-NRLF 
 
 Ibb Q7b 
 
 ill 
 
 wfiiii 
 ill 
 
LIBRARY 
 
 OP THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. 
 
 GIFT 
 
 Mrs. SARAH P. WALS WORTH. 
 
 Received October, 1894. 
 Accessions No. S^J Class No. 
 

 
 
REFUTATION 
 
 SUNDRY BAPTIST ERRORS, 
 
 PARTICULARLY AS THEY ARE SET FORTH IN A RECENT WORK 
 
 REV. J. J. WOOLSEY, 
 
 AND IN THE 
 
 THIRD ANNUAL REPORT OF THE AM. AND FOR. BIBLE SOCIETY. 
 
 BY EDWIN HALL, 
 
 PASTOR OF THE FIRST CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH, NORWALK, CT, 
 
 NORWALK, CT. 
 
 PUBLISHED BY JOHN A. WEED. 
 NEW YORK: 
 
 OOULD, NEWMAN, AND SAXTONJ AND 
 ROBINSON, PRATT, AND CO. 
 
 .841. 
 
 .../fifr okm.: 
 
Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1841, by 
 
 EDWIN HALL 5 
 
 in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States, for 
 the District of Connecticut. 
 
 3- W. BENED1C7, PRINTER, 128 FULTON'ST, 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Page 
 
 Classic Greek and the Greek of the New Testament. 7 
 The intent and bearing of the discussion concerning 
 
 the Classic use and the New Testament use. . . 16 
 
 The question brought to an issue. .... 17 
 
 The evidence conclusive 23 
 
 The conclusion further corroborated 23 
 
 Mr. Judd on Mark vii. 4 24 
 
 Mr. Carson on Mark vii. 4. 26 
 
 Mr. Woolsey's choice of alternatives. ... 27 
 
 The Baptists at war with each other. ... 27 
 
 George Campbell on Mark vii. 4 and Luke xi. 38. . 29 
 
 Professor Ripley on Mark vii. 4 and Luke xi. 38. ; 31 
 
 The conclusion. . . . .'""" . \ -''('.' . 36 
 
 Baptist Missionary translations. . '..-. . 37 
 
 The proof cumulative. 4 ' . . . 41 
 
 Scriptural idea of Baptism. . .. ... 43 
 
 Our English translators and our common English Bible. 49 
 Defining the word Baptize. .' . . , . 54 
 Translating the word Baptize. . , . . 57 
 No new thing to transfer peculiar words from one lan- 
 guage to another . . 61 
 
 To transfer the word Baptize into foreign languages 
 
 neither teaches error nor conceals the truth. . . 64 
 
 Martin Luther's version. . '. . ^ t . . 71 
 
 The Peshito-Syriac version. . > .- ' ;f . . 75 
 
 Dutch, Danish, and Swedish versions. ' *T . '""'".'* 77 
 
 The Vulgate ; . ;. 79 
 
 Strange representations. . . * . . .^ - * 82 
 
 John Bunyan. .. t*- . V f 86 
 
IV CONTENTS. 
 
 Page 
 
 Misstatement of the argument for Infant Baptism, 
 
 Quotation from Dr. Miller 89 
 
 Quotation from Dr. Woods. ..... 94 
 
 Quotation from Baxter 96 
 
 Claim to confidence on the score of quotations from 
 
 Pedobaptist authors. 97 
 
 Choice of witnesses 99 
 
 Abuse of Infant Baptism 100 
 
 Infant Baptism and the right of private judgment. . 101 
 Infant Baptism and Socinianism. .... 109 
 The conclusion of Mr. Woolsey's argument. . . Ill 
 Claims of Baptists not to belong to the Protestant- 
 family 112 
 
 The Assembly of Divines. . . . . .114 
 
 The American Bible Society 118 
 
 Liberality of Baptists with regard to foreign missionary 
 
 translators 126 
 
 Female communion. 135 
 
 The Christian Sabbath 139 
 
 Terms of Christian union. 143 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 THE following work is designed to be what its title im- 
 ports A Refutation of Sundry Baptist Errors. I have fol- 
 lowed Woolsey on Baptism and the Third Report of the 
 American and Foreign Bible Society mainly as text-books of 
 errors and representations, which, if they do not often appear 
 in print under responsible names, are yet, in one shape or ano- 
 ther, almost everywhere to be met. 
 
 For some time after Mr. Woolsey's book appeared, though 
 it originated here, and though I observed its errors and mis- 
 statements, it was not my intention to task myself with the 
 labor of refuting it. Had it been suffered to take its natural 
 course of circulation from the bookseller's shop, it might, for 
 me, have pursued its course without molestation. But when 
 it was industriously thrust into our families which sought it 
 not ; when apparently no effort was spared to undermine the 
 faith of our people, and to draw away our youth and children 
 from the old paths in which their fathers have walked in this 
 place since the days of the Pilgrims now two hundred years 
 I deemed it my duty in which I could not fail, and be faith- 
 ful to the people whom I serve in the ministry, to the truth, 
 and to God, to stand in the defence. 
 
 If I have unveiled the errors of that book, and exposed its 
 1 
 
. 
 
 . 
 
 Vi ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 misrepresentations, it has been not for the purpose of attack, 
 but of defence. I think it will be judged that I have done it 
 with as much kindness as justice to the truth allowed. I 
 have defended what I solemnly and unwaveringly believe to be 
 the truth and the ordinance of God. It was a labor which I 
 desired not, and in which I found no pleasure, save the con- 
 sciousness of laboring in the discharge of duty. I felt it in- 
 cumbent on me to bestow some labor, that the people of God 
 may be sound in the faith, and steadfast in his ordinances ; 
 not children, tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine. 
 
 With greater pleasure than I began the work, I now take 
 my leave of it : fully purposing, to do as I have hitherto 
 done, to have nothing more to do with controversy, unless it 
 shall very clearly appear to be my duty. 
 
 THE AUTHOR. 
 
CLASSIC GREEK AND THE GREEK OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 ON page 123 of his work, Mr. Woolsey says, " The 
 number of Pedobaptists are comparatively few, who will 
 hazard their reputation, both as scholars and Christians, by 
 the bold and sweeping assertion that Classic Greek has 
 nothing to do in fixing the meaning and declaring the 
 sense of the Greek of the New Testament." " Such an 
 assertion," he says, " may answer the end for which it is 
 intended ; and for a time bewilder the unsuspecting in- 
 quirer after truth. But when such are informed that 
 many passages of the New Testament are written in the 
 most pure Greek, and the greater portion of the words 
 are employed in precisely the sense as when found in 
 classic authors, they will withdraw their confidence from 
 such guides as would fain make them believe that Scrip- 
 ture interpretation has nothing to do with the usage of 
 words as found in the best Greek authors." "I very 
 much regret, however," says he, p. 124, "that there 
 should be any in this enlightened day, holding on to sen- 
 timents, in support of which they find it necessary to deny 
 the very close affinity which subsists between the Greek 
 
8 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 of the New Testament and that of classic authors." " Such 
 a scheme to support sprinkling for baptism is of very re- 
 cent invention, and can be but of short duration. The 
 more pious and judicious, if learned, can never be drawn 
 on to ground so untenable and injurious to all philological 
 inquiries." 
 
 I have marked several words in these quotations with 
 italics, for the purpose of calling the attention of the 
 reader to what I consider a very grievous misrepresen- 
 tation. 
 
 Mr. Woolsey is perfectly right in saying that " The 
 number of Pedobaptists " is comparatively small, " who 
 will hazard their reputation by the bold and sweeping 
 assertion that classic Greek has nothing to do in fixing 
 the meaning and declaring the sense of the Greek of the 
 New Testament." 
 
 The truth is, no Pedobaptist has made such an asser- 
 tion. No Pedobaptist has " denied the very close affinity 
 which subsists between the Greek of the New Testament 
 and that of classic authors. No Pedobaptist has ever de- 
 nied that " the GREATER PORTION of the words are em- 
 ployed in precisely the sense as when found in classic 
 authors." 
 
 That the language of the New Testament is Greek, and 
 that there subsists between the Greek of the New Testa- 
 ment and that of classic Greek authors a "very close 
 affinity," both in the construction of phrases and in the 
 use of the main body of words, no one has, to my know- 
 ledge, ever denied or doubted. And yet, nothing is more 
 uniformly agreed upon among the " judicious and pious 
 and learned," than that in many respects the New Testa- 
 ment differs from the classic Greek, not only in the con- 
 struction of phrases, but also in the meaning of many and 
 very important words. Hence our learned and elaborate 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 
 
 Lexicons of the peculiar New Testament Greek. Hence, 
 in cases of doubt as to the meaning of a word, the New 
 Testament use, where it can be shown to be peculiar, 
 determines the meaning in defiance of all the classic 
 Greek writers and lexicons in existence. And this is by 
 no means a " recent invention." Says Professor Robin- 
 son, in his preface to his Lexicon of the New Testament, 
 " A Lexicon of the New Testament, at the present day, 
 presupposes the fact, that the language of the New Testa- 
 ment exhibits in many points a departure from the idiom 
 of the Attic Greek. This great question, which so long 
 agitated the learned philologists of Europe, would seem at 
 present to be put entirely at rest." The plan of his lexi- 
 con, he says, is, " In defining words, those significations 
 are placed first which accord with Greek usage ;" " Then 
 follow those significations which depart from Greek usage, 
 and which are either to be illustrated from the Greek of 
 the Septuagint, as compared with the Hebrew, OR DEPEND 
 SOLELY ON THE usus LOQUENDi" (customary use of words,) 
 " OF THE NEW TESTAMENT writers" 
 
 Dr. George Campbell,* whom our Baptist brethren are 
 fond of complimenting as one of the most finished Greek 
 scholars of modern times, maintains that many of the 
 idioms of the New Testament Greek would not have been 
 more intelligible to a classic Greek author, than Arabic or 
 
 * When I speak of Campbell, in the following pages, it will of 
 course be understood that I mean not the American Campbell, 
 the founder of the sect of the Campbellites, but the late learned Dr. 
 George Campbell, Principal of the Marischal College, Aberdeen ; 
 author of a translation (not the Campbellite translation,) of the 
 Four Gospels, wiih Preliminary Dissertations. Dr. Campbell was 
 not a Baptist, though in an important respect he favored their 
 views. 
 
 1* 
 
10 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 Persian. " Take," says he, " the two following for exam- 
 ples. OVK a6vvarri<rei *apa rco 0ew irav pripa, Lllke i. 37 J and 
 
 OVK av co-coe/j ifaffa <pl Matt. xxiv. 22." (In English, " With 
 God nothing shall be impossible ;" and " There should no 
 flesh be saved.") " These passages in the New Testament 
 Greek are," says Campbell, " phrases which, in my appre- 
 hension, would not have been more intelligible to a Greek 
 author than Arabic or Persian would have been." *V for 
 thing, and OVK for no one, or none ; oa-pt for person, &c., 
 would to him, I suspect, have proved insurmountable ob- 
 stacles." * * " This," says he, " is but a small speci- 
 men not the hundredth part of what might be produced 
 on this subject." (Prelim. Discourse I., vol. i. p. 30.) 
 
 "It is true," says Campbell, (Prelim. Dis. I., Part 2,) 
 " that as the New Testament is written in Greek, it must 
 be of consequence that we be able to enter critically into 
 the ordinary import of the words of that tongue." " But 
 from what has been observed, it is evident, that though in 
 several cases this knowledge may be eminently useful, it 
 will not suffice ; nay, in many cases it will be of little or 
 no significancy." " Classical use, both in Greek and in 
 Latin, is not only, in this study, sometimes unavailable, 
 but MAY EVEN MISLEAD. The sacred use and the classical 
 
 ARE OFTEN VERY DIFFERENT."* 
 
 * Since these sheets were prepared for the press, the Biblical 
 Repository, for April, 1841, has been published, containing an arti- 
 cle on " The Bible and its Literature, 11 by Professor Edward Ro- 
 binson. In this article Professor Robinson says, " The language 
 of the New Testament is the later Greek, as spoken by foreigners 
 of the Hebrew stock, and applied by them to subjects on which it 
 had never been employed by native Greeks. After the disuse of the 
 ancient Hebrew in Palestine, and the irruption of Western con- 
 querors, the Jews adopted the Greek language from necessity ; 
 
.. -^jj^^v 
 BAPTIST ERRORS. 11 
 
 I shall attempt to show, hereafter, (when I come to an 
 examination of Mark vii. 4, and Luke ii. 38,) how even 
 Campbell has been palpably and demonstrably misled by 
 trusting to the ordinary classic sense of Baptizo, rather 
 than to the sacred use of the word in the New Testament. 
 
 I have already noticed (in my published discourses,) 
 how the Baptist Bible Society have been in like manner 
 misled with regard to " angel" one of the words which 
 they set down in the glossary which they prefix to their 
 editions of the New Testament. That glossary would 
 teach us to consider the peculiar infidelity of the Saddu- 
 cees (Acts xxiii. 8,) to consist in denying that there is any 
 such thing as a messenger instead of denying the exist- 
 ence of angels. Carry out the principle of their glossary, 
 and the passage must read, " For the Sadducees say there 
 is no rising up, neither messenger ', nor wind" The il- 
 lustration might have been carried out in scores of exam- 
 ples. Thus, according to the Baptist Bible Society, John 
 v. 4, must be read, " For a messenger went down at a cer- 
 tain season into the pool, and troubled the water." In 
 
 partly as a conquered people, and partly from intercourse of life, of 
 commerce, in colonies, in cities, founded like Alexandria and others, 
 which were peopled with throngs of Jews. It was, therefore, the 
 spoken language of ordinary life which they learned, not the classic 
 style of books which have elsewhere come down to us. But they 
 spoke it as foreigners, whose native tongue was the later Aramean; 
 and it therefore could not fail to acquire upon their lips a strong 
 Semitic character and coloring. When to this we add, that they 
 spoke in Greek on the things of the true God, and the relations of 
 mankind to Jehovah and to a Savior subjects to which no native 
 Greek had ever applied his beautiful language, it will be obvious 
 that an APPEAL MERELY TO CLASSIC GREEK AND ITS PHILOLOGY, WILL 
 
 NOT SUFFICE FOR THE INTERPRETER OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. The 
 
 Jewish-Greek must be studied almost as an independent dialect, 
 
 

 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 Acts xi. 13, we must read, " And showed us how he had 
 seen a messe?iger in his house :" Acts xii. 15, " Then 
 said they, it is his" (Peter's) "messenger:" Matt. iv. 11, 
 " Then the devil leaveth him, and behold messengers 
 came and ministered to him :" Matt, xviii. 10, " Their 
 messengers do always behold the face of my Father in 
 heaven :" 1 Cor. vi. 3, " Know ye not, that we shall judge 
 messengers ?" Heb. i. 4, " Being made so much better 
 than the messengers :" Heb. ii. 16, " He took not on him 
 the nature of messengers :" and Heb. xiii. 2, "For some 
 have entertained messengers unawares." Such " effulgent 
 light" does the Baptist Glossary shed over the pages of 
 the sacred word. Who will not henceforth trust that 
 glossary for the meaning of the word baptize 1 
 
 The word Church, in like manner, our Baptist brethren 
 have, by their glossary, interdicted from the New Testa- 
 ment, and directed us to read in its stead " Assembly,' ' 
 which was the sole meaning of the word ^ K \t<n^ (ekklesia,) 
 in classic Greek. The pagan Greeks, like all other pa- 
 gans, were entire strangers to the very idea involved in 
 the word church ; and of course, when their old word was 
 applied to a new idea, it must have a new meaning. But 
 our Baptist brethren determine, that our Lord and his 
 apostles shall not express any thing more by the word than 
 the old pagan idea. There shall be no peculiar polity 
 such as is meant by an organized church : there shall be 
 only a " congregation" or an " assembly" spoken of in 
 the word of God. Mr. Woolsey maintains that our trans- 
 lators foisted in the word church " to support an ecclesias- 
 tical establishment" (p. 93) ; and thereupon quotes Home 
 Tooke to show that the very word " church" is " a most 
 wicked one, whose misinterpretation caused more slaugh- 
 ter and pillage of mankind, than all the other cheats to- 
 gether." According to the Baptist Bible Society, the 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 13 
 
 passage in 1 Cor. xii. 28, must be read, " And God hath 
 set some in the assembly first apostles, secondarily pro- 
 phets," &c. But what assembly is here spoken of, in the 
 simple sense of ASSEMBLY \ . Does not the apostle intend 
 the whole universal polity of Christ's peculiar people on 
 earth, of which our only word that expresses the true idea 
 is the word church ? So Eph. i. 22, " And gave him the 
 head over all things to the church" would be robbed of 
 its meaning were we to read it " Head over all things to 
 the assembly." So in Eph. iii. 10, our translation ex- 
 presses the only true meaning, when it says, " To the in- 
 tent now, that unto the principalities and powers in 
 heavenly places, might be known by the church, the mani- 
 fold wisdom of God." 
 
 Are our Baptist brethren in sober earnest, fighting 
 against the very idea involved in the words " Church," 
 " The Church of God," as an unscriptural idea, not in- 
 tended or expressed by any word or words in Holy Writ 1 
 Is it then true, that there is no such idea in the New Tes- 
 tament as that involved in the word church, an idea 
 which is truly expressed by no other word than the word 
 church; or are our brethren covering up and concealing 
 that idea, by paring the meaning of the word ekklesia in 
 the Holy Scriptures, down to the nude idea of a simple 
 assembly or town meeting 1 
 
 Is it true that Christ has no such thing as that which we 
 have been accustomed to understand by the word church / 
 or has the word ekklesia changed its meaning upon being 
 adopted into the New Testament Greek 1 What do our 
 brethren mean I Is it " slaughter" " pillage," " cheat," 
 to talk about such a thing as a Baptist " Church V Why, 
 I find in the constitution of the American and Foreign 
 Bible Society, that the " Board of Managers" shall " con- 
 sist of thirty-six brethren in good standing in Baptisi 
 
14 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 CHURCHES !" And even Mr. Woolsey's book is published 
 by special request of the " Norwalk Baptist CHURCH." 
 Mr. Woolsey talks about "the Church" being " torn asun- 
 der by infant baptism." Does he simply mean that the 
 Assembly is torn asunder] What assembly! Indeed, 
 what do our brethren mean ? Are they seeking " to unite 
 church and state 1 Are they laying plans for " slaughter" 
 and " pillage" and " cheats," by so constant a use of this 
 "wicked" word, church; or is all this ado about the 
 word, and their proscription of it, in their glossary, mere 
 talk and idle pretence : a mere diversion, whose true ob- 
 ject is to find some company for that poor banished word, 
 baptize ; lest it should stand too naked in the glossary, and 
 indicate their editions of the New Testament to be a mere 
 Sectarian Baptist book 1 What is the true reason why 
 our brethren insist upon making the Bible itself proscribe 
 and banish that hapless word, Church, while they still 
 continue to use it in relation to a thing which, if it has no 
 scriptural foundation, is an arrant fraud upon the Christian 
 world 1 
 
 The change of meaning in many words of the Greek 
 language, upon adapting it to the ideas and observances of 
 a revealed religion, was a matter of necessity : and that 
 aside from the natural influence of the Hebraic idiom. 
 Carry the Gospel into China or Hindoostan or among the 
 tribes of our American Indians , it brings them a multitude 
 of ideas which are peculiar to revealed religion. To ex- 
 press these ideas, the old words of their language must receive 
 a new meaning; or they must coin new words ; or they 
 must adopt words from the language of those who brought 
 them the new religion, or from some other quarter.* 
 
 * Said DAVID BRAINERD, "There are no words in the Indian 
 language to answer to our English words, Lord, Savior, salvation, 
 sinner, justice, condemnation, faith, adoption, glory, with scoresof 
 like importance." 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 
 
 15 
 
 If, instead of a new religion, a new language is car- 
 ried among a people professing the true religion, the words 
 of that new language receive a new meaning, the moment 
 they are applied to the religious ideas and observances to 
 which the language was before a stranger. Carry any 
 heathen language into a Gospel land, or into a land of 
 Hebrew rites, and of Hebrew ideas concerning the true 
 God and revealed religion ; and it is impossible that the 
 meaning of such words as are applied to these new ideas 
 should not be even more changed, than is the idiom of 
 the language in the construction of phrases. Such is the 
 fact with regard to the New Testament Greek as compar- 
 ed with the classic, or even with the common dialect 
 which prevailed after the conquests of Alexander. 
 
 Mr. Woolsey thinks he brings this subject " within the 
 comprehension of every child," by referring to the 
 " Irish-English" of an " Irishman, after having become 
 acquainted with our language and able to speak it with 
 fluency, yet you can detect them using phrases and words 
 peculiar to their own vernacular tongue, and dissimilar to 
 ours." This by no means meets the case, but is calculated 
 entirely to mislead. The Irishman has religious ideas, to a 
 great extent, in common with us. An African or an In- 
 dian might learn our language, and yet speak it in a man- 
 ner peculiar to themselves. But what would be the effect 
 upon their own language, when the Christian religion has 
 been once completely established among them ] New 
 ideas fill the mind of the benighted pagan ; and lift up his 
 thoughts to angels to heaven to God. He thinks of re- 
 demption, of faith, of holiness. His thoughts, his hopes, 
 his intellect, his heart, all are wonderfully transformed. 
 " Old things pass away : all things become new." Are 
 his lips sealed 1 Is he dumb 1 Are African converts never 
 to speak to each other of the kingdom of God 1 The 
 
16 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 words of their language remaining the same, and applied 
 to these new and wonderful ideas, is their meaning the 
 same 1 Is the whole change expressed by referring to 
 the brogue of an Irishman whose mother tongue was 
 Irish-English, and whose ideas have never changed from 
 pagan to Christian 1 
 
 That such was the effect of adapting the pagan Greek 
 language to the Christian religion, any one may see, who 
 will sit down patiently and turn over the leaves of a Lexi- 
 con of the New Testament, which adequately discrimi- 
 nates and marks the transition. 
 
 Indeed, why do I put myself to the trouble of this 
 protracted argument 1 Mr. Woolsey has himself admitted 
 all that any Pedobaptist has ever asserted or desired to 
 prove on this subject. When he says, (p. 123,) " But 
 when such are informed, that many PASSAGES are written 
 in the most pure Greek, and that the GREATER PORTION of 
 the words are employed precisely in the sense as when 
 found in classic authors 5" he grants, that some passages 
 are written not in the pure Greek construction ; and that 
 some portion of the words is not used *' in the sense as 
 when found in the classic Greek authors." This is all 
 that has been claimed ; this is all I want. 
 
 THE INTENT AND BEARING OF THIS DISCUSSION CONCERNING 
 THE CLASSIC USE, AND THE NEW TESTAMENT USE. 
 
 The sole intent of all this discussion about the classic 
 use, and the New Testament use, is to show that the word 
 Baptize in the New Testament may have left its primary 
 classic signification, and have received a GENERIC, SACRED 
 use, equivalent to WASHING or PURIFYING, without the least 
 reference to the mode in which that " washing of water" 
 is performed. Whether this be the fact or not, is to be 
 learned not from the Greek classics, but from the New 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 17 
 
 Testament itself. As to this matter of fact, Mark and 
 Luke and Paul are better witnesses concerning what they 
 themselves understood by the word baptize, than Xeno- 
 phon, Aristotle, or than even that Hebrew of Hebrews, 
 the Jewish Josephus, when he is using the word in the 
 sense of the Greek classics, with no reference to its sacred 
 use as applied to a religious ordinance. 
 
 Will any Baptist make an issue on this point; and 
 maintain that Apostles and Evangelists are not to be heard 
 in evidence 1 Will any Baptist maintain that Evangelists 
 and Apostles may not explain their own meaning in just 
 the same way that heathen Greeks may explain theirs 1 
 Will any Baptist maintain, that where the testimony of 
 the New Testament writers differs from that of the hea- 
 then Greeks, the New Testament witness is not to be 
 heard before any heathen, and before all the the heathen 
 classics together'? In fine, the question here is, 
 Is the Holy Ghost a competent and credible witness as to 
 the sense in which the Holy Ghost uses the word baptize 1 
 If our Baptist brethren raise no issue on this question, then, 
 I think, I can show beyond reasonable doubt, that 
 
 " God is his own interpreter, 
 And he has made it plain," 
 
 that baptism is not equivalent to immersion, in the word of 
 God. 
 
 THE QUESTION BROUGHT TO AN ISSUE. 
 
 In Mark i. 9, it is written, " that Jesus came from Naz- 
 areth of Galilee, and WAS BAPTIZED of John in Jordan." 
 In the original Greek the word for "was baptized" is 
 ipmtrioVn (ebaptisthe), [\et the form of the word be par- 
 ticularly noticed.] Mr. Woolsey insists, p. 140, 142, 
 that we shall translate this " was IMMERSED of John in 
 2 
 
18 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 Jordan." He says, p. 143, " He who can resist the force 
 of these scriptures, as teaching the immersion of Jesus in 
 Jordan, must be under the controlling power of igno- 
 rance, of pride, or of prejudice, or of some other influ- 
 ence extraneous to the spirit of Christianity." It is not 
 with the charity of this remark, nor with the argument 
 contained in it, that I have here to do ; but simply to call 
 the attention of the reader to Mr. Woolsey's firm assur- 
 ance, that the word spaim^ (ebaptisthe, a form of the 
 v verb baptizo,) can and must be translated " was IMMERSED." 
 He says, p. 69, " Baptize can be literally and EXPLICITLY 
 translated into any language, which has the words im- 
 merse, dip, or plunge, or words equivalent to these." 
 " Yea more," says he, p. 70, " I have diligently examined 
 baptize, as to its being capable of a translation ; I have 
 weighed the arguments which some few have urged 
 against its translation ; and it is my most deliberate con- 
 clusion, that no word in the Greek Testament can be 
 more easily expressed in English." (He means, ex- 
 pressed by the English word immerse.) He says, p. 131, 
 " In respect to the word baptize, it always and invariably 
 is used in the sense to immerse, whether in classic or 
 sacred Greek." In common with his Baptist brethren, 
 he breaks forth with the utmost vehemence against every 
 thing short of a translation, a literal, EXPLICIT, and 
 u FAITHFUL translation ;" no gloss, no commentary, 
 no transferring , but a true and explicit TRANSLATION of 
 the Greek word Baptizo by the English word immerse. 
 " We maintain," says he, p. 77, " that a Bible with the 
 Greek words Baptizo, Baptisma, and their cognates 
 untranslated," * * * " is a Bible mutilated and dis- 
 guised" 
 
 Be it so. Let the word baptizo be translated by the 
 word immerse : no glossing no commenting no " cor- 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 
 
 19 
 
 reefing and altering the diction of the Holy Ghost." 
 Let Mr. Woolsey have all this in his own way, and the 
 Bible speaks what, Mr. Woolsey himself being judge, 
 is falsehood. 
 
 In Mark i. 9, we have the word tfanrnoBri (ebaptisthe), 
 " was baptized." (Let the person who cannot read 
 Greek, nevertheless carefully observe the form of the let- 
 ters.) Mr. Woolsey insists that it shall be translated 
 M was immersed" v> 
 
 Turn now to Luke ii. 38, where we have the same 
 word /?o7rrt<r07 (ebaptisthe) letter for letter, in all respects 
 precisely the same. " And when the Pharisee saw it, he 
 marvelled that he had not first WASHED before dinner :" 
 in the original, /Wi<r0/7 (ebaptisthe), " that he HAD not 
 first BEEN BAPTIZED before dinner." Will Mr. Woolsey 
 translate it, " the Pharisee marvelled" that Jesus had not 
 first BEEN IMMERSED before dinner] In Mark i. 9, he 
 thinks it awful presumption, mutilating and disguising 
 the Bible " correcting and altering the diction of the 
 Holy Ghost," to translate e/SavTiffOn (ebaptisthe) by any 
 thing else .than " was IMMERSED." Here, in Luke ii. 38, 
 is precisely the same word, letter for letter, tQairnaBn (ebap- 
 tisthe). Will Mr. Woolsey translate it so here 1 I re- 
 peat it : will Mr. Woolsey say, " The Pharisee marvelled 
 that Jesus had not first BEEN IMMERSED before dinner!" 
 No ; he holds that as untrue. He does not believe that 
 it was the custom of the Jews to immerse themselves 
 before eating, or when they came from the market ; or 
 that it could have been a matter of wonder that Jesus or 
 his disciples should once fail to immerse themselves, be- 
 fore eating, when they had been in a crowd, or in the 
 market. He dares not make a true translation here on 
 his principles, and explicitly and truly substitute the 
 word immerse for the word baptize. He well knows 
 
20 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 that to do this would make the Bible speak what he be- 
 lieves to be a falsehood. Here, according to him, ^aimaBn 
 (ebaptisthe) does not mean what he insists the self same 
 word shall mean in Mark i. 9. Here, according to him, 
 ebaptisthe does not mean "was immersed," or "had been 
 immersed :" and so he does not give, and he dares not 
 give, a simple and faithful translation of the passage. He 
 wraps it up : he gives a gloss : he substitutes a comment 
 of his own instead of the word of God. He says, p. 159 7 
 " From what has been remarked, you will have a more 
 distinct understanding of another passage recorded by 
 Luke, xi. 38, ' The Savior, being invited to dine with a 
 Pharisee, took his seat without (t^aamffBn} HAVING PLUNGED 
 HIS HANDS INTO WATER.' " The words " hands" and " into 
 water" are not in the original passage, or near it. Mr. 
 Woolsey " corrects and alters the diction of the Holy 
 Ghost"" by inserting these words ; and does it for the pur- 
 pose (unconsciously, perhaps,) of " covering up and con- 
 cealing from plain English readers" the fact, that the Holy 
 Ghost here speaks plainly, fully, and undisguisedly, of a 
 person's BEING BAPTIZED, when, (as even Mr. Woolsey 
 maintains,) the person was NOT IMMERSED. The Scrip- 
 ture here predicates the baptism of the person. It says 
 not a word about the hands. It does not affirm the bap- 
 tism of the hands, or in the slightest manner allude to 
 them : it affirms the baptism of the person. 
 
 Mr. Woolsey knows, every scholar knows, that if to 
 baptize means nothing but to immerse, then it is IMPOSSI- 
 BLE to give a grammatical and faithful translation of this 
 passage, without making the Pharisee wonder that Jesus 
 HIMSELF, (not simply his hands,) had not been first im- 
 mersed before dinner. There is no escaping from this, 
 without giving an unfaithful translation ; altering the dic- 
 tion of the Holy Scriptures, and in effect adding to the 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 21 
 
 word of God. Mr. Carson, the great oracle of the Bap- 
 tists, maintains this. Mr. Judd, another learned Baptist, in 
 his review of Professor Stuart, takes this ground. But 
 Mr. Woolsey does not believe that it was the custom of the 
 Jews to immerse themselves before dinner. He says, p. 158, 
 " There is not sufficient ground for believing that the 
 Jews immersed their whole body when returning from 
 the market" For the purpose of performing the purifica- 
 tion customary upon coming from the market, he says 
 " Every family among the Jews provided themselves with 
 water-pots, as we read in John i. 6," and he quotes Dr. 
 Lightfoot to show that these water-pots " contained be- 
 tween nine and thirteen gallons each," p. 156, and in 
 these the baptizing, whatever it was, he maintains, was 
 performed. But to immerse the whole body in such wa- 
 ter-pots is ckarly out of the question. It was impossible. 
 in Mr. Woolsey's view, then, to make the Bible say that 
 the " Pharisee wondered that Jesus had not been immers- 
 ed before dinner, is to make the Bible speak falsehood. 
 When he comes to this passage, therefore, as I have said, 
 he gives no translation : he gives a gloss : he makes a 
 commentary : he says what the Holy Ghost did not say, 
 and substitutes his own invention for the Word of God. 
 If Mr. Woolsey deems this representation of the matter 
 incorrect ; if it is in his power to relieve himself of this 
 difficulty, let him answer. Say, Mr. Woolsey, what, on 
 your principle, is the proper, grammatical, faithful TRANS- 
 LATION of the word ipairrtaOr] 1 Is it not " He was, (or had 
 been) immersed ?" Do not evade the question by mak- 
 ing a gloss : let us have not a commentary ; but a sim- 
 ple, honest, and faithful TRANSLATION of the WORD tfanTiaQu 
 (ebaptisthe) in Luke ii. 38. Do you not know, that, on 
 your principles, it must be translated "had been immers- 
 ed !" And do you not believe j have you not said, what 
 2* 
 
22 A REFUTATION OB 4 
 
 is equivalent to the direct assertion ; that to give this 
 plain, simple, grammatical translation of the passage, and 
 send it forth to the world without note or comment would 
 make the Bible speak falsehood 1 
 
 And what sort of interpretation is that, which, if you 
 faithfully translate the Bible according to it, will make the 
 Bible speak an acknowledged falsehood 1 I venture to pre- 
 dict that we shall never have a version of the Bible in 
 English, in which baptize shall in all cases be faithfully 
 translated by the word immerse : and which shall be sent 
 out to the world without gloss, note, or comment. At all 
 events, if such a version is ever issued, Mr. Woolsey is 
 bound to reject it and condemn it. 
 
 On the supposition that Mr. Woolsey's comment is cor- 
 rect ; that the matter of wonder was that Jesus had not 
 first " plunged his hands into water :" then it is absolute* 
 ly certain, that a person is completely and fully baptized 
 with no immersion of his body, but by simply plunging 
 his hands into water. The Holy Ghost here affirms the 
 baptism of the person as fully as unequivocally as ab- 
 solutely as he does when he says in Mark i. 9, that Jesus 
 was baptized of John in Jordan. Nay, the original Scrip- 
 ture uses the self same word without the alteration of a 
 letter ; without a syllable of explanation ; with no circum- 
 stance to modify or diminish the full meaning of the word 
 baptize. And yet this baptism, Mr. Woolsey maintains 
 truly was (no more than) a dipping of the hands. By 
 what rule can he certainly know, from the meaning of 
 Baptize alone, that the very same word, when used to de- 
 clare the baptism of Jesus by John, or of Paul by Annani- 
 as, or of the eunuch by Philip, was an application of water 
 more extensive or thorough than a dipping of the hands 1 
 With this explicit and unequivocal testimony of the Holy 
 Spirit, as to the common meaning of baptize, how can 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 23 
 
 our Baptist brethren pretend that when our Savior com- 
 mands us to be baptized he commands us to be immersed ; 
 without altering the command of Christ, and adding to the 
 word of God ] 
 
 THE EVIDENCE CONCLUSIVE. 
 
 If this evidence stood entirely alone, even then it would 
 be absolutely conclusive. Ten thousand times ten thou- 
 sand heathen Greeks can never set aside this sacred mean- 
 ing of the word Baptize, even though they should be unani- 
 mous in their testimony, that with them the word meant 
 only to immerse. If Mr. Woolsey is correct as to what 
 was done by the Jews before eating when they came 
 from the market, then it is undeniable that the witness of 
 the Holy Ghost here implies that immersion was not, and 
 of course cannot now be, essential to baptism. Mr. 
 Woolsey says that what was done, was not an immersion 
 of the body, but a dipping of the hands ; and the Holy 
 Ghost unequivocally, nakedly, and simply calls what was 
 so done, a Baptizing, Can any mathematical demon- 
 stration, then, be more plain than this proof of the fact : 
 that in the word of God an immersion is not essential to a 
 baptism 1 
 
 THE CONCLUSION FURTHER CORROBORATED. 
 
 But if you search through the word of God, you will 
 find everything answerable to this conclusion. Thus, in 
 Mark vii. 3, 4, it is said, " And when they come from the 
 market, except they wash, they eat not." The word 
 wash is in the original ffavriffuvrat (Baptisontai) BAPTIZE 
 THEMSELVES. The verb is in the Middle Voice (neither 
 active nor passive,) and being used without a noun denot- 
 ing the object of the action, it indicates that the agents 
 perform the action for, or upon, themselves. Every 
 Greek scholar knows that if the word baptize, means im- 
 
 ^ 
 
*4 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 merse, the only proper translation of the word as here 
 used, is, "Except they immerse themselves" People 
 may explain it, as Mr. Woolsey does, by saying that the 
 meaning is, except they dip their hands ; but that is mere 
 commentary ; it is " altering the diction of the Holy 
 Ghost," it is not "faithfully translating." The Holy 
 Ghost affirms the baptism of the persons, not of the hands' 
 If it be correct commentary, to say that it means, except 
 they wash, or purify, or immerse their hands ; then the 
 Holy Ghost here witnesseth, that a washing, purifying, 
 or immersion of the hands, is, to the full meaning of bap- 
 tize, a baptism of the person. The baptism is predicated 
 of the person ; and it is " covering up and concealing from 
 a mere English reader," the witness of the Holy Ghost 
 concerning the proper import of the word baptize, to put 
 the word "hands" into the text in this passage. No gram- 
 matical construction, no pure and faithful translation, al- 
 lows the baptism here to be predicated of the hands. 
 
 JUDD ON MARK, VII. 4. 
 
 Mr. Judd in his learned reply to Stuart, p. 25, trans- 
 lates the passage, " And when they come from the market, 
 except they pwTiauvrai, BAPTIZE THEMSELVES." In the 
 same manner he makes the Pharisee in Luke xi. 38, won- 
 der that Jesus had not been baptized before dinner. As 
 Mr. Judd maintains that baptize must and shall mean im- 
 merse, he maintains that baptize not only may have its 
 usual meaning here, but that " that meaning is absolutely 
 required by the scope and harmony of the passage :" i. e., 
 he will make the Scripture here testify that the Pharisees 
 and all the Jews immersed their whole bodies before eat- 
 ing, as often as they came from the market. " Surely," 
 says he, p. 37, "the Jews could have immersed them- 
 selves after coming from the market." Surely they could, 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS, 25 
 
 if they never went from the market, and took their meals 
 where they could not. But Mr. Judd mistakes the ques- 
 tion. The inquiry should be, not whether they surely 
 could immerse themselves, but whether they surely did. 
 It is not necessary to show that the act of immersion was 
 physically impossible : the proper inquiry is, not whether 
 it was impossible to be done, but whether it can possibly 
 be true that it was actually done. Surely the Jews could 
 have eaten Stephen like cannibals after they had stoned 
 him j for the thing was not impossible to be done : but 
 it is impossible that it should be true that it was done. 
 Of such a custom of immersing the whole body as often 
 as they came from the market, there is not a scrap of evi- 
 dence in the wide world, except in this assumed meaning 
 of the word baptize. The manners and customs of the 
 Jews have been well known from that day to this ; and 
 no such custom was ever known or heard of, till invent- 
 ed as a historical fact necessary to help the Baptists out 
 of this difficulty. We may say with Mr. Woolsey, p. 24- 
 (and Mr. Woolsey, at least, will join with us in making 
 this application of his language ,) "such a scheme to sup- 
 port" immersion "for baptism is of very recent invention, 
 and can be but of short duration." Mr. Woolsey rejects 
 this historical " invention," and says, p. 158, " There is 
 not sufficient ground for believing that the Jews immers- 
 ed their whole body when returning from the market" 
 
 Here the Holy Ghost saith, " that the Pharisees and all 
 the Jews, when they come from the market, except they 
 BAPTIZE THEMSELVES, eat not." Mr. Woolsey thereupon 
 says, " There is not sufficient ground for believing that 
 they immersed their whole body." The conclusion 
 should be, that Mr. Woolsey must either alter the word 
 of God, or give up immersion as essential to baptism ; or 
 impeach the veracity of the Holy Ghost. This is a hard 
 
26 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 alternative, but Mr. Woolsey, by denying the custom of 
 immersion upon coming from the market, must of neces- 
 sity infix himself upon one of the forks of this trident. 
 
 CARSON ON MARK, VII, 4u 
 
 So Carson thinks, he sees the entire want of historical 
 evidence to support the notion that the Jews immersed 
 their whole bodies as often as they came from the market. 
 He sees the difficulty in supposing that a custom which no 
 body ever heard of, was so common among the Jews, as 
 to be a matter of wonder and remark that Jesus or his dis- 
 ciples should once omit it before eating. He sees the 
 difficulties and feels them; but he has determined that 
 baptize shall mean immerse; and the grammatical con- 
 struction absolutely forbids him to predicate the baptism 
 of the hands, or of any thing else than the whole person. 
 Before him is danger, but behind him is perdition. He 
 screws himself up to the desperate venture. He knows ; 
 as a scholar ; as an honest man, he knows, that 
 there is no giving a fair grammatical translation of these 
 passages, without either giving up immersion for baptism ; 
 or impeaching the veracity of the Holy Ghost ; or main- 
 taining the hard alternative of affirming, what is still 
 harder to be believed, that the Pharisees and all the Jews 
 never used to eat when they came from the market, ex- 
 cept they had immersed their whole bodies. Give up im- 
 mersion, he will not. Reject the testimony of the Holy 
 Ghost, he dares not. He, therefore, screws himself up for 
 the alternative. While he stands poising upon the brink 
 of the precipice, the renowned George Campbell stretches 
 out the hand for his relief. Affirm, says Campbell, " that 
 the immersion is predicated of the hands ;" and offers his 
 mighty shield and buckler, and his mightier name, to pro- 
 tect and countenance his brother in such an escape fro;n 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 27 
 
 the dilemma. But, Carson is too well informed, and too 
 honest, to resort to what he believes a mere subterfuge. 
 He rejects the proffered aid. Down the precipice he leaps ; 
 and, according to Mr. Woolsey, carries the Baptist 
 cause, if it must go with him, to perdition : for in his 
 opinion, there was no such custom as that which Carson 
 is obliged to maintain ; and the proof of that custom tail- 
 ing, Carson's argument sinks into a miserable grave 
 
 MR. WOOLSEY'S CHOICE OF ALTERNATIVES. 
 
 But what is the alternative, which Mr. Woolsey is ob- 
 liged to adopt 1 The one from which Carson, " inferior 
 in learning and research to none of the Baptists," shrunk 
 back with horror ; rejected as utterly untenable j and de- 
 nounced as " nothing but an ingenious device, without any 
 authority from the genius and practice of the language." 
 Mr. Woolsey rests on ground at which Carson himself 
 would wield a thunderbolt ; to which Judd scorns to des- 
 cend ; and on which, no one, who maintains it, is able to 
 give a faithful translation of the passages in Mark vii. 4, 
 and Luke xi. 38, without making the Bible speak, what 
 those who take the ground admit to be, falsehood. 
 
 THE BAPTISTS AT WAR WITH EACH OTHER. 
 
 Here we have Carson and Judd pitted against Camp- 
 bell and Woolsey ; the house divided against itself on a 
 point which is decisive of the whole question. Carson 
 and Judd give up the notion of limiting the baptism to the 
 hands : Campbell and Woolsey give up the custom of an 
 immersion of the body as often as the Jews come from the 
 market. The work of destroying their mutual errors is 
 done to our hands ; and the truth comes out clear, that the 
 Scriptures do not consider immersion as at all necessary to 
 baptism 5 for to make it so, compels us either to alter the 
 
28 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 plain diction of the Scriptures, or to make them speak an 
 admitted falsehood. 
 
 How comes it to pass that these mighty champions so 
 come into conflict with each other 1 Hear Mr. Woolsey, 
 (p. 7.) " All error, when seeking to wear the aspect of 
 truth, comes in contact with truth itself. Truth and error 
 can never be made to harmonize ; the former will con- 
 tinually show a just repugnance to the latter, and the lat- 
 ter will as continually cross the path of the former." Bap- 
 tists, " Are not united among themselves as to what me- 
 thods and arguments they shall adopt to sustain their un- 
 happy position.* What is cherished by one, is discarded 
 
 * Oar Baptist brethren conflict with each other on other impor- 
 tant p >ints. Mr. Woolsey insists that the famous passage " Bu- 
 ried with him by baptism into death," so plainly refers to the mode 
 of baptism, that every one must see it ; and declares that " If bap- 
 tism here does not mean a "literal" burial and resurrection, then 
 is Christ not risen ;" and preaching and faith are Ci vain," p. 210. 
 But the famous Baptist historian Robinson, and Dr. Judson, so long 
 a missionary in the East * both admit that this passage is misap- 
 plied, when used as evidence of the mode of baptism." [Hamilton 
 p. 95.] 
 
 So again, Mr. Woolsey maintains that the disciples spoken of in 
 Acts xix., were not re-baptized ; imputes to us the intention of 
 excluding " the holy John," with all the repenting and believing 
 converts that followed his instruction, from the Christian dispen- 
 sation ; and of not " allowing" even Christ, " the captain of salva- 
 tion," and the great head of the church, to have been a member of 
 the same ; declares that it required more than a simple pious Chris- 
 tian to have invented such a scheme, savoring more of DARING DESIGN, 
 than of ardent love and " attachment to the Divine Redeemer." 
 And yet Professor Riple.y of the Baptist Theological Institute, at 
 Newton, Mass, says, '* It never seemed to me right to represent 
 this verse as the language of Paul, informing these men what was 
 usually done in the days of John the Baptist. A reader not think, 
 ing of the controversy respecting the verse, could hardly fail to 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 29 
 
 by another. What one advances in support of their pe- 
 culiar views, is utterly rejected by v an other as insufficient 
 and untenable. Some feel it the part of candor to con- 
 cede what others have not the ingenuousness to acknow- 
 ledge. And thus, in several ways, they manifestly show 
 that their rock is not as our rock, they themselves being 
 judges." 
 
 DR. GEORGE CAMPBELL ON MARK, VII. 4, AND LUKE XI. 38. 
 
 The learned George Campbell, whom our Baptist breth- 
 ren are so fond of quoting on these passages in Mark vii. 
 4-, and Luke xi. 38, gets along with them no better than 
 Mr. Woolsey. 
 
 He is about the work of translating the New-Testa- 
 ment ; and he is determined beforehand that baptize must 
 mean exclusively immerse. 
 
 Mark says, that the " Pharisees and all the Jews, when 
 they come from the market, except they baptize them- 
 selves, eat not." Mr. Campbell does no believe, that they 
 immersed themselves as often as they came from the mar- 
 ket. What does he do \ Does he give a grammatical and 
 faithful translation of the word baptize 1 He dares not. 
 He believes that such a translation, giving to baptize the 
 sense of immerse, will make the Bible speak falsehood. He 
 gives no translation : he makes a gloss : he gives a com- 
 mentary, and " corrects and alters the diction" of the 
 Scriptures by substituting his comment in the place of the 
 words which the Holy Ghost teacheth. And this is his 
 
 understand it, as the language of Luke the historian, relating that, 
 after Paul had conversed with these men, they were baptized in 
 the name of the Lord Jesus ; and that he then laid his handa on 
 them, with which action was connected the imparting of the Holy 
 Ghost." [Examination of Stuart, p. 144.] 
 
 a 
 
30 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 comment for no scholar, I trust, will ever venture to 
 call it translation. " For the Pharisees, and indeed all 
 the Jews who observe the tradition of the elders, eat not 
 except they have washed their hands BY POURING A LITTLE 
 WATER UPON THEM !" The words, " by pouring a little 
 water on them" are not in the original , they are inserted 
 by Mr. Campbell. And, in the name of wonder, I would 
 demand does the word NiTrrw (Nipto) necessarily limit the 
 mode of washing to u pouring a little water on the hands V T 
 Does it not mean to wash ; and simply " wash 5" without 
 referring in the least to the mode ; whether by pouring 
 the water on the hands, or by dipping them I But let us 
 go on with Mr. Campbell's translation : " For the Phari- 
 sees, and indeed all the Jews who observe the tradition of 
 the elders, eat not except they have washed their hands 
 by pouring a little water upon them : and when they 
 come from the market, BY DIPPING THEM." Does he call 
 this a translation of the words ^ ^aimouvrai. 1 Does the 
 verb baptizo then mean, TO DIP THE HANDS 1 I repeat it : 
 a comment this may be ; but it is no simple nor faithful 
 translation of the word of God. Nor can a faithful trans- 
 lation of the passage be made, giving to baptize the mean- 
 ing of immerse, without making the passage speak that 
 which Mr. Campbell held as not true. Carson is right, 
 and must have the judgment of every unbiassed scholar in 
 his favor, that Campbell's notion of making this baptism 
 refer to the hands by dipping them, is " an ingenious de- 
 vice, without any authority from the genius and prac- 
 tice of the language." 
 
 Campbell's translation of Luke xi. 38, is still'more re- 
 markable. Luke, inspired by the Holy Ghost, says, " The 
 Pharisees marvelled that Jesus had not first been baptiz- 
 ed before dinner" (^a^). Which Campbell thus 
 translates : " But the Pharisee was surprised to observe 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 31 
 
 that he USED NO WASHING before dinner." Here the dis- 
 tinction between washing and dipping cannot be pretend- 
 ed : and what becomes of Campbell's argument about 
 " immerse" as being the only proper meaning of the word 
 " baptize 1" Here the Scripture says, The Pharisee mar- 
 velled that Jesus had not been baptized before dinner. 
 Campbell dares not translate the word baptize here by the 
 word immerse : nor does he find it possible to introduce 
 the word " hands :" The first would make the Bible speak 
 falsehood, and the latter would be too gross an " alteration 
 of the diction of the Holy Ghost." He therefore gives up 
 all talk about immersing or dipping and says " He used 
 NO WASHING before dinner :" and so is, after all, driven on to 
 the very ground adopted in our common English translation. 
 
 PROFESSOR RIPLEY ON MARK vii. 4, AND LUKE xi. 38. 
 
 The remarks of Professor Ripley on these two passages, 
 in his examination of Professor Stuart, are, it seems to me, 
 as curious a piece of non-committal, and of tripping lightly 
 over ground on which one dares not tread firmly, as can 
 be found in the whole compass of Biblical criticism. 
 
 He thinks the passage in Mark may be rendered, " with- 
 out the least violence to its language," so as to make it 
 read that the Pharisees and all the Jews immerse their 
 whole bodies as often as they come from the market. May 
 be rendered ! without violence to the language ! Is that 
 the proper reading 1 Is that the truth, concerning what 
 was customarily done by the Jews upon coming from the 
 market 1 Does Professor Ripley believe that such a custom 
 was so universal and so invariable among the Jews, as to 
 make it a matter of wonder, that Jesus should sit down to 
 dinner without having first immersed his whole body! 
 Hear him. " That some of the stricter sort, that many, 
 enough to justify the Evangelist's general expression, did 
 
32 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 practise total ablution on the occasion mentioned, is alto- 
 gether credible." Some of the stricter sort! 
 
 many ! enough to justify the Evangelist ! is altogether 
 
 credible ! Then Professor Ripley dares not join, without 
 misgiving, in affirming that " all the Jews" had the cus- 
 tom of immersing themselves when they came from the 
 market 1 No. He says, " In the absence of clear satisfying 
 proof, it is not becoming to make positive assertions." 
 How is this 1 The word baptize mean exclusively im- 
 merse : the Holy Ghost affirm that they baptize them- 
 selves ; and yet no " clear satisfying proof that they im- 
 mersed themselves ! Is the witness not a credible one, or 
 is there some doubt whether the word means immerse 1 
 But Professor Ripley says he is by no means satisfied that 
 this is a " necessary view of the passage," viz. that they 
 immersed themselves. " Necessary /" Will he hold to it 
 at all \ We shall see. But says he again, " However 
 striking the language of Mark may, by some, be consider- 
 ed, as recognizing such a practice, (and the language is 
 certainly coincident with such a practice, especially 
 when we look at it by the investigations respecting bap- 
 tize on the preceding pages,) yet I am not disposed to urge 
 it" Not disposed to urge it ? Does he believe it \ Will 
 he venture to stand upon that ground \ Will he venture 
 either to affirm it or deny it 1 No He dares not rest upon 
 either ground, and make the Bible read either, " except 
 they immerse themselves ;" or, " except they immerse 
 their hands" He gently feels the ground of the first with 
 his foot, but dares not venture upon it. He then poises 
 himself and presses with the other foot upon other ground $ 
 but he dares not rest upon this and abandon the first. 
 With regard to the first he says, " In the absence of clear, 
 satisfying proof, it is not becoming to make any positive 
 assertions:" "the language is coincident" with such a 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 33 
 
 practice :" " it may be so rendered without the least vio- 
 lence :" "yet I am not disposed to urge it." With regard 
 to the second he says," But assuming the ground, that the 
 evangelist did not intend to distinguish a total bathing 
 from a partial washing, I again inquire did he distinguish 
 one sort of partial washing, from another sort of partial 
 washing, one of which sorts was performed by dipping the 
 hands into water" And yet, assuming this ground, he 
 assumes it only to argue : he reaches back to the other, 
 and reminds us again that he has " already said that the 
 word GaTTTiawTat in this passage, "MAY WITHOUT ANY 
 VIOLENCE" be considered as distinguishing a total immersion 
 from a washing of the hands. Thus he will venture for- 
 ward to argue upon one ground, provided he may keep 
 open a safe retreat to the other. How firmly he may feel 
 the ground under him may be inferred by his evident con- 
 cern to keep open a retreat to the ground on which, 
 alas, he is afraid to stand ; and concerning which he ad- 
 mits that there is an " absence of clear, satisfying proof." 
 
 Standing thus with light and uncertain tread upon both 
 grounds, he is compelled to make the Bible give an un- 
 certain sound : and while professing to fix the sense with 
 critical accuracy, he actually proposes to make it read, in 
 both passages, with an ALIAS. After the word baptize, 
 (wash) in Mark vii. 4*, (which he would read " immerse, 
 or bathe") he says, " The word hands may be considered 
 as understood, or the word themselves may be understood." 
 There is an " absence of clear satisfying proof" that they 
 immersed themselves ; and he is not certain that they sim- 
 ply immersed their hands. So he would split the differ- 
 ence by making the Bible read both ways, putting in an 
 ALIAS. In the same manner, in Luke xi. 38, he proposes 
 the introduction of the same double reading for one single 
 word. " Jind when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled 
 3* 
 
34 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 that he had not first washed before dinner : that he had 
 not first IMMERSED, that is, himself, OR his hands." 
 
 I have some fault to find with Professor Ripley's criti- 
 cism, on the score of grammatical accuracy ; for this, too, 
 it appears to me, he has sacrificed on the altar of exclusive 
 immersion. 
 
 Says Professor Ripley, " The verb (0 anna wren) is in the 
 middle voice ; and as there is no object expressed after it, 
 it would be lawful, in order to express the Greek, to em- 
 ploy, as Professor Stuart has, the word themselves as being 
 contained in the verb itself." This is correct, save that 
 instead of simply being lawful, to do as Professor Stuart 
 has done, it is indispensable to do so, unless you can trans- 
 late it by an English word, which like the Greek Middle 
 voice of a transitive verb, has a reflexive sense, implying 
 that the agent is himself both the subject and the object of 
 the verb. Thus, if we say, " Except they wash ; the 
 meaning is except they wash themselves : or if we say 
 except they bathe /" the object of the bathing is still 
 themselves. But in what follows, it appears to me that 
 Professor Ripley is most palpably and indefensibly in the 
 wrong. He says, " As the verb vi^v (wash) in the 
 former part of the passage, has, in the middle voice, an 
 object (x^pas hands) after it, it is certainly justifiable, 
 to maintain, that the verb in the latter part of the pas- 
 sage, (favTiffuvrai) has the same word understood after it for 
 its object." 
 
 Now the middle voice does indeed admit an object after 
 it, as in the case of vi^vrai. It would therefore have been 
 justifiable for the writer to have placed an object after 
 tfaTrno-coi/rcu, had his meaning allowed it. But when the 
 writer omits the object in such a case, and the meaning of 
 the word is still reflexive, the subject of the verb is its im- 
 plied object. When the writer in such a case omits to 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 35 
 
 express another object, we pervert his meaning, if we un- 
 derstand or supply an object other than the one implied in 
 the very form of the verb, which makes its object iden- 
 tical with its agent. Thus Professor Stuart has most gram- 
 matically read the word ^^no^vrai (Baptisontai) " they 
 wash themselves" And it certainly is not " justifiable 5" 
 it is a flagrant violation of the rules of grammar, to 
 supply, as Professor Ripley has done, the word hands in- 
 stead of themselves. 
 
 In Luke xi. 38, the word is in the passive voice. It 
 not only has not the word " hands" after it, but does not 
 admit the word to be supplied as its object. The gram- 
 matical rendering is, " that he had not been baptized" The 
 passage in Mark vii. 4, shows that under such circum- 
 stances, people baptized themselves ; (they did it for 
 themselves ; they were not baptized by others.) Hence, it 
 is doing justice to the meaning, to say, without being tied 
 down to grammatical nicety, " that he had not first 
 washed" or " that he had not first washed himself" This 
 does not change the object concerning which the baptism 
 is affirmed. But to supply the word hands, as Professor 
 Ripley proposes, is to take an unwarrantable license. It 
 does violence to the grammatical construction, and changes 
 the object of the affirmation. It is quite as gross a viola- 
 tion of grammatical usage, as though the passage were 
 made to read in English, " That he had not first been bap- 
 tized his hands" I will only add, that the word hands 
 is not in this passage, or near it. The word baptize used 
 alone and simply, as it is here used by Luke, has no in- 
 herent quality by which it should be thought to be limited 
 in the action which it expresses to the hands alone. The 
 word hands is imported through the channel of commen- 
 tary ; and commentary elaborated, as I think I have 
 shown, by a process of bad criticism. 
 
36 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 THE CONCLUSION. 
 
 After a careful examination of these passages, and care- 
 fully weighing all that has been said upon them by every 
 Baptist author within my reach, I am utterly unable to 
 conjecture a reason why I should doubt, that the word 
 baptize in these passages does not mean immerse, and 
 cannot be so translated without either corrupting the text, 
 or making the Bible speak falsehood. It may be con- 
 sidered, I think, a matter beyond question, that if Camp- 
 bell, or Ripley, or Woolsey could have given a faithful 
 translation of these passages rendering the word baptize 
 truly and explicitly by the word immerse they would 
 by no means have failed to do so. If Carson or Judd had 
 seen any way to escape from the difficulty, without 
 making the passage affirm what they evidently found it 
 so difficult to believe, and what many of their brethren 
 deem a falsehood, they would certainly have availed 
 themselves of that way of escape. 
 
 If the first of these things is possible to be done, let it 
 be done now. Let us take no advantage of what may, 
 perhaps, be claimed to be an oversight : if a translation 
 of these passages can be given, on the principle of ex- 
 plicitly and faithfully substituting the word immerse for 
 the original word baptize, a translation which shall 
 neither substitute a human comment for the word of God, 
 nor make the Bible speak falsehood, in the name of 
 truth let it be done. But if this cannot be done, then 
 our Baptist brethren must give it up as absolutely certain, 
 that, according to the Word of God, immersion is not 
 essential to baptism. If such a translation cannot be 
 made, then it is absolutely certain that when the Scrip- 
 ture speaks of the baptism ol Jesus, or of the eunuch, or 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 37 
 
 of the jailer, or of Paul, or of any other persons, it is not 
 to be understood as meaning that they were immersed, 
 through any virtue of the word baptize. If it should be 
 supposed or proved, that any were baptized by immersion, 
 still it is certain that the baptism did not lie in the mode 
 of immersion , but that immersion was baptism only as it 
 was a mode of washing, or of purifying by a ceremonial 
 application of water. If such a translation cannot be 
 made, then it can no longer be a matter of question, that 
 our Baptist brethren, in making immersion essential to 
 baptism, have commanded that which Christ never re- 
 quired, and added to the Word of God. 
 
 BAPTIST MISSIONARY TRANSLATIONS. 
 
 Our Baptist brethren claim that " to them is committed 
 the sole guardianship of pure and faithful translations of 
 the oracles of God into the languages of the earth"* 
 I should like to know how their foreign translations of 
 these two passages, in Mark vii. 4 and Luke xi. 38, read. 
 Do they make the Pharisees and all the Jews immerse 
 themselves as often as they come from the market ! or do 
 they make them simply dip their hands? Which of 
 these two acts do our Baptist brethren "the sole guar- 
 dians of pure and faithful translations" teach the hea- 
 then is the baptism which the Holy Ghost speaks of in 
 Mark vii. 4 1 Do they teach the heathen to believe that 
 the, Pharisee marvelled that the Savior had not immersed 
 himself before dinner ; or that he had not dipped his 
 hands before dinner 1 Methinks the " guardians of pure 
 and faithful translations"! should agree in this matter. 
 
 * Am. and For. Bible Soc. Rep., 1840, p. 79. 
 t Says Professor Eaton in his speech before the Baptist Bible 
 Society at their anniversary, (Report of Am, and For. Bible Soc. 9 
 
38 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 Infallibility should not be divided ; and where it is so, the 
 division shows that neither party is infallible. The truth 
 may lie on neither side. 
 
 With these coadjutors ; Campbell and Woolsey on my 
 right hand, and Carson and Judd on my left, I should like 
 to go and knock at the door of the Baptist Foreign Mission- 
 ary establishments, and inquire Brethren, how do you 
 translate the word of God! If they answer We make 
 the Bible say that the Pharisees and all the Jews immerse 
 themselves as often as they come from the market : then 
 Campbell and Woolsey shall reply : Brethren, this is not 
 right, you make the word of God speak falsehood. If the 
 missionaries answer, We make the bible say that the 
 Pharisees and all the Jews dip their hands simply, when 
 they come from the market ; then the brethren on my 
 left shall reply , Carson and Judd shall make answer ; 
 " Brethren, the word of God says that the Pharisees and 
 all the Jews, immerse themselves, before eating, as often 
 as they come from the market ;" and you have given no 
 faithful translation. You have corrupted the word of 
 God. You have " corrected and altered the diction of the 
 Holy Ghost." From the sword of the brethren, either 
 
 p. 79,) ' Never, sir, was there a chord struck that vibrated simul- 
 taneously through so many BAPTIST hearts, from one extremity of 
 the land to the other, as when it was announced that the, heathen 
 world must look to THEM ALONE for an unveiled view of the glories of 
 the gospel of Christ" " A deep conviction seized the minds of 
 almost the whole body, that they were DIVINELY AND PECULIARLY SET 
 for the defence and dissemination of the gospel, as delivered to 
 men by its Heavenly Author. A new zeal in their Master's 
 cause, and unwonted kindlings of fraternal love glowed in their 
 hearts ; and an attracting and concentrating movement, reaching 
 to the utmost extremity of the mass, began, and has been going 
 on and increasing in power ever since." 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 39 
 
 of those on my right hand or of those on my left, the 
 missionary translators cannot escape. And now having 
 proved the missionary translation unfaithful the brethren 
 on my right and the brethren on my left shall turn their 
 arms against each other.* These shall demonstrate that 
 those have made the Bible speak falsehood ; those shall 
 demonstrate that these have disguised and corrupted the 
 word of God. Neither can resist the assault of the other : 
 each scheme is certainly and totally destroyed. And 
 when the battle is fought, in which I have nothing to do 
 but to stand still and wait the issue when the battle is 
 fought, till each party is so beaten that he can fight no 
 longer 5 I would take them by the hand, and say, Brethren, 
 
 *-Prof. Eaton of Hamilton Baptist Institute, in his speech before 
 the Baptist Bible Society, at their anniversary in 1840, [See Report 
 of said Society, p. 74,] says, "The translation" of the Baptist 
 Missionaries " is so undeniably correct," that its incorrectness, could 
 not be "pretended," *' without committing the objectors' character 
 for scholarship and candor. " Who are they, sir," said he, " who 
 cavil about the plain meaning of the original word whose tranr- 
 lation is so offensive ? Are they the Porsons, and the Campbells, 
 and the Greenfields, and such like ?" "No sir," " But the cavil- 
 lers, sir, are men who, whatever may be their standing in other 
 respects, have no reputation as linguists and philologists to lose. 
 There really can be no rational dopbt in the mind of any sound and 
 candid, Greek scholar, about the evident meaning of the words in 
 question. , I venture to say, at the risk of the little reputation for 
 Greek scholarship which I possess, that there are no words of plain- 
 er import in the Bible. The profane tampering which has been 
 applied to these words," &c. &c. 
 
 I shall not dispute here, that all this may be very modest and 
 catholic. It is at least such matter as the American and Foreign 
 Bible Society are willing to append to their report and publish to 
 the world. But I should like to see which side Prof. Eaton would 
 take amid these combatants ; and in what plight he would stand 
 when the battle is over, take which side he would. 
 
40 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 abandon the ground on which you must mutually destroy 
 each other, or else fight on forever. Do you not see that 
 each is defenceless in his own position ; and irresistible 
 when he attacks that of the other 1 Between you both 
 the truth comes out clear ; that baptism is not necessarily 
 immersion ; and that while you endeavor to make it so, 
 you are on the one hand compelled to make the Bible 
 speak falsehood ; and on the other, to alter and corrupt 
 the word of God. 
 
 And what shall they do 1 Shall they make peace on 
 the only rational ground 1 Or shall one yield his judg- 
 ment to the other, and vote that one opinion to be infalli- 
 ble 1 Or for the sake of saving the Baptist cause, shall 
 they strike hands and be made friends : agreeing, on the 
 one party, to allow the Bible to speak falsehood, provided 
 it may only speak immersion'; and agreeing, on the other 
 party, provided immersion may be retained, to admit the 
 word of God to be altered, and disguised and corrupted, 
 by " an ingenious conceit, without any authority from the 
 practice of the language " . in which the New Testament 
 was written 1 
 
 I would respectfully ask our Baptist brethren to look 
 into this matter. I would respectfully call their attention 
 to the necessity laid upon them in their present position, 
 of falling upon one of the three points of the alternative, 
 which here presents itself to them. With their present 
 disagreement, in which a part of them side with Carson 
 and Judd, and a part with Campbell and Woolsey, it is 
 impossible for them to give a faithful translation, on the 
 Baptist principle, without entering into a compromise, 
 which shall either make the Bible speak falsehood, or else 
 alter and pervert the sacred diction of the word of God. I 
 would respectfully suggest to the brethren of each of these 
 two parties, the necessity of looking into these foreign trans- 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 41 
 
 lations ; and of taking heed, lest in their zeal to maintain 
 immersion, they unconsciously fall into such a compro- 
 mise as this. It surely becomes them to whom " is com- 
 mitted the sole guardianship of pure arid faithful transla- 
 tions of the oracles of God, into the languages of the 
 earth," to be careful and uncompromising here. 
 
 THE PROOF CUMULATIVE. 
 
 I consider the proof from these passages in Mark vii. 4, 
 and Luke xi. 38, absolutely conclusive and irrefragable, 
 that neither the apostles nor the Holy Ghost which in- 
 spired them, considered the word baptize, as denoting a 
 sacred ritual, to mean necessarily immerse ; or an immer- 
 sion to be essential to baptism. But this proof stands not 
 alone. It is largely and unequivocally corroborated in 
 other passages of Scripture. 
 
 As my present design is not to argue this matter over 
 again, I must content myself with briefly referring to some 
 of these passages and to some other sources of proof. 
 
 In my published discourses on Baptism, I have exhibit- 
 ed, in brief, (pp. 54, 55,) the argument from the " Divers 
 Baptisms" spoken of in Heb. ix. 10. By a course of ar- 
 gument entirely different from that which I have employ- 
 ed, President Beecher has shown, I think beyond dispute, 
 that these "Baptisms" refer to things which certainly 
 were not immersions. The substance of his argument is 
 this : 1. " The whole passage relates to the effects of the 
 Mosaic ritual entirely on persons, and not on things" 
 2. " The c Baptisms' are spoken of as ENJOINED, as well as 
 other rites. But of persons, NO IMMERSIONS AT ALL ARE 
 
 ENJOINED UNDER THE MOSAIC RITUAL." " No Washing of 
 
 persons is ever enjoined " by the word tabal, to immerse, 
 even in a single instance, nor by any word that denotes 
 immersion but, as I think, without exception, by the 
 
42 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 word Rahhats, which denotes to wash, without any refer- 
 ence to mode." " Those who read the English version 
 might suppose that, where the direction to bathe occurs, 
 immersion is enjoined ; but in every such case the original 
 is only to wash." Mr. Beecher does not deem it necessa- 
 ry to deny that the bathing might sometimes have been 
 done by immersion ; but affirms that immersion could not 
 be deemed necessary from any thing expressed or implied 
 in the command. The command being to wash, or puri- 
 fy- the mode was not a matter of command. 
 
 Even immersion would be no compliance with the com- 
 mand, save only as it was a mode of washing. The word 
 used in the command, is the same as that used in Gen. xviii. 
 4, " Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched and WASH your 
 feet;" Gen. xliii. 31. "And he washed his face and 
 went out." So Levit. xiv. 9. " Also, he shall wash his 
 flesh in water, and he shall be clean." 
 
 President Beecher here meets the Baptists on their own 
 ground, and shows that, if Paul refers to these bathings 
 when he speaks of " Baptisms" even then lie cannot 
 mean "immersions" But Paul does not specify the 
 bathing as any part of what he means ; but he does spe- 
 cify the u sprinkling." He does not say that the bathing 
 " sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh," but he says it 
 is " The blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of the 
 heifer SPRINKLING the unclean, that sanctifieth." 
 
 On either ground, these " Divers Baptisms" are not 
 immersions ; and to translate the word Qairrtapois (Baptis- 
 mois) here, by the word immersions, is to corrupt and 
 falsify the word of God. I need not refer here to the 
 baptisms of tables, (couches,) and show how hard our Bap- 
 tist brethren find themselves pushed to be able to make 
 that a plausible reading, which makes the Bible speak of 
 the " IMMERSIONS of couches" I need not speak of all the 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 43 
 
 ' 
 
 startling and revolting ideas obtruded upon the mind by 
 the very thought of making " baptized with the Holy 
 Ghost," read " immersed in the Holy Ghost." 
 
 SCRIPTURAL IDEA OF BAPTISM. 
 
 For giving a definition to baptize which shall refer to 
 the intent and the effect, and omit all reference to the 
 mode, a definition which shall express the substance of 
 baptism with no reference to the circumstance, we have 
 the soundest warrant and the most explicit example in the 
 word of God. Thus : Jesus, with his disciples, was bap- 
 tizing in Judea^ John in Enon (John iii: 22-26). A 
 question arose between some of John's disciples and the 
 Jews, " about PURIFYING." To settle it, they come and 
 refer it to John under the shape of a question about BAP- 
 TIZING. Their minds fastened on the substance, not on the 
 circumstance. Their idea of baptism was not the modern 
 Baptist idea. Baptism, with them, was not an immersing 
 but a purifying. Their question is about baptizing ; but 
 it is not about dipping, or sprinkling, or pouring, or im- 
 mersing, but about PURIFYING ; and they state the question 
 to John as a question about baptizing. In their view the 
 words baptize and purify are so far synonymous, that in a 
 debate about purifying they may use either the word puri- 
 fy or the word baptize. But with them the word purify 
 could not be synonymous with immerse : for their com- 
 mon purifications of persons were either in the general 
 mode of washing, or in the particular mode of sprinkling, 
 never necessarily in the mo<Je of immersing. 
 
 So again in Mark vii. 4, there is a talk about BAPTIZING ; 
 and whatever, was done, Mr. Woolsey justly maintains was 
 done by the use of the " water-pots." But John ii. 6, 
 speaks of these water-pots as set " after the mariner of the 
 PURIFYING of the Jews" Here too, baptism is not an im- 
 
44 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 mersion in iact ; much less in the idea. The idea of bap- 
 tism here is not a mere mode of applying water certainly 
 not the mode of immersion, but a PURIFYING.* 
 
 So again in Luke xi. 38, 39, upon the Pharisee's won- 
 dering that Jesus had not been baptized before dinner, our 
 Lord took occasion to say to him, " Ye Pharisees make 
 clean, (in the original, PURIFY,) the outside." Here nei- 
 ther the Savior nor the Pharisee considered the essence of 
 the baptism as lying in the mode, but in the intent and in 
 the effect. Baptism, in their view, was a washing or pu- 
 rifying. 
 
 So again in the Apocrypha, Judith xii. 7, it is said that 
 Judith went out into the valley of Bethulia and washed 
 (Sept. baptized herself) in .the camp, (-* m *wO AT 
 (not in), a fountain of water in the camp. The context 
 shows that the object of this baptizing was to remove a cere- 
 monial uncleanness. " She without doubt strictly obeyed 
 the law, and did^what the law intended that she should do. 
 But the law in such cases simply commanded washing 
 (Lev. xv.") The narrator does not intend to signify that 
 she went beyond the law, but that she observed k : and in 
 
 * The custom of washing the hands before eating, as it still pre- 
 vails in the East, was this, iC When they wash, the water is poured 
 from a vase upon the hands over a basin, they never make use of a 
 basin or a tub to wash in, as is the practice elsewhere," (Oscanyan, 
 in Kurtz, p. 179.) 
 
 In John ii. 6, &c., where there were set six water-pots of stone, 
 after the manner of the purifying of the Jews : at the time of the 
 middle of the feast these water-pots appear to have been empty, 
 The purifying, (which Mark and Luke call a baptizing,) had been 
 performed not by the guests immersing themselves or dipping 
 their hands in the water-pots, but by " drawing out," and, probably 
 by carrying and pouring the water on the hands. If this be so, 
 then our Baptist brethren are left destitute of that last, but unavail- 
 ing refuge, the " dipping of the hands," 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 45 
 
 his view wash is synonymous with baptize in denoting a 
 religious ordinance a ceremonial purification. 
 
 So in Ecclesiasticus, xxiv. 25., the words baptize and 
 wash are used interchangably as purely synonymous : 
 " He that baptizeth himself after the touching of a dead 
 body, what availeth his washing ?" The allusion is to 
 Numbers xix. 11, &c., where the law simply required 
 washing, or purifying. The essential thing in that puri- 
 fying was performed by sprinkling; and of him who 
 should fail in this, it was said, " because the water of sepa- 
 ration was not sprinkled upon him, he shall be, unclean ; 
 his uncleanness is yet upon him." 
 
 If we therefore follow the Scripture pattern, or the pat- 
 tern of the Greek of the Apocrypha, in fixing the proper 
 idea of the word baptize as used to denote the sacred use 
 of water in a religious ordinance, we shall entirely omit all 
 reference to mode, and fix our thoughts upon the intent 
 and the effect of baptism , the substance and not the sha- 
 dow. Baptism will not tie a dipping, or an immersing, or 
 a pouring, or a sprinkling, but a WASHING, a PURIFYING. 
 
 The word being thus used in the New Testament, to 
 denote a ritual washing or purifying, (which it never sig- 
 nified in classic Greek :) being used moreover where the 
 MODE of purifying was either sprinkling or pouring ; and 
 being, still further, so used that to make it read immerse 
 would make the Bible speak what confessedly is not true ; 
 1 think we have clearly, and established beyond the possi- 
 bility of a successful denial, a generic and peculiar New 
 Testament use of the word ; in which use baptize prima- 
 rily denotes a ritual purifying by some manner of appli- 
 cation oficater, which is called " the WASHING of water :" 
 and secondarily it denotes an inward purifying by the 
 Holy Ghost, called the WASHING of regeneration" 
 
 These things being so, how idle it is for Mr. Woolsey 
 4* 
 
46 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 to inquire as he does, p. 109, " I ask again, and well do 
 my Pedobaptist brethren know to their discomfiture, if 
 any application of water, washing, sprinkling, pouring, 
 #c. means baptism, why did not the sacred writers some- 
 times use the Greek word which means to wash, sprinkle, 
 and pour V 
 
 The reason is plain : and Mr. Woolsey has but poorly 
 considered the matter, if he thinks that here is any " dis- 
 comfiture," save to him who shoots so widely from the 
 mark as to allow himself to ask such a question. I an- 
 swer: 
 
 1. Baptize is used with a peculiar but generic refer- 
 ence to this purifying, without any reference to mode. 
 But the words sprinkle and pour are not so used. Their 
 use, in the New Testament, is not limited to the sacred 
 use of water ; and they refer to a mode ; while the word 
 baptize in the New Testament refers to none. They can- 
 not therefore be interchanged with baptize as though they 
 were synonymous with it. The word wash is so inter- 
 changed because it so far accords with baptize as not to re- 
 fer to any particular mode. 
 
 2. It is not true that the words wash, sprinkle, pour, 
 are not used in the New Testament with reference to 
 baptism. As often as any thing is said in the New Testa- 
 ment in allusion to a mode of baptism, these words are in- 
 variably used. As to the word wash, the Scriptures refer to 
 baptism as the WASHING of water ;" and the baptism of the 
 Holy Ghost, they call " The WASHING of regeneration. As 
 to the word sprinkle, the prophets describe the purifying 
 which they foretell, as a sprinkling : " so shall he sprinkle 
 many nations :" " Then will I sprinkle clean water upon 
 
 you, and ye shall be clean." As to the word pour, the 
 mode of the Spirit's baptizing is spoken of as a pouring, a 
 
 shedding forth, a falling upon. But where do you read 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 47 
 
 of the immersing of (with) " water" or of the immersing 
 of many "nations," or of the immersing of regeneration," 
 or of the immersing of (in) the " blood of Christ"] No 
 where in the word of God : no where, even in figure. 
 The very idea is strange and preposterous. I will not say 
 it is a " discomfiture;" but 1 will retort the question : If 
 it be so, that baptism is nothing but immersion, and that 
 immersion is all essential to it ; why is it that we never 
 read of the immersion " of regeneration" or of a prom* 
 ise, then will I immerse you in " clean water and ye shall 
 be clean :" or of the immersion of the blood of Christ 1 
 
 After asking this " discomfiting" question, Mr. Woolsey 
 proceeds : 
 
 " Every man who has heard me thus far, unless he be 
 determined to sustain some party, in opposition to the 
 dictates of his enlightened understanding, and in violation 
 of the conviction of his conscience, must concede that the 
 Holy Ghost," * * . has herein signified " a divine in- 
 stitution whose mode of administration is immersion, and 
 immersion only." 
 
 This is a sort of charitable dogmatics in which Mr. 
 Woolsey deals without reserve. For one, I certainly 
 could not make that concession without sacrificing the 
 dictates of my understanding, and the conviction of my 
 conscience. I must be allowed to take an appeal from the 
 judgment of Mr. Woolsey to the judgment of the last day. 
 
 To me it seems clear, that our Baptist brethren, in 
 making immersion essential to the baptism, have departed 
 entirely from the Scriptural use of the word, and from the 
 true Scriptural idea. They, have turned the minds of 
 people away from the substance to the shadow. They 
 have turned away from the import and design of washing, 
 to the mode of washing.. They have adopted precisely 
 that mode which finds least countenance in the word of 
 
48 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 God, and are endeavoring, both by proselytism and by the 
 compulsion of close communion, to make the whole world 
 submit to their judgment. 
 
 They often intimate to us the inadequacy of the mode 
 of sprinkling by representing the absurdity of washing, 
 e. g. a dish that needs cleansing, by sprinkling it. Now 
 the relevancy of such a representation depends upon the 
 end to be answered by the washing. If a dish or a person 
 needs bodily cleansing, surely sprinkling is not sufficient ; 
 nor should a simple dipping seem sufficient ; there should 
 be some rubbing and scouring; as much as is necessary 
 to accomplish the design. If the end of baptism be " the 
 putting away the filth of the flesh," rather than " the 
 answer of a good conscience," then surely much depends 
 upon the quantity of water, and upon the thoroughness 
 with which it is applied. But if a Leper is to be cere- 
 monially cleansed, it is sufficient that he be sprinkled. 
 When Christ is to wash many nations from their sins, the 
 representation is that he shall " sprinkle" many nations. 
 When our Lord said to Peter, " If I wash thee not, thou 
 hast no part with me ;" Peter would make much of the 
 mode of washing, and desired to be washed all over. But 
 our Lord corrected the error that looks away from the 
 meaning and design of the washing to fasten upon the 
 mode. " He that is washed, needeth not save to wash his 
 feet, but is clean every whit." The principle certainly is 
 applicable to the subject of baptism : and to me, it seems 
 a direct rebuke upon the attempt to make the mode 
 essential. 
 
 "But," say our Baptist brethren,," you consider it lawful 
 to baptize by immersion." Certainly. But when you 
 make immersion essential to baptism, and we submit to 
 receive it under that condition, we give our assent to have 
 that bound which Christ has left free : we give our assent 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 49 
 
 to adding to the command of our Lord. Under such cir- 
 cumstances it becomes a matter of duty to " stand fast in 
 that liberty wherewith Christ maketh free." 
 
 OUR ENGLISH TRANSLATORS, AND OUR COMMON ENGLISH BIBLE. 
 
 Mr. Woolsey demands in capitals, p. 76, " WHY 
 DID THOSE WHO TRANSLATED OUR BlBLE NOT TRANSLATE 
 BAPTIZE AND ITS DERIVATIONS, WHEN THEY CAME TO THE 
 NEW TESTAMENT ] WHY DID THEY TRANSFER THE GREEK 
 WORDS INTO THEIR ENGLISH VERSION." 
 
 "I answer," says he, "iust for the same reason that 
 
 > j j 
 
 induced the crafty Bishop Gardiner, in the reign of Henry 
 VIII., when he found it impossible longer to withhold an 
 English Testament, to assert by a popish stratagem, that 
 there were many words in the New Testament of such 
 majesty that they were not to be translated." 
 
 From this, Mr. Woolsey goes on to devote over twenty 
 pages of his work, to the purpose of showing that the 
 translators of our Bible were crafty, designing men, who 
 with a wicked intent covered up and concealed the in- 
 structions of the Holy Ghost with regard to baptism ; and 
 gave us what he has elsewhere denominated " A Bible 
 mutilated and disguised." He maintains that the trans- 
 lators were not at liberty " to follow the plain import of 
 certain words, nor the convictions of their own con- 
 science ; (p. 80) he affirms that they were " most willing 
 to be guided" by such rules, as " No one," says he, 
 " need be informed of the very special pecuniary interest 
 bishops and priests have in keeping up a union between 
 church and state. They have their living, as it is termed ; 
 and in too many instances they have it without lifting a 
 finger to earn it ! ! A good fat Living, drawn from the 
 people in penury and want ! ! !" p. 82. He represents 
 
50 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 the translators as concurring in a design to have the Scrip- 
 tures so " guarded and moulded," as not to interfere with 
 the " darling object of the cunning sovereign's" " aspiring 
 ambition, nor subject," them (the king and bishops) " in 
 their arrogant importance, to the humility and fancied in- 
 convenience of being immersed so long as they could 
 suppress their convictions of conscience, and satisfy them- 
 selves with being sprinkled" 
 
 To back up what he says about the dishonesty of the 
 translators* with regard to the word baptize, he complains 
 of their translation of the word e^A^o, Church; in- 
 timates, p. 94, that the very word Church, was wrongly 
 foisted into the New Testament to promote a union of 
 church and state. Here he quotes, (as I have already 
 mentioned), Home Tooke on this "wicked" word, 
 church; taking care to put the words "slaughter" "pil- 
 lage" and " cheats" into italics ; runs on in a long note 
 on the "patriotic Tooke," "indicted for high treason, be- 
 
 * The Rev. Thomas Curtis, an Englishman by birth and edu- 
 cation, and a Baptist of high standing, in his speech before the 
 American Bible Society, May, 1837, says of our common version, 
 11 That venerable body of forty.seven good and learned men in 
 the days of King James, who were the authors of this production, 
 have had no successors. Not only has there been no combination 
 of forty seven such men since their day there has been none of 
 ten such men." '< While none say that it is perfect, or claim for 
 it the authority of inspiration, this we will say, and say LOUDLY, 
 Let the version alone, till men equally competent to the task, 
 possessing not only equal learning but equal leisure, shall meet to 
 review the labors of their forefathers, I repeat the monition, Let 
 it alone, on the peril of your consistency and credit, and on the 
 higher peril of a frown from the Lord of the Church ; I entreat 
 you let it alone," ***! have but one word more to say. In 
 the name of common sense and Christian sense, to you, Sir, I say 
 it humbly, but earnestly, LET IT ALONE." 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 51 
 
 cause he maintained the right of the people to an equal 
 representation: and praises his "very patriotic spirit," 
 evinced in his raising a subscription for the suffering 
 citizens of Boston, when the martial laws were enforced 
 against them, "for opposing British taxation, and for 
 destroying the tea." (p. 94.) 
 
 After going on with such matters and in such a strain 
 for eighteen pages, he says, p. 95, " You will be enabled 
 to see why baptize, baptism, ftc., are not translated, but 
 transferred into our English bible. To translate them 
 would betray the erroneous practice of the church of Eng- 
 land, and force all her bishops and ministers to confess 
 that they had been in an egregious error, and that tht 
 Baptists were right" On p. 90, he calls our English 
 Bible, a " specimen of hiding from the heathen a divine and 
 positive institution of the Gospel ;" a " version" that blots 
 out what God " has made plain." 
 
 But these twenty pages of direct assault upon our trans- 
 lation do not content him. He breaks out upon it again 
 and again, as though his heart could never discharge itself 
 of his bitterness towards it. On p. 152, he says, " So in- 
 tent were the translators in following out the king's design, 
 by concealing the original import of the ecclesiastical 
 words, as in some instances, GROSSLY TO PERVERT THE 
 MEANING OF THE SACRED TEXT." " I have," says he, 
 " before furnished you some instances where the sense of 
 Scripture has been thus corrupted, and turned entirely 
 away from its original import." 
 
 He goes on to specify another instance of what he terms, 
 " The glaring perversion of Scripture, by suppressing the 
 word baptize, and substituting the word wash in its place." 
 On p. 153j he says, " The- translators of our English 
 Bible, for the sake of suppressing the true import of the 
 
52 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 Greek words baptize and baptism, have not only conceal- 
 ed from our English readers, so much of the instructions 
 of the Holy Ghost," &c. " but also, they have represent- 
 ed the Holy Ghost as using the most stupid tautology." 
 
 After the examination which I have already made of 
 Mr. Woolsey's translation of this passage, and of that in 
 Luke xi. 38, the intelligent reader, I doubt not, will per- 
 ceive that the " glaring perversion of the sacred text," the 
 " suppressing of the true import of the Greek word bap- 
 tize," and the concealing from the English reader the in- 
 structions of the Holy Ghost, " is not on the part of our 
 common English version, but on the part of Mr. Woolsey." 
 Our English version will, I am confident, in this matter 
 abide the most scrutinizing test. The more it is examin- 
 ed, the more, I am persuaded, the integrity, and accuracy, 
 and profound learning of our English translators will 
 shine. 
 
 It is not necessary that I should undertake the work of 
 defending our English translation. I should as soon think 
 of defending the clear light of heaven, from the envious 
 smoke of a coal-pit. Our translation has stood the test of 
 time. The ablest scholars that the world has produced, 
 have born their testimony to the surpassing excellence and 
 faithfulness of our common version of the word of God. 
 The rigid Puritan has vied with the rigid Churchman in 
 his praises of that translation. The follower of Calvin 
 and the follower of Wesley meet in this version as on 
 common and sacred ground. The more that translation is 
 examined by competent men, the more is it admired ;- and 
 still the more admired by how much they who examine it 
 are the more competent. Mr. Woolsey may shake the 
 confidence of his people in our common Bible 5 if a tithe 
 of what he has alledged against it be true, their confidence 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 53 
 
 in it ought not only be shaken, but utterly destroyed.* 
 And then, where shall they rest 1 To what quarter shall 
 they turn for the word of God 1 They cannot read the 
 original. In such a dishonest version as that of King 
 James, how shall they know how to separate the precious 
 from the vile 1 Like the poor papists, they must learn 
 the word of God from the lips of the priest. They must 
 depend upon the competency, the accuracy, and the fideli- 
 ty of Mr. Wools ey ; they must depend upon this ground 
 till there shall be a Baptist Bible ; and when such a Bible is 
 made, if it is made conformable to the vocabulary prefixed 
 to the present Baptist editions of our common version, they 
 must have the satisfaction of knowing, that, if Mr. Woolsey's 
 opinion is correct, it is a mere sectarian Bible, making 
 the word of God speak demonstrable falsehood ; besides 
 being rejected by all the remainder of the Protestant 
 world. 
 
 * Such is the effect already produced in no small measure upon 
 those who heed these representations concerning our common 
 English Bible. A very zealous Baptist, fresh from hearing these 
 representations, came to me, with the leaves of his New Testa- 
 ment turned down in dog's ears, arguing that there is no re-bap- 
 tism spoken of in Acts xix. " The word this," says he, u in the 
 5th verse, is in the past tense." What word in the past tense ? 
 11 The wordl&iff,' in the 5th verse." What, a pronoun in the past 
 tense? " Well," says he, " therein a fault in the translation, and 
 if you will tell me honestly how it is in the Greek, I will prove to 
 you that here was no re-baptism." Now what Bible has such a 
 man for any thing ? The Greek : alas he cannot read it. The 
 English : alas hs cannot trust it. The Baptist minister must be 
 his Bible. And yet how common it is to hear such people quote 
 Greek and Hebrew, and talk about Nipto and Baptizo and Tdbal t 
 with as much assurance as if they had a divine warrant to un- 
 church and excommunicate every minister and every man in 
 Christendom who should not bow to their decision in all questions 
 of Biblical criticism and philology, touching the meaning of the 
 word Baptize. 
 
 *' 
 
54 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 DEFINING THE WORD BAPTIZE. 
 
 Mr. Woolsey says, p. 62, " Pedobaptists contend that 
 it is quite impossible to define the word baptize, as em- 
 ployed by John, when he baptized the Savior in Jordan, 
 and as used by our Lord himself in his commission to his 
 apostles." He intimates, p. 63, that we "bring an alle- 
 gation against the Son of God," as though he had given a 
 commission to the apostles which they "did not under- 
 stand." He says, p. 334, " If we may be allowed to 
 take the position ASSUMED BY OUR PEDOBAPTIST BRETHREN, 
 that we cannot tell what meaning to attach to those words 
 in the revelation of God, which are employed to teach us 
 Divine institutions and important doctrines, where shall 
 we stop in our daring course of rendering ambiguous 
 what God has made plain ?" 
 
 I am not aware that any Pedobaptist has ever " con- 
 tended or imagined that it is quite impossible to define 
 the word baptize," as employed by John and our Savior, 
 So far as my information extends, it is not true, that " our 
 Pedobaptist brethren " have " assumed the position thai 
 we cannot tell what meaning to attach to those words " 
 baptize and baptism, in the Word of God. Mr. Woolsey 
 knows full well that we have been ready and prompt to 
 define baptism, as a " washing " in the sense of " purify- 
 ing ;" a ritual purifying by some manner of application 
 of water ; in which the mode of the application is a mat- 
 ter of entire indifference, provided it be done decently 
 and reverently, as becomes an ordinance of God.* As to 
 
 * Thus, MARTIN LUTHER, in his translation of the Bible, renders 
 tfte word baptize, in Mark vii. 4 and Luke xi. 38, by the word 
 wash. Our English translators have done the same ; and in Heb, 
 

 BAPTIST ERRORS. 55 
 
 the mode of applying water in baptism, Mr. Woolsey 
 knows that we maintain that the Word of God is neither 
 
 ix. 10, as well as in Mark vii. 4, they have rendered the word bap- 
 tisms by the word washings. 
 
 Says OWEN : " Baptism is any kind of washing, whether by 
 dipping or sprinkling." 
 
 WALL : " The word baptizo, in Scripture, signifies to wash in 
 general, without determining the sense to this or that sort of 
 washing " 
 
 FLAVEL: "The word baptize signifying as well to wash as to 
 plunge ; a person may be truly baptised that is not plunged." 
 
 GLAS : u Immersion cannot be called baptism, any otherwise 
 than as it is a mode of washing with water." 
 
 DCEDERLEIN : " The power of the word baptizo is expressed 
 (in lavando, abluendo) in washing, or performing ablution ; on which 
 account we read of the baptism of cups, in Mark vii. 8, and the 
 rite itself is called (KaOapiarjo^ a purifying, in John iii. 25." 
 
 DANJEUS : " Baptism signifies not only immersion, but also 
 lotion and ablution ; and not only are they baptized who are dipped 
 in water, but they that are tinged or wetted with water." 
 
 BEZA : " They are rightly baptized, who are baptized by sprink- 
 ling." 
 
 CALVIN : " Whether the person be wholly immersed, and whether 
 thrice or once, or whether water be only poured or sprinkled upon 
 him, is of no importance." 
 
 WICKLIFFE : " It matters not whether persons are dipped once, 
 or three times, or whether water were poured on their heads." 
 
 LIGHTFOOT : * The application of water is the essence of bap- 
 tism ,* but the application of it in this or that manner, speaks but a 
 circumstance." 
 
 ROBINSON, in his translation of WAUL, according to the plan of 
 his lexicon, gives first the common classic meaning of the word, 
 ** submerge, sink :" but under this head he gives not a solitary example 
 from the New Testament. He then adds, "In New Test, trans., 1, to 
 wash, to perform ablution, cleanse ; 2, to baptize, immerse, administer 
 the rite of baptism." 
 
 Whoever wishes to see authorities like these cited to a vast 
 extent, may consult POND on Baptism, p. 23 and onward ; from 
 which work most of the above are taken. 
 
66 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 " indefinite " nor " ambiguous," in leaving the mode un- 
 defined. Is this "assuming the position that we cannot 
 tell what meaning to attach to the words!" Is this 
 " contending that it is quite impossible to define the word 
 baptize V' Is the meaning of the command to baptize 
 "indefinite and ambiguous" because the word baptize 
 requires only a ritual application of water, without limit- 
 ing the application to any one mode 1 Let us test this 
 principle. The illustration may be made by the word of 
 Mr. Woolsey's own choosing, p. 6 1 : " Should, for 
 instance, the authorities of this town pass an ordinance 
 that every citizen should PAVE the sidewalk over against 
 his own house," Mr. Woolsey might say, " this means to 
 pave with BRICK, and most deliberately assure us," p. 65,, 
 that no doctrine is better understood or more explicitly 
 "stated than the doctrine" of paving. He might declare 
 how much those who pave exclusively with brick " recoil 
 at such a sentiment " as " brings an allegation " against the 
 authorities of the town, as though they would command 
 us to pave, and leave the mode of paving " indefinite and 
 ambiguous." In reply, we would answer: But, Mr. 
 Woolsey, the authorities of the town require us to pave, 
 and simply to pave. Of course they do not intend to 
 limit us to any one mode of paving, either with brick, 
 wood, or stone, and perhaps they thought it very important 
 not to limit us to any one mode. We might refer him to 
 legal documents of the same town authorities, in which 
 they speak of pavements, which either are not brick pave- 
 ments, or those documents speak what, even on Mr. 
 Woolsey's concession, is a falsehood. What would be 
 thought of his candor or his logic, if he should reply, (see 
 p. 6 1 of his work,) You might as well maintain that the 
 import of the statute is to " beautify the sidewalk," or to 
 "excavate the sidewalk," or to "make a subterraneous 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 57 
 
 passage under it," after the example of the celebrated tun- 
 nel under the Thames. 
 
 TRANSLATING THE WORD BAPTIZE. 
 
 Our English translators employed the words baptize and 
 baptism, which had been for ages in common use, to 
 denote the ordinance, and which had become vernacular 
 in the English tongue. Of Greek origin these words un- 
 doubtedly were, but they were as well understood as the 
 words geography, astronomy, biography, rhetoric, grammar, 
 and history are now ; which are as truly of Greek original, 
 and as purely Greek, as the words baptize and baptism. 
 I have proved, as I think, with regard to some passages, 
 that immerse could not have been the sense of baptize, 
 and that the word could not have been so translated con- 
 sistently with truth. But had such been its meaning, the 
 word immerse could not have been better understood than 
 the word baptize. Immerse is as purely Latin as baptize 
 is Greek. Baptize became an English word as soon as 
 the Gospel was preached in England : and our Baptist 
 brethren contend that baptism was then performed by 
 immersion. Had this been the case, and had the old 
 Britons been taught to consider immersion the essence of 
 baptism, the word baptism in their language would have 
 signified immersion ; arid the Greek word baptizo would 
 have as truly expressed the idea as the Latin word 
 immerse. At all events, as our Baptist brethren claim 
 that the Gospel was first preached in Britain by immer- 
 sers, and that immersion was the exclusive mode of bap- 
 tism till near the time our translation was made, they 
 ought for very shame to give over their abuse of our Eng- 
 lish translators as though they had transferred the word 
 instead of translating it. Either the claims of our Baptist 
 brethren are idle and false, or the transferring was done 
 5* 
 
58 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 by immersers; and then their accusations against Pedo- 
 baptists, as though they had transferred the word baptize 
 for the purpose of " concealing its true import," are idle 
 and false. Our Baptist brethren may choose which horn 
 of the dilemma they will: either their claims are idle and 
 false, or their accusations are idle and false. The word 
 was, indeed, originally transferred into our language : but 
 our English translators did not make the transfer ; they 
 gave a proper translation employing THE VERY word 
 that had been exclusively employed to denote the ordi- 
 nance, ever since the day that the Christian religion was 
 first planted in their native land. "Baptize was then as 
 much an English word as almost any word in the English 
 language, most of the words having been as much derived 
 from a foreign source as the word baptize. 
 
 But neither of the words immerse, sprinkle, pour, or 
 any other word that relates merely to the mode of the or- 
 dinance could express the idea of baptism. Baptism is a 
 sacred rite, of peculiar signification and design. Whatever 
 be the mode of performing it, such a mode oi applying 
 water may be a very familiar thing with any people on 
 earth. Such things as dipping, immersing, sprinkling and 
 pouring, are very common among all nations wherever 
 there is water ; and of course every language must have a 
 word for each of these things. But certainly it will not 
 be contended that all heathen nations are in the habit of 
 performing such a thing as a Christian baptism, in the 
 Christian sense. The Baptists do not consider every im- 
 mersion a baptism, in the Christian sense. If they do, 
 then, so far as baptism is concerned, they must hold com- 
 munion with every man who accidentally falls overboard ; 
 if they do not, then they do not consider immersion as 
 equivalent to baptism ; and it is idle to pretend that the 
 word baptism is equivalent to the word immerse ; or that 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 59 
 
 immerse is an adequate or faithful translation of the word 
 baptize. On our part we do not hold every man baptized 
 who has been accidentally sprinkled in a shower. We 
 cannot therefore claim that the word baptize is equivalent 
 to the word sprinkle : and do not consider the word sprin- 
 kle or the word pour as a proper translation of the word 
 baptize.* No word which expresses simply a MODE of ap- 
 plying water can fill up the idea of the word baptizo : and 
 any word which limits, the application to any one mode is 
 an arrant perversion of the Scriptures : which expressly 
 speak of baptism under two modes, sprinkling and pour- 
 ing; and refer to it again and again under the more 
 general idea of a purifying, or a washing. The mode im- 
 
 * Our Baptist brethren are fond of making a representation touch- 
 ing this matter which is very plausible and captivating to ignorant 
 and unreflecting minds; but nothing can be more disingenuous in 
 the estimation of those who understand the subject. Thus Mr. 
 Woolsey, p. 211, endeavors to show what c< effort" we make 4< to 
 get around the plain instruction of the apostle" in Rom. vi. 4, by 
 insinuating that we would have it read, or take ground which re- 
 quire us to read " Buried with him by sprinkling." The Baptist 
 Bible Society is equally disingenuous and injurious not only with 
 regard to us, but with regard to the truth in this matter. Thus, in 
 the Appendix to the Report for 1840, p. 52, they say, " If a Pedo. 
 baptist translator conscientiously believes that sprinkling or 
 pouring is th^ meaning of baptizo, let him thus render the word. 
 The reader cannot fail, I think, to see the fallacy and disingenuous- 
 ness of such an argument, and such a mode of representing Pedo- 
 baptist views. Our brethren represent us as holding what I 
 think, they must know we do not hold ; viz. that baptize in the 
 New Testament signifies a mode of applying water ; is synonymous 
 with the word pprinkle ; and can be adequately and truly translat- 
 ed by the term sprinkle. Assuming that we maintain this, and 
 so representing us, they endeavor to show the absurdity of such 
 ground, and then, " covering up and concealing" our real views, 
 they endeavor to ** transfer" that absurdity to our account. 
 
60 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 merse is the very one which finds the least countenance 
 in the word of God : if indeed, there is any unquestiona- 
 ble authority for that mode, aside from its being one of the 
 modes of washing or purifying. 
 
 In translating the word baptize, therefore, we must have 
 a word which possesses two qualities : 1st. It must denote 
 a sacred application of water in a ritual purifying : 2d. It 
 must not limit the application to any one mode. To wash 
 or, to purify, comes nearer the true idea, than either of the 
 words, sprinkle or immerse, and they are the only words 
 which can be employed with exclusive reference to a 
 mode of baptizing, consistently with the truth of the 
 Bible. Yet neither wash, or purify, have the exact and full 
 signification, by the common acceptation of these terms. To 
 wash, did not originally in our language, mean a ritual 
 purification ; much less did immerse have that meaning , 
 and, to purify, does not in the common use of our language 
 signify necessarily an application of water. "We may use 
 them, with a modification of their common meaning ; and 
 the connection will show in what sense they are used. 
 But after all, when the new idea of baptism came into the 
 minds of the old Britons, they needed either a new word, 
 or a new adaptation of an old word to express that idea. 
 They wanted a term which should express a ritual puri- 
 fying by some manner of sacred application of water : 
 and it mattered not what word they employed, nor from 
 what source it was derived, provided they might agree 
 respecting what word should express the idea. To illus- 
 trate this, in the South Sea Islands, they had no know- 
 ledge of such a thing as a horse ; and of course, no word 
 for horse. But in translating the Bible for them, it was ne- 
 cessary to find something to substitute for the word horse. 
 The animal might have been described by a long circum- 
 locution, by the use of words already existing in their Ian- 
 
 

 * * 
 
 BAPTIST ERRORS. 61 
 
 guage ; but this would not do 5 the word must be trans- 
 lated. How could this be done ; as the natives had no 
 word for horse ] The Missionaries made a word for them. 
 The Greek word for horse is Hippos ; and by leaving oft' 
 the last letter, the word would conform in shape and 
 sound to the structure of native words much better than 
 the English word horse, and quite as well as any other 
 combination of sounds that might be invented. So the 
 Missionaries translated the word horse by the word " Hip- 
 po."* But this word would need explanation. Grant it. 
 And so the word baptizo has to be explained by Baptist 
 translators, and they explain it to mean, most errone- 
 ously as we believe, immersion. 
 
 ^ - / 
 
 NO NEW THING TO TRANSFER PECULIAR WORDS FROM ONE 
 LANGUAGE TO ANOTHER. 
 
 THIS transferring of words from one language to anothei 
 is not so uncommon a process as many of our brethren 
 seem to suppose it. What English word shall be substi- 
 tuted for the Greek word c Tetrarch" in Luke iii. 1 1 
 What for the Greek word " Pentecost" in Acts ii. 1 1 
 What for the Greek words " Christ " and " Christians ? " 
 " Christ " signifies anointed ; and so does the Hebrew 
 c< Messiah" But to translate the word, in all cases, on 
 
 * The Missionaries at the Sandwich Islands found the Hawaiian 
 language so copious that they were not under the necessity of in- 
 troducing a great number of foreign words except proper names. 
 " We have however," say they, " adopted Ekalesia for churdh, 
 bapetiso for baptize, bapetiso for baptism, Bapetite for Baptist, 
 lepero for leper, aeto for eagle, alopeke for fox, berena for 
 bread, enemi for enemy, himeni for hymn, halelu for psalm, and a 
 few other foreign words, most of which are well established and 
 familiar to common readers." (Rep. Am. Bible Society, 1837.) 
 The classical and Biblical scholar will at once recognize the origin 
 of most of these words. 
 
6 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 the principle contended for by our Baptist brethren, would 
 confound and destroy the meaning of many passages of 
 Scripture. The word is applied by way of eminence, as 
 an APPELLATION, to the promised Redeemer. In Matt. i. 
 1, 18, and Mark i, as often elsewhere, our Lord is called, 
 not "Jesus THE Christ," but "Jesus Christ:'" As George 
 Campbell well says, (D. V. Part 4,) " Though the word 
 Jlnointed expresses the primitive import of the Hebrew 
 name, it does not convey the idea in which it was then 
 universally understood. It was considered solely as the 
 well-known title of an extraordinary office, to which there 
 was nothing similar among the people." That the word 
 Christ has this peculiar meaning when applied to the Sa- 
 vior, may be seen at once, by applying the word, in its 
 English sense, to other personages, who are often spoken 
 of by the same original words, both in Hebrew and Greek- 
 How would it sound to hear David speaking of Saul, as in 
 1 Sam. xxiv. 6, repeatedly call that wicked king the 
 " Christ of the Lord 1 " How would it sound in Isa. xlv. 1, 
 to hear the Lord speaking to Cyrus, as to his " Christ ? " 
 or, in Psalm cv., " Touch not my Christ 1 " Here the 
 sense as imperatively demands that the word be translated 
 according to its original import, as other passages do, 
 that it should not be translated but transferred. 
 
 I suppose it would be lawful to talk to the Hindoos, or 
 the Burmans, about the Jewish " Synagogues ; " though 
 that too is a word of Greek origin. If any heathen have 
 no term for such beings as devils, I suppose it would be 
 lawful to introduce to them such words as the Greek Dia- 
 bolos, or the English word Devil. It would be a matter 
 of indifference whether you introduce to them our Hebraic 
 English word " Sabbath" and teach them its meaning ; or 
 teach them how to use one of their own old words with a 
 new meaning. The vojume of God's word might retain 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 63 
 
 its Greek-English name Bible, or it might be turned into 
 the words vernacular among the heathen, for " writings," 
 or for " The Book ; " only teaching them to give a new 
 idea to their common words. Such words as " Jubilee" 
 "homer? "ephah," "shekel," " cherubim," might be trans- 
 ferred, or old words selected, and taught to bear a mean- 
 ing not originally their own, as should be found most con- 
 venient. A scholar, dealing. in profane literature only, in 
 translating from the ancient Greek writers, or from Cicero 
 or Tacitus, might find himself compelled, either to give 
 erroneous ideas, or to transfer into Burmese, or Japanese, 
 such words as " Jirchon" " Consul," " Prater" QuestorJ* 
 "Censor," "Senator," "Dictator," "Tribune." "Who," 
 says Campbell, " considers these names " (as transferred 
 into our language) " as barbarous 1 " " To have employed, 
 instead of them, ( JlldermanJ 4 Sheriff J &c. we should 
 have justly thought much more exceptionable." " I have 
 heard," says he, -" of a Dutch translator of Caesar's Com- 
 mentaries, who always rendered consul, burgomaster / and 
 in the same taste, all the other officers and magistrates of 
 Rome." How could we have translated the Latin classics, 
 and given the true idea, unless we had naturalized, in such 
 cases, the very Latin words, and learned the ideas and the 
 names together 1 Where would have been our English 
 ideas of such a thing as a " libation" an " ova/ion" a 
 " lustration," had we not imported, not only the names, 
 but the very ideas, from the language and customs of hea- 
 thenism 1 Whence comes our English word " triumph 1 " 
 Whence come the now English words, " Sultan," "Pacha,' 
 " Khan," " Bey ?. " What limit is there to the transferring 
 of the very words of the people who bring us new things 
 and new ideas 1 Look at our military terms : almost all 
 adopted and transferred from the French. Look at our 
 terms of chimistry, botany, and zoology : how many of 
 them have been recently compounded from the Greek. 
 
64 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 Now, unless Baptism is already in use among the hea- 
 thens, as a RELIGIOUS PURIFICATION, and expressed by a word 
 of their own, having this precise idea, in distinction from 
 the idea of any simple mode of administering water, or at 
 least in addition to such an idea of mode, it must be as in- 
 adequate and inaccurate a translation which shall use an 
 old word of theirs, referring simply to the mode of apply- 
 ing water, as it would be to turn the Roman " Consul " 
 into a Dutch " Burgomaster" The translation is inade- 
 quate ; it is incorrect; it misleads; and that aside from 
 the consideration that to translate Baptize, immerse, makes 
 the Bible speak falsehood, even with regard to the mere 
 mode. You may transfer the word Baptize ; you may 
 call Baptism, in Siamese, (as the Baptist Bible SQciety say 
 our missionaries have done,) " Bapteetsamay," conform- 
 ing the shape of the word to the genius of the language, as 
 in the Latin Baptizare, and the English Baptize ; and it 
 is correct. It is as easy to teach them the new word as it 
 is to teach them the new idea the positive and peculiar 
 Scripture idea of Baptize. Or you may translate baptize 
 into a word signifying to WASH ; still better, if you can find 
 a word which signifies a ritual purifying by washing ; 
 and you have given a most faithful translation. But to 
 translate the word by the word immerse, is to give an ina- 
 dequate, inaccurate, and, as we contend, a false idea. 
 
 TO TRANSFER THE WORD BAPTIZE INTO FOREIGN LANGUAGES 
 NEITHER TEACHES ERROR NOR CONCEALS THE TRUTH. 
 
 By substituting the word immerse for the word baptize, 
 our Baptist brethren, as we think, have added to the com- 
 mand of Christ, and corrupted the word of God. Our 
 missionaries to the people of the same languages cannot 
 consistently circulate such bibles, nor use them in their 
 schools or churches. To transfer the word baptize, or to 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 65 
 
 render it by the word " wash," is not to teach the heathen 
 that baptism is to be performed by sprinkling, or by pour- 
 ing, more than it is to teach them that baptism is to be 
 performed by immersing. I know our Baptist brethren 
 insist, that so to transfer the word is to "propagate the 
 peculiar sentiments" of Pedobaptists, and to " diffuse the 
 opinions of " the Pedobaptist "party."* This, cannot be 
 so, unless the word baptize is so used in the New Testa- 
 ment as to lead people every where, who are not other- 
 wise instructed, to conclude that, according to the word of 
 God, immersion is not essential to baptism. Our Baptist 
 brethren either know this to be so, and therefore feel it 
 all-important to their cause to cover up and conceal the 
 obvious Scriptural meaning of baptize ; or they know the 
 allegation to be false, that such transferring of the word is 
 to make a " sectarian Bible," and to " diffuse the opinions" 
 of Pedobaptists. If this be not so, then for our Baptist 
 brethren to transfer the word baptize, is neither to give up 
 their principles nor to conceal them ; nor is such a 
 transfer giving any advantage to Pedobaptists more than 
 to Baptists. But our Baptist brethren maintain, that 
 consenting to circulate versions in which the word is 
 transferred is to become the " unconscious instruments of 
 diffusing the opinions of a party,"* to wit of the Pedo- 
 baptist party. The plain English, and the true logic of 
 this, is, that if you leave people to judge of the meaning 
 of baptize from its use in the word of God, you make 
 Pedobaptists of them ; and that, if you thus leave the 
 word of God to interpret itself, it will make Pedobaptists, 
 even when given by Baptist hands and accompanied by 
 Baptist instructions. Either this is the true reason for 
 
 * Report Baptist Bible Society, 1840, p. 45. ' ' 
 
 * Baptist Bible Society Report, 1840, p. 45. 
 
 6 
 
66 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 this earnest stickling for substituting the word immerse, 
 instead of the word baptize, or these charges of " cover- 
 ing up the word of God," " suppressing the true mean- 
 ing of baptize," and " diffusing the opinions of a party," 
 are idle as the whistling wind, and confessedly false. 
 "Diffusing the opinions of a party !" What do our 
 brethren mean 1 What is it to substitute the word im- 
 merse for the word baptize 1 Is not this " to diffuse the 
 opinions of a party ?" Is it not to set themselves up to 
 judge over seven-eighths of the Protestant world 1 Ifc it 
 not to treat all other Protestants as " a party" and to arro- 
 gate to themselves the catholicity and infallibility claimed 
 by the Papal Beast 1 " Diffuse the opinions of a party !" 
 Yet not many years have elapsed since our Baptist breth- 
 ren joined with us, heart and hand, in putting just such a 
 version with the word baptize transferred into every 
 family in the land. They use the same version in their 
 families and in their churches. The great mass of them 
 seem content that such a version shall be perpetuated and 
 diffused throughout the world, wherever the English lan- 
 guage shall be spoken, to the end of time. I think I 
 have shown that they will never be able to agree upon a 
 different version in English, a version to be made upon 
 the principles of the Baptist Bible glossary, and on which 
 they make their foreign translations, by faithfully substi- 
 tuting the word immerse for the word baptize, without 
 entering into a compromise, in which half of their de- 
 nomination shall allow the Bible to speak what they admit 
 to be falsehood, or the other half yield to the first party 
 in doing what they themselves consider as corrupting and 
 altering the sacred text of the word of God. Our Eng- 
 lish version the Baptists, as a body, consider good enough 
 for us, for themselves, and for their children. They are 
 willing to have it perpetuated to the end of time, as the 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 
 
 67 
 
 Bible of the English language ; the language destined, 
 ere long, to be spoken by more millions than ever have 
 agreed in speaking one language since the world began. 
 Even the Baptist Bible Society content themselves by 
 prefixing, to the copies which they print, that glossary 
 whose absurdities I have had occasion to expose. But so 
 agreeing to use our common English version, in which 
 the word baptize is transferred, can they have in reality 
 any scruples of conscience against circulating a similar 
 version among the heathen 1 Have they, tjien, one con- 
 science for themselves and their children, and another for 
 the heathen I * one conscience for people who speak 
 English, and another conscience for those who speak the 
 Burman language, or the Bengali 1 Will they condemn 
 a version with the word transferred into a foreign tongue, 
 and yet circulate such a version among their own country- 
 men, hand it down to posterity, and perpetuate it to the end 
 of time 1 Why so much better care of the heathen than of 
 their brethren and children 1 Have they men abroad who 
 can make a true translation ; and have they none at home 
 who can do the same 1 Are their means most abundant 
 abroad 1 Will the press strike deep upon the word im- 
 merse in a foreign tongue, and refuse to strike the same 
 word immerse amid the very dwellings of the Baptist 
 name 1 But it may be said that here their preachers can 
 
 * " The Rev. Joseph Hughes, a Baptist, and long Secretary of 
 the British and Foreign Bible Society, had no scruple against 
 transferring baptize ; nor has the Rev. Mr. Sutton, now a Baptist 
 missionary in India. Two able pamphlets, by Baptists in England, 
 have just been published in favor of such a course. The Chippewa 
 New Testament, by Dr. James, a Baptist, and printed in 1833 at 
 Albany, has the word baptize transferred /" [Statement of Man- 
 agers of American Bible Society, Feb. 1841.] 
 
68 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 correct the errors of the Bible which they use : that their 
 practice and their instructions will teach their children 
 and the world that by baptize they mean immerse. Will 
 not the instructions of their missionaries, and their practice 
 teach the heathen, in the same manner, that by baptize 
 they mean immerse 1 
 
 I confess, I am not able to see any reason for insisting 
 upon using the word immerse in foreign lands which is 
 not equally valid for insisting upon using the same at home, 
 To their own missionaries and their converts, it cannot 
 make the least difference whether they use the word im- 
 merse or the word baptize. The heathen will be taught 
 as soon, as surely, and as thoroughly, to consider baptize 
 as -equivalent to immerse. They will learn this as soon 
 as they learn any thing about baptism. The idea of immer- 
 sion will be inwrought into their very natures, and become 
 inseparable from the word baptize. As far as Baptist la- 
 bors and instructions go, therefore, it can make no manner 
 of difference whether they use the word baptize or the 
 word immerse in their foreign versions unless indeed, as 
 I have said, the word baptize is so used in the Scripture 
 as to lead every man who learns its meaning from its use 
 in the word of God, naturally and inevitably to conclude 
 that the word does not in the New Testament mean im- 
 merse. Unless this be so, it can make no manner of dif- 
 ference to them who receive the Bible from Baptist hands, 
 whether the word is rendered immerse or baptize. But to 
 others it does make a difference. In their view, to render 
 the word immerse is ,to add to the command of Christ and 
 to corrupt the word of God. If I follow out to the just 
 conclusion the argument from these considerations which 
 seem to me just, I should be compelled to conclude that 
 the true reason why our Baptist brethren insist upon hav- 
 ing the word immerse in their foreign versions, while they 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. O^ 
 
 retain the word baptize in their own, is no matter of 
 conscience, since conscience should do that for them- 
 selves and their children, which conscience requires them 
 to do for the heathen : but it is a design to do, what they 
 have charged upon us, to " diffuse the opinions of a 
 party :" to make a version which no other denomination 
 can use, without giving up the whole controversy ; surren- 
 dering their own judgment : allow the Baptists to be infalli- 
 ble, and help circulate their peculiar conceits as the un- 
 adulterated word of God. I say, were I to follow, where 
 facts and logic lead, I should be obliged to come to the 
 conclusion, that this is the design of our Baptist brethren. 
 But 1 will not impute to them the design of doing what 
 they virtually propose to do. I am willing to believe that 
 their intentions are better than their actual course. But 
 granting this ; believing it ; allowing them to be sincere and 
 conscientious ; we cannot nevertheless submit to have 
 every thing imposed on us which others may be sincere 
 and conscientious in imposing. We say, kindly, but we 
 say it firmly, brethren, you are not infallible. We can- 
 not join with you in circulating a Bible, which is designed- 
 ly so rendered as to condemn what we solemnly and fully 
 believe to be the truth of God. We cannot join in circu- 
 lating among our schools and churches in heathen lands, a 
 Bible which is made to speak the peculiar Baptist notions, 
 at the sacrifice of what nine-tenths of the Protestant world 
 believe to be the truth of God. You agree that you and 
 your children shall use, in common with us and our chil- 
 dren, a version in which the controversy between us is not 
 violently wrested and determined according to the notions 
 of one party to the condemnation of all others : a version 
 which is not sectarian : a version which leaves the ques- 
 tion between us open, as it must be left, till one party shall 
 claim infallibility, and the other submit to such a claim, 
 
70 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 !* ** v 
 
 and give up to that infallibility their own judgment and 
 their own conscience. If you say that such a version 
 leaves the Bible open to human explanations ; we reply, 
 that to make the Bible speak exclusive immersion is a 
 mere human explanation, the explanation only of a sect 
 a little party in comparison with the whole ; an expla- 
 nation which we deem greatly erroneous. Is it not enough 
 for you to make your explanations of the Bible ; must you 
 make Bible of your explanations ; and demand that this 
 prerogative be granted exclusively to yourselves! No, 
 brethren : having rejected the infallibility of the Pope we 
 shall not deem it faithfulness either to freedom or to the 
 truth to concede infallibility to you. Nor do we claim it 
 for ourselves. On equal terms we will meet you and be 
 brethren in the dearest bonds. Although you unchurch 
 us, shut us away from the Lord's table because we do not 
 follow the truth as you understand it rather than as we un- 
 derstand it, and be guided by your conscience rather than 
 by our own ; notwithstanding all this, we are ready to 
 meet you in the work of circulating the word of God. 
 Only require us not to add to the command of Christ. 
 Translate that word baptize so that we can circulate the 
 Bible as well as you ; leave this disputed question as it is 
 left in the Bible which you and we use in common, and 
 deem it good enough for ourselves and for our children; 
 and with all our souls we will aid you ; nay, do as we have 
 ever done, for every dollar paid into our common trea- 
 sury by your denomination for circulating the Bible in 
 foreign lands, pay to your missionaries and agents for 
 conducting the distribution on your part two.* 
 
 * Such is the fact. Our Baptist brethren have sounded the 
 trumpet loud and long ahout their being * turned" off from the 
 American Bible Society, destitute, while its funds ** were full and 
 
**tt 
 
 BAPTIST ERRORS. /I 
 
 MARTIN 
 
 Mr. Woolsey says, p. 74, " Luther, one of the great 
 reformers, gave the Bible translated to the Germans, that 
 
 overflowing." " Yes, sir," said Professor Eaton in his speech be- 
 fore the Baptist Bible Society, [Rep. Ann. For. Bib. Soc., 1840, 
 p. 77.] Yes, Sir, they withhold from us the funds which we in 
 the confiding simplicity of our hearts poured into the common 
 treasury foe the spread of the pure light of heaven over this dark 
 world." ' No faith is preserved with the poor Baptists." Charges 
 are made by. the Baptists, and circulated and urged with every 
 possible appeal to prejudice and to sympathy, that the '* American 
 Bible Society has received a large amount of money from Baptists," 
 (some say forty, fifty, eighty, and even one hundred and seventy 
 thousand dollars,) a large share of which has never been appro- 
 priated to their use ; which is still due to the Baptists, and which 
 the American Bible Society refuses to refund. The Board of 
 Managers of the American Bible Society, have recently made an 
 examination of this matter. In their " Statement" recently pub- 
 lished, they say * c the aggregate of legacies received from Baptists, 
 30 far as known to the Board, is no more than $18,000." These 
 were received in the years 1830 and 1831, * the very years when 
 the managers were endeavoring to supply the entire United States 
 with the Bible, and which funds" [the legacies] ' were wholly ex. 
 pended in that enterprise. Yes, they were all used in preparing 
 and circulating English, German, and French Bibles for the good 
 of our common country ; and a large debt remained after they 
 were expended. On looking over their books, the managers of 
 the American Bible Society find " in relation to Life Directors, 
 that out of a list of more than 400 belonging to the society, only 13 
 were of the Baptist denomination." Of these thirteen, two were 
 constituted directors on account of having been members of the 
 convention which formed the society. Two others were made 
 directors by contributions furnished by men of other denominations^ 
 and one of the remainder is still a friend of the American Bible 
 Society.*' [Leaving only four Baptist Directorships to be' other- 
 wise accounted for. " In relation to Life Members," on a *' list of 
 
72 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 they might read in their own language the wonderful 
 works of God ; and he rendered baptize into a word sig- 
 nifying to immerse." Again he says, p. 138, " or as Lu- 
 ther, the great reformer, renders it in his German Testa- 
 ment," Johannes der Taufer, " John the Dipper." 
 
 So the Baptist Bible Society in their report for 1840 
 p. 89, say, " Other translators may do as they please ; Bap- 
 tize may be twisted into all sorts of meanings except im? 
 mersion unless indeed in the case of old versions. Lu- 
 ther may say that it means to immerse, and his version 
 shall continue to be circulated ; but woe be to the Bap- 
 tists if they say so ; and what is the reason 1" 
 
 Mr. Woolsey compliments Luther, as " this bold de- 
 fender of the inalienable right of every man to become 
 personally acquainted with the truths of the Bible FAITH- 
 FULLY TRANSLATED into his own vernacular tongue." 
 
 more than 4000 names, not more than 100" can be identified as 
 Baptists. 
 
 On the list of 120 citizens in New York, who aided in the erec- 
 tion of the Society's house, at an expense of more than 22,000 dollars, 
 the managers find subscriptions from almost every other denomina- 
 tion, * but they find but one, belonging to that from which these 
 charges now come." The managers finally conclude, that *' aside 
 from the $18,000 legacies, [used at home and not to be counted] 
 there is no evidence of their having contributed to the treasury 
 ONE HALF the amount which they have received from it." 
 
 We shall now see whether Mr. Maclay, Mr. Woolsey, the Bap- 
 tist Bible Society, and their denominational prints will be as faith- 
 ful to circulate this full and undeniable refutation of these unjust 
 charges, as they were to fabricate and circulate the charges them- 
 selves^ It will be a matter that will give some insight into the 
 regard for the truth entertained by those who conduct the Baptist 
 press to observe how far the facts in this case shall ever be spread 
 before the Baptist community : and how full and ingenuous shall 
 be the confessions which those who have so industriously propagated 
 these slanders against the American Bible Society will make. 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 
 
 73 
 
 We all agree with Mr. Woolsey in venerating the 
 courage, the honesty, and the piety of Martin Luther. 
 But is Mr. Woolsey ignorant that the Germans and all 
 Lutherans who use his translation baptize by sprinkling, 
 as Luther practised and as Luther taught them 1 When 
 a German minister takes water in his hand and sprinkles 
 or pours it on the person baptized, saying, " ICH TAUFE 
 DICH," does he mean, / immerse you ?" Do the people 
 so understand him 1 Most certainly not. When Martin 
 Luther took water in his hand and poured or sprinkled it 
 on the head of a person, saying, " Ich TAUFE dich" did 
 he mean, " 1 immerse you V Would the people so un- 
 derstand himl It is impossible. Luther could never 
 have used that word in connection with such an action, 
 had it in his day been equivalent to immerse. The words 
 Taufen and Taufer, which Mr. Woolsey and the Baptist 
 Bible Society translate " immerse" and " dipper," mean 
 no such thing. They are used in German with specific 
 and exclusive reference to the rite of baptism : which the 
 Germans perform by sprinkling or affusion. 
 
 Thus, the English and German Dictionary by F. Jl. 
 Weber , of acknowledged and unquestionable authority, 
 gives the following definitions of the words in question. I 
 copy from the Leipzic Edition of 1833, by Tauchnitz. 
 " Taufe, baptism, christening. 
 
 Taufen^ to baptize, to christen. 
 
 Taufer, baptizer, baptist. 
 
 Taufling, person baptized. 
 
 Taufname, Christian name. 
 
 Taufclein, certificate from the church register." 
 
 The same Dictionary gives the following German words 
 for the English words, immerge, immerse, arid immersion. 
 It will be seen that Taufen is not among them. 
 
 " Immerge^ eiutauchen, versunken, vertieferi. 
 
74 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 Immerse, eintaucheri, untertauchen, vertiefen. 
 
 Immersion, untertauchung, versunkung." 
 
 BURCKHARDT, in his German and English Lexicon (ed. 
 Berlin, 1823), gives the same definitions, both in the Eng- 
 lish and in the German. 
 
 From this it is manifest, that whatever might have been 
 the etymology of the words Taufen and Taufer, they do 
 not in German mean immerse or immerser. To give a 
 German an idea of immersion you must use other words, 
 different both in their origin, their meaning, and their 
 form.* 
 
 The world will doubtless concur with Mr. Woolsey in 
 his encomium upon Luther as " This bold defender of the 
 
 * " It is probable," says Kurtz, (himself a distinguished Luther- 
 an,) that at an early period in the reformation Luther inclined to 
 the opinion that infants should be ' pretty well dipped,' but at no 
 time did he consider such dipping essential." " His apparent ori- 
 ginal preference (it was a mere preference,) of dipping was soon 
 abandoned ; and, as he grew older, he settled down into the same 
 opinion that is now entertained by the great body of Lutheran di- 
 vines in the United States." Dr. Kurtz refers to the statement 
 of Baptists, that " Luther himself, the great reformer, condemned 
 the practice of sprinkling, and even disapproved of infant baptism." 
 Upon this Dr. Kurtz remarks, '' That any one not utterly re- 
 gardless of his reputation, should hazard an assertion so entirely 
 unfounded, is matter of as much regret as it is surprise ; for Lu- 
 ther's writings, throughout, abound with the most conclusive evi- 
 dence in support of infant baptism, as well of his conviction of the 
 propriety and validity of its performance by affusion ; even his hos- 
 tility to the abuses of papacy is not susceptible of clearer or strong- 
 er proof." Dr. Kurtz then quotes numerous passages in which 
 Luther speaks of *' dipping a child in water, or sprinkling it with 
 water, according to the command of Christ." <{ Inasmuch as 
 there is neither ornament or honor at baptism, and God does out- 
 wardly no more than apply a HANDFUL OF WATER.'* (< Adminis- 
 tering it ('baptism,') by sprinkling water upon the subject, in 
 connection with the words prescribed by God." 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 75 
 
 inalienable right of every man," to have the Bible " faith- 
 fully translated into his vernacular tongue." Doubtless 
 Luther meant to give " the Bible translated to the Ger- 
 mans, that they might read in their owii language, the 
 wonderful works of God." But the reader may judge 
 whether Mr. Woolsey would not have spared his encomi- 
 um upon Luther, had he not, in talking about Luther's 
 translation, undertaken to talk about a matter concerning 
 which he was not well informed. Because our English 
 translators render the word Baptize by the word wash in 
 Mark, vii. 4, and Luke xi. 38, Mr. Woolsey declares 
 that they have been guilty of a " glaring perverson of this 
 Scripture, by suppressing the word baptize, and substitut- 
 ing the word wash" p. 152. He contends, p. 153, that 
 "the translators of our English Bible, for the sake of sup- 
 pressing the true import of the words baptize and bap- 
 tism," " have not only concealed" the " instructions of 
 the Holy Ghost," but "represented the Holy Ghost as 
 using the most stupid tautology." But how does that 
 "great reformer," and "bold defender," translate these 
 passages 1 Mr. Woolsey declares that he has given to the 
 Germans a Bible translated. How does Luther translate 
 these passages 1 He translates them by the word " WASH," 
 the pure old Saxon word, the identical mother of our good 
 old English word wash." " Und wenn sie vom Markte 
 kommen, essen sienicht^ sie WASCHEN SICH dernij" they 
 WASH THEMSELVES. So in Luke, xi. 38. " Da das der 
 Pharisaer sah, verwunderte er sich, dass er sich nicht 
 vor dem essen GE WASCHEN HATTE," that he had not 
 WASHED himself." 
 
 THE PESHITO-SYRIAC VERSION. 
 
 Mr. Woolsey affirms, p. 71, that " the venerable 
 Peshito-Syriac version," which he thinks was " evidently 
 
76 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 executed by the last of the first century," has baptize 
 translated by immerse. 
 
 If this were so, I think we have shown from higher 
 authority, even from the Scriptures themselves, that such 
 a translation is wrong. The testimony of Evangelists and 
 Apostles is as good against the mere opinion of all trans- 
 lators, as it is against testimony adduced from the heathen 
 Greeks. 
 
 But will Mr. Woolsey admit this translation to be good 
 authority on the subject of baptism 1 Will Mr. Woolsey, 
 after affirming, p. 252, that " not a word is said about in- 
 fant baptism" " till the third century ;" will he, after all 
 that he has said about " Mistress Lydia," p. 305, and its 
 being " quite certain that she was a maiden lady," p. 306 ; 
 will Mr. Woolsey, after this, admit the " venerable Peshito- 
 Syriac version," this " Protoplastic version," "the very best 
 that -has ever been made" as good authority on the subject 
 of baptism ? This Syriac version reads, that " when she 
 (Lydia) was baptized WITH HER CHILDREN."* Will Mr. 
 Woolsey, after affirming that this version was made by the 
 last of the first century, and maintaining that it " cannot be 
 determined" whether it " be the work of an inspired apostle 
 or not," will he now admit that he is wrong in declaring so 
 positively that there is no where any mention of infant 
 baptism till the third century 1 Will he admit, that he, 
 and all the Baptists are wrong in denying that infant bap- 
 tism existed before the close of the second century ; and 
 acknowledge that the practice can be traced clearly and 
 indubitably to the apostles : or will he forever after be 
 silent about the " immersion" of the " venerable Peshito- 
 Syriac version V 
 
 * Kurtz, p. 99. The Coptic version gives the same reading. 
 
' > , 
 
 BAPTIST ERRORS. 77 
 
 But it is not admitted that the Syriac version renders 
 the word baptize, by a word signifying immerse. The 
 best scholars deny it. Professor Stuart shows that while 
 the Syriac has a word, which means to plunge, dip, or 
 immerse, the Syriac version does not employ that word, 
 but another which signifies " to confirm- to establish" 
 so that " Baptism, then, in the language of the Peshito, 
 is the rite of confirmation simply, while the manner of 
 this is apparently left without being at all expressed."* 
 An English Baptist, who is, as says a competent judge, 
 " evidently a master in Israel," has recently written against 
 the "Baptist Translation Society. This writer accords 
 with Professor Stuart with regard to the meaning of the 
 Syriac word by which baptize is translated in the version 
 in question." " I confess," says he, " I can derive no coun- 
 tenance to my practice as a Baptist from this version." 
 Concerning the Ethiopic and Coptic versions, he admits 
 that " they must be set aside, if they are not used against 
 us ( c the Baptists') in the baptismal controversy."! 
 
 The ancient Syriac version is the present Bible of the 
 Nestorian Christians. Their modern word for baptize is 
 radically the word employed in the ancient version, and 
 like the German taufen, and the English baptize, it is 
 exclusively appropriated to the ordinance of baptism. 
 They baptize, either by immersion or affusion, and make 
 no objection when they see our missionaries baptize by 
 sprinkling, but consider it as good and valid baptism. Mr 
 Woolsey is, therefore, as much mistaken here, as he is in 
 the case of Martin Luther's version. 
 
 DUTCH, DANISH, AND SWEDISH VERSIONS. 
 
 Our Baptist brethren affirm that the Danish, Dutch, 
 
 * From Judd's Reply to Professor Stuart, p. 164. 
 t See New York Evangelist, Jan. 23, 1841. 
 7 
 
78 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 and Swedish versions have the words in dispute transla- 
 ted by words signifying immersion."* 
 
 On this subject I will simply quote the words of Dr. 
 Henderson who has studied the languages of Northern Eu- 
 rope on the ground, and is familiar with their idioms. 
 Dr. Henderson is authority upon this subject, which will 
 not probably be questioned. 
 
 Says Dr. Henderson, " As it respects the Gothic dia- 
 lects, which have been repeatedly appealed to with great 
 confidence, it is a settled point with all who are acquaint- 
 ed with them, that the reference is totally irrelevant- 
 That the Maeso-gothic daupian the Anglo-Saxon dyppan, 
 the Dutch doopen, the Swedish dopa, the Danish dobe, and 
 the German tan/en, all correspond in sound to our Eng- 
 lish word dip, does not admit of any dispute, any more 
 than the fact that dab, daub, and dub, have the same corres- 
 pondence, but nothing would be more erroneous than to 
 conclude, with the exception of the Anglo-Saxon, that 
 they must have the same signification. No Dutchman, 
 Dane, Swede, or German, would for a moment imagine 
 that the words belonging to their respective languages, 
 meant anything else than baptism, by the application of 
 water to the body baptized. The words are never used in 
 those languages in another sense, or in application to any 
 other subject. Where the Germans would express dip or 
 immerse they employ tauchen and not taufen, which is 
 the word by which baptize is translated. The Danes, in 
 like manner, use dyppe and neddyppe, for dip, and not 
 dobe. And that neither Luther, nor the authors of the 
 Dutch, Danish, and Swedish versions, had any intention of 
 conveying the idea of immersion as implied in baptize, is 
 obvious from the preposition which they have used with 
 the verb. Thus we read in German, mil wasser taufen 5 
 
 * Report Am. F. Bib. Soc. 1840, p. 38. Woolsey, p. 138. 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 79 
 
 in Danish, dobe met vand ; in Swedish, dopa med vatn ; 
 in Dutch, doopen met wasser : i. e. with water, and not in 
 wasser in water, i vand, i vatn ; which phraseology is as 
 foreign to these languages as the practice which it would 
 sanction is unknown to the inhabitants of the countries in 
 which they are spoken. Even the Mennonites* in Hol- 
 land, and other parts, though they reject infant baptism, 
 administer the ordinance by pouring, and not by immer- 
 sion." 
 
 THE VULGATE. 
 
 Mr. Woolsey says, p. 82, that " The Roman Catholic 
 Bible, i. e. the Latin Vulgate, was the first to transfer bap- 
 tize and other words, rather than translate them." Again, 
 p. 83, he calls the Vulgate the " authorized Roman Bible.'' 
 On p. 89, he classes our English Bible and the Vulgate to- 
 gether as " UNWORTHY models." 
 
 Now it is true that the Vulgate is the " authorized 
 Bible " ( in the Roman Catholic church. But it is also true 
 that the Vulgate was made before the Papal church had an 
 existence. The Vulgate was declared the standard ver- 
 sion of the Roman church by the Council of Trent, in 
 1545 : but it ought not to be forgotten that it was to an 
 
 * The Mennonitcs , who were once warm and uncompromising 
 contenders for immersion, at length gave it up, and have been, for 
 more than a hundred years, in the practice of pouring water on 
 the head of the candidate through the hand of the administrator. 
 " They found that when candidates were lying on sick beds, or 
 confined in prison, or in a state of peculiarly delicate health, or in 
 various other unusual situations which may be easily imagined, 
 that there was so much difficulty, not to say in some cases a total 
 impossibility in baptizing by plunging, that they deliberately, as a 
 denomination, agreed to lay aside the practice of immersion and 
 substituted the plan of affusion." (Dr. Miller, p. 82 ) 
 
80 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 old copy of the Vulgate, which providentially fell into the 
 hands of Martin Luther, long before the Council of Trent, 
 that we owe the Reformation. The Bible on which the 
 Eeformation was built, and which was in use by all the 
 ancient Western churches, before the Papal church was 
 born, ought not, surely, thus to be thrown by with a sar- 
 casm, as " The Roman Catholic Bible." In the time of 
 Jerome, who was born about A. D. 330, there were several 
 Latin versions of the Bible and of parts of the Bible. One 
 of them, adopted by ecclesiastical authority, had long been 
 called the Vulgate, or common version. In the process of 
 transcribing many times, many mistakes had crept into the 
 common copies. In A. D. 383, Jerome began a revision 
 of this ancient Vulgata, or Itala version having before 
 him the original Hebrew of the Old Testament, the origi- 
 nal Greek of the New, together with the Hexapla of Ori- 
 gen.* With these, and with all other aids before him 
 which the age afforded, Jerome sat down to the revision 
 of the old Itala or Vulgata : a part of which revision is 
 still extant, (the book of Job, and the book of Psalms,) 
 the remainder is lost. But impressed with the necessity 
 of a new version, and counselled by friends, he began at 
 the same time a new version, which he completed A. D. 
 405, and which is now the well known Vulgate. This 
 
 * This Hexapla was composed of six versions of the Scriptures, 
 arranged in six parallel columns: a work which Origcn com- 
 mcnced about A. D. 231, for the purpose of saving the sacred text 
 from corruption. In the first column was the Septuagint, a Greek 
 version of the Old Testament, made 280 years before Christ. In 
 the second column was the version of Aquila, a proselyte Jew, 
 made about A. D. 128. The third was that of Symmachus, pub- 
 lished about A. D. 175. The fifth was an old version found at Je- 
 richo, about A. D. 217 : and the sixth another, discovered at Ni- 
 copolis, about A. D. 238. 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 81 
 
 gradually prevailed, and in time entirely supplanted the 
 old Itala. 
 
 In this version the Greek baptize, is adopted into the 
 Latin as a Latin word. It was probably so in the old 
 Itala. Jerome could not have changed the practice of the 
 whole Latin church in administering the ordinance of 
 baptism, and taught them to say " baptizote," instead of 
 " submergote," had the latter or any such word been in 
 common use. I see no reason to doubt that, from the 
 very day that baptism was first administered at Home', or 
 in the Latin tongue, the word baptize was at once adopted 
 into the Latin tongue by a transfer from the Greek ; and 
 if so, it was done either by, or with the sanction of the 
 apostles themselves. At all events, while there was a 
 common Latin word for immerse and for submerge, (these 
 two English words are taken from the Latin) Jerome, 
 and the Christian world with him, did not employ either 
 submerge or immergo, but baptizo. Now the Baptists 
 affirm that the whole Christian world were Baptists at 
 that time ; i. e., that they considered baptism to be syno- 
 nymous with immersion, and practised accordingly. If 
 this were so, then the Vulgate is rather a Baptist Bible than 
 a Roman Catholic Bible : and immersers first led the way 
 in transferring the word baptize, instead of translating it 
 by a word in common use. This outcry about " trans- 
 f erring" and "concealing," comes to this at last. 
 
 But an argument may be built upon these facts. The 
 ancient Western Church, whose common language was 
 Latin, had an abundant supply of words to express immer- 
 sion and submersion, if they had thought immersion the 
 only baptism, or essential to it. But so far, from em- 
 ploying one of their common words, they transferred the 
 original Greek word baptize, adopted it into their lan- 
 guage, and gave it a complete naturalization. When they 
 7* 
 
. :'":y 
 
 82 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 spoke of baptism, they called it an ablution, a washing, a 
 distilling of the purifying dew ; they spoke of it not as an 
 immersion. As to the manner of performing baptism, 
 even when they generally practised immersion, they did 
 not always do so, and of course never deemed it essential. 
 What is the inevitable conclusion from these facts 1 That 
 they did not consider the word immerse, or the word sub- 
 merge as equivalent to the word baptize : and that a sub- 
 stitution of these words for that would not be an adequate 
 faithful translation. 
 
 ; Here, then, we have the judgment of the ancient church 
 with regard to the propriety of transferring the word in 
 question : and that judgment founded upon the conviction 
 that neither of their existing words would truly and ade- 
 quately express the true idea of Christian baptism. 
 
 This was the judgment of the Christian church in the 
 time of Jerome : and in his days the use of baptizo, as a 
 common Latin word, was a custom, whereof the memory 
 of man ran not to the contrary as a practice in which all 
 Christians who spake the Latin language acquiesced and 
 undoubtingly agreed. THE TRANSFER WAS, "without any 
 ground for doubt of which I am informed, MADE IN THE 
 
 DAYS OF THE APOSTLES THEMSELVES. It is not, as Mr. 
 
 Woolsey's book, and the Report of the Baptist Bible Socie- 
 ty would lead those to suppose who are not otherwise 
 informed, a recent invention, to oppose the Baptists, and 
 " to conceal a part of God's revealed will from the na- 
 tions of the earth, in a dead language, with the view of 
 promoting party designs, and of preventing men from 
 knowing his will and their duty and obligation to obey 
 him." 
 
 STRANGE REPRESENTATIONS. 
 
 Mr. Woolsey says, p. 202, " Indeed I am compelled 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 83 
 
 to say, that it is a most visionary plea, to which our Pedo- 
 baptist brethren have resorted, to represent the land of 
 Canaan, in the times of Christ and his apostles, as a barren } 
 sterile, sandy desert, having neither fountains nor rivers 
 of water /" 
 
 When where have Pedobaptists "resorted" to this 
 " plea?." When where have they "represented the 
 LAND OF CANAAN, in the times of Christ and his apostles, as 
 a BARREN AND STERILE DESERT, having neither fountains 
 nor rivers of water ?" Can Mr. Woolsey tell us when, 
 or where such representations have been made I I have 
 neither heard all that Pedobaptists have said, nor read all 
 that they have written. I cannot here affirm a universal 
 negative, and say that no Pedobaptist has ever resorted to 
 such a " visionary plea," and made such a representation of 
 the land of Canaan. But I must be allowed to express my 
 doubts ; and to call upon Mr. Woolsey to substantiate this 
 allegation, or to retract it as injurious and untrue. Nor 
 will it be sufficient to show that one or two have at some 
 time made such representations of the land of Canaan. 
 Mr. Woolsey affirms it of " our Pedobaptist brethren :" 
 by which we must understand him, either that such repre- 
 sentations are commonly made by Pedobaptists, or by a 
 sufficient number of Pedobaptists of intelligence and stand- 
 ing, to fix the charge upon the Pedobaptist community in 
 general. 
 
 He describes us as making these representations of the 
 land of Canaan in direct and wanton contradiction of the 
 Scriptures, which speak of Palestine as u chosen before all 
 other portions of the earth, for its fertility and its abun- 
 dant resources of every kind, especially those of water :" 
 and adds, " Alas ! what liberties men take with the Bible ! 
 Sprinkling must be supported at the expense of every real 
 truth of holy religion! The Bible must be contradicted, 
 
84 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 its sense must be frittered away, and every thing expunged 
 from the sacred page, which comes in competition with 
 this Darling a legitimate offspring of the Church of 
 Eome, but now NURSED in the lap of Christianity." He 
 finally concludes the subject by saying, " I am at a loss to 
 know how an enlightened Christian can advocate sprink- 
 ling for one moment, unless it be on the ground to which 
 Mr. Henry alludes, when he says, " How often are the pre- 
 judices of bigotry held fast against the clearest discoveries 
 and plainest dictates of divine truth /" 
 
 These are serious charges a serious impeachment oi 
 our honesty and truth ; charges based upon the allegation 
 that we have "represented the land of Canaan in the 
 times of the apostles, as a barren, sterile, sandy desert ^ 
 having neither fountains nor rivers of water." If such re- 
 presentations have been made by Pedobaptists, again I 
 say, let them be shown. 
 
 Again, on p. 181, Mr. Woolsey says, " And yet an at- 
 tempt is made to support sprinkling, by imposing upon the 
 credulity of the young and unskilled in ancient geography, 
 in making them believe that there was not water in and 
 about Jerusalem and Damascus, which would admit of 
 immersing a human being." 
 
 This will doubtless be a piece of news to the Pedobap- 
 tist world. Who has made such an " attempt !" Who is 
 it that is guilty of this monstrous endeavor to impose upon 
 the credulity of the young and the unskilled in ancient 
 geography 1 The Pedobaptist world will stand in doubt 
 who it is that has done this till Mr. Woolsey shall tell us. 
 If he fails to tell us, he must pardon us if we stand 
 in doubt whether what he has told us be true 5 for it 
 sounds very strange and improbable to our ears. We 
 shall not deem it a clearing up of this matter, to refer us 
 to what has been said of the region where John was bap- 
 
* 
 
 BAPTIST ERRORS. 85 
 
 tizing, when the Scripture says of him, "John did baptize 
 in the wilderness :" for both Scripture and historians, and 
 recent travelers, have put that matter beyond debate ; 
 that that part of the valley of the Jordan was and still is 
 a wilderness, to a remarkable extent, without fountains 
 and springs of water. Mr. Wbolsey is not here speaking 
 of the wilderness, but of the region " in and about Jeru- 
 salem and Damascus:" and he introduces the passage 
 which I have cited, in connection with Paul's baptism 
 which occurred at the latter place. 
 
 Mr. Woolsey says, p. 199, " Were it right to suffer sin 
 upon a brother I would gladly draw the mantle of obli- 
 vion over the entire course by which sprinkling, and in- 
 fant sprinkling are kept alive in the Christian church." 
 He tells us, p. 134, of "some of our friends, who are at 
 the laboring oar night and day to make sprinkling answer 
 for immersion in the rite of baptism, and to keep their 
 consciences in a state of tolerable rest." He says, p. 135? 
 " Is it not pitiful in the extreme, that such efforts should 
 be made to avoid following the lowly, yet delightful foot- 
 steps of Jesus." And he asks, p. 136, " What shall we 
 say, what must we think of those who, professing to be 
 acquainted with the Greek tongue, venture to assert that 
 baptize does not mean to dip or immerse in the Hebrew- 
 Greek 1 A learned Presbyterian," he says, " has answer- 
 ed this interrogation." 
 
 Whether the words of the learned Presbyterian are to 
 have any just application to these allegations concerning 
 the Pedobaptist representations of " Palestine," and of the 
 region " in and about Jerusalem and Damascus," must be 
 determined according to the success or failure of Mr. 
 Woolsey in substantiating these grievous charges. But 
 the following is his quotation from the learned Presbyte- 
 rian : 
 
86 A BEFUTATION OP 
 
 " One who argues in this manner, never fails, with per- 
 sons of knowledge, to hetray the cause he would defend ; 
 and though with respect to the vulgar, bold assertions 
 generally succeed as well as argument, and sometimes bet- 
 ter , yet a candid m ind will always disdain to take the 
 help of FALSEHOOD, even in the support of truth." 
 
 JOHN BUNYAN. 
 
 I shall close my remarks on Mr. Woolsey's book, so far 
 as concerns the mode of baptism, by noting how he uses 
 the name of Bunyan ; as a specimen of the appeals to 
 prejudice, in which his book abounds. 
 
 On p. 14-8, Mr. Woolsey says, " About the time that 
 Mr. Baxter wrote his ' plain Scripture proof,' the great and 
 good John Bunyan, a Baptist, of whom the world was not 
 worthy, was confined in prison for the space of twelve 
 years. Many a Baptist suffered even unto death for 
 Christ's sake and the Gospel." 
 
 What has the character or conduct of Baxter or of Bun- 
 yan to do with the question at issue 1 Nothing at all. 
 Had they both been kings or slaves, saints or pirates, an- 
 gels or devils, it would bear nothing on the question wheth- 
 er immersion is the only baptism, or whether infants are 
 to be baptized; yet such inuendos as Mr. Woolsey has 
 made with regard to Baxter and Bunyan may work upon 
 the prejudices of people, and so answer a purpose, even if 
 they aid nothing in determining the truth. 
 
 But what are the facts with regard to Baxter and Bun- 
 yan 1 Not at all as Mr. Woolsey's inuendo would lead 
 people to suppose. Bunyan was not persecuted or im- 
 prisoned for being a Baptist, but for being a non-conform- 
 ist ; and that under the same laws, and by means of the 
 same persecutors as those by which Baxter himself was 
 again and again imprisoned, shut out from preaching ten 
 
. 
 
 BAPTIST ERRORS. 87 
 
 years together, driven from home, harassed withinforma- 
 tions, fines, warrants of distress, persecuted with slander, 
 brought before magistrates and courts, committed to the 
 tender mercies of a trial before the inhuman Jeffries j 
 again, and yet again harassed, distressed and imprisoned ; 
 and so he dragged out his life, amid the sufferings of a body 
 enfeebled by disease, and the distresses brought upon him 
 by persecution, till near the time when his exhausted na- 
 ture found rest in the grave. Bunyan and Baxter suffer- 
 ed under the same persecuting laws by which two thou- 
 sand faithful Pedobaptist ministers were turned out of their 
 livings, and driven away from their work, and otherwise 
 distressed, for non-conformity with the Episcopal, the es- 
 tablished church of England. Baxter had been offered a 
 Bishopric, and might have lived in quiet and rolled in 
 splendor had he been a less conscientious and a less holy 
 man. 
 
 Mr. Woolsey says that John Bunyan was confined in 
 prison " about the time that Mr. Baxter wrote his ' Plain 
 Scripture Proof.' " Baxter's " Plain Scripture Proof of In- 
 fant Baptism," was written about the year 1649. Bunyan 
 entered the ministry in 1656. His arrest and imprison- 
 ment was in November 1660, soon after the, restoration 
 of King Charles II. 
 
 Bunyan gives a detailed account of his arrest, exami- 
 nation, trial, and imprisonment. He records his examina- 
 tions in the form of dialogues ; and from these it does not 
 appear that either Bunyan or his persecutors thought that 
 his being a Baptist had the slightest concern in procuring 
 his arrest and imprisonment. Bunyan says, concerning his 
 bill of indictment, " The extent thereof was as followeth : 
 That John Bunyan of the town of Bedford, laborer, being 
 a person of such and such conditions, he hath (since such 
 a time) devlishlj and perniciously abstained from coming 
 

 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 to CHURCH to hear divine service, and is a common up- 
 holder of several unlawful meetings and conventicles, to 
 the great disturbance and distraction of the good subjects 
 of this kingdom, contrary to the laws of our sovereign lord 
 the King."* 
 
 But to say nothing about persecution, with what sort 
 of reasoning can Mr. Woolsey pretend to make capital 
 stock out of the name of Bunyan 1 " Bunyan was a Bap. 
 fist" True, he was so ; but such a Baptist as Mr. Wool- 
 sey and the close communion Baptists would visit with 
 censure and church discipline, even r to excommunication, 
 were he now alive and within their pale* John Bunyan 
 was not a dose communion Baptist ; any more than the 
 celebrated Robert Hall, of whom a close communion 
 Baptist minister said to me not long since, " He was not 
 of our denomination." John Bunyan joined an open 
 communion church, which, says his biographer Philip, 
 " was not wholly a Baptist church." Says Philip, p. 312, 
 " Bunyan was not much indebted to them (the Baptists,) 
 as a body," Individual churches and ministers did much 
 for him and his family, and the Calvinistic section of the 
 body duly appreciated his orthodoxy, but neither the gen- 
 eral nor particular Baptists cared much about him. Both 
 abetted some of their chief men in lessening his fame and 
 influence. " They called him a Machiavelian, a man 
 devilish, proud, insolent, and presumptuous. Some com- 
 pared him to the devil j others to a bedlamite , others to a 
 sot 5 and they sneered at his low origin, and the base oc- 
 cupation from which he had risen." 
 
 All this Bunyan suffered from the Baptists, "for advo- 
 cating and preaching open communion" Bunyan, 
 
 * Philip's Life and Times of Bunyan, p. 246. 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 89 
 
 however, was of a magnanimous disposition, and could ap- 
 preciate heroism even in those who abused him. " I for- 
 give Mr. Kiffen," says he, " and love him never the worse 
 for what he hath done in the matter of those unhandsome 
 brands that my brethren have laid upon me, for saying 
 that the church of Christ haih not warrant to keep out of 
 her communion a visible saint, ," 
 
 Says Philip, p. 318, "All sufferers for conscience' sake 
 were dear to Bunyan, and hence he grouped them together 
 in his kind appeals to them ; and his appeals had weight 
 after the publication of his PILGRIM. That book opened 
 many hearts to him amongst the strict Baptists, although 
 it relaxed none of their strictness. Christian and Hopeful 
 were admitted into full communion in all their churches, 
 although John Bunyan was shut out." 
 
 MIS-STATEMENT OF THE ARGUMENT FOR INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 On p. 238, Mr. Woolsey professes to examine " THE 
 
 MOST POPULAR ARGUMENTS, UPON WHICH OUR PEDOBAP- 
 TIST BRETHREN REST THE VALIDITY OF INFANT BAPTISM." 
 
 His first section under this chapter, has the following 
 
 caption : " The validity of Infant Baptism is urged and 
 
 thought to be established, on the ground of its being taken 
 
 for granted, without any express command in the New 
 
 Testament" 
 
 Under this he says, " Strange as it may appear, the va- 
 lidity of infant baptism is urged on the very ground that 
 Baptists reject it. We reject it because not commanded 
 in the Bible. They hold to it because not commanded, 
 but taken for granted." 
 
 He goes on : " The silence of the New Testament 
 quite sufficient to establish infant baptism ! ! ! How 
 strangely do men reason when they want for solid and 
 8 
 
90 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 substantial testimony ! Who could have thought that a 
 doctor of divinity should have, at this enlightened day, 
 employed logic so singularly strange, and at war with 
 every acknowledged principle of correct reasoning ! ! " 
 
 "Plead the validity of a practice on the ground of the 
 entire silence of Scripture ! ! ! What a principle this for 
 Protestants of the nineteenth century ! !" 
 
 " Shall the absence of all evidence be made the best of 
 evidence T' 
 
 He likens the argument to the proceeding of a court, 
 when the accuser fails to bring forward any testimony to 
 establish the charge," condemning a person because there 
 is no evidence against him , " making the entire absence 
 of all testimony against you quite sufficient to establish, 
 the groundless charge ! ! ! " This illustration he pursues 
 to some length, and then says, " Jlnd yet this is precisely 
 the kind of argument which our Pedobapist brethren em- 
 ploy in justification of infant baptism." 
 
 Now every person who has ever been familiar with the 
 arguments for infant baptism knows that this is an entire 
 misrepresentation and a most injurious one. 
 
 Mr. Woolsey here refers to Dr. Miller of Princeton, 
 and represents him as "making the entire absence of all 
 evidence the best of evidence;" and " pleading the va- 
 lidity of a practice ON THE GROUND of the entire silence 
 of the Scripture." 
 
 Now when Mr. Woolsey made this representation, he 
 doubtless had Dr. Miller's book before him, as he quotes 
 Dr. Miller's words. He must have known then, that im- 
 mediately before the words which he has quoted, Dr. Mil- 
 ler lays down the following heads of argument, and large. 
 ly and ably maintains and illustrates them ; viz. 
 
 1. "Because in allJehovatis covenants with his pro- 
 fessing people, their infant seed have been included" 
 
 2. " The dose and endearing connection between pa* 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 91 
 
 rents and children, affords a strong argument in favor 
 of the church-membership of the infant seed of be- 
 lievers." 
 
 8. " The actual and acknowledged church-member ship 
 of infants under the Old Testament economy, is a deci- 
 sive index of the divine will in regard to this matter;'' 
 
 o 
 
 4. * It is equally certain that the church of God is 
 the sjme in substance now that it was then" 
 
 5. l * If infan's were once members, and if the church 
 remains the same, they undoubtedly are still members, 
 
 UNLESS SOME POSITIVE ENACTMENT EXCLUDING THEM CAN 
 BE FOUND." 
 
 6. " Baptism has come in the room of circumcision" 
 
 7. ." We fin I the principle of family baptism again 
 and again adopted in the apostolic age. 1 
 
 8. " We cannot imagine that the privileges and the 
 sign of infant membership, to which all the first Chris- 
 tians had been so long accustomed, COULD HAVE BEEN AB- 
 RUPTLY WITHDRAWN, without wounding the hearts of pa- 
 rents, and producing in them feelings of revolt and 
 complaixt n gainst the new economy " 
 
 9. " Although the New Testament does not contain any 
 specific texts, which, in so many words, declare that the 
 infant seed of believers are members of the church in vir- 
 tue of their birth ; yet it abounds in passages which can- 
 not reasonably be explained but in harmony with this 
 doct'ine." 
 
 10. "Finally; the history of the Christian church 
 FROM THE APOSTOLIC AGE, furnishes an argument of irre- 
 sistible force in favor of the divine authority of infant 
 baptism." 
 
 All these propositions Dr. Miller largely expands and 
 ably argues. He then unfolds the supposition which our 
 Baptist brethren are by their system obliged to take for 
 granted $ " That, after the children of God had been for 
 
2 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 nearly two thousand years, in the enjoyment of an impor- 
 tant privilege," " it was suddenly, and without explana- 
 tion set aside ; that on the opening of the New Testament 
 dispensation, a dispensation of larger promises, arid of in- 
 creased liberality, this privilege was abruptly and totally 
 withdrawn ; * * * that all this took place without 
 one hint of any reason for it being given ; without one 
 syllable being said, in all the numerous epistles, by any 
 one of justification or apology, for so important a change ! 
 Nay, that instead of such notice and explanation, a mode 
 of expression under the new economy, should be through- 
 out used, corresponding with the former practice, and 
 adapted still to convey the idea that both parents and 
 children stood in their old relation, notwithstanding the 
 painful change ! Is this credible ! Can it be believed by 
 any one who is not pre-determined to regard it as true V 
 
 Having set forth this consideration with great force, Dr. 
 Miller adds, " I must say, my friends, that to my mind, 
 'his consideration, were there no other, is conclusive. In- 
 stead of our Baptist brethren having a right to call upon 
 us to find a direct warrant in the New Testament, in fa- 
 vor of infant membership, we have a right to call upon 
 them to produce a direct warrant for the great and sud- 
 den change which they alledge took place.' ' And then 
 follow the words quoted by Mr. Woolsey ; " If it be as 
 they say that the New Testament is silent on the subject, 
 this very silence is quite sufficient to destroy their cause 
 and establish ours. 1 ' 
 
 Every one will perceive that Dr. Miller builds his argu- 
 ment, not UPON the entire silence of the Scripture, con- 
 cerning infant baptism ; but upon circumstances and con- 
 siderations, which, IN the entire silence of the Scripture 
 with regard to "a direct warrant," are decisive proof. 
 These institutions and records SUBSISTING in the word of 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 93 
 
 God ; the " very silence of the New Testament," which 
 the Baptists alledge, "is quite sufficient to destroy their 
 cause, and establish ours." 
 
 That this is Dr. Miller's argument, I think no one can 
 fail to see. He has not spoken in language which can be 
 misunderstood, unless it be violently torn out of its con- 
 nection and perverted in such a manner as to make him 
 seem to say what, if his words be taken in their plain im- 
 port and in their connection, he certainly has not said. 
 
 But is this pleading the validity of infant baptism "on 
 the ground of the entire silence of the Scripture ?." Is 
 this " making the absence of all evidence, the best of evi- 
 dence 1" Does Dr. Miller plead, or admit the " absence 
 i>f all evidence " as establishing infant baptism 1 Yet 
 such is the representation which Mr. Woolsey first made 
 to his people from the pulpit, and which he has now with 
 their formal sanction, deliberately published to the world. 
 
 After making this representation, Mr. Woolsey has an- 
 other section under the following caption : " THE VALIDI- 
 TY OF INFANT BAPTISM IS PLEAD FOR AS OF DIVINE APPOINT- 
 MENT, BECAUSE THERE IS NO PROHIBITION AGAINST IT." 
 
 This section he commences thus : "And has it come to 
 this 1 Shall we hold our peace and forbear uttering our 
 decided disapprobation against innovations into the Chris 
 tian church because they are not forbidden 1 Shall we 
 tamely submit to every practice which the ingenuity of 
 man may invent, because not interdicted in the Bible 1" 
 Is this the truth ?. Is it the whole truth 1 Is it all that 
 is essential to the truth in this matter ? Can Mr. Wool- 
 sey be ignorant that no Pedobaptist has based an argument 
 for infant baptism, upon the simple absence of prohibi- 
 tion ? Can he be ignorant, that we have uniformly based 
 our arguments upon positive institutions of God ; upon 
 authentic records of the Holy Ghos^ indicative of the 
 practice of the apostles j WHICH INSTITUTIONS AND AR- 
 8* 
 
94 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 GUMENTS, in the absence of prohibition, lead, as we think, 
 to the inevitable conclusion that infant baptism was or- 
 dained of God 1 
 
 QUOTATION FROM DR. WOODS. 
 
 Under the foregoing section, Mr. Woolsey quotes Dr. 
 Woods, p. 248, as though Dr. Woods had explicitly given 
 up all claim either to a Scriptural warrant, or to Scriptural 
 evidence for infant baptism. The quotation is thus: 
 " And Dr. Woods, an associate of Professor Stuart," 
 (whom he has just quoted in a similar manner) " says : 
 4 We have no express precept or example for infant bap- 
 tism, in all our holy writings.' " , 
 
 Dr. Woods indeed uses this language. But the scope 
 of Dr. Woods' argument lays an emphasis here on the 
 word " EXPRESS 5" and to make Dr. Woods say so much 
 as is here quoted, and say no more, is to make him bear a 
 witness precisely the reverse of what Dr. Woods believes, 
 and most strenuously and ably maintains to be the truth. 
 Mr. Woolsey knows full well, that the work of Dr. 
 Woods from which these words are taken, was written for 
 the express purpose of proving from the Scriptures the 
 divine authority for infant baptism. Mr. Woolsey knows 
 full well that Dr. Woods most formally takes his position 
 in the following words : 
 
 " But I shall now proceed to argue the point FROM THE 
 INSPIRED RECORDS, JUST AS THEY ARE. My position is, that 
 the Scriptures of the New Testament, understood accord- 
 ing to just rules of interpretation, imply that the children 
 of believers are to be baptized" 
 
 In the Preface to his work, Dr. Woods says, " The 
 reader will perceive that the doctrine of Infant Baptism 
 is a doctrine which I very seriously believe, and which I 
 feel it to be my duty earnestly to maintain. He will per- 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 95 
 
 ceive too, that the doctrine is dear to my heart, and is as- 
 sociated in my contemplations with the most sacred truths 
 of religion, and the most precious interests of Christ's 
 kingdom. My manner of treating this subject is not the 
 result of haste, but of repeated and long-continued investi- 
 tion." " For many years in the earlier part of my life, I 
 had a decided prepossession in favor of their" (the Bap- 
 tists') " peculiar sentiments on the subject of baptism , 
 and they have a right to inquire for the reasons of my 
 present belief. I here frankly give them my reasons." 
 
 In bringing forward Dr. Woods for the authority of his 
 name, his learning, his integrity, in testimony ; in ad- 
 ducing him as a witness in this cause, Mr. Woolsey was 
 bound, in common honesty, to quote so much of his words 
 as would at least let him speak the truth as touching his 
 opinion on the matter in question ; and not just so much 
 as would cause him to be understood as saying the reverse 
 of what he means. To quote him in part, and to sup- 
 press what is essential to the truth as touching his know- 
 ledge and belief, is an injury to Dr. Woods, a fraud upon 
 the public, an offence against the % truth ; which ought to 
 be deemed a high moral misdemeanor by the whole 
 Christian world, and deserving of solemn rebuke from the 
 church of God. Whether Mr. Woolsey has done this, or 
 whether his quotation has dealt justly with Dr. Woods 
 and with the truth, I leave those who will examine the 
 scope of the section in which the quotation is made, and 
 the connection in which the words are quoted, to judge. I 
 am unable to understand Mr. Woolsey here as quoting 
 Dr. Woods in any other way than as though Dr. Woods 
 admitted and intended to admit that " Baptism must 
 not rest upon the instructions of the word of God ;" 
 while it is certain that Dr. Woods holds and teaches the 
 very reverse of this. 
 
96 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 QUOTATION FROM BAXTER. 
 
 In a similar manner, p. 272, 273, Mr. Woolsey, in 
 speaking of the " order" of teaching and baptizing, as 
 bearing upon the question of infant baptism, quotes Rich- 
 ard Baxter, (among others) in such a way as to make 
 Baxter throw his testimony against the propriety of bap- 
 tizing infants. The quotation is long. In the first part 
 of it, Baxter shows that the work of the apostles is " first" 
 by teaching to make disciples; the "second" work to 
 baptize ; the " third" to teach them all other things which 
 are afterward to be learned in the school of Christ. Mr, 
 Woolsey having quoted his words so far, says " [observe 
 what follows"] "To contemn this order, is to renounce 
 all rules of order ; for where can we expect to find it, if 
 not here 1 I profess my conscience is fully satisfied with 
 this text, that it is one sort of faith, even saving, THAT 
 MUST GO BEFORE BAPTISM ; and the profession whereof, the 
 minister must expect." 
 
 Now here is the opinion of Richard Baxter, and a sound 
 one, on a certain point; viz. whether adults are to be 
 baptized before they have saving faith 1 No : says Mr. 
 Baxter: my conscience is fully satisfied that they must 
 not. 
 
 Mr. Baxter says this of adults. Mr. Woolsey brings it 
 forward for the purpose of throwing the mighty name of 
 Baxter into the scale against infant baptism. But would 
 Baxter say this of infants ? By no means. He is a most 
 strenuous defender of the divine authority for infant bap- 
 tism. He maintains that, "God never had a church of 
 which infants were not infant members, since there were 
 infants in the world." He published a book which he 
 entitled " Plain Proof of Infant Church Membership and 
 Baptism," and nineteen years afterwards, another book 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 97 
 
 entitled " More Proofs of Infant Church Membership and 
 consequently their rights to Baptism." A Jew might have 
 argued concerning circumcision, as Baxter has argued 
 concerning baptism ; that adult Gentiles must believe in 
 the God of Abraham, and profess hearty submission to his 
 word, before being circumcised /and that to " contemn 
 this order," would be to " renounce all rules of order/' 
 But would it follow from this, that the same Jew believed 
 that the infant children of the seed of Abraham were not 
 to be circumcised till they could first be instructed and 
 believe 1 Would it be honest, to dite that Jew as a wit- 
 ness against an ordinance which he held as undoubtedly 
 divine, because of his argument concerning the " order" 
 of adult believing and being circumcised 1 Would it be 
 accepted as a justification of the act of quoting that Jew 
 for such a purpose, to plead that he was quoted simply 
 concerning the u order" of circumcision 1 Would not the 
 reply be obvious, and such as preclude the possibility of 
 justifying the quotation : " The Jew was speaking con- 
 cerning the order of " adult" circumcision : you, by quot- 
 ing his words with reference to the order of '"infant" 
 circumcision, have misquoted him and perverted his mean- 
 ing : making him bear witness against that which he held 
 as undoubtedly an ordinance of the Most High God. 
 
 CLAIM TO CONFIDENCE ON THE SCORE OF QUOTATIONS 
 FROM PEDOBAPTIST AUTHORS. 
 
 Mr. Woolsey says, in his Introduction, "The many 
 honest concessions of some of the most able and learned 
 Pedobaptist authors cited in this work, constitute one of 
 its distinguishing peculiarities, and cannot fail to recom- 
 mend it to the confidence of others." 
 
 The quotations from Pedobaptist authors do indeed 
 constitute one of the distinguishing features of the work, 
 
y A REFUTATION OF 
 
 but scarcely one of its distinguishing peculiarities. This 
 manner of quoting Pedobaptist authors, is not an original 
 sin in Mr. Woolsey ; nor is he altogether peculiar either 
 in the number of quotations, or in the mass of the par- 
 ticular quotations which he has made. Thus the quotation 
 from Baxter is a quotation of a quotation. Mr. Woolsey 
 sets it to the credit of Booth's " Pedobaptism Examined." 
 It is found in Pengilly, in Jewett, and, indeed I know 
 not by how many Baptist writers it has been quoted 
 over and over again. Pengilly is in great part made up 
 of such quotations, and in many cases the very identical 
 quotations. The tract " Peter and Benjamin" of the Bap- 
 tist General Tract Society, makes Peter say " I have read 
 the ample concessions of more than eighty Pedobaptist 
 writers." This has been a favorite method or arguing 
 among our Baptist brethren. But it remains to be seen 
 whether such quotations as we have examined " can" or 
 " cannot fail to recommend" Mr. Woolsey's book " to the 
 confidence of others." 
 
 It is to me a matter of wonder, that our Baptist brethren 
 should not have seen the fallacy of an argument built on 
 the supposition that such men as Baxter, Miller, and 
 Woods, in arguing most strenuously for practices which 
 they felt bound to observe as the ordinances of God, should 
 have openly and explicitly given up the very thing for 
 which they were contending. Mr. Woolsey seems to 
 have felt this difficulty, and to have endeavored to account 
 for so strange a thing. (Introduction, p 7). But after 
 our examination of these quotations, I leave it for the 
 reader to judge whether there be not another reason why 
 it has come to pass, that these distinguished Pedobaptists 
 should seem " to bear," as Mr. Woolsey says, " the most 
 decided testimony against their own cause." 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 99 
 
 CHOICE OF WITNESSES. 
 
 " On no point," says Mr. Woolsey, " do I appeal to 
 Baptist authors, in support of what I advance." " The 
 honest concessions of Pedobaptists themselves" * * * * 
 " have been the human testimonies adduced in support of 
 what I attempt to advance. Added to these, I have on a 
 few occasions, called in some disinterested witnesses, as for 
 instance, a JEW, and a QUAKER, and an INFIDEL, who with 
 an unbiassed mind testify in favor of what I teach." 
 
 A Jew, a Quaker, an Infidel, unbiassed witnesses ! As 
 though a Jew and an Infidel would be deeply interested 
 in obtaining accurate knowledge of the ordinances of a re- 
 ligion which they would destroy ! as though these would 
 be either competent or credible witnesses, concerning Chris- 
 tian ordinances and Christian truth ; or be very conscien- 
 tious and tender in giving a testimony in favor of pure 
 Christianity, rather than in favor of those things which 
 would corrupt it and throw an odium upon the great 
 majority of its professors ! 
 
 We cannot admit that these men are either more com- 
 petent, or more unbiassed, or more credible, than men 
 who with the fear of God before their eyes, make it a 
 matter of eternal consequence, carefully and prayerfully 
 to study the word of God. Nor does it matter to us what 
 any man's testimony is. We go to the word of God. 
 We say to every man " To the law and to the testi- 
 mony." What is written there 1 We should deem it no 
 addition to the ground on which rests our faith, if all the 
 Baptists in the world should come over and bear a most 
 hearty and decisive testimony of their opinion, that 
 gprinkling is baptism, and that infants are to be baptized. 
 
100 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 ABUSE OF INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 Mr. Woolsey says, p. 259, that infant baptism " is re- 
 garded as possessing a saving power. From its first intro- 
 duction to this day, Pedobaptists OF ALL NAMES have 
 ascribed to it a sanctifying and saving importance. Of late 
 years, I know, when so much light has been reflected, and 
 so many invincible arguments urged against infant baptism, 
 and against its saving power, there has been a modifica- 
 tion. Some Protestant churches say but little about its 
 being necessary to salvation." 
 
 The Congregationalists of New England to say nothing 
 about the Presbyterians will deem this a very strange 
 representation of their faith concerning infant baptism, 
 With regard to us, at least, it is not true. We have not 
 " ascribed to it a sanctifying and saving importance : we 
 do not say even a " little " about its being " necessary to 
 salvation." But Mr. Woolsey goes on, p. 260, to speak 
 of the "importance" which even Protestant Pedobaptists 
 in this favored land attach to infant baptism." With- 
 out changing the subject at all ; without the slightest inti- 
 mation that he means anybody else than " Protestant Pedo- 
 baptists in this favored land," he says, " And in some 
 places even the dead have been sprinkled, with the hope 
 of benefiting their souls." Is it possible that Mr. Wool- 
 sey thinks such a charge upon Protestant Pedobaptists, in 
 this favored land, will be believed without some proof; or, 
 at least, without some specification of the time, place, and 
 persons when, where, and by whom such things were 
 done! 
 
 But all these allegations, true or false, are mere special 
 pleading, and are urged upon a false issue. Granting that 
 infant baptism has been grossly abused granting that many 
 have most superstitiously attached to it a saving import- 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 101 
 
 ance granting that, in some places, even the dead have 
 been sprinkled with the hope of benefiting their souls 
 does all this weigh at all upon the question, whether in- 
 fant baptism is an ordinance of God 1 Shall we renounce 
 what we hold as a divine institution because it has, been 
 superstitiously abused 1 Shall we burn our Bibles, because 
 some have " wrested the Scriptures to their own destruc- 
 tion 1 " Such allegations of superstition and abuse are 
 equally valid against all baptism ; for the time was when 
 a large share of the ancient church thought baptism a re. 
 generating and saving ordinance ; and so thinks, at least, 
 the church of Rome at the present day. Must baptism^ 
 therefore, be scouted away, from the church of God, be- 
 cause it has been superstitiously abused. 
 
 INFANT BAPTISM AND THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE JUDGMENT. 
 
 Mr. Woolsey has a section, p. 322, under the following 
 caption : " INFANT BAPTISM DEPRIVES THE SUBJECT OF THE 
 
 RIGHT OF PRIVATE JUDGMENT, AND THEREFORE IS CONTRARY 
 TO THE WORD OF GoD."' 
 
 " Who but admires," says he, " those noble and evan- 
 gelical sentiments of the framers of the Declaration of 
 American Independence, " That all men are created equal ; 
 that they are endowed by their Creator with certain in- 
 alienable rights ; that among these are, life, liberty, and 
 the pursuit of happiness." 
 
 " Our parents," says he, " have not the right to fake 
 advantage of our infancy, and then and there impose 
 upon us what shall fetter our conscience when come to 
 years of accountability." 
 
 Mr. Woolsey, in his zeal against infant baptism, has 
 here unconsciously run into a principle from whose in- 
 evitable consequences he would doubtless recoil with hor- 
 ror. The last and most mischievous from which infidelity 
 9 
 
102 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 has assumed, is like the demagogues of the French Revo- 
 lution-^ .to raise the cry of " Liberty and Equality!" 
 liberty and equality, not simply between man and man, 
 but between parents and their children. Their notion of 
 liberty and equality is, that children are to be left to grow 
 up with nothing to bias their judgment, or to bind their 
 conscience, as to the being of God as to religious truth 
 or duty or as it regards a future state and a day of judg- 
 ment. To teach children that there is a God, is " taking 
 advantage of their infancy," and " destroying their inalien- 
 able right" of deciding for themselves ".when they come 
 to years of discretion ! " To teach them the Catechism, 
 or to teach them that the Bible is from God, is " then and 
 there to impose upon them " what shall bind their con- 
 science to that faith and practice in religion concerning 
 which they had not the liberty of choosing ! " Nor do 
 these infidel demagogues content themselves with destroy- 
 ing religion alone, children must be left to judge, when 
 they are come to years of discretion, with no early bias to 
 the contrary, whether there shall be any government or 
 law whether oaths are binding and, whether falsehood, 
 thieving, fraud, perjury, and murder, are not just as virtu- 
 ous and praise-worthy as anything else. We must leave 
 our children unbiassed on all such subjects. It is not for 
 us to " train them up in the way they should go ;" at least 
 we must not train them to this by any moral principles 
 that will bind their conscience to truth and righteousness ; 
 for this is to destroy their " inalienable right " of judging 
 for themselves. In brief we must teach our children no- 
 thing on matters of truth and duty, save sheer infidelity. 
 
 But Mr. Woolsey would by no means admit of our ap- 
 plication of his principle to such an extent as this. . On 
 the contrary, he declares, p. 325, " As soon as practicable 
 the juvenile mind should be imprinted with the word of 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 103 
 
 God, and be made to feel the weight of its own responsi- 
 bility. Parents, and all entrusted with the care of children, 
 are under the most solemn obligations to c bring them up 
 in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.' " 
 
 How does Mr. Woolsey relieve himself from the appa- 
 rent inconsistency between the principle which he has 
 laid down and the precept which he here inculcates 1 He 
 makes a distinction between the externals and the inter- 
 nals of religion. 
 
 u But," says he, " to infringe upon the rights of con- 
 science, in relation to the EXTERNALS of religion, comes 
 not within the province of any man." What ! Does no- 
 thing " bind the conscience," unless it be something be- 
 longing to the externals of religion 1 What ground, in 
 reason or in Scripture, for making the externals of religion 
 thus pre-eminently sacred 1 " But," says Mr. Woolsey, 
 " to sprinkle an infant babe, and then, as that child is verg- 
 ing on to mature years, to tell it, again and again, that it 
 has been baptized, is one of the most despotic acts of 
 which man is capable. It is tyranny of the worst kind 
 tyranny in religion ! ! tyranny over the conscience of an 
 accountable being ! ! It is forestalling that faith and prac- 
 tice which belong to ripened manhood, by an ecclesiastic 
 imposition, practised upon the subject in the hour of un- 
 conscious infancy ! ! It is overstepping the bounds both of 
 reason and revelation ! ! 
 
 It appears to me that Mr. Woolsey here builds a long 
 and fiery argument upon a distinction without a difference 
 Does not prayer belong to the externals of religion 1 Is it 
 " despotism " and tyranny in religion, to teach a child to 
 pray I Does not the observance of the Sabbath belong to 
 the externals of religion 1 But is it " despotism " so tho- 
 roughly to teach the child to " remember the Sabbath-day 
 to keep it holy," as to make it binding upon his conscience 
 
104 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 when he comes to years of discretion 1 Attendance upon 
 public worship belongs to the externals of religion ; but is 
 it " one of the most despotic acts of which man is capable," 
 to train up our children to a conscientious attendance upon 
 the public worship of God 1 
 
 It is difficult for me to understand how an external of 
 religion is a more despotic bond upon the conscience than 
 an infernal principle : how it should be a greater inter- 
 ference with the rights of conscience to teach a child that 
 infant baptism is an ordinance of God, than to teach him 
 to hold it in abhorrence as not an ordinance of God : how 
 it should be despotism to teach him that sprinkling is 
 scriptural baptism, more than it should be despotism to 
 teach him that immersion is scriptural baptism. If we 
 teach our children any thing false in religion, and they 
 discover it when they come to years of discretion, it is 
 their duty to throw it off: nor is it possible for me to con- 
 ceive how they are any more bound in conscience by an 
 unscriptural external of religion, than by an unscriptural 
 ' article of faith. 
 
 God, of old, commanded parents to circumcise their 
 children. Did He command them to do that which was 
 a infringing upon the rights of conscience V' Was the 
 circumcision of a child "one of the most" despotic acts 
 of which man is capable 1 Was it tyranny in religion 1 
 And did not circumcision belong as truly to the externals 
 of religion as baptism 1 How would it have sounded, for 
 a Levite set to instruct the people in the word of the 
 Lord, had he said to the fathers and mothers in Israel, 
 ** The table of the ten commandments teach to your child- 
 ren diligently, in the house and in the way ; when thou 
 liest down and when thou risest up : imprint the word of 
 God upon the juvenile rriind c from its earliest dawn ;' but 
 circumcision ! that belongs to the externals of religion ; 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 105 
 
 and * to infringe upon the rights of conscience in RELA- 
 TION TO THE EXTERNALS of religion, comes not within the 
 province of any man.' ' Parents have not a right to take 
 advantage of infancy, and then and there impose upon 
 infants what shall fetter their consciences when come to 
 years of accountability.' * To circumcise' an unconscious 
 babe, and then, as that child is verging on to mature years, 
 to tell it again and again that it has been ' circumcised,' 
 is one of the most despotic acts of which man is capa- 
 ble 1" 
 
 How would it have sounded for a Levite, set to teach 
 the people knowledge, had he begun to harangue the 
 children, with regard to circumcision, in the words which 
 Mr. Woolsey has employed with regard to infant baptism 1 
 " Nothing can be more foreign" to Judaism " than to de- 
 prive us of such liberty, either by despotic power, or by 
 taking advantage of us at a time when we are not aware 
 of what is being imposed upon us." What would have 
 been thought of that Levite, had he addressed those who 
 had broken away from the covenant of circumcision in 
 the words which Mr. Woolsey has spoken of those who 
 have renounced their infant baptism : " Some there are, 
 who, triumphing over all opposing obstacles, assert their 
 rights their liberty of conscience in things of religion"- 
 " fearless of what man can do unto them. But others, 
 less courageous, are held in bondage." " To such let me 
 say," * * * " No one has a right to impose upon you 
 any act of religious worship without consulting your 
 pleasure." Does Mr. Woolsey mean to go as far as to 
 say that no man should " command his household after 
 him to keep the Sabbath day, or to attend upon the 
 worship of God unless he has first consulted his child 
 whether it be his 'pleasure' to be trained up like a 
 heathen, or in the fear of God V But let us listen iiir- 
 9* 
 
106 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 ther. " Nor should children feel themselves under the 
 slightest obligations to be governed by what their par' 
 mis did to them in in r ancy" 
 
 By using the words " TO them," instead of " FOR them," 
 Mr. Woolsey here artfully leads the minds of the young 
 to contemplate the meaning and importance of their bap- 
 tism as lying in the act done fo them, instead of lying in 
 the covenant claimed for them ; the obligations of the 
 parent acknowledged and assumed, and the import of the 
 baptism as a seal by which God claims that child as his 
 servant, and challenges of him forever the love and rev- 
 erence which he owes to his father's covenant God. 
 Mr. Woolsey would exhort our children to consider their 
 parents as tyrants and usurpers ; to regard their baptism 
 as the imposition of a burden ; to reject the covenant and 
 Us promised blessings ; to cast away these solemn cords 
 of duty from them ; and to do what in them lies, that a 
 father's faith, and a mother's prayers and tears, and all our 
 solemn admonitions to our children, so far as that faith, 
 those prayers, and admonitions pertain to the covenant of 
 God, may all be defeated, and entirely cast away. To 
 believing parents, who have humbly claimed for their 
 children the seal of their covenant, I would say, can you, 
 in faithfulness to your covenant, or without perilling your 
 fondest hopes, abet your children in waiting upon such 
 instructions as these 1 Mr. Woolsey has at least done us 
 and our children this service : He has given us full warn- 
 ing that, by means like these, by ridiculing infant bap- 
 tism as popery by denouncing it as tyranny by exhort- 
 ing our children to break away from the instructions and 
 covenant of their fathers, he will endeavor to undermine 
 and defeat the influence of parental instructions, and turn 
 away our children from what we hold dearer than life 
 the covenant of our God. 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 107 
 
 Mr. Woolsey lingers long and fondly upon this theme. 
 He rings the changes upon the words "liberty," "rights/' 
 "tyranny," "despotism," "Church and State;" as though 
 these cant phrases, by which demagogues have so long 
 appealed to the vilest passions of humanity, and which 
 have been used till they are well nigh worn out amid the 
 strife of party politics, could have the least possible bear- 
 ing upon the question whether infant baptism is of scrip- 
 tural authority , or the least possible influence in persuad- 
 ing us to abandon the truth and ordinances which we hold 
 as most undoubtedly the truth and the ordinances of God. 
 Thus, p. 328, he stigmatizes the practice of infant bap- 
 tism as tending " equally to monarchy and superstition ; 
 and alike unscriptural and unfriendly both to true religion 
 and civil liberty" He declares, p. 329, that, by the 
 practice of infant baptism, " the foundation of civil and 
 religious liberty is greatly endangered, and must eventu- 
 ally, in this country, as it has done in all other countries, 
 give place to a full ecclesiastical and legal establish- 
 ment" He goes on in enforcement of the same argu- 
 ment, p. 330, " At no period of American independence 
 has there been greater occasion for alarm respecting our 
 free institutions and religious privileges, than at the pres- 
 ent time." He mingles Protestants and Papists together 
 in this matter ; alarms the fears of his hearers concerning 
 the efforts of the Papal church to subvert our free institu- 
 tions, and to build up a Romish church and state estab- 
 lishment ; and then tries to transfer those fears, so as to 
 make them bear against infant baptism. It is not against 
 popery, as popery, that he is arguing ; but he brings in 
 the subject of popery to make it bear against infant bap- 
 tism. " Think not," says he, " that I am sounding a false 
 tocsin. Nay, this is no unnecessary alarm. It is a so- 
 ber and fearful reality :" and finally winds off this long 
 
108 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 and loud alarum by this conclusion : " It is to the interest 
 of Christianity, generally, that infant baptism be laid aside 
 by all the followers of the Lamb of God." 
 
 Js it possible that he thinks that infant baptism "must 
 eventually, in this country, give place to a full ecclesiasti- 
 cal and legal establishment 1" Is it possible that he thinks 
 there can be the least danger of uniting church and state 
 in this American land ? Which sect of Protestants enter- 
 tains the horrid design 1 Which will submit to have a 
 sister denomination elevated into the rank and privilege 
 of a national establishment 1 Is it the Methodist, the 
 Congregational, the Presbyterian, or the Dutch Reformed, 
 or the Lutheran 1 Or is it one of those denominations 
 which respectively claim to be the only true church, and 
 take it upon themselves to unchurch, and two of them, 
 the Papal and the Baptist, to EXCOMMUNICATE, every 
 other body of Christians, and every other individual 
 Christian, under heaven 1 As for the Baptist church, we 
 trust they have no such design, although they are so con- 
 fidently looking forward and hastening toward the day, 
 when all other denominations shall be swallowed up by 
 the Baptist. We suspect them of no design to unite 
 church and state ; and we should certainly deem it idle 
 to fear such an event, if we could suspect such a design. 
 As for the Papal church, let Mr. Woolsey rest assured, 
 that Protestant Pedobaptists would, to a man, sooner suffer 
 the man of sin to lay our beloved land waste without in- 
 habitant, than ever submit to receive his yoke upon our 
 necks, or see it forced upon the necks of our brethren. 
 
 It certainly becomes every lover of truth, godliness, 
 and freedom in this land, to watch narrowly and guard 
 well against the insidious approaches, the dreadful de- 
 signs, and the destructive tendencies of Popery. But is 
 it possible that Mr. Woolsey thinks that our rejecting infant 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 109 
 
 baptism could in any measure stay the progress of the Pa- 
 pal church in these United States 1 Would he really ad- 
 vise us to practice according to the conclusions of such a 
 logic as this : " We fear popery, and therefore we will 
 renounce what we hold most dear and sacred as an ordi- 
 nance enjoined upon us by God 1" 
 
 Is Mr. Woolsey ignorant that this political hue and cry 
 which he has raised against infant baptism, is the same 
 that infidels aud disorganizes have wielded against all re- 
 ligion in general, and more especially against the Christian 
 religion 1 Is Mr. Woolsey ignorant that such arguments 
 weigh nothing at all upon the question, " What is true ; 
 and what ordinances are. sanctioned by the authority of 
 God 1" Would he, in earnest, teach Christians to lay aside 
 doctrines and ordinances which they hold as the truth, and 
 the ordinances of God, because unbelievers assail them as 
 " unfriendly to liberty, and tending to promote a union of 
 church and state 1" 
 
 INFANT BAPTISM AND SOCINIANISM. 
 
 Mr. Woolsey endeavors to brjing a further prejudice 
 to bear against infant baptism, by alledging that " vast 
 multitudes of Pedobaptists, both in England and in the 
 United States have rejected the divinity of Jesus and em- 
 braced Deism." 
 
 " Such is the appalling fact," says he concerning the 
 English Presbyterians, " That entire body of Christians 
 in England have become skeptical in their views respect- 
 ing almost every doctrine of our holy religion ; but es- 
 pecially have they embraced deistical sentiments. No 
 longer is Jesus to them a Divine Savior. They have re- 
 jected him, as did the Jews before them."* " And how 
 
 * That " entire body" is but a little handful, the pitiful rena 
 nant of a sect, the body of whose successors are orthodox and Con- 
 gregationaliste. 
 
110 A EEFUTATION OF 
 
 painful is the fact," he adds, " that very many of the Con- 
 gregationalists of New England have embraced Socinian- 
 ism. Where but a few years since Christ was proclaimed 
 as a Divine Savior, now his Divinity is vilified and 
 held up to the ridicule of infidelity." 
 
 Mr. Woolsey intends to have these things weigh against 
 the baptism of infants, and adduces them for that purpose ; 
 and yet, " Willing to wound, but yet afraid to strike," he 
 hesitates to affirm that the practice of infant baptism was the 
 cause of this apostacy. He introduces it by saying, " How 
 far the reasoning in favor of infant baptism has prepared 
 the way for so many, of late years, to deny the Divine na- 
 ture of our Lord and Savior it is impossible for us to know." 
 This is bringing a gun into the field which he is unwilling 
 to stand by. It is insinuating an argument for which he 
 is afraid to be responsible. Such an artifice may expose a 
 consciousness both of weakness, and of a lack of sound ar- 
 gument ; but we cannot allow it to afford the designed safe 
 retreat. Can Mr. Woolsey point out any sort of connec- 
 tion between infant baptism and Socinianism, such as 
 shall make the former a cause of the latter 1 Were the 
 English Presbyterians the only men in Old England who 
 practised infant baptism 1 Did not the Church of England 
 practise it, and lay vastly more stress upon it than did ever 
 the English Presbyterians 1 Did not the Wesleyans prac- 
 tise it 1 Did not the numerous Independents and Congre- 
 gationalists of England and Wales practise it 1 How came 
 this universal cause to be so limited in its operation ?. Pray 
 tell. Has infant baptism in these United States always been 
 confined to Massachusetts 1 What is there in the differ- 
 ence of latitude or longitude that should make the virus 
 work in Massachusetts, and hem it in by the State line so 
 that though spread ever so abundantly abroad, South, 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. Ill 
 
 North, and West, the poison should still work percepti- 
 bly scarce any where else than in Massachusetts 1 What 
 a dearth of argument is this, when one, in searching for 
 matter to urge against infant baptism, is compelled to resort 
 to such miserable logic, such groundless appeals to preju- 
 dice as this ! Does Mr. Woolsey think that if this contro- 
 versy must descend to such a mode of argument, that 
 there are no materials to be used against immersionists, with 
 equal justice and with far greater potency 1 Are there no 
 Campbellite Baptists in the land, basing the entire fabric 
 of personal religion on immersion, and a dead faith a 
 bare historical belief of the events of the Gospel history ? 
 Are there no such beings as Jlntinomian Baptists 1 Are 
 there no Mormon Baptists 1 Are there no Baptists oppos- 
 ed to Temperance, Tract, Bible, and Missionary societies 
 and efforts \ We scorn to use such things for the purpose 
 of exciting a prejudice against those evangelical Christians 
 whom we love to call our Baptist brethren. But if we 
 could descend to use such things in argument, and even 
 make out and trace distinctly the process from stickling so 
 much for the mere mode of an ordinance to making EVERY 
 THING of an ordinance, would our Baptist brethren receive 
 it in argument for giving up that form of the ordinance 
 which they hold as required by the command of God \ 
 
 Mr. Woolsey thus concludes his argument against infant 
 baptism. I shall simply quote it, and let it speak for it- 
 self. Whatever of cogency there is in it, let it go altogeth- 
 er unimpaired. Whatever of modesty there is in it; 
 whatever of respect for the wise and good of nine-tenths 
 of the Protestant Christian world, who have examined the 
 subject as prayerfully and as long as Mr. Woolsey, and 
 yet, differ from him in their faith and practice, let all this 
 
112 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 appear in its untarnished glory and its unblemished loveli- 
 ness. I shall simply let Mr. Woolsey speak in his own 
 language, and in his very words. 
 
 " What part of parental duty is it, for a father and 
 mother to have a little water sprinkled upon the face of 
 an unknowing, unconscious babe, and then by prayers and 
 daily effort endeavor to make that babe, when grown to 
 years, believe that it has been baptized 1 c Who hath re- 
 quired .this at your hands V 
 
 " Where do such parents, where do Pedobaptist minis- 
 ters, get a warrant for preventing rational, accountable be- 
 ings acting for themselves ? It is time indeed, that such 
 practices, so well suited to the dark ages, but illy becoming 
 the nineteenth century, were abandoned by all respecting 
 the Bible as a revelation from God. 
 
 " Shall not our Pedobaptist brethren soon be willing to 
 lay aside a practice so perfectly puerile and unscriptural 1 
 Can it be ideal to anticipate a thing so just in itself, and so 
 much to be desired." 
 
 CLAIMS OF BAPTISTS NOT TO BELONG TO THE PROTKSTANT 
 FAMILY. 
 
 Mr. Woolsey says, p. 63, " Baptists, in every age of the 
 Christian Church, have held and maintained, first against 
 the corruptions and innovations of the Romish Church, and 
 latterly against those who seceded from her," &c. &c. 
 
 On p. 26 he says, " Their blood cries from the earth in 
 every land where the combined powers of church and state 
 could be brought to bear against them for not submitting 
 to the application of baptism to infants ; the saving effi- 
 cacy of baptism ; and the union of church and stale" 
 He then quotes the poet Montgomery for 'the purpose of 
 claiming as Baptists the little flock who adhered to the 
 truth when, 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 113 
 
 ** Among Bohemian mountains truth Retired 
 
 " When Europe languished in barbarian gloom." 
 
 In the same manner the American and Foreign (Bap- 
 tist) Bible Society, say, p. 31, of their Report for 1840, 
 concerning the Waldenses. " They are our brethren, the 
 descendants of these heroic Baptists who maintained the 
 truth inviolate amid the rigors of a fierce persecution, 
 while the smoke of their burning blood went up from the 
 valleys of Piedmont, as an acceptable offering unto God." 
 Again in the same Report, p. 75. " Though not by birth 
 of the Protestant family, we are left, strange as it may 
 appear, the sole representatives of the great Protestan 
 principle,fthat the Bible alone, as it came from God, is the 
 only binding authority in matters of faith and conscience." 
 
 That the Baptists alone hold to the great Protestant 
 principle, that the Bible alone, as it came from God, is the 
 only binding authority in matters of faith and conscience, 
 every Presbyterian and Congregationalist in the land, to say 
 nothing of other denominations, will know and feel to be 
 a grievous untruth. But it is not with that part of these 
 high pretensions that I have now to do. I believe that his- 
 tory by no means bears out Mr. Woolsey in the assertion 
 that the Waldenses were persecuted for the three things 
 which he alledges as the cause why so much blood of Bap- 
 tist's " cries from the earth in every land." It was not for 
 refusing " the application of baptism to infants ;" nor for 
 denying " the saving efficacy of baptism," nor for oppos- 
 ing " the union of church and state," that even the fero- 
 cious Anabaptists fell under the vengeance of the civil 
 power. 
 
 Afl for the antiquity of the Baptist denomination, it is a 
 matter of history, which I believe cannot be successfully 
 disputed, that till the rise of the Anabaptists in the six- 
 teenth century, no sect or body of men was known who 
 JO 
 
114 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 held or pretended that immersion was essential to bap- 
 tism. That the Waldenses, those far famed witnesses and mar- 
 tyrs for the truth, were Pedobaptists, is a truth as well 
 established as any truth in the whole range of history. It 
 was for nothing peculiar to Baptists in distinction from 
 other Protestants, that they were persecuted. In every 
 thing in which our Baptist brethren are peculiar ; their ex- 
 clusive immersion ; their rejection of infant baptism, and their 
 close communion, they are of recent date, and absolutely 
 a new sect in the Christian world. 
 
 THE ASSEMBLY OF DIVINES. 
 
 A tract, published by the Baptist General Tract Society, 
 widely circulated, still in circulation, and not, so far as I 
 am informed, as yet either suppressed or corrected by the 
 society, asserts, that " As late as 1643, in the Assembly of 
 Divines at Westminster, sprinkling was substituted for im- 
 mersion by a majority of one 25 voted for sprinkling, 24 
 for immersion." The import and design of the sentence 
 is to make people believe that immersion had been the 
 cdmmon mode in England, and that sprinkling was substi- 
 tuted for it by the Assembly of Divines, on a majority of 
 one, in which 24 voted for immersion in opposition to 
 sprinkling. 
 
 This has been a very common representation of the 
 matter by our Baptist brethren. It has been reiterated 
 from the pulpit and the press. When the error has been 
 pointed out, the representation has been vehemently af- 
 firmed to be true. 
 
 In the appendix to his work Mr. Woolsey has copied 
 the Journal of Dr. Lightfoot touching this action of the 
 Assembly of Divines ; which journal, he says, he has " sub- 
 jected himself to no little expense to secure ;" whether 
 for the purpose of correcting the common Baptist repre- 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 115 
 
 sentation, or of sustaining it, every one must judge for 
 himself. 
 From the journal of Lightfoot it appears, 
 
 1. That the matter in dispute was, " sprinkling being 
 granted, whether dipping SHOULD BE TOLERATED WITH IT." 
 This was the form, and the reality, of the question whe- 
 ther to dip or sprinkle" The proposition, " It is lawful 
 and sufficient to besprinkle the child," had been canvassed 
 and was ready to vote. But Dr. Lightfoot " spoke against 
 it as being very unfit to vote that it is lawful to sprinkle 
 when every one grants it." Whereupon it was fallen upon, 
 sprinkling being granted, whether dipping should be tole- 
 rated with it." And here, says Lightfoot, " we fell upon a 
 large and long discourse whether dipping was essential, or 
 used in the first institution, or in the Jews' custom." 
 
 2. It was not true that 24 voted for immersion, as opposed 
 to sprinkling; but, as Dr. Lightfoot says, " so many were 
 unwilling to hare dipping EXCLUDED, that the votes came 
 to an equality within one." It was not that they wished 
 immersion to be adopted, or even recommended in the 
 Directory ; but simply that the directory might not pro- 
 hibit immersion to those who should prefer it. When the 
 proposition was put in such a shape as not to make dip- 
 ping unlawful, the Assembly with great unanimity ', de- 
 clared in their Directory that for the mode of baptizing, it 
 is " not only lawful but ALSO SUFFICIENT, and MOST EX- 
 PEDIENT to be by pouring or sprinkling water on the face of 
 the child, without adding any other ceremony." 
 
 3. Nothing at all was finally determined on that vote of 
 24 to 25. " After that vote," Lightfoot says, " when we 
 had done all we concluded nothing about it, but the busi- 
 ness was recommitted." 
 
 On the following points, then, the statement of the tract 
 in question is not true : 
 
116 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 1. It is not true, that sprinkling was substituted for im- 
 mersion by the Assembly of Divines. 
 
 2. It is not true, that 24 voted for immersion and 25 for 
 sprinkling, as opposing or preferring sprinkling to immer- 
 sion. All they wanted was, not to txclude dipping as un- 
 lawful ; and as soon as this point was yielded them, they 
 "with great unanimity" concurred in the vote declaring 
 sprinkling to be ' lawful,' " sufficient and most expe- 
 dient." 
 
 3. It is not true, that the assembly finally determined 
 any thing as touching this matter by a majority of one. 
 
 And now when these incorrect statements have been 
 published by the Baptist General Tract Society through- 
 out the country, and reiterated, and reiterated again from 
 the pulpit and the press ; and when disputed, vehemently 
 re-affirmed to be the truth ; what does Mr. Woolsey do 
 when he has at last discovered what the truth is in this 
 matter] Hear him, p. 350. "My Baptist brethren 
 have been betrayed into a slight mistake, by reason of 
 their quoting Pedobaptist authors who have in like manner 
 been mistaken." "My Baptist brethren!" Does the 
 matter come no nearer home 1 " Jl slight mistake !" Is 
 this all! "Betrayed into it!" ^By reason of their 
 quoting Pedobaptist authors !" What Pedobaptist authors 1 
 But hear him further. " Justice to that devoted man of 
 God, the late Rev. Dr. Davis, of Hartford, who wrote the 
 tract containing the statement said to be ' vamped upj re- 
 quires me to remark that the case as reported by Dr. 
 Lightfoot, is even worse than it has been represented." 
 
 With Rev. Dr. Davis, of Hartford, we have nothing to 
 do, any more than with the pen with which he wrote it, 
 or than with the types with which it was printed. It was 
 I trust, in Dr. Davis an error. I know not that it was ev- 
 er pointed out to him. The book which speaks of the 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 117 
 
 story as " vamped up" does not, therefore, even mention 
 his name. It complains of the Baptist General Tract So- 
 ciety, which continued to circulate that tract ; and of the 
 papers and ministers who continued to circulate the state- 
 ment in question as the truth, long after Dr. Miller, (to say 
 nothing of others,) had published a refutation of the state- 
 ment to the world. 
 
 Let there be no slipping aside from the question, on the 
 part of the Baptist General Tract Society, by taking refuge 
 behind the name of Dr. Davis. Let there be no evading 
 the responsibility of that widely circulated publication* by 
 appealing to the sympathy of people for " that devoted 
 man of God," as though we had assailed his " reputation," 
 or even mentioned his name ; unless it be true that corpo- 
 rations have no souls," and that ministers and church 
 members may falsify the records of history, and then avoid 
 all manner of responsibility, provided that they only be 
 banded together in a society. Let the Baptist General Tract 
 Society answer for the matter. Let them suppress that 
 tract, or alter it so as to make it accord with the truth ; 
 and give notice of their doing with suitable acknowledg- 
 ment to the Christian world. 
 
 Does Mr. Woolsey think it any clearing up of this mat- 
 ter to say, that " The case as reported by Dr. Lightfoot 
 is even worse than has been represented 1" That is not 
 the question : but, whether the representation is true. To 
 justify this language of Mr. Woolsey to make it any 
 thing but deceptive, it should be shown, first, that the rep- 
 resentation was true : then, secondly, it might have been 
 lawful to show that the affair was even worse than the 
 representation. To say nakedly and simply " It was even 
 worse than it has been represented," implies an affirma- 
 tion of the truth so far as represented. Say, if you please, 
 that the Assembly of Divines deserved the epithet of devils 
 10* 
 
118 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 incarnate : if it be just to say so, show it to be just, and we 
 have nothing to reply. But suppose this were done ; 
 what is all this to the question whether " sprinkling was 
 substituted for immersion by the Assembly of Divines ; 
 and that upon a bare majority of one V 
 
 " Moreover I may add," says Mr. Woolsey, " that Bap- 
 tists no where have represented that immersion was the 
 entire mode at the time when the Assembly convened." 
 Mr. Woolsey is indeed very ingenious in devising ways to 
 " come off" from the difficulty without an ingenuous con- 
 fession. Does he intend to deny that the Baptists have 
 represented, that as late as 1643, " Sprinkling was substi- 
 tuted for immersion, on a majority of one by the Assembly 
 of Divines at Westminster T' Does he intend to deny 
 this 1 or does he make this remark for the purpose of cre- 
 ating a diversion which shall allow the Baptist General 
 Tract Society to retreat from their position without ac- 
 knowledging their fault 1 
 
 THE AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY. 
 
 The American Bible Society was organized in 1816 by 
 delegates of several denominations from various sections of 
 the country. Its object was " The dissemination of the 
 Scriptures in received versions where they exist, and in 
 the most faithful, where they may be required." What- 
 ever was to be done by the society was that, and THAT 
 ALONE which, all could unite in doing. The Scriptures 
 were to be circulated without note or comment. While 
 all could agree in this, it was beyond hope that all could 
 be brought to agree as to the character of any explanatory 
 appendages : least of all to denominational or sectarian 
 appendages. AU agreed in our common English version. 
 No one pretended that it ^as an E^isco^al Bible, a Bap- 
 tist Bible, a Presbyterian Bible, a Methodist Bible, a Qua- 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 119 
 
 ker Bible, or a Congregational Bible, or a Dutch Reform, 
 ed Bible, or a Lutheran Bible. All, every where, who 
 spoke the English tongue, regarded it as THE HOLY 
 BIBLE; the Bible of the English language. There 
 were, moreover, several other old versions, such as the 
 German, the Danish, the Swedish, and several others which 
 no one pretended to call sectarian. Our Baptist breth- 
 ren think that some of these versions particularly favor 
 them: we think otherwise; with what reason I have 
 shown. At all events, all denominations agreed in the 
 use of them, and this is all that the American Bible Socie- 
 ty asks of any version. 
 
 But new versions were to be made ; and these versions 
 are to be "the most faithful." Who is to be the judge for 
 this Society what versions are the most faithful 1 Did the So- 
 ciety ever install the Baptists, or the Methodists, or the Pres- 
 byterians, as the infallible arbiters, to judge for all the rest, 
 and contrary to the judgment of all the rest, what is the 
 most faithful version 1 Agreeing upon the basis of circu- 
 lating the Bible without note or comment, could it be pre- 
 sumed that they ever intended to bind themselves to cir- 
 culate and use in common a Bible, which, though not ac- 
 companied by sectarian comments, should be so translated 
 as to make it sectarian in the very text ; a Bible which 
 one denomination alone could use, and which all denomi- 
 nations represented in the Society, save one, agree in con- 
 sidering as an alteration and corruption of the word of 
 God 1 What version, in the view of a society composed 
 of all these denominations, is to be judged most faithful ! 
 " Not that certainly which conveys the peculiar tenets of 
 this or thatdenommaticn, while it misstates the views of 
 others, and is in their view unfaithful" 
 
 If any denomination wishes to circulate a denomina- 
 
120 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 tional comment, let the denomination do it. The Society 
 cannot do it without violating the compact on which tha 
 Society is founded. If a denomination see fit to issue a 
 sectarian version in which the text shall be so moulded as 
 to express their views and condemn the views of all others, 
 let them do it : the Society is not their judge let them do 
 it, and answer it to their own conscience and to God. But 
 by what prerogative can they claim a right to force such a 
 version upon others, or ask the Society to adopt and circu- 
 late a version which no denomination represented in the 
 Society save the Baptists can use 1 
 
 The case, it seems to me, is so plain as to render 
 further argument needless. The Board of Managers very 
 properly determined " That in appropriating money for 
 translating, printing, or distributing the sacred Scrip- 
 tures in foreign languages, the managers feel at liberty to 
 encourage only such versions as conform in the principles 
 of their translation to the common English version, at least 
 so far that all the religious denominations represented in 
 t'his society can consistently use and circulate said ver- 
 sions in their several schools and communities" 
 
 The society pass no judgment upon this or that sectarian 
 version : they allow every body else in the wide world to 
 judge for themselves, and to act by other organizations or 
 in other modes just as they please ; they only determine 
 for themselves, that it is THEIR duty to circulate ver- 
 sions in which all the denominations represented in the so- 
 ciety can unite in circulating. 
 
 Our Baptist brethren endeavor to conjure up difficulties 
 in the way of adhering to this principle. They harp upon 
 " the improbability of finding terms which shall" render 
 versions such as " contain no words objectionable to the 
 different denominations of Christians composing the Bible 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 121 
 
 Society." * They intimate that other terms may be dis- 
 puted, and therefore, have to be transferred ; that " taking 
 the oversight," may be expressed by a word transferred from 
 the Greek " episcopising them:" that the "gifts and 
 calling" of God " may be made to read in transferred 
 Greek, " the clesis," and " ekology" of God. 
 
 To all this it is sufficient to reply, no such diffculty 
 has been encountered though all Protestant denomina- 
 tions have united in translating the Bible into nearly all 
 the languages of the earth. The sole and solitary instance 
 of difficulty that has occurred, IP that in which the Baptists 
 have endeavored to make all other denominations unite 
 with them in so translating this word as to suit the Baptist 
 notions, in opposition to the judgment and the conscience 
 of all other denominations of the Protestant world. To 
 urge such arguments in this case, is to argue that we should 
 not transfer this particular word for the best of reasons, lest 
 hereafter we should have to transfer other words for no 
 reason ; and words which nobody has ever attempted or 
 desired to transfer. The question is on Baptize alone. 
 Our Baptist brethren may try to divert the argument from 
 this point, but it is in vain. Their movements in this 
 matter seem to me to resemble those of the cuttle-fish, 
 which, conscious of being unable to meet its pursuer, en- 
 deavors to bewilder and elude him, by diffusing around his 
 path an inky darkness. But it will not do. Their trans- 
 lators are not required to transfer a long list of disputed 
 words before their versions can be adopted by the Ameri- 
 can Bible Society. They are not compelled to translate 
 from the version of king James, nor to be governed by it, 
 save to make their versions so far agree with it, that all 
 
 Report A, & F. Bible Society, 1840, p. 49. 
 
122 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 denominations may use them in common. Our Baptist 
 brethren know full well, that nothing more than this is re- 
 quired, to bring any version within the rule adopted by the 
 American Bible Society. While these things are so, how 
 lamentably disingenuous it is for the Baptist Bible Society 
 to talk as they have done in the Appendix to their Report 
 for 1840, p. 51, about the British and Foreign, and the 
 American Bible Societies, wishing " to perpetuate the 
 odious despotism of the Stuarts by putting fetters on the 
 translators of the Bible ;" and for Mr. Woolsey to say as 
 he has done, p. 97, " King James of England, and not 
 king Jesus of Zion, is by our Pedobaptist brethren made 
 to control the translation of the word of life ! ! /" " Im- 
 pose fetters on the translators of the Bible ! Are we im- 
 posing fetters upon translators, simply by declining to wear 
 the fetters which sectarian translators would forge for us 1 
 Is it despotism for seven denominations of Christians to de- 
 cline submitting their judgment and conscience to the au- 
 thority of the eighth 1 Are these the only terms on which 
 our Baptist brethren can unite with other denominations 
 in any thing 1 that all other denominations regard them 
 as infallible, and give up their own judgment and con- 
 science, and help circulate the conceits of the Baptists as 
 the unadulterated word of God ! We never entered into 
 a society on such conditions. We never shall. 
 
 But with sectarian differences the American Bible So- 
 ciety had nothing to do.* Its sole business was, and is, to 
 
 * Said the Rev. Thomas L. Curtis, a Baptist, in his speech be- 
 fore the American Bible Society, May 1837. " We must go back 
 to first principles and learn what these two words Bible Society 
 mean. It is a society literally as broad as the Bible, unincumbered 
 and unfilled with human creeds, like the Bible ; a society where all 
 may meet, and all may love, like the Bible." "This, (the Ameri. 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 123 
 
 circulate such versions as all can agree to circulate ; and 
 surely, such versions, if any on earth, must be the most 
 faithful ; without sectarian bias, the pure, the simple, the 
 
 can) is a Bible Society. To me it is far dearer than any sect or 
 denomination. As a Baptist, I love my sect ; but I love the air I 
 am breathing to day more than that of my own sect ; it refreshes 
 me ; it invigorates my lungs. I feel relieved when I enter it. I 
 have been breathing the confined air of my party for years, but 
 here I find myself in a purer and fresher atmosphere." 
 
 "There are purposes which you can answer, which no mere sect 
 can accomplish, while sect remains. In the toils and labors of a 
 denomination, we are like a miner in the bowels of the earth. It is 
 his duty ; it is his life ; he must labor there while duty calls him, 
 amidst a mixture of jarring elements, but far from the light and 
 fresh air which are enjoyed above him." " There are ^mephitic 
 gasses ; there is much dogmatism, much narrowness, much bitter- 
 ness. These, like the fire-damp, fill the region with exhalations 
 not only loathsome but dangerous," . . "If gentleness, if 
 meekness, if brotherly love constitute the life of religion, there is 
 danger, great danger, that their explosion may destroy both the 
 work, and the workmen. But the Bible Society is like a safety 
 lamp." . . . Ct The Bible Society, and by this I mean the 
 society properly so called, the Bible Society proper, [for I suppose 
 we shall have some other sort of Bible societies with some other 
 name,] is able to arrest and burn the hydrogen of sectarian and 
 party feeling, &c." ..." The separate organization of any 
 one sect . . . cherishes the maximum of difference and the 
 minimum of agreement. Its cry is * of what great importance it 
 is, that our testimony for the truth should be preserved." But then 
 it is their testimony not to the whole truth, but to a particular part 
 of it, and to that part in which they differ from others. It is con- 
 stantly trying how much it can make of that difference. Such a 
 spirit is antj.christian. . . ''When it enters such a glorious 
 circle as this" [alluding to the vast assembly of 3000 or 4000 people 
 before him,] its exclamation is, " how few reasons have I to agree 
 with any of those around me ? How little cause have I to rejoice 
 in such an assemblage of Christian professors." . . . tC I am 
 
124 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 unadulterated word of God. The American Bible So- 
 ciety was so single in its aim and so limited in its province ; 
 that it would not even take upon itself to judge that a ver- 
 sion which only one denomination on earth can use was 
 for that very reason to be condemned or suspected as un- 
 faithful or as biased by sectarian views : it judged simply 
 and solely concerning such a version, that it was not a ver- 
 sion for them to circulate. If versions were to be circu- 
 lated, which only one denomination could use, the Ameri- 
 can Bible Society left that work to other hands, and had 
 not one word to say, either to approve or to condemn. If 
 
 aware that a very important sect of Christians has adopted an or- 
 gariization founded on its difference from a/1 other sects, but I have 
 seen enough of sects and parties to know" . . " that they are 
 not a whit better agreed among themselves than as a sect they dif- 
 fer from others. They are in fact divided on minor points into 
 iub-sects ; and these again would split on some other points still 
 more minute; and if we must have a separate Bible organization 
 founded on the leading point of sectarian difference, we must have 
 the principle extended, and we must reorganize on each minor 
 difference." ... , 
 
 " I will now stop to notice for one moment the position which 
 this society holds in the relation to the denomination to which I 
 belong. The Baptist Association has met, and the results of its 
 deliberations have been published to the world." . . " When, 
 in that association the voice of sedate piety and unambitious learn- 
 ing was heard, your society was not forgotten. The idea of separa- 
 ting from you was deprecated by many, and I have been requested 
 here to express the union of feeling which is still cherished by many 
 among that body, who feel that they are one with you. . . . 
 *' They deeply regret that the seamless robe of Christ our Savior 
 should ever be torn by the hands of his own disciples. We feel as 
 Israel once did, when there seemed to be a danger that a tribe 
 should become lacking from among them. And they said, 'O 
 Lord God of Israel, why has it come to pass in Israel, that there 
 should be to day one tribe lacking in Israel ?' " 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 125 
 
 any denomination saw fit to form a denominational Bible 
 Society still the American Bible Society had nothing to 
 say. If our Baptist brethren saw fit to form a denomina- 
 tional Bible Society, and withdraw from the National So- 
 ciety, it was surely their prerogative so to do.* 
 
 But having exercised this prerogative, they surely had 
 no ground of complaint against the American Bible Soci- 
 ety 5 unless it be a ground of complaint that when all Pro- 
 testant denominations unite to do a work in common, it 
 is a ground of complaint not to install the Baptists as dic- 
 tators to all the rest. And yet, because the American 
 Bible Society will not thus yield itself to sectarian dicta- 
 tion, and lend itself to the work of furthering sectarian 
 views, Mr. Woolsey calls it " that now sectarian Society." 
 And the Baptist Society is held up as, in compari- 
 son, generously and widely catholic and liberal ! Be- 
 cause the American Bible Society declined to lend itself 
 to the unjust work of furthering the views of one sect, to 
 the condemnation of all others, Mr. Woolsey says of the 
 Society, that their " sectarian prejudice has reached a 
 point when it must revert upon itself, and tend to defeat 
 the object it aimed to secure." He likens the Society to 
 " designing men," whose " eagerness carries them to such 
 daring extremity, as to overthrow the very object of their 
 ambitious endeavors." He likens them to " the aspiring 
 
 * And yet, it seems to me, that in breaking off from a National 
 American Bible Society, to form a society, exclusively and rigidly 
 sectarian, it was singularly arrogant to set forth that sectarian 
 society to the world, as '' The AMERICAN and Foreign Bible So- 
 cttffy." The common acceptation of such a name, in this country, 
 implies a characteristic which that society does not possess* One 
 might have thought that an enemy had given the society such a 
 name in mockery of its uncompromising sectarianism. 
 11 
 
126 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 Hainan," whose " wicked plot turned upon himself;" and 
 to " Crassus, not content with more than enough, but by 
 overstraining for Parthian gold, loses the object of his 
 ambitious aim, and aids to forward, to a more desirable 
 felicity, those whom he thought to make desolate." " Thus 
 too," says he, "the managers of the above named Bible 
 Society, instead of preventing the growing millions of In- 
 dia, whose imploring hands were beginning to be stretched 
 forth for the word of life, from receiving the Bible faith- 
 fully translated, have at least lost their party aim." This 
 is a specimen of page after page, which he gives us of the 
 like charitable and respectful treatment, (if it be lawful to 
 call it charitable or decent, or anything else than slander- 
 ous abuse and misrepresentation,) of the American Bible 
 Society. Whoever will take the Report of the American 
 and Foreign Bible Society for 1840, and read it from end 
 to end, will perceive that Mr. Woolsey simply re-echoes 
 the spirit and sentiments of that Report. 
 
 LIBERALITY OF BAPTISTS WITH REGARD TO FOREIGN MIS- 
 SIONARY TRANSLATORS. 
 
 Mr. Woolsey says, p. 91, " The Pedobaptist missionary 
 translators are compelled, on pain of exclusion from the 
 patronage of the Board, not to translate, but to transfer 
 those words called ; ecclesiastical/ They are not left to 
 act in the fear of God, but forced to comply .with the party 
 wishes of the Pedobaptist Bible Society, called the Ameri- 
 can Bible Society." 
 
 On the other hand, the Baptists, he claims, are entirely 
 liberal. " Now," says he, " Baptists cannot, dare not 
 favor such a principle of translation. Baptists charge 
 their missionary translators to express in their versions 
 the very sense of the original text. The Baptist board 
 makes it the duty of all their missionaries to be guided in 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 127 
 
 their translations of the Holy Scriptures, not by the version 
 of King James, or Bishop Parker, or King Henry, but by 
 
 the ORIGINAL OF KlNG JESUS." 
 
 The plain English of what Mr. Woolsey would have the 
 world believe, is, that while the American Bible Society 
 do not leave their translators to act in the fear of God, but 
 force them to comply with the party wishes of Pedobap- 
 tists, the Baptist Bible Society is not only exceedingly 
 liberal, to allow all translators to " express the exact sense, 
 according to the original, but charges them to use their 
 liberty." And our Baptist brethren would make the world 
 believe that thuy are so liberal as to allow the transla- 
 tor to express the exact sense of the original as he HIMSELF 
 understands it. Thus the Rev. Mr. Cone, President of the 
 Baptist Bible Society, in his speech at their anniversary, 
 April 28, 1840, (Report, p. 6,) cites with earnest appro- 
 bation, as the principles of their Society, the following 
 words : " The translator is bound to express in his version 
 the exact sense of the original AS HE HIMSELF UNDERSTANDS 
 IT. We are sure we speak the common sense of mankind, 
 when we say, if he acts on any other principle, he is a 
 traitor to the highest trust that was ever delegated to man." 
 Again, he quotes with the same approbation, and means to 
 have it understood as the sentiment of the Society over 
 which he presides, the following sentence : " In the name 
 of all that is honest and faithful, let every man who is em- 
 ployed in this work render every word into what HE be- 
 lieves to be its meaning." 
 
 If our Baptist brethren mean by this, that a transla- 
 tor should follow the original, and be very conscientious 
 to express the exact sense of the original, they are by no 
 means peculiar. The American Bible Society holds to 
 such a principle as firmly as any body of men on earth. 
 
128 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 The Hon. John Cotton Smith, President of the American 
 Bible Society, expressed the sentiment no doubt of 
 every member of that Society in the land, when he said, 
 in his speech at the anniversary, May, 1837, " We cannot 
 be too particular in admonishing all who receive our aid 
 in the work of translation, to conform faithfully and mi- 
 nutely to the originals to beware of incurring the awful 
 guilt of adding to or taking from the Divine word." 
 
 But this is not all that our Baptist brethren mean to 
 have understood. Both Mr. Woolsey and the President of 
 the Baptist Bible Society mean to substantiate a cla?.-n for 
 the Baptists of peculiar and enlarged liberality, ev n the 
 liberality of allowing every foreign translator to e press 
 the exact sense of the original AS HE HIMSELF TINDERS A NDS 
 IT, no matter whether he understands it as the Society does 
 or not. To talk about allowing the translator to interpret 
 the Bible as HE HIMSELF UNDERSTANDS IT, can have no 
 bearing on the question at issue, unless our Baptist breth- 
 ren, in so talking, mean to affirm their readiness to print 
 and circulate the version of every translator employed in 
 this business who has rendered every word according to 
 his own understanding of its import. 
 
 But is this the truth 1 When, as Mr. Cone says, the 
 Baptist Board of Foreign Missions instructed their mis- 
 sionaries " to ascertain the exact meaning of the original 
 text ; to express that meaning as exactly as the nature of 
 the languages into which they shall translate the Bible will 
 permit ; and transfer no words which are capable of being 
 literally translated /" did they mean to enlarge the char- 
 ter of the translator's freedom, or to limit and prescribe it 1 
 The talk about " prayer and diligent study," and about 
 " ascertaining the exact meaning of the original text," was 
 superfluous. It does not appear that any translator had 
 been remiss in these duties, or that such remissness had 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 129 
 
 been apprehended. There had been no question about 
 transferring more words than one. The charge of the 
 Baptist Board of Missions was then no more nor less than 
 a roundabout way of charging their missionaries not to 
 transfer the word baptize, but to translate it by a word sig- 
 nifying immerse : and should any missionary of theirs 
 dream that the charge was intended to give him a larger 
 license, and tolerate him in rendering the word WASH, in- 
 stead of immerse, in case he should himself so understand 
 it to mean in the original, who can doubt that the Baptist 
 Missionary Board would soon teach him his mistake, and 
 forthwith prevent the word, as he understands it, from 
 spreading among the missions where they hold the control 1 
 
 And what are, in fact, the principles of the American 
 and Foreign Bible Society 1 Have they, indeed, orga- 
 nized for the purpose of circulating versions which may 
 differ from the views of the entire denomination, provided 
 the original is translated as the missionary himself under- 
 stands it 1 Is it to be believed that a Society which will 
 not let our common English version issue from their 
 presses without prefixing to it a Baptist vocabulary, is in- 
 deed so liberal as to yield its own judgment to the judg- 
 ment of a missionary translator, in case HE understands the 
 word baptize to mean wash, and not immerse ? Unless 
 this is the principle which our Baptist brethren mean to 
 avow, and to which they mean to bind themselves, I can- 
 not but regard their declarations concerning the transla- 
 tor's duty, their strong appeals to sympathy on his behalf, 
 and their claims to superior liberality, not only as falla- 
 cious, but as disingenuous and deceptive. They " charge 
 their missionaries to express in their versions the very 
 sense of the original text." Will they tolerate him in 
 expressing any other than a Baptist sense 1 
 
 Suppose a case ; and one that must happen in seven 
 11* 
 
130 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 cases out of eight ; unless, after all, our Baptist brethren 
 mean to limit their appeals to sympathy to the case of 
 Baptist missionaries alone. A missionary, in the course 
 of translating the Bible, comes to Luke xi. 38. He be- 
 lieves that to translate the word " baptizo" here by the 
 word " immerse," would make the Bible speak falsehood. 
 He honestly and undoubtingly believes that the truth of 
 God, and every sound principle of interpretation, requires 
 him either to transfer the word baptize here, or to render 
 it by the word wash, as Luther did, and as our English 
 translators have done. Will our Baptist brethren think 
 that because this translation is the work of a man who is a 
 missionary, and profoundly skilled in the language into 
 which he is translating the word of God, that his version is 
 no " Bible mutilated and disguised," but an honest and 
 " most faithful one," and therefore deem it their duty to 
 print and circulate it 1 Will the " American and Foreign 
 Bible Society" abide by their professed principles here, 
 and, " in the name of all that is honest and faithful," print 
 and circulate this Bible, in which every word is faithfully 
 rendered by the missionary, as " he himself understands 
 it V Will they admit the justice of their appeals to sym- 
 pathy here 1 The missionary " pauses he prays he 
 reads the original Greek text he understands its precise 
 import." He knows that baptize, in Luke xi. 38, does 
 not mean immerse. He knows the Glossary of the Bap- 
 tist Bible Society is but a glossary " made by fallible and 
 erring men." " Shall he obey God, or shall he obey 
 man 1" " While he is solemnly impressed with a sense 
 of these things, he looks around him he finds himself far 
 away from kindred and friends, to whom he can look for 
 the least support he thinks of his wife and little ones, 
 dear to his soul," "yet he musf translate the word 
 immerse, " on pain of being excluded from all further sup- 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 131 
 
 port from that board which sent him into the field ! ! !" 
 " He is reverently attending to the messages of heaven as 
 recorded by the pen of inspiration, and aiming solely and 
 carefully to transfer their true and living import into the 
 language of the benighted heathen :" but " his labor shall 
 be useless, his translation shall never go beyond his cham- 
 ber, and be spread out before the eyes of those for whom 
 he is toiling and wasting his life, unless it is made on other 
 principles than an exclusive regard to the sense of the 
 original, and the nearest possible approach to it in the ren- 
 dering." *' O ! it is a fearful thing to tamper with the 
 conscience of such a man; to throw before him any 
 temptation to deviate, though never so little, from the 
 line of perfect fidelity to the truth !"* 
 
 Which ground will our Baptist brethren take with 
 regard to such a man 1 Will they admit the irresistible 
 cogency of such appeals to sympathy 1 Will they with- 
 draw everything that they have said about such a version 
 being "a Bible mutilated and disguised!" Will they 
 retract the assertion adopted and printed by a full and for- 
 mal vote of their society, that such a version is a version 
 in which " the real meaning of the words used in con- 
 nection with one of Christ's ordinances is PURPOSELY KEPT 
 OUT OF SIGHT 1"f How will they deal with that mis- 
 sionary 1 Will they take him by the hand and say 
 Brother! other missionaries "are not left to act in the 
 fear of God," but are forced to comply with the party 
 feelings of the Pedobaptist Bible Society, called " The 
 American Bible Society." But "Baptists cannot, dare 
 not favor such a principle of translation. Baptists charge 
 their missionary translators to express in their versions the 
 
 * Am. and For. Bible Soc. Rep , 1840, pp. 70, 71. 
 t Report, 1840, p. 39. 
 
132 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 very sense of the original text." And that sense, dear 
 brother, is not to be as we understand it, but as you your- 
 self understand it. This is the liberal principle on which 
 our society is formed; as you will see set forth most 
 largely and explicitly in the address of our president at 
 the anniversary of our society, April 28, 1840 j as you 
 will find amply professed and cogently enforced in the re- 
 port of our society ; and earnestly and explicitly declared 
 and advocated on pp. 90, 91 of Brother Woolsey. 
 
 Is this the ground our Baptist brethren mean to take 1 
 If not, will they acknowledge the fallacy of their appeals, 
 admit that they were mistaken in the claims of their 
 society as founded on principles so preminently liberal, 
 or will they limit the application of such principles and 
 appeals, and confess that they keep their liberality and 
 their sympathy for Baptist missionaries alone 1 
 
 u Baptists charge their missionary translators to express 
 in their versions the very sense of the original text" 
 This, they say, is liberal. This is " not sectarian." This, 
 says Mr. Woolsey, p. 17, " can never be opposed except 
 for the purpose of promoting and perpetuating sectarian 
 designs." This is all very good. But who is to decide 
 what is the sense of the original text ? 
 
 The President of the Baptist Bible Society in his address 
 would make us believe that the version which they will 
 patronize must be made by the missionary " in the exact 
 sense of the original, as he himself understands it." The 
 Baptist Board of Foreign Missions charge their mis- 
 sionaries, " by earnest prayer and diligent study to ascer- 
 tain the exact meaning of the original text, to express 
 their meaning as exactly as the nature of the languages 
 into which they shall translate the Bible will permit ; and 
 to transfer no words which are capable of being literally 
 translated." Now all this sounds fair and liberal. The 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 133 
 
 impression made, and the impression intended to be made, 
 by the remarks of the President of the Baptist Bible So- 
 ciety and by Mr. Woolsey is, that the missionary is to be 
 left to decide what is the meaning of the original text. 
 And so he is, PROVIDED he be an exclusive Baptist, and 
 Understands the disputed passages as the Baptist Bible 
 Society and the Baptist Missionary Society understand 
 them, and not otherwise. I repeat it, AND NOT OTHER- 
 WISE. He shall interpret the Bible as he understands it> 
 provided he understands it as they do. If he does not, 
 his version shall not be printed, but denounced. He 
 shall not have their sympathies, but their condemnation ^ 
 as a man who has "PURPOSELY KEPT OUT OF SIGHT and dis- 
 honestly CONCEALED" the counsel of God. "Indeed," 
 says Mr. Woolsey, p. 73, " indeed, my brethren, I most 
 sincerely PITY that man, who has, in this age of Gospel 
 light, a CONSCIENCE that can suffer him to deny the prac- 
 ticability of translating baptize, baptism, and their kindred 
 words, into words meaning to immerse, immersion," &c. 
 After all this ado about " tampering with the conscience 
 of missionary translators," after all these appeals to 
 sympathy, and this eloquent and earnest advocacy of the 
 liberal principle of allowing every missionary translator to 
 interpret the Bible as he himself understands it, their 
 boasted liberality amounts to this : he shall make the Bible 
 speak as he understands it, if he be a Baptist ; and not 
 otherwise. Thus, says " The Constitution of the (Bap- 
 tist) Bible Translation Society," (the British association 
 answering to the American and Foreign Bible Society.) 
 "It shall be the object of this society to encourage the 
 production and circulation of complete translations of the 
 Holy Scriptures competently authenticated for fidelity, IT 
 
 BEING ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD that THE WORDS RELATING TO 
 THE ORDINANCE OF BAPTISM SHALL BE TRANSLATED BY 
 TERMS SIGNIFYING IMMERSION." 
 
134 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 I should like to know whether the same thing is not 
 ""ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD " with regard to the versions to be 
 issued by the American and Foreign Bible Society 1 If 
 it is not so understood, then I confess that the " charge " 
 of the Baptist Board of Missions, 7 ' the affirmations con- 
 tained in the speech of the President of the Baptist Bible 
 Society, the claim of liberal principles by their report, 
 and the appeals of Mr. Woolsey, are all just and perti- 
 nent: otherwise, I cannot but regard them as fallacious 
 and deceptive in a high and reprehensible degree. 
 
 The true question with regard to the liberality and duty 
 of the American Bible Society, is not a question con- 
 cerning the translator's duty, but concerning its own duty 
 as a Bible Society formed of various denominations, in the 
 case of a given translation. Our Baptist brethren shift 
 the ground of the question, and appeal to our sympathies 
 in behalf of the translator. But has not the society some 
 duties as well as the translator 1 
 
 I can understand that a missionary in Burmah is better 
 qualified than an American at home to know the meaning 
 of a Burmese word. But I cannot comprehend how his 
 knowledge of Burmese renders him any better qualified, 
 than his brethren at home, to understand the meaning of 
 the Scriptures in Hebrew and Greek. Does he become 
 an infallible interpreter of the original Scriptures by re- 
 siding among the heathen 1 If not, then it may not 
 always be safe, even for our Baptist brethren, to circulate 
 every version made by a missionary, even though he has 
 faithfully made it according to the original as he himself 
 understands it. Certainly a Bible Society composed of 
 several denominations will be slow to bind itself to print 
 and circulate versions so made that only one denomi- 
 nation alone can use them, and that simply on the ground 
 that such versions are made by conscientious missionaries. 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 135 
 
 The truth is, notwithstanding all these outcries and pre- 
 tensions, that our Baptist brethren have broken away from 
 the national society founded on the basis of a union of all 
 denominations, and have formed a separate and sectarian 
 society, simply and solely because all others will not sub- 
 mit to their dictation in the matter of translating that 
 single word baptize ; and submit to it in such a manner 
 as to condemn the solemn belief of all other denomi- 
 nations, and exalt the opinion of the Baptists to the honor 
 of infallibility. And having done this, our Baptist brethren 
 put forth these pretensions to singular and surpassing 
 liberality. 
 
 FEMALE COMMUNION. ^ 
 
 In reply to the objection that infants are not expressly 
 mentioned in the law of baptism, or expressly specified in 
 any instance of baptism, Pedobaptists answer that the 
 same mode of argument would put an end to female com- 
 munion, as they are not expressly mentioned in the law of 
 the institution, nor are they anywhere expressly mentioned 
 as partaking of the Lord's Supper at any subsequent time. 
 
 Mr. Woolsey says, (p. 358,) " If it can be shown that 
 the Christian Church is composed of believers without re- 
 gard to sex, and that all the members of the church have 
 an equal right to the ordinance of the Lord's Supper, then 
 the OBJECTION against female communion is unworthy the 
 confidence of Christians, much less should such a singular 
 subterfuge be resorted to in defence of infant baptism." 
 
 What Pedobaptist has ever made an " objection " 
 against female communion 1 Is not our argument based 
 on the acknowledged propriety of female communion 1 
 But what is Mr. Woolsey's proposed method of proof of 
 the warrant for female communion, in the statement which 
 I have quoted 1 An express mention of females in any 
 
136 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 precept or example of celebrating the Lord's Supper 1 
 No such thing ; but a method of argument and inference. 
 He adduces no express warrant ; he frames a syllogism, 
 and brings a conclusion of human reasoning to bear upon 
 the interpretation of the law of a positive institution. 
 This is his method of proof: 
 
 All church members are to partake of the Lord's 
 Supper : 
 
 Females are members of the church : 
 THEREFORE, females are to partake of the Lord's Sup- 
 per. 
 
 A sound conclusion ; but is that conclusion found EX- 
 PRESS in the Word of God, or does it hang upon a " there- 
 fore " of human logic 1 He infers that the apostles sanc- 
 tioned female communion. We infer the same. We 
 find it impossible to doubt it. In the same manner we 
 infer that apostles kept the first day as the Sabbath. We 
 infer that the Savior sanctioned the change. We infer 
 that it is still a Sabbath, and not simply a day for Chris- 
 tians to assemble ; because a Sabbath was ordained for the 
 world, and the law has never been repealed. The proof 
 we hold to be good and conclusive. In the same manner, 
 by a logic as simple, and, to us, as irresistible, we prove 
 the Divine warrant for infant baptism, and hold the proof 
 to be good and conclusive. An apostolic example, soundly 
 proved from the Scriptures, is sufficient for us in either of 
 these cases ; nor dare we set aside what we consider irre- 
 sistible scriptural evidence of such an example, simply 
 because that evidence is of the nature of inference and of 
 just interpretation, rather than of express mention. 
 
 But says Mr. Woolsey, (p. 353,) " If it be true, that 
 there is no positive precept nor example in the New Tes- 
 tament for pious females "...." to come to the Lord's 
 Supper, then by all means, ought they to stay away it 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 137 
 
 is presumptuous and daring for mortals to venture where 
 God has not authorized them to go !" 
 
 "But," says he, p. 357, "It is not true that there is no 
 positive precept, nor explicit example in the New Testa- 
 ment, for female communion. We have both precept and 
 example, sufficiently PLAIN, &c." Our Baptist brethren 
 deceive themselves in this argument, by a confusion of 
 terms. Mr. Woolsey maintains a " POSITIVE precept, and 
 an " EXPLICIT example" sufficiently plain." Does he 
 mean a precept in which females are EXPRESSLY mention- 
 ed: or an example in which they are expressly mentioned \ 
 Certainly not : he adduces not one of either. But by 
 proof, which I admit to be " sufficiently plain," he 
 reasons out the existence of such a practice as that of 
 female communion. 
 
 "Now in proof that there is a divine warrant for 
 female communion at the Lord's table, let it be observed;" 
 he says: PROOF that there is a Divine warrant I 
 PROOF 1 Why not adduce the precept itself, and dispense 
 with other proof I Proof! His principles require him 
 to bring an express precept: a precept or example in 
 which females are expressly mentioned. But no : he 
 begins with "Let it be observed" He goes on with 
 "first," and " secondly," and "further," and " It is ob- 
 vious" He REASONS; he amplifies his syllogism: he 
 cites Scripture from which he may infer: and by a 
 course of well wrought argumentation, but without a 
 solitary express mention of females in any precept or 
 example, he makes out what he denominates " a positive 
 precept," and an " explicit example : and then winds up 
 with a " therefore :" " There is therefore, EVIDENCE 
 positive and explicit that females were both members of 
 the church in the days of the Apostles, and were admitted 
 to the Lord's supper." "EVIDENCE ! positive and explicit" 
 
 n 
 
138 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 No express precept ; no express mention in an example : 
 but " EVIDENCE positive and explicit," good inferential 
 evidence, of an example which though not expressly 
 mentioned, did probably and undoubtedly exist. He 
 shifts the words "positive and explicit" from the "pre- 
 cept and example," and places them at last upon the 
 EVIDENCE ; and the nature of that evidence is wholly 
 inferential. 
 
 Precisely such " positive and explicit evidence" we 
 find in the Scriptures for infant baptism. If the nature 
 of the evidence be good in the one case, it is good in the 
 other ; and the objection (not to female communion, but) 
 to the Baptist principle of argument, remains good and 
 irrefragable. On Mr. Woolsey 's own ground, they must 
 give up the very foundation of their argument against 
 infant baptism, or cease to tolerate female communion. 
 
 If Mr. Woolsey will allow, according to his statement^ 
 that there may be a positive precept, and an explicit 
 example to warrant a certain class in participating in a 
 divine ordinance : which positive precept, and explicit ex- 
 ample, may be made out by " evidence sufficiently plain," 
 without an express mention of that class in any particular 
 precept or example ; then we have the positive precept 
 and explicit example, for infant baptism. When Dr. 
 Woods says, " My position is that the Scriptures of the 
 New Testament, understood according to the just rules 
 of interpretation, imply that the children of believers 
 are to be baptized," he rests the divine warrant for in- 
 fant baptism on what Mr. Woolsey maintains to be both 
 " a positive precept, and an explicit example ;" for he 
 makes it out on Scriptural EVIDENCE, which is both posi- 
 tive and explicit ; and that on evidence in no way inferior 
 to that by which Mr. Woolsey most triumphantly sweeps 
 away every vestige of " the OBJECTION against female com- 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 139 
 
 munion ;" and shows that objection to be " unworthy of 
 the confidence of Christians." 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH. 
 
 On p. 360, Mr. Woolsey says, " So perfectly destitute 
 of all manner of substantial evidence is infant baptism, as 
 to seek support at the expense of the Lord's day" * * * 
 " The blessed Sabbath must resign its claims to Divine 
 authority, and be based upon frail human reasoning, for 
 the sake of furnishing some sort of plea for infant baptism." 
 * * * " But in this last attempt, as in all others, their plea 
 is not only void of the least shade of evidence, but stands in 
 fearful conflict with the cause of righteousness and truth." 
 
 Notwithstanding these representations, Mr. Woolsey 
 knows full well, that when Pedobaptists refer to the Sab- 
 bath in reply to the objection that infants are not expressly 
 mentioned as baptized, they build their argument entirely 
 on the admitted, and, in their view, the unquestionable 
 divine authority of the Christian Sabbath. 
 
 On our principles we make out the divine authority 
 for observing the first day of the week as a SABBATH. 
 On their principles we think the Baptists cannot. Mr. 
 Woolsey has tried what can be done ; but if the reader 
 will turn to his proof, he will perceive that Mr. Woolsey 
 is unable to find a solitary precept or example in which 
 Christians are expressly taught to change the Sabbath from 
 the seventh to the first day of the week, or to observe the 
 first day as holy time. What does he find 1 Christ rose 
 from the dead on the first day. The day of Pentecost was 
 the first. Jesus came to his disciples when they were 
 assembled on the first day. The disciples repeatedly 
 came together on the first day : which was called " The 
 Lord's day" Is here any express precept for a change 
 from the seventh to the first 1 Is here any express war- 
 
140 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 rant for regarding the hours of the first day as holy time, 
 as a Sabbath ; or for observing it farther than to assem- 
 ble for prayer and worship on that day 1 Nothing like it* 
 Mr. Woolsey argues out the divine authority for observ- 
 ing the first day of the week as a Sabbath, by inference, 
 and by inference alone. The reasoning is complete, and 
 the chain perfect, provided we maintain the warrant for a 
 Sabbath to rest first on the fact that God hallowed the 
 seventh day from the creation, and made it a law which 
 is still unrepealed, to all mankind : provided, secondly, 
 that we regard the fourth commandment as still a part of 
 the moral law, directing how the Sabbath previously 
 ordained, is to be remembered and kept : and provided, 
 thirdly, that we regard these incidental notices of observ- 
 ing the first day as an authoritative change of the day 
 from the seventh to the first. This ground we maintain. 
 On this ground the Lord's day can be proved to be the 
 Christian SABBATH, all the hours of which are to be kept 
 holy unto the Lord. Had Mr. Woolsey varied his lan- 
 guage a little and said that Baptist views (instead of in- 
 fant baptism), are " so destitute of all manner of substantial 
 evidence as to seek support at the expense of the Lord's 
 day," he would have been much nearer the mark. It is 
 notorious that the Seventh Day Baptists reject the last link 
 of the chain of proof by which the " Lord's day," (the 
 first day of the week) is hallowed as the Sabbath. Some 
 other Baptists reject the second link in the chain, and 
 dispense with the fourth commandment. The " Baptist 
 Advocate,"* of November 21, 1840, says in reply to the 
 
 * Probably no publication is more widely circulated or of higher 
 authority among that denomination, than the Baptist Advocate. 
 If this unequivocal rejection of the fourth commandment has been 
 anywhere rebuked among them, save by the Seventh Day Baptists, 
 I am not informed of it ; I have heard of no movement, remon- 
 strance or alarm concerning it. 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 141 
 
 1 Seventh Day Baptist Register,'" The editor further 
 asks us, " Whether the fourth commandment is still 
 binding on Christians ?" " We express our opinion 
 unequivocally in the negative" It seems to me a sin- 
 gular liberty for those to take who separate from the whole 
 Christian world for the mere ceremony of an ordinance, to 
 make thus bold with the commandments of God. Where 
 does the Baptist Advocate find its express warrant for 
 chiselling out and erasing from the code of the moral law, 
 a commandment which God himself wrote with his own 
 finger on tables of stone 1 I would fain believe, that the 
 Baptist Advocate holds still to a divinely appointed Sab- 
 bath. But rejecting the fourth commandment, where do 
 the conductors of that paper find an express warrant re- 
 quiring mankind to keep the first day of the week as a 
 SABBATH, all the hours of which are holy unto the Lord : 
 and on which we are expressly commanded to rest ; for- 
 bidden to labor, to speak our own words or to find our 
 own pleasure ? The Advocate refers us to " Matt. 20 ; 
 19-26 : Acts 20 5 7 : 1 Cor. 16 : 2 and elsewhere," for 
 " the appointment of the first day 1" For the appointment 
 of the first day to what 1 to be how observed ? Is there 
 in these passages, or in all others of the same sort in the 
 New Testament an express warrant, requiring us to ob- 
 serve the day as a Sabbath : or is it traveling altogether 
 beyond anything EXPRESSED in the record of the New 
 Testament, to require all men to keep the first day as a 
 Sabbath a Divinely appointed rest 1 On their princi- 
 ples, is it possible for our Baptist brethren to make out 
 such a warrant 1 And when they do make it out do they 
 not abandon the ground which they take with regard to 
 infant baptism, and come fully on to ours 1 
 
 Nor is this making the Sabbath " resign its claims to 
 divine authority," to be " based upon frail human reason- 
 12* 
 
142 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 ing." The reasoning ascertains the appointment to be 
 divine ; and that upon revealed grounds. Though the 
 commandment be not expressed in so many words : it is 
 yet so made known, that it cannot be rejected without 
 rejecting the will of God. To insist upon rejecting it 
 because he has not made it known in a way of our pre- 
 scribing, is to dictate to the Most High with regard to 
 the manner in which he shall reveal his will : and to 
 demand of Him that in certain things He shall make his 
 revelation in a given mode, under penalty of having his 
 will rejected, and his ordinances trampled in the dust. 
 
 Mr. Woolsey quotes Dr. Paley, as though Paley's opin- 
 ion could, upon his principles, help him out in his proof 
 of the Divine warrant for observing the Lord's day as a 
 Sabbath. But, as Mr. Woolsey well knows, Paley re- 
 jected the Sabbath, as originally binding upon the J ewish 
 nation alone : and rejected the observance of the Lord's 
 day as a Sabbath. Paley even rejected every notion of 
 an express Scriptural command for observing the first day 
 of the week at all. He argues only from probabilities and 
 by inference. " The practice of holding religious assem- 
 blies upon the first day of the week," says Paley, " was 
 so early and universal, that, it comes with considerable 
 proof of having originated from some precept of Christ 
 or of his apostles, though none such be now extant." "It 
 will be remembered," says he, " that we are contending 
 by these proofs for no other duty upon the first day of the 
 week, than that of holding and frequenting religious 
 assemblies." " The conclusion of the whole inquiry," he 
 says, (for it is our business to follow the arguments to 
 whatever probability they conduct us), is this: The 
 assembling upon the first day of the week for the purpose 
 of worship and religious instruction, is a law of Chris- 
 tianity, of divine appointment : the resting on that day 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 143 
 
 from our employments longer than we are detained from 
 them by attendance upon these assemblies, is an ordi- 
 nance, of human institution" 
 
 The reader will see how little it helps Mr. Woolsey to 
 quote Dr. Paley, in aid of the proof on his principles, that 
 the Lord's day is to be regarded as a Sabbath. We main- 
 tain that Paley is greatly and grievously in the wrong. 
 But it is notorious that multitudes of Baptists hold to his 
 views ; to which indeed their principle of arguing most 
 logically leads them ; nor can Mr. Woolsey go even so 
 far as Paley in pleading for a Divine precept requiring us 
 to observe the Lord's day, without first giving up the 
 principle on which he rejects the evidence for infant 
 baptism. 
 
 TERMS OF CHRISTIAN UNION. 
 
 Mr. Woolsey is full and frequent in declaring his own 
 kind* feelings and impartial love of the truth in his dis- 
 cussion of the question between us. " I have," says he, 
 " this testimony, that what I have written, was penned 
 with much affection towards those from whose views I 
 conscientiously dissent." " If I know my own heart, I 
 have said nothing out of strife, or with the desire to wound 
 the feelings of others." " I have no selfish ends to an- 
 swer, nor any party feeling to gratify."* 
 
 * It is not for us to disturb Mr. Woolsey's inward " testimony,'" 
 nor to question it. And yet it is, somehow, strange that much 
 affection should be so continually breaking out in such strains ae 
 abound in almost every page of his book." A few samples have 
 been incidentally brought to light in the course of this examina- 
 tion such as these ; " At the laboring oar day and night to make 
 sprinkling answer for immersion and to keep their consciences in a 
 state of tolerable rest." "Pitiful in the extreme, that such efforts 
 should be made to avoid following the lowly yet delightful footsteps of 
 
144 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 On p. 225, he has a section " RESPECTING UNION AMONG 
 CHRISTIANS," in which he talks feelingly about " the de- 
 sirableness of such endeared fellows hip among Christians" 
 " Behold how good and pleasant it is for brethren to dwell 
 together in unity." " It is as the dew of Hermon," &c., 
 &c. With glowing anticipations he looks forward to the 
 time of this union among all the followers of Christ ; and, 
 finally closes with this exhortation ; " till then, let us not 
 cease to pray and labor for this union." 
 
 Now all this talk about " fellowship and union is very 
 good ; and might lead people to suppose that the Bap- 
 tists are as a denomination very charitable and loving and 
 liberal towards other denominations." Indeed, Mr. Wool- 
 
 Jesus." But there is no need of repeating them. It would require no 
 search, and little pains at culling from his book, to fill along chap- 
 ter with such specimens. Instances are neither dubious nor solita- 
 ry in which he charges us unsparingly, with " attempting to 
 avoid the plain import of the words employed by the Holy Ghost." 
 Let me give one instance out of many of his way of making such 
 charges indirectly by way of inuendo. Speaking of the Jewish 
 Priest commanded to dip his finger in blood and sprinkle it before 
 the Lord, he says, p. 114, " He was not at liberty, nor had he the im- 
 piety to stand and quibble about God's command with the hope of keep- 
 ing his ringer out of the blood. Now a-days, some have got to be 
 so very delicate, that had those Jewish rites been continued, we 
 might bs told not to dip our finger in the blood, for such an act iri 
 highly indecorous ; besides the original word tahbval does not mean 
 to dip ! /" After writing nearly a whole book laden and groaning 
 from page to page with such matter as this : after so many ap- 
 peals about * liberty," "rights," " church and state;" and so much 
 more behind about "despotic acts," and {i tyranny of the worst 
 kind," Mr. Woolsey gravely remarks, p. 116, * Baptists make no 
 appeals to the unsanctitied passions of the soul." 4 ' They reject, 
 utterly, ridicule as argument, and artifice as testimony, in matters 
 of religion." 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 145 
 
 sey says, p. 321, " And when were Baptists void of kind 
 offices, of liberal and charitable views to other denomina- 
 tions professing Christianity 1" 
 
 But what is the union and fellowship which Mr. Wool- 
 sey so much admires, and of which our Baptist brethren 
 are so desirous 1 A fellowship where the rights of con- 
 science and of private judgment shall be held sacred 1 A 
 fellowship in which we shall be allowed the same 
 liberty to practice infant baptism as our Baptist brethren 
 to reject it 1 A union and fellowship in which every 
 man of undoubted piety, of sound evangelical views, and, 
 according to his best understanding, yielding obedience to 
 the command to be baptized, shall be allowed the rights of 
 conscience, and not compelled to yield them to other men 
 as fallible as himself, on penalty of being thrust away 
 from the Lord's table and shut out of the church 1 Here 
 are hundreds and thousands of enlightened Christians; 
 multitudes of them as extensively and as deeply learned as 
 any among the Baptists. Their views are purely evan- 
 gelical. They would as soon give their bodies to be 
 burned, as add to, or detract from the ordinances of Christ, 
 After long and careful study of the word of God; after 
 hearing all that can be said against their belief, they are 
 confident and doubt not, that sprinkling and pouring are 
 modes of baptism fully sanctioned in the word of God j 
 and that the word of God requires the infant children of 
 believing parents to be baptized. We might bring for- 
 ward names of men among the living and the dead, whose 
 candor, whose learning, whose piety, whose diligence in 
 prayerfully examining the question in debate, no one 
 would dare to question. And now what is the union 
 which Mr. Woolsey so much praises 1 What is the fel- 
 lowship which is " as the dew of Hermon, and as the 
 dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion $" the 
 
146 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 union for which he exhorts his brethren never to cease to 
 labor and to pray 1 Is it, that these brethren, equal in 
 learning, equal in piety, equal in the tokens of the divine 
 acceptance, may sit down together, forbear to vex each 
 other, forbear to judge over each other's conscience, for- 
 bear each to set up a claim to infallibility, and to thrust 
 his brother from the Lord's house and table unless he will 
 give up his conscience to the control of his brother ] 
 
 Such is the fellowship which John Bunyan desired, and 
 for advocating which, he bore so many "unhandsome 
 brands ' from brethren whom his soul nevertheless loved 
 as his life. Such is the fellowship for which Robert Hall 
 pleaded and prayed. But such is not the fellowship which 
 Mr. Woolsey desires, or which he will tolerate. No : no 
 matter to what conclusion we come when with much dili- 
 gence and much earnestness we have studied the Bible on 
 our knees ; we must not follow our own judgment, we 
 must bow our judgment in meek submission to the dogmas 
 of the Baptists. We must yield our conscience, not to the 
 word of God, but to the opinion of the Baptists. This is 
 the only fellowship for which Mr. Woolsey pleads or 
 which he will tolerate. Till we yield all this, he will never 
 cease to contend with us. Till we do all this, he will 
 hold out to our churches nothing but war and destruction. 
 This is the fellowship which he offers us. The Pope of 
 Rome, armed with the same high pretensions of infalli- 
 bility, might have held out the same deceptive and cruel 
 mockery of fellowship and union, when he visited the 
 Waldeneses with fire and sword. He too desired fellow- 
 ship and union : but it was the union of despotism. He 
 still labors for union, but he will have no peace, no tolera- 
 tion for anything that differs from his own belief. The 
 unity which he praises, is unity under the infallible opi- 
 nion of the Pope, as to what is truth, and what are the or- 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 147 
 
 dinances of the most high God. The unity which Mr. 
 Woolsey and his brethren proposed to us is the same. They 
 will accord us their fellowship if we will so far yield to 
 their opinions as to do what we consider as adding to one 
 part of an ordinance of God, and destroying another ; but 
 refuse this, and they will shut us away from the Lord's 
 table, arid cast us out of the church. " Brethren" say 
 they, " we are rig'it. We KNOW we are right ; and we 
 know you are wrong." But are you then infallible '! 
 " No, but we KNOW we are right and we know you are 
 wrong /" But, brethren, if you are not infallible, how 
 can you know that you are right any more than we can 
 know that you are wrong. Has the Lord any where given 
 to the Baptists the exclusive privilege of deciding for all 
 their brethren 1 Is there any passage of Holy Writ which 
 will bear us guiltless if we sacrifice what we solemnly 
 hold as the word and the ordinances of God, to the 
 dictation of our brethren, who, if they are not infallible 
 are as likely to err as we 1 Still, the only term of fel- 
 lowship which Mr. Woolsey and his brethren propose to 
 us is this j " We are right: We KNOW we are right." 
 Come therefore to us : give up everything that we see 
 fit to condemn, submit to everything that we see fit to im- 
 pose. Join with us in compelling all others to abide by 
 our judgment. Do this 5 and O there shall be delight- 
 ful fellowship ! It shall be " as the dew of Hermon, 
 and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of 
 Zion." But entertain scruples of conscience in this mat- 
 ter ; presume to follow your own judgment rather than 
 ours ; obey God rather than us ; and we will remove you 
 from the Lord's table ; we will cast you from the church. 
 Now what ought we to answer to all this 1 We have 
 examined ; we have patiently and earnestly examined : 
 we build our faith and practice on the word of God : 
 
148 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 for our lives for our salvation, we cannot come to 
 any other conclusion. If other men are not infallible, 
 then it is high-handed arrogance in them to ask us to 
 yield our conscience and our judgment to their opinion. 
 If other men are not infallible, then to follow the word of 
 God according to our own conscience is our duty, if we 
 would obey God rather than man. Our Baptist brethren 
 ought to know that if infallibility rests any where among 
 mortal men the Pope of Rome makes the highest preten- 
 sions and possesses the oldest claim. If any arguments 
 can show that we ought to abide by the judgment of the 
 Baptists to the abandonment of our own, will not our 
 Baptist brethren by the same arguments be compelled to 
 abandon their own judgment, and submit to that of the 
 Pope 1 
 
 That I do not misunderstand or misinterpret the unity 
 which Mr. Woolsey inculcates, I think no one who reads 
 his book can fail to perceive. He is not arguing agains 
 close communion, and against that repulsive, excluding 
 fellowship that shuts the true spiritual disciples of Christ, 
 who conscientiously obey his commandments, away from 
 his table. He is pleading for a union in which all shall 
 " conform to the most ardent wish and prayer of Bap- 
 tists :" (p. 320,) a union in which " the different portions 
 of the church" shall come together in pristine order ;" 
 that is, to the " pristine order," as he understands it. No 
 one is to be tolerated as having the least rights in the 
 church of Christ if his conscientious belief differs from that 
 of Mr. Woolsey. He is not for a " union and fellowship 
 in which Christians of equal intelligence, equal piety, of 
 one mind with regard to church order and discipline, of 
 one mind with regard to all the distinguishing doctrines of 
 the Bible, may live and labor together in equal participa- 
 tion of the ordinances and privileges of the church of God. 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 149 
 
 No : When he exhorts his brethren " not to cease to pray 
 and labor for union," his meaning, and his specific, in- 
 tended, and only meaning is Let us not cease to pray 
 and labor to convert all to immersion, and to a rejection 
 of infant baptism. This is the brotherly and affectionate 
 duty which he is urging with so much pathos. This, I re- 
 peat it, is his direct meaning ; and to me it seems, that to 
 make such an exhortation to unity and fellowship with 
 such a design and meaning, is to make a most unhallowed 
 mockery of the most holy words. 
 
 Our Baptist brethren often endeavor to maintain still a 
 show of " union," of " fellowship," nay, even of "commu- 
 nion," by what I cannot but regard as a paltering upon 
 the sense of these precious words : " Why," say they, 
 " fellowship and communion do not mean exclusively com- 
 munion at the Lord's table. We can still sing, and pray, 
 and labor together, and have fellowship as far as we are 
 agreed. We hold you as Christians ; we are willing to 
 treat you as new converts, but we cannot admit you to 
 the Lord's table." If it be wrong for them to admit us to 
 the Lord's table, it can be so only because it is wrong for 
 us to come. Treat us as new converts ! Is this all 1 Is it 
 nothing to be shut out of the church, and to be cut off from 
 the Lord's table 1 Do they call this fellowship and com- 
 munion, the only terms of which are to be barely tolerated 
 by our brethren in standing without the walls of Zion, cut 
 off from her holy ordinances and her cheering provisions 1 
 Can there be no union save that in which we must consent 
 to be treated as not of Christ's church, and having no right 
 to his table 1 Can we, in justice to ourselves and to our 
 children, and in faithfulness to the truth and to religious 
 liberty, accept the hand of fellowship that is tendered to us 
 on no other conditions than these 1 Treat us as new con- 
 verts ! On what principle 1 by virtue of what right 1 ac- 
 13 
 
150 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 cording to what analogy 1 New converts have as yet 
 made no formal profession of religion. There are conditions 
 to be complied with, which they themselves acknowledge, 
 and which their own consciences recognize as necessary 
 qualifications to entitle them to the privileges of the church 
 of Christ. Nothing is required of them, save what they 
 themselves feel bound to submit to upon being admitted to 
 a standing in the church. In their case it is confessedly 
 a duty delayed or neglected. Not so in ours 5 we claim 
 to be regularly in the church we claim that our churches 
 are regular churches of our Lord Jesus Christ we claim 
 to have been regularly baptized we have neither refused 
 this duty nor delayed it. Now where do our brethren 
 find their warrant in judging over our consciences in this 
 matter 1 Treat us as new converts ! Then they do not 
 recognize us as members of the church of Christ ! Our 
 churches they recognize not as churches of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ ! Our ministry are no ministers of the church of 
 our Lord Jesus ! Our ordinances are not ordinances of 
 the Lord's church ; but all is usurpation, presumption, 
 an unhallowed handling of most holy things ! The terms 
 of fellowship propounded to us require us to submit to be 
 treated according to these principles. And treating us act 
 cording to these principles requiring us virtually to admi- 
 this as often as we come together, our brethren talk about 
 " fellowship," " union," and even " communion ! " Treat 
 us as new converts ! If these principles are correct, are 
 we innocent as new converts 1 Ought we to be treated 
 simply as new converts 1 Yet our ministers may come, 
 and welcome, into their pulpits. They may do the work 
 of teachers in the church of Christ they may be allowed 
 to " feed the flock of God " and then, immediately upon 
 descending from the station where they have been suffered 
 to teach the people and to bless them in God's name, they 
 must be shut out and driven away by that same people 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 151 
 
 from partaking of the emblems of the Lord's body and 
 blood ! Yes, because his judgment differs from theirs con- 
 cerning the mere ceremony of an ordinance, they would, 
 if they could, prevent the man whom they regard as a con- 
 scientious and evangelical Christian, and whom they are 
 willing to have teach themselves and their children, as 
 a minister of Jesus Christ they would, if they could, for- 
 ever prevent this man from obeying the command of his 
 Savior, " This do in remembrance of me " till such a 
 time as he shall meekly submit to their judgment in this 
 matter, and bend his conscience to theirs ! As they treat 
 him, so they treat all other Christians and all other churches 
 on earth.* 
 
 On our part, although we feel that we have quite as 
 much reason as any others to be confident in the correct- 
 ness of our faith and order, we are for a fellowship of a 
 wider extent, of more liberal terms, and more deserving of 
 the name of fellowship than this. In the present state of 
 the world we deem it too much for any one sect among 
 Protestants to set up its own as the standard to which all 
 others must conform : require all other Christians to give 
 up their own organizations, and come in "by the door " of 
 that little sect, on pain of being treated as all out of the 
 pale and communion of the visible church on earth. We 
 
 * And when our Baptist brethren have done all this, they add 
 to the injury by coolly affirming, and laboring to prove, that we 
 act on the same principles, and do the same thing. [See the tract 
 * Peter and Benjamin," published by the Baptist General Tract Soci- 
 ety.] To make such an affirmation anything else than abuse, and 
 such an argument anything but sophistry, it should be shown that 
 we debar from the communion evangelical Christians, who have 
 been regularly received into some regular and Evangelical Church, 
 and who are in regular standing in such church. But this, it is 
 well known, is not true. 
 
152 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 know not that our Lord has given to any one sect among 
 his followers such a prerogative as this. Were it certain 
 that he has lodged such a prerogative with any, it is yet 
 in doubt to whom he has given it. He blesses the labors 
 of his servants among all evangelical denominations. He 
 communes with his people of every name. . By so doing 
 he seems to say to all his people, " What God hath cleansed 
 that call not thou common." " The churches which your 
 Savior owns, and among which he dwells, these own ye 
 as churches, unless ye would judge and excommunicate 
 your Lord." On this principle we act. We deem it too 
 much for any one sect among Christians so numerous, so 
 intelligent, and so equally owned of their common Lord, to 
 undertake the work of proselyting all other denominations 
 to itself. We think that such a principle, and the direct 
 efforts to accomplish such a labor, must powerfully tend to 
 give to such a sect, among other Christians, the character- 
 istics of Ishmael his hand against every man, and every 
 man's hand against him. Certainly such a principle acted 
 on by all sects must make mere Ishmaelites of the whole 
 Christian world. One sect acting on this principle, others 
 must be compelled to act on the defensive, unless they 
 will submit to be unceasingly plundered without resist- 
 ance. We would that there might be a truce to a war so 
 unlovely and profitless.* We would that all evangelical 
 
 * The two following extracts from Dr. Woods and Dr. Kurtz, 
 will show what a coincidence there is hf the observations of aged and 
 grave men in the North and in the South, as to the actual influence 
 of the principle of close communion. 
 
 Says Dr. Woods, p. 171, " And here, as J am about to take my 
 leave of the subject, I must solicit the candid indulgence of those 
 who differ from me in regard to the mode of Baptism, wviile I allow 
 myself in great plainness of speech, and utter my thoughts seriously 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 153 
 
 bodies of Christians banded together in church estate, hold- 
 ing the great doctrines of salvation, and conscientiously en- 
 deavoring to obey the word of God according to their 
 best understanding, may be treated as Churches of our 
 Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. On points wherein they 
 
 and unreservedly, as in the presence of Him who is the Savior and 
 Judge of the world." * * * * * 
 
 '* Have these great spiritual interests been always kept upper- 
 most in the mind? * * * Have they not too frequently 
 been made subordinate to local or sectarian interests ? I have 
 heard of Christians, and of Gospel Ministers, who have made the 
 mode of Baptism their grand, engrossing subject. I have heard of 
 those who have been actuated by such an intense zeal in favor of 
 one particular form of this external rite, that they have seemed 
 almost inclined to make it the sum of all religion. Even in those 
 auspicious seasons, when God is pleased in mercy to pour out his 
 Spirit, and produce, in the minds of multitudes, a deep and over- 
 whelming impression of the evil of sin and the value of eternal sal- 
 vation there are some Christians, and some teachers of religion, 
 (I hope the number will be found to be small,) who show an unac- 
 countable forwardness to introduce discussions respecting the mode 
 of Baptism; and instead of striving, with all their hearts, to bring 
 sinners into the kingdom of heaven, and *o promote the holiness of 
 believers, make it a favorite object to convince them, that baptism 
 should not be administered by sprinkling, but by immersion." 
 
 Says Dr. Kurtz, p. 295, after describing the hallowed scenes of 
 a revival c< In the midst of these hallowed exercises a note of dis 
 cord is unexpectedly heard : a gruff and grating sound interrupts 
 and mars the harmony of the whole scene. The attention of all is 
 arrested ; they look to see whence this untimely disturbance pro- 
 ceeds ; and behold, a warm-hearted Baptist brother has made his 
 appearance, and the air trembles beneath the sound of his voice, as 
 he exclaims, full of zeal for his favorite doctrine, c< The river ! the 
 river ! you must all be ' buried under the water ! ' if you wish to 
 enter the kingdom of heaven ! " Thus, instead of co-operating with 
 his brethren, with all his heart, to bring sinners to Christ, and pro- 
 mote the holiness of believers, he labors to convince them that Bap- 
 titm should not be administered by sprinkling, but by plunging. 13 
 
154 A REFUTATION OF 
 
 cannot agree, we would that they might agree to differ in 
 peace ; living together, not only in love, but treating each 
 other's peculiar views with kindness and respect , and 
 leaving it for time, the influence of kind feelings, the love 
 of the truth, and the providence and the good Spirit of 
 God, to undermine and destroy everything that is not ac- 
 cording to the truth and order of the Gospel : and at last, 
 even if all denominational differences may not be quite 
 abolished and effaced that all Christians may be one 
 the Church one as Israel was one, while yet there was a 
 distinction of families and tribes. 
 
 In such a fellowship, far more than in marshalling the 
 several denominations into conflicting hosts of proselyters 
 far more than in attempting to coerce each other into 
 submission by unchurching each other or putting up the 
 bars of close communion, the truth would hasten on to its 
 final glory and its universal triumph. In such a fellow- 
 ship we feel that we have nothing to fear.* Let them who 
 would fear for their party under the influence of such a 
 fellowship contend for a fellowship of less liberal terms. 
 
 But if churches of different names are to live together 
 in such a fellowship as this, it is evident that they must 
 treat each other as churches ; and not as irregular and 
 usurping companies of "new converts," whose members 
 it is a charity to proselyte, and whose children it is a deed 
 of mercy and of duty to plunder away. It must by com- 
 
 * The great Andrew Fuller, (no man ever stood higher among 
 the Baptists,) says, *' The tendency of mixed communion is to an- 
 nihilate, as such, all the Baptist churches in Christendom." He 
 adds, " Do you wish to promote the dissolution and ruin of the 
 Baptist denomination as suck ? If you do not, take heed to your 
 ways." Is not this, after all, the secret of close communion ? And 
 what sort of cause is that, which, if you let it stand on its own 
 merits, is admitted by so able a defender, to be sure to fall ? 
 
BAPTIST ERRORS. 155 
 
 mon consent be deemed a breach of this compact of fel- 
 lowship, and a deed of ill-neighborhood upon which the 
 world shall frown, for one sect, insidiously and on system, 
 to enter the families of another congregation for the pur- 
 pose of drawing them away from their customary place of 
 worship, and to turn even the members of the Church 
 away from their faith and covenant. It must indeed be 
 lawful for every sect, in its own place of worship, and on 
 suitable times and occasions, to set forth and defend the 
 reasons of its peculiar views. But industriously to scatter 
 sectarian books and tracts among the families of another 
 Church and congregation 5 to make it a matter of daily 
 labor to visit from house to house wherever an individual 
 member of another church and congregation may be found 
 whom there may be any hope of drawing away ; to seize 
 on all occasions, which draw promiscuous crowds together,* 
 to set forth sectarian views, with every sort of effort to dis- 
 parage and bring into contempt the views of other denomi- 
 nations 5 this is a work that must cease if there is to be 
 any fellowship among Christians of different denomina- 
 tions, such as becomes the disciples of Christ. In one 
 word, the churches of evangelical denominations must be 
 treated as churches. Those exclusive principles which 
 lead one sect to unchurch all other denominations, and to 
 close up the doors of communion against their members, 
 must cease to urge on any one denomination of Christians 
 to the unlovely and mischievous, not to say the unchristian, 
 
 * What would be thought, what would be said, if Congregation, 
 alists and Presbyterians should seize on every occasion of a bap* 
 tism to set forth their denominational views at the expense of 
 those of the Baptists ? What ! That they thought more of their 
 sectarian views than of the solemnity and import of the ordinance, 
 or of God. 
 
156 A REFUTATION OF BAPTIST ERRORS. 
 
 work of proselyting the whole world to the views of that 
 single sect ; or there cannot be among the different denomi- 
 nations any fellowship that is worthy of the name. 
 
 A fellowship on equal terms ; a fellowship on Christian 
 and liberal principles among all evangelical Christians, I 
 can truly say, and I believe I speak the feelings and the 
 principles of the denomination to which I belong, my 
 soul greatly desires. Come the auspicious day when Ju- 
 dah shall no more vex Ephraim nor Ephraim Judah. 
 Come the auspicious day, it will be no less joyous on 
 earth than welcome in heaven, when Christians of all 
 names shall be less distinct as differing sects, than they are 
 one in their common Lord. Surely that period cannot be 
 far distant from the full glory of the latter day. 
 
 ' 
 

 THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS 
 
 WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN 
 THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY 
 WILL INCREASE TO SO CENTS ON THE FOURTH 
 DAY AND TO $I.OO ON THE SEVENTH DAY 
 OVERDUE. 
 
 .i-inni.7 
 
' 
 
 
 
 "ftfntat: 
 
 -hts-h "i 
 
 .on of sur-.- \. 
 
 * " 
 
 
 
 / / 
 
 
 UL 16 W*l 
 
 377^ a^/T ^ 
 
 UL1B 1941 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 U3 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY