IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 <r^ 
 
 <^1^ 
 
 1.0 
 
 1.1 
 
 11.25 
 
 ■ttljl lU 
 m Bi g2.2 
 
 Sf L£ 12.0 
 
 
 HiolDgraphic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 ^ 
 
 r 4. 
 
 1 -^ •- % 
 
 33 WBT MAM STRMT 
 
 !WnSTn.N.Y. 14SM 
 
 (7U)t73-4S03 
 
 
 v\ 
 
 V 3^ 
 
4% 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 CanMllMl liwtltun lor HiMOfle*! MIcroraproductloiw / Imtitut Canadian da microfaproductiona hiatorlquaa 
 
 :\ 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notat/Notas tachniquas at bibliooraphiquat 
 
 The Instituta has attamptad to obtain tha baat 
 original copy availabia for filming. Faaturas of this 
 copy which may ba bibliographiealiy uniqua, 
 which may altar any of tha imagas in tha 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 n 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 □ 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 I I Covers damaged/ 
 
 Couverture endommagAe 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaurta et/ou pellicuMe 
 
 Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 I I Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes gAographiques en couleur 
 
 □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bieue ou noire) 
 
 I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 
 D 
 
 Planches et/ou illustrations an couleur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Raiii avac d'autras documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La re liure serrie peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distortion le long de la marge intArieure 
 
 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 ajoutAas 
 lore d'une restauration apparaissant dans la taxta, 
 mais. lorsque cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas AtA filmtes. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires suppltmentaires; 
 
 L'institut a microfilmi la meilleur exempiaire 
 qu'il lui a M possible de sa procurer. Les dAtaiis 
 da cat exempiaire qui sont peut-ttre uniques du 
 point de vua bibliographiqua. qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la m^thoda normale de filmage 
 sont indiqute ci-dessous. 
 
 Tha 
 toti 
 
 pn Coloured pages/ 
 
 D 
 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages andommagAas 
 
 Pages restored and/oi 
 
 Pages restaurtes et/ou pelliculies 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxa( 
 Pages dAcolorAes. tachet4es ou ,siqu4es 
 
 Pages detached/ 
 Pages dAtachAas 
 
 Showthroughy 
 Transparence 
 
 Quality of prir 
 
 Qualit* inigala de I'impression 
 
 includes supplementary matarii 
 Comprend du materiel suppMmantaire 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule idition disponible 
 
 I — I Pages damaged/ 
 
 ry] Peges restored and/or laminated/ 
 
 r~T| Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 
 I I Pages detached/ 
 
 r~^ Showthrough/ 
 
 rri Quality of print varies'' 
 
 |~n includes supplementary material/ 
 
 I — I Only edition available/ 
 
 The 
 poaa 
 oftr 
 filml 
 
 Orig 
 bagi 
 thai 
 sion, 
 otha 
 firat 
 sion, 
 or ill 
 
 Tha 
 ahall 
 TINi 
 whic 
 
 Map 
 diffa 
 antir 
 bagii 
 right 
 raqui 
 mat» 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc.. have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalament ou partiallement 
 obscurcies par un fauillet d'errata. una palure. 
 etc.. ont M filmAes i nouveau da fapon A 
 obtanir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 This item is filmed at tha reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est filmA au taux da reduction indiquA ci-daasous. 
 
 10X 14X 18X 22X 
 
 2tX 
 
 aox 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 12X 16X 20X MX 2BX 32X 
 
Th« copy filmtd h«r« has b««n raproductd thanks 
 to tha ganarosity of: 
 
 Library of tha Public 
 Archivas of Canada 
 
 L'axamplaira filmA fut raproduit grica k la 
 giniroalt* da: 
 
 La bibliothAqua das Archivas 
 publiquas du Canada 
 
 Tha imagas appaaring hara ara tha bast quality 
 possibia considaring tha condition and laiiibility 
 of tha original copy and in Icaaping wKh tha 
 filming contract apacifications. 
 
 Las imagas suivantas ont tt€ raproduitas avac la 
 plus grand soin, compta tanu da la condition at 
 da la nattat* da l'axamplaira film*, at an 
 conformit* avac las conditions du contrat da 
 fllmaga. 
 
 Original copias in printad papar covars ara filmad 
 baginning with tha front covar and anding on 
 tha last paga with a printad or illuatratad impraa- 
 sion. or tha back covar whan appropriata. All 
 othar original copiaa ara filmad baginning on tha 
 first paga with a printad or illuatratad impraa- 
 sion, and anding on tha laat paga with a printad 
 or illuatratad impraaaion. 
 
 Las axamplairas originaux dont la couvartura an 
 papiar ast imprimte sont fiimAs an commandant 
 par la pramiar plat at an tarminant soit par la 
 darnlAra paga qui comporta una amprainta 
 d'impraaaion ou d'iilustration, soit par la sacond 
 plat, aalon la cas. Tous las autras axamplairas 
 originaux sont filmte an commandant par la 
 pramiAra paga qui comporta una amprainta 
 d'imprassion ou d'iilustration at an tarminant par 
 la darnlAra paga qui comporta una taiia 
 amprainta. 
 
 Tha last racordad frama on aach microficha 
 shall contain tha aymbol -^ (moaning "CON- 
 TIMUED"), or tha aymbol ▼ (maaning "END"), 
 whichavar appliaa. 
 
 Un daa symboias suivants apparattra sur la 
 darnlAra imaga da chaqua microficha, salon ie 
 cas: la symbols — ► signifia "A SUIVRE", la 
 aymbola ▼ signifia "FIN". 
 
 Mapa, plataa, charta, ate., may ba filmad at 
 diffarant raduction ratioa. Thosa too larga to ba 
 antlraly inoludad in ona axposura ara filmad 
 baginning in tha uppar laft hand cornar, laft to 
 right and top to liottom, aa many framas aa 
 raquirad. Tha following diagrams illustrata tha 
 mathod: 
 
 Las cartas, planchas, tablaaux, ate, pauvant Atra 
 filmfo A das taux da rMuction diff Grants. 
 Lorsqua la document ast trop grand pour Atra 
 raproduit an un aaul clichA, 11 ast film* A partir 
 da I'angla supAriaur gaucha, da gaucha A droita, 
 at da haut an baa, an pranant la nombra 
 d'imagas nAcaaaaira. liaa diagram mas suivants 
 illustrant la mAthoda. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
met 
 
 // 
 
 / 
 
 ANHADYERSIOIS 
 
 UPON THE 
 
 'M 
 
 REV. JOHN EOAF'S 
 
 TWO SEMOIS ON BAPTISM. 
 
 
 I 
 
 BY 
 
 JAMES PYPER, 
 
 PASTOR or TBB BOND STREET BAPTIST CHURCH, TORONTO. 
 
 i •;! 
 
 \ - 
 
 TORONTO: 
 PRINTED BY CARTER & THOMAS, 45, YONGE STREET. 
 
 1851. 
 
i 
 
 Uo) 
 
 * 
 
 Note. — It will be seen, in tlie following pages, that I have used the phnte 
 ijifant baplisin,''' in its popular sense. 
 
 — ,i . i'P . -A-'it ii4i j L^tv.- 
 
ANIMADVERSIONS. 
 
 I propose, in the following pages, to examine " Two Sermons on 
 Baptism," by the Rev. John Roaf, pastor of the Adelaide Street 
 Congregational Church, Toronto. These discourses were originally 
 delivered by Mr. Roaf to his own people, and are now given, in printed 
 form, to the world. They have thus become public property, and 
 may, without even seeming to interfere with the pastor in the con- 
 scientious discharge of his duties to his flock, be subjected to the 
 ordeal of a legitimate criticism. 
 
 The ordinance of baptism has long been a bone of contention 
 amongst God's people ; and when, or how this much-agitated ques^ 
 tion will bo put to rest, it is difficult to foresee. One thing, however, 
 I beUeve to be certain, namely, that enlightened discussion cannot 
 fail to facilitate the accomplishment of this object Taking this view 
 of the subject, I am glad that Mr. Roaf has published these sermons. 
 I have read them with care, and, I believe, with candour : still I am 
 constrained to believe that the arguments oftered by Mr. R. (which, by 
 the way, are, for the most part, but an echo of Wardlaw, Taylor, 
 Ewing, and others,) fall very far short of sustaining his positions. 
 
 The world hjis been so long under the domination of creeds and for- 
 mulas, and confessions of faith, that the language of those human pro- 
 ductions has become so thoroughly blended with the language of the 
 Bible, and the sentiments which they inculcate, even the most errone- 
 ous, have become so incorporated in the minds of men with Bible senti- 
 ment, Bible thought, and Bible association, that it has become difficult 
 to separate them; and hence it is, that good men urge dogmas with 
 contidence, as doctrines of the Bible, which, after all, are but the 
 teachings of some confession of faith. We have evidence of the truth 
 of this statement in the tirst sentence which Mr. Roaf pens. He sajs 
 ♦' It (baptism) exhibits God's covenant in which we are all interested." 
 I do not complain here that the phraseology is unscriptural, — my com- 
 plaint is, that the idea sought to be conveyed is at variance with the 
 teachings of inspiration. Baptism, exhibits no covenant, human or 
 Divine. In controversy, especially, such statements should be avoided 
 or proved. 
 
 Mr. Roaf, in his first sermon, discusses — First, " The DrviNB au- 
 thority FOR ADMITTING Childrjen TO Baptism ;" and. Second, "Thk 
 Import of it when thus applied." In his exordium he says: — 
 
 " There are parties who doubt whether children are admissible for baptism. 
 Now, the question between them aiid the rest of the Christian world, is uot, whe> 
 
4 ANIMADVBRSIONS UPON MA. ROAP'S 
 
 ther children or adults are to be baotised, not whother infunts or believers, but it 
 is whether intU its, as well as thtiir bL<li(!yin<r parents, ought not to be bapttz«(L 
 Those who baplise childieu, baptise aUo -udultii." 
 
 On this I remark, 
 
 1. That our opposition to infant baptism docs not pjrow out of 
 doubts which wo (iiitortain, as Mr. 11. euppos'js, as to the admissibility 
 of infants to baptism, but out o{ ajirm conviction that the practice is 
 unscrijHural. 
 
 2. The (jucstion between Baptists and Pcdobaptists relates as dis- 
 tiuctly to bi'liovers, as it does tu infants. 
 
 Mr. K. seems to admit that behev(;rs ox^ght to bo baptised; yet it 
 is only secinin'g, fur our autlior regards a solemn invitation given to 
 
 {)enitent believers to do just what the lledcenier enjoins upon be- 
 icvers, as a "temptation" which he trusts will never lead those 
 sprinkled in infancy, " to repudiate;" sonietliing which he calis "this 
 grace of our covenant Ood." Here then wc liiid an issue of a most 
 important character between our brethren and (nirsclves. We plead 
 for the baptism of believers. Tlieir system carried out, would banish 
 such baptiiiui from the earth. Christ has made it obligatory on every 
 one who hears the gospel, whether sprinkled in infancy or not, to be- 
 lieve, to become disciples; and it is His command that such should 
 be baptised. Jle has made no cxceptinns. \ly what authority, then, 
 does Mr. II. act in excepting himself, and nearly all his people ? He 
 cannot pL*ad the law of circumcision in e.xtenuation of this dereliction 
 from the path indicated by positive enactment ; for many of those :vho 
 had been circumcised in infancy, were, in the days of the Apostles, and 
 by their authority, baptized upon a profession of their faitli. No one 
 becoming a disciple, was excused in those days on the plea of having 
 received the " Seal of the Covenant " why should they be so now ? 
 Convince me that infant baptism is divinely appointed and I will prac- 
 tise it, but never at the expense of a law which no power under God 
 can abrogate. It is one of the evils connected with infant baptism 
 that it annihilates believer's baptism. It is a tradition which makes 
 void the law of God. 
 
 Mr. R. says, (p. 4.) " True, faith preceded scripture taptisms, but 
 that faith led to the baptism of households." This is precisely what 
 we contend for, and I ask, if faith on the part of the subject preceded 
 • tcripture baptisms, what kind of baptism is that which faith does not 
 precede ? Faith " led to the baptism of households ;" but in order 
 to sustain his views, Mr. R must prove that blood, as well as faith, led 
 to such baptism. But Mr. R informs us, " that the order in which 
 matters are stated or described is not a proof of their having taken 
 place in the same order." A protestant minister using such a sub- 
 terfuge ! how strange ! Because some matters are mentioned in 
 scripture without any reference to the order of the occurrence, are 
 we to infer from this fact that we are at liberty to baptise other sub- 
 jects than those which the law commands to be baptised. Does Mr. 
 K believe that the comtuissiou allowed the Apostles, first, to baptise 
 
SERMONS ON BAPTISM. 
 
 the worsliippcrs of Jupiter, and afterwards disciple them? The Jesuits 
 liave acted upon this principle, and have baptised thousands of un- 
 tutored and unsanrtified savages. A man, must examine himself and 
 bo able to discern the Lord's body in order to partake of the ordinance 
 of the supper acripturaUy. But if this principle be correct, infants, 
 and ungodly adults may be worthy communicants ! With such a 
 principle I will undertake to upset the entire order of Christ's house. 
 It is a peculiar infelicity of error that its advocates can never long be 
 consistent with themselves. Mr. R subverts his own principle on the 
 same page on which he attempts its defence, "^lle says, "but admit- 
 ting, as we do, that faith and repentance did precede baptism," &c. 
 How did Mr. li discover this order ? Just as other men discover it ; 
 here his common sense triumphed over his theory. 
 
 " The question," says Mr. U., "is, did not the iiiith of such as were 
 parents, lead to the baptism of themselves and their young chil- 
 dren?" I reply never, in </«// dispensation. Even circumcision was not 
 administered on account of parental faith, but on the ground of blood 
 relationship. But Mr. H. says, " under the Mosaic administration the 
 heathen were to be admitted to the Church of God upon their faith 
 and repentance ; but this admission included the individuals and their 
 children." On this I remark : — 
 
 1. Faith and repentance were always essential to salvation ; but 
 that faith and repentance were essential to a standing in the " Com- 
 monwealth of Israel " is- an idea that few men would be willing to 
 endorse. Did the Shechemites repent and believe before they were 
 circumcised? Can the law, referring to aliens, be made, even by im- 
 
 f)lication, to .require faith and repentance? Certainly not. That 
 aw entitled all strangers who sojourned amongst the children of Is- 
 rael and who were willing to keep the passover together with their 
 children old and younr/ to all the privileges of that church, as enjoyed 
 by "home-born" subjects. Ex. xii: 48, 49. Will Mr. R., \ ill any 
 man in his senses, atiilrm that such is the law of admission into the 
 Christian Church? If so, where will it lead him? He must baptise 
 adults and infants on the simple willingness of their parents to walk 
 with^God's people. But he cannot stop here : he must go on, and ex- 
 tend to such children all the privileges of the house of God. Nor can 
 he stop here : those privileges must be extended to their children's 
 children, not by regeneration, but " in their generations " to the end , 
 of time. If this is God's law of admission, we cannot observe a part, 
 and reject a part ; the whole law must be carried out. With Christ's 
 law in our hands can such ideas require a formal refutation ? 
 
 2. Mr. R ought not to assume that such is the law of admission in- 
 to the Christian Church ; honest enquirers will ask him for proof of 
 the fact, and here he must fail. 
 
 The law of Christ is certainly plain enough on this subject, Bisciplet, 
 or believers are to be baptised. Is an infant a disciple or believer ? 
 But Mr. R says, (and what Pedobaptist ha3 not said it) " if because 
 a cluid cannot believe, he is excluded from baptism, he must, al8(^ 
 
ANIMADVERSIONS UPON MR. ROAF'A 
 
 because he cannot believe, be excluded from heaven ;" supposing we 
 try this principle with reference to Uie Lord's Supper. Tlie law re- 
 ((uircs, that the wurthy communicant "examine himself" and tbat he 
 be able to " di.s3ern the Lord's body." Is an infant caniible of doing 
 tliis ? liut a Greek would say, with e(iual propriety here, as in re- 
 gard to baptism, " if because a child caiuiot examine itself, nor di»«cern 
 the Lord's body ho is excluded from the privileges of the Church be- 
 low, he must also, because he caiuiot examine himself and discern thu 
 Lord's body be exdmU^tifiom. heaven!" Ufailh is as essential to en- 
 tering heaven, tks it is to entering the church of Christ on earth, then 
 
 1 contend that no infant, idiot, or heathen can be saved. Lifanls can 
 be saved by the atonement of Christ without the gospel — but by the 
 gospel, or "good ne\j's," they cannot be saved. The gospel saves 
 none without personal faith, and it authorises the baj)tism of none with- 
 out like faith. If it docs, produce the law, and I will bow to suck 
 authority. 
 
 " To say," continues Mr. 11., " that because a child docs not come 
 to this observance intelligently, he is unfit for it, is to raise an objec- 
 tion to the ancient circumcising of infants, for they then were as dis- 
 (jualitied to r«'ceive the initiatory church ordinance as now." I must 
 be allowed to depricate this wholesale assumption of premises so utterly 
 untenable. 
 
 L Mr. R. here assumes that the law of circumcision and the law of 
 baptism are identical. Now, what are the facts in the case. The law 
 of circumcision was : " He that is eight days old shall be circumcised 
 among you, every man child in your generations : he that is born in 
 the house, or bought with money of any stranger which is not of thy 
 seed : be that is born in thy house, and he that is bought of thy 
 money must needs be circumcised." — Gen. xvii. 12, 13. The law 
 of Christian baptism is : "Go disciple all nations baptising them ; preach 
 the gospel to every creature, he that believeth and is baptised shall 
 be saved." How is it possible for prejudice itself to confound these 
 two laws ? In the one, we have, ns the only prerequisite to its ob- 
 servance, blood and property ; in the other faith. In the one, uncon- 
 sciousness is accepted ; in the other, sanctified intelligence. The one 
 embraces ma/e infants and slaves; the other only the disciples of Christ, 
 those that the Lord has made free, whether maie or female. Children 
 were commanded to be brought to the one ; the very terras of the 
 other exclude them When we deny a child's fitness then for baptism, 
 we do not "raise an objection to the ancient circumcising of infants;" 
 male children possessed the requisite qualifications for the rite. But 
 do male and female infants possess the divinely appointed qualifications 
 for baptism ? Not ONE of these qualifications. To baptise infants 
 then, and slaves is to act not merely without law, but contrary to law. 
 
 2. Why does Mr. R. object to the unbeheving children of believers, 
 and to their children's children, " in their generations" being made 
 partakers of all the privileges of the church of Christ ? Does he not 
 « raise an objection to the ancient" practice of what he calls the church 
 
BIRUOKg OK BAPTI81L 
 
 «of Godi Were not unbelievers " quite »w didqualified" for church 
 ordinances then as thev are now ? Is nut the gospel an extension, 
 rather than a diminution of privileges ? Can Mr. R. defend hit 
 practice, in this respect ? 
 
 Mr. 11. snvg, (p. ft.) " it is also often objected, that a child can 
 get no bcnotit from baptism ; but it may be replied, that though 
 an infant knows nothing of a legacy which is leit him, yet it will 
 in due time do him good service ; and though ho may, at the 
 moment of baptism, not oe the better for it, yet he may afterwards." 
 Had I found the above sentiment in an Oxford TracC I could hove 
 deciphered its meaning : as it is, I Confess myself puzzled. I know 
 what a legacy is, I ctin also understand how "in due time" it can 
 benefit its subject ; but what legacy is secured to a child by its 
 baptism, and how it is to be enriched by it " in due time," I wot not 
 Is it regeneration that is secured to the child, " this grace of the 
 covenant God " ? What is it ? Mr. R. compares it to a legacy ! Is 
 there accuracy in the comparison ? If so, Mr. R teaches by a cir- 
 eumlocution what the Uishop of Exeter teaches directly. So teaches 
 Dr. Pusey, and the council of Trent confirms the whole. 
 
 Mr. R. says, (p. 6.) " norae persons think it an objection to the bap- 
 tism of children, that when Christ was an infant he was not baptised." 
 I never urge this as an objection. But did not Christ receive the " seal 
 of the covenant" in infancy, and was he not afterwards baptised ? 
 
 Mr. R. makes Baptists to say, " we have no express command for 
 baptising children." This is not what we say. We affirm that there 
 is no command for it of any kind, express or implicit. No example, 
 such as we have for the observance of the first day of the week, or 
 female communion ; no legitimate inference from relevant facts. We 
 give our brethren the whole field. Let them prove " by any means," 
 that a rite not once mentioned in the word of God is, nevertheless, 
 there, and we will yield the point What more can they ask ? 
 
 Mr. R. next advances to his " positive proofs," and says : " The non-res- 
 triction of the ordinance to adults in the original appointment of it by 
 the Lord, shews that as infants would necessarily be understood to be 
 appointed recipients, they were intended to be such." 
 
 1. The term adtdts is unscriptural, believing children are as proper 
 subjects of baptism as believing adults. Had Mr. R said, the non- 
 restriction of the ordinance to disciples or believers, it would have been 
 too glaring a contradiction of the "original appointment" to have 
 escaped detection. 
 
 2. What does he mean by non-restriction ? Is not the command 
 to baptise disciples or believers, as pointed a restriction as J^uman 
 language can possibly indicate ? Is the Lord's table any abetter 
 guarded ? The restriction is positive, and weighty as the authority 
 of Him, who will soon judge the quick and the dead, can make it 
 
 2. How would infants " necessarily be understood to be appointed 
 recipients ?" Are they disciples or believers .f V. not, they would 
 " neceuarily be understood" to be excluded. Ko k2^c nor sophistry 
 
 I 
 
 N. 
 
8 ANniADYBRSIONS UPON MR. ROAr'S 
 
 on earth can foist uncunscioun infants or slaves into ihta law. The law 
 of their baptism, if it exists, must bo sought for elsewhere. 
 
 But Mr. R infurms us that " our Loru's hearers were all Jews ;" 
 "that they had been accustomed to sec Gentiles and Gentile children 
 admitted to the church by circumcision," and that the riuht of the 
 ehildrcn was never amongst them disputed." To all which I reply : 
 that the "Jew's religion" and thu Christian religion, ditTered too 
 widely to admit of being regarded as the same church. Thei/ itood 
 on different covenants: the one was national; the other, universal 
 Tfict/ had different Mediators: the one had Moses ; while the Media- 
 tor of those belonging to the " better covenant established on better 
 promises" was Christ They had totally different subjects: the one 
 embraced the children of the flesh ; the other only the children of the 
 Spirit To be born of a Jew or a Proselyte, entitled male children 
 not to circumcision merely, but to all the privileges of the Jewish 
 church or theoracy. To be entitled to any or all ol the privileges of 
 the church of Christ, parents, children, and slaves " must be bom 
 again." While then, the righta of the children of the flesh, to all the 
 privileges of the Jewish church, could not be " disputed," it is clear as 
 the sun in the heavens, that their title to Christian ordinances, rested 
 upon their being not youny creatures, but new creatures. Mr. R 
 asks, " had Christ been appointing the admission of the naUons by 
 circumcision, instead of baptism, how would he have been understood." 
 I reply, he could only have been understood to have meant what he 
 said Had the command been to circumcise disciples or believers, to 
 have circumcised any others by such a law, would have been to have 
 violated its precept Baptism, however, and not circumcision, is 
 commanded. 
 
 Mr. R. continues : "no change from the long established 
 courjfiQ would have been understood other than was expressed." 
 Very well, what change was expressed? A change from blood to 
 faitk; from ordinary generation flowing on and on, to regeneration 
 untransferable. 
 
 But, asks Mr. R, (p. 8.) " would they not hav€ seen, that if Christ 
 meant to exclude any of the parties who were accustomed to be 
 received upon conversion, he would have named them, and pointedly 
 drawn attention to the new arrangement ?" On this I remark : 
 
 1. That the parties referred to by Mr. R, were not necessarily con- 
 verted, (if by conversion he means regeneration.) 
 
 2. But granting that they were ; to what were those parties received ? 
 Not to circumcision merely, but to all the privileges of the Jewish 
 Churclm Is this Mr. R's. law ? Who were the parties received to 
 circumcision and to those privileges ? The natural male deeendants 
 of Abraham, together with proselytes and their natural male deeend- 
 ants and slaves. Is this Mr. R's. law ] Now this law, we are told, 
 included children. If it did, it would be nothing to the purpose, for it 
 is not the law of Christ's house. But I call special attention to a 
 sophism, which I have found in nearly all pedooaptist works on this 
 
 /r 
 
BCRMOirS ON BAPTISM. 9 
 
 point Men assiimo that tho bnro command to circumcise parents, 
 tnduded tliuir childrun. This is cuiitrury to fact Tho iduu that the 
 term parent covered tho wliole jQ;ruund, and expressed child as well as 
 piu'ont, is Hhear tiutiun. Childiuri were nut included in a general 
 command given to purents, but on tlio contrary, were specitically 
 named, and directions given tor their circumcision. When tlie stranger 
 is commanded to b(! circumciHcd, it is not in pedobaptist style, taken 
 for granted that his malva would bo " necevaarilt/ understoc/," but a 
 specitic command is givun for tlieir circumciMon. When Christ then 
 gave a law demanding of old and young discipleship, or faith, in order 
 to tho privileges uf his house, he " ])ointedly drew attention" to thib 
 arrangement. 
 
 Mr. li intimates, (p. 8.) that, " tho old statute was not r^'pealed." 
 Why then does he not act upon it f A knife, not a basin, is his 
 instrument. Where is his autliority for substituting baptism for cir- 
 cumcision? Where is his authority for baptising yivwo/eui fan ts ; why 
 docs ho e.\cludt; slaves ; and why, under a system of "expanded liber- 
 ality," does he deprive children, and children's children, in their gen- 
 erations, of their rights in the church ? Not repealed ! Is the law 
 of slave r.\yorwi«//// repealed J Is the law which made the children 
 of the priest's />r/t'.»/s, formally repealed f "Tho advocates for pun- 
 ishing peaceable heretics and idohitors," says Dr. Paul, " find in Deuter- 
 onomy, chap. xiii. and xvii., that the Jews were enjoined to put idol- 
 ators to death — to put their dearest friends to death — to stone them 
 with stoties, till they died.' They find that they were commanded to 
 destroy whole cities — to put to tlie sword, loen, women, children, and 
 cattle. They find that this was the law i)^|cr the Jewish economy: 
 and they ask, where was this law repealed ] They allege, that, if tho 
 law is repealed, the repeal of it should \)(i as public and explicit as tho 
 law itself." How would Mr. K. answer such reasoning] I contend 
 that ho could not answer it at all, without an abandonment of the 
 unscriptural principle, which he here brings to his 'ud. I presume he 
 would fall back upon the simple truth, that we liave a new dispensa- 
 ti<jn, which in its letter and spirit, "disannuls tho cumnuindment 
 going before." 
 
 " Did not," says Mr. R., " the Lord know how his command would be 
 understood, and sanction the construction which woidd naturally be 
 put upon it by his hearers ?" Unquestionably, the Lord knew how 
 nis command would be understood ; but that he sanctioned a construc- 
 tion of it, subversive of its natural import, is a monstrous impeachment 
 of his wisdom. This is to affirm, that Christ in giving a law for all 
 nations, did not mean what he said : that the nations are not to learn 
 their duty from his words, but from the colouring which they may 
 fanc}/ Jewish prejudices gave them I This is new Tight indeed 1 
 
 3. But after all, Mr. R. does not read the commission through 
 Jewish, but through pedobaptist prejudices. There is the fullest 
 evidence that the Jews understood the Lord to mean what he said, 
 and not to mean sometlung at war with what he said. Did any of 
 
 ii 
 
 y ! 
 
10 
 
 ANIMADVERSIONS UPON MR. ROAF'S 
 
 them ever dream that the commission entitled their male children, 
 and their slaves, through all generations, to the privileges of the 
 church of Christ '? Where is the evidence of it? The Jews never 
 understood their children to be included in any command given to 
 adults. 
 
 Mr. R says, " the converts stickled for Jewish observances, in con- 
 nection with Christianity; they wished to retain their old ceremonials, 
 as circumcision ; but never, in one instance, complained of the non- 
 admission of their children." I wonder that ^tlr. 11. should have 
 penned this sentence, as it utterly -subverts his theory. How could 
 tlie Jewish converts understand (Christ and the apostles to teach, that 
 Christian observances had taken the place of Jewish, and still stickle 
 for circumcision, &c. By the aid of Jewish prejudices, Mr. R. may 
 make Jews of us, but not pedobaptists. But asks Mr. R., " how can 
 we account for the uniform satisfaction of the converts, respecting the 
 classes admitted to baptism," «fec. ? We can account for it on the 
 simple principle, that the Jewish converts understood the law of 
 admission to Christ's liouse, and the spiritual nature of the new dis- 
 pensation, much better than Mr. R. seems to do. With t/icir views, 
 it was impossible for them to be dissati^tied with the rejection of their 
 children and slaves from the church of Christ, as Christ had with 
 "great e.vplicitness," confined the .right of membership to disciples or 
 believers. 
 
 Mr. R. asks (p. 9.) after quoting Acts ii. 38, 39, " the promise is unto 
 you and to your children," &c. " Would not they understand this as a 
 call to be baptised with tl^| children?' Most certainly, if they and 
 tlieir children would repenfPbut not otherwise. This promise is not 
 a promise of baptism, but of the Holy Ghost — not to themselves and 
 tlieir children indiscriminately, but simply "to as many as the Lord our 
 God should call !" In this part whicti we have examined, where, I ask, 
 is Mr. R's. positive proof, or proof of any description ? 
 
 Our author comes ne.\t to " household baptisms," and says, " the 
 general character of the apostolic baptisms, was household." This 
 would prove nothing for Mr. R, were it true; but true it is not 
 Amid the thousands of baptisms recorded in the N. T., we find only 
 three households, said to have been baptised respectively at '^"e and 
 the same time. Mr. R. finds, besides these three, five other believing 
 households, and very properly speaks of them as being baptised. 
 From this h6 claims that the " custom of baptising households," was 
 common. 
 
 1. I care not how common it was ; its frequency is in perfect har- 
 mony with the doctrine of believer's baptism, unless it can be shewn 
 that infants were baptised in the households. Let this be done and I 
 will yield willingly. I will not venture to appear before Christ, having 
 resisted such evidence. 
 
 2. How does three, or even eight cases of " household baptism," 
 prove its frequency ? In the Baptist Church of Bond Street, we have 
 $Le baptised households, One of those families, consisting of the 
 
SERMONS ON BAPTISM. " II 
 
 father and the mother, two children and a servant, were all baptised 
 in the self-same hour. Now if amongst one hundred and seventy 
 disciples, (the number of our members) I find six believing families, 
 is it matter of astonishment, that Mr. R. should find amongst all the 
 churches of .the Now Testament, with their thousands of converts, 
 eight such families — amid thousands of converts, eight believing 
 famihes are found ; ergo, infants W(!re baptised. Can a rational mind 
 receive such stutemonts as argument ? 
 
 Mr, R. reiterates iIks oft rel'uied assertion that Baptists do not bap- 
 tise families. I am willing to <;ouipHi'e notes with Mr. R. on this point. 
 I will venture to say that 1 havi; baptised as many households in the 
 self-same hour as (ivcr ho did, Qui^ry. Did Mr. R., ever thus bap- 
 tise a whole household in iiis life ? Do Pedobaptist missionaries bap- 
 tise households? Wiu'ti a man bfilieves, do they baptise his wife, and 
 liis children, young and old, on the faith of the head of the house ? 
 Protestants d(» not. Why this parade, then, about fumU// baptism. If 
 Mr. R. will receive instances of fiunily baptisms amongst ms, as argu- 
 ments against his practice, I will immerse him in them. It is ^he 
 usual practice of Pedobaptists to baptise families one by one as they 
 are born of the flesh ; and it is our usual practice to baptise them as 
 they are born of the Spirit, 
 
 Mr. R. does not doubt (p, 10.) that infants were baptised in the N. 
 T. household, — " for" says lui, " the word translated hcjusehold in seve- 
 ral of the cases, means children." I am astonished at such an asser- 
 tion from such a quarter ! Had it been frt)m the pen of his brother in 
 London, C. W., w<ho finds by a relined process of induction, 10,000 
 baptised families, (swarming with babies,) in the N. T., I would not 
 have been surprised; but from an intelligent scholar, like Mr. Roaf, it 
 is strange ! The tern) rendered household, never means children. It 
 includes infants, if infants happen to be in the house ; but it does not 
 necessity imply their |)resence. Our term household is a fair repre- 
 sentative of the Greek original. It indicates those dwelling together 
 in one house. It is employed to d(!signate the house of Stephanas, of 
 Cornelius, and Cris|)us, and Onesiphorus, and the Jailor. In all which 
 cases we find helleviufj families; for the baptism of which we plead. 
 
 Mr. R. says, " when we read of family after family " [to the enor- 
 mous number of eight out of thousands of converts] "is it not natural 
 to undei"Stand a number of children and some quite young," — positive 
 proof! Does Mr. R. believe that sane minds will receive his conjec- 
 tures as proof ? It is, or ought to be, M/inatural for Christians to " un- 
 derstand any thing, not received, as an apology for setting aside a 
 positive law. Mr. R. takes up the case of Lydia. He dwells upon 
 the fact, that the house was her house, and her heart was opened. 
 Well, what does this prove according to Mr. R? It proves, that, " in 
 the matter of baptism the piety belonged to the individual, and the 
 baptism to the family "! WouUl not this authorise the baptism of the 
 worshipers of Jove, on the faith of a parent ? Would it not bring in- 
 fants and unconverted adults especially In cases where there was a 
 
 il 
 
r 
 
 i 
 
 12 
 
 ANIMADVERSIONS UPON MR. ROAF'S 
 
 church in a house, to the Lord's table ? A mniden lady, with ser- 
 vants, could speak of her house, with just as nouch propriety as could 
 a parent But where is the ^jroo/ that infants Vere \\erel Mr. R. 
 assume^, that Lydia was, or had been, a married woman — that she 
 had children — that her children were then young — that they were 
 with her, and that they were baptised ! Wliat could not Mr. R. 
 prove on the same principle of wholesale assumption? Has he found 
 a solitary infant in Lydia's house ? JVot one ! This fact settles the 
 point. Mr. R. also assumes without proof, that the brethren " com- 
 forted " in Lydia's house, (v. 40,) were not of her househ(jld, but the 
 " Philippian brethren." When did Mr. 11. learn that at this period 
 there was, save in Lydia's house, a single brother in Philippi ? So 
 far as the argument is concerned, T care not if there were ten thou- 
 sand ; but 1 protest against our brethren taking out of the word of 
 God whatjt does not teach. Of the Jailor's household, Mr. R. says, 
 " the original conveys no idea of his house believing, but only of his 
 believing through all his family proceedings." What kind of believing 
 would this be ? I regret to find such a criticism in Mr. Roaf's work. 
 It ismtterly without foundation. Two things are said which indicate 
 the character of this " household." First, it is said that Paul and 
 Silas speak the word to him, " and to ALL that were in his house." 
 Second, it is said, that he rejoiced, believing in God, with all his 
 house." The adverb, "panoiki," {from pusoikos,) moans, "with all 
 one's house," as given, faithfully, in our version. But though as a 
 matter of fact I notice this, I do not need it as an argttment. Our 
 brethren must prove that there were infants in those households. 
 Now, if the salvation of their souls depended upon such proof, it could 
 not be produced. 
 
 Mr. R. (p. IL) says, "The house," in other cases plainly means 
 children ; and refers us to Gen. xlvi. 26, 27 ; 1 Tim. iii. 4 ; and 
 1 Tim. v. 14. In none of these cases does it mean infants, it includes 
 them if they were there, but does not bring them there. There may 
 be a dozen of infants in a household: but this cannot be ascertained 
 by the word itself. It must be learned from connecting circumstances. 
 A father, and a mother, with one, or two adult children, is as truly 
 a household as they would be were the children "very young." 
 What then, has Mr. R. made of the " households " ? Has he found 
 one infant in them? I am willing to receive a clear logical inference 
 on any subject ; but here infants are not in Mr. R's premises ; how 
 then, I ask, can they by a«y pricess of logical induction, be forced 
 into his conclusion? 
 
 But Mr. R. says, " Throughout the scripture history, not a case is 
 recorded of an adult being baptised, who was the child of beheving 
 parents." Let Mr. R. point me to the convefsion of one such child, 
 and I will point him to its baptism ; and where is there a recorded 
 instance of their coming to the Lord's table ? Does Mr. R. believe 
 that such children were converted when they reached the years of 
 accountability ? Or does he believe that they came legitimately at a 
 
BSRMONS OK BAPTISM. 
 
 13 
 
 : n. 
 
 d all church privileges? Can Mr. R dis- 
 in carrying young clnldren to Christ to be 
 
 given age into the possession of that legacy ? Positive proof indeed 1 I 
 Mr. H. comes bacji, once more, to " of such is the kingdom of hea- 
 ven," circumcision, &c. He says, (p. 12.) " the Lord recognised the 
 membership of such ch"' : n." Did lie indeed ? Why then exclude 
 them from the Supper 
 cover any hkcness hctvtc 
 
 blest, and carrying them to a minister to be baptised? The Saviour 
 does not say, of them, but of such is the kingdom of heaven, implying 
 resemblance not identity. We learn from this passage, not that Christ 
 baptised children.but that he blessed children without baptising them. 
 A glorious truth ! But does Mr. R. receive infants indiscriminately 
 to baptism. Not he ! Millions of little children are not suffered to 
 come into the " covenant," according to his theory, simply because 
 they have the misfortune to be the children of unconverted parents ! 
 Now, I ask, if, because of the want of faith on the part of their par- 
 ents, such children be excluded from baptism, must they not, accord- 
 ing to Mr, K's logic, also, be excluded trom heaven ? Where does 
 Mr. R. tind a place for such little ones when they die ? Does he send 
 them to the limbus puerorum of Popery ; or straight to perdition ? 
 Surely, he does neitlier ! If, then, he will inform us how he gets 
 those rejected children into heaven, I will endeavour to put those whom 
 we request, in at the same door. 
 
 " The Apostles," says Mr. R., " regarded children, one only of whose 
 parents were believers, as " holy," or set apart and admissible to the 
 house and presence of God, in distinction from the children of other 
 or unbelieving parties, who were declared to be "unclean, &c." Mr. 
 R. mistakes the meaning of this passage altogether. It is against his 
 practice. Let us look at it. The question before the Apostle was, as to 
 whether under the gospel, believers might lawfully live together with 
 unbelievers. This involved a no less serious matter, than the separa- 
 tion of believing husbands or wives from unbelieving wives or husbands, 
 and, as Paul intimates, of believing parents from their children. Mr. 
 R.'8 grand mistake here, consists in regarding the phrase " your chil- 
 dren," as referring to the children of the mixed marriage parties ; 
 whereas the Apostle refers to the children of the church members in- 
 discriminately. Had the Apostle designed to speak of those children 
 only, who had one parent a believer, and the other an unbeliever, he 
 would have said their children, instead of your children. In address- 
 ing the church, and in giving general precepts, he uses the pronouns 
 ye and you. (See preceeding chap, throughout, and verses 1 and 5 of 
 this chapter.) But in verse 8, when he gives directions applicable to 
 particular cases, although he introduces the phrase, " I say to the un- 
 married and widows," he makes reference to these persons, not by the 
 pronoun yon, but them : " It is good for them to abide even as I." The 
 same mode of speaking he continues to use as far down as to the verse 
 • in question : " let them marry, — let him not put her away — let her 
 not leave him." After the same manner he would have said, "else 
 were their children unclean," had he intended only the children of 
 
u 
 
 AKIMADVERSIONS UPON MR. ROAF's 
 
 such mixed cases of marriage as are referred to in the preceding part 
 of the verse ; but his language is, else where your children. Paul's 
 Yeasoning then, which a Pedobaptist gloss strips of its force, is simply 
 this : the believing husband, and the believing wife, may d wellt together ; 
 the heathen husband is holy in regard to the marriage relation, not 
 unclean (as Judaising teachers would represent) The heathen hus- 
 bands and wives, because they are unbelieving and out of the church, 
 are not unclean on this account, — else were your children unclean, 
 for a similar reason. Or, take Mr. Dagg's paraphrase, thus, — "The 
 unbelieving husband is not unclean, so that his wife may not lawfully 
 dwell with him. The unbelieving wife is not unclean, so that het hu»- 
 band may not lawfully dwell with her. If they are unclean, then your 
 children are unclean, and not one parent in the whole church must 
 dwell with, or touch his children until God shall convert them." The 
 argument, then, of the Apostle in this place, is fatal to infant church- 
 membership. His argument implies that all the children of the Co 
 rinthian Christians, had no nearer relation to the church, than the 
 unbelievino' husband of a believing wife. ' He declares that their 
 cases are parallel, and that rules of intercourse which would require 
 the believing husband to separate from his unbelieving wife, would 
 require believing parents to separate from their children. But there 
 is no conclusiveness in this argument, if the children had been conse- 
 crated to God in baptism, and brought within the pale of the church, 
 for then the children would stand in a very different relation to the 
 church, and to their parents from that of the unbelieving husband or 
 wife. Now, if infant baptism and infant church-membership were 
 things unknown in Corinth and to Paul, ought they to be things 
 known in Toronto and to brethren here ? " Positive proof," in the 
 wronjr direction. 
 
 In closino- his arfjuments, Mr. R. comes back to the Abrahamic 
 covenant. He quotes a part of the covenant of circumcision. 
 Genesis, xvii : V., and says, " Spiritual blessings wore thus se- 
 cured to the family :" I reply, 1. God was the God of the Jews in 
 national relationship. He is three times called the God of the wor- 
 shippers of the golden calf. 2. Whatever spiritual blessings were con- 
 ferred in the covenant of circumcision regeneration was not one of 
 them. The cAe'e/" blessing from this source was, that "to them were 
 committed the oracles of God," Rom. iii : 1, 2. 3. Under Christ, the 
 old economy, with its ordinances, was annulled, Heb. vii: 18., and a 
 " better covenant established on better promises " introduced Heb. 
 viii : G, 13. In opposition to this, Mr. R. quotes Gal. iii: 16, 17: 
 " Now, to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith 
 not, and to seeds, as of many ; but as o£ one, and to thy seed which 
 is Christ. And this, I say, the covenant which was confirmed before 
 of God in Christ, the law which was four hundred and thirty years 
 after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of non- 
 effects" Now, I ask in all earnestness, what has this promise, con- 
 cerning the one seed, to do with the covenant of circumcision^ This 
 
8ERM0NB OK BAFTISlf. 
 
 ff 
 
 ngpart 
 
 Paul's 
 
 simply 
 gether; 
 ion, not 
 len hu»- 
 church, 
 unclean, 
 
 lawfully 
 hei hm- 
 hen your 
 rch rmist 
 n." The 
 , church- 
 theCo- 
 than the 
 liat their 
 d require 
 fe, would 
 But there 
 en conse- 
 e church, 
 ion to the 
 usband or 
 ship were 
 be things 
 >f," in the 
 
 ibraharaic 
 cumcision, 
 
 thus se- 
 16 Jews in 
 I the wor- 
 i were con- 
 not one of 
 them were 
 Christ, the 
 
 18., and a 
 luced Heb. 
 ii: 16, 17: 
 He saith 
 seed which 
 med before 
 thirty years 
 ise of non- 
 'omise, con- 
 imt This 
 
 covenant was confirmed, not in Abraham's natural seed, but "IN 
 CHRIST." The covenant of circumcision was confirmed in Abraham 
 and his natural descendants. This covenant looked to all the families 
 of the earth. The covenant of circumcision looked only to Abraham's 
 family. This covenant was given 430 years prior to the law. Th« 
 covenant of circumcision was given 406 years pric -. This covenant 
 secured a way of salvation to Jew and Greek. The covenant of cir- 
 cumcision had no redemption in it. Paul says, (in the 19th verse of 
 the chap, just quoted,) " the law was added because of transgressions^ 
 until the seed should come to whom the promise was made." Now, 
 at the giving of the law, there stood before Horeb, hundreds of thou- 
 sands of the legitimate subjects of circumcision, and yet the "aeed is 
 to come, to whom this promise was made." It is painful to notice such 
 comments on the word of God. Pedobaptists loose sight of the fact 
 . that Abraham was in two different senses a father, and that be had 
 two kinds of children. He was a father of flesh and blood ; he was 
 also, " the father of the faithful." These two discriptions of children ex- 
 isted togetlier under the ancient economy, but now, the natural 
 branches are broken off, and Abraham's children stand by faith. 
 Abraham has ceased in this covenant to be a father after the flesh, and 
 is now only the " father of the faithful. " It is only in this character, 
 that he is known in the gospel dispensation. The Jews claimed, in 
 the presence of Christ, to be the children of Abraham; but our Lord 
 denied their claim, and informed them, that the devil was their father. 
 They were certainly the children of Abraham according to the flesli, 
 but not the children of the father of the faithful. Tlie Baptist, is 
 the only denomination that acknowledges Abraham in this light ; all 
 others make him a carnal, as well as a believing father. We claim 
 Abraham, in the latter sense, as father ; nofcJaeing Jews, we cannot 
 in the former. There are only two senses m w^ich any one can be 
 a child of Abraham ; he must either possess his faith or his blood. 
 The child of a Gentile possesses neither the on^ nor the other, conse- 
 quently cannot be entitled to any promise given to his seed. We say 
 with Paul, " if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs 
 according to the promise ;" but our brethren must read it thus,*— if 
 your father or your mother be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, 
 and heirs according to the promise ! I can not subscribe to such 
 doctrine. • With me, Abraham's children are believing children — 
 Christ's house, a spiritual house composed of living stones. To be 
 born of the flesh, gave a title to all the privileges of the " common- 
 wealth of Israel." To be born of the Spirit, alone, gives a title to 
 any and all of the privileges of a gospel church. 
 
 Mr. R asks several questions which I will now answer. 
 
 1. Was the covenant (of circumcision) made with Abraham, made 
 in Christ ? I answer, it was not 
 
 2. Did it involve a spiritual relation between God and believers ? 
 Ans. It did not. 
 
 3. Did it bear as its sign or seal, the rite of circumcision ? An& 
 Cu'cumcisioQ was attached to that covenant. , 
 
 
 \ 
 
 h 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
16 
 
 AKIMADVBRSIOKS UPON MR. ROAF'S 
 
 4. Was this seal put upon the infants of believers ? Ans. It wat 
 put upon the male infants and slaves of the descendants of Abraham, 
 "whether their parents were believers or not. 
 
 6. Was this covenant confirmed at Christ's appearance in the 
 flesh 1 Ans. No. It was confirmed ages before, and if it still has 
 force, the Jews will go back to Canaan ; but in this, Gentiles are not 
 at all interested. What then becomes of the "clear right of believer's 
 children to a church standing," as infered fiom such data ? 
 
 Mr. R assumes just such premises as he needs ; this may satisfy 
 some of his readers — but the intelligent and honest inciuirer, will 
 demand proof instead of assumption. He assumes, that baptism has 
 taken the phice of circumcision. I could admit this, were it a fact, 
 (for it would be enough for me to know that disciples or hrlieversv/ere 
 now its subjects, and not niule infants eight days old, and slaves young 
 and old,) but it is not a fact. Where is tlie proof? He assumes, 
 that baptism is a seal. Where, in the word of God, does he learn this? 
 I say that it is not a seal — if it is, let us have the proof. Mr. R 
 speaks of infants having a church standimj. Have infants and young 
 children a church-standing in Adelaide Street ? Are the children of 
 the flesh, and the children of the spirit, there mingled together in 
 church relationship? This, from a Protestant minister of the nineteenth 
 century ! Mr. R calls circumcision "the badge of faih !" Where 
 does he learn that it was in any way connected with faith ? Abraham 
 received the sign of circumcision as a seal of tile rigliteousncss of the 
 faith which he had ; but from that hour it became the badge of Hood 
 and property. Surely every reader of the Old Testament is acquaint- 
 ed with this fact ! Mr. R says, "when Christ sent out his Apostles 
 to baptise, he placed no restriction upon their practice ! !" How could 
 Mr, R, with God's #uth before him, say this? No restriction! — 
 Christ commanded the baptism of disciples or believers. Did he ever 
 enjoin the baptism of any other class ? What stronger restriction, I 
 ask again, guards the Lord's table ? I have now examined Mr. R's. 
 positive proofs, and what are they ? Has he in command, or example, 
 or inference, found one case of infant baptism in that Book, by which 
 he and I will soon be judged ? In full view of my responsibility, I 
 aflirm, that his argument is a mere dream, which can only ser^e to 
 lead God's people to substitute for a plain law of Christ, a human 
 invention. ' . 
 
 Mr. R next speaks of the import of baptism, when applied to child- 
 ren, and gives us five specifications. Those who invent ordinances, 
 must also furnish them with an import ; but the import will usually 
 be as unscriptural as the invention. Mr. R may have hit the import 
 of infant baptism — of this I am not prepared to speak, for my Bible 
 is silent on the subject ; but one thing I can say, that the import of 
 Bible baptism is not found in one, or all of his specifications. How 
 obvious that, Bible baptism, and infant baptism, are two things. Mr. 
 R calls his ceremony " an act of dedication." Here he abandons 
 even the law of circumcision. He must know, that, after that rite 
 was performed, the mother and the child were unclean for three and 
 
SERMONS ON BAPTISU. 
 
 ir 
 
 , It was 
 braham, 
 
 in the 
 
 Btill has 
 
 are not 
 
 ieliever'8 
 
 y satisfy 
 rer, will 
 tism has 
 it a fact, 
 vers were 
 cs young 
 assumes, 
 larn thisi 
 
 Mr. R 
 id young 
 lildren of 
 gether in 
 incteenth 
 
 Wliere 
 A-braham 
 ;ss of the 
 3 of blood 
 acquaint- 
 Apostles 
 [ow could 
 ictionf — 
 
 I he ever 
 riction, I 
 
 Mr. R'8. 
 ■ example, 
 )y which 
 sibility, I 
 
 serve to 
 a human 
 
 to child- 
 ■dinances, 
 
 II usually 
 le import 
 my Bible 
 import of 
 IS. How 
 )gs. Mr. 
 abandons 
 that rite 
 hree and 
 
 thirty days, and that the ceremony of dedication (by appointed sacri- 
 fices) was a totally different transaction. Baptists bring their children 
 morning and evening, to the <freat sacrifice offered for sin, and thus 
 never feel the want of a baptismal "legacy." 
 
 I have thus followed Mr. U., step by step, through his discourse, 
 and witli kindness in ray heart towards him, and those who think with 
 him on this subject, 1 have faithfully, according to my ability, exposed 
 the fallacy of his reasoning. I regret to iind such principles of inter- 
 pretation avowed by Protestants, as are some of those relied on in this 
 work, to bolster up this human tradition. Concede the correctness of 
 such principles to Papists and Puseyites, aiulyou may as well think to 
 arrest the surge of tiuj ocean by logic and eloquence, as think to resist 
 with eliect, the rapid murch of tliese soul -destroying systems. May 
 God soon lead his people back to the siuplicity of the Bible. 
 
 SERMON II. 
 
 In this discourse, Mr. li's. motto is " Si'kinklino, a proper mode of 
 Bai'tism." 
 
 In reading a discussion of an afHrmative proposition like the above, 
 one would naturally expect to Iind a direct appeal to usu;/e, m estab- 
 lishing the niiianing of the word in (^leslion. This course, however, 
 so iiidiapemahlij iiecensart/ to the establishment of his premises, Mr. 
 11. declines pursuing, and seeks to prt>ve that sprinkling is baptism, by 
 throwing dilhculties in the way of immersion! But will this serve his 
 cause ? By the same process, 1 will undertake to upset the entire 
 canon of inspiration. If I could not, at this period of time, solve one 
 of the dilUoulties which Mr. 11. suggests, it would not in|alidate the 
 testimony of Crod's S[)irit. If that Spirit has employed fperm in this 
 case, which always, in literature, sacred, and profane, means literally 
 to immjrse, and if Mr. li. proves that immersion in many cases was 
 impossible; he does not thereby prove that ba[)tism means sprinkling, 
 but simply that the Bible is false. A dilHculty can never be lawfully 
 urged to set aside a positive d(!claration, but must be solved in har- 
 mony with such declaration. Mr. ll's. ditficulties are im,a;^inari/, but 
 were they real they could nc>t serve his purpose. 
 
 Mr. U. regards, " the mode of administering an ordinance," as of 
 small importance. In this I agree with him; but it is not about the 
 moleol an ordinance that I contend, but about the commanded action. 
 The rites instituted by Jehovah, which required sprnkling, pouring, 
 washing or bathing, could only be performed by strict attention in 
 each case to the prescribed form, to neglect the form, Wcis to neglect 
 the rite, to substitute another form for the one commanded, was 
 rebellion, and it is so still. 
 
 Mr. R. says, "the Lord's Supper eMen/i'oZ/y requires that we discern 
 the Lord's body." This is not accurate. It essentially requires that 
 we eat bread and drink wine, in remembrance ot Christ, while in " the 
 
 l! 
 
!l I 
 
 H!l I 
 
 18 'ANIMADVBRSIONa UPON MR. ROAF'S 
 
 breaking of breadl' wo are required to "discern the Lord's body." 
 
 He continues, "it (the Lord's Supper) dues not depend essentially 
 on the part of the day in which it is administered," 6ic. So baptism 
 is "the answer of a good conscience toward (lod ;" and that answer or 
 response to the gospel promise (wliat promise ?) may be truly made, 
 whether its utterer stand to receive water from above, or be plunged 
 backwards into water beneath. Wliiciiever be the form employed, 
 there is baptism when this answer is sincerely made; and thi-re is not 
 baptism when this answer is not intended. On this I remark: 
 
 1. The answer of a good conscience has nothing more to do with 
 the action of baptism, tlian discerning the Lord's body has to do with 
 the eating and drinking in the supper. A man might look at the 
 bread and wine, and clniin that he thus discerned the Lord's body. 
 Would Mr. II. think tliat he had obeyed the command to eat and 
 drink ? 
 
 2. But what is here said to be '• the answer of a good conscience ?" 
 The Bible says baptism, not pouring, or sprinkling, or any thing that 
 human caprice may suggest, but uai'tism. This, nnd this alone, is 
 said to be the answer of a good conscience. Now we can only learn 
 what baptism is by a reference to the vy.itcip of the language. 
 
 3. Where, in the word of God, is it ever intimated that one human 
 being's good conscience, can stand for the conscience of another 
 human being] As well might we affirm, that a parent "discerns the 
 Lord's body" for a child; and thus constitutes it a proper subject of 
 the Lord's table, as to aflirm that his good conscience prepares it for 
 baptism. Infants then cannot "intend this answer," consecjuently on 
 Mr. R's. premises, it is simply mposnihle for them to be baptised. 
 
 The first proposition which Mr. H. discusses, is, "the validity of 
 baptism d(||B not depend upon the form in which it is administered " 
 
 He says^Ufp. 18.) " baptism is a spiritual act." If I believed this, I 
 should go over to the Quakers. Baptism, with me, is a physical act, 
 to be attended to only by disciples or believers. Is the sprinkling of 
 an infant a spiritual act? 
 
 Mr. R. says, "Christian baptism is wetting or washing for religious 
 purification." Supposing we try this delinition on our author's text: 
 "I indeed wet or wash you with water unto repentance" — he shall 
 wet or wash j'ou with the Holy Ghost and \;\i\\fire! What sort of 
 a wetting or washing would that be ? Baptism is no where said to 
 be for religious puriiication, and if it were, the question would still 
 come up: what is the divinely appointed action or actions to be per- 
 formed in order to such a result? Mr. R. says, wetting or washing 
 by any means. This I deny. lie offers, in proof of his definition, 
 Heb. ix. 10: "we read of divers washings, or divers baptisms, as it is 
 in the original." Well, divers does not indicate a variety of actions, 
 but various repetitions of the same action in different cases. Divers 
 flocks of sheep, would not indicate that some of the flocks were goats, 
 the term sheep would define the character of ecah flock. So in this 
 case, the term baptisms confines us to immersions. 
 
 . 
 
body." 
 ?8t<entialljr 
 bnpti^ni 
 answer or 
 jly made, 
 plunged 
 employed, 
 UTc is not 
 rk: 
 
 to do with 
 to do with 
 ook at the 
 id's body. 
 cat and 
 
 iiscience 
 
 9" 
 
 thing- tliilt 
 
 is alone, is 
 
 only learn 
 
 jne human 
 of another 
 liscerns the 
 • subject of 
 paies it for 
 (juently on 
 iptised. 
 validity of 
 litiistercd " 
 eved this, I 
 hysical act, 
 jrinklhig of 
 
 or religious 
 thor's text : 
 — he shall 
 Mmt sort of 
 ere said to 
 
 would still 
 
 to be per- 
 or washing 
 definition, 
 ms, as it is 
 
 of actions, 
 es. Divers 
 were goats. 
 
 So in this 
 
 SERMONS ox BAPTISM. 19 
 
 Mr. R continu'^s, " thesq baptisms were employed upon oups and 
 pots," «Scc. If ' . li will produce one instance from the Bible or tho 
 classics, where v/ator, or blood, or any thing else is said to be baptised 
 upon any object he will do more for the cause of sprinkling and pour- 
 ing, than all iiis predecessors put together have accomplished. But I 
 defy him, with all the Icjwning of Toronto at his back, to produce ONE 
 such instance. We find vpon, following sprinkle or pour, but never 
 baptise. Now if baptism meant to pour, ov to sprinkle, it would cer- 
 tainUj be followed in some cases at least by this preposition. An 
 object sprinkled or poured, is always governed by a preposition ex- 
 pressed or understood, — an object baptised, never. 
 
 Mr. K. continues, " the administrator used a portable vessel of brass, 
 which stood on one foot. Did he, suppose ye, immerse the tables, or 
 CKUches, or beds, in the vessel, or did he, with the bunch of hysop, 
 sprinkle them ?" 
 
 1. Here is an attempt to establish the meaning of a word, by sup- 
 posim; a dijjicultij. I wish tlie i-eader to notice, as we proceed, the 
 kitul of proof offered in behalf of sprinkling. 
 
 2. When Mr. R. spoke of a "portable vessel," he surely must have 
 forgotten, that for the purposes of purification, the Jews had in the 
 Temple, ten lavers, and a sea for the priests to bathe in, out of the 
 Temple they hail wattn* pots of stone, baths and pools. In Itiose the 
 divers immersions were performed 
 
 3. The o)j,e-t'ooted vessel, referred to by Mr. R., was simply for the 
 washing of the hands and feet of Aaron and his sons. (See Exodus 
 XXX. 18. 21.) 
 
 4. Of the purifications under the law, we read, Lev. xi. 32, that, 
 "any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack; whatsoever vessel it 
 be wherein any work is done, it must he put into toater, (in the origi-. 
 nal baptised) and it shall be unclean until the even," (fee. Again, 
 Num. xxxi. 23, "all that abideth not the fire, ye shall make go through 
 the water." Here we have divers baptisms, but not sprinklings! 
 
 5. Of the baptism of couches, Maimonides, the famous Jewish 
 Ribbi, says: 
 
 " A b(!(l that is wholly defiled, if he dips it part by part, it is pure. If he dips 
 a bed in the pool, allliou^h tlie feet are plunijed in the tiiici< clay at the bottom of 
 the pool, it is clean. Wiiat shall he do witli a pillow or bolster of skin 1 He 
 must dip them and lift them up by the fingers." Hilchoth Call,, ch. 16, § 14. 
 
 Thus do Mr. R's. difficulties evanish into thin air; and thus his 
 sprinkling is here overthrown. I must again maintain that I am 
 under no obligation to meet such difficulties — they are not arguments. 
 
 Mr. R says, (p. 19.) "the temple baptisms, were a sprinkling with 
 blood, oil, ashes, and water." With all who believe in the infallibility 
 of our author, this must forever settle the question! For myself, 1 
 regard it just as "great a solecism," as if he had said .the immersions 
 of the Temple were all sprinklings. What, under this first head, has 
 Mr. R proved? He rests on difficulties, which, were they real, could 
 not serve him legally ; but even this foundation is swept away, and 
 wHkt remains ? 
 
 ^ 
 
ir 
 
 K 
 
 
 is 
 
 It 1: 
 
 20 
 
 AKIMADTIRSIOKS UPON MR. BOAF'S 
 
 Mr. R'» second head, is, — " 7 here it nothing obligatory in imrneraion 
 as the mode of baptism." He infui'm.s uh, "ilmt inimcriiion is para- 
 dud as an act uf exuniphiry »ult'-dunial on the part uf the recipient, 
 
 and hu is sent away as luivinsjf dunt; "t»ome great ihinfjf," 
 
 Surroundini"' followers of Clirist are bantered as refusing to be im- 
 mersed meieiy from a vVant of couraye, they are dared to come and 
 be immersed," Is all this juxt? Is it kind? la it true? Such 
 charges brought against a people who, repudiating the dogma of a 
 baptismal "k-gacy," earnestly contend for the doctrine t»f justitication 
 by faitii alone, without the deeds of the law, cannot injure thom on 
 e;u'th or in hi-aven. 
 
 Mr. It. coniL's to tlie subject, and says, " there is nt)t an instance 
 yet piodueei), where the word " biipiisc," in classical uuihore, means 
 the act performed m imnnn^ij n." Tni.-- is a piLiful evasion ! The act 
 performed in iniiner-^ior.," is iranuT ion itsfU". JJare Mr. R. deny 
 that scores of instances have been produced, where the \Tord means to 
 dip, to plunge, to immerse ? 
 
 He continues, "There is not an instance in the J/u/i/ Scriptures, 
 where the word necessarily means that act." \\ hat tict? We gather 
 Mr. K's. meaning from the following assertion : — " We are told that to 
 baptise means to plunge under and raise up another from the water 
 
 there is no known instance of the word denctting that act ut 
 
 all." True, the ?«o;v^ simply does not denote these acts. And, I must 
 be excused for anirming, that no man on earth, or now under the 
 earth, ever told Mr. K. that it did. Th^ word means to dip, to plnnge, 
 to immerse, the risinr/ (I'jnin, is kiunvn by perlVctly independent evi- 
 dence. Still, as an apj)n)priated term, as we shall see shortly, it 
 indicates both burial and resufrectlon. Circumcision means to cut 
 around, and never appears (literally) without this meamng ; yet the 
 word alone, is put for the wluile rile. Wlint, therefore, Mr. R. calls 
 his " strong assertions " on this point, are utterly without value. Hw 
 is flghlini>- a Hn'ment of his own creation. 
 
 He contiime.s, " In the classical authors, the word often means to sub- 
 merge and keep down a per.son or thing under the water." This is 
 not correct. The vxtrd never has such a signilication in classical usage. 
 It means to submei'ge, but whether the person or thing submerged 
 goes to the bottom or comes to the top; whether the person or thing 
 be purified or deliled, washed or polluted, drowned or sunken, must be 
 learned from the circumstances in each particular ca.se. The word 
 itself has neither washing, nor wetting, nor sinking,, nor drowning in 
 it. Indeed, it has no reference to water at all. It expresses a specific 
 action, namely, dipping, but whether this action takes place in water 
 or oil, in mud or in wa.x, the word testifieth not. When, then, Mr. 
 K represents us as saying that the loord itself means both puttin;* 
 under and rai.sing up again, he errs. We prove that the word 
 means to dip. or plunge, or immerse. And we prove that by ellipsis 
 and appropriation, in classical and scriptural usage, the idea of rising 
 a;j;ain was understood, and thus, iu familiar eircumstancea^ formed a 
 
8ERM0KS Olf BAPTISM. IT 
 
 part of its mctining. Ono or two examples will illustrate and establish 
 this fact Homer snys : 
 
 _•' As when'a smith to harden an iron hatchet, or polc-ax dipt it in cold water." 
 Here the circumstances of the case are so familiar, that the word in- 
 dicates both immersion and emersion. Again, Plutarch quotes a 
 Sybilline verse, tlms: 
 
 " Thou mayust be dipped, bladder ! but thou art not fated to sink." 
 Hero it will be seen, that bajytiitimj and sinking are contrasted ; and 
 that rising to tlie top is implied in the word baptise. 
 
 In the Hible, the primary word is frequently employed in connection 
 with ritual purilication, and in all such cases it denotes, the lifting up 
 from the element, the thing baptised, as truly as it does its dipping, 
 see Exodus, xii: 22. Lev. iv: (5, 17; ix: 0; xiv: 10,51, ttc. We 
 do not find it said in these and similar cases, that the hyssop, or priest's 
 finger, was first dipped into and then drawn out of the blood, water, or 
 oil m order to the performance of the act or acts of purification. The 
 baptism in every case denotes both the immersion and emersioa 
 Again, Naaman dipped (baptised) himself seven times in the Jordan. 
 Now, if baptism did not imply, raising from the water, how could 
 Naaman have be(,'n said to have baptised himself seven times? The 
 first baptism would have settled his account on earth. 
 
 In the New Testament the word is employed in the same manner, 
 " dip the tip of his finger in water, — he to whom I shall give a sop 
 when I have dipped it, — a garment dipped in blood." In all these c.nses 
 the word brings the subject from underneath the clement into the 
 open air. Here, then, we have specimens of both classical and Bible 
 usage before us. I have stated facts, and not fancies, given strong 
 proofs, and not made " strong assertions." If such evidence is not 
 conclusive, where, on any subject, shall we find conclusive evidence? 
 
 Mr. 11. sUys, " There is no example in the Holy Scriptures of bap- 
 tism meaning the dipping of another in water." Does Mr. R, or any 
 other sane man expect to find the word, either in or out of the Scrip- 
 tures, denoting the administrator, the subject, the action, and the 
 water ! ! 
 
 To express what Mr. R. demands, we have the words — John, and 
 Christ, and immersed in the river Jordan. Every baptism of the New 
 Testament is an example. 
 
 Mr. 11. says, (p. 20,) " It would only be to ascribe to you a famili- 
 arity with the Greek language which even classical scholars will not 
 pretend to, were I to read out passages from this pulpit ; I will go 
 with you to the Bible where we can stand upon a level." On this I 
 remark : 
 
 1. Mr.R hero assumes his ability " to read out passages " from the 
 classics to sustain his practice of sprinkling. He must excuse me for 
 affirming it to be my conviction, that the true reason ;of his having 
 declined to " read out passages," is to be found in the withering fact, 
 that he could not, because no such passages as he would need exist 
 
 
 J^ 
 
r 
 
 3 I 
 
 22 ANIMADVERSIONS UPON MR. ROAC'S 
 
 2. If an English uudience cannot be miide to undiirstand the teach* 
 ings of the Greeks, because they wrote in Greek, liow can they b« 
 made to under>«tand the Apostles who wrote in the same language 1 
 If the common people can occupy a conimun level with Mr. R on 'a 
 translation of the Bible, why may they not also occupy a common 
 level with him on a translation of the clashics? 'I his looks hko 
 evasion. 
 
 3. The masses both can and ilo understand examples of the use of 
 
 any word, when examples are produced. Can they not for example 
 
 understand the following: — Lttcian, in Timon, the man-hater, makes 
 
 him say : 
 
 " If I should spp any one floatinjj toward me upon the lapid torrent, and h« 
 should with oiitHti'i'tc'lird hiimlN hcscccli me tuHssiNt him, 1 would ihiiuit him iiuiii 
 me, baptising hiui, until lit would rise no more." 
 
 Was not Timon's baptism immersion ? 
 
 Polyhius, volume iii: piigo311, speaks of soldiers passing through 
 water, immersed (baptised) up to the breast. Can any tiling be inure 
 decisive than this? Mark! the soldiers arc not said to have been 
 baptised any further than the water reached. 
 
 Porphynj, page 282, says: 
 
 " The person who has heen a sinner, havinjr'jronc a little way into it, (the fabu- 
 lous river of Hell,) is buplisod up t(» the head." 
 
 Here, again, the subject of this baptism is not said to be baptised, 
 but only baptised as far as he is immersed, " vp to the head." 
 
 Strabo, Goog. page 809, speaks of a river, whose wat«'rs are so 
 buoyant, that if an arrow be thrown in, it would scarcely be immersed, 
 (baptised). 
 
 He mentions, also, a lake, page 1108, on the top of which bitumen 
 floats in which •' a man cannot he baptised, but is forcibly kept above." 
 
 Now, is there a man of common discerrijiont in any congregation 
 that cannot, without comment, understand, and feel the forbe of these 
 examples ? Here, sprinkling, and pouring, a'ld wetting, and wash- 
 ing, are all simply out of the question. 
 
 Josephus, who was himself a Jew, who lived in the apostolic age, 
 and who certainly knew how the Jews employed the Greek, always 
 employed this word, literally and figuratively, just as the Greeks did. 
 He says, Antiq. L. 9, concerning the ship in which Jonah attempted 
 to flee fro ' the presence of the Lord, " the ship was about to be bap- 
 tised." it was wetted, washed, poured, and sprinkled in the stormy 
 ocean, but not baptised. He uses the same word twice concerning 
 the death of Aristobulus, who was drowned at Jericho, by rcr niri 
 Greeks, who enticed him into the water to vim, and then, baptis!»n 
 him as in sport they did not leave oflf until they entirely d.>''i"fJ 
 him." Surely such examples may be understood by any miud yet 
 free to thi.ik or^ this subject ! 
 
 I have introd iced the above instances, (mere specimens selected 
 from scores of ex ,;mplef3 lying before me) for the double purpose of 
 exhibiting the truo ;>eamog of the word baptism, and of shewing 
 
 
J teach* 
 ihuy b« 
 Huuge 1 
 li. un'a 
 ummun 
 jks like 
 
 c use of 
 L'xainple 
 ■, mukvs 
 
 it, niitl hfi 
 him lioiii 
 
 through 
 be imuo 
 ive bten 
 
 (the fiibu- 
 bapUsc'd, 
 
 ■rs are so 
 nmerbcd, 
 
 bitumen 
 t above." 
 ^regation 
 2 oi ilu'se 
 nd wash- 
 
 tolic age, 
 (, always 
 ceks did. 
 ttempted 
 be bap- 
 le stormy 
 )ncerning 
 »y for <\ir 
 bapfis''»f? 
 
 miuu yet 
 
 s selected 
 lurpose of 
 shewing 
 
 SERMONS UN liAl'TIBM. 28 
 
 that plain men can decide this (piostii n fur tlicmafilvcc, if they choose to 
 wui^j^h facts, utid repudiate ansertiotu. if tlio word, dipped every 
 thing wliich tlie Greeks wished to dij), and never sprinkled nor 
 poured water, or any thing else, upon tht? [)er8on or thing baptised. 
 If the word, under the law, di])ped hyssoj), .xiid Kcarlet yarn, and birds, 
 and fingers, ntid feet, but never, amid all tlie pouriit^H and tiprinkliugs 
 mentioned, iioated one of them — how < >incs it lluit (liis same word, 
 (ill ut once, by some mysterious process a!«sui)tes u 7M', n '('fining in ' 
 fhe conunission of Ciirist? A ineaning tno, winch sdbvcrts its estab- 
 lished Mpocitic character. How comes ii, that tin- word, without 
 cavil, dipped Naanuui seven times in tlie Jordan, and yet, with l)i»' 
 same syntiix, refuses to dip Christ in the same rive/? Do not men 
 forget, that there is at haiid u resurrection morning, and a judgntiiit 
 day ! 
 
 Mr. R proceeds and asks, " To what methods of applying water 
 does the t'Jiiii I<aj>tise refer," 1 reply, that it refers to no methods 
 whatC'T ' I . <\<l '. ig water;" but to a method of applying asubject. 
 It, is :i!\»ay.i the siibject tliut is said to be baptised — never the water. 
 
 Mr. ir^ lirst proof that immersion is not essential to baptism is 
 gl\i'n in thcf (Ilowing quotation from scripture, "And he commanded 
 I'li chariot to stand .still: and they went down both into the water, 
 both I'liill'p ;ind the Euimch; and he baptised him. And when they 
 were cumu up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away 
 I'liillip." VVliat tliink you, reader, of such evidence. Mr. K toils hard 
 to get out of the grasp of this plain pfussagc. He struggles hard to 
 silence its honest testimony; but in vain. This passage is of itself 
 sullicient io settle the dispute. Look at its various parts — 
 
 L They came to (epi) a certain water. 
 
 2. They went both down into (eis) the water. 
 
 3. The Eunuch is baptised. 
 
 4. They come up out of (ek) the water. 
 
 Did Mr. It ever imitate this example in his life. This is Baptist 
 practice precisely ; and no man, woman, or child, who ever witnessed 
 the immersion of a believer, can fail to perceive the resemblance. 
 
 But Mr. 11. is certain that the going down into, and coming up out 
 of the water, did not plunge the Eunuch. If Mr. li. supposes that we 
 imderstand the prepositions to mean immerse, and rise again, he errs, 
 nnd ought better to inform himself. I go down into the water with a 
 subject, and wc both come up out of the water; but I do something 
 more than this, I do what Philip did to the Eunuch, I baptise the 
 subject "But why," asks Mr. R, " did they go down into the water and 
 come up < Jt of it, unless for immersion ?" And I repeat the question 
 . iiphatically. Common sense will never be able to discover another 
 reason ? ^ Mr. R is aware of this, hence he tries another tack. He 
 says, " It is not said in the orignal, that they went into the water and 
 came up out of it, it is only said that they went unto, and came from 
 it." On this,.! remark: 
 
 L Mr. R ,^ here abandosed his common level ; left the English 
 
24 
 
 ANIMADVERSIONS UPON MR. ROAF'S 
 
 Bible, and dipped into the Greek, and has after all misrepresented 
 its teaching. Had ho said as some Pedobaptists have said before him, 
 that eis, and ek, have sometimes the meanings for which he con- 
 tends, and therefore, prove nothing, 1 would not have been surprised, 
 but to affirm without qualification, that the prepositions do not express 
 into, and out of, but unto, and from, is sheer misrepresentation. 
 
 2. The primaiy and ordinary meanings of these prepositions are 
 into, and out of Like most other Avords, they have secondary mean- 
 ings ; but no critic or transhUor is at liberty to employ the secondary 
 meaning of tliese or other terms at random. He is bound to give 
 them thoir primary or ordinary signification, in every instance when 
 circumstances do not demand a secondary meaning. For example, I 
 can prove tliat the word Gotf, in the orignal language, has a second- 
 ary meaning, and rt • s to finite objects, but am I at liberty in read- 
 ino- the Bible to tauc at random the meaning that suits me? 
 Unu rians do so, and thus rob Christ of his glory. Everlusting lias 
 a secondary meaning, and Universalists, seize it lawlessly and get rid 
 of everlasting punishment. In the same lawless manner, I might say, 
 CIS, signifies against, and quote in proof, "if thy brother sin {eis), 
 against thee," — I might then affirm tliat ek means through, and quote 
 as proof, 2 Corinthians, xiii: 4; Having thus established my premises 
 as righteously as Mr. R. has done his, 1 might read the j)assage thus: 
 " they went down arjainst the water and came up throv(ih it." 
 Adopting this lawless mode of procedure, I might prove, that God 
 never put the man into the (larden oi Kden, only to it; and that he 
 never drove him out of it, but onlj' from it, I might prove, that 
 Daniel Avas not cast into the den of lion.s, but only to its edge, and 
 that he did not come out o/'thc den, but only from it. That Joseph 
 Avas not cast into a pit, nor taken out again ; that the wicked do not 
 c:o into hell, nor the riuhteous into heaven. The Avord of God mijiht 
 be reduced to chaos on such principles. 
 
 3. What other prepo'^itioiis Avould, or co?/W the inspired penmnn 
 have employed to indicate into and out of, than eis, folloAved by ek? 
 Can an example be produccnl where these; prepositions ever mean any 
 thing else than intonud out o/'\vhen thus sittiated? 
 
 4. This first preposition takes men into gardens, seas, pits, dens, 
 fiery-furnaces ; into fields, countries, villages, cities, synagogues,, 
 temples, houses, heaven, and hell, <fec ; and yet, is it not passing 
 strange, that by no force of circumstances, can it be made to take a 
 willing disciple into the Avater for baptism ! ! What a fearful responsi- 
 bility rests upon the souls of learned men I Our version gives us 
 here a literal rendering of the original, and I ask again, why did they 
 both go doAvn into the water, unless for immersion? Nay ! why 
 should they go near the water at all. Dr. Doddriije well remarks on 
 this passage : — " It would be very unnatural to suppcise, that they 
 went doAvn to the water merely that Philip might take up a little 
 water in his hand to pour on the Eunuch. A person of his dignity, 
 had, no doubt, many vessels in his baggage on such a j<girney through 
 
sented 
 re him, 
 le con- 
 prised, 
 express 
 n. 
 
 ms are 
 • mean- 
 jondary 
 to give 
 e when 
 mple, I 
 second- 
 in read- 
 its me? 
 ting has 
 1 get rid 
 ight pay, 
 in (c»s), 
 nd qiiote 
 premises 
 loe thus : 
 w(fk it." 
 that God 
 i that he 
 pve, that 
 dge, and 
 it Joseph 
 d do not 
 od might 
 
 1 penman 
 (1 by ek? 
 mean any 
 
 its, dens, 
 nagogues,. 
 )t passing 
 
 to take a 
 I responsi- 
 n gives iis 
 
 did they 
 
 ay ! why 
 eniarks on 
 
 that they 
 up a little 
 lis dignity, 
 ly througk 
 
 SERMONS ON BAPTISM. ' 25 
 
 a desert country ; a prccHution absolutely necessary for travellers in 
 those parts, and never omitted by them. Fam. Ex. But what Mr. R. 
 fails to do by criticism, ho attempts to accomplish by supposing diffi- 
 culties. He says, "in a desert, it was not likely that there would be 
 a stream ample enough for plunging in. No history or geography 
 speaks of a river there — there is now no trace of any old river-bed 
 there," &c. 
 
 1. I have the highest authority in the imiverse for Jiffirming that 
 there was " a certain ivatar " there, whether river, or pond, 1 know 
 not, and care not. My geogtiipliy, here, is the New Testament — 
 my historian the Holy Spirit. 1 <(nvy not the mental condition of the 
 man, whoever he may be, who cainu>t believe this historian -without a 
 human endorser. 
 
 2. The principle here advanced is an infidel one. Gibbon affirms 
 'that the 13ihl(! is fulsc bi'cause it makes Palestine a fertile land, 
 whereas it is notoriously s/irl/c. We tell him that he cannot judge of 
 Vfhat it was by what it is. Th<* curse of (J<»(1 is nowupon it, and earth- 
 quakes and storms have produced vast pliysical changes. So say I 
 to M-. R. 
 
 Mr. li. proceeds, " when we read of baptism in houses and cities, 
 nothing of goinn' down into water, or coming up out of water is found." 
 Did not Mr. 11. perceive that this cavil miglit be turned against him- 
 self ? Miglit I not say, " when we read of baptism in houses and 
 cities, notlung ni /H'/c./ifrs or fxmliis, or tmrc/s or hnndkerchiefti to wipe 
 the minister's JiHiivrx or the hidii/Hf^T, is found;" tliose " great feat- 
 ures" of a sprinlvling tor baptism ! Mr. U. supfUesi>wo\\ circumstances 
 as belong to sprinkling, instf/id of sii|iplying the legitimate circum- 
 stances. The Spirit nrrvhj gives a dclaileil account of tlie circum- 
 stances connected with the pcfrforniance of any rite. 
 
 Mr. 11. says, " not a word is said about the eunuch changing his 
 clntlies: or of i'liilip producing a ha[)tismal suit: or of the eunuchs 
 driving away th(jr(»uglily drcnclud." A contemptible sneer will go 
 further, with some minds, than an argument. Our author seems to 
 understand this. Mr. M. ca'i conjecture certain waters out of the way; 
 and certain cups or basins, tiiwel-* or handkerchiefs into the way; lu) 
 can conjtjcture that llu- eunuch's iwX needed refnisliing in the bap- 
 tismal water! and yet he dare not hazard the bold supposition, that 
 after his baptism, the eunuih had coimnon sense enough to take care 
 of himself. I never bef<»r<! heard of such a string of imaginary 
 difficulties being od'ered to an iiitellig(!nt people as arguments. 
 
 Mr. 11. ne\t takes up John's baptising, and does a large wiiolesale 
 business in the line of assumptions anil difficulties. He makes John 
 select places of much water, to fundsh the people with facilities "for 
 refreshment and cleanline.ss." He tells us also, that, "in that arid 
 region, wells were commonly twenty miles apart." Now does it not 
 seem strange, that those peoole who lived all the days of their lives, 
 seven, eight, nine and ten mdes from the well, should need so much 
 water, when they carao together to be sprinkled! But Mr. R. says, 
 
 i i 
 
m ! 
 
 26 
 
 ANIMADVERSIONS UPON MR. ROAF'S 
 
 "John had in view a 2>^'otracted meeting !" Where does he learn, 
 that the same people ever spent a whole day or night with John? 
 When conjectures are brouglit to set aside the tesiiniony of the Spirit, 
 we must repudiate them. What rational reason, I ask, can be given 
 for John's selecting places of much water, unless for immeroion. The 
 tribes of Israel did not meet in their triennial gatht;rii!g.s, at Jordan, 
 but at Jerusalem, a place where Mr. II. linds an alarming scarcity of 
 water. The testimony of the Spirit is, — not that John wns preaching 
 (or holding a protracted meeting) at Euon, because there was much 
 water there; but it is said, he was hoptidng, because there was much 
 water there. Can a child of God need other testimony than this? 
 Must we here, too, have a historian or geographer to endorse for the 
 Spirit ? 
 
 But, Mr. R says, "Enon was a well in a cave, like that of Samaria, 
 where water was drawn, and into which it would neither be decent,' 
 lawful, nor possible to plunge a human body." Ergo, the word bap- 
 tise means to sprinkle ! ! What do we know about Enon ? Con- 
 flicting conjectures are the only data from which we can judge of its 
 character. But whether it was a natural spring called the ''Dove's Eye,"' 
 or an artificial "f(juntain of the sun," or something else, matters but 
 little. The ]3ible says, there was " much water" there. But here 
 again, we are thrown aback. , Mr. K. says, "much water there, means 
 many waters, and it expressed the fact of their being several small 
 springs and rivulets round about." Kather a watery phice after all, 
 in an "arid region!" By what process of philological legerdemain, 
 does Mr. R. metamorphose "many waters" [polla hudata) into many 
 " small springs and rivtdets." There la nahlmr spring \)or riindet in 
 the phrase. " It is observable," says Robinson, '• that the river Eu- 
 phrates, at Babylon ; Tiber, at Rome ; and Jordan, in Palestine, are all 
 described by mang waters. The thunder which agitates clouds, 
 charged with floods, is called the voice of the Lord upon many waters. 
 And the attachment that no mortifications can annihilate, is a love, 
 which many waters cannot quench, neither can the foods drown. 
 How it comes, that a mode of speaking, which on every other occasion 
 signifies much, should, in the case of baptism, signify little, is a ques- 
 tion easy to answer." 
 
 But it seems we have other diJicuUies to encounter, before we can 
 
 be permitted to suffer John to proceed quietly with his work of 
 
 immersing repenting sinners. If Enon is too shallow, Jordan, it seems, 
 
 is too rapid and deep. Mr. R. says, "the Jordan is six or seven feet 
 
 deep close to the shore." Why did he not say tliat it was twenty 
 
 feet deep; it would have been just as true (referring to some turn in 
 
 the river) as what he has said. libhinson says: 
 
 " The river banks are generally wooded ; channel sometimes broad and shallow, 
 sometimes rapid and deep, &c." 
 
 Burcl:hardt says: 
 
 " The river where we passed it, was about eighty paces broad, and three feet 
 
 deep." ? . I ■ , . i ; V ■ ' ^- :;i''. • -i\ril- 
 
SERMONS ON BAPTISM. . ''27 
 
 A writer in the Dublin University Magazine, as quoted by the 
 Qlobe, November 23rd, 1850, says, (speaking of a certain point in 
 the river) : 
 
 " Nor is it improbable that here John the Baptist was baptising, and that here 
 our blessed Lord, as he came up out of tlie waters, received the public seal of his 
 ministry, when the Holy Ghost came upon him," &c. 
 
 He represents the stream as rapid, but " shallow near the bank." 
 Here men and women can bathe without difliculty. Why, I ask, did 
 Mr. R. in this case, omit an important part of the trutli ? He obvi- 
 ously felt tlie need of ndijficult}/ to silence the testimony ui' the Jordan. 
 I quote one more author on this point, and leave it; Murk says, " they 
 Were all baptised of him in the river of Jordan." 
 
 But Mr. il. luus yet more difficulties. The people had no changes 
 of raiment. He says, " they came out to hear, and not expecting to 
 be baptised." Who told Mr. K. this? Muttheiv says, "but when he 
 saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees, come to his LajHism." 
 Now these classes came for the same purpose that others did, and 
 they came to his ha^itism. 
 
 Mr. II. says tlie people must either have been baptised and remained 
 saturated in their ordinary clothes, or stripped; and adds, "lliey clearly 
 did neither, and therefore were not immersed." This is demonstra- 
 tion iistilf I Mr. li. is certainly right in supiiosing, that ii the people 
 were neither baj)tised in their clothes nor out of them, that they were 
 not immersed ! His argument here, is simply this : it is not stated in 
 detail, that those whom John baptised, diti ail that was necessary to 
 preserve health and decency, therefore they were not haptised, but 
 sprinlded! ! And this is pi-oof ! 
 
 But Mr. It. finds yet another difficult!/ move formidable than its 
 fellows. He tells us, that John must have baptisid, in six months, 
 " two millicins" of people, and says, "if he occupied the whole six 
 months in the (operation, he passed through his hands 12,800 a day, 
 a number which it was physically impossible to immerse, but which 
 he could have sprinkled in large numbers with great ease." How, I 
 ask, could he have spriidded them I Perhaps the Salopian Zealot 
 can inform us. Ho says: 
 
 " The Jews in Jordan were bapliswl, 
 
 Therefore, ingenious John devised 
 
 A scoop, or squirt, or some siicii thing, 
 
 Willi which some water he might fling 
 
 Upon the Ions; extended rank 
 
 Of candidates that lined the bank ; 
 
 Be careful, John, some drops may fall 
 
 From yonr rare instrument on all, 
 
 But point your engine ne'ertheless 
 
 To those who first their sins confess : 
 
 Let no revilers in the crowd. 
 
 The holy sprinkling be allowed." 
 I remark on Mr. K's. calculation : 
 
 1. That John wsis not a Jewish priest, and might therefore have 
 baptised six years, instead of six mouths b Are Christ. On this point 
 we have no jjroo/". . . . , . 
 
 II 
 
 ^i' 
 
f 
 
 1 1 
 
 •I 
 
 i hi 
 4 
 
 28 ANIMADVER3I0XS UPON MR IIOAF'S 
 
 2. Two things are affirmed in relation to John's candidates: first, 
 they confesaed their .sins; second, they were baptised. ISow, ho"vr 
 csould men confe.ss their sins at the rate of eighteen a minute? It 
 was " physically impossible." Mr. ll'.s. calculation, then, reduces the 
 scripture recuid of ilie fact, to a falsehood. Can a just cause demaud 
 tliis I 
 
 3. Mr. R. makes the phraseology, "Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all 
 Uio reu'ion round about Jordan," to mean all the inhabitants of these 
 places. Tills is erroneous — for if John baj)tised alt the inhabitants in 
 Jordan, why in the name of common sense was he shortly afterwards 
 baptising laigo numbers at Enon ? Besides, all that came to his bap- 
 tism were not received. Ci^rtain classes rejected the council of (Jod 
 a^'ainst themselves, not being baptised with the ba])tism of John. 
 His business was to prepare a petjple for the Lord. And to assume 
 tliat he baptised any but those wIm confessed their sins, is to contra- 
 dict the lii/jt'e. Thus sink, one after another, our uutlior's fearfiU 
 difficulties, liut supposing we try Mr. U's. mode of leasoning for a 
 moment, on another subject. Ibiw could Abraiiam "in tiie self-same 
 day," Oen. xvii. 'j;J, circumcise more than three hundietl and eighteen 
 uidividuals ? It took longer time to circunu'ise one, than to immerse 
 six. Was not the thing " physicallv impossible {" And then, not 
 oiie word is said about flowing blood, or binding up of wounds, nor arc 
 the candidates said to have covered themselves afier the rite! The 
 difficulty in the numbers, then, together with the absence of those 
 drcurastances y^hich heaith and decency would have demanded — the 
 absence of those "great features" i:i every circumcision, prove, 
 according to ^Ir. li's. logic, that they were not circumcised. Abraham, 
 perhaps, touched their foreheads with his finger, for it is not even 
 s^iid that he had a knife! I could upset revelation itself, on such 
 principles ! 
 
 But the people were baptised in the river Joidan, Ave are told. 
 N< ' so, says Mr. R., "it would be as correct a reading of the original 
 to ul at Jordan, or with Jordan, for these are as ordinary meanings 
 of the pre|iositions used by the Scripture historians, as in, or into." 
 What will tiie reader think of such a statement, when he is informed, 
 tliat by a careful examination, it has be^n ascertained that the pre- 
 ptjsition {f)i) "ill'" occurs in the New Testament 2()00 times, and that 
 out of this immense number of occurrences, it is translated " in" iOA't 
 times; aiul amongst the remaining instances, in manj- cases, it should 
 have been rendered " m." In the origiiud, it is said, 1 baptise you 
 {en) "in," not with water. lie shall baptise you {en) "in" not tviih 
 the Holy Ghost. G. Campbell, (Principal of Marischal College^ 
 Aberdeen) says: 
 
 " So inconsistent arc the intflrprptors last mentioned, that nniu; of them have 
 scrupled to render en to Jonianec, in Jordan; thout^h nothini? can he plainer than 
 that, if there be any incon>;iuity in tiie expression in water, this in Jordan must 
 be equally incon^jruous. But Aty have seen, that the preposition in could not be 
 avoided tnere, without adopting cirrnmlocution which would have made this 
 deviation from the text too glarint?. Tfie true partizan of vjiatever denominationf 
 always inclines to correct tlie diction oftfie Spirit by tliai of the party. ^* 
 
 vi 
 
EERMONS ON BAPTISM. .80 
 
 At water, and at the Holy Spirit, is inadmissible — while with tba 
 Jordan (seven feet deep and one hundred and titty wide,) is a supep- 
 lative absurdity. 
 
 But Mr. R. asks, " what was the mode of baptising with the Holy 
 Ghost and with tire, clearly by the descent of the Holy Ghost and 
 cloven tongues of tire which sat upon them." On this i remark: 
 
 1. Th(i descent of the Holy Ghost is nowhere called hoplism. And 
 a partial application of divine influence, such as is set forth in the 
 sprinkling uf a babe, is a cruel mockery. On Pentecost,'they were 
 overwhelmed hi divine influence. Who doubts this? 
 
 2. The communication and reco[ition of the influences of the Spirit, 
 are represented by a variety of ligures. By the springing up of 
 water: by blowing like the wi'id: by tlowing like a river: by ihc emis- 
 sion of breath: by the drinking of water: by the pouring out of water, 
 and by baptism in water. Now why is "pouring out" sfizttd, without 
 a warrant, and applied to baptism, while tiie otiic-rs are rejected? Is 
 not llie reason trans[)ar{!nt '? Why, I as!:, are not ^prir.ging up, 
 blowing, flowing, breathing, drinking, &.c., regarded as so muiiy modes 
 of baptism? Wiuit claim lias ^j>oMr/>jy, that tliese have not.' Why 
 confound [)i>uring and baptism, any more than blowing and baptism, 
 or pouring and drinking? The Spirit is never said to be hqilmd 
 UPON men. 
 
 3. On the day of Pentecost, we are told, "there came a sound from 
 heaven, as of a I'usliing mighty wind, and \i Jilted alt the house wlwre 
 thei/ were sittiw/, and theie appeared cloven tongues like as of fire, 
 and it sat on each of them. Here, we perceive, that the emblems of 
 the Spirit were above and around them. They were enveloped in 
 those emblems, as they hud been in water at their baptism. Mr. li. 
 confounds what is perfectly distitict, the descent of the Spirit, with 
 the baptism of the disciples. Previous to a baptism in our chapel, 
 water is poured into the baptistry ; this pouring is in order to the 
 baptism; but what would you think of the man who should make it 
 the baptism itself? Not more incongruously would such an one 
 reason, than does the man who calls the descent of the Spirit, the 
 baptism of the disciples. 
 
 4. The copiousness of the Spirit's gifts, is indicated by the baptism 
 in the Spirit. Destroy this idea, so beautifully presented by the tigure 
 of submerging into divine influence, and you dishonor the work of 
 the Spirit. 
 
 Mr. H. next says, "our Lord himself, received the baptism of John, 
 to which I have just referred the descending of the element upon him." 
 With my views, I would not be the author of this assertion for the 
 universe. Did John baptise the water upon Christ ? The Bible says : 
 not merely that our Redeemer was baptised " in" the Jordan, but 
 (eis) " into" the Jordan. It is just as certain that Christ was immersed 
 into the Jori^an, as it is that language has a meaning. The same pre- 
 position which took him into houses, synagogues, temples, cities, 
 villages, and ultimately into heaven itself, took him into the Jordan. 
 
 Mil 
 
 l|i 
 
 f .' 
 
 4 ' 
 
 1^ 
 
jl. 
 
 30 
 
 ANIMADVERSIONS UPON MR. ROAF'S 
 
 May the time soon arrive when all who love Christ, shall be led to 
 follow his example. To justil'y his assertion, that Christ might go 
 into Jordan wiihuut being immersed: Mr. li. says, "in the Greek 
 church, it has been customarif lor the recipients of baptism to kneel in 
 a font, while a priest litU'd up water and poured it on the head." I 
 can only here save ^{\:Vi'\i, honesty at the expense uf his intdUgcnce, 
 The Greeks jjo«/* upon and call it baptism! ! ! On the contrary, they 
 liave from hrst to last, practised /r/z/c immersion, and that, too, in the 
 coldest regions on ihcfa<;oof the earth. Can it be necessary to prove 
 this? 1 will give one authority, which no I'edobaptist will accuse uf 
 unfairness, i mean Professor iStuart, of Andover, (a Presbyterian.) 
 He says: 
 
 " The mode of b;n)ti.sm by immersion, tlic oiifiital cIiuitIi hits iiKvays con- 
 tinued to [no!ieiv(',cv(iuli)\vii1oilie jno.sLMit tiiiit'. Tile niLnilMTsoI'lliis cliuich are 
 accustomed to call the nu'iiil)crs of the wi'slcrn church, sprinkled C/iristiuns, hy 
 way ol' ridicule ai.d contfinpl. They maintain thai baptizo can moan notliini; l)Ut 
 immcrue, and tiiat /»i(y>/is/;i 6// ,s^)r/ViA7i/i^', is as 1,'ical a .st)lL('i>m as iiiniivrsion b\j 
 sprinkling; ami they claim to themselves, tic; honor of havii'y; piest ntd tiic 
 ancient sacred rile of the ijiurcli free from change, and from con nplion, which, 
 would destroy its siji;nilicaiicy." 
 
 On this subject, W. Judd makes the following remark : 
 
 " The testimony of the Greeks is conclusive. It puts the quesUon beyond 
 reasonable dispule. I cannot see liow tia; man who has the perversness to rise 
 u]) and contradict them, can he entitled in this matter, either to respect or courtesy; 
 foi ho ontray;es reason and conuiioa sense. Il the Greeks themselves are not com- 
 petent judges of a Greeic word, where shall we (nut tliose \vlio are i" 
 
 The Greeks cliarge those who speak of baptism by sprinkling, with 
 uttering an absurdity. iSurcly Baptists are on this point, in safe 
 com{)any. 
 
 Mr. H. speaks of anwont pictures representing pouring as bnptism, 
 in the case of C!hrist. The trouble with the pictures is, that they are 
 not, by very many centuries, ancient enough. 1 commend to his 
 notice, the langiiaoe of Pone Benedict XIV". When Paul Afaria 
 Paciandi presented those pictures, with others, to his holiness, the 
 Pope exclaimed: 
 
 " Nothing can be more monstrous than these emblems ! Was our Lord Christ 
 baptised by aspersion { This is so far from being true, that notliins; can be more 
 opposite to truth : and it is to be attributed to the ignorance and rashness of 
 workmen." 
 
 The idea that Christ was poured tipon, it will be seen, is ascribed 
 by Benedict, who believed in sprinkling, to ignorance and rashness. 
 
 Mr. R. next makes the strange remark that, " Aaron and his sons 
 were baptised Avith water at the door of the tabernacle (Lev. viii. 6.) 
 and with oil, (Lev. viii. 12,) and with blood, (v. 23,24.)" It is with 
 extreme reluctance that I say, that there is no truth in the above 
 assertion. Every man capable of deciphering the (ireek character, 
 and who has looked into tlie chapter referred to, MU§T know, that 
 baptism is not once named in it. Take one of Mr. R's. examples 
 of baptism, Lev. viii. 23, " And Moses took of the blood of it, and 
 put it upon the tip of Aaron's right ear, and upon the thumb of 
 
u 
 
 led to 
 j,ht go 
 Greek 
 iieel in 
 d." I 
 'igcnce, 
 y, tlu'y 
 , in tlie 
 > prove 
 :use of 
 terian.) 
 
 \ys con- 
 ,mrh aie 
 Hans, by 
 lliiny; but 
 L'csion by 
 ivkI the 
 n, which. 
 
 1 beyond 
 
 ;ss to rise 
 courtesy; 
 nut com- 
 
 ng, with 
 
 ill sale 
 
 baptism, 
 they are 
 d to his 
 (/ Afaria 
 ness, the 
 
 ,onl Christ 
 
 m be more 
 
 ushness ol" 
 
 i ascribed 
 shness. 
 J his sons 
 V. viii. 6.) 
 It is with 
 the above 
 character, 
 enow, that 
 
 examples 
 of it, and 
 
 thumb of 
 
 SERMONS ON DABTISM. 'S\ 
 
 his right hand, and upon the great toe of liis right foot." So it 
 seems, smearing the tip of the ear, the thumb, and the great toe, is 
 BAPTidMl! What shall we have next? I raise my humble protest 
 against such trifling with God's word, and the consciences of dyin^' 
 mortals. 
 
 Mr. II. next refers to the case of Cornelius ; " can any man /orlid 
 water." Now, says Mr. li, "if any could forbid water, that water 
 must have been wliat could bo moved to Cornelius." How, I ask, 
 can this serve the cause of .s])rinkling ? If Mr. K. can ' move ' enough 
 of water to till a cup, 1 can as righteously move enough to lill a bath. 
 If the Holy Wpirit had intended to say, who can forbid a cup of water 
 to be brought in for the purpose of sprinkling, he would have done 
 so. But nothing of the kind is said. The phrase simply implies, — 
 can any object to the baptism of thesre persons? As a matter of fact, 
 water was, and is brought in to till baths. 1, myself, have had water 
 brought into a private bath, and in it baptised with great ease, a joy- 
 ful! disciple. IJaptism and not sprinkling took place here. Mr. K. 
 next conies to Hamaria, and conjures up another difficulty to establish 
 the meaning of a plain word, lie finds not one drop of water in 
 .Samaria, exce[it in Jacob's well. Now, the truth is, Mr. R. knows 
 nothing at all about the water resources of Samaria in tlutse days. 
 This, I again say, is an intidel argument. If Mr. R. may use it, so 
 may Gibbon. But is it not marvellous, that Mr. R. can lind enough 
 of water for purposes of refreshment and ablution for all the people; 
 enough of water for all their cattle, .365 days in every year, atui yet, 
 on one jo3'eus occasion, can find no water in which to baptise the 
 happy discij)les! A strange process this by which to evade tile 
 established meaning of the word! If Samaria had water enough for 
 the ordinary pur|)oses of man and beast, it had enough for baptism. 
 Mr. R. next speaks of Paul's baptism, and we have more difficulties 
 to establish the meaning of a word. He thinks " it is not likely " that 
 immersion was here practised, — "not probable " that their baths were 
 large enough. What, in the name of reason has Mr. R's. "not lik-elies" 
 and "not probab/es''' to do in a cpiestion of this character? Is it not 
 very "likely" that Paid obeyed God? ]5ut he was exhausted, we 
 are informed, and Mr. R. says: Paul "arose" to be baptised; the 
 act which he woidd have to perform, for receiving baptism from 
 Ananias." IVhy, I ask, was it necessary for an exhausted man to 
 arise to be spi'inkled? The commaiul to arise in ord(!r to immersion, 
 was necessary, while to arise in order to b sprinkled was »io< neces-^ 
 sary. Such phraseology is frequently employed in scripture as an 
 incitement to some course of conduct, as, Artse, go over this Jordan, 
 — arise, shine ; aiise, and stand upon thy feet, <fec. Besides Paul'.s 
 baptism was an emblematic wa.sb/jig, — sprinkling is never in figure or 
 in fact a washing. Lastly, Paul himself tells us that he and others 
 were buried in baptism. 
 
 The Jailor comets next, and Mr. R. says, " it cannot be supposed 
 that he had a bath in a heathen prison." One thing is in evidence 
 
 
82 
 
 ANIMAOVSRSIONS UFON MR. ROAF'S 
 
 I I 
 
 \ r 
 
 '■1 
 
 
 ho had a river close by, and the cloud of midnight was a sufficient 
 
 fuard for him. Look at the circumstances of this case. First, the 
 ailor, witii his light in his hand, brings them out. Second, they 
 preach to all in tlie house. Tldtd, he takes them, (it does not men- 
 tion where) the same lumr of the night, washes their stripes, and is 
 baptised, he and his. Fourth, he biings them into the house and sets 
 meat before them. Now, wlij/ did they leave the house at midnight, 
 unless for immersion? Jlr. R's. diilicullics not unl'iccjuently testify 
 against him, and unikr the rack of his torture cry out nnmcraion, 
 Mr. K. next tak(;s up the baptism uf the 13,000. Tlie sum of his 
 argurnod is, tiiat twelve men cuuld not have acctimi)li.>h('d the work! 
 Kow, 1 should like lo bo one of twelve who sliould ag;iiu jiave such a 
 privilege. A lew years ago, i baptised 85 individiuils "dcciiitli/ inid 
 iiiordtr" in just iiO minuies. At this rate, four hours W(..uld have 
 been amply suiiiciiMit, in wiiich to have baptised the w liole 13,000. 
 But we learn from Acts, x: 4tf ; tliat the Aposilcs conuuanded assist- 
 ance even on small Lajsiisiiig oJcasion^, tind why not lieie? All will 
 admit then, that the s(\emy di.-eiples liail a right to baptise. TheEC 
 added ti> the 12, Would give us i^2 b;ipti.^ers, and tlii:< Lumber would 
 accom})lish the woik wltii ea^e in 40 minutes. l;apti?t ministers can- 
 cot fail to smile at such calculations. 
 
 Bui we have still another dijfinillii. Is'o water ! iNo water ! Mas 
 for the teeming iidial itaiilsoi' Jerusalem ! Alas, for the p,arclied and 
 tliirsty tribi's of l.-rael ! Alas, fui-miin and beast ! Bul^to{) I my com- 
 miseration ismirsapplied, totally ! 'J liere was enough ot r-ater lor all 
 tlie ordinaiy purj)o>t^s of the tens of thousands of m* n and beasts in the 
 dty, enough for ox, en aigh hi- a^s, but there Avas not enough in 
 Vfhieh to baptise ilio^e li,000 believers. lJesj[)e;ate must be the 
 cause that demands auch a defence. 
 
 We iind, however, that wati'r was not so scarce an article in Jerusalem 
 in those ilays, as many seem to imngine. 'Jo say nothing of the 
 numerous ])rivate baths, and |)laces in ihe Temple, (iuid the disciples 
 had access to the Temple and "had favour ^^ith vW the jicople,") 
 there was the jiool oi Stioom and Hcthcudu. This last pi.iol, Maundrell 
 makes 120 paces long, 40 broad, and 8 deep — "wliieh basin" says 
 Culmet, "being deeper in some places than in others, uneven at the 
 bottom, might be deej) enttugh to swim in in sonn' iir.rts, Avhile in 
 others it might merely serve to wasii the sheep." According to 
 the dimensions given by Chatvaiihriaud, it measures " 150 feet long, 
 and 40 wide, or 380 feet around ! Kow, taking this hnvest mea- 
 surement, 80 administrators of baptism might stand within its verge 
 4 feet apart, and, in 40 minutes or less, baptise the 3,000. 
 
 I notice these quibbles, not because 1 regard ilicni as allectingmy 
 practice as a Baptist, that practice rests uj)on the Divine record. 
 
 The xoord finds water enough in every instance, with as much 
 certainty as the word circumcision finds a knife ; but I notice 
 them simply because many honest-hearted enquirers suppose 
 
 them to have force. As to the hackneyed idea that the converts 
 
SSRM0N8 ON BAPTIHH. 
 
 h 
 
 Scient 
 t, the 
 they 
 , men- 
 and is 
 id sets 
 dnighl, 
 testify 
 \eriiion, 
 11 uf Ilia 
 i work! 
 ; Bueli a 
 
 Id huvo 
 ! y,ouu. 
 d assist- 
 All Avill 
 Tlusc 
 Lv v.ould 
 steib can- 
 
 I- ! Mas 
 oiu'd and 
 luy cdin- 
 UT l*Ji" iiil 
 i>lsin the 
 iHiuyh ill 
 t be the 
 
 Jcnisalem 
 ig uf the 
 c disciples 
 
 |,COpU',") 
 
 I^lauiidrell 
 iisui" says 
 veil at the 
 s, vliilein 
 urding to 
 J fuet long, 
 Avest inea- 
 in its verge 
 )00. 
 
 lectingmy 
 ine record. 
 h as much 
 1 notice 
 suppose 
 16 converts 
 
 c 
 
 t 
 
 had no changes of raiment, at a feast of the Jews, the assump- 
 tion is most gratuitous. And again, I say, that there is just as 
 much evidence to prove that they had common sense enough to 
 decently take care of themselves, as there is t( prove, that cir- 
 cumcised persons had to take care of themselves. 
 
 We have next brought under our notice, Romans, vi : 4j and 
 Collossians, ii : 12, buried with Christ by baptism. These pas- 
 'sages, one would naturally suppose, place our practice beyond the 
 reach of even cavil itself; but Mr R. says, "there is nothing 
 in immersion like burial !" I appeal to the common sense of every 
 man, woman and cliilJ, who has eyes to see, or intelligence to 
 discover the resomblance between an object and its well defined 
 shadow. Surely, we bury our candidates in baptism. And surely, 
 we raise them again ! But. says Mr. R., "when a body is buried 
 it is not dipped and raised again, or rather, the feet and legs first 
 placed in the ground, and the rest of the corpse plunged and raised 
 
 Besides, if our Lord's burial is to be imitated, there must 
 
 be a baptising horizontally, for the cave or tomb in which he was 
 buried was in the side of a rock ; and bodies were put into it laterally, 
 and not by lowering or dipping." On this I remark : 
 
 1. Bodies are buried in the ground ; and my Bible teaches the 
 sublime doctrine that they shall be raised again. 
 
 2. Christ was buried and rose again. These are facts ! 
 
 3. Mr. R. reasons here just as might a person totally ignorant of 
 the nature of symbolical language. The mere circumstances con- 
 nected with any transaction symbolized, are never in the symbol. 
 Thus, the paschal lamb, was r\oi crucified, yet it was o. perfect sym- 
 bol, it was a lamb slain. On the great day of atonement, the goat 
 was not crucified, but its blood was spilt, and it was sacrificed. Now, 
 as in these cases, had not the victims been put to death, they could 
 not have symbolized the death of Christ; so, unless baptism be a 
 burial in water aud a resurrection out of it, it is absurd to say, that 
 " we are fiwrjerf with him, bi/ and m baptism, that, like as Christ 
 was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we 
 also should walk in newness of life." Again, in the Supper we 
 have an emblematical representation of Christ's death. But Mr. R. 
 might say, " if our Lord's death is to be imitated, there must be a 
 crucifixion/^^ He can perceive without difficulty a beautiful emblem 
 of Christ's death in the breaking of bread, and in in the pouring out 
 of wine; but cannot discover any likeness to his burial, and resur- 
 rection, in a burial in, and resurrection from water. Here he must 
 have all the circumstances of a funeral, connected with the burial 
 else it is no burial! Was ever triffling with a solemn subject more 
 apparent? But Mr. R. makes us say, "that the mode, not the 
 result, is essential to baptism." This is a mistake ; we make the 
 divinely appointed emblems essential to baptism. But Mr. R. con- 
 founds the ordinance with its concomitants. The Lord's Supper 
 may be attended to, in the evening, in a house, or a chapel ; but 
 
I- IT 
 
 34 
 
 ANIMADVERSIONS UPON MB. ROAF'S 
 
 * I 
 
 if 
 
 ■ ) 
 
 ! I 
 
 the bread must be broken; so in baptism, the candidate may be 
 dressed in white, or in black, baptised backwards or forwards, to 
 the right hand, or the left, mode is nothing, provided, the subject 
 be buried and raised ajfain. The Spirit has left us in attending to 
 these divinely appointed symbols, to select circumstances, most con- 
 venient. Uncomminded concomitants may vary, but the Iking com- 
 manded never, until the heavens pass with a mighty noise. 
 
 4. No sophistry can ever take away from these passages, burial 
 and resurrection, and as we have in the Supper, a real, (not a 
 spiritual), breaking of bread, so in baptism, we have a real burial. 
 In this ordinance, wo not only, exhibit the iar*V// and resurrection 
 of our Lord, but also, profess to be dead to the world, to be buried 
 wil/i Christ, and to rise to newness of life. Dr. Chalmers thus 
 reasons on the verse : 
 
 " Jesus Christ, by death, underwent this sort of baptism — even immersion under 
 the surface ot" tiie ground, whence he soon emerged again by his resurrection.-^ 
 Wo, by being baptised into his death, are conceived to have made a similar trans- 
 lation. In the act of descending under the water of baptism, to have resigned an 
 old hfe ; and in the act of ascending, to emerge into a second, or new life ; along 
 the course of which, it is our part to maintain a strenuous avoidance of that sin 
 which as good as expuntred the being we had formerly ; and a strenuous prosecu- 
 tion of that holiness which should begin with the first moment that we were 
 ushered ir.to our present being, and be perpetuated, and' make progress toward the 
 perfection of full and ripened immortality." 
 
 Planted together in the likeness of his death, and being in the 
 likeness of his resurrection is a similar figure. Paul employs the 
 burying of grain in the earth, and its springing up again to pre- 
 figure the resurrection of the body. The old man, is said to be 
 crucified; but we are never said to be buried with Christ in cruci- 
 fixion 1 Who would not feel the incongruity of such a figure. 
 And who does not feel the incongruity of being buried with Christ 
 by sprinkling. 
 
 Mr. R. next notices the baptism of the Israelites in the Rod Sea, 
 and conjectures that they were ^'probably sprinkled by the spray." 
 This was not a case of christian baptism, but it was a burial, and 
 resurrection. They went down into the sea, — the waters stood like 
 walls on both sides, '■^congealed in the heart of the sea," the guar- 
 dian cloud covered them— and thus, they were all immersed unto 
 Moses, in the cloud, and in the sea. 
 
 He next notices the baptism of Nebuchadnezzar in the dew of 
 heaven, and says, " This dew must have decended upon him." Yes, 
 but the dew is not said to have been baptised upon him. It was the 
 body of the ill-fated monarch that was baptised and not the dew. 
 The passage is literally, his body was immersed in the dew of 
 heaven. Destroy this beautiful figure, and you upset the meaning, 
 and force of the passage. Our own Milton, has a similar phrase, it 
 is this : 
 
 " A cold shuddering dew dipt me all o'er." •'■ i 
 
 And Spencer says : J >' ^ 
 
 i. • . ri "With verses rftp<m dew of Caatalie." - j^Jv v?" >' '»' 
 
o may be 
 rwards, to 
 the subject 
 ttending to 
 most con* 
 thing com- 
 e. 
 
 jes, burial 
 eal, (not a 
 real burial. 
 esurrection 
 M be buried 
 aimers thus 
 
 imersion under 
 resurrection.— 
 similar trans- 
 ive reKigned an 
 ew life ; along 
 ice of that Bin 
 nuous prosecu- 
 t that we were 
 ress toward the 
 
 being in the 
 employs the 
 
 again to pre- 
 is said to be 
 
 [irist in cruci- 
 
 nch a figure. 
 
 id with Christ 
 
 . the Rod Sea, 
 y the spray." 
 f a burial, and 
 iters stood like 
 a," the guar- 
 nmersed unto 
 
 a the dew of 
 jnhim." Yes, 
 n. It was the 
 d not the dew. 
 n the dew of 
 t the meaning, 
 nilar phrase, it 
 
 BERMONS ON BAPTISM. 
 
 Wl ' i. 
 
 35 
 
 Jin %<^ 
 
 Could any man fail to feel the force, and see the beauty of these 
 figures? Would any man argue from them that dip meant to 
 sprinkle 1 Yet these are cases parallel to the one before us. The 
 King was overwhelmed in the dew. 
 
 Mr. R. comes next, to his last head, which reads, "Affusion, 
 Pouring, or Sprinkling, is in accordance with tiik Holy 
 Scriptures." Here, I did expect, to meet the writer in a plain 
 common sense argument ! I did expect, to find n strniglU-forwnrd 
 appeal, to the usage of the language ! I had n right to expect, tlint 
 at least ONB passage would bo produced where baplizo or its cog- 
 nates, were rendered ST^r/wAZe ; or where water, or blood, or oil, 
 was said to be baptised vpon some person, or thing. Rut such a 
 passage has not yet been '-readout," and, mark, reader! Nkver 
 WILL BE I Let Mr. R. tell why f 
 
 Our author's first and main argument, is simply this : I have 
 proven immersion to have been impossible, in many cases ; there- 
 fore, sprinkling is baptism ! ! I deny, that Mr. R's. conclusion is 
 in his premises. A learned infidel would adopt Mr. R's premises, 
 and effectually resist his conclusion. He would say with Professor 
 Stuart, "the word means to dip, to plunge, to immerse, all critics 
 and lexicographers of any note are airreed in this'' — and the 
 Greeks themselves thus understand it, therefore, Ibe liible is false ! 
 But I have anniliilated Mr. R's. dijficulties, (tJiough not hound to 
 do it,) and have thus sustained both the ordinance and the Bible. 
 
 But Mr. R. says, ^^ pouring is more suited to the representation, 
 and significant purpose of baptism." What likeness. I ask, is tliere 
 between pouring and a burial and resurrect ion ? Where Christ's 
 death and resurrection is not set forth in baptism, and the believer's 
 union with him in these, there can bo no christian baptism. Now, 
 is pouring, a burial? Where then is its ^^ significancy.^^ Mr. R. 
 says, "baptism is a sign of tlie cleansing away of sin by Christ's 
 blood." In the emblematical waters, sins are said to be " washed 
 avoay,''^ but this part of the emblem is as fatal to the pretentions of 
 sprinkling, as is the burial or resurrection. Sprinkling is no more 
 a mode of washing than it is of immersing ; and if it were, it would 
 not affect this question. Leviticus, vi : 27, we read, " when there 
 is sprinkled of the blood thereof on any garment, thou shall wash 
 that whereon it was sprinkled in the holy place." Here, sprinkling 
 and washing are presented by the Spirit, as two very different 
 aflfairs. Sprinkling, then, preserves no part of the "significant pur- 
 pose of baptism." God has not ordained this as an emblem, but 
 something else; and who has a right to change his enactments ? 
 Christ sprinkles the heart from an evil conscience, while the body 
 on the contrary, is said to be washed with pure water. 
 
 Mr. R. says, " plunging into the blood of Christ is inconsistent 
 with the phraseology of scripture." Let us see — it is said. Revela- 
 tion?, i: 5, "to him that has washed us from our sins in his own blood;''* 
 — " washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the 
 
T 
 
 if 
 
 i > 
 
 ^ ANniADVBIUIIOMI UPOV Ma ROArM 
 
 Lamb ;" the " washing of regeneration," &c. Is immersion tneon> 
 sislcnt with such phraseology ? Let the dullest apprehension judge I 
 Cowper snys : 
 
 " There is n fountain filled with blood 
 Drown from Inimnruiel's veins, 
 And Hi nners p/Mm^firr/ beneath that flood 
 Lose all their guilty etains." '' 
 
 Cowper, obviously, did not see through Mr. R's. optics. 
 
 Mr. R. quotes some instances, in which the word sprinkle occurs 
 —but what, I ask, have those to do with bopliam? He ought to 
 have informed the common reader, that in the original, not one of 
 those sprinklings are indicated by the word baptitm. They are all 
 rantisms. We know ns well as Mr. R., that every mode of *he 
 motion of water is spoken of in the Hible. Pouring, sprinkhng, 
 flowing, runing, springing up. We also rend of drinlting unto one 
 spirit, of drinking the blood of the Son of man ; why are not all 
 these modes of baptism. My reply is, simply because there is no 
 baptism in any one of them — no burial, and resurrection with our 
 glorious Redeemer. Mr. R. has one argument left, which will weigh 
 more with some souls than all his other arguments combined. It is 
 as follows; — "Immersion in baptism involves a changing of dress, 
 an attention to its sinking in the woter, and a close clinging of 
 saturated clothes to the person, from which delicacy shrinks." 
 
 This caricature is a low appeal to the pride of the human heart. 
 Mr. R , and " Punch in Canada,^' may join hand in hand, in ridi- 
 culing Christ's ordinances, but that resurrection, so beautifully sym- 
 bolized in baptism approaches, when the Lord will plead his own 
 cause. Had I met with the obove language in the writings of some 
 low infidel, whose associations, when he ''looketh on a woman "in 
 the water, or out of the water, are eternally the same, it would not 
 have surprised me; but from a minister of the gospel, it is startling. 
 My reply to this argument, is as follows: *' To the pure all thing are 
 pure ; unto them that are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pute ; 
 but even their mind and conscience is defiled." How differently 
 does Mrs. Sigourney speak of the baptism of a lovely young 
 lady, she says, — 
 
 " Then with a firm unshrinking step, 
 
 The watery path she trod : . . 
 
 And gave, with woman's deathless trust. 
 Her being to her Gcd. 
 
 And when, all drooping from the flood, , 
 
 She rose like lilly's stem : • ' 
 
 Methought that spotless brow might wear 
 An angel's diadem." 
 
 I have now examined Mr. R's. arguments. I have met his diffi- 
 culties one by one, and I now submit the whole to the friends of 
 Christ, who must Suon meet me before the great white throne, and 
 I ask them to say, whether truth on this subject is with Mr. R. or 
 myself. Every human being is accountable to God. He has given 
 
n tneoti- 
 
 a judge I 
 
 le occuro 
 ought to 
 lot one of 
 y are all 
 je of 'he 
 )rinkling, 
 unto one 
 re not all 
 icre is no 
 with our 
 vill weigh 
 ed. It is 
 r of dress, 
 linging of 
 iks." 
 
 nan heart, 
 d, in ridi* 
 ully sym- 
 id his own 
 ^ of some 
 Oman " in 
 would not 
 startling. 
 I thing are 
 ^ is pure ; 
 differently 
 ly young 
 
 ■BRMOIfS OR BAPTlSMi 8t 
 
 oi his wofd, and by that word we must all be judged. What then, are 
 the teachinffs of the Bible on this subject ? We learn that Christ 
 commanded the baptism only o^ believers or disciples. The Apostles 
 commanded Jews and Gentiles ' > repent and be buptincd. 'J'liey that 
 gladly received the word, were baptised. Thoy hearing, believed, 
 and were baptised. They bflieved Philip preaching and were baptised^ 
 both men and women. They believed with all their heart, and were 
 baptised. It was a putting on of Christ, and the answer of a good 
 conscience toward God. Again, baptism was performed in the 
 River Jordan, and at Enon, because there was much water there, 
 and we never read of the employment of a cup or basin. They went 
 down into the water, were buried with Christ in baptism, and raised 
 again in the likeness of his resurrection, thoy came up out of the 
 water and went on their way rejoicing. In view of these simple 
 Bible facts, together with the fact that infant sprinkling is not once 
 mentioned in the word of God, I cannot resist the conviction that 
 Pedobaptism is not according to the mind of the Redeemer — and 
 that sprinkling is subversive of the Divine law. 
 
 v.- 
 
 et his diffi- 
 friends of 
 I rone, and 
 Mr. R. or 
 I has givMi 
 
 ^*i*HiWs4W.c*.i>'Mat^-J*«"l 
 
 ki mrtiff'v---mx. 
 
'^♦"♦■•li. ■" ?r.- fi;^r ■;/,•».«!* 
 
 . I 
 
 ■ ,i"v'! *r''. '! 
 
 ■r- "•¥•: 
 
 
 '.., '-; (; 
 
 
 . ! , 
 
 . !.' 
 
 \ .u-A:v'..r) 
 
 .,!,". 
 
 • t > ; .. 
 
 » . - .*; 
 
 ' 1 ; 
 
 !■, •■•;(, ;r:--' 
 
 r.i 
 
 . , .'.'., 
 
 ■ Vr 
 
 ,,,^., 
 
 ->^ ,,\'^ A. 
 
 1 
 
 
 ' ' ' ■ 
 
 * . ■ 
 
 • .',•,.• 
 
 ■ . 
 
 ii.i'j 
 
 .7 
 
 '■ ■ ■ ^• 
 
 I 
 
 J 
 
 
 I 
 
 . * * J 
 
 
 ,'1, 1' 
 
 ! '. Tii/i;j 
 
 
 '• 
 
 ( 
 
 . 1 
 
 , ,, .,.'p ■; 
 
 I 
 
 1 .;(.;. ii ■; J/ 
 
 Note. — A few unimportant typographical errors have been over- 
 looked in the first part, such as — when, for wherej these, for those; 
 is, for are; and on page 11, eight lines from the bottom, received, 
 for revealed. 
 
■>i-K>'-** 
 
 ,^'