RHANTISM VERSUS BAPTISM, OR INFANT SPRINKLING AGAINST CHRISTIAN IMMERSION; IN WHICH THE ARGUMENTS FOR THE FORMER PRACTICE ARE EXAMINED AND CONfuted, AND THE SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY FOR THE LATTER CLEARLY EXHIBITED. IN THE FORM OF A TRIAL. BY SEACOME ELLISON, AUTHOR OF A LETTER TO JOSEPH JOHN GURNEY, ESQ. LONDON; GEORGE WIGHTMAN, PATERNOSTER ROW. 1835. PREFACE. THE present Publication has been undertaken after looking over the works of several eminent theological writers, in which the validity of the rite of Infant Baptism is stated, and warmly defended. Upon a candid and deliberate view of the subject in all its bearings, and an impartial examination of the arguments by which this doctrine and practice are supported, it appeared to me that the whole was founded on error; and that neither great talents nor literary acquirements were requisite to show this in a clear light. On a comparison of the arguments used by the different Authors in support of this rite, and for the overthrow of the ordinance maintained by the Baptists (so called), I found that not any two were agreed upon the meaning, or the application, of the Scriptures brought forward in confirmation of their opinions; and that each one not only differed with most of his fellows, but very frequently with himself, in one part or other of the same work. From whence I inferred, that little more was required to show the fallacy of their system than to place their respective arguments and opinions in juxta-position, by which their discrepancies would become apparent. This I thought might be most effectually accomplished by bringing the controversy on the subject of Baptism before the public in the form of a Trial in a court of judicature, which plan I have adopted. I have taken for the foundation of the trial, |