STRICTURES 
 
 f 
 
 ON 
 
 LECTURES ON BAPTISM, 
 
 BY 
 
 JOHN T. l»RESSIiY, !>.!>. 
 
 PITTSBURGH: 
 
 PBINTEl) BX A. .TArjTKS, FRAXKLIX HEAD, THIBD STREET. 
 
 18 42. • 
 
# 
 
 Dl 
 
 
 .^ 
 
 .55 
 
 
 ^» 
 
 Ic 
 
 
 •5f 
 
 -£- 
 
 
 *^ 
 
 
 
 ^^^ 
 
 IE 
 
 
 £;: Hi 
 
 Q. 
 
 
 x^ 
 
 
 
 'B> a 
 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 
 $ 
 
 
 « 5 
 
 v 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 S o 
 
 bO 
 
 PS 
 
 •** s 
 
 < 
 
 ^ 
 
 l5) g 
 
 "a; 
 
 3 
 
 ^5" 
 
 i^ 
 
 £ 
 
 .^ 
 
 «> M 
 
 <"3 
 
 ^S 
 
 ^ Ph 
 
 CO 
 
 1- 
 
 ^ Pm 
 
 2- 
 
 1 
 
 % 
 
 c 
 
 S 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 1 
 
 ^ 
 
 d: 
 
 1^ 
 
 
 joiyilo 
 
 ^ / 
 
i-t-*^*- 
 
 l-z 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2011 with funding from 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/stricturesonwillOOpres 
 
STRICTU RES 
 
 WEfe^E^Si®^ l^e^fe'^ 
 
 LECTURES ON BAPTISM. 
 
 JOHN T.'PRESSLY, D. D. 
 
 PITTSBURGH: 
 
 PRINTED BY Ai JAYNES, FRANKLIN HEAD, THIRD STREET. 
 
 1842. 
 
preface!'/ 
 
 That it is the duty of every professed follower 
 of Christ, and especially of every christian minis- 
 ter, to contend earnestly for the faith which was 
 once delivered to the saints, will be admitted by 
 all. With regard to some things included in the 
 general system of faith, it may be expected that, 
 in the present state of imperfection, there will ex- 
 ist some diversity of opinion, even among brethren. 
 While, therefore, every one should be fully persuad- 
 ed in his own mind and should testify unequivocally 
 and decidedly in favor of that which he believes to 
 be the truth of God, we should at the same time 
 treat with tenderness and courtesy, those whose 
 views of truth may in some respects differ from 
 our own. And when religious controversy is con- 
 ducted with candor and honesty; when the views of 
 an opponent are fairly stated and his argument 
 fairly met, no feelings inconsistent with the Gospel 
 need be excited; truth may be elicited, and error 
 exposed in its true colors. But when a writer mis- 
 
IV PREFACE. 
 
 represents an argument which he finds it difficult 
 to meet, and by an unfair exhibition of the views of 
 his opponent, endeavors to place him in a ridiculous 
 attitude, instead of shovving the inconclusiveness of 
 his reasoning, the evil passions of our nature are 
 apt to be aroused, Christianity suffers, and the hum- 
 ble inquirer after truth is perplexed, rather than 
 assisted. 
 
 In preparing a compendious treatise on Baptism, 
 more especially for the benefit of the people of my 
 o^yn charge, it was my object to avoid every thing 
 like controversial asperity, as far as might be con- 
 sistent with a faithful exhibition of what I regard 
 as important truth. And I flatter myself that little 
 will be found in that volume calculated to offend 
 even those brethren who may not be able to con- 
 cur with me in sentinaent. When I have had oc- 
 casion to speak of the peculiar views of Baptist^, 
 I hope I haye treated ihem with becoming respect. 
 While I certainly entertain no unkind feelings to- 
 wards those brethren from whom I differ in opinion 
 on the subject of baptism, I hope that no unkind- 
 ness is manifested in what I have written. Though 
 I must believe that they are mistaken in their 
 views with regard to some principles of much im- 
 portance, yet I doubt not that they are sincere and 
 honest in adhering to the views which they have 
 e^poqsed. And therefore, while I reject their con- 
 clusions, I would respect their sincerity. 
 
pi!i:face. 
 
 Almost as soon as my humble publication began 
 to draw the breath of lite, it was furiously assailed 
 by a writer who manifested a disposition at least, 
 to strangle it in its very cradle. With the Rev. 
 Sa3Iuel Williams, a minister of the Gospel in 
 connection with the Baptist church, I have had a 
 limited acquaintance for some ten years past. In 
 all my intercourse with that gentleman, I have 
 been led to regard him as a respectable man, an 
 humble christian, and a useful and laborious minis- 
 ter of the Gospel. But with the "Pastor of the 
 First Baptized Church of Pittsburgh," author of 
 the "Reply," I have no acquaintance, save that 
 which has been derived from a perusal of his pub- 
 lication. Whatever may be my regard for the 
 man, I should be wanting in respect for myself, 
 were I to profess respect for the author. Not con- 
 tent with misrepresenting my views, he has in re- 
 peated instances, attributed to me, motives which 
 are utterly inconsistent with the christian charac- 
 ter. And this ungenerous and unlraternal course 
 is the less excusable, as no provocation was given, 
 unless a plain and simple exhibition of Avhat I be- 
 lieve to be precious truth, should be regarded as 
 ground of offence. 
 
 It will be manifest, however, to every intelligent 
 reader, that through the excess of his desire to be- 
 come an author, the Pastor of the First Baptized 
 1* 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 Church of Pittsburgli, began to write before he 
 was ready. And if he has occasionally stumbled 
 and fallen, he has only experienced the fate of 
 those rash children who venture to run before they 
 are well able to walk. It is hoped, however, that 
 he will profit by his past experience, and that here- 
 after, he will endeavor to mature his views before 
 he obtrudes them upon the attention of the public. 
 That the reader of these Strictures may come 
 to the knowledge of the truth, and experience joy 
 and peace in believing, is the prayer of 
 
 THE AUTHOR. 
 
STRICTURE S/^^cV V 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE REPLY MISREPRESENTS THE POSITION TAKEN 
 BY THE LECTURES. 
 
 In the regular exercise of my ministry, I deliv- 
 ered some time since, a series of Lectures on the 
 subject of Christian Baptism, with a view to the 
 edification of the people of my charge. At the re- 
 quest of my friends, these Lectures were afterwards 
 published. Shortly after they were issued from the 
 press there appeared a publication which professes 
 to be a ''Reply" to the Lectures, by an individual 
 who arrogates to himself the presumptuous title of 
 "Pastor of the Fii'sf Baptized Church of Pitts- 
 burgh." 
 
 In the estimation of every one, whose opinion has 
 been expressed in my hearing, the "Reply," whe- 
 ther the matter of it, or the spirit which pervades 
 it, be regarded, is wholly unworthy of any thing 
 like a formal answer. In that opinion 1 fully con- 
 cur. For the sake of the cause, however, of which 
 I am the humble advocate, it has been thought that 
 the boldness, and arrogance, and ignorance, which 
 display themselves so conspicuously in the "Reply," 
 
should be exposed. For such a work, 1 liave neither 
 leisure nor inclination. But if a zealous apostle 
 found it necessary to withstand a brother to his 
 face, because he was to be blamed for his unchris- 
 tian conduct, it seems that this arrogant boaster, 
 who presumes to place himself on an eminence of 
 his own creation, and virtually says to all the 
 churches of God's people around hin), "Ye are no 
 churches of Christ!" should be rebuked before the 
 bar of the christian public. 
 
 "The Pastor of the First Baptized Church of 
 Pittsburgh!" Then, ye venerable Fathers in Christ, 
 Black, and Bruce, and Herron, and others, who, it 
 may be, were pastors, before Samuel Williams 
 could answer the question in the child's catechism, 
 "Who made you?" are the Pastors of unbaptized 
 churches! The baptism which you have been ad- 
 ministering for nearly half a century, is no christian 
 baptism! The hundreds whom you have admitted 
 into the fellowship of the household of foith, are all 
 unbaptized! According to the Pope, who issues his 
 Bulls from the corner of Grant and Third streets, 
 neither you, nor the people of your several flocks, 
 belong to the church of Christ; for you are all un- 
 baptized! 
 
 And on what authority is a position assumed, by 
 which nine-tenths of the Lord's people are virtually 
 thrown out of the church of Christ into the world, 
 which lieth in wickedness? Why, it is because the 
 water of baptism has not been applied to the body, 
 in the administration of the external rite, in that 
 particular way which Samuel Williams has deter- 
 mined to be the only proper way. 
 
 But passing by the arrogance which Mr. Williams 
 displays, in presuming to place himself be^fore the 
 
christian public as the only Pastor of a ^^ Baptized 
 church," in the city of Pittsburgh, where there are, 
 it may be, a dozen Pastors no way inferior to him- 
 self in any thing which adorns the pastoral charac- 
 ter, let me direct the attention of the reader to some 
 examples of his want of candor and honesty in 
 stating the views of the author to whom he professes 
 to reply. 
 
 On page 6 of the "Reply," the author represents 
 the "Lectures," as admitting, that the commission 
 vwhich our Lord gave to his apostles, "specified no 
 .other subjects of baptism than believers." At the 
 bottom of the same page this statement is repeated. 
 "He (Dr. P.) admits that believers are the only sub- 
 jects specified in the commission." Again on page 8, 
 he adds, "Dr. P. admits that the only law of baptism 
 God ever gave to man, does not include infants." 
 Why, Mr. Williams might just as well have affirm- 
 ed, that Dr. Pressly admits that infants have no 
 right to baptism; and then it would have been wholly 
 unnecessary to have put himself to the trouble of 
 writing his "Reply." 
 
 But this is not all. On page 10 he says again — 
 "The Dr. admits that the commission, or law of 
 baptism, does not afford any evidence of the right of 
 infant baptism." And yet once more he repeats, — 
 "He says they are not included in it." Here, for the 
 fifth time, Mr. Williams represents the author of the 
 Lectures, as yielding the point in controversy. For 
 .certainly, if "the only law of baptism God ever gave 
 to man, does not include infants," then it would be 
 idle to plead for the divine right of infant baptism. 
 
 It would appear that the author of the "Reply" 
 has revolved the idea in his own mind, until some- 
 bow or other he has persuaded himself to believe 
 
10 
 
 that the Lectures really do admit what he alleges. 
 Every time the statement is repeated, it seems to be 
 expressed with additional strength and boldness. In 
 the first place he represents the Dr. as admitting 
 simply that the commission does not specify any 
 other subjects of baptism than believers. Again, he 
 becomes more bold and says, the Dr. admits that 
 "the only law of baptism God ever gave to man, 
 does not include infants." And yet if the reader 
 will turn to page 25 of the Lectures, to which Mr. 
 Williams refers, he will see that there is not a par- 
 ticle of truth in the allegation of the "Reply." The 
 language employed in the Lectures is the following: 
 "Such expressions as these, — 'He that believeth and 
 is baptized;' 'Repent and be baptized,' it is admitted, 
 do not afford any evidence of the right of infant 
 baptism, and it is equally plain that they furnish no 
 argument against it." The reader will observe, that 
 there is nothing here said in reference to the com- 
 mission which our Lord gave to his apostles to ad- 
 minister baptism; much less is there an admission 
 that infants are not included in "the only law of 
 baptism God ever gave to man." The commission 
 given to the apostles, runs in these words: "Go 
 teach (disciple) all nations, baptizing them in the 
 name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy 
 Ghost." And on page 72 of the Lectures, the reader 
 may see that I have adduced the testimony of Justin 
 Martyr, to show that there were many of the breth- 
 ren then living, "who from childhood, were made 
 disciples to Christ;^'' and consequently, that in the 
 estimation of this ancient Father, the command, "to 
 disciple all nations," does include infants. 
 
 Again, on page 7, we have another instance of 
 gross misrepresentation. The Lectures are charged 
 
11 
 
 with "assuming that faith is as indispensable to the 
 salvation of the infant, as to the salvation of the 
 adult; and that baptism is as essential to the salva- 
 tion of the soul of the infant, as eating is to the life 
 of the body." And having conjured up 
 
 " Gorgons and chimeras dire," 
 
 the author of the "Reply" is literally frightened 
 by the creatures of his own imagination, and ex- 
 claims, "These are revolting assumptions." They 
 are doubtless revolting enough. It may, however, 
 be sufficient to reply, that there are no such assump- 
 tions in the Lectures, nor any thing like them; nor 
 have such assumptions any connection with the doc* 
 trine maintained in the volume to which Mr. Wil* 
 liams professes to reply. 
 
 The position taken in the Lectures is, that, to 
 maintain that the declaration, "he that believeth and 
 is baptized shall be saved," authorizes the conclu- 
 sion that none except such as are capable of believ- 
 ing, are proper subjects of baptism, is not to reason 
 legitimately. And to show the inconclusiveness of 
 this mode of reasoning, the Lectures subject it to 
 the plain test of examination. "He that believeth 
 and is baptized shall be saved." On these words 
 the Baptist reasons thus : "Infants are not capable 
 of believing; therefore they may not be baptized." 
 On this manner of reasoning the Lectures remark, 
 "If this inference is valid, let us see to what re- 
 sults it will lead. Our Lord further declares, 'He 
 that believeth not shall be damned.' Apply the 
 mode of reasoning, which we are examining, to 
 this declaration. Infants are not capable of believ- 
 ing; therefore all infants shall be damned!" The 
 
12 
 
 reader will at once perceive that this is a totally dif- 
 ferent thing from an assumption, "that faith is as in- 
 dispensable to the salvation of an infant, as to the 
 salvation of an adult." The Lectures do not as- 
 sume, but clearly show, that the mode of reasoning 
 employed by Baptists, in excluding infants from 
 baptism, would, if carried out, likewise exclude them 
 from salvation. This is the position, not assumed, 
 but demonstrated in the Lectures; and it is periectly 
 evident, that Mr. Williams does not know how to 
 get over this difficulty in his way. He finds it an 
 easier task to conjure up terrific " assumptions," 
 which have no existence save in a disordered brain, 
 and then, fairly frightened by the creatures of his 
 own imagination, he runs away, uttering the ex- 
 clamation, " These are revolting assumptions, and 
 are utterly at war with truth and reason." 
 
 For the purpose of making still more apparent, 
 the fallacy of the mode of reasoning by which the 
 Baptists would cut our children off from an interest 
 in baptism, the Lectures give another illustration. 
 *'ln his epistle to the Thessalonians, Paul the apos- 
 tle says, 'When we were with you, this we com- 
 manded you, that if any would not work, neither 
 should he eat.' 2 Thess. 3:10. Now suppose we 
 should reason from this passage of Scripture, pre- 
 cisely in the same manner as our friends would ar- 
 gue in opposition to the right of infant baptism, 
 from the declaration of our Lord, to which we have 
 referred, to what conclusion should we be conducted? 
 We might reason thus : Infants cannot work; there- 
 fore they may not eat! And according to this man- 
 ner of reasoning, the authority of the apostle might 
 be pleaded in support of the doctrine, that infants 
 who cannot labor for a subsistence, must be left 
 to starve." 
 
13 
 
 Such is the language of the book to which Mr. 
 Williams professes to reply; and any school-boy 
 can see that it is an illegitimate and inconclusive 
 mode of reasoning which is here exposed. But the 
 author of the "Reply" will have it, that here is an 
 assumption that baptism is as essential to the salva- 
 tion of the soul of the infant, as eating is to the life 
 of the body! An idea which, for aught I know, 
 never occurred to the mind of man, before it arose 
 amid the lucubrations of the "Pastor of the First 
 Baptized Church of Pittsburgh." 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF INFANT BAPTISM DRAWN 
 FROM THE FACT, THAT THE CHILDREN OF BE- 
 LIEVERS WERE, AT THE FIRST, CONSTITUTED 
 MEMBERS OF THE VISIBLE CHURCH OF GOD. 
 
 As another example of the want of candor and 
 honesty, let me request the reader to notice the man- 
 ner in which the "Reply" misrepresents the argu- 
 ment of the Lectures in support of the right of in- 
 fant baptism drawn from the fact, that the infants of 
 believers were originally constituted members of the 
 visible church of God. The argument is a plain 
 one, and one which rests upon an indisputable fact; 
 and it is perfectly evident that the author of the 
 "Reply" does not know what to do with it. Having 
 sufficient discernment to perceive, that it would not 
 be safe for him to grapple the argument, like a wary 
 general, who knows the power of his foe, he pru- 
 dently avoids an engagement and keeps at a distance. 
 
 The argument advanced in the Lectures may be 
 thus stated : God has established a church on earth, 
 in which he dispenses the blessings of his grace, 
 and prepares the heirs of salvation for the enjoy- 
 ment of heavenly glory. At the first establishment 
 of this church as an organized society in the family 
 of Abraham, the infants of believers were constitu- 
 ted members of it. As an evidence of their con- 
 
16 
 
 nection with the church, God expressly ordained 
 that they should receive the external sign of his 
 covenant with his church. Such was the relation of 
 infants to the church of God, under the legal dis- 
 pensation. And our conclusion from this position 
 is, that as the church still exists, the infants of be- 
 lievers are still to be regarded as entitled to mem- 
 bership, unless it can be shown that God, who ori- 
 ginally conferred this privilege, has taken it away. 
 
 Now, how does the author of the "Reply" meet 
 this argument? Does he even once look it in the 
 face? Any one who will submit to the toil of read- 
 ing his confused and incoherent remarks on this 
 part of the subject, may see that he never once 
 gives a fair statement of the argument which he 
 proposes to answer; and that he does not venture to 
 assail the position which the Lectures take. 
 
 On page 13, the "Reply" remarks: "The first 
 argument of the Dr. is from the supposed identity 
 of the Jewish and Christian church." The reader 
 will please to observe, that this is not the argument 
 of the Lectures, but the version of it, which Mr. 
 Williams chooses to give. The argument is drawn, 
 not from the "supposed identity" of two different 
 churches, but from the real and indisputable identity 
 of the church of God, under the Jewish and Chris- 
 tian dispensations. The church of God existed in 
 the days of Abraham; continued to exist down to the 
 period of the introduction of the gospel dispensation; 
 and still exists, since that brighter day dawned upon 
 the world. This is the firm position on which the 
 argument of the Lectures rests; and 1 would like to 
 know if Mr. Williams, with the Bible before him, 
 would dare to question the correctness of this posi- 
 tion. From the "Reply," it would appear that he 
 
17 
 
 neither has the candor to admit that the basis of the 
 argument is solid, nor yet the courage to deny it. 
 Atter giving an incorrect version of the argument, 
 he labors to make the author of the Lectures appear 
 ridiculous, by insinuating that he goes to the Old 
 Testament to find a New Testament ordinance. 
 And to do this the "Reply" adds, is "very singular," 
 "because the ordinance is not there." 
 
 Now, in the name of christian candor and cour- 
 tesy, I would ask, does not Mr. Williams know, that 
 there is no foundation whatever for this insinuation? 
 He knows perfectly well that it is not the design of 
 the Lectures, to find infant baptism in the Old Testa- 
 ment. Did Mr. Williams write for the ignorant and 
 credulous, who might be expected to take all his 
 statements simply on his own authority? Even he 
 himself must have perceived, that any person of 
 common discernment, could see through the disin- 
 genuous artifice. No! The Lectures, as Mr. Wil- 
 liams very well knows, do not go to the Old Testa- 
 ment for the purpose of finding infant baptism. But, 
 as it is in the Old Testament that we have the his- 
 tory of the first establishment of the church of God, 
 the Lectures very naturally go there to learn who, 
 according to the divine appointment, were constitu- 
 ted members of this church. And the Lectures 
 find in the Old Testament a fact of great importance, 
 which is most vexatiously perplexing to Mr. Wil- 
 liams' system; and that is, that the infants of be- 
 lievers have, by God's own appointment, a right to 
 membership in his church. 
 
 After all, it is not very surprising that Mr. Wil- 
 Siams should manifest some unwillingness to be con- 
 ducted to that portion of the word of God, where 
 
 this stubborn and unmanageable fact stares him in 
 2* 
 
18 
 
 the face, and sternly rebukes his exclusive system. 
 But, we must be allowed to remind the author of the 
 "Reply," that it is a fact very clearly revealed in the 
 sacred Oracles, that he who appointed a church in 
 our world, and hath said of this church in the Old 
 Testament, "The Lord hath chosen Zion; he hath 
 desired it for his habitation; this is my rest Tor ever; 
 here will I dwell, for I have desired it;" has likewise 
 ordained the membership of the infants of believers 
 in this church. This is the important fact on which 
 tlie argument of the Lectures rests; and this fact 
 you cannot deny. 
 
 A question then naturally arises: Does this church 
 of which infants were at first constituted members, 
 still exist? The Lectures reply in the affirmative, 
 and you will not deny it. Well, if the church of 
 God, of which infants were divinely constituted 
 members, still exists, the conclusion is irresistible 
 that infants are still entitled to membership in the 
 church, unless it can be made appear that God who 
 conferred the right has taken it away. This you 
 cannot do, and have not the courage to attempt. 
 Our conclusion then remains unshaken. 
 
 It is really amusing to see, that while Mr. Wil- 
 liams affects to think lightly of this argument, and 
 tries to persuade the credulous reader to laugh at it, 
 he himself, when he occasionally looks at it from a 
 distance, fairly writhes under its withering power. 
 He accordingly endeavors more than once, to work 
 his courage up to the fighting point, and give it bat- 
 tle. An effort of this kind, the reader may see on 
 page 14. To admit the identity of the church of 
 God in all ages, would be fatal to his system; and 
 yet to deny in plain language, so manifest a Scriptu- 
 ral truih, would be to render himself ridiculous in 
 
19 
 
 the estimation of all intelligent christians. Some- 
 thing like a denial, however, is repeatedly made to 
 keep up the show of opposition to the argument of 
 the Lectures. For example : The argument is, 
 "The church of God is the same under every dis- 
 pensation." But, says the "Reply," with a great 
 appearance of intrepidity, "It can never be shown 
 that the Jewish nation and the kingdom of Christ 
 are the same." Wonderful discovery! But who 
 ever thought or said that they were the same. Can 
 it not, however, be shown that the church of God, 
 which the Lamb slain, from the foundation of the 
 world, hath redeemed by his blood, is the same un- 
 der both the Jewish and Christian dispensation? — 
 This is the point, Mr. Williams; and if you think 
 you have strength and courage sufficient to shake 
 this position, come forward with your artillery. 
 
 Mr. Williams seems to have been very sensible 
 himself, that he had not met the argument. And 
 therefore he makes another effort to arouse his latent 
 energies, and he adds with a tone of defiance, "1 do 
 deny that the constitution of the Jewish theocracy 
 and that of the christian church are one." Gentle 
 reader, mark the expression! "The constitution of 
 the Jewish theocracy and that of the christian 
 church!" The Lectures maintain that the church of 
 God is one. The "Reply" endeavors to refute the 
 argument, by denying that the "constitution of the 
 Jevvish theocracy and that of the christian church 
 are one!" How this valorous knight brandishes his 
 sword when there is no foe in sight! Who ever 
 maintained that the "constitution of the Jewish the- 
 ocracy and that of the christian church are one?" 
 The very thought is ridiculous. There is certainly 
 Mothinor lii^e it in the Lectures. Whv then does 
 
20 
 
 Mr. Williams, as an honest man, try to induce liis 
 readers to suppose that the Lectures take such 
 ground? Does it look as though his object was the 
 elucidation of truth and the overthrow of error] 
 
 After travelling through regions of smoke over 
 some seventeen pages, which are devoted to my first 
 argument, the "Reply" seems to think it necessary 
 to come to some conclusion; and accordingly, near 
 the bottom of page thirty, we find the following 
 words: "From these passages, it is clearly proved 
 that the former dispensation or church state ceased." 
 And is this the point, Mr. Williams, which you have 
 been laboring so hard and so long to prove; that the 
 former dispensation has ceased? Whether you have 
 proved it or not, it is undoubtedly the truth. Hut 
 then, my dear sir, it is not only a truth which does 
 not militate against my argument, but adds much to 
 its force. The Lectures every where take the 
 ground that the former dispensation has passed 
 away, and a new and brighter dispensation has suc- 
 ceeded. Under the tormer dispensation, the church 
 is compared by the apostle, to a minor who is yet 
 under tutors and governors, until the time appointed 
 of the father. Her light and privileges, were then 
 greatly circumscribed. But it is now the happiness 
 of the church, to live under a milder and more be- 
 nignant dispensation, under which her privileges are 
 greatly enlarged. But even in the state of her mi- 
 nority, the children of believers were connected with 
 the church. Much more do believers enjoy this 
 privilege now, since the darkness of the former dis- 
 pensation is past, and the true light shineth. 
 
 So much, then, ibr Mr. Williams' "Reply" to my 
 first argument. And when the whole of his re- 
 marks are taken together, and the chaff is separated 
 
21 
 
 from the wheat, there is more said for its confirma- 
 tion, than for its overthrow. 
 
 The Lectures take the position, that with the 
 change of dispensation the external sign of mem- 
 bership in the church is changed. It will be admit- 
 ted by all, that circumcision was the divinely ap- 
 pointed sign of connection with the church of God, 
 under the former dispensation. It will also be ad- 
 mitted, that this institution no longer occupies a 
 place among the ordinances of the church. The 
 Lectures maintain, that baptism has supplied its 
 place; and consequently that, as the infants of be- 
 lievers had a right to circumcision, they are now 
 proper subjects of baptism. 
 
 To this conclusion the "Reply" is most fiercely 
 opposed, and to supply the want of argument, draws 
 most liberally upon bold and extravagant assertion. 
 Take the following specimen : "From the nature of 
 the institutions of circumcision and baptism, it is 
 utterly impossible that one could be placed in the 
 room of the other. They are totally dissimilar; 
 they agree in nothing more than any other two 
 things of which we can form a conception." Any 
 person who possesses but a very limited knowledge 
 of divine truth, can at once perceive that these are 
 sweeping and extravagant assertions, made without 
 any regard to palpable facts. Circumcision and 
 baptism, totally dissimilar! Agree in nothing more 
 than any other two things, of which we can form a 
 conception! Do they not agree in this, that they 
 are ordinances which God instituted for the benefit 
 of his church? Do they not agree in this, that they 
 are both external signs, which are significant of 
 spiritual blessings? We can form a conception of 
 truth and falsehood. Is there no more agreement 
 
22 
 
 between circumcision and baptism, than between 
 truth and falsehood? We can form a conception of 
 horse-racing and of the sanctification of the Sabbath. 
 Do circumcision and baptism agree in nothing, more 
 than do horse-racing and the sanctification of the 
 Lord's day? Mr. Williams! It is absolutely a 
 shame for a man, who styles himself the pastor of 
 the First baptized church of Pittsburgh, to write and 
 publish such siufF. 
 
 After having made the above unfounded and ex- 
 travagant assertion, the "Reply" proceeds to enume- 
 rate some seventeen points of difterence between cir- 
 cumcision and baptism. It would be a very easy 
 matter to enumerate as many more points of dis- 
 similitude between these two ordinances. But what 
 have these ditferences with regard to circumstances, 
 to do with the argument? The two institutions may 
 differ much, and yet the one' may be abolished and 
 the other under a new dispensation may supply its 
 place. And though there were a thousand particu- 
 lars in which circumcision and baptism differ, still 
 it is no less true that there is a coincidence between 
 them, in those important points, which are essential 
 to the argument of the Lectures. In the following 
 important particulars circumcision and baptism 
 agree : 
 
 1. They are alike initiatory rites of the church 
 of God. Under the former dispensation, when an 
 individual renounced paganism and embraced the 
 true religion, it was by circumcision that he was re- 
 cognized as belonging to the church of God. And 
 now when one comes out of the world and makes a 
 profession of the religion of Jesus, it is by baptism 
 that he is recognized as belonging to the household 
 of faith. 
 
23 
 
 2. They both denote the necessity of a change of 
 heart. Deut. 30:6; John 3:5. 
 
 3. They are both significant of the way of par- 
 don and acceptance with God, through the right- 
 eousness of Jesus Christ. Rom. 4:11; Acts 2:38. 
 
 Since, then, there is this remarkable coincidence 
 between these two divine institutions, and since the 
 one is confessedly abolished, the conclusion is that 
 the other has supplied its place. 
 
 Before 1 dismiss this subject, let me request the 
 reader to observe, that Mr. Williams, in his zeal to 
 represent circumcision as an institution of inferior 
 importance, not only draws a contrast between it 
 and baptism, but he even indulges what I can regard 
 in no other light than a spirit of profanity. He 
 speaks repeatedly in a sneering manner of the "pre- 
 cious privilege" of circumcision. Examples may 
 be seen on pages fifteen and twenty-nine. In an 
 avowed infidel, it would be in character to speak in 
 this manner of an ordinance of God. But that a 
 christian minister should allow himself to speak in 
 this manner of the divinely appointed sign of God's 
 covenant with his people, may well excite the sur- 
 prise of every serious mind. Is it a light matter for 
 the God of blessedness and glory to condescend ta 
 establish a covenant with sinful man, in which he 
 declares, "I will be a God unto thee and to thy seed 
 after thee?" Is it a small matter, that in considera- 
 tion of man's weakness and imperfection, he fur- 
 ther condescended to appoint a visible sign of this 
 covenant? And shall a worm of the dust dare to 
 speak lightly of an interest in this covenant, or treat 
 with contempt the appointed sign by which the cov- 
 enant was confirmed? Let (he potsherds strive with 
 the potsherds of the earth; but wo unto him that 
 striveth with his Maker. 
 
CHAPTER in. 
 
 l-tlE LANGUAGE OF OUK LORD AND OF HIS APOSTLES 
 ACCORDS WITH THE SUPPOSITION, THAT THE RE- 
 LATION BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND THE CHILD- 
 REN OF (JOD's PEOPLE, REMAINS THE SAME UNDER 
 THE GOSPEL DISPENSATION. 
 
 It may be proper here, that the reader should be 
 warned, in relation to a species of unfairness, in the 
 manner of meeting the argument in support of in- 
 fant baptism, which is chargeable upon many Baptist 
 writers, and upon the author of the Reply, among 
 others. They take up these arguments, in an insu- 
 lated form, where they are essentially connected 
 and where they are mutually dependent upon each 
 other. Taken together, they form a chain which 
 cannot be broken; but if the different links which 
 compose the chain be separated from each other, of 
 course they will not answer the end for which the 
 chain is intended. 
 
 In pleading the cause of our children, we place 
 much reliance upon the argument which is drawn 
 from the covenant made with Abraham, the Father 
 of all true believers. But what do we propose to 
 establish by this argument? Not directly, the right 
 of infant baptism; but an important principle on 
 which that right is founded. It is then disingenuous 
 and unfair to meet this argument by uttering such 
 3 
 
26 
 
 exclamations as the following: "What has the law 
 of circumcision to do with infant baptism?" "It is 
 strange that men would go to the Old Testament 
 in search of baptism!" 
 
 The question with which we are now concerned, 
 is not — does this argument directly establish the 
 right of infant baptism? — but, does it prove the point 
 for the establishment of which it is adduced? It 
 might be ridiculous to regard it as proving one 
 thing, while it very conclusively establishes another 
 thing, which is intimately connected with the point 
 in dispute. It may be an important link, though it 
 may not be the entire chain. 
 
 If then it be possible to get the author of the 
 "Reply," to understand an argument which he does 
 not know how to answer, I would say to him, the 
 question which the Lectures propose to decide by a 
 reference to the covenant made with Abraham, is 
 simply this: When a visible church was set up in 
 the family of Abraham, were his infant seed consti- 
 tuted members of it, and had they, by divine appoint- 
 ment, a right to the external sign of membership? 
 My argument rests on the affirmative; and it con- 
 cludes, that if God once constituted the infants of 
 believers members of his church, and gave them a 
 right to the appointed sign of membership, they are 
 still members and still enjoy the right. The first 
 thing which the "Reply" says of this argument 
 seems to be designed to make it appear ridiculous, 
 by entirely misrepresenting the purpose for which it 
 is employed. "To every intelligent mind," says the 
 "Reply," "the notion that a New Testament ordi- 
 nance is to be learned from the Old Testament 
 writings, must seem, to say the leabl, very singular." 
 To every honorable man it must seem, to say the 
 
27 
 
 least, a very pitiful thing in a writer to pervert the 
 design of an argunnent which he finds it difficult to 
 meet. If there is any thing defective about the ar- 
 gument, let its weak points be exposed. Are the 
 premises admitted] Did God establish a visible 
 church in the family of Abraham? Did Abraham 
 and his seed, through Isaac, constitute the visible 
 church of God? Did not God appoint a visible sign 
 of connection with this church? Did not the God of 
 Abraham recognise his infant seed as members of 
 this church, and appoint that they should receive the 
 sign of membership? To all these questions, the 
 Lectures reply in the affirmative; and will Mr. Wil- 
 liams say no! to any one of them? If, then, the 
 premises be correct, they will justify some conclu- 
 sion. And what is the legitimate conclusion? The 
 Lectures argue, that if God once conferred upon 
 the children of believers, a right, — (not to baptism; 
 for we have not yet reached that point in the argu- 
 ment, but a right,) — to membership in his church, 
 no man may take this right from them. Conse- 
 quently, if Mr. Williams chooses to exclude the 
 children of believers from all connection with the 
 church of God, he is bound to produce authority 
 from the New Testament to prove that a privilege 
 once bestowed has been taken away. And how 
 does he discharge the obligation? He tries to make 
 a jest of the idea that circumcision was a "privi- 
 lege!*' It was the token of God's covenant with his 
 people.. It was to every true Israelite a divinely ap- 
 pointed sign, that the God of Abraham was his God. 
 But "we have seen," says the "Reply," page thirty- 
 two, "that the rite was a bloody and painful one, not 
 a precious privilege, not a seal of righteousness to 
 any but Abraham, not a sign of spiritual character." 
 
28 
 
 "We have seen!" You have said all this, Mr. Wil- 
 liams; and, in speaking in this manner, you have 
 used language much more appropriate to an enemy 
 of our holy religion, than to a minister of the gos- 
 pel. "We have seen!" What? That it is not a 
 precious privilege, to have the God of Abraham as 
 my God! Not a privilege to be a partaker of the 
 sign, which God appointed to be a token of my in- 
 terest ill him as my God! And how did Mr. Wil- 
 liams see that circumcision was "not a seal of right- 
 eousness to any but Abraham?" There is certainly 
 no such thing revealed in the Bible; and if Mr, 
 Williams has seen it, he must have been introduced 
 into some new field of observation. The apostle in- 
 forms us that Abraham "received the sign of cir- 
 cumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith 
 which he had, being uncircumcised." After stating 
 the fact, that Abraham received the sign of circum- 
 cision, the apostle adds, by way of explanation of 
 the import of this sign, that it was a seal of the 
 righteousness of faith. The import of the sign in 
 every case was the same, and to every descendant 
 of Abraham who was a partaker of the faith of 
 Abraham, it was a seal of the same blessing, name- 
 ly, of that righteousness of Christ which is received 
 by faith, and which is the only ground of a sinner's 
 justification before God. As to the fond conceit, that 
 circumcision was "not a seal of righteousness to 
 any but Abraham;" that is a specimen of the the- 
 ology of Samuel Williams, not of Paul the apostle. 
 After concluding the argument drawn from the 
 covenant made with Abraham, and having proved 
 that the children of believers were regarded as mem- 
 bers of the visible church; and having moreover 
 proved that the church is still the same, though a 
 
29 
 
 change of dispensation has taken place, the Lec- 
 tures proceed to the examination of the Scriptures 
 of the New Testament. And the remark is made, 
 that "it is unreasonable to demand positive and ex- 
 press proof from the New Testament, to show that 
 the children of believers are connected with the 
 church of Christ." The demand is pronounced un- 
 reasonable, because the point had already been 
 proved by the authority of God in the Old Testa- 
 ment. If then God has already made known his 
 will as to the connection between the children of his 
 people and his church; if he has already in a plain 
 and explicit manner, declared it to be his pleasure 
 that the infant seed of believers should be regarded 
 as members of his church, and that the sign of their 
 membership should be administered to them, then is 
 it not unreasonable; nay, is it not presumptuous in 
 man to say, "1 must have positive proof of all this 
 from the New Testament, before I will receive it?" 
 The Lectures pronounce such a demand unreason- 
 able; but at the same time contend that our Lord 
 and his apostles distinctly recognise the membership 
 of the children of believers in the visible church. 
 
 To prevent confusion, and to present the subject 
 in a plain and simple manner to the mind of the 
 reader, permit me here to call his attention to a dis- 
 tinction between two things which must not be con- 
 founded, namely, a right to membership, and the 
 sign of membership in the church of God. It is 
 the object of the Lectures, by the first argument 
 which is adduced in support of infant baptism, to 
 make it appear, that by divine appointment, the in- 
 fants of believers had under the former dispensation 
 a right to membership, and also that by the same 
 authority they were partakers of the sign of con- 
 3* 
 
30 
 
 nection witli ihe cliurch of God; and from these 
 premises to infer, that they still have a right to 
 mentibership, and are to be regarded as entitled to 
 the sign of membership. In so far as the reasoning 
 is concerned, it matters not what may be the exter- 
 nal sign of connection with the church, whether it 
 may be circumcision or baptism, or something else, 
 they who have a right to membership, have a right 
 to the appointed sign of membership. 
 
 Under the former dispensation, the church was 
 authorized to expect a great increase of light and 
 enlargement of her privileges, in connection with 
 the appearance of the Messiah. She is consequent- 
 ly called to rejoice in anticipation of his advent. 
 "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O 
 daughter of Jerusalem; behold, thy King cometh 
 unto thee; he is just, and having salvation; lowly, 
 and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal ot 
 an ass."* "Behold, the Lord God will come with 
 strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him; behold, 
 his reward is with him, and his work before him- 
 He shall feed his flock like a shepherd; he shah 
 gather the lambs with his arms^ and cari'y them in 
 his bosom.'^'\ Such is the comforting language which 
 the prophets employ, while they direct the church tc 
 look forward lo the coming of her glorious King, 
 and to rejoice in the blessings which he should be- 
 stow. Does this language intimate, that when the 
 Shepherd of Israel should appear, the children ot 
 the church should suffer any diminution of their 
 privileges? Surely not! He shall gather the 
 
 LAMBS WITH KIS ARMS, AJVD CARRY THEM IN HIS 
 
 jiosoM. Now, let US examine the New Testament, 
 • *Zech. 9:9. t Isaiah 40:10,11. 
 
81 
 
 and see whether our Lord has not manifested all' 
 that kind regard for the children of his people 
 which prophecy had taught them to expect. That 
 he did, the Lectures argue from Matthew 19:14: 
 "Suffer little children and forbid them not to come 
 unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." 
 The reader is particularly desired to keep in view 
 the position which the Lectures profiose to establish 
 by these interesting words of the Redeemer. It is 
 not, then, directly the right of infant baptism. The 
 Lectures expressly state, that "the subject of bap- 
 tism is not mentioned in this passage, nor is there 
 any thing here said, with regard to the right of in- 
 fants to this seal of God's covenant." The precise 
 point which these words are adduced to establish is, 
 that our Lord here recognises the riglit of the chil- 
 dren of believers to membership in his visible 
 church. Prophecy had foretold, that the Messiah 
 woidd gather the lambs with his arms and carry 
 them in his bosom. And on this occasion when 
 certain parents brought their little children to him 
 to receive his benediction, he took them up in his 
 arms and blessed them, saying, of such is the king- 
 dom of heaven. The Lectures maintain that the 
 phrase, the kingdom of heaven, here signifles the 
 visible church of Cfuist on earth. Then the gen- 
 eral import of our Lord's declaration will be, that 
 little children may be regarded as members of his 
 church. And if their membership in his church be 
 established, it follows as a necessary consequence 
 that they have a right to the sign of menibership, 
 which is baptism. The right of infant baptism is 
 not directly taught in these words; but a principle is 
 established, from which the right of infant baptism 
 is the legitimate conclusion. And let me add, that 
 
:V2 
 
 a just inlerenc.e from a principle nuisl always be 
 irue, provided the principle tVom which it is drawn 
 is scriptural. 
 
 Now how does the author of the "Reply" nneet 
 this argument? Why, the first words to which he 
 gives utterance are — "We could quote scores of 
 Pedobaptist authors against the Dr. on this subject." 
 Scores of them! It will be seen that the Pastor of 
 ^Hlie First Baptized Church'^ of Pittsburgh, is a 
 man of extensive reading. 
 
 But suppose Mr. Williams should do all that he 
 says he could^ what would he accomplish? Be 
 might prove that some other men give a different 
 interpretation of this passage, from that which is 
 given by me; bgt this would not prove that my in- 
 terpretation is wrong. The Lectures, it may be re- 
 marked, do not undertake to decide the point in dis- 
 pute, by the authority of great names, but by an 
 appeal to the word of iGod. The question with 
 which the Lectures are concerned, is not, what are 
 the opinions of men? but, vvhat are the principles 
 taught in the Scriptures of truth? 
 
 Among the "scores of Pedobaptist authors," which 
 this man of extensive reading could quote against 
 rne, Dr. Doddridge is one. VVell, lot us go and see 
 what this respectable writer says in opposition to 
 me. If the rei^der will turn to Doddridge's Exposi- 
 tor, he will lind the following exposition of this pas- 
 sage: Of such is the kingdom of God; persons of 
 such a character are the true subjects of my king- 
 dom, and heirs of eternal glory, to which many lit- 
 tle children are received; anrl in token of it, the 
 children, of heliemng parents are to he admitted 
 into my church by haptism,.^'' This is a specimen, 
 gentle reader, of the "scores of Pedobaptist au- 
 
33 
 
 thors," whom Mr. Williams could quote against me! 
 The Lectures undertake to prove by this passage of 
 Scripture, that our Lord here recognises the mem- 
 bership of little chidren in his church, and conse- 
 quently, their right to baptism. And Doddridge, 
 in his Exposition, says, ^'■the diildren of believing 
 parents are to be admitted into my church by bap- 
 tism.^'' And yet this blundering writer would have 
 the reader to believe, that this Pedobaptist author is 
 against me. The truth is, as I shall have occasion 
 to show more fully hereafter, Mr. Williams rnakes 
 a display of familiarity with writers, whom he has 
 either never read, or has examined so superficially, 
 that he would need to read them again, before he 
 undertakes to say any thing about them. 
 
 But after all, it is a matter of no consequence 
 whether Doddridge gives an exposition of the pas- 
 sage, in accordance with that contained in the Lec- 
 tures, or in opposition to it. The question is simply 
 this: is the exposition given in the Lectures correct] 
 The author of the "Reply" insinuates that it cannot 
 be correct; and as an evidence that the view taken 
 of the passage in the Lectures is singular, he adds, 
 "I believe no one has ever before pretended, that 
 this proves infant baptism." On first reading this 
 sentence my va/iity was in no small degree flat- 
 tered to find, that among all the respectable writers 
 on this subject, I had the honor to be the first who 
 discovered the strong argument, which these words 
 of our Lord afford, in support of infant baptism. 
 But my vanity had scarcely time to be excited, 
 until it was cooled by the reflection, that Mr. Wil- 
 liams, in the excess of his kindness, had paid me a 
 compliment to which 1 am by no means entitled. 
 The author of the "Reply" would have his readers 
 
84 
 
 to suppose, that he is familiar with books; for he 
 says he could quote "scores of Pedobaptist authors" 
 on one single point. Will Mr. Williams have the 
 goodness to name a single author, who has written 
 a treatise in support of infant baptism, from the 
 days of Tertullian down to the present time, who 
 has not regarded this text as I'urnishing an impor- 
 tant argument in its favor? On page 73 of the 
 Lectures, the reader may see the historical evidence 
 adduced to show, that in the second century the 
 words in question were regarded as favoring the 
 claims of infant baptism. And no respectable writer 
 has ever employed his pen in defence of this dear 
 privilege of our children, who has not considered 
 the declaration of our Lord, of such is the king' 
 dom of heaven, as having an important bearing upon 
 the subject. 
 
 But, after endeavoring to persuade the reader to 
 regard the application which the Lectures make of 
 this portion of Scripture, as singular and unnatural, 
 the author of the "Keply" seems to be very sensible 
 that all reflecting persons would perceive that he was 
 closing his eyes against a difficulty, rather than re- 
 moving it. And, accordingly, he for once endea- 
 vors to meet the argument, by assailing the inter- 
 pretation of the passage given in the Lectures. "The 
 interpretation of the phrase, 'kingdom of heaven,' " 
 says the "Reply," "is not sustained." And what is 
 the interpretation which the Lectures give of this 
 phrase? The reader may see it on page fifty-one. 
 "By the phrase, the kingdom of heaven, as employ- 
 ed in the New Testament, is usually to be under- 
 stood the visible church, which is the kingdom of 
 Christ on earth." In confirmation of the correct- 
 ness of this interpretation, the Lectures have fur- 
 
35 
 
 nished several examples, the number of which, if 
 necessary, could be multiplied to almost any extent. 
 Indeed, this interpretation is so well established, and 
 so generally received, that it is unnecessary to add 
 any further confirmation. And 1 doubt not that 
 even the author of the "Reply" himself will admit 
 that the phrase, "the kingdom of heaven," more 
 commonly applies to that portion of our Lord's spir- 
 itual kingdom which is on earth, or in other words, 
 his visible church. He seems however to deny that 
 this is the meaning of the phrase in the i)assage be- 
 fore us, and also, in another to which I have refer- 
 red. Matt. 8:11, 12. If I were to adopt Mr. Wil- 
 liams' plan, I might here bring forward Dr. Gill, the 
 most eminent Baptist Expositor, against him. On 
 the words, "The children of the kingdom shall be 
 cast out," Gill remarks: "The Jews, who were sub- 
 jects of the kingdom and commonwealth of Israel, 
 and who were also in the church of God which is 
 ^his kingdom on earth, shall be cast out — out of the 
 land of Israel, as they were in a few years after, 
 and out of the church of God.'''' This Baptist expo- 
 sitor, it will be seen, understood our Lord as here 
 teaching that the unbelieving Jews should be cast 
 out, not from heaven, into which they had not been 
 admitted, but out of the church of God, and the be- 
 lieving Gentiles should be introduced. And so all 
 men of sense will understand the passage. 
 
 Now, let us see the interpretation, the paternity 
 of which, I think, belongs of right to the pastor of 
 the '■''first baptized church'''' of Pittsburgh. It may 
 be seen on page thirty-two of the "Reply." "Our 
 Savior represents persons of certain characters, as 
 endeavoring to enter the gateway of heaven, who, 
 
36 
 
 when they get within the entrance, are found to be 
 destitute of the wedding garment, and are therefore 
 cast out." It might be sufficient to say in reply to 
 this very singular jumble of discordant ideas, that 
 our Savior has not, in any part of the Bible, made 
 such a representation as is here imputed to him. 
 ^'- The gateway of heaven!'''' There is no such thing 
 mentioned in all the Bible. Our Lord does indeed 
 exhort all, to "strive to enter in at the strait gate;" 
 but he does not represent any as being cast out after 
 they "get within the entrance." This is another 
 specimen of Mr. Williams' theology. "The wed- 
 ding garment" is mentioned but once by our Lord, 
 and that is in the parable, in which he illustrates the 
 state of things in the kingdom of heaven, by the 
 similitude of a marriage entertainment which a king 
 made for his son. This marriage entertainment sig- 
 nificantly represents the abundance and the excel- 
 lency of the provision made for sinners in the gos- 
 pel; and all of every description, even the chief of 
 sinners, are invited to come and partake of it. 
 Among those who had professedly accepted the invi- 
 tation and had come to the gospel feast, the king, 
 when he came in to see the guests, discovered one 
 who had not on a wedding garment. And he was 
 cast out. But from what place was he cast out? 
 Not from heaven, most assuredly; for he had not 
 yet been admitted into that holy place; but from the 
 gospel feast. It is manifest, then, that when the au- 
 thor of the "Reply" represents our Lord as saying 
 that some, when they get within the entrance of 
 heaven, are found to be destitute of the wedding 
 garment, and are therefore cast out, he speaks with- 
 out authority. Does Mr. Williams read tlie Bible 
 
37 
 
 as carelessly as he seems to have read Doddridge, 
 whom he represents to be against me, while he ex- 
 presses the very thing for which I am pleading? 
 
 It is then abundantly evident, Mr. Williams to the 
 contrary notwithstanding, that in the passage in ques- 
 tion, the phrase, "kingdom of heaven," from which 
 the unbelieving Jews were to be cast out, and into 
 which the believing Gentiles were to be introduced, 
 signifies the visible church on earth. And though 
 Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were not at this time in 
 the visible church, they had been in it, and were 
 now, with that portion of Christ's kingdom, which 
 is above. A portion of that sacred community, re- 
 presented by the phrase, "kingdom of heaven," is 
 on earth; another portion of it is in heaven. And 
 hence the phrase is sometimes employed with refer- 
 ence to one, and sometimes to the other; though, as 
 stated in the Lectures, more commonly it has respect 
 to the church on earth. A person may be connect- 
 ed with the kingdom on earth, and yet finally be cast 
 out; but into the kingdom above, no unclean thing 
 can enter; and consequently, none who are once ad- 
 mitted, shall ever be cast out. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 AN EXAMINATION OF SOME PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE 
 WHICH HAVE A BEARING UPON THE RIGHT OF 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 But, though it may be sufficiently manifest that 
 the phrase, "the kingdom of heaven," in many other 
 places designates the visible church of Christ, it 
 may be inquired. Why do we understand it in that 
 sense, in the passage under consideration, rather 
 than as referring to that portion of Christ's kingdom 
 which is in heaven? A little attention to the object 
 which these parents had in view in bringing their in- 
 fants to our Lord, will enable us to give a satisfactory 
 answer to this question. 
 
 What then, I would ask, was the desire of these 
 parents'? Was.it, that the Redeemer would take 
 their children from them, and receive them into 
 heaven? If this had been their desire, then it would 
 have been natural to suppose, that our Lord design- 
 ed by the language which he used, to assure them 
 that such little children should be admitted into 
 heaven. But it was far from the desire of these pa- 
 rents to have their children taken from them. They 
 brought them to Christ that he would bless them, by 
 making them partakers of the spiritual benefits of 
 that kingdom which he came to establish on earth. 
 And our Lord encourao-ed them in the most kind 
 
40 
 
 and condeseending rxianner, by assuring them that 
 ample provision has been made in his kingdom, for 
 the children of his people. '■'-Suffer little children 
 and forbid them not to come unto me, for of such is 
 the kingdom of heaven^ If, then, we understand 
 the expression, "the kingdom of heaven," as rela- 
 ting to Christ's kingdom on earth, the language 
 which our Lord employed was directly adapted to 
 encourage these parents in bringing their children to 
 him, which was evidently his design. 
 
 Then let me say to all Christian parents, who be- 
 lieve that Jesus Christ can bless both themselves and 
 their children by making his own ordinances the ef- 
 fectual means of salvation, you have much encour- 
 agement to bring your dear children to him. He 
 has not been so regardless of your feelings as to 
 overlook your children in the organisation of his 
 kingdom. And though Mr. Williams, who professes 
 to be a minister of Christ, may chide you, and tell 
 you to take your "poor babes" away, for baptism 
 can be of no benefit to them, it is our consolation to 
 know, that our benevolent Redeemer when on earth, 
 did not address such language to those who brought 
 their little children to him, to obtain his blessing. 
 No! "He was much displeased" even with his own 
 disciples, who on this occasion so far mistook the 
 design of his mission into our world, as to rebuke 
 the parents who manifested so becoming a concern 
 for the welfare of their children. And it would be 
 well for those who now imitate the example of the 
 mistaken disciples, in rebuking those parents who 
 bring their children to Christ in his own ordinance, 
 to receive his blessing, to consider whether they 
 have not cause to apprehend that the Redeemer will 
 be "much displeased" with them. 
 
41 
 
 Another argument which the Lectures adduce in 
 support of the claims of infant baptism, is drawn 
 from the language which the apostle Peter addressed 
 to the convinced Jews on the day of Pentecost. 
 "Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the 
 name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and 
 ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For 
 the promise is unto you and to your children.^^ The 
 reader is desired to observe, that the Lectures do 
 not build arguments upon the mere sound of words, 
 but endeavor to ascertain the meaning of the words 
 which are referred to for proof. There is accord- 
 ingly, a good deal of care taken to ascertain the 
 real import of the apostle's language. 
 
 On this argument, Mr. Williams breaks out in the 
 exclamation, "Is it possible that the Dr. is unacquaint- 
 ed with the promise here spoken of?" I reply, if 
 we may judge from his book, it is very certain that 
 Mr. Williams is unacquainted with it. It is believed 
 that the k\w remarks contained in the Lectures con- 
 clusively show that the interpretation, which the au- 
 thor of the "Reply" would have us to adopt, cannot 
 be correct. And yet, strange to tell, he speaks with 
 as much boldness and confidence, as though the 
 apostle had in so many words pronounced judgment 
 in his favor! Hear him! "Peter says, in contradic- 
 tion of the Dr. 'This is that which was spoken by 
 the prophet Joel.' " A reader who would take Mr. 
 Williams' word for it, would of course suppose that 
 the apostle made this declaration, with reference to 
 the promise in question. And yet, when we refer to 
 the passage, it will at once appear that it is a mani- 
 fest and bold perversion of the apostle's language. 
 Peter was addressing the mockers, who said, "These 
 men are full of new wine," when he said, "This is 
 4* 
 
42 
 
 tliat vvliich was spoken by the prophet Joel." Acts 
 2:16. Here the apostle's object is to stop the mouths 
 of these gainsayers by showing them that this mi- 
 raculous effusion of the Spirit, by which the apostles 
 were endowed with the gift of tongues, was the ful- 
 filment of a phophecy of Joel. "This is that which 
 was spoken by the prophet Joel." The reader will 
 observe that there is nothing said here about a pro- 
 mise. It is Mr. Williams who foists in the promise 
 and puts it into the mouth of the apostle, though 
 Peter says that he is speaking of a prophecy. 
 
 By proceeding on to the latter part of the chapter, 
 the reader may see what the apostle says with re- 
 gard to the promise, from which the argument of 
 the Lectures is derived. It was addressed to a very 
 different class of persons; not to mockers, but to 
 men burdened with a sense of guilt, and who, deep- 
 ly concerned about the welfare of their souls, in- 
 quired, "Men and brethren, what must we do?" 
 
 Now, I would seriously ask the reflecting reader, 
 would it be a reply adapted to the circumstances of 
 such anxious inquirers, to inform them that an an- 
 cient prophet had foretold that in the last days, the 
 Spirit in his miraculous gifts should be poured out 
 on all flesh? No! A promise leading to Christ, in 
 whom there is redemption through his blood, even 
 the forgiveness of sins, is what is requisite to speak 
 peace to the awakened and troubled conscience. 
 And such is the promise to which the apostle directs 
 the attention of these anxious inquirers. They are 
 assured that there is remission of sins through Jesus 
 Christ, whose Spirit they that believe on him should 
 receive; and they are directed to a promise contain- 
 ing the grateful intelligence. But the prophecy of 
 Joel speaks nothing of forgiveness through the blood 
 
43 
 
 of Jesus; and consequently, it cannot be to this pro- 
 phecy that the apostle directs these souls burdened 
 with a sense of guilt, for relief. 
 
 As to the positive assertion of Mr. Williams that 
 the apostle Peter says, that the promise in question 
 is the prophecy of Joel, the intelligent reader will 
 perceive, it is a perfectly gratuitous declaration, for 
 which there is not only no proof, but which is di- 
 rectly in the face of the sacred history. In the one 
 case the design of the apostle is to silence gainsay- 
 ers, by showing them that the gift of tongues, with 
 which he and his brethren were endowed, was con- 
 ferred in fulfilment of an ancient prophecy; but in 
 the other, his object is to comfort and encourage the 
 awakened and contrite in heart, by directing them to 
 a promise relative to the way of pardon and accept- 
 ance through Jesus Christ. 
 
 It still remains, however, to inquire what is the 
 promise, to which the apostle refers. In relation to 
 this matter, Mr. Williams observes, with great ap- 
 parent gravity, "I hope the reader of the Lectures 
 desires to know the truth." In this hope I most 
 cordially unite. And having shown that the "Re- 
 ply" has not told "the truth," with regard to what 
 Peter said, if the reader will lend me his patient at- 
 tention, I will endeavor to answer the question, 
 What is "the promise]" of which the apostle here 
 speaks. We shall be aided in furnishing an an- 
 swer to this question, by considering to whom it 
 extends. The promise, says the apostle, is, as re- 
 corded in Acts 2:39 — 
 
 (1) "To you," descendants of Abraham. 
 
 (2) "To your children," 
 
 (3) "To all that are afar off," the Gentiles, "even 
 as manv as the Lord our God shall call." 
 
44 
 
 It will be of advantage further to consider what 
 are the important blessings included in this promise. 
 They are, remission of sins through the blood of Je- 
 sus, and the gracious influences of the Holy Spirit, 
 who applies to the soul the benefits of Christ's 
 death. Verse 38. 
 
 Whatever may be the promise to which the apos- 
 tle refers, the reader will at once perceive, that it is 
 a very precious one, and of very comprehensive im- 
 port. When we search the Scriptures, we find a 
 promise with which these descendants of the Father 
 of the faithful, were familiar; which was given to 
 Abraham at an early period in the history of the 
 church; which has been dear to the people of God 
 in every age; and which admirably corresponds 
 with what the apostle says of the promise in ques- 
 tion. "I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after 
 thee." "And in thy seed shall all the nations of the 
 earth be blessed." The reader is respectfully refer- 
 red to the Lectures, for the leading reasons in sup- 
 port of the position, that it is to this well known 
 promise the apostle has respect. The promise to 
 Abraham, had respect to him and his children. "A 
 God to thee, and to thy seed after thee." But it 
 moreover extended to the Gentiles. "In thy seed 
 shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." That 
 these words relate to those who are afar oiT, that is, 
 the Gentiles, the apostle plainly teaches. "The 
 Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the 
 heathen through faith, preached before the gospel 
 unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be 
 blessed."* The seed promised to Abraham, and 
 through whom he was to be a source of blessing to 
 
 *Galatians 3:8 
 
45 
 
 the nations of the earth, the apostle informs us was 
 Christ. And that the gift of the Spirit was another 
 •blessing included in the promise, is evident from the 
 following declaration: "That the blessing of Abra- 
 ham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus 
 Christ; that we might receive the promise of the 
 Spirit through faith.''''* 
 
 Here, then, we see that the promise made to 
 Abraham, remarkably and very particularly corres- 
 ponds with the account which the apostle gives of 
 the promise in question. It extends not only to the 
 parent, but to his seed; not to the Jew only, but to 
 the Gentiles, who are afar off; it comprehends Christ 
 and remission of sin through his blood, and also the 
 Holy Spirit, who communicates to the believing soul 
 the benefits of the Redeemer's death. 
 
 The precious promise made to Abraham, I will be 
 a God to thee and to thy seed, which has made the 
 heart of many a christian parent to rejoice, is so ir- 
 reconcilable with Mr. Williams' exclusive system, 
 that the very mention of it seems to ruffle his tem- 
 per. And, accordingly, in relation to the applica- 
 tion, which the Lectures make of the promise, he 
 exclaims, ''Is there no other promise in the Bible?" 
 I am sorry for your sake, Mr. Williams, that you 
 who profess to be a minister of Christ, should esteem 
 this promise so lightly, as this irreverent question 
 would seem to indicate. Christ himself is the great 
 blessing included in this promise. In him all the 
 promises are yea and amen. He who can in truth 
 say, Christ is mine, is authorized to add, all things 
 are mine. Though, therefore, there are other prom- 
 ises in the Bible, it may with propriety be said that 
 
 *GaIaf.ians 3:14. 
 
46 
 
 in this they are all included. The future revelation 
 of God's gracious purposes towards his church, are 
 the development of the unspeakably precious bless- 
 ings comprehended in the promise, "In thee shall all 
 the nations of the earth be blessed." 
 
 Before I leave this part of my subject, the reader 
 is requested to attend to a specimen of Mr. Williams' 
 philological powers. He has not only read "scores 
 of Pedobaptist writers," but he is amazingly familiar 
 with the Greek; and is not at all pleased with me 
 for not gratifying my readers with "one peep into 
 the Greek language." If we may judge from the 
 learning of their pastor, it might be supposed that 
 the good people who compose "the first baptized 
 church of Pittsburgh," are acquainted with as many 
 languages as the apostle could speak on the day of 
 Pentecost. But, as the "Reply" savs, "To the re- 
 cord." 
 
 On page 34, the "Reply" undertakes to show that 
 no argument in favor of our children can be drawn 
 from the declaration, the promise is to your children; 
 for, says he, "Children, in the passage, means pos- 
 terity, descendants. The Greek word is not the 
 same, which expresses a state of infancy." 
 
 It is not my custom, when preaching the gospej, 
 to make a parade of learning by speaking to plain 
 people in Latin, Greek, or Hebrew. Ever since my 
 first entrance into a pulpit, it has been a principle to 
 which I have endeavored to conform, to understand 
 what I say myself, in the first place, and then to 
 speak in such a manner that my hearers may under- 
 stand what I say. However, I sometimes look into 
 the Greek. And if you please, Mr. Williams, we 
 will take up the Greek Testament, and not merely 
 "peep" into it, but examine it like men of under- 
 
47 
 
 standing, and see whether your authoritative decla- 
 ration will stand the test. You say, that the word 
 in question means "pos^eri??/," and is not the same 
 which expresses a state of infancy." Now it so 
 happens that the very first time the word is used in 
 the New Testament, it has reference to infants. At 
 the birth of Christ, by the order of Herod, who 
 wished to destroy the infant Saviour, all the children 
 of Bethlehem, from two years old and under, were 
 slain. And in this event was fulfiled the prophecy, 
 *'In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation and 
 weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for 
 her children, and would not be comforted, because 
 they are not."* You see, then, that the word is 
 here applied to children under two years of age; 
 and I suppose it will be admitted, that such are in 
 "a state of infancy." In his epistle to the Thessa- 
 lonians, the apostle says, "We were gentle among 
 you even as a nurse cherisheth her children,"^ 
 Here the word is employed with reference to chil- 
 dren, who are yet under the care of a nurse. Ex- 
 amples of the same general character, may be seen 
 throughout the New Testament. And now, if Mr. 
 Williams would allow me to tender a friendly advice, 
 I would say to him, do not stop with a "peep" into 
 the Greek, but examine it with some care before you 
 undertake to speak with such an air of authority 
 with regard to its meaning. You remember the 
 proverb, "He that is first in his own cause, seemeth 
 just; but his neighbor cometh and searcheth him." 
 
 The Greek word employed by the apostle in the 
 passage under consideration, is of the same import 
 with our English word children, as it is here trans- 
 
 * Matthew 2:18. 1 1 Thess. 2 : 7. 
 
48 
 
 lated. This is well known to every one, who is ac- 
 quainted with the language. And no reason appears 
 why the author of the "Rejjly," should substitute the 
 word "posterity," in the place of children, save that 
 our translation seems to rebuke his exclusive system, 
 which would cut oft* the children of believers from 
 all interest in the precious promise, I will be a God 
 to thee and to thy seed. 
 
 The next argument in support of the claims of in- 
 fant baptism, introduced in the Lectures, is drawn 
 from the practice of the apostles. Brief as is the 
 history of the primitive church, it informs us, that 
 in repeated instances the apostles baptized whole 
 households. And so far as we can learn from the 
 sacred narrative, it was the uniform practice of the 
 apostles, when the head of a family professed his 
 faith in Christ, and received baptism, that his house- 
 hold were baptized at the same time. Lydia, whose 
 heart the Lord opened, was baptized and her house- 
 hold; the jailor who believed in God was baptized 
 and all his; and the household of Stephanas was 
 baptized. And these particular instances are men- 
 tioned in such a manner as to indicate that this was 
 the usual apostolic practice. 
 
 It is admitted in the Lectures that it is not said, 
 that there were children in any of these households. 
 Nor is it pretended that an argument can be drawn 
 from this fact, recorded in the history of apostolic 
 practice, which would of itself prove positively that 
 the apostles did baptize the children of believing 
 parents. The language, however, which the sacred 
 history employs in these instances, is just such, as 
 we would expect to see used, in describing the pro- 
 gress of the gospel, upon the principle for which we 
 contend; while it is not reconcilable with the princi- 
 
49 
 
 pie which denies the right of infant baptism. If one 
 of our missionaries while preaching the gospel 
 among the heathen, should be successful in bringing 
 a pagan mother to the saving knowledge of the truth, 
 he would baptize the mother and her household, as 
 Paul is said to have baptized Lydia and her house- 
 hold. Then, when we view the practice of the 
 apostles in connection with the principles taught in 
 the word of God, relative to the organization of the 
 church, it furnishes a corroborating argument in 
 support of the conclusion, that they regarded the 
 children of believers as proper subjects of baptism. 
 
 That the terms, house and household, are famil- 
 iarly employed in Scripture to signify a family, and 
 therefore to include children, the Lectures prove by 
 examples, and all reasonable men will admit. If it 
 were necessary, it would be easy to add to the exam- 
 ples adduced in the Lectures, to an indefinite extent. 
 *'As for me and my house,'''' said Joshua, "we will 
 serve the Lord."* "The Lord blessed Obed-edom 
 and all his hovsehold.''^'\ "The Lord give mercy 
 unto the house of Onesiphorus.":j: 
 
 It being evident from these and similar examples, 
 that in the language of Scripture, a man's household 
 signifies his family, and consequently if he has 
 children, includes them, it will follow, that when the 
 apostles baptized a man and his house, they baptized 
 his children, if he had any. But still it may be a 
 question whether there were any young children, in 
 any of the households, which were baptized by the 
 apostles; for it is doubtless a fact that there are 
 households, which do not contain any young chil- 
 dren. The Lectures argue that it is every way pro- 
 
 *Josh. 24:15. +2 Sam. 6:11. t2 Tim. 1:16. 
 5 
 
50 
 
 bable that there were children in the family of the 
 jailor and in that of Lydia, who were baptized upon 
 the ground of the faith of their parents, because the 
 sacred historian makes particular mention of the 
 faith of the parents, but is silent in relation to the 
 faith of their household. And they propose to pro- 
 duce positive proof, that there were children in these 
 households, as soon as any Baptist shall produce 
 positive proof that any of these families believed ex- 
 cept the head. 
 
 Mr. Williams furiously assails the position of the 
 Lectures; comes forward to the onset with a great 
 show of valor; says that he can produce positive 
 proof that all in these households believed; makes a 
 positive assertion, that all in the jailor's house be- 
 lieved; and then, well pleased with the feat which he 
 has accomplished, he turns round and says, "I have 
 proved that all in the house believed." Ah! Mr. 
 Williams, if you could produce proofs, as readily as 
 you can make bold assertions, you would be a for- 
 midable antagonist! But, sir, did not your hand 
 tremble when you dared to write the sentence, with 
 regard to the family of the jailor, ^'Here the Holy 
 Spirit emphatically declares that all his house be- 
 lieved, not by proxy, but in their own souls?" page 
 37. If one, entirely ignorant of the Greek lan- 
 guage, should make such an assertion, however un- 
 warranted it would be, it might admit of some apo- 
 logy, in consequence of a degree of ambiguity 
 which results from the collocation of the words in 
 the translation. But, you evidently wish your read- 
 ers to suppose that you are familiar with the Greek. 
 If, then, you will take "a peep" into the Greek Tes- 
 tament, you will see that the word which is transla- 
 ted "believed," is in the singular number, and re- 
 
51 
 
 lates to the jailor himself and not to the members of 
 his house. He having believed in God, rejoiced 
 with all his house. This man by a remarkable dis- 
 play of divine grace, being brought to a saving 
 knowledge of Jesus Christ, and being made a parta- 
 ker of a good hope through grace, would naturally 
 rejoice in God as his own God in covenant. And 
 since "Me promise is to you and to your children,'''' 
 he not only rejoiced in consequence of his own in- 
 terest in the promise, but would naturally rejoice 
 with "all his," as being jointly with himself parta- 
 kers of the promise. 
 
 Had Mr. Williams been content with saying, that 
 in his opinion the language of the sacred historian 
 would authorize the conclusion, that all the members 
 of the jailor's house believed, however much I may 
 have differed with him, he certainly should have been 
 permitted to enjoy his own opinion. But to intro- 
 duce the name of God, and to represent the Holy 
 Spirit, as "emphatically declaring" a thing which 
 cannot be made out by legitimate inference, is to 
 display a spirit which I forbear to designate by its 
 appropriate name. 
 
 With regard to the family of Lydia, the "Reply" 
 says, page 35, "That there were no infants in Ly- 
 dia's household is perfectly evident, from the fact re- 
 corded in Acts 16:40." Now observe, Mr. Wil- 
 liams does not content himself with saying that it is 
 very probable, but, that it is "•perfectly evident,^^ 
 that there were no children in the family of Lydia. 
 If it is "perfectly evident," of course our organs of 
 vision must be very defective, if we cannot see it. 
 And what is said by the historian, which makes it 
 "perfectly evident," that there were no children in 
 the family of Lydia? Why, he informs us that 
 
52 
 
 when Paul and Silas were liberated from prison, and 
 found it necessary to leave Philippi because of the 
 rage of persecution, before their departure they vis- 
 ited Lydia, and comforted their brethren; of whom 
 there were not a Cew in this place, and who would 
 be much grieved in consequence of being deprived 
 of the company and instruction of their spiritual 
 guides. As Paul and Silas, previous to their impri- 
 sonment, had lodged in the house of Lydia, it was 
 very natural for the sacred writer to state particu- 
 larly that they visited her whose christian hospitality 
 they had enjoyed. And as the brethren in Philippi 
 generally would be grieved on account of their de- 
 parture, it was very natural that they should ad- 
 dress some words of consolation to them on the oc- 
 casion of taking leave of them. But the sacred his- 
 torian neither says nor intimates that these brethren 
 whom Paul and Silas comforted, were members of 
 Lydia's family. No! On this point, the record is 
 silent; and yet Mr. Williams modestly asks us to 
 believe, that it is "perfectly evident." 
 
 We have here, then, a notable specimen of Mr. 
 Williams' logical acumen. Paul and Silas, previous 
 to their departure from Philippi, visited Lydia, with 
 whom they had formerly lodged, and comforted their 
 christian brethren, whom they were under the ne- 
 cessity of leaving. Therefore it is "perfectly evi- 
 dent that there were no children in the household of 
 Lydia!" 
 
 •' Optics sharp he needs, I ween, 
 Who sees what is not to be seen." 
 
 In conclusion, then, I beg leave to say, that the 
 position of the Lectures is not shaken. The apos- 
 
63 
 
 ties baptized households. A man's household in 
 Scripture language, signifies his family, and particu- 
 larly includes his children. If there were children 
 in these households, then the apostles baptized the 
 children of believing parents. And that there were 
 children in these families, appears every way proba- 
 ble from the fact, that the sacred writer makes par- 
 ticular mention of the faith of the jailor, and of 
 Lydia, but is entirely silent with regard to the faith 
 of any one of their families. 
 
 5* 
 
CHAPTER. V. 
 
 AN INaUIRY INTO THE MEANING OF 1 COR. 7:14. 
 THE DESIGN OF THE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF 
 INFANT BAPTISM FROM HISTORY. THE TESTI- 
 MONY OF JUSTIN MARTYR. 
 
 No sooner has a parent obtained a good hope 
 through grace, than the earnest desire of his heart 
 will be, to see his children partakers of the salva- 
 tion which i.g in Christ Jesus. And as all who are 
 taught of the Lord know that the church is the 
 house of God; that the Lord hath chosen Zion and 
 hath desired it for his habitation, saying, "This is 
 my rest for ever; here will 1 dwell; for J have de- 
 sired it," the christian parent naturally inquires, 
 What is the nature of the relation between my 
 children and the church of the living God? Does 
 the King of Zion regard my children as aliens from 
 the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the 
 covenant of promise; or does he condescend to look 
 upon them as fellow-citizens of the saints and of 
 the household of God? These are no idle questions. 
 However lightly profane men may esteem the privi- 
 lege of membership in the church of God, and 
 however sneeringly the Pastor of the First Bap- 
 tized Church of Pittsburgh, may talk of "n)aking 
 christians of poor babes, whether they will or not," 
 the intelligent christian cannot but feel interested to 
 know, whether the King of Zion has allotted a 
 
56 
 
 place to his children in his kingdom on earth, or 
 whether he regards them as aliens and foreigners. 
 The Lectures argue that the Author of our holy 
 religion has given an answer to this question, in ac- 
 cordance with the feelings and desires of the pa- 
 rental heart. And such an answer, it is believed, 
 is furnished in the words of the apostle, 1 Cor. 7:14: 
 *'£?Zse were your children unclean^ hut noio are they 
 holy.^'' The argument from this portion of Scrip- 
 ture depends upon the meaning of the term holy. 
 After noticing certain acceptations in which the 
 word cannot be understood, the Lectures remark, 
 that "one of the most common acceptations of the 
 term 'holy,' in the sacred Scriptures, is, separation 
 to some sacred use, dedication to God." Accord- 
 ingly, the nation of Israel is termed a holy nation, 
 being separated from all other nations to be a pe- 
 culiar people unto God. The Temple and all its 
 utensils are said to be holy, being dedicated to the 
 service of God. Certain animals, under the law, 
 are termed holy, because proper to be offered in 
 sacrifice to God; while others are represented as 
 unclean, because they might not be presented upon 
 the altar. According to scriptural usage, then, the 
 term, when applied to the creature, indicates a pe- 
 culiar relation between that creature and God. The 
 nation of Israel was holy. Between Jehovah and 
 that people there existed a peculiar relation. The 
 child of every Israelite was, from his birth, holy; 
 that is, it sustained a peculiar relation to the God 
 of Abraham. And as the consequence of this rela- 
 tion, it was a proper subject of dedication to God in 
 the ordinance of circumcision. Circumcision did 
 not constitute this peculiar relation, but was the ap- 
 pointed sign and recognition of it. The relation 
 
57 
 
 itself had its origin in the gracious constitution of 
 God, in which he declares, "I will be a God to thee 
 and to thy seed." But the children of heathen pa- 
 rents were unclean. Between them and the God of 
 Abraham this peculiar relation did not exist, and 
 consequently they might not be dedicated to God. 
 If, however, a heathen parent renounced idolatry 
 and embraced the religion of Abraham, he became 
 a partaker of the peculiar privileges of this holy 
 nation. And no sooner was he introduced into this 
 peculiar relation to the God of Abraham, than his 
 children enjoyed the benefits of it. They were no 
 longer regarded as unclean, but as holy, and were 
 recognised as such by receiving the sign of circum- 
 cision. 
 
 And how are believers and their children to be 
 regarded under the gospel dispensation? Address- 
 ing those to whom Jesus Christ is precious, the 
 apostle Peter says, "Ye are a chosen generation, a 
 royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people." 
 It is perfectly evident, then, that believers sustain to 
 God a peculiar relation by which they are distin- 
 guished from the world, and that they have a right 
 to be recognised in the way which God hath ap- 
 pointed, as belonging to the household of God. 
 But it is not more positively declared that believers 
 are a "holy nation," than it is clearly taught that 
 their children are holy. "But now," says the 
 apostle, "a7*e theij holy.^'' And consequently God 
 has conferred on them a right to be recognised as 
 belonging to the household of God, which no man 
 may disannul. And hence from this scriptural prin- 
 ciple, that God now regards the children of a be- 
 liever as holy, their right to baptism is just as evi- 
 dent, as that the seed of Abraham had a right to 
 circumcision. 
 
58 
 
 Such is the argument of the Lectures. And how 
 does Mr. Williams meet it? Does he undertake to 
 show from Scripture that the interpretation of the 
 term "holy," is incorrect? No! This he could not 
 do. But to admit honestly, that the interpretation 
 is in accordance with scri|)ture usage, would have 
 been to place himself in rather an awkward predic- 
 ament. What then is his resort? To admit that 
 the term holy, is here to be taken in its scriptural 
 sense, would be in effect to yield the argument. 
 And however honorable this would have been, it 
 would not have comported so well with his object in 
 writing the "Reply." Accordingly he wraps him- 
 self up in his dignity, and placing all authority, 
 both sacred and profane, under his feet, he asserts 
 with as much self-importance, as though the deter- 
 mination of the meaninii of lansuase had been 
 committed to his sovereign good pleasure, "The 
 term 'holy,' in the passage, is employed in the sense 
 of legitimate.'''' 
 
 And what authority, let me ask, have you, sir, 
 for such an assertion? You have said in another 
 place, (and it is the best thing you have said in all 
 your "Reply,") "The time is fast passing away, in 
 which people will be satisfied to take their instruc- 
 tions at the lips of their minister without reference 
 to the word of God." And what will people who 
 possess a moderate stock of common sense, in con- 
 nection with a reasonable acquaintance with the 
 language of the Bible, think of the minister who 
 tells them that the word "holy," is to be understood 
 in the sense of "legitimate?" Will thoy not be very 
 apt to suspect, that he is aiming at the accomplish- 
 ment of an object which is not very "legitimate?" 
 
 I must be permitted then to say, in behalf of the 
 
59 
 
 people, that we cannot lake such instruction from 
 your lips, "without some reference to the word of 
 God;" and you give us none. Can you produce a 
 solitary example in all the Bible, in which the word 
 in question conveys the idea of legitimacy? Fa- 
 miliar with Greek Lexicons as you would have your 
 readers to believe that you are, can you produce 
 the authority of one out of them all, in support of 
 your interpretation? It is not pretended that Sucih 
 authority exists. 
 
 The reader is desired to pause for a moment, and 
 look at the attitude in which Mr. Williams exhibits 
 himself to our view. Here is a plain word of very 
 common occurrence in the sacred Scriptures. This 
 portion of the word of God, in which it occurs, ad- 
 mits of an easy and natural interpretation, if we 
 understand the term "holy," in its ordinary scrip- 
 tural acceptation. But to take the term in its usual 
 sense, in the passage under consideration, would be 
 to establish a doctrine which Mr. Williams mani- 
 fests, at least, a strong disposition to overthrow. 
 Accordingly, he departs from the scriptural mean- 
 lug of the word altogether, and puts upon it an in- 
 terpretation which it bears no where else in all the 
 Bible. And such are the difficulties to which men 
 subject themselves, when they undertake to make 
 the Scriptures bend to support their opinions, instead 
 of making their opinions bow with humility to the 
 authority of God's word. 
 
 Believmg parent! rejoice, since he who is thy God 
 hath declared, that thy children are "holy." He 
 regards them as sustaining to him a peculiar rela- 
 tion; and hence it is your precious privilege to dedi- 
 cate them to him. ThankHjil for the privilege which, 
 as members of the household of God, you enjoy, 
 
60 
 
 present your children to him, that through the me- 
 dium of his own ordinance, he may communicate to 
 them that grace which is necessary to make them 
 holy in heart, and heirs to that inheritance which is 
 incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadelh not away. 
 
 After having advanced sucfi arguments from the 
 word of God, as were considered sufficient to show 
 that the children of believers have by divine appoint- 
 ment a right to baptism, the Lectures proceed to ex- 
 amine the history of the primitive church, for the 
 purpose of ascertaining what was the practice which 
 prevailed in the ages immediately succeeding the 
 period when the apostles closed their labors. We 
 have searched the Scriptures, which are the only 
 rule of faith and practice, and are fully persuaded 
 that infant baptism is the doctrine of the word of 
 God. Our faith is founded not upon the opinions of 
 pious and learned men in the church, but upon what 
 is taught in the Oracles of truth. If, however, it 
 appears as the result of careful inquiry, that those 
 who were contemporary with the apostles, or those 
 who were the immediate successors of the apostles, 
 regarded the children of believers as proper subjects 
 of baptism, this will afford corroborative evidence 
 that our interpretation of the apostolic doctrine is 
 correct. 
 
 The reader is respectfully desired to turn to page 
 71 of the Lectures, and observe the care which is 
 taken to state explicitly the use which the author 
 proposes to make of the historical testimony, which 
 is adduced in favor of infant baptism. It is there 
 distinctly declared that "our faith does not rest upon 
 the testimony of the fathers, but upon the word of 
 God. However, it is to be supposed that those who 
 lived in the age immediutely succeeding that of the 
 
61 
 
 apostles, were acquainted with the practice of the 
 apostolic churches. And though in general, they 
 are not entitled to much regard, as expounders of 
 the doctrines of the gospel, yet the Fathers are cer- 
 tainly competent to bear testimony as to matters of 
 fact which came under their own observation." 
 
 Our object, then, in referring to the history of the 
 primitive church, is not to learn whether infant bap- 
 tism is really a doctrine of the Bible — for that point 
 has already been determined by an appeal to the law 
 and to the testimony — but, to ascertain whether it 
 was the practice of the church at that time, to ad- 
 minister baptism to the children of believing parents. 
 It is a fact, over which every friend of Christianity, 
 while perusing the pages of ecclesiastical history, 
 has had occasion to mourn, that at an early period, 
 corruptions both in doctrine and worship, were in- 
 troduced into the church. Still, however, in the 
 darkest period, Jesus Christ has had a church in the 
 world, which has held fast his word and kept his 
 ordinances. And our inquiry is simply this: Is in- 
 fant baptism an ordinance which the church has ob- 
 served from the days of the apostles down to the 
 present time? It is a question of fact, which can be 
 determined only by an appeal to the history of the 
 church of Christ. 
 
 After the Lectures have thus distinctly and ex- 
 plicitly stated the object for which it is proposed to 
 examine the early history of the church, the reader 
 is requested to notice the palpable misrepresentation 
 of this object which is made by the author of the 
 "Reply." Hear him! After modestly stating that 
 the "Dr. has totally failed to find precept, example, 
 or even a shadow of infant baptism in the word of 
 God," it is added, "Ae 'proceeds to search the Pan- 
 6 
 
62 
 
 dota of human tradition^ for autliority in favor 
 of this cusiom of the Romish church^ "To search 
 human tradition for authority,'''' in support of infant 
 baptism! Had you, sir, no compunctions of con- 
 science when you penned this sentence, in which 
 you, in ihe most direct terms, misrepresent the 
 plainly expressed design of the author to whom you 
 profess to reply? In the book before you it is ex- 
 pressly declared, that "our faith does not rest upon 
 the testimony of the Fathers, but upon the word of 
 God." And yet you, utterly disregarding the sacred 
 obligations of honor and of truth, tell your readers, 
 that my object in searching "human tradition," is, to 
 find "authority" for this article of our faith! You, 
 sir, know very well that the idea of reliance upon 
 "human tradition," in matters of faith, is abhorrent 
 to the soul of every true Protestant. And while the 
 book before you contained a plain disavowal of all 
 such reliance, let me ask, where was christian cour- 
 tesy? where were truth and honesty, when you pre- 
 sumed to tell your readers, that my object in exam- 
 ining the history of the church, was, to find "aw- 
 thority^'' for infant baptism? 
 
 "Authority in favor of this custom of the Romish 
 church!'''' And is it possible that a man who is sur- 
 rounded with an intelligent christian population like 
 that of Pittsburgh, can so completely take leave of 
 all the decencies of civilized society, as to offer a 
 deliberate insult to a whole community! Mr. Wil- 
 liams lives in the midst of a Protestant community, 
 of whom, it is believed, nine-tenths of the most in- 
 telligent and pious, conscientiously regard infant 
 baptism as a doctrine included in the faith once de- 
 livered to the saints; and yet he has the impudence 
 to charge this whole Protestant community with 
 
63 
 
 holding a mere " custom of the Romish church!'''' 
 Well does it become the man to hang his head, as 
 he walks the streets of a city, whose Protestant in- 
 habitants he has thus grossly insulted! 
 
 But in connection with this display of arrogance 
 and ignorance, Mr. Williams gives us an exhibition 
 of his classical knowledge. He represents the au- 
 thor of the Lectures, as searching "the Pandora of 
 human tradition!" The Pandora of human tradi- 
 tion! And what is that? the honest reader exclaims. 
 Pandora, according to Grecian fable, was the first 
 female that was created. She was married to Epi- 
 metheus. In the dwelling of Epimetheus, was a 
 closed jar, which he had been strictly charged never 
 to open. Pandora, however, under the influence of 
 female curiosity, one day raised the lid of the jar, 
 when out flew all the evils which have since afllicted 
 the human family, and spread themselves over the 
 earth. And hence the phrase, "Pandora's jar;" or, 
 according to the more common but incorrect expres- 
 sion, "Pandora's box," is sometimes employed by a 
 figure of speech, to signify any thing which is the 
 source of much evil.* It would seem that Mr. Wil- 
 liams has somewhere seen or heard of the fable of 
 "Pandora's box." But having taken a "peep" only 
 at the fable, as we have seen he does at some other 
 things about which he writes, he has mistaken Pan- 
 dora herself for the jar, which contained the evils 
 which were let loose upon society. And hence he 
 represents me as searching the poor woman herself, 
 instead of the jar, which she imprudently opened I 
 To talk about searching the '■'■Pandora of tradition," 
 is to speak about as good sense as it would be, for 
 
 *Aflthon's Classical Dictionary, article Pandora. 
 
64 
 
 the servant-girl to say to her mistress, when Mr. 
 Williams returns with his basket from the market, 
 I will search my master (instead of his basket) to 
 see what he has brought home for dinner! 
 
 And now, sir, if you will allow me to offer you a 
 h'ttle needful advice, I would say, let classical allu- 
 sions alone, until you learn how to introduce them, 
 without making yourself ridiculous. They who 
 cannot swim, according to the proverb, ought to be 
 careful to keep out of deep water. 
 
 The reader then will see, that the avowed object 
 for which the Lectures propose to examine the early 
 history of the church, is not, as Mr. Williams falsely 
 states, to find " authority" for infant baptism, but 
 simply to ascertain what was the practice of the 
 church in relation to this matter. A knowledge of 
 what was the practice of the church, at any period 
 subsequent to the age of the apostles, can of course 
 be obtained from no other source but history; or, as 
 the "Reply" disingenuously styles it, "human tradi- 
 tion." And accordingly, the Lectures examine the 
 history of the first four centuries of the christian era. 
 And the result of this examination is, a thorough 
 conviction, that infant baptism is a doctrine which 
 was held by the primitive church. 
 
 The first testimony introduced in the Lectures, is 
 taken from the writings of Justin Martyr, who was 
 born some time before the death of the apostle John, 
 and who suffered martyrdom for the faith of Jesus, 
 about the middle of the second century. The writ- 
 injjs of this distinoruished Father, to which the Lee- 
 tures refer, are, his Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew, 
 and his Apologies for the Christian Religion, pre- 
 sented to the Roman emperor. In the former of 
 these works, Justin answers the Jewish objection to 
 
65 
 
 Christianity, drawn from the neglect of circumcision, 
 by showing that, under the Gospel, we receive what 
 was meant by circumcision, through the medium of 
 another ordinance. The passage referred to, is the 
 following: "We also, who by Jesus Christ have had 
 access to God, have not received this carnal circum- 
 cision, but the spiritual circumcision which Enoch, 
 and those like him, observed: and we have received 
 it by baptism." The general import of Justin's re- 
 mark, I understand to be this: It is true, as though 
 he had said to his Jewish friend, that circumcision is 
 not now observed as an ordinance of the christian 
 church; but we sustain no loss on that account; for 
 we have an ordinance which supplies its place. Cir- 
 cumcision in the flesh, was significant of the neces- 
 sity of a change of heart; or in other words, of spir- 
 itual circumcision. And that which was formerly 
 signified by circumcision, is now by the grace of 
 God conferred through the medium of baptism. We 
 christians, says Justin, have received the spiritual 
 circumcision by baptism. [ regard this then as in- 
 disputable evidence, that the primitive christians 
 considered baptism and circumcision as institutions 
 of the same general import; and consequently, as 
 circumcision has been abolished with the change of 
 dispensation in the church, baptism has supplied its 
 place. The language of Justin is by no means pe- 
 culiar to him. When we come to examine the testi- 
 mony of Cyprian, of Athanasius, and of Augustine, 
 it will be seen that it was common with the Fathers 
 to speak of baptism as christian circumcision. 
 
 Another testimony to prove that the primitive 
 church regarded infants as proper subjects of bap- 
 tism, is taken from one of Justin's Apologies. In 
 this Apology Justin defends the character of his 
 6* 
 
66 
 
 fellow-christians against the slanderous imputations 
 of their persecuting enemies. And among other 
 things, he remarks : "There are many persons 
 among us, both male and female, of sixty and se- 
 venty years of age, who from childhood were made 
 disciples of Christy who remain uncorrupted." This 
 Apology was presented to the Roman Emperor, An- 
 toninus Pius, about A. I). 150; and consequently 
 those persons, many of whom were now sixty and 
 seventy years of age, and who had been made dis- 
 ciples to Christ from their childhood, must have been 
 for several years contemporary with the last of the 
 Apostles. It appears, then, according to this an- 
 cient Father, that persons may be made disciples to 
 Christ from their childhood. Children are, by bap- 
 tism, introduced into the school of Christ, and are 
 then as scholars in connection with the household of 
 faith, educated in the nurture and admonition of the 
 Lord. 
 
 The force of this testimony, Mr. Williams endea- 
 vors to neutralize, by introducing another quotation 
 from one of Justin's Apologies, which he says, 
 "clearly proves that the childhood mentioned by Jus- 
 tin was not infancy." And what do you thmk, 
 honest reader, is the statement of Justin, which 
 "clearly proves," that childhood does not mean in- 
 fancy? In giving an account of the manner in 
 which individuals were introduced into the christian 
 community, Justin states that they were previously 
 instructed in the principles of the gospel. And then 
 having professed their faith in Christ and having de- 
 clared their intention to live according to the princi- 
 ples of the gospel, they were baptized. "I will now 
 declare to you," says Justin, "after what manner 
 we, being made new by Christ, have dedicated our- 
 
67 
 
 selves to God — they who are persuaded and do be- 
 lieve that these things which are taught and said by 
 us, are true, and do promise to live according to 
 them, are directed to pray and ask of God with fast- 
 ing the forgiveness of their former sins — then they 
 are brought by us to a place where there is water, 
 and they are renewed," or baptized. And what is 
 there in this statement, to prove that childhood does 
 not mean infancy? It must be evident to every in- 
 telligent reader, that it "clearly proves" no such 
 thing. It simply proves that at that time, the church 
 was careful in attending to the religious instruction 
 of those who were received into her fellowship; and 
 all regular churches now, are attentive to the same 
 duty. 
 
 it would appear that Mr. Williams himself felt 
 very sensible, that the language of Justin does not 
 "clearly prove" the point which he wished to estab- 
 lish by it. And, therefore, he adds something of his 
 own to help out the deficiency. After Justin de- 
 scribes the manner in which individuals are prepar- 
 ed for admission into the church, he adds, "Then 
 they are brought by us to a place where there is 
 water, and they are renewed." But, in Mr. Wil- 
 liams' version, it is, "Then [and not until then] 
 they are brought to a place of water." The words 
 which I have inclosed in brackets are not found in 
 Justin, but are an interpolation of the author of the 
 "Reply." I should not have thought it necessary to 
 notice this pitiful artifice, had it not been that Mr. 
 Williams not only puts into Justin's mouth, language 
 which he did not use, but to give the greater weight 
 to his own interpolation, he displays it in glaring 
 capitals. After all, when he has added to the text 
 of Justin his own interpolation, "and not until 
 
68 
 
 THEN," it does not materially help his cause. In the 
 passage referred to, Justin is not speaking in relatioa 
 to the case of infants, but with reference to those 
 who were received into the household of faith, upon 
 their own profession of subjection to Christ. And 
 the manner of receiving such, in all regular church- 
 es, is substantially the same with that described by 
 Justin. They are first instructed in the principles of 
 Christianity, and profess their faith in Christ, before 
 they are bapti;zed. But the object of Mr. Williams 
 would seem to be to make this worthy Father teach 
 that none but those who are capable of making a 
 personal profession of their faith, are to be baptized, 
 and consequently that infants should be excluded* 
 The reader, however, who can consult the original, 
 may, by referring to Wall's History of Infant Bap- 
 tism,^ see, that in the Greek of Justin, there is no- 
 thing to correspond with Mr. Williams' "and not 
 
 UNTIL THEN." 
 
 And while I notice this dishonesty in the quotation 
 from Justin, I may remark that Mr. Williams pur- 
 sues a similar course, in his references to Scripture, 
 when the text will not prove his point, without some 
 emendation. As an example, the reader may refer 
 to page 37 of the "Reply," Here he says, "I have 
 the infallible testimony of the everlasting and uner- 
 ring Spirit, and the law of the Lord, that believers 
 only are the proper subjects of baptism." That be- 
 lievers are proper subjects of baptism, the Bible 
 clearly teaches, and all admit. But that believers 
 ^^only,^'' are proper subjects of baptism, is a point for 
 which we have Mr. Williams' testimony, not the tes- 
 timony of the Bible. For another example of the 
 
 ♦Wall, vol. 1, p. 77. Oxford edition. 
 
69 
 
 same kind, the reader may refer to page 44 of the 
 "Reply." The apostles baptized none but those who 
 believed and gladly received the word." That the 
 apostles baptized such as believed and gladly re- 
 ceived the word, we all know. But that they bap- 
 tized "/lOTze but those^''^ is what Mr. Williams says, 
 not what the Bible teaches. It need not seem strange 
 then, that a man who can add important words and 
 phrases, to make the Scriptures support a favorite 
 hypothesis, should for a similar purpose make free 
 with the text of Justin Martyr. 
 
 In conclusion, then, Justin Martyr, who was born 
 in the apostolic age, in common with the other Fath- 
 ers, speaks of circumcision and baptism, in such a 
 connection as can be explained on no other principle, 
 but that he considered baptism as christian circumci- 
 sion; and consequently, that infants were regarded 
 as proper subjects of baptism. And, moreover, this 
 worthy Father says, that there were many of his 
 fellow-christians, who had been made disciples to 
 Christ from their childhood. Unless, therefore, we 
 could believe, with the Pastor oC the First Baptized 
 church of Pittsburgh, that childhood may mean 
 manhood, or even old age, we must believe, that 
 during the first fifty years after the death of the last 
 of the apostles, it was the practice of the church to 
 admit the children of believing parents into the 
 school of Christ by baptism, that they might be 
 brought up under the maternal care of the church in 
 the nurture and admonition of the Lord. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE TESTIMONY OF TERTULLIAN, OF ORIGEN, AND 
 OF CYPRIAN, IN FAVOR OF INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 The second witness introduced in the Lectures, to 
 show that infant baptism was a doctrine held by the 
 primitive church, is the Latin Father, Tertullian. 
 And the greater importance is attached to this wit- 
 ness, because, in consequence of some peculiar views 
 which he entertained in relation to sins committed 
 after baptism, he recommended the delay of baptism, 
 especially in the case of little children. Since, then, 
 Tertullian was in favor of the delay of baptism, had 
 the baptism of children at that time been regarded 
 as at variance with the Scriptures, or inconsistent 
 with the received faith of the church, instead of sim- 
 ply recommending delay, as he has done, he would 
 have condemned infant baptism, as a thing improper 
 in itself. But there is no intimation, that the prac- 
 tice was either wrong in itself or inconsistent with 
 apostolic example. The passage quoted in the Lec- 
 tures is from Tertullian's treatise concerning bap- 
 tism, in which the following sentence is particularly 
 deserving of consideration: "Therefore, according to 
 every one's condition and disposition and age, the 
 delay of baptism is more profitable, especially in the 
 
72 
 
 case of little children."* The reader who may not 
 have access to the treatise of Tertullian, can see an 
 extract from it, either in Wall's History of Infant 
 Baptism, or in Gieseler's Ecclesiastical History. 
 
 It is perfectly evident, as the Lectures state, that 
 Tertullian himself was not in favor of infant bap- 
 tism; and that he recommended the delay of baptism 
 generally, but especially in the case of little chil- 
 dren. But why should he recommend the delay of 
 baptism? If it was not the custom of the church at 
 that time to baptize children, such a recommenda- 
 tion would have been wholly unnecessary. And let 
 it be particularly observed, that Tertullian simply 
 gives it as his opinion, that the delay of baptism is 
 more prafifable. Of two practices, both of which 
 are proper, one may be better than the other. It is 
 proper to read the word of God upon the Sabbath, 
 but it is more profitable to attend upon the preach- 
 ing of the word. But of two practices, one of 
 which is sinful and the other is a duty, no person, 
 I suppose, but the Pastor of " the First Baptized 
 church of Pittsburgh" would say, that the one is 
 more profiahle than the other. 
 
 It is so evident from the language of Tertullian, 
 that infant baptism was, in this age, among the 
 usages of the church, that even Mr. Williams ad- 
 mits, that "about this time, the error of infant bap- 
 tism," as he presumes to term it, "began to be intro- 
 duced." If infant baptism was introduced in the 
 age of Tertullian, who introduced it? Can any man 
 in his sober senses, believe that a doctrine entirely 
 new and utterly inconsistent with the gospel, could 
 
 * Itaque, pro cujusque prcson© conditione ac dispositione, 
 etiam aetale, cunctatio baptismi utilior est; praecipue tamen 
 circa parvulos. 
 
73 
 
 have been brought into the church so silently, that 
 history has recorded no comnnotion, connected with 
 its first propagation, nor has even preserved the 
 name of the man, who brought about a change so 
 remarkable? If Tertullian had regarded infant bap- 
 tism as an "error;" as a corruption of Christianity, 
 would he have been satisfied with simply recom- 
 mending the delay of baptism as "more profitable?" 
 The supposition is preposterous! When Mr. Wil- 
 liams says that Tertullian represents infant baptism 
 as an ^Hnnovation,^^ he furnishes another example of 
 a fault in relation to which he is exceedingly guilty, 
 and that is, of putting into the mouths of those whom 
 he quotes, language which they never used. There 
 is no intimation whatever, in the lan£ua"je of Ter- 
 tuUian, that he regarded infant baptism as something 
 new in the church. It was an existing usage of 
 which he did not altogether approve, and therefore, 
 in the case of children, he recommended the delay 
 of baptism as "more profitable." And he gives a 
 similar recommendation in the case of all unmar- 
 ried persons. And Mr. Williams has just as much 
 authority to say, that Tertullian represents the bap- 
 tism of unmarried adults, as an "innovation," as he 
 has to say, that this Father gives such a representa- 
 tion of the baptism of infants. 
 
 Upon the whole, then, it is quite evident to my 
 mind that the language of Tertullian can be inter- 
 preted on no other principle, but that infant baptism 
 was, in his age, a received doctrine of the church. 
 It is no less evident that this Father, whose views 
 were in some respects peculiar, endeavored to intro- 
 duce the "innovation" of delaying the baptism of 
 children; but as we shall afterwards see, he was not 
 
74 
 
 successful in producing a change in the received 
 faith of the church on this subject. 
 
 The next witness brought forward in the Lectures 
 to testify in relation to the practice of the primitive 
 ciiurch, is the famous Origen. It is somewhat 
 amusing to see the pugnacious disposition which Mr. 
 Williams displays, and which frequently prompts 
 him to place himself in the attitude of opposition, 
 when there is no need for it. In consequence of his 
 keenness for battle, he sometimes drives his head 
 against a post which he might as well avoid, and af- 
 ter all, gets nothing for his pains but a severe contu- 
 sion. Of this we have a notable example in the 
 manner in which he pounces upon the character of 
 Origen. In connection with the mention of this re- 
 markable man, the Lectures observe that, "He was 
 a man of great learning, and one of the most dis- 
 tinguished writers of his age." This, every one, 
 who is tolerably acquainted with ecclesiastical his- 
 tory, knows to be the literal truth. And yet Mr. 
 Williams, without seeming to know what he is op- 
 posing, or what he would be at, insinuates that I 
 have made a great mistake in saying that Origen 
 was a learned man. And after calling in question 
 Origen's claim to the reputation of a man of learn- 
 ing, he adds, with as much self-complacency, as 
 though he really supposed he had gained a signal 
 victory, "Let history decide between us." Decide 
 what? Whether Origen was, as the Lectures state, 
 a distinguished writer and a learned man! It would 
 be to offer an indignity to the reader, who is at all 
 versed in ecclesiastical history, to suppose that he 
 needed any evidence to prove, that Origen was one 
 of the most learned men of the age in which he 
 
75 
 
 lived. But as some may read these pages, who 
 have not access to the requisite sources of informa- 
 tion, it may be proper to give the character of Ori- 
 gen in a literary point of view, as drawn by those 
 who knew what they were writing about. 
 
 In speaking of the more eminent writers of the 
 third century, the celebrated historian Mosheim, re- 
 marks: "Of the writers of the third century, the 
 most distinguished for the celebrity of his name, and 
 for the extent of his writings, was Origen, a Pres- 
 byter and Catechist of Alexandria, a man truly 
 great, and a luminary to the Christian World.* 
 In his Classical Dictionary, Anthon gives the follow- 
 ing character of Origen: "All agree, that he was a 
 man of active and powerful mind, and of fervent 
 piety; fond of investigating truth, and free from a! I 
 mean prejudices; of the inost profound learning, 
 and the most untiring industry." And now, sir, 
 permit me to ask. What think you of the decision 
 of history, as to the learning of Origen? One 
 thing at least the reader cannot fail to perceive, and 
 that is, that whatever claim Origen may have to the 
 reputation of a man of learning, there is not much 
 cause to apprehend that Mr. Williams' "much learn- 
 ing," will make him "mad." 
 
 But there was no call for this puny attack upon 
 Origen's literary reputation. The question with 
 which we are concerned, is simply, What is his tes- 
 timony in relation to the practice of the church in 
 the age in which he lived? 
 
 Having insinuated that Origen has no claim to 
 the character which the Lectures give him, as a 
 learned man and a distinguished writer, Mr. Wil- 
 
 *Murdock's Mosheim, vol. 1. p. 166. 
 
76 
 
 iiams tries to make it appear, that after all, the wri- 
 tings of Origen furnish no testimony in favor of in- 
 fant baptism. The first extract from the writings of 
 Origen is taken from a Homily on Leviticus: "Let 
 it be considered what is the reason that, whereas, 
 the baptism of the church is given for forgiveness 
 of sins, infants also are, by the usage of the clinrch, 
 hapthed, when, if there was nothing in infants that 
 wanted forgiveness and mercy, the grace of baptism 
 would be needless to them." Again, in the Com- 
 mentary on the Epistle to the Romans, he says, 
 "For this also it was, that the church had from the 
 apostles, an order to give baptism even to infants.''^ 
 This language makes it so plain, that it was at this 
 time regarded by the church as an apostolic prac- 
 tice to baptize infants, that the only way to destroy 
 the force of Origen's testimony, is to deny that 
 those extracts are genuine. Accordingly, the "Re- 
 ply" asserts, "The quotation made by the Dr. is a 
 mere interpolation, made by Ruffinus, who pretend- 
 ed to translate the Greek of Origen into the Latin 
 language." And having made this bold assertion, 
 he adds, "This is admitted by Dr. Doddridge and 
 proved by Dr. Gill." It would appear from the 
 general character of his book, that Mr. Williams 
 proceeds upon the principle of asserting just what 
 suits him, without troubling himself to inquire 
 whether the things asserted are true or false. And 
 it is really an unpleasant task to have to expose that 
 reckless disregard of truth, which obtrudes itself 
 upon our notice on almost every page. 
 
 In the first place Mr. Williams asserts that the ex- 
 tract which the Lectures give as a quotation from 
 Origen, is really an interpolation of Ruffinus. And 
 then to keep his own assertion in countenance, he 
 
77 
 
 adds, "Dr. Doddridge admits il." Now the truth 
 is, Dr. Doddridge admits no such thing. What he 
 admits is, that Ruffinus, in his translation of Origen, 
 has made some bold alterations. But instead of ad- 
 mitting that the quotations Avhich I have made, are 
 passages which have been altered by Ruffinus, he 
 says, "This is not applicable to all the passages 
 brought from him" (Origen,) which refer to infant 
 baptism. Bui let Dr. Doddridge speak for himself: 
 "It is allowed there are many passages in Origen, 
 which expressly refer to infant baptism; but they 
 are chiefly to be found in those translations of his 
 Greek works, which were done by Ruffinus and Je- 
 rome, who made some very bold alterations accord- 
 ing to their own judgment and taste; but this is not 
 applicable to all the passages brought from him. 
 It may be added, that the translations of Jerome, 
 which are often referred to on this Occasion, were by 
 no means so lax as those of Ruffinus."* Some of 
 the original works of Origen were translated by 
 Ruffinus, and others by Jerome. Ruffinus seems to 
 have used Origen, much in the same way as Mr. 
 Williams does his authorities. When Origen was 
 not sufficiently orthodox, Ruffinus, in his translation, 
 makes him say what, in his judgment, he ought to 
 say, not what he actually did say. Jerome transla- 
 ted more faithfully. And it so happens that both 
 in those parts of Origen's works translated by Je- 
 rome, and also in those which were translated by 
 Ruffinus, we meet with testimonies in favor of infant 
 baptism. And hence, the genuiiieness of these pas- 
 sages may be regarded as satisfactorily established. 
 It appears, then, that Mr. Williams has made a 
 
 * Doddridge's Lectures, vol. 2, p. 385. London edition. 
 
 7^ 
 
78 
 
 "bold alteration" in the text of Doddridge, to make 
 him speak a little more directly to the point. 
 
 Let us, in the next place, see how Dr. Gill has 
 proved what Doddridge is made to admit. The 
 "Reply" says, "Dr. Gill has proved," that my quo- 
 tation from Origen is an interpolation of Ruffinus. 
 What does Dr. Gill say in relation to this matter? 
 Speaking of the testimony of Origen in support of 
 infant baptism, he says, "This is taken not from 
 any of his genuine Greek writings, only from some 
 Latin translations, confessedly interpolated."* The 
 reader will observe, that according to Mr. Williams, 
 a point is proved, when it is boldly asserted. He 
 says, "Dr. Gill has proved" the point in question. 
 And in whnt does the proof consist? In a naked as- 
 sertion; a species of proof exceedingly convenient, 
 where arguments are scarce, and of which kind of 
 proof Mr. Williams' little book is full. But, after 
 all, what does Dr. Gill prove, even if it should be 
 granted, that a naked assertion is satisfactory proof? 
 Simply that the writings of Origen have been to 
 some extent interpolated; but not aa Mr. Williams 
 would have the reader to believe, that my quotation 
 is an interpolation. There may be many interpola- 
 tions in a work, while the mass of the work remains 
 uncorrupted. Ruffinus himself admits that he cor- 
 rected Origen in some places, where he uttered sen- 
 timents at variance with the received faith of the 
 church. But, the subject of infant baptism was not 
 at this time a matter in dispute; and as Origen on 
 this subject held the commonly received faith of the 
 church, Ruffinus had no occasion to make interpola- 
 tions in the writings of this Father, which relate to 
 infant baptism. 
 
 * Gill's Body of Divinity, vol. .?, p. 307. I,ondon rdilion. 
 
79 
 
 In conclusion then, Origen, of whom Jerome says, 
 *'No one, unless he is ignorant, will deny that he 
 was the greatest doctor of the churches, since the 
 days of the apostles;"* and who flourished during 
 the first half of the third century, furnishes very 
 conclusive evidence, that it was at that time the 
 practice of the church to baptize intants. And 
 though it is true that the oriiiinal works of Origen 
 have to a great extent perished with the lapse of 
 ages, there is no reason to believe that his views on 
 this subject, have been misrepresented in his remains, 
 which have been preserved. 
 
 The next witness adduced in the Lectures, is Cy- 
 prian, bishop of Carthage, w'ho sutTered martyrdom 
 a little after the middle of the third century. In the 
 year :<!50 a council was held in Carthage, on which 
 occasion a question came up for consideration, which 
 originated with one Fidus, whether it was proper to 
 baptize a child before the eighth day. The received 
 opinion of the christian church at that time was, that 
 baptism is christian circumcision. And from this 
 admitted doctrine, Fidus drew the unwarranted con- 
 clusion, that baptism should be administered as cir- 
 cumcision had been, on the eighth day. I say un- 
 warranted conclusion; because it by no means fol- 
 lows, that since the one institution has supplied the 
 place of the other, therefore all the circumstances 
 connected with them must be the same. On the other 
 hand, it was to be expected that with the change of 
 dispensation, and of the institution, there would be a 
 change in the accompanying circumstances. 
 
 And what was the decision of the Council in rela- 
 
 * Post apostolos ecclesiarum magistruin, nemo, nesi imper- 
 itus, nepfabit. 
 
80 
 
 tion to the question? It was, that the administration 
 of baptism is not to be restricted to any particular 
 day, but that a child may be baptized any time after 
 its birth. An account of the decision of this coun- 
 cil, may be seen in an Epistle contained in the 
 works of Cyprian. In this Epistle, Cyprian and 
 all the other bishops of the Council, sixty-six in 
 number, address Fidus in the following language: 
 *'As to the case of infants, whereas you judge that 
 they must not be baptized within two or three days 
 after they are born; and that the rule of circumci- 
 sion is to be observed, so that none should be bap- 
 tized and sanctified before the? eighth day after he is 
 born; we were all in our council of the contrary 
 opinion."* Any person who is capable of connect- 
 ing two ideas together, can see from the reply of the 
 council, that the difficulty with Fidus had nothing to 
 do with the lawfulness of infant baptism; for that it 
 was proper, no one denied. The only question then 
 agitated was, whether, in the case of children, bap- 
 tism should be confined to the eighth day, as had 
 been the law in relation to circumcision. Fidus was 
 inclined to adopt the afiirmative; but the unanimous 
 decision of the Council was, that there was no ne- 
 cessity for delay, but that a child might be baptized 
 on the second or third day after its birth. 
 
 Now let us return to the "Reply," and see what 
 it has to say in relation to this testimony. 
 
 * Quantum vero ad causam infantium pertinct; quos dix- 
 isti intra secundum vel tertium diem, quo nati sunt, consti- 
 tutos baptizari, non oportere; et considerandam esse legem 
 cirenmcisionis anliquas, ut intra octavum diem, eum qui na- 
 tus est, baptizandum ct sanctificandum non putares, longc 
 aliud.in concilio nostro, omnibus visum est. Cyp. Epist. 66, 
 Bishop Fell's edition. 
 
81 
 
 "But to the Record. Fidus asked, May children 
 be baptized?" The record! Yes, Mr. WilHams, 
 this is a "record" of your own fabrication, but not 
 the record of this Council. And I would ask, how 
 can you, as an honest man, represent Fidus as pro- 
 posing a question which would intimate that he en- 
 tertained a doubt as to the propriety of infant bap- 
 tism? I am left no alternative, but to conclude 
 either that you have never seen the account of the 
 proceedings of this Council, which is preserved in 
 the works of Cyprian; or if you have, you must 
 have wilfully misrepresented it. The question which 
 Fidus proposed to the Council was, not as you repre- 
 sent it, "May children be baptized?" but. May they 
 be baptized before the eighth day? 
 
 If it were necessary to adduce any further evi- 
 dence, to show that Mr. VVilliams has entirely mis- 
 represented the facts of the case, it might be added, 
 that Augustine refers particularly to the proceedings 
 of this Council, in such a manner, as to make it per- 
 fectly plain, that the propriety of infant baptism, was 
 not the point in dispute. 
 
 Augustine, in his treatise on the Remission of sin, 
 in his controversy with the Pelagians, proves that 
 the doctrine of original sin, had been held by the 
 church from the beginning, as was evident from the 
 universal practice of baptizing infants. And among 
 other historical proofs in support of his position, he 
 refers to the decision of this Council of Carthage. 
 And he says, that Cyprian, who presided over it, 
 had been consulted by F'idus, in relation to the pro- 
 priety of administering baptism before the 8th day.* 
 
 * Consultus fuerat, utrurn hoc, ante octaviim diem, fieri 
 debet. Aug. Op. Tom. 7, p. 306. 
 
82 . 
 
 And from the decision of the Council, that "little 
 children, just born from their mother's womb,"* 
 might with propriety be baptized, and that it was not 
 necessary to delay their baptism until the eighth 
 day, he argues justly that it was then the doctrine of 
 the church, that children are contaminated with the 
 guilt of original sin from their birth. 
 
 But Mr. Williams does not stop with trifles. Af- 
 ter he has put into the mouth of Fidus, a question 
 entirely different from the one which Fidus himself 
 proposed to the Council, and one which makes him 
 express a doubt in relation to the propriety of infant 
 baptism, Mr. Williams then proceeds to draw an in- 
 ference from it, to suit his own purpose. "The 
 question," says the "Reply," "proves that infant 
 baptism was a novelty." 
 
 "The question!" And what question? Not the 
 question which Fidus proposed to the Council; for 
 that supposes that the church at that time was per- 
 fectly familiar with infant baptism. But it is a 
 question which you, Mr. Williams, have fabricated 
 for Fidus, which proves that infant baptism was a 
 novelty! 
 
 To conclude my remarks on this point then, let 
 me request the reader to observe, that we have here 
 the testimony, not of a solitary individual, but of a 
 Synod composed of christian ministers, sixty-six in 
 number, from which it appears that in the third cen- 
 tury, the propriety of infant baptism was a matter in 
 relation to which there was no diversity of opinion 
 in the christian church. 
 
 * Parvulos a materno utero, recentissimos. 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF AUGUSTINE. 
 
 The last witness introduced by the Lectures, to 
 prove that the prinnitive church regarded infants as 
 proper subjects of baptisnn, is Augustine, the re- 
 nowned Bishop of Hippo. This venerable Father 
 was born, A. D. 354, and after an active and useful 
 life, he died in the seventy-sixth year of his age. — 
 Owing to the peculiar character of the controversies 
 with which the church was agitated in the age in 
 which he lived, Augustine is led to refer to infant 
 baptism, as one of the well known usages of the 
 christian church, nnore frequently than any writer 
 who had preceded him. During almost the whole 
 of his ministerial life, Augustine was engaged in the 
 controversy with the Donatists and the Pelagians. 
 Particularly in his writings against the Pelagians, 
 who rejected the doctrine of original sin, Augustine 
 continually refers to infant baptism, as an evidence 
 that the church had, all along, held the doctrine of 
 the original depravity of our nature. And it espe- 
 cially deserves attention, that he refers to infant 
 baptism, not for the purpose of proving that it is the 
 doctrine of Scripture, but he appeals to the universal 
 practice of the church in baptizing infants, as his- 
 torical evidence that the church had uniformly held 
 the doctrine of original sin. 
 
84 
 
 The writings of Augustine afford such incontro- 
 vertible evidence, that infant baptism was one of the 
 universally received doctrines of the church, in the 
 fourth and fifth centuries, that the very mention of 
 his name seems to throw Mr. Williams into a par- 
 oxysm of rage, so that he speaks "unadvisedly with 
 his lips." Taking his leave of every thing like dig- 
 nity and decorum, he descends to the personal abuse 
 of this venerable Father. For example, Mr. Wil- 
 liams calls Augustine, "this fellow;" "this active 
 tool of the pope;" "this murderous monk," who 
 "served the cause of popery and the devil." 
 
 The reader, disgusted with this low and slander- 
 ous abuse of a worthy man, would like to knovv 
 what is said of Augustine by those who have some 
 knowledge of that about which they write. Speak- 
 ing of the efforts which were made to sustain the 
 cause of truth in the fifth century, the pious and in- 
 telli""ent Milner remarks, Augustine "was the great 
 instrument of reviving the knowledge of evangeli- 
 cal truth. By a very remarkable work of divine 
 wrace on his own soul, he was qualified to contend 
 with the growing corruption. For a thousand years 
 and upwards, the light of divine grace which shone 
 here and there in individuals, during the dreary 
 night of superstition, was nourished by his writ- 
 ings, which, next to the sacred Scriptures, were the 
 guides of men who feared God; nor have we in all 
 history an instance of so extensive utility derived to 
 the church from the writings of men."* The fol- 
 lowing character of this distinguished Father is 
 drawn by the learned Mosheim: "Augustine, Bishop 
 of Hippo in Africa, is one whose fame is spread 
 
 * Milner's History, vol. 1, p. 448. 
 
85 
 
 throughout the christian world. And he certainly 
 possessed many and great excellencies, a superior 
 genius, a constant love and pursuit of truth, ad- 
 mirable patience of labor, unquestionable piety, and 
 acuteness and discrinni nation by no means con- 
 temptible."* 
 
 And not only does Mr. Williams betray an un- 
 christian spirit in traducing the character of an emi- 
 nently worthy man, but also manifests pitiable igno- 
 rance of ecclesiastical history. Of Augustine, he 
 says, "He was sent a missionary from the church 
 of Rome to Britain." Augustine, the Bishop of 
 Hippo, sent as a missionary to Britain! Why, my 
 dear sir, the children in our Sabbath schools wilP 
 laugh at your blunders. Africa and not Britain, 
 was the scene of Augustine's labors. There was 
 indeed a monk of the same name, who is sometimes 
 styled in history, the Apostle of Britain, but who 
 lived about one hundred and fifty years after the 
 age of the Bishop of Hippo, who was sent a mis- 
 sionary to Britain, by Gregory the Great. And 
 you have mixed up the history of these two men, 
 who flourished at the distance of nearly two centu- 
 ries from each other, and have fabricated a horrible 
 tale of blood and carnage, for the purpose of ex- 
 hibiting the character of the Bishop of Hippo in the 
 most unfavorable light; and charge him with deeds 
 with which he had no more concern than the Pas- 
 tor of the ^'■First Baptized Church^'' of Pittsburgh. 
 So much for your knowledge of church history! 
 
 But the "Reply" further represents x^ugustine, as 
 an "active tool of the Pope." The title "Pope," or 
 Father, was originally applied to all christian Bish- 
 
 * Murdock's Mosheim, vol. I, p. 252. 
 
 8 
 
86 
 
 ops; but in process of time the Bishop of Rome ar- 
 rogated it to himself exclusively, claiming to be re- 
 garded as the vicar of Christ and the head of the 
 whole christian church throughout the world. In 
 this modern acceptation of the title, there was no 
 Pope in the age of Augustine. A notable example 
 to prove that the Roman Bishop had not yet attain- 
 ed that supremacy, is furnished by the history of 
 the Pelagian controversy. After two different Afri- 
 can councils had condemned the heresy of Pelagius, 
 such an artful representation of their sentiments 
 was made to Zosimus, Bishop of Rome, by Pelagius 
 and Celestius, that the Bishop was imposed on, and 
 pronounced a decision in their favor. But, instead 
 of acquiescing in this decision, the African Bishops, 
 at the head of whom was Augustine, wrote to Zosi- 
 mus, exposing the artifice of these wily corrupters 
 of the truth, and communicated correct information 
 with regard to the dangerous tendency of their er- 
 rors. The consequence was, the Bishop of Rome, 
 better informed, changed his mind and condemned 
 the system of Pelagius, as heretical. Augustine un- 
 derstood the character of the Pelagian heresy much 
 better than the Roman Bishop, and instead of re- 
 garding his decisioti as infallible, Augustine cor- 
 rected his mistake, and induced him to reverse his 
 sentence after he had decided in favor of Pelagius. 
 And yet Mr. Williams would have the reader to be- 
 lieve, that Augustine was an "active tool of the 
 Pope!" 
 
 After endeavoring to injure the reputation of Au- 
 gustine, by charging him with things of which he 
 never heard, Mr. Williams proceeds to give us a 
 further display of his knowledge of church history. 
 He informs us that, "under the influence of this 
 
87 
 
 monk, a council was convened in Carthage, A. D. 
 416, 10 condemn the heresy of Pelagius, and that 
 from Carthage, fourteen of them adjourned to Melo 
 in Numedia. At this Council Augustine presided, 
 and succeeded in procuring the passage of the fol- 
 lowing decree: It is the pleasure of all the Bishops 
 present in the holy Synod, to order that whosoever 
 denieth, that infants newly born of their mothers 
 are to baptized, shall be accursed:" p. 48. Here 
 our church historian gives us an account of a Coun- 
 cil held in '■'■Melo in Numedia.^'' Melo in Nume- 
 dia! There never was such a place on the face of 
 our globe; and if there ever was a Council held in 
 Melo in Numedia, it must have been in a different 
 planet from that which we inhabit, and thither \ 
 shall not undertake to follow Mr. Williams. 
 
 In the year 416, to which Mr. Williams refers, 
 there were two Councils held in Africa, which had 
 reference to the Pelagian heresy, one at Carthage 
 and the other at Milevum in Numidia. At the first 
 of these Councils Augustine does not appear to 
 have been present, but the latter he attended. It is 
 probable, that it is to the latter of these two Coun- 
 cils, that our historian refers. However, there is 
 some difficulty in the way of this supposition; for 
 his Council at "Melo in Numedia," he informs us, 
 was composed of only ^^ fourteen'''' Bishops, whereas 
 sixty-one Bishops attended the Council at Milevum. 
 The difference between fourteen and sixty-one, 
 however, might be considered a small mistake for 
 Mr. Williams. But if this is indeed the Council to 
 which he refers, the greatest difficulty in his way is, 
 there is no such decree among the acts of this 
 Council, as that which Mr. Williams mentions. 
 The members of this Council, sixty-one in num- 
 
88 
 
 ber, in an epistle addressed to Innocent, Bishop of 
 Rome, gave him an account of their proceedings; 
 and in an epistle addressed to them in reply. Inno- 
 cent signified his approbation of what the Council 
 had done. But neither in the epistle of the Council, 
 nor in the reply of Innocent, both of which are pre- 
 served in the works of Augustine,* is there any 
 mention made of such a decree. And yet Mr. 
 Williams says, that the "decree," to which he re- 
 fers, was sent to Rome and ratified by Innocent. 
 
 In the year 418 a Council was held at Carthage, 
 composed of two hundred and fourteen Bishops, 
 among the acts of which is found the decree to 
 which it would appear Mr. Williams refers. It 
 may be remarked, that some writers have erron- 
 eously represented this as one of the decrees of 
 the Council of Milevum, already mentioned. This 
 Council which was held at Carthage A. D. 418,. 
 condemned the opinion which we have seen was- 
 maintained by some, as early as the third century, 
 namely, that children should not be baptized before 
 the eighth day; and also the heresy of Pelagius, 
 who maintained that baptism, in the case of child- 
 ren, was not for the remission of sin. The canon 
 of the Council is in the following words: "It is our 
 pleasure, that whosoever denies that infants newly 
 born from the womb of their mother, may be bap- 
 tized; or says that they are to be baptized for the 
 remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of 
 original sin from Adam which needs to be expiated 
 in the laver of regeneration, let him be anathema. ""f 
 
 «Aug. Op. Tom. 2. Paris ed. 1586. 
 
 + Placiiit, ut quicunque, parvulos recentes ab uteris mat- 
 rum, baptizandos negat; aut dicit, in remissionem, quidem, 
 
89 
 
 It is evidently Mr. Williams' design to produce 
 upon the mind of the reader, the impression, that 
 through the influence of Augustine, the Council was 
 induced' to establish a decree in favor of infant bap- 
 tism, in opposition to those who rejected it. But 
 that is not a correct representation of the design of 
 the Council. There was in reality no dispute in the 
 church on this subject; and there was no call for a 
 decree with regard to a point universally admitted. 
 This is .abundantly evident from the writings of Au- 
 gustine. The question before the Council was, not 
 whether children may be baptized, but whether 
 children newly born,* might be baptized, or whether 
 their baptism should be delayed till the eighth day? 
 As we have already seen, this question came before 
 the Council of Carthage which was assembled in the 
 days of Cyprian. And in referring to the decision 
 of the Council, as I have before shown, Augustine 
 employs the same language. The decision of this 
 Council, then, was not simply that infants might be 
 baptized, but that infants just born might be baptized, 
 and that there was no necessity, as in the case of cir- 
 cumcision, to defer baptism till the eighth day. 
 
 1 do not see how it is possible for any man, who 
 has ever examined the works of Augustine, to enter- 
 tain a doubt with regard to the prevalence of infant 
 baptism throughout the christian world, in the age 
 in which this Father lived. It has already been re- 
 marked, that Augustine was engaged in controversy 
 with the Donatists and with the Pelagians. And 
 
 peccatoram eos baptizari, sed nihil ex Adam, trahere origi- 
 nalis peccati, quod regenerationis lavacro expietur; anathe- 
 ma sit. — Wall's History of Infant Baptism, vol. 1, page 470. 
 
 * Parvulos recentes ab uteris matrum. 
 
 8# 
 
90 
 
 from the nature of the controversy in which he was 
 engaged, he is led very frequently to speak of bap- 
 tism, and often of the baptism of children. But 
 Augustine had no controversy with either Donatists 
 or Pelagians, in relation to the propriety of infant 
 baptism. This was admitted on all hands. And 
 from this universally admitted usage of the church, 
 Augustine reasoned in relation to matters in contro- 
 versy between him and his opponents. 
 
 Mr. Williams insinuates that the Donatists reject- 
 ed infant baptism. But for such an insinuation he 
 has no authority. Though Augustine has written 
 much against them and opposed them with much 
 warmth, he no where prefers any such charge 
 against them. The Donatists separated from the 
 Catholic (not the Roman Catholic) church, on the 
 account of a difference with regard to discipline 
 rather than doctrine. They contended that the 
 Catholic church had become contaminated by hav- 
 ing Traditors in her fellowship; and consequently 
 they refused to have communion with her, and dis- 
 owned her ministry. VVhen, therefore, any one for- 
 sook the fellowship of the Catholic church and join- 
 ed their party, he was re-baptized. The Donatists 
 did not reject infant baptism: but they would not ac- 
 knowledge the validity of baptism as administered 
 in the Catholic church, whether in the case of infants 
 or adults. 
 
 Augustine has written four books against Cresco- 
 nius the Donatist, in one of which he gives an ex- 
 tract of an epistle, which he had received from him. 
 In this epistle, Cresconius says, "Between us and 
 you there is one religion, the same sacraments, and 
 no diversity in christian usages."* 
 
 • Inter nos, una religio, cadcm sacramenta^ nihil in 
 
91 
 
 In the conclusion of his fourth book against the 
 Donatists, Augustine refers to the case of the peni- 
 tent thief, who was saved through faith in Christ, 
 though he was not baptized, and then exhibits in 
 contrast the case of those who are saved through 
 baptism, though not capable of exercising faith. 
 And then he adds, "Which the whole church holds 
 as delivered in the case of infants who are baptized, 
 who certainly cannot yet believe with the heart 
 unto righteousness, nor confess with the mouth unto 
 salvation, as the thief did."* No man possessed of 
 common sense would have employed such language 
 as this in a controversy with the Donatists, had they 
 not received infant baptism in common with the 
 Catholic church. 
 
 I cannot deny myself the pleasure of giving an- 
 other extract from this distinguished Father, both on 
 account of the evidence which it affords, that infant 
 baptism was universally received, and because of the 
 correct distinction which is made between the exter- 
 nal rite of baptism and that internal change of heart 
 of which it is significant. Augustine writes as fol- 
 lows: "From all which it appears, that the sacra- 
 ment of baptism is one thing, and the conversion of 
 the heart another; but the salvation of man is com- 
 pleted by both. Nor are we to suppose, that if one 
 is wanting, it follows that the other is wanting, since 
 fls in the case of an infant, there may be baptism, 
 where there is not the conversion of the heart; and 
 as in the case of the penitent thief, there may be the 
 conversion of the heart, without baptism; God Al- 
 
 Christiana observatione diversum. Aug. Op. Tom. 7, 
 page 170. 
 
 * Aug. contra Donatistas, Lib. 4, chap. 23. 
 
92 
 
 mighty making up in .both cases, that which was not 
 wilfully wanting."* 
 
 In his controversy with the Pelagians, Augustine 
 continually refers to infant baptism, as an established 
 usage of the church, universally received. Among 
 other radical errors embraced in the system of Pela- 
 gianism, the rejection of the doctrine of original sin, 
 occupies a prominent place. Pelagius taught that 
 the sin of Adam hurt none but himself; and that an 
 infant is as fr€e from sin as Adam was, when he 
 was at first created. In opposing the heresy of Pe- 
 lagius, Augustine not only proved that it was con- 
 trary to the word of God, but, that it is inconsistent 
 with t-he faith held in the church from the beginning. 
 And in establishing the point, that the church had 
 ^11 along held the doctrine of original sin, he appeals 
 to the universal practice of the church in relation to 
 -infant baptism. Baptism with water is significant 
 of spiritual washing, and points to the blood of Je- 
 sus, through which we are able to obtain remission 
 of sin. But if an infant is free from the pollution of 
 sin, it can have no need of spiritual cleansing, and 
 the application of baptism would be unmeaning. 
 And hence, Augustine argues that as it had always 
 been the practice of the christian church to baptize 
 infants, therefore the church had always held the 
 doctrine of original sin. 
 
 Neither Pelagius, nor his coadjutor Celestius, 
 intimated any doubt as to the propriety of infant 
 baptism. On the other hand, they freely admitted 
 that it had always been the practice of the church 
 to baptize infants, and that the practice was proper. 
 
 I had collected various other testimonies, in favor 
 
 * Aug. contra Donatistas, Lib. 4, chap. 25. 
 
/ 93 . 
 
 of infant baptism, from the works of Athanasius, 
 Chrysostom and Jerome. But lest I should exhaust 
 the patience of the reader, I shall not introduce 
 them at present, but shall close this part of the sub- 
 ject by a few remarks intended to present the his- 
 torical argument in its true light. 
 
 From the writings of Justin Martyr, who was 
 born before the death of the Apostle John, and who 
 suffered martyrdom about the middle of the second 
 century, we learn that infant baptism was held by 
 the church in the age immediately succeeding the 
 apostles. The writings of Origen and Cyprian, 
 who flourished in the third century, furnish satisfac- 
 tory evidence that it was the practice of the church 
 to baptize infants in that age. And the writings of 
 Augustine, who was one of the most distinguished 
 bishops of the fourth century, are full of evidence, 
 not only that infant baptism was at that time among 
 the usages of the church, but that from the begin- 
 ning, it had been the custom of the church to bap- 
 tize infants. 
 
 Between Augustine and the Pelagians there was 
 no dispute with regard to the propriety of infant 
 baptism. All admitted that it was proper, and that 
 it had been the uniform practice of the church. 
 Proof of this might be given to an indefinite extent. 
 Let one example suffice. In a creed or exhibition of 
 their faith drawn up by Celestius, we have these 
 words: "We own that infants ought, according to 
 the rvle of the universal churchy and according to 
 the sentence of the gospel, to be baptized for the 
 forgiveness of sins.* With the inconsistency and 
 
 *" Infantes autera debere baptizari in remissionem pecca- 
 torum, secundum regulam universalis ecclesiae, et secundum 
 
94 
 
 duplicity of Celestius, in admitting that infants were 
 to be baptized lor the remission of sin, while he at 
 the same time denied they were contaminated with 
 sin, we have no concern. It is the fact admitted 
 both by Pelagius and Celestius, his fellow. laborer, 
 that according to the rule of the universal church, 
 and the sentence of the gospel, infants should be 
 baptized, that the reader is desired particularly to 
 notice. This no one in that age pretended to deny. 
 Even Pelagius himself complained that he was "de- 
 famed" by his opponents, when they represented his 
 principles with regard to original depravity, as lead- 
 ing to a virtual rejection of the doctrine of mfant 
 baptism. 
 
 And while we have this unbroken chain of testi- 
 mony from the apostolic age, in favor of infant bap- 
 tism, no writer in the christian church can be pro- 
 duced, during the first four centuries, who has op- 
 posed the baptism of children, as inconsistent with 
 the system of faith once delivered to the saints. It 
 is true as we have seen that the erratic Tertullian, 
 recommended the delay of baptism, especially in the 
 case of little children, as "wore 'profitable;^'' but 
 even he did not pretend to say, that the baptism of 
 children was unscriptural. Pelagius, a man of 
 learning and extensive information, who was a na- 
 tive of Britain; who spent some time in Africa; who 
 visited the churches of Palestine, and who lived a 
 long time at Rome, the centre of religious intelli- 
 gence, and whose peculiar views in relation to the 
 original depravity of our nature, presented a strong 
 inducement to reject infant baptism, yet admitted, 
 
 evangelii sententiani, confitemur. — Aug", de pec. Originale, 
 Lib. 2, chap. 5. 
 
95 
 
 that it was in accordance with "the rule of the uni- 
 versal church and the sentence of the gospel," to 
 baptize children. 
 
 Since, therefore, it was the practice of the church 
 to baptize infants during the first four centuries im- 
 mediately succeeding the age of the apostles, as is 
 evident from the writings of the Fathers which have 
 come down to us; as no writer can be produced who, 
 during this period, opposed this practice as contrary 
 to the law of Christ; and as the most distinguished 
 writers of the church, in their controversies with 
 heretical teachers, refer to infant baptism, as a usage 
 of the universal church from the beginning; there- 
 fore, we conclude that the testimony of history is, 
 that infant baptism is of apostolic origin. 
 
CHAPTER VIIJ. 
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. MEANING OF THE WORDS BAP- 
 TIZE AND BAPTISM, IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 Having ascertained who are the proper subjects of 
 baptism, the Lectures, in the next place, inquire into 
 the proper manner of administering this interesting 
 ordinance. This branch of the general subject is 
 regarded as, in itself, of much less importance than 
 the former; but in relation to this, as well as to every 
 thing else connected with the faith and practice of 
 the christian, it becomes us to be ready always to 
 give an answer to every man that asketh a reason of 
 the hope that is in us. As the Lectures are ad- 
 dressed to christians, who it is supposed prize the 
 truth and desire to understand it, this part of the 
 subject is introduced with some remarks relative to 
 the peculiar nature of sacraments generally, and of 
 baptism in particular. In a sacrament there are 
 two things to be considered: the external sign, and 
 the spiritual reality which is thereby represented. 
 In baptism, as all admit, the sign is water. That 
 particular property of water, to which in baptism 
 there is special reference, is its cleansing virtue. 
 Hence the language which Ananias addressed to 
 Saul of Tarsus: "Arise and be baptized, and wash 
 away thy sins.^'' Bapiism with water teaches us, by 
 a significant figure, that we are the subjects of mora! 
 9 
 
98 
 
 pollution, and at the same time, that God in the ex- 
 ercise of his grace, has made provision for our 
 spiritual cleansing. But every one who has any 
 knowledge of the Bible, knows that it is not the wa- 
 ter of baptism, which cleanseth the soul from the de- 
 filement of sin. The water is nothing more than 
 the external sign or figure, which represents the pu- 
 rifying efficacy of the blood of Jesus. To apply 
 the blood of atonement to the heart and conscience, 
 for the purpose of cleansing from sin, is the work 
 of the Holy Spirit. And hence the Scriptures 
 speak of a twofold baptism: the one external, which 
 is with water; the other internal, which is with the 
 Holy Ghost. "Except a man be born of water and 
 of the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom 
 of God."* Since, then, the water in baptism is no- 
 thing more than the outward sign of divine appoint- 
 ment, it would be strange indeed, if the validity of 
 the ordinance depended upon the quantity of water, 
 or upon the precise mode of its application. 
 
 We have said that the application of water in bap- 
 tism, is significant of washing. To this fact there 
 seems evidently to be an allusion, in the words of 
 the apostle: "According to his mercy he saved us 
 by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of 
 the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly, 
 through Jesus Christ."t It is not, however, a literal 
 but a figurative washing which is effected in bap- 
 tism. The outward washing of the body with wa- 
 ter, is significant of the spiritual cleansing of the 
 soul, which is eflTected by the application of the blood 
 of Christ by the Holy Spirit. What I regard then 
 as essential to the proper administration of baptism, 
 
 * John 3:5. t Titus 3:5, 6. 
 
is, that the water be applied to the subject according 
 to some mode significant of washins:. And as the 
 Scriptures represent washing, as being effected in a 
 variety of ways, our conclusion is, that the validity 
 of the ordinance does not depend upon the precise 
 mode according to which the water is applied to the 
 subject. But as one of the common ways of wash- 
 ing referred to in the Bible, is that of sprinkling the 
 cleansing element upon the person or thing to be 
 washed, baptism by sprinkling is a Scriptural mode, 
 which we decidedly prefer, and to which exclusively 
 we conform in practice. 
 
 It is t'reely conceded in the Lectures, that if it can 
 be made appear that the Author of Christianity has 
 appointed, that baptism should be administered in 
 any one particular way and in none other, then we 
 should sacredly conform to that mode. The author 
 of the "Reply" would have his readers to believe 
 that this is the fact; and that the only way in which 
 this ordinance can be administered, is by immersion. 
 
 Mr. Williams condemns the use of the term mode 
 in this controversy, altogether, and imputes to his 
 opponents a most unhallowed motive in employing 
 it. He says, page 50, "Here I would premise, that 
 the term mode is made use of by our opponents, /or 
 the sole purpose of destroying the ordinance^'* of 
 baptism. Observe, he does not content himself with 
 saying, that our manner of speaking about the mode 
 of baptism, naturally leads to the destruction of the 
 ordinance. Even such a statement would have been 
 untrue. But he goes much farther. He presumes 
 to enter the bosoms of those who differ from him; to 
 explore the secret recesses of their hearts, and to 
 declare to the world the motives which influence 
 them. "The term mode is made use of by our op- 
 
100 
 
 ponents," he says, ^^for the sole purpose of destroy- 
 ing the ordinance!" Such insolence deserves no 
 reply! 
 
 After having attributed to his opponents a most 
 diabolical "purpose," the author of the "Reply" 
 proceeds to observe, that "many Baptist writers," 
 "out of courtesy," (!) use the term mode in contro- 
 versy on this subject; and that in doing so, "both 
 truth and the laws of language have been violated, 
 as the necessary consequence." But as for himself 
 (good man!) he cannot be guilty of so great an im- 
 propriety as to speak of the mode of baptism, and so 
 violate both truth and the laws of language, "for 
 the sake of politeness to men." What a valiant 
 and unbending defender of the faith! 
 
 But, Mr. Williams, if there is no mode of baptism, 
 and it would be a violation both of truth and the 
 laws of language, to speak of the mode of baptism, 
 will you be so kind as to inform the christian public 
 how the ordinance is to be administered? I suppose, 
 if a person is to be baptized at all, he must be bap- 
 tized according to some mode. But if there is no 
 mode, and it would be to violate truth even to speak 
 of the mode of baptism, then I ask, in the name of 
 common sense, if there is no mode of baptism, how 
 can the ordinance possibly be administered? 
 
 After remonstrating against the use of the term 
 mode in this controversy, Mr. Williams, in the next 
 place proceeds to give his readers an exhibition of 
 his philosophical and mathematical attainments. — 
 But what is his precise object in calling in philoso- 
 phy and mathematics to his aid, is not very appa- 
 rent. From the remarks which precede his "Philo- 
 sophical View," one would suppose that his design 
 is to prove that there is no ^^mode^^ of baptism," and 
 
101 
 
 that to use the term mode in this controversy, is to 
 violate both truth and the laws of language. But 
 from what immediately follows, it would seem that 
 Jiis object is to prove that sprinkling and immersion 
 .are not the same thing, according to that mathe- 
 matical axiom, that "Two things cannot be one 
 .thing, while totally distinct." 
 
 Come, then, gentle reader, and enjoy a little re- 
 ,llef from the tedium of theological controversy, 
 .while you sit at the feet of our philosopher and take 
 a lesson in the sciences. On page 50 of the "Re- 
 ply," the author makes the following remark under 
 the head of "Philosophica.l View:" "Every dis- 
 tinct substance possesses a form, mode or figure, 
 peculiar to itself." A truly philosophical remark! 
 Will Mr. Williams have the goodness, in another 
 "philosophical view," to favor the public with a de- 
 scription ;Of the form, mode or figure, of the human 
 soul? It will, I suppose, be admitted that the soul is 
 a "distinct substance," or something which exists; 
 but I think its form or figure has not yet been de- 
 scribed in any of our books on philosophy! Rut 
 while it will be admitted that all material substances 
 to which, I suppose, our philosopher more especially 
 refers, have a form or figure peculiar to themselves, 
 yet it would seem to require a degree of sagacity 
 which does not ordinarily fall to the lot of man, to 
 discern the bearing which this fact has upon the 
 question relative to the proper manner of adminis- 
 tering baptism. 
 
 Having in one short sentence given a "philosophi- 
 cal view," the author, as though impatient to range 
 throughout the whole circle of the sciences, launches 
 forth into the depths of mathematics, and makes 
 the following sagacious observation: "Mathematical 
 9* 
 
IG2 
 
 science ascertains the nicer shades of distinction be- 
 tween the forms of substances and modes of action^''' 
 Here is a discovery in mathematics of which neither 
 Kepler, Des Cartes, nor Newton, ever dreamed! 
 Mathematical science ascertains the nicer shades of 
 distinction, between different '■'■modes of action!'''' 
 What a pitiful thing it is, Mr. Williams, to bring in 
 philosophy and mathematics into a discussion of this 
 nature, as though the object were to induce plain and 
 simple people to think that your learning is pro- 
 digious! 
 
 " O wad some power the giftie gie us, 
 
 To see oursels as ithers see us, 
 
 It wad fra monie a blunder free us, 
 
 An' foolish notion." 
 
 Having given us a "philosophical view," and 
 likewise a taste of "mathematical science,"' Mr. Wil- 
 liams gives us a definition of the words which are 
 translated, baptize and baptism, from which his read- 
 ers may see his amazing proficiency in Greek: — 
 "The meaning of bapt'izo, according to classic 
 usage and all the Lexicons, is dipping;" page 52. 
 "The Greek word baptize means immersion and no- 
 thing else;" page 55. This is so very plain, accord- 
 ing to Mr. Williams, that he would have his readers 
 to believe that I am very anxious to hide the Greek 
 from my people, lest they should discover how I am 
 misleading them. Hear him! "The Dr. seems to 
 be reluctant to let his readers even have one peep 
 into the Greek langtiage. If they could but learn 
 the al|)habet and refer to any Lexicon in the Dr's. 
 library, they would see that the Greek word baptizo 
 means immersion and nothing else.'' No doubt Mr. 
 Williams felt very well pleased with himself after 
 discharging such a volley of wit! How he has ex- 
 
103 
 
 posed the artifices of the Dr.! The Dr., simple mani 
 thought to keep his congregation from taking "a peep 
 into the Greek language," that so he might hold 
 them in ignorance! But the pastor of the first bap- 
 tized church of Pittsburgh, benevolent soul! has let 
 out the secret, that "baptizo means immersion and 
 nothing else!" 
 
 Whether Mr. Williams knows it or not, I will not 
 ^undertake to determine; but if he will walk over to 
 the Western University, any of the boys, who are 
 reading the Greek Testq,ment, can tell him that the 
 statement which he has made is absolutely false. It 
 is not true, and every body who knows any thing 
 about the Greek language knows that it is not true, 
 that the "Greek word bapti?;o means immersion and 
 nothing else." And how a man possessed of com- 
 mon sense and honesty could hazard such a declara- 
 tion, in the midst of an intelligent community, is to 
 me passing strange. The Lectures freely admit that 
 the word in question signifies to immerse, and that 
 in classic Greek this may be regarded as its primary 
 and predominant meaning. But at the same time it 
 is well known that this is not its only meaning. 
 Every good Lexicon gives the word other meanings, 
 and represents ivashing as one of the significations 
 of the word. The question then is, In what sense 
 is the word employed in the New Testament? And 
 more particularly, what is its import in reference to 
 the ordinance of christian baj)tism? In the New 
 Testament, the word is employed with reference to 
 an institution with which the ancient classical au- 
 thors were unacquainted. And, therefore, it would 
 not be strange to find, that as the word is applied to 
 a new subject in the sacred Scriptures, it is taken in 
 a sense somewhat different from that which accords 
 
1U4 
 
 with prevailing usage in pagan authors. It is so 
 with other words, and why not w ith this? Take, for 
 example, the word whi(:h in the New Testament is 
 translated church. In no classic author of pagan 
 antiquity, is the word church employed in the sense 
 in which it is used in the New Testament. Accord- 
 ing to classical usage, this term signifies generally 
 an assembly of men called together. But in the 
 New Testament, it is used to signify all those scat- 
 tered throughout the whole world, who have been 
 called to the knowledge and the profession of the 
 faith of Christianity. U^ then, it is so in relation to 
 other words, that they are used in a peculiar sense 
 in Scripture, there is nothing unreasonable in the 
 supposition, that the prevailing acceptation of the 
 term baptizo, in the New Testament, may differ 
 somewhat from prevailing classical usage. One of 
 the significations given of the word by all good 
 Lexicographers is, to wash. And this we maintain, 
 is the true import of the term as used with reference 
 to the ordinance of christian baptism. In its appli- 
 cation to this institution, it is not en^ployed in tiie 
 sense either of sprinkling or of immersion, but of 
 washing. This sacred rite, as we have already ob- 
 served, is significant of spiritual washing or cleans- 
 ing from sin. And the word as used with reference 
 to baptism, is not intended to designate the manner 
 in which the water is to be applied, but the design 
 of the application, which is washing. 
 
 The reader would suppose from the general tenor 
 of Mr. Williams' remarks, that we maintain that the 
 word baptize means to sprinkle, and that baptism 
 signifies sprinkling. For example, he says of us, 
 page, 52, "they use a term, whose radical idea is 
 inimor--;inn, ncording; to their own admission, to ex- 
 
105 
 
 press that of sprinkling." If the reader will refer 
 to the Lectures, he will see that there is no founda- 
 tion whatever for such a representation. Such a 
 silly thought, as that sprinkling is baptism never en- 
 tered our minds. And we are just as far from 
 thinking that immersion is baptism. Sprinkling is 
 scattering water upon a person in small drops. Im- 
 mersion, is plunging a person into water. But both 
 of these may be done, where there is no baptism. 
 Baptism is an ordinance of Jesus Christ, in which a 
 person is washed with water, in the name of the 
 Father, Son and Holy Ghost. A question then 
 arises, How is the water to be employed in baptism? 
 How is the person to be baptized with water? I an- 
 swer, that one very common mode of washing in 
 Scripture, is that of sprinkling the cleansing element 
 upon the person washed. "And the Lord spake 
 unto Moses, saying, take the Levites from among 
 the children of Israel and cleanse them. And thus 
 shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them: sprinkle 
 water of purifying vpon them.^^* As then, baptism 
 itself is significant of spiritual cleansing; and as a 
 Scriptural mode of cleansing is, by sprinkling the 
 cleansing element upon the person purified, the con- 
 clusion is irresistible, that baptism is scripturally ad- 
 ministered by sprinkling. But we do not say that 
 the word baptize signifies in this ordinance, to sprin- 
 kle. Nor do we say that it signifies to immerse. 
 Its signification is unspeakably more important than 
 either. It signifies to wash, and emblematically de- 
 notes, cleansing from sin. 
 
 The grand argument in support of the claims of 
 immersion, is, that "baptize means immersion and 
 
 * Numbers 8 :5— 7. 
 
106 
 
 nothing else." If this position cannot be maintain- 
 ed, the whole fabric falls to the ground. The ques- 
 tion is not, Does the word sometimes signify to im- 
 merse? Nor yet is the question, Does the word 
 more commonly in classic authors convey the idea 
 of immersion? All this may be granted, and still 
 the point in dispute remains unsettled. If the word 
 is often used in other acceptations; if, according to 
 the best ancient Lexicographers, Hesychius, Sca- 
 pula, Suidas, as well as the more modern authors, it 
 signifies to wash, to cleanse, then the question re- 
 mains to be decided. In which of these senses is the 
 word employed with reference to baptism? And this 
 is a question, let it be particularly observed, which 
 classic authors, who were unacquainted with the sa- 
 cred Scriptures, are not competent to answer. The 
 correct answer to this question must be learned from 
 the meaning and design of the ordinance of baptism, 
 and the import of the word according to Scriptural 
 usage. What, then, is the design of the ordinance? 
 Is it to signify the plunging of a person into water; or 
 the sprinkling of water upon a person? The suppo- 
 sition is ridiculous! It is neither the one nor the 
 other. The ordinance is significant of washing, of 
 cleansing from sin. And the word is used in the 
 New Testament, to convey the idea of washing. 
 And as this is one of the true and proper significa- 
 tions of the v/ord, and as it is the only signification 
 of the word, which strictly corresponds with the de- 
 sign of the ordinance, we rest in the conclusion, that 
 the proper import of the word, in reference to chris- 
 tian baptism, is to wash. Baptism, then, is not an 
 immersion, nor is it a sprinkling, but it is a washing 
 with' water. And though we admit that this washing 
 may be performed in difl^erent ways, yet the mode 
 
107 ^ 
 
 by sprinkling is at once Scriptural and expressive of 
 the design of the institution. And hence we feel 
 emboldened to say, that the very foundation on 
 which the exclusive claims of immersion rest, is per- 
 fectly rotten. 
 
 For the purpose of satisfying the plain christian, 
 who bows to the authority of God's word, the Lec- 
 tures observe the following order: 
 
 1. Examples are adduced to show that the Scrip- 
 tures employ the word baptize, where the idea of 
 immersion is utterly excluded. And hence the un- 
 lettered christian can see that it is not true, that the 
 word signifies "immersion and nothing else." 
 
 2. Passages of Scripture are cited to prove that the 
 word baptize is used to convey the idea of washing. 
 
 3. Examples of the administration of baptism are 
 examined, for the purpose of showing that the cir- 
 cumstances, in no instance, require us to suppose 
 that the rite was performed by immersion; while in 
 some cases the attendant circumstances are incon- 
 sistent with such a supposition. 
 
 In our next chapter, we propose to examine what 
 Mr. Williams has to say to these things. 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 EXAMPLES IN WHICH THE WORD BAPTIZE DOES NOT 
 CONVEY THE IDEA OF I3IMERSI0N. EXAMPLES 
 IN WHICH IT IS USED IN THE SENSE OF WASHING. 
 
 In pleading the cause of immersion, Mr. Williams 
 assumes the position, that the word baptizo, employ- 
 ed by our Lord in the institution of Baptism, signi- 
 fies to immerse and ^^nothing else.'''' U the point 
 assumed were true, the conclusion would be obvious 
 that baptism should be administered by immersion. 
 But if, on the other hand, the assumption is false, 
 then it is just as clear that the conclusion is invalid. 
 
 That the assumption of Mr. Williams is utterly 
 without foundation, the Lectures show, — 
 
 1. From examples in the New Testament, in 
 which the word baptize does not convey the idea of 
 immersion, and in which the meaning of the pas- 
 sage utterly excludes the sense of immersion. The 
 first example to which reference is made, is the fol- 
 lowing: "John truly baptized with water; but ye 
 shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many 
 days hence."* Our Lord here assured his disci- 
 ples that they should be baptized with the Holy 
 Ghost. And in the following chapter, we have the 
 history of the fulfilment of that promise. Now 
 
 *Acts 1:5. 
 10 
 
110 
 
 what is the language which the Scriptures employ 
 in relation to the communication of the influences 
 of the Holy Spirit? Do they in any instance em- 
 ploy terms expressive of the idea of immersion? — 
 Never ! The terms sprinkling and pouring, are 
 those which are usually employed. "I will pour 
 water upon him that is thirsty; and floods upon the 
 dry ground: I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed, 
 and my blessing upon thine offspring."* "Then 
 will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall 
 be clean; from all your filthiness and from all your 
 idols will I cleanse you.""(" Such is the language 
 which the sacred Oracles employ when they speak 
 of the communication of the influences of the Holy 
 Spirit. And in relation to this very baptism of 
 which the apostles were made partakers, the same 
 language is used. In accounting for the remark- 
 able occurrence, which excited the amazement of the 
 multitude, the apostle Peter declares, "This is that 
 which was spoken by the prophet Joel, And it shall 
 come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour 
 out of my Spirit upon all flesh."J The plain honest 
 christian will ask himself the question. How were 
 the apostles baptized with the Spirit? And in search- 
 ing for the correct answer, it is not necessary to take 
 "one peep into the Greek language;" nor yet, that 
 he should place himself at the feet of some scholar 
 like the Pastor of the First baptized church of Pitts- 
 burgh, to have the difficulty solved. All that is re- 
 quisite, is, that he open his Bible and read the plain 
 intelligible words, — "I will pour out of my Spirit 
 upon all flesh." It is then just as palpably evident 
 as plain words can make it, that here is a baptism 
 
 * Isaiah 44 : 3. t Ezek. 33 : 25. t Acts 2 : 16, 17. 
 
Ill 
 
 in which there was no immersion nor any thing like 
 it. And the humble christian, who bows to the au- 
 thority of God's word, rather than to the dogmatical 
 assertions of men, can have no difficulty in deciding 
 that as the apostles were baptized, when the Spirit 
 was poured out on them, so they are baptized in a 
 Scriptural manner, on whom the water of baptism is 
 poured. 
 
 To evade the force of this conclusion, Mr. Wil- 
 liams would have the reader to believe, that the 
 house in which the apostles were assembled, was 
 completely filled with the Spirit! and therefore, after 
 all, it might be said that they were in a manner im- 
 mersed in the Spirit! The Holy Spirit, as a divine 
 being, is present every where throughout the uni- 
 verse. His presence fills immensity. But it is of 
 the influences of the Spirit, communicated to the 
 apostles, that the Scriptures here speak. And to re- 
 present a house as being filled with the quickening, 
 illuminating, or purifying influences of the Holy 
 Spirit, is monstrous! But the sacred history speaks 
 of no such thing. It is entirely a fiction of Mr. 
 Williams' brain. What was it that, according to 
 the history, filled the house where the apostles were 
 sitting? Let the reader open his Bible and answer 
 the question for himself. "And suddenly there came 
 a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, 
 and it filled all the house." The reader will per- 
 ceive that it was '■'-the sounds as of a rushing mighty 
 wind," which filled the house. 
 
 According to the history of this memorable event, 
 there were two external accompaniments of this bap- 
 tism of the Spirit conferred upon the apostles. 
 
 1. There was "a sound from heaven, as of a rush- 
 ing mighty wind," which sound filled the house. 
 
112 
 
 2. There "appeared cloven tongues like as of fire, 
 and it sat upon each of them." Both wind and fire are 
 employed in the sacred Scriptures as emblems of the 
 quickening, enlightening and purifying influences of 
 the Holy Spirit.* In connection with these external 
 manifestations of the gracious presence of the Spirit 
 of God, the apostles were filled with the Holy Ghost; 
 they were baptized with the Holy Ghost; the Spirit 
 was poured out on them. The apostles then were 
 baptized with the Spirit, when the influences of the 
 Holy Ghost were poured out on them. 
 
 Mr. Williams in the next place remarks: "It 
 ought to be remembered here that the Greek parti- 
 cle, 671, rendered 'with,' in our version, is rendered 
 in several of the first English versions by the word 
 'zTi.' " Every Greek scholar knows that the prepo- 
 sition in question, may be rendered in or with, ac- 
 cording as the sense of the passage may require. 
 But is it so, that "several of the first English ver- 
 sions" have adopted the translation "in," in the pas- 
 sage under consideration? Had the author of the 
 "Reply," condescended to name the particular ver- 
 sions, we should then have been able to show the 
 reader the little value of this general remark, and 
 how unsafe it is to depend upon his statements. I 
 have now before me the different English versions, 
 which were executed previous to the publication of 
 our authorized version; that of Wicklif, Tyndale, 
 Cranmer and Geneva. In each of these versions, 
 that of Wicklif excepted, the translation is the same 
 as in our version: "John baptized with water." In 
 Wicklif's version, the translation is, "John baptized 
 in water." But the less importance is to be attach- 
 
 *Matt. 3:11. John 3:8. 
 
113 * 
 
 ed to VVicklif's translation, in a critical point of 
 view, since he formed his translation, not on the ba- 
 sis of the original Greek, with which he was not 
 sufficiently acquainted, but on that of the Latin 
 Vulgate. 
 
 In the parallel passage, iMatt. 3:11, to which Mr. 
 Williams refers, the translation in VVicklif's version 
 is, "1 wash you in water; he shall baptize you in the 
 Holy (ihost." The translation of Tyndale's and 
 Cranmer's version is, "I baptize you in water; he 
 shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost:" the Geneva 
 version corresponds with our own: but none of these 
 versions adopt the monstrous translation, He shall 
 immerse you in the Holy Ghost. Indeed, it is strange 
 that pious ears can be reconciled to an idea so in- 
 consistent with proper and reverential views of the 
 ever blessed Spirit. 
 
 Mr. Williams' reference to the early versions, is 
 as unfortunate for his cause, as his other references 
 generally. Instead of helping him out of a diffi- 
 culty, they only sink him deeper in the mire. The 
 phrase under consideration occurs in four different 
 places. Matt. 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, and 
 Acts 1:5. Wicklif's version, which the reader will 
 remember, is a translation of the Latin Vulgate, 
 and not of the original Greek, is the only version 
 which uniformly adopts the translation in. In Mat- 
 thew, Tyndale's version adopts the translation in, in 
 the first clause, and with in the last. But in Mark, 
 and Luke, and the Acts, his translation corresponds 
 with our authorized version. The version of Cran- 
 mer is the same with that of Tyndale; and the ver- 
 sion of Geneva in all respects corresponds with our 
 own. If, then, the question is to be decided by the 
 10* 
 
114 
 
 early English versions, the reader will perceive that 
 Mr. Williams is found in the minority. 
 
 In deciding upon the relative merits of any trans- 
 lation, our appeal must of course be to the original. 
 What then is the correct translation of the passage 
 in question? It is admitted that the Greek preposi- 
 tion e/i, may be translated either in or with, as the 
 sense of the passage may require. As one exani- 
 ple out of many to which I might refer, the scholar 
 may turn to Rev. 6:8. "And power was given unto 
 them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with 
 the sword, and with hunger, and with deatli." Here 
 it will be perceived that in three successive instances, 
 the preposition in question is translated loith, as de- 
 noting the instrument by which a thing is done. It 
 is certain then; that the word before us may with 
 propriety be rendered, as it is in our version, '^John 
 truly baptized with water." And that this is the 
 correct translation, appears with sufficient evidence 
 from the fact, that the same word in the latter 
 clause, is correctly rendered with. "Ye shall be 
 baptized with the Holy Ghost." I say correctly 
 rendered "with;" for any other translation would 
 not only be revolting to our views of propriety, but 
 at variance with the circumstances of the case. The 
 Spirit was poured out upon the apostles. And, there- 
 fore, it would be absurd to say that they on whom 
 the Spirit was poured out, were baptized in the 
 Spirit. Since, then, we can have no doubt as to the 
 correctness of the translation in the latter clause of 
 the verse, the principles of exegesis demand that we 
 should adopt the same translation in the connected 
 clause, unless the sense evidently requires a depart- 
 ure from it. 
 
115 
 
 The position of the Lectures, then, remains un- 
 shaken. We have here a plain example, of which 
 the unlettered christian may judge as well as the 
 scholar, in which the word baptize does not convey 
 the sense of immersion, nor any thing like it. The 
 apostles received the baptism of the Spirit, when the 
 Holy Ghost was poured out upon them. 
 
 Another example equally conclusive is furnished 
 in 1 Cor. 10:2. "And were all baptized unto Mo- 
 ses in the cloud and in the sea." If the reader will 
 turn to the history of Israel's passage through the 
 Red Sea, Ex. 14:29, he will have plain and convin- 
 cing evidence, that the Israelites were not immersed 
 in the sea. And yet the apostle expressly declares, 
 that they were baptized in the sea. Consequently, 
 any person who can couple two simple propositions 
 together, and draw the legitimate and plain conclu- 
 sion from them, can see that in this case of baptism 
 there was no immersion. The history informs us, 
 that "the children of Israel v/alked upon dry land 
 in the midst of the sea, and the waters were a wall 
 unto them on their right hand and on their left." It 
 appears then, that the Israelites were baptized in the 
 sea. But they were not immersed; for, 'Uhey walk- 
 ed on dry land in the midst of the sea." Therefore, 
 in this instance, the word baptize does not signify to 
 immerse; which was the point to be proved. 
 
 To obviate this conclusion, Mr. Williams re- 
 marks: "The sea stood in walls on either side, and 
 the cloud was over them, between them and the 
 Egyptians, so that they were buried from the sight 
 of their enemies, in the cloud and in the sea." Thus 
 by the help of the imagination, Mr. Williams con- 
 trives to get the Israelites into such a situation, that 
 by means of the cloud and the sea together, they are 
 
116 
 
 buried out of sight. The reader will however ob- 
 serve, that the apostle says nothing about the Israel- 
 ites being buried out of sight. He says that they 
 were baptized in the sea. And unless we should 
 take leave of our senses, and bring ourselves to be- 
 lieve that a person may be plunged into the sea, 
 while he walks on dry land through the midst of it, 
 we are sure that in this case there was a baptism, 
 where there was no immersion. 
 
 2. Having proved by examples that the word 
 baptize is employed in the New Testament, where 
 it does not convey the idea of immersion, the Lec- 
 tures in the next place adduce instances in which 
 the term is used to signify washings without par- 
 ticular reference to the mode in which the cleans- 
 ing element is applied. The following portions of 
 Scripture afford pertinent examples: "The Pharisee 
 marvelled that Jesus had not first washed before din- 
 ner."* "For the Pharisees and all the Jews, except 
 they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tra- 
 dition of the elders. And when they come from the 
 market, except they wash (baptize) they eat not. 
 And many other things there be which they have re- 
 ceived to hold, as the washmg (baptism) of cups and 
 pots, and brazen vessels, and tables. "f The reader 
 will please to bear in mind, that my specific object 
 in adducing these examples, is to prove from the sa- 
 cred Scriptures, that the words translated baptism 
 and baptize, are employed to convey the idea of 
 washing or cleansing. In these instances, the words 
 in question are not used to point out any particular 
 mode of applying water to the person or thing to 
 be cleansed, but to designate the design and the 
 
 *Luke 11 :38. tMark 7:3, 4. 
 
117 
 
 effect of the application of water, which is cleansing. 
 And hence, in so far as the argument is concerned, it 
 is perfectly immaterial in what manner the washing 
 referred to by the Pharisee was effected. If it could 
 be made appear (which it cannot) that there was or- 
 dinarily an immersion of the person, in the washing 
 to which the Pharisee refers, this would in no degree 
 weaken the force of the argument. For the design 
 of the speaker is not to convey the idea of immersion, 
 but of cleansing. The cause of the Pharisee's sur- 
 prise, was not that he had not first immersed him- 
 self before dinner, but that he had not washed. 
 And in relation to the usages referred to by the 
 Evangelist Mark, "the washing (baptism) of cups 
 and pots and brazen vessels," the same remark will 
 apply. It is perhaps impossible to determine in 
 every case, in what particular way these utensils 
 were washed; whether they were dipped in water, 
 or whether water was sprinkled on them. But it is 
 perfectly immaterial in what particular way the wa- 
 ter was used. The word baptism in this case, sig- 
 nifies neither immersion nor sprinkling, but washing. 
 The design of the word is not to indicate the mode 
 of applying the cleansing element, but the effect of 
 its application, which is cleansing. 
 
 Since then it is undeniable, that the words bap- 
 tism and baptize, are employed in Scripture tor con- 
 vey the idea of washing, without reference to the par- 
 ticular mode of applying the water to the person or 
 thing to be washed; therefore, the particular mode 
 of applying the water to the person baptized, is not 
 essential to the validity of the ordinance. But one 
 very common mode of washing referred to in Scrip- 
 ture, is that of sprinkling the cleansing element upon 
 the person or thing to be cleansed. Therefore, the 
 
118 
 
 sprinkling of water on the person baptized, is a scrip- 
 tural mode of administering tiie ordinance. 
 
 Our conclusion is further strengthened, by an ex- 
 ample taken from the apostolic description of the 
 rites and ceremonies connected with the service of 
 the first tabernacle: "Which stood only in meats 
 and drinks and divers washings [baptisms) and car- 
 nal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of re- 
 formation."* The reader is desired to notice that 
 the apostle, when speaking of the riles of purifica- 
 tion observed under the legal dispensation, terms 
 them generally, "divers baptisms." It is quite ma- 
 nifest that the design of the apostle is not to indicate 
 the particular mode, after which these rites of puri- 
 fication were performed, but the end and the effect 
 of these rites, which was, washing or cleansing. It 
 is, however, equally manifest, that some of the rites 
 at least, to which the apostle refers, were performed 
 by sprinkling. And hence the language which he 
 employs in a following verse: "For if the blood of 
 bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer 5/>nnAr- 
 ling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the 
 flesh." The apostle here refers to the prescribed 
 mode of cleansing persons or things which were 
 ceremonially unclean, by "the water of separation."! 
 The mode of application was by "sprinkling." "The 
 blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer 
 sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purification 
 of the flesh." This is one of the "divers baptisms," 
 of which the apostle speaks. And hence the conclu- 
 sion is irresistible, that the person is baptized in a 
 scriptural manner, on whom the water of baptism is 
 sprinkled. 
 
 * Heb. 9 : 10. t Numbers 19 : 1—22. 
 
119 
 
 We have then, it is hoped, to the satisfaction of 
 the reader, proved — 
 
 1. That the word baptize, is used in scripture, 
 where it does not convey the idea of immersion, and 
 where such a meaning of the word is ahogether in- 
 admissible. Hence, when Mr. Williams says that 
 the word baptize, means to immerse, and nothing 
 else, he assumes a position which is irreconcilable 
 with scripture. 
 
 2. That the words baptize and baptism, are em- 
 ployed to convey the idea of washing, without refe- 
 rence to the manner in which the cleansing element 
 is applied. Christian baptism is significant of spirit* 
 ual washing. Baptism, therefore, as a christian or- 
 dinance, signifies neither immersion nor sprinkling, 
 but washing. It indicates not the manner in which 
 water is to be apphed to the body, but the design 
 and the effect of its application, which is cleansing. 
 
 On page fifty-nine of the "Reply," Mr. Williams 
 gives us a display of his learning, by presenting 
 what he styles an '■^Etymological View of the tvord 
 Baptizo:' 
 
 Under this head he makes the following most ex- 
 travagant remark: " It is only necessary on this 
 point, for me to say, that universally, both in classic 
 and sacred authors, the word baptizo^ is rendered 
 immerse; or construed in accordance with that de- 
 finition." In reply to this bold assertion, all that is 
 necessary, is simply to refer the reader to the plain 
 scripture examples which have just been cited. Any 
 one who can read his Bible, can see that such a de- 
 claration, when weighed in the balances of the sanc- 
 tuary, is found to be "lighter than vanity." 
 
 But to make extravagance more extravagant, Mr. 
 Williams adds, — "Pedobaplist authors shall furnish 
 
120 
 
 the proof;" that is, proof that the word baptizo, is 
 "universally rendered immerse." It is really an un- 
 pleasant task to have to expose the utter disregard 
 for truth which such unqualified and unfounded de- 
 clarations evince. It is wholly unnecessary for me 
 to inform any scholar that it is not true, that "uni- 
 versally both in classic and sacred authors, the word 
 haptizo is rendered immerse. Every school-boy that 
 has read the Greek testament, can refer to examples 
 which cover with shame such unguarded declara- 
 tions. The reader will observe, that the question is 
 not, whether the word haptizo is sometimes very pro- 
 perly rendered immerse, but, is it so rendered univer- 
 sally? Does it mean nothing else? In reply to such 
 interrogations, I have no hesitation in saying that 
 Mr. Williams is not sustained by the authority of 
 one solitary lexicographer of any reputation. And 
 it is a very easy matter to show, that he is condemn- 
 ed by the authorities he has so pompously paraded. 
 It would exhaust the patience of the reader, and 
 it would be a useless labor, were I to examine all the 
 authorities cited in the "Reply." A few of them 
 shall be noticed for the purpose of satisfying the 
 reader how unsafe it is to rely on the statements of 
 Mr. Williams. 
 
 He observes: "From the numerous lexicographers, 
 I shall only refer to Robinson's Lexicon, which is 
 the standard work in sacred interpretation; and Done- 
 gan's Lexicon, the standard work in classic study." 
 I think it will be news in the literary world, to hear 
 that those two Lexicons are the standards for the 
 interpretation of the Greek language! But let us 
 hear what the standards have to say. In the Greek 
 and- English Lexicon of Robinson, Boston edition of 
 1836, under the word Baptifeo, he gives first as the 
 
121 
 
 classical sense, the definition, "to immerse, to sink." 
 Then with regard to the meaning of the word in the 
 New Testament, with which only, we are concerned, 
 he gives as the first sense, "To wash, to cleanse by 
 washing." So much for Mr. Williams' first stand- 
 ard author, to prove that baptizo is "universally ren- 
 dered immerse.'''' 
 
 Let us in the next place, hear the testimony of 
 Donegan, Mr. Williams' "standard work in classic 
 study." Bapto, the theme from which baptizo is 
 derived, he defines, "to dip," "^o tvash" "to dye." 
 Baptizo, he defines, "to immerse," "to saturate," 
 to drench with vnne.''^ Now I suppose Mr. Williams 
 himself will admit, that the lovers of wine, with all 
 their fondness for the good creature, would not 
 choose to immerse themselves in it, but would much 
 rather pour it literally down their throats. And yet 
 Donegan, his standard authority, says that baptizo 
 means, "to drench with wine." »So much for Mr. 
 Williams' authorities to prove that baptizo means, 
 "to immerse and nothing else." 
 
 I would here remark, that Donegan is not consist- 
 ent with himself, in leaving out "to wash," among 
 the significations of baptizo, when he gives it as one 
 of the meanings of the root bapto. Scapula, Hede- 
 ricus, Schrevelius and Groves, any one of whom is 
 as good authority as Donegan, all concur in giving 
 "to wash," as one of the significations of baptizo. 
 
 After a particular reference to his two "standard 
 Lexicons," both of which testify against him, Mr. 
 Williams proceeds to "bring forward a few out of 
 hundreds of Pedobaptists, who contradict their own 
 practices." The reader will observe, that the Pastor 
 of the First Baptized Church of Pittsburgh is very 
 familiar with books. At one time he could quote 
 11 
 
122 
 
 'scores' of Pedobaptists, and then again 'hundreds;' 
 and what is better, all on his side of the question! 
 However, if the reader would submit to the trouble 
 of examining his references, he would discover that 
 if Mr. Williams has ever read the one-half of the 
 authors to whom he refers, he would need to read 
 them over again before he undertakes to say much 
 about them. The first of the "hundreds," whom he 
 could bring forward to testify in his favor, and to 
 prove that baptizo '■'universally'''' signifies to immerse, 
 is John Calvin; and we are referred to Calvin's "In- 
 stitutes, lib. 5, chap. 15, 'sect. 2." Now it so hap- 
 pens, that there are on\y four books in Calvin's In- 
 stitutes; and yet Mr. Williams has an extract from 
 the ffih book, which Calvin never wrote! Such a 
 writer need have no difficulty in proving any thing 
 which he chooses to establish. We have seen on a 
 former occasion, when his object was to invalidate 
 the testimony of Augustine, he called to his aid, the 
 acts of the council of Melo in Numedia; a council 
 of which nobody ever heard before! And now to 
 make it appear that the renowned Calvin sustains 
 him in the extravagant assertion that Baptizo means 
 immersion and nothing else, a book is ascribed to 
 this distinguished author which he never wrote! 
 Calvin admits, with all authors of any note, that 
 baptizo means to immerse; but neither he nor any 
 other author of established reputation, maintains, 
 that the word in question, means to "immerse and 
 nothing else." Calvin does indeed admit that bap- 
 tizo means to immerse; and he further admits that 
 immersion was the practice of the ancient church. 
 But he expressly says, "Whether the person who is 
 baptized be wholly immersed, and whether thrice or 
 once; or whether water be only poured or sprinkled 
 
123 
 
 upon him, is of no importance." Institutes, lib. 4, 
 chap. 15, sect. 19. I suppose the reader will admit, 
 that when Calvin is permitted to speak for himself, 
 he is very far from sustaining the dogmatical asser- 
 tion of Mr. VVilliams, that baptizo means, to "im- 
 merse and nothing else." 
 
 Another authority brought forward by Mr. Wil- 
 liams, is Bretschneider. In relation to this German 
 Neologist, he observes: "This writer is confessedly 
 the most critical lexicographer of the New Testa- 
 ment." What? The most critical lexicographer? 
 Why, sir, you told us a little before, that "Robinson's 
 Lexicon is the standard work in sacred interpreta- 
 tion." And now in the vast extent of your reading, 
 you have brought forward another author, who is 
 confessedly a more critical Lexicographer than the 
 standard work itself! 
 
 The reader is desired to attend to another profound 
 remark of our author in relation to his authorities. 
 "Indeed," says he, "the three New Testament lexi- 
 cographers, Schleusner, Wahl, and Bretschneider, 
 limit baptism as a sacred ordinance, to immersion." 
 "TAe three New Testament lexicographers!" Then 
 it appears there are three only, that deserve to be 
 mentioned. And yet, strange to tell, Robinson's lex- 
 icon, the "standard work," is not among the num- 
 ber! My dear sir! — did you not begin to write be- 
 fore you were ready? 
 
 The reader's indulgence is craved while I examine 
 one of these authorities, as a specimen of those 
 which are spread out in hostile array upon the pages 
 of the "Reply." Schleusner, is one of "the hun- 
 dreds" whom Mr. Williams could bring forward to 
 establish his position, that the word baptizo means to 
 "immerse and nothing else." Let this distinguished 
 Lexicographer, then, speak for himself. 
 
124 
 
 In his Lexicon, under the word baptizo, he gives 
 first, as the classical sense, "to immerse." And then 
 he adds, "It is never used in this sense in the New 
 Testament." And yet this is one of the "hundreds" 
 of authors on whom Mr. Williams relies, to prove 
 that the word baptizo, is "universally both in classic 
 and sacred authors, rendered immerse!" In the next 
 place, Schleusner gives as the first sense of the word 
 baptizo in the New Testament, "to wash, to cleanse." 
 And yet, Schleusner is one out of a countless multi- 
 tude of authors on v/hom Mr. Williams relies, to 
 prove that baptizo means "immersion and nothing 
 else." O Shame! where is thy blush? 
 
CHAPTER X. 
 
 EXAMPLES OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF BAPTISM, 
 IN WHICH THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE AGAINST 
 THE CLAIMS OF I3IMERSI0N. 
 
 Having shown that the words Baptize and Bap- 
 tism, as used in the New Testament, afford no sup- 
 port to the exclusive claims of immersion, the Lec- 
 tures proceed, in the next place, to examine some 
 particular examples of the administration of this sa- 
 cred rite by those whom our Lord commissioned to 
 preach the Gospel. And the conclusion to which 
 this examination leads us, is, that there is no in- 
 stance recorded in Scripture, in which the circum- 
 stances mentioned in connection with the adminis- 
 tration of the rite, require us to suppose that the or- 
 dinance was administered after the manner of im- 
 mersion; while there are examples in which all the 
 circumstances are in direct opposition to such a sup- 
 position. 
 
 The first instance of the administration of baptism 
 recorded in the history of the primitive church, is 
 found in the second chapter of the Acts of the Apos- 
 tles: "Then they that gladly received his word, 
 were baptized; and the same day there were added 
 to them about three thousand." The reader who 
 desires to come to the knowledge of the truth, is 
 requested to consider attentively the circumstances 
 connected with this case. 
 11* 
 
126 
 
 1. This vast multitude did not assemble for the 
 purpose of receiving baptism, — and consequently, 
 those previous preparations for administering and 
 receiving the ordinance, which are now common 
 where the rite is administered by immersion, could 
 not have been made. At the present day, when our 
 brethren are about to perform the rite of immersion, 
 they are careful to select a place where a suitable 
 supply of water is at hand; and the persons to be 
 immersed are provided with suitable apparel. But 
 in the case before us, none of the vast multitude had 
 come to the place where they assembled, with any 
 jexpectation of receiving baptism. The Holy Spirit 
 had just been poured out in a miraculous manner 
 upon the Apostles, so that they were immediately 
 qualified to preach the word in the different lan- 
 guages of the people of every nation then at Jerusa- 
 lem. The report of this wonderful fact being spread 
 throughout the city, "the multitude came together." 
 To the assembled multitude the apostle Peter preach- 
 ed the gospel. After giving us a summary of his 
 discourse, the historian adds, — "And with many 
 other words did he testify and exhort, saying, save 
 yourselves from this untoward generation." The 
 spirit of conviction was poured out upon them; and 
 in obedience to the divine direction, they professed 
 their subjection to the authority of Jesus Christ, by 
 the reception of baptism. Let it be particularly con- 
 sidered, that this multitude had not been previously 
 instructed in the principles of Christianity, so as to 
 assemble on this occasion, prepared to receive bap- 
 tism: and hence a considerable portion of time must 
 have been spent in communicating to them that in- 
 struction winch was necessary to enable them to 
 make an intelligent profession of their faith in Christ. 
 
127 
 
 Now when it is considered that this multitude had 
 not assembled for the purpose of receiving baptism, 
 and consequently cannot be supposed to have been 
 prepared to receive it by immersion; and when you 
 consider the time which must have been occupied in 
 instructing them in the knowledge of salvation thro' 
 Jesus Christ, and in the nature and obligations of 
 baptism, is it credible, that three thousand persons 
 could have been immersed during the remaining por- 
 tion of that day? 
 
 To extricate himself from this difficulty, Mr. Wil- 
 liams replies in the first place, that "the historian 
 does not say that they were baptized on that day." 
 But does he not say that which necessarily amounts 
 to the same thingi He soys that those "who gladly 
 received the word, were baptized; and the same day 
 there -were added to them about three thousand 
 souls." We must then either admit that the three 
 thousand were baptized on that day, — or otherwise, 
 admit that some were added to the fellowship of the 
 church, who did not "receive the word." 
 
 Perceiving himself, as it would appear, that this 
 answer would not satisfy any person possessed of 
 common sense, another effort is made to escape from 
 this perplexing difficulty. "If," says the "Reply," 
 "the work were divided between the seventy disci- 
 ples and twelve apostles of our Lord, there would 
 have been less than forty for each administrator." 
 "7f the work were divided!" Ahl but there lies the 
 difficulty. "J/*/" If we should grant every thing 
 which you find it necessary to suppose, you could 
 then establish the claims of immersion very conve- 
 niently. With regard to the seventy disciples, so far 
 as appears from the sacred history, their commission 
 was temporary. There is no evidence whatever, 
 
128 
 
 that they ever administered baptism as an ordinance 
 of the church of Christ. And no man may build an- 
 argument on a mere supposition without evidence. 
 The difficulty then remains in all its force; and no- 
 thing that the "Reply" has said, tends in any degree 
 to diminish its weight, much less to remove it. How 
 could such a multitude have been immersed, under 
 the circumstances of the case, in the space of time 
 in which these three thousand were baptized? The 
 ^question has often been asked, and still remains un- 
 answered. 
 
 2. But should it be granted that it is within the 
 limits of possibility, that such a multitude of persons 
 ■could have been immersed in the space of time in 
 which these three thousand were baptized, where 
 could a place be found in the city of Jerusalem, or 
 in its vicinity, in which such a number of persons 
 could be immersed? There was no flowing river or 
 running stream of any considerable size, in the 
 neighborhood of the scene. And if we should grant 
 what is altogether improbable, that the pools of the 
 city would have answered the purpose, is it to be 
 supposed that the inhabitants of Jerusalem, hostile to 
 Christianity as they were, would permit the pools 
 which furnished a supply of water for the city, to be 
 polluted by immersing in them such a multitude of 
 persons? Reader, if you will preserve your gravity, 
 I will give you Mr. Williams' answer to this ques- 
 tion. "In regard to polluting the pools," he says, 
 "Josephus attributes the healing virtues of the water 
 of Bethesda, to the entrails of animals brought to 
 the sheep-market near by this pool." So then it ap- 
 pears that a pool rendered filthy by means of "the 
 entrails of animals," would be an admirable place 
 for plunging men and women! Ah! pudet! pudet! 
 
129 
 
 But unfortunately for Mr. Williams, Josephus does 
 not mention the healing virtues of this pool at all, 
 much less does he attribute them to such a cause! 
 
 The Pastor of the First Baptized Church, of 
 Pittsburgh, is a great reader, and seems to be very 
 familiar with Doddridge. If he will refresh his 
 memory by looking into Doddridge, he will find that 
 the silence of Josephus in relation to the healing effi- 
 cacy of the waters of Bethesda, was a matter of 
 surprise to this distinguished writer.* 
 
 It appears then, that all the circumstances of the 
 case are against the supposition that this multitude 
 were immersed, while there is nothing in the lan- 
 guage of the historian, which conveys any allusion 
 to immersion. And here let me call the attention of 
 the reader to a very disingenuous remark of the 
 "Reply." "On the baptism at Jerusalem it is only 
 necessary further to say, that no historian thinks of 
 describing the attendant circumstances of any given 
 custom or rite, in their minutise, every time he refers 
 to it. He only deems it necessary to name it as he 
 sees it, after he has once or twice particularly de- 
 scribed the scene." The reader would at once sup- 
 pose from these words, that the sacred historian had 
 already in repeated instances, described the adminis- 
 tration of this ordinance. And yet every one who 
 has any knowledge of his Bible, knows that this is 
 the first example of the administration of baptism re- 
 corded in the history of the Christian Church. The 
 apostles had but a short lime before received their 
 commission to go and preach the gospel to every 
 creature; being directed at the same time to tarry in 
 Jerusalem, until they should be endued with power 
 
 * Expositor in Loco. 
 
130 
 
 from on high. Accordingly, the Spirit being poured 
 out upon them on the day of Pentecost, they began 
 to execute their Iiigh commission. "Then they that 
 gladly received the word were baptized; and the same 
 day there were added unto them about three thousand 
 souls." This then is the first instance of the admin- 
 istration of baptism, after the apostles received their 
 commission and were endued with power from on 
 high. And yet, there is not a single circumstance 
 mentioned, which conveys the remotest allusion to 
 immersion, while all the circumstances are unfavor- 
 able to the supposition that the rite was performed 
 by immersion. The apostles themselves, had just 
 been baptized by the Spirit, who had been poured out 
 on them. And, therefore, it is a natural conclusion, 
 that they baptized this multitude by pouring water 
 on them. 
 
 The baptism of the Jailer of Philippi, is next in- 
 troduced in the Lectures, as an example in which all 
 the circumstances are against the claims of immer- 
 sion. Paul and Silas having been imprisoned, the 
 Jailer who was strictly charged to keep them safely, 
 "thrust them into the inner prison and made their 
 feet fast in the stocks."* By an earthquake about 
 midnight, the foundations of the prison were shaken, 
 and immediately all the doors were opened. The 
 Jailer awaking out of sleep and seeing the doors of 
 the prison open, and supposing that the prisoners had 
 made their escape, was about to kill himself But 
 Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, "do thyself no 
 harm, for we are all here." By a remarkable display 
 of div,ine grace, the jailer was brought under the 
 power of conviction; and after he had been instruct- 
 
 * Acts 16: 24. 
 
131 
 
 ed in the way of salvation by these servants of the 
 Lord, "he took them the same hour of the night and 
 washed their stripes, and was baptized, he and all 
 his straightway." In this case, there is nothing men- 
 tioned which in any degree favors the supposition 
 that the jailer was immersed; while the circumstan- 
 ces, (this baptism being performed in a prison, and 
 at the hour of midnight,) are directly againsjt such 
 supposition. 
 
 Now, what does Mr. Williams say in reply] 
 "They were in the prison," the Dr. says. Luke 
 says, "they were brought out." Yes, but Luke does 
 not say, that they were brought out of the prison. 
 The jailer had "thrust them into the inner prison^ 
 and had made their feet last in the stocks." But 
 after the jailer had experienced conviction and desir- 
 ed to receive instruction, he brought Paul and Silas 
 out of the inner prison^ where their feet were made 
 fast in the stocks. But that they were not taken out 
 of the prison, is evident from the fact, that on the 
 following day, when the magistrates sent word to the 
 jailer to let them go, Paul and Silas refused to go out 
 of the prison, until the magistrates themselves came 
 and besought them to depart. Then they went out 
 of the prison. From the history then, it is evident, 
 that this baptism was performed in the prison; and it 
 is every way improbable that it was performed by im- 
 mersion. 
 
 The Lectures in the next place, notice other exam- 
 ples, in which it is alleged, that the circumstances 
 favor the claims of immersion. "John was baptiz- 
 ing in jfEnon near to Salim, because there was much 
 water there." John 4: 23. From this declaration 
 the advocates of immersion infer, that John selected 
 a place where there was much water, with reference 
 
132 
 
 to a particular manner of perfornning the rite of bap- 
 tism. This, however, is their inference; the history 
 itself says no such thing. The word baptizing, here 
 signifies not only the performing of the rite of bap- 
 tism, but, the exercise of his ministry, of which bap- 
 tism was a prominent part. John instructed those 
 who waited upon his ministry, and thus prepared 
 them for the reception of baptism. And that his 
 ministry was attended by vast multitudes, is express- 
 ly declared. "Then went out to him Jerusalem and 
 all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan." 
 A regard not only for the comfort, but even for the 
 safety of the vast multitudes who flocked together to 
 hear the preaching of John, rendered it necessary, in 
 that southern region, in which running water was 
 not every where to be found, that he should select 
 such a place for the exercise of his ministry, as that 
 which is here specified, no matter what may have 
 fceen the mode, according to which the rite of bap- 
 tism was performed. 
 
 The reader will here permit me to mention a fact, 
 which came under my own observation. In my 
 youth, I was once present at a Baptist association 
 at Bethany, in Edgefield District, South Carolina, 
 which is in about the same latitude with the place 
 where John exercised his ministry. The supply of 
 water at this place, was neither abundant, nor of a 
 good quality. The consequence was, that much in- 
 convenience was experienced by the brethren of the 
 Association, during the few days of their meeting; 
 and the complaint was loud and general that the place 
 had been injudiciously selected, because there was 
 not much water there. And those who are at all 
 acquainted with the state of things in the southern 
 part of our own country, know that when a place is 
 
133 
 
 to be selected for what is called a " Camp-meeting," 
 or other large assembly, one of the first inquiries is, 
 *'Is there a plentiful supply of good water?" 
 
 No inference then can with certainty be drawn 
 from this fact in the history of John's ministry, but 
 that he was a prudent and a merciful man, and con- 
 sulted the safety and comfort of his hearers in select- 
 ing a suitable place, where the multitudes might at- 
 tend upon his instructions. As to the manner in 
 which he performed the rite of baptism, this passage 
 of scripture says nothing. 
 
 The case of the Ethiopean eunuch is often appeal- 
 ed to, as though it were conclusive in support of the 
 claims of immersion. But after we have examined 
 with attention and care, the history of this case, all 
 that can be determined with certainty is, that Philip 
 baptized the eunuch. But in what manner the rite 
 was performed, cannot be determined with certainty; 
 and the inferences of men are likely to vary accord- 
 ing to their peculiar views. Every one acquainted 
 with the Greek language, knows that the 38th and 
 39th verses may with propriety be rendered, "they 
 went down both Jo the water," and "when they were 
 come up from the water." The man who will not 
 admit this, I do not hesitate to say, is either unac- 
 quainted with the language, or he is not honest. 
 Examples in which the prepositions are thus render- 
 ed, may be seen below.* And as Philip and the 
 eunuch were in the chariot, at the time when "they 
 came to a certain water," and the eunuch desired 
 baptism, it is extremely natural for the historian ta 
 say that they went down from the chariot to the wa- 
 ter. And as the eunuch after he was baptized, re- 
 
 * Acts 7 : 3, 4, and 8 : 40. John 20 : 3, 4, and 4 : 47. 
 12 
 
134 
 
 sumed his seat in his carriage, it is equally natural 
 to say that they went up from the water into the 
 chariot. There is, moreover, a circumstance men- 
 tioned, which furnishes ground for a plausible con- 
 jecture, that the eunuch was baptized by sprinkling. 
 In immediate connection with the passage of the pro- 
 phet, which the eunuch was reading when Philip 
 first drew near to him, we find these remarkable 
 words: "so shall he sprinkle many nations.'** These 
 are the only words in the context which can be re- 
 garded as having reference to baptism; and it is rea- 
 sonable to suppose that in explaining these words, 
 Philip took occasion to speak of baptism and of the 
 spiritual blessings represented by it. And hence the 
 eunuch's desire to receive baptism, when "they came 
 to a certain water." 
 
 In Mr. Williams' reply to this argument^ he gives 
 us another notable display of his extensive learning. 
 He says, "the Hebrew word rendered "sprinkle," in 
 the verse referred to, is almost invariably translated 
 elsewhere by astonish^ Almost invariably! 
 
 Now, Sir, you are caught! There is not a single 
 instance in all the Bible, in which the Hebrew word 
 is translated by ^^astonish." The word nazah, in its 
 different forms, is employed in the Hebrew bible not 
 less than twenty-three times, and instead of being 
 "almost invariably" translated by "astonish," it is 
 never in a solitary instance so translated, but is in- 
 variably translated by the English word sprinkle. 
 And now permit me to say, that the religious public 
 will expect of you some suitable apology for practis- 
 ing upon your readers such an imposition. While 
 you have much to say about Greek, and Hebrew, and 
 
 * Isaiah 52 : 15. 
 
135 
 
 German, and evidently wish to pass for a man of 
 extensive learning, you "almost invariably" display 
 something very different from critical knowledge 
 when you take a seat in the chair of Philology. 
 
 As the passage in Romans 6 : 1 — 4, might appear 
 to a superficial observer to give some countenance 
 to the claims of immersion, and as it probably has 
 more influence with the uninformed, than any other, 
 the Lectures have examined it with particular care. 
 And it is believed that any one who will inquire into 
 the meaning and design of the apostle, will be led to 
 the conclusion, that the manner of performing the 
 rite of baptism, was not then in his thoughts. It de- 
 serves particular attention, that before any argument 
 can be drawn from this portion of scripture, in favor 
 of immersion, we must take for granted that which 
 cannot be proved, and which, it is believed, is not 
 the fact — and that is, that the apostle in the passage 
 under consideration, refers to the mode of baptism. 
 But that it is to the spiritual meaning of baptism, and 
 not to the manner of performing the external rite, 
 seems conclusively evident from this consideration 
 alone, that the apostle does not speak of a burial by 
 baptism into water; but he says, " we are buried 
 with him by baptism into death.^'' It is not, then, 
 the external rite to which he refers, but the spirit- 
 ual meaning of the ordinance. It is not the outward 
 baptism with water, but that spiritual baptism into 
 Christ, by which we become one with him and are 
 interested in his death and resurrection, that the 
 apostle here speaks. And as baptism is significant 
 of our union to Christ, and of our consequent inte- 
 rest in his death and resurrection, we are said ia 
 figurative language, to be buried with Christ into 
 death, not into water. Since then there is no n,e.- 
 
136 
 
 cessity to suppose that the apostle refers to the man- 
 ner of performing the rite of baptism; and since such 
 a supposition tends to obscure if not destroy the 
 sense, we conclude that the assumption of the advo- 
 cates of immersion, is unfounded and improbable; 
 and that the claims of immersion, in so far as this 
 passage of scripture is concerned, stand upon a foun- 
 dation of sand. 
 
 The reply of Mr. Williams to the argument of the 
 Lectures on this portion of scripture, proves at least, 
 that he does not know how to meet it, and contains 
 nothing deserving of notice. 
 
 The reader is requested to attend to one other ex- 
 ample of baptism, which it is believed no one, from 
 reading the sacred history, would suppose was per- 
 formed after the manner of immersion. It is the 
 baptism of Saul of Tarsus.* After this remarkable 
 man was brought to a knowledge of the Savior and 
 was filled with the Holy Ghost, "immediately there 
 fell from his eyes as it had been scales, and he re- 
 ceived sight forthwith, and arose and was baptized." 
 It will be admitted by every candid mind, that in this 
 case at least, there is nothing which, in the remotest 
 degree, looks like immersion. Saul was in the house 
 of Judas, in the city of Damascus, when visited by 
 Ananias in obedience to divine direction. When 
 Ananias entered the house, he put his hands on him 
 and said, "Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus that 
 appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath 
 sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight and be 
 filled with the Holy Ghost." And immediately Saul 
 received sight, arose, and was baptized. He was 
 not travelling in a cHariot on the high-way, as was 
 
 * Acts 9:18. 
 
137 
 
 the Ethiopean eunuch» And therefore it is not said 
 that Saul and Ananias went down to the water, — 
 which in such a case is natural and appropriate. 
 But he was seated in the house, while Ananias was 
 standing before him. And what was done? Did 
 they go out of the house to some contiguous stream? 
 There is nothing like it mentioned. Saul, who was 
 sitting in the house, arose, and was baptized. How 
 natural is the language, on the supposition that Ana- 
 nias baptized Saul by pouring or sprinkling water 
 on him! But how many improbable "-/jTs," must the 
 advocate of the exclusive claims of immersion call 
 in to his aid, to extricate him from difficulty! 
 
 Let me conclude with two considerations, which 
 conclusively demonstrate that baptism by sprinkling 
 or pouring water on the person baptized, is a scrip- 
 tural mode of performing the rite. 
 
 1, The baptism of the Spirit is, in scripture, al- 
 ways described by pouring or sprinkling. The 
 baptism of water is external; the baptism of the 
 Spirit is that internal change in the heart which is 
 effected by divine power. The former is emblematic 
 of the latter. Since the internal baptism of the Spirit 
 is said to be effected by pouring or sprinkling, then 
 it is absolutely certain that the outward baptism, 
 which is emblematic of it, may be performed in a 
 scriptural manner by sprinkling. "I will pour wa- 
 ter upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry 
 ground: I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed and 
 my blessing upon thine offspring."* "Then will I 
 sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean 
 from all your filthiness, and from all your idols will 
 I cleanse yon. A new heart also will I give you, 
 
 * leaiah 44 ; 3. 
 12* 
 
138 
 
 and a new spirit will I put within you."* "Except 
 a nnan be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot 
 enter into the kingdom of God."f In this latter 
 passage we have a reference to the external baptism 
 with water, in the phrase, "Except a man be born 
 of water;" and also, to the inward baptism, of which 
 the Holy Spirit is the author, in the phrase, "born of 
 the Spirit." The Holy Spirit in his purifying and 
 refreshing influences, is represented under the em- 
 blem of water. And the communication of his influ- 
 ences to the soul, is represented under the idea of 
 sprinkling: "I will sprinkle clean water upon you." 
 Since then the baptism of the Spirit is represented 
 under the idea of sprinkling, the external rite of bap- 
 tism is performed scripturally by sprinkling. 
 
 2. The blood of Christ which cleanseth from sin, 
 and which is applied by the Holy Spirit to the heart 
 and conscience for the removal of moral pollution, 
 is termed " the blood of sprinkling;" and the appli- 
 cation of the blood of atonement is represented un- 
 der the idea of sprinkling. "We are come," says 
 the apostle, "to Jesus, the Mediator of the New 
 Covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that 
 speaketh better things than that of Abel."J "If the 
 blood of bulls ^nd of goats, and the ashes of an 
 heifer, spi'inkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the 
 purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the 
 blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit of- 
 fered himself to God, purge your consciences from 
 dead works, to serve the living God." Since, then, 
 the blood of atonement, of which the water of bap- 
 tism is significant, is termed the blood of sprink- 
 
 *Ezek. 36:25,26. tJohn 3:5. 
 
 • tHeb. 12:24, and 9:13, 14. 
 
139 
 
 ling; and since the application of its purifying vir- 
 tue to the conscience, is represented under the idea 
 of sprinkling; therefore, the application of the water 
 of baptism in the form of sprinkling, is at once a 
 simple, expressive and scriptural mode of perform- 
 ing the rite. 
 
 And now, dear reader, permit me affectionately 
 to take my leave of you, by calling your attention 
 to the great importance of the truth, that in Jesus 
 Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor 
 uncircumcision, but a new creature. It is to be 
 feared that many place that reliance upon the exter- 
 nal rite, which ought to be founded exclusively upon 
 the atonement of Jesus Christ; and deceive them- 
 selves by imagining that, if they have been baptized 
 in the way which they consider proper, all will be 
 well. But I need not inform the intelligent christian, 
 that the baptism of water, no matter what may be 
 the manner in which the water has been applied, 
 will be of no avail, unless we are partakers of the 
 baptism of the Spirit. The ordinance of God should 
 not indeed be undervalued, much less should it be 
 despised. But let no one look to the water of bap- 
 tism for that purification from sin, which can be ef- 
 fected only by the blood of atonement, applied by 
 the Holy Spirit. And may you, dear reader, be 
 saved according to the mercy of God, by the wash- 
 ing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 
 poured out on you abundantly, through Jesus Christ 
 our Savior. — Amen. 
 
A BRIEF CATECHISM ON THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Q. What do you understand by the mode of 
 baptism? 
 
 A. It is the manner of performing the external 
 rite. 
 
 Q. Is there a propriety in using the phrase, the 
 mode of baptism? 
 
 A. There is manifestly. For if the ordinance is 
 administered at all, the external rite must be per- 
 formed after some manner. 
 
 Q. What are the conflicting views, with regard 
 to the mode of baptism? 
 
 A. They may be reduced to two. The one main- 
 tains that it is essential to the validity of baptism, 
 that the body be immersed in water: the other main- 
 tains that baptism is administered in a scriptural 
 manner by affusion or sprinkling. 
 
 Q. Does not the word translated baptize^ deter- 
 mine that the rite must be performed by immer- 
 sion? 
 
 A. It does not. For though one of the significa- 
 tions of the word, is, to immerse; and though ac- 
 cording to classic usage this is its predominant 
 meaning, yet the word has other significations; and 
 therefore it is a question to be determined by a refe- 
 rence to the New Testament, — In what sense is the 
 
142 
 
 word to be taken, when applied to a christian ordi- 
 nance? 
 
 Q. Why should not prevailing classic usage de- 
 termine the meaning of the word baptize, in its ap- 
 plication to Christian baptism? 
 
 A. Because the classic authors of pagan antiqui- 
 ty do not use the word with reference tp that ordi- 
 nance. As the writers of the New Testament em- 
 ploy the term in reference to a new institution, it is 
 reasonable to suppose that they would use it in a pe- 
 culiar sense. 
 
 Q. Do not Lexicographers of established reputa- 
 tion, generally give, as one of the significations of 
 the word, "to wash?" 
 
 A. They do. Scapula, Hedericus, Schrevilius, 
 Groves, and the Lexicons generally, may be refer- 
 red to as examples. 
 
 Q. How does it appear that the word baptize, 
 when used in reference to the ordinance of baptism, 
 signifies, to wash? 
 
 A. Because this is the only signification of the 
 word, which corresponds with the meaning and de- 
 sign of baptism. 
 
 Q. Of what is baptism significant? 
 
 A. It signifies spiritual washing, or cleansing 
 from sin. Acts 22 ; 16. 
 
 Q. Of what is the water in baptism emblematic? 
 
 A. It is an emblem of the purifying virtue of the 
 blood of Jesus, applied by the Holy Ghost. 1 John 
 1 : 7;— John 3:5. 
 
 Q. In what manner then should the water in bap- 
 tism be applied to the body? 
 
 A. It should be applied in such a manner, as, ac- 
 cording to scripture usage, is significant of washing 
 or cleansing. And as the blood of Christ is termed 
 
143 
 
 the blood of sprinkling, (Heb 12 : 24;) and as the le- 
 gal purifications were to a great extent performed by- 
 sprinkling, (Numb. 8:7, and 19 : 18— Heb. 9 : 13;) 
 and as the influences of the Holy Spirit are said to be 
 communicated by sprinkling, (Isaiah 44 : 3, — Ezek. 
 36 : 25 — 28;) therefore, the application of water in 
 baptism by sprinkling, is both scriptural and signifi- 
 cant of the design of the ordinance. 
 
 Q. Is there any truth in the assertion that the word 
 baptize, signifies to immerse, and nothing else? 
 
 A. The assertion is palpably false. The apostles 
 were baptized with the Holy Ghost when the Spirit 
 was poured out on them: (Acts 1: 5, compared with 
 2 : 17.) The Israelites were baptized in the sea, 
 and yet they walked on dry land in the midst of the 
 sea, and the waters were a wall unto them on their 
 right hand and on their left: (Exod. 14:29, compar- 
 ed with 1 Cor. 10:2.) 
 
 Q. As the baptism of the Spirit, of which the 
 baptism of water is emblematic, is said to be perform- 
 ed by pouring or sprinkling, are not ihey baptized in 
 a scriptural manner, on whom the water is poured or 
 sprinkled? 
 
 A. They are baptized in a scriptural manner. 
 
 Q. Is there an example of baptism recorded in the 
 New Testament, in which it is said that the person 
 was immersed ? 
 
 A. There is not one; nor is there a single instance 
 in which it can be made appear from the circumstan- 
 ces mentioned, that there was an immersion. 
 
 Q. What do you say of the case of the eunuch, 
 recorded in Acts, 8th chapter? 
 
 A. Philip baptized the eunuch, but in what way 
 we are not told. They may have stepped into the 
 edge of the water, and Philip may have taken up 
 
144 
 
 some water in his hand and sprinkled it on the 
 eunuch; or, which is more probable, they may have 
 gone down to the water without entering it at all. 
 However, the sacred history does not say that Philip 
 immersed the eunuch, but that he baptized him. 
 
 Q. What do you say of the passage in Romans 
 6 : 3, 4? 
 
 A. It determines nothing at all with regard to the 
 mode of baptism, because it cannot be proved that 
 the apostle alludes to the mode of baptism. He does 
 not speak of a burial in water, but of being "buried 
 with Christ, by baptism into death. It is, therefore, 
 not to ihe mode of baptism, but to the spiritual mean- 
 ing of the ordinance, that the apostle refers. 
 
 Q. What should be the object of our great con- 
 cern, with regard to baptism? 
 
 A. Not that the water of baptism should be ap- 
 plied to the body in this way, or in that way, but 
 to see that we are partakers of the baptism of the 
 Holy Spirit. In Christ Jesus neither circumcision 
 availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new 
 creature* 
 

 /-■• 
 
,-v^