Not Luther only, but Calvin, Melancthon, Bullinger, Zuinglius, Gualter, Sleidan, Zanchy, and indeed all the eminent reformers, united their voice in bearing solemn testimony against the principles of this sect, reprobating them in terms of great severity.

'Having found their way into England, some of them very early appeared in America, formed a society at Swansea, and another at Boston, in the year 1665. Of this last, Dr. Mather relates, "that they admitted into their society persons whom our churches had excommunicated for moral scandal, and employed them as adminstrators of the two sacraments." From such an origin and such beginnings has this sect arisen. If there be any truth in history, their opinions are wholly modern, and unknown to antiquity. If infant baptism be a human invention, and an absolute nullity, as they pretend, it is certain that, three centuries ago, there was not a society of baptized Christians in the world, nor had been for many preceding ages. What then are we to conclude? Did the church of Christ remain, during the lapse of centuries, overpowered by the gates of hell. If we could suppose this, yet would it not be more difficult still to suppose, that it was at length recovered by the madmen of Munster, the German Anabaptists?

'Though the' Will itself be, at last, our only sure guide, yet it is a satisfaction to know in what sense our fellowchristians understand it with reference to any disputed points, and how they have been understood by the church of Christ in former ages: and if we be able, as in this' cause 'concerning infant baptism, to trace the practice of it up through all preceding ages to that of the apostles, it must be allowed a strong presumptive argument in favour of its having originated with the apostles themselves.'

I have before told you, Gentlemen, that I have often looked into this Will; although, on my own account, I think it unnecessary, being quite at ease respecting my future prospects. Neither do I think it my province to enter into it more fully; my business is to point out to you the state of the case, and to inform you, that we have custom and pre

cedent on our side, which generally in this country decide most cases. -You must be well aware that this Will is divided into two parts, designated the Old and New Testament; these again are subdivided into different parts, called books; these again into chapters and verses, for the facility of reference to any particular part.—I think it well to mention this; as each of you is furnished with a copy, you can turn to the different passages quoted by the witnesses, and so each judge for himself of their bearing. I have studied the brief put into my hands with the greatest attention; and there find that my clients can bring forward such a mass of circumstantial evidence, as I am satisfied shall confound our opponents, and set the question at rest for ever.

I am persuaded, Gentlemen, the more you hear of this great Will or Testament, the more you will be convinced of its vast importance; for if it be possible to make it appear that those whose cause I advocate have no interest therein, it could not be a just one, as it would exclude from an interest in its bequests the majority of the christian world, which we are all certain could never have been the intention of the Testator. I am quite at a loss to imagine upon what ground my learned friend is going to take his stand, or what evidence his ignorant clients can supply to enable him to shake the testimony of my witnesses. I really feel sorry that he should have undertaken such a hopeless cause. Being young in the profession, he may probably think it will give him an opportunity of shewing his legal ingenuity; and that if he can succeed in making the worse appear the better cause,' he may thus obtain a legal reputation. I shall not take up more of your time, neither shall I think it necessary to appeal to you again, being confident that, from the evidence that will now be produced, you can do no other than give a verdict in my favour. I shall therefore call my witnesses, who will confirm by their evidence what I have stated to you, in this my humble and imperfect appeal.

FIRST WITNESS.

I, the FIRST WITNESS called in favour of the Plaintiffs, cannot appear before this honourable court, "without a measure of anxiety; for though perfectly satisfied with the purity of my motives, and the simplicity of my intention," I am far from flattering myself that the evidence that I am about to give will afford me pleasure. "The" court "will no doubt find" therein "many things defective, and perhaps some incorrect. My endeavour to be as concise as possible," will, "no doubt, in several cases produce obscurity. Whatever errors may be observed must be attributed to my scantiness of knowledge, when compared with the learning and information necessary for" the required testimony on such a momentous trial.

66

I shall bring every thing as much as possible within the reach of comparatively simple people, or those whose avocations prevent them from entering deeply into subjects of this kind;" and, in giving my evidence, "shall study rather to be useful, than appear to be learned." I have no other pretensions in coming before you than that the testimony I shall give may be "as a help to a better understanding of the Scriptures. If there be but a few spots, such as may be fairly attributed to human frailty, the" candour of the court "will pass them by, in favour of the general principle." And I trust it will not be thought irrevelant, if I state in few words the manner in which I have investigated those Sacred Writings.

"My education and habits from early youth led me to read and study the Bible, not as a text-book to confirm the articles of a preconceived creed, but as the revelation from God to man. Conscious that Translators in general must have had a particular creed, in reference to which they

C

would naturally consider every text; and this reference, however honestly intended, might lead them to glosses not always fairly deducible from the original words; I come before you to give my evidence as free from bias and sectarian feeling as possible.

"Those who have compared most of the European Translations with the original have not scrupled to say that the English Translation of the Bible, made under the direction of King James the First, is the most accurate and faithful of the whole. Nor is this its only praise: the Translators have seized the very spirit and soul of the Original, and expressed this almost every where, with pathos and energy. Besides, our Translators have not only made a standard Translation, but they have made their Translation the standard of our language: the English tongue in their day was not equal to such a work; but God enabled them to stand as upon mount Sinai, to use the expression of a learned friend, and crane up their country's language to the dignity of the originals, so that, after a lapse of two hundred years, the English Bible is, with very few exceptions, the standard of the purity and excellence of the English tongue. The Original from which it was taken is alone superior to the Bible translated by the authority of King James.' This is an opinion, in which my heart, my judgment, and my conscience coincide.

"Notwithstanding all the helps which the various MSS. and ancient versions afford for the illustration of the sacred text," this court must not imagine "that in those MSS and versions which do contain the whole of the sacred text there is any essential defect, in matters that relate to the faith and practice, and consequently to the salvation, of the Christian:-there is no such MS-there is no such version. So has the Divine Providence ordered it, that although a number of mistakes have been committed by careless copyists, as well as by careless printers, not one essential truth of God has been injured or supprest. In this respect, all is perfect: and the way of the Most High is made so plain, even in the poorest copies, that the wayfaring man, thoug

a fool, utterly destitute of deep learning and critical abilities, need not err therein.

"The NEW TESTAMENT, but which should rather be translated the NEW COVENANT, including a testamentary declaration and bequest, for this is precisely the meaning of this system of justice, holiness, goodness, and truth,—the term New Covenant seems to mean, that grand plan of agreement, or reconciliation, which God made between himself and mankind, by the death of Jesus Christ; in consequence of which, all those who truly repent and unfeignedly believe in the great atoning sacrifice are purified from their sins, and united to God.

"John was sent to prepare the way of the Lord, by preaching the doctrine of repentance, and was surnamed the baptist, because he required those to be baptized who professed to be contrite because of their sins.

"In what form baptism was originally administered has been deemed a subject worthy of serious dispute. Were the people dipped or sprinkled (for it is certain Bantw Battizw mean both)? They were all dipped, say some. Can any man suppose, that it was possible for John to dip all the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judea, and of all the country round about the Jordan? Were both men and women dipped? for certainly both came to his baptism. This could never have comported either with safety or with decency. Were they dipped in their clothes? This would have endangered their lives, if they had not with them change of raiment; and as such a baptism as John's (however administered) was in several respects a new thing in Judea, it is not at all likely that the people would come thus provided. But suppose these were dipped, which I think it would be impossible to prove, does it follow that in all the regions of the world men and women must be dipped, in order to be evangelically baptized? In the eastern countries, bathings were frequent, because of the heat of the climate, it being there so necessary to cleanliness and health; but could our climate, or a more northerly one, admit of this with safety for at least three-fourths of the year? We may