tihv<^vy of Che t:heolo0ical ^^mxnavy 
 
 PRINCETON • NEW JERSEY 
 
 •S^D* 
 
 BV 812 .H33 
 
 Harrison, William Pope, 183C 
 
 -1895. 
 Theophilus Walton 
 
HEOPHILUS WALTON; 
 
 OB, 
 
 ^t Slajtsts of Cnitfe 
 A REPLY 
 
 TO 
 
 THEODOSIA ERNEST. 
 
 BY 
 
 A MEMBER OF THE ALABAMA CONFERENCE. 
 
 "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."— PAUL. 
 
 PUBLISHED FOR THE AUTHOR BY STEVENSON & OWEN. 
 1858. 
 
Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1858, by 
 
 WILLIAM P. HARRISON, 
 
 In the District Court of the United States for the Middle District of Tennessee. 
 
 STEREOTYPED AND PRINTED BY A. A. STITT, 
 SOUTHERN METHODIST PUBLISHING HOUSE, NASHVILLE, TENN. 
 
onteid^. 
 
 CHAPTER L— Love and Marriage 5 
 
 CHAPTER II.— The Great Secret 8 
 
 CHAPTER III.— The Lovers 13 
 
 CHAPTER IV.— The Afflictiou of Joseph 15 
 
 CHAPTER v.— The Revival and its Fruits 22 
 
 CHAPTER VL— Consistency is a Jewel 27 
 
 CHAPTER VIL— The Doubt removed 84 
 
 The word ''immerse" not in the Bible — The reasons given by Baptists 
 contradicted by Baptist writers — The Babel of Baptist Bible revi- 
 sion overthrown by its own builders 43 
 
 CHAPTER VIIL— Job and his Comforters 70 
 
 CHAPTER IX.— Carrie Mason's Review o£ " Theodosia Ernest". 79 
 
 3^^^ttii (BvtnxM^ 
 
 Trial of the Baptist canons of criticism, as laid down by Dr. Gale, 
 Dr. Carson, Dr. Richard Fuller, and other eminent Baptists: the 
 result, a reduction to absurdity of Baptist theory, by proving them 
 
 all to be enemies of Christ 93 
 
 CHAPTER X.— The Day of Trial 120 
 
 CHAPTER XL— New Troubles in the Cabinet 129 
 
 CHAPTER XIL— The Interview and its Result 135 
 
 CHAPTER XIIL— Carrie Mason's Revic^^, continued 140 
 
IV CONTENTS. 
 
 The Gi'eek words Bapto and Baptidzo examined — their classical and 
 Scriptural use — More Baptist testimony: Dr. Fuller, Dr. Carson, 
 
 Dr. Gale, and Dr. Cox 149 
 
 CHAPTER XIV.— A Test Question 181 
 
 CHx\PTER XV.— Carrie Mason's Review, continued 185 
 
 New Testament baptisms examined — Why was Christ baptized ? — How 
 
 was Christ baptized? — More light — Mr. Battle in the field 197 
 
 CHAPTER XVL— Events of the Following Day 229 
 
 CHAPTER XVIL— A Struggle and a Victory 235 
 
 CHAPTER XVIIL— Carrie Mason's Review, concluded 239 
 
 $xi\\x (^ttxxxxx^ 
 
 New Testament baptisms, continued — No proof of immersion in any 
 case 247 
 
 History of the ordinance — its early corruptions — Value of the Fathers' 
 testimony — Origin of Baptist immersion 283 
 
 ^t)^t\Xi\X i&Xt\XX\Xi^. 
 
 Controversy on the mode (^f baptism — The evidence from the classics 
 and other sources examined — Mr. Battle and Mr. Mason — "AVhen 
 Greek meets Greek, then comes the tug of war" — Trial of Mrs. Wil- 
 liams for the crime of partaking of the Lord's Supper with the 
 Lord's people — Alexander Battle and others for the prosecution ; 
 Richard Barbour for the defence 328 
 
 CHAPTER XIX.— The Trial 347 
 
 Is infant baptism of God or of men? — "To the law and to the testi- 
 mony" 365 
 
 CHAPTER XX.— The Retrospect 407 
 
THEOPHILUS WALTON; 
 
 OR. 
 
 THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 LOVE AND MARRIAGE. 
 
 The human heart can never be happy in itself. To 
 lovB; with all the ardor of our nature, some object, whom 
 we suppose worthy of affection, is as necessary to our 
 healthful being as the light of heaven to the plant, or water 
 to the fishes of the sea. Inertia is not a natural property of 
 the heart's emotions ; they are active from the first hours of 
 childhood, when the vast world of goodness and greatness 
 is found in a mother's eye, to the last moments when the 
 trembling pilgrim halts at the entrance of the dark valley, 
 and embraces for the last time the loved ones to be left 
 behind him. Whether the warm, generous heart of friend- 
 ship, or the trusting heart of a life-long companionship, be 
 the attracting centre of our affections, each day that passes 
 brings with it proofs of friendship, or evidences of holy 
 love, which, as fuel to the fire, keep the flame ever burning 
 on the altar of the heart. 
 
 (5) 
 
6 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 Next in importance, tlien, to the settlement of religioua 
 principle, and the cultivation of the moral powers, is the selec- 
 tion of a companion for life — a mirror of our own soul, into 
 which we may always look, and see a true and faithful like- 
 ness there ; a heart which will be ever ready to defend us, 
 when the world shall persecute ; ready to sympathize with 
 and comfort us, when others avoid or neglect; which, like 
 the vine, shall encircle us, and cling the closer to our for- 
 tunes, when the rude storm shall threaten to overthrow and 
 destroy. Selected in wisdom, nurtured with care, this young 
 heart becomes a part of our existence, and in the genial 
 sunshine of affection grows up to maturity, seeking no 
 higher joy than that which springs from mutual happiness 
 and contentment; and when, at last, the travel through 
 this wilderness is passed, longs to be reunited on the other 
 shore, in the Eden of the blessed. 
 
 Sustaining the relation of arbiter, and, to a considerable 
 extent, disposer of human fortunes in time and eternity, we 
 need not wonder at the interest everywhere excited by the 
 subject of marriage. The old and the young feel a deep 
 concern in every pair which joins the married ranks. The 
 gayety of the festival which celebrates this union of hearts, 
 removes not the anxious thoughts of the wise and prudent. 
 They feel that a momentous question has been decided ; one 
 upon which depend the welfare of the couple themselves, 
 and the peace of society at large. The young, who seldom 
 look upon the gloomy side of the path of life, find in their 
 own hearts a response to the motives which actuate the 
 newly-married couple; and thus all are interested in the 
 choice. Perverted by sensual passion, or rendered the agent 
 of grovelling avarice, the institution ordained and blessed of 
 God in the time of man's innocency, is changed from a 
 general good into a hideous curse. The union of kindred 
 hearts is recorded in heaven ; and the dews of Hermon shall 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 7 
 
 descend^ together with the early and the latter rain, to 
 refresh and invigorate the fruitful soil. But the sordid bar- 
 ter in which wealth, beauty, and passion are the commodi- 
 ties exchanged, is an outrage perpetrated against the laws 
 of God and the interests of the human race. 
 
 It is our purpose, courteous reader, to present you with a 
 few pages from the book of real life. We would speak then 
 with the earnestness of the historian, and the confidence of 
 a friend. We would fasten a buoy over the breakers which 
 have perilled the happiness of trusting voyagers, and erect a 
 lighthouse on the shore, to protect others from danger. 
 The voice of warning comes ever too late to the wrecked ; 
 but a word fitly spoken shall be, to the prudent, as apples of 
 gold, set in pictures of silver. 
 
THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE GREAT SECRET. 
 
 ^^ I HAVE been seeking a convenient opportunity for 
 some time past to relieve my mind from anxiety, and I see 
 no reason wliy I may not do so at the present moment. 
 Pardon my frankness, Miss Mary, but tlie interest I feel in 
 the subject is my excuse for the liberty I take. Will you 
 promise to give me a candid answer to my question ?" 
 
 " Most assuredly, Mr. Walton. If I can be the means 
 of relieving you from anxiety of any sort, I will not hesitate 
 to do so.^' 
 
 " Your kindness emboldens me. Miss Mary, and yet I 
 feel some embarrassment in approaching the subject. You 
 have no doubt noticed my attention to you for some time, 
 and the pleasure which I have derived from your society. 
 Permit me to ask what construction you have placed upon 
 my conduct?" 
 
 " Indeed ! and that is the question which embarrasses 
 you so much ?" 
 
 '^ Only in part. Miss Mary. It leads to another of still 
 greater importance. Will you not gratify me with an 
 answer ?'^ 
 
 '' 1 have promised to do all I can to relieve your anxiety, 
 but yet I am only under obligation to answer one question." 
 
 "Very good, Miss Mary; answer the one I have just 
 
THE MAJESTY OE TRUTH. 9 
 
 asked, and I will throw myself upon your generosity for 
 further information/' 
 
 ^' That will be taking rather an advantage of me ; but as 
 I have promised to be just, we will settle the question of 
 generosity afterward. Well, then, Mr. Walton, I have 
 attributed your attention to me only to sincere friendship/' 
 
 '^ Is that all, Mary ? Have you seen nothing to convince 
 you that I entertain something more than mere friendship 
 for you ?" 
 
 ^' I have seen nothing inconsistent with true friendship, 
 Mr. Walton.'' 
 
 ^^ That may be very true, Mary, and yet " 
 
 '' You may not possess that friendship." 
 
 ^' no ! I meant to say, that I might have manifested 
 a higher and dearer feeling, Mary " 
 
 ^* Without designing to do so, Mr. Walton. I understand 
 you." 
 
 '^No, Mary; you wish to tease me. Don't you believe 
 that I love you ?" 
 
 '^ Now, Mr. Walton, that is not a fair question. I cannot 
 answer it." 
 
 " Let me answer it for you then. I know that you have 
 too much perception not to see it, for I do ardently, passion- 
 ately love you. Mary, answer me : is your heart still free, 
 unengaged ?" 
 
 '^ No, Mr. Walton, it is not. I am in love." 
 
 " You are ! with whom ? where does he live ? Who and 
 what is my rival ?" 
 
 '' Do not be excited, Mr. Walton. Your questions multi- 
 ply too fast. Shall I describe him ?" 
 
 '^ By all means. Tell me who he is, as well as what he is. 
 Is there no chance to displace him ?" 
 
 ^'None. But I cannot promise to tell you who he is. 
 
 But I will describe him. Pie is a young man " 
 
 1* 
 
10 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 '^ Of course/' 
 
 '^ Handsome, intelligent, and moral. If lie has faults^ 
 they are unknown to lae." 
 
 "A fine commencement for a nonpareil . picture. Miss 
 Mary. Is it not flattered V 
 
 ^^Not in the least, I think. His features are regular; 
 black hair; a quick, dark eye; matchless mouth; and a 
 commanding appearance, together with a winriing address. 
 He is an educated man, promises to be known in the world, 
 and is quite a general favorite. '^ 
 
 ^^And he has told you that he loves you ?" 
 
 ^^ He has.'' 
 
 " Recently V' 
 
 ^' Not very long since." 
 
 ^^And you are engaged to him ?" 
 
 ^'Not exactly; but I love him." 
 
 " 0, Mary ! why did you not tell me this before ?" 
 
 ^' Because you did not ask me." 
 
 ^' It would have pained my heart, but still, by this time, I 
 might have learned to repress my rising hopes. I might 
 have learned to yield to your wishes, and consult your good 
 in rejecting me. But now, Mary, I shall hate that hand- 
 some rival, and the remembrance of his happiness will 
 imbitter my days. Mine has been a pleasant dream — a 
 dream of many years of joy in your society. Alas, Mary ! 
 why did you not awake me before this ? Why have you 
 suffered me to drink so deeply the cup of delusion ?" 
 
 ^' If I have offended you, Mr. Walton, I am sorry. 
 Nothing was farther from my intention, I assure you. I do 
 esteem you as a friend — I cannot say how highly. It would 
 give me infinite pleasure to see you happy. But you know, 
 Mr. Walton, the first love is the only love of woman." 
 
 '^So the poets say, Mary." 
 
 '^And so you have said, Mr. Walton. Have you forgotten 
 
THE MAJESTY OP TRUTH. 11 
 
 those fanciful legends you used to relate to me, and your 
 opinions expressed about tliem ? You used to tliink that 
 lovers ought to grow up together, and study each other's 
 disposition, that they might learn how to promote each 
 other's happiness. Have you changed your views, Mr. 
 Walton V 
 
 '^No, Mary; and for that very reason I am bold to urge 
 my suit. We have known each other from the time we 
 were little children, and you know I used to tell you years 
 ago that I never could love any one but you.^' 
 
 ^^ I remember that. But you have been away at college 
 for months at a time, and I have scarcely heard from you. 
 How could you expect me to think of you in your absence, 
 when you hardly ever wrote me a line ? Attention, it is 
 said, is the key to woman's affection." 
 
 ^^ True, Mary. But recollect that when I was at college 
 we were not allowed to correspond with young ladies, unless 
 they were very near relatives. You would not have me to 
 violate the rules of the college, would you ?" 
 
 ^^ Well, I think they have no business to make such rules. 
 It does not concern the teachers; and I don't think you 
 would have been very culpable if you had slipped a letter 
 to me occasionall3^'' 
 
 ^^ I grant it, Mary. And I ask a thousand pardons for my 
 negligence. But are you going to cast me off now for some 
 one who loves you no better than I do, and one that has not 
 perhaps known you so long ?'' 
 
 ^^ The young man I speak of has known me all his life 
 nearly, Mr. Walton." 
 
 ^' Well, who is he ? Tell me his name, and I shall ask 
 you no further questions.'^ 
 
 '' Will you promise not to get angry with him, Mr. 
 Walton ?" 
 
 ^' Yes, ioYyour sake, I will treat him kindly. Who is he V* 
 
12 THEOPIIILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 " I must not tell you. Indeed, I cannot tell you." 
 ^'Then you not only reject me, Mary, but refuse to put 
 any confidence whatever in me. Can you treat me so V 
 
 ^^ Mr. Walton ! I declare you understand how to tease 
 one to perfection ! I've a great mind to tell you now, just 
 out of spite V 
 
 " Well, Mary, let me hear it. I am all attention.'^ 
 " If you must know, then, Mr. Walton, the young gen- 
 tleman, who has told me that he loves me ; who has known 
 me so long; who has so often been in my company; and to 
 whom I am indebted for some of the happiest hours I have 
 ever spent; whom I can't help liking, in spite of every 
 thing, is — yourself! Are you satisfied now ?" 
 
 ^^ Mary ! Mary !" exclaimed Mr. Walton, ^^ why have 
 you been teasing me so long? But I won't quarrel with 
 you. You have made me happy !" 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 13 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE LOVERS. 
 
 Mary Ellis was the daughter of the Rev. Mr. Ellis, 
 the pastor of the Baptist church in Maryville. Amiable in 
 disposition and beautiful in person, she was admired and 
 beloved by all who knew her. Her manners were polished, 
 yet she affected not the possession of those so-called accom- 
 plishments, which frequently render ignorance conspicuous. 
 Her education was thorough, if not extensive; and her 
 strong common sense rendered her society instructive and 
 profitable. 
 
 Theophilus Walton was the son of a wealthy farmer. His 
 father's opportunities to acquire education in early life 
 being exceedingly limited, he had learned to value the pos- 
 session of knowledge by his own deficiencies. No pains 
 were spared to afford every facility in behalf of his son. 
 Theophilus was placed at an early day in a private academy 
 of considerable reputation, where he was prepared for col- 
 lege, and in due time graduated in the literary department 
 of the State University with honor. 
 
 The parents of Theophilus and Mary were originally from 
 one of the older States, and the friendship formed in their 
 youth continued uninterrupted to the period of which we 
 write. It was very natural that their children should be 
 attached to each other, and the growing fondness existing 
 between the young couple was noticed with as much pride 
 
14 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 upon tlie one side as satisfaction on the other. Mr. Ellis, 
 though in theory professing to disdain the pomp and show 
 of wealth, did nevertheless feel no little pride at the pros- 
 pect of a family connection with the Waltons. For this 
 exhibition of human nature, however, he felt fully justified, 
 because of the known worth of the young gentleman. On 
 the other hand, although the alliance gave no promise of 
 increased fortune to the family, the Waltons were sincerely 
 attached to Mary Ellis. Her quiet, unobtrusive manner 
 and her affectionate spirit had taken deep hold upon them, 
 and they felt it to be scarcely a condescension for Theophilus 
 to marry the daughter of a widely-known and esteemed 
 minister. 
 
 Thus every thing gave promise of a speedy consummation 
 of happiness to the young couple. They looked forward to 
 the flowery paths of life, inviting them to partake of its 
 rosy pleasures ; no cloud upon the sky, no suspected worm 
 in the bud of promise-^no anticipated barrier to the full 
 enjoyment of domestic bliss. But, alas ! if we could lift 
 the veil that hides the future from our eyes, the pleasant 
 dreams of sanguine youth, as well as the vagaries of more 
 matured age, would be dispelled. It is well. A kind 
 Providence has shut out from our view the contemplations 
 of events, which would enhance our wisdom only at the 
 expense of our peace. 
 
 Unknown trials await this now happy pair — trials which 
 will purge the dross from the fine gold, and temper the 
 steel for future usefulness. We know not the utmost of our 
 strength, until some unexpected emergency has called it 
 forth. And so the heart knows not the depth of its affec- 
 tion, until some formidable evil attempts to overcome it. 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 15 
 
 CHAPTER lY. 
 
 THE AFFLICTION OF JOSEPH. 
 
 ^^I WAS pleased witli your sermon on yesterday, Brother 
 Mason/' said Mr. Thomson, the pastor of the Presbyterian 
 church in Maryville, to the Methodist minister. '^ I was too 
 unwell, from this painful disease of the throat, to occupy my 
 own pulpit, and embraced the opportunity to hear you 
 preach. I thought your text peculiarly appropriate to the 
 times." 
 
 "I felt it to be so,'' replied Mr. Mason; ^'for many of 
 us are obnoxious to the reproofs of the prophet Amos. We 
 ^ trust in the mountain of Samaria,' and live too much ' at 
 ease in Zion.' Although none of us may be found stretched 
 upon 'beds of ivory,' yet we 'eat the lambs out of the 
 flock, and the calves out of the midst of the stall; chant 
 to the sound of the viol, and invent to ourselves instruments 
 of music like David, and are not grieved for the affliction 
 of Joseph.' It is too true." 
 
 '' Yes, indeed, we love to ' put far away the evil day,' and 
 many ' cause the seat of violence to come near.' Men of 
 business are absorbed with debit and credit ; men of leisure 
 with idle and sinful amusement ; and really the fashionable 
 world seems to have reached the height of human folly. 
 Grotesque styles of dress are 'the rage' of the day; the 
 more singular and absurd the fashion, the more acceptable 
 to the tastes of the many, it appears Zion languishes, for 
 
16 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 it is ^ tlie fashion' to complain of coldness and barrenness in 
 religion." 
 
 ^'And I am not sure, Brother Thomson/' replied Mr. 
 Mason, " that we are altogether innocent of responsibility in 
 these matters. "We have not delivered as faithfully as we 
 might have done, the ' whole counsel of God.^ We have too 
 often labored to please the fancy of our hearers, instead of 
 striving to arouse their consciences.'' 
 
 ^^ That is true," said Mr. Thomson ; ^^ and I am also con- 
 vinced that the want of a scriptural catholicity among us 
 has tended to produce alienation among the churches, and 
 infidelity among the people of the world. It is true, we 
 may not be required to unite in all the forms of doctrine ; 
 but still, were we to exhibit more sensibly our unanimity in 
 regard to the essentials of religion, the combined influence 
 of Christianity would be much more potent." 
 
 ^^ I am not aware of any alienation of feeling as regards 
 your Church and mine," said Mr. Mason; ''you know that 
 our Baptist friends are usually a barrier to denominational 
 harmony and Christian intercourse. Their peculiar tenets 
 require a system of exclusiveness which, if fully adhered 
 to, Avould present the maximum of bigotry. By a ' happy 
 inconsistency,' however, they frequently restrain their 
 anathemas, and confine their denunciations of Pedobaptists 
 to the baptismal service and the sacrament of the Supper." 
 
 " Very true. But you remarked a moment ago, that we, 
 as ministers, were at fault for not deliveriug the ' whole 
 counsel of Grod,' instead of striving to entertain and please 
 our congregations. I am not prepared to admit that we do 
 this designedly, that is, with the intention of shirking 
 responsibilities — still, I confess your remark is true. There 
 is still another fault, however, in the ministry of our day, in 
 all the churches." 
 
 "And what is that. Brother Thomson ?" 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 17 
 
 " The want of plainness in our sermons. We incline too 
 mucli to theory, and general disquisitions upon the gospel, 
 whilst practicoJ preaching is neglected." 
 
 <a admit the fact; but still, is not the reason found in 
 the fact that practical preaching is not only unpalatable tc 
 offenders, but has a tendency to place the ministry in the 
 office of public censors V 
 
 " The very office which they ought to fill under the com- 
 mission of ambassadors for Christ." 
 
 ^'Yet you know how dependent every preacher of the 
 gospel is upon the sympathy of his congregation, and when 
 we are, in a great measure, cut off from the warm, earnest 
 prayers of spiritual-minded Christians, our own souls are not 
 adequately fed with the word we preach. And certainly it 
 is unpleasant to be continually rebuking the sins of the peo- 
 ple, unless we see some signs of amendment, and feel that 
 the hearts of the people acknowledge their guilt, whilst their 
 tongues may refuse the confession. If we prepare our ser- ' 
 mons ever so well, and have them so fully matured as to 
 leave no room for improvement, yet, without that earnest, 
 responsive flow of feeling in our hearers which is the life of 
 preaching, our hearts become almost as cold as those to 
 whom our message is delivered." 
 
 ^'All that is true," replied Mr. Thomson; ^^but still I 
 am persuaded that a greater degree of plainness in our 
 pulpits would be an improvement. A preacher that sup- 
 poses his congregation to know too much, will be in as great 
 an error as he who gives them credit for too little knowledge 
 of spiritual things. The latter will be tedious and prolix in 
 defining that which is plain to every one ; but the former will 
 attempt to erect his building before the foundation has been 
 laid : he will place himself heyond the sympathy of his peo- 
 ple. I know that it requires a great deal of caution, and 
 much knowledge of the mental habits of our people, to 
 
18 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 strike tlie middle way; but still I tliink we miglit coma 
 nearer to it than we often do.'^ 
 
 ^^ You admit, then, that one cause of the dearth in reli- 
 gion is the estrangement of the pulpit from the people? 
 But you account for this estrangement by laying the blame, 
 in a great measure, at the door of the ministry ?'^ 
 
 ^^ Precisely so. We miss the sympathy of the people, 
 because, in preaching, we are apt to pursue modes of thought 
 to which the people are not accustomed in every-day life-. I 
 am very free to confess that I have often felt myself guilty 
 of this very thing. We forget that our people are not all 
 students of theology — that many of them do not spend one 
 hour in the week in any sort of religious investigation. We 
 address them as if they were companions in our labor — as if 
 they had marked every step of the mental process by which 
 we arrive at the conclusions of an argument. By this 
 method we tax their minds at the expense of their hearts. 
 They have little time to /ee?, whilst they are striving to 
 understand a sermon. '^ 
 
 "Indeed, Brother Thomson, I believe you are right. I 
 have always noticed, in my pulpit efforts, a vast difference 
 between preaching to the blacks and preaching to the whites. 
 But I have always thought the reason was in the fact that I 
 felt more at ease, more removed from invidious criticism 
 when preaching to negroes." 
 
 "And that was the reason, undoubtedly, Brother Mason. 
 No man can preach with energy who is in dread of violating 
 a rule in grammar, or propriety in rhetoric. The mind 
 must be at liberty, if the heart follows with it. This is my 
 experience. When we have a congregation of educated 
 people to address, we are afraid to use a commonplace ex- 
 pression, but strive for more elevated terms of thought : 
 these are as little adapted to arouse the emotional natures of 
 our hearers, as they are to express the outgushings of oui 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 19 
 
 own feelings ; and fhe consequence is, neither party is bene- 
 fited. Or, in other words, we cramp our own emotions, 
 that we may reach the understanding of the educated — hut 
 only succeed in missing both their heads and their hearts.'' 
 
 "I have no doubt that you are correct. The boast of 
 wisdom and education in the nineteenth century has led us 
 astray. But still it is not to be questioned that the people 
 themselves are devoted to the follies of the world and the 
 acquisition of money." 
 
 ^^ Just as they have been in all ages. Men are stimulated 
 to activity by a desire to acquire ; activity is the means of 
 progress, and thus our wealth of mind and matter is de- 
 veloped. Without such a desire holding its proper place in 
 our economy, we should relapse into barbarism, or at least 
 return to the dark ages of superstition and ignorance. It is 
 the province of religion to keep this principle in check — to 
 use it for great and benevolent ends. But this can only be 
 done by weaning the heart from the love of the world to the 
 gospel of Christ. We can accomplish this by bringing 
 Christian truth to bear upon the heart, and the more simple 
 the means we use, the more success will attend us. I have 
 observed that ' the unction of the Holy One' seldom attends 
 the preaching of one who is not natural in his manner, and 
 simple in his illustrations of Divine truth. The heart of a 
 philosopher will be reached as soon as that of an unlettered 
 African, by the pathos of a little child's prayer. If, then, 
 simplicity gives us power with men, it is Grod's will that we 
 should thus present his truth to our fellow-creatures. These 
 are my views of preaching. Alas ! I wish I could say that 
 I have always practiced upon my own theory." 
 
 " Your views are forcibly illustrated in the sermons of 
 Daniel Baker, of your Church, Mr. Spurgeon, in the Eng- 
 lish Baptist, and Mr. Caughey, in the American Methodist 
 Church. Their sermons are plain, forcible, and practical, 
 
20 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 appealing directly to the conscience, and moving the heart to 
 sympathy and feeling/' 
 
 '■'' Yes, and so we must preach, if we desire to be useful 
 laborers in the vineyard. But we have not reached the 
 subject which I desired to mention. What can we do to 
 promote a revival of religion among us V^ 
 
 '■'■ I have been thinking of a union meeting of the three 
 churches here, for the purpose of enlisting all the praying 
 Christians in the place. What do you think of it ?" 
 
 ^^I have but one objection. So far as I am concerned, it 
 has ever been a pleasure to me to unite in such services with 
 my Methodist brethren, but I have found by experience that 
 these ^ union' meetings seldom turn out well." 
 
 '■'■ In what respect ? You do not mean to say that you 
 have had cause of complaint against the Methodists ?" 
 
 ^^0 no! the utmost harmony and good-fellowship have 
 always characterized our intercourse. But you remember 
 there are tliree parties to the union you propose." 
 
 ^'- 1 understand you. Have you any reason to apprehend 
 difficulty on the part of Brother Ellis ?" 
 
 ''Not as to his consenting to unite with us. He will do 
 tliat, without a question. But — you know his darling idea 
 must have prominence. If he cannot introduce it during 
 the meeting, he only requires one subject at the close, to give 
 a text and a sermon in which we shall all be read out of the 
 Church who have not gone under the water. I am sorry to 
 say so, but I have my reasons." 
 
 '' Do not be uncharitable. He is not an ' Old Landmark' 
 man." 
 
 '' I am not so sure of that. I confess I have my fears. 
 However, if we do our duty, we can leave the consequences 
 to Grod. Our purpose is good : if he sees fit to become the 
 occasion of ofiTence to his brethren, we will not be to blame." 
 
 ''I am sorry that you have any grounds to suspect 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 2l 
 
 Brother Ellis. I have long sought for one liberal Baptist 
 minister, and I thought I had found him. If he fails me, I 
 shall look for the character no longer. " 
 
 ^'- Well, we ought not to forego an attempt to do good, 
 because some evil may probably grow out of it. We had 
 better risk an excitement on the subject of baptism, than 
 remain as we are.'^ 
 
 " So I think. If our Baptist brother violates due deco- 
 rum, we can let the world see whose is the fault, and if he 
 becomes pugnacious, why, all that is in it is, we can fight it 
 out." 
 
 "And we need fear nothing. I dislike controversy, but 
 if forced to it, I regard it a Christian duty. When shall 
 we begin ?" 
 
 " Next Sabbath evening. We will hold special services 
 in our church next week, and I shall expect you to preach 
 on Monday night.'' 
 
 " Yery well. You can call and see Brother Ellis on your 
 way home, and I have no doubt he will agree to it.'' 
 
 Mr. Mason took leave of Mr. Thomson, and called upon 
 Mr. Ellis. That gentleman was highly pleased with the 
 proposition, and promised his cordial cooperation. Mr. Ma- 
 son returned home, pondering the subject of the conversa- 
 tion in his mind. 
 
22 TIIEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE REVIVAL AND ITS FRUITS. 
 
 The three ministers liad been engaged several days in 
 zealous ani laborious efforts, before any visible effects were 
 produced. At last, however, the union of earnest hearts, 
 and the supplication of faithful Christians, under the influ- 
 ences of the gracious Spirit, began to tell upon the hearts of 
 the unconverted. The altar was crowded with weeping 
 penitents, and many embraced the faith that sweetly works 
 by love and purifies the heart. In the preaching, praying, 
 and exhorting, one could scarcely distinguish the fact that 
 the three ministers belonged to different branches of the 
 Church of Christ. There was so much of harmony and 
 brotherly love, that skeptical persons were forced to exclaim, 
 ^^ How good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell 
 together in unity !" No zeal for denominational distinc- 
 tions, no thirst for pulling down the tabernacles of their 
 brethren, found a place in these hearts so wholly filled with 
 the essence of religion — love. No word of offence was ut- 
 tered — not a sentiment advanced that could have given pain 
 to any child of Jesus. It was the golden age of religion in 
 Maryville. The oldest inhabitants had never known such 
 general interest and inquiry among the people. Many men 
 had been brought under gospel influences who had been 
 prominently known hitherto as unbelievers or skeptics. 
 
 Mr. Ellis, the Baptist minister, was unusually liberal 
 
THE MAJESTY OP TRUTH. 23 
 
 in his expressions of love and esteem for his dear breth- 
 ren of the sister Churches. He deplored the unfortunate 
 coolness which sometimes seemed to exist between their 
 respective denominations. But now that Grod had visited 
 them with such abundant measures of grace, he rejoiced in 
 the fact that they were all become children of one Father, 
 and were sitting meekly at the feet of Jesus. 
 
 The meeting continued nearly two weeks, and when 
 brought to a close on Wednesday evening, the announce- 
 ment was made by Mr. Mason, that those persons who had 
 made a profession of religion during the revival ought to 
 feel perfectly free in uniting with that branch of the Church 
 in which they conscientiously believed they could best ad- 
 vance the glory of Grod. In this matter, however, as they 
 had laid aside all right of interference, or rather did not 
 believe they possessed any, the ministers felt perfectly satis- 
 fied of the competency of each to determine for himself. 
 
 On Friday, after the close of the meeting, Mr. Thomson 
 called on the Methodist minister. 
 
 " "Well, Brother Mason, have you heard the news V^ 
 
 "No, sir; to what do you refer V 
 
 " You know that three young men joined your Church, 
 and two young ladies joined mine, who have been brought up 
 in Baptist families V 
 
 " Yes, Mr. Smith's sons and the brother of Dr. Walton 
 have united with us, but what of that V 
 
 "Why, nothing more than that we have been publicly 
 charged on the streets with having proselyted them V 
 
 " Indeed ! I never uttered a syllable to one of the young 
 men about joining the Methodist Church.^' 
 
 "Nor did I mention the subject of joining the Church to 
 the Misses Brown ; but nevertheless our names are bandied 
 about this very day as if we were hypocrites and deceivers." 
 
 " Indeed ! who has said it V 
 
24 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 ^' Members of the Baptist Church, and I am not sure if 
 Brother Ellis is not at the bottom of it/' 
 
 " Surely not. Have you conversed with him on the sub- 
 ject?'' 
 
 '^ Yes, I have just left him. He seems to give credit to 
 the report, notwithstanding I assured him in the most posi- 
 tive manner I could that the story was untrue." 
 
 ^' That is very strange, indeed. Did he give any reasons 
 for his belief?" 
 
 ^' None — only that some influence must have been exer- 
 cised over the minds of these persons, else they would not 
 have repudiated their old associations. He also said, that 
 under such circumstances we need not be surprised to find 
 him defending his Church against such encroachments." 
 
 " Defending his Church ! Is the man deranged ? Who 
 has attacked his Church ?" 
 
 ^' No one. It is another illustration of the fable of the 
 wolf and the lamb. He would gladly have a cause to agi- 
 tate the question of baptism, and as we have given none, he 
 will asswine an attack, and plunge into an ostensible defence. 
 You remember what I told you before this meeting began. 
 I had reasons for believing that he would take this course. 
 He deceived me once before. You may not be aware of 
 the fact, but my oldest daughter is a member of his Church. 
 Several years ago, whilst a revival was in progress here, and 
 all were in harmony and peace, my daughter Mary requested 
 to spend the evening with the children of a Baptist neigh- 
 bor. At first I objected, but when Brother Ellis assured 
 me that no subject of Church disputes should be introduced 
 there, I sufi'ered her to go. She was then quite young, and 
 unable to judge for herself in a matter of controversy, and 
 when the subject of baptism was introduced, and their argu- 
 ments presented to her, the child knew no reply to make. 
 I have undoubted evidence from the child herself, that 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 25 
 
 Brotlier Ellis spent two whole hours in showing her the evi- 
 dence in favor of baptism by immersion. I know not what 
 other influences they brought to bear upon her, but they suc- 
 ceeded by these secret intrigues in winning my child from me, 
 and bringing her into their Church. Now, Brother Mason, 
 if she had chosen to do so, without proselyting efforts, I could 
 not have objected to her becoming a Baptist. But to see 
 her forced from me, and enticed into a communion where 
 she cannot approach the table of the Lord with her own 
 parents, is indeed a sore affliction to me.'' 
 
 ^'Aud have you made no effort to reclaim her 1" 
 '' What can I do ? I have no doubt that she would gladly 
 return to her proper place, but you know that the Baptists 
 inflict the severest penalty known to the Church upon those 
 who leave them. A public trial and formal excommunica- 
 tion await any one who withdraws to another Church. Nor 
 is this all : she must forfeit the friendship of those who were 
 instrumental in proselyting her, and the innumerable an- 
 noyances to which she would be exposed have hitherto pre- 
 vented her from uniting with us." 
 
 ^'And yet these same Baptist preachers tell us that they 
 are advocates of religious liberty ! shame ! shame !" 
 
 'at is indeed humiliating to make the acknowledgment 
 to the enemies of Christianity, but nevertheless it is palpa- 
 bly true. We have among us a people who, whilst they 
 profess to yield to every one the right of judgment in reli- 
 gious matters, perpetuate the same system in retaining their 
 members that is practiced by the Church of Rome. Their 
 anathemas may not be dreaded as are the decrees of the 
 Vatican, but it is not their fault that they are not. The 
 compulsion is as absolute, in a moral sense, as if they had 
 the power to inflict physical pains and penalties. Whatever 
 else it may be, certainly the Baptist Church is not a volun- 
 tary association. The power of choice is for ever alienated 
 2 
 
26 THEOPHILUS WALTON; CR, 
 
 the moment tlie immersion takes place. Beyond tliat point, 
 the believer is debarred the right of thinking for himself/' 
 
 " Well, I suppose Brother Ellis will give ns a sermon on 
 Baptism next Sabbath/' 
 
 ^^ Of course he will, and handle us without gloves, I have 
 no doubt/' 
 
 " Can we not make it convenient to attend ?" 
 
 " I would do so, but he would claim that we are attempt- 
 ing to intimidate him, and prevent the free expression of 
 his views." 
 
 " That would be certainly without foundation." 
 
 '^And yet he would make capital of it. He would appeal 
 to the sympathies of the people, and become eloquent over 
 the sufferings of Baptist martyrs, who were the victims of 
 persecution." 
 
 ^^ Well, let us bide the time, and take our usual course. 
 If he misrepresents us, we shall not fail to hear it." 
 
 " I think that the better course. In the meantime I must 
 endeavor to get at the root of the charges which are being 
 preferred against me. I must meet our session this after- 
 noon, and, as the hour is approaching, I will bid you good 
 day." 
 
 With these words, Mr. Thomson left the house. 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 27 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 CONSISTENCY IS A JEWEL. 
 
 Before the Sabbath arrived, it became generally circulated 
 through the community that the Rev. Mr. Ellis would 
 demonstrate the truth of ^' believers' baptism" on that day. 
 No little excitement was manifested in various quarters. On 
 the part of the Baptists there was a great anxiety to have 
 the number of subjects swelled as far as possible, until they 
 were led almost to the extremes which they condemned : 
 several young children, not far removed, if at all, from a 
 state of infancy^ were among the candidates. 
 
 The congregation was very large. The candidates for 
 baptism were placed in a conspicuous position, dressed in 
 white, and seemed to feel that they were the objects of gene- 
 ral interest. Mr. Ellis, after the usual services, introduced 
 his text, which consisted of two words only : ^' Follow me,'' 
 They were the words of Christ to Philip, recorded in the 43 d 
 verse of the first chapter of the Grospel by St. John. 
 
 The necessity of following the commandments of Christ 
 was dwelt upon with considerable emphasis, but with espe- 
 cial reference to the ordinance of baptism. In this case, 
 Christ had given not only a command, but had left us his 
 example. In following one, we followed the other. If we 
 could determine in what manner Christ was baptized, in that 
 manner we ought to be baptized. If we had the right to 
 alter one of Christ's commandments^ we could alter them all. 
 
28 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 But Christ was evidently baptized in a river, and it would 
 be utterly absurd to suppose that he was baptized otherwise 
 than by immersion. All lexicographers agreed that the 
 meaning of haptidzo was to immerse. Indeed, no Pedo- 
 baptist who had any claim to respectability had denied it. 
 The Pedobaptists had acknowledged that it was the ancient 
 mode; and the churches in the first centuries certainly un- 
 derstood what particular act Christ denominated baptism. 
 From all this he argued that, as Christ was baptized by im- 
 mersion, as he commanded immersion, there was no possible 
 way of keeping Christ's commandment without being im- 
 mersed. It was indeed a cross, but a cross which Christ 
 himself had borne; and if men would persecute the be- 
 liever, he had certain evidence therein that he was doing 
 the will of God in submitting to his ordinance. 
 
 In conclusion, he could not hesitate to affirm, nay, the 
 wrath of Grod was threatened against him if he did not 
 affirm, that those who resisted the light of reason and revela- 
 tion on this subject, were in positive rebellion against the 
 King of heaven. They impiously resisted a command of 
 God, and could not consequently be innocent. Although he 
 regretted to say so, yet the vindication of the truth required 
 it : the Pedobaptists had laid sacrilegious hands upon the 
 ark of God. They had substituted the commandments of 
 men for those of God, and in so doing revealed the charac- 
 teristics of that Antichrist, who should obstruct the progress 
 of the truth, and afflict the true Church of God. That 
 there were pious individuals among Pedobaptist societies, he 
 had no doubt ; but they were such because they were kept 
 in ignorance of their duty. He had no doubt the day would 
 gome when priestly domination would be overthrown, and 
 the true Church would come forth, ^' clear as the sun, fair as 
 the moon, and terrible as an army with banners.'' For the 
 ignorant he had the warmest sympathy; but for those who 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 29 
 
 kept tliem hoodwinked, and forced them to rebellion against 
 God, he could not restrain his righteous indignation. 
 
 Such was the substance of the sermon. Many quotations 
 from Pedobaptist authors were produced, as found in Baptist 
 books, and their testimony was represented as decisive, inas- 
 much as it was all against themselves. He would not quote 
 from his own brethren, as they were interested witnesses ; 
 but when Pedobaptist writers gave up their cause, it must 
 indeed be hopeless. 
 
 There could be no mistake as to the impression which this 
 sermon produced. Some, who were members of Pedobaptist 
 churches, were, of course, mortified and insulted. But the 
 Baptists were in ecstasies. The thing was made as clear as 
 the noonday light, and they wondered that any human being 
 who had common sense could resist the truth. With the 
 immersion of the candidates in the church pool, the exer- 
 cises closed, and the people departed to their homes, some 
 grieving over the capital which had been that day given to 
 the accuser. To deny that Mr. Ellis had shown up his own 
 inconsistency before the world, was impossible. The plain- 
 est mind, not biased by prejudice, could see that he had 
 placed himself in a ridiculous dilemma. He had but a few 
 days since claimed fraternity with those Pedobaptist teach- 
 ers, whom to-day he stigmatized as rebels against God. He 
 had called them brethren, children of the same Father, 
 sitting at the feet of Jesus, in the revival. But at the 
 baptism they were rebels against God, impious mutilators of 
 his word, wilfully blinding the eyes of the people, and thus 
 leading them into grievous sin against God. There were not 
 wanting those who said he had played his part well — having 
 gulled the Methodists and the Presbyterians with pleasant 
 words until he gathered his utmost of the profits, and then ex- 
 hibiting his true character in the native deformity of bigotry. 
 
 As the reader has seen, the attack was not wholly unex- 
 
30 THEOPIIILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 pected. The two other ministers were prepared to hear the 
 worst news from the advocate of immersion. On the follow- 
 ing day, Mr. Thomson waited upon Mr. Ellis, and asked 
 him, in a friendly way, if he was prepared to establish the 
 wholesale charges he had made on Sabbath. To this, Mr. 
 Ellis replied that he saw no necessity for further proof than 
 that he had already given. A month's controversy, he said, 
 would not set the matter in a clearer light than it was at that 
 moment. If, however, the Pedobaptists desired a contro- 
 versy, he would find a man who would be willing to in- 
 vestigate the subject with any one of them. It must be 
 understood, however, that they, the Pedobaptists, would be 
 held responsible for any excitement on the subject I 
 
 Mr. Thomson saw the utter impossibility of obtaining 
 justice in this way, and, after informing Mr. Ellis that he 
 would consult with Mr. Mason, he went to the house of the 
 Methodist minister. There he found several persons who 
 united in requesting one or both of the ministers to reply 
 to the sermon of Mr. Ellis. Among this number was 
 Theophilus Walton. Having joined the Methodist Church 
 as the Church of his choice, against the known wishes of his 
 parents, he desired to be baptized by immersion, not only to 
 soften the opposition of his father, who was very rigid in his 
 doctrinal opinions, but also because he believed that mode 
 to be truly scriptural and proper. Inasmuch, however, as he 
 had never heard a Pedobaptist discourse on the subject of 
 baptism, he readily joined with the rest of the company in 
 requesting a reply to Mr. Ellis. 
 
 ^'1 would not hesitate to preach upon the subject,'^ said 
 Mr. Mason, '^but it will require a series of sermons to 
 examine the entire question. My sermons would unques- 
 tionably call out Brother Ellis, and so there might be no end to 
 the replies from the pulpit. I would much prefer to meet 
 him in a regular, public discussion." 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 31 
 
 "But that you will never do/^ said Mr. Thomson, "for 
 I have just seen him, and he declines entering into a con- 
 troversy. He thinks enough has been said upon the sub- 
 jeet!- 
 
 "Indeed!'' replied Mr. Mason. "Enough has been said 
 on one side, doubtless ; but it is nothing but fair to hear the 
 other.'' 
 
 " He states, however, that if we are anxious to have a de- 
 bate, and will consider ourselves responsible for any excite- 
 ment which may grow out of it, he will find a man who will 
 meet either of us." 
 
 " Well, well ! If that is not the most absurd thing that I 
 ever heard ! We responsible for the excitement, when 
 the whole community is already in a ferment, and neither 
 of us has uttered a word about the matter in public ! Can 
 this be the man who was so recently full of love and charity 
 toward his dear Christian brethren of all denominations? 
 Truly, the enemies of Christ are sometimes those of his own 
 professed household !" 
 
 "I cannot see," said Mr. Thomson, "in this state of 
 affairs, any better method to pursue, than a calm exposition 
 of the subject from our pulpits, together with an exposure of 
 the garbled extracts taken from our authors. If we do not 
 notice him, he will claim the victory : if we do, he will cry 
 persecution ! Either way, we have to deal with an unfair 
 opponent, upon his own ground." 
 
 " Let us not be too hasty," said Theophilus. " Perhaps a 
 more charitable construction will be safer in the end." 
 
 " I beg your pardon, Theophilus," replied Mr. Thomson, 
 " I ought to recall my remark for Miss Mary's sake." 
 
 "Not at all," said Theoj)hilus, with embarrassment, "I 
 appreciate your motives, but perhaps you may misunderstand 
 Mr. Ellis. At all events, if you will permit me to do so, I 
 think I can suggest a plan by which the matter may be dis- 
 
32 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 posed of, at least to tlie satisfaction of some of us, wlio feel 
 deeply interested/^ 
 
 " Very well/' replied Mr. Thomson, " we shall be glad 
 to hear it/' 
 
 " I propose, then, that you preach a sermon on the subject, 
 and thus reply to the discourse of last Sabbath. In the 
 next place, if it suits Mr. Mason's convenience, I would be 
 glad if he will consent to examine the whole subject, and 
 permit those who desire to do so to attend, and suggest any 
 difficulty which may present itself to their minds. I have 
 many doubts on my own mind, both in regard to the mode 
 and subjects of baptism; and, as I have united with the 
 Methodist Church, I desire to know all that can be said in 
 favor of Pedobaptist views. My reasons for joining the 
 Methodist Church are wholly irrelevant to this subject, it is 
 true, yet I desire to embrace all the doctrines of the Church, 
 if I can do so conscientiously." 
 
 "I am pleased with your proposition," remarked Mr. 
 Thomson. ^'It would be unnecessary for both of us to 
 preach a sermon in reply, and as your pastor is in duty bound 
 to give you any light he may have upon the subject, we shall 
 wisely, and I think profitably, divide the labor. You can 
 hear my sermon, and I will propose to my young members 
 who may have any scruples about baptism, to attend your 
 meetings here. If this arrangement meets the concurrence 
 of Brother Mason, we shall have the matter understood." 
 
 " I shall agree with all my heart to the plan," said Mr. 
 Mason, ^^and on Thursday evening we can meet at this 
 place. You can say, Theophilus, to any of your friends who 
 desire to do so, that we would be glad to have them join us 
 in this investigation." 
 
 "Before we separate, Mr. Mason," said Theophilus, "I 
 desire to place in your hands a work which is being circu- 
 lated among us, and if you will allow me to suggest a 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 33 
 
 particular metliod, I would recommend you to examine its 
 arguments. It is called ' Theodosia Urnest ; or, The Hero- 
 ine of Faith.' The spirit of tlie work seems to be fair, and 
 I regard its positions as very strong, if not impregnable.'' 
 
 '^ Very well. I have never seen the book before, nor have 
 I heard of it. I will look over it, however, between this and 
 Thursday evening.'' 
 
 The company then separated, and left Mr. Mason alone 
 with his books. 
 
 2* 
 
34 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE DOUBT REMOVED. 
 
 The interview wliicli resulted in so happy an understand- 
 ing between Thcopliilus Walton and Mary Ellis, as related 
 in Chapter Second, occurred but a short time previous to the 
 events which we have just described. 
 
 In the quiet confidence of trusting hearts, the young 
 couple were waiting the appointed time for the consumma- 
 tion of their domestic happiness, when the " union meeting" 
 commenced. Theophilus had received at an early age many 
 of the prejudices in favor of his father's Church, particularly 
 a belief in immersion as the only valid mode of Christian bap- 
 tism. But, although he possessed much of the zeal in behalf 
 of this doctrine which distinguishes its adherents, he was 
 nevertheless actuated by noble and generous principles in 
 according all honesty and sincerity to those who differed 
 with him. It did indeed seem ungenerous, not to say un- 
 christian, to him, to exclude those who were acknowledged 
 to be pious people from the table of the Lord ; yet he was 
 taught to believe it a fundamental duty, required for the 
 preservation of a pure gospel. 
 
 Under the tuition of Dr. Thomas, in the State University, 
 he of course attended upon the Baptist ministry. Occasion- 
 ally, however, he visited the Pedobaptist churches, and could 
 not fail to see a marked difference between the preaching of 
 his own and that of other pastors. In his own Church — or 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 35 
 
 rather that wliich he called his own, for he was not then a 
 member of it — there was a continual presentation of the sub- 
 ject of baptism. Scarcely a sermon was preached that did 
 not contain some allusion to the ordinance. He heard many 
 in which Christ was scarcely named; but the favorite theme 
 of baptism was always provided with a passport to the atten- 
 tion of the congregation. In other churcheSj however, he 
 seldom, if ever, heard it named. Under these circumstances, 
 he could not fail to ask himself the cause of this difference. 
 If our preachers are so certain that immersion is right, 
 thought he, why do they keep continually trying to prove it ? 
 Why do they keep this subject for ever before the people, if 
 they are not in doubt about it, and fear that the people may 
 be also ? Why is there so little effort to enforce the duties 
 of repentance and faith, without which no one can be saved ? 
 Surely they are fearful of their position, else, having once 
 established it, they would let it stand upon its own basis. On 
 one occasion he proposed his doubts to Dr. Thomas in a pri- 
 vate conversation. The Doctor, however, quieted his appre- 
 hensions by telling him, that as the greater part of the world 
 was wrong on that subject, they could not have too much 
 light. " ^ Line upon line, and precept upon precept,' '^ said he ; 
 '' ' here a little, and there a little.' AVhen men are convinced 
 of their duty in this regard, we can turn our attention with- 
 out distraction to other things." Theophilus was not quite 
 satisfied with this reply; but, as the Doctor was a good man, 
 and the pastor a good man, he would not permit himself to 
 question the propriety of their course. 
 
 After he returned from college, however, and observed the 
 same course in Mr. Ellis, the pastor in Maryville, he became 
 quite tired of it, and, for the sake of variety, frequently 
 visited the Methodist and Presbyterian Churches. Satisfied 
 himself as to the correctness of immersion as the mode of 
 baptism, he found it necessary, if he would be entertained 
 
36 ^ THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 and profited, to visit other cliurches. Mr. Walton, his 
 father, had frequently observed this, and several times gave 
 him to understand that he did not approve of it ; and, to keep 
 peace at home, Theophilus for a season desisted. When 
 the ^^ union meeting'^ commenced, and all parties for the 
 time being were sitting under the same ministry, he felt 
 relieved. Now he could hear the gospel, without a perora- 
 tion about the ^^ river Jordan,'^ the ^'yielding wave,'' and 
 '^ being buried with Christ in baptism.'' Now he found 
 the ideal which he had in his mind, of Christian fellowship, 
 fully exhibited. And there, too, on the first evening, he felt 
 a new and lively interest in the subject of religion. Tho 
 word came to his heart in power : the Spirit of God, by that 
 eloquence which is beyond human excellence, persuaded 
 him to confess his sins and come to Christ. He hesitated 
 long, but finally ventured to the altar for prayer. His ex- 
 ample was followed by many others, and the prayers of the 
 people were answered in their behalf. Mr. Mason was kneel- 
 ing by his side, pressing home to him the great doctrine of 
 justification by simple faith in Jesus, and persuading him to 
 make the venture — to throw himself, sinful as he was, into 
 the arms of redeeming love — when Theophilus felt that 
 strange warming of his heart which was hitherto unknown 
 to him. He felt the truth — he believed, he embraced it — 
 and Grcd's Spirit, in a signal manner, gave him the witness 
 of his acceptance. In the inexpressible rapture of a new- 
 born soul, he clasped Mr. Mason in his arms, and for some 
 moments they rejoiced together. From that hour, Theophi- 
 lus felt a singular attachment for Mr. Mason. He had 
 always respected him, now he loved him. He could not 
 refrain from saying, ^^Thy God shall be my God;" and at 
 another time, after a fearful struggle between his conscience 
 and the known wishes of his parents, he declared, ^^Thy peo- 
 ple shall be my people." He could not bear the thought of 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 37 
 
 excluding liiin wlio, under God, was the means of his conver- 
 sion, from the fold of Christ, and he felt that the privilege 
 of meeting around the table of the Lord, to commemorate 
 his death and suflFerings, was the highest known to Christians 
 on earth. 
 
 Constrained by a sense of duty, he joined the Methodist 
 Church ; and although his father met him with a frown, and 
 his mother seemed to treat him coldly, he prayed that God 
 would soften their hearts, and restore him to their confi- 
 dence. 
 
 Since the hour in which he gave his hand to the minister, 
 in token of his desire to unite with the people of God, he 
 had had no opportunity to converse with Mary upon the 
 subject. He knew that she would have preferred his union 
 with the Baptists, but how far her prejudices might bias her 
 judgment, and what effect his recent course might have upon 
 her affection for him, he could not tell. Once he was re- 
 solved to make known his intention to her, and ascertain 
 her feelings with regard to it. Then, again, he searched his 
 own heart thoroughly, and felt that whatever others might do, 
 there was but one course open to him. His spiritual welfare 
 could only be provided for by obeying the dictates of that 
 conscience which he firmly believed to be enlightened by the 
 Spirit of God. To ask her advice, then, with a previous 
 determination to reject it if it did not coincide with his 
 determination, he felt to be not only useless, but really a 
 mockery. 
 
 He had never seen any reason to regret his engagement. 
 Mary's affection he could not doubt. He was once possessor 
 of her heart. But now that he had, to some extent at least, 
 changed his religious opinions; now that he felt constrained 
 to oppose his parents, and brook their displeasure, in order 
 to maintain a clear conscience — must he pay the price of her 
 affection too ? K his own father could treat him with indif- 
 
38 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 ference; if his own inotlier — sustaining the dearest of all 
 earthly relationships — if she could yield a mother's love, at 
 the command of a rigid sectarianism, what must he expect 
 from Mary? The young, artless child, so full of filial 
 respect, so pliable to a mother's mandates — would she de- 
 sert him too ? And if she did, could he make the sacri- 
 fice — silence the inward monitor, and yield his conscience to 
 secure his bride ? And if thus secured, purchased at the 
 expense of his religious peace, could he lay his hand upon 
 his heart, and tell his Heavenly Father that he had done all 
 for his glory ? 
 
 These and similar questions gave Theophilus no little per- 
 plexity. Several times he determined to have the matter set 
 at rest. He would see Mary, and frankly tell her all. But 
 as often as the possibility of realizing his fears came over 
 his spirit as a dark shadow, he sank down again, nerveless 
 and irresolute. 
 
 At last, however, resolved to know the worst of his pros- 
 pects, and hastily threading the streets of the village, he 
 called at the house of Mr. Ellis. 
 
 Mary received him with her usual cordiality, but Theophi- 
 lus fancied that there was something formal and ceremoni- 
 ous in her salutation. 
 
 ^' Well now, Mr. Methodist," said Mary, ^^ I think it was 
 too bad in you to desert your old friends, and join another 
 Church." 
 
 ^' I have deserted no one, Mary; I have simply tried to do 
 my duty. Are you going to quarrel with me about that?" 
 
 ^'Unless you can prove that it was your diitT/ to join the 
 Methodists, You can't imagine, Theophilus, how father 
 takes it to heart. He says that you are the last man he 
 would have selected as a deserter." 
 
 ^^ You pain me, Mary, by talking about deserting the Bap- 
 tists; I never was a member of the Baptist Church. I have 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 39 
 
 not altered my views upon the subject without earnestly 
 praying to God for direction/^ 
 
 " Well, The., I don't mean to reproach you. I said fathei 
 called you a deserter. I did not — at least, not in earnest. 
 But look here. The., I think /can convince you that immer- 
 sion is the right way.'' 
 
 " No doubt of it, my love : your arguments will always 
 prove strong ones with me." 
 
 ^' Come, now, Theophilus, I don't intend that you shall 
 rally me in that manner. I mean to show you how Christ 
 was baptized in the river Jordan — in the river, don't you 
 see?" 
 
 ^' Stop, my little controversialist, I have not disputed that." 
 
 ^' Well, then, that is the way we are to be baptized — we 
 must follow Christ." 
 
 '•'' What ! must we go to the river Jordan ? Few of us 
 will get that privilege, I think." 
 
 " Well, no ; not in the Jordan, but in a river." 
 
 ^' Were you baptized in a river ^ Mary ?" 
 
 '^ No ; that's a fact — I was immersed in the pool in our 
 church ; but, then, it's all the same." 
 
 ^'Not altogether the same, Mary. If we follow Christ, 
 we must follow him in all particulars — if not in all, why in 
 any?" 
 
 ^' Why, you don't mean to say that baptism is of no im- 
 portance, do you?" 
 
 "I will tell you what I will say, my love, and that is, that 
 I will not dispute about baptism with youP 
 
 ^^And why not with me ?" 
 
 " Because I should not like to be beaten in argument, and 
 I should dislike still more to vanquish you." 
 
 ^' ! well, since that is the case, we can have a drawn 
 hattle, and save honor on both sides. But mind. The., you 
 must be immersed !" 
 
40 
 
 OR 
 
 "That I expect to be. But tell me, Mary, do you blame 
 me for joining the Methodist Church?^' 
 
 " Well, not if you felt it to be your duty. I would rather 
 sec you a Baptist.^' 
 
 ''That I expected, of course. You can't tell, Mary, how 
 I have suffered on your account.'' 
 
 '' On my account ! how V 
 
 '' Why, my love, I was afraid you might turn against me too.'' 
 
 " What, Theophilus ! could you doiiht me?" 
 
 " Not if you were left to yourself. But I was afraid that 
 other influences might be brought to bear upon you, and you 
 might " 
 
 " Well, what ? what influences. The. V 
 
 " Your father, my love. I was afraid he would try to 
 influence you against me." 
 
 " No, no, Theophilus, my affection for you would remain 
 the same, no matter what Church you may join. I am not 
 such a sectarian as all that." 
 
 " Then you will be true to me ?" 
 
 " Certainly I will !" 
 
 ''If — ^your father should oppose you?" 
 
 "Yes." 
 
 "But if he forbids your marriage?" 
 
 " That would not change me !" 
 
 "And if my parents turn against me ?" 
 
 " I will be true !" 
 
 " Heaven bless you, Mary ! Though all others forsake 
 me, I shall be happy, if you remain steadfast !" 
 
 "Never fear, Theophilus; nothing on earth could alienate 
 me from you — no, not even your unkindness and desertion. 
 Affliction, misfortune, persecution, would add sympathy to 
 love, and I should feel it to be my highest happiness on 
 earth to share your sorrows with you. ' Naught but death 
 shall part thee and me !' " 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 41 
 
 ^' That was spoken like a true woman, Mary. And now I 
 feel satisfied. I know not what trials may await me, but I 
 feel that the promise is mine, 'As thy days, so shall thy 
 strength be/ It is enough for me to have a good conscience 
 toward God, and feel that my best earthly friend will abide 
 with me the day of trial. I am afraid you will encounter 
 your father's opposition. Treat him kindly; honor him as 
 a parent, but " 
 
 " Be true to Theophilus ! You need not have any doubts : 
 I am yours, now and for ever V 
 
 " Farewell, then, Mary, for a season : I will trust you.'' 
 
^iv^t ^it^ttiwg. 
 
 THE WORD ^aMMERSE'^ NOT IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 THE REASONS GIVEN BY BAPTIST WRITERS 
 CONTRADICTED BY BAPTIST WRITERS. 
 
 THE BABEL OF BAPTIST BIBLE REVISION 
 OVERTHROWN BY ITS OWN BUILDERS. 
 
THE MAJESTY OE TRUTH. 45 
 
 FIRST EVENING. 
 
 On Thursday evening, Mr. Thomson and quite a number 
 of his meml^ers, together with many of the Methodists in 
 Maryville, met at the parsonage. It was soon found that, 
 notwithstanding it had been intended as a private meeting 
 only, the interest manifested in the community would com- 
 pel the party to repair to the church, near by. This they 
 did ; and after an earnest prayer to the Griver of light and 
 Source of truth, Mr. Mason informed the assembly that the 
 proposed investigation would proceed in conversational style. 
 It was not, he said, designed to be a public affair, but 
 inasmuch as many were anxious to attend, he was perfectly 
 willing that all should do so. 
 
 '^I have read the book you gave me, Theophilus,'' said 
 Mr. Mason, ^^ and really I am tempted to smile at your 
 opinion of its merits. That the book is designed to operate 
 upon the minds of the young is very evident, for there are 
 methods of argumentation in it which can never satisfy a 
 matured mind. No doubt many a young lady will sympa- 
 thize deeply with Theodosia Ernest, and feel that her cro&& 
 was very heavy ; and perhaps some will be inclined to 
 follow her example, in breaking off from her own people, 
 and joining the Baptist Church, under the overwhelming 
 arguments of a schoolmaster, who had no one to oppose him . 
 If this result attends the book, the author will rejoice over 
 
46 THEOPHILUS WALTONj OR, 
 
 the hosts of the Pedobaptists. It is a pity, however, that such 
 an earnest seeker of truth as Theodosia should have a man 
 for her guide who does not seem to be very fond of telling 
 the truth. I shall, I think, before we have gone through 
 the subject, give you irrefragable proof of the fact that the 
 Pedobaptist speakers in this Baptist drama are badly posted 
 up, and Pedobaptist writers generally are grossly misre- 
 presented. 
 
 ^^ There is one remark I desire to make just here, by way 
 of introduction. It seems to be a favorite point with the 
 Baptists to make the ' eminent Pedobaptist writers' destroy 
 their own system. This is done over and over again. We 
 hear of ^ concessions of Pedobaptist divines,' ' admissions of 
 learned Pedobaptists,' etc., and out of these partial, frag- 
 mentary quotations, the party-colored coat of the Baptist 
 Joseph is made. Now I intend, in a great measure, to 
 weigh the arguments of our opponents ; but nevertheless I 
 shall show you that the Bajytist system, can he more readily 
 destroyed hy Baptist tvr iters themselves, than perhaps you 
 may at this moment imagine. If, then, differences of 
 opinion among Pedobaptists on some points considered 
 unimportant are to be gathered up, and passed through a 
 Baptist course of synthesis, let us serve them the same way. 
 They afford us abundant materials. 
 
 " You have doubtless noticed, Theophilus, that the word 
 immerse is not in the English Bible. Have you ever 
 inquired for the reason?" 
 
 '^ Yes, sir. President Thomas, of the State University, 
 who is a Baptist minister, told me that it was excluded by 
 special order of King James, who was the originator of our 
 present translation.'^ 
 
 '^ Indeed ! President Thomas showed you the order of 
 the king, by which haptidzo was forbidden to be trans- 
 lated?" 
 
THE MAJESTY OP TRUTH. 47 
 
 ^^ No, sir ; I did not say tJiat. I asked him if tliere was 
 such an order, and he said the word haptidzo was not men- 
 tioned, but that it was included under the Third Rule, 
 which required the translators to retain the old ecclesiastical 
 wordsy such as cJiurch, which they were forbidden to render 
 congregation." 
 
 ^'But President Thomas certainly showed you his 
 authority for saying that the word haptidzo was then called 
 an old ecclesiastical word ; did he not V 
 
 ''No, sir, he did not." 
 
 ''And did he give you no authority for saying that King 
 James restricted the translators with reference to this 
 word V 
 
 " None but that which I mentioned/' 
 
 ','But that surely was no authority at all. Before he 
 can make it a restriction, he must prove that haptidzo was 
 regarded as an ecclesiastical word in the time of King 
 James. If he does that, he justifies both the king and 
 the translators in retaining it ; if he does not prove it, he 
 cannot prove the restriction. That is very clear.'' 
 
 " I never took that view of it before ; but I confess that 
 one of the two things ought to be done : either prove that 
 two hundred and fifty years ago haptidzo was believed to be 
 an ecclesiastical word — that is, a word used in a peculiar 
 sense in the New Testament ] a sense in some way or other 
 differing from its ordinary use — or else give up the charge 
 against King James." 
 
 "Precisely so. And now to show you how Baptists 
 argue about this ordinance, let me read you a remark or two 
 from Bichard Fuller, a Baptist minister in Baltimore, in his 
 book on Baptism, page 12 : ' TFe have nothing to do with 
 hapto. The Holy Spirit always, in speaking of the ordi- 
 nance, uses one single word. That word is haptidzo.' Now 
 is it not clear as day that the Holy Spirit designed to make 
 
48 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 a distinction between hapto and haptidzo, if the first is 
 never used to express tlie ordinance, and the latter is inva- 
 riably used ? And if haptidzo was set apart for a peculiar 
 use in the New Testament, how would it be possible to 
 designate that peculiar use if both words were translated 
 immerse V 
 
 '^I suppose,'^ said Theophilus, ^^it might be said in 
 reply, that the sense of the passage would inform the reader 
 where the ordinance was meant, and where it was not.'' 
 
 " But that is no answer,'' replied Mr. Mason ; ^' for if 
 immerse should be used indiscriminately, sometimes for the 
 ordinance, sometimes to express a secular action, why was 
 not haptidzo used thus in the Greek ? Is it not a signifi- 
 cant fact that haptidzo is never used in the Neio Testament 
 to exp7'ess an ordinary , secular action ? And is this a mere 
 chance, if, as some say, the verbs are identical in meaning ? 
 Now I think you will see in a moment, that to translate 
 haptidzo by the same word which is used to render hapto 
 would be positively contrary to the mind of the Sj^irit, and 
 a profanation of the term. Unless we had an English 
 word which could be appropriated to this ordinance, and to 
 7iotliing else, there would be a moral necessity for transfer- 
 ring it, to 2^resei've the distinction which was made hy God 
 himself! I wish you to bear this distinctly in mind, for we 
 shall have a use for the fact in another part of this investi- 
 gation. 
 
 ^' But now let me show you the harmony that prevails 
 among Baptist writers themselves on this subject. I will 
 follow Theodosia's advisers, and upset Baptist doctrines by 
 their own doctors. Here is an extract from the lieport of 
 the Board of Managers of the ^American and Foreign 
 Bible Society,' a Baptist institution which was formed by 
 some Baptist members of the ^American Bible Society.' 
 They seceded from this latter institution, because it would 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 49 
 
 not consent to publish a Baptist Bible in India. Hear 
 these Baptist Managers: ^The evils which have accrued 
 from the introduction of a single word, (viz., baptize,) 
 imposed hy foreign infiuence and the bigotry of an earthly 
 prince, no human mind can compute. Nearly all the Euro- 
 pean versions subsequently made have been conformed to 
 the principles adopted by King James's translators; and 
 thus a word has been perpetuated from generation to gene- 
 ration, the precise meaning of lohich none but the learned 
 could with certainty ascertain.' " 
 
 ^'That is very strong language,'^ said Theophilus; ^^but 
 stop ; let me get a clear view of your argument. What is it 
 you propose to do now with this quotation V 
 
 "I design showing you,'' said Mr. Mason, ^Hhat the 
 assertion that King James required, or advised, the transfer 
 instead of the translation of baptidzo into English, is posi- 
 tively untrue, and this I will do by the testimony of a 
 learned Baptist writer. In the second place, I will show 
 you that the word was never translated otherwise than it is 
 now, before the time of King James ; this I will do by the 
 versions themselves. In the next place I will show you, by 
 Baptists themselves, that baptize is an English and not a 
 Greek word, and therefore can be understood by others 
 besides ^ the learned.' " 
 
 ^' Yery well ; proceed, Mr. Mason," said Theophilus, " I 
 am impatient to see these writers helping the Pedobaptist 
 cause. I have always thought that the Baptists were united 
 on the subject of baptism at least." 
 
 ^'And there I will convince you of your mistake. Now, 
 I promised to produce Baptist testimony to prove that King 
 James did not place the word baptize in the Bible : that he 
 did not require the translators to exclude immerse. Here is 
 a book entitled ^ The Annals of the English Bible,' written 
 by Christopher Anderson, a Baptist in Scotland. That you 
 3 
 
50 THEOPHiLUs ayalton; or, 
 
 may read for yourself, take tlie book, and turn to page 400, 
 section 4:." 
 
 '' Shall I begin with the chapter V' asked Theophilus. 
 "Yes, read it distinctly, that we may all hear it.'^ 
 " ' Up to the present moment, (the accession of King 
 James,) the history of the English Bible had maintained a 
 character peculiar to itself. Originating with no mere 
 patron, whether royal or noble, the undertaking had never 
 yet been promoted at the personal expense of any such party. 
 But now, in regard to that version of the Sacred Volume 
 which for two hundred and thirty years has been read with 
 delight from generation to generation, and proved the effect- 
 ual means of knowledge, holiness, and joy to millions, it 
 may be imagined by some, as there was now another and a 
 final change, that our history must at last change, or, in 
 other words, forfeit its character. ... If because 
 that a dedication to James the First of England has been 
 prefixed to many copies, though not to many others ; and if 
 because not only historians at their desks, but lawyers at the 
 bar, and even judges on the bench, have made most singular 
 mistakes, it has therefore been imagined by any or many 
 that the present version of our Bible was either suggested by 
 this monarch, or that he was at any personal expense in the 
 undertaking, or that he ever issued a single line of author- 
 ity by way of proclamation with respect to it, it is more than 
 time that the delusion should come to an end.' '' 
 " Now, what do you think of that, Theophilus V 
 " I confess, sir, that I am astonished. I have been told 
 repeatedly by President Thomas and various other Baptist 
 preachers, that King James not only originated the present 
 version, but absolutely forbade the translators to render 
 haptidzo in English.^' 
 
 '• Now turn to page 403, and you will find that he says the 
 translation originated with Dr. John Bainolds, according to the 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 61 
 
 account wliicli the king liimself gives of the matter. On the 
 same page he says that the fifty-four translators were selected 
 for the king, and not hy him. On page 410, he says that 
 the translation was not an afi"air of government, not a royal 
 undertaking ; and that he has searched in vain to find any 
 evidence that the king paid the translators for their labor. 
 On page 411, he says, quoting Dr. Symonds, that Hhe present 
 version appears to have made its way, without the interposi- 
 tion of any authority whatsoever.^ Now, what do you think 
 of these facts ?" 
 
 ^^ I see no other conclusion, sir, than that King James has 
 been wantonly slandered by no less a body than the Ameri- 
 can Baptist Bible Society — a fact which I see here proved 
 hy a Baptist witness." 
 
 " Let us rather say, Theophilus, that they were grievously 
 mistaken.'' 
 
 " I can see no excuse for them," replied Theophilus. " If 
 they know the facts of the case, as they profess to do, it is 
 slander; if they do not know them, their ignorance is un- 
 pardonable." 
 
 " Now, having proved that the charge of suppressing the 
 meaning of haptidzo is untrue, so far as King James is con- 
 cerned, let us proceed to examine whether the words immerse 
 and immersion have ever been in the English Bible. There 
 is an English translation, made at Rheims, in 1582, twenty- 
 nine years before King James's. Look at the third chapter 
 of Matthew, and tell us how the word haptidzo is translated." 
 
 "It reads, in the sixth verse, 'and were haptized of him 
 in Jordan.' " 
 
 "Very well. It is not immerse tJiere. Now, take this 
 book. It is the English Bible translated at G-eneva, in 
 1557, fifty -four years before King James's. Bead the 
 Ssame passage." 
 
 '' 'And were haptized of him in Jordan.' " 
 
52 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 '' We liave not got immerse yet. Try again. There is 
 Cranmer's Bible, translated into English in 1539, seventy-two 
 years before King James's. Read the same verse.'^ 
 
 ^^It is exactly like the last — 'and were haptized of him in 
 Jordan.' '^ 
 
 *' Let us try again. Here is Tyndale's Bible, translated 
 into English in 1534, seventy - seven years before King 
 James's. Bead Matt. iii. 6.^' 
 
 '^ It is exactly like the rest — ' and were haptized of him in 
 Jordan.' '' 
 
 ^' Well, we have four translations, then, agreeing with 
 ours. Now, let us go back to the first complete translation 
 of the Bible into English. It was made by Wiclif, in the 
 year 1380, tivo hundred and thirty years before King 
 James's. Read the same verse, just as it stands there." 
 
 " Wait a moment, Mr. Mason, I am not so certain that I 
 can make it out. The spelling is so odd that I can hardly 
 tell what the words are." 
 
 ^' Well, spell them, and I will help you to unravel the 
 words." 
 
 " Well, here is a figure that looks like a new moon." 
 
 " That is a character used for 'and.' " 
 
 " 'And thei werun waischen of hym in iordan.' " 
 
 " 'And they were ivashed of him in Jordan.' So you see 
 haptidzo is here translated to wash. But, if you read the 
 eleventh verse, you will find hoth wash and baptize." 
 
 " The eleventh verse says : ' I icash you in water, into 
 penance -, but he that shall come after me is stronger than 
 I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear : he shall baptize 
 you in the Holy Grhost and fire.' " 
 
 " So much for Wiclif, then. Now here is an extract 
 from a MS. in English, made about 1340, more than two 
 hundred and seventy years before King James's. The ex- 
 tract is given verbatim from the first chapter of Mark ; it 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 53 
 
 reads as follows : ^ John was in ye deserte, hajyfi/sande 
 pcliande ye baptyme of penaunce in remyssyon of synes/ 
 Jolin was in the desert haptizing, and preaching the haj)tism 
 of penance in remission of sins/' 
 
 ^' That's enough, Mr. Mason/' said Theophilus. " If the 
 word baptism has been in our language upwards of Jive hun- 
 dred yearS; I should think it a positive sin to exclude it now/' 
 
 '^ But that is not all. I have the evidence here, that until 
 a few Baptists in New York published tJieir Bible, not twenty 
 years ago, if we except Alexander Campbell's New Testa- 
 ment, no version of the Scriptures in English has ever had im- 
 merse substituted for hajDtize. Do you want any more proof?" 
 
 " Not a line. The thing is as clear as noonday. But let 
 me ask you whether the English translators have had any 
 precedents for trans/errhg hapddzo into their language ?" 
 
 " Most certainly they had. The Spanish translation, made 
 in 1556, has hautizar. The French, in 1535, has hajpther. 
 The Italian, in 1562, has hattezzare. Beza's Latin Testa- 
 ment, in 1556, has haptlzo. The Latin Vulgate, in the 
 fourth century, has haptizo. The Basmuric, in the third 
 century, has haptizo. And the Sahidic, in the second cen- 
 tury, has hap)tizo. Now, then, we have six English and 
 seven foreign versions, all made before the time of King 
 James, in all of which the G^reek word haptidzo has been 
 adopted to express the idea of baptism. Now, let me ask 
 you, if the translators of our present version, with thirteen 
 examples before them, some of them reaching back fifteen 
 hundred years before their time, could have done otherwise 
 than use the same word which had, by the concurrence of all 
 ages, expressed the ordinance of baptism V 
 
 " I am compelled to admit that they were bound to do as 
 they did. I am satisfied on this point. But you promised 
 to refute the position that the word baptize can only be un- 
 derstood by the learned. I want to hear your evidence/' 
 
54 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 *' I have plenty of it. I sliall bring Baptist evidence to 
 prove that it is an English word, and therefore can be un- 
 derstood by Englishmen. The Rev. Dr. Dowling, a distin- 
 guished Baptist, says : ^ The word baptize is itself, to all 
 intents and purposes, an English word.' The Kev. Dr. Ide, 
 Baptist, says : ' I suppose that baptize is the only English 
 word by which you can translate haptidzo.^ The Rev. Dr. 
 Williams, Baptist, says : ' On the score of age, the word 
 baptize is probably some six centuries older, as an English 
 word, than the term immerse, proposed to replace it.' Dr. 
 Ide says, ^ It is eight hundred years older, as a native English 
 citizen, than immerse,' Here are three Baptist Doctors of 
 Divinity who affirm that baptize is an English word, and that 
 it has been in the language many years longer than immerse. 
 If they are right, the Managers of the Baptist Bible Society 
 are wrongs 
 
 At this stage of the proceedings, Mr. Ellis, who was in 
 the audience, arose and addressed Mr. Mason, in a tremulous 
 voice, exhibiting marks of strong excitement : 
 
 ^' Have you quoted those remarks of Baptist ministers 
 from their own icritings, Mr. Mason V 
 
 ^^ I have given them, Mr. Ellis, just as I find them in a 
 work written by the Rev. N. H. Lee, of Kentucky. The 
 work is styled, ' Immersionists against the Bible.' " 
 
 " Is Mr. Lee a Baptist or a Pedobaptist, Mr. Mason ?" 
 
 ^^ He is a Methodist minister, sir." 
 
 '^Ah, I thought so ! Pedobaptist testimony !" 
 
 ^^ Do you doubt the correctness of the extracts, Mr. Ellis ?" 
 
 " It is enough, Mr. Mason, that they are from a Pedobap- 
 tist source." 
 
 ^^ Indeed ! and cannot Pedobaptists tell the truth, Mr. 
 Ellis ?" 
 
 ^' I only wished to know, sir," replied Mr. Ellis, ^^ whethei 
 you were using your oivn books or om^s. I am satisfied.'^ 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 55 
 
 ^^ If you will deny tliat these extracts are genuine, I will 
 produce the original documents, as I have them here. I 
 was only reading from this little volume because I found it 
 more convenient. Will you step this way, Mr. Ellis, and 
 verify these extracts for your own satisfaction V^ 
 
 '' I have told you, Mr. Mason," said Mr. Ellis, " that I 
 am satisfied. Why do you trouble me further with it V 
 
 " Because you seem desirous of making the impression 
 that the passages I have quoted are not genuine. You must 
 either admit them to be correct, or else compare them with 
 the originals." 
 
 To this Mr. Ellis made no reply. For some moments a 
 profound silence prevailed. At last Mr. Mason said : 
 
 '^ I take it for granted that you admit the quotations to bo 
 correct. Now, Mr. Ellis, will you permit me to ask you a 
 question ?" 
 
 Mr. Ellis was evidently confused. He did not know how 
 to refuse, and yet feared to consent, not knowing the purport 
 of the question. Presently, however, he replied : 
 
 " I am not here to take part in your discussion, nor yet to 
 be questioned — still, if it is reasonable, I will answer your 
 inquiry." 
 
 " Certainly, Mr. Ellis, you have a right to ask any ques- 
 tion you please, and so has any other individual present; and 
 as you endeavored to cast suspicion upon my authorities, it 
 is only just and fair that you should acknowledge your mis- 
 take. This I understand you as having done, by waiving 
 the comparison. And now, Mr. Ellis, as you quoted and 
 read several extracts from Pedobaptist writers on Sabbath 
 last, in your sermon, did you read them out of Pedobaptist 
 or Baptist books ?" 
 
 ^' What is your object in asking that question?" asked 
 Mr. Ellis. 
 
 *^ Simply for my own information ; as I have been in- 
 
56 THEOPHILUS WALTONj OR, 
 
 formed that several important discrepancies have been dis- 
 covered by several of your hearers/' 
 
 " Then, if other persons ai-e to be brought in to implicate 
 me, I do not feel bound to answer.'' 
 
 " Indeed, Mr. Ellis, you owe it to your own reputation to 
 reply. If those quotations were made from your books, 
 their compilers are responsible, but you are convicted of 
 doing the thing which you objected to me just now. If you 
 used the original works, then you are certainly responsible 
 for various omissions, and phrases interpolated, in the quota- 
 tions." 
 
 This was a disagreeable dilemma for Mr. Ellis. He be- 
 came agitated, and finally withdrew from the church, fol- 
 lowed by several of his friends, without making any reply to 
 the question of Mr. Mason. 
 
 ^'Now, my friends," said the Methodist minister, ^' I feel 
 constrained to say that I deeply regret what has just occurred. * 
 I could not feel it in my heart to rejoice over the mortifica- 
 tion of a minister of the gospel. But you will bear me 
 witness that I am justified in all I have said or done on this 
 occasion." 
 
 ^^And now, Theophilus, let us' return to the matter in 
 hand. We have seen that three Baptist ministers of high 
 position unite in declaring that haptize is an English, and 
 not a Greek word. Now, to find the meaning of an English 
 word, where shall we look ?" 
 
 '' In the English dictionary, of course," said Theophilus. 
 
 '^ Well, then, examine Webster's definition of the word." 
 
 ^^ I remember that very distinctly. He says it means to 
 administer the sacrament of baptism, to christen ; and then 
 he proceeds to say that this is done by sprinkling and im- 
 mersion. But was not Webster a Pedobaptist ?" 
 
 ^^And wha't if he was ? Do you suppose the best lexico- 
 grapher of our language would risk his fame by falsely defin- 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 57 
 
 ing a word ? But^ if you desire it, I will give you some 
 other testimony in proof of the fact that baptize, as an 
 English word, does not mean immersion. Dr. Lynd, a dis- 
 tinguished Baptist minister, says : ' There can be no doubt 
 that this word, (baptize,) in English religious literature, has 
 become generic. It would be time lost, on this occasion, to 
 argue this point with any one who may be bold enough to 
 deny it. The word is currently used for sprinhling by the 
 largest part of the Christian world.' So says Dr. Lynd. 
 Now let us hear Dr. John L. Waller, one of the greatest 
 men the Baptists ever had in this country. ' It is vain to 
 reason,' says he, ^ with the individual who seriously insists 
 that baptize means to immerse ; or that it has any modal 
 meaning whatever, since the Elizabethan age. We might 
 as well attempt to teach logic to an orangoutang as to impart 
 the laws of language to the man who would gravely dispute 
 a position so self-evident. Such an individual is surely de- 
 livered over to believe a lie.' " 
 
 "Well, well!" exclaimed Theophilus, "you are getting 
 the Doctors into a difficulty, sure enough !" 
 
 " Yes," replied Mr. Mason, " and I shall get them into 
 worse difficulties still. To complete this testimony, let us 
 hear the Bev. Dr. Cone, President of the Bible Union : " Since 
 the English word baptize, according to our standard lexico- 
 graphers, means to sprinJde, pour, asperse, christen, etc., the 
 American Bible Union must come up to the help of the 
 Lord against the mighty.' Here, then, we have three 
 Baptist Doctors who assert that the word baptize does 
 unquestionably mean something else besides immerse. But 
 this is not all. One of the most distinguished Baptist 
 divines declares that it is wrong to preacli immersion I 
 Hear Dr. Cone again : ' He (Dr. Cone) has dared to say 
 from this pulpit again and again, that Christian baptism is 
 immersion only; and that if it is right to preach it, it is 
 3* 
 
58 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 riglit to print it, to print it in the Bible ; for, if it is not in 
 the Bible, we have no right to preach it or print it as 
 a part of God's revealed will to man/ Immersion is not in 
 the Bible, and, therefore, according to Baptist testimony, 
 every minister who preaches it, as God's revealed will to 
 man, is positively doing wrong !" 
 
 '' You are making a strong case of it, Mr. Mason/' said 
 Theophilus. '^ Let me have those quotations again. I wish 
 to place them side by side, that I may look at them at my 
 leisure." 
 
 " Here they are in a 
 
 <*I suppose that baptize is the "There can be no doubt that 
 
 only English xoord by which you this word, {baptize,) in English 
 
 can translate haptidzo." " It {bap- literature, has become generic.'^'' — 
 
 tize) is eight hundred years older, Rev. Dr. Lynd. 
 as a native English citizen, than "It is in vain to reason with 
 
 immerse." — Rev. Dr. He. the individual who seriously in- 
 
 '' On the score of age, the word sists that baptize means to immerse, 
 
 baptize is probably some six cen- . . . Such an individual is 
 
 turies older, as an English ivord, surely deliver ed over to believe a lie. ^^ 
 
 than the term immerse, proposed — Rev. Dr. John L. Waller. 
 to replace it." — Rev. Dr. Williams. " The English loord baptize, ac- 
 
 ^'■The word baptize is itself, to all cording to our standard lexicogra- 
 
 intcnts and purposes, an English phers, means to sprinkle, pour, 
 
 word." — Rev. Dr. Dowling. asperse, christen, etc." — Rev. Dr. 
 
 Cone. 
 
 "If it (immerse) is not in the Bible, we have no right to 
 PREACH IT." — Rev. Dr. Cone. 
 
 ^'- There you have a record, outside of Pedobaptist autho- 
 rity, proving beyond a question that sprinkling and pouring 
 are valid modes of baptism ! The word baptize is positively 
 said to be an English word, and several hundred years older 
 than iminerse; if this is true, which no sane man, acquainted 
 with the facts, can deny, it is self-evident that English lexi- 
 
THE MAJESTY OP TRUTH. 59 
 
 cograpliers are tlie men to give its definition ; and we have 
 just seen that Baptist Doctors and standard dictionaries 
 unite in declaring that it is a generic word, having no modal 
 signification whatever, but means to sprinkle and pour water 
 upon the subject, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy 
 Spirit/' 
 
 ^^ Indeed, Mr. Mason," said Theophilus, ^^ I see no escape 
 from such a conclusion. How is it possible that these Bap- 
 tist teachers should war with their own authorities in per- 
 sisting to declare that baptize means only to immerse ? I 
 acknowledge that I thought the Pedobaptist writers quoted in 
 ^ Theodosia' condemned their own practice, but I find here 
 that Baptist writers exonerate them completely, so that, after 
 all, Pedobaptist ministers are not hypocritical deceivers ! 
 What they have yielded to the Baptists is repaid to them 
 with compound interest ! But I am satisfied on this branch 
 of the argument. You have mentioned the American and 
 Foreign Bible Society, and the American Bible Union ; now 
 I have contributed several times to both Societies, but I am 
 not certain that I understand precisely their object in setting 
 up an independent organization. Will you give us some 
 light on that subject ?" 
 
 '^ I have the records here before me — the genuine original 
 records of the Baptists themselves. If any one desires to 
 gee them, I will place them in his hands. I am going to 
 give a brief statement of this matter, every particular of 
 which I am ready to prove. Well, then, prior to 1835, all 
 the Protestant denominations were united in printing and 
 publishing the Bible, in English and in foreign languages. 
 The association was called the ^American Bible Society/ 
 The authorized version, as it is commonly called — that is, 
 King James's translation — was published without note or 
 comment. ' By this union of Christians in spreading the 
 
60 THEOPHILUS WALTON; Oil, 
 
 word of God, hundreds of thousands of copies were given to 
 the poor and indigent, and numerous translations were made 
 on the basis of our own. This noble institution, which has 
 deserved and still deserves the aid and the benedictions of 
 every Christian in the world, and has been blessed of God in 
 a remarkable manner, had contributed several thousand dollars 
 to the publication of a Bible in the Burmese language. 
 This translation was made by the Rev. Dr. Judson, a Baptist 
 minister, and missionary in Burmah. In 1835, a Mr. 
 Pearce, an English Baptist missionary in India, had pre- 
 pared a translation in the Bengalee tongue, but was refused 
 assistance in printing it by the Calcutta Bible Society, on 
 the ground that he had rendered baptize by a Bengalee 
 word meaning only to immerse. Mr. Pearce thereupon 
 wrote to the American Bible Society, giving a statement of 
 the facts, and desired aid, inasmuch as the Society had 
 patronized Dr. Judson's version, which had rendered the 
 yforA precisely as he had done!" 
 
 " Stop, Mr. Mason," said Theophilus ; " is this the Dr. 
 Judson who turned Baptist after he had started on his 
 journey to India?" 
 
 " The very same man/' replied Mr. Mason. 
 
 ^^And he printed a Baptist Bible in Burmese with the 
 funds of Pedobaptist denominations ?" 
 
 " He certainly did in part, as the Baptists were not very 
 large contributors to the Society." 
 
 ^'And did he give no information of the fact to the 
 American Bible Society V 
 
 " Not a word." 
 
 ^'You astonish me, Mr. Mason," replied Theophilus. 
 " Why, sir, this was downright dishonesty !" 
 
 ^' Softly, Theophilus; Dr. Judson was regarded as a pious 
 man." 
 
THE MAJESTY OP TRUTH. 61 
 
 " So was Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits ; and I have 
 never read any thing about him worse than this pious fraud 
 of the Baptist missionary/' 
 
 ^' Come, come, Theophilus, let us call it inconsistency. 
 Dr. Judson is highly esteemed among the Baptists of this 
 country.^' 
 
 ^'I cannot help that, Mr. Mason. Truth is truth, and 
 if your statements are correct. Dr. Judson was certainly 
 guilty of something worse than an error of judgment. He 
 knew that the society, as such, was opposed to immersionist 
 translations ; and yet, knowing this, he used their money to 
 make one, at the same time concealing the fact from them. 
 If I were a lawyer, and had a client charged with obtaining 
 goods under false pretences, and such evidence was produced 
 in court against him, I should abandon his cause."" 
 
 '•'■ I will not pretend to say what I think about Dr. Jud- 
 son's conduct in this matter. It is between him and his 
 Grod. But here are the facts. But to return. The Ameri- 
 can Bible Society immediately disavowed all connection with 
 the Burmese version, and then some of the Baptist mem- 
 bers, not all of them, immediately withdrew, and formed the 
 American and Foreign Bible Society. Dr. S. H. Cone was 
 elected President. Now let us hear his testimony as to the 
 ohject of this society. He says : 'The American and 
 Foreign Bible Society was organized to vindicate a principle; 
 and in accordance with this principle, haptidzo and its cog- 
 nates should be rendered by words signifying immerse, 
 immersion,' etc. This was to be done not only in foreign 
 tongues, but also in English. But, after several years' 
 effort. Dr. Cone and his party pressing the question of 
 printing immerse in the English Bible, the society shrank 
 from their original purpose, and Dr. Cone seceded again, 
 and, with his followers, formed the 'American Bible Union.' 
 ' The Baptists,' savs he, ' will not allow immerse, immersion, 
 
62 TIIEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 etc., to have a place in the New Testament/ Therefore he 
 sounded the trumpet, to marshal the Baptist host who were 
 of his opinion, in order to put it there — to print immer- 
 sion IN THE Bible — to do that which he charges the Baptist 
 Bible Society with being either ashamed or afraid to do." 
 
 ^' Do you mean to say, Mr. Mason, that the Bible Union 
 was formed in order to get immerse in the Bible ?" 
 
 " I certainly do, Theophilus ; and I have here a score of 
 witnesses, all Baj)ttsfs, to prove the fact.'^ 
 
 " Why, Mr. Mason, Mr. Ellis says that there are several 
 denominations — some of them and the majority of them 
 Pedobaptists — engaged in that work.'^ 
 
 " Mr. Ellis cannot prove that the Bible Union is approved 
 by one Pedobaptist denomination. There may have been 
 individuals concerned in translating and revising, but the 
 whole thing is condemned by Pedobaptists everywhere. Do 
 not misunderstand me. I distinctly assert that they have 
 never offered to j^lace any book in the New Testament in the 
 hands of Pedobaptist translators, if the tvord haptidzo occ^irs 
 in such hook. The whole assertion that Pedobaptists have 
 the liberty to render the word as they please, is absolutely 
 untrue.'' 
 
 " Why, Mr. Mason, I heard Mr. Ellis say the other day 
 that the whole matter was so fairly arranged that he would 
 not be surprised if haptidzo were translated jyoiir or sprinkle j 
 so great was the preponderance of Pedobaptists over Baptists 
 in that society.'' 
 
 ^^Alas ! Theophilus, I am at a loss what to say. If Mr. 
 Ellis knows the true condition of the ' Bible Union,' he is 
 without excuse ; if he does not, he has been grossly deceived. 
 At all events, it is impossible to prove that with the whole 
 version the Pedobaptists have any thing whatever to do. It 
 is a Baptist society; framed for the purpose of putting 
 immerse in the Bible; and has at last been virtually 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 63 
 
 dissolved, without having the face to accomplish its 
 designs/' 
 
 " Indeed ! Is it abandoned ? I gave five dollars toward 
 it not three weeks ago/' 
 
 "You know that Dr. McClay, the most efficient man in 
 the society, who was elected President after Dr. Cone's 
 death, has resigned, confessing that he was disgusted with 
 the Union 1" 
 
 " No, I did not know it.'' 
 
 "Well, here is his letter, in a Baptist paper. He 
 charges the society with waste, extravagance, ignorance, and 
 positive dishonesty, or, to say the least, ivant of candor. 
 He declares that after all their professions of learning and 
 competency for the work, the persons who are engaged in it, 
 with two exceptions only, are positively unqualified for the 
 task of revision." 
 
 "And this too after being seveii years engaged in it? 
 having upwards of forti/ men in employ ?" 
 
 "That is disputed, Theophilus. Dr. McClay says that 
 there have never been more than twenty-two engaged 
 in revision ; and only two of these properly qualified. 
 Finally, a few weeks since the whole concern was placed in 
 the hands of two men, where the Bible will doubtless 
 undergo a very harmless inspection. Bead this article, pub- 
 lished in the ^Christian Chronicle,' a Baptist paper in 
 Philadelphia." 
 
 " 'Bible Unionism is a failure, and nothing else. Its 
 best friends have deserted it, having no confidence in it. 
 Its translations are simply ludicrous. It has now come to a 
 stand for want of funds, of friends, and confidence in car- 
 rying out its own principles. It has come square up to the 
 word haptidzo, and knows not whether to translate it or not : 
 but death follows in either case. All this is a good reason 
 for placing the work in the hands of Professors Hackett 
 
64 TIIEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 and Conantj wliere all will be safe for the next twenty 
 years/ 
 
 "So you see, Tlieophilus, that the Baptists themselves 
 dare not print immerse in the English Bible, and conse- 
 quently, as Dr. Cone says, they ought not to preach immer- 
 sion as a part of God's revealed will to man, unless it is in 
 the Bible; every Baptist preacher who does preach it is 
 positively guilty, Baptists themselves being judges/' 
 
 '^Tliat is certainly a just conclusion, Mr. Mason," said 
 Theophilus. ''Now, I have one word more to ask you 
 about the matter of translating. They tell me that King 
 James would not allow any Baptists to be placed among 
 the translators of our present version. Is that true V 
 
 " Not a word of it. We have already seen that the trans- 
 lators, so far from being selected by, were really independent 
 of, the king's authority. With all his pedantry, James was 
 too much addicted to hunting, and similar sports, to occupy 
 his mind with any thing appertaining to the Bible. He had, 
 besides, something else to do than to look after the trans- 
 lators. His kingdom was not in the most peaceful condition, 
 and when he met the Hampdon Court Conference, where the 
 revision was determined upon, he had not heen legally recog^ 
 nized as King of England. That conference could not be, 
 therefore, an official body. But, as we have seen all that 
 established by Baptist testimony, we need not repeat it. 
 Now, as to the question whether there were any Baptists 
 among the translators, let me first ask you what you mean by 
 a Baptist ?" 
 
 '' Well, let me see ; I suppose a man who has been baptized 
 on profession of his faith by immersion is a Baptist." 
 
 " Is that all that it takes to make a Baptist ? If so, Mr. 
 Sims, who is a member of the Methodist Church, in Mary- 
 ville, is a Baptist ; for he was baptized precisely in the man- 
 ner you describe." 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 65 
 
 '^ Well, no; I suppose lie must reject infant baptism, also/' 
 
 ^' Would he theu be a Baptist? Would Mr. Ellis call 
 Mr. Sims a Baptist if lie should avow opposition to ir fant 
 baptism ? Would he commune with him at the Lord's 
 Table V 
 
 ^^ No, sir, I suppose not." 
 
 '^ Well, then, to be a Baptist^ is to belong to a Baptist 
 church, is it not V 
 
 "Yes, sir; that strikes at the root of the matter." 
 
 " Well, then, with that definition of the word Baptist, I 
 acknowledge that there was not a single one among the 
 translators, and for the best of reasons. There teas not a 
 Baptist in England ichen our version of the Bible teas made. 
 Of course, if they were ?iot there, they could not be ap- 
 pointed I" 
 
 " You surprise me, Mr. Mason ! No Baptists in England 
 when our translation was made? Why, sir, Mr. Ellis has 
 wept in the pulpit over the martyrdom of Baptists in the 
 time of Queen Elizabeth I" 
 
 "So he may have done. Tears have frequently been 
 spent about imaginary evils. Mr. Ellis is not the first to 
 weep over fictions." 
 
 " But where do you get the proof to support your decla- 
 ration ?" 
 
 " Where do I get the proof ? Where should I get it, if 
 not from the Baptists themselves? Their historians cer- 
 tainly ought to tell the truth in their own defence. I could 
 show you proofs from Dr. Wall, and other Pedobaptists ; but 
 I prefer to use their own histories. Here is Crosby's History 
 of the English Baptists. Turn to pages 148, 149, vol. i.. 
 and read the place I have marked." 
 
 ^^^ Their (the Baptists') first distinct churc\ in our na- 
 tion was formed out of the Independent Church in London, 
 whereof Mr. Henry Jacob was pastor from 1616 to 1624, 
 
66 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 wlien lie went to Virginia, and Mr. Jolm Latlirop was chosen 
 in his room. But nine years after, several persons in the 
 society, finding that the congregation kept not to their first 
 principles of separation ; and being also convinced that hap- 
 tisni was not to he administered to infants, hut such only as 
 professed faith in Christ, desired and obtained liberty, and 
 formed themselves into a distinct church, September 12, 
 1633, having Mr. John Spisbury for their minister.^ '' 
 
 " Then, it is very clear, Theophilus, that if the first Baptist 
 church in England was formed in 1633, and a man must be- 
 long to the Baptist Church, otherwise he is not a Baptist, 
 King James could not appoint men from a Church that 
 had no existence in his realm ! This is a final answer to all 
 complaints on that score." 
 
 '^ I give it up, Mr. Mason. The case is made out from 
 their own witnesses." 
 
 ^'Nor is that all, Theophilus. Here is a curious little 
 book, published in the year 1689, in London. It is the 
 Baptist ^ Confession of Faith.' " 
 
 ^^A Baptist 'Confession of Faith!' Why, Mr. Mason, I 
 thought the Bible was their Confession of Faith !" 
 
 '^ There you have been misled again. This is the genuine 
 book itself, published by order of a Baptist Assembly of 
 Messengers and Elders from One Hundred Churches in Eng- 
 land and Wales. It is quite an old book, and as the authors 
 of it were living in the times of which they write, they can- 
 not be in error. Look on page 3 of the preface to ' The 
 Judicious Eeader,' and you will find, that after ten years' 
 existence in England, they had gathered only seven congre- 
 gations in London ; and being, as they say, misrepresented 
 in their doctrines, these seven congregations put forth, in 
 the year 1613, a Confession of Faith, in which they tell us 
 they have conformed as far as possible to the Confession of 
 Faith of the Westminster Assembly. This original Confes- 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 67 
 
 sion was reconsidered, and put forth again in 1689, in the 
 form you see it there. Now, the fact I wish to call your 
 attention to is this : In 1643, they had but seven congrega- 
 tions in England, ten years after their origin, and forty years 
 after the Bible was translated by King James's translators. 
 Suppose that these seven congregations had been in exist- 
 ence when the version was made : do you suppose that there 
 was one man among them sufficiently learned in Greek and 
 Hebrew to become a translator ? If now, in the nineteenth 
 century, when they have colleges, and universities, and 
 scholars by the thousand, they can only gather, with all their 
 zeal and money, two men who are considered by themselves 
 qualified for the task, is it not preposterous to suppose that 
 they had such men then, when there was not a Baptist col- 
 lege in the world V* 
 
 "It cannot be denied, Mr. Mason. All the talk about 
 Baptists being shut out, and having no hand in the matter, 
 is mere gammon. I am convinced of that.'' 
 
 '' Well, then, let us, as the lawyers say, sw^n up our argu- 
 ment. It is growing late, and perhaps some of the audience 
 are weary. We have proved, 1st. That there was no Bap- 
 tist church in England until the year 1633. Therefore, no 
 matter how the version of 1611 rendered the word haptidzo, 
 the translators could not possibly have any reference to Bap- 
 tist views on the subject, inasmuch as they could not wish 
 to oppose the opinion of a Church tvhich had no existence. 
 2d. We have proved, by examining six different transla- 
 tions, reaching back to 1340, that the word never had been 
 translated immerse prior to the time of King James. 
 Therefore, from first to last, during a period of more than 
 Jive hundred years, the word hcqjtize has alone been consid- 
 ered the equivalent of haptidzo. 3d. We have proved by 
 Baptist testimony that baptize is the only word in the Eng- 
 lish language that will express the meaning of iaptidzo; 
 
68 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 that it is six or eight hundred years older than immerse; 
 and that, in English, it is a generic word, meaning to 
 sprinkle, pour, and christen. 4th. We have proved, by the 
 same testimony, that the Baptists have attempted to make a 
 new version of the Bible in the nineteenth century for the 
 purpose of putting immersion in it; that they have signally 
 failed, having lost the confidence of their own friends, and 
 finally yielded the whole matter to individual action. There- 
 fore, having acknowledged that the Bible does not prove or 
 require immersion as it is, and failing to make it what they 
 want it, they have, to all intents and purposes, abandoned 
 their ground, and given up the question at issue. Thus the 
 builders of the modern Babel, in attempting to wrest the 
 word of God from the hands of their fellow - Christians, 
 have destroyed themselves instead of injuring the Pedobap- 
 tist world. 
 
 " Here I might be content to leave the subject. But, inas- 
 much as we have set out with the purpose of examining the 
 whole ground, we shall proceed to other branches of the in- 
 quiry, and see that in the field of classical criticism they have 
 committed logical suicide. We shall continue our meetings for 
 several evenings more ; and I wish it to be distinctly under- 
 stood, that all persons are desired to propound any question, 
 or state any difficulty which may arise in their minds. We 
 are seeking the truth, to know what the will of God is con- 
 cerning us, and in such important matters candor and frank- 
 ness should always characterize our movements.'' 
 
 The audience was then dismissed. Many of them had 
 heard that which brought confusion and dismay into their 
 hearts. Honestly persuaded of the rectitude of their prin- 
 ciples, they found that they had heard but one side of a 
 question, which had determined their Christian character 
 and position. Among the audience there were doubtless 
 those who had determined to reject any amount and any 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 69 
 
 kind of evidence, however distinct and truthful it might be, 
 if that evidence made against their established prejudices. 
 For these persons argument is useless, logic is vain. But 
 there were others, who, while mortified at the conduct of 
 their pastor, Mr. Ellis, and humbled in their denominational 
 pride, were still willing to hear the investigation through, 
 even if they should be called upon to abandon some of their 
 present opinions. 
 
70 THEOTHILUS WALTONJ OR, 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 JOB AND HIS COMFORTERS. 
 
 Early on Friday morning, after tlie conversation which 
 we have just detailed, qnite a number of persons assembled 
 at the study of the Baptist pastor. An air of anxiety and 
 perplexity was perceptible on every countenance. Mr. Ellis 
 seemed to be in deep distress, and every effort to rally him- 
 self, in order to throw off the effects of the last night's dis- 
 comfiture, only resulted in deeper dejection. 
 
 ^^I will tell you, brethren," said Mr. Ellis, ^^ it is vain to 
 reason with that Methodist circuit-rider; he must know 
 that he is perverting the truth, and persecuting our people. 
 I am heartily sorry that I put my foot inside of that mise- 
 rable meeting-house." 
 
 '' Didn't I tell you how it would be?" exclaimed Deacon 
 Smith — a small man, with a low forehead, heavy eyebrows, 
 and, withal, a very unprepossessing countenance. " That's 
 what you get for abandoning the Old Landmark doctrine. 
 If you acknowledge these rantizers to be Christian ministers, 
 you may expect to get paid in just such a way as this. 
 You might as well give up 4E)ur cause at once if you preach 
 with them, or suffer them to enter your pulpit." 
 
 ^a did all for the best. Brother Smith," replied Mr. Ellis; 
 " I could not well refuse to preach among them, without 
 injuring our cause, but I never dreamed that things would 
 come to this pass. I had not the least idea that they would 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 71 
 
 take any of our people from us. Alas ! have I been laboring in 
 vain to indoctrinate my people for the last ten years ? Five 
 lost at one sweep, and none gained from them in return." 
 
 '^It is too bad/' said Deacon Smith; ^^but I knew it — I 
 told you how it would be. It's turned out exactly as I 
 said/' and the deacon shrugged his shoulders, and looked as 
 if it did him good to know that he could prophesy, even if 
 the fulfilment resulted in his own injury. " I am in favor 
 of holding a meeting, Brother Ellis, and instructing our 
 pastor not to recognize Pedobaptist preachers as ministers of 
 Christ ; we ought to shut them out of every gospel Church 
 in the land. The time has come, sir, for us to take high 
 ground on that subject. I say hir/Ji ground, sir — I mean 
 gospel ground, Scripture ground on the subject. We ought 
 to let the world know that we are not the poor, despised 
 people they represent us to be; we ought to make theni feel 
 that we are the Churches of Christ, and that they have no 
 right to expect any fellowship with us, whilst they hold to 
 such monstrous errors as rantizing infants, and sprinkling 
 water for baptism. '^ 
 
 Mr. Ellis did not seem to hear the deacon's ^suggestion. 
 He sat in his easy-chair, with his hand supporting his head, 
 and seemed almost lost in deep but painful thought. For 
 some moments there was an unbroken silence in the room. 
 Deacon Smith took down a well-worn copy of the ^'Iron 
 AVheel," his favorite text-book, and appeared to be searching 
 .for a passage in proof of the propriety of the course he 
 proposed. 
 
 ^'I'U tell you, brethren," said he, "here's the document. 
 This is the book for the times. If we would only follow 
 Brother Graves, we would soon see the vineyard of the 
 'Lord flourishing." 
 
 " I think we have followed ' Brother G-raves' already to 
 the very brink of ruin!" exclaimed Mr. Barbour, a young 
 
72 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 man, whose intelligent eye kindled to unwonted indignation 
 at the deacon's proposition. ^'I think we have followed 
 ^Brother Graves' in his attempts to overthrow Pedobaptist 
 Churches, until our ejQforts are likely to recoil upon us in 
 destructive force." 
 
 " Well, Brother Barbour, I could hardly expect any thing 
 more of you," said the deacon ; " I always knew that you 
 were a so/i-shell.'^ 
 
 ^^And I knew 7/our shell was very hard, Deacon," replied 
 Mr. Barbour, '^but I did not expect you to counsel us to do 
 ourselves more harm, when everybody sees that we have 
 brought our troubles on ourselves." 
 
 ^^How is that?" said Mr. Ellis, starting up from his 
 revery. " I didn't understand that remark of yours." 
 
 " I said. Brother Ellis," continued Mr. Barbour, '^ that 
 we had brought our present troubles upon ourselves." 
 
 " How so, brother ?" 
 
 " Why, sir, by disturbing the peace of the community on 
 the subject of baptism, when there was no occasion for it. 
 We have wantonly provoked the Pedobaptists into retalia- 
 tion, and I firmly believe we are accountable for whatever 
 injury we may sufi"er." 
 
 " That is, you mean / am accountable for these difficul- 
 ties ?" 
 
 ^' Not altogether. Brother Ellis. I blame you for preach- 
 ing that sermon; but I blame others for advising and 
 encouraging you to do it. There was no necessity for it ; 
 no good could have been done by it; and we see much 
 harm has been done by such an imprudent course." 
 
 ^' Ought we not to preach the doctrines we believe. Bro- 
 ther Barbour ?" 
 
 ^^ Yes, when occasion requires; but in this case you must 
 have known that it was impossible to accomplish any 
 thing.'' 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 73 
 
 ^^Well, mine is a hard case/' said Mr. Ellis; "to be 
 rebuked by my own members for doing what I supposed to 
 be my duty, is too liard.'^ 
 
 " Not worse than to have the feelings of your members 
 mortified by such blunders as you made last night, Brother 
 Ellis/' 
 
 "And what hlunder did I make last night, Brother Bar- 
 bour r 
 
 "Why, you interrupted Mr. Mason, in order to prove 
 that he was misrepresenting Baptist writers ; and then when 
 he told you he had the original documents, jovl refused to 
 compare them.'' 
 
 " 0, never mind ! I will show up his dishonesty at the 
 proper time." 
 
 " But of all times in the world, Brother Ellis, that was 
 the one. If you could have exposed him there, our triumph 
 would have been complete. But you let the occasion slip, 
 and now I believe no one thinks you can set the matter 
 right." 
 
 "No, indeed," said Mr. Newton, an elderly gentleman, 
 who had been quietly listening to the conversation. " You 
 will never set that matter right; for the very good reason 
 that he read the quotations correctly. Drs. Ide, Williams, 
 and others have said precisely what he read. There is no 
 use to deny that." 
 
 "That alters the case," said Mr. Barbour; "but it makes 
 Brother Ellis's blunder more fatal. If Mr. Mason was doing 
 us no injustice. Brother Ellis's attempt to make the people 
 believe that he ivas doing so, adds unfairness to error. But 
 that is not all. Why did you refuse to answer his question, 
 Brother Ellis ?" 
 
 " What — about the quotations I read in my sermon ?" 
 
 " Yes, sir." 
 
 " Why, the fact is, because I did read my extracts out of 
 4 
 
74 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 a Baptist book; but I honestly tbougbt they were cor- 
 rect/' 
 
 ^^ Why didn't you $ay so, then ? A frank acknowledg- 
 ment would have done you no harm." 
 
 " But then I would have acknowledged that I had done 
 the very thing I was trying to prove against him." 
 
 " Suppose you had. Even that would be better than the 
 present situation of the matter. As it is now, the people 
 think you have done something very bad, they scarcely know 
 what. You may rest assured that all but your personal 
 friends will put the worst construction upon it, and charge 
 you with wilful dishonesty." 
 
 " I am very sorry," said Mr. Ellis. '' 0, how I wish I 
 had not preached that sermon !" 
 
 "And well you may be," remarked Mr. Newton; '^for if 
 it has not got us into a hornet's nest, I am no judge." 
 
 " Well, have you done tormenting me, gentlemen ? Have 
 I made any more blunders ?" inquired Mr. Ellis, with an 
 air of assumed indifference. " Really, I have a set of Job's 
 comforters to-day." 
 
 " I wish that you may make as good an end of it as Job 
 did," said Mr. Newton. 
 
 " I have a little matter I wish to have explained. Brother 
 Ellis," said Mr. Lewis, a young man who had been a mem- 
 ber of the Church but a few months, and had been proselyted 
 from the Presbyterians. "You know. Brother Ellis," he 
 continued, "that the agent of the Bible Union was along 
 here a few weeks ago ?" 
 
 " Yes, sir, I know that— Elder D., of New York. Well—" 
 
 "He preached on the subject of revising the Bible, and 
 took up a collection to aid the Union." 
 
 " So he did. Proceed." 
 
 "And I gave him ten dollars." 
 
 "Very well. What of it?" 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 75 
 
 " Wliy, there is this about it. I work hard for my 
 money, Brother Ellis, and I don't like to be swindled out of 
 it.'^ 
 
 "Who talks about swindling you out of your money, 
 Brother Lewis V 
 
 " Why, sir, if this article in the paper is true, that agent 
 swindled me out of my money. Mr. Mason said last night 
 that the Union was ^ blown up,' and that Dr. Maclay had 
 abandoned it. After the meeting adjourned, I went to him, 
 and asked him where he got that information. He showed 
 me a pamphlet from Dr. Maclay, and lent me this paper 
 containing several extracts from the pamphlet.^' 
 
 " That's the very thing I showed you in the Enquirer, 
 Brother Ellis," said Deacon Smith; "you recollect it, don't 
 you?" 
 
 " You showed Dr. Maclay 's publication to Brother Ellis, 
 Brother Smith, when?" 
 
 " Well, it has been some time ago — directly after it came 
 out." 
 
 "And was it before the agent was here V^ 
 
 "0, yes; two or three weeks before." 
 
 "And you knew all these facts stated by Dr. Maclay, 
 Brother Ellis, without letting the people understand what 
 they were doing when they paid their money to the so- 
 ciety ?" 
 
 " I don't see that Dr. Maclay has said any thing very bad 
 about the Bible Union. He simply differed with them 
 about some of their arrangements." 
 
 "Well, Brother Ellis, let us see whether it was only a 
 mere matter of difference or not. After stating that he 
 began to make investigations into the state of the Union, 
 Dr. Maclay says : ^ I then for the first time ascertained who 
 the revisers were; and found, to my astonishment, that 
 instead of there having been about forty individuals actually 
 
76 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 engaged in translating tlie New Testament, as I had under- 
 stood from the Secretary, and often stated, there had not 
 been more than twenty-three or twenty-four. Instead of all 
 these being competent scholars, as I had supposed, and as 
 the plan of the Union required, and as is often reiterated in 
 the official documents of the Union, some of them unques- 
 tionably lacked the essential qualifications of a translator/ 
 
 ^'Now, Brother Ellis, you know that Elder D., the agent, 
 said there were over forty of the first scholars of the age, 
 selected from all denominations, engaged in the work. But 
 Dr. Maclay goes farther, and accuses the society of squan- 
 dering the money of their patrons. He says : 
 
 ^^ ^ But I found myself unable to remedy the existing grow- 
 ing evils. My best endeavors, in the whole affair, instead of 
 being met with candor and frankness, have been captiously 
 and obstinately thwarted. 
 
 ^' ' Being thus compelled to relinquish all hope of reform, 
 I was constrained some time ago to withdraw from the meet- 
 ings of the Board. It only remains for me, therefore, to 
 take care that I be not a party to wrongs which I have in 
 vain sought to remedy. 
 
 ^^ ^ Being fully satisfied, from personal examination, that 
 the funds which I have done so much to collect, and which 
 I know have been most sacredly devoted, by the rich and 
 poor, to one of the holiest purposes of Christian charity, are 
 being squandered ; that a vast amount is expended for 
 operations remote from the one great object of the institu- 
 tion ; that men are employed to translate the word of God 
 who are not qualified for the work; that unwarrantable 
 translations have been made, which, if published, must 
 bring into discredit the most precious doctrines of my faith, 
 sap the fundamental truths of Christianity, as indubitably 
 revealed in the Holy Scriptures, and shake the confidence 
 of the people in the canon of the sacred writings 
 
THE MAJESTY OP TRUTH. 77 
 
 '< 'And having now, after half a century spent in the 
 ministry of the gospel, devoted all my strength and influence, 
 for the last six years, to inspire the public mind with confi- 
 dence in what seemed to me the greatest enterprise of the 
 age — having induced thousands throughout the United 
 States, in the British Provinces and Europe, to become self- 
 sacrificing supporters of the American Bible Union — and 
 being myself at last compelled, by the hopeless mismanage- 
 ment of that institution, which is barely outlined in this 
 letter, to abandon the enterprise, I feel bound, as an honest 
 man and a Christian, to answer the inquiries which are 
 coming to me from every quarter, by frankly stating, once 
 for all, the reasons of my action/ ^' 
 
 " Now, Brother Ellis, what do you think of that ?'' 
 
 ^' Well, I think Dr. Maclay is mistaken, that's all.'' 
 
 " But I difi"er with you, Mr. Ellis ; for if you can possess 
 such information as that, and permit the money of your 
 people to be taken from them under false pretences, all I 
 have to say is " 
 
 "Is what?" asked Mr. Ellis. 
 
 " Well, sir, all that I luill say is, that you will not get me 
 into a like difficulty again ; for if this is the way you Bap- 
 tists manage your afi"airs, I give you notice that I mean to 
 withdraw from you.'' 
 
 "Well, if it comes to that, Mr. Lewis," said the pastor, 
 " I must inform you that we don't allow our members to 
 withdraw." 
 
 " Then, sir, I will withdraw whether you allow it or not." 
 
 " Come, brethren," said Mr. Newton, " don't indulge in 
 hasty speeches. Think calmly about the matter. Brother 
 Lewis ; perhaps you will not blame Brother Ellis." 
 
 " I am not excited, Brother Newton, but I have resolved 
 to leave the Church," said Mr. Lewis, " and return to my 
 old home, where I shall receive better treatment." 
 
T8 THEOPniLUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 ^' If you do, we will expel you/' said Mr. Ellis. 
 
 ^^ Very well, Mr. Ellis, expel as much as you please ; my 
 mind is made up, sir. Good morning.'' 
 
 ^' There now !" exclaimed Mr. Barbour, ^^ we have lost a 
 member, and one of the best we had !" 
 
 "We may set that down to the account of the Bible 
 Union !" said Mr. Newton. 
 
 " I wonder that you didn't say to my account," said Mr. 
 Ellis. 
 
 " He would have been more than half right if he had," 
 replied Mr. Barbour. 
 
 '^Well, it don't matter much," said the pastor, taking 
 his hat, and approaching the door. "Lewis never was 
 much of a Baptist any way !" 
 
 " He was good enough as long as he stayed with us," 
 whispered Mr. Barbour to Mr. Newton. " But now that he 
 is gone, he is good for nothing ! So we go. Grood day, 
 Brother Newton." 
 
 Mr. Ellis disappeared around the next corner, and the 
 company separated. 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 79 
 
 CHAPTEE IX. 
 
 CARRIE mason's REVIEW OF " THEODOSIA ERNEST." 
 
 On Friday afternoon Theopliilus called on Mary Ellis, and 
 asked if slie would like to attend a little meeting to be held 
 at the house of a neighbor. 
 
 " I am authorized to invite any young gentleman or lady 
 who may be disposed to go/' said Theophilus, ^^and I 
 thought perhaps you would like to be there. You are 
 acquainted with Carrie Mason, I believe, are you not, Miss 
 Mary?" 
 
 " Very well, Theophilus ; she is an old friend of mine ; 
 that is, she has been quite intimate with me since her 
 father was first stationed here. You know he has been 
 appointed to this place twice. I have a high opinion of 
 Carrie ; she is quite a pretty girl, and very intelligent. But 
 what has she to do with the meeting, Theophilus ?" 
 
 ^' Why, you know the young people partake of the feeling 
 extant among the older persons in the community, and we 
 are to have a sort of religious discussion this afternoon." 
 
 ^^ Indeed ! And who are the parties ?" 
 
 ''Why, Carrie Mason and ' Theodosia Ernest!' Carrie 
 has offered to review Theodosia, and we are going to have as 
 many of the young converts there as wish to attend." 
 
 " Then you are going to set Carrie to proselyting, are 
 you ? I don't think I can attend." 
 
 '' No, Mary, there will be no ' proselyting' done ; our object 
 
80 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 is to inquire after the trutli, and we want all tlie help we 
 can get. Besides, the Misses Parker will be there, and other 
 Baptist ladies, to see that every thing is fairly transacted.'' 
 
 "Well, well, I think the Methodists and Presbyterians 
 are engaging in a fine business now. When young girls turn 
 to be controversialists, I think it is time for the preachers 
 to stop.'' 
 
 " You forget, Mary, how readily you proposed to convince 
 me that immersion was right, the other day. You have set 
 the girls an example in the practice of disputation." 
 
 " 0, but I was only in sport. The. ; besides, there was no 
 one present but youP 
 
 "Well, Mary, I think it very proper when a young 
 lady's experience is published to the world, and her argu- 
 ments made the vehicle of proselyting efforts, that those 
 arguments should be answered by another lady — that is, if 
 Carrie can do so. But come, can't you go? There is no 
 impropriety in it. Nobody will be there but young persons." 
 
 "I believe I will go. The., if only to oblige you. But I 
 tell you now, I think Carrie will have the hardest task she 
 ever attempted." 
 
 " Well, let us go and see." 
 
 As they were on their way to the house of Mr. Eiley, 
 where the party was to assemble, Mary endeavored to per- 
 suade Theophilus to have no more to do with these meetings 
 at the church. She thought that he could satisfy himself 
 about the subject of baptism without making so much dis- 
 play. He replied that the meetings were not intended for 
 his benefit alone, and that inasmuch as he had commenced 
 the investigation with Mr. Mason, it would not be proper, 
 even if he desired to do so, to abandon it. " Besides," he 
 added, " truth can never suffer by being canvassed, particu- 
 larly where any unfairness could be at once detected and 
 exposed." 
 
THE MAJESTY OE TRUTH. 81 
 
 Arrived at tlie house, tliej found about a dozen persons 
 assembled, who seemed to represent the three Churches 
 very fairly. The most pleasing feature connected with the 
 meeting was, that all present, with the exception of Miss 
 Mason, had been brought up in the same community, and were 
 on the most agreeable terms. The utmost friendship exist- 
 ing between them, was a pledge of harmony and good feel- 
 ing, so that they were not likely to abuse an opportunity for 
 seeking truth, by making it an occasion of contention and 
 strife. 
 
 " I understand that you have promised to review Theo- 
 dosia for us, Miss Mason,^' said Theophilus, ''and we hope 
 that you are prepared to fulfil your promise.'^ 
 
 " I did promise to look over the book with a friend or 
 two, Mr. Walton,'' replied Carrie, '' but I did not expect to 
 have so large an audience. I am hardly qualified to enter- 
 tain you, I am afraid. But if you insist, I will give some 
 of my objections to the book, upon two or three conditions.'' 
 
 '' We shall be ready to grant any conditions you require," 
 replied Theophilus. 
 
 ''Well, in the first place," said Carrie, "I wish all 
 present to assure me that they will take no offence at any 
 thing I may say ; with this explanation, that I do not intend 
 to say any thing with a design to wound the feelings of any 
 one. Will you agree to this '/" 
 
 " Of course we will," was the reply. 
 
 " In the next place, then," continued Carrie, " if I should 
 be tempted to use a harsh expression, I wish you to stop me 
 right there, and I will take it back." 
 
 " I will answer for all," said Theophilus ; " we will agree 
 to that, too." 
 
 "In the last place, then," continued Carrie, "I wish 
 every one to understand that the objections I am going to 
 4* 
 
82 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 oiFer are to this book, Thcodosia Ernest, and not to the 
 Baptist Church, here or elsewhere." 
 
 " We understand that, Miss Mason," replied Theophilus, 
 '^ and I do not hesitate to say that we shall all part as good 
 friends as when we met together." 
 
 " Very well," said Carrie. " The first objection which I 
 have to urge against Theodosia is, that it is not a candid 
 book. The author's apparent design is to set forth the 
 strong arguments of his Church, and show their superiority 
 over those of the Pedobaptist Churches. To do this as it 
 ought to be done, he should have placed the strongest argu- 
 ments of the Pedobaptists in the mouths of their advocates. 
 Instead of this, however, he makes a grave Presbyterian 
 minister utter language which, to say the least of it, is alto- 
 gether out of character. The minister's ignorance of the 
 subject which he attempts to argue, if it is not intended as a 
 reproach to the denomination, is nevertheless a blemish in 
 the book. 
 
 "Another objection to the book is the singular character 
 given to Theodosia. She appears to have grown up to be 
 quite a woman before she ever saw anybody immersed. 
 And, as a matter of course, she had the benefit of Presbyte- 
 rian instruction on the subject of baptism, as well as other 
 points of doctrine. Yet, the very first time that she sees a 
 person immersed, she expresses herself precisely in the lan- 
 guage of a full-grown Baptist. Though she had been taught 
 that pouring, sprinkling, and immersion were all modes of 
 baptism, no sooner does she see immersion performed than 
 she comes to the conclusion that, if immersion is baptism, 
 pouritig or sprinkling is not." 
 
 ''I noticed that when I first read the book," remarked 
 Alice Brown; "and I thought it was rather strange lan- 
 guage for a Presbyterian." 
 
 " Indeed it is, Alice," replied Carrie ; " for if I under- 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 83 
 
 stand any thing about tlie subject, tlie author assumes that 
 to be true which is the main point of the controversy, that 
 is, that there is but one mode of Christian baptism. To 
 make Theodosia entertain this opinion is, in a word, to deny 
 that she ever was a Presbyterian. And yet, if there was no 
 conversion from the Presbyterian to the Baptist Church, the 
 book is altogether without point. To make this a little 
 plainer, let us suppose that Theodosia, whilst a member of 
 the Presbyterian Church, believed that there could be but 
 one mode of baptism : that mode, as generally practiced 
 among Presbyterians, must be sprinkling. Now, if she 
 thought sprinkling was the only mode of baptism, of course 
 she unchurched all the Baptists. But this we know the 
 Presbyterians do not, but grant that they are baptized 
 validly. 
 
 *^"We find Theodosia, then, a Baptist to all intents and 
 purposes at the very commencement of the book, and her 
 subsequent history is only an effort to build her up in her 
 Baptist faith. If the author had said this, no matter how 
 much we might regret her meeting with such poor advocates 
 of Pedobaptism, we could expect nothing more of Theo- 
 dosia than to see her a confirmed Baptist at the end of the 
 volume. 
 
 " But this author, I contend, shows a want of candor, in 
 making Theodosia surrender the main question in dispute 
 without argument, without help, without reasoning of any 
 kind, as if the mere seeing a person immersed was enough 
 to settle the controversy, and decide a contest of ages, by 
 the light of nature/' 
 
 " But let me ask you, Carrie,'' said Alice Parker, " if it is 
 not reasonable to suppose that seeing two things performed 
 so entirely distinct as sprinkling and immersion, would not 
 be sufl&cient to convince the common sense of Theodosia 
 that they could not both be true baptism ?" 
 
84 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 " No doubt it would be enough to convince tbe common 
 sense of a Baptist, Alice/' replied Carrie ; '^ but tliere 
 would not be tlie slightest necessity for such an impression 
 upon a Presbyterian or Pedobaptist mind. That thing which 
 you call common sense is very difficult to define. Your com- 
 mon sense teaches you that exclusive immersion is right; 
 and therefore nothing else is baptism. At the same time, 
 however, my common sense teaches me that exclusive immer- 
 sion is wrong, and that the belief of it is productive of 
 much harm to the cause of God. So you see common 
 sense, that vague, indefinite thing, will not settle the ques- 
 tion. 
 
 ^' But there are other points of importance in the work to 
 which I would call your attention, in illustration of the 
 fact that it is not a candid book. If the author had 
 intended to deal fairly with Presbyterians, lie would have 
 selected at least fair specimens of piety and intelligence to 
 represent them. I have said that Mr. Johnson, the Presby- 
 terian minister, is exhibited as an utterly ignorant advocate 
 of the Pedobaptist cause, whilst the Baptist schoolmaster 
 manages his side with skill and ability. Now, my friends, 
 I think it not impossible by any means to find a Baptist 
 schoolmaster who is a better scholar than a Presbyterian 
 minister, but I think such a case would be allowed by all to 
 be the exception, not the ride. To make his triumph worthy 
 of the name, a disputant will always select 'a foeman 
 worthy of his steel.' 
 
 '' In regard to the question of piety, too, Theodosia's 
 mother is not a fair specimen of Presb3'^terians. She is 
 represented as an unconverted woman, who was brought up in 
 the Church, and had nothing further to do in order to make 
 her a good Presbyterian than to go to the Lord's table. So 
 far as I am able to judge. Baptists have no advantage over 
 Presbyterians on the score of piety. It is unfair, then, to 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 85 
 
 select a person as a representative of a particular virtue who 
 is wliolly or partially destitute of that virtue. 
 
 " The same remark will apply to Mr. Percy, the friend 
 and lover of Theodosia. He, too, is an unconverted man, 
 although regarded as a ^most excellent member' of the 
 ^ Presbyterian Society' by his brethren : as if we are to 
 acknowledge that piety is less necessary to constitute a good 
 Presbyterian than a good Baptist. Now I object to this way 
 of treating our neighbors, and I must be permitted to say 
 that it comes very near violating, if it does not absolutely 
 violate, the Ninth Commandment — ' Thou shalt not bear false 
 witness against thy neighbor.' 
 
 ^^ Edwin Ernest, the brother of Theodosia, is another 
 character that speaks either unlike one of his years, or else 
 one who had been subjected to a different course of training. 
 After asking his mother whether he had ever been bap- 
 tized, Edwin speaks as follows : ^ One minister takes a per- 
 son down into the water, and dips her under it; another 
 stands on the dry floor of the church, before the pulpit, and 
 sprinkles a few drops into her face ; another pours a little 
 stream upon her head. Now, anybody can see that they do 
 three different things ; and if each of them is baptism, then 
 there must be three baptisms.' 
 
 '^ Now this sort of reasoning bears the Baptist stamp, and 
 I want to show you here how fallacious it is. If Edwin had 
 observed matters in the schoolhouse, he would have seen 
 very frequently illustrated that there are many modes of 
 doing the same thing. For instance, one of the scholars 
 reads his lesson to his teacher — in that case he uses his eyes, 
 his mouth, and his brain or mind : this is evidently reading. 
 But at the same time another boy, in a different part of the 
 room, reads his lesson ; but reads it, as we say, to himself, 
 that is, he only uses his brain and his eyes. No one will 
 deny that this is as proper a method of reading as the 
 
86 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 Other. But tliere is still anotlier way, for the blind boy in 
 Mr. Barbour's school has learned to read with his fingers, 
 without the use of his eyes. Now, we see one uses the 
 mind, eyes, and mouth in one method of reading ; the mind 
 and the eyes only in another; and the mind and the fingers 
 in the third. Yet certainly these are all different processes, 
 or, as Edwin says, different things, yet all three were doing 
 suhstantially the same thing. ^^ 
 
 u Yerj good. Miss Carrie !" exclaimed Theophilus. ^^ I 
 think we'll have to engage you to help your father out of the 
 hard places ; for certainly this illustration of yours upsets the 
 position that there can be but one way to do any given thing." 
 
 "I shan't have anything to do with your matters and 
 father's. I am going to leave all the Latin, Greek, and He- 
 brew for you and him : I only want to take a plain and sim- 
 ple view of this controversy.'' 
 
 " But stop, Carrie," said Miss Parker. " I am not quite 
 satisfied yet. When we are speaking of these several sorts 
 of reading, we call them reading aloud, reading to oneself, 
 reading with the fingers, do we not ?" 
 
 ^^ Certainly we do," replied Carrie, ^^just as we say such 
 a one was hajytized by immersion, another was haiytized by 
 sprinkling, and a third baptized by pouring. All these 
 actions are called baptism, just as all the others are called 
 readtnr/." 
 
 '''But stop, Carrie," replied Alice; '^is there as much 
 difference between these modes of reading as there is in 
 your modes of baptism ?" 
 
 " Equally as much, Alice," answered Carrie. " There is 
 as much difference between reading with the fingers, and 
 reading with the eyes, as there is between covering a person 
 up with water, and only pouring a little water on him." 
 
 " Well, don't you think that in baptism there is some par- 
 ticular act — a specific action performed ?" 
 
THE MAJESTY OP TRUTH 8/ 
 
 " Yes, I think there is." 
 
 ^^Well, what would you call that si^ecific acty Carrie?" 
 asked Alice. 
 
 '^ I should call it the act of bringing the body of a scrip- 
 tural subject, and water, in contact." 
 
 <^ Then you must admit that the body must be carried to 
 the water, must you not V 
 
 " Why, of course not, Alice. Suppose I wish to bring 
 my right hand in contact with this book, I may place the 
 hand on the book, without moving the book, or else I may 
 with my left hand bring the book to my right, without moving 
 the right hand. So we contend that the substance of the 
 baptismal act is the application of water to a proper subject, 
 no matter how the water is applied : whether it is poured on 
 the person, or the person is put into it, we think a matter of 
 no moment." 
 
 ^^ But it seems to me, Carrie," continued Alice, " that ac- 
 cording to your doctrine, we could never tell what particular 
 act was performed when we hear that a certain person was 
 baptized. If you were to tell me that you have been bap- 
 tized, how could I know whether you were immersed, or 
 had the ^diier poured on you, or were only sprinkled with it ? 
 Now, we Baptists know, when we say a person was baptized, 
 precisely how the thing was done." 
 
 '^ Let me answer your question by asking you one," re- 
 plied Carrie. " If I were to tell you that Thomas Smith read 
 a chapter in the Bible at school to-day, how could you tell 
 what particular act wag performed ? How could you know 
 whether he read the chapter aloud to his teacher, or read to 
 himself; and how could you tell whether he read with his 
 eyes, or with his fingers ?" 
 
 ^^ Well, Carrie," answered Alice, ^^ in this particular case 
 I would know that Thomas Smith read with his fingers^ be- 
 cause I know that he is blind." 
 
88 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 ^^ Exactly so/' said Carrie ; ^^ then tlie condition or views 
 of the person baptized being known to us^ we can know 
 wbat mode was used: just as the blindness of Thomas Smith 
 must be known in order for you to ascertain how he reads. 
 So, Alice, there is no more difficulty in the one case than in 
 the other, and therefore it follows that pouring, sprinkling, 
 and immersion, though different modes, constitute one bap- 
 tism." 
 
 ^^ I shall have to yield the point, Carrie,'' replied Alice, 
 '^not because your argument is conclusive, but because / 
 cannot meet it. You have the advantage of me in being 
 better posted in controversy." 
 
 ^^I don't claim to be a controversialist, Alice; but I 
 think every one is obliged to see this matter in the light I 
 have placed it in; and if it were not for your education, Alice, 
 your previous prejudices, you know, I think you must 
 frankly acknowledge the justness of my argument. How- 
 ever that may be, let us proceed in our review. 
 
 ^^ I think the author of Theodosia has committed quite a 
 blunder in making Edwin offer to find a word in the Bible 
 which is not there." 
 
 " How is that ?" asked Theophilus. 
 
 " I will read his words," replied Carrie, '^ and then you 
 will see the point. ^But, mother,' says Edwin, ^they all 
 agree that there is only one baptism, do they not ? And if 
 there is only one, why don't they just look into the Testa- 
 ment and see what it is ? If the Testament says sprinkle, 
 then it is sprinkling : if it says pour^then it is pouring : if 
 it says dip, then it is dipping. I mean to read the Testa- 
 ment, and see if I cannot decide which it is for myself.' 
 
 •'You see, then," continued Carrie, ''that Edwin deter- 
 mines to search the Testament to find out whether the Tes- 
 tament says sprinkle, pour, or dip. Now, if he were going 
 to examine the Baptist Testament, which the 'Bible Union' 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 89 
 
 has published or isgoing to publish, he would certainly find dip 
 there, or immerse, which they consider the same. But if he 
 were to search the Bible, our old Bible, the non-sectarian 
 Bible, he would hunt for ever without finding clip in it, as a 
 command of Christ. Is it not strange, then, that the child 
 should attempt such a task as this; or rather, is it not 
 strange that a Baptist writer should set him to work in this 
 way, knowing that the boy never would succeed V^ 
 
 " That was a blunder, I confess," replied Theophilus, " for 
 you remember that your father showed us last night that the 
 Baptists themselves had well-nigh abandoned the idea of 
 putting immerse in the Bible. By the way, Miss Carrie, 
 speaking of the Bible Union, and its efforts to revise the 
 Scriptures, reminds me of some of the translations of the 
 society which I saw this morning.^^ 
 
 ^^ Indeed !'' said Carrie, '^1 would like to see them." 
 
 "Here they are," said Theophilus, "and if I am any 
 judge, either of English or G-reek, they are quite ludicrous. 
 They render John iii. 12 thus : ^ If I said to you the earth- 
 lies, and you did not believe, now if I say to you the 
 Jieavenlies, will you believe V 
 
 " Why, Theophilus, that is perfect nonsense.'^ 
 
 " Indeed it is ; but there are other passages, even worse 
 rendered than this." 
 
 " "Well, let me take the Bible, and read it as it now stands, 
 and you read the revised translation, Theophilus. We shall 
 be better able to see the contrast." 
 
 " Very good. Miss Carrie. We will commence with the 
 passage I have just read ; 
 
 THE WORD OP GOD. THE BAPTIST BIBLE. 
 
 "If I have told you earthly " If I said to you the earthlies, 
 
 things, and ye believe not, how and you did not believe, now if 1 
 
 shall ye believe if I tell you of say to you the heavenlies, will you 
 
 heavenly things?" John iii. 12. believe?" John iii. 12. 
 
90 
 
 TIIEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 THE WORD OP GOD. 
 
 *' That at the name of Jesus 
 every knee should bow, of things 
 in heaven, and things in earth, 
 and things under the earth." 
 Phil. ii. 10. 
 
 "For we wrestle not against 
 flesh and blood, but against prin- 
 cipalities, against powers, against 
 the rulers of the darkness of this 
 world, against spiritual wicked- 
 ness in high places." Eph. vi. 12. 
 
 "Ye call me Master and Lord; 
 and ye say well, for so I am," 
 John xiii. 13. 
 
 " Ye have put on the new man." 
 Col. iii. 10. 
 
 "Unto me, who am less than the 
 least of all saints, is this grace 
 given, that I should preach among 
 the Gentiles the unsearchable 
 riches of Christ." Eph. iii. 8. 
 
 "Repent ye, therefore, and be 
 converted, that your sins may be 
 blotted out." Acts iii. 19. 
 
 "Preach the word: be instant 
 in season, out of season." 2 
 Tim. iv. 2. 
 
 " The communion of the Holy 
 Ghost be with you all." 2 Cor. 
 xiii. 14. 
 
 THE BAPTIST BIBLE. 
 
 "That in the name of Jesus 
 every knee should bend of heaven- 
 lies, and of earthlies, and of infer- 
 naU:' Phil. ii. 10. 
 
 ^^ Struggle not against blood and 
 flesh, but with the principalities, 
 with the powers, with the worldly 
 forces of the darkness of this age^ 
 with the spirituals of the badjiess 
 in the heavenlies I" Eph. vi. 12. 
 
 "You title me the Teacher, and 
 the Lord, and you designate well, 
 for I om." John xiii. 13. 
 
 "You have put on the young 
 man." Col. iii. 10. 
 
 " To me, who am less than the 
 least of all the consecrated, was 
 this very kindness granted to j^ub- 
 lish among the nations the incom- 
 prehensible wealth of the Anoinied.^^ 
 Eph. iii. 8. 
 
 "Repent, therefore, and return, 
 in order to the obliterating of your 
 sins." Acts iii. 19. 
 
 '■^Announce the word: be on 
 hand conveniently and inconvenient- 
 ly:' 2 Tim. iv. 2. 
 
 "The partnership of the Holy 
 Spirit be with you all." 2 Cor. 
 xiii. 14. 
 
 '^ Well, well !" exclaimed Carrie, '^ wouldn^t they make a 
 glorious English Bible ! And these are the men who are to 
 ' come up to the help of the Lord against the mighty V 
 Verily, they ought to be ashamed of themselves ! 
 
 ^' But I see that we have spent most of the afternoon 
 without examining the merits of Theodosia's arguments; and 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 91 
 
 if you conseut we will meet to-morrow afternoon^ and look 
 into the book again/' 
 
 As no one objected to the proposal of Miss Mason, it was 
 agreed that they would assemble again on Saturday. 
 
 Theophilus walked home with Mary, and as she reached 
 home, he ventured to whisper to her that he thought Carrie 
 Mason would prove a very good match for Theodosia Ernest. 
 Mary made no reply, for just at that moment she caught the 
 eye of her father, who was sitting near the parlor-window 
 There was something in that glance which boded no good, 
 and her young heart was in a moment filled with gloomy 
 apprehensions. 
 
c^i^^^tt^ ^tJ^ttitt0. 
 
 TRIAL OF THE BAPTIST CANONS OF CRITICISM, 
 AS LAID DOWN BY DR. GALE, DR. CARSON, 
 DR. RICHARD FULLER, AND OTHER EMINENT 
 BAPTISTS. 
 
 THE RESULT, A REDUCTION TO ABSURDITY OF 
 BAPTIST THEORY, BY PROVING THEM ALL 
 TO BE ENEMIES OF CHRIST. 
 
THE MAJESTY OT TRUTH. 95 
 
 SECOND EVENING 
 
 The interest excited by the investigations of Mr. Mason 
 and Theophilus was evidently increasing. The probable 
 results of these meetings were very freely canvassed, and the 
 course of Mr. Ellis was made the subject of conjecture. It 
 was plainly impossible for him to enter upon a discussion 
 with either the Methodist or Presbyterian minister, and yet 
 there seemed to be a necessity for defence of some sort. 
 The people generally felt that the Baptist pastor had unne- 
 cessarily agitated the question in dispute, and, whatever 
 might be the issue, he could blame no one but himself. 
 The boldness with which Mr. Ellis ventured upon classical 
 ground, would have induced a stranger to suppose that he 
 was at home in the language of Greece. So far from this 
 being the fact, however, he could not read a sentence in 
 G-reek. His positions, and dogmatic assertions, were coins 
 circulated in his books, and as he could not determine for 
 himself whether they were true or false, he took them for 
 granted, and hesitated not to affirm them as his own views, 
 in the most solemn manner ! While in the very act of 
 adopting the opinions of others as his own, without exami- 
 nation, he belabored with zeal the Pedobaptists, for "pin- 
 ning their faith to the skirts of men,'' and giving up their 
 consciences to scholars and divines ! This inconsistency 
 
96 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 was not observed by all, but many intelligent minds saw it, 
 and rejoiced in an opportunity of lowering bis crest a little. 
 As for tlie Baptists, tbey were in trouble. Professedly 
 fond of controversy, they only relished it whilst there was a 
 disposition on the other side to avoid it- When the Pedo- 
 baptists were willing to meet them, they were very solicitous 
 indeed for the peace of the community. They were then 
 firmly persuaded that controversy was an evil in itself: it 
 promoted divisions in families, excited the worst feelings of 
 our natures, and was, upon the whole, an evil of incalculable 
 magnitude. While they were thus engaged in depicting the 
 consequences to be feared, and, indeed, inseparable from 
 controversy, the report reached them from an authentic 
 source, that Mr. Ellis had posted off a messenger for Elder 
 Alexander Battle, the Magnus Apollo of their faith in that 
 region. This intelligence seemed to modify, to a very con- 
 siderable extent, the evils of controversy. They were now 
 of opinion that it was highly probable a courteous. Christian- 
 like discussion might be even productive of good ! This 
 sudden change in their views was received, as it deserved to 
 be, with quiet forbearance by their opponents, and at the 
 appointed hour all parties, with the exception of a few of 
 the more bigoted sort of Baptists, repaired to the Methodist 
 church. 
 
 After opening the meeting with prayer, Mr, Mason began : 
 ^^ Now, Theophilus, we are going to bring our Baptist 
 friends into judgment upon themselves, and as they can feel 
 it in their hearts to exclude us from the celebration of the 
 Lord's Supper, we ought not to hesitate in giving their 
 arguments a little wider range, even if they are, in turn, 
 thereby expelled from the Church of Christ. If they are 
 allowed to use a certain method of argument to get us out of 
 the Church, I see no reason why we may not show them 
 that the same course of argument puts them out too. The 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TTvUTH. 97 
 
 canons of criticism, wliicli I am now going to examine, are 
 adhered to with great tenacity by their writers. Rules for 
 criticism must be general, not special, arbitrary, or excep- 
 tional accommodations of verbal criticism, invented to 
 sustain a preconceived opinion. If we find, then, that the 
 canons we examine, when applied to other commandments 
 beside baptism, render salvation impossible, it follows that 
 the canons are false. 
 
 ''As I have hitherto followed the example of the Baptists 
 in making their opponents prove their doctrine, I shall con- 
 tinue this course on the present occasion. My first autho- 
 rity, then, will be drawn from this pleasant little book, 
 ' Theodosia,^ and as she is the ' heroine of faith,' I will let 
 her state the case fully. When she, for the first time it 
 seems, witnesses the immersion of some candidates in the 
 river, she falls into doubt whether she has ever been bap- 
 tized, and, to solve her difficulties, calls to her aid sundry 
 Pedobaptist friends, who, instead of relieving her, confirm 
 her doubts. They in vain endeavored to make her believe 
 that mode was not essential to the ordinance. She desired 
 to know what particular act Christ performed when he was 
 baptized; that act, she says, Christ commanded, and on 
 page 18 you find her uttering these words — very good words 
 they are, too, worthy of Theodosia, and very much to our 
 present purpose — ' My Saviour died upon the cross for my 
 salvation. I trust in Him to save me. But he says. If ye 
 love me, keep my commandments. Not this one, or that 
 one, but all his commandments. How can I pretend to love, 
 if I do not obey him ? If he commands me to be baptized, 
 and I have not done it, / must do it yet. And if that 
 which we saw at the river was baptism, then I have never 
 been baptized.' These are Theodosia's words, and whilst I 
 have nothing to do with her premise and conclusion as to 
 5 
 
98 THEorniLus walton; or, 
 
 baptism, I admit tliat she speaks truth when she says we 
 must obey all the commandments of Christ. I am now 
 to show that by the same means Theodosia arrived at the 
 conclusion that she was not haptized, we necessarily con- 
 clude that she is not a Christian. This, I think, will be 
 obvious to any one who can understand a plain argument, 
 although I will not say with Dr. Waller that his people are 
 orangoutangs if they cannot appreciate the facts. 
 
 ^' We start out with the principle just stated, that we are 
 to keep all the commandments of Christ, and to keep them 
 we must know what they are. Thus far, we are all agreed. 
 Now, however, we must introduce Dr. Richard Fuller, 
 of Baltimore. You will find the place in his book on Bap- 
 tism, pages 13 and 14. Read it aloud for us.'' 
 
 '^ ^Indeed, if a word have not 2^. precise meaning, how can 
 language be the vehicle of our thoughts ? The assertion 
 that haptidzo has three different meanings, only proves how 
 strangely controversy can blind the mind to the plainest 
 things. Suppose the word sa.w meant a saw, and an axe, 
 and a nail, how could a carpenter know what I mean when 
 I ask for a saw ? To say that a word means three distinct 
 things, is to say that it means neither of them. ^ " 
 
 " Now, Theophilus, I need not tell you that Dr. Fuller is 
 high authority among the Baptists, nor need I tell you that 
 the assertion made by Dr. Fuller is founded upon a total 
 misapprehension of language. As I have reserved this view 
 of the meaning of words for another examination, I will just 
 here show you that facts are against the Doctor. You have 
 studied the Spanish language, I believe, have you not ?" 
 
 ^' Not a great deal," replied Theophilus, ^' but I can read 
 a little of it." 
 
 ^' Well, don't you think the Spaniards have a vehicle for 
 their thoughts ?" 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 99 
 
 "Certainly, sir/^ 
 
 " Well, do you remember wliat the word nail is ia 
 Spanish V 
 
 " Yes, sir, it is una." 
 
 " That is one of the words used in Spanish to correspond 
 with the English word nail, but there are several others. 
 Clavo means an iron nail, una 9. Jinr/ei'-nail, j)6suna the nail 
 or hoof of an animal, garra the nail or talon of a bird. 
 Here, then, are four words, all of which are equivalent to 
 the English word nail. Now, is it not manifest that this 
 very word selected as an example by Dr. Fuller has several 
 meanings in the English language? Is there no diflference 
 between the nail of my finger and the nail in this bench ? 
 And yet Dr. Fuller says that if a word has more than one 
 meaning, it has none ! 
 
 "It is true, that if I were to ask a carpenter for a few 
 nails, he would understand me to mean iro7i nails, and if I 
 were to tell you that your nails were too long, you would 
 understand me to mean your finger-nails. But I would use 
 the same word in reference to two distinct classes of things, 
 the meaning of which word you could only ascertain by the 
 connection in which it was used. This is a universal law of 
 language ; a law which is no less binding in our own than in 
 foreign tongues. 
 
 "But suppose we take another of these three words 
 of Dr. Fuller, and try his rule in the German language. 
 Look in Adler's Dictionary, under the word heil.'^ 
 
 " It means ^ hatchet, axe.^ " 
 
 " Very well, how can the Germans tell the diiference 
 between a hatchet and an axe, for certainly they are not the 
 same things T^ 
 
 " Not from the word by itself," said Theophilus, " that is 
 very clear." 
 
 " Well, you know that this same word axe is, in Spanish, 
 
100 TIIEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 segur ; and the word means a sickle, also. Does it follow, 
 then, that the Spaniards cannot tell the difference between 
 an axe and a sickle f 
 
 " no, Mr. Mason," replied Theophilus, ^^ it is very 
 evident that Dr. Fuller's position is absurd." 
 
 ^^And yet, upon the truthfulness of this position the 
 whole doctrine of exclusive immersion is based ! And 
 if Dr. Fuller produces three words which cannot mean the 
 same articles, and no one of them can be understood as 
 including the others, he only proves that in the English 
 language what he asserts is true, in these particular cases. 
 But there are words, even in English, that do not mean the 
 same things in all places. This, perhaps, is too obvious for 
 us to spend time in proving it. All the use we have now 
 for this passage is to try the Baptists by the same rules 
 which they use to try us, and to prove that wherein they 
 succeed to their own satisfaction, in proving us at fault 
 in the matter of baptism, we shall make them condemn 
 themselves in a matter of infinitely greater importance. 
 
 ^^ AYe have seen that Theodosia desired to keep all the 
 commandments of Christ. We allow the position that we 
 cannot keep commandments which we do not know. Now, 
 then, Christ used icords in giving his commandments, and 
 Dr. Fuller says a word can mean but one thing — a plain, 
 literal definition only can be allowed. He does not allow 
 even an exception in favor of 'metaphorical usage of words, 
 but we will grant him that out of the abundance of our 
 charity, for his case will need all the help it can get. Now, 
 Theophilus, you will oblige me by taking down the Bible 
 from the desk, and turning to Luke xiv. 27." 
 
 " ^And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after 
 me, cannot be my disciple.^ " 
 
 ^^ Do you consider that a command of Christ, Theophi- 
 lus ?" 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 101 
 
 ^^ Certainly, sir. And the most important of all, inas- 
 much as if it is not obeyed no man can be his disciple/' 
 '^ Is it ?i positive command, Theophilus ?'' 
 " None can be more so. Salvation is staked upon it." 
 ^^ Then it is highly important for us to know luliat it is 
 tliat we are to do. Unless this is clearly defined, we shall 
 err in an essential point. Now, what is the thing com- 
 manded, Theophilus V 
 ^^To hear our cross." 
 
 " Can you tell us what particular act the Saviour would 
 have us to perform ?" 
 
 " I can't say that I am prepared to explain the passage." 
 " Now, suppose I afiirm that no man can be saved who 
 does not hear a cross of tcood on his shoulders, would you 
 aOTce with me ?" 
 
 o 
 
 ^^No, sir, I would not." 
 
 " Well, we shall see that the Baptist canons of criticism 
 sustain that view of the passage. Is the word cross an Eng- 
 lish word, Theophilus ?" 
 
 " Yes, sir, I suppose so." 
 
 " Well, be pleased to tell me its English root." 
 
 ^^Let me see. I am not prepared now, sir." 
 
 " No amount of research would help you, Theophilus. It 
 has 710 English root. We get the word from the French, 
 croix. But it came into the French from the Latin, c7-ux, 
 and hence we get the word crucify, by transferring (as the 
 Baptists say) a Latin compound. Now, before we proceed, 
 we must hear a little more from our authorities. There 
 is Dr. Carson on Baptism. Bead the passage marked at the 
 foot of page 23." 
 
 ^^ ^The just and most obvious method of ascertaining the 
 meaning of a word, is to examine its origin and use in the 
 language.' " 
 
 ^^ This is allowed to be the method by which our Baptist 
 
102 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 friends get their doctrine of immersion. If the rale suits 
 them, let us see how it suits us. Examine Ainsworth's 
 Dictionary, and let us have the meaning of crux." 
 
 " He says it means a cross, gibbet, or gallows, and, by 
 metonymy, any thing or person that troubles, vexes, or tor- 
 ments us — affliction." 
 
 '^And so also does Andrews give the meaning of the 
 word. Well, we have gotten to the fountain of the word, 
 so far as the Latin term is concerned. But Christ did not 
 use the word crux : we must ascend a little higher, to the 
 Greek. Do you remember the word ?" 
 
 ''Yes, sir, stauros." 
 
 ''And what does it mean ? Examine Liddell and Scott's 
 Lexicon." 
 
 " It means an upright pale or stake, and is used by 
 Herodotus for piles." 
 
 "Well, here is the passage from Herodotus. It is the 
 5th Book, called Terpsichore, chapter xvi. : ' Yet he endea- 
 vored to subdue those who live upon the lake, in dwellings 
 contrived after this manner: planks fitted on lohj piles are 
 placed in the middle of the lake,' etc. Homer uses the 
 same word in the sense of a stake or post. A transverse 
 beam fitted to this stake formed the cross. Such was the 
 meaning of the word stauros in our Saviour's time. Now, 
 then, we have arrived at the command — we are to take up a 
 beam of wood, with a stake or pale attached to it as an 
 upright support, and bear it daily, otherwise we cannot be 
 the disciples of Christ. For, be it remembered, it is a posi- 
 tive command of Christ : our salvation is made to depend on 
 our doing or not doing this thing. But we have more than 
 a command, we have the example of Christ. Now, if we 
 can ascertain how Christ bore his cross, in like manner we 
 ought to bear ours. Read the 17th and 18 th verses of the 
 nineteenth chapter of John." 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 103 
 
 " ^And he, bearing liis cross, went forth into a place 
 called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew 
 Golgotha, where they crucified him, and two others with 
 him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst/ '^ 
 
 ''Now, then, the Saviour bore his cross upon his 
 shoulders up the mountain. Then the lovely ' Theodosia/ 
 if she would follow Christ, and keep this commandment, 
 upon which her everlasting happiness depends, must follow 
 his example. It is useless to say that something else will 
 do. No, verily, the Lord's commandment must n(rt be 
 altered. It is plain and positive — his example cannot be 
 misunderstood. He bore the stauros, the cross, and stauros 
 has no other meaning in the Grreek language. In all classi- 
 cal antiquity it was understood to mean a beam of wood — 
 nothing hut wood — not an example can be cited where the 
 plain, literal meaning of the word is not a stake or beam of 
 wood. Who then will dare pervert the word of God ? who 
 will dare assert that the daili/ carrying of a wooden cross is 
 not absolutely essential to salvation ? Who will lay his 
 hands upon the ark of Christ's positive commandments, and 
 alter, change, or modify them according to his own views ?" 
 
 '^ But, Mr. Mason, may it not be said that it is used here 
 in a metaphorical sense V 
 
 "No. Did Christ's commandments, his positive com- 
 mandments, consist of metap)hors ? Is it a metaphorical 
 cross that we are to bear? No. The canons we follow 
 require the plain, literal meaning. A word can have but 
 one meaning, says Dr. Fuller; we must find out that mean- 
 ing by the origin and use of the word in the Greek lan- 
 guage, says Dr. Carson. It is never used figuratively in the 
 Greek language, and therefore we cannot allow it to be a 
 figure of speech. Now, what becomes of our Baptist friends ?" 
 
 '' Why, they are not bearing their cross, that is evident/' 
 replied Theophilus. 
 
104 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 '^And consequently cannot be saved, as they are not and 
 cannot be the disciples of Christ." 
 
 ^' Verily, that argument reduces obedience to Christ to an 
 impossibility,'^ remarked Theophilus. 
 
 • " So it does," remarked Mr. Mason. '' But is the argu- 
 ment illogical ? I have taken the very ground occupied by 
 the Baptists to prove the necessity of immersion. Let us 
 reduce it to a narrower compass. 1. Obedience to Christ is 
 necessary to salvation. 2. Christ commands us to bear our 
 cross. 3. He, therefore, who does not bear his cross cannot 
 be saved. 1. No word can have more than one meaning. 
 2. The original, common, current usage determines that 
 meaning. 3. But the word stauros (or cross) was invaria- 
 bly used to designate a beam of wood. Therefore Christ 
 commanded the bearing of a cross of wood as an absolute 
 prerequisite to salvation. Now, where is the fallacy?" 
 
 ^^Not in the conclusion, that is evident," replied Theo- 
 philus. 
 
 '' Then it must be in the premises," said Mr. Mason. 
 " But which of them is wrong ?" 
 
 ^^ The first, undoubtedly. Words can and do have more 
 than one meanins;." 
 
 ^' Yes, for this we have just demonstrated. Now, if the 
 Baptist rule, stated by Gale, Carson, and Fuller, establishes 
 an absurdity, it cannot be correct. So far from establishing 
 the necessity of recurring to original meanings for our 
 words, the very contrary is the case by the operation of this 
 canon. Applied to the words faith, righteousness, justifica- 
 tion, law, regeneration, conversion, and indeed the whole 
 vocabulary of Christian terms, the same result will follow ; 
 and for obvious reasons : if words are signs of ideas, the 
 latter must, in point of time, precede the former — ideas 
 must exist before words. But no man can believe that the 
 ideas incorporated in the Christian system existed before 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 105 
 
 tliey were revealed. It would be impossible for a licatlien 
 Greek, by the mere ordinary use of words in liis native 
 tongue, to have any conception of Christianity. Upon any 
 other supposition revelation becomes superfluous. Any 
 Greek moralist could combine the principles of the system 
 without the aid of Christ or his apostles. All the miracu- 
 lous endowments of the apostolic age were designed, not to 
 frame a system out of existing words, but to give new ideas 
 through existing words. Therefore the dawn of Christianity 
 was the inauguration of a neio language among men. The 
 appropriation of certain terms which, whatever may have 
 been the existing usage, would best serve to convey the 
 mind of the Spirit, was a nece>ssity in the nature of the case. 
 Inspired with a new meaning, these terms, whether uttered 
 by the lips of Christ or his chosen messengers, could not 
 possibly convey the sense of the Divine Spirit without a 
 direct, immediate influence upon the minds and hearts of the 
 hearers. Hence we derive the explanation of the remark- 
 able ignorance of the apostles with regard to fundamental 
 truths before the death of Christ. He told them repeat- 
 edly and explicitly that he was come to suffer and die for 
 them, yet they understood not what he said. And why? 
 Simply because the cross and crime were inseparably con- 
 nected in their minds. They could not believe that he was 
 going to commit crime ; and therefore they could not believe 
 that he would die on the cross. They mourned him as one 
 dead and for ever lost, when he was placed in the grave : 
 they thought he was to redeem Israel, and yet were disap- 
 pointed when he died, not knowing that the redemption was 
 secured by his death. But when the Spirit descended on 
 th^ day of Pentecost, their eyes were opened. They saw the 
 beauty of God's truth as they had not seen it before. 
 They were endued with power from on high, and then the 
 same words which had been used before, which had appeared 
 5* 
 
106 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 to them inscrutable, were filled with light, life, and power. 
 Thcj carried this power with them, and wherever they 
 went their words were attended by miraculous influence 
 — the Spirit opening the spiritual sight and hearing of those 
 to whom they preached, at the same time that outward 
 miracles appealed to the bodily senses. 
 
 ^' So far as the ordinance of baptism is concerned, it is 
 positively certain that the apostles, during the life of our 
 Saviour, knew very little about it. If we were to grant the 
 position of the Baptists, that John's baptism is identical 
 either in its mode or object with the Christian, and that 
 the design of both is to show forth the death, burial, and 
 resurrection of Christ, we have positive evidence from the 
 inspired writings that the apostles did not so understand it. 
 Peter rebuked Christ because he foretold his death, and yet 
 we are required to believe that Peter had repeatedly seen 
 that death represented in baptism. 
 
 ^' If it be true, then, that we are not to look for the ideas 
 of Christianity in heathen words, we must go to another 
 source. The whole argument based upon classical usage is 
 of no value. If that' usage in every case required immer- 
 sion as the sense of haptidzo, the mode would not be 
 settled. It could not therefore be inferred that immersion 
 was the practice of the apostles, or that it is now obligatory 
 upon Christians. To the record of Divinely-inspired men 
 must be the ultimate appeal. If that record does not posi- 
 tively fix the mode, ten thousand examples from Homer, or 
 Hesiod, or Lycophron, or any other or all of the poets and 
 historians in the Greek language, could never render 
 immersion the duty of Christians and the command of 
 Christ. ^ 
 
 The examples I have given in trying the Baptist canons 
 of criticism, are but specimens of a class of words which 
 form the dividing line between heathenism and Christianity. 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 107 
 
 If we apply the same test to other commandments of 
 Christ, we reach the same result. Our Saviour distinctly 
 says that a man must hate his father, and mother, and even 
 his own life, for the sake of Christ, else he cannot be his dis- 
 ciple. No man will dispute that the Grreek word (rtiiseo) 
 translated to hate, refers originally, generally, nay, univer- 
 sally in heathen usage, to the worst passion that can deform 
 the nature of man. If we follow the rule that a word must 
 be rendered by its original, ordinary sense, and that it can 
 have but one meaning, we make the Prince of peace com- 
 mand, as essential to his service, the transformation of 
 our nature into that almost if not quite diabolical. 
 Yet we cannot suppose our Baptist friends have calculated 
 these legitimate consequences of their theory. After they 
 have framed their methods of criticism to establish their 
 point, they are quite willing to abandon them when other 
 doctrines are at stake. 
 
 ^^ Suppose we apply their reasoning to the sacrament of 
 the Lord's Supper. Christ spoke of it, when it was insti- 
 tuted, as his own body and blood that were divided to the 
 disciples. No language can be plainer than that which he 
 us^s. ' This is my body,' he says; Uhis is the New Testa- 
 ment in my blood.' He had previously said, ^ Except ye 
 eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye 
 have no life in you.' You know very well, Theophilus, 
 what blasphemous teachings the Church of Home has on 
 this subject, and their strong position is, that the words of 
 Christ are to bg taken in their plain, obvious, ordinary 
 sense. This, they affirm, is shown distinctly by the fact 
 that they are repeated, and never otherwise explained by 
 Christ. In this interpretation Dr. Fuller's and Dr. Carson's 
 rules fully sustain them. If words have only one meaning, 
 and that the one in common use, the case is made out. So 
 by the same premises used to establish immersion, we have 
 
108 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 transubstantiation also. Nor can any exception be argued 
 in tliis case, for if one ordinance requires an exception from 
 such a rule to vindicate it, the oilier may also, and so the 
 authors of the canon fail of their desisru. 
 
 o 
 
 '^And now, Theophilus, let us examine some of those 
 words which are used by our Baptist friends to express their 
 views of baptism. You have often heard their objection to 
 baptize, that it is a Greek word, changed only in one or two 
 letters. What words do they use in its place V 
 
 " Immerse, dip, and plunge.'' 
 
 ^^Yes, these are all, I believe. Do you consider these 
 words synonymous in meaning V 
 
 " Not exactly, I should think, but sufficiently so for the 
 purpose." 
 
 '^ Sufficiently so for their purpose, undoubtedly. But are 
 these words all native English ?" 
 
 ^^Noj sir; one of them is from the Latin, and the other 
 two from the G-reek, I should think." 
 
 ^^Well, which is from the Latin?" 
 
 ^^ Immerse, from the verb immerrjo." 
 
 '' Have you ever met with this verb immergo in Latin 
 writers ?" * 
 
 '^ Yery frequently." 
 
 ^' Have you ever met with it above two hundred years 
 before Christ?" 
 
 ^' Only in the comedies of Plautus, but not quite that far 
 back." 
 
 ^' It is usually found in writers of the ^Augustan age, as 
 it is called, is it not ?" 
 
 '^Yes, sir; in Ovid, Cicero, Yirgil, and, later, in 
 Pliny." 
 
 ^' Suppose we try our Baptist rule with this word immergo ; 
 perhaps we may get some light on the subject of common 
 usage. Will you examine the Fourth Book of Ovid's 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 109 
 
 Metamorphoses, line 423, and tell us how the poet uses 
 immcrgo ? There is the book on the table." 
 
 "It seems that he is representing Juno lamenting the 
 destruction of the Maeonian sailors, and says they were over- 
 wlielmied in the sea.'^ 
 
 " Very well, Theophilus ; were these sailors only dipped 
 in the sea? I should think that a slight cause of sorrow.'' 
 
 ''No, sir; I suppose they went to the bottom. They evi- 
 dently were drowned." 
 
 '' True enough. Now examine the thirteenth book, and 
 tell us how Hecuba pulled out the eyes of the Odrysian 
 king." 
 
 " Ovid says she plunged her hands into his eyes." 
 
 " Well, do you think she dipped her hands into the sockets 
 of his eyes ?" 
 
 " No, sir ; I suppose she pulled out his eyeballs, and tore 
 the flesh with her fingers." 
 
 " You would not call this act a dipping, then, I suppose ?" 
 
 " No, sir; it cannot be so called, even by a poetic license." 
 
 " Yery good. Now, if you will examine the sixth book 
 of the jiEneid, you will find the word again." 
 
 '' The poet tells us that Triton had inveigled Misenus be- 
 tween two rocks, and overwhelmed him in the foaming bil- 
 lows." 
 
 "And Misenus, then, was drowned, was he not ?" 
 
 "Yes, sir, undoubtedly." 
 
 " He was, then, more than merely dipped in the foaming 
 billows. Now, Theophilus, would you have any reason to 
 believe that the body of Misenus was found afterwards on 
 the beach, if the poet had not explicitly said so in another 
 part of the story?" 
 
 " Of course I would not. It would be most reasonable to 
 suppose that he was devoured by the monsters of the deep." 
 
 " Very well. We might examine a number of passages, 
 
110 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 all bearing the same testimony. Pliny tells us of a river 
 that was immersed, or immersed itself into the sea; or, as 
 Andrews properly renders it, ^poared itself into the sea/ 
 Certainly the river did not dip itself into the sea. We 
 conclude, then, that the Latins ordinarily used the word 
 immergo to express the sinking or overwlielming of a person, 
 usually for the purpose of drowning. Now, if a word can 
 have but one meaning, and that the current one, in the lan- 
 guage to which it belongs, why do our Baptist friends adhere 
 to immerse ? Is it not a Latin word, as truly as haptize is a 
 Greek one ? And if its current meaning, when applied to 
 persons, was that of droivning, why do they reject it now, 
 and force another idea into the word V 
 
 ^'Drs. Fuller and Carson will certainly compel them to 
 take the word in this sense of drowning ; but will it not be 
 said that you do not allow the Latins to have the idea of 
 dipping V 
 
 "No, there is no need of that. Read this passage in 
 Ovid, book vii., v. 260 'J' 
 
 '^•^ Medea, with dishevelled hair, goes round the blazing 
 altars, like a worshipper of Bacchus, and dips her torches, 
 split into many parts, in the trench, black with blood, and 
 lights them, thus dipt, at the two altars.^ '' 
 
 '' There is a case of dipping, beyond a doubt. But is 
 the word immergo ?^' 
 
 "No, sir; it is intingoJ' 
 
 " Very well. We have a word, then, which means to dip ; 
 but you see very plainly that the action mentioned here is 
 very different from either of those we examined before. 
 The drowning of sailors, and of a hero, is called an immer- 
 sion, by Ovid and Virgil; and also the plunging of a 
 woman's fingers into the eyes of a man, in all of which the 
 act of dipping is not and cannot be understood. Here, how- 
 ever, we have a woman taking a torch, and dipping it in a 
 
THE MAJESTY OP TRUTH. Ill 
 
 trencli full of blood ; and tlie action, so evidently similar to 
 the action of the baptism of our Baptist friends, is not called 
 an immersion, but is expressed by a very different word, 
 intingoJ' 
 
 ^' They ought to call baptize intinge, then, I suppose V 
 
 " Yes, according to their principles, if they will adhere to 
 dipping. But we have spent time enough on the Latin 
 word : suppose we examine briefly the others. What is the 
 root of dip P" 
 
 "Dupto, I suppose." 
 
 ''Yes, that is the Greek word, from which we get the 
 English word dip. Have you ever seen this word in the 
 Greek Testament, Theophilus ?" 
 
 ''No, sir; I have never noticed it there." 
 
 " Nor have I. How do you account for this ?" 
 
 " I suppose it was not needed, as the idea of dipping could 
 be expressed by other words." 
 
 "Are you confident that the idea of dipping is in the New 
 Testament, Theophilus ?" 
 
 " I am not sure that I understand you." 
 
 " Well, I will explain. Do you think that the idea of 
 submerging a body, or thing, and immediately bringing it 
 out of the fluid, is anywhere found in the New Testament?" 
 
 " I have always thought so, inasmuch as we are told that 
 certain persons were baptized in a river." 
 
 " But we shall see that the idea of dipping is not a neces- 
 sity in that case. When we come to examine the Scripture 
 baptisms, I think I shall show you that dipping is not a 
 necessary inference in any instance, and that it is not abso- 
 lutely expressed. For the present, however, I assume that 
 the action denominated baptism by our Baptist friends 
 is not expressed by the legitimate and proper word (dup>t6) 
 in the Greek Testament. I affirm, moreover, that, according 
 to Baptist rules of criticism, no other word in English 
 
112 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 besides dij) does express the action which they use as essen- 
 tial to baptism. Webster gives, as the primary meaning 
 of di'i^, ^ to put into a fluid and withdraw :' this is their 
 baptism, and nothing else is. Let us follow Dr. Fuller's rule, 
 that a word has only one meaning, and Dr. Carson's, that the 
 meaning must be the ordinary, usual one, and we limit the 
 word at once. This will be in agreement with the Greek 
 dujDto. But immerse means to sink, to go to the bottom, to 
 be drowned as a consequence. Remember that I am now 
 abiding by the Baptist rule, not by my own. Whether im- 
 merse does not noio signify to dip, is not a question. We 
 want the original common usage in Latin. The Baptists, as 
 we have seen, admit that baptize is now a generic word ; but 
 they say it was once a word of mode, and its original meaning 
 they define to be dip. Now, we admit that immerse has, in 
 modern usage, become equivalent to dlj) ; but as sinJcing and 
 dipping are two actions-, just as distinct as pouring and 
 sprinkling, or pouring and dipping, we must limit immersion 
 to sinking. It is true, that in the action of dipping, the 
 body sinks in the water, but it must rise again out of it, or 
 the body is not dipped. Now, this act of rising out of a 
 flood is not included in the idea of sinking, but is positively 
 opposed to it. This last idea of rising up or out of, is ex- 
 pressed in Latin by the word emergo, which is the opposite 
 of immergo, as you see from the prefixes, tm and e. Now, 
 inasmuch as Mr. Courtney, the Baptist schoolmaster who 
 merits the honor of leading the fair Theodosia into the path 
 of duty, gives us a specimen of logical reasoning from 
 mathematical axioms, let us follow his example. It is ad- 
 mitted that immergo takes one into the water, but the assist- 
 ance of emergo is required to bring him out ; then the action 
 of dipping is compound. Now, it is an axiom in mathe- 
 matics, that the icliole is equal to all its parts. This is evi- 
 dent. It is equallv evident that one part i« '»'^* pr-nal +n ^^-r. 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 113 
 
 whole. If, then, dipping is the putting of a body in, and the 
 taking gf a body out of a fluid, and immergo expresses one 
 action, and emergo the other, neither emergo nor immergo 
 alone can be equivalent to dip, inasmuch as the half is not 
 equal to the whole of an action. We conclude, therefore, 
 inasmuch as the action required is dipping, it can never be 
 done by immersion ; not by immersion alone : this no one 
 can dispute. Now, let me ask you what authority the Bap- 
 tists have for making the meaning of two Latin words, which 
 were originally directly opposed to each other, to be ex- 
 pressed by only one of them ? What authority have they 
 for combining two contrary actions into a word expressing 
 only one of the two ? Can they make a part equal to the 
 whole ? And as the Latins required tivo words to express 
 the action which they call baptism, how does it happen that 
 thei/ can do without one half of the idea ? I care nothing 
 for their plea that the emersion is a necessity : it is not such 
 in the word which they call baptism ; and, by their own 
 rules, they have no right to use a word for an ordinance 
 which only expresses one half of the action. If Christ com- 
 manded immersion, then they have no right to add emersion 
 to his ordinance. The words are positively opposed to each 
 other : they can only form a comjjound action, and no j)(^^'i 
 of a compound is equal to the lohole." 
 
 ''Verily, Mr. Mason," said Theophilus, ''you are getting 
 our friends into difficulty. These are nice points of criti- 
 cism." 
 
 "I am following their example, Theophilus. Whilst they 
 resort to a nice verbal criticism, in order to unchurch us, we 
 are certainly justified in using their own method to show 
 how they fail in the attempt. 
 
 "Water and oil are opposites in chemistry; an alkali 
 unites them into one substance, which we call socq:). Nei- 
 ther water, oil, nor alkali alone will make soap, nor will any 
 
114 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 two of the three parts form the compound. It is just as 
 proper to say that oil is soap, as immersion is dipping, for 
 as the compound substance is formed of three ingredients, 
 just so is the compound action of dipping formed of two 
 opposite, simple actions. 
 
 ^^ Nor is this all. Dipping a part of a body is not dip- 
 ping the whole of it. That is self-evident. If, then, our 
 Baptist friends do not dip the whole body of their candi- 
 dates, they do not baptize by dipping. Did you ever see a 
 man dijp'pedj Theophilus ?" 
 
 " Yes, sir, I have seen many covered up in the water, and 
 brought out again. '^ 
 
 ^^ Were they covered up all at once, or gradually ?" 
 
 " Well, their heads and shoulders were covered up in a 
 moment.^' 
 
 " Yes, their heads and shoulders were covered up, but the 
 head and shoulders do not constitute the whole body. Did 
 the baptizer dip only their heads and shoulders ?'^ 
 
 '^ That was all, sir; they were standing in the water when 
 he took hold of them.'^ 
 
 '^Very well; then he only dipped their heads. and shoul- 
 ders ; the remainder of the body he did not dip ; and as the 
 dipping of the whole body is required to constitute a valid 
 baptism, then those persons were not baptized." 
 
 ^'Indeed!" said Theophilus; '^I never thought of that 
 before. The Baptists do not dip ?" 
 
 " I will let you answer the question for yourself. Would 
 the Baptists allow you to baptize yourself?" 
 
 ^'No, sir, of course not." 
 
 " Well, would they allow you to perform any part of the 
 ordinance; such, for instance, as dipping your head under 
 water, while the preacher repeated the formula?" 
 
 "I suppose they do not permit the subject to perform any 
 part of the ordinance." 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 115 
 
 "Well, is going into the water up to your breast a part 
 of the ordinance, or only 2l preparation for it?'' 
 
 "' I should think it was only a preparation — certainly not 
 a part of the ordinance/' 
 
 " Very well ; when you have gone into the water breast- 
 deep, are you baptized ?'' 
 
 " Certainly not." 
 
 " Neither altogether nor partly baptized V^ 
 
 " No, sir, neither.'' 
 
 "Well, then, you see at once that the mere act of dipping 
 the head and shoulders of the subject constitutes their baptism. 
 The rest of the body being submerged by his own act, the 
 subject only receives from the administrator the baptism of 
 the upper portion of his body. If the baptism is the act of 
 the administrator, this is evident; if it is a conjoint action, 
 and the subject performs one-half of it, then he may per- 
 form the other, and baptize himself altogether. If, then, 
 dipping a part is not dipping the whole, and dipping the 
 whole body is essential, it follows that Baptist preachers do 
 not dip their subjects, and therefore they do not use their 
 own theory of baptism." 
 
 " Why, Mr. Mason, I had no idea that you were such a 
 dialectician. Really, you will unsettle some of our Baptist 
 friends if you persist with this method of reasoning. '^ 
 
 " I only wish to show the consequences of their own 
 theory ; and as they take certain positions to prove that 
 I am not baptized, I take their own ground, and prove that 
 they are not either ; so, admitting certain premises, we are 
 all in a quandary ; and in such circumstances they have no 
 right to glory." 
 
 " You consider, then, Mr. Mason, that the act of dipping 
 must be done wholly by the administrator ?" 
 
 " Certainly. No Church recognizes the right of a man to 
 baptize himself.' 
 
116 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 '^But, Mr. Mason, no one could he dipped as you 
 describe. '^ 
 
 " Why not, Tlieopliilus V 
 
 ^'For many reasons. It would be impossible to dipj 
 literally, a full-grown man into a river or pool of water.^^ 
 
 " Not impossible, Tlieopliilus. I grant tbat it is not con- 
 venient; but, then, if Christ commanded us to dip the 
 whole body, we ought to do it, cost what it may ; otherwise 
 we disobey the great Head of the Church. But are you not 
 aware that the very sort of dipping which I have described 
 was practiced in the Church for several ages V 
 
 ''No, sir, I did not know it. I supposed the baptism 
 which I have been told was current until the age of Eliza- 
 beth in England was exactly like our own." 
 
 '' Then you are mistaken. You remember that ' Theo- 
 dosia' finds the often-told and worn-out story of Mr. Wesley's 
 refusing to baptize an infant in Savannah, because the 
 parents would not have it dipped. Now the baptism of 
 infants by submersion is clearly a case of dipping. The 
 minister takes the child in his hands, and literally dips it in 
 the water of the font. This is the true and proper action 
 of baptism, according to Baptist teachings, and nothing 
 else is, and as they do not practice any thing resembling it, 
 they condemn themselves. 
 
 '' Just here let me mention another thing in connection 
 with the version of the Bible made in the time of King 
 James. ' Theodosia's' brother Edwin says, as recorded on 
 page 27, that ' the Baptist preacher told Mr. Anxious, the 
 other day, that baptize and baptism were not English words 
 at all, but the G-reek words haptidzo and haptismos trans- 
 ferred into the English Bible, and not translated. He said 
 that King James icoidd not permit the translators to trans- 
 late all the words, ybr year of disturhing the faith and prac- 
 tice of the Church of England, and so they just kept the 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 117 
 
 Greek word ; but if tliey had translated it at all, it must 
 have read dip or immerse, instead of baptize/ You have 
 ah'eady seen that this ^ Baptist preacher' had no authority for 
 saying the king laid any restrictions upon the translators, 
 for he is exculpated by a Baptist writer who has examined 
 the whole history of the transaction. That he, the ^ Baptist 
 preacher,' was simply deceiving both Edwin and Mr. 
 Anxious about the king's fear that the practice and faith of 
 the Church of England would be disturbed if haptidzo 
 were translated to dip or immerse, I will now show you. It 
 is indeed strange that Edwin's ^Baptist preacher' and 
 Theodosia's schoolmaster should be brought into collision in 
 the same book, but so it is. The 'preacher' says, that if 
 the word haj^tidzo had been rendered to dip, the practice of 
 the Church of England would have been disturbed. Mr. 
 Courtney, quoting Dr. Wall, says, on page 177 : 'As for 
 sprinkling, properly so called, it was at 1645 Just then 
 hcgijming, and used by very few. It must have begun in 
 the disorderly times after forty-one.' Well, pray what was 
 the practice of the Church of England prior to 1645 ? If 
 it was neither sprinkling nor dipping, it must have been 
 p)ourvng. But the contrary is the fact. Dr. Wall's 
 authority, Mr. Blake, who wrote in 1645, says that he had 
 seen many infants dipped. The Prayer Book, published in 
 1549, required the infant to be dipped three times. And 
 Dr. Wall says that the dipping of infants was the practice 
 of the Church in the first part of the reign of King James. 
 The English Bible was published, then, when the rubric of 
 the Church of England required the infant to he dipped^ 
 and if this was the practice of the Church, how could the 
 translating of haptidzo to dip alter it V 
 
 ''1 am surprised, Mr. Mason, at that information, for I 
 thought the very reverse was true : that baptize was placed 
 in the English version to support an innovation.'' 
 
118 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 *'No, Theophilus, it is a very great mistake. Dipping 
 was the practice of the Church ; the rubric of the Church of 
 England required it in 1611, and the king was the head of 
 the Church. How, then, could he exclude dipping from 
 the Bible, in order to sustain his Church ? Is it not mani- 
 fest that if he had interfered with it at all, he icovM have 
 2Jlaced it in the Bible, and thus sustained his Church by it? 
 If the translators had desired to sustain the Church, certainly 
 they would have made the Bible just what the Baptists want 
 it, favorable to immersion. But they did not, and thus we 
 turn their assertion against them. The i^resent version of 
 the Bible was made by a Church ichich practiced bajDtism by 
 dipping, and, if there is any unfairness in it, Pedobaptists 
 have a right to complain, but the Baptists are bound over to 
 silence J' 
 
 ^^I have been frequently astonished, Mr. Mason, at the 
 facts which you have developed, and really you have ex- 
 posed so many of the Baptist authorities, that I shall be 
 compelled to handle them with suspicion." 
 
 " I am sorry to say it, Theophilus, but it is nevertheless 
 true. This very writer, who gives Dr. Wall's language in 
 ' Theodosia,' has perverted his meaning, and misrepresented 
 him grossly. This I will show you when we come to the 
 history of baptism. For the present, however, what I have 
 said will suffice. The evening is far spent, and I will not 
 detain you much longer. Let us sum up. We have 
 granted the position of the Baptists, that a word can have 
 but one meaning ; that the common usage of the language 
 must determine that meaning. From these premises we have 
 examined that commandment of Christ which requires us to 
 bear our cross ; we have found the meaning of the word cross 
 to be a beam of wood, and as no one can be a disciple of 
 Christ who does not bear his cross, so no one can be saved 
 who does not bear about with him a beam of wood. 
 
THE MAJESTY OP TRUTH. 119 
 
 " Thus we have reduced to absurdity the logic which 
 establishes immersion as the only mode of baptism, simply 
 because classical usage may be in its favor. Without these 
 arbitrary assumptions of Drs. Carson and Fuller, the Baptists 
 cannot make immersion essential to baptism ; with these 
 assumptions, and tested by them, their claims to Christianity 
 are destroyed. It follows, then, that the premises are false, 
 and therefore the argument built upon them is worthless. 
 We have seen, also, that the proper act of dipping, which 
 Baptists declare to be the only valid mode of Christian 
 baptism, was practiced in the English Church during the 
 reign of King James, when our present version of the 
 Bible was made. Therefore, inasmucli as dipping the 
 whole hody is essential to baptism, and they only dip depart 
 of it, Baptists do not baptize validly, themselves being 
 judges, inasmuch as a part is not equal to the whole. 
 
 " On Monday evening we shall examine the classical argu- 
 ment, and we shall then see how far immersion can be sus- 
 tained by an appeal to the Greeks. Although it is not 
 material whether hapto and haptidzo are words of mode or 
 not in Greek literature, yet, lest we should seem to omit an 
 argument considered weighty by our opponents, I will con- 
 sider it. I hope to show, too, that an appeal to Csesar will 
 not issue in a decision to ostracize the largest part of the 
 Christian world, and to exclude them from the Church of 
 God." 
 
 The audience was then dismissed. 
 
120 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 THE DAY OF TRIAL. 
 
 Mr. Ellis liad met with so little success iu his first attempt 
 to break the force of Mr. Mason's argument, that he .could 
 not summon courage enough to attend on Friday evening. 
 It was evidently with reluctance that he permitted Mary to 
 go. He remained at home, and consulted his wife as to the 
 course he should pursue. 
 
 ''It is a matter of no consequence how we got into this 
 affair/' said he to Mrs. Ellis ; '' the question now is, how shall 
 we get out of it ? Some of the brethren blame me for the 
 whole, and say that my sermon last Sabbath has brought 
 the trouble upon us. To-day, Mr. Lewis gave us notice 
 that we might expel him if we liked, but that he was going 
 back to the Presbyterians. If Brother Battle comes, he will 
 be able to hold his hand with Mason, but I am afraid he 
 will not be able to set some things right. Unfortunately, 
 some hot-headed, misguided Baptists have given this circuit- 
 rider a chance to use some admissions against us, and I see 
 no way to take them out of his hands." 
 
 ''But perhaps, husband," suggested Mrs. Ellis, "you can 
 show that the apparent difference between these Baptist 
 writers originates in the fact that they have different ways 
 of proving- the same thing." 
 
 "So I can," replied Mr. Ellis, "but that will do me no 
 good, for the Pedobaptists will show that their admissions in 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 121 
 
 our favor originate in the same way. I can see but one way 
 to avoid tlie consequences of this debate. '^ 
 
 ^^And what is that V asked Mrs. Ellis. 
 
 '^ Why, if we can control Theophilus, and after all get 
 him back to the Baptist Church, it will do us more good 
 than any thing else, and will show at once that Mason's logic 
 is not worth a fig." 
 
 ^' But how will you accomplish that, Mr. Ellis ?'' 
 
 " My chief hope is in Mary's influence over him," replied 
 Mr. Ellis. ^^ If she will let him understand that he must 
 come back to our Church, before she consents to marry him, 
 I think the business will be fixed." 
 
 " I am afraid that Mary will not do that, Mr. Ellis. She 
 is so much attached to Theophilus that I doubt whether she 
 can be persuaded to make such conditions." 
 
 "Don't talk Sihovit persuasion," said Mr. Ellis; "I should 
 like to know if we have not the right to dictate to her, and, 
 if necessary, to compel her to obey us ?" 
 
 "I am fearful that will never do," replied Mrs. Ellis. 
 " You know that opposition rather confirms than checks a 
 young girl's love, and if we were to try to force measures 
 upon Mary, I firmly believe we should fail." 
 
 " Do you think that she has no eye to young Walton's 
 money f" asked Mr. Ellis, after a few moments of silent 
 thought. 
 
 " No, husband, I believe her love is pure as love can be," 
 answered Mrs. Ellis. 
 
 "But suppose Theophilus should be cut ofi" without a 
 dollar — what then ?" 
 
 "Who talks of doing that, Mr. Ellis?" 
 
 "Never- do you mind. What think you : would Mary be 
 willing to marry him without a cent in the world ?" 
 
 "Yes, I firmly believe she would." 
 
 " Against our wishes ?" 
 6 
 
122 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 " Yes, and against the wislies of tlie whole world, at that. 
 I don't think there is any chance to bring her over to such 
 measures as those. '^ 
 
 " Well, we can but try. I shall give her orders to-night 
 when she comes home, and I want you to talk with her, and 
 see if you cannot influence her to do right about it. I will 
 use severity, and you may try kindness; perhaps between 
 the two we can bring her to terms. And if she will try, 
 there is no doubt of her success with Theophilus.'' 
 
 " Well, husband, I will do any thing I can to assist you. 
 But did I understand you to say that Brother Walton 
 intended to disinherit Theophilus, if he persisted in staying 
 among the Methodists ?'' 
 
 " Did I say that ?" inquired Mr. Ellis. 
 
 ^^You didn't sa?/ it, but you hinted it very strongly/' 
 replied his wife. 
 
 ^' Well, suppose he should do so : would you blame 
 him V 
 
 " Certainly I would ; and with very good reason too ; and 
 the world would blame him for such an act '' 
 
 Just at that moment the merry laugh of Mary was heard 
 as she closed the gate, and bade Theophilus good-night. 
 
 ^' Well, no matter, wife," said Mr. Ellis, rising from his 
 seat. ^' We'll talk that over another time. I must go and 
 hear what the circuit-rider has been doing to-night." 
 
 " What news to-night, Mary ?" asked Mr. Ellis, as they 
 sat down in the parlor. 
 
 " Worse than ever, father. Mr. Mason has proved that 
 we are not baptized according to our own doctrine." 
 
 ^' Indeed ! well, that was marvellous logic, which proved 
 so strange a thing as that. How did he make it appear?" 
 
 ^^Why, father, he says we contend for dipping, which 
 you know is true." 
 
 ^^ So we do, what then ?" 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 123 
 
 ''And he says a tiling, to be dipped, must be dipped all 
 over — whicli I have heard you affirm.'' 
 
 " Very well ; what next ?" 
 
 " He says our preachers only dip the head and shoulders 
 of their subjects, and therefore, according to our teaching, 
 do not baptize them." 
 
 "A pretty argument, truly ! Fie, fie, daughter ! he did 
 not say that, did he 1" 
 
 " Yes, sir, he did, and I must confess that his argument 
 looked very plausible to me. He proved that the dipping, 
 which we consider essential, is not practiced by us; but that 
 it ivas practiced under King James when the Bible was 
 translated," 
 
 ^' Oho ! he admitted that, did he V 
 
 "Yes, father; but so far from the admission doing us 
 good, I think it made against us." 
 
 " How so, Mary ?" 
 
 " Because he showed that infants were truly and properly 
 dljyped in the font, whilst we are not properly dipped in the 
 pool, and cannot be easily." 
 
 "Well, what of that? we are immersed; that is enough." 
 
 "But then, father, he showed also that immerse is a 
 Latin word, and that it originally meant to sink, to cover up 
 in the water ; and he said that the Latins had another word 
 to signify coming up or out of the water — I think he said 
 it was the verb emergoT 
 
 "And what does he prove from that, Mary?" 
 
 " That it is wrong to call an act which is plainly an 
 immersion and an emersion combined, by one word, 
 expressing only half of the act, which we do when we call 
 dipping immersion." 
 
 " Well, .well, what trifling with words ! How these Pedo- 
 baptist rantizers will ridicule the ordinance of Christ !" 
 
 "I do not think he ridiculed it, father; he was only fol- 
 
124 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 lowing our own authors, Dr. Carson, Dr. Fuller, and others. 
 You know we rely on these writers when they are on our 
 side; why should we not listen to them when they turn 
 against us ? Besides, father, you know that we use their 
 books in the same way, and we cannot expect any thing else 
 than that they will retaliate." 
 
 " Mary/' said Mr. Ellis — and his brow was darkened by a 
 frown, which brought a shudder over her delicate frame — 
 ^' your intimacy with that graceless fellow, Theophilus, has 
 made you lend an ear to this pestilent teacher of heresy. 
 Hark you ! as you love me, and value your own peace, do 
 you forbid liim to see you any more." 
 
 '^ 0, father ! do not say that !" exclaimed Mary. ^' What 
 has he done ? Do, father, recall that cruel sentence." 
 
 '^ Mary, I am not to be trifled with/' replied Mr. Ellis, 
 sternly; '^ I have given you your orders : I must be obeyed." 
 Mr. Ellis was in the act of retiring, but Mary seized his 
 hand and detained him. 
 
 ^'Father, stop, stay one moment. Theophilus is an 
 honorable man. We are engaged. You have given your 
 consent — it is known. If you now forbid our marriage, you 
 must expect " 
 
 The young girl's utterance was checked by her father's 
 departure. He thrust her away from him, and retired to 
 his room. She sank down upon the sofa, and indulged in 
 the sad relief of tears. For some time her mind was tossed 
 hither and thither by conflicting thoughts. Disobedience to 
 her parents had never been a sin of hers; but now obe- 
 dience was a sin against herself. Never before had she met 
 the angry frown of a parent; and although she had reason to 
 fear that all was not right, from the significant look he gave 
 her in the afternoon, as she was returning with Theophilus 
 from Mr. Riley'^, she did not anticipate such treatment as 
 this at her father's hands. It was true, Theophilus had 
 
THE MAJESTY OE TRUTH. 125 
 
 forewarned lier of an attempt to thwart lier wislies, but slie 
 attributed the warning to needless anxiety. But now the 
 storm had burst upon her in all its fury. What had she 
 done to deserve such treatment? If her parents had 
 regarded Theophilus as an unworthy suitor, why had they 
 encouraged him ? Why had they uniformly spoken of him 
 in the strongest terms of approbation ? Why had they 
 already given their consent to the marriage ? When her 
 affection was in the bud, a single word from father or mother 
 would have destroyed it for ever. But no, they had coun- 
 tenanced his addresses, and her love had become the source 
 of joy and comfort to her heart. To oppose it now would 
 be to blight her prospect of earthly happiness. 
 
 She lifted her heart to the throne of the great God, and 
 endeavored to learn his will, and she felt that there was no 
 frown there — her conscience felt no check : she had done no 
 wrong, and yet must suffer. She must submit to have ber 
 love become an article of merchandise; for surely she 
 thought her father had seen or hoped to see some more 
 eligible match — one that promised more of honor or wealth. 
 She could not believe that the mere fact of joining the 
 Methodist Church could, of itself, excite such uncompro- 
 mising opposition from her father. And perhaps Theo- 
 philus had done something else ; perhaps he had — but no, 
 she could believe no evil of her heart's beloved. 
 
 ^' 0, is it not cruel V she exclaimed, ^^ that I should be 
 driven to this sad alternative : to disobey my own father, or 
 sacrifice my own peace?'' 
 
 ^' No, no, my child, you shall do neither,'' said a soft, low 
 voice by her side. 
 
 ^' Mother, is it you?" asked Mary. ^^ 0, mother ! I am in 
 trouble. Are you, too, against me, mother V 
 
 " I know all, Mary. I have heard your conversation with 
 your father. Dry your tears, my child ; there is still hope ; 
 
126 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 all may yet be well. Promise me that you will do as I 
 direct, and you will yet be happy.'' 
 
 " mother, I will do any thing that is proper, to soften 
 my father, and cause him to relent. But what can I do ?" 
 
 " It is an easy thing I ask of you, Mary. I know that 
 Theophilus loves you ardently. Your influence over him is 
 unbounded. You can reclaim him, and all will be well." 
 
 '^Do I understand you to say that I must use my in- 
 fluence with him to bring him to our Church ?" 
 
 '' Yes, my child ; then you will secure your father's appro- 
 bation, and at the same time confer upon him a great favor." 
 
 " I do not quite understand you, mother. Confer a great 
 favor on whom ?" 
 
 '' On your father, my child. But for your own sake, 
 Mary, you ought not to hesitate a moment." 
 
 " But, mother, how can I do it?" 
 
 ^' Make it the condition of your marriage." 
 
 ''What ! refuse to have him unless he will become a Bap- 
 tist?" 
 
 '' Yes, that will settle the difficulty." 
 
 '' But, mother, I have already told him I cannot do that !" 
 
 '' Have you committed yourself already, Mary ?" 
 
 '' Why, mother, you know that we are now engaged, and 
 there is no such condition in the engagement." 
 
 ''That does not matter, Mary. You can tell him that 
 when you engaged yourself to him, you did not expect him 
 to change his religious opinions. Tell him that your do- 
 mestic happiness will be marred by his belonging to one 
 Church and you to another. He will hear you — he will 
 yield to you, depend upon it." 
 
 " But I have told him already, mother, that his views of 
 religious duty could not possibly make any change in my af- 
 fection for him." 
 
 "And why did you do that, Mary?" 
 
THE MAJESTY OT TRUTH. 127 
 
 " I am a woman, mother : liow could I do otherwise ? I 
 cannot cease to love liim because he has ceased to be a Bap- 
 tist. I can no more control my affections at pleasure, than 
 he can believe every thing required of him/' 
 
 " But, Mary, you can tell him that you had expressed 
 yourself hastily : that, upon a more deliberate examination 
 of the subject, you are firmly convinced that you can only be 
 happy in the same Church/' 
 
 ^' But mother, I have no such conviction : must I tell him 
 an untruth ?'' 
 
 ^'- Mary ! Mary ! remember what a debt of gratitude you 
 owe to your father : remember how he has cared for you 
 from infancy '' 
 
 ^' I know it, I know it all, mother : spare me the recital 
 of the debt, lest this poor heart of mine be tempted to do 
 Theophilus a wrong !" 
 
 ^^ My child, it is important to your father's interests as 
 well as your own, for Theophilus to return to us. Your 
 father's position requires it, your happiness requires it. 
 Mary, Mary, listen to the voice of reason, and obey." 
 
 ^^Any thing else, mother, I can do. I am willing to lay 
 the whole subject before him, but I cannot threaten to dis- 
 card him, if he does not grant my request. I never can do 
 that." 
 
 '^ Do not be too hasty in your conclusion, Mary : promise 
 me to try it. You need not be very positive at first. Ex- 
 press yourself gently : show him how little he must yield to 
 satisfy you. Convince him that his sacrifice will be small, 
 whilst yours must be immense. Appeal to his magnanimity : 
 he will yield to your wishes, and all injuries will be atoned 
 for. Bemember, too, that you will be laboring to promote 
 the purity of Christ's Church, and for the glory of God !" 
 
 Mary made no reply, but the words, ^^ for the glory of 
 
128 TIIEOPHILUS 
 
 God/' rang in her ears. She could not believe that God's 
 service required such a sacrifice at her hands. 
 
 Mrs. Ellis followed her daughter to her room, and ceased 
 not her importunities until she had extorted a half-audible 
 promise of compliance. Poor Mary ! in the dark, still 
 watches of that night, her eyes were sleepless. In vain she 
 strove to reconcile her past professions to Theophilus with 
 the part she was now forced to perform. Would he yield to 
 her? Would he consent to join her Church rather than 
 forfeit her love ? No, her heart answered for the absent one : 
 he ought not, and therefore he icould not do so. She could 
 not feel it in her heart to respect him if he did violate his 
 conscience. But he would not. Yet she had promised her 
 mother to make the experiment, and just before the early 
 dawn she committed her cause into the hands of her Hea- 
 venly Father, and snatched a few uneasy moments of slumber. 
 
 She rose from her troubled couch, and by the pale morn- 
 ing light addressed a note to Theophilus. She requested 
 him to visit her that morning, as she had a subject of im- 
 portance to communicate. The note was dispatched, and 
 Mary strove to be cheerful as usual. 
 
 Mr. Ellis was apprised of his daughter's compliance, and 
 was therefore kind and afi"able, as he generally was, at the 
 breakfast - table. But notwithstanding all this, her own 
 efforts to be cheerful, and the kindness of her parents, there 
 was a dark cloud over IMary's heart. She had learned to 
 distrust her parents, and to regard their conduct as illiberal 
 and unjust. Her faith in the sincerity of their love was 
 shaken. She felt that they were willing to sacrifice her hap- 
 piness in order to gain some worldly end. A fervent prayer 
 to the. Unchanging One went up from her closet that morn- 
 ing, and the Spirit of grace failed not to strengthen her 
 for the approaching trial. 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 129 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 NEW TROUBLES IN THE CABINET. 
 
 • Mr. Ellis was summoned from breakfast to the study. 
 Thither we shall follow him^ and find fresh sources of trouble 
 and perplexity. 
 
 " You were not out last night. Brother Ellis/' said Mr. 
 Barbour, who stood waiting at the door of the study. 
 
 " No, not I,'' said Mr. Ellis ; " I have no taste for such a 
 miserable course of investigation, falsely so called. The truth 
 of God was never yet ascertained by such a partial, unright- 
 eous garbling as that Methodist circuit-rider practices. I 
 shall have nothing more to do with him.'' 
 
 ^' But look here, Brother Ellis ; is he not using our authors 
 precisely as we have used his ? What unfairness is there in 
 that V 
 
 ^^ But doesn't the man know that these men he is bring- 
 ing against us are Baptists: that they believed in and 
 practiced immersion ?" 
 
 ^'Yery true," replied Mr. Barbour; ^^and do not we 
 know that the Pedobaptists whom we quote to prove our 
 point, believed in and practiced affusion ?" 
 
 ^^ Suppose they did : the truth was so apparent to their 
 minds as to the meaning of the word, and the ancient cus- 
 tom of the Church, that they were compelled to make ad- 
 missions in our favor. These admissions we quote because 
 they establish our doctrine by the testimony of our enemies. 
 Further than that, we have no use for them." 
 6* 
 
130 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 '^Precisely so, Brother Ellis; and Mr. Mason simply uses 
 our writers in tlie same way. He grants that they were im- 
 mersionists, but shows that, by taking different methods to 
 establish it, our writers, when brought into collision, mutu- 
 ally destroy each other; and therefore if, in your hands, liis 
 authors are proof against Tiiin^ in liU hands your authors are 
 proof against you. There the matter ends. He does not 
 rest upon such testimony for valid proof; but it seems to me 
 has simply pursued this course to offset our ad captandum 
 argum.ents. I see nothing wrong in his course, so far as this 
 is concerned. We are bound to admit that he has the same 
 right to pursue any given method that we have.'' 
 
 '^And are you beginning to doubt, too, Brother Barbour V 
 
 " To doubt what, Brother Ellis ?" 
 
 ^^ The validity of your baptism." 
 
 "Not at all. But I do doubt whether many of our 
 preachers take the proper means to prove it. I have exam- 
 ined my lexicon, and those places which have occurred in 
 my reading in Greek books, and I am firmly persuaded that 
 haptidzo means to immerse, primarily ; but I question very 
 much if it has not a secondary signification, to washy without 
 indicating the mode. Still I believe immersion to be the 
 proper mode : I have no doubt of that. But I am not so 
 clear in my mind that we are authorized to unchurch the 
 whole Christian world outside of our denomination, upon 
 such a slender basis. "Whether or not the word was used by 
 our Saviour in the primary or secondary sense, I am not pre- 
 pared to say. At all events, it seems illiberal as well as 
 illogical to assert our opinions in a dogmatic form, and then 
 to bring scraps from the writings of our opponents to estab- 
 lish it. We must know that they will turn our own argu- 
 ments against us, and thus make our position, which as a 
 mere opinion may be strong, appear positively absurd when 
 it assumes to be a demonstration." 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 131 
 
 "I am surprised at jou, Brother Barbour; our enemies 
 want no greater concessions than those which you have just 
 made." 
 
 "I cannot help it, Brother ElliS; I must speak the truth. 
 I seek to know the truth, and if I become convinced that I 
 have acted hastily in any case, without a due knowledge of 
 the facts, I would be unworthy the name of a candid man 
 if I did not retrace my steps and acknowledge my error. 
 AVe, as a Church, exclude Pedobaptists from communion at 
 the Lord's table. Why ? Because we say they are not 
 haptized — not because we find fault with them on the score 
 of their piety : we acknowledge them to be true Christians. 
 Now, how do we knoiv that they are not haptized f Because 
 we think the word means only to immerse ? That is a 
 slender basis. We may be wrong ; and if so, the displeasure 
 of God must be due us for excluding from our fellowship 
 those whom Jesus has received. Are we better than Christ ? 
 Can we reject, innocently, those whom he receives — whom we 
 acknowledge him to have received ? How can we reconcile 
 this inconsistency ? If we could prove to a demonstration 
 that immersion only is baptism, then we are secure. But 
 see the predicament into which we fall. If we demonstrate 
 our doctrine, why do not all candid, pious men see it, and 
 embrace it? That they do not is evident. The inference 
 is, then, compelled to be one of three things : either our 
 Pedobaptist friends are too dishonest to admit our position, 
 which they see to be true ; or they have not sense enough 
 to see a demonstration ; or else we do not demonstrate it. 
 Now, which of these can we safely take ? Shall we say that 
 they are too dishonest to admit the truth ? Then our ac- 
 knowledgment that they are as good Christians as ourselves 
 refutes us at once. Shall we say that they have not sense 
 enough to see it ? Then we go contrary to our own judg- 
 ment, for we know that they have, to say the least, as much 
 
133 TIIEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 talent as we. Op shall we not ratlier say, we have not 
 demonstrated the truth of our position ? And if we have 
 not, the doctrine of immersion is a mere opinion, which, 
 however correct we may think it, does not warrant us in 
 excluding people from the Church of Christ, on the strength 
 of it/' 
 
 ^^ I shall give you up for lost, Mr. Barbour. The Pedo- 
 baptists need not want a better advocate than you are. I 
 cannot argue with my own people on this subject.'^ 
 
 ^' Say, rather. Brother Ellis, that you cannot sustain your 
 position on untenable ground. If your position were defens- 
 ible, you could argue with me, and that you know full well. 
 But we are wrong, my dear brother ; we are in a grievous 
 error, and ought to get out of it.'' 
 
 " Ought to get out of what V asked Mr. Fleming, who 
 just at that moment entered. 
 
 '' Why, out of the practice of close communion," replied 
 Mr. Barbour. ^^ I have been saying that it is the height of 
 inconsistency to say that people who are good Christians — 
 whom Christ has received and blessed — ought to be expelled 
 from the Lord's table, because they have not done that 
 which we cannot prove to be their duty. At least we can 
 only prove we think it their duty, but cannot demonstrate 
 that it is." 
 
 '' Precisely my doctrine. Brother Barbour," said Mr. 
 Fleming. '^ I have been trying for many years to moderate 
 the views of some of our brethren, but they meet me with such 
 epithets as ^Arminian/ ' half-Methodist,' ^ dough-face,' and 
 the like, without attempting to answer my arguments. I 
 think we have got, for once, an evidence that moderation is 
 the greatest wisdom. If we had gone on, content to take 
 our share of the revival, all would have been well. But in 
 our sorrow at the loss of a little Baptist influence, we are 
 now running the hazard of losing still more, even some 
 
THE MAJESTY OP TRUTH. 133 
 
 of our old members. Sister Williams, who lias a son in the 
 Methodist Church, who is a local preacher, has been up 
 several times before this Church for communing with the 
 Methodists. I am told that this son of hers is now on a 
 visit here, and that he will be likely to preach to-morrow, 
 and that they will have the communion service. If so, the 
 old lady avows her intention of communing with them. If 
 she does, our ^ old landmark' men will arraign and expel her. 
 For one, I say boldly, that we have no right to reject any 
 servant of the Lord from his table, and wherever it is 
 spread, all the Lord's children are entitled to partake of the 
 symbols of our common Saviour's suiFering and death." 
 
 " Perhaps you will go and commune with the Methodists, 
 too. Brother Fleming, as you say there is no harm in it," 
 said Mr. Ellis. 
 
 " No, Brother Ellis, I will be governed by the decision of the 
 majority. ' If meat cause my brother to offend, then will I 
 eat no more meat while the world standeth.' But mind you, 
 I don't think there is a particle of harm in the meat itself!" 
 
 ^' We are always thankful for small favors," replied Mr. 
 Ellis, ^^and if we cannot convince you that strict commu- 
 nion is right in theory, we are glad that you consent to 
 practice it. ' Half a loaf is better than no bread.' " 
 
 ^^ I refuse to commune with others. Brother Ellis," con- 
 tinued Mr. Fleming, "only because the Church condemns 
 it. I think the Church is wrong, and I would be glad to 
 see her get right on the subject." 
 
 " Then you assist the Church in committing a wrong upon 
 the Christian world," rejoined Mr. Barbour. "I am not 
 prepared to take that position. I must review the ground 
 which we occupy on that doctrine, and if I am not better 
 persuaded than I now am of our scriptural correctness, I 
 do not hesitate to say that I will follow the example of 
 Sister Williams." 
 
134 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 ^^ Spare me, brethren, spare me V groaned Mr. Ellis, " I 
 am in too mucli trouble to hear you talk thus. Here I am, 
 involved in controversy, unable to meet my antagonists suc- 
 cessfully. Brother Lewis has notified us of his intention to 
 return to the Presbyterians ; Brother Fleming falls out with 
 strict communion ; Sister Williams is going to violate the 
 long-established rule of the Church; and Brother Barbour 
 declares he is getting ready to do the same ! Take pity on 
 me, brethren, and let me alone ! It is enough to contend 
 with enemies from without — foes within are too hard for 
 mer 
 
 Mr. Barbour and Mr. Fleming understood this remark, as 
 it was undoubtedly designed, to be an invitation to retire. 
 So without adding more they bade the pastor adieu. 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 135 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 THE INTERVIEW AND ITS RESULT. 
 
 Theophilus was somewhat surprised when he received 
 Mary's note. It was evidently written hurriedly, and 
 seemed to indicate a disturbed mind. He observed, more- 
 over, at the breakfast-table that morning, that trouble was 
 brewing for him at home. Although there was nothing said 
 which could give him a distinct idea of the nature of the 
 opposition he was going to encounter, yet there were many 
 innuendoes and insinuations, coupled with manifest coldness 
 towards himself, which required no special acumen to inter- 
 pret unfavorably. He had once been the pride and joy 
 of the family, but now his opinions were treated with con- 
 tempt, and he seemed suddenly to become a stranger in the 
 home of his youth. But he had embarked on an inviting 
 sea, and he determined, whatever consequences might attend 
 it, to pursue his voyage. 
 
 Mary's note, however, caused him to waver for a moment. 
 Perhaps she had been persuaded to turn against him ; if so, 
 he was to be left alone to the friendship of his Grod, and a 
 clear conscience. Could he be firm, and resist her entreat- 
 ies ? Could he boldly dare to do what his heart approved, 
 and Grod had not condemned ? He knew not. The hour 
 of trial was yet to come — how he should abide it he knew 
 not. 
 
 He found Mary awaiting his arrival. She endeavored to 
 
136 TIIEOPIIILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 appear cheerful as usual, but tliere was a cloud upon her 
 brow, an expression of anxiety wliicli no eifort of hers could 
 remove. She was in doubt how to approach the unwelcome 
 theme — how to force her lips to utter words which came 
 not from the pure fountain of her heart. She talked of 
 many things, the ordinary staple of conversation, and 
 several times was on the eve of broaching the subject, but 
 she timidly shrank from the execution of her promise. 
 
 Theophilus knew Mary too well to be in doubt as to the 
 cause of her embarrassment. He saw that she was but half 
 won to the purpose, and that she would not be offended by 
 his refusal to comply. At last he said : 
 
 '■'■ Mary, I perceive that you have something of import- 
 ance to tell me, I suspect the nature of it. You have 
 been persuaded by your father to turn against me.'^ 
 
 '^0, Theophilus ! he has commanded me to see you no 
 more !" exclaimed she. 
 
 ^^ Indeed !" answered Theophilus; ^^ and you are going to 
 comply?" 
 
 '' What shall I say, The. ? I cannot comply, and yet I 
 dctre not refuse. What shall I do V 
 
 ^^ Be calm, my dear : what reason does he give for this 
 
 course 
 
 V 
 
 " None, The. ; he only peremptorily bade me to discard 
 you ; but mother " 
 
 ^' Well, and what did your mother say ?" 
 
 ^- She told me all. You must come back, The. ; my 
 dearest friend, you must come back, and every thing will be 
 riii'ht ao;ain V 
 
 ^^Aha !" exclaimed Theophilus. "I expected it, Mary, I 
 warned you of it but a few days since. Now, my love, tell 
 me honestly, are you going to insist upon my joining the 
 Baptist Church V 
 
 '^Yes, The., by all means in the world; it will be con- 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 137 
 
 ferring the greatest favor imaginable upon fatlicr, and it will 
 smooth our pathway for the future. See what you can do, 
 and how easily you can do it — so little sacrifice, so little 
 self-denial, and what a world of happiness it will purchase 
 for us. 0, my dear Theophilus ! think of it; yield to me 
 this once, and I am yours. Peace at home — your home and 
 mine — good accomplished, it may be, for Grod and his 
 Church. How can you refuse V 
 
 ^' Mary, be calm ; you are becoming excited. I would do 
 nothing to displease you. In a moment of frenzy, when 
 my affection for you is dominant over my reason, I may con- 
 sent to forfeit my religious peace, and confirm myself in 
 mistry for life. Mary, do you wish to see me an unhappy 
 man ? do you wish to make me so V^ 
 
 ^^ No, no, my love," she replied, ^^ not for the world." 
 
 '^Well, then, if I assure you that to do as you require 
 will cause me to sin against my conscience, will you still 
 insist V 
 
 ^^ No, I cannot do that, Theophilus." 
 
 ^'AYell, my dear, suppose I were to yield this point to 
 you — suppose I should agree to join the Baptist Church — 
 do you suppose I could face the throne of my Father in 
 heaven, and feel guiltless, when I had trampled his word 
 under foot; when I had professed doctrines I did not 
 believe; when I had wilfully consented to' sin against his 
 people, and to thrust them out of his kingdom ? No, no, 
 Mary, I cannot do it." 
 
 '' But will you be committing this great sin by yielding to 
 me ?" 
 
 ^^ Yes, Mary. I feel that I could never look upon the 
 light of day again without meeting the condemnation of 
 God. I should feel that nature condemned me : every flower 
 that blooms upon the highway, or wastes its odors in the 
 arid desert ; every star that twinkles in the clear, blue sky ; 
 
138 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 every graia of sand and drop of water, are unconscious, 
 unintelligent doers of God's will ; but I, blessed above his 
 humbler creatures with the gift of reason, would dare to sin 
 against myself and him — to sin against light and know- 
 ledge — all for your sake, Mary !" 
 
 ^' Then I will not ask you again. The. ) if these are your 
 feelings, right or wrong, I cannot, will not ask you to com- 
 mit so great a crime for my sake. But, Theophilus, others 
 have done so : others have given up their peculiar views for 
 the sake of family quiet : do you charge tliem with all these 
 crimes ?'' 
 
 ^^ I speak only for myself, Mary. What others may have 
 done or may yet do, can be of no weight in settling a case 
 of conscience with me. If any one has been influenced by 
 worldly ambition, parental influence, or other improper 
 motive, to join any Church against his or her convictions of 
 religious duty, I hesitate not to say that every such person 
 has committed a great sin. It may have been done — the 
 Lord knows — but he also knows that I cannot do it; I 
 should forfeit his favor, and incur his righteous displeasure.'' 
 
 ^' That settles the question, then, Theophilus." 
 
 ^^Not altogether, Mary; I wish to know now, if, with this 
 frank avowal of my feelings, you are willing to adhere to 
 our engagement ?" 
 
 ^'I will not conceal from you, Theophilus, the truth. I 
 have been forced to try your integrity — in the event of 
 success I know not how I should have felt. I hoped you 
 would yield; yet I feared that you had gone too far to 
 retrace your steps ; and if your sacrifice involved any moral 
 principle, I would not have you to yield. And yet, if you 
 do not, I am sure that we shall not get father's consent to 
 our marriage. It has been a fearful issue with me, Theo- 
 philus ; I must resign all hopes of you, or incur my father's 
 displeasure : the two strongest ties of nature have struggled 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 139 
 
 within me for the mastery. But the question is settled. 
 Painful as it is to me to rebel against my parents, I cannot 
 hesitate; I am yours, come what may !" 
 
 " I sympathize with you, Mary, in your painful position ; 
 and yet I can but rejoice in your decision. But let us do 
 nothing to provoke further opposition. Let your father 
 know your resolution, but do nothing to aggravate him. 
 Perhaps he may yet see and honor your integrity and virtue. 
 In the meanwhile we may not be so intimate as formerly, 
 lest we unnecessarily foment and increase the strife. '^ 
 
 ^' No, Theophilus ; I will be firm in my refusal, but 
 respectful in its terms. Thus far I consent to take your 
 advice. But, my dear The., I will not consent to even an 
 apparent alienation between us. That might give reason- 
 able ground to hope for ultimate success upon the part of 
 my father. No ; I have decided between you, and I will 
 cleave to you now; and more than ever I desire to lean 
 upon your strong arm for support. Forsake me not now. 
 My love for you must support my resolution ; your presence, 
 your conversation, your words of kindness must sustain my 
 love. I could not betray you ; but I must not be separated 
 from you.^' 
 
 ^' But what if your father forbids me his house V 
 
 " Then he must forbid it to me, too,'' replied Mary. '^I 
 will not consent to stay where you are not permitted to 
 come. But I hardly think he will go so far as that. If he 
 does, leave the rest to me. I will know what to do.'' 
 
 "Very well, Mary; God bless you and preserve you. 
 Your love is wealth and honor enous-h for me. Farewell !" 
 
 The young couple took an affectionate leave, and Mary's 
 clear, dark eyes glistened with bright tears as she saw her 
 lover disappear. 
 
 The end is not yet. 
 
140 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 CHAPTER XIII 
 
 CARRIE MASON S REVIEW CONTINUED. 
 
 Carrie Mason's aiicUcnce was a little larger on Saturday 
 afternoon than the day before. Several young ladies and 
 two or three young gentlemen were present who did not 
 attend on Friday, but Mary Ellis and the Misses Parker 
 were not there. 
 
 "We did not get beyond some general objections on 
 yesterday/^ commenced Carrie ; " we must begin now to 
 answer the arguments of Theodosia. 
 
 "Mr. Percy, the intended husband of Theodosia, volun- 
 teers to prove to her that she had been baptized, notwith- 
 standing the immersion at the river. He calls upon her 
 after supper, and desires to begin by calling up the wit- 
 nesses. His style is assumed to be lawyer-like, but I should 
 say that if Mr. Percy never managed his causes in court 
 more clearly than he did this before Judge Theodosia, I 
 think his clients had a poor advocate, if indeed a client 
 would intrust an important case into his hands. 
 
 " Theodosia smiles at the proposal, and we are told that it 
 was the first smile that illumined her face since she stood hy 
 the water. What a jileasant thing that baptismal water 
 must be ! She agrees to the proposition to call up the wit- 
 nesses, and examine them. First, however, Mr. Percy must 
 state his case — what the witnesses are to prove. He states 
 the case in these words, with the New Testament in his 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 141 
 
 hands: 'Is the sj^rinJcIinj of mfajits, in the name of the 
 ■ Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the haptism ivhich is required 
 in this book ?' 
 
 '' Now, you see at a glance that this is not the question, 
 and one would think the author saw it, too, for he makes 
 Mr. Percy say on the very next page that sprinkling, pour- 
 ing, and immersion are all modes of baptism. Yet Mr. 
 Percy, the lawyer, and the Presbyterian at that, sets out to 
 prove that ' s^rinldhig of infants is the only baptism re- 
 quired in the New Testament V 
 
 '' That was a clumsy statement of the case for a lawyer to 
 make," said Theophilus ; ^' the author of the book certainly 
 intended to make him look ridiculous.'^ 
 
 ^^ No, Mr. Walton," replied Carrie, ^^Mr. Percy is only a 
 man of straw, whom the author intends to vanquish. But 
 although the author does not intend, just here, to make him 
 appear ridiculous, yet he does do it to a certainty. He is 
 going to prove that infant baptism only is required; and yet 
 we are told elsewhere that Theodosia was six years old when 
 she was baptized, and she tells her mother, on page 33, that 
 she remembers it. If Mr. Percy had proved his case by his 
 witnesses, Theodosia might have said that she was not an 
 infant when she was baptized, and so she had not received 
 New Testament baptism at last ! 
 
 "■ We will let that pass, however, and hear some of the wit- 
 nesses. Mr. Percy calls up Webster's Dictionary, as witness 
 number 1. Little Edwin, Theodosia's brother, a boy about 
 thirteen years of age, objects to the witness — challenges him, 
 I believe the lawyers call it — on the ground that Webster's 
 Dictionary is in English, and that haptize is a Greek word. 
 Edwin heard the Baptist preacher tell Mr. Anxious that 
 King James would not let the translators translate haptidzoj 
 but made them transfer it into English. Now you remem- 
 ber that father showed you the testimony, night before last, 
 
142 THEOPEILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 disproving this assertion — the testimony of a Baptist writer, 
 proving that the king did not hinder them from translating 
 the word/^ 
 
 ^^I remember that very distinctly," said Theophilus, 
 ^' and I remember, too, that the Kev. Dr. Ide, an eminent 
 Baptist preacher, says : ^ I suppose that baptize is the only 
 English word by which you can translate baptidzo.' Dr. 
 Williams, another distinguished Baptist, in New York, says : 
 ^ On the score of age, the word haptize is probably some 
 six centuries older, as an English word, than the term 
 immerse.' " 
 
 " Thank you for those quotations, Mr. Walton ; they are 
 precisely in point,'' said Carrie ; ^^ and now, Mr. Price, as 
 you are a lawyer, we'll let you decide a point for us. How 
 do you act in court when witnesses do not agree ? How do 
 you decide the matter ?" 
 
 "By the preponderance of testimony, of course. Miss 
 Mason," replied Mr. Price. 
 
 " Very well, then," continued Carrie, " we have an anony- 
 mous Baptist preacher testifying that baptize is a Greek 
 word. He is the only witness on that side. On the other 
 we have Dr. Ide and Dr. Williams testifying that it is an 
 English word." 
 
 '^And you may add, Miss Carrie," said Theophilus, " the 
 testimony of Dr. Dowling, Dr. Lynd. and Dr. Cone. I will 
 read their testimony : 
 
 " ' The word baptize is to all intents and purposes an 
 English word.' — Dr. Dowling. 
 
 " ^ There can be no doubt that the word baptize in English 
 literature has become generic' — Dr. Lynd. 
 
 '^^The English word baptize, according to our standard 
 lexicographers, means to sprinkle, etc. — Dr. Cone. 
 
 "There they are," said Theophilus, "plain, and to the 
 point." 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 143 
 
 " Well, I submit the question to the jury : is baptize an 
 English word ? One Baptist preacher, nobody knows who 
 he is, says not; jive distinguished Baptists say that it h. 
 Then we carry the case, Edwin's objection is overruled, and 
 Webster's English Dictionary is admitted as evidence. 
 Now, we are told that Webster says that baptism is the 
 application of water as a religious ordinance. Then his tes- 
 timony is on our side — he testifies that no particular mode 
 is essential. 
 
 " This is the only witness called up by Mr. Percy, on the 
 first night. He agrees to leave the matter to the decision of 
 the lexicons of the G-reek language, and I suppose we must 
 follow him there." 
 
 "Stop, Carrie," said one of the ladies, "you promised 
 yesterday to leave the Latin and Greek to your father and 
 Theophilus." 
 
 " So I will," replied Carrie. " I am only going to follow 
 up the testimony, not to make a criticism. Mr. Percy was 
 not a Greek scholar, and yet he determines to search the 
 lexicons, to see what they say about the word. Edwin pro- 
 duces Donnegan's Lexicon on the Baptist side, as a witness. 
 Donnegan's testimony is thus given : 
 
 " ^Bajitidzo, to immerse repeatedly into a liquid, to sub- 
 merge, to soak thoroughly, to saturate.' 
 
 " Now I have examined father's library, and I found three 
 lexicons, Grove, Liddell and Scott, and Robinson. I will 
 read their definitions just as I copied them from the books : 
 
 " ' Baptidzo, to dip, immerse, immerge, plunge ; to loasli^ 
 cleanse, purify ; to baptize.' — Grove. 
 
 " ^ Baptidzo, to dip repeatedly, dip under ; to pour uj^oiij 
 drench ; in New Testament, to haptizeJ — Liddell and Scott. 
 
 " ^ Baptidzo, to dip in, to sink, to immerse ) in New Tes- 
 tament, to iva<ilij to lave, to cleanse by washing, to haptize.' 
 — Robinson 
 
144 TIIEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 '^ Now it appears tliat one witness testifies that tlie Greek 
 word haptidzo means to immerse, and uses only equivalent 
 words in defining it. We introduce three other witnesses, 
 however, who say that the word does mean more than im- 
 merse, and therefore define it by such terms as to wash, 
 cleanse, etc. Now, on the principle that preponderance of 
 testimony settles the question, we have gained this point, 
 too. We have all the witnesses in English, and three to 
 one in the Greek, on the Pedobaptist side." 
 
 '^ But your witnesses all agree that immerse was the 
 'primary meaning. Miss Carrie," said Mr. Price. 
 
 ^^ What do you mean hj prima ri/, Mr. Price? I do not 
 understand you," said Carrie. 
 
 "• Why, the most common meaning : it is placed first among 
 the definitions." 
 
 ''I know nothing about that, Mr. Price," she answered; 
 *^ I am not sufficiently acquainted with the language to tell 
 whether the first meaning in the dictionary is the ordinary 
 one or not. I leave that matter to Theophilus and other 
 Greek scholars. All the use I have for the lexicons is to 
 show that they are three to one against the Baptist position 
 that haptidzo only means to immerse. One witness says it 
 has but one, and three witnesses say it has more than one 
 meaning. The testimony is, then, on my side ; is it not, 
 Mr. Pri'ce ?" 
 
 '^ It certainly is," replied Mr. Price, ^' if you take the 
 simple question whether the word has more meanings than 
 one." 
 
 ^' That is the only question at issue, Mr. Price. Whether 
 this word is used in the New Testament in this or that sense, 
 we are not now endeavoring to determine. We are only 
 seeking to know whether the word was used in more senses 
 than one." 
 
 ^^Then I admit that you have gained j^our case, Miss 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 145 
 
 Carrie/^ said Mr. Price : ^^ the evidence is clearly on your 
 side.'' 
 
 '^ Very well/' replied Carrie, '^we proceed now with the 
 second night's study. Mr. Percy goes home resolving to ex- 
 amine the various lexicons, and on the next evening we hear 
 him complaining that the lexicons have ^IcillecC him. He 
 submits the case, and therefore we dismiss him, as an ineffi- 
 cient advocate. He suffered one witness to be ruled out 
 without making an effort to save him ; and before the astound- 
 ing fact that one lexicon is against him, loses heart, and 
 gives up the case. We can have no further use for so poor 
 a lawyer. 
 
 '' Mr. Johnson, the Presbyterian pastor, comes in to aid 
 Mr. Percy's cause. Mr. Johnson sets out by telling us that 
 he ^ never studied these controversies much,' and I think we 
 shall have good reason to agree with him in his confession 
 of ignorance. He is puzzled at the very first onset of The- 
 odosia, and finally becomes frightened at the announcement 
 that the Baptist schoolmaster is coming : takes up his hat, and 
 bows himself out. Mr. Johnson, however, before he takes 
 leave, requests Theodosia to examine some of the standard 
 writers on the subject. Theodosia says there are no books on 
 the subject in the house except the Bible; but after awhile 
 she discovers that they have got Barnes's Notes on the Gos- 
 pels, and Macknight on the Epistles." 
 
 ^' Of course they must have Machnight,^' said Mr. Price : 
 ^^ he is a fine author to teach Presbyterians the proper mode 
 of baptism !" 
 
 '^ Yes, indeed, Theodosia has no other books but those 
 that may be turned against her, and to these the appeal 
 is made ; and henceforth Mr. Percy helps to get his own 
 cause into difficulty. Mr. Johnson gives a full endorsement 
 to Mr. Barnes, and thereupon they turn to Barnes's notes on 
 Matthew iii. 6. After some comments on the language of 
 7 
 
146 TIIEOPIIILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 Mr. Barnes wliicli I do not regard as wortli our wliile to 
 notice, Mr. Percy comes to the following language : ' The 
 Hebrew word (fahal) which is rendered by the word baptize, 
 occurs in the Old Testament in the following places :' then 
 ioWoyr fifteen texts from the Old Testament. 
 
 "I have read this passage as Mr. Barnes lorote it; but 
 Mr. Percy slipped in the word ^ Greek' before the word 
 ^baptize/ in order to make it appear that Mr. Barnes ad- 
 mitted that baptize was a Greek word.'^ 
 
 ^'It seems to me/' remarked Theophilus, ^'that Mr. 
 Barnes speaks very loosely in reference to the matter, any 
 way. In what language does he mean to say that tahal is 
 rendered by baptize f If he means the English, we know 
 he is wrong ; for baptize is not in the Old Testament. If 
 he means the Greek, then he should have said that tahal in 
 Hebrew was rendered by hapto or haptidzo. I am sur- 
 prised that a man of Mr. Barnes's ability should make such 
 a mistake as that.'' 
 
 ^^ But you see, Mr. Walton," replied Carrie, " it is for this 
 very reason that such a mistake was made by Mr. Barnes, 
 that his Notes were found in Theodosia's library. And now, 
 Mr. Walton, we must get your assistance. There is a Greek 
 version of the Old Testament, is there not V 
 
 ^' Yes, Miss Carrie,^' replied Theophilus; ^^I was looking 
 at it when you came in this afternoon. It is called the 
 Scptuagint, and is thought to have been made about two or 
 three hundred years before our Saviour's time." 
 
 ^' It must be of some authority, then. Is that the book 
 you have in your hand ?" 
 
 " Yes, this is the best edition extant." 
 
 ^^ Well, now, these fifteen places in which the Hebrew word 
 occurs are all set down in ^Theodosia,' and I want you to see 
 whether or not the Hebrew word tahal is always rendered by 
 the word haptize.'^ 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 14V 
 
 "By the word hapto, you mean, Miss Carrie." 
 
 " Well, the word hapto, then. We will take the first place 
 in which it occurs in the Bible, Genesis xxxvii. 31.'' 
 
 " Let me see,'' said Mr. Walton ; " hapto is not in this 
 verse at all ! Tahal is translated here by the Grreek verb 
 molimo, which means to dye, to stain." 
 
 " Indeed ! and is that G-reek word molimo a word of mode, 
 Mr. Walton ?" asked Carrie. 
 
 "Not at all," replied Theophilus, "it means to dye, tinge, 
 or stain, without expressing the manner in which it is done." 
 
 " Very well, Mr. Walton ; now look at Leviticus ix. 9, 
 and tell us what word answers to tabal there." 
 
 " The word is hapto here," replied Theophilus, after a few 
 moments' examination. 
 
 " Now, then, let us try the Baptist schoolmaster's ^ axiom.' 
 He says that things that are equal to the same thing are 
 equal to each other. This we admit. Then he says further, 
 if dip in English, and hapto in Grreek, are equivalent to 
 tahal in Hebrew, then dip and haj^to are equivalent to each 
 other. If this be good logic, it will bear expression in 
 another form. If moluno in Greek and hapto in Greek are 
 both equivalent to tahal in Hebrew, then hapto and moluno 
 are equivalent to each other. And further : if tahal in He- 
 brew and hapto in Greek are equal to moluno in Greek, and 
 if, as you say, moluno does not mean to dip, then neithet 
 tahal nor hapto means to dip, for things which are equal to 
 the same thing must be equal to each other !" 
 
 "You are getting beyond your depth, now," exclaimed 
 one of the young ladies. 
 
 "Not she!" answered Mr. Price; "if the Baptist school 
 master made a ^ demonstration,' she has made one, too. Hei 
 logic is as good as his." 
 
 " To be sure it is," said Theophilus, " and her demonstra- 
 
148 THEOPHILUS WALTON. 
 
 tion takes tlie point oif tlie ^ axiom' of the sclioolmaster. 
 Shall we proceed with the texts, Miss Carrie ?" 
 
 ^^Not this afternoon, Mr. Walton. Indeed, I think we 
 may dismiss Mr. Barnes altogether. You have discovered 
 two important blunders in his Notes, and I am willing now 
 to leave him in the custody of Theodosia." 
 
 "We can afford to spare him, on this subject at least.'' 
 
 " I perceive that it is getting late," remarked Carrie : 
 " perhaps we had better desist for the present. Shall we as- 
 semble again ?" 
 
 " By all means," replied Mr. Price ; " I am very much in- 
 terested in your inquiries, no less so than in those of your 
 father; and I think your efforts will result in good to some 
 of us." 
 
 " When shall we meet ?" asked Carrie. 
 
 " On Tuesday afternoon," replied Theophilus, " if it meets 
 your convenience." 
 
 Miss Mason consented, and the party separated. 
 
©Itivrt (Bvtmu^. 
 
 THE GREEK WORDS BAPTO AND BAPTIDZO 
 EXAMINED. 
 
 THEIR CLASSICAL AND SCRIPTURAL USE. 
 
 MORE BAPTIST TESTIMONY. — DR. FULLER, DR. 
 CARSON, DR. GALE, AND DR. COX. 
 
TnE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 151 
 
 THIRD EVENING. 
 
 On Monday evening there was a larger audience in 
 attendance than on the two previous occasions. It had 
 been noised abroad that Mr. Battle, the champion of the 
 Baptists, had been sent for, and that he was expected to 
 arrive before night. As his warlike spirit was well known, 
 curiosity drew out many who did not feel otherwise an 
 interest in the matter, to see the issue of the contest. 
 
 Mr. Mason began at the usual hour, addressing himself 
 to Theophilus as before : 
 
 " On Friday evening, you remember, I stated that if it 
 could be proved that the Greek words jSarrrw (hapto) and 
 paTTTL^o) (baptidzd) invariably meant to dip, in Greek classi- 
 cal literature, it would by no means follow that they were 
 used in the same sense by the New Testament writers. 
 This I proved by the word oravpog, {sfauros,) which origi- 
 nally meant a stake of wood, and in later times a stake of 
 w^ood with a transverse beam. But by our Saviour the 
 bearing of the cross (or stauros^ is commanded under the 
 penalty of being rejected from discipleship. If, then, we 
 can take only the original meaning of the word cross, the 
 terms of salvation become well-nigh impossible of perform- 
 ance, as well as unreasonable in their character. All the 
 lexicons in the world would never help us to the meaning 
 of the word ; it does not depend on the heathen usage, nor 
 
152 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 yet on tlie Jewisli usage, for its definition. In tlic New 
 Testament it has a meaning which it never possessed before." 
 
 " By the way, Mr. Mason/' said Theophilus, " that this 
 commandment may have something to do with the Roman 
 Catholic uses of the cross appears very plain to me. You 
 know it is a universal symbol among them. They wear it 
 around their necks, many of them, and thus seem to fulfil 
 the commandment as the Baptists require it to be under- 
 stood." 
 
 '^ Yes," replied Mr. Mason, '^ many of them wear a 
 diminutive cross about their necks, especially the females; 
 but I do not think that they regard the practice, either in 
 part or in whole, as a keeping of this commandment. 
 
 '^ However that may be, we are now to turn our attention 
 to those words whose interpretation has so long divided the 
 educated world. But before we proceed to examine their 
 classical usage, we must again see how much of harmoni/ 
 prevails among Baptist writers on this subject. Dr. Fuller, 
 whom I have already quoted, says, on the 14th page of his 
 work: 'To say that haptizo has three different meanings, 
 only proves how strangely controversy can blind the mind to 
 the plainest things. ... To say that a word means three 
 distinct things is to say that it means neither of them.' 
 Now let us hear Dr. Alexander Carson, the great champion 
 of immersion in Ireland, and see how he agrees with his 
 American brother. On the 44th page of his work Dr. Car- 
 son says : ' Having established the meaning of this word 
 (hajyto) as significant of mode, I shall now show that it sig- 
 nifies also to dye. . . . Now, while I contend that dyeing 
 is the secondary meaning of this word, I also contend that it 
 is a real, LITERAL meaning, independent of consequence. 
 Although this meaning arose from the mode of dyeing by 
 dipping, yet the word has come by appropriation to denote 
 dyeing without reference to mode.' " 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 153 
 
 "And there you have the doctors by the ears again V 
 exclaimed Theophilus. ^' Dr. Fuller says a word cannot 
 have three distinct meanings, whilst Dr. Carson says it 
 can.'' 
 
 " Yes, Theophilus/' answered Mr. Mason, " and Dr. Car- 
 son goes on to cite examples from Greek writers in proof 
 that hajHo sometimes means dyeing by dropping the fluid, 
 by applying the fluid to the beard, to the hair of the head, 
 and by the fluid ruiuiing cloion over the garment. Now here 
 are several distinct acts, all of which are contained in one 
 word; and if dipping a thing, dropping something ou it, 
 applying a fluid to it, and sufi"ering a fluid to run down over 
 it, are all contained in hapto, as Dr. Carson says, then it fol- 
 lows, from Dr. Fuller's position, that hap>to has no meaning 
 at all ! Dr. Carson has been ^ strangely blinded,' Dr. Fuller 
 would have us believe, '■ to the plainest things !' Yet Dr. 
 Carson says dip is in the word hapfo in some places, and in 
 some places it is not. And this fact, he says, ' I will put 
 beyond question.' 
 
 '' We have this question settled for us, then, by a distin- 
 guished Baptist writer, that the Grreek root from which we 
 get the English word baptize, does not always mean one 
 mode; but includes any mode by which dyeing may be 
 done. In order, then, to fortify our views by strong 
 Baptist testimony, we have only to turn to Dr. G-ale's 
 Beflections on Dr. Wall's History of Infant Baptism, and 
 find, on page 97, that Dr. Gale says the words hapto and 
 haptidzo 'are synonymous.' Dr. Carson says one of these 
 words does not always mean to dip, and Dr. Gale says that 
 the two words are synonymous in meaning. Then it follows 
 if one of these words does not always mean to dip, that the 
 other does not always mean to dip. Otherwise they cannot 
 be equivalent to each other." 
 
 '' That is a plain case," said Theophilus, " and if Baptist 
 
154 THEOPHILUS WALTONJ OR, 
 
 testimony is to be credited, we must grant tliat the point is 
 established/' 
 
 *' I might go on/' resumed Mr. Mason, ^' and show you 
 that Pedobaptists need nothing more to defend them from 
 the attacks of the Baptists than the ^ admissions' of ' learned 
 Baptist divines.' I will give you more of these concessions 
 in their proper place. 
 
 ^' I could cite you to many passages in which these words 
 {hapto and haptidzo^ are taken in a generic sense — passages 
 in which dipping is not and cannot be meant. One or two 
 examples, however, of each word will suffice." 
 
 '' Permit me to ask you," said Theophilus, '' what is your 
 opinion as to the original meaning of hapto ? Dr. Carson 
 says its secondary, though literal meaning, is to dye ; do you 
 think he is correct?" 
 
 *' I think not, Theophilus ; and I will give you my reasons 
 directly. In all languages, words have, more or less, in 
 different ages, changed their meanings. The Greek is no 
 exception to this rule, as Dr. Carson proves. What 
 changes it may have undergone during the nine hundred or 
 one thousand years from Homer to St. Matthew, no man 
 can tell. We know that the Grreek language was in its 
 infancy in Homer's time; that it arrived at its highest 
 degree of excellence and purity in the days of Xenophon, 
 Thucydides, and Plato ; and that under the Macedonian and 
 Roman dominion it rapidly declined — becoming corrupted 
 by foreign words, and possessing few writers of taste and 
 excellence. It is also evident that the Jews did not come in 
 contact with the Grreeks until at and after the Macedonian 
 conquests. They were only introduced to the language, 
 then, when the process of corruption had commenced. This 
 fact must be of great importance in studying the New 
 Testament, for, as you well know, the evangelists used what 
 is called Hellenistic Greek. 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 155 
 
 ^'Now, in reference to the question in hand. It is 
 admitted that a change passed upon the word hapto. This 
 vDr. Carson affirms. No matter when it occurred, the change 
 is admitted. The issue between us is, then, what was that 
 change ? Was it from a modal to a generic sense ? So Dr. 
 Carson affirms. I take the opposite ground, and affirm that 
 it was from a generic to a modal sense; and that after it 
 was used to signify dipping, the old idea of dyeing was still 
 retained. Therefore we need not be surprised to find the 
 word used in both senses by the same author. 
 
 "If, as Dr. Carson thinks, the dipping expressed by 
 hapto was the cause of attaching the secondary meaning of 
 dyeing to it, what is the reason that the Greek verb dupto 
 (dvTTTOj) does not signify to dye ? That it means to dip is 
 plain, and it means nothing else but mode. But we need 
 not be left to conjecture on this subject. The first Greek 
 ivriter who uses the word bapto gives the meaning of dyeing 
 to it. This is a remarkable fact, and is acknowledged to be 
 a fact by our opponents. In the Battle of the Frogs and 
 Mice, a burlesque poem. Homer, who lived nine hundred 
 years before Christ, describing the death of the frog Cram- 
 bophagus, says : ' He fell and breathed no more, and the 
 lake was tinged or dyed (e/SaTrrero) with blood.' On this 
 passage Dr. Carson says : ' To suppose that there is here any 
 extravagant allusion to the literal immersion or dipping of a 
 lake is a monstrous perversion of taste. The lake is said to 
 be dyed — not to be dipped, nor poured, nor sprinkled. 
 There is in the word no reference to mode. . . . What a 
 monstrous paradox in rhetoric is the figure of the dipping 
 of a lake in the blood of a mouse !' So I think. Please 
 remeiuber that our Baptist witness says there is no refer- 
 ence TO MODE in this case. Now, how many writers have 
 we older than Homer?" 
 
 " None that I know of.'* 
 
156 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 '^And how shall we determine the original use of a word?" 
 " By examining the oldest writers, of course/' 
 " If Homer uses (Sdnrd) without reference to mode, what 
 authority has any man to say that it was originally a word 
 of mode V 
 
 " Why, Mr. Mason, I can see none. If the first writer on 
 record uses the word as a generic term, it \s prima facie evi- 
 dence that such was its original sense." 
 
 ^' That is certainly true. Dr. Carson infers that dyeing is 
 the secondary meaning, because it was generally done by 
 dipping. He makes to dij) the primary, and to dye the 
 secondary meaning. But where is his authority ? He 
 infers it. But in a case where demonstrative evidence can- 
 not be procured, one inference is no better than another. 
 TFe, on our side, can infer that jSaTrro) originally meant to 
 dye; and inasmuch as the most common method of dyeing 
 was by dipping the article into the coloring fluid, so in pro- 
 cess of time the word began to mean to dip. Thus we have 
 the primary signification to dye, the secondary to dip. 
 This, as a mere inference, is as good as Dr. Carson's theory; 
 and if Pedobaptists were accustomed to deal in dogmatism, 
 we might defy the learned world to refute our position. 
 We know that it cannot be done, for there are no data that 
 can be used. The word occurs in the first Greek writer in 
 both a generic and a modal sense — both to dye and to dip: 
 which of these is the primary meaning no living man can 
 positively tell. As I have already said, I believe the proba- 
 bilities are in favor of the generic sense, to dye. I come to 
 this conclusion from the following facts : There seems to be 
 no other word used by the early Greek writers to express the 
 idea of dyeing. The word eyxp^^^^ (egchrodzo') signifies to 
 ruh in, to anoint, and iioXvvcd {moluno) means to stain; but 
 neither of these expresses fully the idea of dyeing. If the 
 Greeks had the idea before the days of Homer, they cer- 
 
THE MAJESTY OE TRUTH. 157 
 
 tainly had tlie word — if (SdiTrG) was not, what ivas the 
 word ? We know that they had a word which meant to dij), 
 which they formed from (5?;va), to enter or drive in. Is it 
 probable that two words existed which expressed the mode 
 of dyeing, whilst there was 710 word to express the thing 
 itself? The idea of changing the color of a garment, for 
 instance, would enter into a language in its very infancy — 
 this is obvious. If, then, it cannot be shown that any 
 other root in the Greek language expressed this idea, and 
 we find (3dTT~(i) so used by the very earliest writers in Greek, 
 the conclusion, I think, is irresistible that its original mean- 
 ing was to dye. When we find later Greek writers using 
 the word to express the dyeing of the hair, beard, garments, 
 swords, and other articles, which is frequently the case, we 
 understand them as giving it its 'primary and not its 
 secondary meaning. 
 
 " From this primary idea of changing the color of a 
 thing, the general idea of changing its condition by the 
 application of any fluid is natural and easy. Originally 
 confined to a fluid used in dyeing, the word was soon 
 applied to water — expressing not necessarily a change in the 
 color of the thing to which the water was applied, but 
 expressing the change in the condition of the thing. This 
 change may be accomplished either by applying the article 
 to the fluid or the fluid to the article. All the examples 
 produced from the classics to prove the dipping of things 
 into water, honey, wax, and other fluids, will not overthrow 
 my position. As a generic word, expressing simply a 
 change in the condition of a thing, any mode, whether it be 
 dipping, smearing, pouring, rubbing, or any other, is per- 
 fectly consonant with the original sense of the term. 
 
 " No matter how many examples are produced in the Old 
 Testament Scriptures to prove that f^dnro) signifies to dij), if 
 there is a sins-le one in which this mode cannot be under- 
 
158 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 stood, my position is distinctly proved by the Scriptures 
 themselves. Such a passage there is, and it is indeed 
 amusing to see the efforts that have been made to avoid it. 
 Please turn to the fourth chapter of Daniel, and read the 
 33d verse.'' 
 
 ^^ ^ The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchad- 
 nezzar : and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as 
 oxen, and his body ivas wet with the dew of heaven, till his 
 hairs were grown like eagles' feathers, and his nails like 
 birds' claws.' " 
 
 " The word in the Septuagint which is translated ivet is 
 t:(3d(()7]. The idea of dipping a man in the dew of heaven is 
 absurd. Seeing the force of this passage. Dr. Cox, a distin- 
 guished Baptist, says : '■ It does not imply the manner in 
 which the effect was produced, but the effect itself ; not the 
 mode by which the body of the king was wetted, but its 
 condition, as resulting from exposure to the dews of hea- 
 ven.' This is Baptist testimony, and comes very near the 
 truth. Dr. Carson, however, takes his brother Baptist by 
 the ears, and says : ' Without doubt the verb expresses 
 mode here as well as anywhere else. To suppose the con- 
 trary gives up the p)oint at issue as far as mode is concerned. 
 This, in fact, makes hapto signify simply to wet, without 
 reference to mode.' — Page 37. Unfortunately for Dr. Car- 
 son, he must change the whole sentence in the Septuagint, 
 if he gets his mode out of it. He would have it read, 
 ' immersed or dipped in dew.^ The Grreek expression is 
 E\id^r\ drro T7]g dpoaov, chajjhe apo tes drosou. The preposi- 
 tion h', in, is not there. ' What a monstrous perversion of 
 taste' it would be to say the body of the king was dipped 
 ivith («_po) dew ! ' Theodosia' thinks it is ' a most beautiful 
 though hyperbolical expression !' Dr. Carson thinks j^oets 
 are allowed to use such ' animated expressions.' Alas I 
 what will not sectarian zeal attempt in defence of its favorite 
 
THE MAJESTY OP TRUTH. 159 
 
 dogmas! Daniel must become a poet; tlie sacred writer 
 must use hyperholical expressions in describing a literal 
 matter of fact, in order to save tlie doctrine of immersion. 
 But it will not do. There is no poetry about it — no heavy 
 dews, no hyperbole — the whole thing is a plain fact. The 
 body of the king was wetted by the dew descending upon 
 him. It does not matter whether it was a Syrian, an Ara- 
 bian, or an Egyptian deic — he was not dipped in it ; that is 
 beyond doubt. If there was deiu enough to immerse 
 Nebuchadnezzar, he would never have passed another night 
 in it alive. Dr. Cox, we have seen, as Carson says, gives up 
 the point in dispute. Dr. Carson, it is true, endeavors to 
 rescue the cause from this sad predicament by ever so many 
 quotations from Virgil, to show how the poets use words of 
 this sort; but his labor is in vain. Every step he takes 
 makes the matter worse. The Book of Daniel is not a book 
 oi poctri/ ; it is not an epic poem; it claims nothing at our 
 hands in the shape of p)oetic license. To illustrate his mon- 
 strous interpretation of the baptism of dew by quotations 
 from poetical writers is simply absurd. If it were allowable, 
 the artifice would recoil against himself. We could show 
 that the dipipinr/ which Edwin's schoolmate got by p)0uring 
 a bucket of water over himself, would take the literal dip 
 out of the Bible. A few examples will suffice to show how 
 Qdi^Wj poetry will subserve our interests as well as theirs. In 
 common language, we say that a thing has been dipped if it 
 is as wet as if it had been immersed in water. This is the 
 principle brought into requisition. Well, Joseph's coat was 
 not literally dipped in the kid's blood, (Gen. xxxvii. 31;) 
 it was only stained as much as if it had been dipped. The 
 priest did not literally dip his finger in the blood of the bul- 
 lock ; he poured the blood on his finger, and made it as wet 
 as if it had been dipped. Hazael (2 Kings viii. 15) did 
 not dip the thick cloth in the water ; he only made it as wet 
 
160 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 as if it had been clipped. So we might turn ' the mode' out 
 of the Bible altogether. There is just as much poetri/, 
 just as much hyperbole, in these cases as in that of Nebu- 
 chadnezzar. If these are literal accounts of literal dip- 
 pings in blood and water, so the last is a wetting ivith, and 
 not an immersion in, the dew of heaven.'^ 
 
 '^ That is perfectly clear to my mind," said Theophilus ; 
 ^^I see no reason why such a man as Dr. Carson should 
 deny it." 
 
 '^ He had the strongest reason that could possibly influ- 
 ence a sectarian, Theophilus. He admitted that (idirrb) 
 means to dye, without reference to mode, but if he admitted 
 that it means to loet, without reference to mode, his cause 
 was lost ! Away goes the whole superstructure of Baptist 
 churches, if such an acknowledgment be made ! Therefore, 
 he will quote Milton, Shakspeare, Virgil, and ever so many 
 poets, to lend him a helping hand. In this manner the 
 account of the fall of man is made a beautiful fable — the 
 talking of the serpent to Eve is a ^ most beautiful but hyper- 
 bolical expression ;' the life of Christ is worked up by the 
 German Strauss into a beautiful myth — a sacred allegory, 
 descriptive of man's moral nature — but Jesus Christ was not 
 a real character. In defence of their positions, the Neologists 
 will give any quantity of poe^r^; they will quote the Koran, 
 the Zendavesta of the Persians, the Theogony of Hesiod, 
 and other compositions innumerable. Upon Dr. Carson's 
 principles of interpretation, the Bible becomes a fable, sure 
 enough. We know not what is literal, and what poeti- 
 cal. 
 
 '■^ Dr. Fuller avoids this text by saying we have nothing to 
 do with hapto, '• a ivord ichich means to dye.' He says : ^ If 
 the Septuagint had employed haptizo in the case from 
 Daniel, it would only have been an intensive metaphor, like 
 this in Milton : 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH 161 
 
 "A cold shuddering dew 
 Dips me all o'er." 
 
 But tlie' term used is not haptizo, it is bapto.' This is an 
 easy way to dispose of the matter. It is another word, he 
 argues, and makes nothing, either for or against immersion. 
 Dr. Carson, however, thinks the cause is lost, if Nebuchad- 
 nezzar could not be immersed in the dew of heaven ! 
 
 '^ Before I leave the Old Testament Scriptures, I wish to 
 point out an oft-repeated perversion of Scrij)ture, which has 
 been made by Dr. Gale, Dr. Carson, Dr. Fuller, and lastly by 
 ^ Theodosia Ernest.' You will please read the 6th verse of 
 the fourteenth chapter of Leviticus.'' 
 
 " ^As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar 
 wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dijy them 
 and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed 
 over the running water,' " 
 
 " Here you see, Theophilus, the immersion of a living 
 bird, cedar wood, scarlet, and a bunch of hyssop, in the 
 blood of one bird was impossible. Now read the 5th verse, 
 and it will tell you how and ivJiere the blood was to be 
 caught." 
 
 " 'And the priest shall command that one of the birds be 
 killed 1)1 an earthen vessel over running water." 
 
 " Very well. The blood was to be caught in an earthen 
 vessel OVER running water. Now hear how ' Theodosia' gets 
 out of this difficulty : 
 
 " ' If you will turn to Leviticus xiv. 6, you will see that 
 the blood of the slain bird was to be caught over running 
 water; and as it rested on or mixed with the water ^ these 
 things could all he entirely immersed, if need be.' Now, 
 Theoi)hilus, do you see any thing of the blood of the slain bird 
 being mixed un'th the water in the text ?" 
 
 ^' Not a word, sir. It says all these things shall be dipped 
 in blood, not in blood and water." 
 
162 TIIEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 " Exactly. But ^ Tlieodosia' did not get tlie ' cue' from 
 her authorities. Dr. Gale aud others explain it by connecting 
 the 51st verse of the same chapter with the 6th. The living 
 bird, the wood, the scarlet, and the bunch of hj-ssop, arc 
 there said to be dipped in the blood, and also in the running 
 water. It is inferred, therefore, that the blood and water 
 were mixed. This, however, does not follow, for it says in 
 the 50th, as in the 5th verse, that the bird must be killed in 
 an earthen vessel over the running water. It is evident 
 that there are two dippings described in the 51st verse, 
 while there is but one in the 6th. ^ Dip them in the blood,' 
 says the 6th; 'dip them in the blood and in the running 
 water,' says the 51st ; that is, dip them first in the blood, 
 then in the water, and sprinkle upon the house. This is 
 shown by the fact that tico commands are given, and if the 
 blood and water were mixed, there would have been but one. 
 But this is not all ; for if we grant that in this last case there 
 was a mixture of the blood and water, it does not help the 
 matter in the least. These are separate ceremonies — one 
 was for the cleansing of a man, the other for the cleansing 
 of a house — and the difference between them was, that while 
 the wood, scarlet, bird, and hyssop were, for the cleansing of 
 the man, to be dipped in hlood only, for the cleansing of a 
 house they were to be dipped, first in the blood, then in the 
 water. 
 
 ^' ^ Tlieodosia' does not feel easy, after perverting the 
 Bible in this passage. ' You will remember,' says the 
 author, ' that in common language the whole of a thing is 
 often mentioned, when a part only is meant. I say, for 
 instance, that I dipped my pen in ink, and wrote a line,' 
 etc. Then follows Dr. Gale's old illustration about the pen 
 being dipped, when only the nib is immersed. Here we 
 Lave ' common language' to help them out of the difiiculty. 
 As if the legal statutes of Moses, which were exact in every 
 
THE MAJESTY OE TRUTH. 163 
 
 particular, were written in ^ common language/ As much 
 as to say that God commanded total immersion, but he only 
 meant partial immersion ! The word must mean dip, in 
 spite of common sense and the plain word of Grod. Poetry, 
 figures, metaphors, hyperboles, loose expressions, common 
 language, any thing must be made of Holy Writ to save the 
 infallible dip ! 
 
 '' Dr. Gale, however, sensible that he had failed in getting 
 immersion out of the passage, winds up with these words : 
 ' The utmost, I say, that can be inferred from this passage, 
 is only that the word does not always necessarily imply a 
 total immersion, or dipping the whole thing spoken of ALL 
 OVER, which I readily alloio.' He then proceeds to give us 
 a rule which saves him in this particular case, but over- 
 throws his argument when applied to others : ^ What is true 
 of any one part, may he said of the loliole complexly, 
 though not of every part of the whole taken separately.' 
 The English of this rule is, that if you dip your hand in a 
 basin of water, you may be said to dip yourself in water. It 
 is indeed strange that Moses should use words so inaccurately, 
 seeing that he was then prescribing the law to the children 
 of Israel, giving them for the first time a knowledge of God's 
 requirements, and, from the very nature of the case, he 
 must have been exact in describing their ceremonies. But 
 let us admit that Moses intended no total immersion in this 
 case, and, as Dr. Gale says, that neither ^^to, tahal, in 
 Hebrew, nor fidnrG} in Greek, necessarily implies a total im- 
 mersion. Let us try the strongest passage in favor of im- 
 mersion which is found in the Old Testament. I allude to 
 the account given of the cleansing of the leper, Naaman the 
 Syrian. The passage is in the fifth chapter of the second 
 book of Kings. Elisha commands him to go and ivash 
 (Hebrew yn^, rahats) in Jordan. He goes to the river, and, 
 as our English Bible renders it, dips himself (Hebrew ^^t:^ 
 
164 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 G-reek jSarrri^o), haptidzo) in Jordan. Now what did 
 Naaman do ? Did he immerse his whole body, or only part 
 of it? We will let Naaman and Dr. Gale determine this 
 question for us. Naaman said, verse 11th, ' I thought he 
 will surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name 
 of the Lord his God, and strike his hand over the place, 
 and recover the leper.' Well, then, there was a particular 
 place in which the leprosy appeared, and that place he was 
 commanded to icash in Jordan. He goes down to the river, 
 ' and, according to the saying of the man of God,' haptizes 
 THE PLACE seven times. He was not commanded to dip his 
 whole body, neither was he commanded to dip) i\\Q place in 
 Jordan, but to wash it. Now, admitting that the Hebrew 
 word does not necessarily mean total immersion, what proof 
 is there that Naaman did wholly immerse himself— that he 
 dipped himself all over ? Dr. Gale says that '■ what may be 
 said of a part may be said of the whole complexly;' and 
 therefore, if he only dipped the leprous place, he is said to 
 have dipped himself, and nothing like total immersion of his 
 body is necessarily meant by the Hebrew and Greek words. 
 So, then, we have two points yielded to us. 1. That the 
 Hebrew word tahal does not always mean total immersion. 
 2. That Naaman having dipped the place affected with 
 leprosy, is properly said to have dipped himself. Nothing 
 like immersion in blood can be found, then, in the ceremo- 
 monial law, and nothing like total immersion in this case of 
 Naaman. So we have our position fortified by the best 
 Baptist testimony, which I will give you in a few proposi- 
 tions : 1. The Greek word (Sdnro) among classical writers 
 frequently means to dye, without reference to mode : so Dr. 
 Carson testifies. 2. The Hebrew word r-o, tabal, does not 
 always mean to immerse, or dip all over. So Dr. Gale. 
 8. The baptism of dew, in the case of Nebuchadnezzar, does 
 not express the mode by which it was performed, but the 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 165 
 
 condition of being icet. So Dr. Cox. It follows, then, from 
 these concessions, that total immersion can neither be found 
 in the Hebrew word tahal, nor in the Greek hapto, in their 
 scriptural use. 
 
 " Having settled this point, we now turn our attention to 
 the second word, (iairrlc^o), for that word alone has been 
 selected by the Holy Spirit to designate the ordinance of 
 baptism. Here the whole controversy must at last be 
 decided, and here, too, we find a wonderful diversity of 
 opinion among the Baptists. They all agree in making im- 
 mersion essential to baptism, but how to prove it they know 
 not. Some will have the Greek word to be 2i frequentative, 
 that is, implying a repetition of the act several times ; others 
 assert that it is a diminutive, that is, meaning less than the 
 root; and others again that it augments, or means more than 
 the root. The first opinion is older than the second and 
 third. Dr. Carson embraces the view that the meaning of 
 hapto is diminished in haptidzo. Dr. Fuller believes that it 
 is inci-eased. 
 
 '^Let us try Dr. Fuller's rule. He says that the termi- 
 nation zo enforces rather than diminishes the meaning of a 
 word, and ' seems generally to denote the transferring to 
 another, or performing upon another, the thing designated.' 
 Yery well ', let us try the rule. On page 44, he says : 
 ^ Bapto means to dye.^ Then, of course, haptidzo means 
 to make one dye. This is his rule, and sufficiently absurd 
 it is. 
 
 ^^ Dr. Gale takes the ground that the two words are 
 exactly the same in signification. Therefore, when we prove 
 by Dr. Carson that hapto means to dye, and does not mean 
 mode, we add Dr. Gale's testimony, and prove that haptidzo 
 does not mean mode. Thus the Baptist doctors destroy 
 themselves/' 
 
166 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 ^' Stop, Mr. Mason," said Tlieopliilus ; ^' is it possible that 
 sucli diiFerences of opinion exist among the Baptists ?" 
 
 '' Indeed it is, Theophilus. Here are the books. You can 
 examine for yourself." 
 
 '^ I am astonished, sir, at the audacity of these teachers of 
 immersion. They assert over and over again that their sys- 
 tem is as clearly established as the truth of the Bible, and 
 yet I see that they are compelled to deatroy it, whilst they 
 are laboring to prove it !" 
 
 ^^It is just so, Theophilus. Their often-repeated boasts 
 of destroying Pedobaptist doctrines by the testimony of their 
 own advocates is retorted upon them with tenfold power. 
 
 '^But we return to the subject in hand. Dr. Gale gives 
 up the mode of diiyping in the following language: ^The 
 word hapti?:o, perhaps, does not so necessarily express the 
 action of putting under water, as in general a thing be- 
 ing in that condition, no matter how it comes so, whether 
 it is put into the water, or the water comes over it.^ This 
 view he labors to establish, and, as far as the classics go, he 
 is very near the truth. With a little modification I am 
 willing to receive it. 
 
 ^^ My position is this : that hapto being used originally to 
 express the act of dyeing without indicating the mode, 
 haptidzo was used to express the overwhelming of a person 
 or thing either with or in water : it being indifferent in 
 the first case whether the dyeing fluid was applied to the 
 thing dyed, or whether the thing dyed was applied to the 
 fluid ; so in the last case it was indifferent whether the 
 water was applied to the object, or the object to the 
 water : the result is the same. That the derivative in this 
 case must mean either less or more than the primitive verb, 
 is an opinion which seems to me wholly without evidence. 
 The termination zo neither adds any thing to nor does it 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 167 
 
 take any thing from the root, by virtue of any rule known in 
 the Greek hmguage. The primitive verb raino, for instance, 
 means to sprinkle, rain upon, to bedew, wet, etc. ; and its 
 derivative, rantidzo, means also to wet, sprinkle, bedew. 
 So also, the primitive verb Jcatliairo means to cleanse, purify, 
 etc., and the derivative, katharidzo, means the same. These 
 are to some extent analogous words, and prove conclusively 
 that hajytidzo neitKer gains nor loses any thing by virtue of 
 its final syllable. That there may be particular instances in 
 which derivatives increase or diminish the meaning of their 
 roots, I do not doubt ; but that there is any ride for such 
 changes, I do not believe. The use of the word is the only 
 method known to us in any language by which we can as- 
 certain its meaning. The use of haptidzo, as we have 
 already seen by Dr. Gale's testimony, in the classic writers 
 does not limit it to the expression of mode, but condition, 
 the general sense being that of overwhelming . 
 
 ^' Dr. Carson, however, comes in collision. with his Baptist 
 brother, and does not hesitate in setting up his opinion 
 against the whole learned world. Hear his language : 
 'My position is, that it (baj^tidzo) always signifies to dip: 
 never expressing any thing hut 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.' — Page 55. A. 
 modest 'position,' truly!" 
 
 '^ Does Dr. Carson say that ? Why, sir, I have heard 
 Baptists appeal to lexicons as ultimate authority, and declare 
 that they are unanimous in their favor !" 
 
 '' Yes, I suppose you have, often. But here are the 
 words of the Bev. Dr. Alexander Carson, flying in the face 
 of all the lexicons, dictionaries, and commentators who have 
 lived for sixteen hundred years past. And why does he do 
 it ? Simply because they will not prove his position ! He 
 
168 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 appeals to the classics, and if lie meets a hard case, he gets 
 over it by the help of poetry and liyperhole, or calmly sits 
 down, and says. Well, I don't know where it is, but dip is 
 here somewhere : it must be here, for I have said so ! 
 
 ^^An accurate scholar would be at a loss to affix any modal 
 meaning to this word haptldzo in the classics. The Baptists 
 bring up a long array of names, from Homer down, to sus- 
 tain their favorite idea dip. Nearly all the passages they 
 quote, however, only establish the fact that plunging, not 
 dipping, is the sense in which the word is sometimes used. 
 Josephus tells us of a certain vessel which was baptized, and 
 the crew swam to the shore. The vessel was sunk, not dip- 
 ped : it was overwhelmed by the waves. Aristotle speaks of 
 a certain coast which was baptized by the water coming over 
 it. This was certainly not dipping the land in the water, 
 but the overwhelming of the land by the water. Here we 
 have two examples, expressing the same general sense, but 
 still requiring two opposite modes of performance. In the 
 first case the ship sank in the water : in the last the water 
 overflowed the land. 
 
 '^ I might quote a number of passages in proof of my position, 
 but I think it unnecessary. Whatever idea or ideas heathen 
 G-reeks may have attached to the word, it is plain they knew 
 nothing of the Christian idea which belongs to it. To say 
 that it means nothing but mode is to say that Aristotle, Plato, 
 and Theocritus knew as much about baptism as Matthew, and 
 Mark, and John. Unless the word has some sacred mean- 
 ing, unless there is a peculiar sense in which it is to be un- 
 derstood, it is impossible that it should convey to our minds 
 a distinct ordinance or command of Christ. Nothing can be 
 plainer than this fact ; and yet upon this feature of the sub- 
 ject Baptist writers not only contradict each other, but they 
 pointedly contradict themselves. Let me give you an ex- 
 ample. I will quote from the thirty-second page of Dr. Fuller's 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 169 
 
 book on Baptism. He says : 'Another plea, sometimes urged, 
 would be amusing if the subject were not too solemn. It is 
 tliat haptidzo has a sacred meaning ; that is to say, it meant 
 immerse until Jesus used it, and then all at once it got to 
 mean something else. If this absurdity were admitted, it 
 would make the Scriptures utterly worthless, since nobody 
 could know what Jesus meant.' Here, you will notice, he 
 says that this idea of attaching a sacred sense to the word 
 would be amusing, if it were not for the solemniiy of the 
 subject. The Doctor, however, while he does not feel will- 
 ing to laugli at what he is pleased to term 'ridiculous 
 sophistry,' does not hesitate to brand it as an ^impiefi/, which 
 ought to fill "a pious mind with liorror V To what extent 
 ignorance ought to shield a man of great pretensions from 
 rebuke, I am not able to say, but I think it ought not to be 
 considered a just excuse for condemning his own words. 
 Let us hear this Doctor on page 209 : ' Properly administered, 
 baptism is a most speaking ordinance. It is beautifully em- 
 blematical of Christ's death and resurrection, and of our own 
 dying unto sin, and rising to a new life !' Did haptidzo 
 represent the death and burial of Christ a thousand years be- 
 fore he was born ? Did it typify our death and rising again, 
 when it was used by heathen writers ? If not, then it has 
 certainly acquired this meaning, and it must, therefore, be 
 sacred, inasmuch as the facts which it represents are sacred. 
 The word ' signifies to immerse, and it has no other mean- 
 ing.' So says Dr. Fuller. Yet at the same time it is a 
 beautiful emblem of Christ's death and resurrection ! So 
 says Dr. Fuller. At the same time, too, it has no sacred 
 meaning ! So, also, says Dr. Fuller. Now, this emblemati- 
 cal sense was either always in the word, before it became the 
 name of an ordinance, or else it has acquired it since. If it 
 has acquired it, what is this but a new and sacred meaning 
 to a heathen word ? Dr. Fuller admits that this word alone 
 8 
 
170 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 is used iu the New Testament to designate baptism, but still, 
 at one moment, be affirms that it means no more in Matthew 
 than it does in Homer, while at another he gives it a meaning 
 that no heathen ever dreamed of. Such is the consistency of 
 this assuming writer. One other of his numerous absurdities 
 I will notice. Endeavoring to prove that words have 7io 
 New Testament meaning, other than the classical sense, he 
 says that Trvevjia, (^pneuma,~) which every Greek scholar knows 
 originally meant wind, ^ meant s^nrit when Christ used it.' 
 You will recollect that he contends a word cannot mean more 
 than one thing : how, then, could the word loneuma mean 
 spirit when Christ used it ? It is folly to deny that it was or- 
 dinarily used and understood to mean wind in the days of 
 our Saviour. But Dr. Fuller says it meant spirit. Christ 
 paid to Nicodemus, 'The icind (jrvevfjia) bloweth where it 
 listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not 
 tell whence it cometh nor whither it goeth ; so is every one 
 that is born of the Spirit,' (livevim.) Dr. Fuller would 
 have it read, ' The Spirit bloweth where it listeth,' or, 'so is 
 every one that is born of the icind !' He must reject one of 
 the two meanings : he must make nonsense of the passage, 
 or else admit that a word may have two meanings. Yet he 
 tells us that it is impiety, sophistry, and folly to affirm such 
 a thing ! What marvellous critics these Baptists make V 
 
 " This Dr. Fuller stands high among the Baptists, Mr. 
 Mason," said Theophilus; "but really I would be ashamed 
 of such blunders as he appears to make. Is he a scholar?" 
 
 " I do not know, Theophilus. Every Baptist preacher as- 
 serts that he understands the word hajytidzo, and although 
 he cannot put a dozen sentences together without violating 
 the rules of grammar, he becomes, ex officio, a critic in the 
 G-reek language. As for Dr. Fuller, I am inclined to the be- 
 lief, expressed by himself, that 'incurable prejudices are 
 often found in men of erudition, whose piety we see and ad- 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 171 
 
 mire in many things/ Tliis is tlie answer which he gives 
 to the question, '■ Why do Pedobaptists adhere to their opin- 
 ions on the subject of baptism?' It is the most charitable 
 solution of his own extravagant assertions and unproved 
 positions. 
 
 " But enough of Dr. Fuller and his errors. I have said, 
 and it is admitted by Dr. Carson, that the use of a word, 
 which may be then current, is the only standard by which 
 we can arrive at its meaning. What would you think of a 
 man who would call you a candid villain, Theophilus?" 
 
 '^ Why, that he either did not understand English, or else 
 intended to insult me." 
 
 '^ That would be a fair inference, either way, provided you 
 mean modern English, Theophilus. But you must recollect 
 that villain originally meant a tenant, one who held land by 
 a servile tenure. The two classes of English villeins are 
 clearly described, and their rights and duties pointed out, in 
 Blackstone's Commentaries. As for the word candid, you know 
 it is from the Latin candidus, and primarily meant white, 
 so that a candid villain was only a white tenant a few hun- 
 dred years ago. So, also, if you were called a franh man, 
 you would not now understand that you were considered a 
 Frenchman. Yet the word frank was once only used in 
 this sense. The word scruj)le, from the Latin, once meant a 
 little pebble, which crept into the sandals of the soldiers and 
 caused them to limp : now it means a doubt or hesitation. 
 The word hoor originally meant a farmer; a varlet 'was a 
 servant, only; a churl was a strong/ man ; but now, all these 
 terms are opprobrious epithets. So, also, the English word 
 let, originally meant to hinder : now it means to permit. 
 Prevent once meant to go before, for the purpose of assisting : 
 now it means to go before for the purpose of hindering. 
 This last word has changed its meaning within three cen 
 turies past, as also has the word let, for we find both of 
 
172 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 tliem used in tlie English Bible in" their primary sense, and 
 many writers of the last century used prevent in its original 
 sense. '^ 
 
 "I remember reading a valuable little work by Mr. 
 Trench, on the study of words, which mentions some of 
 these terms. But do you think the word haptize has 
 changed its meaning, Mr. Mason ?" 
 
 " No, Theophilus, I was only adducing these examples to 
 show you how unreasonably Baptist critics argue upon the 
 subject of baptism. The ordinance of Christ, in its funda- 
 mental character, has not changed, of course. Still, in 
 different ages, the modes of its administration have changed. 
 In accordance with the views of Christian teachers, in 
 diiferent ages, certain modes, more or less significant of a 
 particular theory, have been customary. This diversity of 
 practice, as to the mode, reaches back to the very first ages 
 of the Church, after the apostolic times. Yet there is not 
 a shadow of proof that the mode in use was considered essen- 
 tial to the ordinance, disallowing and repudiating all others, 
 as do our Baptist friends. When we come to examine the 
 history of the ordinance, I shall show you where their i\\Qory 
 originated, and icho was the author of it.^' 
 
 '^ 0, you mean to trace it to Munzer and Buccold, do 
 you ? The Baptists deny their German origin." 
 
 <^ No matter what they deny, Theophilus, I will bring the 
 authorities, which cannot be controverted. I will show you, 
 however, their theory in existence before the time of the 
 German Anabaptists, although they were the modern re- 
 vivers of it. 
 
 ^^But we must keep to the matter in hand now. The 
 only way in which we can arrive at a definite idea of the 
 meaning of [3anrL^(o in the New Testament, is to ascertain 
 the design of the ordinance. Upon this point an error will 
 mislead us. I believe the Baptists generally agree that 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 173 
 
 baptism is the door into the Cliurcli, and that it is an em- 
 blem of the death, burial^ and resurrection of Christ, sym- 
 bolizing our death to sin, and rising again to a life of holi- 
 ness. This is, I believe, their idea of the design which 
 Christ had in view when he gave the commandment. They 
 do not, however, pretend that there is any positive explana- 
 tion of this symbol in the Bible. The nearest approach to 
 it is a remark made by Paul, in his letter to the Romans, 
 where he speaks of a burial with Christ in baptism, and a 
 rising again to a new life. This is a famous text with 
 immersionists, and I shall examine it in detail at the proper 
 time. We will now turn our attention to the account given 
 by the Evangelists of the baptism which John administered 
 — its design and mode. You may take the Bible, and look 
 over the third chapter of Matthew, whilst I look over the 
 G-reek Testament.'^ 
 
 ^' That suits my views exactly," said Theophilus, " for I 
 am confident that this question ought to be settled alone by 
 Bible testimony." 
 
 ^' The first thing that strikes our attention is the name 
 which was given to John, that is 6 (iairriorrig, the Baptist. 
 ^ In those days came John the Baptist.' The Grreek word, 
 as defined by the lexicons, means a di/er, or one that dips. 
 This was its classieal meaning, but it is very evident that he 
 was not a dyer ; therefore our Baptist friends say he was a 
 dipper, and if the word had been translated, it would read 
 John the Dij>per. But it is still a difficult matter to make 
 sense of the passage with this definition. Mark says, ac- 
 cording to this view, ^ John did dip in the wilderness, and 
 preach the dipyping of repentance for the remission of sins.' 
 If we understand the words literally, the wilderness was the 
 element into which he dipped. But this is absurd. If 
 there had been any baptizers before John, why was he dis- 
 tinguished by that peculiar name? Why was he selected 
 
174 TIIEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 as tlie only man to wliom tlie title was given ? It is very 
 evident, tlien, tliat whatever may have been the mode of 
 the baptism which he administered, there was something 
 new, and hitherto unexplained, in the design, of his baptism. 
 Now the question occurs. Did John establish a Church ? 
 If so, who were the members of it ? Where is it stated in 
 the Bible that such a Church was established by him ? If 
 there is no proof that there was such a Church, his baptism 
 could not be a door. Another remarkable fact in connection 
 with this part of our inquiry is, that there is no reason to 
 believe, from the sacred text, that any one received the 
 remission of his sins in consequence of this baptism. 
 Though it is called a baptism of repentance unto remission 
 of sins, and the people are plainly said to have confessed 
 their sins, it is not said that any one of them was pardoned, 
 that there was any change of heart or spiritual work 
 wrought in the hearts of his disciples, beyond a conviction 
 of sin, and personal necessity of a Saviour. This seems to 
 have been the extent of John's dispensation. It was a pre- 
 paratory work, for which he was divinely commissioned, and 
 at the proper time he entered upon the discharge of his 
 duties. John was himself the subject of prophecy, for in 
 the third chapter of Malachi we read : ^ Behold, I will send 
 my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me; and 
 the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple.^ 
 Accordingly John opens his message with these words : 
 ^ Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.' The 
 Pharisees sent to him and inquired if he was the Christ, and 
 upon his declaring that he was not, they asked : ' Why 
 haptizest thou, then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, 
 neither that prophet V From this text it is plain that the 
 Jews expected Christ would baptize when he came ; where, 
 then, did they receive this idea ? Did they not receive it 
 from such passages as the thirty-sixth of Ezekiel, ^ Then will 
 
THE MAJESTY OP TRUTH. 175 
 
 I sprinJdc dean icater ujjon you, and yc shall he dean?* 
 Here the cleansing of the people is distinctly declared to be 
 oue of the blessings of Christ's kingdom. But in the chap- 
 ter which I have quoted from Malachi it is said that the 
 Lord ' shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he 
 shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and 
 silver.' In the third chapter of John we read the following 
 statement : ' Then there arose a question between some of 
 John's disciples and the Jews, about purifying, and they 
 came unto John, and said unto him, Eabbi, he that was with 
 thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, 
 the same haptizeth, and all 'men come unto him/ Here, a 
 question about purifying is stated to be a question about 
 baptizing, showing very forcibly that a purification of the 
 subject was synonymous in their minds with the baptizing 
 of him. 
 
 ^' From these scriptural facts, I think we may draw the 
 following conclusions : 1. Water was used among the Jews 
 as the emblem of purification. 2. They expected the 
 Messiah to purify the hearts of the people, and that this 
 work would be accomplished through an outward, visible 
 ordinance. 3. Therefore they expected Christ to baptize. 
 Consequently they supposed John to be the Christ, until he 
 denied it. But John, to show them that the ceremonial 
 law, in which they rested, and by which they expected to be 
 justified, was not competent to the cleansing of their hearts 
 from sin, declared to them that he baptized with water, but 
 that the one who should follow him would baptize with the 
 Holy Spirit and with fire. As if he had said. This baptism 
 which I administer is an outward work only, and is simply 
 typical of that work which the Messiah shall perform in 
 your hearts by the operation of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 '' Notwithstanding the Jews had practiced a sort of bap- 
 tism, by which, in conjunction with circumcision, proselytes 
 
176 THEOPIIILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 were brought under the covenant of Israel, this baptism of 
 John was wholly new to them, in the manner of its admin- 
 istration, the suhjects of it, and the design of it. It was 
 new to them in its manner, because it id as performed upon 
 the subjects by an administrator. No priest had ever bap- 
 tized a proselyte; on the contrary, the proselyte in every 
 case baptized himself. Hence we have the reason why 
 John was called the baptizer — simply because he baptized 
 his subjects. In the next place, the subjects of this baptism 
 were not proselytes, they were native Jews; they did not 
 make any change in jtheir faith — they had always believed 
 that the Messiah was to come, and John declared to them 
 that he was at that time among them, and would be made 
 manifest. Confessing their sins, therefore, they received 
 baptism as a sign of regeneration, and a seal of their faith in 
 the refiner and purifier of the heart, the Messiah, who was 
 shortly to be revealed. In the last place, it was new to 
 them, in that it was declared to be only a symbol, a type, 
 not the substance, not the cleansing agent, but only repre- 
 sentative of the truly purifying power. They had lost sight 
 of the spiritual meaning of nearly all their ceremonial ob- 
 servances, and, as a people, looked for justification in the 
 law : John's ministry, therefore, was designed to bring them 
 back to the true design of the Mosaic law, and in the ordi- 
 nance which he administered he distinctly showed them 
 that all mere physical acts do not purify the heart. 
 
 '^ John tells us himself why he baptized : 'And I knew 
 him not; but that he should be made manifest to Israel, 
 THEREFORE am, I come baptizing with water. ^ This was the 
 grand object of John's ministry, to make Christ manifest to 
 Israel. This was done in two ways. 1. By shoicing the 
 abolition of the ceremonial laio. By the confession of their 
 sins, the people acknowledged that their sacrifices and 
 ofi"erings had not cleansed their hearts. In baptizing them, 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 177 
 
 Jolin positively affirmed that water could not cleanse them 
 from sin ; and thus the insufficiency of Moses' law being con- 
 fessed by the people, and the inadequacy of any mere cere- 
 mony being asserted by John, the abrogation of all ceremo- 
 nial rites as the means of salvation was clearly indicated. 
 2, Christ was made manifest personally, hy his oion baptism 
 at the hands of John. He was thus declared to be the 
 Anointed, the Baptizer, who, by the baptism of the Holy 
 Ghost, would purify the people effectually from their sins. 
 Thus he was set apart to be for ever the High Priest, who, 
 after his ministrations on earth, should enter the Holy of 
 Holies, and for ever remain as the intercessor and advocate 
 of all who come to God through him, ' ever living to make 
 intercession.' 
 
 '^ Here, then, we have a reasonable, consistent explana- 
 tion of the design of the baptism of John, and I think a 
 candid examination of all the passages in the Bible relating 
 to the subject will confirm all that I have said.'' 
 
 "I am truly glad, Mr. Mason," said Theophilus, " ihn,t 
 you have explained this subject so satisfactorily. I have 
 always been in doubt about the object of John's baptism; 
 but now I think the whole matter is perfectly plain. I see 
 now zohi/ there was a difference between this and the 
 Christian baptism ; I see why it is called a baptism of 
 repejitance : because their acknowledgment of sin was 
 equivalent to an acknowledgment that their Jewish types 
 were only representative, and after the strictest performance 
 left them still in sin. I see ivhythe baptism was performed, 
 both to show the inadequacy of their rites, and to point out 
 the perfect competency of the healing agent. I see also 
 ivhi/ Jesus was baptized, which I never could learn before. 
 I am indeed thankful that you have taken the trouble to give 
 me this information. Still, however, there is one more diffi- 
 culty to be solved — the mode of John's baptism; what was it ?" 
 8* 
 
178 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 ^^ Well, Theoplnlus, I will try to throw some light upon 
 that subject, too. You know that the Baptists contend, and 
 they quote Pedobaptist writers to support them, that the 
 Jewish proselyte baptism was immersion, and therefore that 
 was the mode which John practiced. The Jewish proselyte 
 baptism was an outward act, indicative of a change of state 
 or allegiance from the worship of false gods, heathen deities, 
 to the worship of the only true Grod. It is true that the 
 act was immersion in water; but it was not dqtpmg in 
 water. In the case of the adult proselyte there was no 
 administrator — the man immersed himself. Here, then, 
 were two points of difference. The Jews were not heathen 
 idolaters : their allegiance or religious accountability was not 
 affected by their baptism. They did not change one object 
 of worship for another — they only acknowledged the unfit- 
 ness of certain means of obtaining the favor of God, by 
 embracing the substance which had been constantly sha- 
 dowed forth in their law. And they were baptized by 
 John ; not by themselves. These differences are obvious. 
 It was, indeed, imjjossihle that a Jeio should receive prose- 
 lyte baptism. If, then, heathens who embraced the true 
 religion immersed themselves, does it follow that John 
 immersed the Jews ? Certainly not. The mode of his 
 baptism has nothing whatever to do with the mode of initiat- 
 ing a proselyte. Another matter must determine the 
 particular act which John performed in baptizing. This act 
 must be determined by considering the mode of the spiritual 
 baptism, for there must always be a resemblance between the 
 sign and the thing signified. Now, I have said that John's 
 ordinance was a sign of regeneration, and a seal of faith in 
 a Christ to come. The emblematical uses of water in the 
 purifications of the law, all distinctly pointed out the cleans- 
 ing agency of the Holy Spirit; and there is not a solitary 
 instance in the Bible in which the baptism of the Holy 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 179 
 
 Spirit is said to be an immersion. We read in Joel^ tliat 
 the Spirit sliall he jwin^cd out ; we hear Peter declaring that 
 the prophecy was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost; and we 
 hear Paul, in his letter to the Hebrews, talking of their 
 having their hearts sprinhhd from an evil conscience ; but 
 in no one instance are we told that our hearts are immersed 
 in the Holy Spirit. No such form of speech is used; no 
 Buch mode alluded to, in reference to the cleansing of the 
 heart from the defilements of sin. If, then, the baptism of 
 the Holy Spirit is never said to be an immersion , water bap- 
 tism, to represent the spiritual work, must not be immersion. 
 This follows^ as a matter of course, and the only ground of 
 exception must be as to the thing signified in baptism. 
 This, our Baptist friends say, is not the work of the Holy 
 Spirit, but the death, hurled, and resurrection of Christ. 
 At the same time, some of them stoutly contend that the 
 baptism of John and the Christian ordinance are identical. 
 If this be true, John was doubtless ignorant of it, as were 
 all the apostles, for they give us not a remote hint of such 
 identity, nor of the death, burial, and resurrection, which 
 are said to be plainly represented in the ordinance. Indeed, 
 it is absurd to say that John immersed persons in token of 
 the death of Christ before John himself knew who the 
 Christ was. Add to this the absurdity of immersing Christ, 
 in representation of his own death, and thus admitting him 
 through the door into his own Church, and we have 
 absurdities enough to destroy any proposition in logic. 
 Unless baptism is allowed to be something beside and even 
 different from the door of the Church, these difficulties can- 
 not be avoided. 
 
 ^^ We cannot admit that John's baptism was typical of 
 Christ's death for many other reasons, the strongest of 
 which is that the Holy Scriptures do not say so ; and nothin 
 can be found from which any such inference can be drawn j 
 
 cr 
 
180 
 
 on tlie contrary, Paul makes, in the nineteenth of Acts, the 
 same distinction which John made himself ; and our Lord, 
 a short time previous to his ascension, confirmed the lan- 
 guage of John, and authorized the act of Paul. Against 
 such testimony no man can place his vague fancies. 
 
 " But I perceive, Theophilus, that it is time for us to dis- 
 miss. We shall meet here again to-morrow night, and con- 
 tinue this branch of the subject.'* 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 181 
 
 CHAPTER Xiy. 
 
 A TEST QUESTION. 
 
 The Sabbath was a calm, beautiful day, and the worship- 
 pers at the sanctuary of Grod were many. The Rev. Mr. 
 Williams, the local preacher, to whom allusion has before 
 been made, occupied the pulpit of the Methodist church, 
 and preached in demonstration of the Spirit and in power. 
 He was in the home of his youth ; the spot to which his 
 heart had often turned when in a distant land ; and the 
 well-remembered forms of those with whom he united at the 
 throne of grace had often visited him in his moments of 
 gloom and dejection. Once more he was with them, look- 
 ing upon the bright faces of the happy children, and gazing 
 upon the countenances of friends who had loved and 
 cherished him in his old home. 
 
 The many touching allusions to the beloved dead who 
 once worshipped there, and the glorious prospect of reunion 
 in that land where death can never come, and where separa- 
 tion will be known no more, produced a deep sensation in 
 the congregation. At the close of the sermon, Mr. Williams 
 stated that he had been requested by the pastor to lead in 
 the administration of the Lord's supper. In doing so he 
 had but one remark to make. The table which was spread 
 before them was the Lord's table; it belonged to no denomi- 
 nation. In approaching it with humble hearts, he invited 
 all the children of God, all the redeemed of Jesus, by 
 
182 TIIEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 whatever name they might be called, to unite with him. 
 And whilst they ate the bread and drank the wine, in token 
 of a common Saviour's sufferings and death, he exhorted 
 them to look forward, with an eye of faith, to that perpetual 
 feast in which they should be allowed to drink the new 
 wine in the kingdom of heaven. 
 
 It was a solemn season. That sorrow, mingled with joy, 
 which the humble Christian ever feels when contemplating 
 the tragedy of the crucifixion, thrilled every heart that re- 
 ceived in the meekness of faith the solemn testimonials of 
 a Saviour's love. The audible thanksgivings of the commu- 
 nicants, mingled with the acknowledgments of unworthiness, 
 ascended to the heavenly hills, and clouds of mercy de- 
 scended in refreshing showers to many souls. 
 
 Among those who knelt at the altar was the mother of 
 Mr. Williams, a lady advanced in years, with trembling 
 limbs and feeble voice, yet possessing a heart upon whose 
 altar burned the fire of devotion. She received the em- 
 blems of the broken body and shed blood, and lifting up her 
 face towards heaven, thanked the Lord of life and glory 
 for his condescending mercy. From her own son's hands 
 she received the symbols, and she felt that the privilege was 
 a source of joy to her widowed heart. 
 
 Mr. Williams preached again at night, and the services of 
 the day closed with undoubted evidences of usefulness and 
 profit. Early on Monday morning, however, tlie study of 
 I\Ir. Ellis was filled with an apparently busy company. We 
 shall conduct the reader thither. 
 
 '•'■ I told you how it would be,'^ said Deacon Smith, '■'■ this 
 u.pstart of a Methodist preacher has enticed his mother up to 
 commune with the Methodists. I was there. I saw it all.'^ 
 
 " It is unfortunately true, brethren," said Mr. Ellis ) ^' Sis- 
 ter Williams has been guilty of a gross violation of church 
 order.'' 
 
THE MAJESTY OE TRUTH. 183 
 
 " Slie lias (lone precisely as slie said she would do/^ re- 
 joined Mr. Fleming, '^ and / say that 1 cannot find it in my 
 heart to blame her for it.'^ 
 
 " Nor I, either/' added Mr. Barbour : '' had I been in her 
 place, no power on earth should have prevented me from 
 communing with my own child." 
 
 '^ Perhaps you will try the experiment,'' said Mr. Ellis ; 
 '^ and if so, you will see what will become of you." 
 
 ^' If I never commit a greater sin than that. Brother Ellis," 
 replied the young man, "I will never go down sorrowing to 
 ]iiy grave !" 
 
 "But you will go out of the Baptist Church I" ex- 
 claimed Mr. Ellis. 
 
 "Perhaps so; and peradventure those who would put me 
 out might eventually find themselves excluded from a hcttp.r 
 Church, where all the children of the kingdom sit down 
 with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." 
 
 "Come, brethren," said Mr. Newton, "there is no place 
 for such retorts here. We have a grave and important fact 
 before us. One of our most worthy, respected Church- 
 members has publicly violated the established rules of our 
 Church. What are we to do with her? That is the 
 question." 
 
 " What can we do with her, but bring her up before the 
 Church for trial ?" asked Deacon Smith. " If we allow this 
 case to pass, others will occur, and no one knows what the 
 end might be." 
 
 " It might end in cutting us loose from those manacles of 
 bigotry which have subjected us to the opposition of the 
 Christian world," said Mr. Barbour. 
 
 " There is no Christian world outside of the Baptist 
 Church !" exclaimed Deacon Smith ; " and whoever says 
 there is, is not a true Baptist 1" The Deacon's voice be- 
 trayed great excitement. 
 
184 THEOPHILUS WALTONj OR, 
 
 ^'Verily, ^ye are the people, and wisdom will die with 
 you/ " replied Mr. Barbour. 
 
 ''Brethren/' said Mr. Newton, "I beg of you, for my 
 sake, for Christ's sake, to stop. You pain me by such con- 
 versation. It is evident that Sister Williams has done wrong : 
 if she will not publicly acknowledge that wrong, much as it 
 grieves me, I feel that our duty requires her expulsion." 
 
 '' You are rio^ht, brother Newton/' said the Deacon : 
 " there is no use to mince the matter. The case must come 
 up. It must be tried.'' 
 
 ''Do you charge her with the oifence ?" asked Mr. Ellis. 
 
 " To be sure I do, for I saw her commit it with my own 
 eyes," replied the Deacon. 
 
 " We can hardly let you be accuser and witness both, 
 Brother Smith/' remarked Mr. Ellis. "Did anyone else 
 see her ?" 
 
 "Yes; there were two other members of our Church 
 there." 
 
 " Will they testify ?" 
 
 " Of course they will. How can they help it ? They 
 told me to bring up the case, and they would be ready." 
 
 "Then we must attend to it," said the pastor. "Next 
 Saturday is our monthly meeting. Shall we have the trial 
 then ?" 
 
 "The sooner the better," replied the Deacon. 
 
 " Well, let it be so understood, then. But see here, breth- 
 ren," continued Mr. Ellis, " this is a family affair : be careful 
 not to speak of it outside. I would not have that Method- 
 ist circuit-rider to witness the trial, for — a year's salary !" 
 
 The party continued in conversation a considerable time, 
 after which they dispersed. 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 185 
 
 CHAPTER XY. 
 
 CARRIE mason's REVIEW CONTINUED. 
 
 On Tuesday afternoou, tlie place of meeting at Mr. 
 Riley's was very nearly filled; as it was understood that Miss 
 Mason intended to continue her examination of Theodosia 
 Ernest's witnesses, according to appointment. Several per- 
 sons were present this afternoon for the first time. 
 
 ^^We are anxious that you should begin, Miss Carrie/' 
 said Mr. Price. " I think you have a difficult task before 
 you, and the sooner you commence it, the more time you will 
 have to accomplish it.'' 
 
 ^'Indeed! Mr. Price," said Carrie; ^^and you think I 
 have a difficult task before me, do you ? In what respect 
 is it so difficult ?" 
 
 " Why, Miss Carrie/' replied Mr. Price, " I have been 
 looking over the book myself, and I do not see how you are 
 to avoid the testimony of such men as Dr. Chalmers, Martin 
 Luther, and John Wesley. They give pretty strong evi- 
 dence in favor of immersion." 
 
 '^Well, Mr. Price," responded Carrie, ^^we shall see di- 
 rectly what the testimony is worth. I believe it is a rule in 
 courts of justice that a witness can give his testimony first, 
 in the main examination, and then the opposing counsel has 
 the right to cross-examine him. Am I correct ?" 
 
 ^' Certainly, Miss Mason," replied Mr. Price ; " we must 
 receive all of a witness's testimony, or none. Both sides 
 have the right to cross-examine." 
 
186 TIIEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 ^' Yery well, then. We have seen Mr. Barnes's testimony 
 set aside, whatever it may amount to. We have detected 
 two blunders in his criticisms, and therefore wish to use the 
 witness no further. The next one brought forward by Mr. 
 Percy is Dr. Macknight. The testimony of this witness is 
 that Paul, the apostle, in the sixth chapter of Romans, 
 when he speaks of being ' buried with Christ in baptism,' 
 alludes to baptism by immersion. This is the amount of Dr. 
 Macknight's testimony; and so far, we admit, the testimony 
 is in favor of the Baptists. But this is no more than many 
 others have done, who did not therefore abandon baptism by 
 aifusion. Now, suppose we interrogate the witness by way 
 of cross-examination. You believe that the word hcq^tidzo 
 in Greek means to immerse, do you ? I certainly do, says 
 the Doctor in his Notes on the Epistles. Well, do you be- 
 lieve that it means nothing else, Doctor ? that's the question. 
 And here we are answered by the facts of the case. Mac- 
 knight was a Scotch Presbyterian, belonged to a Church 
 which practiced baptism by affusion, and Dr. Macknight 
 practiced it himself. Now, then, could a good man, a pious 
 man, practice a mode of baptism which he did not believe to 
 be baptism ? Is the answer not evident ? Dr. Macknight 
 believed that immersion was alluded to in certain places of 
 the New Testament ; but at the same time he believed that 
 it was not the only mode of baptism.'' 
 
 ^^ But then, the Baptists say that his inconsistency is not 
 chargeable to them. If he believed one thing and practiced 
 another, it is his fault, not theirs." 
 
 " Very true, Mr. Price ; but what is it that this witness 
 believes ?" 
 
 '^ That baptism is immersion in water, if we are to credit 
 his language." 
 
 ^' No, Mr. Price, he does not say that; but he admits that 
 immersion is haj^tismJ' 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 187 
 
 ^^ Well, Miss Carrie, begging your pardon for my plain- 
 ness, I cannot see any difference. If immersion is baptism, 
 then baptism is immersion V 
 
 "1 see yom* mistake, Mr. Price, '^ replied Carrie; ^^you 
 take the two words as precisely equal in their signification, 
 and of course, if such be the case, whatever one means, the 
 other means also : this is the Baptist view of the subject. 
 But observe, there is this difference between the two 
 parties : one contends that immersion is all that haiJtidzo 
 means, whilst the other admits that it is ^ part of the mean- 
 ing of the word. That is all that has ever been granted to 
 Baptists by Pedobaptists. And what can they make of it ? 
 Just nothing at all. 
 
 '^ Suppose, for instance, I tell you that Mr. Lawrence 
 travelled from Maryville to Kingston in a day : would you 
 understand by that expression the particular mode which 
 Mr. Lawrence used V 
 
 " Certainly not. Miss Carrie ; he might have travelled on 
 horseback, on foot, in a buggy, or in a carriage.'^ 
 
 " Yery well, Mr. Price ; is the action the same when a 
 man travels on foot as when he travels in a buggy ?" 
 
 '^ Of course not. Miss Carrie," said Mr. Price ; " in the 
 first case he is active, and moves forward himself; in 
 the second he is passive, and is drawn forward by the 
 horse.'' 
 
 " Exactly so, Mr. Price. And yet you call both of these 
 modes, the active and the passive, by the generic term 
 travel ?'' 
 
 " Yes.'' 
 
 " Y'^ell, now, what would you think of the man who 
 should contend that there was but one way to travel, and 
 that way on foot ?" 
 
 ^' I should think that he was simply trifling." 
 
 ^' But suppose he should bring forward some authorities 
 
188 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 on his side; say, for instance, tlie great traveller, Bayard 
 Taylor. Suppose he takes Mr. Taylor's book, ' Views 
 Afoot,' and proves that Mr. Taylor travelled over several 
 countries in Europe on foot, and then argues that because 
 Bayard Taylor travelled over England on foot, that he 
 travelled over Egypt, Palestine, India, China, and Japan in 
 the very same way ?" 
 
 ^' I should say that his argument would be very absurd. '^ 
 
 ^' But what if he should go farther still, and give Mr. 
 Taylor as testimony that travelling on foot is the only mode 
 in existence V 
 
 ^' That is hardly a possible supposition, Miss Carrie,'' 
 replied Mr. Price; ^^no one could attempt such a foolish 
 argument as that.'' 
 
 '' You are mistaken, Mr. Price ; the Baptists do this very 
 thing in reference to baptism. They first set out with the 
 assumption that the Grreek word haptidzo is a specific word, 
 meaning mode, and nothing else ; in which position they 
 are opposed by the great mass of learned men of all ages. 
 Every English dictionary in existence is against them as to 
 the meaning of the English word baptize ; every Greek 
 lexicon that has been published is against them as to the 
 meaning of the Greek word haptidzo; and yet they quote 
 these lexicons, as far as suits them, but no farther; and 
 then bring up those passages in Pedobaptist authors which 
 speak of immersion, omitting every thing on the other side, 
 and endeavor to make it appear that both lexicons and 
 authors are on their side. 
 
 ^^If because Dr. Macknight admits that immersion is 
 baptism, and if he thinks immersion was the ordinary prac- 
 tice of the ancient Church, we are to conclude that the doc- 
 tor denies that any thing else is baptism, then, because 
 Bayard Taylor says he travelled on foot in certain countries, 
 we are to conclude that he thus travelled everywhere he 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 189 
 
 went, and it follows that Mr. Taylor allows no otlier mode of 
 travelling." 
 
 "But stop, Miss Carrie/^ said Mr. Price; "is it certain 
 that all the lexicons are against the Baptists as to the mean- 
 ing of haptldzo?''^ 
 
 " She is certainly right/^ answered Theophilus ; " for the 
 Baptists have admitted the fact. Were you not out last 
 night, Mr. Price ?" 
 
 "No," replied Mr. Price; " I was too unwell to attend. 
 And you say that the Baptists admit that the lexicons are 
 against them ?" 
 
 " Let me read you Dr. Carson's testimony. You know he 
 stands highest among their writers on this subject." 
 
 " Very well, let us hear his admission." 
 
 " Here it is," answered Theophilus ; " I copied it from 
 the 55th page of his work on Baptism, edition of 1855 : 
 ''My i^os'it'ion zs, tliat it (baptidzo) always signijics to dip ; 
 never exjjressing any thing hut mode. Now, as I have ALL 
 
 THE LEXICOGRAPHERS and COMMENTATORS AGrAINST 
 
 ■ 
 
 ME in this opinion, it loill he necessary to say a ivord or two 
 with respect to the authority of lexicons.' Now, what do 
 you think of that, Mr. Price ?" 
 
 " I should say that was giving up the ship," he replied ; 
 " an unconditional surrender of the whole question in dis- 
 pute. I am astonished, sir, at that admission." 
 
 "And now, Mr. Price," continued Carrie, "what do you 
 think of the argument as it now stands ? All the English 
 dictionaries, cdl the Grreek lexicons, all the commentators on 
 the Greek classics, against the Baptist position that baptize 
 and haptidzo mean only to immerse. What think you of 
 the preponderance of testimony now?" 
 
 " Well, well !" exclaimed Mr. Price, " I should think a 
 jury could decide such a case as this without a moment's 
 deliberation. When the other side admits that cdl the testi- 
 
190 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 mony is against tlie prisoner at the bar, I sliould say that his 
 best chance would be to plead guilty, and throw himself 
 upon the mercy of the court V 
 
 " You see, then, Mr. Price, that the testimony of Dr. 
 Macknight, Dr. Chalmers, Luther, and others, that immer- 
 sion is a mode of baptism, does not aifect the question in 
 the least. All the Greek lexicographers and commentators, 
 and nearly every writer upon the subject, from the days of 
 the apostles to the present time, the Baptists excepted — that 
 is, most of the Baptists excepted — regard the Greek word 
 haptidzo as a generic term — expressing, generally, the appli- 
 cation of water, but not specifying the mode by which it 
 shall be applied.'' 
 
 '^ There is another fact, too, connected with this subject," 
 said Theophilus. '^ I notice that the Baptists are very fond 
 of old Pedobaptist writers. They love to quote Calvin, and 
 Luther, and Wesley, instead of the eminent Pedobaptist 
 critics of the present day. Now, everybody knows that very 
 little was said or written about the mode of baptism in their 
 lifetime. The subject, when introduced at all, was chiefly 
 introduced in connection with the design and iLses of the 
 ordinance. Of course, their examination of the word must 
 have been quite superficial, and consequently their testi- 
 mony is not to be relied upon when it comes in contact 
 with that of able modern critics, who have spent the 
 most of their lives in the examination of this and kindred 
 subjects." 
 
 '•' I was just about to make the same or a similar remark," 
 continued Carrie ; '^ for a critic must be familiar with his 
 subject to be of value. For instance, if we want good 
 authority to prove the corruptions of the Roman Catholic 
 Church in the sixteenth century, Luther and Calvin are the 
 authors to whom we go. And why ? Simply because these 
 men spent their lives in endeavoring to purge the Church 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 191 
 
 from these errors. Thej were qualified to judge of them 
 because they were the subjects of study and close examina- 
 tiou. But when we introduce these writers as good testi- 
 mony in a controversy which was almost or quite unknown 
 in that century — when such a thing as a Baptist book in 
 defence of exclusive immersion was not extant — the folly 
 of such a course is apparent to every mind. If Dr. Carson 
 had written his book in Luther's lifetime, or if it had been 
 answered by Calvin, any admission from these reformers 
 would have been of value to the Baptist cause. 
 
 ''The simple fact, however, that these men considered 
 immersion to be a mode of baptism, whilst they practiced at 
 the same time baptism by sprinkling and pouring, is not a 
 ' concession' to Baptist theory.'' 
 
 ''I examined the Grerman Bible to-day. Miss Carrie, in 
 order to see how Luther had translated ha^tldzo.''' 
 " Well, how does he render it ?" 
 "By the Grerman word faii/en/' replied Theophilus. 
 ''And does that mean to immerse ?" inquired Carrie. 
 "No, Miss Carrie; the word tauchen means to immerse. 
 Taii/en in German is precisely equivalent to baptize in Eng- 
 lish." 
 
 " Yery well, then, Luther does not testify that lapticho 
 means onli/ to immerse, or else he would have rendered it so 
 in his translation of the Scriptures. We have, then. Dr. 
 Macknight against the Baptists instead of in their favor, 
 which we prove by his irracticinrj pouring and sprinkling, 
 which he could not have done with honesty if he believed it 
 wrong. If he was a dislionest man, his testimony is useless 
 on either side. If he knew or believed immersion to be the 
 only mode, and yet iuoilM not practice it, he was a bad man 
 — wilfully disobeying what he believed to be the command 
 of Christ. If he was a had man, his testimony is not worth 
 any thing. So the Baptists, to make any thing of such 
 
192 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 witnesses as these, must j^^^ove that they are unworthy 
 of helief. There is no way to avoid this conclusion. 
 
 '' Luther's testimony, upon cross-examination, turns out 
 to be against the Baptists, because he does not render the 
 word into his own language by a term signifying only to 
 immerse. Dr. Chalmers and Calvin are precisely upon the 
 same footing as Dr. Macknight. If they were good men, 
 and believed immersion to be the only mode, then they 
 would have practiced it. But we know they did not prac- 
 tice it, and they are universally admitted to be good men; 
 therefore it follows that they did not believe the Baptist 
 doctrine. 
 
 •' I now come to Mr, Wesley's testimony. This witness 
 is handled very roughly by Theodosia. She takes one half 
 of his testimony, and of course omits all that is against her. 
 She jQrst introduces Mr. Wesley's comment on Romans vi. 
 4, where he says : ' The allusion is to the ancient manner of 
 baptizing by immersion.' Now, if you examine this book, 
 (Theodosia,) you will see that there is a comma between the 
 words 'baptizing' and 'by immersion.' In Mr, Wesley's 
 Notes, however, there is none. Theodosia's object is to 
 show that Mr. Wesley believed that immersion was the ONLY 
 ancient manner of baptizing. If it is paraphrased thus : 
 ' This passage alludes to the ancient manner of baptizing' — 
 which manner was by immersion — it is clear that Mr. 
 Wesley means that there was only one mode known to the 
 ancient Church, and that mode was immersion. If we read 
 it as Mr, Wesley wrote it, however, we would understand it 
 thus : This passage alludes to the ancient manner of baptiz- 
 ing by immersion — that is, the manner or mode of immers- 
 ing is here alluded to, at the same time leaving it to be 
 understood that there were other ancient modes, not alluded 
 to here, and therefore not mentioned here." 
 
 ^'A comma is a very important thing sometimes," ob- 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 193 
 
 served Theophilus ; " I remember a very important law-case 
 which all turned upon the position of the comma in a 
 sentence of a will. I recollect, too, an amusing instance of 
 the value of proper punctuation. It is said that it was once 
 customary in England to request publicly the prayers of the 
 Church for those who had embarked for a long and perilous 
 voyage. In accordance with this custom, the wife of a man 
 who had just left the harbor in a vessel, sent a note to the 
 minister which ought to have read as follows : ' John Brown 
 having gone to sea, his wife requests the prayers of the 
 Church.' The comma, however, was placed after the word 
 ^ wife,' and the minister read it thus : ' John Brown 
 having gone to see his wife, requests the prayers of the 
 Church !' " 
 
 " I should think the gravity of that congregation was 
 upset for that day," said Mr. Price. 
 
 " Your anecdote shows the necessity of correctly punctu- 
 ating a sentence in order to give its proper meaning," con- 
 tinued Carrie, " and whether this perversion of Mr. Wesley's 
 meaning is a mistake only, or is designed to do him injustice, 
 the author of Theodosia Ernest only can positively tell. 
 But to show you that Mr, Wesley did not believe immer- 
 sion to be the only mode practiced by the ancient Church, I 
 will read his note on Colossians ii. 12. He says: 'The 
 ancient manner of baptizing by immersion is as evidently 
 alluded to here, as the other manner of hajitizing hy 
 SPRINKLING or POURING of water is, Hebrews x. 22; hut 
 no stress is laid on the age of the hajptized, or the manner of 
 'performing it, in one or the other.' 
 
 '^ Theodosia brings forward a passage from Mr. Wesley's 
 
 Journal," continued Carrie, " in which he says that ' Mary 
 
 Welch, aged eleven days, was baptized according to the 
 
 custom of the first Church and the rule of the Church of 
 
 9 
 
194 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 England, by immersion/ So Theodosia gives tlie quotation, 
 and I charge this punctuation with the same unfairness 
 practiced in the other. However, if it is granted that Mr. 
 Wesley thought then that immersion was the only ^ custom 
 of the first Church/ we have seen that he did not think so 
 twenty-five years afterwards, when he wrote his Notes on the 
 New Testament. 
 
 ^' One more allusion to Mr. Wesley I will notice. I will 
 read Mr. Courtney's language, in Theodosia, page 62 : 
 ^ Moreover, it seems from his (Mr. Wesley's) conduct after- 
 wards, that he felt as much liberty himself to change the 
 ordinance of Christ, as the makers of the Rubric had done ; 
 for when he organized his societies, and gave them ^ the 
 Discipline' as their organic law, he directed baptism to be 
 performed by sprinkling or pouring, if the parties preferred 
 it.'^' 
 
 ^' Now," continued Carrie, ^^ the mildest language which 
 this passage deserves is a direct charge of misrepresentation. 
 And I notice three palpable misrepresentations of Mr. 
 Wesley. In the first place, it is untrue that Mr. Wesley 
 ^ felt himself at liberty to change the ordinance of Christ.' 
 The charge is wholly gratuitous. In the next place, it is 
 untrue that Mr. Wesley gave or enjoined the Discipline 
 upon the Methodist Episcopal Church, as their organic law. 
 Mr. Wesley did not draw up the Discipline ; it was done by 
 the preachers assembled at the Conference in 1784, which 
 organized the Methodist Church. In the third place, Mr. 
 Wesley had nothing whatever to do with inserting the 
 passage which this author alludes to, in the Discipline. 
 It was the work of the Methodist ministry before men- 
 tioned. The proof of these statements, as regards the 
 provision of the Discipline, will be found in Emory^s 
 History of the Discipline^ pages 25, 45. 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 195 
 
 "But I tliink we have pretty well consumed the time 
 allotted to our meeting this afternoon. With your con- 
 sent, we will resume the subject to-morrow afternoon." 
 With this understanding the company separated. 
 
gmxili (Bv(\x\i\^. 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT BAPTISMS EXAMINED. 
 
 WHY WAS CHRIST BAPTIZED? HOW WAS 
 CHRIST BAPTIZED? 
 
 MORE LIGHT— MR. BATTLE IN THE FIELD. 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 199 
 
 FOUllTH EVENING 
 
 ^^Well, Mr. Mason/' said Theopliilus, as soon as the 
 people had assembled on Tuesday evening, ^' I am ready to 
 admit that John's baptism was typical of the baptism of the 
 Holy Grhost, for this I see stated by John himself. I admit, 
 also, that there is no place which I have seen in the Bible, 
 where spiritual baptism is said to be an immersion. Still, 
 however, I find it stated that John baptized in Jordan, and 
 that Jesus came up out of the water; now, unless he was 
 immersed, how can we understand these statements ?" 
 
 '^ I purposely delayed giving you all the facts about the 
 mode last evening, because it was growing late, and I was 
 fearful of wearying you. There are several questions to be 
 answered before we can arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. 
 Why did John preach in the wilderness, rather than in the 
 city of Jerusalem ? Why did he not follow the example of 
 Jonah, and go to the very heart of the city, preaching 
 repentance ? Why was the place of his ministry a desert, 
 instead of a large city, like Nineveh, or Jerusalem V 
 
 '•'■ Because it was prophesied of him that he should be the 
 voice of one crying in the wilderness." 
 
 '^ True, but why was such a prophecy recorded ? There 
 must have been a reason for it, some object in it, otherwise 
 it would seem to be a mere novelty, designed simply to 
 
200 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 attract the attention of the people^ and excite their curi- 
 osity/' 
 
 '^ I suppose that icas the reason/' replied Theophilus. 
 
 " But we have no authority for saying so. No statement 
 of the kind is made in the Bible. It may be said by the 
 Baptists that John went into the wilderness in order to be 
 convenient to the river — but this does not appear probable. 
 Why should John require the river Jordan to immerse his 
 subjects, if three thousand persons could be immersed in the 
 city on the day of Pentecost ? This the Baptists say was 
 the case ; and, therefore, if we grant their assertion about 
 the Pentecostal converts, we take away the argument for 
 John's resorting to the river. There was water enough 
 in the city; therefore this reason cannot hold good. The 
 same necessity of miich water for immersion existed in both 
 cases. If John resorted to the river on this account, the 
 apostles must have done so, too. But of this there is 
 not the slightest intimation in the New Testament. We 
 are compelled to conclude that this was not the reason, 
 because other particulars are given which do not allow such 
 an inference. It is said that John, whilst in the wilderness, 
 had locusts and wild honey for his meat, and his dress was 
 of cameVs hair, having a leathern girdle about his loins. 
 These facts — his dwelling in a desert, his preaching there, 
 his baptizing there, his coarse raiment, his simple food — are 
 all to be taken together ; they are all characteristics of the 
 man, and there was something designed in all these particu- 
 lars. What was it ? 
 
 ^' When we remember that John's manner of life was a 
 near return to the habits of the patriarchal ages; when we 
 consider that the pride and effeminacy of the Jewish priests 
 were never greater than at this very period, we shall see at 
 once the object of his seclusion from the multitude. He 
 was appointed to be the forerunner of a new dispensation ; 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 201 
 
 a dispensation whose simplicity was placed in contrast with 
 the burdensome rites and imposing ceremonies of the Mosaic 
 ritual. He was appointed to exhibit in his life, as well as 
 by his preaching, these great truths. The induction of the 
 people into his preparatory institutions was designed to 
 enforce upon them a separation from the ceremonial law, 
 and the concentration of their faith and hopes in a purely 
 spiritual worship. Hence he used no synagogue; he 
 preached not in the temple, nor in the cities ; they sought 
 him, leaving behind them all the insignia of Judaism, and 
 embracing a new mode of worship. It is well known that 
 the Roman Catholics urge the conduct of John as an 
 example which authorizes them to build monasteries, con- 
 vents, and nunneries, for the purpose of secluding them- 
 selves from the world. However they may err as to the 
 nature of the icarrant, it is clear that the great idea of meek- 
 ness and humility, as opposed to worldly-mindedness and 
 pride, was distinctly exhibited in John's temporary dispen- 
 sation. 
 
 ^' This being the reason for John's preaching in the desert, 
 it becomes also the reason for his hoptizing there; and con- 
 sequently he resorted to the river as the most convenient, 
 perhaps the only place for obtaining water. It is inferred, 
 because he is said to have baptized in the river, that the 
 people were plunged under the water ; but this inference is 
 by no means just. He used the icater of the river, and is 
 therefore said to have baptized in it. The force of a pre- 
 positionj even in our own language, ought not to overcome 
 the stronger reasoning of analogy, based upon the resemblance 
 between the emblem and the thing signified. There are 
 thirteen prepositions, besides ev, in the Greek Testament, 
 which are rendered properly in. This very preposition ev 
 is used in the New Testament forty-seven difi'erent ways, ex- 
 pressing various shades of meaning. To reduce the Greek 
 9* 
 
202 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 ev to tlie invariable meaning of in, would destroy the sense 
 of very many passages of Scripture. For instance, our 
 Saviour says, in the twenty-third of Matthew, 'Woe unto 
 you, ye blind guides ! which say, whosoever shall swear hi/ 
 (ev) the temple, it is nothing ; but whosoever shall swear hr/ 
 (ev) the gold of the temple, he is a debtor,' Surely the 
 Pharisees did not allow men to swear in the temple ! Again 
 he says, ' Whoso, therefore, shall swear hi/ (ev) the altar, 
 sweareth h?/ (ev) it, and b?/ (ev) all things thereon.' Did he 
 say, whoso sweareth in the altar, sweareth in it, and in all 
 things thereon?" 
 
 ''Allow me to ask, Mr. Mason," said Theophilus, " if that 
 view of the matter does not render it difficult to understand 
 the Greek language, and make it doubtful what is required 
 of us in the Scriptures ?" 
 
 " Not at all, Theophilus. The very fact which I state here 
 about the Greek preposition, is also true of the English in. 
 Dr. Webster, our standard lexicographer, after giving various 
 definitions of the preposition, says, ' The uses of in, hovjever, 
 cannot in all cases he defined hy equivalent words, except hy 
 explaining the phrase in which it is used.' This is true, to 
 a greater or less extent, of all prepositions, in whatever lan- 
 guage they may exist. As they are expressive of real or 
 imaginary relations between substantives, it is impossible to 
 confine any one of them to a single idea, or to provide a dis- 
 tinct word for every such relation. This you know, for it 
 requires but little observation to notice it. 
 
 " The peculiarities of our language are as difficult to 
 foreigners as theirs are to us. And yet we are never at a 
 loss to understand each other. There is no necessity for 
 Greek to be unintelligible, simply because prepositions are 
 used interchangeably. It must be evident to your mind 
 that no argument can be formed upon such a basis. But if 
 it is granted that the baptism wa-s administered literally in 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 203 
 
 the river Jordan — if we admit that John stood in the water, 
 and the subjects walked into it, where is the proof that they 
 went under the water? There is none. The symbolical 
 sense of the ordinance rejects the propriety of immersion, 
 and indicates a different mode. I have given the preposi- 
 tion ev the force of into, rather than in, in this argument, 
 because the Baptists claim it as the general sense of the 
 word. It is fair, then, to apply the same rule to the bap- 
 tism of Christ by John, in the account of which Baptists 
 are very willing to repudiate their rule, because it is against 
 them in that case. You know it is said that Jesus, after he 
 was baptized, ^ came up out of the water.' Hence it is 
 affirmed he was immersed. The critics forget, however, that 
 diTo, which is rendered out of, ordinarily means from, and 
 that if it is so rendered it destroys their theory. I will not 
 give you 7717/ word, however, but better testimony from the 
 ■Baptist Dr. Carson : he says, page 337: ^ I deny that it (ctTrb) 
 ever signifies out of.' There you have the testimony of the 
 Corrector-G-eneral of Lexicons and Dictionaries. He affirms 
 that the word 'means from. We are not informed that 
 Jesus went into the water, and we are only told that he came 
 from it : all that supports the idea of immersion is the fact 
 that he was baptized in Jordan. This is indeed a slender 
 thread by which the doctrine of immersion hangs, and when 
 we admit all that can be said of it, the positive proof of im- 
 mersion is not to be found. Suppose I were to tell you that 
 your health depended upon your bathing in the river : would 
 you necessarily understand me to require you to immerse 
 your whole body in the water ?" 
 
 ^' No, sir : I have frequently bathed and swum in deep 
 water, without at any time being submerged." 
 
 ^^Then it is possible tha.t one may stand in a river without 
 being wholly immersed : it is possible for one to plunge into 
 
204 THEOPHILUS AVALTONj OR, 
 
 a river on horseback and never get his feet wet. These 
 things are possible, to say the least/^ 
 
 "Certainly they are, Mr. Mason/' said Theophilus, "and 
 I have known many boys who, though they were fond of 
 swimming, could not dive, or even hold their heads under 
 water a moment." 
 
 " Yet these boys swam in the creek or river, did they not?'' 
 
 " Certainly, sir.'' 
 
 " Well, then, the preposition in does not prove that Christ 
 went under water. We must now learn ichy he was baptized, 
 and then we shall probably see hoio the action was performed. 
 The Baptists are hard pressed for a 7'eason in this case. TFAy 
 was our Lord Jesus Cltristhaptized f Some say that he was 
 baptized in order to encourage the people to honor John's min- 
 istry. Luke, however, contradicts this statement in the third 
 chapter: ^Now luhen all the people iccre hap)tized, it came to 
 pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven 
 was opened,' etc. If the people were baptized before Christ, 
 certainly he could not set them an example. So far from this, 
 such an example would have misled the people. If Christ had 
 submitted to baptism to honor John, he would have acknow- 
 ledged himself a sinner, for the ordinance was designed for 
 sinners only. Just men, if there had been any, would not 
 need repentance, and therefore needed not the baptism of 
 repentance. Unless there was a difference in the act which 
 John performed in reference to Jesus, or some other method 
 of distinguishing his true character, Christ, by being bap- 
 tized, would have been considered by the Jews a sinner like 
 themselves. But there is another difficulty in the way. In 
 whose name was Christ baptized, and upon what profession 
 of faith? These are essential points in the baptism of im- 
 mersionists — the absence of the faith annuls it, they say. 
 So also does the absence of \X\q^ Christian formula. Now it 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 205 
 
 is evident Christ did not profess faith in himself: that would 
 be absurd. Nor could ho be baptized in his owii name : that 
 would be equally absurd. If then he was baptized in the 
 name of the Father only, his example would lead to his own 
 rejection ! This is plain. And if he had been baptized in 
 his oicn name, he would have acknowledged thereby that he 
 was his own Saviour ! Our Lord could not, then, without 
 denying his own mission, receive the same baptism which 
 was administered to others. No formula could have been 
 used, no repentance required, no faith, or profession of it, 
 necessary, and the only point of similarity between the cere- 
 mony performed on our Saviour, and that performed on the 
 sinful Jews, was the mode of administration. In this alone 
 can it be said to he a hai^tism at all. 
 
 '' We must permit Christ and John to solve the difficulty 
 in this case. When Christ came to be baptized, John ob- 
 jected, on the ground that he was not worthy to baptize 
 Jesus, but needed rather to be baptized by him. Christ 
 replied : ' Suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to 
 fulfil all righteousness.' That is, it was John's duty to bap- 
 tize him. Why ? Because he was the herald of Christ, and 
 for this very purpose, to make the Saviour manifest, he was 
 sent to baptize. The act then was simply a formal recogni- 
 tion of Jesus as the Christ, the Anointed One, and hence- 
 forth the only High-Priest, who, by his intercession, could 
 make atonement for sin. In that very hour the imperfect 
 priesthood of the Jewish system was abolished by the special 
 mandate of the King of heaven. Christ was saluted by 
 John in these words: 'Behold the Lamb of God which 
 taketh away the sin of the world !' Keeping in mind the fact 
 that the Jews whom John had baptized had renounced the 
 ceremonial law, and that John's ministry was intended to 
 connect the Jewish to the Christian dispensation, we at once 
 gee the propriety of this public recognition of the Messiah 
 
206 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 He was indeed in tlieir midst before, but until the moment 
 of his recognition he had gathered no disciples, and had not 
 public]}^ announced his mission. The baptism of Christ was 
 then the recognition of his official character, whereby he was 
 declared to be, as St. Paul in his letter to the Hebrews in- 
 forms us, the High-Priest of our profession, the only true 
 and proper Intercessor for the children of men. In order to 
 ascertain the manner of consecrating a high-priest, we must 
 examine the eighth chapter of Leviticus. Here we read that 
 ' Moses brought Aaron and his sons and washed them with 
 water. And Moses took the anointing oil, and anointed 
 the tabernacle, and all that was therein, and sanctified them. 
 And he sprinkled thereof upon the altar seven times, and 
 anointed the altar and all his vessels, both the laver and his 
 foot, to sanctify them. And he poured of the anointing oil 
 upon Aaron's head, and anointed him, to sanctify him.' In 
 like manner was our great High-Priest consecrated to his 
 holy office. He was first washed by the water of baptism, 
 and then anointed with the Holy Ghost, of whose influences 
 the anointing oil, poured upon the head of Aaron, was sym- 
 bolical. Thus Peter says, ' That word, I say, ye know, which 
 was published throughout allJudea, and began from Galilee, 
 after the baptism which John preached : How God anointed 
 Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power; 
 who went about doing good, and healing all that were op- 
 pressed of the devil; for God was with him.^ Inasmuch, 
 then, as the first high-priest was consecrated by washing with 
 water and by the pouring of oil upon his head, so the last 
 High-Priest was consecrated by the washing with water and 
 by the anointing of the Holy Ghost : Moses, the instrument 
 in the hand of God in delivering his people from the bondage 
 of Egypt, being the first consecrator, and John, the greatest 
 among those born of women under the Jewish dispensation, and 
 the instrument in God's hand in turning the minds of the people 
 
THE MAJESTY OP TRUTH. 207 
 
 from the law, wliicli was only the shadow, to the great Sub- 
 stance himself, being the second consecrator. 
 
 '' "We may continue this parallel to any reasonable extent, 
 and at every step our view is confirmed. Moses received his 
 commission in the wilderness, and Aaron was consecrated in 
 the wilderness. John was a voice crying in the wilderness, 
 and there he consecrated Christ to the office of High-Priest 
 for ever after the order of Melchisedek. Moses was not a 
 priest, but a divinely-appointed administrator, receiving his 
 commission directly from the Lord. So also John was not a 
 priest, but received his commission directly from the Lord, 
 his especial work being to prepare the way for, and to intro- 
 duce to the Jews, their Prophet, Priest, and King. 
 
 '^ Immediately after his consecration by John, as Christ 
 was praying, the heavens opened, and the Holy Spirit, 
 under the emblem of a dove, alighted upon his head. 
 Here, then, was his recognition by the Father, whose voice 
 was heard, saying, ' This is my beloved Son, in whom I am 
 well pleased.^ Here Christ was made manifest to Israel : 
 first, by John baptizing him or consecrating him with water ; 
 then by the Holy Spirit descending upon him, plainly point- 
 ing out that he would indeed fulfil the prediction of John, 
 and baptize the people with the Holy Spirit. The emblem 
 of purification, water, and the agent, the Spirit, followed 
 each other in quick succession. The sign and the thing sig- 
 nified were thus plainly exhibited, and from that hcmr 
 Jesus was the Christ. ^^ 
 
 _ ^' I have never heard that view expressed before, Mr. 
 Mason," said Theophilus, ^'but I must say that it solves all 
 the difficulties in my mind upon this subject. I recollect 
 reading some time ago an author who ridiculed the idea that 
 Jesus was made a priest by his baptism, but the writer 
 directed his remarks against the word ' Jewish.^ You hav(^ 
 not said that he was a Jewish priest, but the High-Priest, 
 
208 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 the anointed Christ, the Sacrifice and Mediator. I shall 
 never be able to thank you sufiiciently for the information 
 you have given me." 
 
 ''' I know, Theophilus/^ replied Mr. Mason, " that some 
 Baptist writers have attempted to treat this argument with 
 levity; but they are not the first men who have labored to 
 ridicule that which they cannot answer. The Apostle Paul 
 does positively say that Christ is our High-Priest ; that he 
 was called of God, as was Aaron, and we have already seen 
 how Aaron was sanctified and consecrated by Moses; and 
 also that Christ was consecrated by John. Indeed, Paul 
 says, in Hebrews vii. 21 : ' For those priests (Aaron and his 
 successors) were made without an oath ; but this (Christ) 
 with an oath, by him that said unto him. The Lord sware, 
 and will not repent. Thou art a priest for ever after the order 
 of Melchisedek.' Our Saviour, then, was recognized as 
 High-Priest by the baptism of consecration ; ministered at 
 the altar for nearly three years afterward, doing works of 
 mercy and teaching the people ; then offered up himself on 
 the cross as a sacrifice for sinners ; entered within the vail 
 into the holy of holies, and there liveth to make interces- 
 sion for us. 
 
 '^Unless we receive this view of the subject, we are 
 beset by innumerable difficulties. The baptism of our 
 Saviour becomes not only an unmeaning ceremony, but it is 
 made absolutely inconsistent with his character and mission. 
 To baptize him as a proselyte to the teachings of John is to 
 make him a sinner, in no respect differing from others. To 
 baptize him upon a j>''^ofcssion of faith in. his own death, 
 burial, and resurrection, is absurd. To baptize him as an 
 example for others, is to place him upon the same moral 
 platform — to make him a partaker, in the symbols of purifi- 
 cation, when he was himself the dispenser of the grace 
 which was signified. But when we regard the act as John's 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 209 
 
 official recognition of tlie Messiah, all these difficulties 
 vanish. We at once see the harmony and beauty of that 
 providential dispensation which first brought the people to 
 look for the Anointed One, their true Iligh-Priest, and then, 
 by anointing him before the assembled multitude, pointed 
 out the person who was spoken of by the patriarchs, and 
 prophesied of by the prophets. 
 
 '^ The same difficulties attend any attempt to blend the 
 baptism of John with the Christian ordinance. In proof of 
 my position, I will give you a brief sketch of the unanswer- 
 able arguments of the Rev. Robert Hall, than whom the 
 Baptists have never had either a greater or a better man. 
 ^ John uniformly ascribes his commission,' says Hall, '■ not to 
 Christ, but to the Father; so that to assert his baptism to 
 be a Christian institute, is not to interjjref, but to contradict 
 him.' ^All he demanded of such as repaired to him was to 
 declare their conviction that the Messiah was shortly to 
 appear, to repent of their sins, and resolve to frame their 
 lives in a manner agreeable to such an expectation, without 
 requiring a belief in any existing individual as the Messiah/ 
 ' Christian baptism was invariably administered in the 
 name of Jesus; while there is sufficient evidence that 
 John's was not performed in that name.' ' The baptism 
 instituted by our Lord is in Scripture distinguished from 
 that of the forerunner by the superior effects with which it 
 was accompanied ; so that, instead of being confounded, they 
 are contrasted in the sacred historians.' — Terms of Commu- 
 nion, Sec.. 1. 
 
 " This is the testimony of a Baptist, a great and a good 
 man ; one who has accomplished more for the Redeemer's 
 kingdom than a thousand Carsons, Gales, Fullers, and 
 Booths. You will not fail to see that his candid view of the 
 subject makes it impossible that Christ should receive 
 either John's or the Christian baptism. He could not 
 
210 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 receive Jolin's, because that was connected with repentance 
 for the past, and hope in the Messiah to be revealed ; and 
 that he could not receive Christian baptism at the hands of 
 John, needs no argument in proof. 
 
 ^^ Now let us recapitulate the points which we have deter- 
 mined. 1. The proselyte baptism or washing of the 
 Jews could not be the model for John's, as the first had no 
 administrator, and involved a change in the object of faith, 
 from idolatry to the only true worship. 2. John preached 
 in the wilderness in order to prepare the way for a dispen- 
 sation whose coming would abrogate the ceremonial law; 
 requiring those who resorted to him to leave their present 
 mode of worship, which consisted in types and shadows, in 
 order that they might embrace that truth which was the 
 spiritual substance of their religion. 3. Inasmuch, there- 
 fore, as he 'preaclied in the wilderness, he haptizcd there. 
 The Jews being accustomed to the use of water as an 
 emblem of purification, it was noio used, and they were 
 directed to look to one who should soon come, who should 
 cleanse their hearts by the baptism of the Holy Spirit. 
 4. John expressly representing the mode which he prac- 
 ticed, as a type of the Spirit's baptism, distinctly settled the 
 nature of that mode. 5. The baptism of the Holy Spirit 
 being uniformly represented as an effusion or pouring out, 
 John could only use water in the same way, as the sign and 
 the thing signified must in some particulars agree. 6. Our 
 Lord Jesus was baptized by John, in order to anoint him 
 before the people, to be ^ a High-Priest for ever after the 
 order of Melchisedek.' 7. The high-priests were anointed 
 by washing and hj pouring oil upon their heads. 8. Christ 
 was anointed by the pouring of water, and the descent of the 
 Spirit in bodily shapp upon his head, thus giving the double 
 testimony of God and man that this was indeed the Mes- 
 siah. Thus I think we have settled the question as to the 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 211 
 
 mode of Jolm's baptism, and also answered tlie question 
 why and how our Saviour was baptized." 
 
 Whilst Mr. Mason was stating these propositions, a gentle- 
 man arose near the middle of the audience, and when Mr. 
 Mason concluded he advanced a few steps, and said : 
 
 '^ I would like to ask you a few questions, Mr. Mason, if 
 you will permit me to do so." 
 
 ^'Certainly, sir," replied Mr. Mason. ''I will take plea- 
 sure in answering any inquiry, if I am able," 
 
 The gentleman advanced toward the altar, and was recog- 
 nized by Theophilus and introduced to the pastor as the 
 Rev. Mr. Battle,- of whose coming we have already notified 
 the reader. His manner was exceedingly courteous and 
 confident, as he seated himself opposite to the Methodist 
 minister, and prepared to interrogate him. 
 
 ^'I have heard your remarks this evening, Mr. Mason, 
 having arrived in your village a few moments before your 
 meeting began. I would like to ask you a few questions, as 
 you are seeking the truth as it is in Jesus. You have said that 
 Christ was not baptized to set us an example, because by his 
 baptism in his own name he would necessarily lead the peo- 
 ple to believe that he was his own Saviour. Now, sir, will 
 you tell me whether Christ did not partaJ^e of the Lord's 
 supper, which he declared to be his body and blood ? And 
 if he partook of that, according to your theory, he owned 
 that hy the shedding of his blood arid the death of his body 
 he was himself saved!" 
 
 This question was followed by a very perceptible air of 
 triumph on the countenances of the Baptist people 
 present. They could scarcely repress an audible expression 
 of their satisfaction. Mr. Mason, however, immediately 
 replied : 
 
 ^' You must first tell me, Mr. Battle, whether you believe 
 that Christ did partake of the supper ; and if this is your 
 
212 
 
 OR, 
 
 opinion, I desire you to give me the passage of Scripture 
 upon which it is founded/' 
 
 '^Very well, sir/' replied Mr. Battle, ^^I am prepared 
 with a ' Thus saith the Lord.' Our Saviour sent his dis- 
 ciples to make provision for the supper, and when they were 
 assembled, he addressed them, as Luke tells us in the 
 twenty-second chapter : ^And when the hour was come, he 
 sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. And he said 
 unto them. With desire I have desired to eat this Passover (or 
 supper) ivith you, before I suffer.' Here, then, he did eat 
 with his apostles the supper which he instituted in the 
 Church. If Christ, then, ate of the sacrament of the 
 supper, you must either admit that this act was chargeable 
 with the absurdities which you have laid at the door of his 
 baptism, or abandon your position." 
 
 "Do not draw your conclusions before you have proved 
 your premises, Mr. Battle," replied Mr. Mason. "You say 
 that Christ ate the passover, and that the institutions are 
 the same. There lies your error : Christ ate the Passover, 
 not the su2)per which he instituted." 
 
 " But you have forgotten, Mr. Mason, that the Paschal 
 Supper was the thing which he appointed, and that he 
 changed it from the Passover to the Christian sacrament." 
 
 " Very true, Mr. Battle, he did appoint the Passover, and 
 after he and his disciples had eaten it, then he instituted the 
 Christian sacrament." 
 
 " Where do you find that the Lord's Supper was appointed 
 after the Paschal feast ?" 
 
 " In the very passage you have quoted, Mr. Battle, for 
 the Evangelist says in the following verses : 'And he took 
 the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it 
 among yourselves, for I say unto you, I will not drink of the 
 fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God shall come.' " 
 
 *' But still he drank of the wine, whilst he stated that he 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 213 
 
 would do so no more, until lie drank it in tlie kingdom of 
 God.'' 
 
 " Your statement is flatly contradicted by the Scriptures, 
 Mr. Battle, for a few verses below those already quoted, the 
 Evangelist says he took the cup after supper, and distributed 
 it to the twelve. There is not a shadow of proof that Christ 
 ate the bread or drank the wine, any part of either, which 
 he blessed in the institution of the supper. He ate the 
 Passover with his apostles, and after they had eaten of the 
 lamb, then the sacrament of the supper was instituted, of 
 which the apostles alone partook, so that the difficulty which 
 you imagined to exist is not there. And since you have 
 called attention to it, I would like to know why Christ, 
 having, as you say, set us the example, and commanded us 
 to follow it, in baptism, did not set us the example in par- 
 taking of the other institution — the Lord's supper.^' 
 
 ^' I say he did do so, Mr. Mason. '^ 
 
 "But the Scriptures say he did not, Mr. Battle, and I 
 cannot take your word when the Bible contradicts you.'^ 
 
 " It is no use to argue with you, Mr. Mason, if you have 
 determined not to be convinced.'' 
 
 " Surely I will not take your opinion when it is plainly 
 contrary to the Bible. Show me the place where it says 
 Christ ate of the bread and drank of the wine which he had 
 blessed, after the Passover supper, and I will acknowledge 
 my error.'' 
 
 " I think I have already shown you enough to convince 
 any one, but I will not insist upon this opinion. You have 
 quoted Robert Hall ; do you not know that he was a General 
 Baptist, and practiced mixed communion ? His arguments 
 about John's baptism are of no weight whatever with us." 
 
 " The more's the pity, Mr. Battle, for he was the greatest 
 man you ever had. You ought, however, to answer his 
 arguments before you reject them. I have quoted Gale, 
 
214 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 Carson, Fullerj and Hall, in the same way that you quote 
 Pedobaptist writers. It is your custom to represent Pedo- 
 lapiisfs as good witnesses against themselves, and on the 
 same principle I bring the Baptists into collision with each 
 other/' 
 
 " Very well, Mr. Mason, you have the right to do so, but 
 at the same time you must remember that we call no man 
 master except Christ; his commandments we follow, his 
 teachings we abide by; but no man, no number of men, 
 however great and good, can bind our consciences with 
 man-made creeds and human ordinances, appointed of men, 
 not of Grod. The Bible is oiw creed, and our Book of Dis- 
 cipline. We accept no other.'' 
 
 '' You have accepted others, Mr. Battle, as I am prepared 
 to prove ; for it so happens that I have a Baptist Discipline 
 in my pocket, which has been adopted by your churches in 
 this country. But you are drawing me away from the sub- 
 ject which I am investigating. At the proper time, I will 
 show you something about the creeds, discij)lines, and books 
 of 'human appointment' which are as much standards in 
 your churches as in ours." 
 
 " You will never prove that, Mr. Mason," replied Mr. 
 Battle. 
 
 '^ We shall see at the proper time and place," said Mr. 
 Mason. ''And now, Theophilus," he continued, "if Mr. 
 Battle has no further questions to ask, I shall proceed to 
 show more fully the agreement between the mode of water 
 baptism and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. In order to 
 bring the subject clearly before us, however, we must collect 
 those passages in which the mode of spiritual baptism is 
 expressed, and placed in the relation to water baptism of the 
 thing signified, while water baptism is the sign. I shall 
 read these passages as they occur, beginning with the pro- 
 phecy of Joel : 'And it shall come to pass afterward, that I 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 215 
 
 \v'i\\ jwur Old 7)17/ Sj^irit ui)Oii all flesli ; and your sons and 
 your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream 
 dreams, your young men shall see visions. And also upon 
 the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I 
 pon7- out my Spirit. And it shall come to pass, that whoso- 
 ever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered : 
 for in Mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, shall be deliverance, 
 as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord 
 shall call.' Joel ii. 28, 29, 32. ^ I indeed baptize you with 
 water unto repentance ; but he that cometh after me is 
 mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear; he 
 shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.' 
 Matthew iii. 11. ' I indeed have baptized you with water ; 
 but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.' Mark i. 8. 
 ^ John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you 
 with water ) but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of 
 whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose ; he shall baptize 
 you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.' Luke iii. 16. 
 ^And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending 
 from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I 
 knew him not; but he that sent me to baptize with water, 
 the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit 
 descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which 
 baptizeth icith the Holy Ghost.' John i. 32, 33. Jesus ' being 
 assembled together with them, commanded them that they 
 should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise 
 of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me; for 
 John truly baptized with luater, but ye shall be baptized 
 with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. But ye shall 
 receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you, 
 and ye shall be witnesses unto me, both in Jerusalem, and 
 in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts 
 of the earth.' Acts i. 4, 5, 8. ^ And when the day of Pen- 
 tecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one 
 
216 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of 
 a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where 
 they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven 
 tonguesy like as of fire, and it sat ujoo^i each of them. And 
 they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak 
 with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. 
 Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and 
 said unto them. Ye men of Judea, and all ye that dwell at 
 Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my 
 words j for these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is 
 but the third hour of the day. But this is that lahich was 
 spohen hy the 2^rophet Joel : And it shall come to pass, saitli 
 Grod, 1 10 ill POUR OUT OF MY SpiRiT upon all flesh : and your 
 sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young 
 men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams, 
 and on my servants and on my handmaidens / will POUR, 
 OUT in those days of my Spirit. Therefore, he (Jesus) 
 being by the right hand of Grod exalted, and having received 
 of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed 
 FORTH this which ye now see and hear.' Acts ii. 1, 5, 14, 
 18, 33. ^ While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy 
 Ghost FELL on all them which heard the ivord. And they 
 of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many 
 as came with Peter, because that on the G-entiles also was 
 POURED OUT the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard 
 them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered 
 Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be 
 baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we V 
 Acts X. 44, 47. Peter, relating this to the Jews, says : 
 ^And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as 
 on us at the beginning. Tlien remembered I the word of the 
 Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water, 
 but ye shall be baptized icith the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch, 
 then, as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 217 
 
 believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, what was I, that I could 
 withstand God ?' Acts xi. 15, 17. 
 
 '^ Here we have proj^hecy and histori/ united, both agreeing 
 in testimony to the mode of Scripture baptism. The pro- 
 phet Joel tells us that God would, in the latter days, pour 
 out his Spirit. John the Baptist tells us that Jesus would 
 baptize with the Holi/ Spirit, in token of which he haptized 
 icith water. Christ tells his disciples to wait for the 
 promise of the Father, for that like as John baptized with 
 icater, they should be baptized with the IIolij Ghost. On 
 the day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit descended from heaven, 
 and filled the disciples. Peter says on that occasion that 
 the prophecy of Joel was fulfilled; that the Spirit was 
 poured out upon them. At the house of Cornelius, the 
 Holy Spirit /e// on those who heard the word, as on the day 
 of Pentecost, and Peter remembers the words of Christ, who 
 promised that they should be baptized with the Holy Spirit. 
 Now, can any thing be rendered plainer? Does not our 
 Saviour, John the Baptist, and the Apostle Peter say that 
 the pouring out of the Holy Ghost is the ha^nism of the 
 Holy Ghost? And do they not all three say that the 
 haptism of John was typical of i\ih pouring out of the Holy 
 Spirit? That the two baptisms were placed in contrast, 
 no one can deny. But wherein did the difference consist ? 
 Was it in the mode ? Then there are tico modes of baptism, 
 for the mode of the Spirit's baptism is indisputable. Was 
 it in the elements of baptism ? Then the mode must be one, 
 and as that mode is determined beyond a shadow of doubt, 
 the word of God has settled the question. If the Baptists 
 admit that there are two modes, their cause is lost. If they 
 affirm that the mode of spiritual baptism is the mode of 
 water baptism, then they acknowledge pouring to be the 
 pioper mode. There is no escape from this argument. 
 God never promised to immerse anyone in his Spirit; he 
 10 
 
218 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 promised to pour out his Spirit upon the people. Tliis 
 pouring out of the Spirit is called by John, Peter, and our 
 Saviour himself, baptism. There are/owr things essential 
 to the ordinance of baptism — an administrator, a subject, an 
 element, and a mode. On the day of Pentecost, God was 
 the administrator, the disciples the subjects, the Holy Spirit 
 the element, srnd pouring the mode. This is called baptism 
 by the inspired writers, and our blessed Lord himself. 
 John's ordinance was contrasted with this, but in what par- 
 ticulars ? Certainly he was the administrator — he had sub- 
 jects, an element, and a mode. Was the point of contrast 
 only in the administrator ? Then the other three particu- 
 lars agreed. Was it in the subjects ? This John denies, for 
 he says, I baptize you with water, but he shall baptize you 
 with the Holy Ghost; the subjects then were the same. 
 .Was it in the mode ? Then there are two valid modes of 
 baptism. But who can doubt where the points of contrast 
 are ? I, John, and he, Christ — here are the administrators ; 
 I with loater, he with the Holy Spirit — here are the elements. 
 In the other two respects the two baptisms were the same. 
 
 ^^ Here, then, the sincere inquirer may have all his doubts 
 solved. He need not wander in the mazes of heathen 
 poetry; he is independent of Homer and Lycophron, of 
 Strabo and Aristotle : Jesus Christ has fixed the sense in 
 which his commandment is to be understood, and no man 
 need err in the interpretation of his will.^' 
 
 '^ Permit me to ask you if John did not say he baptized 
 in water, and that Christ would baptize in the Holy Spirit ?" 
 said Mr. Battle. 
 
 "Ah ! you are returning to prepositions, Mr. Battle," re- 
 plied Mr. Mason. " Before I answer your question, let me 
 ask you one. Suppose the sacred writers had intended to 
 tell us that John baptized with water : pray tell me what 
 Greeh preposition they could have used to express itT^ 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 219 
 
 " "Well, I suppose they might have used dnh instead of 
 h," said Mr. B. 
 
 ^'But the usual sense of dirb is from, Mr. Battle." 
 
 '^Or they might have used ovv; that always means ivith." 
 
 " Well, then, Mr. Battle, show me a place in the Greek 
 Testament where the preposition ovv is used to express the 
 application of a fluid to a person or thing." 
 
 " The word means with, Mr. Mason, and it would express 
 the meaning of our English word." 
 
 ''But you forget, sir, that the English word ivitJi has 
 various meanings. For instance : Thomas is walking ivith 
 James. Surely James is not a fluid applied to Thomas I" 
 
 '' Well, there are several other words which might express 
 the same sense : dta, vno, and several others. 
 
 " Yes, sir, and vno generally means under, whilst 6ca is 
 rarely rendered with, and neve)- in the sense of applying a 
 fluid to a person or thing. But why do you object to the use 
 of ^v ?" 
 
 " I object to translating it tuith, because it means in," re- 
 plied Mr. Battle. 
 
 ''And 3^et, sir, you have given us nothing to take its place 
 — no word you have mentioned, or can mention, is free from 
 your objection. Therefore, according to your teaching, it 
 was impossihlc for the Evangelists to tell us that John bap- 
 tized ?t'iVA water ! Thus you must expel an iVZea from the 
 Greek language in order to save immersion I No, Mr. Bat- 
 tle, I will not charge you with ignorance of the language, 
 but I will say that a little attention to this subject will con- 
 vince you that eI<; and ev are the only prepositions that could 
 have been used in the passage in question, and unless you 
 assert that neither of these can express the application of 
 water to a person, you must abandon the argument. I make 
 no issue upon such a narrow foundation as a preposition — no 
 man can do so who is earnestly seeking the truth, and knows 
 
220 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 in what a logical argument consists. If I mention tlie pre- 
 positions at all, it is because immersionists make them pro- 
 minent proofs of their positions." 
 
 ^' But I am not satisfied with your explanation of the bap- 
 tism of the Holy Ghost on the day of the Pentecost. The 
 Spirit filled the house, and they were immersed in the Spirit : 
 so I understand it.'' 
 
 "And in so understanding it, Mr. Battle, you not only con- 
 tradict the word of God, but you make the murderous Jews 
 to be equally baptized with the disciples. The sacred writer 
 does not say that the Spirit filled the house, but the sound 
 filled the house, and the Spirit filled the apostles, sitting 
 upon them in the shape of cloven tongues, like as of fire. 
 The murderers of Christ, were in the house, and Peter 
 charges them with the crime : if the Spirit filled the house, 
 and by that means the disciples were immersed, then these 
 Jews were immersed in the Spirit also ! Such is the absurd- 
 ity of this attempt at evasion. It would be far better to 
 call upon Homer and Milton, for by their aid j^oetical ex- 
 pressions might be found to warrant you in overthrowing 
 the narrative of the inspired penman. 
 
 '^ It is indeed strange that pouring and sprinlding should 
 be such figurative, poetical subjects. The author of ' Theo- 
 dosia' says it was not a literal baptism which occurred 
 on the day of Pentecost, but only a swalloiving up or over- 
 whelming of the apostles in the influences of the Holy 
 Spirit ! ^ It is a metaphor V Here is the escape from the 
 unanswerable argument. Every thing that looks like im,- 
 'mersion must be construed literally — every thing that favors 
 pouring is a metaphor, a beautiful hyperbole, a figure of 
 speech ! To reason with such unscrupulous dialecticians is 
 a loss of time and labor. They are determined to upset all 
 rules of interpretation, to cut down, enlarge, or destroy the 
 sense of God's word in order to save their cause. Poetry is 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 221 
 
 the last resort — when every thing else fails, metaphors and 
 tropes come to their relief. They will make Christ and his 
 apostles use the language of fiction if they do not support 
 immersion. They will make distinctions where there are no 
 differences, and say that one can be baptized with the in- 
 fluences of the Spirit, but not with the Spirit himself! And 
 if you bring them to the language of the plain word of God, 
 they will not hesitate to draw upon the resources of infidel- 
 ity — deriding the prominent truths of our religion, and ren- 
 dering the Bible an absurd and incomprehensible mass of 
 fables ! Such is the course of the author of ' Theodosia/ 
 who unites in his characters all the elements of a miserable 
 logic and an extravagant skepticism. If one could be im- 
 mersed in the Spirit of God, they would have the narrative 
 in Acts to be literal ; but as it is said to be a j^ouring out of 
 the Spirit, therefore it is not a literal baptism ! ' The Spirit 
 of God,' says the author of this book, ' is everywhere pre- 
 sent ; therefore the literal pouring out of the Spirit is im- 
 possible.' x\nd yet there was something poured out — what 
 was it ? Why, the influences of the Spirit ! And are not 
 the influences of the Spirit as evidently omnipresent as the 
 Spirit himself? How then could they be poured out? 
 Mysterious indeed is the nature of the All wise God — his 
 ways are past finding out, and his wisdom unsearchable — but 
 when we enter the territory of the infidel, and demand, how 
 can the Spirit of God be poured upon his people ? we need 
 but take one step more, and ask, hoio does God exist? and if 
 we refuse to believe until we comprehend the Divine exist- 
 ence, the lowest caverns of atheistical despair are open for 
 our reception.'' 
 
 ''Do I understand you to say that ' Theodosia' denies the 
 literal baptism of the Holy Spirit ?" asked Theophilus. 
 '' Yes, the denial is made in the plainest terms." 
 ^' Well," replied Theophilus, "■ if that is the only argu- 
 
^2 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 meut to be offered against your views, I am free to say tliat 
 the question between you is not the mode of baptism, but 
 the truth of the Christian religion. If there is no literal bap- 
 tism of the Spirit, there is no Christianity. If there is no 
 literal conversion, no real change, no direct operation of the 
 Spirit upon the hearts of men, then it is folly to talk of 
 Christ being the Saviour of men. But I beg of you, Mr. 
 Mason, do not spend time in answering such profane cavils. 
 Whenever a man is willing to sacrifice the very groundwork 
 of Christianity, in order to establish a sectarian opinion, I 
 would no sooner think of reasoning with him than with a 
 block of stone. His heart cannot be influenced by the 
 truth, who betrays the fundamental doctrines of religion to 
 accomplish a selfish purpose. I am exceedingly pleased with 
 your explanation of the ministry of John the Baptist, and 
 the reason of our Saviour's baptism. Thus far I feel con- 
 vinced that the mode of water baptism which was practiced 
 by John was the type of the Spirit's baptism to which he 
 constantly alluded. I would like to hear your views about 
 the design of water baptism as a Christian ordinance." 
 
 '' In order to do so, Theophilus," replied Mr. Mason, " I 
 must pursue the same course already taken, and present you 
 a connection between the pi-oj^hecT/ of the Old Testament 
 and the Mstor?/ of the New. Although I shall have another 
 use for these scriptural evidences, when I come to speak of 
 the suhjects of the ordinance, it will be necessary, first, to 
 give them as illustrative of the general meaning and design 
 of baptism. I shall give these quotations in the order in 
 which they occur in Scripture, beginning with the prophecy. 
 ' Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a 
 NEW COVENANT with the house of Israel, and the house of 
 Judah ; not according to the covenant which I made with 
 their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to 
 bring them out of the land of Egypt, which my covenant 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 223 
 
 they brake^ although I was a husband unto them, saith the 
 Lord. liut this shall be the covenant that I will make with 
 ■ the house of Israel : iVfter those days, saith the Lord, I will 
 put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their 
 hearts ; and w^ill be their God, and they shall be my people.' 
 Jeremiah xxxi. 31-33. 'And he took bread, and gave 
 thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying. This is my 
 body which is given for you : this do in remembrance of me. 
 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying. This cuj) is the 
 NEW TESTAMENT (or COVENANT) ill my hlood, icliicli is sJied 
 for you.' Luke xxii. 19, 20. 'And for this cause he is the 
 mediator of the new testament, (or covenant,) that by 
 means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions 
 that were under the first testament, (or covenant,) they 
 which are called might receive the promise of eternal inher- 
 itance.' Hebrews ix. 15. 
 
 " You must remember, Theophilus, that when Christ is 
 said to be the Mediator of a new covenant, the law, or Sina- 
 itic covenant, is the object of contrast. The blessings j)^'^- 
 mised to Abraham are secured by the blood of Christ. This 
 I hope to prove when we examine the subject of infant bap- 
 tism. For the present, then, keep the fact in view, that 
 when St. Paul speaks of the nciv covenant, the contrast is 
 with the Sinaitic covenant only. To avoid confusion of 
 terms, I shall use the words old and neiv dispensation. 
 St. Paul, in the third chapter of the letter to the G-ala- 
 tians, says: 'iVnd this I say, that the covenant which 
 was confirmed he/ore of God in Christ, the law, which 
 was four hundred years after, cannot disannul, that it 
 should make the promise of Grod of none effect. For if 
 the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise ; 
 but God gave it to Abraham by promise.' We learn, 
 then, that the covenant was first made with Abraham. 
 Now, by turning to the twelfth chapter of Genesis we find 
 
224 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 the promise wliich the Lord made to Abraham. Iji the fif- 
 teenth chapter the promise is renewed ; and in the seven- 
 teenth chapter the covenant is made, and the seal affixed to 
 it. ' This is my covenant that ye shall keep between me 
 and you, and thy seed after thee : Every man-child among 
 you shall he circumcised.' St. Paul, in Romans, fourth 
 chapter, declares, 'And he (Abraham) received the SIGN of 
 circumcision, A SEAL of the righteousness of the faith which 
 he then had, being uncircumcised.^ Then we learn that cir- 
 cumcision was the sign and seal under the okl dispensation. 
 Now we turn to Galatians again, and Paul tells us : ' For ye 
 are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For 'as 
 many of you as have heen BAPTIZED into Christ, have put 
 on Chi'ist. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither 
 bond nor free, there is neither male nor female ] for ye are 
 all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye 
 Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.' 
 Galatians iii. 26, 29. Now the facts are before us. Under 
 the old dispensation, circumcision was the sign and the seal. 
 Under the neiv dispensation, bajytis^n is the sign and the seal. 
 The old dispensation had respect to Abraham and his seed. 
 The new dispensation has respect to all the children of Abra- 
 ham and their seed — not his natural posterity alone, but all 
 those who are hy faith his seed. The seal of the old dispen- 
 sation was Si partial one, being delivered only to the male 
 children of Abraham ; but under the 7ieio dispensation the 
 seal is given to all alike ; for ' there is neither male nor 
 female,' says the apostle — ' all are one in Christ Jesus.' The 
 * putting on of Christ,' or the initiation under the neiv dispen- 
 sation, he tells us is done by being ' baptized into Christ.' 
 
 " Here, then, Theophilus, we have the answer to your 
 question : Baptism is now the sign and seal of the covenant 
 made in the blood of Jesus Christ, our Mediator with God. 
 It is the sign of that baptism by the Holy Spirit, by which 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 225 
 
 the law of God is written in our hearts ; it is a seal of the 
 promise by which we are encouraged to trust in the Lord for 
 the accomplishment of this work. Now let us return to the 
 passage in Acts which we have been considering. After 
 the sermon which Peter delivered, many of the Jews were 
 deeply convicted of their sins, and said, ' Men and brethren, 
 what shall we do V Pet-er replied : ' Repent, and be bap- 
 tized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the 
 remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy 
 Ghost.' It would seem that he indicated a special order in 
 which the commandment was to be obeyed. You know, 
 Theophilus, that one division of the Baptist Church strenu- 
 ously labor to establish this advice of Peter as the universal 
 law of the gospel. They say we have, 1st, Repentance, or 
 reformation. 2d, Baptism. 3d, Remission of sins. The 
 fourth item, the gift of the Holy Ghost, they omit, assum- 
 ing that it was a consequence which was only temporary, 
 not needed in succeeding ages. I do not grant their posi- 
 tion, of course, that this is the gospel law; yet I am 
 prepared to admit that this was the order in this particular 
 case. But there was a reason for it. There was a cause 
 which rendered this exhortation necessary. I am willing to 
 admit that if these conscience-smitten and awakened Jews 
 had not been baptized, they would not have received remis- 
 sion of sins. But let us ascertain the reason why this was 
 so. AVe must remember that Peter was addressing the 
 Jeivs alone ; at that time he did not know that the Gentiles 
 were to be partakers of this gospel. Indeed, so firmly was 
 he convinced that the gospel was restricted to the Jews, that 
 it was necessary to convince him of the contrary by the 
 vision of the sheet let down from heaven. This account we 
 find in the tenth chapter of the Acts. Peter, then, was 
 speaking to the Jews : ^ Ye men of Israel,' he says — and 
 after declaring that Jesus of Nazareth was a man approved 
 10* 
 
226 THEOPIIILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 of Grod among them, lie continues — liim ^ye have takeuj 
 and hy loickcd hands have cribcified and slain.' He charges 
 them with being the murderers of Christ. They had per- 
 petrated a heinous crime — crucified the Lord of glory — 
 denying that he was the Christ, and branding him as an 
 impostor and a malefactor. They were not only under the 
 old covenant, but they had, stained their hands in the blood 
 of the Mediator of the 7ieiv. They had then a double work 
 to perform : they had to repent of their sins which they had 
 committed in common with others, and they had to make 
 public atonement for the murder of Christ. Having denied 
 that he was the Messiah publicly at the bar of Pilate, they 
 must now as publicly acknowledge him to be the true Christ, 
 by being baptized in his name. This was all the atonement 
 they could make, and therefore it was required of them. 
 By this renunciation of their error, they would not only 
 prove that they were sincerely penitent, but would secure 
 the same gift of the Spirit which had been bestowed upon 
 the disciples. This I believe to be the true explanation of 
 the j^assage; and they are as greatly in error who deny that 
 baptism preceded remission of sins in this case, as are those 
 who contend that it must ahvai/s go before or happen in 
 conjunction with remission. It was a special case, and 
 required a special law. 
 
 " This view of the case would render immersion as the 
 mode of their baptism well-nigh impossible. If we grant 
 that there was water enough in the city, in the pools or in 
 the baths, to immerse three thousand persons ; if we admit 
 that twelve apostles could possibly immerse such a vast num- 
 ber of persons; still, the circumstances which surrounded 
 them rendered it almost morally impossible that they could 
 have been immersed in water. They had assembled out of 
 curiosity, and must have heard the sermon of Peter before 
 thev' could have been candidates for baptism. Then they 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 227 
 
 must return home for tlie necessary clothing, assemble again 
 at some designated place, and adjourn to the pools : all these 
 things were necessary if immersion was the mode used. 
 And yet we have not a word of all this in the narrative. 
 We are told that the multitude came to see and hear, when 
 the wonderful phenomenon was known in the city; but we 
 have not a word of testimony that they went out from the 
 place to the pool of Bethesda, or Siloam, or anywhere else, 
 in order to be baptized. Such an extraordinary spectacle as 
 three thousand persons marching out to the pools, in order 
 to be baptized, attended by thousands of others who would 
 be attracted by the novelty of a scene never before witnessed 
 in Jerusalem, certainly was worthy of notice by the sacred 
 historian. But he does not give us one word of information 
 about it ; not an expression that will allow such a procedure 
 to be inferred. I am aware of the fact that it is impossible 
 to prove that there was any place or places suitable for 
 immersion in the city; or that it was possible for so small a 
 number of men to Lmmcrse so many in one day. But if 
 these difficulties could be satisfactorily settled, the omission 
 of any expression which could be construed into proof of 
 the immersion of the converts, is positively inexplicable. 
 Surely there was a necessity for such a statement if the fact 
 occurred. This was the first case of baptism performed 
 under the gospel dispensation, and there was a far greater 
 necessity to say that it was done in Siloam or Bethesda, than 
 to state that John baptized in Jordan. It will not do to 
 say that it was known that John baptized in the river Jor- 
 dan ; and therefore these were necessarily immersed. For 
 if the comparison is worth any thing at all, it will prove 
 that John went to Jordan because there was no suitable 
 place in Jerusalem. Nor will it do to say that the citizens 
 of Jerusalem needed not to be informed that there were 
 places suitable for immersion there. Luke was not writing 
 
228 THEOPHILUS WALTONj OR, 
 
 for the citizens of Jerusalem, but for the world at large, 
 who could not be acquainted with the facts. Nor can it be 
 said that it was suflacieut to state that they were haptizedy 
 without giving the place and other circumstances. We 
 may as well say that it was not necessary even to state that 
 they were baptized at all, as that by the same process could 
 be inferred also. 
 
 ^^ If we give the Baptist rendering to the sentence which 
 the historian has left us chronicling this important announce- 
 ment, we shall see how absurd the account appears. ' Then 
 they that gladly received his word were haptized f so reads 
 the passage. The Baptists would have it : ' Then they that 
 gladly received his word were dipped ; and the same day 
 there were added unto them three thousand souls.' They 
 were '•dipped.'' Where? in what? not in Jordan, nor 
 Siloam, nor Bethesda, nor anywhere else; for they were not 
 dipped at all. This is the only reasonable conclusion. And 
 there is another remarkable fact, that there is not a word 
 said in the New Testament of a Christian convert being bap- 
 tized in a river, a pool, a Hank,' or any thing of the sort; 
 not the slightest hint that any congregation adjourned to 
 such a place to witness a baptism by immersion. If our 
 Saviour had required such a thing at the hands of his 
 believing children, it is absolutely unaccountable that we 
 have no evidence that any one of them ever obeyed him. 
 
 ^^We have consumed the greater part of the evening, 
 Theophilus, as I am reminded by my watch. We shall meet 
 to-morrow night, and continue our examination of the New 
 Testament baptism. I shall be pleased to see you also, Mr. 
 Battle, and to listen to any thing you may have to say.'^ 
 
 The Baptist minister bowed to Mr. Mason, and, without 
 making any reply, withdrew with the audience. 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 229 
 
 CHAPTEE XVI. 
 
 EVENTS or THE FOLLOWING DAY 
 
 After returning home on Tuesday niglit, Mr. Battle and 
 Mr. Ellis repaired to the study at the church, where, with 
 Mr. Walton, the father of Theophilus, they continued in 
 consultation until a late hour. The result of the interview, 
 whatever it may have been, did not seem satisfactory to the 
 parties concerned. Mr. Battle had been driven from the 
 field as effectually as Mr. Ellis had been, and it seemed use- 
 less to endeavor to interrupt the proceedings any further. 
 It was evident that Mr. Mason had the vantage-ground; it 
 was fruitless to attempt to counteract his argument by cap- 
 tious objections. The only course open to Mr. Battle was, 
 then, to challenge Mr. Mason to meet him on Baptist pre- 
 mises ; to bring him into the classical authorities, and rest the 
 question of mode upon the testimony of the Grreek writers. 
 In pursuance of this design, Mr. Battle prepared a note, 
 challenging Mr. Mason to an examination of classical au- 
 thorities at large. He proposed Friday evening as a proper 
 time for this meeting. The note was written late on Tues- 
 day night, and was dispatched to Mr. Mason on Wednesday 
 morning. 
 
 Mr. Ellis, however, did not seem confident of success in 
 this effort, although he interposed no objection to it. There 
 was evidently, to his mind, a better plan. If Theophilus 
 could be brought back, he was well aware that with the mass 
 
230 TIIEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 of the people all would be restored. He felt that there were 
 important results pending the decision of this young man. 
 If, after all, Theophilus should declare that he was yet in favor 
 of immersion ; if he could be by any means forced or per- 
 suaded to unite with the Baptist Church, the evil would be 
 averted. He did not question that the aifair of Mrs. Wil- 
 liams could be brought to a satisfactory conclusion. He 
 had determined, in his own mind, to shape the decision in 
 reference to her case in the forthcoming trial. She was old, 
 and therefore claimed forbearance at their hands. She had 
 been led off by peculiar circumstances, such as were not 
 likely to occur again. In this view of the case, then, he 
 was determined to plead for her forgiveness by the church. 
 He had no doubt that this could be obtained, for he had sel- 
 dom calculated upon his influence upon his brethren without 
 success. 
 
 Mr. Walton, too, had his difficulties. He had paid much 
 attention to the education of Theophilus. Nothing that 
 money could procure had been denied him. He hoped to 
 see his son occupy a proud position at the bar, and he had 
 placed in his hands all the required helps. But with all his 
 affection for his son, there was much of real selfishness in 
 his conduct toward him. He felt that the honor gained 
 would be reflected upon himself and the family. He con- 
 sulted his own pride, rather than the wishes of his son. 
 But now that Theophilus had united himself to the Method- 
 ist Church, against his declared wishes, his sectarian bigotry 
 had triumphed over his natural affection. He had determined 
 to use all moderate means to reclaim him ; but in the event 
 of failure, Mr. Walton had resolved to use an argument 
 which he knew would be successful in his own case, whether 
 it would move his son or not. The last resort of his 
 wounded pride was a threat to disinherit his child; and 
 after the interview with Mr. Ellis and Mr. Battle, Mr. 
 
THE MAJESTY OT TRUTH. 231 
 
 Walton determined to communicate his resolution to Tlie- 
 ophilus. 
 
 On Wednesday morning, Mr. Ellis summoned his daugh- 
 ter to the sitting-room. Mary answered the summons in a 
 few moments. As she entered the room, she saw from the 
 expression of her father's countenance that she would need 
 all the courage she could command. But she had prepared 
 herself for the worst, and whatever that might be, she deter- 
 mined to adhere unfalteringly to the interests of her be- 
 trothed. 
 
 " Mary, my daughter," commenced Mr. Ellis, ^' I have 
 learned from your mother that you have had an interview 
 with that bo}^, Theophilus, within a day or two past. Do 
 you remember my command, Mary ?'^ 
 
 'I remember it very well, father,'' replied Mary^ calmly; 
 *' I know that you commanded me to see him no more." 
 
 ^'And you have disobeyed me, Mary V 
 
 '' I have disobeyed you, father." 
 
 ''And what excuse have you to render for such conduct?" 
 
 " I have no excuse , father, but I have the best of rea~ 
 sons." 
 
 ''And what is it, Mary ?" 
 
 " I have the best reason a woman can give for seeing The- 
 ophilus — I love him. You have given me no reason why 
 I should discard him, and therefore I have not done so." 
 
 " Then you take the liberty of doing as you please, I sup- 
 pose, disobe3ang your parents at pleasure ?" 
 
 " Only in this instance, father." 
 
 " Do you intend to persist in this course, Mary ?" 
 
 " Unless you convince me that I am doing wrong, father. 
 You have not done so yet. Although I regret the necessity 
 which compels me to this step, I am nevertheless firm in my 
 decision." 
 
 "And you intend to marry this young man, Mary?" 
 
232 THEOTHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 ^^Tliat is my purpose, father, unless you can give mo 
 some reason why I should not." 
 
 ^' I can give you reasons enough, my child, if you will 
 heed them. Theophilus is young. He has never, perhaps, 
 worked a day in his life." 
 
 " Very well, father, I suppose that is no very good reason 
 why I should discard him." 
 
 '^ But if he should be left without a cent from his father, 
 what then ?" 
 
 ^' I should love him still." 
 
 ^^ But would you marry him, then ?" 
 
 " You mistake me, father. I have not fallen in love with 
 his estate, but with himself. I should regard his being dis- 
 inherited as a misfortune, but I must have proof that it is 
 his fault." 
 
 '^ He has oifended his father — that is enough. He con- 
 siders him no longer worthy his countenance." 
 
 ''And for the very reason that you wish me to treat him 
 unkindly. Theophilus is no longer a Baptist — that is the 
 secret of your opposition." 
 
 ''It is enough, Mary. He has been the means of injuring 
 our Church. His sin is a grievous one, and does not deserve 
 to be forgiven." 
 
 " I see nothing wrong in his course, father. He has only 
 obeyed the dictates of his conscience." 
 
 " Then you persist in your disobedience, Mary ?" 
 
 " I am firm, father. Convince me that Theophilus is no 
 longer worthy of my affection, and I will obey you. But 
 until you give a better cause for discarding him than you 
 have done so far, I shall remain true to him." 
 
 " Then, Mary, you renounce your father and your home 
 for ever." 
 
 " Be it so, father," replied Mary, a bright tear-drop roll- 
 mo; down her cheeks. " You have said the word. I cannot 
 
THE iMAJESTY OF TRUTH. 233 
 
 be to blame. If I am to forsake father and mother, it is for 
 his sake who has been the subject of my thoughts, and is to 
 be the sharer of mj joys and sorrows. If you say so, I 
 must leave you. I will not stay where he is not allowed to 
 come." 
 
 '^ Foolish child !" exclaimed Mr. Ellis, '^ where will you go V 
 
 " I shall trust in God," reiDlied Mary. " He will provide 
 for us." 
 
 " But how will you live ?" asked Mr. Ellis. 
 
 ^' I am not too good to work, father, Theopbilus is not 
 dependent. While God blesses us with health we shall 
 never want bread. A cottage will be enough for me ; if my 
 husband can only find occupation, we shall not crave his 
 father's riches." 
 
 " Go, then 1" exclaimed Mr. Ellis, " and try it. But he 
 shall never set foot in my house again — never." 
 
 Mr. Ellis left the room, and Mary soon followed. She 
 had put on her bonnet and shawl, when her mother met her 
 at the door of her room. 
 
 " Where arc you going, Mary ?" asked Mrs. Ellis. 
 
 " I am going to Aunt Riley's," replied 3Iary. 
 
 " You are not going to leave us, Mary ?" 
 
 ^'I am not prepared to say now, mother/' replied Mary; 
 ^^I shall spend the day there, however." 
 
 ^' You will be back to supper ?" 
 
 " I cannot tell, mother — I may not." 
 
 " But you must, Mary." 
 
 ^^Not without father's permission. Good-morning, mo- 
 ther." 
 
 Mary was gone in a moment. She seemed not to be 
 angry. Her countenance was calm, and her voice as sweet 
 and musical as ever. Mrs. Ellis had overheard the conver- 
 sation in the sitting-room, and she determined to persuade 
 her husband to deal more gently with their daughter. 
 
234 tiieophtluswalton; or, 
 
 Mr. Ellis was inexorable. In vain did his wife represent 
 to him the injury he was inflicting upon himself and his 
 Church by such a heartless course. The world would judge 
 him harshly, and say that he had acted cruelly. Theophi- 
 lus was beloved by all, and to the impartial, Mr. Ellis was 
 without excuse. His wife assured him that Mary's firmness 
 was not to be overruled by unkindness. Indeed, the 
 mother's heart was more than half-inclined to defend her 
 daughter, although she had done every thing in her power 
 to prevent* the present issue. Mrs. Ellis remembered that 
 when she was even younger than Mary, she had married Mr. 
 Ellis against her parents' wishes. She felt that, after all, 
 Mary might be in the right. But Mr. Ellis spoke very 
 abruptly to his wife, and left the house, and she did not see 
 him again until the dinner-hour. She did not venture to 
 renew the subject then, for Mr. Ellis seemed to be in much 
 distress, and, after hastily dispatching his meal, went out 
 a2;ain. 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH 
 
 235 
 
 CHAPTER XYII. 
 
 A STRUGGLE AND A VICTORY. 
 
 On lier way to Mr. Eiley's Mary met Theopliilus. He 
 liad started to her father's house to see her. He accompa- 
 nied her to the house of Mr. Riley, where Mary informed 
 him of the conversation with her father that morning. 
 
 '^ I am sorry that you have been treated thus for my sake^ 
 jMary," said Theophilus; ''but be of good courage, my love, 
 the Lord has not forsaken us. I received from my father 
 this morning the intelligence that he has determined to cast 
 me off for ever." ^ 
 
 ''Just as I expected; Theophilus/' said Mary; "and how 
 did you receive it?'^ 
 
 "I thought of the words of the Psalmist, 'When my 
 father and my mother forsake me, then the Lord will take 
 me up.' I was so conscious of my rectitude, and that I had 
 done nothing to deserve condemnation, that I received his 
 orders without a murmur. I am to look to him for nothing 
 so long as I persist in being a Methodist. I replied to him 
 calmly, and told him that I had taken up my cross, and 
 however heavy that might be, by the help of God's grace, I 
 was resolved to bear it. I have nothing now, Mary, to sus- 
 tain me but your fidelity and the grace of Grod.'' 
 
 "And we shall be happy, Theophilus!'' exclaimed Mary; 
 " happier than the tenants of royal mansions, and those who 
 boast themselves of riches. We can work, and the good 
 
236 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 Lord, who feeds the birds without barn or storehouse, will 
 not permit us to lack for bread/' 
 
 "I believe that firmly, Mary/' answered Theophilus; 
 '^ but still there is a subject which gives me great anxiety. 
 I have not informed you of it yet, and I must beg your par- 
 don for my remissness. Perhaps, after all, it may be the 
 greatest hindrance in the way of our union.'' 
 
 ''Well, what is it. The. i' I am prepared for anything 
 now. I have left father and mother for you. .There is no 
 other sacrifice which I can make that shall not be freely 
 made. Tell me, what more am I to do?" 
 
 '' Bear with me, Mary," replied Theophilus, " I am going 
 to relate to you a strange story. Do not charge me with 
 superstition, but hear me out before you judge. AVhen I 
 was a little boy, hardly more than four years of age, I had 
 a singular dream, which impressed my mind so vividly that 
 it is now almost as distinctly before me as the night when it 
 first transpired. I thought I was in a vast field, which 
 extended, in slightly undulating plains, as far as the eye 
 could reach. The surface of the ground seemed to be per- 
 fectly bare ; and whilst I was walking alone in this field I 
 felt the earth shake beneath my feet, and a singular noise, 
 resembliug the striking of heavy timbers against the ground, 
 underneath. I was greatly alarmed, and remembering that 
 my mother had taught me to pray, I knelt down, and asked 
 the Lord to protect me. Whilst I was kneeling there I 
 dreamed that a voice fell from the sky overhead, and I 
 heard these words, ' This is my prophet, harm him not.' In 
 a moment I felt perfectly assured that I was safe, and rising 
 to my feet, I looked out again upon the field. The noise 
 had ceased, and the whole earth was covered with grain 
 resembling wheat, just ripe and ready for the sickle. The 
 golden heads were waving to and fro under a gentle breeze, 
 and, in the clear sunlight, looked like a sea of gold, rolling 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 237 
 
 on wave after wave. In a moment more an innumerable 
 company of reapers appeared, all dressed in white, and 
 T^egan to harvest the grain. I awoke soon after, and the 
 impression left upon my mind has not been effaced to this 
 day. That dream has followed me, Mary, when I have been 
 surrounded by gay and dissipated companions. I have never 
 been tempted to ridicule sacred things, or to speak lightly of 
 religion, without thinking of it, and I am sure it has pre- 
 served me from committing a thousand sins." 
 
 ^'And what did you make of it, Theophilus V inquired 
 Mary. 
 
 " I thought that it was from God, and warned me of the 
 fact that I should live to be a minister of the gospel — a mes- 
 senger of the Lord. I cannot say now that this was the 
 proper interpretation, or that it was more than a childish 
 fancy, but certainly it has been of great service to me. 
 Whether from this source alone I cannot tell, but I have 
 always felt that I should be called to minister in holy things. 
 When at the altar for prayer, recently, I found it necessary 
 to give myself wholly up to the Lord, and if he saw fit to 
 prepare me for this work, I resolved to take up the cross 
 Now, Mary, I have told you all. You are the only human 
 being to whom I have confided this secret of my heart. I 
 feel that I must preach the gospel, or forfeit the favor of my 
 Grod. It was this impression that made me so decided in 
 the choice of my Church relations. Some of the doctrines 
 of the Baptist Church I cannot believe, and therefore I 
 cannot preach them. Now I have told you all, Mary, tell 
 me, my dear, do you object to my resolution ?" 
 
 '' What, Theophilus !" said Mary, " to preach the gospel ? 
 No, my love, if the Lord has called you to this work, go ; 
 he will qualify you for it. I have but one objection to your 
 entering the ministry. I feel that new duties would be 
 imposed upon me, new responsibilities placed upon me — 
 
238 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 my example and influence must be of sucli a cliaracter as to 
 aid you in your labors. The grace of Grod alone can fit me 
 for such a station. I will try it — I will go anywhere that 
 the Lord may call you to labor. Not a straw will I place in 
 your way. I honor you for your integrity, love you for 
 yourself alone ; and whatever may be your lot, as I said to 
 you before, ^ naught but death shall part thee and me.' ^' 
 
 "But weigh well the difficulties, Mary. I may be ap- 
 pointed to difficult fields of labor. You will have to suifer 
 many privations, and to bear many hardships. You must 
 live for the most part among strangers, and meet many of the 
 trials of itinerant life.'' 
 
 " I am ready, Theophilus," replied Mary, " to share any 
 hardship with you. Let me know and see that you are 
 happy, and I could live in a desert, as happily as if in a 
 sumptuous mansion. Fear nothing from me, my dear; I shall 
 not hesitate a moment.^^ 
 
 "Then, Mary!" exclaimed Theophilus, "let our ambition 
 be to do good, and the Lord will bless us. You are a trea- 
 sure, more costly than rubies, more precious than diamonds. 
 With you to comfort and cheer me, and the favor of my 
 Heavenly Father, I can suffer the loss of all things else." 
 
 The morning passed pleasantly away, and soon the hour 
 arrived for the afternoon meeting of Carrie Mason and her 
 frisnds. 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 239 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 CARRIE mason's REVIEW CONCLUDED. 
 
 ^' 1 BELIEVE you have gone tlirougli tlie cross-examination 
 of Theodosia's witnesses, Miss Carrie/' said Mr. Price, ^'and 
 I admit that your view of the subject takes the witnesses out 
 of the hands of the Baptists. You have gone, I believe, to 
 the close of the Second Night." 
 
 ^'I have examined the testimony of Mr. Barnes, Dr. 
 Macknight, Dr. Chalmers, Luther, and Mr. Wesley," said 
 Carrie, '^and we have seen that they all agree in rejecting 
 the doctrine of exclusive immersion. Not one of these men 
 believed that exclusive immersion was practiced by the an- 
 cient Church, that it is enjoined in the Scriptures, or that it 
 is to be understood from the meaning of the Gfreek word. 
 And yet these men are brought forward to prove a doctrine 
 which they did not believe, and the minds of professed 
 Pedobaptists are represented as being convinced by testi- 
 mony which does not reach the case. Let me ask you, Mr. 
 Price, if with such witnesses as these you could gain a case 
 in court?" * 
 
 " Not unless they proved the point in dispute, Miss Carrie," 
 replied Mr. Price; ^^if the testimony does not reach the 
 statements set forth in the indictment, we are compelled to 
 enter a nolle prosequi, and dismiss the case." 
 
 '' Exactly so," replied Carrie. '' We, as Pedobaptists, are 
 charged with disloyalty to the King of heaven— nothing less 
 
240 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 tlian treason against our heavenly Master. The specification 
 is that we have wilfully substituted a mode of baptism for 
 that which our Lawgiver has commanded. Witnesses are 
 summoned from our own ranks to testify against themselves 
 as well as against us. But we find, upon examining the tes- 
 timony, that they do not prove the indictment, that they 
 have never spoken a word which can possibly prove it, and 
 therefore, unless the other side — the iirosccutors in this case 
 • — can prove it by other means, the case is determined, and 
 the prosecution fails. 
 
 ^' You will perceive, then, my friends," continued Carrie, 
 '^low far you are to credit the statements of this book. 
 Whenever by chance a Pedobaptist has been found who 
 mentions immersion favorably, or allows that it is a mode of 
 baptism, his words are seized upon as valid fvoof that im- 
 mersion is the o)dy mode, and we are required to believe 
 that these men testify against themselves. The most of you 
 have seen already with what force this sort of argument may 
 be turned against immersionists. If our Baptist friends 
 prefer immersion, let them practice it. If they believe 
 Christ commanded it, let them remember that we are as 
 conscientious in keeping Christ's commandments as they are, 
 and if we do not practice immersion, it is simply because we 
 do not believe that our Saviour requires it at our hands. If 
 we cannot agree, then, as to the precise nature of the com- 
 mand, let us at all events agree to live in peace, and grant to 
 each other a reasonable liberty of conscience." 
 
 ^' That is a Christianlike view of the controversy. Miss 
 Carrie," said Mr. Price; ''but are you not going to examine 
 some of the proofs in Theodosia on the Baptist side ?" 
 
 ''I have looked over the Third Night's study," replied 
 Carrie, '' and I see nothing there worthy of special notice. 
 Mr. Johnson, the Presbyterian pastor, commences a sort of 
 argument — we will call it arcjument for the sake of courtesy. 
 
THE MAJESTY OE TRUTH. 241 
 
 but it is nothing more than mere assertions, from which a 
 very few Baptist strokes make the Presbyterian minister to 
 recede, and leave his cause in the hands of his opponents. 
 It would be a waste of time to notice the trivial attempts at 
 proof which the minister makes. Of course, to meet the 
 wants of Theodosia's cause, he must make confident asser- 
 tions, and then give them up without hardly a struggle. 
 
 ^' Mr. Percy suggests that John the Baptist ^ might have 
 provided himself with a large-sized syringe or squirt-gun j 
 and, filling it from the river, have turned its stream along the 
 ranks,' and thus, probably, he baptized the Jews ! Of 
 course this suggestion makes merriment for the author, but 
 he gravely tells us that the Presbyterian minister accejpfs the 
 suggestion as ' an amendment to his supposition/ and good 
 proof for his cause ! 
 
 " This is but a sample of this minister's argument. And 
 after giving up post after post, he finally makes a stand on 
 'with' — John baptized with water, therefore he did not im- 
 merse. Edwin, however, upsets the grave Presbyterian's 
 argument, by saying that ^Aunt Chloe, the cook,' told him 
 how she ' would get the feathers off the chicken for dinner.' 
 The cook said she would scald it with hot water, and then 
 dijjped the chicken into the water. Moreover, ' big Joe, the 
 butcher,' loosened the hair of the hogs he killed, ivith hot 
 water, by di2:>2ying the hogs into the water, and therefore 
 John baptized by immersion ! Mr. Percy gives it up, Edwin 
 gains the day, and the learned Presbyterian minister is 
 silenced ! 
 
 '^ Now, my friends," continued Carrie, '^ when such argu- 
 ments as these silence all opposition, we may despair of any 
 attempt to answer them. So absurd in themselves are the 
 efforts of the Pedobaptist advocates in this book, that they 
 will not bear a grave attempt to refute them. Yet they are 
 said to be the hest, the strongest arguments on our side, and 
 11 
 
242 THEOPIIILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 * Tlieodosia Ernest' is held up to us by the Baptists as, be- 
 yond comparison, the most impartial of books ! 
 
 ^' In the Fourth Night's study, the pastor comes to the 
 rescue again. He brings up the baptism of the Holy Ghost 
 on the day of Pentecost, which is said to be a baptism by 
 pouring out the Holy Spirit. Theodosia takes Mr. John- 
 son in hand, and makes him admit that there was no literal 
 baptism of the Holy Spirit, that there was no pouring out 
 of the Spirit — that it is all a figure of speech ! Now I am 
 not very well acquainted with the writings of Presbyterians, 
 it is true, but if any one of distinction among orthodox 
 Presbyterians has ever made such an admission, I have never 
 heard of it. This point I will not pretend to argue, as it 
 has been already noticed at length in father's conversations 
 with Mr. Walton. I will only remark, however, that it ap- 
 pears evident to me that the baptism of the Spirit is as truly 
 literal as the baptism with water. If one is a figure, the 
 other is also — John the Baptist is a figure^ Jordan is a figure, 
 and the Jews were all figures ! 
 
 "After admitting, however, that the baptism of the Holy 
 Spirit was only a figurative baptism, Mr. Johnson declares 
 that there was not water enough in Jerusalem to immerse 
 three thousand persons. After delivering this declaration, 
 he makes it convenient to take up his hat and leave, and 
 the Baptist schoolmaster comes in, of course, to find proof 
 that there was the greatest quantity of water imaginable in 
 Jerusalem. Uncle Jones, however, saves the schoolmaster 
 the trouble, by coming in first, and giving his niece, Theo- 
 dosia, the information, that Robinson, in his Kesearches in 
 Palestine, found pools over 300 feet long and 200 feet wide, 
 but he does not say how deep. The depth of these pools 
 was decidedly a matter of importance, as it would be about 
 as difficult to immerse in a pool forty feet deep as in one only 
 a foot in depth.'' 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 243 
 
 " I was reading the other day/' remarked Theopliilus, ^' a 
 letter from a correspondent who is now living in Jerusalem. 
 The letter was published in the National Intelligencer. 
 The writer says that the three pools of Solomon are from 
 25 to 50 feet in depth, and that the pools within the city are 
 of immense extent, designed for reservoirs to contain water 
 for the use of the people. I should think, however, that 
 these pools, being the only source from which the people 
 could obtain water for drinking and cooking purposes, would 
 hardly be used to immerse the bodies of the Christian con- 
 verts.'' 
 
 ^' True," replied Carrie, ^^ and when I looked into Robin- 
 son's Lexicon the other day, (and this is the same Robinson 
 quoted by Theodosia,) I copied these remarks : ^ In Acts ii. 
 41, three thousand persons are said to have been baptized at 
 Jerusalem, apparently in one day, at the season of Pentecost, 
 in June ; and in Acts iv. 4, the same rite is necessarily im- 
 plied in respect to five thousand more. Against the idea of 
 full immersion in these cases, there lies a difficulty app^ 
 ently insuperahle, in the scarcity of water. There is in 
 summer no running stream in the vicinity of Jerusalem, 
 except the mere rill of Siloam, a few rods in length ] and 
 the city is and was supplied with water from its cisterns 
 and public reservoirs. From neither of these sources could 
 a supply have been well obtained for the immersion of eight 
 thousand persons. The same scarcity of water forhade the 
 use of private baths as a general custom. . . The baptismal 
 fonts still found among the ruins of the most ancient G-reek 
 churches in Palestine, as at Tekoa and Gophna, and going 
 back apparently to very early times, are not large enough to 
 admit of the baptism of adult persons by immersion ; and 
 - were obviously never intended for that use.' So says Dr. 
 Robinson. 
 
 ^'After ^ Uncle Jones' finds the pools, with plenty of water 
 
244 TIIEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 in tliem, he has a scruple in his mind whether or not the 
 Jews, who had control of them, would permit the disciples 
 to baptize their converts in them by immersion. Theodosia 
 gets this difficulty out of the way, however, by telling him 
 how wonderfully popular the apostles were on the day of 
 Pentecost. ' Fear came upon every soul,' and they had 
 favor with all the people. Moreover, adds Theodosia, ^ they 
 gave them tJie Temple to preach in, and it is not likely they 
 would refuse the pools to baptize in.' Now, I confess this is 
 new to me. I never heard before that the apostles turned 
 the Temple of the Jews into a meeting-house. According 
 to this statement, the Jews were a great deal more generous 
 than the Baptists of the Graves stamp, the Iron Wheelites, 
 for they will not suffer Pedobaptist Christians to preach in 
 their temples." 
 
 '^ But where does Theodosia learn that the apostles had 
 the Temple to preach in ?" asked Theophilus. 
 
 ^'Ah, that's the question!" exclaimed Carrie; ^^ perhaps 
 Mr. Courtney, the Baptist schoolmaster, discovered it some- 
 where. I have never seen the statement in the Bible. We 
 are told that ^when the day of Pentecost was fully come, 
 they were all with one accord in one place,' but that that 
 place was the Temple, is not only omitted by Luke, but we 
 know that it could not have been so. The idea of the high- 
 priest and the elders consenting to let Peter have the 
 Temple to preach in is supremely ludicrous. And that 
 these pools or cisterns, from which the Jews obtained their 
 daily supplies of water, were tendered to the apostles for the 
 purpose of immersing their converts, is absolutely preposter- 
 ous. Such, at least, is my opinion." 
 
 ^^And you are undoubtedly correct," remarked Theophi- 
 lus, ^^for notwithstanding the favor of the people, which 
 Theodosia mentions, we are informed in the fourth chapter 
 of Acts, that the priests, the captain of the Temple, and 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTU. 245 
 
 the Sadducees, came upon Peter and John in Solomon's 
 porch, outside of the Temple, and took them to prison for 
 preaching the gospel. '^ 
 
 ^^ You see, Miss Theodosia had been long enough under 
 Baptist tuition to improve her /a?icy," said Carrie; ^^ she 
 was nearly ready to see dressing-rooms erected at the pools 
 by those clever Jews, who had such a high opinion of the 
 disciples that they put the first martyr, Stephen, to death a 
 short time afterward, and drove the Christians from their 
 midst ! 
 
 " The next point to be disposed of between ' Uncle Jones' 
 and Theodosia is, as to the amount of time required to 
 immerse three thousand persons. ' Uncle Jones' makes the 
 disciples meet at 9 o'clock in the morning ; Peter preaches 
 two hours, and it takes them one hour to get to the water. 
 Then they begin the plunging at twelve o'clock, and have 
 just six hours to go upon to wind up by night. ^ Uncle 
 Jones,' however, has taken notice that a Baptist preacher 
 can immerse twenty persons in fifteen minutes, and as there 
 were twelve baptizers, he says they could do the work 
 ^ without any appearance of haste ^ and with the coolest de- 
 liberationJ I should think the deliberation ivould be 
 rather cool, if the apostles had to stand in the water y?2;e or 
 six hours, even in the month of June ! So the matter of 
 time is disposed of. The Jews tender the Temple for the 
 apostles to preach in ; lend them their pools and cisterns to 
 immerse in, and the apostles dip more than a man a minute 
 for several hours together : such are the dreams of Theo- 
 dosia's fourth night. 
 
 ^^ I have now given you some of my objections to the 
 book," continued Carrie, " and you will see, by examining it, 
 that the remaining portion is just as full of contradictions, 
 and, to use a strong word, of absurdities, as that already 
 noticed. Upon the whole, I consider it not only uncandid, 
 
246 THEOPHILUS WALTON. 
 
 but unfair in its argument and reasonings. Tlieodosia's 
 journey to lier ' liquid grave' was a very short one. She 
 commenced a Baptist, and ends a Baptist. Her Pedobaptist 
 friends are all Baptists in disguise, and it is by no means 
 difficult to detect the wolf in the sheep's clothing. How- 
 ever, as we promised to part as good friends as we were 
 when we met, I shall not say any more. If I have said 
 any thing harshly, pardon me, I did not mean it.'' 
 
 " I admire your coolness and charity, Miss Carrie,'' said 
 Mr. Price. '^I must say, also, that you have directed my 
 mind to several important points, which I will examine 
 when I have leisure. I am sure we are all pleased with 
 your conversations, and will be glad to hear you again 
 
Jiftlt (Bv(i\mi^. 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT BAPTISMS CONTINUED. 
 
 NO PEOOF OF IMMERSION IN ANY CASE. 
 
THE MAJESTY OP TRUTH. 249 
 
 FIFTH EVENING 
 
 The audience assembled at the usual hour on Wednesday 
 evening, and Mr. Mason began as follows : 
 
 ^' On last evening, you remember, Theophilus, we closed 
 our investigation with the baptism of the converts on the 
 day of Pentecost. By a plain, reasonable interpretation of 
 the Scripture account, we ascertained that they were not 
 baptized by immersion. To this conclusion we were brought 
 by two important facts, plainly stated in the text. 1. "Wher- 
 ever they assembled together, there they were baptized, 
 because the sacred historian does not intimate that there 
 was an adjournment of the meeting for the purpose of im- 
 mersing the candidates. 2. The water of baptism, and the 
 act by which it was administered, were typical of spiritual 
 baptism, the great result which they were seeking. This 
 baptism of the Spirit is expressly said to be by pouring. 
 
 ^' We shall follow the various narratives in the Acts of the 
 Apostles, this evening, and see the uniform character of 
 those passages which describe the baptism of Christian con- 
 verts. If it shall appear that the testimony is alike in all 
 cases, we shall not be at a loss to know how the persons were 
 baptized. It is necessary to remark, however, before we 
 proceed, that the writer of this book uses the phrases, the 
 ^ g^fi of the Holy Ghost, and the ^ Holy Ghost/ as the c'^'^- 
 11* 
 
250 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 verting power, as interchangeable terms. Sometimes, per- 
 haps usually, in the first conversions in those days, a large 
 number of persons obtained miraculous powers, such as 
 speaking in various languages, hitherto unknown to them. 
 But it is not said that this was true in every instance, or 
 that every person was so gifted at any one time. It was 
 enough that these remarkable gifts were sufficiently numer- 
 ous to attest the Divine presence and manifestation in the 
 work. We do not suppose that three thousand Jews became 
 thus endowed on the day of Pentecost. It is probable that 
 some of them were, but there could be no necessity that all 
 should be thus exercised. The great design of the baptism 
 of the Spirit was to cleanse the heart from the defilements of 
 sin, and this design is perpetually characteristic, and essen- 
 tially necessary, as the result of conversion to God. When- 
 ever we read of the gift of the Holy Spirit being bestowed, 
 we have no right to infer more from the expression than the 
 pardon of sins and regeneration of the heart, unless the 
 miraculous gifts are expressly stated in connection with the 
 conversion, 
 
 ''The next passage in the Acts, in which the subject of 
 baptism is mentioned, is the eighth chapter. In the first 
 part of this chapter we have the account of the conversion 
 of many of the inhabitants of Samaria, and in the latter 
 part the introduction of the gospel into Ethiopia through 
 the treasurer of Queen Candace. We will first examine the 
 case of the people of Samaria. Philip, (whose ordination 
 as one of the seven deacons is mentioned in the sixth chap- 
 ter,) during the persecution of the Church, which was chiefly 
 carried on through the instrumentality of Saul of Tarsus, 
 ' went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto 
 them.' This city was about forty miles distant from Jeru- 
 salem, and occupied a middle position between Judea and 
 Gralilee. The people, seeing the miracles performed by Philip, 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. -251 
 
 gave heed to his doctrines, and many, both men and women, 
 were baptized. The language of the historian is as follows : 
 ^But when they believed Philip preaching the things 
 concerning the kingdom of Grod, and the name of Jesus 
 Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.' It is a 
 question of serious importance, whether these Samaritans 
 were truly converted persons previous to their baptism. If 
 they were not, why were they baptized ? And if they were 
 converted, why did Peter and John go down and pray for 
 them that they might receive the Holy Grhost ? Here are 
 two difficulties to be settled, and, as usual, there are two 
 theories among the teachers of immersion, to explain the 
 matter. One party contends that their faith in the preach- 
 ing of Philip was followed by a genuine change of heart, 
 qualifying them for the ordinance, whilst the subsequent 
 gift of the Holy Grhost had reference alone to miraculous 
 powers. The other party contends that their faith only con- 
 sisted in the acceptance of Jesus as their Messiah, and that 
 in the action of baptism their sins were remitted. Neither 
 of these opinions is wholly true. These Samaritans were 
 inhabitants of a city which was once the capital of the king- 
 dom of Israel. They claimed to be the children of Abra- 
 ham, and practiced the rite of circumcision ] and when 
 they believed the fact which Philip declared unto them, 
 that Jesus was their Christ, they were immediately received 
 into the new dispensation by the ordinance of baptism. 
 This faith which they had then may be called, perhaps pro- 
 perly, historical. They were expecting the Messiah — Philip 
 preached the intelligence of his actual coming, and his word 
 was sealed to their acceptance by the testimony of miracles. 
 After their baptism, however, notwithstanding they had thus 
 put on Christ, it is expressly said, ^As yet the Holy Ghost 
 was fallen upon none of them, only they were baptized in 
 the name of the Lord Jesus.' I understand by this, that 
 
252 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 altliougli they had been baptized in the name of Christ, and 
 consequently were brought under the new dispensation, still 
 they were unconverted men and women. They had under- 
 gone no spiritual change ; they were converts from Judaism 
 to Christianity, but not from sin to holiness. This view is 
 confirmed by the fact that Simon, the sorcerer, believed and 
 was baptized, and yet Peter afterward tells him he is in 
 the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity. It will 
 hardly be said by any one that Simon was a backslider ; that 
 having been truly converted, he fell from that state before 
 the apostles arrived. Nor can it be said that Simon was a 
 Jiyiwcrite, that he pretended to be a converted man, whilst 
 he was not. It is said positively that Simon believed also, 
 and when he was baptized he continued with Philip, and 
 wondered at the things which were done. Now what did 
 Simon believe ? Certainly it was the same truth which the 
 rest of the Samaritans believed — that Jesus was the Christ, 
 the Son of God, the Mediator of the New Covenant. This 
 belief of his was founded upon the same evidence, and was 
 certainly as genuine as that of the other Samaritans. Not- 
 withstanding this, he was not a true penitent; he was no 
 more a converted man than he who believes the truths of the 
 Bible without being a religious man. When the apostles 
 came, prayed with the people, and laid their hands on them, 
 they received the Holy Ghost; they were then spiritually 
 changed, and doubtless some of them were endowed with 
 the miraculous gifts of the Spirit. When Simon saw this 
 result, he attributed it to the ceremony of imposition of 
 hands, and desired to hi(y the power to impart the Holy 
 Ghost. His avarice was excited, for he knew that he could 
 turn such power to good account among the people, and 
 make a traffic of it. Therefore he was rebuked. ' Thou 
 hast neither part nor lot in this matter,' said Peter, ^ for thy 
 heart is not right in the sight of God.' He had made a 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 253 
 
 grievous mistake ; he had felt no concern about the salva- 
 tion of his soul, but only desired to make merchandise of 
 the truth. And yet the great truth which Philip had 
 preached, Simon as certainly believed as did any one else. 
 
 ^'If we do not receive this view of the subject, the diffi- 
 culties of this passage are absolutely insurmountable. We 
 must admit that men can be converted without the Holy 
 Ghost. We must acknowledge that Simon, a converted man, 
 desired to buy the power to impart the Holy Grhost. But 
 these things cannot be true. 
 
 ^^As to the mode of baptism, not a word is said. No 
 creek, river, pool, or ^ tank' is mentioned from which we are 
 allowed to infer that there was an immersion. The burden 
 of proof rests on the side of immersionists ] unless they can 
 show that there was such a stream or pool suitable for the 
 purpose, the silence of the historian is an argument against 
 them. If the baptism was hj pouring, nothing is needed to 
 make the text plain and easy. Any house, public or pri- 
 vate, would be provided with the necessary means. But if 
 there was an immersion^ the case is altered. There could 
 have been few places, if, indeed, any, in Samaria, suited to 
 the necessities of immersion. This is obviously true in our 
 own country ; and Eastern countries, so far from being het- 
 tevy were really icorse provided with places suitable for the 
 Baptist ordinance. Although they had haths, public and 
 private, they were not accustomed to immerse themselves in 
 them, and nothing but an extravagant fancy can manufac- 
 ture an ' Eastern bath' into a hona fide ' liquid grave.'' The 
 scarcity of streams of sufficient depth is very evident, when 
 we remember that a large number of streams flowed into the 
 Jordan — the waters of Lebanon, Merom, the sea of Galilee, 
 the Jabbok river, and others — and yet the Jordan is but a 
 small river, even at its mouth. But Samaria was not on the 
 Jordan river, but was built upon the hill-side, where a quan- 
 
254 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 tity of water required for immersion could not probably be 
 found. But, as I before remarked, it is not our duty to 
 prove immersion was impossible ; but it is the duty of tlie 
 Baptists to prove that it was even probable — that there could 
 have been readily such obedience to our Saviour's command 
 as they require. If they fail in this, the conclusion is 
 against them. 
 
 " Before I proceed to the baptism of the eunuch, I desire 
 to show the opinion of Dr. Belcher, a Baptist minister, on 
 this last passage. I do this in order to show you, as Rich- 
 ard Fuller says, how good men can be led astray by preju- 
 dice. Of Simon, the magician, he says : ' This man had 
 heard Philip preach, and had witnessed the number and 
 character of his miracles ; he had seen the extensive recep- 
 tion of the gospel in the city, and, either deceived Jiitnself 
 by supposing Philip to be a magician, though of a higher 
 order than himself, or wishing to deceive others, and make 
 them his dupes again hereafter, Simon also professed to 
 believe the gospel, and on that profession of faith was bap- 
 tized, and added to the number of the faithful. Thus do 
 we see that we can never expect the Church, while in a 
 wicked world, will be entirely free from hypocrites.^ — New 
 Testament Baptisms, pp. 71, 72. Now where does the 
 sacred writer say that Simon professed to believe the gospel ? 
 He uses precisely the same expression about Simon that he 
 does about the other Samaritans — they all believed and were 
 baptized, and Simon also believed. Why do men make this 
 magician a worse man than he really was 1 His faith in the 
 facts which Philip preached was as genuine as any other's; 
 and upon this faith he was baptized. That he had not the 
 faith that ^ works by love and purifies the heart,' is very 
 plain ; nor has any other unconverted believer in the Scrip- 
 tures. The reason which actuates Dr. Belcher in giving 
 this character to Simon in the face of the text is evident. 
 
THE MAJESTY OE TRUTH. 255 
 
 He will liave all these Samaritans to be true and proper 
 Christians — converted men before they were baptized — and 
 all this work was done before the Holy Spirit had been given 
 to any of them. Surely, then, they were converted by 
 Philip's ivords, and were re-converted by the Holy Spirit. 
 It is not enough that Simon mistakes the nature of the gos- 
 pel — that he errs about the gift of the Spirit which is 
 bestowed upon sincere penitents — that he desires to make 
 merchandise of Grod's gifts ; he must be a hypocrite 
 throughout — professing to believe what Philip said, whilst 
 he did not believe. The sacred writer must be contradicted, 
 a man must be made an unbeliever who is called a believer, 
 and the Samaritans must become converted Christians with- 
 out the Holy Spirit's aid ; and why all this ? Because the 
 Baptist dogma requires conversion before baptism. 
 
 '' But we will now turn our attention to the case of 
 Philip and the eunuch — the standing text for every Bap- 
 tist preacher — one that is pointed to with an air of triumph, 
 as furnishing demonstrative evidence of immersion. Dr. 
 Belcher thinks the name of the eunuch was Indich, and 
 gives Kuinoel and Townsend as his authorities — Indich let 
 us call him, then. He had been to Jerusalem to worship, 
 and was returning home by way of Gaza. While he was on 
 his way, the Spirit of the Lord directed Philip to overtake 
 him, and join himself to his chariot. When Philip found 
 him, Indich was reading the fifty-third chapter of the pro- 
 phecy of Isaiah, which describes the humiliation and death 
 of Christ. The entire passage begins with the I3th verse 
 of the fifty-second chapter, and includes the fifty-third. 
 Philip asked him if he understood what he read ? Indich 
 replied, ' How can I, except some man should guide me V 
 And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with 
 him. Philip did so, and from the passage in Isaiah he 
 preached unto him Jesus. After a time they came to a cer- 
 
256 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 tain water, when the eunuch exclaimed, ' See ! here is water : 
 what doth hinder me to be baptized V If immersion had 
 been the practice of Philip, he might have replied with 
 great propriety : ' If thou believest with all thy heart — and 
 the water is deep enough — thou mayest/ It was by no 
 means likely that they came to a river, for the simple reason 
 that the sacred writer does not say so. If it had been the 
 Sorek river, the river of Egypt, or the brook of Eshcol, 
 why is it not so stated ? But no mention is made of a river, 
 brook, or fountain, whilst it is expressly said that the way 
 was desert. It was not probable that a considerable stream 
 of running water could be found on the road, and a pond or 
 pool deep enough for immersion was out of the question in 
 a sandy desert. The terms in which the eunuch addresses 
 Philip are positive proofs against immersion. ^ See water V 
 exclaims the eunuch, as the stream appears in sight, as if 
 they had unexpectedly fallen upon it. A stream three or 
 four feet deep, (and nothing less will serve the purpose of 
 ' dipping,') at this time, the dry season, would certainly 
 overflow its banks in the rainy season, and require the estab- 
 lishment of fords, similar to those of the Jordan. But the 
 geography of the country absolutely forbids such a conclu- 
 sion ; no mention is anywhere made of such a water-course 
 or of any/orfZ between Jerusalem and Gaza. Let us illus- 
 trate this point. You know, Theophilus, that there are 
 seven water-courses between Maryville and Greenville, a dis- 
 tance of fifty miles; yet no one of these streams is knee- 
 deep at any time, unless when swollen by rains. Now, sup- 
 pose Philip and the eunuch had set out from this point, and 
 after Philip's sermon the chariot came suddenly upon Sandy 
 Creek, about twenty miles from this, and the eunuch 
 exclaims, ^ See ! here is loater : what doth hinder me to be 
 baptized V Philip answers, ^ If thou believest with all thy 
 heart, thou mayest;' the chariot is stopped; they descend. 
 
THE MAJESTY OP TRUTH. 257 
 
 go info the stream, both Philip and the eunuch, and Philip 
 baptizes him; then coming up out of the water, Philip 
 returns by another route across the country, whilst the cha- 
 riot crosses the creek, and Indich goes on his way rejoicing : 
 would you say that the eunuch had been immersed in 
 Sandy Creek ?" 
 
 '' I would say," replied Theophilus, ^' that there was some 
 doubt about it, for I recollect being at Sandy Creek Baptist 
 Church not long ago, when an unlucky accident happened 
 there. The church had scooped out a neat little pool in the 
 creek, and run a dam across a little above the ford. On 
 Saturday night, however, after the appointment for baptiz- 
 ing on Sabbath, a heavy rain fell, and washed away the dam, 
 and the bed of the pool was filled up, so that the water was 
 not knee-deep. By Sabbath noon the creek had run down, 
 and when the people started for the water it was discovered 
 that the baptizing must be postponed, or else the creek must 
 be dammed up again. But Elder Carson did not feel willing 
 to put it off; so he led the way, and by the assistance of a 
 dozen negro fellows the piles were put down again, and a 
 trough dug out. After two or three hours' hard work in the 
 hot sun, on the Sabbath day^ the place was prepared, and 
 a young lady and two young men were 'buried' in the 
 'yielding wave,' whilst Elder C. was 'buried' up to the 
 knees in ' yielding' mud." 
 
 " That was an ' imposing spectacle' indeed, Theophilus," 
 said Mr. Mason, " well calculated to illustrate the beauty of 
 such an ordinance. If the commandment of Christ can be 
 thwarted by a heavy rain, and the sanctity of the Sabbath 
 laid aside to remedy the breach, no wonder that our Baptist 
 friends complain of the ' heavy cross' of immersion ! 
 
 "Now the illustration I have offered is precisely in point. 
 There is more water between Maryville and G-reenville than 
 between Jerusalem and Gaza, yet no place upon the roadside 
 
258 THEOPIIILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 has been found suitable for immersion. Yet the Baptists 
 assert that there was such a pool in the desert, and there 
 the eunuch was immersed ; but the historian says no such 
 thing. He says ' they came unto a certain water/ (JjXOov trrt 
 Tt vdcjp,') or came iqjon a certain water, one of the many 
 little rills which formed the head-waters of the larger brooks 
 to the westward, and Indicli seized upon the first oppor- 
 tunity to profess his faith in Christ, to be initiated into the 
 Qiew covenant, as he had already been in the old. Philip 
 did not go into the stream with a stick, feeling his way, (as 
 Baptists are now wont to do,) and testing its depth. He 
 does not express the least fear that the servants will have 
 to throw a dam across, or hunt up and down the banks for a 
 hole deep enough — no such difficulty was in the way. 
 Wherever the chariot crossed the stream, there he baptized 
 him, and whether they both waded info the water for the 
 purpose, or only went to the water, is a matter of little con- 
 sequence. The preposition elg, into, does not render it an 
 immersion. All that can be brought out of it is their 
 stepping into the water, which, so far from rendering immer- 
 sion a necessary consequence, does not require six inches 
 depth of water to perform it literally. When Christ spat on 
 the eyes of the blind man, do we understand that he 
 immersed them in spittle ? Yet Mark tells us, chapter viii. 
 23, that Jesus spat into, elg, his eyes. When Christ and 
 his disciples (Luke xxiv. 28) drew nigh unto, elg, the 
 village, did they come into the village whilst they were only 
 7iear it? When the Jews were commanded (Luke xxi. 
 21) to flee to, elg, the mountains, were they to be immersed 
 into the mountains ? When we are told that John, chapter 
 i. 7, came /or, elg, a witness, do we understand that he came 
 into a witness? These examples are taken from various 
 places, and illustrate the folly of tying down a preposition to 
 one meaning. And if the preposition into does not prove 
 
THE MAJESTY OP TRUTH. 259 
 
 immersion, neitlier does ek, out of, require it. This prepo- 
 sition (e/c) is rendered from about one hundred and eighty 
 times, and only one hundred and fifty times out of. If 
 there be any force in usage, then, as it is oftener rendered 
 from than out of, such ought to be its meaning here. But, 
 as I have already said, no argument can be based upon a 
 preposition. If we apply Baptist logic to our own preposi- 
 tions, we destroy the language — such a mass of absurdities 
 as an English book would present if judged by their rules, 
 can hardly be found anywhere. We must have something 
 more than going down ^into' and coming up 'out of the 
 water to prove immersion. Philip went down to, etf, the 
 city of Samaria, as stated in the 15th verse of this chapter, 
 yet he was not immersed into the city. Jesus came down 
 from, eK, the mountain, yet he had not been immersed 
 into it. 
 
 ''A plain statement of the eunuch's baptism is against 
 his immersion. An extravagant fancy, one that can dij) a 
 lake in the blood of a mouse, that can dij> a man in a heavy 
 dew, that can dij) the apostles in a rushing windy or the 
 sound that filled the house, or in the influences of the Holy 
 Spirit, can do almost any thing recorded by Baron Mun- 
 chausen. To such a fancy the Arabian Nights is a record 
 of facts, Gulliver's Travels in Lilliput and Brobdignag are 
 historical truths. But plain men, who are not acquainted 
 with the wonderful properties of metaphors, hyperboles, and 
 rhapsodies, are apt to take a common-sense view of the case. 
 If there are among us — in a country abounding with streams, 
 from a mountain rill to the great Father of Waters — if thero 
 are here only a few places, and in some large sections none 
 at all, which nature has provided as a convenient ' liquid 
 grave' for the believer, it requires no fancy to suppose such 
 conveniences to be very rare in a desert. We must suppose 
 that Philip carried an extra suit of clothes with him, or else 
 
260 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 he went to Azotus in loct garments — or imagine that they 
 were miraculously dried. We must suppose that they 
 happened to find a pool deep enough for immersion, that 
 loth Philip and the eunuch knew it loas deep enough, with- 
 out measuring it. We must suppose all these things, to 
 get ready for an immersion; and then, to complete it, we 
 must assume that l3a7TTl^G) means to dij), and nothing else. 
 These things are not in the text, and therefore immersion is 
 not there. 
 
 " I will illustrate this by an incident which happened a 
 few years since. A young man came to unite with a Pres- 
 byterian church, and requested the minister to immerse him. 
 The minister had never baptized any one in this way, and 
 endeavored to reason the young man out of his position. It 
 was in vain, however, for he persisted in being baptized 
 precisely as Philip baptized the eunuch. ^And how was 
 that?' asked the minister. 'Why,' said the young man, 'I 
 read that they 2uent down into the ivater, both Philip and the 
 eunuch, and he baptized him. Then it is said, they came 
 up out of the water. I want to be baptized in that way.' 
 ' Very well,' says the minister, ' will you be satisfied with 
 that V ' Yes,' replied the young man. '■ I agree to it,' 
 said the minister, and the time and place were appointed. 
 A large crowd assembled to witness the novel scene. The 
 minister took the young man by the hand, and as they 
 waded into the water, he repeated these words: ^And they 
 went down into the loater, both Philip and the eunuch.' 
 When they stopped, the minister took a handful of water 
 and poured it on his head, saying : ^And he haptized him.' 
 Then leading the young man out, he concluded, ^And they 
 came up out of the water.' Thus the conditions of the text 
 were fulfilled to the letter, and yet the young man was not 
 immersed. 
 
 *' You see from this incident that the whole controversy 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 261 
 
 must turn again upon the word haptidzo. And tliat the 
 minister was right in his understanding of it, we have 
 already seen in the classical argument. So that, after all 
 this great ^ shibboleth/ this '■ mathematical demonstration' of 
 immersion, as some have called it, is no demonstration at all. 
 Fancy and possibilities must come to the relief of the inter- 
 preter if he find immersion here. As a plain record of a 
 fact, there is nothing of it in the text. 
 
 ^' We will dispose of this passage by giving a fact which 
 illustrates the subject. Dr. Belcher, the Baptist minister 
 quoted a while ago, says, on the authority of Dr. Kitto, that 
 this eunuch preached the gospel in Abyssinia, his native 
 country, on his return. The queen, Candace, was the first 
 to be baptized, and the province of Tigre, nearest to Meroe, 
 the capital, was the first to erhbrace Christianity. This 
 country is so remote from all other nations that we may sup- 
 pose they have kept up the original customs. Now let us 
 hear the testimony of a distinguished traveller, as to the 
 Tiiode of Abyssinian baptism. 
 
 '' Mr. Salt, a British traveller, gives us the whole cere- 
 mony of baptizing a Mussulman boy : ^ The attendant priests 
 stood round in the form of a semicircle, the boy being 
 placed in the centre, and our party ranged in front. After 
 a few minutes interval employed in singing psalms, some of 
 the priests took the boy, and washed him all over very care- 
 fully in a large basin of water. While this was passing, a 
 smaller font, called me-te-mak, which is always kept outside 
 of the churches, owing to an unbaptized person not being 
 allowed to enter the church, was placed in the middle of the 
 area, filled with water, which the priest consecrated by 
 prayer, waving the incense repeatedly over it, and dropping 
 into it a portion of the meiron in the shape of a cross. The 
 boy was then brought back, dripping from head to foot, and 
 again placed naked and upright in the centre, and was re- 
 
262 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 quired to renounce tlie devil and all his works, wliicli was 
 performed by* his repeating a given formula four separate 
 times, turning each time toward a different point of the 
 compass. I named the child George, when I was requested 
 to say the Belief, and the Lord's Prayer, and to make much 
 the same promises as those required by the Established 
 Church of England. The head priest afterward laid hold 
 of the boy, dijyping his own hand into the water ^ and crossed 
 him over the forehead, pronouncing, at the same moment, 
 ^' George, I baptize thee, in the name of the Father, Son, 
 and Holy Ghost. '^ The whole company then knelt down, 
 and joined in reciting the Lord's Prayer.' 
 
 ^^ Such, then,'' continued Mr. Mason, " is Abyssinian bap- 
 tism at the present time. And, as you perceive, the washing 
 of the whole body was only preparatory to the act of bap- 
 tism. A distinction is made between the preparation for 
 and the administration of the rite. These spiritual descend- 
 ants of the eunuch do not baptize by immersion, and it is 
 impossible to conceive how they should change the entire 
 ordinance, without any motive whatever for so doing. "We 
 may well imagine that the sign of the cross, the anointing 
 with oil, and similar additions, could be made to the act of 
 plunging, if that was originally the practice, but we cannot see 
 how one act should be substituted for another, if they received 
 from their first preachers the Baptist doctrine of immersion. 
 
 " The next example of scriptural baptism is the case of 
 Saul of Tarsus, afterward Paul the Apostle. On his way 
 to Damascus, persecuting the Church of Christ, he was con- 
 vinced of his error, and directed to go to Damascus, where 
 he would receive instruction from one Ananias, a Christian 
 teacher. When Ananias found him blind, he laid his hands 
 upon Saul, who received sight forthwith, ' and arose, and was 
 baptized.' This was in the house of Judas, in Damascus. 
 We are not informed of a visit to a pool or a river ; we are 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 263 
 
 not told of a tank or bath, in which Saul was immersed. 
 He received his sight in a house, and was baptized in a 
 house. If this baptism was performed hj j^ouring, there is 
 no difficulty in the case — the narrative is plain and easy to 
 be understood. If it was an immersion, the necessities of 
 the case require a fuller statement. There might have been 
 a pool in the house — but does the historian say so ? The 
 house 77iai/ have been on the bank of a river — but where is 
 the proof that it was ? It is possible that the act was immer- 
 sion, instead of scriptural haptism, but the Bible does not 
 assert it. If we take the Bible account, divested of Baptist 
 additions and qualifications, the baptism of Saul was not an 
 immersion in water. 
 
 '^ The baptism of the Grentiles in the house of Cornelius 
 is exactly similar to that of Paul. The preaching of Peter 
 was heard in a house, the Gentiles believed there, and there 
 they were baptized, first by the Holy Grhost and then with 
 water. No adjournment to a stream or a pool is indicated. 
 No mention is made of a ^ tank' or ^ bath.' Not a word is 
 said of the ' yielding wave' and the ' liquid grave.' It is a 
 plain narrative, and informs us of the time, place, and cir- 
 cumstances of the baptism, without mentioning a solitary 
 fact which could lead us to believe that immersion was the 
 mode employed. 
 
 '' The case of Lydia and her household is the next in 
 order. She was a seller of purple, living in Thyatira, and 
 at the time of Paul's visit was staying at Philippi. Paul 
 first met Lydia on the Sabbath day by the river-side, where 
 the people were in the habit of resorting for prayer. Paul 
 improved the occasion, and preached to the assembly, where- 
 upon Lydia believed and was baptized. Where? In the 
 river ? The historian does not say so. It was possible that 
 she was immersed in the river, but if the writer of Acts 
 does not say so, we have no right to assert it. We have no 
 
264 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 right to add any thing to the word of God — we are con- 
 strained to receive all its statements without subtraction or 
 addition. If Lydia was immersed in the stream, certainly 
 we would have been so informed. The absence of such in- 
 formation is the strongest proof that can be offered against 
 her immersion. 
 
 '^ Not long after Paul was put in prison in Philippi, and 
 after the doors were miraculously opened, the jailer was con- 
 victed, professed faith in Christ, and was baptized. This 
 was in a jail, from which Paul refused to escape. It is pos- 
 sihle that there was a large pool in the middle of the jail- 
 yard, which was both large enough and deep enough, and 
 that the jailer was immersed there with all his house — but is 
 it prohahle ? Who will assert that there was such a pool in 
 the jail ? The sacred penman says nothing about it, and 
 we may just as readily assert that a river ran through the 
 jail-yard — this was possible, but was it true? Is it not 
 strange that no mention should be made of these tanks and. 
 pools ? When Christ would have a blind man to do a certain 
 thing, he commands him to icash in the pool of Siloam — not 
 his whole body, but his eyes — the evangelist tells us he did 
 wash in the pool of Siloam. And yet in the whole New 
 Testament we have not a single example of baptism in a 
 pool. ' Tanks' are very beautiful things, the products of 
 immersionist logic ; it is a pity that thei/ are not mentioned 
 at all in the New Testament ! We cannot get their assist- 
 ance to help out the cause of immersion without getting out 
 of the Bible. We must give lively exercise to our fancy, 
 we must place in the text statements that are not there, we 
 must have a ' tank' or a ' pool' in every house, holding at 
 least one hundred gallons of water, in order to make out a 
 case of immersion. These tanks or pools are not mentioned 
 in the text, nor were they in existence. It is very easy to sai/ 
 that the baths used in the East are every way suitable for 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 265 
 
 immersion, but we require proof of the fact. D'Olisson, 
 speaking of tlie baths of the women of the East, says : 
 'They scarcely ever immerse their bodies in water. The 
 large marble urns which are in the form of bathing-tubs arc 
 for invalids.' Denon, describing a bath in Egypt, says : 
 ' The bather is irmndatecl with water, which the attendants 
 take out with a small Lasin, and pour over his body.' 
 These quotations show that at the public baths immersion is 
 not practiced, and these would be necessarily larger and more 
 commodious than the private ones. 
 
 " Having gone through all the examples of New Testa- 
 ment baptism, except those which are mentioned in the 
 eighteenth and nineteenth chapters of Acts, which have no 
 peculiarity about them — the first stating that some of the 
 Corinthians were baptized, and the latter relating to the bap- 
 tism of twelve men who had been baptized first by John the 
 Baptist — I shall now proceed to show, from the New Testa- 
 ment itself, that the Jews kept no ' tanks,' or ' pools,' suita- 
 ble for immersion. 
 
 " We are informed in the seventh chapter of Mark that 
 the Jews were very scrupulous in their adherence to certain 
 traditions of the elders. I will read the whole passage : 
 ' Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain 
 of the Scribes, which came from Jerusalem. And 'when 
 they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is 
 to say with unwashen (^dviTTTOLg') hands, they found fault. For 
 the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they v:ash (ytipcjvrai^ 
 their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. 
 And when they come from the market, except they tvash, 
 {l3anTLO0)VTat,) they eat not. And many other things there 
 be, which they have received to hold, as the icashing 
 {[3aTTTia[ioi!g') of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of 
 tables. Then the Pharisees and Scribes asked him, Why 
 walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the 
 12 
 
266 TIIEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 elders, but eat bread with unwashen {aviTrroig) hands ? He 
 answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied 
 of you hypocrites, as it is written. This people honoreth me 
 with their lips, but their heart is far from rne. Howbeit in 
 vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the com- 
 mandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of 
 God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the tvasliing 
 (fia-nnoiiovg') of pots and cups ; and many other such like 
 things ye do/ Our Saviour then proceeds to show them 
 how they have corrupted the commandments of God, and 
 after ^ he had called all the people unto him, he said unto 
 them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand : 
 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him 
 can defile him : but the things which come out of him, 
 those are they that defile the man/ 
 
 ^' The Pharisees, and all the Jeivs, held these traditions 
 about the hajjtisins of the hands, the cups, pots, brazen ves- 
 sels, and tables. The question then arises. How were these 
 baptisms performed ? Were the pots, tables, and brazen 
 vessels of the Jews immersed ? They mujlit have been, it 
 is true. It was possible that every Jew might possess a pool 
 in his yard, supplied by an artesian well, and that his fam- 
 ily might occupy one-half of their time in taking these 
 things out of the house in order to immerse them in the 
 pool. I say that these things might have been true — if 
 artesian wells had been in use, and the quantity of water 
 employed by the Jews had been as great as the Baptists 
 require for their ordinance. If the Jews had nothing else 
 to do but to practice the dipping of their domestic utensils, 
 tables, or couches, every time they contracted ceremonial im- 
 purity, they were surely in easy circumstances. Every time 
 any one visited the market, he must immerse himself on his 
 return — this he must do if it happened twenty times a day. 
 If a visitor fresh from the market happened to touch a table 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 267 
 
 or couch, that must be dipjped also. A dififerent ^tauk' 
 must be used if more tlian one article was d/ipped, or else 
 the water must be changed, because the water becomes de- 
 filed after it is once used. Thus it would require several 
 hundred gallons of water, in all probability, to cleanse the 
 furniture of a Jewish house and kitchen. Such are the re- 
 quirements which the Baptists make of the Jews; but the 
 best reason for their non-performance of immersion in these 
 cases is that it was altogether unnecessary. The strictest 
 Pharisee could have desired nothing more than the sprink- 
 ling of water upon his furniture in order to purify it. This 
 was the method pursued under the Mosaic law, in the case 
 of persons defiled by leprosy, or by touching a dead body. 
 
 " We are not left to grope our way altogether in the dark, 
 however, on this subject. There is a passage in the New 
 Testament which informs us about the size of the vessels 
 used by the Jews in their purifications. This passage occurs 
 in the second chapter of John, in the account of our 
 Saviour's attendance upon the marriage in Cana of Gralilee. 
 During the feast the wine was exhausted, and Jesus was in- 
 formed of the fact by his mother. 'And there were set there 
 six water-pots of stone, aftei- the manner of the purifying of 
 the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.^ Now, why 
 were these water-pots set tkere ? Because the Jews would 
 not eat of the feast until their hands were washed. How 
 were their hands washed ? It is not likely that the people 
 dipped their hands into them, because we are informed that 
 they were empty when Jesus used them. The water had 
 been dipped out and poured upon the hands of the guests 
 by the servants in attendance. Jesus ordered them to be 
 filled again, and the water was changed into good wine. 
 The Greek word vdptat, hudriai, means water-pots, oy pitch- 
 ers, and is used in the fourth chapter of the same Grospel, 
 where it is said the Samaritan woman left her water-pot, or 
 
268 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR; 
 
 intcTier, wliich she liad brought to the well for water. We 
 are told that these water-pots contained two or three firkins 
 apiece. The firkin (Greek fiETprjrrjg) contained about seven 
 gallons and a half — the largest of the water-pots held about 
 twenty-two gallons and a half, according to this measure- 
 ment. 
 
 " These vessels were used for the purpose of purifying, 
 not the hands alone, for they contained more water than was 
 necessary for that, and yet it was impossible to immerse 
 either a man or a couch in any one of them. This is a suf- 
 ficient argument against the dipping of the domestic uten- 
 sils. But a stronger argument may be derived from the 
 fact that the Jews invariably required a purifying element 
 to be kept in ^ pure vessel : this is obviously true. Suppose 
 an impure vessel should be dipped into one of these water- 
 pots — not only would the water become impure, but the ves- 
 sel containing it must also be dipped to remove its defile- 
 ment. This larger vessel becomes defiled in turn, and thus 
 we proceed indefinitely. At each step the dipping of the 
 thing to be cleansed into the water-pot becomes more absurd. 
 The truth is, a dean person took a clean bunch of hyssop, 
 dipped it into the water, and then sprinkled the defiled gar- 
 ment, pot, cup, table, or couch. Thus the same vessel 
 would answer for the purification of any number of articles. 
 The Jews themselves washed or purified their ban ds, not by dip- 
 ping them into the water-pot, but by having the water poured 
 on them. Thus the Pharisee mentioned in Luke, eleventh 
 chapter, wondered that our Saviour did not wasli before din- 
 ner; that is, baptize his hands before dinner — the baptism 
 of the hands being customary before eating. This hap)tism 
 was administered by, and was often used as the badge of, a 
 servant. ^ Here is Elisha, the son of Shaphat, i^hich. p)oured 
 water on the hands of Elijah.^ 2 Kings iii. 11. That is. 
 Here is Elisha, the servant of Elijah. The usual manner of 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 269 
 
 purifying the hands, face, etc., we have thus described by 
 D'Ohsson : ^A copper vessel is placed before the person, sit- 
 ting on a piece of red cloth, to prevent the carpet or mat 
 from being wet; a servant kneeling on the gronnd j) ours out 
 icater for his master, another holds a cloth destined for those 
 purifications. The person begins by baring the arm as far 
 as the elbow, then washes his hands, mouth, nostrils, face, 
 arms,' etc. This account is undoubtedly true, and fully 
 illustrates the passage we are examining." 
 
 ''If I remember rightly," said Theophilus, "Theo- 
 dosia tells us that the Jewish Rabbi Maimonides says the 
 beds, tables, and couches were literally immersed, and that 
 the Jews were very careful to cover them all over in water. 
 Have you examined into the truth of these quotations, Mr. 
 Mason?" 
 
 '' Sufficiently to be convinced that ' Theodosia' is neither 
 capable nor desirous of doing Maimonides justice. I say 
 incapable^ because I doubt whether the author ever saw the 
 Rabbi's commentary from which he quotes, whilst the fre- 
 quent misrepresentations of more common works incline me 
 to the belief that, since he serves his purpose, it makes little 
 difference with him liow it is done. Here, Theophilus, take 
 ' Theodosia,' and let us examine the author's statements. 
 Read the words which are put into the mouth of the Pedo- 
 baptist Jones." 
 
 " ' Now, so far as the cups, and pots, and vessels are con- 
 cerned, the matter is made entirely plain by turning to 
 Leviticus xi. 32 : '' 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 jput into the ivater, and it shall 
 be unclean until the evening, and so it shall be cleansed." ' " 
 
 '' Stop a moment, Theophilus ] this is a quotation from 
 the Mosaic law — does Christ upbraid the Jews for keeping 
 that law ?" 
 
270 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 ^^No, sir; lie charges these baptisms of cups, pots, and 
 tables to the traditions of the elders/' 
 
 " So lie does, indeed ; but ' Theodosia' condemns Christ 
 by justifying the Jews from their own law. Here is the 
 first flaw. John the Evangelist says these baptisms were 
 traditions of the elders; they were not, then, the command- 
 ments of God. This quotation from the Levitical law is not 
 in point. The author only takes enough of the verse to suit 
 his purpose, the remainder he leaves out. Now, Theophilus, 
 if you have not looked at the passage in Leviticus, I have 
 no doubt this author has produced a false impression upon 
 your mind. How do you understand it V 
 
 " That any vessel of wood, or in which any work is done, 
 was to be put into water whenever in any manner defiled.^' 
 
 " Yes, such seems to be the impression ' Theodosia' 
 designs to make; and yet it is untrue. The law, having 
 specified certain animals and reptiles as unclean, such as the 
 weasel, the mouse, the tortoise, and others, prescribes the 
 manner of cleansing the vessels of the house in certain 
 cases. I will read the whole verse. 'And upon whatsoever 
 any of them, lohen 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, and it shall be unclean until 
 the even ; so it shall be cleansed.' So you see this extraor- 
 dinary immersion of the articles was in consequence of an 
 unclean animal falling on them when it was dead. Christ 
 would not chide them for such an act as that, because he 
 had given them that very law. It was the baptism of the 
 cups, pots, and brazen vessels which he condemned, not 
 their immersion to purify them from the contact with a dead 
 body. Read on, Theophilus, and see how 'Uncle Jones* 
 gets converted from the error of his ways." 
 
 '' ' From this it is evident that the cups and other vessels 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 271 
 
 were immersed, or ^^ put into the water f^ but the word 
 translated table may mean also a coucli or bed ; and liow the 
 beds and tables could be immersed I do not so easily under- 
 stand.' ^The difficulty will all vanish/ said Mr. Courtney, 
 ' if you will remember that the little stool to hold his plate y 
 which stood at the head of each guest as he reclined upon 
 the floor, was called a table, and the mat or cloth which he 
 lay upon was called a couch or bed ; and either of these 
 could be immersed as readily as the cups. They had no 
 massive mahogany tables, or beds containing sixty pounds 
 of feathers, as we have.' " 
 
 '■^ So the Jews had nothing but little stools for tables, and 
 cloths or mats for beds. Truly this was a primitive style of 
 living; but, unfortunately, the inspired writers flatly con- 
 tradict our friend Theodosia. The prophet Amos, in the 
 sixth chapter, condemns the Jews for their h^xurious living : 
 ' Ye that put far away the evil day, and cause the seat of 
 violence to come near; that lie upon BEDS of IVORY, and 
 stretch themselves upon their couches.' Yet they had no 
 ' massive mahogany tables,' or '■ beds containing sixty pounds 
 of feathers !' Mahogany they had not, perhaps ; but they 
 had both a more ^ massive and more costli/ material, for 
 they used ivo7\y beds. 
 
 " This silly assertion about the little stools, mats, and 
 cloths is unworthy of further notice. One quotation, how- 
 ever, from the best authority extant will be of service : 
 ' The more opulent had (as those in the East still have) fine 
 carpets, couches, or divans and sofas, on which they sat, lay, 
 and slept. 2 Kings iv. 10. In later times their couches 
 were sj^lendid, and the frames inlaid with ivory, (Amos vi. 
 4,) and the coverlids rich and perfumed. Proverbs vii. 16, 
 17. On these so/as, in the latter ages of the Jewish state, 
 they universally reclined when taking their meals; resting 
 on their side, with their heads toward the table, so that their 
 
272 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 feet were accessible to one wlio came behind the couch/ — 
 Home's Introduction, vol. ii., p. 154. Some of the Jews, 
 perhaps, had but few articles of furniture; but they were 
 not the Pharisees ; that proud and haughty sect lived in the 
 most luxurious manner, notwithstanding their boasts of supe- 
 rior sanctity. It would not be impossible to find Americans 
 without even a rude table in their houses; but this does not 
 prove that there are no such articles in general use among 
 us. But read on : let us get to the testimony of Mai- 
 monides." 
 
 " ^ But we have other testimony besides that of Mark on 
 this subject. AVhat if I show you from the writings of a 
 learned Hebrew, that the bods and tables not only could be 
 immersed, but that their immersion was hah itualli/ practiced 
 by the superstitious Pharisees V '^ 
 
 ^'That will help us very much indeed," said Mr. Mason; 
 ^'if Theodosia will do that, we shall be much obliged. 
 Hahitually immersed, she says, by the superstitious Phari- 
 sees. The warrant which our fair friend gives them is from 
 the iDorcl of God, and yet they are superstitious because 
 they obey it. This is another y?aMJ in the vase. Read on." 
 
 " 'This learned and eminent Rabbi, commonly called 
 Rabbi Maimonides, says, in his Commentary: ''Every vessel 
 of wood, as a tahle or Led, receives defilement, and these 
 were washed by covering in loater ; and very nice and par- 
 ticular they were," he adds, "that they might be covered all 
 over.'' ' " 
 
 " Now, Theophilus, see how ' Theodosia' entraps herself. 
 A moment ago the author says the mat or cloth was the 
 heel ; now Maimonides is brought in, and he testifies that it 
 was a vessel of wood. The ' learned Rabbi' destroys the 
 mat and cloth argument at a blow. The hed was made of 
 wood, and often inlaid with ivory. But the Rabbi says, 'ia 
 his Commentary :' where ?" 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 273 
 
 ^^ The book does not say/^ replied Theophilus. 
 
 ^' No, and the author does not Icnow where the quotation 
 is — he could not affirm that there is such a passage in Mai- 
 mouides. The ^ Commentary' was originally written in 
 Arabic, and has only been translated into Hebrew and 
 Latin. Where Theodosia got the quotation I know not, but 
 of one thing I am certain, it was not taken directly from 
 the work of the Rabbi. It is impossible to find a quotation, 
 given without chapter or page, where the work is extensive 
 — but the internal evidence is conclusive that it is a spurious 
 quotation. The style is not that of Maimonides ; he is 
 made to speak of past, not present customs ; there is nothing 
 in the sentence which would identify it as the language of a 
 Jew. Doubtless some English writer has read the Rabbi on 
 the purifications from the dead required by the law; he 
 gives his own words instead of those of the Rabbi, and 
 Theodosia follows suit, giving the Jew the credit for the 
 Englishman's words. This is certainly a mark of a candid 
 mind. But the rule in controversy requires us to ignore an 
 authority which is not located; it is not enough to quote 
 from a large volume ; the chapter at least must be given, or 
 else the evidence is thrown out. Let Theodosia tell us 
 where Maimonides says the tables and beds were immersed, 
 and we will then ascertain why it was done, and show that 
 it had no reference to this passage in Mark. Until this is 
 done, I shall take the privilege of debate, and deny that the 
 Jewish Rabbi says any such thing. 
 
 '^ We have examined all the historical passages in the 
 New Testament. We shall now turn our attention to the 
 figurative allusions of the inspired writers to the ordinance 
 of baptism. The first in order is that in the sixth chapter 
 of the letter to the Romans. I call this 2i figurative allusion 
 to baptism, only in courtesy to the views of others. I 
 think I will show you that this passage is not understood by 
 12* 
 
274 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 many wlio profess to expound it. Paul's letter to tlie 
 Romans is a masterly argument. It commences with, the 
 proof of universal depravity ; then convicts, first the Gentiles, 
 then the Jews, proving that the Jew is not a whit better 
 than his Gentile brother, whom he despises. Having shown 
 that the Gentile does not profess even to know the true God, 
 he shows that the Jew has not obtained the favor of the God 
 whom he professes to worship. He then shows that the 
 sign of circumcision, being an outward ordinance, in the 
 flesh, cannot unite the heart to God. He then declares that 
 all men, both Gentiles and Jews, are to be justified by faith 
 alone, without the deeds of the law. The grace by which 
 men are regenerated and saved, is the free gift of God ; is not 
 obtained by works, or merited by human actions. Then the 
 apostle asks : ' What shall we say then ? Shall we continue 
 in sin, that grace may abound ?' He replies : ^ God forbid. 
 How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein V 
 Here we have the logical proposition, of which the following 
 verses are the arguments in proof. The proposition is : We 
 who have been regenerated by the free gift of God's grace, 
 ought no longer to live in sin, because we are dead to sin. 
 ' Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into 
 Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death V Now, what 
 does the apostle mean by being baptized info Jesus Christ ? 
 Does he mean that we are baptized into Christ, and made 
 free from sin by water baptism ? If so, the text proves the 
 doctrine of baptismal regeneration. We are not dead to sin 
 until we are baptized ; we are dead to sin after we are bap- 
 tized : therefore we die to sin, or are made holy in the act of 
 baptism ! This is certainly true, if the apostle alludes only 
 to water baptism \ indeed, it is impossible for any man to 
 be dead to sin who has not been baptized. This conse- 
 quence is repudiated by the Baptists generally, although a 
 large number of them receive it. But yet the language of 
 
rnEMAJESTY OF TRUTH. 275 
 
 the apostle is explicit : We are dead to sin, because we 
 have been baptized into Christ. ' This cannot be predicated 
 of water baptism — the ordinance often folloics instead of 
 preceding conversion. This order the Baptist system re- 
 quires. It is true Paul says in the fifth chapter of Grala- 
 tians that ^ every man that is circumcised is a debtor to do 
 the whole law/ and in this sense every man that receives 
 water baptism is bound to obey the whole gospel. But cir- 
 cumcision was not the means of receiving the power to obey 
 in the one case ; neither is baptism in the other. When a 
 death to sin is the inseparable result of baptism, or baptism 
 is the cause, instrumeutally, of a holy life, we can only 
 understand the baptism of the Holy Spirit, a work in the 
 heart, and not in the flesh, to be designated. This is the 
 efficient means, and the only efficient means by which such 
 a result can be attained. The apostle says, then, that we 
 who have been baptized by the Holy Spirit have had our 
 hearts renewed by the Spirit, have been baptized into the 
 death of Christ. That is to say : Christ having died /or us, 
 we by this baptism die to the world, and live for Christ. 
 He sufi"ered in the body — our old man of sin is likewise 
 crucified — ^ our old man is crucified with him,' says the 
 apostle, Hhat the body of sin might be destroyed, that 
 henceforth we should not serve sin.' Therefore we are 
 ' dead with Christ,' and ^ are buried with him by baptism 
 into death.' Our sinful nature dies and is buried with 
 Christ the very moment the Spirit's baptism brings us into 
 the light and liberty of the children of God. To say that 
 we are buried with Christ in water baptism is to teach bap- 
 tismal regeneration ; there is no escape from it. To say that 
 we must be immersed in order to express this burial, may 
 give us some idea of Baptist poetry, but nothing of the 
 apostle's meaning. He intends to show that death to sin is 
 not consistent with a life in sin. To do this he shows that 
 
276 THEOPIIILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 we have as certainly been buried witli Christ, as we have 
 been baptized into him. Our baptism was the means of our 
 death, for it is by baptism that we are buried. Inasmuch, 
 then, as we have died to sin, and have had the old man, our 
 sinful nature, buried, planted, and crucified with Christ, we 
 ought to ' reckon ourselves dead indeed unto sin, but alive 
 unto Grod through Jesus Christ our Lord/ that we may 
 ^have our fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.' 
 Now is water baptism a type of our burial ? So the Bap- 
 tists say. Certainly it cannot be the burial itself, unless re- 
 generation takes place only in baptism. If it is the ti/pe 
 of our burial, it must resemble the action by which we are 
 really buried. If that action is the Spirit's baptism, then 
 water baptism to represent it must be performed hj pouring, 
 for this is the mode and the only mode of spiritual baptism. 
 Our Baptist friends quote this text frequently, but still they 
 do not seem to understand it. They make the apostle 
 teach regeneration in baptism, and at the same time they 
 repudiate it. They harp upon being '■ buried with Christ in 
 baptism,' but they do not give a satisfactory explanation of 
 their meaning. What do they bury with Christ, when they 
 immerse a man ? His spirit? Then the Baptist preacher 
 regenerates the soul instead of the Spirit of God. Do they 
 bury the man's hodi/ ? Then the burial of the apostle and 
 theirs are two things — liis is spiritual, theirs is physical. 
 
 '' You will see then, Theophilus, that Paul is speaking of 
 a spiritual work. He is exhorting the Romans to holiness 
 of life, not by reminding them of their baptismal vows, but 
 by unfolding more distinctly to their understandings the 
 nature of the work wrought in their hearts. He shows them 
 that the grace which is able to destroy the old man of sin, is 
 able to keep alive the new man created unto good works in 
 Christ Jesus. He had fully informed them about the means 
 of their salvation in the two preceding chapters ; in this he 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 277 
 
 describes the nature of that salvation. It is an important 
 part of the apostle's argument, but when it is wrested from 
 its connection, and brought in to prove the mode of water 
 baptism, the beauty of the passage is destroyed, and sundry 
 errors of grave importance are the necessary results. 
 
 '^ Further, to enforce my view of this passage, I will briefly 
 consider the parallel in Colossians, second chapter. ^And 
 ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality 
 and power. In whom also ye are circumcised with the cir- 
 cumcision made icitlioiit hands, in putting off the body of 
 the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; buried 
 with him in baptism, wherein, also, ye are risen with him 
 through the faith of the opeimtion of God, who hath raised 
 him from the dead.' Here the apostle speaks of a circum- 
 cision made without hands — that is, a spiritual circumcision 
 — and a burial in baptism wherein we rise ^hy faith of the 
 operation of God' The expressions indicate not a similarity 
 of two works, but the absolute identity of the circumcision 
 and the baptism. The form of speech is altered, but still 
 the same idea is expressed. The converting and sanctifying 
 grace of God is likened to a circumcision without hands, 
 which puts off the sins of our flesh, and conforms us to the 
 image of Christ ; and also to a burial in baptism, wherein we 
 rise by faith in the operation of God's love. The apostle no 
 more refers to the water baptism of the Colossians, than he 
 does to their circumcision in the flesh. There is a literal 
 baptism of the Holy Spirit, and there is a real circumcision 
 of the heart. But the mode of water baptism is no more to 
 be inferred from the word '■ buried' than the mode of circum- 
 cision of the heart. The apostle was not illustrating his 
 subject by referring to any mode whatever. The same 
 Divine operation had circumcised the hearts of the Colos- 
 sians, and buried them in baptism. If immersion represents 
 the burial, then it represents the circumcision also, and a 
 
378 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 Jew at this day would have his initiation into the Jewish 
 Church forcibly brought to mind whilst seeing a Baptist 
 preacher iminersinff a subject in water ! It is a ' speaking 
 ordinance' indeed, if it unites in one representation oppo- 
 site actions. 
 
 ^^But how does immersion represent a burial? In what 
 particulars is the figure appropriately applied to immersion? 
 We only bury the dead, or those whom we believe to be so — 
 the Baptists will bury none but the living, both in body and 
 spirit : there can be no agreement, then, in the state of the 
 person buried, and that of the one immersed. We excavate 
 the ground, prepare a grave, let the dead body down, and 
 throw the earth upon the coffin : the Baptist burial is a dip- 
 ping of a living person into water, into the ' yielding wave,' 
 and the man is raised up, not ' by faith of the operation of 
 God,' but by the strength of the preacher's arm ! There is no 
 likeness between the manner of a burial, and that of immer- 
 sion in water. The covering of the person from the view of 
 the spectators is the only possible ground of analogy. Yet the 
 corpse is alicays removed from sight before burial, being covered 
 up in the coffin. The covering up of the body in water is a 
 momentary action, whilst the other is permanent. The earth 
 is never allowed to touch either the body or the garments of 
 the dead, yet the water comes in direct contact with the body 
 in immersion. The coffin containing the body is lowered into 
 the grave, but the living body is forced into the water by the 
 preacher's hands. Surely there is no agreement in these 
 things. Nothing but an extravagant fancy can see any an- 
 alogy between the burial of our dead, and immersion in 
 water. 
 
 '^ The truth is, the apostle does not refer to the manner of 
 burying the dead either among the Jews, Romans, or Greeks. 
 He simply speaks of that operation of God's grace whereby 
 the body of sin is destroyed, which is often called, and ap- 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 279 
 
 propriatelj called, the baptism of the Holy Spirit. To 
 endeavor to represent this grace in the mode of its operation, 
 is to act without a warrant from the apostle, or a just ground 
 of analogy in the texts quoted. We have already seen the 
 Spirit's operations represented by a flowing out or pouring — 
 thus far we have Divine testimony. We are authorized to 
 represent them thus by the explicit language of Scripture. 
 But when we seek to determine another mode founded upon 
 the word ' burial,' we are not only driven to far-fetched and 
 loose comparisons, but we are absolutely contradicting the 
 evidence of God's word. 
 
 ^' I shall only notice now one more allusion to baptism in 
 the Epistles, as several expressions, such as, ' baptism doth 
 now save us,' ^the laver of regeneration,' Uhe washing 
 with water,' etc., will be examined on a subsequent evening. 
 In the first letter to the Corinthians, tenth chapter, Paul 
 says : ' 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 Mo- 
 ses in the cloud and in the sea ] and did all eat the same 
 spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink ; 
 for they drank of that spiritual Kock that followed them ; and 
 that Rock was Christ.' This passage evidently refers to the 
 crossing of the Red Sea. Paul says the children of Israel 
 were baptized unto Moses, in the cloud and in the sea -, they 
 were under the cloud, and passed through the sea. Our Bap- 
 tist friends endeavor to make a dry dip out of this baptism. 
 They affirm that the water being above and around the peo- 
 ple, they were covered up by it, and therefore dipped in it, 
 without becoming wet. By the same process a man is dipped 
 in water every time it rains, even though he may be in a 
 house ; for the rain is above him, around him, and beneath 
 him A dry baptism with water, is one of the beautiful 
 
280 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 creations of Baptist fancy. To charge the apostle with such 
 trifling, is to turn sacred writ into fables at once. 
 
 " The Israelites passed under the cloud, and the fine drops 
 of mist fell upon them from it; they passed through the sea, 
 and the spray from either side of their path fell on them — 
 this is called a haptism unto Moses, because through faith in 
 their leader, as the appointed instrument in the hand of 
 God, they were delivered from their Egyptian enemies. 
 This is the plain explanation of Paul's language. He pro- 
 duces the example of the baptized Israelites to show the 
 Corinthians that a mere formal recognition of Christian obli- 
 gations does not secure the favor of Grod, as many of the 
 Jews offended Grod, eveif after as well as before their bap- 
 tism. Christ, the spiritual Kock of which they drank, fol- 
 lowed them, and inasmuch as they, while blessed with singu- 
 lar privileges, murmured and rejected God, so we, under a 
 dispensation of greater blessings, need not expect God to be 
 pleased with us unless we obey his commandments. This is 
 the evident meaning of the text. 
 
 '^ I shall briefly recapitulate the points already examined, 
 and then close the argument on the baptisms mentioned in 
 the Scriptures. John the Baptist, being the appointed her- 
 ald of Christ, formally declared him to be the Messiah, by 
 anointing him with water, in the presence of the assembled 
 multitude. Christ promised to bestow upon his disciples 
 the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which had been represented 
 by the water baptism of John. This baptism of the Spirit 
 was prophesied of by Joel, and declared by Peter to be, a 
 j)ourin(j out of the Spirit. Water, the type of the spiritual 
 cleansing, was administered to the Pentecostal converts, as 
 a sign, seal, and pledge of God's redeeming grace and for- 
 giving love. The water baptism was followed by the Spirit's 
 baptism — the sign by the thing signified — the pouring out 
 of water, by the pouring out of the Spirit upon the penitent 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 281 
 
 Jews. Baptism under the nciv covenant, has taken the place 
 of circumcision under the old ; in the first, the distinction 
 of subjects was abolished, together with the requirement to 
 embrace a particular system of national government. The 
 subjects of the new covenant are bound to obey the gospel 
 law, as the subjects of the old were to obey the Mosaic law. 
 
 '' The Samaritans, in the same manner as the Jews at Je- 
 rusalem, received first the type, water baptism, then the 
 Spirit's baptism. The mode was the same used on the day 
 of Pentecost. The Ethiopian eunuch was baptized in the ■ 
 desert by Philip, under circumstances precluding the idea 
 of immersion. As he had belonged to the old covenant, 
 being a proselyte, he received the sign first, and the thing 
 signified afterward. His meeting with water was not pre- 
 arranged, but accidental, and the text by no means conveys 
 the idea of a deviation in this case from the rule of apostolic 
 baptism. Cornelius, a Grentile, received the baptism of the 
 Spirit first, and water baptism afterward. Lydia and her 
 household were baptized on the Sabbath, by the river's side, 
 in the place ' where prayer was wont to be made.' The 
 jailer was baptized In the jail, at night, precisely as the 
 others had been, by receiving the sign of the grace which 
 he sought. 
 
 ^^ In all these cases we have no mention made of a search 
 after proper places to .baptize. The Pentecostal converts did 
 not go either to Jordan or to Siloam ; the Samaritans did not 
 go to a river, a pool, or a ' tank j' the Ethiopian went to the 
 water, because he was travelling, and the same thing would 
 be done by any Pedobaptist minister to-day, under the same 
 circumstances; Cornelius was baptized at home; Lydia in 
 the place of prayer, and the jailer in the dungeon. It is 
 absolutely beyond belief that these baptisms could have been 
 immersions, without one word of proof in the sacred narra- 
 tive. 
 
282 THEOPHILUS WALTON. 
 
 ^^ The consistency of revelation is vindicated by this view. 
 The cleansing power of the Holy Ghost, which is signified 
 by the first sacrament in the Christian Church, is. the only 
 means by which our hearts are prepared for the worship of 
 God on earth, or fitted for companionship with the saved in 
 heaven. This spiritual cleansing is beautifully pictured 
 before us in the pouring out of water upon the head of the 
 subject, thus initiating him into the new covenant which 
 has been perfected in the blood of Christ. The seal of 
 God's covenant, thus attached to him, becomes a pledge of 
 God's grace, without which all ordinances are shadows, all 
 human ministrations are but as sounding brass and tinkling 
 cymbals. By this baptism of the Spirit the body of sin is 
 buried with Christ, our atoning Saviour, who purchased our 
 freedom from sin by his sacrifice upon the cross ; and as he has 
 been raised up from the dead, so we have been born again, 
 and live a new life in obedience to his commandments, look- 
 ing for the fulness of the blessing of the glorious gospel of 
 the Son of God ; resting in hope, awaiting the redemption 
 of our body, and our final salvation in the land of everlast- 
 ing peace and joy. Let us beware that we neglect not the 
 substance in our zeal for the shadow ; that we presume not 
 upon the grace of our God, erecting barriers against those 
 whom he has blessed, pronouncing our anathemas against 
 the chosen of the Lord of hosts. 
 
 ^' We will meet again to-morrow evening.'* 
 
 The audience were then dismissed. 
 
^hiU §v(m\Q. 
 
 HISTOKY OF THE ORDINANCE— ITS EAELY 
 CORRUPTIONS. 
 
 VALUE OF THE FATHERS' TESTIMONY. 
 
 ORIGIN OF BAPTIST IMMERSION. 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 285 
 
 SIXTH EYENING. 
 
 At an early hour on Thursday evening the church was 
 filled to overflowing. Mr. Battle and Mr. Ellis were both 
 present, and a number of Baptist members occupied the 
 front seats. Their ministers were furnished with pencil and 
 paper, ready to take notes for future use. Mr. Mason occu- 
 pied his usual place within the altar and in front of the pul- 
 pit. 
 
 '^ We are called upon this evening," said Mr. Mason, ^^to 
 review a sad feature in the history of the human race. No 
 sooner does the merciful Grod reveal himself to the children 
 of men, than they introduce into his worship the objects of 
 carnal gratification, reducing the symbols of religion to the 
 substance of grace — rejecting the immediate influence of the 
 Holy One of Israel, and binding to the ceremonies of the 
 Church the grace which God alone can bestow. 
 
 "The Jew, listening to the thunder, and beholding the 
 vivid glare of the lightnings upon Mount Sinai, grows 
 weary with the display of the Divine power, and seeks at the 
 hands of his priest a god of gold, that he may behold the 
 object of his adoration. The types which strike his senses, 
 and are designed to lead him to the possession of the substance 
 which is adumbrated, are converted by his gross sensualism 
 into the end of his worship, and the sum of his religious 
 obligations. He sees not the blood of the Lamb of Calvary, 
 
286 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 when he offers the sacrificial beast; he rests in the perform- 
 ance of the required ceremony, and looks upon the blood of 
 bulls and of goats as the essential instrument of intercession 
 with God in his behalf. The soul, the living reality of his 
 religion, is neglected and forgotten. He pays the tithes of 
 mint, of anise, and cummin, but neglects the weightier 
 matters of the law. He changes the predictions of his Mes- 
 siah into *prophccies of temporal dominion and political 
 advancement. He dreams of superior sanctity and holiness, 
 because he has been zealous for the rites and ordinances of 
 his law, whilst his heart is a receptacle of impure thoughts, 
 and the fount of pernicious desires. He will not defile him- 
 self by the touch of the common people, yet he will grow 
 rich by grinding the faces of the poor. He will build the 
 sepulchres of the prophets, and murder every new messen- 
 ger of the Lord of hosts. He will reject the evidences of 
 his Messiah's advent, although they bring all possible con- 
 viction, in miracles and supernatural visitations, because his 
 own preconceived views of his kingdom have wrought out 
 the grandeur of an earthly monarch as the livery of the 
 Anointed One. He needs no Saviour whilst there is a 
 priest in the temple, and purple blood flowing upon the 
 altar. This is the Jew ; the gross, sensual, depraved Jew. 
 He is but one of a thousand; the progenitor of myriads, 
 who are, unhappily, to-day clinging about the wheels of 
 Zion, and retarding the progress of the gospel. They claim 
 to be the children of Abraham ; yet they have not Abra- 
 ham's faith. They avow themselves to be the peculiar, the 
 onl^ people of God, the joint-heirs with Christ; yet they 
 neither have the love of God in their hearts, nor the 
 humility of Christ in their lives. These are the wells with- 
 out water; the dry springs in the desert, which allure only 
 to deceive ; they are clouds without moisture, driven by the 
 winds of passion, promising refreshing showers, and yielding 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 287 
 
 none ; they are wandering stars, that keep no regular orbits, 
 but wander about their own self-appointed centres. They 
 engraft the sensualism of the Jew and the pride of the 
 Pharisee upon the gospel of Christ. They make a brother 
 an enemy for a word — a rebel because he does not receive 
 their views of Christian obligation and duty. They cast 
 the children of the fold to the mercies of the wolf, and 
 cry '■ The Temple of the Lord are we ! the Temple of the 
 Lord are we I' ' We are the Church, and there is none beside 
 us ; we have the sacraments and the blessings of the king- 
 dom ; they that follow not us are Anathema, Maranatha !' 
 
 ^'Alas ! such is the case, even in the Christian Church. 
 This spirit began to manifest itself very early in the days of 
 the apostles. A contention arose about circumcision before 
 tv/enty years had passed away from the death of Christ. 
 ^Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye 
 cannot be saved.' Thus taught certain men of Judea at 
 Antioch. Paul and Barnabas must needs go up to Jerusa- 
 lem to have the question settled. The elders and the 
 apostles consult about it, and the conclusion is, that the 
 yoke of circumcision is not to be placed upon the people. 
 It was a step backward, obligating them to do without 
 grace that which no man had done. It was the leaven of 
 the Pharisees in the Christian lump, making the salvation 
 of the people dependent upon an outward ordinance. But 
 the apostles determined that we are saved by grace, not by 
 ordinances. A few years pass by, and grievous disturb- 
 ances arise at Corinth. One party asserts : We are of Paul, 
 the learned apostle. Another says : ^Ye are of the eloquent 
 Apollos. Another says : We are of Cephas, the corner- 
 stone, the keeper of the keys. And still another says : But 
 'we are of Christ. They are rent by divisions. The spirit 
 of heathen rivalry creeps in, and they convert the Church 
 into the schools of the academists and the porches of the 
 
288 THEOPIIILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 philosopliers. While they are engaging in these boasts of 
 superiority, they are tolerating in their midst the most hein- 
 ous crimes. Thus does Grod justly abandon to its folly the 
 pride of the human heart. 
 
 '^ Is it any wonder, then, that the sacraments of Christ- 
 ianity should be corrupted ? Is it any wonder that the f^/pe 
 should be substituted for the grace which is signified ? 
 Scarcely does the last of the apostles wander in exile on the 
 island of Patmos, before the work of sacramental corruption 
 begins. Sinful human nature is elevated by becoming the 
 instrument of regeneration, on the one hand, and by receiv- 
 ing it in a visible form on the other. A religion whose 
 essence can be touched with the hands, and seen with the 
 eyes, accords with the conceptions of fallen man. Hence 
 professedly Christian teachers, in expounding the word of 
 God, blend the sign and the grace in one. They read that 
 when Peter's feet were washed by the Saviour, Peter 
 exclaimed : ' Lord, not my feet only^ but also my hands and 
 my head.' They find in this a necessity for washing the 
 whole body of the convert. They read in Christ's conver- 
 sation with Nicodemus that men must be born of water, and 
 of the Spirit. They find here another birth of the body, in 
 the water, and they connect it with the spiritual birth; and 
 as the spirit and body, naturally, come into the world at the 
 same moment, so the birth of water is the birth of the 
 spirit. They hear Paul speak of being cleansed with the 
 washing of water by the word. They hear Peter say, we 
 are ?.avcd by baptism. These proofs are enough for them. 
 The whole body must be washed — must be born of water — 
 and the spirit is thus saved by baptism. They see not that 
 these expressions are symbolical ; they will have them to be 
 literal; they must mean baptismal regeneration, because 
 it is an easy doctrine, and pleases the sinful heart. 
 
 "Barnabas, the fellow-laborer of Paul, is said to be the 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 289 
 
 author of a General Epistle. Those who receive it say it is 
 older than the Epistle of Jucle^ and others suppose that it 
 was written in the first century, and composed for the 
 Ebionite Christians, a sect who rejected the Divinity of 
 Christ. Let us hear Barnabas. ^ Consider/ says he, ' how 
 he has joined both the cross and iJie water together. For 
 this he saith : Blessed are they who put their trust in the 
 cross, and descend into the icater, for they shall have their 
 reward in due time : then, saith he, I will give it to them. 
 . . . And there was a river running on the right hand, 
 and beautiful trees grew up by it ; and he that shall eat of 
 them shall live for ever. The signification of which is this : 
 that we go down into the water full of sins and pollutions, 
 but come up again hrimjing forth fruity having in our hearts 
 the fear and hope which is in Jesus by the Spirit.' Epistle 
 of Barnabas, c. 10. Let not the Baptists rejoice at this 
 ancient authority for going down into the icater, for the fact 
 is significant that the first intimation of such a proceeding 
 in ancient history was coupled with the doctrine of bap- 
 tismal regeneration : forgiveness of sins and convei'sion in 
 luater. 
 
 ^^ Ignatius, who is supposed to have written about the end 
 of the first or beginning of the second century, in his 
 Epistle to the Ephesians, speaking of Christ, says : ' He was 
 born and baptized, that through his passage he might purify 
 loater, to the washing away of sin.' Epistle to the Ephesians, 
 chapter iv. 
 
 '^ In the Shepherd of Hermas, who is believed by some to 
 have written about the same time as Ignatius, we find the 
 following words : ^I asked her. Lady, why is the tower built 
 upon the water? She replied, I said before to thee that 
 thou wert very wise, to inquire diligently concerning the 
 building, therefore thou shalt find the truth. Hear, there- 
 fore, why the tower is built upon the water : because your life 
 13 
 
290 TIIEOPIIILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 is and shall he saved hy water. For it is founded by the 
 word of tlie almiglity and lionorable name, and is supported 
 by the invisible power and virtue of God.' Hermas, Yis. 3. 
 Again, this author speaks more distinctly to the purpose : 
 ^ It was necessary, said he, for them to ascend hy loatcr, that 
 they might be at rest. For they eould not otherwise enter 
 into the kingdom of God, but by laying aside the mortality 
 of their former life, (that is, hy heing haptized.) They, 
 therefore, being dead, were nevertheless sealed with the seal 
 of the Son of God, and so entered into the kingdom of God. 
 Now that seal is the water of baptism, into wJiich men go 
 down under the obligation unto death, but come up appointed 
 unto life/ Similitudes of Hernias, 9, c. 16. 
 
 ^^It is a little remarkable, Theophilus, that this last 
 author not only makes baptism the means of saving the 
 living, but he declares that the dead must be baptized before 
 they can be saved ! One quotation more I will give you. 
 Justin Martyr, who lived about A. D. 140, speaking of the 
 method of baptizing, says : ' Then we bring them to some 
 place where there is water, and they are regenerated by the 
 same way of regeneration by which we are regenerated, for 
 they are washed icith water in the name of God, the Father 
 and Lord of all things, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and 
 of the Holy Spirit.' 
 
 ^^ I have quoted these passages to show you at what an 
 early period the grace of God was attached to baptism, and 
 the ordinance made the means of conversion. It does not 
 matter whether these letters were written by the men to 
 whom they were ascribed, or not. They are certainly not 
 i^ispircd writings — that we know. But the evidence is very 
 clear that they were all extant about the commencement of 
 the third century : that is, the letters of Barnabas and 
 Ignatius, and the Shepherd of Hermas. 
 
 '^ It is evident that they went down into the water, and 
 
THE MAJESTY OE TRUTH 291 
 
 immersed tlieir candidates. But do not misunderstand that 
 expression. It was not Baptist immersion^ but trine immer- 
 sion : that is, they were dipped three times, once in the name 
 of the Father, once in the name of the Son, and once in the 
 name of the Holy Spirit. If the baptism of the first cen- 
 turies consisted of three dips, our Baptist friends have 
 certainly lost tico-thirds of the ordinance, for they have but 
 one dip. Let me call attention to the dishonesty of the 
 author of ' Theodosia Ernest.^ On page 166 he says : 'The 
 first historians, and earliest writers on the customs and 
 practices of the apostolic churches, were Baptists. . . It 
 was near three hundred years before there were any pro- 
 fessed Christians who were not Baptists. . . I say the 
 Christian Fathers, for the first three centuries, were Bap)tists, 
 for they say so themselves.' The author then gives the quo- 
 tation from Justin Martyr which I have just read. Now 
 this is the language of a mere braggart, who knows nothing 
 of what he says, or else he wilfully perverts the truth. Do 
 Baptists baptize infants ? Yet these same ' Fathers' taught 
 and practiced infant baptism. Do Baptists believe that we 
 are regenerated, born anew of the Spirit, in the act of bap- 
 tism ? So these ' Fathers' taught. Do Baptists immerse 
 their subjects three times in water? So these 'Fathers' 
 practiced. Do Baptists baptize their subjects naked? These 
 'Fathers' certainly did. Do Baptists anoint their subjects 
 with oil, make the sign of the cross, exorcise or drive out 
 the devil ? So did these Fathers. And yet ' the Fathers 
 for the first three centuries were Baptists !' But this is not 
 all. The author gives a quotation from Tertullian, and 
 leaves out tico very important words. He makes Tertullian 
 say : ' When we are ready to enter into the water, (and 
 even before,) we make our protestations before the minister, 
 and in the church, that we renounce the devil and all his 
 pomps and vanities J afterwards we nre j^lungcd in the water.' 
 
292 TIIEOPIIILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 Now, hear wliat Tertullian dors say, and learn wliat credit, 
 you are to give to Baptist statements. ^ When we come to 
 the water, we do there, (and we do the same also, a little 
 before, in the congregation,) under the hand of the pastor, 
 make a profession that we do renounce the devil, and his 
 pomp, and his angels. Then we are three times plunged 
 into the water ; and we answer some few words more than 
 our Saviour in the Gospel has enjoined. When we are 
 taken out of the water, we taste a mixture of milk and 
 honey.' De Corona Militis, c. 1. ' Theodosia' makes it con- 
 venient to leave out the ' three times,' because the work was 
 pledged to make Tertullian a Baptist ! Do the Baptists 
 taste the milk and honey now, when they are taken up out 
 of the water ? But let us hear a little more about that old- 
 time Baptist Church, in the days of Tertullian : '■ The sacra- 
 ment of the eucharist,' says he, ^ which our Lord celebrated 
 at meal-time, and ordered all to take, we receive in our 
 assemblies before day, and never hut from the hands of the 
 pastor J Do modern Baptists follow this rule ? What 
 authority have they for laying it aside ? Their deacons dis- 
 tribute the sacrament : so did not the Church receive it of 
 which Tertullian writes. But let us hear more of this 
 ^ Baptist' Father : ' We count it an unfitting thing to keep 
 any fasts on the Lord's day^ or to hneel at our prayers on 
 that day. The same liberty we take all the time from 
 Easter to Pentecost.' Do the Baptists have any conscien- 
 tious scruples about kneeling at prayer on the Lord's day? 
 Do they keep the feast of Easter ? But again, Tertullian 
 says : ^ We are troubled at it, if any of our bread or wine 
 fall to the ground. At every setting out, or entry on busi- 
 ness, whenever we come in or go out from any place, when 
 we dress for a journey, when we go into a bath, when we go 
 to meat, when the candles are brought in, when we lie down, 
 or sit down, and whatever business we have, ive make on our 
 
THE MAJESTY OP TRUTH. 293 
 
 foreheads the sign of the cross.' Here is a fine list of cere- 
 monies, worthy of any believer in the Pope, and yet we are 
 told that Tertullian was a good Baptist ! 
 
 ''In his debate with Praxeas, Tertullian is even more 
 explicit than before in regard to trine immersion. He says 
 our Saviour commanded the apostles that they should bap- 
 tize unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy 
 Spirit ; ' not unto one person,^ says he, 'for ive are not 
 2}hingcd ONCE, hut THREE TIMES ; once at the naming of 
 each name.' And yet the author of this attempt at prose- 
 lyting the young, suppresses the truth, so as to make it 
 appear that the ' Fathers' practiced the ' single dip' of the 
 Baptists ! 
 
 '' In the Canons of the Holy Apostles, as they are called, 
 the single immersion is positively prohibited. This I will 
 show you directly. Another misrepresentation follows on 
 the same page in ' Theodosia.' I will read the sentence : 
 ' But it is needless to multiply authorities. It is the united 
 testimony of all the Fathers who speak of the subject at all, 
 that baptism was in the early ages performed only l>y immer- 
 sion^ except of necessity, in the near prospect of death ; and 
 those loho, under such circumstances, received p)0uring as a 
 suhstitute, were never said to he baptized, hut to have hecn 
 poured upon, as a suhstitute for hapfism !' A more positive 
 misstatement cannot be found in this buds-et of errors. 
 Those who were baptized when they were sick were never 
 said to be haptized, but to be poured upon ! 
 
 ''Now let us see how the record stands on this point. 
 Novatian, in the third century, was ' poured upon' in his bed 
 in time of sickness, and after he recovered was chosen by 
 one party Bishop of Home. Cornelius, his opponent, writing 
 to Fabius, Bishop of Antioch, says : ' It was not lawful for 
 any one that had been haptized in his bed in time of sick- 
 ness, as he (Novatian) had been, to be admitted to any ofl&ce 
 
294 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 of th.e clergy/ Why ? Because they regarded the man as 
 having been forced to a profession of Christianity. The 
 Council of Neocaesarea, some time after this period, passed a 
 canon, stating that ' He that is baptized when he is sick, 
 ought not to be made a priest, (for his coming to the faith is 
 not voluntary, but from necessity,) unless his diligence and 
 faith do aherward prove commendable, or the scarcity of 
 men fit for the office do require it.' We see then that 
 the fault is not that the man has not been validly baptized, 
 but his i-epentance is not considered voluntary, but com- 
 pelled by the near view of death. In reference to this very 
 case, whether a man baptized in bed when sick must be 
 baptized again if he recovered, Cyprian writes : ' If any one 
 think that they obtain no benefit, as having only an 
 affusion of the water of salvation, do not let him mistake so 
 far as that the parties, if they recover of their sickness, 
 should be baptized again. And if they must not be baptized 
 again, that have already been sanctified loith the baptism of 
 the Church, why should they have cause of scandal given 
 them concerning their religion, and the pardon of our 
 Lord?' These words were written about A. D. 260, and 
 completely overthrow the assertion that persons baptized in 
 sickness were said to be poured upon, instead of being 
 baptized. They loere baptized validly, and no one of them 
 was baptized again, so far as the writings of the Fathers 
 show. I might give many other proofs, but it is needless. 
 
 " I have shown you that after the death of the apostles, 
 three immersions, milk, honey, the sign of the cross, and bap- 
 tismal regeneration, composed the ordinance of baptism in 
 the first three centuries; and also that affusion was prac- 
 ticed in the cases of the sick. I am now to show that im^ 
 mersion, as practiced by the Baptists, was unknown until 
 the latter part of the fourth century, and that it icas then 
 introduced by a heretical sect for the purpose of opp)Osing the 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 295 
 
 doctrine of the Trinity. I sliall do tliis, not by quoting a 
 modern, but one of the oldest ecclesiastical historians. Sozo- 
 nicn, a writer of the fiflli century, in his Ecclesiastical His- 
 tory, B. vi., c. 26, says : 'xibout this time, (A. D. 375,) 
 Euuomius, who had succeeded Eleusius in the bishopric of 
 Cyzicus, and who presided over the Avians, devised another 
 heresy, which some have called by his name,' but which is 
 sometimes denominated the Anomoean heresy. Some assert 
 that Eunomius was the first who ventured to maintain tliat 
 haptism ought to he performed by immersion, and to corrupt, 
 in this manner, the apostolical tradition luliicli has been 
 handed down to the j^^'csent day. He introduced, it is said, 
 a mode of discipline contrary to that of the Church, and en- 
 deavored to disguise the innovation under the cloak of a 
 grave and severe deportment. He was very eloquent, and 
 delighted in disputations and conferences. The generality 
 of those who entertain his sentiments have the same predi- 
 lections. [What a fuU-Iength portrait of modern Baptists !] 
 They do not applaud a virtuous course of life and conduct, 
 or charity toward the needy, unless exhibited b}^ persons of 
 their own sect, so much as skill in disputation, and the 
 power of triumphing in debates over the arguments of an 
 opponent. Persons possessed of these accomplishments are 
 accounted religious and virtuous. . . . But whether it 
 was Eunomius, or any other person, who first introduced 
 heretical opinions concerning baptism, it seems to me that 
 such innovators, whoever they may have been, were alone in 
 danger, according to their own representation, of quitting 
 this life without having received the rite of holy baptism : 
 for if, after having received baptism after the ancient mode 
 of the Church, they found it impossible to re-confer it on 
 themselves, it must be admitted that they introduced a prac- 
 tice to which they had not themselves submitted, and thus 
 undertook to administer to others what had never been ad- 
 
296 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 ministered to tliemselves. [The very difficulty wliicli was 
 settled by Roger Williams and Ezekiel Holliman, wlien they 
 mutually immersed each other, without either having the 
 right to do so, on their own principles.] Thus, after having 
 laid down certain principles, according to their own fancy, 
 without any data, they proceeded to bestow upon others 
 what they had not themselves received. The absurdity of 
 this assumption is manifest from their own confession ; for 
 they admit that those who have not received the rite of bap- 
 tism have not the power of administering it. Now, accord- 
 ing to their opinion, those who have not received the rite of 
 baptism, in conformity with their mode of administration, 
 are unhaptized ; and they confirm this opinion by their prac- 
 tice, inasmuch as they re-baptize all those who join their 
 sect, although previously baptized by the Catholic Church.' 
 Such is the testimony of one of the oldest and most reliable 
 of Church historians. It is a very important passage, as it 
 distinctly shows us that haptisni hy immersion was unknown 
 in the first centuries of the Christian era. It is important 
 in another respect, inasmuch as it shows us that the doctrine 
 of immersion originated with the enemies of the doctrine of 
 the Trinity, and was used openly for the purpose of exhibit- 
 ing their faith on that subject. This is, indeed, a severe 
 charge to bring against Baptist immersion, but I will show 
 you presently that the revival of Baptist sentiments in 
 modern times was attended by the same union between im- 
 mersion and Unitarianism — that the early Baptists denied 
 the Divinity of Christ, as many of them do at the present 
 day.- 
 
 '^I am surprised to hear you say that, Mr. Mason,'' said 
 Theophilus; ''I have been taught to believe the Baptist 
 Church as old as the apostles, handing down the faith to us 
 throuo^h the brave Waldenses." 
 
 " History furnishes no proof of such arrogant assump- 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 297 
 
 tious. The Waldenses luere not Baptists, neither was there 
 a Baptist Church in existence for a thousand years after the 
 days of the apostles.'^ 
 
 '^ But have you not fixed the beginning of the Baptist 
 Church upon EunomiuS; in the fourth century?" 
 
 '^jN^o, not at all; it certainly takes something more to 
 make a Baptist than immersion. On the mode of baptism 
 the Eunomian heretics agreed with modern Baptists, but 
 they disagreed as to the subjects of baptism. The Euno- 
 mians were Pedobaptists, as were all orthodox Christians in 
 those times — and I meauj by ' Pedobaptists/ simply believers 
 in infant baptism." 
 
 '^I understand you now, Mr. Mason. Eunomius and his 
 followers immersed their subjects as the Baptists do, but 
 they designed to show thereby that there was but ojie person 
 in the Godhead." 
 
 " Exactly so. And the early Christians used trine immer- 
 sion, ordinarily, to show that there were three persons in the 
 Godhead. Whenever they baptized the sick, they poured 
 the water, or sprinkled it, three times upon the person for the 
 same purpose." 
 
 " You have mentioned the Apostolical Constitutions as 
 condemning immersion," said Theophilus; ^^will you please 
 give us some information about the fi?7ie when they were 
 composed ? Of course they were not the works of the 
 apostles ?" 
 
 " No," replied Mr. Mason, " but they were written during 
 the second, third, and fourth centuries, compiled and attri- 
 buted to the apostles, about the commencement of the fifth 
 century. The canon to which I allude is the fiftieth, and 
 reads as follows : 
 
 " ' If any bishop or presbyter do not perform three immer- 
 sions of one initiation, but one immersion which is given 
 into the death of Christ, let him he deposed ; for the Lord 
 1.3* 
 
298 TIIEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 did not say, Bajytize into my Jeath ; but, Go ye and make 
 disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the 
 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Grhost. Do ye, 
 therefore, bishops, ha2:)tize thrice into one Father, and Son, 
 and Holy Ghost, according to the will of Christ and our 
 constitution by the Spirit.' — Ajj. Con., can. 50. 
 
 ^' So reads the canon. It is very clear, then, that just as 
 long as clij)ping was practiced in the early Church, it con- 
 sisted of three dips, not of one. Now, if this was aposto- 
 lic baptism, the Baptists are as far wrong as we. But if the 
 practice was a corruption of the ordinance, we must trace 
 that corruption to its source. This we have seen was the 
 idea of conversion in baptism — the unscriptural dogma of 
 the cleansing of the spirit in water. As the ichole spirit 
 was to be cleansed, the whole body was to be washed. And 
 inasmuch as this could not be done when the body was 
 clothed, their practice was to baptize naked.'^ 
 " Is that fact well established, Mr. Mason ?" 
 ^'As clearly as any other. Let me give you the testimony 
 of a Baptist historian ; certainly he will not misrepresent it. 
 Mr. Eobinson, a Baptist writer, says : ' The primitive Chris- 
 tians baptized naked. Nothing is easier than to give proof 
 of this by quotations from the authentic writings of the men 
 who administered baptism, and who certainly knew in what 
 way they themselves performed it. There is no ancient his- 
 torical fact better authenticated than this. The evidence 
 doth not go on the meaning of the single word naked, for 
 then a reader might suspect allegory, but on many facts 
 reported, and many reasons assigned for the practice.' — Res., 
 c. 15. I will not recite the facts which he enumerates, but 
 if you desire to see them, I will refer you to the Ecclesiastical 
 Histories of Socrates and Sozomen. The ancients assigned 
 various reasons for this practice, affirming that it was the 
 manner of the apostolic baptism. It was, they said, the 
 
► 
 
 THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 299 
 
 putting off the old man, and the putting on the new, Christ 
 Jesus. 
 
 '' Now, when we consider these facts, that baptized persons 
 were naked, immersed three times, anointed with oil, had 
 milk and honey given them to eat, and were universally con- 
 sidered to be ho7-)i again in the water, do you not see at a 
 glance that all these corruptions of the ordinance — the im- 
 mersions, the disrobing of the body, the anointing with oil, 
 the sanctifying of the water — all originated out of the idea 
 of baptismal regeneration V 
 
 '' I think it is proved to a demonstration,'' replied Theo- 
 philus. ^'And I am compelled to express my astonishment 
 that Baptists cling to a third of the mode, and reject all the 
 others ! This ancient ' baptism' is certainly shallow proof 
 for any Christian denomination." 
 
 ''And yet, Theophilus, our immersionist friends cling to 
 this sandy foundation, and while they conceal the corrup- 
 tions of the ordinance, claim the ' Fathers' as simon-pure 
 Baptists. I say they conceal these facts from their readers, 
 for every one of their books claims the immersions of the 
 ancients as proofs of their own correctness. This they do 
 whilst pretending to receive the Bible as the rule of their 
 faith and practice ! 
 
 " The fact is, that a spurious Christianity obtained, before 
 the commencement of the second century, in the Church. 
 Baptism was exalted into regeneration, and the bread and 
 wine of the Lord's Supper into the real hody and hlood of 
 Christ. Justin Martyr was a Catholic, essentially a Roman 
 Catholic ; so were the ' Fathers' of the subsequent ages, 
 almost without exception, for the peculiarities of Romanism 
 sprang up in the very days of the apostles. This I am 
 prepared to prove, if it is denied. I know that Protestant 
 historians, in controverting the errors of the Romanists, 
 endeavor to give a later date to them ; but the works of these 
 
800 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 ^ Fathers' are extant : they answer for themselves. From 
 the time of Justin Martyr, and even before, to the time of 
 Augustin, in the fifth century, the whole list of Fathers is 
 but a succession of Romanizing teachers. That which we 
 call Roman CathoUcism existed in substance long before the 
 Pope pretended to occupy St. Peter's chair, or claimed pos- 
 session of the keys of heaven and hell. The basis of the 
 ' Great Italian Apostasy' was the corruption of the ordi- 
 nances of baptism and the Lord's Supper. All other evils 
 flowed from these, as I would prove to you if I had time. 
 
 ^' It is enough for our present purpose, then, that we have 
 arrived at the root of the matter. We find water, the sign 
 of the Spirit's baptism, joined to and inseparably mingled 
 with the operations of the Spirit of Grod. The 7ieio hirth 
 then becomes a hodihj birth, as well as a spiritual one. The 
 body is then disrobed and covered three times in water, once 
 in the name of each person of the Trinity, to exhibit that 
 doctrine. 'And then follow the oil, honey, milk, and various 
 other superstitious additions. Let. us cut off these accumu- 
 lations upon the ordinance of Christ, and we shall have little 
 left. The Spirit's baptism is the thing to be exhibited — it 
 is said to be a baptism by pouring. The Baptists strike off 
 two of the immersions \ we will finish the work, strike off 
 tlie other, and return to the simplicity of the emblem and 
 the practice of the apostles — pouring water upon the head 
 of the person to be baptized, in the name of the Father, the 
 Son, and the Holy Grhost.'^ 
 
 '' I think you have made out your case, Mr. Mason, beyond 
 doubt. I am firmly convinced that jjouring is the uncor- 
 rupted, scriptural mode of baptism. Upon that subject no 
 further argument is required. I see now the danger to 
 which I have been exposed in following Baptist writers. 
 You have promised, however, to expose a quotation made in 
 * Theodosia' from Dr. Wall. I have never seen his work. 
 
L 
 
 THE MAJESTY OE TRUTH. 301 
 
 and would like for you to sliow the dishonesty of this Bap- 
 tist production.'' 
 
 '^Very well, Theophilus/' replied Mr. Mason, 'Mo you 
 take ' Theodosia Ernest/ and I will use Dr. Wall's History 
 of Infant Baptism. By the way, if I remember rightly, this 
 ' Theodosia' makes a ridiculous blunder about the iiame of 
 Dr. Wall's book. Look at page 178, and see what name 
 the quotation is credited to." 
 
 " The 'History of John the Baptist !' " 
 
 '' So I thought ! Here is verily a learned writer in the 
 nineteenth century ! Dr. Wall's 'Eistori/ of John the Bap- 
 tist' is an apocryphal book, which no mortal ever laid his 
 eyes on, save and except the wonderful genius who spent his 
 days in perverting a simple female from the communion of 
 her fathers. Such absurd impostures were never yet called 
 to the aid of a good cause. But let us proceed. AYhere is 
 the passage ?" 
 
 '' The book says it is in part ii., chapter ix.; of the History 
 of John the Baptist." 
 
 '' Well, we will leave ' John the Baptist' out, and redd 
 ' History of Infant Baptism; Oxford edition, 1844. Read 
 out of Theodosia, page 177." 
 
 <■' ' France seems to have been the first country in the 
 world where baptism by affusion was used ordinarily to per- 
 sons in health, and in the pidjlic way of administering it. 
 It being allowed to loeak children (in the reign of Queen 
 Elizabeth) to be baptized by aspersion '" 
 
 '' Stop, stop, Theophilus," said Mr. Mason, 'Hhat last sen- 
 tence is not here. Does the quotation mark end with the 
 first period ?" 
 
 '' No, sir, it goes on, as giving a continuous statement of 
 Dr. Wall." 
 
 '' Now mark the .dishonesty, Theophilus. The $rst sen- 
 tence is on page 393 ; the second, on page 399 ! Six pages 
 
302 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 between tliem ! Dr. Wall goes on, after tlie words ' public 
 way of administering it/ to say that ^ Gennadius of Mar- 
 seilles, whose words I gave before, is the first author that 
 mentions it as indifi"erent/ Now this Gennadius of Mar- 
 seilles wrote in the Jiftli century, and this Baptist writer 
 was afraid to admit that baptism was administered by aifu- 
 sion in the fifth century; therefore he leaves out Dr. Wall's 
 statement, and weaves a Baptist coat out of garbled extracts ! 
 And these are the men who presume to impose upon a read- 
 ing people in this age of the world ! But let us follow 
 / Theodosia,' and afterward we will release Dr. Wall from 
 such unholy hands. The sentence you commenced is on 
 page 399 of Wall.'^ 
 
 '' ^ It being allowed to weak children (in the reign of 
 Queen Elizabeth) to be baptized by aspersion ' " 
 
 '^ Dr. Wall says, ^ by affusion.' Go on.'' 
 
 " ' Many fond ladies and gentlemen ' " 
 
 "Dr. Wall says, ' geutle-womcn.' Read on." 
 
 " ' First, and then by degrees the common people, would 
 obtain the favor of the priest to have their children jmss for 
 weak children, too tender to endure dipping in the water. 
 As for sprinkling ' " 
 
 " Stop, Theophilus, that is all Dr. Wall says on this page. 
 The next scraj) is taken from page 403, four pages beyond. 
 I have found it. Read on." 
 
 " 'As for sprinldijig, properly so called, it was at 1615 
 just then beginning, and used by very few. It must have 
 begun in the disorderly times after forty-one ' " 
 
 '' Dr. Wall says, ' 1641.' Go on." 
 
 " ^ They (the Assembly of divines in Westminster) re- 
 formed the font into a basin ' "" 
 
 " Stop ] that sentence begins twelve lines below the other. 
 Read on." 
 
 " '■ This learned assembly could not remember that fonts 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. o03 
 
 to baptize iu liad always hcen used hy the lyrimitive Chris- 
 tians long before tlie beginning of Popery, and ever since 
 cliurcbes were built ; but that sj)r inkling for the purpose of 
 baptizing ' " 
 
 "Stop, Theophilus; another /aw;. Wall says, for the 
 ' COMMON purpose of baptizing.^ Read on.^^ 
 
 " ' Was really introduced (in France first, and then in 
 other Pojjish countries) in times of Popery, and that, accord- 
 ingly, all those countries in which the usurped power of the 
 Fope is or has formerly been owned, have left off dipping of 
 children in the fonts, but that all other countries in the 
 world, which had never regarded his authority, do still use 
 it ; and that basins (to sprinkle out of) except in cases of 
 necessity, were never used by Papists, or any other Chris- 
 tians whosoever, till by themselves.' — History of John t^e 
 Baptist." 
 
 "Now, Theophilus,'' said Mr. Mason, "this pretended 
 statement of Dr. Wall is taken from four different places, 
 extending over eleven pages of Dr. Wall's work. What do 
 3^ou think of such a writer as ' Theodosia ?' " 
 
 "Well, Mr. Mason, 'all that I can say is, if he ever saw 
 Dr. Wall's book, he has used it dishonestly ; if he never did 
 see it, but followed some one else, he has used it ignorantly ; 
 either way, he is not a fit person to teach the people.'^ 
 
 "A very reasonable conclusion, Theophilus. Yet he has 
 the impudence to charge Pedobaptist divines with falsehood ! 
 He asks this question, which would well apply to himself, if 
 he had divinity enough in his head to make him a doctor ; 
 'Can it he possible that doctors of divinity will impose such 
 falsehoods on their people in order to sustain the practice of 
 the Church r'' 
 
 "And I would ask, Mr. Mason, with your leave. Can Bap- 
 tist immersion only he sustained hy imposing upon the igno- 
 rant \vith misrepresentations of the 'Fathers,^ and garbling 
 
304 THEOPHILUS V/ ALT on; OR, 
 
 ilie writings of Pedohoptists ? If so, I have notliiog to do 
 with it. A doctrine which needs such assistance was never 
 taught of Grod, and cannot be required to be believed by 
 any thinking, reasoning man. I am disgusted with the 
 whole batch of agitators, who strive to keep the world in 
 commotion about the quantity of water one ought to use in 
 baptism. The more I see of unfairness in these Baptist 
 writers, the more I am led to question whether they believe 
 immersion to be the commandment of Christ. An honest 
 opinion, maintained honestly, is commendable; but when 
 frauds are resorted to in order to prove it, I am compelled 
 to reject both the truth of the opinion and the lionesty of its 
 advocate." 
 
 '^ Hold, hold, Theophilus. Do not go too far. It is hard 
 to think that these men do not believe ivhat tJiei/ say ; let us 
 give them the benefit of a good intention, whilst we give 
 them our pity for having a bad cause. 
 
 '^ But let us return to Dr. Wall. Bead the next extract 
 which ' Theodosia' makes from him." 
 
 " ' Now look at page 403 of this other volume, by the same 
 author, (Wall,) and read the passage I have marked. " The 
 way that is ordinarily used, we cannot deny to be a novelty, 
 brought into this Church (the English) by those that had 
 learned it at Germany, or at Greneva. And they, not con- 
 tented to follow the example of pouring a quantity of water, 
 (which had there been introduced instead of immersion,^ 
 but improved it (if I may so abuse that word) from pouring 
 to sprinkling, that it might have as little resemblance to the 
 ancient way of baptizing as possible." — ^cf of Hist, of 
 John the Baptist.' (I !) This is all he has here, I believe, 
 Mr. Mason." 
 
 '^ Well, now, Theophilus, you will not be surprised to hear 
 that there is' no such j^'-'ssage in Dr. Wall's ' Defence.' 
 There is not a word of it on page 403, nor is it anywhere 
 

 THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 305 
 
 else in tlie book. I have looked in vain for even the 
 detached sentences, thinking they may have been thrown 
 together, as the ladies sew patches in a qnilt. But I cannot 
 find one sentence in Dr. Wall agreeing with this quotation 
 in ' Theodosia.'' '' 
 
 '^ Very well, Mr. Mason, the rule is, if the reference is 
 wrong, and the passage is not found by it, to throw it out 
 of the argument. Let it go. But let us have a word about 
 Dr. Wall. He was a member of the Church of England, I 
 believe, '^ 
 
 " Yes, but at the same time he was a strong advocate of 
 immersion. Indeed, when he wrote, and long before, immer- 
 sion was practiced in the English Church. In his day, 
 however, it was on the decline, and Dr. Wall labored to 
 restore it. As you see, the Doctor is, to that extent, only a 
 Baptist witness at last, although he is made to testify as if 
 he were against them on the mode of baptism. Dr. Wall 
 thought dipping was the proper mode, although pouring he 
 regarded as sufficient. In his History, vol. ii., p. 393, he 
 says : '■ I will here endeavor to trace the times when it (dip- 
 ping) began to be left off in the several countries of the 
 AVest — meaning still in the case of infants that were in 
 health, and in the public baptism; for in the case of sickly 
 or weakly infants, there icas always, in all countries, an 
 aJloiaance of affusion or sjyrinkling to be given in haste, and 
 in the house, or any other place. ^ Now this sentence comes 
 immediately before the first extract in ' Theodosia,' yet the 
 author could not see it. If, as Dr. Wall says, sieldy and 
 iceaJdy infants have always been baptized by affusion, then 
 affusion has always been practiced in the Church, for it is 
 evident that there has been no age of Christendom in which 
 there were no weakly or sickly infants." 
 
 I am ashamed to acknowledge, Mr. Mason/' said Theo- 
 
306 TiiEorniLus walton; or, 
 
 philus, ^^ that my mind was favorably impressed after reading 
 that book, ' Theodosia Ernest/ But, to tell you the truth, 
 I had never heard so much as one sermon from a Pedobap- 
 tist on the ordinance. A Pedobaptist hook I never read. 
 Indeed, I was of the opinion that you had no defence to 
 make; that your silence, under the repeated challenges, and 
 unceasing efforts of Baptist teachers to convert the world to 
 their views, was dictated by a sense of the iceakness of your 
 cause, rather than a desire for peace. And now that I have 
 heard your arguments, I am surprised that Pedobaptists 
 generally use so little effort to enlighten the people. I 
 honestly believe, sir, that very many persons would have 
 united with your Churches, who have gone to the Baptists, 
 if you had taken one-half the pains to show them the true 
 view of the subject, that have been expended in proselyting 
 them.'' 
 
 ^'I have no doubt of it, Theophilus," replied Mr. Mason; 
 '' but we have always considered the mode of baptism as 
 being non-essential to the validity of the ordinance, and 
 hence our want of diligence in our defence. Yet I confess 
 that many of us have been to blame. We have kept quiet 
 under the most severe and oftentimes the most unchristian- 
 like attacks, not because we feared controversy, but because 
 our time has been more actively, and, as we thought, more 
 profitably employed, in endeavoring to convert men from sin 
 to Christ." 
 
 '^ Yes, sir; and whilst you have been the means, in God's 
 hands, of converting them, the Baptists were busy in catch- 
 ing them, by their numerous agents, and securing them to 
 their Church. Thus you have been often laboring to build 
 up a rival interest that would destroy every one of your 
 Churches to-morrow, if it could be done." 
 
 ''The Lord must be the judge, Theophilus. "We have 
 
THE MAJESTY OT TRUTH. 307 
 
 acted In all good conscience, and if we have erred, it has 
 been in charity for the souh of men, rather than out of a 
 desire to place their names upon our Church books. 
 
 " But let us return to Dr. Wall, and let him speak for 
 himself about the rise of baptism by affusion. On page 385, 
 vol. ii., he says : ' On the other side, the Antipedobaptists 
 Tvill be as unfair in their turn, if they do not grant that in 
 the case of sickness, weakliness, haste, ivant of quantify/ of 
 water, or such like extraordinary occasions, baptism by affu- 
 sion of water on the face was hi/ the ancients counted suffi- 
 cient haptlsm.' He then mentions the case of Novatian, to 
 which I have already alluded, and gives Cyprian's opinion 
 about the validity of the ordinance thus performed. Cyprian 
 says : 'And no man need therefore think otherwise, because 
 these sick people, when they receive the grace of our Lord, 
 (baptism,) have nothing but an affusion or sprinkling : 
 whereas the Holy Scripture, b}^ the prophet Ezekiel, says : 
 Then icill I sprinkle clean icater upon you, and ye shall he 
 clean,'' etc. And, a little after, Cyprian says : ' We see this 
 proved by the experience of the thing : that such as are 
 baptized and do obtain the grace in their sickness, when need 
 so requires, are freed from the unclean spirit with which they 
 were before possessed ; and do live commendably and approved 
 in the Church, and do every day proceed by the increase of 
 their faith to an increase of the heavenly grace,' etc. This 
 was the opinion of a Christian bishop in the third century. 
 
 '' Dr. AVall then proceeds to give us the case of a soldier 
 who was baptized about the same time. His words are : 
 ^ The acts also of St. Laurence, who suffered martyrdom 
 about the same time as Cyprian, do tell how one of the soldiers 
 that were to be his executioners, being converted, brought 
 a pitcher of water for Laurence to baptize him with.' He 
 then states that ^Eusebius also mentions Basilides baptized 
 in prison by some brethren.' Dr. Wall thinks this case a 
 
308 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 parallel to that of tlie Philippian jailer^ mentioned in tlie 
 Acts of the Apostles, and that they were both baptized ' by 
 affusion only of some small quantity of water/ The testi- 
 mony of GlennadiuSj of Marseilles, is next brought forth, in 
 which he states that both immersion and affusion were prac- 
 ticed in the fifth century. Thomas Aquinas, in the thir- 
 teenth century, says : ' Baptism may be given not only by 
 immersion, but also by affusion or sprinkling with water/ 
 Bonaventure says, that the way of affusion was probably 
 used hi/ the ajjostles, and was in his time (A. D. 1260) used 
 in the churches of France, and some others. Erasmus, 
 A. J). 1500, speaking of the baptism of infants, says : 
 ' With us (the Dutch) they have the water 'poured on them : 
 in England they are dipped.^ Now, to sum up Dr. Wall's 
 argument in a few words : immersion, or dipping, he believes 
 to be the common practice of antiquity, but pouring and sprink- 
 ling, or baptism by affusion, he declares was always and 
 everywliere considered valid, wherever it was inconvenient 
 or unsafe to baptize otherwise. In proof of this he gives 
 several cases. Novatian (A. D. 251) was baptized in bed by 
 affusion. Bishop Cyprian (A. D. 255) declares the baptism 
 to be valid which is performed in sickness by affusion. 
 Laurence, the martyr, (about A. D. 258,) baptized a soldier 
 with water which was brought to him in a pitcher. A. D. 
 495, Gennadius testifies that immersion and affusion were 
 both used in the French and other Churches. A. D. 1255, 
 Thomas Aquinas gives the same testimony. A. D. 1260, 
 Bonaventure gives it as his opinion that tlie apostles baptized 
 by affusion, and says it is used in the Church in his time. 
 A. D. 1500, or 1525, Erasmus declares that pouring is prac- 
 ticed in Holland. 
 
 ^^ These facts are cited by a strong believer in immersion ; 
 one who recommended its restoration in the English Church. 
 Although a Pedobaptist, he was an immersionist; but the 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 309 
 
 proofs of tlie validity of affusion, under certain circum- 
 tances, were so strong, that he docs not hesitate to produce 
 them as evidence that baptism in those cases has always 
 been administered by affusion from the beginning. Not- 
 withstanding this, however. Dr. Wall is quoted by ' Theo- 
 dosia' as tracing pouring and sprinkling back only about a 
 hundred years before his own times 1 He is made to say 
 that affusion began under Queen Elizabeth in England ; and 
 sprinkling only commenced about A. D. 1641. According 
 to this, their own testimony, as our English Bible was pub- 
 lished in 1611 — thirty years, before sprinkling was practiced, 
 and whilst pouring was a deviation from the practice of 
 the Church of England — it is impossible that our Bible 
 translators could have done injustice to Baptist views by the 
 translation ! 
 
 '■'■ AYe have found the first case of Baptist immersion in the 
 hands of Eunomius, in the year 375, practiced by believers 
 in infant baptism. It is very clear, then, that Eunomius 
 was not a Baptist, unless we admit that a Baptist can be a 
 Pcdohaptist. Now, let us examine the first case of a true, 
 genuine Baptist recorded in history. There have existed in 
 parts of France, Switzerland, and Italy, for many years, seve- 
 ral sects of Christians, who have been called Albigenses, 
 Waldenses, and Vaudois. Berengarius, who lived about 
 A. D. 1035, has been charged with denying infant baptism, 
 together with the lawfulness of marriages, and the Romish 
 doctrine of transubstantiation. Whether he baptized by 
 immersion is not stated. It is probable, however, that he 
 did not deny baptism to infants, as he was admitted to the 
 Lord's supper by the Catholics after he recanted his views 
 about the eucharist. When the Lutherans sent, in 1530, a 
 deputation to the Waldenses to know their state and doc- 
 trine, they affirmed that they practiced infant hapttism, and 
 that their fathers had always done so. The first well- 
 
310 THEOPIIILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 defined case of agreement with modern Baptist views on tlie 
 subject of infant baptism was that of Peter Bruis and his 
 followers. I say the first agreement with modern Baptist 
 views as to theprati^iVe, not the reasons for it. Peter Bruis 
 denied the use of infant baptism, because all infants, whe- 
 ther they were baptized or not, inasmuch as they could not 
 believe, could not be saved. If the Petrobrussians used 
 Baptist immersion, (which is not proved,) and denied 
 infant baptism, they cannot still be called Bajjtists, because 
 they taught that no infant dying in infancy could be saved ; 
 whereas our Baptist friends agree with us that all such 
 infants are saved, whether baptized or not. We must come 
 still nearer to our own times, then, to find a Baptist 
 Church. 
 
 '^In the year 1522, during the Reformation of which 
 Luther was the principal champion, three men in Germany, 
 Storick, Buccold, and Munzer, declared that there were 
 other things to be reformed besides those attacked by 
 Luther. Infant baptism they declared to be unscriptural ; 
 ' that in the kingdom of Christ it was not to be endured 
 that some men should be so rich, and others so poor; or that 
 the boors should be held to such burdensome services. 
 Abundance of people flocked to them; and the more, for 
 that there had been before discontents and some insurrec- 
 tions, and of those poorer sort of people, because of their 
 foresaid hardships.' They defied the magistrates, preached 
 up rebellion, and soon set the nation in a flame. They plun- 
 dered the rich; set up a ' kingdom' in the city of Munster; 
 and were with difiiculty subdued by the civil power. These 
 men were genuine Baptists, so far as the mode and subjects 
 of baptism were concerned. Yet it would be unfair to call 
 the ' kingdom' of Munster a Baptist Church. They were 
 in the sixteenth century precisely what the Mormons are in 
 our own day. The multitude cared nothin.o" for baptism — 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 311 
 
 wlietlier it was by immersion or pouring, or wlietlier infants 
 were baptized or not. They were allured into the support 
 •of the Anabaptist leaders by a thirst for a change of poli- 
 tical condition. Buccold, their king, held the same position 
 toward them that Brigham Young holds to the Mormons of 
 Utah. They practiced polygamy^ and committed the same 
 outrages in Germany which have distinguished the followers 
 of Joe Smith. We will not attribute the origin of the Bap- 
 tist Church to the ' Mad Men of Munster,' but, coming still 
 nearer to our own times, we find a Pelcujicui Baptist Church 
 formed by one Menno, of Friesland. 
 
 '^ This Menno rejected infant baptism; denied original 
 sin; denied that Christ had his flesh of the Virgin 
 Mary; and asserted that souls sleep until the resur- 
 rection. Some of the followers of Menno baptized only 
 by immersion ; but the majority of them baptized by affu- 
 sion. If, then, we reject these last, and take the immer- 
 sionists, we have a Baptist Church; but certainly not au 
 ortliodox one. The denial of original sin ought not to be 
 charged against all our modern Baptists, nor any error in 
 reference either to the humanity or the Divinity of Christ. 
 
 '' We have not yet found a genuine Baptist Church, and 
 ice shall search the ^mges of history in vain for one before 
 the beg inning of the seventeenth century. Eunomius bap- 
 tized by immersion, but held to infant baptism. Peter 
 Bruis would not baptize infants, because he believed they 
 were all lost if they died in infancy. Menno denied infant 
 baptism, but he practiced affusion, and so do his followers at 
 this day in Holland. So that to find an orthodox Baptist 
 Church, one that baptizes only by immersion, rejects infant 
 baptism, believes in the Divinity of Christ, and the deprav- 
 ity of the heart, we can ascend no higher up the stream of 
 time than the seventeenth century." 
 
 '^ The Baptists claim the Waldenses, Mr. Mason," said 
 
812 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 Tlieopliilus^ ^^ and say that they can establish a succession of 
 true gospel Churches up to the days of the apostles." 
 
 " Let them do so, then, and prove their descent from 
 these gospel Churches, and we are ready to admit their 
 claims. Intelligent Baptists, however, know the absurdity 
 of such pretensions, and regard their advocates as servile 
 copyists of the High Church Episcopalians in their efforts 
 to establish a personal succession of ministers, transmitting 
 the ministerial authority from the hands of the apostles. A 
 succession of immersed achninistrators will be found just as 
 easily as the fabled stone which changes into gold every 
 metal it touches. Hlsforij furnishes no proofs to sustain 
 their position ] High Church Baptists may call in that often - 
 needed faculty, fancy, and fabricate an imaginary chain of 
 Baptist ministers to the days of the apostles 3 they may 
 become intoxicated with the pride of bigotry, and cry out, 
 ^We only are the Church!' but sensible men will place 
 their assumptions side by side with the ravings of the 
 lunatic and the dreams of the frenzied mind. 
 
 ''I have said that the Mennonites baptized hj pouring as 
 well as by immersion. The present Mennonites declare that 
 Menno himself did the same, and consequently they plead 
 his authority. The author of '■ Theodosia Ernest' quotes 
 a work written by Drs. Ypeig and Durmont, of the Dutch 
 lleformed Church, to prove that the Mennonites were 
 descended from the Waldenses, and these from the apostles. 
 He also affirms that the Welsh Baptists can trace their 
 descent up to the sixth or seventh century. Suppose we 
 admit the interpretation given to the words of these doctors, 
 does not the fact that the Mennonites do now and have 
 always baptized by pouring, destroy the ' succession' of 
 immersers ? As to the antiquity of the Welsh Baptists, it 
 is mere assertion, without a shadow of proof. Here is the 
 ' Ecclesiastical History of England and Normandy,' in four 
 
THE MAJESTY OE TRUTH. 313 
 
 volumes, written by Ordericus Vitalis, in the eleventh cen- 
 tury. It is one of the most extensive Church histories ever 
 written. But it mentions not one word about Welsh Bap- 
 tists, whilst a great number of schismatics, and those whom 
 the author, being a Catholic, regarded as heretics, come in 
 for a share of condemnation and rebuke. Here is the 
 ^Ecclesiastical History' of the ^Venerable Bede,' an Eng- 
 lish monk, written in the eighth century. He says not a 
 word about Welsh Baptists, or anybody that can possibly be 
 mistaken for them. Now, is it possible that such people 
 existed in Wales without these men knowing the fact? Is 
 it probable that, knowing their existence, they concealed it ? 
 No intelligent mind can be at a loss for an answer. 
 
 '^ But we are not without Baptist testimony on this sub- 
 ject also. Here is a ' Memoir of Roger Williams,' written by 
 Rev. James D. Knowles, a Baptist minister, and ' Professor 
 of Pastoral Duties in Newton Theological Seminary.' Speak- 
 ing of the first Baptist church in America, he says : ' Mr. 
 Ezekiel Holliman was selected to baptize Mr. Williams, who 
 then baptized the administrator and ten others. This event 
 occurred in March, 1638-9. Thus was founded the first 
 Baptist church in America, and the SECOND, as it is stated, 
 ill the British Empire.' The church at Providence was, 
 then, the second Baptist church in the British empire. 
 The first, as we have already seen, was the London church, 
 established, as the Baptist historian, Crosby, informs us, in 
 the year 1633, six years before the baptism of Roger 
 Williams. Now where did these English Baptists get their 
 baptism? Did they get it from the old Welsh Baptists? 
 No. They originated it, just as Roger Williams did. 
 Hear Crosby again. After stating that some few English 
 Baptists went to Holland to be baptized, (Query: Why did 
 they go to Holland, if there were Baptists in Wales?) 
 he says, vol. i., p. 103 : ^ But the greatest number of the 
 14 
 
314 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 Englisli Baptists, and tlie more judicious, regarded all this 
 as needless trouble, and wliat proceeded from the old Popish 
 doctrine of right to administer sacraments by an uninter- 
 rupted succession, which neither the Church of Rome, nor 
 the Church of England, much less the modern dissenters, 
 could prove to be with them. They affirmed, therefore, and 
 practiced accordingly, that after a general corruption of 
 baptism, an unhaptized person might warrantably baptize, 
 and so begin a reformation.' So the English Baptists made 
 their baptism, and the Hollanders practiced pouring as well 
 as immersion ! Here, then, we have the ^ Baptist succes- 
 sion' destroyed at a blow. 
 
 ^^ Whether American Baptists get their immersion from 
 Roger Williams or not, is a question altogether trifling. If 
 it is proved that the church in Providence did not give their 
 immersion to others, the Baptists are not relieved from their 
 difficulty. They must get their immersion either from 
 Williams, from England, or from Holland. If they get it 
 from Roger Williams, it dates no higher than 1638-9. If 
 from England, it goes back only to 1633. If they get it 
 from the Mennonites, tliey get it from those who held POURING 
 to be as valid as immersion. Thus their high-sounding 
 claims have no more solid foundation than the 'baseless 
 fabric of a vision.' Their high assumptions are mere silly 
 pratings, unworthy of belief. 
 
 " I think I have given you sufficient evidence to show the 
 Baptist claims to an uninterrupted succession of immersers 
 to be wholly destitute of foundation. But as Theodosia 
 Ernest labors diligently to establish such claims, I will give 
 you some more Baptist evidence on the subject. Let me 
 read you from page 188 of Theodosia : ' It seems probable, 
 however, f'om recent histoincal researches, that tho oldest 
 Baptist church in the United States is that at Newport, in 
 Rhode Island, founded by John Clark, against the regularity 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH 315 
 
 of wliose baptism there lias, so far as I know, been nothing 
 . alleged/ 
 
 ^^ Now, observe the point wliich I wish to make. Recent 
 historical researches have convinced the author that the 
 Newport church is the oldest in the United States. Now 
 let us hear from one of these men who has been making 
 these researches. I allude to Mr. Tustin, the editor of the 
 Southern Baptist, published in Charleston, S. C. In a 
 recent article in his paper, Mr. Tustin says : ^It is also said 
 that the first regular Baptist church in America was formed 
 in Newj^ort in 1638, and that this church, having an un- 
 broken succession till the present, is the only proper repre- 
 sentative of the first Baptists in this country. To correct 
 these and many other loose statements, would require more 
 space than we could give in this paper ; and we now take up 
 the matter, because on two occasions we have promised to 
 set this matter right.^ " 
 
 '^ So we are getting the Baptist ' Doctors' into trouble 
 again !" exclaimed Theophilus. 
 
 '^ Yes/' replied Mr. Mason, "but let us hear Mr. Tustin 
 further. ^ In our leading article in this paper, of August 
 4th of this year, we acknowledged that we owed a little 
 debt of amendment to some of our Baptist writers, for an 
 error which we ourselves gave currency to, about ten years 
 ago, by virtue of certain personal and oflScial relations we 
 then held to the parties in the Providence and Newport 
 churches. The editor of this paper, with one of the Judges 
 of the Supreme Court of Bliode Island, and a pastor in 
 Providence, drew up a report on the historical merits of this 
 case, which became widely circulated, and it was to the 
 effect that the Newport church was the older of the two. 
 No Baptist writer had ever hroaclied such a theory hefore, 
 and we can only say now, that the materials for the report 
 of that committee were entirely inadequate, and reviews of 
 
819 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 the report, by more competent authorities since, have shown 
 that we and the parties a-cting with us in that arbitration 
 were greatly misled, and the judgment rendered was entirely 
 untenable.' " 
 
 ^^ So Mr. Tustiu was the author of Theodosia's ^ historical 
 researches,' " remarked Theophilus, " and now he makes the 
 ^ amende honorable,' and confesses that he was wrong." 
 
 '^ Yes, Theophilus ; Mr. Tustin started the theory that the 
 Newport church was older than the Roger Williams church 
 in Providence, and now he takes it back. So witlr'his 
 recantation we establish the fact that the church in Provi- 
 dence was the first Baptist church in America." 
 
 '^But then," continued Theophilus, ^^ I notice that Theo- 
 dosia says, on page 187, ' The truth is, the society estab- 
 lished by Roger Williams, Holliman, and others, soon died 
 out.' Is there any truth in that ?" 
 
 "■ Let Mr. Tustin answer for me. He says : ^ But the 
 original Roger Williams church, as it is sometimes called, 
 lias been so often cited, and so often misrepresented by 
 Baptists, especially at a distance from the field, that it will 
 be useful to correct some of these errors. It is said, for 
 example, that the first religious society formed by Roger 
 Williams and his friends in 1639 was no church at all, and 
 that it crumbled into j^ieces in a few months.' Here, then, 
 Mr. Tustin says that the assertion that the Roger Williams 
 church died out, is a misrepresentation of the facts. More- 
 over, he proves that this same Newport church was estab- 
 lished exactly in the- same way with the Providence society. 
 He saj^s that Roger Williams, once a clergyman of the 
 Church of England, was immersed by Mr. Holliman, a lay- 
 man, and Mr. Williams then immersed the rest of the 
 company. ' The line of historical baptism fails at this point.'' 
 So writes Mr. Tustin. ^ Dr. John Clark was the first 
 preacher in Newport, though by whom ordained, and 
 
THE MAJESTY OP TRUTH. 317 
 
 whether originally a Congregationalist or an EiDiscopalian 
 minister^ does not appear. The persons baptized by him in 
 the Newport church could only have received baptism by 
 him in the first instance as a minister of another persuasion, 
 or in the capacity of a lay baptism. Any atiemjit to trace a 
 line of successional haptizers in this countri/, through any 
 other course, deserves our connniiseration, and should seek 
 for arguments at Rome or Oxford.' Pretty strong language 
 for a Baptist V 
 
 ^^That settles the question/^ said Theophilus; '^but there 
 is still another matter to be examined. You have so clearly 
 refuted Theodosia's arguments, by her own Baptist brother, 
 that I have no doubt you can give us light upon this subject 
 too. I find it stated in Theodosia, p. 187 : ^Of all the thou- 
 sands of Baptist churches in Anfierica, there are none lohose 
 pastors or members have had any manner of dependence on 
 the church founded hy Roger Williams.' Again, on the 
 same page : ^But none of them received baptism from Roger 
 Williams, or the church said to have been established, by him 
 at Providence.' And again : ^It cannot be proved that any 
 Baptist icho received baptism in that body and by their 
 authority, was ever concerned in baptizing any founder of 
 other churches.' How stands the record in this case, Mr. 
 Mason V 
 
 " Well, I will show you. I have here in my hand,'' said 
 Mr. Mason, '^ Benedict's History of the Baptists. It is quite 
 a large volume, you see, and is the standard History of the 
 Baptist Church. This edition was printed in 1855. On 
 page 459, the author says : 
 
 ^'^ Branches of the Old Providence Church. — It 
 would be difficult, at this day, to make a complete list of all the 
 Baptist COMMUNITIES which have sprung f^orn this ancient 
 and prolific mother. From it, probably, originated in 
 
 i 
 
318 TIIEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 early times all which arose in the northern part of the 
 State.' " 
 
 " Enougli ! enough V exclaimed Theophilus. " We have 
 found these statements of Theodosia to be a tissue of false- 
 hoods and misrepresentations, without going outside of the 
 Baptist Church/' 
 
 " But let us take another view of the matter/' continued 
 Mr. Mason. '' We see from the Baptist historian^ Benedict, 
 that the baptism of Boger Williams was propagated by numer- 
 ous Baptist communities. But still, they contend, all the 
 Baptists in the United States did not get their baptism from 
 the Providence church. This we admit, of course. The ques- 
 tion then occurs, whence did they get it ? We are told, from 
 England and Holland. But we have already seen that the 
 English Baptists, according to their own historian, Crosby, 
 originated their baptism just as Boger Williams did his. 
 Only a few English Baptists went over to Holland to be 
 immersed. Now, then, if it appears that the Baptists in 
 Holland were in as bad a predicament as those of England, 
 we hedge up the path, and stop the mouths of these pre- 
 tenders to ' succession.' 
 
 '' I shall hold on to the Baptist histories, as they furnish 
 ample materials for the demolition of 'High Church' or 
 ' Old Landmark' claims. On page 329 of Benedict's His- 
 tory, we have some important developments. Benedict 
 quotes Taylor, an English Baptist historian, in his account 
 of the first Baptist church in Holland. Mark my words, 
 for this is important testimony. One John Smyth separated 
 from the church of England, and went to Holland. There 
 he became convinced that infant baptism was wrong, and 
 that baptism was to be performed by immersion only. But 
 now the question was, where, in all Holland, was there a 
 Baptist church from which immersion could be obtained if 
 
» 
 
 THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 819 
 
 I will read Taylor's account, as given by Benedict : ' It 
 seems that Mr. Smyth and his friends were put to some diffi- 
 culty in reviving the practice of immersion. He and all his 
 disciples had been sprinkled in their infancy, and therefore, 
 according to their views, were unbaptized. There were, 
 indeed, many churches in Holland who practiced immersion, 
 but, as they differed ividely in sentiments from liinij he did 
 not choose to receive baptism from them. This completely 
 refutes Dr. Mosheim' s suj)position that the English Baptists 
 derived their origin from the German and Dutch Mennon- 
 ites, and that, in former times, they adopted their doctrine 
 in all its points. On the contrary, we see that the first 
 English Baptists of winch we have any regular account after 
 the Reformation, although living in the midst of the Dutch 
 Menno7iites, declined receiving haptism from them, on account 
 of their difference of opinions in many importarit points. 
 The foreign Anabaptists, says Crosby, (Baptist,) were such 
 as denied Christ's having taken flesh of the Virgin Mary, 
 the lawfulness of magistracy, and such like, which Mr. 
 Smyth and his followers looked upon as great errors, so that 
 they could not be thought by him proper administrators of 
 baptism. This obliged Mr. Smyth to consider of some other 
 means of reviving the ordinance. What method he took is 
 not very clearly stated. It is most prohahle that those who 
 icere convinced of the duty of believers^ haptism first formed 
 themselves into a church, and then appointed two of their 
 number (perhaps Mr. Smyth and Mr. Helwisse) to baptize 
 each other, and afterwards to baptize the rest. This subject 
 caused considerable uneasiness and reproach to the first Bap- 
 tists after the Reformation, both General and Particular. 
 A similar difficulty occurred at the formation of the original 
 Baptist Church in America, by Mr. Roger Williams, who 
 had recourse to the same expedient ; and we shall find in the 
 sequel of this history, that the good men in Leicestershire, in 
 
 k 
 
820 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 the middle of the last century, ichen placed in similar cir' 
 cumstancesj adopted the same method.' Benedict, pp. 329, 
 330." 
 
 '' We^^, well !" exclaimed Theophilus ; " tlie Baptist ship 
 ^ Succession' has run aground now, to a moral certainty !" 
 
 ''Yes, indeed," replied Mr. Mason, ''the vessel is foun- 
 dered. There are but three lines by which American Bap- 
 tists can get back to the Waldenses, of whom they boast so 
 much, but without reason, for they were not, and are not 
 now. Baptists. Roger Williams breaks one of these lines 
 short off, and stops that 'succession' at Providence, Rhode 
 Island. The London Baptist Church, formed in 1633, 
 breaks the English line by originating their immersion in 
 London. And Mr. John Smyth breaks the Holland line, in 
 1608, by setting Roger Williams an example in the manu- 
 facture of immersion. We come, then, to a stand-still, at 
 the head of ' Salt River,' with a gap of more than fifteen 
 hundred years between the Baptist succession and the times 
 of the apostles !" 
 
 "But perhaps, after all, Mr. Mason," observed Theophi- 
 lus, " the Baptists may contend that some of these Mennon- 
 ites emigrated to America and gave them ' the succession,' 
 and that the Baptists in this country were not so particular 
 as Mr. John Smyth and his friends." 
 
 " Well, Theophilus," replied Mr. Mason, " we can answer 
 that argument, too. There is the Religious Encyclopaedia, 
 a Baptist work. If you turn to the article ' Mennonites,' 
 you will find it stated that the Mennonites practice immer- 
 sion and pouring both, and that they plead the authority 
 and example of Menno, their founder, for the practice. Dr. 
 Wall says, in the second volume of his History of Infant 
 Baptism, that the Mennonites of his day (about a hundred 
 years after Mr. John Smyth refused to be baptized by them) 
 baptized by pouring as well as immersion. Now, we know 
 
^tvtniln (Bvtixlw^. 
 
 CONTROVERSY ON THE MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 THE EVIDENCE FROM THE CLASSICS AND 
 OTHER SOURCES REVIEWED. 
 
 MR. BATTLE AND MR. MASON. 
 
 <^WHEN GREEK MEETS GREEK, THEN COMES 
 THE TUG OF WAR." 
 
THE MADESTY OF TRUTH. 321 
 
 that when the Mennonites come from Holland to this conn- 
 try, they do not join the Baptists, but organize churches of 
 their own. And I venture to affirm that Baptists will not 
 commune with the Mennonites, because they regard them as 
 being quite as heretical on the mode of baptism as any of 
 the Pedobaptists.^^ 
 
 "Then the cause is lost, Mr. Mason,'' said Theophilus; 
 ^^ we must give up the ship ' Succession.' " 
 
 " ! as to that, Theophilus, if we were Baptists, all that 
 we would have to do would be to practice our imagination a 
 little. Baptist /t??icy makes up for the deficiency of histori- 
 cal facts. But we are after the truth now, not fiction. 
 
 " Suffer me to bring the whole argument before you. We 
 have seen, this evening, that the corruption of the ordinance 
 of baptism commenced about the end of the first or begin- 
 ning of the second century. This corruption was first in 
 the design, then in the mode. Baptism, from being a sign 
 of the Spirit's operation upon the heart, was changed into 
 the instrument by which the work of the Holy Spirit was 
 -lone. Then, the birth of the Spirit required the birth of 
 the body in water — the ivTiolc body by submersion three 
 times, to indicate the equality and cooperation of the three 
 persons of the Trinity in regeneration. We have seen 
 these two ideas of baptismal regeneration and trine immer- 
 sion progressing together until Eunomius, in i\\Q fourth cen- 
 tury, leaves off two dips, for the purpose of rejecting the 
 doctrine of the Trinity, and equality of Persons in the 
 Godhead. But inasmuch as this Arian teacher was a Pedo- 
 baptist, we had to descend to Peter Bruis, for a better 
 example of Baptist teaching. We found him to be a 
 heterodox Baptist, and therefore we came down to Menno ; 
 and cast him aside because of his Pelagian ism. We found, 
 at last, the first Baptist church, according to Crosby, in the 
 British empire, founded in 1633 ; the first foreign Baptist 
 11^ 
 
322 THEOPHILUS WALTON. 
 
 cliurch in the world in Holland, in 1608; and the first 
 American Baptist church in 1638-9 ; in all three cases, 
 however, these original Baptist churches, according to their 
 own historians, originated their baptism, and thus palpably 
 demonstrate that there were no other churches of ^ the same 
 faith and order' in existence. So we see that the boasts of 
 modern ^ Landmark' men are all empty dreams, and ^ bap- 
 tismal succession' is, as Mr. Tustin, the Baptist editor, says, 
 worthy of support from the advocates of Rome and Oxford. 
 
 ^' Before we are dismissed,^' remarked Mr. Mason, rising 
 to his feet, '^ I would remark to the audience that I have 
 been requested to meet the Rev. Mr. Battle here to-morrow 
 night, on the Mode of Baptism. It will be understood, 
 then, that to-morrow evening Mr. Battle and I will examine 
 the subject.'' 
 
 The audience were then dismissed. 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 327 
 
 that the word was used in any other than its common, gene- 
 ral sense." 
 
 ^'Allow me to ask/'- said Mr. Mason, interrupting him, 
 ''if you are going to confine yourself to the Greek word 
 haptidzo ? Are you going to include hapto in your quota- 
 tions from Greek writers ?" 
 
 ''Only so far. as to show that the derivative, haptidzo^ is 
 used by the Greeks in the same sense that hapto is.'' 
 
 " Then I understand you to say that the two words are 
 identical in meaning V^ 
 
 " Not exactly identical, Mr. Mason, but very nearly so." 
 
 " Well, if they have not the very same meaning, be so 
 good as to tell us in what the difference consists.'' 
 
 " I am not prepared to say precisely, Mr. Mason ; but as 
 a general rule we may say that hapto means to dye, and hap- 
 tidzo to dip." ^^ 
 
 " But I desire you to use precision, Mr. Battle," replied 
 Mr. Mason -, " I want to know if hapto always means to dye f 
 
 " I suppose not, Mr. Mason, but generally it does." 
 
 "And you say that haptidzo always means to dip ?" 
 
 " Yes, either literally, or in a figurative sense." 
 
 " Well, then, upon the supposition that a derivative always 
 partakes of the nature of the word fromVhich it is derived, 
 how does it happen that a word gets to mean invariably to 
 dip, from a word that only generally means to dye ?" 
 
 " Because dyeing was usually done by dipping," replied 
 Mr. Battle, "and when the root, hapto, does not mean to 
 dye, it means to dip." 
 
 " Then the root word means more then the derived word, 
 does it ? Bapto has two meanings, to dye and to dip. Are 
 these actions alvmys the same, Mr. Battle ?" 
 
 " No, sir, I suppose a thing may be dyed without being 
 dipped." 
 
 " Very good. Remember what you told us a few moments 
 
328 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 ago, that I would not risk my reputation as a scholar by 
 affirming that a word means three different things. You 
 have just admitted that one of these words means two differ- 
 ent things, and really, sir, i/our reputation as a scholar is 
 being placed in jeopardy at the very outset. As you are so 
 well posted up with authorities, I would turn your attention 
 to your own Dr. Fuller, and show you that he charges men 
 with being blinded by controversy who assert that a word 
 can mean more than one thing,'^ 
 
 ^'I care not what Dr. Fuller has said,'^ replied Mr. Battle, 
 tartly, ''/am here to oppose you — Alexander Battle, not Dr. 
 Fuller. I pin my faith to no man's skirts.'' 
 
 ''Well, then, Mr. Battle/' replied Mr. Mason, smiling, 
 " all I want to do is to show that Dr. Fuller and Dr. Alex- 
 ander Battle are not agreed upon the most material part 
 of this discussion. But I hope, sir, as you say that you 
 ' pin your faith to no man's skirts,' that you will oblige us 
 this evening by reading your quotations from Greek out of 
 Greeh books, not out of your own writers. It might happen 
 that some of the extracts may not be quoted correctly." 
 
 " If I do not read them out of the original books," re- 
 plied Mr. Battle, "I shall at all events read them out of 
 Pedohaptist writers; I suppose that will satisfy you, Mr. 
 Mason." 
 
 "No, sir, I want the original Greek books; and where 
 this word occurs, I want the whole connection : what the 
 writer was speaking about, to whom he was speaking, and 
 the circumstances by which he was surrounded, or that of 
 right belong to the case under consideration." 
 
 " I see you are going to be hard to satisfy," replied Mr. 
 Battle ; " I have not the Greek originals, and I doubt whether 
 they can all be found in the country. It is unfair, Mr. Ma- 
 sou, to make such a demand as that." 
 
 " No, sir, it is not unfair. You are mistaken in supposing 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 325 
 
 SEVENTH EVENING 
 
 It had been circulated through the village and a great 
 portion of the surrounding country, since Wednesday morn- 
 ing, that Mr. Battle had invited Mr. Mason to a regular 
 disputation on Friday evening, and that the invitation had 
 been accepted. In consequence of this intelligence, a large 
 number of persons, friends of both parties, came to hear the 
 discussion. 
 
 At an early hour the Methodist church was crowded to 
 its utmost capacity; and when Mr. Battle entered, with a 
 large armful of books, accompanied by Mr. Ellis, who was 
 well-nigh weighed down with a similar load, it was with 
 difficulty that they could make their way through the aisle 
 to the altar. The ponderous volumes were at last deposited 
 upon the table, and Mr. Battle seated himself in the altar, 
 with a self-satisfied air, as if he felt sure of a speedy and 
 complete triumph. 
 
 When Mr. Mason entered the room, he had nothing in the 
 shape of a book in his hands ; but he did not seem to be at 
 all disconcerted by the formidable collection of Mr. Battle. 
 
 " It seems that you are going to bring in ^ the authorities' 
 this evening,'^ Mr. Mason whispered to his opponent. 
 
 ^^ 0, as to that, these are not a tenth of the number I 
 might bring,'' replied Mr. Battle ; '^ I can furnish you with 
 a hundred volumes if you require them." 
 
326 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 ^^ Very well/' said Mr. Mason ; " if tliey are pertinent to 
 tlie matter in hand, it is all right." Beckoning to Theophi- 
 lus to assist him, Mr. Mason went to the pulpit, and removed 
 a case of books, which seemed to be a section of 'a library, 
 and apparently contained some forty or fifty volumes. 
 Whilst they were placing it in a convenient position, the 
 Baptist minister eyed the bookcase with evident interest. 
 When the hour arrived for the debate to commence, Mr. 
 Battle arose, and with great deliberation remarked : 
 
 " We are entering upon a discussion of manifest import- 
 ance to all classes of men. The performance of a duty com- 
 manded by our Lord Jesus Christ is not a question for 
 debate. My friend, Mr. Mason, will not for a moment ven- 
 ture a doubt as to the binding force of all our Lord's com- 
 mandments. The point at issue between us is, ivhaf has 
 Jesus Christ commanded when he bids us to be baptized. 
 My position is, that if the word used by our Saviour, and 
 written by the evangelists, means to pour, then pouring is 
 what is commanded ; if it means to sprinkle, then sprink- 
 ling is commanded ; and if it means to dip, then dipping is 
 commanded. I presume that Mr. Mason will not risk his 
 reputation for scholarship by saying that the word means all 
 three of these contradictory and entirely different actions. 
 But it is not my purpose to alter the method which he has 
 been pursuing for several evenings here; I intend to con- 
 duct this discussion in pretty much the same form. I will 
 give a passage from the Greek classics, and allow him to 
 admit or deny its bearing upon the subject. If he admits 
 that it defines the word as an act of dipping, then the pas- 
 sage is mine. And if I bring up an overwhelming number 
 of these passages, proving that this was the general, primary, 
 and common meaning of the word haptidzo, then I establish 
 the fact that Jesus Christ, in commanding us to be bap- 
 tized, commands us to be dipped ; for it is folly to suppose 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 329 
 
 that the books are not to be found. I believe I have every 
 volume in Grreek that has been quoted on either side of this 
 controversy. The majority of them are in this bookcase, 
 comprising writers from Homer down to Diogenes Laertius, 
 and also several volumes of the Greek fathers. I insist, 
 then, Mr. Battle, upon your quoting directly from the books.'' 
 '^ I was not aware that you had so many of these authors,'' 
 replied Mr. Battle, " and if I had known it this morning, I 
 could have arranged my notes so as to refer directly to the 
 Greek. However, Mr. Mason, I will make the request of 
 you, and rely upon your courtesy to grant it, that for this 
 evening I may be allowed to use Dr. Carson's collection. I 
 apprehend that no objection will be found to them, and if 
 any discrepancy should be discovered, we can then refer to 
 the originals." 
 
 " Very well," replied Mr. Mason, " I like to go to the 
 fountain-head when I have to rely upon testimony, and 
 therefore I would prefer the course I have indicated ; but as 
 you have not prepared yourself for it, I will not insist." 
 
 ^' I have already stated," Mr. Battle resumed, " that I can 
 prove that the plain, literal sense of haptidzo is to dip, or 
 immerse, and that if I can establish that fact, then I prove 
 that Jesus Christ commanded immersion. The first writer 
 which I shall bring forward is Polybius, as quoted by Dr. 
 Carson. He says that 'certain soldiers, passing through 
 water, were immersed up to the hreast.' That is, they were 
 ha.ptized up to the breast. What have you to say to that 
 passage, Mr. Mason ?" 
 
 '' I say, sir," replied Mr. Mason, '^ that those soldiers were 
 not dipped in the water, but that they waded through it, 
 and they were surrounded by the water. There is a partial 
 immersion, but no dipping in the passage. ' I will, however, 
 for the present, give you a passage from an older writer by 
 more than two hundred years. I have in my hand the Eu- 
 
830 TIIEOPIIILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 tliydemus of Plato. It is a dialogue between several per- 
 sons, among tliem a youth, who has been entrapped by a 
 number of shrewd questions into many inconsistencies. So- 
 crates, who relates the dialogue, says : 'After this Euthy- 
 demus rushed to the third, as it were wrestler-fall, being 
 about to throw down the youth. But I, seeing the boy over- 
 ivliehned, (or haptized,^ and wishing to give him a respite, 
 lest he should exhibit cowardice before us, said, in order to 
 console him. Do not wonder, Clinias, if these discourses ap- 
 pear to you to be unusual.' Now, Mr. Battle, would you say 
 that this boy was dipped or immersed in the questions V 
 
 '■'■ I should say,'' replied Mr. Battle slowly, '^ that he 
 might be said j&guratively to be immersed in questions." 
 
 '^ But you forget, Mr. Battle, that the questions were asked 
 him one at a time. Is it not as proper to say that the ques- 
 tions were p)oured out upon him one after the other, until he 
 was overwhelmed? Is not this the fact? And if he may 
 be said to sink under the questions, yet they were applied to 
 him, not he to them. But Socrates does not use the word 
 figuratively ; he says that the boy was really, literally over- 
 lohelmed with questions." 
 
 " I have not examined that passage closely," said Mr. 
 Battle; "for the present I will let it pass, and go on to give 
 my proofs. * Plutarch, speaking of a Boman general dying 
 of his wounds, says, that having dipped, his hand in blood, 
 he wrote the inscription for a trophy.' Now we know that 
 the instrument with which we write is literally dipped in 
 the ink. This Roman general dipped his hand in blood, and 
 wrote : here is evidently a case of immersion." 
 
 " I am not disposed to cavil," replied Mr. Mason, '^ and 
 therefore I will allow that the hand was truly dipped in the 
 blood, although I think, from all the circumstances, it is very 
 doubtful. As you have brought your testimony down to 
 Plutarch, I think you are getting out of the path. You are 
 
THE MAJESTY OP TRUTH. 331 
 
 aware tliat Pliitarcli lived a hundred years after Christy and 
 therefore his testimony is worth nothing as to the meaning 
 of the word when used by our Saviour. We ought to seek 
 evidence from he/ore, not after the time of Christ. How- 
 ever, I will give you a passage from another old writer, 
 more than three hundred years before Christ. Aristotle, in 
 this work, De Mirabilibus, says : ' They say that the Phoeni- 
 cians, who inhabit the parts called Gradeira, (Cadiz,) sailing 
 beyond the Pillars of Hercules, with an east wind, reached 
 in four days certain uninhabited coasts full of sea-weed, 
 which were not baptized at ebb, but at full tide were de- 
 luged.' Now here is a case in which the thing baptized is 
 not put into the water, but the water comes over it. Every 
 one knows how the tide rises and overflows the beach : the 
 water comes to the land, and flows over it.'' 
 
 ''But yet, Mr. Mason," said Mr. Battle, "although the 
 land was not literally dipped into the water, yet when the 
 tide was high it was said to be baptized, or immersed. I 
 think the passage clearly in my favor." 
 
 "And I think it as clearly in mine," replied Mr. Mason; 
 " for the question is not whether the laud was covered with 
 water, but Jiow was it covered — by dipping the land into the 
 water, or by the water rising and flowing upon the land ? It 
 is the action in the word haptidzo which you contend for, 
 the mode by which the thing is done. If you abandon this 
 position, you place yourself in direct antagonism with Dr. 
 Carson, who says the word always and everywhere means 
 mode, either literally or figuratively." 
 
 " I think it must be used figuratively in this passage," 
 said Mr. Battle; "the gradual disappearing of the land 
 from sight would resemble the dipping or sinking of it in 
 the water, and I regard the figure as a very beautiful one." 
 
 "No doubt you do," said Mr. Mason, " for all figures are 
 beautiful that will come to your aid in a moment of distress. 
 
332 
 
 OR, 
 
 and help you out of trouble. But, unfortunately for you, 
 there is no figure in the case. It was a literal coast, there 
 were literal waves, and a literal covering of the coasts by the 
 water, and yet you tell us that the mode by which the coasts 
 were bajDtized was figurative ! Do, sir, if you wish to pre- 
 serve your ^ reputation as a scholar,^ abandon such an inter- 
 pretation, and admit, candidly, that the water was applied 
 to or flowed over the land, and that this application of water 
 to the coasts, or flowing of the waves over them, constituted 
 the mode by which they were baptized. A figurative mode 
 of doing a literal act is too great an imposition upon the 
 laws of language.'^ 
 
 ' '' Well, Mr. Mason," replied Mr. Battle, '^ we will not 
 dispute about that passage. Here is one from Diodorus 
 Siculus. Speaking of the sinking of animals in water, he 
 says that when the water overflows, ^ many of the land ani- 
 mals, immersed in the river, perish.' Here, then, we have 
 the plunging or immersing of animals into a river, and, 
 sinking into the water, they perish. If this is not a clear 
 case, then argument will not convince you.'' 
 
 ^' Stop, Mr. Battle ; you are getting three hundred years 
 after the time of Christ, whereas we were to prove what the 
 meaning of the word was when our Saviour used it. But 
 let that pass. Now, Mr. Battle," continued Mr. Mason, '' I 
 have in my hand the History of Diodorus Siculus, from 
 which your extract is taken, and here, sir, you will see that 
 there is not one word about the im,m,ersion of these animals 
 in the river! Your author. Dr. Carson, has mistranslated 
 the passage. The proper rendering is : ' The greater num- 
 ber of the land animals, overtaken by the river, perish, being 
 baptized.' Now, sir, you see that the water of the river 
 overtook or flowed upon the animals, and they, being baptized 
 by this sudden rush of the water upon them, perished. So 
 we have here another example of the water being applied to 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 333 
 
 the tiling baptized. You must hand this passage over to 
 me, sir. You cannot get dip out of it ] no, not even by the 
 help of a figure!" 
 
 "Are you positive that your translation is right, Mr. 
 Mason V asked Mr. Battle. '' I have never heard the cor- 
 rectness of Carson's rendering questioned before.'' 
 
 " Perhaps you have not, Mr. Battle, but I will agree to 
 leave it to any Grreek scholar in the house. Will you refer 
 it?'' 
 
 "I will not question your translation, Mr. Mason," replied 
 Mr. Battle, " if you are positive that you are right." ' 
 
 "I am certainly positive, sir, and to show you that this 
 same writer Diodorus uses the word haptidzo in the sense of 
 water applied to a person or thing, I will give you another 
 example. In the second volume of his History, he says : 
 ' Tke river, flowing down with a more violent current, bap- 
 tized many, and destroyed them swimming across in their 
 armor.' Now these soldiers had already been forced into the 
 river by their conquerors, and the violent current, flowing 
 over them, baptized or overwhelnied them. The conquerors 
 dipped the soldiers, but the current baptized them. This is 
 a highly important passage, as it clearly distinguishes the act 
 of forcing or driving into the river, from the act of haptiz- 
 ing after they were in the water. No figure of speech can 
 be introduced here to break the force of the language. It 
 was the flowing of the water over the soldiers that baptized 
 them, not the plunging into the water." 
 
 " I am not prepared to examine that passage now," ob- 
 served Mr. Battle, '' as I have never seen it, or heard it pro- 
 duced before this evening. I will go on, and produce an 
 example which will not be questioned. ' Heraclides Ponti- 
 cus,' says Dr. Gale, ' a disciple of Aristotle, moralizing the 
 fable of Mars being taken by Vulcan, says : Neptune is 
 ingeniously supposed to deliver Mars from Vulcan, to signify 
 
334 TIIEOPIIILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 that when a piece of iron is taken red-hot out of the fire, 
 and put into the ivater, (baptized,) the heat is repelled 
 and extinguished by the contrary nature of water/ Now, 
 Mr. Mason, we know how hot iron is taken from the forg-e 
 and put into water — it is dipped^ and this dipping is called 
 by this writer a baptizing. What do you say to that V 
 
 '' I have several things to say to it/' replied Mr. Mason, 
 '^ for I have the original Greek here, and I must charge that 
 translation of Dr. Gale with great inaccuracy. The proper 
 rendering is as follows : ' For a mass of iron, heated to red- 
 ness, being drawn out by the smiths, is baptized with loater, 
 and that which was fiery by its own nature, being quenched 
 icith ivater, ceases to be so.' Now, if this writer used bap- 
 tidzo to express the plunging into water of the iron, why 
 did he not say it was baptized eis to hudor, {elg to vdiop,) 
 instead of using the dative of instrument ^ The Greek is 
 vdart (iauTi^erai, lindati baptidzetai^ baptized loitli water, 
 just as v6ari KaTao[3eod^v, Imdati katasbestheji, quenched 
 with water. Now the conclusion of the Baptists, that because 
 small pieces of iron, when heated in a forge, are plunged in 
 water to cool them, there/ore there is no other mode by which 
 heated iron can be cooled, is perfectly absurd. The pouring 
 of water upon the ' mass of iron' would have been j ust as 
 efi"ectual as dipping, and the fact that the construction of the 
 Greek text requires us to render it baptized with water, indi- 
 cates the application of the water to the iron, as the instru- 
 ment by which it was cooled. You cannot rely upon this 
 passage, Mr. Battle." 
 
 ^' Well, sir," replied the Baptist minister, rather haughtily, 
 " I will try again. Perhaps I may at last find a case that 
 .will baffle your skill in petty criticism." 
 
 '^ I have made no ' petty criticism,' Mr. Battle," said the 
 Methodist minister; ''I am willing to submit every excep- 
 tion I have taken to your proofs, and every criticism I have 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 335 
 
 made, to a committee of competent Greek scholars, and I 
 will abide by their decision." 
 
 '' We will determine that by and by," replied Mr. Battle. 
 ^' Now, sir, let us see what you will do with this passage : 
 Two Greek critics are quoted by Dr. Gale as applying the 
 word in exhibiting the beauty of Homer's representation of 
 the death of one of his heroes : ^ He struck him across the 
 neck with his heavy sword, and the whole sword became 
 warm with blood. ^ On this Pseudo Didymus says, that the 
 sword is represented as dipped in blood. And Dionysius- 
 says : ' In that phrase Homer expresses himself with the 
 greatest energy, signifying that the sword was so dipped in 
 Mood, that it was even heated by it.' Now, Mr. Mason, what 
 objection have you got to this passage ?" 
 
 ''I have more than one objection," replied Mr. Mason. 
 ^^In the first place, you can neither dip nor iminerse diheavy 
 sword in a man's neck. In the next place, if this could be 
 done, your translator says it was dipped in blood, not in the 
 nech of the hero. But my principal objection to this 
 passage of yours is, that there is not a word about dipjying 
 'in hlood in the original. Dionysius of Halicarnassus is the 
 author alluded to, who in his Life of Homer comments on 
 that passage in the sixteenth book of the Iliad, which 
 describes the death of Cleobulus. Homer says : ' He (Ajax) 
 struck him on the neck with his hilted sword, a^id the ivhole 
 sword ivas wai^med with hlood.' On this last clause Diony- 
 sius remarks : ' In this he expresses greater emphasis, as, tlte 
 sword being so baptized as to be even warmed.' Not a word 
 is here about dipping in bloody for the sword was baptized 
 by the blood running out up)on it. We have another bap- 
 tism, then, without an immersion !" 
 
 "It seems, then," said Mr. Battle, "that I am only fur- 
 nishing you passages to be explained away. As you seem to 
 like the amusement, I will give you a few more. Josephus, 
 
336 THEOPIIILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 describing the death of one Simon by his own hand, says : 
 ^ He baptized or plunged his sword up to the hilt into his 
 own bowels/ Now, my learned friend, what will you do 
 with that ?" 
 
 ^'I will prove that Josephus says no such thing," replied 
 Mr. Mason. ^' The passage is in the Wars of the J ews, 
 book second, section 4 of the eighteenth chapter. After 
 stating that Simon destroyed 'his mother and friends, he 
 adds : ^ He haptized his sword to his own slaughter/ Dr. 
 Carson mistook cr^ay?/!^, sphagen, slaughter, for GnXdyx^a, 
 howels. But admitting that the baptism here was put- 
 ting the sword into his body, it is not a case of dipping or 
 immersion. It is a case of plunging, in which a few inches 
 only of the sword entered the body." 
 
 " I am at a loss to proceed any farther," said Mr. Battle. 
 ^' I cannot adduce a passage which, by a system of critical 
 torture,, you do not destroy. If I had been forewarned of 
 this course, I would not have met you here to-night." 
 
 '' Why, my friend," said Mr. Mason, "if I have done any 
 violence to your quotations from the classics, why do you not 
 show it ? Here we are, ready to hear any thing you have to 
 say upon the subject. Here are the books, the Greek books; 
 the places are all marked and ready for easy reference; and, 
 as you remarked to me in your note last Wednesday morn- 
 ing, ' when Greek meets Greek, then comes the tug of war !' 
 If I have misrepresented any thing, show me wherein I have 
 done so, and I am ready to retrieve my error." 
 
 " You have taken advantage of me," replied Mr. Battle, 
 harshly; "you have been preparing to torture my proof-texts, 
 knowing that I could not, at this hour, set them right. Your 
 course, sir, is highly discreditable." 
 
 " I am surprised at you, Mr. Battle," said Mr. Mason. 
 " I again say, that if I have misrepresented any one of these 
 passages, show me where the misrepresentation is, and I will 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 337 
 
 correct it. And more than that, sir, I am willing to let you 
 select any three men in the house, regardless of denomina- 
 tional ties, to whom the criticisms offered this evening shall 
 be referred, and if they decide that I have no ground for 
 them, or that my criticisms are false, I will throw them out.'' 
 
 Mr. Battle made no answer for several moments. He was 
 evidently perplexed, and seemed to be in doubt whether he 
 should go on, or endeavor to retreat under cover of an excuse 
 which would save him from disgrace. Mr. Ellis, who, dur- 
 ing the progress of the discussion, had manifested consider- 
 able uneasiness, advanced to the altar, and commenced 
 whispering to Mr. Battle. After a few moments spent in 
 consultation, Mr. Battle remarked : 
 
 ^^ I cannot consent, ladies and gentlemen, to permit Mr. 
 Mason to handle my proofs in the way he has been doing 
 to-night. He has violated the rules of the Greek language 
 and every principle of construction. In order to show this 
 to be true, however, I must have several books which are 
 not here, and as they are in my library at honie, it is not 
 likely that I shall be able to command them before the mid- 
 dle of next week. I beg you to suspend your judgment in 
 this matter until I shall receive the necessary authorities. 
 I will then prove how recklessly we have heard the Grreek 
 language tortured tonight. I did not suspect my antagonist 
 of this artifice, and therefore have not guarded against it. 
 At another time, I pledge myself to set every thing right.'' 
 
 At the conclusion of this speech, Mr. Battle and Mr. Ellis 
 gathered up their books and prepared to depart. Mr. Mason 
 rose and endeavored to obtain a hearing, but there was so 
 much confusion in the house, that the two Baptist ministers 
 had left the church, together with a number of their friends, 
 before order could be restored. When the noise and uproar 
 subsided, however, it appeared that nine-tenths of the 
 audience remained, and when Mr. Mason commenced speak- 
 16 
 
338 TIIEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 ing, there was an audible indication of applause throughout 
 the building. 
 
 ^^It is to be regretted/^ said Mr. Mason, ^Hhat when 
 Christian ministers become parties to a controversy, they 
 should forget the courtesy due to each other, and display a 
 spirit wholly at war with the teacliings of the gospel. Now, 
 I call you to witness that I have not uttered a word this 
 evening that was either uncourteous or unkind toward Mr. 
 Battle. On the contrary, having some apprehension of his 
 hasty temper, I have been quite calm and respectful. Now 
 wherein have I offended ? If it be a crime to bring up a 
 number of Grreek books, as authorities, when I am challenged 
 to a controversy in G-reek, then I am wrong. If it be wrong to 
 point out the errors of those who oppose me, then I have com- 
 mitted an offence. But I have offered to submit to the judg- 
 ment of competent scholars every point at issue to-night, 
 and my opponent would not condescend even to notice my 
 proposal !" 
 
 ^' It is v6ry clear,'^ observed Theophilus, " that you have 
 taken Mr. Battle by surprise. He did not expect to have 
 his translations questioned, that is, the translations of his 
 Baptist doctors ; for, to tell you the truth, I think the gen- 
 tleman saw some of those books for the first time to-night. 
 His Greek, I imagine, was never very extensive, and it has 
 grown 7'usf)/." 
 
 " If he is not prepared to conduct a Greek argument, he 
 ought not to invite others to meet him, especially when he 
 heads his note with the significant phrase, ^ When Greek 
 meets Greek, then comes the tug of war !' " 
 
 ^' That was an empty boast, Mr. Mason. He only 
 designed to read his proofs from his Baptist authors, and 
 found the argument upon them. Whether Dr. Gale and Dr. 
 Carson are reliable as translators, has never for a moment 
 been a question in his mind. But why do we spend words 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 339 
 
 upon him ? He is gone, and I warrant you tliat lie will 
 never find those books whicli are at home in his library. 
 That was only a get-oflf. He is a retired controversialist, in 
 this region at least, from this time forth. But I am inter- 
 ested in these quotations from the classics, and, if you will 
 permit me to do so, I would like to call your attention to 
 several which are quoted by the Baptists." 
 
 ^^ I shall take pleasure in giving you all the assistance in 
 oy power,'^ replied Mr. Mason ; '* select any passage you 
 please, and let us examine it." 
 
 " I notice a very singular criticism, it seems to me, in Dr. 
 Carson's work on Baptism. Bemarking upon the sybilline 
 verse, which he translates, ^ Thou mayest be dij^ped, 
 bladder, but are not fated to sink,' he says : ^ The expres- 
 sion in this verse is allegorical, literally referring to a blad- 
 der or leathern bottle, which, when empty, swims on the 
 surface; if sufficiently filled, will dip, but will not sink. 
 In this view it asserts that the Athenian state, though it 
 might be occasionally overwhelmed with calamities, yet 
 would never perish.' Now, it seems to me," continued 
 Theophilus, " that there is something wrong in this expla- 
 nation, and I would be glad if you would set it right." 
 
 ^' This passage offers a good opportunity to remark, 
 Theophilus, that Baptist critics always put the disputed 
 word into the translation, and then argue as if they were 
 defending the Greek writer for using it. Dr. Carson says 
 the bladder would be dipped ; but the oracle says it would 
 be baptized, but should not sink. You will remember, 
 Theophilus, that this verse was understood by the ancient 
 Greeks to apply to the city of Athens, and it was considered 
 to be a prophecy in regard to her future destiny. The oracle, 
 as quoted by Plutarch, says : ^As a bladder, thou mayest be 
 baptized, but art not fated to sinh.^ Now the words placed 
 in opposition here are (3anTL^'q, bap)tidze, and Svvai, dunai, 
 
340 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 in Greek; hcqjtize and sink in English. The image is a 
 very striking one. The bladder or empty ^ leathern bottle' is 
 thrown into the sea, and swims upon the surface. Now, 
 says Dr. Carson, if sufficiently filled^ it will tZ«p, But there 
 is an ^ if^ in the way. Where does Dr. Carson find that this 
 bladder was to be ' sufficiently filled' before it was thrown 
 into the water ? And if it began to fill after it got into the 
 water, who does not see that it would infallibly sink, and 
 thus destroy the prophecy ? The same means which filled 
 it ' sufiiciently' for Dr. Carson's purpose, would fill it too 
 full, and send it to the bottom, in spite of all the Baptist 
 rhetoric in Christendom. Baptist writers seem never to 
 hesitate in extorting their favorite dip by any process, be it 
 plausible or monstrous. Now, Thcophilus, you know that 
 dvvG), duno, in Greek, is the root of dvTTTCJ, dupto, to dip. 
 If di}) is not in the root, it cannot be in the derivative — so 
 Baptist writers tell us — and Dr. Fuller says a word has but 
 one meaning ; then duno means to dip. We have, then, in 
 this verse the following nonsense, according to the conjoint 
 opinions of Carson and Fuller : 
 
 " ' Thou may est be di_pped, bladder, but art not fated to dip P 
 
 ^' But the beauty of the passage is destroyed by the van- 
 dalism of these Baptist critics. The oracle intends simply 
 to say, that as a bladder or sealed bottle will ride upon the 
 water, and be baptized by the waves breaking over it, yet 
 without sinking below the surface, so the city of Athens 
 should outride those political storms whose waves should 
 break over her, and baptize her for a season with troubles, 
 yet without sinking or destroying her institutions. The 
 same specific gravity which would dip a bladder would sinh 
 it ; and, as we are told that it will not sinh, it follows that it 
 will not dip; and hence we find another case of baptism 
 without either dipping or immersion." 
 
TUE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 341 
 
 ^' That removes my difficulty/' said Theopliilus ; '' I could 
 not see the force of the image as the Baptists explain it ; 
 but you have rendered it plain and intelligible." 
 
 '^ There is another fact connected with Dr. Carson's aro-u- 
 ment which is frequently overlooked/' continued Mr. 
 Mason. ^^ You know he sets out with the assertion that 
 lainidzo means 'to dip, and nothing but dip f yet, strange 
 to tell, when he introduces upwards of thirty examples from 
 the Greek classics, he does not translate the icord to dip in 
 hut four instances out of thirty ! He has haptize thirteen 
 times, plunge three times, immerse four times, and sink six 
 times; here are twenty-six cases in which Dr. Carson him- 
 self leaves out the dip, and substitutes other words, and 
 that, too, whilst constantly affirming that dip was its only 
 meaning. Nothing can be plainer, then, than that this Bap- 
 tist doctor, in his Quixotic expedition, in which he avows 
 his purpose to set the lexicons and commentators right, has 
 had a terrible fight with the windmills and wine-bags of the 
 Spanish knight. He sees an army in a flock of sheep, 
 raises his lance, and cries out ^Dip!' but when he finds 
 himself unhorsed, his dip has vanished, and his beloved 
 Kosinante is in a pitiable plight. 
 
 " It has been wisely omitted, too, by the Baptist critics, 
 that Hippocrates, the father of medicine, uses the word 
 f^dTTTG), hapto, in the sense of dipping, nearly one hundred 
 and fifty times ; whilst he never uses jSarTrl^G), hapjtidzo, in 
 the sense of mode but once, and that passage is disputed as 
 spurious by able critics. How can we account for this fact, 
 if, as Dr. Gale says, the two words are identical in meaning ? 
 And how can we account for the use of hapto, to dip, if, as 
 Dr. Fuller says, it only means to dye? Yerily, the more 
 we look after those Baptist doctors, and follow them through 
 their learned lucubrations, the more their ^confusion 
 becomes worse confounded / and yet we are told, with strong 
 
342 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 emphasis and great confidence^ that the classic writers sus- 
 tain the Baptists.'' 
 
 ^' Now that we are upon the subject of classic usage, Mr. 
 Mason/' said Theophilus, '' I would like to know something 
 about the ancient jnode of hathing. The Baptists insist 
 that it was always an immersion of the body in water. I 
 feel considerable interest in ascertaining whether this be 
 true or not ) because, if so, the Greek word Xovu), louo, which 
 is rendered equivalent to baptize in some places in the Bible, 
 (as, for instance, in the case of Naaman, in 2 Kings,) would 
 seem to indicate immersion." 
 
 '^ I am happy to tell you, Theophilus, that there is a Grreek 
 passage which will give you perfect satisfaction upon this 
 subject. By turning to the tenth book of the Odyssey, you 
 will find a description of the hath administered to Ulysses 
 in the palace of Circe. Let me read a paragraph for 
 you: 
 
 ^' 'And four handmaidens, who are her servants in the 
 house, were busy in the palace. But they indeed were 
 sprung from the fountains and from the groves, and from 
 the sacred rivers which flow forth into the sea. One of 
 them threw beautiful blankets upon the thrones, purple 
 above, but under she put beautiful linen ; another extended 
 silver tables before the thrones, and set upon them golden 
 dishes ) a third mixed sweet honeyed wine in a silver bowl, 
 and distributed golden cups ; but the fourth carried icater, 
 and lighted a great fire under a large tripod ; and the water 
 was warmed. But when the water boiled in the shining 
 brass, having put me in a hath, she washed me from the 
 large tripod, pouring water pleasantly over my head and 
 shoulders, until she took away from my limbs mind-destroy- 
 ing labor.' Odyssey, b. 10. 
 
 ''Here is an ancient hath, Theophilus, described by 
 Homer, and it was administered hy pouring the water over 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 343 
 
 the head and shoulders of the person bathed. Do you still 
 doubt if immersion was necessary to a bath 1" 
 
 ''No, sir; I want no further testimony. This is plain 
 enough. One such description of a bath, where the mode 
 is stated, is enough to settle the principle. I see now that 
 the ancients, like ourselves, frequently used the shower-h^t\ 
 and therefore the term may include any mode of bathing. 
 I shall never be able to express my thanks, Mr. Mason, for 
 the aid you have rendered me, and the further I avail myself 
 of your services, the less foundation appears for the doctrine 
 of exclusive immersion. I am convinced, sir, that the ancients 
 never used the word baptize in the sense of dipping, and 
 the evidences you have brought from the New Testament 
 are conclusive. '^ 
 
 '' There are many other places which we might examine 
 among the Greek writers; but, as you say, Theophilus, they will 
 all go to prove that the idea of dipping, even as the common 
 meaning of baptidzo, has no foundation whatever. But, as 
 we have met every evening this week, and perhaps the 
 audience may not feel much more interest in this branch of 
 our studies, I will give a brief review of this evening's 
 investigation, and then dismiss. 
 
 " Mr. Battle, you remember, offered to prove that haptidzo 
 in the Greek meant only to dip, and therefore our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, in commanding us to be baptized, commanded 
 us to be dipped. When he brought out his proofs, however, 
 not 07ie of them clearly established his position, and as I 
 proved some of his quotations to be grossly incorrect, he 
 became alarmed and abandoned his task. On the other 
 hand, I showed distinctly that the application of water to 
 persons or things, and the breaking of waves over a bottle, 
 were called baptisms by the Greeks. If at any future time 
 any one present should desire further testimony upon this 
 subject, I will be happy to furnish it. 
 
344 THEOPHILUS WALTON. 
 
 "On Monday evening we sliall discuss the subject of 
 Infant Baptism, and see whether or not we can sustain our 
 practice by the Scriptures, for by the rule of God's word we 
 stand or iaW 
 
TRIAL OF MRS. WILLIAMS FOR THE CRIME OF 
 PARTAKINGS OF THE LORD'S SUPPER WITH 
 THE LORD'S PEOPLE. 
 
 ALEXANDER BATTLE, AND OTHERS, FOR THE 
 PROSECUTION— RICHARD BARBOUR FOR THE 
 DEFENCE. 
 
 15* 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 347 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 
 THE TRIAL 
 
 To describe the irritation and mortification which resulted 
 from the defeat of Mr. Battle. on Friday evening, would be 
 impossible. His friends were confident of success, having 
 seen him, at other times, do valiant service for their cause. 
 But when they witnessed his unwillingness to cope with Mr. 
 Mason in the field of classical criticism, they were sadly 
 disappointed. There were very few, however, of the more 
 decided Baptists who were disposed to compromise the cause 
 by acknowledging themselves vanquished. They indulged 
 in hopes of future success, when Mr. Battle would not only 
 repair the damages of the past, but level a telling blow at 
 Pedobaptism in that country. 
 
 Strange to say, too, although the fact of present defeat 
 was too plain to be denied, yet there were many who not 
 only maintained the certainty of ultimate success, but made 
 it the occasion of no little boasting, assuring their opponents 
 that Mr, Mason would prove, in the end, by no means a 
 match for Mr. Battle ! Numbers of these partisan spirits 
 employed the early portion of the following day in eff"orts to 
 create a public opinion in their favor. 
 
 "When the hour arrived for the usual services on Saturday, 
 as it was the monthly meeting, a sermon was delivered by 
 Mr. Ellis on the purity of the Church, and the necessity of 
 building our hopes upon a scriptural foundation, lu this 
 
848 
 
 OR, 
 
 sermon^ althougli there was a studious effort to avoid giving 
 a hint publicly that there was likely to be a division among 
 his members on important questions, there was, nevertheless, 
 to an observing eye, a manifest anxiety telling upon the 
 mind of the preacher. The exhortation to avoid all occa- 
 sions of strife by which the name of the Lord might be 
 blasphemed, had a particular bearing, but with what success 
 he labored we shall presently see. 
 
 The congregation was dismissed without any intimation 
 that business of unusual importance would claim the atten- 
 tion of the church. The Presbyterian and Methodist minis* 
 ters were both present, and were about to retire, when they 
 were informed by Theophilus that an interesting trial was 
 about to commence, and that, in accordance with their usual 
 custom, he presumed the Baptists would not object to the 
 presence of spectators. They returned to their seats, in con- 
 sequence of this information, and awaited the proceedings. 
 Mr. Ellis seemed not a little perplexed at this movement of 
 the Pedobaptist pastors, and for some moments he employed 
 himself seemingly in taking the advice of his brethren. 
 
 When he returned to his seat, and the usual preliminaries 
 were gone through, it was announced that the time had come 
 for the trial of disorderly members. A case or two of minor 
 consequence having been disposed of, by requiring confes- 
 sion of penitence to be made to the church, the case of Mrs. 
 Williams was called. The old lady was present, and in her 
 own artless manner gave a full statement of the reasons 
 which had induced her to commune with the Methodist peo- 
 ple. It was because she loved them, believed that they were 
 Christian people, and as such she could not refuse to sit with 
 them at the Lord's Table. 
 
 ^'Do you feel. Sister Williams," asked Mr. Ellis, ^Uhat in 
 breaking the standing order of your Church you are obeying 
 the Lord Jesus Christ V 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 349 
 
 ^' I do not believe that I liave broken any commandment 
 of the Lord Jesus/' replied Mrs. Williams. ^' I know that 
 I have violated a custom of our Church, but I do not 
 acknowledge the right of the Church to control my con- 
 science.'' 
 
 "Then you take the liberty of judging for yourself, I 
 suppose, in defiance of all advice and authority of your 
 brethren in the Church V 
 
 "1 have heard you declare in your sermons, Brother 
 Ellis," said Mrs. Williams, "that every Christian had the 
 right to judge for himself in all matters pertaining to the 
 Scriptures. I have done nothing more than this. I have 
 searched the Bible, and I see nothing there forbidding me 
 to commune with true Christians, and therefore I have taken 
 the liberty to do so." 
 
 "And will you promise us, for the future, if we look over 
 this ofi'ence, to abstain from communing with Pedobaptist 
 societies ?" 
 
 " I cannot make such a promise," replied Mrs. Williams; 
 " under the same circumstances, I shall in all probability do 
 just as I did last Sabbath." 
 
 " Brethren," said Mr. Ellis, " the case is now fairly before 
 you. We are ready to hear any suggestion or remark from 
 any brother present." 
 
 " I rise to move that Mrs. AYilliams be expelled," said 
 Deacon Smith ; " we cannot forgive the ofi"ence without con- 
 fession of repentance, and this she refuses to make." 
 
 "And I rise to inquire by what authority a pious member 
 of the Church is to be expelled, who has not committed a 
 sin against Grod ?" said Mr. Barbour. 
 
 "A sin against God's Church is a sin against Him," re- 
 plied Deacon Smith. 
 
 "I demand the proof, then," continued Mr. Barbour, 
 
350 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 '^ that this sister has committed a sin against the Church of 
 God/' ^ 
 
 '' I see that we are likely to have a discussion which in- 
 volves the very existence of the Church/' said Mr. Ellis, 
 '^ and I think that we are not prepared at this time to enter 
 upon it. It would be best, brethren, to postpone this case 
 until we are in a better condition to examine it."" 
 
 " I am opposed to that,'^ said Deacon Smith ; '^ we are 
 just as well prepared to meet this issue now as we ever shall 
 be. Let it come, and let us see who the false brethren are, 
 who are willing to sacrifice the cause of Christ.'' 
 
 ''Let the case be tried,'' said Mr. Barbour; ''I am ready 
 to defend this sister, and I stand here as her representative, 
 and demand a trial in her behalf," 
 
 '' Very well," said Mr. Ellis, '' it shall be done. Brother 
 Battle, as you have a great deal of experience in these 
 matters, we will look to you to defend the practice of our 
 Church." 
 
 '' It is with some embarrassment," said Mr. Battle, rising, 
 '' that I venture to interfere with the private concerns of 
 your church. But as your pastor has called upon me, and 
 the subject is of vital importance to the whole denomination, 
 I trust I shall be excused. We contend that no one has a 
 right to partake of the Lord's Supper who has not been 
 baptized, and in this position we are sustained by the prac- 
 tice of Pedobaptists themselves. We are all agreed upon 
 that point. It follows, then, that as those who are unbap- 
 tized have no right to partake of the Lord's Supper, those 
 who are unbaptized have no right to administer it, and of 
 course, if a baptized person partakes with those who are not 
 baptized, and receives the bread and wine from the hands 
 of unbaptized persons, he violates the rule and ordinance of 
 God's house. In other words, he sins against God, by vio- 
 lating the ordinances of the Lord's house." 
 
THE MAJESTY OE TRUTH. 351 
 
 " I understand that position," said Mr. Barbour; '^ I know 
 it is the doctrine of this Church. What T want now is the 
 scriptural authority for such a doctrine." 
 
 ^' What do you mean ?" asked Mr. Battle ; ^' do you want 
 me to prove that Pedobaptists are not baptized V 
 
 ^^No, sir," replied Mr. Barbour, ^^I want light upon seve- 
 ral points. I will state them one at a time, to prevent con- 
 fusion. In the first place, then, I want you to show me the 
 place in the New Testament where an unhajnized person is 
 forbidden to receive the Lord's Supper. Let us have chap- 
 ter and verse." 
 
 '' I will not attempt to show any such passage," replied 
 Mr. Battle ; " such a case never occurred in" the New Testa- 
 ment Church. No man ever applied at the Lord's Table 
 who had never been baptized." 
 
 " Well, Brother Battle," replied Mr. Barbour, '^ I want 
 you to show me the place where your statement is made. I 
 want to see the evidence that no one did apply to the Church 
 then who had not received baptism. Let us have a ^ Thus 
 saith the Lord.' " 
 
 ^^ You require too much," said Mr. Battle; <^ because the 
 New Testament mentions nothing of such a case, I conclude 
 that no such a case occurred." 
 
 ^' Exactly so ; it is your conchisiori, not the language of 
 Scripture, upon which you rely. And inasmuch as the Scrip- 
 ture never mentions such a case, you not only infer that 
 there was no such case, but, in addition, you infer that such 
 a person would have been excluded. Now, sir, when you 
 defend your strict communion on such grounds, how can you 
 oppose infant baptism, which relies upon testimony of this 
 very kind — testimony stronger than yours, because there are 
 more probabilities in its favor. You demand positive pre- 
 cept for infant baptism, and at the same time defend strict 
 communion upon inferences alone." 
 
352 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 ^^Not so fast, Brother Barbour/' said Mr. Battle; ^'wc 
 oppose infant baptism because it is forbidden by the very 
 commands wliich necessitate strict communion. '^ 
 
 '^ Well, then, Brother Battle, let us have the commands. 
 I want the plain testimony of Scripture, and when you give 
 it, I will yield.'' 
 
 " We find in the Scriptures, that baptism was first insti- 
 tuted, and then followed the supper. In this order, then, it 
 is plain our Lord intended that they should be administered. 
 This you cannot deny." 
 
 " But I <Io deny this very assumption. I demand the 
 proof that Christian baptism was instituted before the sup- 
 per." 
 
 " Why, Brother Barbour ! do you deny that John the 
 Baptist administered baptism before Christ instituted the 
 supper ?" 
 
 '^ No, sir, but I deny that John's was Christian baptism, 
 for the very reason that the Bible does not say so. One was 
 the baptism of o^epentance, in whose name administered we 
 know not, and the other was a baptism in the name of the 
 Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." 
 
 ^' The formula may not have been the same, but the suh- 
 stance was. If you deny this, you must take the ground 
 that Christ was not baptized." 
 
 "I do take the position that Christ never did receive 
 Christian baptism, Brother Battle. Christian baptism was 
 never administered, so far as I can judge, by any persons 
 but the disciples of Christ. John was not a disciple of 
 Christ, but his forerunner, or herald to announce his ap- 
 proach." 
 
 " I must say that you entertain very singular opinions, 
 Brother Barbour. You are in direct conflict with Baptist 
 doctrine on this subject." 
 
 " I am not concerned to know whether I am in conflict 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 853 
 
 witli Baptist doctriue or not. What I want to know is, 
 whether I am opposed to the Scripture — that is my rule of 
 faith, not the opinions of Baptists. Moreover, sir, there 
 have been distinguished Baptists who have lived and died 
 in the belief of the very positions which I hold. I have 
 been reading recently Kobert Hall on the Terms of Com- 
 munion, and I find my views not only ably sustained, but, in 
 my judgment, unanswerably established." 
 
 " Robert Hall, indeed ! Why, sir, if you do not know 
 that his opinions on this subject are not worth a rush with 
 American Baptists, I must say that you are very far behind 
 the times.'' 
 
 ^'Well, Brother Battle, if his opinions are so lightly 
 esteemed, you can certainly overturn his arguments without 
 difficulty. I have the book in my hand, and as he gives my 
 views better than I can myself, I will read some extracts. 
 After stating this position of yours, that baptism was insti- 
 tuted before the supper, and therefore, in point of time, 
 must precede it, together with the assumption that John's 
 was Christian baptism, he proceeds to overturn both asser- 
 tions by a mass of Scripture evidence, to which I invite 
 your respectful attention. Mr. Hall says : ' The commission 
 to baptize all nations, which was executed by the apostles 
 after our Saviour's resurrection, originated in his express 
 command. John's baptism, it is evident, had no such 
 origin. John had baptized for some time before he knew 
 him ; it is certain, then, that he did not receive his commis- 
 sion from him. "And I knew him not," saithhe; "but 
 that he should be made manifest unto Israel, therefore am I 
 come baptizing with water." If the manifesting of Christ to 
 Israel was the end and design of John's mission, he must 
 have been in a previous state of obscurity; not in a situa- 
 tion to act the part of a legislator, by enacting laws or estab- 
 lishing rites. John uniformly ascribes his commission not 
 
35i THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 to Christ, but to the Father ; so that to assert his baptism 
 to be a Christian institute, is not to interpret but to contra- 
 dict him/ Now, Brother Battle, what have you to say to 
 that V 
 
 '^Go on, brother; when you get tired reading, I may 
 get a chance to speak," 
 
 ^'I will give way to you, Brother Battle, if you wish it. 
 I want these arguments answered: if you can do it, I shall 
 be obliged to you ; for I do not hesitate to say that they not 
 only appear plausible, but they are undoubtedly forcible. I 
 have read in connection with Mr. Hall's work ^Booth's 
 Apology for the Baptists,' Mr. Kinghorn's treatise on the 
 same subject, besides several minor publications, such as 
 Howell and Fuller on Communion. I am astonished at the 
 fact, that although all these writers, Kinghorn, Booth, 
 Howell, and Fuller, are in favor of strict communion, they 
 do not advocate it upon similar grounds, but differ very 
 widely from each other.'' 
 
 '' I see you are becoming skeptical. Brother Barbour." 
 
 '^If I am, it has been under the influence of Baptist 
 productions, for I have never read a line that I remember 
 from a Pedobaptist upon the subject. But that has nothing 
 to do with the matter. Here are Robert Hall's arguments, 
 in lucid language, conveying an amount of solid reasoning 
 which must produce effect upon the sincere inquirer. He 
 proves conclusively, to my mind, that so far from Christian 
 baptism preceding the Lord's supper, in point of time, the 
 supper was first instituted, in the lifetime of Christ, and 
 baptism was not appointed until after his resurrection. 
 Under this view of the case, then, it is plain that the apos- 
 tles, who were the first communicants at the Lord's Table, 
 were unbaptized when thej^ partook of the supper, and con- 
 sequently they were, in this respect, in the very same situa- 
 tion with our Pedobaptist brethren. Mr. Hall's argument 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 355 
 
 upon tliis subject is so strong that I cannot retrain from 
 reading it :( ' Since it is manifest that the baptism of John 
 did not supersede the Christian ordinance^ they being per- 
 fectly distinct^ it is natural to inquire lulio haptized the 
 ajwsflcs, and the hundred and twenty disciples assembled 
 with them on the day of Pentecost? i/y deltherate opinion 
 is, that, in the Christian sense of the term, they were not hap- 
 tized at all. From the total silence of Scripture, and from 
 other circumstances which might be adduced, it is difficult 
 to suppose they submitted to that rite after our Saviour's 
 resurrection; and previous to it, it has been sufficiently 
 proved that it was not in force. It is almost certain that 
 some, probably most of them, had been baptized by John ; 
 but, for reasons which have been already amply assigned, 
 this will not account for their not submitting to the Christ- 
 ian ordinance/ Again, after considering the argument for 
 strict communion, from the order of words in the apostolic 
 commission, he asks : ' But where, let me ask, is it asserted 
 in the New Testament that no unbaptized person shall par- 
 take of the eucharist? So far from this, it has been, I 
 trust, satisfactorily shown that, of the original communi- 
 cants at its institution, not one teas thus qualified.' " 
 
 '' What's the use of reading all that V asked Mr. Ellis ; 
 ^^ we all know that Robert Hall was in favor of mixed com- 
 munion." 
 
 '^ Because I want you to show the fallacy of his argu- 
 ments if you can ; if you cannot, you will never get my 
 vote to expel a member from the Church who has violated 
 no rule of God's word. The practice of strict communion 
 is either founded upon the law of Grod, or it is not. If it is, 
 shoio me the law, and I say no more. If it is not, it is a 
 human invention, intolerant in itself, and only consistent 
 with a bigoted exclusiveness, which we ought, in the name 
 of Christian charity, to abandon.'' 
 
356 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 ^^ It seems to me," said Mr. Battle, " that you are losing 
 sight of the subject. The question is not whether a Pedo- 
 baptist, being unbaptized, ought to be admitted to the Lord's 
 supper; but whether a Baptist member should receive the 
 supper from those who are not authorized to administer it. 
 Speak to the point, Mr. Barbour.'' 
 
 " With due deference to your superior wisdom, I submit 
 that the two cases rest upon the same foundation. If, as 
 Mr. Hall proves, the apostles were not baptized when they 
 received the supper, they were unbaptized when they admin- 
 istered it ; so that the being unbaptized is no greater obstacle 
 to administering than to receiving it. So, then, our Pedo- 
 baptist friends, even if we could demonstrate that they have 
 not been truly baptized, are not in a worse condition than 
 the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. I say, if we could 
 demonstrate that they are not baptized ; for, to my own mor- 
 tification, I have seen more than one attempt of late to do 
 that thing, which in every case ended in humiliating fail- 
 ure. I speak boldly, because I have nothing to disguise — 
 nothing to cover up ; if I have hitherto been in error, I 
 should be unworthy the name of a disciple of Christ if I 
 did not retrace my steps, and confess that error to the 
 world.'' 
 
 ^'And you require proof that immersion is baptism. Bro- 
 ther Barbour ?" asked Mr. Ellis. 
 
 "No, sir; I require a demonstration that immersion alone 
 is baptism ; and that those who do not and cannot believe 
 our exclusive doctrine, are, by that alone, rendered unquali- 
 fied for the ordinances of Grod's house, and for salvation in 
 heaven. For, turn it as you may, brethren, twist it as you 
 please, the great fact stares us in the face, that, as we con- 
 tend for a Baptist supper, we practically assert that none 
 but Baptists do the will of Christ, and, consequently, none 
 but Baptists can get to heaven. I know you will not assert 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 357 
 
 a doctrine so abhorrent to every feeling of Christian charity; 
 but it follows as a necessary consequence of your theory. 
 If Pedobaptists are not baptized, according to our doctrine, 
 they have not put on Christ ; and yet we acknowledge that 
 some of the holiest men that ever lived were Pedobaptists. 
 A strange inconsistency — to admit at one time that certain 
 persons love the Lord Jesus, that they are in daily fellow- 
 ship and communion with him, and yet they refuse to keep 
 his commandments, and reject the proper administration of 
 his ordinances." 
 
 " Then you would have us throw open our doors to Roman 
 Catholics, Unitarians, Universalists, and everybody else who 
 might be pleased to come. A fine Church of Christ you 
 would build for us !" exclaimed Mr. Ellis. 
 
 " No, sir,'^ replied Mr. Barbour ; '' I would have you to 
 receive all true children of God who give evidence of love 
 to Christ, whose piety is undoubted. It is all a fallacy 
 about Pvoman Catholics, Unitarians, and Universalists intrud- 
 ing upon you. If there should happen to come a true disci- 
 ple of Jesus, who held singular, and, to us, ridiculous views 
 of papal supremacy, if that man is a true Christian, you 
 have no more right to exclude him from the Lord's Table 
 than you have to shut the gates of heaven against him. 
 His errors are his own j to God he is accountable for them, 
 not to you. His piety is a proof of God's mercy to him, 
 notwithstanding his erroneous notions; and if God will 
 open to him the gates of heaven, it is more than you dare 
 do to close the doors of Christian communion against him. 
 I warn you, brethren, that there is a fearful meaning in that 
 text which says : ' It were better for him that a mill-stone 
 were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in 
 the depth of the sea,' who presumes to ' offend one of these 
 little ones that believe in me.' Yet you do not hesitate to 
 shut out true Christians from the Lord's Table, and declare 
 
358 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 that some of tlie greatest and best of men are regularly in 
 the habit of profaning a sacred ordinance, the solemn, 
 awful institution of the supper ! You hurl your anathemas 
 at them, and if they are not received generally as the 
 severest punishment known to the Christian Church, it is 
 simply because these good men smile at our imbecility, and 
 feel that our intolerance is that of weakness. In this alone 
 is it distinguished from the intolerance of the Church of 
 Rome — it is the intolerance of pride, without power to make 
 it formidable. I challenge you to produce one solitary pas- 
 sage of Scripture which will justify your position. I defy 
 you to show me one solitary instance where a true believer 
 in the Lord Jesus Christ, living in the enjoyment of true 
 vital religion, was ever shut out from the Lord's Table by the 
 apostles. If you can find neither precept nor example for 
 it, I beseech you to abandon the practice. Abandon it now, 
 and let us cease to nourish that despotic pride of opinion, 
 which is as manifestly opposed to the spirit of the gospel as 
 it is destructive of the peace and unity of the Church of 
 God. I care not for your appeals to the examples of Pedo- 
 baptists ; if they unanimously agree that baptism does come 
 before communion, it would not affect the question at all. 
 The true issue is. Does any other Church exclude from the 
 Lord's supper those whom it acknowledges to be true 
 Christians and enjoying the favor of God ? I venture to 
 say that no other society or community of Christian men 
 has dared to commit such an atrocious act in the kingdom 
 of Christ. Roman Catholics may exclude Protestants from 
 their communion, but they do it because the gloomy theory 
 which they advocate places the keys of heaven in the hands 
 of a man, and dooms all outside of their pale to destruction. 
 The bigoted Churchman may exclude others from the Lord's 
 Table who have not submitted to the imposition of hands by 
 a regular descendant and successor of the apostles, as he 
 
THE MAJESTY OP TRUTH, 859 
 
 fancies his own ministry to be; but the grounds of his 
 rejection are the absence of piety in the dissenter, as the 
 grace of God flows only through episcopal hands. Gloomy 
 and revolting as these theories are, it remains for us to imi- 
 tate the exclusiveness of both, without a particle of the 
 foundation which supports the system of Papists and High- 
 Churchmen. We have all the intolerance of both, but not a 
 shadow of the reasons of either. We alone, of all exclusive 
 sects, presume to curse those whom we acknowledge God has 
 hlesscd; we alone reject from the Lord's Table those whom 
 we confess to be on their way to heaven ; to be constantly 
 quitting these low grounds of sorrow, to take their places in 
 the ranks of the sacramental hosts. And how shall we 
 defend ourselves when the God of charity shall demand of 
 us why we fed not the hungry who sat in our courts, 
 and were pushed aside when the emblems of our Master's 
 broken body and shed blood were distributed ? Shall we 
 tell him that he left us such a command ? No, for we dare 
 not assert that there is such a command on record. Shall 
 we tell him that we did it to preserve his Church pure and 
 uncontaminated ? And will not the presence of those 
 happy spirits there, whom we presumed to thrust out of 
 Christ's visible kingdom, will not the?/ condemn us ? And 
 will not the same voice which rebuked the selfishness of 
 Peter by the vision of the sheet and the command to slay 
 and cat — will not that voice proclaim. That which God 
 hath cleansed call not thou common or unclean ?" 
 
 "Stop, stop. Brother Barbour; you are becoming ex- 
 cited," said Mr. Ellis; "I admire your eloquence, and wish 
 it were expended in a better cause." 
 
 " If the possession of a good cause can make one elo- 
 quent," said Mr. Barbour, " then I ought to be so to-day. 
 I am pleading in behalf of the greater portion of God's 
 children, the great majority of God's people; I am pleading 
 
3G0 
 
 for their rights — rights which God has granted them, of 
 which you are determined to dej^rive them. I am striving 
 to open your eyes, my brethren, to let you see what a fearful 
 responsibility you are incurring. If, after all that has been 
 said upon the subject, it should appear that the Pedobaptists 
 are r'ujlit and we are wrong, in what a position do we place 
 ourselves ! Practicing an intolerant custom, founded upon 
 an opinion which we cannot demonstrate, we establish the 
 principle that infaUibillty alone can secure our own salva- 
 tion ; and, as we assume that we are right, we lay claim to 
 infallible correctness in interpreting the word of God.'' 
 
 "Brother Barbour," interposed Mr. Battle, ''we are 
 doing the very thing which is practiced universally among 
 Pedobaptists; how, then, do you dream of making us guilty 
 of these heinous offences which you enumerate ? Presbyte- 
 rians will not suffer any to commune with them who are not 
 baptized; Methodists take the same ground; and because 
 we take it, and exclude them because we believe their 
 sprinkling of infants to be invalid, you charge us with 
 inconsistency." 
 
 '' I know that you have offered the usual plea for strict 
 communion, that others who are excluded practice upon the 
 same theory; but I deny the fact. I deny that the cases 
 are at all similar. If Presbyterians were to assert that 
 sprinkling only is baptism, and therefore none should com- 
 mune with them who are not sprinkled, then, sir, I would 
 charge them with intolerance. If they were to refuse every 
 person who had not been sprinkled in infancy, then their 
 practice would be intolerant. But you know, sir, that there 
 is a great fallacy in this appeal to the example of others. 
 If it were in all points exactly like your own, it would not 
 justify you, as no amount of proof that others do wrong 
 can convert that error into right. But you cannot prove 
 that Presbyterians would refuse to administer the supper to 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 361 
 
 a man who was truly pious, and yet, for sufficient cause, 
 remained unbaptized. Such cases may be rare, but there is 
 nothing in their theory or practice which forbids his 
 approach to the Lord's Table. Indeed, I have heard a dis- 
 tinguished Presbyterian say that he would not hesitate to 
 suffer a pious Quaker to commune with him, if he conscien- 
 tiously believed that baptism was not of perpetual force in 
 the Church. Upon such a subject there must be a diversity 
 of opinion, of course. But when you appeal to the practice 
 of Pedobaptist Churches, as I said before, you give us alto- 
 gether irrelevant examples. According to their system, 
 infants and adults are so readily baptized, so easily is the 
 ordinance administered, that a neglect of it amounts to a 
 milful disregard of the command, and therefore becomes a 
 very proper hindrance to communion. But they raise no 
 barriers in the way constructed of differences of opinion; 
 they exclude none because they are not baptized in this or 
 that manner ; and this is the very offence which we commit. 
 If we could charge Pedobaptists with ivilfid disobedience to 
 the command, then, indeed, we would be justified in repel- 
 ling them. But we cannot do this, for we admit that many 
 of them are as pious as ourselves. And I assert again, that 
 ice are the only people in Cliristendom icho reject confessedly 
 p){ous Christians from the Lord's Tahle. The inconsistency 
 is ours, and ours alone ; no other Church can shield us from 
 ignominy upon this score by sharing the blame with us. 
 
 ^^ Robert Hall places this argument in a strong light. He 
 says : ' The argument from authority, however, when fairly 
 stated, is entirely in our favor ', nor would it be easy to assign 
 an example of holder deviation from the universal practice 
 of the Christian Church than the conduct of our opponents 
 (close-communion Baptists) supplies. They are the only 
 j>ersons in the world, of ichom v:e have either heard or ready 
 loho contend for the exclusion of genuine Christians from 
 16 
 
362 THEOPIIILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 the LorcVs Table; wlio ever attempted to distinguish them 
 into two classes, such as are entitled to commemorate their 
 Saviour's death, and such as are excluded from that privi- 
 lege. In what page of the voluminous records of the 
 Church is such a distinction to be traced ? Or what intima- 
 tion shall we find in Scripture of an intention to create 
 such an invidious disparity among the members of the same 
 body ? Did it ever enter the conception of any hut Baptists 
 that a right to the sign should he separated from the tiling sig- 
 nified ; or that there could he a description of persons inter- 
 ested in all the hlesshigs of the Christian covenant, yet not 
 entitled to partake of its sacraments and seals ?^ Terms of 
 Communion, p. 60, 
 
 ^' But there is a graver charge still," continued Mr. Bar- 
 bour, " with which we are justly arraigned. There is a spe- 
 cies of insincerity practiced among us in defending strict 
 communion. "We tell the world that baptism is the only 
 barrier to communion. We know this to be untrue. If a 
 member of our Church, who has been regularly baptized, 
 goes and joins another Church, we refuse to admit him to 
 the Lord's Supper. Our defence is that he has acted disor- 
 derly, and therefore must be expelled — and expelled mem- 
 bers must confess their errors and reform before we receive 
 them to the Table. The expulsion is an excuse, nothing 
 more ; and I hesitate not to say that such an excuse is not 
 only prevarication of a gross character, but it is a crime. 
 By expelling one from our Church, we say that he has com- 
 mitted such an offence as would exclude him from the king- 
 dom of grace, although he may not say one word against us ; 
 he may speak kindly of us, and be at that moment, in our 
 own judgment, as good a Christian as any of us. And yet 
 we excommunicate him, and declare him unworthy of the 
 fellowship of God's people ! Nor is this all. It has been 
 the practice of this church, and is our practice everywhere, 
 
THE MAJESTY OP TRUTH. 363 
 
 I believe^ to refuse to commune witli those Pedobaptists who 
 have been immersed precisely as we require. Some of us 
 pretend that the immersion is invalid, because the adminis- 
 trator was not immersed ; or if he happened to be immersed, 
 then we fall back upon the man who immersed him, and so 
 we hatch up the doctrine of baptismal succession — a fancy 
 of our own, more ludicrous than the pretensions of the 
 Pope, or the claims of High-Churchmen. Then, again, it 
 happens, as in the case of Elder Stanley's wife, for the sake 
 of gaining a member, we take a person of influence, who 
 has been immersed by a Methodist, without rebaptizing, 
 while at the same time we would refuse the communion to 
 him so long as he remains out of our Church. Now these 
 are facts. You know them to be such. And yet we affirm 
 that baptism is the only bar to free communion V 
 
 '' It is time for this harangue to stop I" exclaimed Mr. 
 Ellis. " We cannot listen to your charges any longer, Mr. 
 Barbour. If you proceed any farther, we must resort to an 
 effectual method of imposing silence." 
 
 " I understand you," replied Mr. Barbour ; '' I have ex- 
 amined my position carefully and prayerfully. I am pre- 
 pared for any issue that may be made. For the present, 
 however, in behalf of the sister on trial, I demand the law 
 by which she is to be tried. Grive us the scriptural author- 
 ity for the course you are taking." 
 
 " Brethren," said Mr. Ellis, seeming to take no notice 
 whatever of Mr. Barbour's remark, " what is your pleasure 
 in this case ? The motion before you is to expel Sister Wil- 
 liams for disorderly conduct. Are you ready for the ques- 
 tion ?" 
 
 " Question ! question !" shouted Deacon Smith. Where- 
 upon the vote was taken, and a large majority found in favor 
 of expulsion. As soon as the vote was taken and announced, 
 Mr. Barbour rose and declared his intention of withdrawinor 
 
864 THEOPHILUS WALTON. 
 
 from the cliurcli. He was preparing to leave tlie house, 
 when Mr. Fleming overtook him and endeavored to dissuade 
 him from his course. It was in vain, however, for the 
 young man had permitted his feelings to become so entirely 
 absorbed in the case he was pleading, that he felt it would 
 be useless to remain in a church any longer where he was 
 forced to acquiesce in such flagrant acts of injustice, with a 
 remote prospect of reconciliation. While Mr. Fleming was 
 pleading with him to return, as they were standing on the 
 steps of the church, he heard his name called within, and, 
 returning to his seat, he ascertained that he was called upon 
 to apologize for the vote he had just given, Mr. Fleming 
 had voted against the majority, and as submission to 
 that majority, right or wrong, was inevitable, he was 
 called upon to give his consent to the action of the church. 
 This he could not do. Here a new difficulty arose. Mr. 
 Fleming was inflexible, and the majority was equally so. 
 The afi'air at last terminated in a motion to postpone the cases 
 of the refractory members to the next monthly meeting. 
 
 Thus ended the session of a memorable Baptist Confer- 
 ence in Maryville. An old lady was expelled for recogniz- 
 ing Pedobaptists as fellow-Christians, and for receiving the 
 sacred emblems from the hands of her own son, and several 
 members forced to apologize for their votes in her favor, on 
 pain of being arraigned as ' disorderly,^ and suifering the 
 penalty of exclusion. As for Mr. Barbour, as the reader 
 has seen, he was too far committed in favor of free commu- 
 nion to recede ; there was no other alternative for him but 
 to notify them of his withdrawal, and let them expel him — 
 which they did not fail to do, after all eff"orts to reclaim him 
 were unavailinor. 
 
^iglttlt ^vftting* 
 
 IS INFANT BAPTISM OF GOD OR OF MEN ? 
 
 "TO THE LAW AND TO THE TESTIMONY." 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 367 
 
 EIGHTH EVENING 
 
 On Monday evening, at tlie appointed hour/ the audience 
 assembled at the Methodist church. It was ascertained, 
 early in the afternoon, that Mr. Battle had received a letter 
 from home requiring his immediate presence there, and Mr. 
 Ellis found some important business which called him some 
 distance into the country. Mr. Mason and Theopliilus were 
 consequently left in quiet possession of the field, from which 
 the two Baptist ministers had gathered so few laurels. Of 
 course, there were but few Baptist members present. Those 
 Avho were there, however, were seeking to know the truth, 
 and having seen their advocates fail them in the hour of 
 trial, were almost ready to abandon the exclusive system to 
 which they formerly clung with great tenacity. If Mr. 
 Mason should be as successful in his defence of infant bap- 
 tism as he had been in the topics already discussed, more 
 than one of them resolved to acknowledge the fact, and 
 seek fellowship in a more liberal and congenial s^^stem than 
 their own. 
 
 ^' We are now entering upon a portion of the Baptist con- 
 troversy," remarked Mr. Mason, ^' which affords such a vast 
 field for investigation, that we must necessarily condense 
 our observations, in order not to trespass on the patience of 
 our auditors. 
 
368 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 ^' The first branch of the subject is the history of Infant 
 Baptism. We find the practice of it in ahnost all the 
 Churches of modern times, and the question naturally arises, 
 Has infant baptism always prevailed in the Christian Church, 
 or is it an innovation upon the apostolic usage ? If it be an 
 innovation, it is apparent to every man's mind that it must 
 have been introduced by degrees, gaining more or less favor 
 in difi'erent ages, until it became the universal practice of 
 the Church. There must have been a time, then, when the 
 innovation began, and it is very natural to suppose that 
 coincident with its introduction would be the remonstrances 
 and resistance of those who desired to preserve the customs 
 of the Church in an uncorrupted form. 
 
 ^^As in regard to the mode of baptism, so also in reference 
 to infant baptism, our opponents are very much divided. 
 Some of them affirm that infant baptism was the offspring 
 of the papacy, and that it only became general when the 
 edicts of the popes compelled the Catholic Church to receive 
 it, some time in the tenth or eleventh century. Others, 
 again, admit its existence as early as the commencement of 
 the third century. We shall begin, then, by searching the 
 history of the ordinance, and see how far the testimony of 
 the Church supports the charge of innovation. Let it be 
 remembered, however, that in quoting the testimony of the 
 so-called ^ Fathers' of the Church, we have nothing whatever 
 to do with the doctrines which they taught. I have already 
 stated that the ordinances of the Church became corrupted 
 at a very early period, and that baptismal regencratiou 
 appears as early as the commencement of the second cen- 
 tury. Our opponents are very willing to admit this fact, when 
 an opportunity occurs to turn the strength of the argument 
 against infant baptism, but when they feel that their pecu- 
 liar mode is in danger, they postpone the period of corrup- 
 tion to a later age, and deny the existence of Pedobaptism 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 369 
 
 in tlie first centuries. But we are willing to take the facts 
 as they stand, without embellishment or suppression, and we 
 shall see what their testimony is worth. 
 
 " Our object is now to ascertain whether or not the apos- 
 tles, and those who followed them in the Christian ministry, 
 practiced infant baptism. To do this, we must search those 
 records which are extant, reaching to the times of the apos- 
 tles, if there are any such ; and if we cannot find in them 
 any evidence of the introduction of a radical change in the 
 subjects of the ordinance, the presumption is very strong 
 that no such change took place. We do not rely upon this 
 testimony, however, as conclusive proof — we must go to the 
 Bible as our ultimate appeal. 
 
 " It is admitted by Mr. Tombs, a Baptist writer of distinc- 
 tion, that, after the commencement of the Ji/th century, 
 infant baptism was prevalent in the Church. We must 
 ascend a step higher, and see whether or not it existed in 
 the fourth century. Pelagius, who denied the doctrine of 
 original sin, lived in the latter part of this century. In the 
 confession of faith which he submitted to the Bishop of 
 Home, we find the following article : ' We hold one haptismj 
 ichich ice ajfirm must he adniiniUered with the same sac7'a- 
 mental words to infants loith which it is to elder persons.' 
 Augustin, his great opponent in the controversy which agi- 
 tated the whole Church at that time, quotes Pelagius as say- 
 ing : '■ He never heard even of any impious heretic who 
 would avow such a thing in regard to little children ] for 
 who is there so ignorant of gospel readivy, that he would, 
 not to say venture to affirm this, but even in a heedless way 
 say or indeed tliink such a thing ? In a word, who can be 
 so impious as to wish little cliildren not to be sharers in the 
 kingdom of heaven, and so forbid them to be baptized and 
 regenerated in Christ V 80 you see, Thcophilus, the Bap- 
 tists must have been very scarce in the fourth century, or 
 16* 
 
370 THEOPHiLus avalton; or, 
 
 PelagiuSj a man of extensive learning, would certainly have 
 heard of them. He tells us that the most impious heretics 
 do not deny that infants ought to be baptized. Where, 
 then, were the Baptists ? Do you suppose that a man who 
 had travelled nearly or quite over the whole Christian world, 
 would never come in contact with a Baptist teacher, or even 
 hear of such a one in his travels ? Moreover, when we 
 consider that he lived but three hundred years after the 
 times of the apostles, in a period when the writings of the 
 first Christians were abundant, if any writer or minister of 
 note had ever condemned infant baptism, is it possible that 
 Pelagius would not have known it ? The case of Tertullian 
 is no objection to this view, for, as I shall show directly, he 
 did not condemn the baptism of infants upon the ground 
 that it did them no good., which is the position of the Bap- 
 tists, but because, according to his mistaken views, baptism 
 was the instrument through which sins were pardoned, and 
 ought to be delayed as long as possible, inasmuch as sins 
 committed afterward were left without pardon. 
 
 ^' John Chrysostom, a native of Antioch, and called the 
 ^ golden-mouthed,' on account of his surpassing eloquence, 
 writes as follows, in one of his sermons : ^ But our circum- 
 cision, the grace of haptism, gives cure without pain, and 
 procures for us a thousand benefits, and fills us with the 
 grace of the Spirit. And it has no determinate time, as that 
 had, but it is lawful to any one in the very heginning of his 
 age, or in the middle of it, or in old age, to receive this cir- 
 cumcision made without hands.' Here you will perceive 
 that the fathers regarded baptism as sustaining the same 
 relation to the Christian that circumcision did to the Jewish 
 dispensation ; and the essential difi"erence which he notices 
 in the time of administering the rite, is the fact that cir- 
 cumcision was by special enactment confined to the eighth 
 day, whereas baptism might be performed in the veri/ begin- 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 371 
 
 ni7ig of age, in the first hour of existence. There can be 
 no doubt that infant baptism was in use in Chrysostom's time. 
 If it were necessary to give further evidence^ I could quote 
 a passage from another sermon^ where he rebukes a supersti- 
 tious practice of putting mud on the forehead of an infant, 
 to keep it from becoming bewitched, and then asks how they 
 can bring their children to be baptized, when they have thus 
 besmeared them with mud. 
 
 '' I might quote Jerome, Optatus, Grregory Naziauzen, and 
 Basil, if it were necessary ; and if I relied upon this sort of 
 testimony I would do so. All that I wish to do is to show 
 that the practice of infant baptism was recognized in the 
 early Church. To prove whether or not that practice was 
 according to the mind of Christ, of course we must go to 
 the Bible. 
 
 '^Let us, for the present, inquire if there is any testi- 
 mony in the third century to the custom of the Church in 
 this regard. In a council of sixty-six bishops, held in or 
 about the year A! D. 250, a question was proposed by one 
 Fidus, by letter, whether or not infants might be baptized 
 as soon as they are born. In reply these bishops say : ^ We 
 read j^our letter, most dear brother, in which you write of 
 one Victor, a priest, etc. But as to the case of infants: 
 whereas you judge that they must not be baptized within 
 two or three days after they are born ; and that the rule of 
 circumcision is to be observed, so that none should be hai^- 
 tized and sanctified before the eighth day after he is born ; 
 we were all in our assembly of the contrary opinion. For 
 as for what you thought fitting to be done, there was not 
 one that was of your mind ; but all of us, on the contrary, 
 judged that the grace and mercy of Grod is to be denied to 
 no person that is born.^ Now we have nothing in the world 
 to do with the object for which these men baptized infants; 
 for it is plain that they believed that all infants who died 
 
872 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 without baptism were lost. It does not weigli a feather in 
 the balance against my opinion, that their doctrine was 
 wrong, so far as the design and effects of baptism were con- 
 cerned. Their evidence is only valuable as it proves the 
 fact that infants were baptized. It is no more an argument 
 against the baptism of infants that these men believed that 
 they were saved by baptism, than it is against the baptism 
 of adults, for they too, according to these fathers, were con- 
 verted, ^ sealed/ ' sanctified,' ^ regenerated' in baptism, and 
 dying without it were lost. The design of the ordinance 
 was corrupted in both cases, and baptismal regeneration is 
 no more the parent of infant than of adult baptism. 
 
 '^ It is amusing to see how these descendants of Roger 
 Williams and John Smyth, of Holland, twist and turn about 
 when they get into the first centuries of the Christian era. 
 When the mode of baptism is in dispute, they appropriate 
 certain allusions to trine immersion, and cry out. The 
 fathers were Baptists I But when we draw them up to the 
 record, and show them that these ' fathei's' practiced infant 
 baptism, they cry out, Heretics ! heretics ! corrupters of 
 God's word and of his ordinance ! Our friend Theodosia, 
 on page 167, asserts: ^ I say the Christian fathers for the 
 first tliree centuries were Bcqjtists, because these fathers say so 
 themselves.' But on page 334 we find this same author 
 asserting, ' It is evident, therefore, that at this time, the 
 beginning of the third century, the baptism of children had 
 just begun to be spoken of.' How it happens that Baptist 
 ' fathers' in the third century could practice infant baptism 
 is indeed a mystery, if the term ' Baptist' is not large 
 enough to take contrary doctrines and every sort of heresy 
 into fellowship. The author is consistent in one thing, 
 however, in making these contradictory statements : there is 
 not one word of truth in either of them. 
 
 '^ ' Matthew, and Mark, and Luke, and John were Bap- 
 
THE MAJESTY OP TRUTH. 373 
 
 tists,^ says Theodosia; and why? because otherwise ^ they 
 might never have told us about those baptisms in the 
 river !' Sublime logic, is it not ? Then the author of the 
 Acts of the Apostles was not a Baptist; for, although he 
 speaks of numerous baptisms, he never once mentions that 
 one of them was in a river. ' Baptists tell about such 
 things now.' Yes, indeed they do ; and they tell it over 
 and over again, just as often as a case of immersion trans- 
 pires — ' buried in the yielding wave,' in such a river, creek, 
 or 2^00! — but in all the Holy Scriptures there is but one 
 solitary case of baptism in a river, creek, tank, or pool men- 
 tioned, although scores of baptisms are recorded. And yet 
 conduct and speech so unlike, prove the conflicting parties 
 the same. ' Paul was a Baptist !' cries Theodosia. Yet he 
 says to the Corinthians, ' Christ sent me not to baptize, hut to 
 preach the gospel.^ Imagine a Baptist preacher making such 
 a declaration in these days. Why, he would have ' the 
 Churches' down upon him from the most northern limits of 
 Dan to the extremity of Beersheba ! But enough of 
 Theodosia's nonsense. It may have weight with the igno- 
 rant, and, with such, solid argument is '• a jewel of gold in a 
 swine's snout.' 
 
 ^^ We come now to examine for a short time the testimony 
 of the first opponent of infant baptism on record. Accord- 
 ing to Theodosia he was a Baptist, for he lived in the com- 
 mencement of the tliird century. I allude to Tertullian. 
 He is the first writer in the Christian Church, orthodox or 
 otherwise, who opposed the baptism of infants. And, be- 
 cause he has left us his protest against the doctrine, it is 
 inferred by the Baptists that infant baptism was just then 
 gaining a foothold in the Church. The fallacy of such an 
 argument is plain. Now this Tertullian, though in many re- 
 spects an able and a learned man, was, nevertheless, visionary 
 and speculative above all the rest of the so-called ^ fathers.' 
 
874 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 He believed that one Montanus was the Paraclete, or Com- 
 forter, which Christ promised to send to his disciples, main- 
 taining that the Holy Grhost was come in the person of this 
 vile impostor. Tertullian joined the Montanists, and after- 
 ward set up for himself, and raised a sect, called after him 
 Tertullianists. If you will read the history of the Church 
 at this period, and for ages following, you will find that this 
 man was of about as much weight and force in matters of 
 opinion with the Christian world, as Brigham Young is 
 to-day with the Protestant denominations in this country. 
 Indeed, I could show you, if I had time, that he was just 
 about as much of a Christian as the present leader of the 
 Mormon Church. Brigham Young had his Joe Smith, Vfho 
 was prophet, priest, and king; and Tertullian had his Mon- 
 tanus, to whom he attributed the possession of the Holy 
 Ghost, the incarnation of the Spirit. His ojyinion is of no 
 force; let us see if he declares any fact which militates 
 against infant baptism as if it were an innovation, or not 
 hitherto, before his time, practiced in the Church. In his 
 treatise on Baptism he says : ' Whereas it is an acknow- 
 ledged rule that none can be saved without baptism — 
 grounded especially on that sentence of our Lord, Urdess 
 one be born of loater he cannot be saved — some scruples do 
 arise, and even rash discourses of some men, how, according 
 to that rule, the apostles could be saved, whom we do not 
 find to have been baptized with our Lord's baptism, except 
 Paul.' '' 
 
 ^^ I should think those sentiments would be enough to 
 expel one from the Baptist Church noiv,'' observed Theophi- 
 lus. ^^ He contends that it is an acknowledged rule that 
 none can be saved who are not baptized — that is rather too 
 strong for modern Baptists. Then, again, he declares that 
 the apostles did not receive Christian baptism — that's an- 
 other crime. They would hurl Tertullian out of the Bap- 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. StD 
 
 tist Churcli now as readil}^ as they excommunicate Robert 
 Hall for holding the same opinion/^ 
 
 " Yet we are told, Theophilus, that Tertullian was a Bap- 
 tist. And yet Robinson, the Baptist historian, tells us- that 
 infant baptism originated among the Montanists, among 
 whom this good Baptist brother, Tertullian, held his mem- 
 bership a considerable time. Such is the liarmony of our 
 asjjirinrj Baptist authors. 
 
 '' You will remember, Theophilus, that I took occasion a 
 few evenings since to expose a quotation garbled from Dr. 
 Wall, and patched together by the author of Theodosia. It 
 becomes my duty to make a similar exposure of the igno- 
 rancG if not the iniquiti/ of that writer. I know it sounds 
 harshly to charge a writer on sacred subjects with dishon- 
 esty; but when a statement is made with confidence, and 
 with the air of learning, the exposure of the imposture be- 
 comes a duty ; and no terms can be too severe which are 
 employed in the operation of removing the sheep's clothing 
 from the body of a wolf. For the sake of convenience, you 
 will oblige me by taking ^ Theodosia Ernest,' and reading 
 the passage I have marked on page 332.'' 
 
 ^^ ^ By this time salvation and baptism had begun to be 
 regarded as inseparable, and loving parents began to inquire 
 anxiously, What will become of our children if they die 
 uubaptized ? To this the answer commonly given was that 
 they must be lost. Why not, then, baptize, and so secure 
 their salvation ? It seems that a certain loealtliy lady, 
 named Quintilla, wlio was prohahly a mother, and felt this 
 very natural anxiety ahout her little ones., had come to the 
 conclusion that if they ASKED /b?' baptism they ought to have 
 it, whether they gave evidence of conversion or not ; and she 
 wrote a letter to Tertullian, the bishop of the Ohurch at Car- 
 thage, to get his sanction to this novel doctrine. The answer 
 of Tertullian to this letter has been preserved, and contains 
 
376 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 the FIRST undouhted allu&ion to tlie haptism of children 
 which is recorded in the annals of Church history.' '' 
 
 " Now, Theopliilus, it will not surprise you to learn that 
 the whole of that story is a sheer fabrication. I say it will 
 not S2ir2yrise you to hear this, from the simple fact that this 
 author's conscience seems to be utterly incapable of prevent- 
 ing his acts of literary piracy. This story of Quintilla and 
 her letter to Tertullian must have occurred to the writer in a 
 dream, a vision of the night, after he had worked himself 
 up to frenzy over ' Orchard's History of Foreign Baptists.' 
 You see what a clumsy story he makes of it. Quintilla, be- 
 lieving that her children might perish without baptism, 
 writes to the ' bishop' of Carthage, to know whether they 
 might be baptized, if they asked for it, without being con- 
 verted. This icas, indeed, a novel doctrine ; it would have 
 been to Tertullian, for he believed that all the sins, actual 
 and original, of a person were pardoned in the act of bap- 
 tism. Tertullian did not believe in conversion preceding 
 baptism, and therefore the want of it could be no bar to the 
 ordinance. But why do I weary your patience by showing 
 the internal evidence that this story is fabricated for Theo- 
 dosia's purpose ? The fact is plain enough. The garbled 
 extracts which the writer proceeds to give, are originally 
 from Tertullian' s treatise on Baptism, the very same from 
 which I quoted just now. ^Quintilla/ the ^wealthy lady,' 
 has nothing whatever to do with it. The passage is not a 
 ^ reply' to anybody's letter, but a distinct and labored trea- 
 tise on Baptism. 
 
 '^ I suspect that this author, who, for wise reasons, gives us 
 no clue to his whereabouts, has seen in the ' Religious Ency- 
 clopedia' a reference to one Quintilla, who flourished about 
 A. D. 190 as a prophetess in Asia Minor, and the thought 
 occurred to him that he would get up a correspondence 
 between this female impostor in Phrygia and Tertullian iu 
 
THE 3IAJESTY OF TRUTH. 377 
 
 Africa. His object is to show that the baptism of unconverted 
 or infant children was a novel one in Tertullian's time ; and 
 he frames the story accordingly. If this history is not 
 original with him, I know not who else could be bold 
 enough to manufacture it. Certainly Orchard, with all his 
 hardihood, never thought of it. 
 
 '^But as I have undertaken to show the imposition prac- 
 ticed by Theodosia, let us compare the two passages toge- 
 ther. I have Tertullian's treatise, De Ba/ptismo, in my 
 hand. Do you read out of Theodosia, Theophilus, and I 
 will read out of Tertullian.'' 
 
 " I will commence with the quotation marks," said Theo- 
 philus. " ' Those who administer baptism, says he, know 
 very well that it is not to be rashly given.' So says Theo- 
 dosia." 
 
 ^^And Tertullian says, 'But they whose duty it is to 
 administer baptism are to know that it must not be given 
 rashly.' Proceed, Theophilus." 
 
 " ' The good lady evidently thought that it was enough if 
 the children could ask for it, and had quoted the scripture. 
 Give to him that asketh. To this Tertullian says : What ! 
 give to him that asheth ! Every one hath a right to it as a 
 thing of alms. Nay ! say rather, Give not that lohich is holy 
 to the dogs; cast 7iot your pearls before swine; lay hands 
 suddenly on no man; he not partaker of other men's siiis.' " 
 — Tertullian, as quoted in Theodosia Ernest. 
 
 ^' Now let us hear the genuine quotation : ' Give to every 
 one that asketh thee, has its proper subject, and relates to 
 alms-giving; but that command rather is here to be consi- 
 dered. Give not that which is holy to dogs, neither cast 
 your pearls before swine ; and that. Lay hands suddenly on 
 no man, neither be partaker of other men's faults.' " — ■ 
 Tertidlianus De Bajitismo, c. 18. 
 " I see how it is, Mr. Mason," observed Theophilus, ''the 
 
378 TIIEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 language of Tertullian is so distorted as to make it look like 
 a re'ply to this imaginary letter.'' 
 
 '■'■ Precisely so, Theopliilus. But read on." 
 
 '•^ ' It would seem tliat slie had referred to the cases of the 
 eunuch and of Paul, as haying received the ordinance as 
 soon as they asked for it. And to this Tertullian replies : 
 If Philip baptized the eunuch on the spot, let us remember 
 that it was done under the immediate direction of the Lord. 
 The eunuch was a believer of the Scripture; the instruction 
 given by Philip was seasonable; the one preached, the 
 other perceived the Lord Jesus, and believed on him. 
 Water was at hand, and the apostle having finished the 
 affair, was caught away. But you say Paul was baptized 
 instantly. True, because Judas, at whose house he was, 
 instantly knew that he was a vessel of mercy. The conde- 
 scension of God may confer his favors as he pleases, but our 
 wishes may mislead ourselves and others.' " — Tertullian^ 
 quoted in Theodosia. 
 
 ^' Read on, Theophilus." 
 
 ^' ^ This lady seems to have referred, as you do, to the 
 words of Jesus, ^' Suffer little children," etc. And to this 
 Tertullian says, as Baptists do now, The Lord does indeed 
 say, Forbid them not to come unto me ; and let them come 
 while they are growing up ; let them come and learn, and 
 let them be instructed when they come, arid lohen they 
 understand Christianity let them profess themselves Chris- 
 tians.^ " — Tertullian, quoted in Theodosia. 
 
 ^' Now let us hear Tertullian : ^ Our Lord says, indeed, 
 Do not forbid them to come to me. Therefore let them come 
 when they are grown up ; let them come when they under- 
 stand ; when they are instructed whither it is that they 
 come; let them be made Christians when they can hnow 
 Christ.^ Now, Theophilus, don't you see the difference be- 
 tween these two passages ? Theodosia makes Tertullian 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 879 
 
 say that tliey must pro/ess theuLselves Christians when they 
 can understand Christianity; whereas Tertullian says they 
 should he made Christians (by baptism) when they can 
 know Christ. You see our unscrupulous author has sup- 
 pressed Tertullian's belief in baptismal regeneration. 
 
 '^But I will read on. Theodosia stopped too soon. 
 ^ What need their guiltless age make such haste to the for- 
 giveness of sins ? Men will proceed more warily in worldly 
 things; and he that should not have earthly goods commit- 
 ted to him, yet shall have heavenly. Let them know how 
 to desire this salvation, that you may appear to have given 
 to one that asketh. For no less reason unmarried persons 
 ought to be kept off, who are likely to come into temptation, 
 as well those that never were married, upon account of 
 their coming to ripeness, as those in widowhood for the miss 
 of their partner : until they either marry or be confirmed in 
 continence. They that understand the weight of baptism 
 will rather dread the receiving it than the delaying of it. 
 An entire faith is secure of salvation.' — Tertul. De Bap- 
 tismo, c. 18. 
 
 " Of course, our fair friend Theodosia never dreamed that 
 her venerable Baptist brother, Tertullian, would have refused 
 to baptize her, if she had applied to him ! This important 
 information the ingenious inventor of the ^ Quintilla' story 
 kept out of view ! And such is the moral honesty of the 
 opponents of infant baptism ! A certain ' father' says 
 infants ought not to be baptized, because they would be 
 making haste to have their sins forgiven ; and therefore, say 
 the Baptists, as this is a clear case of prohibition and oppo- 
 sition to infant baptism, infants loere not baptized before the 
 time of Tertullian, This is the argument. There is no 
 logic or good sense in it, but let us admit for a moment that 
 it is a good argument ; then we extend it a step farther. 
 This same ' father,' for this very reason, forbids the bap- 
 
380 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 tism of unmarried persons; liis opposition to it is, there- 
 fore, proof that no unmarried persons were baptized before 
 his time ! Will our Baptist friends follow the advice of 
 their eccentric brother, or will they only take half of it ? 
 If so, why should they blame us if we refuse to take any of 
 it, and regard him as visionary in the first case as in the 
 last?" 
 
 ^' But has Theodosia no authority for this story about 
 Quintilla and Tertullian, Mr. Mason ? Surely the author 
 must have seen something to warrant him in making the 
 statement/' 
 
 '^ I have seen nothing which resembles a correspondence 
 between the parties, Theophilus. There was a Quintilla, a 
 female preacher and a prophetess of some note in Tertul- 
 lian's time, but as to her writing a letter to Tertullian, and 
 his making the reply given by Theodosia, I do not believe a 
 word of it. She was not a ' wealthy lady,' who had become 
 concerned about her children, as Theodosia states, but an 
 impostor connected with the sect of the Montanists. It is 
 said that this Quintilla preached against baptism, as wholly 
 unnecessary, and against this doctrine the book of Tertullian 
 was written. The effort of Theodosia is designed to create 
 the impression that this ^ wealthy lady' became alarmed at 
 the idea of her children being in danger of dying without 
 baptism, and to secure their salvation she proposes to have 
 them baptized, contrary to the established usage of the 
 Church. Her application to Tertullian, and his reply, are 
 manufactured to order, as the first proposal to baptize 
 infants. 
 
 "But let us leave Quintilla and Tertullian. We must 
 advance a little nearer to the apostolic age. A peculiarity 
 in the few writings which we possess of the second century 
 is, that the terms baptize and regenerate are used inter- 
 changeably. I say that this is a peculiarity, not because the 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 381 
 
 'fathers' generally are free from the error of baptismal 
 regeneration, but because tliey usually distinguislied between 
 the ordinance and its supposed effect — the first was baptism, 
 the last was regeneration. But as early as the second cen- 
 tury, the doctrine of the new birth of the soul in water had 
 obtained such a firm footing that the word regeneration sig- 
 nified baptism, as there could be no new birth without it. 
 It is needless to prove this, which I might do by quotations 
 from Clemens Alexandrinus and Justin Martyr, but the fact 
 is admitted by all honest and competent judges. It is true, 
 the author of Theodosia sneers at it, but this is rather a proof 
 that the fact asserted is beyond cavil, as that author gene- 
 rally manufactures his own history, and when he can find no 
 accommodating Quintilla to help him out of difficulty, he 
 scofi's at the passage, and makes Theodosia laugh at it, and so 
 the matter is disposed of. 
 
 ^^ Keeping this fact in mind, let us hear the testimony of 
 Irenseus, who lived A. D. 167 : ^ Therefore as he was a Mas- 
 ter, he had also the age of a Master. Not disdaining nor 
 going in a way above human nature, nor breaking in his 
 own person the law which he had set for mankind, but 
 sanctifying every several age by .the likeness that it has to 
 him. For he came to save all persons by himself : all, I 
 mean, who are by him regenerated (or baptized) unto God, 
 infa.nts and little ones, and children and youths, and elder 
 persons : (info.ntes, et parvulos, et pueros, et Juvenes, et 
 seniores.) Therefore he went through the several ages : for 
 'in/ants heing made an infant, sanctifying infants; to little 
 ones he was made a little one, sanctifying those of that age, 
 and also giving them an example of godliness, justice, and 
 dutifulness; to youths he was a youth,' etc." — Iren^eus, adv. 
 Haereses. 
 
 '^ That appears to be very strong," said Theophilus. " If 
 Irenaeus used ' regenerate' for baptize, which he must have 
 
382 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 done or the passage lias no sense in it, then it is clear infants 
 were baptized in his days, because he says they were regene- 
 rated to G-od.'' 
 
 ''And in what other sense could Irenaeus use the word 
 ' regenerate' here ? Infants could not be regenerated by 
 faith, it is clear, so that whatever he means to be understood 
 by regeneration, he could refer it only to baptism. But to 
 prove this beyond a reasonable doubt, a quotation from Jus- 
 tin Martyr, who lived about the same time, or a little earlier, 
 will be sufficient. Speaking of the manner of baptizing 
 their converts, he says : ' Then we bring them to some place 
 where there is water, and they are regenerated by the same 
 way of regeneration by which we are regenerated ; for they 
 are washed loith ivater in the name of God, the Father and 
 Lord of all things, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of 
 the Holy Spirit.' Now, Theophilus, can any one deny that 
 Justin Martyr called baptism ' regeneration V Is it not as 
 j)lain as language can make it ? 
 
 " This very passage is quoted by ' Theodosia Ernest' on 
 pages 167, 168, as you will see by turning to the book, and 
 the author does not scruple to say that Justin speaks of per- 
 sons baptized as persons regenerated ; but when he meets the 
 testimony of Irenaeus, proving that infants were 'regene- 
 rated' in those days, he ridicules the idea ! Hear him, on 
 page 331 ; after quoting the ' father,' he says : ' Now this is 
 the ojd^ allusion which it is pretended that Irenaeus makes 
 to infant baptism ; and some have had the temerity, not to 
 say the dishonesty — since they themselves consider baptism 
 and regeneration as the same thing, and because Irenseus, in 
 some other place, uses regenerate in the sense of baptize — 
 to strike out regenerated here and put in haj)tized, and then 
 refer to Irena3us as having recognized infant baptism.' 
 
 " There is a twofold deception in these words. In the 
 first place, the writer would have us believe that only once 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 383 
 
 the word ^regenerate' is put for 'baptize' in Irenaeus, 
 whereas there are many instances in his writings of such 
 interchangeable use. In the next pLnce, he asserts that 
 those who thus understand the passage do themselves regard 
 baptism and regeneration as the same thing. If this be so, 
 the author of Thcodosia believes that they are one and the 
 same, for he quotes the words of Justin Martyr, who uses 
 them precisely as Iren^us does. But, as we say, ' circum- 
 stances alter cases :' Justin's words were in ' Theodosia's' 
 favor — so the author supposed at least — and therefore it is all 
 right. But Irena3us, by the same method of interpretation, 
 proves infant baptism to be the practice of the Church in 
 the second century, and therefore the interpretation is 
 wrong. Thus does this candid ( ! ) writer blow hot and 
 cold with the same breath. 
 
 '' Justin Martyr, in his dialogue with Trypho, calls bap- 
 tism the Christian circumcision, as follows : ' We also who 
 by him have access to God, have not received this carnal 
 circumcision, but the spiritual circumcision which Enoch 
 and those like him observed. And ive have received it J>y 
 haptism, by the mercy of God, because we were sinners ; 
 and it is allowed to all j^crsons to receive it by the same 
 way.' 
 
 " I might give you many other quotations out of Clement 
 and Hermas, but the testimony of Justin Martyr brings us 
 within forty years of the times of the apostles. Is it rea- 
 sonable to suppose that infant baptism sprang up in the 
 Church within the lifetime of one man, and that it was then 
 regarded as an innovation, without one word on record to 
 prove such a thing ? Is it possible to adduce testimony 
 more explicit, when the first opponent of infant baptism in 
 the third century does not deny that it was the custom of 
 the Church, or charge upon the practice that it is an inno- 
 vation, if such had been the fact ?'' 
 
884 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 ^^ But I believe you have charged all of these writers with 
 corrupting the ordinance of baptism, Mr. Mason/' remarked 
 Theophilus. '•'■ If they corrupted the design and the mode, 
 may they not have enlarged the subjects also ?" 
 
 " I do not think it so probable, Theophilus ; but remem- 
 ber, I told you at the commencement that I do not rel^ 
 upon the testimony of these ' fathers' alone ; if they are not 
 sustained by the Scriptures, their testimony is worth nothing. 
 To the word of Grod we must now appeal, and by that word 
 settle the question. I would no sooner practice infant bap- 
 tism upon the faith of these fathers, than I would receive 
 their views of baptismal regeneration. Their authority, in 
 either case, unsupported by the New Testament, must be 
 rejected. 
 
 " Let us examine the Bible, then, and if we find there no 
 sufficient proof that infant children are suitable subjects for 
 baptism, we must abandon the practice. I would be pleased, 
 Theophilus, if you would state to me, in regular order, all 
 the objections which you have against infant baptism, that I 
 may be able to give you at once the proofs upon which we 
 rely. Before you do so, however, allow me to ask a ques- 
 tion. Do you believe that God has established more than 
 one distinct Church V 
 
 " I should think he had established but one gospel 
 Church," replied Theophilus. 
 
 ^^ Very well; the reason I ask you this question is, that 
 some Baptist writers attempt to prove that the Mosaic law 
 was a collection of carnal ordinances, and they speak of the 
 whole dispensation which we commonly call Jewish, as if it 
 were the work of man, and not of God. They speak of 
 Pedobaptists as engrafting Judaism upon Christianity, for- 
 getting that our Saviour himself, according to the flesh, was 
 a Jew, born a literal descendant of Abraham. More than 
 one of these writers attempts to throw ridicule upon the 
 
THE MAJESTY OT TRUTH. 885 
 
 ceremonial law, and the enactments under the legal dispen- 
 sationj as if they were only instituted by a nation of super- 
 stitious men. I need not tell you, however, that Moses was 
 only the servant of Grod, and delivered the law as the Divine 
 command, and whatever is contained in that law must be 
 fulfilled, or else the word of God must fail. 
 
 ^'You have said, Theophilus, that there was but one 
 gospel Church : when was that Church organized ?" 
 
 ^' On the day of Pentecost, I suppose,'' replied Theophilus. 
 
 ^'Well, let us see," said Mr. Mason. '^In the seventh 
 chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, we have the address of 
 St. Stephen, which was delivered just before his martyrdom. 
 In that address, or sermon, if you please, Stephen says : 
 ^ This is that Moses which said unto the children of Israel, 
 A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of 
 your brethren, like unto me ; him shall ye hear. Tlih is he 
 that was in the Church m the wilderness, luith the angel 
 that spahe to him in Mount Sinai, and with our fathers ; 
 who received the lively oracles to give u7ito us/ Here, then, 
 St. Stephen says, *there was a Church in the wilderness, in 
 which Moses was the leader of God's Israel." 
 
 '^That is true, Mr. Mason; but is not the word here 
 rendered church also rendered congregation in other places, 
 as well as church ?" 
 
 ^^Yery well, Theophilus. All I want to prove is that 
 this church, or congregation if you will, had the gospel 
 preached to them, and that some believed, whilst others 
 believed not. Now let us hear what Paul says about the 
 preaching of the gospel to the Israelites in the wilderness. 
 I will quote from the latter part of the third and the begin- 
 ning of the fourth chapter of the letter to the Hebrews. 
 ' But with whom was he grieved forty years ? Was it not 
 with them that had sinned, whose carcasses fell in the 
 wilderness ? And to whom sware he that they should not 
 17 
 
386 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 enter into his rest^ but to tliem that believed not ? So we 
 see they could not enter in because of unbelief. Let us 
 therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into 
 his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. For 
 unto us was the GOSPEL jpreached, as well as unto them; 
 hut the word preached did not profit tliem, not being mixed 
 with faith in them that heard it.' Here Paul tells us that 
 the gospel was preached to the Israelites in the wilderness, 
 and, because of their unbelief, they entered not into the 
 promised rest." 
 
 "But was not this rest only a deliverance from their 
 enemies in Egypt, Mr. Mason V 
 
 " I will let Paul answer that question. He says a little 
 farther on : ^ Let us labor, therefore, to enter into that rest, 
 lest any man fall after the same exanfiple of unbelief .' " 
 
 "But may it not be said still," continued Theophilus, 
 '^ that Paul only compares the escape of the Israelites 
 from Egypt with the entrance into the rest of the Chris- 
 tian ?" 
 
 " I think we can determine that, too. If we can ascertain 
 whether or not those who believed in the wilderness obtained 
 a truly sjjiritual rest, then we shall know whether those who 
 persisted in unbelief forfeited any spiritual blessing. By 
 turning to the eleventh chapter of Hebrews, we have this 
 question also settled, as plainly as words can do it. Paul 
 says : • By faith, Moses, when he was come to years, refused 
 to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather 
 to suffer affliction 2vith the people of God, than to enjoy the 
 pleasures of sin for a season ; esteeming THE REPROACH OP 
 Christ greater riches than the treasures of Ugi/j)t ; for he 
 had respect unto the recompense of the reward.' Now, then, 
 Moses, we are told, preferred the ' reproach of Christ^ to the 
 treasures of Egypt. Do you doubt whether Moses was a 
 true Christian ?" 
 
THE MAJESTY OP TRUTH. 387 
 
 ^^ I am surprised, Mr. Mason. Why have I not seen that 
 passage before V 
 
 "You Jiave seen it, often enough, Theophilus. But your 
 preachers have taken more pains to show what Paul meant 
 by being ^buried in laj)tism/ than they have to exhibit 
 Paul's view of faith and the gospel of Christ. In exact 
 agreement with this language of the apostle is the language 
 of our Saviour himself, as recorded in John v. 39 : ' Search 
 the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life ; 
 and they are they ichich testify of me.' Christ alluded to 
 the Old Testament Scriptures, of course, because not a single , 
 book of the JVew Testament was then written. We have, 
 then, a Church in the wilderness, to which Moses belonged, as 
 St. Stephen tells us. And Moses preferred the reproach of 
 Christ in this Church, to whom the gosp)el was preached, 
 according to St. Paul. Now, then, do you doubt whether 
 Moses belonged to the Church of God ?" 
 
 ''I confess that it seems to be plainly stated, Mr. Mason. 
 Of course, I cannot dispute the word of God.'' . 
 
 " Well, then, we must ascertain when, where, and how 
 that Church was organized. Paul must assist us in this 
 inquiry. In his letter to the Galatiaus, third chapter, he 
 says : ^And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify 
 the heathen tlirough faith, preached before the gospel unto 
 Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.' Here, 
 then, the apostle declares that the gospel was preached to 
 Abraham, and he tells us precisely what that gospel was — it 
 was the spiritual promise included in the Abrahamic cove- 
 nant. We must go to the covenant made with Abraham, then, 
 in order to find the time when this Church was organized.'' 
 
 '^But did not the dispensation of Moses do away with this 
 Abrahamic covenant, Mr. Mason ?" 
 
 " The apostle answers your question, Theophilus, in these 
 words : ^And this I say, that the covenant which was con- 
 
388 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 firmed hefore of God IN Christ, the laiVj whicli was four 
 hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it 
 should make the promise of God of none effect.' Now let 
 us ascertain what that covenant was, for Paul tells us it was 
 the gospel preached to Abraham. In the seventeenth chap- 
 ter of Genesis we have the whole account of this covenant, 
 hoiv it was made, and ivho were the parties to it. It was 
 made between God and Abraham. God promised, upon his 
 part, to be a God to Abraham and his seed, and they should 
 receive him as their God. In token of this covenant, a cer- 
 tain sign was instituted called circumcision, which was the 
 visible recognition of their covenant relation to God." 
 
 ^' But did not this covenant include only temporal bless- 
 ings, such as the possession of Canaan, and a numerous 
 posterity ?" 
 
 " I have just shown you that Paul says it was the gospel 
 preached to Abraham, in the words : ^ In thee shall all 
 nations be blessed.' That it included temporal blessings, I 
 admit, but that it was confined to them is flatly contradicted 
 by the apostle. The case of Moses is directly in point. He 
 is said to have preferred the reproach of Christ to the trea- 
 sures of Egypt. He was a child of Abraham, then, for 
 Paul says : ^If ye he Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, 
 and heirs according to the promised But what did Moses 
 inherit ? Not the land of Canaan, for he never set his foot 
 there, dying just before the Israelites entered it. He saw 
 the land, but he did not ' go up and possess it.' If he did 
 not obtain the sjnrifual blessing of the Abrahamic covenant, 
 he obtained nothing, for he certainly did not receive the 
 temporal benefits. 
 
 '^ But we are not left without testimony from the Apostle 
 Paul on this point: he has clearly stated that the blessings 
 of the gospel were made known to Abraham, and 'Abraham 
 believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteous- 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 389 
 
 ness/ In Romans iv. 11, the apostle informs us that ^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/ ' For the pro- 
 mise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to 
 Abraham, or to his seed, through the laiu, but through the 
 righteousness of faith.' ' Therefore it is of faith, that it 
 might be by grace, to the end the promise might be sure to 
 all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to 
 that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the 
 father of us all/ And in Galatians, third chapter, he says : 
 ' Know ye, therefore, that they which are of faith, the same 
 are the children of Abraham/ Our Lord himself tells the 
 wicked Jews : ' Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my 
 day, and he saw it, and teas glad.' And in the first chapter 
 of Luke we have the language of Zacharias, bearing the 
 same testimony : ^ Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he 
 hath visited and redeemed his people, and hath raised up an 
 horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David ; 
 as he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, ichich have 
 been since the loorld began, that we should be saved from our 
 enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; to per- 
 form the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember- 
 his holy covenant, the oath which he sioare to our father 
 Abraham.' The advent of Christ was, then, according to 
 this prophecy, in fulfilment of the covenant made with 
 Abraliam. 
 
 ^' We have here, then, the strongest possible representa- 
 tion of the fact that the essential part of the covenant with 
 Abraham was spiritual in its nature : the promise giving 
 assurance of spiritual blessings, and Abraham believing the 
 promise, his faith was counted as righteousness, and he 
 received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteous- 
 ness of faith. We have then the gospel covenant, the visi- 
 
890 
 
 ble sign of that covenant, and the persons to whom this sign 
 shall be given, in the family of Abraham/^ 
 
 ^' But was there not another covenant made with the 
 children of Israel which supersedes this covenant with 
 Abraham ?'' 
 
 '^ No ; Jeremiah tells us, chapter xxxi. : ^ Behold the 
 days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant 
 with the house of Israel and the house of Judali ; not 
 according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in 
 the day that I took them hy the hand to hring them out of 
 the land of Egy])t ; but this shall be the covenant that I 
 will make with the house of Israel : After those days, saith 
 the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write 
 it in their hearts, and will he their God, and they shall he 
 my people.' Here you see the very promise made to Abra- 
 ham is made again; and this covenant, which is called a 
 new one, is not placed in contrast with the Abrahamic, but 
 with the covenant made when the Israelites departed from 
 Egypt. We have seen already that the apostle directs us to 
 Abraham, as the father of the faithful, and declares that the 
 promise made to him belongs to all who become his child- 
 ren by faith. I think that I have clearly established these 
 facts : that the promise, of which the mediation of Jesus 
 Christ is the fuliSlment, was distinctly made to Abraham ; 
 that he believed it, became thereby a servant of God, and 
 in token of the promise received circumcision as the sign of 
 the grace and the seal of the promise made to him. The 
 Lord distinctly declared that it should be an everlasting 
 covenant, and commanded that all the male children of his 
 family should receive the sign instituted, and specified the 
 age at which they should be circumcised. 
 
 *' We have found the Church established in the house of 
 Abraham, and children of eight days old are declared to be 
 fit subjects for membership in it. We have seen the apos- 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 391 
 
 tie pointing to tliis very organization as having the promise 
 of the gospelj and indeed having the gospel preached in it, 
 and to the members of it. From this period, then, through 
 all the changes of the Jewish state, whether in royal splen- 
 dor, enjoying the favor of Grod and possessing all its privi- 
 leges, or for a season obscured, because of their wickedness, 
 through a long array of seers, prophets, and teachers, the 
 one great idea of redemption through Jesus Christ, in 
 accordance with the promise to Abraham, becomes the 
 absorbing theme of inspiration. In the sublime poetry of 
 Job we hear the voice of faith exclaiming : ' I know that 
 my Kedeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter 
 day upon the earth.' We hear the sweet singer of Israel 
 supplicating for mercy : ^ Create in me a clean heart, 
 God ! and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not 
 away from thy presence, and take not thy Holy Spirit from 
 me. Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation, and uphold 
 me with thy free Spirit.' We hear Isaiah proclaiming the 
 offers of pardon and salvation : ' Seek ye the Lord while he 
 maybe found, call ye upon him while he is near; let the 
 wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his 
 thoughts, and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have 
 mercy upon him, and to our God, for he will abundantly 
 pardon.' And as we approach the last of the prophets, the 
 light becomes brighter, and the glory of the coming king- 
 dom of Jesus is still more distinctly portrayed. Then a 
 long night of captivity and disasters comes : the pen of 
 inspiration is motionless : the voice of the prophet is heard 
 no more in the land : the last favored son of Heaven has 
 ascended the mount of inspiration, and, catching a view of 
 the more excellent glory soon to dawn upon the seed of 
 Abraham, sinks again into the vale and goes to his reward; 
 when suddenly the Lord whom they sought returns to his 
 temple, the star of Bethlehem announces his birthplace, 
 
392 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 and angel visitors proclaim his advent. Then the prophet^s 
 tongue is loosed : now, says the father of the forerunner. 
 The Lord Grod of Israel will perform his covenant made to 
 our father Abraham. And when the Holy Grhost is poured 
 out upon the waiting disciples in Jerusalem, Peter declares 
 to the Jews : ' The promise is unto you^ and your cliihlren, 
 and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our 
 Grod shall call.^ Thus prophecy becomes history — the pro- 
 mise is fulfilled; the nations are to be blessed through 
 Christ, and the everlasting covenant confirmed.'' 
 
 " Do you apply the words of Peter, when he tells the peo- 
 ple on the day of Pentecost that the j^^omise is to them and 
 to their children, to the promise contained in the Abrahamic 
 covenant, Mr. Mason ?" 
 
 "I certainly do, Theophilus; for if you examine the pas- 
 sage closel}^, you will find that the outpouring of the Holy 
 Spirit, quoted by Peter from the prophecy of Joel, is itself 
 a fulfilment of the spiritual promise made to Abraham. In 
 proof of the fact that Peter so understood it, we find him 
 declaring to the Jews, as a reason for their repenting of 
 their sins, ' Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the 
 covenant ivhich God made with our fathers, saying unto 
 Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the 
 earth be blessed.' " Acts iii. 25. 
 
 "I am constrained to acknowledge," said Theophilus, 
 "that there is a plain connection between the Abrahamic 
 covenant and the gospel dispensation, yet I cannot distinctly 
 see what that connection is. If I understand your position 
 correctly, the Abrahamic Church, so to speak, was the gos- 
 pel Church in embryo. Am I right V 
 
 "Not quite, Theophilus. My position is, that the 
 Church established in the house of Abraham was as truly 
 and really a gospel Church as that which existed in the 
 house of Philemon, to which Paul refers, Philemon 2. I 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 393 
 
 contend that Abraham was a genuine Christian, as I have 
 proved Moses was, by the words of the Apostle Paul. 
 Now I want to prove this proposition so clearly that you can 
 have no doubt upon the subject. Let us take these two char- 
 acters, Philemon and Abraham, for the sake of illustration. 
 " How was Philemon justified in the sight of God ? The 
 apostle says we are justified b?/ faith in our Lord Jesus 
 Christ. How was Abraham justified ? The apostle says, 
 ^ He believed God, and it was counted to him for righteous- 
 ness.^ But did Abraham believe in our Lord Jesus Christ ? 
 The apostle tells us the gospel was preached to him, and he 
 believed it. Whether all the particulars were made known 
 to Abraham, we cannot tell -, but it is very likely they were. 
 The prophets, we know, described the manner of Christ's 
 death, and even declared the minute details of his cruci- 
 fixion and burial. These you will find in the fifty-third 
 chapter of Isaiah. It is reasonable to suppose that the 
 great truths of redemption were made known to Abraham ; 
 otherwise it is folly to call that which was preached to him 
 the gospel. Now, what was required of Philemon in order 
 to prepare him for heaven ? Holiness of life ; for in this 
 one sentence we have all the gospel requirements which are 
 of a spiritual nature. And what was required of Abraham ? 
 We are told in the seventeenth chapter of Genesis : ' I am 
 the Almighty God : icalh hefore me and be tliou perfect,' or 
 holy. Now where is the difi"erence ? They are both justi- 
 fied by faith; both have the gospel preached to them; both 
 believe it; and both are required to lead a new life of holi- 
 ness and devotion to the service of God. The only possible 
 difference that can be found is, that Abraham believed in a 
 Picdeemer yet to come, and Philemon believed in a Redeemer 
 cdready come. The object of faith is the same : they were 
 both servants of God, and redeemed by the blood of Jesus 
 Christ." 
 
 17* 
 
894 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, ^ 
 
 '' I must admit tlie fact, Mr. Mason, in its essential char' 
 acter : the Church in Abraham's house is as really a gospel 
 Church as the other/' 
 
 '' Very well ; now we are expressly told that infants of 
 ei(/Jit days old were initiated into the Abrahamic Church. 
 We are told by the apostle that the law of Moses did not 
 o.nmil the covenant with Abraham; and he informs us that 
 the Christian dispensation is simply a development of the 
 spiritual nature of that covenant : does it not follow, then, 
 that those who were, of Divine right, parties to the covenant, 
 and partakers of its benefits, are still recognized as such if 
 there are no changes in the conditions of membership ?" 
 
 "I think so, Mr. Mason," said Theophilus, ''but the 
 Baptists tell us that the conditions are changed." 
 
 '' Let them show it, then, in the New Testament, and I 
 submit." 
 
 " Does not the great commission specify the character of 
 those who are entitled to membership in the Church ?" 
 
 '' Let us examine it, and we shall see that there is a strik- 
 ing likeness existing between the covenant with Abraham 
 and the commission to the apostles. Our Lord Jesus says 
 to his disciples, ' Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, 
 baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
 and of the Holy Grhost ; teaching them to observe all things 
 whatsoever I have commanded you.' All nations are to be 
 favored with the teaching and blessings of Christ; and the 
 gospel which was taught to Abraham was, ' In thee shall all 
 the nations of the earth be blessed.' You see, then, that the 
 recipients of grace under the gospel commission are precisely 
 those of the covenant of grace made with Abraham ; and 
 the disciples and their successors are charged with the duty 
 of proclaiming the gospel to all the families and kindreds 
 of the earth. Now, if infant children are recognized as 
 being in covenant relation to God in that dispensation in 
 
THE MAJESTY OP TRUTH. 395 
 
 • 
 
 which the promise is made that all nations shall be blessed, 
 why should infants be excluded from covenant relation to 
 (xod in that dispensation in which all nations are being blessed 
 by the truths of the gospel ? It is positively certain that 
 they were parties to the covenant before our Saviour came ; 
 how does it happen that our blessed Lord exjyeh these little 
 ones from his Church, and refuses to give them any part or 
 lot in it?'' 
 
 ''The Baptists say, that only those who can be taught 
 ought to be admitted to the Church, Mr. Mason, and they 
 understand the commission as excluding infants because 
 they cannot be taught.'' 
 
 " By examining your Greek Testament, you will see, The- 
 ophilus, that there are two words which are rendered teach 
 in our translation. The command is to disciple all nations, 
 and then to teach them. This no one can deny who under- 
 stands the import of the Grreek terms. Now, hoiu long after 
 they are made disciples before they must be taught, is not 
 stated. But I will show you an analogous passage which 
 has reference to Abraham and his house. In the eighteenth 
 chapter of Genesis you will find an account of the conversa- 
 tion between the angel of the Lord and Abraham. After 
 they had left his tent the Lord said, ' Shall I hide from 
 Abraham that thing which I do ; seeing that Abraham shall 
 surely become a great and mighty nation, and cdl the nations 
 of the earth shall be blessed in him ? For I know him, that 
 he loill conijuand his children, and his household after him, 
 and they shall keep the ivay of the Lord, to do justice and 
 judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that 
 which he hath spoken of him.' Abraham was under obliga- 
 tion to teach his children, and so soon as they were able to 
 understand, doubtless he did do so. He explained to them 
 the nature of that covenant into which they had been initi- 
 ated by circumcision in their infancy. He enforced upon 
 
396 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 them the necessity of perfect obedience to Grod, that they 
 might ' keep the way of the Lord/ Now this is the very 
 position which the Christian father occupies under the gos- 
 pel dispensation. His children are recognized as the sub- 
 jects of grace by baptism in infancy, and when they become 
 large enough to understand spiritual things, every truly pious 
 parent will ' command his children, and his household after 
 him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord.' " 
 
 ^'- But the Baptists say, Mr. Mason, that by haptism we 
 are brought under obligation to obey the whole gospel ; and 
 as infants cannot take this obligation, they ought not to be 
 baptized." 
 
 '^I know they do, Theophilus, and their dogmatism in 
 this respect is as shallow as we have found it in others. The 
 Apostle Paul says in the fifth chapter of his letter to the 
 Galatians, ' I testify again to every man that is circumcised, 
 that he is a debtor to do the whole laio.' Now, when did 
 they assume this debt ? In their infancy, at eight days old ] 
 and this they did by God's command; who will affirm, then, 
 that all the obligations which can be implied in baptism 
 may not be taken at the same age V 
 
 " The cases are parallel, Mr. Mason, There is nothing in 
 that objection. But they say, that if circumcision has given 
 place to baptism, you ought to baptize male children only, 
 as those alone were circumcised, or else show your authority 
 for baptizing both sexes.'' 
 
 " Very well, Theophilus, I can do that very thing. I have 
 already quoted the apostle's remark upon this point, but I 
 will repeat it. ' There is neither Jeiv nor Greek, there is 
 neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female^ 
 for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, 
 then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the pro- 
 mise.' Gal. iii. 28, 29. Here the apostle declares that 
 there are to be no distinctions hereafter, no peculiar -prhi- 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 397 
 
 leges to the Jew denied to the Greek ; the free occupy the 
 same position spiritually, and in Church privileges, with the 
 bond ; and the male shall have none which are denied to the 
 female; but all shall be one in Christ, and thereby become 
 heirs of Abraham alike. Would you require stronger proof V 
 
 " No, sir, the passage meets the case, and gives the law, 
 plainly enough. Still, the Baptists argue further, that the 
 apostles did not baptize infants, because we have no mention 
 made of such baptisms in the New Testament. How do 
 you answer that objection, Mr. Mason ?" 
 
 " I answer it by affirming that the New Testament does 
 inform us of various baptisms in which infants were in- 
 cluded among the subjects. There is a very general fallacy 
 in Baptist books upon this subject. They argue that because 
 a number of adults are mentioned as receiving baptism, and 
 no case of an infant baptized alone and mentioned by name 
 is to be found, therefore no infants were baptized ! This 
 sort of logic would make a strange bundle of contradictions 
 in the Bible. For instance, on the day of Pentecost it is 
 said that three thousand believed and were baptized. Were 
 these all men? It is not said that there was a single ivoman 
 among them. Again, in the fourth chapter of Acts we are 
 told that the ^ number of the men was about five thousand' 
 who believed. Were there no women among them ? If I 
 remember correctly, the first case of the baptism of a woman, 
 which is explicitly declared, is that of the Samaritan women 
 in the eighth of Acts. Are we to conclude, therefore, that 
 no women embraced the gospel and were baptized before 
 Philip preached in Samaria ? Or are we to understand that 
 the men outnumbered the women in the Apostolic Church, 
 simply because they are mentioned more frequently, and 
 their conversions specified oftener? No one will contend 
 for such a consequence of an incorrect theory, as wearing 
 the shadow of truth. 
 
398 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 ^'Tlie reason wliy tlie baptism of adults is mentioned so 
 frequently in the New Testament is very readily given. If 
 the apostles could have singled out from the families around 
 them a hundred thousand infants^ and baptized them, there 
 would have been no immediate gain to the Church of con- 
 verted persons ; and it is the design of the inspired writer 
 to show us what progress the gospel made in those days. 
 Because infants are not mentioned by name, we are no more 
 authorized to say that there were none baptized, than we are 
 warranted in affirming that there were no women in the 
 Church at Jerusalem, because none are said to have been 
 baptized there. But when we find it stated that the fami- 
 lies of certain persons were baptized, what right has any one 
 to say that there were no infants in those families ? 
 
 ^'Let us take the case of the jailer at Philippi. We are 
 told that he was baptized and all his family. Now, we are 
 not informed how many there were, nor whether any of his 
 children were infants, nor indeed are we informed whether 
 this jailer's wife was living or not. She is not mentioned ; 
 she may have been dead, or she may have been living, 
 with a babe in her arms — who can tell ? We are told that 
 he believed with all his house, and therefore the Baptists 
 contend that all the family must have been large enough to 
 profess faith themselves. But this is by no means a conse- 
 quence. If a man has two children who are converted mem- 
 bers of a Church, and another who is but a month old, if he 
 and his wife are pious Christians, is not his a Christian fam- 
 ily ? Does the presence of that unoffending babe heathenize 
 his household ? And if such a family as this were con- 
 verted at or about the same time, would not even our Bap- 
 tist friends say that the whole family had embraced religion ? 
 If we are to take Baptist assumptions, we must believe that 
 there were no children in the family of the Philippian 
 jailer, none in that of Lydia, none in that of Philemon, 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 399 
 
 none in that of Stephanas, none in the families of Priscilla, 
 and Aquihi, and Nymphas, for all these families were bap- 
 tized, and some of them are said to have churches in their 
 households. Now this requires too much at our hands. 
 Doubtless you might select half a dozen families in Mary- 
 ville in which there are no infant children ; but does any one 
 believe that if you commence at any given point, and take 
 the first six families as they come, that you will not find a 
 solitary infant among them all ? 
 
 ''But let us take a closer view of this point. Who were 
 these apostles, and what were their constructions of the gos- 
 pel commission ? The?/ iijcre Jews, hy hirth, and we have 
 positive testimony that at least one of them, and he the most 
 prominent of the twelve, restricted the gospel commission 
 to the Jews only, and practiced accordingly, until convinced 
 of his error by a revelation from heaven. This is an import- 
 ant fact. Peter alludes in his sermons to the Abrahamic 
 covenant, speaks of the Abrahamic promise, declares it is 
 for the Jews and their children, commands them to be bap- 
 tized in the name of Jesus, and they obey. Kemember 
 that the Jews were accustomed to bring their infant children 
 with them to the solemn assemblies of the Lord, that they 
 circumcised these infants, and thus placed them in covenant 
 with God ; and when the blessings of this covenant of grace 
 are to be realized, can any one doubt whether they would 
 Lave brought their children with them to be baptized? 
 
 "Let us examine the words of Peter again for a short 
 time. ' Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the 
 name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye 
 shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost ; for (this is the rea- 
 son why they may be baptized) the promise is unto you, and 
 to your children, and to all that are afar ofi".' Now, whatever 
 pro7nise it was, it is certain the children were interested in 
 it, and this interest in the promise is given as the reason 
 
40P THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 why they should repent and be baptized. If we suppose 
 Peter to allude to the passage which he had before quoted 
 from Joel, which declared that the Spirit should be poured 
 out upon all flesh, as we have already seen, this prophecy 
 itself is a part of the promise in the Abrahamic covenant : '/ 
 icill he a God to tliee and thy seed.^ But let us turn to this 
 second chapter of Joel, and ascertain who the parties were 
 of whom the prophet spoke. ^ Blow the trumpet in Zion,' 
 says Joel, ' sanctify a fast, call a solemn assemhli/ ; gather the 
 people, sanctify the congregation, assemble the elders, 
 gather the children, and those that such the breasts; let the 
 bridegroom go forth of his chamber, and the bride out of 
 her closet; let the priests, the ministers of the Lord, weep 
 between the porch and the altar, and let them say. Spare 
 thy people, Lord, and give not thine heritage to reproach, 
 that the heathen should rule over them : wherefore should 
 the heathen say among the people. Where is their Grod ?' 
 Here the infants who suck the breasts arc declared to be a 
 part of the heritage of God, and they are required to be 
 brought to this solemn assembly. A Baptist objector would 
 say. What is the use of bringing unconscious babes into the 
 Lord's house on such an occasion ? the?/ cannot fast, they can- 
 not be sanctified, they cannot ^ray and sujypUcate God; let 
 them be left at home, and let the grown 'peoi-)le come. But 
 the mind of God is diiferent from theirs : those young babes 
 were deeply interested in this solemn assembly, although 
 they could know nothing of it tlien ; their temporal as well 
 as spiritual welfare in the future was involved in these trans- 
 actions, and therefore their presence was required. On a 
 memorable occasion, Moses assembled all Israel, and ad- 
 dressed them as follows : ^ Ye stand this day, all of you, 
 before the Lord your God ; your captains of your tribes, 
 your elders and your officers, with all the men of Israel, 
 your little ones, your wives, and thy stranger that is in thy 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 401 
 
 ca;np, from the licwer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy 
 water: that thou should eM entcj' into covenant loith the Lord 
 thy God, and into his oath, which the Lord thy God inaketh 
 with thee this day : that he tnay establish thee to-day for a 
 •people unto himself, and that he may he unto thee a God, as 
 he hath said unto thee, and as he hath sicorn unto thy fath- 
 ers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.' Deut. ^xix. 10— 
 13. The Baptists will say these Hittle ones' had nothing to 
 do with that covenant. How could those unconscious babes 
 profess faith in the Lord of hosts ? How could they enter 
 into covenant with God? Yet the Bible says they 2cere 
 there, and it includes them among the covenant-people of 
 the Lord. 
 
 "I might cite you many other proofs, but these are 
 enough. I have proved that infants were interested in the 
 spiritual promises of the Abrahamic covenant, and that they 
 were parties to those solemn engagements in which the peo- 
 ple of Israel made public profession of faith in the Lord 
 their God. Knowing these facts, then, being accustomed to 
 see infants of eight days old receive the sign and seal of the 
 first covenant, is it not reasonable to suppose that the apos- 
 tles of our Lord would naturally expect that the infants of 
 Christian parents would be included among the subjects of 
 baptism, and thus receive the sign and seal of the neiv cove- 
 nant ? In other words, as infants were known to be heirs of 
 the promise under the old dispensation, and received the 
 seal in evidence thereof, would they not regard them as heirs 
 of the promise still, and entitled to the newly-instituted 
 seal ? "We know that those Jews who became Christians 
 held on to circumcision for some time, until a conference of 
 elders and apostles decided against them, as we find it stated 
 in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. They 
 practiced circumcision ' after the manner of Moses / that is, 
 at eight days old ; and at the same time they were members 
 
402 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 of the Christian Church, and were baptized. Now, do you 
 suppose that they gave the seal of the old covenant to their 
 infant children, and omitted the seal of the new ? Did they 
 make their children Jews, whilst they themselves were 
 Christians? No such charge is preferred against them. 
 They hajptized the very persons whom they circumcised, and 
 as they contended for the circumcision as Moses commanded- 
 it, the conclusion is unavoidable that they administered the 
 Christian ordinance at the same age. The apostles and 
 elders decided against circumcision, as imposing a yoke too 
 heavy for the Gentiles to bear, but the?/ did not forbid the 
 baj^tism of those infants to ichoni circumcision icas adminis- 
 tered. This was the time for the clear, unmistakable con- 
 demnation of Pedobaptism, if there had been a command to ex- 
 clude infants from the Christian Church. But we find nothing 
 of it ; not a word against giving baptism to all those whom 
 these Jewish Christians would have circumcised ; and I con- 
 tend that, without such an explicit command, the practice 
 of baptizing infants would have been a necessary conse- 
 quence. We see plainly that the subjects of the old dispen- 
 sation were considered the subjects of the new ; the circum- 
 cision of these persons is forbidden, their bcqjtism is not. We 
 are, therefore, forced to the conclusion that the repeal of the 
 old rite, as a sign and seal, does not alter or render invalid 
 the claim of infant children to the neia rite, as a sign, seal, 
 and pledge of God's redeeming grace. 
 
 ^•' When we read, then, of household baptisms, we are un- 
 der no necessity to prove that infants were included in them. 
 The presumption is that they were. The few instances men- 
 tioned of such baptisms are, doubtless, but a tithe of the 
 whole — we know not how many hundreds of families were 
 baptized ; and unless the Baptists are willing to affirm that 
 there were no infants alive in those daj-s, we are constrained 
 to believe that the ^ little ones' were as certainly placed in 
 
THE MAJESTY OP TRUTH. 403 
 
 covenant relation to God, as they were in the days of Moses 
 and of Joel. They were just as competent in the times of 
 the apostles to become parties to a public profession of the 
 covenant of grace, as they were to assume the duties and 
 incur the oblio'ations resultino- from circumcision. 
 
 " But let us see if the New Testament baptisms uphold 
 the practice of Baptists in these days. The question is not 
 whether a Jew or a heathen, being converted to Christianity 
 — the former from his mistaken views of the plan of redemp- 
 tion, the latter from the service of idol-gods — should be 
 baptized on profession of his faith in Christ. This is admit- 
 ted by all parties. Yet the Baptists cite these cases in the 
 New Testament as demonstrative evidence in their favor ! 
 But the evidence which they require to sustain their prac- 
 tice and theory is of a very different character. The ques- 
 tion is. Did the New Testament Christians delay the haptism 
 of their children until they were old enough to profess the reli- 
 gion of Jesus Christ? No one will deny that this is the 
 practice of the Baptist Church. Now let them find one soli- 
 tary example of such a baptism in the Scriptures, and we 
 will give them credit for it, and admit that it is against us. 
 But where is such a baptism recorded ? AVhere do we hear 
 of a daughter of the Christian Chloe, or Philemon, or Ste- 
 phanas, being baptized at fifteen or sixteen years of age ? 
 Where do ice ever hear of a household haptism, in lohich one 
 part of the household is baptized at one time, and the remain- 
 der at another ? Where do we hear a Christian parent ex- 
 horted to use his efforts to convert his children from the 
 state of heathendom, that they may be admitted by baptism 
 into the Christian Church ? Not one of these examples can 
 be found. No delay of baptism is once intimated as exist- 
 ing in Christian families ) not a solitary case of adult bap- 
 tism is mentioned, where the party baptized was of Christian 
 parents ! What answer can Baptists make to this argument ? 
 
404 THEOPIIILTJS WALTON; OR 
 
 Will tliey say that there was not time for these baptisms to 
 occur ? We answer that the book called Acts of the Apos- 
 tles contains historical events reaching from A. D. 33 to A. D. 
 63, a period of thirty years at least. Infant children who 
 were born after the day of Pentecost, or ten or fifteen years 
 subsequent, would have grown to manhood and womanhood' 
 before that book was written. If any such, the adult chil- 
 dren of Christian parents, were baptized, why have we no 
 record of it ? Baptists call loudly upon us to produce an 
 example of oiu^ baptism in the Scriptures ; we now call for 
 an example of theirs; not the baptism of an adult whose 
 parents were Jews or heathens, but the baptism of an adult 
 whose parents were Christians. As I have said, the New 
 Testament adult baptisms sustain our practice as well as 
 theirs. Any Pedobaptist missionary in a foreign land would 
 baptize a Lydia, a Philippian jailer, a Saul of Tarsus, and 
 he would baptize, as did Paul, the whole household of a Ste- 
 phanas. But Wv^- require them to show that children were 
 permitted to grow up to adult age, surrounded by Christian 
 parents and attendants upon the Christian ministry, without 
 being baptized. If they cannot do this, they cannot sustain 
 their practice, and they utter their own condemnation when 
 they require scriptural examples, in which the character of the 
 subjects is distinctly delineated. The apostles baptized adult 
 converts who had been Jews or heathens ] the Baptists have 
 few opportunities to make converts from either class. Their 
 rule is to baptize the adult children of Christians ; let them 
 show that this was the apostolic rule, or abandon the practice. 
 If they are allowed to make inferences, without a shadow of 
 testimony to sustain them, they must allow us to make a 
 plain argument, founded upon the word of Grod, from which 
 no reasonable inference can thrust the claims of infant chil- 
 dren to be recognized as parties to that covenant, in pursu- 
 ance of which we have been redeemed from the penalty of 
 
THE MAJESTY OF TRUTH. 405 
 
 tlie law, and are made candidates for tlie election of grace 
 unto eternal life. If tliey tell us that adults only were bap- 
 tized on the day of Pentecost, when the new dispensation 
 was opened in its fulness and grandeur, we may admit the 
 fact, but, in reply, we point them to the first records of cir- 
 cumcision, and show them that although the required age of 
 the circumcised person was only eight dai/s, yet the first per- 
 son who received it was ninety-nine years old, and the sec- 
 ond thirteen years old. Moreover, we require them to show 
 that there were infants in the family of Abraliam at this time. 
 If this cannot be done, it follows, according to the views of 
 the Baptists, that the rite was not properly administered. 
 
 ^' But to sum up the whole matter in a few words. Par- 
 ents must become Christians before their children could be 
 baptized. Therefore the first records of the Church describe 
 adult baptisms. For the same reason, the first records of 
 the Abrahamic covenant inform us of adult circumcision. 
 But as infant Church -membership was recognized in the 
 Abrahamic Church, we contend that it was recognized in the 
 Christian Church, because the apostles and the prophets are 
 the foundation of which Christ is the corner-stone ; and be- 
 cause these very apostles claimed to be the children of Abra- 
 ham, and point to the covenant made with him, as the gra- 
 cious source of all those blessings which spring from the 
 manifestation of God in the flesh. Our infant children, 
 then, are not cast out of the fold of Christ to lie at the 
 mercy of the wolf, or to hang upon the uncovenanted mercy 
 of God. Dying in infancy, that gracious Spirit whose puri- 
 fying power is so beautifully symbolized in water baptism, 
 fits them for the heavenly inheritance. And here let me 
 ask, in the words of the Rev. Robert Hall, whose testi- 
 mony against his Baptist brethren you heard quoted with so 
 much eff'ect last Saturday : ^ Did it ever enter the conce/ption 
 of any hut Bo.ptists that a right to the sign coidd he sepa- 
 
406 THEOPHILUS WALTON; OR, 
 
 7XLf.ed from the thing signified T I answer, No, honest sir, no 
 other class of people will contend that certain persons may 
 be and are truly sanctified by God's Spirit, and yet they are 
 not entitled to receive the sign of that grace. The Baptists 
 alone are inconsistent enough to acknowledge that an infant 
 child may be sanctified by the Spirit of God, while at the 
 same time they deny to that child any place, part, or lot in 
 the Church of Christ. But ice say, if they actually receive 
 the grace signified in baptism — as in the case of those dying 
 in infancy none will question — they are entitled to the &ign 
 of that grace, and thus will we do if God permit, until the 
 Father in heaven shall tell us plainly that little children 
 must not be consecrated to him. Until Christ shall tell us, 
 Forbid them to come unto me, we shall hold on to his an- 
 cient command, and forhid them not. 
 
 ''It will be impossible to examine all the arguments upon 
 this subject, Theophilus, in one short evening. If you have 
 any scruples still against the baptism of infants, I will take 
 pleasure in affording you further assistance if it is in my 
 power." 
 
 '' I acknowledge, Mr. Mason, '^ replied Theophilus, '' that 
 I have been at fault hitherto in the formation of my reli- 
 gious opinions. I examined too superficially the grounds of 
 the doctrines to which I adhered. I again tender to you my 
 thanks for your valuable aid during these meetings. I 
 began at heart an immersionist. I am now convinced not 
 only of the propriety of effusion or pouring as the scrip- 
 tural mode, but that infants have a right, by special warrant 
 from God, to membership in the Church. If others have 
 been as greatly blessed by the arguments which you have 
 offered, I feel persuaded that we shall henceforth be wiser 
 and hetter men/' 
 
THE MAJESTY OP TRUTH. 407 
 
 CHAPTER XX 
 
 THE RETROSPECT. 
 
 The period througli wliicli we liave passed lias been an 
 eventful one. The firmness of our hero has been severely 
 tried; and the affection of the fair being to whom he was 
 betrothed, through all his trials has supported* him in his 
 resolution to think and act for himself. Now that this por- 
 tion of our narrative draws to a close, we need give only a 
 brief summary of the events which immediately followed 
 the discussion which we have given in the preceding pages. 
 
 Mr. Mason, with his usual diligence and zeal, devoted 
 himself to his pulpit and pastoral labors. He seemed to 
 have no desire to rejoice over a fallen foe. To those who 
 differed with him he was kind and courteous ; and to the 
 numerous petty annoyances which bigotry prompted as an 
 offset to his arguments, he paid little or no attention. Be- 
 loved by his congregation, and respected by the intelligent 
 and good of all parties, his subsequent labors were eminently 
 blessed of Grod. 
 
 Mr. Ellis did not recover his wonted animation and 
 cheerfulness, yet he seldom indulged in a remark concerning 
 the recent debate in a promiscuous assemblage. He had 
 learned to be cautious, and hereafter he kept his own coun- 
 sel. Far from desiring to abandon the contest, however, he 
 was diligently engaged in assisting Mr. Battle in preparing 
 for another and more desperate encounter. They deter- 
 
408 THEOPHILUS WALTON. 
 
 mined to ^^ carry tlie war into Africa;" and if a vulnerable 
 spot could be found in the body of Methodism, tliey were 
 resolved to find it. 
 
 Mary Ellis, after experiencing the displeasure of ber 
 father, and finding that the peace of the family depended 
 upon her removal from the parental roof, was kindly received 
 by her uncle, Mr. Riley, at whose house she enjoyed the 
 hospitality denied to her at home. There, too, Theophilus 
 spent many pleasant hours in forming plans for their future 
 comfort. 
 
 On the following Sabbath Theophilus was baptized by 
 Mr. Mason, according to the primitive, apostolical mode ; and 
 as the crystal stream descended upon his head, he conse- 
 crated himself anew to the service of God. He had 
 renounced the " vain pomp and glory of the world,'' and 
 henceforth he determined to apply himself with renewed 
 diligence to learn the will of the gracious Redeemer. 
 
 We must here, for a season, take leave of him. If we 
 should again claim the indulgence of a generous public, we 
 shall devote our attention to the subject of Church Govern- 
 ment. A defence of our fathers and a vindication of the 
 policy of Methodism are due to ourselves. Although these 
 have been given to the world by able pens, our opponents 
 seek to gain an advantage by changing the manner of attack. 
 To repel each new assault is at once a duty and a pleasure 
 
 THE END.