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 ambition 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 be enabled to 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 testimonies 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 actually transcribed? or do they include that host of references which in some instances we find in the margin? In short, what part of the work belongs to Mr. JUDSON, and what to Mr. BOOTH? 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, therefore, he will wish it should be stated, that nearly all his quotations and references, unless it be those of a very modern date, are transcribed, verbatim et literatim, from Mr. BooтH and others; and that a great proportion of the learning displayed in the work is not o riginally his own. *

*We had the curiosity to spend an hour or two in comparing Mr. JUDSON'S Sermon with "Pedobaptism Examined." We directly discovered between sixty

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 on these conceded topicks, may think of Mr. JUDSON, we frankly confess that here is evidence of his candour. We sincerely hope his admirers will go and do likewise. Let them leave at length 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."*

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. BooтH 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!!

* 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) is defence of the Baptist cause, who has laboured hard to prove that the baptism of John was a Christian ordinance. This, Mr. JupSON does not believe. We could name a number of writers, who have nearly

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

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 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 of them is the precise question in dis pute. 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 interchange. able." (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 controversy 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 posi tive. We are willing, however, to wave every advantage which might be derived by subjecting him to an arrangement like this. 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.

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.).

SECTION II.

Proof that Immersion is not essential to Baptism.

1. The rite of immersion is in no wise fitted for universal practice. It cannot be administered with prudence and convenience, if indeed it can be administered at all, in every situation, and to all persons.-Places have been discovered which are already inhabited, where collections of water sufficient for this mode of baptism would not once occur, in travelling perhaps hundreds of miles.*-There are other places which swarm with inhabitants, where, amidst mountains of ice and almost perpetual snow, immersions must be inconvenient, imprudent, and often impracticable. Yet the religion of Christ will one day penetrate those arid, and these frozen regions. Their miserable inhabitants will yet be baptized, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Will they be immersed? Were three thousand to come forward at once, in either of the situations to which we have alluded, (and such a scene has been once witnessed under the gospel dispensation,) would they, could they be immersed ?The thing speaks for itself.tWe may take another very common instance. A person is in a fow and declining state of health. He loves his Saviour, and wishes to obey his commands. He wishes to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, and, in remembrance of him, to come to his table. But to be immersed, he is sensible, would be little better than selfmurder. Must he, then, be debarred from the ordinances

*See CAMPBELL's Travels across the Continent of Africa.

The following very pertinent and ingenious remarks are extracted from Dr. AUSTIN's rejoinder in his controversy with Mr. MERRILL. (See p. 41.)→ "In besieged cities, where there are thousands and hundreds of thousands of people; in sandy deserts, like those of Africa, Arabia, and Palestine; in the northern regions, where the streams, if there be any, are shut up with impenetrable ice; and in severe and extensive droughts, like that which took place in the time of Ahab; sufficiency of water for animal subsistence is scarcely to be procured. Now suppose God should, according to the predictions of the prophets, pour out plentiful effusions of his Spirit, so that all the inhabitants of one of these regions or cities shall be born in a day. Upon the Baptist hypothesis, there is an absolute impossibility they should be born into the kingdom while there is this scarcity of water; and this may last as long as they live. And these thousands and hundreds of thousands of Christians must remain all this while, and perhaps die, without having the consolation of professing their faith in Christ, or once supping with their Divine Redeemer."

of the gospel? On the scheme we oppose, this must inev itably be his lot. Can this scheme, then, be consistent with truth? Has the Lord Jesus, who designed his relig ion to be universal, appended to it, and made essential, a rite which is so ill fitted for universal practice?

2. The signification of water baptism furnishes a strong argument in favour of some other mode beside immersion. Water baptism is unquestionably an emblem of spiritual baptism. Hence the mode of water baptism may be expected to resemble the mode of spiritual baptism, or the manner in which the Holy Spirit is said to descend upon the heart. This is uniformly by pouring or sprinkling. "I will pour out my Spirit unto you. I will pour my Spirit on thy seed. I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh. He shall come down like rain on the mown grass. So shall he sprinkle many nations. I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean."*This pouring out, and sprinkling of the Holy Ghost, is called the bap tism of the Holy Ghost.† And of this baptism of the Holy Ghost, water baptism is the instituted emblem. How plain, then, that affusion and sprinkling are legitimate and proper modes of water baptism.

In order to evade this argument, Mr. J. seems to suppose that none were ever baptized with the Holy Ghost, except on the day of Pentecost; and that at this time the Spirit was so copiously poured out, that believers were really immersed in it. (P. 8.) But every real child of God has been baptized with the Spirit. "By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body." (1 Cor. xii. 13.) He must prove, therefore, that every Christian has been overwhelmed with Divine influences-has been immersed in the Spirit, as he shrewdly enough supposes the favoured multitude were on the day of Pentecost; or he has done nothing towards invalidating the argument he has called in question.

3. "The word which denotes the ordinance of baptism" does not "uniformly signify immersion.”—We agree with

Prov. i. 23; Is. xliv. 3; Joel ii. 28; Ps. lxxii. 6; Is. lii. 15; Ezek. xxxii. 25. + Comp. Acts i. 5, with ii. 16, 17; and x. 45, with xi. 16.

How long must the Spirit be poured upon a person before he can be said to be immersed in it? To be immersed in a fluid is (im-mergi) to be plunged into it, and not merely to be covered with it!