Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty Land Warrant Application File W. 4004, for Frederick Johnston, South Carolina
Page 1

SERVICE
S.C.
Johnston, Frederick
or
Johnson
Eda

NUMBER
W. 4004
Page 2

18.557
North Carolina
in 1783 d. May 1888
Frederick Johnston
of Wilkes Co in the State of N. Carolina
who was a private in the Regiment commanded by
Colonel Moultrie of the S. Carolina
line, for the term of 18 months
from Nov 4 '75 to July 8 1778
See Roll SC Line
Inscribed on the Roll of North Carolina
at the rate of 8 Dollars per month, to commence on
the 16th of October 1821.
Certificate of Pension issued the 17 of Apr 1822
and sent to Hon. M. Stokes
Senate U. States
Arrears to 4th of March 1822-   37.16
Semi anl. all'ce ending 4 Sept. 1822.   48.00
$ 85.16
4 mos 20/31
Revolutionary claim,
Act 18th March, 1818
21st May 1822
Wilkes County

End Nov 4 75 dcsd July 8 78 on roll S.C. line

12
12
 8
---
32

See letter 13 Dec. 1828 to Hon. S. P. Carson - Dcsd See letter to
Hon. A. S. Clayton Aug. 6. 1834
Page 3

2927
North Carolina
Eda Johnson
widow of Frederick Johnson S.C.
who served in the Revolutionary war as a private
Inscribed on the Roll at the rate of
80 Dollars --
Cents per annum, to commence on 
the 4th day of March, 1848
Certificate of Pension issued the
11 day of Jany 1849
and sent to James Roberts
Swangstown
N.C.
Recorded on Roll of Pensioners under act
February 2, 1848, Page 217 Vol. 1

Reported
Jany 11/49
Page 4

Frederick Johnston
priv
16th Oct 1821
Col. Moultrie's
South Carolina Regt
1775 - 3 yrs

on roll in
2d. So: Carolina
Regt Col. Marion

Admitted

Rutherford Co.
Rutherfordtown S.C.
14th Nov 1821

Hon. M. Stokes
Senate

Col. Benjamin Bradley Member
in the General Assembly
At Raleigh N.C.
Page 5

Col. Bradly I was instructed by some
person to hand you this Petition
but was not informed of its object.
you will therefore make it part
of your business to inquire of some
Gentleman better informed than
myself and if any thing is to be done
with it at this session be so good as
to attend to it and we will call on
the old man at some present time
for Polsqa[?] & forth.
Yours most respectfully Samegalla[?]
Page 6

State of North Carolina
Rutherford County ss
Superior Court of Law 3d Monday
After the 4th Monday in Sept. 1821
This day came Frederick Johnston aged sixty
six years old into open Court being a Court of
record for the County and State aforesaid and
States that he is a resident of said County
and has been for the term of thirty one years
last past a resident Citizen of the State & County aforesaid and
that he was on the 18th of March A.D. 1818 and has ever since
been a Citizen of the United States and he does further sware
on his Oath taken in open Court according to Law that
he enlisted in the year Seventeen hundred & Seventy five
into the Company of Captain William Mason of the
Second South Carolina regiment commanded by Colonel
Commandant Moutries that he was soon after his enlistment
transfered from the said William Masons company
to Captain John Blakes Company of the said Regiment in
the South Carolina line on the Continental establishment.
that his enlistment was for the term of three years
which time he served out and was honorably discharged
by Colonel Isaac Molt of said Regiment in the year
1778 or 1779 at Charleston South Carolina that he
has lost his discharge and that he has no other evidence
of his said Service in his power that he was in Several
skirmishes and the battle of Fort Moultrie on Sulivans Island
and that he now makes this declaration for the purpose of
obtaining a pension from his government under several
acts of Congress passed for the benefit of persons engaged
in the land and naval service of the United States during
the Revolutionary war, and I do further solemnly
sware that I was a Resident Citizen of the United States on the
18th day of March 1818. And that I have not since that 
time by gift sale, or in any manner whatsoever disposed
of my property or any part thereof with intent so to diminish
it, as to bring myself within the provisions of
an Act of Congress Entitled an Act to provide for
Page 7

certain persons engaged in the Land Services of the United
States in the Revolutionary war passed on the eighteenth day
of March eighteen hundred and eighteen, and that I
have not, nor has any person in trust for me, any property
or securities contracts or debts due to me nor have I
any income other than what is contained in the Scedule
hereto annexed and by me Subscribed that I am by trade
a farmer but old and infirm and unable to do much for
my livelihood that I have an old wife infirm and
allmost helpless fifty odd years old with no other person
to work for me but a little girl thirteen years of age
not able to do much for the support of herself and family
That my property is as contained in the following Skedule 
to wit 100 acres of poor land worth about ... $70
1 small horse worth about ... 25
1 cow & calf & 2 yearlings worth ... 20
6 shoats 1 sow & 2 Barrows ... 10
Home Table Furniture ... 2
Kitchen Furniture ... 2
Farming tools ... 3
Beds and furniture ... 15
Table and Chairs ... 2
1 old chest ... :25
[line]
$154:25     $154:25
his
Frederick Johnston
mark

Sworn to in Open Court
this 16th day of October 1821
before me James Morris Clk

State of North Carolina
Rutherford County ss
I James Morris Clerk of said
Superior Court of Law do hereby certify that the 
above is a true copy of the statement of Frederick Johnston
and schedule thereunto annexed was made in open
Court on oath duly administered that the Judge presiding
was satisfied that the value of the property contained
in the said Schedule is only one hundred and fifty
four dollars and twenty five cents (turn over)
Page 8

In testimony of the foregoing being a just and true
copy transcribed from the original filed in this office
I hereunto set my hand and have affixed the public
County Seal of Office thereto this 10th day of November
A.D. 1821. And of the 46th year of the Independance
James Morris Clk
Page 9

Eda Johnson's
Declaration
For
a Pension
No 7359
Page 10

State of North Carolina
Rutherford County SS
Court of Pleas & quarter session
July term 1840. On this 16 day
Personally came Eda Johnson
into Court aged 72 years who being sworn 
according to Law doth on her oath make the following Declaration
in order to obtain the benefit of the provision made by
the act of Congress passed July 7th 1838. Entitled "an act
granting half pay and pensions to certain widows" That she is the
widow of Fedric Johnson who was a private Soldier in the war
of the revolution in the Continental establishment and that he
was late a pensioner in conformity with the Law of the
United States of the 18th March 1818: 1th May 1820: or 1th March 1823
.. And that he was inscribed on the pension List Roll of the
North Carolina agency at the rate of Eight Dollars per month ..
She further declars that she was married to the said Fedric
Johnson in the year Seventeen hundred and Eighty three
and that her husban the aforesaid Fedric Johnson died on the
15th day of May 1831 .. and that she was not married to him
prior to his leaving the Service, but the marriage took place
previous to the first of January Seventeen hundred and ninety
four. viz. at the time above stated
her
Eda Johnson
mark

Sworn to and Subscribed on the day & year above
written before the court aforesaid
Jno Mills C Harman
Page 11

State of North Carolina
Rutherford County SS
I William Wilkins Clerk of the Court of Pleas
and Quarter Sessions for the County of Rutherford do certify
that Eda Johnson whose name is signed to the within
declaration and Willis Johnson whose name is signed
to the Affidavit herewith attached came into open Court
and after being duly sworn according to law made
oath that the statements respectively signed by each of
them is true as the facts are therein stated, and the Court
declare it as their opinion that said Eda Johnson is the widow
of Frederic Johnson who was a Revolutionary Soldier & Pensioner
as set forth in her Declaration and that she was married at the
time set forth. And that said Willis Johnson is a man of 
good character and that his affidavit is entitled to credit.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto 
affixed the Seal of Said Court at office at
the Court House at Rutherfordton and subscribed
my name during the July Term and on 
the 16 day of July AD 1840
William Wilkins Clk
Page 12

North Carolina
Rutherford County ss
Court of Common Pleas
July Term 1840
Willis Johnson maketh oath that the accompanying
book is the family record of the birth of the
children of Frederic Johnson & Eda his wife
whose declaration it accompanies. that it has
been in the possession of his Father from affiants
youth until his fathers death and since his death
on [???] of his mother Eda Johnson and that it
has not been any way altered and he knew of
except the addition of a name. He further swears that it
is in the handwriting of [???] Moore now of the
state of Georgia, and that he saw said Moore
write the entries at request of his father the said
Frederic Johnson. He further swears that it is the
only family record he ever knew of his fathers family
Sworn to in open court
William Wilkins Clk
16th July 1840
Page 13

W Johnson's
affidavit

Eda Johnson
Can
Page 14

Anoure
Anth[illegible]
money
[illegible]

J pres[illegible]
a Cost to be paid
to B J [illegible]
Received M[illegible]

[inverted printed page]
ANTS

Pastor and Mi-
seemed natural to
to account for that
oved the occasion

and Dr. Williams,
er has my acknow-
ions. As Mr. B
the Baptist scheme,
his book has ope-
trary to the design

to the reader in the
hibited to my own
deavored to avoid
the truth has been
at should divert the
shing that you and I
dge of Christ, I re-

mon Lord,

ER EDWARDS.
Page 15

[illegible] Andersons
Alma

[inverted]
and the seal w

[printed title page, damaged]
CANDID REASONS
FOR
RENOUNCING THE PRINCIPL
OF
ANTIPAEDOBAPTI
ALSO,
AN APPENDIX
CONTAINING
A SHORT METHOD WITH

BY PETER

SEVERAL YEARS PASTO
AT PORT

FOURTH AM

PRINTED FOR THE

[inverted writing]
Anderson Wom
Page 16

TO THE
CHURCH AND CONGREGATION,
MEETING IN WHITE'S ROW, PORTSEA HANTS.
DEARLY BELOVED
AFTER officiating among you as Pastor and Minister
between ten and eleven years, it seemed natural to
address you in a publication intended to account for that
change of sentiment in me, which has proved the occasion
of our separation.
Two eminent writers, Mr. Booth and Dr. Williams,
have both contributed to this. The latter has my acknowledgements,
the former my animadversions. As Mr. B.
had no design to discover the fallacy of the Baptist scheme,
I thought it proper to show in what way his book has operated,
and is likely still to operate, contrary to the design
of the author.
I have presented the whole scheme to the reader in the same
point of view in which it was exhibited to my own
mind. In composing it, I have endeavored to avoid
every thing foreign and bitter; that, as the truth has been
my object, I wished to say nothing that should divert the
attention of the reader from it. Wishing that you and I
may grow in grace, and in the knowledge of Christ, I remain
in the same esteem and love,
Your's, in our common Lord,
PETER EDWARDS.
PORTSEA
JAN. 12, 1795,

[inverted writing]
Anderson Womack
Page 17

[hand-written]
Penny
[illegible]

[printed table of contents]
CONTENTS.
I. AN Introduction, wherein the Question is fairly stated ... 5
II. The Arguments of the Baptists against Infant Baptism -
1. From the want of express Precept, &c ... 11
2. From their want of Faith and Repentance ... 21
III. Arguments in favor of Infant Baptism -
1. From the Institution of their Membership ... 33
2. From the Continuance of that Institution ... 39
IV. A Scheme of the whole Controversy ... 72
V. Remarks on that Scheme; wherein the only argument of Mr. BOOTH against the continuance of Infant Membership is refuted ... 73
VI. An Appendix, in which the whole System of the Baptists is overthrown by Consequences ... 89
VII. The Mode of Baptism; wherein the Force of the Term, the Circumstances and Allusions are considered ... 121
VIII. The Practical Use of Paedobaptism ... 143

[printed text]
The Introduction;
CONTAINING A FAIR STATEMENT OF THE INQUIRY.
THESIS I.

[hand-written]
D A J L onse
and Hoeed [illegible]
is [illegible]

[printed text]
THE only thing which, in any dispute, should engage
our attention, is this, "What is truth?" And he who
wishes to find it, will endeavor to adopt that plan which
will bring him soonest to that he seeks. There are two
things, in all matters of controversy, which greatly facilitate
our search, first, that we set aside all these things
about which we are agreed, and fix our attention to that
only on which a difference of opinion may fall; and,
secondly, that this difference be stated in a manner the
most plain and simple. To either of which, no person
who seeks the truth can form the least objection.
THESIS II.
As this inquiry lies between those who pass under the
denomination of Paedobaptists and Antipaedobaptists, it
will be proper, in order to ascertain wherein they differ
on the subject of baptism, to give the sentiments of each.
Antipaedobaptists consider those persons as meet subjects
of baptism who are supposed to possess faith in Christ,
and those only. Paedobaptists agree with them in this,
that believers are proper subjects of baptism, but deny
that such only are proper subjects. They think, that, together
with such believing adults who have not yet been
baptised, their infants have a right to baptism as well as
their parents.
I have lately conversed with many Baptists, who knew
so little of the sentiment of their brethren, that they supposed
adult baptism was entirely rejected by Paedobaptists;
and when I endeavored, from their confessions of
B
Page 18

6
INTRODUCTION.
faith, &c. to convince my Baptist friends that they held
adult baptism as well as themselves, some believed and
marvelled, but others remained in doubt.
THESIS III.
From this view of the sentiments of each, it appears
that both parties are agreed on the article of adult baptism,
which must therefore be set aside as a matter entirely
out of dispute; for it can answer no good purpose for
one to prove what the other will not deny. Now, seeing
they are so far of one mind, (I speak of the subject, not of
the mode) the difference between them concerns infants
only, and the simple question which remains to be decided
is this, Are infants fit subjects of baptism, or are
they not? On this question the whole turns. The Paedobaptists
affirm, and Antipaedobaptists deny.
THESIS IV.
The simple question being as I have now stated it,
Are infants fit subjects of baptism, or are they not? it
will clearly follow, that all those places which relate to
believers' baptism, can prove nothing on the side of Baptists;
and the reason is, they have no relation to the
question. To illustrate this, I ask a Baptist, Is an infant
a fit subject of baptism? No; says he. Wherefore? Because
the Scriptures say, Repent and be baptised -- If
thou believest, thou mayest. I interpose, and say, Your
answer is not in point. I asked, is an infant a fit subject
of baptism? You answer by telling me that a penitent
adult is such; but as I asked no question concerning an
adult, the answer is nothing at all to the purpose. If I
should ask whether an infant were a creature of the rational
kind, would it be a good answer if any person
should say, that adults were of that description? No answer
can be good, if it do not directly relate to the question
proposed; for then, properly speaking, it is no answer
to the question. And therefore, if I ask whether an infant
is a proper subject of baptism, and another should bring
twenty places to prove the propriety of baptising adults,
as all this would be nothing to the question, so nothing
would be proved thereby, either for or against.

INTRODUCTION.
We may from hence estimate the neat strength of each
party, as they respect one another. The Paedobaptist has
just so much strength against a Baptist, as his arguments
weigh on the affirmative, and no more; and the Baptist
has no more strength against him, but as his arguments
weigh on the negative. Whatever arguments a Baptist
may bring to evince infant baptism to be wrong, whether
they be many or few, good or bad, it is all his strength;
he has not a grain more on his side. For as it lies on
neither of these to prove adult baptism, it being a thing
professed and used by both, and is therefore no subject of
dispute those arguments that prove it can have no place
here. This being carefully observed, we shall see which
of these has the fairest pretension to truth.
THESIS V.
Whatever may in reality be the force of argument
on either side respecting this question, there can be no
doubt but that side is the true one on which the arguments
are found to preponderate. If the arguments for
infant baptism are stronger than any that can be produced
against it, then infant baptism must be right; and so the
easy and sure way of coming to a decision is, to collect
arguments on both sides, try their validity, and compare
them together. This, in the fear of God, I shall
endeavor to do. First, I will set down the arguments
against infant baptism, and examine them as I proceed;
and then those which make for it; and after that, I will
compare them together in opposite columns. By this
process, which is the fairest I am acquainted with, we
shall see whether Baptists or Paedobaptists have the truth
on their side.
The whole import of these propositions is -- That both
parties agree about adult baptism-- That when a Baptist
has proved adult baptism, he has proved nothing against
a Paedobaptist--that the only question being this, Are
infants fit subjects of baptism, or are they not? it is evident
that those passages of Scripture which prove adult
baptism will not answer this question, and that arguments
for and against being compared, that side is the
true one on which they preponderate.
B 2
Page 19

8
INTRODUCTION.
If any thing can make this matter plainer, and I wish
it to be made plain, perhaps the introduction of a short
familiar dialogue may do it. We will therefore suppose
a conversation between a Baptist and a Pardobaptist; the
Baptist speaking as follows:
Bap. I wonder very much you should not agree with
me in sentiment, respecting the subjects of baptism.
Paedo. There is nothing in this to wonder at, since
we all see but in part; it is our happiness to believe to
the saving of the soul.
Bap. That which makes me wonder is this, that the
sentiment I hold is so clearly revealed in Scripture.
Paedo. What sentiment is that you hold, and which
you say is so clearly revealed in Scripture?
Bap. I hold what is commonly called believers' baptism;
or, that it is right to baptise a person professing
faith in Christ.
Paedo. If that be your sentiment, I grant it is clearly
revealed; but in this we are agreed, it is my sentiment
as well as your's.
Bap. But this is not the whole of my sentiment. I
meant to have said, that it is wrong to baptise infants.
Paedo. Then you and I differ only about infants.
Bap. If you grant adult baptism to be right, it is only
about infants we differ.
Paedo. I do grant it. And then do you mean to say,
that it is clearly revealed in Scripture that it is wrong to
baptise infants?
Bap. I do mean to say that.
Paedo. How do you prove it?
Bap. I prove it by Acts viii. 37. If thou believest
with all thine heart, thou mayest.
Paedo. You have indeed proved believers' baptism to be
right; but I asked you, how you proved infant baptism
to be wrong?
Bap. Must not infant baptism be wrong, if believers'
baptism be right?
Paedo. No more than believers' baptism must be wrong,
if infant baptism be right. Would you think I had proved
that infants would be lost, by proving that believing adults
would be saved?

INTRODUCTION.
Bap. Certainly I should not.
Paedo. Why?
Bap. Because the question would be only about infants;
and we cannot infer the loss of an infant from the
salvation of a believing adult.
Paedo. Very true. Then that which proves infant
baptism wrong, must not be the same that proves adult
baptism to be right.
Bap. I grant it, and think there is sufficient proof
against it beside.
Paedo. This is the very point. You produce your
proof against it, and I will produce mine for it. If your
proof be found stronger against, than mine for you have
truth on your side; if not, the truth is on mine.
Bap. Nothing can be more fair, and I am willing to
put it to the test.
B 3

[hand-written]
Willis Johnson
18 years   OLD
Willis Johnson
1805
Page 20

[hand-written]
Willis Johnson was
born 17th Feby 1786
Joson Johnson born 29th April 1788
James Jonson born, 18th March 1790
[illegible] Jonson born 2 June 1793
Brock Jonson born 18th Octob 1799
Lefe Jonson, born 27 March 1801
Mary Willis Johnson
Was Born August 4
189

[printed]
CHAPTER I.
THIS CHAPTER WILL CONTAIN ARGUMENTS AGAINST
INFANT BAPTISM ... OF THESE THERE ARE TWO
ONLY; FOR WHATEVER MAY BE URGED, WILL
FALL UNDER ONE OR OTHER OF THESE.
ARGUMENT I.
A person who has a right to a positive institute must be expressly
mentioned as having that right; but infants are
not so mentioned, therefore they have not that right.
As the whole force of this argument turns upon the
words [italics]express and [italics]explicit, which Baptist writers
commonly use, the reader, in order to form a just opinion
upon the subject, should clearly understand their import;
and since I shall often have occasion to use them, the
reader will meet with an explanation of the term 'explicit'
in another place. At present it will be sufficient to say,
that both these terms stand opposed to inference, analogy
and implication; and when the Baptists say there is no
express command for infant baptism, they mean there is no
command 'in so many words,' as 'thou shalt baptise infants,'
or something equivalent. This being premised, I
say of the argument, it is assuming, contracted false. It
is very assuming, because it seems to dictate to the everblessed
God in what manner he ought to speak to his creatures.
Since it is no where contained in his word, and he
knows best how to communicate his mind to men, it little
becomes such creatures as we are to lay down rules by
which he shall proceed. To such who thus assume, if
may properly be said, "Who hath known the mind of
the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? For of him
and through him, and to him are all things, to whom
be glory for ever. Amen."
It is very contracted, because it supposes we cannot inderstand
what God says, but when he speaks to us in one
Page 21

12
ARGUMENTS AGAINST
particular way. Certain it is, that the most important
things are set forth in Scripture in many different ways,
and we may come at the truth by an indirect, as certainly
as by a direct expression, e. g. "When the apostle says
that he was caught up into the third heaven, I certainly
know there is a first and a second, though I no where had
read expressly off any such thing." But what is most
material, I affirm that
It is very false. Because, (to wave other instances and
fix on one only) a subject is admitted to a positive institute,
and that admission is according to truth, and so held and
practised by all who use Christian rites, when yet there
is no express law or example to support it in all the word
of God. It is the case of women to which I allude, and
their admission to the Lord's table.
I acknowledge it is right to admit them, and so do all
who use the Lord's Supper; but as to express law or example,
there is no such thing in Scripture. If it be said,
that women are fit subjects of baptism--that they are calpable
of religious advantages--that they have a right to
church membership, and therefore a right to the Lord's
Supper-- I grant it, and then the argument is false; for if
women are admitted because they are fit subjects of 
baptism, &c. they are admitted by something which is not
express law or example. But the argument I am opposing
says, "A person who has a right to positive institutes,
must be expressly mentioned as having that right." Now,
if women are not so mentioned with respect to the Supper,
the practice of admitting them is wrong, or this argument
is false. This argument indeed is false; the practice
is by no means wrong. And to show the fallacy of
the Baptist system at large, I will undertake, in the sequel,
to prove that, upon the principles and reasonings of the
Baptists, a woman, however qualified, can have no right
whatever to the Lord's table.
There is no express command or example for infant
baptism! This being a favorite argument with Baptists,
and the case of women, in this respect, being the same as
that of infants, they will not suffer an instance so fatal to
their system to pass by, without making an effort to overturn
it. They know very well, (I mean the thinking part

13
INFANT BAPTISM.
especially those who write) that they cannot maintain this
argument against infants, without producing an explicit
warrant for female communion. They therefore affirm,
that the Scriptures afford such a warrant, and that it is
found in 1 Cor. xi. 28. "Let a man (Anthropos) examine
himself, and so let him eat of that bread," &c. It is certainly
here, or no where. I have known many who took
this for an express word for women. I did so myself for
some years, till Mr. Booth's attempt to prove it convinced
me of the contrary.
An express word, in the present case, must be one that
specifies the sex; as Acts viii. 12. they were baptised,
both men and women," (Andres kaigunaikes.) But I ask,
is Anthropos an express word for a woman? Mr. Booth affirms
it is. Take it in his own words, vol. 2, p. 73. "In
regard to the supposed want of an explicit warrant for admitting
women to the holy table, we reply by demanding,
Does not Paul, when he says, Let a man examine himself,
and so let him eat, enjoin a reception of the sacred Supper?
Does not the term Anthropos, there used, often stand as a
name of our species, without regard to sex? Have we not
the authority of lexicographers, and, which is incomparably
more, the sanction of common sense, for understanding
it thus in that passage? When the sexes are distinguished
and opposed, the word for a man is not Anthropos, but
Aneer." This is all about the word, except a quotation,
which is not material.
The reader is desired to observe, that as Mr. B. has undertaken
to produce an explicit warrant for female communion,
he can derive no help from analogy, or inference,
or any thing of that kind. The words he brings for proof
must contain their own unequivocal evidence, independent
of every other consideration. If this be not the case, his
explicit warrant is a mere fiction.
Now for the explicit warrant. Mr. B. says, "Does not
Paul, when he says, Let a man examine himself, and so let
him eat, enjoin a reception of the sacred Supper?" True.
"Does not the term Anthropos, there used, often stand as a
name of our species, without regard to sex?" True,
again. Observe this, OFTEN STAND! Not always. Does
Mr. B. take this for an explicit warrant? What a demon-
Page 22

14
ARGUMENTS AGAINST
stration! And how full to the point! But Mr. B. says it
stands so in the text. How does he know it? Why, he
has two evidences of this ... a lexicographer, i.e. a 
dictionary-maker, and common sense. Common sense, he
says, is the best of the two. However, I will take them
together, and proceed to ask, How do they know that the
term Anthropos stands in this text as a name of our species?
They must know it either from the word itself, or from
some other ground. That they cannot know it from the
word itself, is evident by this single consideration, that a
boy who reads his Greek Testament, may meet with the
word a hundred times, where the female sex can by no
means be intended; nay, he may find it used several
times, though Mr. B. could not, to distinguish the male
from the female. Where then is its explicitness? He says
it is often used as a name of our species. And is not our
English word 'Man,' used in the same way? Would Mr.
B. take that to be an explicit word for a woman? If the
word 'man' be often used for a name of our species, as 
well as Anthropos, then one is just as explicit a word for
a woman as the other; and so Mr. B. might as well have
fixed on the English word for an explicit one, as the
Greek. But had he done this, it would have ruined his
book, and he has only escaped under the covert of a
Greek term. If then it cannot be known from the word
itself that females are intended, it matters not in what
other way we know it, the Baptist argument is entirely
ruined and lost.
But Mr. B. in the next sentence, will urge the matter
further, and boldly affirm, that "when the sexes are distinguished
and opposed, the word for a man is not Anthropos,
but Aneer." I know not what Mr. B. expected to prove
by this assertion; for if it were true, I see not how it is to
help him in respect to his explicit warrant; but as it is
false, it cannot help him in any form, except it be to make
him more cautious in future. This assertion, if it proceeded
from ignorance, is, in a reader and writer like Mr.
B. far too bad; if it did not proceed from ignorance, it is
far worse. I am willing to suppose the former, and acquit
him of the latter.

INFANT BAPTISM.  15
Against this assertion of Mr. B. I will now place nineteen
instances; in every one of which there is a distinction
and opposition of the sexes, and the word for a man is
not Aneer, but Anthropos. Some of these are in the Septuagint,
and others in the New Testament. Gen. ii. 24.
"Therefore shall a man (Anthropos) leave his father and
his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife." Gen. xxvi.
11. "And Abimelech charged all his people, saying,
He that toucheth this man, (Anthropou] or his wife,
shall surely be put to death. Gen. xxxiv. 14. "And
Simeon and Levi, the brethren of Dinah, said, We
cannot do this thing, to give our SISTER to one (Anthropo)
that is uncircumcised." Deut. xx. 7. "And what
man (Anthropos) is there that hath betrothed a wife, and
hath not taken her?" Deut. xvii. 5. "Then shalt thou
bring forth that man, (Anthropon) or that WOMAN." Jer.
xliv. 7. "Wherefore commit ye this great evil against
your souls, to cut off from you man (Anthropon) and
WOMAN, child and suckling?" For other instances in the
Septua. see Gen. ii. 18. Lev. xix. 20. Num. xxv. 8.
Deut. xxi. 15, 22, 30 Esther, iv. 11.
Matt. xix. 10. "His disciples say unto him--If the
case of the man (Anthropou) be so with his WIFE, it is not
good to marry." Matt. xix. 4. "The Pharisees also
came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it
lawful for a man (Anthopo) to put away his WIFE for
every cause?" Mark x. 7. " For this cause shall a man
(Anthropos) leave his father and mother, and cleave to
his wife. I Cor. vii. I. "Now, concerning the things
whereof ye wrote unto me, it is good for a man (Anthropo)
not to touch a woman." Matt. xix. 5. "For this
cause shall a man (Anthropos) leave father and mother,
and shall cleave to his wife." Rev. ix. 7, 8, "And their
faces were as the faces of men (Anthropon;) and they
had hair as the hair of women. Eph. v. 31. "For this
cause shall a man (Anthropos) leave his father and mother,
and shall be joined unto his wife."
After I had collected some of these instances, which I
have here set down, I mentioned the sentence of Mr. B.
and likewise the instances which lay against it, to a Baptist
minister, who happened to be at my house. He there-
Page 23

16
ARGUMENTS AGAINST
upon took the Greek Testament, and read those places to
which I directed him. When he had done this, he was
greatly surprised at the incautiousness of Mr. B. and at
the same time made the best apology for him which the
case would admit of. I then observed, that had Mr. B.
affirmed that Aneer was more commonly used to distinguish
the sexes than Anthropos, he would have been right.
Yes, said he, but that would not have answered Mr. B's
purpose. Which indeed was very true; for he having
all through his book insisted, that infants should not be
baptised because there was no express warrant for it, was
compelled, by his own reasoning, to bring forward an explicit
warrant for female communion. And when he
comes to prove that there is such a warrant in Scripture
for female right to the Lord's Supper, he first of all falls
upon presumptive proof... "Does not the term Anthropos
often stand as a name of our species?" As if he had said,
If this word often stand as a name of our species, I presume
it is possible it may so stand in this text. In the
next place he falls upon inferential proof, and sets a lexicographer
and common sense to infer, (for they could do
no other) that so it must mean in the text. And lastly,
to make it still worse, he falls upon an evident falsehood,
when he says, that when the sexes are distinguished and
opposed, the word for a man is not Anthropos, but Aneer.
This is all Mr. B. is pleased to give the reader, instead of
an explicit warrant, presumption, inference and falsehood;
and if either he or any of his readers can satisfy themselves
with such an explicit warrant as this, they can
neither of them be esteemed very nice in this article.
But to set Mr. B. and his explicit warrant in a clear
point of light, the reader has only to contemplate those
two facts, which have just passed under his eye; namely,
that Anthropos is often used as a name of our species, as
Mr. B. affirms; and likewise, that it is often used to distinguish
one sex from the other. Now, with these two facts,
in view, (viz. Anthropos is often used as a name of our species,
and often it is not so used) if a question be started
concerning its meaning in any text, let it be 1 Cor. xi. 28,
the reader will see at once that it is no explicit word, because
he will stand in need of a third thing, to determine

INFANT BAPTISM.   17
in what sense it is used there; whereas, if the word were
explicit, nothing else would be necessary to fix the sense.
Now, as the facts weigh on both sides, OFTEN against
OFTEN, and as the reader wants a third thing to settle the
import of the word in this text, I ask, What is this third
thing? Lexicographers and common sense, says Mr. B. --
Nay, no ambiguity, sir; we are now talking of explicitness.
Why did you not say, analogy and inference? Shocking!
What! give up the cause at once! But what, I say again,
is this third thing? Is Mr. B. afraid of telling? I wish,
however, he would write again, and say in plain terms
what it is. Is it what you speak of in the latter part of
the defence, viz. "that women have the same pre-requisites
as men and that male and female are one in Christ?"
Very good--Proceed--Therefore, I say, go on; do not
be afraid; this will bring you safe to your conclusion; for
it is only analogy and inference. Inference and analogy!
and upon a positive institute too! I cannot bear the terms.
I would much rather call them lexicographers and common
sense; for were I to call them inference and analogy,
it would ruin my whole book. It is very true, Mr. B.;
but at the same time, is it not better your book should be
ruined by plain dealing, than that your reputation should
seem to be stained by acting an artful part? But after all,
here is a third thing wanting to settle the meaning of this
ambiguous word. And what in the world does it signify
by what name we call this third thing? For whether we
name it analogy, or inference, or lexicographer, or common
sense, (which two last are Mr. B's names, as he could
not bear the others on a positive institute) it comes still
to the same thing; it shows that this is no explicit word
for females, and consequently, as there is no other, this
argument is ruined.
What I have now animadverted upon, is all Mr. B. says
that can even pretend to evince an explicit warrant. But
since the whole of it, upon his principles, is as curious a
defence of female right to the Lord's table, as ever was
presented to the public, I will pay him the compliment
of surveying it, and taking it to pieces, in due time and
place. In the mean time, I do not blame Mr. B. for not
being able to produce an explicit warrant for women; it
Page 24

18   ARGUMENTS AGAINST
is what no man is able to do; but I do blame him for
using such reasoning as he has done, and then passing it
upon the public under the colour of explicit proof.
It is a common opinion that Baptists and Paedobaptists
do reason differently on positive institutes; that the former
invariably insist upon express proof, while the latter
admit the force of inferential reasoning. It is true they
profess to reason differently, and they actually do sometimes;
but then it is only according to the mood they
may be in, and the matter they may have in hand. Let
the matter of debate be a little varied, and they reason on
positive institutes precisely in the same way.
I have taken the liberty, in time past, to ask Paedobatists
why they baptised their infants? One has told me,
that infants were circumcised, and therefore should now
be baptised; inferring their baptism from circumcision.
Another has told me, that our Lord took infants into his
arms, and blessed them, and said they were of the kingdom
of heaven; so inferring the baptism from the language
and conduct of Christ. At hearing this, the Baptists
smile, and think it a very foolish reasoning.
I have also taken the liberty to ask Baptists, why they
admitted women to the Lord's table? One informed me
that women were partakers of the grace of God; inferring
their right to communicate from their grace.
Another told me, that women had been baptised; and
inferred their right to the supper from their baptism. A
third gave me to understand, that women did eat of the
paschal lamb; and from thence inferred their right to the
Lord's table. A fourth told me, that women were creatures
of God, as well as men; and so inferred their right
from their creation. These Baptists did all infer, and, as
Mr. B. says of Paedobaptists, not feeling the ground on
which they stood, they agreed in one conclusion, but did
not agree in the premises from which it should be drawn.
It may perhaps be said that these persons did not possess
logical exactness; that they were not aware of the
impropriety of demanding plain, express, unequivocal
proof; and then, as it suited their convenience, flying directly
to inference, implication and analogy; and that
too on a positive ordinance. I grant they were plain 
persons, and did not see the inconsistency of this conduct.

INFANT BAPTISM.   19
Well, we will betake ourselves to men of skill, to those
who are acquainted with logical precision, and then let
us see how they act in this business. What think you of
Mr. Booth, as a man of erudition and logical attainment?
Does Mr. B. say you, employ inferential reasoning on a
positive institute? Nothing in the world more certain.
What! Mr. B.; he who has written so many hundred
pages with a view to expose it? Yes; that indentical Mr. B.
to the reproach of all consistency, does, in that very work,
when sad necessity compels, even deal in this same inferential
reasoning. I will not evidence this now, since I
have promised to notice his whole defence of women in a
more proper place.
All I am concerned to do in this place, is to show that
this argument of the Baptists is false. The argument is
this--"A person who has a right to a positive institute,
must be expressly mentioned as having that right; but
infants are not so mentioned," &c. That the argument
is false, appears from these facts--
I. The Scriptures do not countenance it. For as it is
not proved by any part of the word of God, being neither
set down in the words nor yet in the sense of holy writ,
and therefore a fiction, invented by men to support a particular
opinion, so it stands directly against God's holy
word; and this is evident from hence, that though
women are expressly said to have been baptised, they are
never said to have received the Lord's supper. The 
Scriptures, therefore, in plain opposition to this false argument,
leave us to conclude their right to the Lord's supper from
their baptism, together with other grounds. Thus it has
no support from scripture.
II. The Baptists themselves do not countenance it;
for though they have written whole books on the strength
of it, they are compelled to desert it, and do desert it, the
moment the subject is varied. For after they have vapoured
ever so long, and ever so loud, about "no express
law -- no explicit warrant for infant baptism-- infant baptism
is no where mentioned in Scripture;" let any one
put it upon them to prove the right of women to the 
supper, and I will answer for it he will hear no more of express
law on that head. He will find that all this hollow
sound, which signifies nothing, will die away, and each
Page 25

20
ARGUMENTS AGAINST
will shift for himself the best way he can, and fly for aid
to analogy and inference. Women, say they, may be
gracious--Women were baptised--Women did eat of the
paschal lamb -- Women are creatures of God, as well as
men, and therefore--Therefore what? Why, therefore
they should receive the Lord's supper. What now is become
of their express law? It is deserted, completely deserted; 
nor will they adopt it again till infant baptism is
resumed. The Baptists, therefore, do not countenance it.
III. Mr. Booth himself does not countenance it; I
mean, not always countenance it; for though he has 
demanded explicit proof for infant baptism, and has 
contended, that if such proof cannot be adduced, the baptism
of infants must be wrong, yet, when he comes to produce
an explicit warrant for female cominution, he is content.
Nay, stop--I cannot say he is content--but he is compelled
to fly to presuming--to implication--to analogy--to
inference--to make out an explicit warrant! All this we
engage to prove, and to make a proper use of in the 
sequel. And I cannot help observing, that if female 
communion cannot be supported on the principle of this 
argument, how idle a thing it is to forge a rule to operate
against infants only.
Finally, as this argument militates against female 
communion, as well as infant baptism, they must either both
be wrong, or the argument itself must be false. That the
argument is false, is sufficiently evident, as it not only has
no support from Scripture, but lies directly against it; and
from what I have observed, in many recent conversations,
I do not suppose there is a single Baptist in the kingdom
that will ever dare to stick to it. For after they had
urged this argument upon me, I have turned the question
from infant baptism to female communion, and I do not
recollect one, either minister or private person, but has, in
little more than a quarter of an hour, entirely given up
the argument. And if Mr. B. should think proper to
take up his pen once more on this subject, I have not
a doubt but I should be able to compel even him, as well as
many of his brethren, to relinquish it as a false 
argument; and I hope he will take up his pen once again,
and vindicate his defence of female communion.

INFANT BAPTISM.   21
I have been the longer on this argument, because, as it
is very frequently urged, so it contains precisely one half
of the Baptist strength. This argument, therefore, being
destroyed, just half their strength is gone. And if any
one should be inclined to cry out, "There is no explicit
example--there is no express law for infant baptism," &c.
any person has it in his power to quiet him almost in an
instant, should he only ask him to produce his explicit
law, &c. for female communion. Thus much for this
bad argument; and I pass to the other.
ARGUMENT II.
The Scriptures require faith and repentance as requisite to
baptism; but as infants cannot have these, they are not
proper subjects of baptism. Infunts, say the Baptists,
cannot believe, cannot repent; and none should be baptised
without faith, &c.
THE most expeditious way of destroying this argument
would be this--They say the Scriptures require
faith and repentance, in order to baptism. I ask, of
whom? The answer must be, Of adults; for the Scriptures
never require them of infants, in order to any thing.
Then frame the argument thus--The Scriptures require
faith and repentance of ADULTS, in order to baptism.
Now, you see, infants are gone. They have nothing to do
with the argument; or if they must be brought in, the
argument will run thus--The Scriptures require faith
and repentance of ADULTS, in order to baptism; but as
INFANTS cannot have these, they are unfit subjects of that
ordinance. Now it is a glaring sophism; with adults in
one proposition, and infants in the other. Were I only
to leave the argument thus, and say no more upon it, it
would not be possible to save it from perdition; but since
it is the only remaining half of the Baptist strength, I will
examine it more at large.
In order to judge of the real worth of an argument,
I lay down this rule--"Every argument that will prove
against an evident truth; or, which is the same thing,
every argument which will support a falsehood, is clearly
Page 26

22   ARGUMENT AGAINST
a bad argument." This rule is self-evident, for that
must needs be false which tends to prove a falsehood.
I will proceed by this rule and attempt to show, I
That this argument is entirely fallacious; 2. Point out
wherein its fallacy consists.
I. Of the fallacy of this argument. The principle
of it is, that infants are excluded from baptism, because
something is said of baptism which will not agree to 
infants. To see therefore the tendency of this argument,
whether it will prove on the side of truth or error, I will
try its operation on these four subjects --
1. On the circumcision of infants. That infants were
circumcised, is a fact; that they were circumcised by the
express command of God, is a proof of right. They
were actually circumcised, and it was right they should
be so; therefore, that they were proper subjects of that
institute, is an evident truth. Now, on this truth I
mean to try the argument, to see if it will prove for or
against it.
Circumcision, as it was a solemn entering into the
church of God, did fix an obligation on the circumcised
to conform to the laws and ordinances of that church.
Hence that speech, Acts xv. 24. "Ye must be 
circumcised, and keep the law, which would have been just
if circumcision had not been abolished. The apostle says,
Gal. v. 3. "Every man who is circumcised, is a debtor
to the whole law." His meaning is, if circumcision
be in force, so must its obligation too. And Rom. ii. 25.
he says, "Circumcision profiteth, if thou keep the law;
but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is
made uncircumcision." The sum of this is, he that was
circumcised became a debtor; if he kept the law to which
he was bound, his circumcision would profit; but if he
violated it, his circumcision became a nullity.
Now I ask--Did it agree to an infant to become a 
debtor? Did it agree to an infant to break or keep the law?
Mr. Booth shall answer both. To the first he says, vol.
2, page 151, "Infants are not capable of contracting either
with God or man. That to suppose any such thing,
insults the understanding and feelings of mankind; for,
as Bishop Sanderson observes--In personal obligations, no
man is bound without his own consent." To the other

INFANT BAPTISM.   23
he answers, "the minds of mere infants are not capable
of comparing their own conduct with the rule of duty;
they have, properly speaking, no conscience at all."
Infants therefore could not become debtors; they could not
keep the law. Very well. Then it is clear there was
something said of circumcision, which did no more agree
to infants, than if it had been said -- Repent, and be 
baptised.
In this respect, baptism and circumcision are upon a
level; for there is something said concerning both, which
will by no means agree to infants. Infants, on the one
hand, can neither believe nor repent, and these are connected
with baptism; and on the other hand, infants cannot
become debtors, they cannot keep the law, and these
are connected with circumcision. And then if we say, as
the Baptists do, that infants, since they cannot believe or
repent, must not be baptised, because faith and 
repentance are connected with baptism; we must say likewise,
infants cannot become debtors, they cannot keep the law,
and because these are connected with circumcision, they
must not be circumcised. And then it follows, that this
argument, by proving against a known truth, appears a
fallacious argument.
But it may be said, circumcision of infants was commanded
of God, and was therefore certainly right. To
this I answer, that that is the very principle on which I
proceed, and it is that very thing which proves fatal to
this argument; for the circumcision of infants being an
evident truth, and the argument before us proving against
it, it is a plain demonstration of its absurdity and fallacy.
Now if this argument be such, that, had it been used by a
Jew in the land of Canaan, it would have proved against
an ordinance of God, I would fain know, if its nature
can in any measure be changed, merely on its being used
by a Baptist and in a different climate? I proceed to
try it.
2. On the baptism of Jesus Christ. The baptism of
Christ is a known fact, and that he was a fit subject, is
an acknowledged truth. It is likewise certain, that as
he was no sinner, he could have no repentance; and since
he needed no salvation from sin, he could not have the
Page 27

24   ARGUMENTS AGAINST
faith of God's elect; that is, he could not have that faith
which the Scriptures require to baptism.
Now, the tendency of this argument being to prove
that those who cannot have faith and repentance are unfit
subjects of baptism, and Scripture informing us that
our Lord Jesus was baptised, who could have neither, the
dilemma therefore will be this--either the baptism of
Christ was wrong, or else this argument is false. It is
impossible to suppose the first, that the baptism of Christ
was wrong; we must therefore affirm the last, that this
argument is false; because that argument must be false
which proves against an evident truth.
Again, when it is said in the argument, that the Scriptures
require faith and repentance, in order to baptism;
I ask--Do they require them of all, or of some only? If
it is said, they are required of all, then, as before noted,
it proves against the baptism of Jesus Christ. If it be
said, they require them of some only, then the argument
has no force; for in that case it would run thus--Faith
and repentance are required only of some, in order to
baptism; and now the consequence will be, that some
may be baptised without them, and nothing would remain
then but that it be determined who should be baptised
without faith, and who with
View it which way we will, the argument is miserably
bad. The Baptists, however, in this case, fly to its relief
by saying, "that Jesus Christ, on account of the dignity
of his person, was exempted from this rule." How this
will mend the matter, I see not; for now it is acknowledged
to be a rule which will admit of exception. And
then I have only to ask--How many exceptions does it
admit, and what are they? Neither would it be better
to say, that Christ was baptised to set us an example;
for then we should have an example of one, who, being
incapable of faith and repentance, was baptised without
them; and in this view, his example will weigh in favor
of infant baptism. I will try it again.
3. On the salvation of infants. That infants may be
the subjects of salvation, is universally admitted; that
those who die in infancy are actually glorified, is also
granted--and yet there is something said concerning 
salvation, which will by no means agree to infants--"He

INFANT BAPTISM.   25
that believeth shall be saved; he that believeth not shall
be damned," &c.
What shall we say in this case? Why, the same as
before. If infants must not be baptised, because 
something is said of baptism which does not agree to infants;
then, by the same rule, infants must not be saved, because
something is said of salvation which does not agree to
infants. And then the same consequence again follows,
that this argument, by proving against an acknowledged
truth, proves itself to be fallacious.
And now, since it falls in with my present design, and
may serve to relieve and inform the reader, I will present
him with two specimens of reasoning on the same
text, one of which concludes against infant baptism, and
the other for it. The reader may adopt that which pleases
him best.
The first specimen shall be that of Mr. B. vol. 2, page
309, where he adopts the remark of Mr. Chambers--
"What they, (the German Baptists) chiefly supported
their great doctrine on, was those words of our Saviour--
'He that believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved.' As
none but adults are capable of believing, they argued,
that no others are capable of baptism." If these had gone
one step farther, their argument would have been lost.
e.g. As none but adults are capable of believing, none
but adults are capable of being saved. This, with the
Baptists, is a favorite text; and they argue upon it from
the order of the words. I say they faith goes before
baptism, then infants must not be baptised, because they
have no faith.
The other is that of Dr. Walker, out of his Modest
Plea, page 173. His words are these--"If none must
be baptised but he that believes, because believing is set
first, then none must be saved but he that is baptised,
because baptising is set first. And then what better argument
can be made for infant baptism? They must be
baptised if we would have them saved, because they cannot
be saved without being baptised, for baptising goes
before saving; and yet from the same text, and by the same
way of arguing, it may be proved, that no infants
are saved but those that believe, because believing is set
before saying; and not only so, but whereas it is not said,
Page 28

26   ARGUMENTS AGAINST
he that believeth not shall not be baptised; it is said, he
that believeth not shall be damned."
The difference between the reasoning of these two lies
in this--The Baptists reason on a part of the text only,
and the doctor reasoned on the whole. And to show how
miserably fallacious the reasoning of the Baptists is, I
will lay down a plan of their logic on this text, which will
produce more conclusion than there are principal
words in that part of the verse. The place is, Mark
xvi.16. "He that believeth, and is baptised, shall be
saved." Now, as the Baptists reason from the order of
the words, I will mark them with figures--believeth--
baptised--saved.
The logic is as follows--Take the first and second--
believeth--baptised--and say with the Baptists--
1. None are to be baptised but such as believe, because
believing must be before baptising -- "Believeth"--
" baptised."
This will conclude against infant baptism.
Next, take the first and third--believeth--saved--and
say in the same way--
2. None are to be saved but such as believe, because
believing must be before saving--"Believeth"--"saved."
This concludes against infant salvation.
Now take the second and third--baptised--saved--and
argue in the same manner--
3. None are to be saved but such as are baptised, because
baptising must go before saving--"Baptised"--
"saved."
This will conclude on the side of infant baptism. They
must be baptised, or they cannot be saved, as Dr. Walker
reasons.
Lastly, take all three--believeth--baptised--saved--
and say,
4. None are to be saved but such as believe and are
baptised, because believing and baptising must be before
saving--"Believeth"--"baptised"--"saved."

INFANT BAPTISM.   27
This concludes against the salvation of believers in
Jesus Christ, if they have not been baptised; and so upon
the principle of the Baptists, it concludes against the
salvation of all Paedobaptists.
All these conclusions, arising from the same way of
reasoning, may serve as a specimen to show the fallacious
mode of arguing against infant baptism, adopted by the
Baptists.
Let it be tried once more.
4. On the temporal subsistence of infants. As the
reader may perceive the drift of the reasoning on these
instances, I will use but few words on the present one.
Now that infants should be supported, not only Scripture,
but Nature itself teaches; and yet, if we form the Baptist
argument on a few places of Scripture, it may be
proved, in opposition to Nature and Scripture both, that
We have nothing to do but to mention the texts, and
apply their reasoning to them. Isaiah i. 19. "If ye be
willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land."
2 Thess. iii. 10. "If any would not work, neither should
he eat." Take the first, and say with the Baptist in 
another case--Willingness and obedience are required of
those who are to eat the good of the land; but since 
infants can neither will nor obey, they must not eat the good
of the land. In the same way let the other be taken--
He that will not work, neither shall be eat. Infants cannot
will to work, then infants must not eat.
This argument, in whatever way it is viewed, proves
against the truth. Is it a truth that infants should 
subsist? This argument proves against it. Is it a truth that
infants may be saved? This argument will prove the 
contrary. Was Christ rightly baptised? According to this
argument, it could not be. Were infants proper subjects
of circumcision? This argument will prove they were
not. Then, if it invariably support a falsehood, we are
compelled to say, it is a false argument.
II. I will point out wherein this fallacy consists. As
this argument, notwithstanding it is false, is used by the
Baptists in general, both learned and unlearned, I will attempt
to lay open its fallacy, and thereby put those persons
upon their guard, who may be in danger of being
Page 29

28   ARCUMENTS AGAINST
seduced by it. The judicious reader may have observed,
that I slightly hinted at the outset wherein its fault 
consisted; but to make it yet more evident what that fault is
of which it is guilty, I will take the liberty of saying a
few words more.
That particular rule against which this argument 
offends, is this--"Non debet plus esse in conclusione quam erat
in premissis. Ratio manifesta est, quia conclusio educenda
est ex premissis." That is, "There should not be more
in the conclusion than was in the premises. The reason
is plain, because the conclusion is to be drawn from the
premises." We will try to make this plain, by examples
both of true and false reasoning.
1. In the Baptist way of reasoning. When the Scriptures
say, "Repent and be baptised;" and, "If thou
believest thou mayest," &c. they address only sinful
adults; and then an argument formed upon them should
reach no farther than adults of the same description.
But the Baptists form their fallacious argument on these
passages by bringing infants into the conclusion, who, as
they are not addressed, are not at all concerned in the
premises. This will appear plain by three instances, on
the Baptist plan.
The Baptist argument runs thus--The Scriptures require
faith and repentance in order to baptism; but infants
have not faith and repentance, therefore they are not
to be baptised. Now, as the Scriptures require faith and
repentance only of adults, we must place that word in the
argument, and then it will stand in this form--The
Scriptures require faith and repentance of ADULTS, in
order to baptism; but INFANTS cannot have these, therefore
infants are not fit subjects of baptism. In the same
way, we may form the two following instances, viz. The
Scriptures require faith and repentance of adults, in order
to salvation; but infants cannot have these, therefore infants
cannot be saved. Again, he, (an adult) who will
not work, neither should he eat; but an infant cannot
will to work, therefore an infant should not eat. The
reader may perceive, that by placing the word adults in
one proposition, and infants in the other, (which makes it
a sophism) there are three things proved in the same
way, viz. That infants cannot be saved--that infants

INFANT BAPTISM.   29
should not eat--that infants should not be baptised.
And so, for the same reason, that an infant cannot be
saved, that an infant should not eat, it will follow, that
an infant should not be baptised for all these are equally
true, and supported by the same reasoning. And it is
in the same way, that this argument proves against the
baptism of Christ, and the circumcision of infants. We
will now view these three instances.
2. In the Paedobaptist way of reasoning. We will
place the same word in each proposition, thus--The
Scriptures require faith and repentance of adults in order
to baptism; but some adults have no faith, no 
repentance, therefore some adults are not to be baptised.
Again, the Scriptures require faith and repentance of
adults, in order to salvation; but some adults do not belive
nor repent, therefore some adults will not be saved.
Once more--He (an adult) who will not work, neither
should he eat; but some adults will not work, therefore
some adults should not eat. Now, by placing the word
adult in each proposition, without which it would be a
sophistical argument, the reader may see, that as infants
can have no place in either, there is nothing to forbid
their support, their salvation, or their baptism. They
only prove that an idle adult should not be supported;
that an impenitent adult will not be saved; and that he
has no right at all to baptism.
Once more--As I have nothing in view so much as
truth, I have a great desire to make this matter plain to
the meanest capacity. For, if I am clearly understood in
this part, my end on the present argument is attained
and what I have before advanced upon it, will be in a
great measure useless. The reader, therefore, is desired
to observe, that the design of this argument is to conclude
against the baptism of infants. Then, as infants are to
be in the conclusion, they must also be in the premises;
for the rule says, "there should not be more in the conclusion
than was in the premises; because the conclusion is
to be drawn from the premises."
Now, to make the argument of the Baptists consistent
with itself, we must place infants in the premises as well as
in the conclusion; and then the argument will stand
thus--The Scriptures require faith and repentance of in-
Page 30

30   ARGUMENTS AGAINST
fants, in order to baptism; but infants have not faith, &c.
therefore infants are not to be baptised. The reader may
discern an agreement, in the parts of the argument, with
each other; it has infants in each part, as well in the
premises as in the conclusion. But then the fallacy of
it is more strikingly evident than before; for the error
which before crept into the middle, does here stand in
front. It is in this proposition, the Scriptures require faith
and repentance of infants in order to baptism, which is
not true; for infants are never required to repent or 
believe, in order either to baptism or salvation. Whereas
before, when it was said the Scriptures require faith and
repentance of adults, in order to baptism; but infants
have not faith, &c. the error consisted in putting in the
word infants, who have no concern at all in the 
requirement.
By placing one thing in the premises, and another in
the conclusion, which is done by the Baptists, in this 
argument, we may be able to evince any absurdity, however
glaring. This being the manner of the Baptist 
argument, nothing more is necessary to take off its force
against infants, but to make the premises and conclusion
to correspond with each other; that is, while it continues
to be a sophism, it proves against infants; but it ceases
to prove against them, as soon as it is made a good
argument. e.g. Faith and repentance are required of
adults, in order to baptism; but infants have not these,
therefore infants are not to be baptised. This is nothing
more than a pure sophism, and as such it concludes
against infants; but all its force against infants is set aside
by making it good, thus--Faith and repentance are required
in adults, in order to baptism; but some adults
have not faith and repentance, therefore some adults
are not to be baptised. The reader may see, that now
it is a fair argument, all its force against infants is gone.
Having said thus much on the fallacy of this 
argument, I shall only add one specimen of its mode of 
operation, and that is a specimen in which it will conclude
two contrary ways, on one place of Scripture, Rom. ii.
25. "For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the
law; but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision
is made uncircumcision."

INFANT BAPTISM.   31
Now the Baptist argument, on the first member of this
text, will operate thus--Circumcision verily profiteth, if
thou keep the law; but infants could not keep the law,
therefore their circumcision must be unprofitable, that is,
as no circumcision, a mere nullity, and this reflects on
the wisdom of God. But if we form the same argument
on the other member, it will be no nullity neither,
for thus it will run--If thou be a breaker of the law, the
circumcision is made uncircumcision. But infants could
not break the law, therefore their circumcision could not
be made uncircumcision, i.e. a nullity. Such is the Baptist
argument, that it will prove infant circumcision to be
something or nothing, according to that part of the text
on which it is formed, and it is therefore evidently no
more than a sophism.
I have endeavored to make the reader see, not only
that this argument is false, but wherein the fallacy 
consists. That it is false, appears in this, that in every
stance it opposes a known truth; it opposes the circumcision
of infants--the baptism of Jesus Christ--the salvation
of infants, and their temporal subsistence. The
nature of the fallacy is the placing of adults in the 
premises, and infants in the conclusion, which any person,
who has the least knowledge of the art of reasoning, must
see instantly to be repugnant to the laws of truth. If the
method I have taken to show wherein the fault consists
should not be familiar to any reader, it is possible he may
not apprehend me; if so, I would advise him to read it
repeatedly, and with serious attention; for I am not
without hope, that even the most common capacity, with
due attention, will clearly comprehend my meaning. On
the other hand, I have no doubt but many will readily
enter into the method, and see what a fallacious argument
is made use of to support an opinion I am compelled
to desert.
These two arguments being taken away, a Baptist has
nothing left to place against infant baptism. I have not
met with a single person who, when desired to produce
the strongest argument against infants, could advance
any thing more than what is contained in these two.
While I thought it right to oppose the baptism of 
infants, I made use of them against it; but when they
Page 31

32   ARGUMENTS AGAINST, & c.
appeared, as they really are very erroneous and bad, I
gave them up, and from that time have never been able to
preach a baptising sermon. I saw that the whole strength
of a Baptist was gone.
By the removal of these two arguments, thus much is
gained--that whatever can be advanced on the part of
infants, will stand with undiminished force. For it will
now avail nothing to say, with the first argument, there
is no express law for infant baptism; nor will it be
of any use to affirm, according to the second, that infants
have no faith, no repentance; because the arguments
themselves being fallacious, whatever may be urged from
them, will be entirely devoid of force against infant
baptism.
Having now finished what I intended on the arguments
on one side, I proceed to those on the other. I
am well persuaded that the Scriptures cannot favour
both sides; and had the arguments against infant baptisin
been good, I am convinced that nothing in the word
of God would have given it any countenance. But since
the truth must be either for or against the baptism of 
infants, and the arguments against being futile, it is certain
the truth must lie on the other side.

[hand-written]
1421
1862
[line]
12

CHAPTER II.
CONTAINING ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE OF
BAPTISM.
INFANT baptism is to be proved in the same way
female communion. In the case of female communion,
all the Baptists I have ever conversed with on that 
subject, make use of inference and analogy; and though in
them it is ridiculous, they are not able to prove it in any
other way. And this method is even adopted by Mr.
Booth, as I shall more plainly evince in another place,
though glaringly inconsistent with his own principles.
As I am now to advance proof in favor of infant 
baptism, the simple method I mean to adopt will be the
following--In the first place, it is a fact acknowledged
the Baptists themselves, that infants were at an early
period constituted members of the church of God. In the
next place, I shall produce proof, that they have a right
to be so now; and that the constitution of God, by which
they were made members, has not been altered to this day.
In the last place, I shall lay down this dilemma, which
will conclude the whole business, namely--As infants, by
a divine and unaltered constitution, have a right to be received
as church members, they must be received either
with baptism or without it. If they are not to be received
without baptism, then the consequence is, that they must
be baptised, because they must be received.--I now request
the reader's attention to each of these in their order.

ARGUMENT I.
God has constituted in his Church the membership of infants,
and admitted them to it by a religious rite.
In this argument it is proper to take notice of two parts,
1. The church membership of infants.--A church
is a society that stands in special relation to God, being
Page 32

ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE OF
instituted for religious purposes. When the persons composing
this society appear openly in such relation to God,
it is called a visible church, and of such an one I now
speak. The relation between God and this society is
formed by God himself, by declaring he is, and will be
their God. This declaration of God, which constituted
that relation, which indeed did exist from the beginning,
had an equal regard to adults and infants--"I will be a
God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee"-- and hence
both young and old, who had been duly entered, were
considered as children of the covenant and the kingdom,
that is of the church. The rite of circumcision being
performed, the circumcised was presented to the Lord,
which is a mode of expression to signify a public entering
into church-fellowship.
The case as now stated is, I suppose, commonly 
admitted. It is granted by Baptists, who are the most likely
of any to deny it, that infants were members of the Jewish
church. Mr. Booth grants it, vol. ii. 224. So does
Mr. Keach, Gold refined, page 113, "That children
were admitted members of the Jewish church, is granted."
And indeed it is not possible to deny this, without denying
that adults themselves were members, which would
be the same as denying that God had a church in the
world. Infants, therefore, were constituted by God himself
members of his own visible church.
2. Infants, in order to visible membership, were the
subjects of a religious rite. That circumcision was a religious
rite, is as easily proved as that baptism and the
Lord's Supper are such. Mr. Booth, in this case, is in a
strait betwixt two; he is not willing flatly to deny it,
nor yet can he prevail on himself to acknowledge it.
He is very tender upon the subject, as if he saw some
formidable consequence lurking beneath it. See what he
says, vol. ii. 250. "Baptism is an appointment purely
religious, and intended for purposes entirely spiritual;
but circumcision, besides the spiritual instruction suggested
by it, was a sign of carnal descent, a mark of national
distinction, and a token of interest in those temporal blessings
that were promised to Abraham." Now can any living
soul tell from whence Mr. B. had all this? Was it from
the Koran, or Talmud? To show he never took his notion

INFANT BAPTISM.   35
from the Bible, I will set the Bible against him, and
him against it. Booth. It was a token of interest in temporal
blessings.--Bible. It was a token of the covenant
between God and Abraham, to be a God to him and his
seed.--Booth. It was a sign of carnal descent. -- Bible.
It was a sign of circumcision, of the heart and spirit.
Booth. It was a mark of national distinction. -- Bible.
It was a seal of the righteousness of faith. Now compare
Mr. B. with fact. Booth. It was a token of interest in
temporal blessings.--Fact. Many had the interest without
the token, and many had the token without the 
interest. -- Booth. It was a mark of national distinction.--Fact
Many other nations had the same mark. So it was a
distinction which did not distinguish.--Booth. It was a
sign of carnal descent.--Fact. All Abraham's male servants
and many proselytes were circumcised. Either
these were descended from Abraham, or Mr. B's. sign
was, as one calls it, a sign of a lie.--See what the love of
hypothesis can do? Could any man have given a poorer
account of circumcision than Mr. B. has done?
But was it not, after all, a truly religious institute? Mr.
B. is not willing to deny this altogether. He seems to
grant, at least by implication, that it was half a religious
rite." Baptism," says he, "is an appointment purely religious
for purposes entirely spiritual." By his using the
words purely and entirely as applied to baptism, and then
comparing it to circumcision, he seems to admit that circumcision
was partly a religious rite. All he will grant
in plain terms, concerning the religious nature of this 
institute, is, that it suggested spiritual instruction," which
is not peculiar to any rite, either Jewish or Christian. I
am sorry to see a man of Mr. B's ability trifle after this
sort. He certainly knew not what to make of it; he saw
something in its aspect dreadfully formidable to his 
system, and was afraid of its appearing in that form in
which it is set forth in the word of God. These strokes
in Mr. B's book, and such as these, which I intend to
notice, convince me more than any thing I have ever
read, of the fallacy of the Baptists' scheme.
Leaving Mr. B's distorted account of this ordinance,
we will view it as represented in the word of God. To
Page 33

36  ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE OF
see, then, whether it is a religious rite, we have only to
view it in its various relations to religion; and circumcision
thus viewed will appear to have been of that description,
as truly as baptism or the Lord's Supper. Let it be
considered in its institution -- in its application--in its obligation
and connection with religious things.
1. In its institution. In this view of it, it was a token
of God's covenant made with Abraham, in which he
promised to be a God unto him, and his seed after him.
And then, as an appendage, he promised to give him and
his seed the land of Canaan for his temporal subsistence.
For earthly things are appendages to the covenant of
grace, they are things added, as our Lord expresses it to
help a saint through this world.
2. We may view it farther in its application, under the
threefold notion of a token, a sign, and a seal. As a
token, it is a ratification of God's grant in covenant to
be a to Abraham and his seed. As a sign, it denotes
the grace of God on the heart, whereby it is enaabled
to love God, to worship him, and to have no confidence
in the flesh. Deut. xxx 6. Rom. 1. 28, 29. Phil.
iii. 3. And therefore called a sign of circumcision, l.c.
of the circumcision of the heart. As a seal, it applies
to the righteousness of faith, i.e. the righteousness of
Christ, by which men are justified.
3. We may consider it in its connection, and this
is with the Scriptures, Rom. iii. 2. "To them were
committed the oracles of God;" with the promises,
Rom. xv. 8. "Now I say, that Jesus Christ was a minister
of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm
the promises made unto the fathers;" with baptism,
Col. ii. 11, 12, wherein these two are spoken of as standing
on a level with each other; as being each of them
of the same religious kind.
If we view it in its obligation, we may observe, that as
it was an entering into the visible church of God, so it
bound the person who received it to a conformity to all
other institutes.... Gal. iii. 3. Without this conformity, it
profited nothing; for where this was wanting, it was
deemed a nullity. That rite, therefore, which obliges to
a conformity to religion, must be a religious rite.

INFANT BAPTISM.  37
When, therefore, we consider this institute, in its use
and application, under all these views, there can be no
doubt of its being a religious institute, because its whole
use and application are so; and as nothing more can be
said to prove the religious nature of baptism and the
Lord's Supper, a man might as well deny these to be religious
ordinances, as the other. And hence it is, that
Mr. B's conduct is the more to be admired, who, notwithstanding
he must have seen all this in Scripture, does, of
his own head, (the word of God giving him no authority)
transform it into a mere secular, political rite. And
this is done to destroy all analogy between it and baptism,
for fear that analogy should prove the destruction of his
scheme.
Mr. B. in his preface, says, non tali auxilio, nec defensoribus
istis. This is to intimate to the reader, that a good
cause does not need a bad defence. Now, if we are to
form a judgment of the cause he has undertaken to 
support, from the means he makes use of to support it, we
cannot suppose the cause he has taken in hand is any
other than a very bad one. I question if the most carnal
Jew that ever sat in the region of darkness and shadow of
death, could have given a more frigid, degrading account
of an institution of God, than he has done. According to
him, it was only a sign of carnal descent, a mark of
national distinction, a token of interest in temporal 
blessings; it had a political aspect; it was performed with
political views; and, (not knowing very well what to do
with it, he introduces a learned word, and says) it was
adapted to an ecclesiastico-political constitution. Thus
he. But one thing he forgot--he has not given all this
the sanction of the sacred text. Indeed, if it agree to any
thing in the Bible, it agrees best of all to the circumcision
of those poor Shechemites, who were first deceived,
and then destroyed by the sons of Jacob....Gen. xxxiv.
These two parts of the proposition being evinced,
namely, 1st. The church-membership of infants; and 2d.
Their admission to it by a religious rite....the whole proposition
which I undertake to maintain and to lay as a
ground-work, from which to conclude the baptism of
Page 34

38   ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE OF
infants, is this--God has constituted in his church the
membership of infants, and has admitted them to it by a
religious rite. Before I pass to the next argument, I
will make a remark on each part.
I. From this fact we learn so much of the mind of
God, as to be able to conclude, that there is nothing in a
state of infancy incompatible with church-membership.
The reason is evident; for had there been any thing unsuitable
in such a practice, God, who is an infinitely wise
judge of decency and fitness, would never have ordained
it. This conduct of the infinitely wise God, and the
practice of about two thousand years, stand in direct repugnancy
to the weak prejudice of Baptists; who, from
the sentiment they have adopted, are led to suppose that
there is nothing in nature more ridiculous than the idea
of infants being church members. This is one instance
of human depravity, whereby the weakness of man sets
itself up against the wisdom of God; and as this is the
more to be admired in those persons, who in other respects
are desirous of submitting to the whole will of
God, so it serves to show what a very unhappy influence
the admission of an erroneous sentiment may gain
over the mind.
II. It appears from this part of the divine conduct,
in plain opposition to the views of Baptists, that the ignorance
and want of faith inseparable from a state of
infancy, are no impediments to the administration of a
religious ordinance; and this truth should be the more
regarded by us, as it stands supported by the high authority
of God, and is as a thousand arguments against
all those pleas which are drawn from the incapacity of
infants. For while we see those declared fit subjects of a
religious ordinance, who could know nothing of its nature
or use, with what prudence or piety can any man
presume to affirm, that infants are incapable of such an
ordinance? But if any one should take so much authority
on himself, as to arbitrate against the wisdom of God,
he would do well to consider, that God is true, and every
man a liar, i.e. that judges differently.

INFANT BAPTISM.   39
ARGUMENT II.
The church-membership of infants was never set aside by
God or man; but continues in force, under the sanction of
God, to the present day.
THE force of this and the preceding argument, taken
together, may be comprehended by any man of common
reasoning powers. Every one knows that what was once
done and never undone, must of course remain the same:
and that what was once granted and never revoked,
must needs continue as a grant. There can be no fallacy
in all this. These arguments, therefore, being fairly
maintained, will carry us forward to a dilemma, and that
dilemma will bring us home to the conclusion.
In good theory, the proof of this argument should not
lie upon the Paedobaptist. For if I affirm and prove
that God did settle a certain plan respecting church 
members, and another should come and affirm that that plan
was now altered, it should lie on him to produce his
proof that such an alteration has taken place, and the
reason is, that whatever God has established should be
supposed to continue, though we could bring no proof of
its continuance, unless we are plainly told that he has ordered
it otherwise. And then, since there is not a single
text in scripture to prove that the church-membership of
infants is annulled, this argument should remain in force
without further proof. However, I will wave this privilege,
which I might justly claim, and proceed to evince
the argument I have laid down.
There was only one point of time, in which it is even
supposed the church-membership of infants was set aside;
and that was, when the Gentiles were taken into a visible
church state. In that period several institutions did
cease, and some new ones were ordained. Our only question
is, whether the church-membership of infants did
cease at the same time. It is evident that the mere
change or cessation of institutes could work no change
upon membership, any more than a man's having his
cloaths changed can produce a change upon the man
All institutes, whether typical or ratifying, that is, all institutes
of every kind, are to be considered, in respect to
Page 35

40   ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE
church members, as means of grace and nourishments
for faith, respecting Christ the mediator, and the 
unsearchable riches of Christ; and then a change taking place
these things, will in itself produce no more alteration
the members of the church, then a change in
diet will destroy the identity of the man.
I am now to prove the church-membership of
infants, which having been ordained of God, was
never annulled, but carried forward into the Gentile church,
and so consequently is in force at the present time. And
this I shall proceed to do.
From Scripture views of God's dispensation towards
the Gentiles.
Much light might be thrown upon this subject, by considering
those prophecies of the Old Testament, which relate
to the calling in of the Gentiles. This Dr. Williams
has done to great advantage; but my design being brevity,
I shall confine myself to passages on that subject.
in the New Testament
I, Matt. xxi. 43. " Therefore, I say unto you, the
kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to
a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."
The plain meaning of this passage is, that as in times
past the church of God, which is his kingdom, was
limitted to Judea, so in future he would have a church in
the Gentile world. The taking of the kingdom from
Jews, and giving it to the Gentiles, denotes,
1. The ceasing of a regular church state among the
Jews. And this actually took place, by the destruction of
some, and the dispersion of others, who did not receive
the Lord Jesus Christ as sent of God; while those who
did receive him, were at length removed from Judea, and
by degrees lost the name of Jew, in that of Christian.
Rom. xi. 12.
2. The setting up a regular church state among the
Gentiles. This, as the cessation of the church among the
Jews was gradually brought about; for the Gentiles who
came over to Christ, joining themselves to the Jewish
church, became in time the larger part. So that by the
increase of the Gentiles and the breaking off of the worthless
branches among the Jews, nothing remained but an
entire Gentile church.
Page 36

Revy WIDOW, &c.   Aur
File No. 4004
Eda Johnson
Wid.
Frederick Johnson
Pri, Rev. War
Act: Feby. 2" 48
Index:--Vol. A, Page 377
(Arrangement of 1870.)
Page 37

3081
North Carolina
Eda Johnson
widow of Frederick Johnson
who was a Private
in the Revolution
Inscribed on the Roll at the rate of
80 Dollars 
per annum, to commence on 
the 4th day of March, 1843.
Certificate of Pension issued the
1st day of Dec. 1843
and sent to James Roberts
Swangstown, N.C.
(Act of March, 1843.)
Recorded in Book A.
Vol. 1, Page 202
Page 38

5861
North Carolina
Eda Johnson
widow of Frederick Johnson, decd
who was a pensioner under the Act of 1818
and who died on the 15 May 1831,
of Rutherford Co in the State of N.C.
who as a private in the Compy commanded
by Captain Mason of the Regt commanded
by Col. Moultrie in the S.C.
line for 2 years
Inscribed on the Roll of N. Carolina
at the rate of 80 Dollars per annum,
to commence on the 4th day of March 1836.
Certificate of Pension issued the 19th day of Oct.
1841, & sent to John G. Bynum
Rutherfordton, N. Carolina
Arrears to the 4th of Mar 1841   $400.00
Semi-annual allowance ending [blank]
(Act July 7, 1838)
Recorded by D. McCurdy, Clerk
Book A, Vol. 2, Page 187.
Page 39

Paid to the 4th March 1831
Page 40

7369
Eda Johnson
Wid of Frederick
NC
Act July 7 1838
Married 1783
died 1831
Allow 2 yrs for $80
per ann.

Jno G. Bynum Esq
Rutherfordton
N.C.
Page 41

June 13 1843
Lee No 5737
N.C.
[crossed-out: July 4. 1836]
Mar 3d 1843.
Eda Johnson
No. 5861 - 1838
NC
Lucas

Swanngstown N.C.
June 1th
free

Mr. J. L. Edwards
Comm. of Pensions
Washington City
D.C.
Page 42

Swangstown No Carolina
June 1th 1843
Sir
I herewith enclose the papers 
for pension: of Mrs. Mary Lucas
Mrs. Eda Johnson --
Address Swangstown No Carolina
I am Very Respectfully
yours,
James Roberts

Mr. J. L. Edwards
Comm of Pensions
Washington City
D.C.
Page 43

Swangstown N.C.
Aug 23d
free
Mr Cole
Mr J. L. Edwards
Comm of pensions
Washington City 
D.C.
Page 44

Swangstown N. Carolina
August 22d 1848
Sir -
I herewith enclose the declaration of
Mrs. Eda Johnson widow, Frederick Johnson, claiming
a pension under the Act of Congress of 2d February 1848
Yours Respectfully
James Roberts

Dear Sir
I noticed in sum of the news papers that there
was a bill reported by the Committee on Revolution [damaged]
Claim giving all widows of deceased officers & soldiers of 
Revolution who was married prior to first January 180[?]
the benefits of all the new existing laws. if that law
has passed please favour me with a copy of the
prescribed rules for the information of applicants under that
law as early as practicable. am much oblige yours
Most Respectfully
James Roberts

Mr J. L. Edwards
Com. of pensions
Washington City
D.C.
Page 45

1971
$80 per annum,
N.C. March 3. 1843
James Roberts
Swangstown
N.C.
Page 46

Eda Johnson
Page 47

State of North Carolina
Cleaveland County ss
On this 4th day
of May 1843 personally appeared before
the Subscribor a Justice of the peace in
and for said County: Eda Johnson, a resident
of North Carolina in the County of Cleaveland
aged 76 years. who being first duly sworn
according to law doth on her oath make the
following Declaration in order to obtain the benefits
of the provision made by the Act of
Congress passed on the 3d March 1843
granting pensions to widows of persons who
served during the Revolutionary war: that
she is the widow of Frederick Johnson, who
was a private in the Revolution and died on
the the fifteenth day of May 1831: and that she
was pensioned under the Act of Congress of the
7th July 1838. and was under that Act entitled
to receve five years pension at the rate of
Eighty Dollars per annum. She further 
Declares that she is still a widow.
her
Eda + Johnson
mark

Sworn to and subscribed
on the day and year above written
Before
W. M. Gold JP
James Roberts JP
Page 48

State of North Carolina
Cleaveland County ss
I James Roberts certify
that I am personally acquainted with the
declarant Eda Johnson who has made the
foregoing declaration this 6th day of May 1843
James Roberts JP

State of North Carolina
Cleaveland County SS
I Richard Champion Clerk of the Court of
Pleas and Quarter Sessions for Cleaveland Court certify that W. M. Gold 
and James Roberts are acting magistrates for said County and the signatures
purporting to be theirs are genuine.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto
affixed the seal of office and subscribed
my name this 1st day of June 1843
Richard Champion Clk
Page 49

J L Edwards
Commissioner of Pensions
Washington City
Page 50

Rutherfordton N.C. Sept. 10th 1840
To the Commissioner of Pensions:
I send you herewith the
application of Eda Johnson widow of
Frederick Johnson for a pension as widow
of said Frederick. They were prepared
by a very inexperienced hand but it is
hoped they are sufficient to entitle her
to a pension. Your early attention to it
would oblige her very much and you
will please communicate the result of her
application to me at Rutherfordton N.C.
Very respectfully
Yr obt Srvt
John Gray Bynum
Page 51

Eda Johnson wid
of Fred Johnson
N Carolina Roll
power of atty to
John Y Bryant
Ex by [?] & Edwards
Nov 9 1852
Page 52

Know all men by these presents that I Eda
Johnson of Cleavland County, State of North Carolina
do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint John Y. Bryant
of the City of Washington, District of Columbia, my true and
lawful attorney for me and in my name, place and
stead, to claim, recover and receive for me any sum
or sums of money due and unpaid to me on account
of my arrearages or increases of pension which may be due
to me under existing pension laws to file such evidence
as may be required, make such arguments as
may be requisite, to secure and collect such sums
of money as may be found to be due as aforesaid and
to receipt for the same as my said attorney. Hereby
ratifying and confirming all that my said Attorney
may legally do or cause to be done in the premises.
her
Eda X Johnson
mark

Witnesses
James Roberts
Willis Johnson

State of North Carolina
Cleavland County SS
Be it known that on the
6th day of September 1852 before the subscriber a
Justice of the peace in and for said County, duly
authorized by law to administer oaths, personally
appeared Eda Johnson, above named and 
acknowledged the foregoing power of attorney to be her act
and deed. In testimony whereof I have hereunto
set my hand the day and year last above mentioned.
James Roberts JP
Page 53

State of North Carolina
Cleavland County SS
I Silas Williams Clerk
of the County Court of the County and State
aforesaid do hereby certify that James Roberts
is a Justice of the peace in and for said County
duly commissioned and qualified and that his
signature above written is genuine.
Given under my hand and
the seal of said County this
11th day of September 1852
S. Williams Clerk

Eda Johnson wid
of Fred Johnson 
N Carolina Roll
power of atty to
John Y Bryant

Ex by [?] Edwards
Nov 9 1852
Page 54

State of North Carolina
Cleaveland County ss
On this 21st day of July 1848 personally appeared
before me Jacob Smith a Justice of the peace
in and for said County Eda Johnson a resident
of North Carolina in the County of Cleaveland
Aged 80 years who being first duly sworn according
to law doth on her oath make the following
Declaration in order to obtain the benefits of
the provision made by the Act of Congress passed on the 2d
February 1848 granting pensions to widows of persons who
served during the Revolutionar war. that she is the widow 
of Frederick Johnson who was a pensioner inscribed on the
North Carolina Agency at the rate of Ninety six dollars
per annum; and that she drew a pension under the act
of the 17th June 1844 at the rate of Eighty Dollars annually;
and that she further declares that she is
still a widow
her
Eda x Jonson
mark

Sworn to and subscribed on the day and
year above written before
Jacob Smith

State of North Carolina
Cleaveland County ss
I Jacob Smith the Magistrate
before whom the foregoing declaration was made do
hereby certify that the Declarant Eda Johnson
is personally known by me. This 21 day of July
1848
Jacob Smith JP
Page 55

State of North Carolina
Cleaveland County SS
I P. S. Whisnant Clerk
of the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions for
said County certify that Jacob Smith whose
name appears to the foregoing certificate is and
was at the time of signing the same an acting
Justice of the peace in and for said County and
the aforegoing signature purporting to be his is
genuine and all his official acts as such are
entitled to full faith and credit.
In testimony whereof I have hereunto
set my hand and the seal of
said Court at office this 1st day
of August 1848
P. S. Whisnant Clk
Page 56

THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES
Form VAM-51
12 - 5 - 41
BOUNTY LAND WARRANT RECORD CARD*
Division of Veterans' Administration Archives

NAME: Johnson, George 
GRADE: Private
LINE: New Jersey
WARRANT NUMBER: 8441
ACREAGE: 100
ISSUED: January 1, 1792
to -- not shown --
Notation "March 13th 1826, certified."

* The information concerning the issuance of warrants carded on this form is found in volumes 2 to 4 of ""Land Warrants Issued Prior to 1800"" which are
registers of bounty land warrants issued to non-commissioned officers and privates under congressional resolutions of September 16, 1776, and subsequent
dates. Other records relative to the applications for warrants appear to have been destroyed in the War Department fire of November 9, 1800.
Information concerning warrants surrendered to the Federal Government is to be found in General Land Office records in The National Archives.