« PreviousContinue »
in which he particularly alluded to this subject, endeavored to prepare the minds of the people, by laying down certain rules as evidence of defeat, among which he lays down this as an infallible criterion, viz. That whenever a man begins to shew signs of irritation, they may take it for granted, that that man feels himself outdone, and vents his spleen and chagrin by boisterous declamatory language. Whether this kind of reasoning be correct or not, I shall not pretend to decide; but hope, if you should be assailed in this way, you will be extremely on your guard, and not suffer yourself to shew any signs of irritation, even if you should be called sciolist, sophist, dogmatist, liar, or any other opprobrious epithet whatever. I am this moment informed, by a person in whom the greatest confidence can be placed, that in a late conversation with Mr. W. he informed him, that he understood that his opponent was very irrascible, which would be all the better for him (to use his own words,) and for his part he was determined, let what would come, to keep cool-and that he engaged he (his opponent) should not want for provocation, if that was Iris disposition, &c. &c. I feel no kind of hostility to Mr. W. nor any other partiality to you, than to wish you may not have any undue advantage taken of you. "Therefore, am yours,
I would now recall to mind the advice of an ancient patriarch: "Let not him that putteth on his armour, boast as he that taketh it off."
What diverted Mr. Walker from this plan, I know not, unless that he found, from an interview with me, of more than an hour, previous to the commencement, that I was not so irritable as he had anticipated. Be this as it may, he behaved well, and the debate closed with as much coolness and moderation, as had distinguished every period of its progress.
The debate was closed by myself: but, after I sat down, Mr. Samuel Findley, by an injudicious and unbe. coming address, contrary to the rules by which he, as one of the moderators, should have been governed, produced an unpleasant excitement in the congregation. But as the public obviously and emphatically expressed their
disapprobation of it, I feel no desire, by a minute statement to perpetuate the remembrance of it.
I would repeat it, again, that Mr. Walker conducted his part of the debate, in a manner honorable to himself as a man he failed in the support of his cause, only, because it was not tenable, or, in other words, because it was a bad one.
As I knew my Pedo-Baptist friends were sometimes accustomed to appeal to ancient languages and different versions of the Scriptures, as well as to Ecclesiastical History, I went forward duly prepared to meet them on those grounds. I wish, however, to observe, that the common version of the Scriptures, is sufficient to establish the truth of the Baptist views, independent of any other authorities. They receive, however, additional evidence in their favor, from every fair appeal to ancient languages and Ecclesiastical History. I took the following books, not to establish our cause, but to shew the nakedness of my opponent's: they are authorities of the most unexceptionable character, as they were written by authors, who either lived before the controversy on Baptism, or, with the exception of one, they were written by those who practised infant Baptism.
In the department of Ecclesiastical History, I took with me the following:
"The Genuine Epistles of the Apostolical Fathers, S. Barnabas, Paul's companion in travel, S. Ignatius, S. Clement, S. Polycarp, and the Shepherd of Hermas; being a complete collection of the most primitive antiquity, for about 150 years after Christ: translated from the origi nal Greek, by William Lord, bishop of Lincoln, (a Pędo-Baptist.) London printed, 1710."
Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, in one volume folio. This is the most ancient ecclesiastical history in the world. The title of it is as follows: "The history of the Church, from our Lord's incarnation to the 12th year of the emperor Mauricius Tiberius, or the year of Christ 594-as it was written in the Greek by Eusebius Pamphilus, bishop of Cæsarea, in Palestine; Socrates Scholasticus, native of Constantinople; and Evagrius Scholasticus, born at Epiphania, in Syria Secunda; tranelated and published at Paris, in the years 1659, 1668, and 1673. London printed, 1709."
Also, a History of Ecclesiastical Writers, containing
an account of the lives and writings of the primit thers, an abridgement of other works, their vario tions, and censures, determining the genuine and ous. Also, a Compendious Account of the Co written in French, by Lewis Ellies Du Pin, Docto the Sorbon, and Regius Professor of Divinity at Paris Dublin printed, 1723. (In 3 vols. folio.)
From these authorities, modern historians, such as Mosheim and Miller, have extracted such parts as they deemed expedient. In connection with the above, to meet any thing written by a partizan on the opposite side, I took Robinson's History of Baptism.
As authorities in the Greek language, I took with me, Stokii Clavis, Scapula the father of all the modern Greek Lexicons, and Parkhurst. The above three Lexicons are, with Screvelius, which I also used, the best, most approved, and most authoritative in the world. Along with these, I had with me a Greek, a Latin, and a French version of the New Testament-Dr. George Campbell's Translation of the Four Gospels; his Dissertations and Critical Notes; with sundry other books of minor im portance. From these, and several others too ponderous to carry, I found myself able, satisfactorily to demonstrate the fallacy of all arguments deduced from Greek, Latin, Ecclesiastical History, and Tradition.
But, as frequent references shall be made to them in the debate, I forbear to insist any further, at present, on the merits of these authorities. There is no man ver sant in Ecclesiastical Antiquity, and ancient languages, that dare, or that will, call in question the authority of these writers, on those subjects on which I appeal to them.
With regard to the style in which this debate meets the public eye-being a narrative of extemporaneous effusions, it cannot be expected to possess either the ele gance of diction, or the neatness of method, that should characterize a calm and deliberate composition. Besides, my time being engrossed in the arduous and constant duties of an extensive Seminary, I have not leisure to transcribe it even once. It must meet the public eye, in the plain garb in which it first flows from my pen hoping, however, that it may be sufficiently intelligible, I humbly submit it without further apology.
As Mr. Walker gave the challenge, it became his duty to open the debate. This gave him the liberty of beginning at what part of the subject he pleased; and of following any method he might have previously adopted. It also imposed upon me the necessity of following his method, and confined me to make replies to such arguments as he thought proper to introduce.
Mr. Walker commenced as follows:
My friends-I don't intend to speak long at one time, perhaps not more than five or ten minutes, and will therefore come to the point at once: I maintain that Baptism came in the room of
which the Jewish cumcision-That the covenant on
was built, and to which circum eision is the seal, is the same with the covenant on which the Christian Church is built, and to which Baptism is the seal-That the Jews and the Christians are the same body politic, under the same lawgiver and husband; hence the Jews were called the congregation of the Lord--and the bridegroom of the Church says, "My love, my undefiled is one"-consequently the infants of believers have a right to Baptism.
To which I replied as follows:
Friends and fellow citizens-I arise to address you on this occasion, with some degree of diffidence, but with much satisfaction: I am diffident, when I consider how inexperienced I am in this mode of defending truth; but pleased, very much pleased, with the opportunity I now have of opposing error, and of vindicating truth, in the presence of so many and so respectable auditors. I am aware of the peculiar difficulties which attend every attempt to exhibit unpopular truths, in the face of popu lar errors. We are all the subjects of passions and of prejudices. It is hard to obtain a momentary triumph