To this official and unequivocal statement of facts, what will Mr. JUDSON reply? To deny the smallest particular, would be to contradict a body of men, which yields to none in America in point of respectability and worth. To quibble and equivocate on the meaning of certain words, would discover the opposite of an honest, humble spirit; and, instead of exonerating him, would in the estimation of the candid confirm his guilt. To pretend forgetfulness of the fact he has denied, would present a forgetfulness perfectly unaccountable, and excite the suspicion of an attempt to impose upon the publick. In short, we see but one course which Mr. J. can dutifully pursue. He must retrace his steps. The credit of Congregationalism does not require that he should return to his former sentiments; but the credit of religion does imperiously require, that he humble himself, and be willing to confess the truth.

It will perhaps be asked-What connexion has the preceding statement with the subject under consideration? Admitting Mr. J. was reprimanded; what influence could this have on his subsequent change ?--We answer; he evidently suspected, were the fact admitted, that it would be supposed to have influenced his change; or he never would have endeavoured to hide it, by a denial of the truth.--Those who have attended to, and who credit, the preceding representation, will fear that Mr. J. possesses naturally a proud, unstable, aspiring temper; and none need be informed, that mortified pride and cramped ambipression which that change was likely to make on the minds of the community. Whenever we are satisfied that in this we are mistaken, we shall be ready to acknowledge it." (Amer. Bap, Magazine, vol. i. p. 26.)-Is not this Reviewer mistaken again?-We hope the pledged acknowledgment will not be long delayed.

tion are powerful stimulants of revenge.-However, as the publick now possess the facts, we leave them to their own conclusions. Those who know Mr. JUDSON best, will doubtless decide with the most correctness.

Forbearing to offer any farther remarks on his change of sentiments, we proceed to examine more closely the Discourse itself. The author acknowledges, that "for many of the testimohies he has inserted, he is indebted to Mr. BOOTH'S Pedobaptism Examined."-We have doubted whether this acknowledgment justifies all the use which he has made of that publication. Every reader has a right to know how much of any work is to be accredited to its ostensible author. Can every reader know this of the work before us? What are "the testimonies" for which he acknowledges himself indebted? Are they merely the quotations which he has transcribed? or do they include that host of references which in some instances we find in the margin? And for how many of these testimonies is he indebted to Pedobaptism Examined?-In short, what part of the work is to be accredited to Mr. JUDSON, and what to Mr. BooтH? There ought to be no foundation for questions like these. The very face of the Discourse should completely preclude them. There evidently is in this Sermon a great (not to say needless) parade of learning. We hope it was not Mr. JUDSON's design to be accredited with all this learning himself; but we are sure a great proportion of his readers are in danger of mistaking the truth. If he is a modest man, he will wish therefore it should be stated, that nearly all his quotations and references, unless it be those of a very modern date, are trans

cribed, verbatim et literatim, from Mr. Boоти and others; and that a great proportion of the learning displayed in the work is not originally his own.*

If we understand Mr. J. he has somewhat narrowed the ground of controversy respecting the mode of baptism. He has honourably abandoned some sources of argument, which in former times have been deemed essential.

He gives up, in the outset, the baptism of John, as being a Christian ordinance. He expressly asserts, that our Lord "instituted the ordinance of baptism" after his resurrection, and "when he commissioned his disciples to proselyte all nations." (P. 3.)

He admits that "the phrase, went into the water, does not imply in itself that the subjects were immersed. It is one thing," says he, "to go into the water, and another thing to be immersed." (P. 9.)

He also admits, that the being "buried with Christ in baptism," mentioned in the epistles to the Romans and Colossians, has no reference to water baptism. In this passage, says he, "the apostle is speaking of spiritual circumcision, and spiritual baptism." (P. 28.) Hence all the regenerate have been "buried with Christ in baptism," whether they have received water baptism in any mode, or not.

Whatever the Baptist brethren in America, some of whom have laid very exorbitant stress

*We had the curiosity to spend an hour or two in comparing Mr. JUDSON'S Sermon with "Pedobaptism Examined." We directly discovered between sixty and seventy quotations with their references, and nearly forty references where there were no quotations, which were manifestly transcribed from this learned work! These quotations and references must have cost Mr. Booтa more labour than to write a folio. All the credit he has for them, is crowded into less than three indefinitely and equivocally constructed lines!!

1 to

ch

on these conceded topicks, may think of JUDSON, we frankly confess here is evidenc his candour. We sincerely hope his admir will go and do likewise. Let them leave at lengtt. the waters of Enon and Jordan, on the banks of which they have been so much accustomed to stand. Let them cease the very moving but unmeaning declamation, which they have repeated on nearly every baptismal occasion, about "following their Lord and Master into the liquid. grave."*

Before any thing be offered on either side respecting the mode of baptism, it is important that the point in controversy should be precisely ascertained. While this remains undetermined, conviction is impossible.

The question at issue in this part of the subject, is not whether immersion is a valid mode of baptism: this we may admit. Nor is it whether this mode is preferable to all others; for we are willing that those who prefer immersion, even in our own churches, should be indulged. Nor is it whether immersion was frequently practised in the early ages of Christianity: this we have no necessity or disposition to deny. We do not say that neither of these points is questionable; but neither

The reviewer of Mr. JUDSON's Sermon in the Baptist Magazine "considers it a great confirmation of the doctrine” he has espoused, "that its advocates always advance the same arguments in its support. There is no contradiction or collision between them.-Not so," says he, "with the advocates of Pedobaptism. They are ever at variance among themselves." What one affirms, another abandons. -We could name a writer (a) in defence of the Baptist cause, who has laboured hard to prove that the baptism of John was a Christian ordinance. This, Mr JUDSON does not believe. We could name a number of writers, who have nearly builded their ideas of exclusive immersion on the phrases, went into the water, buried by baptism, &c. The opinion of Mr. JUDSON respecting these phrases has been expressed above." Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth." (Rom. xiv. 22.)

(a) Rev. Dr. BALDWIN, Editor of Bap. Magazine.

f them is the precise question in dispute. The point at issue is in few words this-Is immersion essential? Mr. JUDSON contends, that the idea of immersion enters into the very "nature of baptism; that the terms baptism and immersion' are equivalent and interchangeable." (P. 14.) He evidently supposes immersion essential to the ordinance. This, then, is the point to which his reasonings ought to tend. All he can offer, to show that immersion is a valid mode; or even the most proper mode; or that it was frequently. practised in ancient times; carries no conviction to us. Let him prove, what we deny, that immersion is essential to baptism, and the controver sy is at an end.

The burden of proof, in this case, manifestly lies on him. His is the labouring oar. "It is not necessary for us to urge one argument," to prove the negative of the proposition in debate. It is incumbent on him to prove the positive.We are willing, however, to wave every advantage which might be derived by subjecting him to such an arrangement. We wish to examine the subject fairly. And we shall proceed, in the ensuing sections, to prove that immersion is not essential to baptism, and to obviate the objections which Mr. JUDSON has been able to throw in the way.

SECTION II.

Proof that Immersion is not essential to Baptism.

1. The rite of immersion is not calculated for universal practice. It cannot be administered with prudence and convenience, if indeed it can