,1 Wit ^Mogi^^f ^ 
 
 ^ PRINCETON. N. J. <^ 
 
 Presented by Mr Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 Agnew Coll. on Baptism^ No. 
 
 
fV 
 
BAPTISM 
 
 IN ITS 
 
 MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 BY 
 
 P. H. MELL, 
 
 Professor of Greek and Latin in Mercer University, Ga. 
 
 CHARLESTON: 
 
 SOUTHERN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY. 
 
 1853. 
 
Entered , according to Act of Congress, in tlie year 1853, by tlie 
 
 SOUTHERN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY. 
 
 In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States, for the District of 
 South-Carolina. 
 
 CHARLESTON: 
 
 STEAM POWER PRESS OF WALKER AND JAMES. 
 No, 3 Broad-street. 
 
DEDICATION. 
 
 T O THE 
 
 ANTIOCH BAPTIST CHURCH AND CONGREGATION 
 
 IN 
 
 OGLETHORPE COUNTY, GEORGIA, 
 
 THIS VOLUME 
 IS RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED, 
 
 BY THEIR AFFECTIONATE 
 
 PASTOR. 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2011 with funding from 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/baptisminitsmodeOOmell 
 
ERRATA. 
 
 Page 78, line 6 — for surprising, read sweeping. 
 " 88, " 4— for first, read feet. 
 " 202, '* 7— for Baptists, read Papists. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 This publication owes its existence to the following circum- 
 stances : During the month of August last, the Lord blessed the 
 church at Antioch, of which I am the pastor, with a season of 
 refreshing from his presence. During its progress, we had, for 
 nearly two weeks, daily occasion to administer the ordinance of 
 baptism. As is my custom, I availed myself of the opportunity 
 afforded, to address the people at the water's side on the subject — 
 making some nine or ten addresses in all, and going over, in a 
 hasty and superficial way, nearly all the references to the ordinance 
 in the Scriptures. These remarks, as was to have been expected, 
 created some little interest in the minds of those opposed to them. 
 
 Within a mile of Antioch is situated a Methodist Meeting 
 House, called "Centre." The next "Quarterly Conference' 
 appointed the very estimable gentleman. Rev. Wm. J. Parks, 
 the Presiding Elder, to preach a sermon on Baptism at " Centre" 
 Meeting House. It was never publicly avowed, T believe, but it 
 was very generally understood, that it was to be a reply to my 
 remarks at the water's side. After giving very general publicity 
 to the appointment in all the surrounding region, the sermon was 
 preached to a large congregation on Thursday, the 29th of Octo- 
 ber. I attended, and received all that courtesy which is due from 
 one gentleman and Christian to another. And it gives me plea- 
 sure to testify to the very excellent spirit which my Methodist 
 
VI - PREFACE. 
 
 bretlireii have, as tar as I know, inauifesletl in this quasi contro- 
 versy. 
 
 On the next two Lord's days succeeding, I preached at Antioeh, 
 taking up baptism as a subject, and replying to the arguments of 
 Mr. Parks and others. There I expected the matter to rest, as 
 far, at least, as I was concerned. On the 6th of November my 
 church, by unanimous vote, requested me to write out my remarks 
 for publication, and served ine, through their comm.ittee, with the 
 following formal request : 
 
 '= Oglethorpe Co., Ga., Nov. 6ih, 1852. 
 Rev. P. II. Mell. 
 
 Dear Brother : — At a regular Conference of the church at 
 Antioch, the undersigned committee were appointed to solicit 
 from you, for publication, a copy of your very instructive dis- 
 courses delivered at that place on the subject of baptism. 
 
 " Your compliance with this request will prove a source of 
 gratification to your immediate brethren, and will, we doubt not, 
 be productive of lasting good to the Baptist denomination gene- 
 rally, &c. Signed by William Edwards, A. J. Lumpkin, W. 
 Thop. Edwards, John A. Bell and Marshall VV. Edwards. Com- 
 mittee." 
 
 Not having a reason which the church would consider satis- 
 factory, for declining, I consented to write out my sermons accor- 
 ding to their request. At first, I hoped I could compress them with- 
 in the compass of a pamphlet of medium size ; but. as I wrote, the 
 subject expanded under my hands, so that I had very soon to 
 abandon this idea in despair. Besides, as the subject on which I 
 was writing was a controverted one, I very soon became con- 
 vinced that if I published at all, prudence would require that I 
 should go into it in detail, and guard it at every point ; for what 
 advantage will a wall, built never so impregnably in front, be to 
 one, if his enemy have free and unobstructed access to him in the 
 
PREFACE. Vll 
 
 rear I I, tlierelore, resigned myself, with all the philosophy I 
 could command, to the inevitable necessity that was upon me, to 
 write a book on baptism — as well as I could. And I have done 
 it. It is customary, I believe, for writers to beg pardon of their 
 readers — at least to apologize for publishing a book, especially on 
 this subject of baptism. Let the above, then, be received as my 
 apology. If it be not satisfactory, I cannot help it — now. 
 
 Besitles preaching on the subject, Mr. Parks distributed in our 
 community, a number of works, large and small, on baptism, the 
 most conspicuous of which was a new work by Dr. Summers, of 
 Charleston.* All these, of course, I had to attempt to answer ; 
 and the reader will find that I have done so, though the name of 
 Dr. Summers alone is mentioned. Besides these, I have consulted 
 all the standard pedobaptist authors whose works I could ge 
 access to ; among the resi Drs. Woods and Miller, of this country, 
 and Dr. Wardlaw of Europe — and have made their arguments 
 the bases of my replies. 
 
 My desire has been to furnish an exposition of the subject that 
 the vast body of the people can appreciate ; and I have endea- 
 vored to adapt the argument that is based upon Greek criticisms 
 even, to the apprehension of the common-sense reader. And I 
 beg the unlearned not to be disheartened when they encounter 
 crooked Greek words. Let them go bravely on, and who knows 
 what reward they may get for their pains ? 
 
 It will be observed that I do not hesitate to seek our opponents 
 in all the little irrelevant corners in which they have hid them- 
 selves, and have endeavored to prove everything which they have 
 demanded, however unreasonably, ht my hands. Our writers 
 have generally contented themselves, in such cases, with saying, 
 the requirement is unreasonable, or the proof is implied already, 
 or the burden of proof rests on somebody elsv, and they are sus- 
 
 * Baptism: A Treatise on the nature, perpetuity, subjects, administration, 
 mode and use of the initiating ordinance of the Christian Church. With an 
 Appendix. By Thomas O. Summers. Richmond, Va. and Louisville, Ky.: Pub- 
 lished by John Early, for the Methodist Episcopal Church, South— 1852. 
 
Vlll PREFACE. 
 
 tained in their course by the principles of logic. But, unfortu- 
 nately, the large majority of readers are not logicians, and cannot 
 tell upon whom the burden of proof lies. I have adapted my 
 argument, therefore, not so much to the rules of logic as to tiie 
 condition and the wants of the great mass for whom I write. 
 Whether I have succeeded or not, is a question for others to 
 decide, not me. 
 Mercer University, Ga., Jan. 1853. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Introduction, . . - . - i 
 
 PART FIRST. 
 
 TheActofBaptism, 7 
 
 Chap. I. — Immersion essential to Baptism, - 8 
 
 Sec. I. The meaning of the word, - ib 
 
 1 . The primary meaning of the Greek 
 word to immerse proved by the testimo- 
 ny of the Lexicons, - - ib 
 
 2. The same proved by Scripture usage, 10 
 Baptizo shown not to mean to purify, 12 
 
 3. The word baptizo means to immerse, 
 and nothing else, - - 15 
 
 Sec. II. Objections to the definition of the word 
 
 answered, ... ig 
 
 1. Do not \;ords frequently change their 
 significations? - - - 19 
 
 2. Is it not ridiculous that ignorant Bap- 
 tists should speak so confidently, when 
 opposed by the preponderance of learn- 
 ing in the religious world 1 - 20 
 
 3. The Lexicons give more than one mean- 
 ing, .... ib 
 
 4. Examples of Greek passages where the 
 word is assumed to have a different mean- 
 ing, .... 27 
 
X CONTENTS. 
 
 CuAr. II. — Baptism IS Immersion : proved from examples of 
 ITS administration in the New Testament, 
 
 AVIIERE details ARE GIVEN, - - 45 
 
 Sec. I. The baptism of the Saviour, - ib 
 
 The Greek prepositions en, cis and apo, 49 
 
 Sec. II. John's baptism Christian baptism, 61 
 
 Sec. III. Baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch, 80 
 
 1. Objections to the immersion of the 
 eunuch answered, - - ib 
 
 2. The Greek prepositions eis and ek are 
 not properly rendered, - 82 
 
 3. Not a supply of water in the desert, 93 
 
 4. No mention made of a change of ap- 
 parel, ... 94 
 
 Chap. III. — The Instances of Baptism where details are 
 
 NOT GIVEN, consistent AVITH THE MEANING OF 
 THE WORD, - - - - 97 
 
 Dr. Summeis' inconsistency in not denying the va- 
 lidity of immersion, - - - ib 
 His courtesy, ... - gs 
 Sec. I. Enon near to Salim. The three thou- 
 sand on the day of Pentecost, 102 
 Objections to their immersion answered, ib 
 
 1. Not time enough, - - 104 
 
 2. Not water enough in Jerusalem, 107 
 
 3. The subjects were without change of 
 raiment, - - - 114 
 
 Sec. II. The baptism of Cornelius, - ib 
 
 The baptism of Lydia, - 116 
 
 Baptism of the jailor, - - 120 
 
 Baptism of Saul of Tarsus. - 122 
 
 Chap. IV. — The Import of the Ordinance, - 126 
 
 Objections to the import answered, - 128 
 
 1. The ordinance is emblematical of the Spirit's 
 operations, - - - - 130 
 
 2. It conforms in mode to the mode of the 
 Spirit's operations, - - - 131 
 
 3. Chri.st was not buried, - - 140 
 
 4. The buria! of Christ was of no importance, ib 
 
 5. The burial of Christ, if important, not so 
 much so as his death, - - 141 
 
CONTENTS. XI 
 
 6. Immersion does not properly represent the 
 burial of Christ, - - - 142 
 
 Chap. V. — The Metaphorical uses of the word Baptism 
 snow that its form is Immersion and nothing 
 ELSE, ----- 143 
 
 1. "I have a baptism to be baptized with," ib 
 
 2. Those baptized "have put on Christ,'' 144 
 
 3. The Israelites at the Red Sea, - ib 
 
 4. Salvation by baptism and by Noah's ark, 153 
 
 5. Baptism in the Holy Ghost, - 154 
 
 6. Other metaphorical allusions, - 155 
 
 Chap. VI. — Corroborative Arguments the Greek 
 
 Church, .... 156 
 
 Testimony of Ecclesiastical History, - ib 
 
 Chap. VII. — General Objections Answered, - 162 
 
 1. Modes are not essential, - - ib 
 
 2. Immersion is an inconvenient rite, 163 
 
 3. Immersion impossible in some places because 
 of cold, and in others because of scarcity of 
 water, - - - - 164 
 
 4. Immersion sometimes dangerous, and feeble 
 ministers cannot administer it, - 165 
 
 5. It is an indecent rite, - - 169 
 
 6. The Baptists rebaptize because they believe 
 theirs are the only churches, - 170 
 
 7. Restricted communion, - - 187 
 
 8. The Baptists make baptism a saving ordi- 
 nance, - ■ - - - 192 
 
 PART SECOND. 
 
 The Subjects of Baptism, 197 
 
 Chap. I. — No Precept in the Scriptures for the Baptism 
 
 OF Infants, - - - - 199 
 
 Sec. I. The commission affords no warrant, ib 
 
 Objections answered, - - 205 
 
 1. The disciples understood the commis- 
 sion according to what they knew of 
 Jewish proselyte baptism, ib 
 
 2. We must put om'selves into the position 
 
 of the disciples as Jews, 206 
 
Xll CONTENTS. 
 
 3. If infants are not provided for in the 
 commission, then they are not saved, ^07 
 
 4. The commission does not lorbid infant 
 baptism, - - - 210 
 
 Sec. II. Passages of Scripture usually relied on to 
 
 prove it, ... 211 
 
 Mark 10: 13-lG, - - 213 
 
 Inconsistency of Pedobaptists, - 216 
 
 Answer to the argument from a Calvinist, 217 
 Answer to the argument from an Armin- 
 ian, - - - - 223 
 
 Sec. III. Passages relied on, continued, 1 Cor. 7: 
 
 14 ; Acts 2: 39, - - 231 
 
 Chap. II. — No Example in the Scriptures of the Baptism 
 
 OF ANY OTHERS THAN BeLIEVERS, - 235 
 
 Sec. I. Household baptisms, - - ib 
 
 Household of Cornelius, - - 236 
 
 Household of Lydia, ^ - 237 
 
 Sec. II. Household baptisms continued— the jailor, 247 
 
 Chap. III. — Infant Baptism cannot be sustained by In- 
 ference AND Analogy, - - 254 
 Sec. I. Female communion, - - ib 
 Sec. iL Infant baptism not founded on the natural 
 relations between pious parents and 
 their children, - - 261 
 Sec. III. The Abrahamic covenant furnishes no 
 
 support to infant baptism, - 271 
 
 Sec. IV. The " Jewish church " and the Christian 
 church not the same under different 
 dispensations, - - 285 
 
 Chap. IV. — The Testimony of Ecclesiastical History 
 shows that Infant Baptism was not insti- 
 tuted BY Christ, - - - 295 
 Conclusion, .... 299 
 
INTRODUCtfCfl- C> % %>. 
 
 It is, by general consent, in the Evangelical Christian 
 world, agreed, that the Lord Jesus Christ has instituted 
 but two ordinances, which are to be perpetually observed 
 by his churches — Baptism and the Lord's Supper. These 
 originate not in the nature of things, but owe their exist- 
 ence to the will, and depend for their validity upon the 
 authority, of the King in Zion. Without a dissenting 
 voice, all the more important Evangelical denominations in 
 this country maintain that it is the duty of every spi- 
 ritual subject of Christ to be baptized in the name of the 
 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; but, 
 unhappily, when they come to decide upon the form and 
 the design of this ordinance, they are sadly at variance. 
 This disagreement is not to be ascribed, hastily, to a want 
 of honesty in those who differ from us : for from whence 
 did we obtain infallibility, and who has conferred upon 
 us the right " to judge another man's servant ?" And 
 yet it cannot, without irreverence, be said that the source 
 of difference can be traced to the obscurity of the terms 
 in which Christ has instituted his ordinance, nor to the 
 unintelligibility of the record which the Holy Spirit has 
 given of the manner in which it was administered by his 
 1 
 
2 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 immediate disciples. We cannot, without dishonoring 
 the Saviour, suppose, either that he did not have a clear 
 conception of the design and form of his ordinance, or 
 that he, inadvertently or otherwise, made use of terms, 
 which, when interpreted according to the common rules 
 of language, convey any other than the idea which he 
 intended ; and the Scriptures, in all that pertain to Chris- 
 tian duty, and to the way of salvation^ are so plain, that 
 any humble inquirer after the will of God, who uses 
 diligence, can, in these respects, be " perfect, thoroughly 
 furnished unto all good works." "Why, then, should there 
 be such a difference of opinion among those who, in a 
 judgment of charity, are equally honest? 
 
 Originally, doubtless, all the errors and divisions among 
 the professed followers of Christ, had their source in the 
 ignorance and wickedness that existed in the so-called 
 Church. At the present time, however, and in this 
 country, men find the Christian world divided into differ- 
 ent sects, all of whom afford evidence, more or less con- 
 clusive, of jDossessing the favor of God, and the spirit 
 of Christ. To one or another of these, when they obtain 
 hope in the Saviour, they unite themselves, often without 
 inquiry, influenced by taste, by association,^ by the bias of 
 early education, or by the fact that the instrumentalities 
 of that particular communion have been blessed to their 
 conversion ; and afterwards, should this controverted sub- 
 ject of baptism, or any other, be brought to their notice, 
 they meet it almost of necessity with a bias, however 
 unconsciously, in favor of the views of their party, and 
 with a desire and confident expectation of success to 
 
INTRODUCTION. 3 
 
 their cause. Should they be induced to enter upon the 
 investigation, they do so not as the judge, who, identified 
 with neither party, holds the scales of justice even, and 
 gives the preponderance to the testimony which is most 
 weighty, but as the advocate, who, hired to conduct to a 
 successful issue, the cause of his client, gives to the show- 
 ing on the other side only attention enough to qualify 
 him to invalidate and refute it. Having committed them- 
 selves first, they either feel called on to defend, as well as 
 they can, the opinions and practices with w^hich they be- 
 came connected originally, without inquiry, or refuse to 
 investigate the subject at all. Thus many good men, 
 when they speak or write on any controverted subject — 
 and with none is this more true than with this subject of 
 baptism — lay themselves open, with reason, to the charge 
 of wresting the Scriptures, at the same time that they, 
 through the deceitfulness of the human heart, are fii-mly 
 convinced that they are reasoning with fairness, and de- 
 ferring to the authority of God's word. This supposition, 
 by way of solution of the question, I make, not with the 
 design to fix it as a charge upon those who differ from 
 me : for it becomes me, and those with whom I act, to 
 see well to it, that we are not influenced by the same 
 motives. 
 
 Nor is it a matter of little importance, whether we 
 follow literally the instructions of the Master. All of 
 Christ's institutions are essential to the purposes for which 
 they were intended, and nothing can be adopted as a 
 substitute for them. When we misrepresent or misapply 
 them, either wilfully or through ignorance, we not only 
 
4 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 lose the blessings Avliicli they were designed to convey to 
 us, but we sin against God, and tend, by our course, to 
 produce and perpetuate divisions among those who ought 
 to be of one mind, having " one Lord, one faith, one bap- 
 tism." The Apostle Paul commended the Corinthians 
 for their literal observance of the institutions of Christ : 
 "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all 
 things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to 
 you." (I. Cor., ii., 2.) And never will the sad divisions 
 among Evangehcal Christians be healed, until they con. 
 sent to obey literally the commands of Christ, and to 
 follow implicitly the inspired examples that are recorded 
 for their instruction. 
 
 God overrules the divisions among his people, as he 
 does the wrath of man, for his glory, and for the ad- 
 vancement of his cause. But, surely, it is not necessary 
 to prove that these divisions themselves, implying, as they 
 do, the existence of error, cannot be pleasing in his sight. 
 Never can the hosts of God expect with confidence to 
 possess the territory of the aliens, so long as they them- 
 selves are " divided, discordant and belligerent." Christ 
 prayed the Father, (John 17,) that his people might be 
 one, and that, in keeping with unanimity the word which 
 he had given them, they might convince the world of his 
 divine mission. In like manner, all his followers should 
 pray for Christian unity, and towards this, as one impor- 
 tant result, their labors should constantly tend. This 
 desirable object is to be attained, if at all, not by harsh 
 epithets and an intolerant spirit — the tendency of which 
 is to alienate — not by entering into compromises of truth 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 and duty, and "agreeing to disagree," when this involves 
 a truce with error ; but by a candid and affectionate dis- 
 cussion of the points of difference with our brethren, 
 taking care, while we argue with all the force at our 
 command, to divest ourselves as far as possible, in fact 
 and in appearance, of all party feeling. And thus, if we 
 fail to dislodge the error from the minds of those who 
 defend it, we may at least serve to cut off recruits to it, 
 from the ranks of those who have not as yet committed 
 themselves. 
 
 There are two extremes among religious controvertists. 
 Some, though they reason wdth vigor, and advance ar- 
 guments that, if left to their own force, would tend to 
 convince, exhibit a bitter spirit, and assail with harshness 
 the feehngs and the motives of their opponents ; while 
 others, from an excessive fear of giving offence, muffle 
 the points of their arguments, and touch the opposing 
 sentiments so delicately and tenderly as to make, if any, 
 but a feeble impression. The true course lies between 
 these two extremes. Persons should be treated with 
 courtesy and Christian affection, feelings should be re- 
 spected, and motives not touched at all ; while with the 
 error we should grapple with all the vigor of which we 
 are masters. This being a foe to God and man, we 
 should wage against it a relentless war of extermination, 
 and assail it with all the engines of lawful combat. 
 Should its native weakness be aided by a strong position, 
 fortified by superstition and perverted natural feeling, and 
 an attack in front, therefore, be not the easiest way to 
 dislodge it, we should feel no hesitation to turn its posi- 
 
6 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 tion, if possible, and to pour upon it a destructive fire in 
 the rear — a thing that distinguished mihtary men, with 
 reason, so much dread. 
 
 In the following pages I have to deal, not with my 
 brethren, who differ from me, but with their arguments ; 
 and though my onsets, doubtless, when compared to 
 others, wdll be feeble, I shall give no cause of offence, so 
 long as I treat their arguments with fairness and justice, 
 and conform my coui-se to the principles of honorable 
 and lawful war. 
 
 I 
 
BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SltBJECTSr 
 
 PAET I. 
 
 THE ACT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Three definitions are given of the act of baptism : 1. 
 One party maintain that it is the immersion of the sub- 
 ject in water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
 and of the Holy Ghost: 2. Another, that "it denotes 
 pm-ification by water, whether the subject is appHed to 
 the element, or the element to the subject " (Summers, 
 p. 13) ; that " the mode " is either by pouring, by sprink- 
 ling, or by immersion, and that the first two are more 
 significant, and therefore preferable, though the last is 
 vaHd : and 3. A small but increasing party, main- 
 tain that the idea of immersion is not contained in it at 
 all, and that therefore the rite should never be adminis- 
 tered in that way. 
 
 The first of these positions the Baptists hold, and to 
 its support Part I, of this argument is devoted. 
 
BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 IMMERSION ESSENTIAL TO BAPTISM. 
 
 Section I. — The Meaning of the Word. 
 
 That immersion is essential to the ordinance is arsrued, 
 1. Because the GreeJc loords used in the Neio Testament 
 to designate it, mean immersion. All the standard lexi- 
 cographers agree in giving, as the primary meaning of 
 the verbs bapto and haptizo, to immerse or dip, and of 
 the nouns hap)tlsma and baptismos, immersion. Now, 
 upon the supposition that these learned authors are cor- 
 rect — and I know of no one who calls in question that 
 which they unanimously assert — the subject should no 
 longer admit of controversy. What though they give 
 other so-called secondary meanings, the ordinary signifi- 
 cation of the words, as they obtained at that time, must 
 have been the sense in which Christ and the sacred wri- 
 ters used them, or else their language was unintelligible. 
 And it is a princij^le of interpretation, laid down by the 
 pedobaptist Ernesti, that " The literal meaning is not to be 
 deserted without reason or necessity." 
 
 To illustrate my meaning, suppose the Scriptures had 
 been written originally in the English language, instead 
 of the Greek, and the word di]) had occurred in every 
 place in which you find bapiizo in Greek, and I should 
 maintain that the ordinance is properly administered by 
 either pouring, sprinkling or immersion, because the word 
 dip "means any application of water, having no reference 
 
IMMERSION ESSENTIAL TO BAPTISM. 9 
 
 to mode at all," what would you think of me ? Would 
 you not be strongly tempted to call in question either my 
 intelligence or my honesty ? And yet, if your impatience 
 and disgust would permit you to listen to the arguments 
 in support of my assertion, I could produce to you a 
 number of learned dictionaries, which agree in asserting 
 that it has as many as half a score of " secondary sig- 
 nifications." I could show to you that Johnson, and Walk- 
 er, and Webster, and others, give among the rest, as defin- 
 itions, to moisten, to wet. Now suppose, my dear pedo- 
 baptist reader, that T, reasoning upon these grounds, 
 should say : If Christ had designed that his followers 
 should be immersed, (baptized,) he would have used a 
 word that clearly expressed that mode ; but dip^ as the 
 dictionaries all show, has many significations, and is in 
 no respect significant of mode, and therefore, when Christ 
 commissioned his disciples to go into all the world, and 
 preach the Gospel to every creature, dipping them, etc., 
 he meant, " Sprinkle a little water upon their foreheads, 
 or apply the element in any way," my dear pedobaptist 
 reader, what would you say to me ? Do tell me ! — or 
 rather impress it upon your own mind : for mutato 
 nomine de te fahula narratur. Your answer to me, in 
 the supposed case, will suffice me as an answer to you in 
 the real case between us ; since the English dictionaries 
 give almost the same, and as many definitions to dip, 
 that the Greek lexicons give to the verbs hcqoto and hap- 
 tizo. In English, and in Greek, the word must have its 
 ordinary signification, unless there is something in the 
 connection that requires otherwise. Now, as the com- 
 
10 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 mission is a plain statute, there is nothing about it that 
 requires its words to be taken in any other than their 
 ordinary and hteral sense; and the lexicons all assert 
 that the primary literal sense of one of its words (bap- 
 tizo) is to immerse. 
 
 So much for the unanimous testimony of the learned 
 authors of the lexicons. And certainly nothing can more 
 definitely settle the meaning of a Greek term, than the 
 unanimous testimony of all the Greek scholars. But Dr. 
 Summers appeals from the decisions of uninspired scho- 
 lars : " Let it be remembered that we are to seek for the 
 meaning of scriptural terms in the Scriptures themselves. 
 In this respect, as in many others, the Bible is to be its 
 own authoritative interpreter." p. 95. Very well, then : 
 Let the Bible be its own authoritative interpreter, and see 
 if it does not strongly corroborate the position taken by 
 the lexicographers. Let us notice the use of the Greek 
 words in the original, and of the English words in the 
 pedo-baptist translation from it. 
 
 The Greek language is very copious, and has a particular 
 word to exj^ress every motion, application and use of water. 
 For to sprinkle, it has raino or rantizo ; for to jiour^ clico 
 or elcclieo ; for to wash the hands, etc., nipio ; for to hatlic, 
 louo ; for to icasli clothes, pluno ; for to purifij^ agnizo 
 or kathairo ; and all these words are used in the origi- 
 nals of the Septuagint and the New Testament. The 
 translators of our present English version were pedo- 
 baptists ; and they use in their translations the word jfjowr 
 and its derivatives more than 150 times, the word sprin- 
 kle more than 60 times, the word dip and its derivatives 
 
IMMERSION ESSENTIAL TO BAPTISM. 11 
 
 more than 20 times, the word plunge once, and the word 
 purify a score of times at least. The word baptizo and 
 its derivatives, when connected with the ordinance, they 
 were forbidden by King James to translate. Now the point 
 of our present argument is this : In no case where the ori- 
 ginal means clearly pour, sprinkle or purify, (leaving out 
 of view the references to the ordinance,) is hapto or hap- 
 tizo used ; and in no case where it means to dip or im- 
 mense, is raino or 7'aniizo, clieo or ekcheo, agnizo or ka- 
 thairo used. No where do our translators render Sapto 
 or ha2)tizo, by S2^rinkle, ^;o?/r or purify ; and raino or 
 rantizo, cheo or ekcheo, and agnizo or kathairo, by dij), 
 plunge or immerse. In the translation of Lev. iv., 6, V, 
 we have the words dip, sp)rinkle and loour in immediate 
 succession, in perfect conformity with the principles laid 
 down above : " And the priest shall dip {hapto) his finger 
 in the blood, and sprinkle {raino) of the blood seven 
 times .... and the priest shall pour {ekcheo) all the 
 blood at the bottom of the altar." See also iv., 17, 18, 
 and ix., 9. If, then, the words hapto and ha2^tizo (when 
 not used in connection with the ordinance) in the original 
 Greek Scriptures, never are used to designate to pozir, to 
 sprinkle or to purify, and the pedobaptist translators 
 never render them by these words ; but, when dipping 
 is manifestly intended, and it is expressed by one word, 
 no other than hap)to or baptizo is used, it is reasonable to 
 infer that, when the Bible uses them in connection with 
 the ordinance, it employs them in the same sense. This 
 argument meets the demand of Dr. Summers, and is 
 
12 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 conclusive against the somewhat irreverent position, that 
 the word bajytizo, as an ecclesiastical word, has a different 
 signification from baptizo, as a common Greek w^ord. 
 
 Dr. Summers adopts the novel suggestion of Presi- 
 dent Beecher, that haptko, in the New Testament, signi- 
 fies neither to immerse, to sprinkle, nor to pour, but to 
 purify ; and he thinks, consequently, he has the most 
 unrestricted warrant to baptize " either by applying the 
 element to the subject or the subject to the element." 
 " The Jews, who were contemporary with John the Bap- 
 tist, attached the idea of purification to the word bap- 
 tism." The only argument he gives to prove this, is the 
 narrative in John iii. : " ' After these things came Jesus 
 and his disciples into the land of Judea ; and there he 
 tarried with them and baptized. And John also was 
 baptizing in Enon, near to Salim, because there was much 
 water there ; and they came and were baptized. For 
 John was not yet cast into prison. Then there arose a 
 question between some of John's disciples and the Jews, 
 2i\)0\\.i purify in(j. And they came unto John, and said 
 unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, 
 to whom thou bearest witness, behold the same bcq^tizeth, 
 and all men come to him.' This question about purify- 
 ing^ therefore, was a question concerning the baptism 
 administered by John and that administered by Jesus. 
 The Jews accordingly understood baptism to mean puri- 
 fication," p. 84. This is all the evidence given to us to 
 prove that an important word in the New Testament has 
 there a meaning different from its signification everywhere 
 
IMMERSIO-!Sr''ESSENTlAL TO BAPTISM. 18 
 
 else. And upon this nan-ow basis — this figment of the 
 imagination — does his whole superstructure rest. A very 
 few remarks will show its absurdity. 
 
 1. The word translated purifying is not ba2)tismos, but 
 Icatharismos ; and if they are synonymous in the New 
 Testament, they are synonymous no where else. 
 
 2. The sacred narrative does not say that " this ques- 
 tion about purifying was a question concerning the bap- 
 tism of John and that administered by Jesus." All that 
 is said is, " There arose a question between some of John's 
 disciples and the Jews, about purifying," {katharisinos^ 
 not a hint is given as to any question about baptism 
 {haiHismos). 
 
 3. If it be assumed that such was the origin of the 
 question, the most reasonable supposition is, that as the 
 Jews were accustomed to purify themselves ceremonially, 
 sometimes by immersion, they thought that John, in im- 
 mersing others, had the same object in view, and was 
 therefore making innovations upon their customs ; of 
 which the disciples had attempted to disabuse their 
 minds. 
 
 4. Purification may be the effect of immersion, but it 
 is not immersion itself. 
 
 5. The words hapto and haiotizo have no idea of water 
 contained in them. Like the words dij) and immerse^ in 
 English, they are connected not only with water, but with 
 any thing else that can be penetrated. Dr. S. himself, 
 p. 223, gives examples where it is used in connection 
 with breast milk and wine. Classic and other Greek 
 authors furnish innumerable instances where the wordi 
 
14 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 are used in connection with honey, wax, ointment, the 
 human body, a dish, fire, brine, gall, oil, vinegar, soup, 
 moist earth, broth, fat, filth, etc. The ordinance of 
 baptism has water connected with it ; but the word baj)- 
 tizo has necessarily no connection with water. 
 
 6. The ordinance of baptism implies, in part, puiifica- 
 tion, but the words hapto and haptizo contain no such 
 idea in them ; since, like dip and immerse, they may be 
 connected with words which imply defilement. Job. ix., 
 30, 31 : "If I wash myself with snow water, and make 
 my hands never so clean, [aptokatharomai chersi katha- 
 rais,) yet shalt thou plunge me in the ditch " (en rupo 
 me ebapsas) — hterally, plunge or dip me in filth. Here 
 kathairo, from which katharismos is derived, is used in 
 opposition to bap>to, from which baptismos is derived ; 
 and the latter used in a phrase which is designed to ex- 
 press not purification, but defilement ! 
 
 Having disposed of this fanciful interpretation, which 
 no scholar of reputation has endorsed, let us return to 
 the point whence we were for a moment diverted. 
 
 The common, primary signification of the words used 
 to designate the ordinance, is all that we need, to estab- 
 lish our definition of the act of baptism. On the testi- 
 mony of all Greek scholars, and from the usage of the 
 inspired language of the original Scriptures, we have 
 found this to be immerse. Even Dr. Summers seems to 
 grant this. " Who ever denied that the word bapto^ from 
 which bapiizo is derived, sometimes means to immerse ? 
 Indeed, who ever denied that the derivative, bapiizo, is 
 sometimes used in the same sense ?" p. 93. " Sup- 
 
IMMERSION ESSENTIAL TO BAPTISM. 15 
 
 pose the word bapto originally meant dip, how easily 
 would it take the meaning?" p. 97. "The deriva- 
 tive, baptize, may have primarily meant to dip." p. 98. 
 It is proved by the testimony of all scholars, whether 
 disinterested or otherwise, that their primary, usual and 
 common signification is immersion ; and here we might 
 rest the argument from philology. But, 
 
 3. We take a higher position still, and maintain that 
 baptizo, baptisma and baptismos, the only words used to 
 designate the ordinance, mean immersion, and nothing 
 else. They have no secondary meaning. If this can be 
 proved, surely it ought to settle the controversy. Do you 
 say that this is merely my assertion ; and are you pro- 
 ceeding to offset it by the assertions of others, who have 
 the reputation of being profound Greek scholars ? I ask 
 you not to receive my opinion, but to weigh my proof. 
 If I am not very much mistaken, I can prove it, and that, 
 too, without an array, to the mere English scholar, of 
 crabbed and outlandish Greek sentences. Nay, to satisfy 
 my reader of the truth of my assertion, I do not require 
 that he shall be properly an English scholar ; all I de- 
 mand is, that he should possess common sense, and be 
 able to see the force of a simple argument, when pre- 
 sented in plain English. As I write chiefly for the un- 
 learned, I shall take care to give my readers confidence, 
 by so arguing as not only to subject myself to exposure 
 from scholars, but to place it in the power of any man 
 of common sense to refute me, if not put me to confu- 
 sion, if I have ignorantly and recklessly asserted that 
 which is without foundation. 
 
16 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 Ba2)to, I grant, has two significations — to dip or im- 
 merse, and to dije. This word, however, is never used to 
 designate the ordinance, and may therefore be dismissed 
 from this inquiry. Writers show inadvertency or unfair- 
 ness, when they attempt to show^ the act of baptism from 
 the meaning of this word. 
 
 JBa2)tizo, a derivative from bcq^to, means to dip, or 
 immerse ; and baj^tisma and baj^tismos mean immersion. 
 These three words are the only ones used to designate 
 the ordinance, and we have said they express the act of 
 immersion, and nothing else. Do you ask how we prove 
 this ? I answer, in the only way in which such a propo- 
 sition can be proved. We have collated all the passages 
 in which the words have as yet been found, in classic 
 Greek literature, up to the time of Christ, in the Septua- 
 gint version of the Old Testament, and in the Greek of 
 the New, and in the works of Josephus, who lived imme- 
 diately after the time of Christ, and have found that, in 
 every case, this is their proper and only meaning. Did 
 the limits of my work permit, and w^ere I writing chiefly 
 for the learned, I could give here innumerable examples, 
 already collated to my hand, embracing all the instances 
 that have yet been brought to light, all of which, with 
 united voice, bear the same testimony. 
 
 Do you say that this is, after all, basing the proof upon 
 my assertion, and do you inquire how it is that I lay my- 
 self open to exposure, as I promised ? I answer. In this 
 way : I have said that no passage in any Greek writings, 
 up to, and immediately after the time of Christ, can be 
 found, containing these words, w^here they must be trans- 
 
IMMERSION ESSENTIAL TO BAPTISM. l*J 
 
 lated by any other English word than dip or immerse. 
 I make this assertion in the face of the many scholars in 
 your ranks, who are interested to expose me, if they can. 
 Now, if you, or any one else, can cite such a passage, then 
 my assertion is disproved, and I shall be driven from this 
 advanced position. Cite to us a passage, where the words 
 or either of them, must necessarily and naturally mean 
 something else, and we will admit it, and fall back from 
 this position to that found in the primary meaning. The 
 argument from the primary meaning amounts to a de- 
 monstration ; this, if true, amounts to an utter annihila- 
 tion of the opposing sentiment. 
 
 We have, for a long time, been advertising for pas- 
 sages that would show more than one meaning to these 
 words ; but none have, as yet, been produced — nor can 
 they be. True, our brethren have expended much zeal, 
 and no little learning, in responding to us ; but all the 
 examples they cite are turned against them, as I shall 
 show you can be done with those that have recently 
 been brought forth and paraded in pedobaptist books. 
 If, then, we go over the whole range of Greek literature, 
 up to the time of Christ, assisted, too, by all the learning 
 and self-interest of the pedobaptist world, and do not 
 find a passage in which the words must mean any thing 
 else than immersion, then it follows conclusively, that 
 they mean immersion and nothing else. Finally, it fol- 
 lows that the act of baptism is immersion, and nothing 
 
18 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 Section II. — Objections to the Definition of the Word 
 answered. 
 
 I have said that our brethren have responded to our 
 call for evidence that these words have more than one 
 meaning, and have cited from the Scriptures, from classic 
 Greek, and from Josephus, examples which, they argue, 
 disprove our assertion. Nor have they contented them- 
 selves with this — though this, if successful, would suffice 
 to drive us from our advanced position. Either from 
 some misgivings as to the pertinency of their citations, 
 or because of their conviction that our assertion, if sus- 
 tained, is by itself decisive of the contest, they array 
 against us, besides, authority, argument and ridicule. 
 Now, this last we have not the slightest objection to, and 
 we shall never complain of any one for using it against 
 us. If a position be in fact ridiculous, it is perfectly 
 legitimate to make it appear so ; if it be not ridiculous, 
 the effort to make it appear so will recoil upon the one 
 who attempts it. Would Gibraltar frown less sternly, 
 because a simpleton attempted from below to laugh it 
 into a surrender ? And which would appear more ridi- 
 culous, the garrison or the assailant ? We can enjoy 
 your ridicule as well as you, and laugh at it all the more 
 heartily, because your wit, which you vainly attempt to 
 throw up at us, ascends only high enough to fall down 
 ludicrously upon your own head. " Attic salt " is calcu- 
 lated to produce a very keen smart when it can be brought 
 into eontact with an exposed and sensitive part; but how 
 
IMMERSION ESSENTIAL TO BAPTISM. 19 
 
 do you suppose, is it natural for the assailed to be affected, 
 when, in perfect security, he observes that all the mate- 
 rials with which your guns are charged are shattered 
 into fragments against his impregnable wall, and fall 
 in the minutest saline particles into your own eyes ? Ri- 
 dicule, when directed against persons, is always out o f 
 order ; but it is ever legitimate when applied to argu- 
 ments. If the argument be ridiculous, it is lawful to 
 make it appear so ; if it be not so, the attempt to make 
 it appear so will injure not it, but the assailant. Far be 
 it from us, therefore, to complain that you ridicule us. 
 
 But we demand, from our brethren, something more 
 than this. Let their arguments be ever so plausible, and 
 their ridicule ever so keen, and their authorities ever so 
 weighty, nothing but the Greek examples can refute us ; 
 and one such, if it testifies against us, can drive us from 
 our position. To the production of one such example, 
 then, we sternly hold those who oppose us. But it is 
 said, by way of objection, 
 
 1. "Do not words frequently undergo changes in sig- 
 nification ? — there is the word let, for instance, that for- 
 merly signified to hinder, now meaning the very opposite ; 
 and prevent, formerly meaning to anticipate, and a mul- 
 titude of others, to the same effect. May not haptizo, 
 then, have undergone like changes ?" I answer, there is 
 nothing more common than for words to depart very far 
 from their primary meanings ; but that they do so depart 
 is ascertained not by assumption, but by noticing their 
 applications, in the various connections in which they are 
 found. Now, our assertion is, that these three Greek 
 
20 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 words have not departed from their original significa- 
 tion : — that they meant at the time of Christ, and ever 
 had meant immersion^ and nothing else. This assertion 
 is based, as we have said, upon a careful collation of all 
 the passages containing them. Now, if there is one pas- 
 sage teaching anything else, bring it forward, and we 
 yield the point. But you cannot do it. 
 
 Objection 2. "But is it not ridiculous that the Baptists, 
 an ignorant sect, should speak with so much confidence 
 with regard to the meaning of Greek words, when they 
 are opposed by the vast majority of the Christian world, 
 containing such a preponderance of learning ?" Softly, 
 my dear sir. I confess there is something ridiculous about 
 it. It is ludicrous, that this despised sect, that have no 
 learning to boast of^ should keep at bay, or rather dis- 
 comfit, the whole pedobaptist world, because, though 
 they have Greek at their fingers' end, they cannot cite 
 one passage that disproves their ignorant assertion ! 
 
 Objection 3. " But how can you have the face to assert 
 that these words have but one meaning, when all, or 
 nearly all, the lexicons are against you ?" The position 
 you take was assumed first by Dr. Carson, who acknow- 
 ledges " I have all the lexicographers and commentators 
 against me in this opinion." " Is not this prima facie 
 evidence on such a question as this, that he and you 
 are wrong in your opinion, and fatuous in trying to main- 
 tain it ?" Summers, p. 223. Dr. S. is a dictionary man 
 himself, and by the use of the word " fatuous " he seems 
 determined that his readers shall be also. 
 Doubtless, many of your unlearned brethren, (if you 
 
IMMERSION ESSE17TIAL TO BAPTISM. 21 
 
 have any such among you,) when they heard a Baptist 
 minister, in whom they had confidence, assert, for the 
 first time, that these words mean immersion and nothing 
 else, were filled with concern, until they had an opportu- 
 nity to apply to some teacher, or to a recent graduate of 
 the same persuasion with themselves ; and when their 
 oracle showed them that the lexicons in his possession 
 give many significations, they concluded that surely they 
 must have misunderstood the speaker. When, however, 
 on a similar occasion, in a similar address, he repeated 
 the assertion, they looked upon him with astonishment, 
 uncertain whether the remark proce^led from ignorance 
 or dishonesty, or whether it was the effect of both. 
 
 Now, this objection from the lexicons is one of the 
 easiest things in the world to obviate. The fact is, the 
 lexicons are all on our side ; though it may plausibly 
 appear that, in this question as to the number of mean- 
 ings pertaining to these words, they are against us. The 
 first that they give is the true and only signification, 
 and the others are mere commentaries upon the word, in 
 certain passages in which it is found. 
 
 But first, in regard to Dr. Carson's admission. One 
 would suppose, in reading Dr. Summers, that Dr. Car- 
 son grants that the lexicons and he are at issue, in 
 regard to the meaning of the word, when the fact 
 is just the other way. Dr. Miller, of Princeton, set 
 the example in garbling Dr. C, and it would seem, 
 from Dr. Summers' close imitation of him, either that 
 he had seen Dr. Carson's language no where else than 
 in Dr. Miller's book, or that he had been trained in 
 the same school of candor with the Princeton Doctor. 
 
22 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 Dr. Carson's language is at follows : " My position is, that 
 it (bajitizo) always signifies to dip — never expressing any 
 thing but mode. Now, as I have all the lexicographers 
 and commentators 'against me in this opinion, it will be 
 necessary to say a word or two with respect to the 
 authority of lexicons." p. 55. " It is in giving secon- 
 dary meanings, in which the lines are not so easily dis- 
 covered, that the vision of the lexicographer is to be 
 suspected." "I admit that the meaning which they 
 take out of the word is always implied in the passage 
 where the word occurs. But I deny that this mean- 
 ing is expressed Jiy the word. It is always made out 
 by implication, or in some other way." p. 56. " What 
 an insurmountable task it would be to master a language, 
 if, in reality, words had as many different meanings as 
 lexicons represent them ! Parkhurst gives six meanings 
 to bajHizo. I undertake to prove that it has but one ; 
 yet he and I do not differ about the primary meaning of 
 this word. He assigns to it figurative meanings. I main- 
 tain that in figures there is no different meaning of the 
 word. It is only a figurative application. The meaning 
 of the word is always the same. Nor does any one need 
 to have a figurative application explained in any other 
 way than by giving the proper meaning of the word. 
 When this is known, it must be a bad figure that does 
 not contain its own light. It is useless to load lexicons 
 with figurative applications, except as a concordance." 
 p. 57. 
 
 I have said that the lexicons and we agree — that the 
 first definition which they give is the true and only sig- 
 nification, and that the others are mere commentaries on 
 
IMMERSION ESSENTIAL TO BAPTISM. 23 
 
 the passages in which the word is found ; or, as Dr. Car- 
 son expresses it, that the definitions which they give of 
 the word is more properly the meaning which is impHed 
 in the passages in which the word is found. How do 
 I prove this ? I will illustrate it by the English lexi- 
 cons, in the definitions which they give of the word dip. 
 Does dip have a definite signification? Suppose we 
 should say. Our position is that dip always signifies to 
 immerse, never expressing any thing but mode. Upon 
 your principles, would we not have all the English lexi- 
 cographers against us 1 Let us, as a specimen, call Dr. 
 Samuel Johnson to the stand, and see what he testifies. 
 He gives you his definitions, and the passages upon which 
 he founds them. Hear him : 
 DIP, V. a., 1. To immerse. 
 
 2. To moisten^ to wet. 
 " And though not mortal, yet a cold shuddering dew 
 Dips me all o'er, as when the wrath of Jove 
 Speaks thunder." — 3Iiltons Cormis. 
 
 What a pity it is that Dr. Johnson did not live in our 
 day, so as to have the benefit of the criticisms of Dr. 
 Summers and others like him ! He would, in that case, 
 have drawn from this passage the additional significations, 
 to sprinkle, to distil, to come down upon. In his criticism 
 on a like passage in the Septuagint, (Dan. iv., 33,) Dr. 
 S. says : " Any child can tell whether Nebuchadnezzar 
 was plunged into the dew or sprinkled with it. No mat- 
 ter how copious it was, he was neither plunged nor im- 
 mersed in it. The Greek translators knew better than 
 
24 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 that. They knew that the copious moisture came down 
 upon the person of the unhappy monarch ; yet they em- 
 ploy the word ebaphc to express this action." p. 93. We 
 commend this criticism to the favorable notice of the 
 Doctor's editors hereafter. How great a relief it would 
 be, if we could drive di]) not only out of the Greek, but 
 out of the English also. But to return to Dr. Johnson's 
 definitions : 
 
 3. To be engaged in any affair ! 
 
 When men are once dipt they go on until they 
 
 are stifled. (L'Estrange.) 
 
 Poor dip^ I am afraid you are in a fair way of being 
 stifled yourself. 
 
 4. To engage as a pledge : generally used for the first 
 mortgage ! 
 
 " Be careful still of the main chance, my sod, 
 
 Put out the principal in trusty hands, 
 
 Live on the use, and never dip thy lands." — Dryden. 
 
 DIP, V. n., 1. To sink, 
 
 2. To enter, to jnerce. 
 
 " The vulture dijypiny into Prometheus' side." — Granville. 
 
 3. To enter slightly into any thing. 
 
 " When I think all the repetitions are struck out in a 
 copy, I sometimes find more by dipping in the first 
 volume." — Pope. 
 
 4. To take that tvhich comes first, to choose by 
 vhance ! 
 
IMMERSION ESSENTIAL TO BAPTISM. 25 
 
 " With what ill thoughts of Jove art thou possessed? 
 
 Wouldst thou prefer him to some man 1 Suppose 
 
 I dipped amongst the worst, and Staius chose." — Dryden. 
 
 Where have we got to ? Dip signifies to engage as a 
 pledge, to take that which comes first ! Disguised with 
 such a dress as this, and wandering so far from home, its 
 most intimate friends would not recognize it — nay, it 
 would not know itself. There is a story told, to this 
 eflfect : A simple-hearted countryman, driving to town a 
 yoke of oxen in a cart, and falling asleep, his team wan- 
 dered away from the high road, into a region unknown 
 to him. While he was profoundly slumbering, a wag 
 unhitches his oxen and leads them out of sight. Poor 
 Giles, awaking from sleep, in the first moments of bewil- 
 derment, is in doubt about his personal identity, and thus 
 soliloquizes : " If this is Giles Jones, I have lost a yoke 
 of steers ; if it is not, I have found a cart." In like 
 manner, if dip could sohloquize, it might say : " If this 
 is dip, I have lost my position in the language ; if it is 
 not, I have found a great many other positions." Dip 
 means to take that which corjies first ! Then if Christ 
 had given his commission in English, and it had read, 
 " Preach the Gospel to every creature, dipping them," 
 etc., he may have meant, take them hy chance, as you 
 happen to fall in with them ! 
 
 There is one other example from Pope, which seems 
 to have escaped Dr. Johnson, which we commend to the 
 notice of the editors of another edition of his dictionary. 
 If they would call to their aid the critical acumen of Dr. 
 
26 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 Summers, they could, doubtless, add, as other definitions 
 of the word, to jxiint, to dye, to color. 
 
 " Loose to the winds their airy garments flew, 
 
 Their glittering textures of the filmy dew, 
 
 Dipped in the richest tinctures of the skies. 
 
 Where light disports in ever mingling dyes." — Rape of the Loch. 
 
 That is, painted with, or dyed in, the richest tinctures of 
 the skies. The same havoc the English dictionaries make 
 with the word immerse. 
 
 Now, my dear reader, Dr. Johnson does not mean to 
 say that dip has, properly, any other signification than 
 to immerse ; nor do the lexicographers of the Greek lan- 
 guage mean to say that haptizo has any other significa- 
 tion than to immerse. All the significations which they 
 give, after No. 1, are mere commentaries on the word, in 
 the passages in which it has a figurative application. But 
 if they do mean to assert that it has the half dozen or more 
 independent significations which they append to it, we 
 would deny the conclusion, and demand the proof. They 
 did not make the significations, but drew them from the 
 various applications of the word in the passages in which 
 it is found. As we have shown above, the lexicographers 
 are not against us ; but if they were, we would join issue 
 with them, and defy them to produce a single example 
 in which the word has a difterent meaning from to dip, 
 to immerse. They could not do it ; nor can you. We 
 would not yield to the authority of the lexicons, if they 
 were against us. Nothing but the passage containing 
 the word, where it must mean something else, can refute 
 
IMMERSION ESSENTIAL TO BAPTISM. 2*7 
 
 US. Now, if there is such a passage, you and the lexi- 
 cons together can produce it. We hold you to this. But 
 the passage cannot be found. 
 
 Objection 4. " Well, we are able to, and will produce 
 a number of examples to disprove your assertion. We 
 can furnish such from the Greek of the Scriptures, from 
 classic Greek, and from the works of Josephus." Now, 
 then, you are coming to the point. Dr. Summers is one 
 of your latest writers who has published a book ; and, I 
 suppose, your citations are the same as his, since his (as 
 far as he goes) are the same as those of his predeces- 
 sors. 
 
 Examples from the Greek of the Scriptures. 
 
 1st. The case of Nebuchadnezzar, Dan. iv., 33. "And 
 his body was luet [baj^io) with the dew of heaven." To 
 this I answer, (1.) The word here is not baptizo but bapto. 
 This latter, we have said, has two meanings : to dip or 
 immerse, and to dye ; but it is never used in connection 
 with the ordinance, and proves nothing for you, therefore, 
 in this controversy ; but (2,) even this should not have 
 been translated by the word wet, but by the word dip. 
 " His body was dipped in the dews of heaven." It is a 
 figurative application of the word bapto ; and is strictly 
 a parallel case to the example from Milton : 
 
 " And though not mortal, yet a cold shuddering dew 
 Dips me all o'er." 
 
 How do you suppose, reader, Dr. Summers gets over 
 
28 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 this striking coincidence ? Why, hy saying, "Not being 
 mortal, however, we cannot reason from this case to Ne- 
 buchadnezzar !" The difficulty, however, does not consist 
 in the object dipped, but in the substance into which it 
 is dijiped. And in each case, that is not something su- 
 pernatural — as nectar or ambrosia, for instance — but the 
 dew of nature. The translators have lost the beauty and 
 force of the original, and have given us the effect of the 
 act implied in the word, rather than the act itself. How 
 tame would be the passage from Milton, if amended 
 according to the literal principles of our critics — " Cold 
 shuddering dew ivets me all o'er." Nor can Dr. Sum- 
 mei*s urge against us the authority of the translators, for 
 he himself appeals from it : " Any child can tell whether 
 Nebuchadnezzar was plunged into the dews or sprinkled 
 with itP In his hands, Milton would read, " A cold 
 shuddering dew sprinkles me all o'er." 
 
 2d. In Heb., ix., 10, the translators render the word 
 baptismos correctly, washing: "Which stood only in 
 meats and drinks, and divers washings " {diaphorois baj)- 
 tismois). On this. Dr. S. appealing in fact, though not 
 ostensibly, from the rendering of the translators, cites, as 
 illustrative of the meaning that the Apostle attaches to 
 the word baptisjnois, Heb., ix., 1.3 : " If the blood of 
 bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer, sprinkling 
 the unclean," etc., and adds, " every attentive reader of the 
 Pentateuch knows that the purifications here alluded to 
 were efifected by aspersion or affusion, as the Apostle 
 affirms, and these sprinklings he calls baptism." *' He 
 alludes to the purification of unclean persons by water, 
 
IMMERSION ESSENTIAL TO BAPTISM. 29 
 
 into which had been cast the ashes of a burnt heifer. 
 This water of separation was to be sprinkled upon a man 
 that had touched a corpse, to effect his purification, 
 Numb. xix. ; and this sprinkling St. Paul expressly styles 
 baptism." p. 80. It would seem that the word baptis- 
 mois, here, does not mean "washings," then, but "sprink- 
 lings." As to the assertion that the Apostle expressly 
 styles sprinkling baptism, I answer, that he expressly 
 styles it not baptism, but rantism ; since the word used 
 is not baptizousa, but rantizousa. 
 
 I have read the nineteenth chapter of Numbers, to 
 which Dr. S. refers us, and I do indeed find, as he says, 
 purification by sprinkling there. In v. 4, 1 read, " And 
 Eleazer the priest shall take of her blood with his finger, 
 and sprinkle [ranei) of her blood directly before the ta- 
 bernacle of the congregation seven times." But, con- 
 tinuing down, I read in v. Y, " Then the priest shall wash 
 his clothes, and he shall bathe his flesh in water, (lousetai 
 to soma autou udati,) and afterwards he shall come into 
 the camp." " And for an unclean person, they shaU take 
 of the ashes of the burnt heifer of purification for sin, 
 and running water shall he put thereto in a vessel : And 
 a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip (bapsei) it in 
 the water, and sprinkle it (perirranei) upon the tent, and 
 upon all the vessels, and upon the persons that were there, 
 and upon him that touched a corpse, or one slain, or one 
 dead, or a grave : And the clean person shall sprinkle 
 (perirranei) upon the unclean on the third day, and on 
 the seventh day : And on the seventh day he shallow- 
 
30 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 rify himself {aphagnisthesetai) and wash his clothes, and 
 bathe himself in water!'' v. 17-19. 
 
 If you grant that Dr. Summers is an "attentive reader 
 of the Pentateuch," where is his candor ? and if you 
 allow his candor, what evidence is there that he is an 
 "attentive reader of the Pentateuch?" 
 
 The diaphorois haptismois, divers baptisms, in the 10th 
 verse, should be translated divers immersions^ as the ran- 
 tizousa in the 13th verse should be translated, as it is, 
 sprinkling. The ceremony to which the Apostle referred, 
 as recorded in Numb, xix., required both sprinkling and 
 immersion, and therefore he speaks of both sprinkling 
 and immersion — and of the latter divers, viz : of the 
 clothes of the body, and of divers utensils. So you see, 
 this example, instead of militating against our assertion, 
 strongly corroborates it. 
 
 3d. Another example, cited to prove the pedobaptist 
 view, is Mark vii., 4. Our translators, they say, render 
 baptizo correctly, wash. " For the Pharisees, and all the 
 Jews, except they wash their hands oft, [pugme nipsontai 
 tas cheiraSj) eat not, holding the traditions of the elders. 
 And when they come from the market, except they wash, 
 (baptisontai,) they eat not. And many other things 
 there be, which they have received to hold, as the wash- 
 ing (baptismous) of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, 
 and tables." Now, there ought to be no difficulty about 
 this passage. The original is perfectly plain, and is illus- 
 trated by the customs of the Jews, both as those customs 
 were of divine appointment, as presented to them in the 
 
IMMERSION ESSENTIAL TO BAPTISM. 31 
 
 Old Testament, and as they were superstitious, and handed 
 down to us by their own Rabbies, and by other authentic 
 writers on their antiquities. Mark states to us two cus- 
 toms, ordinary and extraordinary. They never eat with- 
 out [pugme nipsontai tas ckeiras) washing their hands 
 oft, or up to the elbow, or with the fist, or as far as the 
 fist extended, according as pugme may be rendered ; and 
 when they come from the market, where they may 
 possibly have contracted pollution by contact with the 
 common people, or with a Gentile, unless they immerse 
 themselves, [baptisontai,) they eat not. And many other 
 things there be, which they have received to hold, as the 
 immersion (baptismous) of cups, and pots, and brazen 
 vessels, and tables. 
 
 The Scriptural institution, which they had corrupted 
 by the superstition contained in the tradition of the 
 elders, is found, as it related to their persons, in Numb, 
 xix., 19: "And on the seventh day, he (the unclean 
 person) shall purify himself, and wash his clothes , and 
 bathe himself in water ;^^ and in Lev. xv., 11, "And 
 whosoever he toucheth that hath the issue, and hath not 
 rinsed his hands in water, he shall wash his clothes, and 
 bathe himself in water. ''^ 
 
 Maimonides, one of the most elaborate of the Jewish 
 Rabbies — as quoted by Lightfoot and others — says : 
 " Wherever, in the law, washing of the flesh or of the 
 clothes is mentioned, it means nothing else than the dip- 
 ping of the whole body in a laver : for if any man dips 
 himself all over, except the top of his little finger, he is 
 still in his uncleanness." Again : " If the Pharisees 
 
32 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 touclied but the garments of the common people, they 
 were defiled, all one as if they had touched a profluvious 
 pereon, and needed immersion, and were obliged to it : 
 hence, when they walked the streets, they walked on the 
 side of the way, that they might not be defiled by touch- 
 ing the common people." " In a laver (they say) which 
 holds forty seahs of water, every man dips himself." 
 
 Again, the Scriptural institution which they had cor- 
 rupted, as it related not only to themselves, but also to 
 their furniture, utensils, etc., is found in Lev. xi., 32, and 
 c. 15 : "And upon whatsoever any of them, when they 
 are dead, doth fall, it shall be unclean, whether it be any 
 vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack, whatsoever 
 vessel it be, wherein any work is done, it must be put into 
 water. ''^ Lev. xv., 4, etc. " Every bed wherein he lieth 
 that hath the issue, is unclean ; and every thing whereon 
 he sitteth shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth 
 his bed shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water, 
 etc. And he that sitteth on any thing whereon he sat 
 that hath the issue, shall wash his clothes and bathe him- 
 self in water, ^'' v. 19, etc. "And if a woman have an issue, 
 and her issue in her flesh be blood, etc., every thing that 
 she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean ; every 
 thing, also, that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. And 
 whosoever toucheth her bed, shall wash his clothes^ and 
 bathe himself in water. And whosoever toucheth any 
 thing that she sat upon, shall wash his clothes^ and bathe 
 himself.^'' The reader is requested to lay this book aside 
 until he has read the 15th chapter of Leviticus. From 
 its perusal, he will very easily divine how natural it was 
 
IMMERSION ESSENTIAL TO BAPTISM. 33 
 
 for the superstitious and punctilious pharisee to fall into 
 the habit of bathing or immersing himself in water, 
 every time he ran the risk of contact with pollution ; 
 and of subjecting his couches to the same method of 
 purification, whenever he had reason to fear they had 
 suffered defilement. 
 
 Is it objected that Leviticus says nothing about im- 
 mereing in water utensils, tables, &c. ? " I answer, these 
 observances are pronounced, by the evangelist, to be tra- 
 ditions of the elders ; but these traditions were suggested 
 naturally, to a superstitious mind, by the requirements of 
 the law, and were additions made to it. Besides, Lev. 15, 
 does give directions for the purifications of some uten- 
 sils, V. 12. " And the vessel of earth, that he toucheth 
 which hath the issue, shall be broken ; and every vessel 
 of wood shall be riiised {nipto) in water." Is it said, 
 that these Avere not required to be immersed {haptizo) by 
 the law, but to be washed (iiipto) or rinsed ? I grant it ; 
 but Mark says their custom is a departure from the re- 
 quirement of the law ; and this in two respects — (1) in 
 assuming that they may have been unclean, when none 
 of those things had happened to them that were speci- 
 fied in the law ; and (2) in baptizing or immersing, 
 rather than breaking or rinsing (nipto) them in water. 
 Besides, in Lev. 11 : 32, they had been instructed : " And 
 upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, doth 
 fall, it shall be unclean ; whether it be any vessel of 
 wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack, whatsoever vessel it be 
 wherein any work is done, it must he p>ut into ivatery 
 
 But it- is said again, that, the tables (klinon) were 
 3 
 
34 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 couches on which they rechned at table, and were, there- 
 fore, too large to be immersed often. To this, I answer, 
 (1) the account does not state that they were immersed 
 often — it only states the custom received from tradition, 
 without giving any hint as to the frequency of its obser- 
 vance ; and (2) as to the size ; we know that one kind of 
 bed was not so large but that the man healed by Christ 
 was able to take it up and walk with it. Is it said, 
 agaiu, that such immersion of beds or couches — be they 
 large or small — would have been inconvenient and ab- 
 surd ? I grant it ; the evangelist says it was a tradition, 
 and therefore superstitious. You cannot maintain that 
 it is impossible, on account of it's size, to immerse that 
 which is not too large for an invalid to take up and 
 carry. And as to inconvenience, there is nothing too 
 inconvenient for superstition to submit to. Do you, dis- 
 puting the ground, inch by inch, insist that immersion in 
 water is impossible, since its impregnation with water 
 would render the couch unfit for use ? I answer, we are 
 not told that the bed or couch was used before it was 
 dry ; and besides, " the Mine is, properly speaking, only 
 the bedstead, and seems to have consisted only of posts, 
 fitted into one another, and resting upon four feet." 
 (Smith's Diet, of Greek and Rom. Ant.) A common 
 lounge with which your bedroom is provided, and which 
 your wife can easily take up, is as large as the Grecian 
 Mine. Do you still insist upon it, that the private bouses 
 of pharisees could not have been provided with water 
 sufficient to cover a bed or couch even of that size? 
 Without stopping, at present, to measure for you the 
 
IMMERSION ESSENTIAL TO BAPTISM. 35 
 
 depth and size of the pots and other receptacles for 
 water, with which they were provided, (though, when 
 I come to speak of the supply of water in Jerusalem, I 
 will give you water to your heart's content,) by the help 
 of Rabbi Maimonides, I will remove this difficulty, if you 
 desire it. "A hed that is wholly defiled, if he dips it 
 part by part, it is pure." " Taken to pieces for the pur- 
 pose, says a determined plunger !" No, Dr. Summers — 
 not says a determined plunger — but says Rabbi Mai- 
 monides. 
 
 " But a man must be insane, or at least blinded by 
 prejudice, who can suppose that these couches or beds — 
 each of which was large enough for the accommodation 
 of several persons — were immersed before every meal." 
 Summers, p. 85. Suppose we grant that the Mine here 
 was not like that v/hich the invalid took up and carried, 
 but like that upon which persons reclined at table ; who 
 maintains that they were immersed before every meal ? 
 The inspired text does not inform us that they were 
 immersed as often even as once a year. And " a man 
 must be insane, or at least blinded by prejudice," or 
 worse, who can refuse to believe that these couches (or 
 beds) were immersed, when he has the authority of the 
 Holy Spirit, and the testimony of all the writers on 
 Jewish antiquities, even those who are not concerned with 
 this baptismal controversy. 
 
 " The more superstitious of the Jews, every day before 
 they sat down to meat, dipped the whole body. Hence 
 the pharisees' admiration of Christ." Lu. 11 : 38. (Sca- 
 liger.) 
 
36 BArnsM in its mode and subjects. 
 
 " We leave it to any unprejudiced person of common 
 sense — to any child ^vho can read the record — to decide" 
 whether this example militates against the position that 
 haptizo means immersion and nothing else. 
 
 3. The case of Judith in the Apocrypha (Judith, 12 : 
 7, 8). " Then Holofernes commanded his guard that 
 they should not stay her ; thus she abode in the camp 
 three days, and went out in the night into the valley of 
 Bethulia, and ivashed herself in a fountain of water by 
 the camp {ehaptizeio en te parembote epi tes peges tou 
 udatos). And when she came out, she besought the 
 Lord," &c. Dr. Summers translates it, " she baptized 
 herself in the camp at a spring of water." " If she 
 plunged herself at all, she plunged herself into the 
 spring, and not at it ; but the text says, she washed her- 
 self at the spring, not in it," p. 95. Very well; we 
 shall have use for this criticism hereafter ; and we beg 
 the reader to note it well. Whatever, then, may be the 
 signification of ha2)tizo, en means in and ejji means at. 
 After a while we shall find our author insisting that en 
 means at or loith, and not in. Let the reader stick a 
 pin here. According, then, to his rendering of the pre- 
 positions, " she immersed herself at a spring of water 
 in the camp." " Immersed at the spring ! How was 
 that possible ?" During the month of August last, I 
 immersed fifty pei'sons at a spring near Antioch meeting- 
 house, Oglethorpe Co., Geo. " At a spring !" Yes. 
 " How ?" We diverted the water that flowed from the 
 spring, into a pool of suitable dimensions, which it filled. 
 And what more likely than that in a camp of long stand- 
 
IMMERSION ESSENTIAL TO BAPTISM. 3*7 
 
 ing, the waters of the spring or fountain were collected 
 in a number of reservoirs, for the use of the soldiers and 
 their animals ? " But," sajs Dr. S., " is it likely that 
 she was so immodest as to plunge into a reservoir in the 
 soldier's camp ?" But, my dear sir, it was in the night, 
 and Holofernes had given special instructions, that she 
 should not be interrupted in the observance of her reli- 
 gious rite. And besides, in what respect would it have 
 been more modest to have exposed herself, while "she 
 applied the water of the fountain to her pei'son in the 
 usual mode of performing ablution ?" And why would 
 it not have been more modest to have " applied water to 
 her person" in a tent, from a vase or a basin, if " the 
 usual mode of performing ablution" was that which she 
 employed ? The immersion took place at a fountain at 
 night, because at a fountain she found water enough to 
 immerse herself in. The record not only informs us 
 that she baptized or immersed herself, but that she 
 came out. 
 
 We leave it again to any person of common sense — 
 to any child that can read the record — to decide whether 
 this example militates against the position that haptizo 
 means to immerse and nothing else. 
 
 4th. Ecclesiasticus, 34: 25, "He that ivasheth [hap- 
 tizomenos) himself after the touching of a dead body, if 
 he touch it again, what availeth his washing'''' (loutro). 
 He that immerseth himself after the touching of a dead 
 body, if he touch it again, what availeth his bathing. 
 The only argument necessary here is a mere reference to 
 Num. 19: 17-19. 
 
38 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECT!^. 
 
 Examples from Classic Greek. 
 
 5th. " Aristotle speaks of uninhabited lands which at 
 low water are not baptized, that is, not overflowed." 
 Summers, p. 223. The statement of Aristotle is to the 
 following effect : " The Phenicians who inhabit Cadiz 
 relate, that, sailing beyond Hercules' Pillars, in four days, 
 with the wind at east, they came to a land uninhabited, 
 whose coast was full of sea-weeds, and is not laid under 
 water {baptized) at ebb ; but when the tide comes in, it 
 is wholly covered and overwhelmed." Does not this 
 very passage, though cited against us, prove the truth of 
 our assertion ? But, it is asked, can the flood tide be 
 said to take up the land and immerse it in the sea ? Not 
 at all ; for an object to be immersed, it is not necessary 
 for it to be taken up first. The pecuHar beauty of the 
 expression consists in figuring the object, which is suc- 
 cessively bare and buried under water, as being dipped 
 when it is covered, and as emerging when it is bare. In 
 the same style, we might say that at the flood, God im- 
 mersed the mountains in the waters, though the waters 
 came over them. 
 
 6th. " Plutarch speaks of Otho's being baptized with 
 debts, that is, overwhelmed with them. So Plato : ' they 
 do not baptize the common people with taxes.' " Sum., p. 
 223. Well, Dr. Summers, what do Plutarch and Plato 
 mean ? They do not pour the common people with 
 taxes, or sprinkle with taxes, or ^'"purify hy water''^ with 
 taxes! "That is," says Dr. S., abandoning what the 
 word " properly denotes," " they do not lay heavy taxes 
 
IMMERSION ESSENTIAL TO BAPTISM. 39 
 
 upon them." Ah I Suppose they had, what %Yould have 
 been the effect ? They would have sunk under them. 
 And then we should have had an immersion The pro- 
 per translation is, they do not immerse the common peo- 
 ple with taxes. That is, if heavy taxes, as a burden, had 
 been placed upon them, they would have sunk under or 
 been immersed by them : and Otho was sunk or im- 
 mersed or j^^'^ssed dowit by the weight of debts heaped 
 upon him. 
 
 7th. " Josephus speaks of the city being baptized by 
 the robbers." (lb.) Does he mean that the city was 
 poured or si^rinkled or purified hy water by the robbers ? 
 or does he mean that it was immersed, i. e., ruined or 
 sunk by the robbers ? " The reference is to a ship sink- 
 ing from being over-burdened and ill-managed in the 
 storm from the dissensions of the crew. In this view, 
 the figure is striking and beautiful." 
 
 8th. " Hippocrates speaks of baptizing a blister plaster 
 with breast milk ; of course, by pouring it on or moist- 
 ening it thereby." (lb.) Pouring what on ? What does 
 it refer to — the plaster ? It was the blister plaster that 
 was to be baptized. Pouring the plaster on the milk ? 
 If it refers to breast milk, then the milk was baptized by 
 ^'■pouring ii o;i" the plaster! The translation is, "Dip 
 it again in breast milk and Egyptian ointment." He is 
 speaking of a blister, which was first to be dipped in the 
 oil of roses, and if, when thus applied, it should be too 
 painful, it was to be dipped again in the manner above 
 stated. 
 
40 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 9tb. " Greek writers also frequently speak of being 
 baptized witli wine, wbicb implies tbe application of the 
 element to tbe subject and not of tbe subject to tbe ele- 
 ment." (lb.) Greek writers frequently speak of being 
 immersed in wine, just as Englisb writers frequently 
 speak of being steejicd or soaked in wine, when " no cbild 
 who can read tbe record" would suppose that they meant 
 to indicate bow tbe wine and tbe toper came together — 
 whether tbe wine was applied to tbe drinker or the 
 drinker to tbe wine. The figure evidently is, that the 
 person is as much imbued with the wine as if be bad 
 been immersed in it. 
 
 10th. Another example has been cited from Josephus, 
 by the highly esteemed gentleman, whose remarks at 
 " Centre" were tbe occasion of the present publication — 
 where Josephus states that the sons of Herod were over- 
 whelmed by a storm. Mr. Parks seemed to understand 
 that tbe young men were exposed to a storm of rain, on 
 land, and, therefore, be considered it a case of pouring 
 rather than of immersion. The original is, ton to osper 
 teleutaia thuella cheimazomenous tous neaniskous epe- 
 baptisen. Whiston, who was not a Baptist, translates it 
 thus : "And this it was that came as tbe last storm, and 
 entirely sunk tbe young men when they were in great 
 danger before." Tbe case of Homer's Battle of the 
 Frogs, also cited by him, was not pertinent ; since bajpto, 
 and not bapiizo, is used. The translation then may be, 
 " tbe lake was tinged with blood." Thus we have ex- 
 amined all the passages cited by Dr. Summers, and 
 
IMMERSION ESSENTIAL TO BAPTISM. 41 
 
 shown that they do not militate against our position. 
 The same can be shown to be true of the whole list from 
 which he selected these. 
 
 If we could succeed in showing that haptizo is never 
 used by any writer, sacred or profane, to express to pour 
 or to sprinkle, though it had ten thousand other signi 
 fications, we should convict our brethren of corrupting 
 Christ's ordinance — nay, rather, of abolishing it alto- 
 gether, and of adopting another of their own. How 
 much more, then, when we prove that it has but one 
 signification, and that one, to immerse! And let it not 
 be said that those denominations that consider immersion 
 vahd baptism, and that practice it when their members 
 desire it, still maintain the ordinance ; for, if their argu- 
 ments have any force, the condition upon which they 
 base their practice, is not the authority of God's word, 
 but the whims of the " weak consciences" aftd " unstable 
 souls" in their communion. 
 
 The Baptists, in contending for the literal interpreta- 
 tion of the Scriptures, according to the laws of language, 
 and the common meaning of its words, are not only pre- 
 serving, in its purity and in its pristine form, the ordi- 
 nance of Christ, but they are maintaining a principle, 
 which makes them the champions of God's word against 
 infidels and errorists of every kind. I know of nothing 
 that, to me, is more dishonoring to the Scriptures — 
 nay, that tends more utterly to annul them — than the 
 doctrine that lies at the foundation of our brethren's 
 practice in regard to this ordinance, viz : that the words 
 of the Holy Spirit are not to be taken in the sense in 
 
42 BAPTISM IX ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 which they obtained in secular writings, and in the use 
 of common intercourse ; but in a mystical or ecclesiasti- 
 cal sense. It is upon a principle like this, that the neo- 
 iogists of Germany essay to prove from the Scriptures 
 that Christ and his apostles performed no "miracles ; and, 
 upon this principle, we can make them teach any thing 
 or nothing, according as we may be influenced by preju- 
 dice or interest. If the words of Scripture have ecclesi- 
 astical significations, from whence can we obtain with 
 certainty those significations ? Did Christ furnish his 
 disciples with a dictionary containing those words ? Nay, 
 why did he use a human language at all ? Why run 
 the risk of misleading, by the use of terms in an arbi- 
 trary sense which already had a definite meaning ? Why 
 not invent words, as our pedobaptist translators did, 
 when they transferred into English the Greek word bap- 
 tize ? or why not have given his revelation in the dialect 
 of heaven, and thus have it all in an ecclesiastical sense ? 
 " We are not so much concerned to know in what sense 
 Homer or Aristophanes, Josephus or Philo, employed a 
 term which the Holy Ghost has seen fit to incorporate 
 into the vocabulary of Christianity — the question is, how 
 did the Holy Ghost employ it ?" Summers, p. 95. Yes, 
 that is the question ; and how is it to be decided ? How 
 did the Holy Ghost employ any terms ? Evidently in 
 the sense in which those terms obtained in common use. 
 Nor are the words 'pneiima^ spirit, and aggelos^ angel, 
 cited by Dr. S., exceptions. Pneuma was used, before 
 the time of Christ, to signify spirit. — See iEsch. Pers. 
 60V, Eur. Hec. 571, Or. 277, Tro. 780, Thuc. ii. 49. 
 
IMMERSION ESSENTIAL TO BAPTISM. 43 
 
 And aggelos was sometimes used by the classic writers 
 as in the New Testament. — See Plato, iv. de Legg. p- 
 DC. 1. ed. Larmaerian. and Aristid. The context, in 
 every case in which it is used, decides the meaning to be 
 attached to it. 
 
 The argument of the Baptists is based upon the com- 
 mon, primary, usual, and — as we have proved — the only 
 signification of haptizo : the argument of our opponents 
 upon an arbitrary, and, as they call it " sacred" significa- 
 tion, which the word never held either in the use of 
 common intercourse, nor in Greek writings in all time. 
 Which is right, therefore, judge ye. 
 
 If the above positions be sustained, is any thing more 
 necessary to prove immersion essential to the ordinance ? 
 Nothing more is necessary, but yet we have more to 
 offer. If haiyto or baptizo does not mean to immerse, 
 then there is no word in the Greek language that can ex- 
 press that act. If there is, what is it ? Buthizo ? But 
 that means to descend into the abyss, or to drown, from 
 butkos, an abyss. 1 Tim. 6 : 9, "But they that would 
 be rich fall into temptation, and a snare, and into many 
 foohsh and hurtful lusts, which (irozyw (buthizouzi) men in 
 destruction and perdition." Lu. 5:7, " And they came 
 and filled both the ships, so that they began to sm^," 
 (buthizesthai,) i. e., into the abyss. 2 Maccabees, xii. 4, 
 " But when they were gone forth into the deep, they 
 drowned (ebuthisan) no less than two hundred of them." 
 If bapto or baptizo does not mean to immerse, what does? 
 Kataduo ? Some of our opponents profess to believe 
 that this is a more specific term to denote dip than bap>tizo. 
 
44 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 So far from their assertion being true, I maintain that it 
 has not the meaning of to dip at all. The Sybilline 
 verse which Plutarch quotes, in his Life of Theseus, not 
 only proves my assertion, but shows the difference be- 
 tween the signification of haptizn and duo or duno or 
 dumi. 
 
 Askos baptize, dunai de toi outhemis est!. 
 "Thou may est be immersed^ bladder, but it is not thy 
 fate to sink ;^^ i. e., a bladder distended with air can be im- 
 mersed into water, but it cannot sink — as soon as the 
 force is removed, it will rise again to the surface. To the 
 same effect is the testimony of quotations from the Scrip- 
 tures. Ex. 15 : 10, " Thou didst blow with thy wind, the 
 sea covered them ; they sank (edusan) as lead in the 
 mighty waters." Ex. 15 : 5, "The depths have covered 
 them ; they sank into the bottom {katcdusan eis huthon) 
 as a stone." Amos, 9:3," And though they be hid 
 (kataduo) from my sight in the depths of the sea." 
 Micah, 7 : 19, "And thou wilt cast (kataduo) all their 
 sins into the depths of the sea." 
 
BAPTISM IS IMMERSION. 45 
 
 CHAPTER 11. 
 
 BAPTISM IS IMMERSION, PROVED FROM EXAMPLES OF ITS 
 ADMINISTRATION IN N. T., WHERE DETAILS ARE GIVEN. 
 
 Section I. — The Bajytism of the Saviour. 
 
 Did we have nothing but the meaning of the word 
 which expresses the act of baptism, we would be left in 
 no doubt as to how this ordinance is to be administered. 
 This we have proved beyond the power of refutation to 
 mean not only to immerse, but nothing else. But the 
 proof is cumulative, and, from other sources, is, if possi- 
 ble, as conclusive. The instances where the administra- 
 tion of the ordinance is given in the New Testament 
 with the details, not only corroborate the testimony from 
 the meaning of the word, but of themselves speak such 
 an unequivocal language, that if we had no other instruc- 
 tion concerning the ordinance, we could learn, without a 
 peradventure, that immersion is essential to it. Two 
 such examples are given, viz : the baptism of our Sa- 
 viour, and of the Ethiopian Eunuch. If in these two 
 immersion was observed, and if no hint is given any 
 where else that there are other modes of baptism, it 
 follows irrefragably that the immersion of the subject 
 into the element is as essential to the ordinance as the 
 use of the element itself. And that Christ and the Eu- 
 nuch were immersed, he may read that runs — " And it 
 came to pass, in those days, that Jesus came from Naza- 
 reth of Gahlee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.'' 
 
46 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 " And straightway coming tip out of the water ^^"^ etc. 
 Mark 1:9, 10. Matthew (chap. 3,) states the same 
 event. V. 6 — "And were baptized (those mentioned 
 above) of him m Jordan." V. 16 — " And Jesus, when he 
 was baptized, went up straightway out of the watery 
 Here we have it stated : 
 
 1. That John was baptizing not in a house, or at a 
 spring, or by a rill, but at the river Jordan — why ? if it 
 was not, for the same reason that he selected, on another 
 occasion, Enon, near to Salim, ''because there was much 
 water there ?" Do we ever hear in these days that our 
 brethren who oppose us, go to a river, or to a place where 
 there is much water, in order that they may pour or 
 sprinkle a little of the element upon their subjects ? Do 
 Dr. Summers, and others of his brethren, respond that 
 they have done so frequently ? I answer, that they re- 
 sorted to such places not to obtain facilities to sprinkle or 
 to pour, but to make a compromise with their candidates 
 who possessed " weak consciences," or because they were 
 seeking for a plea to use against the Baptists. Were 
 this controversy not existing, were there no such people 
 as the Baptists, they would never, with their views of the 
 ordinance, proceed to a river or a creek with their sub- 
 jects, in order to pour a half gill of water upon their 
 heads. John had no such turn to serve, and his uni- 
 formly seeking places where there was much water, sig- 
 nificantly indicates that there was something in his ordi- 
 nance that required a depth of water ; and what more 
 naturally than that he might immerse his subjects ? 
 
 2. We are not only told that John was baptizing at 
 
BAPTISM IS IMMERSION. 41 
 
 Jordan, but that he was baptizing in Jordan. Why go 
 into the river, if he wanted to sprinkle or pour a little 
 water upon the people ? Why subject those " vast mul- 
 titudes" that came to him from Jerusalem and Judea, 
 and the region round about Jordan, to the inconvenience 
 and risk to health of remaining in wet clothes all day, 
 far from home — both men and women — when a little 
 water dipped up in the palm of the hand would have 
 sufficed ? Was wading up to the knees or waist in wa- 
 ter, according to the views of our opponents, a necessary 
 part of John's "baptism by pouring or sprinkling?" 
 And if not necessary, do tell me, in the name of com- 
 mon sense, why did he subject all his subjects to the in- 
 convenience, and the females to the " indecency" of 
 remaining a length of time with their clothes wet up to 
 the waist, " and sticking to their persons ?" " For it is 
 alike absurd and gratuitous to affirm that they all came 
 prepared with baptismal robes, and no one can suppose 
 that they were (baptized) without change of apparel ; 
 and to (baptize) promiscuous multitudes in a state of 
 nudity is a supposition so extravagant as well as inde- 
 cent, that we cannot feel called upon to refute it." Sum., 
 p. 83. If John was of sound mind, and it was not es- 
 sential to the validity of pouring and sprinkling that he 
 and his subjects should wade into the river, no possible 
 reason can be given why he took his subjects into the 
 stream, but that it was preparatory to their immersion. 
 
 3. We are told, further, not only that Jesus was bap- 
 tized in Jordan, but that he came up straightway out of 
 the water. Our argument then amounts to a demonstra- 
 
48 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 tion, even though we had not proved bapiizo to mean 
 only to immerse. At Jordan, and not in a house, in the 
 river, and not on the bank, " coming up straightway out 
 of the water'"' — these are the circumstances which sustain 
 the primary meaning of the Greek verb, which expresses 
 the act to immerse, our opponents themselves being 
 judges. The scene in all its details is witnessed every time 
 the ordinance is administered by a Baptist minister. No 
 wonder that there are such multitudes of " immersion- 
 ists," and that such numbers in the ranks of anti-" im- 
 mersionists" are ill at ease on this subject. Not many 
 years ago, while travelling with a brother in the minis- 
 try, I fell in company with an intelligent young man — a 
 deaf mute — who had been educated at one of the North- 
 ern Asylums. During the conversation which my friend 
 entered into with him on his slate, questions and answers 
 to the following effect passed between them : — " You are 
 a minister, I believe ?" " Yes ; I pass for one." " Are 
 you a Baptist?" "Yes ; are not you ?" "No ; I am a 
 Methodist." " Was Jesus Christ a Methodist ?" " No ; 
 Jesus Christ was a Baptist." " Why are you not a Bap- 
 tist then, if Jesus Christ was ?" " Because my father is 
 a Methodist." This afflicted, though intelligent young 
 man, had never heard of the baptismal controversy ; and 
 his reading on the subject being confined to the New 
 Testament, his conviction was that the Saviour submitted 
 to the ordinance as it is administered by Baptists. Ano- 
 ther striking case in point : — A brother in the ministry 
 now living not more than fifty miles from this place, was 
 administering the ordinance, not many years ago, in one 
 
BAPTISM IS IMMERSION. 49 
 
 of the upper counties in this State. At the water's side, 
 he said to the people that instead of making any remarks 
 himself, he would read to them from an old hook, the 
 author of which spoke more forcibly in behalf of Bap- 
 tist sentiments than he could : and then proceeded to 
 read from the New Testament this and other passages. 
 The consequence was, that the people denounced him 
 for attempting to palm off upon them as authority the 
 assertions of a Baptist writer ! In like manner, all who 
 read, with an unprejudiced mind, the record of Christ's 
 baptism, as given in the English version of the Scriptures, 
 must come to the conclusion, that he was immersed. 
 " But stop 1" says Dr. Summers ; " these Greek preposi- 
 tions have not been properly translated." Ah, Dr. Sum- 
 mers, you in favor, too, of a new translation of the 
 Scriptures ? How then should they be translated ? " To 
 all this we reply, that we do not affect arguments based 
 upon grammatical niceties," p. 99. Very well; we 
 wish no "niceties" — all we desire is a common sense in- 
 terpretation according to the laws of language, and the 
 meaning of words. The prepositions used in the account 
 of the Saviour's baptism, are en, eis and «_2>o. He was 
 baptized of John eis ion lordanen, into Jordan. And 
 they were baptized of him ex to lordane, in Jordan, 
 Jesus came up 02^0 out of the water. Dr. S. maintains 
 that en means " ivith Avhen found in connection with 
 baptism." Others who have written on the same side, 
 and he himself also in another place, give it the signifi- 
 cation of at. Eis he translates, to ; but nearly all his 
 remarks on it are confined to its use in the baptism of 
 4 
 
60 BAPTIiM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 the Eunuch, and our formal reply, therefore, to them and 
 to those on ek^ we postpone until that case comes up for 
 discussion. Apo he translates from. 
 
 Before proceeding to reply to him, we beg the reader 
 to notice three things : 
 
 1. If we grant that ea means at or with, eis, to and 
 apo, from, he still fails to explain why John baptized at 
 Jordan in the wilderness, and not in a house in Jerusa- 
 lem, or in some other populous place. A pail full of water 
 •would have sufficed him for his administration a whole 
 day : Why, then, did he not cause the element to come 
 to the subject, rather than the subject to the element ? 
 Nothing but immersion will explain why John baptized 
 at Jordan, and at JEnon, where there was "much water." 
 
 2. When our author appeals from the rendering of 
 the present English version, he calls in question the 
 opinion not of Baptists, but of a large body of learned 
 pedobaptists. King James' translators were not Bap- 
 tists. As members of the "Church of England," they 
 practised pouring and sprinkling, but as scholars and as 
 honest men, they felt bound to give the present render- 
 ing, even though it condemned their practice. 
 
 3. Though it may be granted that the very many 
 meanings which our opponents ascribe to these words 
 really belong to them, it is worthy of note that King 
 James' translators give to them their primary, usual sig- 
 nifications : — en primarily and commonly means in ; it 
 was as much and as often in in Greek as in is in Eng- 
 lish : — eis primarily and usually means into : — ek primarily 
 and usually means out of. Apo is the only one among 
 
BAPTISM IS IMMERSION. 51 
 
 them all whose most common signification is not given. 
 Its ordinary signification kfrom, as om* opponents insist; 
 but I shall show that it means also out of, and that, too, 
 in the immediate context. Is it not a significant fact, 
 that all the Greek words which belong to this contro- 
 versy, from haptizo to ek^ in their primaxy and usual sig- 
 nifications testify in behalf of the Baptists ; while our 
 opponents depend, for a precarious support to their prac- 
 tice, upon a secondary, remote and uncertain significa- 
 tion ? All the lexicons give to baptizo the primary sig- 
 nification, to immerse, to en that of in, to eis that of into, 
 to ek that of oiit of — "But what do they say of a2:)oP^ 
 We will show you directly that we may grant that to 
 you, and yet use it legitimately against you. Is it not 
 a remarkable fact — nay, unaccountable, if true, that our 
 Sa^^our and the Holy Spirit should use no word, in con- 
 nection with this ordinance, in its usual and ordinary 
 sense ? That the exigencies of the case should drive our 
 opponents to take such a position, is a significant fact 
 that will leave no unprejudiced man of common sense at 
 a loss to decide which are right, we or they. It is upon 
 precisely such a principle as this that Universalists de. 
 fend their sentiments. Were the English a dead lan- 
 guage, containing the same amount of w^orks extant as 
 the Greek, and among them this book of Dr. Summers, 
 any one of common ingenuity, having a purpose to serve 
 by using Dr. S's. .principles of criticism, and taking the 
 same license that he and his coadjutors do, could prove 
 to the satisfaction of those who wished to believe it, that 
 Dr. S. was a '' pestilent anabaptist," and a " schismatic 
 
52 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 immersionist." But to proceed to his remarks on these 
 Greek j^re^Dositions : 
 
 "In more than one himdred places en is rendered at — 
 in one hundred and fifty others it is rendered with^ which 
 is its proper meaning when found in connection with 
 baptism, as in every instance, except Mark 1 : 9, it is 
 used with a dative^ which does not express the object of 
 an action, but the instrument by which it is effected. ' I 
 indeed baptize you en udati, ivith ivater, but he shall 
 baptize you en pneumati agio^ with the Holy Ghost and 
 with fire.' " To this I reply : 
 
 1st. The primary meaning of en is in^ and ivith, if any 
 at all, is a remote secondary signification ; and there is 
 no other preposition in the language whose primary sig- 
 nification is in. The preposition en occurs in the New 
 Testament two thousand seven hundred and twenty 
 times. It is translated at in our common version only 
 seventy-six times, instead of more than one hundred, as 
 Dr. S. affirms. In more than forty of these seventy-six 
 places it occurs before the name of a city, as at Jerusalem, 
 etc., when it might be properly translated in. In about 
 twenty more of the seventy-six places referred to, it occurs 
 in such expressions as these, "aMhatday," " a^ that 
 hour," etc. ; "so that it may be safely affirmed that not 
 ten times in nearly three thousand, does the Greek prepo- 
 sition en mean simply at in our English version.'"*' If we 
 had time to examine the " one hundred and fifty othei-s 
 where it is rendered w^^/A," it could in like manner be 
 
 * "Christian Repository," September, 1852. 
 
BAPTISM IS IMMERSION. 5S 
 
 shown that the number of places where it must necessa- 
 rily be translated loith is very small. But what is the 
 number one hundred and fifty to three thousand ? As 
 we have said, en in Greek signifies as commonly and as 
 often in as in does in English. And it is a common 
 sense principle of interpretation that a word must have 
 its common usual signification if it will make sense. 
 
 2d. Dr. Summers' meaning is not very apparent. If 
 " 27" after " Mark 1 : 9," refers to en^ which the gram- 
 matical structure of the sentence would imply, he dis- 
 plays neither sense nor accuracy. In Mark 1 : 9, not en 
 but eis is used ; and en^ as every school-boy knows, is 
 never used with any other case than the dative, except- 
 ing in a very few instances as a Doricism for eis with the 
 accusative. But, I suppose this cannot be what he de- 
 signs to say, as on p. 106, he quotes Mark 1 : 9, as con- 
 taining "m with the accusative." " /^" then, in the 
 passage, must stand for baptism. And his argument 
 then is : In every case, except one, haptizo is used with 
 the dative of the element ; the dative when used with 
 the verb haptizo without a preposition, expresses not the 
 object of an action, but the instrument by which it is 
 eflPected, and is translated by loith ; therefore, w^hen the 
 same words are used with the addition of en, the same 
 idea of the instrument is implied, and the preposition 
 accordingly is to be translated ivith. The proper mean- 
 ing therefore of en is loith.'''' This is all I can make out 
 of the passage by way of syntax or argument ; and to a 
 scholar surely the mere statement of it is a sufficient 
 refutation. But I have set out with the determination 
 
54 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 to answer formally every thing, however ridiculous, that 
 has the form of arorument. To this therefore I reply, 
 
 1st. En is used with the dative of the element, (wa- 
 ter, river, spirit, etc..) because it can govern only the da- 
 tive. 
 
 2d. This is to make the indefinite limit and illustrate 
 the definite — a principle which prevails in all the criti- 
 cisms of our opponents. The verb baptizo, they say, i* 
 indefinite as to mode in some Greek passages, therefore 
 it is indefinite always when connected with the ordinance. 
 When we ask them if there is any thing about its con- 
 nection with the ordinance, which would make its ordi- 
 nary signification absurd, they answer, definitely, only in 
 regard to baptism in the spirit, and reply in general 
 terms, that it sometimes means to wash, that it may 
 mean the same when applied to the ordinance ; and that, 
 consequently, being a word of indefinite signification, any 
 application of water will suflace for the ordinance. The 
 plain Enghsh of which is, that if a word can be shown 
 to have a secondary signification, it has no definite mean- 
 ing at all, and can give no definite testimony (should we 
 oppose it) in any passage in which it may be found. 
 Now we have shown that the English lexicons give vari- 
 ous secondary significations even to the word dip. If it 
 be granted that baptizo does not signify to immerse, in 
 such a Greek phrase as Joannes men ebaptisen udati^ 
 Ac. 1 : 5, the dative udati, if found uniformly expressed 
 without a preposition, may indeed be taken as the in- 
 strument, and the phrase be translated, '* John indeed 
 baptized with water;" but if the phrase is as commonly 
 
BAPTISM IS IMMERSION. 6& 
 
 expressed with the preposition en before the dative, and 
 the word bapiizo means, commonly, to immerse, it is the 
 more definite expression, and is to govern the indefinite, 
 rather than to be governed by it. Xow our opponents 
 all acknowledge that the primary meaning of hajjtizo is 
 to immerse ; and what will my reader think, when I in- 
 form him that " baptism is used with the dative, with- 
 out the preposition en, but twice in the Xew Testament, 
 and icith it at least fifteen times — and in one of those 
 instances in which it is omitted with udali in one clause, 
 it is used with pneumati immediately in the succeeding 
 clause : Ac. 1 : 5, John indeed baptized udati with water, 
 but ye shall be baptized en p/neumati with the Holy 
 Ghost. If then the usual and more definite expression 
 is the dative with the preposition, it controls the rare 
 and indefinite ; and, consequently, in the only two excep- 
 tions en is to be understood. John indeed inmiersed in 
 water, but ye shall be immersed in the Holy Ghost. 
 
 3d. If a dative with en, when connected with the verb 
 baptizo, always denotes the instrument, why does it not 
 denote the same when connected with any other verb ? 
 To say that you ground this remark upon the fact, that 
 the verb has such a meaning as always to require this 
 construction of en, " is a pitiful begging of the question.'' 
 The meaning oihaptizo is the very thing that is in dispute, 
 and you yourself acknowledge that its primary signification 
 is to immerse. If, therefore, the principle is true without 
 reference to the meaning of the verb, it will apply as well 
 to all verbs. Then we are brought to this conclusion, 
 that, as en is construed only with the dative, it never 
 
6C BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 can mean intusposition, and consequently the Greek 
 language has no preposition the primary meaning of 
 which is in : — Nay, further, that eti has no meaning at 
 all, but is a mere expletive and supernumerary ! 
 
 4th. But let us apply this new principle in syntax to 
 examples taken at random, and see what what will be 
 the interesting result. " The dative when used with the 
 verb baptizo without a preposition, expresses not the ob- 
 ject of an action, but the instrument by which it is ef- 
 fected, and is translated by ivith ; therefore, when the 
 same words are used with the addition of m, the same 
 idea of the instrument is implied, and the preposition 
 accordingly is to be translated loithr Very well : stick 
 to that, while we turn to your rendering of that passage 
 from Judith. The exigencies of your argument required 
 a different principle of interpretation then : Ebaptizeto 
 en te pavemhoU epi tes peges tou udatos, "She baptized 
 herself in the camp at the spring of water." Here, ac- 
 cording to your own showing, en means in and epi 
 means at, you forgot that with is the proper rendering 
 of en, when it is used in connection with baptism and 
 the dative. Your translation of the passage frgm Ju- 
 dith then should have been, " She baptized herself with 
 the camp !" which, you perceive, would have been a 
 very dry baptism ; almost as dry as you say the Baptists 
 grant to the Israelites in the Red Sea. Mark 1:4," John 
 was baptizing (baptizon en te eremo) ivith the wilderness !" 
 Very dry again ; and if baptizon means ^'-pouring upon 
 or " sprinkling upon^'' your rule gives us an illustration 
 of the Apostle's " buried by baptism," literal enough and 
 
BAPTISM IS IMMER6I02«^. 5*1 
 
 long continued enough to meet the demands of the 
 most carping. Mark 1 : 5 — " And they were al Ibaptized 
 of John [ehaptizonto en to lordane i^otamo) loith the 
 river Jordan !" And why could he not as easily have 
 baptized them with a river as wnth a wilderness ? As to 
 the " mode," Dr. S. informs us : " The ceremonial rite 
 which John administered, was performed by pouring or 
 affusion," p. 81. If so, "I leave it to any man of com- 
 mon sense" to decide how that immense multitude looked 
 while the river was " coming down" upon them, and af- 
 ter the " ceremonial rite" was finished. It would not 
 have been surprising — provided they had been acquaint- 
 ed with " the force of the dative" — if all, both men and 
 women, had " chosen" to go down into the river and be 
 immersed, with or without baptismal robes, if John had 
 been as accommodating as Dr. S. says he is, and given 
 the right to them to " choose" which " mode" they w-ould 
 submit to. Dr. S. translates this " with the water of the 
 river," and adds, " this is the force of the dative." Yes ; 
 B, force great indeed, to force loater into a passage that is 
 more destitute of " water" than the desert of Sahara. 
 The river Jordan, and the water of the river Jordan, are 
 certainly two very different phrases. 
 
 But Dr. S. grants, without seeming to know it, that 
 Christ was baptized in Jordan. He says, p. 106 : — " In 
 only one place, Mark 1:9, is it said the he (John) bap- 
 tized * in Jordan,' eis ton lordanen, Jordan being put in 
 the accusative case." Without stopping to remark that 
 eis can govern no other case than the accusative^ we re- 
 mark, this "one case" is that which records the baptism 
 
58 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 of our Saviour. Please to recollect, therefore, that Dr. 
 Summers' eis ^oith the accusative has placed Christ in 
 the stream. We shall see whether he can find a prepo- 
 sition strong enough to bring him upon dry land again.* 
 2. Apo, our translators render out of. " Jesus went 
 up straightway out of the water." Dr. S. says its pri- 
 mary import is from, p. 10. It is worthy of special note 
 that this is the only one of the three whose " primary 
 import" he gives. Their primary import is against him, 
 and why should he be expected to put a weapon into 
 the hands of his antagonists. He gives some examples 
 to prove his assertion among the rest, '' ' who hath 
 warned you to flee fro)n the wrath to come ?' ' And 
 Jesus when he was baptized went up straightway from 
 the water.' There was no more going out of the water 
 in this case, than there was fleeing out of the wrath to 
 come in the case before mentioned," p. 101. Then, my 
 dear sir, the Saviour never again came upon dry land : for 
 your eis with the accusative placed him in the stream ! 
 It is astonishing that this inconsistency escaped our au- 
 thor, or that perceiving it, he failed to attempt its recon- 
 ciliation. " Thus self-contradictory is error : truth alone 
 is consistent with itself," p. 113. Let us see if we can- 
 not assist him out of his difficulty, by showing that apo 
 means out of as well as from ; and that it is able to 
 
 * Dr. S. further on, seems to take this admission back, and 
 insists that eis means at as well as in or into, without attempting, 
 however, to reconcile the inconsistency. I make this statement 
 to do him justice ; though, as a scholar, 1 apprehend justice is the 
 very thing he does not wish. 
 
BAPTISM IS IMMERSION. 59 
 
 bring an object from any position in the stream as well 
 as from its edge. We will take the example he has ci- 
 ted: Mat. 3 : 13 — "Then cometh Jesus apo from Gali- 
 lee to Jordan." Does this mean from the boundary 
 line, from the country bordering, or out of Galilee? 
 When we say Dr. S. came from Charleston to Augusta, 
 do we mean that he departed from a region outside of 
 and next to, the boundary line of the one city, and that 
 he stopped as soon as he touched the line that bounds 
 the corporate limits of the other ? Do you still cavil ? 
 Then I will force you to acknowledge that o^^o brought 
 him out of Galilee, Mark 1 : 9, gives an account of the 
 same journey : lesous elthen apo Nazaret tes Galilaias, 
 " Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was bap- 
 tized of John in Jordan." Nazareth was a city in Gali- 
 lee. In coming, therefore, from a city in Galilee, he 
 came out of Galilee. A2)o brought him out of Galilee, 
 and a2)o brought him out of the water. " We pronounce 
 this a demonstration." Summers, p. 89. 
 
 If en does not express intusposition, there is no pre- 
 position in the Greek language that can express it ; and 
 if neither en nor eis singly, nor both combined, could 
 carry John and his subjects into the water, then we 
 would undertake to show that the Greeks never were in 
 the water, nor in any thing else, themselves — that they 
 never did conceive of any person or thing in the water, 
 in the house, or in any thing else, of which intusposi- 
 tion can be predicated! They may have been «i the 
 house, or 07i the house, or near the house — they may 
 have gone to the water, but they never occupied a po- 
 
60 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. . 
 
 sition in, nor entered into either! The Greeks were, 
 therefore, more afflicted with hydrophobia than our an- 
 ti-" immersionist" opponents themselves ! Need any more 
 be said to convince any unprejudiced mind that our ado- 
 rable Redeemer was immersed by John in Jordan ? 
 " Were we not apprized of the pertinacity with which 
 the mind of man holds fast to an opinion once received, 
 howsoever clearly its erroneousness may be demonstrated, 
 we should certainly think it," (p. 92) not impossible for 
 the above argument to convince even Dr. Summers. But 
 we hasten to assure him that we have not the vanity to 
 expect such a result, lest he may apply to us the remark, 
 " what miracles will not some men attempt to perform !" 
 (lb.) "We are bold to say that "the above argument 
 to show that Christ was immersed in Jordan," has nothing 
 to fear from the labor, learning, sophistry, or ignorance of 
 its impugners ... as nothing can prove that false which 
 is demonstrably true," p. 123. We close this section with 
 a quotation from one of the most distinguished pedobap- 
 tists of the present century. " He (Christ) it was that 
 should baptize them with the Holy Ghost and with fire ; 
 that is to say, that as his (John's) followers were entirely 
 immersed in theivater, so the Messiah would immerse the 
 souls of believers ?'?i the Holy Ghost imparted by him- 
 self; so that it should tlioroughly penetrate their being, 
 and form within them a new principle of life. And this 
 spirit-baptism was to be accompanied by a baptism of 
 fire. Those who refused to be penetrated by the Spirit 
 of the Divine life, should be destroyed by the fire of the 
 Divine judgments." — "Neander's Life of Christ," p. 53. 
 
BAPTISM IS IMMERSION. 61 
 
 Section II. — Johti's Baptism, Christian Baptism. 
 
 Surely it would seem that if the Saviour was baptized, 
 and we could ascertain in what way he submitted to the 
 ordinance, there should be no longer a difference of opin- 
 ion and of practice among his followers. All should es- 
 teem it a duty and a privilege to follow his footsteps in 
 this also, even though they should lead them all down 
 into the liquid wave. And let pious writers beware how, 
 even in the heat of controversy, they characterize the 
 feeling which prompts Christians to imitate their adora- 
 ble Redeemer, by the contemptuous epithets " poetry 
 and sentimentalism." (Summers, p. 106.) The Lord 
 Jesus Christ commands his followers to be baptized ; and 
 he consecrated the ordinance by submitting to it him- 
 self. Does he command all to be baptized, and was he 
 baptized h\m^Q\i1 Then the ordinance in form that he 
 submitted to, is the baptism that his followers are to sub- 
 mit to. And multitudes will obey his command, and 
 esteem it a privilege to follow literally his example, 
 though those who ought to respect the feeling, though 
 misguided, by which they are influenced, and who ought 
 to be more careful to show reverence for that Saviour 
 whom they profess to love, should attempt to divert them 
 by ridicule and opprobrious epithets. As in other things, 
 in this also, it is their desire that " the same mind may 
 be in them which was also in Christ Jesus." Dr. Sum- 
 mers knows the influence this feeling has upon the pious 
 heart — or as he contemptuously expresses it, " to beguile 
 unstable souls" — and hence the effort by him and his 
 coadjutors to neutralize it, by a ridicule that borders very 
 
62 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 near upon rudeness to us and irreverence to Christ. The 
 Saviour, as avg have shown, was immersed in baptism. In 
 submitting to this ordinance, he set us an example, which, 
 in obedience to his command, we are to follow ; and in 
 the ej^ithets our opponents apply to us for this, and in 
 the disparaging remarks which they make about John's 
 baptism of Christ, they may display the policy of the 
 partisan, but they fall very short of exhibiting the reve- 
 rence of the Christian. But here it is objected, 
 
 " Have wc not time and ajjain asserted that John's 
 baptism was not Christian baptism, and given our rea- 
 sons; and have we not maintained that his baptism of 
 Christ was diflerent from his ordinary baptism ; and do 
 we not maintain that you have no right to reason from 
 John's baptism to that instituted in Christ's commission ? 
 Even though we may grant that Christ was immersed, it 
 will avail you nothing ; since John's baptism was not the 
 Christian baptism." Very well ; your objections shall 
 all be brought forward, though I fear my readers may 
 accuse you or me, or both of us, of frivolity when they 
 see them. But I observe — 
 
 1. Even if it be granted that John's was not Christian 
 baptism, the argument from it to show what the act of 
 baptism is, would not be affected. If John's ordinance 
 differed in never so many particulars fi-om the Christian 
 ordinance, it nevertheless shows what baptism is. If the 
 same words that express the act are used in Christ's or- 
 dinance that were used in John's, and if it be shown that 
 in John's those words express immersion, then it fol- 
 lows that the same words, when used in th« Christian 
 
BAPTISM IS IMMERSION. 63 
 
 ordinance, express immersion too. This is an argument 
 the force of which cannot be weakened. Now we have 
 shown that hajotism in John's ordinance means immer- 
 sion, therefore the same word when used in Christ's or- 
 dinance means immersion also. 
 
 2. But you shall not deprive us of the grateful convic- 
 tion, that in submitting to immersion we are " following 
 Christ ;" nor shall you deprive our side of the influ- 
 ence of the Saviour's example. In spite of all your ob- 
 jections, we are prepared to show that John's was the 
 "Christian baptism. "But how can that be ? For bap- 
 tism to be a Christian ordinance, is it not essential that 
 it should have been instituted by Christ ?" John's bap- 
 tism was instituted by Christ. " But does not John say 
 himself, (John 1 : 31, 33,) "I knew him not: but he 
 that sent me to ba2?tize with water, the same said unto 
 me — upon whom thou shalt see the spirit descending, 
 the same is he." John knew him not, and some one else 
 (" he that sent me to baptize,") promised to identify 
 Christ to him by the descent of the spirit. To this, I 
 answer, John did know the person of the Saviour ; for 
 (1) they were cousins according to the flesh, (Luke 1,) 
 and (2) his hesitation before the descent of the spirit to 
 baptize him, showed not only that he knew him per- 
 sonally, but that he recognized in him one greatly supe- 
 rior to himself. That he did not know that this person, 
 his cousin, and his recognized superior, was the glorious 
 personage whom he was to manifest to Israel, may be 
 inferred from the record ; but that he did know the 
 individual, Jesua of Nazareth, is as clearly inferred. 
 
64 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 " But if he had a personal acquaintance with Christ, 
 how happened it that he did not, at the time when 
 Christ commissioned him, perceive that he was the per- 
 son himself to bo manifested to Israel — why w\iit for the 
 descent of the Spirit ? And, besides, Christ did not en- 
 ter upon his public ministry until he was baptized ; how 
 could he then before that time institute his ordinance and 
 commission John ?" How much John knew of Christ, 
 and in what way " he that sent him to baptize" caused 
 John to apprehend his mission, we know not, for it is not 
 revealed to us. That Christ did not enter upon his pub- 
 lic ministry until his baptism, I grant ; and that he did 
 not appear to John, and by the word of mouth, and in 
 the person of Jesus of Nazareth commission him, may 
 be granted also ; though if I should assert the contrary, 
 it would be difficult for you to disprove it. Who was he 
 that sent John to baptize? Do you answer, "the First 
 Person in the Trinity ?" If so, in what way did he appear 
 to John ? In a bodily shape ? But God is a spirit, and 
 no man hath seen him, nor can any one see him and live. 
 That John's' baptism was from heaven, we know ; and 
 his commission to baptize — in what way soever it was 
 bestowed upon him — we affirm was conferred by Christ. 
 The Second Person of the adorable Trinity has always 
 ruled in the Kingdom of Grace ever since the fall of 
 man. He was the Prophet, Priest and King of the pe- 
 nitent Adam, as much as he is of his followers in the 
 present day. He, as the Prophet, gave through his 
 Spirit all the Revelation that man has ever received ; and 
 he is the author of all the scriptural institutions under 
 
BAPTISM IS IMMERSION. 65 
 
 the old as well as under the new dispensation. He was 
 the Angel of the Covenant that called Abraham from 
 his country, and appeared to him on the plains of Ma- 
 mre, and gave him his covenant — that appeared to Ha- 
 gar in the wilderness, and that wrestled with Jacob at 
 Peniel. He appeared to Moses in the burning bush, and 
 gave the law to the Israelites at Mount Sinai. He led 
 the people through the wilderness, and was in the She- 
 hinah over the mercy seat. He walked with the three 
 Hebrew children in the liery furnace. In short, he has 
 always been head over all things to the church, though 
 not manifested or declared to be so until after his resur- 
 rection ; and he was the ordainer of all the institutions 
 and ordinances given to his people under all the dispen- 
 sations from Adam to the present. " But is not this train 
 of remark suicidal to your assertion that John's was 
 Christian baptism ? Then it follows, it would seem, that 
 John's baptism, being no more than the passover, an 
 institution of Christ, was, like the passover, a Jewish in- 
 stitution. And this brings you to our conclusion, that 
 John's could not have been the Christian baptism, since 
 he (John) did not live in the Christian dispensation." 
 It is a favorite purpose with you and those with whom 
 you act, to make '' John's baptism" a dispensation by 
 itself, or rather, Hke the blank leaf between the Old 
 and New Testament, to make it belong to neither dis- 
 pensation, and to teach that it has inscribed upon it 
 nothing that is profitable either for doctrine, or reproof, 
 or correction, or instruction in righteousness. But the 
 authorities are against you. Mark says (1, 1) that John 
 5 
 
bb BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 baptized in the wilderness in "the beginning of the 
 Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." The Saviour 
 asserts the same. Mat. 11 : 12, 13 — " And from the days 
 of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven 
 suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. For 
 all the prophets and the law prophesied until John." 
 "Lu. 16:16 — "The law and the prophets w^ere until 
 John : since that time, the kingdom of God is preached, 
 and every man presseth into it." And after the resur- 
 rection of Christ, when the disciples were assembled 
 together to elect an apostle in the place of the traitor 
 Judas, Peter asserted the same thing in the following pro- 
 position : Ac. 1 : 21 — "Wherefore of these men which 
 have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus 
 went in and out among us — beginning from the bap- 
 tism of John, unto that same day that he was taken 
 from us — must one be ordained to be a witness with 
 us of his resurrection." 
 
 " But," you inquire, " what then does the Saviour mean 
 when he says : Among them that are born of woman 
 there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist ; 
 notwithstanding, he that is least in the kingdom of 
 heaven is greater than he ? John himself declared, ' the 
 kingdom of heaven is at hand.' Does not this seem to 
 imply that the kingdom of heaven, or the gospel dispen- 
 sation, had not as yet been ushered in ?" John's superior- 
 ity to Isaiah and other prophets did not consist in mental 
 and moral attainments, nor in the greater number of 
 revelations imparted to him ; but simply in the fact that 
 his ministry brought him into immediate relations with 
 
BAPTISM IS IMMERSION. 6*7 
 
 the Redeemer — because it was his province to prepare 
 the way of the Lord and to manifest him to Israel. Like 
 the older prophets, he may have been commissioned to 
 publish revelations, the full import of which he may not 
 have understood (1 Pet. 1 : 10, 11) ; and like Peter and 
 the other disciples, before the outpouring of the Holy 
 Spirit, he may have attached gross and inadequate ideas 
 to the mission of Christ. The kingdom of heaven was 
 set up with power and in the demonstration of the Spirit 
 on the day of pentecost, when those things which Christ 
 had taught his disciples, and which they had not fully 
 understood, were " brought to their remembrance," and 
 their spiritual import was revealed to them. Before that 
 time, Peter rejected the doctrine of the vicarious suffer- 
 ings of Christ, but on that occasion, enlightened by the 
 Holy Spirit, he preached, in all its proportions, the glo- 
 rious doctrine of Christ's atonement. In like manner, 
 John, though greater than all the prophets on account of 
 the dignity of his office, was inferior to the least of 
 Christ's followers after the day of pentecost, in the 
 spiritual perception of divine truths. " The kingdom of 
 heaven, or the gospel dispensation," had come before the 
 day of pentecost, but its nature was better discerned by 
 its subjects after that memorable day. 
 
 " But," you say, " the gospel dispensation was not in- 
 troduced till the crucifixion of Christ; and a gospel 
 ordinance could not have been introduced before the 
 introduction of the gospel dispensation." To use the 
 language of Dr. Summers, " this has the singular infe- 
 licity of contradicting" Christ, and Mark, and Peter, 
 
68 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 who all assert that John's baptism was " the beginning 
 of the gospel." You err, by not noticing the difference 
 between the existence and the more clear manifestation 
 of a thing. And besides, is this not saying that " the 
 Lord's Supper" is not a gospel ordinance, as it was in- 
 stituted before the resurrection, and even before the death 
 of Christ ? 
 
 " What, then, will you do with the case of the ' certain 
 disciples' at Ephesus, (Ac. 19 : l-V,) whom Paul re-bap- 
 tized ? Does not their re-baptism show that John's ordi- 
 nance was different from the Christian ?" To this I an- 
 swer, (1) some deny that there was a re-baptism, and 
 maintain that verse fifth was not the language of the histo- 
 rian, but a continuation of the discourse of Paul. " Then 
 said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of re- 
 pentance, saying unto the people, that they should be- 
 lieve on him which should come after him, that is, on 
 Christ Jesus. When they (that is, the people) heard 
 this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." 
 And it would be a very difficult matter for you to reply 
 to their arguments. If this was a case of re-baptism, it 
 seems to have been the only one. Andrew, and Peter, 
 and Philip, and Nathaniel, and Apollos, and others, sub- 
 mitted to no other than John's ordinance, and we have 
 no hint that they were re-baptized. So that even if it be 
 granted that these twelve were re-baptized, one instance 
 can prove nothing against John's ordinance, while there 
 are hundreds of instances testifying in its favor. But, 
 
 2. I believe with you that the ordinance was repeated. 
 I will grant this to you, and then use it as a club with 
 
BAPTISM IS IMMERSION. 69 
 
 which to break your head — metaphorically and good- 
 humoredly. It is not stated that they were baptized by 
 John, but " unto John's baptism." And the fact that 
 they had " not so much as heard whether there be any 
 Holy Ghost," showed that they had been immersed by 
 an incompetent administrator ; for it was the custom of 
 the first Baptist, as it should be of all his successors, to 
 speak at the water's side, and explain to the people the 
 nature and intent of his ordinance. In these addresses 
 it was his custom to enlighten the people in regard to 
 the relation which his ordinance sustained to the Father, 
 the Son and the Holy Ghost. (See John, 3 : 27-36.) 
 Because of defect in the administrator, therefore, the 
 ordinance was vitiated, even though it may have been 
 correct in form. It furnishes us, consequently, an in- 
 spired precedent for the re-baptism of all* who come to us 
 fiom your communion, whether " they had been applied 
 to the element, or the element to them." (Summers 
 passim.) 
 
 "But we have other objections still, to show that 
 John's could not have been the Christian baptism, even 
 though it be granted that you have satisfactorily answer- 
 ed those already urged." Yes, I know. We need no 
 confession from you to make us acknowledge that you 
 are a very objection-able people, as far as your adminis- 
 tration of this ordinance is concerned. But bring them 
 
 Note. — It is proper to state that there is not entire unanimity 
 among the Baptists on this question. Some valued brethren 
 are of opinion, that those should not be baptized on their recep- 
 tion into our churches, who have been already immersed in other 
 denominations. 
 
YO BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 forward, and we will permit them to have all the weight 
 to which they are entitled. 
 
 " John's could not have been the Christian ordinance, 
 for it was ' the baptism of repentance,' and it was admin- 
 istered only in the name of the Lord Jesus." To this I 
 answer, so was Christ's ordinance the baptism of repen- 
 tance, and, if the commission were out of the question, 
 it could be made as plausibly to appear that his disciples, 
 after his resurrection, administered it only in his name. 
 Ac. 2 : 38 — "Repent and be baptized every one of you 
 in the name of Jesus Christ.^'' Ac. 8: 16 — "For as 
 yet he was fallen upon none of them, (the people of 
 Samaria,) only they were baptized in the name of the 
 Lord Jesus.^'' Ac. 10 : 48 — " Then he (Peter) command- 
 ed them (the household of Cornelius) to be baptized in 
 the name of the Lord." Ac. 19 : 5 — " When they heard 
 this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord JesusP 
 Now, we know that the disciples baptized in the name of 
 the Father, and of the Sou, and of the Holy Ghost, 
 because they were commanded so to do ; but if we had 
 nothing more than the accounts of their administrations 
 of the ordinance, we would find it more easy to prove 
 from the record that John used this formula than that 
 they did. We know that John, in his addresses at the 
 water's side, brought distinctly to view the persons and 
 offices of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 
 As an example, take the following : " The Father loveth 
 the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He 
 that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life ; and he 
 that believeth not the Son shall not see life ; but the 
 wrath of God abideth on him." John, 3 : 35, 36. "He 
 
BAPTISM IS IMMERSION. 
 
 11 
 
 that Cometh after me is mightier than I ; he shall bap- 
 tize you with the Hol^ Gkost,''^ <fec. Matt. 3 : 11 ; see 
 also Mark, 1 : 8. " I indeed have baptized you with 
 water ; but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghosts 
 And we know that one item of the deficiency in the 
 baptism of the twelve at Ephesus, was their ignorance of 
 the Holy Ghost ; and that Paul seemed to be surprised 
 at it. In every instance of the administration of baptism 
 by the disciples, the name of the Lord Jesus is the only 
 one mentioned ; and the remarks made by them, in con- 
 nection with the ordinance, hint no more than do those 
 of John, that the ordinance had any connection with the 
 Father and the Holy Ghost. I know not, nor is it ma- 
 terial for my argument to show, that John used the 
 formula prescribed by Christ, but the record plainly 
 shows that his ordinance also had a relation to all the 
 persons of the Trinity ; and that he so understood and 
 taught. 
 
 " But though we should grant (which we are unwill- 
 ing to do") (yes, I know) " that John's was the Chris- 
 tian baptism, it will be of no service to you, in proving 
 that Christ set us an example which we are to follow. 
 Christ did not submit to John's ordinary baptism ; since 
 he could not be said to repent." Where did you find 
 that word " ordinary ?" 1 read no where in the Scrip- 
 tures, where John's ordinance is divided into ordinary 
 and extraordinary. This word is invented by yourself; 
 and we shall presently find you basing an argument 
 upon it, in your attempt to show why Christ was bap- 
 tized at all. But it is no better foundation than that 
 upon which the philosophical old lady based the earth. 
 
12 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 The story may seem to you out of place in a grave dis- 
 cussion of a theological question ; but you will please let 
 its pertinency as an illustration atone for what may seem 
 to you its lack of dignity. A venerable dame of the old 
 school encounters a boy, who has just been introduced 
 into the mysteries of natural philosophy in a neighbour- 
 ing academy, when the following conversation ensues : 
 " I hear, my son, your teacher tells you that the earth 
 rests on nothing." " Yes ma'am ; and is it not true ?" 
 " No ; it rests on a great big rock." " And what does 
 the rock rest on ?" " Why on another rock, to be sure." 
 " And what does that rest on ?" " Why la ! child, 
 are you so simple as not to know that there are rocks all 
 the way down !" You have no right to base an argu- 
 ment on the word ordinary^ unless the Scriptures give 
 you that word as a foundation. And, like the old lady's 
 earth, your argument will not be sustained, unless its 
 "ordinary" support extends " all the v,^ay down." John 
 administered the same rite to Christ that he did to others. 
 " Are we to understand you to say, then, that Christ had 
 something to repent of, and that John's baptism was to 
 him the baptism of repentance ?" No ; he was " holy, 
 harmless, undetiled and separate from sinners." "He 
 did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth." " What, 
 then, did his baptism signify ? and why did he submit to 
 the ordinance ?" It signified his obedience to law ; and 
 he submitted for the reason that he gave, viz : to " fulfill 
 all righteousness." He was not only God, but man ; 
 and, in the latter character, it became him to stand out 
 on the side of his cause, and to set his followers and all 
 the world an example. Again, though he had no sins of 
 
BAPTISM IS IMMERSION. 73 
 
 his own, he had those of his people laid on him as their 
 substitute. I cannot forbear to quote here from the Rev. 
 Charles Bradley, vicar of Glasbury, a minister of the 
 " Church of England" and a pedobaptist. " He stands 
 here as the representative of his people. Now, they are 
 
 an unclean people And now look at the Lord 
 
 Jesus. It matters not how pure he may be in himself, 
 he comes forth as the representative of the impure, and 
 as such he must submit to that ordinance which is em- 
 blematical of the cleansing thej need." " Is there in the 
 wide creation some being constituted the head of this 
 people ? Then it is meet and right that he should go 
 down into the waters through which they have to pass ; 
 that he should sanction the ordinance of his own ap- 
 pointment; that he should teach all who come after him 
 to reverence and obey it." (Sermons, p. 198.) 
 
 " But, then, if Christ's baptism w'as an example for 
 us, you are bound, according to your principles, to follow 
 it literally. Christ was not baptized until he was thirty 
 years of age ; therefore, none of his followers should be." 
 I like your style of argument. This looks to you very 
 much as if you had condemned us out of our own mouths. 
 There was something, as you will grant, peculiar in the 
 case of our Saviour, which rendered it proper for him to 
 defer his manifestation to Israel to the age of thirty. 
 What that was, you are as responsible for as we are. 
 But there is nothing of this kind pertaining to any of 
 the children of men. God's command is that we should 
 seek him early — that as soon as we come to the age of 
 accountability, we should repent and believe the gospel ; 
 and that as soon as we beheve, we should be baptized 
 
74 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 and come out on the Lord's side. The precept tells us 
 when we should repent and be baptized ; and the precept 
 and example both tell us hoiu we should be baptized. 
 " But those that were baptized by John before the Saviour 
 did not have the benefit of his example, and did not fol- 
 loio him in baptism." My dear sir, this is but a quibble. 
 On the same principle, Abraham was not \n^ follower^ 
 though he lived and died in the faith. 
 
 "John's baptism pointed to Christ as the object in 
 whom its subjects should believe : How could Christ be 
 said to believe in himself ?" To this I answer, the pass- 
 over pointed to the sacrifice upon the cross, and all who 
 jiartook of it by faith looked to " Christ, our Passover, 
 sacrificed for us." How could Christ, by partaking of 
 the passover, express faith in himself, when he died not 
 for himself but for the sins of his people ? Was there 
 an " ordinary" and an extraordinary ^:)assove/* too? In 
 the Lord's supper, the bread shows his body broken for 
 us, and the wine his blood shed for us ; and we are com- 
 manded to eat and to drink in remembrance of him. 
 The ordinance was designed for the use of sinners atoned 
 for and sanctified by the broken body and shed blood of 
 Christ. Did he, by partaking of this ordinance with his 
 disciples, confess that he was a sinner, and profess his 
 faith in his atoning sacrifice ? Or is there in this ordi- 
 nance also, the " ordinary" and the extraordinary ? It 
 is astonishing that you do not think of these things. 
 Now, we have given above a sufficient reason to show 
 why Christ submitted to baptism ; but in the very terms 
 in which you explain how he could have partaken of the 
 
BAPTISM IS IMMERSION. 75 
 
 Supper without confessing himself a sinner, and profess- 
 ing the same kind of faith in his atonement that his 
 people do, you will explain how he could submit to his 
 other ordinance without the very same consequences. 
 " Are we to understand, then, that John's baptism and 
 Christian baptism are in all respects the same ?" Yes ; 
 as the morning is as much a part of the day as the 
 meridian. John's baptism was the " beginning," the 
 dawn of the gospel day ; the light afterwards shone 
 with greater effulgence, but still it was the same light 
 increased. 
 
 Having answered alFyour objections and responded to 
 all your inquiries, I will take the liberty of putting you 
 upon the stand now, and of propounding questions to you 
 in my turn. If John's baptism was not Christian bap- 
 tism, what was it ? The works of your writers on bap- 
 tism relieve us from the charge of misrepresentation or 
 misapprehension, when we suppose that this question 
 makes you " reason among yourselves," as the scribes 
 and pharisees did when a similar question was propound- 
 ed to them by our Saviour : " If we shall say it was Chris- 
 tian baptism, the Baptists will say, ' Why, then, do you 
 not follow it V If we shall say it was a rite that signi- 
 fied nothing to us — a mere excrescence on the Scriptures, 
 and profitable to us neither for doctrine, nor reproof, nor 
 correction, nor instruction in righteousness, ' all the peo- 
 ple' will consider that we are irreverent to and reject a 
 part of God's word. We cannot tell what it is." The 
 baptism of Christ, did it signify any thing or nothing ? 
 Did he submit to the ordinance with any design, or was 
 
Y6 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 it a mere unmeaning ceremony ? Why was Christ bap- 
 tized ? Here you have a use for your word extraordi- 
 nary. The uses of John's " ordinary baptism" you " can- 
 not tell ;" but you have learned to answer very promptly 
 when his extraordinary rite is in question — though your 
 answer is by no means univocal. A large number in 
 your ranks, respectable for piety and learning, protest 
 that the reason given is unfounded and ridiculous. But 
 let us hear your answer : " John's baptism of Christ was 
 designed to initiate him into the priestly office. The 
 priests entered upon their office at the age of thirty ; and 
 the rite, by which they were inducted, consisted in wash- 
 ing or a copious affusion, according to Ex. 29 : 4 — 
 ' And Aaron and his sons thou shalt bring unto the door 
 of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shalt wash 
 them with water.' In like manner, Jesus, who was a 
 priest, was at thirty years of age inducted by John into 
 his office." To this I answer, (1.) there is no such state- 
 ment in the Scriptures. Nowhere are we told that John 
 inducted Christ into his priestly office by baptism ; and 
 it is not apparent that, by virtue of his birth, John was 
 the administrator to induct any priest into his office. 
 Here is one rock on another rock, and the latter rests on 
 nothing. An argument as weighty as yours needs a 
 stable foundation. (2.) If John was an authorized ad- 
 ministrator of the rite of priestly induction, the place to 
 " wash" the priest was at the door of the tabernacle, 
 and not " in Jordan." Lev. 8, Ex. 24 : 4, &c. (3.) If 
 the baptism was the washing, what constituted the 
 anointing, and where were the priestly garments with 
 
BAPTISM IS IMMERSION. 77 
 
 which he was to be invested ? — all of which were as 
 necessary parts of the inducting rite as the washing. 
 See Ex. 29 : 4, &c. If it be said that the descent of 
 the Spirit constituted the anointing, it cannot be shown 
 why a part of the ceremony was hteral and natural, an- 
 other supernatural, and another totally omitted. (4.) If 
 Christ was formally inducted into one of his offices, why 
 not into the others ? Why was he not anointed as a 
 prophet, and anointed and crowned as a king ? (5.) If 
 Christ's baptism by John was the washing to induct him 
 into the priestly office, there was no propriety in his 
 saying he submitted to it " to fulfill all righteousness ;" 
 for he would in that event have been perpetrating an in- 
 novation upon the rite delivered by Moses. The cere- 
 mony referred to, related to the priests after the order of 
 Levi, and not after the order of Melchisedec. " For the 
 priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a 
 change also of the law. For he of whom these things 
 are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man 
 gave attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our 
 Lord sprang out of Juda ; of which tribe Moses spake 
 nothing concerning priesthood." Heb. 6 : 12-14. (7.) 
 If John baptized Christ to induct him into office, what 
 did he baptize others for ? Finally, if John's baptism 
 was not Christian baptism, and if the existence of the 
 latter is to be dated with the giving of the commission, 
 what kind of baptism did Christ's disciples administer 
 before the death of John ? See John, 4:1,2. 
 
 It is remarkable that so many able and honest men 
 among our opponents, should fail to see the nature and 
 
18 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 design of John's mission, when they are so plainly nar- 
 rated in the Scriptures. We are unequivocally told that 
 he was sent to prepare the way of the Lord, and make 
 his paths straight ; and that his baptism was designed to 
 make ready a people prepared for the Lord. (Lu. 1 : 17.) 
 His mission was to prepare by preaching repentance, and 
 by baptism, by proclaiming to the people the near ap- 
 proach of the advent of Christ, and by baptizing those 
 who professed repentance and faith in " him who was to 
 come," to make ready a people prepared to receive and 
 follow him as soon as he was manifested. Consequently, 
 we find him pointing to Christ as soon as he was bap- 
 tized, and saying, "Behold the Lamb of God which 
 taketh away the sins of the world ;"' and immediately 
 thereupon we see Philip, and Peter, and Andrew, and 
 Nathaniel, leaving him and following Christ. It is not 
 evident that John baptized very many. True, " they 
 went out to him," " they came to his baptism," " they 
 went out for to see ;" and we are even told that there 
 went to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region 
 round about Jordan, and were all baptized of him in Jor- 
 dan, confessing their sins ; but even that hyperbolical 
 statement does not show more than that some of all 
 classes from all those places were baptized ; for the 
 evangelist, after the &tti»p««44^and unlimited statement, 
 goes on to say that some who came to his baptism were 
 rejected ; and the question of Christ — " what went ye 
 out for to see ?" — implies that the vast majority were 
 attracted by mere curiosity. 
 
 It is amusing to see the extravagant conjectures made 
 
BAPTISM IS IMMERSION. 79 
 
 by our opponents of the number of the " vast multi- 
 tudes" baptized by him ; some making their estimates 
 even as high as two or three millions of persons (Sum- 
 mers, p. 82); and then, upon this shadowy' basis, going 
 into an arithmetical calculation of the number he would 
 have to baptize every day, keeping John, poor man, in 
 the water, day and night, and exhausting him by the 
 numberless immersions which he had to perform. And 
 Dr. Summers, more cruel than the rest, adds to his ex- 
 haustion, by allowing him no time to hunt for locusts 
 and wild honey in the wilderness ! It is wonderful that 
 one simple remark, made by the evangelist John, should 
 not have reheved them from their extravagant vagaries. 
 " The disciples of Jesus made and baptized more disci- 
 ples than John." (John, 4:1.) Now, if John baptized 
 " all," where were the subjects for Christ's disciples ? 
 And if John baptized three miUions, Christ's disciples 
 baptized more than three millions. And, consequently, 
 the baptized hosts of John's and Christ's disciples 
 amounted to more than six millions of souls — embracing 
 in their number nearly, if not quite all, of the Jewish 
 people ! While the fact is, we have no evidence that 
 John and Christ's disciples altogether baptized as many 
 as one thousand persons. We know that not many more 
 than five hundred saw Christ after his resurrection. (1 
 Cor. 15 : 6, Matt. 28 : 10 ; John, 20 : 17.) 
 
 Thus we have shown that John's was Christian bap- 
 tism, and thus we have shown that the baptism of our 
 Saviom' was an example for us to follow. The discussion 
 of this incidental question has led us far off from the line 
 
80 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 of our argument ; but it was necessary to clear this point 
 up before advancing. This our opponents consider an 
 impregnable position, and we were compelled to storm 
 it ; for it is a principle in the science of war never to 
 leave a fortified position in the rear. 
 
 The reader will now please return with me to the 
 point to which we had attained in the main drift of the 
 argument. Our position was, that, besides the meaning 
 of the word, the examples of baptism in the Scriptures, 
 where the details are given, show that it is immersion, 
 and nothing else. 
 
 Section III. — Baptism of the Ethiopian Eunuch. 
 
 1. The evidence to show the immersion of the Ethiopian 
 Eunuch is, if possible, even more forcible than that to 
 show that Christ was immersed- " And as they went on 
 their way they came unto a certain water ; and the Eu- 
 nuch said, See, here is water ; what doth hinder me to 
 be baptized ? And Philip said, If thou believest with 
 all thine heart thou mayest. And he answered and said, 
 I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he 
 commanded the chariot to stand still : And they went 
 down both into the water^ both Philip and the JEunuch, 
 and he baptized him. And when they were come up out 
 of the watei\ the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip," 
 &c. Ac. 8 : 36-39. Here we are told that they de- 
 scended into the water, and, as if to make it more forci- 
 ble still — nay, as if to provide against the cavils of anti- 
 " immersionists" of the present day — the historian adds, 
 both Philip and the Eunuch. Why descend either or 
 
BAPTISM IS IMMERSION. 81 
 
 both into the water if immersion was not essential to the 
 ordinance ? Is it reasonable to suppose that Philip 
 would have subjected himself and the Eunuch — far from 
 home, and while on a journey — to the uncomfortableness 
 and risk of going up to their knees or waist into water, 
 when a half gill of water, brought by a servant in a shell 
 or even in a cup formed by a leaf, would have suiBced? 
 If pouring or sprinkling was apostolic baptism, would not 
 a little water dipped up in the hand from the margin, or 
 sticking to the fingers, have sufficed ? Would any sane 
 man, while travelling, just for the pleasure of the thing, 
 and for no reason at all, wade up to his knees or waist in 
 water, and then, stopping by the wayside, unpack his 
 baggage for dry clothes, or travel all day in wet ? And 
 shall we ascribe to Philip conduct which would subject 
 any one among us to the charge of lunacy ? 
 
 If the Holy Ghost had informed us only that they 
 went down into the water to administer the ordinance, 
 position in the element would have been clearly mani- 
 fested ; but, as if to make assurance doubly sure, it is 
 added, they came up out of the water. This was de- 
 signed, as it would seem, to silence all cavil. The issu- 
 ing out of the water was necessarily implied, since it 
 was not to be presumed that they would remain in the 
 element after the administration of the ordinance. 
 
 Now we ask Dr. Summers, suppose he were travel- 
 ling with a recent convert, situated as the Eunuch was, 
 and he should consent to baptize him — which he would 
 have the right to do were the circumstance? the same — 
 when, on a journey, in a wilderness, far from any house, 
 6 
 
$2 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 they arrived at water, would he take his subject up to 
 the knees or waist, or even up to the ankles, in order 
 to pour or sprinkle a little water upon him ? Here, at 
 home, when he has a turn to serve, he sometimes does ; 
 but, if he were situated as Philip was, would he pro- 
 ceed into the water ? And if he would consider it too 
 unnecessary, too dangerous, and too foolish, for him, 
 why should he ascribe such a course to Philip? But 
 Dr. S. doubtless would reply, " I would not go into the 
 water, neither did Philip. The prepositions used ill 
 Greek are of various meaning. Luke designed to say, 
 ' They went down both eis, to, the water, and they came 
 up eh, from, the water.'" p. 100. He proceeds : "When 
 eis denotes into, it is used before the verb as well as be- 
 fore the noun. Thus : ' they entered into the house of 
 Lydia' — eiselthon eis ten Liidian. Had the preposition 
 been used merely before the noun and not also before the 
 verb, it would have simply expressed motion towards the 
 house, and not entrance into it. Agreeably to this rule, 
 if St. Luke had intended to say that Philip went into 
 the water with the Eunuch, he would have put the pre- 
 position before the verb." Hundreds of examples are 
 furnished by the New Testament to illustrate this rule. 
 Let us take any two chapters at random, say the 9th 
 and lOth of Luke, and see what will be the interest- 
 ing result when our author's rule is applied. Lu. 9 : 
 10 — " And he took them and {upechorese) went jiside 
 privately (eis) into a desert place." Here eis is not re- 
 peated before the verb, and our rule, therefore, takes 
 them towards, or at furthest, not more than to the boiin- 
 
BAPTISM IS IMMERSION. 83 
 
 dary line of the desert. V. 12 — " Then came the twelve 
 and said unto him, send the multitude away that {apel- 
 thorites) they may go {eis) into the towns and country 
 round about, and lodge, and get victuals." Here again 
 the preposition is not repeated, and our rule rivets the 
 multitude to the place where they were ; for it permits 
 them to go neither into the towns nor into the country 
 round about! V. 44 — "Let these savings (thesthe) 
 sink down (eis) into your ears." That is, according to 
 our rule, place these sayings to, but let them not enter 
 into your ears. " For the Son of man {mellei paradi- 
 dosthai) shall be delivered {eis) into the hands of men." 
 That is, shall be delivered to, but the hands of men shall 
 not grasp him. V. 51 — "He steadfastly set his face 
 (poreuesthai) to go (eis) to Jerusalem." Here our rule 
 arrests him on the confines of the city. V. 56 — " And 
 (eporeuthesan) they went {eis) to another village." That 
 is, they did not enter into it. 10 : 1 — " After these things 
 the Lord appointed other seventy also, and {apesteilen) 
 sent them two by two before his face, {eis) into every 
 city and place whither he himself would come." If the 
 seventy understood the force of our author's rule, they 
 would have stopped outside of every city and place to 
 which they were sent. V. 2 — " Pray ye, therefore, the 
 Lord of the harvest that {ekbale) he would send forth 
 laborers {eis) into his harvest." That is, Dr. Summers, 
 and othei-s of the initiated, who understand this rule, 
 pray that the Lord of the harvest would send laborers to 
 the fence, on the outside of the enclosure ; but we un- 
 learned persons, in our simplicity, pray that the laborers 
 
84 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 may be sent into the field, and put to work ! Again, 
 V. Y, (metabainete) " Go not (ek) from house (m) to 
 house." That is, I suppose, according to the rule : Go 
 not as idle gazei-s to look at the outside of the houses. 
 But it seems, in spite of the rule, they did enter into 
 the cities and places. V. 10 — " But [eis) into whatever 
 city (eiserchesthe) ye enter," (in v. 1,) our Saviour {apestei- 
 len eis) sent them to the city, hence he, doubtless, not 
 understanding the force of this rule, speaks as if he had 
 sent them into the city, " and they receive you not, {ex- 
 elthontes) go your ways out (eis) mto the streets of the 
 same," etc. Our rule arrests them at the threshold of 
 the door — it carries them to the street door and no fur- 
 ther. V. 30 — " A certain man {katehainen apo) went 
 down from Jerusalem (eis) to Jericho." That is, went 
 down from the suburbs of Jerusalem to the suburbs of 
 Jericho. V. 34 — " And a certain Samaritan . . . (ega- 
 gen) brought him (eis) to an inn, and took care of him." 
 That is. according to our rule, laid him down on the 
 ground outside of the inn. V. 38 — " Now it came to 
 pass as they went that (eiselthen) he entered (eis) into a 
 certain village, (here we have the benefit of our rule,) 
 and a certain woman named Martha (upedexato) re- 
 ceived him (eis) into her house ;" that is, according to 
 our author's rule, made him stop outside of her house. 
 And so may we go on multiplying quotations. 
 
 2. Dr. Summer's examples of the repetition of eis as 
 compounded with the verb and as governing the noun, 
 is limited to the verb eiserchomai. Erchomai means to 
 go and eiserchomai means to enter, or go into. Eiselthen 
 
BAPTISM IS IMMERSION. 85 
 
 eis ten oikian is a little more emphatic perhaps, but it 
 means no more than elthen eis ten oikian, as far as the 
 tendency of the motion is concerned. The former may 
 be translated, " he entered into the house," and the lat- 
 ter, "he 2uent mto the house .-^ Both these expressions 
 we have in English ; and if we attach any difference to 
 them, it is that in the former, the individual is already 
 at the house, and has only to step in, while in the latter 
 he has to go to its threshold before he can step over it 
 and into the enclosure of its walls. " A preposition in 
 composition often retains its distinct force and govern- 
 ment as such. But it commonly seems to be regarded 
 as a mere adverb, and the compound to be construed 
 just as a simple word would be of the same signification. 
 Hence the preposition is often repeated, or a similar pre- 
 position introduced, as — epeironto eishallein eis ten Kili- 
 kiany (Crosby's Grk. and Gen. Gram., §882-5. See 
 also Buttmann's larger Grk. Gram., §147, N. 12.) 
 
 3. Though we grant that eis signifies rarely motion 
 towards terminating at the confines of the object, when 
 the object is penetrable it usually signifies motion into 
 it ; and its signification in a grammatical sentence can 
 always be definitely ascertained by the circumstances, or 
 by the meaning of the words with which it is associated. 
 In this case, it is associated with ha2)tizo, which we have 
 shown means only to immerse ; with udor, water, which 
 is a penetrable object ; and with ek, which we shall show 
 means out of^ and nothing else. To immerse the Eu- 
 nuch, entrance into the water was necessary, and to come 
 out of the water implies a previous entrance into it. 
 
811 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 4. But the Scripture use of the phrase with which eis 
 is connected will corroborate our argument. The Greek 
 phrase is katebesan eis toudor — they went down into the 
 water. Lu. 10 : 30 — " A certain man {katehainen crpo) 
 went down from Jerusalem (eis) to Jericho." That is, 
 went out of Jerusalem into Jericho, Lu. 18 : 14 — " I say 
 unto you he (the publican) [katehe) went down {eis) to 
 his house, justified rather than the other." Did he go down 
 only to the outside of his house ? Lu. 8 : 23 — " Then 
 came down (katebe) a storm of wind (eis) on the lake." 
 The expression is as metaphorical as when we say the 
 wind rises or falls. Is not the figure, the wind descended 
 into the waters of the lake, and raised them up into 
 waves ? Jno. 2 : 12 — "After this (katebe) he came down 
 (eis) to Capernaum." Does it mean that he stopped at 
 the suburbs? Ac. 7:15 — "And Jacob (^-a/ci^?) went 
 down (eis) to Egypt." Does it mean that he stopped at 
 the confines? Ac. 14: 25 — "And when they had 
 preached the word in Perga (katebesan) they went down 
 (eis) to Troas," or into Troas. Ac. 18 : 22 (katebe) — 
 "He went down (eis) to Antioch." Ac. 25: 6— "He 
 went down (eis) unto Caesarea," or into Caesarea. Rom. 
 10 : 7 — "Who shall (katabesetai) descend (eis) into the 
 deep ?" Eph. 4 : 9 — " Now that he ascended, what is 
 it but that he also (katebe) descended first (eis) into the 
 lower parts of the earth." Mark 13: 15 — "And let 
 him that is on the house-top not (katabato eis) go down 
 into the house." Rev. 13 : 13 — " He inaketh fire (kata- 
 bainein) to come down from heaven (eis) on the earth" — 
 idiomatically and literally into the earth. These are all 
 
BAPTISM IS IMMERSION. 87 
 
 the instances in the New Testament where this Greek 
 phrase is used in connection with eis. There is one other 
 example in which the phrase is used not with eis but 
 with ep'i ; and it gives the finishing touch to the refuta- 
 tion of our author's criticism on eis. Jno. 6:16, 17 — 
 "And when even was come, his disciples {katehesan epi) 
 went down UxVto the sea, and entered [eis) into a ship," 
 etc. From a collation of all the passages then of the 
 use of katahaino with eis^ we find that when descent 
 into is to be expressed, eis is used, and that when descent 
 to is to be expressed, epi is used. Following then the 
 example of the phrase in all the other places in which it 
 is used in the New Testament, katehesan eis to udor in 
 the account of the baptism of the Eunuch, is to be trans- 
 lated, " they went down (both) into the water." It will 
 be seen that here again we have made " the language of 
 the Scriptures its own authoritative interpreter." 
 
 5. The examples which Dr. S. has given to show that 
 eis means something else than into, will nearly all of 
 them testify against him if the force of the Greek idiom 
 is observed. Rom. 16:19 — "I would have you wise 
 (eis) unto that which is good, and simple {eis) concern- 
 ing evil." The Greek idiom is " wise into the good and 
 simple into the evil :" as the English idiom is wise in 
 the good and simple in the evil. Ac. 8 : 40 — " Philip 
 was found [eis] at Azotus. The sentence is elliptical, 
 and eis shows motion into terminating within Azotus. 
 Lu. 15: 22 — "Put a ring (eis) on his hand and shoes 
 eis on his feet." " ' Surely,' says Dr. S. ' not into his hand," 
 etc. Yes, I say, into, according to the Greek idiom. We 
 
88 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 say on his hand, etc., but, literally, the ring is not put on 
 his hand, but his finger, a part of his hand is put into 
 it; and when so, it is more literally put into than on his 
 hand: so in regard to the shoes. Literally, the t(»lare 
 placed into them, but idiomatically, in English, on the 
 feet, and idiomatically, in Greek, into the feet. In ad- 
 dition to this, it will be observed, that, in ancient times, 
 not modern shoes were worn, but the upodevna, which 
 was a simple sole bound under the foot. As it fit there- 
 fore into the hollow of the foot, may not the Greek 
 idiom have had its origin from that fact ? Or, take ano- 
 ther supposition still : The verb in Greek is not 2>ut^ but 
 give ; may not the passage then be best explained, by re- 
 ferring it to the class of examples in which eis signifies 
 in usu7n, commonly translated for in English ? Give a 
 ring for [into the use of) his hand, and shoes for [into 
 the use of) his feet. Comp. Mat. 10: 10. Lu. 9: 13. 
 Rom. 26 : 26. Jno. 10 : 40 — "Jesus went away again 
 beyond Jordan [eis) unto the place where John at first bap- 
 tized, and there he abode." Says Dr. S., " certainly not 
 in the river ; he did not plunge himself into the river and 
 make that his abode !" Certainly not. He went into 
 the place. How would you have it ? He went to Betha- 
 bara, i. e. to the outskirts, and there abode ? I can give 
 Dr. S. a more forcible example on his side than any he 
 has quoted. Jno. 20 : 1-6 — " Peter therefore went forth 
 and that other disciple, and came eis to the sepulchre, 
 and the other disciple came firet eis to the sepulchre, yet 
 [eiselthen) went he not in. Then cometh Simon Peter 
 and (eiselthen) went eis into the sepulchre." Now- this 
 
BAPTISM IS IMMERSION. 89 
 
 looks like a very strong case, and if we did not know 
 from antiquities liow the sepulchres were constructed, it 
 would testify decidedly in favor of our opponents ; but the 
 structure of the sepulchre makes it a witness in our fa- 
 vor. Pictet, a pedobaptist, remarks : — " The form of the 
 Jewish sepulchre was very diflferent from ours. The 
 more wealthy persons were accustomed to hew out a 
 cave in a rock, which had first an open space before the 
 entrance^ and then on both sides the hollow part or 
 cave, four cubits loiver than the open s2Mce, which hol- 
 low part again had its cavities or niches, some eight, 
 some thirteen, in which the bodies were deposited. 
 Christ's was a 7iew sepulchre, in order that no one might 
 have it to say that some one else was buried in his stead, 
 etc." (Theology, p. 260.) Ms therefore carried that 
 other disciple into the " open space before the entrance," 
 where he awaited the arrival of Peter, and eis carried 
 them also into the "cave four cubits lower than the 
 open space." 
 
 That eis sometimes denotes to, or unto, we grant, but 
 we maintain that its primary and usual signification is 
 into. As this word usually signifies motion to a place 
 ending within the place, so it is always to be understood 
 in this sense, except circumstances forbid it. 
 
 "The preposition eA:," Dr. S. says, primarily denotes 
 motion from a place." Any school-boy, with nothing 
 but his grammar in his hands, can successfully refute 
 him. We maintain not only that its primary meaning 
 is out of but that it always has that meaning, especially 
 when it denotes the motion of an object from one place 
 
SG BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 to another. Nor are tlie examples which Dr. S. quotes 
 opposed to our assertion : Rom. 1 : 4 — " And declared to 
 be the Son of God, with power ck by the resurrection 
 from the dead." Literally out of the resurrection from 
 the dead ; i. e., the proof is contained in and proceeds 
 out of the resurrection from the dead. Matt. 19 : 20 — 
 " All these things have I kept ek from ray youth up." 
 Does it mean that he did not commence to keep them 
 until after the expiration of his youth ? Literally out of 
 my youth up. Jno. 13 : 4 — " He riseth ek from sup- 
 per." contend the original is out of supper. " Out of 
 supper!" Yes ; why not out of as well SLsfrom supper? 
 Literally he was not on the supper, from which he could 
 rise. Besides, the expression is elliptical. You yourself 
 have told us that in ancient limes they reclined on 
 couches at table. The expression then with the ellipsis 
 filled out is : He riseth out of the couch at the supper, or 
 he rises out of the company, or out of the occupation at 
 supper. I need not formally prove that ek means pri- 
 marily/, out of for all the lexicons and grammars assert it. 
 But suppose we grant that eis means to, and ek means 
 /rom, once in a hundred times, what is there about the 
 circumstances here which forbids them to be used in 
 their ordinary significations ? £k does not only mean 
 primarily, according to grammarians, and as we contend, 
 uniformly, out of but there is no other preposition in 
 the Greek language which has this as its primary signifi- 
 cation. Apo, as we have shown, can bring an object /row 
 any position, whether within or at the edge of a pene- 
 trable body ; but it has not, as its primary signification, 
 
BAPTISM IS IMMERSION. 91 
 
 out of. Take both of these prepositions away, however, 
 and there is no other in the language that can have this 
 signification. Now what have the arguments of our op- 
 ponents brought us to ? That there is no preposition in 
 the Greek language that signifies in — that no single pre- 
 position expresses out of. Consequently the Greeks never 
 conceived of such a thing as going into the water ^ and if 
 any person or thing had ever {eisellhen eis) entered into it, 
 there they remained forever, for their language does not 
 indicate that they ever had such a conception as coming- 
 out of the water, or out of any thing else. The com- 
 mon sense reader can be at no loss what to think of an 
 argument that leads to such a conclusion. If it be granted 
 that these words have various meanings, it will be enough 
 for him to be told what are their usual significations nine- 
 ty-nine times in a hundred. Ninety-nine times in a 
 hundred — nay, nine hundred and ninety-nine times in a 
 thousand, haj^tizo (if it ever means any tning else, which 
 we deny) signifies to immerse ; en, in ; eis into ; and ek out 
 of. It is impossible for the Greek words that give an 
 account of the baptism of the Eunuch, to be translated 
 more literally and accurately than they are in the Eng- 
 lish version of the Bible. Nay, I go further : It is ut- 
 terly impossible to translate literally into Greek, the 
 English sentence, " and they went down both into the 
 water, both Philip nnd the Eunuch, and he baptized him, 
 and when they were come up out of the water," without 
 using the precise words and the precise structure of the 
 original. 
 
 Another argument, which will strike any man of com- 
 
92 BAPTISM IX ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 mon sense, to show that they went into the water, is the 
 repetition of the word " both ;" they went down both into 
 the water, both Philip and the Eunuch. 1^ eis means to, 
 why the repetition ? By the use of apo in the baptism 
 of our Saviour by John, we have no certain evidence 
 that John accompanied his subjects into the water. He 
 may have remained upon the bank, where the water was 
 of sufficient depth for his subjects to stand in it within 
 his reach ; and as the manner of the immei-sion has 
 nothing to do with its vaHdity, he may have immersed 
 them with their faces down, or perpendicularly beneath 
 the waves. Consequently, it is not absolutely necessary 
 for the immersion, that the administrator should enter 
 into the water ; and I have known Baptist ministers to 
 baptize candiilates into a vessel filled with water, while 
 they themselves stood without the element. But the 
 Holy Spirit informs us here that both administrator and 
 subject entered into the element. Now, I ask again, if 
 Luke means to say only that they went down to the wa- 
 ter, why does he repeat " both Philip and the Eunuch ?" 
 It is utterly impossible to torture any thing out of this 
 account but immersion. 
 
 " But," you say, " if the phrase, ' they went down both 
 into the water' signifies immersion, then Philip was im- 
 mersed as well as the Eunuch." To this I answer, who 
 says this phrase signifies immersion ? Baptists use this 
 as one of the circumstances to show that there was an 
 immersion, and not to express the immersion itself. For, 
 upon the supposition that the ordinance was administered 
 by pouring or sprinkling, why go into the water, either 
 
BAPTISM IS IMMERSION. 93 
 
 or both ? " They went down both into the water," ex- 
 presses the act preparatory to the immersion — " he bap- 
 tized him," expresses the act of immersion — " they came 
 up out of the water," expresses the act subsequent to 
 baptism. It takes a Doctor of Divinity who is hard 
 pressed for an argument, to invent such an objection as 
 this. 
 
 " But," objects Dr. Summers, " It is very improbable 
 that they found a river, lake, deep pond, cistern or tank, in 
 the way which goeth down from Jerusalem to Gaza, 
 which is desert." p. 101. To this I reply — 
 
 1. I know not, nor do I care to know, the character of 
 the water. AVhether it was " a river, lake, deep pond, 
 cistern or tank," is not material. We are told by Luke 
 that there was enough for an immersion ; for they went 
 down into it, Philip immersed him, and they came up 
 out of it. If the circumstances had not been given, the 
 word baptizo itself would have shown a sufficient depth 
 of water. 
 
 2. Calmet, a pedobaptist, informs us that among the 
 Hebrews the word desert did not signify an uninhabited 
 place — but an uncultivated place for woods and pastures, 
 like our commons — common lands. Some deserts were 
 beautiful and had good pastures. Scripture speaks of 
 the beauty of the desert. Ps. 65: 11, 12, 13— " Thy 
 paths drop fatness. They drop upon the pastures of the 
 wilderness ; and the little hills rejoice on every side. The 
 pastures are clothed with flocks," etc. But if the desert, 
 through which Philip and the Eunuch were travelling, 
 had been as dry, generally, as the deserts of Arabia, the 
 
94 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 Scripture account shows that in this place they found 
 water enough for immersion. 
 
 " Well, but," says another, " the account says not one 
 word about a change of apparel, neither here nor any 
 where else. Are we to suppose then either that the 
 Eunuch was immersed in a state of nudity, or that he 
 travelled in wet clothes the remainder of the day ?" The 
 same kind of objection Dr. Summers advances to John's 
 administration by immersion. " For it is alike absurd 
 and gratuitous, to affirm that they all came prepared 
 with baptismal robes, and no one can suppose that they 
 were immersed without a change of apparel ; and to im- 
 merse promiscuous multitudes in a state of nudity is a 
 supposition so extravagant, as well as indecent, that we 
 cannot feel called upon to refute it." p. 83. We reply to 
 this ever-recurring objection once for all. 
 
 1. Upon the same principle, as there is no mention of 
 the Eunuch's clothes, he must have been travelling in a 
 state of nudity. His chariot is mentioned, his servant is 
 implied, we are told he had a copy of the Prophet Isaiah, 
 and we know that he, the Eunuch himself, was present — 
 but not one hint is given of his clothes, their texture, 
 their color, or their cut. Therefore we are to infer that 
 he had no clothes at all, and was travelling ''in a state of 
 nudity." Does this surprise and shock you ? do you say 
 it is trifling ? I grant it ; but it is precisely your way of 
 reasoning, and I am holding it up before you as a mirror 
 in which you can see yourself. The mention of the Eu- 
 nuch travelling necessarily implies the Eunuch clad, 
 though no mention be made of his clothes ; and the men- 
 
BAPTISM IS IMMERSION. 95 
 
 tion of the Eunucli immersed implies the necessary facili- 
 ties for " decency, comfort and health." Must the Holy 
 Spirit condescend to inform you minutely where the 
 chariot stopped, what baggage the Ethiopian had, and 
 how many changes of raiment — must you be told how 
 he unpacked his luggage, whether he went into the wa- 
 ter with his travelling dress or substituted another — how 
 he dressed after coming out of the water, and how he 
 carried his wet garments, whether tied up in a bundle, 
 or hung out on the sides of the chariot to dry — must all 
 these details be given to you, before you can believe 
 God's plain and unequivocal statement ? It is astonish- 
 ing that Doctors of Divinity should be guilty of such 
 trifling ; and it is disgusting to have to reply to such 
 things. 
 
 2. The very same objection can be urged, with the 
 same force, against the reports of immersions by the 
 Baptists of the present day. Had Dr. S. been present 
 at the last meeting of the Georgia Baptist Association, 
 and heard the letter from Antioch read, in which it was 
 stated that in the month of August fifty persons were 
 baptized at that church — if he had been informed that it 
 was a church in the country, and these persons lived a 
 distance of many miles from the place of their baptism, 
 he might have proved as conclusively that pouring or 
 sprinkling constituted the ordinance. To do this, he 
 might have adopted the language of Dr. Miller, to which 
 his own bears a marked resemblance. " Can we imagine 
 that so great" a number " could have been provided on the 
 spot with convenient changes of raiment to admit of their 
 
96 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 being plunged consistently with their health ? Or can 
 we suppose that the greater part of their number would 
 remain for hours on the ground in their wet clothes ? 
 And if not, would decency have permitted multitudes 
 of both sexes to appear, and to undergo the administra- 
 tion of the ordinance in that mode, in a state of entire 
 nakedness ? Surely we need not wait for an answer ; 
 neither supposition is admissible." (Miller on Bap., p. 
 92.) And thus Dr. S. could prove that the pastor of 
 Antioch church — whatever his protestations to the con- 
 trary — baptized fifty persons last August by sprinkling 
 or pouring ! And the argument might appear very con- 
 clusive to a man of Dr. Summers' learning ; but it would 
 seem very ridiculous to any man of plain common sense. 
 In no accounts of immersions at the present day, are we 
 enlightened with the details of dressing before and after 
 the ordinance, nor was it necessary in ancient days. 
 
 Thus we have considered the only two cases of bap- 
 tism, recorded in the Scriptures, in which the details are 
 given — have answered all the arguments of our oppo- 
 nents drawn from the Greek, and from their imaginations, 
 and have shown that they exhibit immersion and nothing 
 else. u 
 
INSTANCES OF BAPTISM. 97 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE INSTANCES OF BAPTISM WHERE DETAILS ARE NOT 
 GIVEN, CONSISTENT WITH THE MEANING OF THE WORD. 
 
 Some of our opponents maintain that even though it 
 be proved that Christ and the Ethiopian Eunuch were 
 immersed, the arojuraent would not be decisive as ao-ainst 
 them ; since they themselves also practice immersion at 
 times, and grant that it is a valid baptism. A small but 
 increasing class, however, take the ground unequivocally 
 that there is no case of immersion in the Scriptures ; 
 and refuse to administer that "mode of the ordinance" 
 in any case. Dr. S., if he were consistent, would openly 
 take his position among these; for how can he adminis- 
 ter, or even tolerate immersion, when it is indecent, is 
 not significant of that of which the ordinance is an em- 
 blem, and was not in existence in apostolic times, as he 
 argues ? True, he does all he can by argument to per- 
 suade the '' weak consciences" among his subjects not to 
 "choose" to drag him down into the water; and when 
 he reddens in the discussion, and becomes irritated by 
 the plea that immersion "is the safer mode as no one 
 doubts its validity, while many do doubt the validity of 
 aftusion," (p, 119,) he comes in one of asserting that im- 
 mersion is no baptism at all. " We are ready to recog- 
 nize their mode of performing baptism as valid, though 
 a departure from the primitive mode, and a clumsy way 
 of performing an otherwise simple, beautiful and impres- 
 
98 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 sivfe ordinance. We may, indeed, in special cases, and in 
 condescension to weak consciences, administer the ordi- 
 nance by plunging, though, in such cases, some think 
 affusion ought not to be omitted, else there might be 
 need for Hezekiah's prayer : ' The good Lord pardon 
 every one that prepareth his heart to seek God, the Lord 
 God of his fjithers, though he be not cleansed according 
 to the purification of the sanctuary.' " p. 123. That is, 
 he is so accommodating, in his "condescension to weak 
 consciences," that he consents not only to overcome his 
 own repugnance, but to depart from the " beautiful, im- 
 pressive, and primitive mode of God's ordinance," and 
 to substitute a " clumsy" rite of doubtful propriety, so 
 doubtful as to make it necessary to " baptize by affusion" 
 also, and to pray God's forgiveness for what he is doing ! 
 To say notliing of the fraud practised upon the " weak 
 conscience," in " affusing" him when he "chooses" to be 
 immersed — not to dwell upon the fact that, if immersion 
 be baptism at all, the iveaJc brother is doubly baptized — 
 we must say Dr. Summers makes too great a sacrifice to 
 " accommodate a weak conscience." Better let it go 
 than retain it at such an expense. 
 
 Again, sjDeaking of some in his own ranks : " There 
 are many who cannot conscientiously immerse a candi- 
 date for baptism, and exceedingly few among them who 
 do not consider that baptism by immersion is valid 
 in spite of the plunging, and not in consequence of it. 
 They consider it a mangling of the Saviour's ordinance, 
 and they never witness an immersion without feelings of 
 revulsion and sorrow. All such persons consider it too 
 
INSTANCES OF BAPTISM. 99 
 
 great a stretch of charity to abandon what they beheve 
 to be the more excellent way at the demand of an insa- 
 tiate bigotry, which grows by that on which it feeds. 
 To yield to such claims they consider nothing better 
 than a mawkish and factitious liberality, as to assert 
 them is nothing better than arrogance or ignorance, or 
 both united." p. 120. Dr. Summers waxes warm, you 
 perceive, and writes very much as if he is expressing his 
 own sentiments. Press him a little further, and excite 
 him a little more, and it would not be surprising if he 
 should doggedly determine and so announce that he 
 would not sufter himself to be dragged into the water, 
 though all the " unstable souls" and " weak consciences," 
 that prefer his communion, were exerting a combined in- 
 fluence in that direction. 
 
 The courteous terms in this extract, and in other pas- 
 sages which I have not quoted, bring to my remem- 
 brance so forcibly a passage in his " Dedication to Bishop 
 Andrew," that I cannot forbear to pause long enough to 
 note it. " Many of the works on Baptism which teem 
 from the press are utterly worthless. . . . The style and 
 spirit too, in not a few instances, are highly objection- 
 able — not the slightest regard being given to the apos- 
 tolic rule of speaking the truth in love. The spread of 
 such works is of most pernicious tendency ; and if the 
 issue of the present volume will, to any extent, restrain 
 their circulation, the author has not labored in vain." p. 
 5. This reminds us of the manner in which a distin- 
 guished Judge of this State, now dead, routed the gam- 
 blers that infested his courts. In his address to the 
 
100 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 grand jury at the opening of the court, he enlarged upon 
 the unlawfulness of games of chance, and the disastrous 
 influence, as well upon the morals of society, as upon the 
 interests for time and eternity of those engaging in them ; 
 pressed upon the jury the obligations of their oaths to 
 ferret out and to bring to trial, all infractors of the law ; 
 and more than intimated that such culprits, should they 
 fall into his hands, would receive an exemplary pun- 
 ishment. At night, however, when all honest citi- 
 zens were sleeping soundly, under the grateful con- 
 viction that the pubhc morals were safe, while under 
 the guardianship of such judicial purity and faith- 
 fulness, Ins Honor was in a closely curtained room, 
 playing at Faro^ and so successfully that, in a short time, 
 he broke the bank. Like a faithful judge, he did not 
 suffer the occasion to pass without impressing upon them 
 a suitable moral. After cursing them, very profanely, to 
 make them feel more sensibly his superiority to them, 
 he observed that, all day long, he had endeavored to 
 rout them by the slow forms of law ; but, failing in that, 
 and seeing that they were defying his authority, he had 
 taken a more successful and summary way to break them 
 up utterly, and he hoped their discomfiture w^ould be a 
 warning to them for the future. Doubtless, all those 
 writers whom Dr. Summers rebukes will, hereafter, ac- 
 knowledge him as a master, and consent to be silent 
 whenever he speaks — in utter despair at the superior 
 skill with which he wields their own weapons ! And the 
 Christian world need not despair, after this, that the bap- 
 tismal controversy will be waged with a proper spirit ! 
 But to return. 
 
INSTANCES OF BAPTISM. 101 
 
 It is mucli to be regretted tbat all of our opponents 
 do not follow out their arguments to their legitimate re- 
 sult, and maintain that immersion is no baptism at all. 
 In that case, the question would be narrowed down to a 
 single point, and our opponents' practice and their argu- 
 ments would harmonize. As it is now, let us press them 
 hard in the argument, and they immediately run, for 
 shelter, into the water, thinking that we could not find it 
 in our heart to attack thera there. Do we prove that 
 the word baptizo means to immerse ; and do we show 
 irrefragably that Christ and the Ethiopian Eunuch were 
 immersed, they answer : " Well, as far as it goes, that 
 sustains our practice. We grant that they may have 
 been immersed, and that the word baptizo has, as one of 
 its meanings, to immerse ; but, then, it has other mean- 
 ings also, and the instances of baptism in the scriptures 
 where the circumstances are not given, the import of the 
 ordinance, and the allusions to it, show that other forms, 
 besides immersion, were in use, and, therefore, valid." In 
 this way, by their three baptisms, they not only satisfy 
 themselves, and retain " weak consciences " in their ranks, 
 but hope, also, to foil the Baptists in the argument. 
 Drive them from the passages that are clear and une- 
 quivocal, and they fly immediately, for shelter, behind 
 those that are not so definite. We leave it to our read- 
 ers to decide if the word and all the instances where 
 the circumstances are given, do not decide against them ; 
 and we shall leave it to the same tribunal to decide if other 
 passages afford them any better protection. 
 
102 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 Section I. — Enon near to Salim. The three thou- 
 sand on the day of Pentecost. 
 
 It may not be inappropriate, under tins head, to quote 
 an example under John's administration : " And John 
 also was baptizing in Enon, near to Salim, because there 
 was much water there : and they came and were baptized." 
 Jno. 3: 23. What was John doing at Enon ? Bapti- 
 zing, Why did he select Enon in preference to other 
 places ? Because there was much water there. Surely, 
 much 2oater is not needed for pouring and sprinkling. 
 But then you say the Greek phrase udata polla, rendered 
 much 2oater, means many streams or rivulets. Very 
 well ; suppose we grant it for the sake of argument, what 
 then ? What difference does it make ? He was bapti- 
 zing at Enon, because there were many streams or rivu- 
 lets there. Are streams and rivulets necessary to furnish 
 the requisite water for pouring or sprinkling ? For the 
 purposes of immersion, one rivulet would have answered 
 John as well as the Atlantic ocean ; and here he had 
 many of them. Your explanation that John selected a 
 place of many streams or rivulets to furnish water to the 
 beasts that the people rode, is simply ludicrous. The 
 record does not state that a single beast was present, and 
 if there had been a thousand there, much water would 
 have slaked their thirst as easily as many streams or 
 rivulets. It does not state that John was camping at 
 Enon, or even preaching at Enon, because there was a 
 supply of water ; but bnptizing at Enon. Christ collected 
 as great crowds as John, but we are no where told that 
 
INSTANCES OF BAPTISM. 103 
 
 he was teaching ov performing miracles at a certain place 
 because there was much water or even many streams 
 there. Was John more compassionate to brutes than 
 our compassionate Saviour ? Let it be granted then, 
 that the Greek phrase should be rendered many streams 
 or rivulets, and let the Evangelist inform us that such a 
 locality was chosen for the purposes of baptism, and our 
 most natural inference Avould be that John, baptizing, as 
 you say, such " vast multitudes," desired a sufficient sup 
 ply of fresh and clear water. 
 
 But the Greek phrase (udata p)olla) is properly trans- 
 lated much water, as other examples in the Scriptures 
 show : Rev. 1: 15. " And his voice as the sound of 
 {udata polla) many waters.^'' 14:2. "And I heard a 
 voice from heaven as the voice of {udata polla) many 
 waters, and as the voice of a great thunder." 19:6. 
 " And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, 
 and as the voice of [udata polla) many waters." See 
 also Rev. 17: 1, 15 ; and in the Septuagint, 2. Sam. 22: 
 17 ; Ps. 18: 16 ; 29: 3 ; 32: 6 ; 77: 19 ; 93: 4 ; 107: 23 ; 
 144: 7 ; Jer. 51: 13. " Thy way is in the sea, and thy 
 path in {udata polla) the great ivaters^ " They that go 
 down to the sea in ships, that do business in {udata pol- 
 la) great waters^ John was immersing at Enon, near 
 to Salim, because there was much water f^ere. 
 
 The first case on record, after the resurrection of Christ 
 was the baptism of the three thousand on the day of 
 Pentecost — Ac. 2. Many objections are brought for- 
 ward by our opponents, and urged with much confidence^ 
 to show that " their baptism could not have been by 
 
104 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 immersion." All of whicli can be shown to have no 
 weight. First. It is observed " there was not time 
 enough for the immersion of so large a number." " It 
 was impossible for the twelve apostles to immerse such 
 a multitude in six or eight hours." Summers, p. 86. 
 To this I answer : 
 
 1. The account does not state that that number was 
 baptized on that day ; all that is asserted is that " the 
 same day there were added unto them about three thou- 
 sand souls." V. 41. "Them "may refer to those who 
 gladly received the word and were baptized, or it may 
 refer to the company of disciples. These three thousand 
 may have been a part of those " vast multitudes " bap- 
 tized by John, who, like Apollos, availed themselves of 
 the first suitable opportunity, on this revival occasion, to 
 unite themselves, ostensibly, with the followers of Christy 
 
 2. If it be true that all were baptized on that day, 
 the difficulty, as to time, is no greater with us than with 
 you. It takes but little, if any, more time to immerse a 
 subject than to sprinkle or pour water upon hira " de- 
 cently " and gracefully. The time is consumed, chiefly, 
 not in the act of immersion, but in uttering the formula, 
 " I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
 and of the Holy Ghost." And I will undertake to immerse 
 a candidate in as short a time as Dr. Summers can pour 
 water upon him decently and genteelly. He was aware 
 of this difficulty when he was urging that it was a phy- 
 sical impossibility for John to immerse the " vast multi- 
 tudes " that came to his baptism, and made the Baptist 
 fall upon the rare expedient of baptizing them in the 
 
INSTANCES OF BAPTISM. 105 
 
 gross ! " He could place the subjects by the margin of 
 the stream, and with his hand or with a small vessel or 
 shell, pour it upon them ; or, agreeably to the Mosaic 
 ceremonial, sprinkle it upon them with a bunch of hys- 
 sop." p. 109. To answer the same objection as to time 
 I suppose, he would make the apostles adopt the same 
 expedient. Let us see how it would work. The means 
 used were the hand, a small vessel, a shell or a hyssop 
 sprinkler. The use of the hand will not do : for, as the 
 hollow of it will hold not more than would suffice for the 
 head of one, the administrator would have to walk from 
 the candidate to the water, or stoop down to it and dip 
 up " the element " every time he applied it to the sub- 
 ject, unless it is meant that John stood in the water and, 
 with his hand, scattered it upon the long and densely 
 packed ranks. This may have been very expeditious 
 and decent ; but if Doctor Summers were to administer 
 the ordinance in the same way, the boys in Charleston 
 would very likely consider that he had descended to a 
 level with themselves. 
 
 But suppose a shell, or even a pitcher, were used ; was 
 the formula repeated three thousand times, or was it 
 uttered once for all ? and then, holding the pitcher over 
 the heads of the people in line, did the administrator 
 walk rapidly in front of them, and pour the water out in 
 a constant stream ? Let it be granted that the formula 
 may not be repeated in immersion, and that, for the sake 
 of decency, the stream from your pitcher is to be arrested, 
 and the water not poured between the people as well 
 as upon their heads, and we will undertake to im- 
 merse as many as you can pour upon. 
 
106 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 But the hyssop sprinkler puts to flight our arguments 
 and our gravity at the same time. The formula out of 
 the question — one swing of it and hundreds are sprin- 
 kled ! It labors, however, under the disadvantages that 
 the administrator could not, with certainty, know that 
 the scattered drops hit all ; and when, on a repetition of 
 the swing, some drops may have fallen on those already 
 baptized, it subjected the administrator to the crime of 
 being an " anabaptist !" Verily, Doctor Summers, your 
 expedient, gravely as it is advanced, has no other effect 
 upon your readers than to excite in their minds sensa- 
 tions of the ludicrous ! 
 
 3. The seventy disciples commissioned by Christ to 
 preach, were authorized administrators, and were, doubt- 
 less, present on the occasion ; for we read, v. 1 , " They 
 were all with one accord in one place." There being, 
 then, eighty-two administrators, each would not have 
 quite thirty-eight to baptize. Now as, when the candi- 
 dates enter into a river or pool in companies, two, at 
 least, can be baptized in a minute, the perilous work can 
 be accomplished in less than half an hour ! But Dr. S. 
 says : " It is perfectly gratuitous to associate the seventy 
 disciples with the apostles in this work," p. 86. I will 
 not stop to argue this with him further than to cite him 
 to the following passages, which show that others than 
 the twelve apostles were authorized to baptize : Ac. 8: 
 15 ; 9: 18; 18: 2, &c.; 10: 5-23 ; 11: 1. But let him, 
 if he pleases, refuse the aid of the seventy in the 
 hyssop-sprinkling operation, and let it be granted that 
 the work was performed by the twelve alone ; in that 
 
INSTANCES OF BAPTISM. 10*7 
 
 case, it could have been accomplished in less than three 
 hours. 
 
 The day of Pentecost was not the only one in the his- 
 tory of the rite on which it was administered to three 
 thousand persons. "On the 16th of April, A. D. 404, 
 Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople, and his presbyters, 
 immersed three thousand persons, though twice inter- 
 rupted by attacks from furious soldiers.'' Chrysost. Ep. 
 ad Innoc, v. 3, 518 — (as quoted by Dr. Sears and oth- 
 ers.) Again, "in 496, Remigius, bishop of Rheims, 
 immersed Clovis and three thousand of his subjects. Of 
 course he was aided by his presbyters." (Schrockh's Ch. 
 Hist., vol. xvi., p. 234.) 
 
 The difficulty, as to time, being obviated, next it is 
 urged that there was not water enough in Jerusalem to 
 immerse such a multitude (Summers, p, 85). In vain 
 we tell them that the word baptizo, which the Holy 
 Spirit uses, necessarily implies water enough. They 
 reply that that is the very thing in dispute. Baptizo, 
 they say, sometimes means to immerse ; but it also signi- 
 fies to sprinkle, to pour, to 2^urif'i/, and to apply water 
 in any mode and in any quantity. " That baptism may 
 have been administered by immersion," at Jordan, " we 
 may grant, but that it was administered at other places, 
 in other ways, we maintain ;" and the deficiency of water 
 for the immei*sion of the three thousand, is urged to 
 show that this was one of the cases in which the ordi- 
 nance was administered by sprinkling or by affusion. 
 Very well. If we had honest scholars only to deal with — 
 men who make no pretensions to a reverence of the 
 
108 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 scriptures — and we should fail to show a sufficiency of 
 water, they would either grant that it is unreasonable to 
 make such a requirement of us, after the lapse of eigh- 
 teen centuries, and admit that facilities for immersion 
 may have existed there without leaving any traces behind 
 them, or they would boldly deny the inspiration of the 
 scriptures. It would never enter their minds to give the 
 word haptizo a signification which they had never found 
 attached to it within the whole range of their reading. 
 If I were to say, that Dr. 8. immersed fifty persons in 
 Charleston, on a certain occasion, when the fact was that 
 he had poured a little water upon them, all would accuse 
 me, with reason, of telHng a falsehood, even though I 
 should defend myself by saying that I used the word 
 immerse, not in its ordinary, but in a " sacred " sense, 
 and that I really meant that Dr. S. poured water upon 
 them. The word haptizo having been proved to signify 
 to immerse, surely it would seem that the controversy 
 should be at an end. And when the Holy Spirit in- 
 forms us that that three thousand were immersed in 
 Jerusalem in one day, we should either admit iter deny 
 the truth of Revelation. 
 
 But though it is unreasonable that we should be re- 
 quired to meet these demands for proof, yet it has been 
 so ordered that we have the most ample proof, both 
 from the scriptures and from the researches of " anti- 
 immersionists " themselves. The statements of the 
 scriptures and of travellers, show that no city in ancient 
 or modern times was better watered than was Jerusalem : 
 2 Ki. 18: 17 — " And they went and came to Jerusalem, 
 
INSTANCES OF BAPTISM. 109 
 
 and when they were come up, they stood by the conduit 
 of the U2)per pool, which is in the highway of the ful- 
 ler's field." 20:20— "And the rest of the acts of He- 
 zekiah, and all his might, and how he made a pool and 
 a conduit, and bi'ought water into the city, are they not 
 written," &c. 2 Chron. 32: 34, (when Senacherib be- 
 sieged Jerusalem,) — "So there was gathered much peo- 
 ple together, who stopped all the fountains, and the brook 
 that ran through the midst of the land, saying, why 
 should the kings of Assyria come and find much water" 
 32: 30 — " This same Hezekiah stopped the upper water 
 course of Gihon, and brought it straight down to the 
 west side of the city of David." Ne. 2: 14—" Then I 
 went on to the gate of the fountain, and to the king's 
 2:>ooL'''' 3: 15, 16 — "But the gate of the fountain re- 
 paired Shallum . . . and the wall of the pool of Siloah. 
 . . . After him Nehemiah .... to the pool that was 
 made." Is. 22: 9 — "Ye have seen also the breaches of 
 the city of David, that they are many, and ye gathered 
 together the waters of the lower pool" Jno. 5: 2 — 
 " Now there is at Jerusalem, by the sheep market, a 
 pool, which is called, in the Hebrew tongue, Bethsada, 
 having five porches." 9: 1 — "And he said to him, 
 Go wash in the 2^ool of Siloam." Travellers testify defi- 
 nitely and conclusively, to the abundant supply of water 
 in Jerusalem. Chataubriand says : "Having ascended 
 Mt. Zion, we came to the fountain and pool of Siloe. 
 The spring issues from a rock, and runs in a silent stream. 
 The pool, or rather two pools of the same name, are 
 quite close to the spring. Here, also, you find a village 
 
110 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 called Siloam. At the foot of this village is another 
 fountain, denominated, in scripture, Rogel. Opposite to 
 this fountain is a third, called the Virgin's fountain. 
 This mingles its stream with that of the fountain of 
 Siloe. . . . The pool of Bethesda is a reservoir, 150 feet 
 long, and 40 feet wide. Maundrell gives the dimen- 
 sions, 120 paces long, 40 broad and 8 deep." 
 
 But the testimony of the distinguished pedobaptist, 
 Dr. Robinson, is so conclusive as to bar out, forever, all 
 objection on the ground of the scarcity of water in Jeru- 
 salem. Under the head of " Cisterns," he says : "The 
 main dependence of Jerusalem for water, at the present 
 day, is on its cisterns, and this has, probably, always 
 been the case." He speaks of " immense cisterns, now 
 and anciently, existing within the area of the temple, 
 supphed, partly, from rain-water, and partly by the acque- 
 duct. These, of themselves, in case of a siege, would 
 furnish a tolerable supply. But, in addition to these, 
 almost every private house in Jerusalem, of any size, is 
 understood to have at least one or more cisterns excava- 
 ted in the soft limestone rock on which the city is built. 
 The house of Mr. Laneau, in which we resided, had no 
 less than four cisterns ; and as these are but a specimen 
 of the manner in which all the better class of houses are 
 supplied, I subjoin, here, the dimensions : 1st. Length, 
 15 feet i breadth, 8 feet; depth, 12 feet. 2d. Length, 
 S feet ; breadth, 4 feet ; depth, 15 feet. 3d. Length, 10 
 feet; breadth, 10 feet; depth, 15 feet. 4th. Length, 30 
 feet ; breadth, 30 feet ; depth, 20 feet. This last is enor- 
 mously large, and the numbers given are the least esti- 
 
INSTANCES OF JJAPTISM. Ill 
 
 mate," (Bib. Researches in Pal., p. 480.) Under the 
 head of " Reservoirs," he says : " These reservoirs we 
 have learned to consider as one of the least doubtful 
 vestiges of antiquity in Palestine." '' With such reser- 
 voirs Jerusalem v,'as abundantly supplied, to say nothing- 
 of the immense Pools of Solomon, beyond Bethlehem^ 
 which, no doubt, were constructed for the benefit of the 
 Holy City," p. 483. " Lying outside of the walls, on the 
 west side of the city," " are two very large reservoirs," 
 which, he supposes, w^ere the Upper and Lower Pools of 
 Isaiah (Is. 1: 3 ; 36: 2 ; 2 Ki. 18: 11 ; Is. 22: 9). Of 
 the Upper Pool, he gives the following dimensions : 
 '•Length, 316 English feet; breadth at the west end, 
 200 feet; at the east end, 218 feet ; depth, at each end, 
 18 feet" (p. 484). And of the Lower Pool, the follow- 
 ing : "Length, along the middle, 592 English feet; 
 breadth, at the north end, 245 feet ; at the south end, 
 275 feet ; depth, at north end, including about 9 feet of 
 rubbish, 35 feet ; at south end, including about 3 feet of 
 rubbish, 42 feet ;" p. 486. Besides these, he mentions, 
 as being " without the w^alls," the Pool of Siloam, and 
 two other pools or " cistern-like " tanks. " Within the 
 walls of the city are three reservoirs, two of which are of 
 large size" (p. 486). "The Pool of Bathsheba," "the 
 Pool of Hezekiah," and " the Pool of Bethesda." Of 
 the Pool of Hezekiah, he says : " Its bieadth, at the 
 north end, is 144 feet; its length, on the east side, about 
 240 feet, though the adjacent houses here prevented any 
 very exact measurement. The depth is notgreat " (p. 
 487). The Pool of Bethesda, he says,'^" measures 360 
 
112 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 English feet in length, 130 feet in breadth, and 15 feet 
 in depth, to the bottom, besides the rubbish which has 
 been accumulating in it for ages " (p. 434). Besides, he 
 speaks of an aqueduct and numerous fountains. (See 
 Robinson's Researches, pp. 479-516.) 
 
 Now, I think, by the aid of the scriptures, and the 
 publications of travellers, we have found water enough 
 in Jerusalem to immerse the three thousand, either with- 
 in or without the walls. The Pool of Bethesda, 360 
 feet long and 130 feet wide, gives us a circumference of 
 490 feet, in which 82 administrators could stand, more 
 than five feet apart, and immerse three thousand in twen- 
 ty minutes. " But," you say, *' that was impossible, for 
 the water was too deep." Ah ! you have shifted your 
 position, have you ? jVow you have too much ivaler ! 
 Well, then, we will take the Pool of Hezekiah, the depth 
 of which was not great. Hei-e, with a circumference of 
 384 feet, our 82 administrators could stand more than 
 four feet apart, or the twelve apostles at greater intervals, 
 and go through the w^ork in the time stated above. B .t 
 does Dr. S. say, so many baptizing together in so small 
 a space would produce too much confusion ? I answer, 
 not half so much confusion as is found in every revival 
 among certain denominations in the present day, when 
 some are exhorting, some singing, some praying, some 
 weeping and some shouting. Do other pedobaptists, 
 not of Dr. S.'s persuasion, still persist that there would 
 have been too much confusion for the ordinance to be 
 administered decently and in order? Then we will 
 spare their weak nerves, and gratify their "cultivated 
 
INSTANCES OF BAPTISM. 113 
 
 tastes," by distributing the administrators, and a suitable 
 number of subjects to each, among various private houses, 
 nearly all of which, Dr. Robinson informs us, were 
 provided with one or more cisterns of sufficient capacity, 
 not only to baptize them, but to furnish the facihties for 
 the immersion of the pharisee on his return from market, 
 and all his couches, whenever his superstition required. 
 By the help of Dr. Robinson and others, we have fur- 
 nished you water enough — what now ? Do you yield 
 the point? "No; though I grant that Jerusalem 
 abounded in pools of water, the difficulty in the way of 
 their use by the apostles is insuperable." Ah ! how ? 
 " There were no places in Jerusalem suitable for immer- 
 sion, except such as were under the control of the Jews, 
 who would not have allowed the apostles to use them." 
 To suppose they would is a simple absurdity." Sum- 
 mers, p. 86. The words " absurdity " and " gratuity " 
 answer a very valuable purpose to Dr. S., when he is in 
 want of an argument. The plain meaning of this is, I 
 suppose, that the hostility of the Jews to the apostles 
 was so strong that it is " absurd " not to suppose that 
 they would have forbidden them the use of these pools. 
 So says Dr. Summers ; now let us see what Luke says, 
 Ac. 2: 43, 46, 4*7 — " And fear came upon every soul ; and 
 many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. 
 And they continuing daily, with one accord, in the tem- 
 ple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat 
 their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, prais- 
 ing God, and having favor with all the people.^' 
 
 Surely, now, you w^ill grant that there is nothing to 
 
114 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 forbid the belief that the three thousand on the day of 
 Pentecost were, like Christ and the Eunuch, immersed ? 
 " Yes," vou say, " where were their clothes? Most of 
 those baptized were from a distance, and, perhaps, with- 
 out a change of raiment." Yes ; and " perhaps " they 
 were in a state of nudity, or " perhaps " they wore dirty 
 clothes " at a distance from home," or went to bed every 
 time they had them washed. " Perhaps " a traveller, at 
 the present day, leaves home, for a long journey, with 
 only one suit of clothes ; or " perhaps " he takes his lug- 
 gage, containing a change, along with him, and, " per- 
 haps " they did one or the other in ancient times. As 
 the account is silent on the subject, and as it is a very 
 important, and yet a very abstruse, question, I am sorry 
 that I shall have to leave the reader to solve it for him- 
 self. This is the last straw at which you can " catch." 
 Just now you were standing in " a dry and thirsty region 
 where no water is ;" but, as we have turned in upon you 
 enough of "the element" to overwhelm you, like a 
 drowning man, you catch at a straw. 
 
 The word haptizo says that the three thousand were 
 immersed on the day of Pentecost, and we have produced 
 evidence to show that nothing could have been easier. 
 
 Section II. — Cornelius^ Lydia, the Philippian Jailor. 
 
 The next case of baptism recorded in the Acts, where 
 the details are not given, is that of Cornelius. Ac. 10: — 
 " And they of the circumcision, which believed, were 
 astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on 
 the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy 
 
INSTANCES OF BAPTISM. 115 
 
 Ghost. Then answered Peter, can any man forbid water 
 that these should not be baptized, which have received 
 the Holy Ghost, as well as we ? And he commanded 
 them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." This 
 was the first instance in which a Gentile had received the 
 gift of the Holy Ghost. So strong was the religious 
 prejudice, in the Jewish mind, against the Gentiles, that 
 even Peter felt an utter repugnance to obey the sum- 
 mons which called him to the house of Cornelius — es- 
 teeming the Gentiles, however estimable in other respects, 
 in religious things, like certain animals proscribed by 
 Jewish law, " common and unclean." And not until he 
 had fallen into a trance, and God had, by a supernatural 
 manifestation, taught him not to esteem any thing unclean 
 which He had cleansed, was he prepared to accompany 
 the messengers of Cornehus. Peter, knowing the deep 
 prejudice which had just been dislodged from his own 
 mind, and seeing the astonishment of those of the cir- 
 cumcision present, as if hardly certain whether it was 
 right for him to proceed, or unwilling, hastily, to shock 
 the prejudices of his Jewish companions, inquired wheth- 
 er any one present, after these manifestations, could for- 
 bid, to Cornelius, the Christian rite of baptism — " Can 
 any man forbid water that these should not be baptized," 
 &c. — a circumlocution for the more simple expression — 
 Can any Jew present forbid these to be baptized, since 
 they, also, have received the Holy Ghost ? Dr. S. and 
 others make the question elliptical — " Can any man for- 
 bid water" (evidently to he hroiu/ht). p. 87. Very well. 
 The sense completed, then, would be ; nobody objected, 
 
116 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 and water was brought, and Peter baptized them. No- 
 thing of the kind ; the inspired writer contradicts it. If 
 water was called for, and nobody objected, water was 
 brought; why, then, did not Peter baptize them him- 
 self? Evidently because others, besides the apostles, 
 could administer the ordinance, and there not being 
 water at hand enough for immersion, Peter commanded 
 some one else to repair with them to a suitable place, 
 and baptize them. 
 
 Lydia's baptism next claims our attention. Says Dr. 
 S. : "Who can beheve that Lydia and her family 
 (Luke calls it household) were immersed in the river 
 Strymon, near which prayer was wont to be made, and 
 where the apostle's sermon was preached ?" p. 87. Why 
 not, Dr. Summers ? Was there not a sufficient depth 
 of water ? Was the river vStrymon like the river Jordan 
 " John's baptistery, altogether too large, and at the same 
 time infinitely too small (!) for their plunging purposes ?" 
 p. 109. The city of Jerusalem contained too little water, 
 and the rivQi's Strymon and Jordan too much for "plung- 
 ing purposes." " Altogether too large,'' and, by an act 
 of theological legerdemain that throws into the shade 
 the exploits of Herr Alexander, " infinitely too small." 
 Dr. Summers' ancient rivers have no parallel, unless it 
 be found in his arguments, which are, at once, too profound 
 to be understood, and too shallow to produce conviction. 
 Jordan is " too large " for John to immerse a full-grown 
 Jew into, but not too large for the immersion of a hys- 
 sop-sprinkler ! Verily, Doctor Summers, thou art beside 
 thyself ; much learning doth make thee mad. Your ro- 
 
INSTANCES OF BAPTISM. 11 '7 
 
 mark brings to my mind, though it exceeds, the sagacity 
 of the considerate countryman of Diedrich Knicker- 
 bocker, in one of the interior towns of New- York, who 
 is reported to have cut a large liole under his barn door 
 for the large cat to pass through, and a small hole, by 
 its side, to give access to the little cat, thinking, I sup- 
 pose — since you have thrown light upon it — that the 
 larger orifice was " altogether too large " for the little cat 
 to pass through ! 
 
 " As soon as she was converted, she and her children 
 (Luke says not one word about ' her children ') were 
 baptized, but not not the slightest intimation was given 
 that there was a moment's delay for change of apparel, and 
 certainly she could not be immersed without this." (ib.) 
 The same everlasting objection about the clothes ! What 
 has Dr. Summers to do with Lydia's dress ? Why 
 should he require that the inspired historian should per- 
 form the part of a reporter for a court journal, and that 
 he should fix the attention of a man of his nice " sensi. 
 bihties " upon the details of a female dress ? That Ly- 
 dia was an honest woman we know ; that her tastes were 
 as fastidious as Dr. S.'s would seem to be, we cannot tell, 
 and we have no doubt that her baptism was performed 
 with all necessary regard to propriety, even if, for this 
 purpose, it had been requisite to go or send to her house, 
 which was not far off, for the necessary facilities. 
 
 But, says Dr. S., " as soon as she was converted she 
 was baptized, and there was not the slightest intimation 
 given that there was a moment's delay for a change of 
 apparel." To this I answer, that there is not the slight- 
 
118 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 est intimation given that there was not a sufficient delay 
 to make the necessary preparations. And, besides, if 
 she did not go home herself, she may have sent one of 
 " her children " to bring a cloak or some other outer 
 garment, while the apostles were going through the pre- 
 liminary services. Or, if her children were "daughters, 
 in whole or in part," as you tell us on p. 234, perhaps 
 two of the little girls ran home at the request of their 
 mother. We should not be surprised at your inquisitive- 
 ness about Lydia's clothes, since your success in discover- 
 ing that she had children, that they were all daughters 
 and young at that, is likely to encourage you to attempt 
 any thing in the line of discovery of which Lydia is the 
 subject. "Surely, she was not immersed without a 
 change of apparel I" Was there any thing in the dress 
 she was wearing that rendered it unsuitable to be worn 
 into the water ? When your researches into the nature 
 of the dress she then had on, shall have been as success- 
 ful as your inquiry into the number, age and sex of " her 
 children," and you shall be prepared to give, definitely, 
 the reasons that rendered it more unsuitable to be im- 
 mersed in than any other dress in her wardrobe, then, 
 doubtless, we shall be prepared to answer you in another 
 way or to surrender the point in dispute. 
 
 "The immersion of a female, by a pei-son of the other 
 sex, is revolting to us, under any circumstances; it must 
 be exceedingly repulsive to the delicate sensibilities of a 
 woman. Yet Lydia w\ns baptized by the apostle — sure- 
 ly, not immersed !" (lb.) 
 
 1. There are thousands and hundreds of thousands of 
 
INSTANCES OF BAPTISM. 119 
 
 refined females in the Baptist churches in this conntry, 
 against every one of whom this passage contains a grave 
 insinuation. But Dr. Summers "devoutly prays " that 
 his " treatise may be the means of allaying, to some ex- 
 tent, the fierceness of the baptismal controversy." p. 1. 
 
 2. This paragraph is written by a minister in the Metho- 
 dist Episcopal Church, South, whose discipline says: 
 '" Let every adult person . . . have the choice, either of 
 immersion, sprinkling or pouring." p. 16. We are to 
 understand, then, that every time he goes into the water, 
 *' under any circumstances," with a female, his feelings 
 revolt at that in which he is engaged. Why revolt at 
 it ? The reason he gives, is because he is " a person of 
 another sex." Thoughts of an unworthy nature, there- 
 fore, are suggested to his mind whenever he sees another 
 do so, and, of course, whenever he does so himself! 
 And yet Dr. Summers immerses a female, if she " chooses 
 it!" This may do, so far as it concerns Dr. Summers' 
 confession, but we repel the insinuation which it implies 
 against the moral purity of his highly evangelical de- 
 nomination, for permitting immersion, and against the 
 " delicate sensibilities " of the very many respectable 
 females in his communion for " choosing " and submit- 
 ting to it. 
 
 There is nothing about the baptism of Lydia which 
 intimates that the rite was administered to her in any 
 way contrary to the meaning of the word haiHizo. She 
 was by a river's side, close by her house, and there was 
 nothing, on the score of propriety, that would prevent 
 her immersion, any more than the immersion of any 
 
120 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 female in the Methodist church at the present day, " un- 
 der any circumstances." 
 
 The narrative of the baptism of the PhiHppian jailor, 
 though it does not design to detail to us the circumstan- 
 ces of the administration of the rite, throws out intima- 
 tions that are not only consistent with immersion, but 
 inconsistent with anything else. The jailor, having 
 received a charge to keep the apostles safely, thrust them 
 into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the 
 stocks. Awaked out of sleep by the earthquake, and 
 operated upon graciously by the exciting circumstances, 
 he sprang in and fell down before Paul and Silas, and 
 brought them out, and inquired of them what he should 
 do to be saved. Now, the points of the narrative upon 
 which I wish to fix the reader's attention, are : (1,) He 
 brought them out ; whether out of the inner prison only, 
 or out of the prison entirely, is not material ; for (2,) 
 they preached to all in his house, and were, consequently, 
 in the jailor's house, whether that was a part of the pri- 
 son edifice or a detached building. When he and all his 
 believed, (3,) they went out of the house for the purpose 
 of attending to the administration of the ordinance ; for 
 afterwards he brought them into his house. As they 
 were in there while preaching to all in his house, his 
 bringing them in again necessarily implies a previous 
 going out ; and this going out, the text plainly intimates, 
 was that baptism might be administered. Whether the 
 ordinance was administered in a cistern in the prison 
 enclosure, in the river Strymon, or any where else, is not 
 material ; the account makes it certain, however, that it 
 
INSTANCES OF BAPTISM. 121 
 
 was not administered in the jailor's house. Now, if 
 sprinkhng or pouring* would have sufficed, why was it 
 not performed in the house ? This passage imphes im- 
 mersion as plainly as anything can be implied. 
 
 " But luhere was the jailor baptized ?" I have already 
 said, outside of his house. " But I wish you to name the 
 particular place ;jWas it in a tank in the prison, or in the 
 river on whose bank Paul had preached a httle while 
 before ?" How should I know ? I was not there, and I 
 have not the same faciUty in deciding this question, with 
 no data, that Dr. Summers had in finding out the sex 
 and the age of "Lydia's children." I can only say 
 where it was possible for it to be administered. Luke 
 says there was, at Philippi, a river. The jailor may 
 have been baptized, like Lydia, in the river Strymon. 
 To this, you say, there are many and weighty objections. 
 Very well; bring them forward. "Is it reasonable to 
 suppose that the jailor would have so disregarded the 
 obligations of his office, as to trust the apostles out ?" I 
 answer, he did trust them in his house, as you will grant. 
 If he had confidence enough to trust them as spiritual 
 guides for his soul, he had confidence enough to believe 
 that they would not imperil him by making their escape. 
 Your objection implies a lurking charge against the sin- 
 cerity of the jailor and the honesty of the apostles. 
 " But in taking his prisoners out, he would have run a 
 serious risk from another quarter. He would have been 
 seen by ' thousands of the citizens ' who would have been 
 incensed at him for violating the strict charge he had re- 
 ceived.'' But, my dear sir, it was after midnight ; and 
 
122 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 if " thousands of the citizens " had been out at that un- 
 seemly hour, it would have been for such improper pur- 
 poses that they would have been more willing to pass 
 unobserved than the jailor. " Is it likely, though, that 
 the jailor and ' all his ' would have left the house in 
 search of water at that time of night ? ' This is incon- 
 sistent with your last objection. Perhaps they selected 
 the night to avoid the risk of observation by the popu- 
 lace — or, perhaps, because they were ap; rehensive that 
 the authorities would put the apostles to death the next 
 day, and that this was, therefore, the only time which 
 they could, with any reasonable certainty, count upon for 
 attending to the ordinance. Besides, can you tell me 
 how far it was to the river Strymon ? So far as you 
 know, it may have washed the prison walls. 
 
 " But is it to be supposed that Paul and Silas would 
 have violated ' the ordinance of God ' by going out of 
 the prison, contrary to the decision of the authorities ?" 
 I answer, (1,) they did go out of the prison, for they 
 were in the jailor's house. (2,) The design of going out 
 was not to make their escape. And, besides, (3.) what 
 is the nature of the charge which you bring against 
 Peter, and against " Peter and the apostles." Peter left 
 ^25 prison, and, I suppose, in doing so, violated the ordi- 
 dance of God ? Ac, 5: 19, &c., 12: 3, &c. " But Paul 
 refused to go out the next day." For a very different 
 reason, however, and at the summons of very different 
 persons. His refusal to go out was a defiance of those 
 very authorities you referred to just now. 
 
 The last example of this nature is the baptism of Saul 
 
INSTANCES OF BAPTISM. 123 
 
 of Tarsus, Ac. 9. " We do not see how Saul could be 
 baptized, by plunging, in the house of Judas, in the city 
 of Damascus, in the street called Straight, especially as 
 it was said, ' standing up,"* (anastas,) he was baptized." 
 Summers, p. 86. 
 
 1. The account does not state to us that he was " bap- 
 tized in the house of Judas, in the street called Straight," 
 and, therefore, we need not "see" it. "And Ananias 
 went his way, and entered into the house, and putting 
 his hand on him, said," &c. " And immediately there 
 fell from his eyes as it had been scales, and he received 
 sight forthwith, and arose and was baptized." 
 
 2. Why is it that " we do not see " how Saul could 
 be baptized in the city of Damascus ?" Was it, too, 
 hke Jerusalem, destitute of water ? " Are not Abana 
 and Pharpar rivers of Damascus?" 2 Ki. 5: 12. "But 
 then, consider Saul's debility. He had fasted three 
 days. Is it reasonable, therefore, to suppose that he 
 went out, some distance, to the stream, in his debihtated 
 state ?" Can you tell me how far it was to the water ? 
 Shall the Holy Spirit, in order to secure your implicit 
 faith in what he says, tell you, not only how Saul was 
 dressed, but whether he walked or rode to the water, 
 and how far he had to go before reaching it '? Besides, 
 a bath " in his house of Judas," a bathing tub brought 
 into the room, and filled with water, would have suf- 
 ficed. 
 
 " But he was ia the house of Judas, and there is no 
 intimation given of his going out." Nor is there any 
 intimation given that there was a vessel of water in the 
 
124 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 room, or that one was brought in, from which " the ele- 
 ment could be appHed to him." If there was a necessity 
 for him to go out of the house, in order to attend to the 
 ordinance, it is implied in the phrase, " he arose and was 
 baptized." During the progress of the revival at Antioch, 
 in the month of August last, it was customary for the 
 congregation to meet at 10 o'clock, A. M., for a number 
 of days in succession, when the door of the church vvas 
 opened for the reception of members. Those who rela- 
 ted an experience of grace, and w^ere received by the 
 church, were baptized, before the more public religious 
 exercises commenced. Now, no one would argue, from 
 this statement, that, as there is no mention made about 
 going out, these j^ersons must have been baptized in the 
 meeting house ; and, seeing that it had no font under its 
 roof, that, therefore, all these persons had water poured 
 or sprinkled on them. Do you say this is so because 
 we understand the practices of the Baptists ? I answer, 
 by this time, with the Bible in your hand, you ought to 
 understand, too, the practice of the apostles and primitive 
 christians. 
 
 But Dr. S. maintains that the Greek word anastas 
 shows that he was baptized in the house, and that, too, 
 not by immersion, for he received the ordinance " stand- 
 ing up." Of all the criticisms on Greek words, gravely 
 put forth by Doctors of Divinity, this is the most ludi- 
 crous. A word, in an antique mode of expression, which 
 is used to indicate motion, preparatory to departure from 
 a place, they bring up, all standing^ cut it loose from its 
 connection in the phrase, and when it designed to state 
 
INSTANCES OF BAPTISM. 125 
 
 that the person or thing moved oft", make it testify, very 
 much to its own surprise, that there was no motion at 
 all ! The same Greek Avork [anistemi) is used in the 
 following sentences : " Saul arose and gat him up from 
 Gilgal." " David arose and fled for fear of Saul." " Saul 
 rose up out of the cave, and went." Of the same na- 
 ture are other antique modes of expression, e. g., " He 
 opened his mouth and spake." " He lifted up his voice 
 and wept." Now, suppose we apply the learned criti- 
 cism of Dr. Summers to these examples, and see what 
 will be the interesting result : " Saul stood up, and. 
 gat him from Gilgal," i. e., he went standing. "David 
 stood up and fled ;" that is, not walking, nor running, 
 but in a standing position. " Saul stood up out of the 
 cave, (of course, with his feet on the floor, and his head 
 above the top of the cave,) and went ;" that is, went 
 standing, with his head sticking out of the top of the 
 cave. " He opened his mouth and spake ;" that is, spake 
 with his mouth wide open, without even bringing his 
 lips in contact. " He lifted up his voice and wept ;" 
 that is, wept on a high key. Strange people those v/ere, 
 in ancient times, Xki'dX fled on foot, in a standing posture, 
 neither walking nor running ; that spake with their 
 mouths all the time ajar ; and, when distressed, that 
 never wept on a low note, but always on a high key ! 
 But there is no knowing v^hat even a very little knowl- 
 edge of Greek criticism can accomplish, until it tries. 
 The learniny employed in this baptismal controversy 
 may, possibly, yet bring to light stranger things ! 
 
 Saul " arose " — the motion preparatory to departure — 
 
126 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 and was baptized. Thus we have seen that neither the word 
 baptizo, nor the examples of the administration of the 
 ordinance as recorded in the Scriptures, afford any coun- 
 tenance to our brethren in their opinion or in their prac- 
 tice. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE IMPORT OF THE ORDINANCE SHOW^S THAT IMMERSION 
 IS ESSENTIAL TO IT. 
 
 The King in Zion not only had definite views of the 
 forms of the ordinances which he instituted for his 
 churches, but adapted them to be significant of impor- 
 tant truths. If, then, we can ascertain what he designed 
 to teach by them, we shall throw light upon the question 
 as to what is their form. His inspired apostle gives us 
 definite information as to each. Of the design of the 
 Lord's Supper, Paul says : ''As often as ye eat this 
 bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death 
 till he come." 1 Cor. 1 5. And he tells us that the de- 
 sign of baptism is to show the death, burial and resur- 
 rection of Christ — to exhibit, by an expressive emblem, 
 the faith of the believer in the atonement of Christ, 
 and of his union with him in his death, burial and 
 resurrection. He maintains that the believer is dead 
 
THE IMPORT OF THE ORDINANCE. 127 
 
 to sin, because he died with Christ ; and says that the 
 rite of baptism is designed to exhibit him as dying, as 
 buried and as risen with Christ. " How shall we, that 
 are dead to sin, live any longer therein ? Know ye 
 not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus 
 Christ, were baptized into his death ? Therefore, we are 
 BURIED with him in baptism, into death — that, like as 
 Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the 
 Father, even so we, also, should walk in newness of life." 
 Rom. G: 2-4. " The death of Christ was the means by 
 which sin was destroyed, and his burial the proof of the 
 reality of his death. Christians are, therefore, repre- 
 sented as buried with him, by baptism, into his death, 
 in token that they really died with him ; and if buried 
 with him, it is not that they shall remain in the grave, 
 but as Christ arose from the dead, they should also rise. 
 Their baptism, then, is the figure of their complete deli- 
 verance from the guilt of sin, signifying that God places 
 to their account, the death of Christ as their own 
 death. It is also a sign of their purification and resur- 
 rection for the service of God." (Haldane in loc.) " For 
 if we have been planted together in the likeness of his 
 death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection." 
 V. 5. In the previous verses, baptism is hkened to a 
 burial ; here the figure is changed, and the believer and 
 Christ are compared to seed planted, or to trees, the 
 roots of which are buried in the same bed, which spring- 
 up and grow together in the closest union. " As in bap- 
 tism we have been exhibited as one with Christ in his 
 death, so, in due time, we shall be conformed to him in 
 
128 BAPTISM IX ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 the likeness of his resurrection." Both a spiritual and a 
 literal resurrection are referred to in the emblem of bap- 
 tism. In V. 4. the former only is brought to view ; in 
 V. 5, bv employing the future tense, the apostle refers to 
 the literal resurrection hereafter. And thus he unfolds 
 the whole mystery included in dying and rising with 
 Christ, " both in this world and in the world to come." 
 What, therefore, more appropriate as an initiating ordi- 
 nance for Christ's churches, than that which teaches 
 these important things t 
 
 Again, Col., 2: 12. " Buried with him in baptism, 
 WHEREIN (i. e. in baptism) also ye are risen with him 
 through the faith of the operation of God, who hath 
 raised him from the dead." Dr. Summers (p. 110) and 
 others, make labored efforts to neutralize the testimony 
 of passages of this kind, but without success. The only 
 reply necessaiy, is to repeat the words of the apostle, 
 which are so perspicuous as to need no illustration, and 
 so unequivocal as to defy perversion. If any thing, 
 however, is lacking, to put the finishing touch of '' absur- 
 dity " to Dr. Summers' interpretation, it is to require that 
 and his philology to go hand in hand. He says the word 
 baptism signifies purification, and that it also expresses 
 the act of pouring or sprinkling. Let us, therefore, sub- 
 stitute the meaning of the v.ord for the word itself: " Bu- 
 ried with him in purification : in sprinkling ; in pouring. 
 How m\\ that do ? Try, then, the other passage : '* Know 
 ye not that so many of us as were sprinkled, poured, pu- 
 rified, into Jesus Christ, were sprinkled, poured, purified, 
 into his death ?" Therefore we are buried with him in 
 
THE IMPORT OF THE ORDINANCE. 129 
 
 sprinkling, pouring, puritication, into death ! Verily, it 
 would seem as if the apostle had anticipated the attempt- 
 ed perversions of his language now prevalent, and that 
 he had so carefully worded it as to make a successful 
 perversion impossible. John Wesley, the founder of 
 the respectable denomination to which Dr. S. belongs, 
 could not resist the conviction, that the apostle, in these 
 passages, had in view the mode of baptism. John Wes- 
 ley on Rom. 6: 4 : — " ' Buried with him,' alluding to the 
 ancient manner of baptizing by immersion." But since 
 honest John Wesley's day, what large numbers of learned 
 men have (anastas) risen u2j ! 
 
 Thus Christ, himself, has given to us the signification 
 of his own ordinance. If baptism, then, is designed to 
 show, by expressive emblem, the believer's union with 
 Christ in his death, burial and resurrection, no form of 
 the rite as administered by Christians, will answer to 
 that purpose but immersion in the " liquid grave." Our 
 opponents, seeing the force — nay, the conclusiveness — of 
 the argument for immersion, if it be granted that the 
 rite is emblematical of these truths, join issue with us, 
 and deny that it has primary reference to the work of 
 Christ. Baptism, they maintain, represents the apphca- 
 tion of the Spirit's influences to believers in Christ. As 
 their reasoning, grounded upon this assumption, is more 
 plausible than others that they advance, and, from its cor- 
 respondence in sound to scripture phraseology, has had 
 more influence than any other in confirming the wavering 
 in their ranks, it is expedient to meet it at this point, and 
 see if we cannot refute it. 
 9 
 
130 HAl'TISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 " As baptism with water represents the application 
 of the Spirit's influences to believei-s in Christ, the 
 meaning of the term and the mode of the ordinance 
 can be readily ascertained by a reference to those passages 
 of Scripture, which refer to the baptism of the Iloly 
 Ghost, in connection with water baptism." Sumraei*s, 
 p. 88. He then refers to a number of passages of 
 Scripture, which show, as he asserts, the mode of the 
 operation of the Holy Spirit, viz : That it consists in 
 " coming down,''^ and being '-jyotired out,''^ &c., and adds, 
 "Then it follows that the coming down of the Holy 
 Ghost iq^on the apostles, and the pouring out of the 
 Holy Ghost is the bapiis?7i of the Holy Ghost," and then 
 closes, with much apparent ecstasy — " We pronounce 
 this A DEMONSTRATION. Nothing can be advanced 
 against it but utter cavilling." p. 89. Now, there never 
 was a man who exhibited a greater confidence of secu- 
 rity with less reason. We undertake to sweep this away 
 as so much gossamer; and we shall leave it to the reader 
 to decide whether any "cavilling" will be used in the 
 process. 
 
 Two propositions are contained in this, each of which 
 we undertake to prove is false. (1.) The ordinance is 
 emblematical of the operations of the Spirit. (2.) The 
 mode of the Spirit's operation is by coming doivn^ by 
 falling upon, and by being poured out. And the conclu- 
 sion which he draws from these premises is : Therefore 
 the ordinance, which is emblematical of it, should cor- 
 respond in mode, and, consequently, it is properly ad- 
 ministered by pouring or sprinkling. Now, we beg the 
 
THE IMPORT OF THE ORDINANCE. 131 
 
 reader to notice how easy it will be to demolish this 
 " demonstration." That we may take up the last propo- 
 sition first, suppose we grant, for the sake of argument, 
 that the first is true. First, then, says Dr. Summers, 
 " The mode of the Spirit's operation, is by being poured 
 out," &c. To this I reply : 
 
 1. The mode of the Spirit's operation is not known. 
 " The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest 
 the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, 
 and whither it goeth ; so is every one that is born of the 
 Spirit;" Jno. 3: 8. The presence of the Spirit's opera- 
 tions, like the action of the wind, is known by the effects 
 produced ; but no one can tell the mode of its opera- 
 tions. 
 
 2. To suppose that the Spirit is literally 2^ourecl out, 
 is irreverently and blasphemously to materialize the 
 Holy Ghost. Does Dr. vS. understand that, when God 
 says, " I will pour out of my Spirit," he means that he 
 will, literally, take the Holy Spirit up, as liquid, in a 
 vessel, and empty him out in a stream ? And yet this 
 is all the foundation his argument has. God pours out 
 his Holy Spirit ; therefore, the water which is used in 
 the rite, that is an emblem of this, must be poured out 
 also. Who does not see that this is a mere figurative 
 style of expression, adapted to our conception of God 
 as dwelhng above us in the etherial regions ? 
 
 3. Not only does the argument materialize the Holy 
 Spirit, but it is " absurd " in supposing that the Holy 
 Ghost occupies, exclusively, a position above us. God is an 
 omnipresent being — filling, by his immensity, all space. 
 
132 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 He is as much present on earth and in hell, as in heaven ; 
 as much in the hearts of the wicked as in the hearts of 
 holy men and angels. It is only the manifestntions of 
 his presence that differ according to different localities. 
 " Whither shall I go from thy spirit ? or whither shall I 
 flee from thy presence ? If I ascend up into heaven, 
 thou art there ; if I make my bed in hell, behold thou 
 art there. If I take the wings of the morning and dwell 
 in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there shall thy 
 hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me ;" Ps. 
 139: T-IO. God manifests his glory m heaven, and his 
 grace in the hearts of his servants on earth — he restrains 
 his enemies while in this state of probation, and " pours 
 out the vials of his wrath " upon his prisoners in hell ; 
 and all, too, without a change of locality. How irreve- 
 rent, then, does it appear, for our brethren to argue as 
 if God has to change his locality, in order to carry on 
 his operations of grace. And yet this is Dr. Summers' 
 " demonstration !" 
 
 4. But suppose that baptism does symbolize the mode 
 of the Spirit's operations ; why do you confine yourself 
 to the mode of pouring out alone ? The Spirit is, figu- 
 ratively, represented by air, light^ sound and water ; and 
 all the motions of which the last is capable, are ascribed 
 to it. Why do you select one mode, to the exclusion of 
 all the rest ? 
 
 1st. It is represented as a mighty, rushing wind. 
 Ac. 2: 2 — "And suddenly there came a sound from 
 heaven as of a rushing mighty wind," <fec. This passage 
 is one of " those which refer to the baptism of the Holy 
 
THE IMPORT OF THE ORDINANCE. 133 
 
 Ghost in connection with water baptism ;" and " the 
 mode of the ordinance can be readily ascertained from " 
 it. Again, "The wind bloweth where it hsteth," <fec., 
 " so is every one that is born of the Spirit." Now, as 
 baptism is an emblem of the mode of the operation of 
 the Spirit, and as we have found that one mode is as 
 the rushing of a mighty wind, then one mode of bap- 
 tism may be by placing the subject in a powerful draft of 
 air, which would so rush as to be attended by a " sound." 
 According to your premises, why is not this a valid bap- 
 tism ? Who gave } ou the right to select the mode of 
 the Spirit's operations you would use, and to deny the 
 same right to others ? 
 
 2d. A_o"ain : The Spirit is compared to breath, and 
 by attending to the passages we can ascertain the mode 
 of its operations. " He breathed on them, and said unto 
 them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost ;" Jno. 20: 22. " Thus 
 saith the Lord God, Come from the four winds, breath, 
 and breathe upon these slain, that they may live ;" Ez. 
 37: 9. Another mode, then, of the Spirit's operation, is 
 by breathing. Now, as baptism is emblematical of the 
 operations of the Spirit, and the ordinance takes its 
 mode from the mode of the Spirit's operation, and as 
 one of those modes is by breathing, then it will be a valid 
 baptism if the administrator pronounces the baptismal 
 formula, and then breathes upon the subject. 
 
 3d. The Spirit is compared to the emission of sound : 
 " The Lord passed by, and was manifested in the still 
 small voice '^"^ 2 Sam., 23:2. David says: "The Spirit 
 of the Lord s'pake by me, and his word was in my 
 
134 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 tongue." " He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear 
 what the Spirit saith to the churches." So that our 
 refined opponents, who are so frequently shocked at our 
 ungenteel and uncouth ways, can draw from this mode 
 of the Spirit's operations, a mode of the ordinance that 
 can be in the strictest accordance with their cultivated 
 tastes. I commend it, especially, to Dr. Summers and 
 to other polished city gentlemen. All they will have to 
 do will be to pronounce the baptismal formula, in pres- 
 ence of the subject, with small, mellifluous and well- 
 modulated voices, and the work is done. The " Boaner- 
 ges " of the country would likely prefer some other^of 
 the many modes which the Scriptures offer for their 
 " choice." 
 
 4th. The operations of the Spirit is compared to the 
 SHINING FORTH OF LIGHT *. " God, who Commanded the 
 hght to shine out of darkness, hath shined into our 
 hearts ;" 2 Cor. 4: 6. " I do not cease to make mention 
 of you in my prayers, that the God of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ would give you the Spirit of wisdom and revela- 
 tion in the knowledge of him, the eyes of your under- 
 standing being enlightened.''^ Let the subject, then, pass 
 from a darkened room into the light, and as he entei-s 
 the light, let the administrator pronounce the baptismal 
 formula, or cause a ray of light from an orifice properly 
 constructed, to strike upon his forehead, (for, as in the 
 use of water, it is the light, and not the quantity of it, 
 that is necessary,) and as it strikes him, let the adminis- 
 trator pronounce the formula, and the work is done. We 
 commend this last, particularly, to the consideration of 
 
THE IMPORT OF THE ORDINANCE. 135 
 
 the " clergymen of the chiirch," whether Puseyite or 
 otherwise — the "church " of which Dr. Summers' commu- 
 nion is a blood relation. How charming and impressive 
 would be the eftect, as the '' dim religious light" rests upon 
 the forehead of the subject, and the deep and solemn utter- 
 ances of the officiating priest are heard, while the whole 
 church, through their views of the ordinance, are shrouded 
 in darkness ! 
 
 5th. Again : The Spirit is represented as an anoint- 
 ing : " The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, be- 
 cause the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings 
 unto the meek ;" Is. 6L "Now he which established 
 us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God." 
 " Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know 
 all things." And Dr. S. himself informs us that the 
 descent of the Holy Spirit, at the time of the Saviour's 
 baptism, constituted his anointing to the priesthood. 
 Now, as anointing, according to Dr. Summers' principles, is 
 one of the modes of the Spirit's operations, and as bap- 
 tism is emblematical of his influences, and should corres- 
 pond in mode, therefore oil may be substituted for " the 
 element " in baptism, and anointing, accompanied by the 
 baptismal formula, is baptism. So we see the Romanists 
 have, at least, as good authority for the use of oil in 
 baptism as Dr. S. has for descending Avater. 
 
 But if all these modes of the operations of the Spirit were 
 rejected, and we were confined to its resemblances to water, 
 we need, by no means, be limited to Dr. Summers' mode. 
 We will engage to select one as expressive, and more 
 decent and grateful than his favorite mode of pouring : 
 
13(5 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 6th. The operations of the Spirit are compared to a 
 well of water springing up : "But the water that I 
 shall give him, shall be in him a loell of.ivater sjmnf/irKj 
 up into everlasting life ;" Jno. 4: 14 ; see also V: 39. 
 Here we have a mode of operation the very reverse of 
 that selected by Dr. Summers. With him, the Spirit is 
 poured out and falls upon ; in this passage, it springs up. 
 Now, if the mode of baptism is to be taken from the 
 mode of the Spirit's operations, and one of those modes 
 is as the ascending of water, why should Dr. S. complain 
 if we, upon his own principles, decide to administer bap- 
 tism with ascending instead of descending water ? Con- 
 sequently, all we should have to do would be to place 
 the subject in a spring, and while we pronounce the 
 formula, let the water rise iqy around him. Who knows 
 but it was for this reason that it was said, as our trans- 
 lators give it, that Judith baptized herself in a fountain 
 by the camp ? 
 
 Yth. The Spirit, in his operations, is compared to a 
 STREAM : " He that believeth on me, as the Scripture 
 hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivei*s of water, 
 (but this he spake of the Spirit, which they that believe 
 on him should receive,") Jno., V: 38, 39. So that if we 
 select this mode, we should have to use a flowino- 
 stream in connection with the baptismal formula. Never 
 mind how shallow or how deep the stream, so it flows 
 while he stands in it, and the inconvenient and indecent 
 *' plunging process " may be omitted. 
 
 8th. But now we arrive at the most decent, convenient 
 and refreshing of all the modes. The reception of the 
 
THE IMPORT OF THE ORDINANCE. 137 
 
 operations of the Spirit is compared to drinking : " For 
 by one Spirit are all baptized into one body, whether we 
 be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free ; and 
 have been all made to drink into one Spirit ;" 1 Cor, 
 12: 13. This reference has the special advantage of 
 containing in it the word " baptized." Now, as baptism 
 is emblematical of the operations of the Spirit, and as 
 the mode of the ordinance is to conform to the mode of 
 those operations, and as one of those modes, mentioned, 
 too, in connection with baptism, is by drinking, then if 
 the subject drinks a goblet of water, while the adminis- 
 trator pronounces the formula, it is both a valid and an 
 expressive ordinance. And how decent and refreshing 
 this mode is — how well adapted to all classes and all 
 climes. It can be administered in the house of worship, 
 and no candidate will present an undignified and humili- 
 ating aspect with the water trickling down her face, and 
 disfiguring her dress. Nay, it combines the advantages 
 of all the other modes, since the water jioivs^ and ascends 
 and descends. So that neither administrator nor subject, 
 from fear of having selected the wrong mode, need put 
 up the prayer of Hezekiah — " The good Lord pardon 
 every one that prepareth his heart to seek God, the Lord 
 God of his fathers, though he be not cleansed according 
 to the purification of the sanctuary.'"'' But why need 
 we go any further in carrying out Dr. Summers' princi- 
 ples ? The reader can see whither it has led us. And 
 yet this argument from " the mode of the Spirit's opera- 
 
 * For a further elaboration of this argument, the reader is re- 
 ferred to Dr. Carson. 
 
188 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 tions," is that against which he says nothing can be ad- 
 vanced but utter cavilling. He argues in a climax to 
 prove "affusion." 1, "Presumptions in favor of affu- 
 sion ;" 2, '' Proofs of aftusion ;" 3, " Demonstration of 
 aflfusion." This which we have been considering is his 
 demonstration. The reader has seen the strength of it 
 by what we have already advanced, and is prepared, 
 therefore, though we had said nothing else, to judge of 
 the strength of the two inferior steps of his climax. 
 
 The pouring out of the Spirit is but a figurative mode 
 of expression, which no one should have understood so 
 literally as to decide from it the mode of the operations 
 of the Third Person in the Trinity. Consequently, if 
 baptism is designed to represent that, it is a figure of a 
 figure — an emblem designed to illustrate a figure of 
 spe^h ! Now, God's ordinance has a more stable foun- 
 dation, and is emblematical of the glorious truths con- 
 nected with Christ's vicarious sacrifice, and the believer's 
 interest in it. 
 
 Having ascertained what foundation there is for the 
 assertion contained in the second proposition of the extract 
 from Dr. Summers, let us see if there is any better foun- 
 dation for the first: "Baptism represents the appli- 
 cation of the Spirit's influences to believers in Christ." 
 To this I reply : 
 
 1. The Scriptures no where state that this ordinance 
 is significant, primarily, of the operations of the Spirit. 
 While we are told to celebrate the Lord's Supper, in 
 remembrance of Christ, we are no where told to admi- 
 
THE IMPORT OF THE ORDINANCE. 139 
 
 nister baptism in commemoration or in illustration of the 
 work of the Spirit. 
 
 2. While we are told, in epitome, in many places in 
 the Scriptures, that they were baptized, both men and 
 women, in the name of the Lord Jesus ; Ac. 2: 38, 10: 
 48, (fee; in no place is it said, in epitome, that they were 
 baptized in the name of the Holy Ghost. Why is this, 
 if the ordinance is designed to show, primarily, the work of 
 the Spirit ? John baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus ; 
 Peter commanded the people, on the day of Pentecost, to 
 be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ ; many of the people 
 in Samaria, believing, were baptized in the name of the 
 Lord Jesus ; Peter commanded Cornelius and his household 
 to be baptized in the name of the Lord ; but in no case in the 
 Acts are we told that the ordinance was administered in 
 the name, primarily, of the Holy Ghost. This fact, of 
 itself, is conclusive that the ajwstles considered it to refer, 
 primarily, to the work of Christ. Doubtless, they admi- 
 nistered it in the name of the Trinity, for they were 
 commanded so to do ; but, in all their references to it, 
 for the sake of brevity, they speak of it in connection with 
 that name of whose work it was pre-eminently an emblem. 
 
 To the above references, we may add the remark of 
 Paul, Gal. 3: 27 : "As many of you as have been 
 baptized into Christ have put on Christ." And we no 
 where read that they were baptized into the Holy Ghost. 
 
 3. The ordinance refers, primarily, to the work of 
 Christ, but, secondarily, also to the work of the Father 
 and of the Holy Ghost. It brings to view the death 
 and resurrection of Christ as our substitute, and our union 
 with him in them, the wonderful love of the Father, who 
 
140 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SQEJECTS. 
 
 was induced to send liis Son upon this mission, and the 
 work of the Holy Spirit in bringing us into spiritual 
 union with Christ, in purifying our hearts, and qualifying 
 us to walk in newness of life. The Lord's Supper was 
 designed to show Christ's death alone, and, therefore, he 
 commanded his disciples : " This do in remembrance of 
 me." Baptism brings to view Christ's atonement for the 
 sinner, and his personal interest in it, and, as connected 
 with it, all the parts which all the Persons of the Trinity 
 performed in that wonderful event ; and, therefore, he 
 commanded his disciples to baptize in the name of the 
 Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. It is an 
 immersion, then, in order that it may represent a death, 
 a burial and a resurrection. But here, again, we encoun- 
 ter objections. 
 
 Objection 1. "Christ was not buried. His body was 
 only placed in Joseph's new tomb, which was cut in a 
 rock that cropped out of the ground." I answer, this 
 has the singular infelicity of contradicting Christ and 
 Paul. The Saviour said that he would be buried : Mat. 
 26: 12 — " For in that she hath poured this ointment on 
 my body, she did it for my burial.^'' Mat. 12: 40 — 
 " For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the 
 whale's belly, so shall the Son of Man be three days and 
 three nights in the heart of the earthP And Paul says 
 that he was buried: 1 Cor. 15: 3, 4 — "For I dehvered unto 
 you, first of all, that which I received, how that Christ 
 died for our sins, according to the Scriptures ; and that 
 he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, 
 according to the Scriptures." 
 
 Obj. 2. " The burial of Christ was an event of no 
 
THE IMPORT OF THE ORDINANCE. 141 
 
 importance. Why, then, should so much stress be laid 
 upon it ?" I answer : 
 
 1. It was considered of sufficient importance to be 
 mentioned in the Scriptures. 
 
 2. While in the sight of God, it may have been an 
 event of little or no importance, to men his burial was a 
 fact of the very first importance, since, to them, it was a 
 proof of the reality of his death. 
 
 Obj. 3. " Christ's death and his resurrection are im- 
 portant; for if the first had not occurred, our sins could 
 never have been atoned for, and if the latter had not 
 happened, our faith would have been in vain. We see, 
 therefore, the propriety of exhibiting these in emblem ; 
 but his burial was a mere circumstance to which no great 
 importance could be attached. Now, the form of the 
 ordinance, as you interpret it, is more expressive of the 
 burial than of the death ; that which has httle or no im- 
 portance, is brought prominently to view, while that 
 which possesses chief importance, has assigned to it, in 
 the emblem, a subordinate position." 
 
 To this I answer, while I grant that m the scheme of 
 redemption the death of Christ is the important event, 
 and his burial in the sight of God a mere circumstance, 
 I maintain that, for representation by emblem, the burial 
 is the most important event, since that will, necessarily, 
 imply the other. To bury the body implies that the 
 body is dead, and a burial scene represents, not only an 
 interment, but a death also. The immersion of the sub- 
 ject into the water, represents the burial, and, of conse- 
 quence, the death of Christ ; and the emersion of the 
 
l42 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 subject represents the resurrection of Christ, as well as 
 the believer's spiritual resurrection to walk in newness 
 of life. 
 
 Obj. 4. " In immersion, as you perform it, the burial 
 of Christ is not properly represented. Your emblema- 
 tical burial resembles more the interment of a dead body 
 now than in the time of Christ. His body was not let 
 down perpendicularly into a grave, but was, perhaps, 
 carried horizontally into Joseph's sepulchre." My dear 
 sir, permit me to say, this is nothing but " utter cavilling." 
 When Christ calls upon you to observe points of resem- 
 blance, you fix your attention upon points of dissimi- 
 larity. Christ gives you an emblematic, and you demand 
 a dramatic representation. According to your principles, 
 the sacrificial lamb under the Mosaic economy could not 
 have referred to Christ, since it was not slain by being 
 nailed to a cross. And you ought to reject the bread 
 and wine in "the communion" as the broken body and 
 shed blood of Christ. Was Christ's body broken exactly 
 as you break the bread, and his blood shed exactly as 
 you pour out the wine ? To meet the dema;jds of your 
 present objection, the bread should be formed into the 
 shape of a man's body, and nailed to the cross ; and the 
 eifigy should be filled with wine, which you ought to 
 draw into goblets, by thrusting a spear into its side. But 
 even then, your drama would labor under the disadvan- 
 tage, that you could not partake of the bread, since we 
 read, " not a bone of him was broken." The resem- 
 blance between immersion and the burial of Christ, is 
 more marked than that between the breakbg of bread 
 
METArHORICAL USES OF THE WORD. 143 
 
 and the death of Christ. But this you take no excep 
 tion to, while that you cavil at. Christ's ordinances are 
 both emblematic, but they are neither of them dramatic 
 representations. 
 
 Thus the import of the ordinance adds another item 
 to the accumulated mass of evidence that baptism is 
 immei'sion. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE METAPHORICAL USES OF THE WORD BAPTISM, SHOW 
 THAT ITS FORM IS IMMERSION AND NOTHING ELSE. 
 
 The Saviour, speaking of his approaching sufferings, 
 terms them a baptism : "Are ye able to drink of the 
 cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with 
 the baptism that I am baptized with V Mat. 20 : 
 22. " I have a baptism to be baptized with, and 
 how am I straitened till it be accomplished !" Lu. 12: 50. 
 Here the word baptism has the same signification that it 
 has in other places, only it has a figurative application. 
 And the form of expression that Christ uses is a figure 
 that contains, as Dr. Carson would say, its own light. 
 Who would think of using the word sprinkle or pour or 
 purify, to express, figuratively, overwhelming suflferings ? 
 Bloomfield, a distinguished pedobaptist scholar, says : 
 
144 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 " This metaphor of immei'sion in water, as expressive of 
 being overwhelmed by affliction, is frequent both in the 
 scriptural and classical writers ;" Bloom, on Mat. 20: 22. 
 Witsius, another pedobaptist, explains it thus : " Immer 
 sion into the water, is to be considered, by us, as exhi- 
 biting that dreadful abyss of Divine justice, in which 
 Christ, for our sins, was for a time, as it were, absorbed ; 
 as in David, his type, he complains Ps. 69: 2 — 'I am 
 come into deep waters, where the Hoods overflow me.' " 
 
 2. We have already referred to the passages in Ro- 
 mans and Colossians, which sjoeak of baptism as a burial. 
 We add, in this connection, Gal. 3: 27 : " For as many 
 of you as have been baptized into Christ, have 2>'^t on 
 Christy Bloomfield says, the phrase, "have put on 
 Christ," is " a metaphor e re vestiaria " — alluding, per- 
 haps, to the soldier, who^;M^ on or enveloped himself, in 
 the uniform of his prince. Beza says, Annot. ad Gal. 
 3: 27 — " ' Ye have put on Christ.' This phrase seems to 
 proceed from the ancient custom of plunging the adult 
 in baptism." 
 
 3. The metaphorical baptism of the Israelites in the 
 Red Sea: 1 Cor. 10: 1, 2 — " Moreover, brethren, I would 
 not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers 
 were under the cloud and all passed through the sea, and 
 were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the 
 sea." The preposition translated "into," here, is eis\ 
 and the proper rendering, therefore, is "immersed into 
 Moses in the cloud and in the sea." It gave me all 
 proper concern, when the highly esteemed gentleman, 
 " the Presiding Elder of this District," undertook to 
 
 I 
 
METAPHORICAL USES OF THE WORD. 145 
 
 trace, the other day, the consequences of this translation 
 to the unfortunate lawgiver of Israel : " If eis is to be 
 translated into, and haptizo to immerse, the consequence 
 would have been that, as there were six hundred thou- 
 sand, at least, among the people, and immersion of them 
 all into Moses (to use his own " pregnant language ") 
 would have made him more pregnant with Jews than 
 was ever the man among the tombs with Devils !" Now, 
 onr philology means to be amiable and humane, and I 
 confess that, for the moment, it was staggered to a proper 
 degree by the effect it was producing ; but then it very 
 soon recovered it^ equanimit}', by reflecting that it would 
 make but little difference, so far as the comfort of Moses 
 was concerned, even though the six hundred thousand 
 had been poured into or on him in a constant stream, or 
 even been sprinkled into him two or three at a time. 
 
 It is the same form of expression as is found in Gal. 
 3: 2Y — "As many of you as have been baptized into 
 Christ," (fee. The mind of Paul was, doubtless, struck 
 by two points of resemblance between the baptism of 
 a believer, and the passage of the Israelites through the 
 deep. 
 
 1st. By following Moses into the sea, the waters of 
 which could, they knew, at any time, unite and swallow 
 them up, they exhibited faith in the divine mission of 
 Moses. This passage through the sea was, then, at 
 once an exhibition of their confidence in Moses, and, 
 figuratively, the initiating rite into that faith. The be- 
 hever, in entering into the baptismal waters, professes 
 faith in Christ ; the Israelites, by entering into the sea, 
 10 
 
146 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 professed foitli in Moses. The believer, by submitting 
 to the ordinance, is immersed, in emblem, into faith in 
 Christ. The Israelites, by entering into the sea, were 
 immersed, figuratively, into faith in Moses. 
 
 2. Another point of resemblance between Christian 
 baptism and the passage of the Israelites, was that they 
 were each a striking figure of a burial and a resurrection. 
 The people, as they descended into the sea, were literally 
 immersed in the sea, though not in the waters of it. 
 With the sea, a high wall on each side, and the cloud 
 resting over them, they were entirely enveloped and hid 
 from view. For, as we are told, they were all under the 
 cloud, and baptized in the cloud and in the sea. When 
 they, therefore, descended into the cloudy and watery 
 envelope, they did, as it were, enter into an emblematical 
 grave, and were buried out of sight ; and as they emerged 
 again, like the believer rising out of the liquid grave, 
 they exhibited an emblematical resurrection from the 
 grave. 
 
 Dr. Summers scouts the idea that the apostle makes a 
 •figurative allusion to baptism here. He understands it 
 quite literally. He says : " To call it a figurative immer- 
 sion, is to use an unintelhgible jargon that contradicts 
 common sense." " But what else can be done by those 
 who are determined not to see that this consecration of 
 the Israelites to the service of God, under Moses, eftected 
 as it was by sprinkling, is called a baptism by the 
 apostle ?" Some writers in his denomination advance 
 the idea, that circumcision gave way, at the Red Sea, to 
 baptism. That, as the Mosaic rite would disqualify the 
 
METAPHORICAL USES OF THE WORD. 14Y 
 
 people for their laborious journeys through the wilder- 
 ness, God suspended it for forty years or until the people 
 could enter Canaan ; and that the " sprinkling," here at 
 the Red Sea, was a substitute for it. That this was not 
 a metaphorical allusion to the rite, but the rite itself. 
 This would seem to be Dr. Summers' opinion, though, I 
 confess, I may have misunderstood him. I shall quote 
 copiously from him, so that the reader may set me right 
 if I am wrong. If we ask Dr. S. how they were bap- 
 tized ? he answers : " Now, Pharaoh and his host knew 
 that the Israehtes were not immersed in either, (the cloud 
 or the sea,) though they might be sprinkled with the 
 mist and spray of both." p. 81. The cloud and 
 sea, then, were, conjointly, the administrator, and they 
 were baptized by sprinkling and pouring. On the next 
 page he advances a supposition the very opposite of this, 
 without being, apparently, at all conscious of the incon- 
 sistency. But he says (p. 4) : " For several years he 
 has been collecting materials on this subject," (baptism,) 
 and, perhaps, both of these were " collected," and, there- 
 fore, put down. This course has, at least, this advantage, 
 that the train of argument which will overturn one, will 
 leave the other intact, and he will stand a chance of 
 satisfying a greater number of i-eaders. " It appears, from 
 the record, that he (John the Baptist) performed the 
 rite, in his own person, as Moses baptized th^ Israehtes 
 in the wilderness ; and why may not John have baptized 
 the multitudes in the same way? He could marshal 
 them in convenient order, and sprinkle them, either with 
 or without the bunch of hyssop which was employed by 
 
148 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 Moses." p. 82. The Israelites, then, had the ordinance 
 of baptism literally administered to them, and Moses 
 was the administrator. "We know not which of these is 
 the favorite supposition of Dr. Summers, or whether 
 they struggle with each other for the preference. But 
 let us take the last first. Moses, then, with a bunch of 
 hyssop, sprinkled the people while they were in the sea ; 
 for we read : " they were baptized unto Moses in the 
 cloud and in the sea." The number of the people was 
 " about six hundred thousand on foot, that were men, 
 beside children, and a mixed multitude went up also 
 with them, and flocks and herds, even very much cattle ;" 
 Ex. 12: 37, 38. Now, the same difficulty, enhanced, 
 presses upon our mind, which troubled Dr. S. in the 
 case of the immersion of three thousand on the day of 
 Pentecost, and of the vast multitudes that came to the 
 baptism of John. We cannot see how Moses, even with 
 the assistance of the bunch of hyssop, could sprinkle six 
 hundred thousand men, besides a " mixed multitude " of 
 women and children, in the comparatively short time of 
 the passage through the sea, fleeing, as the people were, 
 from the hot pui*suit of Pharaoh and his host. It took 
 John " nearly a year " to baptize " perhaps two or three 
 millions," when, too, it was in his power to " marshal them 
 in convenient order, and sprinkle them either with or 
 without the bunch of hyssop, which was employed by 
 Moses." How long, then, would it take the Jewish law- 
 giver to go through the same process, with a like num- 
 ber, without the marshaling ? Shall we keep them in 
 the sea nearly or quite a year ? This is my sum in aritb- 
 
METAPHORICAL USES OF THE WORD. 149 
 
 metic, which I commend to my highly esteemed brother, 
 " the Presiding Elder of this District," while I am addling 
 my brain in trying to work out his. And you will bear 
 in mind, too, that Moses was plying that bunch of hyssop 
 while the mixed multitude were fleeing with all their 
 might, changing their relative positions, and mixing up 
 among each other. It would have required the knowl- 
 edge of omniscience to have distinguished those among 
 them who had already obtained the " baptismal seal." 
 Just fancy Moses running along after the people, out of 
 breath, and uttering the baptismal formula in catches, 
 while he is industriously plying that miraculous bunch of 
 hyssop, and the picture of what appears to be Dr. Sum- 
 mers' idea, will be complete. The bunch of hyssop. Dr. 
 Summers, will not serve your purpose ; better throw it 
 away, and hide your idea, as well as you can, in the 
 " mist of the cloud " and the " spray of the sea." But, 
 unfortunately, you have no cloud to serve you with its 
 friendly mist. For, I submit, that you need something 
 more than a cloud in the argument. A cloud to serve 
 your purpose must be elevated Idgher than your head. 
 In your apprehension that it would be of service to the 
 Baptists, you have removed the cloud so far that it can- 
 not aid you with the slightest mist. " The cloud was, 
 by the way, not above, but behind them^ p. 81. Per- 
 haps, however, it was only the dense cloud — that which 
 was capable of enveloping the Israelites — that took up 
 its position in the rear. At your command, doubtless, 
 the very lightest summer's cloud floated above, and, at 
 the proper time, dropped doivn in the gentlest distilla- 
 
150 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 tions, when the people were crowded in the compara- 
 tively narrow channel afforded by the parted waters. 
 There is no calculating, with certainty, the shape and 
 position which a summer^s cloud may assume. We are 
 replying to a gentleman of intelligence and honesty — 
 one who occupies, we presume, a deservedly high posi- 
 tion in his respectable denomination, and we must endea- 
 vor to answer, with all becoming gravity, arguments 
 that he puts forth with a face so astonishingly serious. 
 We will try : 
 
 1st. " The Israelites were sprinkled by the spray as the 
 wind blew." To this I reply : 1st. The " strong east 
 wind " blew, not to scatter the water upon the people, but 
 to protect them from it, and pile it up out of their way. 
 
 2d. If the spray dashed with violence enough to be 
 carried over the whole width of the column of people, 
 as they passed along, it must have been very disagree- 
 able. Doubtless, the avenue was comparatively wide, 
 which afforded a rapid passage for a mixed multitude of 
 some millions of persons, with their flocks and their herds 
 in flight from a pursuing enemy. 
 
 3d. Besides its disagreeableness, such a spray must 
 have contradicted the statement of Moses, that the people 
 passed " on dry ground." Such a spray would liave, as 
 its base, a sheet of water which would not only have 
 thoroughly drenched those nearest to it, but sent streams 
 along the bottom of the sea, which would have made 
 the people wade in water instead of passing over on dry 
 ground. 
 
 4th. But do tell us how the spray was produced. 
 
 I 
 
METAPHORICAL USES OF THE WORD. 151 
 
 The water of the sea may, by tempestuous winds, be 
 raised into foam and waves, but they can never be turned 
 into spray, unless they be driven with force against an 
 immovable obstruction. And if it be said that the power 
 which held the water up in a heap constituted the ob- 
 struction, then it would have come over upon the people, 
 not in spray, but in waves. 
 
 Dr. S. argues in favor of affusion as against immersion 
 " on the score of amelioration." " As baptism takes the 
 place of circumcision, there is a strong presumption in 
 favor of affusion The rigors of the old dispensa- 
 tion are done away in the new But we submit, 
 
 that nothing is gained on the score of amelioration, if, 
 instead of circumcising, every male received into the 
 church, every male, and female too, is to be plunged 
 into water, over head and ears, no matter how cold may 
 be the season — how far the administrator and subjects 
 ma^ have to go for a river or pond, or how ill-prepared 
 they may be, mentally or physically, to submit to the 
 plunging operation." p. 18. Now, " we submit, that 
 nothing was gained on the score of amelioration " by the 
 Israelites at the Red Sea, if they were compelled to run 
 the gauntlet between those two walls of water, for hours, 
 drenched to the skin and blinded by the furious spray, 
 to say nothing of the cloud which was pouring out water 
 upon them all the time. We have no doubt they would 
 all have preferred to have been " plunged over head and 
 ears " at once, and be done with it. You see, therefore, 
 what exploits Dr. Summers performs at the Red Sea, 
 when he attempts to make " the wind and the sea obey 
 
152 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 him," and become, conjointly, the administrator of bap- 
 tism. 
 
 2. " But could they not have been baptized by the 
 cloud ? Do we not read in the 77th Psalm, ' The clouds 
 poured out water ?^ " To this I answer : 
 
 1st. Paul says they were baptized in the cloud, not 6?y 
 the cloud. 
 
 2. If the clouds poured out water, they were not 
 sprinkled but thoroughly drenched, and they passed over 
 not on dry ground. 
 
 3. The tempest the Psalmist speaks of, was sent 
 upon the Egyptians for their dismay and confusion, and 
 not upon the Israelites. It was composed not only of 
 rain, but of thunder and lightning, and earthquake, and 
 the most tempestuous winds. " The clouds poured out 
 water, the skies sent out a sound ; thine arrows also 
 went abroad. The voice of tliy thunder was in the 
 heaven ; the lightnings lightened the world ; the earth 
 trembled and shook." " Thou leddest thy people like a 
 flock, by the hand of Moses and Aaron ;" Ps. 77: 17, 
 18, 20. 
 
 But the exploits of Dr. S. at the Red Sea are not done 
 when he proves sprinkling by the passage of the Israel- 
 ites ; he demonstrates, as easily, infant baptism by it. 
 "A baptism, by the way, of men, women and children — 
 a clear case of ' baby-sprinkling,' to borrow a favorite and 
 classical phrase from those who have courage enough to 
 turn sacred things into profane ridicule." p. 81. Nothing 
 is lacking to put a finishing touch to this, but for us to 
 add, yes ; a clear case of the baptism, too, of " the flocks 
 
METAPHORICAL USES OF THE WORD. 153 
 
 and the herds — even very much cattle I" Such pueriU- 
 ties are Doctors of Divinity guilty of! It would really 
 seem as if this subject of baptism is consecrated to puer- 
 ilities. 
 
 4. A like resemblance to baptism was suggested to 
 the mind of Peter, by the salvation of Noah and his 
 family, in the ark : 2 Pet. 3: 20, 21—" Where once the 
 long suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while 
 the ark was preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, 
 were saved by water. The like figure whereunto, even 
 baptism, doth also now also save us (not the putting away 
 of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good con- 
 science toward God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." 
 Peter saw, in the case of Noah's ark, the '* figure " of a 
 burial and a resurrection, and he compares it, in this 
 respect, to the ordinance of baptism. Is there any " fig- 
 ure " of a resurrection exhibited in sprinkling or pour- 
 ing ? Nothing but an immersion and an emersion in the 
 ordinance will correspond to the " figure " which seems 
 to have been in the apostle's mind. But it is objected 
 that Noah and his family were in the ark, and not in 
 the water, and, consequently, they were neither immersed 
 in nor buried under the waters. To this I reply, that 
 for all the purposes of the fifjure they were both im- 
 mersed and buried under the water. Dwelling in the 
 ark, they were far below the surface of the waters of 
 the deluge, and emerging when the ark rested upon Ara- 
 rat, like the believer rising from the baptismal waters, 
 they exhibited, in a figure, the resurrection from the 
 grave. Is it objected again that this shows an immer- 
 
154 BAPTISM IX ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 sion of the ark, and not of the people ? I answer, just 
 as an interment, at the present day, shows the burial of 
 the coffin, and not of the corpse in it. But understand 
 the passage any way you please, and then tell us how 
 sprinkling or pouring can exhibit a " figure " of a resur- 
 rection. 
 
 5. The metaphorical allusions to the baptism in the 
 Holy Ghost, prove that baptism is immei-sion. In all 
 those passages that speak of being baptized loith the 
 Holy Ghost, en is used, and it should be translated in 
 the Holy Ghost. " I, indeed, immerse you in water, but 
 he shall immerse you in the Holy Ghost." The meta- 
 phor supposes the Holy Spirit to be the medium into 
 which the believer is immei'sed, and with whose influ- 
 ences he is imbued. On the day of Pentecost the Spirit 
 descended, with the sound of a mighty rushing wind, 
 and, metaphorically, " tilled the house, surrounding, and 
 covering and immersing the disciples." If the Spirit 
 " filled all the house where they were sitting," those that 
 were sitting there were immersed in the Spirit, though 
 there was no " plunging process," to use Dr. Sumraei*s' 
 favorite phrase. " But how can we be immersed in the 
 Spirit as a medium ?" Metaphorically ; as we can be 
 immersed in joy, in debt, in care, and in ten thousand 
 other things. We give our opponents a metaphor, and 
 they object to it, that it cannot be interpreted literally. 
 On their principles, if they read that, under a pathetic 
 speaker, the hearers were drowned in tears, or hung with 
 rapture upon his lips, they would either hang all the 
 hearers suspended from the labials of the orator, and 
 
METAPHORICAL USES OF THE WORD. 155 
 
 suffocate them in their own tears, until they are literally- 
 dead, or convict the reporter of falsehood. We can do 
 no more than to refer them to the phraseology of 
 Scripture. John says : " I was in the Spirit on the 
 Lord's day.-' We are exhorted to " live in the Spirit." 
 " If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit." 
 If we can be in, or live in, or walk in the Spirit, in any 
 sense, in the same sense we can be immersed or baptized 
 in the Spirit. 
 
 6. Numerous other metaphorical allusions show, as 
 significantly, the form of the baptismal rite. We shall 
 content ourselves simply to quote some of them without 
 comment : " Arise and be baptized and wash aivay thy 
 sins," " That he might sanctify and cleanse it (the 
 church) with the washing of water by the word." 
 " Born of water, and of the Spirit." " The ivashing of 
 regeneration," &c. All the allusions to the ordinance, 
 with one voice, testify that its form is immersion. In 
 the language of the pedobaptist, ISTeander : '' Baptism 
 was originally administered by immersion, and many 
 of the comparisons of St. Paul alluded to this form of 
 its administration ; the immersion is a symbol of death, 
 of being buried with Christ ; the coming forth from the 
 water is a symbol of a resurrection with Christ, and both 
 taken together represent the second birth, the death of the 
 old man and a resurrection to a new life." Ch. Hist. p. 197. 
 
 We have now proved that the Greek word hajytizo, which 
 the Saviour used, means to immerse, and nothing else; 
 that in all those cases of baptism in the Scriptures, where 
 the circumstances are given, the ordinance was admin- 
 
156 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 istered by immersion ; that in all those cases where de- 
 tails are not given, there is nothing inconsistent with 
 immersion, but many hints given which imply it. And 
 that the import, and all the metaphorical allusions to the 
 ordinance, teach, with one voice, immersion. Surely, 
 this constitutes a cloud of witnesses, whose testimony 
 should leave not one shadow^ of doubt upon any unpre- 
 judiced mind. The Scriptures, when intei'rogated on 
 the subject, cry out, with multitudinous voice, and with- 
 out one note of discord — " Immersion, and nothing else." 
 But we have corroboi-ative aro-uments further. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 CORROBORATIVE ARGUMENTS. — THE TESTIMONY OF THE 
 GREEK CHURCH, AND OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 
 
 1. It is a significant fact, and one that ought to be 
 conclusive in determining the signification of the Greek 
 word baptizo, that the Greek church, from the introduc- 
 tion of Christianity until the present time, have admin- 
 istered the ordinance by immersion. They listen, with 
 derision, to the arguments that are advanced to show 
 that the word haptizo means to sprinkle or to pour. 
 They are aflfected by these arguments in the same way 
 that you, my dear reader, would be, should one gravely 
 
CORROBORATIVE ARGUMENTS. 157 
 
 attempt to prove to you that the English word immerse 
 means to sprinkle. " The members of this church are 
 accustomed to call the members of the Western Churches 
 ' sprinkled Christians,' by way of ridicule and contemj t ;" 
 and, like the Baptists, they immerse all such as come to 
 join their communion. It is no answer to this argument 
 to tell us that they practice many superstitions. Their 
 testimony is introduced here to show the meaning of the 
 Greek word ; and, on this point, it is conclusive. That 
 the fact of their practicing, uniformlv, immersion, may 
 not depend simply upon my assertion, I shall introduce 
 the testimony of standard pedobaptist writers. Dr. Wall, 
 the distinguished author of the " History of Infant Bap- 
 tism," says : " All the Christians in Asia, all in Africa, 
 and about one-third partof Europe, are of the last sort, (that 
 is, practice immersion,) in which third part of Europe 
 are comprehended the Christians of Graecia, Thracia, 
 Servia, Bulgaria, Rascia, Walachia, Moldavia, Russia and 
 so on ; and even the Muscovites, who, if coldness of coun- 
 trrj will excuse, might plead for a dispensation with the 
 most reason of any." Hist. In. Bap., p. ii., c. 9. 
 
 Prof. Stuart says: "The mode of baptism by im- 
 mersion, the Oriental church has always continued to 
 pursue, even down to the present time. The members 
 of this church are accustomed to call the members of 
 the Western Churches, ' sprinkled Christians,' by way of 
 ridicule and contempt. They maintain that baptizo can 
 mean nothing but immerse ; and that baptism by sprink- 
 ling is as great a solecism as immersion by sprinkling ; 
 and they claim to themselves the honor of having pre- 
 
158 • BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 served the ancient sacred rite of the church free from 
 change and corruption which would destroy its signifi- 
 cancy." (" The Mode of Baptism," p. 7G.) 
 
 2. Another fact, strongly corroborative of our argument, 
 is that /br thirteen hundred years, the practice of immer- 
 sion prevailed throughout the Christian world. It is not my 
 design to enter into the investigation of the teachings of 
 ecclesiastical liistory, further than to develop this fact. 
 If we can prove this from the writings of pedobaptist 
 historians and authors, it will testify, strongly, in corrobo- 
 ration of the argument as we have drawn it from the 
 Bible. 
 
 Our opponents maintain that if we admit the testi- 
 mony of history, in behalf of immersion, we should not 
 rule it out when it testifies in behalf of infant baptism. 
 But there is this difference between the two subjects, 
 that, while infant baptism can be traced back to the close 
 of the second or the middle of the third century, immer- 
 sion can be traced back to the very time of the Apostles 
 and primitive Christians. In the case of immersion, the 
 chain of testimony extends back from the fourteenth 
 century to the very time of Christ ; in the case of infant 
 baptism, the links that constitute the history of the first 
 two centuries, at least, are entirely wanting. We may- 
 admit, therefore, the testimony, in regard to infant bap- 
 tism, and show that the very silence of history, during 
 these important centunes, constitutes a conclusive testi- 
 mony that it is not an apostolic institution. 
 
 Neander, in his Church History, p. 197, says : "Bap- 
 tism was originally administered by immersion, and many 
 
CORROBORATIVE ARGUMENTS. 159 
 
 of the comparisons of St. Paul allude to this form of its 
 administration." 
 
 Prof. Stuart closes the citation of many authorities by 
 the following concession : " P)ut enough. ' It is,' says 
 Augusti, 'a thing made out,' viz: the ancient practice of 
 immersion. So, indeed, all the writers, who have tho- 
 roughly investigated this subject, conclude. I know of 
 no usage of ancient times which seems to be move clearly 
 and certainly made out. I cannot see how it is possible 
 for any candid man, who examines the subject, to deny 
 this." p. 359. He adopts the following from Brenner : 
 "Thirteen hundred years was baptism generally and 
 ordinarily performed by the immersion of a man under 
 water ; and only in extraordinary cases was sprinkling or 
 affusion permitted. These latter methods of l>aptism 
 were called in question and even prohibited." 
 
 Calvin says : " The word baptize means to immerse, 
 and it is certain that immersion was the practice of the 
 primitive church " (Inst. Art. ' T3ap.') Dr. Wall, author 
 of Hist. Inf. J3ap., maintains that immersion was the 
 practice of the primitive church, and icmarks : " This 
 is so plain and clear, that one cannot but pity the weak 
 endeavors of such pedobaptists as would maintain the 
 negative of it. 'T is a great want of prudence, as well 
 as of honesty, to refuse to grant to an adversary what is 
 certainly true, and may be proved so." 
 
 The last authority I shall quote, is that of P)Ossuet, a 
 Catholic, Piishop of Meaux : " John's baptism was per- 
 formed by plunging. In tine, we read not in the Scrip- 
 tures that baptism was otherwise administered ; and we 
 
180 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 are able to make it appear, by the acts of councils, and 
 by the ancient rituals, that for thirteen hundred years 
 baptism was thus administered throughout the whole 
 church, as far as was possible." 
 
 Nothing is more reasonable than that the primitive 
 Christians should, for the first century, or for some time 
 immediately succeeding the ministry of the apostles, 
 follow, literally, the rites of the church as they were 
 administered by the apostles. For a corruption of the 
 ordinances it required a lapse of time, and a generation 
 remote from the disciples, among whom superstition had 
 made inroads. Now, the testimony of ecclesiastical 
 history is that, from the time of Christ, for thirteen cen- 
 turies, immersion was practiced, universally, as Christian 
 baptisai, " as far as was possible." This is so clear that, 
 to use the language of Dr. Wall, one cannot but pity 
 the weak endeavors of such as would maintain the con- 
 trary. 
 
 My dear reader, is it possible for any unprejudiced 
 mind to resist this accumulated mass of evidence ? We 
 have shown you that the New Testament in Greek teaches 
 immersion even more clearly than the New Testament 
 in our present English version ; we have shown you that 
 those who speak the Greek as their mother tongue, tes- 
 tify that hapiizo signifies to immerse, and that they tole- 
 rate sprinkling for baptism no more than do the Baptists ; 
 that ecclesiastical history teaches that immersion prevailed 
 for thirteen hundred years from Christ, and we have 
 answered, and turned against our opponents, all the ob- 
 jections they have urged. We ask you, then, as one 
 
CORROBORATIVE ARGUMENTS. 161 
 
 who acknowledges the right of Christ to rule in Zion, 
 and your duty to obey — as one who trembles at God's 
 word, how can you suffer prejudice, or early education 
 or the influence of association, or the pride of consistency, 
 or any other consideration, to influence you to reject this, 
 testimony, and persist in refusing to submit to the ordi- 
 nance as Christ and his apostles have delivered it to you ? 
 
 Perhaps you say, there are still difficulties and objec- 
 tions of a general nature, which I have not yet touched, 
 that must first be removed before you can receive the 
 conclusion to which my argument arrives. There is 
 nothing, however self-evident, against which objections 
 cannot be raised. Men have objections even to the reality 
 of their own existence, in spite of the testimony of their 
 consciousness and their senses. Those objections we 
 shall consider ; but take care, in the presence of the 
 heart-searching God, that the wish, to you, is not father 
 to the thought — that your wish that the objections may 
 be valid may not be the originator of the belief that 
 they are valid. Will you pray the Lord, therefore, that 
 your mind may be divested of prejudice, and that you 
 may be able to read on further, with a sincere desire to 
 ascertain and to do his will ? 
 
 Your general objections we will show you to be weaker, 
 if possible, than your particular ones. To do so, however, 
 will require another chapter. 
 
 11 
 
162 IJAPTISM IX ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 
 
 Objection 1. "Modes, in the worship of God are not 
 essential. We are commanded to pray, but the mode of 
 our supphcation is not essential. Whether we pray in a 
 standing or kneeling posture, or prostrate upon the 
 a'round, makes no difierence. It is at the heart that God 
 looks. The Lord's Supper was administered, by Christ, 
 first, in the evening, in an upper chamber, at a table at 
 which those partaking reclined. Not even do you con- 
 sider that all these things are necessary for the validity 
 of the ordinance of the Lord's Supper. You do not 
 spread a table in an upper room, and recline at it, etc. 
 Why, then, should so much stress be laid upon the mode 
 of baptism ?" I answer, because the " mode of baptism " 
 is baptism. This is as tautological as to say immersion is 
 immersion. The circumstances of the administration of 
 the Lord's Supper are not material, because Christ has 
 not commanded them. All he requires is that we should 
 EAT BREAD, and DRINK WINE, in remembrance of him, 
 and to show his death until he come. When, therefore, 
 in a church capacity, we eat the broken bread, and drink 
 the wine poured out. Ave administer, in a vahd way, the ordi- 
 nance of the Lord's Supper. Should any one, reasoning 
 upon your principles, substitute any thing else for bread 
 and wine, or, taking the bread and wine, should smell, 
 and not eat and drink, he might engage in a very im- 
 
GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 16S 
 
 pressive ceremony, but he would not be partaking of the 
 Lord's Supper. In Hke manner, the circiunsfancea of 
 immersion are of no importance. The administrator 
 and subject may go into the water with or without "bap- 
 tismal robes ;" the water used may be running water, or 
 a pool, natural or artificial, out of doors or in the house 
 of worship ; administrator and subject may both go into 
 the water, or the former may stand on the bank or out- 
 side the pool ; the subject may be immersed with the 
 face downward or upwards, or he may be immersed un- 
 der the water perpendicularly, if it is deep enough. All 
 these are modes of immersion, and we have no contro- 
 vei*sy with those who select one different from that which 
 we practice. Christ commands an immersion, and there 
 is no baptism without an immersion. 
 
 Obj. 2. " Immersion is an inconvenient ordinance. It 
 is not every locality that furnishes the requisite depth of 
 water. And, besides, how inconvenient to leave the house 
 of worship, and go to some distance, to seek a river, creek 
 or pond." To this I answer : 
 
 1. On the same principle, the worship of God is a 
 very inconvenient duty. It is not every locality that 
 furnishes the requisite protection to a worshipping con- 
 gregation, from the scorching sun and from the inclem- 
 encies of the weather. We have to provide for the 
 regular worship of God by building meeting houses and 
 other places of shelter. And, in the same way, and with 
 much less expense and trouble, we can provide conve- 
 niences for baptism if nature does not furnish them ready 
 to our hand. 
 
104 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 2. You speak as if you suppose that there is some- 
 thing sacred about a meeting house, and that God can 
 be worshipped nowhere else. This, my dear sir, smacks 
 very much of Popery and Puseyism. The house has 
 been consecrated ; therefore, the ordinances are to be 
 administered nowhere else. Nay, it even excels Popery ; 
 for Romanism permits raidwives to sprinkle, in certain 
 cases, infants in the houses of their parents. No person, 
 whose baptism is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, 
 had the ordinance administered to him in a meeting 
 house, for none existed at that time. But if you esteem 
 it a matter of any importance, I do not object. This is 
 one of those circumstances that may be left to the con- 
 venience, and even to the taste, of the churches. You 
 can do as the majority of Baptist churches in the 
 cities, and have a font constructed in your house of wor- 
 ship ; and it will cost you no more than the bells with 
 which you assemble your congregations. 
 
 Obj. 3. " Christianity is designed for all times and 
 places. We argue, therefore, that Christ could not have 
 required immersion exclusively, for, in some places, it is 
 impossible because of the cold, and in others because of 
 the scarcity of water." This objection is best answered 
 by facts : 
 
 1. As to the cold : It is a fact that the Greek church 
 extends, in its territory, from the Mediterranean up to 
 the Frozen Sea — the region of " thick-ribbed ice ;" yet 
 they have always practiced immersion. " The Muscovites, 
 if coldness of country will excuse, might plead for a dis- 
 pensation with the most reason of any." (Dr. Wall.) In 
 
GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 166 
 
 all the continent of North America, from the Gulf of 
 Mexico np to Baffin's Bay, wherever pedobaptists are 
 found, there, also, exist Baptists. No inhabited region 
 has yet been found too cold for the existence and the prac- 
 tices of " immersionists." 
 
 2. As to the scarcity of water : Wherever there can- 
 not be found a sufficiency for immersion, in that place 
 there is not sufficiency of water to sustain animal life. 
 Wherever the region supplies water enough for the 
 necessities of a family, it supphes enough for the baptism 
 of a family. Why, one perennial spring can furnish 
 water enough to immerse the whole population of Char- 
 leston, if it be properly husbanded. The desert of Sa- 
 hara, in the greater part of it, refuses the requisite supply 
 of the element for baptism, but we never expect to be 
 called on to baptize any one there, since the same scar- 
 city of water has made it an uninhabited region. 
 
 Obj. 4. " Immersion is sometimes dangerous, and 
 feeble ministers cannot attend to it, because (1.) it expo- 
 ses them to risk of health, and (2.) because its perform- 
 ance is so laborious that they lack the strength." " How, 
 it may be asked, can invalids be baptized, except by 
 sprinkhng or pouring?" Summers, p. 79. 
 
 This contains three points ; (1.) danger to subjects that 
 are invalids ; (2.) danger to administrators that are inval- 
 ids; (3.) labor to which it subjects feeble ministers. 
 
 1. Dr. S. says : " It is absurd to talk about their 
 being preserved from the dangerous effects of immersion 
 by a special providence — that is to say, a miracle ; for 
 facts, as well as reason, prove that God is not so profuse 
 
16fl BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 in his outlay of miraculous influence." To all this, we 
 have to say that, if the health of a believer is sucR as 
 to make it dangerous for him to be immersed, it is not 
 his duty to be immersed so long as that state of health 
 continues — just as it is not his duty to attend upon the 
 preaching of the word when confined to his bed by 
 disease. It was not the duty of the thief upon the cross 
 to be baptized while hanging upon the tree. The exagge- 
 rated notions, however, of the dangers attendant upon 
 immersion, spring entirely from a religious hydj'ojyJwbia. 
 Our brethren would see, if they knew more of them- 
 selves, that they shudder not so much at the physical as 
 at the religious consequences of going into the water. 
 Who has ever heard of any, even the most delicate 
 female, that has been injured by obeying the Lord in 
 baptism? During a ministry of some years, in which I 
 have administered the ordinance, in mid-summer and 
 mid-winter, to some hundreds of subjects, no such case 
 has come under my own observation ; nor have I seen a 
 citation of any such, by any of our opponents, in all the 
 books and pamphlets they have published against immer- 
 sion. Surely, among the million or so of baptized per- 
 sons in the United States, one case of injury from 
 immersion could be found, if this argument has any 
 foundation. God does not require his ministers to preach 
 when their health disqualifies them for the work, nor 
 does he, by a special providence or by miracle, preserve 
 them from the consequences of their imprudence. In 
 like manner, when the behever's health is such as to 
 disqualify him for submitting to Christ's ordinance, while 
 
GENERAL OBJECTIONS. Wl 
 
 the disability continues, it ceases to be his duty. God 
 releases him from the obligation, and does not accept of 
 a substitute of his own invention, which he submits to 
 from a superstitious notion of the virtues connected with 
 the watery rite. 
 
 2d. It is objected, again, that God cannot have required 
 immersion exclusively, since it is dangerous for some 
 ministers to go into the water. On the same principle, 
 you might argue that He could not have ordained preach- 
 ing, since it is dangerous for some ministers to preach. 
 Many of our most valuable brethren are incapacitated 
 for officiating in the pulpit, in consequence of aflfections 
 of the throat and other diseases. Therefore, on your 
 principles, God could not have ordained, by the foolish- 
 ness of preaching, to save them that believe ; for he 
 would not have required, of all his ministers, that which 
 some of his ministers are physically unable to do ! When 
 ministers are, on account of disease, disqualified for 
 preaching, painful as it may be, let them give place to 
 others that are not ; and when their health is such as to 
 forbid their going into the water, let them give place to 
 others who are not so disqualified. I have met, within 
 the range of my travels and acquaintance, some scores 
 of ministers, who are physically unable to preach, but I 
 am yet to see, for the first time, the Baptist minister who, 
 though able to preach, feels that his health would be 
 risked by going into the water. 
 
 3d. A third difficulty in the way is, that some of God's 
 ministers are not blessed with bodily strength, and, there- 
 fore, the labor of immersion is too great for them to 
 
16^ 
 
 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 perform. One who knows nothing of the subject, would 
 think that it would require the strength of a Hercules — 
 nay, that even Hercules himself would have reason to be 
 thankful that the exhausting work is not of frequent 
 occurrence. Dr. Miller's sympathies are excited in be- 
 half of Baptist ministers, and he does all he can to argue 
 them out of the notions which lead them to such ex- 
 hausting and laborious work. " Those," says he, " who 
 have witnessed a series of baptisms, by immersion, know 
 how arduous and exhausting is the bodily effort which it 
 requires." No wonder it is laborious, when " to immerse 
 a single person," he says, " with due decorum and solem- 
 nity, will, undoubtedly, require from five to six minutes." 
 But he descends to specifications and particulars : " A 
 gentleman of veracity told the writer that he was once 
 present vfhQn forty -seven were dipped in one day, in the 
 usual way. The first operator began and went through 
 the ceremony until he had dipped twenty-five per- 
 sons, when he was so fatigued that he was compelled to 
 give it up to the other, who, with great apparent diffi- 
 culty, dipped the other twenty-two. Both appeared 
 completely exhausted, and went off the ground, into a 
 house hard by, to change their clothes and refresh them- 
 selves." p. 90. How fortunate it was that two " opera- 
 tors " were present. Perhaps it was for this reason that 
 the Sa\iour sent out his disciples two and two. After 
 this, let no one wonder that the ministers of Christ are 
 called laborers. Let us take courage, however, by the 
 reflection that this is the testimony of one who knows 
 nothing of the subject^ by experience. We never yet 
 
GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 169 
 
 heard the Baptist minister complain of the " severe and 
 exhausting efforts ;" and we never yet saw the one who 
 was too feeble to administer the ordinance, who was 
 strong enough to preach. Such statements as these are 
 calculated only to amuse those who are in the habit of 
 immersing. The chief exercise of strength that is requi- 
 site is used in placing the subject under the water — the 
 uj)ward pressure of the element, and the effort of the 
 subject, will well nigh do all the rest, provided the water 
 is of sufficient depth. And as to five or six minutes : 
 while it would take Dr. Miller to say, " it is a physical 
 impossibility," and Dr. Summers to add, "it is alike 
 absurd and gratuitous," a Baptist minister, who under- 
 stands his business, can administer the ordinance in less than 
 one. And should he have — to use Dr. Miller's language — 
 " an individual of large stature, or more than common cor- 
 pulency " to baptize, to give confidence to the subject and 
 the spectators, he can take an assistant with him into the 
 water — a course that is uniformly observed by some of 
 our ministers. 
 
 Obj. 5. "Immersion is an indecent rite." What do 
 you mean by this ? Do you mean to say that, either 
 because of the want of taste and judgment in the ad- 
 ministrator, or because of a lack of means at his disposal, 
 the ordinance is sometimes administered in a bungling 
 and unimpressive manner? If so, I acknowledge it. Too 
 often, because of the uncouthness of the administrator, 
 or the carelessness of the churches in not securing a 
 sufficient supply of pure water, are we compelled to wit- 
 ness, with pain, God's impressive ordinance marred and 
 
170 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 brought into contempt. But this is the fault of those 
 who administer the ordinance, and not of the ordinance 
 itself. In like manner, we sit in the house of God and 
 listen, with pjiin, while a blunderer is bringing preaching 
 into contempt; but we never fail to discriminate between 
 preaching and the preacher. 
 
 But, perhaps, this is not your meaning. Perhaps your 
 remark about indecency is confined to the baptism of a 
 female. Why is it indecent for a female to be immersed ? 
 Is it because she is not properly clad ? But this need 
 not be the case. If she is not properly clad, it is not 
 the fault of the ordinance, but her own. That prescribes 
 not how she shall be dressed, and if she has not sufficient 
 taste and judgment to suit a man of your fastidiousness, 
 the fault is her own — or yours. Is it to you, as to Dr. 
 Summers, indecent, " under any circumstances," because 
 she goes into the water with " a person of the other sex ?" 
 Then permit me to say, my dear sir, with all proper 
 respect, that the " indecency " is in your own heart. " To 
 the pure all things are pure; to the impure there is 
 nothing pure." When you witness an immersion, the 
 man by your side is solemnly impressed, and affected to 
 tears, while in ijour mind unworthy thoughts are aroused. 
 Why the difference ? The cause is not in the scene, but 
 in your own mind. How astonishing it is that this 
 charge of indecency is brought against an ordinance by 
 those w^ho will, themselves, administer it to any " adult " 
 female who " chooses " it ! 
 
 Obj. G. "But though I should waive all my objections 
 against immersion, and grant that it, alone, is baptism, I 
 
GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 1*71 
 
 have such an utter abhorrence of the bigotry and exclu- 
 siveness of the Baptists, that I could never consent to 
 unite myself to them." You express yourself in terms 
 very strong, and not unreasonably flattering to us. We 
 have not asked you, as yet, however, to join the Baptist 
 churches. All we have done is to urge you to submit 
 to the ordinance as Christ has instituted it. " Not ask 
 us to join the Baptist churches ? Why, you do not even 
 admit that there is any other church than the Baptist." 
 With all my exclusiveness and bigotry, I have never 
 said that the communion to which you belong is not a 
 church. " But would you not immerse one of our mem- 
 bers who had been already immersed by a Methodist 
 minister, if he should join your communion ?" Yes. 
 " There can be no reason for this, other than because of 
 your belief that the Methodist is no church. You re- 
 baptize our members, not because they have not been 
 immersed, for that question you never ask ; nor because 
 the officiating minister had not been immereed, for upon 
 this point you never make any inquiries either. And 
 you know that we have many immersed members in our 
 communion, some of whom came over from you to us. 
 You must re-baptize our members, then, because you 
 think we are no church, and that our ministers are, there- 
 fore, without credentials. It must be because you main- 
 tain that yours are the only true churches, possessing a 
 regular descent from the apostolic, and, therefore, pos- 
 sessing among yourselves, exclusively, the right to 
 administer the ordinances. And this claim, permit me 
 to say, is sufficiently ridiculous, when the Baptists, as a 
 
i¥z 
 
 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 denomination, can trace themselves back no further than 
 to the fanatical Anabaptists of Munster ; and those of 
 this country owe their origin to Roger Williams, an 
 unbaptized man, immersed by a layman, himself unbap- 
 tized. Curious successors of John the Baptist, when 
 you owe your origin, as a people, to Roger AVilliams, 
 who had no position at all in the line of succession from 
 the ' man sent from God.' Surely, if, upon such prin- 
 ciples, the Methodists are not authorized administratore, 
 neither are you. If your denomination had not sprung 
 from Roger Williams, your principles would have res- 
 trained you from administering the ordinance until you 
 had clearly traced the line of succession from the first 
 Baptist down to yourselves ; tvith your acknowledged 
 connection with Roger Williams, your principles utterly 
 forbid you to administer the rite." Really, I must say 
 you do not spare us in this; and if we are not now 
 ashamed of our " bigotry," you may well nigh despair 
 of ever producing in us such an emotion. And I must 
 say, you have not spared me either, for you have given 
 me topics enough to write a book on. What you say 
 does look very reasonable, and I have no doubt but you 
 think you have put the Baptists hors du combat. Let 
 us see, however, if we cannot, by some means, rescue 
 them out of your hands. 
 
 There are many topics embraced in this objection. 
 (1.) Do we consider the Methodists a church, or a branch 
 of it ? (2.) Do the Baptists maintain that a regular 
 succession from the apostles is necessary to constitute 
 their religious associations churches, and to qualify their 
 
GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 1*73 
 
 ministers for administering the ordinances ? (3.) Did 
 the Baptists, in the Old World, owe their origin to the 
 so-called Anabaptists of Munster, and in this country to 
 Roger Williams ? 
 
 Let ns take these up as so many distinct questions : 
 1. Do we consider the Methodists a church, or a 
 branch of it ? "^ This belongs more properly to a dis- 
 cussion on church government than to the topic which is 
 the subject of this essay. But as you have made it 
 necessary, I will answer it, making first, however, the 
 proper discriminations. Are the Methodists christians ? 
 Without reserve, I answer, yes ; as much so as others 
 who profess to be. Are the Methodist ministers, minis- 
 ters of Jesus Christ ? I answer, yes. Is the Methodist 
 denomination in Georgia a church of Christ ? No ; nor 
 is the Baptist denomination in Georgia a church of 
 Christ. The organized body at " Antioch " is a church, 
 and so is the organized body at " Centre " a church, (or 
 ekklesia,) though, in my opinion, a defective one. I 
 grant that the religious body at Centre is a church, 
 though my Methodist brethren deny it, and maintain 
 that it is a society in the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 South. I find, in the New Testament, but two senses in 
 which the word church is used, in connection with 
 Christ's people: (1.) The whole body of his redeemed 
 people in heaven or in earth ; as — " The general assem- 
 bly and church of the first born, which are written in 
 
 * The Methodist denomination is singled out because this 
 inquiry was specially propounded to me by one of its ministers, 
 the Presiding Elder of this District. 
 
lY4 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 heaven ;" and (2.) a particular local society of cbristians — 
 an assembly (or ekJclesia) that maintain the worship of 
 God, and the ordinances of Christ; as the church at 
 Jerusalem, the church at Corinth, and the churches (not 
 the church) of Judea. And I do not read, any where in 
 the New Testament, about " branches of the church." 
 
 2d. "Do Baptists maintain that a regular succession, 
 from the apostles, is necessary to constitute their organ- 
 ized religious assembhes churches, and to qualify their 
 ministers to administer the ordinances?" This question 
 originates in the superstitious notion that there is some 
 mysterious and efficacious influence committed to what 
 is called the church, which is transmitted from genera- 
 tion to generation, and which does not deflect out of the 
 direct line of apostolical succession ; and that, conse- 
 quently, no one can be saved, unless he is, in some way, 
 connected with the church. We give a monopoly of 
 such superstition and nonsense to Romanists, and those 
 who affiliate with them — we leave it to some of our 
 opponents to prate about a mystical virtue in the church, 
 or an invisible gift, transmitted down by priestly manipu- 
 lations, through succeeding generations of ministers. 
 
 There never was a people more misundei'stood than 
 are the Baptists. While they are accused of putting up 
 a claim to the exclusive possession of the mystical influ- 
 ence, of which the church is the supposed repository, 
 they are about the only people that reject such a claim ; 
 and are in conflict with nearly all the rest of the chris- 
 tian world because they deny the existence of such an 
 influence. According to their principles, the only influ- 
 
GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 1V6 
 
 ence which the church possesses, consists in the tra+h of 
 which it is the repository, in the holiness of its members, 
 and in the blessing of God upon the means of grace 
 they wield. They do not consider that priestly designa- 
 tion is necessary even to authorize their members to 
 preach. According to their opinion, all can do so, if 
 they preach the truth, and can get a congregation to 
 listen to them ; and it is even the opinion of many that, 
 as Ananias baptized Saul, so can any one, in good stand- 
 ing, administer the ordinance of baptism, provided there 
 is a necessity for it. 
 
 Baptists maintain that the only apostolical succession 
 consists in holding the doctrines and the practices of the 
 apostles. If their churches are constituted according to 
 the pattern given in the New" Testament — if they hold 
 the doctrines and maintain the practices of the apostles 
 and primitive christians, they, for that very reason, are 
 successors of the first churches, and nothing else could 
 make them so. Nay, they go further : If the aborigi- 
 nes in the interior of Africa should, by some means, 
 get possession of copies of the Scriptures, and, by the 
 grace of God, without a preacher, were made wise unto 
 eternal life, and were to organize worshiping assemblies, 
 after the pattern of New Testament assemblies, such 
 bodies would not only be true churches, but constitute a 
 part of the regular succession from the primitive churches. 
 " What ! even though they had to baptize themselves ?" 
 Yes ; even though they had to baptize themselves. The 
 necessities of the case would plead their excuse, and 
 render the ordinance valid, even though the first admin- 
 
1*76 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 istrator had, himself, never been baptized. " This posi- 
 tion you take now, impelled by the exigencies of the 
 argument. You know there is no other way to escape 
 the difficulty growing out of your connection with Roger 
 Williams, and because you are conscious you cannot 
 trace the Baptists beyond the time of the Munster insur- 
 rection." To this I answer: (1.) Whatever may be 
 my motive, I but state what has been the opinion of the 
 Baptists in all time. You cannot find, in the writings of 
 any of our standard authors, from the time of the 
 apostles unto the present day, a sentiment that will conflict 
 with it. 
 
 2. As to Roger Williams : we do not feel ourselves at 
 all embarrassed by our connection with him, such as it is. 
 He did but right in submitting to the ordinance at the 
 hands of Ezekiel Hollyman, or any other whom the 
 church might have appointed; and the necessities of the 
 case made it as vahd as if it had been administered by 
 the Apostle Paul himself. It was an immersion in the 
 name of the Trinity, by the most suitable administrator 
 that could be found, and was, therefore, a baptism. The 
 church has a right to designate any one, with his consent, 
 to the ministerial office, and has the same right to ap- 
 point to any other office or work ; and the church at 
 Providence appointed jNIr. Hollyman to baptize Mr. 
 WiUiams. 
 
 At the present day, and in this country, a country 
 abounding in Baptist churches, a company of unbaptized 
 believers would not organize themselves into a church 
 until they had submitted to the ordinance from the hands 
 
GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 17*7 
 
 of one who had himself been baptized ; and this, too, 
 not because there is any invisible efficacy possessed by 
 tbose who occupy a position in a fancied line of apostoli- 
 cal succession, but, because, having no necessity to plead, 
 it is their duty to use the agents that come up most 
 nearly to the scriptural requirement. 
 
 3. The embarrassment you ascribe to us exists only in 
 your imagination. If you were better informed, you 
 would express yourself differently. It does not seem to 
 be known to you, but the Aict is, that Roger Wilhams' bap- 
 tism died with him. His pastorship in the Providence 
 church continued not more than four years, (some say two,) 
 and he administered the ordinance to no individual who 
 subsequently became a minister. See how easy it is to 
 remove this mountain of difficulty. Even if we believed 
 in the nonsensical notion of the necessity of succession 
 from .John the Baptist, Roger Williams would not con- 
 stitute a straw of difficulty in our way. And yet, in 
 your own mind, you have been accusing me of special 
 pleading to remove this difficulty. 
 
 It is simply amusing to us, when we hear you say 
 that the Baptists of this country originated with Roger 
 Williams, or with any other man. Baptists are made so 
 by a belief of the truths of God's Word, and a literal 
 obedience to the commands of the King in Zion. " Who 
 was the founder ?" asks Dr. Summers, indignantly, (p. 
 189,) "who was the founder of 'the denomination ' in 
 this country, but the incessantly lauded and almost 
 canonized Anabaptist, Roger Williams T' We can ex- 
 cuse Dr. Summers' solecism in language by the consider- 
 12 
 
178 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 ation that his association and reading disqualify him for 
 knowing any better. The great ecclesiastical organiza- 
 tion with which he is best acquainted, can trace its history 
 back to one man as its founder, and, in the simplicity of 
 his heart, he thought the same must be true of those he 
 was assailing. And not being in a very good humor 
 with them, because they press him with many " evils," 
 he is glad, in tracing their pedigree, to stop at Roger 
 Williams in this country, and with the " pestilent Ana- 
 baptists " of Germany, because he thinks, by doing so, 
 he can be more ofiensive. 
 
 Wherever the seeds of unadulterated gospel truth are 
 sown and take root, there spring up Baptist churches ; 
 and wherever such are organized, they call no man mas- 
 ter and founder, but are built upon the apostles and 
 prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner 
 stone. What though their enemies may prove that the 
 much maligned " Anabaptists of Munster " were as bad 
 as they represent them — what though it may be shown 
 that all, save one, of the Baptist churches in these United 
 States, are erroneous in doctrine and corrupt in practice — 
 that one which should preserve its purity, would be as 
 really and as fully a church of Jesus Christ, in all its 
 proportions and with all its privileges, as it would be 
 though all the rest had maintained a steadfast adherence 
 to the faith, and could all trace their origin back to 
 primitive churches, by a chain extending through the 
 distance of eighteen hundred years, with every link of it 
 shining with undimmed lustre. 
 
 Roger Williams may have been the founder of the 
 
GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 1*79 
 
 Providence church, in the sense that he was instrumental 
 in its organization ; but writers betray their ignorance of 
 Baptist pohty when they speak of the Baptist church in 
 America, and of any individual as the founder of it. 
 This is as great a figment of the imagination as " the 
 visible church catholic," which many speak of who draw 
 their notions more from the dogmas of corrupt human 
 hierarchies, than from the teachings of the New Testa- 
 ment. If there were no Baptist church in this country, 
 and a company of believers were to organize one, after 
 the New Testament pattern, it would not only be really 
 and truly a church of Jesus Christ, but it could, hke all 
 other Baptist churches, trace its origin to the Saviour 
 and his apostles. 
 
 What difference, then, does it make with us, whether 
 those troublesome people at Munster were orderly or 
 disorderly, fanatical or reasonable ? Every Baptist church 
 is independent, not only of all those in the present, but 
 of all those in the past. It obtains its existence not from 
 a long line of ancestry — it receives its vitality and 
 authority, not from conferences, and synods, and councils, 
 and Popes, but from God's truth ; and it owes allegiance 
 to none but Christ, the great head of the church. 
 
 But you ask me : " Do you grant, then, that the 
 Baptists had no existence in ecclesiastical history anterior 
 to the Munster insurrection ?" I answer : (1.) If I 
 were to grant it, that would not be admitting that our 
 churches, of the present day, are not, scripturally, the 
 legitimate successors of the apostolic churches. Though, 
 after the revelation of " the man of sin " — from whom 
 
180 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 you trace your descent — all organized churches, after the 
 primitive pattern, had become extinct, and there liad been 
 an interregnum for never so many centuries, the mould 
 in which the first churches had been cast, and the charter 
 upon which they had been organized, was still preserved. 
 Whenever, therefore, God's providence opened the way, 
 and God's grace furnished the means, and churches were 
 formed, they were churches not because they were parts 
 of an uninterrupted chain up to the apostles, but because 
 they were organized after the primitive pattern, and held 
 the apostles' doctrines and the apostles' practices. 
 
 But (2.) those who had the pecuhar sentiments of the 
 Baptists of the present day, have existed in all ages of 
 the world, from apostolic times to the present, our 
 opponents themselves being judges. Under the various 
 names of Disciples, Christians, Montanists, Novatianists, 
 Paulicians, Paterines, Waldenses and Albigenses, Mennon- 
 ites or German Anabaptists, Petrobrussians, Henricians, 
 Arnoldists, Leonists, Cathari, Hussites, Picards, Lollards 
 and WickliflStes and Baptists, they have existed in all ages, 
 from the Saviour unto the present time. And even 
 those German Anabaptists, to whom you grant we can 
 trace our origin, ran back, in their history, into the remote 
 depths of antiquity. Mosheim, a standard historian 
 with you, and as bitter an enemy to the Baptists as Dr. 
 Summers or any one else can be, says : " The true ori- 
 gin of that sect which acquired the denomination of 
 Anabaptists by their administering anew the rite of bap- 
 tism to those who came over to their communion, and 
 derived that of Mennonites from the famous man to whom 
 
GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 181 
 
 they owe the greatest part of their present fehcity, is hid 
 in the remote depths of antiquity, and is, of consequence, 
 extremely difficult to be ascertained." Vol. 4, p. 429. 
 A regular succession, in continuous series from the 
 apostles, is not necessary to us; 'but you perceive we 
 have it. Dr. Summers, on the other hand, cannot claim 
 even this for himself, without passing first through the 
 English church and the Papal apostacy — nay, he would 
 fail even then, for he would find his series, such as it 
 is, to stop with the rise of the Romish hierarchy. 
 
 But I have long since perceived that you are anxious 
 to return whence we started, that you may take advan- 
 tage of what you consider my concessions. I have no 
 doubt that you have been congratulating yourself with 
 the idea that you have me surrounded by a network of 
 concessions, which I shall not be able to break. Very 
 well ; we shall see. You are at liberty to make the most 
 of my concessions. " You said, just now, that you con- 
 sidered the organized body at Centre a church, though 
 as you qualified it, a defective one." Yes ; you quote me 
 correctly. " You said that the ordinance administered 
 by Ezekiel Hollyman was a valid baptism, and that a 
 church could be organized in Africa, in the case supposed, 
 without a preacher, and the members could mutually 
 baptize one another ?" Yes. " Well, then, the question 
 I have to propound to you is this : Suppose ' the preacher 
 in charge' of what you call Centre church, should im- 
 merse a believer, would it be a baptism which you would 
 recognize ?" Yes ; if he and the church meant to 
 express the belief that the immersion of a behever is 
 
182 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 alone baptism, and if the administrator had himself been 
 baptized, or if not, if the church and the subject could 
 not find an administrator who comes up more fully to 
 the scriptural requirement. You perceive, then, that in 
 order to derive any advantage from my supposed con- 
 cessions, the church at Centre, defective or otherwise, 
 must, like the church at Providence, hold to the immer- 
 sion of a believer as the only scriptural baptism, " Well, 
 then, I will ask you another question : If the whole 
 Methodist denomination, which you do not grant to be a 
 church, were to abolish infant baptism, and hold exclu- 
 sively to the immersion of a believer, and nil its mem- 
 bers should submit to it, would you, in that case, re-bap- 
 tize any of their members who should come over to your 
 communion?" No. Though the Methodist denoraina 
 tion do not constitute a church after the New Testament 
 pattern any more than do the Baptist denomination, yet, 
 as baptism is the only question under consideration, the 
 irregularity in church organization does not vitiate it, if 
 it conform, in good faith, in form and subject, to the 
 scriptural requirement. Whatever defect there may be 
 in church organization, is obviated by the act of the 
 applicant for admission to our communion, for his coming 
 to us would be a voluntary renouncement of the ecclesi- 
 astical polity with which he had been connected. " But 
 I cannot see why you would deny that to a part, which 
 you would grant to the whole. If the whole Methodist 
 denomination believe and practice believer's immersion, 
 you will recognize it as valid ; but if any persons of the 
 large class in' the Methodist denomination, who believe 
 
GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 183 
 
 in and have submitted to immersion, should unite them- 
 selves to you, you will re-baptize them. If the immer- 
 sion of all, according to your principles, surely the 
 immersion of a part must be baptism too. I see not 
 how you can reconcile these things ; and I shall be glad 
 for you to explain yourself to me if you can." There is 
 nothing more easy. We shall give you our reasons 
 frankly, assuring you, at the same time, that we do so 
 not with the design to be offensive. And we beg to say 
 that, while we have singled out the Methodist denomina- 
 tion, at your instance, we wish our remarks to be under- 
 stood to be as applicable to all other denominations of 
 like views and practices. 
 
 We cannot consider that, with their views, the 
 Methodists have any such thing as christian baptism 
 among them. True, their Disciphne provides that any 
 one may be immersed who " chooses " it, but then it 
 prescribes two other modes, which the people are taught 
 to consider more scriptural, significant and decent. 
 While the Bible insists there is one Lord, one faith, one 
 baptism, they prescribe, as we beReve and maintain, 
 though they deny it, three baptisms. The true form of 
 the ordinance is placed in the lowest position, and seems 
 to have been admitted by way of compromise, and with 
 the design the more effectually to destroy it. The Disci- 
 pline grants to the people the right to " choose " immer- 
 sion, but the chief influence of the denomination, and of 
 nearly all its writers and preachers, is used to prevent 
 such choice. And when even " weak consciences " 
 doggedly persist in demanding immersion, the rite, in nine 
 
184- BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 cases out of ten, is administered as something whicli 
 they cannot help, and of which they are ashamed. Be- 
 sides this, they have connected with their notions of the 
 ordinance, the baptism (or sprinkhng) of infants, whicli 
 has been, of all others, the most fruitful scource of cor- 
 ruption in the so-called church of Christ, and which, if 
 it could be successfully carried out, would banish true, 
 scriptural, believer's baptism from the earth. 
 
 Having such views of the nature and tendency of the 
 rite existing among them, how can we recognize that 
 they even administer the ordinance of baptism? The 
 Baptists are set for the defence, in part, of Christ's ordi- 
 nance, and they cannot admit that to be true christian 
 baptism which is administered under protest, and then 
 only as a compromise, the administrator announcing that 
 he puts up, audibly or mentally, the prayer of Hezekiah : 
 " The good Lord pardon every one that prepareth his 
 heart to seek God, the Lord God of his fathers, though 
 he be not cleansed according to the purification of the 
 sanctuary." Such a compromise, so far from being a 
 valid administration of Christ's ordinance, is, in our 
 opinion, a sin against God ; " for whatsoever is not of 
 faith is sin." 
 
 " But, then, the subject was sincere in submitting to 
 immersion." In that case he ought to have received it 
 at the hands of one who believed in it as alone God's 
 ordinance, and who was, in other respects, properly quali- 
 fied. " This brings us back again to the charge I made 
 against you in the. beginning — that you are influenced 
 by a desire to proselyte us to the Baptist churches ; and 
 
GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 16;6 
 
 now you have, yourself, in effect acknowledged it. The 
 Methodists, and other pedobaptists, are not proper admi- 
 nistrators of the ordinance, in the existing state of things ; 
 therefore, all of us who believe in immersion, must sub- 
 mit to it at the hands of Baptist ministers, and, by con- 
 sequence, join Baptist churches." A part of this con- 
 clusion I have no objection to. The very fact that I am, 
 myself, a member of a Baptist cburch, is a proof that I 
 believe it to be in possession of the truth on this subject, 
 and, of consequence, that I believe all other denomina- 
 tions, so far as they hold views different, are in error. 
 And even if I were openly and candidly, by argument, 
 to attempt to convince you of your error, I do no more 
 than it is my right and duty to do — no Tnore than it is 
 your right and duty to do to me, if you consider me in 
 error. And neither I noi you would be justly amenable 
 to the charge of proselytism, in its disreputable sense, so 
 long as we con6ne ourselves to open and candid argu- 
 ments. Should I convince you that it is your duty to 
 join the Baptist churches, I should not consider that I 
 have done something for which I should be ashamed. 
 But should it be possible to convince your denomination 
 to renounce "infant baptism," and to accept of the 
 immersion of believers as the only baptism, my joy 
 would be much more enhanced. In that event we would 
 acknowledge all your members to be baptized, and 
 " whereunto we had attained we would walk by the same 
 rule, we would mind the same things." Your ideas of 
 church organization would be no barrier in the way of 
 accepting your members into our communion without 
 
186 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 re-baptizing them. The other points of difference be- 
 tween us, we would discuss with you calmly and in a 
 christian spirit — our success in removing this, the greatest 
 difficulty, causing us to " thank God and take courage." 
 This last objection, though we have considered it at 
 great length, we are aware is an objection not against 
 immersion, but against the Baptists. It may be granted 
 that it has all the force which those who urge it claim 
 for it, and still the argument that immersion is the only 
 scriptural baptism remains untouched. What, though 
 you convict us of bigotry and inconsistency, will your 
 duty to submit to God's ordinance of immersion be less 
 binding ? Suppose, then, we have even failed in answer- 
 ing the objection satisfactorily, what will be the conclu- 
 sion ? that immersion is not the only true scriptural baptism ? 
 or that the Baptists need amendment 1 Shall our errors 
 and short-comings excuse you for disobeying God's plain 
 and explicit command ? I know this topic is introduced 
 adroitly to change the issue, and because it is thought 
 that we have not nerve enough to speak out plainly, and 
 to follow our principles to their legitimate results. And 
 sometimes, my dear pedobaptist reader, it is urged, be- 
 cause it is thought that you have not discrimination 
 enough to distinguish between baptism and the Baptists, 
 and because it is hoped that the reply to it will so excite 
 your resentment — on the plea that you are " unchurched" 
 — as to make your passions overwhelm your reason, your 
 judgment and your conscience. And those who ply you 
 thus, do so with much confidence, — their success with 
 othere, and you too, perhaps, in times past, encouraging 
 
GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 187 
 
 them to hope that a like success will attend their present 
 effort. But is not this attempt to change the issue an 
 acknowledgment of conscious weakness ? If they have 
 arguments to urge against the proposition that immer- 
 sion is the only Christian baptism, why attempt to divert 
 attention to something foreign to the subject in Baptist 
 polity and Baptist practice ? A reader of discrimination 
 will not fail to see the unworthy appeal that is made to 
 him, and one of piety will not refuse to obey God's com- 
 mand because, in his opinion, some of those who have 
 obeyed that same command are not right and estimable 
 in everything else. We might have sternly refused to 
 entertain this objection at all, on the ground that it has 
 no relevancy to the subject under discussion ; but being 
 aware of the motives by which it is sometimes urged, 
 and being desirous to make some discriminations, on this 
 very point, for the benefit of the honest and the candid, 
 we thought best to entertain it. Whether or not we 
 have made a successful defence of the Baptists, we leave 
 to the reader to decide. Of two things, however, we are 
 most certain: (1.) that we have not designed to be offen- 
 sive to any, even the most humble of our brethren of 
 other denominations, in what we have said ; and (2.) 
 that we have no apology to make to any, even the most 
 exalted, for what we have said. 
 
 Like this, the next objection is leveled more at the 
 Baptists than at the proposition that immersion is the 
 only scriptural baptism. 
 
 Obj. 7. " Though we should be constrained to grant 
 that the argument seems to be in favor of immersion. 
 
188 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 there are serious consequences connected with the adrais- 
 sion which would, after all, make us hesitate, under the 
 apprehension that there is, somewhere, a flaw in the 
 reasoning. Tiiere is your close communion, for instance ; 
 we cannot accept immersion as alone baptism without 
 accepting of it also. And we cannot perceive that it is 
 consistent with other parts of the Scriptures, to say no- 
 thing of modesty, for you to unchristianize all the rest 
 of the christian world, and say to them : ' Stand aside, 
 for we are more holy than you.' We must hesitate a 
 louo- time before we can accept anything which involves 
 a declaration of non-fellowship for all the rest of the 
 christian world, and a profession of the belief that we 
 are better than others of Christ's disciples who are not 
 of our communion. We cannot consent to unite in the 
 proclamation that the Baptists are the only people of 
 God." Now, to this I reply that there is nothing more 
 easy than to show, and that, too, upon your own prin- 
 ciples, that the Baptists are right in their restricted com- 
 munion. You do them, unwittingly, injustice, when 
 you believe that they assume to themselves a superiority 
 to the rest of the christian world. They do not profess 
 to believe that they are the only people of God. This 
 can be made, very easily, to appear, if you will attend to 
 the following discriminations : There are three kinds of 
 fellowship — ministerial fellowship, cliristian fellowship, 
 and church fellowship. 
 
 1. Do you find that Baptist ministers are behind your 
 own in the manifestation and expression of ministerial 
 fellowship ? Do they not preach in your pulpits, when 
 invited ? Do you find them slow to recognize th« 
 
GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 189 
 
 presence of your own ministers in their congregations ? 
 Point me to the instance in which we have overlooked 
 your ministers w^hen present in our congregations, and 
 we will engage to cite, at least, as many instances in 
 which they have overlooked us. We appeal to you to 
 decide if you find a peculiar reluctance in our ministers 
 to unite with yours in revivals, even at your own houses 
 of w'orship, and if you find them more disposed to thwart 
 your plans of conducting the revival than pedobaptist 
 ministers who difl^er from you in views of doctrine ? In 
 all the ways in which ministerial fellowship can be exhi- 
 bited, you do not find our ministers behind yours. 
 
 2. Do you find our members more backward than 
 yours in the manifestation of cliristian fellowship ? Do 
 you perceive in them any reluctance to converse with 
 you about your spiritual interests, and to tell you the 
 dealings of the Lord with their own souls ? Do Baptists 
 decline to enter into social religious intercourse with you? 
 Do they refuse to constitute a part of your worshiping • 
 assemblies ; and do you hear that their ministers warn 
 them not to attend your congregations, from a fear of 
 the influence you may exert upon them, or for any other 
 reason ? So strong is a Baptist's conviction of the cor- / 
 rectness of his own opinion, and, I will add, so great is 
 his christian confidence in you, that he does not hesitate to 
 attend your worshiping assemblies, and neither he nor his 
 pastor fears that he will either be killed or taken a prisoner. 
 When present with you, do you find him an uncourteous 
 hearer, and slow to take, when requested, the same part 
 in your meetings which he is accustomed to take in his 
 
190 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 own ? Do you find him, as a hearer, intolerant, captious 
 and quick to be offended ? Is it his custom to become 
 angry whenever jour minister touches upon denomina- 
 tional sentiments in a courteous way ? On the contrary, 
 do you not find that when your minister preaches, even 
 on the subject of baptism, and discusses it without per- 
 sonalities, he listens calmly and respectfully ? The rea- 
 son is that, knowing the points of difference between you and 
 him, he has come prepared to " prove all things, and to hold 
 fast that which is good," and he has no doubt that he 
 has, in his own mind, answered every argument advanced. 
 None but -those who feel that they have been driven 
 into a corner, and have nothing to say in reply, get angry 
 and act uncourteously ; why, then, should he ? In every 
 way in which you can possibly show christian fellowship 
 for us, Ave show christian fellowship for you. 
 
 3. There remains, therefore, only church fellowship ; 
 and one of the ways in which this is exhibited is by par- 
 taking, together, the communion of the Lord's Supper. 
 In this, and in this alone, is involved this practice of 
 restricted communion. The Lord's Supper is a church 
 oi'dinance ; to bo partaken of only by those who have 
 been baptized and been united to the church. Now, let 
 it be premised that, by universal consent, all evangelical 
 denominations, your own among the rest, maintain that 
 baptism is a prerequisite, as a quahfication, to admission 
 to the Lord's table. This proposition we need not stop 
 to prove, since all grant it. Suppose, then, I had been, 
 for a number of months, in possession of a hope, and 
 had given you satisfactory evidence of the genuineness 
 
GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 191 
 
 of my faith, but had not yet been baptized and admitted 
 to the church. You had recognized me, however, as a 
 christian, we had gone together to the house of God, and 
 you had frequently called ujDon me to lead in j^rayer in 
 the public congregation, and even permitted me to ex- 
 hort sinners to flee from the wrath to come. Suppose, 
 then, that, under these circumstances, your communion 
 season should roll around, and, when you invite persons 
 to participate, I should present myself among the rest ; 
 would you permit me to partake? Suppose, then, I 
 should throw myself into an attitude, and say, indig- 
 nantly : " You can recognize me as a christian, in private 
 and in public ; can engage with me in christian conver- 
 sation, in prayer, and in exhortation ; but as soon as you 
 spread the table of the Lord, you say to me, stand aside, 
 we are more holy than thou. If I am a disciple of Christ, 
 how dare you exclude me from his table ? And if you 
 cannot commune with me on earth, how can you com- 
 mune with me in heaven ?" My dear pedobaptist reader, 
 what would you say to me ? Your answer to me will be 
 my answer to you, when our relative positions are 
 changed. Your reply to me would be : " We do not 
 mean to say that you are not a christian, or that we are 
 more holy than you. You have not been baptized, and 
 that is the only reason why we do not admit you, for 
 baptism is an indispensable prerequisite to communion. 
 Submit to the initiating ordinance, and we will gladly 
 admit you to the other. Because it is the Lord's table, 
 is the very reason why we decline to receive you, for we 
 have no right to alter the terms of admission which he 
 
192 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 has prescribed. And ^ve do not expect to commune 
 with you at the Lord's table in heaven, because the Lord^s 
 table will not be spread in heaven. We liold christian 
 and spiritual communion with you here, and Ave expect 
 to hold with you none other than christian and spiritual 
 communion in heaven." If, after this, I should pro- 
 nounce you bigoted, inconsistent and exclusive, all the rest 
 of the world, who understood the subject, would pro- 
 nounce you lioncst, and faithful, and consistent. If the 
 Baptists are wrong, it is because they err in one of two 
 things : either in believing that baptism is a prerequisite 
 to the communion, or that nothing else is baptism but 
 believer's immersion. In the first, you all unanimously 
 grant that they do not err. And they do most consci- 
 entiously believe that nothing else is baptism but immer- 
 sion. If baptism is a prerequisite, and we believe that 
 nothing but immersion is baptism, how can we admit 
 those who have been sprinkled in infancy or even in 
 adult age ? It brings us back, tlien, to the question, what 
 is christian baptism ? And this, you perceive, demands 
 argument and not denunciation. It devolves upon you, 
 not to call us hard names, but to prove to us tbat some- 
 thing else than immersion is baptism. And we ask you, 
 as a candid man, if the preceding part of this book has 
 not convinced you of your utter inability to do this ? 
 I'he dishonest and the partizan will continue to misrepre 
 sent this subject of " close communion," but the candid 
 are always satisfied, so soon as they understand the prin- 
 ciple upon which it is based. 
 
 Obj. 8. ''The Baptists make immersion a saving ordi- 
 
GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 193 
 
 nance." What do you mean by this ? Is it your asser- 
 tion that we beheve immersion will secure the salvation 
 of all those to whom it is administered ? Our practices, 
 with which no one is better acquainted than you, ought 
 to have protected us from such a charge. If we believed 
 so, we should be very sure to baptize all our children in 
 infancy ; and you know, we never administer the ordinance 
 to any but those who relate to us an experience of grace, 
 and thus give to us credible evidence that they are 
 already saved. So far from considering that the ordi- 
 nance will subserve his spiritual interests, we believe it will 
 be essentially hurtful to one who is in a state of nature, 
 and, therefore, we scrupulously refrain from administering 
 it to those who do not give us satisfactory reasons to 
 believe that they have experienced the grace of God in 
 their hearts. The ordinance is significant only to those 
 who use it as a means of professing a belief that they 
 have been spiritually united to Christ ; and to thera it is 
 useful, not because of any supernatural influence con- 
 nected with it, but because it affords them the answer of 
 a good conscience, and prepares them for a visible con- 
 nection with Chi'ist's people. 
 
 So far from elevating it into a saving ordinance, w^e 
 lay much less stress upon it than do you or any of the 
 rest of our opponents. " But do you not maintain that 
 there is no salvation without immersion ?" No ; we are 
 assured that the thief on the cross obtained eternal life ; 
 and we have no doubt that all of our children, who die 
 in their infancy, are saved. And yet there is a sense in 
 which baptism is essential to salvation : Baptism is 
 IS 
 
194 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 essential to obedience, and obedience is essential to salva- 
 tion. All those who deliberately refuse to be immersed, 
 though they are convinced that God commands it, can 
 have no reason to expect eternal life ; and this, not be- 
 cause there is any thing in the mere watery rite which 
 is efficacious in securing salvation, but because that prin- 
 ciple in their hearts, which prompts them to disobey 
 God, utterly disqualifies them for a place at his right 
 hand. 
 
 There are many who are fully convinced that God com- 
 mand , them to be immersed, who yet hesitate, and refuse 
 to obey, because they find it impossible to overcome the 
 op[)Osition from family ties, from public opinion, and 
 from fear of the charge of apostacy. Let such bear in 
 mind the, to them, solemn declaration of Christ : " If 
 any man come to me and hate not his father, and mother, 
 and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, 
 and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple," (Lu. 14: 
 26,) and, " Whosoever, therefore, shall be ashamed of 
 me, and of my words, in this adulterous and sinful gene- 
 ration, of him also shall the Son of Man be ashamed, 
 when he cometh in the glory of his Father, with the 
 holy angels" (Mark 8: 38). It is the custom of such to 
 quiet their consciences by saying that baptism is not 
 essential to salvation ; but let them bear in mind that a 
 disobedience to the least of God's laws, deliberately per 
 sisted in, is as sure to secure the destruction of the soul, 
 as though they attempted rebelliously to drag God down 
 from his throne. To submit to immersion in water is, 
 comparatively, a small thing, and there is nothing, in the 
 
GENERAL OBJECTIONS. 195 
 
 nature of things, which makes it either right or wrong ; 
 but when it has, connected with it, God's command, it 
 becomes a test of our submission to God's authority ; 
 and the feeling within us which prompts us to obey, is 
 as necessary a quaHfication for eternal life, as that which 
 prompts us to believe in Christ, and " to do justly, love 
 mercy, and walk humbly with God." Our progenitors 
 in the garden of Eden, may have reasoned that there is 
 no immorality attached to the mere plucking fruit from 
 a tree in which no others possessed ownership, and that 
 to do so was a very small matter. In the nature of 
 things it was a very small matter ; but when God had 
 placed a prohibition upon the act, a regard to it was as 
 much a test of their submission to God's authority, as to 
 the command not to blaspheme his name. When, there- 
 fore, they reached forth the hand and plucked the fruit, 
 that simple act, indifferent as it was under other circum- 
 stances, brought death into the world and all our woe. 
 Why ? Not because there was anything in the act itself 
 which could produce such appalling results, but because 
 it was a deliberate disobedience of God's commandment. 
 My dear reader, you who are in the habit of quieting 
 your conscience by the consideration that baptism is not 
 essential to salvation, I beg you to ponder these things. 
 
BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 PART II. 
 
 THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Unscriptural views of the nature and constitution 
 of " the church," and of the saving efficacy of baptism, 
 gave origin to the practice of administering the ordinance 
 to infants. Had professing christians always understood 
 and received the teachings of the New Testament in 
 regard to the church — that it is a company of believers 
 called out of the world, and baptized upon a profession 
 of their faith, and associated together to maintain the 
 worship of God and the ordinances of Christ — had they 
 never entertained the superstitious belief that there is a 
 mystical efficacy in baptism, sufficient to remove the 
 taint of original sin, we should never have heard of'the 
 baptism and church-membership of unconscious babes. 
 
 For fifteen hundred years, however. Infant Baptism 
 
198 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 has existed in the corrupt Romish apostacy, and in that 
 which prepared the way for it ; and all " the churches " 
 in Europe, which can trace their origin to Rome, whether 
 connected with the state or otherwise, have maintained 
 it during all their existence. In this country, it is found, 
 uniformly, in connection with those great ecclesiastical 
 organizations which, like the Papacy, have departed in 
 their constitution from the simplicity of the Gospel ; and 
 it rises in the scale of importance in the estimation of 
 the sects, in proportion as they themselves approximate 
 in form to the Romish Hierarchy. In Infant Baptism, 
 the Papacy found its origin, and by Infant Baptism it is 
 sustained and perpetuated. Whatever may be the modi- 
 fications and the changes which " the mystery of ini- 
 quity " may undergo,jit can never be destroyed utterly, 
 in name and in principle, so long as Infant Baptism, " the 
 main pillar and ground " of it, is in existence. 
 
 Those who have held Baptist sentiments, under what- 
 ever names they have passed, from the days of Tertullian 
 to the present time, have always protested against it, 
 and waged an uncompromising warfare in opposition, 
 even though it subjected them in ancient times to the 
 fagot and the stake, and at the present time to imprison- 
 ments and confiscations in some countries, and every- 
 where to the hatred and persecution of all the sects 
 combined. 
 
 Infant Baptism finds no warrant in God's word. No 
 precept enjoins it — no inspired example sancti(vis it, and 
 no analogy suggests it. All the so-called analogies that 
 are used in the arguments of its defenders, are rather 
 
NO PRECEPT IN THE SCRIPTURES. 199 
 
 suggested by it, than it by them, and owe their existence 
 to the exigencies of the defence. The very genius of 
 Christianity, and the best interests of the church and the 
 world, utterly repudiate it. It has never been the author 
 or occasion of any good. Its influence has been evil and 
 only evil, and that continually. Do you say these are 
 very strong assertions ? If I fail to prove them to be 
 true, it will not be from a lack of means at my disposal. 
 The Scriptures furnish, in precept and example, no 
 baptism but that of a believer, upon a profession of his 
 faith in Christ. To the proof of this proposition. Part 
 II. of this argument is devoted. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 NO PRECEPT IN THE SCRIPTURES FOR THE BAPTISM OP 
 ANY OTHERS THAN BELIEVERS. 
 
 Section I. — The Commission. 
 
 1. Some pedobaptists profess to find, in Christ's comrais 
 sion, authority for the baptism of infants. Let us see 
 what foundation it furnishes for their assertion. This 
 was given to the disciples immediately before the Master 
 was taken up out of their sight, and constituted at once 
 their authority and their guide in all their operations, as 
 his ambassadors and ministers. From this they learned 
 
200 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 to whom they were sent, what message they were to 
 deliver, whom they were to accept as Christ's followers, 
 how they were to introduce them into the ranks of 
 Christ's visible people, and to what training they were 
 to subject them, after their admission into the school of 
 Christ. Now, this commission is as silent as the grave 
 in reference to the baptism of infants. Nay ; by its 
 silence, it as effectually bars them out, as if they had 
 been excluded by name. " Go ye into all the world, 
 and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that 
 believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that 
 believeth not shall be damned." Mark 16: 15. 
 
 1st. They were to preach the Gospel to every creature. 
 Surely, not to infants ! Christ did not command his 
 ministers to collect unconscious babes in congregations, 
 and gravely preach to them that they are lost sinners, 
 and that, except they repent and believe in Him, they 
 shall perish in their sins. If so, pedobaptist minister 
 do not obey the injunction, for we never hear that they 
 address themselves to this class of human beings. 
 
 2d. They thai believed were to be baptized ; and no 
 authority is here given for the administration of the 
 ordinance to any others. Surely, there never was an 
 infant that possessed faith in Christ. Did ever an uncon- 
 scious babe, " mewling and puking in its nurse's arms," 
 repent of sin, pray God for forgiveness, and fly for 
 refuge to the crucified Saviour ] Have any pedobaptist 
 ministers, from the time that the first infant was baptized 
 to the present, had the great (juestion propounded to 
 *j3em, by human beings of this class : " What shall I do 
 
NO PRECEPT IN THE SCRIPTURES. 201 
 
 to be saved ?" Has any one been baptized on the ground 
 that it gives evidence of possessing evangelical faith? 
 Have infants ever been the subjects of revivals, from the 
 day of Pentecost to the present, and have we ever heard 
 them giving a reason of the hope within them, with 
 meekness and fear ? Only those to whom the Gospel 
 could be preached, and who could obtain evangelical 
 faith by hearing the Gospel, were included in this com- 
 mi^ion, and were to be baptized ; but infants cannot 
 hear and understand the Gospel, and cannot obtain evan- 
 gelical faith, by a belief of it ; therefore, infants are not 
 included in the commission, and are, consequently, not 
 to be baptized under its authority. 
 
 Again : " Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, 
 (matketeusate panta ta etime,) baptizing them {bapti- 
 zontes autous) in the name of the Father, and of the 
 Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them (didaskontes 
 autous) to observe all things whatsoever I have com- 
 manded you," &c. Mat. 28: 19, 20. 
 
 1. Make disciples among all nations. All agree that 
 matketeusate should be translated make disciples or dis- 
 ciplCj and that didaskontes is properly translated teach- 
 ing. Now, who are disciples, and how are they made? 
 Christ's own word is an inspired dictionary, that furnishes 
 us a definition of the term disciple : " If any man come 
 to me and hate not his father and mother, and wife, and 
 children, and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life 
 also, he cannot be my disciple (mathetes). And who- 
 soever doth not bear his cross and come after me, cannot 
 be my disciple" {mathetes). Lu. 14: 26, 27. A disciple, 
 
BAPTISM IX ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 then, is one who bears bis cross and follows Christ. Can 
 this be predicated of an infant ? How were those dis- 
 ciples to be made? — by baptism? Does the sprinkhng 
 or pouring of a httle water upon any one, in the name 
 of the Trinity, cause him to prefer Christ to his own 
 life, and make him willing to endure the cross and 
 shame ? Do any, besides Pap ists, attach such effi- 
 cacy to the ordinance of baptism ? And if baptism can- 
 not change the heart of an adult, can it produce this 
 effect upon a puling babe ? Does any one say — disre- 
 garding the assertion of the apostle, that " we are all, by 
 nature, children of wrath " — does any one say that 
 infants are already disciples, because they are holy, and 
 prepared, without change, for the kingdom of heaven ? 
 Then I say this assertion, itself, places infants out of the 
 commission. The apostles were instructed to make dis- 
 ciples ; but, according to the assertion, infants were 
 already, disciples ; they were not the materials, therefore, 
 out of which they were to form disciples, and, conse- 
 quently, they were not included nor provided for in the 
 commission. But how were the apostles to make dis- 
 ciples ? Mark tells us, by preaching the Gospel to the 
 people. But infants never had the Gospel addressed to 
 them, therefore, infants were never made disciples of. 
 
 If they are disciples by nature, then, by nature and 
 in an infantile state, they prefer Christ to their own Hves, 
 and deny themselves and take up their cross ! If it be 
 said, the meaning is that they are possessed of such 
 characters by nature, that, as soon as they can act at all, 
 they will take up their cross and follow Christ — I 
 
NO PRECEPT IN THE SCRIPTURES. 203 
 
 answer: (1.) This is to confess that they are not yet 
 disciples, but only prepared to become so as soon as they 
 are able, i. e. as soon as they become old enough to hear, 
 understand, believe and obey the Gospel ; and this is to 
 give up the argument. 
 
 2. If it be asserted that infants are naturally disciples, 
 and that they manifest that to be their state progres- 
 sively, as their faculties unfold, I answer, this is to contra- 
 dict universal observation and experience. Never yet 
 has the individual been seen by you, who was holy from 
 his birth. There never was the " natural man " that 
 " discerned the things of the Spirit," and no man can 
 say that Jesus is the Christ but by the Holy Ghost. 
 
 3. Do my Methodist opponents say that infants are 
 all, by nature, disciples, but as they grow up they fall 
 from grace ? If so, I need do no more in reply, in ad- 
 dition to what I have said above, than to turn them over to 
 my Presbyterian and other Calvinistic opponents. In- 
 deed, so contradictory are the grounds upon which Infant 
 Baptism is sustained, that there is no argument advanced 
 by one that is not refuted by others of the sects that 
 practice it. 
 
 4. Is it said that infants are disciples, because they are 
 entered, by their parents, into the school of Christ to be 
 taught by him ? I answer that this is to offer them to 
 Christ to be accepted by him when they shall be quali- 
 fied, by age, to become disciples, which is the same as to 
 say that they are not such as yet. You may promise a 
 teacher your children as pupils, when they grow old 
 enough ; but they do not become pupils, in fact, until 
 
204 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 they arrive at the suitable age ; so you may in your 
 prayers, as you ought, offer your infants to Christ as his 
 disciples, but they can never become so, in fact, until 
 they are old enough to repent, to believe the Gospel, and 
 to take up their cross and follow Christ. " But is not a 
 child, dying in infancy, received into the kingdom of 
 heaven ?" I answer yes ; but an infant fit for heaven, 
 and an infant a disciple of Christ, are two very different 
 propositions. The former has happened in innumerable 
 instances, but the latter never. But more of this anon. 
 
 We return whence we started. All those who could 
 be discipled were included in the commission given to 
 the apostles ; but infants cannot be discipled ; therefore, 
 infants were not included in the commission given to the 
 apostles. 
 
 2. The apostles were instructed to baptize "them" — 
 whom ? All nations. Whether they became disciples 
 or not ? I answ^er : 
 
 1. In that case the Saviour would have used the neu- 
 ter pronoun auta^ corresponding to the neuter noun 
 ethne, for which it stands ; but he used the masculine 
 pronoun aictous — thus show'ing that he designed them 
 to baptize those who had first been discipled. 
 
 2. If " them " means all nations, then we have a 
 warrant for baptizing all adults also, as well as infants, if 
 we can accomplish it by force, by persuasion, or by fraud. 
 And why would it not be just as excusable to take the 
 same advantage of adults that you take of infants ? 
 
 According to the commission, the apostles were to 
 make disciples among all nations only by preaching to 
 
NO PRECEPT IN THE SCRIPTURES. 206 
 
 the people a crucified Saviour ; but the Gospel cannot be 
 preached to infants ; therefore, infants, as infants, were 
 not included among those to whom the apostles were 
 sent, and cannot be discipled. Only those, who could be 
 discipled, were to be baptized ; but infants could not be 
 discipled ; therefore, infants were not to be baptized. 
 
 3. Those who were competent to be baptized were 
 competent to be taught all things which Christ had com- 
 manded ; but infants were not competent to receive such 
 instruction ; therefore, infants were not competent to be 
 baptized. Torture the commission as you may, its inva- 
 riable testimony will be, " Infant Baptism is not to be 
 found in me." But here it is objected : 1. " May not 
 the disciples, as Jews, have understood Christ according 
 to what they knew of Jewish Proselyte Baptism ? By 
 that, you know, when the parent was introduced into the 
 Jewish community, the children were also. May not the 
 Saviour, then, have meant : " Go ye, therefore, and 
 proselyte or disciple all nations, and admit the proselytes 
 into the church as the Jews did their proselytes into 
 their communion?" To this I answer: 1. Jewish 
 Proselyte Baptism did not exist in the time of Christ. 
 No mention is made of it in the Old Testament or the 
 New, nor does Josephus, the antiquarian of the Jews, 
 who wrote after the ascension of Christ, refer to it. 
 Your best scholars have given this up, and only those, 
 now, who have a smattering of learning, or none at all, 
 maintain that Proselyte Baptism had existed before the 
 time of Christ. " Neander, in his lectures, says : ' Since 
 the elaborate work of Schneckenburger has appeared, no 
 
206 BAPTISM IN IT8 MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 one will pretend that he can prove the existence of m 
 proselyte baptism in the time of Christ.' " 
 
 2. If it did exist at the time of Christ, it cannot sus- 
 tain your argument in its whole extent. Jewish Prose- 
 lyte Baptism was administered to the family, old and 
 young, on their admission into the community ; but none 
 of their descendants afterwards were baptized. 
 
 3. The Jewish proselyte immersed himself. 
 
 4. Finally, upon the supposition of its existence, it 
 refutes your view of the "mode of baptism." Jewish 
 Proselyte Baptism was invariably Jewish proselyte im- 
 mersion. It is given up now, by the learned and candid 
 writers on your side, that Jewish Proselyte Baptism did 
 not exist until about the seventh century after Christ. 
 
 Objection 2. " But we must put ourselves into the 
 position of the disciples as Jews, in order, fully, to un- 
 derstand the case. They had been accustomed to see 
 circumcision administered to children, as well as to 
 parents. Suppose Christ had said : ' Go 2^^'oscbjte or 
 disciple^ and circumcise all nations,' would they not, in 
 that case, have administered the rite to children also?" 
 (Dr. Woods.) To this I answer : 
 
 1. Christ did not say so, and, therefore, you have no 
 right to argue from such a supposed case. 
 
 2. If Christ had used that form of expression, the 
 word " circumcise," I grant, would have suggested in- 
 fants as subjects of the rite. The disciples had always 
 seen the rite administered to infants, and if they had not 
 been excepted, they would, very likely, have circumcised 
 infant* as well as adults. In like manner, and on the 
 
NO PKECEPT IN THE SCRIPTURES. 207 
 
 very same principles, the word baptize, in the form of 
 expression that Christ did use, limited the commission, in 
 their view, to believing adults ; for they had never seen 
 the ordinance of baptism administered to any others. 
 John the Baptist, and they themselves, doubtless, had 
 never baptized any but those who were old enough to 
 repent and confess their sins. 
 
 Objection 3. " If infants are not provided for in the 
 commission, then it must follow that they cannot be 
 saved." " If infants must not be baptized because they 
 lack faith, for the same reason they cannot be saved ; for 
 while it is said, ' He that believeth and is baptized shall 
 be saved,' it is also added, ' He that believeth not shall 
 be damned.' But infants are not excluded from salva- 
 tion, because they lack faith, which is necessary to adults ; 
 so neither are they to be excluded from baptism because 
 they are incapable of faith." Summers, p. 46. 
 
 1. Dr. Summers, in the above paragraph, grants, though 
 he does not seem to know it, that infants are not inclu- 
 ded in the commission ; for he insists that, dying in 
 infancy, they are saved without faith. But the commis- 
 sion asserts that all those included in it must be damned 
 unless they believe. If, therefore, those dying in infancy 
 are saved without faith, it must be (all parts of God's 
 word being true,) because the commission does not refer 
 to them, and because they are provided for in some 
 other way ; but Dr. Summers says, those dying in infancy 
 without faith are saved ; therefore, infants are not inclu- 
 ded in the commission, and are saved by some other 
 provision which God has made. 
 
208 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 2. If he designed to include them in the commission, 
 we insist that he should not travel out of the record. 
 He has no- right to make one part of the Scriptures 
 contradict another, and then choose which one of the 
 conflicting statements he will believe. If infants are in- 
 cluded in the commission, it gives the same testimony 
 with regard to them that other passages do. If, there- 
 fore, it says that infants are included, and that if they 
 do not believe they shall perish, all other passages of 
 Scripture that refer to the subject, must bear the same 
 testimony, or the Bible is not true. Let Dr. Summers 
 confine himself to the commission, then, and let us see 
 what, in that case, is his argument : The Saviour says 
 that if infants (as well as all others included) do not 
 believe, they cannot be saved ; but infants do not believe, 
 
 and yet they are saved ; therefore, ! ! 
 
 Again : Christ says, in the commission, that faith is an 
 indispensable prerequisite to baptism and to salvation ; 
 but he has yielded the point in reference to salvation, the 
 more important ; therefore, he will yield the point, too, 
 with legard to baptism, the less important ! or, in other 
 words, as infants, in spite of, and in opposition to, the 
 commission, though included in it, can be saved without 
 faith, so can they be baptized, also, in spite of the com- 
 mission and without faith ! Such is the plain English of 
 the argument of a gentleman who professes, and doubt- 
 less feels, reverence for Christ and his word ! 
 
 Infants are either included in the commission or they 
 are not. If they are, and do not exercise faith, then, if 
 they die in infancy, they surely perish, if Christ's word 
 
NO PRECEPT IN THE SCRIPTURES. 209 
 
 be true ; if they are not included in the commission, and, 
 dying in infancy, are saved without faith, then faith is 
 not necessary to the salvation of infants, and God has 
 made some other provision that is suitable to their case. 
 Infants are not, like adults, saved by the Gospel. Those 
 who die in infancy are saved by the atonement of Christ, 
 and not by the Gospel, which is the proclamation of that 
 atonement. The glad tidings of good news are never ad- 
 dressed to them — the prescriptions of the (xospel be- 
 ing applicable only to those who can hear, understand and 
 believe it. Faith in Christ secures the salvation of adults, 
 not because there is any saving efficacy in faith itself, but 
 because, by divine appointment, it is the means by which 
 they realize the benefits of Christ's atonement. By 
 Divine appointment, then, infants are saved in some other 
 way, and without faith. What that is, by which they 
 are brought into saving relations with Christ's atonement, 
 we know not. Nothing in God's word is addressed to 
 this class of human beings, nor are his ministers com- 
 missioned with a message to them. The Bible says 
 enough for the consolation of parents who are bereaved 
 of their infant offspring ; but it does not satisfy their cu- 
 riosity by informing them as to the means by which 
 they realize the benefits of the atonement. All that is 
 necessary to secure the salvation of adults — the only 
 class addressed — is revealed in the Gospel ; but it says 
 no more with regard to the salvation of infants, than 
 will suffice for the consolation of bereaved parents and 
 friends. 
 
 We repeat the remark — tlie commission cannot be tor- 
 14 
 
210 BAPTISM IK ITS MODE AND SrBJICTS. 
 
 tiired into giving testimony in favor of Infant Baptism. 
 Neander, the great pcdobaptist Listorian, ackno\\lccliies: 
 " As faith and baptism are constantly so closely connected 
 together in the New Testament, an opinion was likely 
 to arise, that where there could be no faith, there could 
 also be no baptism. It is certain that Christ did not 
 ordain Infant Baptism." Church History^ p. 198. 
 
 Objection 4. "But the commission does not forbid 
 the baptism of infants." "Suppose there weie no com- 
 mand to baptize them, there is no precejit forbidding it.'' 
 Summers^ p. 48. To this 1 answer : 1. On the same 
 principle, the Papist may argue for ihe baptism of bells, 
 according to his practice. The commission did not 
 command the baptism of bells, but then it did not forbid 
 it. The argument of the Romanist would be just as 
 good as yours, and his practice much more harmless. 
 The sprinkling a little water upon a bell can do it nei- 
 ther good nor evil ; but the performino- the same cere- 
 mony to a babe, in the name of the Trinity, will have a 
 lasting influence upon him for evil. The Papist you 
 denounce, when bis argument is just as good as yours 
 and his practice less hurtful. 
 
 2. The silence of such a document as the commission 
 is the same as a prohibition of those things not men- 
 tioned. When the law of the State bestows the right 
 of suffrage upon all males, twenty-one years of age, it 
 excludes, though it does not mention them, all females, 
 and all males under twenty-one. Suppose, then, a fe- 
 male or a minor should come to the polls, and demand 
 the privilege of voting, on the ground that the law does not 
 
NO PRECEPT IN THE SCEIPTUKBS. 211 
 
 prohibit them by name ; would not their plea be just as 
 good as yours ? Or suppose you had written to an 
 agent, instructing him to purchase for you all the white 
 sheep that were in the market, and he should send to 
 you, with them, a large number of black sheep, and a 
 drove of mules besides ; would he satisfy you by plead- 
 ing that these animals were not prohibited in your letter, 
 and that he was aware, too, that when you were last 
 operating for yourself, you had bought black sheep and 
 mules? When we instruct an agent to purchase any 
 articles for us, is it necessary to specify, by way of prohi- 
 bition, everything else that is vendable, in order to limit 
 him to the articles ordered ? Instructions of this kind 
 are perfectly plain, when imposed by men ; how aston- 
 ishing it is, then, that there should be any ambiguity in 
 the same, when imposed by Christ ! The disciples were 
 instructed to preach the Gospel to all who were capable 
 of understanding it, and to administer baptism to all 
 that believed. If, therefore, they baptized any who did 
 not profess faith in Christ, they did so on some authority 
 other than the commission, or they presumptuously ex- 
 ceeded Christ's instructions We may not hesitate, 
 therefore, to adopt the language of the distinguished 
 pedobaptist, Neander: ^' It is certain that Christ did 
 not ordain Infant Baptism." 
 
 Section II. — Passages of Scripture usually relied 
 upon as proof s of Infant Baptism. 
 
 The distinguished Dr. Woods, of Andover, very frank- 
 ly acknowledges : " It is a plain case that there is no 
 
212 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 express precept respecting Infant Baptism in our sacred 
 writings. The proof tliat it is a divine institution must 
 be made out in another way." — Lectures on Infant Bap- 
 tism, p. 17. " There is no mention made in the New 
 Testament of any definite instructions of Christ to the 
 apostles, or of the apostles to christians, in regard to 
 the baptism of little children :" p. 40. All he maintains 
 is that the passages usually quoted, " imply that the 
 children of believers are to be baptized :" p. 42. Dr. 
 Summers, however, has keener penetration, or is more 
 adventurous, and asserts : " The New Testament abounds 
 with PROOFS of Infant Baptism :" p. 198. He terms 
 the admissions of Dr. Woods, and other candid pedo- 
 baptists, "unguarded expressions:" p. 17*7. And he 
 shows very plainly, that he is fully set in his purpose to 
 be always "guarded " himself, if to admit nothing, and 
 to claim everything, can make him so. It is to be hoped 
 that Dr. Woods may have the privilege of reading his 
 book, and we need not despair, should he do so, that he 
 will be led to review the grounds of his conclusions, and, 
 with all the proper manifestations of contrition, beg for- 
 giveness of his brethren, that he tended so much, by his 
 " unguarded expressions," " to overthrow the massy bul- 
 warks by which infant baptism is defended I" Summers, 
 p. IV 7. Many zealous pedobaptists have been much 
 dissatisfied at the " unguarded expressions " of Dr. 
 Woods, Prof. Stuart, Neander, and others ; and have 
 felt no little concern for the safety of the " massy bul- 
 warks of infant baptism " in consequence. It is to be 
 hoped, however, that now they breathe more freely, since 
 
NO PRECEPT IN THE SCRIPTURES. 213 
 
 the breaches have been all repaired by this new cham- 
 pion who has appeared in the field. " Now may the 
 winter of their discontent become glorious Summer by 
 this son of York.'''' 
 
 Dr. Summers says: ''The membership of children, 
 in the christian church, is formally recognized in the 
 New Testament:" p. 27. By "children," of course, he 
 means infants. And the argument, we suppose, is : Tf 
 eligible to membership in the church, they are entitled 
 to baptism, the initiating ordinance into the church. 
 
 In proof he quotes, first, Mark 10: 13-16: "And 
 they brought young children to him that he should 
 touch them, and his disciples rebuked those that brought 
 them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, 
 and said unto them : Sufl:er the little children to come 
 unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the king- 
 dom of heaven. Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall 
 not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child, he 
 shall not enter therein. And he took them up in his 
 arms, put his hands upon them and blessed them." 
 Now, we will grant, if Dr. Summers pleases, that these 
 " young children " were infants, and then beg him to tell 
 us how this passage formally recognizes them as mem- 
 bers of " the christian church." Before he replies to 
 this, however, let us inquire of him, ivhat infants are 
 " eligible to membership?" On page 22, he answers: 
 All. " They are not baptized because their parents are 
 believei-s in Christ." " If there be any for whom Christ 
 did not die — any whom he designed and decreed not to 
 save, such are obviously ineligible to baptism. But if he 
 
214 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 tasted death for every man — if the free gift has come upon 
 all^ pp. 22, 23, then all infants are eligible to membership 
 and baptism. He is very clear in his answer to ns ; 
 whether he is as satisfactory to Presbyterians and other 
 Calvinists, and whether these last could, upon Dr. Sum- 
 mers' principles, administer baptism to any, until they 
 have discovered, by some means, that they are among 
 the elect, is another question. Dr. Summers tells us 
 unequivocally, however, that all infants are eligible to 
 church membership. We ask him again, then, how he 
 obtains his proof from this passage ? He answers : 
 " Can any unprejudiced man read this passage, and yet 
 believe that Christ intended to exclude infants from his 
 church ?" p. 28. When we reply that we see, in the 
 passage, no reference to the church at all, he adds : 
 " Those to whom he spoke knew that children were 
 members of the Jewish church, &c., and could they 
 imagine that the Saviour would ostracize these little ones 
 from the Christian church !" (ib.) He w^rites as if he 
 thought that Christ had " opened the door of his church 
 for the reception of members," and that these young 
 children had applied for membership through those that 
 brought them. The passage, however, informs us not 
 that they were brought to be admitted into the church, but 
 that Christ might touch them — not that he received 
 them into the church, but that " he took them up in his 
 arms, put his hands upon them and blessed them." 
 And whatever " those to whom he spoke " may have 
 " known " or " imagined " about the membership of 
 infants in the " Jewish church," their knowledge evi- 
 
NO PRECEPT IN THE SCRIPTURES. 215 
 
 dently was at fault here, for " his disciples rebuked those 
 that brought them." But Dr. Summers, doubtless, 
 would wish to be understood to found his argument not 
 upon the assertion that this was a formal application for 
 membership, but upon the description which Christ gives 
 of the character and privileges of infants. " Of such is 
 the kingdom of heaven," is the foundation of the whole 
 argument. " Even if he meant to say — Let the chil- 
 dren come, for persons like them are to be members of 
 my church ; this does not exclude the little ones them- 
 selves ; it rather includes them, especially as it is assigned 
 as a reason why they should not be prevented from be- 
 ing brought to him to receive his blessing." p. 28. 
 
 Dr. Summers is so confident of the soundness of this 
 reasoning, that he has no doubt of its success, even 
 though he grants to us, in part, our interpretation of the 
 passage ; but the argument labors under some grave 
 difficulties which we will venture to suggest. 
 
 Now, it will make no difference with the present ques- 
 tion, whether, by " the kingdom of heaven," is meant 
 Messiah's reign over spiritual subjects on earth, or in 
 heaven, or both, since we are told, " except a man be born 
 again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." 
 
 Dr. Summers' argument is based upon the supposi- 
 tion that adults are admitted to the kingdom of heaven 
 because, and only because, in certain respects, they bear 
 resemblance to children ; and it may be stated thus : If 
 adults are admitted to the kingdom of heaven, or saved, 
 because they possess the characteristics of little children, 
 then children, who possess the same characteristics, are 
 
216 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 saved also. Now, the fact is, that adults are saved not 
 because they possess these characteristics, but they pos- 
 sess these characteristics because they are saved. In the 
 same way, when Christ says — " Blessed are the poor in 
 spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven," and — 
 " Blessed are they that are persecuted for righteousness' 
 sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven," he does not 
 mean to say that poverty of spirit, or persecution for 
 righteousness' sake, is that which entitles any one to 
 admission into the kingdom of heaven ; but only that 
 of such, and of such alone, is the kingdom of heaven 
 composed. Christ no where commissioned his disciples 
 to proclaim, in answer to the question — " What shall we 
 do to be saved ?" — obtain poverty of spirit, or secure 
 persecution for righteousness' sake, or acquire the char- 
 acteristics of little children ; but — " Believe on the Lord 
 Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." He is not in- 
 forming his disciples what they shall do to inherit eter- 
 nal life, but describing the character of those who are 
 already prepared to enter upon it. 
 
 My pedobaptist objector, however, may say, " This 
 amounts to the same thing. Adults that possess the dis- 
 positions of children are prepared for admission to the 
 kingdom of heaven, therefore, for the same reason, the 
 children themselves are prepared for admission to the 
 kingdom of heaven." I ask, what children ? All ? Those 
 bom in heathen lands as well as the offspring of christian 
 parents ? " Yes ;" say Mr. Summers and other American 
 pedobaptists, "All ; for Christ tasted death for every man." 
 " No ;" says Drs. Woods, Miller and other Calvinists, " not 
 
NO PRECEPT IN THE SCRIPTURES. 217 
 
 all, but only the children of believers." Prove to a 
 Methodist that the only true foundation for infant bap- 
 tism is, that the subjects of it are the offspring of those 
 included in the election of grace, and he rejects it : prove 
 to a Presbyterian that the only true foundation for it is, 
 that Christ atoned for the sins of all, without exception, 
 and he rejects it ; and yet they both unite harmoniously 
 together in practicing and defending it. Strangely flexi- 
 ble is this infant baptism ! If they could only be induced 
 to examine mutually each others foundations, each would 
 find, to their own satisfaction, that the other had reared 
 up " the massy bulwark of iufjint baptism" upon a foun 
 dation more treacherous than a quagmire ; and, in pro- 
 portion to their zeal, would be the fierceness with which 
 they would reproach each other for betraying the cause 
 which they profess to advocate. And we certainly have 
 a right to demand, gentlemen, that you agree among 
 yourselves first, as to what is the true ground upon 
 which it is to be based, before you unite in urging upon 
 us infant baptism as a duty. 
 
 My reader will, therefore, perceive that I will have to 
 answer these gentlemen one at a time. Let us put this 
 argument first into the mouth of a Presbyterian or other 
 Calvinist, and then see what aid Dr. Summers can render 
 us in replying to him. 
 
 "Adults that possess the dispositions of children are 
 prepared for admission to the kingdom of heaven ; 
 therefore, for the same reason, children themselves are 
 prepared for admission into the kingdom of heaven." 
 Very well : If we ask you, what children ? you will reply, 
 
6lS BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUCJEOTS. 
 
 " the children of believers." Dr. Woods, p. 40. " The in- 
 fant seed of believers are members of the church in virtue 
 of their birth." Dr. Miller, p. 26. The great principle of 
 family baptism, of receiving all the younger members of 
 households on the faith of their domestic head, seems to 
 be plainly and distinctly established." p. 24. 
 
 The following are difficulties which, upon your own 
 principles, are in the way : 
 
 1. Why should there be such a difference between the 
 infants of believers and of unbelievers ? Does the child 
 of an unbeliever who dies in its infancy go to perdition ? 
 You answer, very promptly, no ; though some of you 
 confuse your categorical reply by the addition of an " un- 
 intelligible jargon," to use Dr. Summers' words, about the 
 " uncovenanted mercies of God." Are the children, then, 
 of unbelievers that die in infancy admitted to God's 
 kingdom above ? If yes ; why ? Because they are hy 
 nature, and as "young children," different from the other 
 children of unbelievers that live to adult age ? Please 
 answer frankly. A frank reply to this, on Calvinistic 
 principles, will refute not only Dr. Summer^s, but your- 
 selves also. If you say that they are, by nature, different 
 from the other children of unbelievers, you deny your 
 own and the Apostle Paul's doctrine of original sin : if 
 you say God prepares them for heaven by the opera- 
 tions of his spirit in changing them from the carnal to 
 the spiritual nature, you contradict Dr. Summers in one 
 respect, and yourselves in two : — him when he says all 
 children are by nature prepared for heaven, and on that 
 ground for baptism also : — yourselves, (1) when you say 
 
NO PRECEPT IN THE SCRIPTURES. 219 
 
 any young children, as young children, are fit for heaven ; 
 and (2) when you say that only the infant seed of believ- 
 ers are eligible to church membership and to baptism, 
 for according to Dr. Miller, " If the kingdom of glory 
 belong to the infant seed of believers, much more have 
 they a title to the privileges of the church on earth." p. 
 28. On the same principles Dr. Summers and I may 
 say, if the kingdom of glory belong to the infant seed 
 of unbehevers, much more then have they a title to the 
 privileges of the church on earth ;" and how dare you 
 deprive them of it ? 
 
 2. If the infant seed of believers die in infancy, are they 
 admitted to the kingdom of glory upon a principle differ- 
 ent from that which secures the salvation of the young 
 child of an unbeliever ? If not, Dr. Summers and I will 
 ask you, why then do you refuse to the latter church mem- 
 bership and baptism ? If they are admitted upon a (Af- 
 ferent principle, what is it? You sometimes talk about 
 receiving infants upon the faith of their parents ? Are 
 they admitted to heaven upon the faith of their parents ? 
 Then Dr. Summers and I will say, you make religion 
 hereditary, you cause some to exercise faith by proxy, 
 and you people heaven with infant souls, some of them 
 regenerated by the spirit of God, and others by the faith 
 and holiness of their parents ! 
 
 3. There is another view of yonr infant baptism which 
 utterly denies one doctrine of your Calvinistic system — 
 and I am sorry far your inconsistency ; for, I believe, in 
 holding the doctrines of grace, you are holding the truth — 
 begging the pardon of my present colleague, Dr. Sum- 
 
220 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 mers. If the faith of the parent so changes the heart of 
 the offspring, as to prepare them for heaven and for the 
 church, then is your doctrine of the perseverance of the 
 saints not true ; for all of them who grow up to be adults 
 do totally^ and in many instances ^naZ/y, fall from grace. 
 For if you take the position that all the children of belie- 
 vers are saved, never mind how they live or how they die, 
 then you not only establish hereditary salvation, but you 
 have the descendants by the imputation of the faith of the 
 ancestors. You baptize the infant seed of believers either 
 because you think baptism will regenerate them, or be 
 cause they are regenerated already. The former you 
 deny, though the Puseyites maintain it. If the latter be 
 your assumption, you must maintain either that the grace 
 of regeneration is imparted to them by the faith of the 
 parent, and, therefore, by carnal descent, or by the spirit 
 of God through his regard to the faithful parent. Let 
 your supposition be what it may, then, besides other ab- 
 surdities the doctrine of tl e pei'severance of saints is aban- 
 doned ; for there is not one of these " young children" of 
 believers but what goes astray from his youth, speaking 
 lies and practicing other abominations : and multitudes of 
 them die in a state of impenitency, and go to perdition. 
 4. Tf you say you do not baptize " the infant seed of 
 behevers " because they already have been regenerated, 
 you escape this difficulty, but you fall upon others that 
 are greater. In the fii'st place, you abandon the ground 
 of the present argument, which is that the infants of be- 
 lievers are prepared by their dispositions — by the state 
 of their hearts — for admission to the kingdom of heav- 
 
NO PRECEPT IN THE SCRIPTURES. 221 
 
 en. If you take the position that the infants of believ- 
 ers are not regenerated before baptism, then you give up 
 the argument from the phrase, " Of such is the kingdom 
 of heaven," in the sense you usually attach to it. This 
 would be enough for our present purpose, since you have, 
 in this sense, relinquished your hold upon this passage 
 as a proof text for infant baptism. But we are not wil- 
 ling to let you go at this, without asking you a few ques- 
 tions more. "Baptism," you believe, "is an emblem of 
 moral cleansing and purity. It refers to the remission of 
 sins by the blood of Christ, and regeneration by his 
 spirit." Dr. Miller, p. 23. And you administer it, you 
 say, to those who have not as yet experienced the grace 
 of regeneration by the spirit. Why ? — because you 
 think the ceremony of baptism will regenerate ? No ; 
 you deny this ; but in my opinion this is the only con- 
 sistent ground for a pedobaptist to occupy who believes, 
 like you, in the doctrine of original sin. You disclaim 
 this, however, and I admit it. Do you administer bap- 
 tism to infants because you think that in applying the 
 water to the child in the name of the Trinity, you secure 
 in the act the regenerating influences of the Spirit ? That 
 cannot be, for those regenerated are " hoxn not of blood, 
 nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but 
 of God." And, besides, this would bring the doctrine 
 of perseverance into the same jeopardy noticed above ; 
 for what vast multitudes of " baptized " reprobates have 
 we in this country and in Europe ! Do you say that you 
 baptize them to indicate* that they will be regenerated 
 hereafter ? I ask you, how do you know ? Are all the 
 
222 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 children of believers sure of salvation ? Will all the 
 descendants of "faithful Abraham" be admitted to 
 heaven ? If you say that the foith of the parent is 
 strong and effective, only in behalf of his immediate 
 descendants, I ask, was Ishmael received into glory ; 
 ■were the sons of Eli — Hophni and Phinehas ; and the 
 sons of David — Amnon and Absalom, saved ? And if 
 all the children of believers may not be regenerated, 
 what right have you to administer to them that ordi- 
 nance, which, according to your own showing, is a sign 
 of inward purification ? If you say, with Dr. Miller, 
 that " the Kingdom of Heaven " means the church, and 
 that infants are born into it — that when.phrist says — 
 " Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven," he means that 
 the infants of believers are entitled, by natural birth, to 
 membership, and that, to them, baptism is not expressive 
 of inward cleansing, but only a ceremony that publicly 
 ratifies their right to membership, then I say, you can 
 never exclude such from membership, so long as they 
 can prove that their parents, one or both, had made a 
 profession of faith in Christ. That, and that alone, gave 
 them a title to admission, and so long as that can be 
 shown to be true, they can never be deprived of mem- 
 berehip ! Upon this principle, your churches would dif- 
 fer but little, in morality, from the world around. Nay, 
 instead of being lights, they would constitute a moral 
 darkness which may be felt. 
 
 Your views of the subjects of baptism differ, materi- 
 ally, from those of the " man, sont from God " to admin- 
 ister it first. You only ask whether parents have been 
 
NO PRECEPT IN THE SCRIPTURES. 223 
 
 professed believers; John the Baptist rejected "multi- 
 tudes " tliat came to him, saying — "Think not to say 
 •within yourselves, we have Abraham to our father ; but 
 bring forth fruits worthy of repentance." Upon Calvin- 
 istic principles, infant baptism cannot be sustained from 
 this passage of Scripture, so long as its advocates do not 
 take the ground of Augustine, and prove it, too, that 
 baptism removes the taint of original sin. 
 
 I have no doubt it gives Dr. Summers much pleasure to 
 run you thus into a corner, for he hates your Calvinism, 
 if possible, even more than he does our believers' immer- 
 sion. And it would not be surprising if, in his heart, he 
 is reproaching you for thus betraying the cause of infant 
 baptism. Let us see, however, if you and I cannot do 
 the same service for him. Let us place the same argu- 
 ment in his mouth, and see whether Arminianism can 
 furnish it any better protection. In one respect, how- 
 ever, he has the advantage of you, if, indeed, it can be 
 called an advantage. The basis upon which he rests 
 infant baptism is so much like that which it sustains, 
 that it will be difficult to find in it a plank sound enough 
 to serve as a lever to roll off the superincumbent rotten- 
 ness. We will let Dr. Summers, however, repeat the 
 argument, and see if he has more right to indulge a 
 feeling of complacency than you : 
 
 " Adults that possess the dispositions of children are 
 prepared for admission into the kingdom of heaven; 
 therefore, the children themselves, possessing such dispo- 
 sitions, are prepared for admission to the kingdom of 
 heaven." To him I remark ; 
 
294 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 1. This is reasoning upon the supposition that the 
 adults referred to and " young children " are, in all 
 respects, alike. While there are many points of resem- 
 blance, there are, also, many and important points of 
 dissimilarity. The adults are in a state of grace, infants 
 are in a state of nature ; the adults have been regenera- 
 ted by the Spirit of God, infants are yet " in the flesh," 
 and " they that are in the flesh cannot please God ;" the 
 adults have believed in Christ, infants have never heard 
 of Christ, and '' how can they believe in him of whom 
 they have not heard ?" While, therefore, it is true, as 
 Christ says, that those adults who are like children, in 
 certain respects, are prepared for admission to the king- 
 dom of heaven ; that which causes their qualification for, 
 and admission to the kingdom, is the very thing in 
 which they are dissimilar to infants in a state of nature. 
 For, except a man be born again, he cannot see the 
 kingdom of God. 
 
 2. Your idea that infants, in a state of nature, are pre- 
 pared for admission into the kingdom of heaven, is 
 directly opposed to your doctrine of " total depravity," 
 though, I am admonished, we must be very careful in 
 handling this, for it is not so sound but that it is in dan- 
 ger of breaking in our hands. If all are totally de- 
 praved, how can infants, lohile in a state of total depra- 
 vity^ be fit subjects for admission into the kingdom ? 
 Christ says — " Except a man (Greek, tis, any one) be 
 born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." " That 
 which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of 
 the Spirit is spirit." Jno. 3:36. And Paul says : " In 
 
NO PRECEPT IN THE SCRIPTURES. 225 
 
 Christ Jesus, neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor 
 uncircumcision, but a new creatwej^ Gal. 5: 15. Your 
 argument, therefore, not only contradicts Christ and 
 Paul, but your own doctrine of total depravity also. 
 When this is the result, it is evident to everybody else, 
 and it ought to be evident to yourself also, that you 
 misunderstand the Saviour when he says — " Of such is 
 the kingdom of heaven." 
 
 3. You must not interpret the Scriptures so as to make 
 one part contradict another. If that which is born of 
 flesh is flesh, and if they that are in the flesh cannot 
 please God, then infants, while in a state of nature, can- 
 not please God, and are, therefore, not suitable subjects 
 for his kingdom. It is surprising that you do not see 
 the contradictions and absurdities which this position of 
 yours involves. If you mean to say that all infants, in 
 a state of nature, are prepared for heaven, then you 
 contradict Christ, the Apostle and yourselves, as we have 
 shown above. If you mean to say that all are changed 
 into the spiritual state after their birth, and while infants 
 then you contradict not only the Scriptures and your 
 Calvinistic colleagues, but universal observation and 
 experience. As we have said before, you have never yet 
 seen the individual who grew up holy from his infancy. 
 If you mean to say that those only who die in their 
 infancy are " born of the Spirit," we will agree with you • 
 but, then, with this statement, you can look neither us 
 nor your Calvinistic colleagues in the face. They will 
 ask you, if only those who die in infancy are regenerated, 
 why, then, do you insist that all infants are entitled to 
 15 
 
226 BAPTISM IK ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 the ordinance ? And we will inquire, how can vou, upon 
 these ])rinciples of yours, baptize any? How can you 
 ascertain who will die in their infancy ? — and, discovering 
 that, how can you know at what time they experience 
 the new birth — whetiier before, or immediately "in the 
 hour and article of death ?" If these be your principles, 
 then none but dead infants would be the proper subjects 
 of baptism. To baptize these alone would be more con- 
 sistent with your principles, and, I will add, less hurtful 
 to the world, than your present practice. 
 
 4. Besides, this practice of yours is inconsistent with 
 your view of the import of the ordinance. You say all 
 infants are to be baptized, because Christ died for all, 
 and yet you maintain that baptism is not a symbol of 
 the work of Christ, but "of the renewing of the Holy 
 Ghost," p. 14. To be consistent, then, you ought to say 
 either, with Augustin, that all infants are to be baptized 
 because the ordinance removes the taint of original sin, 
 or because the taint has been already removed by " the 
 renewing of the Holy Ghost." If the former, you will 
 be maintaining the doctrine of the Romanist and the 
 Puseyite ; if the latter, you must say either that all 
 infants are renewed, or a part only ; and then your doc- 
 trine will labor under the difficulties mentioned above. 
 
 Dr. Summers, however, in his *' Strictures on Dr. 
 Howell," boldly cuts the knot, and contradicts not only 
 his Calvinistic colleagues, but himself also. On page 
 184, he n^aintains — " Why baptize children if they are 
 Dot born in sin ?'" This language, in the mouth of Au- 
 gustin, had some signiticancy, because he believed that 
 
NO PRECEPT IN THE SCRIPTURES. 22V 
 
 baptism washes away original sin ; in Dr. Summers' 
 mouth, with his disclaimer of baptismal regeneration, it 
 has no consistent significance at all. But he proceeds — 
 " And we will take occasion to turn the tables and boldly 
 assert that nothing is so well adapted to perpetuate the 
 truth on the subject of original sin as the practice of 
 infant baptism," p. 184. In the same connection, he 
 indignantly denies that the Methodists believe baptism 
 can remove the taint of original sin. In another part of 
 his work, then, baptism symbolizes the renewing of the 
 Holy Ghost; here it is meant to teach the entire ab- 
 sence of His influences ; there, it is emblematical of 
 sanctification, p. 13 ; here, it is emblematical of total 
 depravity ; there, it is designed to show that this infant 
 is a child of God, and an heir of heaven ; here, it puis 
 the mark of Cain on its forehead, and proclaims that it 
 was conceived in sin and brought forth in iniquity ; there, 
 it ratifies its claims to admission to the church and to 
 the kingdom of glory ; here, it prohibits its entrance, 
 and slams the door in its face. Infant Baptism, then, 
 is a standing monument, designed to perpetuate the 
 remembrance of original sin, and, so long as it stands 
 with this inscription upon it, it is an ordinance not to 
 initiate infants into the church, but to drive them from 
 its portals. 
 
 Let Dr. Summers take either or both of these con- 
 flicting views, and we ask if it has not been shown, that 
 Christ could not have meant to teach that infants, in a 
 state of nature, are fit for admission into his kingdom. 
 But we are not done with Dr. Summers' argument yet. 
 
228 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 5. My Presbyterian colleague and I will ask you fur- 
 ther, if Clirist designed to teach that all infants are eli- 
 gible to church membership and to baptism, ^Yhy do 
 you not " baptize " others besides the children of your 
 members ? Do you answer that you administer it to all 
 that are brought to you ? We ask again, have you ever 
 pressed upon unbelieving parents, who respect religion, 
 their duty to place their children in the way of securing 
 their rights, and enjoying their privileges ; and have you 
 ever endeavored to aid those infants whose parents do 
 wickedly deny to them " the seal of the covenant ?" 
 Should a minor come to you, professing faith in^ Christ, and 
 requesting ba})tism, you would not be deterred, as a 
 faithful minister, from performing your duty, though the 
 infidel parent should forbid you, on the ground that he 
 believed that the religion of Christ is a fable. Now, you 
 know that there are thousands of infants who are entitled 
 to the rite, and, to use the language of Cyprian, crying 
 for baptism, and, though they are in your reach, you lift 
 up neither hand nor voice in their aid. How much they 
 lose, Dr. Summers knows, for he says of himself — " We 
 do not hesitate to say that we have derived great benefit 
 from our baptism in infancy," p. 194. As God's laws 
 are to be obeyed rather than man's, if it is his will that 
 all infants are to be baptized, then it will be lawful for 
 you, with the Romanists in some countries, to put the 
 "seal " on them wherever you can obtain access to them. 
 Finally. And this 1 address to both Caivinistic and 
 Armenian Pedobaptists. If infants, in a state of nature, 
 are entitled to church membership, and, of consequence, 
 
NO PRECEPT IN THE SCRIPTURES. 229 
 
 to baptism, then, on the same principles, they are entitled 
 to partake of the Lord's Supper also. And why do 
 you withhold this from them ? Here, the large ma- 
 jority of your church members are excluded from the 
 table of the Lord — why ? Are they guilty of any 
 crime ? The very same reasons that would exclude them 
 from the privileges of the one ordinance, are sufficient 
 to bar them from the other. The Roman Apostacy, 
 from whom you received this rite, more consistent than you, 
 did, for many centuries, admit infants to " the Eucharist." 
 The meaning of Christ when he says — " Of such is 
 the kingdom of heaven," is so plain that, if it were not 
 for the necessities of infant baptism, it would never 
 have been misunderstood, nor its common-sense inter- 
 pretation called in question. Of precisely similar im- 
 port is his language in Mat. 18: 1-6 — "At the same 
 time came the disci i)les unto Jesus, saying — Who is the 
 greatest in the kingdom of heaven ? And Jesus called 
 a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them 
 and said : Verily I say unto you, except ye be converted, 
 and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the 
 kingdom of heaven. Whosoever, therefore, shall humble 
 himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the 
 kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such 
 little child in my name, receiveth me. But whoso shall 
 offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it 
 were better for him that a millstone were hanged about 
 his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the 
 sea." And in the passage quoted by Dr. Summers, 
 immediately after saying — " Of such is the kingdom of 
 
230 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 heaven," the Saviour adds : " Whosoever shall not re- 
 ceive the kingdom of heaven as a little child, shall not 
 enter therein. Any one, then, who is not seeking- after 
 a proof of infant baptism, would see that, when Christ 
 says that the subjects of his kingdom are to be like little 
 children, he means that they must be free from pride 
 and malice, and possess a humble and teachable dispo- 
 sition. It would be just as reasonable to maintain from 
 the phrase — " Whoso shall receive one such little child 
 in my name," &c., that infjints can be ambassadors or 
 ministers of Christ, as to argue from the phrase — " Of 
 such is the kingdom of heaven," that infants, in their 
 natural state, are subjects of Christ's kingdom, on earth 
 or in glory. 
 
 I have examined the argument from this passage at 
 great length, because it is the one chiefly relied on by 
 our opponents, and we have no doubt that, by this time, 
 the majority of our readers are ready to adopt the lan- 
 guage of Bishop Taylor — to rely upon this text for proof 
 of infant baptism, " proves nothing so much as the want 
 of better argument." 
 
 The passage says not one word about infant baptism 
 or infant church membership. Those who brought the 
 little children, desired that Christ should touch them ; 
 and he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon 
 them and blessed them. Tt does not hint that it is the 
 duty of the parent to dedicate his infant offspring by 
 baptism, but it teaches, unequivocally, that which is infi- 
 nitely more valuable to the pious parent — that Christ 
 has a regard for little children, and that he permits 
 
NO PRECEPT IN THE SCRIPTURES. 231 
 
 parents to bring them to him for his blessing. Let all, 
 then, bring their beloved offspring, in prayer, to Christ, 
 and beseech his blessing upon them, ever recollecting 
 his gracious words — "Suffer little children to come 
 unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom 
 of heaven." 
 
 Section III. — Passages relied on, continued. 1 Cor. 
 1: 14., and Acts 2: 39. 
 
 Another passage of Scripture on which our opponents 
 lay great stress, as a proof of infant baptism, is found, 1. 
 Cor. V: 14. " For the unbelieving husband is sanctified 
 by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the 
 husband : else were your children unclean ; but now are 
 they holy." " The argument is briefly this : — If the children 
 of a christian parent, who is the husband or wife of a hea- 
 then, be permitted to take rank with the saints, agia, 
 that is, christians or members of the church — as the 
 word imports in the New Testament — the conjugal rela- 
 tion has been sanctified to a christian husband or wife, so 
 circumstanced, and must not be dissolved. This, as the 
 context shows, was the point in dispute in the Corin- 
 thian church ; but it could not have been settled by 
 such an argument as this, had not the church member- 
 ship of children been an admitted fact," Siunmers, p. 
 30. To this I reply, that a common sense interpretation 
 of this passage according to the context and, the laws of 
 language and of argumentation, will show that, so far from 
 sustaining infant baptism, it furnishes a " decisive argu. 
 ment" against it. This Dr. Dagg, the distinguished 
 
232 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 President of Mercer University, has conclusively shown 
 in a tract with this title, issued by the *' Southern Bap- 
 tist Publication Society." The apostle's argument is a 
 very simple one, and, infant baptism out of the question, 
 would be easily understood. The question was pro* 
 pounded to him by the church at Corinth, whether a be- 
 lieving husband should separate from an unbelieving 
 wife, and vice veraa, on the ground that she was unclean 
 according to Jewish notions. Certainly not, says Paul ; 
 for if a wife, because an unbeliever, is so unclean that her 
 believing husband should separate from her, then, on the 
 same principles, believing parents must separate from and 
 have no association with their children, because they also 
 are unbelievers. This was a conclusion that the enquirers 
 would at once repel ; and thus they could see the prin- 
 ciple which prompted their inquiry reduced to absurdity. 
 If this is the correct interpretation of the passage, then 
 as Dr. Dagg has shown, the witness whom our oppo- 
 nents bring to the stand, testifies decisively against them. 
 Dr. Summers refers to Dr. Dagg's argument, but it is 
 evident be misapprehends it. The Doctor's argument is 
 contained in epitome in a note which he furnished for 
 "Wilson's Scripture Manual," which the reader will 
 thank me for inserting here at length. 
 
 " In meditating upon 1 Cor. 1: 14, I soon perceived that the 
 unbelieving husband or wife is sanctified or holy, as well as the 
 children, and, therefore, has as good ground to claim bap- 
 tism from the passage as they have. This convinced me that 
 infant baptism cannot be proved by it ; and with this discovery 
 I remained for some time content, choosing rather to be ignorant 
 
NO PRECEPT IN THE SCRIPTURES. 233 
 
 of its true raeanins? than to misunderstand it. I was afterwards 
 struck with the fact, that the apostle writes, " your children," 
 and not their children. I then saw that he meant the children 
 of all the members of the church, including even those who had both 
 parents believers. Hereupon I enquired, how can it be that the 
 children of two believing parents would he undea.n'i I did not see 
 how this could be possible, if the church at Coiinth had been a 
 Pedobaptist church ; for there all these children would have been 
 consecrated to God in baptism, and brought within the pale of the 
 chuich. I could only account for it on the supposition that the 
 church was a Baptist church, for there these children were unbap- 
 tized, and had no nearer relation to the chuich than the unbe- 
 lieving husband or wife, and being in the same predicament, 
 might be accounted unclean by the same rule. I moreover 
 thought that if the church at Corinth was a Baptist church, so 
 were all the other churches of those times. Here I made a second 
 pause in my investigation, before I could satisfy myself as to the 
 meaning of the terms holy and unclean— at length I observed 
 that the apostle in the 5th chapter speaks of keeping cowpuny 
 and eating with persons. Here I thoight of the saying of Peter, 
 Acts 10: 28 — and of the charge brought against him, Acts 11: 
 3— and of his conduct at Antioch, Gal. 2: 12— and of John 18: 
 28, and 2 Cor. 6: 17. It appeared from these passages, that per- 
 sons were accounted common or unclean, when it was unlawful 
 to enter their houses, to eat or to keep company with them, or 
 to touch th^m, I then bethought myself, that in the di-tinction 
 between clean meats and unclean, between holy pers(jns and 
 places, and those which are unholy, it is the common language of 
 Scriptuie to call any thing holy or clean, which a person con- 
 secrated to the Lord may lawfully touch or use: and any thing 
 common or unclean, the touch or use of which is prohibited. In 
 this sense of the teims, I saw that the text became very easy to 
 be understood, if the notion that these children had been bap- 
 tized, were but driven from one's mind. The apostle in effect 
 says . ' if it is unlawful for a member of the church to dwell, 
 
234 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 keep company, or eat with, or touch an unbeliever, then it is un - 
 lawful for you to dwell, keep company, or eat with, or touch 
 your children ; and consequently the care, support, and especially 
 the religious education of them, must be wholly neglected. The 
 laws of tlie commonwealth of Israel are not applicable to gospel 
 churclies, because of their different organization. That children 
 are not members of the latter, is the very fact upon which the 
 apostle seizes, for the foundation of his argument in this text, 
 which is, therefore, decisive a2:ainst infant baptism." 
 
 Now we ask the unprejudiced reader, which is the 
 most reasonable interpretation of the text, this, or that 
 which Dr. vSummers gives? And yet this is one of the 
 passages upon which the most stress is laid as a proof of 
 infant baptism. In the same way, all their writers will 
 testify against them. 
 
 The next passage, relied on by some, though Dr. Sum- 
 mers omits it in his list, is Acts 2: 39. " For the promise 
 is to you, and to your children, and to all that are afar 
 off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." Noth- 
 ing suggests this as a support of infant baptism, but the 
 word " children." If infant baptism were out of the 
 question, every one would see, from the use of the 
 word in other connections, and from the qualifying 
 clause joined to it, that " children" here means de- 
 scendants. " There was nothing more common than 
 for all people, old and young, to be called the children 
 of Israel ; and Peter, in the next chapter, says to these 
 same people he was addressing, " Ye are the children of 
 the Prophets," &c. The meaning evidently is, the promise 
 is to you and to your descendant?, and to the Gentiles that 
 
NO EXAMPLE IN THE SCRIPTURES. 235 
 
 are afar off'—even to as many of you and your descendants, 
 and the Gentiles, as the Lord our God shall call. The 
 promise referred not to baptism, but to the outpouring of 
 the spirit foretold by the Prophet Joel, " And it shall come 
 to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my 
 spirit U2Jon all fie sh : and yoin' sons and ijour daughters 
 shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, 
 and your old men shall dream dreams." Acts 2: 17. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 NO EXAMPLE IN THE SCRIPTURES OF THE BAPTISM OF ANY 
 OTHERS THAN BELIEVERS. 
 
 Section I. — Household Baptisms. Cornelius^ Lydia. 
 
 The most casual reader of the Acts of the Apos- 
 tles, will observe that in every case where the apostles 
 administered the ordinance of baptism, the subjects of it, 
 where their names are mentioned, or the period of their 
 life unequivocally stated, are those who are old enough 
 to understand the Gospel and to believe in Christ. 
 Where the subjects are plainly indicated, so that there 
 can be no dispute, it is evident that the apostles con- 
 formed strictly to the directions of the commission as 
 we have explained it. In no place is there an unequivo- 
 cal statement, candid pedobaptists themselves being 
 
236 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 judges, that infants were baptized. On the day of Pen- 
 tecost the people repented, gladly received the word, 
 were added to the church, and walked in the apostles' 
 doctrines and in the apostles' fellowship — none of which 
 can be predicated of infants. In Samaria, " when they 
 believed Philip preaching the things concerning the 
 kingdom of God and the name of Jesus, they were bap- 
 tized, both men and women." Ac. 8: 12. Both men and 
 women were baptized, but not one hint is thrown out with 
 reference to infants. Philip preaches the Gospel to the eu- 
 nuch, and requires him to make profession of faith in Christ 
 before he will consent to baptize him — verses 26-28. 
 Saul, and Cornelius, and Lydia, and the jailor, were 
 all baptized upon a profession of their faith in Christ. Our 
 opponents, however, maintain that infants were included 
 in the households baptized by the apostles. Now we 
 undertake to show that these furnish no example for their 
 practice. It is only necessary to notice the terms used 
 by the historian in the accounts of these baptisms, to 
 convince any unprejudiced reader, that infants could not 
 have been contained in the households baptized. 
 
 1. The first on record is the household of Cornelius. 
 " There was a certain man in Cesarea, called Cornelius, . 
 
 . . . a devout man, and one thiit feared God with 
 all his home.^'' Acts 10: 1, 2. When Peter had ar- 
 rived in answer to the summons which God had directed, 
 Cornelius said : '* Now, therefore, are we all here pre- 
 sent before God 1o hear all thim/s that are commanded 
 thee of God." v. 33. Peter proceeds to preach the Gos- 
 pel to them. " While Peter yet spake these words. 
 
NO EXAMPLE IN THE SCRIPTURES. 237 
 
 the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the wordy 
 V. 44. " They heard them speak ivith tongues and mag- 
 nify Gody V. 46. And then succeeds Peter's inquh-y* 
 " Can any man forbid water, that these should not he 
 baptized luhich have received the Holy GJiost as well as 
 we ? And he commanded them to be baptized in the 
 name of the Lord." vss. 47, 48. Now there is not one 
 word said here about the presence of infants, but every 
 thing to imply the contrary. 
 
 1st. We are not told that Cornelius had a wife even. 
 
 2d. No mention is made of any children, as belonging 
 to his household. " He called tioo of his household ser- 
 vants^ and a devout soldier, and sent them to Joppa," 
 and, as far as the record goes, it does not hint that he 
 possessed any other than adults, as members of his house- 
 hold. 
 
 3d. It is evident that all those baptized /mreo? God — 
 that all assembled to hear all things that God had com- 
 manded — that the Holy Ghost fell on all of them, and 
 that all simke with tongues and magnified God. Now 
 we ask the candid reader if he can detect one infant voice 
 in this household, as they are in concert rejoicing and 
 praising God ? And yet this is one of " the massy bul- 
 warks of infant baptism !" The veriest child can over- 
 throw it. 
 
 2. The next case on record is the household of Lydia. 
 ** z\nd a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, 
 of the city of Thyatira, which vvorshiped God, heard 
 us : 'fhose heart the Lord opened, that she attended 
 unto the things that were spoken of Paul, And "wL^n 
 
238 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, 
 saying : If ye have judged me to be faithful to the 
 Lord, come into my house and abide there. And she 
 constrained us." Acts 16: 14, 15. This is all that is 
 said of the baptism of this household, and the reader 
 will perceive that no mention at all is made of infants by 
 name. Now, upon the supposition that Lydia was a 
 virtuous woman, it will be necessary to prove that she 
 was married — her husband alive or dead — and that she 
 had children the issue of the marriage, before the bap- 
 tism of her household can even " imply'''' a support to 
 infant baptism. Lydia was not a courtezan ; tor she 
 " worshiped God" before she heard Paul preach. If 
 she had children, then she was either a married woman 
 or a widow. Let us see how either supposition will 
 consist with the account given of her. Let us suppose 
 then, first, that she had a husband alive. Now what 
 we wish to know is, where was her husband at that 
 time ? — at Philippi or at Thyatira ? Let us suppose he 
 was at the former place. Then see what will be the re- 
 sult. First, *' Lydia's husband" was, in fact, a good-for- 
 nothing sort of person, and is so characterized by "his 
 wife," and by the Holy Spirit — worthless, in fact, because 
 he permitted his wife to bear all the burdens necessary 
 to the support of "the family," while he consents to be 
 a nameless appendage to it. His wife sells purple, but 
 he, a " loafing," perhaps a drunken vagabond, does noth- 
 ing. Or perhaps an easy man, without energy, he gave 
 way, in business matters, to his more enterprising wife, 
 and staid at home attending to domestic concerns and 
 
NO EXAMPLE IN THE SCRIPTURES. 239 
 
 taking care of the children. On the supposition that he 
 was at Philippi, his wife and the Holy Spirit both char- 
 acterize him as a good-for-nothing man. She invites the 
 apostles into " my house," not into our house, intimating 
 very plainly, that it made no difference at ail whether her 
 husband would be glad to see them or not, and -that he 
 knew his place better than to presume to put on any 
 airs in her house : and the Holy Ghost, by speaking ^of 
 " Aer" not his " household," nor, what would have been 
 a little better, their household. Luke, under the direc- 
 tion of the Holy Ghost, thinks Cornelius and the Jailer 
 entitled to be considered the heads, respectively, of their 
 households, and he was in company with Paul, who took 
 no pains to conceal the opinion, that " the husband is 
 the head of the wife," and that she should submit to and 
 reverence her husband, (Eph. 5,) and who did not hesi- 
 tate to proclaim : " I suffer not a woman to uswj) au- 
 thority over the man;" (1 Tim. 2: 12 ;) but we tind him 
 not only not rebuking Lydia, for her " usurpation," and 
 pleading the cause of — I do not know what his 
 name was — Lydia's husband, but even joining with her 
 in treating him with worse than contempt. When loe 
 wish to speak contemptuously of a husband in these 
 days, we make him an appendage of his wife, and speak of 
 them as Mrs. such-an-oue and her husband : this name- 
 less man fell even beneath contempt; for he is not no- 
 ticed at all. He must have been a very mean and worth- 
 less, or a very badly-treated man. 
 
 But then again, in the next place, if he was at Phi- 
 lippi he constituted a part, however insignificant, of 
 
240 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 " Lydia's household," and was baptized also. Now if 
 that was the case, even though he was a very " weak 
 brother,''^ Luke would certainly have said something 
 about him, it* not before, at least after, his wife — 
 surely he would not contemptuously, after his conversion, 
 have assigned him a position among " Lydia's little 
 daughters ?" Upon the whole, I cannot believe that 
 Lydia's nameless husband was with her at Philippi. 
 
 Suppose, then, he was atThyatira, in Asia Minor ; then, 
 the inquiry presses upon us, why were this family divi- 
 ded ? But I must take that expression back : Dr. Sum- 
 mers says it is not good English, " There can be no 
 family without children. A man and his wife are not 
 a family. When a young woman is advanced in preg- 
 nancy, she is * in a family way ;' when her child is born 
 she has a family; yet this term is seldom used absolute- 
 ly, unless three or four children or more compose the fam- 
 ily;" p. 232. He will permit us to use the term, however, 
 if we grant that the children were divided — the older 
 males remaining with their father, and the infant and 
 female children departing with their mother ; and he 
 "demands, therefore, valid reasons why the family at- 
 tached to their mother, Lydia, was not a youug family. 
 Moreover, seeing dauylitem are always more attached to 
 their mothers than sons are, and lor a longer term of 
 years, I demand also valid reasons for denying that 
 Lydia's family were dauyhtcrs, in whole or in part, since 
 there is the greater chance that they were daughters 
 rather than suns;" p. 234. As this nameless husbaud of 
 Lydia then could not himself '* be ia a family way," and 
 
NO EXAMPLE IN THE SCRIPTURES. 241 
 
 as his wife, Dr. Summers intimates, had all the children 
 who alone could compose the family with her, we must 
 give up the mocle of expression, and shape our question 
 in another way. Wei!, then, upon the supposition that 
 he was left at Thyatira, what good reason can be given 
 
 why this man's family and here I came in one of 
 
 committing the same blunder again ; but how can I help 
 it, when I partake of the ignorance of English which pre- 
 vails in this remote American outskirt. Before we start 
 again, let us endeavor to become well grounded in the 
 philological first principles, which Dr. Summers lays 
 down — 
 
 1. "When a young woman (and an old one too?) is 
 advanced in pregnancy, she is ' in ?i. family way.' " This 
 is going back to preparatory first principles, and wethinic 
 we understand it. 
 
 2. " When her cnild is born, she has a /am'7y." 
 This is the next step, and the conclusion ; arid it » 
 very clear as far as it r/oes, but the inference from it is* 
 very strong that a man can have no family at all. ThusJ 
 much, however, we learn very satisfactorily, that wheii-'- 
 ever a neighbor inquires of "a young woman" (and of 
 an old one too ?) with one child, "How are your /a»i*" 
 ihjP^ the meaning is, What is the state of health of 
 your child ? But to return — - ; -: 
 
 Upon the supposition that " Lydia's husband " was at 
 Thyatira, upon what principles can it be explained that 
 his wife and " her family " left him, and crossed the 
 j$]g9ean Sea into Macedonia, four hundred miles or more 
 from home, to engage in selling purple } Is it a common 
 IG 
 
242 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 thing — nay, was such a case ever heard of, that a woman 
 "which worshiped God" should leave her husband at 
 home, and, with a " large family of young children, 
 daughtei-s in whole or in part," go off to a foreign coun- 
 try three or four hundred miles, to engage among total 
 strangers in selling purple, or in any other business? 
 What mother would undertake such a journey with a 
 large " family " of " little daughters," exposing them and 
 herself not only to fatigue, but to danger, among stran- 
 gers, without a protector ? And what hope could she 
 have of realizing any profit from her traffic, encumbered 
 as she was by a large number of little daughters? The 
 large majority of mothers find that it is about as much 
 as they can do to look after the interests of a numerous 
 dfepring at home, though the greater part of their time 
 be devoted to that object. And then to think of the 
 scandal of the supposed course. A little while ago 
 Lydia was too delicate to go into the water with '* one 
 of the: other sex," but here she recklessly violates all pro- 
 priety, and boldly braves public opinion by tearing her- 
 self from her husband's bed and board, and setting up 
 for herself an independent business and residence in a 
 foreign country. Nor can she be excused on the ground 
 that the business in which she embarked was lucrative ; 
 for if Lydia was the woman Dr. Summers takes her to 
 be, she could have sent her husband on the business and 
 compelled him to attend to it. Besidts the outrage she 
 would have committed against public opinion and upon her 
 disconsolate husband, by her abandonment of him, think 
 of her cruelty to the fond father, in forcibly taking his 
 
NO EXAMPLE IN THE SCRIPTURES. 243 
 
 beloved little daughters from his embraces. Reasoning 
 upon our author's principles, we all know how natural it 
 is for fathers to be specially attached to their little girls. 
 For I am bound to yield to Dr. Summers' opinion as to 
 the sex of these children he has discovered with Lydia ; 
 I am no more able to give him " valid reasons " to 
 show that they were not ^'' daughter^) in whole or in 
 part," than I am to furnish the same kind of reasons to 
 show that the eyes of the "man in the moon" are not 
 of a pea-green color. 
 
 To suppose that Lydia's husband was at Philippi is to 
 reflect on him — to suppose he was left at Thyatira 
 is to reflect on her. On the whole, we may conclude 
 that if she ever had a husband, he must at that time have 
 been dead. If Lydia had a large number of daughters 
 she must have been, at the time of her baptism, a 
 widow. 
 
 Now, if Lydia was a widow, " her husband " died 
 either at Thyatira or somewhere else absent from her, or 
 at Philippi, where he was, perhaps, engaged in the busi- 
 ness which devolved upon her after his death. The for- 
 mer cannot be true, for the reasons given above to show 
 that Lydia, who " worshiped God," could not have 
 abandoned him for the purpose indicated — though such 
 treatment was well nigh calculated, poor man ! to break 
 his heart. Nor could he have died at Philippi, for then 
 all those " daughters, in whole or in part," would have 
 vanished into the nothingness from which Dr. Summers 
 called them. The whole argument going to show the sex 
 of the children that were "attached to their mother Lydia," 
 
244 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 is based upon the assumption '' that f/aw// A <f'r5- are always 
 more attached to tlieir mothers than sons are;" pp. 234. 
 And therefore it assumes that the husband and father 
 was left behind somewhere. 
 
 Now I do not know one word about the ages and the 
 characters of the persons composing Lydia's household. 
 It may have been composed entirely, like a part at least 
 of the household of Cornelius, of servants and persons 
 in hpr employ — or it may have been made up entirely of 
 her children, sons or daughters, or both ; but of whom- 
 soever composed, I am well assured that they were all 
 old enough to understand and believe the gospel ; for, 
 1. The commission prohibited the administration of bap- 
 tism to any but to those exercising faith in Christ; and 2. 
 Because Luke called them afterwards " brethren," Acts 
 16: 40. "And tliey went out of the prison, and entered 
 into the house of Lydia: and when they had seen the 
 brethren^ they comforted them and departed." Dr. S., 
 however, maintains that "these brethren were neither 
 servants nor sons of Lydia. They were, probably, no 
 other than Luke and Timothy, who sojourned at Lydia's 
 house during the imprisonment of Paul and Silas;" p. 
 33. That is, Luke speaking of himself and Timothy, 
 says, not when they had seen us, but when they had 
 seen the brethren^ they comforted them ! 
 
 We have seen how much Dr. Summers' English 
 criticism has done towards the support of Lydia's " nu- 
 merous young family — her daughters in whole or in 
 part ;" let us next see what marvels his Greek criticism 
 can accomplish : " When the Apostle baptized Ste- 
 
NO EXAMPLE IN THE SCRIPTURES. 245 
 
 phanas and Lydia, he baptized, also, their families. The 
 term oikos means fomily^ as distinct from oikia^ house- 
 hold." " Thus, he baptized the oikos, the family, of 
 Stephanas ; but he speaks of the oik'ia^ the household^ as 
 addictino; themselves to the ministry of the saints, that 
 is, performing the duties of hospitality towards them. 
 Such services would not, of course, be restricted to Ste- 
 phanas, with his wife and children, the oikos of Stephanas, 
 but would be rendered also by the servants of the family, 
 in which case the word oikia is proper to be used, and 
 it is used accordingly," p. 32. " Oikos imports the 
 family, and oikia the attendants on a family, the servants 
 of various kinds," p. 231 He says he quotes this "from 
 Taylor's unanswered and unanswerable work on Apos- 
 tolic Baptism^ Now, this dissertation is precisely upon 
 a par with that on the English word /a m?7y ; nay, it is 
 even more fanciful, as we shall proceed to show : 
 
 1. The Greek words oikos and oikia are used inter- 
 changeably in the New Testament. Luke (7: 6) calls 
 the Centurion's house oikia. and in v. 10 he calls it 
 oikos. Christ says (Luke 10: 5, 7) — " Into whatsoever 
 oikia ye enter, first say, peace be unto this oikos ; and 
 in the same oikia remain," &c. Luke (8: 41) calls 
 Jairus' house oikos^ and in v. 51 he calls the same oikia. 
 In John, 11: 20, the house of Martha and Mary is called 
 oikos. and in v. 31 it is called oikia. The Jailer's house, 
 in Ac. 16: 32, is called oikia, and in v. 34 it is called 
 oikos. Christ calls his Father's house both oikos and 
 oikia, John 2: 16 and 14: 2. And so we might go on 
 multiplying quotations. It is wonderful that the learned 
 
24G BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND fiUDJECTS. 
 
 writer and the learned (]iiot(!r of "tlic unanswered and 
 unanswerable work on Apostolic Baptism " overlooked 
 these things. 
 
 2. Let us, in addition, apjily our author's definitions 
 to some few of the passages in wliich the words occur, 
 and see what will be the interesting result. Oikos, it 
 will be recollected, means family, including the idea of 
 young childrer, or the residence of the family^ and oikia, 
 servants or attendants, or the residence of servants. 
 Very well; let us see : Mat. 10: 12, 13--" And when 
 ye come into a oikia, kitchen, salute it. And if the 
 oikia, kitchen, l^e worthy, let your peace come u])on it," 
 &c. Mat. 12: 25 — "Every oikia, kitchen, divided 
 against itself shall not stand." Luke 11: 17, j)ronoun- 
 ces the same consequence to the occupants of the family 
 mansion — " And a oikos, family, children of a family, 
 the occupants of a family mansion, divided against a 
 oikos, falleth." Christ says — " Ir> my Father's oikiaj 
 kitchen, are many mansions!" Mat. 19: 29 — '*And 
 every one that hath forsaken oikia, kitchens, (fee, for my 
 name's sake, (fee, shall inherit everlasting life." 2 Cor. 
 5: 2 — " For we know that if our earthly oikia, kitchen, 
 of this tabernacle be dissolved, we have, etc., a oikia, a 
 kitchen, not made with hands eternal in the heavens." 
 2 John 10: — "If there come any unto you, and bring 
 not this doctrine, receive him not into your oikia, kitchen, 
 neither bid him (iod speed." John 4: 53 — "So the 
 father knew that it was at the same hour, in the which 
 Jesus said unto him, thy son liveth ; and himself believed 
 and his whole oikia, kitchen, or household servants," i. e. 
 
NO EXAMPLE IN THE SCRIPTURES. 24Y 
 
 the mother and children were not at all affected. 1 Cor. 
 11: 22 — " What ? have ye not oikia, kitchens, to eat and 
 to drink in ?" l^ut why need we multiply quotations ? 
 The result is very interesting, and the temptation is very 
 strong to apply the principle to the numberless other 
 examples ; but we must forbear. The fancied distinction 
 between the Greek words oikos and oikia is all the evi- 
 dence our author has to prove the existence of infants in 
 the household of Lydia. The plain English word house- 
 hold does not necessarily include infants, and we ask the 
 common-sense reader if it has not been conclusively 
 shown that the Greek word oikos testifies, as clearly as 
 such an outlandish word can testify — " Infants are not 
 necessarily contained in me." 
 
 To prove infant baptism from Lydia's household, it 
 must be shown that she had ever been married — that 
 she had children — that her children were any of them 
 young enough to be entitled to the faith of their parent. 
 Now, none of these things have been shown, nor can 
 they be. Thus goes another of " the massy balwarks 
 by which infant baptism is defended !"' 
 
 Section II. — Household Baptisms^ continued. The 
 Jailor^ &c. 
 
 The next case on record is the Jailor''s household : 
 "And the keeper of the prison, awaking ou*. of his 
 sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his 
 sword and would have killed himself, supposing that the 
 prisoners had been ^ed. But Paul cried out with a loud 
 voice, saying, Do thyself no harm, for we are all here. 
 
248 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 Then he called for a liglit, and sprang in, and came 
 trembling and fell down before Paul and Silas and 
 brought them out, and said : Sirs, what must I do to be 
 saved ? And they said, believe on the Lord Jesus 
 Christ and thou shalt be saved and thy house. And 
 they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to nil 
 that ivere in his house. And he took them the same 
 hour of the night, and washed their stripes, and was 
 baptized, he and all his, straightway. And when he 
 had brought them into his house, he set meat before 
 them, and rejoiced^ believinr/ in God^ with all his houseJ^ 
 1. He and all his were baptized, but to him and to 
 all that were in his house, Paul spake the word of the 
 Lord. All in the one case is the same as all in the 
 other. I do not know that he had any children. I do 
 not even know that he had a wife, nor can any one make 
 it appear from the record. Suppose, however, he had 
 children, and that one or more of them were infants ; 
 then what is the result ? Paul spake the word of the 
 Lord to infants I The earthquake and the appalling 
 circumstances attending it, had, doubtless, aroused from 
 their slumbers all the adult members of the household, 
 but the unconscious infant was still locked in sweet 
 repose, or, perhaps, unconscious of the impending dan- 
 ger, it was fretting on account of the unseemly disturb- 
 ance. Paul, in answer to the question of the Jailor, had 
 nformed him of the means by which, not only himself, 
 buL his household also, might be saved. The affection- 
 ate father, not willing to monopolize the blessing, des- 
 patches tlie nurse to bring, from its cradle, his " infant 
 
NO EXAMPLE IN THE SCRIPTURES. 249 
 
 seed." It is now after the hour of midnight. Imagine, 
 then, the profound " Apostle of the Gentiles " standing 
 before this drowsy and fretful inftint, and gravely explain- 
 ing to it the way of salvation, through a crucified Saviour, 
 while the nurse is vainly endeavoring to keep it awake, 
 or the mother to pacify its clamors for the breast. Ima- 
 gine tliese things to be true, and then tell me what 
 foundation Paul had for the declaration — " When I 
 became a man I put away childish things I" All in the 
 house were baptized : — but all in the house had the word 
 of the Lord preached to them previously. 
 
 2. All the members of the Jailor's household were 
 baptized, but the same '' all " beheved in the Lord Jesus 
 Christ before submitting to the ordinance. Now, if the 
 puhng infant could have believed in any thing at ail, it 
 would have been only in the unreasonable molestation to 
 which it was subjected, and, no doubt, it would have 
 given a most unmistakable manifestation of tliat faith. 
 The record states that the household were baptized, not 
 on the faith of the head, but on their own faith. And 
 do tell me, can an infant exercise faith in Christ 'i 
 
 3. All in the Jailor's house not only believi^d and were 
 baptized, but rejoiced, as the Ethiopian eunuch, having 
 " the answer of a good conscience." Can an infant 
 rejoice ? I do not know that this class of human beings 
 can experience an emotion that rises as high as joy, but 
 I have no doubt that when jt was restored back to its 
 cradle, if it had not been fretted too much in the pro- 
 cess, it experienced no little relief that the, to it, unmean- 
 ing and foolish ceremony was over. 
 
m 
 
 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 All the Jailor's household were not only baptized, but 
 they heard the Gosj^el, they believed in Christ, and they 
 rejoiced, having " the answer of a good conscience," and 
 none of these things can be predicated of an infant. 
 
 Dr. Summers maintains not only that the Jailor had 
 children in his fomily, but that he had numbers of them, 
 and, my dear reader, how do you suppose he proves it ? 
 Let him speak for himself: "The Philippian jailor 
 rejoiced, believing in God, with all his numerous family. 
 He could not have been an old man. His first intention 
 after the earthquake — ' He drew his sword, and would 
 have killed himself ' — is not the character of age, which 
 is more deliberate in its determinations. The action is 
 that of a fervid mind. In like manner, ' he called for 
 hghts and sprang in.' The original well expresses the 
 strenuous action of a man in the vigor of life ; yet this 
 man had a numerous family, which, according to nature, 
 must have contained young children," p. 236. " Scrip- 
 ture uses the word all and ivhole, to import many — nu- 
 merousr " The consequence is inevitable, that families 
 distinguished by the word all or whole, had many chil- 
 dren, since children are the family," p. 235. Let us trace 
 up the different steps of this argument, and while we are 
 doing so, I beg the reader to preserve his gravity ; / 
 will try : 
 
 1. The Jailor had children. How do you know ? 
 Why, he had a family, and " there can be no family 
 without children," as was so clearly shown a few pages 
 back. It is of no importance for us to know whether 
 his wife was alive or dead, or whether he ever had a 
 
NO EXAMPLE IN THE SCRIPTURES. 251 
 
 wife ; for " a man and his wife are not a family.^'' 
 Whether '' his family " were born in lawful wedlock or 
 in adultery, we need not inquire. It is enough for us to 
 know that he had a family^ and " children are the 
 family." Let no one object to this, that Luke uses oikos 
 and oikia interchangeably in the record, and that the 
 pedobaptist translators of our present version render it 
 house or household. Let no one annoy us by the cavil- 
 ing question — " Suppose the Jailor had a wife, and there 
 were living with him his or her mother, and a half-dozen 
 of their brothers and sisters as his wards, besides a score 
 of men-servants and maidservants, would he have had a 
 family then ?" It is enough for us to know that he had 
 ?i family, and "children are the family." 
 
 2. The Jailor had a numerous family. And how do 
 we know this ? Why, the inspired writer says " all his " 
 were baptized with hira, and " Scripture uses the word 
 all to import many — numo'ousr " The consequence is 
 inevitable, that families distinguished by the word aU., 
 had many children. That is, if his family had consisted 
 of two children, and they had been baptized together 
 with their parents and all the adults, all of the family 
 Would not have been baptized !" This is as clear as 
 the " unanswered and unanswerable argument " can 
 make it. 
 
 3. Some of the Jailor's children must have been 
 young children. And how do we know that? Why, 
 the father was in the prime of life. He dreiv his sword. 
 An old man never does that; he takes a swoid out of 
 the scabbard in some other way, and without drawing 
 
252 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 it ! He would have killed himself. Who ever heard 
 of any one that committed suicide after the prime of 
 life ? Old men, as a general thing, know better than 
 that, and are more cautious. He showed the possession 
 of a '• fervid mind." Don't tell me that he may have 
 been a man advanced in Hfe, whose "fervor" was but 
 another name for his fear and (K/itution on account of 
 impending danger. For we "demand valid reasons" 
 to show that he was not as much accustomed to earth- 
 quakes as the old lady in the Mississippi valley, who, 
 when her guest manifested alarm at a sudden shock, 
 said, " Don't be scared, its only the earthquake." He 
 SPRANG IN, which expresses a strenuous action. Who ever 
 knew a man beyond his prime to accelerate his pace for 
 any reason ? The chain of the argument, then, is complete. 
 
 1. His family was made up entirely of children, 
 " since children are the family !" 
 
 2. He had numerous children, for all his children 
 were baptized, and all could not have been if there had 
 been only a few ! 
 
 3. Some of his children were young children, for he 
 was a young man of " fervid mind " and " strenuous 
 action," and, consequently, " according to nature, his 
 numerous family muat have contained young children." 
 Now, " all his " were baptized ; consequently, this case 
 of the Jailoi" rears up a " massy bulwark of infant bap- 
 tism," which we should like to see any man overthrow ! 
 
 My readers must not become disgusted with me, for I 
 must bring myself down to the level of Dr. Summers' 
 argument before I can reply to it. 
 
NO EXAMPLE IN THE SCRIPTURES. 253 
 
 But why need I go through the hst of household 
 baptisms in detail ? They all contain statements that 
 ought to show conclusively, that no infants were bap- 
 tized in them. Thus, the household of Stephanas " ad- 
 dicted themselves to the ministry of the saints." 1 Cor. 
 14: 15, 16, and IG: 15. x\rid " Crispus, the chief ruler 
 of the synagogue, believed on the Lord vnih all his 
 homey Ac. 18: 8. 
 
 The distinguished Pedobaptist. historian, Neander, con- 
 fesses — " We cannot prove that the apostles ordained 
 infant baptism ; from those places where the baptism of 
 a whole family is mentioned, as in Acts 16: 33, 1 Cor. 
 1: 16, we can draw no such conclusion, because the 
 inquiry is still to be made, whether there were any chil- 
 dren in these families, of such an age, that they were not 
 capable of any intelligent reception of Christianity ; for 
 this is the only point on which the case turns." Ch, 
 Hist. p. 198. 
 
 But here we are met with an arrjunienium ad homi- 
 nem : ''■ Here let me ask, was it ever known that a case 
 of family baptism occurred under the direction of a Bap- 
 tist minister," Dr. Miller, p. 24. To this I answer : 
 
 1. Suppose such a case had never happened among 
 Baptists of the present day. v/ould that make it impro- 
 bable that whole families were converted at the time of 
 the first planting of Christianity, when God operated by 
 Christ's apostles with miraculous power ? 
 
 2. If you have not heard of such a case, however, it 
 is your own fault, for such cases are numerous. 
 
 " Should we not think it very singular to find accounts 
 
254 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 oi family baptisms in a liistoiy of Baptist Missions?" 
 Dr. Woods, p. 79. I think it is likely you would, but 
 that does not render the existence of such accounts im- 
 possible. " There were eight baptized families belonging 
 to the Karen Baptist Mission, before it was as old as the 
 Apostolic Mission when the family of Lydia was baptized. 
 The Christian Watchman of Jan. 29th, 1841, presents 
 authentic proof of the existence, at that time, of upwards 
 of fifty baptized households connected with Baptist 
 churches — every member of whom was baptized on pro- 
 fession of faith and added to the church " — Crowell's 
 Ch. Mem. Man., Boston, 1847, p. 158, as quoted by Dr. 
 J. L. Reynolds. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 INFANT BAPTISM CANNOT BE SUSTAINED BY INFERENCE 
 AND ANALOGY. 
 
 Section I. — Female Communion. Change of the 
 Sabbath. 
 
 We have thus gone through the Scriptures, and we 
 ask the unprejudiced reader if it has not been shown 
 conclusively that there is neither precept nor example, 
 for infant baptism, in all God's word. The commission 
 of the Saviour is limited to the baptism of believers, 
 
INFANT BAPTISM CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 256 
 
 and examples of none other than such — both men and 
 women — are recorded. No where do we fiod it hinted, 
 much less stated, that infants are entitled to this ordi- 
 nance. No precept do we find addressed to parents, 
 enjoining upon them to see to it, that their infants secure 
 it as a privilege to which they are entitled. And this is 
 the more remarkable, too, when the advantages of the 
 ordinance to children are so numerous, if Dr. Summers* 
 testimony be true ; and no where, in the early planting 
 of Christianity, do we find christian parents dedicating 
 their infant children by baptism, or the apostles exhorting 
 them to do so, or even alluding, in the slightest way, to 
 the subject, either in their addresses or in their writings. 
 And this, too, is not because the cases of little children 
 are overlooked in God's word. The Saviour loved them 
 and proclaimed, " Sufler little children to come unto me 
 and forbid them not " — the Israelites were commanded to 
 circumcise them, and instructed, too, minutely, even as 
 to the day — their presence with the five thousand men 
 (Mat. 14: 21), and with the five thousand (15: 38), mi- 
 raculously fed by Christ, is noted. The Holy Spirit 
 does not even overlook them in stating by whom Paul 
 was accompanied out of the city of Tyre, when he was 
 on his way to Jerusalem for the last. time — "And they 
 all brought us on our way, with wives and children" 
 Ac. 2 J: 5. Is it not remarkable, upon the supposition 
 that their baptism is a Scriptural institution, that the 
 Bible is so profoundly silent on the subject ? This very 
 fact ought to be decisive with every unprejudiced mind. 
 And upon what principle can those who acknowledge 
 
256 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 that there is neither precept nor example for it, attempt, 
 consistently, to " make it out in some other way V 
 
 But, here it is answered that there are other things as im- 
 portant as infant baptism, for which there is no express pre- 
 cept and no apostolic precedent, wliich we ourselves have to 
 make out in some other wa} : " It is no where recorded 
 that the apostles administered the Lord's Supper to women, 
 yet no one doubts that they did, and no one thinks of 
 excluding women from this ordinance because of this 
 omission in the record," Summers p. 49. The same, in 
 principle, is asserted wi'h reference to the change of the 
 Sabbath, or the substitution of the first for the seventh 
 day as a day of rest, p. 179. 
 
 Now, if you can prove to us that female communion 
 and the substitution of the Lord's day for the Jewish 
 Sabbath rest on the same foundation, you will convince 
 us, not that infant baptism is a scriptural institution, but 
 that we have violated God'r- word in admitting females 
 to the communion, and in changing the day of rest ; and 
 we will amend our ways by going back, as speedily as 
 possible, to the scriptural rule. Nay, we will go further. 
 If you can prove to us that there is as much scriptural 
 authority fur infant baptism, as we can show in behalf of 
 these things you place in the sam.e category with it, we 
 pledge ourselves to advocate it and to practice it ! 
 
 1. We are prepared to show that the apostles did 
 administer the Lord's Supper to females, and did enjoin 
 it upon them to partake of it : 
 
 1st. Females were baptized and added to the churches. 
 Lydia was baptized, "and believei*s were the more added 
 
INFANT BAPTISM CANNOT BE SUSTAINEB. 267 
 
 to the church, multitudes, both of men and ivomen.^^ 
 Ac. 5: 14. " But when they believed Philip, preaching 
 the things concerning the kingdom of God, they were 
 baptized, both men and luomen.''^ 8: 12. You can find 
 no positive statement in the Scriptures that infants were 
 baptized and added to the church. 
 
 2. Females constituted a part of their worshiping 
 assemblies. " These all continued with one accord in 
 prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary, the 
 mother of Jesus." 1: 14. And this you cannot say of 
 infants. 
 
 3. The Apostle Paul enjoined it upon females as well 
 as upon males to partake of the Lord's Supper, because 
 (1) he directed his injunction to the Corinthian church, 
 which was composed, in part, of females : " For I have 
 received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto 
 youy 1 Cor. 11: 23. "For we (Who? Believers. 
 And we have a positive statement that females were 
 believers) being many, are one bread and one body ; 
 for we are all partakers of that one bread." All who 
 compose the members of Christ's mystical body are 
 spiritually united to him by faith. Now, we are ex 
 pressly told that females possessed faith ; therefore, 
 females are members of that one body, and were exhorted 
 to partake of the bread, which was an emblem of the 
 body of Christ broken. Again, of a like nature is 
 the statement of Luke, Ac. 2: 42, 44 — " And they 
 continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and 
 fellowship, and in breaking of bread and in- prayers. 
 And all that believed were together and had all things 
 
 17 
 
2fl8 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AKD SUBJECTS. 
 
 common." Now, besides the reasonable certainty that 
 maty of those who beHeved on the day of Pentecost 
 were females, we are distinctly told that some of those 
 who constituted the " all," in Jerusalem, were women. 
 Ac. 1:14. And we are assured that some of those who 
 professed to have all things common, were Ananias and 
 Sapphira, his wife. 5: 1. Again, 20: 1 — "And upon the 
 first day of the week, when the disciples came together 
 to break bread," &c. All those who heard and believed 
 the Gospel were disciples ; females heard and believed 
 the Gospel ; therefore, females were disciples, and consti- 
 tuted a part of those who, at Troas, came together to 
 break bread. But we will give you something more 
 definite than this — though if you could produce even as 
 strong an argument as this, in favor of infant baptism, 
 we would surrender to it. 
 
 The Apostle Paul enjoined it upon females as well as 
 upon males to partake of the Lord's supper, because (2) 
 he used terms which, being of the common gender, ex- 
 press both males and females. In 1 Cor. 11: 28, the 
 word for man is anthropos^ which can mean either a 
 male or a female, and not awer, which means a male 
 only. In the previous part of the chapter he points out 
 the duties severally of males and females. When refer- 
 ence is made to the duties exclusively of males, the word 
 aner is invariably used ; see verses 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 
 14. As soon, however, as the Lord's Supper becomes 
 the topic of discoui*se, he uses the term anthropos^ which 
 includes both male and female. " Let a man, anthropos, 
 examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and 
 
INFANT BAPTISM CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 269 
 
 drink of that cup." The same word antJiropos is used 
 by Christ when he speaks of himself as the son of man^ 
 when we know that he, the seed of the woman, was not 
 the son of Joseph, but of Mary. Deny this interpreta- 
 tion of the word anthropos, and we will at once run you 
 into the most inextricable difl5culties. Deny it, and you 
 cannot prove, excepting by inference, and not even by that 
 conclusively, that females can be saved ! There is "one 
 mediator between God and man," arithroj^os ; but there 
 is no mediator for the w^oman. "Except a man {tis, an- 
 other Greek word that is both masculine and feminine) 
 be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God ;" but 
 a woman may see the kingdom without the new birth. 
 " If any man (iis) be in Christ he is a new creature," 
 but a woman could not be a new creature, though she 
 were in Christ. " Lord, what is man [anthropos) that 
 thou art mindful of him ;" but it is not wonderful that 
 thou art mindful of woman. ^'■Man [anthropos) that is 
 born of woman is of few days, and full of trouble ;" but 
 these are not the lot of woman. Would to God that it 
 were so ! Would to God that it were not true that the 
 most crushing troubles she has to bear did not result to 
 her from being unequally yoked together with the tyranni- 
 cal and brutal of my own sex ? If anything more needs 
 to be added, one passage of Scripture makes it so clear 
 that caviHng is impossible. "So God created man in 
 His own image ; in the image of God created he him; 
 male and female created he them.^^ 
 
 " There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond 
 nor free ; there is neither male nor female, (the Apostle, 
 
260 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 observe, docs not add there is neither adult nor infant,) 
 for ye are all one in Christ Jesus;" Gal. 3: 2^. 
 
 I close this topic with the following quotation from 
 Dr. Wardlaw, a distinguished writer on the other side of 
 the question : "I am not going to take up the ground 
 which by some pedobaptists has been assumed, that on 
 the principle of the objection, we have no direct and ex- 
 plicit authority for the admission of women to the Lord's 
 table, because this has always appeared to me ground 
 hardly consistent with manly fjiirness and candor, and 
 calculated to enfeeble rather than to strengthen, to ex- 
 pose to a sneer rather than recommend to acceptance, 
 the cause it is meant to support." Int. Obs. p. xiii. 
 
 2. For the substitution of " the Lord's day " for the 
 Jewish Sabbath, we have unequivocal Apostolic prece- 
 dent. The change was made under the sanction of in- 
 spired men, whose business it was to " set all things in 
 order " that pertained to the worship and moral govern- 
 ment of Christ's church, and the observance therefore of 
 the first instead of the seventh day, possesses to us the 
 nature both of a precept and a precedent. " And upon 
 the first day of the week, when the disciples came to- 
 gether to break bread, Paul preached unto them," etc.. 
 Acts 20: 1. " Upon the first day of the week let every 
 one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered 
 him;" 1 Cor. 16: 2. We have furnished you an evi- 
 dence which you will not reject that the inspired Apostles 
 observed " the Lord's day," instead of the Jewish Sab- 
 bath — show us evidence as conclusive in favor of infant 
 baptism — prove to us that there was one undoubted in- 
 
INFANT BAPTISM CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 26 
 
 stance in which they administered baj^ttisni to infants, 
 and we will submit, and will without hesitation follow 
 the inspired example. Though, even in that case we 
 should have to baptize them over, just as soon as 
 they professed faith in Christ, for the baptism of the 
 commission is the baptism of believers. But you cannot 
 show one undoubted instance of the baptism of infants 
 by the Apostles. 
 
 Female communion and the substitution of the " Lord's 
 day " for the Jewish Sabbath, do not rest upon the same 
 foundation as infant baptism. 
 
 Section II. — Infant baptism not founded on the nat- 
 ural relations between jyious parents and their children. 
 
 We think the intelligent and unprejudiced reader is, 
 by this time, prepared to say with us that the Sacred 
 Scriptures refer in terms neither directly or indirectly to 
 infant baptism ; and that if it were not an existing insti- 
 tution, it would never be suggested to one who would 
 read God's word for the first time. But^o our brethren 
 who practice and defend it acknowledge that it is with- 
 out scriptural sanction ? When they propose to " make 
 it out in another way," do they mean to intimate that a 
 positive institution of Christ's church can be based upon 
 any other than a scriptural foundation ? No. We 
 would not do them the injustice to intimate such a thing. 
 When Dr. Woods and other candid pedobaptists grant 
 that "there is no express precept respecting infant bap- 
 tism in our sacred writings," they still maintain that it is 
 a divine institution ; and while they do not profess to 
 
262 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 found it upon express precept or precedent, they still in- 
 sist that it can be " made out " upon scriptural princii:^hs. 
 They maintain, as they think, upon scriptural principles, 
 that the rite of infant baptism manifestly corresponds 
 with the natural relation between parents and children ; 
 that God, under the old dispensation, marked that rela- 
 tion by a significant rite ; that children were members of 
 the church under the Old Testament economy, and there- 
 fore, by parity of reasoning, under the new ; and that 
 baptism under the new dispensation came in the place of 
 the initiating rite under the old. So far, therefore, from 
 yielding to our demands for a " Thus saith the Lord," for 
 the baptism of inftmts, they insist that the obligation 
 rests upon us rather to produce the same to show that 
 they should not be baptized. This has seemed conclu- 
 sive reasoning to the thousands of, we presume, honest 
 minds : let us see, however, if it will bear the test of 
 critical examination : 
 
 ]. The close and endearing connection between parents 
 and children, a^rds a strong argument in favor of the 
 church membership of the infant seed of behevers. The 
 voice of nature is lifted up, and pleads most powerfully in 
 behalf of our cause. The thought of severing parents 
 from their offspring, in regard to the most interesting- 
 relations in which it has pleased God in his adorable 
 providence to place them, is equally repugnant to chris- 
 tian feeling and to natural law. Can it be, my friends, 
 that when the stem is in the church, the branch is out 
 of it? Can it be that when the parentis within the visi- 
 ble kindom of the Redeemer, his offspring, bone of his 
 
INFANT BAPTISM CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 263 
 
 bone, and flesh of bis flesh, have no connection with it ?" 
 Dr. Miller, p. 16. This is sufficiently aflfecting and 
 pretty ; but it will not bear examination. 
 
 1st. This is to assume that salvation is hereditary — 
 that all the children of believers, without a single excep- 
 tion, are saved. For, " can it be that when the stem is 
 in" heaven the branch is out of it ? Can it be that 
 when the parent is within the kingdom of " glory," his 
 offspring, bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh, have 
 no connection with it," but are heirs of hell and the vic- 
 tims of despair ? Then all the children of pious pa- 
 rents are sure of eternal hfe. Then all the descendants 
 of " faithful Abraham" will be saved, not only through 
 the lines of Isaac and Jacob, but through the lines 
 also of Esau, of Ishmael, and of the sons of Keturah ! 
 For this, more powerfully is " the voice of nature lifted 
 up and pleads !" Why is the union of parents and chil- 
 dren in church relationship, more interesting than their 
 union in heaven ? 
 
 2d. This is to assume, that to admit the " infant seed 
 of believers" into the church, is to establish a spiritual 
 and christian union and communion between them and 
 their parents, which did not exist before, and could not 
 exist otherwise ! What are those " interesting relations" 
 in regard to which parents are severed from their oft- 
 spring by a refusal to admit the latter to church mem- 
 bership ? By the baptism of the latter, are they the better 
 able to hold sweet counsel together, and to walk to the 
 house of God in company ? Are they qualified the more 
 to " speak often one to another" about the truths of 
 
264 BAPTISM IN irS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 revelation, and the dealings of God with their souls ? 
 Are the barriers of church communion removed, so that 
 they can meet together at the table of the Lord, and 
 unitedly engage in partaking of the emblems of the bro- 
 ken body and shed blood of Christ ? In the name of 
 common sense, what fraternal relations are produced be- 
 tween the parent and an unconscious infant, by the nomi- 
 nal admission of the latter into the church ? 
 
 " This duty is reasonable in itself, and in accordance 
 with our best affections. In the children of those we 
 love, we all naturally feel a peculiar interest. A good 
 prince would wish, and would provide, that the children 
 of his beloved and faithful friends should be placed in a 
 near relation to himself. And shall it be supposed that 
 the Prince of Life will not regard, with tokens of peculiar 
 favor, the children of his covenant people ?" Rev. J. 
 Tracy, Art. " Baptism," Enc. Rel. Knowl. Dr. Tracy's 
 voice of reason is, if possible, liable to greater and more 
 numerous objections, than Dr. Miller's " voice of nature^ 
 
 1. It, too, implies, very strongly, that all the children 
 of believers are sure of eternal life. " A good prince 
 would wish, and would provide, that the children of his 
 beloved and faithful friends should be placed in a near 
 relation to himself." " And shall it be supposed that 
 the Prince of Life" would leave among the non-elect 
 " the children of his covenant people ?" This conse- 
 quence is inevitable, but suppose we waive it, for the 
 sake of argument. Then, 
 
 2. According to the premises, the infant is not in- 
 debted to the " Prince of Life" for admission to th« 
 
INFANT BAPTISM CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 265 
 
 church, but to the parent. True, it is said that the Sa- 
 viour bestows the right ; but how can the infant become 
 acquainted with its right, and how can it claim it ? But 
 it is replied, that the church membership of the infant is 
 a joint favor conferred upon it and its believing parent, 
 and that it is made the duty of the parent to see that his 
 offspring secure the privilege to which it is entitled. We 
 need not ask for the precept pointing out this parental 
 duty ; for our brethren frankly acknowledge there is none 
 such in express terms, and point us for evidence to this 
 very train of reasoning we are now reviewing. Let us 
 confine our attention, then, to the first part of the state- 
 ment, which asserts that infant baptism is a favor con- 
 ferred jointly upon a believer and his infant offspring. 
 
 1st. How is the baptism of the infant a favor conferred 
 upon the parent ? Does the " dedication of his child in 
 baptism" increase his own spirituality, or tend to make 
 his own salvation more secure ? In what respect is the 
 offering of his child in baptism a " means of grace" to 
 himself? Is it said that it is a solemn ceremony, which is 
 calculated to impress upon him a sense of the duty he 
 owes his child, not only to dedicate him to God, but to 
 rear him up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, 
 and to stimulate him to the discharge of those duties ? 
 Then I answer, you must add another clause to your defi- 
 nition of baptism. " It" not only " refers to the remis- 
 sion of sins by the blood of Christ, and regeneration by 
 his spirit ;" it not only " teaches us that we are by nature 
 guilty and depraved, and stand in need of the pardoning 
 and sanctifying grace of God by a crucified Redeemer," 
 
26* BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 but it is designed to impress upon parents their duties 
 to their oftspring, and to stimulate them to discharge 
 them. The very fact — I will say by the way, that you 
 cannot give a definition of baptism which will include 
 your notions of your infantile rite — shows very clearly 
 that it is diflferent from the scriptural ordinance. But to 
 return. If the solemn ceremony is that which profits the 
 parent, would not the same eflfect be produced if oil and 
 spittle were substituted for water, and the oflficiating 
 priest or minister should solemnly dedicate your child 
 by anointing it ? Would not the use of the oil impress 
 you as much as the use of the water ? Nay more, would 
 not the- parent be just as much instructed and stimulated by 
 bringing his " infant seed" into the public congregation, 
 and dedicating it to God in the prayers of the minister 
 and of all the people of God ? Now this last we have 
 no objection to, nor could it be objected to excepting on 
 the ground of the tendency of poor human nature to run 
 such things into superstition. It is not then the baptism 
 of the child that benefits the parent so much as the 
 solemn ceremony attending the baptism. On this prin- 
 ciple the Romanist and the Puseyite defend all their 
 scenic exhibitions. The parent, therefore, is benefited 
 on the same principle that superstition benefits its vota- 
 ries. I mean this as the conclusion of the argument, and 
 not as an oflfensive assertion. 
 
 2d. How is the baptism of the infant a favor conferred 
 upon it ? Does baptism wash away its sins, or other- 
 wise secure its salvation ? If it die in its infancy, would 
 it be more sure of eternal life because the rite had been 
 
INFANT BAPTISM CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 26? 
 
 administered to it ? — and does baptism give to it any as- 
 surance, that if it live to adult age, it will be any more cer- 
 tain to experience the regenerating grace of God ? Does it 
 apply any moral influence to it while in an infantile 
 state? What moral advantage can be experienced in 
 this world by an unconscious babe? Much has been 
 written and said about the advantage to human beings? 
 of this class, of being the oflspring of pious parents ; but 
 it all consists of sound without any sense. An infant, 
 while an infant, is not the subject of moral influence from 
 its parent : it is affected for good or for evil only by physi- 
 cal influences. It is a blessing of most inestimable value 
 to be made, in the providence of God, the offspring of 
 truly pious parents ; but the blessing is not experienced 
 until the child becomes old enough to become the sub- 
 ject of moral influence. I ask again then, in what re- 
 spect is baptism a favor conferred upon the child ? Is it 
 said that it is a favor because it admits him to the 
 church? I answer, how is it an advantage when (1) it 
 is not capable of appreciating it : and if it were capable 
 when (2) the privileges of church membership are denied 
 to it ? The children are in name members; but they are 
 not permitted to commemorate with the church the suf- 
 ferings and death of the Saviour. If it be said that their 
 baptism and church membership will benefit them, be- 
 cause they mark them as individuals that are peculiarly 
 under the guardianship of the church, and because in 
 receiving them into membership the pastor and the 
 church pledge themselves to labor for their spiritual wel- 
 fare : — then I reply — (1) this is to acknowledge that 
 
268 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 ivhUc iu/ants, they arc not benetited at all ; aiul I add, 
 (2) there is no dift'eront way to labor for their souls, and 
 no greater inducement to do so, than for the souls of 
 others not dedicated in baptism. Does the love of 
 Christ constrain you in their case ? so ought it in all 
 others. Does the burden of their souls rest on your 
 heart ? so is it your duty to feel for all others that sit 
 under your ministry. Do you feel pledged specially to 
 seek after their spiritual interests ? so are you in reference 
 to all others, if you are a good and true minister of 
 Jesus Christ. Are persons of this class more likely to 
 be accessible to the influences whicli you wield, than 
 others who have not been baptized in infancy ? Do you 
 hope to exert a peculiar influence by reminding them of 
 their dedication in their infancy ? Nine chances to one, 
 but that they remind ?/o?y, that they had no agency in 
 that transaction, and are, therefore, in no respect responsi- 
 ble for it. 
 
 So for from a knowledge of their baptism in infancy, 
 having a tendency to bring them to reflection, and to 
 repentance, it has just the contrary tendency. In the 
 first place, they feel no responsibility because of that 
 transaction ; for it was done without their knowledge and 
 consent. And in the next place, so averse is the natural 
 heart to the service of God, and so prone is it to lay hold 
 upon any pretext to put oft' the evil day as long as possible, 
 that they are likely so to pervert their minister's expositions 
 of the advantages of their infant dedication, as to think 
 tl at they can with impunity continue in sin ; for God 
 will be sure to confer tliat in the "covenant," which was 
 
INFANT BAPTISM «ANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 269 
 
 " sealed to them in baptism." Besides, how natural is it 
 for men to rest satisfied with a righteousness short of 
 the " righteousness which is of God," through faith in 
 Christ? What multitudes are there in the Romish 
 • chur eh," and out of it, who are confidently expecting 
 salvation, on the ground that they were made christians 
 in their infancy by baptism ! So far then, is baptism 
 from being a favor to an infant ; it is a curse — an evil of a 
 most unmitigated nature, if it exerts any influence at 
 all. To ascertain in detail the "Evils of Infant Baptism," 
 the reader is referred to an able work with that title, 
 by Dr. Howell, issued by the Southern Baptist Publica- 
 tion Society. 
 
 1. Pedobaptist Doctors of Divinity of the Calvinistic 
 school, base their arguments of nature and reason only 
 upon the fact that the parent is a believer in Christ. 
 Reason would say that *' a good prince would wish and 
 would provide that the children of his beloved and faith- 
 ful friends should be placed in near relations to himself; 
 and shall it be supposed that the Prince of Life will not 
 regard with tokens of peculiar favor the children of his 
 covenant people ?" And the voice of nature is lifted up 
 in remonstrance against the idea that the parent can be 
 in the church and the child out of it. Pedobaptist Doc- 
 tors of Divinity of the Arminian school pronounce this 
 principle unnatural, unreasonable and unscriptural. " They 
 are not baptized because their parents are believers in 
 Christ. Their rioht to the ordinance is of a hio-her 
 investiture. They claim by a nobler entail. Dying in 
 infancy, they enter heaven, not on the ground of their 
 
270 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 christian descent — the piety of their parents — but be- 
 cause of their personal connection with the second 
 Adam," <fec. Summers, p. 22. "There can be no reason 
 to justify the exclusion of any from the sign .'ind seal of 
 the Divine mercy, except such as exclude themselves by 
 their obstinate impenitency — and infants are not of that 
 number." p. 23. If a controversy could only arise be- 
 tween these two parties, Dr. Summers and his brethren 
 could arnrue with no little force against their Calvinistic 
 (in that event) opponents, that this " reason and nature " 
 was directly opposed to their doctrine of election. In 
 their systems of divinity, they argue that God's election 
 is sovereign and irrespective of merit; but when they 
 write on the subject of infant baptism, they express 
 themselves as if they believed that God is brought 
 under obligations to the children, by the faithfulness of 
 the parents, and that, consequently, the basis of election 
 is not God's sovereignty, but the piety and merits of the 
 parent. For the sake of peace and co-operation, how- 
 ever, Dr. S. is disposed to waive this. " Some of the 
 advocates of infant baptism have set forth certain notions 
 of their own about the children of believers being born 
 in the covenant, and, therefore, entitled to its seal ; but 
 this is a speculation adventitious to the doctrine of infant 
 baptism, though considered comparatively harmless by 
 those who do not receive it." p. 184. Infant baptism is 
 sustained on this ground neither by nature, reason, una- 
 nimity among its advocates, nor by the interests of the 
 parent or the child. 
 
INFANT BAPTISM CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 2*71 
 
 Section III. — The Abrahamic Covenant furnishes no 
 support to Infant Baptism. 
 
 To discover the nature of a New Testament institu- 
 tion, it is reasonable that our investigations should be 
 confined to the New Testament. We do not propose to 
 avail oui*selves of this plea, however, since our brethren 
 insist upon " making out " their infant baptism by refer- 
 ence to an Old Testament rite. Wc prefer rather to 
 meet them upon their own ground ; and if we do not 
 vanquish them, it will be our own fault, and not because 
 of the strength of their position. 
 
 Arminian and Calvinistic pedobaptists both refer to 
 the "Abrahamic covenant" in proof of infant baptism, 
 but with such contradictory interpretations as mutually 
 to refute each other. To answer their arguments, there- 
 fore, we must meet the parties one at a time. For it 
 does not follow that because one is wrong, the other is 
 also. First, then, let Dr. Summers state the view of 
 Methodists and other Arminians : " They are specifi- 
 cally embraced in the Gospel covenant. When that 
 covenant was made with Abraham, his children were 
 brought under its provisions, and the same seal that was 
 administered to him was administered also to them — 
 including both those that were born in his house, and 
 those that were bought with his money. They were all 
 alike circumcised in token of their common interest in 
 that covenant, of which circumcision was the appointed 
 symbol. That covenant is still in force. ' Know ye, 
 therefore,' says the Apostle, ' that they which are of faith, 
 
272 BAPTISM IN ITS MOBE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 the same are the children of Abraham.' And the Scrip- 
 ture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen 
 through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, 
 saying : ' In thee shall all nations be blessed.' " p. 23. 
 
 Now, it ought to be astonishing that a Doctor of Di- 
 vinity is capable of penning a paragraph containing as 
 mucli confusion as the above. 
 
 1. It confounds the "gospel covenant" or the cove- 
 nant of grace, with the " covenant of circumcision." 
 Any one who carefully reads the book of Genesis, and 
 the comments of the apostles upon it in their addresses 
 and writings, will see that there were two transactions, 
 called covenants, to which Abraham was a party — the 
 covenant of grace, and the covenant of circumcision. 
 The former was confirmed to him when he was seventy- 
 five years old (Gen. 12: 4), and the latter made with him 
 when he was ninety-nine years old (1*7: 1). The cove- 
 nant of grace, which Paul terms " the gospel preached 
 to Abraham," was the same as that revealed to Adam, 
 that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's 
 head. We are told (Gen. 12: 3), that when God com- 
 manded Abraham to leave his country and his father's 
 house, he declared to him : " In thee shall all families 
 of the earth be blessed." i\.fter the birth of Isaac, (22: 
 16, 18,) he repeats the same, in substance, varying 
 somewhat the phraseology : " In thy seed shall all the 
 nations of the earth be blessed." After the death of 
 Abraham the same was revealed to Isaac (26: 4) and to 
 Jacob (28: 14). 
 
 Peter calls this (Ac. 3: 25) " the covenant which God 
 
INFANT BAPTISM CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 2*73 
 
 made with our fathers," and Paul terms it the gospel — 
 "And the Scriptures, foreseeing that God would justify 
 the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto 
 Abraham, saying. In thee shall all the nations of the earth 
 be blessed." Gal. 3: 8. Now, the " seed " in whom all the 
 nations of the world were to be blessed, was Christ. 
 " Now, to Abraham and his seed were the promises 
 made. He saith not, and to seeds as of many, but as 
 of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ." Gal. 3: 16. 
 Abraham had the gospel preached to him and he be- 
 lieved it. He saw Christ's day and rejoiced. He was 
 taught distinctly to understand that the Saviour of the 
 world was to descend through his loins ; he understood 
 clearly the relations which Christ was to sustain to poor 
 guilty sinners, and he believed in him with the heart 
 unto righteousness, and, therefore, his faith w^as imputed 
 to him for righteousness. 
 
 Now, if this was the same as the covenant of circum- 
 cision, it was for twenty-four years without its " seal," 
 the very thing that our author needs most. When 
 Abraham was seventy-five years old, " the gospel was 
 preached to him," or the promise was given to him that 
 his " seed, which is Christ," should bless all the nations 
 of the earth ; when he was ninety and nine years old, 
 the covenant of circumcision was made with him, " hav- 
 ing circumcision as its seal," to use the language of our 
 opponents. 
 
 2. Dr. S. speaks of this " gospel covenant," in which 
 infants are embraced, as " made with Abraham." For 
 nearly two thousand years, therefore, the world had been 
 18 
 
274 JJAI'TISM IN ITS MODE AND 81BJEC1S. 
 
 without tlie gospel, and, couseqiieutly, Adam 'and all 
 his posterity to Abraham, inchiding Abel and Enoch, 
 and Noah, (fee, &c., were lost, or were some of them 
 saved without Christ! Paul, who, perhaps, knew as 
 well the jiature of this transaction, says : " And this I 
 say, that the covenant that was confirmed before of 
 God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and 
 thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make 
 the promise of none eflect." Gal. 3: 17. Our author 
 says God jnade this covenant with Abraham, Paul says 
 he confii'ined it. Now, to confirm is to strengthen that 
 which already exists. 
 
 3. He says : " They arc specifically embraced in the 
 gospel covenant." Who ? Suppose we grant that the 
 children of Abraham were included in the "gospel 
 covenant," how does this prove that the children of all 
 parents, Jew or Gentile, Barbarian, Scythian, bond or 
 free, are included ? Did God enter into a covenant with 
 Abraham as the federal head of all parents ? If the 
 offspring of pious parents are entitled to " the seal of 
 the covenant " because the parents are the spiritual chil- 
 dren of Abraham, upon what principle are those entitled 
 to it whose parents are not of faith, are not the children 
 of Abraham, and are not blessed with faithful Abraham ? 
 In the mouth of a Calvinist, this Abrahamic covenant 
 has some show of consistency, but in the mouth of an 
 Arminian none at all. 
 
 " When God called Abraham and established his cove- 
 nant with him, he not only embraced his infant seed, in 
 the most express terms, in that covenant, but he also 
 
INFANT BAPTISM CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 275 
 
 appointed an ordinance by which this relation of his 
 children to the visible church was publicly ratified and 
 sealed." Circumcision was a seal of the covenant nnder 
 the Old Testament dispensation — baptism is a seal of it 
 under the New. (Dr. Miller, p. 17.) This asserts : 
 
 1. That God made a covenant with Abraham, in the 
 blessings of which his seed were included. 
 
 2. That he gave to his infant seed an ordinance by 
 which their title to those blessings was ratified or sealed. 
 
 3. That circumcision was that seal. 
 
 4. That as they which be of faith, are blessed with 
 faithful Abraham, therefore their children also are entitled 
 to the blessings of the church. 
 
 5. That as circumcision was a seal of the righteousness 
 of faith then, and baptism is a seal of the righteousness 
 of faith now — baptism is now that seal, and has come in 
 the place of circumcision. 
 
 Not one of these propositions is true, as we shall pro- 
 ceed to show. Before doing so, however, let us see what 
 was the covenant of circumcision. It is found in Gen. 17: 
 1-14. " And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, 
 the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the 
 Almighty God ; walk before me, and be thou perfect. 
 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, 
 -and will multiply thee exceedingly. And Abram fell on 
 his face : and God talked with him, saying, As for me, 
 behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a 
 father of many nations. Neither shall thy name any 
 more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham ; 
 for a father of many nations have I made thee. And I 
 
2V6 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 will make thee exceeding' fruitfu], and I will make na- 
 tions of thee ; and kings shall come out of thee. And I 
 will establish my covenant between me and thee and 
 thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting 
 covenant ; to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after 
 thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after 
 thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land 
 of Canaan, for an everlasting possession ; and I will be 
 their God. And God said unto Abraham : Thou shalt 
 keep my covenant, therefore, thou and thy seed after 
 thee, in their generations. This is my covenant which 
 ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after 
 thee : Every man-child among you shall be circumcised. 
 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskins ; and 
 it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. 
 And he that is eight days old, shall be circumcised 
 among you, every man-child in your generations, he that 
 is born in the house, or bought with money of any 
 stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in 
 thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must 
 needs be circumcised : And my covenant shall be in 
 your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncir- 
 cumcised man-child, whose flesh of his foreskin is not 
 circumcised, that soul shall be cut oft" fi-om his people ; 
 he hath broken my covenant." 
 
 This covenant includes three promises, each of which 
 contains a letter and a spirit. See Gal. 4: 22-31. 
 
 1. That he should have a numerous posterity. This 
 was fulfilled literally in the nation of Israel, and in the 
 spirit, because, by divine appointment, he was made the 
 
INFANT BAPTISM CANNOT BE bUSTAINED. 2l1 
 
 father of all them that believe in all countries, and in all 
 succeeding ages to the end of time. 
 
 2. That he would be a God to him and to all his pos- 
 terity; fulfilled literally in his protection of the Israelites 
 in Egypt, in the -wilderness, and in all subsequent time, 
 till their rejection of Christ ; and in the spirit, in the 
 protection and grace he bestows upon all true believers, 
 who are the spiritual children of Abraham. 
 
 3. That his posterity should inherit the land of Ca- 
 naan ; fulfilled literally when Joshua led the IsraeHtes 
 into the promised land ; and spiritually when true be- 
 lievers are admitted to heaven, the spiritual Canaan. 
 
 With this exposition of the promises embraced in the - 
 Abrahamic covenant, let us take up the propositions laid 
 down by Dr. Miller, and see if they can be sustained. 
 
 1. Ill all the promises of this covenant the seed of 
 Abraham were not included. 
 
 1st. They were not to be made fathers of many na- 
 tions. This promise was limited to Abraham ; and nei- 
 ther his literal nor his spiritual seed had any interest 
 in it. 
 
 2d. With the exception of Isaac and Jacob, no pro- 
 mise of children was made to any of his posterity. God 
 designed that the hue of descent should continue unin- 
 terrupted from Abraham to Christ ; but multitudes of 
 Abraham's descendants lived and died without posterity. 
 
 3d. The promise that kings should come out of his 
 loins was limited to Abraham. 
 
 2. God did not give to Abraham'' s infant seed an ordi 
 nance by v)hich their title to those blessings was sealed. 
 
2t8 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 1st. If circumcision was the ordinance that sealed this 
 title, one-half of his infant seed were disinherited, for 
 only the man-child was to be circumcised. 
 
 2d. If circumcision sealed a title to the blessings of 
 the promise, then Ishmael, the sons of Keturah, Esau, 
 and the slaves of the Israelites, obtained them, or else 
 God failed to fulfill his promise. 
 
 3d. Many who were circumcised failed to secure the 
 promised blessing. Were Korah, Dathan and Abiram, 
 and multitudes who died by the judgments of God in 
 the wilderness, admitted to the Canaan either on earth 
 or in heaven ? 
 
 4th. The painful ordinance of circumcision was ad- 
 ministered to infants, not for moral but for physical 
 reasons. 
 
 5th. If it be objected to the above that Dr. Miller 
 claimed only that circumcision was an ordinance which 
 publicly ratified and sealed to infants a relation to the 
 \isible church, then I answer, it was a seal only to males, 
 and, consequently, no females were members of the 
 church, or otherv.'ise partook of the blessings of the 
 covenant. 
 
 3. Circumcision was a seal to none hut Abraham. 
 There is only one place in the Bible (Rom. 4: 11) where 
 circumcision is called a seal, and there it is said to be a 
 seal not of the fiiith of Abraham, but of the righteous- 
 ness of the faith which he had. " And he received the 
 sign of circumcision : a seal of the righteousness of the 
 faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised ; that he 
 might be the father of all them that believe, though they 
 
INFANT BAPTISM CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 279 
 
 be not circumcised, that righteousness might be im- 
 puted unto them also." This does not say, as our oppo- 
 nents usually quote it, that circumcision was as a sign and 
 a seal of Abraham's faith, but a seal of the righteous- 
 ness of that faith. Now God had revealed to Abraham 
 that his seed, which was Christ, should in the fulness of 
 time appear in the world as the Saviour of sinners, and 
 Abraham had believed in that promised Saviour, and this, 
 his faith, was imputed to him for righteousness. What 
 then does the Apostle mean by the righteousness of his 
 faith? None other than the righteousness which God 
 had provided in Christ, and which is imputed to every 
 one that believes. God had promised Abraham that 
 Christ, " the righteousness," which should be the object 
 of faith, should descend from him ; and as a seal, assur- 
 ance, or pledge of the faithfulness of his promise, he 
 gave to him and his posterity circumcision in the flesh 
 until the advent of Christ. As the bow in the cloud, 
 therefore, was God's token that the floods should no more 
 come to destroy the earth, so was circumcision a token 
 or a pledge that the promised seed should come. 
 
 Circumcision, consequently, was not designed as " an 
 ordinance by which relation to the visible church was to 
 be publicly ratified and sealed," but, as the Apostle says, 
 as a token that God would fulfill his covenant with Abra- 
 ham, to the effect that the promised seed should appear 
 among his descendants. In the death and resurrection 
 of Christ, therefore, the covenant was fulfilled, and con- 
 sequently the token was withdrawn. The conditions of 
 the bond had been satisfied, and the bond itself was can- 
 
280 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 celled and destroyed. There is nothing, therefore, to 
 come in the place of circumcision in the flesh, unless it 
 be " circumcision of the heart in the spirit f and that 
 pertains not to infants, but only to those who have faith. 
 There remain but two more of the propositions con- 
 tained in the extract of Dr. Miller. 
 
 5. "The infant seed of Abraham were included in the 
 covenant made with him, and enjoyed consequently a 
 relation to the visible church. Now as they which be of 
 faith are blessed with faithful Abraham, therefore their 
 children also are entitled to the blessings and the privi- 
 leges of the church." To this I answer : 
 
 1st. We are not told that " they which be of faith" 
 are blessed in any other way than in having God for 
 their God, and in possessing a title to the heavenly Ca- 
 naan. 
 
 2d. This is confounding the literal and the spiritual. 
 The logical conclusion is, if we are blessed because we 
 are spiritual children of Abraham, these others will be 
 blessed because they are spiritual children of us — nay, 
 this itself would not be a logical conclusion, unless it can 
 be shown that w^e occupy, by Divine appointment, the 
 same relation to spiritual children that Abraham does to 
 believers. And no one can show that the covenant 
 with Abraham was made also with every one who be- 
 lieves. 
 
 3d. If our spiritual descent from Abraham, the father 
 of all them that believe, entitles our children to bap- 
 tism and church membership, then the same entitles our 
 servants born in our house and bought with our money. 
 
INFANT BAPTISM CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 281 
 
 A practical illustration of the consistency of those who 
 hold this theory of the perpetuity of the Abrahamic cov- 
 enant, and its application to this subject of baptism, oc-' 
 curred not long since in this State. A gentleman, a 
 member of a Congregational church in one of the East- 
 ern States, settled in one of the interior towns of Geor- 
 gia. Being an intelligent man, and well versed in- the 
 theory of the Abrahamic covenant, he was soon surprised 
 to find that the " seal of the covenant " was withheld 
 from the servants of every age and character, who were 
 not themselves professed believers. The Abrahamic cov- 
 enant required that all^ old and young, whether born in 
 the house, or bought with money, should be circumcised; 
 but his astonishment was excited by perceiving that 
 none., not even the colored infants whose parents were 
 themselves believers, were admitted to the sealing ordi- 
 nance. In his concern he applied to his pastor for a 
 solution of the mystery. Judge of his astonishment 
 when he was informed that the reason was that the ne- 
 groes themselves were nearly all of them Baptists ! Now 
 this pastor was doubtless not aware that this excuse, if 
 valid, was a virtual abandonment of the Abrahamic cov- 
 enant. Would Abraham have been deterred from cir- 
 cumcising his slave, bought with his money, because he 
 had learned that he was of a different religion — or would 
 he have hesitated to apply the " seal " to the infants of 
 some of his slaves, because he had been told that their 
 parents were pagans ? Abraham would have had no re- 
 spect whatever to the religious sentiments of his servants; 
 his only concern would have been to obey God, and 
 
282 BAPTISM IN IIS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 without any exception he would have circumcised them 
 all. Is not therefore the very respect, which our breth- 
 ren show to the rehgious sentiments of their servants, an 
 acknowJedgement that religion is now a personal mat- 
 ter — that each one is to decide for himself how he will 
 obey God according to the Scriptures ? — and is it not, 
 therefore, virtually an abandonment of the Abrahamic 
 covenant ? I have never heard of the baptism of a ser- 
 vant on the ground that his master was included in the 
 Abrahamic covenant — nay, more, I have lived in the 
 South all my life, and I have never seen or heard of the 
 instance in which even a colored infant was baptized /or 
 any reason. This is no argument, I know, against 
 the Abrahamic covenant; it is introduced to show only 
 how the Pedobaptist churches in the South understand 
 that covenant, and to what extent they are affected by it 
 in their practice. White infants are the children of 
 Abraham, and are entitled to " the seal," but the negroes 
 are the children of Ham, and are left to "the uncovenanted 
 mercies of God." 
 
 6. No argument can be drawn from the use of the 
 word "seal;" for (1) circumcision was a seal only to 
 Abraham, and to him a seal not of his faith, but of the 
 righteousness of his faith, as we have shown : and (2) 
 baptism is said nowhere in the Scriptures to be a seal of 
 anything to its subjects. The only seal which the New 
 Testament speaks of is the Holy Spirit; the Christian has 
 the Holy Spirit, " whereby he is sealed to the day of re- 
 demption ;" Eph. 4: 30. When sinners believe in Christ, 
 they are sealed- with that Holy Spirit of promise which 
 
INFANT BAPTISM CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 288 
 
 is " the earnest of their inheritance until the redemption 
 of the purchased possession;" Eph. 1: 13. And this is 
 apphcable, not to an unconscious infant, but to an intelH- 
 gent believer in Christ. 
 
 This whole subject of the Abrahamic covenant is in- 
 volved in mists and darkness ; and if this is the true 
 ground upon which to base infant baptism, then it is ut- 
 terly impossible for nine hundred and ninety-nine in a 
 thousand of believing parents to obtain from it an intel- 
 ligible reason for the dedication of their "infant seed" 
 in baptism. If they consult it, as it is found in the Bi- 
 ble alone, they will iind no hint in favor of infant bap- 
 tism ; and if they extend their inquiries into the pub- 
 lished writings of Pedobaptist divines, they will find con- 
 fusion worse confounded. Every sect has its own con- 
 struction of it, and none of their writers, with all of their 
 acknowledged ability, can so illustrate it as to make it 
 intelligible to the majority of their readers. Can it be 
 therefore that God has so concealed the evidences of this 
 important duty, if duty it is at all, as to make it next to 
 impossible for the vast majority of believers to discover 
 them ? 
 
 To sustain infant baptism by the Abrahamic covenant, 
 it is necessary to prove that God made the covenant with 
 Abraham merely as a parent ; that he makes the same 
 covenant not with every believer, but with every believ- 
 ing parent ; that all the children of Abraham, and conse- 
 quently all the children of believers, are included in the 
 covenant; that circumcision was the seal of the covenant 
 with Abraham as a parent ; and that baptism has been 
 
284 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 substituted as a seal to all believing parents and their 
 oftspring since the death of Christ ; not one of which 
 can be shown to be true. Even if we may grant to Dr. 
 Summers, that the Abrahamic was the gospel covenant? 
 our admission would as eftectually exclude infants, as if 
 they were excluded by name. The gospel, as we have 
 shown in our remarks under the commission, was never 
 designed for infants, but only for those old enough to 
 hear, understand, and believe it. The new or gospel 
 covenant is expressed in the following terms : " Behold 
 the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new 
 covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of 
 Judah. I will put my lavv^ in their inward parts, and 
 write it in their hearts ; and I will be their God, and 
 they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more 
 every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, say- 
 ing. Know the Lord — for they shall all know me from 
 the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the 
 Lord;" Jer. 31: 31, 33, 34. See also Heb. 8: 10, 11. 
 All w^ho are included in this new covenant are to have 
 God's law wi'itten in their mind and heart — and they 
 are idl to know him from the least to the greatest. The 
 conditions as effectually exclude infants, as if they were 
 mentioned by name. Make the Abrahamic then the gos- 
 pel covenant, and it will furnish you an argument against 
 rather than in favor of the baptism of infants. There is 
 a covenant by which infants are saved, but it is not the 
 gospel, nor the Abrahamic ; but the covenant of redemp- 
 tion between the Father and the Son, in which he engaged 
 to die for all his chosen ones, whether adults or infants. 
 
INFANT BAPTISM CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 285 
 
 We may not hesitate therefore to say, in the language 
 of a distinguished pedobaptist, Prof. Stuart, " The 
 Abrahamic covenant furnishes no ground for infant bap- 
 tism." 
 
 Section IV. — The Jewish Church and the Christian 
 Church not the same under different dispensations. 
 
 The last hold which our brethren have upon Bible 
 analogy for the support of infant baptism, is "the Jewish 
 Church." " We do not know how any unprejudiced 
 person can read the Scriptures, without seeing that the 
 church of God is essentially one and the same under 
 every dispensation;" Summers, p. 24. " That baptism 
 is the ordinance of initiation into the church, and the 
 sign and seal of the covenant now, as circumcision Avas 
 formerly, is evident;" p. 25. The argument then is sim- 
 ply this : The Jewish Church and the Christian Church 
 are the same under different dispensations. Infants were 
 admitted to that, therefore they are to be admitted to 
 this. The initiating ordinance to that was circumcision, 
 the initiating ordinance to this is baptism; therefore 
 baptism has come into the place of circumcision, and is 
 to be administered to the same subjects. This argument 
 has been answered in part already by remarks under the 
 Abrahamic covenant. But little more need be added. 
 
 The premises are unsound ; for 
 
 1. The Jewish poHty was not a church in the New 
 Testament sense of the term. The Greek word ekklesia, 
 which is translated church, means not only an organized 
 religious assembly, but any assembly — even one gath- 
 
286 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SLBJBCTS. 
 
 ered together for disorderly and riotous purjioses. Thus 
 the mob in Ephesus, which filled the whole city with 
 confusion, is called an ekkksia. "Some, therefore, cried one 
 thing and some another ; for the assembly (ekkleaia) was 
 confused;'' Ac. 19: 32. No argument therefore can be 
 drawn from the fact that Stephen speaks of the church 
 (ekklfsia) in the wilderness. The same Greek term is 
 applied frequently to the people of Israel, especially in 
 the Septuagint ; and it is always translated by an Eng- 
 lish word corresponding to congregation, assembly, etc. 
 Stephen's " ekkksia. in the wilderness" then, was the peo- 
 ple of Israel gathered in an assemble/ around the base of 
 the mount, or the people congregated for their marches, 
 etc. If the translation of the Greek word ekklesia as 
 applied to local societies of Christ's people had been giv- 
 en in our present English version, the error which we are 
 now combating and othei-s of a similar nature, could 
 not maintain such a fast hold upon men's minds. The 
 Jewish nation, as scattered about in Palestine, could not 
 be called an assembly^ and ekklesia means an assembly or 
 congregation. The term ekklesia was never applied to 
 the Israelites until after the institution of the Passover, 
 and always has reference to them as an assembly. Let 
 our brethren then substitute for the word church, to which 
 mystical and superstitious notions are attached, the word 
 assembly, and their proposition will appear absurd to 
 themselves. The Christian organized worshiping as- 
 sembly, and the Jewish nation not organized as a wor- 
 shiping assembly, the same church of God under dif- 
 ferent dispensations ! No man will speak such nonsense 
 
INFANT BAl'TISM CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 287 
 
 when he has a clear uiiclei'standing of tlie meaning of 
 the terms. 
 
 That the Jewish nation, in possessing the lively or- 
 acles, possessed the only tiue religion, is granted ; that 
 many of them worshiped God in sincerity, and like 
 Abraham, trusted in a Saviour to come, is not denied ; 
 nay, we niay maintain that the Jewish theocracy was in 
 a certain sense the organized " people of God," and yet 
 deny emphatically that the Jewish nation was an organ- 
 ized assembly or church of God. There never was a 
 "church" on earth, in the New Testament sense, until 
 that at Jerusalem was organized on the day of Pentecost. 
 All else anterior was preparatory to this. 
 
 2. If the Jewish nation was a church of God, it was 
 not the same as the Christian church, because 
 
 Ist. It was a type of it, and the type and the antitype 
 cannot be the same. 
 
 2d. Christ and Paul speak of the Jewish nation as 
 having no connection with the church of God. In Jno. 
 15: 19 he says to his disciples, "Because ye are not of 
 the world, but / have chosen you out of the ivorld, there- 
 fore the world hateth you." Now these disciples were 
 men in good standing in what our brethren call the "Jew- 
 ish church :" were the church of God and the world then 
 the same? And was it a characteristic of the true 
 church to hate Christ and those whom he had selected to 
 be his followers? Again, in Mat. 18, in the direction he gives 
 to his disciples for the settlement of personal difficulties, 
 after requiring them to seek an interview with the offend- 
 ing brother, themselves alone, and if unsuccessful, to 
 take one or two more with them, he adds : " And if he 
 
288 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 shall neglect to liear them, tell it unto the church : but if 
 he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as 
 an heathen man and a publican." Now the church of 
 Christ at Jerusalem had not yet been organized ; did 
 Christ mean to sa}- then, tell it to the Jewish authorities ! 
 Paul makes a distinction between '* the Jews' religion " 
 and " the church of God :" " For ye have heard of my 
 conversation in time past in the Jeivs' religion^ how that 
 beyond measure I persecuted the church of God^ and 
 wasted it;" Gal. 1: 13. And this opposition to the 
 church of God did not originate in ignorance of the 
 Jews' religion, or in a depraved character which disqual- 
 ified him for good standing in the Jews' communion. 
 He himself informs us to the contrary : I " profited in 
 the Jews' religion above many, my equals in mine own 
 nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions 
 of my fathers;" 5: 14. "If any man thinketh that lie 
 hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more : cir- 
 cumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the 
 tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews ; as touch- 
 ing the law, a pharisee ; concerning zeal, i:)£rsccuting the 
 church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, 
 blameless;" Phil. 3: 4, etc. 
 
 3d. The Jewish community, if a church, was not the 
 same as the church of Christ, because men were 
 converted from the Jewish as well as from the Pagan 
 " church " before they were permitted to join the Chris- 
 tian church. Christ said to Nicodemus, a man occupy- 
 ing a high official station in the so-called Jewish church, 
 " Except a man be born again he cannot see the king- 
 dom of God ;" and John rejected scribes and pharisees, 
 
INFANT BAPTISM CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 289 
 
 though they were in good standing in the " Jewish 
 church." Many of the writers on the other side of the 
 question, Dr. Summers among. them, quote the language 
 of Paul, Rom. 11, in regard to the good olive tree and 
 the wild olive, as proof conclusive to establish the "iden- 
 tity of the church under the different dispensations;" but 
 it would never have been construed as they understand 
 it, if it were not needed for the support of infant baptism. 
 The Apostle is describing the advantages of the Jews, 
 possessing as they did the lively oracles, over the Gen- 
 tiles, who had been destitute of all spiritual cultivation 
 and advantage. The former he compares to a cultivated 
 olive tree, and the latter to one wild by nature. The ad- 
 vantage of the Jew over the Gentile consisted chiefly in 
 the fact that God had given to him the revelation of his 
 will. " What advantage 'then hath the Jew, or what 
 profit is there in circumcision ? Much every way — chief- 
 ly because that unto them were committed the oracles of 
 God;" Rom. 3: 1. The majority of the Jews, however, 
 having misimproved their privileges, God had Avithdrawn 
 them, and conferred them upon the Gentiles. To ex- 
 press it in the language of the distinguished pedobaptist, 
 Dr. Albert Barnes, " The meaning here is that the Gen- 
 tiles had been like the wild olive, unfruitful in holiness ; 
 that they had been uncultivated by the institutions of 
 true religion, and consequently had grown up in the 
 wildness of sin and nature. The Jews had been like a 
 cultivated olive long under the training and blessing of 
 God." 
 
 Now when we deny that the churches were the same 
 19 
 
290 BAPTISM IX ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 under different dispensations, Ave grant that true religion 
 was the same from Adam to Christ, thougli more dis- 
 tinctly developed and clearly understood from time to 
 time as successive revelations from heaven were imparted 
 to men. 
 
 3. But if we should grant that the Jewish nation and 
 the Christian church were the same organization under 
 different dispensations, our brethren would be no nearer 
 to proving their infant baptism ; for infants were not ad- 
 mitted to the " Jewish church " by circumcision. 
 
 1st. They were horn into "the church," and not ad- 
 mitted to it. 
 
 2d. Circumcision did not admit them to, but keejys 
 them into church membership. ''And the circumcised 
 man-child, whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, 
 that soul shall he cut off ixom his people ; he hath bro- 
 ken my covenant;" Gen. IV: 14., Circumcision was 
 therefore not an initiating ordinance. 
 
 3. Upon the premises females were not members of 
 the church at all. The whole " Jewish church " was 
 composed entirely of males and slaves ! If, therefore, 
 you could prove every thing else, you would still lack a 
 warrant for the baptism of female infants. 
 
 4th. "We have already proved that circumcision was 
 not the initiating ordinance into the "Jewish church;" 
 but one thing more is necessary to put the finishing 
 touch to the refutation of this branch of our brethren's 
 argument: Baptism is not the initiating ordinance into 
 the Christian church. No one can be scripturally a 
 member of one of Christ's churches without baptism ; 
 
INFANT UAFTISM CANNOT 13E SUSTAINED. 291 
 
 yet one may be baptized and still be no member of a 
 church. Baptism prepares one for admission to a chinch; 
 but nothing but the act of the church receiving liim into 
 her fellowship can constitute him a member. Thus the 
 Ethiopian eunuch was baptized by Philip in the "desert," 
 but he was not admitted into any church. 
 
 So the argument that baptism takes the place of cir- 
 cumcision, /;-o??i the fact that they were both initiating 
 ordinances, fiills to the ground. 
 
 4. Besides, that baptism did not come in the place of 
 circumcision, is shown : 
 
 1st. Because the Bible no where says so. On this 
 point the word of God is profoundly silent. This silence 
 is inexpHcable upon the supposition, that God designed 
 one positive institution to give place to another. How, 
 then, do our brethren know that this substitution has ta- 
 ken place ? Do they learn it from the practice of the 
 apostles and primitive christians ? 
 
 2d. The conduct of the apostles and primitive chris- 
 tians, on certain important occasions, shows that they 
 had never heard that baptism had come into the room 
 of circumcision. Peter knew nothing about it, or otherwise 
 when they of the circumcision contended with him, be- 
 cause he went into men uncircumcised, (Ac. 11,) instead 
 of rehearsing the matter from the beginning, and ex- 
 pounding it by order to them, and showing how God 
 taught him to consider Cornelius and his household not 
 common and unclean, lie would have cut the matte.i 
 short by reminding them : " Brethren, do you not know 
 that baptism has come in the room of circumcision, and 
 
292 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 that, therefore, tliose who have been baptized cannot be 
 considered inicircumcised and unclean ?" The church 
 at Antioch had heard nothing about it, or else, when 
 certain men, which came down from Judea, taught them 
 that except they be circumcised, after the manner of Mo- 
 ses, they could not be saved, (Ac. 15,) they would not 
 have found it necessary to send Paul and Barnabas to 
 Jerusalem, for a solution of the question. Paul, and 
 Barnabas, and the apostles, elders and brethren at Jeru- 
 salem, knew nothing of this substitution of baptism in 
 the place of circumcision ; else how natural to state the 
 fact, and thus silence the Judaizing teachers in the be- 
 ginning. And how unreasonable that they should have 
 held a council in Jerusalem on the subject, and that they 
 should have written a letter to the brethen at Antioch 
 containing no allusion to this substitution, when that one 
 statement of itself w^ould have been a decisive and satis- 
 factory solution of the whole difficulty. To see, also, 
 that Paul remained profoundly ignorant to the very last, 
 read Acts 21: 20-26. Neander, the pedobaptist his- 
 torian, takes the same view of these passages that we do. 
 t^ If we wish to ascertain from whom this institution (infont 
 baptism) was originated, we should say, certainly, not im- 
 mediately from Christ himself. Was it from the primi- 
 tive church in Palestine, from an injunction given by the 
 earlier apostles ? But among the Jewish christians, cir- 
 cumcision was held as a seal of the covenant, and hence 
 they had so much less occasion to make use of another 
 dedication for their children. Could it then have been 
 Paul, who first, among heathen christians, introduced 
 
INFANT BAPTISM CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 293 
 
 this alteration, by the use of baptism ? But this would 
 agree least of all, with the peculiar characteristics of this 
 apostle. He, who says of himself, that " Christ sent him 
 not to baptize, but to preach the gospel ;" he who al- 
 ways kept his eyes fixed on one thing, justification by 
 foith, and so carefully avoided every thing which could 
 give a handle or support to the notion of a justification 
 by outward things, how could he have set up infant 
 baptism against the circumcision that continued to be 
 practised by the Jewish christians ? In this case, the 
 dispute carried on with the Judaizing party, as to" the 
 necessity of circumcision, would easily have given an op- 
 portunity of introducing this substitute into the contro- 
 versy, if it had really existed." Plant, and Tr. of Ch. p. 
 102. 
 
 That baptism did not come in the room of circumcision 
 is shown, 
 
 3d. Because those who had been circumcised were 
 baptized, and some who had been baptized were circum- 
 cised. Christ and all his apostles had been circumcised 
 in their infancy, yet they were baptized subsequently ; 
 and Timothy, a " disciple," whose mother was a Jewess, 
 and his father a Greek, Paul " took and circumcised* 
 because of the Jews which were in those quarters,' 
 though he had been previously baptized. (Ac. 16: 1-3.) 
 How is it possible to reconcile these things with the fic- 
 tion that baptism has taken the place of circumcision ? 
 
 5. Finally, if we were to grant " the essential identity 
 of the church under the different dispensations," and 
 were to admit that it is lawful to infer that a rite in one 
 19^^ 
 
294 BAPIISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 has taken the place of a rite in the other, the question is, 
 where are we to stop in our inferences ? If the '' Church 
 of England" should infer the union of church and state 
 from the Jewish theocracy — if the Pope of Rome should, 
 on the same ground, maintain that one man should, after 
 the model of the Jewish high priest, be the head of 
 " the church" — that there are various orders of the 
 ministry, because there were various orders of priests — 
 that the sacrifice of the mass is scriptural, because the 
 priests in the " Jewish Church" offered sacrifices for the 
 sins of the people — that the Pope is infallible, because the 
 high priest, by consulting Urim, delivered oracles — that 
 there must bo seven sacraments, " because the number 
 seven makes a conspicuous figure in the Hebrew ritual" — 
 that women can baptize, because in the Jewish church, 
 mothers circumcised their infants (Ex. 4: 25) — if English 
 Episcopalians, and others who affiliate with them, should 
 advocate the wearing of canonical habits, and the imposi- 
 tion of tithes for the support of the ministry, upon our 
 principles, what reply could we make to them ? These 
 all rest upon the same foundation with infant baptism, 
 and are supported and defended by the same argument'^. 
 Consequently, we have found, that whenever a pedobap- 
 tist encounters a Romanist, he is sure to be vanquished 
 unless he abandons his own ground, and plants himself 
 upon that occupied by the P)aptists, 
 
 What relations all the previous dispensations bore to 
 the christian — why, in the sovereign purpose of God, 
 four thousand } ears were permitted to pass in the world's 
 history, before the ad\cnt of Clirist and the establish- 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 295 
 
 ment of his kingdom, are interesting questions ; but they 
 have no necessary bearing upon the }3resent controversy, 
 and their discussion may be omitted here. It is enough 
 that we have shown, that the " Jewish church" and the 
 Christian church were not the same under different dis- 
 pensations, and that, if they were, that fact could avail 
 our brethren nothing in the present argument. 
 
 CHAPTER IV 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL IIISTOKY. 
 
 It has not been my intention to follow the advocates of 
 infant baptism, beyond the arguments which they deduce 
 from the Bible. If I have proved that the word of God 
 is profoundly silent on the subject, I have established the 
 proposition, that it is not a scriptural institution. Even 
 though, in their researches into ecclesiastical history, 
 they could trace it up to the very times of the apostles? 
 it would avail them nothing, unless they could prove that 
 it had received apostolic sanction : for Paul testified : 
 " The mystery of iniquity doth ah'eady work ; only he 
 who now letteth, will let, until he be taken out of the 
 way." 2 Thess. 2: 7; and John 1 Jno. 4: 3 ; " and every 
 spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the 
 flesh is not of God : and this is that spirit of antichrist, 
 
296 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 whereof ye have heared that it should come; and even 
 now ah'eady is it in the world." But even this they can- 
 not do. The most important links in their chain are 
 entirely wanting. For more than two hundred yeai-s 
 after the time of Christ, ecclesiastical history shows not 
 a trace of infant baptism. Not until six or eight genera- 
 tions had passed away since the time of Christ and his 
 apostles — not until the notion prevailed that baptism is 
 essential to salvation, do we ever find the ordinance ad- 
 ministered to infants ; and then not universally. I design to 
 do no more than to prove these assertions, by quoting 
 chiefly from one of the greatest of modern church historians, 
 the pedobaptist Neander. And I do so not to indicate that 
 I endorse all his sentiments, but to show that infant 
 baptism is not a scriptural institution ; and how, in his 
 opinion, " the church" " made it out in another way." 
 My first extract will be from his " Planting and Training 
 of the Christian Church." 
 
 " As baptism was closely united 'with a conscious entrance on 
 christian communion, faith and b-iptism were always connected 
 with one another ; and thus it is in the highest degree probable 
 that baptism was performed only in instances where both could 
 meet together, and that the practice of infant baptism was un- 
 known at this period. We cannot infer the existenceof infant bap- 
 tism from the instance of the baptism of wliole families, for the 
 passage in 1 Cor. 16: 15, shows the fallacy of such a conclusion, 
 as from that it appears that the whole family of Stephanas, who 
 were baptized by Paul, consisted of adults. That not till so late a 
 period as (at least, certainly, earlier than) Irena3us, a trace of infant 
 baptism appears, and that it first became recognized as an apos- 
 tolic tradition in the course of tlie third century, is evidence rather 
 
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 297 
 
 against ihan for the admission of its apostolic origin ; especially 
 since, in the spirit of the age when Christianity appeared, there 
 were many elements which must have been favorable to the in- 
 troduction of infant bajDtism — the same elements from which 
 proceeded the notion of the magical effects of outward baptism, 
 the notion of its absolute necessity for salvation, the notion which 
 gave rise to the mythus that the apostles baptized the Old Tes- 
 tament saints in Hades. How very much must infant baptism 
 have corresponded with such a tendency, if it had been favored 
 by tradition ! It might, indeed, be alleged, on the other hand, 
 that after infant baptism had long been recognized as an apostolic 
 tradition, many other causes hindered its universal intro- 
 duction, and the same causes might still earlier stand in the 
 way of its spread, although a practice sanctioned by the apostles. 
 But these causes could not have acted in this manner, in the post- 
 apostolic age ; . . . and if we wish to ascertain from whom 
 such an institution was originated, we should say, certainly not 
 immediately from Christ himself. Was it from the primitive 
 church in- Palestine, from an injunction given by the earlier apos- 
 tles ? But among the Jewish christians, circumcision was held as 
 a seal of the covenant, and hence, they had so much less occasion 
 to make use of another dedication for their children. Could it then 
 have been Paul, who first among heathen christians introduced 
 this alteration by the use of baptism ? But this would agree least 
 of all with the peculiar christian characteristics of this apostle." 
 pp. 101, 102. 
 
 We quote next, more briefly, from his " Church 
 History." 
 
 " It is certain that Christ did not ordain infant bap- 
 tism ; he left, indeed, much which was not needful for 
 salvation, to the free development of the christian spirit, 
 without here appointing binding laws. We cannot 
 prove that the apostles ordained infant baptism." p. 198. 
 
208 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 lie goes on, then, to inform ns from what " the custom 
 of infant baptism proceeded." 
 
 " We find here the essentially christian notion, from 
 which infant baptism would derive itself spontaneously 
 the more Christianity penetrated into domestic life • 
 namely, that Christ, by means of that divine life which 
 he communicated to human nature, and revealed in it 
 has sanctified that nature from the very first seed of its 
 
 development From this idea, founded on 
 
 the internal feelings of Christianity, which obtained an 
 influence over men's dispositions, the custom of infant 
 
 baptism proceeded But w^hilst, on the one 
 
 hand, the doctrine of the corruption and guilt inherited 
 by human nature, as the consequence of the first trans 
 gression, was reduced into a more systematic and distinct 
 form, ivhich was particularly the case in the Nocth Afri- 
 can church ; on the other hand, from want of a proper 
 distinction between the external and internal things of 
 baptism (the baptism of water, and the baptism of the 
 spirit) the idea was forever gaining ground, and becom- 
 ing more firmly fixed, that without outward baptism no 
 one could be freed from that inherited guilt, saved from 
 the eternal punishment which threatened him, or brought 
 to eternal happiness ; and while the idea of the magical 
 effects of the sacrament was constantly obtaining more 
 and more sway, the theory of the unconditional neces- 
 sity of infant baptism developed itself from that idea.'' 
 pp. 199-200. 
 
 To the testimony of Neandcr, 1 add that of Gieseler, 
 another pedobaptist historian, whose accuracy is endorsed 
 
 I 
 
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 299 
 
 by Prof. Stuart of Andover, and Prof. Hodge of Prince- 
 ton. He says, in his Text Book of Ec. Hist., vol. 1. p. 
 105, " The baptism of infants (A. D. 11'7-193) ^vas not a 
 universal custom, and was sometimes even expressly dis- 
 countenanced ;" and on p. 159, "The baptism of infants 
 became now (A. D. 193-324) more common." 
 
 I will close these citations of pedobaptist authorities 
 with an extract from the "North British Review," 
 (August, 1852,) the organ of the Presbyterianism of 
 Scotland. It is part of an article on " Liturgical Reform 
 in the Church of England," said to have been written by 
 the Rev. Dr. Hanna, the son-in-law of Dr. Chalmers. 
 
 " Scripture knows nothing of the baptism of infants. 
 There is absolutely not a trace of it to be found in the 
 
 New Testament History confirms the 
 
 inference drawn from the saci'ed volume. Infant baptism 
 cannot be traced higher than the middle of the second 
 century, and even then it was not universal. Some? 
 indeed, have argued, that in the silence of Scripture, it 
 is fair to presume that a custom whose existence is sure 
 in the second century, must have descended from the 
 apostles ; but the presumption is wholly the other way." 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 We have thus completed the task we have assumed, 
 with what success, let the reader judge. In our Part 
 First we endeavored to show, that nothinfy but immer- 
 
300 BAPTISM IN ITS MODE AND SUBJECTS. 
 
 sion is bai^tism : in Part Second, that there is not a trace 
 of infant baptism in the Scriptures. If then infant ha2> 
 tism is -without scriptural authority, how much more is 
 that ceremony which our brethren have substituted for 
 the mode of God's ordinance ! 
 
 My dear reader, do you love the Lord Jesus Christ ? 
 And are you ready at all times to show your love by your 
 obedience to his commandments ? Your parents have told 
 you that you were " baptized" in infancy ; are you satisfied 
 with this, when the evidence is so plain that your " ded- 
 ication" w^as an unauthorized ceremony, and that conse- 
 quently you have never yet " put on Christ in baptism ?" 
 If you have doubts on the subject, do you silence those 
 doubts, and quiet your conscience, by arguments drawn 
 from human expediency ? Christ says, if ye love me 
 keep my commandments. May God show you and me 
 our duty, and give us grace to discharge it. 
 
 I announced in my Introduction, the principles which 
 ought to govern me in this discussion. If I have viola- 
 ted them, let those violations be exposed and condemned: 
 if I have convinced you that you are wrong in opinion or 
 in practice, let not your objection to me personally, or to 
 the manner in which I have discussed the subject, prevent 
 you from embracing and obeying the truth. And may 
 the Lord hasten the day when all who love the Lord 
 Jesus Christ shall " see eye to eye," and " be of one heart 
 and one mind."