a quantity of water needful for such u^en,^^^^^^^^^^ A^lucid'display this, oUe^hl^ oriental knowledge ! There were ten layers and a molten •P»f«6I. I ^ M i 16 city And how many private baths,* according to tlm cuLlm of the east, paedo-baptists must ascertain as hfy^an Tb!r^ ^as water sufficient in Jerusalem to rfro^« their ^bielt^n Sut'thl":' ^'' '^' ^""^^ ""^^"^'^^ they cling to a system* whiU fl, •"''"*^"''"'^'''^ ^'^P^"''^ "°^ °» ttie supposition wirh ht^t ^'' !"PP°?"'on« must be silenced: the peopk ^re baptized, and baptism is immersion. ^ ^ " And they went down both into the waf^r Am4 q^u u Mth «r. both FhU,p and the Eunud-Tand t'blStj.- Di. hmks thattKe translation in this place mwU lead us t^ conclude n, favor of immersion : thereLe, ,o trLlrve us t n„dst the jeopardy of delusion, he devotes mo™*han ?1 Tife n" »«71?""g'<> ■educe the translation toTre«„"l4T to cZliT'th """' 'fl'r «^""™- '««' taken thett: to «a.,„„e, hey would have found tlrat a desert may be very well supphed wuh water. John was baptising in the ^Zl wdderDe.5 o, .lesert, of Judea, and there he found anTtTk quantity of ,vater-,he river Jordan ! In the same Sh bc^rhooa he baptised because there was ,n^k wate" i« E^™ aesert, oi as the same word is translated in Matthew. wIMbiv^ ness ; and, according to the evidence of history, S' wj^^ rZi^ "T^^, Diospoli., and Ascalon, the rW^r Seutherus was at hand. % If reliance may be placed on vT 'uTf^nuch w' *"'' "'^^-'-di^'^. Gaxafthe Vce to whi^h i!i, "'*'™' '""' "e™™! brooks in its vicinity «nd the mroundhg country was well watered. Ifihe rS ver. lie will fiiid tjiat a wildfimo.c ;« «^* ^i Jl... .1. . j , * ♦^-^ Dr. Oill, on Aflti, 2rtd oth eudea- ss, void of ! breath of m in which I the idea, he purpose :he trouble ay be very he eremos^ an artiple ne neigh- — in Enon Ml eremds, ^, wilder^ te wcrrt by th a kmor the river 1 on Vol- to which wo miles vicinity, b^ reader and 62d uesoiafe n plac« that these gentlemen would make it ; but may have ci ties and villages and be well supplied ^ith waTer The %ment that the Dr. grounds upon the .xclamatorv .entence IS nothing to his purpose ; it might arise from th^ jjUantity of water, rather than the mere circumstance of find! "Jgit. Mr. Isaac says, and the Dr. coincides, that "tW ofThis? ' TlT •'" Yr ''^^ ^"" ''•" ^^-- - tt prS bpripture, and is opposite to probability itself. One thin^ I would ask, and that upon Uieir own .hewing, is it IMy that! person so emmentas the Eunuch, would tavel the desert wkchtheycreat^., without waterinhisc«rriage?tAndifhebad SoT./"'-'li Vri.^'^ ''^^^'' anddesindtnto the w^ I mL ?''"^^' • ^ ^.^^ ™y argument defends not on s^ch Tmmetd hr^Tr^'pP bapti.edthe lunuch, that is, he immersed him. The reader will find a reply to the Doct^r'ij remarks on the Greek prepositions in page 3^ * ver « can'nrf vT'"'!-^." ^''" ^''' ^^^ '^^' *7th and iStii h^nV:. ^9 ^?^ iT" ^""'^'"^ ^^^^* t^a^ these should not he n:Kth7t^d'^ Tr-^trt^'Tnnht^'^^^'^^^ ^"^ ^ as usu.,, without evident a^^ins^ immertn.'«^SS S^" sion been the mode," the Dr. says, « the woids Z^^ have been, can any man forbid thes^ o be take^S the^W Z P'""«^^>-;? ^h« tank orcistern to be dipped" 'How d^ the Dr. know this ? We have such slender evidence of hS omn.so.ence, that unless he can bring proof that the s^,J^ de,wit"« S'^tT "" ' "^ Prjis goocC we shall ventuTe to aZ lI P f ^"^*'«"» the Dr. pi-oceeds, « as put by tlS Apostle obviously means, can any>r6/^ '^ater to bf hroZh^* Now the question obviously means no such thinij. beTyl W ¥h"°i7^J:^^^'^" original to support such a J^T Jng. The Dr. has begged a woruro«y dW I *|)*|««8 "! A mdmeiit, that Cornelius and his friends stood in the capaci- Iv of aboiTTfers, and that Peter inquired, who can forbid food that these should not be refreshed, who have laboured as well aswer- This would no more prove that food was to be brought, than it would that they were to go to i(. The nr. has to argue in this, as in other cases, with the silence ot scripture on his side. The persons referred to were bap- tized, and baptism is immersion. The baptism of Saul, Acts 9th chap. 1 8th ver. affords no materials for speculating against immersion .• unless it should be said that /,e arose a7id ivasbaptized, therefore, he received the ordinance in the house, and could not be immersed— A prilliant specimen, in the absence of every reason to support K, ot tulse reasoning ! But the Jailer I Acts 16th chap. SSrd verse. How ^vere he and all his baptized? By immersion, \i ehapthlhe niean any thing What in the night ? So Luke informs us. liut where? i he scriptures are silent ; and that forms, as usual, a loud argument Ibr paedo-baptists. Dr. Burns thinks, that the persons in question " were not taken to a river to be plunged into it." But how does he know that ? 'J'here was a river very near the city, 15th verse. Itis plain enoHgh that the ordinance was not administered in the houss • for If- ter their baptism, the Jailer « brought them into his house, and set meat before them ;" which renders it pretty evident that they went out of the house to be baptized. Peter preach- ed to all vvho were in the house, they then appear to have Jelt It tor baptism, and afterwards returned. " Credulous in- deed, exclaims D». Burns, " and strongly wedded to a favor- ite system, must those be, who, to prove immersion, makee- ven the supposition that the Jailer had convenience for the purpose within his own premises !" But credulous, far more credulous, must he be, who can imagine that a Jail in an eas- tern country, would be destitute of a pool, or bath, for i he con- venience ot the family and prisoners. Dr. Doddridire is of opinion, that the ordinance was not attended to in the house • and Grontius, that a pool was within the limits of the pris- on. Dr. Burns IS not always chargeable with credulity: but when he seeks infiint sprinkling in the bible, he can exert the taith of a latitudmarian. The reader will probably remark. tnat. m the instnnr*^ in niioo«;«„ — ,v »' » I 11 1 ^ "^ 'i"^-T,,.vri,, as iVt nnmy olneis, i have repelled the Doctor's supposition with other suppositions. How probable soever it might appear, I know not, and I care not, that the Jailer had convenience on his own premises: lie was baptized, and baptism is immersion. in the capacl- m forbid food )oured as well )d was to be ) to i(. The 1 the silence to. were bap- ^er. affords no iless it should ', he received inmersed — A >n to support verse. How if ebaptisthe e informs us. it forms, as Burns thinks, to a river to lat ? 'J'here olam enough ouss ; for af- > his house, •etty evident *eter preach- •ear to have 'retlulous in- :d to a favor- ion, makee- ence for the us, far more til in an eas- for f he con- dridge is of I the house; C)ftlie pris- duhty ; but an exert the bly remark, eis, 1 have uppositions. , and I care premises ; id frnn.^jr'*''^u\^'*''^* ^u ^^^^ " ^"^ ^h«" they cortm from the market, except they wash, {bapthontai) thev eat n^ And many other things there be, which they ha 7reclivS lo hold, as the ^^Mn^^ ibapthmous) cf cups and pots, b, a. »A„!l f* f"^«/ ^."^'*'^-" Luke, nth * chap. 38th ver. "And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed, {ebaptisthe) before dinner." Dr. Burns *ln refernng to these passages, places the merit of his aZmenU not with the etymology of the words, but with a ^ersln cus^ , torn, a common mode adopted by the Jews, and a text ?n the 2nd Kings 3rd chap, llth verse.*" In these places the reader will find the terms poured, afuse, and .A''«f are used passages above ? And what necessary connexion have the oi me Jews . 1 he Dr. says, alludnig to Mark. 7th chan by '&" Y:k:",fe' t ";• """""% " '"" ^ '■'"""«' -^ '""^ qn. r. ^"^ baptizing ot a man." This is an error n eie ablution of the hands, he uses the verb niptoUo rinse but when refernng to the baptism of the whole ifodyanTthe utensils, he uses the verb baptizo. Can the Dr see no diifc ,^.,y one worO, a^lTetX":^^ ^fe^^'J^ « two different wor ""it '^ort from W^'-"^"" "'■ tables. &c.?T„nwe7;yr;. " WhaTLItXr." '"''l "'^'l: •P»f e M. fSep, .nt. to Tho« ^ho kid down their property at th» foot of supcrsti. aoD, were never like y to Jipare trouble in the 9am6 Came. It h 5" been «ati.factor.ly proWKl from Maimonides and other '^ in.^Z^'^'^J^^^ the ceremonial baptism, of the Jews, were invftnably performed by immersion, the word TH^BeL. to dip, wasapplKi to these baptisms which were pel-formed mth excessive scrupolosity. A laver containing forty seaha ot Water, and pools and cisterns, were commonly used for the purpose; and immersion was so general a practice, that dkr- gmg cisterns for religious and other services, became a branch tl 'e?"'*"^ business. Not only did the Jews immerse their bo- dtes, but also their «(p,,po/5,^«z^n vessels, tables, and beds, WiA their ytryptlhws and bolsters* Dr. Burns inquired "Now who will bfe sofoolisAaB to affirm that these bap. tittns or washings were all by the process of immersion T» fi^ L.^""* c^^ ^' ^^^ P'""'^ **f being thought a/ool, that the baptisms or the Jews were all by the process of immer- •lon. 1 he Dr. confounds baptisms with washings, Mark makes a distinction, and on the correctness of the Evange- list, Iground my faith. ® ^^J11\'?^\ ^^^^^1 f.""^ ^°''* ^^'•— " Which stood only in tn^ts tod drinks, and divers washings {diaphorois baptm^ois) Th« divers bfeptisms here were performed by immersion, tor the Apostle would not have used a word which means to «j>. Hadthe Apost*e int?ended sprinkling or pourhiff, he WouW bare easily found a word to express his idea with rn-e- Widh. To mvtst the langtege of SeHpture with % diversity ^ tofeanm^wpecially when referring to duty, U to reduce rt fo'fc Ubyrimb of uncertainty. Phction 3. 1. . ^^J^f^ ^*«?» of p!imges,to which I shall dircctlh* at* liBmion of the reader, is where the verb 2>apj?feo is fhmrativeir Ifttd. Mat, Sd chap. 1 1th ver. "He shall baptize, ihuptht^) yoti (*n) 1.4 the Hdy Ghost and fii-e," Lu>e l«th chap. 50th ver.— « I haviB a haptism, \baptismu) to be baptized, (to^wMwifli,) with." 1st Cor. lOth chap, fid ver.— " And jfcre uii 0^:^X12^, \eoapiisamo,) unto Moses in the cloud and in the sfea. » Rom. edi chap, s, 4th ver.— « Know ye not Uiftt so many of us as wene baptized, (ebaptistkemen,) mto Jesus •V'1 ime a branch erse their bo- eSi and beds, irns inquires It these b^- mmersion ?" it a/ool, that 5s ofimmer- ings, Mark he Evange- tood only in s baptismois) immersion, ch means to pouring, he ea with pre- 1 ft diversity to reduce it ircctl^ at* frpfurativtiy ?, {hapfsen) ISth chap. B baptized, jr.—" And icioud and now ye not ) into Jesus ts« 91 Christ, were baptized, {fbaptmemen) into hit de^h? Therefore weare buried ^ith him by baptism, (baptimatoil mio death." Isf Peter 3d chap. 20th veT-M tU likeTuni ^hereunto even baptism, {bapthma) dpth also now save us.- \ have placed the^e pa^saues at once lender the reader's view. as I mtend applying to the whole one rule ofinterprel^Uon^ It requires but veryl.ttle acquaintance with language to di.- cern, th^t the verbs aiid noyns in the passages above are fli. gurativeiy used To brin|g; them down from the position they have taken, to the simple Idea that they primarily contain, is to reduce each text to verbal absurdity. Vhe verL drop their action, and ore used to express a state, which could not be expressed with equal effect by any other ier^,. Zo«o, to wash! rantizo, to sprinkle, ^^c:^^«, to pour, nor any other verb would have served the -purpose of the writer; therefore, bapti:^\t used in a sense foreign from its native import, to giye^ spirii P^oducS'^ to the texts which could not o^herVisf hav'e ^llen produced. The idea of actual dipping is laid aside, while an immersed state is expressed with animation of style. The theS, tLe!^/^7" "^ '°''- "'" '''\"^r r ^°««^ ^° ^'^tort from them the act of immersion, or the Pffijo-baptist who, because f^rZ T^ "''^ figuratively, would invest them with a di! Aeisityofmeaning, and make them imply to sprinkle, or to pour, deserves censure The verbs, iii tLir sLation updl? notice, express not mode, but state ; there is an allusion to t^i ordinance of baptism, but not to the act of dipping. * I lay It down as a principle of criticism, thkt tfe primary iT^u e§ tVi cannot be Ko.^ from those places where t^tlT' Z Jg"^*«tive sense. The baptism of the Holy Ghost in Matthew, refers not to the acti7n oi the Wrb, bA t^ the result of that action when performed in water- tluit as the bod^ m baptism is immersed, and the ordinance is t^ I change of the person, places the soul of his subject in an im- mersed and purified state. This change, being represented by tlie ordinance of baptism, but not by th^ 4vSr of hat or- dinance, presenu us with an exalted ijea of its completenel S;7th:T"f '"^l '^P^'^."^ to refer ^a;W^^t!he oescentof the iipiriton the 120 in the House on the Davof Pentecost, and they have founded on their ZZ^L.JJZ S;«l!u^"'-^V ^^^*°rthe former I cannot^Tnd any ^.^; ^nd Uielatter isabsurd. John, addressing the multitude, ^poke enceofrHT^^'^-""^:^'"'^^'' *^^"^^^ miiaculo„; iSou. the bantil^^^^^ uP'"'- ^° '^"*^"^' «""*"« »^«^'« doiie, that tne baptism of John as to mode, is symbolicfel of ^-^-^- I the baptism w 1 III of tht Spirit, proYCf a lamentable inattention to Iartgu«ffe, or IS a mere conceit, to buoy up n false supposition. Who can imagme, when the Apostle reasons from circumcision to the circumcision of the heart, that he has the lea.t allusion to mode ? The cases are parallel : the speaker nd writer drop the idea of action or mode, and refer to an effect produced bv the spirit of God. ^ The passage from Luke, compares the sufferings of Christ to estate of total immersion. The verb, while it drops its na- tural import, gives a glowing idea of His sufferings, and pro- duces a powerful effect on the reader. The wildest inter- preter will not endeavour to extort sprinkling or pouring from this passage ; and Dr. Burns judiciously avoids it. The text from the Epistle to the Corinthians, has been the subject of much speculation. The passage of the Israelites through the Sea, is called a baptism of the people unto Moses, and blindly attaching the idea o^ action to the verb, the inven- tive genius of many an interpreter has been exerted, in order to make the text speak about sprinkling. Dr. Burns says, "we are certain that there was no immersion in the case." If the Doctor refers to the act of immersion, he is right ; but if to the state of the Israelites in the sea, he is wrong. The Dr. wishes the text to imply some mo^t contend, It can th€> f a person I fear the 95 Doctor is not unprejudiced if he uaill not see this. « The fi- gure," says the Dr., ♦^is not complete unless the individual iias gone through the process of drowning." It is well if the Dr's weapon does not strike the apostle before it touches the baptists ; and to the judgment of the apostle I consign such a venturous assertion. Nevrr did any man labour more to redi .e language to » mere nullity, than the Doctor ha* done in t \Q present case. He saw the text frowned on his system, and appears determined on revenge. The text from Peter, asserts our salvation by water in baptism in a figurative sense, and likens it to the salvation of the eight persons who were saved by water in the Ark. Here 1 want not to prove a dipping, nor any other mpde. Doctor Burns thinks nobody will assert thattlie ark was wholhf under tlve water, or that its occupants loere plunged into that elemetit. It will be more difficult still to extort any meaning Irom it in favor of sprinklingor pouriiig. « Thus is baptism," says the Doctor, •« in its spiritual signification, fitly termed a figure o( the salvation -of Noah and his family." But whtre is'tbe spi^ ritual signification of baptism termed a figure ? Is it ««»t baptism itsel/thai :s the figure ? ^t^ Doctor quotes Daniel 4. 33, where we read, tliat Nebuchadnezzar « was wet with the dew of Heaven ;" and affirms that *< he was not dipped in the dew ; like tlie forni of sprinkling it came upon him." Certainly lie was not actually dipped m the dew. But does the Doctor mean that ebaphe pri- marily means to sjirinklp ? Or that in this place it drops iu original idea, and sign i^es a totfdly immersed state f If the latter, 1 perfectly agree with him, and discover a beauty in the expression. But why then talk about sprinkling when the verb does not contain the idea? The author iw Hebrew, couid have found NeZeH, and die translators in Greekraino or rantizo, if they had wished to expiess the idea of sprink- ling. But 1 hey obviously intejided to express a slate for which these words would not have been sufficiently significant. I hey intended to convey the idea of a total immersion, «4id, therefore, used a word to correspond with their idea in a case where the flc/ of immersion could not take place. It would have been tame, comjmred with what it is, if the text had re- ebaphe is used without its active meaning, to force an idea in- to It contrary to its nature, is not the brightest display of ei- ther honesty or discernment. That the dew came upon him, 1 agree with the Doctor, but that ebaphe, or any other word Jn the text, expresses that mode, I feel confident never can be li 28 'heW „T ^h^; ,■:" ;ilaf r "ed't'eZr- , '\:r ""' £Aap*. is not used iX slmole t!«^ Tl, "f ~"'^ "P™ ''• primitive idea, to it in t e text nnd^r ' *T'^"'-^' '" »'""='• "* ofsprinkling/is nnjasS «'"-''«~"™. «.■ theidea examin"e'd, A °t''the"vt'rl,T''^-''"« *" "«' ^'''«'> -« ''-e just Tl,e pers^tho to^' ,t? f f T '''"''" "^ P™?" sense. «.'. SponTje'iliv'e" ^1 .iL^i'nfhe'^ri n""V"" ™'\ '"" some dipped into the Holy SpWt and fit 1' "^ T""'"', '!'"'' h s sufferiuBs the H-l, Ji. r f • f' •'^^"^ dil'ped nto becaure the oriSnaf meanlVnf fi ' ^."'■'"i ""^ """^ '•»"<'. into it the idea rfa mnT(^ ° r' ™'' " '•'"PP^'l. expression. Mr W«L„ 'T^ "•"* '""^yed by his »4 to the apKo.^ o^,hTHol'°«'' •'■' 1'""=''"' '••« '''«' °f ine reanpr will «««. : !__ i . •■••«-«. men alluded to'baDtiiim^i^th.'^r'! ^netner the inspired pen< i-siiy percep^rr ^z Xrt't^;' ^"i^i^; * Vi49 0«miBfBt ia Ise- are in sprink- • It was not , but the m- ome upon it. 1 to attach its ti, or the idea we have just proper sense. lie verb, in- course, have dipped into and sea, and other hand, )ed, to force only proves lined, at all sages where )n the rack^ e, to whicli from lan- Jvitably re- an expres- vay to ren- od has exr The vene- good Dr. )er of ran- they stood iing along. ich means t/iis isoay. I the Holy countable this good ' on their ed by his le idea of is termed ired pen^ ; allusion rlid they 27 use the word in an improper sense ? The answtr 1 have an- ticipated ; but may repeat, that it was owing to some circum- stance peculiar to immersion, which afforded them a figure to produce a powerful effect. Dr. Burns, taking it for certain, because we argue from the allusions in favor of immersion, that we insist on preserving the action of the verbs, rallies us with absurdity into which he supposes us involved. But, if the exposition which I have attempted be correct, the satiri- cal puns of the Doctor will be found to fall short of their mark. It willappear evident to every observant individual, that had the words, which are particularly involved in this debate, been translated according to their meaning, there would have been less excitement to dispute. But it has been affirmed, that the translators could find no word in the English vocabulary to express the sense of the original. But this could certainly never be the reason. They felt no difficulty in giving a strict translation of the original in Lev. 4. 17, 18, where THeBeL, lapto^ is rendered to- dip; NeZeH, rainoy to sprinkle; and SaPaK, ekcheo, to pour, libaptizo mean, to sprinkle^ to pouff or to tioash^ why not translate it accordingly, whenever it is connected with the ordinance of Baptism? In Mark 7, 4, ifshere it has no relation to baptism they hesitated not to trans- late it, to wash. This is the more remarkable as three deri- vatives from nipto looked them in the face. Why was bapti- zo here translated into the same word as nipto ? Is there not an absolute distinction between the verbs ? and could not that distinction have been preserved in the English ? The trans-, lators knew if they rendered baptizo in Mark, to dip, that their translation would be condemned in every other instance where the verb occurs ; therefore, while they ventured to swerve from their usual method of leaving it with an English termination, they washed it over with a word that does not ex- press its meatiing. To affirm that the translators could find no English term for the original, is to offer for them an apo- logy to serve a point, and appears a mere fiction, as they could translate the verb when the ordinance was absent. The reason was, if history may be relied on, that they translated under an authority by which they were over-ruled. James I, it is well known, piqued himself on his learning, and it ap- •:!.o, ii^-i.i arat. i_i-^TTi3 itioixjiy isi isic j;:jijgii3n iraiisiaiions, that he commanded the translators to retain the old ecclesi- astical terms, one of which was the unfortunate baptize. Did not the King and his bishops anticipate the consequen-t ces, in the event of baptizo being translated to dip ? But when this disputed verb was free from -the English sceptre, it «p-s P«ir» lo ]i(^ refer not d to ills ar- ihe effect of I'as wrought nre that the fioni them ':ration, the the roiew- out ow us ■ testimony onveyetl by postle bear an expres-r his for no ' a mode of B Doctor's testimony s refer to that they erable for ument ra- nkling, or does not body was r inimer- :)d adopt-r rgunienl, •oning as complete the ele- Ls to his to hini- 25 jself than to thie baptists. And thB baptists attach as liiucli importance to the cleansing of the heart as their bretfaren, nnd less to baptism than the Df. in his book, where he punts it a crime to allow a sick person to die without it. The jMBdo-baptists rest no inconsiderable partton of their argument for a diversity of mode in the ordinance of baptism, on those expressions which relate to the influences of the Holy Spirit ; and Dr. Burns informs us that they re- fer to their mode of baptism. The Dr. has given in a loiig string of expressions, from the Old and New Testameat> which speak of God as sprinkling many nations, sirdding Jbrtht and pouring out his Spirit, and of tlie Holy Spn>it^/i^ ingupon, and coming on his subjects. I deny in the most po*- sitive terms, and the Dr. has not gi\-«n the shadow of « proof, that any one of the quotations he has made, refers to the nbodts of christian baptism. The expressions which he has quoted, even when confined to the subject for which they are uset^ must be taken in a figurative sense. Surely no man is so spell-bound to error as to contend, that the Holy Spirit was Hterally sprinkled, poured, or shed. The man who will insist upon a literal pouring, is bound to take the unavoidable con- sequence of his own argument. For instance, that which is literally poured must be material, — tlte Holy Spirit, lie ^ould say, is literally poured{ therefore, the Holy Spirit is material. But I cannot imagine that any sane individual, merely to buttress « system, will become so decided amate- Tialtst. Then, as tl>e expressions aa-e figurative, and convey no idea of mode respecting a divine influence, the very suh- jectfor which they are used, why are thty forced into tChepi^ ■sent question, to prove a diversity of mode in an ordinanoe to which they have not even an indirect allusion. " The Apostle Peter," says the Dr. « understood this effusion oftbe ^irit to be the promised spiritual baptism.** But this baptism was not in the fusion, but in the effect produced on the soul. 'Whatever the Dr. may understand, when he strains a text to favor his mode, there is no reason to suppose that Peter un- iSerstood the effusion to be the baptism. The Dr. asks if the Almighty " does not uniforndy employ the terms sprinkling^ pottring and shedding, in reference to* bis heavenly comnu»- \^ri i::!;iiy lie dues, but not m reierenc* io Um mode of baptism ; and to employ them in a cause for which iiiey never were designed, is to abusethera. The Dr. him- self should have felt the ii^uence of his caution about inaultiog the Almighty, before he bestowed it on the Baptists. The Dr. in pages 6* and 65, hys his aowwnt with •«- '■ iy -i ao !.'?h''^: '^^ ^7 reference to EUsebius, wishes his readtr* to "tr Bit wL'd ""If- ''^^""* ''''"' -..ersi^Vwa? hen TO use. Uut what does his amu riff nrove ^ Tho^ *l.^ aeemed valid. It i. somewlint omusiiift that !> Tnvlnr .hiTerv^rrf'r''"''?''' ""^ »'■''"«'' evidence fio;- n their e.,eem." says .he mJ^^^J,:^ ."Z ^l c^.^ U •Es to F.W,^ P T' '• "',*'* '""•" "■''■" ">e Epistle of Cor- rightly christened, yea, or no, who were only spri. Si as appears m the same epistle of Cornelius in Eu!el us . W 'che legevn on totouton eilephenai, wliich Nicenhoi u th^f rtn ders Mfat least such a sprinkling may hi caHed bnntisn'- and this was not only spoken in diminution of Novatu. ^a d in ndignation against his person, for it was a for, ed " ml a o emn question made by Magnus to St. (^ypria^ "I'^L"; stnt christtam legttum co quod aqua salutari nonlotisu sedpa:fust.' whether they were to be esteemed rigluchrisS ^edV'Hr^^ ^P""^'^^^i^h water, and not wLedor dp! -ped? He answers that.the baptism waa good when it was done ^ neces^sttate cogente et Deo indulgeliam suam alt compelling. * Phis testimony, from a learned paedo-baptist too, IS a perfect refutation of the inference drawn by Dr Burns, from the epistle of Cornelius. Dr. Burns has intro hi"nur„7sf ^'r"'•""'^^°'"'^•^^^ '^ -°r^»^ any thirfor ins purpose. 1 here is not the s ghtest evidpnrP istle of Cor- en kline dia 'la genesthai^ his bed by ders.' Nay, it they were rinkled ; as us, e:ge c/ire thus ren- d baptism'; Uuji, and in 1 and a so- in habendi t loti swit, t christians led or dip- hen it was uam largi" 1 necessity :do-baptist vn by Dr. has intro- thing for that Law- of water : The Dr.' Lo force a 31 The fair statement of the case appears to be this, that In the second century baptism was erroneously deemed essen- tial to salvation, and, if it was neglected in health, a corruption of the ordinance was administered in affliction; but this was considered invalid by the sacred authorities of the age. But ofwhat real value is this appeal to antiquity ? I could, if my limits would allow, introduce evidence from the Greek fathers, to directly contradict the assertions of the Dr. But the cause of the baptists depends not on such evidence. Let the reader turn his attention to the epistles of Paul to th« Corinthians and Galatians ; and to the 2. 3, chapters of the Rt elation by John ; then he will be satisfied that the argu- ment from antiquity is to be suspected, as the christian reli- gion was woefully corrupted ^wen before the Ae&i\i of the apos- tles. To prove infant sprinkling from antiquity, is to prove corruption in the christian church. So much for the Doctor's "quite nresistible argument from antiquity." The Dr. as if short of argument foreign from his sub- ject, calls ni the aid of Mr. Edwards ; but alas ! they both tall mto the ditch. Their argument is, that by insistintr on nnmersion, we make the validity of baptism to depend on the ?«a«//// meal, though it is plain enough thev took yttmmediately after Xhepassover. And Fourthly: iS make out their case, they both confound the Lord's supper with the passoyer, while both Luke and Paul make a disti action, by pla- cing the former after the latter. Alas I for the Doctor's " arcru- • ment from analogy, and Mr. Edwards' " case of criticism ^ / buch IS the result of attempting to bolster up an hypothesis in pap 58, the Dr. affirms that " baptize araX baptism do not imply immersion," and that immersion \% rot their general or scj tptural import ; yet in page 53 he informs us that p^do- baptists do not disallow immersion. What is it that he means ? that paedo-baptists allow a mode that is not the ge- w- Hi ihe verh .11 t' 1 .• '''* P"P°^'t">m when construed with and the circum«anceo which k rJif 5 I'* "f """tenc^ by tS fXwiL^n •"""'' ,"'"' "'« "-anslators justified He Mm\ZfJo\l fire Jmfl'n^^r'r'-i "" '* l.uk(» 94. Ki r" • 1 7 . 'v *""*>" [ets) into the water. mill-stone («» L» the sJa 19 '^o/'', ""*,''''*," 8'*" .» the heavens (™lS,) « iz ^I'l^^^^'^J "v"'? \" (^"^ tern JnUn r iT u ■ 7' , ' ' "^y died (™) ,» the wa- .ranslationu'tpetn^^ir:!'" 'HjH^^^J-'^^" "" «irri«. »i«Sf "" E"'"*?'' l'»d water sufficient in his ^rrage. Baptnomttn, W mimeise, „„| ,he mo.t ob»io« yfl w ^ He seems Dtwithstanding inplied among might almost I) therefore, to le painful trial id to alter the vhere nothing enies that the it is one thing nd another tp ;ord with the to tlieir pwH ;y meaning of lie removal of )nstrued with demand the of a sentence, nine the idea r translation, itors justified are rendered >set. 17.15. to the water. l"» 5. 7, Put ! like a great a lake of ' be toj and meaning pf nection pt^- vho art {eu) in the Mrt^- oes not thje he preposi- 38. appears KJtor Buriis passage ft^- nd ek fronj. nd then /lis But even jnuch wei^t , when the ;ient in his lost obvicijis 33 aspect of the alikir deinainls the belief, that tJiev wein down into, and came up aui of the water. Because we suppose evidence in favor of immersion, from their both ;,;c; the water, the Doctor argues, that the "conclusion" oPsuch a supposition is that ho(/i were immersed. But did he not' discover that this whim makes equally against himself. If sprin/dtng xvas the mode, still it.is predicated ot'boi/i, accord- ing to the Dr., that they went to the water, will he have it that M were sprinkled? They both went into the water, and Phihp baptized the Eunuch; surely, when immersion is admitted, the account is free from uncertainty. The Dr -ir- gues from "Jesus went up into a mountain ;" and insists 'that It ^/6-^be translated /«/o, we are irresistibly leci l:o infer that our Saviour was plunged into the mountain. Then, if the Dr. were to read that his friend went into a field, he would be ' ^Jf;f%led to infer" tl.at his friend sst., plunged into the Jeldf ! ./ Would he not, -fin his senses, be " irresistibly led to infer, that his friend went within the precinct of the Held ^ I he circumstance conveys the exactmeaning ofthe preposition' and preserves the passage from ambiguity. Jesus went within the limits of the mountain, and to translate m into the En.- Fv,n^T?'^'"rl ^^' '^""^'^ "'^^ """^'^y 'J^e "^^«»'"g "f the ii 1 f T.' 7^^ '?'"' ''?f ''' ^^'^ applicable to Matthew 28. 16. IheDr. refers to John, 20. 3-7, and thinks that "a manliest contradiction would be involved" if eis were translated into. Certainly it would. While Peter remained on this side the Sepulchre, the preposition /;.^. would have been absurd Here the circumstance itself is the interpreter But why did not the Dr. notice eis in the sixth veisi nd etselthe in the eighth ? Was he afraid that the p eTo' itions here would be too sturdy for his management ? ^ \C,1 ' translate ... in these verses by the En|lish prepositio o ^ He plainly saw that the prepositions in these pllices risis'ed his translating ingenuity. While Peter remained on the outside ofthe sepulchre it would be absurd to render /"-.; went to^i;;''" '\ T''^ '^ '"^"^y ''^^^-'•^' ^-'"i-" the apostle went into the sepulchre, to interpret eis by the preposition to The ordmance of baptism recjuired the partiistd ^ w i l^i the precincts of the water ; therefore, in such casc^ the nre os.tion must alwr^'s be rendered into. Dr. Buk; knows that respect must be paid to the connection in vh ch a Z position stands, or a ridiculous interpretation isltlytol" given. have done ^^^ prepositions, as the psedo-baptists nave (lone, where they are connected wil!i the ordinnnce of baptism, evmce. their want of argument. The worth 'iditor 34 of the Bap .St Magazine, ha. given Dr. Burns, In reviewin^r ms pamphlet, nn amusing specimen of his own method of translutmg as into the English to. Mark 5. 13. " And the unclean spirits went out, and entered (m) to the swine : and we^e ^h'S ;;■ w'^, ''"" '^r^^' ^^'^ (^"^ '^ ^'- -^' ""^ were choked (eis) to the sea ! ! « So much for interpreta- l^nlons""" ^"''^""' "'" pre-conceived and favl^urite Whoever turns an unbiassed attention to the etymoloav oi haptizo, to the scriptures where it occurs, and to the un^e^ quivocal concessions of candid paedo-baptist authors, will feel surprised that the mode of baptism should continue a subject ot dispute. It must require enormous courage, or a quality of mind not quite so creditable, to affirm that the verb, the bible and antiquity, favour any other mode than immersion. « I ba.e heard, says Dr. Campbell, "a disputant of this stamp, .n defiance ot etymology and use, maintain that the word rendered m the New lestament baptize, means more properly thafthl?' '" ^« Pl""g^; '-"^d in dejanee of all antiguitl that the former method was the earliest, and for man/ceni tunes, the most general practice in baptizing. One who argues in this manner never fails, with persons of knowled«.e, to betray the cause he would defend ; and though, with respect to the vulgar, bold assertions succeed as well as af^uments sometimes better ; yet a candid mind will disdain totake the help ot a falsehood even in support of the trnth^'^Lect. Fulptt Eloquence, p. 480. on ClIAPTKR IL *■ -i I SEcri>> J, ON THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. The mode of baptism is important, as on that depends the essentia character of the ordinance itselK As by chanrr. ing the mode, we reduce the character of baptism - so h changing the subjects, we produce a similar effecrin 'the con- stitution ot the church. A society which includes infants, and a church ot believers, are two distinct thinos ; but by substituting the former tbr the latter, we sink the distinction, and subject the church to results the most prejudicial. A , in revievfjiig n method of J. "And the ; swine ; and > tlie sea, and r interpreta- ind favourite lie etymology d to the line- lors, will feel II ue a subject r a quality of rb, the bible ersion. " I 'f this stamp, t the word, ore properly // aiitiquityy r many cen- 2 who argues owledge, to with respect arguments, to take the " — Led. on M. it depends I by chang- Ti ; so, by n the con- es inlhnts, s ; but by iistinction, dicial. A 35 dissimilarity ofcharacterought to exist between the cliuich and the world ; but by uniting in the constitution of the church materials whose moral nature we have no means of ascertain! mg, that dissimilarity is lost, and an amalgamation is effected, which destroys its beauty, and endangers its purity The apostle* of our Saviour, in forming the church, were guided ini^Lr'^F'-^ '" '^I'-'tl strictly conformed to their com- m.s on. Evidence of faith they considered essential to mem- bership^and administered baptism only where that evidence was believed to exist The commission of Christ was their rule! and beyond that they liad no authority to act. The commisi Z;ZZ:!:;!''''''''' ^"'' ^'^-Je, remains our guldT'^ The commission which formed a Jaw to the apostles in col ectmg tl^ visiWe ehurch of the Redeemer, requ^ired to be ex- pJicit. As on the execution of this order, depended the cha- racter ot the church, the least ambiguity would have in^pTi- ed defect m the order itself, and have involved the apo Xs m uncertamty. But the commission is precise in itsTrns and the conduct of the apostles proves that they undl -stood U according to the etter. As the commission is to us, what felTtant'^T^"^'"' ^- ^T^' '"°^>^^Se of its mean- ing is important. To ascertam that meaning, we will now 2oT« r'" ^T'"f °" «f "« ^-'™^. MattKw says (28. "I cfnl alfnJr '^^^7^'-^^"^ {matheteusate panta taethne) disl ciple all natiom, {baptizontes autous) baptizing ihem in the name of the Father, and of the Son, Ld ^-theUly Ghos • {D!iiim no sooner to surmise something which his order did notcontain, thanhedaredtoneglectsomething which it expressed. For hini to have done either one or the other, would have been an at- tack on the authority of God. The commission not only specifies a duty, but also the order in which it shall be discharg- ed. Were there no other evidence of baptism being confined to believers, I would entrench myself within the commission, and defy all the powers from beneath, and all the cunning- craftiness of men, ever to dispossess me. No person on the earth, but a voluntary disciple of the Saviour, has a right to baptism; and it is the imperative duty of every believer to be baptized. If an injunction could be found in the New Testa- ment, expressing the baptism of infants, to that I would cheerfully submit, but even then I would deny that their bap- tism was included in the commission which we have. Dr. Burns,* referring to the commission in Matthew, says : " the passage has frequently been brought forward in support of the assertion, that there is no scripture warrant for the practice of baptizing infants." In this the Dr. is right, and his futile attempt to refute it, confirms the correctness of that assertion. " When a warrant is given," says the Dr. " to extend anything to a collective body of men, it must be under- stood as including every individual of which that body is com- posed, provided there be no exceptionary clause." Thisrula the Dr. considers "as including infants equally with adults" for baptism. But of what is this collective body composed? Believers ? If so, the warrant for baptism extends to them. But does he mean a collective body without discrimination of character? If so, he will have as motley a group as ever na- tional establishment embraced. The apostles whivi ordered to preach the gospel, by preaching to disciple, and theii to administer the ordinance of baptism. Their warrant to preach extended to all who were capable of hearing, and their warrant to baptize extended to all on whom their message took an evident effect. Unless they went beyond their order, it was equally impossible for them to baptize infants as profligates. Their warrant itself was an exceptionary clause against any whose character did not correspond with its terms. The Dr. however, will have it, that infants are implied in the war- rant, for apart from their parents they have no legal exis- tence." Whnt has legal existence to do with membershij) in the church ol' Christ? Does legal existence imply membership? A national church mav confound the two, but ♦Pa^.j 2U. i.'iiu whip^•'^''^'^'""'';^^'^'^'^'^^ '' distinction. '^ The privilege which ,s extended to the parent," savs the D, « ^ h"aS. rri- f " ^^^^ f r^^-" .^^^•^' - '^^^^^ of- nsuuite;,, !,, ah lalse ni civi aw as n rplio-imi ^ru hj .-ens.™ ofhU station, „,a, luu.",!" l?;': •;gef .^'X ; .-a,.tn.c,i,.t, puclcllc of civil vvithsp1nU.:i1hi„g!"' "'"" ,, , ■^;\<-; <;PI'0-^t^i-^ or iutant baptism,' says the Dr « ronfpnr] come. I fh. " ■ '"I,'''<=''- Most assuredly. I would k? I ,1 "!''""^•"«■ "ot been particularly mentioned e .^L, " ' r-"""' '•'''"".™ ™"''' ''"«' been impelled! Does .le Mleuce ot scnpsure ibrm a wnrrant for a positive dutv? DoutuiHch t expresses not a word. Tlie Dr savs • « Tf no (lav, ot Abnihaui to tbe ascension of Christ, their evcl,, le olj, dispensation, were embraced by a law tluit extended fo .ewboe nat,o,^ without a particuli;r rete,™ce tl ",t,y of of CI 'rist^'Did ,1? " ''V°""'l'"'"-."'™''--'"P "> "■« chuVh 01 ^.nust. D (1 the apostles, who fornjed the church on fl,» ccMnrntsston, admitauy butbelievers? Let any person prodtce he same reason tbr baptizing an infant, that a Jew co Id tor c,rctn„c,s,„g „„e. It „oM have been a. absunl to s pect the exclusion of inthnts iron, a law bv whlcl hey . eV; expressed, as ,t is to contend for their being ind ded f„ the co.nm,ss.on that is totally silent about them ° S ut seems ve,|-_apt to confound the christian church, with the jS A Jew ;:i:.!Ki!.!:''t'':r'""" *","' "" "■"•i"-"""", da,.se? y -.1 nra,,.,j^n the same reason lor [^nnti^^inir his hprl or u p.;n.t tor baptising his bell ; au,l then, o sc,^« imU, ■ ■ hn'v "'"umssion agamst such a practice. Must >.eli.ye cxa-plwuaiy clauses, to jniard lb,- chu-ch ■,„■„„« I '"- —-'..= ? U not a plain- law, .hhraVreptio": The privileo-e he Dr. « Is multitude of The parent, jes, to which :hiIdto mem- his parent, idmit infants ' But what mgs ? ►r. " contend, eir exclusion ly. I would y mentioned )lied. Does xsitive duty? "are bound e law of bap- tiery of man. y are pasdo- )mething, a- . says: «If xlceptionary •ause " from their exclu- ants, under extended to to piety of I the church irch on the on produce Jew could uni to sus- they were ded in the Dr. seems he Jewish ai?/ clatise? his bed, or ill himself exception- Le. Must gainst hu- :xceplioM- 41 ary clause, sufficient for the conduct of u christian ? Sup- pose a nobleman, being about to enter on a new establish- ment, were to order his steward to hire twenty servants of a certain age, and with particular qualifications of character. In examining his household at a future period he finds, that ten of the twenty are younger than he ordered, and void of the qualifications that he specified. He calls his steward, and reproves him for his error; who availing himself of the Doc- tor's argument, immediately replies : " Your order, my lord, was certainly specific, but knowing that servants much youn- ger, and destitute of the qualifications which you named re- sided on your former establishment ; and there being no ex- ceptionary clause in your command against such, I presumed that they would answer the purpose of your lordship." " No exceptionary clause !" exclaimshis lordship. " You presumed ! My former establishment ! What was my former establish- ment to you? Your orders were explicit; and your duty was, not to presume, but to obey." " Be clement, I beseech you, my lord ;" says the steward, "I assure your lordship, that there is but little reason for complaint. I have explain- ed your order in precisely the same way that Dr. Burns, with the pedo-baptists very generally, explains the commission of the son of God to baptize. He contends, that infants were members of the .Jewish church, and, as there is not in the com- mission of Jesus an exceptionary clause against them, he has a right to make them members of the christian church. I have, therefore, taken nogreater liberty with the order of your lordship, than is taken with thsit of the Son of God." -' Sir," says his lordship, " I will no longer be insulted : resign your stewardship, and depart from my presence." Who would not approve the conduct of his lordship, and censure the temerity of his steward ? And shall conduct that would be condemned in such a case, be pursued towards the Redeemer ? Will men speculate because the scriptures are silent? and submit to restraint, only where their innovations are opposed by an exceptionary clause'^ Did ever Roman Catholic wish for a better argument, to justify the whole mass of ceremonies in his church ? What exploits might not an innovator perform, who. reasoning from .Tndaism tn rhrlctimiifv wmilfl unifo tk« rituals ofthe former with the latter, except where he met with an exceptionary clause ? Surely to take such an advantage of the silence of the bible, will be condemned by evei y pious and reasonable man. The apostles, though Jews, receiving the commission from a Jew, never ventured to take such an im- pions advantage of its silence. ■ 42 n.i.J'' ^T'7. ^^^ '''^^'' "*' ^^^^^"^^ teaching from the com- mission, the Dr. asserts, that mathetemate, " is simply a command to turn from paganism to christianily." But if even chllTnfn. ^°r''"''r ^^'-^^^o^rect, it would totallv ex- clude mfants. Those who were merely turned from paganism to chnstiamty, must have been attached to the formfr, S capab e of preferr.ng the latter. This supposition the" - of o' ;"^°";P^''^^e ^»th infants. But Z interpretation of a word can be more utterly unfounded. The apostles wVre to disciple by preachmg; the disciple was to be the subject of a fauh which would secure the salvation of his soul a Is hTlnZ I "l^'-^l^' t"''"« from paganism to Christianity ? is he not one who is made wise unto salvation ? What kind of disciples did Peter make on the day of Penticost ? Was Se apostle satisfied with Simon the sorcerer, who simplv turned fi-om paganism to Christianity ? Peter and his coadjutors, who acted under the commission, made disciples, not by simply turning men from paganism to Christianity, but by persuading them o believe with the heart unto righteousness. Thef viewed no person as a disciple of Christ,'' who did not afford evidence of a regenerated heart, and such only they admitted mto the church. What a church of disciples,^f aUare o be members who merely turn from a profession of paganism 'o that of Christianity ! Because we insist upon the'order of decommission, that d.scipleship must precede baptism, the Dr. denominates this a mere English criticism. But the ar- rangement IS the same in the original as in the translation, therefore, it is equally a Greek, as an English criticism. If a cr^icism at all, it is a criticism established bv the law of God. 1 he Dr. will have it, that the position of wo^ds in the commis- sion is no more to be noticed than in the following passages • hX hi" "^"^' rt'^r^ '^y '"°"^^ ^'- Lor3 Jesustfnd Shalt believe with thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."* " John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the re- mission of sins."t He contends, that if our argument be f}?.^L T ""^ ? confession with the mouth to precede faith in the heart, and John to dispense the ordinance of baptism, be- fore he preached the baptism of repentance. So then, the Dr can see no Hiffprmioo K^fv-K-* fi- -v-,J i- • • „„,i • -J r" ' •-'^^'^-^'^ tuc oiuur oi a positive command, and an incidental expression, or the simple narration of a fact! 1 he will just glance at the verse following that which he has • quoted from Romans, he will find that the apostle reduces the *Roir.. 10. 0. • tMark, 1. 4. : from the com- " is simply a ^" But if even 3uld totally ex- from paganism 16 former, and position there- > interpretation e apostles were )e the subject lis soui. Is a ) Christianity ? What kind •ost? Was the simply turned )adjutors, who ot by simply by persuading sness. They did not afford ^hey admitted f all are to be f paganism to the order of baptism, the But the ar- J translation, iticism. If a ! law of God. I the commis- ig passages : d Jesus, and ?d him from iptize in the :e for the re- irgument be cede faith in baptism, be- lien, the Dr. e command, ion of a fact, ^hich he has reduces the 43 same truth to its proper order of expression , And the minis- try of John will inform him, if he pay attention, in what order the baptist administered the ordinance. That the arrange- ment of the commission is binding, is evident, not only from the authority by which it is fixed, but from the uniform con- duct ot the apostles; xoUhouto7ie exception, they administered theordmauce of baptism only where they obtained an evidence ot laith. It, according to the Dr., " the position of words is otten a mere contingency," surely no reasonable man will con- tend for such a contingency in a positive command. The Dr. appears to concede that in some cases the position of words IS imperative, but in what, if not in an injunction that is to guide and regulate our conduct ? If the Dr. were to order his servant to wash and dress, and then wait on the family at table, and the man were to enter the room and offer his services in an undress, and dirty condition, would the Dr. allow his servant to excuse his disorderly conduct by saying, " Sir, I thought that the position of your words was a mere con tingenciu and that to wash and dress myself a//^r waiting at table, would be equally pleasing to the family ?" Would not the Dr. resent such treatment from his servant? And can he expect a well done from the Redeemer, after serving his command in a very similar way ? " This apparent coiuiection between teachino- and bap- tizing," says the Dr. •' is to be explained by a Reference to circumstances ot a local and temporary nature." This I flat- ly deny. Apparent connection ! Is there not a real connec tion .'' It so, IS it not impious to disturb it ? The reason for this connection is not to be sought in circumstances of a local and temporary nature, but in the sovereign pleasure of the Jjaviour The connection between teaching and baptizing was designed to be as permanent as the commission itself, and is as binding on us, as it was on the apostles. There was no- thing in the circumstances of those to whom the gospel was first preached, that rendered such an arrangement more ne- cessary, than there is in our own. Instruction is as indispen- able or us, as it was for them. It is easy to observe, that upon this arrangement depends the character of the chirch • lor, it persons be admitted D»ior to hpIiPviRrr or wh- a— '-* capable of receiving the doctrines of truth,' the church, 1n iieu ot tormmg an object of moral beauty, must inevitably be- come a scene of disorder and corruption. The direct ten- dency of infant baptism, in destroying the purity and order d Lnrov-'f ' "^r""^' f '!"' ^^-d---»-r- too palpable to be dispioved, and too deplorable not to be lamented. The a- 44 ^)ostles, huwever, adiuititid none but believers, and admitted their offspring only on an evidence offaith. They unifornily ■acted, as they were bound to act, in accordance with the ar- rangement oi their commission. 1*1 i^Sc'^Se^-'' -" ECTION 2. I contend that the commission includes only believers, and that in every instance tl : j-ostles baptized only on evi- dence of faith. As there is nc j>ecept for infant baptism, so there is not even the shadow of a precedent. Let us pioceed with theapostles, while actingundcr thecommission of their as- cended Lord. How did Peter proceed on the day of Pente- cost? Acts 2. 38, 39: "Then Peter said unto them, 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 i^; unto you and to'^your chil- dren, and to all that are afar off,even as many as the Lord our God shall cr.ll." Here the Apostle acted in perfect consist- ency with the order of his commission. He preached, the people were pricked to the heart, he exhorted them to repent, and thenbaptized. Butdid he biii)tizethe people indiscrimatelv, without evidence of faith ? Let iis hear : « Then thcythat glad- ly received his xsjord were baptized—Tliey continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine, and fellowship* and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. And all that hdicvcd were together continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breakinj; bread from house to house— praising God." This was what might have been anticipated, as the natural result of the com- mission. A great numbei- of infants undoubtedly belono-ed to these people, but there is not the slightest hint about"their baptism, norabouttheirbeing admitted to the church. We read of those to^o -iicerc pricked to the heart — repented — received the -word—ii^ere baptized— prayed— praised ami xventfrom house to house ; but in all this visiting, and interchange of services, not the least allusion to infants. It was impossible, while tlie apostles acted according to the order with which they were intrusted, for them to admit infants to the ordinances which they adminifiicrcu. Dr. Burns, refeiring to the 39th verse, says : " Thispas- saoe suggests two questions. The one is, who we are to un- derstand by the word children? tlie other is, what are we to understand by the promise referred to ?" The promise referred to by Peter, is evidently no other than that which says s, and admitted J'hey unifornily ice with the ar- only believers, ed only on evi- int baptism, so Let us pioceed 5sion of their as- day of Pente- ' them, Repent, 5f Jesus Christ, he gift of the d to your chil- s the Lord our perfect consist- preached, the them to repent, indiscrimately, 1 they that glad- nued stedfastly 1 breaking of were ton-ether and breaking Ihis was what lit of the com- ly belonged to t about their rch. We read \ — received the ':from house to ; of services, ossible, while th which they le ordinances : " Thispas- we are to un- v.liat are we TIu; promise m that which 45 the Apostle had just quoted from the prophet Joel. " This, however," says die Dr., " it cannot be." But this it can be, and this it indisputably is, "The prophecy of Joel," pro- ceeds the Dr. " refers soleh/ to the miraculous gifts of the Spi- rit." This is an error. In the 17th verse Peter quotes, *I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh.' Did this refer solely to miraculous gifts ? Did the prophet mean that all flesh should receive miraculous gifts? In the gist verse. * And it shall come to pass, that who ever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.' — And Joel continues, 2 chap. 32 verse, "for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call." Do the above parts of the promise re- fer solely to miraculous gifts ? Do they not refer to the or- dinary and sanctifying operations of the Spirit ? Dr. Burns might have seen, that the promise of the Spirit, in the pro- phecy of Joel, refers, not only to his miraculous endowments, but also to his saving operations. — Those very operations in which every person converted by the ministry of the apostles participated, and with which erery believer is, and shall be' blessed. But in spite of evidence, the Dr. will have it, that that the promise referred to by Peter, was that " which God made with Abraham and his infant offspring." To confirm this fancy, he says, " In fact the apostle himself explains the promise to which he refers, when addressing, in the very nt;xt chapter, a similar exhortation to the Jews, " Ye are the children of the covenant, which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kin- dreds of the earth be blessed." Now supposing this were correct, the Doctor would gain nothing for his cause. Paul in Galatians 3. chap. 14 verse, asserts, that we receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Can a promise, the reception ot which depends on fhith, refer to infants ? But the pro- mise is no other than that which Peter had just quoted from Joel. To diis the Apostle had just referred, and as it con- tains blessings applicable to all, he informed them, that it was made to them and to their children, and to those that were afar off; even as many as the Lord our God shall calL Ihat the Apostle's attention was still fixed on the nrom.ise from Joel is evident by his using almost the same' words* Joel says, " the remnant whom the Lord shall call ;" Peter says, " oven as many as the Lord our God shall call." Now as the apostle had just quoted this promise, and as in remind- ing his hearers of the promise made to them &c., he pre- serves the mode of expression adopted by Joel, is it not ab- 46 ThfclI'liTT'' ^'''' )' TT '}'' '^'"""^^ ^« Abraham, to Which he Juid not made the slightest allusion ? How would his hearers understand him ? Would they thhik tChe heTadttC:;'? .7''-^' '' J-d just,uoted/or onTto':Sich ne had not turned thoir attention ? The Dr. cannot cet rid of the evidence arising from the striking similarity of efnres sion betwrcn Peter and Joel, by callin|it a r..,r ^^S,'" S.^ "" '"' " confirmed'by botS the Hebt^a^d the" Tk P^ "ext particular is the import of the word c///W,v.» oescendants, but denies that this is its meaning here But o what kind of children could the aposde relr ? In the Spfc^^ "I will pour outif m; DfoD ecW' I ? ' ^'^ '°''' '""' ""^^ >'"^"' 'laughters shall ters. Ihey were believing children. The promiso of a1 r cd'dXru r f -^ "'r^^';;" ^'''^'' -^ ^f/ects ";;: t^t chile rp ^ '''^*'' '1"^^ therefore, must reibr to those ius tferrl^to?" "'""ft 1" ^^^'"''"^- '^^^^ apostlehad of thell' nf '?,,'""h '" f ^''-^"S'^fers, as included in the promise to hrch ld;;n V r "t"''' ^'''?" He refers the promise to to the children of h,s hearers, there seems to be no reason t?es to whom h '"^^ P':«P''T'"-- '^^'^^^ ^«P"^i'ity of thepar! t es to whom the promise related is ascertained by the words 'even as many as the Lord our God shall call." As m. y of u,Kjaa snaa call. 1 he persons who were to receive th^ spin according to this pron.ise, were such as should be ^ he^air Th'e K? '7^^^ 'I^P^^ of hearing and embtig r L l 1! 1. ''^tter clause limits the promise to as many as God shall call, and this limit refers equally to the ImZ as inqmiecJ, Men and brethren what shall we do'^" and u. heir posterity, and those afar off, when brou^I to s ich " state of „, d. As the apostle refers only to tli pron se in mi e ^Th^t " ^'° 't ^'^''^''^'^ "-"t'-ed in^ that r" mise. J hat such children were elimble to banti m and^church membership issufficientlv .M.!^ 'i he X' " at UoJosse had children in \t tL' ^i ^"fj^'^^t"^" them sqid " rutu x ^^^^ apostle addressing tnemjaid^ Chddren, obey your parents in all things," 4v to Abraham, to ^ How would ' think that he 3r one to which . cannot get rid arity of expres- wr English cri- [ebrew and the word children, es means adult ng here. But lefer? In the 3ur out oi" my daughters shall IS and daugh- 'omiso of a di- :ts, was to be leler to those fc apostle liad in the promise le promise to be no reason lildren as we re iity of thepar- by the words, As many of fir, as the Lord o receive the iiiould be cal- nd embracing to as many as le children as ■'as to such as do?" and to It to such a e promise in in that pro- to baptism 'Ihe church ! addressing ail thinjjs,' '43 >» rn.seRi- ar, pro^/;e/iletc(i." 47 and urged as : motive, " for this is well pleasing to the Lord "• ^ When writing to the Ephesians he says, « Children obey your parents in the Lord," and urges as a motive, « for this is right. "t These surely were not infants. They were capable ot obeym^, suid actmg from the motives stated by the apos- tle. But solar as the argument is concerned, it is of little importance what is understood by the term children, Peter had authority to baptize none but voluntary disciples, or believers, and he baptized only such. It is as impossible to tind inlant baptism among the transactions of Pentecost, as the doctrine ol transubstantiation. Let us proceed with the apostles. Acts 4. 4. " And many who heard the word believed ; and the number of the men was about five thousand." Here the church was auc.- mented to 5O0O, or a clear addition of that number was made to It. But they were such as heard the word and believed Acts 8. 12. "And when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Je- sus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." Phihp preached, the people believed, and the believers were baptized. Here we find again the order of the commission! But here is a particular method of expression_,«.„a„rf^,;;,,;,. Why are infants omitted, if they were baptized? Is it not remarkable that the Holy Spirit should particularize men and women as recipients of baptism, and omit their infants, ifihe ordinance was admimstered to them ? How is this omission to be accounted for, if they were baptized? Perhaps some free-.thinking interpreter in the plenitude of his discoveries will find out that Philip went to tlie houses of the S^nia ftan to sprink e their babes ! In the 1 3th verse we find that "Simon In the S6th veise the Eunuch inquired, « What doth hinder me to be baptized ? And Philip said if'thou bel eve t S thine heart thou mayest." This i/fhou bclievesl, implied the condition on which he was to be baptized, and fo ms a stron.^ intimation that Philip would not have ba^nized hinTwUhout f pro ession of faith. This was perfectly consistent withdie oi de^ nu Anror^lT' . ^"liPP;-^^»^ed unto him Jesus, the Eu- rtC"^:!,^ t:t^^ -'^ ff/^ tl^ey both went down into .,nri "ih A '- P bap"zea him. Saul was first a believer ^md then, Acts 9. 18, « arose, and was baptized." • should nSf'. '^«! "Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Ghost * Colos», 8. 20. t Epiies. fi. 1. 48 as well as we. And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." Here the apostle argues for their baptism from their reception of the spirit, nor would he have atlmmistered the ordinance, without an evidence of their con- version. The order of the commission is still preserved. I'eter preached, the spirit fell on all who heard the word • the people were thus discipled, and then Peter commanded them to be baptized. Acts 18. 8, "And many of the Corinthians hearim, believed, and were baptized." This is plain enough. Acts 19. 1—7, Here certain disciples who were believers, were baptized unto .John's baptism ; they were re-baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, and received the miraculous gifts ot the Holj Ghost Paul preached Jesus unto them, " wheii they heard this, they were baptized." JSurely these persons were discipled prior to baptism. Thus fhr we have proceed- ed with the apostles, and there is no more evidence for infant baptism, than for the baptism of Tiberius, or Nero. It is ut- terly impossible, by any mode of torturing ti.e word of God to extort even a murmur of evidence for infant baptism. But the households ! Surely these will afford some sup- port to the tottering system of psdo-baptism. Dr. Burns thinks, ihat the households are "by no means equivocal on the subject of infant baptism." Well, this is a little comfort- ing; however, after we have ascertained the meaning of the term houseMd, we will just examine these unequivocal v^hvies- ses. Dr. Burns gives us to understand that oikos, household, means a family of children, and that cikia « comprehends not merely children, but also servants, slaves, and the whole do- mestic establishment."* Very good. These terms may embrace all these meanings, or any one of them to the exclu- sion otthe rest; therefore, their meaning will depend on the connection in which they are found. The Dr. supports his opinion by the testimony of Calmet's editor, who afftrms of otkoz, ''ihaXii very often expresses the presence of infhnts " ^f\j^l^^^n^ three hundred instances to prove it. And what otthis .''Hundreds of instances might be produced where it has no possible reference to infants. I will present the reader with a few examples where infants are totally excluded from the meaning of 0/^05. Acts 10. 2. " A devout man. and on^ wno feai^ed God with all his oiko, house." Now does oiko here imply infants? TjT Cornelius had any, did his infants Pag«» S3, 84, 85, 85. 3 ' be baptized in rgues for their r would he have ice of their con- still preserved, d the word ; the tmmanded them hians hearingy inough. were believers, J re-baptized in miraculous gifts i them, " when these persons have proceed- lence for infant ^ero. It is ut- word of God, baptism. ford some sup- 1. Dr. Burns s equivocal on little comfort- neaning of the 'uivocal witnes- ikos^ household^ mprehends not the whole do- se terms may I to the exclu- depend on the supports his ho affirms of ;e of infants," it. And what ed where it has it the reader excluded from man, and one 3w does oiko id his infants 49 fear God ? Infants are certainly excluded from the tertn iA this place. Acts 18. 8. « And Crispus believed on the Lord ynihixWhxBotko.hmise:' Had Crispus any infants? If so they are excluded from oiko, unless they could believe on the l.ord. Js It not evident that the historian of the Acts uses the term when he has not the least allusion to infants? I. Cor. 16. 15. Ih^oikian, house of Stephenas— they have ad- dieted themselves to the ministry of the saints." Has oikian here any reference to infants ? Do they addict themselves to the ministry olthesamts? John 4. 53. A certain nobleman beh r? Iftrl' '"^ ^' ^^^^ "■^^'^' ^^"-'" c«« i^-^« A J ^fAbrahamitissaid, « he will command his uiois. children (or offspring ) and his oiko, household after hTi^' chfwr^l ti' """f ^""^ '",*, ^""'^^tics, in distinction from his children, therefore, could not possibly imply them. Gen. 7. 1. And the Lord said unto Noah, come thou and all th v mkos, house into the ark." Here oikos utterly excludes in- fants : it was used for the married children of Noah. The reader IS undoubtedly satisfied, not only that the historian of the Acts uses the word in question without the least refer- ence to infants, but also, that the usus loquendi do^, n^^^. cessanly imply mfknts. The import ofthe term depends on the passage with which it is construed. ^ l.A-i^^l **^.^ wn^??«Wa/ witnesses! Acts 16. 14, 15 f h. r °i ^""V? '"f '"'^^'"g ^^ P^'^PPi ; «he heard Paul the Lord opened her heart, and « she was baptized, and he- Had'sh:"''-'r^- . "^^'' ^^'^"^ "'^^'^^^^? Wrssh^iwidow Had she an infant? or even any offspring? He who wHl place an afhrmative to any of these propositions, suffer, no lack of confidence. There is not '.he least evidence thr she "J^/T^ed or ever had been, nor that she had infarts or one child m her family. She might be living, for au'h ^n' pi^on knows, in a maiden state, or, if married, she nTigLEe duldless But I mmdnot that Lydia had an infant in every room of her house, they could not be baptized. The com- mission required the apostles to make the people di.ciZ before they baptized them, and they never baptized nanv other way. Now let us hear Dr. Bnvno 1..3: ./? ^^^ we are expressly informed, had ^n oikos; thai ilZ^^y a }a2 not^presf t n ^"^^f^^^ ^^^^"'^^ ' Where? Oikos does not express it, nor any thing m the narrative. It is an utfpr shame for any man to make^uch an assertion. HaSa any adults m her family? Most likely she had.%?erc ill 50 they baptized in virtue of her faith} Will any sane iiulivi- tlual nssert this? Lydiainight have infanti, or'she might not, neither the one nor the other is in evidence. If slie had any, the commission excluded them from baptism. Dr. Burns ar- gues that the household of Lyilia were baptized in virtut if /i^/-/a/M, because "not a hint is given oi their faith, or con- version, or even consent:' Anil not a hint is given of the baptism of Crispus and his household, but we are certain that they were baptized, for the same reason that we are certain the household of Lydia believed,— because the commission re- quired It. The Dr. will have it that the brethren in Ly- dia's house, mentioned in the 40th verse, were only Timothy and Luke. But how does he know this? The scriptures are silent. However, if the Dr. will argue in the dark, 1 af- firm, that It is most probable, if Luke referred only to himself and 1 imothy, that he would have said, « and when they had seen us, they comforted W5." But as Luke says, « when they had seen the brethren, they comforted them," the impression most hkely to be made on any reader, who has not a whim to serve, is, that Luke referred to some persons in distinction Irom himself and Timothy. There is not the least evidence that Lydia had either an infant, or a husband; if she had either, or both, the former could not be baptized by the commission, and nothnig but the fanaticism of error will induce an indi- vulual to say, that the latter was baptized in virtue of her yu/M. So much for Lydia as an unequiyocal witness for paedo-baptism ! Acts 16. 33, 34. The Jailer " was baptized, he and all his straightway-and rejoiced believing in God fanoiki, with all his house." The Jailer inquired for salvation, Paul preached, and then the ordinance of baptism was adminis- tered. Now I do not want to prove that there were not in- ants in this house, this does not belong to my argument, and X dely any person to prove that there were. The history does not express them, jpanoiki does not imply them, and the com- missioii excludes them from baptism. That the Jailer had anyollsprmg, or was married, is not in evidence. Paedo- baptists must prove that he had infants, and then I would de- ny that they were baptized. They must then prove that his in.ants were uaptized, and then I would deny that they were baptized according to the commission. They must next find in the New Testament another law for baptism, as the one on record utterly excludes them. Dr. Doddridge is of opinion, that the Ja, er s household consisted of himself and his domes- tic*. Ol whom this household consisted, 1 know not; this I nv sane indivi- I" she might not, It' slie had any, Dr. Burns ar- ized in virtut of " faith, or con- s given of the are certain that we are certain ? commission re- )rethren in Ly- ionly Timothy The scriptures the dark, 1 af- only to himself when they had 's, " when they Llie impression is not a whim IS in distinction least evidence f she had either, he commission, nduce an indi- i virtue of her al witness for 3d, he and all panoikif with Ivation, Paul was adminis- were not in- rgument, and le history does , and the com- he Jailer had ence. Paedo- n I would de- prove that his lat they were Tiust next find as the one on is of opinion, nd his domes- w not; this I 51 know, that lh« order of the apostle demanded hlin to baotize none but believing disciples. Let us now have a little iaht from Dr. Burns. He says, " The promise of salvation made to the Jader was, that upon his believing, his house should be saved, 'believe on the Lord i esxxi CWisX, {pisteuson) do thou believe, and thou shalt be saved,' diat is, taken into a covenant oi salvation ; and thy house." The Dr. explains this a "co- venant externally administered." But is the christian coven- ant external :> Does it not consist in God's writing his law on the heary Does God take into covenant any for whom this • .s not effected? The word .a..^ refers to the Jailer, i^ the same sense as to his family, was he merely taken into an ex- ternd administration ot the covenant ? But who ever read in the New lestament of the christian covenant beinff externallu admmsteredl « Thou shalt be saved," means reaUnd^t nal salvation and the/a/M enjoined on the Jailer referred to his household, as well as the salvation that was promised. Ihe hoiise oi the Jailer might be saved, if they believed, not else. To substitute "covenant externally administered," for the word "saved," or " salvation," is an unwarrantable mu tilationofthe sacred text. The Dr. refers to Zaccheus of whom Jesus said, "This day is salvation come to this house, l^^Tt^^ ^'• t\ ''^ '°" of Abraham." The salvation was that in v.h.ch he was personally interested, and was froir^Al .''^ '". ^""' "°' ^y ^"'^"^ «f ^ ^^"-^1 clescln from Abraham, but on account of his believing, and could beadmmistered to his fkmily, not in virtue oufs faith! but only in virtue of their own. Christ deemed him a son of Abraham, not merely on account of carnal des- cent, but on account of his faith. Jesus expressed this dis- aLI ^J"'^^?^^'' children, ye would do the works of Abaham.' Zaccheus obtained salvation, not through the Abrahamic covenant, but by faith in Christ. The Gospel covenant relates to the heart. It is a covenant of fhitL None 'ulmlniT ^1 ^"' Y^''''''' ^° '^^^ ^'^^"^ it l^-ng - ernaT hori n ''^; t' 'r^^' "°"'""^^- ^' '^^ ^r. affirms tl:at the he wfin V^Ju'^ uT' ^?P^i^^^ "' ^^>^"^ of her faith, so lie Will have It. that the. hnMCAhf%1.1 ^e ,u^ t^;i-,-- ■ • j „,,,! {{ . , .' -" ^' «-"^»^ahci were uapiized, wLt ?• '"'? ^/°^e»^»t of salvation, upon his believing." inv^r,. "^ I ^ P^''"*" ia/ceninto a covenant of salvation, « ht"'''^^^ i^/rai//./ Whence Cometh this .a^,^^^^^ divinity ? Surely such a vagary requires piesstd b> the translation, because ^ano//(-/, xvith all his house f js placed after believing in God, aiidcontends, that it ought to tmUow kai rgalliasafo, and he njoiced. Now every psedo- haptjst translation that I have seen, gives the words in the same order as in the English version. But granting the Dr. the same position of the words in the translation, thai ihcy have m the Greek, what wiii i.e ii..ik. v.\ it ? '• Ht- rejoiced with his whole house, believing in God." But now I cannot see what rule of criticism necessarily cuts o^ believing from the whole house. However, was the joy mutual ? Surely no perverter of language will deny this. If the joy was mutual, did It not result from a mutual participation in the cause of that joy ? Or will some bold assertor say, that the family re- joiced with t-he Jailer merely because he was a believer ? But then it must be made to appear, how a person who is not a believer, will rejoice in the state of another because he is. We have read oiajigels rejoicing over one sinner who repent- eth, but who ever heard of an unchanged, or carnal person, rejoicing in the spiritual things of another ? Will the carnal mmd rejoice in the things of God ? If their ]oy resultedfrom a participation in grace, then they were believers. But Dr. Burns is not less anxious to exclude the family from rejoicing than from believing, and wishes us to understand, that only the Jailer « rejoiced at the head of hisfamily." The apostle com- manded the Romans to " rejoice with them that do rejoice ;" and the woman who had found thepiece of silver she had lost, and also the shepherd who had found his strayed sheep, ex- claimed, "Rejoice >with me." Was not the joy in these cas- es supposed to be mutual? Why then, as the Jailer rejoiced •with his family, are the members of his family to be excluded from the joy ? The joy and the cause of it, were evidently re- ciprocal. But what oi the infants ? Could infants participate in this joy? Dr. Burns would relieve himself by, "out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise." What kind of babes and sucklings were these ? Children in the temple crying out, " Hosanna to the Son of David !" Dr. Burns, had the Jailer such sucklings as these ? Do not be si- lent. If he had, I will allow them to rejoice with him, if they believed with him. Pjedo-Baptist interpreters, however, are of opinion, that Jesus referred to his apostles and dis-iple^, whom he called babes by a %ure of speech, but who, not- withstanding their apparent weakness, would establish his praise in the earth, by the ministr, of the Gc -.el. The pas- sage in thePsahns, which the Saviour quoted, is evidently fi- gura tivcs* Let not D r. Burns say that the above mode of * See Psalm 8. 2. Matt. 11. 25, 53 ;hat it ought (o V every paedo- e words in tlie ■anting the Dr. ion, thiil ihc}' '• Ht- rejoiced ; now I cannot believing from ml? Surely no ^ was mutual, the cause of t the family re- eliever ? But who is not a because he is. ir who repent- arnal person, Vill the carnal ^ resulted from rs. But Dr. from rejoicing , that only the ) apostle com- t do rejoice ;" r she had lost, id sheep, ex- in these cas- Failer rejoiced > be excluded ; evidently re- its participate by, " out of ected praise." Children in David!" Dr. Do not be si- i him, if they lowever, are md disi.inlp.:. 1 — J »ut who, not- establish his I. The pas- evidently fi- tve mode of reasoning is presumptive. It is the kind of argument which he IS obliged to use. My side of the question does not require it. I want not to prove that there were no infants in these fa- milies, but he vf\\\ presume that there were. If a person, in the absence of all evidence, will assert that a tiung mig/U uc, all I have fo do is to show that it might not be. On whichever side such evidence may lie, it is only presumptive, not positive proof. Let the Dr. if he can, ground his argument on positive proof ; untd he does this, he must be contented to see his presumption set off with the presumption of another. But if his system were to be defended, no longer than even presumptive evidence could hi produced in its favour, its immediate death would be inevitable. However, I care not that the Jailer had infHnts, the law to baptize had no referrence to them, nor to any but voluntary and believing disciples. I Cor. LIS. and the 16. 15. « And I baptized also the oikon, household of Stephanas— and they have addicted them- selves to the ministry of the saints." These persons, who were baptized, addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints Does o//?:o» here imply any but believers ? Could infants ad- dict themselves to the ministry of the saints ? If so, when it is proved that Stephanas had any, I will admit that they might have been baptized. Surely, there is not obscurity sufficient in this passage, to afford even one surmise for the baptism of infants. Even Dr. Burns, with all his talent and ingenuity, cannot find in the house of Stephanas, the least hospitality fo^ the forlorn system of paedo-baptism. Now I have examined these unequivocal witnesses, and I declare, that they have not uttered one word m support of infant baptism. Let any paedo- baptist cross-examine, and even place them on the rack yet liiey will confess nothing in his favour. They may groan un- der his operation, and he may construe the groan into a confes- sion, but it he be honest, he will acknowledge that thev are most inflexible baptists. ^ John's baptism was coincident with that of the Redeem-r m two respects. The mode of both was immersion, and both required voluntary submission and discipleship. John re- quired repentance, and the commission requires faith. I have somewhere read a silly cavil, that, because John could rot re- hi ;.'ii' S'Vr" ."" ''• "''' -i?'"^""*"* "IS baptism cannot properly be called the bapti.m ot repentance. Whether sophistry or impiety, be the most conspicuous in this notion, I will not sta^; to examine. Some have contended that John baptized wiUiout distinction of character; ..d an enthusiastical defend, ei otthis ungodly conceit, affirms, that "John baptized believ- Mi ^1 ■' "if: 54 ers, and unbelievers, and a generation of vipers, and W)n of the latter, mer. Dr. Burns, y, and presents hey (the infants) ed to baptism in iristians : so that ailing practice." hen? Where? turesofthisj?rt6'« of the co- ZTs,'T'' ^"^-^ ^/-/atriarch. Jeremth 3 cl.ap. 33,34, ver. and Paul, Heb. 8th chap. 10, n, 12 ver. give us an account of the new covenant-" For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel afte ^osedays, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into thei Tcn'/"'* r.u' '^Tu T '^'''' ^''•'''' • ^"d I will be to them a God, and they shall be tome a people" &c. This cove tut i;. two thin ^^ t^T '' '^^ ^^"^- ^^ ^«"t^"d for iden- ity 41, two things, which are so evidently different, proves a vrnlo'/S""'^ ^--^"^^^^^ T^^ gospel covenait^Hco- IT^'J l^ ^°™^'' covenant be the same as that of the & B.;^'^' Ppisesof theformer are made to every be' nl2 « ' '"'■''^' "«P^.r^o» ^51J affirm that the land of Ca- and" w\ Tn"i' P^^^^^'^y'-^hat his name shall be great,- and .hat he shall be a progenitor of kings, is promised to him who enters into a covenant of salvation with God. But a the gospel covenantdoes not embrace the promises of the co venant made with Abraham, how can the tL covLan s pos" «bly be the same ? P^dobaptists say, however, that as t^'e Abmhamic covenant is called an everlalting covenant! it must be the same as the Gospel covenant. It was everlas n7to Uie carnal seed of Abraham in the same sense as tlL covenant ^the priesthood was everlasting to Phinehas, and as the co venant of royalty was everlasting to David. It was to ut nt longer than the dispensation to which i re Itid Nothing can^be more evident than that the temporal part of that cove^ Kant,s closed. The descendants of Abraham are not now fa oTef of God" Th'^'"'^"' "°^ T- ^^'^^ --^^edls thl lavontes ottrod. Ihe covenant of ust fieation hv f»hh related to tl>e carnal, but lo the spiritual seed of the n„,rl vt„tnts?eirtS::tSr '''"''"' -- "-'-- MW^" "' cV'P^- ^"■"'^- " Christ," says he, " was the o' me apostle. This, I ,»v, that the covenant, that w«» for an everlasting re we have a full bowever, was first lap. and renewed ied to Abraham a an, and that God " token of the co- Jeremiah, 31st tiap- 10, 11, 12 nt— « For this is ie of Israel after y laws into their will be to them See. This cove- red into only by intend for iden- OTerent, proves a ovenant is a co- person whom it le as that of the ide to every be- thelandofCa- ihali be great, — promised to him 1 God. But as mises of the co- covenants pos- ver, that as the )venant, it must J everlasting to is the covenant , and as the co- was to last no ited. Nothing rt of that cove- are not now marked as the ition by faith rs, and never of the natri- m the two co- he, *« was the om the words ^nt, that WAS ifirmed before of God in Christ, the law which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul."* Now, how is it clear from these words, that Christ was th« mediator rtfthe Abrahamic covenant? There is not the most distant il;iis).);, to iiny iiiiiig of the kind. The apostle is speaking ©f Christ as the seed of Abraham, in whom the covenant was confirmed, and shewing that the law could not disannul that Ciovenant. In the 19th and 20th verses, he speaks of a medi- ator, but this mediator was Moses, in whose hand the law was ordained by angels. Is it not strange that any serious man should adduce a text to support an opinion, while the least reference to such an opinion is not in the text ? But sup- pose Christ was the mediator of the Abrahamic covenant,; what then ? Because a person is mediator in two cases, is the one case, on that account, to be identified with the other? Christ is not called the mediator of the Abrahamic covenant, Aerefore, the identity of the covenants, on that supposition, wiiinot be proved. The Dr. refers to the expression « ever-' ksting covenant," and says, "From this declaration it is evi-. dent that God did not confine this foederal transaction to A- braham but made its blessed consequences extend to all hi* seed to the end of time." The covenant evidently had a spi- rit ad a letter, and refen-ed to a carnal and a spiritual seed. The carnal as well as the spiritual seed, inherited the tern- port I promises, until the destruction ot Jerusalem. In this respect the covenant was everlasting, just as the law of circumcision was everlasting. The latter is abolished, and the posterity of Abraham are now totally deprived of the land which was promised for them by the covenant. But it was also promised to the patriarch, « In thy seed shall all the pations of the earth be blessed,"—" And to thy seed," says iPaul, " which is Christ." Now none but the spiritual chil- fdren of Abraham obtain an interest in this promise. But who iare they ? Hear the apostle, « tliey which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham," " they which be of faith are blessed with faithflil Abraham." The covenant promised the Messiah, and the apostle makes it plain, that only believers are mcluded in this part of the covenant. To such persons all eternity. But what has this to do with infants ? If an infant was not circumcised, it was not rendered eligible to enjoy the promised land, nor the external privileges of the * G«i. 3. 17. PI i • .,1 62 Jewish] community. Did circumcision secure to the infant an interest in the spiritual part of the covenant ? Fanaticism itself will hardly assertthis. Multitudes who were circumcised gave evidence to the contrary. The covenant related to a carnal and spiritual seed, and God made his promise good by iulfilling it in either. But Dr. Burns says,* « it is denied that any of the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant were granted to those who were merely the natural descendants, or carnal seed of Abraham." Were not the Pharisees, the Sad- ducees, and those who demanded the crucifixion of Christ, the carnal seed of Abraham ? And, did they not enjoy the very land which was granted by the covenant? He who will put a negative on these questions, will deny the Scriptures. " Many of Abraham's carnal seed," says the Dr. « never in- herited the land of Canaan, nor shared in its temporal bless- ings." True. And multitudes of them were unbelievers, and, therefore, did not share in the spiritual blessings of the covenant. What is proved ? That the covenant was not personalli/ made with them. It was personally made with Abraham, and was to be fulfilled in his posterity, without specifying the age in which, or the individuals in whom that fulfilment should take place. " The blessings of both covenants are the same," says the Dr. The covenant with Abraham secured him a numerous posterity, and the promise of Canaan, &c. Are such blessings promised to every believer ? If not, how can the blessings of both covenants be the same P Every believer obtains spiritual blessings, but the covenant of faith does not secure to him any temporal advantage. The Dr. says " Circumcision is expressly declared by the apostle to have been a seal of the righteousness of faith."f Ofwhose faith ? Does the Apostle expressly declare that circumcision sealed the faith of any other person than Abraham himself? Dr. Burns knows he does not. It was a seal to the faith of Abra- ham only. It was a seal to no other person's faith on the earth. Did it seal the righteousness of the faith of infants eight days old? Some persons have been wild enough to talk about the habitual Mthf and the imputative faith of infants. If infants did believe, then circumcision might have been a seal of the righteousness of their faith. But the notion of in- fant faith, is full-grown nonsense in the head of any person who entertains it. The Dr. refers to Gen. 17th chap. 7th ver. «I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee ;" and, as the same <( • Page 19 Note, t Rom. 4, 11. 6.3 e to the infant ; ? Fanaticism ere circumcised nt related tu a romise good by ^ " it is denied covenant were descendants^ or risees, the Sad- cion of Christ, r not enjoy the He who will the Scriptures. )r. " never in- temporal bless- •e unbelievers, •lessings of the jnant was not % made with terity, without s in whom that both covenants with Abraham nise of Canaan, iever ? If not, same ? Every venant of faith The Dr. says postle to have )fwhose faith ? imcision sealed himself? Dr. faith of Abra- s faith on the aith of infants enough to talk aith of infants. It have been a e notion of in- of any person •. « I will be , as the same » promise is made unto believers under the present dispensation, he tries to prove an identity of the two covenants. But hii attempt is utterly abhortive. God was, as he intended to be, a God to the carnal seed of Abraham. As such he acknow- ledged himself, where no spiritual alliance appears. Wh«n I the descendants of Abraham worshipped the calf, they were, notwithstanding, called "his people;" and when banished to Babylon for their crimes, God still said, " I am the Lord their God." Jehovah acknowledged himself the God of Abraham's posterity, when they were living in a state of general idolatry and crime. The promise, therefore, did not necessarily imply I any thing spiritual, and related to the people irrespectively of icharacter. But can this be said of any under the gospel dis- Ipensation ? Is Jehovah the Lord and God of any but the [truly pious? He is not ; therefore, the promise had a sense in ■ithe Abrahamic covenant very different from what it has in the '.fj^ospel covenant. In the latter it does not imply what it did iin the former ; it cannot prove, then, that both covenants are one and the same. God was a God to Abraham and his be- believing seed in spiritual sense, but never in that sense to his unbelieving seed. To the natural descendants, irrespec- I lively of character, he was God in a political respect, and I conferred upon them temporal advantages. If the identity of the covenants, depends on the same meaning of the promise under both, it cannot possibly be proved,as the promise import- ed in the former covenant that which it does not in the latter. The Dr. affirms that, " if might even be shewn, that the co- venant of grace also contains the promise of temporal blessings. * Godliness,' says the apostle, " is profitable unto all things, having the promise of the life that now is as well as of that I which is to come." Now, does God promise temporal bless- ings unto any whom he takes into the covenant of grace? He I who believeth shall be saved ; but does God promise that he shall have health, riches, or even the temporal comforts of i life ? No person, surely, with the bible and the world before :him, will assert such a thing. Godliness has the promise of jthe life that now is, in the same sense that Jesus promised to |his apostles, th?t whoever forsook all to follow him, should lie vw/yttonf / 3n to come, life everlasting."* For thispresent time, or for the life J tkat noia w, the gospel promises an abundance, not of tempo- I ral, but (which are far better) of spiritual blessings. The ex- 4 pression of the apostle, therefore, is abundantly true, without i • Luke IR, 29, 30. m 1! I 64 iht least reference to worldly advantarres. Biit, if the cove- nant of grace did promise temporal blessings, it could only be to such who believe, for it admits only such ; but the coven- antwith Abraham conferred temporal blessings on unbelievers. A\'here even then would be identity ? The gospel does not promise temporal blessings, the covenant with Abraham did - therefore, theyare not the same. The Dr. says "the conditions of both covenants are the same." The covenant of grace con- f ers Its blessings on the condition only of true faith j but the covenant with Abraham conferred its benefits on myriads who had no more true faith than the idols which they 'frequently adored. Where is identity ? When was saving faith required as a condition of interest in the covenant peculiar to Abraham ? Faith was when that covenant was given, as it was many ages before, and is at the pre:^eut period, an indispensable condi- tion of justification before God. The gospel covenant em- braces none but those who are justified by faith ; but the Abrahamic covenant embraced numbers who had no true ftiith, therefore, were not justified. To contend for an identi- ty of two things so evidently different, is utterly absurd. The man who has recourse to such means, proves that he lacks truth to support his hypothesis. Dr. Burns considers " baptism as the successor of circum- cision," and presumes " that it ought to be administered to the same description of subjects." I have proved that bap- tism was adniinistered only to believers. But let us see the result of his argument. When a person became a proselyte to Judaism, and wished to eat the passover, he was to have circumcision administered to his male children, whether in- fants or adults, believers or unbelievers, and also to his male slaves or servants, whether they were willing or not. Is bai> tism to be indiscriminately administered to all in a man's house because he believes ? There are not many paedo-baptists so frantic as to suppose such a thingr. But if baptism must "be administered to the same description of subjects" as circumci- sion was, then a christian ought to compel his servants to be baptized, though they were infidels in theory and practice, burely this is sufficient to convince any person, that baptism did not^come in the place of circumcision. But the Dr. ar*' gues that the former came in room of the latter, from the sameness of design in the two ordinances, and from ot/ier points of resemblance. Circumcision was designed as a seal to Abra- liam of the righteousness of his fiaith, and wa.s de&igned as a *«*.^J"Jo Ji's posterity of the covenant which God had made, with him ; but baptism is not the seal of faith, nor has it any ' iit, if the cove-* it could only be but the coven- on unbelievers, ospel does not Abraham did ,- "the conditions It of grace con- faith -y but the >n myriads who hey frequently \ fiaith required • to Abraham ? was many ages jnsable condi- covenant em- Paith; but the had no true I for an identi- ' absurd. The that he lacks sor of circum- Iministered to ved that bap- let us see the le a proselyte J was to have I, whether in- )0 to his male not. Is bai> a man's house do-baptists so ism must "be " as circumci- servants to be and practice. , that baptism It the Dr. ar*' ter, from the m other points seal to Abra- de&igned as r rod had made , lor has it any 6b reference to tlw posterity of a Christian, until they believe ^, He calls c.rcumc.Mon « the sign of admission into the Jewish tTb\ ""\^ ""^"%e of relation to the God of Israel." ^But the females were not circumcised, nor the Jews born in .#he Wilderness, untd their arrival in Canaan. Were not the former, u-respectively of circumcision, and the latter, prior to their circumcision, both related to the God of Isme! nnd n.embe.s of the Jewish church ? Were tl SI cd U"^ members ol the Jewish church, or religiously related tot^^ God of Israel f Certainly not : yet they were circumcised CircumcsMon was neither the sfgn nor^he badge to them: , llie Dr. finds some points of resemblance betw^n bapt^ .^ the latter Peter finds a point of resemblance between the deluge n„d baptism ; d d the latter come in room of the for! V^ , ^ il?'^? "^ '^'^^ stronger resemblance between Mel- fn the Old buT.h /'^' "' '''' ^'^ Testament resemble others ^iTI^H,o ^' ^'' "" P»-°«f^o"ecame in room of the other. gThat bap ism came m room of circumcision is a mere figme^!^* W nvl ^ ?" ordinance of his own to be entirely lost ?" W whTh ''''""^^ '''^°"^f ^°^^ 1ms abolished in one a?e thp T • T P'°P'' '^ °''^^"'" '" ''' P^^^io»s «ge. Where «e the Jewish ceremonies ? kv^ ihey imi losil Thl\v i* utility and importance" depended on the law by which t^ hat induced them to attempt the establishment of circumcision ^^'n:l:^r''; " T'^^«P-tles and elders came'oge" ut thevf.dlr' ''" " /^^' .^""^'^°" °f circumcision.* I J they said not one word about baptism comincr in its room theapostles couldhave said, " baptism is come^n the room Circumcision therefore, circumcision is not needful Tt „r r.r!.^l!l^'-'^' 'fr'' be baptized;" would not s'uch "»ws ?^' wt "-n .-'^'"^ ^" ''^^"^^ '^e discontent of the tinstitutedSV fi? f"' '^^"^^ in room of circumcision, was ne snend timiT '^'/""r' ^^' "^°^'^^^^ ? ^^' ^^y should ne spend tune to contradict a mere conceit ? _ t^i)e Ur. gives us a n^xqi iisite criticism on Col. 2. c hap. 1 1 . * Aou 15 •htp." \ " "^ i^ J ''i ! 66 ye^^. :!* " lu v(hom lUso ye are circuii^clsed with the cir- cumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of tlie §in9 of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ." He cai^ ih circumcision of Christ, « christian circumcision." To this wliim, tlie reply in the Baptist Magazine is quite satisfactory. <• According to it we must render ta erga Christou {the worh qfChristt Matt. 11. 2.) * Christian works,' and hedunamis ton Christou {the poiicer of Christ 2 Cor. 12. 9.) " Christian pow- er." The apostle evidently means the circumcision of the he.art. effected by Christ. The Dr. wishes his reader to un- tierstand that " the circumcision of Christ," is baptism I But this circumcision is made without hands; is baptism adminis- -.v^. ...v person f mis circumcision is wiinuut any operation, it, therefore, is not baptism. It is the circumcision or Christ in the heart, by which the sin of the person is re- il^pved. The Dr. affirms that Peter says " concerning bap- ii^mi * It is not made with hands ; it is not the putting away tl)e filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience.'" New this is a forgery. It is impious thus to add to the >vprd of God. The man who dares do this deserves the seve- re4 reprehension. Peter no where says of baptism, " It is npti^ade with hands." Such a text is not in his epistles. It is" teed. Did Dr. Burns never read Rev. 22. 18 ? What 9 system is p^do-baptism, to require such methods to defend ^ i{! Baptjeni Is the answer of a {|ood conscience, will this ap- 'i plyt9 i^ifants? Henext refers to the early christians, and t^Us us tljat they considered that baptism came in the place of circumcision. He quotes Justin Martyr as "conclusive on ihcsubj.ect: * We also who by him have had access to God, l^YS not received this carnal circunicisiion, but the spiritual cicu^cisipn, which Enoch, and those like lilm, observed, and wehave received it by baptism, because we were sinners; and His fcliow^d tp all persons to receive it the same way.' " Ori- aka says the Dr. expressly declares that '< Christ gives us cir- ciim.cisj!f)n by baptism." Now, unfortunately for the :pr. it doe^, not appear from t,hese passages, that either Justin oi: . Q^;i^p si^pposed that baptism came' in thp place of circumci- wpn. Ti7e p^SJ5ages dp npt express it, nor can it b»i inferred from the language. Their opinion was, tliat by l^aptism they receivect, what'lSnoch received, the reue>ypJ, or circumcision oS'the Ifeartr—that. in baptism tiicy received spiritual circum- * Pns«21. & 22. Nt.to. d with the cir- he body of the t." He calls ion." To this Ite satisfactory. 'dou {the worfcs he (lunamis ton Christian pow- Ticision of the reader to iin- baptism ! But ptism adminis- i " putting off ;m remove sin ut any external le circumcision e person is re- oncerning bjjp- B putting away 1 conscience.'" to add to the serves the seye- aptism, " It is his epistles. It 2.18? What hods to defend ;e, will this ap- christiaus, and ; in the place of 'conclusive on access to God, ut the spiritual ), observed, and e sinners ; and le way.' " 6ri- •ist gives us cir- for the lj)r. it lither Justin w: ce of circumci- n it bti inferred by l^aptism they or clrcumcisioii piritual circum- I 6f cicion, not that b^istncam;e in room of carnal circuraelsion. «ut what then, even if they were of that opinion ? The opi- ...on IS not m the bible. It is a mere vagary of the human iPind Even if circumcision were placed in the commission, in lieu of baptism, infant* would not be included. A command to circumcise believers, would not authorize the circumcision of mtants. When mfants were to be circumcised, God ffavc a commnnd, and he would not have failed to do the swne, if h^nT u':" ^'P'r^- . " ^•'^"^"S '^"^ attempted," sap thff; ' ."^^""^^ that circumcision gave place to b&ptism. the argument thence arising may be thus shoi'tly .tatcd Lfol fants were ordered to be circumcised, therefor^ baptism «hou d be administered to infants." W; have s^n hhZ tempt, and are now presented with the logical conclus on of his argument. But some p^ple will obsefve an wfi I chasm between the prernises and conclusion. Infiuits we^e ordeiS to be circumcised, THEREFORE, baptism shouM b^ aS mstered to infants without -^n order HI Weil the Ibr^^ I worthy of the cause. The situation of that pbusm.n'^^fa^ 4bL"' "^'" '''^'^"' P-do.baptism, is ly no Te^.n- " lvfmitlvTcwh^- r'^ t' ^^^r'^ ^^^""^^^' fr^ t»^* I rimitive Cimrch. * He starts with an axiom--« Str they h-v«d, was re- P*£« 40. 68 ii i markable for error and extravagant opinion. The Dr. alludes to the proselyte — baptism of the Jews. This was a Rabbini- cal corruption, for which the Jews had no scriptural authori- ty, and is without evidence of its existence in. the days of Christ. But as the Dr. attaches such importance to the tes- timony of the fathers, we will just glance at the nature of his evidence from that source. He commences with Clemens Bomanus, in whose expression, however, there is not the least allusion to baptism. He next cites Hernias, who is as silent as death on the same subject. Ju3tin Martyr is the next, who, however, gives not a hint about baptism ; but the Dr. by giving- an incorrect translation, makes him say something about infants. Justin says that several aged persons, then among the christians, were made disciples ek paidorif Jrom childhood. That e^joazV/on, should be translated y/om child- hood, and not in infancy, will appear evident from Luke 2. chap. 42, 43 ver. where Jesus at twelve years of age called ho pias, the child \ and also from Acts 20 chap. 12 ver. where Eutychus is called ton paida, the young man. The baptists have discipled, and have admitted numbers to their commu- nion by baptism in childhood. Irenaeus is the next cited by the Dr., and he says concerning Christ, " That he came to save all persons by himself; all who by him are renascun- tur in Deum, born or regenerated to God : infants and little ones, &c." Thai renascuntur in Deum, should be understood, according to the Dr's. opinion, baptized, as if Christ baptized liny unto God, is a most unwarranted conjecture: Irenaeus must have known, that Christ baptized none unto God, for he did not baptize any during his ministry. Had the Dr. pro- ceeded ft little farther in his quotation, he would have found, that Irenaeus represents Jesus as passing through every age to sanctify inhnis, little ones, youths and seniors; but makes no reference whatever to infant b iptism. The genuineness of the passage referred to by Dr. Burns has been disputed by both Protestants and Papists, and Venema, a pcedo-baptist, was satisfied that it ought not to be relied on as evidence in favour of infant baptism. Indeed, prior to the days of TurtuUian, it docs not appear that one of the fathers alludes in the most distant way to the baptism of infants. TurtuUian, who flourished at the commencement of the third century, opposed infant baptism, and insisted upon bap- tism being administered to those only who had learned their religian. Dr. Burns says, that TurtuUian " virtually attests" the existence of infant baptism ; certainly he does, and by his sturdy opposition, proves that he deemed it an innovation. I rhe Dr. alludes was a ilabbini- iptural authori- in.the days of ince to the tes- le nature of his with Clemens is not the least who is as silent yr is the next, ; but the Dr. say something persons, then k paidon, from eiX from child" from Luke 2. )f age called ho 12 ver. where The baptists their commu- ; next cited by hat he came to \ are renascun- ants and little be understood, >hrist baptized ;ture : Irenaeus J to God, for he 1 the Dr. pro- lid have found, ^h every age to but makes no luinenessofthe sputed by both lo-baptist, was lence in favour of Turtullian, !es in the most icement of the sted upon bap- id learned their rtually attests" does, and by an innovation. j^ 69 rhe authorities referred to on this subject, who livfed in4h« third and following centuries, discover the erroneous opinions of men. From the lime of Turtullian, episcopal pride ma- tured into popery, and errors the most noxious were ceneraU . y propagated. The man of sin made his appearance, and ^ began to usurp a dominion which soon enslaved the nations I ot the earth, and established disorder, error and corruption : in the church. That infant baptism should arise with other innovations m the church, is no matter of surprise, and the tact that Its early advocates appealed to neither precept nor precedent in the scriptures, shews that it was founded only on the authority of man. Origien appeals to the usage of the church; he calls infant baptism a tradition, which he shame- essly palms upon the apostles. Cyprian and Ambrose at- tributed sa vation to baptism, and also to the sign of the cross,* and the former gives an appalling accouBt of the state of the clergy ,n his day. « There was no pure religion in the priests," says Cypri.n. « no sincere faith in the mmis- ters, no mercy in their works, and no discipline in their man- ners. J he hearts of the simple were deceived by crafty frauds, and the brethren were circumvented by cunning wil.s. 1 hat It was common to contract matrimonial alliances ^vith unbelievers, and to prostitute the members of Christ to the Oentiles; and not only to swear rashly, but even fldsely," 4-0. &e.t Cyprian gives much more to the same effect. That the Church, in so corrupt a state, should have fostered the most noxious errors, is perfectly natural to suppose. Yet this IS what Dr. Burns calls '' that purest «^e," whose testimony, he says, « mayjustly be regarded as a 5m>^ttrMestimony." « I Chrysostom, Aiigustin and Austin closed in with the errors ot their day, and, supposing that baptism was essential to safety of the person, approved of it being administered to in- Jants. But, notwithstanding the proud domination of the priesthood, and the woeful corruption of the age, some were still found who would be duped by neither. The council of 1 rent, in order to suppress opposition found it necessary to lurl a damnatory sentence against those who should affirm, that baptized infants were not Jdcles, believers. Towards the nLT^n 1 ?"' '^^"'"'^' '"^'^ was the superstition of the age, that the third council of Cflrtho,« f«„»/? u , — ac.,\ *_ r„_ bid the administration of baptism and the Lord's supper to the oeact >X The evidence which is sought from the primitive * Saa Booth Psdo-bap. Exam. vol. I. p, 431. + S«« Gib;>n' Defence of Bap. p. 2?I. } 9^n r»fio.b«p Exam. r»l 17 p. if#. fl ■iii ;; 'if ■ . ■ ; 70 oburcb, ti) support infant baptism, is quite wortbv of th« cause for which it is udduced. Dr. Burns wishes the Baptists to intoTTO him if infant baptism was a human invention, " when or by whoa, it was introauced." As well might he clml- lenge them to state, W/ev., or hj ^j,hcm, other innovaticns were lotroduced. It is not m the bible, and let those seek its ori- ^who arq obliged to support it. It is, undoubtedly, an oiti^ring of the man of sin, and was nursed with others of ita temily m the bosom of a corrupt age. Why do not Paedo. baptists administer the Lord's Supper to inlhnts ? This was ^ctised by those who formerly adopted infant baptism. Why separjite two luvemions which were united hy the ms-. &^ of the Fathrs, « Our sole intention was," says Doctor Burns, '• to use their (the Fathers') attestations, as the only awdia by which the practice of intknt baptism can be traced ^k to the Apostolic age." But in this he has utterly failed : tor not one authority can he cite, prior to the timeofTur- tullian, that eveu alludes to infant baptism. Candid P^do- baptists allow, that beyond the clays of Turtullian, no trace ot intent baptism can be discovered. And what then, if even U could be traced to the age of the apostles ? It is not in the bible, and must, therefore, even then be classed with other errors that obtamed prior to their death. The ap- peal to antiquity, in support of infant baptism, is just specious plough to impose upon the ignorant, who commonly attach the idea of truth to that which is antique. I conclude my re- tZt^"" 1 ■ P?r f '^'^ ^"'^J*^^^ ^y observing, that infant haptm t,mt m the Scripture,, therefore toprovf its antiauity t^only proving an ancient iunovation ; and, that the araun ?S!Lv"* f^'^^'^y ^«"^^^^ ^^ <^^rried ber^ond the time of ^utmha»ythei^efore^ thcargumeni itsdfis essentially d^ecHi^. SfJCTlOsW 3. a-v3* ?"^5 f the 4tk chap, ofhb book, entersi on tm Jn«.Tr fK^^ir'^!''"^^^^'"^^'*^ ^^ employed a. ^^1 n "P*''"'' ^^ ^ ^'" "«^ ^-^"^'^ ^>« reasoning m tura. One.aa;gument aasainst his thpnirv-. fh« nv ..u.. P «,- thatmf^ts ^^ cannot understmid the nature of ih7^^dlZ amce, Ibis argument the Dr. might* possibly refute, if the commission to baptize, did not confine 'the ordinance to such on^y as are capable of understnnding its nature. But the can- didate for membership ni the christian church, was first to be worthv of th« les the Baptists ention, "when liglit he clial- novaticns were ise seek its ori- idoubtedly, an th others of its :Io not Paedo" ts ? This was nfant baptism. ;ed by ike wig- " says Doctor 5) as the only can be traced utterly failed ; ! time of Tur- ?andid Poedo- lian, no trace ; then, if even [t is not in the ;d with other The ap- > just specious imonly attach icluJe my re- g, thai infant ■ its antiquity lat the argun ■ the time of ally d^ectiv^. snteFSi on tm employed as- lis reasoning 2/ the oidin- efute, if the ince to such But the can- is first to be 71 discipled by preaching, to become a believer, and then tM ordinance was to be administered. Nolwit1lStandlhositive^\M\ personal duty, and ought not, unless we hftve an order from God, to be imposed on any person without his knowledge and consent. Again, the Dr. informs us, th^t \\\t parent who has his infants baptized, «' introduces them within thepale of the church— and, above all, he gives iherii the sign of then- interest in the covenant of grace, and of their conse- quent title to Its inestimable privileges." But infant bapti&m IS an unscriptural ceremony, therefore, cannot make the sub- ject a member of a scriptural church. Baptism, the sim of interest in the covenant of grace > am\ and a fifle to itsinet tunable privileges ! To refute such utterly anti-scriptural as- sertions, nothing more is needful than to call for their pr6of. Are all sprinkled in infancy, interested in the covenant 6f grace i Alas ! not a few gave sorry evidence of such interest. IJr. Burns, it consistent with his creed, believes in persbniil election ; how does he ascertain, that those whom he sprinklers in iniancy are in the covenant of grace? Does he never ab- surdly give tlie baptismal sign of interest in that covenant to some whom God never seals with his spirit, and who ai-e rejected lor their unbelief? To avoid this frightful horn of a (lilemma, will he say, that the person, when an infant, may be in the cov-enant of grace, but afterwards mav be rejected from It. This, however, would be a flat denial of his own creed. Dr. Burns unites with Dr. Erskine, in the opihToii, that as innuits, by civil law have rights madb over to ^^i^ without their consent, so they ought to be baptized witHoit their consent. But is civil law a rule for administeriiHr tiie ordinances ,n the church of Christ? A thing may bc'eti dered legal \^y the authority of man, which ful would be disgra^ce- m a chriuian church. The bible and not the statut^b'ook lil ' '1 ^ " of a nAt'on, is the only source of law in the kingdom of Christ. Such ft wretched mixture of civil with spiritual things, dis- covers a want of scriptural argument. " If it be foolish to per- form a rite on those who cannot understand what is done to them," the Dr. asks, " can it be less foolish because God has enjoined it ?" To this I reply : Were a man, in the present day to inflict circumcision on the male infants of his family, 1 would think it the most perfect foolishness. But Abraham did this very thing — was it foolishness in him? No. Why? Because God enjoined it. A thing may be perfectly unmean- ing in itself, and to invest it with a religious character might be impious, but the same thing, when placed under the au- thority of God, becomes a duty, and acquires a character which it would be impious to impeach. If infant baptism had the authority of God, it would be the duty of every pious man to support it, but as it is totally void of that authority, it must be viewed as unmeaning in itself, and ought to be treated ns a thing prejudical in its effects. The christian re- ligion, I maintain, requires every person to understand its or- dinances before they are conferred ; to impose them, therefore, on an infant that cannot understand them, is anti-christian. Dr. Burns has not, and he cannot disprove this. The Dr. attempts to refute another objection against his system, which he puts in the following form : " that infants are not fit subjects of baptism, because t/iei/ cannot give their personal consent to the obligations under xichich they are laid by that ordinance." The gospel requires the consent of the per- son prior to baptism; the object of preaching is to secure it, and believing necessarily implies it. I will yield this argu- ment, if only one instance can be produced from the bible in which baptism was administered without the consent of the can- didate J but until that is done, I will, in defiance of sophistry, maintain my position. The Dr. nilbrms us, that "during infancy, the child is wholly the charge of his parent, and on the parent, the baptismal obligaticiis are immediately laid ;" and also, " that obligations of a certain kind are laid on the infant cannot be denied." I just ask, what part of the bible intimates that the baptismal obligations are laid on the parent of the baptized person ? The obligation that arises from the ordinance of bavotism. mcifs nnlv nn tl.o infllnV^ijoi K;},.^«if The Dr. harps r.gain on "the parallel IfcLvwen circumcision and baptism ;" but this fancied parallel is utterly destroyed by the facts that for the former there was i he authority of God, but for infant biiptism no such authoriu can be found. All whom the arn>.,t]05j hoplizcd gave 'Mheir rcxr^onal consent i( 7.1 lorn of Christ. 1 things, dis- foolish to per- at is done to Eiuse God has in the present of his family, But Abraham No. Why? ectly unmean- aracter might inder the au- s a character nfant baptism of every pious lat authority, ought to be I christian re- srstand its or- em, therefore, mti-christian. >n against his " that infants mot give their ey are laid by ;nt of the per- > to secure it, eld this argu- 1 the bible in entof the can- ; of sophistry, that "during irent, and on iiately laid;" e laid on the it of the bible on the "parent ises from the ^•U•t.• imjiscii. circumcision rly destroyed ! aulliority of can be found, -onal consent I \ I to the obligations under which they were laid by t!)at ordin- ance," the theory which requires an opposite irethod of pro- cedure, is anti-christian. God is perfectly just in placing an individual without his consent under rr^gio j obligation, but for man to do this, without the authority of God, is an im- pious usurpation of power. The next argument against his system which the Dr. en- deavours to refute is, " that infants are not fit subjects of bap- tism, because dispositions are required in the recipients of that ordinance^ vohich infants cannot possess." The Dr. says, " the dispositions referrec to a^e those of Jaith and repent tance" but aflirms that the force of this objection depends on the proof, " that the existenc of these dispositions, is indis- pensably necessary in every case" previous lo baptism. This, then, I have al ready poyr 'by the commission, and from the conduct of the apostles, and the Dr. wi!l as soon succeed in attempting to divert a planet from its course, as in making an effort to refute my proof. Faith is indispensable, in every case, to an interest in the gospel, and to membership in the christian church, there is not one allusion to infant baptism in the Bible, and it is a mere human tradition. The Dr. with "a judicious writer," argues again from the former covenant, but I have proved that the covenants are not the same : none can enter into the covenant of the gospel only by faith, but myriads, who were unbelievers, enjoyed the advantages pecu- liar to the covenant of Abraham. The commission requires faith prior to baptism, and we insist upon the order, the Dr. therefore, quotes the words of the apostle — "if any would not work neither should he eat," and gives us a delicious syllo- gism — ■' Infants cannot ivor/c, therefore, infants must not eatJ' " Could any thing be more ridiculous in itself," says the Dr. " than such an interpretation." Nothing certainly; unless his ridiculous use of the passage. The man who can see no difference between the order of a law which enjoins a positive institute, and the expression of the apostle, is lamentably de- ficient in discernment. Referring to the order of the com- mission, the Dr. says, " following the example of the baptist, we would reason in this manner. * Infants cannot believe, therefore, they must be damned. Infants cannot repent, there- ini*(>. tliov nmcf i-taricli " \^ao ^K'.^ %'nntT^^i,-^^ _.^..U U. ! ---_, j ....,,,,, j.,,., 5^1,, iv.-tj mis i \;navrijjiil- vruUJVi SJC iilC vitable, if there were no other way of saving infants only by the commission. But it is as absurd to connect the salvation of infants with the commission, as it is with a covenant of faith, infants are saved by neither. The gospel, which is the grand subject of the commission, is good news, and saves on n iht condition of faith which works by love. Infants have no- thuig to do with it. It is no news to them, nor can they be- Levfe m iu truths. Infants have nothing to do with eitherthe law or thd gospel, they will not be condemned for their viola- tion of the one, nor be saved by a reception of the other. There may exist a covenant between God and his Son, em- braang the salvation of infants, but nothing of the kind is re- vealed. Infants came into the world with an impure nature, they may, however, be sanctified by the Spirit of God, and be received into heaven. God saves none by the gospel com- mission only through faith. God has not told us how he saves inftMits, therefore, poedo-baptists must speculate in the darlc. God has revealed how believers may be saved, and how his church is to be constituted, but nothing is said about intants m either of these particulars. « If infants are capa- ble of the thing signified, why," the Dr. asks, "are they in- capable of the sign?" I ask, in what part of the Bible baptism IS represented as a sign ? Infants are certainly ca- pable ot being baptized, and, also, of being crossed on the forehead, and of partaking of the Lord's supper, &c. Why «re not tiiese things to be done ? Because there is no scrip- tural authority. ^ The Dr. endeavours * to refute " the objection, i/iat in- Jant baptism ts destihite of scripture 'warrant." Most of his arguments under this head I have already refuted. How- ever, let us hear him again. Prior to experience says the Dr. « The quantity and quality of the evidence which God may see fit to grant on any subject are extremely prol lematical." IMow I ask any person of common sense, whether, if God re- ^>th Dr. WillifMWs,; infoirnaa us,. " Tliai precepts and pr6G \ki» position for which it is evidence. Baptism is a positive or- dinance of religion, and must be grounded on positive evideno0>r Such evidence 'we Itave for believer baptism, but such evi*. nanco *l'.a. hn>i\^ «■/%/ C-k.< infrinf I^r,w»f his upostlefi, r. ■■I ordinance of baptism with an irreversible exact-* noss, both as to the subjects and tiie mode of administration. That the Saviour gave his apostles an ambiguous command, by which they were to be guided in gathering members for ))is church, is absurd to suppose, and impious to assert. How roblematical soever the evidence may be, for some piarticu* nr sentiments of religion, we have every reason to expect, ^that the evidence for a positive»duty would be obvious and 'plain. And no injunction can be plainer than that by which God enjoins the ordinance of baptism. God has left every s reader of the New Testfiment without excuse. The degree '■ of the offence against God, in wilfully neglecting the ordi- nance of baptism, is in proportion to the plainness with which it is -evealed. While an omission of duty, or a direct viola- tion of his law, is offensive to God, it must b« injurious to the person who is guilty of such conduct. Error darkens the un- derstanding, and impropriety of conduct indurates the con- science. It is impossible to oppose God with impunity. Were this more seriously revolved in the mind, numbers who are convinced of their duty, would immediately submit to the ordinance of baptism, and we should no longer read the un- warrantable methods adopted to oppose it. Poedo-baptistf would not then dare to appeal to our pride, against the law of Christ, by stigmatizing baptism with the charge of indecency. They would feel that such a charge involves the character of Jesus, arises from no very honourable motive, and reproaches the wisdom of God. But many excuse their neglect of the ordinance, by supposing it to be quite unimportant. It is not essential to their salvation, therefore, as they con secure eter- nal happiness without it, they determine to withhold theic submission. The love of Christ is not sufficient to constrain them, nor his authority to compel them. But, though bap- tism is not essential to salvation, is it not essential, and par- ticularly with such persons, to a correct and honest profession of religion? Shall we deem a duty which God has enjoined* trivial, because our salvation does not depend on the perfor- mance ? God has given sufficient evidence, that to trjna witlj Iiis commands is a hazardous experiment on his mercy. The incense under the old dispensation, was to be consumed bv fire xvftm tnt* filtni*^ ^n^lflK onH AKIKit- Vsr!»*?^»r»*'_ T»#»nliir«>n i to take the fire from some other place, but they aulFered th« penalty of death for their conduct. Saul was cQmmande(i to destroy the Amalekites, " man and woman, infant and suck- ling, ox andsheepj camel and ass ;" but Saul spared tba life of Agag, and sbme of the finest of the cattle Jhr sofri^e.; jj^fft-i^' I' ill :.!t ; I -li- ;i ! .'''■ i: , ]. If ■f ■ '( ; !;i ': 1 ITS Itor IhiH, e," saith God, « I will honour, and they thflt despise me i>hflll be lightly esteemed/' Dr. Burns in the fttst chapter of his book, has dis- pJayeil a mode of argument quite worthy of his cause, but as destitute of camlour as of truth. One might imagine that he was impressed with the we«k.wjss of his cause, and determine wt, by plRcmg this chapter in the front of his book, to preiu- djce tlie mmd of his readers in its livvour, by maliirnin^ the yq)utatmn of the baptists. In dragging forth the errSrs of TMrtnllmn, and m relating a dismal tale about the insurgents D* MuHster, he endeavors to envelop the opinions of the baptist* with reproach. But the Baptists are no more lia- bleto reproach, in the judgement of reasonable persons, from tb« errors of 1 urtullian, nor from the enoi-mities of Muns^ ter, than the paedo-baptists are on account of the extra vairan- cies of t^ieir predecessors. And, as a judicious writer haTob- served, respecting the excitements in Germany, «tVom the vast nutnber of persons concerned in those insurrections, of whom It IS reported that a hundred thousand fell by the sword. It may with certainty be concluded that a great majo. rity of them were p^do-baptists,'' If the Dr. wiU trace our *Qntimentstothe Mennonites, theirs' can easily be traced to the Waldensian confessors, and of such company the Baptists have no reason to be ashamed. These were the men, wl^ not only Of>posed the hierarchy of Rome, but were anxious to Tender the reformation pure and complete, and ii; in attemnt- Higto extermmate infant baptii^m with other errors e^4« >2"\^^''' '"^^""^^^ f"" i»«'*^l tJ^^m to prison mufto tlcath, the cause of truth was worthy of their blood. But be it known, that^the^ baptists can trace their sentiments to an ^^'£"* i"" c^"^T'"""fP^ h,w no claim,— the authority ot ^he Son of God. «« The n.n:reement of cbri.stians on thi's point (mfontbtiptism,) says Dr. Burns, " is really astonisli. T^lu ,^''JP"'«)"ng enough^ as infant baptism is so totally il^^Utxit^of ici-.pturid support. But, I just ask, did rtot the »▼«, lie WJMS Israel. " To rlftce." If per- Imptism, i*etuse they expect to iiswerofft good its pungent re- t of Goc4 ? nnd rt: Mitch conduct iven ? « Thtim nour, and they book, hfts dis- lis cfluse, but as innagine thnt he , and determine book, to preju- mnligning the th the errors of : the insurgents opinions of the •e no more lia- e persons, from mities of Muns*- the extravagan- writer has ob* ny, «tVom the jsurrectiong, of nd fell by the t n great majo* . will trace our \y be traced to ny the Baptists B men, who not ere anxious to 1 ii] in attempt- • errors ef ihe prison and to lood. But, be sntiments to an -tile authority .stians on this eally astonisli- : is so totally «, did not the professors of chnstranity, fbr many nge?, generally flffree iit upholding the ititereat of nopcry ? ** It i^ worthy of rfmarjc," says the Dr. "that, notwithstr.'^.ding the rapid aiid extensive propagation of the baptist pr^nnpi^s, there does nojt exist on thu face of the globe a nation- ) cl»'*ire the only hur^an invcp- tlon which national churches 'a.. race. The advocates of na- YVo«a/ churches too highly appicciate the service <^f hifkntbjro- tism in their cause to be willing at present, to abandon tf. .However, in proportion as the iriteresis of pure r^liffion are f' iromoted, national churches and infant baptism will totqfUv ose the declining influence which they yet hpld over t^e hu- man mind. " Is it probable," the Br. inquires, " or i^ it foi^ a moment to be believed, that a sect so injConsiderable as th^t of the ana-baptistSi a sect, which, compared witli the rest of Christendom, is but as a drop in the ocean, an^ tnhfch can scarcely name among its adh/erents one individual of profmn^ scriptual emdition^ is the only privileged body of chri«ttansf*' To what will the reader attribute this sentence? To pride? to a wantof infivmpticin? to illiberality ? tpwliat? ichaHenge the Dr. to prove, that the baptists arc atna-baplists ; and in- form him, that canrf/ J poedo-baptists, (of whom, however hei« not one) will not reproach them with the name. The people so cpntemptible in this gentleman's; esteem, are knowii to bp more numerous than any other denomination in America; bii^ what if they were the minoritv ? would that prove them in error? As to the erudition of the baptists, ft woajd be difft- cult to prove that they are a whit behind ai^y other ri^ligtQus denomination. The Dr. gives us * f^nother luscious pi^e of calumny when alluding to immersion ; he ^pys the pap^s "regard it as one of the essentials in every case of revivajl and conversion, and that for its sake they are contented to sep tM unity of the church destroyed, the flames of controversy kind- led, and brotherly love well nigh extinguished." " Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbour," is a part of theology which this gentleman appears to have expunged from his creed. It is a bad cause which requires falsehood to support it. The baptists view immersion as essential to baptism, but never place it on a level with conversion. They are far more anxious to promote brotherly affection, than to light up the embers of controversy. The Dr. charges the baptists f with " practising a system of delusion on plain and unlettered christians," and % with " particularly the bigotry *Paj{« M. tPage 5- :»Pa|e 88. ' 1 1 1:1 ;| P V 1 :V -1 ■ill ; !!■ P ) 80 vrhich they display mi excluding from their communion and christian fellowship all who do not arrvcQ with them as to the mode of an external ceremony." The first of these charges requires no other refutation than its falsity ; but I would ask this /i^era/ divine, whether, in tliejo/t'/i/VMa'e of his c/^fl;%, he would admit to the table of the Lord an unbaptized person ? Some paedo-baptists, I know, do this. It is perfectly ridi- culous to hear the Dr., after discharging such tremendous eructations of slander against the baptii .s, talk of not having made "use of harsh and uncharitable language— that if any op- ponent should think proper to attack him with the keenness of invective, he cannot, injustice, he termed the aggressor; for, he has been careful to keep his pages free from those miilta cum bile, which have too often disgraced the writings of mo- dern thorough-paced controversialists." His professions ofliberality are loud, but amidst the harsh thunders of his multa cum bile, they can no more be heard, than a gentle mut- ter amidst the rage and tumult of a sea-stor.n. Wliatever the Dr. might think of the baptists, there are considerations much lower than those resulting from religion, which demanded of hipi a more charitable mode of treatment. However, the bap- tists are pretty well inured to abuse, which they attribute to hiaman frailty, and a want of argument on the' side of their ppposers. Let paedo-baptists, if they can, produce from the Bible either precept or example for infant sprinkling, and, if ihey cannot, let them cease to defend it, and no longer preach up a mere human invention for an ordinance of God. «* In withdrawing from the field of combat, we would, in the spiritof christian benevolence, give our antagonists this par- tmg advice : If you would exhibit to the world an example of intellectual diffidence, be careful never to prejudge a cause, on which revelation alone is competent to give a final deci- sion." * Dr. Burua, png« 88. riNxs. .SI m union and jm as to the lese charges I would ask charity, he zed person ? rfectlv ridi- tremendous f not having at if any op- keenness of jressor; for, tiiose miilta ;ings of mo- professions nders of his gentle mut- ''hatever the ations much lemanded of er, the bap- attribute to ide of their 1 the Bible ig, and, if no longer ice of God. ould, in the s this par- m example Ige a cause, final deci-