IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) // / / ''^' '4p^ :a C/u (A ^^ 1.0 I.I 1^ |2.8 :!? U4 ^ :. lis iiiiiio 22 m m 1.6 ^ <^ /2 % % '^a # i iiUlUj^idpiliU Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14S80 (715) 872-4503 i. % % CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 1Qft7 Technical anc Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et oibliographiques The Institute has attempted tc obtain the best original copy available fo/ filming. Features of this copy which rr.ay 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 Colou/ed covers/ Couverture de coulaur □ Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagi* □ Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur^e et/ou palliculde □ Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque □ Coloured maps/ artes gAographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de coulaur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire'' □ Coloured plates anJ/or illustrations/ Planches et/'ou illustrations en cooleur □ Bound with other material/ ReliA avac d'autres oocumants n D D Tight binding may causa shadows or distortion along interior margin/ Lareliure serrne peut causer de I'ombre ou de la dcstorsion le long de la marge interieura 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 ajoutees lors dune restauration apparaissent dans le texte. mais, lorsque cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont pas iti filmAes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl^mentaires: L'Institut a microfilme le meilfeur exemplaire qu'il lui a et* possible de se procurer Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-^tre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite. c^u qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mAthode normale de filmage sont indiquAs ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ Pages da couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagAas Pages restored dnd/or Pages restaurees et/ou pellicul^es Pages discoloured, stained or .'oxe< Pages d^colorees, tachetites ou piquees r~~| Pages damaged/ I I Pages restored dnd/or laminated/ Pages discoloured, stained or .'oxed/ □Pages detached/ Pages d^^achees HShowthrough/ Transparence □ Quality of print varie Qualita in^gale de I'i es/ mpression I I Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplementaire idition available/ Edition disponible □ Only edition available/ Seule D Pages wholly or oartially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partibilement obscurcies par un feuillet d'arrata. une pelure etc.. cnt Hi fiim^es i nouveau de facon a obtenir la meilleure image possible. This i:em is filmed at the reduction raiio checked below/ Ce document est film* .iu taux de reduction indiquA ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Harcild Campbell Vtughan Mamorial Library Acidia Univenity L'exempleire film* fut reproduit grAco k la g4n4rosit* da: 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 rncorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — »> (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. 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 images suivantes ont it* reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition at de la nettetA de I'exemplaire film«, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Los exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim4e sont filmte en commandant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la derniire page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par la second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autre* exemplaires originaux sont filmis en commenpant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernlAre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symbulns suivants apparattra sur la derni^re image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symboie — ^ signifie "A SUiVRE", le symbole V signifie "FiN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre filmAs i des taux de reduction diffArents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul cliche, il est filmA i partir de I'anglo supArieur gauche, de gauche A droita, et d Who hath required this at your hands ? And think you. that you will receive praise for such an abusive publication ? And from whom > Wot from the intelligent christian-not from the "unlettered'* discple of Christ -and most certainly, not from the man of God. who has learned of his Master, to put on bowels of mercies ha^^' nnV' ""'■ ""'," ' ''n'"^"' *''"* ^^^ Baptists.whose cause you have now espoused, will utter many plaudits of favor, ''or this fon hiT:* ^"^' performance. My candid opinion of then.! is f« W h^^' '•*,TP°^« this for a single moment. Among that excel- hlKiJ! of christians, there are those, who can easily distinguish base alloy, from sterhng coin-they want argument aid notSnt- ing— and merely because you have assumed a martial air of d«fi. ance, and have thrown down the gauntlet, they will not therefore regard you as their Champion. ^^tnerejore ■ ^^ ^.^"u'' ^"^y **®^™ y°° unworthy of any notice; but know- ing with what untiring industry, you will endeavour to circulate your work I have considered it my duty .though against the advice of some of my friends, to furnish the antidoteto ylur poison. N^ hing merely personal, be assured, has prompted me. to enter tho lists with a person of your standing and character. What yoa tpnt?! ^°^ ^.'?"""'*''^ '" '"'■"'■«°'=« '° »"«• "0 person acquain- ted with me, will for a moment believe. Mistaken indeed have you been. If you suppose, that you have in the least annoyed me ; any thing from your lips. or from yonr pen. does not give me^ slightest uneasmess. And though in close combat, Vu alwayj appear to keep in view, the words of Cesar to his army «« Sol- fnThfl '' 'if ^^'^'"y^i' f""y expecting the boisterouJ manner m which you will return to the charge, I will here tell you, that your qu-.ver does not contain a single arrow that can reach me-your scabbard does not bold a sword that caa wouad me-nor does A 2 6 your arm pos««ss the nratcnlar power to wieljJ a lance th&t can pierce me. All yonr darts will be coanted as stabble. As you iwe no ceremony towards any man, so neither shall I use any toward you ; but will point out to you, the inaccuracies, the inconsistencies, and deeply sorry am I to add, untrutha, con- tained in your notes on Scripture, m youi chnrgca against others, and in the abusive remarks with which your work is so richly in- terlarded. TUle-Pag:e. The Retort. In your plan of aggression, you seem to hy peculiar stress, upon a little harmless sarcasm ; hence, I find you carping at the title of Mr. R.'s publication. Allow me however to introduce you a third time to the public. qiieslion. My first question i», do yon think that Mr. Rirhey's " 5Aor< and s':rii)tura/ method with antipedobopt \'»," ■ustaiiia id title. Aiwwcr. Ii rertHinly (Inesnot; but tUat mav be owing to ti tvpasraphi- cnl trror.ibr i» the letter " D" was struck out of the seroiid word, and T I initerted in itit stead, it would then stTiiin^lj/ suhtain in title.* Take breath, Sir, for this flourish nmst have sadly wearied you. No doubt you regarded this, as a fine stroke of wit and having written it, congratulated yourself on the prowess of your pen ; and having obtained so signal a victory, you triumphed to think, that the large letter D, and the formidable T I, would " extort a smile froiu the face of gravity." You have stated positively, that the work does not sustain its title. I shall very soon show from your own testimony that you are incompetent to judge in the affair ; but forgetting this for a moment, I will give you credit for the sin- cerity of your assertion; let me,however,8tate for your satisfaction, that while you may not think that Mr. Richey has touched Mr. Crawley's lending arguments on the mode of Baptism, there are some "intelligent"' readers, who not only think that he has touched them, but that the touch, k like that of Ithuriel's spear. Having animadverted so freely on the title of Mr. R.'s work, you will not I hope, demur, if I slightly examine yours. It is called a reply to iMr. R.'s work. Now, Sir, by your own words, I shall prove it is no such thing. In your introduction you plainly tell us, that " you will not at- tempt to follow Mr. R.'s ' strictures' through that intricate maze" &c. Marvellous ! Your title page informs us, that you will give " a reply"; we turn over, and lo ! your preface informs us, that you will not even attempt a reply. What, Sir, am I to understand that you can perform a thing, without attempting to do it? Again, *« You no doubt expected at the commencement, that I shonld have replied to Mr. Richrys pamphljeU in a manner quite different from what I have done ; but this I could not do " Chriiitian Bniai«ni, p. iff. [ eould not do } for he had no loonsr aoarad abore th« written word of God, than I bad lost oifhlof him." JVa doubt jov rea- ders did look for quite a different reply ; how eoold they do otherwise than expect, that what yoa had publicly promised, yoa woald publicly perform; but this yon *' eould not do ," for ia Mr. R.'s eagle soarings yon lost sight of him. What a concosfion ! Before you pleaded unwillingness, now yon plead inability. I will give you credit for both thette acknowledgements, and espe- cially the latter. But, if you could not follow Mr. R. in his flight, the fault must lie in your weakness of wing, and not in Am strength of intellect. You will perhaps remember, that it is related of Dr. Samuel Johnson, that when he was once engaged in a dispute, his oppo- nent said to him, "I do not anderataud you. Sir, — '• Perhaps not" replied the stern combatant, " I can give yoa argumentt, bat I cannot give you an understanding to comprehend them." — No one.Sir, will blam*? yon for inability; but knowing that yon could not reply to Mr. R.'s book, why did you pledge yourself to do so? You ePiem, however, to have had some misgivings, about your title-page — hence yon tell us, near the conclusion, '* We have had but little to say about Mr. R.'s book."t True. Little indeed in the shape of a reply; little indeed in the way of argument; bat aa abundance of invective, insolence, and reproach. But perhaps, you forgot " that it was PauP^ manner to reason acd persuade the Jews and Greeks, and not to tneer at and ridicule them to bring them to his way of thinking."! But why, I ask, did yoa burlesque so much as to dignify your work, by calling it **a reply." — In your second edition, it would certainly be advisable to blot out that term. A reply it cannot be, for you have not grappled with a singls di^culty — or removed one objection — much less refuted the many powerful arguments of your giant antagonist Human Traditions. Singular Fact. ' A considerable portion of your work, is a violent tirade, ag&init what with so much delight, you term, " human traditions,'* •' mena notions," '* opinions of men," •• wind of men," " f^tberf, professors, and doctors," " names not once mentioned in the Bi- ble,'' " mens conjectures," with various other flowers of rhetoric. All this is very grand. To heap together such epithets is not a herculean task. Having, however, pronounced yonr verdict aguiost •'the false or to say the least, uncertain reasonings of men," it was not to be expected, that you wou'd retail the opinion of others. In showing " What the Scriptures say on Christian Bap- tism," you, of course, would go to the pure fountain of inspira- tion, and not to earthly cisterns, destitute of water. Yoor wea- pons, of course, would be spiritual, and .aot caco&I. HaTisg in ■ *Chri»tian Baptism, p. 92. tCtariatiau Baptism, p. 47. ^C. B. p. 26. 8 W yourmeraory should hav« f-;L i i'°*.. ''° BAPxniM." fre.h it. by .tating' that orpo. te Se 1;^ J "'' T''^'*^''" '« '«' yet recall the work to mind Derhan! '"'^'"'"V ''^X'*" can.ot of the terrified appearanie of th!^. ^ ^"•"•.^^'•en I remind you «dge. na represented .nJhe Ite 1^7'' ''""''"'« ''^ 'J'* ^«er'- "nnd you. that the work aCuded to ,1'%"°.' """"«''' ' *^' ^*'- t|on,, the exact number of you™ Ij .r h"* '"'" •^«'''««° "ac- tion of a word, the headiL. of jr '*'''• '*'"*^«'3^^'>« a'tera- Pengiiiy^that the paLa3of g^^^^^^^^ «g^«« wah ready collected for you bfthrt S^ !u^°" ''^^^ «"«<^ wer« al- the middle of a veC. a'^i^' l^teUe^ Ih:'!"^'^''"'' '""•"«'* you have adopted the game course TnH h , ''««Ln'"°« and end. agree almost verbally v^Tth Z jZ (^'"^'^'^^^^ y^""' ^l^^^^'o^ forget "Pengilly'sScriptuJe fTuide" IhTf^' T ^"" ^"' •»'" citations, which I will pla^e oDno^it.l '^^■["•sh you with some •o that others may know, noJonlv th /''"I"* ?"""«' «"''""". c»ely to fell into his p7a; and i>L^"^^^^ pretty freely from his work ' ''"^ ^^"^ ^°" *»*^« quoted ^ PENGILLY. Thi. little work, Christian Rea- i»,i» designed for aucli nersoiis «mi ?n,' ir„'^''." '•^'"^"^ «dmftThe follow tag important sentimenta — 1. Tho» tl... O ! «i J JACKSON. I desiifn the following pa«e» for 1 hat theon/i, revealed will of God i, 'ard'Kil\'Li.«"/i''--or.h"e'S,'J and N^'V'^ S-iplur^'r-rthe Old IZ'S^lT «^'^P'"- of'.heO.'J "iS:^Jro7o'^r°''''^-''-"<^"v^-^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^. That whatever God enio-ns on hi Jk° '"? P^IP'** '" '"at word it U their people in his word, they wibolnd bvln^m''"" '^"'-^ '" Perform ; Vd Tha? 3. Th., „,.„ ..„ ..... ^ of^^j»P«^f.'°«f: 'he appointments 3- That men are n.it at liberty tn oU,r, in any onerespi t. the aDDofn. jnentaofGod. '» "■« appoint- 4. That Baptiun and the Lord's Supper are the two only ord'naS TeiS:t ia»titu,ion,,^f ,he New Testament ; and that it is coniT Viently the bonndenduty of a» X profess to be the disciples of Christ stfemnly to observe them, and to ih' JJ«d and example of Christ autho- ofGod; 3th, ThatinIh7NrwT';;r ment we And but two positive i^sn' andZ' z,°:;^'"r «>."'^" y Km ana ine Lord's Sapper ,- and that nil ZlycTJ'''' ^""'^"'y bonnd't'o".^' serve them, in that way which Chbirt has authorised us to Jo, both by hi^ word and e:ampU." ^ ler tvnJ ?T*"°*?' P'"*"'^'' "» a smal- to Doim' rn.*''t'""V^'y endeavoured to point oat what I conceive to be Xa'^T^.'^^'T'^^ here nan! Towner Jhn ?*^'^'"" " exhorted, Bowever. while he peru.ff, the nor^c aot to .How buaiadtoXS- " Under a sense of my own insuf- fn aTi^' ^ ".'''*' humbly 'endeavour^ in a few notes, which I have at their comramencement marked-NoTj-to t'^u'sht"!!!' ,'^'"" * •"""^'^«' *• p'^ry whE.hi^ *''k passages of scripture which I have here trawcribed ; but at rl- II i- '6 It a 9 enetd, or hi* prtclire governed, by|the name time I would exhort m* any human authority, but by tliu reader, to allow hii mind to b« iM^- WORD or Odd alone, which iihall here fluenced by the tcord of God alomk." be plainly and fully laid before him.'" The lifat place of Scripture where the ordinance of Baptian. ia found, deacribea the iniMion. prsachinx, and " Aa the Scriptnrea gire us no ear- lier Information on thia important aubject, we ahall begin with the mia- b'lpMzing of John, the harbinger ofiaion, preaching, and baptizing of ('' aiax. Aa all the four evangeliata John, the forerunner of Jeaua Chriat. hive given u son or Dr. A. Clarke, for " Christ has no where told yoa any thing aboui searching their writings." Pray who told yoa to search Pengilly's writings ? Or if you are allowed to qjote, may not another enjoy the same liberty. Yon know that to Mr. P. you are largely indebted; indeed but for his work instead of your pam- phlet being " the production of little more than a week," I otn doubtful whether you would have presented it to us in a year. A great deal of the best portions of your work is from the Ameri- ean Scripture Guide— all the calumny is yours — all the abuse ia your own. 10 Biblical and TiieoIog:ical— Ifew ComtneHtator. Neariy allied to this course ofprocedure, is yonr palpable incon- Bistency,in snarliagat Commentators.and indeed at any thing "Bi- blical and Theological," and yet supplying the public with your NOi-Eson Scripture. The great despiser of Commentators , turning Commentator himself ! What a piece of absurdity I Having collected and transcribed the various passages of Scrip- ture on the subject of Baptism, why did you not stop there ? Oh, that would not have answered your design. The word of God is not suificiently plain, hence you must by s/»p//mo:, and interroga- tories, and bold assertions, intermingled with plenty of sarcasm and banter, endeavour to make it plainer. It needs interpretation and lo : you turn interpreter. To be sure, we must not read any thing written by the " tulerted" Watson, Dr. A. Clarke, or any of our modern commentators, for they know " Greek"; but any thing penned by William Jackson, any thing emanating from this latest, this mo\t modern commentator, we may peruse. How great the privilege ! I must beg pardon. Sir, for tiiUing this oppor- tu iy of addressing others through this medium, but certainly the occasion demands it. "O Novascotians ! haste to embrace the present prort'eied favour. Matthew Henry, and Clarke, Scott and Gill you must not touch. If you do not find it in your heart to consume their works, yet tlioy mu?t lie by wormeaten and neg- lected, for if you read their writings, you only obtain " men's notions;" but you may. Oh yes you may read the notes of Wil- liam Jackson — they of course are not '« humon traditions" — they of course, will stand "when the wrliini^s "xnd doctrines of men are burned up." And last, though not le 'dUst recommendation, ihey can be purchased for twelve pence.' I now return again to you. Perhaps you will endeavour to ward otfthis blow, by informing us ihat you recorded your decla- ration, that any thing you wrote was but " human." Admitted; and ill much stronger terms than any you have employed, do all our Commentators testify their inability. But such inconsistency we had a right to expect, when but a few Sabbaths ago, before as- sembled multitudes, in what you designated your farewell ser- mon, you cried out against Doctors and Commentators, and then, will it, can it be believed, informed the congregation that you had ior sale Dr. A. Clarke on the New Testament, Dwight's Theolo- gy, &c. After this we were fully prepared, lor similar traits of inconsistency in your conduct. Tiiingrs not to be found in the Bible. i'usSing Biiiiiige IS li, on, iiittijrOu oiiuuiu cuutiuiiiii r»ir. ix. iur introducing facts, of which you are pleased to declare '* neither 11 the Old, nor the New Testament Scriptnres, ever told him anj «Qch things, while yoo bring forward an abundance of aueh in things in your scriptural work. Permit me, Sir, to put your finger upon a few of these things, neither fou^.d in the Old nor the New Testament. By turning to page fourteen of your work, (and you will not surely demur, to read your own cheap commentary) you state ihat " the Pharisees stood high in the church, and that the Lawyers were famed for their great learning." I do not dis- pute the correctness of the remark, but will yon please to pobt out the chapter and verse where this is written, or will you tell us from what Father or Professor you obtained it ? You add, that the Lawyers " wer« especially famed for their knowledge of the scriptures," and you assign this as a reason why they rejected the counsel of God. Monstrous evil ! knowledge of the scriptures a hindrance to oar acceptanr'.e of the wise and gracious counsels of the Almighty ! On page the sixteenth of your book, you have craved permis- sion to state, "that Luke the Evangelist is generally acknow- ledged, to be the writer of the Acts of the Apostles." I ask, and where is this written? In what part of the Old or New Testament? What " Doctor'' gave you this information ? Whose «♦ Biblical and Theological'' Dictionary supplied you with the knowledge of this fact ? In the creed of what man or set of men did you find it ? Hem ! In what creed ? Yes: in what creed, catechism or con- fession of faith did you find it? Hem ! If you are determined to ex- tort it from me, I must confess it was from the " .^^ mbly of Dtcincs" as quoted by Pengilly. Here is a confession with a witness ! Thus, after so much railing at Divines, after speaking so flippantly of the notions " of any man or sot of men" you have quoted from a whole body of them. You could not find the names of Mr.Richey's " fathers, professors, and doctors, "within the lids of the Bible, pray did you find Mr. Pcngilly's Assembly of di- vines there? It may be well, however, to compare notes and pages on this subject. PENGTLLT. " The Penman of this Scripture," the Assembly of Divines in the>r •nrgument to it, asiure us, was Luke the Evangelist. "His purpose, they add, " in ^\^iting this narrative ■was, as he intimates in his first pre- face, that the Church might have the certain knowledge of Christ, his gos- pel, and kingdom; tiiat our faith might not be built on the uncertain reports of prttendtrs to truth." Hence, ad- DiittiDgr the writer to be a faitkfulmA jriout histori ir. J. Iji Eiiriish. rriend. ORn you inform me by xvhnn. it wa.< wittrn.' a.uJ others^' ""'^ """ Proplut^, by MaiUiew, Mark, Lnke, .loh.n T.,„I, Fritml. Were thtse p.rsons, Englishmen, for yon .ay it is ^v^■tT, u .a O no. my rhild, they were Jews I believe Then tliey did not write it in EM"Ii-h Certainly nnt.t.ui in }|cl)r^w, Ch^IldeJ, and Greek the:..PgU«hlaSgeV"' ^'" «heniulorm.u. t.y whom it was wrUren ,n «,h''"r'' 'u''^''*'^'^ ,!' ^'■'*-'' iP<'"mr!i*he(l l)v firtv fo„r " letter If.imed" men Tom^'e '"Zh r:'e"' , " '"^ ';''i;" "'■•'""'-■ •"«• F.r.t-some wen '• H Lh.^!"' Friend. Uo von underst.-ind Ffebrcw, Chaldce, or Greek' Mr. .1, Not I— i,ot even a svll.ihle. • ihe l-o,'!he.T''«nd'^hl!'^* " ""r"^*^ l"'f' "'^■»' *''»'' ""' translated what Mose., Mr. J. Why. thnt certainly would have been the ca.sf. I am sorry, gentlemen, to be under the necessity of interrupting* wnjj" u" ''^'^ '"t^resting dialogue; but I must proceed with my work It appears bir, from your own admission, that you are in- deb ed to ' letter le.rned" men, for all your knowledge of the wrh 1. r ^' ^"'P'l"-«^' " «t" '-^'i ^vise and holy God would hnv^ written h,s laws and given them to you. in a langun^e vou muid "m'lvt"'''"V ^'''^^ ^""''^ '^'"= admitted, "does it appear s em ,M you, to write so tauntingly about Greek knowledjreVAre }ou the proper person to hector an individual for his Bihiicui and Iheologu-al research.' Fie upon yon! To disclaim a^^M-st lenrn- ing in others when all your information on divine things, depends entirely on the knowledge of others. " oepencw .r7-"fili 1 I 'l^"^ T^J^ humility, to inform the world that you li'hU ll -c ^"'^ "''"■^ ""* °" vmnslators fallible men, and Ini lw\ '■ '"' ."'^y ^''^^ "''^ •'^^^ g'^™ ''Ome word or sen- h«n?U Ih-^t languages. It is gratefully acknowledged on all me^l: It is, of human effort nobly exerted in the r.ns. .en^A r„. 'L^ZT "^ "»'?«"«" that it has been considerably alter^ and improved, smce u was first published m 1611 by ,se "Ltt." U 14 . '°"P«1'' men of whom j.,, now you spoke to my frfend. It wa» corrected m 1683-again in 1701 -and afterward/in 17«9. Tnd w.ll any man undertake to say. that every sentence now found in our translation of the B.ble. is the precise language of God ? And Svo?r h' f«"««'««« «°PP««it^oi'. upon this poor foundation, you r^t your whole cause. \ou seem to exclain^ " I have the word th-?? h^vr'-r ^^"^yo^^H^'^'-ew and Greek-h is enough forme in-t 1 have a translation." " Before passing from this subject, I will inform you, and doubt- nTl '"i'^i;?''''°° ^•" ""^"'^ ^"" '^"•='' satisfacuon. that in read- ing your Bible, you have some little to do with the «• Fathers " ll)e translators of James-had certain rules laid down, by which they were to be governed m their arduous work. On^ of these rules was the following, namely; " when any word hath d vers «.gn.ficat.ons, that .« to be kept which hath been most commonly T>*ed by the most emment Fathers."* Having tended this niece of information, do not, I beseech you Sir, flin| away your presen tran.s ation. because the Fathers have had to do with it • £ I do TJl7}:^ f r" !, ''^'"'^' '''"^>'°" ^"''' '"^'^^ ^^^hone elsewhere, more taithful and accurate. Solemn prote§t ag:ainst Ridicule. «iWyn7n'^"'/''-*^''^7".^'°°'^''^' "' '^'t./K//.y ridicule thu «iWc of an orrfmanr^, he himself acknowledges the «cn>f„rc., do «of forbid" How, lure he! Is this the language of the Grand 1 urk. or of William Jackson who teaches us -that though a"^:''"°P^U'r'. •'"'%'' 1 "^"^ '^'y '^' privilege \o-:^' ,% jy^ich he hrmself acknowledges the Scripturr, do notforoid Hold8ir! the sentence upon which you Ound this .s incorr.ctly printed. Instead of - washing, which do;s neces: .=|ar.ly i„,ply imniersion." it should have been, 'washing, which docs n.f neces .ly imply immersion." I have ascertained this by ^ew iork, a part of his manuscripts had not been forwarded to he printer, and it devolved upon me, to attend to the correcting of the press. In tins instance I have allowed a very material erro? to escape my notice. It had been well however, had vou -iven some speciinens of Mr R's raillery, for many who have' read hi" mas- ter y performance, are not aware that he has so awfully ridiculed. But surely, having uttered in such menacing terms, your pro- test against ridicule, it was strangely inconsistent for you, to in- m raillery. It ,3 the only soil m which you flourish. Wit and F'i','!MT.i\i'-^'"rr"Sth of your battle, your tenth legion. Fxtract all the ridicule from yourbool., and there is only left, "a very large nothing.'' ' ' Not unfrequently do you. with perfect good humour of course, J * Fallen Church History, book 10. p. 44. 15 contemptuonsly write, about "sprinkling infants,^* " iprink' ling a little water," " new fashioned way of baptizing,^'' with other rare and pretty expressions. Bat your choicest specimen of raillery shall now be introduced^ " To suppose that the * kingdom of hearen' i> shut against children, till n little water has been gpriiikled on theJr Tacet, is to deny the Saviour's declaration, ^ 0/ tuck ii tke kingdom of heaven.^ And having no scrip - ore to inform ihe upon this subject, I am at a loss :o know ; what part of the performance it is, that can open heaven to the child, if it was once locked a^rainHt it. Unless I may be allowed to suppose, that when the mi- nister puts his fingers into the bowl, that may be considered as putting the key into the lock, and the turning his wet fingers on the child's face as the turning of the key, while at tte naming of the ctiild the door flies open." p. 40. After so fine a piece of declamation, yon have good cause to clap your wings. Truly Sir, this is an original thought. We will not " hunt throagh an immense number of large volumes of the "Fathers," nor will we examine Pengilly or the Assembly of i?tomes, to ascertain whether or no, it is borrowed. We '.v ill most cheerfully concede, that it is all your own. Eut though stamped with originality, it is pointless and harmless; if it injures not yourself, it will not harm any person. It has in the present instance no force, for the individual against whom you hava hurled so soft a missile, does not believe that the " kingdom of heaven" is shut against a child, " till a little water is sprinkled on its face." But, Sir, instead of such playing upon words, instead of allow- ing your hand to write such preposterous nonsense, it would have been much more seemly for you, who not long since was seen " putting your fingers into the bowl," and then " putting your wet fingers on the child's face"; — who not long since was found practicing this "new fashioned way of baptizing," and against your conscience too, 10 have uttered the exclamation of Cranmerin the flames " THAT UNWORTHY HAND " You seem vastly grieved, that owing to ihe prevalence of " infant baptism"' yoa have to meet with so many baptized swearers, &c. O Sir, are yon not affected to think that, perhaps you have added to the number of such wretched characters — that perhaps your hand has done the deed. O that unworthy hand! Professions orLoTe. Anathema. Awful Then Sir, compare your professions of love, with the viperistn you havedisplayed in this attack. "Love is the soul of religion." "A christian without love there cannot be" — True: but does love consist in railing accusations, in bitter words, in pointine the fin- ger of scorn at an individual, because he diflfers from you in opi- n^n. IG Jr?.!' ""dno*rtte^ra«inhi«heart;" that "a man m? Sir R »h ^"Jf"^ '^ "1"^ "' "'' frequently to the "intelligent" ohect^ndlL n'""'"*^r''""°'.^"'' be mistaken in*the.r whom^vo^ rJ ''"'■^i^^'" immediately recogn.ze tt.e individual to whom you refer Some "mtelligent" readers 1 knotc, have thuH considered the mark at which yea aimed. But ^! letT Trr ^h" ''If ^''^\''»'^'Z''^--^» - perfectly io^ulnerable 'to ;„; HInnoi- '*'" "^ be affected by your slanderous pen, though lhTfor^,ZT7r^ '".^ f "■ """y '"°'« 'h-' ^he r^yal lion ff TJZ %T n^"'^ '^^ P"">' "•'''"•"g «nd '"igbty rage of a mouse. Sir he will not come down to nolice you. = "^ ^ " "^ nrojln .^^' Cv""'^'^^ tell us) upholds tradition and the im- proved assertions of m*n.-Christ condemns the.r.both and cfe- c ares that , hey make void the law of God.- This is flat atd •'ran Mr r-T' '' ""u ^^--^^ to '"terpret the following passages. JhTr\l' V^f"™ »» bow any man can be a disciple of Cluist Sain "unm 'n-^'",'^''r "/«'^'^-*." i-'ead of Christ."t .^ .1 e hst h'I, ^rn ' ^T'^- """"^b to explain those two versel nil t .nii,L ?• ''^^r^f *•'>"• .^^'''ich an "unlettered reader" aI V» r' lor awful threatenmgs upon those ^^■\^o add to or t h . n? ^ irom the word of God'-t Are you prepared Sir, f,.r tl e ro«seque,ice.s of these anatho.natizin-. eipreisioL ' Are you -^r ous, m thus "dealing damnation round Ihe land" .' Do Jou )t Hoi) Writ .' <)!., r,n, where is justice, where is mercy ' After b.|vn.s .poUen of Mr R. following man and the Fathers, and add.ngtolhewordofGod, then to Inirl at this person, the nmst l«arf,il woes of the Almighty, is, I should hope, without a paS in any protcstant controversy. ' Perhjps you will testify you did not mean any thing of thi. lorici. I shou.d ch intnbly hope not and yet when viewed in their .^omiex.ons, (I now adopt your phraseology) -surely if all this, IN uH a.,y th.ng it must be a very large nothin^^ And if you dJ not mean what you say, you mean nothing'' H Rash K^iressions. A few of your rash and lasty expressions, you will now permit me to review. In your introduction, in language most clear and •hstmct. you state thatMr. R. has introduced a host of "/afAers " Alistake all over. Wot one "father" is introduced bv Mr R much more a "Ao5f." But your most preposterouJanguage i^ * «:iiii»iiaii Baptism p. 33. t P. 12. 1 d 22 SChristian Baiiiisin, p. C8. ^ 17 ii 1 where you present as, with »,he following notable qaestion and answer. " Q. Does Paul ever make use of an expression like the followifij; » 'Which stood only in meat!* and drinkn, and divers baptismii, and carnal ordinances, imposed until the time of reformation.' " A. Never '^nnd when I first saw it placed between two inverted com- mas, as a quotation, and Ileb. 9. 10. attached to it, in order to make the re!ider Ix-lieve it was the Apostle Paul's language, I could scarcely rpfraiii from crying out, it is a forger;/ > see p. 28 at bottom, and 29 at lop. Hut it is very iiKely he thought that his readers, v.ere all like many of his hearers ; and that whatever he said or wrote, would ever be taken as unnuestiouably good without any examination." p. "8. What a cloud of dust you have here raised ! JVever! Yes he did ir* Heb. 9. 10. / could scarcely refrain from crying out it is a forgery ! Perhaps noi : bui your crying out does not make it a forgeiy. Had you cried out till your lungs had been wasted avvay, in the word of God it would have remained as a perpetual witness to condemn your folly and precipitancy. But you will say, "in my Bible, it is washings, and not baptisms." Very well : but in the Bible it is baptisinois, or anglicised, 6a/)^is;ns. So much for your cry of forgery. You have no doubt shaken Mr. Crawley's nerves, for I find that he also is involved in the horrible crime, of endeavouring to make \\\e reader believe it was the Apostle's language. What you say so sneeringly of Mr. R's heareri, is perfectly gratuitous and uncalled for. It is worthy of your pen. You must drag tliem also to the pillory, and then, liUea valiant person, in your might, you commence pelting them with mud. I iiave not yet ''one with your rashness. You ask page thirty seven of your work, " who told Mr. R. that when our Lord insti- tuted tiie ordinance of the Sacrament, with his disciples, that thoy kept it with unleavened bread — drank the wine of Palestine, and reclined v^QO. couches or tricliniums" — In reply, you assurn us, that for want of scholarship you cannot answer — that such wonderful knowledge is not in the Bible— and then, after a touch at the ludicrous, with respect to Biblical and Theological research you gravely tell us, that probably Mr. R. "has discovered that it OUGHT to have been written, though it is not so." What a splendid triumph you have gained. You have challenged, vou have fought, you have conquered. I must beg pardon, Sir, if I examine this flourish sentence by sentence. " IVho told Mr. R. thai they kejH it with unleavened bread ? Sir, I sincerely pity your ignorance of the Scriptures. In my Bible I learn by Matt. 26. 17. that tlie Cuchavist was in- id." Who told him? )ou. You seem to have 6.»iiie iillie predilection for a Jewisii Synagogue : tlie next oppor- tunity you have, resort to one o.^'th.'sa, aiu) to iho first stripling you nicjt, propose tliis qucolion:— Pray my little fellow can yoa'tell B 2 sli.uled on the "first day of unleavened breac «ir, I will inform you, who will toll \ou. 18 I ; M me li the Jews of old during the days of unleavened bread, either had or dar«rf .o keep in the possession any leavened bread I will promise you that the child will open his Hebrew Bible will putytourfingeronExodusxii:15, 19, 20. xiii: 7. xxxir: !8, and will mfornri you that to have poisessed any unleavened bread at the particular time referred to, would have endangered the trans- gressor from being cut oft from the congregation of is.ael. One wou d have thought that the language of St. Paul on this subject, would have saved you the trouble of protruding upon the pub- ic such silly remarks "Let us keep the feast, not with old leaven neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness ; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth" 1 Cor 5 '^ "Who told Mr. R. that they drank the wine of Palestine:" Sheer nonsense. Do you think that they drank the wine of th^Jt/oon or that It was the real blood of our Lord, and not .-is he him.e ' designatPHit "the fruit of the vine? "-"Or that they ,rc//n. J upon nmche!, If you doubt ihe fact, that the Jews took their n.eais in a rechn.ng posture, will you be so obliging as to solve a few prob- lems for my "unlettered" friend, to whom you have already beoa introuuced. \hi has read your positive assertion that tlii. know- ledge IS not m the Bible, and having referred to some Scripture passnges on the subject, hi« mind is sadly bewildered He wwh^'s part.eularly to know, how according to our plan of .s/// /i^. it meals, the xvonian with the box of ointment, could, while Je^u. HAT ^l me:n, stand at his feet behind hiai-Iiow, it like us his feet were on the floor under the table, and consequently bk-forp: hm. and not bchmd h.m, ..he could, unless n dwarf, stand un.hr the tible and anoint his feet-how above all, she could while stamtmg be kissing his feet. Luke 7. 36. He wishes farther to know, whether you believe il.at when iMarv ;:nnointed the feet of Jesus with the costly ointment of spikenard, she crawled un- der the table ,0 perform that act. John 12. 3. He is desirous likewise to know, how John while at supper table could "lean on Je^^us s bosom 'or "lia on his breast" John 13. 23. 25. Sinre you have asserted so plainly thr* the Bible does not inf ,rm us any thing .„ reference to a reclinin- posture at meals, to my unlettered Ir.ond, these various passages have heen absolutely reduced to Sir. the Scriptures do infbrm us of the nriei.tal custom of recli- n.ng at meals on the left hand ; and the feet of a person bem- re- cumbent ^vc>■eoutennasf Mr. R. had read, as you might hav« done, ot 'lie Jews stretching themselves upon their couches, and eating the lat.ibs out of the flori., in Amos. 6. 4. and I "have no doubt but you will feel better .satislied with one Seripture proof than with ten thousand of men\, conjectures ;" and I will add than with the loolish and unwarranted assertion, of one individual nut I am only wasting my n-inm- in notir-in- c,.-}, •Jbiections," ~ • - - ^ i\ 19 T Popular. I can aot pass by the Blur, you endeavour to cast apon Mr. R., because he had innnocently said in reference to the meaning of the Greek word baptizu, that he would present the general reader with a true and faithful account of it, in a popular form. Upon this, you immediately sound the alarm. The trumpet is blown ! You prepare yourself to the battle ! In the meantime what is this holy cnisade about ? Down with the word popular ! It is rank heresy, it must be slain ! I must believe Sir, that you are very "unlettered," or you could never have raised such an out- cry, upon the word popular.— What idea did Mr. R. intend to convey by its use, but thatjie would write so plainly, ns to suit the comprehension of all his readers. "You have never heard of the Scriptures being "popular."* Will you tell us what Bock IS more popular in Christendom than the Bible ? I mean, what hook is more widely circulated, or more extensively read than the Sacred volume. Your pertness and rancour in referring in the par- ticular way you have, to IVIr.U.'s, explanations of the Scriptures in thi'5 town, I iMve just ng it is. Yon play off the character of a buffoon CO well and nobly, that it is folly for any person t» at- tempt to gain tho palm from you. You shall wear it as your due. But Sir, I hope you will not consider me too prolix, if I say sometliini more of this hideous word ''popular," It grates no doubt, most harshly upon your ear. What does it mean ? O it cannot moan any thing Scriptural. Very well. Then Sir, as a filse prophet, and as an unscriptural preacher, "out of thine own mouth will I condemn thee." Thou art the man ! I convict yoa thus openly of heresy. In page 802, of your former work, while blowing the trumpet of adulation very modestly to your own praise and glory, you present us with this horrible piece of infor- mation:"! became from this time MORE than ever popular." Sir, you are a most obliging disputant ; you so ably confute your- self Your sword is two-edged, slaying yourself well as others. You produce a piece of stark, staring nonsense, and then, doubt- less entirely to your own satisfaction, with your mighty pen, you .lash it as a thing of nought, into oblivion for ever. Great Evil Of Intellig^ence. For what cause, you, in the language of a distempered flagel- , lanf, should be o furious about Mr. R.'s intol'igence, and indoefel agamst knowledge generally, is to me perfectly incomprehensiblef " Great learning has not done you much harm, nor i«> it probable, that it will ever materially injure you. " What a urand thing" you exclaim ''is great learning!" What a grand thins is a little modesty! Hart you possessed but a scanty stock of that excellent article, yoJ would not havr- tantalized a person /or his educatiooj. * Christian Baptism, p. 3". 20 nor would you have pnblished to the world sach a jumbling of dissoaaut notes and ideas. After this, «'any scribbler with a niid- diing share of low wit, not incumbered with good nature or mo- desty, may raise a laugh on those whom he cannot confute, nnd run them down,wh6m he dares not look in the face." For my own part, I cannot conceive, why knowledge should ap- pear such u bu{»bear to your imagination. And yet it seems to affect you greatly— you almost appear angry at the bare thought of an " mtelligent" reader. We all know that "unlatettered" men have been useful in the vineyard of the Lord— they have humbly explained to their fellow men the knowledge ol" salvation, and they have been made an abundant blessing. Cut, if some persons without even the rudiment/" of education, have accom- plished much in the church of God, shall we condemn those who with a liberal education, have accomplished infinitely more.' Be- cause I have but one talent, shall I indignantly, rail at him who has ten? What is this but virtually to bring a charge against my nlaker. I do sincerely hope, that before vou publish a second edition of your work, you .vill have seen the folly of your con- duct, and will bo ready to make reparation, by a public recanta- tion of your error. Illiberal and False Charg^es. I now proceed to notice those statements of your work, which ye gros:»ly at variance with the truth. To me, this task is exceed- ingly unpleasant. I take no pleasure in detraction. To be r" liged to implicate your moral character is peculiarly painful, but Sir, you have compelled ine to take the present step. Jus- tice to an . bsent friend, justice to my own character, and justice to the public, demand from me, a fair and open investigation of the pretended facts you have aileged. In your introduction, in a sentence loaded with emphasis, you inform us, that you had no access to iMr. R.'s manuscripts. The moment I read this, having heaid of your calumnious reports, the bait was swallowed. You call your work the production of little more than a wkkk, and you have the countenance to claim some indulgence, for you had not had acct: • to Mr. R.'s mnnuscripts. S!r, I know you had not; but you had access to Mr. I'encilly's Book, and from it you very largely copied. Let any impartial person examine the two works, and he will find such a sameness in plan and order, and such an agreement in thought, as will excite not a little astonishment. He will wonder how vou could, " without a blush," have played off so deeply, the part of a mean and despi- cable plagiarist. But of what importance was it, whether you had Mr. R.'s work or not. Only that vou have so fieuuently em- iiij inc naiiiC 01 youi' oj^puiienl, and have i./^ii:.>r ..A — r-o- famished a few allusions to his work, or it would never have en- tered into the heart of any person to conceive, that yours was 21 intended as a reply to Mr. R.'g publication, anj more than to som© work written by one of the inhabitanU of the planet Jnpiter. Sir, as to any thing you have wid in reply, it would have answered your purpose full as well, had you had lying before you, instead of Mr. R.'h book, only the renowned histories of Tom Thumb, or of Jack the Giant Killer. Your allusion to Mr. R.'a crime in your introduction, was but distant. Lest, however, the public should not understand your general tactics of stabbing in the dark, you very wisely endeavour to removu the film from their vision. " QuMtion. How can Mr. R. truly flruly] say that hi» work wan ' the production of littlf more than a fortnight,^ if he hod accew to Mr. Crawley's manuscripts ? — See preface." " Answer. You 'must bear in mind that I am ' unlettered ;' and your question would take a man of Mr. R's 'intelligence' to answer i?.." p. HH. One know.s not, in this rodomontade, which to admire most, the ignorance, the insolence, or the wilful jntruth. The ignorance ! And really Sir, it is perfectly unnecessary for you so frequently ^o aver that you are unlettered. No asseveration is needed, to' set our minds at rest for ever on that subject. Twice you write of access to manuscripts; you mean, I presume, the sheets as they passed through the press : for vhat printer must be remarkably clever, who could print a work without the author's manuscript. I have been informed, however, though I do not state it as fact, that Mr. Crawley, gave the strictest charge to his printer (as most writers do) not to allow any sheets to go from the olHce, until the work should be rompleted. The insolence ! "It would take a person of !Mr. R's intelli- gence to answer it : Indeed ! But unlettered as you are, you are well a!)le to convert it into ribaldry. You gravely insinuate that ti servant of Jesus Christ has spoken Mnh^-^ Being an intimnte terms with Mr 7 o»i on thu. artair, I can w.thouMh« |!l.. 1 ? "Pe^-'-'Hr conver,ant ^.teemed friend, rLd the „o .ceo f l''''''"'*'^^ "'^""' ''>''' "''«*' "'/ '.e had had no imentionrhatev^Lr ""''"'' "^'^^^ ^"'' ^'"■'*' That notice did ror"h.;'to:r hL^'SaT/v'" ''^'^°''"^""^■ •nateriaU indeed, had entered :..« *^ ' ""'^."""".table hadnotmovedhin. Heohum^Hh " f«"'P«''"ion. if that ing it peculiarly dogrna ic,l hi d t r' "''T "T"'^ "'"^ ''««'"- which detannin'ntioS .:::::l\X^'^::Z'^^ "^'^ ^ ^'^ '^""'^ «^ candidiri;:!!."!;; the: f , " '^^ p'"'" '^"-»'°-' -^^ - staggered n.y '«u.Lttle r Jiend w .ith? '""' ''^ fJ""P'*^'«'i^ resting a di:. ogue. He has hTn n . **'" ^°" ''*''* *«» '"'«•"- tmns ^ the following HowTPTTk^ .'''« "^^'^ ""^^ que.- of Gcd .' r„ whar,Jay do ra.h and f^I u"* ''"'""'^ *''« ^'^J^ ■ntere.t.cf,nan ? And^on I.ei subtctl l"h'^'''""'r''''^« ">« to Hiience l.i=.doubts._But SnnV '^' ' ^,V^ ""' ^•-'«" ^'"'bled yourself by re,.!yine that vorh''^. ^ ".')'''' ""*''"?' '« "cu.,e '^ s wor..^pre'vi^o:f 'to' t' '^p 2 ''^',i :,,^ ^''^^--f - ^r. fvidenco to be allowed -would i L „ i • » "^ And ih hearsay courtsof just.ce-andvet u on W 'w'^ '" ""^ «'' ""^ -without i blush," eSour t birir'' T"'""'"'' >°" "'""''^ of the Gospel of Christ ""tc f^'J^'^^^V''''' "'"" -^»''i'^»«'- the streetiof AskeloM" Hut S v ' n'' '^"f'^'' '' "«' ''» p:.sso(rsoe.si|y. The pu nc h "v'e^r ^^" 7 ,l^« -"«-ved to they have n.inel-a,d un e.s ou nro l ^.^ 'J»'=l^'^'fon-now your allegation, you wilM H, de" t V m'' ""'"'"r '" P''""'" "'' MAKER, BUT TIIELOVER OF A uir* "''""'^ "'"^^"'"^ the Jeremy Taylor^-TIioinas Taylor exh^iJued" '^T^:LziSejri:irr'^ '- -- - •>« ed into one the niclLa of f.m " ' ^ ^ ^^^^^^ to be admitt- public •■ That Sir wa, falJe i „a, „,eCfil'i'''7,''"'',>°° T "'» * Chrib. n.ip. p. 38 MO eTrlij,:„u i.„i ' 23 American puolicatioD3,"tliat tiie people lirre overwhelmed yen with love,'* uocJ understanding thai lately jou declared, tliiil \oar luf- ferings had been greater while at Ilalifux, thai all vou had en- dared previously in your life, which you are to unfohi in a secoi d edition, 1 »ee not how I can retract the charge. Acd there aro other peruons, I know, who have even rohbed theuiaelveii to Hup- ply your necessities, and have given you more than verbal demoo- Btrations of kindness, who also think llmt ingratitude blackens your brow. But Sir, this is not a new charge, and strong as is the language in which it is couched, yet it hardly competes with what I had furnished to my hands. In one part of your former book, you do not scruple to proclaim: •'! was almost every where branded with the black mark of ingratitude." But let that pass. Befo'-e, having been by you so highly ho- noured, I I;; d no right to e.x|H;ct thiu a sf cond time, my name would be enrolled on yoar page of worthies. The public must now be informed, that the reverend gentleman of whom you .<5p>,uiv so complaisantly, on the thirty ninth page of your work, is the writer of this review. The infidel there pourtrayed is Tiiomaj* Taylor. A- A now for the portrait itself "Cliipstion. Allow mr to ask vfMi onrijiifstion iiioro from Mr. R's book which I hail alniosl forgotten. VVliois '■Jeremy T/iylur ?' that hesi)€!iks ol in p. 2). " AiLswiT. Really your .jucstion ' is calculated to extort a «niile Irom the facdol gravity ;' but I cuiiiot till who he is, unless he is n revereud jrcntlernan, v. iih whem I wai cunver^luifa few tlavs apo, and who when de- fending Mr. Richey's views on baptJHni, wliii h were then in the press, without u bluHli declared that kr would rather believe Dr. Adam Clarke, or any <•! our modern commentators, than the bible I— And on my advocaiinjf the cau.se of that fr/fwef/ BOOK,— he boldly asserted, though in the pre^ienc»! o| two of h,s own churcti-niembers, that the Scripturt s w • have, are not the irnrit of (ion, but ot man ; and that they did not mean wlint they .ta/d.which Mr. R. would p- .ve from the Hebrew aiid Greek! If the t< aching » vcu of An- Kclx or Apostitswtui to he examined before receive«l,nal. I. 8. h(\v carefully inifrht we to examine the doctrines taught by vien like these,— who had ra- ther deny the truth of the written word of inspiration, which comlemnn thtir doctrines, Matt. 16. U, than they would give up their prejudices.' IVow Sir, 1 shall presently show, that this is nothino^ but a tis- sue ofba.se and notorious fal-sehoods. When I first pensed it, in- volivntcrilv I excl^iimed, and nearly in your own language, 'What a I inentable thing it is to see children cf the tisrht, doing the works of darkness .'" Sir, has your implacable hatred to me, quite extinguished your reason .' Otherwise how is it possible that you should so cruelly and maliciously, advance charges of the highest and blackest nature.' If you can produce evidsnce to show, that the sentiments attributed to me ever escaped my lips, I will allow you to call down fire from he.ven, and to fling at me as at Mr. R. the exterminating judgments of the Almighty. This scan- dalous flourish, I undertake to prove, contains not a particle of truth. For your assistance I will now carefully dissect it. "Who ia Jpromv Tavl.-ir"3 T i-oniir ;r i./^.. .»: „... .1. '■■J know, ask Mr. Crawley, for as he introduced him into the contro- 24> ▼ersy. he is undoubteilv fJio «.« . -.th the very i.nporUnf fnfo'rir ^ 'T/aSnT ^ /^ "T'^ ^°« feir, yoa utter a shameful untruth Nnf I * '^" "'*'<' ^« •«" a portion of his ^vriiines whirhT^a i^ ? ^'"''^ y^" Possessed a 1-riend of mine. Den^y 'tS „nd Z T",f ."^ ^™'" ^^^ ^""««. '« «very other attendant drcumstance ' f'' '"'t "'■'"«' ^^^«' ^"^ gentleman whh whom I waTronv;r.ini f ^' " ^ '■^^«^«"d ^^o you know not thedifCnce beuZ ^.^ ^"""^ ^'^'' ^So"-And THOMAS. Then Sir, never Lr.T ''l'^"'''"^^^ JEREMY and •hography. You coulj noZZnff '"^ ^'''^ ''^'''""« *" O"- or t«iM, but in an instant vo^''u T" ?'"'''''' ^'^ ^P'^" «^ ^V Blush Sir. ,f ,o„ can Tt Jour i"!' -"^/"-^ ^P'"' ^'^""^«- dared that he would rathe^r beli'eve^or a' pf 'T"'''^- ""'" ^«- •iiodern commentators than THF mn-r » ^'f^^-'' °' ^»3' "''""r ately,publiclv assert, that 1 u-nnM fu ' ^"'' '^'^ >'"" dcliber- vine wisdom; rather'bej 'e „.an than'r^o^^ '""'""" ^'^"^ ^« 'l- truth utterly forsaken you' IWo„;„^'''^- ,« «i^ ' « Sir ! has with the waters of bittm"ess that it i/ '' '""g been saturated any thing that bears the SresPmL' '"'?«««''''« ^^r you to write statement carries witi .^ 1 reseniblance to truth? Happily your ;h.^t I am not a LTima';,'; , ^afrr". '' '' ^^"^^^^ ^-- lance irom the tehots of Calvinism if. ""^ ""measurable dis- are modern commentaries Socini.^' h r l' ""''"■'«"^- B"^ 'her, »^ent me as believing theseTiuZ\h ^'''r""^ "^' ^"^ vou reprc- prodace the man, who w M LeS t tWs Twill ''''"/ J''^^" ^'" J'gy. and he immediatelv sha I h ?"'"^^' ''"" ^ P^»- wonders of the world ^ ''^ ''"^^'^'^'^ ^^i^'» t^^e hundred «.:r.J;?S;,-r:f^^^^^^^^^ "ave.are not the i< .ve falsehood. But it "er^o, tn ' ^T- ''"'^'^ '''^« '-^""ther pos. requires many to supportT aV.?'''^,' '^' "'^ ''^'^'^ 0"« lie H the foilowiJg asseVtbn - Hp h f;"""*^'^^^' •■>« sliameJessly fa|«e <;id not me.n what th; said '' ThJ itT.^^ ^'"' *'^ ^""Pt-^^ '•'at I believe them to he a mere fori /'"T' T ' ^«"^«n"«nce. "■ngly devised fable. Lest hoZJZ^^^' " ''^ '^" «^ 'i«^' ^ cunl an interpretation black enon.h ' ^i*""" '^^'^'''' ^''""'^ uot put help them very cSderablf 'in '"" ''T •^'^"'^^•^"^ '^'^'^^ carefully ought we ?o exam L .h ^T "'"""« '^'"■'^'^^- " How these." " examine the doctrmes taught by men like Bji/ men like these ' f ik i extolled before assembled muItitn.J ""f .. ^''¥ '"'" >'"" «" '"ghly ''ermon ! Like him nnf« '"r '^'^^ ^t the close of your farewell J-ttle flock : " LiCCVhoTJ'r'''^^^^^^^^ '-al your broken hear" Tn VetnaL" T '^"^ 'T ^"^'^ ^^ "« another land_. >.for you knew LT^Jlf. f.T.-^' P^ ^/^-ai to land, "for you knew LT P^.T"' "^^ ^ '"^'^oval to pie -he bread of life- " ,^^ S^' , ''"^."^""''J break unto the peo- failed you, or you would not ,vr f ^ Sir your memory must have like these. ^ " ''°' "^"'^ a«y thing disrespectful of men yon 8." sed , to md nd nd nd )r- iy 'S. e- iir r- i- is d e r 1 25 "Who had rather deny the tnth of the written word of in9p!'ra- tion-. which ondemns thtir Joctrines, than they would give np their prejadiceit.- fTAt'cA condemns their doctrines! The essence of modesty and hnmility, lies in this profonnd remark ! I might return the compliment, but who would consider me the wiser for such arrant presumption ? Although fully persuaded in my own mind of the correctness of the doctrines 1 have embmced,- yet I have never considered it to be my duty to rave against my fellow christians, or dogmatically to assert, that the Scripture condemns their doetrines. 'Had rather deny the truth of the written word of inspiration!'' Here Sir, is your home-stroke. This is the deadly thrust. It is emphatically !aiiation jour -'"i >^caudalous^Zl!!:n' "'''"'"'"' '"--tl>".g but u base. ■sul-iLct of baniis,,, ' An.l ..r n ! '^" ""'>' '""•^"•"<' '!'»' .iii..l,„ fir., , ■ , ■ '" •>""' ""■" '■'■Ui-Mi.'rrs. Ii,m. „,. ,,„_ or!,';: wiiiiJ IkooS'',:!;:,';.':;';''"- "'■" ^■"•' "■■'"- "■■""«".' n . „../ "'-""''^' '"" fi'»'-.V- a"'l Ins defence: an.l if j. c.Mtamlv i.ll.. 'n.Ju.v,l/ %e ; e.e, '' i7 ^>"''^^;^;>' '"''P'-od writ vou I.avc i„- Dif!i(„|Uo« of U,e Coiilioveisv. \- :;^^'V^'S^;»- '"iam haptiiiu, while 'otl„,,s e'luallv piou^ i i 27 and learned, and in no respect inferior to iieir opponeats, have promptly stood forth in it? defence. They have rnarshalled their forces, und as I be!"ivo, sacredly protected the infant's font. Thut considerable ditRcalties exist on both sidoi^iis not be conceal- ed. This, I should suppose, must be clear to every reflecting mind. The pious and amiable Dr. Doddridge, after epitomizing in his lectures on the subject of baptism, the "u^ ance of the ar- gument on h.th sides of the present controver kes this candid ucknowledgment : "Since there is so great . bscurity on the quesition, and so many considci-able things may be advanced on both sides, it is certainly very roasonable, that christians whose persuasions r«»luting to infant baptism are different, should maintain iiiutuul candour towards each other, and avoid all severe and un- kind censures on account of such difference." — Not farther dis- tant is Kast from West, than is the confident tone you have as- sumed, from the candour and good sense cf the above citation. In reference to i'j bold and positive language, your work is the very antipodes of the excellent Doctor's miiduess. With you, every thing is as plain as if written with a sun-beam. It is all mathe- matical demonstration. No obscurity is for a moment allowed to exist: it is all tlv, etfulgence of noon day splendour. Not once do ycu stop to inquire "Who shall roll us away tlio stone :" with your magic wand, you do but touch it, and the difficulty is instant- ly gone. 'l"o tho sensible and well informed reader, however, all your empty vaunts, and bold assertions, will avail nothing. In his es- tiination, your cause will not appear tho stronger, for the pos- itive ami dogmnticai language you introduce. And yet it is in this, and in f'lis only, that jou excel. Any person capable of appreci- ating tl " merits of the question, cannot read your boek, without perceiving, precisely where your for. lies. Voucite a pa-ssage of scripture, ai.J then you sIioul, "Here it is — how plain — nothing can \j!i plainer — they must be near-sighted who do not uiscover it — he must be cra/y who does not so consider it — yes, he follows men and llio fathers, clings to human traditions, and adds to tho word of God, who does not adopt my interpretation." At this rapid and conclusive rate you run. And if you were uninspired apostle, and gave us deinonstr lions of your apostleship by your miraculous powers, such dictation and ass'.'mption might be per- initted , but from a mortal man, they must be regarded only as va- nity and less than nothing. But surely 3ir,you must be aware that in all such rant and bombut, there is not a •«»•• owu book I shall bring a h'^/e to condemn u. On page thirty, you have a section emitfed "On i?r.t "''^"°"' "^ K'^Pti^'n." Of course these will be confined r.r„, .'^^i"^' °"-^ .^o«" 'n the cloud and the sea spoken of by St. in lu , "" ®'' '" •■«ference to the flood of Noah by St. Peter in orHpr fT'.'^'''^ you direct your reader to the book of Exodus latter von Jf ^rP'^^"d this ''figurative baptmnr in the vatil; T^^7 •'""' ''•'!. '' «««'"« to have prefigured the sal- youte«tifv h^^^ I'^'^T'" ^y »«/''"'"'" moreover, yon testi >, that it alludes to ««the desic-n of baptism". Here then f^dScir- '^""'^ r\P""^^' ''''-'' '^'"^^ Old Te'sSm'en" amn P. tv; "'" '"^^J^'^t ^f bajf sm. Certainly then, with such ex- thZl^! 7 "'' :^* '*'"" "^' •'^ '^"terred fVom an examination of those ancient records, even on pain of your sore displeasure. K« why this outcry against the Old Testament .' Surely to It upon any subject, is not very sinful and grievous. But search we contend^ and we conceive on inst nrmr>'m)-ia - _...-. J. ^ , tUmt •CUristiao Baptism, p. 08. 29 nant witli the dictates of wisdom, upon this subject, to ejatnine it most carefully, and attentively. The Jews had been nccustomed to consecrate their children to God by a religious rite ; no mention is made of the abrogation of that privilege, by Christ or hia Apostles, and therefore, it is proper to consider ch" -clous cove- nant, which (j'od made with Abraham respectingjn' .n order to ascert? n whether it is to be considered perpetual, ...a s, '1 binding upon uj in all its great principles. The $icriptiires silent on Infant Bap- tism. Female Communion. For having introduced into your book, the subject of female communion, I almost feel inclined to tender you my thanks. It has lurnidhed to my hands a pair of balances, wiih which to weigh many of your reasonings, and has, very materially assisted me to estimate the strenj^th of those arguments, you have preferred agn:nst irfant baptism. Tho inielligent reader will remember, that you admitted in your introduction, that there we.e but f wo ordinances^or positive institu- tions in the i\ew Testament, namely; Baptism and the Lord's Sup- per. I do hope Sir, that you will allow that evidence of the same kind and decree is as necessary to establish a right to the Lord's Supper as to Baptism. You will not, I trust, require more explicit proof ill favour of infant baptism, than for female communion. Consistency will, suroly, compel you to concede this. For the Lord's Supper is as m-ich a positive institute as Baj tism, and un- less you could p;oduce a passaje of Holy Writ, which plainly taught, that le^s evidence was sulHcient for one than the other, it would cert.iinly be presumptuous in you, to demand of me stronger evidence on behalf of infant baptism, than for female communion. With this concession, I will examine your great axiom, the ex- plosion of which was to shatter to its foundation the whole scheme of infant baptism, and even to disperse its fragments to the four \.inds of heaven. What is this potent argument with which you v/as to accomplish the demolition of Pedobaptism? It is not origi- nal. It IS precisely the same as that adopted by the whole phalanx of Baptist writers. In your own language the argument is this ; "Not one word is said about infants or little children being brought to be baptized, therefore none were taptized. ChilrVen are not so much as immod. The v/ord of God declares that they were not baptized, he baptized none." To support this scheme, yo : quote a mul- . .ude of passages on the subject of baptism, end as the term infant is not iound in any of those accounts, you conclude that infant baptism is unscripturai. Jn short, it is clear that the TRat h.-intiat argument is this: It is not said in so n any words «Tho"u shalt bap- tize iiifaats"— It IS not related expressly, that infants were bap- C2 30 If l! I' til ti3«mmand or example, have a right to the one institute, the Euchariat, and yet for the same reason pre- cisely, the want of an express command or example, you reject as foolish the right of an infant to the other institute, Baptism. Hence, yo ir argument, that the silence of Scripture is against in- fant Baptism, I fearlessly assert is uprooted and destroyed by the practice of every Baptist in the world. "They admit wo- nien to the table, though they forbid water to little ones ; and yet it i« quite certain, that the Scriptures are ho more express for fe- male communion, than for infant baptism." Will yoii lie so kind as to reconcile this inconsistency to the World? Will you show, why more evidence is required to justity a right to Baptism than to the Eucharist? Will yon "in particular explain why a precept or precedent is necessary to entitle an ni- iaiii u. uaplism, though neither he necessary to entitle a woman ty participate m. the ^uppor?" As soon as you attempt to do tJus, the 31 y < y abtnrdity of your own ai^ament wUi be made aoiindantly manifert. You will thea accomplish what I am now eDdeavouring to do, namely; to show the extreme folly of building an argument npoa the mere silence of Scripture. Yon argue, as do all BaptisU, that infants should be excluded from baptism, because in a positive institute, the right of a person must be distinctly named, expressly mentioned. I oppose it, be- cause your argument proves too much, and is therefore o*" no avail. To demonstrate this, I will put your argument against infant bap- tism, in a logical form as exhibited by others, opposite to the same argument applied to female communion. By this means, the mo-t unlettered person will detect the fallacy of your boasted axiom. MR. JACKSON'S ARGUMEXT AGAINST INFANT BAPTISM. Whoever has a right to a positive or- tlinance, must be expreta/i/ mintioned. as having tliat rii;ht ; but infants are not so inentiniit'd. ^v:•h respect to bap- tism ; therefore infants are no' to be baptized. THE SAME ARGUMENT APPLI- ED TO FEMALE COMMUNION. Whoever ha? a righi to n positive ordinance, iniii't be exprtssty men- tionnd, as having that right ; but fe- males are not so mentioned v itii re- spect to the Lord-B Supper: therefore they are not to partalie of the Loni'd Supper. Thus Sir, your specious argument melts away. Your grand en- gine, with wiiich you w.is to have demoli lied the rights of iiitle ones to baptism, is plainly shown, to be only a gingerbread tov, a mere bagatelle, a thing of nought. Do not forget Sir, that yon have not, arid that you cannot, advance one scripture proof which expressly prohibits the baptism of infants. Do not forget also, that the great argument you adduce, is as plain and express agamst the just righ:s of females, as of little children. Thns your reasoning on the silence of scripture, and inferriig that because m no account of baptism, is the name infant mentioned, it is therefore antiscriptural, when examined, proves to have no better foundation, thin the baseless fabric of a viiion.* The darling argument, and the most plausible one of the Bap- t!:;ts, is that, I have now unravelled and exposed. Like you they collect a number of scripture quotations, like you-they rejoice io testify that in all these passages, the word infant is not to be found, and like you, they exult in the idea, that by this means, they have proved to a dr nonstration, that an infant is not a fii subject for baptism. Unfortunately, however, they also prove to a demon- stration, that females should not be admitted to the Lords Supper. The .same weapon that destroys the just rights of infants, also destroys the jwa< rights of females— its edge is uo keener agaiiist little one.s than women— if it has no force in the one case, neither * " The objection tJT our brethren founded upon the want of ibe word in- fant among the precepts and precedents, ;8 a mere uuibble :— you may raise Hist as much dust nvainst the hsritUrrs nf p. nrrir.r. -n s;;-.- .-;h~ -:a.=^ ...-• si^ except he be about thirty, since no other 'age is ever connected"with' tiit' ordiimuce ; and you v^•ill ba just as much puzzled to find the words, youth. s4m, roung man, or old man, as the word infent." ISA.*U, 32 has It any in the other. If it be a good arenment that infants have no claiin to Baptism, because in no scriptural account of the ordinance are they expressly menUoned, thei , as an unavoidable consequence, it foUows, that since females are never once men- tioned With respect to t'le Eucharist, neither can they have anv claim to It. ^ VVith you Sir, I am aware, this strain of reasoning will avail nothing. But a.i I am not writing for your benefit merely, I shall present the reader with a few other ideas on this subject, =o that he may be well fortified, against this insidious notion of the Baptist scheme, t.iat because infants are not mentioned, mfants were not baptized. > The folly of arguing from the silence of sciipture against bap- tism, will be apparent, if we CDnsider, th.t h:id the scriptun narrative*, neglected to give a siagle instance of the baptism of a Jemale, We should not therefore, have concluded that no females were baptized. And yet aecarding to this plausible ar pli:ir:.:ee, lawyor, or libertine ; neither zealous, moderate, or iuv,!\vann, oppose a smgle sentence, or ask a reac '..y Dut since tlKs must liave been a change so remarkable ; and they among whom it is supposed to have happened, not the most mo- d»sl ;. h^w came they to be so silent, so shy ? \V^hat made them so passive, so peaceable, so complying ? Nothing.— They were nei.icr complying, passive, nor peaceable, nor slow to speak.nor slow to wrath, when any old forms were invaded ; but they wen- very much so about the change in question : And the true rea- son ot It IS, It never took place." ^'^- riow come to your argument in favour cf female rammu- luo I beg pardon Jiir, for terming it your argument? I should have said the argument of Mr. Pengilly. You have not pretend- ed ttiat t'lere is any express command, or clear orecedent for fe- males partaking of theEucharist, but instead of scripture proof you adopt the exposition of another man. You INFER (the very thing you disapprove of in regard to inf.ats) that, as in the christian religion r, reterence to iis privileges, "there is neither male nor female, but all are one in Christ Jesus," they are entitled to the ^I'J^^PPf.- . ^^^ ^«"S!"X P- 38.->rr. Jackson p. 85. j.ii:= t-ofta.iiiy -is e.vpiiOil euougii ior iemaies being m Christ, .lut not a word, nor hint respecting the holy supper ;— their rigkt to tlin« i* inferred from thpir intprest in the Pavionr." PrecUclj 111 thifl way, do I prove that little ones are entitled to Baptism. Ity your special permiMsioQ Sir, I will demonstrate with the same iirguiiient, thatyoa onght not to forbid infants to be baptized. In your work you admit, that infants are of "the kingdom of heaven" -and you teach us, that it is "the blood of Jesus alone that cleanses Jieiii from sin." Plainly then, infants are in Thri-st, and inter- oited in the covenant of grace. Here then are the two arguments. iMR. JACKSON'S ARCTMEN'T FOR IlvU.Vl i: L(>.MMlMO> Who> vcr liHs nil iiiti-ri'st in Chiist. Is emillfd to tlif I.nrcfw Supper: liiil I'loiH IrnialPr* liiive aii iiiierest in »'lirist — tlii'ii'lori- jiioiis iciiial'.'d (iilitlril to llii; hi'SkU rttip;it"-. THE S^^TE AR(1' MENT APi'LlED TO INFaMs". \V!ini'Vfi- ln« an iiutrciit in Clirisl is cniitlcd Id Mitpti!( lu'ejlieiivcii— tlifn'lorc iuiants an entitled Ho Da'ttisii'. Sir, I believe that tlie.se irguments nre good, and that they r-itabli-h the rights of both infants and females : the one, how- ••\('r, for feniale coininunion, the Baptists e.xtol, tbe other, re- .•jpecting the -poor int'ants, they treat with scorn and ontumely. 'J'his has ever been cause for marvel with the Pedobnptists ; again aiul ;ii>niri we have solicited a reason for this inconsistent con-luct 111 our flii'oring brethren, but all to no purpose: we have asked for breiul, and they have given us a stone, \nthii.r argument, they ran find tho perfectior f wisdom; in the same argument applied To infant*, they can dist>. .er notliins; but folly and idiotv. A Hap- ti-t iiiiiy prove by inftrence that females should p^irt.ike of the t^uppor. but a Pedobaptist must not attempt by inlere: e, to es- tiiblish infant baptism. In other words, the Haplists are *; privi- b'jTfd class of people. They can conduct a controversy, juc: sh tliey please, nrfd without the least regard to justice and consisten- cy. If we do not see as they do, it follows according to your lo- "ic, that we are either blind or crazy — and according to the logic of Mr. Crawlf y,expre.ssed in no doubtful te'ms,we are either want- ing ill common sense, or we are insincere — that is, we are fools iuid hypocrites. As to the argument founded on the fact that infants ire not ex- prosslv mi .itioned in the New Testament, wo assert again, that "tli(! Haptists themselves do not countenance it; for though they have written whole books on the strength of it, they are compelled to desert it, and do desert it the moment the subject is varied. For when tliey atlirm, that there is 'no express law — no explicit war- rant fo' infant baptism — infant baptism is no-where mentioned in t!cripture;' let any one put it to them to prove the right of women to the supper, and I will answer for it he will hear no more of ex- press law on that head. He will find that all this hollow sound wi.l die away, and each will shift for himself the best way he can, and fly for aid to analogy and inference." ■ ^ %a «*^iw«« frei^uentlj urged, so it contains precisely one half of the Baptist, 96 •Ther. i. r^e,plicft exampt'-therTf, ZWir'T" ? "^ ""'' *c. for female comraanioa.''* " P'""'" ''^ "?"«=« '«^. Vhe Christian Sabbath. mwt in reference to the chri«t1an^«rH " auihor.tat.ve tppoint- youhave certainly a m6,t'lr^v^^ '■ ^''"''"*'- ^"** tion. You put you'r pen n iSTT^C """^ "[ '«"''"8 '»''' «!««- 'Jemonstration. "T*-e firtit daTnJT ^* '"'"" '°°'* «' y"""" Day and tUero can ,>o no room Jo Hn". T.t"^ " '=''"«*^ ''^« ^ord'. i^n.LL .•l.,Decau.e the disci oTe," f^"^^""^' ''«'«« the Christian i^ave knowu tha. ,t wa«to be whol y Hoted to God'^'r " "T"''^ dity go iievond tbin ' \^.,i„ h"' "«^otea to God. ( an abgur- Apostles and disuses soZVeT^TLZuZ "«"'"' i^^' '^'^ we sbodd have ba'd an aband^c " VvTdt cj thaU.? " ^^^ ' -l>^-nA,^.,::'^t:^^^^^ were to be ,ive^ had no better proof for infaXbantlm th f„ V''''u« ~^"'^ ' for li,e Ch. istL, Sabbai I shoS ' ^ T" u""" *""'« ••"^^"'=«'l "-y pen in iis defence '"^ utterly ashamed to take up for the purpose. {rdTvtrXvvr/nJltT^^^^ HLl trh^edtTtlleVwTt '-' ^^ ^^^^i^ smul'arTthorwh'Jfdr'fi' its observance? They are very From thLevemh dav /r r'*"^''" "^ """•^ «" infant b.ptis„K K-h;^^Ba^7'^7»P''«»-P-P-17,'8. 37 Sabbath of the Lord thy God." And tboagh I find no exprc$$ de- c/aro(ion .that the ApottJM tmi/Vm/y kept tbe first day of the wfek aaaSabbatii, yet from certain thingi in the AcU and Epiatlen, I IN- VER that they did employ it aa a day l f " holy reating." So with regard to infant baptism — from the time of Abraham, infanu had been admitted to chnrch membership by a religiooa rite — no men- tion ia made that Christ or his Apostle* annd^led this privilege — t^ere was no necessity that God should again give explicit direc- tions that iofanU still should be introduced into the cbn-ch, and fladiag that the Apostles did baptize hou$eholda and famiiiea , I feel satisfied that infant baptism resU on a firm and scriptural basis. The Baptista, to be conaistent. should give up the Christian Sab- bath aa a aay of holy rest, seeing they are compelled in '• proving the obligation of the !«abbath. to adopt principles of reasoninjj, if not identically the same, cerUinly very clos'^fy analagons to those which ihey are accustomed to controvert as inadoiissible, when applied to tha support of infant baptism." — But we must not con- damn too hastily. There are some consistent baptists in the world. There are those who still keep the seventh day, and are designated Seventh-day Baptie'i The celebrated Baptist Minis- ter, Kev. A. Fuller, in his JoumE.! of a •• Tour through ScctJand," speaks of a class of eon$iitent Baptists ; who were determined not to perform any thing for which tiiey had not express pre»;ept or example : — " 1 found," says he, " there were many of the old connexion who paid no regard to family prayer, family goverr-ient, or to tiyesanetifieationofthe Lord't i>av, judging that when worship waa over, it was lawful to talk or deal of worlu' ■ matters as on another day. Indeed I met with one of them who was of that opinion, and who demanded proof from the J\ew Testament, of the obli^... 1 of christians to refrain from labour on the first day."^ Here was consistency: they could not find a command in the Ne\> Testament to use family prayer, or to sanctify the first day of the week, and henca they did not consider that they were under obligations n attend to those things. Circumcision and Baptism. From your remarits on the rite of circumcision, it would seem, that al/oady you have been initiated into the mysteries of thebap- tiat creed. To the covenant jf God with Abraham yon refer, after having famished us with your exposition of its import ; it would hav« bjen much fairer, though I must admit far less politic, had yon given us, unencumbered with your meagre and unsatisfactory comment, the precise wow's of that covenant in the language of iMpved writ Acconling to yon, the rite of circumcision is a sign 01 Citmal deMteui only, and ratinna! d!<>t!Ri*.t!n>; *■ Na* = s»>.rr} *i»ottt spiriloal bleving^ ; nr it is all carnal, worldly, and politioalT *Cbrist. BaptisB, p. 34. a8 1 1 Tor one, I cannot but consider this view, as an impeachment of the Wisdom of God. The ever-blessed God is pleased to enter in- to covenant with Abraham and his seed ; to this covenant he con- necta a rite, as it is declared, " my covenant shall be in your flesh ;''— but the covenant is not spiritual but carnal, and the rite not religious, but merely political. In other words, that Jews ir ^ht contjnue Jews, or that they might be known as Jews, the rili of nrcnmciaion is institc* ' •' -nexion with the Abrahamic coven- ant. Sach a notion -gard, as derogatory to the character and perfections of tht y. Now, although temporal blet mgs are referred to in the coven- ant, yet liiese are not the only, nor 'he principal blessings promis- ed. ♦' I will be a Ged unto thee, and unto thy seed after thee." Surely there :; some little spirituality here. Now Sir, in reference to this high and inestimable blessing, I read that circumcision was to ';e a. token: — "A token of the covenant betwixt ME AND YOU." If then it was a token of this gracious covenant, I should be gl^d to know, how it can be a mark of carnal de- scent onl) ? Hut it would be mnch better, if you and the Bap- lists, instead of agitating this question with so much ardour, would calmly allow St. Paul to decide the case : — " What profit is there of circumcision ?" Is it only temporal profit? The an- swer IS,— "Much every way! Chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of Cod. For what if some did not believe.' Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without efrf/advantage, earthly things are lost sight of; it is not in the land of Canaan, but in the oracles of Godfthat the circumcised are to find their principal profit, an J these are of infi- nitely more value than all the land in the universe. These oracles, were intrusted to them that they might become believers ; and if some did not believe, what then? Others d\o much oi bold assertion, that it has tendsd very considerably to establish my conln- 4«ace in Pedobaptist sentimentij. 40 should be baptized, Bat I am not aware, that there is anv dis- pate on th« subject. I do not know of any sect, that So^ that an adult should be baptized who has not faith in the mE An unbapuzed adult on profession of faith, is uniformly baS ni^nfr" "• ''n'u'° '^.'^' "" constantly baptizing the sami cIsM of persons; I hope, therefore, yon do not i- and to monl filonl '''*"'' P"'*","^^°'y''"*--*^^«'^°'y' y^^ cannot dr«m o t .r«„^r! ?K "l-^T/****' '*» *^«'°' °' ""^^ »h« ' belong mZ to the Baptists than the Pedobaptists. * twl7°'u^^T ^•'1° *^^ ^"'y °''P™*>*'' *»^* «<'«''» were bap- «a^fl nlS?"''* ""V'"' i^ ^''J^' ^''«* «'*°'^«*'^ ^«i^« this ordV W«^;« «i P*?"^ ^J*"* *«%«•"«: adults only should be baptized. «oLZn »^"h^i°" P"^"* ^'"'•*'°"- There must surely be some deep and hidden mystery in all this. It awakehs suspicioa in my mind. I begin to 4ar that there is some subterfuge. «ome doep-laid plot, some sleight of hand in the affair. On paKfTur dispWe I must ask again, "For what use this arrfy of proof that adults were baptized?" " To prove that infLt Sap- ™«L"nr''''°". J^^ '*'»""■">? ^''^^ ^-"y compensates rne for all the pains I have taken to extort it from you. Wonder fhlLr ™ "Pr***^ '"'*'■ y**° • ^'"»« «^«"* w«« baptized, and therefore no infant, were. This is certainly a very deitr^us wiW T2-h.v?^.-^i""*rf J"™PA8 »o conc'««>«ns with a witness. Foti have baptized adults, and therefore you have never »,'/flf*l?^r'."^""''- ^" P^'JobapUst Missionaries are in the S^L sunt habit of baptizing adults, from whence it irresistibly follows, that they never administer the ordinance to children. B,nV"» K ^ '^" Pa[t7 shift, by this wretched evasion, that the Baptist scheme IS upheld. "The Ulusion" says Dr. Wardlaw v,rtZl\7u\ °^ '^^ «a"ie kind, with one which abounds in the writings of Unitarians, who have an inveterate habit of adducing passages to prove that Christ is not God, which only prove thai ho IS man, -as if toprotjc hishumanity (the point in which we ZZT^ l^'""' ""^"**''='' ^« "' quitelsdesifous to ostabfuh a^ differ from them.and which is not m the least degree affected by the Tu\ liJ"" '^^' humanity OAntipedobaptists seem to be chLe- able with the same description of fallacy, when they think to (Us> pro^e infant baptism by proving adult baptism. Instead of es- tabhshing their own view of the subject on which we differ from i's:':\::i^Xtr'^^^^^ '''""' '''' '"'^""^"^^ ^ ^^'^^ «« 'mEYNOT^^^^TU ^^'^ f ^"S^CTS OF BAPTISM, OR ARE it ir»ilY;if- 1 Tm^ """& '^T':'"' ^^'""i *« ' have now stated t, it will clearly follow that all those places which relate to be- lievers baptism, can prove nothing on the <.ide of Bantists: and th» .ca,uu«, lueynave no rc/a^jon to the . question. To illustrate IS- es ,b. sd ir 19 9- m re )- i- I. e n e r f 1 \ 41 this, I ask a Baptist, la an infant a E^ subject of baptism ? Nd, says be Wherefore? Eecaose the Scriptures say, Repent and be baptised. If thou believest, thou mayest. — I interpose, and say. Your answer is not in point. I asked, Is an infant a fit sub- ject of baptism ? Yon answer by telling me that a penitent adult i^^such. But as I asked no question concerning an adult, the an- ^er is nothmg at all to the purpose. I^t us shift the question, ^d suppose you to ask me ; «' Is an infant a fit subject.for sal- »ition ?" I answer as you do on infant baptism, No. You ask. Wherefore? I reply, decause the Scriptures say, E cept ye epent ye shall all likewise perish ;" and " He that believeth shall le saved, but he that Delia veth not shall be damned." Would /ou suppose that these answers related to the question proposed ? If, therefore, I ask whether an infant is a proper subject of bap- tism, and another should bring twenty places to prove the propri- ety of baptizing adults ; as all this would be nothing to the ques- tion, so nothing would be proved thereby, either for or against."** Believer's rapt ism. Infhnt Baptism. Expecting, however, the shower of darts that will be hurled at me from the frowning battlements of every baptist citadel in the land, for having thus dragged their darling hypothesis to the light, I must further remark, that we are told that infants ought not to bo baptized becaus-^ the scriptures require faith and repentance universally, as requisites :o baptism. Mr. Crawley looks at the Saviour's commission, and learns that none but believers .»ught to be baptized— he then looks minutely at every instance of bap- tism, and the poor infants not being expressly mentioned, he aska with the confidence of a laurelled hero, Was ever proof more complete than this? In reply, I aqswer YES, most certainly. The proof for infant baptism, I believe, is much more complete than this boasted proof against it. If I thought otherwise, I would put my pen down, or else resume it to overthrow the principles I have alwh^ 3 felt it my duty, conscientiously to maintain. A more fallacior argument surely was never adopted, than this, which IS the maii. upport of the baptist theory; namely, that be cause faith is required of adults, in order to baptism, and infants being destitute of faith, they should not therefore be baptized. " The most expeditious way of destioyirg this argument, would be this. They say the Scriptures require faifh and repentance in order to baptism. I ask. Of whom ? The answer must be Of adulu ? for the Script es never require them of infante, in order to any thing. Then frame the argument thus :— The Scriptures require faith and repentance of adults, in order to baptism. — No , infants are gone, thny have nothinfftodo with the anrnment: must b( they >ught in, the argument will rua thus :^Th0 *EUward'* Aiitip-jdobaptism. p. 6. x/2 •rmci/»u, a mere begging of the question in debate. To any person of ordinary discernment, the fallacy of this reasoning, i think, must appear exceedingly glaring; for if the baptism of Christ by bis apostles before the great commission was given, was only John's baptism, then what was afterwards practiced by them, was not, by a parity of reasoningjChristian Baptism. Mr. C. assumes, (he does not prove) that John's baptism is Christian baptism — he then advances a step and proves that the disciples of our Lord during the dispensation of John practised christian baptism — he then c'vances yet another step, and proves that after the commis- sion of their Lord, they likewise practised christian baptism. Now *' is not this much the same as saying that he believes" John's baptism is Christian baptism, " because he does believe it, which is certaialy not a very potent argument ?" When Mr. C. proves by irrefragable arguments, the identity of the baptism of John with our Lord's, Itis reasoning will be firm as adamant, but until then, compared with it " a gj IJer'a web, is rope, is cable." It is cer- tain if you grant his premises, the sameness of the two ordinances, his conclusion inevitably follows, bat this, it must not be forgotten, is the precise point at issue. x'ciuttps luia lutty hci^ iO eApiaiu vn'^y Vuv WOi'u Cdii Wad iiCiOpi- ' . I -, I 48 •d in the oomtnenoement of the puagnph ; for omaklv Mr C mut know Umt it wm very miterialtoSie boiLS* ^fS^Ut . Si KSlw'ffl"' \'i«ht».go««ner,«d'^lrur„TtS; ^n reuoo* an demanded for thie opinioo thev wiuS^ S^r^ ??.T"^ k'*"- ^^""8 »*'»• •'Po-ed thj chief «wilt ol »lr.C. hii floarieh aato oar rirht tn ■«« «!,.» ti.- k .•^*^?^ Ii-'m^/J? decide tlie queenon. Coming flom ibe pen er.\Z»n V •'^gerea me. Xbatitiaver^ materiaL nav that ^t »^i ;», K*r a„T°*T'^' ""'' -PP*- ™conT^ve. WS^^^ Zl^ K 5 •* ^'^''t''^^"^'"*' «f »*>e most ceebrated writer among the Baptuite. the Rev. Robert Hall. Oppoeing Se idw^K of ^e two .net, ate., he ob«5rve.. " the ca«e*^7S5 dilSS at theological controverey, it woald be difficurto wi ^n^^JT^r ' prmeiple of sober criticiam."t " led. «rkv thAu .i:->.:_i i . h-^J^*' r'°° ■"«°*^' why theee diaciplee may have been SS'^'ad'^^S pJ -ff*^,*^ ««»tity of 17 Sa^l^ rtatottenngcanee," we never before witaee.^SMr r SZ^^ni^i?;.''^''^' objects, than theee Ephe-ti. dS i^yo7tnr.^Xri^'ir»Tnt;rr^"'\^^ "grievou. amount of igJo^cT^^aa ^?tC^Si' rft; *Hairi Work*, VoL l= n. ooo^*,, --^ 49 disctplet cf John fenerally, we shall iaave his query to be decided by the baptiit chnrche«in the province. In few wordssIy bap- tized by John or not, " what stroller proof c»n hel^ired that the mstitntes in question were totally distinct. Were we satisfied with an argumentum ad hominem, with the sort of proof suffici- ent to silence onr opponents, here the matter might safely rest."* That the baptism of John, and cnristian baptism, are two dif- ferent in^itutes, the following reasons I think will amply demon- strate : *• " The commission to baptize all nations, which was executed by the apostles after our Saviour's resurrection, originated io kia cxpTzss csntiiiana ; Joru'i's unplism •'. is eviueni, bad no such ori- *H«ir» W. 1 vol, p, :02. i fiO S'r;.l/°lEi?*?iiX'^/'" **'"* '•»• ^^r* he knew him ; it m e«rUiji,theo,Uialfc«dtd not receive hii coajink.ioii from hinu Johj» amformly MC ib- hi. comn.i„ion. not to TSkt.Tut t£ Fwhor. wo that to a««rt hi. bapti«n to be a ehrutiM^.titouTZ •io».to,aterp™t.batto coDtraJict him. " Aod I knew Wm ^ot" 2. The baptum of John wa. the bajSiamof repa *aneT at rjform^on. a. a preparation for the approaching iSomoTcod ^jMjrtnte of Chriat included an explicit profeWof faUMn a ^^dlZ^A " Ih' k""* °^ ^* '''"8'»'>'»- " -hot. the pro- feiMOO demanded in the baptism of John. wa. nothing more than 'p^rceTtrt '''!""' •J'«-'«'ticleoftheJe«SrfS th^ appearance of the Meuiah. accompanied, indeed, with this addi tional circumstance that it was nigh at ^and. The fihh renoh-ed t^Jniit^^ '~'!^' comprehending the preternatural conception S: t?;r::sr7trLtd7er ^ ^« -'^^'-' ^'^ '-^'' «" performed m his^name. That it wa^ not dn, --g the first st^e of ... m.mstry:s certain, becaur we learn from hi.%wn d^laSftion that when he first executed lu. commission, he did not CwTm'. bat wa. preTiously apprized of a miraculous sign, which shouTd serve to identify him when he appeared. If weluppos^him at^ subsequent period, to have incorporated the name of Jems w?th L 1 imrtitute an alteration so striking*, would nnquestionaWy ha^e been J^^klt- J;;tM K°«'"f • Be-ides.tohave'baptized iJftheV " ofChut, would have been incompatible with " tho cx/rem« rr- serve maintained by our Lord, with respect to hU cEo the character of Messiah. When P-^ter. in the nLe o^ t^™rl of the Apostl™. uttered that glorious confession. «'tV u Vrthe sec«c;^mat°h'''' """f .^°'!i.°°'^°"» immediatei; enjobs secrecy. What he enjoined his disciple, not to publish; he cer toinly did not publisii himself, nor for the same reason^fler it to be indMcnmbately proclaimed by his forerunner. For what iol sible purpose could he forbid his disciple, to publi.h ^aTjohE^i-" SSll^'rAVdZwr,? '' "'^^^ a.CadmbiSJerS'lh: SX-rrrS^hT^'t -^-ughly convince/of th^ ^^^^ ^Ar^ baptiam instituted by our Lord is inScrioture Jistin SSf^/™" '^' of »h«fo'erunierby the superio^lffects'^i whtchitwaaaceomDaniflH: .» ♦>.»♦ ;»-..-. :fr u _••*'- * ?"5 itrasted m the sacred historians. " I indeed." raid ^tH "^ «>°t«»"t«d "• -" »««:rea nisiorians. " 1 indeed " raid John, "baptiw you with with water unto repentance but t£ e »•! HMM nriiM UtV, 51 f LT^'^'t ^^ '^^ ^ ^*^ Tertament will not Iuts r«Ied to raouric. that the rit« performed by John, !• rwely. iferer. uitrodqced without the additioa of tome expUnetory phnwe. or epithet, intended epMrewUy, to dietingniih it from every prw^d- ing or rabeeqaent religijoa obeervnnce. Thni it ia eometimee de- nominated the baptieir. of John, on other occaiiona, baptiwn in ♦T*"ILi 7* '»*P*««» of repentance, bat ia never ezproMcd in tne abMlate form m which the mention J chriatian baptiem »nva- TOMr occara. Though innomerabld perw>na were baptized by rani, we read of no ench expremra aa the baptism of Paul; on the contrary, he expreeMt a sort of pions horror at the very idea of «nch a snppoaitioo," The reader who is desirons of fully nndcntanding the "fnnda- menui dispanty between the baptism of John an(' the Christian institote may see these variom positions elaborately ained bv the Rev. R. Hall in his "Terms of Commnnion," and other tracts on the subject. But I now return Sir, to yoo. Until yon have pro»wi that John's baptism n Christian baptiift. we shall only smile at your folly in attempting to pro9e, that infanU were not bai;. tized by John. Why Sir, you havaprv/ved, what almost every Pedo- baptist admitted. Yon triumph without an opponent— you shout victory when no battle has been fought. Nor can we do other- wise than marvel, when we are gravely told by Mr. C. that •• if John did not baptize infanta, it follows, that the church [of Chr—] began '? be formed without infant baptism." Yea, it fol- low, moat certainly if the baptismal rite of John waa christian baplum— but if they were "essentially different," then it fo!- lowa as certainly, that thia flourish of worda "reserablee, anj we are sorry to say it, the declamation of a partizan, for more than the sober and quiet conviction of reason." If the C" .toUan diapen- satir . did not commence (and we ahall not believe it did untU the above positioas are refuted) until after the resurrection of Chriat» tben all thia show of argument, " uiuat crumble under the prea- sure or a thorough examination. ' ' Christ Blessing: loflmts* To the New Testament, we shall now make the appeal, in trder to show that from thence, concluaive evidence may be nthered. that under the christian dispenaation, infanta are to be ^wed in the same light as under the Abrahamic covenant But alas! alas ' the New Testameut is taken from me and given to my Baptist brother. Ic this impregnable fortress he ia sheltered, whiiat 1 ia the wilderness, without sun or moon, and scarcely so mach as the g.immering of a distant star, am exposed to f he prowling wild beait of the forest, and to all the pitiless blasu of the ragmg ' But let Mr. Crawlev issue hi« own bulletin "f 'h- ^i^ theological campaign. 'Driven from every post onth* Ute New Testaaftat on which they thought ^ ostahl'ish i ' r 52 I ( ^ the advocates of infant bi.^ 'sm at length take refuge amidst the ceremonies of a dark r dispensation, as the forlorn hope of an ex- piring cause. "* Pitiable objects indeed are the poor Pedobaptists. The tear of sympathy may well fall, ai the bare recital of their overthrow. They are vanquished foes — they have been driven from off the field — at every post they have been assailed and conquered — so great indee'l has been their discomfiture, that their only forlorn hcpc is in the sombre gloom of the evening , or in the darker shades of the night. But who I ask, have Mr. Crawley and his abeaors driven from the field ? Does be mean that he has driven before him such men as Professors Stuart, Robinson, Woods, &c. &c. &c. — such men as Doctors Wardlaw, Chalmers, Burder, Burns, &c. Sccficc. and a cohort of other theo- logical giants, to mention only a tithe of whose names, would be to t^nsgresz the bounds of time and space. Whut, are men like these swept off New Testament ground, by such 'loftiness of pre- tension and arrog^ce of language.' Never ! Never ! but in ti.is citadel they find themselves so well secured, that they only smile at showers of d^ttts so pointless as thece. 3Ir. C. has seen fit in his work, very gently to hint that *'ths ornat/ient of modesty''' is not wreathed around the brow of Mr. Elder ; but whether his own bulletin is graced with that admirable quality, I leave to the decision of candid and riioderate Baptists geneicUy. That it is misrepresentation, for one, I feel perfectly satisfied. The Pedo- baptists were never driven from the Ne»" Testament to consi- der the character of the everlasting covenant of God with Abra- ham — altogether of their own accord an<^ as free agents, as the FOUNDATION of iiiftmt church-membership, they am to that venerable and inspired document. But we shall dash through this phalanx of baptist foes, and again lake possession of New Testament ground. We will with enrap- tured feelings, gaze at our adorable Redeemer, blessing infants, and asserting that "of such is the Kingdom of Heaven." We will mark his kindly carriage towards them, whilst he receives them with the melting eye of benignity, and with uplifted hands, pro- nounces upon them his heavenly benediction and blessing. Care- fully considering these interesting circumstances, we sha!! not be- lieve that Christ receives them with open urms, and at the same time excludes them from his kingdom of grace, until the Baptists point ont the chapter and verse of Holy Writ, where this exclusion IS recorded. Tliat oA* Saviour in infancy was admitted oy circumcision to membersMji in the church of Israel is certain ; at d that thin rite obtained among the Jews ujiiversally, whether believers or nnbe- lievera hi the Messiah, nntfl the resurrection of our Lord,l consider eqaaUy certain. Our Lord conformed to the ritual cf Moses — at- tended the Jewish synagogues — kept their feasts and observances •Reply to Elder, p. 56. J 1 53 —and concerning those who sat in Moaes' seat, gave inatniction» to the mnltitade as follows ; "All therefore whatsoever :hey bid you observe, that observe and do:" which advice, had the Leviti-» cal economy terminated, would have been misleading and errone- ons. I assume it, therefore, as matter oflact, that these infants which were brought ta Christ, had been already introduced into the Jewish churcL I asume it also as fact, that the christian dis- pensation properly speaking, had not yet commenced— I submit it, therefore, to the candid and unprejudiced, whether these considera- tions may not help to explain the reason, why the disciples rebu- ked the mdividnals who brought these children : they knew that these infants were blessed according to the terms of the Abrahamic covenant, that they were members of the church of God, and for this reason may ihey not have thought it perfectly unnecessary to brmg them to the Redeemer to receive any outward mark of his favour ? Now Sir, believing that these little ones were members of the kraelitish church, it does not astonish me in the least that the dis- ciples had those peculiar feelings here attributed to them— I do not marvel at all that they were not baptized on the occasion— nor does it surprize me that Christ, either then or before, should not have given a special commission respecting infants. To assert that jnfaats were not baptized under the dispensation of John, Mr. Crawley begs as to remember is a large concession, and he en- treats us to hold it. We thank Mr. C. for his kind attention to the Ptedobaptists, m exhorting them to continue firm and rnmoveable , and in return, we beg leave to assure him, that at present, there is no imminent danger of our being tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine. Not more attentively, we firmlv believe, have any baptists " in this atmmunity," examined the baptismal contro- versy, than have some Pedobaptists, who also " cannot be chareed as bemg quite incapable of research, or of duly balancin •'.'sfsw.-.t •.= th^ isU^A^^ ^r- heaven" meana, not that ^he 'kingdom of God "is composed*©/ such, children literally, but that it is made up of adults, who. in dlspo- sjMon, are us humble and teachable as little children. SuppW-. E2 - 5i thU were granted, yet I hope Mr. C. will allow, that Christ blessed thew mfantfl-I a«k thea. wa« bk blewiog nothing, or after b^r- ingbleMed them were these chUdren to be regardli as belonging to the kingdom of God. or to the kingdom of the Devil ? I leafe U to men of good common sense" to decide this question— and if their decision is, that they belonged to the kingdom of God, I ask then whether our Redeemer in thus blessingmfants, did not aive an intimation to his apostles, that under the christian dispensation infants were still to be received btp the church. " i~^ ". iJ^Ll' ^■°'' »u'" ^'^ i° ^"•'^ ♦^ *''' 48. you will there find oar l^rd uttering theseemphatic words : "And Je«us took a chUd and set lum by him. and he sa.d unto him. Whosoever shall receive this r^l S"*y^?J""'' ^^ECEIVETH ME." " Whosoever shaVw! phrase ! I have pondered it in my own mind, and w?sh to submit person in the name of Christ, without considering that pereon as But as Chrut knows best what his own wo'ds iAiply, he Shall d^- termme the question : Mark ix: 41. "Whosoever shall give yoa a cup of water to drink in my name, because yo belong to Christ " wi°t*''i? ^°^ !f ^^ °*'"^' ^ *° 6'^« t° »»>«"' because they be- long to him And then when Christ speaks of receiving liuJe to h?m."" °^'"'' '*' "' *° '°°''^" ^^''^ ^ ^^i'^'y beSnging In reference to those gracious and consolatory words of our Re- deemer recorded m Mark x: 13-16. I shall giVe what I conceive "ThZ^-,r"SP"'^P'^r«' ^ '^' ^"'•'^^ of Professor WooTt These little chddren. whom you would hinder from being bromrht to me for my blessing, are objects of my kindest regard. T&v and such as they, stand in a near relation to my church. The Worn which I am setting up, is not to exclude or overlook them, but to embrace and cherUh them. Peculiar favor was Hhown to children under the former dispensation; think nof 7Ct less IS to be shown them under my reign. Look not upon hem therefore, with feelings of indifference. Itrive not to IpCe them of my blessing; but sufFer them to come unto me; for to'^iuchS dren the privileges of my kingdom belong." From this pkin and obvious meanmg of the passaje. we shall not depart, wthoutve^ strong and conclusive reasons. Dr. Gale, a distbigi/iah^BaptfsT tZ±^ M^Aifr' *^"* '^V^'^'' "ofsuchr reffrs tolnS'n yearst Mr M' Lean, another Baptist writer of celebrity, on thS -object ; declares that r Lord spake -expressly of little chWren" I7JS .„L?.T« "!•* ^? P"«»g« " «'««r'y «how8 that there are Jl^^n '^^^^T^ ?^<^^. P- 305) x\ow " a single Baptist witness of lean ng and candour, in proof of the meaning which we contend for. will of course weigh against a host of nam?s ^ jppoT^ 44.— iiufmii DapiisiD, p. 67. I 55 tion, for what should indace mrh . «^.« . ^^^^baltbe\oyeoftnT"Mm^nH2^ wnte against hi, own (ofauch) generally sigmeM^^^S^ZV'"^^^ ''*'"* ''^"^ instance be found wh^reU exch,*! S ^ "'^*^' '''" «"» »»• tioned." Dr. Adam Clarke t„nSlt2th^T''" "" '^^^ '»«°- le tio^'l'L'rco^j^eii'ttiuoTv'^'-*^^ '' '^ ^^■^'^^^ '"^erpreta- and obvious meanlL it l7 S'^r^'^r'^^^^^^ «'• P'«^ Mr. C. it does not mean "C l ^tT'"i ^^''^^ According to mUity and docility." TL3 context «*n '"'^ fu""' •"=' «"«^ '" '- soe ver .hall not receive the SdL ^'cTJ^" '°"*''"y • ^ho- shall not enter therein." If aTfttchnH?*^ " * ""'" *=^"*'' he dom. make an adult a, a / «?Jm7w ^*^u°°V'*"'^« the king- it. If the qualities wJich fit iVSt % ^'° '^^ ""'""'* '«««^« rowed from a little chWrf thl^ . ^?5 entrance are to be bor- ti^e adult; and M^Vrfit n^L^tr'S ''* S «^-"^«^th e«W rf. not enter at alvT'l '^l^„ Za^'Y"^ ^T* *^ '*« Lord " w the kingdom of heaven-" nnJ J "of such," says our these infants, for if they themJelvp, '°''* "."'^ " "^«'« liJ'e s^me deference on this snbiBrt I!, x .\ therefore, he wUl pay the reason of tha? o^S^ »Tvent Sttl^'T^ ''"* "-^^ dom of heaven. CAt7rfr«n mL^?hJl I "^ '•"*''' "* ^^e king- word, such; because tKoSonth« t-'V**''"*/."^ »« 'A*^ longs to humble adults -Ito^hnT' J^e kingdom of heaven be- children, would be no /e Jo„ X Ihiidr^'' V '*$"* ^'^^ «* vented from; coming to Jesus"* ^*»''''"en should not be pre- by Mr^ CrhiS^rf^STn" ?emaTo^^^"«<^ "'«'-^^" consideration :-«« The fim evMiv« . ? • ^ JPl'^Se now under is. that the phrase "of sucT" mZ, .f '"k rf '*** ^P^^'^ ''"««'» bebg of a child-like dis^shio"^^^^^^ *''"*«• «^«dults m««nmff from the woTof oSr Urd "? ""^'t 'f'i ''«'°y «'' was it to offer, for permitting rhil!£.» '^°'* "^^at kind of reason his blessing, that Sf not rlfn »•>«<>'"« to Christ to receive like dispoSion. w^ere tSeCb ects o?"hi'''i-^^*' '''"'.''^ * "^ild- ahsurdUy of this is its own Xli^i/ilLe^rrson^rchiidTS: jteiic^ tS'^^^^*^'' Wwks, vol. ,0. p. ,95. 56 being permit^ to come most be foaad in thenueltts aid not ia To these Tala«ble extract! I shall rabjoin yet another AtNa the maateripr pan of Dr. Wardlaw : — After showing that the ez- preaaion 'kingdom of heavenl signifies the gospel dispensation, in- cJoding both its state in this world, and its state in the world to cfrme, he proceeds to observe; — *'Of this kingdom yoang childr«n (brephoi, infants) are here most ezplicitij declared to be subjects, — partakers of its privileges and blessings. -If (as some all^e) the phrase *'of g-ueh" means of persona poaaesaing the aitpoai- tiont of chUdren, it means this, beyond all question, ineluaively of the children themaelvea. If not, the reason for receiving them would be as applicable to lamba, or doves, as to children : — be- sides, that the words which follow ascertain their bebg inclndeu, — "Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, (i. e. surely as a little child receive f it) he shall in no case enter therein.**! With this mass of argument before us to overthrow the view o f Mr. C, his own words to Mr. Elder may not unjustly be employed as a retort: — "Sarely the courage with which some men will argue in the face of evidence and candour, is amazing, but far from envi- able. "-And why, I ask, all this pious cntcry against "uneonacioua babes^*? The Prince of life and glory did not deem them unwor- thy of his notice — and if Mr. Crawley please, he did not consider it beneath his dignity, even to " nurse" these little ones ; for HE TOOK THEM UP IN HIS ARMS. As we do not know pre- cisel;', the theory of Mr. C. in reference to the final salvatbn of in- fants, we are unable to refute the notion which he appears very desirous of establishing, namely; that heaven is noi principally composed of little children. We firmly believe it is, for at the lowbjt computation, at least a third part of the human race, die under seven year's of age, and of the glorification of all these Sildren, we have not the shadow of a doubt. You must excuse me Sir, if I close this very interesting part of the subject, in the language of pious Richard Baxter: — "Doth Christ take infants in his arms, and would he have them all put out of his visible church? Would he have us receive them in his name, and yet not receive them into his church, nor as his disciples ? How can infants be received in Christ's name, if they belong not visibly to him and his church.' Nay, doth Christ account it a re- ceiving of himself, and shall I then refuse to receive them, or ac- knowledge them, the subjects of his visible kingdom.' For my part seeing Christ hath given so fall a discovery of his will in this point, I will boldly adventure to follow his rule, and had rather answer him, upon his own eacoaragemeut, for ADMITTING A HUN- DRED INFANTS into his church, than answer, KEEPING OUT- ^-VKTC ,, i. w. Miia, 1 Qui J auUf AlUOU auu AiVieii, *XlU50l. Insti. vol, 3. 418.— tl>i«. on " ■ p. It2. 57 The Promise to Children. Althoagh not "indued with a new species of sight" yet with our present optical powers, in the sermon of Peter on the day of I'entecost, we can discover a favorable aspect towards the chureb- membersbip of httle ones, under the gospel dispensaUon. To those who were pricked in their hearts, he exclaims, "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, l-or the promise w unto you and to your c luiren, and to all tnat are afar off, even to as many as the Lor our God shall call " In perfect accordance with the views of Mr. C. and all other p?u'^^r!^"^J?.' y°" *^" ^ *^** '** promise refers only to the gift ot the Holy Ghost, and not to the great promUe of God to Abra- nara. tor the following reasons.howevor.I must be allowed to differ irorayou:— 1. The prophecy of Joel in reference to the extraordin- ary effusion of the Spirit,had been quoted by Peter to reprove the scorers who regarded the apostles as men filled with "new wine'* —but this promisewas introduced to heal the broken hearts of these true penit€nt>.—2. It would not have been a source of consolation to these moumfal, Jistressed souls, who were groan- ing for spiritual deliverance, to have informed them that they also should speak with ton-ues and work miracles : they could not dis- cover the inward change wrought in the disciples by the eternal Spirit, and indeed you as well as Mr. C. seem to admit, that these individuals were filled with amazement only at the miracu- lous gift of tongues. Now St Paul has declared that though an individual could remove mountains, yet without love, which i^ ot the essence of religion, he would be a blank, a cypher, a mere nothing —3 When Prophets and Apostles desire to encourage .he Jews, they do not refer to the promise of Joel, but to the promise ot God with Abraham. Your familiar acquaintance with the scriptures will supply yon with an abundance of passages to sup- port this position.— 4. Scripture is the best interpreter of Scripturr^ and I hope you will allow that St. Peter will best explain the im- port of his own words. Turn, then, if you please Sir, to a paral- lei passage in Acts 3. 25, r ]. and you will find this same afostle addressing the same class of persons, the Jews, speaking alpn of the same days as foretold by all the prophets from Samuel, who had spoken, exhorting them likewise to ths same duties, re- pentance and faith in Christ, and promising the same blessing, remission of 8ins,—you will find him referring not to the prophecy ot Joel, but in plam and express terms to that which the Jews coMidered as emphatically THE PROMISE, the promise of God to Abraham. Plainly, the apostle selected this promise in pre- ler« i« acted wisely, for he well knew that of all promise., this jBld be most highly regarded by his conntrymon, the Jews. I 58 For these reacons I cowider, that as ia the opening of the Ahra- hamic dupenmtion. the oromue was "I will be a God unto thee, and unto thy seed after thee," so now in the opening of the Gospel dispenMtion, Peter reminds bis brethren that "the promise was stUl unto them and to their chUdren." And how Jevo,, who. because God had promised to be a God unto Abraham, and • f . u •• ° ''^° accustomed for hundreds of years to receive infants by circumcision into the church, could understand St. Peter in any other way.than, that this promise also included their infant children I know not; if St. I'eter did not really intend this, his phraseolojy was certainly calculated to mislead. f« fh"' r^'rTV'VV} '*"' '** *^« P""""« ^^^ reference only to the gift of the Holy Ghost. Allowing this, the poor infants arJ soon buned out of sight, for you have the assurance, nay ?he pre! ^mption. to declare that "infant* are not capable of receiving the Holy Ghost." O Sir. O Sir, does your zeal against infant bap^tisr^ carry you to such extremes ? Did you never read in the Scrin- ture, that "John was FILLED WITH THE HOLY GHOST HnT w™» K r'*"'"'' """"* • " '^"•^ y«t with this passage of Ho y Writ before me, am I to be told by a "fiilliblc" mortal that infants cannot receive the Spirit of God ? And then look at your consistency; infants can be admitted to heaven, you assure ns-but can they unless first sanctified by the eternal Spirit ' lour zeal certainly overleapt the bounds of consistency and scripl ture in thu instance. But you further ask Mr. Richey to inform you whether " word" in EnsHsh, means breast in greek" hurely this witty stroke, of infants gladly receiving the breast was borrowed from that sparkling witticism of Mr. C 's. where he flourishes about the Apostle's being "charged with the additional business of nnraing infants;" but whether orno, they are worthy ot beincr Jinked together in indissoluble union. Sir, I believe Sol- omon teaches me to answer a fool according to his tbilv ' but I spare you. Let such ribaldry perish with the contracted cause it IS intended to uphold!* ^ausi. u But supposing the promise does refer to the Holy Ghost. I ask does the language of Peter agree with the language of a baptist! When the Baptist preachers, enlarging on repentance and baptism. lion oi the Gentiles m view, and that he wished to assure them that thp promiw was no longer to b. limited to JuJea, but extended abroad 'through! out the earth-, but how a " carefbl attention" to this discourse could have Ted JJy tha thi H^ol rVZ' h"; *'* '.° • "*",• """'•|y. incomprehensible I wm not say tnat the Hol> Ghost did not, m tl»is " g ad climax of hone" emhrarp »ii nations, but that Peter intended to assure the GenU^esriharthe wven^nt of redeeming grace and mercy embraced them equally with ihe Jews I cannot without exphc t proof believe. On the contrary, I have aTwayTconsider^d Srn\i^e?;'nSaMrwi%%*^n''^T •'^^^ in r« fh« r»^,nL ^^ *''**=•"' revelation that he was taught no longer I:?™"..'!"! ?.'".Vi*« Somraon or unclean. I humbly conceive he meant Vo "^ , , •;"" - "'^~kCi DuoUiii uo urc-Huiieii 10 all tbe dl<d nf lamol Ti oste'f !'h;.'" •""?"' nations,' though I likewirbelKThtm" Htl* Xa Ghost had, doubtless, a far more enlarge ' view. 50 wmmonly speak also of the ektldren ofpenit^M I ».., k .• that Peter had no reference to the bavrj^^^ I f *^ '^'•*** fore. "The BaDtitts " «.v^ "ff "ap'^m of infanta, bat not be- weak reas^er intt A^rd^. toTh '"k"'** "'*''« P«^' * ence. the promise is to yo«?S^rXe b e'^ baptireS" th ''' ""''- IS also to your little one* th««.r« J i f .V ''*P"^«". *«« promise •'Butttis textlflhairb^'fnlH ^V *'*™ "°» *»• baptized." children;1hey a e no the^efo;e7nV^^^'"«^!^''*'"* **•« ^'^P*''™ "f .uther odd. Uhi^lcX' :«; Ireff-r to^'a^ltL'^ .J** '* '°''''' you to enter into the church by baptLV in orH^T L^'"™"'"'* enjoy a prime privilege of the church The ^iiilrl ^'••'•''" "^^ promise the same blel^ing to yourlhti;onL* Jv« mPl'"'*?^ ' out of the church, and reLe tC thl oS^^e " "'"' ^''P^'^'" Children or Believers. I now come to that memorable declaration of St PanI rpp««i "^d m 1 Cor. vii: 14 nfwhinh p,«,#v> «-jj . *^*'"» record- were ,«., cbiW,™ „„cl/a„; b„ „„T.;thei^ ho], """ThJ "" argument, the greater Ihe perversi y We shallnlf % *'"«''' *^ Se^s^zftis^K?^^^ we W^been long taught to regardVtlgstf fw^^eVSr gilf/ fnd as nfke tn^h''"' '^^ reasoning you borrowed from Pen- fffi'now f r o'£ tZ "IIS 'T'^' ''n ^'"^^'^ -"^ ' the above passale des^Sed tol^mofl ^ "" ^'[- 9 '^^ "P^^^^' '" some, who were SnSonnLr-'^^ * '^'•"'P'^ ^'^^ ^^e minds of of their ™arH:;:roi;rdt s^^^^^^ r ^si\t.t and allowab e thine in finH'a <=;„»,» r " Jf*^"^®' '"^t it was a holy Mr r rnr.,J """g "» ^od s sight for them to remain toeether " •Isaac on Baptisn), p. 135. 60 y«ars, at length hfM some serious donbts atf to the legality ofth^ir aaioo : can any person suppose that this reasoning would satisfy them : "Your marriage is iavrfp!, and it is proper for you to remain together, else were your children bastards, but now are they legi- timat )." No : Prove to these persons first, the lawfulness of their marriage, and tha legitimacy of their children will follow as a con- sequence ; while merely, to tell them that their children were not illegitimate, would not satisfy them that their union wps lawful. It is true.Mr. C.,I presume, anticipating these objections, tells us that ♦'it had never entered into their minds that their children were ille- gitimate: but as he has not proved this, we shall not consider it as of the least weight in the controversy. We must and will have proof: otherwise every assertion unconnected with proof, we shall regard only as vain and idle. To others however, I submit it, whether or not it was possible to doubt the lawfulness of their marriage, without doubting, also, the legitimacy of their children. To my mind, I must confess, it appears impossible. But there is another objection to Mr. C.'s views of this passage. FA-ery argument, we have a right, to trace up to its logical conse* quences — let this be done in the present case, and see to what ab- surdity it leads us. The children are legitimate, according to this scheme, in consequence of the influence which the believing per- son has upon the unbelieving party : otherwise, says the Apos- tle, if it were not as I have stated, that the unbelieving husbaoJ is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife by the husband; your children would be unclean, but now are they holy. With- out this sanctification then, the children would be unclean. But suppose that husband and wife are both unbelievers, are their children therefore illegitimate? Is their marriage unlawful be- ctiuse they are not christians? Is the badge of bastardy to be placed upon children, br ^ase their parents have not faith in Christ? Who will acknowledge this, and yet this scheme which refers us to the legitimacy of the children, most evidently leads to this absurd conclusion. This argument is forcibly stated ^'y Professor Woods : "If both parents &te unbelievers, — if they are both pagans; most surely their children cannot be considered a holy seed, in the sense of the Old Testament or the New. They are hakatharta, unclean, pagan. But are they illegitimate ? If not, — if those who are joined in marriage, though both of them are unbelievers and pa- gans, may by the acknowledgment of all, have legitimate chil- itren; theu clearly, the faith of one of the parents, and the sancti- fication of thp other by means of that faith, cannot be necessary in order to the legitimacy of the children. But it is necessary, in order to their being holy in the sense 'of the Apostle; for he says expressly, that were it not for such a sanctification of one parent *^. ^. . .... ... _•_ I • ^ . .1 by iiie uliier, iiie ciuiureu wOuiu Do UuCicuH, wiJiCn is liiccppu- site of being fco/y. Thus it becomes manifest, that hagia, and hakatharta, cannot be rendered legitimate and illegitimate t 7' 61 tvitUwrt inyoWDg u in inextrieabie difficulty u to the Apo«tle*s But tX the view of almott all C^pimentaton and Divine, but Hie Baptwu, and there u no uconsisteDcy. They ondentand the Apostle a« saying, that the unbelieving party ia so sanctified by tbo believing husband or wife, that in «>n»equen«», their children are t^aratedfrom heathenism^ consecrated to God, brought into the society of Christians, and enHtled to the priviUmes of ehrtsttau dispensation. • « This ec-.sideration, as it includes other, and has ao much in addition, roust be a more powerful rea- son to enferce the observance of the direction" given, that the be- lieving husband or wife was not to put away the unbelieving "By holy, here, the baptists contend, is meant legitimate. rhey do not pretend, however, that in any other place in Scrip- tare the word has this meaning, or that the apostle might not have used another word much more suitable, had he really intended to convey such a sense. On the other hand. Mr. Baxter has shewn, that in near six hundred places in the Bible, where the same word occurs. It clearly signifies a separation to God. This argunrent. I should think, must be decisive with all who do not interpret Scripture by a creed, but are content to take their creed opt of the Scripture, "t It will be rtmembered, that the view we have taken of this pas- sage is not of modern inviention, intended merely to support a sys- tem, but was adopted by eminent men, many hundred years before the Baptists took their rise: and philologists and commentators of Jater years, almost withom exception, reject the idea that St t»aul had reference to the legitimacy of children. The text under con- sideration 18 thus rendered by Schleusner: "Otherwise yonr chil- dren aUo would be removed from the society of Christians." Wahl agrees with Schleusner: »« If it were otherwise, it would follow that your children also, were not to be considered as be- 16ngingtothe Christian community." yghtfoot is of the same opmion. He says, "That the words hakatharta and haRia refer not to legitimacy or illegitimacy, but to the Gentile or Christian 8tate;that the children of GentUes or pagans, were by the Jews considered as hakatharta unclean, and the children of the Jews hagia holy, and that in the passage bnder consideration, the Apost e refers to this well known sense of the word." Whitby remarks, that " the Apostle does not say, else were your children bastards, but now are they legitimate; but else were they un- clean, i. e. heathe.i children, not to be owned as a holy seed and therefore not to be admitted into covenant with God " To refute the other rendering, he remarks; " The word used for bns- Ll'"-l?//ul::?J?**J! ^!'°«_"''?\^^ 8-_and the word gn-:sios. i,£:::g t;:c prC|/er «roi:d for u Jegiiimate onspring; had thfe Apostle intended such a sense, be would have used the words. •Wood's Bap. p. 84. tisaac on Bap. p. 162. 62 ' ! whkh in t^ie Greek writeii are generally need ia that senM, and not racb word* as in tbe Septaagint, and in the Jewiab writera ahoayB have a relation tofmerol holineta or the want of it"* To all thia, however, Mr. C. objecta, by reminding «■, that thtf two worda, hagiastai ia, orhaa been aanctffied or made holy, aad h'zgia, holy, are aabatantially tbe same in ligniBeation ; aad from (hia he argues, that if the child is holy* in die aame senae the nn- believjng peraon moat alao be Inly- " To this it may be replivd, that it is nothing ancottmon Ibr the sanie word to have a variety of significations, not only in different sentences, but in the same sentence. InManeea of thia might eaaily be pointed o«t in tbe Script :reti, and in other writings. Bat i^er all, it will be seen that, according to this interpretation, the two words, have really the aame general senae, i. e. the sense of bei iepartUed, tet apart, or made fit for a particular use, and tuat the difliBrence, ao far as there is any, arisea from the obvbns difference of the subjects." "The unbelieving person, by his connexion with the believing wife is in some sort, separated from the heathen. Their intercourse cf mes tmder a sanctifying influence by means of her piety :'\ The candid and revered Dr. Doddridge says : "On tbe maturest and most impartial consideration of this text, I must judge it to refer to infant baptism. Nothing can be more apparent, than that the \ford, holy, signifies persons who might be admitted to partake of the distinguishing rites of God's people !" All Pedobap- tista believe, that the children of christians, even those children who had only one believing parent, were in the Apostle's time, and in the Corinthian church actually devoted to God in baptism, and so brought into a peculiar relation to tbe christian church. Now, on this supposition, what could have been more natural, than for the Apostle to express this fact relative to the children, by saying they were hagia, holy, that is, set apart, consecrated to God, just as the children of God's people were formerly called holy on the same account, "t Apostolic Practice* Baptism of Families. We advance now to consider the apostolic practice of baptizing households. With respect to these family baptisms, Mr. C. is pleased to represent us as seizing them with avidity, because we think they afford a '^mpse of evidence in support of our favorite system. Perhaps wo are theologico-literary beasts of prey ; nor is it surprizing aner being sw^pt away from New Testament ground, that we should seize at any thing from that quarter, even thongh *flee Wood's Infknt Baptiam for these and other autborities. tWood'8 Bap. p.p. 89, 90, 91. ♦Words Bap. p.p. 92. 93. 63 afibrding M but a glimpM of evidence. Bot let tbet dm* : I am well oi(h wearied of these brd and oefeeling aaeertiena. That kouBti, whole hou$e$ were baptizedby the ApocUea.u an UHqu€$ttonabU fact. That the term oiko$ boofe.roeuu a mn'm Wjf hae beea amply demonetrated bv the learned, nor doee Mr. C. diepute thu meaning of the term, that the baptum of fa- mthos wa. not a thing of rare oeeurrenet bat a wtatter ofcouru, that tt waa not the exception hot t^H genet^al rule, muM, I think, appear to the ariprejodiced reader, etceedingiy pUia. from the an- Umited and unquahlied manner in which they are mentioned. Of Lydia, we are told that, the Lord opened her heart to lieten to the Wftroctwnaof Paul and that $he was baptized and her A«m*MoW Acu XVI : U, 15. Also of the Jailef we are informed, that straight- way. he andallhta, were baptized. Acts xvi: 83. And St. Paul say. <•! baptised the hotuehold of Stephanas. 1. Cor. i : 16— Now I Mlt, are not these oecorrenees related jost as simUar Facta would be recorded by a modem PedobaptUt missionary wnting to the churches at home, that he baptized socli a heathea nndhis tamily : if go, w^ conceive we are jostJy entitled to re- gard these instances of the baptism of whole houses, not as in- sulated and peculiar facts, but as iUnga of course, intended to point out the common mode of proceeding among the first mes- sengers of the Gospel. There must, therefore, have been a multi- tude of cases of the baptism of families in the days of the Apostles, lo strengthen these remarks, let it be remembered, that our opponents regard the Apostles as Baptists : now I ask. Jo these narratives k-ok Uke the accounts of Baptist preachers ? Should we expect such language as this from a missionary of their per- suasion m the present day; I baptized such a mail and all hU I baptized a man and his houaehold 1 Take the case of a mis^ swnary now labouriog in distant lands-suppose we were per- fectly ignorant as to the sect or party in Christendom to which he. belonged, bot a leUer from him is pat into our hands, in which, without any comment, he proceeds to alate, that at such a place, he baptized a woman and her family— at a second place that h4 baptaed a man and all his-and that at another place, he bap- L**1 ^ b«»n«hold ^f sufih a converted heathen. After reading thu letter, shoold we think this peraon was a Baptist misskinary? I leave It to «'ii»n of good eommoasenae" to determine this ^uea- tum aiu( also its application. " Indeed so plain is this, and" the very idea of baptizuig a houaehold, does so naturaUy faU in with the views ofPedbbaptiats.thatl am inolined I think, it p,^ with the common people, instead of a hundred arguments." 1 hese considerations will receive additional force by the follow- ing extracts : "Is this a cireomstance «»«r to be met with in hJjrtones, written by those mioiste»*"* ^ •Now It surely M an extraoidiaarvthiM. tla* ia 5sft •«— ^tis --J^t periodical accoanU of baptist misaibnari^ ia heathen countciea, wo: *Wood'« Infant Baptism, p. 7g. G4 ij »*\ to.upply the«bSTand?ei .mportant matter that relate to it ?"* A. to your talkinrof th^ imle. from Thyaf.ra your own voyage, with a large family from Alexandria to th« place, a much greate. distance. I .hould h™^ t'l^; rCectitr '''"^ ^^- ^« ^'°"'^^- -'^ °^««--"« You plainly admit that Lydia had come from Thyatira. and if I understand you r right that she had come from theLco to Phil.pp' on business. 1 shall therefore take it for granted, that she cS not havu been past the n^eridian of life.for had she been aged! i? s harJly poss.bk that she wodid have taken so long a voy.ge.^or ha4 been engaged m "active business." I have felt it to be a great mU- h"«?hnnih \r" ''"'" "'' '"'^u"' whatc/a« of persons composed herhousehold-you intimate that she was not married, thaf she had nc ch:,uren, who was it then , who made up her household ' fad you been learned in all the wisdom of the Baptists, you would aveknowD that her household consisted of "journeymaiidyers.em- ployed m preparing the purple she .old." But according to your scheme, she had not a family, and you tcH us nothing of the ab- surd tale of the journeyman dyers, as ifLydia would have brought her purple goods from Thyatira undyed : who then I ask comp^Sd her nouseaold ? Can you answer this question from Scripturr' 7. if"^ I' u °"™^'^« «ays she had an oikos, a family or house- JioW-and that a per.on-s house, means his children, his offspring 1 Tim. ill. 4. I hope then yon will allow, that she had a f-milv r/nd^i! ;J ' T' ^^ V ''^^^ **««" ''' Thyatira "superin- nnrfe /rl^'^^jy' '^•'''^ '^« at Philippi was selHng the parple ; and for the above reason, I hope you wiU cease to mar- Philippi."" ™^''"°'* ** "^^ °^ ^y*^'**'' *'"'**'^' ^ '^'^^"^ «t But your puzzles are only preliminary to the great arjtument Not a word IS said of Lydia's household believing for La^tt of_th«kiudto quibble about, as in the other instances of household t"^*'rir^:V„ J V" f^'t ""' P'?""® "* ^^^ '^*««' ^^'at adults were in th« femily of Lydia. because it was declared, Lydia was baptized; * Reply to Elder, p. .is. F 2 66 il: ;.! ■ V IS? *nd lier family who believed; nakedly yoa foand it roUted, that site w&$ baptized and her household. "Bat for all this they must bave been adults." Hon) aol Because the Apostles or. the eve of their departure from Philippi, entered the house of Lydia and com- forted the brethren. Now you flourish trumpets! The victory is achieved! For "are infants called brethren? And could not a Mother comfort an infant better than Paul and Silas.'" Tl.is purely original witticism, is certainly calculated to excite onr risi- li^lity, and even "to extort a smile from the face of gravity." l>ut Sir, while the innocent smile is fast disappearing from oui countenance, your stupendous argument shall be given in due form. Merc it is . " They saw these brethren in the house of Lydia— therefore they were Lydia's family — therefore they were l.ydia''? funnly only!!!" Sir do you see your wonderfully pov^er- fut argument, and do you not begin to quake for the cause it is in- tended to strengthen- If this is a fair specimen of the ^ig^ntic tolutniis, which support the exclusive adult scheme, most certain- ly without the might of a Samson, the whole may soon be laid in litter ruins. But Sir, it is time for me to turn the tables, and to ask you a few queries. Where did you read that there were no individuals in Lydia's house besides her family ? Who givac you to under- tstand that no persons ever enter a man's house except his own riiildien or his domestics .' How do you arrive at the vonderful knowledge that none of the Philippian converts were in Lydia's bouse when the Apostles entered it ? Was it impossible or even rmprobcblc ir;at they should be engaged in prayer for their suffer- ing preachers at Lydia's house, as the disciples were in reference to Peter in the house of John Mark ? Or as tl.e Apostles were pboiit to depart from Philippi do you consider it too marvellous to I'e real, that the disciples should have been convened together, to l)id their beloved Ministers farewell ? All these queries I think, are fairly deducible, from you ■ argument, tliat all Lydia's family must have been adults, because in her house the Apcdtles com.or- ted the brethren: that is, no other persons could have been there, besides her family, and conseqiiently as they are called hrethren, no infents could have been of the household of Lydia. Really this partakes so largely of the burlesque, that it is unv.'orthy of so grave a controversy. And yet this is the stuff that is flung in our face as "a remarkable coincidence, and as intimat'ng the will of Ged, that these particulars were related to convict tis of our error.''^ Only admit (and a wonderful admission sr.ely,) that some other persons miglit have been present, and thii) argument, reiterated as it has been times without number, melts away into- Jiquid air — "it appeareth for a little while and then vanisheth away." And yet with these mighty weapons it is that we poor whoever flies before such reeds and straws, deserves te be drivcftc Ijack to a ^^darker dispensation,'' 67 the Jailor and his. and Lydia and hS^ Jam rand to SoM ?K?' not.on.you will argue from^he silence oS^^^^^ noreTs "*''»STtrl'r "^ ""' '"f"^''"^'^' there co'ld'SL uoneeise. Ants is the extravagance otrifline " And vpt tr> support the argument you must adopt -this imjfoluble aSd heirt less supposition." You must suppose, that th^u^h Padand S^." X i. 6. as uot a syllable is said of any conversions, you wi 1 inft'! bly prove none were converted, for (hey are not men"cTed anu r aidt t S ""'"': ^"^ '{ ^"^"^'° ^^^'^ xviu 23 wh.re it M said that Paul "went over the countries of Galatia and Phrviria in order strengthening all the disciples.'^ But. thatXre wf e other converts at Philippi. i thmk. is demonstrated by the epTt e howeverbelieve. that there «ere ^^Ziof^J^iies cln'v^erf for If you allow any other converts to have be/n pr'sentTLvdia': house your argument will vail nothing. In the lanTuar. of Dr Wardlavy to whose ercellei.t work I gladly ref6r the reader fo^ n pnf th^;-^ • ^'u'" ^™"' '^y'°g "^^^ I think, of the argu- ment that roqu-res such a supposition to support it. '' ^ The Jailor Baptized and all his. With regard to the Jailor's family, Acts, xvi 29, 34. you think ".t would puzzle an intelligent reader, yea. Mr. R. h mse f to pri ve r a^rT'i^''^' h';" ""^ '"'"'iV'^ house." B^inS! aSnowirH,rvl " ''^-*1"«* P'-'^^' Jhe fact, yet unlettered as you hoLTJ^^r^ T^'^'** be. you can quickly J,-,«rot;e it. Your boasted proof m the cast of Lydia, we have seen flee before the uron//r'''''"; '"^ i^ '^' ^PP''^«»'°» o^'the same Wipt. your rt^STKn^lr^- ''^'''^' '^^'-"^ '^^^ ren, and most roi^rTeuI^TA^l^J^'r,^^^^^^^^^^^^ I mtmiCent i EVERY Epistl^io Ih^'vhiU^^i '"" '"7"i'' '=*''f^'""y t" peruse the whole of St Paur. 1» 68 As in tb^ latter case, so also in thia Instaace, you are quite sure, there were no in'aats in the family. Your proof, Sir. Here it is. " They spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in hii hovue." Bat what "proof is there here ? "Why infants in- not understand the word, and as the Apostles spake the word unto all in the house, it follows that the house did not contain any lit- tle children." If the controversy is to be clogged, and make lu- dicrous in the eyes of all intelligent and unprejudiced persons, by such logic as this, I shall be heartily glad when I have done with it. If I must engage in the d'scussion, let me have fair and legi- timate argument to meot, and not such miserable trash as this. But thfij is a fair sample of baptist reasoning, employed to depopu- late these households of little ones. I must indeed "be indued with a new species of sight" before I shall be enabled to discover any force in such reasoning. With the kind of vision I now possess, such logic appears admirably adapted only to discredit the cause it is intended to maintain. If I visit on some afternoon twenty different houses in the cha- racter of a Pastor, and meeting my friend, I say to him, J have visited pastoraliy, twenty different households, and I spake the word of the Lord, unto all in the various families, would it ever enter the cranium of my friend, to suppose from what I had said, niat the whole of these twenty families were all destitute of little children. Will a baptist answer in the affirmative ? If not, then, where is his argument upoc which he expatiates so largely r I; lias . vanished —it has sunk to rise no more I I ask, further, is not this the general language of mankind, the common way of speaking ? When we speak of families performing any actions of which ail know infants are incapable of doing, do we ever think of making a formal exception of them .' Certainly not. When we say, "Mr. Such-a-one's family are remarkably affable and intelligent," do we add, in order that no misconception may arise, "the little chil- dren of course I do not refer to, for we cannot expect affability and intelligence in them." Why Sir, if you and I always qualified oar expressions in this way, we should be branded as dunces and idiots by the whole community. Here then is your baptist argu- ment opposed to the common sense, to the general language, to the universal usage of all mankind. Perhaps you will testify in the deferential style of Mr, C. that this is rjasoning m the very teeth of Scripture." I retort, and tell you, that you argue iu tke very teeth of reason — in the very teeth of common ■'hnsb— in the very teeth of tlie general language of the world — and consa- quently in the very teeth of scripture. W^ith your permission, Sir, I will suppose you preaching to a lirge Assembly. In the midst of youv- audience is a blind man, who not having his mind abstracted by any thing around him, pays the mo3t profound attention to all you advance: You charge home upon your hearers the truths of God— you testify that they have all sinned in word, thought, and deed. You exhort them alt to 69 believe in Chrigt, and turn to God without delay. Yob fl,rl«im -I 8hew unto you all the way of «alvation-to a// in thU J r" speak the worda of the Lord how thnt »», '" house.I him he will in no w^Ie cfStt. " Al 1 time'thl \Tf^ ""^*^ the Lord— hence he la quite positive, infalliblv ceriTin frZ .1. 5=.s.-:si7r.:.tt:r/dK 5? fits youf own head '^ ' ^ ' ""' '""'*" °°^ ^''''=»' «'^«"y (if it must have a name to whichT ^0%//^. \ k' ctrgum^nt, and there will be no room left for he ,0*. T'l ^' ^''^^^'"''1 on to observe, that all belieled, lid au7ehi'M But^LTJ"" o^iplea of the sc-uuest criticism, I bejfeve T mVv i^ TS T"" the m^ma/. that the faith and oy ^Ife V he^le^o'n7y!!'th;?" CeTcomf fnfy'Sla^^^^^^^^^^ '- -aLe«s. , fnl^rtrlLrvS^^^^^ writing.""" i"-===-v v«"^!;a, Dotii m conversation and i* "Dr. *ywdlaw.'« Bap. p. 131. 11 I't ' \ 70 But, Sir, why do you not carry this principle of criticism, to-in- tcrpret every other part of holy writ ? You read of Joshua saying Aj far me and my hoa%e,tt>e will serve the Lord — but aa infants cannot ser^-e the Lord, why do yon not infer that hit* family did not contain any little children. The following remark of Dr. Ward- law, (page 130,) I hope yoa will read with prayer and candour: "Vet the inference, would be as legitimate in this case, as in either of the others : and it may not be amiss for our ^^aptist brethren, to make it the sabject of a little self examination, by what principle it is that they are led to such a conclosion in the one case, when they never think of it in the other ? what is the precise difTerence in the state of their minds, when they read the 15th verse of th "eluded imS^^J' n ?^J '^ "*''''"**•* themwlvai to the minisl^ of wtiTJ!;. ■* *•*" ^iT?* "P'^**» °« ™0'« 'h.n that tbero 31„.ht^'^'r' " »*»!/««^'y«f8tephana.,h«wife,and9o«9, toliv te ''^ weredrntingHiBded for their charity a»d ho^pil nfrl JS *"*?•»? re"" -'bered, that the iaptiMn ofzhe eldlat of the children took place .everal yeaw before. The house of Ste- phMM " waB the first fmita of Achaia." in which St. Paul began to preach uot later than A. D. 61.* whilst this epistle couid notbe wrmen earlier at least, tbar A. D. 57, and mighf be later. L of ejht years taken from the age of the sons and daughters of Ste- phanas, might bring theeWert to the state of early yonth.and as to cAlTTu ^tfu^^' r "J'^ '^'''^'"^ "" '^' '^'"^ of infancy properly called^ St,n further all that the Apostle affirms of the benevo^nce wifh a n'L'L iVh"^''!".?""'^ "^ Stephanas, is perfectly consistent ,r«.nJf^ A^" *'•"'*''*" **^'"g*''"^«'-y y°""« ^-hen he wrote the epistle. An cqcal commendation for hospitality and charity might be given in the present day, with perfect propriety, to m?iy pious families, several members of which are still in a state of in- Enf K^^^" ""^'''^u^ to warrant the use of such expressions as , ?p™ L^f ^^r"'' '^"1 '^''^ "«■•« •" '^''^ Corinthian families. home^^ ^ ''° * gave a decided character to the whole «r^"^•l''^'^® arguments used to prove,that in these three instances ot tam.ly baptism there were no young children,are evidently very unsatisfactory : and they lead us to the conclusion, which p4rhaM all would come to in reading the sacred historv, were they quito free from the bias of a theory, that ••houses" «; ••families" 2s in the commonly received import of the term, must be understood to comprisech.ldren of all ages, unless some explicit note of the con- tmry appears, which is not the case in any off e instances in ques- in iJl!%^*''^*',^^P*''*'' J** •* ^^ remembered, take the word house ZZu^T"! Tf' ^°'^ »"«"'« '^A'Vrfr^n ; and when we baptize thp",n ?i ^^'^ ^*^"''' "'^ ^"^''^ ^'^ ^hi'd'en also, in imitation of the apostles: our opponents reject this natural acceptation, and of Z?^'°K*'^''''^^.'^''"''' P^**^^'*^ in their proceedings, by thnMvl ^Pf'"'''*"''''"^"'^'*'^^^'' ^»«>"gh we are mfofmed. Wi,2f Jh " J"-,"^ ^^'^ baptized ttith herself, that the Apostles 'Macknipht. fixes the period of thp Ann..i«'<. loh^..... — /■ v ._ ... .. a=u ™u„, «,ij,a„a Maciuiiglm d»«f 0.7 flm episile" to the CoriithiMs'iij tWatson's Insti.S vol. p. 42»J. :«ap. byG. Jackson, p. 5i. H I "14 1 ii ill! I'he Apostolic Commission ^ A» the comroimion of our blessed Lord to hia Apostleg, bas btfett » often appealed to by our opponeuts, and with all the eelat of a complete victory, as establiabing their views, we shall, befoPe we endeavour to build our sentiments upon it, notice the objections the baptjsu adduce from it, against the principles of pedobaptism. "To the objection, it is not commanded, to baptize infants^ therefore they are not to be baptized:— \ answer, It is not for- AAu *" ^"P^"^ infants, therefore they are to be baptized. And the reason is plain : for when pedobaptism in the Jewish church was so known, usual, and frequent in the admission of proselytes, that nothing almost was more known, usual, and fre- quent; there was no need to strengthen it with any precept, when baptism was now passed into an evangelical sacrament. For Christ took baptism into his hands, and into evangelical use, as he found it; this only added, that he might promote it to a wor- thier end, and a larger use. The whole nation knew well enough that httle children used to be baptized; there was no need of a precept for that, which had ever by common use prevailed. If a royal proclamation should now issue forth in these words, Let every one resort on the Lord's day, to the public assembly in the church; certainly he would be mad, who in times to come should argue hence, that prayers, sermons, and sinfrins of ysalms, were not to be celebrated on the Lord's day in the pub- lic assemblies, because there is no mention of them in the oro- ( clamatton. For the proclamation provided for the celebration of the Lord's day in the public assemblies in general; but there was no need to make mention of the particular kinds of the divine worship to be celebrated there, when they were always and every where well known, and in daily use, before the publishing of the proclamation, and toAcn it was published. The case is the very same in bapUsm. On the other hand therefore, there was need of a plain and open prohibition, that infants and lictle children should not be baptized, if our Lord would not have had theni bap- tized. For since it was most common, in all preceding ages, i ,at little children should be baptized, if Christ had been minded to to have that custom abolished, he would have openly forbid it. Therefore his silence, and the silence of the Scripture in this matter, confirms Pedobaptism, and continues it to all ages. * "If Christ in his command to baptize all. Matt. 28. had wished children to be excepted; he must have expressly said this. For since the first disciples of Christ, as native Jewr. knew io other way than for children to be introduce J into the Israelitish church V circumcision, it was natural that they should extend this to baptism. If Christ did not expressly forbid it. Had he therefore wished that TvUiijouiOiy nave saiu bO iu ueiuiile terms. ''f *Lightfoot's Works. tKntipp'8 TUeolo^-. 73 We call for the production of an express dechntmnti. V u 7 "No one pretends to product a passage nut of fl.P Mpvu n- ♦ ment. vvh.ch expressly prolubits the bapfism o f ill or uh'': funt:!'![rj:^^:;;;\';-;'^;/^- ----;- bapti.^ of .. example must be producea t^ au l^Le it Thi : *r ^\"'"^'' m I'" Hng then- exclusion can be found in^t^f any ,nr:'h; ;.'■'""'';• .nd>v,duals are once legally admitted to tl^ p viK "f "n "'^w; ;;r iii!:;:^;'"'" '""^^ ^«'"^"- -'^^' '■'' ^-^ exdus,:n^ ,;:;;;i: To the second |)!nii»il)lc objection, tliat "a, teicliiii, i,t„ .„ i fore bapt^tng, „„d „ i,,n„„,,4„ incapable "rreS^T,";"^; reply ttaThi,' "; °"'"'»"«^" ' es ; and they were made such 1.1 infancy, as well as the rest of their nation. Since we have no notice of a new idea being affixc^d to the term by our Lord we undelstandTt''''*"' '^ '" ^'''" '^'"'' '" '''''"'' "^ ^""'^ "'""''^ naturally To the third plausible objection that, "as faith must precede baptism and as infants cannot believe,they are therefore not to be baptized ; n is enough to apply the same arguruent to this objec- on as to the last. Faith was to go before circumcision in adults, but were infants therefore not to be circumcised ? so faith is to go before baptism in adults, but are infants therefore, not to be bap- ,'fn' \ .. ''.'•^P^'f^V'^'^^^^' i^'t'^ey can, how their argument has more strength against infant baptism than infant cirr • .cision Again must It not appear plain and obvious to all, that this rea- soning affects the salvation of infants, much more stronHy than it affects their baptism. Jlepentance and faitli are required of all in order to .salvation-but infants cannot repent, and therefore infants canno be saved. "lor one text, where faith and baptism are con- nected together, ,t would be easy to produce twenty where faith and salvation are united." "If it be a correct syllogism-Believing IS necessarj' to baptism ; infants are incapable of believin<^ : there- fore no infants ought to be baptized ;-thea the following must be correct too-Believ.ng is n-eessary to salvation-infants are inca- pable of believing : therefore infants cannot be ^aved. Now it is impossible to get rid of the second conclusion, if the first be sound. *Isa«c cu Baptism, p. 120. t 75 ][Z^7^ T '^f °"' *^*'"' '^^ <=omplain of want of candour in the cKr'y^'" '^'^ ^'" T """^" ♦*>« application of the same prin- f'fi' «'^"J«^P'-etat.on to that clause which connects baptiZ^^hh faith. The connection of both with faith is stated in thrsameren nZV" '^VT"" ""^"^^"fi^d terms ; and the same prbcplTof ex- plana .on which warrants or condemns the one inference must equally warrant or condemn the other "♦ '"'"ence, must dpr'i^hV^" T^'n'*" ''^'u''- S^'''^ '^'i''"^' "'en to believe, in or- der to be saved. But when he requires this, he does not sav that mfants are excluded from salvation becaus^ they cannot Jelieve So he requires faith in order to baptism. Rut he does not sav thai tnfants are excluded from bapti.i. because they canno beneve Jro" ieTv in'LVr T^^^'T ""'^'"^ '^ concerned! there is no mor; propriety, in excluding infants from baptism, than in excluding equL Z ^f f^Uh^'r^'" ''T ■■''""^ ''''' notwithstanding thS "The command to believe and be baptized, which has now been coasidered is the most plausible ^'ume^t ever advanced ruDon if "' :r'""- ^"^' ''' ' '"-^-'^e "ot, our opponents re- ider^ th^ h ' T 7°" ""^ "'''^'■- '^"^ ^''«.^ ought well to con- 6 der that the mode of reasoning which they adopt, would exclude all mfants from .alvation. And they certainly have t Mr. Booth,(tho great English opponent of infan- ■ .pt! ...j confesses that ^' the childrcH of proselytes were ba,.i' zed along with their parents," Mr Jones, a learned Baptist, w. his Biblical Cyclopedia. and other celebrated baptists, bear testimony to the same fact! Only that our space will not admit, or we might pr^luro an over- whel„.,„g mass of evidence, to prove that baiflisr .s not ^ new n/e-that It had been practised in the case of proselytes-which sufticien ly accounts for the fact, that the baptism of John was not legarded by the Jews, -with the astonishment which novelty al- Ways excites." •' tl.I^i^!'"*^"'''"'? ^^^ commission of our Lord to his apostles, let the lollowing universally admitted rule of interpretation be kept in view namely ; "that we put ourselves, as far as mau be, in Jl-f,f"^'vr' '^^^'^ ^"r '''•^'^«'^''»«. ««^ of those who rc- fl V V \Z ""'""?"" J ^^■'' Siven by a Jew, who was per- lectly acquainted with the customs and usages of Jews, and it wa. addressed to Jews. Let it be remembered then, accordin.r to the Jewish custom, these Jews had seen those Gentiles who eiilbrared the Jewish religion circumcised and Laptized,-p„r.r»^5 and chd- ftren. It is not dithcult to determine how they would understand their commission. "Suppose that God, previously to the christian dispensation, had selected twelve Jews, and sent them forth to conveJt Greeks and Konians to their religion, and without any mention of children had merely given them this commission, go ye, vroselvte and .-trnuncise them. VV^ouid they not have under;tood such a'com- missiqn as requiring them to circumcise the children of converted Greeks and Romans. Unquestionably they would. And why ' h^cAxxiethey were Jews, and had always been accustomed to the circumcision of children, as well as of parents." "Again : Suppose, in such a case, a command had been given which included baptism with circumcision ; thus : Go ye, and mo- selyte those nations, circumcising and baptizing them. Still not a word about f/iiWrcn ; but simplv.go and proselyte those nations to Judaism, circumcising and baptizing them. Most certainly thev would have understood, that baptism, as well as circumcision, was to be applied to proselytes and their children.''' "But suppose that baptism had been put in the place of circum- cision, as the sign to be put upon proselytes to Judaism ; and so the command to those Jewish teachers had been : Go ye prose- lyte and baptize the people of Greece and Rome. Must they not have understood the command in the same way ? Surely thoa« S° ""'^.''^^-''"^''"A^'^ "^'^^ thc^commands and institutions which --•••-. gave -.0 .iuimju.ii ufiu io Moses, and who had always t)een 77 hpl?."!! '° '""''"'^ ""' P'''"'^'P'« «t'" ''"rtl'er ; suppose it to have rnfn^^ '?"'"' f'om Clirist, because bapturn LVmadTL 8.gn of proselyte., instead of circumcision. There is "identiv e^it'S^lMMS^V'" ^'^" -^'^' -°"'^ requ.re\:;'Slr the^^Iln""' ^'^'^''•^^.'■'■^"ble argument. Mr. Crawley brings forward this u r."n;- ° 'J<^*1^'°"' «"Lord having -branded with !j^7tZ ro n hS' : tJ ml?a'' ""r"''' "'.^'^ ^" ^^^^'^^ «n--arement' his ApoTtles '' Tdn w .""^ TT^' .".pression on the minds of hu this argament of Mr. C. would prJve exJ'eeding y i.lu o« Lord condemned the Scn&e. and PAam..« for thefr wicked cJ- jecf. ,„ emkavounng to make proselytes ; evidently Twobiect was merely to strengthen and increase their own sec^hen^^ehav ing gained th.s object, they made their proselytes ''tv^ofoldi; the children of hell than themselves " H ,v nl \ j ^ of Scripture on this subject Ma t 23 if ^ VZ.^ ^'''''^' rnetamorphoses the Scibes' and PhSeet inf "^.ieyerarm ' Umates/A^. u,^.. of the Jew. was condemned by ( hTisI Wi at S^,f. Vpf^"'' °"'"'' P«'-^«°«in the Jewish nation besidei burn- -^^tr:/ t^"k:r^-/'tif t cr^?- noth,„gof prosolytism, only as it wrpracSed y ti;l?CcnW Th. answer to those inquiries, will discover thi -hollownrs ''^f m eS b:tZ"ld «'-'"- g--^^. the objection J'i^r be r^ moved, but this, I deem quite sufficient for my purp .se ^ "rS'?;:.rS^:^Sj::':: -^i- --tiu-r ^.,n. comm,„d, to sat.- the decision which Go.i h^ i „p, . L ,'^^'^=^'"' ^^o '''^ >'"t rest -^aiisfir,. wi-U but require.! t mfhe s LS d «;« ,k"^^'in'T,'''"= ^/>^^^ ^ curse i.^rael, it."(»>.leraofUiTinitj,vo)%''i*:ti3*P '^'"^ really Ui J iorbidlm domj tWood's Iniant Baptiwn, p. p. 44—46. G. z. 78 Objections to Infant Baptism Considered. A few ohjectiona to Infant Baptism remain to be contidertd. With many persons au objection couched in plausible phrascoloKv. 1. regarded a« of the greatest importance. Such individuals ou.ht to be remmded that when any system is established upon a solid and scriptural basis, although a number of queries of a difficult and perplexing character are proposed, they avail nothing, apainst the substantial arguments upon which that theory i, built In pomt ot fact. It IS impossible to entertain any notions against which some apparently strong objections may not be urged. Infidels have their queries on the religion oJ Christ, some of which are of so plausible a cast tha. many ha e been ensnare.- thereby; but because these objections are so subtle and intricate, are the evidences of christi- ;uiuy therefore weak and fragile? Certainly not. If then, objec tion after objecfon against pedobaptism is produced by ourdiifer- .ng brethren, yet this «•■!• not shake our faith in the scriptural prmciples upon which infant baptism is founded; besides "were it a becoming mode of arguing there arc puzzles to be found for baptists, as well as Fedobaptists." •' 1. It is often urged that -if infants are entitled to baptism, they nre equally entitled to the Lord's Supper." The whole weight of this objection rests upon the false notion, that there is an ins e- Varable connection between the two positive institutes of chris- T.anity Baptism and the Eucharist, and th..t "the one is prescrib- ed with a v.ew to the other." Nou , I ask for one passage of Holy writ which goes to shew that the Lords Supper, is founded on baptism, or that it recognizes a single circumstance belonging ..VvL, T' • ' 'V'^^^'^ng^^ge of their own excellent Hall, Where IS the scriptura! authority for resting the obligation of the Eucharist, not on the precept that enjoins it, but on the previ- ous reception of baptism.' As the scripture is totally silent on thi. point we are not disposed to accept the officious assistance of our brethren ,n supplying its deficiency." When the Baptists have proved the inseparable connection of tlie two great ordinances of elm, lan.ty, perhaps we may think the above objection worthy of a little consideration. ■' But It must not be kept out of sight, that circumcised infant. 1.. no partake of the Passover. IV,r. Crawley indeed inform, us that httle children did partake of this Jewish feast; but will he say that infants at nine days old received the Passover, and it' not, why urge this "childish objection." Besides, were the^e equally valid reasons against infant baptism as against infant com- mumon we should not baptize them. Infants a%e morally incl pab.e of participating aright in the holy supper; but they are " an neritagp. tf> tlio \ ^tA. " i »i r •' ^ "^ ' . .•' " " ^- _ f,^-,v, a;iu i:icic;«rv; uOi iiiCapaciiaicu from re- ot *• di$' kingdom 79 ceiving the ordinance ofbaptmm. Although th.- nrn the Lord; bodj/r >et they can •« belo, oj heaven." .,,? . A''i"her favorile objection to infant b.L^.p- ig' he folIowiniF • .nerly under the levitical economy: L cannot enlarge hrso^Jf nances accord.ng to his infinUe w./do.n. "Wh;."! ennuir f in he words of Havel, "cannot baptism stand in the place Jfci cum! cs^on because U answers all its ends with an advantage ' 3 But It IS gravely proposed to us, "Of what nse is infant bnu- to aduTts "^'nV?r""^*''° P™P°'^thesame question with regard Hml.' I ^^ '•^ce.ve any spiritual benefit in the outward or- dinance Is any special gift conferred upon them, while in the art of be... bapfzedP If we -.ceive an answer to these qustons in the afhramt.ve, then we . .the. reply that " no soul can prove that ch.ldren eannot be profited" by baptism. The prayer" of parents and bapjsm m the name of Christ, are mere ' dead rrms^n b! conmg that which is so eminently a dispensation, not of the etteV butofthespmt;orthey are means 0/ grace, knd "hannelsof savin,r rnfluenee." That we hold the /a«er notion in pre?erenc{ to the former, we shrink not for a moment in avowin| our con! scientious opinion. «u«iiij,wur con- '*' ^°U' """f ^^""'"y baptized infants as destitute of real reli- gion as others? An.i are not many baptized aduUs as destitute of religion as heath n.?- Are not many unbaptized infants broulSt «p in Christian Lno .ledge equ.'fy as well as the bap" zed ones' And are not many, who have .ot been baptize.^ in addt age as gracious and holy a' -'ose who have." * 5. Another objec.ion .. . more original cast, is preferred by Mr C against the b«pt,sm of inf mts. " Any othe^ baptism than thai SLrwI'r'''"''''"'^"'^'^""^''''^'''^""^^'" ^ command of Chris dependant or an uncerin.'f^; for. ^o one baptized only h infancy ran ever know cerrninly, that he has beeS baptized '* ''What proof has the person baptized as an infant of his obed ence= A sorry answer to make at the Judgment seat, that he S»",. ;.\d'T^orrv"rrV'J': ^^^^"^ "^^ ^"^^-^ ^vsj: ; tized^ t fcorry am I indeed to have to reply to an objection -f so ludicrous a character as this. Is Mr. C. serious in using "uri language or does he intend it only as a piece of irony ' YoTuy part, I find ,t difficult to believe that a person of Mr ■c\...ae^- -Reply to Elder, p. 169. flbid, p. 28. * <. <'■ I ■ ' I I 1 . 80 Olher.,, however will judge for themselves. -It really -m .^. no com,i.on sto.k of patience to be und.r the necesSv /, .n «ng to sucu childish trifling as this." What can A /r' hP-"" cumcised o" th:';i^h';^ay^f^; • ^ 'S"^ ^'^ ^"^ ''« ?'^- y«»rs ofrnature ngc^. how /ou,d he tow c na n ^^hatTc'. "'' ''TbL%V:'' ''''' '''''' '" reference to the'^^^^^^ Nor if t Lri ' "^ '■'P'''' command for baptizing Es'' r\or stiierc any express command for females oirt^l'i.r.^r.i L.>rd s Supper, nor any express conunand for keepin. the i1 • . of the week as a day of holy restm? nor ou proclaim " infant baptism is unscriptural- ;L;7/JT" r' "^ ^'"'i'" ^"^'" ^''"*"? ""^'•^'J »''i^ '^ith all the confidence of an inspired apostle, we looked for those portions of inspiration, which plainly condemned it-and we had a right 'o expocr. that you would produce many passage,, which testified that to bap ize little cnes was contrary to the will of (Jod. We have carefully searched your work and wo cannot find one; and whv does not your 1,00k coitain any, hut because the hook of God con- tains none. And the amount of all your reasoning against infant bapusmis.thatit.s not expressly commanded, and that infants hase not faitii. And here agiin when we ask, " Thus saith the Lord for the necessity of the express command, and the neces- sit^ of faith, as a M«u,f rsa/ requisite to baptism, you cannot brmg it forward: hence the weapons with which vou would ovor- hiow pedobaptism, are not scriptural. They are the fiction of the fmman brain— tiieir origin is not divine. On the other hand, Pedobaptists have shewn repeatedly that tho Abrahamic and Christian covenants are the same, G.-n. xvii- 7- Heb. v,„: 12; that as children were admiled unde.- the former; and that as baptism is now a sign, seal, or confirmation of this covenant infants have as great a right to it as the children of the Israelites Mad to the seal of circumcision under the law. Acts ii: 39- Rom iv: 11. In other words, Pedohaptists have shewn that God in the time of A bra ban, , constituted in his church, the membership of infants: aad the Baptist, have never -roved, that the right of infants to Church-membership was evrjr takon awav. Hence as the right has never been annulled, as it cannot be" shewn, that xod ever excluded infants from his church, the Pedobaptists be- !ieve that they are solemnly bound to admit them. If they must be received to membership, they must be received without baptism or with it: but none must be received without bm-ism- ma therefore infants must of necessity he bon-azed." ■ * ■ it } \\>ni .spoKe,;-a„H ye t can ,t be believed, that this mere llourish "til ■•' "'"If -Hie oi others, rests on pkhu..ps and po.ssi "^itv' To support IMS athrmat.on, we beg our readers to reme r ber Unt ,^ sexceedm.ly preposterous for ,i:e Baptists to app /u anv n c I.es.des the scriptures, since th«y havi so repeafediv ridiruled n i' .enounced in I'edobaptists, any appeal to a'^v ottVnuar t 5 3/r. c ueb,.\o decisive proot, corroborating wlrit we have -i/ ^^uiced, that the theory of the Baptists rests c;^ „..,.;: I;;;^;::!; ( vc add, bu; not ui all) instances in scripture unuTZ ^^on^cst pn^aUnt, that immersion was the L 1 uui ; ,- d and this IS not cantradirtcd in any case." P -obubl/ih '11 ..est pn>!,ab>Ht, ! ! and this is not o,..', /,> ., fna^c^l ''' tradicted in any single- instance, it is probable, it is po^^ihle n,d ^^ r .. only a few line., before, you -sitivelv testified that apostoc l.ip.ism was immersion-and now x ,„i.| tv dcrlar-itmnT „ wondern.1 importance, and dwindles into ^n pa^i " ' " ^K^!^! Z:^C:Z\^Z^Xt '''I f ^'^"^ i ^""'^'^^ ---^' - r rJpmVnJ ' probability. For infant baptism," 3Ir H not said "Thon shalt baptize infants," be ar^-ue* that infant hnn ti^m IS antiscriptural : but wiih r.^.J f^ .k.. .t",, I., '"':*."* ^^P" -prcss precept is not re.iuired-and though it ■:i.' notSl^d h 84 'to many words, 'Thon shah baptize by plunging,* yet plunging on- ly ij scriptural baptism. Strong probability a uW^It.C. needs, whilst I am to be compelled to produce an explicit warrant. Only to notice such palpable inconsistency, is to condemn it. Another proof confirmatory of the position we have now taken, in furnished to our hands, in the following words immediately suc- ceeding the last citation : "The use of the word baptize in other cases, of which an unlearned reader may judge, shews th: t it must mean plunge, overwhelm, immerse, or something akin to this." This remarkable phraseology is not a little puzzling. What are we poor Pedobaptists to understand by these ambiguous words r That plunging and immersion are synononious terms, is certain, but what are we to make of the word overwhelm ? What are we to do with the quibbling, qualifying clause, 'or something akin to this?' The baptists practice immersion only in the ordinance of baptism ; but 1 should be glad to know whether they will adniit any other mode besides immersion to be baptism, something in fine, which is only "akin to it." And then does not every one know, that t^ereisnotanidea/ meaning in the words, overwhelm and immerse. To immerse in water, is the application of the in- dividual to the element — to overwhelm with water, is to npply the water to the person. Overwhelming and outpouring are more nearly synonomous than immersing and overwhelming. As IMr. C. has not given us the etymology of the words, we shall supply the deficiency in the language of the late Editor of Calmkt. "If a person be plunged into water, the water is 6f/oir him ; he descends into the water, he is lowered into it, — shall 1 say he is UNDERWHELMED? If a pcrson be overwhelmet with water, the water is above him : it descends on him from a height. A I erson plunged approaches, or is brought to the water : but if a person be overv.hehned with water, the water approaches, or is brought to him. The actions in fact, are more than (liffcrent, they are contrary : tliey are absolutely the reverse of each other."' The correctness of this criticism, I think, will not be rioiibte.l : plainly then Mr. C. adiwits that pouring is baptism. But then it must be the pouring of a large quantity of water — nothing short of over- whelming, ^till pouring is baptism : so to stand under a shower bath is to be baptized, provided the shower is plentiful, and covers the whole surface of the body, ^nd thus the oft-rciternted cry of baptism, as a representation of the *death, and burial, and re- Burrection of Christ,' is at once, and for ever given up. Excepting a reference to a disputed passage of Scripture, this is the sum total of the evidence given by Mr. C. for plungmg as tiie mode of baptism — derivable from the pages of inspiration. We only smile when Mr. C. or any other baptist writer scu'ls vh to Greek authors, to Greek lexicons, to Greek churches, t»> learned names, and to ecclesiastical history, for an exposition of Holy writ, since they vehemently oppose the practice in Pedobaptist au- thors. \ 6« The Baptists not obedient to Apostolic precedent. mode of baptism — and vT k ? . "* '^'PP"'g ^« '^e on,' latter practice^ while the J^er .i J„t v Thl^H '°""^'u '''' '^« iBConsisteiitly with their avnwrl'^ ' ^' ^''°;"«has we think very 14, together with the /-ac/ that t?.i . "^ ^.'^'^ «»''' •'«'n««.v : »ick. fsee Mark, >?: 13 ) form a ir'''"" ^"^/'"'^ ^"«^' '»>« And yet the eld;rs of t';^ B^^iJ ctr hes'dT. 7 ,?'^^^^''"'=^- injunction. ^ i-nurcnes do not attend to this who have their feasts of charitv «.-*»■ ^^^? ^'^ "° christians Our baptist friends do not do b^' tbae The T'^ ""^ ^""f'^ ^ ^ ^^• wrerebeld by thep.imuive chrlt an, for !n^^''^- '''" '°^«-''«««'3 .nonytc th/.n as binding in the present day ''*'^' '^"""'derthe fro^ bTor ^7^:^^ £- ,f;;^ -angled, and Poor christian widows, when sixtv vp«« nr '"«' '° '^"'"raon. by the voluntary offeri^of the ^hrch Thf A^'h ^"J^"^^^ ijwho desiredLptism.^vithout the Teast d'L^P?.'i'!!_5''P»'«^ s "^c M ujiiuE for warm wntpr nr *» _ ' , " — " *" """ S6 tisU particHbur i;: tbe obserrance of theae thiogi ? And why not ? Where is their consiitency in nrging as in one point to follow what they conceive to be primitive practice, when in ten other instancea they neglect to observe the injunctions of the Redeemer and his Apostles. If they can, let them poblish their consistency to the world. But, supposing it conld be clearly proved, that in an ea8t«*rn country as Judea, the Apostles generally baptized by immersion, is it absolutely necessary for ns in Labrador or Lapland, to follow with an undeviating snrupulosity, the same mode? "Many practi- ces" says the Rev. Robert Hall, "occur in the history of the apos- tolic transactioas, which it is nniversally admitted, we are not obliged to imitate. It is an unquestionable fact, that the Euchar- ist was first celebrated with unleavened bread, in the evening, in an upper room, and to Jews only ; but as we distinctly perceive that these particulars originated in the peculiar circumstances of the time, we are far from considering them as binding."* From the pen of a Pedobaptist, ibis is allowable, but it comes with an ill grace from our opponents. Will a baptist tell me that Baptism is of greater importance than the Enchariat ? Why then, does he urge upon me to follow apostolic practice, with regard to the one ordinance of Christianity, while in the other, he plainly disregards snch a precedent Why does he not nse unleavened bread, and the pure juice of the grape — why does he not recline at the sacramental table, and observe the institution in the nif^ht^ and ill an upper room ? What possible reason can he have for "considering an exact adherence to one invariable form mote necessary in Baptism than in the Lord's Pupper." And especially' since the word of God is so much more minute in detailing all the circumstances relative to the Eucharist, than to the rite of baptism. "Whence then arises all this parade about an undeviating adher- ence to primitive example, and positive law ? Let our friends be consistent or silent, whichever they please, or as one of them says on another occasion, 'if this is their supposed warrant, why do they not keep exactly to the rule of that commission.' We shall now follow in the track of all the Baptist writers, and point out the various methods they adopt, in the hope of giving stability to their exclusive immersion scheme. Primary meaning of tlie word Baptizo* To a person who has perusad many of the publications of onr baptist friends, I need not inform , but only remind him, bow large- ly they expatiate npon the primary meaning of the word, baptize. By the primary import of the word, they intend its original use, ns distinguished from any application to which It may be afterwards inade : they mean its first, its original meaning, as opposed to its present application. But it is well known, that words have se- condary ntjH BiibordiQutfi meanlnsrs i hence cculd it hf> nmvpd v.'h=t *Works,Vol. 1, p, 310. . \ sr we Jo •« aJmit, that the primarr or nniMr mea.in. «f i«.,- wai to dip, it woQid not follow tfeit thTNow tKL. ''.'''• have .doptjd th, priman, «».. ti^b^ t£^,Tf b.«U™ SS^?- " =^":» xtr ?.-H^ r, .„lrrrt;:r:r;ro::'re^l-iS the legal and sacramental use if the word. aTeSyeS by tL iu si^\^hJ^^- ol*.erre. :-« E*en Were it admitted that immer- ^u- .°"i'°^ " P"""^ »™P«rt of the word ba»Usm~ TthpS^' '"Pf^"*'"'" application, of it, at subsequent period! knlaJf ^^ of the tongue to wbick it belongs. Evel in our owa .hS ' T '^'''f ™" ''°"«''^«« '"to innumerable mi«taki and absorduies, by the adoption of such a test of the import of terms " CJrcek I^exicoiis. ^HsXd K .' ^"'' Lexicographers. The following have b.e J Zns «nH ^ ", ""^^^"=''' P^^khurst, Schleusner, Scapula, ^e" alblZr IIT i^ Apocrypha and New Testament, and to the "raltTf hr;/' r'^ u'P''i' ^y '^^ "«^«"^y translators. The S aid tha '^'"S ^""J" ^^/"'^-to which a translation is Zend: ea, and that chiefly taken from the Baptists,—" To colour intpUo Tnlfii^ p^reo' Co/0 . „ , „,„ Demtrge To dive. -D^M?* To lead. ^V«> To pierco Fw» To colour {fa»rM To dnw db Tc overwhelm Inungo To dye Purge To Sf i^.f^ I"'*"'' Ruftewo Taredlen Jtfad*/«,o To wet Submergo To p»;t ander JIOUM^ UaclMOM a.uaiM«|, <^ i: I ■ 1 ! ' 88 "From tbete one^eptiooable testimonies, it ia evidenl that th« word baa Tarioas meanings, and that in general.if not invariably ^ It ezpreMesthe effect prodaced by an action, rather than the pre- ome action iUelf. In fact, we misht defy our opponents to pro- duce a single lexicographer, of the feast authority, who maintains that the word baptisse, means only one definitive act or end, much less that it means always and only to dip, plunge, or inmene the whole body or thing spoken of, under water, or in any other ele- ment.*— What avails it then, for a Baptist minister on baptismal occasions, to stand up and exclaim, «To baptize means to immerse, and only to immerse,' when every lexicographer in the world con- tradicts him. We have heard on such occasions, the above trium- phant exclamation sonnded aloud, and we have saf and smiled, not however, without being astonished at the teraority ofourgood baa, tist brother. ^ » f Greek Authors. "We proceed now to the translations of our opponents Con- aiderabla pains have been taken by them lo enlist the Greek Au- thors under their banners, for the purpose of aidlnj their cause. Five only of their most eminent and learned divines— Booth, Cox, Gale, Ryland, and Gibbs — have cited nume.ous passages fionl Greek Writers, to establish their position, that 'baptize means on- ly to dip or plunge, and that they do not remuni)e a passage where all other senses are not necessarily excluded.'— 1 hat these gentlemen have not perverted the sense of their aathoritii-a t() the prejudice of their cause, may be readily supposed— and what is the .result ? Tha' the word baptize, as emptoyed by the ancient Greek poets, philosophers, historians and div ines, signifies only one and the same definitive action, and that to dip, plunge or immerse ?— Far from it— The folbwing list of tnnsiations, pre- sents the fruit of their laborious researches and philosophical acu- men. — According to them it is used for Bsthe Besmear Caused <-'()loiirp(l Covered CriishtHl Daubed Dip Dyfld Fill Given up to Infected Imbue Immersed Involved Laid under Drawing vv iter Let down Drank much Oppresjed Drowned Overwhelmed •The above citation is from a is!e Over head and ears Plunged »'our Piinf-r Put Put into Quenched Redden Run through . Smeared 6oaked Sprinkled Stained Steep Sink Swallowed up 'ihrust Tinged ■v^'ished V^e.ted t ! -. . .., poworfu? work, entitled, 'Uodern In- mersinn, not Scriptural Baptism,' by the Rev. William Thorr Author nf •Loriuresou the Christian Sabbath' ; and as that gentleman ha« . » ably pur- sued the inquiry in reference to the Greek Language, we shall pr«oent tt;»: '**, Z^"'' "'*"'^" " **'"'*'* '■e«e«'^'», in as small a compass as possiole. tin Thorn's vork. the pages of the baptii author* from whence them* translations are inken. nrij, ziynnhiit am ygo kmi v.ai. a s!:!?*.."i^r..-v r-.f^.^-.-.r-- ^=^ ttould not print them. " ' --•---—•- ----".---i--; -^..^ui... .^^ m ''Now let it be put to the jadgmeat of any sensible and nnpre- jadiced penon. whether a word wfaieiti according to onr oppon- ent, own showing, admiu of «) many Afferent ami evenopiwsite explanations, can m«an only one simple and specific actionVand that to dip, plunge, or lomwrae in the manner of a modem bap- tism ? With those who could resist the force trf this evident, we would have no contention. But we have no hesitation ia atfirming, that had the passages cited by our learned opponenu been /aw/yr«rnrfer«rf, and the primary and proper desigroftho word given in all its tarious connexions, without prejudice or partiality, the renderings wouM'have been still more numerous and oppf^s'te. •' By a cursory reference to the citations, our opponents have made from Greek writings, for the express purpose of sup- porting their exclusive mode of baptism, we find the following oner- ationo, copditiOEs tr designs.are designated by the word baptize or baptism." a J r Staining a gword with blood or slauehter. Daubing the face with paint. Colouring the cheeks b" intoxication. Uyeinga iaite with llie blood of a frog. Beating a penon till red with hn own blood. Staining the hand by squeezing a substance. Ornamenting clothes with a print, needle, or brush. imbunig a person with his own thoughts, or justice. Folluting the mind by fornication and sophistry Foisoning the heart with evil Ynanners. Inyolvirg a person in debt and difflcQltiesj- Bringing rain on a city by besieging It. The natural tints of a bird or flower. Plunging • sword into a viper or army. Running a man through with a spear. Sticliing the feet of a flea in melted wax. Quenching E fiaming torch in water. Seasoning hot iron by dipping it in cold water riying the oars and rowing a vessel. Dipping children into a cold bath. Drowning persons in a lake, pond or sea. Sinking a ship, crew and persons under water Sweetening hay with honey. Soaking a herring in brine. Steeping a stone in v/lbe. Iminersing onea'self up to the middle, breaat,or head Destroying ships in a harbour by storm. Filling a cup with honey. Drawing water in a pitcher o? bucket Popping cupid into a cup of wine Polsoiiing arrows, and presents like arrow* washing wool in or with water. Cleaaaing the body wholly or partially Tinging the finger with blood. Dipping birds or their bills in a river. A dolphin ducking an ape. >^ The Ude overflowing the* land. Pouring water on wood and gardea pianU. ^yeing an article in a vat. "^ Rrowing Han into colfl water. ipping weapons of war in blood. H2 Xi 90 Oivrwheimiag a ihip with tton«a. Uppr«Miiig or burdening the poor with lax ea. Overcome with ileep or calamity. Ueatroylnf anlmala with a land dood. "Little comrjent is reqaiaite oo theM aliasMM. It ii clear a» the light at noon, that the paaaagea which our opponenU have ae- lecled from Greek authors, aa the best calculated to saitain tbe«r cause of exclosive dipping, have completely failed. That, so far from implying one, and only one definite act. and that the total ini- roersion of a person or thing, tlwy express racious and opposite ac- tions. as applying the baptismal element to the object in the shape of paintiDg, pouring and overwhelming, as well as applying the object to the element in the form of a partial or total iippina '* "But there are other passages in Greek writers, which our bre- thren have purposely or inadvertently overlooked— and where in several mstaaces. the sense of the word in question is, if possible. «Ull more adverse to their conclusions.-Dr. Williams, Mr. c! raylor, and the Rev. G. Ewing, have cited various authors, in or- der to prove that the *ord does not signify always to dip : but that It embraces many other modes of action. ' ' Some of tlie passages already cited with a few others we shall now give at full leneth. lo have before our eyes a number of passages from various authors, supporting our positions, will be deemed valuable. •iru^tophancs.—^yiatrnes, an old comic of Athens, used the Lyd.an music, shaved hifl face, and baptized it with tawny co- lours. He applied the colours to his face.-'Drees not with costly clothes, which are baptized with the richest colours.' Seve- ral colours must be applied to the cloth. ^ristotle.—^lfk is pressed, it baptizes tlie hand which sustains and presses it. Here the hand is tinged by an application of the colouring matter to it. Dion. Cassius.-^Those from above baptizing the ships with stones and engines.' Here the baptizing materials came from above down upon the vessels. ifamtr.— 'He, the frog breathless fell, and the lake was bapliz- od with blood ' The blood was applied to the water, and not the water dipped into the blood. ^e/ta».— 'Having baptized with precious ointment, a garland woven of roses. The garland was surely not dipped into a box of ointment, but the ointment wag poured orsprinkled on the garland jiMenau*.— 'I have been baptized with wine. 'Not bathing in it, but intox.cated-the wine was applied to him, for he drank it. .n. 'IS ' ^f'S'-'^^'^'-'yonbapuze your head, but you shall a'iver baptize old age.' You adorn your head with gay attire. Here the baptizing material is applied to the head.—'Who first baptized the muse with viperishgall.' • Who first tinged or mbued the mmd, by applying the element to it ? ^ /omft/icAua.— 'Baptize not in tiie periranterion.' This was a 91 ttnall reMel like thoM kept at the doon of all Roman Catholic CS. pol«-t»»e act here u evidently aprinklin* ^^' /»*?'i"i!^''""'~u'^'**'8''' obwrvinjthe mouth of the do«. (whK>h had eaten the marex.) .taioed with ^nunLll banti.l?^ tized by an appiicatioo of the colour to it. ' ^ coloormg element is applied to the body. ' "These passages aro Bufficient as goecimen. nf • »,«=» and easy .—1. That the word generally, if not exclusivelv pv sSiri; I'Sttd ' "'r ^''^" "^^ p™'^- itTa'^;: pushing .t— 2. That to dye, stain, or impart a colour or character ta a person or thmg, ,s its moreancient and prevaiUnglport-a That when the action is discoverable, it .s found to d S ^ down, forward, backward, and the likn _4 Th„» V^ *'"^'"»». i^p. have adduced no instance 'whetj U iitiFft ^he^TfolS^Sr of dipping and raising. -5. That the end proposed in^he term mav be affected by sprmkling or pouring, partial of total immesYo^ ac cording the circpinstances of the case, and-6. ThaT Z ^o'n gf eS w?v"S the'o'.h'""" -PP"-^"!,-; opponents' schemeTi given way, and the others must speedily follow." The Septuagrint and Apocr j^pha. "Judges, v : 30.— «To Sisera a prey of baotized fattirp l „r tr nee'dT thr^o^ ''{''' "« '« '^« «-"-"' C^ « by' h! L!f,j' • *'•?'**"' being applied to the cloth. Josephus uses the word ,n a similar sense : «A girdle embroidered with ?he same baptisms and flowers as the former, with a mixture of gold int^r woven '• The former he describes as 'embroidered with flowed The'lr".'' Purple. and fine-twined linen.' (see E,od. xxx^TH The method was unquestionably by applying the colours to the S^h"™°''T''Pr^-^ Should it be supposed, that an aN osion 18 here made to dyeiny,it could be only to such a proc^ as LT,hi!f ri°T«.*°«''^^'«°*« °" '^^ «««»hby carved^Sor brashes, and which practice ia still common in England, and ab,^. •Ant. lib. iii, ch. 7, s. 4. tSee Shaw's Travela, p. 228. ^^ ^^ \>l IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) .// ^ •t ^^ '■^i c/1 Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. 14580 (716) 872-4S03 # ^ ^^ S' O '^ ^V ^^ <^ 6^ 92 lively necessary, b prodacing Tsnegated apparel This, m faet». was the priniitive mode of dyeing; and cieariy developes the ac- tioDS of the verbs baptizo, and tingo when etnployMl ia refet- ence to this operation. . President Grogaet, ia his 'Origin of Laws, Arts, and ScienceSi&c. tells as, that the origin of dyeing, consisted in pressing the joices of various herbs and fraits on the olotb, or by staining it with certain earths of different culoars." '• Dan. iv : 33.— And his body waj baptized with the dew of heaven,' (See also chap. v. 21.) That the ez-^monarch of Babylon was baptized by the dew falling npon him, throaghout the night in the open field, no one presumes to qnostion. The quibbles of our opponents respecting the probable quantity, by no means affects the case, unless they are prepared to give up the ac- tion or mode of dipping, and at once concede that a copious shower bath will answer every end of n?odem immersion. The dispute as far as the word is concerned, emb/accs only the action. Hence they assure us, that «in bapli8m,it is the act of immersion, and not the quentity of water, that is contended for ;' and that 'the word baptize, in this dispute, denotes an action required by divine law ; and the simple ijuestion is, what is that action ?* '< Why, here most unquestionably, applying the element to the object in the form of eprinklingl" Noticing a criticism by Dr. Cox on this pas- sage. Dr. Wardlaw remarks : — "Twenty times twenty have we poo' Pedobaptists been told, that there is no room for reasoning ; that the idea of immersion is in the very tpords, bapto and bap- tizo ; that immersion baptism is consequently a tautology, and baptism by pouring a contradiction. And yet here, on Mr. Cox's own showing, is an instance, in which bapto "predicates nothing of the manner." It does not denote immersion ; it does not denote being wet, as the effect of immersion ! — Suppose we admit that it signifies the state of being met : still it cannot be denied, that it signifies this state, as the result, not of plunging, but of the very gentlest of possible affusions. Bapto is used, and expresses nothing of immersion — "not the mode," — to use Mr. Cox's own words, — "by which the body of the king was wetted!" I have only to ask Mr. Cox, whether be would consider a person duly baptized,\fvia\er were poured upon him till he were tho- roughly wetted. If he would, then what would become of the favourite idea of the emblematic representation in baptism, of a burial and resurrection ?"t "Judith, xii : 7.— 'She went out in the night into the valley of Bethulia.and was baptized at a fountain of water in the camp.' It- appears there was only one fountain in this valley — that an army of more than 200,000 .men lay encamped about it — that such an important source of existence would be guarded with the utmost vigilance, (chap, vii : 2, b, 27 ; ch. viii: 9,)— that Judith was a woman of great rank and beauty — and that her sole objbct was a. •Booth, vol. 3. p. 265 tJDiMW. on Bap p. 179. 93 ceremonial parifieation. So far oar object is plain. Let oar 0|»ptt> neota tben imagme, thattlvis lady, either naked or attired, ahoald plabge herself over head and ears into this fountain of water, or that her waiting women (oh. viii.- 32,) should do it by her. Nu such kind of purification was known under the law, nor any where retmired by the divine Legislator. If she had pure water sprinkled on ner by a clean companion, she would have fulfilled ail the serip- toteii required — end this was undoubtedly done." Greek Church. Ecclesiastical nistorjr. " The whole Greek church" Mr. C. informs as, " always has practised and does now practice immersion." By this mode of ex- pretsion, it Is intended, I presume, to convey the impression, that the Greek church froa: the Apostles time to this day, has practised immersion, and immei-sion only : but until proof is adduced to support this notion, we shall consider it as mert assumption. That it cannot be proved, is well known to Mr.C.and to every in- telligent baptist in the world. We are likewise told, that ' the Greek church "regards immersion as the only meaning of the Greek word baptizo, the Greek being its native language."* A person unacquainted with the facts of the case, would suppose from this assertion, that the great bulk of the members of the Greek church, understood the Greek of the New Testament. This, hew- ever, is contrary to fact, for learned men have been obliged to trauitlate the original Greek of the Scriptures into modern Greek, for the benefit of this church. The Greek church, however, it must be remembered, embraces parts of the population of various coun- tries, speaking various languages. "Even the inhabitants of Greece, properly so called, are, in a great measure, unacquainted with the language of their forefathers, and are obliged to have the original New Testament translated mto Modem Greek, before they can un- derstand it." "Besides, if the practice of the Greek church is to settle this, question, and if her ministers may give their opinion, then to bap- tize consists in three dippings and one pouring ; and that com- munion may, with equal propriety, be referred to in support of oar mode, as that of our opponents. We aay nothing of the subject, as it is notorious, that not only the Greek church, bat every othcc. on the face of the globe, oxceft out Baptist brethren, baptizea infants as well as adults." "Let it be also observed, that when a proselyte from Paganism or Mahomedanism, being an adult, is baptized in the Greek churchy he is not dipped at all — but, as a gentleman, who had witnesoed the ceremony, informed the preacher, he stands in the water, and has a trine affusion from the officiating priest. He also remarked *Tie&tiiieon Bap. p. 15). 94 wm m ) that, in the Greek church, sprinkling is perfectly valid—* as thoaa who hnve been baptized in tlws manner, are never immergetf ori tabwquentl/ entering iticommnaion.— How correct an exemplar ofiie mode adapted by onr brethren ! — and what excellent antfao- rity do they derivefrom this ancient establishtneDt ! — and what •safe ground of action. 't It is not a little Burpriging, after have written so many bitter things against the Church of England, that Mr, C. should aeverthelesa appeal to that body in proof of his sen- timents. If we are to believe Mr. C. that church is awfully cor« nipt— flo much so, that it is making thousands of little children from day to day, "litter enormous falsehoods" and yet this cor- t pt church, under Mr. C's magic inflasnce in an instant, becomes pure enongh to be regarded as furnishing support to the baptist cause. When Mr. C. retracts bis sentiments, as to the balf-popish character of our church establishment, his appeal may be allow«d; »s the case now siands, we regard it only as "betraying a weak- nftss in fair and solid argument, and a determination, at any rate, to maintain a favourite hypotbasis." On the subject of Ecclesiastical History, it is enough to state, what the baptists have proved, and also what they have not prov- ed. They have proved that in the primitive ages, immersion was one mode of baptism; but they have not proved that it was the onlv mode addpted : they have not established the essentiality of dip- ping. That immersion was frequently used, we are certain, bnt that it was universally adopted; or that affusion was not deemed valid baptism, we positively deny. In cases of sickness or weak- ness, they only sprinkled water on the face. The baptism of the sick in bed, by aspersion, was allowed to be valid. " So fi:r, observes Dr Lathrop. as the practice of the ancionts is of weight,' it proves all that we contend for. We say it is not nece&ary, that affusion is sufficient; and so said the ancient church." But to our differing brethren, ecclesiastical history is of no service : to them it is mere waste paper, for the following reasons :— I. "No clear case of immersion is given us from the Greek and Latin writers, till they mention the immersion of infants. Conse- quently, our opponents can derive no historical evidence in support of immersion, which is not equally relevant to infant baptism," Mr. C. admits that ancient practice, favours infant baptism, and he very ingeniously tries to account for its introduction. If then the testimony of history, is considered as a conclusive argument in f|vor of immersion, Mr. C. must, to bo consistent, allow the same testimony to be conclusive, in favor of infant baptism. II. The same history that bears testimony to immersion, as one mode of baptizing practised by the ancients, bears testimony to triae immersion, the use of sponsors, oil, spittle, crossings, exor- cisms, and various other rites. Mr. Robinsoa also, a baptist writer, .*i,"*!"'/"'''*'"'^'''*^"'®'"='»"'"*=^''C?''"'*l'n«'« «V Am jonr demonstration on this sabject u »o perfectly origisaf, knd withal, so extremely amasbg, I cannot forbear taking a littl6 tiotice of it. In the passage above cited, you select four words* apon which yon expatiate ; — all! in, river, and Jordan ; and bow the point is proved, a// cannot mean part, in cannot raeaa at, by, or with, and therefore all Were immersed in the river Jordan. With many persons this will be mathematical demon- stration ; and from the ingenuity manifested in this first attempt, they will expect yoa to present other specimens, and to become a proficiect in this New Art of Logic. Anon, and they will look for otb^r expositions of Scripture, according to this profound and original method ; for instance, reading ii: Mark i : 4 thp.^ Christ 'sat in the sea,' you will fix upon three words, and infallibly prove that he did not stand or toalk, but that, he 'sat in the ska.' When likewise yon find it declared, that our Lord 'went up into a mountain,' you will demonstrate that he went up, and yet went into the mountain — also, when you find (John x : 40,) that Jesus went into the plac9 where John baptized, and there abodn, you will oontend that, as John baptued by plunging, our Saviour for a time lived in the water. But enough of this orthographi- cal exercise, to show the absurdity of being carried away by the sound, rather than the sense of words. The demonstration furnished by Mr. C. is of a different charac- ter, and is in effect as follows : — It is impossible to read in the passage any thing but immersion — surely they were immersed — common sense will lead to this conclosion, and ecclesiastical his^ tory affords incontestable evidence in favour of immersion. Now, what is the amount of this logic .' Is there any argument in all this? Where, I ask, is proof that John baptized by inmersion. The only thing advanced in the shape of proof, is a pure, positive asiertion. They sorely. did not thus descend into the water, for the purpose merely of sprmkling or moistening a part of the person wiUi a fet*- dtops of water !^'* Here it is assumed, but not proved, that the descended into the water ; then a second assumption is resorted to, in favour of the immersion scheme. In roply, it will be suffi- cient to remark : — 1. The Greek particle «n, (rendered in,) is frequently trans- lated with or at ; our opponents are compelled to admit that it it 80 translated in a variety of places in the New Testament. If then, the expression may be justly rendered, at the rver Jordan, ^he whole strength of the argument from John's baptising in Jor- dan, evaporates at once.' I cannot suppose that Mr C. ioiagined that we should swallorv his dictum, 'of the idiom of the Greek language, imperiously demanding' the word in ; the naked truth being, that if the candidater were immersed, en should be trans^ lated in ; but if they were baptized by pouring, the Greek partieie may be rendered just as literally by the words, at or with. I am sirprised that Mr. C. sboold seem to contradict this, by introdaeiog *Rep)y to Elder, p. 108' 97 ^mA Mr. Hervey, as saying to hia friend and tutor, the rever- ed Mr. Wesley, th;.t ^n signifies »n, "and that it has been iu peaceable possession of tins sig^iHcation for more than two thotts^ and ycarj.^' Admitted; atid it has heen m peaceable poese^^sion of other meanings for more than two thousand yerrs. Mr Wes- ley in reply to his antagonist observes; "I never nssertftd the con- trary, yet I atfirm that it hiis several other significations." 2. If ii could be proved that the converts of John went into the water, it would not necessarily follow that they went under the water. A person can go into a river to a considerable depth, without being immersed; and it i^ ce;taia that th , individuals al- Indcd to, might have gone into the Jordan to be baptized by sprinkling oi pouring. Moroo\»r, when we remember that itv/as the custom of the country to wear sandals instead of shoes, and to go without stockings — that the people wore flowing robes which were easily girded around tliem — when we consider the warmth of the climate and the frequent custom of washing the feet that obtained among the Jews, is it vastly improbable that baptism in the Jordan was peiformed by pouring or sprinkling.' 3. That immense numbers were baptized by John is certain; and when we know that " all Jerusalem and Judea were bap- tized of him," it appears impossible that he shonid have practiced immersion. As all Jerusalem and Judea were baptized prior to the baptism of our Lord, John must have administered the baptis- mal rite to this immense number of persons in six months. Ac- cording to the exceedingly lew calculation of our opponents, l.e baptized 500,000 persons, which v u!d he considerably nore than 2:)0 per hour for 183 days of 12 hours long. This I shall be told is rot an insuperable difficulti/ for " he most probably employed coadjutors" ;*and why not add, that lie used machines or any thing else the imagination m ly conceive, to assist him in his unparrailelled task. " We shall not cdd to the Bible for the purpose of making John an •' immerser." 5. In modern time? we have riccr-baptism without immersion. In the East Indies there is a very ancient sect called ' The Dis- ciples of John the Baptist,' who reiterate the mode of John's baptism once a year. The following is Norberg's ricconni : ' On the day when John instituted his baptism, they repeat this sacred ordinance. They proceed in a body to the water and among them one who bears a standard; also the priest, dressed jn his camel's hair ornaments, holding a vessel of water in his hand; he sprinkles each person smgly as he comes out of the river."t Mr. Wolfe the missionary, found a people in Mesopotamia, who also call themselves The followers of John the Baptist, and who tako their children to rivers to be sprinkled. Mr. Wolfe asks "Why do they baptize in rivers .'" Answer. "Because Ht. John the Baptist baptized in the river Jordan." And iu Nova *HaJl on Com. Postscript. tCalmet's Cictiooary in Loc, 98 Scoti&, We have known cases where individuals have gont to 8tre«m«, to be baptized by sprinkling in the name of the Fatiier, Son and Holy 'Jhost. ' Baptizing IN Enon. "John also was baptizing in Elnon, near to Salim, because there was tuuch water there." John iii : 2'*. The Immersionists can see no reason for John baptizing where there was thuch water, but that he plunged his converts. Ou this we may remark : — 1. That Enon, according to Parkhurst, Schlensner, and Robin- son, signifies a founUin or spring ; and by the admission of Dr. Ryland,(a baptist, )our translation is incorrect: much water,should have been rendered many waters, or several streams. 2. Thai iu scripture phraseology, many waters and much water, frequently mean only pools, fountains, wells, and sometimes cups of water, and tears. Many passages might be quoted to prove xhal much water, in the language of the Bible, is of a very differ- ent import from its present acceptation. 3 The mighty floods of theEnon.so much renowned in the the- ology of our opponents.are nowhere to be found in the present day. I'AU that modern travellers have been able to discover of the Enon, is only a well, whither the virgins go forth to draw water." Dr. Gill concedes, 'That there is great difficulty in determining where, or what this Enon was.' Professor Ripley, very feelingly observes, "It is perhaps to be lamented, that sacred geography furnishesno testimony in regard to Enon near Salim. The precise situation of these places is now unknown " Now, if Enon was once little less than 'the confluence of the Tigris or Euphrates, and the swel- ling of the Nile,'* it is for the Baptists to account for its entire dis- appearance. 4. More water would have been required for other purposes than for baptism. "A single biook of very small capacity, but still a living stream, might, with scooping out a small place in the anud, answer most abundantly all the purposes of baptism, incase it were performed by immersion, and answer them just as well ts many watirs could do.'*Whenwe consider the vastnumberswlio flocked to John's baptism, that it is not probable that all would come on foot, and that they would be compel! ^d to wait a consi- derable time,-— when moreover, we consider the comparative scar- city of water in Palestine, — it was not only prudent, but absolutely necessary, that John should select a place where water could be easily obtained for the accommodation of the people. "It would lie easy to demonstrate, that four times as much water would be needed for other things, as would be required for immersion. It could not possibly, therefore, make any difference as to the quan- tity of water wanted, whether the people were dipped or only sprinkled." 5. It is obvious that John would not have left the Jordan for the Enon, solely for the purpose of baptising by plungmg. There was *A}'Iaad'8 Appen. p. 30. 99 ' surely more water in the Jordan than at Enon. Why then forMke the Jordan ? had it become dry ? bad its mighty waten crated to flow ? Sorely not ; and it is leA, to the reader thereforQ to decide whether John could hare goo* to Enon, merely for (.he sake of im- inening his followers. 6. It mast be remembered, tht>: John baptieeJ in other placet besides the two already named : *in a wildrrness,' (Mark • : 4.) *in the country about Jorvian,' (Luke iii : 8,) ccd 'in Bethabara, beyond Jordan,' (John x : 40.) Now, will thr Bapfista nndertaire to show that there wad Tr,uth waier in these places : are we then to conclude that John sometimes baptized by pouring and sprmk- ling? Again, we are informed that Christ by his Apostles, bap- tized more disciples than John, and yet no hint is given that they found it necessary to select places of much water, for the due ad- ministration of the ordinance. Will the Bapti^ls favour us with an explanation of this mystery— 'J'^hn.. they declare, wr-s compelled to choose places of much water, *o itnmerae the fkiu'titudas who desired baptism — the Apostles baptized stiU greater numoerH 'i,haa John, and yet they did not find it necessary to select the Jordan q( EaOB, or any other situation where there wa^ inech water ; by parity of reason, therefore, they did not baptize by immersion. Th'rs is the logical consequence of the argument o** our opponents. But it is passing strange, that the Baptists should talh of John requir- ing much water for immersion, when they will not admit any difficulty whatever, in the case of the three thousand b' itized on the day o' Pentecost at Jerusalem,* or of the subsequent baptism of the five thousand. If it was so easy for tight thousand at the dry season of the year, to be baptized in this city, by 'plunging the whole body in the water,' then I must inquire of you, whe- ther you can discover any reason, any consistency iny ir remarks on page 9, where you labour, and struggle, and pant, in demon- ptiating the necessity for John to lead forth the inhabitants of Je- rusalem so far from their home as the river Jordan, because there was not a sufficiency of water in the city, for the purpose of im- luersion. Sir, in the second edition of your work, yon will have to rescind the remark, for be assured, the Baptists will not thauk you, for publishing to the world, that the brook Cedron was dry, and that to obey the directions of the Lord, John was necessiated to haste to the river Jordan, for at Jerusalem 'there was not water sufficient for John to bapHze in." Ba!>tism or Christ. Much stress is laid by the Im- mersionists on the baptism of our Lord, who i» said, Matt, iii : 16, " to have gone up straightway out of (apo) the water." Here, however, the preposition used, signifies from, and that this is its general signification is certain, " for apo, 'Profeudr Worvis acks, 'Who can suppose that the wstera of Enon were retorted to for the simple purpose of bdjttujn^, when three thooMnd were, in one day, baptised by tlie Apostles, even at Jerusalem, in the dryest sea- Boa of Che year.' 100 9< u translated /rem, three hundred and seventy-four times, and out of, only Torty-six times in the New Testament ; indeed. Dr. Ryl-ind has observed thaf'it might be generally, if nut always thu« rendered." The passage may be translated, 'he went up /row the water ;' "an expression," sayn Professor VVood.i, "perfectly natural and proper, on supposition that he had only gone into the river where the water was a few ii^ches deep, or that he bad genu merely to the edge of the r'-ver, without stepping into the waterat ail. It will be kept in mind, that the river Jordan had banks of considerable height above the water, except when it was bo swol- len by the melted snows of Antilibanas, as to fill its upper chan- nel. Of course, Jesus must have ascended or gone up an ascent when he left the water, whether ho had been in the water, so as to be iumersed, or had been only to the margin of the water."* *Mr. C. begs us to remenber p. 27, that 'the Saviour's baptiiiin was adult baptisu), and that he waw not now an unconncioMB infant.' Tha: a person of thirty years of aie ia not nn unconscious infant, tew persons will disbeJicve, but &a Mr.''.ha8 deemed it importnnt enoujih to mention the fiict,thf;t a m.in is not a 'puling babe,' we shall not marvel, if anon, he reminds us that a lanili is not a full jErro\»n sheep. But we perfect:/ understand Mr. C —the remark was intended as a Rhaft against infant baptism— and when couchet' in plnin language, the argument (which we do believe, most sincerely Mr. C. would l>e ashamed to pen,) is as follows -. 'Our Lord was not baptiz'ed in infancr, and therefore the baptism of infiints is unscriptural.' I wish to propose the inquiry, by whom was our Lord in infuncy lobe bapti/.rd .' By the Jewish High Priest, or by John, at that time a babcofsix months old i" Mr. (;ra\v- ley, indeed, iii,.rvel»' 'if infant baptism be a duty, that tlie anj:cl who an- nounced the birth of John and Christ, should have given no insi ructions res- pecting their baptism in iulancy.' In (sober sadness v/v ask Mr. ( '. wheiher he Intended the remark naarfritmetit or irony ? Our judi,TiiPut compels iis to believe, thi;t it was not written for argument, while our good feeling to Mr. C. will not allow us to view it as a piece of irony : truly we are at a low how to construe it. Surely .Mr. C. did not expert that the ans;el would administer baptism to Christ : nor does he suppose that it would have been morfc in accordance with infinite wisdom. tA have instituted the ordinanc« of baptism sooner. The fact is, baptism was not instituted until our Lord had arrived at a state of maturity ; but the Redtemer at eight days old, was circumcised and initiated into the church; and while our opponents press their converts 'to follow their Lord into the liqaid grave,' we, in onr turn, press ours to brin^ their children into the church in infancy, that thev may enjoy a privilege which was enjoyed by their infant Lord.' That our Lord was not baptized to set an example to his followers, we consider certain from the words of the Evangelist. We have always conceiv- ed that Christ vm tiptized not as a private,bi*t as a public character,in order that he might be ..lade manifest unto Isroff, (John i : 31.) ; hence the Spirit descending upon him, and a voice from heaven attestiiiii his messiaship,John bare record, that he was the Son ol (Jod. As it was the appointment of the Father, that Chri«t should be made manifest unto Isrn.i at hisbaptism, so it was an act of obedience, for him to submit to the ordinnnce, and thus fulfil all righteousness. On the baptist scheme, it is strange that our Lord should have delayed his baptism until he entered upon his public ministry. If he was baptized as an examplf, ihen his followers ought not to be baptized uii- tll thirty years of age. "Why did he delay his baptism at all, arter he had arrived at maturity, if he were baptized r.s an exbmple to his (ollowers .' Were this idea correct, I have no hesitation in saying, that Christ would have been the very tlrst individuul to submit to the baptism of John." "But re- pentance and faith are qualifications for baptism," if so, how could the bap- tism of Christ be an example to his followers, when he had not repentance, having never sinned, ucr faith, siice be needed no salvation from sin i As 101 "But, ©ven adroitUng that our Lord did go into the water, and while in It, was baptized by John, can our brethren tell ua how it was done ? A total sabmerBion of the body does not neceaMrily follow a mere immersion of the feet and legs. The ancient carved and ecnlptured representations of baptism, as given by Robinson and Taylor, place the candidates sometimes in the water.and some- times not, while thfl officer appears pouring the element on his head. But there is not a panicle of solid proof that oar Lord went into the water at all— and consequently none that he came abso- lately out of it. He went to the water necessarily ; for John was baptizing with the running stream, and when some of it bad been poured on his head, he immediately retired." The Ethiopian Euwuch. (Acts viii : 27,^0.) "And they went down both into the water, both Pbilip and the Eunuch ; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, &c." The Baptists repeatedly assert from this passage, that Phi- lip pul the Eunuch entirely under the water. We b«g leave to offer tha following remarks : — 1. If it sliould be inferred from the Eunuch's going down into the water and coming up out of it, that he was plunged; the same also must be said of Philip the baplizer : for the words are, "They we It down both into the water,"—" and when they were come up out of the water ;"— and so Phi'ip was baptized as well as the Eunuch. "Here then must IKve been a rebaptism of Phi- lip ; and what is at least singular, he most have baptized himself as well as the Eunuch." 2. Nor will the Greek prepositions, eis and ek, rendered into and out of, being frequently vague in their import, determine the It^v th.n^Tll'' "•" ^'"■'■*- '*^" t^Pt^ed in hit oum name, for God does w.c7» .^^f iL *»^".°»"«; '5 »» »>n>o.i too great a piece of abwirdity, to waste time and paper m noticing it. Does not Mr. C't. metaphysica tMcli him that there is a materiai difference, between God doinc every thiuf In his ^)irZ'^!;it"nK''*;TP'7'?^"' '*'^""* *«™ •'«"«'' ^«"> *»«at or the father and the Holy Ghost, in a holy sacrament : wiil he confound thinw ao eaten- tially distinct .» If not, why offfer the 'chlldUh objection."' But Mr C will wove Ukew.se, that our Redeemer had faith, 'for he believed in God hla Fa- 4n^lL,.J,''L -T" /?"'**.' P'o^eithat the baptism of Christ, waa in an f^^hiT^'^ i*"** not in a Wera/««ue, the baptiamof penitent bellerera,' fiw the Lord is our n/fhte.ou»ne$». Aatoniahing ! The Lord is our richteoi^ hu r .h.r "^ »P«n'«en« believer, Christ was baptiied-he believed in God !^''i^^'^f';'»"^'her;forfi his wa« believers baptism, and tkfrefore he is an aIITFII to Ins followers m these respects. The faith required of an tadirl- „«? A Pf.''*P,"*«^' '• only faith in God the Rather, and ib jrefore any perMW not (in Atheist, may be a fit subject for the ordinance-but as penitents. Z^hl^nf'ZZ^ *''.\!f'^'„'"^'"'f ^" ^*""*'» ^''ome our own righ teouanesT, or that ofothers-in thU dilemma are we placed by the carlilinf of a Baptiat. iw!5!.Ml!?iKvf ■""""''"'''*' '*«*^"«» '""o extremeof fo!ly,to att^pt K^!?U" -"**' ?"'»>''»•«« method, to sho%v that our lord's baptism wsTtba lmS.i"C«ri!!^°»M^!H'' "!'**''"• '^"y person, who are reluctanftob. ii?2?^'. ''''^' ''^ •'**'' '^*' ""* «"*"■" «» " I'lt* Ohrist, they will not m- « i« fWo'«p'«neM-now it is well k.iowu to our Baptist IMend*. tbat f flilM aJl nghteousneas, Christ was circumcised, rejrularly kept the passovec and observed all the other Jewtah iiwitutiona-lto fulfil allriKteous^HS Christ, tlwrefore.our breilirea should do the saios. "»»*«»"■•" "« I 2 if 105 ease :"ei» being translated to, or unto, f ve handred Hmtn in tl:«j New Teitoment, and ek,from, one hundred and eighty-aix timje.' ' ••Ai than," observes Professor Stuart, "neither the langanion to the Apostolic argument be different ? VVIiy should his rising re- prpsenta«/.infMfl/newnt83ofIife; buthis burial renresenU a corporal ponture in the water ?" "We must therefore conclude, that it is the mere arttnioftho phriuse, "iwrtct^ with him in baptism" whish has led so manv writer.-, to mistake theallu-ioii in these texts. If we simply ask, d-ies tlie Apostle speak of t!ie bur'ai of the ftorfy of the believer in water, or ofthe "old man' the principle of sin, which "was "rucihed with Christ ;" the snare is broken, and we are escaped ; for ihe a.iswer must be, not to the former, but the latter." Scripture Passages cited by the Aiiti- pedohaptists. Tt is of considerable importance in the present controversy, to bear 111 mind, the ex ict position embraced by our opponents,' that 'baptizo wieanslo immeiss, and to imiucrse only.' "The con- troversy on this accommodating word, has been carried on to wea- rmess: and if even tlie advocates of immersion could prove what tbey have not been aide to do, that plun ;in^ is the primnr>, mean- mg ofthe term, they would gain nothing, since, in Scripture, it is lotoriously mod to expr.^ss other applications -.vater." To tlie law and tiioi, to the testimony. Baptism ok TABLfj, kc. Mark vii : 3, 4. "For the Pha- risees, and ail the Jews,evccpt they wash their hands oft,eat not, holding the tradition of their elders. And when they come from the market, except they wa-h, th-y eat not. And many other things 'liero be, which tiiey Iiave received io hold, as the washing (baptisms) of cups and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables." «i;ere the Phaiisees are said to have held the 'washing' or baptism of ci'ps and pots, brazrn vessels, and of talles i" not certainly for tlie gako of clcajilinrss, (for all people hold Ihe washing or baptism of such utensils for this purpo.-u ::; watsr. i he vessels of brass were undoubtediy used for cuiiuar/ purposes : and how these vessels were baptized Kny, 106 •ervant girl can give better information than a learned divine. I hnve juHt interrogated my servant upon this knotty snbject. How do you wash your brass pans ? I pour water into them. Do you never dip them in water ? No ; never. As to the tables, whe- ther we take the term literally, oi suppose, as some do, that .he couches are intended on which they sat or reclined at thair meaU, — dipping is nut of the question. What tiien becomes of the bold assertion, that baptiam always denotes immersion." " Whoever has seen pots or cups washed at a pump, may judge whether /Acy were necea.»art7y plunged. Whoever considers what cumbersome pieces of furniture these ancient tables were — say fifteen or twenti/ feet ]ong,hy four feet broad, and about four feet high — may judge whetherthey were /)/«n^ed, after every meal taken upon them. Convenient utensils for plunging, truly."* Divers Ba.pti.sms OF THE Jews. Heb. ix : 10. "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, (Greek bap- tisms) and carnal ordinances, imposod on them until the time of reformation." Thesedivers baptisms or ablutions, doubtlef"< in- cluded all tlie ceremonial cleansings, prescribed in the law of Moses. If, therefore, any of hese were by sprinkling, we have *proof supreme,' that to baptize is not to immerse only. Now it so hap- pens, that two of the^e divers baptisms are mentioned in verses 12, 1.^, of this very chapter. .The first was "by the blood of goats and calves" adij> nistered by sprinkling. The second was by the "the ashes of an heifer, sprinkling the unclean." Besides these ref,irences of ihe .Apostle, a multitude of scripture passages might be adduced, to prove that in these divers baptisms ^'sprinkling was used m.^st frequently of all, by way of purification and conseL-htion. ' .Mr. ('. professes to answer Mr. Elder's 'gloss't on the ve ' » r*" Ileb. ix : but we cannot divine what answer there is, in tesi ,i liat sprinklings are not immersions. Without one iota of proof i le oracle is laid down, that "the sprinkling mention- ed in verse 19, was one of the carnal ordinances mentioned in verse 10, but surely not one of the immersions practised under the Jewish law." Where is proof Mr. C. that the sprinkling men- tioned \erse 19, is not the same with the divers baptisms of verso 10 ? Here it is : suri 'y they were different. "Let those who con- tend for immersion as the only mode, explain to us the Divers Jewish baptisms performed in that way." Baptized into moses. 1. Cor. x : 2. "They were all baptized into Mose«, in the cloud aud in the sea." Dr. Ward- law inquires : "Are our brethren not sensible of the straining that i? necessary to make out immersion baptism he/ > ? — of the abso- lute ridiculousness of the conceit, (I cannot view it in any other light,) that the I--nelite8 were baptized, by having the cloud over them, and the waters of the sea on either side of them ' I caonot *G(lilorofCa)iiiet. tReply to Elder, p. 133 107 help the mind that baa brought itself to fancy ihia qnite simple and natural. A dry baptism I without the contact at all of the baptia- naal element, in any way ! Would oar brethren conaid'^r a man duly baptized, by his being placed between two ciatcra* oft/Dater,_ with a third over his head ? It most be amusing to vcnr readers. Sir, to find you ofTering the remark, tnat the Israelites were *in the sca^ because the waters stood on their right hand and their left." According to this, a prirson woald be in the water, iChe walked between two canals. Admirable logic! But *'the cloud that hung over their heads, dif- fered but little from water." Very well : then they were either plunged into the cloud, or its aqueous particles were sprinkled upon them, or their's was a dry baptism. Of these conseqnenceti, you are perfectly welcome to take your choice. And 'how were they baptized in or by the sea ? Not by immeision most certain- ly ; for we read expressly, that they *went into the midst of the sea, upon the dry ground; and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.' Ex. xiv : 22. As the ac- tion of a natural agent, the wind was employed to makes passage fur them, the extreme agitation of the waters by it, would occasion a mist or spray ; by this, as they passed along, they woald be sprinkled; and this I presume, is what the apostle medQS when he says, they were baptized in or by the sea."* Of Noah and the Ark. 1. Pet. iii : 20, 21. "Now, if this text refer to any mode of water baptism at all, and not to the influence of the Holy Ghost, it must be to the baptism of the ark, or of Noah and his family in it, or of both conjoined. Suppose it were of the ark, then what was the action here ? Was the vessel absolutely dipped under water, or did the water descend upon it ? Unquestionably the latter ; and though, from the quantity cf rain which fell, the vessel was at length partly in ^the water, and partly out of the water, it was never dipped, nor ever entirely unde. the rising element. The baptism of the ark was much like some of the representations in Mr. Robinson's plates of ancient Christian bap- tism ; where the converts are seen standing up to the knees or middle in water, while the officiating miniHter pours some of it on their heads. — Suppose it were of Noah and his family in i^ ark, then they were baptized with a 'dry baptism'; for the waters from above or below never touched them. The rain fell in torrents on the roof of their vess&l, but they were not brought in contact with it. And if this were baptism, we are often baptized by our fire- sides, while a copious shower is falling on our habitations ; and the mariner in his cabin at sea, is being constantly baptized when it rains on the deck of his ship though not a drop of it reaches his person. At any rate, Noah and his family were not plunged, immersed or dipped, in the waters of the deluge ; and what may be said of the ark and the people separntelv, may be proaoonotd *Uaac on Baiu. p 4!i. J" 108 of both conjointly. To say that the Hebrews and Noa!) were, as tl were baptized, ou\y betrays the difliculties felt by our opiion* entsiti this case."* Baptism or the Holy Ghost. So fully are we satisfied with the ample evidence already adduced, in proof that baptism 'a pouring and sprinkling, that we i.!uiost consider i; a work of supe- rogation to produce further testimony. Our opponents in their zeal for a form, warmly contend that baptism is immersion only.to refute this untenable position, we refer them to the baptisms of brazen vessels and table spoken ol by Mark:— lest tins should not suffice, we introduce the divers baptisms mentioned by ^t. Paul On this substantial foundation, tiie I'edobaptist may safely build ' and whde listening to the thousandth repetition of the cry, that 'to baptize IS to plunge and to plunge only' he has but to open his Uible and read the refutation of this notion in the gospel by Aiark- —to be satisfied of the inaccuracy of the bold assertion he'hi's but to behev*' the apostle of the Gentiles rather than his baptist brother If this is not enough, we bring forward the baptism of tiie IJoly (.host ; and we conceive, 'if there were no other evidence obtain- able m support of our practice, this would be ample, and to every ■nprejudiced, intelligent mind, convincing.' It should be remembered that the inlluences of the eternal Spi- rit on the .sonl.are termed h '»tism; and that baptism bv water and baptism by the iloly iihon are associated together lii the evan- gelical narratives. The harhinger of our Lord exclaims, '' I in- deeo have baptised you with water; but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." Mark, i: 8. In five other places in the I\ew leatament, this phraseology occurs. If the.. .fore we can ascer- tarn how the baptism of the Holy Spirit was administered, we may rest satisfied, that baflfism by watei", was administered in the eanie manner. "In fici, there would be'a perversion of all consistent Iangua<»e if tuere "existed any material difierence between them. To suppose thHi in the verse above the word baptize is employed for two such different actions as immersing and pouring, without any intimation to that effect, woulil be charging men who wrote as they were inoved by the Holy Ghost and in wo>ds. divinely inspired ( 1 Cor. u: 13.) with an incongruity of composition too egregious for the meanest scribbler, in Christendom. We, therefore, infer that the baptisms of the Spirit and cf water were administered in the same manner. Now the only question for our consideration is by what mode of application were men baptized by the Spirit ' Or in other words, were they applied to the Spirit in the form ofdipping or was the Spirit applied to them in theshapeof pouring or sprink- ling .' I'or it happens in this case that the manner was ostensible and the expressions are as Incid as the light. t ' 'Tliaros Mod. Imm. p. I6j. fibiJ. p. 325. 109 "The way" gays Mr. Peter Edwards, "to arrive at a clear vixw cf the mode or ontward baptism, is to observe in what manner the baptism of the Holy Spirit is described. This will lead ns to coDsolt a lexicon of a very superior kind, a lexicon worth more than five hundred ;and what is more,it is the plain,Dnlettered man's lexicon, and its title is "The lively oraclts of God." The ar- ticle we are to seek for is the term baptize. How does this lexi- con define baptiaare, to baptize ? Answer. — Baptizare eat n.per- venire,illabi,effundcre — plainly to baptize is "to come i'pon.' Acts, i: 8. — 'to shed forth." Acts, ii : 33. — " to riiLi. UPON." Acts, xi: 16.— "to POUR OUT." Acts ii: 17, x-45. That is, in this baptism the grace of the Holy Spirit co.mes upon falls upon — is shed forth — is poured out, namely, on the sotil. This is the account this lexicon gives of the word baptize."* But enough : it is universally admitted by the Baptists, that the baptism of the Spirit was adminitftered by pouring. Mr. C. .■scru- ples not to define it, 'the abundant outpouring of spiritual gifts ;' but in order to evade the force of this concession, we are told that the bestowment of spiritual blessings was so abnndant,that those who obtained them, were plunged or immersed aait were in theRe divine gifts (see page 111.) Thfs is the dictum of Mr. C. unsup- ported by a line of revelation, and opposed, as we shall presently show, to other statements in his work. Our opponents will not admit that a person is duly baptized who has water poured upon him so plentifully as to cover him, for fiuch a bapti.sm world not be a representation of the burial ajid resurrection of Christ ; but when an individual is made a partaker of the abundant gifts of the Spirit he is baptized, for he is plunged or immersed into these gifts AS IT WERE. As it were ! truly this i.>^ a fine polemical manoBuvre! they were not plunged or immersed, but only as it were! It is a little strange that Mr.C.after maintaining this pouring immersion on p. Ill should, on page. 150, testify.tha: "to wash, means a com}>Iste washing, but that baptize, however, does not mean wash, but iinmerse. This is its single, specific, e,:rtain 6ense."Here Mr.Ccontends for the action of tho verb, as meaning to dip or immerse only : the quantity of the water is left out of the debate. It is true, he al-o says, that "complete washing would necessarily have been the ordinance of baptism;" and here,accord- • " That the Spirit /iWins- upon these converts (Acts, xi:15, 16.) is eqiiiva- lent to his being poured out upon them,appeNrs,(Vom comparing this arcouiit fifPefer with the narrative itself of the event : (Acts x: 4.5.) '> on the Gmi- tiles also was poured out the (fift of the Holy Ghost." Look then, rcmler at Peter's words. The Holy Spirit was pourrd out, and P?ter called to mir.'t the promi8e,which oJ course he considered as beinz then fulfilled— ""ie shall he baptized ivith the Holy Spirit." Accordinij to Peter, then, haptt.im wa^ effef-ted by pouring out. Till better authority be produced. 1 desire to bow to this. And when Peter himself tells me that he did consider affusion ax itaptum. it !■ not 'he learnins !!f a!! thr. s'}vtr'..--.!.".^!=!= ;n E-r.-.-j^ :v..-.: ^m-.' persuade me, against his own wort), that it was inVpossible he shoBlil."* ©b! WAHBtAW. li 110 JDg to ]'.'.•> cwii rihowJng, the mtaniiigof llie word is abaiiHonfd. Thodct ifi, tlie biptists have so many contra ijictions on thJB 8i>l)jetl', th It It is dithcult to wade throujj'h the difficulties they have created "The liapti'^iji of the Spirit l)y pourinv; and sh; (iding, is very cn.liarrasinj; to our bapti:it l)ret!iren. If thia ditHeulty cannct he got over, their i-avnn is le ,t. On the liay of Pentecost, when the apos- tles were iMptizcd wiih the Jloly (ihost, we are told by cur op- ponentfi, thi.i he *'fille'l the house where they were sitting:" and that they weio tiius surrounded by, and ivnntrscd in, the Spirit. T5ut l!ie text docs not represent the sinrit us filling the house. "And suddenly there came a sound frojri heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled," &c. Acts ii : 2. Here is nn account of a so«/nund or Spirit, c.uine down — descended vpon thtin. The baj*- .'ismal element caHie ujion the sulijects ; they did not descend inl©* if ; the element was active ; the siil-jccts were passive ; uhich ex- actly corresponds with our mode : in the mode of our dilfering brethi n, this order is conijiletely reversed."* liAl'TISM OK TilE TuUKK THOUSAND, ON THE DaY OF rKATKcosT. The improbability that tjifse persons were bap- tized by dipping, Ulr. Elder, in his late publication, has most dis- tinctly stated : his statement, however, we are infonued by iVIr. C. "resen.bles the declamation of a parti'/an, fir v re than the Bober and quiet conviction of reason." Half acen' y ago, when polemical controversy was distinguished chiefly by its asperity, sufl'. language might have been deemed ornamental ai <1 prnise- WOithy ; bu*L wc gro;.tly mistake the char: cter of the present age, if -such harsh expressions will not be ranged among the dtj'ectv of JMr. Crawley's work. It is truly marvellous, that the baptists s'could maniftst any sur- prize in the present instance, when we allege iiiiprohabilities against their mode ofadministering the faptismal rito. They liavp forced these improbabilities upon us : and it is idle in them to charge us with 'ronjvrins; u]>' difficulties, when the deductions and inferences of their own writers, have compelled os to believo *Isaac ouBapt, J). 75. ♦v Ill m tlie exL^toace ofthosc dilficultias. For, either th-y roanon f.ke- Lr/''' rr"""= '^ ''"-■^': "''' ■■*^=^°'"^« »ec ...ity which «x- sted Un- John s rcMort.tjg to the waters ofthe Jordaa :ind Euon htJ n'i ^t^T"'; «';'"'!"'-"'"§' ''r there must have beea insurmount- able ol..t;i.l.,s to the d.,.p„ij; of threeahousaad in Jerusaleai. i,. a ^2 hours. Do the b.pt.st. w:.h u. to believe that John wa. ooUgt-d to seek for pl.ices nnnu^h water, ia order to dip his fol- lowers ? F so, are we not forced to consider it vastly improbable nay abso utely .mposdblo, to baptize by dipping, in a single day ... Jerusalem, and at the dryest season of ihe'ycar, so lie a .m.nber as three thousand .' Or do our opponents wiJh us to pur- 'Z'J r'^f'^'^'^g^ *« ^heir logical consequences, and show that • to ..'11 .'* ' '"]'' u"^"'"' "^^^ '"*' '« abundant in Jerusalem, as to allow Imn to dip his converts there . in consequence ofvvhid scarcty, he made choice ofthe Jordan and Enon ; yet that in-, tow years after th.s.Jerusalem was plentifully supplied with the ne- «.ssary element. According to this, had the miSon of .Tohn been delayed a short time, we shonid never have read of his baptiz- ing at Lnon, because there was much water there, for he could have immersed thousands in .fe.usalem. But when John livd the private and spacious public baths had not been constructed m' tne city; water vvas not plentiful, and hence that devoted Preacher U.^hlZ"'' '*' f."""' 'T'- -^^"^ '"'"J"'"'' "P dilHculties : our bap- ts brethren are tho real conjurors mtho affair; for. either John did u.t go to theFaon on account ofthe much water there, solely W4J1 reference to the r,te ofbaptism,or it is reasonable to suppose! j:nl;^''''''J»f .nsuperab e difficulties must have be^a felt in tha Uippi^ of three thousand in the city of Jerusalem «,hlh ^T, '^''^^' was exceedingly scarce in Jerusalem.isafact whch cannot he successfully controverted. Josephus informs us. tut when Antiochus besieged .fernsalem, in the year 1-30. B C the Jews wer<. once in want of water, which yet thev were del l.vered from oy a large shower of rain?* In the sneech of tho -anie historian, made to the Jews, when the city was' besi.>od by tl.e Romans, ha says, "you know that Siloarn. as well as "ll the 2. T,t^V '""^'^ ''''^^''"^ the city, did so far luil, that water va, sold by distinct measures, "t The Pool of Siloa.n mentioned >y our opponents, was frequently without water. Mr. Budcin-- ham m his travels, remarks, -that this poof is now a dirty Httte MOok wall scarcely anv water in it ;" and it is generally known. ; i?. t^ n^'V^'f^^'-'^^Smated in an inJigaiftoant spring, n-f *"^7«"^'^*^^''« «'ly' Of this latter poof. Chateanbriand . .. mns us, ythat It is now dry, and half HHed Sp." A. to the pu- li<- bath we shall 'Autiq s. as Mr. C. does not introduce a syllable of solid proof coiisider the notion as a figment ofthe imagination. N.y! »- la, ch. 1. s. 2. ^ fiii^t, ^Vttr», b, 5. c. 3. s. 4. # 112 ^ ( the foUovring passage ia proof to the contrary : 'And there were ■et there six vratfc. pots of ■tone, after the manner of purifying among the Jewi^, eontaining two or three frkins a piece,' (John ii: 6.) Now, did the guesta at the marriage in Cana, immerse themselves entirely in these stone water pots ? " When onr op- ponents talk of every family having baths for ceremonial baptisms, they appear to forget that the inspired writer has said, that they were Htone vessels of compnrn'.tive'y amall dimensions, placed in the rooms where the people usuaily sat, and which precluded the possibility of immersing themselves, or one another into them." Bat the baptist writers have not condescended to understand the ditticulty in the case, with regard to water. If there were many private and public baths, yet it ia not likely that twelve places could have been procured in Jerusalem by the apostles, who were M generally detested, and as their converts were mostly visito<9 during the feadt of Pentecost, (Acts li: 8 — 11,) they could have cumtuanded no private or public conveniences for such an im- mersing. Let the Baptists fairly meet the difficulty if they can. 2. The next difficulty refers to the limited time occupied in bap- tizing the three thousand. That this immense multitude might have been baptized in a day, no person can doubt; but the disciples employed but a very small part of the day. Let us consider the business of the day. The Apostles meet to?' thcr in one place. The Holy spirit is poured out upon them. lu various languages, they declare to the people the wonderful works of God. Heavy accusations are brought against them. Peter makes a defence, and rea:ion8 largely from the scriptures, and multitudes are pricked to the heart. Then, (for our opponents practice is apostolic,) the three thousand went before the church, to relate ;heir experience — then, a sermoa was preached on the mode, subjects, and design of baptism — and then they were baptized. Mr. C. tries to avoid tl-.e difficulty with respect to time, by introducing as coadjutors with the apostlei, the seventy disciples, and so the task is per- formed in thirty minutes. Truly this is running from Scylla into Charybdis. Adopting this fiction, 'the poor and parsocuted dis- ciples, and their equally detested, if not anathematized converts,* provided immediately, eighty two places for immersing three thou- sand persons, in fair and pure water. The Baptists may believe this, but they must excuse the Pedobaptists, for not crediting s» palpable an absurdity. In vrhatever way the Baptists endeavour to render it probabi? that the three tboosand were dipped on the day of Pentecost, they are met by ma* ly groat and insurmountable difficulties. They enlarge on the abundance of water, and almost try to make it ap- pear that Palestine and the countries of the Cast, are lands of baths : the ignorance of Mahomet must L..ve been notorioos, for be rubbed, poorad, or sprinkled on his followers inatead of water % m ZtZ'^'^TZ"^'^^^^ '^""'"'^ for their daily ah. ill I. i'ley speak of Kumorsion m familiarly practici m Jeru^ntern wh.ch ,, mere assumption, and indeed ''k la only b^ tho omamotence of mere assumptions" that they give an ai of PhMiiTnfS'"' ^.*'''" • ^^'^'J^= ^■-*^) ^^« ?"'« »>y the case of Plhl.p baptijng at a cty of Samaria, supposed to have been althorh"' ^^"^ll'l ^''^^-PP'-^'J ^vi'h wafer from Jacob's weu" although we might denve from it circumstantial evidence in sup! on h !r ""'' '^'' " "'""'•^ ''^ unreasonable to suppose thSl ^amantans, ' from the least unto the greatest." VVc refer to thn bapfsm of PauK "The apostle," observes Mr. Isaac, "at he tie ot his baptism, had neither eaten nor drank for three dnr^ T htt''?;r "r^^^"'^y-^-l' this long fast Cstt" produced. w t ^fr^ ^'"'*" ? '^^ "'^y' ""' ^«" •'^^ l^y the great remorso with wftlch he reviewed and repented of his crimes. ^ It was now also the depth of winter, (aboafthe 25th of January) at re earn- ed have supposad. That in this weakly and fJeble state Ae arose an,l was baptized, by being totally put nnder water- seems, to say the least, to Inve scarce the air of probab liJy •' If any case could justify delay, sarely this is one, *^ In this state when Ananias .s introduced to'him. he addresses him with!" And now why tamest thou? arise and be baptized." "A^d he arose and was baptized. And when he had received meat ha was strengthened." He did not, we see. break hisfaTtill tto ordinance was over. Can any man suppose, that in this feverish o^,f nf thT '''•'"' ""^u" l^^ ^'^'^'^ «f "''"'^^ he was taken in!o h if" '" '''''^ "^^ '■'""'■' ''' "^"'^^ ^'^'^^ "^"d P'°"g«J Baptism of Cornelius and his Family (Actsx* 44 4S. ) After the Gentiles had leceived the ^ifl of the Holy Ghost' bSd'' T?" any man/orAf.f «,«, , , that these shoaled not be baptized? This significant question must mean.Can any man for- but water to be brought; or it must mean, Can any man forbid *Tlie Baptists introJuce an olijection aireirst iniknf hnnfj^— a. ... will perceive, tliat the historian Sned to .hV?h^Tn '*' ''";«V"'^ '"^ t. >^in„„,aal could "e":.t';'rf?o',; h^ '*^, :rce KiSf^.f^" ""'^"^ rermng the kin«,lom of God, no reason can I f^ite^ for exoMd^ «t."^'* ''°°" of the baptism of infants in this relation; for suc^an acc^4lt,? T'^'*""' pletely forei^ tc the historian's design. The evoressio^llS^ l**^ **'"" e.st imto the least' can onlv refer to thP rnn r J.? . "•'?'^ the ereas- Svn>iritnns= f.,rfh«i.inf„".l !!„,'._" '■'*' cond.tion, and not the a-e m" the of an a;,ostIe Th,. historian designed *t;%i;ow""t'hrt rich' LTT'^' '^"^ and wonieii,Tiadonre been bewitched bv *!imVin:'. ';**"«'" ^ »"«' Ponr, men '.vicfuaU were induced lobelievj audi'bajl^ej •' '^^' '^' '"^' '"^'^ '"- ut to gc 9Ut to a river or stream^ To the noprejudiced. we mifht appeal, for « confirmation of the former meaning aa the moat aatoral. "Bat is ever lach language used in reference to dipping in a brook or a baptistry? Itia, however, very appropriate, when applied to a tervant's bringing some in a vo^mI, aa is done in oar administration of this rite." Bat to compel as to afiix the meaning, Who can forbid water to be brought' we iurve the decisive fact, that the descent of the Holy Ghost on the centoriorx and his family, as Ke Jell ujionthe disciples on the day of Pentecost, immediately brought to whe re- collection of Peter the words of Jesus, respecting ihe baptism of John. This instantaneous association ia the apostle's mind, must have been very remarkable, on the system of our opponents. *What resemblance wa*. there to create such an idea, if John im- mersed all the people? Are uny two acts morn directly opposite than the descent of the Spirit on the heads of a family, and plung- ing such a family into a river? That the Spirit descended, we know — it being a fact universally admitted; but what intimation was this t,o Peter, that the people should therefore be dipped? Supposing, however, that water-baptism as administered by John and the apostles of Christ, was uy causing the element to descend upon them out of the band or out of a measure, the whole narra- tive becomes consistent and rational? You will observe that the outpouring of the Spirit and baptism by water, are denominated one and the same thing, and are so blended in' this narrative, that it is impossible to conclude that they were not precisely similar in action. Hence we conclude that both were by au affusion or aa aspersion." Baptism of thb Philippian Jailor. (Acts xvi: 25—34.) The ingenuity our Baptist friends evince, in discovering all requi- site conveniences for the baptism of the Jailor and all his, is not a little remarkable. Some of them invent a 'tank or bath' in the prison at Philippi, sufficient for baptizing by immersion, and con- structed for the purpose of washing the prisoners on entering; but this notion is contradicted by the fact, that Paul and Silas had been sent to their cells without the benefit of it. The general opinion of the Baptists is, that the Jailor and Ms family were baptized in the river Strymon. " So the Jailor took his poor prisoners, washeu their stripes, and let them out of prison —of course under a strong escort — and then he took his wife and children out of their warm beds at midnight, and with second suits of clothes under their arms, away they all went through the streets, probably filled with people frightened by the earthquake, till they came to the city-gate, which was soon unbolted, and out they passed and proceeded to the river (v. 13.) Then they went into this house, and shifted their dresses in the dark, or the turn- key held a light Then Paul, or his companion, or both, walked tola the water^thea the Jailor came out and was plunged — theu % 115 bis wife follonred aod wu p]aiig«d — aod thea came out their fk" miiy and were plunged— the turnkey ftill holding the torch. Tbett they all went back into the houM— took oflf their wet clothea which they wrung, tied in bundles — wiped themaelTes dry put on their usual apparel — returned to the city — entered the great gate— and soon reached the gaol. Then the Governor gave hia prisoner's some victuals— conducted thera to their cell, and locked the door upon them. Then the Jailor and bis family went to bed and slept in peace."* This is the climax of absurdity; and we couceive that "no one would have fancied they were immersed whose mind had not been prejudiced greatly in favor of dipping. As our's has not been, we assume that the Jailor and all his were baptized by affusion or aspersion. This conclusion renderr the details of St. Luke burmonious and natural/' IfIiscellaneoa§ Remark§. 1. The great importance our baptist friends attach to the pri- mary meaning of the word baptizo, is the more astonishing, since so many Teamed critics overthrow their limited appliction of the verb. ''But even if it wer^ the case, that baptizo always sig- nifies ;o dip, or immerse, all over in water, when applied to other subjects ; it would by no means certainly follow that it has this signification, when applied to the christian rite of Baptitm. There may be sutlieient reasons, why a religious rite, though denoted by a word in common use, should not be pertbrmed in a manner ex- actly in conformity with the common signification of that word. This we well know is the case with the words, by which the other Christian ordinance is denoted. The word supper in En- glish,and deipnon in Greek, have a verj' difierent sense when ap- plied to that institution, from what they have in ordinary cases. Ea- ting a morsel of bread does not constitute a supper, a principal meal ; although this is the common signification of deipnon. But in this religious rite, eating a small morsel of bread is cal- led a Supper. Now if the word which denotes one christian rite has a sense so widely different from its usual sense ; why may it not be 80 with the vrord, \ hich denotes the others christian rite ? A3 deipnon, in refsrence to one rite, signifies, not a usual meal, but only a very small quantit',' of bread; *rhy may not baptizo in reference to the other rite, signify, not a complete washing or dipping, but the application of water in a small dejree ? This would ptesent the two institutions in the same light. * In the first; as bread and wine are used not to nourish and invigorate the body, but for spiritual purposes, or, as a sign of spiritual blessings ; a very small quantity is sufficient. So in the other; as water is used, not to cleanse thff body, but merely as a sij^n ot spiritual puriSca ' ttr\*% • «• rij VI Water jiiastbc Stitliwiuuiy -BS mm: 'il^Ui «w Tliorn's Mod. Im. p. 2iO. 116 ■I r she pnrposM of thi* ordinnnce, mm -mnl! <]nontitv of brwd nm) wiiie I* lor th., purpo^tw .,f the other. The ftonn'^hm.Mit of the bmly in the ono cmo, and the cleansing of it in th« oth.-r lj».in r no pdft of the end to be ani^ered ; a large quantity either of bread or of water .^an bo of no use."* 2. Our opponents triu nphantly remark, that had ponrinff and sprinkling been th« uiodes intended by oar Lord, it is ^^trange that the t.roek words cheo and t .tantizo had not been employ .'f? Hat ' It w palpable hoyonfl mistake that the word baptize a emnloy.>d to ^xpres, eff..ct-; produced by poarini' and sprinkling— or in more general terms, for applying the element Henno it answP-s our . nd as el.Hotually us chro and rhantizo. Beside,,, inight not onr opponents be asked in return— if the sacred writers understood haptLsm to ,„ean a total dipping, why did they not employ wonls 10 express it uneriuivocally declarative of such a state or operation. I lad buthizo, duno durto,epikluzo, ptuno, or ;.V tizo been used, we might iiave considered the objections of our brethren more spwnous and tenable— and when they have fairiv ausvvered our question, which completely neutralizes theirs, we f'hall cousKler that proposed by them, of suUicicnt importance lo re.juirp a little attention- and not before."! 3. Many eiiiiiicnt scholars have contended tliat the word bap. t.zo, l.c.„g a general term, is best represented by the word wasfu .'Ut washing, our brethren are pleased to inform us, is more than 'sprinkling a ft-w dmps of .vater, or only woistenin? a ^nmll part ot the surface of the body." Let us however search the scriptures on t.^ns subject. '« Scripture itself warrants me so r>xpli- ntly, to consider sprinklmg;, or pourinif, as sutHciently expres- sive of wa^fituir or clrunsing from polhuion. that I have no de- erence to pay to any ufiirmations to the contrary. Let the fol lowing examples be attended to :— Ezek. xxxvi : 25. " Then ^iW I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be cloiin " N'ruikhn^r ,« i,ere represcited as havii ,r the effect of c/pa,»,inn the side of the Bapusta, since a vast majori'y of commou readers decides against their practice by adoptmg a contrary one. This, we shall be told is owing to the force of prejudice: bat we demand proof of this; or will our opponents explain the fact, that the children of Baptist members, alinost whofly and exelnoiTely become Baptists. 'If they are not prejudiced by the expository lectures of their respective teachers, how happens this phenomon in tl ' t jligioas world? Of what value then is all this parade about the natural conclusions of common readers in favour of dipping?' Are iVdobaptists more a^ected by education and prejudice than Bap- tists? VVill our friends ansv^er in the affirmative? If they will, then we hesitate not to say, that not farther distant are ihey from modesty than prejadice. But if in theory our opponents lay stress on the conclusions of unlettered reiders. yet in practice they dis- regard them. Hence their lectures on divinity — their commen- taries on the scriptures — thfir publications innumerable on the baptismal controversy; hence also their support to colleges, to edu- cate men to explain the Gospel. 'On the ground that the vrord t3ee Mr. Crawley's, Treat p. 170. lis IKi -■God is so vorv ;,ia,n u-. lU lowor cUis^,, of our rourtrynon, Mil uTth,,^'^^^^^^^' ''*^'*'-'' '"'■''■ ^"'^''^''> '^nd oral insu- c:i.- ,» A.r piJ, "". ^^ ' ""i"'""''^'" '0 ^"'•^•cy ti'fi inultife).riou. and cnnir.^-wd J- ,''"';'"''*•■* ^'^^O'^i^"-''! vvitl. tlio ditierent account.:* ofKaptis..! wi houi I.^.Mng ciruck with the plastic energy of prejudication, hv n^ ,! "^I'0"«'"'^ '"^^'^r i'^il to mould all circumstances into a P«rie„t ud piution to their own views. Like the Isradites in re-urd fo man.Ki, our Ir.ends, with respect to water, neither have too'iit- ne noiu,..r .- there any over. Place them in Jerusalem at th- ZVl- """T , '" >'''■"■• "'"' '''o«=«i»"^ of hogsheads of the pure ■ nd h,u,.,d dement are at lund-transport thorn from the 'city I 111 to Uarrr.n \v,L-to-a niiracle is instantan..'»usly wrou'dit for U.eu arcommo.Uion,-' the parched ground hecomes a'pool!' n u.t th.'M sh ,11 the,r condition he in the ' .swellings of .Jordan ' a'Ul:M.u]ih.tu„ch writer of Knon ? i\o complaint shall that ..l.-n,d..no. . Hc.t_it is uU of course needed for baptism.. Into sue... „;,.o,:ir:u.i:L.. -Iocs a determined adherence to the system o *• exc;i^,.-n,,i:iiUTsioi. 'e--.d its votcries."* ■^. 'Mt;s*,ni-;..g though mortifying, to debate with many of ou. opponent' ,_(<.,^ ,ay what you will, they are sure to he vie- him "r.r ■.'?".'■ ''i""^ ;n.alogica! illustrations, they pronounce then, far-i.lcho,^ and irrelative-ifyou contemplate the suhje. t >n ^nliift.^r •''•''''''■ "/ '■•^'■'^"•^ ramifications, they call it a childish ■ P 1 ing of hnu-s, and unworthy of so grand a theme-if you paz- /le fhcn l,y ti... prodaetion of facts and demonstrations, •thev as- >;i"o you that tne plainest evidence may he perplexed and nlysti- nea uy a subtle and disingenuous disputant-if you prove, that ii was ,u)t hkdy that a system, so liable to alTect the modesty and leJltl ol so many pious neople. should have been institute.! by H "'' f r"*','-"^'"'-' ''"^ U"ive.,^al sacia.nent in the church, they „.nr"''"! . ' r"' ■>"" ■"■•' '•'"<''''"li"S'^ ceremonvof divine api.oint- •tnt and ihcvfore ought not to be reasoned with any lon-I^er-il ney leel at a loss for reason or argument to establish any p'J.sition '•' I iveur o( their .,;hen;e, founded on some particular pa;sa.r,. f.. ''•'urse ,s imme.hateiy had to uhai we very naturally .leern the ' .ronoou. expositions of certain Pedobaptists, whose opinions aru 01 no greater weight m our judgment than their own— and if per- cnance. rhey are for a moment foiled m debate,they arise with ro- ;••« -.. ^ :;;our, ■l,coIl^l^lll- themselves in the delightful tiieu'^ht tilt greater 'uen and wiser Inads maintam, and they doubt not' ' 'in nel.'iid, their practice. "t ltid,.-\'s StrK-;ai,s, ji. li. t Tkuru'.s. Mud. Im. p. 46 119 Conclusion. And now, ?ir, after having reviewed your pcunililies and M- Peiigilly's urguiiif-nts, if such ihf-y can be called, allow me to congratulate the Baptists on having guinod so strenuous a cham- pion of the vviitery cause. Y»3t if a spark of grate remain iu that heart, which it is to be feared, has too long been a source of evil inaciiinalions and church-disturhmg projects — if there be left one reluctant desire to abide by the truth of (Jod as contained in the Old and New Testaments, then let me remind you of those arou- ii'cnts ba.-ied on iloly Writ, behind which I'edobaptists have re- (iiainod, and will remain tor rolling centuries. Of these arguments you either have been wilfully ignorant, or knowing, you have with chniacteristic presumption, alf.n'ted to treat them with dis- dain. But of this be assured, that however loud and long mav be your outci-ins against human learning — however insidious your cneers a^rair'.st the learned, tli(; talented, and the eloquent, vet will these lhmc=^ av;iil you nought in a I'rovinco, where learning i- appreciated and intelleclu;'! celebrity applauded. T!ie sort to which you tia\e now attached yourself, |)osilively assort, th::l the word buptizo moans to immese and onlv to im- merse; but It haf« been .iir.nly proved, to have no less than twenty nr thirty significations, iiu'.aning to s-nic ar the face with i .)iours, to dye gaiiiients, by putting on the cohnirs, lo wash by pourin^r water on the hands, and numerous others, wliich fully show, that It should in its sa.uamental .sen-^e, be used to d^^sigi 'e the appli- cation of tlie water to tlie candidate, vathei than of i..e candidate to the water. Tiius the oft-repeated assertion of the Haptists, has b"en amply and triumphantly proved by Pcdo!i;iptist writers, to hi' unsupported (^ither l\y classK^il or scriptural usage. The ciicumstances of Christian baptism, have been exanuueJ with the ri.ost sc-iipu!ous nicety, and they have been tound to li.'ar no favourable asjieet to tiie baptist theory, 'i'ho phrases 'into' ;md 'out nf which have perhaps proselyted thousand;-, of t!).>, unstable and unlearned, nave been foun I to be perfectly com- patible with Pedobaptist practice, as flie ciindidate.s might havH entered the water knee deep, and still not have been immersed. 'J"h';bapti'-m of the Spirit, and we are porry to say it, t'e.itrd too cfton by liaptist writer.-i in a strain almo'^t bordering on ridicule. It has bee.i shewn to you was always, and i.s only by shed- ding forth and poorin from every taint of dogmatism. We obtained the work; we reac it; we were disappointed Wd m^t with so much of an offaniiv; character, with so m'lf-h of the "magisterial tone," that wi- were deeply grieved. Nor were wa alone in this feeling, for we have reason to know thit so u ; Biptists imd almost all Pedobap- tist.s were of the sirn^ mind. .-\nd this reply was the more odious on iicf.ount of tht^ mildrtS'Js of .Mr. Eidtjr's jJuWicUion. Some indi- viduals with whom we are aoi|ur,inted, from reading Mr. C. 's work c.'itoitained a powerful prajudue against Mr.C. — Thoy very wisely however obtained Mr. E.'s letters and the consf3quence was, that iheir prejudice wis transferred tc h.s opponent. We repeat it, that we were deeply grieved that Mr. C's. pen should ha/e been so dogmatical and otteasive. Before we hid c().u^»U;'.9ly digenoi th'j argii:nent3 ;nJ vidcles 197 of Mr. C, the Btvictares of ^fr. Richer vrera issued from the pre«. We forbear, in this place, to enumerate the excellenciea of thw work. \Ve had often admired Mr. R.'s correct and Classical elo- qoence in the pulpit; but not having seen him in the ruggerf field of controveray, we were not awsre that as a disputant, he wielded so powerful a pen. His strictures have now gone forth far and wide, and will establish his superiority as a polemic writer. That the Baptists could not allow so "superficial, inconclusive, perfectly unsatistactory, and weak a production" to remain unno- ticed, we well knew. Accordingly the Baptist Magazine for July, was employed as the instrument with which to give it tbt, first desperate thrust. The modest editor of that periodical, characterizes Mr. R.'s work in most amusing terms. Behold his flowers of Rhetoric!— "The extreme futility of Mr. R.'s work— the weakest production on the mode of baptism we have jver read— it abounds with iti- numerable orrors— it is lamentably deficient in argument— a su- perficial and inconclusive production — it is surprising tnat it should ever have been published as a reply to Mr. C.'s carefully and guardedly compiled treatise— as a reply to Mr. C.'s treatise. It is perfectly unsatisfactory." Our readers must excuie us, if we again remind them, that this is the nineteenth century. As we survey the above heap of eulogizing epithets, we canD"t re- frain from laughing heartily at the profound tactics of Miis modest edito). We thank our opponents for theafe pretty terms: they fully convince us of the overwhelming force of .e publication ' a;»ainst which they are directed. We want no bettei proof of the sterling merit of Mr. R.'s work, than to hear baptists loudly and publicly stigmatize it " as a superficial and inconclusive produc- tion." This is eulogy of the be.', kind. We are satisfied with it. But some heavy charges nre also preferred against Mr. R.'s strictures by this modest editor. We Setice particularly these two: — 1. "His statements and argnments«re uttered with a tone of confident assurance, calculated to impose on the unthinking." 2. "Much personal vituperation appears in his publication:" "not a few passages ought to meet with pointed animadversion." As it will very materially assist us to form a proper estimate of the incorrectness of these allegations, we shall refer to Mr. C.'s reply, to discover whither that is written in a tone of confident assurance, or contains any thing which bears the most remote re- semblance to personal vituperation. Specimens of Mr. Crawley's tone of confideni- as- stJRANCE. The practice of inliint baptism is entirely inconsis- tent with the divine purpose.' ' Infants are in fact usually bap- tized by force ; their cries and strugo^les sufficiently attest this.' 'He never could intenH to nay, that infants "ensra!!'.' wnssM £•**!«_ pose his kingdom.' 'Would' Mr. E. have "the apostles charged with the additional business of nyr.-fing infants? 'The man who sees infant baptism here must be indued with a new species of 12S I Bight." 'Inftnt church membership, a creation of mach later tiitiM.' 'The Old Teitanient furnishea not a shadow of evidence iu I .ppoti of infaat baptism.' 'The ceremony of infant baptism is utterly opposed to Christ's ordinance.' The absurdity of giving baptism to an unconscious babe.' 'Infant baptism is a corruption,* 'There is not in the Now Testament the most dis- tant allusion to such a practice as infant baptism.' 'The sprink- ling of infants is a late iuvention ; it is no where found in the word of God.' 'Baptism was never designed for infants. It ca.^.- not apply tj their condition.' 'The fearfully dangerous conse- quences of iuf'Qt baptism.' 'To practice infant baptism, is plainly 10 be guilty of 'adding to the things' written in the book of Di- vine Revelation.' 'To add a rite to the Church like infant baptism is not a trifling natter ' 'The practice is unsustained by scripture, it ii an invention of men, and therefore on its own head be all its abuses.' 'Infant baptism perpetuate Christianity! let the dungeons of ll'.^j inquisition, the racft, the flame, and the faggot — let the cold hfv^.clity of the German Neologists— let the pride, the pomp, the arrogajy^y of national religious establishments, say what sort of Christianity infant br^ptism has perpetuated!' 'To baptize irt- fants, is to prostilute sm ordinance ofCh.ist, to a use not com- manded, or even alluded to in the New Testament, to ausethere- foie which is forbidden, and must be displeasing in the BIGHT OF GOD.' *I am compelled to look to the principles of the Baptists, as a ' means essentia/ to the final triumphs of the cr'^ss.' To prop a cause that has been felt to be untenable in any other way, much resort has been had to the Old Testament. Now, this appears to us inconsistent with the dictates of commor^ sense.' 'What proof has the person baptized as an infant of his obedience .' A sorry answer to make at the Judgment seat, that he supposes he was baptized.' 'Pedobaptists in their struggles, to escape from this formidable array of facts.' 'Miserable struggling this indeed, to support a tottering cause.' 'And what, after all is this, but 8-iying what has been said again, and again, in every variety of form, and refuted as often that because the Jews circumcised in- fants, therefore the apostles baptized infants.' 'We beg Mr. E. Hnd all Pedobaptists, to reme.iiber how large a concession this is, and to hold it.' With reference to the deduction of the padobap- lists from 1. Cjr. vii : 14. wo are told, 'there never was a more iZ/oa:«ca/ conclusion.' 'This is truly to make white, black, and to put bitter for sweet.' 'On these households, some supporters of infant baptism seize wif'> avuiiti/, as affording, they think, a glimpse of ividence in support of tlisir favorite system.' 'It is, indeed, quite a remarA:aL»/t" coi/ic/i/cnce, that these particulars should have been mentioned, respecting every one of the baptized )ioii«f;hn1di3 : as ifirwer'i t '^ vvjll of God-, that uftfloh.Tntisf-^ who will resoit to such arguments, shall be coiiviclcd of their er- ror, almost OUT OF THEIU OWN MOUTH*.' 129 'Who can they miclead but pedobaptisU, who chooie to arne facu from silence ? To $ueh persoiw, thoie or any other paaeagea may, of courM, be the foundation for any ay«tem which human ingenuity may invent.' 'No no,*, cries Mr. E. «I did not mean to come to that concluaion.' 'We have felt it neceaaary thus to ex* poa« the h«Uowne$$ of the argnment.based on the lameneas of the churches.' 'To say that baptism hiis come instead of circumcisi- on, u a lame assertion.' 'That i. indeed the only one of his letters concerning cbe Hubjecta of bapcism. that deservei examina- Uon, or has any appearance of reason.' 'This surely is strange logic* 'Mr. E. would clamour loudly, to md-ce u& to read bap- tism instead of circumcision, in the conclusion of the above syllo- gism, but can we do so, and reason honestly.' 'It is surpriz- mg that any one can be to dull, as not to perceive, that proving the Jewish and Christian churches to be the same, does not prove that the same ceremonies are to be used in both.* 'The confusion ofthoughc which Mr. E. discovers.' 'He set ^ to have seized hold o(thfi first meaning of the word' 'Here .. Mr. E. in the nine- teenth century, making a more da&perate plunge than the coldest formalist.' 'He repeats the never ending story about the neces- 8i:y of recurrence to the O. T. to sanction the Sabbath.' 'What Mr. E. says ofthf early and general prevalenc«? of infant baptism, 13 mere vaporir, r.' 'He grossly mistakes the meaning of those predictions : no .critic of any authority, makps so gross a misin- terpretation.'* Driven fhom every post on the ground of the New Testament, on which they thought to S8tub!i.sh them- aelves.the advocates of infant baptism at length take refuge amidst the ceremonies of a darker dispensation, as the folorn hope oi- AN EXPIRING cause.' 'It really requires no common stock of patience, to be under the necessity of gravely replying to such childish trifling as this,' 'He rakes together every quibble that the most ingenious fancy can devise.' 'The first difficulty conjured up, is the want of water in the ancient city of Jerusalem.' 'How would it sound to Piy.'he will cprinkle or moisten you with ihe Holy Ghost' 'It is impossibub to read the above passages, without feeling assured, that the ceremony which was performed in the river Jordan, could be nothing less than bathing or immersing the whole person.' 'Almost all critics of any celebrity have admitted, that la both of them, (Rom. vi : 4. Col. ii : 11.) there is an evident allusion 'o the original mode of baptism, by immersing or bury in the body in water. (Did Mr. C. forget Professor Stewart again.'g *lf the publications of Professors Stewart and Ripley, fail to pro- duce conviction, then satisfaction, as to the meaning of the word baptizo must be hopeless ' 'Baptizo means to immerse. This IS Its single, specific certain sense. If this forr -, of immersion -i« Projessor btewart, no critic, or does Mr. Crawley forset his Krow mumterpretation of the pasiages ? Likewise Dr. Wardlaw, Ac. 130 f ( f bn not obierved, the ritt iUelf is utttrly hat.' '"erhaps the sense of no word in any language is better ascertained than that of baptize' "Knough appears in the english translation, to satisfy the nitJt unlettered reader.that baptize must rwf an, immenio or plunge.' 'Oar Saviour was immergcd, ho '-ommanded his apostles to im- merjt/they accordingly immersed aii .vho bel'oved. ' To the charge of vulgar vituperatiou in the adrer.isement that pr -eded Mr. R'swork, we answer by referring this modest editor to the ubove string of peaHs. We beg him to read Mr. R s stric- tures, and tiien candit'iy to tell us, whether "with respect to liber- ality of sentiment, they may not be regarded as presenting a noble and striking contrast, to the dogmatism and magisterial tone, to 'tho loftiness of pretension and arrogance of language' with which Mr. Crawley's work is nnhapp ly, so deeply surcharged." Specimens or Vitlperation in Mr. Crawliy's Work. With regard to the vituperation contained in Mr. C's treatise, we are sorry to find it of so marked and personal a cha- racter. Take as a few examples, the followi'-<» passages: — 'It wounds his "cputation, to see him reviving all the stale trifling* which he,had himself laid to rest' 'Did it appear to Mr. E. a manly way of sustainmg his change of principles, to rake together every quibble, &c. 'Mr. E. can now find it in his conscience to assert.' 'Mr E's ^r^erfy accumulation of almost trcry notion, that has ever appeared.' 'When a ma., is making a desperate push, his courage may be in proportion to his daring ! Mr. E. is certainly courageous in bold assertions.' 'An honest man, and one SINCERELY desirous of giving perfect satisfaction to the body of christians he was fi^. at to leave, was bound to show, not so much what he corj say for his new opinions, as what answer convinced him of the fallacy of his old arguments. How does this consist with his taking no notice of them at all.' 'One cannoi but be appalled, therefo'-e, at the appearanee of deliberate hostiii- iy, with which he thus plunges the dagger of calumny into the heart of a whole community.' 'Mr. E. pointing ihe finger of scorn and contempt, cati raise against his "beloved brethren, " ns hecalls them, the cry of bigotry !' 'Badly as Mr. E. sometimes argues, this piece of reasoning is too gross to permit us to save his charity at the expense of his logic. Was it merely introduced in order to cast another shaft of reproach h\. ♦bq Baptists .''f We have introduced the above passages into our wor' , \. '<\.\\ ex- treme regret, and are exceedingly grieved that they vvei e ever written, ♦The reasonings, inferences!, ic. ofthe Pedobnptistssfrt/e trifling ; In all our reading of Bnpttst publications, we hnve never met v/ith 'any thing eqi.nl to this expression. It srands perfectly unique in the controverbv. "Stale trifling !" tWe advise all our readers to pror-ire Mr. E's letters. Thev wili then be enabled to judije whet' r Mr. E. desorveil such Ireatmeni at "the hands of Mr. C. A second edition oHho letters we hope will be forthcoming: we ....... ...... ............ ...J. ... j..^^.^„^.^...„ -^-^^ V*"4.j*ii.''3j iliu* hiiC *»>"OrA iutxy DvO|j uia&e Us reappearance. 131 But \f,e call upon the religious public to judge, wliethe** it wai td be expected, that Mr. Ricliey would reply to a work, containing 80 many otFensive passages, in that mild and equable manner, that u pcblicutiun of adifTerent spirit, would huve called for. We ad- mire in Mr R'» production, the firm and manly bearing he exhi' bita. He reasons with boldness aud confidence a» a sound logici- an, but manifestb but little ofth'i feeling of the angry disputant. Nor shall we believe that his work contains the \ ilgar and person- al vituperation charged against it, until the precise sentences are pointed out. We sincerely believe it to be as free from any thing of the kind, as the nature of the case admitted. A glaring misconception is another charge brought forward a- gainst the " superficial and inconclusive pioduction" of Mr. R, which charge this kindly editor, in t.he exuberance of hia compas- sion, refrains from terming a miarepreaentatian. The passage in Mr. C's treatise, which is declared to be misinterpreted, ia the following : — " Towards many Pedobaptists, we entertain the sentiment of wurm and Hrmly rooted christian regard — BUT, in the Church of Chriai, and in the participation ofiti holy or- dinances, we dare hold fellowship with none but those whom, in the exercise of the most christian and charitable judgment, we believe the Saviour has scaled as his sincere disciples." The in- terpretation of Mr. R. is, sealed by imm':rsion : that by the edit- or is — sealed by the Holy Spirit, thus limiting the import of the expression to christian character ,without any ruference to baptism. To christian character, without doubt, Mr. C. referred, but that he also included immersion, is equally certain We inquire, does Mr. C. admit into the Church of Christ a single person, no matter however pious, who is not immersed 7 Certainly not. Is not the Loru i Supper one of the holy ordinances of the chbrcb, and does Mr. C. admit any but the immersed, to participate in the euchar- ist ? Certainly not. Plainly then Mr. C. refers to baptism by im- mersion. Agfiin, if Mr. C.does not admit the unimmersed into the Church, how, we ask, can he hold fellowship with them there f To jntimate, therefore, that Mr. Crawley can hold fellowship with the unimmersed in the church, when he does not admit them into its pale, is so profound a mystery, that we are lost in its deep obscu- rity. We know that "while the Baptists would be shocked at the idea of suspecting '.ne piety of their Pedobaptist brethren, they contend it would be criminal to recognize it in the church."* Of these principles, the same writer, (a Baptist,) observes : — •• Tran- substantiation presents nothing more revolting to the dictates of common sense. They invest every little Baptist teacher, with the prerogative of repelling from his communion a Howe, aLeighton, or a Brainerd, wliom the Lord of alorr will welcome to his rre- st;nce."t ♦Rev. Robert LI ■'jI. l,p. 422. tIbiJ. vol. 1, p. 449. 132 We are willing, however, tliat the case should be decided by one of the ino3t important rnles of interpretation, namely; that the words of an author, in any particular place, should be mterpreted by other parts of his writings. We will cheerfully allow Mr. C . to be his own interp.eter. On page 165, we t d a parallel pas- sa-re ' " ■'r -making of the willingness of the iiaptists to jom m praye- .obaptists, and to unhe with them in every mea- sure t .tt'd ta promote the general interests of Zion, Mr. C. observe^, out, e feel, that our imperious duty is to recognize, as members of Christ's visible church, none but those who, havin- repented of their sins, and believed inChrist.have f/icret//)- on been bathed in water." For one, I cannot but think that the above ritaiion infallibly demonstrates, that scaled by immersion, is the fair and legitimate meaning of the disputed passa;?". &o»je Santi.t- we know, have so understood it, and the opinions of the nedobaptists in this view, will be affected by nothit.g short of an •xpress denial of this interpretation by Mr. Crawley himself. 1 he . assertion of the editor, ansustained by proof, will not at all be re- <»ardej in the decision. ., „. , . a- "in the e<'.itonal,we are also informed, that««Mr.Richey has suffer- ed himself to be betrayed into an assertion distmctly opposed to the fact It is not Mr. C. but Dr. Wall, who represents Bishop Taylor as pleadirg hard for immersion." The plain statement of the case is this : On the authority of Or. Wall. Mr. C. represents Jeremy Toylor, aapleadirm hard for immersioa : Mr. Kichey, on the authoilly of Dr. Hammond, states that Bishop laylor, thou-h deeming the Baptists deceived, collected a few arguments in their favour, which to himself appeared sophistical and guch as no person of judgment or penetration could accredit; rely ing upon this fact, VTr. R. contends, that it was absnrd for Mr. . to i, troduoe the Bishop into the affair. But the editor makes Mr. R. answerable for his authority, and liberates Mr. C. from all respon- sibility as to his authority. Accordingly, ^'^^ gre^t/j'"'; 'J '^ asked, "Which will the public now b.lieve Dr. Wall, or Mr Richev as mhtlv representins; Jeremy Taylor s raeamng . Kut Mr editor, l'!?. iJno?fair. The question .'s, "Which will , he public believe, Mr. R. or Mr. C. or which will the public behove Dr W. or Dr. H. as rightly representing the Bishop ^meaning. Let Mr. C. be responsible for his authority, as well as Mr. R ; or let the decision rest with the authorities themselves Although we feel satisfied, that Dr. Hammond, would be as likely to know the, precLe views of Jeremy Taylor, a. Dr. Wall, yet we are willing,, to allow the differing doctors to decide the disputed question , W- have now to notice the most severe and unwarranted cb'>ff-' preferred against Mr. R's pamphlet. In the editorial it runs th^^ ■Much declamation about liberality and chanty is there exhibited. ^ HI a style whicti is jusiiy cnar^caDic v.;;:: ;::_ -.-pt:!. ••,-- - . violation of the truth." These words plamly amount to au ac- 133 ^osation of falsehood. A few days after we hid pledged our- 'Ives to notice this editerial, we were informed by private note, t'lat there was a strange error in the printing ; the wordn •« the truth" having been substituted for the word " both." We mn»t confess, that had we been acquainted with this fact prior to our advertisement, although we might have regretted the bitternew of spirit manifested in the piece, yet we should pot have deemed It worthy of any notice. We cannot, however, find language to express onr astoniahment, that the Editor should have allowed so " high and serious an allegation" to be circulated in Nova Scotia and the adjoining Province, without endeavouring in some way or other, to counteract its baneful influence upr . the public mind. In consequence of our advertisement, the attention of the religious public was directed to the obnoxious article in the Baptist Ma- gazine, and It was only just that an acknowledgment should have been immediately published. For two months an accusation of ftlsehood was permitted to remain unnoticed, uncontradisted. Week after week we patiently waited, expecting some acknow- ledgment of the error, but in vain ; and now on the cover of the September number of the Magazine, all the notice taken of the mistake is " for violation of the truth" read " violation of both. ' We forbear offering our comment on these things. We leave he facta with their inferences, to the conaideration of the reader. As the editoria'; refers to the multitudinous Pedobaptist con- cessions brought foward in Mr. C's treatise, we shall offer a few remarks on that subject. 1. It must be obvious to every rellocting mind, that quotation.-* introduced to sustain any point, which are not founded in argu- ment, but are the mere opinions or dogmas of the authors, can ba of no avail. Now, nearly the whole, if not all, the concessions produced by Mr. C. are merely the opinions of the writers refer- red to. And suppose ten thousand dogmas had been exhibited yet of what worth would they have been in argument > Can any theory be proved by mere assertions ? If not, then the citations Of Mr. C. being only the assertions, and not the reasonines and ur^uments of the writers, are of no service to Mr. C. and are entitled to no regard. Professor Stuart indeed, is introduced r'l'i K »^"**"'"*'®^' "* ^^9\a.m his various positions, and we are told by Mr. C. that he has made large concessions. Larrr- how- ler, as may have been the concessions of this celebrated f.iblica! •tic, yet It was t. ought necessary to publish an immediateiy re- •ly to his essay, by Professor Ripley. xt Professor Stuart lias not conceded every point in tho ^..troversy, will appear plain from the following passages :— * liiere is then no absolute certainty from usa^e, that the word ■f/ '-0, when appHed tn designate the rtte of baptism, mean* «t couise to immergc or/^/uw-c." (p. 313) " Both the classic M 131 I «,.» nr^A that of the SeptuagiiU shew, that washing and copiou* ZZToi bapt.». .nay have been P-^o-^J '"-;„"* .'^^ wav8 althou-h it is designated by the word bapttzo. 1 Uo ihat If any one maintains the coutrary, >t must be ^'^her because hP i« unable rightly to estimate the i.ature and power oJ tha GrekTangua'TorLcausehe is influenced iu some measure by party llelfngfo else because he has looked at tj>e subject m only Tpartal manner, without examining it fully and tl^oroughly '2 The concessions of Mr. C. are objectionable, because they do not concede the whole point at issue, between baptist, and Pedo rDtUts As Mr. C's. citations are mostly copied from Booth,we *ha Produce the words of two respectable wr-ters. The first la t^ Kisor Kfdd's treatise:-"If these ^'o^^^^^^Z f^r the Dlun.'ina of the baptists to our pouring or sprmkhng,vviin {S\heo£anTbeingnu//i^eJvvhenanyot n.od. t using ^ater IS cd.pted, thenlu the parade, ^^e bapt.^. make abou the principles, concessions, and reasonings of f'fobapt »ts i mere Sophistry, in the room of solid argument. ^^",V^ "" ,;/ 'V ,rny duct in 'producing detached passsages from the works ot ^«any eminent oedobaptist writers in support of their tenets, " a^/'«- that he who reads a form, however, devout his disposition or ear- nes £srupprications,does not pray, and who would then appeal tofiVror bixtv writers in vindication of his ill-grounded dogma. TliesecTad quotation is from the Rev. Peter Edwards's baptis- ""'IrBooth's professed d. V.gn is to prove that the term "bap- .l.p''meansimmersion, immersion only, and nothing eUe. But I Cshe do t ' VVhy, he quotes a number of authors, who, rlhTmself says; undersized the term to mean immersion, pom- .ndTnrinkling and these quotations he calls concessions Con- mg.and sprinkling, ^^'^'^ "''^ » ^ ^ immersion only •= If ^oTmadclh^ cone d^wLrthey never did concede, and what :S;%adto thought of concediii. If they m .» iip nrknowledges they did not, that ttiL itrin ui>h'> =,.„_ rmn.er''ono„ly.?vh^^ be in pioducmg them at all :- "■ kcd, that the concessions heaped tog«- baptis- 135 iher by Mr. C. are mostly extracted from Mr. Booth"* ponderous volume*. Tbe remarks of Mr. B. 'concerning them, will not, there- fore, be out of place. He says, 'many of the following quotations iir». to be considered as concessions of these learned authors — no inconsideraSle part of them asserting, notwithstandmg what they here say, that the word bnpiism signifies pouring and sprinkling, as well as irnmsrsion.' Again, 'though these numerous and learn- ed authors have expres.' from p.dohaptist authors, it ispresiimed, to sanction the views and practice of the baptists: but these authois do not sanction their practice, inasmuch as they themselves con- sider baptism fo be [lOuring or sprinkling, and in this manner, they baptize all their converts. I!once we consider those authors unfairly treated, in being brought i^ -vard to uphold a svstem which they ne'-^r intended to s spport. And besidi-s, the baptists, of all controversialist:!, should lie the last to ad. •pt such a mode of procedure, 'i'hey have invaiiablv denounced any reliance up- on name! and human authorities. They have boutlcd tiiiies with- • jiioiir» Moil. I III. p. t;j. \\ \ 13G out number, ^f'tlie plain and abunuant support their systci. re- ceives from the Scriptures. Appe?la 'o other sourros, they have long and loudly condemned. And jei, in their controversial writ- ing*, with mach apparent d' ight, they produce names in abund- ance, and encumber a scriptural subject, with human authorities. If they can prove their system from the scriptures alone, let thein do 60. If they cannot, let them candidly acknowledge it. But it looks a little strange, thai they 'hould marshali together the opinioDfl and doftias of men, when the Scriptures themselves no plainly and -ally d-monstrste their viewn. And to add to their incor-riritency in this business, they first condemn all re- Hoarceu) human authority, and then "greedily accumulate"every scattered fragment of divines, poets, and historians, which seems in any measure to favour their notions. The advrrtisemeot which preceded Mr. Riciiey's publication, is ueclared by the Editor of the Magazine, to have charged Mr. C. with •« wilful misrepresentation." That ' wilful misinterpreta- tion' is charged against many baptist writers in that notice, is an undeniable fact ; and if proof is needed to corroborate this allegai'on, We need only mention that " Jeremy Taylor's Bap- tists Justified" was republished by a Baptist Preacher a few years B»Tice, as making concessions of vast importance to the Baptist urgunient, whereas theJ3ishop himself deemed the arguments he had written as sophistical and unworthy of notice : but Mr. C. is only said to have added " another specimen to the mountain pile of misrepresentation." We leave it to our readers to decide, whether Mr. C. is justly chargeable with misrepresentation, ac- cording to the view we have taken of that subject. He has given us tin; mere opinions of certain Pedobaptists — these opinions are, in nearly all cases " extracted from those works in which the writers do not treat on the controverted subject, and wherein they would express themselves w th caution," — these apparently careless or incidental expressions do not concede the whole point at issue — moreover they are introduced to sanction the sy 'em of the Baptists, which system their authors shew they utterly dis- regarded by a contrary practice. If these Pedobaptists considered the views of the Baptists exclusively scriptural, they must have been notoriously perverse and insincere in practising an unscrip- tural and invalid baptism ; if they did not consider th^m exclu- sively scriptural, then of what use is their introduction intt) the con- troversy. As to the odium of the advertisement, we may perhaps think it worth our while to notice it, when the Editor has cleared himself of the odium which must rest upon him, for allowing nn unintpntienal charge of falsehood against Mr. Ricbey, to be cir- culated over the whole province for two months without attornpt- ing in any way to correct so great and grievous an error. We notice one more p.nrticular in this modest editorial. " Mr. U'n iiiciius YVoUlU uo Vvc'ii iu vh'iv.'w, iiiu -' HoOL-BOY C-AuitrUiOu, 137 td VVI.!''^1'^l^ exultation ! Really Mr. Editor thi, i. too .0 besSrTir r"''' ^'l' ^'\^'''^«''^ ' Was it not enongh Wpr V. K? ,^ ' ""'''' ""'^ '"^^ •-* profusion of epithets ' Wer.vou obi.sed to wound Mr. R's friends, the large body of oJ'ecklh'Jfr 'V'"r r""*^^'. ''^ «^-^««Pectfully entreating S to check their school-boy exultation ? p tempore, ! O more, ' One would thmk from the tone of this baptist review? that that denomination of Christians are quite a p;ivileaed Trder-a li- berty to say the most contemptuous things i.nSable withou characte 'it' ""■ u'^ T'"''^^ ^"^^^'' "" «'^'°'? »° ^^r^stian m Sv .h. T''^ '■'^">' "PP"'"'"' '^''^ "'-^^ opponents are mightily chagrined, when we set at defiance their high notions n'alHb litt "r to '" '7r"^""- ^*'^'' "'^''="'°- «--'Ption .f 'their rkim^^^^ to use the langunge of one of their own friends, .oiiovv t ThV° """T '^'" 'nfallibility can only excite in us deep IrZT^f . ' r"'^ ''\""^'' detestation of their principles. Hoi tC . he'can r" "Vu ^^' ^ /° '^^^'^« ^^^^ '''"^ the assuranc^ vith 'In ^^"^^"h««.-to be toId,thatonr practice is fraught s2 „^'^;"gr7^'=°"^'^;i«ences' and ' must be displeasing in fbe vpnt nn f '''V"^" ptonounce that our system is « an in- r!Zn "T^ ^'"""'^ "PP^^'d '" ^^'"*'»'« ordinance,' that our reasonings and deductions are « stale triflihg.' and th;t we have not the shadow of evidence to support them from the word of God-above all, o have ,t cast in our face thai ^ve are guilty of vvhth'" ^'i^'"='. ^■'■'"^'' '» the book- of divine revelaLn vyh ch we are charged to remember is « no trifling matter.' And shall such dogmas be tolerated in the nineteenth century .' Must we sit down calmly while bapt.-t publications fulminate such ecc esiastical anathemas .' Or mu.t vve reply to such execrable Srtr"'? '" '''''' 'T' ^'•-eeknLs and submission'? God IS our witness, we wish to live peaceably with all men • but peace and pusillanimous co.iipro.nise of principle are dif! nnTr 7 T r^'"" ""'^^ "' ^^ P^'^ofs sincerely desirous of understanding and obeying the will of God-let them come down from the mount of infalhbility. and treat us as their equaT; a^S the.r kindly feelings will be reciprocated; they will know that nostnuy of an adversary, but a fair and ingenuous investigation of rm: i:.vzj '\. # N. B. la the hurry of passing these sheets through the press, we have allowed a number of errors to escape our notice ; but a* they do not generally affect the meaning of the passages, We bav» thought it unaecessary to add a list of enata.