wvpn k KA? , j' m ® ^ i * V3 r infant ^prtnWtjKj no jsaptsnt: z.e.ieo \ \\%\ \%%\ > •?, BEINfi ktfi A REFUTA /I /r OF Mr. C. PAGET’S “ GODLY PRACTICE OF INFANT BAPTISM.” BY J R. GOVETT. LONDON: HOULSTON AND WRIGHT, PATERNOSTER ROW. 1858 . hfrnt Mr. C. PAGET’S “ GODLY PRACTICE OF INFANT BAPTISM.” y by R. GOYETT. LONDON : HOULSTON AND WRIGHT, PATERNOSTER ROW. 1858 . : t ■ - • . ■ ' ' i . • I i . ■ V f >■’ • ; . . V. ■ •' * - . I ■ INFANT SPRINKLING NO BAPTISM. The writer of the pamphlet which is the subject of the following pages is an estimable, sincere Christian; and in nothing here penned would I call this into question. But how unfit he is for a controversialist will be seen in the sequel. I have felt called on to take up the argument, because more than one of my tracts are quoted or alluded to. His pamphlet consists of sixteen sections, beside an Introduction, and an Appendix which treats mainly of another subject. As I study brevity, I shall pass lightly over those which do not contain argument. We are both agreed, that controversy, even between believers, is necessary; and that legitimate inference from Scripture is a sound foundation both for doctrine and practice. But he has done injustice to the arguments he professes to cite, in more instances than one, by not quoting the words. In this I shall not follow him, but shall either give the words, or a reference to the page on vdiich I make my attack. 1. His first section is devoted to shewing that Infant Baptism needs not appeal to anything but Scripture. On this ground We are glad to meet him. 2. His second is devoted to proving that there is a difference between John’s baptism and Christian bap¬ tism. As there is no argument in it, I shall pass it by. 3. On the third section our struggle begins. It is a 3 6 entitled “ The Commission of Christ,” and the refer¬ ence is to the well-known passage, Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. Whereupon the author writes as follows (p. 6):— “ Now, what do we gather from the Lord’s com¬ mission ? Is it not plain, that those who were capable of receiving instruction were to be taught, and that those who were taught must believe * before they could be baptized 1 I presume this will be granted by all; while the inference deduced by some is, 1 Therefore infants are not proper subjects for baptism.’ The principle of which conclusion is, that infants are ex¬ cluded from baptism, because something is required from adults which infants cannot yield. This is a glaring sophism, for it argues from adults in one proposition to infants in the other—from one class of persons who are named to another class of persons who are not named.” The author adds in a note, “ I use the term ‘adult ’ for one physically capable of receiving instruction, whether he be grown up or not.”+ Allow a chess-player to place his opponent’s pieces as he pleases, and we are not surprised if check-mate follows in a single move. It is so in this case. Our opponent so states the argument from the commission, that he finds it a “glaring sophism,” pounces on it, and demolishes it in an instant. But we humbly enquire, Where ever he found a baptist that so put the case h If any one ever did, he was incompetent to defend the cause. Your statement, Mr. Paget, implies that some who can neither be instructed nor believe, may yet be bap¬ tized. And from this illicit assumption you draw your conclusion. The principle, or major proposition of the argument, as you state it, is— Faith is required from adults in order to baptism. Infants cannot possess faith. Such an argument you may well explode. But it is not our statement. ‘ Adults ’ is a word that appears * Author’s italics throughout. + In this I shall not follow my opponent, knowing how often afterwards the established sense of the word creeps in unnoticed. 7 not in our premises any more than in our Lord’s words. We say— The possession of faith is required from all true recipients of baptism. New-born infants are not in possession of faith. And therefore they are no true recipients of baptism. When you would assail the argument from the com¬ mission again, try your cannon on this redoubt. That “ those who were taught must believe ere the}^ could be baptized,” is, as you confess, a true deduction from our Lord’s words. As, then, believers are to be baptized, none who is not a believer is to be baptized. Our Lord’s commission excludes unbelievers of every class. This you refuse to admit. You divide the class ‘unbelievers’ into two subordinate sections, (1) the physically incapable of belief, and (2) the physically capable. And you assert, that our Saviour’s words were designed to apply to one of these sections only. If so, we say, Christ has omitted to distinguish, and you supply the omission, where he ought to have distinguished. Whose distinction are we to accept 1 Yours, or Christ’s 1 Distinguish where Christ does, and you have the baptism of believers. Distinguish where Jesus does not, and then, and then alone, have you room for infant baptism. Which system, then, are we to choose ? That which arises out of the distinction authorized by our Lord, or that which springs out of a distinction unauthorized by him ? To test the matter still further, let us see whether such a style of inference would stand approved in com¬ mon life. There is, if I have been rightly informed, in London, a club, entitled “ The Travellers’ Club.” In order that any one should be eligible to this, it is required that the person should have travelled two thousand miles from the metropolis. It follows, of course, that all persons who have not travelled that distance are excluded. But, with the help of your principle, I could introduce persons who had never travelled a mile, aye, and infants themselves. We have only to divide the class of non-travellers of that 8 distance into two sections, (1) the physically incom¬ petent, and (2) the physically competent. Then, we assert, that exclusion was destined to apply only to the latter; and then bed-rid paralytics and new-born infants might obtain entrance, if you could convince the members of the justice of your distinction. Do you think they would esteem you wise in offering such a process of argument ? or would they receive it with scorn of your folly ? To act on such a principle as yours would expose the servant of a despotic master to the loss of his head. Nena Sahib has (suppose) in custody two companies, one of white persons, one of black. In a fit of anger, he says to the captain of his guard, “ Go and kill the wdiites.” The officer goes and slays all but the infants of the white prisoners. The truth comes to Nena Sahib’s ears, and he enquires of his servant whether it was true, that he had omitted to slay the infants. He confesses it. “ But, my lord,” he says, “ I supposed that you designed only those to be slain who w 7 ere capable of offering resistance to your government, and therefore I spared them.” At such a defence, methinks the master’s anger blazes forth—“Fool! did I not tell you to kill the whites ? Are not infants whites, as truly as adults h Who authorized you to make distinction where I made none ? Executioner, off with his head !” Mr. P. continues, “ But let us look further at this objection.” What objection 1 Does it refer to the argument which precedes, or the argument which follows h “ Something is said of baptism, which will not agree with infants; therefore the baptism of infants is wrong.” “ Something is saidaye, a condition is required before baptism, and in order to it, which new T -born infants cannot fulfil. “ I ask, Did not circumcision fix an obligation on the circumcised 'i As the apostle says, ‘ Every man who is circumcised is a debtor to do the wdiole law.’ 9 (Gal. v. 3.) But infants are incapable of contracting such an obligation; therefore the circumcision of in¬ fants is wrong.” How devoid of clear connection this with what pre¬ cedes ! Let him who uses this argument answer the author’s observation. We should never occupy ground so easily forced. “ To this it will be replied, that there was an ex¬ press command to circumcise infants. Granted : and this is legitimate ground for further argument; but it does not meet the point in hand, which is to show that, if the argument raised against infant baptism be sound, the argument against infant circumcision, built on the same ground , must be sound also. But, as it proves against that which we all allow was certainly right, it discovers itself to be as certainly wrong.” If we were arguing on the point, I should say, Under the Old Testament, God’s pre-requisite to his initiatory ordinance was a condition of the flesh, and under this, certain infants were included; for this pre¬ requisite they possessed. But under the New Testa¬ ment, God’s pre-requisite is a condition of the spirit, and as no new-born infant possesses this, all such in¬ fants are excluded. “ The fallacy, however, of the whole argument is this ; that it offends against the well-known rule which determines, that i There should be no more in the con¬ clusion than there was in the premises, because the conclusion is drawn from the premises.’ ” The rule is just: the application on Mr. P.’s part is at fault. When we say, None destitute of faith should be baptized; All new-born infants are destitute of faith; Therefore, no new-born infant should be baptized,— we are using a syllogism which logic has pronounced unimpeachable on that, or any other ground.* “ When the Scriptures say, ‘ Bepent, and be baptized;’ and, ‘ If thou believest, thou mayest,’ adults are ad~ * Celarent, in the first figure. a 5 10 dressed. It is a fallacious argument, therefore, to bring infants into the conclusion.” He should have said, “ It is a fallacious proceeding to bring infants into the conclusion.” The conclusion is not an argument. “ What would be said, if any were to conclude from the premises advanced by the apostle, ‘ If any would not work, neither should he eat,’ that therefore infants should not eat, because they cannot work i Would it not at once be set down as absurd ? But it is not merely absurd; the argument is unsound, for it brings those who are not capable of working into the conclu¬ sion, when those only who are capable of working were in the premises. This is, nevertheless, the mode of argument used against infant baptism, from the pre¬ mises advanced.” Prove a conclusion absurd, and certainly it must be unsound; and faulty must be the premise or premises from which it is deduced. But let us look at this taunting argument. It is not the first time this champion has been paraded on the field. But he does not belong to the army of infant-baptists, but to the opposite side. First, let us translate somewhat more accurately the passage. It begins thus: “ Now we command you, brethren , in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tra¬ dition which ye received of us.” It proceeds: “ For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any is not willing to work, neither let him eat. For we hear that there are some who walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such, we command and exhort by the Lord Jesus, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.” (2 Thess. iii. 10—12.) Next we adduce the point wherein lurks the fallacy. “Adults are addressed.” Not so. Believers are addressed. The legislation is for those of the Church of Christ; and believers only belong to that. Put this into the syllo¬ gism, and the failure of the supposed parallel is evident. 11 No believer who refuses to work is permitted to eat; but you cannot say that infants are either believers, or persons who refuse to work. The capacity to work is not the point insisted on by the apostle: it is implied, it is true. But the point stated is the want of will. It might be added too, that new-born infants are no more able to eat, than to work. We have arrived at Section iv., which treats of the enquiry, “ Why infants were not named in the com¬ mand of Christ ?” In this there is no need to follow the author. We are both agreed, that there was no need that our Lord, in his baptismal commission, should speak of infants. Our reason is, because they are part of the class of unbelievers, which is wholly excluded. “ The apostles were to preach the gospel, and bap¬ tize those who believe. They could not preach to infants, therefore infants were not mentioned. Yet the salvation , which was the burden of the Gospel, was not limited to those who were physically capable of understanding it; i.e., infants were not excluded from the salvation of God in Christ Jesus. This, however, is not expressly stated, for the salvation of infants was no more the question in point than their baptism; yet, we infer that there is salvation for those who die in infancy, albeit not connected with believing.” Just so. As infants are capable of being saved with¬ out hearing the gospel, so may they be saved without baptism also. Baptism is connected with instruction and faith, and so belongs not to infants. Nay, Peter assures us, that the essence of baptism is “ the answer of a good conscience toivard God, through the resurrec¬ tion of Jesus Christ.” Whenever infants have that good conscience, through Christ’s death and resurrec¬ tion, and can give answer to questions put on the sub¬ ject, I shall be happy to baptize them. Proceed we now to Section v. “ If you baptize your infant, why not give it bread and wine?” A very good question. How does our author get out of the net? The following is an analysis of the reply. I 1. Spiritual conditions are required of the commu¬ nicant. He must “ examine himself.” Judgment belongs to the unworthy partaker. But then the same principle takes effect as in bap¬ tism. Spiritual conditions are designed to exclude only those capable of them. And infants are not capable of self-examination. Therefore they are not excluded by the required self-examination from the Supper, any more than by required faith from bap¬ tism.* The net is drawn very tight. What escape can be found ? 2. The answer is, (1) While baptism is celebrated once only, the Lord’s Supper is celebrated often , and should be kept weekly at least. (2) Baptism is more a passive ordinance than the Supper; the person “ can¬ not baptize himself.” (3) The responsibility of the ordinance of baptism rests more with the baptizer and the parent, than with the baptized. These are the rea¬ sons. Do they deliver the bird from the snare? Nay! He is fast caught. Baptism possesses the same elements as the Supper in the two last points, on the author s own showing. They differ only in degree. But difference of principle, only, will justify admission to the one, and exclusion from the other. Difference of degree is no valid plea for treatment so opposite. 1. First; What hindrance does the repetition of the Supper introduce into the matter? If baptism is to be received but once, and the Supper weekly, let the infant be baptized once, and communicate weekly, t * To this I should add, that the author says in the previous paragraph, “ If the baptized infant lives, the fruit which springs from that union with Christ which God effects, and not our faith, or baptism, must be looked for;” and herein I find my answer to the objection, ‘ If you baptize your infant, why not give it the bread and wine?’ Not seeing its force, I give it, that no part of what he considers material may be kept back. h The author calls the Supper “ a continuous act of faith.” The expression is not a right one. The Supper is a rite, and the rite itself is over in a few minutes, as truly as in baptism. The principles which lead to the Supper should, indeed, abide 13 If the spiritual pre-requisites do not exclude, how much less the mere repetition of the act! Your very objection allows, that it ought not to exclude the infant from a single reception of the Supper. 2. Next, as to the point of passivity. The difference would be small indeed. The infant must be borne to the Supper, as truly as to baptism. If he must be passive in his submerging, he must have the bread and wine put into his mouth. True, he must open his mouth and swallow in the one case, but in the other rite, he may be wholly passive. But, what then? What have the greater or less predominance of a cer¬ tain physical condition of a rite, to do with its godli¬ ness't■ The only thing of any service to the author here would be to prove its physical impossibility. And then it would hold, even if admitted, only so long as it was physically impossible. Remove the spiritual barrier, and it is an unworthy plea to put forth the physical difficulties. 3. “ The responsibility connected with the rite, or in other words, the element of obedience , is much more with the evangelist, and with the Christian parent, than with the baptized.” (1) This would be true also of infant communicants. The evangelist and the Christian parent must decide for them whether the bread and wine shall be put into their mouths, as truly as whe¬ ther they shall be immersed or sprinkled. Here is no continuously in the soul. But so it is with baptism also. And this the author expressly asserts. “ If we experimentally know the reality of baptism in its true, large, and scriptural sense, we shall find that it must go with us, or rather we must walk in it, step by step: so that, though hut once submitted to, in the external act, we should he ever living as dead and risen, as dying and rising. In this sense, then, baptism is continuous.” (In the last sentence are my italics, not the author’s.) p. 45. His first distinction, then, is overturned by his own hand. He says further, that the Supper is an act “ of faith alone, no posi¬ tive command being given as to how often it is to he taken.” But how does the non-defining of the times of reception make it more an act of faith than the case in which the time-command is more explicit? Though baptism is to he received but once, yet the time of its reception is not defined. . 14 difference: here is entire likeness. (2) And were it otherwise, what is it to the point ? The principle laid down is to the effect, that the spiritual conditions of the case are to form no barrier to the infant’s recep¬ tion of baptism. So then with the Supper. I have gone, then, through the differences by which the author seeks to stave off from himself the unwel¬ come conclusion. They are utterly worthless. His first reason is hewn down by himself. His second has nought to say against the godliness of the practice, but simply its aspect from a natural point of view. His third is swept away by a discharge from his own artillery. To your conscience, in the presence of God, I appeal, brother Paget! Is infant baptism a “ godly practice,” as you testify on the outside of your pamphlet? Is it a positive duty enjoined by God and His Christ? Then so is infant communion! Your reasons against it are palpable excuses. You admit that the same principles are found in both. The same difficulties lie against both. You level those barriers in the one case. They cannot offer opposition, then, in the other. You plead only, that there exist between them differences of degree. Be it granted, for the argument’s sake! All the result of such admission is, that there may be corresponding differences of degree in the fulfilment of the one and of the other! But, admitted to the full, they cannot prove, that the one is right , the other wrong Infant baptism is a “godly practiced So , then , is infant com¬ munion! All that your plea amounts to is, that infant communion is less binding, because it is less godly. But that is no relief. But the question you have started, or the objection which you seek to answer, has no regard to the comparative obligation of baptism and the Supper upon infants. The question is, Is it incumbent at all ? If it be a “ godly practice,” it is. It is binding , as it is godly. The comparative degrees of obligation of the two can be discussed, when the reality of the obligation of the Supper on infants has been admitted, and acted upon. Your \ 15 argument really admits that it is binding. Carry it out, brother! ’Tis a “godly practice!” You are self- condemned, if, pleading for infant baptism, you do not confess and carry out, as far as in you lies, infant communion! Or else, confess a truth to which I hope this discussion may lead you again, that the baptism of infants is a vain tradition of men! Section vi. is an answer to the objection, “ But infant baptism helps forward the apostacy.” His reply is an appeal to the primary question. Is infant baptism of Cod'? If it be, we have nothing to do with results. This is a conclusive answer to a very weak objection. But why take up such straws and break them, when the massy beams of the true defence stand untouched? In this section, apostles are obliquely blamed for admitting too easily to baptism, (p. 14.) How incon¬ sistent, to be thus lax in admitting unbelieving infants, refused by apostles; and thus strict in require¬ ment of stronger proofs of faith from adults than sufficed for apostles themselves!* In Section vii. is raised the question of the ground of the reception of females to communion. If, it is argued, express mention is required in order to impart baptism, it is required also in order to female com¬ munion. The answers whereto are— 1. Our main reason of refusing infants as subjects of baptism is, not their not being expressly named, but their being distinctly excluded by virtue of the pre-requisites to baptism. But believing females are evidently included in the command to baptize those who believe. 2. Those who have received baptism have a right to the Supper. This is granted by Mr. P. It is the basis of Section v. of his tract. He owns, too, that females w T ere baptized. The inference, then, is com¬ plete. 3. We can show females at the Supper. In Acts i. * The subject of Section vii., “Is inferential proof legiti¬ mate ?” has been met before. 16 14, we read, that with the apostles and brethren were assembled women, among whom Mary, Jesus’ mother, is specified. In Acts ii. 1, we read, that “all” three hundred and twenty, were present together at Pente¬ cost, when the Spirit descended on them. Then Peter preached to the assembled multitude; and we read, “ Then they that gladly received his word were bap¬ tized : and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine, and the fellow¬ ship, and the breaking of the bread , and the prayers.” (41, 42.) The breaking of the bread and the prayers were going on ere the 3000 joined, and continued after they were added. Section viii. promises us proof of the baptism of infants with apostolic sanction. But its title is equi¬ vocal. It does not say, “Infants certainly baptized in apostles’ days,” but, “ Children certainly baptized.” The last is fully admitted. We who take the opposite side, baptize “ children.” “ But, it is replied, they were intelligent children, children capable of receiving instruction, [aye, more, children that had embraced, saving truth ,] and of being influenced by motives which are applicable only to converted children.” True. How is this set aside 1 ? 1. By enquiring, at what age a child’s confession is to be accepted? 2. By asserting, that there is less danger of deluding the child, in explaining to it the meaning of a rite unintelligently received by it in the past, than by baptizing a child upon intelligent, credible profession of faith! (p. 14.) Are we bound to decide the first point? Do we admit the last? Yet, what comes next? “We have now proved from Scripture, that children were baptized in apostles’ days.”'"' Yes, brother, your opponents admit it, and still hold out the castle, no stone of it being even struck by your discharge ! You have to prove that unintelligent infants were bap¬ tized, and you leave us with the tacit confession, that * My italics. 17 the children spoken of in the epistles might have been intelligent professors of the faith ! “We also find, that Paul commands Christian parents to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. (Eph. vi. 4.) Am I to be told, that these, too, are converted children?” Yes! What then? What is the destructive consequence? Why, if so, I must acknowledge in my intercourse with my children, the difference between the converted and unconverted, (p. 14.) The rest of the section is an attempt to answer an objection of much force against his system. It is to this effect: “If infants were baptized in apostolic times, they are also recognized as being in Christ, justified, heirs of salvation. On which is grounded the dilemma,—Either baptism produced these results in those who were previously children of wrath, or they possessed these blessings by faith, previously to baptism.” (p. 15.) Mr. P. confesses it a real difficulty, and gives his solution of it. It is in substance, that persons were received of old on their profession, which is not to be assumed as genuine. The language held respecting them was not designed to assert the reality of their faith, and of its blessed consequences; but only to press on them conduct suited to the profession made. Take it in the w r ords of his summing up. “ On these grounds, therefore, I conceive that the apostle Paul exhorted the children at Ephesus and Colossse to a line of conduct consistent with their out¬ ward vocation as baptized children, without thereby forcing us to the conclusion that they were all necessa¬ rily converted children, any more than that all the men and women so addressed were assuredly converted.” (p. 18.) _ n “Exhorted the children !” Then the baptized chil- ( dren were not unintelligent infants, but intelligent believers !* * “ Outioard vocation as baptized children.” The outward vocation, in Paul’s view, was their worldly condition. (1 Cor. vii. 18 But to the point especially before us! It is true, that sometimes Paul exhorts the Christian to the holi¬ ness to which God calls him; but it is always, so far as I can see, on the ground of a position of safety already granted him, not on the ground of a profes¬ sion of faith, which might be untrue. Let us illustrate this by the Epistle to the Ephesians. Paul addresses them as “faithful in Christ Jesus,” and “saints;” and to them, as such, he says, that they were elected, ere the world’s foundation, to be holy; that they were adopted, accepted, redeemed, forgiven, possessed of the supernatural gifts, saved! Here the apostle is not pressing to conduct worthy of their profession, but asserting their privileges given by God, and then pos¬ sessed by them. Twice he says, “ they had been saved.” {Greek, Eph. ii. 5 —8.) “ To you who were dead,” says he, “God gave life.” They were “ created \by God ] in Christ Jesus for good works.” He who denies that the men and women of Ephesus, whom the apostle thus describes, were really converted, must prove his point, not merely assert it. Paul does not exhort either children or men “ to a line of conduct consistent with the outward vocation ” of baptism; for that they might render, and yet be lost. But he bids them, as subjects of God’s inward and effectual vocation, manifest the results of spiritual life. What Mr. P.’s views of right admission to churches may be, is not easily said, as the following extracts will prove. , 1. “I cannot doubt that the foundation of the apos- tacy was really laid by what would now be called the careless, but which, nevertheless, was the God-fearing addition to the Church, by baptism, of so many thou¬ sands at once, without the possibility of previous per¬ sonal examination.” (p. 12.) Apostles were not strict enough. 2. “Allegiance to Christ, as only Lord.will 20.) Never is it spoken of their spiritual state, nor is baptism severed from its accompanying faith. 19 always have a separating tendency between life and mere profession.” (p. 12.) Strictness is not so needful. 3. “ That all, in every congregation of the baptized in those days, were really what they professed to be, is no more likely to have been the case than it is now, even where the most strenuous efforts are made to keep evil out, by a discipline which too often savours more of the will of the flesh, and a zeal without know¬ ledge, than of dependance upon the love and care of Christ for those who confide in him.” (p. 16.) Many moderns are too strict. 4. “ The rite of baptism (by itself) which God owns as His own institution, by whomsoever administered, on whomsoever seen.” (p. 20.) [And it may be added, ‘ in whatever mode.’] Is there not laxity enough here ? Section ix. is entitled, “ Baptism a hold on the con¬ science,” and is designed to show the superior position occupied by a psedo-baptist parent in his appeals to the heart of an ungodly child. To us, this has no force. Arguments from advan¬ tages are well enough, when the thing is proved to be right. But the one question is, Is infant baptism right ? With words to this effect he had justly silenced a similar appeal from the other side. He should have seen, that the case was the same here. Prove the primary question, and we are satisfied that the re¬ sults of God’s commands cannot but secure all real advantages. Section x. is another instance of wandering away from the point in hand. Its title is, “Baptism not rendered void by the unregeneracy of the baptizer.” What is this to the defence of infant baptism, as a godly practice ? In section xi., we have an argument founded on Acts ii. 38, 39. Let us take the passage, beginning with the former verse. “Then Peter said unto them, Bepent, and be baptized every of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive 20 the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call.” Whereupon the author writes as follows,—“ In the first place, the children spoken of are said to mean simply their £ descendants.’ I confess I do not under¬ stand how infants are therefore excluded, unless they are not descendants. But, then, it is justly urged, that the “promise” spoken of is connected with “prophesying;” and since infants cannot prophesy, ‘your sons and your daughters,’ of ver. 17, quoted from Joel ii. 28, must necessarily exclude infant sons and daughters.” Good. If a w T ill bequeathed an estate to a man and his children, it would be certain that infants were not put in possession of it. And so here. Prophesying involves intelligence; therefore, the promise was not to take effect on infants. They might have a virtual interest in it, but it would not be enjoyed, till they came to years of intelligence. It is admitted, that infants were not to “ begin prophesying in the cradle.” “ This, however, would have been no valid objection in the mind of a Jew, to whom Peter particularly addressed himself; for he was accustomed to the fact of God’s separating some children from the womb, and filling them even then with the Spirit. (Jer. i. 5; Luke i. 15.) Nay, I believe, that it would not be only no argument with a Jew against baptizing his infant offspring, but would be the strongest argument in favour of it, without expecting to begin prohesying in the cradle.” Was the Jew accustomed to infants prophesying ? If he was not—and it is admitted he was not—his being accustomed to God’s predestining prophets for his service from their earliest days, proves nothing at all. “ I believe.” We are not concerned with Mr. P.’s belief, but with the evidence adduced in its favour. As there is no evidence in this sentence, I proceed. “ If, then, the believing Jew did baptize his infant, it would be a warrant for Gentile believers doing the 21 same. You see, I am not building a theory of infant baptism on the promise made in Joel, however much that may have operated on the Jewish mind; but on the example which I assume to have been set by the first Jewdsh believers. This is my answer to a par¬ ticular objection.” Is such a writer fit to handle controversy 1 He begs the very point in question. He erects his edifice on shadows, and does not see the baselessness of his pro¬ ceeding. “ If the Jew baptized his infant, the Gentile is warranted in doing the same.” The “ if ” remains throughout an hypothesis, desti¬ tute of proof. Even if the Jew did baptize his infants, it would be no warrant for bur doing so, unless he did it rightly. This is the question to be proved. He builds, then, on an example assumed without proof, and against it. “ I shall now proceed to shew what are the convincing arguments, to my mind, that they certainly did bap¬ tize their infant offspring, wholly apart from the promise alluded to by Peter.” (p. 23.) Where are these arguments to be found ? I have looked for them, and cannot find them. Chap. xii. is an answer to an objection. Chap. xiii. is engaged with the meaning of baptizo. Chap. xiv. is an answer to the argument from 1 Cor. vii. 14. Chap. xv. is an answer to an objection from Acts xv. Chap. xvi. is ‘ Concluding remarks on being buried with Christ. ’ The Appendix is engaged with another subject. Not one positive argument in favour of infant baptism follows this promise ! What hastiness of spirit this shews ? Can he have read over what he wrote, before he sent it to the press ? Can such headlong productions win a great cause % No matter how many years he has thought on the subject, this is crude enough. Peter, it is added, did not know, while preaching on the day of Pentecost, that God was then purposing to dissolve the distinction between Jew and Gentile. “ Hence, neither he nor the Jewish converts to the faith would have dreamt of excluding their infant off- 22 spring from baptism, when they had been ever accus¬ tomed to an external rite for introducing their [male] children into that visible association which they them¬ selves had part in.” ■ If the Jew assumed, that the rites of Christianity would follow the same regulations, and observe the same extent as J udaism, he was foolish. But, whatever were his previous expectations, as soon as he learned the terms of the commission of Jesus, he would see at a glance that it allowed of the baptism of believers only. The initiatory rite of Judaism excluded females; the initiatory rite of Christianity admitted them. Yet we read of no surprise. The terms of the new faith were not to be conjectured, but to be learned with the felt ignorance of little children. Section xii. has now been reached. “ Infant Baptism charged with being the presentation of corruption to God.” “It is affirmed by some, that ‘ Baptism is a burial appointed by God to remove the dead flesh out of his sight;’ and the question is then asked of those who baptize their infant children, ‘ Is it right to pre¬ sent corruption to God?’ The Christian parent, rightly instructed, owns the incurably unclean cha¬ racter of the flesh in his offspring.” Some of this is quoted from my “ Principal Argu¬ ments from Scripture in favour of Infant Baptism considered .” But it is very incorrectly cited. The argument there is put more forcibly, I think, as fol¬ lows :— “ If the children of believing parents are to be bap¬ tized, it must be because of the natural connexion between them and their parents. Now, this is a con¬ nexion between their jlesh and that of the child. But, under this dispensation, the flesh is not recognized at all. The flesh was recognized and put to the proof in ancient Israel; but in them it failed utterly, and God drove them from the land. And now God recognizes no longer the flesh. It is cast out as incurably evil. 4 In me, that is, in my flesh , dwelletli no good thing' 23 (Rom. vii. 18.) ‘ The flesh 'prqfiteth nothing .’ (John vi. 63.) ‘ They that are in the flesh cannot please God.' (Rom. vii. 8.).Can this vile flesh, accounted dead in God’s sight, (Rom. viii. 16; Matt. viii. 22,) and utterly unclean, be the foundation and reason of God’s receiving the child ? No : the children whom he recog¬ nizes are those which are ‘ born not of blood, nor OF THE FLESH, NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, BUT OF GOD.’ (John i. 13.) ‘They which are the children of THE FLESH, THESE ARE NOT THE CHILDREN OF GOD.’” (Rom. ix. 8.) “ In order to simplify the matter, let us imagine a case. Two believers, lately married, are baptized at Ephesus. Now what is baptism ? It is a burial of the flesh with the burial of Christ. (Rom. vi. 4; Col. ii. 12.) This supposes that the flesh is dead; for wdio buries anything that is alive 1 Accordingly, we are told, ‘ The body is dead, because of sin.’ (Rom. viii. 10.) And burial is the removal of what is dead out of sight. ‘ Give me a possession of a burying-place with you, that I may bury my dead out of sight.' (Gen. xxiii. 4.) Baptism, then, is a burial appointed by God to remove the dead flesh out of his sight. “A year after this couple have a son, and propose to dedicate the infant to God by baptism. What now is the aspect of the thing. Can God acknowledge any relationship arising from that flesh which, as incurably unclean and dead, he caused to be buried out of his sight ? Can anything proceed from a buried corpse but corruption 1 ? And is it fit to present corruption to God % “ The infant, by our supposition, is spiritually dead : and his parents’ flesh was buried as dead: and his own is dead also. Can God receive such an one % If so, he were the ( God of the dead.' But ‘he is not the God of the dead, but of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.’” (Mark xii. 27.) “ If, then, a child were brought to be baptized by one rightly instructed after the mind of God, he would enquire, ‘On what ground do you bring this child 1 ?’ 24 The reply must be, ‘Because he is the child of a be¬ liever, ‘according to the flesh.' But then the apostle’s principle applies—‘Henceforth know we no man ac¬ cording to the flesh.’ (2 Cor. v. 16.) And if the believer . himself is not known according to the flesh, much less the child of his flesh.” (p. 9—11.) But next let us meet Mr. P.’s statement. How is the difficulty disposed of ? It is granted, that the flesh is dead, and incurably corrupt. It is granted, too, that baptism is the pre¬ sentation of the person baptized to God. Now, in the unbelieving infant, the flesh alone is found, and the flesh alone is presented to God. Is it right to do this ? He asks, “ in reply, whether it is unreasonable to bury his child’s dead flesh, and then seek, in obedience to a plain command, to bring it up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord % This is not presenting corruption to God,” &c. We ask, Is it right ? He says, It is “ reasonable .” But the flesh is presented ere it is buried, even when immersion is used. And the flesh is corruption. The baptism, then, of an infant, is the presentation of cor¬ ruption to God. The premises, from which it is the deduction, are granted, so that the conclusion neces¬ sarily follows. Corruption is presented to God. Is it right ? At the close of the section, a weak objection is replied to. Section xiii., on the meaning of the word, is out of its place. Let us discuss the subject and the mode separately. Section xiv. considers the bearing of 1 Cor. vii. 14 on the question, Who are the subjects of baptism ? It is conceded by Mr. P. that no argument can be deduced from this passage. “ Nothing in favour of baptism can be drawn from this Scripture: for as a like sanctification attaches to each on like grounds, namely, the natural tie by which they were severally linked to the husband and the father, if one were baptized on these ground's, the 25 other ought also; and thus, not infant baptism only, but the baptism of unbelieving adult heathens, would be proved from the same Scripture.” (p. 40.) “ The inspired argument places the unbelieving wife on the same level with the children of the believing husband. [Nay, not only so, but on a level with the children of the members of the Church generally.] ‘It is what logicians call an argument a pari , or from one case, to another like it in principle.’” The last words are quoted from my tract, “ Your Children Holy.” (p. 14.) But then, it is denied that any proof against infant baptism can be drawn from the passage, as I, on the contrary, endeavoured to prove. “ Now I fully grant that the apostle’s reasoning- proceeds on the ground, that there is a common level on which wife and children stand. But it is important to know what this common level is. And, since the question was, Shall the believing husband put away the unbelieving wife ? it is clear, that unregeneracy is the common level assumed.” (p. 41.) “ It is clear ! ” Is this granted ? It is clear to myself, and others, that unregeneracy alone is not the level assumed. t But the author will establish his position by argu¬ ment. “ But allowing, [it should have been ‘ assuming,’] for argument’s sake, that the children certainly were bap¬ tized; still, if unregeneracy be valid ground for putting away the wife, it is equally valid ground for putting away the unregenerate children, their baptism notwith¬ standing, for baptism does not make a believer.”* “ The baptism, therefore, of children would not have interfered with the common level of unregeneracy.” (p. 42.) That is, the apostle’s argument holds equally well, whether we assume that the children of the believers at Corinth were baptized or not. Here we wrestle for a fall. * The last are my italics. B 26 The writer’s assertion is, that the unregenerate, ivithout baptism , occupy the same level as the unregene¬ rate with baptism. Now, unless baptism be a nullity, this is self-evidently false. X plus a cypher,—to use the ' language of algebra,—may be equal to x; but x, plus any fraction, how small soever, must be more than x. The unregenerate baptized does not occupy the same level with the unregenerate ^-baptized. He is not on the same level, either (1) before God, or (2) before men. 1. He is not on the same level before God. That w T hich has been presented to God, does not occupy the same level with that which has never been so offered. But it may be said, “ Oh, then you admit the right¬ ness of offering infants to God.” By no means. What says the scripture of Korah’s censers 'l “ Speak,” says Jehovah, “unto Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, that he take up the censers out of the burning, and scatter thou the hre yonder; for they are hallowed. The censers of these sinners against their own soids, let them make them broad plates for a covering of the altar: for they offered them before the Lord , therefore they are hallowed.'’ 1 (Num. xvi. 37, 38.) 2. If the Corinthians were Pcedo-baptists, they would have regarded the baptism of infants in some such way as those who so practise the rite have ever done. Psedobaptists may, indeed, differ a good deal in regard of the effects resulting from the sprinkling of infants; but none can believe it to have no effect without being self-condemned. What! a rite com¬ manded of God, positively empty, and destitute of any result! It may, in their eye, be devoid of saving efficacy; but they may still suppose it possible that it may pro¬ duce unknown consequences, even before God. It is, I believe, unanimously asserted by them, that baptism admits into the Church. But if so, then the baptized children, as being inside the Church , did not occupy the same level with the unbaptized heathen wife,' who was outside it. 3. Whatever the views of others may be, Mr. Paget, 27 you shall overthrow your own position. Low as your views of the consequences of infant baptism are, you yet hold, that it affects the standing of the baptized both before God and man. You believe that it— 1. Fixes obligations on the baptized, (p. 6.) 2. Represents the infant as freely saved, (p. 8.) 3. Admits to the Church, (pp. 11, 12, 27.) 4. Sets them on the ground of saintship. They are called to walk worthy of their calling as the baptized. (pp. 18, 21.) 5. They have on them God’s instituted “sign of separation to himself” (p. 14.) “Baptism is a sign of regeneration, the outward badge of discipleship , a lift OFF THE GROUND OF MERE HEATHENISM.” (p. 11.) 6. “We can certainly urge arguments with the baptized, which would be perfectly out of place and pointless, in addressing the heathen.” (p. 18.) 7. By baptism, “ God holds Christendom responsible; that which he recognizes for the deeper condemnation of those who, being baptized, have nevertheless no eye to Christ.” (p. 19.) 8. Baptism is “ the initial step, by a figure, into that great salvation.” (p. 44.) How, then, could she who had no sign of separation to God, stand on the same level with one who had it How could those recognized as disciples before men, occupy the level of one who made no pretences to it 1 How could those lifted off the ground of heathenism occupy the same ground with her who still stood upon it? Baptism, therefore, does disturb the moral level which the apostle assumes to have existed, between the unbelieving wife and the unbelieving children. Then, as the heathen wife was unbaptized, so were the un¬ believing children. How could this supposition be made to accord with * Specially when regeneration may sometimes baptism.” (p. 16 .) B 2 accompany 28 Peter’s statement ? He asserts, that the person who is rightly baptized is a saved man. For he assumes that the inward faith precedes the outward rite. (1 Pet. iii. 17—21.) How could those inside the ark be in the ' same position with those against whom its door was closed ? II. But baptism alters the level of the baptized in relation to man. 1. You teach, that it gives the hither an especial “hold on the conscience,” a plea of especial force, and have devoted a chapter to the subject, (p. 18.) 2. He, too, who is within the Church, does not oc¬ cupy, even before his fellows, the same moral level with one outside. 3. If the level before God is altered, much more as be¬ fore men ! Infants lit to be presented to God as his sons, are surely fit to live with men as their sons. Here, then, lies the answer to your argument. As long as any result in relation to God or man is produced by bap¬ tism, the cases are not parallel, and the level being disturbed, the argument is made void. “ If unregeneracy be valid ground for putting away the wife, it would be equally valid ground for putting away the unregenerate children; for baptism does not make a believer.” 1. Consider the state of the case. The position of the children was brought forward as a parallel to the case of the unbelieving wife. But if the case were not parallel, the argument w T as at an end. And that bap¬ tism of the children would have disturbed the parallel, we have seen. 2. Or view it in another light. Logic requires that the third idea used as the medium of proof, be clearer than the point to be proved. We argue from the clear to the obscure. But so it would not be, on Mr. Paget’s supposition. To say, that the unconverted un baptized adult was to be lived with, because uncon¬ verted baptized infants were fit, would not carry much satisfaction to the enquirer’s mind. It would cause a new difficulty, instead of settling the old. It would not be an argument a pari, or an argument from a like ease, which, as it is confessed, this is. Ought a Christian to put away an wwbaptized un¬ converted wife] Mr. P. supposes the answer might be, “ If you do, you should put away your unconverted baptized children.” Any Corinthian would at once have replied, as we should now, u The cases, Paul, are not parallel. The parallel is destroyed, just in the vital point of the question. Baptized infants are accepted before God, and before his assembled people in spiritual relations, and therefore, of course, fit to be received by the saint in earthly relationships. But how does this parallel the case of the heathen wife, rejected both by God and his church?” Did the ^circumcised unconverted Gentile occupy, before God or before Israel, the place of the circumcised unconverted Jew ? Mr. P. uses the case of the children, as logicians say, destructively. Paul uses it constructively. The church at Corinth, as a body of believing parents, had already decided the case of the children rightly. The apostle uses that as a basis upon which to rear up the like case of the heathen wife. Both were spiritually unclean before God, both were in fleshly relations clean to the believer. But are the baptized ever regarded as unclean before God ? But “ baptism does not make a believer.” No, nor do we assert it. But because it does not produce the highest effect before God, does it therefore produce none ? You yourself declare, that it carries with it a species of holiness. The infant is outwardly and emblematically withdrawn from the level of nature, and separated to God. The level then, as respects God himself, is altered. How much more as regards man ! “ Baptism does not make a believer.” No; but it accredits a man as one, or you beg the question. It supposes examination of the evidences of faith, ques¬ tions put , replies given, and the belief of the existence of faith, ere baptism is apostolically administered. 30 (1 Pet. iii. 17—21.) “ The body bathed in pure water” (see Greek) is the correlative of a “ heart sprinkled from an evil conscience.” (Heb. x. 22.) 3. Let us regard it again from another point of view. The question submitted to the apostle was, the lawfulness of outward acceptance before man, in a case of total rejection before God. Whether one disowned of God, both in body and sold, was a permitted natural companion for a believer? The apostle assumes that the children and the wife were on the same footing. Neither, it is granted, had the highest acceptance. The wife was not accepted, either in body or soul. As such she was not accepted of the church of God, but was wholly outside. But the chil¬ dren, by your supposition, were accepted in body before God. They were, as so accepted, introduced into the company of God’s loyal ones. If so, the two cases stood on grounds so different, that the exclusion of the wife could not imply the exclusion of the children. How could those enrolled among the saints, in their holy corporate capacity, be deemed unfit for saints in their earthly relationships ? Paul, then, could not have adduced the children’s standing as a parallel one with the unbeliever’s, had they already been enrolled soldiers of the host of God. The ground on which the apostle ultimately rests the reception of both the wife and the children shows, that no other recognition of God encircled the two cases, than the appointed one of marriage, and the phy¬ sical one of sonship. There are, then, three recogni¬ tions of God to be regarded in this argument: (1) That of conversion, which w T e will call spiritual; (2) That of baptism, involving also an introduction among God’s saints, which we w T ill call ecclesiastical; and (3) That of the relations of the body, which we will call natural. You assume, that because God alike disowned both spiritually, therefore the ecclesiastical reception, both by God and his people, of the children on the one hand, with the answering rejection of the wife on the other, made no difference between the two cases! It 31 might be doubtful whether she, who was rejected by the Church of God, might be lived with by one of the Church; but it never could be doubtful whether mem¬ bers of the Church might live with accepted members of the Church. The reception before God, beyond all doubt, carried with it the reception by man. If a divinely authorized natural position be warrant for human reception, much more the divinely authorized ecclesiastical reception! Any reception by God was enough to pacify the enquirer’s disturbed conscience. The children had a reception of God far higher than that assigned to the wife. They had not only the natural one, but one which required their reception by the saints. Take an illustration of the argument. A loyal hotel-keeper has residing in his house two persons, born foreigners; both, as he fears, disaffected to the Queen. One of these is only enrolled as a foreigner at the Alien Office; the other has been naturalized. Could he put them both on the same footing? He might write to enquire of the government if he were authorized to allow under his roof the disaffected foreigner; but could he question the lawfulness of re¬ taining under his roof a sworn subject of the Queen, specially if he were a perfectly peaceful person h The Secretary of State might reply, that he was acting quite to the satisfaction of the government in retain¬ ing the foreigner, inasmuch as he had fulfilled all that was required for his dwelling in England, in his being enrolled at the Alien Office. But could he draw any parallel between the foreigner who held his allegiance to another government unbroken, and the one who had outwardly sworn allegiance to the Queen % “Nor would it [baptism] have ‘ destroyed the apostle's argument; unless it be maintained, that baptism of it¬ self lifts off the ground of unregeneracy, and makes the baptized so ‘ clean,’ that the apostle’s argument, i else were your children unclean,’ would be destroyed, I feel sure that these objectors did not contemplate the result of their objections, nor see that they would be laid hold of as an unanswerable argument in favour of baptismal regeneration.” (p. 42.) These words are connected with a former paragraph. “ Another way of using this scripture against infant baptism is this. If the children had been baptized, the apostle’s argument would have been destroyed, for he could not then have said, ‘ else were your children unclean;'' but, inasmuch as he did thus argue, it is positive they were not baptized; therefore, infant bap¬ tism was unknown in apostolic da} r s.” There is a second argument in that tract of mine, from which the former quotation was taken; but it is not this. This omits the case of the heathen wife, the great fulcrum of the lever. The argument as stated in the tract is as follows:— 1. “Those who, by an apostle, are set on the same footing, received the same treatment at his hands. 2. “ The heathen wife and believers’ children are, by the apostle, set on the same footing. 3. “ Therefore, they received the same treatment. “ But the heathen wife was not baptized, as is granted. Then neither were the children of believers, considered simply as such.” (p. 15.) But now for the argument, as stated by Mr. P. ! Admit that the children were baptized, and therefore clean, and you assert that baptism made them regene¬ rate ! Here is an explosion of the shell, which the constructor little anticipated ! Very true. Specially after it had been asserted by the constructor, and admitted by his opponent, that “ The sanctification spoken of is really no more than sepa¬ ration to the use of man by the permission of God: it is the same kind of holiness as that spoken of ( meats' in 2 Tim. iv. 1—5. Holiness, or separation to God, is quite another thing, and is not touched on here." (p. 40.) Then the cleanness of the children is one of quite another kind from that of regeneracy. And an argu¬ ment in favour of baptismal regeneration to be ex¬ tracted from such premises will, I guess, never see the light. 33 “ Be this as it may, it will be readily allowed, I ima¬ gine, that the argument drawn from this scripture against infant baptism, falls to the ground.” He who would readily allow that, by such reasoning, the proof against infant baptism, drawn from this passage, was overturned, could not be much of a rea- soner. On the contrary, / imagine that the futility of the attack against it will discover it to the candid to be an invincible fortress, erected by God against the corruption of his truth. “ While the mere logic of the argument is proved to be fallacious.” ‘Mere logic!’ What is there of a convincing character in an argument but its ‘ mere logic?’ There may be piety exhibited. Are we to yield to piety ? There may be beauty of style. Ought that to convince? Ought it to be any thing but the naked force of the reasoning ? And what is the naked force of the reasoning, but its ‘mere logic?’ “ Let us try it, by putting the ‘ nurture and admo¬ nition’ of the children in place of baptism. It will then stand thus: ‘ The inspired argument places the unbelieving wife on the same level with the children; but if the children are fit subjects for that which the unbelieving wife is not fit for, then they and the unbelieving wife are not on the same level. If the unbelieving wife was not a fit subject for bringing up, ( i.e ., nourishing,) in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, neither were the children: for if the chil¬ dren were thus brought up, and the unbelieving wife not, they and the unbelieving wife would not have been on the same level, as the argument assumes they were. Therefore, no children, even of believing parents, were brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord in Paul’s day.” (p. 42.) 1. The inspired argument sets the wife and the chil¬ dren on the same level in relation to the believer s • dwelling with them. Does that imply, that it supposes them on the same level in all respects? On the same level, too, in regard to a point in which children neces¬ sarily differ from the adult? b 5 34 2. If the absurdity followed, you would yourself be liable to the same imputation. For you admit the assertion on which the argument proceeds. You say, “ Now I fully grant, that the apostle’s reasoning pro¬ ceeds on the ground, that there is a common level [your own italics] on which wife and children stand.” (p. 41.) “ A like sanctification attaches to each on like grounds, namely, the natural tie by which they are severally linked to the husband and the father.” (p. 40.) Is Mr. Paget called to engage in controversy? Let his own friends judge! Section xv. is headed ‘Acts xv.’ It is designed as a reply to the question,—Why did not the council at Jerusalem, as its answer to the controversy there mooted, reply, that infant baptism had taken the place of infant circumcision? “ The unsoundness, however, of the argument may be easily proved. The question was, whether they were right who ‘taught the brethren, and said, Ex¬ cept ye be circumcised. ye cannot be saved' How would it have ‘ settled the point’ for any other than Romanizing formalists, to have replied, that circum¬ cision was abolished by the introduction of infant baptism?” (p. 43.) It is granted, that the primary question on the oc¬ casion supposed was,—Is circumcision necessary to salvation ? But could not the secondary question have been settled, without making it the main one? Prove that it could not, and your answer may be worth some¬ thing. Both James and the council did direct the eye of the Gentiles to inferior matters. They wrote to them, that they should “ abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.” ( v . 20 —29.) How would the answer supposed settle the matter for ‘ Romanizing formalists’ alone? I confess, it would have been very satisfactory to me, who am no Roman¬ izing formalist, if, to the enquiry, whether these Phari¬ saic believers were right, the apostle had replied— “ No, they are intellectually wrong ; for circumcision is 35 abolished, and baptism has taken its place. They are wrong in the highest and most important sense. For baptism no more saves than circumcision. It is of grace through faith in Christ Jesus that we are saved.” I fancy that this would settle both questions at once, and yet give the chief question its foremost place. The same reply, in substance, will apply to what Mr. P. has said of the Epistle to the Galatians. In Section xvi. entitled, “ Concluding Remarks on being buried with Christ,” there is much of truth, but truth not having any argumentative bearing on the defence of infant baptism; and I therefore pass it by without further notice. The Appendix is engaged with “ The typical cha¬ racter of Israel’s history in the wilderness.” It does not treat chiefly upon infant baptism. But there is one brief passage in its opening, on which I must make a remark or two. “ It is considered by many, that Israel was exclusively a type of the living Church of God, and that consequently, not the literal infant of Christian parents, but the ‘new-born babe’ of the Gospel (1 Pet. ii. 2), is that wdiich exclusively answers to the literal infant under the law.” There are two propositions resembling one another, which must be distinguished. 1. Nothing but Israel was a type of the Church of God. 2. Israel was a type of nothing but the Church of God. It is in the latter sense that Mr. P. uses it, as appears by his afterwards saying, “According to the theory, that Israel in the wilderness represented ex¬ clusively the church of God in this dispensation,” &e. “ I demur to this; and take as my ground of objec¬ tion the use made by our blessed Lord of the history of those who were bitten by the fiery serpents. (Num. xxi.; John iii.) To whom, and for whose sake does he apply it 1 ? ‘As Moses lifted,’ &c.I ask, Was Christ lifted up exclusively for failing saints'?” We reply, it is not necessary to the argument, to assert that Israel never typifies anything beside the 30 true Church of God. We can admit that Jesus, on one occasion, makes God’s mode of dealing with Israel after its transgression, a type of God’s love to the world, and yet retain our confident hold on the con¬ clusion previously drawn. I. We have only need to shew that Israel sometimes, or generally, is a type of the church, and that it is so regarded in relation to the point in which we use it; and our argument is conclusive, with all who hold Scripture authoritative. (1) That Israel is a type of the church is asserted in more places than one. In 1 Cor. x. 1—11, after noticing God’s supernatural feeding of Israel, and remarking his displeasure, notwithstanding, against many of them, the apostle adds, “ Now these things were types of us,” tvttol pp(ov (v. 6.) (2) The apostle assumes the same truth in his rea¬ soning on Israel’s exclusion from the land (Heb. iii. 4); and (3) in his comparing our position with Israel at the foot of the mount:—they being expectant of Moses’ return, we of Christ’s. (Heb. xii.) (4) Paul gives us to understand, that the letter and flesh then are a type of the Spirit now. The leaven, literal under the law, is to be taken spiritually now. Unleavened bread, to us, is sincerity and truth. The literal veil on Moses’ face answers to a spiritual veil on the writings of Moses now. Ours is the dispensation of the Spirit, as opposed to the letter and the flesh. (2 Cor. iii.) The law forbad the muzzling of the threshing ox. How does Paul apply it now? To the literal ox ? Nay, but to the minister of the gospel. If so, then the command of circumcision to the literal infant answers to the command of baptism to the spiritual infant. II. But we can draw more closely yet to the conclu¬ sion. However varied the typical aspects of Israel, when we apply the type as Scripture has done, we cannot err. } Now the apostle speaks of Israel’s crossing the Red Sea as typical of the church of God passing through 37 baptism. (1 Cor. x.) Then the literal men of Israel answer to the spiritual men of Christ’s host. Again, Peter declares, that Noah’s escape, and that of his sons, in the ark, typifies the escape in baptism of those who believe in Jesus dead and risen. The literal ark then answers to an ark of faith now. But inside an ark of faith none but believers can be found. Noah and his sons were first in the ark, then passed the waters. So, then, the saved must first believe, then be baptized. And if faith be a pre-requisite, infants are excluded. With regard to the rest of the Appendix, I will be brief. I trust my readers will not take that piece of hasty declamation as a true statement of the doctrine concerning “ Entrance into the kingdom.” I will give one glaring instance of misrepresentation, and have done. “It is insisted, that the ‘ enemies of the cross of Christ,’ so designated by Paul, (Phil. iii. 18,) were saints begotten of God, and justified by his grace, although the Holy Ghost declares, that their ‘ end is destruction.’” Now, what does the work in question say? (p. 42.) “ As the perseverance of the saints supposes that none of the truly faithful in Christ will finally be lost, this passage must , 1 suppose , be understood of mere professors of the faith.” In the second Appendix is the following passage— “ I seize the opportunity of drawing attention once more to Rom. vi. 3, 4, where burial with Christ into death is ascribed to baptism. The Romanizing teacher, Papist or Protestant, says, ‘ If you claim this scripture to prove the mode of baptism, and point the apostle’s appeal to the intelligence of Christians, in the words, “ Know ye not ?” as necessarily excluding infants, keep honestly to the word, as we do, and see that here, and in Col. ii. 12, the efficient cause is baptism.’” (p. 55.) The efficient cause of what ? I suppose we must supply: “of burial with Christ.” Yes; that is true* 38 But the Romanizer’s weapon is easily grappled and plucked from him, by distinguishing where Mr. Paget confounds. The death with Christ is by faith; the burial is by baptism; and the death by faith precedes the burial by baptism. It is the same in Col. ii. 12. “ Now, I must say, that in order to refute the Romanizing figment of baptismal regeneration, we must seek to understand, and then point out, what bap¬ tism it is which these scriptures speak of, and then we shall not fear to adopt the undoubted opus operatum system which is there defined, in connection, not with an ordinance in the hands of man, but with the great ordinance of God, in the hands of the Holy Ghost, even Christ, the last Adam, made a quickening spirit, (1 Cor. xv. 45,) filled to the full with all virtue in himself; and quickening, according to the purpose of God, all those who were chosen to him before the foundation of the world, and predestinated to the adop¬ tion of children. (Eph. i. 4, 5.)” What a loose, rambling style !* What an unwieldly sentence ! “In order to refute, we must seek to under¬ stand.” Certainly no man who considered Rom. vi. without a previous theory, or unconstrained by sup¬ posed necessity, ever believed that the baptism there spoken of was the regeneration of the Holy Ghost. If our resistance to Romanizers were based on no better foundation, we might ‘denounce;’ but ‘refute’ we could not. In this passage comes strongly into light a very common error, which, with the Holy Spirit’s aid, I will expose. The baptism of the Spirit is confounded with the regeneration of the Spirit. Are they the same ^ You give no proofs of identity. They are wholly dif¬ ferent in kind. The baptism of the Spirit means the impartation of the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost. * How is regeneration by the Holy Ghost an ‘ordinance,’ as baptism is? “In the hands of the Holy Ghost, even Christ,” &c. This, grammatically taken, makes Christ and the Holy Ghost the same person. What the meaning is, I do not know. I 39 Here are the proofs, derived from all the passages in which the Spirit’s baptism is spoken of. . 1. “John was immersing in the wilderness, and pro¬ claiming the baptism of repentance unto the forgive¬ ness of sins. And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all im¬ mersed in the river Jordan by him, confessing their sins.” All then who truly repented, and confessed their sins, were forgiven. And none was forgiven who was not also regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Yet John speaks of their baptism in the Spirit as yet f uture. “I indeed immersed you in water; but he [Jesus] shall immerse you in the Holy Spirit” (Mark i. 4, 5, 8; Luke iii. 16; Matt, iii.) 2. How was the promise regarded by our Lord ? How was it fulfilled ? “ Wait for the promise of the Father, which ye heard of me. For John indeed immersed in water, but ye shall be immersed in the Holy Spirit not many days hence.” (Acts i. 4, 5.) The promise of the Father was, the being clothed upon with supernatural “power.” (Luke xxiv. 49.) “Ye shall receive power , after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you.” (Acts i. 8.) How was it fulfilled ? Ten days after, the Holy Spirit descended in fire, and communicated the gifts of tongues and miracle. Now this promise was made to those already re¬ generate. And Peter promises the same supernatural endowments to those who should believe and be baptized. (Acts ii. 38.) 3. We have Peter’s authority for this view. He went and preached to Cornelius and his friends. The hearers believed, and were renewed of the Holy Ghost. The Spirit descended on them also with supernatural gifts. “ Even on the Gentiles was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speaking with tongues , and magnifying God.” (Acts x. 46.) But the believing Jews of Jerusalem were offended at Peter’s conduct. He has then to expound his 40 reasons; and, at some length, he relates the circum¬ stances. “But as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remem¬ bered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed immersed in water; but ye shall be immersed in the Holy Ghost.” (xi. 15, 16.) The scene at the house of Cornelius then resembled greatly that at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. And Peter recognized Pentecost and its gifts, as the fulfilment of the Saviour’s promise of an immersion in the Holy Spirit. He saw, too, that the Gentiles before him had also received the same immersion of the Spirit as the original disciples. Therefore they were to be received as standing, in the church of Christ, on equal terms with themselves. 4. Lastly, the place in which Paul speaks of the baptism of the Spirit is in those chapters which treat of the miraculous gifts. He evidently identifies them with the results of that baptism. “Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.to another the gifts of healing, by the same Spirit; to another the working of miracles. For as the body is one, and hath many members.so also is the Christ. For in one Spirit ivere we all immersed into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether slaves or freemen; and were all made to drink into one Spirit.” (1 Cor. xii. 4—13.)* If, then, as it is proved by these passages, the baptism of the Spirit is a different thing from the regeneration of the Spirit, your views fall to the ground. Let me suggest a few further remarks on this pas¬ sage of Romans. (1.) The death to sin ( v . 2) is spoken of previously to the burial into death. (2.) The apostle speaks in a different way of be- * In Heb. vi. 2, where Paul speaks o.f “the baptisms of in¬ struction, and of laying on of hands," (see Greek,) the reference is also to the communication of the miraculous gifts hy laying on of hands, lievers’ participation in Jesus’ death, and in baptism. He supposes some might not have been baptized, though he assumes that all believed. “ How shall vie, who died to sin, (see Greek,) live any longer therein ? Know ye not that so many of us as were immersed into Jesus Christ, were immersed into his death?” “ Ye are all the children of God by faith in Jesus Christ. For as many of you as were immersed into Christ, put on Christ.” (Gal. iii. 26, 27.) (3.) What burial is there, in the Spirit’s invisible regeneration ? Our resurrection is to be a real bodily thing. So, then, it is supposed, is “ the likeness of Christ’s death” real and bodily also. Where is that to be found, save in water-baptism ? (4.) How is the Spirit’s regeneration an answer to the previous objection, stated by the apostle in vi. 1 ? Draw out your comment verse by verse, if you would still defend your theory. We, who refuse your view, fear not the opus operatum system of the two passages to which you refer. On your theory of baptism, the results are terrible; on ours, quite harmless. Make baptism precede faith, as the baptizers of infants do, and Scripture teaches the saving efficacy of baptism. For it assumes of the baptized, that they are safe in Christ. Baptism, then, produces faith ! And if your theory of the Holy Spirit’s baptism being regeneration is false, the difficulty presses you still. We, who teach that faith should precede baptism, are in no difficulty at all. Faith makes us die with Christ; baptism buries us with him. The opus operatum efficacy of baptism here falls quite harmlessly. “ Now I quite allow, and strenuously insist on it, that this regeneration is what water-baptism represents, and merely represents; but then it is an undoubted fact, that these Scriptures determine that it is by and in baptism that these blessed results are effected. We must, therefore, give up these Scriptures as teaching anything primarily about water-baptism; or, refusing 42 to do this, must give up opposing baptismal regenera¬ tion.” Yes! tell it to all baptizers of infants ! If baptism is to precede faith, the Scripture doctrine is, that it , produces faith and salvation. The escape devised by Mr. P. is a false one. Therefore, either preach BAPTISMAL REGENERATION, OR GIVE UP INFANT BAPTISM ! This is the true alternative. II. The Mode. Chapter xiii. is devoted to the consideration of this topic, but in so rambling a manner, that I shall con¬ sult the reader’s patience and the clearness of the reply by throwing my remarks into the following order:— I. I shall give his views of the meaning of the word “baptizo II. The literal meaning. III. His admissions. IY. His objections. I. First, then, his view of the meaning. “From the way in which it is spoken of, we learn that this well-nigh untranslateable word had a very varied sense.” (p. 39.) “There are attached to the use of this word in Scripture the varied ideas of initiation, ’dedication, purification, out-pouring, union, suffering, planting, and burying; to which some (in order to get over the difficulty of a too close adherence to this last idea) add rising again! So I again repeat, that the dog¬ matic teaching of Greek scholars only serves to darken counc^ [should be counsel], and that it is impossible to prove from Scripture, from Greek Lexicons, or from the English language (!)* that immersion was a sine qua non in administering the rite of Christian baptism, or even that it was ever practised in apostolic days.” (p. 39.) Does not this passage prove Mr. P.’s incompetence * My italics. 43 for the task he has undertaken 1 Imagine any one attempting to prove from the English language the mode of administering a Christian rite ! or from Greek Lexicons either! Greek Lexicons can tell us the mean¬ ing of a Greek word, but as to the mode of a Christian rite they may well be silent. Greek Lexicons can tell us that artos means “ bread,” and oinos means “ wine but he who should go to a Greek Lexicon to find out the manner of celebrating the Supper, would be thought to have taken leave of his senses. Nor will either of / \ these sources afford us any proof, whether the initiatory rite of the Christian faith was performed on infants or adults. Again, would it be thought any proof against 011 / 0 ? sig¬ nifying wine, that it is connected with ideas so varied, as doctrine and rites, the Saviour’s crucifixion, John the Baptist’s abstinence, the good Samaritan’s benevolence, the wrath of God, and so on ? These, and many other ideas ‘ are attached to the use of this word in Scrip¬ ture,’ but they do not change the sense of the word. ‘ Wine’ will translate it everywhere. “ The wisdom of scholars is made to determine the meaning and mode of the rite, instead of allowing the Holy Ghost to use a word which our godly and learned translators seem truly to have felt to be difficult of translation, though pregnant with a meaning which can only be learned as the varied truth which it jjoints out in the place where it is found, is confessed and walked in.” (p. 37.) No, we do not suffer scholars to determine the mean¬ ing of the rite. We learn of them the meaning of the word. They are competent judges of that. And as the word is a word of mode, and they decide that it signifies immersion, the meaning of baptizo settles the way in which water is to be used in the rite. We do not refuse the Holy Ghost to use any word he wills. “ Thou shalt not bear false witness.” We only wish to have a translation into English of the Greek words used by the Holy Ghost. Could not our translators, “ godly and learned,” find 44 an equivalent English word for baptizo ? Critics say they could. A Greek scholar finds abundance of words more difficult to translate than that. But the meaning of the word can only be learned as we advance in the knowledge and practice of holiness! Again I ask, Is such a controversialist fit to handle the subject? Here is the old confusion between the word and the rite. The utmost proficiency in holiness will not give to the uneducated any knowledge of the meaning of the Greek word baptizo. He may grow in knowledge of the significancy and beauty of the Chris¬ tian rite of baptism, as he grows in holiness and love of the truth. But that has nothing to do with the discovery of the sense of a Greek word. II. The meaning of the word baptizo is always and everywhere one. ‘ Immerse’ will translate it on every occasion. III. On this point, let us hear Mr. P.’s admissions. (1.) A writer whom he quotes, charges sprinkling with being contempt thrown on the Lord’s command, and with frustrating the purpose of the ordinance. On which he says, “ They are positive assertions and heavy charges, backed, too, (as I shall show from an¬ other book,) by a host of learned men. I do not won¬ der, therefore, at the tender (yet, I would venture to add, uninformed) conscience, being startled thereby,” Ac. (p. 27.) (2.) “ In that other pamphlet alluded to, such an array of human authority, ancient and modern, clas¬ sical and ecclesiastical, against infant baptism is mar¬ shalled, and such an amount of human learning is adduced, to prove that immersion is the literal meaning of baptizo, as well as the primitive mode of baptizing, that nothing could have kept me from yielding the point I contend for, but the Word of God.” (p. 28.) He must show r , then, that the Scripture denies that immersion is the mode, else he is not true to his word. Human authority, in compact phalanx, gives verdict in favour of the Greek word’s signifying immersion. He is only warranted then, in resisting, if Scripture asserts 45 that baptizo has no such sense. Does it anywhere say so 1 ? Learned men support their proofs of its signifying immersion, by the occurrences of the word in Scripture. In one passage he seems to enrol himself among “those who strenuously deny* that our blessed Lord commanded immersion , whatever lexicographers or tra¬ dition may say to the contrary; and who maintain that, if,” &c. (p. 32.) But in another page, he falters. “ I shall now assign some further reasons for the hesi¬ tation I feel * in fixing this exclusive idea upon the use of this word by the Spirit.” (p. 30.) (3.) “ I have not looked into these lexicons, nor consulted these witnesses. I accept what a strong advocate for immersion brings forward as evidence; to which he adds, ‘ Not one of them, though they have made the language of the New Testament the special object of their study, gives sprinkling as the meaning of the word.’ I do not say it is the literal meaning of it, therefore, I feel less diffidence in seeming to oppose my ignorance to their learning, which, in fact, I am not doing.” (p. 30.) “ An assumption which I have ventured to oppose, notwithstanding the vast array of human learning and tradition that is adduced in its favour.” (p. 32.) Here is another example of the want of clearness of thought and right use of language in Mr. P. He says in another place, “The writer of the book.. .. adduces such a host of human authority , which is, I suppose, the same as tradition ,* against infant baptism, and in favour of immersion, that the only conclusion I can arrive at on this point is, that tradition is opposed to tradition ■.”* (p. 3.) Does ‘tradition’ mean ‘human authority V What is the meaning of the word % Johnson says it is— 1. “The act or practice of delivering accounts from month to month without written memorials; communica¬ tion from age to age.” 2. “Any thing delivered orally from age to age.” * My italics. 46 How, then, are these judgments of critics, penned by themselves, traditions % How are these orally delivered from age to age % IV. We come now to his objections. 1. “We know how readilv assertion is taken for •/ proof,”—very true ! This is a case in point. “ And the critical literality of words for their deep, under-surface meaning.” (p. 28.) Is there, then, any meaning of a word, superficial or profound, of which criticism does not take cog¬ nizance ? Or will criticism allow such a profound meaning to be pleaded without proofs adduced ? Besides, what but the literal meaning can have place here, when the question is of the use of literal water ? 2. We see his theory. “ Baptizo” may mean -to im¬ merse; but then it means to sprinkle, to pour, and so on. “ This well-nigh untranslateable word had a very varied sense, which by some is narrowed into one, by a dry scholastic way of building an interpretation on what is, after all, a very equivocal translation.” (p. 39.) Prove your other senses of baptizo, and they shall be admitted. This can only be done by producing pas¬ sages from the Scriptures or Greek authors, where bap¬ tizo cannot mean to immerse. It can only be by giving instances in which the word must signify “the applica¬ tion of water in any way,” that your theory can stand. No such case has been adduced by you. Do not, then, assume them without proof. In any case adduced, you must show, not that it may take another sense than immerse, but that it must: that ‘ immerse’ will not translate it there. That ‘ to immerse’ is the sense, is proved by the adduction of all the known passages in which it occurs. Dr. Carson has collected every occurrence of the word with which his wide scholar¬ ship brought him acquainted. In every one of them, the word, as he shows, signifies £ immerse.’ An occur- * My italics. 47 rence of the word, not noticed by him, was lit on by myself, in Athenaeums Deipnosophista, v. 221, and there too it has the same signification. But what is the meaning of “ a dry, scholastic way of building an interpretation on what is, after all, a very equivocal translation 1 ?” Tell me the sense of this, and I shall know what to reply. As it stands, it seems to me nonsense. The true way of determining the sense or senses of a word is dry and scholastic in¬ deed; but when decided, the sense of the passage in which it is the only doubtful word, is settled. If bap- tizo be translated 1 immerse,’ it is not equivocally translated, but very definitely fixed. How should the meaning of a word be discovered, but by the dry, scholastic way of bringing forward the occurrences of the word? And if ‘immerse’ be the meaning of the word in Classic Greek, it is more than probable it will be so in Hellenistic Greek also. And if Scripture use confirms the Classic sense, the case is decided. But Mr. P.’s strange idea is, that, even after you have settled the meaning of the word, which he calls the “critical literality” of it, you are still far from having arrived at the conclusion of your task. 3. “ I believe that a mere critical, etymological meaning of the word will not help to the understand¬ ing what the mode of baptism should be, any more than the accumulated traditional authority as to what the ancient practice was, can be allowed to weigh in the balance against proof and argument from holy Scripture alone.” (p. 30.) “Therefore, though I am ready to accept immersion as the strictly literal and classical meaning of the wordf I must still question whether we are warranted to in¬ sist on immersion as the one idea to be conveyed-to our minds, and the one mode of baptism.” (p. 30.) This is strange ! Immersion is the literal meaning of baptizo, and yet it is doubtful whether immersion be the thing commanded by our Lord, when he said, * My italics. 48 “ Go, teach all the nations, immersing them .” “ He that believeth, and is immersed , shall be saved.” People would smile with surprise at a similar mode of reasoning on common things. “ Go, dip this towel in the water-butt,” says a mistress to her servant. Would any tell us, that the literal meaning of the word ‘ dip,’ would not help the maid to understand what was to be done with the towel! The writer perpetually confounds the meaning of the Greek word baptism, and the intent of the Christian rite of baptism. The meaning of the Greek word will not discover to us the intent of the Christian rite. The rite conveys profound and spiritual ideas, while yet the word retains its one simple sense. Of course, we could not understand from the Greek word all the circum¬ stances of New Testament baptism. But this is clear as an axiom, that if immersion be the one meaning of the Greek word baptisma, immersion is the one and only mode of fulfilling the command of Christ. “ But the traditional authority as to the ancient practice cannot be allowed to weigh against proof and argument from Scripture alone.” What proof? what argument? You have to prove from Scripture alone against the written judgments of critics, and the testimonies of the fathers, that they did not immerse. Where have you even attempted such a thing ? The cause has two great buttresses, as you perceive. (1.) In a body, Greek critics step forward and say, “ To immerse is the meaning of the word baptizo .” (2.) Then come the fathers, and testify that the rite was of old celebrated by immersion. Good: “ In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” Plere are two classes of consentient witnesses. How do you discomfit this host ? By rumours of an over¬ whelming force which never appears on the field of battle. Our case is proved, if apostles were obedient ser¬ vants of Christ, and if Jesus commanded immersion. But you admit that Jesus commanded his apostles 49 to baptize; and the literal meaning of baptize, as you own, is to immerse. Then it follows, of course, that apostles immersed believers, just as it does that the. maid, if obedient, dipped the towel in the water-butt. 4. 44 I think, too, it must be difficult to prove, that there was water enough in Jerusalem wherein so many thousands could have been immersed as certainly were baptized 4 the same day ’ that they believed the word preached to them by Peter. Acts ii.” (p. 33.) We need no other proof of the sufficiency of water in Jerusalem, than the fact asserted by inspired autho¬ rity, that these thousands were baptized. Now, bap¬ tize literally means immerse. Either, then, they were immersed, or the Spirit’s testimony is untrue. The same applies to the case of the jailor of Philippi. 5. But you betake yourself to the figurative uses of baptizo, and from them you would compel the word to admit new meanings. Jesus speaks of the Holy Ghost as baptizing his disciples ; he speaks also of the Spirit coming upon them. It is then quietly assumed, that therefore 4 baptize ’ means 4 coming upon.’ “ The disciples were baptized with the Holy Ghost, by his coming upon them and filling them, not by their being plunged into it.” (p. 35.) It should be, they were “ immersed in the Holy Spirit.” It is never rightly translated 4 with.’ The filling them with the Spirit, and his coming on them, are figurative expressions, but each figure gives a dif¬ ferent turn to the sense. The Holy Spirit is not a liquid, and, therefore, mode does not strictly and literally apply in this case. Would you approve a like style of arguing in common things? What is the meaning of soar? Is it not, 4 to rise high into air?’ But I can prove that this cannot be its meaning, by reasoning on its figurative uses, as you have done on the figurative senses of baptizo. I find such a passage, suppose, as this: 44 The soaring genius of Shakspeare created new worlds.No phase of human nature escaped the survey of his penetrat¬ es 50 ing genius.” Whereupon I remark—“Shakspeare never mounted into air a dozen feet, therefore soar cannot mean to tower into air. Again, his genius is called 4 penetrating ,’ as well as 4 soaring; ’ therefore 4 pene¬ trate' must be one of the senses of 4 soar .’ ” 6. 44 A comparison is drawn by our Lord between John’s baptizing [immersing] with [in] water, and his own baptizing with [immersion in] the Holy Ghost. (Acts i. 5.) Now if it be true, as has been proved, that the latter was by affusion, or pouring out, then the comparison leads to the conclusion, that John’s baptism with [immersion in] water was also by pouring out.” (p. 35.) 44 As has been proved /” The proof consists in the as¬ sumption, that because different phrases are applied to the same act, they mean the same thing. I have just shown the absurdity of such a principle. 44 Take the enemy in flank,” says a general to a captain. 44 Charge the infantry in flank,” says he, when repeating his orders. Is to 4 charge ’ one of the senses of to 4 take V It is true, that the Holy Spirit is spoken of as being poured out; but it is not proved that the pouring out was the same thing as the baptism. A servant fills his master’s bath by pouring out pail after pail of water into the receptacle; but, though the pouring out is in order to the bathing, it is not the same thing as the master’s immersion of himself. 7. You allege, as on your side, the baptism in the Red Sea. 44 Halley, a [Psedo-baptist] writer quoted in 4 Chris¬ tian Baptism ,’ says, that 4 Baptism is to make one thing be in another by dipping.provided it be in immediate contact .’ Now the Israelites were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the Red Sea, yet were in no 4 immediate contact’ with the water. They passed through the Red Sea 4 as by dry land,’ the •water being raised as a wall on each side of them.” (p. 32.) The assertion of Halley is not true. A man might be wrapped in gutta percha, so as to be kept from 51 immediate contact’ with the sea; yet, if he were plunged beneath it, he w r ould be dipped or immersed. Next, this is to argue from the figurative to the literal use of a word, and to maintain, that if the figurative use does not in all points come up to the literal requirements, it cannot be used. If Shakspeare had neither wings nor a balloon, he could never be said to soar! But even if you refuse the figurative sense, we have, at the Red Sea, both literal immersion and emersion. The Egyptians were immersed, the Israel¬ ites came out safely. The Christian is a compound of the Egyptian and the Israelite, of the new man and of the old. In baptism is figured the burial of the old, the rising of the new. 8. On Romans vi. you found another argument. “ The likeness spoken of in Romans vi. is the moral likeness to Christ’s death and resurrection, which is to be shown out , or represented, by the mortifying the deeds of the body, through a life and walk in spirit.” (Rom. viii. 13; Gal. v. 16—25.) ‘ Rom. vi. speaks of a moral likeness to Christ.’ No doubt it does. But it builds it on the physical resem¬ blance of immersion. You should have proved, that it spoke of the moral resemblance of the life alone. That it speaks of the physical resemblance to Christ in the emblematic burial of immersion, is clear from the passage: “We were buried with him by the immersion into the death [of Christ], that as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even we also should walk in newness of life. For if we became fellow-plants (see Greek) in the likeness of his death, yea, we shall also be of the resurrection.” There is a past likeness to Christ in his death and burial, which takes place, and can take place, only in baptism. There is a present and future likeness to Christ in the life of faith. “ We were immersed into his death.” “We were buried with him by the immersion into the [his] death.” “ If we became fellow-plants.” You speak only of w r hat is future —a likeness “which is to be shown out.” Our future resemblance to Christ is gathered from our c 2 past resemblance to him. The burial is past, the up-> springing to come. The spiritual lessons are grounded on the physical aptitude of immersion and its accom¬ panying emersion, to typify these truths. It is clear also from your own admission. “ Hence also the lan¬ guage of Paul himself in connection with the rite, ‘ buried with him by baptism,’ ” &c. Col. ii. 12. (p. 15.) You proceed : “I feel the more satisfied that this is the likeness intended, in that, agreeing with those who see a correspondence or relation between the ‘burying’ and ‘planting’ spoken of, it is out of the question to suppose that in the latter figure aught but moral similitude is intended, viz., that being ‘ closely allied'’ with Christ in death, we shall be ‘ closely allied'’ with him in resurrection.” With what does Mr. P. see a correspondence? Does it lie between ‘burying’ and ‘planting?’ or between these, and immersion? I suppose the latter. There is a designed reference to immersion, then, in the figu¬ rative expression, burying and planting. If so, then Paul and the apostles used immersion in the rite of baptism. And all baptized persons were immersed ; for the figure is supposed applicable to all the baptized. “ So many as ivere baptized .were buried with him by baptism .” But ‘planting’ can only refer to some¬ thing moral. How does that appear? To deny it is enough, where no proof is adduced. I suppose it to refer to something physical. The future resurrection of glory is typed by the believer’s rising out of the water. The figure employed, I sup¬ pose to be the planting of a seed, an acorn for instance, and its upspringing out of its grave of mould to be the mighty monarch of the forest. The ‘planting’ with Christ, then, in the likeness of his death, refers to baptism. It runs parallel with the words, “We w^ere buried with him by the immersion into the death.” Baptism carries a twofold meaning. It speaks of the past spiritual resurrection of the believer to newness of life. It tells, also, of the future physical resurrec¬ tion unto life eternal. “ It is manifest, that planting must be understood , in the latter clause of the verse, as it is expressed in the first, thus: ‘ If we have been planted toge¬ ther in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [planted] in the likeness of his resurrection.’ If planting, therefore, in the first clause, be synony¬ mous with immersion or burying, then must immersion or burying represent, or be a likeness of Christ’s resur¬ rection.” (p. 38.) (1.) “ Planted together” in the first clause, is not ‘synonymous’ with immersion or burying. “When two or more words signify the same thing, as ‘wave’ and ‘billow,’ ‘mead’ and meadow,’ they are usually called synonymous words.”— Watts’s Logic , quoted in Johnson’s Dictionary. Planting is not an equivalent expression for immersing, nor for burying. You can¬ not substitute one for another, as you can ‘mead’ for ‘meadow,’ or ‘twelve’ for a ‘dozen.’ Unless words are accurately used in argument, there will be no end to controversy. (2.) I agree, that ‘fellow-plants’ is to be supplied in the latter clause. But I deny Mr. P.’s con¬ sequence. First observe, that, “ in the likeness of” is not to be added to the latter clause. The baptized has already, in immersion, partaken of the likeness of Christ’s resurrection. He is, in the future, to partake of its reality. Now, it is on the supplied words—“ in the likeness of”—that the author’s supposed absurdity rests. (3.) But, even if they were supplied, the consequence would not hold good. “ If we became fellow-plants in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [fellow-plants] in the likeness of his resurrection.” If two acorns were dropped into the same hole, they would be planted together; and, as buried together, they would spring up together. To planting, as to baptism, belong two phases. First, burial, then resurrection of the buried seed. The expression ‘fellow-plants’ takes in both these phases. While, then, the word ‘immerse’ presents 54 only the burial, the Christian rite of immersion, offers emersion no less, and therefore presents the image of resurrection as well as of burial. It is in this distinction, that the answer to a cavil, more than once suggested, lies. 9. It is admitted by Mr. P., that in the figurative use of the word baptism, as applied by our Lord to his own sufferings, the idea of plunging into or immersion is conveyed. “But,” he adds, “to make Christ’s bap¬ tism of suffering a warrant by analogy for the mode of baptism, the person baptized should be left under the water; for baptism certainly did not lift him out of that into which he had been plunged.” “Baptism did not lift him out!” No! but God did. And if we are to resemble Christ in his death, we cannot be left under water, for Jesus rose out of death. If left under water, we should be resembling Adam in his death, not Jesus in his. “ His resurrection by the glory of the Father was consequent on, but was no part of the baptism wherewith he was baptized.” Why might not then our emersion be consequent on, but no part of the baptism wherewith we are baptized 1 But this objection proceeds upon the false assumption, that wherever the word baptizo or baptisma is used, there shall be not only immersion, which the word signi¬ fies, but also the emersion, which is found in the rite of baptism. The objection is also faulty, in arguing from a figu¬ rative sense of baptism to the literal one. 10. “Now, in Christian baptism there are two parts; a death unto sin, and a new birth unto right¬ eousness, i.e., a spiritual resurrection.” Take these words strictly, and you have baptismal regeneration clearly asserted. “ If water is to be used in such a mode as to repre¬ sent the thing signified by the rite, then immersion fails to fulfil this end; for the rising again, or emerging out of the water, cannot by possibility be called im¬ mersion. Yet, resurrection is an essential part in Christian baptism; immersion therefore fails as a figure to represent the truth, just as much as sprinkling does.” (p. 31.) “ The rising again or emerging cannot be called im¬ mersion.” No, the Greek word cannot, but the Christian rite of immersion may demand both the immersion and the emersion. Apply the same reasoning to the Lord’s Supper. It is called “ the breaking of bread.” Would you esteem it anything but a cavil, to say, “the breaking of bread” cannot by any possibility be “the drink¬ ing of wine.” Yet the drinking of wine is an essential part in the Lord’s Supper; the breaking of bread therefore fails, as a figure, to represent the death of Christ. The rising out of the water is an essential part of the rite of Christian immersion, but the full particulars* of the celebration of that rite, and the significancy of those particulars, I seek to learn from Scripture, not from the Greek word baplisma. “ Immersion fails as a figure to represent the truth, just as much as sprink¬ ling does.” ’Tis not true. Immersion gives the image of death and burial, even when alone; sprinkling does not. But immersion in the rite is never alone, but is followed by emersion, and, therefore, fully represents the truth of Christ’s burial and resurrection. 11. “If, therefore, it be objected, that those who have been sprinkled with water have not been baptized, in the literal sense of the word, it may with equal force be objected, that they who have been immersed, have no part in Christ risen” Can any be content with such cavils as these ? Here is the same confusion between the word and the thing. We do say, that none who has only been sprinkled has been baptized: for immersion alone is the meaning of the word bap- tisma. But, then, the author leaps from the word to the act. “ It may be objected, that those who have been immersed have no part in Christ risen.” That is to say, “ If the sprinkled have not fulfilled the meaning of the word immerse, then those who have 56 received the act of immersion have no part in the thing signified by immersion /” Is this argument? 12. “ It is a question with those who contend for immersion of the strict meaning of the word baptism; therefore I must contend, that a baptized person has no part in resurrection, so far as the mode they insist on is concerned.” Would that Mr. P. would write more clearly ! What does the first part of this sentence mean ? It is no question with the Baptist, what is the meaning of the word baptism. It is no question even between him¬ self and us, what is the strict meaning of it. He owns that its literal, critical, etymological meaning is immersion. Does he mean, then, that the Piedo- baptists question its signification ? But, grant that they do; why is it a consequence that he must deny the baptized a part in resurrection? This cavil is the one answered before. Every person immersed as Christ bids, also emerges from the water, and in that act the emblem of resurrection passes upon him. 13. “The rising out of the water, which mav be adduced as shadowing forth resurrection, is not ‘ bap¬ tizing in it,’ and it is with baptism we have to do. ” Here is the same fallacy. The rising out of the water is not a part of the word immersion; it is not one of its significations; but emersion is necessarily a part of the Christian rite of immersion, or baptism. We might indeed confute him from his own words. “ I alloio that dipping implies rising again.” (p. 33.) But this he might withdraw. Indeed he ought to do so. He grants more than he needs—more than is just. A bucket dipped into the sea, washed out of the sailor’s hands, and sinking to the sea-depths, is dipped, as truly as one drawn out again, and set on the deck. 14. “ Into what, I would ask, are Christians im¬ mersed, when £ by one Spirit they are baptized into one body;’ and what raised out of by the same act?” How inconsistent and uncandid are these objections ! First, we are twitted, in this way: ‘The word immersion does not imply rising again, therefore the act of emer- sion cannot belong to Christian baptism.’ Then it is admitted, that it does imply rising again. Then a new set of cavils, in the contrary direction, are hurled at us. 1 If baptism imply rising again, what do you make of the baptism of the Spirit?’ Is this like candour, and a mind seeking truth ? Or like one who will throw every stone that comes in his way ? But to the solution of the new difficulties ! “ Into what were Christians baptized, when in one spirit they were immersed into one body?” We reply, into the Holy Spirit. Out of what were they raised by the same act ? They were not raised out of the Spirit, for the word dipping does not imply rising again. “ When, too, it is said, we are £ baptized into Christ,’ how does the figure of dipping apply here?” (p. 34.) We are not obliged to say; bu^ 1 Cor r xii. would supply an answer. 15. The objection is justly urged, that “ the change of immersion into sprinkling [by Protestants] is that which the Romanist still urges to justify his refusal of the cup to the laity.” How does Mr. P. reply to this? (p. 32.) “ This argument is built on the assumption, that immersion was the original and scriptural mode; an assumption which I have ventured to oppose, notwith¬ standing the vast array of human learning and tradi¬ tion in its favour.” An assumption means a proposition hostile to the point in question asserted without proof. There is, then, no assumption here. The vast array of learning and patristic testimony constitutes the evidence in its favour. / “ But even with those who concede that it was the original mode, and yet practise sprinkling, the argu¬ ment .will not hold good. There is some difference between the case of those who altogether reject the plain command of Christ,—‘ Drink ye all of it,’—and those who scrupulously adhere to the command to baptize, and to the apostolic practice of baptizing with water, and trust that, in the use of that element, the c 5 58 essence of obedience (so far as what is essential is con¬ cerned) is recognized by the Lord.” (p. 32.) How could such a statement satisfy any one ? If immersion were the mode of baptism used by the • apostles, it was because it was obedience to Christ’s command to baptize. And if baptism mean to immerse, then neither sprinkling nor pouring of water can fulfil the command. “Drink ye all of the cup,” said Jesus; and Roman¬ ists use wine ,—the element commanded,—and hope that Christ will see therein the essence of obedience. The person partaking also drinks, another element of obedience. It is true, that the priests alone drink, and so they disobey the extent given by our Lord to the command. But our Psedo-baptist friends are disobedient, not only as regards the extent of baptism, but also with regard to its mode. If, as it is granted, baptizo literally signifies to immerse, then it is ridiculous to talk of “ scrupulously adhering to the command ” to immerse, when men use sprinkling, or any other mode of applying water. And if Jesus commands instruction and reception of the truth before the parties are immersed into his name, then Psedo-baptists are wrong in admitting infants. In the matter of baptism, then, Psedo-baptists are more disobedient, than Romanists in regard to the reception of the Supper. 16. But if sprinkling frustrates the purpose as much as the letter of the ordinance, “ the purpose of the Lord’s Supper must also be frustrated by not being received in a reclining posture, and by being ob¬ served in the morning, instead of the evening.” (p. 33.) Immersion is the very name of the ordinance, as “ breaking of bread ” is one of the names of the other, rite. Therefore, immersion is as essential to the one as breaking of bread to the other. But how does it appear, that reclining is essential to the latter, or to the purpose of the breaking of bread? Does an apostle ever connect any spiritual meaning with the posture of those partaking the Supper? ‘Aye, but 59 the evening enters into the very letter of the Supper of the Lord.’ Yes, if the Greek word deipnon is exactly equivalent to our word ‘Supper.’ But is it so? I look into Liddell and Scott to see what is its meaning. There I read that it signifies, “ A meal, or meal-time, used by Homer quite generally [sometimes for the morning-meal, and sometimes for the evening- meal]. Nitzsch , Odyssey i. 124, holds it to be the principal meal , whenever taken. In Attic Greek, cer¬ tainly the chief meal , answering to our dinner (Latin, ccena), begun towards evening, and often prolonged till night.” It appears, then, that the meaning of the Greek word is not so strict as that of our ‘Supper;’ that it may mean any meal, and when strictly taken, answers to our word ‘ dinner.’ While, then, the Saviour cele¬ brated the rite at night, it does not appear that the letter of the ordinance, and much less its purpose, is destroyed by its mid-day celebration. We have an example of its being kept after midnight, in the morn¬ ing of the second day of the week. (Acts xx. 7—11.) 17. “ Christ loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood.” (Rev. i. 5.) While the Spirit’s work, by which we apprehend in our consciences the value of the death (i.e. the blood) of Christ, is called “ the washing of regeneration.” (Tit. iii.) Here we see that the effect of the death of Christ, and of the Spirit’s work, are both called a washing .” There is a vast difference between ‘blood’ and ‘ water,’ between the invisible spiritual washing in Christ’s blood, and the visible physical washing in water. The word in Titus is improperly rendered ‘ washing.’ It really signifies a ‘ bathing -place,' or ‘ laver .’ That baptism represents both our justifica¬ tion by Christ, and our regeneration by the Holy Spirit, I fully believe. “ I understand, therefore, that in baptism the water itself is symbolic of washing , and that by the applica¬ tion of water in any way, this washing, in both aspects referred to above, is represented.” GO The water of baptism is an emblem of death , as well as an element of cleansing. “We were buried with him by baptism into death” How does this agree with water sprinkled? That baptism represents the washing away of sins as one of its aspects, I gladly admit. And if this were the only view, and if we leave out of sight the meaning of the word baptism, perhaps any mode of washing would satisfy the conditions of the rite. But washing in any way, and still more indefinitely, “ the application of water in any mode,” will not give us the image of death and resurrection. Immersion in water gives the image of washing, or total cleansing, as well as of death and resurrection. That, therefore, which alone satisfies all the spiritual aspects ascribed to the ordinance, is the only true mode of celebrating the rite. “ That ‘ burying the flesh’ is one truth purported by baptism is true.” (p. 28.) But this is not exhibited by the application of water in any mode that may suggest itself. 18. “But many of the lexicographers quoted in ‘Christian Baptism ,’ give—‘ to sink,’ (which Johnson says is ‘ to go to the bottom,) as the meaning of bap- tizo .Here, then, is a sense of baptizo very different from dipping.” It is very common in lexicographers needlessly to multiply the meanings of words. The context shews, in one case, that the immersion is followed by rising out of the element; in another, that the article im¬ mersed abides at the bottom. But in each case, the word signifies only immersion, as Carson has shewn. 19. “ So of submerging , (another sense of baptizo given by Scapula and others, and contended for by those who insist on the literal meaning thereof,) a word which the best English authors use in a sense where the two-fold idea of plunging into and rising again cannot possibly be allowed.” (p. 33.) To this supposed new sense the same remarks apply. That which is fully dipped is submerged, but whether it is to rise out of the element again, is a question 61 with which the word baptizo has nothing to do. And all appeals to English authors about the meaning of the English word ‘submerge’ are mere trifling. There is but one signification, then, in the Greek word baptizo —it is to immerse; that will translate it in all its occurrences, whether literal or figurative. But granting, for argument’s sake, that to ‘sink’ and ‘submerge’ are senses of baptizo , these are still un¬ favourable to your practice, and in accordance with ours. Both sinking and submerging require immer¬ sion. To sprinkle, as you allow, is not the meaning of bap¬ tizo , as the word; and a partial washing of the baptized, even if washing were symbolized by sprinkling, will not carry out the meaning of baptism, as the rite. On both feet, then, your argument halts. 20. The prepositions joined with baptizo form a series of strong corroborative proofs. We read of baptizing in water, and into water. We read of the parties baptized coming out of the water. How is this overthrown % “ But whoever,” says Peter Edwards on Infant Baptism, “ is acquainted with the indeterminate sense of the prepositions, en, eis, eh, apo , on which this proof of the mode of baptism must depend, will see that it cannot therefrom be proved, whether those who were baptized at Jordan and Enon were so much as in the water at all.” (p. 36.) Yes; all those “acquainted with the indeterminate senses ” of these prepositions may be unable to prove any tiling out of them. But no modern Greek scholar will set his hand to any such theory. In the infancy of criticism, men may have very indefinite ideas; but to assert at the present day, that the senses of those common Greek prepositions cannot be certainly known, would only raise a smile on the lips of a critic. As well affirm that the senses of our English prepositions, ‘ in’ ‘ into ,’ ‘from’ and ‘out of’ cannot certainly be determined ! Must verbs and prepositions which else¬ where are so definite, suddenly become dim, when the rite of baptism is the theme % 62 “ En means not only ‘ in’ but nigh, towards, with. Eis, besides into, means also towards, near; while apo and eh as often signify from as out of. So that where it is read in Jordan, into the water, out of the water, * it will read as well in the Greek— * at Jordan,’ ‘ to the water,’ ‘from the water.’” Where is the proof of these assertions ? Are they granted 1 No ! utterly denied ! The different mean¬ ings of the prepositions are ascertained by the context in which they occur. Where verbs of motion, as bap - tizo, are joined with an element, there en, eis, and eh never mean any thing but in, into, out of What, then, must be the confidence of the man who could add, after the above false assertions, “ This is truth beyond dispute /” (p. 37.) 21. “If any, then, have been led to question whether they can be said to be baptized because they have not been immersed , they may rest satisfied that the use of water, and not the mode of applying it, is that which is alone necessary to prove our heart-subjection to Christ’s command.” (p. 35.) If Mr. P.’s assurance will satisfy any against the clear teaching of Scripture, he must be left to hold it. I would ask Mr. P., however, what is the meaning of the Greek word baptizo? Is it alone, of all the Greek words of the New Testament, untranslateable 1 Is it incapable of translation in all its classical occurrences also t l May one consider it as equivalent to—“to use water in any way 1 ?” He seems to assert this in the present and some other passages. We should like him to carry out his theory by a literal construing of some passages; say, Matt. iii. 6, 11, and xxviii. 19. How would they run on this theory ? Matt. iii. 6, “ They were used-water-in-any-way in the Jordan by him;” 11, “ He shall use-water [to] you in-any-way in the Holy Ghost and in fire;” or, “ with the Holy Ghost,” if he prefers it. Here ‘water’ must be struck out, for the element is the Holy Spirit. Baptism may take place in any element. 63 Deal with the terms ‘bread’ and ‘wine,’ ‘eat’ and ‘ drink,’ as you have with baptizo , and the Lord’s Supper must become a like heap of confusion. Wine may be made to mean sugar-and-water, beer, or syrup! and ‘ drinking,’ the receiving into the palm of the hand. By a like process, the Quakers eject water from its place in baptism. By a like process, the whole Scripture may be explained away. “ If any still prefer immersion as the mode, no one should judge them, or say them nay. They are obe¬ dient to the Lord in submitting to the ordinance, and in the use of water.” If immersion be the literal meaning of baptism, then there are not two modes; and they are disobe¬ dient to the command who use water in any way but immersing the believer therein. “ But we have shown that the Greek word ‘baptizo’ is used where immersion cannot be the meaning of the Spirit.” This is not true. There is no passage where im¬ mersion will not fully satisfy the sense. Observe again, the word has two uses: (1) the literal , and (2) the figurative. ‘It is granted, that to immerse is the strictly literal sense of the word. The question is the application of literal water. Then the literal sense of the word is the one which we are in quest of. To passages speaking of figurative water, assign the figura¬ tive sense of baptizo: but here the water is literal, as you admit. What then can it be but perverseness, to appeal to the figurative uses of the word ? Suppose I read, “ The eagle that built its nest on Snowdon, soared out of sight.” I maintain, that ‘ soar ’ here has its literal sense of rising high into air; for the eagle, it is ad¬ mitted by my opponent, is a literal eagle. But no ! While he admits that the literal sense of ‘ soar’ is what I have given, he appeals to the figurative senses of ‘ soar.’ What would you call him? Wise or foolish? candid or perverse ? But we come closer yet. Even in the figurative 64 uses of baptizo, immersion will translate all the pas¬ sages. Mr. P. appeals to— (1.) The baptism of the Spirit. Here also the sense * is “ immersion in the Holy Spirit.” So we say, “ He seems bathed in the spirit of love.” (2.) Jesus’ baptism of suffering. Here also it sig¬ nifies Jesus’ immersion in woe and wrath. (3.) The Red Sea baptism. Again it signifies immer¬ sion. There were both literal immersion and emersion. Or, if you take it figuratively, there was resemblance enough in Israel’s going down into the sea and cloud, and passing through and out of the sea, to justify the figure. But “ we have shewn that the twofold action of going down under the water, and rising again out of it, is utterly inadmissible as a sign, in other cases where the-word is used.” (p. 35.) It has been shewn, that this objection arises from confounding the word with the rite. The word baptizo signifies only to immerse. Whether the body im¬ mersed is to abide under the element, or to come up from it, must be learned from other sources. Immer¬ sion is immersion, whether there be rising out of the water, or no. In the Christian rite of immersion, there is resurrection out of the water. In the action of the Holy Spirit, described as his immersing the believers, there was no coming up out of the element. But immersion is still the meaning of the word. Hence Mr. P.’s saying, that “the twofold action of going- down into the water and rising again out of it, is utterly inadmissible as a sign in other cases where the word is used,” only betrays confusion of thought. We are speaking of the meaning of a word, and he drags into view the signijicancy of a rite. Of course, baptizo is used in Greek in abundance of places, where there is no spiritual significancy intended. Josephus tells us, that by Herod’s order, some comrades of Aristo- bulus, while he was bathing in a pool at Jericho, dipped him,* and kept him under water, as if in sport, * Greek word used, baptizo. —Joseph. Ant. xv. 3, 3. till he was drowned. Here there is no religious rite in question, and no religious significancy in the act. But the word still means to immerse. “We have shown that ‘burying the flesh’ is only part of the truth signified by baptism, in that washing was clearly understood in the words of Ananias to Saul of Tarsus, ‘ Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord,’ which it is not at all necessary to shadow forth by plunging into water, while the use of that element sufficiently points to the thing signified.” 1. ‘ Burial gives but one aspect of baptism.’ It is admitted. Immersion well represents burial. Mr. P. grants this. But does he prove that any mode of applying water, as sprinkling, for instance, buries the flesh 1 ? No. He does not attempt it. Here, then, immersion is manifestly superior, and his case breaks down. 2. ‘But washing is another aspect of baptism.’ Very true. And does not immersion into pure water repre¬ sent the believer’s washing? Does it not do so in a more striking manner than any other mode, telling of the need of an universal cleansing? Does the applica¬ tion of water in any way represent washing ? The use of water in any mode does not symbolize washing. When the bricklayer casts water on the quicklime, does he wash it? When the laundress sprinkles water on her linen, ere she mangles it, is it the washing of it? The gardener uses water to his plants, not to wash, but to refresh them. The surgeon uses water in band¬ ages, to remove inflammation. The cook uses it, to boil. The maltster, to steep his barley in, that it may germinate. Beside, if all that baptizo signifies be the use of water on the person to be baptized, the part on which the water is to be used, is not defined. One may baptize by pouring water on the hands, another by sprinkling the feet, a third by syringing the back ! Each mode is alike warranted by Mr. P. 3. There is another aspect of baptism, which Mr. P. has omitted. Looked at as a representation of the Holy Spirit’s saving* agency on the soul, it represents the death of the old man, the birth of the new. Jesus speaks of the birth out of water. (John iii.) Does any application of water figure this 1 ? Christian im¬ mersion does. Sprinkling or pouring does not. Both (1) the literal sense, then, of the word, (2) the spiritual significances of the act, and (3) the definite¬ ness of the propositions used, join in sevenfold cord to testify that baptizo means to ‘ immerse.’ 22. “ We have come, therefore, to the conclusion, that while death and resurrection are signified in bap¬ tism, the whole compass of salvation in and by Christ is what we are baptized into by the Spirit, and that which baptism with water signifies.” Mr. P. admits so much, that one wonders how his conscience can be at rest in his tottering theory. Bap¬ tism literally means immersion, and Christian immer¬ sion vividly represents death and resurrection, which no other mode does. It represents the need of total cleansing, and yet, against these clear evidences, he will stand out for a vague sense, which he has not attempted to establish. Our baptism in water is not by the Holy Spirit, but by man. The baptism of the Holy Spirit was the communication of supernatural gift to those saved already. Baptism in water, as representing death and resurrection, figures our full salvation. “ But [we have come to the conclusion] that no particular mode of applying the water can fully repre¬ sent the thing signified.” As has just above been shewn, immersion does answer to the saving agency both of Christ and of the Holy Ghost. “And that, moreover, nothing can be adduced from the learning of lexicographers to settle the question, in that the significations they give to the word ‘bap¬ tizo ’ equally imply a sinking to rise no more, a dipping to go down and rise again, and a washing, which need not imply either.” 67 Lexicons cannot settle the meaning of a common Greek word ! Why not ? Because they give varied senses to the word ! But do they not settle the varied meanings of a word, where it has many significations, as well as where it has one alone ? If they cannot settle the meaning of baptizo, neither can they of artos ‘ bread,’ and oinos ‘ wine,’ of esthiein 1 eat,’ and pmein 1 drink.’ And the Supper must be as indefinite as baptism. But look at the senses which lexicons (that is, some of them) are quoted as giving; (1) sinking, (2) dip¬ ping, (3) washing. (1) Sinking is never the meaning of the word, though the thing dipped may, from the context , be found to have sunk. The sinking lies in other words, not in the word baptizo. (2) Dipping. This is the true sense. The after condition of the body, whether left beneath the ele¬ ment or rising above it, must be found out from the context, not from the word. (3) Washing. Washing may be the result of dip¬ ping, but baptizo never means to wash. The result of dipping may be defilement, as a garment dipped into mire. I have gone through the arguments of this desultory pamphlet. It is not a regular attack on the fortress of believers’ baptism,. but a shot fired first at one point, then at another. But he who would drive his opponents out of the field must meet all their reason¬ ings, and shew their fallacy. And how has the author fulfilled the promises of his title-page? “The Godly Practice of Infant Baptism (by Sprinkling , or other use of Water) defended on New Testament ground alone.”* Where has he proved his sense of baptizo? Where has he shewn, that in the New Testament, the word imports any use of water ? “ Or the theory of Immersion, as the literal mean¬ ing, and only mode of Baptism, tested, not by tradition, but by the word of God.” * My italics. (>8 “The theory of immersion!” Would Mr. Paget talk of the theory of oinos meaning ‘ wine ?’ He admits that it literally signifies immersion. How is it a theory ? The meaning is not speculatively assigned, but is deduced from all the actual cases in which the word occurs. How has Mr. Paget tested its literal meaning 1 He has confessed it. Is confessing testing 'i How has he tested it by the word of God ? He sup¬ poses human learning to be the meaning of tradition, and yet he argues, on the authority of lexicons and learned men, that baptizo signifies to wash, to sink, to submerge ! How has he tested the literal meaning of baptizo by the word of God 1 If immersion be the literal meaning of the Greek word baptisma, then immersion is the one mode of the Christian rite of (immersion) baptism. He would yield to so much learning as is adduced against him, but Scripture forbids ! Where ? Where has he assigned any place of Scripture where baptizo is literally taken, and yet it cannot signify immerse % ‘ No ; but the figurative occurrences of the word!’ But the figurative meanings of a word must always be based on the literal; and if we can prove immersion to be the literal meaning of the word, that must be the figure, in the cases where the word is figuratively employed. And who can say, that it is impossible to talk of being immersed in business, in doubt, in malice, and so also in the Holy Spirit % 1 But the difficulties in the way of so many being immersed in Jerusalem !’ Where positive evidence has gone before to establish the meaning of a word, difficulties are of no force. Nothing short of impossibility will serve. You own, that immersion is the literal meaning of baptizo. Then the three thousand at Pentecost were immersed , or the Holy Spirit's testimony is not true. But where are Mr. P.’s positive grounds % His tract consists almost wholly of answers to objections. These answers are not sufficient grounds for a system. It is not enough to say, “ You, my opponent, have not evi¬ dence in your favour. I am able to scatter the whole.” 09 The reply is instant—“ On what evidence do you con¬ struct your own system ?” It is confessed, that infants were not named in Christ’s commission. It is owned, that the children baptized in apostolic days might have been intelligent children, professing the faith. It is confessed, that the passage in Acts ii. related to pro¬ phecy. It is owned, that no argument to prove infant baptism can be raised out of 1 Cor. vii. 14. Circum¬ cision is given up, as not found in the field of the New Testament. Where, then, are the texts on which your practice is based ? For my part, I should be content to rest the whole question on one passage. (1 Pet. iii. 17—22.) “The like figure whereunto [to Noah’s salvation in the ark] baptism doth now save us also,* (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” In baptism (immersion) then, as far as Peter knew it, there were two parts: an outward one, the putting away the filth of the body by bathing; an inward one, the state of the conscience before God. The outward one was not the saving part; the inward one was the essential and vital one. In order to ascer¬ tain that the conscience was cleansed before God by the work of Christ believed, questions were to be put, and answers were to be given. This inward state of the soul thus elicited, and the man thereon immersed, salvation is secure. “ He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved .” In every right baptism, then, these two parts must be found. First, we must have the answer of faith— the essential part. Then, the bathing in water—the secondary part. Now, infants may receive the latter; but the former, no new-born infant can render. Hence, they are for ever excluded. (1) They have no conscience as yet. (2) They have no good conscience; for they know not of the sprinkled blood of Christ. (3) They cannot * For change in the order of the words, see Greek. 70 give the answer of a good conscience, to any who inter¬ rogate them. Let us put together Mr. P.’s admissions. I. As to the meaning of the word. 1. “ I am ready to accept immersion as the strictly literal and classical meaning of the word. (p. 30.) 2. “ Not one of them [the philologists].gives sprinkling as the meaning of the word. I do not say that it is the literal meaning of it.” (p. 30.) Christ then commanded apostles to immerse be¬ lievers, and they are said to have immersed them (Acts ii. 41); yet, it cannot from the literal meaning of the word be shewn, “ whether those baptized [immersed] in Jordan and Enon were so much as in the water at all!” (p. 36.) Baptizo never means sprinkling, yet that mode of applying literal water is obedience, to Christ’s literal command to immerse ! II. Secondly, as to the significance of the act. 1. “Death and resurrection are signified in bap¬ tism.” (p. 36.) “ Baptism is the divinely appointed symbol of the death of the flesh.” (p. 39.)* 2. “ That ‘ burying the flesh’ is one truth purported by baptism is true.” (p. 28.) “ Though burying the flesh is not the exclusive fea¬ ture in baptism, it is a very prominent feature.” (p. 44.) 3. Baptism “tells of the deep waters that over¬ flowed the soul of Christ.” (p. 21.) “ He was overwhelmed in the waves and billows of God’s wrath. This would seem to confirm the idea of plunging into or immersion being the true mode of baptism.” (p. 31.) Not only the literal meaning of the word is im¬ merse, but immersion, as the act, represents death, * Mr. P. adds, “and of the daily burying the flesh.” Paul says not so. (Rom. vi.) He speaks of the burial as once and for ever accomplished, that the walk of life may proceed. 71 burial, resurrection, and washing. Does any applica¬ tion of water fulfil these conditions? If I am rightly informed, Mr. P. once was convinced of the immersion of believers, and was himself im¬ mersed. How sad, that he should build again the things which he destroyed! But I fear not, that any who have been convinced by Scripture of the truth of believers’ immersion, will ever surrender to his reasoning. But how will he meet the eye of his Lord, whose command he has perverted ? His own admissions will leave him defenceless on this point in that great day. May the Lord open his eyes ! Let us deal in like manner with the English word ‘ immerse.’ A missionary (suppose) in Tahiti, writes to England an account of the religion of the inhabi¬ tants of that island. He says, “ There is a kind of priests on the island, called Areois. They are worship¬ pers of the god Oro, whom they identify with the sun. Ere one of these is presented to Oro to be a priest, he is immersed into the sea, in token of the sun’s setting in the ocean and rising out of it.” The narrative reaches England. It is denied, that these priests are dipped into the water. All that is required to fulfil the missionary’s words is, to suppose that water in any way fis applied to any part of them on the verge of the sea! 1. People are astonished. They consult Johnson’s Dictionary, to see the meaning of the word immerse. They find it means, “(1) To put under water. (2) To sink or cover deep.”* They turn to their antagonists, “Are you not convinced now? The word never means to sprinkle or pour." “ Oh, no ! we do not go by dictionaries and their literal senses; we take deep, under-surface meanings. We take the word in its figurative sense.” “ Shew us, then, any examples of your under-surface meanings, and we will consider * Here is a failure of the dictionary. A thing is immersed, though only just covered with water, or any other element. them. But if you could find a dozen figurative ones, they would not profit you; we have to do with the literal use of literal watery 2. “ Besides,” it is added, “ look at the significance of the act. This religious ceremony is to be a memorial of the god’s burial under the ocean and rising out of it. Only one use of water can represent that. Neither sprinkling nor pouring present an image of that.” The reply to this is, “You say the word immersion is repre¬ sentative of the sun’s burial in the sea. Where then do you get the emersion 1 At this rate, the Areois are all drowned !” Would not one smile at the perverseness and futility of such an objection ? Would not the reply be easy ? “ The ivord used by the missionary means only the plunging of Oro’s priests beneath the sea, but the cir¬ cumstances which he supposes, imply manifestly the emersion. If they are first dipped, ere they are pre¬ sented to the god, the emersion must follow on the immersion. Besides, they are to be like their god, in his rising out of the ocean, as well as in their descent into it !” 3. “ Look again at the preposition used. It is said, they are e immersed into the sea.’ How can the prepo¬ sition into agree with sprinkling or pouring 1 How can a man be poured into the sea 1 Or how can he be sprinkled into it T’ If any should reply, that the English preposition ‘ into’ meant ‘ near,’ and ‘ by the borders of,’ and had a variety of indefinite meanings, I think the laughter of the hearers would greet the disputant, rather than their conviction or applause. But here the folly is swallowed up in the sadness of Christian men resisting, and inducing others to resist, an ordinance of Christ. Again I say, may the Lord open the eyes of Mr. P. and our Predo-baptist brethren ! By the same Author , ENTRANCE INTO THE KINGDOM OR, REWARD ACCORDING TO WORKS. Jfirst nub &zxw. LONDON: JAMES NISBET & Co., 21, BERNERS STREET.