# .^ .S3 /? 1c jQ. * «i*^. IE ^r h> . DL w •S, ri o S3- 5 « s CD c t* O bfl e\ •25 Eh < J> fc* 8 ~5> 3 «v. fe E ^ .*"> <■> M (0 ■ft ^s5 rt CO S< 3 o 2- % "O c s v* s nothing 13 to fear from investigation. I hope this work will be carefully and critically examined ; its errors detected ; its truths embraced; and may God grant that we may know the truth, and that the truth may make us free, that in the day of judgment both the writer and the readers may render their account with joy and not with grief. MODE OF BAPTISM, From the limited extent of human knowledge, and the different points of view in which the same sub- jects may be contemplated by different minds, it fol- lows of necessity that people differ in their opinions in regard to many things. In reference to the mode of baptism it is well known that much has been writ- ten and much said by way of controversy; some contending that immersion is so essential to the Christian baptism, that any, and every person that has not been immersed, however pious and godly his life may be in every other respect, must be excluded from what they call the table of the Lord. To all such they do virtually say: "Stand by thyself, I am holier than thou." There are others, possessing a les3 degree of charity, (or rather none at all,) who would have every unimmersed person excluded from the kingdom of God. And surely if they consider the mode of baptism of such vital importance, they would not think it right for me, or any other indi- vidual, to follow the ipse dixit of any man, or set of men; but to examine the subject according to our ability and opportunity, as each will have to render 15 sen account of himself to God. That baptism as a Christian duty is enjoined upon Christians under or- dinary circumstances, few, we think, would deny: but that immersion is essential to constitute a valid Christian baptism, is doubted by many. One party affirms ; the other denies. And while one contends that nothing less than immersion, or an entire plung- ing- under water is baptism ; the other contends that a person may be truly and scripturally baptized by effusion. In this controversy our only appeal should be to the Scriptures. And here, at the outset, I would say, that those who contend that immersion only, is baptism, to sustain their position, must do it, first, by the meaning of the word, or words used to denote the ordinance; or, secondly, by an express command; or, thirdly, by such circumstances as would show the utter impossibility of its having been administered in any other way. Should it be thought that it could be done by example, I should say it might, if there was proof that any one was baptized expressly for an example, and that example was known to be immersion. But it is denied that any one ever was baptized for an example, or that immersion was ever practised by John the Baptist, or any of the Apostles. But it may be asked, "can we not prove several cases of immersion?" We answer yes ! Immersion can be proved by refering to Noah's flood, or the overwhelming of the Egyp- 16 tians in tile red sea; but these were not cases of baptism ; nor do we think that any one can be found who would like to be immersed under similar cir- cumstances. We again say, if immersion is sustained at all ; it must be done by the meaning of the word, by an express command, or by attending circumstances. In order to prove the mode of baptism by the mean- ing of the word, such a word must be used to denote the ordinance as has invariably one meaning. And here I would remark that words are properly divid- ed into three classes : univocal, equivocal, and sy- nonymous. Univocal words are always used in the same sense, and can be used in no other ; such as genus, electricity, individuality. Equivocal words are such as are employed in different senses, as head board, post, &c. Words are synonymous when they both may with propriety be applied to the same thing as wave and billow, dwelling and habitation, &c. If we turn our attention to the word head, we rind that it may mean part of a nail, or of an animal, one of the divisions of a discourse, or the leader of a party, — Board, is used to signify a flat piece of wood a table, deck of a ship, a council, food, — Post, a messenger, a station, office, a piece of timber. Equi- vocal words, do not of themselves convey any definite meaning For instance we find on a piece of paper the word head • there being no other words used in 17 connection with it, we are utterly at a loss to ascertain its meaning. But let a person tell us when attempt ing to drive a nail he missed the head, it would not be difficult to understand him. Let a preacher say he would divide his subject into two, three, or four heads, we should understand him to mean so many divisions of his discourse. So the word board- when used in relation to different circumstances has its different meanings ; it is equally true in regard to all equivocal words, they have no definite meaning of themselves, and their meaning can be ascertained only by the relation which they sustain to other words, and by attending circumstances. Having proceeded thus far, and having fully estab- lished these important premises without the least fear of successful contradiction ; I shall make that use of them that I may deem proper in the in- vestigation of the subject before us. We now en- quire to which of these classes of words, the word baptism belongs. If it is an equivocal word and not confined to one meaning, all must agree that the word itself can never determine the manner of ad- ministering the ordinance. But there are those who from a recklessness of consequences or ignorance of language, will contend that baptism is not an equivo- cal word, that it is always used in the same sense, and that is immersion, or plunging. If this position be correct, if it is always used in the sense of im 18 mersion or plunging, then we may without doing violence to language or the true meaning of the wri- ters, substitute these terms for baptism in all those passages in which the word occurs. Let us try some of the examples given in the New Testament by this rule. The first to which we refer is found in Mat- thew hi. 11. "I indeed (baptize) that is immerse or plunge you with water; but he (Christ) shall im- merse or plunge you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire." Matthew xx. 22. " Are ye able to be (baptiz- ed) immersed or plunged with the immersion or plunging that I am immersed or plunged with." — Acts i. 5, " Ye shall be (baptized) immersed or plunged with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." 1 Corinthians x. 2, "And were all (baptized) im- mersed or plunged unto Moses in the cloud, and in the sea." Other examplesj-night be given, but these are sufficient to show in what a ridiculous attitude those place themselves who contend that baptism is synonymous with immersion or plunging. Unfor- tunately for the advocates of the immersion theory we have not only the utter senselessness of the ex- pression immersed with the Holy Ghost, and im- mersed with fire to set against them, but also the facts recorded by the inspired writers, are directly opposed to their whole system. It is said they were baptized with water, as well as with the Holy Ghost ; if therefore the meaning be, ye shall be plunged 19 into the water, it also means ye shall be plunged into the Holy Ghost ; but if the Holy Ghost was poured upon them when baptized with it, then it is absolute- ly certain that the water with which a person is bap. tized should be poured upon the person : unless the same word is used in different senses in the same sentence, which we think will not be contended for by our opponents. Should there be any person so destitute of common sense and common honesty as to say that the expression " baptized with water, and baptized with the Holy Ghost," means that although when you are baptized with the Spirit, it shall be poured upon you ; but when baptized with water it shall not be poured upon you, but you must be im- mersed, or plunged into it ; we deny the assertion, and demand proof. We therefore take the ground that " baptize with water" gives evidence that the water was applied to the person baptized, and when John says, Matth. hi. 11, and our Saviour Acts i. 5, "Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost ;" they both mean the Holy Ghost shall be poured upon you. Let a man be employed to paint a house ; one side he was to paint with red pamt, and the rest with yellow ; would he for a moment hesitate in regard to the manner of doing it? would he conclude that be- cause the materials with which"* he painted were different, that the manner of painting must therefore be different? would he not be thought beside him- 20 self if he should contend that although it was correct to apply the paint to the house on one side, yet the other could not be painted without immersino- it? — Apply this to the case before us ; John says, " I Da P" tize you with water but he (Christ) shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." The Scriptures make use of the following- language in reference to the gift of the Spirit. " This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel ; And it shall come to pass in the last days saith God, I will pour out of my spirit upon all flesh," &c. Acts ii. 16, 17. In the 33d verse, Peter says " having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear." Acts x. 44, 45, " While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the cir- cumcision, which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts xi. 15, 16., "And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning : Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said ; John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." Query; Did the pouring out of the Holy Ghost cause Peter to remember immersion : or did it call to his remem- brance, the fact that John baptized by pouring? — The word baptism then, so far from favoring the idea 21 of immersion, as used in the New Testament, proves the contrary to be its meaning. But lest it should be thought that these are all the passages in which the term is used in opposition to immersion, we will give a few more examples. Luke xi: 38, "And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he (Christ) had not first washed, (in the Greek, ebaptisthe, baptized,) before dinner;" will any person who is not biased by a preconceived opinion believe that the word baptism is here used in the sense of an entire immersion or plunging: for in that case he must have been plung- ed naked; changed his raiment, or sat at the table dripping wet. For my own part I can believe nei- ther without better evidence than I am at present in possession of. Another case in point is found in Mark vii: 4: "And when they come from the mar- ket, except they wash (Baptizontia, baptize) they eat not." Adam Clarke in commenting upon this pas- sage, says it may mean either to wash or to dip: giving us to understand however, that ten versions, viz : Codex Vaticanus, eight others, and Euthymius, have the word (rantisontia) sprinkle. It is therefore certain in this case, unless they plunged themselves, as before stated, that the word is used in a different sense from immersion. And many other things there be which they have received to hold, as the washing, [Bapiismous, baptisms.) of cups and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables. Adam Clarke re* 22 marks upon this passage: "As the (Baptismous. baptisms.) is applied to all these; and as it is contend- ed, that this word and the verb whence it is derived, signify dipping or immersion alone, its use in the above cases refutes that opinion; and shows that it was used, not only to express dipping or immersion, but also sprinkling and washing." The same au- thor in his note on Matth. iii: 6, enquires, "were the people dipped or sprinkled, for it is certain that Bapto and Baptizo mean both." He again says, "To say that sprinkling or aspersion is not gospel baptism, is as incorrect as to say that immersion is none." We should not have made these quotations had it not been asserted that A. Clarke, as well as all other critics of eminence had conceded the point that baptism signifies immersion only. Alexander Campbell in his debate with McCalla, page 1G7, says: "All Pro- testant and Catholic critics of eminence concede this point, that immersion is the meaning of baptism, and that it does not signify sprinkling or pouring." Then he adds " Our first argument in proof of the position that immersion is the only baptism is, that the word baptism, a Greek word, literally signifies immersion only, or what is equivalent to it, dipping or submerg- ing under water." As he, with all others who make such an assertion found their argument upon what we know to be false, their argument necessarily falls to the ground. Without conceding any thing in fa- 23 vor of immersion, we may say that all critics and lexicographers agree that immersion is one meaning of the term; with, the same degree of confidence however, we can say that not one of them will assert, (unless entirely under the influence of sectarian bigo- try,) that that, is its only meaning. We have already made quotations from Clarkejo show that the asser- tion is untrue, that all the learned agree that immer- sion is the only meaning of the word baptism. We would ask the reader to examine Grove's Lexicon, Calmet's Dictionary, Parkhurst and Ains worth, and also Ewing's C4reek and English Lexicon, with oth- ers; and then judge whether the learned do not say that sprinkling, or pouring, is one meaning cf the word as well as immersion. Wesley has frequently been quoted as favoring the idea of immersion ; noth- ing however, is more unfair. It is true, in the early part of his life; when in all probability he had not paid much attention to that subject, he seemed to fa- vor immersion as a proper mode, not because the Scriptures favored that view, but in obedience to the rubrick of the church of England; yet it is well Y € known to those who are not willingly ignorant, that after examining the subject thoroughly he favored the idea of sprinkling, or pouring, more than that of immersion. In his treatise on baptism, doctrinal tracts, page 253, he says, "baptism is performed by washing, dipping, or sprinkling the person, in the 24 name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, who is here- by devoted to the ever blessed Trinity. I say by wash- ing, dipping, or sprinkling: because it is not deter- mined in Scripture, in which of these ways it shall be done, neither by express precept, nor by any such example as clearly proves it; nor by the force and meaning of the word baptize." He also says, on the same page, that a it cannot be certainly proved from Scripture, (and we think no one will contend that it can be uncertainly proved) that even John's (baptism) was performed by dipping." — "Nor can it be proved that the baptism of our Savior, or that administered by his disciples was by immersion. No, nor that of the eunuch baptized by Philip;" and on the 250th page r he says, "to sum up all, the manner of baptizing (whether by dipping or sprinkling) is not determined in Scripture. Thre is no command for one rather than the other. There is no example from which we can conclude for dipping, rather than sprinkling. There are probable examples of both; and both arc equally contained in the natural meaning of the word." Observe, he says both me equally contained in the nat- ural meaning of the word. We have not given the opinion of these men as proof of the point at issue; but to show the unfairness of those who quote them as sustaining immersion only, as the mode of bap- tism. It is frequently the case that the concessions of Poedo-baptists are much relied upon to sus~ 25 tain the immersion theory. I do not know but some immersionists depend more upon such concessions than upon the sacred oracles ; and well they may, for undoubtedly they are very often more in their favor than the word of God will warrant. I do not believe however, that they are quoted fairly when referred to in proof that immersion is the only baptism. We would say, however, that if any one of those who practise sprinkling-, or pouring for baptism, shouid at the same time acknowledge that immersion is the only meaning of the word baptize; that his statement could not be relied upon inasmuch as his practice contra- dicts his profession, and he thereby gives evidence that he is morally dishonest. I am far from believ- ing this to be the case ; and think the dishonesty is on the part of those Avho quote them to sustain that sentiment. We admit that many, if not the most of them do agree that dipping is one meaning of the word, not conceding however, that it does not mean sprinkle or pour. It is frequently urged as a very convincing argument, that while th ose who practise effusion confess that immersion also may be "baptism, the immersionist on the other hand is so confident that he is right, and that every one who does not agree with him is wrong, he will make no such concession : but pronounces every person unbap- tized who has not been immersed. I must confess my inability to feel the force of this argument, while 26 there are so many anxious pull the mote out of their brother's eye, and regard not the beam in their own. Nor can I consider a man's confidence, evidence of the correctness of his opinion, while it is written, " the fool rageth and is confident." All we have to do with those who concede the point that immersion is the only baptism, and those who Avould sustain it by argu- ment : is to prove that their views of that subject are un- scriptural, and that they both are in error on that point. But why do the advocates of immersion depend so much upon such concessions 1 Is it not because er- ror has more influence upon their minds' than truth? Hear what their champion says in relation to this mat- ter: "Such monstrous errors, and misrepresentations of Paedo-Baptist writers, contributed much to making me a Baptist." These, gentle reader, are the words of Alexander Campbell. Debate with McCalla, page 305. And as misrepresentation and error, have had much influence in making them Baptists, they seem determined to walk by the same rule, and mind the same things. And yet those who are guilty of such "monstrous errors and misrepresentations," as they say, are the very persons whose testimony they rely upon to aid them in sustaining the immersion theory ; so that whenever they speak or write upon the subject of baptism, these individuals must be brought forward as the best of witnesses in the case. A. Campbell, in his debate with McCalla, page 277, says, "As we 27 always prefer, when it is practicable, to refute the glosses of Paedo-baptists by Paedo-baptists themselves, we shall transcribe McKnight's notes on this pas- sage." Yes, it is quite preferable in his opinion! — But why does he prefer it to plain scriptural facts? For this plain reason, the scriptural facts are against him. For my own part I cannot conceive how theo- logical truth can be better sustained, than by an appeal to the sacred oracles. Let those explain this matter, who prefer confuting one error with another. We must close our remarks on the first proposition of this subject, after giving one or two more quotations from the word of God to sustain the position that immersion is not the only meaning of baptism. In the book of Daniel, ch. iv, v. 33, we read ''his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles feathers, and his nails like birds claws;' The word translated wet, is {ebaphc) from bapto. Here was a baptism with dew: will any one contend that this was an immersion in dew? If so, let him recol- lect it was not an immersion for a moment only, for he was bapt^ed till his hairs were grown like eagles feathers, and his nails like birds claws. If this was a case of baptism by the descent of the dew, then the point is sustained that baptism is by effusion. If immersion is meant then the dew was collected in such a quantity as to admit of a literal burial, or im. mersion in it, which we think no one in his senses 28 will contend for. If any one can believe this, he is capable of believing any thing he may wish to believe. Rut his faith must go still farther ; he must believe he remained literally immersed, or buried in the dew, until his nails were grown like birds claws. The absurdity of such a belief must be obvious to all; yet nothing less than this can be meant, if immersion is the only mode of baptism. It is therefore clear that baptism is administered by effusion.. Alexander Campbell says, in his debate with McCalla, page 303, speaking of Nebuchadnezzar's baptism: " He slept upon the dewy grass, and was so completely moist- ened, as though immersed in water. . He was in the dew, overwhelmed with it as a person in a river." Now I think, whatever may be his opinion of this matter, that if a person should sleep during one night in a river, overwhelmad in it, or with it, that it would be very strange if he should be living in the morning. But according to his views he could do it night after night, until his nails were grown like birds claws, and life not become extinct. What will he not be- lieve and say, rather than admit (what was certaiuly the truth) that he was baptized by effusion, or the descent of the dew upon his body, and consequently that the Scripture recongizes aspersion as the mode of baptism. Revelation xix: 13 "And he was clothed in with a vesture dipped in blood : and his name is cal- led the Word of God." BcBcmmanon aimatL that 29 is, baptized or stained with blood. That baptism does not in this place signify plunging, is clear from two considerations: first, Christ is represented as a suc- cessful warrior, going forth upon a horse to smite the nations, it would scarcely be correct to suppose that the slain in battle were literally immersed in blood, much less that a conqueror should be buried in the blood of his enemies. His garment could only be stained or sprinkled with the blood which proceeded from the wounds of those who fell in battle. Sec- ondly, the prophecy of Isaiah, ch. lxiii: v. 1st and 4th inclusive, settles the matter without doubt. The cir- cumstances mentioned by the prophet show most con- clusively that he intended to set forth the same facts recorded Revelation xix. The prophet enquires, — " Who is this that cometh from Edom with dyed gar- ments from Bozrah? this that is glorious in his appa- rel, travelling in the greatness of his strength? I that speak in righteousness mighty to save. Where- fore art thou red in thine apparel, and thy garments like him that treadeth in the wine fat? I have trod- den the wine press alone, and of the people there was none with me, for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury ; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garment, and I will stain all my raiment. For the day of vengeance is in my heart, and the year of my redeemed is come." I do not sec how any person can read this prophecy, and 30 the facts recorded in the history of the fulfillment, and still contend that baptism is not performed by sprinkling. Should it be said that the prophet does not agree with the revelator, because the prophet says he had trodden the wine press alone, and of the people there was none with him, we reply, it is not said in revelation that the army was with him, but only that they followed him: nor did they use the sword, or come so near as to have their raiment bap- tized or sprinkled with the blood. The fact that our translators have rendered baptism in this place dip does not at all affect the case, or prove that it was an immersion, any more than the rendering of (emBaph. as) baptizeth, dippeth his hand with me in the dish, Matthew ch. xxvi: v. 23. proves that his hand was totally immersed or plunged into the dish, or liquid contained in it. This could only be a partial dipping and not an entire submersion, which must have been the case if baptism means immersion only. We would remark that the German translation has the word rendered sprinkle instead of dip. This is in perfect accordance with the facts prophesied of by Isaiah, — " Their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment." Alex- Campbell in the fourth edition, new version, appendix, page, 48, speaking of Luther's views of baptism says that Luther says " I would have those that are to be baptized, to be wholly dipped into the water, as 31 the word imports and the mystery does signify." Ac- cordly in his translation he styles John the Baptist, John the Dipper, or John the Immerser." Here Mr. C. asserts a most glaring untruth, in reference to the Lutheran translation ; an untruth, in which he can be detected hy any one who can read the German lan- guage. It is not so rendered by Luther in any case, which can be easily seen by refering to his transla- tion, and comparing it with a German dictionary. — A profane author, one who understood the Greek lan- guage well, viz. Homer, uses the term in the sense of staining or dying when he says a lake was bap- tized with the blood of a frog. Would it not be a strange performance to dip or immerse a lake in the •blood of a frog? Certainly not more so than to con- tend that to baptize, means only to immerse. We would now remark that the most zealous advocates for immersion have virtually conceded the point that baptism does not always mean immersion, by giving it other renderings. A. Campbell in his new translation, third edition, has twice, rendered the word wash, twice undergo, and once administer. — Mark vii. 4. Luke xi. 38— Mark x. 39— Acts xix. 4. [See note A.] Notwithstanding all this, he is so reckless of censequences he will still contend that immersion is its only meaning. This, however, is nothing more than we should expect from his form- er course, for although he may feel himself van" 32 quished he will not yield ; he will hold on to the last though he may feel in his heart that he is defeated- As evidence of the truth of this statement, we would refer the reader to the preface of his debate with M'. Calla, on the 10th page; he there confesses that he remembers to have been vanquished, Avhen arguing with an old lady : he says, " It is true I had some- thing to say, and held on stoutly to the last ; but I felt in my own heart that I was defeated ; and what mortified me no little was, that with all my philoso- phy and divinity, an old woman's common sense overpowered rae. !I Here is the most conclusive evidence of moral dishonesty, an unwillingness to yield to the force of argument, even when he felt in his own heart that he was defeated. And yet, gentle reader, this is the man who accuses almost the Avhole Poedo-baptist world with dishonesty. And this charge of dishon- esty, he prefers against them because they did not translate the Greek word Baptizo, immersion. But why did they not ? Certainly because they did not believe that to be its meaning. It would undoubted- ly be correct to translate it immersion, if the words were synonymous, but this is not the case ; if these words were of the same import, every baptism must not only be an immersion, but every immersion must be baptism. Who does not see the absurdity of the opinion that everything that has been immersed has 33 been baptized ? And this is not all ; every time they are immersed they are baptized. Some persons then, must have been baptized a thousand times ; and yet the apostle Paul has the temerity to say, we have "ut those who exercise this faith arc justified. In this sense then, repentance is necessary, inasmuch as without it no man can believe to the saving of the soul. It is no where said, except ye be baptized ye shall all likewise perish ! God commandeth all men every where to be baptized ! The unbaptized are treasuring up wrath against the day of wrath ! They were not baptized that 188 they might believe ! yet all this is said of repentance which gives evidence that repentance bears a rela- tion to that faith which justifies, that baptism does not : and is more closely connected with forgive- ness or remission of sins, than baptism, or any other external work performed by man. Indeed Peter, in placing repentance first, makes it of the greatest im- portance, and the Savior himself, considered the act of baptism as having so little to do with remission, that in giving the instruction (as recorded by Luke chap. xxiv. 46, 47.) leaves it entirely out of the ac- count. Hear his language^ " Thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day : and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." It is certain that the Savior in the use of this language, gave no coun- tenance to the sentiment that baptism alone was the act of turning to God, or that it formed any part of the condition of pardon ! But we do not wish to be understood that Peter misapprehended the Savior ; we believe he understood the principle upon which they were justified, far better than those whose prin- ciples we oppose have understood his language. We shall now appeal to Peter for an explanation of his own words, and every true christian will be thank- ful to God for the explanation given. This is record- ed in Acts xv. 7, 8, 9. " Men and brethren ye knoAV 189 how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God which knoweth the hearts bear them witness giving them the Holy Ghost even as he did unto us ; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." Here we have a full exposition of Peter's creed upon this point. He tells us that God had made choice of him that the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. Mark, he says they were to hear and believe. And God which knoweth the hearts bear them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost even as he did unto us ; recollect, it was not because they were baptized, but because of the state of their hearts. " And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith."' Alas for Campbellism ! If Peter believed baptism was the condition of pardon on the day of Pentecost, he has certainly changed his opinion and embraced orthodoxy. u But Peter, how dare you say that you preached the gospel to them, when you said not one word to them about being baptized for remission of sin; and especially how dare you say: ' ; To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name, Whosoever bclicccth in him shall receive remission of sins? Why did you wait until they were con- vened and received the Holy Ghost before you bap- tized them? And will you say too, that their hearts 190 were purified by faith? Did you not know that it Was not faith, but going- down into the water that obtains the remission of sin? Well, if you will have it that the Gentiles were purified by faith, will you not allow that the Jews were justified upon an- other principle, and that baptism was the condition of pardon to them?" No! He put no difference between us and them; for if one were justified by faith, and the other by baptism, there would have been a vast difference between us, God would be a repecter of persons; and moreover Paul would be convicted of heresy, for he says, "Seeing it is one God which shall justify the circumcision by faith and the unci r en incision through faith. And beside Paul has told us plainly that God has opened the door of faith to the Gentiles, so that however much it might gratify you, I shall not open a back door and let you in through baptism. Whatever then, you may think of the efficacy of baptism, I shall agree with Paul, that " God hath set forth Jesus Christ as a propitiation through faith in his blood to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past — that he might be just and the justiiief of him that believeth in Jesus." Rom. iii. 25, 2G. — Thus it is seen, that Peter is truly orthodox ; a firm believer in the doctrine of justification by faith, and not at all afraid to declare that all the prophets bear testimony to this truth that whosoever believeth in 191 Jesus shall receive remission of sins. That repen- tance should be considered as having a close connec- tion with their salvation is evident not only from the reasons before given, but in the 11th chapter of Acts 17, 13 verses it is said, "God gave them the like gift as he (]/i\ unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ." " Then hath God also to the Gentiles gran- ted repentance (els) unto life." Here is a death blow to Campbellism ! Here we are informed that it was repentance, and not baptism that was (eis) unto, or for life. All is here ascribed to repentance, that was before ascribed to both. Repentance has the same connection with life, that it had with the remission of sins ; the same word connects them, and the Jews themselves understood that the repen- tance was the condition of life or remission; and not the baptism, for they say, "Then hath God also, (that is to the one, as well as to the other,) granted repentance (eis) unto (or for) life. It is the same word in the Greek, and has the same meaning ; if one was for remission, so was the other, if one was unto remission so was the other. Again Peter tells us, Acts .v 31. "Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a prince and a Savior, for to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins." Here is indubitable testimony that repentance was of more avail in procuring forgiveness, than baptism. Had Peter said tp give baptism and forg'vjness to 192 Israel ; and in the other case had it read then hath God also to the Gentiles granted baptism unto life, If the Savior had said, There is joy in heaven among the angels over one sinner that is baptized. If Paul had said Godly sorrow worketh baptism (ei$) unto salvation not to be repented of, 2 Cor. vii. 10 instead of "repentance and forgiveness," "repentance unto life," and "repentance to salvation," Campbellism might have had some chance for its life, but it has now, none at all, unless it should be the beast that lived after receiving the deadly wound. We hope it will not be forgotten that it is the same word (eis) that is used in ail the before mentioned places. God hath " granted repentance (eis) unto life." " Godly sorrow worketh repentance (eis) to salvation." Re- pent and be baptized (eis) for the remission of sins. This word (eis) might have been rendered for in all these cases as well as in one. Then we should read granted repentance for life, repentance for salvation • to give repentance to Israel and remission of sins. Repentance then is a condition not for which, but without which no man can be saved, because the im- penitent heart is wholly unprepared to exercise that faith which unites us to Christ, and is called believ- ing with the heart (eis) unto righteousness. It is said of some they repented not that they might be- lieve. Hence repentance, and not laptkm wes for remission. 193 This was clearly expressed by the Savior, " Re- pentance and remission of sins was to be preached in his name among all nations beginning at Jerusa- lem." There it did begin, there repentance and remission, or repentance For remission was preach- ed ; they repented and believed, their hearts -?/ere purified by faith; Peter says God gavg them the like gift as he did unto us who believed" — "what was I, that I could withstand God?" How much better would rt be, if our Campbellite friends would be as submissive to Peter, as were the Jews; and confess that it was not baptism but repentance that God had granted (eis) unto or for life, they could then, with Paul, "testify both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ," Acts xx. 21, and say with him, "all that believe are justified." They would have no dispute with Peter, as the Jews had with John's disciples about purifying, but hold their peace, knowing that God purifies the heart by faith! In conclusion, we would say that the Jews addressed by Peter on the day of pentecost, either did, or did not believe in Christ before baptism. This will not be denied. If they did not believe, then their baptism so far from pleasing God was a sinful act; for "Without faith it is impossible to please God." *' AVhatsoever is not of faith is sin," (in all those cases where faith is required.) If on the other hand 13 m they did believe before baptism, then, were Timx jus- tified before baptism; for "all that believe arc justifi- ed." "Whosoever believeth that Jusus is the Christ is born of God." I am aware that Campbellites ob- ject to this; and tell us that believers are not justified until they can get their hands upon them and bap- tize them; arid that " baptism alone is that act of timing to God." But though they denounce all as heretics who will not come to them, — go down into the water, and let them plunge them under the wa- ter; I unhesitatingly confess "that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets." Acts xxiv. 14. Though all should be declared heretics who be- lieve that a man may receive pardon of sins without water, and without their aid, I freely acknowledge that I believe with Paul that " it is God that justifi- eth." — Rom. viii. 33. And a,3 it regards the means of justification, or the principle on which we receive pardon, that it is faith without works; for "to him that worketh net, but believeth on him that jus- tifieth the ungodly his faith is counted to him for righteousness." — Rom. iv. 5. I believe also that Goif does not justify (in the sense of pardon) on any other principle; for Paul says, "Seeing it is one God that shall justify the circumcision by faith, and the circumcision through faith" "Without faith il 195 is impossible to please God." And now lit me ask if it would not be far easier to prove thai people were destroyed by immersion, than that they went to heaven by that means? If immersion alone. is the act of turning to God, how many turned to God when he brought in the flood upon the world of the ungodly % How many turned to God when the Egyptian host were overwhelmed in the waters of the lied Sea? And what a turning there~must have been, when the legion of devils entered into the herd of swine and urged them with all possible speed into the water? How many sins must have been forgiven in the cases above alluded to, if Camp- bcllism be true, which says, " It is not our faith in God's promise of remission, but our going down into the water that obtains the remission of sins." We have now examined the case of the con- version of the Jews on the day of Pentecost; and find that it not only docs not favor the system of our opponents, but is entirely opposed to it. And so for- cibly does the truth of this appear, that A. C. is constrained to confess it. Christianity Restored, p. 219. "God by a stupendous display of Spiritual gifts, called the baptism of the Help Spirit, had welcomed the first fruits of the Jews into his king- dom, before any one of the Jews had been immersed into the Lord Jesus. And as Peter explains this matter in Cornelius' c?.se, it appears that God deter- 196 mined to make no difference between the Jews and Gentiles in receiving them into his kingdom." Well done Alexander! You have now "witnessed a good confession before many witnesses," in saying that God received both Jews and Gentiles into his kingdom before they had been immersed. On the 245 page you tell us, " God has one way of bestow- ing every thing." What a pity you should so soon contradict yourself, and the truth of God, by saying that baptism was the only door of entrance into the kingdom of God, SAUL'S BAPTISM. We now proceed to enquire the meaning of Acts xxii. 16. " Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Here it is supposed there is proof of baptism for remission of sins, or in other words, that baptism was the means of pardon. We have before us a com- pound sentence, composed of three simple sentences. The first thing to be attended to, was to "arise;" the second,'to " be baptized ;" the third, " wash away thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord." By ta- king this view of the subject it will be seen by every intelligent person that the act of baptism had no more to do with washing away sin, than the act of arising] they both belong to another member of the sentence. It will be seen at once, that the act of arising, was not the act of baptism; neither was the act of baptism, the act of washing away sin. — They are separated by the copulative conjunction and; the office of which is to conjoin sentences, though each of these simple sentences conveys its own meaning, and points out its own requirement! If the expression, "wash away thy sins" means the 198 remission, ov forgiveness of sin, still it would not fol- low that baptism was the act of turning, or the means of securing pardon. The manner of washing away sins or the means by which it is done is not baptism, but calling upon the name of the Lord. The active participle clearly points out the manner of obeying the injunction given; thus, "wash away thy sirjg, calling upon the name of the Lord," Here it will be seen that he was not left to judge of the means or manner of washing away sin, but the manner of doing, as well as the thing to be done, was specifically enjoined. But why thus particular in saying wash away thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord? Because, "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." "There is no other name given under heaven among men whereby we must be saved but the name of Jesus." " The Lord is nigh to all them that call upon him, to call them that call upon him in truth. How absurd the notion that baptism washes away sin, or that any operation of man by the application of matter upon our physical system, could cleanse us from moral pollution? Paul says, "In whom we have redemption through his (Christ's) blood, even the forgiveness of sins."— Col. i. 14. Now had An- nanias said, Arise, and wash away thy sins bapti- zing them away, I should think it likely that he be- lieved in baptismal regeneration; but as he said. 199 ■"wash away thy sins calling on the name of the -Lord" I consider him quite orthodox in his views upon that subject. But our -opponents tell us that the icashing and baptism are one and the same thing. Why then did he not say icash away thy sins wash- ■ing them, or baptize away thy sins baptizing them' If we were told^to destroy a house, burning it; would -the requirement be fulfilled by destroying it in any other way? Certainly not! If we were required to cleanse a house, sweeping it, to cleanse a garment washing it, to cleanse one shaking it, to cleanse one boiling it, to cleanse one brushing it ; the active par- ticiple, precisely points out the manner of cleansing, -and there would be an impossibility of fulfilling the requirement in any other way, because the command embraces the manner of doings as well as xhe thing to be done. Whoever, then, attempts to wash away sin by baptism, or by baptizing them, away, attempts to do it in a manner unauthorized by the word of God, for the requirement was to wash them away by calling on the name of the Lord. Thus it is clear- ly shown, that baptism, belonging to another member of the sentence, was not intended to wash away sinl But we ask if the washing away of sin, is synony- mous with forgiveness of sin 7 Is it certain that Saul Avas not pardoned before this requirement was made ? This is a matter that requires serious atten- tion. After sins have been forgiven is there no need 200 of having them washed away, or of being cleansed from unrighteousness? In 1 John i. 9. we read, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteous.' T Here the Apostle makes a clear distinction between the pardon, or forgiveness of sin, and the cleansing, or washing away of sin. If, then, after sins are for- given, there is need of having them washed away or being cleansed from unrighteousness, Annanias- might have had reference not to forgiveness of sin or removal of guilt, but a cleansing operation which may take place after justification. This is clearly expressed by Paul in 2 Cor. vii. I. "Having there- fore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all fllthiness of flesh and spirit, per- fecting holiness in the fear of God." Certainly* Paul did not mean, let us baptize ourselves from all filthiness of flesh and spirit. The language of Annanias to Saul gives evi- dence of Saul's conversion before baptism. See the good old man approaching this young penitent, and putting his hands upon him, and at the same time hear him say, " Brother Saul, the Lord even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou earnest, hath sent me that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost." Acts ix. 17. Now if Annanias had believed that no man could be a child of God, until he was baptized, Why call 201 him brother? Could he call him brother, (using the term fu a religious sense,) unless they both be- longed to the same family? How clear it is, that Saul was a converted man, that he was a believer in Jesus, or that Annanias was unconverted, and a child of the devil. It will hardly be necessary to inform the reader that when the term was not used in a religious and spiritual sense that it is made known by some circumstance or qualifying expression. as in Rom. ix. 3, "my brethren, my kinsmen accord- ing to the jlesh" Annanias not only acknowledges Saul a brother in Christ, but tells him that Jesus had sent him that saul might receive his sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. It will be seen that the receiving of his sight, and being filled with the Holy Ghost were placed next each other without a command to be baptized coming between them. So that he was not to be baptized and receive the Holy Ghost ; but to receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And as the Holy Ghost was given by the laying on of the Apostle's hands, so no doubt the Holy Ghost was given when Annanias laid his hands upon Saul and called him brother: but this was before baptism, therefore Saul was a converted man, a christian brother, a child of God before bap. tism. We would remark in conclusion, that the same principle will apply in this case, as in the case refered to, on the day of pentecost. if Saul was not a 202 believer in Christ before his baptism ; his baptism ft- self was a sinful act, for " whatsoever is not of faith is sin!" If he was a believer before baptism, then was he justified before baptism, for " to him that worketh not; but belie veth on him that justifieth the ungodly his faith is counted for righteousness. "=■ — Rom. iv. 5. Paul certainly understood the history of his own conversion, and the means by, or through which he was justified, as well as Alexander Camp- bell, or any other man ; and he says being justified by faith we me have peace icith God. Rom. v. 1. Here he acknowledges that he as well as others, was justified by faith; and consequently, those who be- lieve that baptism was administered for the purpose of washing away sins ; and that the washing away of sins means justification, or pardon, have entirely misapprehended the meaning of that scripture. Titus iii. 5, is sometimes adduced as favoring water regeneration. "Not by works of righteous- ness which we have done, but according to his mer- cy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior." This, our opponents would fain make us believe, teaches salvation by water baptism. But they will have some difficulty in ascertaining which of the terms in the sentence means baptism. The Apostle says, "by the washing of regeneration," now if the icash'uig is baptism, then it would read the baptism of regen- eration ; so that the noun, " regeneration 11 must be baptized. If the regeneration, is baptism, then it should read, the washing of baptism ; then the bap- tism must be -washed. If they both mean baptism ; then it should read the baptism of baptism ; in that case the baptism must be baptized. The Campbell- ite then to sustain himself upon this point must, if he understands this passage literally ; either baptize the regeneration, wash the baptism, or baptize the baptism. Rut again if baptism is meant and we are saved by baptism, then Paul must have, meant we are not saved by works of righteousness, but by baptism. What would this be, but saying baptism is not a work of righteousness? If Paul should tell us that baptism was not a righteous work ; surely the Campbeilite would pronounce him a heretic ; yet he must mean this, to sustain their view that we are saved by baptism } and not by works of righteousness which we have done. Again if baptism is that by which he saved us, then immersion is overthrown, for we are saved by that which he shed on us ; and not by that into which we were immersed. No doubt our opponents will say, (and what will they not say, rather than confess the truth.) that the rela- tive which, refers to the latter member oi the sentence only. Why then does not Paul say that we were plunged into one, and the other was poured on us? 204 Answer. Because there was no plunging in the case, but on the contrary they were saved by th at which was poured, or shed on them. If, then, wa- ter baptism be meant, then that baptism is by pour- ing; if the baptism of the Spirit be meant, then the advocates of water regeneration are utterly defeated, and they clearly convicted of heresy. Which horn of the dilemma they will choose, I know not ! ! We would now call the attention of the reader to another passage of Scripture by which the advo- cates of water regeneration would endeavor to sus- tain their sentiment. It is found in 1 Pet. iii. 21. " The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us." &c. Mr. Campbell in reference to this text, says, in "Christianity Restored," page 221. "Thus immer- sion, says Peter, saves us, not by cleansing the body from its filth, but the conscience from its guilt ; yes immersion saves us by burying us with Christ, rais- ing us with him, and so our consciences are purified from dead works to serve the living God. On the 243 page he says, Peter taught all the saints in Pon- tus. Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bythynia, that the water of Baptism saved them, as the water of the deluge saved Noah in the ark ; and that in immer- sion a person was purged from all his former sins. On the 272d page, he has the following language ; "No one, acquainted with Peter's style, will think it 205 strange that Paul represents persons as saved, cleans- ed, or sanctified by water ; seeing Peter unequivo- cally asserts that we are saved through water, or through baptism as was Noah and his family through water and faith in God's promise. ' The Antitype immersion, does also now save us." '-—New transla- tion. Mr. C. here testifies that Peter says immersion saves us. Now Peter says no such thing. And had he said it, he would have said what was not true, and would have stood convicted of the heresy of Camp- bellism; especially if by salvation he meant the re- mission of sins. But Peter never said it, therefore Mr. C. is guilty of a violation of the law which says, " Though shalt not bear false witness." Peter says, " few that is eight souls were saved by water." Now if immersion was that which saved them, then net a few, but multitudes were saved by water, for multi- tudes were immersed ! ! What a sorry figure Mr. C. cuts with Peter's figure of the Christian baptism. — " The like figure (says Peter) whereunto even bap- tism doth also now save us." How manifestly igno- rant, or wicked, must that man be, who will declare that Peter taught "that in immersion a person was purged from all his former sins." Peter does not teach that any of those that were immersed were purged from their sins. Nor does he teach that No- ah and his family were purged at that time from 206 their sins. In Gen. vii. 1, we read, "And the Lord said unto Noah, come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation." Peter says in his second epistle, ii chap, and 5 verse that God "spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righte- ousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly." Here we learn that he was not only a righteous man, but a preacher of righteousness be- fore he entered the ark. How then could he be purged from his sins by water? But Mr. C. con- cludes that it need not be thought strange that Paul should represent persons as saved, cleansed, or sanc- tified by water, seeing Peter unequivocally asserts that we are saved through water as was Noah, &c. For my own part I do not think it strange that Paul taught that we are saved, and sanctified by water, for he never taught that doctrine nor any other Campbeilite heresy ; but he taught contrary to Camp- bellism, that these blessings were obtained by faith . I however do think it strange that any man pretend- ing to common sense, and common honesty, should bear false witness, against not only Peter and Paul, but every one of the inspired writers, end endeavor to overthrow all the fundamental principles of the christian religion. Mr. Campbell tells us we must be saved by water as Noah was, and therefore we must be immersed 207 for the purpose of obtaining pardon of sin. How superlatively ridiculous must this appear to those who are acquainted with the Scriptures, and know- that Noah was not saved (in the sense of pardon) by water: and that he was not saved in any senso of the word by 'putting him into the water, but by keeping him out. The figure of baptism then,- w-as not im- mersion, but by the descent of the water upon the ark. The ark was not immersed, but on the contra- ry it w r as borne upon the surface of the w^ater ; and all that were saved, were saved not by immersion. but from it. Let Mr. C. then, or any other man, teach that immersion saves us by burying us with Christ, and raising us witn him, that by this mesns our consciences are purged from dead works to serve the living God ; I shall agree with Paul (even though I should with him be charged with heresy) that all this is effected by the blood of Christ. '-How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eter- nal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God." — Heb. ix. 14. Yv T e have now seen, 1st. That Noah was not saved by immersion, but from it. — 2d. That the salvation of which Peter speaks was not justification, or pardon, for he was justified long before the ark was built. 3. That so far from sus- taining Mr. C's. favorite theory, this text is'Tatal ib the doctrine of justification by water; and clearly •208 and fully establishes the contrary principle. 4. That as we are to be saved on the same principle, as that on which Noah was saved, we must be saved by be- ing kept out of the water] and not by being put in; Campbellism to the contrary notwithstanding. We will now present to the reader Mr. C's. meth- od of reconciling Paul in Phillipi, and Peter in Je- rusalem. Christianity Restored, page 256. " Thou- sands ask Peter what shall I do ? The jailor asks Paul, What shall 1 do ? to be saved, if the reader pleases. Peter says, reform and be baptized, every one of you, &c. Paul answers, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved with thy family." How is this, Paul and Peter ? "Why do you not preach the same gospel, and answer the same question in the same or similar terms ? Paul, do you preach another gospel to the gentiles, than that Peter preached to the Jews ? What sayest thou Paul? Paul replies, "Strike, but hear me. Had I been in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, I would have spoken as Peter did. Peter spoke to penitent and believing Jews ; I spake to an ignorant Roman jailor. I arrested his attention after the earthquake, by simply announcing that there was salvation to him and his family, through belief in Jesus." "But why did you not mention repentance, baptism, the Holy Spirit ?" " Who told you I did not ?" « Luke says nothing about it, and I concluded you said noth- 209 mg about them. Luke was a faithful historian was he not?'' " Yes, very faithful; and why do you not faithfully hearken to his account ? Does he not im- mediately subjoin, that as soon as I got the jailor's ear, I spoke the word of the Lord to him, and to all them that were in his house ?" " Why, you reason like a paido-baptist. You think do you, that the jailor's children were saved by his faith?" " I spoke the whole gospel, or the word of the Lord, to the jailor and to his family. In speaking the word of ■the Lord, I mentioned repentance, baptism, remis- sion, the Holy Spirit, the resurrection, Judgment, and eternal life: else why should I have baptized him and all his house ; and why should he have re- joiced afterwards with all his family!!" "Paul, I beg your pardon. I will not now interrogate Peter, for I know how he will answer me: — he would say, — "Had I been in Philippi, I would have spoken to an ignorant pagan as Paul did, to show that sal- vation flowed through faith in Jesus ; and when he believed this and repented, I would then have said. Be baptized for the remission of your sins " This is Mr. C's. method of reconciling Peter and Paul, not with one another, but with his views of justifica- tion by water ; for instead of having Peter agree with Paul that without the shedding of blood there is no remission ; he would constrain them to agree with him. that without a pond of water there is no 14 210 remission. Truly, this is reconciling the Apostle* with a vengeance! For instead of making them agre? with each other, he makes them contradict the word of God to agree with him. He tells us Paul preached the whole gospel to them ; and yet it is certain he did not preach one harf of the night. — Query. Did he preach more than the whole gospel- when on another occasion he preached" during the whole night 1 Or did he talk faster on one occasion than on the other ?■ But he thinks that he preached baptism in his sennon ; and he certainly would, had he been a Campbellilc. But I do not believe he- would in that case hare delayed baptism, until his: stripes were washed! What a cruel man he must have been to neglect baptizing the jailor and family, until he had provided for his own comfort ; especial- ly as his salvation did not at all depend upon having his stripes washed : whereas if Campbellism be true the jailor was an unpardoned sinner, and had the wrath of God abiding upon him. while he was per- forming that act of kindness toward the Apostle*, notwithstanding, his repentance and faith, for says Mr. C. immersion alone is the act of turning to God". I should really think, that Paul would have turned him to Go:l by baptism (if that was the means of remission,) before he had him perform the laborious task of washing and dressing the wounds made by the stripes that had been inflicted upon Silas, and 211 himself. It is not likely that his life was ensured, and if not, he might have died before baptism, and consequently if Campbellism be true he would have died an unpardoned sinner, notwithstanding all his repentance and faith ! Rut it is thought by some that he was not pardoned until after baptism, because there is no mention of his rejoicing until after bap. tism. But does this prove that baptism and not faith was the condition of salvation ? As well might you prove that repentance, and faith, and baptism, were not any or all of them the condition of salvation : but the setting of meal before the Apostles, for there is not a word said about rejoicing until meat was set before them. But we would remark, that Luke, so far from agreeing with Mr. C. that baptism is the means of enjoyment, does not say, that he rejoiced being bap- tized and all his house ; but " he rejoiced believing in God with all his house." Luke then agrees with Paul thnt faith, and not baptism is the source of the christians joy. "We have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.'' Rom. v. 2. " rejoiced, believing in God with all his house." Acts xvi. 34. Peter says that God by faith purified the hearts of the Gentiles at the house of Cornelius, and of the Jews at Jeru- salem. Acts xv. ix. Of these four witnesses then, which we have just examined, we have found them 212 all orthodox except Alexander Campbell. And hav- ing ascertained that the Jews were purified by faith that God hath opened the door of faith to the Gen- tiles ; that all that believed are justified ; and that to him that workcth not, but believeih on him that justifieth the ungodly his faith is counted for righte- ousness; we may venture to say, to every penitent trembling mourner, " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." If Paul meant baptism, when he said faith, so do we. If Paul was in an error upon this point so are we. If Mr. C. is right we are wrong, and Peter, and Paul, and all the inspired writers are in the same condemnation, for "to him give all the pro- phets witness that through his name whosoever be- lieveth in him shall receive remission of sins." Acts x. 43. On the 222d page of " Christianity Restored," Mr. C. says: " But as it is not our object to quote, and expatiate upon all the sacred testimonies, direct and allusive to immersion for the remission of sins, we shall close the proof and illustration of this proposi- tion with an incidental allusion to the cleansing effi- cacy of this institution, found in the 2d Epistle of Peter i. 9. After enumerating the additions to faith necessary to secure our calling and election, of which courage is the first, and charity, or universal love, the last; the Apostle says, that "he who has not these 213 things is blind, shutting his eyes, and forgetting that he was purified from his old sins." I need not here say, that this is, perhaps, (and certainly as far as I know) universally understood to refer to christian immersion. The ' old sins? or 'former sins,' can we presume, mean no other sins than those washed away in immersion. No person has yet attempted to show that these words can import any thing else. It is , „, ' - — v-iVocal and, because inciden- one of the most uuc M u., ' ' - • . _. , tal, one of the most decisive proots, tnai, m x-o*,- judgment, all former sins were remitted in immer- sion. With Peter we began our proof of this po- sition, and with Peter we shall end our proof of it. He first proclaimed reformation for the remission of sins; and in his last, and farewell letter to the christian communities, he reminds them of that pu- rification from sin, received in, and through immer- sion : and in the strongest terms cautions them against forgetting that they were so purified." Is it not passing strange, that any man should even pretend to think; much less to make others think. that Peter in this place had an allusion to baptism for remission of sins? The attempt is ridiculous in the extreme! But what else could he do? If he is determined to prove a doctrine which is not sustained by any text when rightly understood, what better can he do than to misrepresent the sacred oracles, and pretend to find proof where there is 214 not the least shadow of it? He says, "The old sins, or former sins, can we presume, mean no oth- er sins than those washed away in immersion." — ■ His proof, then, amounts to mere presumption. This, he tells us, is one of the most unequivocal, and one of the most decisive proofs ; so that his best proof is: we presume' What a presumptions man he must be, to presume to establish an important point in theology upon rn^z Resumption. But he 7.C Xl/tciit with being in error himself, he would involve Peter in the same difficulty and absurdity, for he considers this as proof that in Peter's judg- ment, all former sins were remitted in immersion. And as Peter felt an anxiety lest they should for- get that they had been purged from their former sins, (that is, according to Campbellism, that they had been immersed) what a pity it is, that he did not think to publish their immersion in some- thing like Mr. C's. Millennial Harbinger, to keep them in remembrance of the time of their immer- sion ! And if there was danger of their forgetting that their sins were remitted in immersion, he could frequently republish the account of their turning to God in the water; and inform them that "immersion alone was that act of turning to God!" And per- haps this might have been of some advantage to Paul, as he seemed to forget the number he bap- tized, (or, according to Mr. C. regenerated,) at Co- 215 rmth, had it been published in Peter's Millennial Harbinger he could have referred to it, and ascer- tained the exact number. And perhaps it might have been an advantage to Paul in other respects *o have had a Millennial Harbinger like that pub- lished by Mr. Campbell; for it is certain that had he read and believed all that Mr. C. has published ; he would never have been guilty of saying that we are "justified by faith" without informing us that he meant an act resulting from faith; namely, im- mersion. And instead of saying "all that believe are justified" he would have been taught to say, i4 It is not 'our faith in God's promise of remission, but our going down into the water that obtains the re- mission of sins." " Without water it is impossible to please God. But having no such advantages, he •embraced the contrary sentiment, that, "without faith it is impossible to please him." — Heb. xi. 6. THE EMPHATIC QUESTION. * On the 217-18 pages of " Christianity Restored/'' Mr. Campbell asks what he calls the emphatic ques- tion. This he puts in capitals and no doubt in- tends it for a choker [ Hear him: " Whether clo- the]/ think, believe, teach, and practise mare ivise- ly and more safely; who think, believe, and teach, that grace, faith, the blood of Jesus, the name of the Lord, and immersion, are all essential to im- mediate pardon and acceptance; or they who say that faith only, grace only, the blood of Christ only, the name of the ~Lord only — and immersion not at all?" Here Mr. C. has concentrated all his force, and brought all his ingenuity to bear up- on this point. And as he knew it to be easier to ask, than to answer questions, especially unfair ones, he submits this question, he tells us, to all men, women, and children, of common sense. As- all the force of the argument which he would de- rive from this question may be overthrown by means of another question, and as no one has a better right to ask a question than a yankee ; I shall take the liberty to ask him an emphatic question. — Whether do they think? believe, teach, and practice more wisely and more safely; who think 7 believe, and leach, with Christ, that "he that be- • sir lievcth on the Son hath everlasting life" (John iii. 36,) with Paul, that " all that believe are justified" with John, " Whosoever believeth that Jesus lis the Christ is born of God" and with Peter, " Whoso~ ever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins; 11 or they who teach, contrary to Scripture, and ac- cording to Campbell, '•'■that it is not faith, but an act resulting from faith, which changes our slate" u It is not our faith in God 1 s promise of remission but our going down into the ivater thai obtains the re- mission of sins." "Immersion alone is that act of turning to God." This question is submitted not only to Mr. C. but to our readers also." But must we be understood as excluding the blood of Christ, the grace of God, and the name of the Lord Jesus; because we say with Paul that we are justified by faith? surely the grace of God is not excluded, for Luke tells us, the disciples "believed through graced Acts xviii. 27. Paul says, Eph. ii. 8, "fey- grate are ye saved through faith." "It is of faith, that it might be by grace;" Rom. iv. 16, Salvation by faith does not exclude the blood of Christ; for "we have redemption through his blood, even the forgive- ness of sins." Col. i. 14. "God hath set forth (Jesus Christ) to be a propitiation through faith in his blood." Rom. iii. 25, "without shedding of blood there is no remission." Heb. ix. 22. It does not exclude the name of Christ, "for there is none 3 IS Other name under heaven given among men, where- by we must be saved." Acts iv. 12. "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name who- soever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." I am aware that A. Campbell would fain have it believed that salvation by faith would exclude the grace of God and the blood of Christ, but we re- gard not his teachings, so long as Luke tells us that we believe through grace, and Paul that it is of faith that it might be by grace; and that he is a propitiation through faith in his blood. — We are aware also that he lays much stress upon the expression through his name, to make us believe that his name means bap. tism. Nothing however is more absurd ; for we are required to believe on his name, yet it will not be thought I presume, that we are required to believe on his baptism. Mr. C. charges us with excluding all but faith from the system of salvation, but let it be recollect- ed, that although it might be correct, if we were contending for justification by a mere belief of facts, or the faith of Devils, yet the charge is now false, inasmuch as we contend for a faith which implies confidence in the promises of God, engages our af- fections, takes hold of the boon of heaven ; and is the medium through which God communicates his saving grace to the soul ; it is indeed that which unites to Christ, as the branch to the vine, and with- 219 out which no man can please the Lord. Christ is the vine we are the branches, not, however, natural branches, but must be grafted in. This is clearly set forth under the figure of the olive tree, in the 1 lth chap, of Rom. Paul declares, some branches were broken ofT, others grafted in. The principle of union was faith, (and not water) for "because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith." That it was faith by which they were united or grafted, as well as that by which they stood, is evident, because it was for the want of faith that they were broken off'; and he tells us that "if they abide not still in unbelief they shall be graffed in : for God is able to graff them in again." Here then we learn that it is faith and unbelief, which are rep resented as the two opposing principles which cause the union or disunion. And as in a case of grafting the branch must first be cut off', so repentance must precede that faith which unites us to Christ, grafts us, or in other words baptizes us into Christ ; Paul says, " For as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.' 7 That this baptizing into Christ is by faith and not by water is clearly declar- ed in the preceding verse, "for ye are all the child- ren of God by faith in Christ Jesus." Now it is certain that the cutting off, of a branch, is not th« grafting, neither is the grafting, the bearing of fruit. Nor yet does the branch unite with the tree and live, 220 because it bears fruit ; but on the other hand it bears fruit because it has life, it has life because of the union existing- between that and the vine. Thus the Apostle Paul says, "the life I now live, I live by the faith of the Son of God." Notwithstanding all this, Mr. C. says, " that it is not faith but an act resulting from faith, which cnaiiges our state. ^. A i. page 198. This act he elsewhere tell us is " immersion alone /" It seems that Paul and Campbell are con- tinually at variance ; for while one says that it is not faith by which our state is changed ; the other spent almost his whole life in endeavoring to establish the doctrine of justification by faith. One says it is by mi act] by immersion alone; the other says, "Not by works of righteousness which we have done," — " Not of works lest any man should boast." Paul also says, " It is Gfod that Justifieth." " If they abide not in unbelief, they shall be graffed in ; for God is able to graff them in again." Here Paul teaches that God is able to accomplish the work of grafting. Mr. Campbell teaches that God is not able, without the help of some one to immerse the individual that is to become a cliilJ of God. And the only legiti- mate conclusion drawn from his premises is, that all the powers of heaven and earth combined, cannot save one soul without water. Shall we then believe with Mr. C. that we are translated either by himself, or some of his party into another state or kingdom ; 221 or with Paul, that it is " God that hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son : — In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgive- ness of sins?" Collossians i. 13, 14. Let the reader reflect upon this subject, and may the Spirit of God lead, and guide us into all truth ; that, the truth may make us free. We have now passed through an examination of those Scriptures mostly relied upon to sustain the view that Mr. Campbell has taken of the efficacy of water baptism, and have found that any, or all of them taken together, so far from sustaining his views upon that point will, when closely, and carefully in- vestigated, and properly explained, overthrow, and utterly demolish his whole system. The word of God, is not inconsistent with itself, for being dicta- ted by the same Spirit, it harmonizes in all its parts : nnd presents the same leading doctrine of justifica- tion by faith. The Scriptures bear testimony to the excellency of the faith of Abel and of Enoch ; by the which one offered an acceptable sacrifice, and the other was translated : (I suppose that even Mr. : il hardly say he was translated by water.) and so of all the ancient worthies, it cannot be proved that any one of them wi ied (in the sense of pardon) by works: it is never said that one of their' tivrks was counted to them for rig] s, but on 222 the contrary that jaith was counted for lighteousness, Now if the Scripture had said that Abraham was immeised, and it was counted to him foi righteous' ness; this one passage, would have done more; in- finitely more, to sustain Campbellism, than all that can be done by Alex. Campbell and his satellites in misconstructing, misrepresenting, and mistranslating the word of God. This, so far from being the case, is directly opposed by all the Apostles and prophets when speaking as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Our Savior himself says, " God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John iii. 16. And Peter says, (and I have no right to contradict him.) " To him give give all the prophets witness that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive re- mission of sinsP But those who oppose Peters views upon this point, will say that his name implies water baptism. But we ask by what authority they convert the name of Jesus into baptism'? The same no doubt by which they convert baptism into immer- sion. Neither of them however, is authorized by the word of God. If the name of Christ means baptism, and baptism means immersion, then when the Apostles raised the dead in the name of Christ, they raised them through immersion ; and when Pe- ter said to the lame man, " In the name of Jesus 223 Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk," he must have meant that in immersion he should rise up and walk- We wish it distinctly understood that when Peter speaks of remission of sins in the name of Chri»t. he tells us that all the Prophets have borne testimo-- , ny to the same effect ! Now if the interpretation given by Mr. C. be correct that remission through the name of Christ means ivater baptism, then all the Prophets have given their testimony concerning Christian baptism ; and as they never used terms in reference to the use of water, which do not signify sprinkling and pouring, and as we agree that the Scriptures recognize but one mode j then immersion is overthrowu, and they are left unbaptized ! By their own creed then, they must be excluded from the kingdom of God ! ! \ Certainly those who can find evidence of water regeneration in this text merely because the name of Christ is mentioned, will never be convinced of their error by sober reasoning, and plain argument from the word of God! How beautifully is the condition of the individual described by the Apostle in his statement concerning the olive tree. How clearly does he thereby unfold the mysteries of the gospel of the Son of God ; teaching us that faith unites to Christy and that unbelief destroys that union. And yet, he tells us there is something in this con- trary to nature: "wert graded contrary to nature 224 into a good olive tree." If we understand what is according to nature, we can easily tell what the Apostle means when he says contrary to nature. — The Common practice in grafting is, to select a .branch from a tree which hears good fruit, and why? because it is natural for the branch to continue to bear the same kind of fruit that it did while on the tree on which it first grew. Take a branch from a tree bearing good fruit, and ingraft into a crabapple tree, it will produce good fruit, take a branch from a crahapple, ingraft it into another, if it unites and bears fruit, it will produce crabapplcs still! But our ungrafting into Christ is contrary to nature ; though taken from the wild olive tree our nature is so changed by our union to Christ, that we have now our " fruit unto holiness, and the end everlast- ing life." We have already shown that the Scriptural ac- count of the conversion of the first Gentile converts at the house of Cornelius, stands directly opposed to Mr. C's views of remission by baptism ; yet per- haps it will not be amiss to consider the subject a little further. The first thing mentioned in relation to his case is, that he was a devoid man, that he was a fraying man, one that feared God, and gave much alms to the people. — Acts ::. 2. We learn farther that his prayers, and alms came up for a memorial before God. — Verse 4. He had not as 22S vet. however, been thoroughly instructed in refer- ence to the principles, and privileges of the gospel He was therefore required to send for Peter to tell him what he ought to do. — Verse G, u Who shall tell thee words whereby thou and all thy house, snail be saved." — Chap. xi. 14. When Peter arri- ved he made enquiry in relation to the intention of Cornelius in sending for him, Cornelius in few words tells him his experience ; with which Peter is fully satisfied, as far as it related to his accep- tance with God. Yet Peter did not believe that what he had experienced was all that God would do for him, he believed that an increase of faith, and a. growth in grace was necessary to the enjoyment of a greater salvation. He commences his sermon by saying that God had sent Jesus Christ (who is Lord of all) to preach peace to the children of Is- rael, he says that Cornelius already knew the word that was published throughout all Judea, which be- gan from Gallilee after the baptism which John preached. He then gives a short history of Christ, his life, his death upon the cross, his resurrection, the witnesses who were permitted to eat and drink with him subsequent to his resurrection; that they were commanded to preach to the people, and to tes- tify that Jesus Christ was ordained of God to be the Jndge of the living and the dead. And haying es- tablished and confirmed them in these fundamental 15 principles of the christian religion ; he proceeded t& paint out more definitely, the condition of pardon or remission of sin through the name of Christ I This was a proper course, ibr certainly it will not be con- tended that all the kinsmen, and near friends of Cor- nelius whom he had called together, had, with him found acceptance with God. At all events Peter proclaims salvation in the name of Jesus, and speci- fically points out the condition upon which all man- kind might be accepted of God. c: To him give all the prophets witness that through his name whosoev- er believeth in him shall receive remission of SEsrs.' r Whoever then denies this fact ; that the believer in Christ obtains '■'-remission of sins" and that u all thai believe are justified" denies the truth of God; and arrays himself against the testimony of "all the prophets." Let God be true, though it should prove every man a liar ; and it certainly will every man who denies this sacred, and soul cheering truth! — The sermon Peter preached, proved effectual ; the gospel he proclaimed, proved the power of God unto salvation to all that heard the word ; " God which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, (says Peter) even as he did unto us ; and put no difference between us and them puri- fying their hearts by faith." Acts xv. 8 T 9. Just at the very moment Peter proclaimed salvation in the name, or through the name of Christ, telling them 227 that whosoever believed in him should receive remis- sion of sins ; God poured his Spirit upon them, they shouted the praise of God, or in the language of Luke, spake with tongues, and magnified (prais- ed) (extoled) God. All this took place before Peter said one word about their being baptized. And when he did speak of having them baptized it was not that they' might obtain forgiveness and re- ceive the Holy Ghost, but because they had received the Holy Ghost, and because, (as he afterwards tells us) their hearts were purified by faith. If faith was not the condition upon which they were pardoned and accepted of God : if they were not admitted into the kingdom of God before baptism ; Peter was the most consummate deceiver that ever lived, (perhaps Paul should be excepted) for he says not one word about salvation by water. And so far from sustain- ing Mr. Campbell's view that he was to perform an ordinance whereby they were to be saved ; it is ex- pressly said Acts xi. 14, that he was to tell them words whereby they were to be saved. These words he did tell them and in doing so, he agreed with Christ, and all the prophets : that whosoever be- lievftii in Jesus shall receive the remission of sins. " Whosoever." that is any one; any individual wherever he may be; however far from the water: whatever may be his circumstances, rich or poor : whoever he may be. king or beggar, bond or free. 228 \vliite or black. ''All that believe are justified ■'This is the victor?/ even our faith. But Mr. C, will not consent to this. He tells us that Luke, in recording the commission given by the Savior, ''nei- ther mentions faith nor immersion/' but that he k 'metonymically places repentance, or rather refor- mation, for faith; and remission of si?is, for immer- sion." "In Luke's acceptation and time forgiveness of sins stood for immersion, and reformation for faith- — the effect for the means or cause."'' C. II. page ■211. What an easy matter it is for Mr. Campbell to find immersion. When Paul says, "baptized into* Jesus Christ" accouling to his views he means im- mersion.' When he says, "buried with him by baptism into death, it means immersion in watek . When he says, "By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body whether Jews or Gentiles; it means immersion not by one Spirit but by many men! — When the Saviour commissioned Paul to turn the people to God, he meant immerse them.. W T herc the • xpressions born of w ate r and regeneration occur: they mean immersion. Where the name of Christ is used, it means immersion. When Peter says re- pent, and be converted ; it means immersion. When the children of Israel were baptized, though they stood on dry ground, and he thinks that there was not a drop of water fell on them, yet in his view it was immersion. When Nebuchadnezzar was ^20 baptized by the descent of the dew upon his body it means immersion. When the spirit was poured upon the people on the day of Pentecost it means immersion. The baptism of fire means immersion in hell fire. When Luke records the commission of the Savior, and siys that "repentance and remis- sion of sins should be preached among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem," Mr. C. says, he places remission of sins for immersion : and that in his ac- ceptation forgiveness of sins stood for immersion. Here is the climax of folly! Forgiveness of sins .stands for immersion! In Lukes acceptation and time, he tells us, forgiveness stood for immersion, if so, when the Savior says, u forgive and ye shall l;>e forgiven" he meant immerse and ye shall be im- mersed. When Paul says, "if any have a quarrel against any, even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye," he meant as Christ immersed you, so also do ye. The Savior says "if thy brother trespass against thee rebuke him, and if he repent forgive him, that is, according to Mr. Ce. dictionary im- merse him. If we confess our sins he is faithful, and just, to forgive us our sins ; that is to immerse us. Is it any wonder that he should say, " immer- sion alone is that act of turning to God!" He must have a new dictionary, as well as a new trans- lation, or he could not make every thing mean im- sion: and immersion the sine qua non of the Christian religion! If all the before mentioned things mean immersion, according to his lexicon, why should he not be consistent with himself, and agree that when we baptize by sprinkling or pour- ing it is also immersion ? Or does he ■ think it would require more water for us to baptize one person, than it did to baptize six hundred thousand of the Israelites! But error is never consistent with itself. He that asserts a falsehood, it is said will have to invent twenty more to maintain that one! And we fear that Mr. Campbell having erred in re- gard to the fundamental principles of the christian religion; will continue to '-wax worse and worse: deceiving and being deceived." Mr. Campbell takes the ground in reference to the subject of remission ; that baptism is for the remission of past sins ! In the Christian Baptist, page 416, he says, "that in, and by, the act of immersion, so soon as our bodies are put under water, at that very instant our for- mer ', or '-old sins 1 are all washed aicay; provided only, that we are true believers. 1 ' 1 Now that the sins of true believers are washed away, will not be denied by m\\ orthodox christian! But it is denied, that the true believer must wait till he is put un- der water, for the pardon of his sins; and that he receives remission in the very act; and at that very instant. We all agree, that when an adult is to be baptized, faith in Christ is required previous 851 *o the administration of the ordinance. The point at issue is ; is that believer unpardoned until he is immersed-? Mr. Campbell affirms, I deny! We smust therefore appeal to the law, and the testimony. We would fain 'hope that the testimony now to be adduced will not be rejected. It is the highest au- thority to which we can appeal — the authority of Jesus Christ. We find it in John iii, 18, "he that believclh on him is not condemned." Look at the •expression: "is not condemned." Now if it can be shown that a person can be unpardoned, and at the same time not condemned ; we yield the point at issue ; but if this cannot be; then Campbellism is stabbed to the vitals with the sword of the Spirit; which is the word of God ! ! J It is also denied that the Scripture authorizes the expression "put under water" in reference to christian baptism! I would now ask, how Mr. Campbell knows that it was re- mission of past sins that Peter alluded to ? I am sure he does not say so. Paul, however, tells us ex- pressly what is for the remission of sins that are past ! " Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus ; Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, / say, at this time his righteous- ness; that he might be just, and the justiher of him 232 (hat believeth in Jesus." — Rom. iii. 24, 25, 26. — Does this look like being- "put under water" for the remission of past sins? Again I ask, does the expression "be baptized for ihe remission of sins," (even if it were not connect- ed with any of the christian graces;) prove that it was in that act we receive remission ? Certainly not! From Math. xxvi. 28, we learn that the blood of Christ was shed for the remission of sins! Now I ask, can it be supposed that sins remitted through the blood of Christ, were remitted at the very time his blood was shed? Were there no sins remitted before his blood was shed? We might as well at- tempt to prove that no person was ever justified be- fore the death and resurrection of Christ, because -he died for our sins/' arid was "raised again for our justification/ 1 as to attempt to prove that no per- son's sins were forgiven before baptism, because it is written " repent and be baptized for the remission of sins." The blood of Christ was shed '"'•for the re- mission of sins." He " bare our sins in his own body on the tree" : — He " died for our sins'' and "was rais- ed again for our justification," but it is denied that our actual sins are forgiven before we have faith in, the atoning sacrifice I The difference between us is this ; they contend that however genuine the repen- tance, however strong the faith, however ardent the love, we have to the Savior, we are unpardoned and lost to all christian life and enjoyment until wv 233 have been immersed; we contend, that faith anri unbelief, are the two opposing principles ! Mr. O, in Christianity Restored, page 199, represents "im- mersion, as that act by which our state is changed.' Again, on the same page he tells us, it is that "by which alone they could be pardoned." We say. "We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Savior Jjsus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings : — Wherefore, that we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of com- fort.' 1 — Discipline, art. 9, page 12. Now the ques- tion is, who is right? Whose sentiment will be sustained by an appeal to the Scripture? Does the Scripture say, "immersion alone?" No! That word is not in the book of God ! ! ! Does the Scripture say, "only believ* 1 ' Yes! In Mark v. 36, Jesus says, " Be not afraid, only believe." — Should it be said, this does not refer to his justi- fication, I would ask, could he have been justified in disobedience to that requirement? All must an- swer; No! Again I ask, Do the Scriptures say that he that is baptized is noi condemned ; or that he that is not baptized is condemned? There is not such a word or such a sentiment in the word of G od, though Mr. C's. theology abounds with it! Well Does the Scripture teach, that, "He that be- lieveth on the Son hath everlasting life?" Yes; 234 this is expressly declared, John iii. 36, and in John iii. 18 it is said, "He that believeth on him is not condemned : but he that believeth not is condemn- ed," and lest it should be thought that he was con- demned because he was not baptized in the name of Christ, it is expressly said, he is condemned "be- cause he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God"!!! Let us again enquire, Does the Scripture say to him that believeth not. but is baptized his baptism is counted to him for righ- teousness? It says no such thing! What then does it say? It says, u To him that worketh not, but believ- eth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." — Rom. iv. 5. We may, then, conclude with safety, and with certainty, that no true believer is for one moment in a state of condemnation; and that no unbeliever is justified! A justified unbeliever; or an unjustified believer, is not known in the theology of the Bible! ! ! Let Mr. C. then call his system of theology any thing but the gospel of Christ. Let him say, (as he does in his Christian Baptist, page 417,) "immersion is the gospel in water," but let him not profane the name of Christ by associating it with his system of salva- tion which is in all its distinguishing characteris- tics so manifestly opposed to that gospel revealed to us in the sacred oracles! ! ! Notwithstanding Mr. C's. direct opposition to the 235 tiuth of God, he would fain make us believe that there is some agreement between the two systems. But how can he do this? Why, by telling us that seven things are spoken of in the Scriptures as the means of justification! C. R., page 254. The argument (if such it may be called) is this: "there are seven things by which we are said to be justifi- ed, but neither of these is baptism, therefore, we are justified by baptism." If this is not the argument, there is no argument to be drawn from it in favor of his system ; if it is the argument, how logical!! — but he refers to those scriptures which speak of jus- tification by works to prove that sins are remitted by works! But he knows, and every man of common sense, acquainted with the facts of the case knows, that James, (in speaking of the justification of Abra- ham, and Rahab the harlot by works.) did not use the term justification in the sense of pardon, as Paul does. What then, is his argument in this case? — Let us see ! Abraham and Rahab, were justified by works, [one by offering Isaac upon the altar, the other by receiving the spies, and sending them out another way :) therefore our sins are remitted by baptism ! If this will not do, try again, Abraham, and Rahab were justified by works, but not in the sense of pardon, therefore we are justified in the sense of pardon by baptism ! That this justification spoken of by James, in the case of Rahab, does not 235 mean pardon, any person may see by consulting the 2d and 6th chapters of Joshua. If any one thinks that she was justified (in the sense of pardon) by as- serting a falsehood, he is welcome to do so ; sound reason, and Scriptural argument in his case, will avail nothing ! Logical reason and bible truth, will never avail in the case of those who suffer their opinion to con- tradict their faith ! Mr. C's. faith is that sins are not remitted without an immersion; his opinion is: that sins may be remitted without it ! Therefore his faith is, that his opinion is wrong ; and his opinion is, that his faith is wrong ! It is quite likely that in many cases they are both wrong ! ! ! The subject of the conversion of the Ethiopian Eunuch demands some attention. From the account given by Luke, we learn that he had been at Jeru- salem to worship. That he had the Jewish Scrip- tures, and that he was engaged in reading them on his journey from the place of worship. He did not, however, fully understand them, and desired Philip to expound to him the prophecy of Isaiah concern- ing the Messiah which he h;:d just read; for Luke tells us he " read Esaias (Isaiah) the prophet." — ' : Philip began at the same Scripture, (I suppose he had no translation of his own.) and preached unto him Jesus." And having been informed by Philip 'hat Christ had commissioned his ministers to teach all 237 nations baptizing them; and as he had just read in that prophecy which he desired Philip to expound; that the nations were to be sprinkled ; Isaiah lii. 15, he felt a willingness to become a disciple of Jesus, indeed he was now a firm believer in the Son of God. As they went on their way. coming to a certain water; he says to Philip, ' ; See here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized ?" Philip said u if thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest," he replied, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still, and they went down both (eis) into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch and he baptized him." The only matter with which we are at present concerned, is, to know when, and by what means he was par- doned, whether before, or at the time of his baptism. Campbellites tell us h« could not be pardoned before, that immersion is inseparably connected with remis- sion. "In immeision a person is purged." and that '■Sins are washed away in immersion.' 1 Now I in- tend to prove that Campbellism is palpably absurd, and grossly heretical; or that the word of God is false. It will be borne in mind that Philip required faith, in order to baptism. We do not mean a bare assent to the truth r but that which affected the heart. •• If thou believest with all thine heart,' 1 The Eu- nuch professed faith in the Son of God. And if he 238 had not the faith of the heart, he intended to deceive Philip, and was guilty of falsehood. This will not be contended for. It is then clear that the Eunuch was a true believer in Christ before he left the Char- iot. He was therefore a child of God ; justified, and in possession of everlasting life. The Savior says, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life." Paul, that " with the heart man believeth (eis) unto righteousness." John says, " whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God." Paul says " being justified by faith." Not one of these witnesses gives the least intimation that the believer must wait one moment for pardon. But all establish the same truth; that he that believeth "hath life," "is born of God." "All that believe are justified." Yet Mr. Campbell has the audacity to say that " it is not our faith in God's promise of remission, but our going down into the water that obtains the remission of sins." Never was there a more palpable contra-, diction. Either then, the word of God is false, or Campbellism is a gross heresy! But he not only contradicts the word of God, and the experience of every living christian ; he also contradicts himself. In one place he tells us "immersion alone is that act of turning to God." Here he says that " going down into the water obtains the remission of sins. n How will he reconcile these statements? He surely will not say that the Eunuch did not go down into 239 the water before he was baptized ! And if going down into the water secured his pardon, this taking" place before his baptism, he could not obtain remis- sion in that act! He has labored hard to reconcile Peter at Jerusalem, with Paul at Philippi ; at least this was his professed object. His real object was, no doubt, to make Paul say that he meant that the jailor should be baptized for the remission of his sins, Paul, however, continued quite orthodox and not one word could he make him say about baptism as the condition of pardon to the penitent trembling- jailor. He still continues to say, (for he being dead yet speaketh,) "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, ami thy house." But Peter (poor fellow) was not so fortunate. On one occasion he said, u 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" Mr. Campbell not waiting for Peter's explanation, has given ;ill diligence to prove Peter a heretic. To secure (his object, lie has written twelve volumes of the "Christian Baptist, and Millennial Harbinger;" and published four editions ot the new translation of the New Testament, thinking thereby to involve Peter in the same condemnation into which he him- self has fallen. BuJ Peter alter all tin; pains that Mr. C. has taken, has given him the slip, come out on the side of orthodoxy, and left Mr. Campbell in £40 'he lurch. He fully manifested his orthodoxy in his -sermon to the Gentiles at the house of Cornelius , proclaiming remission of sins through faith; and afterward saying that God puiifi-ed their hearts by faith. He has also clean escaped from them who live in error ; and is clear of the charge of heresy in the sermon preached at Jerusalem ; for after preaching salvation by faith to the Gentiles, and say- ing they were purified by faith; he fully explains his language to the Jews, by saying that God " put no difference between us and them:' Now it is cer* tain if the txcntiles were purified by faith, so were the Jews, if baptism formed no part of the condition of pardon to the Gentiles, neither did it to the Jews ! If Peter was right in saying to the gentiles whosoev- er believeth in him shall receive remission of sins thereby making faith the condition of salvation to the Gentiles, then faith was the condition of salva- tion to the Jews, for in all these things God put no difference between them. The hearts then, of both Jews and Gentiles were purified by faith. Peter therefore, perfectly agrees with Paul that '-it is one God that shall justify the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith.' 11 We see then, that instead of reconciling Peter and Paul in relation to their preaching, he finds them already reconciled and as God has opened the door of faith to the Gen- tiles ; and puts no difference between them and the 241 Jews purifying both by faith; neither Peter nor Paul felt disposed to gratify any man so much as to open a back door and let him in through immersion ! — This work has been left for the present age, to be per- formed by Joe Smith, and A. Campbell, and it is somewhat difficult to determine which will be the most successful in drawing away disciples after hinv And as the attempt to reconcile either .Peter or Paul to his system of remission, in, and through immer- sion has proved a complete failure, we hope thai his next attempt will be to reconcile Mr. Campbell, with Alexander, and let us know in plain language, whether it was u going down into the water that ob- tains the remission of sins,' 7 or whether it was the '•immersion alone that was that act of turning to God." Both it cannot be, because the one must take place, before the other can be accomplished. These statements can never be reconciled with each other. much less with the word of God. On the 218th page of Christianity Restored; he asks, "whether if the whole race of men had been assembled on Pentecost, or in Solomon's Portico, and had asked Peter the same question, which the con- victed proposed, would he, or would he not, have given them the same answer? Would he not have told the whole race to reform, and be immersed For the remission of their sins? or to reform, and be con verted, that their f christian immersion, as the l regeneration' and * remission of sins ' spoken of in the New Testa- ment." Christianity Restored, page 223. He tells us, they all speak of christian immersion as the re- generation and remission of sins, spoken of in the New Testament. Now if the reader will take pains to examine the testimony of these men, even in tha* partial view in which they are presented by Alex- ander Campbell, he will no doubt arrive at the legit- imate conclusion that Mr. C. has borne false witness against them, for not one of the whole number he has introduced, says any such thing. So far from it not one of them mentions immersion in the testimo- 246 ny adduced, except Cyprian who flourished abou* Lhe middle of the third century- But had he sue ceeded in proving- that these witnesses agreed with him upon this point, he would not have proved him self orthodox, but only that he had imbibed the sentiments of those referred to by the Apostle Pauh in Acts xx. 29, 30, " For I know this, that after my departing shall" grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." No doubt there was a defection in the early ages of Christianity, a depar- ture from, the simplicity of the gospel, a substitution of outward rites, and external forms for spiritual in- fluence. Hence water regeneration supplied the place of that which is spiritual,, and not content with Paul, to walk by faith, they must walk by sight, and rejecting the doctrine of justification by faith, and salvation by grace, they have devised a "method of obtaining salvation by works. The doctrine of tran- substantiation crept into the church in the same way., not understanding how they could be benefitted by che death, of Christ without literally eating his body,, and drinking his blood, they contrived means to convert the consecrated bread and wine, into the real, and literal body and blood of Christ. They could not conceive how faith could secure- she blessings of the new and everlasting covenant. 249 they must actually eat the body in which he bore our sins on the tree, and drink the blood which he shed for the remission of sins, and instead of understanding the bread and wine to represent the broken body and shed blood of the Savior, have made that the Savior which was only designed to represent the meritorious and procuring cause of our salvation. So those who cannot comprehend the power of God in confering spiritual blessings through faithj believing that these blessings come through the medium of the bodily senses, deny spiritual in- fluence in the conversion of the sinner ; reject spirit- ual regeneration, and have found its substitute in water. Hence water baptism, (which was only de- signed to represent that influence of God's Spirit which is denominated baptism, 1 Cor. xii. 13. "For by one spirit are we all baptized into one body, whe- ther we be Jews or Gentiles,") is made to supply the place of regeneration, indeed it is considered by them as regeneration itself; and the regenerating influence, and baptism of the Spirit is totally reject- ed; nnd denied to have an existence ! Now whatever they may think of the matter, it will appear evident to many, if not to all; that lea- ser is as much the Savior in the system of those who believe in baptismal regeneration, as the bread and wine are the real body and blood of Christ, in the view of the Roman Catholic. Indeed they believe fc56 oiere is no salvation without it, that it is the only door of entrance to God's kingdom on earth. In- stead then, of entering the door of faith which God has opened to the Gentiles, they have opened a door of their own, by which they let people into their kingdom; namely immersion! But why does Mr. C. introduce these men as witnesses in this case 1 Is he willing to admit their testimony when it militates against his system ? By no means! It is true he is willing to have them considered competent, when he can construe their language so as to seem to favor his views ; but if they oppose' them, they are soon pronounced incom- petent. He can, if he choses, prove that they always meant baptism, by the word regenerate, or that they did not, just as suits Ms convenience. When intra •duced by McCalla, to show that infant baptism was practiced in their day, and in the days the Apostle.^ Mr. C. objects to the term regenerate as meaning baptism. When Irenaeus says, " Christ came to save all psrsoasby himsolf ; all, I say, who are re- generated unto God, infants, and little ones, and children, and youths, and elder persons," he con- vltides that the word regenerate does not mean bap- tism because that would overthrow his favorite theory of Adult baptism only ! On the 367th page of his debate with McCalla, he says, " That the ancients sometimes used the word regenerate for baptize. 1 mi admit, but this was far from being common or gencf at. For Tertullian, Origen, and indeed all "the fathers," used the word baptize as we do. When it does signify baptize in the idiom, the circumstances appended make it evident. And to substitute the word baptize, as I have done above, shows when it is not used for baptism, as in the words of Irenaeus." Here, he is unwilling to admit that the word regen- erate always means baptize, but that it does some- times on]y : and declares that " all the fathers used the word baptize as we do." He also tells us that that use of the word was far from being common or general! But when he thinks it would be to his advantage to do so; he can prove all this to be an absolute falsehood! He can prove that they did not always, or even generally use. the term regenerate to denote baptism. Then he can prove that they btev- jk used it in any other sense! On the 226th page of Christianity Restored, he makes the following enquiry of one of his witnesses. " Did all the christ- ians, public and private, and all the christian writers from Barnabas to the times of Pelaguis, (419) as far as you know, continue to use the term regenerate as only applicable to immersion?' 1 — W. Wall. ' ; The christians did, in all ancient times, continue the use of this name ; regenerate] for baptism ; so that they never use the word ' regenerate] or l born agaiv.' but they mean, or denote by it baptism." Mr. Camp- bell positively declares that that use of the word was far from being common or general, then on another occasion calls upon this witness to prove that he had in saying - this, declared a positive falsehood, anl proves by him that it was in those days never use I to denote any thing but baptism. Here it will be seen that W. Wall did not testify to all that Mr. C. desired him to. Mr. C. wished to have him say that the term regenerate was used as only applicable to immersion. But his witness would not ; he only testified that it was used in the sense of baptism. But how is it in regard to his admitting a witness at one time, and rejecting him at another? On the 229th page, C. R. he says, " Origen though so great a visionary, is, nevertheless, a com petent witness in any question of fact" Here he is considered a competent witness in regard to mat revs oi' fact. But why? Because he thinks his tes- timony favorable to his views! But how different are his views of his competency when he testifies against him. When Origen testifies that in his day infants were baptized, and that the baptism of infants was according to the usage of the church ; and not only this, but that "The church hath received a tra dition from the Apostles to give baptism to infants," what does he say of him as a competent witness? — Heat him, on the 369th page of his debate with Me~ ( 'jlla ; " We care not however, if Origen had men I 253 horded infant baptism in every line in all his Greek and Latin works. He was the patron of error. He was well called Origcn. for he originated more errors than any man named in history/' Thus tes- tified Alexander Campbell in reference to one he pro- nounces " a competent witness in any question of fact!'' 1 Let it be recollected that Origcn was quoted by McCalla not as expressing his own opinion : Ian l\ reference to the usage of the church, and the tra- dition the church had received from the Apostles, t«.» give baptism to infants. Debate page 3G2. If ?\Ir C is right in saving that he was well called Origeu •sequence cf the errors he originated, I would ;est to him the propriety of taking the same name. ere is not a man on earth that better deserves it en that principle, than this same Alexander Camp- bell! "Who can claim that name with more proprie- ty than the man that invented the plan of obtaining tion by watei ; succeeded in shutting Uie 36or of faith, which God himself had opened; and open- ed the door of baptism, proclaiming pardon, and salvation to all that will enter his kingdom by im T tnenion. And this is not all, he has invented a plan by winch he can pronounce a man who is pre- sented a? a witness, competent or incompetent, ac- cording as he testifies /or, or against his favorite notions. But the most wonde7 r d cf all his inventions is 254 that of salvation by means of purgatorial purifica- tion. He has discovered that there are some sinners whose crimes are so flagrant, that they cannot be pardoned by water; but luckily for them he is wil- ling they should be saved by fire? In his Millen- nial Harbinger No. II. Vol. II. page 95, 1838. he says, "Before I could esteem such a person (Mr. Crosh) as good company in heaven, he will have to pass through a purgatory of many thousand years." It seems then, that in his view purgatorial fire has not as much efficacy as water, for it will require some thousands of years in purgatory to prepare a man for heaven ; but just let Mr. Campbell, or some of his followers, plunge a man into the water and take him immediately out, — and he is as "innocent, as clean, as unspotted as an angel! Again when MeCalla introduces Chrysostom, Basil, Austin, Cy- prian, and Justin Martyr as witnesses in favor of infant baptism; Mr. C. sets them aside as incompe- tent, and declares in reference to their testimony that u it does not effect our views, nor our argument, though they were ten times more numerous, and ten times more pointed.' 1 On the two hundred and thir- ty-eighth page in reference to the same individuals he says, " Their opinions are of no more authority than those of my opponent. Antiquity does not, like charity cover a multitude of sins. And names as sacred and more ancient than they can be produc- 255 ed aa patronizing the most uumeaning and idV* atrous superstitions of papacy. We shall only present one quotation from Tertullian A. D. 216 ex- pressive of the vigorous growth of wild opinions in less than two years after the apostolic age." De Corona Militis cited hyDu Pin, page 92, vol. 1 "To begin says he with baptism, when we are ready to go into the water, and even before we make our protes- tations before the bishop, and in the church; that we renounce the Devil, and all his pomps and min- isters ; afterwards we are plunged into the water three times, and they make us answer to some things which are not precisely set down in the gospel ; al- ter that they make us taste milk and honey and we bathe ourselves every clay during the week. We receive the sacrament of the Eucharist instituted by Jesus Christ, when we eat, and in the morning as- s-emblies, and we do not receive it but from the hands of those that preside there We offer yearly obla tions for the dead in honor of the Martyrs. We believe, that it is net lawful to fast on Sundays, and to pray to God kneeling. From Easter to Whitsun- tide we enjoy the same privilege. We take great care not to suffer any pari of the wine and consecra- ted bread to fall to the ground. We often sign our- selves with the sign of the cross. If you demand a law for these practices, taken from the Scriptures, we cannot find one there but we must answer:— that 'tia 256 tradition that has established them, and faith (super- stition) that has made, them to be observed." — Then Campbell remarks, " Remember this testimony of this venerable Father, a great master in Israel, and then say, how much is the opinion of any of this or after ages worth on any religious subject not found in the Bible?" These witnesses (not only one but all of thou;) are quite contemptible when they array themselves against his opinions, but when he can with any show of propriety claim them as favoring his views, even by grossly misrepresenting them, they are without hesitancy adduced as corroborating evidence, their faults concealed, and they are presented in such a light that they will appear quite orthodox, in re- gard to the system of water regeneration which he so strenuously advocates ! But Mr. Campbell, after. attempting to prove that the sentiments of the apostolical father were as heretical as his own. tries his hand at the creed of the reformed churches. The reader need not be sur- prised after his unsuccessful attempt to find in the bible something to sustain his creed; if he should at- tempt to find it out of the Scriptures. Hear him. Prop. 12. '• But even the reformed creeds, Episco- palian, Presbyterian, Methodist, and Baptists, sub- stantially avow the same views of immeision, though apparently afraid to carry them out in faith and 257 practice." — "Tkis proposition will be sustained Vv an extract from the creed of each of these sects*" Episcopalian. — The clergy are ordered, before pro- ceeding to baptise, to make the following prayer.* *' Almighty and everlasting God, who, of thy great mercy, didst save Noah and his family in the Ark from perishing by water ; and also didst safely lead the children of Israel thy people throUgn the Red Sea; figuring thereby thy holy baptism; and by the baptism of thy well-beloved Son Jesus Christ in the river Jordan, didsj sanctify the element of water, to the mystical washing away of sinj we beseech thee, for thine infinite mercies, that thou wilt mercifully look upon 'these thy servants : wash them and sanc- tify than with the Holy Ghost ; that they, being de- livered from thy wrath, may be received into the Ark of Christ 1 s Church; and being steadfast in faith, joyful through hope, and rooted in charity, may so pass the waves of tfhis 'troublesome world, that finally they may come to the land of everlasting life ; there to reign with thee, world without end, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen™ After reading a part of the discourse with Nicode- mus, they are ordered to make the following exhor- tation. f * Common Prayer, p. 165. -Pag? l£5. II 258 " Beloved, ye hear in this gospel the express words of our Savior Christ, that except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Whereby ye may perceive the great necessity of this sacrament, where it may be had. Likewise, immediately before his ascension into heaven, (as we read in the last chapter of St, Mark's Gospel,) he gave command to his disciples, saying. Go ye into all the world, and preach the gos- pel to every creature. He that believeth,. and is bap- tized, shall be saved ; but he that believeth not, shall be damned. Which also showeth unto us the great benefit we reap thereby. For which cause St. Peter the Apostle, when upon his first preaching of the gospel many were pricked at the heart, and said to him and the rest of the Apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? replied, and said unto them, Re- pent and be baptized every one of you, for the re- mission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost: for the promise is to you and your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. And with many other words exhorted he them, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. For, as the same Apostle testifieth in another place, even baptism doth also now save us, (not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience to- wards God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 259 Doubt ye not, therefore, but earnestly believe that he will favorably receive these present persons, truly re- penting-, and coming unto him by faith ; that he will grant them remission of their sins, and bestow upon them the Holy Ghost; that lie will give them the blessing of eternal life, and make them partakers of his everlasting kingdom." "This, (says Mr. Campbell,) I need not add, is in accordance with the sentiments advanced in this es- say. What a pity that the Episcopalian church does not believe and practise her own creed! " What keen optics this man must have to find in this extract the heretical views that he labors to sustain. It is true it speaks of the "mystical washing away of sin" he, of the real and personal remission of sins in water, his language is, " If blood can whiten or cleanse garments, certainly water can wash away sins." — Is there no difference in their creeds'? Again they pray for the person to be baptized that God may " icash them and sanctify them with the Holy Ghost. 11 Surely this does not mean that they are washed and sanctified with water, according to Campbell's views. Again, u Doubt ye not, therefore, but earnestly believe that he will favorably receive these present persons, truly repenting, and coming unto him by faith; that he will grant them remis- sion of their sins, and bestow upon them the Holy Ghost] 11 &c. Now what part of Campbell's creed 2G0 agrees with this? Does that part which says, '; neither praying, singing, reading, repenting, sor- rowing, resolving, nor waiting to be better, was the converting act. Immersion alone was that act of turning to God." Do these articles of their faith agree? If so why do the Episcopalians talk of truly repenting, and coming by faith, that God might be- stow upon them the Holy Ghostl They surely did not mean "that it is not faith but going into the water, that obtains the remission of sins!" If they agTee with him on this point, why pray to God to effect the work? He thinks it a pity that the Epis- copalian Church does not believe and practice her own creed. Why does he not tell us plainly that it was a pity he was not there to instruct them in refer- ence to their own article of faith? And tell them that they did not mean that they were to come by re- pentance and faith, but by water, to obtain the gift of the Holy Ghost. He next introduces the Presbyte- rian creed and says. The Presbyterian Confession, on Baptism, chap, xxviii. sect. 1. declares that — "Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn ad- mission of the party baptized into the visible church ; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the cove- nant of grace, of his engrafting into Christ, of re- generation, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in new- 261 ness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ's Own ap- pointment, to be continued in his church until th* end of the world." "A sign and seal of remission ofsins!!' 1 This is much nigher the truth than this church seems to be apprised of. However, she cannot believe her own creed ; for she does not believe that baptism is a sign and a seal of remission of sins, nor of regeneration, in her own sense of it, to her baptized or sprinkled infants. But in paying any regard to the Scriptures, she would not say less than she has said. It is no wonder that many sectaries cannot be persuaded to think, that the Scriptures mean what they say : ibr they are so much accustomed to say what they do not mean, th t they cannot think God does mean what he says." The expression upon which he depends to convert them of heresy, or in other words that they agree with him in reference to water regeneration, is, u A sign and seal of remission of sins I !" Tsow in the name of common sense I would ask ; how does this agree with his views in relation. to this matter? Vo the sign and seal of the remission of sins, mean (ac- cording to Mr. Campbell.) the remission of sin itself? It will be recollected he is endeavoring to prove that they agree with him ; will he agree that baptism is only a sign and seal of the remission of sins ? If so why does he contend that they are synonymous % 262 Because he wished to have us think that Luke meant repentance and baptism, when he said that repent- ance and remission of sins, should be preached among all nations ! Surely our Presbyterian breth- ren do not mean, when they say, " baptism is a sign and seal of remission ; that it is regeneration, or remission of sin itself or that it is administered liter- ally to wash away sin ! They are not then, quite so heterodox as Mr. C. would have us believe. But he tells us, " It is no wonder that many sectaries can- not be persuaded to think, that the Scriptures mean what they say, for they are so much accustomed to say what they do not mean, that they cannot think God does mean what he says." A. Campbell is the last man in creation that should thus set himself up, as an accuser of the brethren! With what proprie- ty might it be said to him, "Physician heal thyself." How much more clearly might he see to pull the mote out of his brother's eye ; if he would first cast the beam out of his own eye ! " Many sectaries, he tells us do not mean what they say." Does he always mean what he says? If so why does he ever im- merse for the remission of sins? If, (as he says) going down into the water obtains the remission of sins, of what use is the immersion? He surely might as well let them come out of the water, as soon as the object of going in, is secured. Perhaps, however, he, like other sectarians, is afraid to carry 263 oitt his principle, " in faith and practice." We see then, that the charge he so gravely prefers against others, with the strictest justice, and propriety falls upon himself] METHODIST. Having in his own estimation, demolished the Episcopal, and Presbyterian Churches, he attacks the methodist ;. with the same confidence of success. with which he attacked the others. He tells us, " The Methodist creed says" — "Dearly beloved, for- asmuch as all men are conceived and born in sin, (and that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and they that are in the flesh cannot please God, but live in sin, committing many actual transgressions:) and our Saviour Christ saith, None shall enter into the kingdom of God, except he be regenerate, and born anew of water and of the Holy Ghost ; I beseech you to call upon God the Father, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that of his bounteous goodness he will grant to these persons, that which by nature they cannot have ; that they may be baptized with water and the Holy Ghost, and received into Christ's holy church, and be made lively members of the same." Then it is .ordained that the minister say, or repeat the following prayer : — "Almighty and immortal God, the aid of all jhat need, the helper of all that flee to thee for sue- 264 cor, the life of them that believe, and the resurrec- tion of the dead : We call upon thee for these persons; that they coming- to thy holy baptism,, may receive remission of their sins, by spiritual regeneration. — Receive them, O Lord, as thou hast promised by thy well-beloved Son, saying, Ask and ye shall receive,, seek and ye shall find, knock and it shaM be opened unto you, so give unto us that ask ; let us that seek find; open the gate unto us that knock; that these persons may enjoy the everlasting benediction of the heavenly washing, and may come to the eternal kingdom which thou hast promised by Christ our Lord. A»ien" — Dis. p* 105. < tribulation also ; — knowing that tribulation worketli patience ; and patience,- experience : and experience., hope ; — and hope, maketh not ashamed ; because the [ove of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Ho- ly Ghost which is given unto us." Paul, the inspir- ed Apostle of the Gentiles, and defender of the faith once delivered to the saints! ! NOTES. Note A., page 31. — In Mark vii. 4, in the original (Baptisontai,) is used, which in the common version is rendered wash. In Mr. Campbell's new version third and fourth verses, it reads, "-for the Pharisees, and indeed all the Jews who observed the tradition of the elders, eat not until they have washed their hands by pouring- a little water upon them: and if they be come from the market, by dipping them." — In the latter part of the 4th verse (baptismous) he has rendered immersions though very improperly. It may be said that he did not translate (Baptisontai) at all in the 4th verse; but it must be seen by every in- telligent person that it must be so understood, or he proves himself morally dishonest in throwing it wholly away. In the 3d verse, he says they washed their hands by pouring water upon them, and in the 4th verse he says, "by dipping them.' 11 Now if he did not intend to express the same thing as being performed by means of dipping in the 4th verse, that was done by means of pouring, as represented in the 3d, then there is no meaning in language. It must therefore read, they (Baptisontai) washed their hands by dipping them. Note B page 72. — If it were the case that (eis.) when it sustains the same relation that it does to the noun in the sentence before us, never means to enter m : still, this would not argue that we were destitute of proof that we could enter heaven : for we find* 298 the act of entering in, strongly expressed by the use of the word in connection with the verb, or the par- ticiple, as well as before the noun. More than a hundred instances of this, can be given in the New Testament. We will notice a few of them. Matth. x. 12. "Eiserchomenoi* de eis ten oikian, aspasas- the auten." rendered, " And when ye come into a house salute it." 2 Pet. i. 11. "For so an entrance shall be administered unto you (eisodos eis ten aioni- on Basileian tou Kuriou emon kai soteros 'Iesoii Christou,) into (he everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" Rev. xxii. 14. "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have a right to the tree of life, (kai tois pulosin eis- elthosin eis ten polim) and may enter in through the gates into the city." Math. v. 20. " eiselthete eis ten Basileian ton ouranon — enter into the kingdom of heaven." See also, Matth, vi. 6. and vii. 21, also xii. 4, and 29 — and Luke iv. 16. It must now be seen that to deny that the preposition eis, before the noun necessarily means into ; would not, as our opponents contend, shut us out of heaven ! But even if it would, I know of no right granted us to assert a falsehood, or deny the truth, for the sake of heav- en ! If we have embraced a system that cannot be sustained without concealing the truth let it go by the board ; the sooner the better ! If immersion cannot be sustained on better principles than contend- ing that the Greek text in relation to the baptism of the Eunuch, affords evidence that they went into the water, it cannot be sustained. In order to prove pos- itively that eis, as it stands there before the noun, means into, it must be* shown that it never has any ether- meaning ; and in order to show that there is 290 probable proof, it must be made appear that it gener- ally has that meaning - ; and we think that no man of reputation will hazard it, by asseiting that it always, or, that it generally means into, when it occurs, as it does in this place, before the noun only. We have already given a number of . quotations, in which it neither did, or could mean into, — we will give on< i more, which is precisely a parallel case ; Matth xvii. 27. "Go thou (eis) to the sea, and cast a hook:" — There is precisely the same evidence that Peter went into the sea, to cast in his hook, that there is. that Philip and the Eunuch went into the water. But why all this labor to prove that they went into the water ; eighteen hundred years have passed away and this point has not been proved ; but if we should even admit that they were in the water: it would take eighteen hundred more to prove that the water was ankle deep ; and then, as much longer, to prove- that one put the other under the water ! ! ! Note (J, page 101. — That to be "born of water, does not mean water baptism, is evident from the fact that it is unequivocally declared that a man can- not enter into the kingdom of God without it This will not admit of a single exception! If, then, baptism is meant, the kingdom cannot be entered without water baptism. This kingdom means, either the kingdom on earth, or in heaven, or in both ! — Now I ask, would there not be an inconsistency in paying that God designed that people should be ex- cluded from one, and admitted into the olherl That people were, after this, admitted into the kingdom above without water baptism, will not be denied ex- cept by those who disregard the authority of God's word ! Recollect this was said near the commence- 300 ment of our Lord's ministry, some years before the commission was given to baptize the nations, so it certainly cannot mean christian baptism! Is it pos- sible that any one can be so reckless of consequences as to say, that no man, woman, or child, from that time entered the kingdom of God without water baptism? If so, medical treatment is more needed in their case than logical reasoning! But it may be said, that Christ could, while here on earth, dispense his favors to whom he pleased, and as he pleased ! Very well! Has he less power in heaven, than he had on earth? Has he put it out of his power .to forgive sin, without the help of a Campbellite ? — Has he not been exalted with the right hand of God. u to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins? — Acts v. 31. AVhat now becomes of the argu- ment of the Campbellite, that Christ having made his will and died, leaves all his accounts to be settled by them as his administrators? If they could prove that Christ had appointed them as his administra- tors — that he had died, and was still dead; then we might be persuaded to look to them and not to him for remission, but thank God though he died for our sins, he has risen again for our justification, and is exalted at the right hand of God, still to give repen- tance and forgiveness of sins ! Let then, the quacks in theology, talk of having us come to them, to re- ceive baptism and remission ; we will yet look to him who said that " repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations beginning at Jerusalem." — Luke xxiv. 47. Should any one think baptism is here meant, let him recol- lect that it is, in 1 Cor. i. 21, expressly declared that *'• it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to 301 Save them that believer 1 " Well" says the Camp- bellite, 'I must say it is foolish, indeed, to talk about saving people by preaching, for Alexander Camp- bell tells us that -going down into the water ob- tains the remission of sins" and it must be true!" To all those who are determined to follow his ipse dixit, we reply in the language of Paul, 1 Cor. i. 18, "For the preaching of the cross is to them that' perish, foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." In C. R. p. 206, Mr. C. labors to prove that to be "born of water," means water baptism, and that wa- ter is his mother ! Now if this be true, who can blame him and his followers for having such an af- fectionate regard for water when it must be confessed that the Scriptures requires us to honor our father and mother? Christians are content with the church: for their mother, believing her to be the -'bride." — "Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all." — Gal. iv. 2G. "And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her hrslnrc." — Rev. xxi. 2. Those who contend that literal water is their mother, involve themselves in the following difficulty: 1st. That the water is God's wile: or, 2lly that they are illegitimate chil- dren ; or. oclly, That God is net their father I Which horn of the dilemma they will choose, is not for mo, but for them to say ! I ! ERRATA, Page 26 1st line supply " to" after anxioue. Page 57j 7th line supply "unless I believe" be- fore, without evidence. Page 62, 14th line instead of 'know,' read " knew" Page 69, 5th line instead of 'yet went he in,' read "yet went he not in." Page 74 2d line instead of ' went to a stream of water,' read il went to the stream." Page 100 3d line for 'endeavor 5 ' read " endeavor- ed" Page 102, 2d line for 'give' read "gives." Pa^e 110, 10th line for 'lighted' read " lighlned:' Page 111, 17th line, instead of '27' read "37." 18th line, instead of -there about' read "there were about." Page 200 4th line for 'unrighteous/ read li u7i righteousness V Page 261 line 17th, for 'convert' read 'convict' Page 267 for ' firmness' read "fairness." Page 282, 6th line from bottom for 'promises' read 'premises. 1 INDEX Opinions of religious controversy, - - p. 3 Introduction, ...*.. 5 Mode of Baptism, - - - - • - 14 John's baptism in Jordan, - - - - 40 " " in ^EnonJ - - - * 46 Apostolic baptism, Baptism of the Jailor, - 54 Baptism of Christ, 57 c: of the Eunuch, - - 66 Buried by baptism into death, Rom. vi. 4. - 84 Baptism of Lydia by the river side, - - 94 Born of the water and of the Spirit, - - 96 Baptism at the house of Cornelius, - - 1 02 Saul's baptism, 104 Baptism of the Israelites, - * - * 106 One Baptism, 114 Baptism for the dead, - - - - 115 Bodies washed with water, - - * 117 Figure of baptism in the ark, - - 120 Baptism of the Holy Ghost, - - - 123 Introduction of immersion into the Christian church, - - - - - 132 Introduction of immersion into America. - 136 Mistakes corrected, - - - - 138 Closing remarks, - - - * - 141 The doctrine of justification by faith, * - 156 Opinions concerning the means of justification 157 Baptism for the remission of sins, Acts ii, 38. 18 i 304 Baptism of Saul. Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, - - - 197 Washing of regeneration, Titus iii. 5, - 202 Baptism doth also now save us, 1 Pet in. 21. 204 Mr. C's method of reconciling Paul in Philiipi and Peter in Jerusalem, - - - 208 Mistakes concerning 2 Peter i. 9. - - 212 The emphatic question, - '- - - 210 Conversion at the house of Cornelius. - 224 Justification of Abraham and Rahab by works: different means. .... - 235 Conversion of the Ethiopian Eunuch. - 230 Peter's orthodoxy, 239 Mr. Campbell's question in reference to Peter's teaching on the day of penticost and in Solo- mon's Porch, ----- 24 i Mr. C's. statement concerning the testimony of the Apostolic Fathers, - - - 217 Mr. C. is willing to receive testimony in his favor, from those whose testimony ts when amst him, ------ 250 His attempt to find the doctrine he advocates in the creed of the reformeJ clinrches, Episcoj Jian, Presbyterian, Methodist, and Bipti: from - - - - - - 250—200 Extract from Wesley's sermon on Rom. iv. 5, 26$ Of sins committed after justificati par- doned, ------- 27 i Air. C's. views of Paul's Philosophy, - 2$ 4 Remarks ou the mournir - 287%-^ A problem for Methodists. - • - 29CJ < toe for Mr. Campbell, - 293