decisive proof of the immersion and emersion of the Eunuch. If so (says he), it proves too much; for nothing is said of the Eunuch which is not said of Philip; and so Philip must have immersed himself (once) as well as the Eunuch." And accordingly he says, "this passage is nothing to the purpose of the IMMERSIONISTS." Gentlemen, is not this a palpable falsehood? Is it not said that he baptized him? Will he assert that the pronouns he and him relate to both individuals, as both baptizing and being both baptized?

The EIGHTH says, that "The circumstance of Philip and the Eunuch going down into the water, and coming up from it, does not with any certainty prove that he there dipt him; for as waters run in the valleys, they might go down from the chariot to, or into the rivulet, (for geographers find but little streams there) and Philip baptized by pouring water on him."

These two witnesses also differ; neither of them will allow that the Eunuch was baptized, and neither of them DARE assert, in plain, unequivocal terms, that he was sprinkled.

"But supposing (says the TENTH) that Philip and the Eunuch went both of them literally into the water, and came literally up out of the water, what does this prove? That they were to the ankles, or to the knees perhaps, and that is all. Now there the Eunuch might be sprinkled as easily as at the side, for there would not be so far to stoop for the water; and as the people then wore sandals for shoes, and a sort of petticoat for small-clothes, the Eunuch, although he had been in the water, would neither have been obliged to strip, nor to submit to any inconveniency, on the supposition that he was sprinkled."

66

Mark, Gentlemen, the words SUBMIT TO INCONVENIENCY!" See what Paul submitted to for the defence of the truth.* Yet this witness would not have the Eunuch to be put to the trouble of even changing his clothes in order to be inducted into the Church of Christ, through which church only lies the appointed way to eternal glory.

The FOURTH says that "men will form their conjectures

* 2 Cor. xi. 23-28.

concerning the mode in which Philip baptized him, according to their different sentiments on that subject."

This is the Witness, Gentlemen, who trusts his efforts to explain the Holy Scriptures "have been conducted from proper motives, and in dependence on the Lord; the Witness who confidently appeals to his heart-searching Judge that, "as far as he knows, he has not kept back the sense of any passage." What were his motives for leaving this part of his evidence so inconclusive is not for me to determine. But I shall trespass upon your time while I ask him a few questions.

Is not the account which the sacred historian gives of this transaction sufficiently explicit to convince us that Philip administered the ordinance by putting the Eunuch under water?

Wit. I cannot say that it is, because I am not quite satisfied upon that subject.

Coun. Say rather that you are not satisfied that he sprinkled him? Is it at all probable that both Philip and the Eunuch should go down into the water for that purpose? Be candid! Have you not before declared that immersion is doubtless baptism? And if it be doubtless baptism, why entertain a doubt of it in this instance, where all the circumstances are so clear as to put the matter beyond all dispute? Wit. I think it more convenient to suffer every person to form his own opinion thereon.

The case of the Eunuch furnishes an example how far men will wander from the right path, after they have once made up their minds not to walk in it. They turn away from the plain, simple course, and consequently every step they take removes them to a greater distance from the "mark," and they "go astray like lost sheep." Well might the prophet Isaiah exclaim, "Behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and GROSS darkness the people."*

The word baptize is univocal, otherwise it would not have been used by the Testator to specify his ordinance. None of the Witnesses deny that Philip and the Eunuch

* Is. lx. 2.

went down both into the water," but they profess very different views of the purpose for which they went down. Seven of them are opposed to the second, who has not suffered his prejudices to warp his understanding, but takes the correct view of the subject: and whatever these seven may say against the administration of the ordinance as commanded by the Testator will not, I am sure, prejudice you against the cause of truth; for we are exhorted by Paul to "Let no man deceive us with vain words."* If, when these Witnesses are called to the bar of God to answer for their conduct in this particular; if they can say with a clear conscience that they have not been able, with all the light and information given to them in his word, to arrive at any other conclusion than that the word baptize, in every place where it occurs in the New Testament, as applied to the initiatory ordinance of the Christian institution, means no more than to sprinkle the face with a few drops of water, and principally the face of a new born infant, the Lord will not exact more from them than is right. They shall, though in error, be beaten with few stripes. For he "who knew not his Lord's will, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes." But with regard to the proper subjects for baptism, they are wholly without excuse, as they cannot here plead even ignorance, for there is no instance recorded in the Will of any individual being baptized who was not either a genuine or a professed believer in the Testator. Here then they know their Lord's will, but still "commit things worthy of stripes;" and he tells us, and them also, what must inevitably follow.

This passage is of the first consequence, as it hands down to us a perfect pattern of the administration of baptism as commanded by the Testator. A pattern that we can no more depart from, and be held guiltless, than could Moses have departed from the pattern shown him in the mount, and which the Lord impressed upon his mind when he said, "And look that thou make them after their pattern."+ It is impossible that we can either worship God in an acceptable + Exod. xxv. 40.

* Eph. v. 6.

manner, or believe in the promise of the Testator, unless we clearly understand what baptism is, who are the subjects, and what the purport of it. This being the case, Gentlemen, the plaintiffs can have no claim until they are better instructed, until they have "their understanding opened" to behold the ordinance in its true light, and are made meet for its administration.

We now come to the cases of Cornelius, of the jailer, Crispus, Stephanas, and Lydia, of the baptism of whose households you have heard so much. And as it is from the account the Will gives of them, that the principal arguments for the christening of infants under the new covenant dispensation is founded, I shall comment on the evidence of each Witness as given upon each transaction, and begin with Cornelius.

The FIRST says, that "the baptism of the Spirit did not supersede the baptism of water, nor indeed can it.”

Nothing can be clearer than this. The instance before us is the only one recorded in the Will of any individual receiving the baptism of the Spirit previously to baptism in water. And the conduct of the apostle, as here mentioned, evidences the indispensability of the ordinance, and is a convincing proof that the command of the Testator respecting baptism peremptory, is in every case that can possibly occur. Peter knew that until they were baptized with water, he could neither ACKNOWLEDGE THEM AS BRETHREN, NOR EAT BREAD WITH THEM AS DISCIPLES. This Witness also says, that "to be baptized in the name of the Lord,' implied the taking upon them the public profession of Christianity; and believing on Christ Jesus as their Saviour and sovereign." In this instance, infants are irrefragably excluded; they could neither believe in Christ, nor make the required profession, consequently they could not be partakers of the Holy Spirit.

The THIRD says, that "the apostle, considering that this gift of the Holy Ghost was only to enable them to speak with tongues, not to regenerate them, inferred from thence that they ought the rather to be baptized-to be born of water and of the Spirit."

This Witness appears to be wiser than the Spirit of God, who dictated the Will. For the Will informs us, that when Peter rehearsed the case to the disciples at Jerusalem, "they held their peace from further contention, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life."* Such a visible and particular interposition of the Most High, antecedent to baptism, was never witnessed, either previously or subsequently; doubtless it was for the purpose of overcoming the prejudice of the Jewish people against the Gentile nations.

The FOURTH, "These words† contain a plain and convincing demonstration of the falsehood of the Quakers' doctrine, that water baptism is unnecessary to them who have received the inward baptism of the Spirit; since the apostle here not only declares, that water baptism ought therefore to be administered to these persons, because they had already been baptized with the Holy Ghost; but also commands them to be baptized on that account. Cornelius must himself be saved-by the words which Peter would speak to him, and by faith in those words; and thus also salvation would come to his family."

It is difficult to determine whether this Witness intends to state, that salvation came at that time to the family of Cornelius; or that it should come at some future period, when the younger branches should have understandings capable of receiving it. I think the latter is the most probable. He appears angry with the Quakers because they do not see the great importance of the ordinance of baptism; an ordinance which he himself, in another part of his evidence, appears to treat lightly. Hear what he says on this subject. "Neither yet did he (Christ) simply bind the grace of God to baptism, as if it was absolutely and without any exception necessary; seeing, in another place, he ascribes regeneration to the Spirit without any mention of water. Whatever ignorance (says he) of the precept, or mistake about the nature of it, renders not men incapable of baptism by the Holy Ghost, can never render them + Acts x. 47.

*Acts xi. 18.