i # c^ ^r _re •^ ^ o J5 . ^1,^ Ic i <55 lT3 CL 1 .^ '^ S ^ o «a 5 fe (D o. C «-. o C^ - »S5 EH o ^ £ •^ o M I'j JSi rt i/i f^ ^^ fH "=; ! ^*i ^ Ct ^ 5 % t3 5 K CD 1 ^ CL 1 d Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library http://www.archive.org/details/modernimmersionn00thor2 I I MODERN IMMERSION NOT SCRIPTURE BAPTISM. BY THE REV. W. THORN, WINCHESTER. SECOND EDITION, ENLARGED. LONDON: JACKSON AND WALFORD, ST. PAUL'S CHURCH YARD. WINCHESTER: AVARREX, PRINTER, HIGH STREET. ANALYSIS OF THE WORK. Pag? PRELIMIXARY OBSERVATIONS. I. Respecting relkjious controversies in general . 25 II. Respecting the Baptist controversy in particular 30 THE QUESTION AT ISSUE STATED. 46 PART FIRST. — A statement, examination, and refuta- tion, of ALL the arguments employed hi support of the EXCLUSIVE system of immersion-baptism. A summary of the Baptists' arguments . . 47 A few preparatory and explanatory remarks . ib. Sect. I. — The natural conclusions of common readers. The remarks of the Baptists on this head . ,51 1. But most common readers decide against them . 52 2. Their view depends on the judgment of others . 53 3. If their decisions are valid, learning is useless , 55 4. Scripture doctrines plainer than ceremonies . 57 5. The apparent sense often erroneous . . .58 6. Our positions accord with divine benevolence . 59 7. Human testimonies condemned, yet referred to . GO 8. Reference to the O. T. necessary and proper . 61 9. Gospel precepts harmonize with our views . . 62 Sect. II. — The concessions of numerous Pedobaptists. The reasonings of the Baptists on this point . 63 1. Several postulates on arguments «(f 7).om/?2e?« . 64 2. The quotations themselves subject to correction . 65 3. The B. regard these writers as inconsistent . QQ 4. They renounce the principle of such evidence . 67 IV ANALYSIS OF THE WORK. Page 5. The concessions in accordance with sprinkling . G8 6. Pedobaptist writers not honestly treated . . 69 7. Baptists disingenuous on this point . . .71 8. Such a mode of reasoning very objectionable . 72 9. The Baptists make them concede too much . 73 10. Open comraunionists concede the validity of spr. 74 11. Close communionists strangely inconsistent . 76 12. Wherein our citations differ from theirs . . 77 13. Coxhead and Draper's curious reasonings . . 78 14. Pengilly's method of arguing . . . .80 Sect. III. — The history of the Christian Church. The arguments of the Baptists on this subject . 81 1. They do not know how baptism was administered 82 2. do not follow the supposed ancient mode . 83 3. disclaim all historical evidence . . . 85 4. Antiquity favours pouring as well as dipping . 87 5. Baptismal regeneration, &c. old as dipping . 89 6. The concessions of Pedobaptists accounted for . 91 7. Instances of aspersion baptism in early times . 92 8. Why dipping was first introduced . . .94 9. The Greek church opposed to the Baptists . 96 10. The Church of England no rule for their guidance 101 Sect. IV. — The meaning of the Greek word baptizo. The sentiments of the Baptists on its import . 103 They make this the hinge of the debate . .105 1. The primary sense of words examined . . ih. 2. Baptizo might not be used in its primary sense . 107 3. Dipping not the primary meaning of it . .108 4. 5ffj9/o never used for Christian baptism . .110 5. Lexicographers on the word baptize . . . Ill 6. Baptists' translation of it in Greek writers. . 112 7. Different applications of the word . . .114 8. More extended translations of it . . . 116 9. Other passages in Greek authors . . .117 10. Deductions, and Mr. Booth's assumptions . . 119 1 Page 120 122 128 129 131 134 ANALYSIS OF THE WORK. 11. The sense of it in the Sept. and Apocrypha 12. The, texts where it occurs examined . 13. Inferences from these expositions . 14. Baptizo synonymous with tahal and tingo . 15. The sense of the term in the New Testament 16. The verb translated by the word to plunge 17. Objections respecting c7/eo and r/?rt?z p. 18. D 5 42 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS ' above, notwithstanding his publicity and extensive useful- * ness, I have no doubt is convinced in his own conscience, ' though unwilling to submit to its dictates : and should he ' not yield to those convictions, I do not expect to meet him ' in the kingdom of heaven.' But, probably, we shall be able to make it appear, that all this is based on a little too much confidence in the per- fection of their own optical powers and logical faculties ; for, surely that cannot be so very glaring, which some of the most holy and intelligent ministers of Christ, seeking and praying for instruction, cannot perceive. ^ In fact, it escapes the observation of more than nineteen out of twenty of our countrymen. A respectable and moderate writer, among our opponents makes the following asser- tion: — 'The Baptists maintain distinct societies for no ' other reason than to preserve the purity of the baptismal 'ordinance; and if a Baptist ministry be not supported, ' the scriptural baptism must, without a miracle, be lost.'- This evinces the uncommon stress laid on their administra- tion of this ceremony, and the dissimilarity of their mode and subject to those of all other churches in the world, as will be further shown in its place. XI. Mr. Booth remarks, that, 'were one of our oppo- * nents to publish a history of his own practice, in regard ' to [the mode of] baptism, he must either use language ' different from that of inspiration, or expose himself to a ' violent suspicion of having deserted the cause he once * espoused.' ^ But this is not fairly stating the case. Had a person, of Pedobaptist principles, initiated the people into the profession of Christianity at the time, in the country, and under the circumstances mentioned in the New Testa- ment, would not his recital have been similar to that given in the original language of inspiration ? We unhesitatingly answer in the affirmative. Let us, in turn, propose a cor- respondent enquiry to our brethren. Were one of our oppo- nents to publish a history of his own practice, in regard to 1 Booth, vol. iii. p. 1S2. 2 Foot, p. 122, 123. ' Booth, vol. i. p. 238. ON THE BAPTIS>[AL CONTROVERSY. 43 the subjects of baptism, must lie not cither use language diiFerent from that of inspiration respecting this mutter; or expose himself to a violent suspicion of having departed from the original institution — and that, too, in cases appa- rently unaffected by time, place, or circumstances? We reply yes, most assuredly— as their missionary reports bear ample witness. XII. The zeal displayed by our Baptist brethren in pro- selyting people to their opinions and practice, is founded on a principle of action which all consistent persons must commend. But the mode of its operation is not always justifiable. ISIany ministers and members of their commu- nion are in the habit of seizing upon young and inexpe- rienced converts of other denominations during their inci- pient state of Christian knowledge and feeling, when easily ' tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of ' doctrine ; ' and, by bold and positive assertions, appeals to their fears, and promises to their compliance — get num- bers of them under water and into their churches, before they are capable of weighing the evidence adduced on either side of the question. ' Some have made it essential to sal- ' vation ; '^ and, of course, have pleaded, that no one can go to heaven, except through the baptismal font. This is a method of edifying their cause which symbolizes too much with worldly policy ; and being a sclieme they would not applaud in us, they cannot expect us to praise it in them. Pedobaptists, however, may take the hint, and better guard their people against the intrusive attacks of their vigilant opponents. XIII. It has been often remarked, that when Baptist ministers and certain influential members of their churches are endeavouring to obtain or secure the good-will and as- sistance of Pedobaptists, they would fain persuade us that they lay very little stress on the ordinance of immersion ; that they view it as of too small importance to employ their time, tongue, eyes, or ears, about it; and that their only ' Evans, &.-C. p. 12G. 44 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. object is to save the souls of men — in a word, tliat they would liardly turn over a straw to make converts to their peculiar sentiments. But follow them into their pulpits, or into private houses, or where they imagine their arguments will tell without rebuke ; and you would suppose that Pedobaptists were without an idea in defence of their measures, and that to descend into the baptismal water was absolutely essential to their finally ascending into the kingdom of glory. This is a species of dissimulation and trickery by no means creditable ; and which, we trust, is far from universal. In some cases, they express themselves as quite tired and sick of the subject, and wish to hear no more about it. But this is only when they are puzzled and opposed ; for they can listen with delight to the longest sermons and harangues designed to establish their own side of the question, and will reason by the day with some ill- informed hearer, to induce him to enter their church through the water of the baptistry. XIV. It may be laid down as a clear canon of religious controversy. That the most learned, intelligent, and con- scientious writers and preachers, are the most unsuccessful supporters of an erroneous principle. This truth is fully exemplified in the present case. No reader, generally con- versant with the Baptist advocates of dipping, will doubt, that the most clear-headed, knowing, and scrupulous among them, have ever been its most ineffective champions. They have yielded points, conceded criticisms, and surren- dered data, which have more than half destroyed their cause. On the other hand, their inferior coadjutors have so dashed on in the midst of irrelevant evidence, positive assertions, and bold rejoinders, as to induce credulous readers to adopt their conclusions without further enquiry, or the least apprehension of a possible mistake. The fol- lowing sheets will bear out these assumptions, and which must go far in supporting our arguments in favour of affusion baptism. XV. From the irritable manner of many of our oppo- PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 45 nents, when we approach die Baptist controversy, one might amiost conclude, that the doctrine itself was a legiti- mate monopoly of their communion. To preach on our side of the subject, or otherwise to advocate our views of the sacrament, is frequently regarded as an obtrusive inva- sion of their prerogative, and a declaration of hostility against their persons. The topic is regarded with so much endearment, that their cholor awakes whenever their darling theme is but gently touched by the hand of a stranger. A Baptist, who occasionally attended an Independent chapel, flew into a violent passion, declaring himself grossly in- sulted by the minister's advocating his own views of the doctrine — forgetting that the like is often done by Baptist preachers before Independent contributors, and with at least equal zeal and strength of expression. Whether this feeling arises from fear or excessive self-confidence, may be gene- rally gathered from circumstances. The topic, however, is common property, and all have a right to give their judg- ment concerning it. We can reason and keep our temper — for our's is not the hostility of an adversary, but a fair and ingenuous investigation of truth — to the obtaining of which, let us implore the unerring guidance of the Holy Spirit. 46 THE QUESTION AT ISSUE. Having made the foregoing preliminary observations, we shall now proceed to discuss the following subject: WHETHER THE PROPER AND SCRIPTURAL MODE OF ADMI- NISTERING THE RITE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM IN THIS AGE AND COUNTRY, CONSISTS IN APPLYING THE WATER TO THE PERSON IN THE FORM OF POURING OR SPRINK- LING ; OR IN APPLYING THE PERSON TO THE WATER IN THE FORM OF A TOTAL SUBMERSION ? This latter method is invariably practised by the Anti- pedobaptists in this nation, and is considered absolutely essential to a valid performance of this Christian ceremony. In their Confession of Faith, published in 1677, they de- clare that * immersion, or dipping of the person in Vi'ater, is ' necessary to the due administration of this ordinance.' We, on the contrary, arc of opinion that it is not ; and fur- ther, that any person, merely immersed in water, is not baptized at all ; while those on whom the baptismal ele- ment is poured or sprinkled (no matter which) are duly and scripturally baptized. This view of the case we shall endeavour to establish in as simple and concise a manner as the subject will fairly admit. In prosecuting this enquiry, we shall, First, state, exa- mine, and confute, the arguments of our opponents in sup- port of their exclusive practice ; and, Secondly, ive shall adduce a variety of circumstantial evidence, to prove that our's is the only proper mode of Christian baptism. 47 PART FIRST. WE SHALL STATE, EXAMINE, AND CONFUTE THE ARGU- MENTS OF THE BAPTISTS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR EX- CLUSIVE SYSTEM OF IMMERSION BAPTISM. These arguments may be arranged in the following order : — I. The natural conclusions of common readers, u. The concessions of numerous Pedohaptists. III. The history of the Christian church. IV. The meaning of the Greek verb baptize. V. The import of four Greek prepositions. VI. The circumstances of the first N. T. baptisms. VII. Several allusions to this scripture rite. VIII. The immutable nature of scripture precedents. This arrangement, it is presumed, will do perfect justice to the cause of our opponents, as it embraces a summary of all the arguments adduced in defence of their scheme. A few observations, however, must precede the more imme- diate consideration of them. I. To render many of our future observations intelligible and pertinent, it will be requisite to bear in mind that our opponents deny in toto the validity of affusion and asper- sion baptism — whether administered to infants or adults — and, consequently, pronounce every denomination of Chris- tians, besides themselves, unbaptized. The ultimate aim of all their publications on this topic is the establishment of this proposition. Pedobaptists, in general, have conceded the validity of dipping, either as one species of baptism, or as an admissible substitute for the primitive practice ; at the same time contending, that pouring or sprinkling, was an apostolical method, or is now perfectly consonant witli the will of the Tnstitutor. We believe, however, and shall attempt to prove, that ^Modern Immersion is no Christian 48 EXPLANATORY REMARKS. Baptism at all ; and that pouring or sprinkling is exclu- sively right. A frequent recurrence to this statement will aid you in understanding and applying the ensuing remarks. II. Our esteemed brethren would fain make us believe that their practice is supported by positive precepts and the plainest examples. This, however, we deny ; and con- tend that it is upheld only by conjecture and supposition — and defended only by vague statements and illegitimate de- ductions. It is represented to the world, by its panegyrists, as beauteous in form, and invulnerable to the boldest attacks ; while, in truth, it charms but few, and, when touched by the wand of demonstration, crumbles into dust. ' I do not remember,' says Mr. Elliot, in his " Dipping not Baptizing," ' that it is any where said that the person ' baptized was covered with water, or put under it ; and, had ' this been the case, I hardly think the scripture would ' have been entirely silent about it, but in some place or • other it would have been expressly mentioned; especially ' if it be a circumstance of such importance as some persons ' suppose and contend for.' The whole system of immer- sion rests on perhaps and possibility ; and, should we be able to adduce a much higher degree of probability against them, their cause, in the estimation of all candid judges, must be lost. For, as an opposing writer justly remarks, ' if in favour of a proposition, not within the limits of the ' strict sciences, a person should adduce a high probability, 'he would he thought to establish his conclusion.' ^ III. In defending their mode, our opponents incessantly evade the principle of fair argumentation ; and constantly support their notions of baptism by a species of reasoning inapplicable to every similar investigation. They pro- nounce, with unqualified assurance, the divine right of dipping; and behind the impregnable battlements of an unyielding positivity, are proof against every assault of rational investigation and indubitable facts. In other cere- monial matters, positive institutions are modelled or omit- ' Anderson, i). 11. Sje p. 19. EXPLAKATORY REMARKS. d!) ted to suit their country and age ; but, in this, one iotii must not he abated from their fancied form of apostolical order, though decency and health implore it with melting supplications. We feel no need of this inconsistent and ever-shifting method to maintain our cause. Fair, candid, and straight-forward interpretation of scripture, is all we desire — is all our system demands. IV. The particular ground on which the more intelli- gent of our brethren erect their dipping hypothesis, is altogether contracted and sandy. The supposed primary meaning of a Greek generic verb, and of four Greek vari- able prepositions, are the chief, if not entire, basis of their system ; as they repeatedly assert, and as will be hereafter verified. We say the primary meaning, for they admit that the terms in question, are applied to other actions beside immersing. We say the supposed primary meaning ; for they have not proved that the act of dipping is an inherent, original, and essential property of the words in dispute — as will also be established in our future observations. Now, we contend that these abstract terms can never settle the question. They tolerate both an application of the element to the object, and of the object to the element — admit of either dipping or sprinkling — but confine the right to neither. The apostolical practice can only be gathered from circumstances, antecedent, collateral, and immedi- ately following. This view of the case, we purpose not to overlook in any part of the discussion ; believing it the only one which is truly legitimate, or properly calculated to bring this long litigated topic to a fair and amicable issue. v. It will also be found that Baptists, especially in con- versation, take a very contracted and partial view of the scripture testimonies respecting this topic. They collect a few isolated texts apparently in their favour, and dwell upon them continually — at the same time passing over, either purposely or ignorantly, a hundred others which form a part of the evidence to be examined by the candid enquirer. John's baptizing in Jordon and Enon — our E 50 EXPLANATORY REMARKS. Lord's coming up out of the water after baptism — Philip and the Eunuch going down into the water and coming up out of it — Paul's expression, 'buried with him by baptism ' into death,' and the like — are repeatedly adduced with all the exultation of a most signal triumph. But they forget to tell us how John baptized in the wilderness where Christ took up his abode — or how he performed the ceremony in the open air on vast multitudes of men and women, so as to consult decency and health — or how the three thousand were baptized in the city of Jerusalem in the afternoon of the day of Pentecost — or how we are baptized by the Holy Ghost — or how sprinkling under the law became designated baptism — or how baptism symbolizes with the crucifixion of Christ, Sec. Let them look at the subject in all its parts and bearings, and then argue — but not before. vi. It is sometimes, indeed, amusing, though mortifying, to debate with many of our opponents — for, say what you will, they are sure to be always victorious. If you adduce analogical illustrations, they pronounce them far-fetched and irrelative — if you contemplate the subject in detail, and pursue its various ramifications, they call it a childish split- ting of hairs, and unworthy of so grand a theme — if you puzzle them by the production of facts and demonstrations, they assure you that the plainest evidence may be perplexed and mystified by a subtle and disingenuous disputant — if you prove, that it was not likely that a system, so liable to aiFect the modesty and health of many pious people, should have been instituted by Clirist, as a constant and universal sacrament in the church, they redden, and declare you are ridiculing a ceremony of divine appointment, and there- fore ought not to be reasoned with any longer — if they feel at a loss for reason or argument to establish any position in favour of their scheme, founded on some particular passage, recourse is immediately had to what we very naturally deem the erroneous expositions of certain Pedobaptists, whose opinions are of no greater weight in our judgment than their own — and if, perchance, they are for a moment foiled THE NATLTvAL CONCLUSIONS, ETC. ."31 in debate, they arise with renewed vigour, encouraging themselves in the delightful thought, that greater men and wiser heads maintain, and, they doubt not, can defend, their practice. — But, we must hasten to investigate the first par- ticular mentioned in our arrangement. SECTION FIRST. THE NATURAL CONCLUSIONS OF COMMON READERS. 'And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet ' Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest ? And 'he said, liow can I, except some man should guide me? And 'he desired PJiilip that he would come up and sit with him.' Acts, viii. 30-31. It is a common and favourite topic with our respected opponents, that the mode of baptism should be understood in the sense in which plain readers of the New Testament regard it — and that the scriptures would be sadly defective in amplitude and simplicity, if such persons could not, by this means alone, arrive at a correct and satisfactory con- clusion about it. ' The round-about logic-labour,' says Mr. Booth, ' which the ploughman has to perform, if he ' would not pin his faith on the sleeve of the learned, is ' incredible. On this plan of proceeding, a plain unlettered ' man, with the New Testament only in his hands, though ' sincerely desirous of learning from his Lord what baptism ' is, and to whom it belongs, is not furnished with sufficient ' documents to form a conclusion. No. He must study the ' records of Moses, and well understand the covenant made ' with Abraham. He must study the antiquated rite of ' circumcision. He must know to whom it belonged, and * the reasons why. Then he must compare it with baptism ' in tliis, that, and tlie other particular — after which, he OZ THE NATURAL CONCLUSIONS ' must draw a genuine inference, respecting the point in ' hand,' &c. ^ This notion is constantly reiterated by the disciples of this sagacious instructor. — ' Read,' say our reverend brethren to their obsequious auditories, ' read only ' the New Testament, and then decide for yourselves. You ' need no exposition of men on this subject. You are as ' competent judges of its nature as the most learned and ' laborious researchers into the holy oracles. In this way ' multitudes have been convinced that we are exclusively ' right — and many of them have thus become Baptists even ' against their will.' With this idea, the raw unlettered ' ploughman,' fancies himself as fully qualified for an umpire of the business as his teacher ; and with all the airs and assurance that ignorance ever engendered, de- clares himself as wise as his betters, not only in this, but, by ' a genuine inference ' in all other religious matters. We must, however, examine this position. I. This assertion of our opponents makes nothing for their cause, but induces a result quite the reverse. It is plain beyond dispute, that if the judgment of the populace is formed by simply reading the New Testament in the vernacular tongue, their position is untenable ; since a vast majority of common readers decides against their practice, by adopting a contrary one — nor is it fair to charge theni with acting inconsistently with their creed, till unquestion- able evidence of the fact be produced. If they are previ- ously biassed in favour of either system, as most of them undoubtedly are, it becomes very difficult, perhaps impos- sible, justly to say how they would have determined, if left entirely to themselves. Had all plain people, without being prejudiced either way, pronounced immersion baptism only agreeable to the word of God, there might have been some plea for the assertion ; but, as the case now stands, there is certainly none. The truth is, that by merely reading the scriptures, the commonalty seldom form a settled judg- ment in this or similar matters. They are first catechised 1 r.ooth, vol. ii. p. 42, 13, M. Sec also vol. iii. p. 197, 3G3. Gibbs, 229-232. DF COMMON READERS. 53 by their private instructors into the meaning of the worJ baptize, and then, attaching the communicated notion to the term, believe and act accordingly. May it not be asked, whether it arises solely from a simple and unbiassed perusal of the scriptures, that the hearers of Baptist mi- nisters, and the children of Baptist members, almost wholly and exclusively become Baptists? If they are not prejudiced by the expository lectures of their respective teachers, how happens this phenomenon in the religious world? Of what value, then, is all this parade about the natural conclusions of common readers in favour of dip- ping? Nor is one at a loss to account for the prevalence of our opponent's principles and practice among those wlio, though really intelligent and pious, exclusively attend their ministry, or read only their publications on this subject — much less are we surprised that ' the illiterate ploughman,' the obsequious negroes of the West Indies, and the ardent youths, newly awakened — who only read their pamphlets, only hear their declamations, and often witness the im- portant position of those that undergo the ceremony — should long to be equally religious, equally submissive, and equally signalized among their neighbours. An op- posite result would be far more mysterious and insoluble. From such a positive and reiterated statement of doctrines, thousands are fully convinced, not only that immersion is proper, but that the heresies of Socinus and Mahomet are right. He must be a stranger to the church and the world, who is not fully convinced, that the generality of people read their Bibles with the spectacles of their teacher, and understand them in the sense which his sagacity or igno- rance dictates. The merit or demerit of such conduct we must leave to the umpirage and correction of our op- ponents. II. It is manifest to the weakest capacity, that the con- clusions of common English readers are founded entirely on the terms and phrases adopted by the translators of the sacred writmgs. Tliis sentiment is, in fact, conceded even E 5 04 THE NATURAL CONCLUSIONS by the last-cited author. ' Let but the word baptlzontes,' says he, 'be fairly translated into plain English, [namely, ' to immerse,] as the other words of the sacred statute are ; ' and the most illiterate person, if he can read his own lan- * guage, may find both the qualifications for baptism, and ' the proper mode of administration, expressly contained 'in the law itself.' ^ Now, on this principle, if in one country, as at Serampore,- the original word haptizo is rendered to dip, in another to pour, and in a third to sprinkle, the plain illiterate ploughman of those respective places would conclude accordingly, and dip, pour, or sprinkle, in conformity to the letter of their different Bibles. In like manner, if the prepositions, we shall sub- sequently investigate, in connexion with the baptism of Christ and the Eunuch, were rendered to and from the water, instead of into and out of the water, as they fairly might be — would they not conclude that the baptized pro- bably never went into the element at all to receive this rite ? The translators of the authorized English version of our Bible were evidently biassed in favour of immersion through their long association with the Romish church — ' the ancient practice of which,' Messrs. Birt and Dore tell us, 'was to dip;' 3 or, in consequence of their veneration for the fathers of the third and fourth centuries, in whose time immersion, with various other unscriptural rites of baptism, was practised in many cases as, at least, a pre- fatory part of the ceremony; and they consequently gave the verb and prepositions the sense which accorded with, what we presume to designate, their mistaken sentiments. Of similar perversions, our opponents loudly complain in other notorious instances.* To those who would object to an examination of the original language of scripture for illustrating the subject before us, we would reply, in the language of Dr. Pye Smith — ' It would seem superfluous • Booth, vol. iii. p. 197. 2 Coiig. Mag. Marcli, 1S30. 3 IJirt's Vind. p. 21 ; Dore's Prof. p. 1?. ■* Booth, vol. iii. p. 2G1; and Coxhead, passim. OF COMMON READERS. .).) * to express a caution against arguing from any translation ' of the scriptures, as if it were the original ; but, it must ' be confessed, that not only unlearned Christians, but * some men of respectable education, have fallen into this ^egregious error.' ^ — It will be rendered apparent, that the most generally appropriate translation of the word baptize, as religiously employed in the New Testament, is to sanctify, dedicate, consecrate, purify, initiate, or some other term of an equally indefinite sense. Supposing, then, the verb had been thus rendered, in the narratives of scrip- ture-baptism, would the illiterate ploughman, in that case, arrive at the invariable conclusion, that it means always and only to dip or immerse the whole body ? Certainly not — especially if the prepositions were translated in harmony with such a general import of the verb. Hence it is evident that the opinions of the illiterate depend on the words em- ployed by the learned ; and that this argument in favour of dipping amounts to nothing. III. If the decision of common readers be correct in one instance, why not in all? or who is to arbitrate as to the subjects precisely within the range of their unaided comprehension? And if every thing in theology be really so plain to the judgment of the ploughman and mechanic, as to render their decisions a criterion of biblical truth, on what pretence of necessity or advantage are all their lec- tures on divinity, or commentaries on the scriptures, or of what utility are all their pamphlets and volumes so indus- triously circulated on the baptismal controversy, or why do they support colleges and educate men to explain the gospel? {See Acts viii. 30, 31.) — On the ground that the word' of God is so very plain to the lower classes of our countrymen, all this book-making, academical tuition, and oral instruction, go for nothing — in fact, they do mischief — for as the learned and ignorant mostly see things in a different light, on the presumption that the latter are good judges, the former must be bad ones. The truth is, that ' Messiah, vol. i. p. 57. Ob THE NATURAL CONCLUSIONS ignorance places a person in a state of mental dependence on the knowledge and integrity of his intelligent fellow- creatures. As one of our opponents judiciously remarks, ' an illiterate man determines on the matter from the testi- ' mony of others, whom, by his condition, he is obliged to ' trust.' 1 And if this be the case in the present day, how much more must it have been in former and feudal times, when a Bible would have cost the poor man the entire pro- ceeds of fifteen years' labour- — when barons and bishops could not, with few exceptions, write their names ^ — and when an ability to read, as late as in the sixteenth century, conferred on the greatest culprits pardon, or, in law phrase- ology, the benefit of clergy ? * But even admitting the mental competency of the poor for eliciting the mind of the Spirit with unerring precision, it must be conceded, that the time usually and necessarily consumed in providing for their temporal wants, and the lassitude of mind gene- rally induced by their muscular avocations, almost entirely prevent their solving the difficulties found in the scriptures ; among which, that involving the mode of baptism, is cer- tainly not the least. It should be further remarked, that this capability of comprehending the scriptural mode of baptism, is not confined by our antagonists to' persons of certain specific attainments in knowledge. Any illiterate person, who can read the New Testament, or, v*hich amounts to the same thing, who has ears to hear another read it, is perfectly qualified to form an unerring conclusion. Nor is piety requisite. An individual, seriously desirous of knowing the primitive practice, whatever be his motives, is, with the New Testament in his hand, a competent um- pire in this controversy. Hence the poor illiterate Pedo- baptist is every way as good a judge in this cause as Mr. Booth, or any of his colleagues or successors, how ' Rob. Hist. p. 5. See Tillotson's "Works, vol. iii. p. 199, 200. 2 Townley's Bib. Anecd. p. 139. 3 Robt. Hist. Ch. V. vol. i. p. 214, note (r). ■• Kaime's Sk. of Man, vol. i. p. 92. OF co^nroN readers. 57 great soever tlieir literary attainments, or deep their piety toward God. IV. While every thing really fundamental in faith and morals may be easily gathered from revelation by pious, intelligent, and attentive readers in common life, the modes, customs, and ceremonies, to which constant allusion is made in the Old and New Testaments, must be matters of doubt, and frequently of inexplicable difficulty, to such persons.^ The Greek or Jew, who lived in the times and places in which the scriptures were composed, under- stood the references to rites and manners daily practised before bis eyes, much more easily than the abstract doc- trines of inspiration. But plain, uneducated Englishmen, whose climate and customs are widely different from those of the east two or three thousand years ago, can compre- hend the doctrines best. Indeed, without the assistance derived from early or contemporary writings, and the later researches of the enterprising and observant traveller — even ministers themselves must remain exceedingly igno- rant of many expressions found in the holy oracles. Nor are our opponents backward in availing themselves of such auxiliaries, and that to the greatest extent, of which Dr. Gill's Exposition of the Bible affords us remarkable and splendid illustrations. Hence Taylor's ' Fragments to ' Calmet's Dictionary,' Harmer's ' Observations on Various ' Passages of Scripture,' and Burder's 'Oriental Customs,' shed more light over many obscure portions of inspiration, respecting ancient rites and ceremonies, than all the eru- dite conjectures of every schoolman in Europe. How absurd, therefore, is it to talk of the untutored ploughman construing the difficulties of the sacred volume with all the unerring judgment of infallibility. Let us not, however, be misunderstood. We are not arguing that illiterate people are incapable of compre- hending this subject, when explained in a manner adapted ' Ryland's Pastoral Memorials, v. i. p. 107 ; and Dr. Campbell on the Gospels, Diss. I. 58 THE NATURAL CONCLUSIONS to tlieir capacity. Our proposition is, tliat without a clear exposition of various scriptural allusions, they will remain in a state of uncertainty, respecting many recondite mat- ters. As, in a court of justice, an illiterate jury, though totally incompetent to determine points of law from a simple recitation of parliamentary enactments, may form a good judgment in the case, after hearing the pleadings of counsel and the summing-up of the judge. So illiterate congregations or readers, may come to a just decision on the mode of baptism, after hearing both sides of the ques- tion fully and fairly discussed. It may be further observed, that the statutes of the nation, like the laws and precepts of revelation, are designed for the guidance of the entire population ; and, yet, it is well known, that many of them are so difficult of comprehension, by the mass of the people, that men learned in the science of law, are re- quired to explain their claims and obligations on society. V. Our Baptist brethren reprove us for the ' round- ' about logic-labour,' we are said to employ in defending affusion baptism ; but they overlook the universally ad- mitted fact, that the apparsnt import of many passages of the Bible, is often materially different from their real sense and application ; and that it often requires great penetration and patience to discover the meaning of the Holy Spirit. It is necessary to compare scripture with scripture, and spiritual things with spiritual, so that one may explain and modify the other. Those who deny the supreme divinity of our blessed Saviour, refer you to the apparent sense of a few passages of scripture — as, ' my ' Father is greater than I ' — while they overlook other texts which explain the sense and application of such ex- pressions. In the same manner, our opponents cite phrases which apparentlij support the doctrine of dipping — as, ' when he was come up out of the water ' — and overlook others which tend to explain the sense of the terms em- ployed. Hence it is, too, that many wild schemes and systems of theology have been formed and promulgated by OF COMMON KEADKRS. 59 individuals:, who have deceived tliemselves and tlicir fol- lowers by taking the apparent import of a few declara- tions of the word of God. And this our brethren feel, when contending against the dogmas of the Antinomian, Socinian, Catholic, Irvingite, and others, who, they fully believe, have departed from the faith, through adopting the apparent sense of certain portions of divine revelation. ' It ' is deplorable,' says Dr. Cox, ' that such men as Luther ' and jMelancthon should have wandered so long in dark- ' ness ; yet, be it remembered, though they erred, it was ' from a most anxious solicitude of mind to adhere rigidly ' to scriptural statements. They urged the very words of ' Christ [respecting the Lord's Supper] as their authority, 'but unhappily misinterpreted them.'^ YI. To reply, as some of our respected opponents have done,- that this obscurity of scripture, respecting the defi- nitive forms of positive institutions, would, if true, greatly impeach the wisdom and benevolence of its Author — is an objection void of the smallest weight, and made only amidst the desperate perplexities of an untenable, though darling, position. That there are inexplicable difficulties to illiterate minds, palpable facts have placed beyond the possibility of rational debate. And those who would presumptuously arraign the wisdom and benevolence of God, for not mak- ing his word otherwise, must contend with heaven, and marshal their notions against the knowledge of the Omni- potent. They might as justly reason, that Jehovah ought to have imparted human skill and information alike to every youth without parental or other tuition — or, that the superior bounties of providence should have been afforded equally to all mankind, though thousands exert greater energies of mind and body than others, to secure them. How would the objector have rebuked the Son of God for speaking in parables, that his audience, ' seeing, ' might not perceive, and hearing, might not understand ' Life of Melancthon, p. 299. 2 Burt, p. IS; Bootji, vol. i. p. 84, 85, 105, 231. 60 THE NATURAL CONCLUSIONS ' the mysteries of the kingdom ! ' (Mark iv. 11, 12.) Has not the Saviour established a gospel ministry for instruct- ing the ignorant — and afforded them minds capable of being thus educated in the revealed will of their Maker ? And has he not thereby perfectly justified his procedure against the charge of wanting wisdom and benevolence, in denying the idle and ignorant every advantage afforded to the indus- trious and cultivated portions of his rational creatures? — Matthew Henry justly observes, ' As ministers would ' hardly be believed without Bibles to back them ; so ' Bibles would hardly be understood without ministers to ' explain them.' ^ VII. "When our opponents condemn as extraneous and improper any reference to human authorities, for elucidating the import of the Greek word baptize, or to the customs cf the country in which the scriptures were written, for at- testing the analogy of our proceedings with the intention of the sacred writers" — they display a very considerable de- gree of ignorance, or destitution of candour. They must know, one would suppose, that this is the only method by which, under certain provisoes to be hereafter mentioned, all ancient and foreign writers can be fairly understood — and this is a principle adopted by all the compositors of lexicons designed to explain the New Testament. The slightest inspection of the valuable works of Parkhurst, Ewing, Schleusner, and others, will evince the truth of our observation. They also involve in their censure some of the most eminent and holy men of their own denomina- tion,^ who have adopted this plan in hope of supporting their interest. Even these very objectors eagerly refer to writers. Heathen or Christian, Popish or Protestant, when- ever they discover the least plausible hint or argument in maintenance of their sentiments. A fair and rational in- vestigation of the subject, is all we require, and the use of those legitimate means in our defence which our esteemed 1 Pref. to Expos. 4to. p. G. Lond. 1811. - Booth, vol. ii. p. -12-44; vol. iii. p. 197, 308. ' Ibid. Apologj', p. 4C0-41 j. OF COMMON READERS. Gl bretlircn employ in theirs, and in conducting and deter- mining all similar enquiries. To deny us tliese, betrays a feeling which they can best explain. In fact, as one of their recent writers observes, ' every competent and impartial 'judge will admit, that the true signification of a Greek ' word must be determined by its current use among Greek ' authors, especially when that use of the word is supported ' by the universal consent of the most distinguished scho- 'liasts and grammarians.'^ VIII. There are some of our opponents who even object to any reference to the Old Testament, for illustrating the topic under discussion. They would make us believe, that Christianity is totally different from Judaism, and forms a new and distinct religion in the world, and that to go back to the ancient dispensations, in order to understand a Chris- tian rite, is ' unnecessary, presumptuous,' - and ridiculous — and yet our reverend brethren, who are truly ministers of the gospel, frequently select texts from Moses and the prophets, and preach the gospel from them. They often refer to those writings to explain or confirm the sayings of Christ and his apostles — and laboriously investigate the Old Testament for the sake of enforcing the New. They, in fact, as frequently direct our attention to the institutions of the Old Testament, in supporting their views of baptism, as do the Pedobaptists themselves. Mr. Booth, whose sentiments on this head have been previously cited,^ stands foremost in adducing this species of referential argumenta- tion.^ Such allusions are proper and requisite. For how is the epistle to the Hebrews to be understood without a knowledge of the Levitical economy? And how many other portions of the new covenant are inexplicable without a reference to the prophecies of the old? Did the apostles never explain their rites, doctrines, and duties, by an appeal to the scriptures of truth, before any part of the gospels or epistles were written ? In 1 Cor. v. 7, 8, the ' Gibbs, p. 51 ; Gill, p. 223. 2 Booth, v. ii. p. 12 ; Dore, p. 11 ; Gibbs, p. 221 = Page 51. ■• Apology, p. 400-415, &c. F 62 THE NATURAL CONCLUSIONS, ETC. apostle says, ' Purge out therefore, the old leaven, that ye ' may be a new lump — therefore let us keep the feast — not * with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and ' wickedness — but with the unleavened bread of sincerity ' and truth.' ' Who,' says a learned author, ' can adequately ' understand this reference unless he have some acquaint- ' ance with the pains taken by the Jews to cleanse their 'houses from leaven? And how many things are there in ' Christianity, on which a plain unlettered man needs ' almost perpetual assistance ? ' ^ And, if it be an allowed practice in other matters, with what propriety could Mr. Dore assume, as in the place before quoted, that, ' in ' this case we have nothing to do with the Old Testament ' — as baptism is an ordinance, not of Moses, but of Christ ? ' Are our Baptist friends afraid of the light which the law and the prophets shed over this Christian ceremony? If not, why make the objection? IX. But, as the position we are combatting strikes at the root of all ministerial expository labours, it may be proper to enquire whether the illiterate ploughman would be the person selected by our opponents to lecture on the Song of Solomon — to unfold the mysteries of the Apoca- lypse — to establish the fulfilment of ancient prophecy — or to explain the numerous metaphorical expressions of the sacred writings ? To reply, that the doctrine of baptism is of simpler solution, is also begging the question. Besides, the instructions of the pulpit are enforced by the strongest commands and the clearest examples in the word of God. "When Christ gave his final commission to the apostles, he bade them teach all nations. (Matt, xxviii. 20.) "When he rose from the dead, he expounded the scriptures to his disciples in their way to Emmaus. (Luke xxiv. 27.) Paul went into the synagogue at Thessalonica, and reasoned with the audience out of the scriptures, opening and alledg- ing that Christ must needs have suffered. (Acts xvii. 3,4.) In the same manner he instructed his hearers, in his own ' Taylor's Facts and Evidences, lett. ii. p. 2. rXGUARDED COXCESSIOXS, ETC. 63 hired house at Rome. (Acts xxviii. 23.) But, if the un- learned, who so often wrest all the scriptures to their de- struction, (2 Peter iii. 16,) are such competent judges in determining the precise import of inspiration, all these commands and examples are entirely nugatory. In a word, if our opponents were, in all cases, to act consistently with the objection we have now considered, they would, as before hinted, demolish their colleges, burn their theolo- gical books, the Bible excepted, and set aside the ministry among them. And, till this be done, we may fairly con- clude that this pillar of their scheme, is a mere subterfuge, and is little better than a reed shaken with the wind, and broken by the slightest touch of the feeblest antagonist. SECTION SECOND. THE CONCESSIONS OF NUMEROUS PEDOBAPTISTS. ' Nor is there any hazard, as some suppose, lest such a freedom from ' the shackles of authority should produce a contempt of truly ' wise and learned men, and cherish the humour of conceit and 'vanity: for an acquaintance with the mistakes and failures of ' men, who have unsuccessfully emploj-ed great ingenuity and ' industry in the pursuit of truih, suggests a useful lesson of ' modesty and diffidence in our own enquiries, and of candour 'towards the mistakes of others.' Dr. Endfield's Hist, or Phil. p. 5. Mr. Booth, following the example of Messrs. D'Anvers and Keach, as if conscious that his cause was defective in argument, and required another species of prop to preserve it from falling, has collected and arranged a formidable list of extracts from different writers of various Pedobaptist de- nominations, and founded various reflexions and hypotheses upon them, in order to prove that, in the opinion of his op- ponents, he and his brethren are exclusively right, and that G4 THE UNGUARDED CONCESSIONS Christians ought always and only to clip all they baptize.^ This was certainly an ingenious thought, calculated to puzzle his weaker antagonists, and to encourage his ardent abettors. The work is the result of immense reading, and is executed with considerable ability. Out of this collation several minor publications have been made; and few Baptist ministers address their congregations on the subject in debate, without retailing a long catalogue of these quo- tations, and laying a ponderous stress upon them. A few observations, however, will show that our opponents have gained little in appearance, and nothing in reality, from this mode of aggression. I. This species of argumentation not being always, and in all respects, improper, the following postulates should be duly considered, in order to form a correct judgment of this kind of quotation. I. The obnoxious citations to which we allude, differ materially from such as are made for the purpose of exhi- biting the objections to be combatted by a writer, or merely for determining the precise line of concord and contention between the opposing parties. The latter are absolutely necessary to all polemical discussions — the former, how- ever congenial to our minds, are not so. II. The quotations themselves must be founded in argu- ment and capable of moral demonstration ; and not the mere opinion or dogma of the authors — for otherwise they are of no real validity, and become subject to examination and correction as much as the sentiment they arc adduced to corroborate. III. The doctrine to be established should be capable of decisive proof without these citations — since, if it were not, suspicion might be naturally raised, that the ignorance or inadvertency of an opponent, is the chief foundation of this inferential hypothesis. IV. These quotations can only be adduced, with any thing like equity or effect, against such as make them, and > Booth, vol. i. p. 44-CP, OF NUMEROUS rEDOBAPTISTS. 65 are thereby liable to a retort — or against those who, in some -way, acknowledge their validity — others are not af- fected by them, being left entirely free and unshackled to enter the arena of disputation. V. They should, in all cases, be extracted from those works in which the writers avowedly treat on the contro- verted subject, and wherein they express themselves with caution — fully conscious, from the past agitation of the question, of the use or abuse which may be made of them, and never from apparently careless or incidental expressions. VI. Properly to serve the cause of the person who cites them, they should only and entirely maintain the point im- mediately to be established — neither more nor less — since, if this be not the case, they are no fair support of this de- sign — and retailing them is calculated to excite consider- able misapprehensions in the mind of the unwary reader. VII. The quotations should not directly and fully advo- cate the ultimate object of the person that makes them — since they are then to be regarded as no longer concessions of opponents, but as the opinions of friends — an indirect admission of certain data or principles, from which the point at issue can be deduced, being the only legitimate evidence of this nature. As few, it is presumed, will object to these postulates, it remains that Mr. Booth's citations should be brought to the test — and which we shall, there- fore, proceed to do. II. Now, the concessions collected by Mr. Booth, being merely the opinions of the Pedobaptists referred to, are as subject to examination and correction, as the assertions of the Baptists themselves. Suppose between ninety and a hundred of Mr. Booth's own denomination had inadver- tently admitted that the ancient mode of performing the ceremony in question was sometimes by pouring or sprink- ling — and, suppose these concessions had been collated and urged by us, as an unquestionable proof, that, in the opinion of the Baptists, our practice was scriptural and F 5 6G THE UNGUARDED CONCESSIONS exclusively valid — would not tins reverend gentleman and liis more wary brethren have replied, ' we rely no more on ' the opinions and dogmas of our blundering and incon- ' sistent fraternity, when contradicting our own particular ' sentiments, than of those in any other communion ? ' For, as Dr. Gale justly observes, ' however great and honour- ' able the patrons of a mistake may be, they are but men, ' and the authority of Christ, and the respect and obedience ' we owe to his commands, should counterbalance all other ' considerations.' ^ — ' For you must know,' says Mr. Keach, ' that men, though ministers, are not your rule of faith, but ' God's word.' - — Had the Pedobaptists brought aryumenta to show that immersion was not only the ancient mode of baptism, but that it was proper and necessary now, the case would have been materially different — for then their re- marks would have been entitled to a consideration which their mere opinions by no means merit. But this they have not done, and could not honestly do — and if they had, we must have regarded them as genuine Antipedobaptists in principle, though not in practice — and the idea of concession would have been out of the question.-^ III. Our opponents, however, with their sentiments on this subject, must regard the writers they cite with so much confidence, and on whose concessions so much stress is laid, as exceedingly weak or as absolute hypocrites — be- lieving one thing to be a divine obligation, and practising the very reverse— deeming immersion-baptism exclusively scriptural and proper, and yet sprinkling or affusing their converts. Of what real value, therefore, can the sayings of such persons be in the esteem of our brethren ? The authors referred to are not said indirectly to surrender certain posi- tions which, by deduction, are the pillars of the immersion scheme, but openly and directly to pronounce this method only scriptural and right. Such certainly is the impression intended to be made on the mind of persons perusing Mr. Booth's volumes. The divines, whose writings are > Gak-, p. 178. ■■' Kcacl:, Prcf. p. IC. = See Booth, vol. iii. r>. OM. OF NUMEROUS PEDOBAPTISTS. G7 cited, cither baptized by pouring or sprinkling, or they did not. If they did, and yet pronounce dipping only valid or divine, according to our opponents' notions of positive in- stitutes, they were undoubtedly a weak and rebellious body of men, contradicting and condemning their own constant and deliberate practice — and surely their evidence cannot be of any very great value in the esteem of our Baptist brethren. If, on the other hand, they performed this rite by immersion, we must view them as genuine Antipedo- baptists, and their conceding declarations as the assertions of real antagonists. On the former supposition, which we are taught to receive as correct, Mr. Booth makes the fol- lowing observation : — ' Now, is it not strange — strange to ' astonishment — that so many eminent men should thus ' agree in bearing testimony to immersion as the apostolic ' example, when it is notorious that their own practice was ' very different — ;just so the Papists.' ^ — Moreover, these supposed advocates for dipping v/ere not only erroneous in sprinkling, while they considered immersion only apostolic and proper, but they were so very ignorant of this plain and positive rite, or so refractory in their conduct towards their Lord and ^Master, as to sprinkle unconscious babes instead of believing adults. They must, in the judgment of our opponents, have been excessively imbecile in intellect, or uncommonly perverse in their proceedings — rendering the clear and immutable commands of Christ altogether nu- gatory — and yet these are the persons whose dogmas are collected with so much diligence, and disseminated with so much zeal, as the imperishable basis and impregnable bul- warks of their beloved system ! IV. Nor is this reasoning without analogy in the works of our respected opponents. Dr. Williams, having cited a passage in support of his practice from Mr. Elliott, a r>Ienonite Baptist, who pleads for adult baptism by pour- ing or sprinkling only,- Mr. Booth makes the following 1 Booth, vol. i. p. 225. See also vol. iii. p. G8. 2 Antipedobaptism E.xam. vol. ii. p. 119-135. 68 THE UNGUARDED CONCESSIONS reply : — ' So extremely fond of concession is Dr. W. that * lie classes a number of persons under the character of An- ' tipedobaptists, who professedly differ as much from us, as ' they do from himself in respect of the subject ; and ought, ' therefore, on both sides, to be left out of the question.' ^ — Or, to simplify the sentence, 'it is not proper to receive ' concessions on the Baptist controversy from those who, ' both in mode and subject, do not perfectly agree with the ' party opposed.' Now, if this be valid argumentation in the esteem of our brethren, then all Mr. Booth's quotations from the Quakers, whom he denominates his ' impartial ' friends,' stand for nothing ; since these good people, by differing as much from us as from Mr. Booth, in denying the propriety of water-baptism altogether, and thus ren- dering themselves erroneous in our mutual opinion, ' ought, ' therefore, to be left out of the question ; ' and as most, if not all, the Pedobaptists cited by Mr. Booth in defence of dipping, differed, at least, in opinion as much from us in respect of the mode (if their concessions are worth our opponents a straw), as they did from Mr. Booth, in regard of the subjects of baptism, 'they ought, on both sides, to ' be left out of the question,' as incompetent umpires of this debate. But, perhaps, the most inconsistent part of the business is the enlisting of Jeremy Taylor on their side of the question. The bishop, though deeming the Baptists ' deceived,'- to show what might be said for a bad cause, adduced a few arguments in their favour; but which to himself appeared sophistical, and such as no person of judgment or penetration would accredit ; ^ and yet his lordship is referred to and republished-* as making con- cessions of vast importance to the Baptist argument. In fact, if the method of Dr. "Williams were objectionable in the smallest degree, J\lr. Booth's is a hundred times more so. V. It will be made perfectly apparent, in the course of ' Booth, vol. iii. p. 53. ' Works, vol. ii. p. 3S7. 3 See Hammond's Six Queries. < By Mr. Anderson. OF NUMEROUS PEDOBAPTISTS. 69 our future observations, that, in conformity to an equitable interpretation of the holy oracles, and in accordance with the universal practice of our opponents in all other theolo- gical discussions, persons might believe that to dip is one, or even the primary, meaning of the word baptize, or that immersion was originally enjoined and practised in the Christian church, and yet be still honest and consistent Pedobaptists — performing the rite by aspersion. This, in many cases, is undoubtedly the fact. Various divines, who administer the rite in question in the manner observed by ourselves, do suppose that dipping constituted, at least, a part of the primitive mode ; but that the precise manner of applying the element to the object, is no more fixed and immutable than the circumstantials of the Lord's supper ; first celebrated by a dozen males only, on a Thursday evening, in an upper room, in a reclining posture, and with unleavened bread — or than the tokens of friendship and hospitality, consisting in a kiss of charity and washing one another's feet — or than the mode of recovering the sick, by anointing him with oil, and praying over him in the name of the Lord. If our opponents conceive that all Pedobaptists, who have unwittingly conceded that the an- cient mode was partly or wholly by immersion, are conse- quently favourable to dipping in the present age and country, and that, after such acknowledgments, they have nothing left in defence of their own practice, they Mall be greatly deceiving themselves, and boasting of company which, upon a little explanation, will entirely forsake them. VI. But we have no hesitation in saying, that such fatal concessions, as our opponents pretend to adduce, have never- been made by Pedobaptists, and that the authors referred to have been very unfairly treated. A superficial examination of the case will show, that many of the quo- tations are exceedingly partial and distorted — the truth is but partly told — extracts are improperly made — and a stress is laid on words and phrases which the original writers never intended. The impression designed to be 70 THE UNGUARDED CONCESSIONS made on the reader evidently is, ' that immersion was only ' and always the original practice, and as such should be ' invariably adopted now — that the word baptize means ' only and always to dip — and that in this sense we are * constantly to construe it in the present day.' For, though Mr. Booth has prefaced his citations with a couple of pro- visionary clauses, which necessity obliged him to write, and which are soon forgotten by common readers of his numerous extracts — the design was to make them believe that the authors sanctioned his practice. Indeed, nothing less than this, on the plan of his volumes, would answer his purpose. But where have such concessions been made? Let our opponents produce them, if they are able. It is absurd to imagine such to be attainable. Pedobaptists readily admit, that the word baptize is sometimes employed for dipping, sinking, and drowning, as well as for washing, pouring, or sprinkling ; but this is consonant with their views of aspersion baptism. They have erroneously con- ceded, that the apostles sometimes baptized by dipping the person partially or wholly — but does this prove, that they thought such a method requisite now in this country? Where is the Protestant Pedobaptist who has deliberately said that pouring or sprinkling of children or adults is not a real and valid baptism ? In fact, to suppose that they have intentionally advocated a system in books, which they condemned in practice, is preposterous. Mr. Booth is forced to admit the truth of our observations. He says, ' many of the following quotations are to be considered as ' concessions of these learned authors — no inconsiderable ' part [indeed all] of them asserting, notwithstanding what ' they here say, that the word baptism signifies pouring 'and sprinkling as well as immersion.' ^ Again, 'though ' these numerous and learned authors have expressed them- ' selves in the following manner, many [why not say all ?] ' of them insist upon it as highly probable, that the apostles ' did sometimes administer baptism by pouring or sprink- J Booth, vol. i. p. 44. OF NUMEROUS PEDOBAPTISTS. 71 'liiig.'i And yet tlicse are the authorities adduced as directly supporting the cause of dipping exclusively ! yil. You will, however, perceive that though the ori- ginal collector of these concessions was compelled to make the fore-cited avowals, and which entirely nullifies the force of his evidence derived from opponents ; the second- hand retailers of them seldom or never follow his example, by publicly making similar acknowledgments. They recite passage after passage, with the most consummate assur- ance, and purposely lead their people to conclude, that the whole question at issue, between them and ourselves, is candidly given up by the most eminent Pedobaptists. They take care not to subjoin, that the above scholars and divines believed, 'that the word baptism signifies pouring and 'sprinkling, as well as immersion' — or that 'many of 'them insist upon it, as highly probable, that the apostles ' did sometimes administer baptism by pouring or sprink- 'ling;' or, in other terms, that they deemed pouring or sprinkling both valid and scriptural. Surely such a method of debate is unfair and disreputable ! It is further observable, that those oft-reiterated conces- sions are mostly founded on Rom. vi. 2-6, and Col. ii. 11-13. A cursory review of Mr. Booth's collections will clearly establish this point. The writers cited, apparently without much reflexion or investigation, took for granted that the allusion, in those texts, was to baptism by water, and that probably dipping was a mode occasionally practised in apostolical times. But it will be seen hereafter that, unless we admit the heterodox notion of baptismal regene- ration, no such reference to water baptism was made by the inspired apostle. Consequently, the chief premises, from which those Pedobaptist authorities drew their conclusions, are void of the least validity ; and, of course, their opinions, founded on such a misconception, amount to just nothing at all. Now, though these points are conceded by certain clear-sighted Baptist preachers, yet, for want of candour, 1 Booth, vol, i. p. 191. TZ THE UNGUARDED CONCESSIONS and in the effort to proselyte their hearers, they retail the passages in question with as much eloquence and gravity, as if they had been derived from the most relevant and un- equivocal testimony of revelation. This we must denounce as both disingenuous and dishonest. Indeed, it is very difficult to divest one's mind of the supposition, that many of them employ, in their popular addresses on this subject, certain arguments in support of their practice which they are well aware have not the slightest claim to genuineness or validity. This charge may appear harsh — but the discre- pancies manifested between their private admissions and their public assertions, force us to arrive at such a humi- liating conclusion. VIII. Mr. Booth's mode of maintaining his cause by direct concession, is not only very suspicious, but very ex- ceptionable ; and, employed against himself, respecting his doctrines and discipline, would be deemed very uncharit- able. Suppose the followers of Faustus Socinus, or of John Agricola, were to ransack the writings of our Antipedo- baptist brethren of various denominations, and to cull a line here, a sentence there, and a paragraph elsewhere, and to lay an emphasis on words and expressions not originally emphatic, to make the public believe that * these numerous ' and learned authors ' were direct and avowed abettors of Socinianism or Antinomianism, or conceded the verity of these heresies — would not some one of our opponents arise with indignation and repel the iniquitous insinuations, by saying — ' Gentlemen, this is really too bad. You know ' perfectly well, that the authors you have cited, never enter- ' tained your sentiments ; and that their conduct and composi- ' tions, honestly construed, prove my assertion. Even though ' their words may be capable of a construction, by an inge- ' nious antagonist, favourable to your practice, their genuine ' opinions were certainly against it. You impose on your ' credulous readers by such glaring perversions of other ' men's works. Though they have incautiously stated their ' doctrines, and inadvertently offered a hajulle to tlicir wily OF NUMEROUS PEDOBArXISTS, 73 * adversaries, it is impossible to suppose they were favour- ' able to your heretical notions — and your cause must be ' sadly destitute of fair and solid argument and yourselves of * integrity, before you would enlist them under your standard ' as advocates of your unscriptural interest.' What our op- ponents would reply to the Sociniau or Antinomian, with a slight modification, we may say to them. Such modes of defence may puzzle the weak and, perhaps, convince the ignorant; but they must be viewed with suspicion by the serious and intelligent. Is there a single prominent doc- trine of Calvinism or Arminianism, Protestantism or Po- pery, which some of the professed advocates of those principles, have not ignorantly or carelessly surrendered to their opponents? Those who could support their scheme by just and honourable means, would never have recourse to one so exceptionable and subject to such suspicions. It is, in fact, liable to perpetual and unlimited perversion. Writers, with feeble arguments, are always anxious to obtain the countenance of others, as a guarantee with the public, that their opinions are valid. It is on this principle that the fathers, reformers, and orthodox authorities of the church have recently been marshalled in maintenance of the heterodox notions of universal restoration and of the sinful character of the human nature of the Son of God. IX. One of our principal objections to Mr. Booth's volumes, consists in his effort to persuade us that the cita- tions made, directly concede the whole point at issue be- tween us ; or that their authors are ostensible advocates of immersion, while adopting a contrary mode of baptism. No person can peruse his work, and those of his humble imitators, nor hear his pages detailed in the pulpits of our Baptist brethren, without feeling this to be the entire drift of the argument. Against indirect acknowledgments, as specified in our seventh postulate, and applied according to the fourth, no fair objection can be taken. And, on this principle of indirect concession, we may ask with confi- dence, if our opponents have not surrendered every pillar 74 THE UNGUARDED CONCESSIONS and ground of their exclusive scheme of dipping? Have they not admitted that the word baptize, vphich they pro- nounce the principal subject of contention, is often era- ployed to express an action in which the element is applied to the object in the form of staining, pouring, or sprinkling? — Have they not told us it signifies to bury, and that this act consists in casting earth upon the corpse? — that it means to overwhelm, which is done by the superincumbence of some oppressive weight? — Have they not conceded, that neither the real waters of Jordan nor the imaginary floods of Enon, were necessary for baptism, since a bath or pool, three feet deep, would have been equally convenient ? — that going down into the water up to the neck is not baptism, nor any proof of its administration ? — that to be dipped is to take up the cross, being sometimes attended with inde- corum and danger? — and that when Paul speaks of being 'buried in baptism,' he had no reference to any. such act as an English interment? — all which will be shown in the sequel, vnth much more, to the same effect. Now this is indirect concession, established by indisputable facts, and found amidst the guarded expressions of their polemical volumes. X. But there is another concession made by our oppo- nents perfectly in character with the preceding, and an in- direct surrender of those principles on which their exclusive system of immersion is founded. By adopting the plan of OPEN COMMUNION, they practically concede the validity of our baptism, as respects both the mode and the subject. As they profess to act only from plain examples or apos- tolical precepts, and as they can find neither in the New Testament for receiving persons to the Lord's table after Christian baptism was instituted, who, in the judgment of the first Christians, were not baptized; we must take it for granted, notwithstanding all their evasions on this sub- ject, that they consider Pedobaptists really baptized — for dipping them a hundred times over would not introduce them to another religious association or privilege. Nor is OF NVMEUOUS PEDOBAPTISTS. id this species of reasoning without precedent in the works of our opponents. — ' I must confess myself,' says Mr. Ikirt, ' exceedingly mistaken, if all communions in England do ' not acknowledge immersion to be the true mode, since ' they will admit any orderly communicant of our's to par- ' take with them at the Lord's table, without calling in ' question the validity of their baptism — though they would 'fain persuade us that their's is baptism too.'^ That is, admission to the Lord's table is deemed a test of being duly baptized in the judgment of those who admit them. The scheme of receiving unbaptized persons to the sacra- mental table, by those who continually talk of nothing but divine precepts and apostolical examples, simply on the ground that they consider themselves baptized is, at least, a great inconsistency, and was evidently formed ulterior to such a reception, for the purpose of increasing their party. This principle is calculated to subvert all church order, and tends to annihilate the authority of the minister — since any person, fancying himself converted, without giving any real proofs of it, must be received as a Christian, merely because he imagines himself one ; or, if a person were sprinkled with sand, as the Jew, mentioned by Mr. Booth, if he thought it sufficient baptism, he must be accepted. According to this scheme, the qualification of the candidate rests with himself, and not as Dr. Gill asserts ' solely in 'the breast of the administrator.'- In fact, no one can say where the principle of conceding the rectitude of a man's actions, or the sanctity of his condition, on the ground of his own belief, would lead us. For example : some persons believe that they are regenerated by the Holy Ghost when they are baptized. But must they, therefore, be regarded and treated as new creatures in Christ Jesus? And yet if the reasonings of open communists be correct, they cer- tainly should be esteemed as such. Now, as we cannot sup- pose this inconsistency i)i our opponents, we are constrained 1 Treatise, p. \'J. 2 Gill's Body of Divinit}', voL iii. book 3, chap. I. 76 THE UNGUARDED CONCESSIONS to believe in their mental as well as practical admission of the validity of infant sprinkling. XI. But, while vindicating the consistency of our oppo- nents in one respect, we are constrained to expose their incongruity in another. The majority of the Antipedo- baptists are advocates for strict communion ; and con- sequently will suffer no Pedobaptist to sit down with them at the Lord's table, because, in their opinion, he has not been baptized. In this they act in harmony with their own scheme of interpreting the sacred volume in respect of posi- tive institutions — seeing, as said before, they can find no precedent in the New Testament for admitting people to this sacrament who, in the judgment of the apostles, were not scriptually baptized. These very persons, however, xnll admit Pedobaptists into their pulpits and listen with delight to their discourses — will cordially unite with them in prayer and singing the praises of God. But can they iind any precedent for such a practice ? Did the apostles adopt or sanction such a procedure ? Will our brethren point out an instance in which the first and inspired min- isters of Christ tolerated persons, whom they deemed un- baptized, to preach in their churches, or to lead the devo- tional services of their solemn assemblies ? However other denominations might act in this matter, our opponents, on their principles, are, as Mr. Booth asserts, ' strangely in- ' consistent,' ^ 'because to a positive precept, or an apos- ' tolic example, the votaries of this innovation do not pre- tend.'- There are cases in which Baptists will sit down at the Lord's table in our churches, while they would not suffer a Pedobaptist to sit down with them at the sacra- ment in their's. In some congregations of our respected opponents, there are two distinct churches under the same pastor, and two distinct communions in which the Lord's Supper is administered alternately — and this, of course, is apostolic! Our Baptist brethren say, 'we will hear with ' Apology, p. 354. f Booth, vol. Li. p. 514. OF NUMEROUS PEDOBAPTISTS. 77 ' you — wc will pray and sing with you, and the like — hut * you must eat by yourselves ! ' XII. As it is possible that some persons present, not much initiated into the mysteries of polemical discussions, after listening to our future observations and frequent re- ferences to the works of our opponents, may suppose that, while denouncing Mr, Booth's principle of quotation, we have adopted the same in maintaining our cause ; we beg, therefore, to make a few remarks, to show that the cases are widely different, and that the preceding postulates fully sanction our procedure, while they condemn the conduct of Mr. Booth and his numerous imitators. I. The citations made from the works of our Baptist brethren are designed to state their objections, erroneous reasonings, and grounds for immersion — wherein we agree and differ — what are their views of certain data of evidence — and how far their indii-ect testimony corroborates our sentiments. II. The quotations, relevant to our ultimate object, are such as rest on a firm and unyielding foundation — and the sentiments are capable of a clear establishment, entirely irrespective of the authors, from whose writings they are taken — or arguments, rather than mere opinions, are the substance of our references. III. Our positions, also, shall be capable of standing alone, disjointed from every collateral proof derived from the writings of our opponents — so that if every quotation from their volumes were expunged, our arguments would be left as entire and as tenable as with them. IV. Such passages, only, are taken from Baptist publi- cations, as appear to be the approved declarations of the whole body — and not the dogmas of a small part of their communion — and from the force of which, some might shield themselves by the peculiarity of their baptismal sentiments. V. Our extracts are made almost exclusively from the works composed expressly in maintenance of their bap- 78 THE UNGUARDED CONCESSIONS tismal principles — and wliicli evidently bear the characters of care and caution, and display a consciousness of the use or abuse an opponent might make of them. VI. The authors are fairly and fully cited — no sense is attached to their remarks discordant with their deliberate intention; and they are applied to the support of proposi- tions, for the upholding of which they are honestly calcu- lated — nothing like the perversion of a writer will be dis- covered in any of our ad hominem evidence. VII. If any thing like concession be urged, it will be of data, or principles of reasoning, or the indirect surrender of certain points ; from yielding up which, the ulterior object of our investigation may be inferred, and not the di- rect concession of the whole point at issue between us. These regulations, being properly observed, no just pa- rallel can be fairly drawn between the method adopted by Mr. Booth, his predecessors, or copyists, and that observed in this dissertation. They will be found, by every judicious and candid observer, as different as darkness and day — as deception and ingenuousness. But, even were our professed principles of quotation inadvertently transgressed, our op- ponents, who in general look to Mr. Booth as the champion of their cause, would have little reason to complain. In fact, were we to cancel all concession on both sides, and to argue the question uninfluenced by preceding contro- versy, we feel confident as to the result — or, admitting them from each party in all their original evidence, our hopes of success would be equally sanguine. XIII. We must now answer a frivolous objection brought against us by some of our less acute and more inconsistent opponents. We are prepared to admit that ' numerous and learned authors ' of the Pedobaptist per- suasions have conceded that persons, infant or adult, immersed in the water, in the name of the blessed Trinity, are, at least in effect, baptized, equally with those on whom the baptismal clement is poured or sprinkled. Against this position we apprehend there are just reasons OF NUMEROUS PEDOBAPTISTS. 7^ to demur — and, in support of our conviction, ample evi- dence will hereafter be adduced. For this decision, our adversaries exclaim, What presumption and arrogance in so humble and incompetent an individual, to set up his judgment against the united wisdom of so many men of learning and talent! — He hath 'set himself in direct op- ' position to the great body of the most learned, pious, ' and candid divines, both of his own and other Pedobaptist ' denominations. Oh ! had this wonderful man but lived ' at a period of time now, alas ! long gone by.' ^ — ' What ' pigmies in learning compared with him [Grotius] are the ' few individuals who say that immersion is not baptism ! ' If they are sincere, they are pitiably ignorant ! and if ' they are not — what a paltry attempt is it to support the ' baptism that is of man ! ' - Now, pigmies or not, we have the means of forming our own opinion on this subject — probably better than the great men who have gone before us — ^as we have their works to aid us in our decisions. Nor feel we inclined to call any man master in religious matters— nor to follow hlindfolded the learned Dutchman, or any other persons, how deservedly soever, in other respects, they may be of confidence and veneration. Without discussing the absurd and pernicious principle of this objection, which, generally enforced, would paralyze all the rising energies of life, and destroy all advancement in arts and literature, we may just remark, that these said redoubtable opponents volun- tarily set up their judgments against the decisions of all the great Pedobaptists of the world, and pronounce them to be ignorant and misled in a matter plain enough for the guid- ance of an illiterate ploughman; and charge them with wickedly performing a ceremony on children, which is highly injurious to their eternal interests ! As Congrega- tionalists, in church order, they set up their judgment against all the learned Episcopalians and Presbyterians in the world. As Calvinists, they oppose the opinions of all ■ Coxhcad, p. 13. 2 Draper, p. 34. 80 THE UNGUARDED CONCESSIONS, ETC. Autinomian and Arminian divines. As Trinitarians, they condemn the notions of every Sabellian, Arian, and Soci- iiian scholar — and as Protestants, they protest against all the peculiar sentiments of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. For this we are not reproving them. We conclude them to be honest and devout hi their opinions ; but we do con- demn their inconsistency and folly, in chastising us for acting on those independent principles of enquiry which they and all other persons, not the slaves of authority, adopt in this and in every other scriptural enquiry. XIV. Though our antagonists condemn us for not sur- rendering our opinions to the superior learning of so many great men, who really were, or are made to appear, against us; they ridicule the idea of submitting their own judg- ments to the dictation of others, however pious, wise, or numerous they may be, when opposed to adult dipping. — Mr. Pengilly, (whose ' proofs are derived mainly from the writings of eminent Pedobaptists,') may be referred to as a fair sample of his brethren on this head. Having copied from Booth numerous passages in favour of his own views, he triumphantly refers to the number and learning of the original writers as fully establishing his assumptions ; and calls upon all Pedobaptists to yield the point to such a mighty host of champions on his side of the question. But when he has to meet the objection, that ' The majority ' of Christians, with whom are associated an immense ' number of great, good, and learned men, have held, and ' do hold, the opposite views ' — he very sagely replies, ' I ' admit that a large majority of the professed Christian ' inhabitants of the world, with whom are joined many ' most eminent writers, are against us. But is a majority ' never wrong — never found on the side of error ? Let my 'reader, whoever he may be, ask, 'Whether the majority ' of professed Christians do not think differently /row him 'upon some equally important points?' And how little ' does he think of the consequence of numbers upon those ' points! The Chinese plead their majority against Chris- TIIK EVIDENCE FOR DIPPING, ETC. 81 ' tians — the Catholics ag-ainst Protestants, &c. : hut who 'feels the force of an argument in the plea? And 'as to 'great men and great names,' (says Dr. A. Clarke,) 'we ' find them enrolled and arranged on the side of all 'controversies;' and I will allow my opponent to reckon ' them up by hundreds or thousands, and place them on ' the side of infant baptism; I will take and place on the ' other side Christ and his apostles — and then I appeal to ' my reader, who has the best support, though my 'number be but 'a little flock' in the comparison.' ^ — After perusing the above remarks, our Baptist brethren will probably be more sparing of their vituperative charges against us for thinking independently, and for not being the mental slaves of other men's dictations. SECTION THIRD. THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. ' Among the many advantages that arise from the studj- of ecclesi- ' astical history, it is none of the least, that we shall see therein ' the origin and occasions of those ridiculous rites, absurd opi- ' nions, foolish superstitions, and i)ernieious errors, with which ' Christianity is yet disfigured in too many parts of the world.' Mosheim's Eccles. Hist. vol. i. p. 13. Our Baptist brethren assure us, that the plainest and most ample evidence is derivable from ecclesiastical his- tory to prove that dipping was the universal mode of ad- ministering baptism in ancient times. - A triumphant reference is made to the Greek church, in which trine immersion is said to be practised; and to the rubric of the Church of England, which enjoins dipping as wtII as 1 Pag3 91. 2 J. Stennett, p. 12o-170; Ryland, p. 7. 82 THE EVIDENCE FOR DIPPING sprinkling. The validity of these allusions we shall now proceed to examine. T. We would enquire, if our opponents are agreed among themselves, or have formed individual opinions, respecting the precise manner in which this rite was per- formed in the primitive churches, immediately succeeding the apostolic era? Let them answer, if they can, the following questions: — Were the people dipped only, or also sprinkled? — Were they naked or dressed? — Was single or trine immersion practised? — Was the ceremony administered in natural reservoirs of water, or in artificial baptistries? — If in fonts, how were they constructed? — Who officiated on the occasion — an ordained minister or acting deacons? — Let them also say, whether in the first two or three centuries after the apostolic age, the mode of baptism was the same at all times and in all places? — If not, which portion of Christendom preserved incorrupt the original institution? — And on what age of the period in question do they fix, as affording the purest model for the imitation of the present generation? — Before historical evidence can be pleaded with any degree of propriety, it is but fair to inform us, what history is meant, and what it teaches. This being settled, and, of course, conceded by us as indubitable truth, it is requisite that those who main- tain their cause from the example of the ancient churches, should establish a precise conformity to the model they adduce — else their decisions must be vague and arbitrary. But the difficulty of this kind of argument will be seen from a remark of Augustine, who lived in the fourth cen- tury. He says, ' that, in his time, ceremonies were grown ' to such a number, that the estate of Christian people was ' in worse case, concerning this matter, than were the Jews ; ' and he counselled that such yoke and burden should be 'taken away.' ^ — This is further evident, if Mosheim's observation be correct. He tells us that ' there was such ' a rariety in the ritual of the primitive churches, as to ' Trcf. to the Book of Common Pravcr. FROM ECCLESIASTICAI, HISTORY. 83 render it very difficult to give such an account of the worship, manner, and institutions of the ancient Chris- tians, as will agree vrith what was practised in all those countries where the gospel flourished.^ — Add to these testimonies that of Mr. Gihbs, who says, ' we know that the spirit which, in very early times, introduced innova- tion and will-worship, is gratifying to the depraved prin- ciples of human nature ; and from this source has arisen that mass of error, which has beclouded the moral hemi- sphere of Europe. During the second century, a variety of doctrines and ceremonies were introduced into the Christian worship by certain of the fathers, who claimed a personal acquaintance with the apostles, or with those who had been their intimate associates.' - II. But, to prove that our opponents are as much at variance with the ecclesiastical modes of baptism, as with apostolical precedents, we will refer to a few particulars mentioned by Mr. Robinson, their own apologist and his- torian. He tells us, ' there were no baptistries within the 'churches till the sixth century ^ — when erected without, ' they were generally dedicated to St. John the Baptist.^ ' — They were octagon buildings with cupola roofs, resem- ' bling the dome of a cathedral, adjacent to the church, but * no part of it. All the middle part of this building was one * large hall, capable of containing a great multitude of ' people. — The sides were parted off, and divided into rooms, ' and, in some, rooms were added outside, in the fashion of ' cloisters. In the middle of the great hall was an octagon ' bath, which, strictly speaking, was the baptistry, and from * which the whole building was denominated.^ — In Ter- * tullian's time, the candidates for baptism made a profes- ' sion of faith twice — once in the church, before the con- 'gregation, and then again when they came to the water.'' ' — The primitive Christians were baptized naked 7 — or 'had only something wrapped round the middle^ — were 1 Eccl. Hist. Cent. I. pt. 2, c. 4, sec. 4. - Page 2o4, 326. 3 Hist. p. 53. < P. 59. 5 P. GO. s p. 53. 7 p. 60. s p. 86. 84 THE EVIDENCE FOR DIPPING ' rubbed all over with oil, and turned their face towards ' the east.i — The men were baptized apart from the women." ' — The Greek church baptized by trine immersion, or three 'dippings^ — and, after the immersion, water was poured 'on the head.* — There were catechists to instruct the ' catechumens previous to baptism, and deaconesses to ' assist in baptizing females.^ — The water was blessed and ' exorcised, and the candidates abstained from certain kinds 'of food forty days previously.^ — They also baptized ' children." — In the Romish church, the boys were placed ' on the right hand of the presbyter and the girls on the ' left. In the administration, there were crossings, prayers, ' burning of incense, singings, blessings, torches at mid- ' night, exorcisms, and exorcised salt was given to the ' children.^— The administrator, if a pontiff, wore wax or ' oil-skin drawers and a surplice, and, if a deacon, he took 'off his shoes.' 9 — Trine immersion of the head only, ap- pears to have been common in the first ages. Augustine says, ' after you professed your belief, three times did you 'submerge your heads in the sacred fountain. '^^ — Jerome says, ' There are many things which are observed in ' churches through tradition, as dipping the head three ' times in the laver.'^^ Much more might be cited of a similar character — but this is enough to maintain our position. Where uoav, we ask, is the conformity between the practice of the ancients and that of our opponents ? "Where shall we find such bap- tistries as those just mentioned? Where shall we hear the double confession of faith common in the time of Tertul- lian ? Who among our brethren are baptized naked ? Where is trine immersion practised? When are children baptized by our opponents? When do they exorcise the water and dress in wax or oil-skin drawers ? Or where is a three-fold plunging of the head substituted for a single dipping of the ' p. 333. "• p. CO. 3 p. G3. •> r. 104. See Booth, vol. i. p. 217. 5 P. G4. '• P. fi.5. ' P. 2-iG. *" P. 77. '■> P. 70. 10 Prof. Stuart, in Bib. Rep. No. X. p. 3oS. " P. 2!'l. FROM ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. »n whole body ? — To reply that, though all these things were mere circumstances and the superstitious devices of the age, yet that dipping was scriptural and apostolic, is a mere subterfuge and begging the question — for why might not that be a mere circumstance as much as pouring, or the confessions, or driving the evil spirit out of the water, or baptizing children, or a triple immersion? Let our brethren establish a perfect agreement between their mode of bap- tism and that of the early Christians, subsequent to the first century, and we will allow them all the advantage they can fairly derive from antiquity. Till this be done, their reference to the fathers can avail them nothing. III. If historical evidence may be considered a correct criterion of the scriptural mode of baptism, there can be no just reason for withholding a reliance on its decisions re- specting the proper qualifications of the candidates. Now, will our opponents submit the issue of the controversy, about the proper subjects of this rite, to the practice of antiquity ? Most assuredly not. AVhen pressed, or, more correctly oppressed, with the testimonies of the fathers iu favour of infant baptism, they endeavour to extricate them- selves from the difficulty, by assuring us, that they place no dependence whatever on the practice of the post-apostolic churches. The following declarations of several of their best writers will demonstrate their views on this subject : — Mr. Dove: 'What is not commanded by Christ, or ' practised by his apostles, is virtually forbidden as will- ' worship ; and they who introduce or practise it, do not in 'this respect, at least, hold the head.'^ — Dr. Gale: ' Thougli I have a great respect for the primitive fathers, ' and all learned men, yet their loose expositions and mis- ' applications of scripture, are not to be endured.'- — 'We ' should have no other rule of faith, or judge of contro- ' versies, beside the sacred word of God — for, if once we ' admit of any other, we directly give up our cause, and ' expose ourselves to all the impositions and inconveniences ' Pref. p. 19. 2 P. 169. II 86 THE EVIDENCE FOR DIPPING 'which are the inseparable attendants of Popery.' ^ — 'If ' Mr. Wall should be able to make out his assertion, that ' the whole church, after the apostles' time, did allow of ' affusion, we may nevertheless tliink ourselves obliged to ' understand it as an ancient corruption — for error should 'not be privileged by age.'- — Dr. Gill: 'We, who are ' called Anabaptists, are Protestants, and the Bible is our ' religion, and we reject all pretended apostolical tradition, ' and every thing that goes under that name, not found in ' the Bible, as the rule of our faith and practice.' ^ — ' There ' never was such a set of impure wretches, under the ' Christian name, so unsound in principle and so bad in ' practice, as were in the apostles' days, and in the ages ' succeeding, called the purest ages of Christianity.' •* — Dr. Stennett : ' We cannot know any thing about the ' precise nature of positive institutes, their true design, the ' proper subjects of them, or the right mode of their admi- 'nistration, further than the scriptures teach.' ^ — The primitive fathers were, it is true, pious men ; but ' they ' were most of them very weak, injudicious, and credulous ' — miserable interpreters of scripture, and very ill in- ' formed as to many transactions before their own times.' "^ — Mr. Gibbs: ' Can any consistent Dissenter imagine that ' the great Founder of Christianity, who condemned the ' effects of tradition on the minds of the Jews, in turning ' them from the commandments of God, would himself au- ' thorise this method of instruction under the gospel dis- ' pensation, and thus prepare the way for the subversion of ' his own system ? — The nature and consequences of tra- ' ditionary instruction, are arguments against its having ' originated with any inspired instructor.'" — Mr. J. Sten- nett : 'The pouring of the water only on the head of the ' person to be baptized, which Mr. Russen affirms to have 'been the practice of some of the primitive martyrs, con- I p. is;). 2 p. 170. 3 p. 319. 4 p. 337. s Pi.rt 1, p. 11. « lb. p. 211, 212. ■ P. 32."), 32(;. Secihop. 21S. FROM ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 87 * fessors, and goodly bishops after the apostles, is no rule ' to us, unless we could be sure these good men were inf'al- Mible.'i — Even Mr. Robinson, the historian, declares, that ' the fathers are miserable evidence of the truth of 'facts, as well as incompetent judges of right.'- — On these remarks no comment is necessary — especially after read- ing the following extract from Mr. Ivimy's Appendix to Dr. Gill's Reply, &c. — 'Admitting infant baptism to have ' existed, not only in the first century after the apostles, ' but in the time of the apostles, unless it could be also ' demonstrated that it was practised by the apostles them- ' selves, there could be no evidence produced that it was 'not a part of the 'mystery' of Antichrist, which, even ' then, had ' began to work,' and the influence of which, ' even in the life-time of the Apostle John, had been 'widely diffused.' ^ — For our Baptist friends to appeal to history after this is preposterous — and Mr. Robinson's volume, at this rate, is only fit for waste paper ! IV. But, the assertion that antiquity is in favour of dipping, any more than of sprinkling, is entirely without foundation. The practice of the early ages after the apos- tles, as far as hitherto developed, stands in direct opposi- tion to this dogma. Any one has only to read Robinson's History of Baptism, and he will presently discover the difficulty the writer labours under, the shifts and contriv- ances he is obliged to make, and, as pronounced by com- petent authority, the perversions he sometimes displays, in order to present any thing like a precedent for the practice of his fraternity. In fact, he has indirectly established our view of the case. For, justly considering carved work and pictures of baptism, made at the time, the surest criterion of ancient modes and ceremonies, he has been at consider- able pains and expense to procure engravings of several of them — and, what is very remarkable, all the sculpture and paintings of the greatest antiquity, represent the baptized ' p. 123. 2 P. 49. See also J. Stennett, p. 97; and Ryland, p. 2, 21. 3 P. 43. CO THE EVIDENCE FOR DIPPING (not as drawn in the frontispiece of liis volume— but) as painted in the enamelled window of the Baptist academy at Bristol, standing up to the knees or middle in water, while the officiating minister pours a little of the element on his head.i Let any person impartially peruse Walker's Doctrine of Baptisms," Taylor's Letters to a Baptist Deacon, 2 and the ninth chapter of Wall's History* — and he will not hesitate to conclude that dipping was not the only, if ever the ordinary, method adopted by the churches after the first century. The narratives and monuments of antiquity render it plain, that when adults were proselyted to Christianity, if they were immersed at all, they im- mersed themselves, by walking into the water to a certain depth — after which, the minister approached, and poured water out of his hand, or some kind of vessel, on their heads. This two-fold mode is still practised in the Greek and Abyssinian churches^ — the first, as a preparatory rite, and the second, as baptism itself. The former indi- cative of putting off the old man, and the latter, of putting on the new— and answering to the bathing under the law, where the ceremonially unclean washed himself in or with water, and was afterwards affused or sprinkled by the priest, and pronounced sanctified. While we are on this topic, it may not be unimportant to remark, that our op- ponents have adopted a mode of baptism diverse from all other churches under the sun. This, indeed, is admitted by Mr. Foot, in a passage previously cited. In fact, if Mr. Ro- binson's history can at all be relied on, and, if the testi- mony of competent judges may be received, pouring or sprinkling is a part, if not the whole, of baptism throughout tjie churches of Christendom. Even the Syrian churches, and those of St. Thomas, in Ceylon, and the East Indies, who appear to have lived separate from all other Christians since the days of the apostles, have no other fonts for bap- ' Rob. p. 58, 82, 83, 107, 125. '' P. 7-4-158. 3 Lett. 1, p. 48; Lett. 3, p. Tfi. ' Vol. ii. p. 2?5. 5 Hob. p. G3, 101 ; Taylor's Lett. 1, p. 19-20. FROM ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 89 tisni, than small basons capable of containing about a quart or two of water each. V. After a careful examination of what the advocates of immersion have adduced from primitive history in sup- port of their system, it appears that they have completely failed in making out a clear and substantial case. The following facts comprehend the substance of their re- searches : — I. No clear case of immersion is given us from the Greek and Latin writers, till they mention the immersion of infants. Consequently, our opponents can derive no historical evidence in support of immersion, which is not equally relevant to infant baptism. The citations of Mr. Joseph Stennett and others, from the works ascribed to Barnabas and Hernias,^ who lived in the first century, are not only defective, but totally Invalid — as may be seen by referring to Dr. Mosheim's account of those publications. - II. The apostolic fathers, it is true, in one or two in- stances, speak of going out to a place where there is water — of going down to or into the water — and of ascending from or out of the water ; but this language conveys no proof of baptismal submersion. The early Christians, fol- lowing the modes of Jewish purification, frequently, or oc- casionally, administered this ordinance with pure, living, or running water, which could be found only in low places in the open air. Hence their phraseology is perfectly con- sistent with the supposition that the candidates for this rite were merely taken to the edge of the flowing brook or river, and aspersed, as by modern Pedobaptists. III. The advocates of dipping, have given us no au- thentic proof of immersion baptism having been adopted till about the close of the second century, when, as Mr. Gibbs assures us, 'numerous ceremonies,' of human invention, 'had inundated the church,' ^ till the notion of 1 p. 1 12, 143. 2 Eccles. Hist. Cent. I. pt. 2, c. 2, sec. 21. 3 P. 215. See p. 325-336. H 5 90 THE EVIDENCE FOR DIPPING baptismal regeneration had become pretty general, when fasting preceded the ordinance, which consisted in trine immersion, and was accompanied by the use of sponsors, oil, spittle, crossings, exorcisms, and followed by imme- diate confirmation, 1 with other rites, since designated Popish." So that our antagonists have no better authority from primitive history for a single dipping, than for these superstitious appendages. IV. They have adduced no Latin work of the second century wherein the word baptize is rendered, mergo, im-' mergo, submergo, demergo, or any other which unequivo- cally means to dip, or plunge under water in the ceremony, and as the act of baptism — in the passages cited, it being generally translated by tingo, and sometimes by lavo and ahluo. In their extracts from the Greek authors of this period, we find the original words and phraseology of scripture employed to express this rite — and, when others are used, they are so indefinite as to leave the mode quite indeterminate. v. Besides, the sense of ancient and foreign ecclesias- tical writings, like that of the scriptures, depends greatly upon the translations. For example : those who favour dipping, render the Greek preposition en, and' the Latin IN, by words which best express the idea of immersion ; and then complacently assure us, that the primitive fathers, ecclesiastical historians, and learned divines, employing these dead languages, were unequivocally advocates of their mode of baptism. But were these apparently insig- nificant terms translated with, as they necessarily must be in thousands of instances, and might be in most of the passages cited from such authorities against our system ; full one-half of this species of evidence for dipping would be destroyed; and, by extending a free and equally fair rendering of the verbs baptizo and tingo, generally em- ployed by them to express the action of baptism, the greater portion of the other half would be instantly swept away. ■ Lord Kiny's Enquiry, pt. 2, p. «j. - See Gill, p. 331-33G. fUOM ECCLESIASTICAL IIISTOllY. 91 VI. Assuming tluit our opponents have brought forwanl all the available evidence from primitive history in favour of their scheme — and that our positions harmonize witli the character of their citations, which we believe to be the fact, it may be enquired, v.hat tenable argument can they derive in support of immersion from the post-apostolic generation of believers? — To argue that people were dipped, after the church of Christ was inundated with human inventions — after this very sacrament had confes- sedly lost its original simplicity, and had become clogged and clouded with numerous superstitious appendages, will go for nothing with any intelligent person — especially with those who declare that ' they reject all pretended apos- ' tolical tradition, and every thing that goes under that 'name' — who say 'the loose expositions and misapplica- ' tions of scripture, by the fathers, are not to be endured ' — and who aver that ' they cannot know any thing about ' the precise nature of positive institutions, their true ' design, the proper subjects of them, or the right mode of ' their administration, further than the scriptures teach.' YI. Here, perhaps, some man will say. How comes it to pass that so many critics and commeutators have held that immersion was the primitive mode of baptism — was common in the post-apostolic ages — and became so pre- valent in subsequent periods ? That many great and good men of most denominations have made this concession, it would be disingenuous to deny — though not to the extent and in the unqualified manner our opponents would make us believe. To account for this sentiment we have only to recur to the early introduction of dipping — the dark ages in which it originated — the veneration in which the authors of it were held by their successors — the uncommon stress laid on tradition — and the credulity of mankind, in consi- dering that divine which has antiquity on its side. One generation has believed its predecessor — the error became ramified as the gospel extended, and took a firmer hold on the minds of the people the longer they cherished it — sj 92 THE EVIDENCE FOR DIPPING that even now many good men believe that to have been practised by the apostles, which evidently did not take place till ' weak, injudicious, and credulous interpretators ' of scripture' perverted the right ways of the Lord. Nor is the case of immersion alone in this predicament. Other notions are equally prevalent in the Christian world, which had no better origin. As we remarked before, antiquity equally remote, may be pleaded for baptismal regeneration, three orders of officers in the church, and various other things, which are deemed unscriptural by our opponents ; though held by as many writers and people as ever con- ceded the apostolic mode of baptism to have been only by dipping. VII. Though it is said the usual mode of baptism in after times was by immersion and affusion conjoined, yet there does not appear to have been any uniformity of ope- ration. Comparatively little is said by the fathers on this subject — but still enough to show that pouring and sprink- ling simply, were valid administrations — and, for aught we know, a mere immersion might have occasionally been deemed sufficient. Though we lay just as little stress on the practice of the ancients in this matter, as our opponents do in another branch of this controversy; yet, to meet their assertions, we shall make a few extracts from Walker's Doctrine of Baptisms — a work every way en- titled to your consideration and confidence. He tells us that, ' in the first century after the apostles, a person sick ' on his journey, where water was not attainable, was bap- ' tized by an aspersion of sand ; and that, though the ' pastor at Alexandria expressed his disapprobation of the ' element, he sanctioned the mode. — In the same age, ' Tertullian speaks of baptism by sprinkling as a known 'and valid method. — In the next century, we read of ' prisoners baptized in a gaol, which, being done by stealth, ' was evidently administered by perfusion. — Another per- ' son is recorded as having been baptized in his bed, which, ' we presume, was not done by dipping. — St. Lawrence FROM ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 93 'baptized several persons with water out of a pitcher. — ' Lactantius calls Christ's baptism a perfusion. — In the 'year 313, the council of Neocesarea recognizes clinical 'baptism as valid; though it condemns deferring the re- ' ception of this sacrament till the season of sickness and ' approaching death. — Athanasius speaks of baptism per- ' formed by sprinkling — as does the council of Laodicea in * the year 364. — So also does Gregory Nazianzen, about ' 370. — Twenty years after, Aurelius Prudentius calls the 'baptismal element the holy dew.' ^ — In the following centuries pouring and sprinkling are often mentioned as Christian baptism ; and the terms perfusion and aspersion, are frequently employed to express this Christian cere- mony — as a reference to the above authority will suffi- ciently prove. — Walafrid Strabo, who died in the year 849, says, ' It should be noted that many have been bap- ' tized, not only by immersion, but by affusion, and they ' may yet be baptized in this manner, if there be any ne- ' cessity for it ; as, in the passion of St. Lawrence, we 'read of a certain person baptized by water brought in ' a pitcher.'- — Further, Josephus, who was born only four years after our Lord's crucifixion, and who must have been well acquainted with the customs of the Hebrew Christians, and have seen their ceremonies performed every day, calls John's baptism ' washing and purification.' ^ — Now, as a Jew and a priest, he must have understood the manner in which Moses washed and purified the priests, and how the priests vrashed and purified the people — which was always and only by sprinkling — and in no other sense could he, with any degree of propriety, have employed those terms. For- our opponents to say, the history of the Christian church is exclusively in their favour, and ' that no trace ' of any other mode [than immersion] occurs till the middle ' of the third century,' ■* is contravening the most palpable ' P. 96, 9", 9S, 100, 104, 105, lOG, lOS, 110, 111, 112, 114. 2 Stuart, p. 3/0. 3 Ant. b. 18, c. 15, sec. 2. ■* Anderson, p. 33. 94 THE EVIDENCE FOR DIPPING evidence — besides exhibiting a great inconsistency, in fleeing from scripture evidence, and resting for support on a rejected foundation. Further, unless pouring or sprinkling were the mode adopted by the primitive churches, they must frequently have been at a great loss for accommodations to perform this religious ceremony. During the first and second cen- turies especially, they were subject to great privations and persecutions. Instead of worshipping openly or in spacious buildings, with baths or fonts adequate for dipping grown up adherents ; they were frequently compelled to assemble by night in woods, caves, private houses, and ruined tem- ples, and that, too, in different climates and under a variety of adverse circumstances. The initiation of members by baptism to their respective communions must also have been of frequent, in fact, of constant occurrence. Now, can it be imagined that in these woods, caves, cottages, and ruined temples, there were always conveniences for im- mersing with decency, or at all, before the brethren, the numerous and, perhaps, respectable female converts from heathenism ; and that immediately on their conversion to Christianity ? The presumption is evidently at variance v;ith the highest probability. VIII. Our Baptist brethren have toiled a good deal to ascertain when and why sprinkling was introduced as a substitute for immersion. Several dates have been fixed on, and various reasons assigned for this perplexing muta- tion. The enquiry, however, is founded on the assumption, that dipping was the original mode ; but which ought to liave been first satisfactorily established — a task, though frequently and zealously attempted, has not yet been ac- complished. It is manifest, from all we know of the temper of former times, and the religious notions of mankind ge- nerally, that sprinkling or pouring was not likely to have been substituted for a total immersion. The corruptions of those ages consisted in doing things more largely and ce- remoniously than previously instituted among the simple FROM ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 95 rituals establislied by Christ or liis like-minded disciples. The least acquaintance with primitive manners, places this position in the clearest light. The fathers were for doing things eiFectually, with all the parade and significant pomp imaginable — and not for abridging the act or design of any original appointment. With them, as Dr. Campbell justly remarks, ' things always advance from less to greater.' "^ — It is easily perceivable how dipping a person entirely under water once or thrice, with all the concomitant affair of dressing and undressing, blessing the water, applying salt, oil, and spittle, with the exhibition of torches, pro- cessions, and the like, so pleasing to semi-barbarous minds, should take precedence or the place of pouring a little on the head — but not how sprinkling should supersede im- mersion, except in the case of the sickly, the bed-ridden, and the delicate. "When the early fathers, whom our opponents describe as ' weak, injudicious and credulous, miserable interpreters ' of scripture, and incompetent judges of right,' read of ' being born of water and buried with Christ in baptism,' they thought it necessary to transform this sacrament into something like water bringing forth a saint, and a funeral procession with a subsequent interment, and, to complete the representation, a resurrection to a new and sanctified life. These ' miserable interpreters of scripture,' like the first English Baptists, as Mr. Robinson remarks,^ misunderstood the import of the texts, and instituted a rite in accordance with their own ignorance. This is one of the most plausible reasons to be assigned for the augmentation of a ceremony originally simple and easy. With them, as remarked before, all vra's enlargement, ostentatious, and imposing — to abridge or simplify a scripture institution, was not the order of their day, nor in consonance with their notions. — Or, probably, tliey reasoned in the following manner : — ' If the Christian ' purification be a cleansimj, the more general and com- ' plete, the better — therefore, a total washing, or even the ' Lectures on Eccles. Hist. Lect. II. ^ P. 550. 96 THE EVIDENCE FOR DIPPING ' putting of the subject under water, must be more complete ' and expressive,' ^ than sprinkling, pouring, or shedding it upon the candidate for this ordinance. — Or, finally, the early Christians, supposing that the purifications of the later Jews Avere, as our opponents contend, by a total washing or immersion, thought it improper to be outdone in the extent of their lustrations, and were consequently dipped themselves — this would be the case with those espe- cially ' who flocked to the church from the polluted em- ' braces of heathenism ; and thus dipping continued during ' those ages when, and because, externals made nearly the ' whole of religion ; and still continues in the Greek church, ' [as a part of the service,] there is reason to fear, from a ' similar cause.'- Can our opponents point out any other ceremony preva- lent in the primitive churches, to which ignorance and su- perstition did not make many additions — in the performance of which, there was not a great amount of parade and os- tentation — and to the design of which, they did not ascribe an unscriptural importance ? In this very sacrament, we have the most decided proofs of our position. Our oppo- nents believe, if their practice speak truth, that only one immersion was commanded — whereas, in many of the ori- ental churches — Mr. Robinson being judge — there were three, with a subsequent pouring. There was, also, the addition of oil, exorcism, consecrating the water, particular vestments, and so forth, almost without end. We have, therefore, no hesitation in saying, that dipping was prefixed to aff'usion or substituted for it 'in the second and third ' centuries, when a flood of superstitious ceremonies,' then deemed improvements, ' inundated the church ;' ^ and that aspersion was revived in the western world with the restor- ation of knowledge and the reformation of religion. Our brethren will establish the contrary, if it be practicable. IX. The great stress laid on the immersions of the Greel; church, seems to be founded on the erroneous supposition, ' Antiped. Exam. vol. ii. ji. 1S7. • lb. 1S8. 3 gge Gibbs, ji. 21.). FROM ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 97 that this extensive communion is composed entirely of tlie descendants of the inhabitants of ancient Greece, using precisely the same language which was current at Athens two thousand years ago. — ' What,' says Mr. Pearce, ' seems ' most incontestibly to prove, that, to baptize, means to dip, ' is tlie practice of the Greek church, whose members, ' reading the New Testament in the original and their ' maternal tongue, must certainly be better qualified to 'judge concerning the meaning of a term, than foreigners ; ' and they have uniformly, from the apostles' times to this 'day, practised baptism by immersion.' ^ This plausible evidence is mere assumption in the first place, and con- trary to fact in the second. To say that the Greek church has practised immersion, and immersion only, as performed by our opponents, from the apostles' time to this day, re- quires proof which the esteemed author has not adduced — indeed, it is contradicted by the Baptist historian ; and to contend that the Greek of the New Testament has ever been, and still is, the maternal tongue, or the language of the nursery of, what we denominate, the Greek church, is contrary to truth. As justly might a Baptist contend, that the Romish religion is understood by all the lineal descendants of the ancient Romans — speaking the pure Latin of the Augustan age. The Greek church embraces parts or all the population of the following countries, whose languages are as various as their territories : — ' A consi- ' derable part of Greece, the Grecian Isles, Wallachia, ' ^Moldavia, Egypt, Nubia, Lybia, Arabia, Mesopotamia, ' Syria, Cilicia, Palestine, the Russian Empire in Europe, ' great part of Siberia in Asia, Astracan, Casan, Georgia, ' and' White Russia in Poland.'- Even the inhabitants of Greece, properly so called, are, in a great measure, unac- quainted with the language of their forefathers, and are obliged to have the original New Testament translated into jModern Greek, before they can understand it. ' An appeal ' to the subjects of king Otho, for determining the con- ' p. ir. 2 Encyclop. Lond. vol. viii. p. 971 ; Gibljs, p. 86-91. I 98 THE EVIDENCE FOR DIPPING ' struction of what is confessedly a difficult clause in an ' ancient Greek author, rests, I humbly think, on a ground ' of philological reason similar to this ; that to elucidate an ' obscurity in Tacitus or either of the Plinys, we should ' resort to the authority of the present Italians, in their ' vernacular tongue. Even, I may venture to say, that ' this imagined proceeding would be less preposterous ; 'for the Italian language, in any of its dialects, is far ' more copious and precise, in comparison with its Latin ' parent, than is the Romaic with respect to the Greek of 'purer ages.' ^ Speech is ever varying, especially when spoken by several disorganized tribes. In the course of time, most languages are completely metamorphosed. Even from Spencer to Pope, a period of about one hundred and forty years, and in an established government, a revolution has taken place in our own, which one would have hardly thought possible. — ' It is well known,' says Dr. Jenkins, ' that when a language is branched out into different dia- 'lects, those dialects may diversify the signification of ' words considerably from the strict and natural sense of 'the original.' ~ — 'The scripture,' says Dr. Gale, ' is the ' rule, we know, of our faith and practice, and was designed ' for that ; but not to be the standard of speech, which is ' continually altering, and depends upon custom.'^ — 'Use,' ' says Carson, ' is the sole arbiter of language.'* — Besides, if the practice of the Greek church is to settle this ques- tion, and if her ministers may give their opinion, then to baptize consists in three dippings and one pouring — a mode as much at variance with one dipping as with one pouring ; ^ and that communion may, with equal propriety, be referred to, in support of our mode, as of that of our opponents. — We say nothing of the subject, as it is no- torious, that not only the Greek church, but every other Dr. Pye Sniitl\, Coug. Mag. vol. xxi. p. 21G. ■-• C.'ll. i).2J. 3 P. 11:7. 1 P. U. 5 \yalker, p. H5. FROM ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 99 on the face of the globe, except that of our Baptist brethren, baptizes infiints as well as adults. It is further observable and relevant to our position, that ' most of the eastern churches, like the Roman, have both ' an ecclesiastical and a vulgar tongue. In that of Abys- * sinia, the Ethiopic is the ecclesiastical, and the Amharic ' the vulgar. In the Syrian churches of Mesopotamia and of ' Malabar, or wherever else there may be Syrian churches, ' the Syriac is the ecclesiastical tongue — while in Mesopo- ' tamia, the vulgar is the Arabic ; and, in Malabar, it is ' the Malayalim ; and, elsewhere, it is the vernacular lan- * guage of the country. Among the Copts in Egypt, the ' Coptic is the church language, but the Arabic that of the 'people. In the Greek church, the ancient Greek is still ' used in the offices, and the Old Testament read in the ' version of the Septuagint, and the New in. the original ' text — while Romaic, or modern Greek, Arabic, or Turk- * ish, is spoken by the people. In the Armenian church, ' the scriptures are read in a language but ill understood ' by the people — and this is the case in the Russian church.' 1 — Hence, we gather that the original language of the sacred volume is an unknown tongue to the great body of the people, and is studied and read by the priest- hood, as by linguists of the present day — not as their ma- ternal tongue, but as the subject of academic acquisition. That our opponents lay a paramount stress on the con- duct of the eastern churches generally" — and of the Greek church in particular — may be further seen by the following remarks of Dr. Cox : — ' This is an authority,' says he, ' for ' the meaning of the word baptize, infinitely preferable to ' that- of European lexicographers — so that a man, who is ' obliged to trust human testimony, and who baptizes by ' immersion because the Greeks do, understands the Greek ' word exactly as the Greeks themselves understand it ; 'and, in this case, the Greeks are unexceptionable guides, J Eighteeuth Rep. of the Church Missionarj^ Society. - Pearce, p. 26. 100 THE EVIDENCE FOR DIPPING ' and their practice is, in tins instance, safe ground of 'action.! — But we have shown before, that the Greeks use trine immersion with a subsecpent affusion — that they baptize children, and give them the eucharist" — the water is exorcised, and so forth, as previously specified. — Here is, then, ' the highest authority in existence — an unques- ' tionable guide — and a safe ground of action,' in almost every particular, at variance with the practice of our op- ponents! — If the Greek church, which, if possible, is more superstitious and corrupt than the Latin, be such a faithful and true witness in this matter, as the learned doctor de- clares, why do not our opponents dip their candidates three times, and then pour water upon them ?^ and, as the word oiJcos, rendered house and household in the New Testament, is as much a part of their maternal tongue as the verb haptizo ; and as the Greeks understand it to in- clude the cliildren of a family — we ask, if this be not equally ' safe ground of action ? ' This gentleman, however, might have known, that the avowed, and even current use of the terms in the Bible, is no infallible criterion of the practice adopted even among those who are designated Baptists. — Our opponents in England say, that to baptize, is ' always and only to dip ' the whole body,' and yet they do less than is enjoined — as they only dip the upper part of the candidate — and more, as they raise it out of the water, which is not in- cluded in the act of dipping. — The German Baptists render the verb to baptize by tauffen, to dip — and yet they only pop the head of the person under water — and the Dutch have translated it doopen; and yet the Dutch Baptists only pour water on the person baptized.^ — So that if the practice of the Greek church were in accordance with the views of our brethren, it does not prove that they under- stand the word in the sense contended for by the Baptists ' Cox, p. o3. 2 Booth, vol. ii. p. 136. 3 Robinson, p. G3, 104, 108, 24C ; Burt. p. 35. ^ Booth, vol. i. p. 47, 220 ; llobinson, p. 547-550 ; Gill, p. 258 ; .iiul Ward's Farewell Letters, p. 2G4. 1-ROM ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 101 — and might have some other reasons for immersion.' — Let it be also observed, that when a proselyte from Paganism or Mahomedanism, being an adult, is baptized in the Greek cliurch, he is not dipped at all — but, as a gentleman,^ who had witnessed the ceremony, informed the preacher, he stands in the water, and has a trine affusion from the offi- ciating priest. — He also remarked that, in the Greek church, sprinkling is perfectly valid — as those, who have been baptized in this manner, are never immersed on sub- sequently entering its communion. — How correct an ex- emplar of the mode adopted by our brethren ! — and what excellent authority do they derive from this ancient esta- blishment! — and what ' safe ground of action! ' But, to use the language of the said divine, with a very slight alteration, we say, ' the eagerness with which our ' [Anti] Pedobaptist friends seize upon the most trifling ' circumstance, and press into their service the most recon- ' dite and remote signification, which can at any time, or *in any instance, be found to attach to any phrase or mo- 'nosyllable, superinduces the conviction'" that they are sadly pushed for solid and fair evidence. X. The reference to the rubric of the church of England is equally unfortunate for our opponents.^ If the practice of that communion be at all good criteria of the proper administration of this sacrament, then the subjects are infants as well as adults, sponsors are necessary, the sign of the cross is indispensable, and the operation renders the baptized ' a member of Christ, a child of God, and an in- 'heritor of the kingdom of heaven.' Besides, as in the rubric of the Greek church,* there is an exception, even in the words of the prayer-book itself, for weak and sickly subjects who are to be only sprinkled or affused — a consi- deration which never enters into the system of our respected opponents. ' By king Edward's first book, the minister is ' to dip the child in the water thrice — first, dipping the 1 Rev. ?.Ir. Can-uthers. '- Cox, p. G5. 3 Ryland, Iiitr. p. 12. 1 Dr. Henderson's Biblicul Kesearclies in Russia, p. 191. I 5 102 THE EVIDENCE FOR DIPPING, ETC. * right side — secondly, the left — the third time, dipping ' the face towards the font,' ^ Is not this good authority, and worthy of all acceptation? No, alas! our brethren regard the founders of our episcopal hierarchy, as but half awakened from the slumbers of Popery, as having com- posed a liturgy loaded with Romish superstition, as being every way incompetent umpires in disputes respecting the revealed will of God, and practically erroneous, even in this rite, as to the mode and subject of baptism. ^ And yet, Avhen the least shadow of support can be obtained from this establishment, 'the eagerness with which our friends ' seize upon it,' and the tenacity with which it is held, are surprising. Does not this manner betray a weakness in fair and solid argument, and a determination, at any rate, to maintain a favourite hypothesis? When our brethren, with so much significance and complacency, point at a few antiquated fonts, in some of our old churches, as striking testimonies in favour of immersion, they seem to forget that none but infants, literally infants, could possibly be dipped in them — and, that when baptism was administered at stated times of the year, and that not frequently,-'* such fonts would have been absolutely necessary for affusing or sprinkling the vast numbers brought together to receive this religious sacrament. It is, however, somewhat re- markable, that when a gentleman at Leicester, and a lady in London, requested to be christened by immersion, in tubs, in the episcopal sanctuary, dispensations from the respective bishops were requisite to perform this cere- mony. Now, if in the judgment of j\Ir. Vaughan and Dr. Richards, or of the bishops, dipping, at least adults, were the doctrine of the prayer-book, what need of this prelatical license ? •* It may, also, be proper to meet the arguments of our brethren, respecting the fonts in our churches, by a citation from Maundrell's Travels in Judea, in the year 1697. He says, 'In the church, supposed to 1 Encj'c. Britt. on Bapt. 2 Gill's Reasons of Dissent, p. 10, Ed. Lon. ISOl. 3 Ryland, p. 29. * Record Newspaper, Jan. 7, 1830. AUCCMENTS FOUNDED ON, ETC. 103 ' be erected over tlie liouse of St. Mark, the Syrians show ' you a Syriack manuscript of the New Testament, in folio, ' pretended to be eiglit hundred and fifty-two years old, and ' a little stone font, used by the apostles themselves in 'baptizing.'^ Which reference is most to the point, you will easily judge. Let this suffice as a refutation of the evidence derived from the history of the Christian church, in favour of immersion-baptism. We shall now proceed to a branch of this controversy on which our opponents ap- pear to suspend the issue of their cause. SECTION FOURTH. THE MEANING OF THE GREEK WORD ' BAPTIZO. • Sure I am, that the signification of words in all languages, depend- ' ing very much on the thoughts, notions, and ideas of him that ' uses them, must unavoidahly be of great uncertainty to men of ' the same language and country. This is so evident in the ' Greek authors, that he that shall peruse their writings, will find ' in almost every one of them a distinct language, though in the ' same words.' Locke, vol. ii. p. 266. Our Baptist friends assure us, in the most positive terms, that this word is always and exclusively employed so as to support their practice — as a few passages out of multi- tudes will evince. — Dr. Gale says, it signifies ' only to dip • or plunge'- — and that, after having extensively examined the subject, 'he did not remember a passage where all ' other senses are not necessarily excluded besides dip- 'ping.'^ — Dr. Jenkins says, 'we maintain that baptizo 'always signifies to dip the whole body.''* — Mr. J. Sten- nett tells us, that ' the word baptizo signifies, and only ' Fragments to Calmet's Diet. No. 136. 2 P. 177. 3 p. 7s. 4 C. R. p. 56. 104 ARGUMENTS FOUNDED ON ' signifies, to immerse, or to wash by immersion ' ^ — and that ' to baptize persons signifies no more nor less than to ' plunge or dip them in water.' - — Mr. Maclean assures us, that haptizo ' signifies properly to dip, plunge, or im- ' merse ; and that in distinction from every other mode of ' washing, as well as from sprinkling or pouring, which ' are expressed in the original by other words ; and no in- ' stance has yet been produced, either from scripture or ' any ancient Greek writer, where it must necessarily bear ' another sense.' ^ — Mr. D'Anvers says, 'baptizo, in plain ' English, is nothing else but to dip, plunge, or cover all 'over.'^ — Mr. Gihhs assures us, that 'the verbs hapto ' and haptizo are not generic terms, denoting the applica- ' tion of water in any way ; but that they are confined to ' the specific mode, dipping, may be proved by a reference ' to their use in the works of classical Greek writers, who ' certainly understood their own language better than any ' other in later times — and the Pedobaptist cannot cite one ' authority from these writers in defence of his explanation 'of the terms.' -5 — Mr. Carson affirms, 'baptizo, in the ' whole history of the Greek language, has but one mean- ' ing.' ' It not only signifies to dip or immerse, but it 'never has any other meaning.'*^ — Mr. Coxhead: ' To ' baptize, we contend is to dip : such is its natural, literal 'signification — its only meaniny.'' — And Mr. Booth de- clares, ' that to immerse, plunge, or dip, is the radical, 'primary, and proper meaning of the word.'^ In this specific sense, they contend, it must be invari- ably understood when employed to designate the rite under immediate consideration. They also pronounce the import of this term the pith of the whole enquiry. — Dr. Gill says, ' those that are baptized, are necessarily dipped — for the ' word baptize signifies always to dip, or to wash by dip- 'ping.''-' — Mr. Anderson tells us, that 'if we can ascer- ' p. 179. 2 p. ISO. 3 ^Yorks, vol. i. p. 109. * Treatise, p. 1S2. 5 r. 50. c p. 3. See p. 116. ' P. 21. * Vol. ii. p. C9. 3 P. IJG. TIIK GREEK VERB ' BAPTIZO.' 105 ' tain tlie meaning of the term [baptize] that he emph)ycd '[in jMatt. xxviii. 19] it will help us to a certain con- ' elusion.' 1 — Dr. Gale says, 'the meaning of the word ' baptizo must be considered the main branch of our dis- 'pute.' - — And Air. Robinson tells us, that 'whether John ' baptized by pouring on water, or by bathing in water, is ' to be determined chiefly, though not wholly, by ascer- ' taining the precise meaning of the word baptize.' •'' "With this view of the case, our respected opponents have made uncommon efforts to prove that its meaning is exclusively in favour of dipping, and ever stands as an impregnable bulwark of their system. They incessantly refer to the Greek fathers of the church, heathen writers, different translations of the scriptures,* lexicons, the con- cessions of Pedobaptists, reason, analogy, inference, and the like — to make us sensible, that baptizo means only to dip, plunge, or immerse the whole body — or, that this is absolutely and unequivocally its radical, primary, or proper meaning. In this sense, of absolute immersion, it appears our opponents have translated the word baptize in their versions of the New Testament into the languages and dialects of the east.^ If, in this main branch of our dispute, they have failed to establish their point, their cause is hopeless — in fact, is entirely lost — and that they have completely failed, we feel confident of fully convinc- ing you. — Should we be somewhat lengthy in our obser- vations on this head, you will pardon the claim on your patience, and lend us your candid and serious attention. — "We shall first dispose of Mr. Booth's never-failing phrase- ology about ' the radical, primary, and proper meaning' of the word baptize. I. The terras radical, primary, and proper, as applied to the meaning of words, require a little explication. The radical import of a compounded term, embraces its mean- 1 p. 6. 2 p. Tz, r-K 3 p. .5. 1 Dore's Introduction, p. 14, 17; Pearce, p. 16; Ryland, p. S, 5 See Congr. Mag. March, 1830, 106 ARGUMENTS FOUNDED ON ing as gathered from its original component parts — lience the word to manufacture means to make a thing by hand. The radical import of a simple term, embraces its meaning when first employed to convey an idea from one man to another. The primary import of a word may refer to its original use, as distinguished from its present application — or to its literal sense, instead of its figurative — or to its common use, in opposition to an occasional one. The proper meaning of a word may signify, generally, the no- tion attached to it when first used — or the ordinary sense of it at some subsequent period — or the current import of it at some specific place — or, what is most correct, the idea attached to it by some particular author in a sen- tence or passage under consideration. Now, to ascertain the radical, primary, and proper meaning of a word, is frequently very difficult; and especially to render these respective properties accordant with each other — since, the radical meaning of a word often varies considerably from its proper and current use. For example — the elements of the word to manufacture mean to make a thing by hand ; but the current or proper use of this verb is to make something by machinery. The primitive meaning may also differ from the present use of a term :— a villain ori- ginally meant 'an inhabitant of a village' — now it signifies ' a wicked wretch.' — To ascertain, therefore, the radical and primary meaning of a term is of little importance, un- less we also find out its current meaning, and that meaning in the particular book or paragraph we are investigating — which must be determined by the connexion and circum- stances in which the word is found. — Consequently, when a writer pronounces this or that specific sense of the word to be its radical, primary, and proper meaning, and la- bours to build a system of religious ceremonies upon such a specific sense, it behoves him to be vei-y certain that he has really discovered not only this original, principal, and current use of the word, but also the harmony of these re- spective properties, and the import of it in the chapter and THE GREEK VERB 'bAPTIZO.' 107 verse of the author ou ■\vliosc dicta he erects his practice. — jMr. Booth, however, assumes that the radical, primary, and proper meanings of the word are precisely the same, as distinguished from some secondary import. However fal- lacious this notion may appear, we shall argue for the moment on his assumption. II. Supposing then, what we do not grant, that the radical, primary, and proper meaning of the word baptize, (as distinguished from all secondary and figurative senses,) were to accord, and signified to dip, plunge, or immerse the whole body or thing spoken of; it does not necessarily follow, that the writers of the New Testament have used it in this sense, while describing the rite under considera- tion. If the word have secondary and subordinate mean- ings, as Mr. Booth's expressions certainly imply — how will our opponents prove, that the inspired penmen have not employed it in some inferior or figurative sense ? As Dr. "Williams justly observes: 'Wliat Mr. Booth has pro- ' duced from Pedobaptist writers as concessions, no more ' regards the leading point in dispute than, I was going to ' say, the first verse of the first book of Chronicles, 'Adam, ' Sheth, Enosh.' For the immediate question is not what is the 'radical, primary, and proper meaning of the word ' baptism, in a philological or etymological sense, but ' whether the legal, the ceremonial, or sacramental sense of ' the word excludes, absolutely excludes, every other idea ' but immersion ? No concession short of this is of any ' real service to our opponent's cause.' ^ — It is well known that words used in common conversation, or in books, about the ordinary affairs of life, and particularly in the writings of the heathens— whose ideas were widely dif- ferent respecting morals, religion, and ceremonial worship, from those of holy and inspired penmen — assume a very different caste when brought into the vocabulary of the church.- — Dr. Campbell remarks, that ' the sacred use ' Antiped. Exam. vol. ii. p. 5, 6. - See Walker, p. 32 ; and Dr. Pye Smith's Messiah, vol. ii. p. 399. . 108 ARGUMENTS FOUNDED ON ' [of Greek words] and the classical, are often very dif- ' ferent.'i — Dr. Mackniglit says, that Paul 'has affixed to ' many of his terms significations quite different from what 'they have in profane authors.'- — Professor Stuart also says, ' that classical usage can never be very certain in ' respect to the meaning of a word in the New Testament. ' Who does not knoAv, that a multitude of Greek words ' here receive their colouring and particular meanings from ' the Hebrew, and not from the Greek classics ?' ^ — A mere allusion to the words light, angel, virtue, prudence, charity, church, sacrament, and similar terms, will place this doc- trine in the clearest aspect. Therefore, to demonstrate even that the radical, primary, and proper meaning of the word baptize, is to dip, plunge, or immerse a person or thing en- tirely, would by no means settle the dispute, unless it was also proved, that the writers of the New Testament, when describing the ceremony in question, employed it in this radical, primary, and proper sense. To ascertain this, de- volves on our respected brethren. That this point has not been established by them, we shall presently show you ; and that it is impracticable, we are perfectly satisfied. III. But we take upon us to assert further, that the action of dipping, plunging, or immersing the whole body, is not the primary, radical, and proper meaning of the word baptize — that being an effect produced in the cha- racter of wetting, washing, colouring, consecrating, pun- ishing, and so on — whether done by pouring, painting, sprinkling, piercing, or immersing. This irrefragable po- sition our opponents have been driven to admit on many occasions, as will be shown hereafter. — One citation, at present, will serve as a specimen of the whole. Dr. Gale says, ' the word baptize, perhaps, does not so necessarily ' express the action of putting under water, as, in general, ' a thing being in that condition, no matter how it comes ' so ; whether it was put into the water, or the water comes ' Gospels, Diss. II. pt 2. sec. 2. 2 Apostol. Epist. vol.i. p. 78. Edit. Edinb. 1S29. ^ p. 352. THE GREEK VERB ' BAPTIZO.' 109 'upon it.' 1 But, to illustrate this sentiment, let it be ob- served, that the word primary, which, on Mr. Booth's principles, comprehends the other two, 'may either signify * a priority of design, or a priority of execution — it may ' refer to the end or the means. Now, what we deny is, * that the principal end or design conveyed by the word is *to immerse.'- — The verb is employed, according to our opponents, as will be verified in its place, for bathing, besmearing, colouring, covering, daubing, infecting, im- buing, quenching, soaking, tinging, washing, and the like — and, if their previous assertions be correct, all this must be done by dipping — and which, for the sake of argument, we will admit. But what is the unavoidable result? If the primary end or the ultimate design of the verb be to dip or immerse, then a person is to be bathed, besmeared, coloured, covered, daubed, infected, imbued, quenched, soaked, tinged, or washed, as an act or means for produc- ing the end of dipping. Such is the inevitable consequence of their position, if the act of immersing be the primary design of the word under review. And who does not in- stantly discover the sophistry of their reasoning? If the primary means, or the priority of execution, only be to dip, then the point in debate is conceded at once — since the direct and ultimate import of the word may be some- thing else — unless we are willing to believe that taking up a book is reading it, dipping the pen in ink is writing, going to church is hearing a sermon, and opening the mouth is speaking ; because these are primary means for such a design, or are prior in execution to the end in- tended. In accordance with this reasoning, Dr. Gale tells us, that ' immersion is before tinging, for things are tinged ' by it.' 3 — And Mr. Booth says, ' it may be asserted [even] ' of our English terra dip, that it no where signifies to im- ' merse, except as a mode of, or in order to dyeing, wash- ' ing, wetting, or some other purpose.''* — One fact is in- ' p. 96. "■ Antip. Exam. vol. ii. p. 29. 3 P. 100. * Vol. iii. p. 265. K 110 ARGUMENTS FOUNDED ON controvertible, that whenever the word baptize is employed to express an effect, state, or condition, as bathing, be- smearing, &c. which might be accomplished by dipping — dipping is only the mode or means of producing it, and not the effect, state, or condition included in the term. And to suppose that a word, which expresses an effect, is to be considered as synonymous with others which merely de- signate the manner of accomplishing it, is every way improper ; and, in the translation of books from one lan- guage to another, would produce consequences both erro- neous and absurd. If the word in question signifies to bathe, besmear, colour, cover, daub, infect, imbue, quench, soak, tinge, and wash — and if these, or any of them, can be effected without dipping, we have the clearest evidence, that to dip is not its primary meaning ; and that it may not be involved in the term even as a means of execution. IV. Having made the preceding remarks respecting the stress laid on the supposed primary sense of the verb hap- tizo, and shown the futility of our opponents' reasoning ; we shall next proceed to establish the variety of its import, in contradiction to their pre-cited assertions. The word haptizo is a derivative from bapto and is said to be a di- minutive of it. Hence, according to the ordinary construc- tion of the Greek verbs, if bajito signify to dip, haptizo means to dip less — or if hap)to signify to pour or sprinkle, haptizo means to pour or sprinkle less. ^ Now, the word hapto is never used to express the ceremony of Christian baptism, " and it is reasonable to suppose this constant use of the diminutive was by design — and therefore, in this rite, is not to be confounded with its root, hapto. Hence we might fairly confine ourselves to the consideration of the derivative verb only — in this case, our labour would have been much less, and our triumph, if possible, more complete. Some writers suppose, that haptizo is, in its appropriate sense, what grammarians call a frequentative verb, denoting a repetition of the action which it may in- ' Jenkiu's Def. \\ 113. ^ Wall, vol. iii. p. 81. THE GREEK VERB 'bAPTIZO.' Ill tlicatc. Professor Stuart, however, contends tliat there is no evidence of its having any such signification. ^ It is also remarked, that hapto is frequently nsed for dyeing, staining, colouring, and the like, while haptizo is seldom or never employed to express any such effect. Whether this distinction be true or not, is a matter of indifference in this debate, since all, or nearly all, of our leading op- ponents contend that hapto and haptizo are synonymous, " especially ' as to mode or frequency ; ' ^ and under this conviction they constantly embrace both in their discus- sions of this rite. We shall, therefore, for the sake of ar- gument, and to give them all the advantage they could justly claim, admit, at least for the present, that both words mean precisely the same thing in action, nature, and extent. Mr. Pengilly says, that hapto ' is the theme ' or root of the three following — baptizo — baptizomia ' — and baptisma — and gives the primary idea of all.'-* Now, we contend that these words, so far from signifying one and the same action, in all cases and connexions, have a great variety of meanings. This we shall prove from the unanimous consent of the best lexicographers, the trans- lations of our opponents, the use of them in the Septu- agint, Apocrypha, and New Testament — and by such other means as may be available and proper. Should our assumption be realized to your satisfaction, the whole fabric of our opponents' exclusive scheme falls to the ground and crumbles into dust. V. That the word baptize has a variety of significations and is of a generic nature, may be made to appear by an appeal to the best lexicographers. The following have been consulted: — Hedricus, Leigh, Parkhurst, Schleus- ner, Scapula, Stephens, and Suidas. Reference has also been made to Montanus' Literal Version of the Apocrypha and New Testament, and of the Hebrew terms rendered baptize by the seventy translators. The result of our re- 1 p. 294. 2 (jale, p. "6 ; also p. 217. 3 Carson, p. 2, Go. ■• P. 14. 112 ARGUMENTS FOUNDED ON search is, that the word is used as synonymous with the following Latin verbs — to which a translation is appended, and that chiefly taken from the Baptists : — 1 Abluo To wash away 13 TllADEFACIO To wet 2 Colo To colour 14 Maculo To pollute 3 Demergo To dive 15 Mergo To dip 4 Duco To lead 16 IMUKDO To cleanse 5 FiGO To pierce 17 Obruo To overwhelm 6 Fuco To colour IS Pereo To perish 7 Haurio To draw up 19 PURGO To purge 8 Imbuo To imbue 20 RUBESCO To redden 9 Immergo To plunge 21 Submergo To put under 10 Impleo TofiU 22 Terreo To affright 11 Intingo To dye 23 TiNGo To stain 12 Lavo To wash From these unexceptionable testimonies, it is evident that the word has various meanings, and that in general, if not invariably, it expresses the effect produced by an action, rather than the precise action itself. In fact, we might defy our opponents to produce a single lexicographer, of the least authority, who maintains that the word baptize means only one definitive act or end, much less that it means always and only to dip, plunge, or immerse the whole body or thing spoken of, under water' or in any other element. — To say that it is sometimes employed in this sense, or that this is its primary import, amounts to nothing in the scale of evidence, as we have previously established. VI. We proceed now to the translations of our oppo- nents. Considerable pains have been taken by them to enlist the greek authors under their banners, for the purpose of aiding their cause. Five only of their most eminent and learned divines — Booth, Cox, Gale, Ryland, and Gibbs — notwithstanding their occasional opposition, and that of their brethren, to such a mode of reference, have cited numerous passages from different Greek writers to establish their position, that ' baptize means only to dip * or plunge, and that they do not remember a passage THE GREEK VERB ' BAPTIZO.' 113 'where all other senses are not necessarily excluded.' — They have referred to nearly all the texts in the Septu- agint, Apocrypha, and New Testament, where the word occurs not in connexion with the sacrament under imme- diate consideration. — That these gentlemen have not per- verted the sense of their authorities to the prejudice of their cause, may be readily supposed — and what is the result? That the word baptize, as employed by the an- cient Greek poets, philosophers, historians, and divines, signifies only one and the same definitive action, and that to dip, plunge, or immerse? — Far from it. — The follow- ing list of translations presents the fruit of their laborious researches and philological acumen. — According to them it is used for 1 Bathe 15 Infected 29 Quenched 2 Besmear 16 Imbue 30 Redden 3 Caused 17 Immersed 31 Run through 4 Coloured 18 Involved 32 Smeared 5 Covered 19 Laid under S3 Soaked C Crushed 20 Let down 34 Sprinkled 7 Daubed 21 Oppressed 35 Stained S Dip 22 Overwhelmed 36 Steep 9 Dra^ving water 23 Over head and ears 37 Sink 10 Drank much 24 Plunged 38 Swallowed up 11 DrouTied 25 Pour 39 Thrust 12 Dyed 2G Purify 40 Tinged 13 Fill 27 Put 41 AVashed U Given up to 28 Put into 42 Wetted 1 Now, let it be put to the judgment of any sensible and unprejudiced person, whether a word which, according to our opponents' own showing, admits of so many different and even opposite explanations, can mean only one simple and specific action, and that to dip, plunge, or immerse in tlie manner of a modern baptism? — With those who 1 Gale, p. 7S, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 88, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 119, (comp. Rees, p. 120), 120, 151 ; Booth, vol. i. p. 64; Cox, p. 41, 43, 45, 46, 51; Ryland's Appendix, p. 3, 4, 5, 10, 12, 15; Gibbs, 52, 53, 54, 55. 68. k5 114 ARGUMENTS FOUNDED ON could resist tlie force of this evidence, we would liave no contention. VII. By a cursory reference to the citations our oppo- nents have made from Greek writings, for the express purpose of supporting their exclusive mode of baptism, we find that (omitting the Septuagint, Apocrypha, and New Testament) the following operations, conditions, or de- signs, are designated by the word baptize or baptism. 1 Staining a sword with blood or slaughter. 2 Daubing the face with paint. 3 Colouring the cheeks by intoxication. 4 Dyeing a lake with the blood of a frog. 5 Beating a person tiU red with his own blood. 6 Staining the hand by squeezing a substance. 7 Ornamenting clothes with a print, needle, or bmsh. 8 Imbuing a person with his thoughts, or justice. 9 Polluting the mind by fornication and sophistry. 10 Poisoning the heart with evil manners. 1 1 Involving a person in debt and difficidties. 12 Bringing ruin on a city by besieging it. 13 The natural tints of a bird or flower. 14 Plunging a sword into a viper or army. 15 Eunning a man through with a spear. 16 Sticking the feet of a flea in melted wax. 1 7 Quenching a flaming torch in water. 18 Seasoning hot iron by dipping it in cold water. 19 Plying the oars and rowing a vessel. 20 Dipping children into a cold bath. 21 Drowning persons in a lake, pond, or sea. 22 Sinking a ship, crew, and persons under water. 23 Sweetening hay with honey. 24 Soalcing a herring in brine. 25 Steeping a stone in wine. 20 Immersing one's self up to the middle, breasts, or head. 27 Destroying ships in a harbour by a storm. 28 Fining a cup with honey. 29 Drawing water in a pitcher, or bucket. THE GREEK VERB ' BARTIZO.' llo 30 Popping ciipid into a cup of wine. 31 Poisoning arrows and presents like arrows. 32 Washing wool in or with watei". 33 Cleansing the body wholly or partially. 34 Tinging the finger with blood. 35 Dipping bu-ds or their bills in a river. 36 A dolphin ducking an ape. 37 The tide overflo-s^-ing the land. 38 Poiu-ing water on wood and garden plants. 39 Dyeing an article in a vat. 40 Throwing fish into cold water. 41 Dipping weapons of war in blood. 42 Overwhelming a sliip with stones. 43 Oppressing or burdening the poor with taxes. 44 Overcome with sleep or calamity. 45 Destroying animals with a land flood. Little comment is requisite on tliese allusions. It is clear as the light at noon, that the passages, which our oppo- nents have selected from Greek authors as the best cal- culated to sustain their cause of exclusive dipping, have completely failed. That, so far from implying one, and only one, definite act, and that the total immersion of a person or thing, they express various and opposite actions, as applying the baptismal element to the object in the shape of painting, pouring, and overwhelming, as well as applying the object to the element in the form of a partial or total dipping. VIII. But to proceed with this important branch of our discussion. We have no hesitation, then, in affirming, that had the passages cited by our learned opponents been fairly rendered, and the primary and proper design of the word given in all its various connexions, without pre- judice or partiality, the renderings would have been still more numerous and opposite — as a reference to the pre- ceding catalogue of its connexions Avill clearly evince. "We shall submit the subsequent list of English words, as an- swering to the true import of the Greek verb baptize or 116 ARGUMENTS FOUNDED ON the noun baptism, in the citations made by our respected brethren. 1 Bathe 18 Hiding 35 Pushing 2 Besmeared 19 Imbue 36 Quenching 3 Broken 20 Infected 37 Ruined 4 Cleanse 21 Involved 38 Soaks 5 Coloured 22 Lost 39 Sprinkle 6 Cooled 23 Oppress 40 Stain 7 Covered 24 Ornamented 41 Sleep 8 Crushed 25 Overcome 42 Sticks 9 Defiled 26 Overpowered 43 Submersed 10 Destroyed 27 Overwhelmed 44 Sunk 11 Dip 28 Plied 45 Sweetened 12 Disguised 29 Plunged 46 Tempered 13 Drowning 30 Poisoned 47 Variegated 14 Ducking 31 Polluted 48 Wash 15 Dye 32 Popped 49 Wetted 16 Enfeebles 33 Poured 50 Wrecked 17 Fills 34 Put Supposing the preceding translations to be correct, and we fearlessly solicit investigation, we may appeal to any judicious and candid umpire, whether a word, which is capable of so many and such various renderings, can be consistently pleaded by our opponents as signifying al- ways and only to dip — and whether the system they have adopted, and which rests, in the main, on such an exclu- sive construction of the term baptize, must not be desti- tute of a fair and solid foundation? It is not impossible, however, that some persons may reply, ' If this word have so many different applications, ' who shall determine its import in any one controverted ' passage ? ' We do not deny that a term of such a flexible character, presents more obstacles to the reader than ano- ther, the sense of which is, in all connexions, one and the same. But it will generally be found, that the con- nexion of a word fully developes that definite application of it which the judicious writer had in his mind. Our own language presents cases perfectly analogous to the preced- ing, without rendering the style of a good author incom- THE GREEK VERB 'bAPTIZO.' 117 preliensible, or even obscure. According to Johnson, the noun word, has twelve significations — power, thirteen — and foot, sixteen ; the verb to make, has sixty-four — to])ut, eighty — and to take, one hundred and thirty-four. And yet we read these terms, in all their diversified applica- tions, without feeling embarrassed by the known multi- plicity of their uses. And though in a dead and imper- fectly understood language the difficulties are encreased, they are by no means insurmountable to the learned and attentive reader. IX. But there are other passages in Greek writers, which our brethren have purposely or inadvertently over- looked — and where, in several instances, the sense of the word in question is, if possible, still more adverse to their conclusions. — Dr. Williams, Mr. C. Taylor, and the Rev. G. Ewing, have cited various other passages to prove, that the word does not signify always to dip ; but that it embraces many other modes of action. Without reading the quotations at length, we shall, as before, give you their import in a few words. 1 Perfuming the head with precious oiutment. 2 Injecting a force into the body. 3 Disguised by drinking too much ^^ine. 4 Adorning the head with dress. 5 Dyeing the hair wliile on the head. 6 Pouring out broth. 7 Overcome by intemperance. 8 Stainmg a dog's mouth by eating a shell-fish. 9 Purifying at a small bason. ' 10 Sprinkling holy water. 11 Overwhelmed by calamity. 12 Tinging the body with various colours. 13 Fining the hand with flowing blood. 14 Embroidering a girdle with flowers. 2 1 See Booth, vol. i. p. 92 ; and vol. iii. p. 2o0. - Antip. Exam. vol. 2, p. 65 ; Taylor's Letters, lett. iii. p. G3 ; Ewing's Essay, p. -14-16, 216-249, 252-253. 118 ARGUMENTS FOUNDED ON Enough lias now been said respecting the evidence deriv- able from Greek writers, as to the various meanings of the verb under consideration. And if, as Dr. Cox remarks, ' the signification of a Greek term is to be determined by ' the testimony of the best critics and lexicographers, in ' connexion with the primitive and current uses by the 'most approved writers in the language;'^ our opponents cannot support their position — that ' baptizo means always * and only to dip.' ' The Greek classic writers are accustomed, when they ' designate the idea of plunging, dipping, immerging, &c. ' into any thing, to put the name of that thing in the accu- ' sative case after bapto and baptizo, and to put before this ' case the preposition eis, or some equivalent one.' . . . ' But ' a review of the instances in which baptizo is employed in ' the New Testament, presents a construction in general ' quite different from this. The result of such a review is, ' that after a particular examination of all the cases which ' refer either to the baptism of John or of Jesus and his ' disciples, I find but a single instance of the construction ' which is so general in the classics, whenever the element ' made use of, in order to perform the rite of baptism, is ' named. This is the following, (Mark i. 9) : ' Jesus was ' baptized by John into or in the Jordan' — following the ' usual method of the classics. The other cases, where the ' element is named, are of two kinds — (1.) With the dative 'and the preposition en; e.g. Matt. iii. 11: 'I baptize ' you en udati, w^ith water, or by water' — so Mark i. 8 ; 'and John i. 26, 31, 33.— (2.) With the dative merely; 'e.g. Luke iii. 16 — 'I baptize you tidati, with or by 'water — and so in Acts i. 5; xi. 16; the idiom being ' peculiar to Luke.' . . . . ' That eis ton Jordanen, however, ' may designate no more in Mark i. 9, than the element ' ivith ivhich or by which John performed the rite of bap- ' tism, one might argue from such an example as that in ' John ix. 7, where Jesus says to the blind man, ' Go, 1 Cox, i>. 35. THE GREEK VERB 'bAPTIZO.' 119 ' wasli IN the pool (nipsas eis holumbethran ) of Siloam.' ' Now, we know that the word nipto (also nizoj, is used * almost exclusively for the washing of the face, hands, or 'feet.' ....' Setting aside this (Mark i. 9), then for a ' moment we may say, in all other cases in the New Testa- * ment, this mode of baptism is left undetermined by the * original Greek, as far as the language itself is concerned, ' unless it is necessarily implied by the word haptizo ; for, ' in all other cases, only the element by which, not the ' mode in which baptism is performed, is designated by the * sacred writers.' ^ X. The deductions from this branch of our investiga- tion are simple and easy: — 1. That the word generally, if not exclusively, expresses an effect produced, rather than any precise mode of accomplishing it. — 2. That to dye, stain, or impart a colour or character to a person or thing, is its more ancient and prevailing import. — 3. That when the action is discoverable, it is found to be various, up, down, forward, backward, and the like. — 4. That our op- ponents have adduced no instance where it is used for the two-fold action of dipping and raising. — 5. That the end proposed in the term may be effected by sprinkling or pouring, partial or total immersion, according to the cir- cumstances of the case. And — 6. That this point being established, the main support of our opponents' scheme has given way, and the others must speedily follow. After this development of the various meanings of the word baptize, and which, one would suppose, must have been familiar to the mind of Mr. Booth, who would have expected to read in his work the following sentence ? — ' Were the leading term of any human law to have ara- ' biguity in it equal to that for which our brethren plead * with regard to the word baptism, such law would certainly ' be considered as betraying either the weakness or wick- ' edness of the legislator ; and be condemned as opening a ' door to perpetual chicane and painful uncertainty. Far 1 Stuart, p. 313, 314, 317. 120 ARGUMENTS FOUNDED ON ' be it, then, from us to suppose that our gracious and ' omniscient Lord should give a law relating to divine ' worship, and obligatory on the most illiterate of his real * disciples, which may be fairly construed to mean this, that, ' or the other action — a law which is calculated to excite ' and perpetuate contention among his wisest and sincerest 'followers — a law, in respect of its triple meaning, that ' would disgrace a British parliament, as being involved ' in the dark ambiguity of a pagan oracle.' ^ But, all this pious parade of language is in direct op- position to the most stubborn and incontrovertible facts — even facts which our opponents have largely and volun- tarily adduced — facts which their own mouths have ut- tered and their own pens have transmitted to posterity. — This paragraph also proceeds on the principle of coun- selling the Almighty as to the degree of simplicity which should characterize his enactments — as if infinite wisdom could not best determine that point. It assumes, what we deny, that God intended dipping, and only dipping, to be the mode of operation he designed to enforce by the term baptizo. — Conjoined with this presumption is the incon- clusive character of the reasoning — since it supposes that, when laws are enacted requiring some eifect-to be pro- duced, not the least latitude of method is to be allowed in accomplishing it — or that the compliance required re- gards the minutia of forms as much as the intend results. Or, to illustrate the absurdity of the position ; when a law was made by queen Elizabeth, enjoining that all persons should repair to the parish church once every Lord's day, the parliament determined that the people were only to walk — or only to ride — or only to go through the queen's high-way — or only to wear such a dress — or to proceed at such a pace ! — Who does not hereby discover the sophistry of ]\Ir. Booth's argument?" XL "We shall now proceed to examine the signification ' Vol. i. p. 84, 85. See also p. 10.5, 2.'il ; and Gibbs, p. 5S-GI. 2 See Antip. Exam. vol. ii. p. 37(i-3Sl. THE GREEK VERB 'bAPTIZO.' 1*21 of the term baptize in the Greek translation of the old TESTAMENT and in the apocrypha, where it occurs twenty-six times — in four of which passages, the original word is baptizo, (2 Kings v. 14; Isaiah xxi. 4; Judith xii. 7; EccLUS. xxxiv. 25.) In the other twenty-two, it is simply hapto. — This enquiry is of considerable moment, as it will determine the sense in which the Hellenistic Jews understood it, and how it was applied by them in their ceremonial institutions. For it should be noted, that the Septuagint version was made by the Jews themselves about 277 years before the Christian era; and was in use among such of that nation as spoke the Greek language, till, during, and after, the time of our Lord's incarnation. To this translation the writers of the New Testament refer, and from it they frequently make their citations — employing the words of that version to convey a similar sense in their own inspired compositions. And here we are to look for the primitive ecclesiastical sense of the word baptize. And as the Apocryphal books, though un- canonical, and every way unsuitable to be read or circu- lated as the word of God, 'were written by Alexandrian ' Jews anterior to Christianity, and are calculated to elu- ' cidate the phraseology of the Ncav Testament, they claim ' the frequent perusal of scholars and theological students,' and will assist us in our subsequent enquiries on this sub- ject. 1 Dr. Pye Smith observes, that ' the proper authority ' for understanding the diction of the New Testament, is * the Septuagint and Apocrypha, compared with the He- 'brew text.' 2 — We feel no hesitation in saying, that the word baptize is here used to express different effects, which are produced by sprinkling, pouring, staining, wash- ing, overwhelming, and partial, if not a total, dipping. But it is never employed for one person immersing an- other, nor for the two-fold action of dipping into water and raising out of it. ' See Parkhurst's Preface to his Greek and English Lexicon : Prideaux's Con. vol. iii. p. GO, "3, and Comprehensive Bible, Introd. p. 77. ■- Messiah, vol. ii. p. 309. L 122 ARGUMENTS FOUNDED ON Before we come to the chief subject of investigation, it may he proper to premise — I. That the original Hebrew words, translated into hapto or baptizo, are five, viz : bahoth, boah, machats, TSABANG, and TABAL, and respectively mean — to affright — to come — to pierce — to dye — to cleanse. — The first three are thus translated once each — the fourth, three times — and the last, sixteen, in the Old Testament. II. That, in 2 Kings v. 10, 14, and Ecclus. xxxiv. 25, laptizo and lavo, to wash, are used synonymously. — Schleusner, though he gives as the primary sense of bap- tizo, immercjo ac intingo, in aquam mergo ; and says that it corresponds with the Hebrew word tahal, in 2 Kings, V. 14; yet adds, that in the above signification, it is never used in the New Testament. III. That Montanus, in his interlineary translation of the Bible and Apocrypha, has either rendered the Greek word baptize, or the Hebrew terms, of which baptize is deemed a correct version, by the following verbs : colo — — demergo — duco — figo — haurio — immergo — intingo — terreo — ti7igo. IV. That the English version has rendered them by the subjoined words: to affright — to colour — to dip — to draw up — to dye — to plunge — to put — to wash — to wet. Having made these preliminary remarks, we shall now examine the various places where the word in dispute occurs in the Septuagint and Apocrypha. XII. The following are aU the places where the terra in question is found. — These passages we shall, for the sake of brevity, arrange and classify according to their aspect and connexions. The separable prepositions will be modified to meet our views of the verb — for doing which the most substantial reasons will be given hereafter. I. In Levit. iv. 6 — iv. 17 — ix. 9 — xiv. 16 — the priest is commanded to baptize his finger in (or with) blood or oil contained in a bason, or in the palm of his left hand, and to sprinkle the blood, or oil adhering to it, on the THE GREEK VERB 'bAPTIZO.' 123 altar, tabernacle, or before the Lord. It is evident, that whatever was the action here, the design was to wet the finger, so that some of the element should adhere suffi- ciently to admit of a subsequent aspersion. Total im- mersion was not essential, nor intended — and, at least, in one instance (xiv. 16), was impracticable. In the second and fourth cited passages, the preposition by which the word is, in a considerable degree, regulated, is apo, which our opponents contend (as will be shown hereafter) sig- nifies out of. Consequently the texts, according to their rendering, would read thus : — ' And the priest shall bap- tize his finger out of some of the blood,' and not into it — ' and the priest shall baptize his right finger out of the oil ' that is in [the palm of] his left hand,' v. 15. — Dipping, therefore, iu these cases, is entirely out of the question — and, in the others, is exceedingly doubtful. II. In ExoD. xii. 22 — Numb. xix. 18 — the people are commanded to take a bunch of hyssop, and to baptize it in (or with) the blood or water that is in a bason or vessel, and to strike or sprinkle it. Here remarks, similar to the preceding, are appropriate. To saturate the bunch of hyssop with blood or water, is the precise import of the word in this place. The manner of doing it being a matter of no consideration in the mind of the writer. Though the design might be effected by dipping, it could only be partial, as a portion of the hyssop was in the hand of the person, and not brought in contact with the adhering ele- ment. In the first passage apo is the governing preposi- tion ; and, according to the notions of our antagonists, should be read — ' Ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and ' baptize it out of the blood that is in the bason' — or pour the blood from the bason on the bunch of hyssop. III. In Lev. xiv. 6 — xiv. 51 — we read that a living bird, cedar wood, scarlet wool, and a bunch of hyssop, were to be baptized in (or with) the blood of a slain bird. Here you have only to consider that the bird baptized was as large as the bird killed — and that this, with the cedar 124 ARGUMENTS FOUNDED ON wood, scarlet wool, and the bunch of hyssop, were to be baptized in the blood of the slain bird. — Total immersion was, therefore, impracticable — and, if immersed at all, it could only be very partial, as a part of the things dipped were in the hand of the operator — nor, in fact, for a total purgation, was entire immersion necessary. ' Sprinkling ' a little water on any part of the body might be an emblem ' of purification — water is literally poured on the body, if 'poured on any part of the body.' ^ — It does not appear from the narrative, that the blood was mingled with the running water. It should seem, from the latter text, that the bird, wood, wool, and hyssop, were first baptized with blood, and then with water. IV. In Lev. xi. 32, it is said, that a vessel, polluted by any unclean animal falling dead into it, was to be baptized in (or with) water for cleansing it. Now remark, that this was a ceremonial purification ; and, without an explicit in- junction, might be performed by sprinkling, as we learn elsewhere. — ' And a clean person shall take hyssop, and ' dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and ' upon all the vessels, and upon the persons that were ' there, and upon him that touched a bone, or one slain, or ' one dead, or a grave.' (Numb. xix. 18.) — Observe, also, that raiment, skins, sacks, or vessels of stone, brass, iron, used for any purpose, however large, or however perni- cious a saturation with water would have been to them, were to be cleansed in the same manner. Sprinkling would injure none of them — would be convenient for the largest — and would answer every end the Legislator had in view. We therefore say, the vessels were merely rinsed or sprinkled by the proprietor. v. In Deut. xxxiii. 24 ; Josh. iii. 13 ; Psalm Ixviii. 23 — it is said, ' Let him baptize his foot in (or with) oil.' — ' The feet of the priests were baptized in (or at) the brim ' of the Jordan.' — ' That thy foot may be baptized in (or ' with) the blood of thine enemies, and the tongue of thy > Carson, p. 197, I'JS. THE GREEK VERB 'bAPXIZO.' 125 ' dogs in (or with) the same.' In these expressions it is evident that total immersion was not designed. Asher was to walk over a fat soil — the priests touched the edge of the water with their feet — and, the blood of David's ene- mies was to splash his sandals, and to stain the tongue of his dogs. — If there were any thing in the form of an im- mersion, it was very imperfect — and such as our oppo- nents would deem very defective for even the feet of their converts. VI. In Ruth ii. 14; and 1 Sam. xiv. 27; we read of * baptizing a sop in (or with) vinegar, and the end of a rod 'in (or with) an honeycomb.' — Here the action, as we gather from the circumstances of the case, was dipping — but only partial, as the hand held only part of the bread, and only the end of the rod touched the honeycomb. But, whatever was the incidental act, the intention was to moisten the bread, and to secure a little of the honey. Hence, to wet and take up, are the fair and direct mean- ings of the term in these connexions. — Josephus says, Jonathan ' broke off a piece of a honeycomb, and ate part ' of it.' 1 VII. In Judges v. 30, it is written, ' To Sisera a prey 'of baptized [attire], a prey of baptized [attire] of needle ' work — of baptized [attire] of needle work on both sides.' — Here a garment is baptized by the needle — or embroi- dered by the application of figures in the form of modern tapestry. There is nothing in the shape of dipping. To say, it was as if it were dipped, would only be a sophistry to overcome a stubborn fact. VIII. In 2 Kings v. 14, it is said ' And Elisha sent a ' message to Naaman, saying. Go and wash in (or at) the 'Jordan seven times, (v. 10.) And he baptized himself ' seven times in (or at) the Jordan.' — That this great and honourable man (v. 1) — this mighty general of the Syrian host, plunged himself from the river's bank seven times successively, when he was commanded only to wash, and ' Antiq. b. vi. c. G, sec. 3. L 5 126 ARGUMENTS FOUNDED ON that ceremonially, is exceedingly improbable. From the indications of his temper, recorded in the narrative, he was evidently not disposed to do more than the prophet required; and, that he did not, is plain — for he acted ' according to the saying of the man of God,' who com- manded him simply to wash. — His disease was only local (v. 11), and only a local application of the water was ne- cessary. — How he was baptized we learn from Lev. xiv. 7: * And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed ' from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him ' clean.' — This was the method God had appointed, and we can hardly suppose the prophet would have enjoined any other — at least, not until it is proved. — A parallel case, which confirms our view of this cleansing, may be seen in John viii. 9 : our Lord sends a blind man to the pool of Siloam, to wash (his eyes previously anointed) ; and in which bodily immersion was quite out of the question. IX. In 2 Kings viii. 15, it is written, ' He took a thick * cloth, and baptized it in (or with) water, and spread it on ' his face, so that he died.' — Whether the cloth was wetted by dipping it into water, or by pouring water on it, is not certain — to pronounce either positively, would be begging the question. One thing, however, is plain, that the wetting of the cloth was the end intended by the term — the manner of accomplishing it being an immaterial consideration. X. In Job ix. 31, it is said, ' Thou shalt baptize me in ' the ditch, and mine own clothes shall abhor m.e.' That he was not submersed in the mud, is palpable. He might be rolled in the mire till his clothes were polluted ; and that is all intended by the figurative expression of the patriarch. XI. In Isaiah xxi. 4, it is said, ' My heart panted : ' fearfulness baptized me.' This passage is prophetic of Belshazzar's consternation and death, as recorded in Da- niel V. 6, 10.1 jje was overwhelmed with the wrath of heaven. — Lowth renders the passage, ' j\Iy heart is be- ' wildered — terrors have scared me.' — It is worthy of ' Bishop Lowtli's Notes in Loc. THE GREEK VERB ' BAPTIZO.' 127 observation, that divine judgments are almost invariably- represented by God's pouring out his wrath on the heads of his enemies. — See, for confirmation of this, Ps. Ixix. 24; Ixxvi. 6 — Is. xlii. 25 — Jer. x. 25; xiv. 16 — Lam. ii. 4 — EzEK. vii. 8 — Dan. ix. 11, &c. &c.' — Hence this baptism was administered by the descent of the element on the object. XII. In EzEK. xxiii. 14, 15, it is written — ' She saw ' men pourtrayed upon the wall, the image of the Chal- ' deans pourtrayed with vermillion, girded with girdles ' upon their heads, exceeding in baptized attire upon their * heads.' — Whether these head-dresses were dyed in a vat, or painted with a brush, as people ky on vermillion, or wrought with a needle, as ladies make their caps, or em- broider garments, as mentioned in Judges v. 30, we can- not determine. — Imparting a colour or character in any of these ways, is evidently the design of the word in this place. This assumption is sanctioned by our opponents. ' Bapto, in its secondary sense, is employed literally and ' properly to denote dyeing, even when there is no dip- 'ping.'-— ' When the dyeing liquid drops upon the gar- ' ments they are dyed.' — ' Bapto signifies to dye by sprink- 'ling as properly as by dipping — and that literally.'" XIII. In Dan. iv. 33 ; v. 21, it is said — ' And his body ' was baptized with the dew of heaven.' — Nebuchadnezzar was not plunged into a reservoir of dew — it distilled gently or copiously upon him, or, in other words, he was wetted, more or less, with this nocturnal rain. — If the action be the thing we are considering, we have it in the clearest manner — and entirely adverse to our opponents' hypo- thesis and practice. — It is of importance to remark, that there are but two passages in the Septuagint and Apo- crypha, out of two-and-twenty, where the word bapto is applied to the human body or the whole person — and these both refer to the king of Babylon, who was wetted, or tinged, or baptized with the dew of heaven. ' See Keacli's Met. p. 123. 2 Carson, p. 39, 41, 43. 128 ARGUMENTS FOUNDED ON XIV. In Judith xii. 7 — and Ecclus. xxxiv. 25 — we have an account of a lady's washing herself ceremonially in a camp containing two hundred thousand men, and at a well guarded by the greatest vigilance — and of the puri- fication of a person after touching a corpse, according to the prescriptions of the law. Suffice it to observe here, that the beautiful Judith was not likely to be plunged naked or clothed into a fountain surrounded by so many soldiers; and that an individual defiled, as before men- tioned, was cleansed by sprinkling, at least in part, as our opponents allow, and as will be proved in the course of our future observations. Carson's exposition of the former case, is without force or foundation. He says, ' Judith was ' not bathed in the fountain, but at it, in something pro- ' vided for the purpose.' ^ XV. In Ecclus. xxxi. 26 — ' The furnace proveth the edge ' by baptizing.' — Here we gather from the circumstances of the case, that the instrument was dipped in the water to harden it. The intention of the passage, however, is to express the tempering of the tool ; the manner of doing it being of no consideration. XVI. In 2 Macc. i. 21 — 'Then commanded he them ' to baptize the water and to bring it' — that is, to draw it up out of a well, or receive it from a shoot — for whether the vessel was filled by dipping or by pouring is uncertain. — At any rate, the proper import of the word here, is quite the reverse of immersion — for the water, and not the bucket, is said to be baptized. XIII. We have now referred you to all the places in the Septuagint and Apocrypha where the word baptize occurs. — A few observations have been made on each to place its import in a proper light. — From what has been said, it is apparent — 1. That the word almost invariably expresses the state in which a person or thing may be — no matter how he or it becomes so — or an effect produced THE GREEK VERB ' BAPTIZO.' 129 ill some way or other — no matter what. — 2. That the effects said to be produced are various — wetting, ordinary- cleansing, ceremonial purification, dyeing, polluting, over- whelming, hardening iron, and drawing water. — 3. That these effects are produced by different modes of action — such as dipping into the element and applying the element to the object with a needle, by sprinkling, distilling upon it as dew, and by pouring. — 4. That the effect in many cases is only intended, becomes apparent from the fact, that it is dubious and undeterminable, without begging the question, what the action really was. — See Lev. xi. 32 — 2 Kings viii. 15. — 5. That the word is no where used in the Septuagiut or Apocrypha for one person dipping an- other — for an immersion followed by an immediate emer- sion — and not, without considerable straining, for a total dipping at all. — 6. Upon the whole, it is plain and de- monstrable, from the preceding evidence, that the word has various meanings ; expressing effects produced by different and even opposite actions — and this is all we are now attempting to establish. XIV. The general character of the term in debate, may be further developed by remarking that it is synonymous with the Latin verb, tingo, and the Hebrew verb, tahal. This position is admitted by our opponents. Mr. J. Sten- nett says, 'that timjo and baptizo signify the same thing.' ^ And Dr. Cox tells us, that * in the Septuagint, bapto is 'frequently introduced [16 times] as a translation of the 'Hebrew word tubal.'" Dr. Gill says, 'tubal and bapto 'are of the same signification.' ^ — Their coadjutor. Dr. Campbell, says, ' The Hebrew tubal, perfectly corresponds ' to the Greek bapto and baptizo, which are synonymous, ' and is always rendered by one or other of them in the 'Septuagint.'-* It is, therefore, only requisite to show that both the Latin and Hebrew words are of a generic character, to prove the assertion, frequently made, that baptizo is generic also. — Passages might easily be cited 1 p. 25. 2 p. 36. 3 p. 223. * On Mark vu. 4. 130 ARGUMENTS FOUNDED ON to establish this point ; ^ but, for the sake of brevity, we shall, in imitation of our Baptist brethren, refer to lexicons We will begin with tingo. — This word has a variety of significations ; and means, according to — AINS WORTH, 1 To dye 2 to colour 3 to stain 4 to sprinkle 5 to imbue 6 to wash 7 to paint ADAMS, 1 To dip 2 to immerse 3 to moisten 4 to tinge 5 to stain 6 to sprinkle 7 to imbue 8 to colour 9 to dye 10 to paint HOLYOKE, 1 To dye 2 to colour 3 to dip in colour 4 to sprinkle 5 to imbue 6 to wash FACCIOLATUS, 1 To dip 2 To immerse in any liquid 3 to wet 4 to moisten 5 to bathe 6 to stain 7 to dye 5 to colour 9 to paint 10 to tinge II to tincture We now come to tabal, which is also of diversified application ; and signifies, according to — BUXTORF, 1 To tinge 2 to intinge 3 to plunge 4 to immerse 5 to infect CASTELL, 1 To tinge 2 to intinge 3 to dive 4 to dip 5 to baptize LEIGH, ] To tinge 2 to intinge 3 to merge 4 to im- merge 5 To plunge for tlie sake of tinging or washing PARKHURST, 1 To dip 2 to immerge 3 to plunge 4 to tinge 5 to dye STOCKIUS, 1 To tinge 2 to intinge 3 to immerse 4 to dip 5 to baptize From this brief statement of definitions, it is palpable, that if haptizo is synonymous with timjo and tabal, its import must be of a very general nature, and such as pre- cludes the possibility of our opponents maintaining their practice on the assumption that it signifies always and only to dip — especially such a dipping as is performed by them, in what they call their pure apostolical baptism. Here it may be a propos to remark also, that the pre- ceding references to the arrangement of definitions in the before-named Hebrew and Latin lexicons, corroborate an assertion made in our introduction, that the primary im- port of a term cannot always be ascertained from the ' Antip. Exam. vol. ii. p. 31. re I THE GREEK VERB ' BAPTIZO.' 131 arrangement of words in a dictionary — seeing, in the case before us, Ainswortli and Holyoke vary from Facciolatus and Adams — the two former pLacing ' To dye, to co- ' lour, &€.' as the first meanings of the verb tingo ; while the two latter read ' To dip, to immerge, &c.' as the pri- mary exposition of this Latin word. And Buxtorf, Castell, Leigh, and Stockius, differ from Parkhurst — the three former rendering the verb tabal, first, ' To tinge, to in- ' tinge, &c.' — the last, ' To dip, to immerge, &c.' as the leading significations of this Hebrew word. XV. We come now to notice the import of this word in the new testament, on the precise nature of which, we are told, hinges, in a great measure, the whole of this controversy. — The words baptize, baptism, and baptizer, occur about one hundred and twenty-four times in the New Testament. — The original term is bapto in the fol- lowing texts : Luke xvi. 24 — John xiii. 26 — Rev. xix. 13 — in all the others it is baptizo. — In most cases it is not translated at all — when it is, the authors of our version have rendered it to ' dip or wash.' — The following places are all in which it is anglicised: — Matt. xxvi. 23 — Mark vii. 4, 8 ; xiv. 20 — Luke xi. 38 ; xvi. 24 — John xiii. 26 — Heb. ix. 10 — Rev. xix. 13. — In these and the sub- joined passages, the immediate allusion is not to the initi- atory rite of scripture or Christian baptism : — Matt. xx. 22, 23— Mark x. 38, 39— Luke xii. 51—1 Cor. x. 2. — Consequently the use of the word in these passages becomes a legitimate subject of enquiry — as, by ascer- taining this, a light will be thrown over the object we are professedly examining. — We shall, as before, classify the texts according to their connexion and aspect, and see if their applications are not various and opposite — the proof of which being the end we have immediately in view, as an evidence that the exclusive interpretation of our opponents is without foundation. I. The word baptize is employed to express affliction in the following places : Matt. xx. 22, 23 — ^Mark x. 38, 132 ARGUMENTS FOUNDED ON 39 — Luke xii. 50 — * Are ye able to drink of the cup that * I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that ' I am baptized with, &c? I have a baptism to be baptized ' with ; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished ! ' Here we may observe that affliction and misery are the principal meanings of the word in question, and not any specific manner of its infliction. The cup or its contents, ^ which were to be drank, and baptism, are evidently used synonymously, to represent distress. — (Compare Ps. xi. 6 ; Ixxv. 8 — Is. li. 17, 22 — Zech. xii. 2 — Matt. xxvi. 39 — Rev. xvi. 19, &c.)~ — The almost invariable mode of expression in the Old Testament, and the exclusive one in the New, in reference to punishment from God on account of sin, represent it as being poured out upon the guilty ; ^ and, like every good and perfect gift, as coming doAvn from heaven. (See Ps. Ixix. 24; Ixxix. 6 — Jek. x. 25 — Ezek. vii. 8 ; xxi. 31 — Hos. v. 10 — Rev. xiv. 10 ; xvi. 1, 2, &c.) — Lastly, the penal sufferings of our Lord were not in the shape of dipping or drowning, but of a crucifixion, in which he was baptized with his own blood, streaming from his sacred wounds and dyeing his immaculate body. Here the models pouring or applying the element to the object. II. — In Matt. xxvi. 23 — Mark xiv. 20^Luke xvi. 24 — -John xiii. 26 — are the following expressions : — ' He ' that baptizeth his hand with me in the dish. — One of the ' twelve that baptizeth with me in the dish. — Send Lazarus, ' that he may baptize the tip of his finger in (or with) water, ' and cool my tongue. — He it is to whom I shall give the ' sop when I have baptized it; and when he had baptized * the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot.' — In these citations, we have baptizing in a dish — baptizing the hand in a dish, and baptizing the sop — meaning, also, in the dish. — The other passage is baptizing the tip of the finger in water indefinitely. — In three of the above passages the word is emhapto; and, in the other, the force of the like insepa- rable preposition may be fairly supplied — leaving the pre- > Keach,, Met. i>. 10. = lb. p. 71, 7o. = lb. p. 5S. THE GREEK VERB 'BAPTIZO.' 133 cise sense of the simple verb hapto indeterminate. — Here we remark, — 1. That even this compounded word is em- ployed for a partial dipping only — since all the body was not in the dish — nor all the hand — nor, in fact, all the sop. — 2. That the moistening of the bread and wetting of the finger are the ultimate intentions of the several ex- pressions, and not the precise mode of doing it; and — 3. That the smallest species of action is here designated bap- tism. Therefore, when Mr. Fuller says, 'in all the appli- ' cations of the term in the New Testament, I believe it ' will be found to contain the idea of plenitude or abun- ' dance ' ^ — he must have overlooked the preceding pas- sages, especially that respecting the tip of the finger. III. In Mark vii. 4, 8 — Luke xi. 38 — Heb. vi. 2 ; ix. 10 — it is written — 'And when they come from the market, ' except they baptize, they eat not. — The baptizing of cups ' and pots, brazen vessels and tables, or couches. — The ' baptizing of cups and pots. — The Pharisee marvelled that ' he had not baptized before dinner. — The doctrine of bap- * tisms. — Who stood in meats and drinks and divers bap- ' tisms.' — As these passages will be particularly considered hereafter, but few remarks are requisite here. — 1. That they all refer exclusively to ceremonial purifications. The only one which could be considered otherwise, is Luke xi. 38. — But, as we cannot suppose that our Lord would sit down to meat with natural dirt on his person, we must infer this to be of a similar description. — 2. That the modes of Jewish purifications were diverse, as a person bathing or washing himself and his apparel, and the priest or a clean person pouring or sprinkling the cleansing ele- ment on him ; which last was the only act analogous to a Jewish baptism, as vrill be proved hereafter. — 3. That we cannot suppose, notwithstanding all our opponents have advanced, that the Pharisees and all the Jews plunged themselves entirely under water every time they came from tha market with a pennyworth of vegetables ; nor 1 Ryland, Appendix, p. 20 M 134 ARGUMENTS FOUNDED ON dipped their tables or couches absolutely under water, in order ceremonially to purify them. — 4. That washing their hands is called washing themselves — and that nipto is synonymous with baptizo. In all these passages, the direct import of the word is to cleanse — the manner of effecting it being accidental and unimportant. 4. In 1 Cor. x. 2 — Rev. xix. 13 — 'And were all bap- ' tized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. — And he was ' clothed with a vesture baptized in (or with) blood.' — Let it be briefly noted, that the Israelites were not literally plunged into Moses, nor into the sea — for they passed through on dry land, (ExoD. xiv. 22, 29 ;) and if baptized with water at all, it must have been by the clouds, which poured out rain upon them, (Psalm Ixxvii. 16-20;) and the Son of God had not his vesture dyed in a vat of blood, but it was splashed with the streaming gore of his expiring victims. This text may be illustrated by Is. Ixiii. 2, 3 — ' Their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I ' will stain all my raiment.' From this concise exposition of these passages — most of wdiich will be more fully discussed in the sequel, it is manifest that the word baptize is employed in the New Testament for partial dipping, overwhelming,- washing, colouring, pouring, and sprinkling — to establish which is the only thing we are here attempting. XVI. We shall now proceed to notice several miscel- laneous PROOFS of the equity of our position. The best way to ascertain the varied use of this word in the New Testament is, in imitation of our respected opponents, ^ to translate it in different places by one and the same word, — And as our brethren have frequently rendered it to plunge, and have often designated their baptism plunging — and as this term is not much hackneyed, and conveys a precise and definite idea to the mind, we shall translate it in a few places by the verb to plunge. — This method 1 Booth, vol. i. r-. Sr-90; vol.iii. p. 314, 315; Birt's Strictures, p. 47, 4S, 51,52; Gibbs, p. 70, 7J. xxn. 23. xxviii. 19. Mark i .. 4. ]Mark vii L.4. THE GREEK VERB 'bAPTIZO.' 135 will answer two purposes — it will attest the diiTerent ac- ceptations of the disputed word, and show that the act of dipping or plunging is incompatible with its force in al- most every place and connexion. Matt. iii. 1. ' In those days came John the Plunger, preach- ing in the ^silderness.' 7. ' Many of the Pharisees and Sadducees came to his PLUXGIXG.' 11. 'I indeed pluxge you with [or into] water. He shall PLUXGE you with [or into] the Holy Ghost, and with [or into] fire.' XX. 22, ' Are ye able to be plunged with the plunging that I am plunged with.' ' He that plungeth with me in the dish.' ' Teach all nations, plunging them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.' ' John did plunge in the wilderness, and preach the PLUNGING of repentance.' ' When they come from the market, they eat not, except they plunge.' ' The PLUNGING of cups and pots, brazen vessels, and tables.' xvi. 16. 'He that believeth and is plunged, shall be saved.' Luke iii. 3. ' Preaching the plunging of repentance for the remission of sins.' vii. 29. ' And all the people justified God, being plunged with the PLUNGING of John.' xi. 38. ' When the Pharisee saw it, he mai-velled that he was not PLUNGED before dinner.' xvi. 24. ' Send Lazarus, that he may plunge the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue.' John i. 31. 'Therefore I came plunging -\vith [or into] water.' iv. 1. ' Jesus made and plunged more (hsciples than John.' X. 40. ' He went again beyond Jordan, M'here John at first plunged, and there abode.' xiii. 26. ' He it is to whom I shall give the sop, when I have PLUNGED it.' 136 ARGUMENTS FOUNDED ON Acts i. 5. ' John plunged with [or into] -water ; bnt ye shall be plunged with [or into] the Holy Ghost.' viii. 12. ' And they were plunged, both men and women.' xvi. 15. ' Lydia, when she was plunged, and her house- hold.' xix. 3. ' Unto what, then, were ye plunged ? And they said unto John's plunging. Eom. vi. 3. ' As many as were plunged into Jesus Christ, were plunged into his death.' 4. 'We are buried with him by plunging into death.' 1 Cor. X. 2. * And were all plunged into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.' xii. 13. 'And by one spuit were all plunged into one body.' Heb. ix. 10. 'Who stood in meats and drinks and divers plungings.' Rev. xix. 13. 'And he was clothed with a vesture plunged in blood,' It must instantly strike tlie most superficial observer, on hearing the preceding texts and renderings — 1. That the notion of dipping, plunging, or immersing, in some of them, is inconsistent with propriety — and, in others, makes absolute nonsense. — 2. That the radical, primary, and proper meaning of the term, is some effect produced in the form of sanctifying, wetting, cleansing, and colouring — and not the mode of its accomplishment. — 3. That no word, but one of a generic nature, is adequate to express the ultimate and full design of the verb hapiho in con- nexion with Christian baptism — as purifying, consecrating, initiating, or the like. — 4. That it cannot be inferred, without begging the question, that it is ever expressive of a total immersion — of one person dipping another — or of the two-fold action — sinking and raising. — 5. That the position of our opponents, respecting its meaning ' always ' and only to dip,' is unfounded — as we have demonstrated THE GREEK VERB 'bAPTIZO.' 137 in our preceding remarks. — G. That if the sense of this word be the main branch of our dispute — as we are told — the cause of our brethren stands on a very defective foundation. XVII. What our opponents say, respecting the sup- posed more suitable use of the words cheo and rhantizo, had pouring and sprinkling been the modes intended by our Lord, amounts to mere nothing. ^ — For, had these verbs been employed, our good friends would probably have ransacked Greek authors, and discovered that, in a figurative or metaphorical sense, they meant to wet all over — and would have pronounced the action overwhelm- ing, bathing, or washing — nor would that inconsistency have been greater than we find in their reasonings and declara- tions under present circumstances — as what we have ad- duced, and shall yet bring forward, must convince you. It is palpable beyond mistake, that the word baptize is employed to express effects produced by pouring and sprinkling — or, in more general terms, for applying the element to the object. Hence it answers our end as effec- tually as cheo and rhantizo. Besides, might not our oppo- nents be asked in return — If the sacred writers understood baptism to mean a total dipping, why did they not employ words to express it unequivocally declarative of such a state or operation ? — Had buthizo, duno, dupto, epikluzo, pluno, or pontizo, been used, we might have considered the objections of our brethren more specious and tenable — and, when they have fairly answered our question, which completely neutralizes their's, we shall consider that proposed by them of sufficient importance to require a little- attention — and not before. XYIII. Here we will cite a paragraph from a learned divine, tending, indirectly, to corroborate our sense of the rite in dispute. — 'Although the word baptize, which is a ' Greek word, occurs in the original text of the New Testa- ' ment, it is not the word which must have been originally 1 Booth, vol. i. p. 91, 140; vol. iii. p. 247; Cox, p. 4". M 5 138 ARGUMENTS FOUNDED ON ' applied to the ordinance, which we are now to consider. ' The language spoken in Judea, at the time of our Sa- ' viour's incarnation, was called Hebrew, and was, in fact, a ' mixed dialect of Syriac and Chaldee. The Syriac trans- ' lation of the New Testament, is generally allowed to be ' the most ancient, which is extant, and is supposed to have * been made in the first century. In this translation, all ' the words used for baptizing, baptism, and baptist, are * taken from the Hebrew word homad, which signifies, * to ' stand, continue, subsist — to cause or make to stand — to ' support as by a pillar — to set or raise up — to place, pre- ' sent, or establish,' &c. It is the same word, also, which ' is used for baptism in the Arabic version. This word is, ' certainly, worthy of particular attention in the present ' enquiry, because, in the Syro-Chaldaic dialect, it was in ' all probability the very word originally used by John the ' Baptist, as the name of the new ordinance which he ad- ' ministered, when he came to prepare the way of the Lord ' — the very word used by the messengers from Jerusalem, ' when they asked his reason for dispensing this new ordi- ' nance, saying, why baptizest thou ? — the very word used ' by Jesus when he gave the apostolic commission — the * very word used by the apostles and evangelists, as long, ' at least, as they preached and baptized in Judea, Galilee, 'and Samaria.' 1 The writer then proceeds to illustrate this term, and supposes that there is a reference to setting up of pillars, as Jacob's, which he anointed (Gen. xxviii. 18), and, as Solomon's, in the porch of the temple (1 Kings vii. 15-22.) The church is called the pillar and ground of the truth, (1 Tim. iii. 15;) and the saints shall be pillars in the temple of God for ever, (Rev. iii. 12.) This allusion would represent the baptized as standing, and being anointed in that position. It also explains the import of the expression, ' arise and be baptized ; ' (Acts ix. 18; xxii. 16;) and gives an energy to the passage, 'for God is able to make his servants stand,' (Romans ' ]Z^^■i■^■'•6 Essay on Bapt. ti. IS, 11). THE GREEK VERB ' EAPTIZO.' 139 xiv. 4.) The idea of immersion is entirely excluded by this exposition. Let our opponents impugn this reasoning if they can. Professor Stuart, after making similar remarks, says, ' "We come almost necessarily to the conclusion, then, in- ' asmuch as the Syriac has an appropriate word which sig- ' nifies to dip, plunge, immerse, and yet it is never employed ' in the Peshito, that the translator did not deem it im- ' portant to designate any particular mode of baptism, but ' only to designate the rite by a terra which evidently ap- ' pears to mean confirm, establish, &c. Baptism, then, in ' the language of the Peshito, is the rite of confirmation ' simply, while the manner of this is apparently left with- ' out being at all expressed.'^ XIX. The position we are advocating will be further confirmed, by examining the various expressions our op- ponents employ to represent this initiatory sacrament. I. The baptistry they denominate — ' Blessed pool.' ' Swelling flood.' ' Crystal stream.' ' Sacred wave.' ' Liquid grave.' ' Mystic flood.' ' Holy laver.' ' Waterj- tomb.' ' Sacred stream.' II. The element is designated — ' Blood.' • Tears.' ' Sweat.' ' Water.' III. The ceremony is pronounced emblematical of — ' Renovating grace.' ' Cleansing.' ' Passion.' ' Victory.' ' The death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.' ' The dreadful abyss of divine justice.' IV. The action is called — ' Bathing.' ' Interring and raising.' ' Burying and raising.' ' Entombing and raising.' ' Cleansing.' ' Overu-helming,' ' Descending and rising.' ' Plunging.' ' Dipping.' ' Planting.' ' Immersing and raising.' ' Washing.' * I P. 3G3. - G.ile, p. r;, "7; Ryland, p. G, 2G-35; Rlppon's Hymns, 442-471 ; Fellow's Hymns, passim ; Gibbs, p. 34S. 140 ARGUMENTS FOUNDED ON It need hardly be observed, that the above nomencla- ture is almost exclusively modern, and made, no doubt, for the purpose of giving variety and beauty to a scheme otherwise destitute of even nominal charms and attrac- tions. But, as the action is the only thing we are profess- edly investigating, we shall confine our remarks to the terms employed to designate that. Let the question, then, be proposed to our opponents — whether the words and phrases last recited express precisely and exclusively one and the same action? As they certainly do not, this con- stant use of different and even opposite terms to express one simple and unvarying act, is injudicious, and calcu- lated to mislead the unwary hearer or reader. Let another question be proposed — do all these terms singly exhibit the baptism of our brethren? If this be the case, one would imagine that their modes must be unaccountably diverse from each other — or that the terms must mean exactly the same thing. Now, what we contend is, that the method of our respected friends is precisely and uni- versally simple and the same — and that the words and phrases here used to set it forth, are widely different in meaning. Nor have we any hesitation in saying, that such loose and vague phraseology is employed to blin-d the eyes of the people, and to baffle the inexperienced disputant, while contending for the various significations of the verb in dispute. XX. We shall, therefore, briefly examine the various terms used to express the first act of baptism — and prove that they materially differ from each other — and neither singly nor collectively represent the action of modern im- mersion, as practised by the Baptists. Bathing, according to Johnson, means * to wash as in a ' bath — to supple or soften by the outward application ' of warm liquors — to wash any thing.' — This word does not determine whether the person bathes himself, or is bathed by another — whether the person is applied to the THE GREEK VERB ' BAPTIZO. 141 water, or the water to the person — nor whctlier, if one be dipped, he is pulled out of the bath by another person. It is, therefore, a very inadequate term to ex- press our opponents' baptism. Burying, means ' to inter — to put into a grave — to inter ' with the rites and ceremonies of sepulchre — to conceal ' — to hide — to place one thing within another.' — This terra and modern baptism disagree in two very material points. — In burial, earth is poured on the body, which is not then raised again. — In immersion, water is not poured on the body, and it is immediately raised out of the element. Cleansing, means ' to free from filth or dirt, by washing ' or rubbing — to purify from guilt — to free from noxious ' humours by purgation — to free from leprosy — to scour ' — to rid of all offensive things.' — This word is inade- quate to represent the mode of our opponents — as it does not convey the notion of dipping at all — and ex- expresses the idea of purification, by rubbing or scour- ing — acts not known to modern immersion. Descending, signifies ' to go downwards — to come from 'a higher place to a lower — to fall — to sink.' — This word is defective in three things : — As the person de- scends himself, and is not carried down by another — it does not determine whether the person descends till wet over his shoes or his head — and it includes no act like an emersion. Dipping means ' to immerge — to put into any liquid — to 'moisten — to wet.' — This word does not determine whether any thing dipped is totally or partially im- mersed — nor does it express the second significant act of baptism, raising again. Entombing, means ' to put into a tomb — to bury.' — This terra does not express the idea of lowering the body into a grave — nor does it convey the notion of a resur- rection — both of which are essential to represent our opponents' baptism. 142 ARGUMENTS FOUNDED ON Immersing, means 'to put under water — to sink — or ' cover deep.' — This word, like some of the preceding, is defective, by not proving whether the person immerses himself, or is immersed by another — nor does it inti- mate that there must be a subsequent emersion. — It is observable that Mr. Robinson speaks of ' the head being ' immersed by superfusion,' ^ and Dr. Ryland, ' by de- ' scending dew.' - Interring, is ' to cover under ground — to bury — to cover ' with earth.' — This terra, like entombing and burying, is a very incorrect appellation of modern baptism, as, among other discrepancies, it says nothing of an ulte- rior resurrection — which is significant in the rite of our opponents. Overwhelming, is ' to crush underneath something vio- ' lent and weighty — to overlook gloomily.' — This word is the very reverse of dipping — since we are not over- whelmed by lowering our bodies, but by the falling of superincumbent matter, or by too heavy a load upon our shoulders. Planting, means ' to put into the ground — to set — to 'cultivate — to fix.' — Planting a tree, or engrafting a scion, is a very different act from sowing seeds. — To plant implies, at most, but a partial immersion, and ex- cludes the idea of emersion. Plunging, means ' to put suddenly under water — to put ' into any state suddenly — to hurry into any distress — 'to force in suddenly.' — This word is defective, in not stating whether the person plunged is raised again — nor, in fact, whether there is an entire submersion. — It is necessary here to remark, that this verb, as well as to DIP, and IMMERSE, (which are mostly employed by our opponents to express their rite of baptism), does not literally mean any thing more than, or beside, the action of putting a person or thing into some element. These three words never express an effect or state consequent ' Hist. p. 108. •- Append, p. 2. THE GREEK VETxE 'bAPTIZO.' 143 on the act — such as being wet, saturated, or washed. To say a person is dipped with dew, plunged with a shower-bath, or immersed with rain — especially in sober narrative, or a faithful description of facts — is highly improper — and can be done by intelligent men only, to serve a specific object. — However the word baptize may be applied in different places, or by different writers, it is clear that those Encjlish verbs uniformly restrict their application to the mode of putting a person or thing into a liquid, or some less yielding element. Washing, is ' to cleanse by ablution — to moisten — to wet, ' as rain washes the flowers, and the sea washes many 'islands — to affect by ablution.' — This word does not specify any precise act of cleansing. — We wash our feet by dipping — our hands at a pump by pouring — and our face by raising water to it. — ' Washing,' says Mr. Mac- lean 'is a general word, and includes various modes.' ^ — When Dr. Gill says, * there is no proper washing but by dipping,' ~ he contradicts the most palpable fact. — How is a new-born child washed? (Ezek. xvi. 4.) — And how was Ahab's chariot washed in the pool in Samaria? (1 Kings xxii. 28.) — How did Mary wash the Saviour's feet? (Luke vii. 30.) — The same writer gravely tells us, ' there can be no dipping without wash- 'ing!'3 — so that we wash our pen whenever we dip it into the ink! — Carson comes much nearer the truth when he tells us, that ' The words wash, stain, and wet, ' assert nothing of the mode, as they may be accom- 'plished by dipping, pouring, or sprinkling.''* XXI-. From this brief exposition of the English terms, employed by our opponents to represent their mode of baptism, we gather that their forms are various — that the words are of one precise import — or that they employ a phraseology calculated to mislead the unwary reader. We ' Maclean, vol. iii. p. 113. 2 Gill, p. 303. 2 Ibid, p. 223. * P. 93. 144 ARGUMENTS FOUNDED ON have twelve verbs to designate one simple action — neither of which represents their practice fairly and fully — nor are ten of them confessedly ever used in scripture for baptism — while the other two, burying and washing, are of doubt- ful disputation, the former, as to its application, and the latter, as to its sense. But they not only talk of ' bathing, 'burying, &c.' We have, also, 'raising, rising, emerging, ' ascending, &c.' as included in the verb haptizo. Taking out of the water is done by our brethren as a necessary consequence of putting into it. They have, however, pro- duced no authority from all their researches for consider- ing it an inherent part of the verb — which, at most, speaks only of putting into the water, but never conveys the idea of taking out again. One of their writers goes even fur- ther, and makes a three-fold action in baptism. He says, it ' consists in immersion into the water, abiding under the ' water, and a resurrection out of the water.' ^ But in what author, sacred or profane, is the word thus employed? They can exhibit no such triple use attached to it in the whole compass of Grecian literature. Nor can our good friends discover in the Bible the word employed for one person dipping another. The only instance they pretend to have found, even in heathen writings, is the following, which Dr. Cox pronounces a decisive evidence in their favour: — 'Certain Greeks, having enticed Aristobulus ' into a pool, where, under pretence of play, immersing or ' putting him under water, they did not desist till they had 'quite suffocated him.'- Poor Aristobulus was drowned! — a lucid case in favour of our opponents scheme ! A si- milar instance occured about twenty years ago on the river Hudson, in America. A minister baptizing a female, and letting her slip out of his hands, she drifted under the ice, was suffocated, and seen no more. This is equally decisive evidence in favour of our opponents. The employment of terms as synonymous, which are in themselves dissimilar, does not arise from their want of ' Kc.-'.ch, J). 30. - Cox, 1). 10. THE GREEK VERB 'bAPTIZO.' 145 penetration — for, when it serves their purpose, they can discriminate as well as ourselves. You have seen that they employ burying and washing as equally expressive of the simple act of baptizing — and yet the last mentioned author says, ' it would be putting Mr. Ewing upon a most 'perplexing search to require him to produce any passage ' in Hebrew or Greek antiquity, where washing means to * bury.'^ They repeatedly assure us, that to baptize means only and always to dip or plunge. And the most laborious investigator of the philology of the question says, ' I do ' not remember a passage where all other senses are not 'necessarily excluded besides dipping.'" — Consequently the word should express one simple act, namely — to dip. Hence, to talk of bathing, burying, descending, entomb- ing, immersing, interring, overwhelming, planting, plung- ing, and washing; raising, rising, emerging, ascending, and the like, is superfluous, and calculated only to deceive the inexperienced auditor. Yet another of their writers, more ingenious than Dr. Gale, tells us, ' there is no one ' word in the English language which is an exact coun- ' terpart to the Greek word haptizo.'^ But this point, with numerous others of a similar description, we shall leave to our opponents, hoping they will settle it among themselves. XXII. We, however, have not quite done with this part of our subject. The impropriety of such a diversified designation of their mode of baptism will be further ap- parent by bringing the terms to the test. This will prove that words are employed to represent the rite in question, which are quite incongruous with the notions generally entertained of baptism. Suppose, then, that some Baptist minister, about to have a dozen ladies added to his church by the solemn rite in debate, were to put the following notice into the hand of his clerk: — 'You will be pleased ' to take notice, that on Wednesday evening next, at six ' o'clock, the Rev. Mr. Addington will hathe Mrs. Button, ' bury Mrs. Bennett, cleanse Mrs. Cooper, dip Mrs. Dore, 1 Cos, p. GO. - Gale, p. 78. 3 Rob. p. 6. 1 4G ARGUMENTS FOUNDED ON ' descend i\Irs, Day, entomb Mrs. Edwards, immerse Mrs. ' Ivimy, inter Mrs. Jones, overwhelm Mrs. Ortoii, plant ' Mrs. FoT^joy, plunge Mrs. Piper, and tvash Mrs. Waters: ' tlie attendance of friends, to witness the ceremony, is 'earnestly requested' — would not most of the audience change the forms of their phizzes, and wonder what the good man in the pulpit was about to do ? The following dialogue seems to accord with such an occasion : — A. ' Pray, sir, can you tell me what the minister is ' going to do to the women^ next Wednesday ? It is a very ' odd notice.' B. ' O dear, sir, he is only going to baptize the ladies.' A. ' Only baptize them ! What is the use of talking 'about burying, bathing, cleansing, washing, &c.?' B. ' Why, perhaps, you may not know it — but these ' words are all one in the Greek.' A. ' Pugh ! nonsense ! — Why not simply say baptize ' them ? What a foolish parade of terms ! ' B. ' Our good minister knows better than we do, and 'no doubt it is all very proper.' It is probable that some of our sensitive opponents, who evince an unusual degree of soreness at every kind of ar- gument brought against their doctrine of dipping, may charge us with an intention of ridiculing themselves and their baptismal ordinance, by the foregoing paraphrastic exposition. This we gravely deny. We venerate their persons and respect their conscientious scruples, in this and in every other religious affair. But, surely, it com- ports with the rules of legitimate controversy to expose, in the strongest light, the incongruities of language and testimonies adduced by our opponents. That is all we have attempted in the preceding notice and dialogue — designed to exhibit the sophistry and absurdity of employing such varied expressions to convey the sense of a single word, which, they tell us, means always and only to dip a per- son or thing under some liquid element. And we feel con- fident that every clear-headed person will instajitly per- THE GREEK VERB ' BAPTIZO.' 117 ceive the scope of our reasoning; and that every candid person will frankly admit the fairness of our exposition. XXIII. Before closing this section, we may notice Mr. Carson's observation, respecting the different appli- cations of BAPTO and baptizo. He says, ' I have proved * BAPTO to have two senses; but baptizo I have found to 'possess only one.'^ He means that bapto has two literal, original, or primary senses — one expressing mode or act, the other conveying the idea of design or effect ; and that baptizo has only one literal, original, or primary sense — expressive of mode or act only ; and never conveying the idea of design or effect. That this is the import of his expressions, we learn from passages previously cited. — ' In no language under heaven can one word designate two 'modes.'- 'Bapto signifies to dye by sprinkling as pro- 'perly as by dipping — and that literally.' ^ Baptizo ' al- ' ways signifies to dip, never expressing any thing but 'mode.''* Now, passing over his contradictions — such as that ' bapto not only necessarily implies mode, but lite- ' rally expresses nothing but mode;'^ we may propose to him and his brethren the following queries : — 1. Can they point out another uncompounded word, in the Greek, Latin, or English languages, which means literally, that is, radically, or primarily, a simple and de- finite action — as to dip ; and literally, radically, or pri- marily, the design or effect of that action — as dyeing, washing, or imparting a character or colour to an object? The question is not respecting a figurative application of the word — but as to its inherent or literal import. The verb to dye may be figuratively used for the verb to dip — or the verb to dip may be figuratively employed for the verb to dye — but literally, they are never interchangeable, nor are we aware of a single verb expressing a defined and simple act, that ever literally means the effect also. Is, then, the verb bapto alone used in this two-fold sense? ' Answer, &:c. p. 27. ^ Refutation, &c. p. 99. 3 P. 41. J P. 44. 5 p. 28. 148 ARGUMENTS FOUNDED ON The case is surely of a doubtful nature ; and requires more than assertion for its establishment. 2. Can they tell us of another instance, where the ad- dition of izo, to a primary or uncompounded verb, renders it just half as expressive or extensive in its meaning as the original — not in degree, nor in emphasis, but in sense — either in action or effect? The assumption of Mr. Car- son is, that BAPTO literally includes, first, the act of dip- ping, and, secondly, an effect in the shape of dyeing, produced by sprinkling or any other mode; and that, by adding the termination izo, it means only the first sense to dip, and is divested of the second sense to dye. He has produced no analogy from other Greek verbs to sanction such an orthographical criticism and conclusion, and which we think he would have done had it been in his power. Other writers, on his side • of the question, have admitted the substantial similarity between hapto and haptizo ; but Mr. Carson, conscious that their cause could not be sus- tained by such a combination, has attempted to support it by a most unphilological disjunction of them ! He claims the honour of the discovery ; but a ' mares nest' is the only reward of his lucubrations. But, he says, ' / have proved bapto to have two senses ; 'but haptizo I have found to possess only one.' If he means two literal senses — he has proved nothing of the kind — and if figuratively, he has proved nothing to the purpose. ' Bapto might necessarily imply mode, and lite- ' rally express nothing but mode,' and yet be figuratively employed for dyeing, as it might literally mean to dye, and yet be figuratively used for dipping ; as when cloth is sent to the dyer to be dyed, he often uses a figurative ex- pression, and says, he will give it a dipping on the first favourable opportunity. That Greek writers generally or, if you please, universally, employed hapto, when speaking of a natural dyeing, colouring, staining, and so forth, does not affect the question before us, which is, whether haptizo might not have been as correctly and as literally used to THE GREEK VERB * BAPTIZO.' 149 convey a precisely similar sentiment? And tliat it is used for an eflect equally witli bapto, and that this effect is giving a new character, colouring the mind, producing a new aspect, &c. — as the result of dipping, pouring, sprink- ling, or otherwise applying some element or influence to the person, we have shown already, and shall render still more evident as we proceed. — The truth is, that bapto, though never employed to represent the Christian rite of baptism, and baptizo, though seldom or never used for na- tural dyeing, are, in fact, one and the same word; and, as Gale, Campbell, Pengilly, and others, assert, are essenti- ally the same in sense, as to mode and effect; and must be examined in conjunction, if we would arrive at a fair conclusion on the subject. And that polemic, whatever assurance he may display, must have been quite at his wdt's end, before he ventured to rest the weight of his cause upon such an imaginary and unphilological a distinction. XXIV. We have now gone through all the evidence adduced by our opponents, to maintain their practice from the meaning of the word baptize. The points we have been labouring to establish, are — 1. That this word, which is pronouced ' the main branch of our dispute,' has various applications, and exhibits actions as opposite to each other as pouring, sprinkling, and overwhelming, are to sinking, plunging, and drowning. — 2. That the literal and primary import of the word, is not the act of dipping, or immersing, but the effect of some action, such as giving a colour, dis- tressing, wetting, destroying, consecrating, purifying, and the like ; the manner in which this is done being often various and incidental. That this is a correct view of the case is clear from the fact, that in every place where it is employed, the effect is the leading and prominent idea, and is clearly manifested in almost every instance ; though the mode of accomplishing it is frequently unseen and uncer- tain — and that it may be always fairly translated by some terms expressive of design or result ; while, in numberless instances, to translate it by a verb of mere action — would N 5 150 ARGUMENTS FOUNDED ON, ETC. make complete nonsense of the original texts. — 3. That supposing the primary meaning were absolutely an action — and that to dip or plunge — we have no evidence that the apostles used it in this primary sense, while speaking of Christian baptism. — 4. That our opponents have discovered no instance where it is employed for the two-fold operation of dipping and raising — nor a text in the Septuagint, Apocrypha, or New Testament, where it is used for one person's dipping another. — 5. That they have used many different and opposite terms to represent their own simple and specific rite — which, while it sanctions our position, manifests the difficulties felt by our opponents, when at- tempting to establish their exclusive scheme from the sup- posed import of the word in question. And — 6. That as our brethren cannot maintain their cause, from the sense of this term, it is clear it cannot be maintained at all. An apology may be requisite for dwelling so long on this part of our discourse. For, to use the words of Dr. Gale, ' a ' thing of this nature, and so evident, did not, indeed, need ' to have been so largely treated as it has already been ' — -but the unaccountable tenacity of our antagonists have ' made it necessary to be very particular.' ^ 1 Page 101. 151 SECTION FOURTH. THE IMPORT OF FOUR GREEK TREPOSITIONS. [n the Hebrew language, the connectives being few, are used ' with more latitude of signification than belongs to the connec- 'tives which properly correspond to them in other languages. ' \Mierefore, in translating the books of the New Testament, it ' ought to be remembered, that the authors of these books, being ' Jews, naturally used the Greek particles and prepositions, not ' only in all tlie variety of their own significations, but in the ' variety also of the significations of the corresponding Hebrew 'particles and preposiJons.' Macknight, Apost. Epist. vol. i. p. 109. The arguments wliicli our esteemed bretlrren found on the use of Greek prepositions are really so weak and frivolous, that they hardly merit a reply. Yet, as they are employed with overwhelming effect upon the unskilful and ignorant audience, it will be proper to pay them some little attention. 'Dearly beloved,' says the good Baptist minister to his pious congregation : — ' the scriptures of ' truth, in the judgment of every wise, holy, and candid ' person, are clearly and unequivocally in favour of immer- ' sion baptism, and as evidently and decidedly opposed to ' pouring and sprinkling. Not to engross your time, nor to ' perplex your minds with dry abstruse arguments, or pe- ' dantic allusions to original authorities ; I will simply refer ' you to your English Bibles, and request you to read after ' me the following passages : * And were baptized of him in ' Jordan ' — ' They went down both into the water ' — * He ' wentup straightway out of the water.' — Can more be re- ' quired to convince you that immersion was the primitive ' mode, and that pouring or sprinkling is quite antiscrip- 'tural? I wish you to notice particularly the sense and ' force of the prepositions in the preceding texts. These set- ' tie the question beyond all controversy, or we can have no ' certainty in the plainest expressions of God's word. — In 152 IMMERSION ESTABLISHED BY ' means in all the world over — so does into mean into — and ' out of means out of — whatever baby-sprinklers may say * to the contrary. — These people talk about the original * sense of the words in Greek ; but what can you under- ' stand of that? — Stick fast to the oracles of Heaven, in ' your own tongue ; and let not the childish criticisms ' and vain sophistries of your adversaries disturb your ' hearts in a case so plain to the most ordinary compre- ' hension. But, my beloved, I need say no more. A know- ledge of your piety, penetration, and willingness to follow ' your Lord, in fulfilling all righteousness, assures me, that ' you must be, and are, fully and unalterably convinced, ' that dipping is the only scriptural and proper mode of ' Christian baptism.' But notwithstanding this grave and impressive argu- mentation, heard, in effect, on almost every immersing occasion among our brethren; we shall venture to refer you to the sense of the prepositions used, not by our dip- ping translators of the Bible, but by the inspired writers of the New Testament ; confident of convincing you that the dipping system can derive no support from the sense in which they are employed by the Holy Ghost. The words alluded to are the following: — apo, eis, ek, EN. These are used in connection with the term baptize, and are supposed to determine its sense exclusively in favour of dipping. The subsequent texts are the most material : — ' And were all baptized of him (ex) in Jordan.' When he was baptized he went up straightway (apo) out of the water.' ■ And they went do-mi both of them (eis) into the Avater.' 39. ' And when they were come up (ek) out of the water.' Tlicse passages are cited with a vast deal of triumph by our opponents, as demonstrative evidence that Christ and Matt. iii. G. IG. Acts viii. 38. THE GREEK PREPOSITIONS. 153 tlie Eunuch, and, consequently, all other persons baptized by John and the apostles, were absolutely plunged ' over head ' and ears ' in the water — and that John, while baptizing, actually stood ever so deep in the river or fountain to per- form this rite. To prove that these deductions are unwar- ranted, we shall offer a few observations, to which your serious attention is respectfully solicited. I. From what has been previously advanced, it appears that our opponents consider the verb baptize alone as sig- nifying to immerse under water, and as warranting an emersion correspondent with the immersion. And yet they interpret the prepositions in question, when conjoined with the verb baptize, as meaning into and out of additionally — making, in fact, a double dipping and a double raising. According to their notions, the verb means to dip into, and the particle added is also into — so as to place the person or thing under the element. The verb means to raise out of, and the particle out of is also added. ^ This, at least, makes a tautology — especially if both terras are applied to the action. — Now, either the word baptize alone does not necessarily convey the idea of absolutely putting a person under the water, and of taking him out again, or the pre- positions into and out of are useless and cumbersome ap- pendages. — To be consistent, our friends must give up this active sense in one or the other — and we presume that, to be correct, must sacrifice their usual applications of both. That the verb baptizo does not of necessity, or through any inherent power, convey the sense of absolute intus- position, we have already established — and probably shall find little difficulty in maintaining that the dipping system can acquire no support from the use of the before-men- tioned Greek prepositions. II. After giving these words all the force which our opponents can possibly attach to them, it by no means follows that the persons said to be baptized were totally submersed. John was baptizing in Jordan, (Matt. iii. 6,) ' Jenkins's Def. p. 120; Dore's Introd. p. 15. 154 IMMERSION ESTABLISHED BY in the river of Jordon, (Mark i. 5,) and in Enon, (John iii. 23.) But might he not have been in the water without being under it? And might not his converts have been in the river or fountain without having been absolutely sub- mersed? Is it imagined that John and Philip, who are said to have been in the water, were themselves under water? Might not a person stand in the water, in order to perform some act, such, if you please, as pouring some of it on another's head, without going entirely under ? And might not this other person stand there to receive this affusion without being completely immersed? Christ is said to have come up out of the water — and Philip and the Eunuch are said to have gone down into the water, and to have come up out of it ; but do these declarations vouch for the total submersion of any of them? Is it un- grammatical to say, we went down into the water, and then we came up out of the water, unless we have been ' over head and ears ' in the water ? When a person ' looseth ' his ox or his ass from the stall, and leadeth him away to 'watering,' (Luke xiii. 15,) and causeth him to go into the pond or river to drink, doth he submerse him, or put him entirely under water? Our opponents admit that per- sons may 'go to their necks in water, and yet -not be bap- ' tized ' ^ — that is, be not entirely immersed. So that John and Philip might have been in the water to administer baptism, and Christ and the Eunuch might have stood in it to receive baptism, and after all might not have been more than knee or ancle deep. Hence the hypothesis erected on the passages previously cited is without found- ation. It is all surmise and conjecture — and our oppo- nents, who talk so largely about building their scheme on plain precepts or apostolical examples, without the process of inferential argumentation, are here labouring to establish their system on a vague and improbable supposition. It is said, ' the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea,' (Ex. xiv. 22,) ' and were all baptized unto Moses in the 1 Maclean, vol. iii. p. 118. THE GREEK PREPOSITIOXS. 155 'cloud ami iu the sea,' (1 Cor. x. 2,) while tliey were ab- solutely on ilry land in the channel of the departed waters. The Psalmist says, ' they that go down into the sea in ' ships, and do business in great waters,' (Psalm cvii. 23;) but did they go absolutely under w'ater, and transact their concerns in the bowels of the deep ? In 2 Kings, vi. 4, it is said, ' the sons of the prophets came (eis) into Jordan to cut wood;' but surely they did not go under the water of the river to fell timber : ' Here the motion ceases on the ' banks.' ^ III. We, however, contend that our Baptist brethren cannot adduce the least substantial evidence that John, our Lord, Philip, or the Eunuch, or any other person men- tioned in scripture as baptizing or baptized, went into the water at all — at least they cannot prove it from the before- named prepositions. When it is said John was baptizing in Jordon and in Enon, we have no data for concluding that he was doing any thing beyond baptizing at those places, or with the waters found there — the word en, as we shall presently prove, meaning at, on, or with, as well as in. When our blessed Lord is said to have come up out of the water, the terms assure us of nothing more than that he came up from the edge or brim of the river — the legi- timate meaning of the word ajpo being properly from. So when Philip and the Eunuch are said to have gone down into the water, and to have come up out of the water, we can gather nothing more than that they went down to the water, and came up from the water — the prepositions eis and eh signifying, chiefly, to and from. Should our oppo- nents reply that the sense they give the words in dispute, is their radical, primary, and proper meaning ; we might contend, first, that this requires proof, the production of which we earnestly solicit : and, secondly, if it were true, they must demonstrate that the inspired penmen have em- ployed them in the preceding passages in their radical, primary, and proper meaning. This they have not done> 1 Carson, p. 153. 156 IMMERSION ESTABLISHED BY and are unable to do. As they are used in various senses, it would puzzle tliem to verify the precise import they have attached to them in the places under consideration. In fact, all that they have effected, is boldly asserting the strength of their position — which is effectually neutralized by a flat denial. IV. As the case now stands, our opponents can derive no advantage to their cause from the terms under review, unless they can establish the assumption that they have each only one simple and definite meaning throughout the New Testament, and that precisely the same as they attach to them in this controversy. If they cannot establish this, they can do nothing in favour of their exclusive system of immersion. And if we can prove the use of them respect- ively in different senses, we shall go far in effecting our immediate object, which is to show the invalidity of their arguments in defence of their exclusive practice. In attempting this, we shall first refer to Schleusner's celebrated Lexicon of the Greek New Testament. In this work we are told that apo has twenty distinct senses — eis, twenty-six, ek, twenty-four, and en, thirty-six. Now, had these words one simple and unvarying import each — apo, being always and only out of — eis, exclusively into — ek, nothing more or less than out of — and en, absolute intus- position — what must we think of the intolerable puerility of a man who gravely asserts that they have so many ! We shall next refer you to the authorized version of the scrip- tures, wherein we learn, from a personal examination, that the translators have rendered them in the New Testament by various English terms or expressions. They have translated apo by twenty-four vernacular terms — eis, by thirty -six — ek, by tiventy-three — and en, by thirty -two. Let us now ask any unprejudiced persons, and particularly our opponents, who lay such stress on the common trans- lation of the Bible, whether words, capable of so many ver- sions, can be only of one precise and definite meaning each 1 And whether a communion must not be hard pushed for THE GREEK PREPOSITIONS. lot substantial evidence to support their cause, before they would lay the smallest emphasis upon such weak and du- bitable assumptions? — Particularly so, after one of their most respectable writers has acknowledged that ' eis is ' sometimes used in different senses ' — that ' en is [but] ' equally decisive ' — and, we assume, that ek is no more. Having cited several instances involving the preposition ff^jo, best adapted to uphold his notions, he subjoins, ' it 'might be rendered from in most of these passages.'^ Mr. Gibbs remarks, ' that the prepositions eis and ek do, *in some instances, mean to anifroin, no one will deny.'- V. But our argument admits of a still further and more convincing elucidation. "We find, from a careful investiga- tion of the point in dispute, that, in our version of the New Testament, the translators have rendered — A-BO, from, three hundred and seventy-four times. Eis, to or unto, five hundred and thirty-eight times. Ek, from, one hundred and eighty-six times. — And En, at, on, or with, three hundred and thirteen times. The deduction from these premises is easy, and disas- trous to our opponents' system, \\1ien it is said our Lord came up out of the water, we learn no more than that he * came m^ from the water,' ^ apo being properly from ; and, as Dr. Ryland intimates, might be nearly always thus ren- dered. When it is said the Deacon and Eunuch went down into the water, we can fairly gather no more than that they went to or unto the water, eis being properly translated to or unto.—' Eis,' says Carson, ' sometimes denotes motion ' to a place ; ' and ' I am far from denying that eis sorae- ' times signifies imto.''^ — When it is added, they came up out of the water, it does not prove any more than that it was from the water's edge — for, if eis in this connection is employed for going to the water, ek can only mean coming back from it. And when it is said that John baptized in 1 Ryland's App. p. 25, 26, 29. 2 P. 73. 3 Carson, p. 150. ^ lb. p. 1 J2, 1 jS. O 158 IMMERSION ESTABLISHED BY Jordan and in Enon, we are not obliged to conclude that he did more than stand by the side of the water and apply the element to the people in the form of sprinkling or affu- sion. ^ En,^ says Carson, 'may sometimes be translated 'with'^ — that is, with the element. Let our opponents prove otherwise, if they can — if not, the admission of our interpretations surrenders the main prop of immersion in the judgment of its more illiterate advocates. VI. Our position will become still more evident by adopting the practice of our opponents,- and by bringing the prepositions to the test — which may be done by trans- lating several passages where they occur with the con- structions our Baptist friends put upon them. This will be found, in many cases, to make absolute nonsense. We have tried the experiment in more than a hundred places, and discovered the issue to be perfectly conclusive. All we can do at present is to cite a few texts, involving each preposition, as examples of multitudes more. I. We shall begin with apo, and render it out of. Matt. iii. 7. ' generation of vipers ! who hath warned you to flee OUT OF the wrath to come?' 23. * Depart out of me, ye workers of iniquity ' xxi. 43. ' The kingdom of heaven shall be takenouT of you' xxvii. 42. ' Let him now come do-mi out of the cross' Luke i. 38. 'And the angel departed out of her' ix. 5, ' Shake off the very dust out of your feet ' II. We shall proceed to eis, and render it into. Matt. iii. 11. 'I baptize you with water into repentance' Matt. xii. 18. ' Behold my servant, into whom I am well pleased ' 41. 'Because they repented into the preaching of Jonah ' XV. 42. ' I am sent but into the lost sheep' xviii. 29. ' And his fellow-servant fell down into his feet' John ix. 7. ' Go, wash into the pool of Siloam' ' Page IJI, 15S. - Pearce, p. 18; Booth, vol. iii. p. Clo ; RylanU's App. p. 24 ; Gibbs, p. 71). THE GREEK TREPOSITIONS. 1.59 III. We come to ek, and shall translate it out of. Matt. xii. 33. ' For the tree is known out of his fruit' XX. 2. * He agieed \\-ith the labourers out of a penny a day' XX. 21. ' Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one OUT OF thy right hand, and the other out of the left, in thy kingdom ' John xiii. 14. ' He riseth out of supper, and laid aside his garments ' Acts X. 1. 'A centurion out of the band called the Italian band ' Rev. ix. 21. ' Neither repented they out of theu* murders, nor out of their sorceries, nor out of their for- nications, nor OUT OF their thefts' IV. We shall conclude with ek, and render it in. Matt.v. 34, 36. ' Swear not at all, neither in heaven, nor in thy head ' xxii. 40. ' In these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets ' xxvi. 52. ' They that take the sword shall perish in the sword' Mark i. 23. ' There was in the synagogue a man in an unclean spirit ' Heb. Lx. 25. * The High Priest entereth into the holy place in the blood' 1 John V. 6. ' He came not in water only, but in water and blood ' ^Ye need hardly say, that every passage here translated ac- cording to our opponents' constructions, makes downright nonsense ; and this will appear still more glaring, if you take into the account that by in and iyito, they must mean over head and ears ; and by out of, an ascending from a state induced by a total immersion. VII. But the versatile character of these prepositions, and the futility of our opponents' assumption, will become still more palpable, by showing that these very prepositions 160 IMMERSION ESTABLISHED BY are employed interchangeably, as well as indiscriminately Avitli others, to be mentioned hereafter. A few examples will sufficiently illustrate our position. I. Apo, which they contend must be absolutely out of, is so connected with the verb baptize, as to render submer- sion impracticable. Exod. xii. 22. ' And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and baptize it (apo) out of the blood that is in the bason ' Lev. iv. 17. ' And the priest shall baptize his finger (apo) out OF the blood, and sprinkle it seven times ' xiv. 16. ' And the priest shall baptize his finger (apo) out OF the oil that is in his left hand ' Dan. iv. 33. * And his body was baptized (apo) out of the dew of heaven.' — See also chap. v. 21. Eccliisxxxi.26. 'The furnace proves the edge (apo) out of the baptizing ' II. Eis is employed in conjunction with the word bap- tize where an entire immersion is very improbable. Lev. xiv. 6. ' As for the hving bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and the hyssop, and shall baptize them (eis) into [till submersed in] the blood of the bird that was killed '—See v. 51. Acts viii. IG. * They were all baptized (eis) into [till submersed in] the name of the Lord Jesus.' — See chap. xix. 5. Rom. vi. 3. ' As many as were baptized (eis) into [till sub- mersed in] Jesus Christ, were baptized (eis) INTO [till submersed in] his death' 4. ' We are buried with him by baptism (eis) into [till submersed in] death' 1 Cor. i. 13. ' Or were ye baptized (eis) into [till submersed in] the name of Paul?' 15. 'Lest any shoidd say I had baptized (eis) into [till submersed in] mine own name' X. 2. ' And were all baptized (eis) into [till submersed in] Moses' THE GREEK PRErOSITlONS. 161 III. Eis is used synonymously with Aro. Ex. xii. 22. ' And he sliall take a bunch of hyssop and baptize it (apo) out of the blood that is in the bason ' Num. xix. 18. ' And he shall take a bunch of hyssop and baptize it (eis) into the water' Levit. iv. 6. ' And the priest shall baptize his finger (eis) into the blood' 1". ' And the priest shall baptize his finger (apo) out OF some of the blood ' ix. 9. ' And the sous of Aaron brought the blood unto Mm, and he baptized liis finger (eis) into the blood' xiv. 16. ' And the priest shall baptize his right finger (apo) out of the oil that is in his left hand' IV. Eis is used synonymously witli en. Deu.xxxiii 24. ' Let Ashtir baptize his foot (en) in oil' Josh. iii. 15. 'And the feet of the priests were baptized (eis) INTO the brim of the Jordan ' Matt. iii. 6. ' And were baptized of him (en) in Jordan' ^lark i. 9. ' And were baptized of John (eis) into Jordan' Matt.xxvi.23. ' He that baptizeth his hand with me (en) in the dish' Mark xiv. 20. ' It is one of the twelve that baptizeth Avith me (eis) into the dish' V. Eis is used synonymously with epi. Mat.xx^-iii.l9. ' Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them (eis) into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost' Acts ii. 38. ' Repent ye, and be baptized ever>- one of you (epi) upon the name of the Lord Jesus ' VI. Ex is used synonymously with epi. Judith xii. 7. ' Judith went out in the night into the valley of Bethulia, and baptized herself fEPi) upon a fountain of water' John i. 25. ' And John was baptizing (en) in Enon,' (a foim- tam of water) o 5 162 IMMERSION ESTABLISHED BY VII. The word baptize is used in connexion with uper. 1 Cor. XV. 29. ' What shall they do who are baptized (uper) for the dead .' \\Tiy are they baptized (Uper) FOR the dead." VIII. In some passages the prepositions are omitted. Luke iii. 6. 'I baptize you * * water' xvi. 24. 'That lie may baptize his finger * * water* Acts xi. 16. 'John indeed baptized * * water' Eev, xix. 13. ' He was clothed in vestui'e baptized * * blood.' VIII. To the foregoing expositions may be subjoined the observations of Dr. Macknight (no mean authority with the Baptists) respecting the power and import of these prepositions. He shows that the sacred writers have employed them in a very diversified application. This he proves by a reference to numerous passages of scripture which it is not necessary for us to cite. He says that — Apo is used for — after, because, belonging to, by reason of, of, for, in. Eis is used for — against, among, at, before, by, concern- ing, in, in order to, of, tOAvards, with. Ek is used for — among, belonging to, by, by reason of, in, of, over, with respect to. En is used for — after, among, at, by, concerning, for, in, into, instead, nigh to, of, on, on account of, through, to, towards, under, within. The same writer observes — ' And of these various sig- • nifications, the one which best suits the passage, where ' the particle is found, ought to be expressed in the trans- * lation ; otherwise, the inspired writer's train of thought ' will disappear, and the course of his reasoning be inter- ' rupted, perhaps perverted.' Further: ' From the nume- ' rous passages of scripture produced in this Essay, it ap- THE GREEK PREPOSITIONS. 163 ' pears, that the Greek particles, as used by the writers of ' the New Testament, have a great variety of significations : ' that no transhition, especially of the apostolic epistles, in ' which the Greek particles have only a few of their sig- ' nifications given, w'ill rightly express the meaning of these ' writings: and that the rectifying of the translation of the ' particles, though it be only by substituting one monosyl- ' lable for another, will often change the sense of a passage ' entirely, and render it a chain of strict logical reasoning : ' whereas, by a wrong translation, it becomes quite inco- 'herent, if not inconsequent.' 1 Finally: Professor Stuart says, ' I have found no example where apo is applied to ' indicate a movement out of a liquid, into the air. Apo * denotes either the relation of origin, as sprung from, de- * scended from, &c. or removal in regard to distance, or * the relation of cause to effect, the instrument, &c. To ' designate emerging from any thing that is liquid, I have ' not found it ever applied.' - IX. Upon the whole, then, and without any additional evidence, it may be safely concluded that the prepositions, on the supposed import of which such uncommon stress is laid by some of our opponents, make not an iota for their cause. For conceding, what no Pedobaptist of judgment ever denied, that the words, in some connexions, fairly convey the meaning which our Baptist brethren contend for — it may be enquired whether they have adduced any adequate evidence to show that such is their force in the texts quoted at the head of this section? We answer, cer- tainly not; and have no hesitation in saying that such evidence is not attainable. A frivolous remark has been made by a reverend brother with respect to one of these prepositions, which shows that the good man had not fairly studied the merits of this con- troversy, or had written contrary to his knowledge, in order to make an affecting impression on the minds of his igno- rant readers. He says, 'if eis does not signify into, then 1 Apostolical Epist. vol. i. p. 109-112. 2 p. 320. 164 IMMERSION ESTABLISHED, ETC. ' entering into heaven is only going to the gate of lieaven ; ' and entering into hell is only going to the gate of hell.' ^ But Pedobaptists never denied that eis sometimes signifies into. All they contend for is, that the Baptists cannot prove such to be its precise import in Acts viii. 38, and in other passages narrating the act of scripture baptism. This point we have endeavoured to establish — and this, indeed, is conceded by Dr. Ryland, when lie says, ' eis is ' sometimes used in different senses ' — so that Mr. Birt's observation amounts to nothing in the argument. Carson says, ' Ek always signifies out of; ' and, on this assump- tion, endeavours to establish the fact of the Eunuch's total immersion in baptism. But those who have attentively weighed the previous remarks, must clearly perceive that his assertion is by no means sustainable. In fact, the whole of our position is surrendered to us by two of the cleverest men among the Baptist writers. Dr. Cox tells us, that ' the criticisms of opposing parties on these pre- ' positions are comparatively immaterial, and in whatever ' manner adjusted, they must be deemed insufficient of ' themselves to determine the controversy.' ^ And Mr. Ro- binson says, 'that Abraham's covenant, Greek particles, ' and a thousand more such topics, no more regard the ' subject, than the first verse of the first book of Chron- ' icles, Adam, Sheth, Enosh.'^ Thus much then for the prepositions. That they make nothing for dipping any more than for sprinkling or pouring, must be evident to all who have carefully attended to the preceding remarks. 1 Bin's Letters, p. 52, 53. See Butterwortli's Con. p. 19. 2 Cox, p. 104. 3 Notes on Claude, vol. ii. p. 423. ^1 165 SECTION SIXTH. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE FIRST N. T. BAPTISMS. ' Though Uie ancient prophets almost universally foretold tlie abun- ' dant EFPUSION of spiritual gifts and graces which succeeded 'the advent of the Messiah, none before John made use of a 'figure, which \-iewed apart from the visible action with which 'it was associated, would have been scarcely intelligible.' Rev. R. Hall, Ess. Dif. p. 50. By the first New Testament baptisms, we mean those performed by John the Baptist. In connexion with these, there are two circumstances noticed on which our brethren lay no ordinary stress. The one is his baptizing in Jordan, a considerable 'river;' and the other his baptizing inEnon, because there was 'much water' in it. The kind of evi- dence adduced from these circumstances may be compre- hended in the following syllogism : — ' John could have had ' no occasion to preach and baptize where there was much 'water, had he not immersed his converts — but John 'preached and baptized in Jordon and Enon, where there ' was much water ; therefore his converts were immersed.' ^ This notion and argumentation pervade the whole deno- mination of our opponents — and it is questionable, if the above circumstances are not among the main supports of their cause, especially with the illiterate and unthinking part of its abettors. They consequently demand a distinct consideration. The ensuing remarks, however, will show the impropriety of laying any stress on the places where John baptized his followers. I. It cannot escape your notice that this kind of proof is presumptive — and different from the plain example or positive precept which the Baptists require of us in support of our positions. They often declaim against reasoning, 1 See Maclean, vol. iii. p. 119. 166 THE BAPTISM OF JOHN analogy, or inference, respecting positive institutions — yet are here employing them all in defence of their practice. They surmise and conjecture that John would not have baptized in these places, containing much water, had he not dipped his converts — but can adduce nothing more. They simply suppose that much water was required for baptism, and could be necessary for no other purpose. Now, when Senacherib invaded the country of Judea, he wanted ' much water,' (2 Chron. xxxii. 4,) but surely not for baptizing his army ; and Christ, who, by his dis- ciples, baptized more people than John, did not deem Jordan or Enon necessary for their performance of this rite ; nor does it appear, from the evangelical history, that they ever required much water for doing it. Hence we may gather that much water might be necessary for the use of great multitudes of people who were not to be plunged or washed in it — and that still greater multitudes may be scripturally baptized where there is not, for ought the scriptures tell us, much water for the purpose. II. It is plain and fully admitted by some of our most respectable and intelligent opponents, that the baptism of John and Christian baptism were materially and essenti- ally different.! Hence we read in Acts xix. 3-5, of certain persons who had been baptized by John, being baptized with Christian baptism, about thirty years after, by the apostle Paul. The nature of their respective baptisms varied considerably. John, by birth, was a Jewish priest,- (AcTS xiii. 25, compare with Luke i. 8,) officiating while the Levitical economy was in all its force and operation,'' performing a rite preparatory to the coming of Christ in the ministry — admitting to this ceremony persons who were ignorant of the existence of the Holy Ghost, who ' was not given in a way peculiar to the gospel dispensa- ' tion during John's baptism, nor till Christ was glorified ;' ^ (John vii. 39;) and receiving persons otherwise unfit for ' See Hall's Essen. Dif. 2 j_ gtennett's Misc. Works, vol. ii. p. 2SC. 3 Booth, vol. ii. p. 2J7. < iMaclean, vol. i. p. 111. IN JORDAN AND ENON. 167 Christian baptism — at least, such as our opponents would not presume to immerse. (AIatt. iii. 7-11, xi. 7-9.) The apostles of our Lord, subsequent to his resurrection, were Christian ministers, baptizing the people in the name of the Lord Jesus, and admitting to a certain religious fel- lowship the adults they baptized only on an open or tacit avowal of their belief in the Son of God as the true Mes- siah. Supposing, therefore, that John did actually baptize by immersion, his not being Christian baptism, it does not follow that the apostles of Christ dipped their converts also. We find our opponents repeatedly referring, not to the baptism of John as the institution of their baptism, but to our Lord's commission, delivered after his resurrection and recorded in j\Iatt. xxviii. 19, and Mark xvi. 15, 16. In fact, one of them says, 'these two passages are our 'only authorities for our baptizing at all.'^ And another tells us, ' they should ever be considered, respecting the 'mode and subject, as the rule of baptizing.' 2 Therefore, to say that though the qualifications of the candidates and the formulary of the administration differed essentially, the modes were one and the same — is begging the question. Let them prove it if they can, or surrender the supposed evidence derived from the performance of this rite in Jor- dan and Enon as invalid and inapplicable. But, to save them a world of labour, we will concede this point — and yet expect to prove to your satisfaction that both John and our Lord's followers baptized the people by pouring or sprinkling, or, in general terms, by applying the element to the object. This accords with the description Josephus gives of John's baptism, who says he ' washed or purified 'the crowds that came about him,'^ but never intimates that he dipped them into the Jordan or any where else. And it accounts also for Peter's instantly recurring to the baptism of John, when he saw the Holy Ghost fall on Cornelius and his friends, as on the apostles at the day of 1 Pearce, p. 29. 2 Booth, vol. iii. p. 371. = Ant. b. 18, chap. v. sec. 2. 168 THE BAPTISM OF JOHN Pentecost; (Acts xi. 15,) — and for the precited language of Mr. Hall, in which he plainly indicates, that the abun- dant effusion of spiritual gifts and graces, which succeeded the advent of the Messiah, were rendered intelligible to the followers of John the Baptist by the ' figure ' of speech, and ' visible action ' which he used in the administration of his baptismal rite. III. But let us briefly notice John's baptizing at the Jordan. From what has been previously advanced respect- ing the verb baptize and the prepositions eis, apo, and en, rendered into, out of, and in, no fair evidence can be ad- duced by our opponents to prove that our Saviour's har- binger dipped the multitudes, that came to him, into this celebrated river. It is impossible for them to maintain, except by bold assertions and begging the question, that John or his candidates for baptism went into the water at all. He baptized 'at,' 'on,' or 'with' the water of this ce- lebrated stream. He probably stood in the channel of the Jordan, and might then be fairly said to be in the river, as the Israelites are said to have gone into the midst of the sea, and to have been baptized in the sea, when we know from the narrative of the Exodus, that they were only in the channel of the divided and departed waters; or, as they subsequently went into the Jordan, (Joshua iii. 11,) stood in the midst of the Jordan, (Joshua iv. 10,) and came up out of the Jordan, (v. IG, 17); when we know that they went through on dry ground, (ib. 3, 17,) without being bathed by its waters. In a subsequent chapter we read of a ' city that is in the midst of the river;' (ch. xiii. 9, 16,) but which, it is presumed, was not actually founded in the floods, nor really washed by the mountain torrent. It probably stood on an island, or point of land, formed by the junction of two streams. See 2 Sam. xxiv. 5. It should be also observed that John ' baptized in the ' wilderness,' commonly a waste, wild, and barren place, (Mark i. 4.) ' In the country about Jordan,' (Luke iii. 3,) ' in Bethabara, beyond Jordan,' (John i. 28,) and in the IX JORDAN- AND ENON. 169 place where Christ took up his abode, (John x. 40.) Here are four pL^ces mentioned as scenes of John's ministry and baptism, where, for aught our opponents know, there was little or no water at all. Even, while in the vicinity of this river, he did not find it necessary to baptize all his people in it. He performed this ceremony in the wilderness, where we should not expect to find a great deal of water ; and where Christ took up his abode, which was surely not in a brook, pool, or fountain. This last citation proves that little stress can be laid on the terms 'in Jordan.' For as John baptized only in the neighbourhood or near the place where Christ took up his abode, so he might have baptized on or near the Jordan only. If the words 'in the place' mean only near the place, why should the words 'in the Jordan' mean more than near the Jordan ? Let our opponents esta- blish the difference of the expressions. The following pas- sage, among many others, will show what little stress can be laid on the terms 'in Jordan,' as proving immersion. 'Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, ' and all the vessels of the ministry. And almost all things ' are by the law purged (en aimati) in blood ; and without 'shedding of blood is no remission.' (Heb. ix. 21, 22.) Now, it is clear that there was not blood sufficient to im- merse all the things said to be purified — that the action of Moses was only a sprinkling — that this sprinkling effected an entire cleansing — and yet it is said to have been done ' in blood ; ' which phraseology is perfectly analogous to the terms ' in Jordan.' In Lev. xiv. 52, it is written, ' He ' shall cleanse the house (en to aimati) in the blood of the ' bird, &c.' Surely there is no dipping here ! But as John's baptizing at Jordan will be a subject of after consideration, we must not enlarge further on it at present — IV. And therefore shall proceed to his baptizing in Enon, (John iii. 23.) It is said, he was baptizing there because there was much water. Now, you need hardly be informed, that this passage is adduced ou the other side with all the eclat of a complete victory. Let us then en- r 170 THE BAPTISM OF JOHN quire whether our brethren can establish their dipping sys- tem from this narrative. I. Enon, according to Parkhurst, signifies a fountain or spring — according to Schleusner, it is the ' name of a city, * situated near the Jordan on the borders of the tribe of ' Manasseh, where it joined the tribe of Issachar, near to ' Salim, distant seven miles from Scythopolis. Here John ' baptized (John iii. 23), because there were many waters; ' whence also it received its name — for Einon, as Ojz, signi- 'fies metaphorically a fountain.' ^ And the phrase hydata polla means literally many waters or several streams. But we must refer to the remarks of a learned and laborious investigator of this subject on the other side of the debate. Mr. Robinson tells us that ' Enon, near the Jordan, was ' either a natural spring, an artificial reservoir, or a cavern- ' ous temple of the sun.'- The spring where John baptized ' was called the Dove's Eye. The prophet Nahum (ch. ii. 6) ' describes waters running off in streams gurgling among 'stones, as doves that wander cooing; or, as the English ' version has it, tabouring through the solitary grove. Ac- ' cording to this, Enon was a cavernous spring, and such ' were of great account in Judea, especially in some sea- ' sons.'^ Hence Enon was not a place of much water, in the modern and occidental use of those terms ; nor con- tained sufficient for those immersions which it is presumed took place in it. ' It is very probable,' says a convert to Pedobaptism, in his Scripture Reasons for Infant Bap- tism,'* ' that Enon was a village or tract of land where there ' were many springs, which terminated in many ri\Tilets of ' water. It is observable that the town called JNIiddin, in ' Josh. xv. 61, is named Enon by the seventy Greek inter- 'preters of the Old Testament. They also observe, that in ' Judges v. 10, mention is made of those that sit in, upon, ' or near Middin — we read ' in judgment,' where the Holy ' Ghost takes notice of the places of drawing water, so that 1 Lex. in Loc. = Rob. p. 14. 3 iv,id, j,. 17. ' P. 40, Ed. Birmingham, 181S. IN JORDAN AND ENON. 171 * if any one woulJ know why Middin is rendered Eiion by * the seventy Greek interpreters of the Old Testament, the ' thing is evident, because of the places of drawing water.' II. While the words much water, many waters, great waters, and waters, in the plural, in many places, mean large congregations of this element, particularly when used to express figuratively crime or calamity, we find them often employed when what we should consider but little water is intended. A few citations will place this in a clear point of light. Many waters are used to express the moistening of the soil with rain. ' He shall pour the water out of his ' buckets and his seed shall be in many waters,' (Numb. xxiv. 7) — for several rills watering a vineyard. ' Thy 'mother is like a vine in thy blood, placed by the waters; ' she was fruitful and full of branches by reason of many * waters,' (Ezek. xix. 10.) Great waters are used to ex- press the streams refreshing and fertilizing the fields and gardens of Judea or elsewhere. ' He took also of the seed * of the land and planted it m a fruitful field ; he placed it ' by great waters and set it as a willow tree,' (Ezek. xvii. 5.) ' This vine did bend her roots towards him and shot forth 'her branches towards him, that he might water it by the ' furrows of her plantations. It was planted in a good soil * by great waters, that it might bring forth branches and * that it might bear fruit, that it might be a goodly vine,' (v. 7, 8.) The ' great waters ' in Gibeon, (Jer. xli. 12,) are called 'the pool of Gibeon' in 2 Sam. ii. 13, and by Jose- phus, ' a certain fountain in the city Gibeon.' ^ So that these great waters are only a pool or fountain of water. Much water is used for a brook that might be stopped up, and for wells that might be covered and hidden. ' So there ' was gathered much people together, who stopped all the ' fountains and the brook [or river Kedron] that ran through ' the midst of the land, saying, why should the king of As- syria come and find much water?' (2 Chron. xxxii. 4.) The term Waters, in the plural number, is used to express 172 THE BAPTISM OF JOHN several wells. 'And they came to Elitn, where there were ' twelve wells of water and three score and ten palm trees, ' and they encamped there hy the waters,' (Exod. xv. 27) — for a single spring or fountain — ' And he went forth unto ' the spring of the waters and cast the salt in there and ' said, thus saith the Lord, I have healed these waters: so ' the waters were healed unto this day,' (2 Kings ii. 21, 22.) Maundrell visited this well or fountain, about which Jose- phus expatiates so complacently,^ and denominates it 'a ' spring issuing several small streams watering a field.' - It is used for a cup of water — 'Waters of a full cup are wrung ' out to them,' (Psalm Ixxiii. 10) — for such a quantity as people drink — ' Drink waters out of thine own cistern and 'running waters out of thine own well,' (Prov. v. 15) — and for tears, ' That our eyes may run down with tears and ' our eyelids gush out with waters,' (Jer. ix. 18.) The laver of the temple, v/hich contained probably a thousand barrels, is called 'a molten sea,' (1 Kings vii. 23.) III. The above passages are adduced as specimens of many more. From this we perceive that many waters, great waters, much water, and, waters in the plural, are terms employed to designate what, in this country, would be considered but a little of this element. When we hear our opponents talking of Enon, with its much water or many streams, as necessarily being little less than * the confluence ' of the Tigris or Euphrates, the swelling of the Nile, or as ' echoing to the voice of many thunderings, the sound of a ' cataract, and the roaring of the sea' ^ — astonishment over- whelms us. That the words many waters, great waters, much water, and waters, are sometimes expressive of rivers, lakes, and seas, no one can question — but to say such im- mense quantities of water are necessarily implied in the terms, Hebrew, Greek, or English, is to betray a cranium certainly less hard than adament. Let our opponents tell us where these mighty floods are to be found ; let tlieni point ' Ki it. Wars, b. ■!, c. 8, s. 3. » Travels. 3 Ryland's App. p. 30. IX JORDAN AND ENON. 173 out some ancient geographer who has descrihcci tliis cele- brated sister of the Nile, the Euphrates and the Amazon. The fact is, 'Enon, near to Salim,' as the phraseology im- plies, was a place of little notoriety, unknown as a village ill early times, and unnoticed for its waters, save in the text under review, in the New Testament. Neither does Jose- phus ever say a word respecting Enon in any of his works, though he describes, or at least notices, almost every foun- tain or water of any magnitude in the Holy Land — so in- significant was this roaring cataract in his day, and he was coeval with the apostles. And all that modern travellers have been able to discover, as a vestige of its former mag- nificence, is only a well whither the virgins go forth to draw water for their flocks and their father's families. Dr. Gill justly remarks, ' there is great difficulty in determining 'where or what this Enon was.'^ Observe further : — ' No example can be brought in the ' New Testament of the application of hydata to designate ' merely quantity of water, simply considered as deep and ' abounding. It is either the vast waters of a sea or lake, * as agitated by the winds and broken into waves, or the ' multiplied waters of numerous springs and fountains, * which are here designated by the plural of the word in * question. ..... The promiscuous use, in some cases, of ' hydor and hydata iu the version of the seventy, seems to * be the result of imitating the Hebrew ; for the Hebrew 'has only a plural form (mim) to designate the element ' of v/ater.'- IV. Let it be observed, also, that John could not have gone from Jordan to Enon or any other place merely for the sake of having ' much water.' He must have had some other motive for this movement. Jordan was a considerable river, and Enon, according to Robinson, a spring in a cave. This latter place was probably more centrical and conve- nient for some of the inhabitants of the country — and the water was necessary for the refreshment of his numerous 1 p. 206. 2 Stuart, p. 323, 324. p 5 174 THE BAPTISM OF JOHN followers in that comparatively arid climate. ' Such a ' spring was of great account in Judea, especially in some ' seasons' of the year, when water was very scarce and the weather very sultry. He that congregated multitudes of people in such a country must, like Senacherib, have re- quired much water ; and if they attended John, as they did our Lord, three or four days successively (Matt. xv. 32), the necessity of much water, for other purposes than im- mersion, must have been great. Thus John prudently took his station where the lives of his followers would not be endangered by the drought, and where the well-watered soil produced shrubs and trees, which proved a cooling shade amidst the scorching heat of a Summer's day in Palestine. Hence Christ often resided, and preached near the sea of Tiberias, Capernaum, and Galilee ; though there is not a word spoken of his baptizing in any part of this lake. Now, if there were other cogent reasons for John's baptizing in Enon, where there was much v/ater, besides the operation of dipping his converts ; we are at perfect liberty to conclude, that these alone influenced his pro- ceedings. Besides, if this Enon were a fountain or spring in a cave, it, in all probability, supplied the people and their cattle with water to drink, as well as Johii for his washings or baptisms ; and as his followers were numerous, many of them must have been bathed in this fountain pre- viously to the drinking of others, and consequently must have been refresiied with dirty or ceremonially polluted beverage. Whether this was the case or not, you may easily determine. Such a proceeding would hardly be to- lerated in our times, even by those who are so loud about taking up the cross and sacrificing delicacy to a compliance with duty. You will also remember that pure, fair, run- ning, or living water, derived from perpetual springs, was requisite for purification or baptism ; and when so many became the subjects of his ministration, it may easily ac- count for his taking his station at Jordan, Enon, or other places where there was a fountain or stream, great or IN JORDAN AND ENON. 175 small, of pure water adapted to his typical aLlulion or consecration. V. But it may be argued further, that for the mere pur- pose of immersing one individual after another, John could have had no valid reason for going either to Jordan or Enon. The former is a deep river, sometimes overflowing its banks (Josh. iii. 15), and, at certain seasons of the year, running with considerable velocity. 'Dr. Shaw com- ' puted it about thirty yards broad and three yards in depth, ' and states that it discharged daily into the Dead Sea about ' 6,090,000 tons of water. Viscount Chateaubriand, who ' travelled nearly a century after him, found the Jordan to ' he six or seven feet deep close to the shore, and about 'fifty paces in breadth.' ^ 'Before it enters the Dead Sea, 'its ordinary current is but thirty yards in breadth accord- ' ing to Shaw ; and no more than twenty-five according to ' Thompson ; hut is exceeding deep, even at the edge of ' its inner bank. It has an outer bank, about a furlong of ' distance from the other; such it seems was its width when 'it was swelled.'- In Monro's recent 'Summer Ramble in ' Syria,' he writes, ' The Jordan was distant little more than ' a league from the encampment; the baptismal spot bear- ' ing, N. N. E., supposed to be the scene of our Lord's bap- ' tism, and the place where Joshua passed with the host of ' Israel The River here forms an angle, having its ' banks covered with long course grass, tall reeds, olean- ' ders, tamarisks, and low brushwood. The width of it ' might be thirty-five yards, and the stream was running ' with the precipitous fury of a rapid. The hank was ^ steep, shelving off ahruptly to deep water.' — Volney says, 'Its breadth, between the two principal lakes, in few ' places exceeds sixty or eighty feet, hut its depth is ahout ' ten or twelve.'^ And, as we have seen, our brethren sug- gest, that Enon comported with the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates, the swelling of the Nile, the voice of many ' Home's Introd. p. 3i, Lond. 1825. - Brown's Diet, in loc. 3 Travels, vol ii. j). 300. 176 THE BAPTISM OF JOHN thunclerings, the roaring of the sea, and the rushing of a cataract. But could these have been convenient places for dipping either men or women in their light, loose, flowing dresses ; or for a man, at most, six feet high, to stand in days and months consecutively, for the purpose of immersing them? And was not the immersion of John's converts absolutely impracticable in such a river as the Jordan — deep, wide, and exceedingly rapid? Do our apostle-like opponents go in quest of such mighty waters for the purpose of dipping their people ; though guarded with cloaks, and sometimes mud-boots, and all that the wit of modern ingenuity has contrived against accidents and exposures of the person ? Do they not consider a baptistry, artifically constructed, with steps, pump, and sewers, and filled to a definite height with quiescent water, much more convenient in many respects? That such a congregation of this element was unnecessary, v/e may gather from the declaration of our opponents, who, being practical men, are of course the best judges in this particular. Mr. Robinson says, ' the true ' depth of water for baptizing an individual, is something 'less than two-thirds of the height; but the tallest man ' may be baptized in the Lateran depth, which is thirty- ' seven inches and a half.'i — If this be a fact — and we have no reason to question it — how unsuitable was Jordan, a deep rapid river? and Enon, roaring and foaming along, could not have been a whit better. — ' In baptism,' says another eminent writer on the same side, ' it is the act of ' immersion, and not the quantity of water, that is con- ' tended for — so that there be sufficient after a prudent and ' suitable manner to dip or bury the person baptized in it.' - — A third observes, that ' one single rivulet, having pools ' of fair and deep water, would have been as fit for John's 'purpose as if he had twenty.'^ Our friends, in accounting for the baptisms of the apostles, without going to natural water-courses, suppose ' r. 73. ■•' Jcnkin's Dcf. p. lOS. ' Rees, p. 126. IN JORDAN AND ENON. 177 that batlis were very numerous in 'private houses in Jcru- ' salera, and bathing common among the Jews;' and no doubt used for this purpose.^ Conceding the truth of this assumption, it may he remarked, that as John was a great favourite with the public (Matt. xiv. 5 ; xxi. 26), ' who ' were ready to do any thing he should advise,'- he might have used these baths also ; and surely it would have con- duced much to the decent manner of this ceremony, and the feasibility of its performance, over the plunging of men and women into a deep, rapid, and powerful river, or under a foaming cataract. But John did not use these baths — his manner of conducting this ceremony could be done with equal facility where there was much water or little — at or on the Jordan or fountain of Enon, or in the wilderness where Christ took up his abode. Consequently he did not baptize near these places for the sake of immersing his fol- lowers — some other inducements marked out his course and fixed on his stations. VI. To weaken or destroy the force of our argument, founded on the width, depth, and rapidity of the Jordan, and which must have rendered it very inconvenient for dip- ping; it has been said, there were 'fords' or shallow places, where people could walk across and where dipping was practicable. That it was of different depths and velo- city at different places, and that it might be crossed by swimming, no one will dispute. But that it was fordable or wadeable in any part by men and women we have no evidence to prove ; nor do we recollect an instance of the kind mentioned in the Bible or in any other ancient books. There, unquestionably, were bridges, or ferries, or some other means of crossing; and people who gained their living by conveying over the multitudes which frequently must have required their aid. The Hebrew term, abar, rendered ^ the ford of Jordan' in Josh. ii. 7, is translated passages in Judges xii. 5. and ferry in 2 Sam. xix. 18; and DEREK rendered 'fords of Jordan' in Judges iii. 28, 1 Gill, p. 4G0, 215 ; Booth, vol. i. p. 250. 2 j^s. Ant. b. 18, c. 5, s. 2. 178 THE BAPTISM OF JOHN, ETC, is translated 'the ivay' in Exod. xiii. 18, and in many- other places — and both words literally mean a road, path, passage, or way, of any description. In all the preceding texts the Septuagint reads diabasis, which expresses no- thing more than the idea of a passage or way over water or land. ' Bethabara,' where John baptized, signifies a ferry-house, or the house of the passage, John i. 28. — When Elijah and Elisha wanted to cross this river where there was no regular means of transit, they did not ford or wade it, but with their mantle divided its waters and walked across on dry ground, 2 Kings, ii. 8, 14. In a word, all the accounts we have seen respecting the Jordan, lead us to regard it as a river which was too deep and rapid to be crossed by persons without boats or bridges of some kind or other, and, therefore, must have been quite unsuitable for dipping men and women in baptism. Consequently, our arguments are not in the least invalidated by the use of the terms, ' fords of Jordan,' in the English Bible. Upon the whole we conclude, that the great parade of our opponents about John's dipping in Jordan and in Enon, because there was much water in these places, amounts to no more than a feather against a millstone in the scales of rational investigation. Superficial minds may be caught by the sound of words ; but persons of judgment will weigh their sense, and determine accordingly : and this has been our object in the present enquiry. 179 SECTION SEVENTH. SEVERAL ALLUSIONS TO SCRIPTURE BAPTISM. ' Two objects (or actions) may sometimes be very happily compared ' to one another, though they resemble each other, strictly speak- ' ing, in nothing ; only because they agree in the effects which ' they produce upon the mind : because they raise a train of ' similar, or, what may be called, concordant ideas ; so that the ' remembrance of the one, when recalled, serves to strengthen ' the impression made by the other.' Da. Blair, Lecx. 17. Our opponents often refer us, with a good deal of exul- tation, to various references made by Christ and liis dis- ciples, which, in their humble opinion, countenance their method of performing this initiatory rite, as — Being born of tvater and of the Spirit, (John iii. 5.) The baptism of the Israelites in the Red Sea, (1 Cor. x. 2.) Of Noah and his family in the ark, (1 Pet. iii. 20, 21.) The sufferings of Christ and his disciples, (Matt. xx. 22, 23.) The sufferings of believers in Christ, as their federal re- presentative, (Rom. vi. 5, 6; Col. ii. 10-13.) These allusions are often brought forward, and much dwelt upon, by our respected brethren; but they do not produce in our minds any impressions favourable to their mode of baptism. A brief consideration of each will doubtless jus- tify our sentiments. As the first four are not deemed very important, and as the fifth is regarded as an impregnable battlement about their cause, it claims, and shall receive, most of our attention. I. ' Jesus answered, Verily, verily, 1 say unto thee, ' Except a man be born of water (gennethe ex hydatos) 'and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of ' God.' — Hence, it is argued that there is an analogy be- tween a natural birth, and this being born of water. A 180 SEVERAL ALLUSIONS good woman, in the humbler walks of life, adduced this supposed similitude as the most conclusive evidence she knew of in favour of baptism by dipping. We, therefore, infer, that the notion is not uncommon among the lower classes of her communion. — Now, we might simply reply, on the authority of our opponents, that coming out of the baptistry, through the aid of a dencal accouchetir, is no part of baptism at all — being only a consequence of immersion, Avhich is regarded as the entire sacrament. But passing over this view of the case, we observe, that being born of the Spirit (see v. G, 8), is analogous to being born of water ; that is, the mode is the same in both instances. Can it, then, be said that in the baptism of the Spirit we come out of the Spirit! We are repeatedly told that believers are born of God, (John i. 13 ; 1 John iii. 9; iv. 7 ; v. 1, 4, 18.) Is it, for a moment, supposable that they come out of God in their regeneration ? The idea is too absurd to be enter- tained a moment; yet, on the hypothesis of the allusion, such is and must be the fair conclusion. In John iii. 3, according to the marginal reading, it is said, ' Except a man ' be born from above (anothen) he cannot see the kingdom ' of God.' Are we to imagine that we come out of the su- perior regions in our conversion ? We may just add that the arrangement of the words — water before Spirit — and the awful penalty attached to neglecting this obligation — have led some Baptists to conclude, ^ that water baptism was not at all intended by our Lord ; since, say they, those who by any means failed in undergoing this ceremony — for in- stance, the Quakers and the unbaptized offspring of our opponents — would be excluded from the kingdom of God, however otherwise fit to enter it. A trifling and justifiable alteration — rendering kai, even, instead of and — removes this difficulty at once. II. 'And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and 'in the sea,' (1 Cor. x. 2.) This text, according to the literal construction of our opponents in other cases, should ' Gill in loe. 11 TO SCRIPTURE BAPTISM. 181 be rendered, 'And were all totally dipped (els) into Moses ' in the cloud and in the sea.' The passage says nothing of their being dipped into the cloud and into the sea ; but only that while passing behind, under, and before the one, and between the waters of the other, they were baptized into Moses. But not to be too literal with our brethren, and to allow them advantages they have no right to claim ; let us inquire if these Hebrews were dipped into the cloud or the sea, in their transit from Egypt to the wilderness of Shur? Mr. Booth assures us, that 'the word baptize, in ' this dispute, denotes an action required by divine law, and ' the simple question is, what is that action? ' ^ We reply, certainly not dipping in the case before ns; for the sacred historian assures us, that they all went through the channel of the departed waters upon dry land, (Ex. xiv. 22.) What was the action here? — walking between the divided flood. To retort, that the clouds were over their heads, and the heaps of water on each side of them, whereby they were as if immersed, has nothing to do with the matter in debate, which is about the action embraced by the verb and dis- played by the event. The Baptists contend for dipping a person really and absolutely under water, in order to con- stitute a proper baptism, and ridicule the notion of any act less or otherwise being baptism at all. If water-baptism were at all intended, it was effected by a shower. ' The ' clouds poured out water ' (Ps. Ixxvii. 17) ; and in this way they were baptized, like Nebuchadnezzar, with a copious sprinkling from above. The refuge of our friends in the supposed saturated state of the Hebrews, is a mere conjec- ture and a sophism — a conjecture, as they do not knoAv that even the rain fell on the chosen tribes — and a mere sophism, since a person walking in the rain till wet to the skin would not, according to their notions, be properly baptized. On this principle, a copious shower-bath would be equally efficient with an artificial or natural baptistry. This would however be giving up the action in which the essence of 1 Vol. iii. p. 2G5. 182 SEVERAL ALLUSIONS the sacrament is said to consist. At all events, this allusion will not support the exclusive system of immersion. III. 'Which sometime were disobedient, when once the ' long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while ' the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, ' were saved by water. The like figure, whereunto baptism ' doth now save us (not the putting away the filth of the 'flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), 'by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,' (1 Pet. iii. 20, 21.) Now, if this text refer to any mode of water-baptism at all, and not simply to the influence of the Holy Ghost, it must be to the baptism of the ark, or of Noah and his family in it, or of both conjoined. Suppose it were of the ark, then what was the action here ? Was the vessel absolutely dipped under water, or did the water descend upon it ? Unques- tionably the latter; and though, from the quantity of rain which fell, the vessel was at length partly in the water and partly out of the water, it was never dipped, nor ever en- tirely under the rising element. The baptism of the ark was much like some of the representations in Mr. Robinson's plates of ancient Christian baptism ; where the converts are seen standing up to the knees or middle in water, while the officiating minister pours some of it on their heads. — Sup- pose it were Noah and his family in the ark, then they were baptized with a ' dry baptism ; ' for the water from above or below never touched them. The rain fell in tor- rents on the roof of their vessel, but they were not brought in contact with it. And if this were baptism, we are often baptized by our fire-sides, while a copious shower is falling on the tiles of our habitations ; and the mariner in his cabin at sea is being constantly baptized when it rains on the deck of his ship, though not a drop of it reaches his person. At any rate, Noah and his family were not plunged, immersed, or dipped, in the waters of the deluge ; and what may be said of the ark and the people separately, may be pro- nounced of both conjointly. To say that the Hebrews and Noah were, as it were baptized, only betrays the difficulties TO SCRIPTURE BAPTISM. 183 felt by our opponents in this case. If in this or the pre- ceding instance there was a baptism analogous to their method, the Egyptians were the only subjects in the former case, and those who were shut out of the ark, in the latter; and who, as stated in the Baptist Magazine, were 'baptized * to a general destruction.' ^ In reference to this allusion, Bishop J. Taylor makes the following remark — how far it is either true or important we leave you to decide. — 'After this, the Jews report that ' the world took up the doctrine of baptisms, in remembrance * that the old world was purged by water ; and they washed ' all that came to the service of the true God, and, by that ' baptism, bound them to the observation of the precepts 'which God gave to Noah.'~ This sentiment would cer- tainly account for the prevalence of baptisms among the Gentiles in nearly all nations ; and also for the first men- tion of such a ceremony and the general performance of it, before specifically regulated by divine appointment, among the children of Israel. IV. 'Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink ' of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized ' with?' (Matt. xx. 22, 23.) ' I have a baptism to bebap- ' tized with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished !' (Luke xii. 50, see also Mark x. 38, 39.) Our Lord, in these passages, evidently alludes to his last sufferings and death. The Baptists tell us that Christ was plunged into affliction or overwhelmed with it.^ But these professed elucidations evidently obscure the subject — plunging and overwhelming being directly opposite acts. As to the former expression, it may be remarked that the phrase, ' plunged into affliction,' and particularly into a penal suffering for sin, is a mode of speaking, very rare, if ever, used in the New Testament. The punishments inflicted on account of sin — like every good gift and every perfect gift — are from above, and are represented as descending on us. ' I will pour out I Bapt. Mag. 1816, p. 19S. 2 Works, vol. i. p. 114. 3 Booth, vol. iii. p. 318. 184 SEVERAL ALLUSIONS ' my wrath upon tliem like water,' Hos. v. 10. As to the latter, it may be seen from our previous observations, that a person overwhelmed suffers from the pressure of a super- incumbent weight — a mode at complete variance with our opponents' hypothesis. It is perceivable that drinking the cup and being baptized are here used synonymously, and are both expressive of pain and punishment, without spe- cifying any particular mode of inflicting them. ' To drink,' says Mr. Keach, 'denotes being overwhelmed with cala- 'raity,'! (Is. li. 20.— Ixiii. 6.— Jer. xlviii. 26.— Ezek. xxiii. 38. — Rev. xiv. 10.) But let us come to historical facts. Had our Lord and his disciples suffered death, like Aristobulus, by drowning, our opponents might have had some colour for their conclusions. But neither Jesus, James, nor John, were martyred by dipping or immersion. Christ, as we all know, was crucified ; James was killed with a sword, (Acts xii. 1 ;) and John, according to uni- versal opinion, and which our opponents cannot gainsay, died in his bed a natural death. The analogy, therefore, between dipping under water and suffering in any of the preceding forms, is vague and inconsistent. To talk of their being baptized in their own blood, as an argument in favour of modern plunging, betrays a weakness too palpable to require correction. When we can conceive the dyeing of a person, with gore issuing from certain bodily wounds, as fairly emblematical of dipping, our imaginations must have lost their sober direction and run wild amidst their heedless reveries. The frequent allusion of our brethren to the expressions of the Psalmist, 'he drew me out of many waters,' (Ps. xviii. 16.) 'I am come into deep waters,' (Ps. Ixix. 2,) ' and deliver me out of great v/aters,' (Ps. cxliv. 7 ;) as if they referred to baptism in the sense of affliction, is per- fectly gratuitous and inconclusive — as none of them are designated baptism by the inspired writers, and as there is no proof of David's being dipped by any other being. He ' Met. p. 168. TO SCIUPTURE BAPTISM. 185 speaks of 'waters overflowing' or coming upon liim, (Ps. Ixis. 2,) 'going over him,' (Ps. xlii. 7,) ' coming nigh unto him,' (Ps. xxxii. G,) and 'comhig into his soul,' (Ps. Ixix. 2,) expressive of overwhelming calamity. (See also Ps. xxii. 14.) jMay we not conclude, then, with equal pro- priety, that these are baptism also? And as the quantity of the element is not the question at issue, but the act of its application, our inference must be deemed equally pro- per and tenable. In fact, the whole genius of the gospel is opposed to the interpretation of our opponents. Our Lord was a sinner by imputation, that is, God ' laid on him ' the iniquity of us all ; ' and his sufferings were, in accord- ance with this view of the case, also laid upon him — that is, taken from us and applied to him ; for it pleased the Lord to bruise him. Upon the whole the sufferings men- tioned in the passage and designated baptism, will by no means and in no measure countenance the exclusive mode advocated and practised by our respected antagonists. V. We come, now, to the most material allusion con- tained in the fore-cited passages, which we shall here quote at length. ' Know ye not that so many of us as were bap- * tized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death — ' therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death — ' that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the ' glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in new- * ness of life. For if we have been planted together in the * likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of * his resurrection. Knowing this, that our old man is cru- ' cified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, ' that henceforth we should not serve sin,' (Rom. vi. 3-6.) — 'And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all ' principality and power : in whom also ye are circumcised ' with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off ' the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of ' Christ. Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are ' risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, ' vrho hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead 186 SEVERAL ALLUSIONS ' in your sins and the uncircuracision of your flesh, hath 'he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all 'trespasses,' (Col. ii. 10-13.) On these texts our opponents lay no ordinary stress. One of them, speaking the sentiments of all the rest, says — 'And when Paul speaks of being buried with Christ by • baptism into death ; we ask, wliat accuracy, or what em- 'phasis in the expression, if baptism were not by immer- 'sion? If the rite were perfoi'med by sprinkling, could it 'be called a burial? How can that be buried or covered 'that is not immersed? Obviously, therefore, immersion ' was the mode, and as no inspii'ed authority has instituted ' a change, immersion is the mode, and ivill be the mode to ' the world's end.'^ In this summary method, Mr. Daniell settles the sense of the allusions before us ; and with an assurance, common to his colleagues in the present debate, defies all his adversaries to impeach the skill of his criti- cisms, or to weaken the strength of his position ! We shall, however, make the attempt. I. In considering these passages, it is proper to observe that the apostle is speaking of the union of believers with Christ, and of their mutually suffering death, being buried and raised again in Christ. The Son of God died, was bu- ried, and rose again as the representative of his people — and in him, as their federal head, they virtually died, were buried, and rose again. This sentiment is well expressed by a Baptist writer of considerable authority. He says, ' by a gracious constitution Christ sustained the persons of ' all the elect in his dying and rising again. They were so ' comprehended in and counted one with him, as to have ' died in his death, being buried in his burial, and raised 'again in his resurrection.'- The design of the inspired writer is to enforce holiness of life ; and he is now urging their spiritual union with Christ, as a cogent motive to effect his purpose. This identification of the Mediator and his people is a prime doctrine of scripture, and the like > Daniell, p. IS. 2 Maclean, v. i. p. 138. TO SCRIPTURE BAPTISM. 187 practical use is made of it in various parts of the New Test- ament; as must be manifest to all who read the sacred volume with the least attention. In addition to this virtual death, burial, and resurrection of believers, in consequence of their federal union with Christ, he represents, in these passages, the spiritual operations of divine grace in our souls, which he designates circumcision, death, and cruci- fixion; planting, burial, resurrection, and ascension to newness of life ; that is, he exhibits, in metaphorical lan- guage, the work of the Holy Ghost in our souls by those outward symbols, between which there is an instructive analogy, perfectly simple to those who were conversant with the customs of antiquity, nor unintelligible to us, with the whole volume of scripture before us. II. An inquiry now arises, when this apparent and pro- fessional union with Christ and work of the Spirit were first recognized by the Church. Few will question its tak- ing place at baptism — at least, in the case of adults ; for in the apostolic age conversion from Judaism or Gentilism to an acknowledgment of Christ as the Messiah and baptism, were effected simultaneously. Hence Mr. Robinson re- marks, 'there was no intermediate state of scholarship — ' baptism was administered immediately on conviction of 'the truth of the report.'^ Hence the operation of the Spirit and the application of water to a believer in the Saviour's divine mission, are blended as concurrent acts. Wherefore we read, 'born of water and of the Spirit,' (John iii. 5) — ' the washing of regeneration and the re- 'newing of the Holy Ghost,' (Titus iii. 5) — 'can any 'forbid water, that these should not be baptized which 'have [now] received the Holy Ghost?' (Acts x. 47) — and much more might be cited of a similar nature : from which it is easily perceived, how a union of the renovated soul with the Saviour became denominated baptism. Re- mark also, that in R.om. vi. 4, we are said to be buried with him (diaj through baptism, or in consequence of it. 1 Rob. Hist. p. 234. 188 SEVERAL ALLUSIONS And though in Col. ii. 12, it is written, buried with him (enj in baptism, it by no means militates against our po- sition, since eti is often employed in a sense that favours our scheme — being rendered 'through,' *by,' or 'because ' of,' one hundred and ninety-six times in the New Testa- ment. Assuming the validity of this remark, both pas- sages mean the same thing, viz : That our apparent union with Clirist, in whom, as our federal head, we were buried and rose again, was acknowledged at our dedication by baptism. Our opponents admit that, in Col. ii. 12, 'bap- tism is considered a principal medium of renovation ; ' ^ or as ' signifying, outwardly, that they were dead to sin, but ' alive to God.'- III. That this or a similar interpretation of the passages under review, accords with the intentions of the apostle, may be assumed from the incongruity of the exposition which our opponents are constrained to give them, in order to support their notions of baptism. To illustrate our po- sition, let us paraphrase the texts in consonance with their assertions and sentiments. 'Baptized into Christ;' dipped into Christ, immmersed into Christ, plunged into Christ ! ' Baptized into his death ; ' dipped into his death, Immersed into his death, plunged into his death ! ' Buried with him by baptism into death ; ' buried with him by dipping into death, by immersing into death, by plunging into death ! 'Buried with him in baptism; ' buried with him in dipping, immersing, or plunging ! Who does not instantly discover the impropriety of sucli a version, and look for something more analogous with scrip- ture and common sense? Besides which, the ideas attached to these phrases, in this paraphrastic version, are, at least, literally erroneous ; for the Romans and Colossians ad- dressed were never, in respect of time or place, baptized with Christ. They were surely not dipped into Christ at their baptism, nor plunged into his death! The very at- ' Keach's Met. p. 183. - Jenk. Def. p. 121. TO SCRIPTURE BAPTISM. 189 tempt at a literal rendering of the passages, appears the height of absurdity. And yet if ' to baptize ' mean nothing more or less than to dip, immerse, or plunge, such a trans- lation is unavoidable. Assuming, at present, for the sake of argument, that water baptism is referred to in the texts above cited; the simple intention of the writer would be, that these converts were, through baptism, separated to a profession of discipleship — of being dead indeed unto sin and alive again unto righteousness. They were buried with him, not by being dipped under water at the same time, by the same administrator, and in the same place ; but through baptism, however administered, were initiated into him as their federal and public representative ; and through their covenant relation to him, they ' died in his death, were bu- ' ried in his burial, and rose again in his resurrection' — not absolutely and ostensibly with him — nor, for aught the texts say, like him — but in him, through a virtual union with him, as their head and representative. All this is simple, in accordance with the method of salvation, and harmonizes with the general scope of the sacred writings — while the necessary constructions of our brethren are complicated, unscriptural, and even ridiculous. In fact, before our opponents can make these passages answer their purpose, they are obliged to construe the preposi- tions which, in some measure, govern the action of the verb baptize, in a manner perfectly novel and unwarrant- able : — ' Buried like him in baptism — buried like him ' through baptism ' — meaning either that an ordinary bu- rial with us, is like our Lord's baptism in Jordan, or that their baptism is like his burial in the sepulchre — neither of which, unfortunately for them, is true; nor for what the venerable Paul asserts, is even remotely intended in the fore-cited scriptures ; which we shall now proceed to establish. IV. We contend, then, that our Lord's baptism in Jor- dan, if he were dipped under water, as our opponents as- sert, is not like an Ordinary burial in this country. On 190 SEVERAL ALLUSIONS tlieir principles, John baptized the Redeemer by plunging him entirely under water and instantly raising hira out of it. But this operation is widely different from our usual interments in the following respects : — - First. — The actions are different. A person baptized by our brethren is merely dipped into the water. A per- son buried is covered with earth — the lowering of the body into a grave being an incidental circumstance — and not truly a part of the literal burying of it. This point is admitted by the Baptists. ' It is true,' say they, ' we do * bury by casting earth on the dead body, but it is so much 'earth as covers the corpse all over, or it is not buried.'^ ' The custom of raising tumuli or barrows over the dead ' was universal in the times of the remotest antiquity. Such ' a practice is sufficiently indicative of the original and most ' prominent idea of burial that prevailed in remote anti- ' quity, namely, that of committing to the earth [or laying * out on the earth] and covering with earth." The Greeks ' and Romans entertained the firmest conviction, that their ' souls would not be admitted into the Elysian fields till ' their bodies were buried or committed to the earth. Tra- ' vellers, therefore, who happened to find a dead body, cast ' dirt upon it three times,' ■'• [that is, they buried- it.] ' Bu- ' rial, as every child knows, is covering the body entirely.''* It is of importance to observe that the Jews held similar notions. 'Those whom they caught in the day time were ' slain in the night, and then their bodies were carried out ' and thrown away, that there might be room for other pri- ' soners — and the terror that was upon the people was so ' great, that no one had courage enough openly to weep ' for the dead man that was related to him, or to bury him ; ' only in the night time they would take up a little dust ' and throw it upon their bodies ; and even some that were ' the most ready to expose themselves to danger, would do 'it in the day time!'^ Consequently no two acts can be ' Keach, p. 20. 2 Cox, p. 71. ' lb. p. 72. ■• Pearce, p. 20. 5 Josophus, Hist. Wars, b. 4, c. 5, s. 3. TO SCRIPTl'UE BAPTISM. 191 more opposite to eacli other than a submersion-baptism and an ordinary burial — the former being an immersion into the element — the latter, a pouring or casting of the clement on the object. Secondly. — The periods of interment are different. When a corpse, with us, is definitively buried, it is to remain in that state till the end of the world. When our brethren baptize a person, he is kept in a state of baptism for an exceedingly small portion of time. Dr. Ryland en- courages the timid candidates for immersion to submit, in the following words: — 'You are about to resign your- ' selves now into the hands of your pastor, who having ' immersed you for a moment in the name of the blessed ' Lord, will easily [if able] and instantly raise you out of the water.' 1 Another Baptist writer says, 'I never heard ' of any who were continued half one minute in the water.'- A third remarks, ' The baptized person dies under the ' water, and for a moment is buried with Christ.' ^ Now, who that had no particular end to answer would ever have raised a grave comparison between popping a person mo- mentarily under water, and covering a corpse with earth till the great day of universal resurrection? Thirdly. — The subsequent operations are different. When our blessed Lord was, according to our opponents' ideas, baptized by John, he was first dipped under water and then instantly raised out of it. And this latter act of the Baptist was not a mere incidental and insignificant consequence of the previous immersion, but an inherent and expressive part of the ceremony. Hence we are told by Mr. Keach, 'that cannot be Christ's true baptism ' wherein there is not, cannot be, a lively representation 'of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.'^ And Mr. Burt says, 'baptism is designed to represent 'unto us things of the greatest importance and concern, * viz : the death, burial, and resurrection of our blessed > P. 31. 2 Rees, p. 133. 3 Carson, p. 189 ■> P. 318. 192 SEVERAL ALLUSIONS 'Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.'^ But in a burial, this raising again is wanting; for though all of us shall be raised at the last day, yet a resurrection is not included in the act of burying ; which might be performed, though men never left their sepulchres. There are, therefore, three discrepancies in the case before us, which completely destroy the analogical argu- ments which our opponents so complacently erect on the allusions under consideration. In fact, those who fancy such a similarity as our opponents plead for, are entirely mistaken ; for, as Mr. Robinson justly remarks, 'the first ' English Baptists, when they read the phrase, buried in 'baptism, instantly thought of an English burial, and ' therefore baptized by laying the body in the form of ' burying in their own country ; but they might have ' observed that Paul wrote to Romans, and that Romans ' [at that period] did not bury but burned the dead, and ' buried nothing of the dead but their ashes in urns ; so ' that no fair reasoning on the form of baptizing can be ' drawn from the mode of burying the dead in England.' - V. We next contend that our opponents' baptism is not like our Saviour's burial. Mr. Butterworth assures us, that 'it is the noble design of this ordinance to "represent a 'buried and risen Saviour.'^ But in this case the dis- crepancies are as great as in the preceding. When our opponents baptize a convert, he, as a voluntary agent, walks knee or middle deep into the water — then he permits the officiating minister to put the upper part of his body entirely under — then he is raised on his legs, and walks away to shift his dress. This is just as exhibited in practice — though somewhat at variance with the sense they give to the verb baptize. Now the dissimilarity between this ceremony and the interment of Christ is glaring. Christ did not walk into the sepulchre — Joseph of Ariraathea did not lower his body into a grave, nor aid in raising him out of it afterwards. He, being entirely passive, was carried ' p. 13. ■-' Hist. p. 350. 3 conf. Weighed, p. 19, 21. TO SCRIPTCRE BAPTISM. 193 into, or up into, a room hewn out of a rock, in an elevated position^ — laid on the floor, or rather on a side stone bench, as Dorcas was laid in an upper chamber, (Acts ix, 37) — a great stone was rolled against the door or opening of the sepulchre — and the people departed, intending, after the Sabbath, finally to inter his precious body. Before they arrived, however, the angel of the Lord rolled the stone from the mouth of the cave, and the Saviour, without the aid of the Counsellor or his friends, left the mansion of death. Who that was not exceedingly blinded in favour of an hypothesis, and determined to maintain it at all events, could even fancy a likeness between two ceremonies so void of every feature of fair analogy ! A judicious writer remarks, that ' the sepulchres of anti- ' quity possessed but little similarity to our graves. A large ' excavation was made in the side of a rock — the floor of ' the chamber thus formed not being at all below the sur- ' face of the soil without— and this chamber was a tomb. ' Of the grave of Lazarus, we are told it was a cave. That ' our Lord's sepulchre was of this kind, must be inferred ' from the phraseology used respecting it by the inspired ' historians. Matthew and Mark declare it to have been ' hewn out of a rock. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary ' are represented as sitting over acjainst the sepulchre. We ' are informed that Joseph rolled a great stone to the door ' of the sepulchre. An angel of the Lord on the morning ' of the third day came and rolled back the stone from the ' door, and sat upon it. The entrance, or door, was low, ' not much more elevated than was necessary to admit the ' corpse ; therefore, we read, that when the disciples came ' in search of the body, they stooped down to look into the ' sepulchre.'- Besides this, our Redeemer remained in this room, at least, a part of three days and three nights : whereas, in modern immersion, the person is not (barring accidents) 1 See Bp. Lowth's Xotes on Is. xx:i. IG, and liii. 9. 2 Urttick's Concise View, p. 54, 53. See also Cox, p. 74. R 194 SEVERAL ALLUSIONS kept under water half a minute ; and when emerged, it is by the minister, either alone, or, in case he be heavy, with the aid of the deacons. In a word, so far from there being a proper similitude between the dipping of our opponents and the interment of Christ, the one is no more like the other than plunging a person into a pond and carrying a corpse into a chamber and stretching it on a bed. A fur- ther development of the discrepancy is not requisite. — We do not design by these observations, however, to in- sinuate for a moment that the predictions and declarations respecting the interment of our blessed Lord were not per- fectly fulfilled as far as intended by the Holy Spirit, or that his precious body was not placed in a state which the Jews designated burial, and for a period which they accounted three days and three nights. It is, however, plain, that Christ was in the sepulchre only about thirty-six hours out of seventy-two, and subject only to a preparation for final interment, and not fully interred. This analogy between the time and the circumstances of our Lord's burial, as re- spectively predicted and detailed in the New Testament, throws a considerable degree of light on this subject, and materially favours our position. VI. Perhaps the sense of the words to baptize and to bury, in the texts under review, is not so plain and settled as our opponents presume. Can they tell us whether the baptism of water or of the Holy Ghost is intended by the apostle? They suppose the former — but would feel some difficulty in proving it — as, also, in determining whether the body to be interred was that of sin, mentioned in the pre- ceding verse, (Col. ii. 11,) — which is the simplest expo- sition of the passage — or of the Colossians themselves, referred to in the tenth verse of the same chapter. Nor ■would they be less perplexed in settling the import of the word to bury in the fore-cited text. That Christ was not definitively interred, is plain, from the fact that it was to be done on the first day of the week, and probably in sonic other place of sepulture; therefore the term cannot mean TO SCRIPTURE BAPTISM. 195 ' covering the Lotly entirely, which every child knows to ' be burial.' Depositing the body in the sepulchre might have been intended — but perhaps something else, or more, was meant. Parkhurst tells us that the original word signifies ' not * only to bury or inter, according to its usual sense in the ' profane writers, but also includes the preparation of the ' body for burial, by washing, anointing, &c.' Schleusner renders it, 'the preparation of the body for sepulture.' The same Greek word is used in the Septuagint, (Gen. 1. 26) to express the embalming of Joseph, who was not finally interred till hundreds of years after, (Ex. xiii. 19; Josh. xxiv. 32.) The anointing of Christ before his death, is called his burial, (Matt. xxvi. 12 ;) and it is said, pro- leptically, to have been done on the day of his burial, (John xii. 7 ; xix. 40.) Ananias and his wife are said to have been buried ; when, from the short time employed about it, three hours, and the ignorance of their relatives, respecting the bereavement ; nothing more than washing, anointing, and similar preparatory rites, as performed in the case of Dorcas, (Acts ix. 27,) and common among the Jews, could be intended. (Acts v. 1-10.) Beza supposes that, by the remarkable expression, 'baptized for the dead,' (1 Cor. XV. 29) is meant, the washing of the dead bodies of the saints as a profession that they expected a glorious resurrection. It is worthy of notice, that the verb thapto, ' the word invariably used for to bury ; ' ^ and employed to express the interment of John the Baptist (Matt. xiv. 12) — the father of a scribe (Matt. viii. 21, 22) — the rich man mentioned in the story of poor Lazarus (Luke xvi. 22) — the patriarch David (Acts ii. 29) — and even of Ananias and his wife, (Acts v. 6-10,) who, as said before, were not finally interred — is never used in the narrative of Christ's burial. When the inspired historians speak of the action under consideration, they all use another word, tithemi, 1 Campbell, on John, xix. 40. 196 SEVERAL ALLUSIONS rendered ' laid,'' or placed in the sepulchre for a time, (Matt, xxvii. GO; Mark xv. 46; Luke xxiii. 53; John xix. 42.) The question of the pious women that sought the body of Christ on the first day of the week, was, ' where 'have they laid him?' (John xx. 2; xiii. 15.) The an- gels were sitting on the place ' where Christ had lain,'' (John xx. 12;) and said, 'behold where they laid him,' (Mark xvi. 6 ;) ' come, see the place where the Lord lay,'' (Matt, xxviii. 6.) Is it, therefore, not fair to infer that the angels, women, and Evangelists, considered our Savi- our not buried definitively, and that the word in question refers only to the anointing, &c. ? Supposing this to be the sense of tlie term buried, in the preceding passages, and which our opponents will feel it difficult to disprove, what becomes of all their boasted assertions and indispu- table evidence, derived from this text, in favour of dipping? VII. Our brethren regard baptism as a sacramental re- presentation of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. ' That,' says Keach, ' cannot be Christ's true baptism ' wherein there is not, cannot be, a lively representation of ' the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.' But the same writer tells us, in the same page, that ' the sacra- ' ment of the Lord's supper was ordained to represent his ' body was broke and his blood was shed.' On this prin- ciple of interpretation both sacraments symbolize the death of Christ. Our opponents, we presume, can tell us on what ground they administer one of these sacraments once a month or once a week, and the other only once in a be- liever's life-time ? Why is such a distinction made, if the design of both is one and tlie same ? But there is another obstacle to their position and inference. The Lord's sup- per fully comprehends the objects intended by the sacred Institutor — a memorial of his death and the communion of saints. But the baptism of our antagonists, under the no- tion of burying, is very defective, not representing a tithe of what the scriptures and themselves declare it to symbo- lize, For example, in Gal. iii. 27, it is said, 'as many of TO SCRIPTURE BAPTISM. 197 ' you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.' Here the design is general and full, the person being con- secrated to the profession of all the doctrines, duties, and privileges, of the gospel. In 1 Cor. xii. 13, Paul says, ' for by one spirit we are all baptized into one body, whe- * ther we be Jews or Gentiles;' that is, not only into a par- ticipation of the death of Christ, but into the visible church with all its advantages and obligations. Our opponents tell us, as we shall presently verify, that baptism is designed 'to represent a minister's washing a person '^ — 'God's 'washing away his sins by the blood of Christ' — 'an act 'of worship to God' — 'an emblem of sanctification:' they also call it ' purification ' — ' a washing all over ' — and ' abun- ' dant purification ' — none of which efi'ects are represented by baptism as a burial, which they assure us is quite a dif- ferent thing from washing.' The visible descent of the Holy Spirit, which is frequently designated baptism, is also totally neglected in a burial. So that, were we even to admit an ostensible consistency between their baptism and a burial, other acknowledged intentions of the first impor- tance in Christian baptism are excluded. And, conse- quently, their system on this plan is partial and defective. Nor should it be forgotten that all the inhabitants of Jeru- salem, of Judea, and of all the region round about Jordan, were baptized by John and our Lord's disciples when they entertained not the slightest idea of Christ's passion or bu- rial — therefore they could not have administered this rite \vith a reference to his interment, nor have considered it in the least degree characteristic of a burial, previous to the crucifixion 2 — nor, for any thing we read, did they ever afterward contemplate such an allusion as our opponents plead for. VIII. On the expressions in the passages under review, our opponents endeavour to establish a rite in their churches representing, in their esteem, the burial of Christ and his 1 Cox, p. 60. See Maclean, v. i. p. 112. 2 See Hall's Essent. Diff. p. IG. 198 SEVERAL ALLUSIONS resurrection from the dead. But their process of reasoning on the texts, obliges them to derange the order observed by the sacred penman, and to omit a full compliance with what they must conclude to be his design. First. They derange the order observed by the sacred penman. They talk of, first, a death; secondly, a burial; and thirdly, a resurrection. Whereas, Paul speaks first of a burial ; secondly, of a planting ; and, thirdly, of a cruci- fixion. By what authority is this mutation of the divine arrangements ? But our antagonists feel it necessary. To talk of, first, burying; secondly, planting; and, thirdly, crucifying; and to apply the order to their baptizing, was too absurd for their adoption or avowal. Had the Holy Ghost intended by the texts, to establish a system, such as we presume to say the Baptists have invented, his lan- guage — (on the natural order of which their scheme as to the proper subjects chiefly depends. Matt, xxviii. 19; Acts ii. 38, 41 ; viii. 12; x. 47) — is every way incorrect; and before they can even imagine, from these words, a shadow of resemblance, they are forced, contrary to their avowed practice, to torture the text and entirely derange the sacred narrative. Secondly. They omit a full compliance with what they must conclude to have been the apostle's design. He makes other allusions in the immediate connexion which they to- tally disregard. 'Ye are circiimcised \v\i\\ the circumcision ' of Christ.' — 'Our old man is crucified with him.' — 'We 'have heen planted together in the likeness of his death.' Why are all these expressions overlooked ? To be consis- tent with their profession, they should, in some way or other, represent the acts of circumcision, crucifixion, and planting. AVhy is burying singled out before all the rest? Was it an after thought, and recurred to as a prop of a cause previously espoused? Wliat we solicit is consistency — symbolize all, or none. The preference of burying to planting is remarkable, as the latter is expressly said to be in tlie likeness of his death. The apostle also speaks in TO SCRIPTURE BAPTISM. 199 Other places of being 'crucified with Christ' (Gal. ii. 20,) and of 'being made comformable unto his death,' yet not to his burial, (Phil. iii. 10.) But the adoption of the principle further than positively established, would lead to the most superstitious results. 'We are commanded, to put ' on the Lord Jesus Christ ' — to imitate him in ' washing one another's feet' — 'to shine as lights in the world.' But where shall we find, among our friends, an ostensible and analogous exhibition of these actions? To be consistent with their principles, they ought, at least, to erect crucifixes — to use lighted candles in their chapels — or in some way to set forth these mental and spiritual allusions — or cease to plead the afore-cited passages as reasons for dipping. Thirdly. It being universally admitted that the above allusions are to a spiritual circumcision, a spiritual cruci- fixion, and a spiritual planting; the terms, buried and bu- rial, must evidently be understood in the like spiritual manner. As, in the former cases, no ostensible exhibitions are made to represent the operations of the Spirit; so, in the latter, any attempt at a pictorial illustration must be considered impertinent and unscriptural. And yet, before our opponents can derive the least plausible' apology for their dipping, from this portion of inspiration, they must attribute a most egregious anomaly in composition to those holy men who wrote, not in the words that man's wisdom teaches, but in words dictated by the Holy Ghost. The language, in each instance, refers alike to the work of divine grace in the soul; and should be construed on one common principle of interpretation, without prejudice or denominational partiality. Fourthhj. 'If sunetaphemen (buried) is to be inter- 'preted in a physical way, i.e. as meaning baptism in a ' physical sense, where is the corresponding physical idea 'in the opposite part of the antithesis or comparison? ' Plainly, there is no such physical idea or reference in ' the other part of the antithesis. The resurrection there ' spoken of, is entirely a moral, spiritual one ; for it is one 200 SEVERAL ALLUSIONS * which Christians have already experienced during the 'present life. — If we turn now to the passage in Col. ' ii. 12, we shall there find more conclusive reason still, ' to argue as above respecting the nature of the antithesis ' presented. ' We have been buried with [Christ] by bap- ' tism.' What now is the opposite of this? What is the ' kind of resurrection from the grave in which Christians ' have been buried ? The apostle tells us, we have risen ' with him [Christ] by faith wrought by the power of God, ' who raised him from the dead. Here there is a resur- ' rection by faith, i.e. a spiritual, moral one. Why then ' should we look for a physical meaning in the antithesis ? ' If one part of the antithesis is to be construed in a man- ' ner entirely moral or spiritual, why should we not con- ' strue the other in the like manner ? To understand sune- ' taphemen, then, of a literal burial under tvater, is to ' understand it in a manner which the laws of interpreta- ' tion appear to forbid.' ^ Fifthly. — It should be observed, moreover, that the ex- pressions — dying with Christ and rising with him from the dead to newness of life — are employed, elsewhere, without any reference to the ordinance of baptism, as either repre- senting or symbolizing such a gracious work in the soul. A text or two will verify this assertion. — - 2 Cor. v. 14, 15. — 'For the love of Christ constraineth ' us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then 'were all dead; and that he died for all, that they which ' live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto ' him which died for them and rose again.' Eph. ii. 5, 6. — ' Even when we were dead in sins, hath ' he quickened us together with Christ, (by grace are ye ' saved;) and hath raised us up together, and made us sit ' together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.' Col. iii. 1-3. — ' If ye then be risen with Christ, seek ' those things wliich are above, where Christ sitteth on the ' right hand of God. Set your affections on things above, ' Stuart, p. 328. TO SCRIPTURE BAPTISM. 201 'not on tilings on tlie cartli. For ye are dead, and your 'life is hid with Christ in God.' In these quotations, allusion is made to a spiritual death, burial, and resurrection ; effected only by the Holy Ghost, in virtue of our covenant union to the Son of God, as our suffering and triumphant head. The same operation and privileges are designed as in the parallel passages under review. It is, therefore, fair to infer that in those texts the term baptism is used to express the regenerating and converting influence of divine grace. Indeed, we must admit this to be the true exposition of the terms employed, or (as we shall show hereafter) receive the heterodox opi- nion that an interest in the atonement of Christ, depends on the right reception of a sacrament, which the careless- ness or the ignorance of men may either omit altogether, or perform so imperfectly, as to strip it of all saving efficacy. Though, for the sake of arguing the question on the grounds assumed by our antagonists, we have supposed that water baptism may have been remotely referred to in the passages in question ; we are of opinion that the allusion is exclusively to that of the Holy Spirit, whose gracious work alone, is succeeded by results so important to the destinies of mankind. Upon the whole, we may safely conclude that our oppo- nents have failed to establish their exclusive scheme of baptismal immersion from the above assumed allusions to this divine ordinance. 202 SECTION EIGHTH. THE IMMUTABLE NATURE OF SCRIPTURE PRECEDENTS. ' Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? ' Thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal ? Thou ' that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit 'adultery? Thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? ' Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law ' dishonourest thou God?' Rom. ii. 21-23. Our opponents, confidently assuming that their mode of baptism fully and minutely corresponds with that practised by the apostles of our Lord, contend that we should, on no account, depart in the smallest matters from the primitive model. — Dr. Gale says, ' I think it is clear, that nothing 'can be baptism which varies from Christ's institution.'^ — Mr. Dore affirms, that ' what is not commanded by ' Christ, or practised by his apostles, is virtually forbidden ' as will-worship.'- — Mr. Booth says, 'no additions should ' be made by human authority [or intervention] to the po- ' sitive appointments of Jesus Christ; and it is not lawful, ' under any pretence, either to corrupt or depart from the 'primitive institution of those appointments.' ' 'Except it ' be maintained that positive ordinances are to be entirely ' governed by positive law and primitive example, it is ira- ' possible for the Antipedobaptists to stand their ground by ' fair argument in various cases, when disputing with Pedo- ' baptists as such.'-* — Mr. Gibbs asserts, that ' the subjects ' as well as the mode must accord with the precept and 'practice of the New Testament: to alter either of these ' is to perform a new rite, and not the one which Christ ' has ordained. To plead for this practice, as some do, on ' the ground that what is not prohibited is lawful, is to ' open a wide door indeed for the admission of human in- ' ventions into the worship of God.'^ — Similar declarations might be cited from most Baptist writings. They assure ' p. G6. 2 Introd. p. 19. ^ Vol. i. p. 2G. 4 lb. p. 4G2 ; Apology, p. 378. 5 p. s, .j. THE IMMUTABLE NATURE, ETC. 203 US tliat a particular and unalterable adherence to what they denominate scripture precept and apostolical practice, is essential to the maintenance of their system. After what has been advanced, a refutation of this evidence might have been omitted, had it not been resolved to give their views of the mode of baptism a full, as well as a fair, investiga- tion. In contemplating this position, we shall argue on the principles of our opponents : and now solicit your attention to the following remarks: — I. Our opponents presume that they have clearly disco- vered the primitive practice, and now scrupulously copy it. But perhaps in this respect they display a little too much self-confidence. ' This ordinance,' says Mr. Burt, ' is laid ' down so plain in the sacred rule of scripture, that he who ' runs may read it. And it must be highly criminal for any ' man to say or suppose that the divine Lawgiver should ' leave that ordinance under any veil which must be admi- ' nistered in those awful names that are used in holy bap- ' tism. No serious Christian dares entertain so cruel a ' tliouglit of Jesus, our dear Redeemer, as that he should ' have so little love and value for his ministers, as to leave 'them at uncertainty in this important case.'^ — All this is very plausible and pious; but can our friends answer the following questions, which are far from frivolous? — I. Did the persons to be baptized walk into the water, or were they carried in by the baptizer, — that is, did they partly baptize themselves, or were they wholly baptized by the officiating minister ? For, in modern dipping, the mi- nister never baptizes the feet and legs of the subjects — this being done by themselves. Our opponents concede, that ' whether a person dips himself, or is dipped by another, ' has no more to do with the meaning of this word, than ' the name of the baptized person has.'- II. If the people walked into the water, to what depth did they go ? — up to the ancles, knees, middle, or neck? — 1 Treatise, p. IS. See Dr. Stennett, Part II. p. 4. 2 Carson, p. 114. 204 THE IMMUTABLE NATURE for now, many ministers dip little more than the head and shoulders of the candidates. III. Were the people baptized naked or dressed ? If dressed, was it partially or fully ? Were the men and women attired alike or differently — in their ordinary ap- parel, or in dresses made on purpose ? If the latter, were the men in black and the women in white, or not? Had they weights at the bottom of their garments, to make them sink into the water? — Brenner says, 'For sixteen ' hundred years was the person to be baptized either by ' immersion or affusion, entirely divested of his garments.'^ IV. Were the baptized plunged backward or forward? Were they immersed once, twice, or three times ? Were they dipped only, or also subsequently affused, as in the Greek, Abyssinian, and other eastern churches? Were they wetted only by a simple dipping, or washed by man- ual or other friction, as in some oriental communions? V. Did the disciples attend to the literal injunction of our Lord, by baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or only in the name of the Lord Jesus? If there be no instance where the rite was administered in the name of the adorable Trinity, " how do our oppo- nents, on their principles, justify the practice ? VI. Was there only one person employed to dip a con- vert, or was he assisted by others — especially when tlie minister was small and feeble, and the candidate stout, tall, and weighty? If dipped by the officiating officer, was he raised by him also? and if raised by him, how do they know it? for 'the word baptizo, even applied to baptism, expresses immersion only.'^ VII. Did they ever warm the water in cold seasons or countries ? Did they ever baptize the people privately ? Did they ever construct baptismal fonts? Did the minister ever dress in a particular garb for the occasion? Did he ever wear under garments, to keep out the water from his legs ? ' Stuart, p. 301. ^ Baptist Mag. vol. iv. p. 64. ' Carson, [). 153. OF SCRIPTURE PRECEDENTS. 205 VIII. "Was tlio mode invariably the same in all places ami for all persons — males and females — the delicate lady of the court and the rustic ploughman of the field — the sickly and the hale — the bed-ridden and the active ? — Were they all treated precisely in the same manner? IX. When persons were affected under a sermon, so as to cry for mercy, or confess their belief that Jesus was the Son of God, were they all baptized immediately — whether provided with proper dresses or not — whether ignorant of religion as a system or not? — Were they ever kept as cate- chumens and candidates for baptism for a month, or a year, or at all? X. Was the faith of discipleship or of salvation neces- sary ? Was an individual confession made before the church or congregation previous to baptism ? If so, in what did it consist? What was the nature and extent of the instruction required previous to receiving this ordinance? And who were the persons that judged in this case — the minister alone, or the people with him, or without him ? These questions might have been considerably enlarged, but can they be answered? If not, with what consistency can our opponents dilate so largely on scripture precedent, and the absolute necessity of a strict, individual, and unde- viating adherence to it, for a legitimate performance of this ceremony — when, in truth, they confessedly know not how it was originally understood and observed? Having no means of information on this subject which we do not pos- sess, are they inspired by Heaven to decide, at pleasure, what was formerly done and what now shall render their rite valid in the absence of sufficient data and unimpeach- able credentials? II. But though our opponents cannot answer the pre- ceding interrogatories, they still persist that the manner is, or ought to have been, as definitively settled as the Jewish ceremonies or the eucharist. Let us hear their own words : — ' Baptism is a positive institution of Christ, and, agree- ' ably to his infinite wisdom and goodness, he has expressed 206 THE IMMUTABLE NATURE ' himself in the most clear and explicit manner respecting ' both the mode and the subject of it.' ^ — ' Such laws admit ' of no commutation, mutilation, or alteration by human au- ' thority.'" — 'Baptism being a positive institution, as well ' as those ancient rites [of circumcision, sprinkling of blood, ' anointing with oil, and other Levitical ceremonies,] what ' reason can be assigned, if water should be applied to a ' particular part of the body, why that part was not men- ' tioned, either in the institution of the ordinance or in some ' apostolic example of its administration.' ^ — ' Circumcision ' was ordained, and every minutia of it expressly settled — ' so was the passover — so the Lord's supper. In like man- ' ner in baptism, every thing is clear, and we are not left to ' guess at the element to be made use of, or the form of ' words to be repeated on the occasion — all is express 'and explicit.'* — On these assertions a few observations are requisite. I. According to the above statements and deductions, the mode of baptism is expressed in the most clear and ex- plicit manner; and which is unquestionably to dip the whole body of the candidate under water and take it up again. But to whom is this mode so plain? Not to one in ten of the inhabitants of this empire. But if is as plain as the Levitical ceremonies under the law. This we deny ; since the Hebrews were, in many cases, restricted to spe- cific rules unknown to the ordinance of baptism, as will be proved hereafter. But then it ought to be as plain. But how do our opponents know this ? Surely God is the best judge how precisely he shall circumscribe his ordi- nances — whether the most ignorant and thoughtless should understand them as well as the intelligent and inquisitive. Is not this presuming to dictate to Infinite Wisdom how to prescribe laws and relate passing events ? Is it not ' direct- ' ing the Spirit of the Lord, and giving counsel to the ' Most High God ? ' ' S. Steniiett, Part II. p. 4. ' Maclean, vol. iii. p. 2 H. 3 Booth, vol. i. p. 9G, 97. * Jcnkiii's Def. p. 23. OF SCRIPTURE PRECEDENTS. '207 II. But we may inquire whether there are not other corresponding institutions of a like positive nature, in which Christ is equally remote from restricting the hands of his servants to minute and unvarying rules of action ? Several things might be referred to under the law, but we shall come to the gospel, and consider the duties of preach- ing and prayer. And, we ask, are these so expressly re- gulated by Christ in his commissions as to admit of no variety ? Were all the apostles commanded to preach ex- actly alike, as to matter and form ? Were they to preach only on stated days, or at any time? Were they to address their audiences in their ordinary apparel, or in some mi- nisterial robes ? Or might all these be diversified according to circumstances — such as of place, time, audience, and opportunity ? When they engaged in prayer, was it ac- cording to a particular form prescribed, in part or wholly ; or were they left to begin, continue, and end, according to their own discretion ? Were the character and the qualifi- cation of evangelists so settled that none but those minutely described should officiate? Were all those sent to preach, sent also to baptize ? If not, wherein lies the difference between a preaching and a baptizing minister? Was the erection of chapels, excavation of baptistries, and the like, enjoined or left to arise according as occasion should dic- tate? Let our brethren find, if they can, in these all- important institutions, the minute regulations which they plead for in respect of baptism. III. But they refer us to the Lord's supper, as contain- ing a specimen of explicit and immutable legislation. In reply, we ask them whether this sacrament is so verbally and positively fixed, that all must observe it exactly alike, or become culpable for deviating from the revealed will of the Legislator ? Hath Clirist so specified the time, place, posture, guests, form of words, the quality and quantity of the bread and wine, that no serious persons can ignorantly err respecting his intentions? Let our brethren also find, if they are able, in this sister sacrament, the minute regu- 208 THE IMMUTABLE NATURE lations tliey plead for in baptism. Further, did the Son of God intend the Lord's supper to be a symbolical or a pic- torial representation of his sufferings and death? If the former, as Dr. Gill asserts, i the precise mode must, in their view, be immaterial. If the latter, it is every way de- fective — for surely a stranger to Christianity, witnessing the administration of this sacrament for the first time, would never conclude that the ceremony was just like a person agonizing in a garden or dying upon a cross. And why might not baptism be rather a symbolical than a pic- torial representation of the great lessons it inculcates? IV. From these references it is manifest that our oppo- nents, with their notions, would find some difficulty in proving that the ordinance of baptism should be settled in every iota by the Institutor, or exemplified precisely by the apostles. When Dr. Jenkins talks of every thing being clear and explicit as the minutitE of circumcision, the passover, purification, and the eucharist, we naturally look for a confirmation of the sentiment; but behold, we are ' not left to guess at the element to be made use of or the 'form of words to be repeated on the occasion!' This is what we never disputed, and, therefore, the declaration merely serves to blind the eyes of ignorant people, by leading them to suppose that all other things are precisely settled in their favour by the Holy Spirit. When Mr. Booth asks, ' what reason can be assigned if water should be ap- ' plied to a particular part of the body, why that part was ' not mentioned or exemplified in practice?'- — we would reply, first, that our Baptist friends never apply water to the body, but the body to the water ; and, secondly, we would employ the language of a Menonite Baptist, who says, ' nor do I remember it is any where said, that the ' person baptized was covered with water or was put under 'it; and had this been the case, I can hardly think the ' scripture would have been entirely silent about it; but in ' some place or other it would have been expressly men- ' p. 218. 2 Vol. i. 1). 9(i, y". OF SCRIPTURE rRECEDENTS. 209 * tioned, especially if it be a circumstance of such import- *ance as some persons suppose and contend for.'i — Now, Mr. Booth -wonders, if water was to be applied to a par- ticular part of the body, why it was not mentioned; and ]Mr. Elliott wonders, if it were to be totally covered or dipped, why it was not recorded ; and perhaps one wonder is tantamount to the other, which is all we require. III. But let us for a moment suppose our opponents to be absolutely certain, that a mode similar to their own was generally or always observed by the harbinger and apostles of our Lord, is it necessary, with an undeviating scrupu- losity, to adhere to it now, in this and every other country where the gospel is preached? If so, it must arise from either explicit and positive enactments, or the inherent character of the ceremony. The latter we deny, and, being the topic in debate, it will not be received without com- petent evidence. If it follow from the nature of positive institutions generally, ought not all positive lavi^s to be thus interpreted? But do our brethren observe this rule? Are they not continually neglecting the performance of positive injunctions and the plainest examples of scripture — quite as positive and plain as their particular and exclusive mode of immersion-baptism ? We will prove this fact in several indisputable instances. I. Christ washed his disciples' feet at the feast of the passover and the institution of the sacrament, saying, ' If I ' then, your Lord and master, have washed your feet, ye 'also ought to wash one another's feet,' (John xiii. 14.) But this is neglected. ir. James, says, 'is any sick among you, let him call ' for the elders of the church — and let them pray over him, ' anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord,' (James v. 14, compare Mark vi. 13.) This is neglected. III. Paul enforces the kiss of charity — ' salute one ano- ' ther with an holy kiss, (Rom. xvi. 16,) greet one another ' with an holy kiss, (1 Cor. xvi. 20,) greet all the brethren ' Elliott's Dipping not Baptizing. s 5 210 THE IMMUTABLE NATURE ' with an lioly kiss,' (1 Tiiess. v. 26.) Peter, says, 'greet 'one another with a kiss of charity,' (1 Peter v. 14.) This also is neglected ; as are the feasts of charity men- tioned by Jude, (v. 12.) IV. When the Lord's supper was instituted and the model of its observance first given, it was on a Thursday evening, in a large upper room, with only eleven or twelve communicants, all of them males, after eating the passover, with unleavened bread, and in a reclining posture, (Luke xxii. 7-20.) Are these rules observed? V. Our Lord and his disciples observed the seventh day of the week previous to his passion, and his disciples kept the seventh as well as the first afterwards. Nor have we any command for making an alteration, (Luke iv. 16; Acts xvii. 2.) Do our opponents proceed in the same manner ? VI. We are commanded by the apostles, assembled at Jerusalem, to abstain from things strangled and from blood, (Acts xv. 20, 29.) But do not most of our brethren par- take, more or less, of these prohibited eatables ? VII. The primitive Christians had all things in common, (Acts iv. 32.) Why do not the opulent members of the Baptist communion adopt a similar practice ? Surely their poor communicants would highly approve of the plan ! VIII. Poor Christian widows, when sixty years of age, were supported by the voluntary contributions of the church, and deacons were appointed to serve their tables and minister to their daily necessities. Acts vi. 1-4; 1 Tim. v. 3-10.) But where is this law observed by our brethren? IX. When people first heard the word of God, and con- fessed their belief in Christ as the true Messiah, whether truly converted or not, they were all baptized without the least delay, (Acts ii. 41; viii. 12, 37, 38; x. 47, 48; xvi. 33.) Is this precedent followed ? X. Whenever the apostles baptized a person at the head of his family, they invariably baptized his ( oihos) children OF SCRIPTURE PRECEDENTS. 211 also, (Acts xvi. 15, 23, Src.) Do our opponents in Eng- land, India, or elsewliere, follow tliis apostolical example .' Whence then arises all the parade about an undeviating adherence to primitive example and positive law? Let our friends be consistent or silent, whichever they please; or, as one of them says on another occasion, 'if this is their ' supposed warrant, why do they not keep exactly to the ' rule of that commission ? ' ^ IV. But our opponents are not only inconsistent by omitting many things they know to have been enjoined or practised — they also perform various others of a sacred nature, or associated with their religious worship, for which they find no examples, nor can justly plead the least divine authority. Let us propose a few more appropriate ques- tions, for the purpose of confirming the trutli of our as- sertion : — I. What express precept or precedent have our oppo- nents, in the New Testament, for erecting chapels, with pews and pulpit — for employing choirs, organs, and other instruments of music- — for singing hymns of human and uninspired composition — and for their particular mode of ministering in holy things ? II. What express precept or precedent have our es- teemed brethren for administering the Lord's supper weekly or monthly — for using leavened bread and port wine — and for admitting females to participate in this communion ? III. What precept or precedent have they in the New Testament for 'uniting with the parents of a neiv-horn ' child, in reading some portion of scripture on the occasion ' — returning thanks to the Giver of all good, and recom- ' mending the infant to God in earnest prayer' '^ — in fact, for performing all the parts of baptism, except applying the water ?■* IV. What express precept or precedent have they for 1 Burt, p. 25. 2 See Booth, vol. ii. p. 2G1-2G4. ~' Uooth, vol. ii. p 3-i3. ■• See New Evang. Mag. vol. ix. p. 173. 212 THE IMMUTABLE NATURE baptizing tlie adult offspring of parents who were nominal Christians or believers, indeed, at the time of their chil- drens' birth or infancy? V. What command or example do they plead for digging baptistries in their chapels or near them — for making them water-proof — with steps to descend — with wells, pumps, and shoots, to fill them — and with sewers under, to drain off the water after baptism ? VI. What divine authority do they plead for raakhig dresses peculiar to the occasion — black, for the men and white for the women — with leads at the bottom, to make them sink, and thereby avoid an exposure of the person — or for ' deacons using wands, to press the floating clothes ' beneath the water ? ' VII. What precept or precedent is pleaded for the minis- ters using a different robe in baptizing than in preaching — for wearing, like the late Dr. Ryland, mud or boat- men's boots made of leather, water-proof, and reaching above the middle — or for singing hymns, praying, and de- livering orations at baptism ? VIII. What precedent have our opponents for employing women with cloaks, to throw over the heads and shoulders of the ladies who come up out of the water, to hide the clip- ness of their clothes from appearing to the crowd — or for standing between the baptized and the congregation, and hurrying them, breathless, into the adjoining rooms? IX. What divine authority do they bring for warming the water in the baptistry — for having double vestries, with a fire in each — for placing tubs in them, to receive the wet clothes — and for giving the baptized wine or spirits and water, to cheer their spirits or prevent a chill? X. What precedent have they for dipping a person once rather than thrice — or, when a first dipping is not absolute and entire submersion, for dipping him a second time till wholly under water ? Not to particularize further, we have shown you that our opponents do many things, even in the rite before us, OF SCRIPTURE PRECEDENTS. 213 for which they can plead neither precept nor example, and consequently, that their baptism, on their own principles, is invalid ; for they assure us, that ' nothing is or can be a 'part of Christian worship which is not recommended either 'by precept or example in the Holy Scriptures' i — that ' to go beyond or come short of what is expressly noted in ' the scriptures of truth, with respect to a positive institute, ' is to set aside the institution itself, and to practise a ' human rite ' - — that ' in the worship of God, nothing ' therein as worship is to be admitted without some plain ' and express word, by precept or practice, to warrant the ' same out of the New Testament'-' — and that ' as nothiuc/ ' should be excluded from the worship of God which Christ ' hath appointed, so nothinc) should be added by human ' authority : he alone, as legislator of his own kingdom, ' can alter or annul what he hath himself commanded. To ' interfere with the economy of things established in his ' church, is to be wise above what is written, and to invade • the prerogatives of his office, who is head over all things ' to his church, which is his body, the fulness of him who 'fillethallin all.'^ V. The only attempt at vindicating these innovations must be founded on one or both of the following pro- positions : — I. ' That the manners and customs of our age and coun- ' try require all those precautions and conveniencies.' But while any denomination of believers, except the Baptists, might fairly plead this argument — in their mouths, and following the fore-cited passages — it becomes inconsistent in the extreme ; since they profess to act, not on deduc- tions drawn from scripture, but on a strict and unvarying adherence to its primitive forms and ceremonies. Be- sides, they make many additions, alterations, and omis- sions, which the change of climate and customs by no means renders necessary. For instance — what has the ' Pearce, p. 11. See Maclean, vol. i. p. 119. ^ Paice's Semi. p. S. 3 D'Anxxr'a lunoc. p. 66, 07. -• Gibbs, p. 233. 214 THE IMMUTABLE NATURE change of climate or mariners of the people to do with the administration of the Lord's supper, as to place, time, element, sex, or posture? What have the climate and customs to do with the kiss and feasts of charity, anointing the sick with oil, observing the seventh day of the week, eating blood or things strangled, and having all things in common ? What have the climate and customs to do with baptizing immediately on conviction — supporting aged Christian widows — and a dozen other things which might be enumerated? If they still contend that the climate and customs of the age and country make these alterations prudent and essential, we will answer in the language of Mr. Booth — ' So, then, the voice of national decency is to ' be heard and the force of local customs is to be felt in the ' administration of a divinely positive rite, even though the ' will of the Tnstitutor be the sole ground of this institu- 'tion.'^ — If our opponents consider any rite specifically enjoined by Christ, or precisely administered by the apos- tles, on their own principles, they are bound to observe it exactly in the same manner. That they are inconsistent with themselves, and act contrary to the professions they are constantly making, we have fully established : and if a deviation in many cases is allowable, as in preaching, and prayer, and the Lord's supper, why not in baptism itself? And if our good friends make so many omissions, altera- tions, and appendages to this ordinance, how can they honestly complain of us for going, as they deem it, a little further than themselves? And with what propriety are they continually assailing us and their people with their doctrine of positive institutions and the immutable nature of scripture precedents ? II. It is answered, 'that the things enumerated above ' are merely circumstantial and indifferent.'- But how do our opponents know that the precise mode of applying water to the baptized, is not equally a mere circumstance of baptism? That they have not proved the action of total > Vol. iii. p. IIS, 119. 2 Booth, vol. i. p. 12.i-12S. OF SCRIPTURE PRECEDENTS, 215 immersion an essential and inherent part of scripture bap- tism, lias been sufficiently demonstrated ; and for ought tliey have adduced to the contrary, their dipping may be as much a circumstance as the other ceremonies invariably introduced by them, and which are requisite to the per- formance of this rite as administered in their communion. They first arbitrarily assume, and then fearlessly assert, that to baptize is to dip the whole body, and that dipping is the essence of the sacrament. Consequently, all the preparations, accompaniments, and appendages, are mere incidents varied at will. But let them verify the justice of their assumption, before they draw such a sheltering con- clusion. Besides, how can they, on their principles of in- terpreting positive laws and institutions, prove that such circumstantials are not objectionable in the sight of God? If 'what is not commanded by Christ or practised by his ' apostles, is virtually forbidden as will-worship ; ' ^ and ' if ' scripture forbids what it does not mention,'- as our oppo- nents contend, they are no more warranted in their addi- tions or alterations than the Roman Catholics are in the most superstitious branches of their worship; and the latter might, with equal propriety, plead that all their cere- monies were but mere incidents and circumstantials of their service : and if ' to come short of what is noted in the ' scriptures of truth, with respect to a positive institution, ' is to set aside the institution itself,' ^ our brethren are as guilty, in many cases before mentioned, as they can con- ceive us to be for not dipping our converts : besides, acting in opposition to their avowed principles. Indeed, one of their most intelligent and respectable advocates says, ' that ' what is performed as an act of worship or a religious ' duty, if it has not the authority of scripture, is sinful ' and of a bad tendency.''* VI. "We have now examined all the material evidence adduced by our opponents in support of their exclusive ' Core's Introd. p. ly. ^ Booth, vol. ii. p. IC. 3 Pearce, p. S. ■• S. Stcnnctt, Part II. p. IGS. 216 THE IMMUTABLE NATURE, ETC. system of immersion, which they pronounce not only scrip- tural, but the only valid mode of baptism. From what has been advanced, we consider it indubitably established, that they have not proved, and cannot maintain, their point — that their mode of baptism is supported by partial evidence, distorted facts, illegitimate deductions, and so- phistical reasonings — and which, when fairly investigated, prove no better than the baseless fabric of a vision, that vanishes on opening our eyes and exercising our rational faculties. In the language of the late Rev. R. Watson, a Wesleyan minister of great respectability and penetration, we say, 'it is satisfactory to discover that all ' the attempts made to impose upon Christians a practice ' repulsive to the feelings, dangerous to the health, and ' offensive to delicacy, is destitute of all scriptural autho- ' rity, and of really primitive practice.' ^ To conclude. The foregoing refutation of all the argu- ments adduced by Baptist writers against affusion baptism and in support of immersion, will enable you to appreciate, according to their real merits, the rash and sweeping as- sertions on this subject so frequently ventured by some of our over-zealous and superficially instructed adversaries. They triumphantly aver that we have nothing to advance in opposition to their practice, nor in favour of our own — that we rebel against the light, by not sanctioning and submitting to their mode of baptism— that we act under the influence of selfishness and fear — and that, consequently, it is questionable whether we shall ever be accepted of God. By such clap-trap means they work on the inex- perience of the novice — the apprehensions of the timid — and the expectations of the credulous ; hut by which they are unlikely to captivate those who have fairly and fully investigated the subject, and who feel resolved to abide by tlie truth as it is in Christ Jesus. ' Theol. Inst. vol. iii. p. l-M. 217 PART SECOND. ■\VE SHALL ADDUCE A VARIETY OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT OURS IS THE ONLY PROPER MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. It has been sliowu, we hope, to your entire satisfaction, that the testimonies adduced by our opponents, in favour of their exclusive scheme of immersion baptism, are fatally defective — and that consequently their cause is lost. Our object at present is to convince you that pouring or sprink- ling, or applying the element to the object, is the only valid method of administering this Christian sacrament. (1 .) In the prosecution of our inquiry we shall be as plain and concise as the nature of the subject will fairly admit. Occasional repetitions, however, in controversies of this nature are often unavoidable ; the same or similar evi- dence and arguments are frequently necessary for the es- tablishment of distinct and even dissimilar propositions. Hence, though our preceding remarks have been entirely devoted to the overthrow of our opponents' scheme, and while our subsequent observations must be chiefly directed to the establishment of our own ; yet much that has been already advanced might have been arranged under this second head of discourse — and a considerable part of what will yet be adduced might have been brought forward in the preceding discussion. In a subject of this extensive and diversified nature such a method could not be conve- niently avoided. (2.) We beg to remind you that the question at issue between us and our esteemed brethren, is not which of us performs the ceremony of baptism in the better or more scriptural manner — but which of us is only or exclusively right. For if our respective modes are as opposite as ap- plying the person to the vrater, and ajoplying the water to 218 PREFATORY REMARKS. tlie person — both cannot be scriptural, and therefore not valid. — ' If,' says Dr. Jenkins, ' the words of the apostle, ' (Eph. iv. 5,) are to be regarded, there can be but one ' baptism, as but one faith. So that dipping or sprinkling ' must be the true mode. Both cannot be true.'^ — Our op- ponents assert that they are exclusively right, and that we are altogether in the wrong. — ' I affirm,' says Mr. Burt, ' without presumption, that sprinkling or pouring water on ' the face, is not baptism.' " — Dr. Gale says, ' they who are ' not duly baptized [that is, plunged under water] are cer- ' tainly not baptized at all.' ^— Z)?*. Gill says, ' baptism must ' be performed by immersion, without which it cannot be 'baptism.''* — Mr. Daniell tells us, that ' the mode is the ' ordinance, and cannot be separated from it. If you im- ' merse you baptize, if you sprinkle you do not baptize at ' all — and, therefore, if I give up the mode of immersion, * I, at the same time, give up the ordinance itself.'^ — Mr. Keach observes, 'that cannot be true baptism, wherein ' there is not, cannot be, a lively representation of the ' death, burial, and resurrection, of Jesus Christ.'^ — We, on the other hand, feel no hesitation in asserting, with equal confidence, that dipping, plunging, or immersing a person into the water, is not scripture baptism, and that if a precise conformity to scripture precept and apostolical example be requisite to constitute a valid performance of a positive institution, as our opponents assert, it is not baptism at all— and that all our opponents, who have not been afFused or aspersed with water in the name of the Trinity, are still unbaptized — nor will they have complied with the divine injunction till they have received the ordi- nance in this scriptural manner. (3.) The terms, ' circumstantial evidence,' employed in the present proposition, may be thought by some to con- cede a consciousness of invalidity in our argument. ' Give ' us,' say they, ' direct testimony in support of your prac- > C. R. !>. \2. 2 Treatise, p. 2(5. 3 P. 67. •• P. -111. 5 P. 18. •; P. :;is. PREFATORY REMARKS. 219 ' tice, and we will place confidence in the strength of your 'positions.' But, let it be remarked, that our opponents have adduced no direct evidence in maintenance of immer- sion — unless their mere assertions respecting the word baptize be of this description. Excepting these unfounded and gratuitous declarations, all the testimony they profess to bring is as much circumstantial as v/hat we propose to lay before you. They have adduced no case from scripture, in which it is unequivocally said the baptized were abso- lutely put under water and taken out again in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. They simply infer that if a person is 'baptized in a place of much water, he must * be plunged into it.'^ That our Lord's coming up out of the water, 'is a circumstance strongly in favour of baptism 'by immersion.'- They think it natural to suppose that the Eunuch was immersed, from the circumstances of the case ; ^ but they have no direct proof for it. John's bap- tizing in Enon, because there was much water there, is the plainest instance they can exhibit in support of dipping ; and yet this is allowed to be only a presumptive proof. * And so of every other case, and every other judicious op- ponent. ' That the baptized person is not to lie at the ' bottom, but to rise up out of the water, we learn not ' from the word, but from the accounts of the ordinance — ' whether the thing is taken up or is allowed to remain, is ' not expressed by the word, but is implied by the cir- ' cumstances.' ^ The fact is, that no intelligent person, acquainted with the precise nature of this controversy, and supporting his respective opinion in a candid and feasible manner, can have recourse to any other species of argu- mentation. As there is no certainty obtainable, respecting the mode of this sacrament, but from the circumstances of its primitive administration ; and as these, when fairly examined, will clearly settle the question at issue, we shall apply ourselves to these alone. ' Gill, p. 205. 2 Ibid, on Matt. iii. 16. 3 ibid. p. 213; Anderson, p. 10. •" Gill, p. 210, 241. 5 Carson, p. 114, 116. See p. 62. 220 PREFATORY REMARKS. (4.) It should be remembered, too, as previously no- ticed, that the mode of baptism is not the only subject which cannot be fully understood except from circumstantial evidence. The precise form in which Christian worship was conducted, the exact method in which the Lord's sup- per was administered, the composition of the apostolic churches — their members, officers, modes of admission, and manner of expulsion — with many similar topics, must be learned by carefully examining such hints and circum- stances as the New Testament gives us, and by making appropriate deductions from them. Those who contend for a contrary principle, evince more zeal than sense in their observations. The primitive Christians ascertained perfectly all those matters by the employment of their senses ; but we can do so only, and often imperfectly, by drawing inferences from various incidental remarks. The inspired writers did not minutely define those gospel ordi- nances, conscious that the persons immediately addressed, either from what they saw, or from the general directions contained in their writings, must understand them cor- rectly. They, also, probably presumed, that those who should succeed the existing race of believers, through all subsequent ages, would readily gather from their prede- cessors what were the rules and arrangements first esta- blished by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And had not the early and following churches departed from the plans laid down by the apostles, we should have learnt, in the easiest and clearest manner — merely by the use of our senses — how all these things were to be observed. But as the devices of men soon darkened and deranged the systems of heaven, we are compelled, in more cases than most people imagine, to investigate and infer from obscure and contracted data, what we are to do in order to comply with the will of God. This, as our opponents know, is an operation which often requires much research, reflection, and care; but which, conducted with caution and candour, will be generally found adequate for all prac- PREFATORY REMARKS. 221 tical purposes. That the mode of baptism is not exempt from such obscurities, and must be learnt from examina- tions and deductions, will be apparent to all intelligent inquirers. (5.) But before we come to the more direct discussion of our subject, it will be proper to observe that we are not contending for a circumstantially precise and unvarying mode of baptism. We have defined our method to be * pouring, sprinkling, or otherwise applying the element 'to the candidate,' in opposition to 'dipping, immersing, * or otherwise applying the candidate to the element'' — modes as opposite to each other as liglit is opposed to darkness. We are not so supercilious as to argue that the water must be poured and not sprinkled, or sprinkled and not poured ; or that some definite quantity must be used ; or that it must be applied to some particular part of the body exclusively — because, on these points, the scriptures are unquestionably silent — and, tlierefore, it does not become us to be wise above what is written, nor to determine, respecting this or any other institution, what God has wisely and graciously left to the judgment or cir- cumstances of his people. That the mode universally prevalent among our opponents is unscriptural, we con- scientiously believe ; and that the method generally re- garded by Pedobaptists is true and complete, we are equally confident. In prosecuting our future inquiries, we shall observe the following arrangement : — I. The contradictions and difficulties of our opponents. II. The frequent application of the word baptize. III. The mode of baptism among the Jews. IV. Several instances of scripture baptism. V. The numbers baptized by John andChrisfs disciples. VI. The baptism of the Holy Ghost. VII. The numerous difftcidties attending immersion. VIII. The danger of dipping in many cases. T 5 222 SECTION FIRST. THE CONTRADICTIONS AND DIFFICULTIES OF OUR OPPONENTS. 'And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but ' considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye ? Or how wilt ' thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine ' eye ; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hj^pocrite, ' first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt 'thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.' Matt. vii. 3-5. Although this particular has not a direct reference to the point at which we are aiming, yet it will indirectly aid our cause, by weakening that of our opponents, and by meeting an objection they have frequently brought against us. They would make us believe that their doctrine is so plainly es- tablished, and the evidence by which it is upheld so simple and tangible, that he who runs may read it, and that the way-faring man, though a fool, will easily arrive at their conclusions. They also affirm, that in supporting our sys- tem, there is so much difficulty, labour, management, and contradiction displayed, that people of ordinary capacities cannot comprehend our arguments ; while superior minds must detect our sophistry, and should disentangle them- selves from the ensnaring influence of our communion. The author of 'Antipedobaptisra and Female Communion ' Consistent,' has the following remark: — 'On what priu- ' ciple, honourable to Pedobaptism, and to the literary ' character of its defenders, can any one account for the ' numerous inconsistencies that subsist among themselves?' ' 'Another objection,' says Mr. Gibbs, 'to the theory of in- ' fant baptism, is the contrariety of opinion which exists ' among those who yet most cordially espouse its general ' principles. This implies a deficiency of scripture evi- ' Page 02. CONTRADICTIONS AKD DIFFICULTIES, ETC. 223 * deuce to guide their decisions, as well as a want of scrip- ' tural law to regulate tlieir practice : nor is this an un- bounded assertion; for though they all agree in the 'general conclusion, that infant baptism is necessary, it is ' well known that they differ materially as to the premises ' from which they draw this conclusion ; and that they flatly ' contradict each other as to many particulars connected ' with this ceremony. So palpable is this difference of ' opinion in the history of the present controversy, that we ' frequently find the most expert and zealous defenders of ' Pedobaptisra, not only admitting the great facts from ' which we reason, but strenuously opposing and labori- ' ously disproving the principles laid down by some of ' their own party.' ^ This sentiment is frequently broached in the writings of the Baptists ; - and it proceeds on the supposition that their system is free from similar incon- sistencies, and their writers from those perplexities which they find or fancy among us. Now we think it may be easily perceived, from what we shall lay before you, that our brethren have also a vast many difficulties, and that the writings, issued in defence of their scheme, are pregnant with contradictions and con- trivances — sufficient, indeed, to prove that their cause can- not be upheld without a great deal of trouble. They not only debate with the advocates of affusion, but also strive among themselves, in no very measured terms of respect. One instance may be here noticed, out of many, that might be exhibited. Mr. Carson roundly chastises the ignorance and errors of Drs. Cox,^ Cambell,* and Gale,^ and Mr. Robinson, their learned historian. ^ Their laboured pub- lications, some of which were not elicited by the attacks of Pedobaptists, display toil and research equal to any thing adduced against them, and develope contradictions un- 1 p. 2o3. See ^^laclean, v. iii. p. 227. 2 Booth, vol. i. 1). 226 ; vol. ii. p. 212-220, 4S7-5I2. ■» P. 70, 142. 5 P. 2, 3, 2G, 41, 44, 48. « P. 6, 7, 75 224 CONTRADICTIONS AND DIFFICULTIES known to our side of the question. A few specimens will place this assertion in a clear point of view. I. Their contradictions respecting the word baptize. I. They affirm, as you have heard, in the most positive language, that this term signifies always and only to dip or immerse a person or thing entirely. — Let them speak for themselves: — Robinson: 'To baptize is to dip.'^ — Gale: ' I do not remember a passage where all other senses are ' not necessarily excluded besides dipping.^ I have abun- ' dantly proved, from the Old Testament, that the significa- ' tion of the word is always to dip^ — and only to dip.* It is ' as good sense to say a man is dipped when only a drop ' or two of water falls upon him, as to say he is baptized ' when he is sprinkled.^ It is a mistake to suppose that ' words have more than one signification ; and words and ' sentences are probably never to be understood but in their 'literal sense.'*' — UAnvers: ^ Baptizo, in plain English, ' is nothing but to dip, plunge, or cover all over.' ' — Pearce: 'It may be asserted, that it is never used in the ' Bible to express any thing short of a total covering or uni- ' versal application.' ^ — Jenkins : ' We maintain that bap- ' tizo always signifies to dip the whole body. 9 In baptism, ' it is the act of immersion, not the quantity of water, that 'is contended ior. ' ^^-^Booth : 'The word baptize in this ' dispute denotes an action required by divine law ; and ' the simple question is, what is that action ? ' ^^ — Rees : ' Immersion, I hope, does not consist in wetting, but in 'dipping.' 12 — Carson: ' ^fl_p^'~''» ^^'^^^Y^ signifies to dip, ' never expressing any thing but mode. — The word, with- ' out one exception, signifies simply to dip. — Bapto sig- ' nifies to dip—baptizo to cause to dip. — Bapto not only ' necessary implies mode, but literally expresses nothing ' but mode. — The word bapto never signifies to wet. — The ' word does not signify to wash in any manner. — The most I Hist. p. 132. 2 p. 78. 3 p. Hs. J P. IJO. ^ p. i;r. 6 p. 90. ' p. 182. » P. IG. •■' C. R. }). 56. ") Def. p. 108. " Vol. iii. p. 2G5. 12 P. 119. OF BAPTIST WRITERS. 2'2i) ' complete wetting by dew or rain is not dipping literally. ' If we would fairly meet this passage, we must show, not 'merely that Nebuchadnezzar was completely wetted, but ' that a wetting in one mode may be figuratively designated 'by the words that properly denote a wetting in another ' mode. — The pouring is not the baptism, though the ' Spirit was poured out, that they might be baptized in it. ' — In no language under heaven can one word designate ' two modes.' ^ II. They affirm, with equal plainness, that the terra in question means other and opposite modes of action. — Gale : ' The word baptize, perhaps, does not so necessarily ' express the action of putting under water, as in general a ' thing being in that condition, no matter how it comes so, ' whether it is put into the water, or the water comes upon ' it.- We readily grant there may be such circumstances ' in some cases, which necessarily and manifestly show the 'thing spoken of is not said to be dipped all over.'^ — He acknowledges that in Ecclus. xxxiv. 25, it is used for sprinkling as well as bathing.-* This is confirmed by Mr. Rees.'^ — Rijland : 'Almost all words, through the 'poverty of language, are used in different senses.'^ He admits that Origen, referring to Elijah's wetting the wood, mentioned in 1 Kings xviii, 32, 35, has employed the word for pouring J— Booth : ' A person may, indeed, be ' so surrounded with subtle effluvia — a liquid may be so ' poured~ot it may so distil upon him — that he may be ' as if immersed ! ' ^ — Anderson : ' Baptism represents the ' effects of God's operation on the mind, rather than the 'way in which his agency is exerted.' 9 — Jenkins: ' Bap- 'tismmay fairly express the state of the disciples when ' overwhelmed with the Spirit, though the Spirit fell upon ' them.' ^0 — Reach : ' Though the baptism of the Spirit was ' by pouring forth of the Spirit, yet they were overwhelmed ' p. 44, IIG, 106, 28, 12, 08, 2r, 129, 99. 2 p. gg. 3p. nS, 114. 1 P. 119. 5 p. 120. G App. p. 19. 7 lb. p. 15. 8 Vol. i. p. 97. 9 Intr. p. 36. '« C. R. p. 22. 226 CONTRADICTIONS AND DIFFICULTIES ' or immersed with it ; like as dust may be poured upon a * dead corpse until it is covered all over or quite buried ' therein.' ^ If you pour water on a child until it is covered ' all over in water, it may be truly said, that the child was ' buried in water,' - [or baptized.] — Cox : ' A person may ' indeed be immersed [that is, baptized] by means oi potir- ' ing, but immersion is being plunged into water or over- ' whelmed by it.^ The word baptize here (Dan. iv. 33) ' does not imply the manner in which the elFect was pro- ' duced, but the effect itself — not the mode by which the ' body of the king was wetted ; but its condition, as result- ' ing from its exposure to the dew of heaven. This is the ' very idiom of all language ; as we say he was burnt or ' drowned — the effect is simply expressed, without any re- ' ference to the mode.* The promise of Joel (ch. ii. 28, 29) ' refers to the whole of the communication and its results, ' and not to the mode of that communication.'^ — Carson: ' Bapto, in its secondary sense, is employed literally and * properly to denote dyeing, even when there is no dipping ' — it signifies dyeing in any manner. — Bapto signifies to 'dye by sprinkling as properly as by dipping — and that ' literally. — Washing away of sin is the thing which bap- ' tisra always signifies. — The words wash, stain, and wet, ' assert nothing of mode, as they may be accomplished by ' dipping, pouring, or sprinkling. — The influence of the ' Spirit when come, not the coming of the Spirit, is bap- * tism.- — There is no real or literal baptism of the Spirit. — ' Baptism is a washing, because it is an immersion in pure ' water. — The word haptien is employed when only a part ' of an object is dipped.' ^ On these citations few comments are requisite. The action, which is the entire topic of debate, is totally sur- rendered—therefore dipping is not essential to baptism. The word baptize is allowed to mean pouring and sprink- ling, as well as immersing; and to express an effect pro- > p. 4. 2 p. 26. 3 p. 9-1. ^ p. 41. 5 p. 92. « r. 43, 41, 197, 9U, 126, 119, 23, 18. OF BAPTIST WRITERS. 227 iluced or die condition in which a thing may be, no matter how it becomes so. The parade about the quantity of water is absurd, since the word baptize, in this dispute, involves only the action, and not the nature or abundance of the baptizing element, as they repeatedly assure us ; while the impropriety of employing the terms overwhelming and im- mersing as synonymous, must be apparent to all intelligent persons. Carson talks of God's 'baptizing the earth at the 'flood' — and 'immersing the mountains in water,' i But were the earth and mountains actually dipped into the flood? In a word, the contradictions we have noticed are self- evident and of great importance. Hence, you perceive, that when our opponents are pressed, they yield up every position they desire to hold ; and which surrender is, of course, fatal to their arguments. — 'I cannot forbear ob- ' serving,' says Mr. Booth, 'in the words of a great genius, " how happy it is to have to do with people that will talk "pro and con! By this means you furnished me with all " I wanted, which was to make you confute yourselves."'" II. Their contrivances for a decent and proper adminis- tration of baptism in the days of John and by the Saviour's disciples. We shall mention only three instances. I. "When the indelicacy of dipping the multitudes that came to John's baptism in the open air and in a large river is objected to our opponents' scheme, they inquire, ' Is it ' incredible that in a country where tents were, there should ' be so great a number hearing John and no tents for re- 'freshment and rest? And if there were tents, M'hy not ' some in which the men and others in which the women 'dressed and undressed ?3 Their clothes in that climate ' were neither numerous nor burdensome.'* — A very com- fortable contrivance, to be sure, narrated in the plainest terms by the evangelists and understood by our brethren without the use of those reprobated things — reasoning, in- ference, and analogy! Perhaps, after all, they had only the same kind of tents which the multitudes that followed 1 p. 5. 2 Vol. ii. p. 511. 3 Jenkins's C. R. p. CO ■> lb. Djf. p. 21. 228 CONTRADICTIONS AND DIFFICULTIES Christ enjoyed, when they sat by hundreds and fifties in ranks or companies on the green grass, and took refresh- ment under the wide-spreading canopy of heaven. (See Matt. xiv. 19; xv. 35, 36— Mark vi. 40.) II. When the difficulty of dipping with decency the three thousand baptized on the day of Pentecost is urged upon thera, we are told, ' they might have been dipped in Be- ' thesda, where the porches were so convenient for dressing ' and undressing :' ^ and, to lessen the labour of the twelve apostles, seventy auxiliary dippers are introduced — all at work at once in this said pool.^ Passing over the assumptive character of this argument, we are to suppose that there were eighty-two people, old men and matrons, young men and maidens, dressing and undressing with all possible despatch, at the same moment, in these five porches, or about sixteen in each. Whether the difficulty of the case is in any measure removed by this supposition, you are left to determine. We have no hesitation in saying it is not. — Further, this must have been a most unsuitable place for baptizing, if Dr. Hammond's notion be correct, and which our opponents can more easily deny than disprove. He says, 'the waters of this pool became medicinal by being ' impregnated with a healing warmth from the blood and ' entrails of the sacrificed beasts that were washed there.' ^ Nor is the opinion generally received much more favourable to the notion of our antagonists; which is, that 'the sheep ' were washed in this pool before they were offered in sa- 'crifice:' by which it must have been rendered unfit 'for ' purification for religious purposes.' -^ — This unfitness will be still more palpable, if you consider that fair and pure water was essential to this ordinance among the ancient Christians.^ HI. When the Jailor and his family were baptized, our brethren discover all requisite conveniences for the solemn occasion. They say, ' as there is a river spoken of (Acts "lb. C. R. p, (51. "■ lb. Def. p. 119. Sec J. Stonnctt, p. 123. ■' On .lohn v. 1. * Calmct's Dift. Frag. No. LXVI. ^ Kecs, p. 12G, 17S; Gale. n. IK!. OF BAPTIST -WRITERS. 229 'xvi. 13) to which Lydia and others had resorted for ' prayer, no doubt there was a house by the river, in which ' their devotions were celebrated ; and no place could be ' more convenient for the administration of baptism, by im- ' mersion, than that river, with the convenience of that ' house.' ^ — Of this opinion, also, is Dr. Gill.- — So the Jailor took his poor prisoners, washed their stripes, and let them out of prison — of course under a strong escort — and then he took his wife and children out of their warm beds at midnight, and, with second suits of clothes under their arms, away they all went through the streets, proba- bly filled with people frightened by the earthquake (Acts xvi. 26), till they came to the city-gate, which was soon unbolted, and out they passed and proceeded to the river (v. 13.) Then they went into this house, and shifted their dresses in the dark, or the turnkey held a light. Then Paul, or his companion, or both, walked into the water — then the Jailor came out and was plunged — then his wife followed and was plunged— and then came out their family and were plunged — the turnkey still holding his torch. Then they all went back into the house — took off their wet clothes, which they wrung, tied in bundles — wiped themselves dry — put on their usual apparel — returned to the city — entered the great gate — and soon reached the gaol. Then the Governor gave his prisoners some victuals — conducted them to their cell — and locked the door upon them. Then the Jailor and his family went to bed, and slept in peace. All this, on the principles of Drs. Jenkins and Gill, must have occurred in the space of an hour — and just in the order now enumerated!! Mr. Carson, however, gets over the difficulty with much less trouble. He forms a sylogism, and arrives at a safe deduction : ' The Jailor ' and his household were baptized, therefore they were ' immersed!' ^ III. Their polemical management and manoeuvrings. Under this head we shall comprehend several instances, ' Jenkin's Def. p. 118. = p. 4ci_ ggg Ryland, p. 11. ' P. 203. U 230 CONTRADICTIONS AND DIFFICULTIES wliich will prove that our opponents are not totally ex- empt from embarrassment while advocating their immer- sion-baptism. I. When advantage may be taken of the blunders and unguarded expressions of Pedobaptists, they set to work with all their powers and persevering abilities — con over the dusty pages of numerous writers — extract a line or two here and a paragraph there, and then string them together in a book — and rise from the employment with the satis- faction and delight of a complete triumph. Of this, the works of Messrs. Keach, D'Anvers, and Booth, and a host of feeble imitators, are an abundant proof. But when we attempt to strengthen our positions, by a similar process, our brethren, with much gravity, assure us, ' that however ' great and honourable the patrons of a mistake may be, ' they are but men ; and the authority of Christ, and the ' respect and obedience we owe to his commandments, ' should counterbalance all other considerations.' ^ II. If a close and constant adherence to the letter of the Bible is thought prudent for carrying a point, we are told that 'the gospel alone is our rule of action- — that the New • Testament must be the only rule by which we are to pro- ' ceed in our enquiries on this subject ^ — that we should ' have no other rule of faith and judge of controversies be- ' sides the sacred Word of God — for, if we admit any other, ' we directly give up our cause, and expose ourselves to all ' the impositions and inconveniences which are the inse- ' parable attendants of popery"* — that baptism is a positive 'rite: analogy and presumptive reasoning may be used ' in matters that are not positive — but, as far as a duty is ' positive, we must keep close to the letter of the law : ana- ' logy has nothing to do with it^ — that their principle is as ' follows : — A divine precept or an apostolical precedent is ' absolutely necessary to authorize the performance of any 'branch of ritual worship^ — that if we once admit the » Gale, p. 178. 2 Robinson, p. 574. ^ Dore's In trod. p. 10. * Gale, p. 180. 5 Jenkin's Def. p. 22. « Booth, v. iii. p. 217. OF BAPTIST WRITERS. 231 * inferential reasoning, with regard to positive institutes, ' wliicli is legitimate when applied to moral duties, you ' open a door wide enough to admit all the mummeries of ' popery ;! — tliat analogical evidence, which can never * amount to more than possible presumption, or mere pro- ' bability, should not be admitted as authority in the wor- * ship of God — and that no ordinance should be recognized * as divinely appointed upon any evidence short of demon- * strative proof.'- But when the New Testament, under- stood in a literal sense, is brought against the positions of our opponents, they immediately alter their tone and mode of defence. Now ' it is impossible to reason without in- ' ference.'^ ' The book' [of the Acts] says Mr. Robinson, ' is full of information, and, in regard to baptism, it informs ' us by what it does not say, as well as by what is reported.'^ That is, we may infer many things from its silence. Dr. Gale, says, ' that to appeal to the scriptures concerning the ' word baptize,' (which he tells us is the main branch of our dispute,^) ' and to be determined by them only in this ' question, is so unaccountable a fancy, that I admire any 'gentleman of understanding should be guilty of it.'^ In accordance with these declarations, they infer, suppose, analogize. They fancy that 'bathing was very common 'among the Jews''' — that there were tanks or cisterns of water, fit for immersion, in all Greek and Roman prisons,^ and houses 9 — that people would not visit places where there was, in eastern language, much water, without dip- ping one another into it^'' — that the Eunuch had a large retinue of servants with him, and water sufficient for as- persion ^^ — and innumerable other things of a similar character. Here it may not be uninteresting to observe that our op- ponents differ respecting the validity of historical evidence : 1 Cox, p. 111. 2 Gibbs, p. 317. 3 Jenkin's Def. p. IC. 4 Rob. p. 49. 5 Gale, p. 73. 6 il>. p. 147^ i37_ " J. Stennett, p. 123. <> Anderson's Introd. p. 37. 3 Jenkin's Def. p. lOS. '" Anderson's Introd. p. 9. " Jenkin's Def. p. 119; Ryland, p. 11. 232 CONTRADICTIONS AND DIFFICULTIES — one instance only shall be mentioned. Mr. Ivimy, the editor of the Baptist Magazine, says, in words already cited, ' admitting infant baptism to have existed, not only in the ' first century, but even in the time of the apostles, unless ' it could also be demonstrated that it was practised by the ' apostles themselves, there could be no evidence produced ' that it v/as not a part of Antichrist, &c.' ^ Professor An- derson, says, ' the question between us lies not in the re- ' gion of demonstration. If it [infant baptism] could be ' traced to the age of the apostles, as its advocates contend ' it may ; I confess it seems to me, that it should be uni- ' versally adopted.' " It is also amusing to remark that our opponents designate 'infant sprinkling one of the trurape- ' ries of the Church of Rome,' and seem disposed to give us a philippic for following the example of this communion. They, however, gravely adduce the ancient mode of dip- ping among the Papists, as good evidence in favour of their own particular practice.'^ III. It is a maxim with our opponents, and it well de- serves their devout consideration, that ' what proves too 'much, proves nothing at all.''* And to show what would be the precise meaning of the word baptize, most conso- nant with their views and practice, they assure us that ^hap- ' tizein is of a middle signification, between epipolazein, to ' swim on the surface, and dunein, to sink to the bottom.'^ And yet, whenever they can find a passage in which it is used for drowning a person, sinking a ship, putting into the water and raising no more, it is seized with avidity and ad- duced as indisputable evidence that the word baptize is era- ployed only in a sense that favours their practice ; as we have abundantly shown you from their own expressions. Whereas, according to the above maxim, these citations, by proving too much, prove just nothing at all. But the maxim would be equally correct if it run thus : ' What 1 Appendix to Gill, p. 4S. ^ introd. p. 19-9G. ' Nev/ Evaiig. Mag. Compare Birt's Vind. p. 21. Dore's Pref. p. 1". * Gale, p. 307. ' Booth, v. i. p. C'.l. OF BAPTIST WRITERS. 233 ' proves too little, proves nothing at all.'^ Hence when they prove that the word baptize means sometimes to dip, and infer that there is no baptism except by dipping, they prove too little and infer too much. In the like defective mode of reasoning, they establish the apostolic baptism of adults (which no Pedobaptist ever denied), and then infer that none but adults were the subjects of this ordinance. But this arguing is sophistical — as the deduction is vastly more extensive than the premises. The truth evidently is, that every passage cited from Greek writers, exhibits the word in dispute as expressing an action materially different from one person putting another just below the surface of the water, and instantly taking him up again. The original authors refer to actions either defective or redundant, per- formed by a different agency, or assuming a perfectly op- posite character. In a word, the verb is never employed to express the whole act, and nothing but the act, of a modern immersion. IV. When we find the term used to express other actions than dipping, as is often the case, they manage the topic most skilfully. If, for instance, it is employed for bathing a sword in slaughter, daubing the face with paint, colouring the cheeks by intoxication, dyeing a lake with the blood of a frog, beating a person till reddened with his own blood, staining the hand by sq^ueezing a substance, ornamenting clothes with a print, needle, or brush, the tide overflowing the land, pouring water on wood and garden plants, over- whelming a ship with stones, oppressing the poor with taxes, and the like — we are told, that 'they were as it 'were dipped'- — or that 'the word is used in an allusive 'or metaphorical sense '^ — or that the writers have em- ployed 'hyperbolical' expressions, 'not literally true' — that something must be understood ' to qualify seeming 'extravagances of expression ' "•■ — that 'the passages are ' obscure, and can afford us no assistance'^ — and that, not- ' Gale, p. TS, ICG; Ryl. App. p. 3-13. 2 Gale, p. 96. s Booth, vol. i. p. 97. ^ Gale, p. 79, SS. 5 jb. p. 104, IIS, H7. u 5 234 CONTRADICTIONS AND DIFFICULTIES withstanding all this, 'baptizo means an action, ^ and always ' signifies to dip the whole body '^ — that it is a mistake, to suppose 'words have more than one signification' — that ' words and sentences are probably never to be understood 'but in their literal sense''' — and 'that in no language 'under heaven can one word designate two modes!'* V. When they find that the word baptize is used to ex- press unequivocally the descent of the element upon the object, though necessitated to give up the action, they en- deavour to out-general us by having recourse to the quan- tity, which, however applied, places the person in a state of baptism. 'The king of Babylon,' for example, 'was as ' wet as if he had been dipped in a reservoir of dew, though ' it distilled in gentle drops upon hira.'^ Other illustrations of the kind have been mentioned before. And yet, as you have seen, when it serves their turn, or they feel pressed by the arguments of Pedobaptists, they assure us most po- sitively 'that in baptism it is the act of immersion, and not ' the quantity, of water that is contended for.'^ And that * the word baptize in this dispute, denotes an action re- ' quired by divine law, and that the simple question is, ' what is that action ? ' 7 VI. Their reasonings on this subject are exceedingly cu- rious ; an instance or two will illustrate this declaration. ' If the baptizer and the baptized, in the days of Christ and ' his disciples, went down both into the water, and the per- ' son baptized was dipped, then is baptism not sprinkling ' but dipping. But tlie baptizer and the baptized, in the ' days of Christ and his apostles, went down into the water, ' and the person baptized was dipped, ergo, baptism is not ' sprinkling but dipping.'^ Here we have supposition, and assertion, and conclusion — and all this substituted for de- monstrative evidence — and that, too, in an argument in- volving the main branch of our dispute. Of a similar clia- 1 n.ioth, V. iii. J). 2(;5. 2 Jcnkin's C. R. p. .")f>. ' Gale, p. 90. * Carson, p. !>!). •'■ Cox, p. 11 ; Gale, IIC-IIS. ^ Jtukiii's Dof. p. 108. " liontli, S'.ipra. ** Keacli, p. 20. OF BAPTIST WRITERS. 235 racter is the favourite doclrine of our brctlircu, ' tl)at po- ' sitive laws imply their negatives.'^ For illustration, in Ps. Ixxv. 6, we read that 'promotion cometh neither from ' the east, nor from the west, nor from the south,' ergo, promotion cometh from the north. When Christ says, 'he ' that believeth not shall be damned : ' on the principle of our opponents, we must come to the unscriptural and hor- rible conclusion, that all who die in their infancy must be damned, because they cannot believe! They also tell us, that ' what is not commanded by Christ, or practised by his 'apostles, is virtually forbidden as will-worship.'- — They also cite with approbation the saying of Tertullian — 'the ' scripture forbids what it does not mention.' ^ But Christ did not render requisite, nor did the apostles ever use, bap- tistries, artificially constructed with pumps, pipes, and sew- ers ; nor particular dresses, with leads at the bottom, for the baptized ; nor prayer, nor psalm-singing at the font ; nor deferred for an hour the baptism of an applicant ; nor a dozen other things mentioned, before and practised in modern dipping; ergo, all this is virtually forbidden as will-worship. It is very gravely asserted, by the Rabbi of our oppo- nents, that there is 'no proper washing but by dipping' — hence you can never wash your hands properly at a pump or shoot, nor your face by raising water up to it ! — that 'there can be no dipping without washing' — so that you wash your pen whenever you dip it into the ink, and your shoe, if per accident you step into the mire ! — that in the baptism of the Hebrews in the Red Sea, through which they walked as on dry land, ' there was a great resem- ' blance of a person's being plunged under water' — conse- quently, if you walk between two neighbouring rivers, it is very like being plunged into them ! — Lastly, he remarks, that, ' in plunging a person, there is an application of the ' water to him, as well as an application of him to the wa- ' ter ; for as soon as ever a person is plunged, the water 1 Booth, V. ii. p. 53. 2 Pore's Pref. p. 19. ^ Booth, v. ii. p. 16. 236 CONTRADICTIONS AND DIFFICULTIES ' will apply itself to him'^ — therefore, as soon as any one applies a garment to Lis person, there is an application of his person to the garment: and if your enemy strike you on the head with his club, you may, according to Dr. Gill's logic, be said to apply your head to his bludgeon ! VII. The scriptural nature of dipping is urged, as un- questionable, from its greater solemnity than sprinkling. This is often reiterated in conversation, though seldom printed in their controversial writings. They regard this rite as requiring a sublime and devoutly-imposing aspect. We need hardly say, that this species of reasoning is a departure from their usual maxims, of a positive precept or an apostolical example. Overlooking other considera- tions, we may observe that this notion proceeds on the principle that the simplicity of a rite is one evidence against its divinity. What would our opponents have said to many of the services among the Jewish people, and which all admit to have been of divine appointment? — Naaman, the Syrian, would have chimed in nicely with some of our Baptist brethren. He was wrathful because the prophet did not come out to him, and enjoin his doing some great thing for his recovery — a plain proof, by the way, that the General was not commanded to plunge him- self under water seven times successively; for, had this been enjoined, it is more than possible he would have been satisfied with the magnitude of the means to be regarded. In following up the sentiment of our brethren, we must come to the conclusion, that the ceremonies of the English Episcopal and Roman Catholic churches have, at least, one good evidence in favour of their solemn and splendid wor- ship. The rites of Christianity, according to the current opinion of our brethren in all other cases, derive proofs of their divinity from their simplicity; but here the case is reversed. However, we inquire whether the baptism of a child or adult in our assemblies, is not as seriously and solemnly performed, as dipping a young lady into a bap- ' Gill, p. 223, 22(3, 229, 303. See Carson, p. 99. OF BAPTIST -WRITERS. 237 tistry or river, amidst the gaziiigs of a hundred ungodly people, who attend for no other purpose iu general than to enjoy the curious spectacle? VIII. With respect to the desigu of baptism, our oppo- nents express themselves very vaguely. To say nothing of baptism being, or not being, a term of Christian commu- nion, respecting which, their denomination is split into two parts ; nor of those other points of difference among the advocates of immersion, which are quite as numerous as those which divide Pedobaptist denominations — their sys- tem is evidently founded on the principle that baptism is designed chiefly, if not exclusively, to represent the burial of Christ. Dr. Gill, says, ' that baptism is not a sign or ' significative of the sprinkling of clean water, or the grace ' of the spirit in regeneration, or of the blood of Christ on ' the conscience of a sinner, all which ought to precede bap- ' tism — but of the death, and burial, and resurrection of 'Christ.'^ — Carson, says, baptizo in the sense of wash- ing, ' is not warranted by a single decisive example, either ' in the scriptures, or in classical authors.' - — ' The word 'does not signify to wash in any manner.' ^ — Hence the stress laid on Roji. vi. 3-6, and Col. ii. 10-13, which we have already considered. — And yet they assure us that it is also designed to represent purification or washing. — D'Anvers calls it 'a minister's washing a person — a sign ' to the believer of the covenant on God's part of washing ' away his sins by the blood of Christ.'-* — Burt says, bap- tism 'leads to the nature of sanctification, and offers an 'emblem of sanctification.' ^ — ^S'. Stennett, calls it 'the ' type or emblem of the internal washing of regeneration.' ^ — Maclean, 'the washing away of sin, and the filth and 'pollution of sin. '7 — Booth, calls it 'purification.'^ — And Ryland, 'washing a person in much water, washing a per- 1 p. 369. 2 p. 1. 3 p. es. * p. II, 20. 5 Letters, p. 2-1-20. c Part I. p. 33. ' Works, V. i. p. 132, 134. s \^\, \, p. 179. 238 CONTRADICTIONS AND DIFFICULTIES 'son all over, and abundant purification.'^ — Gihhs, 'they 'desire to be washed in the laver of baptism.' ^ From these representations, one would be led to con- clude that to bury and to wash are synonymous terms — or, at least, in reference to this sacrament, are properly interchangeable. But that they are not, we have no less authority than Dr. Cox, who says, ' It would be putting ' Mr. Ewing upon a most perplexing search to require ' him to produce any passage in Hebrew or Greek anti- ' quity, where washing means burying.' ^ Consequently these words cannot be fairly used to express the same act ; and that if baptism is to represent a burial, it cannot re- present washing. Indeed, Mr. Robinson says, ' that no- ' thing but sophistry would make washing and baptism sy- ' nonymous.''* IX. Although our opponents can derange the order of scripture language, when they have an end to answer by it, as you have seen before ; ^ yet it is plain that they build their system of baptizing only adults, or genuine believers in Christ, on the mere arrangement of words, as ' teach and ' baptize,' (Matt, xxviii. 19), or 'he that believeth and is ' baptized shall be saved,' (Mark xvi. 16), or ' they that 'gladly received the word were baptized' (Acts ii. 41.)^ We say nothing of the confession of the Eunuch (Acts viii. 37), which is evidently a human interpolation, ^ and of course not pleadable by our brethren. But to show you that they can fairly lay no stress on this arrangement of terms, we will make a few references to scripture : Mark i. 4. John is said (1) to have baptized and (2) to have preached the baptism of repentance, i. 15. We are (1) to repent and (2) to believe the gospel, xiv. 22. The disciples (1) eat and (2) Christ gives them bread. John i. 12. They (1) received Christ and (2) had power to become the sons of God. ' P. 27, 34. 2 P. 315. 3 p. 60. < p. 36. 5 P. 198. « Keach's Prcf. p. 11 ; Booth, vol. ii. p. 232. ' See Griesb.nch, Bootliroyd, and A. Clarke, in Loc. John i 52. iii. 5. Acts ii. 38. Rom. ix 10. 2 Tim. . 9. OF BAPTIST WRITERS. 239 The angels, whose abode is in heaven, (1) ascended and (2) descended on the Son of Man. We must (1) be born of water and (2) of the Holy Spirit. The murderers of Christ were (1) to repent and be baptized, and (2) to be forgiven and to receive the Holy Ghost. Confession (1) is made with the mouth and (2) belief is exer- cised with the heart. We are (1) saved and (2) called. Heb. xii. 22-24. We come (1) to ISIount Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, the general assembly of the saints, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, and (2) we come to Jesus, the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling. In all these passages, and in multitudes besides, tlie na- tural order of time, place, or action, is either inverted, or at variance with the hypothesis of our opponents. What stress, then, can they honestly and consistently lay on the arrangement of words in the institution before us — much less erect a prime and distinguishing doctrine of their deno- mination upon it? — After this refutation of the Baptists' argument, the following syllogism of JNIr. Maclean may amuse you : — ' The supreme Lawgiver has expressly en- 'joined — first, to make disciples — then immediately to ' baptize the disciples — lastly, to teach the baptized dis- ' ciples to observe, keep, or obey his laws or institutions. ' It must be admitted that church-fellowship and the Lord's ' supper fall under the last head ; and if so, then, according ' to the order of the commission, men can no more be ad- ' mitted to church-fellowship or the Lord's supper before ' baptism, than they can be admitted to baptism before ' they are made disciples.' — But from the words of Christ (Matt, xxviii. 20), we learn, that ' all things whatsoever 'he had commanded' his disciples, were to be taught the people, subsequent to their being discipled and baptized : and it must be equally admitted that holiness of life and zeal for God, fall under the last head ; and if so, then, ac- cording to the order of the commission, holiness and zeal can no more precede baptism, then church-fellowship or 240 CONTRADICTIONS AND DIFFICULTIES the Lord's supper. What a powerful argument against infant sprinkling! X. It is a fundamental principle with our opponents in this discussion, though applied to no other, that 'analogy ' and presumptive reasoning may be used in matters that * are not positive, but that as far as a duty is positive, we ' must keep close to the letter of the law — analogy having 'nothing to do with it.' ^ — Not to dilate on the groundless and absurd distinction of reasoning as to the import of moral duties, and not as to the sense of those which are positive, let us consider the present quotation : — We are to take all positive laws and declarations in their literal and grammatical sense, without analogy or presumptive reasoning about them. Consequently our brethren, if evangelists, must ' provide neither gold, nor silver, nor ' brass, in their purses, nor scrip for their journey, nei- ' ther two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves (Matt. x. '9, 10), nor lay up treasure upon earth, nor care for the ' things of to-morrow (Matt. vi. 20, 34), nor invite their ' friends to a feast ; but only the poor (Luke xiv. 12), and, ' on no account, receive the appellation of jNIaster (Matt. ' xxiii. 10.)' Also when Christ says of the bread and wine used at the sacrament, * This is my body, this is my blood ' (Matt. xxvi. 26, 28) ; and except ye eat the flesh of the ' Son of Man, ye have no life in you' (John vi. 53), they must concede the palm to the Papists, and admit the doc- trine of transubstantiation. When he says, 'preach the 'gospel to every creature,' we must understand it literally, and proclaim salvation to all the brutal tribes; — when he says, ' he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,' we must conclude that Simon INIagus is undoubtedly saved ; for he believed and was baptized (Acts viii. 13); — when he adds, 'these signs shall follow them that believe : in my ' name shall they cast out devils ; they shall speak with * new tongues ; they shall take up serpents ; and if they ' drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them ; they shall 1 Jonkin's Dcf. \\ 22. See Booth, v. i. p. 82-89. OF BAPTIST -WRITERS. 241 'lay their hands on tlie sick, and they shall recover;' we must infer that every believer shall do this, for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it, (Mark xvi. 15-18): and yet unless this absurd method of argumentation be rigidly maintained by our brethren, 'it is impossible for the Bap- ' tists to stand their ground by fair argument in various 'cases when disputing with Pedobaptists as such.'^ XI. Our opponents contend, as previously shown,- that baptism is not only a positive law, but as specifically de- fined and settled as any of the Mosaic institutions. To the previous citations may be added Mr. Gibb's assertion : ' every thing is expressed with clearness, and nothing is ' left to the judgment or pleasure of the administrator.' ^ In answer to this position we beg to ask them a few questions : 1. Are the persons and characters of those who are to administer this rite as definitively prescribed as those of the priesthood under the legal dispensation ? — Are the sub- jects of baptism as clearly and minutely described in the New Testament as the subjects of various ceremonies un- der the law? — Is the mode of baptism as expressly and particularly specified as the manner of consecrating the priests and Levites, cleansing a leper, purifying the cere- monially polluted, circumcising children, and worshipping God in the tabernacle or temple? 2. Was every part of the Hebrew ritual so plain and positive that nothing but wilful mistakes could occur, or that the smallest deviation from the established order vitiated the ceremony? If so, will our brethren take upon them- selves to assert, that the case is precisely the same with respect to baptism? If not, the allusion by no means serves the cause of those who make it. 3. Can our opponents point out an instance where, through mistake, a wrong person officiated under the Le- vitical economy, or an improper subject was received, or an invalid mode of operation adopted? If not, can they not find improper ministers officiating in this sacrament in 1 Booth, supra. ^ p. 206. 3 p. 7. X 242 CONTRADICTIONS AND DIFFICULTIES Judas and Demas ? and, omitting the mode as the point to be investigated, can they find no instances where, according to their ideas of proper subjects, unsuitable characters were baptized even by the harbinger of Christ and his apostles ? Was Simon Magus a fit subject ? Was Judas Iscariot ? Were those disciples who went back and walked no more with Christ? Were all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, Judea, and the region round about Jordan, baptized by John or the twelve disciples, not one of a thousand of whom was truly converted to God, (as their conduct towards Christ while before Pilate, and towards the apostles of our Lord after- ward, and as the judgments denounced and brought upon them for their iniquity, place beyond the possibility of de- bate ;) we ask, were these, in the esteem of our brethren, proper subjects of baptism ; that is, * in a state of salvation * ' or regenerated and brought into the covenant of grace?'- If not, were they known to be unconverted when baptized, or were they baptized by mistake ? Let our brethren choose which side they please. In either case they must sacrifice their position or yield their cause respecting the subject. Dr. Gill, though flatly contradicted by Mr. Gibbs, tells us, 'that admission to baptism lies solely in the breast of ' the administrator, who is the only judge of qualifications ' for it, and has the sole power of receiving to it and of re- 'jecting from it.'^ But is it not notorious that among the ministers of the Baptist denomination, there are immense grades of knowledge, acumen, and piety? Is each, then, to judge of character according to his own quantum of bib- lical information and discernment of men ? If so, will they not determine differently — one admitting to baptism those another would reject? In fact, if what they call believers' baptism be held as exclusively scriptural — numerous dif- ficulties must ever encompass the sacrament in question. XII. Our opponents retort, and say that unless we un- derstand the positive divine law of baptism in its primary, grammatical, and literal sense, it is impossible for Protes- 1 J. Stcnnctt, p. 48. 2 Gibbs, p. .•!2. 3 Body of Div. v. iii. b. ,s. OF BAPTIST WRITERS. 243 tauts to debate successfully with Papists, or Dissenters with Churchmen.^ In reply, we say that this is a palpable mistake: for, as you have heard before, transubstantiation, one of the chief and most objectionable dogmas of popery, is advocated exclusively by the mode of interpretation here adopted in support of believers' baptism — understanding the sacred text in its literal and grammatical sense. Ex- treme unction also stands in the same situation ; and all Protestants are induced to combat these absurd sentiments by reasoning, analogy, and inference. Nor is it requisite that Dissenters should have recourse to the contracted measures, adopted by our brethren, to maintain the great principles of nonconformity. If an open, candid, and con- sistent, interpretation of the holy oracles, will not support their secession, they can have but little fair and tenable ground on which to erect the great and glorious cause of dissent. Between ' keeping close to the letter of the law,' and a vague latitudinarian application of biblical expres- sions, there is a wide intervening space, which the honest and intelligent expounder of the sacred scriptures will not fail to occupy: — on this, we feel no hesitation in saying, the ingenuous Pedobaptist takes his stand ; and on this arena he feels a pleasure in joining issue with his Baptist opponents. — We will conclude this section, on the difficul- ties and contradictions of the Baptists, in the language of one of their recent apologists : — ' By ascribing to the holy * scriptures a rite, which is evidently of human invention, * which involves so much perplexity and contradiction in ' the mode of defending it, and which, by being carried ' into general pi'actice, is productive of results so palpably ' repugnant to every idea which reason itself dictates as ' consistent with a divine constitution of things among 'men; they virtually impute to the Christian revelation 'an imperfection of character which has furnished the in- 'fidels of our age with some of the most powerful objec- ' tions against its claims to a divine origin.' - ' Booth, V. ii. p. 470-472 ; Eyland's Append, p. 22. 2 Gibbs, p. 242, 243. 244 SECTION SECOND. THE FREQUENT APPLICATION OF THE WORD BAPTIZE. 'The word bapti&m is derived from eaptein, whicli is to tinge, and 'to imdue; and because the Hebrew word taeai,, which (he 'Seventy render by baptizein, 2 Kings v. 14, is used for 'rachatz, which signifies to wash, baptizein is taken for 'simply to wash, Mark vii. 4; and from thence diverse wash- 'ings are mentioned by Paul, PIeb. ix. 10.' PiCTETUs, Theol. Christ. Lib. 14, Cap. iv. 5, 6. From what has been previously advanced respecting the import of the word baptize, it might be thought needless to enter further into the discussion. It should, however, be observed, that the foregoing considerations were designed to prove merely that its applications were various and op- posite. Our present intention is to convince you that it is frequently used in a sense perfectly consistent with our mode of administering this sacrament — by applying the element to the object in the shape of pouring, sprinkling, staining, and the like. Though, in this particular, we shall be led to travel over a considerable portion of our former dissertation on the verb baptize, the importance of the present discussion is an ample apology. To have, before our eyes, a number of passages from various authors, sup- porting our positions, must be deemed of no trivial influ- ence in our calculations. It is proper, however, to remind you, that the scriptural mode of baptism cannot be determined simply by the use of this word. After what has been said, it must strike the dullest apprehension, that a term of such vague and general import, can never of itself settle a question which has been so long and so ably litigated by contending parties. The circumstances of the New Testament baptisms must be carefully examined ; and conclusions drawn from them THE FREQUENT APPLICATION, ETC. 2-l"> fairly and ingenuously. By tliis means, one may arrive at the truth ; and, in the exercise of an unprejudiced spirit, settle the dispute. As a corroboration of this view of the case, we shall cite the opinion of Professor Stuart. ' The answer which I feel ' philologically compelled to give, is, that the probability ' that baptizo implies immersion, is very considerable ; and ' on the whole, a predominant one ; but it does not still ' amount to certainty. Both the classic use and that of the ' septuagint, show, that washing and copious effusion are * sometimes signified by the word. Consequently the rite ' of baptism may have been performed in one of these ways, ' although it is designated by the word baptizo. Whether, ' in fact, it was so, then, seems to be left for enquiry from ' other evidence than that which the word itself necessarily ' affords.'^ To prove that the use of the word baptize perfectly har- monizes with our scheme, is the design of the ensuing re- marks, we shall refer you, first, to Greek writers in general — secondly, to the Septuagint and Apocrypha — thirdly, to certain texts in the New Testament — and fourthly, to various corroborative testimonies. I. THE GREEK WRITERS IN GENERAL. I. Julian, speaking of an old coxcomb, says, 'He en- ' deavoured to conceal the hoariness of his hair by bap- ' tizing it.' — ' Baphe here denotes dyeing in general; for 'hair on the head is not dyed by dipping.' 2 II. ^schylus. — 'This garment baptized by the sword ^ oi jEgisthus is a witness to me.' — 'The garment must ' have been dyed [or baptized] by the blood running down ' over it.' 3 III. Aristophanes. — ' Magnes, an old comic of Athens, ' used the Lydian music, shaved his face, and baptized it ' with tawny colours.'^ He applied the colours to his face. > p. 31S. 2 Carson, p. 39. 3 lb. p. 40. * Gale, p. 86. X 5 246 THE FREQUENT APPLICATION ' — Dress not with costly clothes which are baptized with ' the richest colours.'^ Several colours must be applied to the cloth. — 'Lest I baptize you with a Sardinian dye.'^ — ' Lest I beat you till I make you red with blood.' ^ Here the colouring element is applied to the body. IV. Jristotle. — 'The Phenicians, who inhabit Cadiz, ' relate that, sailing beyond Hercules' Pillars, in four days ' with the wind at east, they came to a land uninhabited, ' whose coast was full of sea-weeds, and it is not baptized ' at ebb — but when the tide comes in, it is wholly covered 'and overwhelmed.'* Here, as Dr. Gale remarks, the word is 'used to signify the land was under water, by the ' water coming upon it, and not by its being put into the ' water. '^ — 'If it is pressed, it baptizes the hand which ' sustains and presses it.'*^ Here the hand is tinged by an application of the colouring matter to it. V. Arrian. — 'Nearchus relates that the Lidians baptize ' their beards.' — ' It will not be contended that they bap- ' tized their beards by immersion.'" VI. Dion. Cassius. — ' Those from above baptizing the ' ships with stones and engines.'^ Here the baptizing ma- terials came from above down upon the vessels. VII. Hippocrates. — 'When it ' [the dyeing liquid] 'drops ' upon the garments, they are baptized.' Now if ' bapto ne- ' cessarily implies mode, and literally expresses nothing but ' mode '9 — we have a case full to the point ! VIII. Homer. — 'He, the frog, breathless fell, and the 'lake was baptized with blood.' ^o The blood was applied to the water, and not the water dipped into the blood. — Though Carson, says, this word ' never literally expresses 'any thing but mode' — yet here he admits that 'there is ' no reference to mode.'^^ IX. Josephus. — ' When a person was defiled by a dead ' body, they put a little of these ashes into spring water I Galo, p. 84. 2Cox, p. 45. 3 n.id. ■• Gale,;p. 96. 5 Ibid. " Ibiil. SO. ' Carson, p. 30. * Rylanil's App. p. 12. 9 lb. p. 2S. >» Cox. p. 4G. " lb. p. 44, 54. OF THE WORD BAPTIZE. 247 ' with hyssop, and baptizing part of the ashes with it, they 'sprinkle them — and they are clean.' ^ That the water was poured on the ashes is plain, from Numb. xix. 17: ' They shall take of the ashes of the burnt heifer, and run- ' ning water shall be put thereto in a vessel.' X. Lihanus. — 'He who bears with difficulty the burden ' he already has, would be entirely baptized by a small ad- ' dition.'- Here a person is baptized, not by dipping him into evil, but by increasing the burden on his back. XI. Origen. — ' How came you to think that Elias, when 'he should come, would baptize; who did not in Ahab's ' time baptize the wood upon the altar, which was to be ' washed before it was burnt, by the Lord's appearing in ' fire ? But he orders the priest to do that, not only once, ' but says, do it a second time, and they did it a second time, ' and do it the third time, and they did it the third time. ' He, therefore, that did not himself baptize then, but as- ' signed that work to others, how was he likely to baptize, ' when he, according to Malachi's prophecy, should come?' That the word is here used four times for pouring, may be seen by referring to 1 Kings xviii. 32-35 : ' Fill four bar- ' rels with water, and pour it on the burnt sacrifice and on ' the wood.' — This Dr. Ryland admits -,3 but tries to evade the action, by enlarging on the quantity ; and here, by the by, Origen designates John's baptism pouring — and no- thing else. XII. Plutarch. — 'As plants thrive and flourish when ' they are moderately watered, but wither and pine away if 'you drench them too much; so the mind, if moderately ' exercised with labours proportionable to its abilities, grows 'more vigorous; but too much toil baptizes it.''* — Here young persons are baptized by too much toil — as plants are often drenched by pouring too much water upon them. The act is indisputable — the quantity is foreign to our in- vestigation. ' Ryland's App. p. 0. ' Cox. p. 45. 3 Ryland's App. p. 15. •> Gale, p. 102. 248 THE FREQUENT APPLICATION XIII. JElian. — 'Having baptized, with precious oint- ' meiit, a garland woven of roses.' ^ The garland was surely not dipped into a box of ointment, but the ointment was poured, put, or sprinkled on the garland. XIV. Athenceus. — 'I have been baptized with wine.'" Not bathed in it, but intoxicated — the wine was applied to him, for he drank it. XV. Bentley's Epigrams. — ' You baptize your head, but 'you shall never baptize old age.'-^ You adorn your head with gay attire, but cannot renew your youth. Here the baptizing material is applied to the head. — ' Who first bap- ' tized the muse with viperish gall?''* Who first tinged or imbued the mind by applying the element to it? — 'Some ' people, O Nycilla, say that you baptize your hair, which 'you bought completely black out of the market.'^ They say you dye your hair while on your head, which was done by staining it black — not by dipping it into the colouring ingredients. XVI. Diod. Siculus. — ' They wear singular garments, ' coats baptized and flowered with various colours.'^ This must have been performed by a brush, print, or needle. XVII. lamblichus. — 'Baptize not in the periranterion.'* This was a small vessel like those kept at the doors of Ro- man Catholic chapels^ — the act here is evidently sprinkling. XVIII. Julius Polhix. — 'The girl observing the mouth ' of the dog (which had eaten the murex) stained with an ' unusual baptism.' 9 The murex is a small shell-fish. The mouth of the dog was baptized by an application of the co- lour to it. XIX. Justin. — ' Sprinkling with holy water was invented ' by demons, in imitation of the true baptism, signified by ' the prophets (Is. lii. 15 ; Ezek. xxxvi. 25), that their vo- ' taries might have their pretended purifications by water.' "' Here sprinkling and baptism are used synonymously." ' Ewing, p. 21S. 2 Ibid. p. -14. ^ Ih.yi. 2oi. ■« Ibid. 5 Ibid. ^' Stuart, p. 302. ' Ewiiig, p. 24S. » Potter's Ant. vol. i. p. 221. Ed. 1824. '■> Ewing, p. 247. '» Taylor's Lett. p. C3. " IJooth, v. iii. p. 2,^0. 1 OF THE WORD BAPTIZE. 249 XX. Plutarch. — 'Then perceiving that his heard was 'baptized and his head.'' No person will imagine this to have been done by dipping. XXI. Potter sAntiq. — 'The priests of Cotys were called 'Baptists from staining their bodies with certain colours.' - Here, also, the colouring element is applied to the body. XXII. Suidas. — 'Being carried before a tribunal, he was ' scourged by the executioners, and, flowing with blood, 'baptized the hollow of his hand.'-^ That is, some of the flowing blood fell into the hollow of his hand, and thus baptized it. These passages are sufficient as specimens of a great many more. In all of them the word baptize is used for pouring, sprinklino:, or otherwise applying the element to the subject. Consequently, we do no violence to the cur- rent sense of the verb, when we designate an application of water in this sacrament 'A Baptism ; ' and this is all we are now aimincc to establish. II. THE SEPTUAGINT AND APOCRYPHA. Here we beg to premise, that as every text in which the word under consideration occurs in these books has been briefly noticed already, and as several of them will claim our attention hereafter, we shall cite no more than will establish our position; — that the term baptizing may be properly used for pouring, sprinkling, or applying, in con- tradistinction from dipping or submersing. The cases we shall select will show its various actions — in giving a co- lour, purifying, overwhelming, and wetting. Having also shown that the prepositions connected with the verb may be fairly construed according to the supposed action in- tended, we shall, as before, render them in consonance with the apparent design of the original writers. For this, also, we have the sanction of our opponents' practice. I. JuDG. V. 30.—' To Sisera a prey of baptized [attire], • Stuart, p. S02. ^ V. i. p. 469. ^ ijwing, p. 25-1. 250 THE FREQUENT APPLICATION * a prey of baptized [attire] of needle-work on both sides.' Here the garment is baptized by the needle, the colours being applied to the cloth. Josephus uses the word in a similar sense : ' A girdle embroidered with the same bap- * tisms and flowers as the former, with a mixture of gold 'interwoven.'^ The former he describes as 'embroidered ' with flowers of scarlet and purple and fine-twined linen.' - (See ExoD. xxxix. 5.) The method was unquestionably by applying the colours to the cloth, as in modern tapistry.'' Should it be supposed that an allusion is here made to dye- ing, it could be only to such a process as lays the colouring ingredients on the cloth by carved prints or brushes, and which practice is still common in our own country, and absolutely necessary in producing variegated apparel. This, in fact, was the primitive mode of dyeing; and clearly de- velopes the actions of the verbs baptizo and tin()o when employed in reference to this operation. President Go- guet, in his 'Origin of Laws, Arts, and Sciences, &c.' tells us, that the origin of dyeing consisted in pressing the juices of various herbs and fruits on tlie cloth, or by staining it with certain earths of different colours. This historical fact easily accounts for the difl'erent senses we have exhibited of the term in question. Though dyeing was first effected by an application of the element to the material, it was afterward, in an improved state of the arts, often accomplished by steeping the material in the element — at least, when only a single colour was to be imparted to it. Hence arose the secondary acceptation of the verb — to dip. Such a change of terms has actually obtained among ourselves. When you send an article to be dyed, it is more than probable the operator will promise to dip it on the first opportunity — again, as dyeing is a species of cleansing, the word became employed to express a manifestation of the original character or colour, as well as to impart a new one. And as the garment was wetted in the process of colouring or cleansing, the term to wet ' Ant. lib. iij. ch. 7. s. i. -' lb. s. 2. ^ Sce S)iaw's Travels, p. 22s. OF THE WORD BAPTIZE. 251 was occasionally the sense in which it became to be used by speakers and writers in the Greek language. This hy- pothesis is natural, and analogous to the usual modes of reducing the original sense of terms to various applica- tions ; while that assumed by the baptists is quite the re- verse, and such as stands on no just philological basis. What writer, making the least pretensions to correctness of language, would employ a word, which had hitherto con- veyed only the idea of one definite action, to express an effect which might be produced by a dozen different ac- tions ? Or say a thing was dipped, when he meant that it was wetted, washed, coloured, or dyed. But when these effects had frequently been produced by dipping it into a liquid, the substitution of the term to dip for that of wet- ting, washing, colouring, or dyeing, would probably take place, first, in familiar conversation, where precision of speech was not regarded, and, then, in writings, founded on the modes of expression current in society. ' To 'baptize,' says Beza, 'signifies to tinge.' ^ — 'To baptize 'does not signify to wash unless as a consequence. '^ — Dr. Oiuen also says, ' It no where signifies to dip, but as ' a mode of, and in order to washing,' wetting, and dyeing.'' Even Carson admits that the Baptists, ' supposing it to be ' necessary, or, at least, serviceable to prove that when the ' word relates to dyeing, it is always dyeing by dipping, ' have evidently strained, and have employed false criti- ' cism.'* It must be manifest to all, who have reflected on the subject, that the growth and ramification of arts and sciences, are the chief means of extending and diversify- ing the application of technical language. And on this view of the case before us, we may easily account for the various uses to which the v/ord baptize was formerly ap- plied : while on the principle that it originally meant only to dip — a term of one action, including no effect — it is impossible, in any rational way, to trace its application to 1 On Matt. iii. 11. 2 lb. on MarV.vii. 4. 3 Works, V. xxi. p. JjS. ^ P. 40. 252 THE FREQUENT APPLICATION the forty or fifty uses in which Greek writers have em- ployed it. II. 2 Kings v. 10, 14. — 'And Elisha sent a message ' to Naaman, saying, Go and wash at Jordan seven times. ' Then went he down and baptized himself seven times at ' Jordan.' Here, remark, the Syrian General was com- manded only to wash, which may be done in various modes,! and that not all over, but only the place affected (v. 11.) That nothing great was enjoined, we learn from his servants (v. 13); consequently, seven plungings in Jordan were not enforced ; and that the Jewish mode of cleansing a leper was commanded, we may gather from the piety of the prophet, and the number of applications of water to the unclean. The divine precept runs thus: ' And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed ' from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him ' clean' (Lev. xiv. 17.) That this haughty and indignant soldier did no more than was inculcated by the man of God, we may conclude from the state of his mind and his unwillingness then to do any thing. That he stripped and dived seven times from the bank of the river, when only told to wash, bathe, or wet the place diseased, cannot be easily conceived. We have here, then, clear circumstan- tial evidence for the use of the word baptize in the sense of applying the water to the person in the shape of an as- persion. III. Isaiah xxi. 4. — ' My heart panted : fearfulness bap- 'tizedme.' This language is predictive of the calamities which befel the impious king of Babylon ; and the accom- plishment of it is recorded by the sacred historian : ' In the ' same hour came forth fingers of a man's hand, and wrote ' over against the candlestick upon the plaister of the king's ' palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote. ' Then the king's countenance was changed, and his thoughts ' troubled him, so that the joints of his loins were loosed, ' and his knees smote one against another. In that night ' Maclean, vol. iii. p. 113. OF THE WORD BAPTIZE. 253 '■ was the king of the Chaldeans slain,' (Dan. v. 5, 6, 30.) Although the verb here expresses principally the effects produced on this wicked monarch, yet, as far as the cause- is seen and the action discoverable, our position is firmly supported. He was overwhelmed by the ominous pheno- menon on the wall, and died by the strokes of the sword — probably bathed in his own royal blood. ^ The vision appeared to kirn, and the murderous weapons of war were applied to him by the soldiers of Cyrus. In neither in- stance was there any action analogous to dipping him in a reservoir of water — all his calamities came upon him. IV. Dan. iv. 33. — 'And his body was baptized witli 'the dew of heaven.' (See also chap. v. 21.) That the ex-monarch of Babylon was baptized by the dew falling upon him, throughout the night in the open field, no one presumes to question. The quibbles of our opponents, re- specting the probable quantity,- by no means affects the case, unless they are prepared to give up the action or mode of dipping, and at once concede that a copious shower-bath will answer every end of modern immersion. The dispute, as far as the word is concerned, embraces only the action. Hence they assure us, that, 'in baptism, it is the act of ' immersion, and not the quantity of water, that is con- ' tended for ; ' ^ that, to baptize, ' always signifies to dip ; 'never expressing any thing but mode;'* and that 'the ' vrord baptize, in this dispute, denotes an action required 'by divine law; and the simple question is, what is that ' action?'^ Why, here, most unquestionably, applying the element to the object in the form of sprinkling ! V. Judith xii. 7. — ' She went out in the night into the ' valley of Bethulia, and was baptized at a fountain of water 'in the camp.' The expression here, ' epi tes pec/es,' ren- dered 'at a fountain,' is the same as that in John iv. C, ' epi te pege,' being wearied with his journey, sat thus 'on ' the iveir — not in it. It appears that there was only one > RoUin's Anc. Hist. b. iv. ch. 1. s. 2. ' Gibbs, p. C6. ' Jcnkin's Def. p. 108. < Carson, p. 51. '^ Booth, v. iii. p. 265. Y 254 THE FREQUENT APPLICATION fountain in tliis valley — that an army of more than 200,000 raen lay encamped about it — that such an important source of existence would be guarded with the utmost vigilance (chap. vii. 2, 3, 27 ; viii. 9) — that Judith was a woman of great rank and beauty — and that her sole object was a ceremonial purification. So far our object is plain. Let our opponents then imagine, that this lady, either naked or attired, should plunge herself over head and ears into this fountain of water, or that her waiting women (ch. viii. 32) should do it by her. No such kind of purification was known under the law, nor any where required by the di- vine Legislator. If she had pure water sprinkled on her by a clean companion, she would have fulfilled all the scriptures required — and this was undoubtedly done. VI. EccLUs. xxxiv. 25. — 'He that baptizeth himself ' because of a dead body, and toucheth it again, what ' availeth his washing?' To understand the precise action involved in the word in this place, reference must be made to Numb. xix. 19, where the method of such a purification is specifically defined: 'And the clean person shall sprinkle ' upon the unclean on the third day and on the seventh ' day ; and on the seventh day he [the clean person] shall ' purify himself, and wash his clothes, and bathe himself in ' water, and shall be clean at even.' It further appears from V. 20, that if the water of separation were sprinkled upon a person, he was perfectly clean — nothing more was to be done to him or by him; and from v. 21, that it was to be a perpetual statute, that he who sprinkled or touched the water of separation was unclean, and must wash both his clothes and himself. From this we gather that the person defiled was cleansed entirely by sprinkling, and that the purifier, becoming unclean by performing this rite, was to v.-ash himself and his clothes for purification — this being the only resource left him. Josephus speaks of purifying the house and its inhabitants after a funeral, as if both were performed in the same way;^ but as the house was not ' Contra Ajjion, b. ii. s. 27. OF THE WORD BAPTIZE. 255 dipped, we have no reason to conclude that the people were; and as that was sprinkled, we infer they underwent only a similar lustration. Our opponents, indeed, admit, that sprinkling formed part of this baptism ; ^ but a slight inspection of the case shows that this, in fact, was the whole of it. III. THE NEW TESTAMENT. Here a very few references will prove that the word bap- tize is sometimes employed to express such modes or ac- tions as are consonant with our method of baptizing, by sprinkling or pouring, or applying the element to the ob- ject. This is all we have at present in view. We shall begin with the passage selected as the basis of these discourses. I. Matt. iii. 11. — 'I, indeed, baptize you with water ' — he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with * fire.' To understand the import of this word, in the former clause of the sentence, we must inquire into its application in the latter. This is easily done — for the bap- tism of the Holy Ghost, as witnessed on the day of Pente- cost, at Cfesarea, as expressed invariably in the Old and New Testament, and as conceded in numerous places by our opponents, was always, by descending upon, or by an application unto, the person baptized. Now, unless John baptized his converts and followers by pouring, sprinkling, or applying water, he has employed the verb in a most un- accountable manner, giving it two directly opposite senses in the same verse — pouring upon the person and plunging him into the water. But as this cannot be imagined, we have not only the most conclusive proof of its meaning to pour, sprinkle, or apply the element to the object, in one part of the verse, but — if John were not the most incon- sistent speaker in the world — of pouring, sprinkling, or ap- plying the element to the object in both. And thus our • Gale, p. 119; Rees, p. 120. 256 THE FREQUENT APPLICATION antagonists would reason in other similar cases, and that necessarily. For example, the word aion is twice used in Matt. xxv. 4G, to express the duration of future happi- ness and misery. Here the eternity of punishment is al- ways argued from the fact, that the word in both cases must raean alike — eternal felicity being universally as- sumed. II. Mark vii. 4, 8. — 'And when they come from the ' market, except they baptize, they eat not. And many ' other things there be which they have received to hold, ' as the baptizing of cups and pots, brazen vessels and ' tables,' or couches. Now, had the natural purification of cups and pots been only intended, we could easily per- ceive how it might have been done by dipping them. But that brazen vessels used for cooking food over a fire, some of them very cumbersome and weighty, like modern copper kettles and boilers, should be submersed for cleansing, is what we cannot so easily fancy — especially if we consider the scarcity of water in Jerusalem. Much less can it be supposed that their tables, calculated to accommodate large parties, were washed by dipping them into water. And, if the word dine, as D'Anvers affirms, ' never signifies a ' table, but a bed,' ^ on which several persons reclined to- gether at meals, after the eastern fashion — the case be- comes still more improbable, even amounting to a manifest impossibility. It should, however, be remembered, that the word baptize is here employed for a ceremonial purifi- cation only, which, as you have seen before, required only an aspersion or affusion. We have, then, another instance in our favour. That the Pharisees and all the Jews, when- ever they came from the market, and before they ate, should plunge themselves over head and ears in water, is what few will believe. Yet if Mr. Carson's canon be correct this must have been the case — he says, 'When no part is men- ' tioned or excepted' [which is true in the text before us] 'the whole body is always meant.'- Tliough they might 1 OF THE WORD BAPTIZE. 257 have washed themselves from head to feet, like the super- stitious Kemmouts,^ by applying the water to the body, the action, which is the only point in debate, would be exclu- sively in our favour. Our opponents, indeed, find this pas- sage rather puzzling. Hence, Dr. Gale would render it, ' what they buy in the market, unless it be washed they eat 'not.'- But this does not solve the difficulty — for though vegetables might bear a dipping under water, we presume this mode was not adopted with flour, honey, milk, oil, &c. which were all marketable articles. Even the Dr. himself admits, that ' to talk of dipping a thing that is not capable of being dipped, is nonsense.'^ III. 1 Cor. X. 2. — 'And were all baptized unto Moses * in the cloud and in the sea.' This, our opponents tell us, was 'a type of gospel baptism ;'"* or that Christian baptism is like that administered in the Red Sea. How that was done we can have little difficulty in determining. There is the most positive evidence that the children of Israel were neither dipped nor plunged, v/holly or partially, into Moses or the water. They went through the midst of the sea on dry land. Our opponents presume to assert that ' the ' Israelites were surrounded by the water, covered above by ' the cloud, and yet on dry land.' ^ This is very unlike the baptism of our brethren, being deficient in the main point of dispute, namely, the action of dipping; for, as Maclean observes, 'here was no action performed by one man upon ' another, as our Lord enjoins — nor was there a close con- ' tact of the water with their bodies.'^ If the Hebrews were baptized by water at all, it was by an aspersion, as we learn from Ps. Ixxvii. 16, 17 : ' The depths also were troubled, ' the clouds poured forth water, the skies, also, sent out a ' sound.' Mr. Wilson, in his Scripture Manual, says, 'the 'term baptized, must refer to their situation in the midst ' of the sea.'" Hence, if their's was not a drybaptism,itwas ' Calmet's Diet. Frag. Xo. 32. 2 p. 135. gee Gill, p. 252. 3 Gale, p. 91. •> Keach's Jlet. p. 1S4. 5 Jenkin's Def. p. 51. •^ Vol. iii. p. 1S8. 7 P. 20. 258 THE FREQUENT APPLICATION like Nebuchadnezzar's — by a copious sprinkling — tlie ac- tion being exclusively on our side. One is rather amused at Dr. Gill's remark, where he says, ' there was a very great ' resemblance [in this instance] of a person's being bap- ' tized or plunged under water.' ^ IV. Rev. xix. 13. — 'And he was clothed in a vesture ' baptized with blood, and his name is called the Word of ' God.' This passage may be illustrated by another, refer- ring to the same glorious person in similar circumstances: 'And their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments and * I will stain all my raiment,' (Is. Ixiii. 3.) The Son of God is represented as clothed in a garment not dyed in a vat of human gore — but as splashed with the blood of his expir- ing enemies. To suppose this passage refers to the scarlet robes worn by Roman generals," destroys the energy of the enraptured speaker. Besides, were the Jews thus arrayed? Or was the Roman toga coloured with blood ? Or for what purpose could the robe be said to be stained with blood if it were not that of his enemies? Was it the blood of his friends? Dr. Gale says, ' St. John represents the person in ' this vision to have been clothed with a vesture which was ' dipped, or as it were dipped, in the blood of his" enemies. ' Origen cites these words from v. 11 to v. 16, inclusively, ' almost verbatim, as they are in our editions, but reads er- ' rhantismenon, sprinkled, instead oi bebammenon, dipped.'-'* This is important, for it shows that this learned father con- sidered the words as synonymous and properly interchange- able. Mr. Walker, in his ' Doctrine of Baptisms,' observes that ' Montanus and Beza render the word by tinctum or ' tincta, meaning to dye or stain, as doth also the Arabic ' version. The Latin Vulgate, ^thiopic, and Syriac, by ' aspersion or conspersion, to sprinkle or besprinkle witJi 'blood.'* Here, then, is another instance where the word baptize is employed to express the action of sprinkling or pouring, or the application of the element to the object, and not of the object to the element. > p. '2-:C. -J Cox, 1). 39. 3 p. 119. * p. 19, 20. OF THE WOKD BAPTIZE. IV. CORROBORATIVE TESTIMONIES, 259 From preceding remarks you will have learnt liow baj)- tist writers freely insinuate that the truly learned of all times and denominations, give a decisive verdict in favour of their translation of the verb baptizo, and of their mode of administering this sacrament. For the purpose of repel- ling this assertion, we shall quote the opinions of a consi- derable number of the most eminent scholars and divines to prove that, in their judgment, the word in dispute sig- nifies to stain, pour, sprinkle, wash, and purify in any form, as well as to dip, plunge, or immerse ; that sprink- ling was one mode, at least, employed in the times of the apostles and in subsequent ages ; and that it is every way significant and valid in the present day. Persons desirous of reading the sentiments of the subsequent authorities more at length, will find them in Dr. Williams's excellent work, ^'Antipcedobaptism Examined," Chap. iv. Augustine, about A. D. 380. 'The person to be bap- ' tized is either sprinkled with water or dipped in it.' Beza. — ^ Baptizein signifies tingere, to dye or stain, ' seeing it comes immediately from baptien.' Casubon. — 'Immersion is not necessary to baptism, ' since the force and efficacy of this mystery does not con- ' sist therein.' Cradoch. — ' Sprinkling is as significant, as to the main 'ends of baptism, as dipping.' Cyprian, about A. D. 260. ' From whence it appears ' that sprinkling is sufficient instead of immersion.' Forhcsius. — ' Universal antiquity has given its suffrage ' that this contact may be done either by immersion or by ' sprinkling.' Lactantius, about A. D. 300. ' That he might save the ' Gentiles by baptism, that is, by the perfusion of the puri- 'fying water.' Lightfoot. — ' The sprinkling of water is equally sulii- ' cient as immersion in water.' 2G0 THE FREQUENT APPLICATION Limhoreh. — 'Baptism we say is duly administered by * sprinkling only.' Markius. — ' The word baptize is a general term denot- ' ing a washing.' Owen, Dr. — 'No one instance can be given in scrip- ' ture, wherein baptizo doth necessarily signify either to * dip or plunge.' Parceus, — ' Baptism among the Greeks is any kind of ' washing or ablution, whether it be by immersion or as- 'persion.' Pictetus. — 'The word baptism does not less denote ' sprinkling than washing.' Pococke. — ' The word baptism does not necessarily de- ' note an immersion of the whole body in water.' Schmidius. — 'Baptein is to tinge, from whence baptizo.' Spanheirmis. — ' Perfusion, it should seem, was used in ' the church of Jerusalem when the multitude of the per- ' sons to be baptized amounted to 3000, and presently after ' to 5000, for there was no river to put them in.' Theodoret, who was born at Antioch, in 386, gives it as the belief of the orthodox church, that 'Baptism came in ' the place of Jewish washings ' * — which were never admi- nistered by dipping — as we shall prove in the ensuing divi- sion of our subject. Vossius. — ' Baptizein signifies ahluere (to wash or pu- 'rify), and is transferred to the gift of the Holy Ghost, ' which was poured out as water is poured.' C/s/?er. — ' The word baptism in general signifies any ' washing.' Walceus. — 'Bapto and baptizo, from whence comes ' Baptismos, signify properly to tinge and to wash.' Watts, Dr. — 'The Greek word baptize, signifies to ' wash any thing, properly by water coming over it.' Wilson. — 'The minister baptizeth by sprinkling with * water, God baptizeth by bestowing the gifts of his spirit.' Witsius. — ' The sacred rite consists in the application ' of the water to the body of the person.' I OF THE WORD BAPTIZE. 2G1 Zanchius. — ' The word signifies as well to tinge, and ' simply to wash, as to dip.' After perusing the preceding Illustrations of the use of the word baptize, it may be assumed that no person, pre- tending to intelligence and candour, will venture to assert that it means always and only to dip. The writer or preacher who can make such an assertion is unworthy of the least confidence or attention as an expositor of the Holy Oracles. — To talk also of dipping being its pri- mary, radical, and literal sense ; or that, though bapio means to colour by applying the element, baptizo includes nothing but immersion ; will produce no conviction of its truth in the judgment of any enlightened and conscientious hearer. IVIea may refer to certain imperfect lexicons, and to the partial concessions of a few great writers, to prove that the word in dispute, means only the act of dipping ; but while people can peruse the extracts previously given, they will never suffer themselves to be deluded into a belief that this is its real sense, or that it is always restricted to this isolated application. The case is too clear and decisive to admit of such a construction ; and he that argues for the contrary position will only display his own ignorance, and can deceive none but those who have either not the means or the disposition to examine the question for themselves. V. OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. We have now adduced sufficient specimens of the use of the word for pouring or sprinkling, or applying the element to the object, to prove that no violence is done to the term when we designate our mode of administering this sacrament a baptism. For though, as we have repeatedly asserted, that the verb under review in general expresses an effect or condition rather than an operation ; what we have ad- vanced must have convinced you, that this effect or condi- 1 Du Pius Ecc. Hist. V. iv. p. n. 262 THE FREaUENT APPLICATION tion is produced by sprinkling or pouring, as well as by an immersion. This point we shall consider as irrefragably established. There are, however, two or three objections which we shall anticipate and repel. I. Our opponents argue that ' The verbs hapto and rhan- ' tizo are sometimes used in such connexions, and under ' such circumstances in the Septuagint, as occasionally to ex- * hibit different, and even opposite, applications.' We do not for a moment hesitate to concede this point to our antago- nists, though we are far from supposing our position affected by the concession. That hajpto and rhantizo are frequently used synonymously, has been rendered unquestionable ; but the former term, being of a more diversified application than the latter, includes other actions besides affusion and asper- sion, as we have repeatedly observed. Hence, in some con- nexions, it means to dip, dye, drown, sink, &c. — in others to paint, stain, pour, sprinkle, &c. The sense of it, in the passages referred to, is simply to wet, so as to admit of a subsequent aspersion ; and, like this vernacular verb, in- cludes a variety of actions : — since a person may be wetted by going into a bath, or by being out in a shower. As we wet an article by dipping or sprinkling it, so a thing may be baptized either by plunging or affusion. To ground the practice of submersion or aspersion on the mere sense of the term, would be fallacious. Regard it as synonymous with the verbs to wet, wash, colour, cleanse, or consecrate, which may be effected by various modes of action, and every difficulty vanishes — the application of it by the Greek translators of the Pentateuch is justified, and the objection of our opponents falls to the ground. The principal, if not the only, passages in which baptizo and rhantizo are employed, in such a connexion, as to show that they are used occasionally for different actions, are the following: — Ex. xii. 22 ; Lev. iv. 6, 17; ix. 9; xiv. 6, 16, 51 ; Numb. xix. 18 — where the hand, finger, and hyssop, are said to be dipped in blood or oil, previous to sprinkling it upon a person or thing. We have proved OF THE WORD BAPTIZE. 263 before that the prepositions, in some of these texts, pre- clude the idea of dipping ; and that to wet, take up, or re- ceive, must be the sense of the verb in question. We remark further, and, in the first place, that the ap- plication of the element is said to have been frequently made without any reference to dipping, wetting, or receiv- ing it at all ; which shows that the method of procuring it was an immaterial circumstance in the mind of the inspired writer. (See, for example, Lev. i. 5; iii. 2, 15; v. 9 ; viii. 19, 24; ix. 12, 18; xvii. 6.) Secondly, that in many other places, where precisely the same action and design are mentioned, the verb, To take — that is, in any way adequate to a subsequent aspersion, is frequently employed; which proves that though baptizo and rhantizo are not here used synonymously; there is no evidence that the former word means to dip and refers only to the mode of obtaining the element. (See Lev. iv. 25, 30, 34; viii. 15, 23, 30 ; xiv. 14, 25 ; &c.) To this we may add, thirdly, that the Hebrew verb, tahal, and the Greek verb, bapto, rendered to dip in the texts first referred to, are employed to express exactly the same effect and operation as those conveyed by the Hebrew verb, laceh, and the Greek verbs, lamhano and tithemi, translated, To take, in the last cited texts. And our opponents have no more ground for argu- ing that, in these passages, the word bapto means to dip, than we have that it is synonymous with tithemi, and meany to take, without any reference to mode. To reply that Moses means to take by dipping, is begging the question ; and assuming a position which cannot be fairly maintained. The general inference is, that though bapto and riiaxtizo are here used for different actions ; there is no evidence to show that the former is used for dipping at all — to take, or wet, or secure — heing the manifest sense in which the in- spired writer employs it. II. Again they argue, 'If your deductions are correct, we are left in a state of utter uncertainty respecting the precise import of words altogether, and of what God would 2G4 THE FREQUENT APPLICATION have us to do in this institution.'^ — To which we reply, 1. That this is not always nor often the case with respect to language — the import of specific terms being generally manifest in all connexions ; but where words are generic, expressive of action indefinitely, or which primarily denote an effect or condition, the mode of operation being unim- portant, is often obscure, and can be learned only from analogy or inference, and sometimes not at all. — 2. That this objection applies as much to our opponents as to our- selves. "We have shown, from their writings, in a manner we hope quite satisfactory, that the terms in question, both verbs and prepositions, are of diverse significations, or are used in connexions where they necessarily exhibit different and opposite actions, and a great variety of effects — so that the objection recoils with all its force upon the objectors. — 3. That if our opponents can base their immersion sys- tem on nothing more wide or stable than a definite use of general terms, it can never stand the test of examination. That this is the case with the scheme of our brethren, will be palpable to those who have attended to the foregoing ob- servations, and who have witnessed their aversion to any philological investigation of the grounds of their practice. ■ — And 4. That a devout study of the following passage of Bishop Butler will be of considerable service to many of them: 'The evidence of religion not appearing obvious, ' may constitute one particular part of some men's trial in ' the religious sense ; as it gives scope, for a virtuous ex- ' ercise, or vicious neglect of their understanding, in ex- ' amining or not examining into that evidence. Tliere ' seems no possible reason to be given, why we may not be ' in a state of moral probation, with regard to the exercise ' of our understanding upon the subject of religion, as we 'are with regard to our behaviour in common affairs.' - III. They may object further, ' If your positions be correct, your mode of baptism by sprinkling, pouring, or • Set' Booth, V. i. p. 84, 85; Rob. p. 3G; Giblif, p. 58-Gl. 2 Analogy, Pt. II. cli. vi. OF THE WORD BAPTIZE. 265 applying the element to the object, cannot be established as exclusively scriptural any more than dipping.' We an- swer, without hesitation, that it can ; and that from evi- dence infinitely preferable to a reliance on vague and inde- finite verbs and mutable prepositions — we mean from good circumstantial evidence, which is the best, not only in courts of law, but even in the historical facts of the gospel. Nor let it be supposed that this is a species of testimony of which our brethren never avail themselves. They have no other for observing the first day of the week instead of the seventh — for admitting females to the Lord's table — for the perpetuity of the sacraments — and indeed for most other ordinances among them; and to see that they joy- fully avail themselves of it, when presenting the least sem- blance of argument in their favour, you have only to refer to their reiterated allusions to the baptism of John at Jor- dan and Euon, and of Philip and the Eunuch in the desert. Of course they can never consistently object to a similar species of evidence from us, when so common in their own communion. We have proved that the terms of the insti- tution and the narratives of its first administration by no means establish the mode of our opponents ; and that the cases they have cited, as most in their favour, are as re- levant to our method as to their own. We have, in fact, completely overthrown their exclusive scheme of baptism ; and disposed of every material argument they have ad- vanced in support of it. Having thus cleared the ground of every plausible objection, we shall now, from circum- stantial evidence of the most conclusive character, prove to you, that sprinkling, pouring, or applying water to the baptized, was the only primitive mode, and such as alone is valid in our age and country. We say sprinkling, pour- ing, or applying the water to the baptized ; for, as previ- ously observed, we are not contending about minute and frivolous regulations on which the scriptures are silent. 266 SECTION THIRD. THE MODE OF BAPTISM AMONG THE JEWS. 'Now baptism, in the first place, expresseth the outward putting ' away the filth of the flesh, by external washing with material 'water, 1 Pet. iii. 21 : and that which answers hereunto can be ' nothing but the inward purifying of our souls and consciences 'by the grace of the Spirit of God; tliat is, saith our apostle, 'the "putting off" the body of the sins of the flesh," Col. ii. 11, 'which contains the whole defilement and corruption of sin. ' And this also was typed out unto us by all the legal purifica- 'tions of old.' — Dr. J. Owen's Works, v. ii. p. 501. That rites and ceremonies designated baptism were com- mon among the Jews, may be inferred from the preceding observations. The cases of Naaman, Judith, Nebuchad- nezzar, the Israelites in the Red Sea, and of the Levitical purifications, which are repeatedly designated baptisms, are indisputable. From the frequent ablutions among, at least, a part of the chosen tribes, before our Saviour's incarnation, the Jews were called Hemero, or Daily Baptists, ^ It is contended, also, that one rite in the admission of proselytes to a participation of Hebrew privileges, was by baptism. - It is, further, supposed that our Lord recognized Avater baptism among the Jews, and that Nicoderaus, a master of Israel, was blameable for not understanding the spiritual application of it to the regeneration of our hearts by the Holy Spirit. John iii. 5, 10. ^ Dr. Gill remarks, that ' there were divers bathings, baptisms, incumbent on the ' Israelites, and so upon such proselytes who were upon 'an equal footing with them, and equally under obligation ' to obey the ceremonial law — which consisted of divers ' washings, baptisms.''^ Dr. Gale also says, that the Jews, ' on account of several kinds of pollution, used to purify 1 Wall, vol. i. p. 34; Gale, p. 13(!; J. Stcnnctf, p. 53. -■ Lightfoot's Works, v. ii. p. 117, fol. 3 Up. Jer. Taylor, v. iii. p. 10, 1S35. THE MODE OF BAPTISM, ETC. 267 'themselves by washing, cannot be questioned; the divers * washings [Greek bajHisms^ mentioned in the Epistle to ' the Hebrews, (c. ix. 10,) make it incontestible.' ^ ' There- ' fore, it appears with superior evidence, from the testimony * of these competent and unexceptionable witnesses, that 'baptism was well known, as a ceremonial, purifying rite, 'prior to the Christian era.'- Dr. Campbell says, 'It is ' evident, that first John's baptism, and afterwards the ' Christian, though of a more spiritual nature, and directed ' to a more sublime end, originated in the usages that had 'long obtained among the Jews.'^ Dr. Hammond also says, 'To baptize is to wash or purify, belonging to all * kinds of purifications among the Jews, and from thence ' more especially to the receiving of proselytes, and admit- ' ting disciples.'* A particular consideration of those ce- remonies, thus designated baptism, by persons who de- signed to be fully understood, will be of very material importance in ascertaining how it was likely John the Baptist and our Lord's disciples, while acting under the Levitical dispensation, as they evidently did till the Savi- our's resurrection, administered baptism. The passages in the New Testament, which more immediately direct us to this investigation, are the following: — Mark ^^i. 4, 8. — 'And when they come from the market, except they baptize, they eat not ; and many other things there be which they have received to hold, as the baptizing of cups and pots, brazen vessels and tables.' Ileb. ix. 10. — 'Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers baptisms, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.' The former text refers to those purifications which were traditional, and common in the days of Christ. The latter, to such as were appointed by God himself. Both, how- ever, may be fairly combined in this dissertation, as being ' P. 265. 2 Antiped. Exam. vol. ii. p. 231. 3 On Mark vii. 4. * On Acts i. 5. 268 THE MODE OF BAPTISM both designated baptism. The question now is, how were these administered? The following remarks will answer this question, and indirectly establish our views respecting the scripture mode of this sacrament. I. 'Jewish washings,' says Robinson, 'instituted, or not ' instituted, may be conveniently classed under four heads : I. 'Common, for cleanliness, healtb, or pleasure, as the ' case of Pharoah's daughter (Ex. ii. 5), and Bathsheba '(2 SAM.ii. 2.)' II. 'Traditional, as in Mark vii. 1-9. III. 'Ritual, as the consecration of the priests (Ex. ' xxix. 4); daily (Exod. xxx. 17); clothes stained with ' blood in offering sacrifices (Lev. vi. 27) ; utensils (v. 28); ' cleansing a leper (Lev. xiii. and xiv.); various unclean- ' nesses (Lev. xv. and xviii.)' IV. 'Extraordinary, as of Naaman (2 Kings v. 10- ' 14); at the giving of the law (Ex. xix. 10) ; after a vic- 'tory(NuMB. xxxi. 19-23); before entering the Jordan * (Josh. iii. 5.)'^ As neither Mark nor Paul refer to the common wash- ings mentioned in the first class, and as those of the second comprehend a part of the data on which we shall rest our evidence, those mentioned under the third and fourth divi- sions only demand consideration. II. Let it then be clearly observed that the word to sprinkle is frequently used in the sacred writings and in reference to ritual worship, as synonymous with terms that iniequivocally express an entire and universal purification ; and the effects are equally significant and efficacious. It is employed by the inspired penmen for — I. To cleanse. — 'Then will I sprinkle clean water ' upon you and ye shall be clean — from all your filthiness 'and from all your idols will I cleanse you' (Ezekiel xxxvi. 25.) II. To purge. — 'Purge me with hyssop [with which ' the blood, water, and oil, were sprinkled] and I shall be ' Hist. p. 31-3J. AMONG THE JEWS. 2G9 * clean (Ps. li. 7.) Moreover lie sprinkled with blood both ' the tabernacle and the vessels of the ministry, and almost 'all things under the law are purged with blood' (Heb. ix. 21, 22.) III. To SANCTIFY. — 'The blood of bulls, and of goats, ' and the ashes of an heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanc- 'tifieth to the purifying of the flesh' (Heb. ix. 13.) See Lev. viii. 30. IV. To WASH. — ' Having our hearts sprinkled from an ' evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water ' (Heb. X. 22.) Consequently, when we read in the scriptures of per- sons being ceremonially cleansed, purged, sanctified, and washed, we are not certain that they were subject to any thing more than a sprinkling, unless the circumstances of the case render it apparent. Hence, Carson frankly ad- mits, that ' sprinkling a little water on any part of the 'body might be an emblem of purification.' ^ If a corro- boration of our position were still demanded, we might refer them to circumcision which, though affecting only a small part of the infant's body, is called, ' putting off the ' body of the sins of the flesh ; ' (Col. ii. 11. comp. v. 13.) So common, in scripture, is the idea of entire cleansing, by a partial application of the purifying element, that our Baptist friends, unconscious of their inconsistencies, fre- quently allude, both in preaching and prayers, to this mode of consecration, as natural and instructive. III. It is also plain beyond contradiction, that an appli- cation of the cleansing element to any one part of a person or thing, in the form of sprinkling, pouring, or otherwise, was always considered a valid and universal purification. Hence we read that a leper (Lev. xiv. 7), a person de- filed by touching a dead body (Numb. xix. 13, 20), the Jews as a nation (Ezek. xxxvi. 25), the Levites, or ser- vants of the sanctuary (Numb. viii. 7), a house (Lev. xiv. 51), the mercy seat (Lev. xvi. 14, 15), the tabernacle ' Carson, p. 198. z 5 270 THE MODE OF BAPTISM (Heb. ix. 21, 22), tents, vessels (Numb. xix. 18), and the heart (Heb. x. 22), were universally cleansed, purged, sanctified, or washed, ceremonially, by a mere sprinkling ■ — or by the application of the purifying element to a very small part of them. In Neii. xii. 30, it is said, 'And ' the priests and the Levites purified themselves, and pu- ' rified the people, and the gates, and the v/all [of Jerusa- 'leni.]' Here the mode was evidently one — and yet to immerse the wall and gates of the city was impossible : a partial application being all that is intended by the term. Kings, priests, and prophets, where wholly consecrated to their respective offices by pouring or sprinkling the holy oil upon them, though it might have touched only a small part of their persons or apparel, (Lev. viii. 30.) An ex- cellent commentator observes, that ' Aaron and his sons ' were the Lord's priests, though the blood of consecration * was only put upon the tips of their ears, and on their ' thumbs and great toes (Lev. viii. 24.) In the Lord's * supper, eating a little bread and drinking a little wine, ' sufficeth to exhibit the thing signified — and we need not, * nay, we should not, fill ourselves with either — and yet it * is called a supper.' ^ We read, that the congregation of the children of Israel was sanctified, as an assembly, or mass of individuals, by sprinkling blood on comparatively a few of them (Ex. xxiv. 7, 8; Heb. ix. 19.) Tliis senti- ment is illustrated and confirmed by one of our opponents. Speaking of dipping the pen in ink, he says, ' though the ' whole is not dipped all over, yet the part particularly ' referred to is, and the pen may be truly said to be dipped, * according to that known rule : — What is true of any one ' part, may be said of the whole complexly, though not of ' every part of the whole separately.' - Hence the sprink- ling or baptizing of any part of the body, according to a rule well known among our brethren, is baptizing the whole of it — so that applying a few drops of blood on the unclean, sanctifies them wholly. ' Matt. Henry on Baptism, p. 139, HO. " Gale, p. 114, AMONG THE JEWS. 271 If further proof were wanting to show that even the partial applications here alluded to were by no means copious, it might be inferred from the circumstance that the ashes of a single red heifer burnt without the camp (though a gallon at most), were sufficient to ' season' or impregnate all the water of separation used by the whole of the tribes of Israel for a ' considerable period' — some think ' several 'ages' — and the Jews say for ' a thousand years.' ^ Yet this sparing application ' sanctified to the purifying of the * flesh,' and was a type of the blood of Christ which ' cleanseth from all sin,' (Heb. ix. 13, 14.) IV. It is also apparent that most of the rites which Paul designates baptisms were for the removal of local diseases and partial defilement. Consequently the purifi- cations requisite were only local and partial. When our Lord commanded the young man born blind to go and wash in the pool of Siloam, the cleansing of his eyes was only intended (John ix. 7.) Naaman expected the prophet to put his hand over the affected place, and recover the leper (2 Kings v. 11.) This method is very apparent in Le- viticus XV. which describes partial uncleannesses in the person and apparel, and prescribes bathing the body and washing the clothes in accordance v/ith the nature and extent of the pollution. To imagine otherwise, would be to oppose the analogy of the Mosaic institutions, to run counter to the reason of things, and to make that necessary, which the scriptures have not. Indeed, a plenary immer- sion must often have been impracticable in the vv^ilderness, where pure water was so alarmingly scarce, as to be desig- nated a land of drought and without water (Deut. viii. 15 ; Jer. ii. 6) — where the people murmured and rebelled for want of water (Ex. xvii. 3 ; Numb. xx. 2) — where the nobles themselves dug for water (Numb. xxi. 18) — and where, at the command of God, Moses smote the rock at Rephidim (Ex. xvii. G), and at Kadesh (Numb. xx. 11), to procure supplies, to prevent them from perishing with 1 See Ainsworth on Numb. xix. 9. 272 THE MODE OF BAPTISM thirst. That they in general obtained from the rocks, rains, wells, springs, or purchased with money (Numb. xx. 19; xxi. 22) sufficient for drink, for culinary purposes, and for such ablutions as we believe to have been insti- tuted, is not to be doubted; but that they always had enough pure, fair, running water, uncontaminated by natu- ral or moral defilement, for the daily immersion of at least two millions of people, is what, without good authority, few. will accredit : ^ and as such a total dipping was, in most cases, impracticable, so for all partial pollutions must have been needless. With equal propriety might Isaiah have commanded -Hezekiah to plaister himself all over with lumps of figs for a boil on some particular part of the body (Is. xxviii. 21), as for the priests, without a divine injunc- tion, which was not given, to have obliged every man, woman, and child, to wash themselves and their clothes entirely for a few pimples on the face, or a little filth on the hem of their garment. V. It is also very remarkable that all the laws of Jewish purification were given to the Hebrews in a place where, as said above, there was comparatively no waterj and when the performance of this rite, in the sense understood by our opponents, must have appeared impracticable to every person that heard them, and must have really been so for at least forty years : - and yet what Moses enjoined, in this respect, was never once objected to as impossible or even difficult, nor, that we learn, was it ever neglected through a scarcity of water, at any period, place, or under any cir- cumstances. When the Legislator commanded them all to bathe, cleanse, wash, or sanctify themselves, they un- derstood him to mean something that was then and there feasible ; but the immersion of their whole body as often as the law rendered purification requisite, which Mr. Booth says was ' daily,' ^ and that for two millions of people, and during forty years in this desert — this waste, howling wil- ' See Manner's Obs. ch. x. obs. 38 ; and Josephus Contra Apion, b. ii. s. 6. * Calmet's Diet. Frag, No. 103, 116. * Booth, vol. i. p. 280. AMONG THE JEWS. 273 (lerness — was a thing impracticable. In fact, the local circumstances of the Hebrews, at the time the laws of purification were given, are the best means we possess of understanding the import of the terms employed — that is, in the sense those circumstances must have caused them to understand them. But to refer to the language itself: — The words employed by Moses by no means imply a total immersion. We read of Bathing the body ceremo- nially in the following texts: Lev. xv. 5, 8, 11, 13, 21, 22, 27; xvi. 26, 28; xvii. 15, 16; Numb. xix. 7, 8, 19. — In all these passages the Hebrew word is racJiatz, which means simply to wash.^ It is translated in every place by louo in the Septuagint, and by lavo in the Latin. We read of Washing the body for Levitical lustration in the ensuing tests: Ex. xxix. 4; xl. 12, 32; Lev. xiv. 8, 9 ; xv. 16; xvi. 14, 24; xvii. 16 ; xxii. 6. — In all these we have the same Hebrew original, with similar Greek and Latin trans- lations. For washing the face, hands, feet, and clothes, the expressions are sometimes changed ; but that is of no mo- ment in the present inquiry. To contend that the divine Lawgiver commanded the people to plunge themselves or one another under water for legal impurities, is not only opposed to the circumstances of the case, but even to the plain letter of scripture. VI. Let us now consider the several texts Mr. Robin- son has referred to, as exhibiting the various kinds of ce- remonial washings or ablutions among the Jews. These we shall cite at length for your fullest satisfaction : — Exod. xix. 10. — 'And the Lord said unto Moses, Go unto the people and sanctify them to day and to-morrow, and let them wash their clothes.' Exod. xxix. 4. — 'And Aaron and his sons shalt thou bring unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shalt wash them with water.' Exod. XXX. 18, 19. — 'Thou shalt also make a laver of brass, and his foot also of brass, to wash ^\■ithal ; and thou shalt put it 1 See Taylor's Heb. Con. in Loc. 274 THE MODE OF BAPTISM between the tabernacle of the congregation and the altar, and thou shalt put water therein ; for Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet thereat.' Lev. vi. 27, 28. — 'And when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any garment, thou shalt wash that whereon it was sprinkled in the holy place ; and the earthen vessel wherein it is sodden shall be broken ; and if it be sodden in a brazen pot, it shaU be both scoured and rinsed in (or with) water.' Lev. xiv. 7, 8. — 'And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed seven times, and shall pronounce him clean ; and he that is to be cleansed shall wash his clothes and shave off his hair, and wash himself in (or with) water, that he may be clean.' Lev. XV. 5. — 'And whosoever toucheth his bed, shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in (or with) water, and be unclean -until the even.' (See v. 6, 7, &c.) Kumb. xix. 19. — 'And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day and on the seventh day; and on the seventh day, he [that purified the unclean, v. 22] shall purify himself in (or with) water, and shall be clean at even.' Josh. iii. 5. — 'And Joshua said unto the people sanctify yourselves ; for to-morrow the Lord will do wonders among you.' Numb. xxxi. 19-23. — 'Whosoever hath killed any person, and who- soever hath touched any slain, purify both yourselves and your captives ; and all your raiment, and all that is made of skins, and all work of goat's-hair, and all things made of wood ; every thing that may abide the fire, ye shall make it go through the fire, and it shall be clean ; nevertheless it shall be purified with the water of separation ; and all that abideth not the fire, ye shall make go through the water ; and ye shall wash your clothes on the seventh day, and ye shall be clean.' The passage, in 2 Kings v. 10-14, has been cited and considered already. We have now quoted all that is ma- terial to our present investigation. VII. From these citations it is plain that the personal ablutions, which Paul designates baptisms, may be divided into two heads — what people did to themselves and what others did to them — or, in other words, what was self- operated and what was ministerial. AMONG THE JEWS. 2lO I. What people did to themselves was to wash their clothes and bathe themselves in or with water. Whether this bathing and washing consisted in a total or partial wetting, you will judge from the preceding evidence. That they were only partial is plain; and this would an- swer every end of the Legislator, and best accord with the circumstances of the Hebrews. As stated before, these ceremonial purgations must have been very frequent, both in the wilderness and in the Holy Land, among such a vast congregation of people as the Israelites. In the desert, water was a very precious article, as we gather from the frequent murmurings of the people for want of it. And in Judea, the scarcity must often have been ex- cessive, as will be more fully established hereafter. (See 1 KiN-QS, xvii. and xviii. Is. xliii. 20; Jer. xiv. 1-6). The repeated and almost daily saturation of the garments would soon have rendered them ragged and colourless. But to pass over the apparel and to come to the people, who, we will suppose for a moment, contrary to fact, did absolutely dip themselves over head and ears in water every time they became polluted, according to the laws of Moses — but this bears no analogy or affinity to the bap- tisms of our opponents — which consist in the ' action per- ' formed by one man upon another.' ^ Let us hear their explicit statements on this point: 'Except in the single ' circumstance of dipping, none of these washings bear the ' least resemblance to Christian baptism ; and this circum- ' stance is a mere accident, and may as well be taken from ' Pagan rituals as from the ceremonies of the Jews ; that ' is to say, it is so vague and far-fetched, that it deserves, 'in this point of view, no consideration at all.'^ 'A fact * it is, beyond all contradiction, that this same proselyte ' washing, which men have thought fit to call baptism, is ' no baptism at all. It was a person's washing himself, ' and not the dipping of one person by another. It would ' appear that a proselyte tvashed himself; but this is not 1 Maclean, v. iii. p. 1S3. • Rob. Hist. p. 35. 276 THE MODE OF BAPTISM ' baptism.^ A law for one man to dip himself is not an ' authority for another man to dip him.'" From this state- ment it is plain, that if a man dip himself under water a thousand times, he is not thereby baptized ; for this simple reason, that baptism necessarily consists in the 'action per- ' formed by one man upon another.' Nor is Mr. Robinson singular in his judgment in this case ; for self-immersion is not only never now practised by our opponents, but is universally exploded as improper and invalid. This rite is administered only by a person who has been previously baptized, and who is recognized as a Christian officer in the church. We must, therefore, look to the transitive act exhibited in the above quotations, to discover what Paul jneant by baptism in his Epistle to the Hebrews. II. Wliat people did to each other. The apostle positively calls these purifications ' baptisms,' which God imposed on the Jews until the time of reformation. In this designation our opponents accord. We also know that these washings or ablutions were of two kinds — a person bathing himself in or with water — and another applying water to him, by pouring or sprinkling. Now, as you have heard, our op- ponents unequivocally assure us that the first is not bap- tism — consequently, the second alone is baptism. The priests, or the people who were clean, sprinkled upon others oil, blood, or water, either pure ox impregnated with the ashes of the red heifer : therefore sprinkling, pouring, or applying one or all of these elements, is what Paul means by the terra baptism ; and as our brethren have thus ex- cluded washing and bathing one's self as a part of baptism, we are driven to conclude with Mr. Maclean ^ and Dr. Gill,* that the diversity consists in the various elements era- ployed, and the diiferent effects produced. An eminent Baptist writer justly observes, ' that sprinkling upon the 'people either by blood (as Ex. xxiv. 8; xxix. 21 ; Lev. ' xiv. 7, &c.), or by water mixed with the ashes of a red heifer (Numb, xix; Heb. ix. 13, &c.), because it was a ' Rob. p. 3C. '^ P. 39. 3 Vol. ill. p. 190. ♦ P. 22j. AMONG THE JEWS. 277 * type of cleansing by Christ for sin, is metapliorically put ♦for it, (Is. lii. 15; Heb. x. 22; xii. 24; 1 Pet. i. 2.)' i When, therefore. Dr. Jenkins says, ' the divers washings 'in the Jewish service did imply washing m water; and ' as their being loJioUy unclean supposed the need of a total * washing, so it is reasonable to think the ablution was a * total immersion ; for that the sprinkling was no part of 'the baptism, you may read Numb. xix. 21 : the water of ' separation did not cleanse :' ~ — it must be manifest to every attentive hearer, that the good Doctor had but very super- ficially examined this subject ; and, through want of more light on the point, was misleading his readers. In fact, he contradicts the plain and unequivocal sense of scripture ; ^ iind is corrected by a modern Baptist, who says — ' Sprink- ' ling a little water on any part of the body might be an ' emblem of purification water is literally poured on ' the body, if poured on any part of the body.'* Stuart cor- roborates this view of the case : — ' "We find no example ' among all the Levitical washings or ablutions, where im- 'mersion of the person is required.' ^ . . . . ' It is perfectly ' clear that the sprinJding of water, or of blood, was alto- 'gether the most significant mode of purification, or of ' atonement, or of consecration to God, under the ancient ' dispensation Is there no significancy, then, in that ' mode of a rite which, above all others, is spoken of in the ' Old Testament, and in the New, as the emblem of puri- ' fication, and atonement, and consecration ? ' ^ Our breth- ren may deem such a mode by no means so impressive or significant, as a complete dipping or a washing all over ; and may sneeringly ask — as they do in reference to sprink- ling a little water on the face of a child — what good can it eifect, or what instruction can it convey to mankind ? But it was the method of a wise and merciful God, and was cal- culated to accomplish all the good, and to impart all the instruction, he deemed requisite — and, doubtless, much ' Reach's Met p. 183. 2 Defence, p. 113. 3 Supra, p. 24G. ^ Carson, p. 197, 198. = Stuart, p. 341. 6 lb. 3?1. A a 278 THE MODE OF BAPTISM better than any other mode that human wit could have suggested. VIII. The isolated text (Ex. xxix. 4), which speaks of Moses washing Aaron and his sons at the door of the ta- bernacle, in no degree militates against our doctrine, but rather confirms it. That Moses performed an act upon Aaron and his sons which, in ceremonial technicalities, is called washing, is evident. The question however is, what that act was ? No sea of brass was then erected for the ser- vice of the sanctuary, nor do we read of any other vessel sufficiently large for totally submersing the High Priest and his grown-up sons ; neither is it likely that those, whose sacred persons were never in the least to be inde- licately exposed in the service of the altar but at the peril of their lives (ch. xxviii. 42, 43), should be stripped naked, dipped, lathered, and washed by Moses in the sight of all the congregation, summoned expressly to witness the ce- remony, (Lev. viii. 4-6.) There is no question but the priests and Levites were washed by Moses in the same manner. How he acted with regard to the latter we learn from the following text, which alludes to a grand, solemn, and public consecration of, at least, 8580 males, from 30 years old to 50, who were appointed to minister about the tabernacle of the Lord. — ' Take the Levites from among ' the children of Israel and cleanse them, sprinkling water ' of purifying upon them ; and let them shave all their ' flesh, and let them wash their clothes, and make them- ' selves clean,' (Numbers viii. 6, 7, 48.) Here, all that jMoses did was sprinkling them with water; and as the above passage is admitted by our opponents to be the only one in the Old Testament, representing one person actu- ally and literally washing another, for ceremonial pur- poses ; ^ as we read of no instance where one person (lipped another; 2 and as what is denominated washing, sanctifying, purging, and cleansing one another, was, in every other case, performed by sprinkling, pouring, or » Kob. I?. Z3. 2 iij. p. 23. AMONG THE JEWS. 279 Otherwise applying the element to the object; we submit that it was done by Moses in the same way. (See Ezek. xxxvi. 25.) We conclude, therefore, that the baptisms mentioned by the apostle are ' called divers, because they ' were performed on different occasions and for various 'kinds of uncleanness ;' ^ and consisted in sprinkling, pouring, or otherwise applying to the people, blood, oil, or water, either pure or impregnated with ashes ; and that the other rite common among the Jews, consisting in bathing or washing themselves in or with water, was not baptism at all. IX. Remark further, that as baptism under the gospel is analogous to anointing or consecrating under the law, as will be shown hereafter ; so, of course, anointing under the law is figurative of baptism under the gospel ; and is, doubtless, included by the apostle in the expression, 'divers baptisms.' We find that priests (Ex. xxviii. 41), kings (1 Kings i. 34), and prophets (Is. Ixi. 1), were thus baptized or consecrated to their respective offices ; so were things, as the altar (Ex. xxix. 36), the tabernacle and the ark (Ex. xxx. 26), the laver and his foot (Ex. xl. 11): Jacob also anointed the pillar he set up (Gen. xxviii. 18) ; the Jewish nation, as a kingdom of priests and a holy people, were consecrated to God, (Exod. xix. 6.) The language put into their mouths, and to be sung by each in the solemn assembly on the sabbath, was, ' I shall 'be anointed with fresh oil' (Ps. xcii. 10); and God, re- ferring to his gracious interference on behalf of his people, said, ' Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no 'harm,' (Ps. cv. 15.) This anointing was typical of the influence of the Spirit. ^ ' Then Samuel took the horn of ' oil, and anointed David in the midst of his brethren ; and ' the Spirit of the Lord came upon David from that day ' forward,' (1 Sam. xvi. 13.) This was the case with Saul (ch. X. 1, 6) and others. Now, we find similar phrase- ' Maclean, v. iii. p. 190. - See Dr. J. Owen's Works, v. ii. p. 163; v. iii. p. 404. 280 THE MODE OF BAPTISM ology under the gospel dispensation : — ' He wliicli esta- * blisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is ' God; who hath also sealed us, and given us the earnest ' of his spirit in our hearts,' (2 Cor. i. 21, 22.) 'We have ' an unction [or anointing] from the Holy One ; but the ' anointing which we have received of him abideth in you * — the same anointing teacheth you all things,' (1 John ii. 20, 27.) From this we gather, that anointing with oil under the law, and with the Holy Spirit under the gospel, are of a like import, as type and antitype ; and as the baptisms of water and of the Spirit are one in design, as a figure and the reality, we may fairly conclude, with- out strong reasons to the contrary, that pouring water is truly scriptural baptism. This element, being cheaper than costly oil, was substituted for it ; and sprinkling, being a more expeditious mode than pouring, was often adopted instead of it — though the designs of both were the same. X. Dr. Gale says, 'the vast brazen sea which Solomon ' caused to be made, held near a thousand barrels of water : 'the bulk of it argues that the priests were to go into it.'^ This inference, however, is gratuitous. Cisterns, tanks, and reservoirs of water, are often made for purposes widely different from that of going into them. This sea was, at least, nine feet deep, and ' stood raised upon the figures ' of twelve oxen in brass, so high that either that they must ' have had stairs to it, or cocks at the bottom to draw off ' the Avater from it.'- Now, if the priestly purifications re- quired pure or fair water, as our opponents admit, and if the blood and filth, contracted by the officers in slaying the sacrifices, would have polluted the water — a case that no person of judgment would ever dispute — the consequence of dipping themselves into this vessel (and which, after all, was no baptism) would have been, that every time a priest bathed himself, all the foul water, to the amount of a thou- siUid barrels, must have been drained off, and the poor » p. 128. See GiU, p. 455; and Anderson, p. 20. » Matt. Henry on 1 Kings vii. 23, AMONG THE JEWS. 281 Gibeonites and Xetliiniras, with leatheru bottles, must have filled it afresh from some neighbouring spring before another priest could have washed himself therein ; and as these personal lustrations must have been performed by- one or another several times a day, the drawers of water would have had no sinecure office. Then there would have been the difficulty of getting in and out of this elevated vessel. That the priests and Levites would not have done this naked, will be evident to all; and that they would hardly have climbed up, and popped themselves under wa- ter in their clothes, and then have climbed out, and have gone to work again, dripping with water, is equally appa- rent. But the brazen sea was to be used in the same way and for the same purpose as the laver of the tabernacle. What mode was adopted with it, we read in the plainest terms: — 'And he set the laver between the tent of the ' congregation and the altar, and put water there to wash * withal. And Moses and Aaron and his sons washed their * hands and their feet thereat. "When they went into the * tent of the congregation, and when they came near unto * the altar, they washed as the Lord commanded Moses,' (ExoD. xl. 30-33.) This view of the case is confirmed by Josephus : — ' Now he appointed the sea to be for wash- ' ing the hands and the feet of the priests, when they en- ' tered into the temple, and were to ascend the altar.' ^ — So much for dipping into the brazen sea ! XI. As a further confirmation of our assumption, let it be remarked, that the order of the priesthood, the species of the sacrifices, and the mode of purification prevalent among the Greehs, as described by Archbishop Potter,- were evidently of Hebrew original. No person can peruse the chapter referred to, without perceiving the analogy, and concluding that this was the fact. Now, purifications among the Greeks, as among the Jews, were of two kinds : — what the people did to themselves, and what was done to them by the priests. As to the former, they washed their ' AiU. b. 8, c. 3, s. e. - Antiq. of Greece, v. ii. b. S, c. 4. p. 247-265. A a 5 282 THE MODE OF BAPTISM clothes and the whole body. When this could not be con- veniently performed, they washed their hands and feet as a substitute. This self-ablution, however, on the evidence of our opponents, was not baptism, but only a preparation for it. As to the latter, we learn that the priest purified the people by sprinkling them. Pure or salt water only was to be used. This was kept in a small vessel called the peri- ranterion, at the entrance of the temples. A triple aspersion was administered. This was done with a torch, or branch of laurel or olive. The design was to free from guilt and cleanse from pollution. This was really their baptism, and accords with the practice of John the Baptist, a Jewish priest, and with that of the apostles of our Lord, as we have proved before. This is confirmed by Justin Martyr, an eminent Christian writer, born about sixty years after the death of Christ. His words, though quoted before, we shall recite in this place. He says, ' sprinkling with holy ' water was invented by demons, in imitation of the true ' baptism signified by the prophets, that their votaries might 'liave their pretended purifications by water.' From this passage it appears, that the lustrations of the heathen were borrowed from the purification of the Jews — both are de- signated baptism, and both were administered by sprinkling. How the Greeks baptized, you have just heard. Virgil, who died about ten years before the birth of Christ, tells us, in the plainest terms, how it was performed by the Romans: — ' A verdant branch of olives in his hands, ' He moved around and purified the bands ; ' Slow as he passed, the lustjal waters shed, ' Then closed the rites, and thrice invoked the dead.' ' We can hardly read this passage without calling to mind the following text :'■ — ' And a clean person shall take hyssop, ' and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it npon the tent and ' upon all the vessels, and upon the persons that were there, ' and upon him that touched a bone, or one slain, or one ' Pitt's Virgil, iEn. VI. v. 229. Sec Juvenal's Sat. II. v. 15/. AMONG THE JEWS. 283 'dead, or a grave' (Numb. xix. 18.) The analogy here is complete. From what Mr. Robinson has written ou pagan lustration,^ it is not deducible that any other mode than sprinkling was ever adopted by any nations, the most ancient or remote. Mr. Ewing says, ' In the writings of ' Homer (one of the earliest monuments of heathen mytho- ' logy, and one of the best sources of classical illustration of * the Holy Scriptures), I have not met with a single instance * of Immersion, as a religious purification, or in any respect 'whatever, as a religious ceremony. He gives many in- ' stances of the religious application of water ; but they are ' all by pouring.'- We cite one instance out of many : — " Then the heralds ranged "The rites in order, broached the wine, and pouued " Fresh water on the hands of all the kings." ^ This accounts for the silence of the enemies of the gos- pel, respecting the mode of Christian baptism, as adminis- tered by the apostles, by sprinkling. Whereas, had they gone about the different countries of the world dipping their converts under water, a practice so novel would surely have called forth observations and opposition — as was the case in almost every thing in Christianity that dif- fered from the modes of gentile worship — and particularly so, if the manner of performing it had been equally difficult, indelicate, and dangerous, as is modern immersion, in many well-authenticated instances. In Roberts' Oriental Illustrations, Stc. is the fol- lowing explanation of Isaiah lii. 15: — 'So shall he ' sprinkle many nations ; the kings shall shut their mouths 'at him.' — 'At an Eastern feast a person stands near the ' entrance with a silver vessel .... full of rose water, or some ' other perfumed liquid, with which he sprinkles the guests ' as they approach, as if from a watering pan. The object ' is to show they are now the king's or the great man's 'guests: they are in his favour and under his protection. 1 P. 41S-122. 2 Essay on Baptisni, p. 146. 3 Cowper's Iliad, iii. 298-300. 284 THE MODE OF BAPTISM ' So shall the Eternal Son of God sprinkle many nations, ' and admit them into his presence in token of their purifi- ' cation and of his protection and favour. The kings of ' the earth shall no longer rebel against him ; but shall ' shut their mouths, to denote their submission and respect.' We will just add Bishop Heber's remarks on this head, in his Character of Nicodemus : — 'The heathens ' themselves had the custom of sprinkling with water those ' who gave themselves up to the worship of any of their ' gods, and the person who submitted to this ceremony was ' said to be born again, and to become the child of that deity ' to whom he consecrated his after life. The Normans, ' when they set a slave at liberty, called that ceremony the ' regeneration' of the slave ; and the same name was given ' by the Jews to that baptism by which heathens and idol- ' aters, and excommunicated persons, were admitted to the 'profession of the laws of Moses.' ^ XII. The only passage referred to by Mr. Robinson, which has the least appearance of opposing our scheme, is Numb. xxxi. 23, where it is said that the spoils of war which could not stand the fire, were to ' go through the ' water.' This text, however, refers to an extraordinary purification, and therefore is no regularly applicable rule for purifications generally. It involves the sanctification of things as well as of men, and consequently does not pecu- liarly aifect personal ablutions. Still, however, we do not imagine the phrase to make for immersion. It should be noticed that the water to be used was that of separation,- which was made by putting the ashes of a red heifer into a vessel, and pouring running water upon them (Numb. xix. 9, 17.) The size of the vessel is not specified, but from its general use was probably not very large, being carried about in the wilderness. It is evident that this water of separation was always sprinkled upon the persons and things to be consecrated. ^ Thus the Levites were purified (ch. viii. 7), and so were those who had touched one slain ' p. 449. •-• lb. p. 3J. 3 Joscphus. Ant. b. 4, c. 4, s. C. AMONG THE JEWS. 285 with the sword in the open fieh-ls, or a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a grave, with his tent and vessels (ch. xix. 13-21 ; sxxi. 19.) This last case is a key to the one under consideration, as the circumstances are similar. The water of separation was to purify twelve thousand Israelites who had fought, and thirty-two thousand captives taken in the engagement and after, (ch. xxxi. 12,19, 32); as, also, all the inanimate spoils of war — gold, silver, brass, iron, tin, lead, and all things made of skins, goat's hair, and wood — utensils, instruments, garments, tents, chariots, and wag- gons — with jewels of gold, chains, bracelets, rings, ear- rings, and tablets, (v. 50.) That these spoils must have been immense, we may gather from the fact that the He- brews took from the Midianites 675,000 sheep, 72,000 beeves, and 01,000 asses. And the present made to the treasury of the Lord was valued at 16,750 shekels. We, then, inquire whether it was possible that all these immense, and many of them cumbrous spoils of war, were absolutely plunged into the vessel which contained the water of sepa- ration ; or, literally, were made to go through the water ! Impossible ! Indeed, we cannot suppose that by going through the fire, was intended casting the metals into the flames, especially the tin and lead, as the preservation and not the destruction of the articles was the object of the operation. They were to be purified by fire in some way or other, but how is not certain. It is, moreover, plain that the expression, ' purified with the water of separation,' and 'going through the water,' mean one and the same process, which was unquestionably sprinkling. The sense of the text is, that the articles which would stand the fire, were to be first purified by fire, and secondly with the water of separation ; and those which would not, were to undergo the purification of water only. XIII. The Jewish baptisms in the days of our Lord require a brief consideration. The following texts compre- hend their practice : — ' For the Pharisees and all the Jews, ' except they wash tlieir hands oft eat not, holding the tra- 286 THE MODE OF BAPTISM ' dition of the elders ; and when they come from the market ' except they baptize they eat not, (Mark vii. 3, 4.) And ' when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not ' first baptized before dinner, (Luke xi. 38.) Why do thy ' disciples transgress the tradition of the elders ? for they ' wash not their hands, when they eat bread,' (Matt. xv. 2.) Here the word baptize is twice used for the purification of the Pharisees and all the Jews, whenever they came from the market, and before they ate bread. Our opponents say that 'the baptism mentioned Mark vii. 4; Luke xi. 38, * does not signify the washing of the hands, but the bathing ' or immersion of the whole body.' ^ So then, all the ladies and gentlemen, their servants and children, who were Jews, and especially if belonging to the sect of the Pharisees, actually plunged themselves over head and ears in water every time they came from the market, though it occurred half a dozen times a day ; and always before they sat down to dinner or took a luncheon between meals ! But the fact is, tliat their baptizing themselves consisted in nothing more than washing their hands, as the above collation of passages most clearly demonstrates. Nor is there any im- propriety in the phraseology ; for, as Dr. Gale assures us, that ' what is true of any one part, may be said of the 'whole complexly.'- Consequently, baptizing their hands, is baptizing themselves. It may be remarked that the word '■ fufjme,^ rendered ' oft,' in Mark vii. 3, means *up ' to the elbow;' and, therefore cannot express the ' immer- ' sion of the whole body;' and Mr. Maclean must have been nodding when he made the above assertion.^ But then, perhaps, our brethren will reply, they dipped their hands to wash them — since Dr. Gill says, ' there is no proper washing but by dipping.'* — In answer we say, certainly not. This was a ceremonial cleansing, and not a removal of natural defilement. Hence we read that Elisha 'poured water on the hands of Elijah,' (2 Kings iii. 11.) ' Maclean, vol. iii. p. 100. ' P. 1 1 1. 3 See Dr. Bennett's Lcct. on tlie Preaching of Christ, p. 213. ' P. 303. AMONG THE JEWS. 287 Homer, who flourished about fifty years after Elijah, refers to a similar practice amongst the Greeks: — 'Then came a nymph, ' With golden ewer charged and silver bowl, ' Who POURED PURE WATER OK MY HANDS, and plUCcd, ' The shining stand before me.' ' If this ancient custom were altered in the days of Christ, our opponents will prove it. The practice is still common in the east. ' Sir J. Ker Porter was at an entertainment given by the prime minister of Persia. 'A silver plated 'jug,' he says, ' with a long spout, accompanied by a bason ' of the same metal, was carried round to every guest, by ' an attendant, who poured water from the jug on our right ' hands, which we held in succession over the bason.'- It is even continued among the Jews to the present time as a religious ceremony ; for, in their synagogue worship, those Levites who are descendants from the singers in the temple, are called next to the descendants of the priests, to read or hear the law, and to pour water over the hands of the Co- henira, or priests, before they go to the benediction.-^ The practice of pouring water on the hands of guests at Jewish entertainments is still observed among that ancient people ; and when the host wishes to show his friends an especial mark of respect, he performs this office himself. — Mr. Isaacs, in his ' Ceremonies and Traditions of the Jews,' observes, that ' as soon as they arise in the morning, they ' are obliged to wash their hands, by pouring water three ' times over each hand. The reason of this is, that as sleep ' is an emblem of death, they are therefore in this manner ' to cleanse their hands from the uncleanness that rested on 'them in their sleep.''* Further, when the Pope washes the feet of the pilgrims at Easter, he simply pours water upon one of them.'^ — Mr. Lane, speaking of the meals of the Arabs, says, ' When these preparations have been made, 1 Odyssey X. 3G7-370. = Trav. in Georgia, v. i. p. 238, 339. See also V.'all, v. iii. p. 96. 3 Adams's Rcl. ^Y. Displ. v. ji. p. 309. ■• P. 132. See p. 3-13. 5 Cong. Mag. v. 20, p. 751. 288 THE MODE OF BAPTISM ' each person who is to partake of the repast, receives a ' napkin ; and a servant pours water over his hands. A ' bason and ewer of either of the metals first mentioned are ' employed for this purpose ; the former has a cover with a ' receptacle for a piece of soap in the centre, and with nu- ' merous perforations, through which the water runs during ' the act of washing, so that it is not seen when the basin is ' brought from one person to another.' ^ Even Dr. Campbell, cited with so much triumph by our opponents in this controversy, explains ' washing their ' hands oft,' by ''pouring a little ivater on them ' ~ — a me- thod probably suggested at first by the scarcity of pure water in arid climates. Hence Abraham ordered a little water to wash the feet of his heavenly visitants (Gen. xviii. 4) ; and which water was probably poured (epi touspodasj upon the feet, (Luke vii. 44.) In this way Christ must have washed his disciples' feet, while they probably reclined on their couches after supper. ^ For it is not likely that twelve persons who wore sandals should dip their feet suc- cessively in the same bason of water, and that Peter, who appears to have been the last, should have desired that his hands and his head might be washed in this polluted ele- ment. Here, then, we have baptizing a person by washing his hands, and this performed by pouring water upon them. And if pouring water on the hands be a valid and entire baptism of the person, surely pouring it on the head cannot be deemed partial or defective. XIV. The baptismal purifications of the Jews in the days of Christ, may be further elucidated by the following pas- sage : ' And there were set there six water-pots of stone, ' after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing ' two or three firkins a piece,' (John ii. 6.) According to Dr. Jennings, these vessels held ' about twenty gallons each.' * That the guests at the marriage in Cana could not immerse themselves entirely in these stone water-pots ' Visitor, vol iv. p. G9. ^ In Loc. = Calmet's Diet. Frag. No. 104. « Jewish Antiq. p. 426. AMONG THE JEWS. 289 is unquestionable. It is also evident, that immediately previous to tlie miracle of our Lord, they contained very little or no water, as he ordered the waiters to fill them. Now, had they been used that evening as bathing-tubs, the Saviour would not have shocked the company, by ordering the servants to draw wine out of them for their potations. If they were employed for holding what the Catholics call holy-water, largely provided against the wedding, and which was poured, as in the cases above-mentioned, or sprinkled on the visitors — all appears delicate, and in har- mony with the customs of the people and the times. This mode of purification, also, was after the manner of the Jews — such water-pots being general, at least in respect- able houses, and this mode of purifying out of them com- mon. Mr. Maclean says, ' though the Jews were blamed ' for their superstition in holding things unclean that were ' not so, yet they are not accused of using any other me- ' thod of cleansing than the law prescribed.' ^ When our opponents talk of every family having baths for ceremonial baptisms,- they appear to forget that the inspired writer has said they were stone vessels of comparatively small dimensions, placed in the room where the people usually sat, and which precluded the possibility of immersing them- selves or one another into them. Here, then, is purification or baptism again by pouring or sprinkling, or by applying the element to the object. XY. Though the baptizing of cups and pots, brazen vessels, and couches (Mark vii. 1-9), has been slightly noticed before, it may not be improper here to revert for a moment to this subject. You will then carefully bear in mind that the ceremony in question was not performed in compliance with the dictates of decency, as such articles had been cleansed from ordinary pollution long before the baptisms referred to above were introduced. What the evangelist means, was a ceremonial purification super- added to common washings and entirely independent of 1 Vul. iii. r. 190. 2 Giu^ y. ij. p. 215, 4S0. B b 290 THE MODE OF BAPTISM them. It is called the tradition of men and the tradition of the elders, and was, of course, irrespective of ordinary washing of domestic furniture.^ This is still more appa- rent from the fact, as one of our opponents justly observes, that 'whatever these washings or baptisms were, they were 'traditional and censured by Christ.'- But as the Son of God would never have censured the Jews for mere clean- liness, we must again conclude, that the same species of baptism was applied to their utensils as was common among themselves. The mode of purification was not censured, but the frequency and objects of the administration. How articles v.-ere ceremonially consecrated or cleansed, we have seen before, and shall here recite the text : — 'And a clean ' person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and ' sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and ' upon the persons that were there, and upon him that ' touched a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a grave,' (Numbers xix. 18.) Notwithstanding all our opponents have cited from the later Rabbis, we cannot conceive how beds or couches were lustrated otherwise. At any rate, there is not the least intimation of their being immersed for ceremonial purification in the days of our incarnate Lord or under the Mosaic dispensation. Bp. J. Taylor supposes that these cups, &c. were purified from the water- pots mentioned above — which, of course, could have been effected only by aspersion. ' Jesus, therefore, bade them ' fill the water-pots, which stood there for the use of fre- ' quent washings, which the Jews did use in all public ' meetings, for fear of touching pollutions, or contracting ' legal impurities : which they did with a curiousness next ' to superstition, washing the very tables and beds used at ' their feasts.'-^ XVI. Josephus, speaking of the Essens, one of the three sects of the Jews existing in his day, says, 'After ' morning prayer, every one of them are sent away by their ' curators to exercise some of those arts wherein they are • Dr. Campbell, in Loc. ' Rob. p. 32. ^ Works, v. i. p. 141. AMONG THE JEWS. 291 ' skilled, in which they labour with great diligence till the ' fifth hour : after which they assemble themselves together ' again in one place ; and when they have clothed them- ' selves in white veils [or garments], they then bathe their ' bodies in cold water ;" and after this purification is over, ' they every one meet together in an apartment of their ' own — after a pure manner, into the dining room.'^ Now a superficial observer, reading this passage, would imme- diately conclude, as some of our opponents appear to have done,- that these all plunged themselves or one another under water every day. But that this was not the case is apparent from the following circumstances: — The lan- guage, as understood by a Jew, as employed in the Pen- tateuch, and as adapted to Judea, does not necessarily con- vey the necessity of a total immersion. To wash them- selves ( apolountai ) with water, being all that is expressed or intended. It is said, in a subsequent section, that after having been on trial for a year, the candidate for commu- nion approaches nearer this way of living, and is made partaker of the water of purification^ — language which does not exactly comport with the idea of dipping into it. This lustration was peculiar to the fully initiated candi- dates for Essenism, and was not therefore common to all the Jews, as were the baptisms mentioned at the head of this section. It also took place after they had put on their white veils or garments, and in this same dress they all immediately dined together,* which would hardly be done had they dipped one another. The purification was to be repeated by a senior every time he happened to touch a junior, and on other nameless occasions^ — so that these people, especially the old men, must have been immersed, at least, three times a day ; and, when they were ill, per- haps half a dozen — and all this in the land of Judea, while engaged in their husbandry or handicraft employments ! How much more consistent with every idea we can form • Hist. Wars, b. 2, c. 8, s. 5. 2 Booth, v. i. p. 250. 3 Hist. Wars, Ibid. Sec. 7. < Sec. 9. 5 Sec. 10. 292 THE MODE OF BAPTISM of the Jews, their character, customs, and country, is it to suppose they were afFused or sprinkled with pure water ; which probably was kept in suitable places — call them fonts, if you please — for such a purpose. If they had even gone into baths for cleansing, it does not prove that they dipped themselves or each other under water. The greater purifications of the Mahometans, which are supposed to have been borrowed from the bathings of the later Jews,^ consist in simply going into a bath, ancle or knee deep, and applying the water to their persons in the ordinary manner. They never dip themselves or each other under water for any ceremonial lustration. XVII. To these expositions an objection has been raised by our brethren ; who say it was not at all probable that Christ should sanctify, to an evangelical purpose, any of those rites and customs which were of Jewish origin, and particularly such as were not of divine appointment.- In reply, we observe that John the Baptist, our blessed Re- deemer and his disciples, in many cases, did act in con- formity to the rites and customs of the Hebrew economy, which was in full force till the glorious morning of the Saviour's resurrection. Nor have our brethren adduced a single valid argument for making the ancient mode of bap- tizing an exception to their general rule. Our Lord not only complied with the prescribed rites of Moses and other ceremonies of heavenly origin ; but he also adopted and spiritualized modes and customs of which no such institu- tion can be adduced. He engaged in the peculiar formu- laries of synagogue worship, the establishment of which, for aught we learn, was wholly of men,^ (Luke iv. lG-30.) He observed the feast of dedication, appointed by the sole authority of Judas Maccabeus,^ (1 Macc. iv. 52-55 ; John X. 22.) He consecrated the ancient custom of washing each other's feet to an expressive token of Christian cha- ' Rob. Hist. p. 5G. ^ j_ stennctt, p. 62 ; Rjlantl, p. 4. 3 Prideaux's Con. v. ii. p. 499-523. * lb. V. iii. p. 265 ; Josephus, Ant. b. 12, c. S, s. 7. AMONG THE JEWS. 293 rity aucl humility, (Gen. xviii. 4; 2 Sam. xxv. 41 ; John xiii. 5-16; 1 Tim. v. 10.) He set apart a portion of the paschal feast, to be eaten as a standing memorial of his death 1 (Mark xiv. 22-25); and, in imitation of John, a Jewish priest, and the Rabbis, he gave his disciples a form of prayer, composed, according to Wetstein, Whitby, Gill, and others, out of the synagogue service used at that pe- riod.- He also selected twelve disciples in respect of the twelve tribes of Israel, and seventy others, as according v.'ith the seventy elders and members of the Sanhedrim, to be his followers and assistants in the work of the minis- try, (Luke ix. 1 ; x, 1.) It is also evident that the terms and phraseology, prevalent in the Levitical economy, are retained in the New Testament — hence we read of sacri- fices, oblations, ablutions, aspersions, perfumes, of a syna- gogue (James ii. 2, Gr.), passover, temple, circumcision, altar, sabbath, unleavened bread, and the like, in an evan- gelical sense. ' It is well known,' says Dr. Campbell, ' that ' the names, teacher, elder, overseer, attendant or minister, ' and even angel or messenger of the congregation, were, in ' relation to the ministry of the Jewish synagogue, in cur- ' rent use ;'3 and Dr. Pye Smith observes, ' that Jesus Christ ' himself drew much of the language and manner of his dis- ' courses from the current phrases and formularies of the 'synagogue.'"* And though the Saviour condemned cer- tain traditional observances as superstitious and making- void the law of God (Matt. xv. 3-8), it cannot be too much to say, with the facts before us, that he sanctified the priestly method of purification or consecration common among his ancient people, whether divinely appointed or not, \o be the standing method of Christian baptism. Nor let any one suppose, that this species of arguing opens a door for any denomination to introduce the priestly orders, the state religion, or the pompous ceremonies of the Jewish ' See Ainsworth on Ex. xii. 8 ; Dodd. Expos, sect. 148, note e * Mendham on the Lord's Prayer, p. 17. ^ Lect. on Eccl. Hist. Lect. X. ' Messiah, v. i. p. G^. B b 5 294 THE MODE OF BAPTISM, ETC. hierarchy into the present dispensation. To adopt from the preceding economy what it appears our Lord and his dis- ciples selected and sanctified to a gospel purpose, is all we contend for or can admit into our churches. This is not only a safe, but also a fair way of reasoning on the subject. XVIII. From this rather elaborate investigation, the following deductions appear to be natural and legitimate : I. That purification and baptism under the law as well as under the gospel, were one and the same thing in design, and their modes of performance alike. The first is plainly asserted by the apostle, as you have seen before, and is also admitted by our opponents, who call baptism ' a minister's * washing a person, and God's washing away his sins by the * blood of Christ; '^ and say, that 'it leads to the nature of ' sanctification, and offers an emblem of it;'- and that it is ' a washing all over, and abundant purification.'' [A learned and interesting article, corroborative of our views on this particular portion of our subject, from the pen of Professor Beecher, of Illinois College, United States, may be seen in the * American Biblical Repo- ' sitory' for January and April, 1840; and to which we beg to refer those who may not be fully convinced by the preceding evidence."*] II. That the ministerial baptisms or purifications among the Jews, did not consist in people's bathing themselves, but in what one person did to another; and this was al- ways and only an affusion or sprinkling with blood, oil, or water — and that there is no instance where one person is said to have immersed another under water for consecra- tion or purification — therefore sprinkling is truly baptizing. III. That among the Jews, to baptize another person, was to pour or sprinkle the element on him — neither more nor less. This mode of lustration was borrowed by and practised among the Greeks and Romans, and the Heathens generally. The remark of Justin, cited above, is corrobo- ' D'Anvers, j). IG, IS. 2 i5„rt, p. 21, 2(5. 3 Ryland, p 27, 3!. •■ See also Dr. Williams' "^xiiiMiDou.vrTisii Examinkd," v.ii. p. y-2.*. SEVERAL INSTANCES OF, ETC. 295 rated by TertuUian, who says, ' Here we see tlie aim of tlie ' devil, to ape [or imitate] the things of God ; since he also * sets up a baptism for his disciples.'^ Consequently, their procedure in this matter illustrates the method of the Israel- ites, and affords a clue to unravel the operations of John the Baptist and the disciples of our Lord. IV. That the harbinger of Christ and his own disciples would naturally consecrate their followers by pouring or sprinkling — since they could have been acquainted with no other practice — since their mode was evidently no novelty — and since we have no account of any new practice being enjoined. SECTION FOURTH. SEVERAL INSTANCES OF SCRIPTURE BAPTISM. It cannot be certainly proved from scripture, that even John's '(baptism) was performed by dipping. Nor can it be proved, 'that the baptism of our Saviour, or that administered by his ' disciples, was by immersion ; no, nor that of the Eunuch bap- ' tized by Philip, though they both went down into the water, &c.' Rev. J. Wesley, Works, vol. xix. p. 275. The circumstances to be examined unquestionably prove that the apostolic mode of baptism was not by dipping, im- mersing, or otherwise applying the person to the water. From what has been advanced you are doubtless convinced that the terms employed to express this rite by no means prove, that any person was ever put under water in the administration of this ordinance by John the Baptist or the disciples of our Lord. You have, also, seen that the ex- pressions used to designate this ceremony, are as much in accordance with pouring and sprinkling as with dipping and • Wall's Hist. V. i. p. 10. See Gale's Court of the Gentiles, p.vssiji. 296 SEVERAL INSTANCES OF immersing. That Jewish baptisms, which were of constant occurrence before and during the days of Christ's personal ministry, were performed by pouring or sprinkling. We shall now adduce further circumstantial evidence to esta- blish our position. This may be easily deduced from the administration of this rite in the primitive church, and even from those cases which apparently most favour the scheme of our opponents. We purpose, first, to offer a few pre- liminary considerations, and then to investigate those nar- ratives of baptism, in which the circumstances afford us any intimations respecting the definitive action at issue between us and our esteemed brethren. I. It may be observed, as a general remark, that in all the baptisms of the New Testament, no delays were ever necessary or ever made. Whenever persons were brought over from a profession of Judaism or Gentilism to the adoption of Christianity, they were baptized immediately. We read of no postponements on account of numbers, sex, size, delicacy, health, dresses, want of water, or any thing of the kind. Wherever the apostles preached with success, then and there they baptized their converts — whether the season were hot or cold, wet or dry, day or night; whether the people were old or young, male or female, in sickness or in health. To the mode they adopted there arose no obstacles from time, place, audience, or circumstances. Hence Mr. Robinson justly remarks, ' there was no inter- ' mediate state of scholarship ; baptism was administered 'immediately on conviction of the truth of the report.'^ Thus when many of the Samaritans of Sychar believed on our Lord (John iv. 39, 41), and were baptized immedi- ately on accrediting the truth of the report, pure water, though fetched from Jacob's well, which was distant and deep, was procured — but, whether for immersion, we leave you to judge. So when the three thousand were converted, under Peter's sermon, every requisite was then and there ready for an apostolic baptism, though water was cxcced- ' Hist. p. 23 J. SCRIPTURE BAPTISM. 297 ingly precious in the city of Jerusalem. Nor do we read of any changing of apparel, or laying aside of garments, as Christ did when about to wash only the feet of his disci- ples (JoiiK xiii. 4), nor of clothes made on purpose, with weights at the bottom to make them sink, nor of cloaks to throw over the shoulders of the baptized to hide their ap- pearance on coming up out of the water — nor of wax or oil-skin drawers,* or leathern boots above the middle, for the minister. The people were baptized and went imme- diately to their friends or engaged in their ordinary occu- pations. But this is not the case with those whose method is immersion — nor, in fact, is it possible. Dresses must be manufactured expressly for the occasion — delicacy and sickness must be consulted — water of a certain depth and in a proper situation must be procured — apparel must be shifted — many preparations must be made — all of which consume considerable time and occasion delays unknown to the apostles. Does not this indicate a great difference between scripture baptism and moderji dipping ? And would not the New Testament narratives of baptism ap- pear natural and easy on the principle that pouring or sprinkling was the original mode ? II. In the baptisms administered by John to the multi- tudes that followed him, and of the three thousand bap- tized on the day of Pentecost, we perceive insuperable obstacles to the system of dipping. Most, if not all, of these people were from home when baptized, many of them, indeed, at a very considerable distance, (Acts ii. 5-11.) When they went to hear these celebrated preachers, most of them, no doubt, prompted by curiosity, they could have had no intention of being baptized, as they had none of being induced to solicit it. And, surely, in the case of John the Baptist, they could not have anticipated being put under water, since it is universally agreed that such a thing had never been done before. Their conviction of the truth of the report and baptism were, as far as prac- ticable, effected at the same time. In fact, most of those 298 SEVERAL INSTANCES OF pricked to the heart, under the criminatory sermon of Peter, were among the most ungodly of their kind, and were mere visitors in the city. Antecedent preparation for baptism with them was entirely out of the question. Neither do we read of their having second suits of attire with them — nor of their borrowing change of raiment from their neighbours, who, being themselves mostly uncon- vinced, were not likely to lend them three thousand suits, to be saturated in the water, or to be worn away by per- sons of whom they knew nothing personally, and whom they despised on account of their credulity. To dipping here, the obstructions are immense. But, on the suppo- sition that aiFusion or aspersion was the mode, every diiii- culty is immediately removed. III. As our opponents assume, that the people baptized by John and our Saviour's disciples, had change of raiment with them, we will, merely for the sake of argument, for the moment, admit the assumption. But what must have been the consequence of using it in out-of-door dippings, and particularly in the wilderness, or on the banks of the Jordan ? Why, they must have taken off every article of dress they had on, first before they went into the water, and again after they came out — and so must have been naked twice before the multitude. To have removed part of their apparel, if their inner garments remained on, would have answered no end proposed in changing at all. This, you will observe, must have been the case with all the blushing damsels and portly matrons who came to John's baptism : and then, as they would not be very likely to bundle up their clothes, wet and streaming with water, we must next suppose that they, one and all, spread them on the ground or bushes to dry, and remained to watch them till the rays of the sun had absorbed the saturation. All this must have been the case with those who were baptized out of doors, especially in the desert by John the Baptist, and such as subsequently retired to rivers to receive this sacrament. The erection of a parcel of tents for shifting their clothes, SCUIPTUUE BAPTISM. 299 is a mere fancy of our opponents, adduced to remove, if possible, an insuperable difficulty that stares every child in the face, and which our brethren can find recorded in the New Testament no more than the baptism of infants. We conclude, therefore, that John baptized out of doors — at least, by pouring or sprinkling — for this removes all difiiculties. IV. Should our friends, to remove the foregoing per- plexities, argue that the people were immersed without bringing a second suit of clothes with them, we then reply that this by no means mends the matter. Many of John's converts came from Jerusalem, which was 25 miles dis- tant from the Jordan, where he, we will suppose, immersed them all. Now, on this assumption, one or other of the following difficulties- must have arisen. The people must have been dipped in their clothes or naked. If in the former state, then, of course, they must have had to walk or ride on their asses, or mules, or in their carriages, drip- ping with the water of Jordan, all the way back to the city ; to the injury of their health and the amusement of those young people who were not believers or had never heard the preacher for themselves. But as we never read of the vulgar laugh at what must have been a curious novelty, even according to our opponents' own showing, and as we have no account of the people contracting colds or rheu- matisms from it, we conclude that this method was not adopted. If in the latter state, the mixed multitudes must have been plunged naked before each others faces — as pri- vate baptisms were then never practised. If our friends contend for this we shall let them. Observing, however, that if it were true, it supposes an indelicacy, especially in the case of ladies, of which they find no precedent or account in the w^ord of God. Besides, this result is ine- vitable, that to baptize people now fully dressed is un- apostolical, and, according to their principled, must be abandoned ! V. It is a remarkable circumstance, that in those bap- 300 SEVERAL INSTANCES OF tisms whicli were administered in cities and houses (as nearly all Christian baptisms were), we never read that the minister or his converts went into, or down into, the water, or came out of, or up out of, the water — which would have been the case had they been submersed. When people were baptized in country places at rivers, brooks, or running streams, which are always in channels lower than the cir- cumjacent land, it was necessary, for facilitating the ope- ration, especially if many were baptized, or capacious ves- sels were not at hand to convey the element to a distant place, that they should go to, or down unto, the water for the reception of this rite — though they were only aspersed or affused with it. And thus much, and no more, the scrip- tures declare. But, if in house or city baptisms, the con- verts had been dipped, it would have been said they went into, or down into the pool, bath, or tank, and were sub- mersed, and then came out, or up out, of the water — for going into, or down into the water, would have been as requisite for immersion in this case, as in the preceding, or as going down into a modern baptistry — yet this is no where recorded. Therefore, as the people must, have gone down to the river for affusion — which they did — and as they must have gone down into the bath for immersion — which they did not — (the words of scripture being judge) we conclude that all were affused or aspersed, and none of them plunged. This exposition accounts for the different phraseology of the inspired writers, and harmonizes with the various narratives of scripture baptisms. VI. It is also evident, that our Lord's forerunner and followers baptized all who were brought or made willing to submit to this sacrament. We read of no person being refused on account of age, sex, character, or circumstances. The Jewish nation, oppressed by the Roman yoke, and ex- pecting a temporal deliverer in the Messiah, and supposing John to be this divine person (Luke iii. 15), came to him and were consecrated unto his doctrine. John, however, having assured them that he was not the Christ, but that SCRIPTURE BAPTISM. 301 he was soon to appear — when, therefore, the Son of God commenced his ministry, they hastened to him and were consecrated unto his doctrine, even more numerously than they had been unto John's. Now, it is said, that ' all the 'people were baptized' of John (Luke iii. 21); and that Christ, by his disciples, baptized more than he, (John iv. 1, 2.) Of all the multitudes that applied, we read of none that were refused. Certain Pharisees and lawyers, indeed rejecting the counsel of God against themselves, would not submit (Luke vii. 30) ; but none who were disposed to comply were rejected. We may, therefore, conclude that, with very few exceptions, all the Jews were baptized. The exhortation which John gave to the people generally, and to the publicans and soldiers in particular (Luke iii. 11-14), in no wise militates against this assumption, since, with- out even a promise of compliance with his injunctions, they were all baptized, (Luke iii. 16.) Nor does the case of the three thousand who, after hearing Peter's.sermon, were pricked to the heart, and gladly received the word preached to them (Acts ii. 37, 41) ; since it only proves how many were baptized, and what means induced such a number to submit. There, however, is not a word about any being refused. Nor does that of Cornelius — since his first re- ceiving the Holy Ghost, was evidently intended merely to remove the prejudice of Peter against admitting Gentiles into the visible church, (Acts x. 44-48.) Here, again, none are refused. The only passage exhibiting the appearance of terras or restrictions in baptizing, is the supposed question of the. Eunuch and the answer of Philip, in Acts viii. 37; but which is almost universally allowed, by competent judges, to be an interpolation — and, therefore, ought not to be in the sacred writings. ^ In a word, we may defy our Baptist brethren to adduce a single instance where any per- sons applying for baptism for themselves, or for others, were refused. And as we have seen that all, with an incon- siderable exception, did apply — we say all or nearly so, ' See Griesbach, Eoothroyil, A. Clarke, Bloomfield, &c. in Loc. 302 SEVERAL INSTANCES OF were actually baptized — some of them, probably, more than once or twice — first, by John (Luke iii. 21), then by our Lord's disciples, during his life-time (John iv. 1, 2); and again after his resurrection, (Acts xix. 3-5.) At least, a due consideration of these passages renders it likely. That all were not plunged under water appears to us unques- tionable ; and will be proved more at large under the next particular. We must now examine a few instances of scrip- ture baptism, and we select those chiefly in which the circumstances of the administration are detailed, and on which the dipping hypothesis is mainly erected : — VII. The Ethiopian Eunuch, (Acts viii. 27-40.) — As this is a case on which our opponents lay the greatest stress in supporting their exclusive mode of baptism, and as it offers the only instance of Christian baptism in the New Testament, where the circumstances of the administration are largely noticed,^ we have placed it first in our enume- ration. ' If,' eays Mr. PengiUy, ' I find one sufficient proof ' of the Mode of baptism in the days of the apostles, what- ' ever that Mode may be, I infer that I have ascertained ' what was their invariable practice. Because it cannot be * imagined that the apostles, (having probably witnessed, ' and certainly knowing well, the Mode by which the Lord ' Jesus was baptized, and having all received the same in- ' structions from their Lord and Master,) could be divided ' either in sentiment or practice. And if immersion be ' proved in one case, and from thence it be granted that ' Jesus was thus baptized, and that He commanded the ' ordinance thus to be administered — here,' he proceeds, ' I have an instance of immersion, and from this I am au- ' thorised to conclude, and I do it with the utmost confi- ' dence and satisfaction of mind, that immersion was * WHAT Christ ordained, and his obedient apostles and ' disciples invariably practised ; and, consequently, * any departure from this practice, is a departure from ' the revealed tuill of Christ; and such an act can be ' Booth, vol. ii. p. 508. SCRIPTURE BAPTISM. 305 ' viewed in no other light than an act of rebellion against 'the divine authority.'^ The importance of this instance is therefore apparent. Indeed, it is roundly and repeat- edly asserted that Philip unquestionably put the Eunuch entirely under water. The grounds of this assertion, are the meaning of the terms employed, especially the prepo- sitions eis and ek. In reply, we beg to offer the following remarks, to show that he certainly was not immersed, but only afFused or sprinkled by the deacon : — I. The Greek terms, as we have abundantly proved, are as favourable to our view of the case as to that of our op- ponents — the verb baptizo meaning to pour, sprinkle, or apply the water, as well as to dip or immerse the body — and the prepositions eis and ek, implying no more than that they went to the water and returned from it. The first pre- position being translated to or unto five hundred and thirty- eight times in the New Testament, and the latter /ro?w one hundred and eighty-six times — this point is placed beyond debate. Dipping, therefore, cannot be established from the terms employed; while the circumstances, when duly weighed, make such an action highly improbable. II. The place where this rite was administered, leads one to conclude that sprinkling or pouring was the method adopted. It is called a desert, (Acts viii. 36.) Now, a desert, according to the definition of one of our opponents, * is a part of the earth little inhabited or manured, wanting 'pleasant rivers, elegant trees, fruits, &c.'" Hence the wonderful diifusion of gospel blessings, among heathen na- tions, is thus expressed by the prophet : — * In the wilder- * ness shall waters break out and streams in the desert,' (Is. XXXV. 6.) Had there been much water in this place, as the remark of Mr. Keach implies, it would have been cultivated, and not have remained a desert. We conclude, therefore, that the place was unfavourable to dipping. See (Ps. Ixiii. 1; Jer. 1. 12; li. 45; Zeph. ii, 13.) This is corroborated by an historical fact. When Carabyses was I p. 37. - Reach's Met. p. 127. 304 SEVERAL INSTANCES OF about to invade Egypt, in the year 627, B.C. and had to- pass this very spot or near it, ' he contracted with the ' Arabian king, that lay next the borders of Palestine and ' Egypt, to supply him with water while he passed the ' deserts that lay between these two countries ; where ac- ' cordingly it was brought on camels' backs ; without ' which he could not have marched his army that way.' ^ A parallel case is mentioned by the Jewish historian : — When Caesar was marching his army from Ptolemais to Pelusium, through the land of Judea, and probably by the rout partly taken by the Eunuch, it being a dry country, Herod supplied it with water and other provisions, thither and on its return, to the delight of Augustus." It may be added, that when Uzziah sent his cattle into the deserts — designated loio country and plains — he had not only to build towers for the defence of his herdsmen, but also to dig many wells to supply his servants and beasts with water. (2 Chron. xxvi. 10.) III. This water is also without a scripture name, while every material spring, fountain, or well of the Holy Land, has some significant appellation. The expression of the Eunuch is remarkable, 'See water!' Qhere is," being in italics, and consquently not in the original); since it implies that it was approached without being distantly seen, and created a pleasing surprise in the traveller's mind. When we hear a Baptist bard chanting — ' Tlie silver stream ran full in sight ;' ^ we can only smile at the simple fiction of his partial muse. It was probably either a well with a stone trough, provided, as was common, by some philanthropist, to prevent travel- lers from perishing in their journeys through this dry and desert land; * or as Jerome, who lived many years in that neighbourhood, says, ' This water was a brook at the foot 1 RoUin's Anc. Hist. b. 1, c. 2. "> Hist. Wars, b. 1. c. 20, s. 3. 3 Fellows, p. 28. * Hannei's Obs. c. 5. obs. 5 ; and c. 9, obs. 52. SCRIPTURE BAPTISM. 305 ' of Bethsur, or Betlisoron. We often pass over such little 'brooks in our common road.'^ IV. Let it be remarked further, that had Philip and the Eunuch gone down into the water and come up out of the water, it by no means proves that Philip immersed the black gentleman. Maclean says, 'we do not affirm that ' going down into the water is the same with baptism or ' immersing. Philip and the Eunuch might go to their 'necks in water, and yet not be baptized.'" This is pal- pable, since, we will assume, Philip went into the water as well as the Eunuch, and yet was not baptized. This rite was something done while in the water, and perfectly irrespective of going into and coming out of it. V. Besides, to say that they would not have gone into the water, had it not been for the purpose of dipping, is to base the immersion scheme on a mere conjecture. We hesitate not to assert, that neither of them went into the water at all — let our opponents prove as well as assert the contrary, and then enlarge on the necessity of keeping close to the letter of scripture, and avoid all inferential reason- ings. Further, might they not have gone into the water without either of them going under? Have not our bre- thren done so frequently? Is it not done every day of our lives? Might they not have gone into the v/ater up to their ancles or knees, and then might not the deacon have poured or sprinkled some on the head or face of the Eunuch ? Nor would this kind of consecration have surprised the Chan- cellor, as being an unscriptural or a new-fangled method. He had been reading just before this sentence : ' So shall 'he sprinkle many nations' (Is. lii. 14): — a sprinkling, therefore, was what he might have expected — probably the very expressions led him to solicit baptism. With this species of purification also, as a proselyte of Judaism, he must have been perfectly familiar ; whereas the action of one man putting another under water, was a thing he had ' Script. Reasons, p. 65. 3 V. iii, p. 118. See also Gill, p. 213. 306 SEVERAL INSTANCES OF never before seen or heard of, and what therefore he was very unlikely to solicit. ' That eis with the verb katahaino, often means going ' down TO a place, is quite certain ; e. g. Jesus went down ' to Capernaum — Jacob went down to Egypt — They went ' down to Attalia — They went to Troas — He went down to ' Antioch — Going down to Casarea. So common, indeed, ' is the meaning of eis, when it designates direction to a ' place or towards it, that Bretschneider has given this as ' its first and leading signification. But I have confined ' ray examples to its connexion with katahaino. On the ' other hand, I find but one passage in the New Testa- ' ment, where it seems to mean into when used with the * verb katahaino. This is Rom. x. 7, who shall go down, ' eis ahysson, into the abyss. Even here the sense to is 'good. — Eis erchomai is the appropriate word for enter- ' ing into ; or rather (in distinction from katahaino) em- ' baitio is the appropriate word, to signify entrance into ' any place or thing. — I must come then to the conclusion, ' that katehesan amplioteroi eis to hydor, in Acts viii. 38, ' does neither necessarily nor probably mean, they de- ' scended into the water. This conclusion is rendered ' nearly certain, by the exact counterpart or antithesis of ' this expression, which is found in v. 39, where, after the ' baptism, it is said, anehesan ek tou hydatos, they went ' up from the water. "We have seen that anahaino is never ' employed in the sense of emerging from a liquid sub- ' stance. The preposition ek, here, would agree well with ' this idea, although it by no means of necessity implies ' it. As, then, to go up from the water, is to ascend the ' bank of a stream, pool, or fountain ; so to go doiun to ' the water, is to go down to the bank of such stream, 'fountain, or pool, and to come to the water.' ^ VI. To contend that the Eunuch had water enough in his chariot for a sprinkling, is all imagination.- Our op- ponents might as well conclude he had enough for his nu- 1 Stuart, p. 32S. 2 Jenkins's Def. p. 119; Rjland, p. 11. SCRIPTURE BAPTISM. 307 merous retinue, with which they are pleased to lionour him, and for his several horses ; and that he enjoyed the cooling gratification of riding amidst leathern bottles of this element — sitting as stately as Neptune upon the waves ! There is no intimation that he had even any, and therefore if only a few drops were required, they must go where it was to be obtained— nor is there a word said about his having a jng to fetch any in. Our friends, who object to inference in other cases, are pleased to avail themselves of it here by wholesale. They also forget in this place what they have repeatedly told us, that pure, fair, or running water, or, as Josephus says, 'water taken from perpetual springs,'^ was always essential to Jewish consecrations and Christian bap- tism. Dr. Gill, however, tells us, that wine and water, mixed, was the usual drink of those countries ; - and if this were mixed before-hand, as is most probable, it would have been quite unfit for baptism. Consequently, what- ever he might have had in his warm leathern bottles was no more fit for this sacrament than if it had, by a miracle, been all turned into wine. VII. But there is another insurmountable objection to the dipping of the Eunuch — namely, the inconveniency and indelicacy of its accompaniments. This black Chan- cellor must have been either dipped in his travelling dress and have rode on his way rejoicing, saturated to the skin, with the water running about his carriage, to the injury of all its appurtenances and to the endangering of his life — which no person in his senses will believe ; or he must have, been baptized naked before a large retinue of ser- vants, which our opponents, as before remarked, are pleased to place about his highness ; ^ or, lastly, he must have shifted his clothes twice, and have been in a state of nu- dity twice before his attendants. Dr. Jenkins tells us, though not from his own knowledge, that his servants helped him ' to change his raiment, took notice of the ' whole transaction ; and their curiosity excited inquiry • Ant. b. 3, c. 9, s. 1. 2 p. ijg. 3 Jenkins's D^f. p. 11!). 308 SEVERAL INSTANCES OF 'about the liberties taken by Philip.' ^ Now, that a black man — for he was an Ethiopian (Acts viii. 27) — and one of a nation celebrated for the darkness of their skin (Jer. xiii. 23) — a gentleman, a chancellor — and, above all, a eunuch — should have done all this, and that we should be called to believe it, without the least scripture authority, exceeds all our credulity. We, therefore, unhesitatingly conclude, that he was not put under water, but that he was baptized by affusion or aspersion. The leading terras of the narrative are in perfect unison with this interpretation ; and the circumstances of the case must place this view of the subject beyond all doubt in every ingenuous mind. VIII. The blessed Redeemer, (Matt. iii. 13-16; Mark i. 9, 10; Luke iii. 21-23.) — It is strongly con- tended that our Lord was put under water by John the Baptist. Mr. Daniell says, ' There can be no controversy ' whether Jesus Christ was baptized or not, or whether he * was immersed or sprinkled. Divine revelation assures ' us he was baptized, and common sense decides, if he had ' been only sprinkled, he would not have deemed it neces- ' sary to descend into the river. Had we no other portion * of the New Testament to sustain our proposition, this ' would have been sufficient to testify, first, the fact of our ' Lord's baptism ; and, secondly, that the mode of baptism * was immersion.^ ~ This assumption is generally advocated from the supposed sense of the word baptize, the meaning of a Greek preposition, and the circumstances of the case. A few considerations will show the fallacy of all these tes- timonies in favour of dipping. I. The terms will not prove it: — Baptizo, as we have amply established, meaning either to dip or pour, immerse or sprinkle, and can be fairly interpreted only by the con- nexion. It is not said our Saviour went into the water ; but this is assumed by the expression he came up out of the water. It should, however, be remembered that the Greek preposition, apo, in Matt. iii. IG, is translated /ro/K ' Ibid, J.. 120. ■■' I'ageC. SCRIPTURE BAPTISM. 309 three hundred and seventy-four times, and out of only forty-sis times, in the New Testament; and that one of our most learned opponents has observed that it might be generally, if not always, thus rendered. ^ John is also said to have baptized in Jordan and in the river of Jordan ; but this proves not that he immersed the Redeemer ; for this preposition is rendered at, on, or ivitli, 313 times in the New Testament. And Carson says — ' Have I not fully ' admitted. . . .that the preposition, en, might be used of a 'person were he sprinkled in a river? ' 2— Consequently, we can derive no satisfactory evidence as to the mode of our Lord's baptism from the leading terms of the narrative ; and therefore shall not conclude that he was plunged under water until our brethren have adduced some more convinc- ing evidence. ' The verb anabaino means to ascend, mount, go up, viz : ' a ship, a hill, an eminence, a chariot, a tree, a horse, a ' rostrum, to go up to the capital of a country, to heaven, &c. ' and as applied to trees, vegetables, to spring up, shoot up, 'grow up. But as to emerging from the water, I find no ' such meaning attached to it. The Greeks have a proper ' word for this, and one continually employed by the eccle- ' siastical fathers, in order to designate emerging from the ' water ; and this is anaduo, which means to come up out of ' the water, the ground, &c., or to emerge from below the ' horizon, as do the sun, stars, &c. But this verb is never ' commuted, to my knowledge, with anabaino.' ^ II. But even admitting that our Lord did go into the water, and, while in it, was baptized by John, can our brethren tell us how it was done ? A total submersion of the body does not necessarily follow a mere immersion of the feet and legs. The ancient carved and sculptured re- presentations of baptism, as given by Robinson'* and Tay- lor,^ place the candidates sometimes in the water and some- times not, while the officer appears pouring the element on ' Ryland's Append, p. 2S. 2 Page 320. 3 pagg 35. •* Hist, plates. ^ Letter 1st, plates. 310 SEVERAL INSTANCES OF his head, in the character of anointing or consecrating to office. This method, in respect of adults, is still adopted in the Greek church. Nor would such a previous walking into the edge of a river be thoiight any thing very signi- ficant in a country where the people, as Matthew Henry says, 'went bare-legged.' Going into the water, or being put into it, as practised on infants in the Greek and other eastern churches, is only a preparatory rite, in the form of ablution, and not baptism itself, which consists in a subse- quent pouring or sprinkling. But we say there is not a particle of solid proof that our Lord went into the water at all — and, consequently, none that he came absolutely out of it. He went to the water necessarily ; for John was baptizing with the running stream, and when some of it had been poured on his head, he immediately retired. It is further observable that John the Baptist himself is never represented as going down into the water to perform this rite, nor as coming up out of the water after its admini- stration. III. But we have internal evidence that John baptized our Lord by pouring or sprinkling. ' The harbinger,' says Mr. Taylor, ' was informed that Jesus baptized, and all ' men came to him, (John iii. 34.) Part of his answer is, ' He whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God; for * God giveth not the Spirit out of a measure (ek metrouj unto ' him,' as water is given at baptism by his forerunner to * those upon whom it is poured. And this is fixed to the ^ subject of baptism, by the occasion of the story, which was * a question of debate between the disciples of John and cer- ' tain Jews about ritual purification. To no other period of ' our Lord's life than his baptism, could these words spoken * by John refer in those early days of his ministry, when he ' had as yet done comparatively nothing; and what but the * action of giving could recall, by association of ideas, the ' Baptist's mind to the recollection of giving out of a mea- *sure?'* — Mr. Scott, referring to the baptisms of Christ ' Taylor's Lett. )st, p. 37, 3S. SCRIPTURE BAPTISM. 311 and Jolin, which gave rise to the question about purifying (v. 25), and elicited the reply above noticed, observes that 'This must have precededany thing recorded of Christ's 'ministry by the other evangelists.' He also says, 'It is ' remarkable that we read nothing of the apostles or dis- ' ciples baptizing before our Lord's ascension, except in ' these few passages of our Lord's gospel.' ^ IV. It may tend further to confirm our view of the Sa- viour's baptism, if we remark that Aaron and his sons, being types of our Lord in his priestly office, were, as such, bap- tized by Moses." The elements employed were three — water (Lev. viii. G), oil (v. 12), and blood (v. 23, 24.) The mode of application, in the first instance, as we have already proved, was pouring or sprinkling — in the second, it was pouring only — and, in the third, it was staining, or applying a colour. As the antitype of all this, our Lord was baptized with water by John (Matt. iii. 13); with an unction by the Father (Is. Ixi. 1 ; Luke iii. 23) ; and with blood by his enemies (Luke xii. 50.) — In reference to this three-fold element of baptism, it is said, ' this is he ' that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ ; and ' there are three that bear witness on earth — the Spirit, (or ' unction,) and the water, and the blood — and these agree ' in one,' (1 John v. 6, 8.) Now, as the consecration of the type was, in every instance, by applying the element to the object, it is but fair to infer, without valid reasons to the contrary, that this of the antitype was similar. In- deed, we are certain, that Christ was baptized with the Spirit and blood, by pouring or applying the elements — and have no hesitation in concluding that the water of baptism was brought in contact with his sacred person in a similar manner. It may be suggested, whether the above reference to the consecration of Aaron, his sons and successors, does not explain the often-recited and misapplied expression — ' For 'thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness,' Mat. iii. 15. 1 On John iii. 22-24. 2 Keach's Met. p. 348. 312 SEVERAL INSTANCES OF The allusion is evidently to a known obligation, founded on a divine precept, having respect to the use of water, and applicable to Christ when entering on his priestly office. Now, to what hut the washing of the priests can the ex- pressions refer with any or equal propriety ? And if this be true, his immersion is rendered more than ever im- probable. V. Moreover, as in the case of the Eunuch and of all others baptized in the open air, if the principles of our opponents are correct, our Lord must have been dipped naked, and stood exposed to the multitude present all the time — or he must have been dipped in his ordinary ap- parel, and, dripping with water, must have retired to his lodgings, which were probably distant — or he must have changed his clothes, and thereby have exposed his sacred person twice — before and after the immersion. And if this occurred in the month of November, as one of our opponents believes, and if the weather at that season of the year is sometimes as wet and as cold in Judea, as it is in this country ; ^ the evil must have been greatly aug- mented, and the probability of his being immersed very much diminished. These are difficulties which are insur- mountable. The indelicacy of the case is so at all events. Besides it does not appear that our Lord had a change of raiment, at least, with him. In fact, circumstances lead us to conclude, he had only one suit in the world — and therefore the usual plea of taking a second dress is una- vailing here. (See Luke ix. 3; Matt, xxvii. 35.) Upon the whole, we have no hesitation in saying that the Sa- viour was affused or sprinkled by the Baptist, and not dipped at all. VI. Presuming this deduction to be correct, it must ap- pear evident, that for our opponents to be continually tell- ing their ignorant hearers, who feel a little reluctant to be popped under water, that, unless they submit to it like Christ, they will not fulfil all righteousness — is to produce ' Gibbs, p. irc. SCRIPTURE BAPTISM. 313 an inference without premises, and an argument without a foundation ; since Christ was never dipped at all in bap- tism. Besides, to fulfil all righteousness, the Son of God was circumcised when eight days old, regularly kept the passover, and observed all the other Jewish institutions. — To fulfil all righteousness like Christ, therefore, our breth- ren should do the same. Even in baptism, the case, on their own showing, was singular. He was baptized with- out saving faith, or repentance, or any recorded answer of a good conscience. To follow his example fully, none should be dipped till they are thirty years of age — and a river, if not the Jordan, should always be the place of ad- ministration. Perhaps, our opponents, who make the sup- posed immersion of Christ a topic of such universal appli- cation, can tell us into what name Christ was baptized, and what was the form of words used on that interesting occasion? IX. Cornelius and his family. The account is related in Acts x. 44-48, on which we shall be rather concise. I. We remark that there is something significant in the expression of Peter : 'Who can forbid water?' But is ever such language used in reference to dipping in a brook or a baptistry? It is, however, very appropriate, when applied to a servant's bringing some in a vessel, as is done in our administration of this rite. There is, also, another cir- cumstance in this transaction of a most decisive character. When Peter saw the Holy Ghost descend in a visible man- ner, on the centurion and his family, as he fell upon the disciples on the day of Pentecost, he immediately con- cluded that they might be baptized with water, (Acts xi. 15, compare Acts ii. 3.) This ostensible outpouring of the Spirit brought to his recollection the words of Christ re- specting the baptism of John. Hear his language : — 'And ' as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them as on ' us at the beginning : then remembered I the words of ' the Lord how he said, John indeed baptized with water, 'but ye shall be baptized wdth the Holy Ghost.' (Acts D d 314 SEVERAL INSTANCES OF xi. 15, 16, compare Acts i. 5.) But whence could arise this instantaneous association in the apostle's mind, on the system of our opponents? What resemblance was there to create such au idea, if John immersed all the people ? Are any two acts more directly opposite than the descent of the Spirit on the heads of a family, and plunging such a family into a river ? That the Spirit descended, we know — it being a fact universally admitted ; but what intima- tion was this to Peter that the people should therefore be dipped? Supposing, however, that water-baptism, as ad- ministered by John and the apostles of Christ, was by causing the element to descend upon them from the hand or out of a measure, the whole narrative becomes con- sistent and natural? You will also observe that the out- pouring of the Spirit and baptism by water are denomi- nated one and the same thing, and are so blended in this narrative, that it is impossible to conclude that they were not precisely similar in action. Hence, we conclude, that both were by an affusion or an aspersion. II. Here it may not be out of place to observe, that the case of Cornelius affords us the only instance-where it is said the Holy Spirit was given to persons previous to water- baptism. For this extraordinary method a reason may be found in the reluctance of Peter to receive into the visible communion of the church any who were recognized as Gen- tiles. Most of his colleagues were infected with a simi- lar prejudice, (Acts xi. 1-3.) To remove this impression and to justify his proceeding, the Spirit was poured out in his presence, and fully satisfied his scrupulous conscience. Nor should it be forgotten, that the baptism of believers, as contended for by our opponents, and of believers and their seed, as advocated by many Pedobaptists, is no doc- trine of the New Testament. That real believers and their seed were baptized, we do not question; but we do deny that it was confined to them. In the case of adults ' convic- tion of the truth of the report' necessarily preceded baptism — since none would have been baptized without it. But SCRIPTURE BAPTlSJr. 315 tliat the apostle looked for real conversion or regeneration, as a necessary qualification for the reception of this ordi- nance, we deny — and, were it within the range of our present investigation, we could easily disprove. The New Testament baptisms were never deemed a test of character, but simply an exhibition of grace and truth. While diverging a moment from the mode to the proper subjects of baptism, perhaps we may be allowed to remark that the abuse of Infant baptism, in the Romish and Eng- lish hierarchies, has materially conduced to support the exclusive baptism of adults. — Perceiving that, in these denominations, the baptism of infants is rendered the ve- hicle of errors and gross superstitions — seeing it blended with the sign of the cross, sponsors, and iniquitous vow- ings, and hearing it exalted into regeneration by the Holy Spirit; many people feel disgusted, and rashly renounce the doctrine of infant baptism as highly pernicious. Into this course conscientious clergymen, who secede from the established religion — and become zealous, though incon- siderate, dissenters — are most liable to run. But surely a sacrament may be perverted and marred with unscriptural appendages and assumptions, by certain parties, without rendering its simple performance by others either sinful or improper. What has been more abused than the sacra- ment of the Lord's supper, the ordinance of preaching, or the methods of prayer ? But are we, therefore, to renounce them as administered according to the laws of Christ? This is but another instance to prove how prone man, under mis- guided excitem.ent, is to run into extremes — from a cor- rupted administration to no administration at all. We have been told repeatedly that infant baptism is as bad as popery, and has destroyed millions of souls; and that, therefore, we are bound to relinquish such an institution : as justly might we be advised to abolish the Eucharist, Preaching and Prayer; which have been rendered far more super- stitious and injurious to the souls of men, and dishonour- able to the christian religion. Our opponents must deem 316 SEVERAL INSTANCES OF US soft, indeed, if they suppose we are to be influenced by arguments so destitute of even the merest semblance of validity! With equal propriety might we denounce the baptism of adults, because it has, in numberless cases, been grossly, if not fatally, abused and perverted by mankind. X. The Samaritans, Paul and the Jailor. — These baptisms, to instance no others, are all so circumstanced, as to force the conclusion that the subjects were not dipped, but simply aiFused or sprinkled. As these cases involve nothing very material to this part of our inquiry, w^e have placed them together, and shall treat them but briefly. I. The Samaritans, (Acts viii. 10-12.) Of these it is manifest that a great number was baptized. It will also be recollected that pure or running water, or such as had not been polluted by natural or moral defilement, was neces- sary in every individual baptism. Now, if the candi- dates had been all dipped, at least, three hogsheads of water were requisite for each full-grown person, and no small quantity for the little folks. Let it, however, be re- marked, that the term Samaria, in the time of Christ and afterwards, meant a country and not a city.^ . The words of Luke, in Acts viii. 5, are literally, ' Then Philip went 'down to a city of Samaria.' ^ This is supposed to have been the ancient Sechem or Sychar where, about five years before, our Lord and his disciples had spent two days, (John iv. 5, 40.) Assuming this to be the truth, we may derive circumstantial evidence in support of our scheme. Now Sychar, like the city of Nahor, (Gen. xxiv. 11, 13, 43), Ramah (1 Sam. ix. 11), and other towns erected in the neighbourhood of wells or fountains, and generally on elevated ground, was supplied with pure water from Jacob's well, which was distant from the city and of considerable depth, (John iv. 27.) That water suf- ficient for immersing all these Samaritans, 'from the least ' to the greatest,' was not fetched on this occasion, we may fairly infer, and therefore conclude that the people were ' Calmet's Diet, in Loc. ' Comp. Bible, in Loc. SCRIPTURE BAPTISM. 317 baptized in the usual way by pouring or sprinkling. This assumption renders all the circumstances of the case fea- sible and consistent; and though the identity of this city may be disputed, yet there can hardly be a question that the many who believed in our Lord on his visit to this place, were baptized immediately on believing the truth of his report; when the difficulties of immersion would have been nearly as great as in the present instance. II. The Jpostle Paul, (Acts ix. 8-19.) — That this person, after the exhaustion of three days fasting, blind- ness, and unparalleled perturbation of mind, should, with- out some specific command of God, which was not given, have been plunged naked or dressed into a river or reser- voir of cold water in the depth of Winter (25th of January), before he ate a morsel of victuals, is what few will be cre- dulous enough to conclude. It would have partaken of so much inconsideratiou and even of cruelty, that Ananias certainly would not have done it without an especial in- junction, which, as said before, was never given to him. It is particularly said that he was to arise or stand up, (anastas) — not to leave the room, but — to be baptized — a mode of expression every way unsuitable to the action of dipping — for which a person should rather have lain down or inclined towards the ' liquid grave.' Upon the whole we infer, that the apostle was baptized by sprinkling or pouring. In this case, the ceremony would have con- sumed but a very short period, would not have added to Paul's consternation, already overwhelming, and, in fact, would have comported with all the requisites of the original institution and practice. III. The Philippian Jailor, (Acts xvi. 25-34.) That this man ' and all his,' were plunged by Paul or Silas, ap- pears very improbable. He had heard the apostles con- verse about Christ perhaps half an hour, and that at mid- night. He then ' disturbed the sweet repose ' ^ of his wife and children, who had long been with him in bed — got ' Booth, vol. i. p. 25. D d 5 318 SEVERAL INSTANCES OP them out of their rooms — and they were baptized the very same hour. If they were baptized by dipping, it was either in a bath, as Dr. Ryland supposes, ^ or in a neigh- bouring river, as Dr. Jenkins imagines. ^ That there was no bath in this eastern prison for the purpose of washing the prisoners on entering, may be inferred from the fact, that Paul and Silas had been sent to their cells without the benefit of it. And the improbability of the whole posting off in the dark to some neighbouring river with second suits of clothes on their arms, has been exhibited before. In fact, no one would have fancied they were immersed whose mind had not been prejudiced greatly in favour of dipping. As our's has not been, we assume that the Jailor and his family were baptized by affusion or aspersion. This con- clusion renders the detail of St. Luke harmonious and natural. XI. We have now mentioned all the cases in which the circumstances of scripture baptism are more or less nar- rated, and feel no question but that we have your verdict in favour of our deductions. In examining this subject, you perceive that we have taken broad and extensive grounds of argumentation, as the only valid method of properly eliciting the facts of the case. Our opponents, however, in maintaining their point, are very much limited in their data. One of them has stated, in a very few words, the entire basis of their system : — ' The accepta- ' tion of the Greek word— the circumstances of our Lord's ' baptism (Matt. iii. 16) — and those of the Eunuch (Acts ' viii. 38, 39) — as also the allusions, in (Rom. vi. 3, 4,) * and (Col. ii. 12,) to a burial and resurrection.'^ — And this, in fact, is the whole. How far it will support their cause, we leave you to judge. That a shadow of evidence cannot be obtained from any of them, we think has been sufficiently established — nor do we remember a case of immersion-baptism mentioned in all the compass of the Old or New Testaments. 1 Bapt.Mag. Jan. 18H. 2 Jcnkin'sDcf.p. 119. 3 Maclean, v. iii. p. 21. SCRIPTURE BAPTISM, 319 XII. The only probable response to the foregoing ar- guments, is a reference to the assumed primary sense of the verb baptizo, or to the first definition of it in certain lexicons. Whatever we say in proof of our practice, this hackneyed allusion is reiterated as conclusive evidence in favour of immersion. The invalidity of this reply we have established before ; the recoil of such a mode of reasoning, on the practice of our opponents, we will now concisely illustrate. The Greek noun, ecclesia, rendered church, in many places of the New Testament, priraarilyv signifies an assemhly of citizens, of all ranks and characters, called together by the civil magistrate ; and this is the first defi- nition of it in the following and, probably, in all other lexicons. Dr. Jones — 1. A meeting or assembly of citizens — 2. A church. Parkhurst — 1. An assembly of people called together by the civil magistrate — 2. An assembly of people not thus called together — 3. A general assembly of the Jewish nation — 4. A church of God, &c. Sehleitsner — 1. An assembly of citizens — 2. A turbu- lent multitude collected together — 3. The universal body of believers — 4. An assembly of believers in one place, &c. Hedricus — 1. A congregation or assembly of citizens — 2. Place of assembly — 3. An assembly gathered together to hear the word of God. In these lexicons, a general and promiscuous assembly of citizens is the first definition of the word in question, or, as our opponents would term it, the primary meaning of it — the idea of a communion of converted believers being a secondary sense and definition of the noun. Therefore, if the Baptists are right in condemning us for not adopting tbe first exposition of baptizo, they must be wrong for not adopting the first exposition of ecclesia. But in construct- ing their churches the primary sense of ecclesia is aban- doned — just as we adandon the primary definition of bap- tizo. And when they shall treat their promiscuous con- 320 SEVERAL INSTANCES OF, ETC. gregatiou as a christian fraternity, they may reasonably call upon us to act on their principles and immerse our converts — and not before. Should it be replied that apostolical examples and qua- lifying expressions, show that the word ecclesia is to be construed differently when applied to a religious body; we answer that apostolical examples and qualifying expres- sions, equally show that baptizo is to be construed differ- ently, also, when applied to a religious rite. The cases are perfectly, parallel, and must stand or fall together. If we must adopt the first definitions of baptizo, and dip our people; they must adopt the first definition of ecclesia, and admit any person, good or bad, into their societies. — And if they are justified in acting upon a secondary sense of the noun, we may as justly act on the secondary sense of the verb. And, as far as lexicon arrangements and au- thority are concerned, and to these we are now exclusively alluding, they have no more ground for excluding all but professed christians from their churches, than we have for sprinkling all the people we baptize. In fact, their argu- ment for dipping, founded on the first definitions of baptizo, though constantly and confidently reiterated, is one of the weakest ever propounded by our respected opponents — as the preceding observations will have fully convinced you. 321 SECTION FIFTH. THE NUMBERS BAPTIZED BY JOHN AND THE APOSTLES. ' Through a divine influence on the minds of men, vast numbers 'were induced to resort to John in the wilderness, from all parts ' of Judea, and from Jerusalem ; so that the whole city and coun- ' try, as it were, went out to him ; and he was especially attended ' by the inhabitants of those regions, which lay on each side of ' the river Jordan ; where, after a time, he commonly exercised 'his ministry.' — Rev. T. Scott, on Matt. iii. 5, 6. Under the last particular it was observed, that none who desired to receive baptism by the forerunner or followers of Christ were ever refused — that no conditions were made likely to restrict the applicants to any considerable amount — and that several circumstances conspired to induce the people en masse to apply first to John for baptism and then to Christ. This being assumed, we purpose now to show that the numbers consecrated by John during the period he preceded Christ as a minister of religion, and by the disci- ples of our Lord on the day of Pentecost and subsequently, were, on account of their numbers, not submersed, but simply afFused or sprinkled. We shall begin with, — I. The Baptism of John. — 'Then went to him Jeru- ' salem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jor- * dan, and were baptized of him in (or at) the Jordan, ' confessing their sins,' (Matt. iii. 5, 6. See Mark i. 5.) As you have repeatedly heard, it is a principle with our opponents, in positive institutions, not to reason, infer, or analogize on the Word of God, but to take it literally, and understand it as plain people do, in its grammatical sense and according to our vernacular translation — since they argue that otherwise common readers of the Bible would be obliged to pin their faith on the sleeve of their teacher. To pass over the difficulties which such a mode of under- 322 THE NUMBERS BAPTIZED BY standing the Holy Oracles would create at every step, and here in particular, and to take our friends on tolerably fair grounds, we v/ill suppose with our plain fellow-country- men, that all or nearly all the people, old and young of course, living in Jerusalem and Judea, and in the region or countries round about Jordan, not excluding ' the pub- ' licans and the harlots who believed him,' (Matt. xxi. 32) were baptized of John by total immersion in the river of Jordan, just as it is practised by our brethren in Great Britain. On this conjecture two or three inquiries may be raised: — I. Whether John alone administered this sacrament, or whether he was assisted in it by his disciples ? To this we reply, that there is no more express account of John's be- ing aided in this operation by his followers, than there is of infants being baptized by him — nor yet half so much — for we may, from the terms employed, infer, that he did the latter, but no intimation is given of the former. There is not, however, any circumstance which indicates that John was aided in his work by his disciples ; and unless our friends have recourse to supposition and induction, which they deny us in similar cases, because fatal to their scheme, they are forced to conclude, that he, single-handed, bap- tized all the multitudes that came to him, (Luke iii. 7.) Further, when the comparative numbers of those baptized by Christ and John are mentioned, it is said, ' Jesus bap- * tized not, but his disciples.' And this is adduced to ac- count for his consecrating more than John, (John iv. 1, 2.) This reasoning, however, would have been invalid, had John been assisted by his disciples. Besides, what Mr. Booth says on another occasion cannot be inapplicable here. 'It is plain,' says he,^ 'that this language (Gen. * xvii. 23,) ascribes to Abraham the whole performance of 'this rite, exclusive of any assistant; for it was the pa- ' triarch himself who took Ishmael and every male in his ' own house, and circumcised them. That all this was • Vol. i. p. 253. JOHN AND THE APOSTLES. 323 ' performed by Abraham in one day, we have no doubt, ' because the facts rest upon divine testimony.' Tliis point we shall therefore consider established. II. The next question is, How long was John employed in baptizing this immense number? You will bear in mind that all these people are said to have been baptized prior to the baptism of Christ. ' Now when all the people were ' baptized, it came to pass that Jesus also being baptized, ' and praying, the heaven was opened, &c.' (Luke iii. 21.) In Matt. iii. 5, 6, and Mark i. 5, it is expressly said that all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, Judea, and the region round about Jordan, were baptized before our Lord visited the Baptist. It should be further remembered that John was the son of a priest (Luke i. 5), and consequently a priest himself, (Numb. xvi. 40.) Now, as such, he could not have entered his priestly oiSce, part of which, as we have seen, was baptizing, till he was thirty years of age, (Numb. iv. 3-47; 1 Chron. xxiii. 3.) In this opinion we are supported by the declaration of a celebrated oppo- nent, who says, 'When John was about thirty years of age, ' in obedience to the heavenly call, he entered on his mi- 'nistry.'i And, as said before, all, or nearly all, these people were baptized previous to the baptism of Christ, Avho, ' when he began to be about thirty years of age,' (Luke iii. 23), was baptized by his harbinger. But John was only six months older than our blessed Saviour (Luke i. 36), therefore all this work was done in about the space of six months. This position we shall also deem valid. III. • The third question is. How many did John baptize ? This, indeed, cannot be answered precisely : but if we may avail ourselves of the best information to be obtained, as our opponents do in similar cases, John must have baptized an immense number. The inhabitants of Jerusalem, Judea, and all the region round about Jordan were baptized. Now we learn, from good authority, that about forty years after, and subsequent to a long series of oppressions by the Ro- 324 THE NUMBERS BAPTIZED BY mans, after much intestine warfare, and doubtless many- emigrations to distant places, when Titus besieged Jeru- salem, 1,100,000 persons were slain in this city alone, nearly 300,000 perished in other parts of the country, and about 100,000 were carried away captive by the con- querors ; the Christians, who were very numerous, ac- cording to our Lord's direction (Luke xxi. 21), escaped the catastrophe by a seasonable flight ; ^ and no inconsi- (Jerable number remained still in the land, and who in the reign of Adrian, on account of a furious revolt, were slaughtered to the number of 500,000 ; multitudes were sold as slaves, and others were banished from the land.^ Whence we may reasonably conclude, that at the time John was baptizing, Jerusalem, Judea, and the region round about Jordan, comprehended, at least, 2,000,000 of inhabitants. Nor is this computation taken from profane authors in any degree incompatible with the statements of scripture. In the time of David, there were in Israel 1,100,000 men of war above twenty years of age, and in Judah 470,000 ; the tribes of Levi and Benjamin not being numbered, (1 Chron. xxi. 5.) Jeroboam, king of Israel,, brought 800,000 men against Abijah, king of Judah, who met him with 400,000, (2 Chron. xiii. 3); and Asa's army, composed of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, con- sisted of 580,000 soldiers (2 Chron. xiv. 8.) And though these are the numbers before the captivity, yet when it is considered that not only a large portion of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin returned to Judea, but also of the other ten tribes (Acts xxvi. 7; Jas. i. 1), we may fairly conclude, that after a lapse of five hundred years, the Jews, then so called, were as numerous as the tribes of Judah and Benjamin had ever been ; and which, upon a mode- rate calculation, could not have been less than 2,000,000 of people, as before supposed. Indeed, the Jews present at the Passover, in the year 65, were 3,000,000 ;3 and a ' Newton on the Proph. Disc. 20, p. 41. Ed. Lend. 1823. - Adam's Rel. W. Displayed, vol. ii. p. 284. 5 Hist, of the Wars, b. 2, c. 14, s. 3. JOHN AND THE APOSTLES. 62b little later, a still greater number had congregated in the metropolis on a similar occasion ; ^ which would make the total amount at least 4,000,000, double the number before assumed. However, as many of these probably came from distant countries, let us suppose that 2,000,000 of people came under the influence of John's baptism. All these, then, according to the letter of the sacred his- torian, and according to the literal mode of interpretation adopted by our brethren, were baptized by immersion, du- ring the space of six months, by the single-handed efforts of John the Baptist. We have said 2,000,000 for the sake of round numbers ; the few individuals who came to his baptism (Matt. iii. 7) merely to inquire into its meaning, or to ridicule his doctrines, and who would not submit to this rite, and for which they were severely reproved, (Luke vii. 30) and others who might not have applied, or were baptized at Enon afterwards, are not sufficient to affect the argument founded on this calculation. Should it be argued that the number of people thus as- sumed to be baptized by John, comprises the entire popu- lation, one half of which were children, who probably were not present, not being mentioned in the narrative ; and that consequently our calculations are, at least, too high by one half; we reply that, in all probability, the children were taken by their parents to this solemn and interesting ga- thering of the population, as our Lord was taken every year, in his childhood, to Jerusalem to the passover (Luke ii. 41, 42) ; at all events, there is no intimation of the con- trary. ■ This was a great stirring occasion, and on similar ones, recorded in the Old Testament, the young were taken with the aged ()S'ee Deut. xxxi. 12, 13; Josh. viii. 35; 2 Chron. XX. 12, 13,) and probably were so on this. We find our assumption supported by the fact, that when, ou subsequent occasions, vast numbers followed Christ and were miraculously fed, children are mentioned as partak- ing of his bounty. {See Matt. xiv. 21 ; xv. 38.) Their ' lb. b. 6, c. s, s. 3. E e 326 THE NUMBERS BAPTIZED BY being present then seems to have been a matter of course ; and mention of them is made to display the extent of the miracle. This, however, cannot be controverted, that we have no more proof of John's baptizing women than in- fants ; for not one female is said to have been baptized by him, nor, indeed, by any one else, before the ascension of Christ — nor afterwards, except Lydia and the women of Samaria. The language in all other cases, including ar- ticles, pronouns, nouns, and adjectives, being in the mas- culine gender, and comprehends every age as literally and as evidently as it does both sexes. IV. Now, the fourth question is, Whether this was practicable ? You will observe, that John had to preach, travel, repose, and take refreshment, during this period, as well as to plunge the people. Nor have we any account of his being a man of more than ordinary vigour of constitu- tion or muscular strength of body ; neither do we learn that the people dipped were less robust or more easily managed than the generality of candidates for immersion in the present day. Suppose, then, we take the numbers for granted, and conclude that John actually baptized them all. In that case, he must have stood in the water up to his knees or middle, from morning till night, for the full space of six months, and must have plunged over head and ears and pulled up again about 12,000 every day, sabbaths excepted — about 1,070 every hour, and nearly 18 every minute ! That all this was impossible, we need not argue — every one present must perceive it. v. But lest it should be thought we have formed our basis of argumentation on too large a scale, we will, with Dr. Cox, consider the language as expressive of an indefinite number, though comprehending ' great multitudes.' ^ We will, then, suppose that John baptized but the tenth of the probable inhabitants of the country ; and surely this cannot be con- sidered an extravagant calculation. We will also suppose that all were adults, men and women, giving themselves up ' p. 113. JOHN- AND THE APOSTLES. 327 to the discipleship of the Baptist. To have accomplished this, he must have stood in the water twelve hours every- day for six months, sabhaths excepted, and have dipped over head and ears and pulled up again 1,280 between the rising and setting sun — about 107 every hour — and nearly 2 every minute. The difficulty of doing this must be ap- parent on more accounts than one : — Without a miracle, his garments must have rotted — his saturated flesh must have peeled from his bones — and the cold water must have caused a fatal rush of blood to his head. But let us refer to numbers. Now, as this reasoning rests on facts and experience rather than theoretical calculation, let us hear the decisions of practical men: — Dr. Jenkins says, that ' any man of common strength and alertness might dip ' thirty-seven in two hours.' ^ — Mr. Burt is very bold and saith, ' I question not but one minister may, with the bless- ' ing of God, immerge in the sacred names used in baptism, ' and raise again from the water, fifty in an hour, for five ' hours successively ; and that he would find a vast deal ' of pleasure therein.'- Of course Mr. Burt means in this conjecture, for it is nothing more, that the blessing of God includes some extraordinary, if not miraculous, assistance. Nor did he probably contemplate that the minister might ever be a little weak brother and his subjects very large and weighty. But, after all, this would be only a trifle compared with the labours of ' poor John the Dipper ! ' VI. We may, however, be questioned in return, Whether the baptism of so many people, in so short a time, by a single individual, would have been practicable on the supposition, that they were all baptized by affusion or as- persion, as administered by the great body of Christians in the present day? We answer in the affirmative, for the case has been demonstrated. Dr. Robertson, in his His- tory of America, tells us, that ' a single clergyman, in one 'day, baptized 5,000 Mexicans.' ^ — Mr. Robinson, in his History of Baptism, says, that ' in the font of the Vatican » C. R. p. 5S. - Treatise, p. 22. = Works, v. iv. p. 50. 328 THE NUMBERS BAPTIZED BY ' Church at Rome, Pope Liberius, on a holy Saturday, bap- ' tized, of both sexes and of different ranks, 8,810 cate- 'cliumens.'^ — Pope Gregory says, as cited by the last historian, that 'Austin baptized more than 10,000 persons 'in England on a Christmas day;'- and, according to Mr. Booth, Francis Xavier, a missionary among the In- dians, baptized 15,000 of them in one day.^ Admitting the truth of these statements, two things are manifest, our opponents being umpires of the question,* that neither the clergyman, Liberius, Austin, nor Xavier, baptized by im- mersion ; and secondly, that John could have baptized all we have supposed with perfect ease by pouring or sprinkling. VII. But we have said John was a Jewish priest, as Za- charias was before him. Now as our opponents positively deny the existence of proselyte baptism before his day,^ the only baptism which God had appointed under the law to be performed by the ministers of religion on the candi- dates for purification or consecration, was pouring, sprink- ling, or applying the element — this we have proved from scripture and the declaration of our opponents. You have seen that the congregation was sprinkled en masse, or the water was aspersed upon them as a body. This mode our opponents affect to ridicule when advocated by modern commentators as likely to have been adopted by John in respect of the multitudes he baptized.^ But they should bear in mind that Aaron and every high, and probably every inferior, priest did the like at God's command, for a pur- pose avowedly similar to those of a New Testament bap- tism. Nor are we aware that there is any thing more laughable in it than there is in a young preacher of modern times dipping the folks by dozens in a river or baptistry. VIII. Let it be further observed, that what John did at the Jordan, the Jews — who mistook liis real character — supposed to have been done by the Messiah himself; nor is there the slightest hint given of their considering it an • r. 112. 2 p. 116. 3 Vol.i. p. 2J5. •• Supra. 5 Booth, V. U. p. 1G2-197. « Ibid. v. i. p. 237-217. JOHN AND THE APOSTLES. 329 operation below the dignity with wliich his person was as- sociated in their minds. But had they witnessed John, whom they regarded as ' Messiah tlie Prince ' — the ' King * of Israel ' — the ' Great Prophet' of the Lord — the ' Priest ' upon his throne,' standing day by day and month after month, up to his knees or middle in the turbulent waters of the Jordan, doing with laborious and apparently menial exertion, what prince, prophet, or priest, never did before — dipping 'over head and ears,' one after another, the my- riads who crowded around him, men, women, and children, the poor, the wretched, and ragged among the rest — would they ever have mused in their hearts a moment whether he were the Christ or not? Would deputations have been sent from Jerusalem to ask him if he were the Messiah? Would they not have at once concluded, surely this is not the Son of God, the King of Israel, Messiah the Prince ? Most unquestionably. But what John did to the people, was not considered a strange ceremony, nor incompatible with the high concep- tions they had formed of the Saviour's office; and, hence, we may safely infer that he did not immerse the multitudes that came to his baptism. They had read in their scrip- tures that the Messiah should ' sprinkle many nations ; ' and if John did sprinkle the people, we can easily account for their mistake, respecting his person ; if he dipped them their conjectures were inconsistent and unaccountable. The former was a method often performed by the highest spiritual officers in their hierarchy, and exhibited nothing mean or unusual : the latter was an act confessedly un- known among them, and must have appeared degrading, at least, in the imagined son of God. Suppose John to have sprinkled the people, and the case is plain : for then his royal demeanor, his commanding eloquence, his pro- phet-like attire, and his priestly purifications, might easily have led them to regard him as the Messiah, presently ex- pected among them. This agreement is clear and conclu- sive ; while the supposition that John immersed his fol- E e 5 330 THE NUMBERS BAPTIZED BY lowers, renders the case unnatural and unreasonable in the last extreme. IX. It may he also proper here to notice, that we have no fresh specification of the mode of baptism in the writings of the Evangelists ; consequently we must infer that it was to be done as appointed by Moses. Nor could John, with- out injunctions unknown to us, and on which, of course, we cannot reason, have acted differently from his predeces- sors ; and yet he received the sanction of the Saviour. The great numbers initiated by him, and the more full deve- lopment of the original design of this institution, by no means affect the mode of his operations. This method was divinely appointed (Heb. ix. 10), and consequently came from heaven (Matt. xxi. 25), with all the doctrines and duties which the precursor of the Messiah delivered and inculcated, and which, rather than the manner of his conse- cration, was evidently intended by baptism in the last-cited passage. 1 If there were any alterations introduced, it de- volves on our bretheren to prove it: and as they talk and write so largely on positive precepts as well as apostolical examples, let them adduce their warranty foi: changing the mode of baptism current for at least fifteen hundred years. But as this is impossible, they must allow us to as- sume that it was never altered, and that John sprinkled the people as his forefathers hath done in their generations. X. But still it may be objected that John's baptism was an entirely new ordinance peculiar to the age and oc- casion of his ministry, and that any reference to the Mo- saic rites cannot fairly illustrate the manner of its adminis- tration. For this purpose Matt. xxi. 25, is cited : — ' The ' baptism of John, whence was it, from heaven or of men ?' or is it an institution of God or the invention of mortals ? This question the persons addressed were unable or unwil- ling to answer — so that the passage does not prove it to be of human or divine origin exclusively. "VVe will, however, admit that this was from heaven. (See John iii. 31.) ' See Gill, p. 212. JOHN AND THE APOSTLES. 331 But then the language does not determine wliether it was the result of an entirely new revelation of God to John, specifying the subjects, mode, and design of the ceremony, or the adoption of a religious ordinance long before in use among the Jews. The doctrines he preached were as much from heaven as the rite he administered, and were probably included in the term baptism ; but they had been revealed and promulgated during many preceding genera- tions. The present ministry of the gospel is unquestion- ably from heaven, though instituted eighteen hundred years ago. The phrase from heaven, signifies only of di- vine origination. (See Rom. i. 18; Jas. i. 17; Rev. iii. 12.) We have no positive precept or apostolic testimony that it was a new thing in the earth when John entered on his mission ; nor is he said to have introduced it as a re- ligious service among the Jews. And even had this been the case, it would not have disproved its prior observance. Moses is said to have given circumcision to the Hebrews (John vii. 22), though it had been administered hundreds of years before among the progenitors of that chosen peo- ple. He merely, at the command of God, adopted it among his Levitical institutes as he found it among the Hebrew tribes. Consequently, the question proposed — even con- ceding a reply, as before suggested — in no degree affects the arguments previously given. It might have come from heaven long before John was born — when administered by him so extensively, might be called his baptism, as sacri- ficial offerings are designated the laws of Moses ; and, in its general design, the character of its subjects, and the mode of its performance, might perfectly harmonize with the typical purifications, initiations, or consecrations under the Mosaic economy. XI. Here it may not be irrelevant to our object to observe, that the Disciples of St. John the Baptist, a sect residing in the East, have perpetuated or adopted a plan of baptizing which corroborates our position — that John acted in con- formity with the supposed customs of the Jewish priests. 332 THE NUMBERS BAPTIZED BY These people reiterate, in a solemn and public manner, the mode of John's baptism once a year. The following is Norberg's account : — ' On the day when John instituted ' his baptism, they repeat this sacred ordinance. They ' proceed in a body to the water, and among them one who 'bears a standard; also the priest, dressed in his camel's ' hair ornaments, holding a vessel of water in his hand, he ' sprinkles each person singly as he comes out of the river, ' saying, I renew your baptism in the name of our father ' and saviour John, who, in this manner, baptized the ' Jews in the Jordan and saved them : he shall save you ' also. — Last of all, he immerges himself in the water for 'his own salvation.' 1 — Here we have the people in the water before their baptism and the priest after — while the only transitive act is sprinkling, which is alone designated the baptism. Mr. Wolfe, the missionary, found a people in Mesopotamia, who also call themselves The Followers of John the Baptist. ' The priests or bishops baptize child- ' ren thirty days old. They take the child to the brink of ' the river — a relative or friend holds the child near the sur- 'face of the water, while the priest sprinJdes the element 'upon it.'- — We do not lay much stress on these customs. However, they may be considered as neutralizing similar evidence adduced by our opponents ; and they prove, as Mr. Watson justly remarks, 'that we have, in modern 'times, river-baptism without immersion.' ^ II. The Baptism of the Three Thousand on the Day of Pentecost. — That these people were baptized by pouring or sprinkling, and not by dipping or immersing, will be rendered plain from the following considerations : I. The time occupied in baptizing them was too limited. On the most liberal calculations, the apostles could not have begun to baptize till the middle of the day. Peter did not commence his sermon to the multitude till the third hour of the day, or about nine o'clock according to our ' Calmet's Diet, in Loc. 2 Journal, v. ii. p. 311. 3 InsUtutes, v. iii, p. -ISS. JOHN AND THE APOSTLES. 333 reckoning, (Acts ii. 15.) His discourse, of which Luke has given us an outline in the second chapter of the Acts, was evidently protracted and elaborate. Then there was time employed in the subsequent inquiries and responses — in explaining the design of this ordinance and all the preparations for it — which would have consumed little short of three hours; and as night came on, about six o'clock in the evening, when we may suppose they would have been arrested in their operations, they could have had no more than about six hours in which to perform this ceremony ; or, as Mr. Burt's calculations intimate, only five hours were consumed in the administration. ^ For the sacred historian renders it plain, that they were initiated into the church on the very day of their conviction (Acts ii. 41); and as our brethren assure us, that ' baptism in scripture ' always preceded adding to a visible church,' " and that ' the ' apostolic churches were composed of baptized believers, ' and none ever admitted to their communion who had not ' been baptized '-^ — we are necessitated to conclude that the three thousand were, in this manner, initiated into the church at Jerusalem in the afternoon of the day of Pentecost. II. Let us suppose, then, that all these people had been baptized by the twelve apostles alone — for this is the more probable interpretation — two hundred and fifty persons would have fallen to the lot of each administrator, who, on the principle of our opponents, must have immersed about forty-two per hour during six hours successively, or fifty per hour during five hours without intermission, at every immersion pronouncing the sacred names used in baptism — a task, no doubt, very laborious, andperformable but with immense pains and assiduity. There must also have been twelve distinct places or accommodations for this baptizing, which we shall presently show you were not easily procurable in Jerusalem, especially by the disciples, who were almost universally detested, and whose converts, ' Treatise, p. 22. s Mackan, v. iii. p. 250. = Gibbs, p. 12. 334 THE NUMBERS BAPTIZED BY being mostly visitors during tlie feast of Pentecost (Acts ii. 8-11), could have commanded no private or public con- veniences for sucli an immersing. It should be observed further, that though these 3,000 only were baptized, yet it is probable that multitudes more were present, and would have partaken of this ordinance, at the same time and in the same manner, had they also gladly received the word spoken by the apostles — and complied with the admonition previously given: 'Repent and be baptized every one of ' you [immediately] in the name of Jesus Christ.' — We have, however, only to consider those who actually sub- mitted to this rite ; and they are sufficient to show that immersing them was impracticable. III. If it be asserted, though it cannot be proved, that the seventy brethren assisted the twelve apostles, ^ we reply that while this proportionably diminishes the manual labour of each within the compass of practicability, allotting but thirty-six candidates to each dipper; it greatly enhances the difficulty in another respect, since not less than eighty-two convenient if not distinct places suitable to such an occasion must have been obtained under all the inauspicious circum- stances mentioned before. That is, eighty-two places con- taining fair and pure water sufficiently large and deep for dipping men and women with dispatch and delicacy, must have been provided immediately, and on the spot, by the poor persecuted disciples and their equally detested, if not anathematized, converts, in the city of Jerusalem. The insuperable obstacles to the accomplishment of which must strike the dullest mind in this congregation. IV. But this dipping of the three thousand, was a small part of the business to be performed in five or six hours. If our opponents' prerequisites to baptism are scriptural, the apostles must have examined the fitness of all these candi- dates for the reception of this rite ; and which, according to modern practice, must have consumed thrice the time re- quisite for their immersion. This labour must have been ' Jenkin's Def. i>. U'J; J. Stcunctt, p. 123. JOHN' AND THE APOSTLES. 335 greatly enlianced by the circumstance, that the apostles knew little or nothing of their moral character previously, except that they had by their vote at least become the mur- derers of the Holy One and the Just; and which was no great recommendation in their favour.^ To reply that as a multitude they gave sufficient evidence of genuine conver- sion to God, will avail nothing ; since a crowd, exclaiming under a sermon from a Baptist brother, 'men and brethren ' what shall we do ? ' would not satisfy his mind that they were, according to his hypothesis of believers' baptism, proper subjects for this ordinance, nor would he knoAv in the confusion of the outcry who had absolutely offered the supplication. No, he would examine them at length, one by one ; and as he acts on apostolical example, he must conclude that Peter and his colleagues always examined their converts and candidates also. Nor would it avail our opponents to say that the apostles, because able to discern the spirits which influenced false teachers, (1 Cor. xii. 10), were able to determine intuitively the spiritual state of these three thousand ; since what they did in this re- spect, all believers are to do, (1 John iv. 1)," since they were often mistaken, as in the case of Simon Magus, and since God alone can read the heart, (1 Kings viii. 39.) In fact, this point is conceded by our brethren.' Conse- quently the apostles had to catechise these three thousand people individually and minutely on their change of heart, knowledge of the gospel, moral character, purity of mo- tives, grounds of hope and the like, besides to dip them under- water and take them up again in a solemn manner in five or six hours. V. Then there is another obstacle to the immersion of the three thousand on the day of Pentecost — and in the time above specified. These people were baptized in their ordinary clothes — or they fetched a second suit for the oc- casion — or they were baptized naked. If they were dipped ' Booth, vol. i. p. 256. - Dr. Pye Smith's Messiah, vol. iii. p. 175-178. 3 Booth, v. iii. p. 156. 336 THE NUMBERS BAPTIZED BY in the clothes they had about them while listening to Peter, they must have retired to their homes streaming with water ; and as their garments were 'light and naturally loose,' their saturated state would have made them stick to the body of both the men and the women all the way to their lodgings. Or if they ran home directly after the sermon and fetched a second dress to be baptized in, they must have changed their apparel twice somewhere — our brethren suppose in the porches of the pool of Bethesda, where, as we have shown, sixteen persons must have been dressing and un- dressing in each at the same time — some pulling off their dry clothes and others their wet — and have been twice in a state of nudity before each other — and then the thrse thousand wet suits must have been bundled up and taken away to dry. Or they must, in the last place, have been - baptized naked ; and if the pool of Bethesda were the place, all of them, men and women, before each other's eyes. One of these things, on the principle of our opponents, must have occurred. But as all of them are equally incredible, we conclude they were afFused or sprinkled only. VI. Let it be further remarked, that in all. ceremonial purifications, of which baptism was certainly one, pure, fair, clean, running or living water was required — not water simply free from natural pollution, but void of all moral contagion. This is intimated by the apostle, 'and our bo- dies washed with pure water,' or, as Josephus expresses it, 'water drawn from perpetual springs,'^ (Heb. x. 22.) It is also acknowledged by our opponents : — Dr. Gale says, ' a fountain or running stream in the remotest times was 'always judged purest and most proper for purification.' - Rees tells us, that ' the early Christians went to a river, ' brook, or pool oi fair water, and there discharged a good 'conscience towards God.' ^ Also, that *a single rivulet ' having pools of fair and deep water would have been as ' fit for John's baptism as if he had twenty.'* Carson says, ' baptism is a washing — because it is an immersion in pure ' Ant, b. 3, c. 9, s. 1. •-• r. 1 13. 3 p. 17S. * V. 120. JOHN AND THE APOSTLES. 337 ' water.' ^ Therefore these three thousand must have been dipped into a running stream, and only one at a time, and the water must have been fair or pure ; or each one of them must have been dipped into a separate tank or bath, and these vessels, if used repeatedly, must have been filled afresh for each candidate ; since moral pollution was sup- posed to attach to the cleansing element.^ This is plain from the baptisms under the law, to which reference has been made already. As the priest, by placing his hands on the head of the scape goat in the name of the congre- gation, transferred their guilt to the victim, so purifying the person with water transferred the moral pollution to the element. Now, if there were no running streams of fair and pure water in or near Jerusalem sufficiently large and deep for dipping the three thousand people ; or if these were not at the command of the apostles, or some of the baptized, then at least eighteen thousand hogsheads of pure water must have been procured and consumed on the occa- sion. Whether this is probable, we shall now proceed to examine. VII. That there must have been a great difficulty in ob- taining water in quality and quantity adapted for such an extraordinary immersion, is evident from the best accredited testimony of different and impartial writers. (1.) We are informed, that pure or fair water, and such as people might drink, was exceedingly scarce and precious in Jerusalem and its vicinity — what the inhabitants pro- cured for use being preserved with the utmost care in do- mestic reservoirs, made at a great expense and filled chiefly by the rains and snows which fell in the wet and winter seasons.^ (Compare 2 Kings xviii. 31 ; Prov. v. 15 ; Ecc. xii. 6; Is. xxxvi. 16; Jer. ii. 13; Amos iv. 7, 8.) ' There was no fountain to form a brook in the neighbour- ' hood of Jerusalem excepting that of Siloam — as St. Jerome ' expressly affirms in his commentary on Jeremiah the four- ' p. 23. - Burder's Orien. Cust, No. 5G3; G;!I, p. 213. 2 Ilarmer's Obs, chap. 1. art. 21. F f 338 THE NUMBERS BAPTIZED BY ' teentli ; and which the accounts of travellers of later ages ' have confirmed. And as for the fountain of Siloara, which ' was near, sometimes it had no water, and sometimes when ' it had, was not agreeable to drink. The Crusaders in ' 1099, when besieging Jerusalem, found the neighbour- ' hood a very dry unwatered soil, having scarcely any 'brooks, fountains, or pits of fresh water. And as for ' those distant fountains to which the army were conducted, ' there was such pressing and hindering one another from ' drawing, that it was with difficulty and with long delays, ' that they got a little muddy water in their leathern bot- ' ties, of which a draught could not be purchased but at an ' extravagant price.' ^ Mr. Robinson admits, that 'in the ' time of Jerome, who lived there, [about A.D. 400] Jeru- ' salem was ill supplied with water and subject to great ' droughts — and that it is now desolate,' he says, 'must be ' allowed.'- (2.) Mr. Buckingham, who visited Jerusalem in January, 1816, says, 'at the southern extreme of this valley, we were ' shown a well bearing the name of the prophet Jeremiah, ' from a belief that the fire of the alter was recovered by ' him at this place after the Babylonish captivity, (Mac. i. ' 19.) It is narrow, but of considerable depth, and is sunk ' entirely out of a bed of rock. Being lower than any of ' the wells at Jerusalem, it retains a good supply of water ' while the others are dry. We found here a party of twelve ' or fifteen Arabs drawing water in leathern buckets, by ' cords and pullies, and from twenty to thirty asses laden ' with skins of it for the city . The Pool of Siloam is now ' a dirty little brook, with scarcely any water in it ; and ' even in the rainy seasons is said to be an insignificant ' and muddy stream. In the rainy seasons, this narrow bed ' is filled with a torrent which is still called the Brook Ke- dron, but it was, at the period of our visit, perfectly dry.' ' — ' The Brook Kedron,' says Mr. Brown, ' though it re- ' ceives all the rivulets about Jerusalem, is generally but • lb. cli.-ip. 2, art. 52. 2 Rob. p. 8. 3 Travels, p. 188 and l;»0. JOHN AND THE APOSTLES. 339 •" small and sometimes dry ; but amidst sudden and heavy ' raius, it swells exceedingly, and runs with great violence, ' and on such occasions carries off the lilth of the city, * which by the common-sewers is carried into it.'^ (3.) Geramh, in his Travels, says, * As the reservoirs * which supply Bethlehem as well as Jerusalem with water, ' are in ruins, and dry eleven months in the year, the women * are obliged to go a league to fetch what they want for ' household use, and to bring it back themselves in skins.' — Now, 'the feast of Pentecost, being fifty days after the * Passover (Lev. xxv. 15), must fall into the latter part of ' the month of May, and after the Jewish harvest. In ' Palestine, this is usually a time of drought, or, at least, of ' great scarcity of rain. The Brook Kedron, on the east of * Jerusalem, was not a perennial stream, and the brooks on * the south of the city, from the fountain of Shiloh to Gihon, * were not adequate, without some special preparation, for * the purposes of Baptism by immersion ; as one must be 'prone to think from the representations respecting them. ' Nothing can be more natural, moreover, than the supposi- ' tion, that if the apostles baptized the three thousand in ' either of the streams around Jerusalem, it would have ' been mentioned ; just as it is said of John, that he baptized ' in the Jordan. No such mention, however, is made.'- — The day of Pentecost fell on the 24th of May, and the rains cease about the end of April. ^ (4.) It is further evident, that there was no natural spring or fountain of water in the city of Jerusalem itself; and as Jerome remarks, only one in the immediate neighbourhood, which arose in the valley of Siloam, and this did not al- ways run.* This water has several names, and was pro- bably collected into different artificial reservoirs in its course down the valley. It is called the Pool of Siloam (John ix. 11, compare with Neh. iii, 15), which was di- vided into the upper and lower pools, (Is. vii. 3; xxii. 9.) 1 Diet, in Loc. • Stuart, p. 333. 3 Calmet, Frag. -150. ^ Calmet's Bict. art. Siloam. 340 THE NUMBERS BAPTIZED BY Mr. Keacli says it was the same as that designated Gihon,^ (1 Kings i. 33, 88.) It is called the Dragon's Well, (Neh. ii. 13) ; and is said to go softly by Isaiah (chap. viii. 6.) Dr. Clark says, this water ' rose under the wall of Jerusalem ' towards the east, between the city and the Brook Kedron. ' Calmet thinks this is the same as Enrogel or the Fullers' 'Fountain, mentioned in Josh. xv. 7; xviii. 16.'" It is called Solomon's Pool, the Serpents' Pool, and the Pool of Struthius, by Josephus.^ — Tacitus says, ' the Jews had a ' fountain of water that ran perpetually ; and the moun- ' tains were hollowed under ground. They had, moreover, 'pools and cisterns for the preservation of rain-water.'*^ — Now, a plain countryman, reading of all these waters, would imagine that there were as many fountains as pools ; whereas, all these, as well as the Pool of Bethesda, ^ originated in one insignificant spring outside the walls of the city, or were in part reservoirs of rain water within. All the evidence obtainable on this subject fully corroborates our position. — Lamartine says, ' It is the only place in the ' environs of Jerusalem where the traveller can moisten his ' finger, quench his thirst, and rest his head, under the ' shadow of a cool rock, and of two or three tufts of verdure. ' It is a well, having twenty steps, cut out in the rock — ' these are worn by the tread of women coming from the 'village of Siloa to fill their pitchers — as slippery as 'marble.''' — Josephus informs us, that when Antiochus besieged Jerusalem in the year 130 B. C. 'the Jews were ' once in want of water, which yet they were delivered ' from by a large shower of rain, which fell at the setting ' of the Pleiades ; ' "< about February, the time of the latter rain. (5.) It is further confirmed by the same author, who tells ns, that ' Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to ' Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred money, and derived • Met. p. 121. 2 i„ John ix. 7. 3 Hist. Wars, b. 5, c. 3, s. 2; c. 4, s. 2; c. 11, s. 4. * 'VMiisfon's Jos. v. iv. p. 393. « Hist. Wars, b. 2, c. 15, s. 5. « Travels, p. 87. ' Ant. b. 13, c. 8, s. 2. JOHN AND THE APOSTLES. 341 * the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred ' furlongs. However the Jews were not pleased with what ' had been done [with the sacred money] about the water ; ' and many ten thousands of the people got together, and ' made a clamour against him, and insisted that he should ' leave off that design.'^ — Whether this was ever accom- plished is uncertain — most probably not, as the work nor ■water is ever mentioned by the historian in his subsequent accounts of the city ; but even if it had, it could not have been till long after the day of Pentecost, since it was not attempted till about the time of Tiberias' death, in the year 37, or at the earliest, not before the crucifixion of our blessed Lord. Our position is still further established by the speech Josephus made to the Jews, when Jerusalem was besieged by the Romans : — ' And as for Titus, those ' springs that were formerly almost dried up when under ' your power, since he has come, run more plentifully than ' they did before : accordingly you know that Siloam ' as well as all the other springs that were without the city, ' did so far fail, that water was sold by distinct measures ; ' whereas they now have such a quantity of water for your ' enemies, as is sufficient not only for drink both for them- ' selves and cattle,but for watering their gardens also. The * same wonderful sign you had also experience of formerly, * when the fore-mentioned king of Babylon made war ' against us, and when he took the city and burned ' the temple.' - — Lamartiue, speaking of the cite of the city, says — ' A strange and unfortunate situation for the capital ' of a great people ! — it is rather the fortress of a small tribe, ' chased from the earth, and taking refuge with its God and ' its temple upon a soil which none was interested to dispute ' with it, upon rocks which no roads could render accessible, 'in ivaterless valleys in a rude and unfruitful climate, ' having for its horizon nothing but mountains calcined by ' the internal fire of volcanoes, the mountains of Arabia J Ant. b. IS, c. ?>, s. 2, comp. with Hist. 'Wars, b. 2, c. 9, s. 4. s Hist. Wars, b. 5, c. 9, s. 4. F f 5 432- THE NUMBERS BAPTIZED BY ' and Jericho, and a tainted sea, without shore and without 'navigation, the Dead Sea.' ^ (6.) The pools of water, made by Solomon to water his vineyards and gardens (Ec. ii. 6; Can. iv. 12), were at Ethan, a place six miles distant from Jerusalem \^ nor have we any certainty as to the size of those which were supplied by the well or fountain of Siloam. The reservoirs shown to modern travellers, as the remains of the ancient structures, are unquestionably of an erection ulterior to the days of Pentecost. 3 Nor let it appear strange that a city should be built where there was, what we should designate, a paucity of water; as many other instances are mentioned of a simi- lar nature in the same country, where defence was almost every thing with the people. Jotapata, a large city of Galilee, had no well or fountain of water in it — the people generally using rain water."* Gamala, another considerable place, had only one spring in it, and this was inadequate to the wants of the inhabitants. ^ Masada, when besieged, was in want of water. ^ Josephus also mentions a city, Ostracine, where the inhabitants were obliged to fetch all the water they used from other parts.7 Sychar depended chiefly on rain for water ; and an army, collected on Mount Gerizzim, just by, was obliged to surrender, on account of their dreadful thirst. ^ 'At Bethany,' says Lamartine, ' there ' was a good spring. An Arab drew water for an hour to ' satisfy the horses, and to fill the jars hung from the sad- ' dies of our mules. There was no more water as far as 'Jericho, ten or twelve hours march. '9 Jacob's well is si- tuated in a plain ' where water is found at long intervals, of ' three or four hours, and must have been as important an ' object in past ages as at present.' ^^ Pitts says, he paid a groat, or sixpence a gallon, for fresh water at Suez.^^ When the Israelites were oppressed by Jabin and Sisera, they were ' Travels, p. Sj. 2 Ant. b. 8, c. 1, s. 3. ^ Dr. A. Clarke, supra. •• Hist. Wars, b. 3. c. 7, s. 12. « lb. b. 4, c. 1, s. 1, 4, 8. « Ant. b. 14, c. 14, S.2. ' Hist. Wars, b. 4, c. 11, s. .i. 8 Hist. Wars, b. 3, c. /, s. 32. '•' P. 87. '» P. 13S. »' Calmet's Diet, Frag. No. 117. JOHN a:;d the apostles. 343 painfully exposed to the archers while leaving their fenced cities to procure water for daily use ; and their deliverance from this affliction is celebrated by Deborah in her song of thanksgiving to God, (Judges v. 11). The uncommon aridity of many parts of the East, may be further illustrated by a reference to the Koran, in which Mahomet enjoins that sand be rubbed, poured, or sprinkled on his followers instead of water, when this latter element could not be ob- tained for their daily ablutions — a circumstance which he fully expected might frequently occur ;^ and which actually took place at Boura, near Palestine, to a very large extent. ^ (7.) Mr. Pengilly employs the following argument to prove that John the Baptist immersed his numerous con- verts. — ' We should notice the place where John adminis- ' tered this ordinance. It was "the river Jordan." If, in ' reference to the people of Jerusalem, a situation where ' water might be easily obtained for sjorinJding or fouring ' was what John required, we read of our Lord, at this ' place, directing the man that was born blind to go and ' "wash in the Pool of Siloam ;" so we read of the " Pool, ' called Bethesda," and " the Brook Cedron ; " all in, or ' near, Jerusalem, (and we read of others in the Old Testa- ' ment); and, without doubt, at some of them the penitent ' Jews, of that city and neighbourhood, might have received ' the ordinance, if such were the mode by which John ad- ' ministered it ; and it cannot reasonably be imagined that ' he would have required those persons to go the distance ' of several miles for the convenience of the River Jordan : ' more, reasonable to suppose he would have baptized in ' every town and village where his ministry had its intended ' effect ; and, especially, at, or near, the metropolis. This * strongly favours the opinion, that immersion was his ' mode.'^ But if the argument of this respectable, though one-sided, polemic be valid, in favour of John's dipping, it contains a clear and satisfactory proof that the thousands > Rob. p. 56; Calmet's Diet. Frag. No. 103; Kurd's Rel. Cer. p. 326. 2 Gibbon's Decl. and Fall, &c. c. 51. ' Scripture Guide, p. 15. 344 THE NUMBERS BAPTIZED BY and tens of thousands baptized with christian baptism, in, or near, Jerusalem, and in towns and villages several miles distant from the Jordan, were not immersed at all. For if the Baptist found it necessary to draw his converts from Jerusalem and various distant towns and villages to the Jordan, in order to administer to them his rite by dipping — it follows that those christian preachers, who baptized their converts in, or near, Jerusalem, and at numerous other inland places, (for they never appear to have resorted to the Jordan) had not the means, any more than himself, of effecting an immersion ! (8.) Thus much for the quantity of water obtainable for dipping the 3000 persons above referred to. Though we do not presume to say, in reference to recent observa- tions, that waters, in the lapse of ages, may not change their course (see.Ps. cvii. 33-35), yet in this case the nar- ratives of modern researches are so analogous to what we find in the Holy Writings generally, and particu- larly to the conduct of Hezekiah, ' in stopping up the ' fountains and the brook that ran through the midst of ' the land, that the king of Assyria might not come and 'find much water' (2 Chron, xxxii. 4); that it was un- questionably the same on the day of Pentecost, as disco- vered by Mr. Buckingham in 1816. We have only to refer to a few passages of scripture, to perceive how differ- ent the East and Judea are situated, with respect to water, compared with us. Hence we find them — 1. In distress, through want of water, (Exod. xv. 22 ; 1 Kings xvii. and xviii; 2 Sara, xxiii. 15.) 2. Seeking water in vain, (Is. xli. 17; Jer. xiv. 1-6; Amos iv. 7-8.) 3. Digging for water, (Gen. xxvi. 15, 19, 32; Deut. vi. 11; 2 Chron. xxvi. 10.) 4. Dcprivingof water, (2 Kings iii. 25 ; 2 Chron. xxxii. 4.) 5. Contending about water, (Gen. xxvi. 20 ; Judges v. 11; Neh. iv. 23.) JOHN AND THE APOSTLES. 345 (3. Valuing water, (1 Samuel xxv. 11 ; 2 Kings xx. 20; Matt. X. 42.) 7. Paying for water, (Numb. xx. 17, 19; Lam. v. 4.) Nor is our argument affected by those frequent expres- sions of much water, many waters, great v/aters, waters in the plural number, and the like ; since they are certainly hyperbolical, and can be interpreted only as referring to a comparative portion of this element in an arid climate, where it is confessedly very scarce and precious. The like must be said respecting the language of Moses, in Deut. viii. 7. where he tells the Hebrews that God would bring them 'into a good land, a land of brooks of water, ' of fountains and depths, that spring out of valleys and ' hills.' This description must be understood in reference to ' the great and terrible wilderness wherein was drought, ' and where there was no water,' mentioned in the fifteenth verse of the same chapter, and not in reference to the well- watered plains and valleys of this island. At all events, the terms will not apply in any great extent to Jerusalem and its immediate neighbourhood. The expression is highly figurative ; nor have we any right, with so many topographical illustrations before us, to understand it lite- rally any more than to suppose that the Holy Land was actually 'flowincj with milJc and honey' — a description ap- plied to it about a dozen times in the writings of Moses. It is, however, remarkable that while the Jewish lawgiver describes the Holy Land as richly supplied with brooks and fountains, he also assures his audience that God would give them ' wells which they had not digged ;' (Deut. vi. 11) a promise which hardly accords with our notions of much water in a country; though in reference to the wilderness it was very consistent. VIII. From the combination of circumstances now men- tioned, we assume that the three thousand were not dipped at all. When we find that the words of the institutiv)n do not necessarily require dipping, and equally favour asper- 346 THE NUMBERS BAPTIZED BY sion — when so many difficulties oppose the notion of im- naersiou in the case now before us— when fair or pure water was so scarce, and the preservation of it so essential to the existence of the inhabitants — when there was no river or running stream of pure water in the vicinity of Jerusa- lem suited to such an immersion — and when, on the lowest calculation, eighteen thousand hogsheads of this water of life was necessary for dipping the people on this memo- rable afternoon — when this must have been obtained of enemies for strangers, become detestable by changing their religion — and when the difficulty of being dipped decently and conveniently are added to these obstacles, we infer that their immersion was almost the last thing one could believe respecting them. The learned Spanheimus remarks — 'Perfusion, it should seem, was used in the ' church of Jerusalem, when the multitude of the persons ' to be baptized amounted to 3000, and presently after to '6000, for there was no river to put them in.'^ We, therefore, conclude that they were not plunged into or under water, but that a small portion was poured or sprinkled upon them. This places the case within the limits of prescription and beyond the influence of the smallest difficulty. III. The numerous Baptisms subsequently Admi- nistered. — The baptism of the three thousand mentioned before, was not all the apostles had to perfonn. I. The sermon which Peter preached on a following day, in Solomon's porch, was still more successful — five thousand persons having believed his doctrine and con- formed to his maxims (Acts iv. 4) ; and if the apostles did not depart from their usual method, of which we have no intimation — if 'baptism was administered immediately ' on conviction of the truth of the report,' — then they all immediately underwent this operation. But as Peter and John appear to have been the only apostles engaged on this memorable occasion, and our opponents cannot prove there > Antiped. Exam. v. 2, p. 100. JOHN AND THE APOSTLES. 347 were more, better than we can prove cliildren were bap- tized, tbeir task, according to tbe notions of our Baptist brethren, must have been overwhelming; and, agreeably to the time at present consumed in plunging adults, must have laboriously occupied these ministers, and kept them from preaching the gospel for the salvation of others, to accom- plish which they were especially appointed (1 Cor. i. 17), more than a fortnight. There were then all the difficulties of doing it decently — of procuring water — of personally examining them — and the like, as noticed before ; and which, after what has been already advanced, must have been enormous and overwhelming. We conclude, there- fore, that these five thousand were baptized only by pour- ing or aspersion — then all obstacles vanish. II. In the following chapter (Acts v. 14), we learn that 'believers were the more added to the church, raulti- ' tudes both men and women.' We have no definite enu- meration of the numbers ; but we may reasonably conclude, from the general use of the expressions in the New Testa- ment, that they were at least many thousands. Now, it is said of these that they were added to the church, and, from analogy, we may conclude that they were all previously baptized — ' baptism in scripture always preceded adding ' to a visible church.' Consequently, on the hypothesis of our brethren, all these multitudes, men and women, were immersed publicly in Jerusalem, under all the disadvan- tages and difiiculties mentioned above. What labour — what work — what water required — what scenes — what ex- citement among the ungodly ! In fact, from the myriads early added to the church in the apostolic age (Acts ix. 35 ; xi. 21, 24; xxi. 20, Greek, for thousands, read myriads), and soon after, when most of the Roman empire was nomi- nally converted to Christianity, ^ the work of dipping such immense masses of people must have been sufficient to have occupied all the time and strength of the apostles and their successors, without any other avocation. Let those believe ' See Whiston's Josephus, v. 4, p. 397. 343 THE NUMBERS BAPTIZED BY it that can. To us it appears incredible, and not being en- joined, is deemed impracticable. V/e, therefore, conclude that the early Christiaias were all baptized by alFusiou or aspersion only. This would have preserved decency in the sacrament, and have made its administr.ation every way feasible and significant. IV. In opposition to all this evidence, and in order to remove every obstacle to the immersion of the three thou- sand on the day of Pentecost, Mr. Booth says, ' People, ' who are but little accustomed to bathing, either for ' amusement — for medicinal purposes — or with religious ' views, may wonder how such multitudes could be accom- ' modated, if they were immersed in water ; but when it is ' considered that this was done at Jerusalem, where iramer- ' sion was quite familiar, and must, by the laws of Judaism, ' be daily practised, not only there, but in all parts of the ' country, their amazement will cease.' ^ — In reply to this statement we remark, — I. That it is mere assumption to say, that immersion was familiar and practised daily at Jerusalem. It is probable the people purified themselves every day, and did what Moses enjoined in the wilderness, or that they purified each other. That bathing, or dipping the whole body in water was not enjoined by the Jewish legislator, we have rendered evident already. Nor have we any evidence that the tradition of the elders enforced such a mode of lustration. ir. That some of the Jews had baths for amusement and medicinal purposes, we have no question. Herod the Great erected many — some at a vast expense — and even on the tops of high towers, supplying them with rain water.- Nor is it a matter of the least moment how often the people bathed themselves for their pleasure or their health — as that is not the question at issue, though ingeniously blended with it. III. That all the Jewish people bathed themselves ' Vol. i. p. 250. 2 Jos. Hist. Wars, b. 5, c. 4, s. 3. JOHN AND THE APOSTLES. 319 by immersion every day, ' with religious views,' is what we very much doubt — though had this been the fact, it is no warrant for one person's dipping another — which is allowed by all our opponents, who have noticed this operation, to have been a perfect novelty, or till the time of John, never performed; and after what has been said respecting the locality of the city, must have been impracticable. IV. That if the baths of the Jews corresponded with those now common and universal in oriental countries, which we see no reason to doubt; there was no dipping at all in them. Lamartine says, 'what is called a bath in * the east is not a complete immersion, but a succession of ' sprinklings, more or less hot, and the pressing of vapour ' on the skin.' ^ V. That water was very precious in Jerusalem, espe- cially pure, running, or living water, which was requisite for a ceremonial ablution, we have amply demonstrated. Now, the regular inhabitants of Jerusalem, which was about forty furlongs in circumference," and densely crowded with houses and people, besides multitudes living in the immediate neighbourhood, must have been immense ; but of these we have no definite account. We learn, however, that at the festivals there were vast numbers, who came from all parts to be purified (2 Chron. xxx. 18 ; John xi. 55 ; Acts xxi. 24, 26) ; or, according to Mr. Booth, to be im- mersed daily while they remained there, which was often a week or fortnight. There were three millions present at the Passover in the year 65 A.D. ; and a little later, on a si- milar festival, two-hundred and fifty-six thousand five hun- dred paschal lambs were sacrificed ; and allowing twelve persons to each lamb, which is no immoderate calculation, three million and seventy-eight thousand must have been assembled. 3 Now, all these must have immersed themselves daily, and, if they were accidentally polluted oftener, 1 Travels in the East. p. 37. Edin. 1839. - Josephus' Hist. Wars, b. 5, c. 12, s. 2. 3 lb. b. 2, c. 14, s. 3, and 'Whistoii's note. 350 THE NUMBERS BAPTIZED BY they as often must have been dipped under water ! And really, if this had been done, there would have been little amazement at the bathing of the three thousand ; though the people might have felt surprized at the novelty of seeing what they had never seen before — one man dipping another. But as no person will credit the assumption of Mr. Booth, when thus investigated, we shall recur to our former infer- ence, that the three thousand were not plunged into or un- der water, but that a small portion was poured or sprinkled upon them. This removes all amazement, places the case within the limits of prescription, and beyond the influence of the smallest difficulty. To the unsupported assertion of Mr. Booth, we may add the chimerical solutions of Dr. Gill. He tells us that the 3000 were probably baptized in the brazen sea, in a dipping room which he has discovered in the temple, and in the ten lavers of brass, placed in the court of that con- secrated edifice — each of which he calculates held 320 gal- lons, wine measure.^ Passing over the danger or inde- cency of dipping 3000 people, clothed or naked, in cold water before the thousands of Israel, and the difficulty of raising men and women, of every age and magnitude, suffi- ciently high to plunge them into the brazen sea, or even lavers of brass, and of pulling them out again : let us simply observe, that these vessels were only for the use of the priests and Levites, multitudes of whom must have been present on this popular festival — that the apostles and their party were execrated by the persons who held the entire command of this cleansing element — that the sea and lavers had never been bathed in before, and that the water would have been polluted, at least in the esteem of the orthodox Hebrews, by a single immersion of these anatlieraatized apostates — and sufficient will be discerned to discover the gross futility of the contrivance. Further, as the Dr.'s hypothesis supposes only a dozen persons engaged in this laborious operation, and conscious • Epos, on Acts ii. 41. JOHN AND THE APOSTLES. 351 of the difSculty involved in its performance in tlie course of a few hours, he subjoins the following remark : ' Though ' these persons were added to the church the same day, it ' does not necessarily follow from the text, that they were ' all baptized in one day.' Conseq^uently, they must have been added to the church before they were baptized; a principle, this, opposed to his own practice, the avowed declarations of most of his own party, and at variance with the settled constitution of his own denominational proceedings. In a word, the absurd contrivances of our ablest oppo- nents, to remove the difficulties which encompass their principles, are palpable assumptions that their practice is both unscriptural and invalid. SECTION SIXTH. THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST. 'for the Spirit Poured first on his apostles, whom he sends To evangelize the nations, then on all Baptized, shall them with wondrous gifts endue, To speak all tongues, and do all miracles. As did their Lord before tliem.' Milton's Par. Lost, b. xii. A brief review of tliis important subject will fully esta- blish the doctrine we have been labouring to prove. It will show the sacramental sense of the word baptize — and de- monstrate the manner in wliich water-baptism was admi- nistered in the first age of the Christian church, and, on the principles of our brethren, how it should be performed in the present day. This topic is so lucid in its nature, and the deductions arising from it are so simple and conclusive in our favour, that we need not be very elaborate in the dis- 352 THE BAPTISM OF cussion to substantiate in the firmest manner that Christian baptism consists in pouring, sprinkling, or applying the water to the person. Indeed, if there were no other evidence ob- tainable in support of our practice, this would be ample, and, to every unprejudiced, intelligent mind, convincing. We shall proceed, therefore, to make a few observations for the purpose of illustrating this interesting point. We remark — I. That the baptisms of the Holy Ghost and of water are mentioned in such connexions and under such circum- stances as to lead every unbiassed mind to conclude that both were administered in the same manner — our oppo- nents, indeed, admit this position.^ But some of them seem disposed to assume that we are dipped into the Holy Ghost, and, consequently, that we should be dipped into water. Our ensuing remarks will invalidate the former assumption and induce an inference which must overturn the latter. Let us hear the analogous representations of the baptism of the Spirit and of water : — Matt. iii. 11. — *I baptize you with water; he shall baptize you ^Yith the Holy Ghost and with fire.' Mark i. 8. — ' I have baptized you with water, but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.' Luke iii. 16. — ' I baptize you with water, but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.' John i. 33. — ' He that sent me to baptize with water, the same is he that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.' Acts i. 5. — ' John truly baptized with water, but ye shall be bap- tized with the Holy Ghost.' Acts ii. 8. — ' The Holy Ghost had fallen upon none of them, only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.' Acts ii. 38. — 'Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.' Acts X. 37, 38. — ' And began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached, how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power.' • Maclean, v. iii. p. 189. THE HOLY GHOST. 353 Acts X. 47. — ' Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received tlie Holy Ghost as well as we?' Acts xi. 15. — 'The Holy Ghost fell on them; then remembered I the word of the Lord: John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.' Here you perceive that the baptisms of the Spirit and of water are associated in the evangelical narratives in such a way, as constrain us to conclude that the mode of communi- cation was the same in both cases. In fact, there would be a perversion of all consistent language if there existed any very material difference between them. To suppose that in the above verses the word baptize is employed for two such different actions as immersing and pouring, without any intimation to that effect, would be charging men, who wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost and in words divinely inspired (1 Cor. ii. 13), with an incongruity of composition too egregious for the worst scribbler in Chris- tendom. We, therefore, infer that the baptisms of the Spirit and of water were administered in the same manner. Now the only question for our consideration is by what mode of application were men baptized by the Spirit ? Or, in other words, were they applied to the Spirit in the form of dip- ping, or was the Spirit applied to them in the shape of pouring or sprinkling? For it happens in this case that the manner was ostensible, and the expressions are as lucid as the light. II. To give the subject a fair consideration, we shall refer you, in the first place, to the promises of the Old Testament, in which we shall discover that the manner of the Spirit's application to the people was to be by pouring or sprinkling only. A fev/ citations here will sufPice. Isaiah xxxii. 15. — ' Until the Spirit be poured upon us from on high.' Isaiah xliv. 3. — ' I will pour water upon him that is thirsty and floods upon the dry ground ; I will pour my Spmt upon thy seed and my blessing upon thine offspring.' Isaiah lii. 15. — ' So shall he sprinkle many nations.' G g 5 354 THE BAPTISM OF Ezek. xxxix. 29. — ' I have poured out my Spirit upon the house of Israel.' Joel ii. 28, 29. — ' I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophecy ; and upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I poiu: out my Spirit.' Zech. xii. 10. — 'And I will pour upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and of sup- plication.' These passages render it plain that the promises of the Old Testament represent the Holy Spirit as being poured or sprinkled on the people, especially under the gospel econo- my. No instances can he found where it is said they shall be dipped, or even, as it were, dipped into the Holy Ghost. The promises which were announced by John, in Matt. iii. 11, and by Christ, in Acts i. 5, assure us that the Spirit was to come upon the people under the Christian dispen- '' sation.^ The same ideas are suggested in various other parts of the sacred writings. III. We shall, secondly, refer you to the declarations of the Old Testament respecting the mode of application of the Holy Spirit — and the representation is universally in our favour. He — I. Came upon Balaam (Numbers xiv. 10), Jephthah (Judges xi. 20), Othniel (lb. iii. 10), Gideoii (lb. vi. 34), Samson (lb. xiv. 6, 19), Saul {I Sam. xvi. 13), his mes- sengers (lb. xix. 20), David (lb. xvi. 13), &c. II. Poured out upon, Ezek. xxxix. 29; Prov. i. 23. III. Put upon them, Numb. xi. 17, 29; Is. xlii. 1. IV. Put within them, Ez. xi. 19 ; xxxvi. 27 ; xxxvii. 1 4. V. Given to them, Neh. ix. 20. VI. Resting upon them, Numb. xi. 26 ; 2 Kings ii. 15. VII. Filled with him, Exod. xxxi. 2. From this reference you will perceive that under the Old Testament economy the spirit of God is represented inva- riably as coming to, into, and upon the people — while the > See Jenkins' C. R. p. 22 ; Keach, p. i. THE HOLY GHOST. 355 people are never said to come to, or be clipped into the Spirit.^ Those passages in which the working or opera- tions of the Spirit are noticed, do, in no degree, interfere with our position, since the mode of his communication is the only thing we are now investigating. He is said to lead, teach, enlighten, quicken, sanctify, comfort, and the like; but our object is only to consider how he comes into union with mankind, as the action only of baptizing now solicits a development. IV. Having shown how the Holy Spirit was applied to the people under the legal dispensation, and the terms employed to express his future communication under the gospel economy, we shall proceed to examine the mode of his coming, as detailed by the evangelists and apostles. I. Ahidinc) iipon them, John i. 32. II. Anointing them, Acts x. 38. III. Breathed on them, John xx. 22. IV. Coming upon them. Acts i. 8 ; ix. 6. V. Descending on them, John i. 32. VI. Falling on them. Acts viii. 16; x. 44. VII. Filling them. Acts ii. 4; ix. 17. VIII. Given to them, Luke xi. 13; John iii. 34. IX. Ministered to them. Gal. iii. 5. X. Poured upon them, Acts i. 17; x. 45. XI. Received of the Father, John vii. 39; Acts viii. 15. XII. Resting on them, 1 Pet. iv. 14. XIII. Sealing them, Eph. i. 13. XIV. Sent from on high, Luke xxiv. 49; 1 Pet. i. 9. XV. Shed on them. Acts i. 33 ; Titus iii. 6. XVI. Sitting upon them. Acts ii. 3. In this list of expressions you will easily discover in what manner the Holy Ghost was given to the people — always by coming to, into, or upon them — but they are never said to be dipped into the Holy Spirit. And if you refer to some of the phraseology commonly employed by our oppo- nents in reference to the action of baptism and apply it to ' See Owen on the Spirit, c. 5. 356 THE BAPTISM OF the case before us — it must make absolute nonsense if not something much worse : — bathed in the Holy Spirit — bu- ried in the Holy Spirit — descending into the Holy Spirit — dipping into the Holy Spirit — entombing, immersing, and interring in the Holy Spirit — planting and plunging in the Holy Spirit — and if to this you add the corresponding ex- pressions, raising, rising, and ascending out of the Holy Spirit, the language becomes quite insufferable. V. Here it may be right to show you that however our opponents may debate, as to the mode of baptism by water, they give up the point in most cases respecting the mode of baptizing by the Spirit. Their observations are worthy of your attention. Dr. Jenkins says, ' baptism may fairly ' express the state of the disciples when overwhelmed with ' the Spirit, though he fell upon them.'^ — Booth says, ' a ' person may, indeed, be surrounded with subtle effluvia, a ' liquid may be so poured, or it may so distil upon him, 'that he may be as if immersed '^ [or baptized,] — Cox says, ' a person may be, indeed, immersed [that is baptized] 'by means of pouring.' ^ — Keacli, 'though tlie baptism of ' the Spirit was by pouring forth of the Spirit, yet they were 'overwhelmed or immersed in it.''* — 'If you pour water ' on a child until it is covered all over in water, it may be 'truly said that child was buried [or baptized] in water.'-'' — Carson, ' The pouring is not the haptism, though the ' Spirit was poured out, that they might be baptized in it.'^ From these citations, out of many more, we gather that the word baptize is here used for pouring, since the baptism of the Spirit came upon the people, or fell upon tliem from above. Their quibble as to the quantity, we have noticed before and shall presently refer to it again. To talk of the condition being baptism is only an evasion, since the action by which that condition is induced, is the only point in de- bate, as our opponents have repeatedly told us, and as a fair consideration of the case renders unquestionable. > Jenkins's C. R. p. 22. "- Vol. i. p. 01. 3 P. 91. * P. 4. 5 P. 2G. 6 P. 129. THE IIOLV GHOST. 357 From the foregoing citations, you will also perceive that though the Baptists chastise us for not being, as they sup- pose, precisely correct in our use of terms and expres- sions ; they can, when a point is to be gained, employ words in a secondary and figurative sense, and often in a method totally at variance with their true and proper im- port. The terras immerse, immersion, and immersed (from immergo, to dip or plunge,) invariably express or suppose the action of dipping or plunging, and never literally or properly include the eiFect of such an action — in the na- ture of being under — wetted — dyed — or saturated. Yet in these latter senses they frequently employ them — and that, too, in cases where the effect has been produced by modes directly the reverse of dipping. Wetting, washing, and dyeing, are not the immersion, but the result of it in some instances; which result, however, it does not even remotely express. It is as correct to say that a person is dipped or plunged into the dew that descends upon him, as that he is immersed in it — for these verbs are nearly sy- nonymous in their meanings. If ten thousand hogsheads of water fell upon a man, he would not be immersed in it, though he were covered, buried, or drowned by it. No- thing is immersed that is not dipped. They immerse their converts, and call it baptism. But it is certain that none were ever immersed in the Holy Ghost, which was poured out upon them — and this being called baptism, proves that this dipping and the baptism of the Holy Ghost, are directly opposite things, VI. Let it be further observed, that as the sprinkling or pouring of water on the ceremonially unclean, is said to sanctify (Heb. ix. 13), purge (Ps. li. 7 ; Heb. ix. 21, 22), cleanse (Ezek. xxxvi. 25), and wash them (Heb. x. 22) ; so the Holy Spirit, being poured out or sprinkled on the morally polluted, is said to renew (Titus iii. 5), cleanse (Ezek. xxxvi. 25) wash (1 Coa. vi. 11), and sanctify them, (1 Cor. vi. 11.) Hence we have not only an analogy between the modes of communicating the Spirit and water in 358 THE BAPTISM OP baptism, but also between the effects produced by that communication. The one being the thing signified and the other the sign of it. This corroborates the position we have assumed, that the out-pouring of the Holy Spirit and the application of water to the object, in the shape of pouring or sprinkling, were designed to be like each other. It is asserted by our opponents, that ' the gift of the ' Spirit, which if figuratively called an immersion, is also ' figuratively designated as a pouring, falling, spriiik- ' ling, &c.'. . . .'Is it not obvious that I do not interpret ' the word in such instances, as signifying or including 'dipping? On the contrary, I expressly say, that it has ' its usual modal meaning, though another mode was actu- ' ally employed. That which was really a sprinkling, is ' figuratively called an immersion.' ^ Where, then, lies the necessity of laying any stress, or the chief stress, in this controversy, on what our opponents call the ' radical, pri- ' mary, and proper meaning of the word baptize V If it preserves 'its usual modal meaning, though another mode 'was actually employed;' and if 'that which was really a ' sprinkling, is figuratively called an immersion ' — in re- ference to the baptism of the Holy Ghost — why may not the same method of interpretation be applied to the baptism of water? We have only to call pouring and sprinkling a figurative immersion — and to allow that this word still re- tains 'its usual modal meaning, though another mode was ' actually employed,' to divest ourselves of all the imagined difficulties of water baptism, as easily as our opponents get rid of the difficulties of the baptism of the Holy Ghost ! Though it be somewhat out of place, we are tempted to notice another passage of the same lauded advocate of im- mersion. ' Nothing in the history of words is more cora- ' raon than to enlarge or diminish their significations. ' Ideas not originally included are often affixed, while ' others drop ideas originally inserted. In this way bapio, ' from signifying mere mode, came to be applied to a cer- 1 Carson's 'Answer to Reviewers,' p. 29, 31. THE HOLY GHOST. 359 ' tain operation usually performed in tliat mode. From ' signifying to dip, it came to signify to dye by dipping, ' because this was the way in which things were usually ' dyed, and afterwards from dyeing by dipping, it came to ' denote dyeing in any manner. A like process may be ' shown in the history of a thousand other words.' Now, admitting that haptizo, the derivative of hapto, meant ori- ginally to dip, what a priori reason can be given, why it might not be subject to change, addition, or diminution, equally with its original? Such evidence has not been given ; nor have any valid arguments been advanced to prove that such is not the fact. If hapto have been sub- ject to the ordinary change of words, we shall require very clear reasons for exempting baptizo from a similar fate, or for making it an exception to a rule, regulating a thousand other words. To prove that haptizo originally meant to dip, and that it has not — particularly in the New Testa- ment — been used in any other sense, nor been subject to the charges of words in general, surely devolves on our opponents ; and until they shall establish this exception, in vain will they assert that it means always and only to immerse. Indeed, Mr. Carson's remarks on the changes of hapto, afford us decided presumptive evidence that haptizo, has been also, if not equally, subject to a diversity of ap- plications, embracing that of pouring or sprinkling among the rest. But to return from this digression. — VII. It may be noticed, also, that the baptism of the Spirit is called the anointing of the Spirit. ' That word, ye ' know, which was published throughout all Judea, and ' began from Galilee after the baptism which John preached, ' how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost ' and with power,' (Acts x. 37, 38.) Passing over the analogy between John's baptism and the anointing of Christ by the Holy Spirit ; we remark that all anointings were ad- ministered by pouring precious oil on the heads of persons consecrated to office,^ and who are said to have been quali- ' Owen en tlie Spirit, c. 5. 360 THE BAPTISM OF fied for it by the reception of the Holy Spirit — whether kings (1 Sam. xv. 1), or priests (Ex. xxix. 7), or prophets, (1 Kings xix. 16.) Now the Jews were a kingdom of priests, "and a holy nation (Ex. xix. 6), and as such were anointed or consecrated to God (Lam. iv. 20) ; and the saints under the gospel dispensation being kings and priests unto God and the Lamb (Rev. i. 6), are consecrated in the same manner. Hence they have an unction (or anoint- ing) from the Holy One, (1 John ii. 20, compare v. 27.-^) But as water is employed to symbolize the Spirit, so it should be applied to represent the manner of the Spirit's anointing. Hence v/e arrive at a conclusion similar to the preceding, that the baptism of the Spirit, here called anointing, was effected by pouring out the Spirit, and that the baptism of water, which is an emblem of anointing, should be by pouring also. For, as before remarked, water being a cheaper article than precious oil, we can easily perceive why the element was occasionally varied ; and, as sprink- ling was a more expeditious method than pouring, there is no difficulty in ascertaining why the mode, was altered, though the design of consecration remained the same. In fact, whatever be the design of the Holy Spirit — whether to purify, anoint, or instruct — the manner of his communi- cation is the same — pouring, sprinkling, or coming to or upon the object; and therefore, whether we regard water- baptism as a figurative purification, anointing, or mode of instruction, the action of applying it remains the same — pouring, sprinkling, or coming to, or upon the people. VIII. Again, Let it be observed that the baptism of the Holy Ghost must be effected by his application to us, or by our application to him. The former sentiment is that for which we are contending — the latter is frequently ad- vocated by many of our opponents. It is unquestionable that the baptism of the Spirit is intended to originate and maintain our illumination, conversion, faith, purity, and happiness. Consequently, there must be an operation of ' See Reach's Met. p. 183. THE HOLY GHOST. 3G1 divine inllucnce upon our hearts. The question, then, is, whether man or the Holy Spirit is passive in this great and benevolent work? If we are dipped into the Holy Ghost, then we are active and the Spirit is passive — we are in motion, while he is at rest — at least, this is the doctrine tavght hij the mode of our opponents. But will this exhi- bition harmonize with the genius of the gospel ? Are we not regarded as dead in sin ; and is not the Spirit repre- sented as coming to us and imparting a new life ? Are we not at enmity with God, and does not the Spirit descend and subdue our hostility ? Are we not polluted, and does he not come and cleanse us? Moreover, are not our prayers, founded on a principle adverse to the teaching of our op- ponents ? Do we ever pray that we may be taken to the Spirit and dipped into the Spirit? Is not our cry to God that he would pour his Spirit upon us ? The idea of bap- tism effected by an active mortal, and a passive God, is adverse to all evangelical truth, derogatory to the glory of the Saviour, and at variance with the doctrines of grace and human depravity. The inference, then, is, that if water baptism be in any material points analogous to that of the Holy Ghost, the element must be applied to men, and not men to the element. IX. It is worthy of remark that, (as previously noticed) such consequences are said to arise from being, or not being, baptized, in several texts of the New Testament, that we are compelled to conclude the baptism of the Holy Ghosts — intending thereby his regenerating operation in the soul — is exclusively referred to. Take the following passages : — Mark xvi. 1 6. — ' He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; and he that beUeveth not' — [and is not baptized] — ' shall be damned.' Rom. ^■i. 3, 4. — ' Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore, Ave are bmied with him through baptism into death.' See also V. 5-11. H h 362 THE BAPTISM OF Gal. iii. 26, 27. — ' For ye are the children of God by faith in Jesus Christ, For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.' See also v. 28, 29. Col. ii. 12. — ' Buried with him through baptism, -wherein also ye are risen mth him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.' See also v. 11, 13. 1 Pet. iii. 21. — ' The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.' We have shown before that (supposing the above pas- sages to refer to water baptism) our opponents can derive no evidence in favour of immersion, from the language era- ployed by the inspired writers, in these quotations ; we now proceed further, and contend that they do not refer to water baptism, either by dipping or affusion, but only to that of the Spirit of God. The difficulties of a contrary interpretation must be felt by, at least, every protestant dissenting expositor of the sacred text: as the blessings of salvation are rendered dependent on the ceremonial per- formances of human beings, who may totally neglect the work, or perform it in an unscriptural manner ; for, as stated by a respectable Baptist, formerly cited — * He that ' is not properly baptized, is not baptized at all.' Nor can we perceive how the notions of baptismal regeneration are to be avoided, by persons who maintain that those who are ' Buried vvith Christ,' by some form of water baptism, ' rise ' with him through the faith of the operation of God ' — ' put on the Lord Jesus Christ' — 'are the children of God ' by faith ' — and ' are saved by the resurrection of Jesus ' Christ.' But assuming that the baptism of the Holy Ghost, as foretold by John the Baptist, (Matt. iii. 11) be exclusively intended in the passages just recited ; and every difficulty vanishes ; while the pure protestant doctrines of salvation, by the power of God in the soul, remain undisturbed and unsullied. Nor will this position affect the necessity of THE HOLY GHOST. 363 water baptism, as a perpetual ordinance in the Christian church, that being rendered obligatory by other portions of scripture ; but it will materially weaken the arguments of the Baptists, in favour of only adult baptism and by im- mersion in water ; seeing it abstracts from the data of our controversy several texts, on which they mainly rely, in support of their views and practice. If a corroboration of our sentiments were requisite, we might refer to Dr. Gill's opinion respecting a parallel passage in John iii. 5. — ' Ex- ' cept a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot ' enter into the kingdom of God ' — which the learned Bap- tist Commentator says, alludes exclusively to the work of the Spirit ; adding, as the grounds of his interpretations, arguments similar to those given above. — He was probably forced to this conclusion by the position of the words — water first and spirit secondly. We take leave to subjoin, that the sentence — ' washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, ' in Titus iii. 7 — refers only to the two- fold operation of the Holy Spirit ; and should be construed on the same principle as the text in John's gospel — trans- lating the conjunction Kai, in both passages, by the terms even or namely, which will not only make sense, but also harmonize with the tenor of inspired truth, and the frequent construction of the Greek language. X. The only material response of our opponents to this reasoning, is an application to Acts ii. 2 : — 'And sud- ' denly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing * mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were * sitting' — in which they would fain discover something like a dipping into the Holy Ghost. They tell us the disciples were surrounded by the Holy Ghost,'- or, as it were, drowned or immersed in it.^ ' The apostles were as com- ' pletely immersed in the Holy Spirit, as the body is im- 'mersed in water at baptism. '^ — But there are two or ' Booth, V. i. p. 97. " Keach's Met. p. 184; Maclean, v, iii. p. 190. 3 Gibbs, p. 40. 364 THE BAPTISM OF three circumstances which completely destroy their hypo- thesis on the passage. I. This was not the Holy Ghost, nor even the wind, (pnoes,) that filled the house, but a sound, a great noise, resembling the rushing of the wind. This might be said to fill the house, indeed, as the preacher's voice fills the cha- pel ; but if our friends can find a scriptural precept or apos- tolical example for denominating the Holy Spirit a great noise, or can suppose a house crammed with sound, as a ves- sel is filled even with air, either quiescent or in motion, we shall give them credit for erudite researches and refined ima- ginations. This sound, however, was not the Holy Spirit. He descended and sat upon the heads of the apostles in the likeness of cloven tongues of fire, which were 'a symbol of 'its external manifestation.' ^ II. But there is a second reply still more fatal to their objection. Supposing them correct as to the element, which we have seen they are not, it evidently came from above, and descended upon them, filling the room where the dis- ciples had previously assembled. It came from heaven. They were not plunged into it, for it fell upon them. As the whole question at issue turns on the action or mode of baptism, the quantity of the element can have nothing to do with solving it. Nor, indeed, would they so often recur to the quantity or condition, were they not perplexed about the mode of its communication. III. The disciples, moreover, were to be baptized with the Holy Ghost as they were with fire, which was ' a syra- 'bol of its external manifestation,' (Matt. iii. 11 ; Luke iii. 16.) Now, what was the action here? Were they im- mersed, plunged, or dipped into the fire? No. — 'And ' there appeared unto them cloven tongues as of fire,' (like a bishop's mitre,) ' and it sat upon each of them,' (Acts ii. 3.) The promise refers alike to both elements, the Spirit and fire, and the application of both are equally called baptism. Hence, if they were dipped into the Holy ' Kcach's Met. p. 184; and Jenkins' Def. p. 127. THE HOLY GHOST. 365 Ghost, they were also dipped into the fire. But the fire came and sat upon them — consequently, the Holy Ghost descended upon them in like manner. This we must con- clude, or imagine John the Baptist speaking more inconsist- ently tlian the most blundering Pedohaptist in the country. IV. It may be worth while to notice a remark or two, in an address of the Rev. S. H. Cone, of New York, on the translation of the Chinese New Testament, under the aus- pices of the London I\Iissionary Society. He says, 'upon ' the cover, one of our Missionaries has thus written. In * this version, haptizo and its cognates, are rendered by the ' terra, Se' Le\ the Washing Ceremony For a mo- 'ment, think upon Luke iii. 16, literally translated from 'the Chinese New Testament, "John answered, I, indeed, ' perform the washing ceremony upon you with water ; but * one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I 'am not worthy to unloose, he shall perform the washing ' ceremony upon you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." ' Perform the washing ceremony with fire ! Can ' we forbear to exclaim with the Psalmist, ' It is time for 'thee. Lord, to work, for they have made void thy law.'^ This is intended to neutralize the charge brought against the eastern versions of the Bible, made by Baptist Mis- sionaries, who have rendered haptizo, by a word equiva- lent to drowning! But Mr. Cone's remarks are sophistical and void of the least validity. Se' Ze' means the cleans- ing, purifying, or consecrating rite or ceremony, as literally as the washing ceremony : Read the passage thus, ' Per- 'form the cleansing, purifying, or consecrating ceremony, ' with fire,' and then perceive, if you can, any incongruity of expression, or inconsistency with the current language of scripture — which speaks of fire as a purifying, refining, and cleansing element. (See Numb. xxxi. 23; Zech. xiii. 9; Mai. iii. 2, &c.) ' If a man strive for masteries, yet he is ' not crowned, except he strive lawfully.' "While thus casually alluding to oriental translations of > Bap. Mag. Aug. 1S.33. H h 5 366 THE BAPTISM OF the Holy Scriptures, we may be permitted to ask our Bap- tist Brethren, whether their Missionaries, who appear so conscientious about rendering the verb haptizo, by some vernacular term, equivalent to dipping, because they con- sider it agreeable to the will of the Holy Spirit ; are equally scrupulous in omitting from their versions certain texts in the New Testament, which competent authorities have shown to be mere human interpolations — not dictated at all by the Spirit of God? And, especially, whether they omit or retain, (Acts viii. 37,) which is fully proved to be spurious and of no divine authority 1 ^ And, also, whether in their proposed new English Translation of the Bible, our opponents intend to preserve this text as a genuine part of divine inspiration ? Of course they design to be consistent, however such a course might tend to weaken their cause ! XI. From this concise view of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, the following deductions appear legitimate: — I. That the out-pouring of the Holy Ghost is really and truly baptism. It is repeatedly called baptism, and pre- sented a visible and indubitable exhibition to the eyes of the spectator. When our opponents call this a mere meta- phorical baptism, they employ a misnomer, which proves that the subject is somewhat embarrassing to them, and that there is no method of extricating themselves, but by resolving the terms into a figure of speech. Their wisest authors, however, have occasionally conceded tiiis point in an honest manner. II. That the baptism of the Holy Spirit and of water are so conjoined and blended in the predictions, promises, narratives, and declarations of the Old and New Testa- ments, as to induce the inference, that both were adminis- tered in the same way. Indeed it would betray a confu- sion of language, equal to that at Babel, were the baptism of the Spirit to be pouring on the people, and that of water plunging them into it. 1 See Bloomficld's Greek Testament and Notes on this passage. THE HOLY GHOST. 3G7 III. That as the leading terms employed to designate this institution, arc equally favourable to pouring or sprink- ling as to dipping or immersing — as there is no instance found in the Bible where the word baptize is used for one person plunging another ; nor any where in the Greek lan- guage, for the two-fold action of putting under water and raising again — as the circumstances of the early scripture and Christian baptisms demonstrate that pouring or sprink- ling was the universal and invariable method — and as the baptism of the Holy Spirit is represented as being always effected in this manner, we come unhesitatingly to the con- clusion, that dipping is not Christian baptism, and that af- fusion or aspersion is; and therefore, 'if what is not cora- ' manded by Christ or practised by his apostles, be virtually 'forbidden as will-worship' ' — if it be ' clear that nothing ' can be baptism, which varies from Christ's institution'^ — then, on their own principles, the Baptists are all, what they designate us, an unbaptized body of people. SECTION SEVENTH. THE NUMEROUS DIFFICULTIES ATTENDING IMMERSION. ' The circumstances of an action, being naturally inconvenient, may ' and ought to have considerable influence in determining what ' is, or is not, our duty, in those circumstances of it that are inde- ' terminate; for this plain reason, that we are sure the law of ' self-preservation is the law of God in all those cases where it 'has not shown us the contrary.' — Dr. E. Williams. We have no hesitation in saying that such are the difficul- ties attending the system of our opponents — that it is not likely our blessed Lord should have enjoined it without an imperious necessity — and that we should not adopt it wilh- • Dore's Introd. p. 19. 2 Gale, p. G6. 368 THE NUMEROUS DIFFICUETIES out the clearest evidence. We have, however, shown you that it was never instituted by Christ, that it was never practised by his immediate followers, and that it is an invention of men who have endeavoured to improve the ordinances of the gospel. Our design is now to show you that the scheme we are combatting ought to be immediately abandoned, not only as unscriptural, but also as presenting obstacles to its performance, which at once determine the line of conduct we ought to pursue. We are conducted to this view of the con- troversy by the repeated declarations of our brethren respecting the universal practicability of their mode, the pleasure of submitting to it, and the great significance and solemnity of its administration. — 'What simplicity, what ' beauty, what edification is contained in this ordinance, of * dipping ' 1 — at the same time treating ' pouring or sprink- * ling a few drops of water upon an unconscious baby out ' of a bason or porringer,' as they express themselves, with ridicule and contempt — as being unscriptural and childish, and ' a profanation of the ordinance of baptism.' Let us examine whether their scheme be really what" they pro- nounce it, and whether pouring or sprinkling is not more like a New Testament sacrament, better calculated to pre- serve every delicacy of Christian worship, and to become universal with the extending empire of the Son of God, than that of submersion. I. Admitting that the original institution had been to dip the people in baptism, but which we have shown was by no means the case, if the practice were found in any age, country, or condition, to militate against health and decency, it might be changed for some other mode, which, while preserving the Spirit of the rite, removed the difficulties of a particular administration. Thus our opponents have re- peatedly varied or entirely omitted several positive insti- tutions of the New Testament. It is a principle of Chris- tianity that, when moral obligations, the reasons of which ' Carson, p. 171. ATTENDING IMMERSION. 309 fully appear, besides being divinely enjoined, conflict with mere positive laws, the reasons of which do not appear, or but very inelistinctly, though also divinely enjoined, the latter are always to give place to the former. For example : it was a positive institution of God, that the priests alone should eat the shew-bread of the sanctuary. Yet when David, and the men adhering to his interest, went to Nob, Abimelech gave this very bread to them to allay their hun- ger — that is, he broke a positive law to perform an act of mercy ; and our Lord sanctioned the act, and commended the principle, by adding, ' I will have mercy and not [or, rather than] sacrifice,' (Lev. xxiv. 6-9 ; 1 Sam. xxi. 3-6 ; Matt. xii. 3.) It was a positive institution of the Al- mighty, that no work was to be done on the Sabbath day. ' Every one that defileth it, shall surely be put to death ; 'for whoso doeth any work thereon, that soul shall be cut ' off from among his people.' But moral obligations, when operating against this enactment, are to have the entire pre- ponderance. ' The priests profane the temple [by labour- ' ing] on the Sabbath day, and are blameless. What man ' shall there be among you, that shall have one shep, if it ' fall into a pit on the Sabbath day, will he not lay hold on ' it, and [labour till he] lift it out V (Ex. xx. 10 ; xxxi. 14 ; Matt, xii 5, 11.) Now, to preserve female modesty, our health, and our lives — are moral obligations — the reasons for which we clearly perceive, besides being commanded by God himself. But were immersion-baptism clearly a positive institution of Christ — the reasons of which our opponents do not even pretend to see — if it should appear that in any case or country, such a mode militates against these moral obligations — our sole Director in such matters has told us plainly how to interpret his will, and has as- sured us, that mere positive enactments, under those cir- cumstances, are to yield to moral obligations. And though there might be cases in which the ' illiterate ploughman ' would feel somewhat perplexed in determining between what is merely positive and what is moral-positive, and 370 THE NUMEROUS DIFFICULTIES wherein the advice of a Baptist pastor might be requisite to direct his conduct — yet the principle of interpretation our Lord has given, will be found correct and universally- available, perfectly harmonizing with the present subject of controversy. It is also admitted by our opponents : — Mr. Booth says, ' when positive appointments and moral ' duties cannot be both performed — when the one or the ' other must be omitted — the preference is given to ihe mo- 'ral and spiritual duty.'^ — But this observation is made by the bye, and, with our view of the original institution, is not of immediate application. We shall, therefore, pro- ceed to notice some of the difficulties of immersion-baptism, as a reason for supposing, after what has been adduced, that Christ would not have instituted such a rite in his church, and to show that it ought to be resisted by Christ- ians with all their might. II. The natural dread which most people have of being plunged under water by another person, presents a power- ful difficulty in the way of immersion-baptism — a dread which health, nerves, and piety, in nine cases out of ten, fail to dissipate. And while this assertion holds true, with respect to most of the male sex, it applies with peculiar force to the more timid and delicate sisterhood — who are by far the majority that submit to it. Nor do we wonder at their hesitation. For a female, modest and fearful, who, perhaps, was never under water, and scarcely ever up to the knee in it before, to be led into a baptistry or river — then to be taken hold of by a man in whose strength and skill she may have no great confidence, and to be plunged backward under water, without the least possibility of helping herself in case of accidents, which she knows have sometimes occurred, and consequently may still happen, must be a most formidable operation, especially to such as are timid and bashful, and when the crowd around is large and unconverted. Perhaps in all the lifetime of most Baptist ladies, nothing ever occurs so trying to their modesty or so appalling to their minds. ATTENDING IMMERSION. 371 as this dipping ; for though their bodies are not truly ovcr- whehned with water, their spirits are with perturbation. Nor is this an imaginary difficulty. Their confessions will attest its reality, and if these were withheld, how ample is the con- comitant evidence? How often have we seen pious and ex- cellent women, with courage sufficient for the most arduous duties of Christianity, even for missionary enterprize among the most savage tribes of mankind, when at the font, in- stead of being in a composed and devotional frame of mind, fix their eyes on the water as if it vrould certainly cause their death ? How long are many of them ere they can bring their mind to submit to this ordinance ? How many exhortations are employed in the name of God and applied to their sense of duty, their gratitude, and their fears, to in- duce many women to submit? How often are they told that unless they are dipped they will not fulfil all righteousness, nor prove their love to Christ, nor, in fact, be entitled to the Christian name ? Our opponents even go further than this on some occasions, and give broad and significant hints that this plunging is indispensable to salvation ? How often have females fainted in the arras of the minister, and been brought to their senses only by the shock of the plunging ; as was the case not long ago at Bristol ? How often are they heard to scream in the baptistry ? And some- times they have been dragged out of the water, appa- rently lifeless, as was the case with a person very recently in London. How many are Baptists in sentiment, and therefore Baptists in reality, who have never been able to muster sufficient courage to undergo this ceremony ? How many baptisms are performed in places with closed doors, contrary to their avowed principles of always doing it in public? And how many travel miles from home to be im- mersed, where they are little known, because they are ashamed to be dipped in the sight of their neighbours ? An opponent justly remarks, 'There is some incorivenience, ' and there is not a little odium connected with believers' * baptism [by immersion] ; at least, under certain circum- 372 , THE NUMEROUS DIFFICULTIES ' Stances. Many persons may be met with, who profess ' themselves convinced on the subject, but who cannot en- ' counter the opposition presented to their imagination, or ' overcome their own reluctance, so as to submit to what ' they believe to be a divine command.' ^ — A Baptist mi- nister, while recently dining with the preacher, told him that 'a married lady of his neighbourhood and of his con- ' gregation, went six or seven miles from home to be bap- ' tized. When she came to the place — the water ready and ' people waiting — her courage failed, and she for a consider- ' able time would not submit. Entreaties and arguments ' were copiously administered, but for awhile ineffectually : ' then she was ready and then she was terrified at the pro- ' spect, and made herself quite ridiculous — and was at last ' got into and under the water almost by main force.' — We ask you, whether such a rite was likely to have been instituted by Christ, and whether, when un-instituted, it should not be strenuously opposed? — A Wesleyan minis- ter also informed him very lately ' that he had a female ' cousin residing in Exeter, who was truly pious, and, in ' principle, a decided Baptist ; yet having never been ena- ' bled to submit to immersion, had long been kept from the ' table of the Lord, much against her will; and unless her ' health or nerves wonderfully improve, must go out of the '. world without being baptized at all, or once receiving, in ' her own communion, the sacrament of the Lord's Supper.' III. The above may be considered as remarks of a general character. There are circumstances where the difficulties are greatly increased. In the case of people con- verted in old age, unless of very vigorous constitutions, the obstacles must be immense ; for if they must be baptized subsequent to regeneration,- and if it must be done by plunging the poor old creatures absolutely under water — in nine cases out of ten the rite must be foregone ; and these truly regenerated people, according to the constitution of most Baptist churches, must be deprived of the sacrament > Led. on Bapt. by Evans, &c. j). 125. -' Gibbs, p. 342. ATTENDING IMMERSION. 373 of the Lord's supper, and from being members of their so- cieties. Persons, also, indisposed must, in general, omit a reception of this rite. Such as are afflicted with rheumatic pains, or subject to the ague, or very liable to chills or colds, or to pulmonary diseases, or to the gout, sore throats, affections of the glands, spasmodic, and other internal com- plaints, epilepsy, erysipelas, apoplexy, or determination of blood to the head, and similar diseases, which are certainly not uncommon, must, without almost a miracle, suffer ma- terially, if not fatally, from such an operation. All this is indirectly admitted by our respected opponents. Dr. Jen- kins says, ' a man may believe and not have the means or ' capacity of baptism. There are cases in which immersion ' would be dangerous, and it is better to defer the adminis- ' tration and not to run the hazard of instant death.' ^ Dr. Gale intimates the same idea, when he says, 'the desire of ' baptism is sufficient when baptism itself cannot be had.' ~ That is, the sacrament in question is to be nullified, when obstacles to its performance arise. These are very frequent among our brethren, but such were never known to pre- vent baptism as administered by the apostles under the most unfavourable circumstances for dipping, and never prevent its performance by Pedobaptists in this country. Their notion of neglecting baptism altogether is opposed to the declaration of our Lord, who (according to good au- thority among themselves) makes this sacred application of water obligatory on all (Matt, xxviii. 19; John iii. 5.'^) Here then are insuperable difficulties in the way of admi- nistering this rite according to the mode of our opponents ; but all of which vanish according to ours. The assump- tion, therefore, is, that we are right, and that they are certainly wrong. While speaking of the dread, difficulties, and dangers of dipping ; there is one remarkable circumstance connected with its twin sacrament in the New Testament which we must not overlook. Of all the tragic and affecting events ' Def. p. 14, G3. = p. 7C. 3 See Maclean, vol. i. p. 130. I i 374 THE NUMEROUS BIFFICULTIES recorded in the word of God, the sufferings and death of Christ stand infinitely pre-eminent. During the Mosaic dispensation, this fearful scene was typified by shedding blood and inflicting death every day on duly appointed vic- tims. But under the gospel economy, this same awful event is, by our Lord's own appointment, shown forth by a ceremony embracing one of the most pleasing and cheerful acts of human life — eating bread and drinking wine — as in a supper, or at a sacred feast. It is a rite, not only free from every thing indelicate or distressing to the most re- fined and timid; but it is positively and exclusively an ad- ministration of social, personal, and spiritual knowledge and delight. Judging, then, by the rules of a fair analogy, might we not expect that the out-pouring of the Holy Spirit, for enlightening, converting, sanctifying, support- ing, consoling, and comforting the souls of men, would have been symbolized or shown forth by a sacrament, at least free from every thing painful, naturally appalling, and repulsive to the most refined and fearful of the people of God! Admitting our mode of baptism to be scriptural, such is unquestionably the case. But on the principle of dipping, the reverse, as our opponents concede, is evidently the fact. Even were this ordinance intended to symbolize the burial and resurrection of the Son of God, the incon- gruity would be equally manifest: since in neither of these actions was there any thing personally painful or oppres- sive ; in fact, the latter event must have been one of tri- umph and delight to the Redeemer. Therefore, to sup- pose that these operations were to be shown forth by a sacrament, which imposes a cross too heavy for thousands of pious people to bear ; while the death of Christ is shown forth by a most pleasing and delightful institution, exceeds our credulity, and can be effected only by the clearest and most conclusive scriptural evidence. While on the topic of analogies between the two christian sacraments, it may be remarked, that the eucharist is de- signated a SUPPER which, among the Jews, was their prin- ATTENDING IMMERSION. 375 cipal meal — ivhen they ate to the full. Yet we rather taste the bread and wine than make even a sliglit repast on tliem — still calling the participation the ' Lord's Sapper ' — and this practice evidently accords with that of the apostolical churches. Suppose, then, the design of baptism, as con- ceded by our opponents, be a cleansing, washing, or sanc- tifying of the person — the common idea of which is a com- plete and thorough purification. But such an entire and ample cleansing would destroy the analogy between the two ordinances — one being universal and the other partial — or one being on as large a scale as possible and the other on the smallest — grossly violating the presumed harmony between the degree or magnitude of operation in the two ordinances. If dipping be the right method of baptizing, a. full meal should be eaten at the Lord's Supper ; and till this be done we shall perceive a lack of analogy between their administrations. Our scheme of applying a little water preserves this analogy, and constitutes an evidence in favour of the consistency of our mode of baptizing. IV. There are difficulties arising from what we hesitate not to pronounce the indelicacy of this ordinance, as admi- nistered by our opponents — at least, in the estimation of multitudes that witness its performance. ^Ye maintain that this is a good presumptive evidence against immersion, and as such only shall we adduce it. Our brethren fail not to say all in their power to oppose aspersion, and we are bound to advance all we can in opposition to dipping. — They frequently relate an accident, said to have befallen a baby' dipped in the font many centuries ago — as a conclu- sive argument against infant baptism; but it is probable that, if we knew all, the like might be said against adult immersion : besides, they forget that similar incidents may have occurred to Baptist babies while being ministerially dedicated without any water at all. Still the story is re- newed, and deemed a clever hit at Pedobaptists ; and, therefore, to repel it is our bounden duty. I. We say then that this rite, in respect of females re- 3/0 rUE NUMEROUS DIFFICULTIES moved above the lowest classes of society, must be deemed a very great cross ; nor can it be always administered in a way not to produce many misgivings in tlie minds of its most partial adherents. The following fact, among thou- sands more, will establish our assertion : — A gentleman was about to be dipped, and to join a Baptist communion; but before undergoing the operation himself, he went to witness the immersion of two or three women. The sight and the scenes disgusted him. He thought the Saviour could not have enjoined such an indecent rite. He returned — examined the scriptures — altered his mind — and relin- quished the honour of being dipped. He is now a respect- able minister of the Independent denomination. That our opponents themselves are not very positive on this head, may be inferred from the following remark of Mr. Booth : — ' So then,' says he, 'the voice of national decency is to ' be heard, and the force of local custom is to be felt, in the ' administration of a divinely positive rite, even though the ' will of the Institutorbe the sole ground of the institution.'* What is implied you may easily perceive. Nor let it be forgotten that our brethren do consider national decency and the force of local customs, in respect of other institu- tions, as much divinely instituted as dipping. Even in the institution before us the principle is observed. — Carson says, 'The Christian is baptized with his clothes on for 'the sake of decency;' not in consequence of scripture precept or example, any more than in the case of long cloaks with leads at the bottom. That there often is an indecency in the operation, few who have Avitnessed it will deny. Accidents and exposures have occurred to the utter confusion of all the interested parties. — A female was re- cently immersed in a river in Gloucestershire ; and, for want of the leads and dresses used by John the Baptist and the apostles, an accident occurred, which caused the crowd of spectators, on the opposite bank, to shout and vociferate in a most deafening manner. Nor is this a so- > Booth, vol. iii. p. US, 119. ATTENDING IMMERSION. 6 I t litary instance of similar evils. And what do our oppo- nents mean, by calling tlieir baptism 'taking up the cross,' if something of the above description were not possible ? We would further ask the respectable benedicts of the Bap- tist denomination, whether they would suiFer their wives and their daughters to be bathed at our watering-places by men instead of women, though the indelicacy would be by no means greater than here, and their muscular powers would be often advantageous? Would they not blush at the very idea? IT. It is also clear, that if immersion-baptism had been the practice in the days of Christ and of his inspired apos- tles, and intended by them to have been so administered to the end of time ; and if it be liable to abuse, as we have shown and shall further establish, that some grave cautions, respecting its performance, would have been given in the New Testament. That this rite is obnoxious to numerous difficulties in our day, with all the help of modern contriv- ance, cannot be denied. And we may fairly conclude, that when dipping one another was confessedly a new thing in the earth — when nearly a whole nation was baptized, probably twice over, in a short time — and when such fa- cilities as our opponents enjoy were unknown and unavail- able — numerous difficulties of various kinds must have arisen; and, having occurred, would be still naturally an- ticipated. And yet it is remarkable, that Christ and his disciples, in their discourses or writings, never intimate the existence of such accidents, nor guard against them for the future. If it had been intended that all converts should be immersed, and conscious of a liability in the mode to indecorum and injury of the health, would not the Saviour or his followers have said something about doing it ' de- * cently and in order,' that health might not be injured, nor modesty outraged by carelessness or precipitation ? And is not this inference corroborated by the injunctions of the apostle respecting the proper administration of the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. xi, 17-34), and the order of divine I i 5 ^/b THE NUMEROUS DIFFICULTIES worsliip? (lb. 1-16.) The very circumstance of there being no cautions, where so much needed, induces us to conclude, that immersion was not practised in the apostolic age, nor intended to be performed afterwards. To this may be subjoined the remarkable fact, that no person baptized, during the New Testament era, is ever said to have been laid hold of, or even touched, by the baptizer. But had dipping been the mode, the candidates must have been laid hold of cautiously and firmly ; and as it was confessedly a new thing, and must have been re- markable and exciting among the Jews, doubtless it would have been mentioned, at least incidentally, in the gospel histories. In sprinkling adults, they are never taken hold of — and infants often are, and always might be, afFused in their parents arras — which was evidently the case in the apostolic age. This assumption renders the narrative na- tural, and divests the sacrament of the indelicacy of men embracing and plunging eastern ladies into a river or re- servoir of water. III. It, however, is frequently insinuated that what we designate modesty, was not in such high estimation among the Jews in former times, and, consequently, that our reason- ings will not apply to New Testament baptisms. This re- ply, is founded on a gross mistake. The greatest delicacy, especially in respect of women, was considered a virtue of no ordinary lustre. Look at the curse Noah denounced against Canaan, for not covering his father's nakedness, and the blessing implored on Shem and Japhet for doing it, (Gen. ix. 20-25.) Look at the construction of the altar, and the extra garments made for the priests in offering sacrifices, that their persons might not be in the least de- gree exposed, (Ex. xx. 26 ; xxviii. 42.) Look at the threatening of God against the Chaldeans for their crimes, that their nakedness should be exposed, (Is. xlvii. 3.) Many other cases, if required, might be adduced. It is certain that among the Jews female modesty was greatly inculcated. In the temple there was a court expressly for ATTENDING IMMERSION. 379 the women. 1 Dr. Lardner, speaking of Ilerodias dancing before Herod and his nobles, observes, that 'it was very ' unusual for ladies of rank to appear before the men (Est. ' i. 10-12), and much less to dance at such banquets as 'these.'- — Paul would not allow women to speak in the assemblies of the men (1 Cor, xiv. 34, 35), nor to have their head uncovered, or their veil thrown aside in divine worship'' (1 Cor. xi. 5) ; but to adorn themselves in modest apparel with shamefacedness and sobriety (1 Tim. ii. 9.) He enjoined that every thing should be done decently (1 Cor. xiv. 40), as opposed to indecorum and impro- priety, (compare Rom. xiii. 13, Greek.) To appear un- veiled even in the streets was considered a mark of female immodesty.'* When people are said to have been naked, it means only being without their tunic, coat, mantle, or cloak ; while they had on all their under garments — or as we say of a person, he is en dishabille, or undressed, in the morning, or at his ordinary employment. Entire nu- dity is a thing incompatible with ancient Hebrew manners, and hence is sometimes denounced against the Jews as a judgment from God. ^ — All this being established, we hesitate not to say, that what would be regarded as immo- dest in our age and nation, would have been viewed as much more so among the Jews ; and every argument we bring against immersion, founded on this data, applies with double force against the assumption of the apostles immers- ing the men and women either naked or dressed. IV. Nor let it be supposed that when the gospel was re- ceived among the Gentiles, the dipping of married ladies in water, at least by the other sex, would have been more in consonance with their notions of modesty. ' Grecian ' ladies,' says Rollin, ' were very reserved — seldom appeared ' in public — had separate apartments, called Gijncecea — and ' Josephus, Hist. Wars, b. 5, c. 5, s. 2. 2 Cred. Gosp. Hist. vol. i. part 2, p. 23. 3 Calmet's Diet, of Frasm. No. 1 60. ■' Comp. Bible; note on 1 Cor. xi. 5 Calmet on the word nakedness. 380 THE NUMEROUS DIFFICULTIES ' never ate at table with the men when strangers were pre- 'sent.'^ — Archbishop Potter tells us the same thing: — ' Tlie women of Greece rarely or never appeared in strange ' company, but were confined to the most remote parts of ' the house, in which they had distinct mansions assigned ' them ; and though some husbands might be of a better ' temper, yet it was looked upon as very indecent for women * to gad abroad. " — Though some laxity in this matter pro- bably took place in after times and in certain states, one can hardly imagine the apostles getting the said women to submit to a public dipping, without an unusual eiFort on their part, and no ordinary excitement on the part of the populace of the place. V. Dr. Macknight, on 1 Tim. iii. 11, observes, that ' as ' the manners of the Greeks did not permit men to have ' much intercourse with women of character, unles they ' were their relations ; and as the Asiatics were under still ' greater restraints, it was proper that an order of female ' teachers should be instituted in the church for instructing ' the young of their own sex.' He then proceeds to notice several passages to establish his position. Here we gather that the aged women were to instruct the younger, because of the modesty which in general prevented men from per- forming this office. We learn, however, that women of rank and character, and not a few of them, believed Paul and Silas, while preaching the gospel at Thessalonica, (Acts xvii. 4, compare with 2 John v. 1, 5.) These, in all likelihood, were proselytes of the gentiles, and most as- suredly had never been dipped or bathed by any man ; and probably never appeared in their company without a veil. Now, is it at all likely that the apostles took these chief women, immediately on their believing, to a pond or river, and plunged them under water, in the face of a large con- course of idle spectators? Nor let it be forgotten, that bap- tizing-deaconesses were unheard of in the apostolic age, ' Anc. Hist. vol. i. Introd. p. 54. 2 Antiq. Greece, vol. ii. p. 305; Jackson's Karr. Journ. from India, p. 32. ATTENDING IMMERSION. 381 and arose only with the corruption of tliis rite : also, that tlie only transitive act of the minister of religion, whether Jew or Gentile, for purification or consecration, was pour- ing or sprinkling — to this all would have readily and cheer- fully submitted ; nor would any improper excitement have been produced, as we find there was not in a single instance. VI. This argument is in no measure invalidated by the well-attested evidence respecting the profligacy of many Asiatic females — since such a charge can apply only to a certain notorious class in the community. The bashful- ness and seclusion of the rest, is a fact placed beyond all honest contravention. The known indelicacy of one portion of the frail sisterhood, was the indirect cause of the reserve and confinement of the other. It might, indeed, be matter of grave conjecture, whether, under the influence of pre- vailing habits, even the ladies, least scrupulous in other respects, would, on their first listening to the apostles, and believing the truth of their message, not feel somewhat abashed at the strange proposal of being taken in the arms of a man, and publicly plunged under water. — Nor is our position enfeebled by the occasional reference of the sacred historians to the pious women who followed our Lord, as- sociated with the disciples, or attended the ministry of the evangelists. All this is conceded, without in the least im- peaching the statements previously made. For the q^uestion is not whether holy females might minister to our Lord, or sit in their compartment in the synagogue, or properly covered, in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and so- briety, unite with their husbands, parents, and relatives in divine worship ; but whether, on their first believing the truth of the gospel report, when shrouded in their national habits and prejudices, they would submit to the avowedly novel, fearful, and painful operation of being publicly dip- ped under water by the other sex ? This is the subject of inquiry — to which we answer in the negative. VII. We would not for a moment insinuate that a scrip- tural institution should be sacrificed, because certain and 382 THE NUMEROUS DIFFICULTIES great difficulties attend its administration. We should be unworthy of our heroic predecessors, if we were not willing to surrender our lives rather than a single iota of our re- ligious principles. But when, in our opinion, a ceremony is invented which has a tendency to arrest the progress of the truth, we are bound to set our faces as flint against it. That this is the case with the dipping system we fearlessly aver. There are difficulties in the way of evangelizing mankind, whatever denomination attempts the glorious task. But our opponents, who must dip all the folks they bring over to their sentiments on the doctrines of the gospel, have one great obstacle unknown to other communions ; and that it is a great obstacle their own concessions render unques- tionable. In fact, their system is not capable of becoming universal. It stands like an impassable gulph between them and most eastern nations, where females, who in general form a majority of converts, are watched with the utmost jealously by their husbands and fathers. Think of Baptists dipping Persian or Mahometan ladies of rank ! Think of such people being taken and immersed in a river ! In fact, the immersion of adult males or females is a thing unknown in any of the eastern churches however corrupted — since all are baptized in their infancy ; or, if proselytes are made of persons advanced in years, the preparatory rite of going into the water and washing is always performed by them- selves alone. Even the Mennonite Baptists of Holland, France, Pennsylvania, and other places, avoid the indeli- cacy of our opponents by baptizing, like ourselves, by as- persion or pouring. ^ VII. Upon the whole we ask whether it is likely that a mode of baptism could have been instituted by Christ, which would have shocked the modesty of most virtuous women, with Jewish and Grecian prejudices about them — which would have aroused all the jealousy of their hus- bands — and which, as a consequence, must have been a most formidable obstacle to the progress of divine truth ? • Rob. p. 50-1 ; Adams's View, &c. vol. ii. p. 53, G3. ATTENDING IMMERSION. 383 We answer no. And further we assert that it was not only unlikely but never attempted. We also contend, that the sooner it is abolished the better — that it has no foundation in scripture or reason, and was the intention of men labour- ing to enlarge and amend the institutions of Christ — and is now adopted and practised by our opponents, no doubt, with the best of motives, but, we consider, in ignorance. It is a scheme which cannot become universal as to climate or condition. Let our opponents talk of the meaning of the word baptize, the baptism of Christ and the Eunuch, as long as they please ; the indelicacy of their rite is a valid proof to us that dipping is unscriptural. V. The next thing we shall mention, as a reason for be- lieving that immersion baptism was never instituted by Christ, and should not now be practised by us is, that it de- stroys all devotion in the minds of most candidates for the reception of it. The maxim of the apostle is, that we should ' attend upon the Lord without distraction,' (1 Cor. vii. 35.) But in this rite, as administered by our brethren, it is a thing next to impossible, particularly in the case of many timid and nervous females. Their mode is truly appalling to multitudes that ultimately submit : it is really ' passing through water,' and becomes a certain ordeal or test of their courage. It is formidable in prospect. Many anxious days and sleepless nights often precede this act of immersion. Many arguments are requisite to excite and perpetuate the intention of the candidate. ' Fears of vari- 'ouskind' are alive, and apprehension revels in an entire dominion over the subjugated spirits. And when the people are brought to the point, the preparation is so great, dresses must be made or borrowed, some great thing is to be done ; then there is the rattling of the pump, or the drawers of water filling the font ; then a crowd is expected and col- lected in the chapel, these jump on the seats, climb the pil- lars, and cram the galleries, to witness what is to be done to a lady whose habits are perhaps the most retiring, and whose fears of indecorum or accident are all awake. Instead 384 THE NUMEROUS DIFFICULTIES of being sweetly composed and in a devotional frame of mind, she feels like a person about to be exhibited to the crowd, and to act a part at which all will stare and many will smile. Our brethren, indeed, tell us, that ' it generates serious- ' ness, enilaraes devotion, and animates hope.'^ But the reverse is more generally, if not always, the result. We say there is no devotion in her mind before the act, cer- tainly none while under water, and very little when she ascends dripping, and is hurried breathless into the vestry to change her clothes. And if you compare the state of her mind while sitting at the Lord's table, partaking of the em- blems of a Redeemer's love, the contrast is perfect. We would ask what solemn and serene devotion marked the mind of the lady who was dipped almost by force, or of those who fainted in the minister's arms, or became motion- less in the baptistry ? — A man, recently dipped in a neigh- bouring font, foolishly regardless of numerous practical warnings, and yielding to the impulse of fear, opened wide his ample mouth, while being lowered under the water, and when raised, stared and staggered, half suffocated with the abundant element imbibed. He was, in fact, so far stran- gled, that a lady present expected to see him faint in the arms of the reverend dipper. He, however, after divers contortions and efforts, contrived to pass or eject the liquid he had taken in, and hurried away to shift his apparel, and recover his nervous placidity, doubtless thankful that the ceremony, which ' generates seriousness, enflames devotion, ' and animates hope,' was over, and, in reference to himself, was to recur no more during his mortal life — though pos- sibly ready, when opportunity offered, to exclaim with Carson — " What simplicity, what beauty, what edifica- " tion is contained in this ordinance of dipping." — Our opponents naay ridicule what they term baby-sprink- ling as destitute of solemnity; but if we are not greatly mistaken, their own system is a hundred times more so. ■ Anderson's Iiitrod. p. 8. ATTENDING IMMERSION. 385 Now, if such be the state of the case in our country, where the ladies have so many precedents and contrivances, how much greater perturbation of mind must have seized the first women, laid hold of by the harbinger of Christ, to dip them into the deep and rapid river of Jordan ? What sage and queer observations must have proceeded from the first spectators of such a dipping? If John actually immersed the people, he was the first that ever did so ; ' for there ' never was any such thing as [immersion] baptism in 'practice before the time of John.'^ VI. But there are difficulties which particularly apply to the persons officiating — and those of various descriptions. Baptist ministers are subject to sickness and disease in com- mon with other people. Now, for them to stand up to the middle in water while baptizing thirty, forty, or fifty per- sons, as is sometimes the case, and that after preaching a sermon on this animating topic, till heated and bathed with perspiration, is enough to cause their death. All, indeed, may not suffer alike from it, and many not at all ; but others pay dearly for their temerity. For ministers, who dread the idea of getting damp in their feet, and who, to guard against it, wear thick shoes with cork soles, lamb's-wool socks, and calashes, whose rooms are thickly carpeted, and rendered air tight, with a comfortable fire — for them to stand an hour or more, knee deep in cold water, even in Summer, must expose them to chills and rheumatisms — if nothing worse ensue. So great, indeed, is the danger on their present plan, that some of their ablest pastors are said to be afraid of baptizing at all. A respectable and, otherwise efficient, Baptist minister, recently and candidly confessed to an In- dependent pastor, now settled in Devonshire, that he could never venture into the font to immerse his people, and that he was always obliged to obtain the services of a neighbour- ing brother to perform that duty for him. As our brethren plead the customs of antiquity in defence of their mode, we may safely recommend them to copy the example of the • Rob. Hist. p. 29. K k 386 THE NUMEROUS DIFFICULTIES Pope, and baptize the people in wax or oil-skin pantaloons. Or if, as good Protestants, they do not like to borrow from his holiness at Rome, they may guard themselves from much harm by imitating the excellent Dr. Ryland, and wear mud-boots under their cloaks, which, if well tied or buttoned, may not appear to the curious congregation. It is here worthy of notice, that if the above accommodations are requisite for dipping ; the apostles of Christ, who \rere to have ' neither two coats, neither shoes ' — were ill pre- pared to immerse the multitudes of converts they baptized. A change of raiment after dipping is now essential ; in the case of the disciples it was impracticable ; we, therefore, may fairly conclude that they did not immerse, but simply afFused, their converts. Further, many Baptist ministers are not the stoutest and strongest of their kind. Suppose, then, that certain men and women we could name — not to mention Lambert, Bright, or O'Brien, nor the ladies most admired on the banks of the Senegal, were to apply to some of our weak brethren for immersion, in what convenient or decent man- ner could they dip them under water and raise them out afterwards; and, as Mr. Burt says, 'feel a vast deal of ' pleasure therein ? ' Must they not look about them for some more muscular aid — write a note to some athletic brother to officiate on this perplexing occasion, or get peo- ple near the baptistry in readiness to assist in the resur- rection of this great man or woman ? It is probable that, in reference to this topic, one of our opponents candidly alludes, when he says, 'sometimes also the unseemly man- ' ner of some of our brethren, in performing this rite, has ' given a rude shock to inveterate prejudice, and created ' much disgust or aversion.' ^ Even in the midst of the dark ages, at the very midnight of superstition about rites and forms. Duns Scotus (who flourished 12G0) felt this. ' A minister may be excused from trine immersion ; for ' example, in case a minister should he feeble, as to ' Lecture on Baptism, by Evans, &c. p. 12". ATTENDING IMMERSION. 387 * Strength, and there should be a hiige country fellow to *be baptized, wliom he coukl neither plunge in nor lift *out.'i — We have no reason to suppose that John the Baptist was a priest of more than ordinary strength or stature, nor are the disciples of Christ celebrated as ap- pareni. descendents of Og or Goliah ; and as for Paul, he seems to have been a person of diminutive stature and little bodily strength, (2 Coe. x. 10.) How then did they manage matters in that jealous age, and where it is said the stoutest and fattest ladies were deemed the greatest beauties, and where, of course, they would not be abste- mious for the sake of being slender? Our brethren who dwell so largely on scripture precedents can probably tell us. The fact is, men may be well qualified for preaching the gospel, administering the other Christian sacrament, be excellent pastors, and every way fitted for good ministers of Jesus Christ, and not be able to baptize their people by immersion. We infer, therefore, that dipping is not Chris- tian baptism, and that pouring or sprinkling, being univer- sally feasible, is the only scriptural and proper mode. VII. There are further difficulties arising from the state of the climate and the peculiar habits of a people. Our op- ponents sometimes speak of Judea as if it were always the most sultry province under heaven — and the manners of the Jews, as if, they were like some amphibious creatures, living half their time in the water. ^ We know, from the highest authority, that the winters in Palestine and the neighbourhood are exceedingly cold — so much so, that people have lost their lives amidst its frosts and snows,' and whole armies have been arrested and defeated by the se- verity of the weather. ** Shaw informs us, that snows are very frequent during February, in the southern parts of Palestine, and particularly at Jerusalem. ^ Even in the > Stuart, p. 379. = See Booth, vol. i. p. 250. 3 Harmer's Obs. c. 1, obs. 11, 12, 16, 17, 35. Prideaux Con. vol. iii. p. 371 ; Jos. Ant. b. 13, c. G, s.6; b. 14, c. 14, s. 12. 5 Shaw's Travels, p. 290. 388 THE NUMEROUS DIFFICULTIES summer their nights are often severely cold, (Gen. xxxi. 40 ; Job xxxvii. 6 ; Ps. Ixxviii. 48 ; cxlvii. 16, 17; Prov. xx. 4; XXV. 13 ; Neh. iii. 17; John xviii. 18.) This must have rendered public baptism by immersion frequently impracti- cable. ' I would fain know,' asks Mr. Rees, ' what they did ' in the land of Canaan and in other eastern countries, in ' cold weather, for they have frost and snow in their seasons ' there ?i We could have easily told him — they baptized the people by pouring or sprinkling. We never read that the bleakness of the weather ever prevented the converts of any description from being baptized immediately and on the spot where they were addressed, whether it were hot or cold, wet or dry ; for, as Mr. Robinson observes, ' there 'was no intermediate state of scholarship — baptism was ' administered immediately on conviction of the truth of the ' report.' — Now, that all the people consecrated by the apostles, who appear never to have intermitted their exer- tions on account of the weather in Winter or Summer, should have been dipped under cold water, is truly incre- dible — especially the delicate parts of society — honourable women, nursed in the lap of comfort — or sickly persons, who must 'have run the hazard of instant death.' In this and other northen nations, such a method, if God prefers mercy to sacrifice, could not have been universally impera- tive in the christian church. Were a Baptist minister to visit the Hebrides at Christmas, and convert a hundred Highlanders, and, following what he calls scripture prece- dent, baptize them there and then, in the open air, plunging the lairds and ladies, the old and young, male and female, the sane and the sickly, in natural rivers, in one minute their cloths would be stiff with the frost and their bodies armed with icicles at every point. How would they carry their notions into effect at Hudson's Bay, in the month of January? Warming water, or waiting till Summer, is a practice for which our opponents can plead no scripture precedent, and is done now, not as apostolical, but through ATTENDING IMMEKSION. 389 policy, and becomes only a part of what they call ' will- * worship.' VIII. Wc shall mention another difficulty arising from the imposibility of always ascertaining whether the person dipped is perfectly baptized. It appears requisite for them, that the people should be wetted all over or entirely — no part being exempted. To say with Dr. Gill,i that, having been under water is enough, would render it problematical whether coming in contact with' the element at all was re- quisite. And if they do not maintain that a universal wet- ting is necessary, they would not know where to draw the line between a due and an invalid administration. Suppose but the top of the thumb or of the great toe were, per acci- dent, nor brought in contract v/ith the water, the ceremony is valid, or it is not. If valid, then suppose the whole thumb and great toe were to escape the cleansing touch, would the rite be still valid? If they answer yes, then we ask — sup- pose the hand and foot are unfortunate enough to escape, is it valid then? Here they hesitate — because they perceive ' whereunto this thing would grow ' — since we naturally argue, if but a small part of the body may escape the water with absolute impunity, why not a trifle more ? and if this trifle, why not another, till we came to merely dipping the head, or even to the foolish practice of pouring or sprink- ling ! — A Baptist minister gave a man a second plunge, be- cause in the first a small part of his face, probably the pro- tuberance called a nose, was not under the element ! In one instance, a deacon applied to a lady, to have her dipped afresh, because he saw some of her clothes floating above the water while her body was under! In an adjoining county a minister was about to submerse a woman — but through her struggles and violent kicking he could not get her face under water, though he made a second attempt. Was this woman perfectly baptized? And not far from this place, a young lady, careful of her locks and curls, was dipped in an oil-skin cap, drawn tight over her head, ip. 217. K k 5 390 THE NUMEROUS DIFFICULTIES SO that her cranium did not come in contact with the bap- tismal element. — Again, was this young person fully bap- tized? Let the learned casuists among our opponents de- cide. There appears to be no settled medium between an entire wetting and an indifferent application of water to any one part of the body. This our opponents have long felt; and with an eye to such an entire saturation, the re- mark of Maimonides, who lived nearly twelve hundred years after Christ, is so often reiterated in the writings of our respected brethren : — ' Wherever in the law, washing ' of the flesh or of clothes [which, by the bye, was not bap- ' tism] 1 is mentioned, it means nothing else but the dipping ' of the whole body in water; for if any man wash himself ' all over, except the top of his little finger, he is still in 'his uncleanness.' — Robinson adds, that 'when a female ' proselyte was purified, some dipped themselves naked, ' others in a thin garment that would admit the water every ' where ; but none in any habit that might prevent the ' water from wetting all the body — for if only a small de- ' Auction [or tear] from the eye ran between the water and ' the skin, the purification was judged partial and incom- 'plete.'- — The design of this citation is very evident, though of no authority in this debate. Now, is it not very possible that, in a sudden immersion and an instan- taneous emersion, water may not get between all the dress and the skin, especially when the person baptized wears stockings, shoes, caps, bandages, and several garments one over another? AVe now ask again, is baptism com- plete, though the wetting be not universal? If it be, then a partial wetting is sufficient ; and, if this be true, who is to decide to what extent the person is to be wetted? This is the difficulty suggested; and the reference to the Rabbi goes for nothing. If they say it is not complete, and that an entire wetting is necessary — then, we ask, how do our brethren know that those they dip under water are wet in every part? This is another difficulty; and if they ' Ilol). p. 3 j, 3G, 3D ; Cox, p. 30. • Rob. p. 32, 38. ATTENDING IMJIERSION. 391 have no proper means of knowing, they are uncertain whether any of their church-members are properly bap- tized, or, according to Dr. Gale's ideas, 'baptized at all.' To say that all the body was under water, will not do ; and even this, with floating dresses, becomes imcertain, without wands to sink the clothes. A person is literally and truly under water when he walks in a heavy shower, or even stands, like Nebuchadnezzar, in the fields under the descending dew, or when he carries a pail of water on his head. The truth is, that, according to the system we are combating, a complete drenching is essential to a due administration of this rite among our opponents — but to ascertain when it is effected, is always exceedingly diffi- cult — since many are not more entirely wetted — to say nothing of being washed by immersion — than they are by pouring or sprinkling. Let our friends remove this diffi- culty, if they can. IX. "We must not entirely overlook another considera- tion. Though this country, compared with Judea and many other parts of the east, is well v/atered in almost every direction ; yet there are many places where a regular and adequate supply of this element, for immersion, is not obtainable without considerable difficulty and expense. In erecting many Baptist chapels, sums from fifty to a hun- dred pounds are not unfrequently expended in preparing a place convenient for the operation of adult immersion. In other cases, where funds for such a purpose are not avail- able ; less complete arrangements are made at first, though at the risk of incurring considerable subsequent expense on baptizing occasions. As an instance of this latter kind, we may mention Highgate, near London. In the old Baptist place of worship, in that village, there was a bap- tistry, but no pump, well, or reservoir, to fill it. The con- sequence was, that whenever an individual was dipped, the font was filled from a distant source, at an expense of about twelve or thirteen shillings — even though a single poor man were the only candidate for imm.ersion ; and who, in 392 THE NUMEROUS DIFFICULTIES consequence of the poverty of the congregation, was him- self expected to procure the money to pay the water-car- rier. The inference here, as before, is, that as Judea was a much more arid country, had dipping been the mode, difficulties of this kind must have frequently occurred ; but as these never transpired, the mode adopted there, in pri- mitive times, must have been essentially different from that of our opponents. X. Before we conclude this article, it may be proper to notice an observation frequently made by our opponents, and hinted at before in this discourse. They say that ' many Pedobaptists agree with them in sentiment, and yet, ' through shame or fear, refuse to take up the cross and ^submit to the operation.' ^ — Mr. Gibbs observes, 'nor ' are there wanting many in communion with Independent ' churches, who are compelled to acknowledge that we are ' right ; yet, from motives of policy or self-indulgence, they ' decline to follow the Lord through this despised ordi- ' nance. The number of these dry Baptists, as they may ' be called, is by no means inconsiderable — they are to be ' found in almost all societies of professing Christians.'- — In reply to these remarks, we observe — I. That it is possible for many among us to make blun- ders similar to those of our antagonists, respecting the original practice of baptism, without feeling any powerful obligation to adopt the like in the present age and country. Of this changing or omitting what they think a primitive mode, our opponents have furnished them with several pertinent examples. Consequently, for the Baptists to claim as dippers all who suppose that Christ and his followers were plunged, is preposterous. Whatever ideas these ' dry Baptists ' may have formed respecting the action adopted by John the Baptist and the apostles of our Lord, they conscientiously regard the application of water to the body in any form, as the essence of the rite ; and consider that it may be done in accordance with the will of God, in ' See Cox, Pref. p. G; Booth, vol. iii. p. 118, 119. '^ P. If. ATTENDING IMMERSION. 393 a way that shall be most seemly and convenient amidst the various habits and manners of mankind. These are, there- fore, as much for pouring or sprinkling as ourselves. II. "When our good friends talk of rejecting their baptism through ' self-indulgence,' and of its being 'a cross' too heavy for many pious and conscientious Christians to take up, they seem to forget that sc?7"p Gill, p. 257. 2 p. 54_ Ed. 1S27. 400 THE DANGER OF DIPPING III. What is intimated respecting accidents arising from want of skill in tlie baptizer, or of faith in the baptized, while it tacitly concedes the existence of evil consequences, contains nothing in the form of a fair argument. With re- gard to the former, it may be safely presumed, that the minister does his best ; and, consequently does all that we could honestly require of him. But when a little man is called upon to dip a lady or a gentleman, whose person he can little more than half embrace with his outstretched arms, and the weight of whose person laughs at his feeble loins, if accidents follow, the cause must rather be in the system than in the operator. That there may be a want of skill in the first essays of Baptist ministers, as in the supposed case of John the Baptist and others in primitive times, to whom dipping one another was a novelty, we will not deny ; but generally it is a want of muscle, for which they are not ac- countable. The dangers to which we allude, however, do not consist in any catastrophes in the baptistry, but in the natural result of immersion in certain cases, though most dextrously and gracefully performed. To be let fall into the water a second time, or to be kept under it too long, are evils to be sure, but not within the range of our imme- diate contemplation. The dangerous tendency of dipping all sorts of people, under all kinds of circumstances, and during all seasons of the year, is what we especially allude to, and not the bunglings of a feeble or unskilful brother, who, while doing his best, does it badly. With regard to the latter — a want of faith in the baptized — let it be observed that this, coming from the lips of those who have been dip- ped without suffering from it, sounds a little egotistic : — ' We did not sustain any injury because of our faith ! ' If it be the doctrine of mere catechumens, we say they are argu- ing on the erroneous principles of Job's miserable com- forters, who supposed that people's trials in this life kept pace with their sins. Besides, how do they account for the thousands, who, without piety, are baptized, and yet experience no evil consequences from it ? Such persons IN MANY CASES. 401 were likely to suffer dreadfully ; and the font would have been to them like the watery ordeal of former times, and, indeed, a test of the reality of their religion ! One has hardly patience to hear the arguments of many Baptists ; and yet, being broached with confidence, and believed with implicit- ness, must be noticed in strictures of this nature. IV. The preceding remarks introduce another, which is, that our opponents, in numerous cases, display a great want of prudence in the mode of their immersions ; and this arising from no avowed prescription as to the precise administrations complained of. The conservative measures often adopted, without scriptural precedents, show that they are not tied to any one unyielding scheme, and that some protective methods might be always devised. — We say, then, that for ministers, perhaps of delicate constitutions, to read, pray, and preach, till bathed with perspiration, and immediately to descend into the cold water and stand there half an hour, is both imprudent and unnecessary, as means might be always contrived to prevent such danger- ous transitions. — To immerse people in the depth of win- ter, in cold water, and in the open air, can never be abso- lutely requisite, as the ceremony might be deferred till summer, or water sufficient for such a dipping might be easily warmed. — To dip people in a river, and send them home in their wet clothes, is highly reprehensible. And though such a practice may not be very common, the fol- lowing cases are well authenticated : A minister's daughter was recently dipped in an adjoining county, and, after the ceremony, had to walk, with all the impediments of wet clothes about her legs, a quarter of a mile before she could change a single garment. In the same neighbourhood, several persons were taken five miles in a cart to be im- mersed, and after the ceremony, without changing a single article of dress, were conveyed home in the same vehicle. Is this prudent or necessary ? Is it not a cruel bravado of courage, and a sinful tempting of danger — to display the hardihood of their faitlt? — How much more praiseworthy L 1 J 402 THE DANGER OF DIPPING was tlie conduct of a Baptist deacon, v/ho lately, without the minister's knowledge, threw a bucket or two of boiling water into the font previous to an immersion ? And though the element was not miraculously warmed, as the astonished minister unwittingly proclaimed, the deacon showed his good feeling, and acted like the angel at the pool of Be- thesda (John v. 4), to the comfort of his pastor and friends. If our opponents are determined to continue their unscrip- tural practice of dipping, they should carefully avoid sport- ing with human health and existence. V. We would again remind you, that we by no means intend to compromise truth, by exhibiting the dangers of holding it. When the path of duty is plain, we are to walk in it, regardless of consequences, which are to be left with God. Nor shall we refer to the facts before us, as demon- strative proofs that immersion-baptism is not scriptural. Many duties are enjoined in the Word of God which, un- der certain circumstances, remotely and indirectly involve considerable risk ; but being unequivocally commanded, we have no deliberate choice how to act, nor any ground for receding, though obliged to take our lives "in our hand and to suffer the loss of all things, even of existence it- self. Having shown, we presume to your satisfaction, that immersion-baptism is not inculcated by precept nor exhi- bited in apostolic example, or, in other words, that it is not scriptural, we adduce the dangers of being dipped, in reply to the suggestions of our opponents — as an indirect evi- dence that such a method was not likely to be imposed by the Author of our religion — and to show that the sooner it is abolished the better : or, to employ the reasoning of Mr. Booth, 'were it evinced that infants [or adults] cannot bear ' plunging, without the hazard of health and of life ; it ' would only be a presumptive argument [and this it would ' be] against their claim to the ordinance ; and the greater ' the danger, the stronger the presumption.'' — It may, in- deed, be recognized as an invariable rule in the divine pro- 1 Vol. i. p. 311. IN' MANY CASES. 403 cedure, that when the Redeemer calls his people to some dangerous enterprise, or to suffer on account of professing the gospel, he has not only adequate reasons for it, but such as he clearly discovers to them for their encouragement and support. In other cases, it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to the apostles being assembled in council at Je- rusalem, to lay upon believers no other burden than things absolutely necessary, (Acts xv. 2, 25, 28.) To apply this to the case before us : — If immersion be really a cross, in- convenient and dangerous, and is sometimes running the ' hazard of instant death,' where are the clear and adequate reasons for undergoing it ? It is allowed by most of our opponents themselves, that it is not 'necessary to salva- ' tion ' — that a credible profession of faith may be made without it — that it adds nothing to the real happiness or piety of the individual — that it does no good to those that are without — in fact, that it is a needless exposure of the church — and stands, therefore, in opposition to all the known rules of divine Providence. It is putting a yoke on the neck of the saints, which is of no apparent advantage to themselves, the church, or the world. VI. It is proper here to observe, that instances of danger and disease connected with dipping are not in general easily got at. The victims of immersion are interested in keeping their afldictions a secret — since an exposure w^ould subject them to observations and jeers from their irreligious neighbours. The denomination at large is also interested in covering up the matter — since the development might be injurious to their communion. Hence other causes are as- signed to account for the consequences which too often follow the administration of this rite among our opponents. Indeed, to have half the cases known, which, we hesitate not to say, certainly occur, would be a death-blow to their system. — If we can disclose a few well-attested facts to the point, and exhibit them as specimens of all the rest, you can require no more to enter into, and to feel the force of, the argument now pressed upon your attention. Should it 404 THE DANGER OF DIPPING be thouglit more instances ought to be offered than we are about to present, we can confidently state that they are available in considerable numbers. Our opponents have stated several cures arising from immersion, and have assumed that dipping was the cause of such amended health. Now, on their own principles, we of course may reason, that if a person in health is dip- ped into cold water, and, from that time, becomes ill, this illness was the consequence of such a dipping ; or, if after this illness, and in the space of a few weeks, he dies, that the dipping was the cause of his death. This is the way a jury would reason — it is the way our opponents judge in the reversed argument — and as they would conclude, if, after sprinkling several people, they were immediately at- tacked with erysipelas or apoplexy — or, if a person is un- well, and, after being immersed, becomes worse and dies, we may justly conclude that death was, at least, accelerated by it. On this ground they derive, what they call, an ar- gument in support of their scheme, and, if our cases are equally authentic, we shall not be subject to reproof for standing and reasoning on a similar basis. VII. We shall now proceed to notice the dangers of immersion. These may be considered, as apprehended, temporary and fatal. I. Danger is often apprehended. — That this is the fact we have previously asserted ; and, from our own knowledge, and perhaps some present, from their own feelings, can fully testify. We could name Baptists who never submit to this ceremony, through a dread of the operation and fear of the consequences — who deprive themselves of commu- nion with the church, and of all membership in the so- ciety, through this apprehension alone. How many Baptist ministers, while able to preach, visit the sick, administer the Lord's Supper, and the like, are afraid, especially under certain circumstances, to baptize their converts? It is well observed by an opponent, that, ' in this country, bathing is ' not considered, except by a few individuals, as an enjoy- IN MANY CASES. 40t5 ' ment, and many think of it with reluctance.'^ — And if this be the case with bathing in the Summer, under all the favourable circumstances usually concurring to render such an operation pleasant — what reluctance must most people feel to be dipped by a second person, in cold weather, and before a gazing, and perhaps ungodly, congregation? — 'I admit,' says Mr. Pengilly, that 'immersion is more ' troublesome and inconvenient, than the usual mode of ' sprinkling ; and quite a cross to submit to it.'- Another Baptist remarks, ' there are persons of weak nerves and ' much hysterical excitability ; and there are some who 'possess, so to speak, a kind of hydrophobic timidity;' to whom a public dipping before ' a staring (perhaps a pro- ' fane) multitude,' must be dreadful. ^ Hence it is, as one of their own poets has said, in respect of those who ap- proach the baptismal font, they — ' With trembling steps attend, 'Oppressed with fears of various kind.'-* Or, to employ the language of Dr. Watts, with a verbal alteration — ' But titn'rous mortals start and shrink, ' To tempt this narrow sea ; 'And linger, shiv'ring on the brink, ' And fear to launch awa)'.' They feel, as Dr. Ryland justly remarks, that ' they are ' about to be immersed in that element, beneath which, if 'they were to continue a short time, death must ensue; '^ and not knowing positively how long they shall have to continue, they feel a little backward in being put beneath at all. Observe, also, the many encouraging sentences dropped by the minister at the baptistry, to inspire the timid with confidence — such as ' Fear not to descend into * this watery grave : you will soon emerge from thence ; ' ^ ■ Rob. p. 50. 2 i>. 94. 3 Lect. on B.-.pt. by Evans, &c. j). 128. ^ Fellow's Ilj-mns, p. G7. 5 P. 27. Ryland,p. 31. 406 THE DANGER OF DIPPING and words of strength are put into their mouths and echoed by the initiated audience — ' We will no longer trembling stand, ' But boldly plunge beneath the flood.' i But let US relate a couple of facts already before the public. ' A certain pious female, in a dangerous state of health, and ' deeply impressed with the conviction that she should not ' live long, requested that she might partake of the Lord's ' Supper with a Baptist communion. The answer was, No ' — unless she would be immersed. To which she replied, ' that I cannot possibly do. I can scarcely walk — the shock ' would be too great for ray poor body — therefore, if you ' will not suffer me to receive the sacrament without im- ' mersion, the responsibility rests with you.'- 'Another lady, far advanced in the family-way, had a ' deep impression that she should not survive her confine- ' ment, and requested that she might receive the sacrament ' of the Lord's Supper — but was answered, as in the pre- ' ceding case, not unless she would be first immersed. To ' which she replied, that, I believe, would be m,y death and ' the death of the infant, and since you compel me to die ' in the neglect of a commandment in which all Christians * are agreed, see that you answer for it.'^ To the above cases may be added the following : A re- spectable Baptist minister recently informed a gentleman of our acquaintance, 'that he had lately admitted into his ' church an aged and infirm man, without baptizing him at ' all; because it was feared that the operation might have ' been of considerable injury to his health! ' Here there is certainly more charity, but less consistency than in the foregoing instances. II. There is temporary danger. — That many people suffer materially from baptizing others, or from being bap- tized themselves, is a fact which few persons acquainted ' Fellow's Hymns, p. 60. 3 Scripture Reasons, &c. p. 124. ' Ibid. IN MANY CASES. 407 with the human constitution and the Baptist denomination Avill presume to doubt. Cases of this kind are frequently brought under our notice, notwithstanding all the efforts to hide them. Indeed, the precautions taken, on many occa- sions, are evidently founded on a knowledge that disease has often been the consequence of implicitly following what our brethren consider the practice of the primitive age. Such as warming the water, having fires in the vestry, giving the baptized spirits and water as soon as they are able to drink, the hurried manner of changing their wet dresses, the minister's wearing mud or boatmen's boots, or something answerable to them, with various other preventives of dis- ease. The very adoption of these measures implies, that accidents have ensued, since on no other ground could they rest their observance. To use umbrellas in a country where it never rained, would be no more inconsistent than for our opponents to guard against dangers which never occurred. "Whatever some theoretic Baptists may say respecting God's preserving his people in the path of duty, and that none ever suffered from being dipped, while it is contrary to fact, also opposes the judgment of well-taught practitioners, whose precautions fully develop their sentiments on this subject. But let us apply to facts, and give one respecting the baptized and another respecting the baptizer ; these will be sufficient as specimens : if more cases are needed to es- tablish our position, they are easily forthcoming: — 'A young woman was dipped a short time since with * every possible care. The effect, however, was an imme- ' diate imflammation of the throat, which placed her life for ' a time in very critical circumstances. The Baptist friends ' provided her with medicine, gruel, and other necessaries, ' in a very kind, though a very snug manner. She was ill * a considerable while, but ultimately recovered.' This case is well authenticated. The other, to be mentioned, is equally so : — ' The Rev. Mr. P., of W,, preached a sermon in his * own chapel, prior to baptizing two or three persons. Being 408 THE DANGER OF DIPPING ' somewhat animated, as our brethren mostly are on such ' occasions, he was thrown into a great perspiration. He * then descended from the pulpit and entered the baptistry, ' where he stood a considerable while up to the knees in * water. A surgeon present declared that he expected his ' death would be the effect of his imprudence. The folks 'being dipped, the minister came up out of the water, ' shifted his clothes, retired to his house, about half-a-mile ' distant, was taken ill, went to bed, and his life was in im- ' minent danger for several weeks — and, for three months, ' he was unable to attend on the work of the ministry.' Here an observation suggested by the last recital should be made. The method commonly pursued by our oppo- nents, of one preaching and another baptizing, in order to avoid the probable evil consequences on the health of the officiator, is a precaution of which we read not a word in the holy writings. He that preached in the days of Christ and immediately after, had no sooner by his appeals in- duced the people to submit to baptism, than he himself baptized them. Though his discourse were long, his mind animated, his body heated, his audience large, and the weather unfavourable, there was no intermediate delay, nor were other persons appointed to the work of dipping. John preached and baptized — the Saviour sent his disciples to preach and baptize — and this system was invariably adopted — and yet we discover no instance of the preacher's suffering from the administration as then performed — nor of the chills, sore throats, or the like, of the baptized, who, in heated and almost suffocated crowds, listened to the ser- mon, and were baptized immediately after it. A plausible argument surely, that the mode of the primitive church and that of our opponents differ essentially from each other. III. There are fatal consequences. — We shall select those on which an implicit reliance can be placed, in respect both of the fact and the induction from it. Y/e have heard of many more, well authenticated, and on the narrators of which the fullest reliance might be placed. Those we shall IN MANY CASES. 409 mention are related by pious and intelligent ministers, who are doubtless ready to vouch for the truth of their reports. We shall notice those only in which the connexion between dipping and death is clearly discovered ; for instances may arise where a person is immersed and dies shortly after, and yet the link of the chain which unites these events may not be discernible. To illustrate what we mean — we will recite a case : — ' The Rev. Mr. R. of B. was sometime ago urging ' upon his hearers the necessity of an immediate conversion ' to God, and enforced the point by the following remark- ' able anecdote: — 'I very lately baptized a person on a ' Thursday, and he was a corpse on the following Sabbath.' Now, it does not appear whether this person was in dying circumstances when dipped, or whether he died from some accident on the Lord's Day, or whether his death was caused or accelerated by the operation on the Thursday. Our conjecture would lead us to the last conclusion ; but still it is only conjecture. The instances we shall cite are conclusive — at least as much so as those we read of in the works of our opponents. 1. The Rev. Mr. W. says, 'my friend Mr. G. took cold * by immersion, and was brought into a consumption, of ' which he died. I then endeavoured, with all my soul, to ' drown my convictions by overpowering the evidence with ' the advice : We must not say it was so, for it will bring ' disgrace upon the ways of God. But I have been com- ' pelled to alter my opinion [as a Baptist minister] and of ' course my practice.' ^ 2. The Rev. Mr. R., late of S., relates that 'a young ' woman, resident in the same town, was persuaded to be ' baptized by immersion — to which she consented. The ' time was fixed without her knowledge, and she under- ' went the ceremony. The consequence was, that she took ' a violent chill, was seized with shivering fits, and in eight ' and forty hours was a corpse.' 3. The Rev. Mr. F., of L., and other ministers, relate ' Scriiiture Reasons, &:c. p. 124. M m 410 THE DAKGER OF DIPPING ' that a gentleman was immersed a short time ago at P. ' He was taken out of the water, staggered back into the ' vestry, and dropped dead in the place, of an apopletic fit. ' A jury sat over his body on the spot, and two eminent ' physicians gave it as their decided opinion that his death ' was caused by a rush of blood to the head, in conse- ' quence of dipping his feet and legs into the cold water. ' The jury were of the same opinion and returned a verdict ' accordingly. 4. The Rev. Mr. J. W. B., of W., says, that 'a young ' woman at C. N., was induced, by the arguments of the ' Baptists, to be immersed. She was perfectly well before, ' but immediately after was taken dangerously ill, went into ' a consumption, and in the space of a few months expired.' 5. The Rev. Mr. L., late of W., relates the following melancholy event : — 'A young woman was lately baptized ' in that place, by immersion, the consequence was an im- ' mediate illness, of which she died in about a fortnight after, ' to the great grief of her relatives and the sad mortification ' of the Baptists.' 6. The Rev. Mr. J., of A., mentioned a similar catas- trophe, which lately occured in the town where he resides : ' A young female was dipped into cold water by the Bap- ' tist minister, from which she took a severe chill, and, in ' the space of a very few Aveeks, gave up the ghost.' VIII. On these well attested though melancholy rela- tions, few comments are •.•3quisite— your own reflections will supply every deficiency of the speaker. This is certain, that dangers apprehended, temporary, and fatal, are the frequent precursors and attendants of the system we are opposing, and which our respected brethren, in the face of all these facts, maintain with so much eloquence and zeal. The inference is easy and natural — that unless we have the most decided and unquestionable proof that immersion baptism was not only practised in the first Christian churches, but of its being now and ever imperative on all believers of all climates, constitutions, ages, and circumstances, we ought not to sub- IX MANY CASES. 411 niit to it ourselves nor countenance tlie method in others. That it was not the practice of the first churches we presume to have convinced you — that it was not to be observed in ai'ter-times we also think has been made apparent, and that it is not obligatory on us, we consider fully established. To be immersed in baptism, therefore, is not only unscriptural, but flying needlessly in the face of danger — exposing our health and lives, through a zeal for God without a proper knowledge of his word. To enlarge on the medicinal advantages of dipping, as an evidence in favour of immersion baptism, is perfectly in- conclusive. A few people might, by the fright of a plunge, be benefitted under some very peculiar circumstances — but the question is, what are the legitimate tendencies of dip- ping all kinds and degrees of persons, at all seasons of the year — people nursad in a closet and scarcely ever exposed before to wet feet or a pelting shower? We say, most decidedly pernicious. The order of nature may indeed be reversed in particular cases — a dose of poison might be re- ceived into a disordered stomach and cure it — the alarm of a fire might raise a paralytic from his couch and restore him to health — and so might a plunge into a baptistry. But these results would be accidental and unexpected — and such as were never contemplated by the parties — and when ef- fected, have been deemed almost miraculous — and retailed by Baptists as a wonderful intervention of heaven, rendering their font a second Bethesda! When we talk of the results of an operation, they are such, as from past experience, we are led to anticipate in future. These, as our recitals show, are adverse, to the scheme of our opponents, and prove that it was unlikely to have been instituted by Jesus Christ. IX. We shall conclude the present section by meeting the probable or actual objections of the Baptists, to the above species of argument, against their mode of baptizing. I. Our opponents cannot justly complain of our adopting this kind of argument against them ; - they led the way, they rendered this line of reasoning unavoidable, and, of course. 412 THE DANGER OF DIPPING should honourably bear with it. And yet the inconsistencies of some people are egregious ! A person debating on the subject adduced the case of a woman, who, he said, had been materially benefited by immersion, as an argument that Christ very probably instituted such a mode. However, when this was rebutted by a narrative of accidents and deaths, this same person was almost in a blaze, denouncing the declaration as a most unjust and iniquitous method of reasoning on the subject. Indeed, throughout the whole of this investigation our train of argumentation has been inva- riably directed by the method pursued on the opposite side. (2.) Should it be objected that the instances of accident adduced are from Pedobaptists, and ought to be received with suspicion ; we reply that Baptists were not likely to send the preacher narratives of events which operate so power- fully against their own avowed principles. It is, however, no uncommon thing to find open-minded Baptists sometimes conceding the existence of such cases as are now enume- rated. Their writings broadly insinuate the same evils, and their precautions and contrivances place their opinions on this point beyond controversy. We have, however, the best authority available — ministers of religion, whose characters and office stand as pledges of their veracity. One instance we have noticed, was published by a minister on whose mind the circumstance narrated made such a powerful im- pression as to lead him to review the controversy and re- linquish connexion with the Baptist denomination. Nor should it be forgotten, that the cures and benefits said to arise from immersion, and which our opponents would have us believe to be valid evidence in favour of their scheme, are related by themselves and not by us. Consequently they cannot reasonably object to the source of our evidence while they wish us to believe their own. (3.) Should it be added that believers, and especially ministers, have been exposed to dangers and death through publicly professing and faithfully promulgating the gospel ; and that, therefore, our argument is void of validity : — we IN MANY CASES. 413 may remark, that an important fact is quite overlooked in tliis rejoinder. The ills experienced by Christians, in pro- fessing and extending religion, arise, exclusively, from the enemies of the truth acting under the influence of the devil, and not from the legitimate operation of their principles and professions. But the dangers of immersion arise en- tirely from the simple administration of the ordinance, without the smallest interference of adversaries on the mode of its performance. So that there is not the shadow of a fair parallel in the supposed neutralizing cases ; nor is our argument at all affected by the allusion. It is here observable, that when our Lord sent his disciples to preach the gospel, he forewarned them of dangers in consequence of their engagements; (Matt. x. 16-22) but he never once intimated that evils would befal them in administering the sacraments he had instituted ; nor, in fact, do we ever read that their enemies persecuted them while they were thus employed. We do not say such a case never occured, but it is certainly not mentioned. (4.) But it is further remarked, that many people have suffered in performing their acknowledged duties, when the enemies of the Church have conduced nothing to their affl.ic- tions. For example, they have met with accidents and dis- eases in going to, and in returning from, places of worship, or while in the house of God, or while crossing the seas to preach to the heathen. Now let it be noticed — I. That in properly and prudently performing these ad- mitted obligations, no danger is necessarily involved, none is likely to ensue, nor is any seldom anticipated ; any more than from sitting by our fire side, reposing on our beds, or following some easy and healthful occupation. This, how- ever, cannot be safely averred of an entire immersion in cold water, by all descriptions of people, and at all seasons of the year ; the direct and natural tendency of which, in numerous cases in this climate, being the production of disease, if not of sudden dissolution. II. That the evils in the aforenamed cases almost inva- 414 THE DANGER OP DIPPING riably arise, not from simply performing the inculcated duties of religion ; but from doing tliem imprudently and incautiously — for instance, in not duly guarding against wet, cold, heat, sudden transitions, refractory cattle, incompetent coachmen, insecure buildings, unsafe ships, and bad navi- gation. But it is not from the bungling administration of dipping, or the imprudence of the dipper, that evils arise merely ; but from doing it at all ; though in the best pos- sible manner, and with all the advantages of modern con- trivance. To plunge a delicate person into cold water and to wet the body entirely, are the essence of the ceremony among our opponents, and the direct tendency is dangerous to human health in multitudes of cases— preservation, and not the injury, is the subject of surprise. III. That to render the cases analogous, so that one shall neutralize the other, it should be shown that Christ com- manded us to get wet in going to, and in returning from, places of worship ; to sit an hour and half in a damp, cold, or overheated church or chapel — to meet in a tottering building — to ride behind restive horses, driven. by a stupid coachman — and to cross the seas in crazy vessels, with an ignorant master and a refractory crew. In these cases, dangers might be fairly expected, just as from dipping a delicate body over head and ears in cold water. But these adventurous projects are not enjoined, and, therefore, the objection is invalid. IV. We would, however, reiterate a former observation, that the dangers of dipping would not weigh with us to the amount of a feather, were we convinced that this mode of baptizing had been prescribed by the Son of God. And those who contend that the cross of submersion is the chief, if not the sole impediment in our way to the font, do, un- questionably, misunderstand or falsely represent those great principles of obedience to the will of heaven, by which, as a body, the evangelical Pedobaptists have been hitherto influenced — at least, we can fully avouch for the denomi- nation to which we have the happiness and honour to be- IN MANY CASES. 41.5 long, tliat were tliey to see the mode of their opponents to be scriptural, they would submit to it without the least scruple or delay. X. Upon the whole we may fairly come to the conclu- sion, that the institution of a rite which directly endangers the lives of believers, was not likely to have been appointed by Christ, to be of universal and perpetual obligation — that he did not enjoin such a ceremony, we conceive we have, from a diligent consideration of the holy oracles, fully esta- blished — that the mode observed in the apostolic age was not dipping, plunging, or applying the person to the ele- ment — but pouring, sprinkling, or applying the element to the person — that the mode to be scriptural and valid, must be performed in this manner in the present day, unless our opponents can show substantial reasons for its alteration — and, finally, that the argument in favour of dipping derived from its advantages, is fairly met by the foregoing proofs of its frequently injuring the health of mankind. CONCLUSION. In bringing these discourses to a close, we beg to make a few concise observations. I.. JVe shall offer a few remarks respecting the manner in which we have conducted this investigation. I. We have been as concise as the nature of the subject would fairly admit — perhaps have, in some parts, injured the strength of our positions by a too great condensation of the arguments. With all this brevity, however, we are not aware of having omitted a single point of importance on either side of the question. Whatever our opponents have said, in favour of immersion, has been clearly stated, and few answers, adduced by Pedobaptists, in support of pour- 41G CONCLUSION. ing or sprinkling, have been overlooked. We have pre- sented you with a tolerably correct epitome of the debate on the Mode of Baptism. II. Though many things have been advanced that may be considered offensive by our opponents, we can assure them that nothing has been said which we do not consider fair and valid argument and relative to the subject. On the other side, all is brought forward, v/hich immediately or re- motely makes for their doctrine ; and surely offence cannot be taken, if we conscientiously do the same. We should have acted unfaithfully in this dispute, if a single argument we have adduced had been kept out of sight. At all events, those who treat the affusion of infants with so much con- tempt, and oft times with asperity — who ridicule our prac- tice as childish and unmeaning — will have no reason, con- sistent with their own conduct, to condemn any kind of treatment from Pedobaptists. III. We can most sincerely aver, that, in arguing this point, we are actuated by no disposition unfriendly toward the Baptists. We do regard them with unfeigned affection as the children of God ; and if any expression has been dropped, which might indicate a different feeling, we are sorry for it ; and hope our regrets will be construed into an ample apology. We debate with their principles, and seek only to correct an error, which, we imagine, they have fallen into. For this, we rather merit their thanks than de- serve their censure. We have been candid and fearless in our statements and deductions — openly avowed our inten- tion — and assiduously laboured to carry it into effect. We despise any thing like manoeuvring in matters involving our religious principles. IV. In the diversified methods of contemplating and ar- guing the numerous topics which have come under our notice, not a species of debate has been adopted, for which our opponents have not afforded us ample precedents. Whether we have had recourse to history — classics — de- duction — concession — Greek — Hebrew — Latin — or Eng- COXCLl'SIOX. '1 1 7 lish — fathers — utility — inutility — or the like — we have either shown you, or might have shown you, from the principle authors on the other side, that such weapons are used by themselves, or that the character of tlieir reasonings obliged us to employ them. V. "NVe have been careful to avoid mis-stating the practice and sentiments of the Baptists, or to take any unfair advan- tage of their remarks. As our dispute is not with any one individual but with the system of our brethren, as pour- trayed in their writings, we have not been led into any thing like personalities ; nor have we thought it worth our while to pay any regard to many things which too often fill the pages of polemical treatises. Our object has been to seize upon our opponents' arguments and objections, and to examine them to the best of our ability — to show what was not relative to the subject, and what was invalid. It is well known that, in most controversies, much is frequently introduced having nothing in reality to do with the ques- tion at issue — of which Dr. Cox has given us a curious ex- ample, in devoting two-and-twenty octavo pages in com- batting an etymological conjecture of Mr. Ewing, on which he professedly lays not the smallest weight in the course of his philological arguments. ^ VI. "With respect to the plan of the work, and the style we have adopted, we would merely say, that they were the best we could devise and the simplest we could employ. We are aware that two or three sections in the latter part might have been placed in the former — and that many things said in the first might as well have been deferred till the second. But to divide the work as near as might be into equal divi- sions, and to render the arguments increasingly interest- ing, we deemed our present arrangement the best. Repe- titions will have been observed, but they were unavoidable; and the composition was intended to convey arguments, rather than display itself. II. TVe shall hriefiy recapitulate the arguments adduced ' Cox, p. 13-31; Ewing, p. 30. 418 CONCLUSION. in these discourses to establish our position. These may be classed under two heads — first, such as overturn the exclu- sive system of our opponents — and, secondly, such as main- tain our own. I. With regard to the former, we have endeavoured to show you that all our antagonists have said respecting the natural conclusions of common readers — the concessions of numerous Pedobaptists — the history and practice of the Christian church — the meaning of the Greek word baptize — the import of certain Greek prepositions — the circumstances of the first baptisms — and certain allusions to this scripture rite — by no means prove their point. We have also shown that all the parade about scripture precept and apostolical example, amounts to nothing like tangible evidence. We have proved likewise that their writers are at issue among themselves on every material principle of this inquiry; and that, from the various diflficulties and dangers attending their mode, we have, a priori, evidence that immersion- baptism is unscriptural and improper. Whether the force of the reasonings has satisfied all your minds, it is not for us to determine — to the preacher, it is entirely conclusive. II. In establishing our own position. That pouring, sprinkling, or applying the element to the subject, is exclu- sively Christian baptism, we have shown — that this action is in accordance with the frequent use of the verb baptize — that the mode of ministerial baptism among the Jews, was only sprinkling or pouring — that the instances of the New Testament baptisms, in which the mode of administration is at all intimated, support the idea of pouring or aspersion — that the vast multitudes baptized by John, and by our Lord's disciples, on the day of Pentecost and subsequently, must have received the rite in this manner. The mode of baptism by the Holy Ghost was always by coming to or upon the persons baptized. We have, as said before, adduced the dangers and difficulties of immersion as auxiliary evidence in defence of our sentiment. Our assumption wasthat the original mode of baptism could not be discovered by the coNCLUsioy. 419 import of isolated terms, but by the circumstances of its administration. These we have extensively investigated, and shown from evidence, anterior and collateral, that dip- ping one another was never practised, and that pouring or sprinkling was the only mode observed formerly and is the only one valid now. III. Deductions from the u'liole discourse: — I. V,'e come now to the conclusion that immersing, dip- ping, or plunging one another is not christian baptism at all — and that those -who have not received this sacrament by pouring or aspersion, are yet unbaptized. That our oppo- jients may not regard this inference as uncharitable, however they may deem it unscriptural, we have only to observe that this is precisely their assumption with respect to Pedobap- tists. A few citations will prove this declaration. — Mr. Booth says, ' it appears to us, on the most deliberate in- ' quiry, that immersion is not a mere circumstance or mode ' of baptism, but essential to the ordinance — so that, in our 'judgment, he who is not immersed is not baptized.' ^ — Dr. Ryland says, ' Christian baptism is neither more nor 'less than an immersion of the whole body in water.' ^ — Dr. Gale says, ' Tertullian's maxim will hold true : They ' who are not duly baptized are certainly not baptized at 'all. '3 — Again, 'I think it is clear that nothing can be ' Christian baptism which varies from Christ's institution.''* — Mr. Dore says, 'baptism is properly administered by ira- 'mersiou and only by immersion.'^ — 'If,' says Dr. Jen- kins, ' the words of the apostle (Eph. iv. 5) are to be re- 'garded, there can be but one baptism, as but one faith. ' So that dipping or sprinkling must be the true. Both ' cannot be true.''' — Mr. J. Stennett contends, that ' bap- ' tism ought not to be administered more than once.'''' After these assertions they may controvert our arguments, but must not question our charity. Now, as we have proved ' Apolog}' Misc. W. p. 349. '^ C. S. p. 5. 3 Gale, p. C6. ■: lb. G7. = Intr. p. 13. « C. R. p. 12. See also Maclean, V. 1, p. 111. " P. 37. See Gibbs, 126. 420 CONCLUSION. that one person dipping another is not haptism, and that this rite was always performed by pouring or sprinkling, we must come to the conclusion that the Baptists are all wrong, or, in fact, are all unhaptized ; and ought, without delay, in order to fulfil all righteousness, to receive this sacrament by affusion or aspersion — and that whoever is induced by persuasion to be immersed, will submit to a rite that has no foundation in scripture, but is the mere invention of men, and ' a part of will worship,' IT. In closing these remarks, we beg to remind you that if it be of importance that water baptism should be scrip- turally administered, and that to comply with the injunc- tions of scripture is a duty we owe to God, of how much greater importance is it that we should be baptized or imbued with the Holy Ghost; without whose gracious influence all forms and ceremonies, however scriptural and proper, will avail us nothing in the day of judgment. Unless the Spirit be poured out upon us, and our hearts are regenerated by his energy, and our lives made conformable to his blessed will — unless we have sincere and saving faith in Christ, and holiness flowing from it, all our rites and sacraments will do us no real good. Let us never so occupy our thoughts and hearts about external ceremonies as to overlook or slight the internal operations of divine grace. Let us never give a secondary consideration to the renewal of our natures and moral sanctity of our conduct. While we contend for the faith once delivered to the saints, in the exhibition of signs and symbols, let us never forget that ' the thing signified, in- ' ward and spiritual grace,' must be the chief matter of in- vestigation and the supreme object of our research and prayers. May we be right in both — and, above all things, may ' our consciences be sprinkled from all dead works to ' serve the living and true God ! ' THE END. wixchester: warren, printer, high street.