and that advantage results from it, very few, if any of the commands of God would ever be obeyed.

With regard to what my opponent has said on the unfairness of the public notice of this debate given in our papers, it is enough for me to say, that his friend and correspondent Dr. Keith signed it on his behalf, and that if any thing was amiss in it he was equally criminal with myself.

Mr. C. was to have opened this debate according to our agreement, but he sat down without ever offering one argument in proof of any of the propositions contained in his general challenge. It is true, he talked about many things altogether irrelevant to our dispute, and occupied his time without attempting to do, what we would have expected would have been his first effort. As he has, then, sat down without opening the debate, or offering any argument, it becomes my duty to open the debate, mr. C. has declined it for some very important reasons, we shall then pro ceed to open it:

I came to this place to prove the very contrary of the propositions contained in mr. C's challenge. I came to prove that infant Baptism is a Divine ordinance, an institution of heaven, designed for the most important purposes. The subject naturally divides itself into the subject and mode of Baptism. All disputants and writers of eminence have taken this method to illustrate and establish from Scripture the ordinance of infant Baptism. I maintain that faith is not essential to Baptism, and that immersion is not essential to Baptism. That the infant of a believer is a proper subject, and that sprinkling or pouring is valid Baptism. In the establishment of the first proposition or first branch of this subject, I will observe the following method.

In the first place I will produce a Divine Command for infant Baptism; a command of God authorizing infants to be baptized. The infants of believers.

In the second place I will produce probable evide ce of Apostolic practice of infant Baptism.

In the third and last place, under this head, I will produce positive evidence of Apostolic practice of infant Baptism.

This is the general method I will pursue in the prosecution of this controversy; subservient to which shall be all the different topics introduced, however remotely they may appear to bear upon the subject.

You will, then, my friends, remember that in the first place, I proceed to produce a Divine command for infant Baptism. This is the most influential of all authority for any practice. What greater authority can be adduced in favor of any practice, what more imperious than the command of the great God, whose right, whose exclusive right it is, to appoint his own worship, to ordain the institutes thereof, and to ac company all his injunctions with suitable sanctions?— It is not human tradition that is an adequate authority to measure our faith, or to regulate our obedience, Our church founds all her decisions, her laws, and her ordinances upon the commands of God, or the explicit declarations of his spirit, whether found in the old Testament or in the new, we esteem a command of God as obligatory upon us wherever it may be found. It is the same God that spoke by Moses and by Paul; and his authority is like himself, unchangeable. He has had a church in all generations .constituted by his laws and governed by his statutes. Length of time, or vast antiquity, does not impair his authority, or render his precepts of less weight. A Divine command for any practice warrants, requires, and merits our immediate compliance. Even where reason discovers no immediate gain, no present acquisition, no palable benefit. All Divine commands are not equally plain, yet they are equally authoritative; and they are all so plain, that when fairly interpreted they render the despiser or the neglecter without excuse. It must also be acknowledged that some of God's commands have been repealed, consequently not binding upon us; but it must also be remembered, that such of them as are not repealed by his authority

59

are yet in force. There are other peculiarities of the commands of God which are worthy of notice, but of these hereafter. Mr. M. sat down.

And who

I then proceeded :-Mr. M. has very ingeniously proved that I gave a challenge. I did not ! But mr. M. was very silent on the point says that of dispute respecting this challenge. The question is, who first introduced this controversy. The documents I produced must forever exonerate me from having begun this discussion. It was the Paido-baptists that first challenged the Baptist world. terpretation that candor and honesty can put upon the And the only inparagraph, cited from the 141 page of the Debate at Mount-Pleasant, is, that we did not claim the honor of having universally, and forever silenced the Paidobaptists, but that we would give any of them a fair, and full opportunity of doing better, than mr. Walker was supposed to have done, if they thought they could make a better argument than he had done. This I did. And I must persist in saying, that mr. M's first letter to me, is as fully an original challenge, as that given by me. But as mr. M. in his address to you, did not so much as allude to the question, who first gave a challenge, but occupied his remarks in proving what was not denied, we presume this point is settled without contradiction.

But; my Paido-baptist friends, there is something in my opponents address that I exceedingly lament, on your account. I discover the spirit and design of a considerable part of it is, to arouse your passions, at the expense of your judgment. To lead you to view my challenge, as an accusation against the whole Paidobaptist world, and myself as an accuser; that I have charged you with a crime worthy of punishment by the civil law, My opponent appears to be so well acquainted with human nature as to calculate a good deal upon bribing your judgment in this debate, by a present to your passions. If he succeeds in leading you to consider me your accuser; my challenge,

5

an accusation; and your practice, as judged and pronounced by me criminal; if he succeeds in persuading you to consider himself, as your defender; his speeches, as a defence of your practice; his whole efforts as designed to free you from calumny; he wisely calculates that he has gained half the point in securing his dominion over you. Our design, my Paidobaptist friends, is not to widen the breach, or to throw stumbling blocks in the way, by inflaming your passions; but to endeavor to lead you to understand this most important institution of the Lord of glory, that whosoever of you feareth God may unite with us in keeping his commandments, as delivered unto us by his Holy Apostles.

Instead of pointing us to the good effects and benefits of infant Baptism, as was requested in my first address, he has entertained us with a disqusition on the impropriety of appealing to reason on such matters; and that too, by a reference to my remarks in Debate with mr. Walker on positive institutions.

I am well pleased to find that my opponent and I agree so well on the nature of positive institutions. I request the congregation to keep in mind, that my opponent has declared, that in positive institutions," reason is not to be appealed to in such matters. It is enough to know that it is commanded. Our duty is to obey, although we could see no propriety in the command, no good result from obedience." This is an excellent sentiment, and we shall likely have use for its appearance again in this controversy. It, however, appears on this occasion, entirely out of place. When I asked my opponent to ennumerate the benefits of infant sprinkling, I did not call upon him to appeal to reason, but to revelation. His reply is, in fact, a concession that revelation says nothing about them, and, very ju diciously indeed, he refuses to appeal to reason, fer reason would be as silent, upon the benefits derived o infants from sprinkling, as revelation.-We must compliment his ingenuity upon this occasion, and thank him for his beautiful episode upon positive in

stitutions, Had he, however, demanded of me the benefits derived to believers from baptism, I would have immediately made my appeal to revelation; and, in numerical order, exhibited the chief.

Mr. M. would have you think that I sat down with out opening this debate, without submitting an argument. My remarks, it is true, were chiefly prefatory: yet I conceive there was an opening of the debate, and some argument in my introduction. If I did not open the debate, with whom was he debating in his speech? And as to argument, it is true, I did not submit one in the form of a syllogism, yet, I conceive, the strongest argument in the world was presented against the practice of the Paido-baptists. It was modestly affirmed that infant sprinkling was a USELESS practice; that there was no benefit resulting to the infant from it. My opponent affirms, necessarily affirms, that there is a benefit in it. Now, the proof always lies on the affirmer. I think there is no argument which can be adduced against any practice, or any undertak ing stronger, or more convincing, than such a practice, or such an undertaking is useless, altogether useless. Suppose, for illustration, a man were about building an house upon the ice, which is practicable in many places. He might give it the most tasty form, he might divide it into the most convenient and elegant chambers; he might display the most correct and delicate taste in its internal arrangements, in its external figure and appearance. When about to engage in the accomplishment of his design, or while in the act of prosecuting his plan, suppose, some person, acquainted with the climate, and possessed of what is called common sense, would tell him, the whole project, the whole enterprise was an useless one; for soon as the western zephyrs would breathe upon the foundation, yield it' must to their influence, and down must come the whole superstructure. I say, what argument could be inore powerful against his project, than that it was seless, or without benefit! And as my opponent as produced no benefit, no advantage, to be derived