Hliljiiilll III ilil liiiiiiiiiii: :iiiiiiiilllti:^Y})llT' liiiiiilili N M ^4- •' hiUiill iliinmii W AP T39i83. /84V ^ CL ;^ i .^ _ra ,^ CL ^ .i^^ ^ : 1 -r ¥i Ql i^ M- g) ^ o ts $ ^ s c o. O bfl • *S Eh •< ^ l^ g 3 ^ s ,to <-» M CJ ^ M (/) •S- ^ P4 2 O >~, ^ .a ^ ^ -a ^" % ■•-• c C vi (U ^ ^. ^ CL CONVERSATION BETWEEN TWO LAYMEN, ON THE SUBJECTS AND MODE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM CHURCH COMMUNION, FORMING A COMPLETE MANUAL. BY CHAS. H.^ENDIiETON, MEMBKR op the first baptist church, CLEVELAND. Let truth srapple with error ; who ever knew truth worsted in a frer. ami open encounter? — Milton. "Buy the truth, and sell it not."— "Truth needs no apc'ogy, and error deserves none.-' "Earnestly contend for tlie faith once delivered to the saints." CLEVELAND ; goLD BY SANFORD & CO., >r "diner baptism" read "clinic baptism." P. 48, 8th line from top, for "The reader" read "You." P. 51, 23d line, for "space" read "time." P. 53, 5th line, for ' solicituoiis," read "soliritons;" lOlli, 11th, and 2Uth lines, for "baptizontia" read "baptizontai." P. 66, 14ih line, for "this" read "their." P. FO, 15th line for "refuses" read "refesed;" 21st line, for "unto" read "into." Page i'2, 5th line from top, for Henry retid Hervey; 2d line of Note, for "All of the valuable" read "And so all of the valuable." P. 1(!6, 4th line from top, for "as" read "thus." P. 124, bottom line, for "polite" read "polity." PREFACE. In publishing this tract, it is far from the intentions of the writer to excito unkind feel- ings between the members of different denominations, or to weaken the bands of Christian love and affection, which spiritually unite all who love our Savior. But it is to invite all to the fresh examination of a subject, which has already received some attention in almost every Christian community, and which is destined to receive mucli more, ere all the disci- ples of Christ shall "see eye to eye," — to awaken, if possible, adeeper reverence for the authority of the Bible, and all the commands of Christ. For we believe when all christians come up to the requirements of Christ, a visible union will then take place. And. as we believe the " Baptists are more nearly conformed in doctrine and rites to the model of the primitive churches, tlian any otherdeuomination," it follows that ifwe labor to advance THEIR SENTIMENTS, it hecomcs identical with laboring for the welfare and promotion of Christ's kingdom. WhUe I readily admit that many, who differ from us with respect to these doctrines and rites, are among the excellent of the earth, I cannot, out of mere res- pect to them, abstain from vindicating the institutions of Christ. This would be to sho\7 a greater deference to man than God. " Every plant," says Jesus, " that my heavenly father hath not planted, mustbc rooted up." To permit then the traditions op mkn to pasi for theordinancks of God, v/ithout any attempt to produce a reformation to primi- tive practice, would be to disobey the injunction, — " Contend earnestly for the faith onca delivered to the Saints." The importance of union among Christians is ackowlcdged by all ; and we trust wo ehall be enabled to show that there is ground on which nil evangelical christians can unite, even at the celebration of the I-ord's Supper, and that too without sacrificing any prin- ciple. Now if such ground as this can be found, and any evangelical christian denomination ia unwilling to occupy it, then it follows that th»t denomination prefers disunion to union — restricted church communion to the general communion of the Godly. Many are dissuaded from the examination of this subject by being told that it is non- essential, or, " by considering it as a thing of small moment, and that time is better spent in schemes of general usefulness. That Baptism is a thing of small moment, isanopiniou that is not likely to have been suggested by the accounts of it in the Scriptures. It is an ordinance that strikingly represents the truth that saves the soul; and is peremptorily enjoined on all who believe. But were it the very least of all the commandments of Jesus, it demands attention and obedience at tlie hazard of life itself. Nothing that Christ has appointed can be innocently neglected. To suppose that schemes of general usefulness ought to take place of the commandments of God, " is a direct reflection on the wisdom of Jehovah. We are willing, reader,aftersaying on each side of this question whatwedeem apposite, to leave it with you to judge for your self. But we would " remind you that your judgment will influence your practice, and that will be examined, and the consequences of it will be yours in eternity. ■' Two things we wish you to believe. One is. That trctii will be honorable, when KRROR shall be made ashamed. The other is. That truth embraced and truth practiced is the road to heaven, and 'the wisest course on earth." The author of this, several years since, examined this subject. During that investiga- tion, which produced the distinct conviction in his own mind that the Bajitisls stood on the vantage ground of truth, he read some of the ablest works on both sides of this con- troversy, lie has also made himself acquainted with the more recent works of note on this subject, (issued from the American press.) To what extent he is indebted for the views contained in this pamphlet to the above examinations, it would be impossible for him to tell. Wherever he has copied from any work he has used the quotation marks. Whila presenting his own views on this subject, he has availed himselfof the labors of others, and has endeavored, with candor and fairness, to state and examine briefly some of the most prominent arguments of those who have written on the other side. ForsoMP of the ideas contained in this pamphlet, the author freely acknowledges that he is indebted to Prof. Jewett's recent work, to Lynd's, and Carson's treaties, and to the Christian Review, edited by Prof. Sears, &c. The opinions of the German critics, and the examination of the ancient Fathers, have been derived mostly from the Review, a very able quarterly work published in Boston, which every Baptist who can, ought to take. The object of this publication is not so much to instruct the learned, as it is to lead the humble inquirer after truth into the clear understanding of the word of God. Having been requested, while at the east, to write a tract on this subject, the hope of usefulne.«9 alone has at last induced the author to comply with that request. It is with extreme reluctance that he consents to publish this in so imperfect a state. The only apology he has to make is, that it was written in great haste, and in detached portions of time. (The most of his time being otherwise occupied.) With a sincere desire that this humble effort may remove prejudice and advance the cause of troth, a.nd CamaTLiN unio.v, the author commits it to the great Headoftbo Church, INTRODUCTION '.' It is reported to have been said by Coleridge, ' there is the love of the g^ood for tha good's suke, and the love of the truth for tlie truth's sake. To see, clearly', that the lovo of the good and tlie true is ultimately identical, — is given only to those who love both sin- eerely, and without any foreign ends.' Alas! how often have they been disjoined! Ou the one side, how many have been disposed to promote what is good, at the expense of truili ; and, ou the otiier, how nniny, in promoting the cause of truth, have sacrificed what is good, and clothed themselves with the sjjirit of bitterness and strife as w ith a gar- ment ! A visible aud acknowledged union among all Christians is a great good — ' a con- summalioa devoutly to be wished,' — buthow is it to be accomplished? Most certainly, not by denunciation or silence ; not by truces and conipromises,b3' legislation or acts of diplu- i;!:icj' ; but it must be done, if done at all, by each seeking truth with an honest heart, actaiif according to it aud speaking it ln love. Christian uuion can flourish in no other soil, but a 'KNOWi^EDGE OF T!IE TRUTH.' ' If We Walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another.' Wlioever seeks trutli from the love of it, and in love endeavors to diffuse it, does sonictiiing to promote the real unity of the church. For, even if he adopts some incidental error, the spirit of his mind will lead him to receive fresh light with thankfulness, and tlius trutli will gain the greater triumph. As far as diJferout sects of Christians are already agreed on essential truths, so far it becomes them to clisrish for each otiier, as Christians, a fervent fellowship. If we have ' one Lord, ono Faiih, one God and leather of ail,' even though we have not ' one baptism,' we ought to lovs eacii other, with pure hearts fervently. In suc'u a case, we have already laid tlie basis fora cordial union of spirit, and through obedience to the truth have purified our souls unto ujifeig:ued love of the brethren. 'i'he dilfereiice of opinion between the Baptists and other evangelical Christiaps, is not so much touching the spiritual doctrines of the church, as ijs constitution. Tlicy do already, if tliey breathe the spirit of their system, hold spiritual communion with all who love Christ, — the same kind of communion whicli will prevail in heaven, where the state of society will nut require any tangible memorials, to transmit from age to age the remem- brance of the Savior's death. But thoy diifeV from other Christians on this question : What is essential to the right constitution of the Christian church 1 They set out with the great principle, that none but moral agents, who act from choice, are proper subjects of church uieniliershlp or church ordinances. Thej' not oulj' say, with others, that tha church is a spiritual association, aud that Its constitution is not national, hut thence infer thtit none are brought into ailinncewiih it by natural birth, or blood,or parental dedication. Thev hold, with John F^ocke, that ' a church is a free and voluutary societj'; nobody is born a member of any church; otherw"i3C,the religion of parents would descend unto children by the same right of inheritance as their temporal estates, aud every one would hold his faith by the same tenure as he does his lands.' They deny, that there is any power inherent or conferred, in outward rites, to bring a human being into covenant with God. Hence, they withhold the initiating rite of Chri.stianily from all, except those who profess repentance for sin and faith in Christ. These principles they deem ofhisrh importance, aud value aright constitution of the church, not only because it is best adapted to preserve the purity of her .doctrines, but bpca\isu it bears upon it the sacred seal of God's authority. To ilicse principles they ask the attention of the world. They say, let them ho examin- iiied by their own liglit, and the light of revelation. The very announcement of them is adapted to carry a conviction of respousibilitj' to every man's bosom, aud to lead each to. think and act for himself, feeling, that while he lives in impenitence, he hplds no special relation to God, ou which his conscience can repose. Thev think, that tliese principles arc the same as those preached by the Apostles, the same as those held in different ag-es by various commuuilies of Ciiristians, w'no acknowledged not thi! dominion of the Kumish . church; the same as those niaiiitained by their own Roger Williams, the champion of reli- gious liberty, who sought to secure tiiem an asvlum on the shores of Rhode Island, amid winter's cold and tempcit's blasts, aud persecution still more relentless than a winter's uky, or 't!ie pelting of the pitiless storm.' Though they are more clearly seen aud hon- ored now than they were fornjally, yet they remain too much in the shade. If they shall .■ever be brought fully out to ligiit, and allowed their legitimate sway, we believe that .era .willlte theproL'iir^or of thii miivorsit! triuiaph of primitive Ci(ristianity."-7HAGUE. f V \ A FAMILIAR COxWERSATION BAPTISM AND COMMUNION. Baptist. — Good morning, my dear brother. It is with muck pleasure I am permitted to meet you. Wallt in and take a seat. * * * 1 observed you at our meeting last evening. How were you interested in the exercises ? Pedohaptist. — Very much. The liberal manner in which the meeting was conducted, aflbrded me much pleasure. It was trul}^ interesting, to see the members of diflerent evangelical denominations, take part in the exercises. It was an emblem of what I anticipate will take place in Heaven. — After 1 returned home last evening, while meditating upon the Christian catholic feelings, which wereea,'e/«p/j/?e(/ by the mevn. bers of your church, in the conference room, 1 was reminded of the hard names, and opprobious epithets, which have been so profusely poured out upon your denomination. And I invol. untarily said to myself, is it possible, that a denomination, so liberal and social in their meetings, are as bigoted, unchristian, and illiberal in their views, as they have been represented. May it not be, after all, that these statements are, in a great measure, exaggeration. And then I resolved, that in the morn- ing I would avail myself of the opportunity to call on you, and hear what you might have to say in defence of yf)ur " sect," which I presume you are conscious is " every ichere spoken against." Now, if you are not engaged this morning, I should like to converse with you on your distinguishing sentiments, and endeavor to ascertain how far our views harmonize, and the precise points in which we differ with regard to our religious tenets. 6 Baptist. — As I have no engai^rements this morning, it will aflbrd mc pleasure to sit down with you and canvass our views and sentiments, and scan them by the Word of (Jod — the Law and the Testimony. And here. I would remark, that if we io- tend to ascertain what is truth — what the Bible teaches, it is of the utmost importance that v.'e lay aside thcpride of intellect, ail party zeal, every favorite preconceived opinion, and "the v/isdom of this world," and approach the Sacred Word, not v/ith the torch of human philosophy, saying what is consistent or inconsistent with reason ; — not with a dictatorial spirit, say- ing what it ought to teach and what it ought not teach ; but with " our minds characterized by that childlike humility, so beautifully described" by our Savior, and so sacredly enjoined as an indispensable prerequisite to the reception of truth ; and in the absence of which, no man can even hope to enter the kingdom of heaven. In this respect, the same laws govern the natural, as the moral world. Thus itv/as with Sir Isaac New. ton, when his mind was clothed with childlike simplicity, " na- ture held communion with him as with a favorite son." To him she unfolded the laws that govern the material world, "and, taking hitn by the hind, she led him over the wide expanse of universal being." In like manner, Jesus Christ "reveals him- self to hhn who is of a humble and a contrite spirit," " as he does not to the world ;" and "opens his eyes to behold won. drous thin.t>s out of hisLaw." Now, would we discover the laws that Jesus (Ihrist has instituted for the constitution and government of his church, it is evident that the speculations of genius and philosophy must give place to that deep humility of heart, which alone will induce us to search the Sacred Oracles with a diligent, prayerful spirit, asking wisdom of //i?«, "in whom are hid all its tre;isures," (and who has promised to be- stow it liberally on all who ask for it,) that we may, in this prescribed manner, be enabled to discover the mind and 7vill of Christ ; and obtain that disposition of heart which will lead us to " walk in all His commandments and ordinances blame- less." In this manner may we hope to obtain that blessing, which is pronounced upon those " who follow the Lamb whith- ersoever he goeth." " This, as I presume you are aware, is not a subject of trifling importance, inasmuch as it involves the purity and prosperity of the church, designed by our Lord to represent his kingdom here on eartii, — to exhibit to the world something of its order and harmony, and the purity and excellency of its principles, and instrumeutally to carry forward his designs of mercy, uu- til his name and his praise shall ba one in all the earth." Here, let ic b3 remembered, that Infinite Wisdom has in no sense in- vested man with a discretionary power, which authorizes him to alter any of the laws, iiistiluted by Christ for the constitution and government of His church, Hrs spiritual kingdom on earth, however celebrated he may be for learning', or eminent for piety. Let us both pledge ourselves to each other, and to Him who died for us, that we will submit our sentiments and views to the oracles of Divine Truth, fully determined in the strength of the Lord that we will renounce every sentiment, that is not in conformity to the requirements of Christ, let it cost whatever self-denial it may. Should we finally be so happy as to enter heav- en, probably we shall then see things as they are, " which is tho sublimest thing in nature." We shall then receive no satisfac- tion in discovering, that we permitted "our mental vision to be obscured by passion or prejudice" for the want of that thor- ough, impartial examination which it is the duty of all to make. Surely, no satisf iction can then arise from the con- sciousness that we, through sheer neglect of investigation, have thus thrown the "weight of our influence, (»r any part of it, into the scale of error, either in principle or practice. If we shall derive satisfaction from any thing we shall have done on earth, it will be for our having diligently and prayerfully sought for thpi truth and closely adhered to it." Pedobaptist. — Your remarks I deem very appropriate, and pledge myself most sacredly, to renounce every rehgious sen- timent, not authorized by the word of God ; and bow with deep humility to his commandments, and to Apostolical example. iNow, asit is much easier to ask than answer questions, with your permission I would like to throw the laboring oar on you. Baptist. — [ shall not complain of taking it my part of the time, and will endeavor to use it as skiltuHv as p)ssib!e. Pedobaptist. — Do the Baptist denomination believe, with the Pedobapust, that baptism is an indisvensable prerequisite to C(jmmunion at the Lord's Table / Baptist — Oh yes ! Pedobaptist. — It would grUify me to hear what authority and evidence you have to support this belief. Baptist. — The precepts of Christ and the example of the Apostles. — The great Law of the commission runs thus: "Go ye forth, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever 1 have commanded you," etc. From this commission, it is evident that after baptism, our Lord enjoined an observance of all things whatsoever he had commanded; and as he had previously commanded the celebra. tion of the Lord's Supper, it is obvious that that was to follow baptism. And indeed we learn from scripture, that the Apos- tles thus understood the commission ; for the first time Peter preached under its authority, he commanded his hearers to " re- pent and be baptized ;" and afterwards " with many other words did he testify and exhort." It is also plain from scripture, that the people so understood the Apostles,for the narration says, " They that gladly received his word, were baptized ; and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." Thus the primitive disciples first gladly received the word — then were baptized — then werj added to the church — then con- tinued steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, etc. 'I'hus Paul fiist believed, then was baptized, then assayed to join himself to the disciples. From my examination of this subject, I am fully convinced that the ancient churches all practised upon the belief, that baptism is a prerequisite to the Lord's Supper. I shall select but a^eic of the multitude of testimonials to this universally received opinion. Justin Martyr says, " This food is called by us, the Eucharist ; of which it is unlawful for any to partake but such as believe the things that are taught by us to be true, and have been baptized." Dr. Wall. No church ever gave the communion to any per- sons before they were baptized. Among all tlie absurdities that were ever held, none ever maintained u do not understand me: [ moan why do you not commune with me in the celebration of the Lord's Supper] Bajitist. — Have you ever been baptized? And if so, at what age and in what manner? Pedobaptist. — I have been informed that I was baptized in my infancy, by sprinkling. Baptist. — Now, my dear brother, I prpsume you are aware that our denomination do not reixard sprinkling as Christian Baptism, nor even the immersion of an unconscious infant. — ' No, nothing short of the immersion of a believer in water. And you know the result of our investigation ended in the full conviction, that no xinbaptized person had a right to a[)proach the Lord's I'able. And that no church was authorized by the Law of Ciirist, the example of the Apostles, or the practice of the ancient church, to invite such to his Table. Now as we do not consider you b;iptized, the reason is obvious, why we do not invite you to a participation with us at the Lord's Table. — Were we to do this with our present views of what constitute christian baptism, we should eff«ctua!iy veto the principles •which we hold in common with your denomination, viz: that baptism is a prerequisite to communion. Pedobaptist. — What reasons or evidences have vou for not believing us baptised, or rather fornot believing in indmt bap- tism? 10 Baptist. — Before proceeding directly to answer this query, I shall make a few preliminary remarks on order. "Order," my brother, ''is heaven's first law." The whole planetary system obt^ys the certain, definite, and fixed laws of its Creator, and this fact, in a satisfactory manner, accounts for that order and harmony in their movements, so frequently ob- served by the astronomer, as they "wheel (in their orbits) un- shaken through the void immense," causing "all the sons of God to shout for joy." Now this consummate order and har- mony is the result of two opposite combined forces,the centrifu- gal and centripetal. Should we give to one of these a control- ing influence, "planets and suns would run lawless through the sky," world would be wrecked on world, disorder, desolation and chaos would then ensue. Without order, the beauties of the moral as well as the physical "creation would be annihi- lated," the bands ot society would be burst asunder, social in- tercourse would cease to be conducted on the principles of or- der and justice, anarchy and contusion would reign throughout society. Again, order in the religious world is as beautiful and essential as it is in the natural and moral. Without it here, the religion of Jehovah would be stripped of its pristine beauty and glory, and consequently of the power it was destined to exert over the minds of men. " 'I'here must be some defect in our mental vision, if religion does not appear to us most lovely and beautiful, dressed and adorned as she descended from heaven." Shall ttfe then, who are ^mie, attempt to alter and improve the robe placed upon her by Infinite \Visdom? Now, it is evident, to an impartial observer, thatjust in pro. portion as the Laws ordained to govern, either the physical, moral, or intellectual world, are obeyed, in that proportion does order and harmony prevail in each of those spheres. " Let all things be done decently and in order," says Paul; and in this way only, I apprehend, " wo shall honor God and the religion we profess." Permit me to "illustrate this sentiment by sacred history." "It was the duty of the Jewish Priests to offer sacrifices at the temples, but it was their duty to wash or bathe themselves first. It was not their duty to offer sacrifices unwashed; — it would be sin to do it," "It was the duty of all Israel to march in n prescribed order, not in any other order,nor in disorder; it would be sin to do it." "It was the duty of Moses to erect the Tabern?.cle in the wilderness; but, saith Jehovah, * according to all I shall show thee after the pattern of the Tabernacle, and the pattern of all the institutions thereof, even so shall ye make it;' — It would be sin to make it otherwise." " All the ordinances of the f;ospel are binding upon all men." But it is evident that the prescribed order in which these in. stitutions of the gospel are commanded to be observed, (in the Commission,) is the order, in which every man is bound to ob- serve them, or else he violates the Law, and consequently sins. Hence it becomes a question of no ordinary importance, what is the order of these institutions. This can be e;isily ascertained by referring to the commission, as given by Matthew and Mark. You will find by this commission that faith and discipleship was first enjoined, then baptism, &c. This order was observ- ed in the practice of the Apostles. Hence we have " an inspi- red explanation of that Law." Indeed, "we possess in the Gospelsjthe Acts and the Epistles — an accumulation of evidence" bearing directly on this point, which it would seem that no christian, in hia right mind, could possibly reject. This is not bold, unwarranted assertion. For it will be perfectly obvious to any one, who will impartially examine the New Testament, that it was the uniform pnctice of the Apostles to require a profession of faith before baptism. For example, on the day of Pentecost, it is said, "they that gladly received his word were baptized. "(Now faith is a cordial reception of the truth, )andit ap. pears, by the record,that the Apostles had ample evidence of their belief. Again,when the Eunuch, asked for baptism,''Phillip said,if thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest." This pro- fession, I think, we may safely conclude is a fair specimen of what the Apostles required of all whom they baptized. Again, it is said that many of the Corinthians, believing (or giving evidence ot belief) were baptized. In like manner the Phillip, pi.in jailer, Saul of Tarsus, and the Samaritans, expressed their belief before baptism. So, in all the other cases, it was usually expressed or implied. Hence you perceive, that our main evi- dence, that failh is a prerequisite to baptism, is derived from scripture facts, — "the law and the testimony." Now, if this evidence adduced from scripture, is not suffi- cient to show that Faith is an indispensable pre-requisite io baptism, then the evidence produced from scripture to show that Baptism is an indispensable pre-requisite to the Lord's Supper, is also deficient. Hence it follows, as inevitably as any demon, stration in Kuclid, that these two positions must stand or fall together — both being supported by the same evidence. And since you have admitted that the evidence adduced to prove the latter position, has shown that it rests on a solid founda- 13 tion, it follows that the same evidence must (everfto your own mind,) show the former to rest on the same foundation. Now if fixith in the subject bo an indispensable pre-requisite to bap- tism, as I believe it has been abundantly shown from the Bible^ then infant baptism in Apostolical times could not have been a child of the same heavenly household. But, my friend, in your I'eply to this, it is presumed you will give us your warrant fof infant baptism. Pedubapilst. — Why truly, my friend, though you have occii- pied some time, I have listened with interest to your remarks and illustrations on order,and I deem them very appropriate, as they exemplify the importance of yielding implicit obedience to the prescribed order of all God's commands. But in your answer to the query I proposed, you have been rather logical, still I have been unable to detect any sophistry in the argu- ment. — It seems the part of candor to acknoAvledge here, that your answer has somewhat shaken my belief, that infant bap- tism is authorised by the great commission. But as 1. do not see how the argument con be completely invalidated, I shall advance it. Our Savior in his last com- mand, said " Go teach all nations, baptizing them, etc. Now is it not self evident that infants are included in the expres- sion " all nations"? and if so, what batter warrant can we have ? But why do you smile? Baptist. — Why really, my brother, I cannot help it. If the expression "all nations" be a good v/arrant for baptizing in- fants, then we have equally as good for baptizing " impenitent adults and all sorts of human beings," for they are included in the expression " all nations." " According to this, the Catholics were right, in teaching the Indians of South America to say the creed and the Lord's prayer, and baptizing them by hundreds and thousands. But read the whole commission, — remember that the word render, ed ' teach' is admitted by all to mean ' di."-'ciple,' — that disci- pleship and fiith are mentioned prior to baptize, and the infer- ence will be very different. Look at the practice of the Apos- tles, and see how they understood the commission, and there need be nodoubt about its import." " Can any thing be plain- er than that this law of the commission authorizes the baptism of believers?" Pedohaptist. — But it is plain, my friend,that"the directions of Christ here refer only to those who are capable of believing, and the language does not forbid the baptism of infants." Baptist. — It is true " these directions command none bul 4 13 believers to be bnptized," and Ave shall probably see good rea- sons for this, if we find room in this tract, to examine the spir- itual nature of Christ's kingdom, as well as the import and design of baptism. " But further, the terms of the commission, while they enjoin the baptism of believers, do, most certainly, exclude the biptisai of any but believers." Sujipose that 1 have II tarm I wish to stock, and comUiission my ii gent to purchase for 17)0 a number of red milch cows. Now tliis a;^cnt, instead of purchasing exclusively the kind and color of cows mentioned in his commistfion, purchases soma black cows and some that were not milch — some calves, etc. I ask now, if he does not violate his instructions ? But when I inquire of him why he purchased calves, black cows, etc., he replies, the color is *^ 7ion-esseniial," and there is no clause in tha commission that interdicts it. I inquire, is not the color essential to obedience? Have you any authority for doing thus? He replies none : but adds, you did not direct me 7iot to buy them. Nor was it nece3s::ry, I rejoin. When 30U received your commission for purchasing cows of a certain description, you were as really forbidden to purchase cows of any other d'iscrip. tion, on my account, as if I ha;! said, in so many words, buy vi'd milch cows and do not purchase any other;-'. You miyht as well have purchased fur me horses, and urged that the above words of your commission do not prohibit it ! In doing as you have, you have acted without authority and against my instructions, and you must abide the consequences. In like manner, the commission given by our Savior, — "directs his ministers tob:iptize believers and them only. ^' Mentioning none hut believers, it virtually excludes all others. To administer the ordinance to any others, is to act without the authority of Christ, and against his instructions. Yea more, if there were another commission requiring infants to be b.Tptized, it could not abolish the cornmisaion now under consideration, which requires all men to be baptized on beli'iving the gospel. " The command of Jesus to every believer to be baptized, stands ensraven in irdeliblo characters in ins commission. It cannot be effaced, and I call on you and all believers on their alle;:iance to the Son of God, to submit to this ordinance of his kingdom." It seems to me, that no believer, in good health, can urge any thin^ like a reasonable excuse for neglecting, or disobeying so •plain a command. If any thing more were wanting to satisfy us respecting the subjects of baptism, we have it in the concluding direction of the commission, " Teaching ihem," &c. " The candidate is sup- M 14 posed to bo old enough to bo taught the other institutions of the Gospel. Unconsciousbabesof course are excluded." Our views uf this subject are agreeable to those of many pious and learned Pedobaptists. Grotioiis. " Christ properly requires teaching the first elements of Christianity as pre- ceding BAPTISM which also was always used in the church previous to that ordinance." Jerome, the most learned of all the Latin Fathers, says ; " They first teach all nations ; then WHEN they are taught, they baptize them in water, for it cannot be that the body should receive the sacrament of baptism, unless the soul has before received true faith." Calvin. "Because Christ requires teachinjf before baptizing, and will have believers only admitted to baptism, baptism does not seem to be rightly administered, except faith precede." Baxter, speaking ofthecommission. " This is not like some occasional, historical men- tion of baptism, but it is the very commission of Christ to his Apostles for preaching and baptizing ; and purposely expresseth their several works in their several places and order- Theirfirst task is, by teaching to make disciples, which by Murk arc called believers. The second work is to baptize them. The third worlc is, to teacli them all other things, which are afterwards to bo learned from the school of Clirist. To contemn this order, ts to RENOUNCE ALL RULES OF ORDER; for where Can we expect to find it, if not here 3 I pro- fess mj' conscience is fully satisfied, that there is one sort of faith, even saving, that must go before baptism." Pedobaptisi. — The evidences that you have produced, from scripture and history, to support beUevc7-''s baptism, is quite satisfactory, — indeed, I am very willing to admit, that the Apostles baptized believers, and that the commission enjoined it. — But i\\c\\,we believe, that, as there is nothing in the New Testament that explicitly prohiints infint baptism, the silence of the scriptures must be in favor of the rite. Why do not your denomination practice it 1 Baptist. — Why, my friend, do you again bring forward tho •sjZence of the scriptures to prove infant baptism? I thought, really, that my reply had annil.ilated this position. — Have you actually no better evidence from Scripture than silence to provo the lawfuhiess of this rite? How ditferent were the reasonings of Paul ! He proves that the tribe of Judah had nothing to do with Aaron's priesthood, from the silence of Moses : " of which tribe Ptoses spale nothing concerning the priesthood.'^ " The New Testament does not forbid infant baptism." JSeithcr does it forbid the admission of infants to the Lord's Sup- per, nor the invocation of Saints, nor the sprinkling of holy Avater, nor the use of salt and spittle, nor the saying of mas.«i for the repose of the dead, nor indeed, all the paraphernalia of Popery. " But does this silence prove that these superstitions are lawful, and should be observed ?" If so, '■^ what a wonder working power this silence is?'' Again, the reason why we do not baptize infants, is because the Apostles baptized believers, and there is no evidence from scriptures that they ever baptized any except believers. Again, should a man, who did not believe baptism a prerequisite to 15 communion, ask me why we admit ??on^ to the Lord's Supper but baptized -persons, I should advisedly, reply, because the Apostles communed with baptized persons; and there is no evidence from Scripture that they ever communed with any who were not baptized. It seems to me that this argument alone is sufficient to condemn infant baptism. Here I take my stand on the very ground of Christ's commands, and the Aposik's' example; and, unless it can bo shown from Scripture that tlu! Apostles h?.\>i{xQ(}i icithout a prof ession of faith, or com- muned with imbaptized persons, 1 must sfill m^^xivd fuilh as a prerequis'te to baptism ; and baptism as a prerequisite to the celebration of the Lord's Supper, and consciquently must reject allbaptism except believer'' s, as unchristian ; not being author, izcd by the Law of Christ, nor the example of the inspired Apostles, which is a complete explanation of that law. Again, it should be remembered that the only evidence we have irom Scripture, t\vit baptism in a prerequisite to church membi.-rship, is the example of ths Apostles in the constitution of the primitive church;;s,* and this is deemed sufficient by all denominations. Now, that faith is a prerequisite to baptism, we have not only lac testimony Oi Apostolical example, hut in addition to (his, we have the express precepts of Jesus Christ. " Such being the fact, our assurance is doubly sure that we are on the side of TRUTH. It seems to me that this subject is so plain, that " ho who runs may read, and he who reads may understnnd." Pedobaplist, — To be honest, my friend, j'our illustrations h:\vc convinced me that silence cannot prove infant baptism to be a divine requirement, for if it could, it would also prove, (as you have shown.) that all the penances of the Romish ciiurch are divine requirements. And, still farther, your arguments have compel!<;d me to abandon, as untenable, the idea that i;if int bap- tism can be found in the commission. But the examples of the Apostles I believe you have admitted us good authority, and they, you are aware, baptized certain households, and it is alto- gether probable that these houshokls contained infant children. Baptist. — ^'Probably they contained infant chiklren ; but that is begging the question, which, to avail you any thing, must ba made certain. The burden of proof rests on you. The mere expression, baptized households, will avail nothing till you prove not only that ihey might contain, but that they actually viv contain infanfs.f and that the infanta were iictunl- ''^ Fior.i Scripture we leara that the church at Jerusalem, and also that at Corinth, were composed ol" baptized nEi.iEVEiis. — Acts. t VV^hen . householiU are mentioned it must be shown also, to avail any thing, that alj the members of the family are included insci ipture language: but "a man's foes are Ihey of his liouseiiold'" — surely not infants. 18 ly baptized. This lam confident j'ou will not attempt ; for the spirit of inspiration lias left on record facts concerning two of these cases, which prove conclusively that they contain,' ed only those who believed. Let us examine these household baptisms. It is said respec- ting the jailers' household, that Paul and Silas "spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house ; and he rejoiced, believing in God with all his house." Di'. McKni^ht, a pedobiptist, remarks: " The houso of the jailer, it seems, were equally impressed loith Paid's sermon as the jailer himself was." Calvin — '• in which the grace of God suddenly * * brought the WHOLF. FAMILY to a pious consent." Bloomfield. "It is taken for granted, "his fa?nily become Christians as well as himself." Concerning the household of Stephanus, Paul writes: "It is the first fruits of Achaia, and they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints." On which Dr. McKnight rema-ks, " '] he family f>f Stephanus seem all to have been adults when they were baptized, as they are said to have devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints." \Vith reference to the case of Lydia, it appears she was a stranger from Thyatira, residing in Phillippi, nearly three hun- dred miles, for the purposes of trade. The account speaks nei- ther of husband nor children, and there is no evidence that she had cither. "Probably her household was compnsud of assist. ants in her bus.ness, who, following her example, ie/iercJ. and were baptized. For we are informed, that when Paul and Silas Itil (he city, they entered into the house of Lydia and saw and comforted the bvfthren." / gain : when Paul preached in Corinth, Crispus with all big house believed in the Lord. In all these cases there is no men, tion made of any one being baptized on another's f lith. 1 bus we find in the New Testament baptized households ]\Mit as often as we find believiiig households. "As we happen to belong to a housi;hold," all of which, includiiig twelve children, have been baptized on a profession of t'leir own fiith, the inference, because that the Apostles baptized households, they "probably baptized infants, cannot be expected to strike our mind af. irresistible ;" especiallv as other such instances are not un- frequent. Within a recent period the missionaries in Burmnh speak of biptizing eight entire households of !>L;lievcrs. Can you now, my friend, with such evidences before you, find uu. jthority for infant baptism in the households mentioned? 17 Pedohaptist. — Indeed, from the examination of the household baptisms rocorded in the New Testament, it seems the part of candor to concede that they furnish no evidence to support in- fant baptism, but very much beUever'.s baptism. Now, although these household baptisms seem to take part against me, still 1 am very positive we have authority for infant baptism in the Abra- hamic covenant. Baptism has now taken the place of circum- cision, and children under that covenant you know were cir- cumcised, hence they should be baptized under the gospel dis- pensation. Baptist. — The covenant made with Abraham may be found inGen. xvii: 1 — 14. Please turn to it. Now", my friend, if this is the very covenant God has made with every christian parent, then he is under obligations to perfdrm the rite of circumcision on every man child in hia house, and that too on the eighth day, neither before nor after that period. '• But it is said baptism has come in the place of circumcision. You assert it, and you must [)rove it. If we are yet under the covenant of circumcision, only baptism having taken place of the ancient rite, why has not the Bible informed us of the fact? When some, who had embraced the religion of Jesus, (Acts v.) insistea that the christian converts should be circumcised, why did not the great council ol the Apostles and Elders, who deci- ded that circumcision was abolished, satisfy tliose who were joalous of the law, by reminding them that the baptism of in- fants was to be practised as a substitute (or circumcision?" But I presume you are aware that only male children and adults were circumcised. Now, if baptism has taken the room of circumcision, it follows that none save males are eligible to receive this rite. And when Paul wrote to the Gallatians, in opposition to the Judaizing teachers, who held to circumcision, why do we find in his Epistle not a single hint of the same fact? Could the spirit of inspiration have sutiered such an opportunit)' to pass without intorming the church that infant baptism had taken the place of circumcision ? Had this been done, it would have forever settled the question and ended all further dispute. Ag"ia : on another occasion, (Acts xxi. 17 — 22,) when Paul made his last visit to Jerusalem, he went in unto James, all the Elders being present, and then gave an account of the wonders God had wrought by bis ministry among the Gentiles. And hearing this they glorified the Lord. One of them, immediate, ly appealing to his knowledge of the " thousands of Jews which c 16 bsUeve and are zealous of the l;i\v," says, that "thoyare in- formed by thee, that thou teachcst all the Jews which arc among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying they ought not circim). CISC their children." Paul is here charged with teaching his Jewish converts to neglect circumcision, JSow had he taught them to baptize their children, as a substitute, was he not im- periously called upon to declare it in self-dnfence. But ths utter silence of the Apostle, when thus pressed by his Jewish brethren. is irresistible evidence to my mind that infant baptism at that time was unknown. Again, cireuuicision was administered to adults v.'ithout re- quiring faith or repentance as a qualitication. But there is no instance left on record of any (except christians) being admitted to baptism, without giving evidence of possessing both. As I have already said more on this head than ! intended, I siiall x)nly add that the most eminent biblical schoUrs of the ag; bj/j-qq with Professor Stuait, in the opinion that ''the Abrahamic coven- ant furnishes no ground for infant baptism.^''* Pedobaptist. — And no\\, my friend,! must acknowledge my disappointment in not finding any warrant in i\\e Abrahamic covenant for infant baptism. From the examination and re- marks made, I feel myself compelled to abandon it in despair, and coincide with Professor Stuart's views. But though thi.j covenant furnishes no authority for the rite, still "in the chris- tian church from its earliest ages, and we think from the Apos- tles' time, it has been the custom to baptize the inlant children of professing christians. In proof of this, f might cite a pas- sage from Justin Martyr's apology, and another from Irena3us, (Sic I presume you are acquainted with the passaeres; if so, I should like to hear what you have to say on them. Baptist. — Now I am quite ready to grant, that if infant bap- tism can, by authentic records, be traced back to the Apot^tlco' time, you have good authority for the piaciice of it. But I am sure this cannot be done. Had you either precept or example for it in the New Testament, it would be established beyond a doubt. But that these are wanting, is conceded by someot'*tbe ablest Pedobaptist writers, many of whom admit, with Dr. Woods, that "we have no express precept cr exam- ple for infant baptism in all of our sacred writings." "Com- mands, or plain and certain examples in the New Testament relative to it,"(infant baptism, )3ays Professor Stuart, "1 do not find." Bishop Bnrnet says, "there is no express precept or rule given in the New Testament for the baptism of infants." • iklanu»cripji Lecture*, Gal. 3> IT) ivtartin Luther says, "//! cannot he proved hy the sacred scrip, iu^es, that infant haptism teas instituted by Christ, or begun by tfie Jirst christians after the Apostles." Neander says, " That Christ did not establish infant baptism, is certain." Similar admissions are made by IJishops Prideaux, Sanderson, Stillingfleet, by Lim- borch, Erasmus, VVitsius, and the most celebrated writers of England and the continent. As we intend to make some quotations, from the German au- thors, in regard lo infant baptism, justice to them seems to de- mand that we should here state, "that while (hey in general deny, that infant baptism was introduced by Christ or by his apostles, they still justify the practice on the ground of analogy or expedienc3\ So far, however, from being agreed in wh.-.t the true reason for this practice consists, they differ so widely «.3 mutually to destroy each others foundation." As we have not room iiere to introduce their views we wou!d only remark, that " with the various theories of infant baptism, not resting on apostoiiciil practice, we have, at present, nothing to do. Our fjingle object, in introducing the testimony of these critics is, to prove this one historical fact, that infant baptism was not prac. lised by the apostles." We shall select only a few of the multi- tude of examples, that nai^ht be adduced, ■"We will proc*^e<] to onr ptiKnosi?" l>y introdticinj tlio testimony of tlie jreat Sc!ileiermacher, wlio, in his Christian Tb«oIogy, p. 3*1, 'pun^cutly,if not in(ii{fuantly, re- marks:' "All traces of iiifant haptism, which one will find in the New Tootanieiit, most FJRSTBEPUT INTO JT." flf <-aIl.« it " a departure from the ori]?iiial institution, Rnd yet he defends it on other grounds." He furllierniore says. "Our syniliolical books (i. e. the creeds) treat of it without regard to hi.vtory, and attempt to justify it in itself; but the manner in which they ilo it, is unsatisfactory, aud upon grounds that essentially destroy each other." Prof. Hahn's Theology, p. 556: " .\coorJing to its true original design, it can be given <».«ily te ADULTS, who are capable of trne knowledg-e, repentance and faith. Neither in the Scriptures, nor during the first hundred and fifty years, is a sure example of infant bap- Tis.M to he found ; and we must concede ; that the numerous oppos ins of it cannot BE CONTRADICTED ON GOSPEL GROUND." Few men Stand so high in public estimation for piety, sonse and learning, as Prof. Hahn, of Rrrslau. In another passage, he adds : " It arose from false views of original sin, and of tlie magical power of consecrated water." Winer's manuscript Lectures: "Originally only adults were baptized ; but, at the end of the socond century, in Africa, and in the third ccnturj- generally, infant baptism was in- troduced ; and in the fourth century, it was theologically maintained by Augustine." Corrodi. " At the time of Christ and his disciples, only adulis were baptized ; there- fore, a'nong christians at the present day, not children, but adults, who are capable of pro- fessing Christianity, ought to be baptized." Prof. Lange, in his recent work on Infant Baptism observes: " All attimpts f* make out infant baptism, from the New Testament, fail. It is totally opposed to the spirit of the apostolical age, and to the fundamental principles of the New Testament." Matthies, one of the latest writers on baptism, says : " In the first two centuries, no docu- ments are found, which clearly show the existence of infant b:iptism at that time." Dressier. " In the New Testament, it is no where mentioned, that the children of Cbrii"- tian parents were baptized ; the consecration by baptism, always relates to those only whose faith was changed, and who were made acquainted with Christ and became his dis- ciples." Von Coin. "Exorcism wag practiced in early times only with demoniacs ; then it be- came a catechetical preparation ; and, after infant baptism was introduced, it was a port of the baptismal rite." 20 ilase's Theology : "Baptism obligates a man to a CUri^liaa life ; but how can one who is unconscious, obligate himself to auy thing?" Hutterus Redivivus. "The imputation of the parent's faith to their children, must bo laid aside as an opus operatum" (i. e. a mere form). Biiumgarten Crusius, Hist, of Theology: " Infant baptism can be supported neither by a distinct apostolical tradition, nor apostolical practice." Bretschuaider, in his Tlieolog)', observes: " Rheinhard, Morus and Doderlein, say, in- fant baptism is not to be found in the Bible." We need say nothing of the literary char- acter of these three great men. Kaiser's Bib. Theology. " Infant baptism was not an original institution of Christiansty. When i lis said of Lydia, that she was baptized with her whole house, it evidently means only those who were capable of it, or who believed. In Acts 18 : 8, it is said, that the bap- tized household had BELIEVED. Thefiriittracesofinfant baptism are in the second century." Prof. Lindner of Leipsic, on the Supper, says: "Christian baptism can be given only to adults, not to infants. The Holy Spirit, which is given only to believers, was a prerequis- ite to baptism." Gesenins, being informed, in conversation, that the Baptists of America reject infant baptism, and baptize only adults, on profession of faith, replied: " that is perfectly riglit, that is according to the Bible." * Now it should h?, remembered here, that these are some of the most eminent Pedobaptist theologians, and that their testi- monies militate against their own practice. What, 1 would ask, but a deep conviction of tjjuth would have induced them to make these concessions ? These admissions from you own writers I presume you will admit as good evidence, that infant baptism had no existence in Apostolical times. Here I might rest the whole argument; for if it cannot be proved that Christ instituted it, or that the Apostles practised it, then those who practice it, do it without any scripture authority, and of course they viust abandon the fundamental principle of every Pro- testant, that the Bible alone is our rule of faith and practice. But I proceed to notice the case of Justin Martyr, who, speaking of many of the aged members of the church, " some eixty, some seventy years old." says, they "were made disciples to Christ from their infancy." " It is worthy of note here, that the Greek verb employed is the Same as that rendered teach [Ematheteusan] in the commission." Matthies, commenting on this passage, says, " these words mean simply, that from their childhood thet were in- structed IN RELIGION." For, in another place, speaking of the order and manner of baptism, Justin Martyr says, " that only those who believed what they were taught were baptized." From which it appears, that in Justin's view, " baptism was to be given subsequent to faith." Starck says, " The defenders of infant baptism attempt to prove it from Justin Martyr and Irenseaa, but neither of them says ichat is attributed to him.^' Neander, Winer, Rheinhard and Munscher, Hahn,Lange, and nearly all the German critics, are directly opposed to the Pedo- baptist view of this passage. 21 Baumgarten Crusius, speaking of " The celebrated passage in Irenaeus," says, it "is not io be applied to infant baptism, for the phrase renascuntur, &c. evidently means the participation of all in his divine and holy nature, in which he became a sub- stitute for all." Winer. "Tertullian is the first that mentions infant baptism, IrencBus does not mention it as has been supposed." "SoRossler, Munscher, Von Coin," &;c. "Hence it appears, that Tertullian, about A. D. 204, is the very first writer, christian or pagan, who mentions infant bap- tism, and he opposed it, — " a proof," says Neander, " that it was not yet customary to regard this as an Apostolic institution; for had it been so, he would hardly have ventured to oppose it so warmly." Again, Neander says: ''Tertullian declared against infant baptism, wliich at that time was certainly not a generally prevailing practice, * * * f^j. jj^g assertions render in the highest degree probable, it had just begun to spread, and waa therefore regarded by many as an innovation." It should be borne in mind here, that Dr. Neander, of Berlin, Prussia, is a "mighty prince" among the most eminent schol- ars an! critical theologians of Germany. As an ecclesiastical historian he stands unrivalled. The great body of living Ger- man critics, are united with him in this view of the subject, Now, if it !)e a fact, as I have shown, by a reference to tlie testimony of some of the most eminent biblical philologists, that infant baptism had no existence in the Apostolic age, it matters not in what other age it may be found, it can have no claims upon our observance, so long as the Bible alone is ouv rule of faith and pra,ctice. Pedobaptist. — From the testimonies adduced, it appears that infant baptism was not practised, until about the close of the second cen^^ry. But, (hen what do you do with the testi- mony of Origen^ (who flourished not far from the year A. D. 220,) and Augustine, (about A. D. 400;) they testify to an Apostolical tradition for infant baptism. Baptist. — In regard to the former, Neander .says, " His words in that age, cannot have much weight ; for whatever was re- garded as important, was alleged to be from the apostles. Be- sides, many walls of partition intervened between this age and that of the apostles to intercept the view." Augustine, who lived in a more remote age from the apostles, says, " That infant baptism is believed to be established, not with- out apostolical authority." It appears that he was more deeply engaged in controversv, than anv other man in the ancienS 22 church, and that what he says, he " states rather as a matter of belief than as an ascertained fact." Hence we conclude that he inferred his facts, and is therefore not a historical witness. According to Mosheim, he exposed himself to the charge of " hastily throwing upon paper thoughts, which he had not him- self duly considered." " What he said of infant baptism he might have said equally as well of infant communion if he had been speaking of that subject." Now we learn from history that Augustine himself, though he had a pious mother, was not baptized till he was 33 years of age. Nor was Patricius his father, nor Ambrose who was the means of his conversion, baptized till adult age. Pedohaptist. — It would seem, from your remarks, that there is no confidence to be placed in the testimonies of Origen and Augustine. But then you know that pious parents feel, that it is a duty that they owe to their Maker, to consecrate their chil- dren to God by bGj3tism. Baptist. — The views which Pedobaptists entertain on this subject, are, in all probability, the legitimate cfTspring of edu- cation, as it is acknowledged that the Bible is silent on the subject. Still the feelings that induce pious parents to present their children for baptism, are, often, deserving of great respect ; and I have no doubt they are sincere in the belief, that they are doing their duty. But if feelings are to be our criterion of what is duty, then our puritan fathers, (when they believed that they were responsible, for the correctness of the religious bolief of their fellow men,) were doing their duty, and of course light in whipping, fining, imprisoning, and hanisliing the Baptists, and in hanging the Quakers, because they were prompted to these acts, by feelings deserving of great r'>spect, viz. a desire ti> preserve the churcli free from heresy, and promote its purity. Then, ev- ery voluntary act of man is right, that is prompted by feeling, and consequently nothing wrong, — a position too absurd to be admitted for a moment. 3len must not set up their feelings a» a standard, and then attempt to bend the word' of God to cor- respond with them. Our first duty is, to ascertain the will of God, (as revealed to us in the scriptures,) and then tado it. Pedohaptist. — But you do Bot believe then in infant dediea- tion ? Baptist. — Oh yes I do, let the parent take the child into his closet, and there, in solemn fervent prayer, dedicate him to God, let this be done not unfrequently, and that too, when the child is old enough to understand, and accompany it with atiection- at9 religious instruction, and thus " train up the child in" " the 2^ ^ nurture and atlmonition of the Lord," But do not perform an »;n.iut!ioriz!;d ceremony upon the cliild, and then teach him, that this is an ordinance of divine appointment. But suppose \ve were to admit the arguments, urged to sustain infant baptism, as valid,* (and PedobaptiBts do practiciilly admit them,) we should open a door that would not only admit all the claims of Episcopacy, but even all the mummeries of Papacy. And the moment we embrace these, we reject the authority of the Bi- ble, and of courne launch out into the wide, deep abyss of infi. delity, and attempt, with our frail bark, to navigate an unknown sea, amid the thickest fog, without even a rudder, chart, or com- 2)as9 for our guide. Pedohaptist. — You seem to regard infant baptism as a dopar. ture from the Bible, and because there is no express warrant for it, conclude it ought not to be practised. Now if nothing be duty from the Bibb, without an express command, we would ask, where is your command for family prayer? Baptist. — Family prnyer is a moral duty, and one that does not contravene any other moral duty. It is clearly a dut)', "from the express precepts, which cannot be obeyed fully with- out its performance." " Husbands and wives are commanded to live together, as heirs of the grace of life." "And this implies the duty of mutual prayer. They are commanded to bring up their children, in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, to train themiip in the icay they should go, — and this involves the duty of domestic prayer." Hence it is not apposite for you to ask, Mherc is your explicit command for family prayer? Again it is evident, that you have entirely overlooked the distinction between positive institutions and moral duties . These last, " such as repentance, fiith, justice, benevolence, praise, prayer, may bo deduced from the nature and fitness of things," but we are com- manded to pray witliout ceasing. "The spirit of prayer is the prime element of the Christian's life," — " The christian's vital breath. The christian's native air-" "It ie designed and adapted tosanctify all the relations [of life] in which we stand." We do not believe that positive institutions can with propri- ety be inferred " from the nature and fitness of things;" but * Vi- tringa has well said : " If it he once grautedto the Doctors of the Romish commun- ion, that the order and worship of theGospel church, are conformable to those of the Jewish economy, (ro which the Papists always look fur the chief sppport of THEia M'aERous ERRORS,) they will plausibly defend the whole of their ecclesiastical polity." 24 give us a logical inference for infant bnptlsm, drawn from cx- p^Cf-s teaching, and we will admit its force. PcdohapHst. — I mast acknowledge, my friend, that I know of no express teaching in the Bible, from which we can reasonably infer infant baptism. Before this conversation I thought differ- ently, but where is your exp!icit warrant for observing the Lord's day as the Christian Sabbath? Bajrlist. — My dear brother, for tlie observance of this we liave apostolical precedent. Give us such a warrant for infant baptism, and we will acknowledge, that you have good author- ity for practising it. Pedohaiolist. — But admitting, you have apostolical precedent for keeping the Lord's day. Where, we would like to know is ycur explicit command ^or female communion 1 Buftlst. — You might with equal propriety 'demand an ex- plicit warrant for female faith and regeneration, because it is said,' " He that be'ieveth shall be saved ;" and, " Except a mari bo born again, he cannot seethe kingdont of God." "The terms used are generic, as well in reference to communion, as to faith and repentance." But it is clear from various passages in the New Testament that women did partake of the com- munion.* Can you find in the New Testament, as satisfac- tory evidence in favor of infant baptism? ' I will only add, we do not reject the baptism of infants, merely because there is "no express divine precept requiring it ;" but, because thern is neitlier command, nor example, nor fair inference, to bo found i;i its favor in a single passage in the Bible.' Pedoha'ptist. — I do not now recollect that the word child is spoken of. in connexion with l)apti.sm, in the New Testament, but as it is thoxight indireclly. to be sanctioned by some passages i:i the New Testament. ] should like to know what you think cflhem,V!z: Matt, xix : 13.14, and the parallel passages as Mark X : 13 — 10, and Lukexviii : 15, IG. " Then were brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray : and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, * In 1st Cof.ll chap.ftom the 1st totlie IStli verses, the Greek "word aneh, man, occurs 14 times and tlie word gune, woman occurs 16 times. After speaking of tlie man aud the woman as members of the church ; and pointing out tlieir relative duties, tlie apostle uses the word Tis v. IC, of both genders, referring to both aner and gune ; and their uses the pronouns YE and you addressing botli genders. As tlie pronoun stands for the noun, so YOU represent both man and woman, its antecedents. As often says the apostle as vf, mea and women of whom I have been speaking, eat this bread and drink this cup (in the mar- gin) "snow Y1-, (MEN AND women) FORTH THE 1,ORd'S DEATH Tl Lt. IJE COM E?." Hcro flicnisati express precept for female communion. Now for an express precedent. On Ihe day of Pentecost, it is said thej' continued steadfastly in fellowship, and in breakin)^ bread. It is evident that the i)ronoun they includes the 120 spoken of in tl\eprcviou» chapter among whom were the women and Mary the mother Jesus, as well as the 3600, bu^ snonsh. (This ucto is abrigedf 'om A. Ca npb ill) 25 satTHi' little chiMron, and forbid them not, to comp unto mo ; for of such i.3 the kiiigdom of heaven. And ho hiid his hands on tlioin" &c. Bcqjlist. — This passage makes no dislincti >n between the in- fants of bolievt.Ts.or those of unbeliever?, if it favors the baptism of the former, then it mv-st that of the latter; but it is evident, that it has no allusion to baptism, and "Jesus" you know '• baptiz- ed not." And a;^;:in it cannot be pr')ved that the children re- ferred to were infanta. In Mark 5 : 39, tho same word is used t ) designate a child 12 years old. It ia distinctly said what they were brought to him for, and what ceremony he perform- ed. The English edition of the Polyglott Testament, (Xew York, 1832.) gives the true sense. " Of such is the kingdom of heaven," ihat is, persons resembling children in disposition ; having their innocence, simplicitjs humility, teachableness. See Dames in h.is note on the place, so Kuinoul, Roscnrau.l. Icr, and Bloomfield. Pedohapiist. — Your answer is very satisfactory, but then how do you ex[liin tho |)nssnge 1 Cor. 7: 14. "Tho unbe- lieving husband is sanctified by the wite ; and tbo unbelieving wite is sanctiiiod by the husband else were your ch Idren un- clean, but novv' are they holy." Baptist. — It is evident that this passage has no allusion to the suiijcct of biiplism. It is plain, that the unbelieving hus. band cannot be so sanctified by the pious wife, as to render him aneligibl; subject for baptism witliout faith. Tho meaning of the npostlo, is thus stated by the Rev. John L. Dagg, in a noto to Pongilly's Guide to li-.iptism, I. Stuart is one of the distinguished professsrs of the Andover Theological Sem- inary, Mass., and is, generally, regarded by Pedobaptists, as their ablest Biblical scholar iu this country. Every person, who has read Prof, i^tiiart's Essay ou bapi:iiji, o:ight to road the Examination of that Essay by Prof. Ripley, of Newton, or Judd's re /Jew, both, triumphant answers, and both written in a "kind christian spirit." t " The lake was tinged witL blood." Homer's battle of the Frogs,— where eapto, not B.V.PTIZ0, is used. so As a further confirmation of this fact, I would state that Prof*; Stuart has quoted passages fronn the Greek cla.~isical authors, Homer, Pindar, Aristotle, Aristophanes, Herodotus, Heraclides Ponticus, Aratus, Zenophcn, Piutarnh, Lucian, Diodorus Siou- lus, Plato, Epictetus, Hippocrates, Strabo, Polybus, Josephua, and others, all of whom use the words bapto and baptizo, to signify immerse. It is worthy of remark hero, that Prof. Stuart, throughout the Greek classics and the Septuagint,* as- signs to the word &a2>/izo, only immerse, overwhelm. Hence, all Greek literature goes to prove that it means immerse. Their poets, philosophers, physicians, historians, and orators, use it only in the sense of inunersion, dipping, and never attach to it any other meaning. Not in the whole range of the Greek classics, can it be found to denote any thing else, than to immerse or dip. Again, Prof. Stuart, on page 800, after summing up his citations from the classics, comes to this con- clusion. " It wore easy to enlarge this list of testimonies to classic usage, but the reader will not desire it. He may see many examples in Carson's recent publication on baptism, which I did not sec until after the present dissertation was written. It is impossible to doubt, that the words bapto and baptizo, have, in ths Greek classical writers, the sense oC dip, plunge, i?nmerse, sink, <^c." But it may be asked here, does not Prof. Stuart show that the Greek classic writers use baptizo to signify pouring or sprinkling ? I answer no ! not a single in- stance has he adduced from the Greek classics, in which the word is used to denote either to pour, or sprinkle. Indeed, he has said in private conversation, that "it cannot be translated sprinJde.-f It is, therefore, no cause of wonder, that when Prof. Jewelt commenced his investigations of this subjects, by reading Prof. Stuart's essay on baptism that he "was soon as- tonished to find in Stuart's investigation, proof, so strong that the word in its literal, ordinary sense, universally means to immerse, plunge, or dip. " It looked" says he, as if with this fact before him, the learned Professor ought to have become a Bap- tist." "I was alarmed," says Prof. Jewett, and " would have given up the inquiry, hut could not." Finally after a thorough examination of the subject, he was compelled to admit, as a * The Septuagint is the Greek version or translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew. It is worthy of remark here, that there are three different words used in the Hebrew to denote the three actions of dipping, pouring, and sprinkling. Taval or tebcl sifrnifies to dip ; Saphack, to pour, and zarak, to sprinkle. In the Septuagint bapto or BAPTIZO is the representative of taval, cheo of saphack, and raino of zaRAK. I See I5ronson"8 examination of Fowler page 228. 31 philologist and interpreter of tlie Bible, that immersion arid that only, is the baptism that Christ enjoins." That we have taken a correct view of this subject, viz : That iminersion is the exclusive signification of Baptizo is tVankiy ackno\vledo;ed, by some of the most learned, and em- inent Pcdoboptists of various denoiiunations. We might with propriety remark here, that the learned v>orld docs not afford more competent authority than the following. John Calvin, th? cclcbrnted founder of ttio Presbjtcriaii chnrrh, says : "that baptism was administered by John and Christ by plunging the whole body underwater." Again he fays : ' the word baptizo^iirnif pf to iuunerse, and it is certain the rite of immersion was 1 ractisod by the ancient chuTch." VVitsius. — " It cannot be denied, that the native signification of the words baptein and BAPTIZEIN, is to plunge or dip." Ruddaens. — " The v/ord baptizein" is always to be interpreted of immersion," Alstidius. — " liAPTizwN signifies only to immerse." Zanoliins. — "The proper siguilication of baptizo, is to immerse, plunge under, to over- whelm in water." Altiuffius. — "For baptism is immersion, when the whole body is iinmerged ; but th3 term biptism, is never used with respect to(-i>rinklins." I?eza. — " Christ ccmiinanded us to be baptized ; by which word, it is certain, immersion is signified. To be baptized in water, signifies no other than to be iMMtRSKD in water." Casaubon. — " This was the r.te of I aptizing, that persons weh-e plunged into the water: which t'lo very word baptizein sulficienliy declares."" Mi: Leigh. — "The native and proper signification of it [baptize] is to dip into water, or to plunge under water." Bossuot, bishop of Menux. — "To baptize signifies to plunge, as is granted by all the world." Dr. Campbell, late Principal of the Marscliale College at Aberdeen, a Presbyterian, the learned translator of the four Gospels with critic d notes, says : '' The word dapti/.e- IX, both in sacred authors and in classical, signifies to dip, to plu.nge, to immerse. It is al- ways construed suitably to this meaning." Augusti. — "The word bai)tism, according to ETYMOLoay and usage, signifies to im- merse, SCBiMERQE, &C., and THE CHOICE OP THE WORD BETRAYS AN AGE IN WHICH THB LATTER rt'STO.M OF SPRINXLINO HAD NOT BEEN INTRODUCED." "Prof. Porsoii, of the Unirersity of Cambridge, and Episcopalian, acknowledged by all competent judges to have been the first scholar in Knglaml, pronounced it ABSi'RDto imagine that [baptizo] had any other proper meaning tlian to dip entirely, to plunge, or immerse." Martin Luther. — Speaking of children, he says: " They ought to be completely im- mersed, FOR TilE ETViMOLOGY OF THE WORD (RAPTIS.Vr,1 EVIDENTLY REQUIRES IT." Again, he says : " If you consider what baptism signifies, you shall see the same thing (immersion) required ; for it signifies, that the old man of our nativity, that is, fiillofsiiis, which is en- tirely of flesh and blood, may be overwhelmed by divine grace. The manner of baptism, therefore, should correspond to the signification of baptism, that it may show a certain and plain sign of it." " This is a sentiment w hich well becomes the great Reformer. Had he and his associates consistently carried out the whole principle involvcl in this expression, the Reformation would have been more comjilete ; they would have cut the last link which bound the Reformed to the Papal church. But alas! they failed here. No wonder, that, when the Baptists in Germany began to agit;ite this subject, Melancthon said to Luther.'' " Now the devil has attacked us in oar weakest point." Having thus shown, that the clear, proper signification of the term baptizo is to dip, plunge, immerse, and that many of the most eminent and learned Pedobaptist writers frankly, and explicitly, bear their testimony to the same tact, I cannot avoid the inevitable conclusion, that Jesus Christ intended, (when giving his commission,) to enjoin immersion, or he would never have made choice of the word he did, to designate the ordinance. 32 But as there are many who will reject this evltlence, let us lake another view of the subject. Suppose that two divisions of the Greek church, should, unhappily, fall into a dispute, about the legitimate meaning of our English word immerse, and one division should maintain, that the specific import of the term is bapiizo, thapto, to dip, to bury. The other should contend, that the term is generic, and signifiies either c/teo, to pour ; rantizo, to sprinkle ; nipto, to wash the hands, face, or ieet ; louo, to wash or bathe the body ; or katliairo, to cleanse, or baptize, to dip, or in fact, it means the application of water in any way. The question that naturally arises now, is this : Can the meaning of this term be ascertained? Who possesses the requisite knowledge to determine its meaning, and thiis end the controversy 1 Why, unquestionably the English, those who use the English language. If they tlecide that it signifies to dp, to immtrge, to bury, and that no cth;; Jmeanii g has ever been attached to it as far back as the language cau be traced ; I ask, would not tliis, ought not this, to settle the question beyond all reasonable doubt ? Would it not be the height of folly, to demur against the decision of so competent a tribunal ? Now, where is there a word in any language, that is used generally to denote the action of dipping or immers- ing, and at the same time signifies pouring, or sprinkling t Where is there a language that ever had a " local habitation," name, or existence, that has not a definite term expressive of the act of immersion ? Have the G.'teksnoterm specifically expressive of this act ? Can they definitely and exclusively convey the idea of immersion? Most asauri'dly ; for, from the days of Homer until now, they have always "understood the •word baptizo, to denote the act of immersii>n, and ra/ifzzo^ to de- note the act of sprinkling. And if you strike the words lapto and baptizo from their vocabulary, they have none more defi- fute to express the act immersion. If this word does net de- riote it with certainty, then that rich [definite] language is des-- titute of a certain sign to denote this simple common act.- Examine such a work as Tittman's Synonymes of the Greek Testament, and you will not find a word placed there, as the equivalent of baptizo." I am aware that it may be said here, that Barnes in his note on Mat. 3 : 6, says ; " the word bap- tize, si (unifies originally to tinge, to dye, to stain /" and, that Ur. Dwight affirms, that "ss, that the only way in which upon th^; principles of christian chanty, I can account for eo untrue a statement, is by concluding, that Dr. Dwight, nr-ver examineil the authorities." He then refers to several Lexicon?, and says: " I demand only a simple inspection of them, as an answer to this strange and erroneous representation." t Or. Campbell, wl.en speaking of the fact, that " the baptized are sai I avabaveik, to arise, emerge or asct-nd, Mat 3: 16, apo touudato?,, and Acts 8: 39, ex tou udatog, from, or out of the water, says : Let it be observed further, that the verbs raino, and rantizo, used in scripture for sprinkling, are never construed in this manner. When, therefoie, the Greek word baptizo (rendered I baptize,) is adopted, I may say, rather than translated into modern languages, the mode of construction ought to be preserved, «o far as may conduce to suggest its original import. It is to be regretted, that we have BO much e\'idencethat even good and le.arned men allow thei • udgments to be warped by the sentiments and custorns of the sect they prefer. The true partizan, of whatever denomination, always inclines to correct the diction of the spirit, by that of th'J party," 84 Cristojiulus, aGreek, in his confession of faith, says: '-We follow tlia example of tlie apostles, wlioiiiiniersed tlie candidate under water." Olearius, in liis Persian Travels, says : " The Muscovites call those who are not imnreraeJ in baptism 'sprinkled christians,' and therefore rebaptize such as join their church." Walch, says : " The Greeks regard immersion as essential to baptism, and reject sprink- ling." ^ Augusti. — "TheOricntia! church has not only preserved unchanged the custom of im- mersion, but declare it so essential, tliat they rebaptize those who were only sprjnklej and, by way of contempt, call Ihein ' sprinkled clirislians.' " These quotations, with what has preceded, show the invar- iablc sentiment of the whole Greek church. Indeed, where can there be found, at the present day, a learned lexicographer, theolojiical critic, or commentator, that will venture his reputa. tion by the assertion, that the Greek church have not invaria- bly practised immersion as baptism with person3 in health? or that immersion is not the primary, radical meaning of baptizo ? Now let us turn to the testimonies of some of our modern critics, and then to the lexicographers. Prof. Fritsciio, a disciple of Hermann, in hisCom. ou Mat. 3: 6, says: " Tliat baptism was ^ pel formed not by sprinklinfr, but by immersion, is evident, not only from the nature of thoi '(iord,but from Kom. 6 : 4." Buttniann, in his largest Grammar, simply puts downj " bapto to imraerf e" (tauchnn). Brcaiier. — " The- word corresponds in signification with the German word, taufen, tos-inis into the deep." The author of Free Inquiry respecting Baptism. — " Baptism is perfectly identical witlJ our word immersioi!, or submersion (taucheu odor uutertauchen). If immersion undeil Water is for the purpose of cleansing or washing, then the word means cleansing or wash-| iiig." Bretschneider, in his Theology. — "An entire immersion belongs to the nature of bap- tisij'. This is the meaning of the word." This writer is confessedly the most critical lexi-| cographerof the New Testament." Kaiaer, Bib. Tlieol. — " Bapto is a perfect imnimersion ; Baptizo, to sink nearly tt>^ tl.'C liuttc!!! in water." These are his deliiiiiioiis. Paullus, in his Com. siiys : " The word baptize signifies in Grtek, sometimes to fm- mers?, sometimes to submerge." RheiJihard'a Ethics. — "In spiinklinj, the symbolical meaning of the ordinance is wlioll/lost." We will now turn our attention to the testimony of Lexicog- raphers, and commence with the testimony of the excellent Greek and English Lexicon of Dr, John Jones, which gives the plain obvious import of words without reiining or accommoda- ting : — (The reader will bear in mind here, that baptizo is tho only word in the original scriptures, used to designate iho lit) of baptism, and is the only one, anglecised in our language baptize. Of course if we can discover the true meaning o'ihaj)- > tlzo we shall then ascertain what is essential to the rite of j baptism). \ 1. Jones.^-'Bapto, I dip; I dye, stain. Baptizo. — I plunge; Iplunge in water, dip. ' bury, overwhelm. 2. Richardson's Lexicon, justly regarded as one of the most valuable ever pnblished.^-Baptizo is rendered, to dip, or merge in water, to sink, to plunge, to immerse. 3. I'arkhnrst. — To dip, immerse, submerge, plunge. 4. Donegan's. — Toitn- nierse, submerge, saturate, drench, &e.. 5. Sciileusner. — To immerse, to plunge, to sink into water. 6. Pickering. — To dip, immerse, submerge, plunge, sink. 7. Had- rian. — To immerse. The definitions of the remaininjones, we shall give in classes. 8. Burlileus, 9. Conlon, 10. Coie, 11. Plautinus, 13. ttockius, 13. Grove, U, Xilander, 15. Hopper, 16. Hax^ . 35 tuJig, 17. Junius, IS. Go-sner, 1!». Tusanus, 20. Const.iiitine, 21. Ewing, 22. S-JiieveHiiP^ iui|>rovctI by Ilil!,'Boy(-,r, and Eutic. Tlic fifleeu last. Ijesicogriiplieis ^'ive, generally, tlia following lieiiuitions, to Jii', to plunge, iiuiuerse, wash, and one or two of theiu add, to RjjiinUle. •23. " Strjjiiens, 24. Scapula, 2.>. Suii^er "n Ik th of hi.-i Lexicons. 26. Selileusner, in boJh; 27. Hedericus, 28. S •,h■:ei(^•,^•, S'*- Wahl, 39. Bretfo!ineirteir, 31. Passow, 32. Ro-t, and others, nut only make ininiersii n tlie primary and radi'-.-;! meaning of the word, but beiiause (qui, daher) it is so, it si,;;iiifies s;iy ility, to dye, bathe, W(;sh ; (*he consequence of dipping,) anil one or two of t!;cni add, to sprinkle. But it is easy to se/-, that accord- ing to the reas(j!! alleged, it must nie.-;n, cither in reality, or in the cuucep.iun cf the wri- ters who so employ it, to be sprinkled so as to l>e wet all over." " Prof. Rost, the principal Greek lexicographer now living, in his stand.ird German Greek Lr-xicon, revi.sed with the as- sistance of a native Greek, puts down as the primiiry significa- tion ol^fill such word ^ us 2)lu7}g€, immerse, and submerse, (tauchen, cintauch n, untert:\v,chen.) bapto ^ but, under the words zrasft, ?iT/, poM'-, r.nd tlie hl\e, ' waschen, benetzen, giessin, begiessen,' though lie gives co;;ioas definitions in Greek, he iiever employs the word bfipto, or any of its derivatives. Can any thing bo more to the point." As we have pursued this examination as far as we design to, with regard to lexicographical testimony, we proceed to in- q;;ire what is the testimony given by these eminent Critics, and Lexicographers? Do they all, or even tho body of them endorse the assertions of D wight and Barnes, that the original meaning of baptizo, is to tinge, dye, color? No! not oven one gives that as the original, primary meaning ; and, but a very fjw give it as a cons, quential one. Do they all givo sprinkling, as the radical primary meaning of the word? No * not one ; and there are hnt two or three, that even mention ths term. The same may be said respecting pouring and cleans- ing. Do they all fs^ixoicashing, as the primary, original mean. ing of the word ? Again, the answer is in the negative ; and til re are but abjut two thfi'ds of the Lexicons, that give it aa a secondary or consequential meaning. Do they al! give dip, plunge or immerse, as the primary radical meaning of the word ? The answer is now, for tiie first time, in the i'.fnrraative ; and their is not a dissenting voice to this, among all the lexicogra- phers and critics we have examined. Ladeed, the united, unan- imous testimony of the thirty-three Lexicons, [and I am ac- quaintod with no other's,] and all the critics, we have exarain- ed [and not one to my knowledge is a Baptist.] goes to confirm, the statement of Prof. Stuart. Hence, the statement ofDwight and Barnes, rests on their own ipse dixit or assertion, without even a "lexicograplier or critic oi" any note," as endorser. But suppose wo admit as truth, the assertions of Dwight and Barnes, " that the primary, original meaning of Baptizo,, \s to tinge, stain, dye, or color,'^ Then it follows; that Chris| 36 commanded his apostles to tinge, stain, dye, or color, his be- lieving subjocts; or else, that ho used the word out of its or- dinari' sens-^, and that too, without even advertising the apos- ties of the fact. Now if we admit, that he used the word out of its ordinary sense, (and therefore, the Tedobaptints are justi- fied in inter()retinn it might, with equal propriet)'', be adip.itted, that he used the word tnetanoieo, to re- pent, out of its ordinary sense, (and therefore, the Papists are justified in trajislating it do penance.) Grant the same liberty to infidels, and they would find no difficulty in proving by the Bible, that there is no hereafter. Indeed, were they now to follow the example of Pedobaptists in the interpretation ofthis word, they would find no difticulty in proving that all the hap- piness and misery of man is confined within the narrow bound- ariesof this life. This argument if we substitute the primitive immersion, for tinge, dye, etc., would be conclusive against sprinkling and pouring. But it may be asked, why do some of ihese lexicographers give to dye, or tinge, as one of the definitions of baptizo. I an- swer, before Mr. Carson issued his treaties on baptism, both hapto, and baptizo, were regarded as perfectly synonymous in meaning, but to him belongs the honor of dicovering, that the primitive word bapto, has two significations, the primary to dip, the secondary, to dye ; and, that baptizo, in the whole range of Greek literature, has only the sense of dip, or immerse. Prof. Stuart, notices this distinction, for he has not given to bapiizo, the sense of to dye, while he has, to bapto. It may be asked here, if the Greak baptizo, does not signify cither to pou7-, or sprinkle; why, have two or three of these lexico?is gi\ en this meaning ? I reply, a number of these lexi- cons have been written since pouring and sprinkling have come into use ; and, I believe, it is a general rule with lexicogra- phers, first, to give the definition of words according to their real import ; and then, if a largo portion of people use the word in a new and different sense, to superadd that. The same ques- tion maybe raised in regard to wash and cleanse, but these will be noticed in their proper place. Now, every person acquainted with the laws of interpreta- tion, will admit, that the primary, radical import of a word, should always be taken as the true one, unless, something in the circumstances of the case, or structure of the passage, ab- solutely requires another, a different meaning. This is a set. tied rule of exposition ; the purport of which, is adopted by 37 nil interpretora.* Is there any thing in a single passage, in which the (tidinance of christian Baptism, is myntioned in tho New Testament, that absolutely requires us to depart from thisca/2o;?, by assigning to the term baptizo any other than its primary, ordin.iry import. f Indeed, there are many things, in tho sacred record, th it teach us, that we are not at liberty to depart from the primitive rite of immersion [baptisim]. It is a solemn thing, to alter the word, or the ordinances of God. Two of the SJ7JS of Aaron, in the offering of incense, made, a change in a single circumstance, anA fire from the Lord deslroi/ed ihc.m. Jehovah will be sanciifed in them that come nigh him, and before all the people he trill be glorified. " As tho principle of interpretation here involved is of great importancj, I may bj allowed to illustrate by a familiar exam- ple. 1 give to A. B. a promissory note, payable on demand. Now, I am bound to pay the note whenever presented; and I cannot plead, that the words « on demand,' should be literally construed ; that certain circumstances make it probable, they are not used in their ordinary sense. The holder will justly urge, that these words have a definite and well ascertained meaning, and 1 must satisfy his claim forthivith, unless 1 can show it is impossible, that in my case the phrase should be un- derstood according to its usual signification. The burden of proof lies on me, and I must make it evident beyond dispute, that the ter^ns cannot possibly have the customary sense, or I I shall be ob'iged to liquidate the debt." •' So in the case before us, it is not enough that there are ap- parent improbabilities opposed to the customarj' use of the term in question ; the ordinary force of it must be plainly impos ible, or we must retain its usual sense. But no such iuipossibility exists," as we have shown by Prof. Stuart. Finally, it is a self-evident fact, that the usus loquendi, t'^at is the practical use of a word among the best writers and speakers of a language, must determine its meaning. This is the sourcj or fountain, to which all lexicographers are obliged to resort, for their knowledge. This is the highest — the only ultimate au- thority. Now, setting aside the testimonies of lexicographers, * Mr. Ferguson, a very learned man, says : " If men may be permitted to forsake the natural and genuine sense of words, where the matter is capable of it; they may, not- vithstanding their di'Clariiig themselves to believe the Gospel, yet believe nothin,' at all of the christian faith." "We are not to forsake the genuine and natural significa ion cf words, unless their be the highest evidence, that the author did otherwise intend t!ie ii," saith the civil law. And, as Austin, says : " the proper signification of words is alwaya to be retained, unless necessity enforces us to expound them otherwise." t Prof. Sluari, speaking of the circumstances connected with the rite of baptism, ia the New Testament, says : " I find none, I am quite ready to concede, wliich seems ab- Bolutely to determine that iinmc^rsion was not practised," This is all we usk. 58 (he meaning ofhaptiz) can be definitely dutennined by Greek cliissica] usiige, and that, beyond all reasonable dispute ; or, it follows, that it is impossible to ascertain the meaning of any word in Greek. " The learned Greeks for t\vo thousand seven hundred years, have decided hy iisage, that tho word signifies to dip, to immerse ; con.sequentlv> it does not mean to pour, or sprinkle." It is utterly futile for any man to attempt to shake this authority, as well might he undertake to level the Alega- nies, or "remove the I'ock of (ribralter." " Learning, ingenu- it}-, sophistry, great names, positive assertions, are all in vain, when put in requisition for this purpose. After all such impo- tent attempts, the simple authentic fact, that myriads of Greeks" fi-om the days of Homer, (the oldest profane Greek Wiiter, M'ho flourished m.ore than two thousand seven hundred years since.) "until the present time, have used the word invariably to signify immersion, and figuratively overwhelm- ing, stands out in bold relief before a candid and learned world." Here, then, with this universally acknowledged fact, and the concurrent testimony of so man};- eminent, learned, and criti- cal standard authors, together with the united testimonies of 33 Greek L^-xicons^ on the primpry, literal meaning of the word, we arrive at the po.'itive conclusion, that immersion is really baptism, which could not actually be the case, if b;iptism is 'neccssaiily any thing else but immersion. VVe are led, there- fore, by classic U3;ige, and the testimonies of critics and lexicog- raphers, to the irresistible concluhion,that baptism is immersion, and nothing else. Now, if baptism is actual!}' immersion (which is admitted by all.) and if sprinkling is actually b;iptism, then, sprinkling is actually immersion. Xnd who will contend for this ARSiTRDiTY ? yet those virtually do, who contend that spiinkling is baptism. But I proceed to the next proposition. II. Our second Akgumea'tis derived from the FicrRAXivE tSE OK THE WORD. The beauty and force of a figure, can only be seen, as it refers to the literal signification ; it is generally used for illustration or emphasis. "In this figurative sense, baptizo is used in the New Testament to signify immersion or overwhelming." Thus, in Luke 12 : 50. "I have a baptism to be baptized wilh, and how am I straightened till it be accomplished," refering evident-, ly to the sufferings he was to endure. Dr. Campbell has justly rendered the passage, " J have an immersion to undergo." Dr. Doddridge paraphrases it, " I know I shall shortly be^'lunged in, 39 the most overwhelming distress. Prof. Stuart, " [ am about to be overwhelmed with sufforinps, and I am greatly distressed ■with the prospect of them." Siraihir exainples arc found in Mark 10 : 38,39; Mutt. 3 : 11, &c. We see our Savior "sunk in deep waters of affliction," overwhehiicd with suffer- ings by " tlie waves and billows of anguish rolling over him." 'This evidently reR'rs to the radical meaning of the word ; " any idea, short of a complete imviersion, is tame and insipid." The word is figuratively used to signil'y a buri.il. — Rom. 6 ; 3, 4 — " Know yc not that so many of us ao were baptized into .le- sus Christ, were baptized into his death 1 Therefjre wk ark EUPJED WITH iiiji i?Y BAPTISM into death ; that, like as Christ was raised up from thy dead, by the glory of tlie Father, even s ) we also should walk in newness of life." In Col. 2 : 12, the same figurj occurs : " Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him throuoh the faith of the operation of God, ■wlio hath raised him from the dead." " It seems too plain for argument, that baptism is here compared to a burial, in which, the believer, being 'dead to sin,' (Rom. 6 : 2,) is 'buried' in baptism, and from this emblematic grave, he rises again to a new and spiritual lilb. The figure ia apt, heaiiliful, and im- pressive, if baptism is immersion ; but it has no apparent per- tinency, if any thin^ else is baptism." — The important bearing of this passage will be seen, as "it i.s conceded by eminent Pedubaptists themselves, that 'the mass of unprejudiced read- ers,' would perceive ia it -an allusion to the practic(! of bapti/. ing by immersion.' " These two parallel texts contain ^" God't; own explanation of his own ordinance. And hero wc may admire the divine wisdom and goodness." The " translators of ths Bible, by adopting, not translating the Greek words bap- tize KvA baptism, have hidden themeaning from the multiiudc. But the evidences from these passages cannot be hid — it is ob- vious to the most unlearned, and the words, 'Buried with Christ by baptism' may continue to make, as a I'edobaptist writer says they have heretofore made, more Biiptist.s than any other passage in the Bible. Tho Spirit of God, through this commentary of the great Apostle, enables all men to judge for themselves in this matter." " The expressions, baptized into Jesus Christ, and baptized into his death, require explanation. The first, baptized into Jesus Christ, means to 1)3 baptized into an acknowledgment of Jesus Christ, with an implication of subjection, or discipleship, to him. So to be baptized into the death of Christ, is to be bap. tized into an acknowledgment of his death, and into an acknowU edgment of the obligations resulting from that death.''^ 40 <' It is contended, that the burying mentioned by the apos- tle, is not an external one, but an internal, amoral burying. This opinion seems effectually opposed by the circumstances, that the burying is performed h>j baptism, an external rite. * * Ifthe apostle had merely said, we are dead and buried in respect to sin, omitting the words, by baptism, his language would re- quire a different interpretation. But the apostle himself ex- plains what he means by burying, when he adds by by baptism.* So Prof. Chase, "Buried with him by baptisvi, buried with him — how? By baptism, the apostle answers. In or by bap- tism, then, Paul and the Christians whom he addresses were buried. To be crucified to the world, or dead to sin, is the character of the christian : but to be buried with Christ by baptism, is the appointed emblematical pro/ewzo/i of that charac ter* The apostle does not teach, that bslievers are crucijied with Christ, or are dead with him, or possess a mortified temper, by baptism. To have such a state of soul, to be dead in res- pect to sin, is one thing ; and to be buried with Christ by bap. tis7n. is quite a different thing ; for this is external, whereas the other is internal. The one is a sign ; the other, the thing signified." To sustain the interpretation given above, the testimonies of several distinguished Pedobaptist writers may be adduced. Roscnmu. 'ilcr, on the pasango. " Immersion in the water of baptism, and coming forth out of it, was a symbol of a person's renouncing his former life, and, on the contrary, be- ginning a new one. The learned liave rightly reminded us, that on account of this em- blematical meaning of baptism, the rite of immersiom otGHT to Have been retained i^ THE Christian church." Martin l.uther after speaUing of baptism as a symbol of death and resurrection, says: "On this actjount, I could wish, that such as are to be baptized, should be completei-Y IMMERSED INTO WATER, according to the meaning of the word, and the signification of tha ordinance; as also without doubt it was instituted by Christ." Dr. Knapp, an eminent and pious German divine, whose works are recomraendtd by Dr. Woods, speaking of the passage in question, thus expresses the aj-.ostle's idea : " Ws ARE LIKE Christ buried as dead persons, by baptism, and should arise, like him, to a new life." He adda, " The image is taken here from baptized persons, as they wera IMMEROED (buried), and as they EM»RGED(rose again). Dr. Eloomfield, " one of the most profound living biblical scholars of Great Britain, and highly commended by Prof Stuart as a learned andjudicious critic, gives this paraphrase oftho wordo, "buried with him by baptism :" "We Have been thus buried in the Waters of baptism." "He adda, "There is a plain allusion to the ancient cus- tom OF baptism by immersion." Prof. Lange. "As Christ died, so we die (to sin) with him in baptism. Thebodj'is, as it were, buried under water, is dead with Christ ; the plunging under water represents death, and rising out of it the resurrection to a new life. A more striking symbol could not be chosou." The Author of the Free Inquiry on baptism. " This baptism of John and that of the apostles were performed in precisely the same way," i. e. the candidate was com- pletely immersed under water. Speaking of Rom. 6: 4, and Gal. 3: 27, he says; What becomes of all these beautiful images, when, as at the present day, baptism is ad- ministered by pouring or sprinkling 1" Bloomfield in his Critical Digest on the passage, says ; "There is here plainly a refer- ence to the ancient mode of baptism by immersion ; and I agree with Koopper and Ros- enmuellkr t hat therk is reason to regret it should have been abandoned in * Ripley's Examination of Stuart. 41 most CbrUtianchurclics, eeiecially asit bas so evidently a reference to the nij-tticsentc of laptisin." Dr. Doddridge (in whose words we have Mri John Wesley and Mr. George Whitfield, the former in a Note, and tlic latter in a sermon, on this ver^e) " Buried with hira in bap- tism." "It seems the part of candor to confess, that here is aa allusion to the maunuer of baptizing by immersion." Dr. Wall (the learned author of that famous work, " the HiKlory of Infant Baptism," for which he recei^'ed the thanks of the whole clergy in convocation,) after refering to several passages of tcrpture which he deemed " undeniable proofs, t'lat the baptized person went ordinaril}' into the water, and sometimes the Baptist too, says: We should not know from these accounts whether the whole body of the baptized wasput under water, bead and all, were it not for two later proofs, which seem to me to pot it ol't ofqdestion. One, That St. Paul does twice, in an allusive way of speaking, call baptism a BCRiAt.. The other, "The castomof the christians in the near succeeding times, which being more largely and particniarly delivered in books, is known to have been generally, or ordinarily, a total IMMERSION." Similar testimonies to tliese are given by Archbishop Tillotson. Archbishop Seeker, Dr. Sam. Clarke, Dr. Wells, Assembly of Divines, Dr. Mackuight, Dr. Towercon, Meander, Tholuck, and a multitude of others. As Dr. Wall has alluded to the practice of the primitive christians, we will just give the testimony of a few of the Fathers, who evidently refer to this passage, and more may be found under the 4th head, i. e. the practice of the ancient church. Justin Martyr says : "We represent our Lord's suSierings and reEurreclion by baptism IN A POOL." Clement of Alexandria, " You were led toabath, as Christ was conveyed to the sepul- chre, and were thrice immersed, to siguify Christ's three day's burial." Theodoret, on this pass'»-.'c, " Baptism is a type of our Lord's death ;" acd in Ileb. 6 : 2, " In holy baptisi< we rccci»n the type of the resurrection." Theophylact say " Laiitisin tjiiifies by immersion the death, by emersion the resur- itetiou of Christ." 'Jo!it iJajnascene; "Baptism rejiroEents the (deloi) death of our Lof d." — " it is a type (tvk-.i.) of MIS death ;" — " the first baptism was the flood '." — " the old man was entirely buriea m watar." Council of Toledo, '• The immersion in water (in aquis mcrsio) is, as it were, the des- cent to Hades, and the emersion from the water, the resurtection." Photius, quoted by Oecumenicus or Rom. 6: 4, and Athanasius, give the same e.xplana- tion. So also the bishops, Gelasius, Gregory and Telagius, in there rituuls;" These exam- ples might be multiplied to a great e.Ytent. "We cannot forbear noticing here a novel interpretation of Rom. 6 : 4, (buried with him in baptism,) which is beginning to gain currency among certain American writers. It is grave- ly argued, that Paul, in that passage, had no allusion to the mode of baptism^ See Stuart on the passage, and those who have copyed from him. This is a discovery. The quotations from the early Fathers^ and from the later German critics" — preceding, as well those succeeding, " will show, that none of them were ever blessed with this extraordinary illuminatior. It were easy to prove, that the biblical scholars of all nations, during the whole period intervening between the Christian Fathers and the modern German school, have all of them grop. ed their way in equal darkness. Here, then, we have the re* m irkable fact, that while two, or three American controversial, istsj' — in itself a suspicious circumstance, — invent a new inter. 42 prctation for a passage, that overthrows al! llieir far-fetched arj:iiments in favor of aspersion in baptism, the whole host of Jearned critics, from Justin Martyr down to Winer, Neander, Olshausen and Tlioluck, stand arra3'cd againr-it them in an un- broken phalanx. Will it be believed, that this portion of a book, Vfritten for the common people (who, by the way, have never failed of appreh'uuling the true sense of this passage,) lias been sul)iGCted to all classes of men in different ages of the world, in ditferent nations, and in all cultivated languages for eighteen centuries, and that no man was ever found to open the seal and dissect afgure, until our enlightened opponents succeeded? We must not omit, in this connection, to mention a circumstance, which saptized." This seutiincnt prevailed to such an extreme, tliat Gregorj', Nazianzen, Basil and Chrysostom, were obli^'ed, as wise men, to labor to show, that any other time, tliougli less interesting, was nevertheless perfectly proper for baptism. Those of whom Greffory speaks in his -lOth Orat., preferred in bap- tism " to rise with Christ on the resurrection day." fiasil, De Spiritu Sancto, 27, sa3's ; The whole period of fifty days (from the Passover or Easter, to Pentecost) is a me- morial of our resurrection." Thus, even when the day of Pentecost was fixed upon for b ptism, as itsome tim s was, though loss frequently, it wasat]the same time a reminiscence of the two scenes of the resurrection of Christ, and of the effusion of the Holy Spirit. Chysostom, 1 Horn, on Acts, while he admits, that the ' grace itself of baptism is the same on Pentecost, gives the preference to JOaster or the passover, because the mind is then impressed with "loft:er esniimnets." Socrates,"), 2'2, speaUs of those who baptize only on the day of the Passover. Siricius, bishoj) of Rome, says : " this ordinance is ob- served with ALT, the rmiucHES at the Paschal festival and Pentecost." Leo the Great censures certain individuals 'for the irrational innovation of baptizing- at any other time THAN that of the Passover.' The council of Auxerrein, 578, prohibited baptism 'at any other time than Easter.' The council of Matiscon did the same in 583. .1. A. Schmid, in his Hist. Fest., p. 121, says ; 'In the Latin church, the ninth hour, i. c. So'clock P. M., this festival was designated for baptism, because it was at that hourthat Christ died, whose) death was imitated in baptism." Augusti, 2, 7, saj's ; 'From the earliest times, this day was selected for baptism, as special importance was attached to baptism into the death of Christ." We have adduced these testimonies, from history, because ^ve deem them decisive, not a note of remonstrance in all the f * The Christian Review, edited by Prof. Sears, of Newton, Mast<., published by Gould) Kendal, and Lincoln, Boston. 43 Fathers, have we ever seen against them. That the ancient fathers understood the design of baptism to be a symbolical representation of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, we think must be manifest from their testimonies. Whenever they speak of baptism, they, almost always point to the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. III. The places selected for the administration of the ORDINANCE, AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES CONNECTED WITH ITS I'ERFORMANCE, WHERE TIIEY ARE DESCRIBED, FURNISHES ANOTHER ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF IMMERSION. " John the Baptist did baptize in the wilderness, * * * and there went out unto him all the land of Judea, * * * and Avere all baptized of him in the river Jordan."* Here it is explicitly stated, that those who were baptized of him, were baptized in the river Jordan. If the idea advanced by some, that the preposition (en) in may mean at, yet Avhy should he resort to a river at ail "excepting that immersion was practi- sed."! "IkitProf. Robinson a Pedobaptist, and the learned au- thor of the Lexicon of the New Testament, translates the Greek particle (en) fn or into, in all the instances in which John's baptism is spoken of. Jesus was baptized by John i?! (eis) Jordan ; or, as Prof. Robinson translates, " into the river Jordan.^X Dr. Campbell in liis notes on Matliew3: 11, makes the following statement : "In water- in the Holy Spirit, (en udati — ca agio pncuniati.) English translation, with water — with the Holy Ghost. Vulgato, [that is l^atin translation,] in aqua — in Spiritu Sancto. Thus, also, the Syrac and other ancient versions. 1 am sorry to observe that the Popish transla- tors from the vulgate, have shown greater veneration for the «tyle of that version, than the generality of the Protestant translators have shown for that of the original. For in this, the Latin is not more explicit than the Greek. Yet so inconsistent are the interpreters last mentioned, that, cone of them have scrupled to render (en to Jordaue,) in the sixth verse, in Jordan ; though , nothing can be plainer, than that, if there be any incongruity iu the expression in water : this, in Jordan, must be equally incongruous." Hut they have seen that the preposition, in, could not be avoided "without adopting a circumlocution, and saying, with the water of Jordan, which would have made their deviation from the text too glaring." Mr. Hervy, when contending that en, signifies in ; adds, I can prove it to ha' e been in peaceable possession of this signification two thousand years. " Every one knows," he ob- serves in another place, " that with, is not the native, obvious, and literal meaning; but rather a meaning swayed, influenced, moulded by the preceding or following word." — Letters to Mr. Wesley. " In four of the first versions of the Bible into English, we find these words rendered literally ' in water ;' but the expression not suiting the prevailing custom, it was afterward * Dr. Shaw says, "before it enters the Dead Sea, its ordinary breadth is about thirty yards, but it is exceedingly deep, even to the brink of its inner bank." It was so deep that a miracle was performed to make a passage for Israel, (Josh, iii : 9, 17,) and for Elijah, (2 Kings vi : 5). It was in this deep rjver, that a young man lost his axe, (2 Kings vi : 1, 5,). In this river Naanian dipped (baptized) himself seven times (2 Kings v : 14,). Reader, surely this was deep enough for baptizing. t Prof Stuart. % Vide Lc.\. on the word Baptize, 2 (a). See Bloomficld, not« upon the passage. 44 rSndered ' with wator.' It is in,-^iii the Vulgate, Syriac, Arabic and Ethiopic', and several more modern versious. Tjndal, one of the first four translators, says ; "I baptize you in water, in token of re- pentance." " And John waa also baptizing in Enon, near fSiliiV^, hecause there was much watei- there : and they came and were baptized." (John 3 ; 23.) Now the rea.son is expressly stated, why he se. selected this place, because the naich icatcr aftbrded facility for the performance of the rito. This passage is plain and obvi- ous, and, though it might be susceptible of the translation, Be- 2a and others contend for, i. e. {many streams or rivulets.) Still it would afford conveniences for immersion. The Holy Spirit does not say John made choice of this spot, to accommodate the people with water to use, — nor their beasts to drink, — but on account of its convenience for baptizing. But Prof. Rip- ley has shown, with a clearness, force and precision which ought ever to settle the question, that our translation is correct, and not to bo discarded.* " See Jer. 41 : 12, compared 2 Samuel 2 : 12, 13, 14. On which read Robinson's Calmet, under tho word GiBF.ON. Also consult Rev. 1 : 5, 19 : 6, where the same words are ured to designate the ocean.'' The case of the Ethiopean Eunuch next claims our atten- tion. " As they went on their way, they came unto certain water, * * and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch ; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the spirit of the Lord caught away Philip." (Acts 8 : 36 — 39.) Now for what purpose did Philip and the Eunuch ifo doicn both into the water, if it wetQ not that he might immerse him. Now the impression, which would naturally rest upon the mind, of a plain man, when reading this account, must evidently be the true one. But it is sometimes said that the preposition (eis) here is often rendered to. But what did tliey go down to the water for if not for immersion. Hear Dr. Doddrige. — " It would hn very unnatural to suppose, that tliey went down to the water, merely that Philip might take up a little water in his hand to pour on the Eunuchj A person of his dignity had, nodouht, many vessels in his baggage, [by which water might be brought into his chariot,] oa such a journey, through a desert country ; a precaution absolutely necessary for travelling in those parts, and never omitted by them." — See Dv, Shaw's Travels. The criticism on tho Greek preposition, in this place, is far from just "j" " Tho verb here translated went down, when follow- ed by the preposition used in this passage, includes almost uni- * So Olshansen, Do Wette, Kuinoel, Grotius, Bloomfield, Doddridge, and others. _ t Consult Prof. Ripley's examination of Stuart, Boston, 1833. Also, Robinson's Lexicon, Katabainon, ;a) Anubainon (a). Liltewise Dodridge, on the passage. 45 formly, in the New Testament, the idea of entrance into the place mentioned, e. g. "Jesus went down fo Capernaum." A- gain it is said, " Jacob went down to Egypt." Is it ncit clearly implied here, , that Jesus went im/o Capernaum? Jacob, into Egypt and not merely to the borders of it ? So in common par- lance, " we say of a man, he has gone to New York, — -meaning he has gone into the city to buy goods." IV. The ruACTiCE of the karly Ciieistiaxs, asv of the Christian world for manv centuries, shows that thf.v undei'stood baptism to mean immersion. It may not bo wholly inapposite to state here, that the ar* gument from church history, is not the one on which we place our chief dependence. We claim to belong to a denomination that regards the Hible as our only and sufficient rule offailh and practice : and to our mind, the Bible is perfectly clear on this subject. We have also a satisfactory comment, of what our Savior taught on this subject, in the practice of the early Christians, who, in all probability, regulated their practice by his instructions, and the apostle's example. The question naturally arises here, how did the early Chris' tians understand the word and represent it in their practices ? Now, "he that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Barnabas, the companion of Paul, (Acts 13: 2,) says, in liis Epistle, speaking of baptism, " We dkscend into the watkk, and comp oct of it." In tlie Pastor of Hermas, saluted by Paul, (Rom. 10; 11,) it is stated: " Men des.- ccuded into the water, bound to deatli ; but ascended out of it, sealed to life." Justin Martyr, In giving the pagans a general account of Christian doctrines, and prac- tices, tays: *' Tliose who believe, are )ed to some place where there is water, an^ there bathe in ihe water." In nnother ]>l.ice, he say s : " Wc represent our Lord's suf. t.:r'ngsand resurrection, by baptism in a i-ooi.." " There can be no doubt what is meant l)y bathing in a pool, or swimming-place, iij such a manner as to represent the death and resurrection of Christ. Thi.3 Is not the description of any one case of baptisin, but a universal description." TertuUian. — " We are immersed in water," — " let down into the water and DIPPED." " Peter IMMERSED in the tiber " '' It is one tiling to be SPRINKLED, (as' pergi,) by tiie violence of the waves in a boat, and another to be dipped, (lingui,) ii( a religious ordinanee. It is indifferent whether one is baptized in the sea or iu a pool, i;i a river or a fountain, in a lake or the bed of a river." Apostolical Constitutions. — '■ Baptism relates to the death of Christ : the water an- swers to the grave; llie im mersion represents our dying with liun: the Emersion, our rising witli him." Cyril o'" Jerusalem. — " He who is immersed in water and baptized, is surcoundeJ with water oij all s des," Basil the Great. — '' The bodies of those that are baptized, are, as it were, buried IN water." Grysostom. — ""We, as in a sepulchre, "immersing our heads in water, the old man is" buried, and sinking down, the whole is concealed at once." " He speaks of baptism in innumerable instances in 13 folio volumes, but never alludes to sprinkling." Leo, bishop of Rome. — " True inmjersion lepresents the three day's burial of Christ." Jerome. — " Three times we are immerged," &c. Augustine — " Rightly are ye immeroed three times, who have received bffptisin in Ihe name of Christ." These are but a few of the multitude of testimonies that might be quoted, had we space, 46 " To these passages from the Christian Fathers, we subjoin the testimony of some of the modern German critics. We be- speak particular attention to these, not only, on account of their impartiality, as they have no interest in the controversy, but, on account of their being the very highest authority in lan- guage and antiquities." Tlioluck, on Romans 6 : 4. — " In order to understand the figuratire use of baptism, we must bear in mind the well known fact, that the candidate, in the primitive church, WAS immersed in water, and raised out of it aoain." In his Manuscript Lecture on Col. 2; 12, he saysi : " Tlie candidate was immersed, and not sprinkled, as with us." Winer. — " In the apostolical age, baptism was by immersion, as its symbolical ex- planation shows." Bretsclineider. — " The apostolical church baotized only by iramersion." " Schleusner, Wahl, and Bretschneider, the three great New Testament lexicogra- phers of Germany, limit baptism, as a sacred ordinance to immersion." Hahn. — "According to apustolical instrdction and example, baptism was per- formed BY IMMERSING THE WHOLE MAN." Prof. Lange. — '• Baptism in the apostolical age, was a proper baptism, the immersio\ OF THE WHOLE BODY IN WATER. PLUNGING UNDER WATER represents death, and RISING OCT OF IT, the resurrection to a new life." Fritsch. — " With infant baptism, still another change in the outward form of bap- tism was Introduced, that of sprinkling with water, instead of the former prac- tice OF immersion." With these agree the testimonies of Olshanson, Pengel, Usteri, Rheinwolds; Schioz, and Starck. I will here add the testimonies of some of the best historians. Tfeander, says : " Baptism was originally by immersion ; to this form various com- parisons of the apostle Paul allude.'- Guericke. — "Baptism was originally administered by immersion." — ^Vaddington calls " immersion, the oldest form of baptism." Mosheim, Dupin, Milner, Greg- ory, Venema, and indeed all the best liislorians affirm that the practice of tlic primitive churches waa immersion, ? "After these testimonies, you will be prepared to appreciate the concession of Prof. Stuart, who, quoting Augusti, says : "'It is a thing made out," viz: theancient practice of immersion. "Iknow," continues the Prof., "of no one usage which seems to be more clearly, and certainly made out. I cannot see how it is possible for any candid man who examines this subject, to to deny this." He finally comes to this conclusion, " that from the earliest ages of which we have any account, subse- quent to the apostolic age, and downward for several centuries, the churches generally practised baptism by immersion, per- haps by immersion of the whole person ; and, that the only ex- ceptions to this mode which were usually allowed, were in cases of immediate and imminent danger, where immersion could not be practised." It is a fact, notorious in history, that the whole Christian church for the space of 1300 years, practised immersion, except in cases of sickness. This can be established by the testimo- nies of Pedobaptists. Hear the testimony of Dr. Whitby, in bis exposition of Romans. t}T. Wliitby, (author ofa Commentary, and more tlian forty other learned works,) sayt ^ " It being so expressly declared here, and Colos. 2j 13, that we are buried with Christ, IN BAPTISM, by being buried under water, and the argument to oblige us to a conformity to bis death, by dying to sin, being taken hence; and this immersion being religious- ly observed BY ALL Christians fur THIRTEEN, CliNTURIES, and approved t)y our church, and the change of it into sprinkling, even without any allowance from the author of this institution, or any license from any council of the church, being that which the Romanist stiil urgcth to justify the refusal of the cup to tlie laity; it were ta be wished that this custom inii'ht be again of general use, and aspersion only permitted as of old , in cases of Clinici, or in present danger of death." Bossuet. — " We are able to make it appear, by acts of councils, and by the ancient rituals, that, for THIRTEEN HUNDRED YEARS, baptism was thus [by imjnersi»3nj udmiuistcred throughout the whole church, as far as possible." Stackhouse. — "Several authors have shoivn that we re;id no where in Scripture of any one's being baptised, but by immersion, and from the acts of councils and ancient rituals have proved, that this immcrsiou continued (as much as possible) to be used for TUII& • TEEN HUNDRED YEARS after Christ." Breuucr, a Roman Catholic writer, states, " that THIRTEEN HUNDRED YEARS wasbaptisni generally and ordinarily performed by the inimersioapf a niau underwater, and onlyou e.Uraordinary occasions was sprinkling or utfuslou permitted. These latter! uiethods are called in question, and even prohibited. — Stuart, p. 3<>1. Encyclopedia Americana, speaking of Baptism, sa3's : " that ik is dipping, immersios from the Greek baptizo." Again, " In the time of the apostles, the form of baptisn^ was very simple. The per- son to be baptized was dipped in a river or vessel, with the words which Christ ^iad^ ordorcxl, and, to express nrore fully his change of character, gejieraHy adopted a new name. The immersion of the whole body was omitted only in the case of the sick, whu( could not leave their beds. In this case sprinkling was substituted, which was called CLiNEK BAPriSiM, The Greek church as well as the schismatics in the East retained tha custom of immersing the whole body; but the Western church adopted in the 13th cen- tury tlie mode of baptism by sprinkling which has been continued by the Protestants, tha Baptists (q. V.) only excepted." Edinburgh Encyclopedia, edited by Sir David Brewster, allowed to be one of the best scholars of the age, states : " that the word baptizo means to immerse, or Paul would never have said that we are buried with Christ by baptism and that iniinersiuji was prac- tised by all christians until the beginning of the fourteenth century. That the Council of Ravanna, held in 1311 first sanctioned sprinkling; but corrupt as was the church of Rome, whose couucilthLs was, it did not enjoin sprinkling, but merely said that it was admissable." Encyclopedia Ecclesiastica.— r(This splendid work published, A. D. 1835, under tbo patronage of the highest authorities in tlie British nation, both in church and state, after stating the reasons now urged in defence of sprinkling, proceeds,) " Whatever weight, however, may be in these reasons as a defence for the present practice of sprinkling, iT is evident that, during the first ages of the church, and for many centuries afterwards, the practice of immersion prevailed; and which seems indeed never to be departed from, except whore it was administered tu a person at the point of death, or upon a bed of sickness, — which w^s considered indeed as not giving the party the full privileges of bap- tism, — or when there was not a sufficient supply of water. Except in the above cases, the custoni was to dip or [mmerse the whole body." Hence St. Barnabas, says : " We gQ| down into the water," &c. &c. — -■Irticle Baptism. I'rof. Stuart, states on the autiiorityof John Ploycr,* "that the English church prac- tised imineision down to the beginning of the seventeenth century; after which a change to the method of spriukling tcmk place. But thougli, sprinkling is now the univer- sal practice with them, their liturgy has always required immersion except in cuaesoC weakness." It is universally admitted, by all intelligent and candid Per dobaptists, that the Oriential Greek Church, which comprises a large portion of Christendom, have always practised the rite of immersion. Says Prof. Stuart, " The mode of baptism by immersion, the Oriential church has always continued to pre- serve, even down to the present time. The members of thia church are accustomed to call (he members of the westeri| * Jn a yrorTs. of John Floyer on Cold Bathing, p. 50f 48 churches, sprinhled christians, hy way of ridicule and contempt. They mainttun that baptlzo can mean nothing but iinmcrfre ; and that baptism hy sprinkling is as great a solecism as immer- sion hy sprinkling ; and they cUdm to themselves the honor of having preserved the ancient sacred rite of the church free from change and from corruption, which would destroy its sig- nificancy." The reader will here recollect that the I^ew Testament was written in Greek, and that the Greeks them- selves declare that Baptizo means to immerse and nothing else, and that to talk of 'baptism by sprinkling.' is as inconsistent as to talk of ' immersion by sprinkling.' Tiiis testimony is entitled to the greatest credit.* And however great a change the Greek language may have undergone with respect to the meaning of many'words, we have seen by a reference to classic usage and the practice of the ancient church, that baptizo (which is still vernacular to the modern Greeks,) has under- gone no change. This testimony of the Greeks appears to me decisive, and l do not see how any candid man can r(je(;t it. Finally, it must bo admitted, by the most learned of all de- nominations, that from the Apostolic aire downwards, we have an unbroken chain of evidence showing that immersion, and immersion only, was practised by all christians f)r 1330 years ; and in England for 1600. The o?ily deviation, or exception to this practice, was in cases of extreme sickness, when pouring or affusion was practised as a substitute. This was dot;e on the ground that baptism was essential to salvation ;-\ and though it was not regarded as regular bii)tism, yet it was hoped that by the indulgence of God it would be accepted, and the saul of the person, who thus received baptism, would be saved. — This was resorted to only from the exigency of the ciise, im- mersion not being practicable; an I it was never defended, in the early ages of the church, on the ground of tradi ion, or Apostolical example, or of a license from the Head of the Church. It may be interesting, and perhaps edifying to some of our * Mr. Robinson the historian, very wisely remarks : " The testimony of the Greeks, is an authority for the meaning of baptizo, infinitely preferable to that of European lexicog- raphers ; so that a man who is obliged lo tru.st liuman testimony, and wlio baptizes by im- mersion because the Greeks do, understands a Greek word exactly as the Greeks them- •elKes understand it ; and in this case the Greeks are unexceptional guides." tThe first cast^ of Clinic Baptism that Dr. Wall could discover, was the case of No- ratian, about A. D. "iSO. Euscbius records: that this man while unbaptizel, fell into a dangerous disease, and because he was very like to die, was baptized in the bed where he lay, or water poured all over him, " if that might be t( rmeJ liaptism." The validity of this baptism w.iS aftfrwards called in question, and the church was divided on the subject. Sprinkling or affusion for baptism, has been the cause, from first to last, of many contentious and divisions in the church. 49 friends here, as well as yourself, to know how rantism (sprinkling) is su;-,ported in our country. As a spccintien, in addition to those made by Dr. Dwight ;ind Bnrncs, we cite the following unfounded assertions, a part of vviiich are taken from Dr. Miller's work on Baptism, and the residue are a specimen of what are contained in a tract, entitled "The Scripture Di- rectory to Baptism," " by a Layman:" " Thus far, says he, " we have, pursued our inquiry : and after a careful perusal and exauiinatron of every partof the scriptures which Iiad any kind of bearing upon tliis sul>jr-ct, we Imve never licen a!)le to tiiij any pre-ept, warrant, example, or practice, of Clirisi or his Apostles, wliicli look any thing like, dipping. And froui all tlie l;ooks we have ever read upon the suhjert, on any side, we have never seen a quotation from any of the fathers or writers of any agk, that there was ever any such thins thouglit of, hintel at, or written al>out, as im.mersion, in any place, or any church, until ahout the. beginning of the IwelfUi century ; when a few in-'ividuals l)eg.in to think some new mode better than the old." And again: "They [the Baptists] never have, and they never can find a single case in the New Testament, nor in all the wriUngsof the Fa- thers, nor in any autlientic history for nearly one thousand years after them, where it is stated positively, that any churi;h in any place ever did dip or immerse a single person." For aught we know to the contrary, this Layman may he oneof Ur. Miller's- pupils ; f.ir the Doctor, in his work on Baptism, published in 1835, says: " The.'e is not tl;e smallest probabiliiy, that he (John) ever baptized an individual in this mannerl (by immersion,)" p. p;). " 'I'he Siicre.l writirs have not siated a single fact, or em- ployed a single term, which evinees that they cither preferr»d or practised immersion in a sivGi.E case;" p. 09. " Immersion i-" not even tlie couuuon inianingof the word" baptize; p. 84. "All impartial juilgcs— by wliicl' I mean all of the moit profound and mature Greek scholars, who are mither ti)ef)logi,iPs or sectarians— agree in pronounc- ing, that the term in question imports tlie application of water by sprinkling." p. &5. "This is the man," says the Christian Review, "that speaks ex cathedra in his book, from the beginning to the end, using such terms as 'i can assure you, my friends,' and brands with ignorance and infamy, those who maintaiii the contrary." My friend, will you please contrast these atTirmalions with the testimony of the Pedobaptist writers we have quoted, (among whom may be named such men as the Reformers, Martin Lu- ther and John Calvin, and Doctors Wall, Whitby, Campbell, Knapp, McKnight, BloomfieliJ, Neander, and Prcfesaors Hahn, Person, Lange, Tholuck, (Mshausen, Stuart, &c., together with all the Greek lexicographers,) and then it is presumed, he will be enabled to judge on whicli side truth lies. It is to be re- gretted, that Dr. Miller and the " It, — If this washing is included in the idea of immer- sion it is presumed that it does. Take for illustration the case of Naaman (2 Kings 5 : 14). 1 he man of God commanded him to go wash or bathe (lousai) himself seven times in the river Jordan, and he went down and dipped (ebaptiaato) himself, etc.* Here the word haptizo is translated dipping and washing is evidently included in, or is the consequence of that dipping. Now all that ] am bound to prove here, is that it is possible, for the word hapt'zonlia from haptizo, to mean immerse. "Here" says Prof. Ripley, " are two instances of ^vashing (so called); the first, a matter of constant occurrence ; the second, an observance performed after returning from market. * * * If, ordinarily, the hands were washed before eating, without re- gard to the employment whi'-.h had preceded, the reader is pre- pared to hear that after returning trom a mixed crowd of people, where he was exposed to various occasions of defilement, some- thing different from, or additional to, this wasiiing, (to wit,) a more formal and thorough ablution would naturally be per- formed." " In the second place, two different Greek words are em. plo5-cd to express the washing in the two difierent cases. The former is the word usually employed when only wasiiing a part of the body, as the hands, face, or feet, is performed ,• the latter is used to denote the washing of the whole body by immersion. f * As it regards baptizo being translated to wash in this and two or three other places in the New Testament. I would introduce by way of explanation tlie language of an Epis- copalian clergyman, iu a letter to Bishop iloadly. "The writers of the New Testament nialte use of two words, baptizo and Louo, which leads us to the precise meaning of bap- tism, the latter of whicli is almost the constant word of tlie Septuagint, iu tliose very nu- merous places where batliing or wasiiing the whole body is connnauded, in contradiction to every other practice of washing the hands or feet, or sprinkling or washing of clothes. Lousetai uiluti, occurs no less than eleven times in one chapter, where bathing the body is appointed on sundry occasions, as adistinct rite from washing the hands or garments, &c. (fcc. Since tlierefore, lousetai udati used times without number in the Old Testament, never imports less than bathing or washing the whole body ; it follows, that baptism means the same, when it is expressed ' by our bodies washed in pure water.' " t Robinson's Lex. Baptizo ; def. 2 : remark, comp. Nipto. 54 The passage should be translated thus: "For the Pharisees and all the Jews except they wash their hands oft eat not ; and v/hen they come from the market, except they Ja<7ie themselves they eat not. This was the opinion ofVatabulus a distin- guished Professor of Hebrew at Paris. He says, on this pas- sage, ' they cleansed themselves more carefully from defilement contracted at the market, to wit : by not only washing their hands, but even by immersing their body.' Tor these numer. ous immersions, the Jews had the most convenient arrange- ments, and their mode of dress Mould render the practice less burdensome than it would be with us." Grotius, on this passage says: "They were more solicitous to cleanse themselves from the defilement they had contracted in the market, and therefore, thej' not only washed their hands, but immersed their whole bodies." With him agree Beza, Fritsch, and others. Dr. Gill, on this passage, gives us a quotation from Maimonides, a Jewish writer, who it is presumed, knew something of the Oriential customs and practices of his couutrj'nien. " Washed in a laver wliich holds forty seahs of water, which are not drawn, every defiled man dips himself, and in it they dip all unclean vessels, as cups, pots, &.c." .ludson, in Ins sermon on baptism preached at Calcutta, in 1812, says: "It will not ap- pear strange to you that the Jews, on returning from market, immersed themselves ; for you are acquainted with the custom of these eastern countries, and witness the frequent ceremonial immersions of the natives."' Olshausen, in his Commentary, says : " Babtizesthai is different from niptesthai ; the former is, here the immersion and rinsing of the food purchased at the market, to- remove from it any impurity it may have contracted ; the latter includes the idea of rub- bing, as in every form of washing." " Kuinol and Meier agree with Olshausen, that it was the ' food brought from the market' that was said to be ' baptized.' " Others, as Light- foot and Schottgen, show, from the Raljbinical writers, that there were two modes of wash- ing the hands among the scrupulous Jews, and believe, that here (Mark 7: 4,) the immer- sion OF the Hands is to be understood." It appears that in either of the above e.xposi- tions, baptism was regarded as immersion instead of washing. Pedohaptist. — My friend, your explanations and testimonies thus far, are as explicit and abundant as any one could ask for. But as I did not quote the latter clause of the 4th verse, I .should like to hear you explain that. "The washing of cups and pots and brazen vessels and ita&Ze^" (couches). Is it not altogether improbable, that the couches (for so the word ren- dered tables should be translated) on which they reclined at meals, should be immersed ? Baptist. — In reply to your question, I would remark, that the learned Prof. Robinson of Anilover, gives his views of the mode of washing by quoting. Lev. 11 : 32, — showing that he understands all those articles were "put into water." Things which had been defiled by the touch of a dead body were re- quired by the Lcvitical law to be cleansed by " being put into water." Judson, on this passage, aays : " What is more probable than that they abused the first institution of this ceremony, by superstitiously immersing a variety of articles, not inclu- ded in the divine command." And it is historically certain that they did this. Maimon- dics, the commentator, quoted above, states that it was a traditionary custom of the Jews, 55 to immerse ali vessels rcceivedof a Gentileor an Israelite cjesigued for eating, driuking> and cooking, before using them. Sec liis testimony as given hy Gill on tliis passage, Again, he says: '■ \Vhyrever in the law, washing of the Hesh, or of the elutlies are men- tioned, it means nothing else than the dipping the whole body in a laver." He als« states that, "abed that is wholly defiled, if a man dips it part by part, it is pure. A pillow or bolster of skin, he must dip them, and lift them up by the fri/iges." "Scaliger and Mis- neh,"agree in this, that the Jewish washings of the body, clothes, cups, tables, brazen ves- sels, beds, r there was only one short sermon delivered by Peter immediately after 9 o'clock A. M. — (see Acts 2d,) — so that the principal part of the day was before them. Since, therefore, th 're were places, water, and time, sufficient, the twelve Apostles * According to Josephus, this fountain " had water in it in abundance." — Jewish War,. Book 5lh, Chap. 4th., 62 ■might have performed the work in three hours,* and that too, without leaving the prucincta of the templo, for there was the molten sea, the ten oilier lavcrs and "dipping room;" (conven- iences abundant for their accommodation.) But there is strong probability, that all the administrators were present on that me- morable occasion, (see the previous chapter,) if so, there were 82 baptizers, and consequently not more than 37 candidates for each. That being the ciLse, they might all have been baptized in twenty. live minutes. The pool of Bethesda alone was suf- ficient to accommodate all the administrators, etc. And final- ly, the 3,000 might have been baptized in private baths. ^s"the biu'den of ■pi-oof lies on those that object to immer- eion, can they prove that immersion could not possibly be practised on this occasion?" Hear the language of Prof. Stu- art : '*It is true, we do not know that baptism was performed by the apostles only, nor that all of the 3,000 were baptized before the going down of the sun.f The work may have ex. tended into the evening ; and so many being engaged in it, and more time being given, there is a probability that the work shouKl have boen performed, although immersion was practised." " Suppose, however, there were a difficulty in explaining this baptism, inasmuch as the notice is very summary, is there any thing better than 7nere conjecture to show, that they were eprinkludf As tha exact arrangements for this baptism are not knovvn, all that is necessary is, to " show whwt 7nlght he done in various ways, so that there could be no necessity of departing from the usual rite of baptism." * * "But is there any thing in the whole Bible to prove, that it was by sprinkling?" Why was there not some indication in the lan- guage of the narrator, to advertise the reader of so remarka- ble a de[)arture from the customary baptism? In the contro- versy between the Eastern and Western Church, why did not *The orrlinance has becu frequently aJminibtercd iu less ratio of time than this. We have seeuforty candidates immersed by one administrator at the rate of about two a min- ute. t"It is no where asserted in the scriptures that three thousand were either conveut- KD or BAPTIZED OH this diij" (the day of Pentecost.) We are not informed whetlier fifty or FIVE FUNDRED, or MORE Were BAPTIZED on this occasion. We are simply told, in refer- ence to those wlio were then ' pricked in their hearts,' w!io 'gladly received the apostles' word,' that THEY were baptized. 'And,' we are further informed, 'the same day there were added' — not were baptized — ' about 3,000 souls.' The j-criptures also warrant us ia saying, that the apostles, and the one hundred and twenty disciples, mentioned in the pre- ceding chapter, were all present ; and as many others in Jerusalem, and in that region, as could convenieiitly be at the feast of Pentecost." — (Fuller on ccunmunion : note, p. 71.) Bloomfield says: " We need not suppose all [of the 3,000] were b.iptized.] Dr. Starek, court pre.icher at Darmstadt well remarks, tliat, " In the history of those converted by Peters preaching on the day of Pentecost, there is nothing wliieli compels us to infer, that all these were baptized on the spot, and on the same d.iy, which is tal^en for granted by uU those who would prove sprinkliiig, from this passage.," 63 the Romans teuch the Greeks the true meaning of the Greek word, and show them, that the re-baptism ofa " sprinkled chris- tian" was an insult to Peter and the three thousand? Why did not Cyprian, when called upon by Magnus to decide, whelh- er persons who were not immersed in their baptism, were legiti- mate christians, instead of reasoning from the Old Testament, and from the nature of the symbolical act, settle the matter at once, bv saying, that the apostles, on the da}' of Pentet^ost, and in private houses and prisons, baptized by sprinkling or pour- ing ? He lived too near the apostles to dream of such a thing. There is not a trace of sucJi an opinion in all the Latin or Greek Fathers, though they often had occasion to discuss the validity of baptism that was notbyiimnersion.. Could Novatian, Cyprian, Cornelius, Chrysostom, and others, have neglected so capital a point in discussing the validity of pof^nn^ in clinic baptism, if things were actually as Pedobaptist writers conjecture ? Brct- schneider, in his Theology, vol. 2, p. 686, felt himself compel- led to say, the "conjecture, that the three thousand wore sprink- led, is too much of a conjecture to be trusted." Schneckenburgcr, in his Proselyte Baptism, inquires : "Did the apostles atlministor bap- tism to the three thousand in one day, or did the three thousand perform a lustration upon ■ themselves?" and in a note, "this is more probable than that they were sprinkled." What must be the impression oftliat erudit critic, who had made deeper researches thau any other man living into the nature of .Jewish lustrations, to induce hiin thus to maintuiu that of all conjectures, that spriukling is one of the most improbable." " But there are facts on record in the history of the church, which remove every difficulty in the waj- of the immersion of the entire three thousand." "On the great sabbath of the Easter festivl the IGth day of April, A. D. 403, CryROstom, with the assistance of the clergy of his own church, baptized by iiuniersioii 300 persons. Ves, one man assisted only by his presbyters, in oue day and in one place, immersed 3000 pei>- sons ; and that too, notwithstanding the christians were twice attacked by furious soldiers, the enemies of Chrysostom." " So in 490, Remigius, bishop of Rheims, baptized in one day, by immersion, Clovis, king of France, and three thousand of his subjects. I will only remark, in relation to the above historical facts, that the baptisms referred to were administered on easter day, to commemorate the resurrection of Christ ; and it was common to reserve all the baptisms of the year for that day. Hence, the number of caa- didates who carae|forward at the same time."* In view of the above facts and the examination of alleged improbabilities,' I ask what right we have to depart from the observance of the primitive rite of baptism, as prescribed by our S.ivior? Pedobaptist. — Your explanations and remarks, showing what might he done, and the conclusion you have drawn from the fact that none of the Latin and Greek fathers ever referred to * Christian Review, Vol. 3, pages 91, 92, 64 the baptism on the day of Pentecost, to justify pouring in clinic baptism ; together with the import of the term, and the histori- cal facts you have cited, (which by the by, I never heard of be- fore,) seem to me abundantly sufficient, to render it not only possible, but altogether probable, that the 3000 were immersed on the day of Pentecost. But then what do you think of the re- marks of Prof. Stuart, the man you have so often quoted to for- tify your positions ; he says, " For myself, I cheerfully admit, that baptizo in the New Testament, when applied to the rite of baptism, does, in all probability, involve the idea, that this rite was usually performed by immersion, but not always. I say usually a.T\d not always, for to say more than this, the tenor of some of the narrations, particularly in Acts 10: 47,48. 16: 32, 33, and 2 : 41, seem to me to forbid. I cannot read these examples, without the distinct conviction, that zm,me?-5Z07i was not practise I on these occasions, but washing or affusion.^^ Baptist. — The passages above referred to, we balieve we have shown to be entirely consistent with the idea, that immer- sion was practised. But where are the clear evidences that produced the *' distinct conviction" in his own mind, that on these occasions immersion was not practised. Has Prof. S., exhibited these evidences, if so, what are they ? 'I'he reader will doubtlessly be surprised, to learn that these evidences is nothing better than mere conjecture. Indeed it could not pos- sibly be otherwise, for their is noihine; said in these passages, touching the manner in which the rite was performed. ]s it not passing strange, that a man of Prof. Stuart's attainments, should consider mere conjectural evidence sufficient to warrant him, in deviating from what is in all probibility the require- ment of Christ. Again hear the Professor's admission, when speaking of the circumstances connected with the administi'a- tion of the rite in the New Testament. "I find none, I am quite ready to concede, which seems absolutely to determine that immersion was not practised." Since then, Prof. Stuart admits that immersion was, in all probability, the primitive rite of baptism; and since he is quite willing to admit, that there is nothing in the circumstances of baptism that absolutely ex- eludes the idea, that immersion was practised ; and since he has not, nor cannot prove, from a single example in the New 'J'estament, that baptism is any thing other than immersion ^ — •• we hold that every principle of fair interpretation, requires him to explain the doubtful passages by those that are clear ; to extend the usual meaning of the word to every passage in which that word occurs, unless there is something in the cir- 65 cumstances which undeniably demands a different interpreta- tion." Pedobapiist. — 1 must say, I know not how to reconcile Prof. Stuart's practice with his concessions, but as this is not my business, I will present some objections to immersion, which are thought by many deserving of particular attention ; but before I proceed to this, (should you deem this a proper time,) I should be pleased to hear you advance your reasons (which you prom- ised,) for not believing the affirmation so confidently made by Pedobaptists, that the legitimate meaning of haplizo is to wash and cleanse as well as immerse. Baptist. — We have already alluded to the fact, that washing may frequently be regarded as a consequential meaning of hap. tizo ; as the thing to be washed, is generally dipped in water.* The same remark may be made with regard to cleanse. The case of Nam-nan has been instanced (see page 53, and the note.) But as it is confidently asserted, that baptizo signifies to cleanse and wash, etc. I would ask, " does baptizo mean to cleanse, when we speak of baptizing a bucket into a fountain, in order to fill it ? or when we speak of baptizing a ship, so that it becomes engulphcd in the sea? Does it mean to cleanse or wash, when Plutarch relates that the soldit-rs baptized wine from casks with cups in order to drink ? — that a general bap- tized his hands into blood and wrote an inscription — that weapons were found, two hundred years after the battle of Or- chomenus, baptized in the earth? Is this its meaning in Jose- phus, where hesays that Simon bapcized the sword into his own throat? or in [Aquiia.] Job 9 : 31. "Thou shalt baptize me in the mire," or in Hippocrates, where he orders a blister to be baptized in milk and Egyptian ointment ? — Surely, these bap. tisms do not endorse the assertion, that baptism is a gene- ric term and imports the application of water in any manner. These examples with others tliat might be quoted, show thiit baptizo as well as bapto, signifies to dip or immerse and has no allusion to water u'haiever, except that element is expressed or implied. Pedohaptist. — It must, I believe, be conceded by all unpreju- diced men, who will examine the evidences you have produced, that to wash :ind cleanse are not the primary, literal meanings of the word baptizo; indeed, I do not see how any candid man *Alt)ngiiig says-. "The word h.iijtism — properly signifies immersion; improperly, by ametonomy of the end, washing." ISeza. — " To Dliiiige into, to dip into and take out again, whence Washing doth follow." Alstedius. — "To immerse and not to wasll eicept by consequence." These are the testimonies of learned Pedobaptists. 66 can doubt this, for in most of the cases of baptism you have instanced, it is impossible to take the meaning of either wash Of cleanse, out of the passages. The same might bo said with regard to sprinkling, pouring, 'vetting, &c. But, as I intima- ted to you, that I had a number of objections to present against immersion as the only baptism, which, by the advocates of sprinkling, are deemed weighty, I will proceed to mj' purpose, by saying: that "Christ intended his people should be free from inconvenient and burdensome rites ; but immersion vrould often be inconvenient, and sometimes impracticable." What, 1 would ask, must be done in such cases ? Baptist. — It is true the numerous rites and ceremonies of the Jewish dispensation, together with the time, trouble, toil, and expense involved in this obsiu'vance, are abolished. Since the observance of these burdensome rites and ceremonies are done away, the founder of the gospel dispensation has institu- ted only two external rites, baptism and the Lord's Supper. — Though he has made " immersion as essential to baptism, as roundness is to a ball," " shall we therefore charge him with imposing upon his people a yoke like that which rested upon the children of Israel, too grievous to be borne?" The mere mention of the "inconveniences" attending the scriptural observance of this rite, causes those to smile, who have tested the weight of this objection by actual experience. As it regards the impracticability of immersion in some countries, and, in certain circumstances, in all countries facts will abundantly shov/ to a reflecting mind that this objection is of little value to its possessor. Immersion is practised at this day amid the torrid suns of Asia and Africa, and the perpetual snows of Siberia. And whenever life or health would be en- dangered by the administration of this ordinance, it should be postponed or entirely omitted. Should the providence of God deprive any one of this privilege, then it would be the duty of that person devoutly to acquiesce in this providence. " A willing mind is accepted of God according to what a man hath." If a person have not the physical ability or opportunity, to ob. serve this ordinance, then of course it is not required. The privation in this case would be no greater, than in many others where christians are denied by sickness or other causes the privilege of attending the public worship of the sanctuary, and of laboring for the conversion of t'.inners; or, v/here one is " pre- vented by the loss of sight from obeying the command to search the scriptures." Pcdobaptist. — Although this answer of yours is perfectly sat- 67 kfacfory, yet in some respects your denomination are q'liiein, consistent wiih themselves, for insiance, "il,eir practice with ■ respect io the Lords fenpper, is inconsistent with their strict adherence to the primitive mode of bapiism. 'J'hey do not ob- serve I he requisitions of Christ with regard to ' ihe time' or ' the place,' or ' the postaie,' of celebratini^r ,he ordinanre of the supper— nor do they use the same k-iad of"' bread' or ' wine '" Bapti^t-My friend, in reply I would say, the command of our Lord, " THIS do ye m remembrance of me,'' — " had no reference whatever to tha circumstances of ceiebratin"- the «i)p- per; it referred to the eatm^ of brea;l and the drinkin'^r of win^ in commcmoratjon of his deaih, without any allusion^ to time ' ' place,' Of ' mar.ner.' So in relaiion -o baptism ; Christ com'- iDands his followeis to be Loptized [imnerfed,] witfout refer. en ce to time place or manner. In each case, ue aie bound to do just luhat he-commanded. In the Lord's Supper we <,,e com manded to Partake of bie.d and wine, in grateful rememhrance of Christ ; in baptism we are commanded to perfurm the act REPRESENTED-^?/ the word hoptizey* This objpctionis gromidless; ic rests en the assumption thai ^mmcrs^on is only a circumstance of baptism, whde it has been already shown, it is net a circumstance attendin'^ it buf be longs to the nature of baptism itself." ' Finally, tins objection is a plain admission that the primi'ive baptism was immersion. Fedobaptist.—W ahcni attempting to replv to your very a Die and appropriate answer, Iwill present my n'ext objection" "Im mersion is unfavorable to collected serious thou.^ht in the per son who submits to it ; and /nakes on the spectators an impres- sion adverse to religion." ^ Baptist -In reg-^idw the first part of the objection, mul- titudes many of whom were iimid and dehcaie females " Uie'^wa,!;'' f'^^^fl^'"^^"^' mifauliering step, gone down into the wate , and been buried xoith Christ ia baptism, and now stand ready ,o '■ testify to the serene composure; and ihe tender solemniiy of their feelings," and the peace of mind ,hey enioyec on that occasion. The ordinance ,s so beautifully emblematical of the fc,unda.,on of the believer's hope, the death and resurreo^ tion ofChnst, and consequently so full of " rich and precious in- struction, as lo impart a " sustaining, elevatmg power '' which causes lis subjects to rise superior to the infirmities which er them "''"™'^^"^^^'' ^^'^"'^ F^bably disarm and overpow- *Jfroi. jcwcu. •68 With reference to ths latter part of the objection, that the impression produced on the spectators, is unfavorable to religion, must surely be regarded as the offspring of prejudice ; as it is every where conuadicted by experience. Who that ever witnessed the administration of this ordinance, did not deeply feel that the scene was most solemn and sacred. Ihevenerated divines Amhew Fuller and Dr. Steadman state, in their own account of their lives, that the impressions they received on seeing persons baptized, i. e. inimersed, were the means, under God, of their conversion. " Thousands of others, also, have been led, by the same metms, to embrace the Savior, who was thus set forth before their eyes, as ' buried and risen again' for their redemption." But where have you ever met with the ac- count of a person who received his first permanent religious ini*" pressions from witnessing the sprinkling of an infant or adult? '' Some have even gone so far as to speak" of the rite of im- raersion as " indecent." It would be well for such persons lo reflect, ihat if there had been no departure from the primitive rile of baptism, as confessedly practised by tha Apostles, and the Christian world for many centuries, such a sentiment as this, would never have found a '• local habitation" in the mind of any disciple of Christ. It would also be well to remind such persons, that they should be cautious how they urge this senti- ment, lest they be found guilty of stigmatizing an ordinance of Chris', with the epithet " indecent." If Christians cherish such sentiments and feelings as these against this gospel ordinance, how indecent, in thfeir view, must he be who instituted it, and the Christian world who practised it generally for fifteen centu- ries, and even those who now contend for its observance. Pedobaptist.—My friend, a sense of duty induces me to ac- knowledge that you have thus far answered the objections pre- sented very conclusively. But the hour has arrived when my presence is absolutely required at home. P. is unnecessary for me to say, ttiat I have been much gratified as well as edified with this long conversation. But as I have man}' more objections to urge against your peculiar sentiments, with your permission, I should like to lesume this conversation, at as early an opportunity as will suit your convenience. Baptist — If agreeable, please call at an early hour to-morrow evening. I shall then probably be at leisure. CONVERSATION RESUMED. Baptist. — My dear sir, I am gratiiierl to see you ao early ; es pecially as I am at leisure and yo'i have infonned me ihat you liave more objections to piesent I hope I may beabK; to answer them in a salisfictory manner. Will you please to proceed? PeIobaptist.—\ly brother, the objecmn I now present, is thought, by many Pfidob^ptists, to be insuperable. "There is no express command in the New Testament limitirfg us to immer- sion. Had it been the desig i of Christ that his people should confine themselves exclusively to this mode of administration; why did he not so plainly make known his will, that there could be no mistake about it." .Ba^Jis^.— Surely, this objection can have no weight with you, or any one, except those, who will not admit what we have ascertained by definite and irrefragable evidence, that the only proper, legitimate import of the term baptizo, is immerse, over- whelm. If this lias not been satisfactorily determined, then it is absolutely impossible to ascertain the meaning of any Greek word. — When under the law they were required to sjirinkle blood and water upon the leprous person, and to pour oil upon his head, it app-^irs that no farther explanation was necessary. The words pour and sprinkle were so definite, that they could not reasonably misapprehend their meaning. Baptizo is equally as definite in its import, as either of the above words, and as explicit and unequivocal in iis meaning as our English word im- merse. Prof. Stuart cheerfully admits that it does in all probn ability signify to iin nerse. Now ailmit'Jng the truth of this concesjion, I ask, what right has any man or class of men to go contrary to what is in all probability the requirement of Christ? For to suppose that Jesus Christ used words out of their proper signification, is neither mor3 nor less than to suppose that he intended to mislead and deceive his hearers, a conclusion at which every pious heart revolts We are led then, to the irresistible conclusion; that when Christ said to the Apostles "Go teach all nations baptizing," &c. he commanded them to immerse believers or disciples ; lor we are very confident that that IS the import of the phrase. Again, the act of immersion 70 cannot bu expressed in the Greek langimj^e more plainly than^ it is in the New T.istam-^nt. Such bein'^ the f.ict, we must conclude, _that Christ intended that we' shouM be immersed when he commanrleil ns to be biptized. The word he employ- ed to represent this ordinance, is as definite and specifif^, in its import, as any word in tho language * Should the Rinlist object to this, " we wonll arrrne on this point wirh hiin as * The ioUowiaij Greek words and iiieir coaipjuads, most ol which occur in the Septu i^ini of the Old and the Greek ol the New Testament are used generally "with reference to ihe application of water for various purposes, viz: Rnino, Raniizo,Cheo, Echeo, Nipto, Louo, Pluno, Bapto and Baptizo, Agnizo, K;tthairo, and some others of less note. Now in so many wc rds used in reference to water, is there not nne of them of such definite import, as to determine ore particular application or use of wa- ter'?" Let us examine the use of some of these words in Scripture. 1. "Spiinkle and its derivatives occur- 62 limes in the Old and New Testament:- 31 times it is /aino in the Greek, 23 times the compounds of c/ieo, and 8 time> other words, but not once bapto or baplizo. 2. " To potir with its derivatives occurs 152 times: — 94 times it i.s chco and its compounds, 58 times other -words and phrases. Of these there are 27 varieties, but not once bapto or baptizo. 3. " To ?ra.s/i occurs 139 times:— 38 times it i? «i;>/(7, face, hands, or feet; 49 times, louo, the body; 44 times, phmo, g irments, or such like- 5 times, buplo or baptizo the effect of imm.eision, 3 times dieo and chruzs melapho Ileal ly. 4. " To dip, occurs with its deiivatives, 23 limes:— Once it is moluno, properly to steiivi, as when Joseph's coat was stained, our translation " dipped in the blood ol a kid." It is -21 times bo-pto or baptizo. Never once r 1710 to sprinkle, t'/co to pour, ?w/Jj to wash the face, hands or feet Ittio to wash the body, plunu to wash garments, or any of their compounds or derivatives. 5. " To plvnge occurs but once, and then it is bapto. 6. " Tebel or taval in the Hebrew Old Testament occurs 17 limes:— In the Sepluagiiit it is 16 times translated by bapto or baptizo, once by .moluno. to dye. Junius and Tremmelins translated it 1(3 times by ti7i;" "Thou b:sprinklest the leuer with tears," whi jh ought to have b^en rendered! was'). A similar expres- sion is rendered to wnsh in he Gospel. "She ivasked his feet with her tears." Again, this definition is ob ained bv pa-sing the word through two languages, and then taking about the twentieth definition. Now, I object to this principle of interpretation. Pedobaptist. — My brother, whv do you object to this rule of interpreta- tion'? [suppose it is bacau.se it gives besprinkle as one definition ol bap- tizo. Baniist. — I object to it not on that account; bu' because it proceeds upon the principle that the mjst remjie dellnition assigned to a word by Lexi- cons, afrer passing it through one or two languages, is as truly the lit^.ral import ot the word as the first or primirv signification. Now, on this principle, I affirm that it is utterly impossible to ascertain the literal mean- ing of most words. To illustrate this, let us pass the word dip into the French language, and then b ick into the English agiin. The French according lo Boyer have given this word four definiiions to express its various uses. Dip. Tremper, plon'.jer, mouiller, engager. Trem'iei\ to dip, soak, imbue, bathe. Plonger, to dip, duck, immerse, pi unze, overwhelm, cajt inlo, stab. MouiUer, to anchor, drop anchor, cast anchor, &c. Engager, to pawn, mortgage, pledge, enjrage, enlist, fight. Suppose now, that a gentleman employed as translator for one of the French Journals, should in translating -in account, from one of our Re- ligious periodicals, of a Clergyman's alt fpiTig- a man on the Sabbath, in- stead r the same reason then, Univcrsalists who follow their ex- ample ought to be jnstified in rendering sumi 5, during lile. And Pe- dobapiisis cannot, consistently, say aughi ai^amsi them lor rendering it thus, so long as they inierprei baptizn to sprinkle. It appears evident to me that if we were lo carry out this principle of interpretation, it would not only destroy the philology and utility of our language, but involve us in a dilemma similar to that experienced by the builders of Babel, when their language was confound^^d. Hence we see the absolute neces- sity of adopting the purport of the rule oi interpretation, which I have before mentioned, viz : Tliat the primary, literd impurt if au^rd is alwmjs 75 toSetnkenr'st''etrwrnf, unless it can be shewn by conclusive evidence Ihrd such a merming could not p ssib/u h.-ve been intended by the avMor. Bv this rule, Pedub iptisis would find that baptizo means to" immerse ; and Urti- versalists, \.\\a.iaionios means efernnl. But if there is no certain evn'uenee that 'baptism i-s immersion, then there i-- no certain evidence that aionios is eternal or ev^e iastino:, or that pisleuo is to believe, or that a^apao is to love, or even that our English word di.p is to plunge or immerse. Pcdubaptist.— \hn\\exy willing, iny friend, to adtnit your rule of inierpretation, and also the general correctness of Vour illus'rwions going to show it,e ridiculous absurdity of pissinc^ a witid iliioiiirh uor or two languages, and then taking otie of its iTiosi di^iani lexi oufraphical definitions as it^ true ar.d iiierai import. Bui I will proceed with my objections. Fiof. Stuart, as 1 iiiesiiine you are aware, represents ihe Baptists as "break- ing (he cliurch in pieces by coniending for rites and forms.'' Is not this a faci.'' Baptist— W\\. a fact that the Biptist denomination have broken "ihe church in pieces, by coniending for rites and forms-:'?" This surely is a grave charge; and if true, they are certainly deserving of censure. Let. us ex^imine lliis charge, and see wheiher it can be sustained. Bjlh denominations mnmiain that the Lord's Supper bhoiili! be celebrated, and thai too, by bapized persons, and those believers: but neither party con- tends \h\„\ the ordinance is not celebrated, tinless the bread and wine all! partaken of m a reclining posture. Again, Uoih de- nominations contend for the right of b.tp'ism. The Bap'ists, that believers are the only fit recipients of the rite. The Pedo- baptists, not only that believers, but that tiieir inf\nt offspring are proper subjects of ihi.s ordinance; though the Bible and the voice of history are silent resp-ctmg it for th<' first two centuries. The Bnptists again con'end for the rite of imtnersion, which all ecclesia-tieal historians atfinn wa.^ the primitive form, 'i'he PedobapisLs, not only for the rite of imuiersion, but for the rile of sprinkling, and the rite of pouring, in direct opposition, as we have seen, to the import of the lerm, and thegeneral practice of the chuich for fifteen cenmnes. Here it wdl be observed, that the Pedobaptists con-end for at least three rites more than the Baptis's ; and neither of them found in the church, until about the commencement of the third century Now, wo are quite read\ to admit that what has broken the church in pieces, and caused various denominations, has been the the " contendino- for rites and forms," not instituted by Christ, nor found m :he Apostolic and primitive churches. On whom now does the heino'is sin of " breaking the church in pieces" rest? On those who obey the injunction, " earnestly contend for the faith onca 76 delivered to the saints," and who " keep the ordinances aa they were delivered?'' Or on those who. while they maintain that the Bible is a suffir/ienf, rule of faith and practice, and that the rile or form is nonessential] yex tenaciously adhere to a particular rite, which the most learned of their own denomina- tion admit, is unauthorized by the word of God? You will observe here, my friend, that while the Baotists contend for "onu Lord, one faith, and one baptism," the Pedobapiists con- tend for one Lord, two faiths, and at least three baptisms, Who no^v ''contend for rights and forms?'' Is it not evident that if all Christians h-Kl contended for " one Lord, one faith, one bapiisiu,'' that the church would not have been " broken in pieces?'' On whom then rests the iruilt of these divisions? Pedohaptist. — IVl y dear friend, you greatly mistake our views, when you suppose iliat we comend for "three baptism?.'' We conienii onlv for one baptism, anil that having several niodes, such as sprinkling, pouring, eic, we do not contend, however, that any mode is essential. But you contend for one particular form of baptisiTi. As I know not what you mean by our cori- tending for " two friitlis " I shoidd like to hear you explain that. Bo.pt,ist. — We contend that personal failh in the subject, is an indispen- sable prerequisite to baptism. You contend tor this, in a part'of itiose \vh(jiTi you bap:,ize, (sprinkle) and tlie oih'rsyou sprinkle on another faith, i. e. the laithoi the parent. These are the two faiths ofvvhich we spoke. . Asii regards modesof bapti-ra, my brother, youmu4 either contend for " ab iptism that has ?j mode, or a baptism that is mode and noih'ing but mide,' "or a baptism that has many mode'<." If for the first, then you must contend fora nonentity; since there can be ' no external rite, with- out a mode of existence " IC for the second, it becomes a question of im|ioriance to know "what that mode is; for without that mode we have no b.iplism." If for the third, i.e. a " bipiism that has many modes," such "as washing, sprinklinir, pouring, e'.c, then the candidate must be immersed, poured, sprinie an arsumei t from r naloey in favor of sprinkling or pouring. In sealing a letter, ihe wax is applied to only a sma'l part. Hence in bap- tism the water should be applied to only a small pan, and there is no- more propriety in dipping a man in water, than there is in dipping a letter in sealing wax. Baptist — The position ynw have taken here for granted, lliat the Gospel dispensation ol giace is a contmuanon of the Jew- ish, is wholly assuiipcl, and carrnol be pioved We have shown that biiptifiTi did not come in the rooir. of circmncision ; it lollows of course, that ii rnnsi belong- to a new and disunct dispensation. Many Pedobaptisis affirnn that circnincision and baptism ate seals of ihe covenant of grace ; but the irmh is, ihe Script nres no where teach us that either the one or the other is the seal ol any covenant. But they teach us that the sign or mark of circutncisioD which Abraham received, was to him a seal of the righteousness of i at fn\\h, lo/iich he had before he was circumcised.* Now, the oljecl of this appears to have been, to show that he was to be the spiritual father of all those that believe, and of no others, whether cirrun)cised or not. Hence circumcision could no' have been a seal of righteousness to his descendants, for they were cirriinicised in then inf.incy. Again this is the only place in the Bible, where circumcision is called a sign or seal of righteousness, and it was thai to Abraham and to no one else. *Roin. II. 7S •^V affirm thai baptism is a seal of New Testament blessin<-^ is an iin :,,„ "^'^^'"^'e New Testament account ot bapdsm, there is not -m inti! uiat.on a hmt or even any allnsion made by our Lord or his di ciSe; about baptism's being a seal. Still the Scrfpiur.s are not s Lnf e'nert' ZV'lTh J'*^^ ^l^'l'^'"^" ofGod ''are sealed untoThel;u?RSS: fS I y^- t?n ','"'' '^r ^'^■" '"''^'^ "'"h 'he Holy Sp/r Uof promi e^" ,7. I K P. *" "^^ '•■''''^' '^f ^Of' *'■''' a marked, permanent charac- Si:^-:;^/^Ei's:^"-^^^«-f '^^^^"^'^ "^^^-^^ioS\i^^ child a ^-fn" -^'r'^'^t' ""'"■^''^ '^^^>^' of b.ptismre2ene.atcslhe rwal CI m^^h f'^-^'i^'' bapti^u.al service in thJ Liiurgy „f the Epis- sP-fl . ■ '^ \^ '^^^'^ ^^'^"' '^ ™'?ht wiih proprieiy be styled a how c n ; 1'^ r' ^'' "^f- ^' ^^P'-^'-'ed to ihe soul ofinlants by ihis rite, vpf,f-?^i "l'''?^'^-^''"'' "and, ihe.efore, p(,sierioriu o, der " In nZ7nL''''T'^''' "'"' V ^' '^^ -^dminisle ed without faith, it i. both an injurious and gross profanation?' (C m. in Act. ,- : 3C. ) an^t'v'^f*^f1- '^'^'/"^"'''•'"^ '"^^■^^'' "^ ^Pnnkimg, drawn from the jSes^Kh^n ^'''"■'"'^"'/'"''"■'■^ °"'>^ ^'^'y "''•'t '^'e Bible no where VS in 1 IdSnT .f •' ''"'• ^fl"^-' ''"■■'^ ^'^«"'"^^' ^■^"^- 1" 'he ground. Aseal isfm °^ ""'' ^^^o»ld remark. ha. even analogy is against it. h' be ent?a rV'T''-^'''°-K ^''''' circumcision may-witi, proprie- be "er.^.'eJTsear"' ^''""^ '^'''' ' ^ ''^'''^ '^ "'^^-'^°' ^^■'"' '^">' P^^'P"'^'^' i^e^o5fl;5?«>;.— Whether infant baptism be a soal or rot Pedo^ baptists behf^vetbat very miich is ac-omplished by it, Ex- penence, thej .«ay, has shown that I^e ffreater nunibei of those, that become the subjects of divine prace, ap,l unite Avith the Church, wereiiaptized m infancy. Hence, thev infer that God Wesses this rite, therefore, it should be obsf-rved. ^a;?^?.s^— My friend, we think under the ble.sin- of God that the.se persons' conversion is to be nnpu'e,!, noi^to their infant baptism, but to their religious ed.icalion, for the Bible tpaches us thai men aie "sanctified throiiirh the truth." Jnhn 17- 17 ■19. 14:6. Act.., 4: 12 Rom. lo : 9, 14, 17. Thisviewof the subject IS confirmed by the fact, that experience has ^.oown that the greater number of those who join our churches, weie nenher baptized nor rantized in infancy, but, nevertheless, had pious parents, and received rejirrioiis instructions ttnd moral Uaininar. Now on this reho^ious cultivation Watered with devouf, prayer, God has promised to shed the glorious beams of his lieaveniy grace. But the idea that the mere exiernal rite of raniisR) does, in some mysterious manner, shed npjn the infant ^iieart the holy iniiuences of Christianity, is absurd. And the 79 annals of" the church show conclusively that those churches, which do not practise this iinaulhonzeil rite, are blessed witlT.as great accessions and as much .spiritual prosperity, when ihey use the divinely appointed means,* as those which dopractist it. Pedobaplist. — As [ have no testimony on hand to invdidate your argument, I will pass on to John's B.ipiism. To which dispensation do you asaiixn that, \Q.\hQ Jewish, or Christian? Do you believe that John's B.iptism is Christian Baptism? Baptist — I reprret that our time "^viU not allow ine to go into a thorough exammation of this suliject ; but it is not necessary, as it cannot materially affect I'he argument of baptism, whether John's baptism be assigned to the Jewish or Christian dispensa- tion. The argument derived- from it in favor of immersion, remains in either case substantially the same. We have shown, by the highest Pedobaplist authority, that the whole churclv practised immersion for 1300 years. Can \i beshoa-n that during this whole period, John's baptism or Min- istry was ever called in qnestioii, as not belonging to the Chiisiian or GosptM di=;pensation? PedobxpUst. — As John's baptism wa^; instituted, prior to the abrogation oi the law liy the death uf Chiist, (which act introduced the Christian dispensation,) therefore it must belong to the Jewish, instead of tne Gospel economy. Baptist. — My friend, it is evident that the insiiUilions of the Gospel, must have been given prioi' to Christ's d'ath or they could not havt- been sealed by his blood. In the law, you know, Moses first gave the )n'ecepis, then lie sprinkled the book wii.-i the blood ol the testament; in like manner in the Gospel, the two sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, were instiluied prior toLhe death of Christ, that ihey might be sealed wiih the hlood of the New Testament. Again, if the hypothesi.? be adopted that the Christian dispensation did not commence till the death of Christ, it throws the Lords Supper (which was instituted before his deatii) back into the old di>pen.sa!ion, and annihilates it, as a Chris- tian ordinance, and vetoes tlie baptism perfoimed under th.' direct au- thority and immediate notice of Christ. John, 3: 2-2, '26. 4: 1,2. Now as Chiist authorized his disciples to baptize before he gave his final commission, and as John's baptism and theirs appears to have been con- fined to the Jews, Matt. 10: 5, G, therefore the commission seems not to have been the origin, but a renewal and an extension of the command so as lo embrace all nations. Pcdobaptkst. — But, my brother, John did rot baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and ol the Holy Ghost, which is peculiar to the Gospel dispensation. Baptist.— Row do you know that he did not baptize in the name of the Trinityl Have you any evidence in the Bible to sustain this position'? When John told " the poople that they should believe on Him that should come after him," he was undoubtedly pre ching. Now, that John re- * As an illustration ot this fact, we need only point to the present flour- ishing condiiiou of the Baptist denominatioa in the United States, num- tiering over 6000 churches. 60 tei^ed his commission from God to baptize, there can be no doubt, and as the (ormnia used by him, is not recorded, the precise terms in which it was couched are not known ; therefore we have no proof that he did not baptize in the name of the Trini y. Pedobaptist.— B\il if John baptized in the named the Trinity, is it not inefTably absurd lo suppose thai in the account of this religious ceremony, so esseniiala feature should be omittedl Baptist.— No more absurd, my brother, than that the same omission should occur in the record of the Apostles' baptism. Pcdobaptist. — Have we any evidence that the Apostles baptized in the name of the Trinity ; and if so, what is that evidence"? Baptist. — Christ has made the doing of whatsoever he commands atest ot friendship to him. And as the com.mission which the Apostles receiv- ed, required them to baptize in the name of the Trinity, we conclude that they could nut have been hi\ frienc's and di.sciples, and still refuses |to obey iheir commission by forsaKing the formula which it enjoined. Pedobaptist. — It is said, Acts l0:48. 8; 16, that they were baptized " in the name of the Lord Jesus.'* Now if this be the case how could they have been baptized in the name of the Trinityl Baptist. — Now, my friend, to baptize in the name of Jesus, we think implies thcU it was ilone " by his authority, with his baptism, and unto his religion ; (making express mention ot the three persons ot the Trin- ity,) as he had clearly commanded in Matthew." (See Robinson's Cal- mei, An. Biiptism.) Peddbaptut — My dear brother, as you have given us your reasons for not assigning John' - baptism to the Jewish dispensation, it would De grat- ifying to me now to hear you present some ot your more prominent rea- scms, for believing that John's baptism is Gospel baptism. Baptist. — 1. It is evident that John's baptism did not belong to the Jewish economy, tor if it had, he would not have refused to baptize the Pharisees and Sadducees, who were of the seed of Abraham, because they brought fortti no " fruits meet for repentance." The various ablutions and sprinklings among the Jews, were generally performed before enter- ing on an office, or after some pollution, and even then without requiring any evidences of repentance. 2. Had John's baptism been contained in the Law of Moses, the Phar- isees would have known it; and the question our Savior put to them, " The baptism of John whence is it, from heaven, or ofmanl" They, without any hesitation, v/ould liave answered from heaven, instead of saying '' we cannot tell." because Moses received the liw from heaven. 3. It John's baptism differed materially from Gospel baptism, it would seem that our Savior, when commissiuning his disciples, would have pointed out that difference. 4. The positive declarations of Scripture prove that it belongs to the New Testament economy God declares by his prophet Daniel that in those daj^s he will " set up a kingdom," Dan. 2; 44, not one that has already been set up. Now that this kingdom, spoken of by Daniel, i. e. the Gospel dispensation of grace commenced with the preaching of John the Baptist, is as certain as the * It was the opinion ot many of the fathers and some councils that the Apostles sometimes baptized in ih? name of Jesus only, Ambrose affirms *' that though one persm only of the Trinity were expressed, the baptism is perfect. For," adds he, " whosoever names one person of the Trinity means the whole.'' 81 declarations of Scripture can make it. " The law and the prophet," s&js our Savior, " were until John, since that lime the Kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseih into it.'' Luke 16: 16. SeealsoLuke 17: 2i; Matt. 21 : 31, '3.— Mark recognizes ihe ministry ol John, as belonging to the Gospel dispensation. "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God,"' Mark I: 1. Scott, in his n jies on this passage says : This was in fact the beginning ot the Gospel, the introduction of the New Testament disp»*nsation, etc. Dr. Whitby says: " The history of John the Baptist, is styled ihe beg irmi7ig of the Gospel, because he began his oftice by preaching repentance, as the prepa- ration to receive it and faith in tho Messiah as the subject of it." Mat- thew Heni^y, (in loco : ) " The 3ospel began in John the Baptist. Peter begins from the baptism of John. ^ cts 1:22. "In John's preaching and Lrdinances," &c., " there was ihe begiiming of the Gospel [church. — See also Dr. Prideas's explanation of Daniel's prophecy of the t^evcn weeks. Coni.eci. 2, pp. 53, 54. Dr. Knapp, tiie learned Lutheran divine and Prof of| Theolo-^y, in the Universi y of Hale, says: '• If we regard the authority ol Christ and hi^ disciples, we must confess that the baptism of each [i. e. of Jesus and John] w.is one and the same inslilnte ol God himsell ; and that the design of each in administering it was one, ina.s- much a.- it had the same loakinsr to the repentance of the candidates and their faith in Christ, whether about to come or having ci«me alreadv." John 1: .11. :i: 27; Malt. 11: 12; Mark 1:4; LukeS: 3; Ads 19: 4." Dr. W. C. Brownlee of New Yoi k regards "the bapti.sm of John and of Christ" the same in their divine origin, the same in element, [water] the same in the doctrine of (aitli and repentance, Luke 3: A, the i nr; baptism, Eph. 4: 5." See his work on the principles of Quakers, pp. 225. With this agrees the testimony of Calvin, (Calvin's Insti., B. 4, c. i5.) — Again, our Savior during John's imprisonment, designates the ministry of John the Baptist as ihe beginning of the Gospel dispensation, and places the mailer beyond all contradiction, by saying: "From the days of John the Baptist until now, ihe kingdom of heaven sufTereih violence." But on ihe supposition that John's baptism was uoi Christian baptism, and that the Gospel dispensation did not commence till after Christ's death, all of John's and Christ's discipli'S, the twelve apostles, etc.. must have been re-bapiized, either c n the day of Pentecost, or subscqu'-ntly, before they could be admitted to the privi eges ol the Christian church; — a sup- position too absurd to be admitted for a moment." Where, I would ask, is there to be found on the sacred record an instance of such a repetition of bapiism? Pedobaptist.—\ am happy to inform you, that just such an instance is recorded in the 19th chapter of the Acts, where Paul re-baptized 12 of John's disciples. Baptist. — That these persons were re-baptized by Paul is not certain- It must be admitted that great and good divines are divided in opinion on this subject. Let us now quote and examine this pas>age as lecordedby Luke the historian. 1. " And it came to pass, that, while Apollos wasat Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus ; And finding certain disciples, 2 He said unto them, have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believetH And they said unto him, we have not so much as heard whether there beany Holy Ghost. 3. And he said unto them unto what then were ye baptized? And they said uno .Tol.n's bap- tism. 4. Then said Paul, Jonn verily baptized with the bapiism of re- pentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus ; and when they heard \^^ 82 Hiey were baptized iia the name of the Lord Jesus.* And when Paul had laid hi.s hands on them the tloly Ghost came on them and ihey s^pake with tongues and prophesied." (Acts 19: 1 -6.) Now the decision of this* que>iiun depends entirely upon ttie interpretation given of the wurds con- , iained in the fifth verse. "When they heard this they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." These wojds are understood by one party as the language oi Paul, and by the other of Luke the historian. We re- gard this as a part of Paul's description of the nature and design of John's baptism. Owe oppuneiUs contend that it is the language ot Luke the historian. This last interpretation it will be seen relers the language of (he fifth verse to the twelve disciples instead- of to the people mentioned in the fourth verS:'. Now if this interpretation is true, then tnese discr- ples must have been re-baptized in consequence of what Paul said to iheminlhefourthver.se. But what, i ask, is there in Paul's language calculated to convince them of the invalidity of their baptism"? He who can discover any thing must possess a keener vision than we can boast. Now 1 his', we deem an iniupeiabie cbjeciion to this inierpreiation. — And ;:gain, if there were any p rticiilar difference in the baptism of John and Christ, it would seem that Patil on this occasion was imperiously called upon 10 point it oiH. Oi.ce more, you will observe here ihat it is not said that Paul b;ipiized these disciples but that he laid his hands on them. Finally, we are not alone in our views on this passage, ior it is the opinion of Calvin, Beza, Pool, Robins and a host of Pedobaplist di- vines, that these disciples were not re- be. pi i zed. It is also worthy ol re- mark, that the view we have taken of the b.iptism of ihese disciples, is confirmed by the case of i\ptdlos. " This man was instructed in the way of the Lord ; and, being fervent in the Sjiirit he spake and taught dili- gently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John," — When Piiscilla and Aquila met with nim, they only expounded unto him the way of God more periectly; as we learn Irom Acts 18: 25, 2G. It is evident from this case, in connexion with the fact that there is no account, so far as we can learn.from Scripture, of anv one of the follow- ers of Christ, who were baptized bv John or the Apostles, prior to the giving of the final commission, that was afterwards re-baptized. Hence we conclude that John's baptism was essentially Christian baptism; and. all that could afterwards be necessary, wa.s to teach them the way of the Lord more perfectly. But, were we to admit the interpretation that these disciples were rer baptized, it is altogether probable as die transaction occurred more than twenty years after John's death, and as these disciples "resided nearly a? thousand miles Jroin the scene of Joha's labors," that they were baptized by some one tf John's disciples, who had failed to direct them to Christ, and to give them all of the insiructi(m which John was accustomed to communicate.t Admitting such to have been the circumstances, which are altogether probable, (rf this interpretation be 'rue,) this passage does not militate at all against the validity of John's biptiMn,t nor piovethat it is not to all intents and purposes Christian b.iptism. The Penny Cy- clopedia says : " The meaning ot Christian baptism differed, I t:le, il at all, from the baptism of John," ' .'J . ' * Liierally, " And hearing it (akousanies de) ttiey \^erc b.ipn/Lea," etc. ■t John taught his hearers that there was a Holy Ghost. Matt. 3: IJ. And yet these disciples had not so much as heard ot any Holy Ghost. — Hence we conclude that they could not have been baptized by John. tSee American Bap. Magazine for the year 1825,. pp. 574. Knappiii Scriptavarii argumenti, etc. Vol. Lp, 163-4. 83 Pedobaplist. — My friend,'as the most prominent arguments have been urged against I he idea that Joha's baptism is Christian bapiism. And as this view o( the subject cannot materially affect the argument in favor of immersion, I will waive it, and present an objection against the Bap- tist idea, that John's bapiism was immersion ; which is thought by many Pedobaptists as unanswerable. " It is said that ' Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, went out and were baptized of him in Jordan.' Now according to Josephus, there were from eight to ten millions ol people in these countries. Now suppose John . . . could endure the fatigue to work 8 hours in the day, and baptize one jKrson a minute, it would take him from 45 to 5tj years, to dip all these multitudes." or if only I alf ihai number it would take him half that time. If "one quar- ter part as many, it would lake him from 11 to 14 years. In fact, it would lake him rajre than five years to dip one million ; and John's head was cut off in about eighteen monihs— great part of which time he spent in prison. Yet the Scriptures do say positively, that all the people in all these countries were actually baptized of John in Jordan. When the Scriptures say all, they certainly mean at least the larger part." "Now it is as plain as day, that John could no more baptize all these people by dipping, than he could lift the world, or put out the .sun ! ! ! It is a palpable absurdity to suppose it." But " he could take the water from Jordan, and sprinkle thousands and thousands in a day. This was undoubtedly the way he baptized." — {Scripture Directory to Baptism, pp. 13, 14.] Baptist. — " Thi.s argument, my friend, so specious and plausible, is Irequently advanced with such an air of confidence and 'riumnh, as al- most to silence the opponent whom it fails to convince. It is nevertheless founded in a misapprehension" of the import of langugae ai.d is therefore perfectly fallacious. It proceeds upon the assumption, that rantisni is oaptism; i. e. that sprinkling is immersion ; (which we have shown could not be the case,) and that the word GZHiere means the larger part; and, consequently, that John baptized in less than 9 months, to say the lea.st, the larger part of all the individuals, comprised in the whole realm of Israel. Now we have no d )ui)t, that we shall be enabled to show, that Johnb.iptized a much less number, than you seem disposed to make out. It is true, it is said, there " went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins." But it is plain from many passages, that this was a very common and popular style of expression, by which the word all imports a great many. (See Phil. 2: 21. John 4: 25, 29.) We are ex- pressly told, John 3 : 26, thac they said to John " Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan to whom thou bearest witness, behold the same baptiz- eth, anil «iZ wiCTj come unto him." Now, if the word «/nn these passages is to be taken in its widest sense, then John baptized allJttdca, Jerusalem, etc., and Jesus Christ baptized all men; and consequently re- baptized all of John's disciples. But did Christ re-baptize John's disciplesi "If he (lidnot, then the people were not all baptized of John" nor of Christ, — Again, a similai mode ofexpression occurs in Luke 3: 2l. "Nowwhen all the people were baptized, it came to pass that Jesus also being baptized, and praving, the heavens were opened," etc. But we are iuformed that •■'alter those things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea, and there hfc tarried with them and baptized. And John also was bap- tizing in Enon near to Salim, because there was vmich water there : — and Jhey came and were baptized." " If John had previously baptized all the people, then both he and the disciples of Christ who still conunued to fcaptize, must be considered .A 'irt-ia;)iwe of dipping -S'e'^ 'iob. Hist. Bap. Loud., 1790. All of the valuable modern Protestant translations, it we except the Vulgate, and the other Wesiern versions modelled after i', among which is our authorized Eng- li-,h version vvhich retains the Greek Jerms. '-But, though th'se versions forsake thetrack of the Oriental versions, it is not, as is well knov/n, be- cause the translators understood, the terms in another sense. To say nothing" of con'.inental scholars, whe her Romani^ts or Protestants, the fathers of the Anglician church WiclirT, Tynda', Cranmer, andc'lhers speak plainly on this subject, and so to this day does the book of common prayer,' as well as very many of the most learned Pedubnptisi divin;s, as we have seen, t The most bold and glaring perversion in our tran.slation, evidently made to sanction sprinkling as baptism, is found in Isa. 5'3 : 15. " So shall he (^//eK??tffi2'o?ite?!) .s7^?-z?i/t'Z2 many nations," etc. According to Ge- senius, it reads in the Hebrew—" So shall he cau^e many nations to re- joice in himself. "--By referring to this pa.ssage in the Septuagint you will find that the wjrd in it, translated sprinkle, is Thaumazontai, fr^jin 93 perversions retailed in two translations, with all the exertions of the Bishops, it was nai till abaiit 1640, nearly a century from the commence- ment of sprinkling among them, b ;fore they could prevail upon the Brit- ish Parliament to pass a law enforcing it. PedobaptisL—Yoar remarks respeciingthe inconsistency of translating en ■^^■^Y'^ appear very appropriate. Indeed I see no goo:l reason why this preposition should hi translated zw in the phrases "in Jordrn" — 'Hnt'iz 'd-ildeiness," and ivil'i in ihe phrases ivi'k w.ier — wilk tin Holy G'.ost. - It appears to me that it would have^gJH appropriate, if it had been translated zft water — 1» the Holy Ghost ; but very inappropriate, if it had been translated with the Jordan, etc. Siill I am very far from admitting that <■» always signifies ift for frequently it signifies a.'-, ?(jjV/(, ^//, etc. Bat as you have referred to the baptism of Chrisi and the Eunuch, and placed a considerable stress on the literal import of the Greek preposition eis to prove that they were immersed, and that immersion only is baptism, and passed over the pi eposiiion c/i; and especially «p), 1 would call your at- tention to this subject again. You know ihat the literal import of apo is from and e's is very frequently rendered to, near, or unto. — Now if John and Christ came only (a/?<')/^o??^ the vrater, it is evident that they went only (cfs)it the same as if it had commenced its flight un this side." — It is a common saying that this or that "merchant has just come or returned //•y»i New York with hew goods." JNovx', though strictly speaking this expression takes him only Irom the edge of the city, yet its general import is, that he came out of the city, unless he states, that he did not go in'oW.. It is in this man- ner that apo is sometimes used to denote out of. Now apo does not inva- riably indicate or signify /rc^/ft, nor does it determine the import of «'5 to mean to when corresponding to it. The following passage will illustrate this fact. "Then went the devils («;;o)//7)/rt the man, and entered {eii) to or near i\\e swine.'' Luke 8 : 33. Bui what did they en'er? Nothing surely, unless they entered {eis) into the swine. But in v. 30 it is said the devils entered {cis) Mo the man. Now instead of apo's indicating that vis means/o in this phrase eis requires apo to mean tutoj or out from. — From what we have said, it is evident that even the use oi apo in its usual sense, does not interfere or contradict tht- use of the verb baptizo and the prepositions named, in iheir literal sense. But even if it did that, it would be absitrdto suppose that the usual import oi apo, thrown into one scale, would outweigh the primary import of baptiro and the prepositions e?i, »^is and ca; cast into the other. Now as e?s generally signifies !»/o, it can not invariably signify to; hrnce being rndefinile, it cannot require ck, which is definile, to mean /ro?H, for the indefinite cannot limit the definite. But ek always meF,ns out of* Hence we will reverse your demonstration. ' Wherever ck and eis correspond to each other the ex;ent of the one must measure the extent of the other." Hence ase^' signifies out of in the bap- tism of the Eunuch, ds must signify into. For if they came out of the wa- ter, they must have gone into it. This position we are confident cannot be overthrown ; for the definite in this case must limit the indefinite. My brother, by adopting the expedient ycu have, to set aside the evidence in favor of immersion, (derived from the plain obvious meaning of the term baptizo and three oJ' the prepositions out ofthe four used in connection with it,) you have adopted and sanctioned a rule which if carried out in its application, by the enemies of the Cross, would overthrow all the fundamental doctrines of the Bible. The Uni- versalist can prove by it thst ''the wicked shall go away only (eis) to or »€(2r everlasting punishment, but nol into it. — The Unitarian, that the Father was only (en) by or vnth Christ, but not in him; that Christ was only (en) by ox icith the Father but not in him. John 14: 11. — • Mr. Carson has proved this very conclusively in his examination of Ihc examples contained in Mr. Ewing's Appendix alleged lo prove that eh sometimes signifies/roOT and is synonymous with ap<7, Read from pag« 213 to 226 of his treatise on Bap'. 95 The Infidel, that Noah and his family, etc., only entered (e/s) lo or near the ark, but not into it — that the Israelites and the Ef^ypiians only entered {eis) in or near the P.ed Sea but not into it, etc. — that Jonah was only thrown (eis) to or near the Sea, but not inlu it — that Daniel was only cast {eis] to or near the lion's den but not into it, &c. &c. Again, as the translators of the New Testament into our language were Pedobaptists, they would not be likely to translate these prepositions in such a manner, as to have them speak decidedly against their own practice, unless compelled to do so by conscience and the plain obvious importof the original. When, therefore, these translators inform us that John baptized in the river Jordan— that they cnme (epi) to the water, and went down (eis) into the water, and atter baptism, came up(ek) out f/the water, etc., we conclude that the original was so plain, that they felt com- pelled to translate it thus. But, my friend, as a further illustration of the incongruity of renderinea)t of the earth." It is usual lor a ridge of rocks to have earih on the top. " The Savior was under the earth here, as well as if he had been buried in a pit at the bottom of the valley." A Geologist we think will not call this statement in question. "Again, Christ's being buried i.s taught as a part of the gospel." Whoever athrms then that he was not, really bulled contradicts and questions the truth of the Gospel. See Cor. 15: i- 4. The last part which reads thus; " For I declared unto you first of all, that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins ac- cording to the Scriplures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures." It is worthy of note here, that what the evangelist calls thnc days in the heart of the earlk is called by the apostle being buried. Now it must be admitted that there is a like- ness bet weenjihis burying and immersion. But no necessityV.xists that ihe likeness should regard the manner, in which the bady is covered with water. The emblem consists in the actuai state of the body as being cov- ered with water. So the likeness to the resurrection, is to be seen, not in the manner the body is taken out of the water, but in the rising itself. '• There was no likeness between the w-ay of killing a sacrifice and the manner ot Christ's death". There was no likeness between the manner in which Jonah was swallowed by the whale, and again thrown out, to the way in which Christ was carried into the tomb, and in which he came out of the tomb : Yet Jonah in the whale's belly, was an emblem of Christ as being three days in the heart of the earth." The same might be said respecting the resemblance of a loaf of bread in the Lord's Supper to Christ's body. Now as the body of our Savior in the Sepulchre was encompassed on all sides and covered over by it, so the bodies ot believ- ers, in immersion in water isencompassed on all sides and covered with Ihis element. Cyril, of Jerusalem, A. D. 374, says : "You, descending into the water, and being buried in the water, as Christ i?i the Sepulchre, arise to newness of life.'"' Basil the Great, A. D. 360, says : " How shall we accomplish a descent into the gravel By baptism iiaitating the bu- rial of Christ." Who now will contend that there is no likeness in bap- tism to the burial of Christ"? Pcdobuptist — 'T'lie objection which you have so triumphantly answered, was advanced to elicit information, and not because 1 deemed it a valid or weighty one, though it is regarded as such, by many of my brethren. I presume you are aware, that most of the Pedobaptists represent your denomination as being so bigoted and sectarian in their views as to con- iend lor a particular mode of baptism, which is the mere costume or non- essential part of religion. This characteristic trait in your denomina- tion, they say, was strikingly exemplified in the schism and division they made in the American Bible Society. Bo2)tisi.—As it respects modes of baptism, my brother; I have said ali I 93 deem requisite on that point. I have only to say that we consider noihin? baptism, short of immersion ; hence we contend for the rite itself and not for the manner in which it is performed. With req-aid to the allegation that we divided the American Bible Society, in our zeal tor this external non-essential rite, I wuukl remark that tli'e Pedobaptists are the last per sons, I should think, that would bring such a charge as this against us " Those who live in glasshouses should not throw stones." Now fron the organization of the A. B. S. up to the hour, "when it extinguished th last ray of our hopes," by passing the obnoxious rescjlution that wcuh cause us to violate our own convictions of duty to GoJ, and to the million of perishing heathen, or else banish us entirely from its connection ; ve.- up to that hour, it received the warm sr.id heartv co-operation of the Bap- tist denomination. The contributions of the Baptists to this society have amounted to probably more than one hundred thousand dollars.* And yet the Society has appropriated less than 29,000 dollars to aid the translations made by our missionaries. It should be known that the Baptist translators have not altered their co-ursc;. nor have their versions undergone any change as it regards the translation of the word baptizo. But the Pedobaptists belonging to the Society, changed their course; and altered the purport of their constitution, by annexing a new resolution to it, which produced the schism and division in the society you have unjustly laid to the charge of the Baptists, notwithstanding all their remonstrances". The main object of this measure appears to have been to banish the Bap- tist translations, not on the ground that they were unfaithful, cr that the heathen would be taught by them Avhat was not the meaning of bapliza, but because this word and its cognates were faithfully translated by a word equivalent to immerse, which iheij with the learned world admit', is the true meaning of the term. Now, my friend, when we reason with these persons on the true, literal import of the term ; and ply them with arguments they find themselves unable to refute, we are met with the re- ply, "well it will make no difTerenee as it is an external, non-essential rite, and of course not a saving ordinance ;"+ and yet these same persons make it 50 cs^'c?!//rt?, that they have in eflect declared by the resolution they passed, and their subsequent conduct, that none of "the funds of th^" American Bible Society (in which the Baptists at that lime, had just as equitable a right as themselves, and into whose treasury they had cast 5?5O,O0O for which they never received aught,) shoidd be appropriated to circulate Baptist translations; and consequently that the millions of hea- then for whom these translations were made, may, for aught they will do, perish in their sins and pass on to an etemiiy oi endless woe, lor the want of that light and knov/ledge, which it is in their power to bestow, but which they resolved and determined to withhold, solely on the ground that this little non-csscntial word baptizo is correctly translated instead of being transferred, wrapped up in a dead language.? * See the 2d annual report of the American Foreign Bible Society, p. Gl. Qce 01. t Now it is worthy of remark here, that the pleading the uniraporlanc of this truth by Pedobaptists, as a justification of their non-compliancc- with the requirement of Christ, (indicated by the plain specific impoit of the termbaptizo,) ij a virtual acknowledgment that they are wrong and u-e are right. t The language of the learned Dr. Campbell is apposite to this case. "Does that deserve to te called a version, which conveys neither the matter nor the manner of the authorl Not the matter, because an unintelligible word conveys no meaning ; not the manner, because what the author said 99 Now in the pertinent language of Dr. Johnson, (in his letter on the translation of the Scriptures into the Gaelic language,) " If obedience to the uill of God be necessary to happiness, and knowledge of his will ne- cessary to obedience, how can he that withholds this knowledge or delays it [on such a pretext} be said to love his neighbor as himself!" My broi her, it appears to me that the Pedobaptists, \rho are ignorant of the true import olbaptizo, and '■ voluntarily or wilfully continue thus are guilly of all the crimes which that ignorance produces ; [be they divisions, schisms, controversies, etc.] as, to him that extinguishes the tapers of a light house, might be justly imputed the calamities of shipwrecks.'' Again, you are well aware I pre.^ume that the A. B. Society has aided translations in which the most important words have been so rendered, or mistranslated as to teach and sanction the greatest errors. And although it refuses to aid in the distribution of Baptist translations, still, at the same tinie, it continues to circulate versions in which the word baylizo is ren- dered precisely as in our versions by a word signifyingto dip or immerse, its resolution to the contrary notwithstanding. See Mr. Maclay's ad- dress, pp. 12, 13. As it respects the charge oibigotry and seclarianism, which is so often brought against the Baptists and their missionaries, because they have translated the word baptizo by a word signifying to immerse, in those ver- sions of the Bible which they have given the heathen nations in their own tongue. 1 beg leave to introduce, as a complete refutation of this charge, the language of the late learned and eminently gifted servant of the British and Foreign Bible Society, Mr. Greenfield, who some years since in his defence of the Serampore Baptist translators, says: " Bigotry, that is blind zeal and prejudice, the Baptists cannot justly be accused of, while they have the pri//(i7ii-c .sc?tsc of the term, and the rendering of so many ancient and modern translations, as the foundation upon which they have grounded their version ; nor can they consistently be charged with secta- rianism, while they are lound in company with the churches of Syria, Arabia, Ethiopia, Egypt, Germany, Holland, Sweden, Denmark and oth- ers, together wi'.h the church of England itself. If they be bigots I know not what name the advocates of pouring or ofsprinlding, who have7iles Rhode Island has never departed. These peculiar sentiments of religious liberty, which have since been adopted by every state in the Union, the Baptists were the first to proclaim, exemplify, and defend. Hence, as we should naturally suppose, they choose their own religious teachers, whom they regard as their "servants for good" ac- knowledging no foreign jurisdiction, and no man their master but Christ.^ These distinguished sentiments and principles in the religious system of the Baptists, have given birth and vigor to the Republican habits, institu- tions, and government of our country.* Pedubaptist.—B\.\\, my ineuA,?t\\fir all you have said about religiou|! liberiy, etc., is not the question about baptism of trifling importanceT Baptist. — But is it a question of trifling impoitance, whether men shall lay unhallowed hands on an ordinance ol" tlie great Head of the Church and profanely strip it of its significance and its teachings— whether they shall strike down, in the templcof gospel truth, ihenoble pillar of justifying faith -whether they shall lift from the sinner's conscience, a weight of ♦ Some years previous to the American Revolution, there was a Baptist church near the house of Mr. Jeflerson in Virginia, whose monthly meet- ings he often attended. Being asked how he was pleased with their church government, 1 e replied that " it had struck him with great forcoj and interested him very much ; that he considered it the only form of pure democracy that then existed in the world, <'nd had concluded that it would be the be^'plan, of gpyernnaent for the Americarj colonies.'' 103 personal re.jponsibilit}', laid there by the Lord Jesus himself— -whether they shall abrogate a law of the King of Saints: — or wheilier they shall keep trie ordinances, as they have been delivered in the Stainle Book oi Heaven, revering the will of the Sovereign, and observing all things whatsoever he hath commanded] ' Infant baptism, in direct opposition to the whole tenor of Scripture, '\\'hich teaches us that every one must believe, be baptized and give an accounl of himself m\io,God, declares ihatthe act ofthei)arentin theobserv- ance of this rite, liquidates all obli<,'ations of the child% even if he become a believer, to obey the command of Christ in the ordinance of baptism — that the parent's faith shall save the child! A celebrated Ped(.baptist minister in Boston says that a Christian parent who uses the ordinance of infant baptism aright, " may besure, that the great Shepherd and Bishop of souls has written the name of that child before him, in letters which his inlinite foibcarance and mercy will long keep from being blotted out, though the child perversely break his father's covenant." " If the parents die while the child is young, the remembrance of its dedication to God, and the conlident belief that it was received into his covenant, will help them to look at it Irom tlie dying pillow with peace."* In the language of Prof. Jewelt: "Is not infant baptism as exhibited in ■hese extracts manifestly at Avar with the great doctrine of justificatio.n evpaith'? This leaches, that /«/"W, one's ouvi failh, not another's, — faiih, not ii-or/i-5, either his own or another's shall save a man. Shall the Bap- tists oe charged with bigotry, for endeavoring to uphold a doctrine on which the great Apostle of the Gentiles has so strenuously insisted, as lundamental to the Christian system." "I need say nothing of the fatal influence of the views I am examin- ing on multitudes of careless adults, M'ho are encouraged in a life of impenitence, by complacently dwelling on the covenant made with God on their behalJ", when their parents presented them for baptism. From their infiincy, they have been accustomed to rellect, that they have re- ceived ' the seal of the covenant,' have been 'made members of Christ,' and 'children of God,' having been regenerated with the Holy Spirit. Is it strange, that such personsshould feel themselves .safe, and at liberty to continue in sin." PedobapList. — My friend, Pedobaptists say that it is very evident, that " Baptists attach too much importance to the ordinance of baptism.'' Baptist. — "I might reply that on some occasions Pedobaptists attach too ruUa importance to it. "When individuals are led to inquire respect- ing the mindol'Christ, do not even ministers endeavor to quiet their un- easiness, by telling Ihem, 'the subject i; of no consequence' — 'it is a mere e.xternal ceremony'— 'it is not worthwhile to trouble one's self about it.' When young converts are seeking to know the will of their Lord, respect-, ing theordinancesof his church,"do not their .spiritual guides often ply ihem with 'dissuasives' from invesiit^ationl Do not parents endeavor to restrain their children from examination, becruse it is pleasant to have all the children in the same church with the parents'? Are there not num- bers who will not li-ten to a sermon on the subjectl And do not even t'.eologicul students, while pursuing their studies, content themselves with a paniahview ol the matter, forming their conclusions without reading a single Baptist author]" Do not many other Pedobaptists, whose minds liave been troubled, by reading the plain declarations of Scrijjtura on this subject, endeavor to remove their scruples by turning away from * " The Baptized Child," by Nehemiah Adams, Boston, pp. 36, 58. 104 the Biblf, and every thing that treats ot this matter; or else attempt to quiet their consciences, by persuading themselves that it is a mere vones- senlial r:/c, and that their influence or usefulness would be abridged, if ihey were to become Baptists'! Are not others prevented from the Scrip- tural observance of this rite by being told that immersion is "indecent,' or at least "unsuUed to the manners of a polished agel" Have not tveu some Pedobaplist ministers in this manner, endeavored to hold up the primitive rite ofimmersion enjoined by our Savior and confessedly prac- tised by the church lor centuiies in an odious light'? Does it not appear from the?e facts, my friend that many Pedobapiists attach too little im- portance to this Gospel ordinance"? Pcdobapiist. — My brother, ifyouthinkthat Pedobaptists attach too little importarce to tills rite, 1 concltide it must be, because you lay an un- warrantable stress upon it. I suppose the Baptists believe it lo be a sa- ving ordinance. Baptist. — By no means; so far are we from regarding it as such, that we believe that all the waters of Jordan or Lake Erie, cannot wash away sin — that a person must profess faith in Christ and give satisfactory evi- dence that he has been trashed a7id cleansed from sin by t'u atutiing blood of CV.rwi; before we can consider him in the liglit of Scripture, an eligible subject for this rite. This in fact constitutes one of the most di.stinguish- ing traits in our denominational character. Bui, though we do not regard this ordinance essential to salvation, yet we believe (hat the scriptural ob- servance of it, is essential to obedience. We believe the rile, though an external one, is full of rich instruction to the believer, if it be observed in the manner enjoined by Christ. "And as every rite must have a form, if we do not preserve the form we do not prac:ise the rite. Hence, im- mersion is essential to baptism. Hence, baptism (immersion) is essen- tial to obedience to Christ; — essential to the highest instruction and com- fort ot believers; — essential to the best moral impression on unbelievers; — essential to the purily and stability of the church of Christ." But, my friend, as we ate repeatedly charged with laying an undue stress on baptism, we would state as our clear conviction that if the truth M-ere known, it would be seen thai it is the Pedobaptists themselves, who lay unauthorized stress upon this ordinance. It is well known that pou?-iiig, spri?i/dvng, ai\d infant baptism, a\\ had their fl?i'.:2;i, (and even existence for centuries) in "the belief, that baptism regenerated the soul, and qualified the subject for admission into heaven. Beli3ving that all whodied unbaptized were irrevocably lost, for those on sickbeds who were considered in imminent danger, and immersion consequently deemed im- practicable, they first invented pouring as a substitute for baptism and af- terwards sprinkling. The statements of Prof. Stuart and Bp. Smith of Kentucky, corrcburale this historical fact. Hence we perceivethe impor- tance Pedobaptists formerly attached to this ordinance. Let us now see what importance is attached to it by modern Pedobaptists. Mr. Barnes, a Presbyterian, in his Note on Mark, 10 : IG. "It is wor- Ihycf remark, that Jesus has made ba-ptisvi of so much importance. He A\{\not say, indeed, that a man could not be saved without baptism, but he has strjngly implied, that where this is neglected, l{nov:ing it to be a comviand of the Saver, it endangers the salvation of ihe soul. FailhSir\& laplism are the beginnings ot the Christian life: the one, the beginning of piety in ihe soul -, the other, of its manifestation before men, or of a pro- fession of religion.* And no man can tell how much he endangers his eternal interest by being ashamed of Christ before men. *ls the baptism of an infant the manifestation bei'oie men, of piety in its sou 11 10§ Matthew Henry, a Congregationalist and the distiiiguislieJ commen- tator. " The'gospel contain;; not only a doctrine, but a covenant; and by baptism ■\ve are brought irJo that covenant. Baptism wrests Ihc keys ol the heart out of the hands of the strong man armed, that the possession may be surrendered to Him whose right it is. * * ♦ Tliis then is the ef- ficacy of baptism; it is putting the child's name into the gospel grant. — We are baptized into Christ's death, i. e. God doth in that ordinance, seal, confirm, and make over to us, all the benefits of the death of Christ — Infant baptism speaks an hereditary relation to God that comes to us by descent." — Tcatisc on Baptisnt. Dk. Waterland, an Episcopalian and celebrated scholar and divine : " Baptism alone is sufficient to make one a Christian, yea, and to keep him such even to his life's end ; since, it imprints an indelible character in such a sense as never to need lepeating." Do Presbyterians charge US with placing an undue stress upon this ordinance'? And what stress do they lay upon it] In their " Confession of Faith" they say : " Baptism is a sacrament of the New Teslament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only as a solemn ad- mission of the party baptized into the visible church, but aho, io be iinto }iivi a siG.M and a SEAL, of the covenant of Grace, of his ingrafiing into Christ, oi' regeneration, of remissisu of sins'." Is this objection brought against us by Congregationalistsl And what stress do they place upon baptismi Hear the learned Dr. Dwight. " When children die in infancy, there is much and very consoling reason to believe that tney are accepted be- yond the grave." He further adds, "There is, I think, reason to hope well concerning other children dying in infano} ; but there is certainly peculiar reason for Christian parents to entertain strong consolation with regard to their offspring." My brother, it is evident Irora the language of Dr. Dwight that he supposed baptism to contribute very much to the salvation of infants. — The language of Matthew Henry which I have al- ready given is still more remarkable. See also " The Baptized Chill," pp. 36, 58. 3?, Do Methodists urge this objeclionl And how essential or important do they deem this ordinance! The celebrated John VVesley, the founder of Methodism, says: " Bij Baptism, v.-e v.'ho were hy nature children of wrath, are made the chil- dren of God. And this regeneration, which our church in so many pla- ces ascribes to baptism, is more than barely being admitted into the church, though commonly connected therewith. * * * Being grafted in- to the Lody of Chiis-t's church, we arc made the children of God, by adoption and grace. John 3 : 5. By water then, as the means the water of baptism, we are regenerated, or born again: whence it is called by the apostle, the ' washing of regeneration ' — In all ages the outward baptism is a means of the inward. — Herein we receive a title to, and an earnest of, a kingdom which cannot be moved. In the ordinary way there is no other means of entering into the church or into heaven. — If infants are guilty of original sin, then they are proper subjects of baptism, seeing, in the ordinary way they cannot be saved unless this be washed away by baptism." — Wesley's Works, vol.6, pp. 15, l6. N. Y. 183iJ. ^ Do Episcopalians present this objectionl And what stress do they lay upon this rite? In their Catechism occur the following question and answer: "How many sacraments hath Christ ordained in his church] Answer. Tavo only, as generaWy 7i£cessary to salvatioji — that is to say. Baptism and the Supper of the Lord." After an infant is baptized the minister is required 106 tosav, " Seeing now, dearly oeloved brelliren, lliat this child is regcnc-a- Ic/i, and grafted into the body of Christ's church, let us give thanks unto Aiiiiifhty God for these benefits." And then the prayer of Thanks- ^'i\'ing is ofl'ered thus '■ We yield ihee hearty thanks, uiosi merciful Fa- liier, Uiat it hath pleased thee to regenerate tkia infant with the Holy Spir- it, to receive him for thine own child by adoption, and to incorporate him into thy holy church." Tl)e cliild thus baptized is required to learn his catechism before confirmation. In that catechism, my brother, may be found this question and answer, which shov\r tiat the child was taught to view baptism in the same light. Question. " Who gave you this name! Ansn-er. My sponsor in bap- lism wherein 1 was made a memhsr of Christ, ilic chi'd of God, and an in- heritor of the Kingdom of Heaven." Should this objection come from Roman Catholics, (the originators of infant baptism and sprinkling,) let us see what stress is laid upon this institution by them. Take the Canons and Catechism ol the Council of Trent : " If any one shall say that baptism is not necessary to salvation, let him be accursed. Sin. whether contracted by birth, from our first parents, or committed by ourselves, is, by the adiniral virtue of this sacrament remited and par- doncd.--ln baptism, not only sins are remitted, but all the punishments of sins and wickedness are graciously pardoned of Go.l. " * * By bap- tism we are joined and knit to Christ, as members to the head. By bap- tism we are signed with a character, which can never be blotted out of our soul. Besides the other things which we obtain by baptism if opens to every one of us the gate of Heaven, which before, through sin, was shut."* 1 trust, my brother, after these quotations from confession? of faith and standard authors ol different denominations, that you will not again charge us with placing too much stress upon this ordinance. Whatever meaning these extracts may have been designed to convey, I certainly have never met with expressions so extravagant in any Baptist author. PcdobajyList. — My brother, I was not aware before, that any standard Pcdobaptisiauthor attachedso much importance to this rile, as these ex- tracts evidently import. There is another objection that Pedobaptists very frequently urge against your denomination. The Baptist denomi- nation is a inodern sect. It is but about two hundred years since their origin, or thatany one ever heard of such a sect. With what show of reason then can they claim to hold the doctrines of the primitive churches? Baptist.— My friend, if it could be proved that our denomination has not existed 100 years that would not convict us of error, or prove that * Baptism is deemed so indispensable by Roman Catholics that even laymen, physicians, females, etc., arc authorized to administer the rite in extraordinaiy cases. In the latter part of the 17th century. Father Jerome Florentini of Lucca published the 4th edition of a quarto to explain, con- firm, and direct the baptism of infant.s unborn. No less than forty im- primatures and recommendations from divines, bishops, physicians, uni- versities, etc., accompanied this book. See Rob. Hist, of Bap., Land. Ed., 1700, f. 43'3. In the year 1751, F. E Congiamil^, Doctor of Divinity and Laws, of Palermo, published in the Italian language a quarto book of 3-20 pages "dedicated to all the guardian angels to direct priests and physi- cians how to secure the eternal salvation of infants, by baptizing tliem when they could not be born." We thus see how far the superstition of infant baptisoi hau carried people. 107 our principles are of recent origin.* To do this, it must be shown by irrelragable evidence that they are not the same, as those observed and practised by the Apostles and primitive Christians. The allegation that the Baptist denomination has not existed but about 200 years is not sustained by indubitable evidence.* We find by the .sta- tistic report of the Baptist Union, convened in London in li-38, that there were not less than three Baptist churches then in beinp, formed in En"-- land, A. D. 1600. It has also been affirmed that " the Baptists originate^! in Germany about the year 15-22 at the beginning of the Reformation.'' It is true, that no denomination oX Pr ok slants can trace the origin oCii,; present name farther b;5cli ihan about the time of the R.eformation " and most of I hem have originated since that time. But the Baptists as a sect, oannot in justice be called Protestants, having always existed inde- pendenlly of the Romish Cnurch as we have abundant evidence to shov.'. Still it appears to hi true, that their present name was assumed aboir. that time; probably in opposition to that of Anabaptist.*, with which their enemies were constantly reproaching them. The Penny Cyclopaedia published in London says: '•' Little is known of the Baptists iaEngl.md before the sixteenth century. Their name then appears among the various sects who were struggling for civil and re- ligious freedom. Their opinions, at this early period were sutficientlv popular to attract the notice of the national establishment, as is evideiit from the lactthat at a convocation held in 1530, they were denounced as 'detesiable heresies utterly to be condemned.' I Proclamations followed to banishthe Baptists from the kingdom; their books were burnt and several individuals suffered at the stake.'' "William Sawtre fin the time of Henry the Fourth] was the first in this country that suffered at the stake for his religious opinions, in 1401, and who was 'supposed to deny infant baptism ; and Edv.'ard Wightman, a Baptist of Burton upon Trent [in the reign of James the First] was the last person who suflered thi^ cruel kind ofdenth in England. So that this denomination has Ihj honor ofboih leadirgthc way, and bringing up the rear of all the martyrswhu were burnt alive in England; besides which a great number of those who suffered death for their religion, in the 200 intervening years, were of the Baptist denomination. "t And from Davis' History of the Welch Baptists, it is evident that persons believing our peculiar sentiments, have * But if antiquity ol origin alone is to prove a denomination righ;, then it must be conceded that the Protestant Pedobaptists do not stand on an equal footing with the Catholics. The Church of England, i. e. the English Episcopal Church, " first formed and organized out of Popery as their own authors abundantly assert, and in 1531 adopted immersion £t their first organization. This fact is confirmed by all history, by tVic parliamentary act of 1534 entorcing immersion," and by their rituals the first of which was printed in 1547. [See Hague's Historical discourse, and J. F. Bliss' fourth letter] The Presbyterian form of government was invented by the reformer John Calvin not far from 1541. — The princi- ples of the reforma ion commenced in Scotland in 1527 and the Presby- terian polity was introduced on the island in 1592 by Andrew Melville. — The first Congregational church was formed in the north of England in 1G02 by the Rev. John Robinson. [See Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge] All of these Protestant dissenters generally practised im- mersion down to the seventeenth century. + Encyclopaedia of Religious Knowledge — Backus' Hist, of the Am Baptists. • uA \n Waks in every age of the church from he days^of ihe apostles.* cxjsttdin W a es, m tv , ^ ^ ^^ jj^ primitive Christians were de^ But, my iriend, J'J,'^^ "" ^'""[hev were whkt would now be railed by this nominated Baptist. ^5 historical evidence that persons holding our name. We tiav^apmm ^^^ baptism ofbehevers on a profes- distingmshingsenl mems <^^^ valid scriptural baptism,) have existed m sion of la.th, consumes ihe^only^^^^^^^^ H^^ ^^^^ Christian Era, every age oi me v^ii"!"-") »'" down to the P'-esen;'^;'"?-. ^^^ i^j^hest Pedobaptist testimony that infant Wehave alsop ovedDv he . rtoflhe second or the beg ia- baptism had no f^^^^^^ ""^'^ ^i^ht idd the testimony of many other, ning of the 'i^' ^ ^en^^e to name only a few. Salmasius and Sm- to this point, but we imveuH one was baptized except being in- cERUs. " In'he '^" J''J" Jua S''^ '^''^ """ '^ of Christ, he was strucied "V^^^^^tl. fb'lftve"" Chamber's Cyclopedia. " It appears able to Pi^o;^^.^'^^'^.^^,,^'': 'e were baptized but adults." Arlide Baptxsm. that in primitive times none were^DP^^^^^ ^,_,^^ introduced mihout CuiicELAUs s.ays: J-n^ j^ihetwc first, centuries after Christ, ihe command ot ^^"su i third and lourth was allowed by itwas altogether unknown .but 1^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^ .„ ^,i^^,,^ placcs.-- a few, in the fifth and folio wu, a ^e. ^^ J^^^^^ ^^ ^^^ La RoauE. T. L.nv- The testimonies ot BtsHoi o - ^ j confirmation o: this lact. s^N and many olhersM^iightb. adduce^ interrupting >ou, but if the PedobaptisL--^yJ^e^^^^^^^^^ ^^^ jP^^.^^lj i„q,ira. how testimonies you have ^^^^^t^^ ^^i infant bapti-trn ^^^firs inUoMceQ. ^^,^^ ^^.^^..^ necessary to salva- Baptist.-li ^^as on the ground 11^ consequently lost. Hence the En- tion, and P^f °"^^y;,"^j;y^°"Thrdoctrinc of Augnstine, that the un- cyclopedia Americana says_ ^ ^^. children general."- bapli7.ed were irrevocaWy lost, iMcte f ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^ ^j^^ These are Au?"si,ne s woid.^ i o J\^^,^ ^^^ if ,^,y die wiih- use of reason, but also cJ^^jd/J^^^^t fir, „ The learned Strabo, who wrote, out baptism do go imoeveud.^-^^^ .^ the primitive limes baptism A. D. 8.')0, says: " It is lo ue i.ui^u ^^___ .^ — . uvh ^r^ of T^di-np sent Austin the monk ~^^^M^^^ tJ'he church of Rom. into England, to bruiz the bax'n.H country, they kept sound for as long asthe British chuH:he^^^^^^^ Christ. At inlhetaiih,andpureinihe WO' n, ^^^^^ ^^ Bangor on hat time the old Bntons were pimc^ .^. 2 100 christians. ;i;eNorth[of.hisprinc>pality]wasacoll^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^„^,^„ This college sem forth many luei ^^ Worcestershire; where he got many ot these to f, ^°"?^^ ^^^i.^ th^e Ro.r.ish r tes, etc., zo/nch hey re- propounded to them the eu-brac ^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^ ;,,,,,, W^. Then he said to 'hem. ^i"^^ > o ^^^ ^^^^ .^ ^^j. j^^^p, rally assent you to me specially mthieeit^u^ ^^^^^ you give [ng Easterday, as n is ^^'^'d Jh, ,5 tilt you preach 'to the Saxons Christendom to children An^ 5^^,;^; ^^bate 1 shall sufl-er vou toamend as I have exhorted yo";f^J/;' X^ <>y would not." Whereupon hfr and reform among y^^'f^^l'^f^^^, Ld nearly extinguished -heir broughttheSaxonsaga.nst them in V ,, Loyde gives a graphic faith? (AbridgedJroviH.Da7ivers^) / ^. Ban-or by the arrogant descript>on of the destrucuon of he coUe e whole house. Sg^-'tLnuh' iSelr Liit'k^riTmoJe pr.cious than gold) were entirely de^ stroyed. 109 was given to those only who were arrived to maturity of body and mind, but when diligence about our divine religion increased, the orthodox un- derstanding, that the original sin of Adam did involve in guilt, lest chil- dren should perish, appointed them tobe b.iptized for the pardon of sins." Wall, vol. 2, p. 1-3. We mighi subjoin a multitude of testimonies of the same purport ; but we Vi'ill only mention the name;, ot Anselm, Bernard, Dodwell, Vossius' Watcrland, Church of Wiltemburgh, Church of Rome, Council of Trent' and Church of England.— (See chap. 9th of Westlake's view of bap.) — Even after the introduction of infant baptism, many did not receive it, and many opposed ii. Ttiis fact is confirmed by the historical account of the following fathers and eminent men, whom we are informed "were born of chrisiian parents anl yet not baptized till adult age," viz : Con- stantine who flourished about A. D. 325. Basil and Gregory Nazianzen about A. D. 300. Ambro.^e A. D. 374. Jerome A. D. 380. Chrysostom A.D. 398. Augustine, 400. St Austin, 597, and others.* This fact is also confirmed by "the pressing exorlations, lound in early writings addressed to prolessed christians to come to baptism. "t ti gcther with the awful anathemas pronounced at different times by the dominant party, up- on those, that denied infant baptism, Robinson states in his Researches;, that " there is no trace of infant biptism among the Catholics of Spain earlier than the year 517." And history informs us that it was introdu- ced into England by Austin in 596. I would further add that there is strong evidence on record, that the infants spoken of by Origen and others, were not natural infants. Cardinml Bellaumine observes : " Orgen's in- fants were capable of repentance and martyrdom but the infants of the reformers were incip, ble of either." Bp. Victor's account of the church of Carthaitur,' Dr. Macl.iin savs, (in his notes to Mosheiin vol. 1, p. 332,) 'who exerted such a furioiis zeal for the destruction of ll;e Wal- denses, lived about HO years afer Peter Waldo, and must therelbre be supposed to have known whether he was the real founder of the Walden- ses or Leonists, and yet it is remarkable thai he speaks o! them as a sect that had flout i-hed above 500 years. This c:,rries us back to the year GGO, t'e time of the appearance of the Paulicians, or rather of their great revival and increase under the labors of Constantine Sylvanus. Indeed, there is not wanting; evidence tos.iow that churches of the Puritan order existed at that time in the West as well as the l^ast. In the yearS.VS, nine Bi-.hops of Italy and Switzerland openly refuse I communion with the Pope of Feme, and the churches under iheir care persisted in their dissent.' Reinerius, hi;iiself a Caiholic, has given these Waldenses or Poor men of Lyons, one of the best chri-tian characters. "Of all the sects which have" been or now exist," says this inquisitor, "none are more injurious to the Church (i. e. of.RomeXlor three reasons. 1. Because it is more ancient. Soma aver their exi>tence from the lime of Sylvester; others from the time of the Apostles.* i. Because it is so universal. There is scarcely < ny country in which lliissect has not crept. 3. Because unlike other heretics they have a great appearance of piety, they live justly br- fore men, believe rightly all things concerning God, ec. A concessioti like this coming fiomsiich a source speaks vcinmes." They were strong- ly aitached to the Holy Scriptures and regarded them as tlu- only source of faith and religion. — Their sciiptural siinplicity and soundness of be lief isacknowledgcd by their adversaries, and amply confirmed by Iheir own auiheniic raunuments and confessions uf faith, several o( which arc printed at length in Jones' History of the Chi.rch. — Their purity and ex- cellence of life and manners is conceded by an ancient inqitisitor and Seisselius, archbishop of Turin, al>o sa3's : '7heir heresy exceptcil, they generally live a purer life than other Christians ' — Their enlighten- ed favor, courage, an 1 zeal is admitted by Rcinerius and he assigns that as the cause of their great increase. 'All of them,' says he, ' men and women, night and day, never cease from teaching and learning' and ♦ Dr. Macliin says that Reinerius himself 'even mentions authors of note who make their antiquity remount to the apt^'olic age. When the Papists ask us, wheie our religion was bei"ore Lu:her, we generally nn- swei, in t/ij Bible. But to gratii'y their taste for tradition, and humaa authority we may add t« this answer en J in the vallics of Piedmont.' 112 lie adds ihey teach those whom they bring over to their party, what man- ner ot persoas the disciples of Chri