ing of the word-as signifying to immerse is triumphantly proved in the sequel of the chapter, from the writings of ancient Greeks and from the practice of the modern Greeks-from the testimony of those who sprinkle infants, as well as those who baptize adults. I was particularly pleased with the manner in which the onus probandi is thrown, where it ought to be, on the shoulders of Pædobaptists, in the remarks on the Greek word Thapto, to bury, page140--144. The argument is ingenious, and the deductions are fair. Upon the whole, I have great pleasure in recommending the work not only to those who, residing in the neighborhood, have watched the progress of this controversy from its commencement, but to all who wish to satisfy themselves upon the question, what is scripture baptism?—as a faithful defence of the practice of Christ and his Apostles, embracing the cream of the best works which have been written upon the subject. JOHN DOWLING, Pastor of North Bap. Ch. Newport, R. I." REV. AND DEAR SIR, "NEWPORT, JULY 26, 1835. Having recently perused the Lectures of the Rev. Mr. Fowler, on the mode and subjects of baptism, from the manner in which he has treated those subjects, and his frequent allusion to the Baptists, I was induced to expect a reply. Not, that I think them entitled, in any respect, to a very high reputation, and should consider them entirely harmless, but for the very respectable names by which their reputation is sustained. These give them sufficient importance not only to warrant but to demand a reply. And it is confidently believed that every mind that is disembarrassed and free from sectarian prejudice, will readily perceive, by examining your reply, that the blaze of evidence', in the light of which those Lectures were doubtless written, vanishes in smoke; and that infant sprinkling and adult affusion are unauthorized by the commission of our Lord, and without support from the word of God. Accept, Sir, my acknowledgments for the perusal of the manuscript of your reply, and believe me yours in the faith of the gospel, ARTHUR A. ROSS, Pastor of the 1st Bap. Ch. Newport. REV. A. BRONSON." "REV. A. BRONSON, your Dear Sir-I have not been able to read but about 100 pages of book. Absence from home and a multiplicity of other cares have deprived me of the privilege of reading the whole; but so far as I have examined it, I can honestly say, that I have never read a work on the same subject, which, in my opinion, has more effectually accomplished its design. With your own pertinent remarks, you have appropriately mingled ideas in extracts drawn from very many of the best of writers, which makes your work doubly valuable. I think you have done the cause of truth a good service. Being not a member of your particular denomination, and differing from you on the subject of the communion, I hope I may have some reasonable claim to disinterestedness in wishing your book an extensive circulation and a candid perusal. Yours truly, RAY POTTER, Minister of the Gospel. Meaning of Baptizo in the New Testament-Identity of the INTRODUCTION. What! another book on Baptism? Yes: recent events, and Mr. Fowler's Lectures show, that it is necessary to have line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little, on the subject of Gospel Baptism. "But I do not relish controversy on religious subjects. I do not like to see Christians contending with each other." Controversy, in itself, is unpleasant; but it is often necessary in a world which abounds with error. I can assure the reader that I have to bear a cross,' while writing on this subject in opposition to a man whom I desire, as far as possible, to esteem and love. I have been prompted by a sense of duty, and a humble desire to promote, what I believe to be, the truth of God. Whether I have pursued the happiest course, and employed the best means to accomplish my object, is yet to be determined. But why should a sincere and manly defence of truth and a determined rejection of error be considered harsh severity, or an exemplification of unkind feeling? 6 Who was the first Christian controversialist? The Prince of Peace. Jesus, the friend of sinners, when he called his twelve disciples and sent them forth, commanding them to preach that the kingdom of heaven is at hand, proclaimed, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I am not come to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's foes shall be they of his own household." Matt. x : 34, 36. Stephen, the protomartyr, was an evangelical polemic of almost unequalled energy; and during his short conflict, his face shone as it had been the face of an angel, while the infidel scoffers were not able to resist the wisdom and spirit by which he spake.' The apostle Paul disputed daily in the school of Tyrannus, and for his extraordinary capacity and success as a reasoner, confounding them who 'pretended to be Jews, but who were of the synagogue of Satan,' he is immortalized as one of the chief of them who have turned the world upside down. Peter, James, Jude and John, with their apostolic brethren and the primitive evangelists, are also renowned as Christian controversialists, who contended earnestly for the faith which was once delivered to the saints.' It is common to hear persons, who ought to be better informed on these topics, reprobating the defence of truth, because it necessarily involves opposition to error and implies contention. What is the preaching of the gospel but controversy? Is it not the very method appointed by God himself, to maintain the good fight of faith,' until the triumphs of the cross shall have encircled the whole human family? It seems now to be generally received as a principle which admits of no denial, that all defence of religious truth naturally includes a hatred of those who hold the opposite errors. This position is as contrary to the wisest and best examples, as it is to sound theory.However marvellous the fact may appear to the inconsiderate, it is incontestably true that the most renowned philanthropists have ever been the chief masters in religious controversy.'* I call your attention to an examination of the Rev. Mr. Fowler's Lectures on the mode and subjects of baptism,' for the following reasons. 1. The subject is important. It involves the welfare of Zion and the honor of her King. 2. The public mind has become agitated on this subject, and I desire that truth may be elicited, and Christian baptism fairly and fully investigated. 3. Debate awakes attention and excites interest. I think the candid inquirer will be more likely to apprehend the truth, and judge of the merits of the impending question with greater accuracy, if I write in opposition to Mr. F. than he would, were I to write an essay on this subject, without regard to the arguments which he has urged in favor of his views. 4. Among the advocates of affusion', he is unquestionably one of the ablest champions'. He has been thoroughly trained to this kind of warfare; he has, by his own acknowledgment, bestowed much labor en his Lectures'; he has availed himself of all possible helps on both sides of the controversy'; he has consulted Professors and Doctors of Divinity from Andover to Philadelphia; his lectures are highly recommended by Rev. Messrs. Robins, Holmes, Waterman and Phinney. We may safely infer, therefore, that the lectures before us contain a defence of the author's views, as able as New England divines can produce. I think they are entitled to a candid, but faithful examination. 5. The author has evidently kept his eye upon a pamphlet recently published by me at the request of my brethren. In several instances he has quoted whole sentences from it, and then tells the public in his appendix that there is so much ridicule and vulgarity and personal abuse in that pamphlet, that he deemed it inexpedient to notice it. + McGavin's Prot. |