An examination into the principles of baptism. In a letter to the infant baptizers of North-Parish, in New-London. / By J----n B---n. ; [Four lines of quotations]

An examination into the principles of baptism. In a letter to the infant baptizers of North-Parish, in New-London. / By J----n B---n. ; [Four lines of quotations]

Table of contents

Title page

§

With Respect to the Mode of Baptism.

§

§

§

§

§

[Page]

[Page]

AN EXAMINATION INTO THE PRINCIPLES OF BAPTISM. In a LETTER to the Infant Baptizers of North-Parish, in NEW-LONDON.

BY J—h b—n.

Behold, I waited for your words, I gave ear to your reasons, while you searched out what to say: And searched the scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so.

NEW-LONDON: Printed for the AUTHOR, 1767

§

§

[Page]

DEAR BRETHREN,

IN ASMUCH as Baptism was instituted by the great King of heaven and earth, I shall make no apology for being desirous to know who are the subjects of that ordinance: and seeing you would be great lovers of what you call truth, and not desirous that the people should be in an error, I hope you will not be offended with my making some remarks on that subject, and asking a few questions concerning the chief arguments that I have ever heard used by any person in favor of infant baptism; and also in respect of persons being desired, or forced to pay to the support of a ministry that they have no fellowship with.

The first argument I shall mention, is what is generally used to shew that baptism was instituted in the room and stead of circumcision, and to be administred to the same subjects.

We have an account in Act. 15 chap. of the judaising teachers going down to Antioch, and said, Except you be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. The apostles Paul and Barnabas were sent up to the apostles and elders, about that question; who wrote back a letter, in which are these words. [Page]viz. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burthen than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if you keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Now if baptism was instituted in the room and stead of circumcision, did not the apostles know it? And if they knew it, would they not have taught it? Surely as they declared the counsel of God, they would have informed us that baptism was instituted in the room of circumcision. I believe there is none so absurd as to say the Holy Ghost did not know it; or that he did, and would not reveal it to the apostles. But in the letter it is said, from which if you keep yourselves, ye shall do well; let me ask you, could it be said, ye shall do well, unless they did all that was required in the room and stead of circumcision, concerning which they wrote?

Again, it is argued in favor of the presbyterians, or infant baptizers, that the apostles practised baptizing infants; for they say housholde were baptized, viz. the jailor and his houshold, Lydia and her houshold, and the houshold of Stephanus: they say probably there was infants baptized in some one or other of these housholds. But let us consider of the probability.—As to the jailor we are told, Act. 16.34. That be rejoiced, believing in God [...] all his house. Now if they were believers, [Page]as is evident they was, they were proper subject, of baptism, as appears by Philip's answer to the Ethiop an that requested baptism, see Act 8 37. If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayst: Which plainly shews that faith in Christ was absolutely necessary, in order to be admitted to the ordinance of baptism, see also, Act. 10 47. Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? Which plainly shews that the receiving the Holy Ghost was an evidence of faith in Christ, and the rule upon which they were admitted to the ordinance of Baptism. But to return: As to Lydia, if we believe the scriptures, saying her houshold; she had no husband; for if she had, it would have been said HIS houshold, and not her houshold: and it is not half the virgins and widows that have housholds, that have children in them so small, that if they had faith in Christ, it could not be known. Besides, what would she do with infants tending her shop? Again, we find in Act. 16 40. And when they had seen the brethren, they comforted them and departed. Now then if these brethren are supposed to be infants, how, and with what did the apostles comfort them? Upon the whole, it is evident that she had no children in her houshold, but such as could and did make a profession before they were baptized.

And with respect to the houshold of Stephanus, [Page]see 1 Cor. 16.15, 16. I beseech you brethren, ye know the house of Stephanus, that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints; that ye submit yourselves unto such. Now from the time of the writting this first epistle to the Corinthians, back to Paul's preaching at Corinth, was but about five years, as appears by the dates in the bible. Now then, if the houshold of Stephanus were baptized in infancy, they must have been in the ministry over the church, at about six or seven years of age, which I think is exceeding unlikely.

But let me ask you, if the apostles had constantly practised baptizing infants, is it not much more probable there would have been some direct account of it, some where in the new testament, than that there was infants baptized in some one or other of these housholds? Where were the infants of the three thousand that came together to see that strange thing? As it is in the eyes of all unconverted people, to see the Holy Ghost poured out upon the apostles, do you think they brought their infants with them to be baptized, or no? No, it is evident they did not; as may be shewn presently. But why do I talk thus of probabilities; let us prove from scripture what the apostles practice was; re-consider and see Gal 3 27. As many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. Says the Rev. Mr. Fish, on the text, ‘That as, in your [Page]baptism, you put on the character of christians, you declared or profess'd, that you received Christ as your Lord and Saviour.‖’ And I verily believe the gentleman was quite right; for I cannot believe, that to put on Christ, can mean any thing less than that they were true believers in Christ. Now then, if as many, or all of them that were baptized, had made their profession, so that it was evident they had faith in Christ, then the apostles did not baptize children that made no profession: nor is there any believers that dare declare that all their infants have faith in Christ.

The third argument is drawn from Act. 15.10 Now therefore why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples? Here they say, inasmuch as it appears from the chapter, that the yoke was circumcision which they would have laid upon children at eight days old, infants are called disciples in the scripture, and therefore they are so, and have a right to be baptized by the commission, Mat. 28.19. where disciples are ordered to be baptized, tho' the word children or infants is not mentioned.

But let me ask you why you do not admit infants to the Lord's table, inasmuch as our Saviour tells us in Mat. 26.27. Drink ye all off it. Is not that as much an institution for disciples as baptism? Do you indeed keep ordinances [Page]according to your own mind?

But for answer, I say the word why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, doth not conclude, that all on whom they would have laid that yoke, were disciples. The church of Antioch was a Gentile church, see Act. 21.25 the believers in it bad not been circumcised; so that the putting the yoke upon the neck of the believers of the church of Antioch, of whom they spake, was putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples; altho' there might be thousands of infants, or others which were not disciples, on whom they would have laid that yoke. This will appear to be the true meaning of this text, if it is compared with our Saviour's explanation of the word DISCIPLE, see Luk. 14 27. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple. Now did all the infants of the church of Antioch, and do all infants of all believers, take up their cross and follow Christ? Ver. 26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. Did, and do all the infants of believers, love God to that degree that their love to their fathers and mothers, and to their own lives, when in competition to their love to God, is but hatred? Of if you do not like my explanation, do all the infants of all believers hate their fathers and mothers, and their own lives, with a perfect hatred?

[Page] The fourth argument is drawn from Acts 2. and part of the 38 and 39 verses. Repent and be baptized every one of you—For the promise is to you and to your children. Here they argue that the promise was mentioned as an encouragement to both parents and children, to be baptized. I answer, that the promise is mentioned as an encouragement to them to repent, and be baptized; but not that they should be baptized without repentance. But as true repentance cannot be, without true faith, this text is another instance of true faith's being a rule, in order to be admitted to baptism. Especially when compared with the last part of the same verse. Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Here I would ask, was there ever a promise of remission of sins and of the gift of the Holy Ghost, made to baptism without repentance? if not, then the promise they speak of could be no encouragement to baptism without repentance. Again we see in the chapter these jewish believers were baptised themselves; but did they have their children baptized. NO. It is evident they did not, for we see verse 42, they continued stedfastly in the apostles doctrine: But they continued steadfastly in the practice of circumcising their children, therefore that was the apostles doctrine, see Acts 21.20. And they were all zealous of the law: that is the law of circumcision, as appears from the 21st verse. And they also advised St. Paul to shew the jewish believers, [Page]that he kept that law, as in verse 24. To circumcise the children therefore, was the apostles doctrine and the jewish believers practice. But if baptism was appointed in the room and stead of circumcision, then circumcision must have ceased, and would have been no more an institution, than if it never had been instituted. Now to set up circumcision as a seal after that, without divine warrant: was to set up a seal of their own in opposition to that which God had set up. Pray what manner of men do they make of the apostles, were they the vilest of men? surely no.

The fifth argument is drawn from Mark 10.14, 15. I do not remember any account of our Saviour's being displeased, but when something was said, which tended to hinder the channels of his mercy to poor perishing sinners. But I suppose no one will deny that those children were brought to Christ to plead for mercy: likely their parents were poor and despised in the world; perhaps the disciples therefore, tho't it below their blessed master, to take notice of such miserable creatures, as likely they appeared to be. But our Saviour soon corrects their mistake; and says he, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God. I understand it is, as if he had said, those children are in a deplorable condition, polluted with sin, and exposed to the everlasting wrath of God. Hinder them not from coming to me for mercy. In me is a fullness whereby is sustained the whole kingdom of God.

[Page] But they argue from the words, suffer little children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of God. That some little children belong to the kingdom of God, and therefore have a right to church-membership and its ordinance. But why do they say some children? I never knew them to argue that the children that were brought to Christ, were children of believing parents. But I believe those persons that brought these children to Christ, were converted persons; and as it is truly every one's duty to search the scriptures to know what is their duty, and not to pin their faith upon other men's sleeves without evidence, I am willing you should make the best of your arguments; I will therefore give you the reason why I think so. — But to return — Observe the word, of such is the kingdom of God: here is an ALL implied: —the kingdom means all the kingdom. Does it not? Is the kingdom of God made up of such infants? Have all the infants of believing parents an interest in Christ by faith? If there be evidence of that, then they are proper subjects of baptism; but if not, how do they belong to the kingdom of God? But if you would have it, that by the kingdom of God is meant church-membership, our Saviour tells you in the next verse, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. — And can no person enter into your church, unless he receive it as a little child? You will answer, doubtless they can and do.

But I come now to let you know, why I think [Page]those persons that brought the children to Christ, were converted persons. When any person (at a time) is under the operation of the Spirit of God, and is brought to see that the punishment, eternal misery! is, if any thing, much less than he deserves; oh! now he is amazed at the mercy of God! that he is not sent into the eternal torments of hell, Lev. 26.41. Ezek. 36.31. Now if his heart cries to God for mercy, God does shew himself, in and through Christ, Joh. 17.3. and chap 6.40. to be more willing to forgive him, than any of you could be to pull an only son, or your dearest friend on earth out of the flaming fire, if he lay screaming there. For we all with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image. Now if those that brought the children to Christ, had not been made thus to know Christ, likely they would, with the unconverted multitude of that age, have called him the carpenter's son; or with the topping pharisees of them times, who were not willing that Christ should preach, have demanded by what authority, and have said this fellow, &c. and not have come to him for a blessing upon their children. But the word (at a time) was put because most people think they have known their punishment for sin was just, ever since they came to the years of understanding, altho' their heart rises up against it, and thinks hard of the punishment. This is what some call an historical knowledge, or learnt by man, and is not of the operation of the spirit of God. Job 36.22. Behold God exalteth by his power, who teacheth like him?

[Page] Again, if they should say they have had the same lively sense of it always, ever since they had an understanding, I should think it was only the same historical knowledge which is common to all natural men of understanding, and not from the Spirit of God, Song 3.4. and 5.4.

The sixth argument is taken from 1 Cor. 7.14. And the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband, else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. Here they ask what holiness this can mean, if it is not such an holiness as intitles the children to baptism? To which I answer, that it may be such an holiness as the children of Israel had, on account of which they were called an holy people, an holy nation, &c. which was an holiness that did entitle them to circumcision, but now to abstinence from meats offered to idols, &c. but not to baptism. Baptism is a profession of the subject, that he has faith in Christ. See Col. 2.12. Being buried with him in baptism; wherein also ye are risen with him thro' the faith. Says the Rev. Mr Fish, in his sermons, p. 41. ‘As if he had said, in and by your baptism, you signify and declare, that your old man, the body of sin, is crucified with Christ.’ Then how can the body of sin be crucified with Christ, without faith in him? But was circumcision a profession of faith in Christ? The answer is, No: it was ordered to be administred to the males of the sojourner among the children of Israel, who had a mind to keep the passover, and to all the males of the children of Israel. Were these all converted [Page]persons? such as could in truth profess that they were true believers in Christ? Do you think that God ordered or directed his people to be false? But says the Rev. Mr. Parsons, in his book, intitled, Infant Baptism vindicated, p. 28. ‘Circumcision signified putting off the sins of the flesh and so does baptism, Colos. 2.11.’ This text doth not say that circumcision made with hands, did signify that the subjects of it had put off the sins of the flesh: but Abraham did not circumcise without hands. Did circumcision signify that the subjects of it had put off the sins of the flesh? No. Circumcision was given to teach faith in Christ, and was a seal of the promise that God would justify such as had or should have faith in Christ, see Gal 3.8—29. And the scripture foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, in thee shall all nations be blessed. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Thus circumcision was a token, assurance, or seal, that God would justify Abraham, inasmuch as he had faith in Christ, tho' it was before he was circumcised, Rom. 4 11. But does not baptism signify that the subjects of it had put off the sins of the flesh? Why then did the apostles require faith in Christ, as a rule for their administring the ordinance of baptism? You don't pretend that the commission, Mat. 28. [...]9 authorized the apostles to baptize any but disciples; and they are such as are true believers in Christ, if I can understand our Saviour's explanation of [Page]the word Disciple, in the 14th chapter of Luke. Will not God's saying in Jer. 31.31, 32. I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, convince you that there is a difference between the new church-covenant, and that made with Abraham; altho' the new excels, yet that made with Abraham was great. Although the apostle Paul, writing to the Roman church, says, 2 chap. 26. Shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? Such as have faith in Christ will be justified, when one that is circumcised, not having faith in Christ, will be condemned. He in the 3d chap v.i says, What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? ver. 2. Chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. A great gift this, which taught the main errand of the bible, viz. Faith in Christ. But oh! how slothful is man, that he must be whipt with the yoke of circumcision, to make him remember himself, and to teach his children. O the depth of the riches hath of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out. To whom be glory forever. Amen. Rom. 11.33.36.

[Page]

With Respect to the Mode of Baptism.

IT is argued by some, in favor of believers baptism, from Acts 8.38, 39. that both Philip and the Eunuch went down into the water, and came up out of the water; from whence they say it is evident that the Eunuch was baptized by dipping.

This is answered by some, in favor of sprinkling for baptism, that the Greek preposition (ek) here rendered out of, properly signifies from. To which for answer I say, that the word from. being alone, has no signification at all. If I should meet you in the street, and say from, what could you know by it? Ek, therefore of itself, or with some additional word, must signify from the place where they were. Now if the place where they were was in the water, then the old translators were right in saying out of the water; for to say from in the water, is not good English, although it would have the same meaning: but if the place where they were was at the water, then these new translators. Wherefore the argument turns upon the Greck preposition, eis, which they say in the place under consideration, was rendered into, and naturally signifies unto, and is commonly so used in the new testament. Thus Mat. 15.24. Unto the lost sheep. Joh. 13.1. Unto the end. Joh. 7.8. Unto the feast. 1 Thes 1. [...]. Our gospel came not unto you. But if the Greek word eis, signified unto, and did not signify into, why did they not tell us what Greek word signified [Page] into, so that we might have seen the difference. But casting my eyes into a Greek testament, where in the text under consideration, Act. 8.38. the apostle has written eis to; now if they shew us that eis to, was always translated unto, and never translated into, and that some other Greek word was always translated into, and never translated unto, I shall believe the old translators were wrong then, and never till then. Thus they have utterly failed of shewing that the old translators were wrong. How, when in the text under consideration, the Greek is eis to, do they think to convince us by saying that eis alone signified unto? Nevertheless in my observation, there is verses in scripture wherein there is into in English, and only eis in Greek. Thus the Greek, in Acts 16.40. there is eis, the English in that text is, and entered into the house of Lydia; and in Rev. 17.11. there is eis, in English, into perdition: which gives me reason to think that the Greclans, when they intended into, wrote eis to, unless where there was a word in the text that forced the sense, into, as in the first of these instances ENTERED, we cannot suppose that they entered the house, and did not go in: so in the second instance, the beast could not be supposed to go to perdition, and not go into perdition. The like observation I have in our own language in many instances: see 1 Sam. 1.21. And the man Elkanah, and all his house, went up to offer. What person of sense can suppose that Elkanah went up with his house to offer, and left all his people at home. But what if the text had declared, [Page]that Elkanah's house was all of a light fire, would you have supposed his people were all of a blaze, and burnt like tinder? Is not the like done by those people, with respect to the Greek word, hudata polla, which they say signifies many waters, altho' it is translated much water, see Joh. 3.23. And John was baptizing in Enon, near to Salem, because there was much water there. Had John any need to baptize in Enon, because there was much water there, when a small vial full of water would baptize an hundred, according to your mode of sprinkling? Surely now if the people had water to drink, they might have easily spared two drops to put in their face, for that would be sprinkling; for they say it is not in the quantity of water which they baptize with: but they say they went unto Enon, to get drink for themselves and their horses. Who ever took a journey to Enon to get drink for himself and his horse, and all his other creatures at home, had a sufficiency and to spare, so had no need to drive them. But they baptized in Enon, because there was much water there, or water sufficient to plunge the subject in. But they further say in favor of sprinkling, that it appears from Acts 2. 41. that there was three thousand baptized at Jerusalem in one day, (most certainly towards the close of the day) and was there any probability that they all should be baptized by dipping in so short a time? I do not understand the text, that they were baptized that day, but that they were added that day. Now when persons are converted, they do in heart give up themselves [Page]solemnly, voluntarily and freely to God, as their king to rule and reign over them, and to obey all his commands, which teaches them every duty to their brother or brethren. Baptism therefore is a renewing and solemn profession of this covenant, and is to be complied with as soon as may be. 1 John 2.19 They went our from us, but they were not of us. It must be supposed that those here spoken of were baptized persons, yet they were not of the apostles or children of God, because they were not converted persons, therefore they were not of them. Ergo, baptism is not adding. Jer. 31.33. But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts. It is not to be supposed that God never converted a person before, but that this should be the rule of church-membering in the new church-covenant, a covenant which is not according to the old national church-covenant, in which they had to teach every man his brother. This shews that they did not all know the Lord, which were in the old covenant, ver. 32. But with respect to the new covenant, how soon was it declared, that Simon the sorcerer had neither part nor lot in the matter when it was found that his heart was not right in the sight of God, Act. 8.21. further see Act. 2.47. And the Lord added to the church daily, such as should be saved, and not that the apostles added them. Therefore the text, a and 41 of Acts, doth not prove but they were baptized the next day, or onwards.

[Page] Again, if the word of God, as recorded in the original languages, is wrong translated into the English tongue, then that which is wrong cannot be the word of God. But the truth contained in the bible is proved by many witnesses, that as it is now translated it is the word of God. For there is no person who has been converted in the path way or line of the gospel, but what knows assuredly that the bible is the word of God. But if you should tell me that there are some passages in scripture which are not thus proved, I would tell you for answer, that the translators were not men that were then carrying on arguments in favor of their own party: but as they were men of the greatest knowledge in the tongues that were then to be found in the nation, and doubtless were vastly superior to any of our learned men that pretend in this day to correct them, and that they did translate into, &c. from the same Greek word that they used to translate into from; therefore; I shall believe them, if a thousand reverends tells me to the contrary. But if these men may translate the bible as they please, what argument can they not gain? And now it appears from Acts 8 38.39. that sprinkling is not according to the inititution: and it also appears by the [...] in the foregoing, that the the infants of believers, as such, are not the subjects of the institution. Nor can they say they [...] covenant, as in Mat. 2 [...].19. In the [...] of the [...], and of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, according to the institution. Now if it were comanded of [Page]believers, why they do not comply with the institution? Will it do to say, some minister or other pretended to baptize me? And what else can they say? — Now, that we may find what is the TRUTH, and practice accordingly, is the sincere desire of

Your's, &c. Joseph Brown.

§

Thus I have made some observations on every argument respecting baptism, that I think worthy of notice; but give me leave to mention one which I think not worth notice, which was expressed in these words, viz.

‘That doctrine which infers all infants to be in the visible kingdom of satan, is certainly false doctrine: —But the doctrine that denies all infants to be members of the visible church, infers them to be members of the visible kingdom of satan; therefore it is false doctrine.’ I hope this argument was not put to make people think that baptism was regeneration, nor to scare some old woman or other into their principle. But in answer, I suppose you won't pretend that satan has a kingdom upon earth, into which he takes in and casts out members: but they who submit to baptism without a right, are more exposed to the kingdom of satan than those who are not baptized at all; for they who are not true believers in Christ, not having their wills bowed, will certainly be rejected of Christ, while they who are true believers in Christ, will be received to glory, babtized or not. AMEN.

§

[Page]

NOW suffer me to say something respecting the unreasonableness of compelling the people of one persuasion to hear or support the ministers of another. Can a person who has been redeemed, be so ungrateful as to hire a minister to preach up a doctrine which in his heart he believes to be directly contrary to the institution of his redeemer? Now if one of you should happen to be in company with a number of Roman Catholicks, who should tell you that if you would not hire a minister to preach up transubstantiation, and the worshipping of images to your children and to an unthinking people, they would cut off your head; could you do it? Can you any better submit to hire a minister to preach up a doctrine which you in your heart believe directly contrary to the institution of Christ? I do not doubt but that many of you, and do not know but that all of you know what it is to experience redeeming love: and if so, how can you take a person of another persuasion, and put him in goal for a trifling sum, destroy his estate and ruin his family (as you signify the law will bear you out) when he is careful to support the religion which he in his conscience looks upon to be right, who honestly tells you it is wronging his conscience to pay to your minister, and that he may not do it though he suffer? Mat. 18 33. Should you not have had compassion on thy fellow servant, even as I had pity on thee? How doth it seem to a people of another persuasion, to have you say, hire me a minister to preach up my doctrines to myself [Page]and my children, and to all the people.— What, hire a minister to preach up a doctrine directly against our opinion! May we not as well do it ourselves, and that would be lying in us, and knowingly contradicting our Saviour. Do you grudge to support your own minister, so far as he is faithful in what you say is your Saviour's religion? Mat. 10.8. Freely ye have received, freely give. What if a number of children, on the request of a father, should say one to another, Do you do it; and do you do it; and I wish brother you would do it? Is it not shame— Are we sharers in redemption, and do we grudge to support religion? No: let us seek for the truth of the gospel. If we can't think alike, let us not be cruel one to another, but remember the words of our Saviour, Mat. 18.33 and 25.40. Inasmuch as ye have done it to one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.— And for a conclusion— If any, or all of you, are offended at these things, I intreat you forbear. O! come let us strive to pattern after our Saviour, honestly meaning to enlighten each other: He, when he was reviled, buffetted, spit on, and nailed to the cross, and mocked, cried, FATHER, FORGIVE.

FINIS.

Notes

‖

See his sermons. pag. 37.

↵

§

§

ERRATA. Pag. 6. last Line, for as, read is.

Information about this book

Title statement

An examination into the principles of baptism. In a letter to the infant baptizers of North-Parish, in New-London. / By J----n B---n. ; [Four lines of quotations]

Brown, Joseph.

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI :

Date

2011-05.

ID [DLPS]

N08279

ID [TCP]

N08279

ID [STC]

Evans 10571

ID [NOTIS]

APW4709

ID [IMAGE-SET]

10571

ID [EVANS-CITATION]

99010733

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early American Imprints, 1639-1800 ; no. 10571.

Notes

(Evans-TCP ; no. N08279)

Transcribed from: (Readex Archive of Americana ; Early American Imprints, series I ; image set 10571)

Images scanned from Readex microprint and microform: (Early American imprints. First series ; no. 10571)

Source

— An examination into the principles of baptism. In a letter to the infant baptizers of North-Parish, in New-London. / By J----n B---n. ; [Four lines of quotations], Brown, Joseph., Brown, Joseph, 1730-1803., Brown, Joseph, 1741-1810..

Extent

23, [1] p. ; 18 cm. (8vo)

Printed [by Timothy Green] for the author.,. New-London [Conn.]: :: 1767.. (Signed on p. 21: Joseph Brown. Attributed to Joseph Brown (1730-1803), pastor at Horseley-Down and Deptford in England, by Starr and by Johnson. However, the American Antiquarian Society copy has a manuscript note attributing it to Joseph Brown (1741-1810), pastor at Winchendon, Mass.) (Errata statement, p. 23.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.