DELIVERED BEFORE THE CEDAR CREEK BAPTIST CHURCH, N. CAROLINA, On Sunday, September lO, 1843. PASTOR OF TVIE BAPTIST CHURCH Jtf CHERAW, SO. CA. JOHN STUBS, PRINTER. 1843. 1 1 THE MODS -**•*•»"* SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM, TWO DISCOURSES DEtrVKKED BEFOaS THE CEDAR CREEK BAPTIST CHURCH, NORTH CAROLINA, On Sunday, Sep tember 10, 1843. ,ZB"S* IEa®H2^ai£)-Il i WaiM^JE3 , g FASTOR OP THE BAPTIST CHURCH IN CHEEAW, SO. CA. CHERAW: JOHN STUBS, PRINTER. 1843. M o v The following discourses were delivered, and are now published at the urgent request of the Cedar Creek Baptist Church. Prior to their delivery the author had no thought of their publication, and in assenting to it now, he yields only to the solicitations of his brethren. They were not prepared for the press, and therefore in style they are plain and unpretending. Many portions of them were entirely extemporaneous, but the author is persuaded that the substance is the same, the arguments are the same, and the language although frequently modi- fied, and condensed, is essentially the same. He is aware that many hard things have been thought and said respecting him, since the delivery of the sermons — mainly because he has proved, or attempted to prove, that infant sprinkling is a relic of Popery. These persecutions he is willing to endure for the cause of truth — he is fully persuaded of the correctness of his positions — and he humbly eraves in behalf of his labors, the prayers of his brethren, and the blessing of God. j* HE MODE OF BAPTIS "And now why tarriest thou? arise and be baptised." — Acts xxii, 18. Every part of the truth of God is worthy of our attention and consideration. He is our Lawgiver, and King. It is our bounden duty to obey his precepts — And our first and great question ought to be, "Lord what wilt thou have me to do?" In order to ascertain what is the will of God, it is necessary that.we should search dili- gently the Scriptures, that we should turn away from the traditions of men, and that we should pray for the enlightening influences of the Holy Ghost. If all christians^rere to pursue this course, their discords, dissentions, and jealousies would come to an end, they would be united in spirit, and in action — and as there is one Lord, so there would be one faith, and one baptism. I arise before you, my Brethren, for the purpose of vindicating an institution, venerable from its antiquity, sacred from the charac- ter of its Author, highly important in its object, and perpetually binding in its observance. The ordinance of baptism was instituted upwards of eighteen hundred years ago, by the Lord Jesus Christ. The object of baptism is a figurative representation of the new birth. And the perpetuity of baptism is taught in various passages of Scrip, ture. For instance, the Saviour says, "He that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved." And again when He sent forth the dis- ciples, and gave to them the broad commission of the Gospel, He said, "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." It is well known that different views prevail amongst christians in reference to the subject of baptism. Some, (for instance the Quakers,) reject it altogether. Some think that there are three different ways of administering the ordinance, by immersion, sprinkling, and by pouring. But there is one denominatit contend that there is one way, one solitary mode of baptisir| that by immersion. This is the position of the Baptist dejj tion. And for adhering to this position with unwavering tenacity they have been despised and persecuted, they have been laughed at and ridiculed, they have been "the sect everywhere spoken against," for many years and for many ages. But they have nothing to fear. The truth is great and will prevail. Their doctrine is built upon an everlasting foundation. The Word of God is the standard around which they rally in defence of the truth. They unfold that stan- dard in the gaze of all the nations of the world. With it they go forth to fight the battles of the Lord. And with it they are nobly determined, they are eternally resolved to triumph or to die. It is my purpose on the present occasion to show that immersion is the only christian baptism, and that it is contrary to all true criti- cism, and to the plain word of God, to introduce sprinkling, or pour- ing, or anything else into the place of immersion. And if I can prove this position, if I can convince you of its truth, I will call upon all believers here present, (who have not submitted to the ordinance,) in the language of my text, "why tarriest thou? arise and be baptised." I assert, in the first place, that all true criticism, all true learning is in favor of immersion. And here it will be necessary for me to fo to the original Scriptures, and prove from them the truth of what affirm. The New Testament, you are aware, was originally written in the Greek language. And the reason is obvious. The Greeks were scattered abroad in various countries. They were in many respects the most celebrated nation of antiquity. Wherever they went their language was studied — and it soon came to be spoken more than any other language in the world. It was extremely de- sirable that the Gospel should be written in a language which all men could understand ; and therefore, although first communicated to the Jews, it was written in the Greek language. Now in order to ascertain the meaning of the word baptise in our English Testa- ments, it is necessary that we should go to the Greek, and find out its true import in that language. The word used in the Greek is Baptizo. This word means properly, only to immerse — and it is the only word which occurs in the whole of the New Testament, wherever baptism is spoken of. There is another Greek word, Bapto, which is sometimes confounded with Baptizo, by persons who are not propeily acquainted with the language. But they are separate and distinct words. Bapto is the primitive, and Baptizo the derivative. Bapto is the root, from which Baptizo is derived. Bapto has two meanings, the primary to dip, and the secondary e. Baptizo has but one meaning, to immerse — and as I have w dy stated, it is the only word used in the New Testament when is spoken of. Now if the sacred writers had intended to Urn*** 5 convey the idea that spi inkling or pouring would constitute a valid baptism, they certainly never would have used a word which signifies properly, and only, to immerse. The Greek language abounds in words, which express, or indicate the application of water in various ways. I will present a few ex- amples. Louo, to wash the person of an individual. Nipto, to rinse his face, hands, or feet. Ekkeo, to pour upon him. Breko, to wet or moisten. Raniizo, to sprinkle. Neither of these words is ever once used in the whole of the New Testament, when baptism is ad- verted to. As I have before stated, baptizo is the only word used — • and baptizo means only to immerse. On this point the controversy turns ; let this question be settled, and the discussion between Bap- tists, and the advocates of sprinkling, is forever at an end. As recourse is generally first had to Lexicographers, we will begin with them. Let us consult some Lexicons which I have with me on the present occasion. Schrevelius gives the following meanings to Baptizo: baptizo (to baptise,) mergo (to immerse,) abluo (to wash away,) Iavo (to wash). Groves, "Baptizo, to dip, immerse, plunge; to wash, cleanse, purify; to baptize: to depress, humble, overwhelm. Baptizomai, to wash one's self, to bathe, to sink, faint, be dejected." Donnegan, "Baptizo, to immerse repeatedly into a liquid, to sub- merge, to soak thoroughly, to saturate ; hence : to drench with wine. Met: to confound totally, to dip in a vessel and draw. Bebapiismai s to be immersed." Robinson, (Professor at Andover, a Presbyterian Seminary.) " Baptizo, to wash, perform ablution, cleanse. To baptise, immerse, administer the rite of baptism, spoken of the religious institution of that name. Metaph : to overwhelm, oppress, &c." The primary meaning attached to Baptizo by each of these Lexi- cographers, is to immerse. They indeed speak of washing, cleansing and purifying. But this is only in a secondary sense, and only as a consequence of immersion. Baptizo does not refer to the cleansing or purifying process, but it refers entirely to mode. When an object is washed or cleansed by being dipped or immersed, Baptizo is used. But when it is washed by sprinkling, or pouring, or in any other •way, Baptizo is never used. No passage has been found in the Classics which countenances such a supposition — and while wo re- spect the opinions of Lexicographers, our ultimate appeal is to the language itself. Here we plant ourselves, and here we stand or fall. While therefore we admit that baptizo may be used in refer- ence to a washing that is performed by immersion, we deny that it is used in reference to any other kind of washing. I am convinced of the truth of the position taken by one of the most eminent wn« 6 ters on this subject ; baptizo, he declares, "always signifies to dip ; never expressing anything but mode.'"'* The three New Testament Lexicographers, Schleusner, Wahl, and Bretschneider, limit bap- tism, as a sacred ordinance, to immersion. A great many Greek works on various subjects are still extant. In these works Baplizo is used frequently — and it is always used with one meaning, to plunge, or to immerse. I have indeed heard of one passage, which persons, unacquainted with the language have quoted, and said that Baptizo there means to sprinkle. But they are mistaken, as I will proceed to show you. The passage to which I refer is taken from a work ascribed to Homer, and contains an account of a frog which was killed in a battle with some mice, and fell into a lake. The passage reads thus, Kappese d'oud ane- pneusen, ebapteto d'aimati limne porphureo, and this is the transla- tion of it ; " he fell, and breathed no more, and the lake was tinged with purple blood." Now it so happens that the word here used is not bavtizo, but bavto. I have already shown that the term bapto means to dip or to dye, and that it is entirely distinct from baptizo. It is therefore particularly unfortunate that our friends have pitched upon this passage to sustain their views, for it has no connexion with the subject. And when it is brought forward in favor of sprinkling, you may rest assured that he who introduces it is pro- foundly ignorant of the language. It is sometimes said that if the sacred writers intended to teach that immersion was the only mode of administering the ordinance, they would have used some other word, in the place of Baptizo. And pray, what is that word? They tell us dupto. But this is a mistake. Dupto is derived from dumi or duo, which is a neuter verb. It means properly to dive, and not to immerse. It is an act that I perform as it regards myself, and not an act that I perform upon another. I can very properly say that I will plunge or immerse a man — but I cannot say that I will dive him. Such a use of the word is a perversion of language, and therefore ridiculous. I have stated that Greek writers always use Baptizo, as meaning to immerse ; and I now proceed to furnish some references to Greek writers, in proof of this assertion. Polybius, vol. iii, page 311, applies the word to soldiers passing * This is the ground taken by Dr. Carson in his immortal work on baptism — a work which for acuteness of criticism, and for the soundness of its logical de- ductions, is unsurpassed. The author ia not aware that any attempt has been made to reply to Dr. Carson — and his work Btands, an enduring monument of the genius and learning of its author, of his abilities as a Philologist, and of the unquestionable truth of his positions. through water, "immersed (baptizomenoi,) up to the breast." This could mean neither sprinkling nor pouring — they were immersed or plunged up to the breast. Strabo, Book xiv, page 982, applies the word to soldiers marching a whole day through the tide, (baplizomenon,) baptised up to the middle. Porphyry, page 282, represents the sinner as baptised up to his head, in the Styx, a celebrated river in hell. (Baplizetai mekri kephales.) If this does not mean immersion, there is no meaning in it. Strabo speaking of a rivulet in the southern part of Cappadocia, informs us that the waters are so buoyant that an arrow thrown in, will hardly sink, or be dipped, (baptizesthai,) into them. Josephus, in his History of the Jewish wars, Book ii, page 752, says of a man who murdered himself, that he dipped or plunged the sword up to the hilt, (ebaptise,) in his own bowels. The same writer, Book ix, page 285, speaking of a ship about to sink, says that it was about to be baptised, (baptizesthai.) What was the mode of this baptism ? Dio, page 84, applies the word to the sinking of ships. "So great a storm suddenly arose through the whole country, that the boats were baptised or sunk, (bapiisthenai,) in the Tiber." Diodorus Siculus, Book 1, page 33, applies the word to the sink- ing of beasts carried away by a river. " The most of the land ani- mals being caught by the river, sinking, or being baptised, (baptizo- mend) perish ; but some escaping to the higher grounds are saved." Themistius, Oration iv, page 133, speaks of a man who sinks at sea, as being baptised, (baptisai.) Heraclides Allegor says, " When a piece of iron is taken red hot from the fire, it is plunged, (baptizetai % ) into the water. Plutarch, vol. x, page 18, speaks of a man plunging himself, (baptizon,) into the Lake Copias. In the Septuagint, 2 Kings, v chap. 14 verse, the language in reference to Naaman is, Kai Jeatebe Naiman, Jcai ebaptisato en to Iordane eptakis. "Naaman went down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan." The signification of this is evident — nothing but immersion can be meant. Now how supremely ridiculous it would be to speak of sprinkling a ship into the sea, or sprinkling an arrow into the river, or sprinkling a piece of red hot iron into the water, or sprinkling a man into a lake, or into a river ! Such language as this would excite a smile of contempt upon the face of every man of common sense. And I will leave you to determine whether it is at all less ridiculous to sprinkle a little water into the face of a man, and say that he is baptised. 8 I might furnish many other quotations from Greek writers,* all substantiating my position. But the time will not admit of rny do- ing so, and 1 have already quoted enough to show the meaning of the word. According to these writers baptizo means to immerse. This is its literal signification. When used figuratively, it means to overwhelm. I have been thus particular on this part of the sub- ject, because I have been requested to instruct the people as to the meaning of the Greek word, and because it has been said in a sermon on baptism, recently preached in this section of country, that " Mr. Fukman, of Cheraw, has said that baptizo means only to immerse, and has challenged the world to disprove it." My hearers, this is literally true. I have said it, and I say it again. In Cheraw I challenged the world, and here at Cedar Creek I stand up in the cause of truth, and I again challenge the world to disprove what I have said. I call upon this vast multitude to bear witness to what I now say, I am but a worm of the dust — unworthy to plead in so good a cause. But in the name of my God and Redeemer, I am willing to appear before the world. It is the cause of truth and righteousness for which I plead. I may fall, but the truth shall stand. I may die, but the truth shall live forever. With the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, I have nothing to fear from the greatest champions of infant sprinkling — and the sling of Gospel truth, though wielded by never so weak a hand, will bring Goliath to the dust. " The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong." This weak and infirm body will socn return to its kin- dred dust — but the truth for which I plead, is destined to triumph even in this world, and to live beyond the boundaries of time in im- mortal freshness and beauty ! Another strong argument in our favor is that, the Greeks, to the present day, believe in, and practise immersion. The New Testa- ment, as you have been already informed, was first written in their language — consequently they, of all men upon earth, ought to un- derstand best the import of the Greek text, A gentleman from the United Slates once asked a learned man in Greece the signification of baptizo. He replied that it meant baptizo. The American re- quested an explanation. The Greek then declared that he knew of no meaning to baptizo, but one, and that was to immerse. The candidates for baptism, in the Greek Church are always immersed.f * The reader who is disposed to enquire still farther into the subject, is referred lo Carson's work on baptism, page 78 — 134, where it is thoroughly discussed — the distinctive difference between bapto, and baptizo is clearly shown — and the srs«aning of baptizo is definitely and forever settled. t Wall's Hist. Infant Baptism, Vol. ii, page 376. 9 And when they are informed that thero are many persons in this country, and in other countries, who sprinkle and pour, instead of immersing, they ridicule the thought. The Nesforian christians in Mesopotamia, the Armenians, the Jacobites, the Copts, the Abyssi- nians, and the Georgians, all practise immersion.* Bossuet, a dis- tinguished French preacher, and a Pedo-baptist, declares that for thirteen hundred years after Christ, immersion was the mode of ad. ministering baptism all over the Christian world, except in cases of necessity, when sprinkling and pouring were resorted to. Dr. Wall, the celebrated champion of Pedo-baptism, asserts that no branch of the Christian Church has changed immersion into sprinkling, but the Roman Catholic Church, and those Churches which have de. rived their sprinkling from that source.'}' Here you have the origin of sprinkling. An Episcopalian, not a Baptist, informs you that it has sprung from the Roman Catholic Church ; and they derived it only from the traditions of their fathers. Where is the Pedo-baptist who does not become ashamed of sprinkling— the offspring of such a parent ! Oh, are you not willing this day to forsake the ceremony of man's appointment, and to return to the truth of God, and the ordinance of the Gospel? I can inform you in a few words, how sprinkling came to be thought of, and to be practised amongst christians generally. Two or three hundred years after Christ the christian church had become more or less corrupt—errors and abominations crept in— false doc- trines prevailed— and amongst others the doctrine of baptismal re- generation, a belief in baptism as a regenerating and saving ordi- nance. Consequently when persons were taken suddenly sick, it was thought that if they could be baptised they would be saved- Sometimes they were too ill to be immersed, and in such cases, pouring or sprinkling was regarded as a valid baptism. The samo motives induced parents to sprinkle their children, who were weak and infirm. They gradually got into the habit of sprinkling them- selves — until finally sprinkling prevailed all over the Catholic Church, and those Churches which, as Dr. Wall asserts, have de- rived their sprinkling from that source. The first law for sprinkling was obtained from Pope Stephen II, by the monks of Cressy, in the year 7534 It is therefore a tradition of the Roman Church. All readers of Ecclesiastical History know that a little upwards of three hundred years ago, the various Reformed Pedo-baptist Churches separated from the Church of Rome. Luther, the morn= "Hinton's Hist. Baptism, page 130. tHiet. Infant Baptism, Part ii, I chap., ix* ) Edinburgh Cyclopaedia, Art. Baptism. 2 10 ing star of the Reformation — and Melancthon, and Zwingle, afad Calvin, and Cranmer, and Knox, and all the master spirits of that glorious age, were brought up Roman Catholics. The Episcopal Church, the Lutheran Church, and the Presbyterian Church, were formed of Catholic materials. About a hundred years ago, John Wesley, and Charles Wesley, and some others, who were Episco- palians, formed the Methodist Church — and hence it is called to this day, the Methodist Episcopal Church. These various Churches are therefore sprung either directly or remotely from the Roman Catholic Church. At the time of the Reformation they broke the fetters of Popery, and nobly proclaimed the glorious doctrines of the Cross. But the triumph which truth then achieved, was not com- plete. These Churches are still agreed in the practice of'sprinkling, which is authorised solely by the traditions of the Church of Rome. Oh, my Pedo. baptist Brethren, would to God, your eyes were opened upon this subject! You are, unintentionally, upholding an anti christian church hy adhering to one of its favorite institutions. If you will only abandon infant sprinkling, which is the main pillar of Popery, the downfall of that Hierarchy will he hastened — Baby. Ion, the mother of abominations and of harlots, which has drunk the blood of ten thousand saints and martyrs, will totter and fall from her lofty throne — and the Gospel of Christ will extend its mild and gentle triumphs from the river to the ends of the earth. The admissions of eminent Pedo-haptists, as to the meaning of baptizo, as to the custom of the first Church, and as to the origin of sprinkling, must surely be regarded as a strong argument in favor of Baptist views. Candid and learned men of all denominations have always admitted that the Baptists are right in contending for immersion, as the original mode of administering christian baptism. Our opponents themselves are the judges, and they are obliged to admit that we are right. The question may arise, Why then do they practise sprinkling and pouring? They satisfy themselves as the great Calvin did, with the belief that the Church may change the mode of the ordinance, so that its substance is retained. The fal- lacy of this argument I shall endeavor to expose in its proper place. I now ask for special attention, while I refer to the testimony of some eminent men, — all of them Pedo -baptists. And this testimony I regard as the best that can be adduced, excepting the testimony of the word of God. John Calvin.* "The word baptise signifies to immerse, and the rite of immersion was observed by the ancient church." * Institutes, Lib. v, chap. xv„ 11 Luther.* " The term baptism is a Greek word. It may be ren. dered a dipping, when we dip something in water, that it may be entirely covered with water; and therefore the manner of baptism should correspond with the meaning of baptism." Beza.f "Christ commanded us to be baptised, by which word it is certain immersion is meant." Salmasius.f "Baptism is immersion, and was administered in ancient times according to the force and meaning of the word." Bossuet.f " To baptise signifies to plunge, as is granted by all the world." Archbishop Tillotson.f "Anciently those who were baptised, were immersed and buried in the water, to represent their death to sin — and then did rise up again out of the water, to signify their entrance upon a new life." Dr. Medcj- "There was no such thing as sprinkling used in baptism in the apostles' days, nor for many ages after them." Dr. Campbell, f "The word baptise both in sacred writers and classical, signifies to dip, to plunge, to immerse." Mosheim, the great Ecc. Historian, " The sacrament of haptism was administered in this, (the second century,) without the public assemblies, in places appointed and prepared for that purpose, and was performed by immersion of the whole body in the baptismal font." See Hist. Cent. II. part II. chap. iv. Bossuet. " We read not in Scripture that baptism was otherwise performed than by plunging — and we are able to make it appear, by the acts of councils, and by the ancient rituals, that for 1300 years baptism was thus administered throughout the whole church, as far as was possible." Stennett against Russen, page 175 — 176. The celebrated Dr. Whitby, in his notes on Romans vi, 4, says, " it being so expressly declared here that we are buried with Christ in baptism, by being buried under water." Dr. Wall. "It is so plain and clear by an infinite number of passages that immersion was the original mode of administering the ordinance, that one cannot but pity the weak endeavors of Pe- do. baptists who deny it." Hist. Infant Baptism, Part II. page 462. Bretschneider's Theology, Vol. I, page 684. "The apostolic church baptised only by immersion." Rheinwald's Archasology, page 303. "Immersion was the ori- ginal, apostolical practice." * Luth. Op. Vol. I, p. 336. t Qooted in the Bap. Memorial for 1843, page 73. 12 Hahn'a Theology, page 5S8. *« According to apostolical instruc* tion and example, baptism was performed by immersing the whole man." Starck's History of Baptism, page 8. "In regard to the mode there can be no doubt that it was not by sprinkling, but by immer- sion." Whitefield in hU sermon on Romans vi, 3, 4, says, " It is certain that in the words of our text, there is an allusion to the manner of baptism, which was by immersion." Dr. Bloomfield in his critical notes on Romans vi, 4, says, ** There is here plainly a reference to the ancient mode of baptism by immersion ; and I agree with Koppe and Rosenmuller that there is reason to regret it should have been abandoned in most christian churches, especially as it has so evidently a reference to the mystic sense of baptism." Professor Stuart declares, "that it is a thing made out that im. mersion was the ancient practice." Biblical Repository, for 1833. Dr. Chalmers, (of the Presbyterian Church,) the most popular living preacher, and distinguished as a theological writer — says in his Lectures on Romans vi, "The original meaning of the word baptism is immersion'*- — " we doubt not that the prevalent style of the administration in the apostle's days, was an actual submerging of the whole body under water." Mr. John Wesley, who will be regarded as an excellent witness by many here present, says " Mary Welsh aged eleven days was baptised according to the custom of the first church, and the rule of the church of England, by immersion." Wesley's Works, Vol. 3, page 20. The same writer, in his notes on Romans vi, 4, says "Buried with him, alluded to the ancient manner of baptizing by immer- sion."* I have stated that sprinkling was first used in the cases of the sick —and I now proceed to furnish the proof. * The author is aware that attempts have been made by some to deny, and by others to explain away these admissions of Wesley. But all such attempts are of no avail. It matters not what Wesley says in other parts of his writings. In the passages referred to, he declares positively and unequivocally, that immersion was the custom of the first Church — and that buried with him, alludes to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion. Wesley has long been in his grave, and it is now too late to deny, to alter, or to explain away, what he has himself asserted, without adding the slightest qualification in Connection with these declarations. 13 Salmasius. " The clinics only, because they were confined to their beds, were baptised in a manner of which they were capable— not in the entire laver, as those who plunge the head under water, but the whole body had water poured upon it." Apud Witsium, Oecon. Foed. L. iv, c. xvi. Pamelius. "Whereas the sick, by reason of their illness, could not be immersed, (which properly speaking is to be baptised,) they had the salutary water poured upon them, or were sprinkled with it." Apud Forbesium, Instruct. Hist. Theo. L. x, C. v. Grotius. "The custom of pouring or sprinkling seems to have prevailed in favor of those who were dangerously ill, and were desi- rous of giving themselves to Christ — whom others called clinics." Poole's Synopsis on Matt, iii, 6. Van Coellen. "Baptism was by immersion: only in cases of the sick was it administered by sprinkling. It was held necessary to salvation, except in cases of martyrdom." Hist. Theol. Opinions, vol. I, page 459. Rheinwald. " Baptism was administered by immersion, only in cases of necessity by sprinkling." Christian Archaeology, page 302. Stroth's Eusebius. " Baptism was administered to those on beds of sickness, by sprinkling and pouring, in other cases it was at that time by immersion." Vol. I, page .506. In the English Episcopal Prayer Book, they are commanded to dip the child — but if it is certified that it is weak or infirm, they are then permitted to sprinkle and pour. See English Prayer Book. Du Fresne's Latin Glossary, on the word clinici. " From the custom of baptising by pouring or sprinkling the sick, who could not be immersed, (which is properly baptism,) was introduced the cus- tom which now prevails in the Western Church." Neander. "Only with the sick was there an exception," in re- gard to immersion. Vol. I, page 361. Geisler. " For the sake of the sick the rite of sprinkling was in- troduced." Geisler's Ch. Hist. vol. ii, page 274. From the testimony of these witnesses, it appears that immersion was practised in the ancient church, and that sprinkling was intro. duced for the sake of the sick, from a mistaken opinion as to the re- generating and saving influence of baptism. What more could we possibly ask for than this ? It is an unanswerable vindication of the truth. Our cause is triumphant, my Brethren. Our opponents themselves are the judges, and they admit all that we would ask, all that we could desire. Here we have the united testimony of Pres- byterians, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, and Roman Catho- lics. They cannot deny the truth. They are obliged to admit it. With a voice louder and longer than a thousand thunders*, they cry 14 out, "immersion, immersion, immersion !!"— and that voice will continue to cry, until infant sprinkling ia torn from its popish foun- dations, crumbles into the dust, lies exposed in all its hideousnesa and deformity, and is swept as with a besom of destruction from the faco of the world ! There is a historical fact of importance, frequently lost sight of, in discussions on the subject of baptism — and it is this, the existence of fonts and baptisteries in ancient churches. It seems that they began to be erected some time in the third century. The object of their erection was to afford facilities, in large towns, and cities, for baptising, which was then done by immersion. *' Baptis- teries," says Mr. Robinson in his History of Baptism, "are first to be sought where they are first wanted, in towns and cities ; for writers of unquestionable authority affirm, that the primitive christians con- tinued to baptise in rivers, pools, and baths, till about the middle of the third century. At this time baptisteries began to be built."* Will any advocate of sprinkling presume to say that these fonts, and baptisteries — these large reservoirs of water were built to afford con- veniences for sprinkling ? Surely not. And I agree with a respect- able writer in the following sentiment, " I take the fact to be established, so far as the history of baptisteries bears upon the point, which it does with irresistible force, that the practice of dipping was not only usual, but considered necessary, except in particular cases arising from danger of death, or other special circumstances, for thirteen centuries after Christ, throughout all countries where any form of Christianity existed." Hinton's History of Baptism, page 182. From the considerations presented, I think it evident that history, and true criticism are in favor of immersion, as the primitive mode of administering the christian ordinance. We now proceed to no- tice some passages in the New Testament, in which baptism is spoken of. And let us begin with the baptism of John. It is sometimes denied that the baptism of John was christian baptism — and it seems that the argument, mainly insisted on, in this section of country, in favor of such a position, is drawn from the xixth chap, of Acts; where, (it is affirmed,) "Paul rebaptised certain disciples, because they had submitted to John's baptism, which was not valid." The correctness of this affirmation, I deny. There is no positive proof that (hey were actually rebaptised. It ia not at all impossible, nor improbable, that the 5th verse is the Ian- * See Robinson's Hist. Baptism, page 58, where he refers to the following learned writers on the subject of baptisteries, Paullus Paciadius, Walafidius Strabo, Joan Durant, Josephus Vicecomes, Bingham, &c, &c. 15 guage of Paul, in reference to those who heard the preaching of John. In the 4th verse he says, "John verily baptised with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should be- lieve on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." ■ And then, in the next verse he says, (as I maintain.) respecting the people who came to John, "When they heard this they were bap- tised in the name of the Lord Jesus." The sacred writer adds, in the 6th verse, "And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them." Learned men differ in their views on this passage. Some think that these disciples were rebaptised, and others that they were not. The language may be construed either way.* But even if we admit that these disciples were baptised again, it will not destroy the validity of John's baptism. When Paul met them he enquired whether they had received the Holy Ghost. They replied, " We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost." It seems, then, that they had received no instruction in reference to (his matter. John had long since been put to death. They had been baptised, in all probability, by some of his disciples, who had failed to impart that instruction which, we are (aught, John gave to the multitudes who sought his baptism. In the iii chap, of Matthew, 11th verse, John said to the people, "I indeed baptise you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes [am not worthy to bear: he shall bap- tise you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire." Here it is evident that John taught, the people respecting the effusions of the Holy Ghost. The disciples mentioned in the xix of Acts, declared that they had never heard of a Holy Ghost. — and it is therefore certain, that, if they were baptised again, it was not because of the invalidity of John's baptism, but it was because they had not been prcperly instructed by John's disciples, who baptised them in the first instance. The limits of this discourse will not permit me to go into the argu- ment, and lam therefore compelled only to throw out a few conside- rations, tending to show the identity of christian baptism with the baptism of John. John came as the forerunner of Christ. He preached unto the people that they should repent of their sins, and believe on Him who was to come, that is, on Christ. And hence his baptism is styled the baptism of repentance. Christ says, * Since delivering this discourse the author has been happy to find his views advocated by so able and learned a Pedo-baptist Divine as Calvin. He says, " For myself, I grant that the baptism they had received, was the true baptism of John, and the very 3ame with the baptism of Christ; but I deny thai they were baptised again." Calvin's Institutes, vol. ii, page 133. 16 (Matt, xi, 12, 13.) "From the days of John the Baptist until no^ the kingdom of heaVen suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets snd the law prophesied until John.'* This clearly teaches us that John came as the harbinger of a new dispensation— and that could have been no other than the dispensa# tion of the Gospel. The dispensation of the law and tho prophets was at an end, and John preached repentance, and baptised, point- ing to a Divine Redeemer, who was speedily to make his appearance. Mark introduces his Gospel with these words, u The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God." He then adverts to the prophecies respecting John, and proceeds to describe his appear- ance in the wilderness, his preaching repentance, and his baptising the people in the river Jordan. The inference to which we are na- turally led, is that John was sent to prepare and open the way for the Christian dispensation — and that the baptism of John was in reality, the beginning of christian baptism. In Acts, chap, xviii, verse 25, we have an account of Apollos, a converted Jew, an elo- quent man, and mighty in the Scriptures. "This man was in- structed in the way of the Lord ; and being fervent in the Spirit, be spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John." It appears that Apollos became an able and faithful minister of the New Testament. But there is no account of his ever being rebaptised — and this is satisfactory evidence that the baptism of John which was the only baptism he had known, was regarded by the apostles as valid. Matthew introduces to us the forerunner of Christ, in these words, "In those days came John the Baptist." This language is definite and expressive — It i« not John the Sprinkler, nor John the Pourer — but it is John the Baptist. The expression in Greek is Joannes } o Baptistes—and the correct translation is, John the Immerser. In the German translation of the Bible it is rendered der Tauffer, the Dipper. " Then went out unto him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, And were baptised of him in Jordan, confessing their sins." (Matt, iii, 5, 6.) This is plain language. They could not be sprinkled in Jordan ; they could not be poured in Jordan. How then were they baptised ? They were simply im-s mersed. The people came, and were immersed, or plunged by John in Jordan. This makes sense of the passage, and it can have no other meaning. "John also was baptising in Enon near to Salim, because there was much water there ; and the people came and were baptised." (John iii, 23.) Here is a text that has ever stood forth in bold relief, notwithstanding all tho false interpretations that have been heaped 17 upon it. Our Pedo-baptist friends have generally contended that much water was needed for the camels, and other animals of those who resorted to the baptism of John. But the text tells us nothing about camels. The Evangelist is speaking not about animals, but about baptism. We do not know whether the people who went to be baptised by John, carried any animals with them. But suppose we admit that they did — If much water was needed for the animals, much corn and provender were also necessary — for it is evident that they could not live upon water alone. And yet the scriptures are silent upon this point. It is therefore a gratuitous assumption — and it only shows to what an absurd refuge the advocates of error will resort, in the absence of argument. John baptised in Enon. Why? Because there was much water there. Why was much water needed ? In order that he might immerse the people. I cannot conceive how a candid and conscientious man can interpret the language above quoted in any other way. In the third chapter of Matthew, we have an account of the bap. tism of Christ. John administered the ordinance on that memorable occasion — and our Redeemer, by submitting to the baptism of his forerunner, clearly and unequivocally proclaimed its validity. If Christ was satisfied with the baptism of John, it is certainly incom- patible with christian humility, and with the reverence due to the Son of God, for us to raise questions, and to entertain doubts re- specting it. It is affirmed by some, that Christ submitted to baptism, in com- pliance with a custom that prevailed amongst the Jews, of washing their priests — and not as an example for his followers. This is the theory of Adam Clarke — and his advocacy of it has given it ex- tensive prevalence in the denomination of which he was a member. It is the offspring of a vigorous imagination — it is a theory totally destitute of proof — and it is equally repugnant to the Scriptures, and dishonoring to the Son of God. He was not a priest after the order of Aaron, but after the order of Melchizedec. He was not descended from the tribe of Levi, but from the tribe of Judah. He therefore did not belong to the family of the priests; and it would have been a violation of the ceremonial law for him to have par. taken of any of the cercmonie3 peculiar to the Levitical priesthood. The Jewish priests were indeed washed when they were inducted into office, and also when they came near to the altar to minister. (See Exodus xxx, 20.) And why were they thus washed ? " That they die not" Here was the reason. They were themselves frail and infirm men. They needed an atonement for their own sins, and in token thereof they were washed. But Jesus had no guilt to wash awav. He was the pure and spotless Lamb, " who taketh 3 away the sins of the world." And when he entered upon his min- istry as the Great Head of the Church, it was entirely inconsistent with the dignity of his character, and with the principles of his Gos- pel, for him to receive the washing of a Jewish priest ! ! But the word of God settles this matter. " He is made an high priest for- ever after the order of Melchizedec." We nowhere read that Mel- chizedec was washed. And why should Jesus be? — " For the priest- hood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. For he of whom these things are spoken, pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. For it is evi- dent that our Lord sprang out of Judah : of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evi- dent : for that after the similitude of Melchizedec, there ariseth another priest, who is made, not after the law of a carnal command' meni, but after the poiver of an endless life." (Hebrews vii, 12 to 16th.) The apostle then proceeds to say that those priests were made without an oath ; but this Priest with an oath, for the Lord sware, " Thou art a Priest forever after the order of Melchizedec." Here the distinction is clearly marked. Christ is the High Priest of God — as such he had nothing to do with the ceremonial rites of the House of Levi— and the theory of Dr. Clarke contradicts the Scriptures, and dishonors and degrades the incarnate Redeemer, by making him a priest after the order of Aaron ! If it be asked, why Jesus was baptised ? I answer, that he might set an example for his people. He instituted baptism as the rite of initiation into the christian church — and when he was baptised he said, " thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness." It is some- times said "that Christ is not a proper example for us — he is so pure, so perfect, that it is impossible for us to imitate him." I ad- mit that we can never, never, attain to anything like the perfection of his character, and the purity of his life — and yet he is our exam- j)le. Christians are called his disciples. They are commanded to deny themselves, take up their crosses, and follow him. And Peter expressly declares, " Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an exam- ple that ye should follow his steps." (First Peter ii, 21.) As a denomination we have never laid claims to christian perfection — but we have always believed that the Son of God is the great Exemplar of christians — and although we fall short of the mark, and never imitate him as we should, we rejoice that we are enabled to follow him into the water, to be buried with him, in baptism ; and thus to proclaim to the world, our veneration for his example. "And Jesus when he was baptised, went up straightway out of the water." (Matt, iii, 1G.) I have never yet met with the man who presumed to say that Christ was sprinkled or poured— -and with 19 this passage staring him in the face, I tremblo for that man who dares to make such an assertion. " He went up straightway out of the water." This clearly implies that he went down into the water. For what purpose did he go down into the water ? To have a little of it sprinkled into his face, or poured upon his head ? This is ab- surd — and those who will, may believe it. I put the question to your hearts and consciences this day, and ask, in the name of the Lord, how dare you to give such an unmeaning interpretation to his holy word ? Of all the hundreds and thousands, in this country, and in other countries who have been sprinkled or poured upon, not one, (within my knowledge,) has gone down into the water to have it done. And why should it be said that the Saviour did? Away with such pitiful quibbling ! away with such a barefaced and child- like trifling with the word of God ! ! See your meek and lowly Lord descending into the baptismal stream, and bowing beneath the wave, " an emblem of his future grave." After his immersion, behold him coming " up straightway out of the water"— and then, Oh believer, " why tarriest thou? arise and be baptised." The language in Acts ii, 41, is often quoted as though it favored the views of those who practise sprinkling. " Then they that gladly received the word, were baptised, and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." Now it ie thought that there would have been some difficulty in immersing so many in the course of a single day. But this difficulty exists only in the imaginations of our Pedo-baptist Brethren. It requires no longer time to immerse men and women than is consumed ia the sprinkling of babes. " I speak that I do know, and I testify that I have seen." Some, in an indiscreet zeal, have invented a huge broom for the use of the administrator on the occasion under consideration. Standing on the margin of the stream he is supposed to have dipped his be- som into the water, and after pronouncing the baptismal words, to have waved it over the heads of the surrounding multitude ! And this was baptism ! Alas, alas ! when we abjure the plain meaning of the word of God, into v/hat mazes of inconsistency, and absurdi- ty are we destined to wander! A letter has been recently written by a Baptist minister, in which he states that he immersed thirty-two persons in a little more than seven minutes. He then enters into a calculation and shows that, in the same ratio, he could have im- mersed the three thousand in ten hours. But there is no use for such a construction as this. There were twelve apostles, besides seventy disciples sent forth to preach the Gosoel. If only the twelve apostles baptised, they could have immersed the three thousand ia the course of one or two hours. But if in addition to them, the seventy also baptised, the immersion of that great multitude could 20 have been easily accomplished in from ten to twenty minutes. It is therefore to be hoped that this passage will never again be men. tinned, when sprinkling is advocated. In Acts viii, 38, 39, is contained the account of the baptism of the Eunuch. When the Eunuch professed faith in Christ, and Philip consented to baptise him, ''he commanded the chariot to stand still, and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch : and he baptised him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the Eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way re. jnicing." This language needs neither note nor comment. It can- not be made plainer — It explains itself, and it will preach immersion to the end of lime. It it be objected, as it sometimes is, that the Greek prepositions eis and ek are here improperly translated, into and out of : I reply first, thai ihe English bible is not a Baptist ver- sion. It was translated by Pedo-baptists — under the influence, and according to the directions* of & Peclo-baptist king, who was strongly in favor of sprinkling, and endeavored to promote it in his domiu. ions. These translators indeed transferred the Greek word baptizo, and thus left it without its English meaning. But when they came to the baptism of the Eunuch, they could not do violence to their consciences by mistranslating the Greek prepositions — it was neces. sary for them to say either what was true, or what was false— and like candid and honest nten, they gave to each word its proper sig- nification — eis, into: ek, out of. But again; these prepositions are not only thus rendered by Peclo-baptist translators, but it would be contrary to their proper and primary signification, for them to be rendered in any other way, in the connection in which they are here used. If eis does not signify into, and ek, out of, then no ■words will be found in the Greek language to convey these ideas. But I will refer to unexceptionable testimony. " Eis — the primi. tive meaning of this preposition is into, and hence ii takes the accu. sative, this case expressing that towards which anything approaches or tends, and into which it enters, or penetrates." " Ek — ibis pre. position, in its original meaning, is employed only in reference to such objects as proceed from the interior <»f another object, or fro;r> the most intimate connection with it." ( A nthon's edition of Valpy'rf Greek Grammar, page 208, 209.) Anthon's Valpy is a standard work — and all Grammarians and Lexicographers of note, will be found to agree in the views above expressed. The use of eis and ek in the Classic writers, clearly fixes their meaning, and abundant examples might be adduced to show that they signify literally and a Tfeesa&i Fulkr'i Clrareh Hiss, ef Britain, Book ar 4 page 4S. 21 properly, into, and out of. It is evident then, that the Eunuch went down into the wafer — -that he was immersed, (if baptizo means only to immerse, as I think I have proved) — and that after his im- mersion he came up out of the water. May the Lord open your eyes to see, your ears to hear, and your hearts to receive the truth which is here so plainly taught! It is believed by many that the baptism of the Jailer, (Acts xvi, S3,) was administered in his house. But a careful examination of (he scriptural account of that event, will lead to a different conclu- sion. When the Jailer was awakened by the earthquake, he sprang inlo the prison with a li<:ht. and brought out the prisoners. Paul and Silas spake the word of the Lord unto him, and to all that were in his house; he then washed (heir stripes; and after baptism had been performed, he brought them inlo his house, and set meat before them. &c. From this statement it appears that Ihey were first brought out of the prison into (he house, where they preached to the family. And inasmuch as they returned into the house after the baptism, it is a very natural inference that they went out for the purpose of attending to that ordinance. In Mark vii, 4, baptizo is used. " For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft eat not, holding the traditions of the elders. And when they come from the market except they wash they eat not." The word first used here is niplo, to wash by rinsing or pouring — the second is baptizo, to wash by bathing, or immersing. The former is confined to the washing of the hands— - the latter seems to refer to the bathing or immersion of the whole body. The Jews regarded themselves as polluted when they re. turned from market, and it was natural for them to resort to the bath for purification. I here yive the testimony of Maimonides, an old and learned Jewish wriler, as quoted by Lightfoot in his Com. on Matt, iii, 6 — "Wheresoever in (lie law. washing of the body or garments is mentioned, it means nothing else than the washing of the whole body. For if any wash himself all over, except the very top of his little finder, he is si II in his un cleanness." In the latter part of the verse wo are considering, Mark siys that the Pharisees hold •• the washing of cup-', and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables." Bap'ismos is the word (hit occurs in the Greek text, and it ought to he translated immersion. I again appeal to the testimony of Mai- inonides, as quoted by Dr. Gill on this passage — "In a lavcr they dip all unclean vessels. If he dips the bed in the pool, although the feet are plunged in the thick clay at the bottom of the pool, it is clean." This is a satisfactory explanation of these verses—and it also explains Mark vii, 8, and Hebrews ix, 10. Let us now direct our retention to some ea3C9 of the figurative use of baptism in the new Testament. And first, the baptism spoken of in 1st Corinthians x, 1, 2. "Moreover brethren I would not ye should be ignorant how that all our fathers were under the cloUd, and all passed through the sea, and were all baptised unto Moses in the cloud, and in the sea." The opposers of immersion attempt to give these verses such an interpretation as to make them mean that the people were sprinkled by the cloud and the sea. But such an interpretation destroys the beauty of the figure, and is an evident perversion of its meaning. The Israelites, when they departed from the land of Egypt, were eagerly pursued by the Egyptians. In their hasty flight they approached the Red Sea, which lay in their way, and opposed their progress. But at the command of Moses the waters separated, and a path was opened through the very depths of the Sea. The children of Israel descended into the deep. The waters arose like walls on their two sides — the cloud spread over them like a broad and impenetrable canopy — and they were em- phatically hurled from the sight of the Egyptians. And this was a figurative immersion, my Brethren. They were immersed in the cloud, and in the sea — and yet they passed through dry-shod. Do you ask, how this was possible? I reply, they went down to the depths, the very bottom of the Sea — the waters surrounded them — but the baptism, the immersion, was not complete until the cloud overshadowed them- — and then they were entirely concealed from the sight of mortal men. Here is a most beautiful figure, and here is an illustrious type of christian baptism. In Luke xii, 50, the Saviour says, " I have a baptism to be bap- tised with ; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished." He here had reference to the sufferings through which he was to pass. Now what a poor and inadequate conception of those sufferings would the figure of sprinkling give us! Suppose he had said, "I have a sprinkling of sufferings to be sprinkled with." Where would have been the force, where would have been the propriety, where would have been the meaning of such language as this? If it con- veyed any meaning at all, it would have been this that he had but very little to endure — He was only to be sprinkled with a sprinkling of sufferings ! But how different the meaning when the language is varied — "I have an immersion of sufferings to be immersed, or overwhelmed with." This figure presents the most vivid picture of the sufferings of Jesus. He was plunged in grief; he was over- whelmed with woe. And when an immersion of sufferings is spoken of, we know what it means. We have immediately before our eyes his sufferings in the garden, when he sweat as it were great drops of blood— and his overwhelming agonies upon the cross; — when 23 hts groans shook the foundations of the world ; when fhe rocks were rent throughout the vast dominions of nature ; when darkness, deep and gloomy, brooded over the face of the world ; when the vail of the temple was rent in twain, and the bodies of the dead awoke from their long slumbers; when the angelic host looked down upon Calvary in silent sorrow; when the cruel spear was thrust into his side ; when he bowed his head, and in all the agonies of the dying struggle, exclaimed, " My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ?" We are ready to say with the christian poet, "Oh Lamb of God, was ever grief, Was ever love like thine ?" In view of all this, is there a man in this vast assembly who will stand up and say that Christ was sprinkled with a sprinkling of sufferings? — If there is such an one here, I call upon him to arise and show himself. I wish to see him. He is a wonder in creation. And he ought to be held up as an everlasting spectacle to angels, to men, and to devils ! I will give you but one more example from Holy Writ. It is in Romans vi. 4, 5. "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death ; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead, by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection." I have often thought that if this were the only reference in the whole of the New Testament to the mode of baptism, for the life of my soul, I could not resist it — it would be enough, amply enough to make me a Bap- tist all the days of my life. Here we have an example of the typi- cal meaning of baptism. It represents the believer's death to sin, and his resurrection to a new and holy life — both which are fitly and beautifully set forth by his burial under the water, and his re- surrection therefrom. The apostles says, "Therefore we are buried with him" — by sprinkling? No. " Therefore we are buried with him" — by pouring? No. "Therefore we are buried with him" — by immersion ? Yes, my hearers ; that is plain common sense, and that is the obvious meaning of the sacred writer. " We are buried with him by immersion into death ; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." — What is the signification of the word bury? Does it mean to sprinkle? No. Does it mean to pour? No. Does it mean to immerse? Most unquestionably — When an object is immersed it is temporarily buried. To use a familiar illus- tration — If you take a coffin to a grave that has been prepared for its reception, and sprinkle upon one end of it a handful of earth, 24 can you say mai it has been buried? Certainly not. And if yoiJ take a little water into your hand, and sprinkle it into the face of a man, can you say, with truth, that he has been buried 7 Reason says not — common sense says not — the world says not — and an indignant Universe would arise against you, and convict yon of a gross and palpable untruth. The Bible declares that we are buried with him by baptism: and yet yon sprinkle men, and women, and children, and publish to the world that ihey arc baptised ! Wonder oh heavens, and be astonished oh earth ! ! Having thus endeavored to establish the signification of bapiizo, to show the origin of sprinkling, and to present the plain teaching of the Bible, in reference to baptism — I now proceed to expose the futility of the reasons which prevent many from submitting to chris- tian baptism. 1. A very common excuse is that (he mode is not material — there is nothing in mode — and if water is applied in any wav, it is bap- tism. This is an excuse that is offered by hundreds and thousands, who admit that immersion is the proper, and the most ancient mode. But such reasoning, however specious it may seem, is unsound. I pronounce it to be rotten at the very core, and untrue from beginning to end. In the ordinance of baptism, (so far as the administration is concerned,) mode is everything. Destroy the mode, and you de- stroy the baptism. I have already proved that Bapiizo means only to immerse — consequently if you have not been immersed, you have not been baptised. There is no possible way of jiotlin