Pedobaptist and campbelUte immersions ||$kk|jH5t anti ©aiujiblHIi IMMEKSIONS: BEING A REVIEW OF THE ARGUMENTS OP " DOC- TORS" WALLER, FULLER, JOHNSON, WAY- LAND, BROADUS, AND OTHERS. BY A. C. DAYTON. WITH AN INTRODUCTORY ESSAY, BY J. K. GRATES. NASHVILLE: SOUTH-WESTERN PUBLISHING HOUSE, GRAVES, MARKS & CO. NEW YORK: SHELDON, BLAKEMAN & CO. 1858. INTRODUCTION. Since it was at my solicitation that the author consented that his reviews of Waller, Johnson, and Fuller, originally published in the Southern Baptist Review, might be given to the public in the form of a " httle book," it seems but proper for me to intro- duce it to the rehgious public. I do this, not only cheerfully, but wiih a degree of pleasure seldom experienced in performmg a similar office, for several reasons: 1. The question is a most important one — vital to the peace, prosperity, and perpetuity of the Baptist denomination. 2. The denomination is divided in sentiment. By far the largest majority — perhaps nine-tenths of the churches in the North — receive the immersions and ordinations of Pedobaptists and Campbellites as valid, and regard their societies as evangelical, i. e., scrip- IV INTRODUCTION. » tural churches. From the North, the practice has been introduced into the South, and it was supposed that a few years since, before so bold a stand was made against it by several leading papers, a majorit}^ of the churches in some States would recognize such immersions as valid baptisms, and, perhaps, the ma- jority of the churches in Kentucky, Missouri, and parts of South Carolina would to-day' receive such acts as baptism.* I confidently believe that this work will be influential in bringing about a unanimi- ty of sentiment touching this subject. 3. The question is most widely agitated, and the denominational mind is greatly excited upon the sub- ject, especially in the South, and this must be regar- ded as a favorable time to discuss the question in all its bearings, and establish those principles, if possible, and apply those scriptures that must forever put the question at rest, before our churches become more entangled and confused. 4. We commend this work because we believe that the author has most conclusively shown that the Scriptures clearly forbid any body but a scripturally organized church to authorize baptism, and then by an administrator connected with a scriptural church. Will not every Baptist bow to the authority of God's Word? ♦The practice prevails to a larger extent in those States whose Baptist papers and leading men advocate the validity of such baptisms. INTRODUCTION. V 5. He has shown that all the examples of bap- tism in the Scriptures are opposed to the administra- tion of the ordinance by those neither baptized nor members of a scriptural church. 6. We commend it to all other denominations be" cause from it they can learn how they are regarded by all consistent Baptists, and how rigidly consistent is the practice of all those Baptists who reject Pedo- baptist and Campbellite baptisms, whether the ac- tion was sprinkling or immersion, as well as in deny- ing these societies to be evangelical or scriptural churches. 7. We introduce it with the greater pleasure be- cause we verily believe that it will prove the end of all controversy upon this subject, to every candid and true principled Baptist. If the end of this contro- versy cannot be looked for in these pages, where can •we reasonably look for it? The ablest advocates of the validity of such immersions, have here put forth their strongest arguments, and between this array of doctors of divinity every possible argument is urged that any other advocate can consider at all relevant. Surely the advocates of such baptism can well afford to trust their cause in such hands. And, I am con- fident, that all who oppose such baptisms are per- fectly willing to intrust the advocacy of their cause in the hands of our author. If this question is not settled in the minds of all Baptists by this work, we may not expect that it will be settled in our day. 1* VI INTRODUCTION. There are two points that might be urged with great force upon all Baptists, of which the author has not seen fit to avail himself. The recognitions of such baptisms as valid, forces all Baptists logically and irresistably into open com- munion, and more, to the admission that the existence of Baptist churches is not necessary ! We reject the premises from which such a conclu- sion follows, because the conclusion is an untruth — an absurdity to every Baptist who holds the avowed principles of our denomination. To every true Baptist, open communion is unscriptural and unwise. This has been satisfactorily demonstrated to him by the Scriptures and the English experiment. It is axioma- tic to every real Baptist, and, therefore, to him this argument is conclusive, for he cannot embrace a con- clusion that is contradictory to the fundamental prin- ciples of his faith. Let me examine this question briefly. We take it for granted that every Baptist will admit, "That the proper administrator, as well as the proper subject of baptism is clearly designated by the Scriptures, for, he is an essential part of the ordinance of chris- tian baptism, since baptism involves the ideas of ad- ministratovy subject, action and design, and therefore, it is supposed that if any one of these is described and enjoined in the Scriptures, we must suppose that each one of them is clearly indicated and enjoined. And then again, Baptism is a positive law and since INTRODUCTION. Vll no positive law is left to be inferred, certainly no essential part of a positive law can be supposed to be left to be inferred, but must be clearly indicated. If Baptists deny this, they must repudiate one of their most cherished and distinguishing principles, i, e.^ that the Scriptures are a perfect rule of practice as well as faith. Baptists, then, must admit that this question is settled bv the Scriptures. If this is granted, all Baptists must admit that christian baptism can only be Scripturally administered by a duly baptized ad- ministrator who is a member of a true visible Church and acting under the authority of such Church. If Baptists recognize the immersions of Pedobaptists and Campbellite Societies, they thereby recognize such Societies as truly Scriptural and Evangelical Churches ? But to admit this they must admit that the Scriptures authorize several radically diverse forms of Church GoffernmeLt, and membership, and ordinances, and faith, and orders in the ministry. And since a Church can be no more than. Evangeli- cal, or Scriptural, and not less, and still be Scriptural, it follows that Baptist churches, being only Scrip- tural, are only equal to Pedobaptists and Campbel- lite Societies, since things equal to the same thing are equal to one another. If then such Societies are Scripturally equal to Baptists Churches, why may they not commune VIU . INTRODUCTION. with each other as Baptist Churches do? And what is the necessity for Baptist Churches at all ? Since, it is sufficient for any christian to belong to a Scrip- tural or Evangelical Church? We see here that the logical and irresistible con- clusion that follows from the admission that the immersions of such Societies are valid, not only forces Baptists into open communion, but to concede that were all their Churches annihilated from the face of the whole earth, still there would exist thousands and tens of thousands of Scriptural churches, amply sufficient for the wants of the world. The Baptist who can embrace these conclusions is not a Baptist in principle, and renounces not only the faith of the Baptists, but the plain teachings of inspira- tion. 2. The second fact which must be influential with Baptists is, by receiving such immersions for valid baptism they would repudiate the universal practice of their ancestors for more thani<;welve centuries past. Does not every Baptist glory in the fact that he is a descendant of the martyred Anabaptists, with whose blood, the woman robed in scarlet was drunken for so many centuries before Luther, or Calvin, or any one of the Reformers was born ? The Baptist who is not proud of his descent, from that martyred host who are resting under the throne until the day of God's vengeance and their glorification shall come, INTRODUCTION. IX either is ignorant of the history of Baptists, or un- worthy of being numbered among them. Why were they called Anabaptists ? Because they baptized all who came to them from the Catholic party, or any sect, which they regarded as heretical. Why did they reject the immersions — for immersion was the prevailing practice for more than 1300 years, says Wall himself — of the Catholics and of heretical sects? Because, they believed that a corrupt or unscriptural Church could not give valid baptism. This fact is patent upon the face of history. We can learn from Augustine, why the Donatists of the 5th century re-baptized those who came to them from the Catholic party. "You Donatists say they are baptized in an impure church by heretics.* The Paulicians were hooted at in Councils for re- baptizing in private houses (says Robinson) and hol- ding conventicles, and for calling the established Church a worldly community, and re-baptizing such as joined their churches, f The Novatianists were banished and slain by the Catholics because they re -baptized those who came into their communion. *' In the fourth Laterau coun- cil, canons were made to banish them as Heretics, and these canons were supported by an edict, A. D., 413, issued by the Emperors Theodosius and Horonius, de- claring that all persons re-baptized, and the re-bap - * Orchard, page 95. f Robinson Resh., page 92. X INTRODUCTION. tizers, should be punished with death. Accordingly Albanus, a zealous minister, with others, was pun- ished with death for re-baptizing."* The Waldenses, according to the testimony of Rei- ner, a messenger sent by the King of France to learn their doctrines and practices, expressly taught **that a man is then first baptized, that is rightly baptized when he is received into their Society. f Of the Albigenses and others, about the year 500, we read that they held the Catholic community not to be a church of Christ. They therefore rebaptized such as had been baptized in that community, before they admitted them to their fellowship. For this conduct they were called Anabaptists.]; The Beghards or Picards, according to Dr. Wall, ' required of every one who came over to their church, to be baptized anew in mere water. § It was charged against the Baptists by the famous Roman Catholic Bishop Bossuet, that "This re-bapti- zing is an open declaration that in the opinion of the brethren, the Catholic Church has lost baptism. || That the Baptists of Germany, even in Luther's day, were like their predecessors, the Waldenses and Al- bigenses, Paulicians, Novatianists and Donatists, is * Orchard, page 61— Bap, Mag. 256, . t Alex. Pred, ch. c. 20, p. 190, quoted by Orchard, p. 283, X Orchard, page 167. § History Infant Baptism, qaoted by Orchard, page 329. II Rob. History of Bap., p. 463. INTRODUCTION. XI evident from the fact, that ** He persecuted them un- der the name of re-dippers, re-baptizers, or Anabap- tists."* The very term by which Cardinal Hosius designates our Churches, establishes our position, when he says, *• If the truth of a religion were to be judged by the readiness and cheerfulness which a man of any sect shows in sufifering, then the opinions and persuations of no sect can be truer or surer than those of the Anabaptists, (that is, the re-baptizers,) since there have been none for these 1,200 years past that have been more generally punished." This shows that they had always been accustomed to baptize again, or rather truly to baptize those who come to them from other communions. That they rejected not only Roman Catholic but also Protestant baptisms, is evident from the testi- mony of Bullinger. He says : ** The Anabaptists think themselves to be the only true Church of Christ, and acceptable to God ; and teach that they who by baptism are received into their churches, ought not to have any communion [fellowship] with [those called] evangelical, or any other, whatsoever, for that our [i. e., evangelical, protestant, or reformed] churches are not true churches any more than the churches of the Papists.** The position that we take, in rejecting such im- mersions, is identical with that maintained by our * Rob. History of Bap., 540. XU INTRODUCTION. ancestors in the face of every fearful form of death. Will the Baptists of America repudiate it? But, •what should be far more influential, will the Baptists of to-day reject the Bible as the -perfect and only rule of practice, and resort to special legislation to legal- ize confessedly informal acts ? Did not the only Law- giver of his Church see all the circumstances by which the Church would be surrounded ? Did he not see the existence of these ** irregular christian churches," and their informal acts ? If He provided no law to legalize them, will a Baptist church do it? J. R. G. Nashville, January, 1858. DIVERSE OPINIONS. 13 CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY. "WHO SHALL DECIDE WHEN DOCTORS DIFFER?" And what if it should chance that for the most part the doctors are agreed? would it not be the very- height of rashness and egotism for a plain and un- learned man to differ from them all, and even go so far as to fancy that he might he able, by the mere force of simple truth, to set at rest forever a ques- tion which had long disturbed the minds of those who thought about it, and settles it, too, upon a posi- tion directly the reverse of that, for which the doctors had contended ? It certainly would seem so. But then our case is not quite so bad as this. Here is a question — a seri- ous and practical question of official duty to the churches of Christ. One upon which almost every church is likely, sooner or later, to be called on to take decisive action. It is whether a person who has been immersed upon profession of his faith, by a Pedo- baptist minister, acting in behalf of a Pedobaptist church, and who thereafter shall apply for admission as a member of a Baptist church, shall by that church be regarded as having been truly baptized, or not baptized at all? If he has been baptized, the ordinance must not be repeated ; for Christ requires 2 14 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. but one baptism. If 7ioi baptized, the ordinance must be administered, for Christ requires that every member of his church shall have been baptized. Here, then, is the point which the churcli must de- termine: Was that immersion a true baptism, accor- ding to the Scriptures, or was it not ? Upon her de- cision of this question her action in regard to his reception will depend. That the question is one of great practical impor- tance, and that it has been so regarded by the churches, is evinced by the discussion which it has provoked. That it is exceedingly desirable that it should, if possible, be so answered, once for all, as to secure uniformity of action among all churches, no one will doubt. But many will doubt whether this can ever be done. That very great diversity of opinion does exist, will be seen by the following let- ters. The majority of the "Doctors," so far as we have been able to gather their opinions, are either undecided, or else believe that the churches should regard such persons as baptized. Were we to be decided by the influence of great names, we should probably ourselves lean to that opinion. But we long since have learned to take no teaching in regard to religion, of any man, however great and good, and learned, as certainly true, until we had ourselves carefully tested it by the word of God. The Bere- ans were not praised because they implicitly believed without examination the teachings, even of an apostle, but because they *' searched the Scriptures daily whether these things were so." When, therefore, my attention was first called to this subject, by a letter from a brother beloved, in South Carolina, enclosing a copy of the published letter of Elder Fuller, of Baltimore, with a request that I would review it, I DIVERSE OPINIONS. 15 carried it to the Bible, and by its teacliiDgs endeavor- ed to ascertain what was the truth concerning it. So ignorant was I, that I did not know but that it was a neio question, for the first time presented to the consi- deration of the churches. To me the teachings of the Word appeared so plain, that it was a matter of won- der that even one had come to what appeared so strange and unscriptural a conclusion. I afterwards learned, however, that so faiv from being a new question, it was one which had, for a long time, distracted and rent oui Zion ; that it had been, again and again, the object of earnest, and sometimes of almost angry contention ; that Elder Fuller, so far from standing alone, was sustained by the opinions of such "Doctors" as Curtis and Johnson, Wayland and Waller, and that there were many who believed that it had been the uniform practice of the denomi- nation in all times to receive immersions so adminis- tered as valid baptism. Such a discovery, made after my review of Elder Fuller's letter had been written and published to the world, might well have given pause to one much better qualified than I to conduct such a discussion. It seemed more likely that I should be in the wrong than that so many, so wise, so good, so learned men should have been mis- taken. It surely called for a re- investigation upon my part of the grounds upon which I had so hastily ventured an opinion. That re-examination has been made. I have en- deavored carefully to study the subject in all its bear- ings. The published opinions of all the "Doctors," so far as I could find them, have been collected and compared, analyzed and tried by the teachings of God's Word. The best and strongest arguments which they have 16 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. made are here presented by themselves. They have all the advantage which talents and learning could give them. What these ** Doctors" have not done for the defense of these opinions we take for granted cannot be done. They are to this cause what Hector was to Troy. If any could defend th^ir positions successfully they were the men. If Fuller and Way- land, if Johnson and Waller, cannot make good the point, which they contend for, others need hardly make the attempt. Upon that side, we suppose, we have the end of the strife. No new arguments are likely to be presented — or if there should be, the gleaner on the field which such men have reaped, will not be likely to gather any thing of equal value to that which they have already brought in. If, therefore, we have succeeded in showing that they have failed, utterly failed, to establish their position, may we not hope that this will decide the controversy at once and forever. Not because the talent and the learning are not theirs, but simply because the truth is ours. Whether this hope be the mere suggestion of egotism, or whether it have a good foundation in the nature of the reasonings presented, the reader must de- cide. As neither of these articles, nor our review of them was originally intended for publication in this form there may be repetitions of the same thoughts, and possibly of the same language. We trust the reader will excuse this upon the ground, that to make it otherwise would mutilate the argument which was designed to be in each case a mere reply to that pre- sented on the other side. The object of the reviewer in each case was not so much to discuss the whole sub- ject in all its bearings as to meet that peculiar phase of it which had been put forward by the author DIVERSE OPINIONS. 17 ■whose article was the subject of examination. And it will be observed that in each case the materials for our argument in reply have, to a great extent, been drawn from the author himself to whom we were replying. This plan, though probably by no means the best mode of discussing the question in a book which should at once embrace the whole sub- ject, WKS thought to be the most effective and prop- er for a review in which each article reviewed stood upon its individual merits, and was in part, at least, sustained by the previously acquired and well de- served reputation of the autlior of it. Of the opinions and arguments here collected in favor of the reception of Pedobaptist immersions as true and genuine christian baptism, those of Elder Waller were first published, and we have thought best to place them first in order in the body of this work. The reader will perceive that he is much less confident than "Doctor Wayland," whose sentiments were published in The Western Baptist Review, vol. iv. p. 31. Says Wayland : "I have not the shadow of a doubt in regard to the question of which you write. The only com- mand is, to be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ; that is, as I suppose, in baptism (that is immersion) to profess to submit ourselves in all things to God. It is the outward manifestation of what we have done before, in the re- cesses of a contrite heart. This is the whole of the command. There is no direction given beyond, nor have we a right, to make any. It is convenient, as a matter of church order, that there should be some general rule, and that this rite be administered by a 2* 18 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. clergyman, and it would be naturally performed by one who had been himself baptized by immersion. But if these things be absent, from necessity or ig- norance, they alter not the fact, that the person who has been immersed on profession of faith, is, as I un- derstand it, a baptized believer. This is a very com- mon case with us in this city. Congregationalists, Episcopalians and Methodists here quite frequently baptize persons on profession of their faith. We consider them as baptized believers, and when they request it, admit them upon a simple relation of their experience. Indeed, were not this admitted, I know not to what absurdities we should be reduced. If the obedience to Christ depends upon the ordinance being administered by a regularly baptized adminis- trator, where are we to stop, and how shall we know who is regularly baptized, or who has obeyed Christ. All this looks to me absolutely trivial, and wholly aside from the principle which, as Protestants and Baptists, we have always considered essential to Christian liberty. It seems to me like assuming Pu- seyism under another name, or in fact going back to the elements of the Catholic church. Such are my views. How they meet the views of others, I know not, but to me these principles of Christian freedom are above all price. It is time that we, above all others, should "walk in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and not be entangled with any yoke of bondage.'* On the same page we find the opinion of "Doctor Johnson," of S. C, who seems scarcely less confident than the other. It is as follows : " I have carefully examined the New Testament in DIVERSE OnisIONS. 19 reference to the manner in which the preacher of the gospel is to be brought into the office, and the near- est approach to it is found in 1st Cor. 14th chapter. The brethren of a religious society should exercise their respective gifts in the presence of the body, and then the gifts will be apparent. Those who are bles- sed with an aptitude to teach will show it, and its re- cognition by the body is the authority to preach ; and whoever is authorized to preach, is authorized to bap- tize — the latter being the minor work. I therefore receive those who are recognized as preachers by Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, and all or- thodox bodies of believers, as preachers of the gos- pel, and receiving them in this relation, I receive them as baptizers; and when the ordinance is administer- ed by any of them to one who professes faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, I receive it as valid." The reader will observe that he regards all "reli- gious societies'^ as churches, and all equally author- ized to confer authority to preach and to baptize. As we are informed that he is the same with *' W.,'* wliose arguments we have examined at large in an- other place, we will not comment on that strange po- bition here. Rev. D. Bythewood says: " I have always thought the "Beaufort church right in leaving the question to the conscif-nce of the can- didate. I could never see any reasuu from the Bible for requiring re-baptism. I remember, rr.any years ago, the question was proposed to an Association in England, which decided that the want of baptism in the administrator did not invalidate the act to the person baptized." 20 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. The Rev. Mr. Lathrop thus spealcs in behalf of himself and the leading ministers of N. York : "So far as it has been in my power, I have ascer- tained the views of leading brethren in this city. Brethren in this quarter are pretty generally agreed on this point. Perhaps nine out of ten of our min- istering brethren regard baptism in the case proposed as valid. Their reasons are as follows : The indivi- dual was immersed in good faith, viz : had repented of sin, believed in the Lord Jesus ; and on looking into ihe Bible, saw that the first thing afterwards lo be done, was to be baptized, and "arose and was bap- tized. "But the administrator, you think, and so do I, was not qualified, that is, who is not himself a baptized man. The question arises — Is it essential to the valid- ity of baptism that the administrator shall be in all respects qualified? It is always desirable, but is it es- sentialt It is thought not. What in an administrator is a higher quali6cation than piety ? Yet how many unholy, unconverted Baptist ministers, as we have reason to fear, have administered the ordinance of baptism to true converts. When, afterwards, such men have apostatized, no one has supposed that all whom the apostate (unqualified as he was) had bap- tized, should be re-immersed. If in good faith and to answer a good conscience, the individuals supposed have been baptized, they have discharged their du- ty. The administrator must settle his account with God "The case, I admit, is a somewhat difficult one, from the fact that there is nothing in the Bible that bears directly on the point. We can be guided only by general principles, and a reference to consequen- DIVERSE OPINIONS. 21 ces. I confess, that in looking over tlie whole mat- ter, I am inclined to the opinion, that to re-immerse under the circumstances mentioned, would be to es- tablish a worse precedent than to pursue the contra- ry course.'* '•Doctor" Curtis, of S. C, says : ** The result at which I have for a length of time arrived, is quite similar to that to which you appear to have come. The immersion of unbaptized parties received at the time by the baptized in good faith, and as the counsel of God, are irregular, but not in- valid — undesirable — not to be encouraged — palpably inconsistent on the part of the administrator — but, as I have been taught, not requiring to be repeated. In special cases, and where a scrupulous conscience in the subject urged the repetition, I should not perhf^ps be scrupulous about repeating it. But I am clear that this is not required." Benedict, the Historian, (after mentioning the opin- ion of the Richmond Association, that re-baptism is to be required,) says: "As persons are frequently applying for admission into Baptist Churches, who have been immersed by Methodist and Congregational ministers, this ques- tion has, within a few years past, been often pro- posed, and most Associations have decided different- ly from this. All agree that it is an unadvisable measure, for a person to apply to unbaptized ministers to lead them into the water ; but after they have been properly immersed on a profession of their faith it is generally thought that it would be improper to 22 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. immerse them a second time. It is difficult to con- ceive why they would not, in this case, come under the denomination of Anabaptists." — ( Vol. IL, pp. 472-3.) But now, lest it be thought that all the "Doctors" and great men of the denomination agree substan- tially with these, we will subjoin a few opinions on the other side. ** Doctor Manly," in 1848, writes as follows : ** About the question of re-baptizing, I must say I have been greatly in the dark. On the question of independent abstract propriety of repeating a bap- tism once rightly administered, there can be no diffi- culty. Butthis case is embarrassed by many circum- stances that throw the administration into great doubt. I can suppose a case, (an extreme one) in which the want of baptism to the administrator would not vi- tiate his performance of it to others. But ordinarily or when it can be avoided, is it best or as good to have an unbaptized administrator ? I would not choose to volunteer a declaration that I thonghfc^heir baptism invalid. But I would not assert that it is val- id. I lean over to the side of baptizing them when they come to us. I can have no doubt they are bap- tized acceptably in this case. In the other I might have some doubt. And I decide the case rather on the ground of expediency ; because I cannot see far enough into other grounds to know on which side the argument preponderates." But after the publication of the letter of ** Doctor Fuller," herein reviewed, he gives as the result of his furtheir investigations, the following : DIVERSE OPINIONS, 23 *'Dear Brother : — * * * I do not wisli to write and publish my views on this subject, still less would I have my views presented uncalled, in any meetiog either of a church or Association. But I may say to you in friendship, privately, that I do not think it would be expedient for Baptist Churches in this country to recognize the baptisms of Pedobap- tist ministers. They never immerse, when the can- didate can be persuaded to any other method ; they generally speaJc against that particular mode, and sometimes ridicule it, snd they seldom fail to make a ridiculous and contemptible farce in their way of ad- ministerin.^ it — to say nothing of these administra- tors being themselves unbaptized — this saying and unsaying — this doing of what they dislike and con- demn, and which they treat as if they despised it, is not to be presented to Baptist churches as an act which they are to approve or sanction. Like Eli's sons, these administrators make the oflfering of the Lord, i7i that instance, to he abhorred — it is their wish. to do so ; and to prevent any one who witnessses their performance from ever desiring to see it repea- ted, or to have it in that form themselves. Now, when Baptists are asked to receive these baptisms, they are asked, in effect, to sanction these proceed- ings, and thus to become partakers with them in this objectionable administration. But, suppose it were done decently in the case of any particular candidate, there are inconsistencies about it, on the part of both administrator and can- didate, that vitiate the performance, and, in this coun- try, where people can find ready access to Baptist churches if they wish, these inconsistencies would prevent me from acknowledging and receiving such baptisms. The candidate in demanding baptism by 24 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. immersion, declares a belief that no other mode is scriptural. If this is not his belief, then no one's administration could make him a fit member of a Baptist church, which is based on that belief. If he does not believe this, then, where is the consistency of his immediately joining in fellowship with those who disbelieve it ; of his helping them in a cause which omits it, on principle, and condemns it as un- scriptural ? By this last act, he takes back and con- tradicts all that he had said and done by his own bap- tism. If it were allowable, on other accounts, thus to **show much love" to Christ's ordinance, and then in works to deny it, surely no value can be attached to it on account of the supposed honesty, sincerity, or conscientiousness of the recipient ; for he contra- dicts himself, and it is quite sufficient to refute his claim to an orderly, consistent baptism — to place his own authority against himself. * If I build again that which is destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.' This erects consistency into a gospel principle of duty. Now, in the supposed case, the candidate destroyed the notion of Infant baptism, of sprinkling, or pouring, when he deman- ded to be immersed as a professing believer; but he builds up those things again, when he goes into a voluntary and habitual fellowship with such as de- light to practice them, and when he stands by and silently sanctions these things as the practice of the body to which he has chosen to belong. * ¥r * * If one is a Baptist, let him be a Baptist. * * In your wife's case, I hope the dear sister will see that, in coming into a Baptist church, she ought to be baptized ; (I will not say again) she ought to be hop-' iized hy a Baptist minister, for the reasons I have giv- DIVERSE OPINIONS. 25 ea. Even if she has no sense of the defectiveness of her Pedobaptist immersion, this does not prove that it was infallibly right and sufficient. It is only an opinion of hers, which may be as apt to be wrong as the opinion of other people. Especially, why should she set up her judgment against that of the whole . body of churches of the only people under heaven who are striving to keep the ordinance of baptism as Christ delivered it ? If the principles on which her Pedobaptist immersion proceeded, are right, then there is no necessity for the separate organization of Baptist churches, or the existence of even the deno- mination itself; that ordinance of Christ can be suf- ficiently well maintained by Pedobaptist administra- tions of immersion. I think, therefore, that, uutil Baptist churches are prepared to allow that there is no necessity for their own separate organization — no necessity for their ex- istence as a denomination — there is little prospect of their agreeing to receive and sanction such baptisms as that which your good wife received. She ought now, to be baptized for conscience' sake, if not her own, at least for the sake of the consciences of oth- ers, who would be grieved and ofifended by being re- quired to take a course so inconsistent and suicidal. To come into a Baptist church, under her present baptism, could be no gain to her ; she receives noth- ing. Her coming in that way could be no gain to the Baptist church, in the matter of baptism ; they re- ceive nothing, and lose much. Under such circum- stances, her prospect of usefulness or of benefit, would be as good out of the Baptist connection as ia it.'? * * * Elder A. Broadus, of Va., in his reply to queries presented by "Xenoi," thus expresses his opinion : 3 26 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. ** I could wish the circumstances of the case had been stated by Xenoi a little more explicitly as I think it might thus be treated in a more definite aud satis- factory manner, than by an answer to the queries which are subjoined. "Your apphcants, it seems, have been baptized, i. e., solemnly immersed, upon a conviction of the scriptu- ral requisition, and their consequent duty and privil- ege, as believers in Jesus Christ. But in accomplish- ing this obiect, there was, as I understand the mat- ter, some irregularity. And this irregularity, I take it for granted, was namely : that the series of bap- tisms was commenced by an unbaptized individual ; for, so the statement seems to imply. It says, that *'after much serious consultation and fervent prater, it was unanimously resolved, that one of the Elders, being immersed, tiie work should go on," &c. And the apology for this irregularity, appears to be the non-existence of any Baptist Church of scriptural faith, 'within their knowledge or reach.^ Thus, as I apprehend it, stands the case ; and the question ari- sing out of it is, can these persons be considered as baptized with a valid baptism, and received accord- ingly ? This, it must be admitted, is an important matter, and one not to be settled at a single stroke. It presents one of those difficulties which irregularity is apt to involve ; yet it requires to be settled, and in the best manner that circumstances will admit. "Let us inquire, can any degree of irregularity be admitted in the peiformance of those divine ordinan- ces, called positive institutions, without destroying the validity of the performance? "Any deviation from ihe original plan, the divine naodel, must be allowed, in such a case, to be dange- rous ; and I should say, that as positive institutions DIVERSE OPINIONS. 27 possess in themselves no intrinsic value, but derive their worth from the authority and command of the inslitutcr, a change in the form or the subject of the institution must subvert the ordinance, and render the performance nugatory. To which I may add, that the same effect would follow, where the action, on the part of the admistrator or the subject, should appear to have been performed in the spirit of mock- ery, or without regard to the solemnity of the ob- ject." " Now, to the particular case before us. The plea of difficulty here urged, I take it for granted, is a reasonable one ; and the irregularity, as before pre- sumed, consists in the commencement of the series of baptisms by an unbaptized — perhaps an unordain- ed individual. But it was all done upon solemn con- viction of divine requirement, upon profession of evangelical faith ; and in due form, according to Christ's expressed will as to the action. Does the apparent defect in the circumstances here stated, in- validate the baptism? I am persuaded it does not. "I will plead not as a precedent, the case of the baptism of Roger Williams, and his congregation in Rhode Island, from whom many of the Baptists of this country have sprano-; if that was wrong, it can- not make this right.* Nor am I disposed to deny, that baptizers in the apostles' days were all baptized persons ; though, by the way, the first baptizer was * Is it certain that uiany of the Baptists of this country, have sprung from Ro^er Williams ? I think not. Will all who -wish to see a history of Roger Williams' church, exam- ine a little book, "Trials and Suffdrings for Religious Liber- ty, etc." Price 40 ceLts.— Ed. 28 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. not so; but this is to be admitted rather as a matter 'of course, all belivers being then baptized straight- way; that is, where it could be done. It ought to be so now; and in that case, there would probably have been here no difficulty. The baptizer who commenced this operation, ought himself to have been baptized before this period : but it does not follow, that because he was not baptized, and now perhaps could not be, that therefore he ought not, under existing circum- stances, to have engaged in this work. George Whit- field, who was a Pedobaptist, and never baptized, ought .to have been baptized before he went forth to preach; he might have been too, he, if he would; and yet I should be loath to say, that George Whit- field, though he ought to have been baptized, ought not to have preached at all, unless he had been bap- tized. And so of many others. The baptizer ought himself to be previously bap- tized. This is readily admitted ; and though for any thing that appears to the contrary, the obligation lies on him rather in the character of a believer, than in that of an administrator, I would be far from sanc- tioning the practice of baptizing by an unbaptized administrator, where the nature of the case does not render it necessary. The conduct of some Pedobap- tists, both on the part of the administrator and the subject, presents an anomaly which can neither be justified nor excused — the subject submitting to be immersed by an unbaptized administrator, wtio has no faith in the act." — {L^fe and Writings of Rev. A. BroadduSf pp. 453 — 457. This, for all practical purposes, is quite equivalent to a denial of the right of Pedobaptists, to baptize at all, since there is no case in which the parties "Aaw DIVERSE OPINIONS. 29 no Baptist church,*^ or minister '^within their reach or knowledge ;" and where they are likely to desire bap- tism by immersion. In another place, Elder Broaddus says, •' Let it be moreover remembered that Pedo- baptist ministers have no right to be tampering wiihbap- tism, they themselves refusing to submit to the ordi- nance. "Doctor Cone/' of New York, gives his opinion as follows : **You ask whether persons immersed by Pedobap- tist ministers ought to be received into a Baptist church ? I answer, No. Such baptisms are not considered valid by the regular Baptist churches, ei- ther of England or the United States. See the com- mission, 'Go ye,' (fee, and 'Let all things be done decently and in order.' There would be nothing but disorder introduced into gospel churches, could bap- tism be administered by any but ministers duly au- thorized." The opinion of Elder T. Meredith, of N. Carolina, the late distinguished Editor of the "Biblical Record- er," and whose judgment upon such a subject is en- titled, probably, to quite as much consideration as those of any of the "Doctors," may be gathered from the following correspondence : Dear Brother : — I have taken the liberty of wri- ting you a few lines, begging your views on the fol- lowing question: Is baptism by immersion, when per- formed by a Pedobaptist minister, who has been pour- ed on himself, or sprinkled, valid ? and ought per- 3* 30 PEDOBAPTIST IMMEKSIONS. sons so baptized to be admitted into the Baptist church ? Your compliance will be esteemed a great favor by an humble Baptist ; and I must beg your forgiveness for the liberty I have taken, being a stran- ger. James Fripp, Jr. Heply.—ln reply to the foregoing, we would re- spectfully state the following — although we have had occasion to express substantially the same views be- fore. ** 1. Baptism is indispensable, as a qualification for an administrator, or it is not. If it is not, then all denominations of Christians, the Friends only excep- ted, are in error ; for all maintain that, in order to he duly qualified for the administration of gospel ordinances, a person must have a valid baptism. Our Pedobaptist friends would no more receiv^e baptism from a person whom they considered unbaptized, than would a Baptist of the most rigid principles. But if baptism be indispensable as a qualification fur an administrator of that ordinance, then it must fol- low that a person cannot be validly baptized by one who has not himself received a valid baptism. ** 2. Again, immersion is indispensable to a valid baptism, or it is not. If it is not, then Baptists and all others who insist on immersion, are in error, and lay a very unnecessary stress on a form of baptism, which, for sundry cogent reasons, might as well be dispensed with. But if immersion is indispensable to a valid baptism, then an administrator who has not been immersed, has not received a valid baptism himself, and of course cannot be qualified to admin- ister a valid baptism toothers. "3. If the foregoing reasoning be correct, a person who insists on immersion as a valid baptism for him- DIVERSE OPINIONS. 31 self, thereby virtually denies the validity of a bap- tism administered by a person who has not himself received a valid immersion. And hence all such per- sons convict themselves of the absurdity of either in- sisting on that which is unnecessary for themselves, or of receiving a baptism which, on their own prin- ciples and on their own showing, can have no just claims to validity. *^4. By the same reasoning — should a Baptist church think proper to admit to their number, a per- son who has been immersed by an unimmersed admin- istrator, they thereby convict themselves of the in- consistency of contending for what is superfluous in relation to themselves — and of admitting one into their communion who, on their ow^n principles, and agreeably to their own practice, cannot have received a valid baptism. " 5, Should it be said that this view of things im- plies the necessity of an uninterrujjted succession of qualified administrators, from the Apostles down — we reply, it does so, as a general rule — but not more so than the views of all persons who consider baptism as a qualification for an administrator of the ordin- ances. In this respect we occupy the same ground as that occupied by our Pedobaptist brethren. We all insist on the necessity of a regular succession of qualified administrators as a general rule — but all agree that the general rule may have exceptions — that necessity knows no law — and that when a valid baptism is absolutely impracticable, it may be dis- pensed with altogether, not only without sin, but with- out affecting the validity of such ordinances, as from the necessity of the case are made to emanate from such omission. The Head of the church requires his laws to be rightly obeyed when obedience is prac- 32 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. ticable — and when obedience is not practicable, the will, if it truly and sincerely exist, will be taken for the deed. It is required of man according to what he has — not according to what he has not." QUESTION TO BE SETTLED. 33 CHAPTER II. THE PRECISE QUESTION TO BE SETTLED THE PRIN- CIPLES BY WHICH IT CAN BE DETERMINED. Before we can engage to tlie best advantage in the discussion of any qiiestionj we must de- termine precisely wliat it is that we desire to decide. The question we now propose to answer is a simple question of church duty. A person who has^ upon a profession of his faith in Christ, been solemnly immersed into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, by a pedobaptist minister, and in order to his reception with a pedobaptist society, applies for membership in a Baptist church. Shall that church regard him as baptized or unbaptized ? If baptized, she must receive him as though he had come from a sister Baptist church without further ceremony. If unbaptized, she must administer the ordinance before she can receive him. ^ The question as commonly put is, whether such baptism is valid baptism ? Now what do 34 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. we mean by " valid ?" It may save us a great deal of trouble to settle this point before we go any further. And, 1. It is evident that when, as a church of Christ, we say a baptism is '^ valid," we mean to say that it is scriptural, or, in other wovds, that in all essential particulars it is exactly conformed to the requisitions of the word of God, It corresponds precisely in all its essential feat- ures to the Scripture model. We have no other law for baptism but that contained in the Word. By this only can we know that we are to baptize at all — by this only can we know whom we are to baptize — and by this only can we settle any question which may arise con- cerning it. 2. Baptists all agree that the person bap- tized must be a believer in Christ, and that a baptism conferred in infancy, or before any })ro- fession of faith in Christ would be invalid, that is unscrij)tural. 3. Baptists all agree that the very act of baptism as expressed by the word which in the Greek language is employed to designate it, is immersion. Anything else claiming to be bap- tism, they must, therefore, reject as invalid that is unscriptural. 4. Baptists alj agree, moreover, that a bap- tism to be ^' valid" must have been performed by some one as the administrator. This the very nature of the ordinance requires. Be- QUESTION TO BE SETTLED. 35 lievers were ordered to be baptized — not to baptize themselves. If they are to be baptized, somebody must baptize them. This is self- evident. 5. And it is equally self-evident that every man and every woman and every child who has the. physical strength to bury another in the water is a scriptural administrator of baptism, unless the Scriptures have limited the adminis- tration of it to certain persons or classes of 2>er- sons. If the Scriptures merely direct those who are conscious that they have believed, to be bap- tized, without specifying of whom they are to seek this rite, then each must be at perfect liberty to choose his own administrator. The wife may select her husband though he be no believer. The child may choose his parent. The sister may call upon her brother. The servant his master or his fellow-servant. Where there is no law there can be no trans^ession. If the Scriptures do not designate the administrator let men beware how they set bounds where God has left all free. If God have authorized each individual believer to choose his own bap- tizer, no society or church. Baptist or Pedo- baptist, has any right to come between that individual and the administrator of his choice — let that administrator be who or what he may. Let us beware how we usurp authority in the kingdom of Christ. 6. It must also be self-evident, that if God 36 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. in the Word has limited the administration of the ordinance to any person, or classes of per- sons, no others have or can have, any authority to administer it. If he limited it to some, he by that act forbade all others. To deny this, is to declare that although Grod has expressly limited it to a certain class, yet it is not lim- ited to them, but is unlimited ; though God has fixed definite bounds, yet there are no bounds existing, but every one is just as free to do it as though there were no bounds. This is a con- tradiction and absurd. 7. It is equally evident, that the Scriptures must either have limited or not have limited, the administrators of baptism ; and if they have limited them at all, the limit must be fixed and definite. That is to say, there must be some whose baptism is valid, that is scriptural, given by authority ; and some others whose performance of' the rite would be invalid, that is unauthorized, and therefore, according to sec- tion sixth, forbidden and sinful. 8. Once more. It is self-evident, that if a command to believers, as such, to be baptized, limits the reception of baptism under that com- mand to behevers ; the command to administer the baptism given to the baptized, as such, limits the administration under that command to those who are baptized. Or if given to church members as such, it limits it to church members. Or if given to ministers as such, it QUESTION TO BE SETTLED. 37 limits it to ministers. If there be any author- ity to baptize others than believers, it must be found elsewhere than in the language, " he that believeth and is baptized/' So if there be any authority to others than such as those to whom Christ said: "Go ye, teach all nations, bap- tizing them," etc., it must be found somewhere else than in this great commission. Now with these eight points before us. Each one admitted, or so self-evident that it needs no proof, may we not hope to set this question permanently at rest. Can it be possible that it cannot ascertain from the Word of Grod, whether the administration of baptism was limited to some, or open and free to all. If limited, can we not determine at least whether it was limited to those w^ho had received it, or, in other words, to the baptized. If we can but make out this one point we need go no further. Then it will follow of necessity, according to section sixth, that baptism administered by the unbaptized is a forbidden, and therefore sinful thing, which the churches ouorht not to recoo;nize. Here then we see the point to which, from the logical necessity of the case, our investiga- tions must be directed. 1 . We must ascertain whether the Scriptures have limited the ad- ministrator at all, or whether every believer is at liberty to choose, in the church or in the world, among the saints or the sinners, who shall, bury him in the water in accordance with the- 4 38 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. commandment ? 2. If it be limited at all, to wliom is it limited ? Surely, one would expect to find no very seri- ous difficulty in settling the first point at least. So evident is it, that the Scriptures have placed some bounds here, that few, if any, will be found bold enough to contend that every believer is :at liberty to choose, as above stated, his own baptizer. Among all the absurdities which have l)een held, I do not think that any society of christians who recognized baptism as required at all, except only some few Baptists, have ever ventured to hold such an absurdity as this. Without exception they all contend that it is limited, and, with the solitary exception of a portion of the Baptists, they all agree that it is limited to baptized members of the churches, most of them, to ministers lawfully ordained by the churches. What these Baptists believe and teach it will be seen from the review fol- lowing is rather difficult to decide. Let the reader determine if he can. But one thing to our mind is certain, and that is, that this question, like the communion question, could never have arisen if all who professed to be the followers of Christ had promptly obeyed the teachings of God's Word. In regard to this question, as to that a portion of the Bap- tists have been driven, apparently by the fear of being charged with bigotry and exclusivism, to take a position which no Presbyterian, or QUESTION TO BE SETTLED. 39 Methodist, or Episcopalian would dare to take, viz., that those who have not been baptized and are not members of any church are yet autho- rized by the Scriptures to administer christian ordinances — so true is it that " the fear of man bringeth a snare.'' It may serve to show how probable it is that they are wrong, that like the defenders of infant baptism these brethren while they all agree in the conclusion — viz., that the immersions of pedobaptists are good and valid baptisms — yet they cannot agree upon the grounds on which this conclusion should be left to rest. Elder Fuller says the matter must be left to the conscience of the applicant. Now, this is equivalent to saying that the {Scripture has left it for every man to choose his own baptizer, as stated in section five, and if so, of course the church has nothing to do but ask if he is satis- fied. Elder Waller says that the commission was given to the churches, as such ; and it follows, of course, that of the administration of baptism is limited to them and such as they may appoint; and he seems to suppose, though he does not venture to assert, that they (the churches) may go outside the kingdom, and appoint those who have never themselves been made members ! How else he gets authority for them, we can- not discern. Elder Johnson, aZ'/a<9 "W.," discovers that 40 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. these pedobaptist immersers are officers, not incleecl of the churches, of which, he says, they cannot even be members, but of the visible Idngdom, which is a different thing from the churches. But yet he recognizes baptism as the initiatory rite of this kingdom, without such none can be visibly a member in it, and must therefore be driven to the absurdity of contending that Christ entrusted the adminis- tration of the initiatory rite of his kingdom, to men who are not visibly members of it. But let us not anticipate. They will speak for them- selves. REVIEW OF WALLER. 41 CHAPTER III. REVIEW OF J. L. WALLER. Some years ago, our lamented Brother Wal- ler prepared and joublished in the Western Baptist Review, the following Article. In the recent discussion of this subject and of ques- tions growing out of it, reference has been often made to this great man's opinion, as though it should of itself do very much to settle the con- troversy. I am very glad, therefore, to see his article republished in the Western Recorder, of November 25th, 1857, so that brethren may see for themselves what positions he actually took, and by what arguments he endeavored to sus- tain them. Let the reader observe how small a part of all he said has any direct bearing upon the question in dispute. That question is not whether one baptized in unbelief is properly baptized, Upon this point. Baptists are very generally agreed. Nor is it whether baptism given by a layman is valid baptism. But whether baptism administered without any au- thority from a true visible church of Christ, is true and valid baptism. If Pedobaptist Socie- 4- 42 PEDOBAPTIST l^jJlERSIONS. ties are not true churches of Christ, then bap- tism conferred in them, is conferred by neither ministers nor laymen, but simply by those who are not members of a visible church of Christ at all. But here is the Essay ; and notwith- standing its rambling and desultory character, it merits most attentive consideration, if for no other reason than because it is the production of one whose name itself is regarded by many as a tower of strength to those w^ho can rally be- hind it in any contest : — ESSAY. '•' The inquiry is often made, whether persons baptized upon a profession of genuine repen- tance and faith, by a ^' Reformer,'' or by a Pedo- baptist, ought, on such baptism to be received as members of Baptist churches ? In the West, the practice of our churches has not been uni- form, and the opinions of brethren who have bestowed considerable attention upon the sub- ject, are discordant. This question is substan- tially the same with that which has for many centuries elicited so much angry and useless dis- cussion, viz : Is an ordained minister in the true church, as an administrator, at all times essen- tial to the validity of baptism ? But our practice, although not uniform, has not been the cause of any serious misunder- standing. It has been left entirely to the KEVIEW OF WALLER. 43 churches to dispose of, as the merits of the ap- plicants seemed to demand ; and where dissent has occurred at all, it has been confined to the bounds of the church where the case existed ; and to the churches in their independent ca- pacities it rightfully belongs. It can never be taken from them. We must be understood, then, as simply discussing a question of expedi- ency and propriety, about which a variety of opinions may exist, and yet furnish no just cause of alienation of feeling. In the discus- sion of this and all kindred questions, our ar- guments must necessarily be based upon infer- ences drawn from the Scriptures. There is no express precept or example to guide us in our investigations. The question is a new one — originating out of the unhallowed and unfortu- nate dissentions and divisions that have trans- pired since the canon of Scripture was closed. But we must be careful not to violate any of the injunctions of the Scriptures, and to exam- ine attentively for thos^great landmarks drawn by inspiration, to conduct the patient and pray- erful enquirer after truth in the ways that he should go. The primitive practice is clear. The path in which the holy men of old walked is so plain that a wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein. Then all who believed and were baptized, were admitted into the church. The commission of the Savior was, " Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them 44 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." "Preach the Gospel to every creature ; he that believeth and is bap- tized shall be saved."*^ The first matter that the church should in- quire into respecting an individual baptized by a "Reformer/' or a Pedobaptist, is, was he a disciple or believer, in the Scriptural sense of these terms, before baptism ? An unconverted person is not a disciple or believer in the Bible sense, and therefore cannot receive christian baptism. This is most fully asserted by Mr. Campbell, in his debate with Mr. Rice. He says : — ^No man believes more cordially, or teaches more fully, the necessity of a Scriptural change of our affections — a change of heart — than I do. I have said a thousand times that if a person were to be immersed twice seven times in the Jordan for the remission of sins, or for the re- ception of the Holy Spirit, it would avail noth- ing more than the wetting the face of a babe, unless the heart is changed by the word and spirit of God. I have no confidence in any in- strumentality, ordinance, or observance, unless the heart is turned to God. This is the funda- mental, the capital point; but with these, every other divine ordinance is essential for the spiritual enlargement, confirmation and sanctification of the faithful.' — Pages 544 and 545. • Matt, xxviii. 19 : Mark xvi. 16. REVIEW OF WALLER. 45 You have heard me say here, (and the whole country may, have read it and heard it many a time,) that a sevenfold immersion in the Jor- dan or any water, without a previous change of heart, will avail nothing, without a genuine faith and penitence. Nor would the most strict conformity to all the forms and usages of the most perfect church order, the most exact ob- servance of all Ifhe ordinances, without personal faith, piety, and moral righteousness — without a new heart, hallowed lips, and a holy life, profit anv man in reference to eternal salvation.'' —Page 678. As we would not receive a babe into our churches, no matter how solemnly its face had been sprinkled, so, according to the reasoning of Mr. Campbell, we could not consistently admit an individual to membership, who had been baptized without his heart being "changed by the word and spirit of God." Without this, though plunged ever so often, it is no more baptism than ''the wetting the face of a babe." Of this change, then, the church ought to be fully persuaded. The Baptists will not admit one to baptism unless they believe his heart has been changed, that he has ''a genuine foith any penitence.'' They could not, therefore, without manifest impropriety and inconsist- ency, receive a person baptized in any other de- nomination unless satisfied that he had experi- enced a change of heart before baptism. Thus 46 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. far, tlien, we suppose there will be no difFer- ence of opinion. The next matter of inquiry is : Has the per- son, as above described, been baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ? If not, then the commandment of the Savior has not been complied with ; and as a guardian of the truth and of the word of God, the church must reject him. Baptism is immersion. This we will take for granted, and shall not pause to prove. Of course it is not ex- pected that Baptists will recognize anything else as baptism. The matter before us then is, that a person whose heart has been changed by the Word and Spirit of God, and who has a genuine faith and penitence, has been solemnly baptized, or immersed, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a ^"Reformer," or Pedobaptist. What does he lack yet ? Is the commission fulfilled which says, " Make disciples, baptizing them. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved." To these questions only one answer can be returned : that his baptism is strictly in accor- dance with the commission, unless it prescribes the administrator as absolutely as the mode and the subject. So our investigations are now lim- ited to the inquiry, whether the great commis- sion has made the validity of the ordinance depend on the administration, as well as on the subject and the mode ? To a certain extent, REVIEW OF WALLER. 47 all will answer the question affirmatively. The difference of opinion consists in this, whether the administration of baptism is limited to a l)rivi]eged class in the church or not. Tliis is a vexed question, and has long been agitated. It has given rise to much discussion, and able advocates on either side have been found in all the leading denominations of Christendom. The Episcopalians are divided. One party, while it admits that baptism ought ordinarily to be administered by one who has been espe- cially ordained, yet contends that it may, in cer- tain cases, be administered by others ; and that such a baptism, although irregular and defective, is nevertheless valid. But another party denies the validity of all lay baptism — that is, " Bap- tism (or the form thereot^ administered by such as have not received a regular commission to act as Christ/s ministers, from the successors of the apostles, the bishops of the church of God. None admit the regularity or legaHty of laybap- tism who maintain that Episcopal ordination is necessaryto constitute a man an ambassador to Grod. Will those who deny that Episcopal or- dination is essential to a regular, legal and valid ministry, we have no common ground. For we re- gard as laymen all who have not a commission Episcopally conveyed. Our argument is with those who, while they maintain (according to the Primitive and Catholic rule, nulla Ecclesia sine Episcopo, no church without the Bishop,) 48 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. that a commission, derived from Christ through his Apostles and their Episcopal successors, is essential to regular and valid ministration in things divine, hold, notwithstanding that the irregular and illegal ministration of the Holy Sacrament of baptism, in particular, whether by a layman in or out of the church, is truly a sacrament, and valid to the receiver."* Not unlike this is the minutes of the Gener^^l As- sembly of the (Old School) Presbyterian Church in the United States, setting forth the reasons why Papal baptism should be rejected, viz : that baptism is invalid, unless ^'administered by a regular ordained minister in the true church of Grod visible/' These opinions of the Church- men and of the General Assembly are equally destitute of foundation. They are as impal- joable as phantoms ; Scripture, facts, and com- mon sense, utterly subvert them. The Bible knows nothing of those ecclesiastical oligarchs — of those inflated bladders of spiritual dignity, which Mr. Ogilby denominates ''Bishops,'' and " Episcopal successors'' of the Apostles. Pie rejects the baptism of the people of God who, during the darkness of Papal superstition, "the world's midnight," were "worn out" by the persecution of the Man of Sin, because, ac- cording to his theory, they were laymen ;" not having received " Episcopal ordination ;" and * Ogilby against baptism, pp. 13, 14. EEVIEW OF WALLER. 49 he recognizes the bloodthirsty monsters whose hands were reeking with the blood of God's people, as the prelatical successors of the Apos- tles ! From the Man of Sin and Son of Perdi- tion, according to this hypothesis, we can only receive true baptism ; and mystical Babylon is the mother of all the true churches of God. But the Scriptures saythat she is the " Mother of Harlots/' Nor have we from the Apostles a regular succession of ministers, deriving ordina- tion in an unbroken chain in the true church of God visible. The ministerial successors of the Apostles is an order dependent for its exis- tence on proofs, as chimerical and dream-like as that of '• Episcopal successors.'' The Kedeemer made no promise of such a succession. It is the invention of man's vain imagination. Its career has been that of inquiry. It has no foundation in truth. It is no where in the Scriptures made the duty of ministers as such to give the rite of baptism. To the churches are committed the keys. They can open, and none can shut : they can shut, and none can open. The churches are the highest authority under Christ. They are not dependent on the ministry for existence, but the ministry upon the churches. That propriety may make it expe- dient for the churches to asssign the adminis- tration of baptism to their ministers or ser- vants, so far from being denied on our part, is most earnestly and strenuously insisted upon. 5 50 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. But the expediency which dictates that baptism should usually be committed to the preachers of the gospel, does not bind the churches at all times to intrust it to their hands, or receive it alone from them. That our brethren will not think our views novel, or that we are attempting innovations upon their time honored doctrines, we will quote from the oldest Baptist creed ever put forth in the English language — the one published in London, 1643 : 'The person designated by Christ to dis- pense baptism, the Scriptures hold forth to be a disciple ; it being no where tied to a particu- lar church officer, or person extraordinarily sent — the commission enjoining the administration being to them as considered disciples, being men able to preach the gospel.' — Art. 41. But we have far higher and older authority than this. The Scriptures inform us that " Jesus himself baptized not, but disciples.'^''^ It was to his disci]jles-\ that the Savior said, ' Gro ye, therefore, and disciple all nations, bap- tizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.' And the Apostle says to the Church. in Corinth, ' Now I praise you brethren, that you remember me in all things, and keep the ordin- ances as 1 delivered them unto you /if * John ix. 2. f Matt, xxviii. 16. X Oor. xi. 2. KEVIEW OF WALLER. 51 The cliurclies have not transferred baptism to the ministry. This they could not do without proving recreant to the trust committed of hea- ven to their charge. They may and do author- ize their servants, the preachers of the gospel, to discharge this duty for them ; but it does not follow that they must always authorize them and no others ; or that they cannot receive it when administered by others. Hence the baptism administered by the pastor or bishop of one of our churches is received without hes- itation or debate by the others. Hence, too, the baptism of Roger Williams, and of the first church in Providence, is considered as valid and as scriptural as if administed by the Apostle Paul. They believed and were baptized. They were first disciples and then baptized in the name of the Trinity. They were doers of the law.-' Mr. Benedict, in his History of the Baptists, has aptly remarked : ^ All agree that it is an unadvisable meas- ure for a person to apply to unbaptized minis- ers to lead them into the water ; but after they have been properly immersed on a profession of their faith, it is generally thought that it * Roger Williams and his companions were Pedobaptists. From reading they were led to embrace Baptist sentiments. Williams was baptized by one of his disciples, and then he baptized the rest. This was the beginning of the first Bap- tist Church in Rhode Island. 52 PEDOBAPTIST IMMEESIONS. would be improper to immerse them a second time. It is difficult to conceive why they would notj in this case, come under the head of Ana- baptists/ [Vol. ii., p. 473.] It is urged by some that the Pedobaptist minister does not admin- ister immersion in good faith and that " what- soever is not of faith, is sin." This may be true of the administrator — he may commit sin in the case supposed, but it does not affect the subject. He is not responsible for another's sins. The old maxim is appropriateto our sub- ject : Quod non dehuit fieri, factum -yaZe^, that is, what ought not to be done, is nevertheless, valid when done. Baptism, as we demonstrated a short time since, is a solemn j^rofession of re- ligion. The believer publicly acknowledges his allegiance to Christ — is buried with Christ in baptism, and rises to walk in newness of life — declares that he is dead to sin — his baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God. If the church is satisfied that all this is true of the individual who has received the ordinance at the hand of a " Reformer" or Pedobaptist, it appears to us that she cannot deny him admis- sion to membership. The commission of our Lord is not only preserved in spirit, but in let- ter. The whole design of baptism has been clearly met. To such an individual there re- maineth no more baptism. He could not be baptized according to the commission, nor to se- cure any of the ends contemplated in the insti- tution of the ordinance. REVIEW OF WALLER. 53 We deem it unneceseary to say more. These views are submitted with much diffidence, and we have been induced to give them only because we have been urged to do so by respectable brethren in different sections of the West. Al- though conscious that we are sustained by the great majority of the Baptists now and in time gone by, still w^e know that many, eminent for piety and learning, entertain opposite opinions. But it is a matter which all concur in declar- ing belongs to each church, without question or appeal — that it does not and ought not to involve matters of fellowship. In past times, it has caused no divisions, and but little discussion among the Baptists ; and, it is confidently hoped and believed, that their good sense and their devotion to the real interests of Zion, will restrain eventhe most restless spirits from ma- king it now a cause of dissension. Let every thing but a pure conscience in the sight of God yield to the preservation of harmony and peace among brethren. It is good and pleasant for such to dwell together in unity." We trust the reader has carefully examined the positions and defences of our lamented bro- ther. We should give them their full force and value. But let no one be led by a mistaken reverence for the dead to yield to them a jot or tittle more than by virtue of their truthfulness they may claim. Opinions are not more true when he who uttered them is dead, than they 5- 54 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. would be if he wer;Q living. Let us, therefore, neither be hindered nor biased in our investiga- gations by this circumstance. The question is whether a church of Christ should regard and receive as valid baptism an immersion con- ferred by one who was not a member of such a churchj and without authority from such a church ? Eld. Waller states it thus : ''Wheth- er persons baptized upon a profession of gen- uine repentance and faith by a Reformer or by a Pedobaptist, ought on such baptism, to be received as members of Baptist churches ?" If the so-called churches of Reformers and Pedo- baptists are true and genuine scriptural chur- ches of Christ there can be no dispute. Their baptism in that case is truly valid. If Elder Waller regarded them as scriptural churches, having equal authority for their official acts with Baptist churches, then our controversy must go back and begin at this point. The whole history of his life, however, would seem to con- tradict the suggestion that he entertained any such opinion, and if he did, we have not here the space to lay open all the grounds of contro- versy upon the question. What is a true church of Christ.-'' I shall, therefore, take it for gran- ted that when Elder Waller speaks of church- * The reader will find a most careful aud elaborate exami- nati-in of this question in all its details, in the second vol- me of Theodosia Earnest ; or, Ten Days' Travel in Search of the Church. REVIEW OF WALLER. 55 es he means Baptist cliurclies, or such as Bap- tists are accustomed to regard as the true and genuine -sdsible churches of Christ, according to Scriptures. Upon this understanding he shall himself furnish the weapons with which to bat- ter down and grind into dust his own conclu- sions. To the question, whether a real believer solemnly baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Grhost, by a Reformer or Pedo- baptist, has been truly baptized according to the commission ; he says : " Only one answer can be given," viz., " that his baptism is strictly in accordance with the commission, unless the com- mission prescribes the administrator as abso- lutely as the subject and the mode. So our in- vestigation is now limited to the inquiry whether the great commission has made the validity of the ordinance depend on ,the admin- istration as well as on the subject and the mode." "To a certain extent," he says, " all will answer this question affirmatively." Then, we ask him, to what extent ? How far does the commission go towards determining who shall be baptizers.^ One would expect, in view of the ultimate con- clusion to which he seeks to draw us, that he would at least attempt to show that the com- mission either does not determine anything at all concerning this point, or that it determines that those not members of a true church, and without any authority from a true church, are 56 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. authorized by a commission to baptize. But he says no such thing. He does not intimate that anything Hke this is true. Not at all. ''The difference of opinion/' he says, "this, consists in viz., whether the administration of baptism is limited to a privileged class in the church or not ;" and then goes on to discuss the question whether the church can authorize any but a minister to confer the ordinance. By making this issue he virtually yields, at the outset, the point about which we are contending. Our question is, not whether baptism may be con- ferred by a lay member in the church, if the church should authorize him, but whether it can be conferred by one who is not a member at all, and without any authority whatever from the church. ''To this comi:)lexion it must come at last," unless we take the ground that pedo- baptist societies are true and genuine churches of Jesus Christ, and if we take this ground there is nothing to contend about. "To the churches," he says, "are commit- ted the keys. They can open and none can shut. They can shut and none can open. The churches are the highest authority under Christ. They are not dependent on the ministry for their existence, but the ministry upon the churches. That propriety may make it expedi- ent for the churches to assign the administra- tion of baptism to their ministers or servants,, so far from being denied on our part, is most REVIEW OF WALLER. 57 earnestly and strenuously insisted upon. But the expediency which dictates that baptism should usually be committed to preachers of the gospel, does not bind the churches at all times to intrust it to their hands or to receive it alone from them." Now let us humbly ask, if this be true how can pedobaptist societies or pedobaptist min- isters have any authority to administer baptism unless the churches, to whom in the Scrip- tures it is given, should transfer it to them. But this Elder Waller declares they have no right to do. They may not, he says, even transfer it to their own ministers, much less to those who have no sort of connection with them, and over whom they have no sort of con- trol. " The churches," he says, ''have not trans- ferred baptism to the ministry. This they could not do without proving recreant to the trust committed by heaven to their charge." Now let any man of common sense decide, if the question be not narrowed down to this : Can a church of Christ transfer to one who is not a minister, and not a member of any as- sembly which she recognizes as a true church of Christ, the administration of baptism, when she cannot even transfer'it to her own ministry ? If her own minister cannot administer bap- tism without her sanction, how can it be given without her sanction by one w^ho is not even a member ? 58 PEDOBAPTIST IMMEKSIONS. But now if it be said that the whole author- ity to administer baptism being in the church, she can authorize whom she will to administer it Let ns grant it for a moment, though it is not true ; and then the question is : Has she granted the right to pedobaptist churches or pedobaptist ministers ? Would she grant it even should they be fools enough to ask it of her ? No one will contend that she has con- ferred any such authority, or that there is any sense in which a baptism conferred by them is conferred- by the authority of the church, to which alone, according to Elder Waller's own showing, all the authority in the premises was committed — and so committed that she could not transfer it even if she would. " They," (the churches,) continues our au- thor, ^' may and do authorize their servants, the preachers of the gospel, to discharge this duty for them ; but it does not follow that they must always authorize them, and no others, or that they cannot receive it when administered by others." Let us admit all this and then the question v/ill stand thus : Grranted that all the authority to administer baptism is committed by Christ to the church — granted that the church may, and ordinarily ought to, authorize baptism to be administered by her servants the ministers — granted that she may authorize oth- ers besides her ministers, and may receive bap- tism as legal and scriptural when conferred by REVIEW OF WALLER. 59 others besides her own ministers. Who are these others ? Our author had been arguing to show that private members of a church might, by the church, be authorized to administer bap- tism as well as ministers. But he had not tried to prove that they, much less those who are not members at all, could confer valid baptism with- out the authority of the church ; and it is cer- tain that pedobaptist immersions are conferred without such authority. These "others,^' there- fore, must be private members whom the church had authorized to baptize without ordaining them to preach. To these the church must be restricted, un- less she has a right to confer the authority to administer the most solemn rite of that visible kingdom in which she is the executive of Christ, upon those who despise and reject that rite — up- on those who are not members of that kingdom — upon those, of whom as a church, she has no knowledge — over whom she can exercise no dis- cipline and exert no sort of church control — up- on those whom, if they were members, and thus within the reach of her discipline, she would be bound at once to exclude from her communion, as teachers of false doctrine, and perverters of Christ's ordinance. Grant that the right of Baptism is in the church, g,nd that she may confer it on whom she will, or receive it from whom she will, she must nevertheless be r«stri6ted in the exercise of this 60 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. liberty, by her constititiitional limits. And even if it were true, as Elder Waller states in the beginning of his Essay, that " there is no express precept or example to guide us in our deliberations/' yet common sense itself would teach that neither a church nor any other close society, could with any show of propriety autho- rize or permit men to stand without and confer in its behalf the rites they would not themselves receive. If the question had no connection with religion, every man would confess the ab- surdity of such a course. None of the kingdoms of this world would be guilty of such folly. No secular society is found guilty of such folly. "The children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light."' But if there was not common sense enough within the visible kingdom of Christ to guide the churches in this matter, is there nothing in the written constitution of that kingdom to direct them up- on whom they may or may not, confer the right to administer baptism. Whatever right the churches have, they have as clmrches, as the executive charged with the administration of the laws and ordinances of the visible kingdom of Christ. And in the exercise of these rights, they cannot go beyond the con- stitution and laws under which they exist, and which they are to execute. This constitution and these laws, we have in the New Testament. If, therefore, there can be Jfeund in that doc- TvEVIEW OF WALLER. 61 ument, any precept or example upon this point — or if there be anything there from v/hich we may fairly and legitimately infer anything defi- nitely concerning the will of the King upon this suhject, by these the churches must be go- verned. Now, let us suppose for a moment, that we have no precept and no example. What would be the nature of the inferences we would compelled to draw from the teachings of the Word ? Elder Waller has shown that the right to confer baptism was given to the churches — and that the churches are at liberty to author- ize their ministers, and '' others," to perform it for them. Our question is, vjJiat '^others ?" Are they to be in the churches, or out of them. Are fhey to be persons who have themselves obeyed the Lord, and been baptized, or those who re- ject the ordinance, and condemn and abuse those who insist on its obedience ? Now, we humbly submit, that if there were nothing to the contrary in the Word, there would be a very strong inference, from the simple fact that the selection of the administrator was left to the churches — that he was at least to be a member of the churches. If the Lord had inten- ded that it should have been performed by those outside the churches, he would most --probably have left it to those outside, to select the ad- ministrator. But it is true that we have neither precept nor example on this subject in the Word. Eld- 6 62 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. er Waller says so, and yet he goes right on to say, '' The primitive practice was clear. The path in which the holy men of old walked is so plain, that a wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein.'' One would naturally expect, after this declaration, that he would attempt to show that '' the primitive practice" was what he now recommends — that those "ho- ly men'' did habitually, or least occasionally, send out of the church for a baptizer, or recog- nize as baptism the immersion of a Jewish pros- elyte by a Jewish priest. But, strange to tell, he only declares that "then [that is, in Apos- tolic times,] all who believed and were baptized, were admitted into the church. The commis- sion of the Savior was, Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them," etc. And further on he says, " The person designated by Christ to dispense baptism, the Scriptures hold forth to be a disciple. ' " The Scriptures in- form us that Jesus baptized not, but his disci- ples. "•••" It was to his disciples that the Savior said, Go ye, therefore, and disciple all nations, baptizing them, etc." Now, if it be true, as he says, that in those days all who became disciples, were baptized and admitted into the church ; aud if it true that the person designated by our Savior to dispense baptism was a disci23le, then the person designa- ted to dispense baptism was bapatized member * John ix. 2. REVIEW OF WALLER. 63 of Christ's visible church. So we have both precept and example, according to the showing of Elder Waller himself; and all he could have meant by saying we have neither, is that there are neither which favors the position which he set out to establish. This is most certainly true. On that side there is neither precept, example, nor any fair and reasonable inference. And but for the conviction wdiich at one time took posses- sion of the minds of many Baptists, that Pedo- baptist societies were true and valid churches of Christ, the idea that they could confer a val- id baptism would not have been entertained by any Baptist church. Elder Waller has shown us that the persons designated by Christ in the Scriptures, to administer baptism, were disciples, and that these disciples were baptized church members. And now, what ground has he left that he can stand upon ? His argument, di- vested of matters which have no bearing upon the question before us, amounts to this : The commission w^as given to " the churclies." " The churches may appoint their ministers, "or oth- ers," to administer the baptism which the com- mission requires. But these "others" must be laptized disciples; for, "the person designated by Christ to dispense baptism, the Scriptures hold forth to be a disciple," and "the primitive j)ractice is clear" that " all who believed and were baptized, were admitted into the church. Let us, to test the value of the argument, reduce it to a svllomsm : ' 64 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. The autliority to baptize is not in the minis- ters, but in the churches. The churches can authorize their ministers or other members, toi perform it. Therefore, the churches can authorize those who are neither ministers nor members, but un- baptized rejectors of the ordinance to perform- it ! '■ Oh, most lame and impotent conclusion." And thus does Elder Waller himself furnish the weapons to destroy his own defences. REVIEW OF FULLER. 65 CHAPTER IV. REVIEAY OF R. FULLER. -, Jan. 15, 1857. My Dear Brother. — I beg you will give me your views, as to re baptizing persons, who have been baptized (immersed) by Pedobaptist ministers. I do not ask this as a question of theoretical theology. I am deeply interested in the matter, as an urgent practical question. I am a Baptist minister, and pastor of the church, in the State of . My wife was member of the Methodist church, is truely converted, and, on a profession of her faiih in Christ, was baptized by a Methodist. She wishes to unite with th^ Baptists ; but she says she has been baptized, and dares not repeat the ordinance. The Church requires her re-baptism. You see how pain- ful is my situation. Give me your views on this subject, and oblige one who truly loves you. Yours in the best of bonds, Baltimore, Jan. 20, '57. My Dear Brother. — I sympathize sincerely with you, and pray that God may guide your wife and self in this important matter. I know how to appre- ciate the feelings of your wife, for the question is not 6* 66 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. a new point with me. I was a member of a Pedo- baptist church, and was immersed. On joinino^ that Church, I required it of the pastor, for, as a Greek scholar, I was satisfied that baptism was immersion. When conviction compelled me to become a Baptist, I reflected on the subject, was baptized again, and for two reasons : First, I then knew that I had never been converted to God before. And, Second, My first baptism was clearly irregular. The first preach- ers were themselves baptized, and baptism by an unbaptized administrator appeared to me manifestly irregular. I, therefore, resolved to correct this irre- gularity, and leave nothing informal in this solemn act. Your wife, however, does not regard the matter in this light ; and, therefore, the enquiry arises, ** Ought the Church to require her re-baptism ?" I think not. The distinction between an act which is informal and an act which is null and void, all will admit. A marriage may not be performed by one every way qualified according to the provisions of a civil statute, but it would be monstrous to pronounce it void, and their children illegitimate, on account of this want of some qualification in the person who officiated. If the parties acted in good faith, and took upon them the marriage vows, shall the^r co- habitation be declared fornication, and iheir children bastards, because a magistrate, for example, had not complied with some ceremony specified by law as in- cumbent on magistrates? Certainly not> The magistrate may be punished, but the marriage is not null and void. Let us now apply this to the matter in hand, and enquire if the baptism of a believer is null and void, because the officiating minister has neglected his own duty as to this ordinance. REVIEW OF FULLER. 67 Now there is one argument wLich, of itself, goes far to settle this question. It is that if no baptism be valid without an administrator, whose b:^ptism is regular, then there can be no valid baptism. The validity of b^iptism would depend on an unbroken succession of- regularly baptized administrators from the days of the apostles ; and if there be a defect in thi^? chain, that defect violates all the subsequent baptisms. The oft exposed fiction of the apostolic succession is ridiculous enough, but the baptisiical succession is even more puerile. It may be replied, however, that this argument, though a reductio ad absurdum, only demonstrates that there can be no valid baptism ; it does not prove that baptism by a Pedo^aptist minister is valid. Let us, then, look at the point. I think such a baptism, though irregular, yet valid. If the candidate is dis- satistied, the ordinance may be correctly adminis- tered. " Baptism is the answer of a good conscience towards God." If the disciple have not this answer, let him have it. But, in a case like that of your wife, the party should not be compelled to repeat the act. Such is my opinion, and my reasons are these : 1. The Commission says: «* He that believeth and is bapiized, shall be saved." The party has believed and been baptized. Here are two personal acts, one internal, the other external. A defect in the admin- istrator of bap ism, can no more invalidate baptism than any imperfection in the preacher can nullily the faith. 2. Consider the tjise and design of baptism. It is a puhlic profesi-ion of allegiance to Christ. It is ** putting on Christ." "Were ye bapiized in the name of Paul, viz. : ** Did you confess yourselves as 6S PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. saved by Paul and devoted to him ?" Now the party has made this public profession of loyalty to Jesus. 3. Reflect upon the metaphors by which baptism is represented, such as "Buried," "Planted," etc. Has not p11 this been realized ? 4. In the New Testament, baptism is always men- tioned as a personal duty, like repentance and fnitb. The admini-^irator is never referred to as at all afF^ct- ing the validity of the act. This idea, that a minis- ter confers any virtue on an ordinance, whether bap- tism or the supper, is a remnant of Popery. As to baptism, this supersiitution goes beyond Popery. For while the Cliurch of Rome contends ria^orously for the power of the piest to consecrate everything, it yet admits the validity of bap'.ism by a layman. In referring to baptism, the inspired writers lay no sort of stress on the administrator. They never allude to him except as a matter of history. They simply mention the fact of baptism as they do of conversion. The eunuch was baptized by a deacon. As swon as converted, the most convenient water and administrator were employed. The reference to the "baptism unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea," shows how little the Holy Spirit regards the admin- istrator For there, the only ministry was that of the elements. 5. Where would the requirement of qualifications in the minister terminate? Suppose he had been immer>ed, but not with the same formula used by us, say, "in the name of Jesus," and not "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost " Would this invalidate all baptisms performed by him ? If so, the ordinance by the apostles was void ; for they had only John's baptism, which was certainly not REVIEW OF 'fuller. 69 with the formula prescribed in the Commission. Suppose a minister had been immersed, but holds some doctrine "which we regard as erroneous. Does this vitiate the baptism administers ? Surely heresy as to truth is at least as fatal as error, as to an ordin- ance. But where would the scheme lead us ? Who shall decide what error vitiates and what not ? I fear some churches would not be satisfied to receive a member from another Baptist church, because he had been baptized by a minister who did not hold election, or perseverance, or limited atonement, or close communion. And how monstrous would this be. Lastly, suppose a minister proves an apostate, are the baptisms he administers all void ? This has never been pretended ; and shall we be so bigoted and superstitious, as to attach more importance to an error about an ordinance than we do to gross immor- ality, or down right hypocrisy ? These, my dear brother, are my sentiments. They are written in haste, but were formed after much thought and delibeiation. The matter has often dis- turbed churches, but I hope the day is at hand when these controversies will forever cease. Yours in the Lord Jesus, R. FULLER. It is, I believe, very generally conceded among the Baptists of the South, that when Elder Richard Fuller, of Baltimore, has made an argument for or against any position, it may be regarded as the very best that can be made. VO PEDOBAPTIST IMMEESIONS. What his capacious intellect and cultivated mind, with all the advantages of the most thorough mental discipline, and his long and large experience cannot achieve, no other need attempt. The surprise and sorrow, w^hich I could not but feel on reading his letter to the Baptist minister, whose wife desires to become a mem- ber of a Baptist church upon her Metliodist im- mersion, is, therefore, somewhat counterbal- anced by the satisfaction of knowing that we have presented to us, in all probability, the very best argument Avhich is likely ever to be made in favor of the reception of members by Baptist churches upon their Pedobaptist im- mersion. And if I shall be able to show; that even this does ngt weigh the value of one poor straw, the question may regarded as settled for- ever. And in view of its great practical im- portance to the unity, order, and purity of the churches of Christ, I feel impelled at least to make an effort to do this. Whether I shall succeed the reader must determine, Tliere are some duties which the Master re- quires of individual christians , as such, and others of the churches, as such. Tlie duty under consideration is a church duty. The question is : Ought a church to require the hajytism of an applicant for membership, ivho is said to have been already baptized by a Pedobaptist minis- ter 1 REVIEW OF FULLER. 71 Elder Fuller says, No, provided the candi- date be satisfied ; and Yes, provided he be 7iot satisfied. I will venture to differ with Elder F., so far as to say that the satisfaction or dis- satisfaction of the applicant, has nothing at all to do ivlth the decision of the question. It is a question for the church, and not for the candi- date to decide. The question is, whether the ceremony which has been performed was true and scriptural christian baptism. If it was, it must not be repeated, for Christ requires a christian to be baptized hut 07ice. Now, it either was or it was not, and that quite inde- pendently of any opinion which the recipient may have come to entertain upon the subject. This is self-evident. For to suppose the con- trary would involve us in the absurdity of be- lieving that the man had been rightly baptized so long as he thought so, and that he had 7iot been, so soon as he should have come to think differently. I am baptized to-day. I think that it is rightly done, I therefore am entitled to admission to a Baptist church. I meet some friend to-night, who suggests a doubt as to the proper performance of the ceremony. To-mor- row my opinion has changed ; and now I am no longer entitled to membership. Let me ask Elder Fuller, if the Church of Christ is to change her opinion of what is right and valid baptism every time I may thus change mine ? Two persons are baptized by the same minister, 72 PEDOBAPTIST IMMEESIONS. and under similar circumstances : one becomes dissatisfied, and the other continues to regard it as true baptism ? Will the cliurch say that one was baptized and the other was not ? Can truth thus contradict herself, or veer about with every wind of individual conceit ? If the candidate may determine for her wlio are competent administrators, he may deter- mine for her who are competent subjects of bap- tism, and wdiat is the proper act of baptism, and so that he be satisied the church need not ask or care whether he was sprinkled when a babe or immersed as a believer. If he has the answer of a good conscience, that is, according to Elder Fuller's exposition, if he really thinks he has been properly baptized that is all-suffi- cient. There surely is something which constitutes a true and genuine scriptural baptism. And where that something has taken place, a church must recognize it as christian baptism, no mat- ter what the candidate for membership may have come to think about. And where that something has not taken place, the church can recognize no substitiite for it, although not merely the candidate, but all the world beside should believe and say that it would do as well. And what this something is, the church must learn /rom the ivord of God, and not from the candidate. She is not, as the administrator and guardian of the ordinances of Christ, to REVIEW OF FULLER, 73 send out to one not yet admitted to her membership, and ask him to decide /or lier what is essential to true Christian baptism, and be governed by his opinion rather than her otvn. Yet this is what she virtually does, as often as ehe receives or refuses to receive a Pedobaptist immersion, according as the candidate is satis- fied or dissatisfied with it. Thus much by way of divesting the subject of an incidental encumbrance which only tends to distract the mind from the true issue. Now let us see what that true issue is. The Church has a question to decide for her- self, a most important 'practical question. That is, whether an immersion administered by one who has never himself submitted to the ordi- nance of Christ and without the authority of any church of baptized believers, is true and genuine Christian baptism according to the Scriptures. If it be, she violates the order of Christ if ehe repeat it. If it be not, she equally violates his order if she receive one thus falsely bap- tized without giving him true baptism. It is aquestion of official duty, and must be decided not by the whims of the applicant, but by the law of the King. Elder Fuller does not however seem to real- ize this. He thinks the baptism may be so irregular as to demand a re-haptism for its cor- rection, as in his own case, and yet be valid 7 74 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS, baptism I And his account of the matter shows into what strange inconsistencies even great and good men may fall when they stand arrayed against the truth. The author tells U8 he had himself been baptized by a Pedobap- tist, but when conviction drove him to the Baptist Church, he saw that " the first preach^ >ers were themselves baptized ; and baptism by an unbaptized administrator appeared to him manifestly irregular!' '' I therefore,'' he says, RESOLVED TO CORRECT THIS IRREGULARITY, and leave nothing informal in this solemn act." Now the inconsistency to which I refer is this 1 Eld. Fuller thinks it very important that in his case the wrong shall be made right. He will not give the sanction of his example to perpetrate this disorder in the churches : he will personally do all that he can to correct the ir- regularity ; yet he seems to think the official sanction of a Cliurch of Jesus Christ is of so much less importance than that of his individ^ ual example that he does not hesitate to say that she ought not " to correct the irregularity" as he had done. It was right for Eld. Fuller. It was important for Eld. Fuller that in Ma case " nothing should be informal in the solemn act." But it is of so little consequence to others, to the cause of Christ, to the order of Christ's kingdom, or the welfare of the Baptist Churches, that he thinks ^A<;?/ may very properly give their united and official sanction to just REVIEW OF FULLER. 75 euch irregularities as often as they may be desired 1 A stranger might on reading Eld. Fuller's letter be almost led to ask, who can E. Fuller be that he should fancy it so important for him to set right what he so readily advises the churches to leave wrong ? But let it pass. I wish now to consider the distinction which the writer so ingeniously makes between a baptism that is invalid and one which is merely irregular. I grant that there may be irregularities which do not invali- date the ordinance, but it is self-evident that they must not be of such a character as to affect what is essential to its scriptural admin- istration. An irregularity wliich makes the baptism unscripturalj makes it invalid. What the churches have therefore to determine ii.' these cases is simply this : Is the baptism of Christ's kingdom in the Scriptures required to be administered by those who have theinselves received it ? If it be, then without some spe- cial provision to the contrary, others are by that requirement fm^hidden to administer it. Just as the law requiring the baptism of believers forbids the baptism of those who do not be- lieve. And if forbidden to others it must be invalid when performed by them. Now let us go to the Book and ask, Who are required to administer baptism Just as we are 76 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. accustomed to go to it to learn who are to he baptized. 1. "Go ye and teach all nationSj baptizing tliera." Who are these ye ? baptized or un- baptized ? Eld. Fuller says, they " were hap- iized." Is any anthority given elsewhere to any others who were 7iot baptized ? No one will say so. Is there any example of any one baptizing who had not been baptized ? Eld. Fuller cannot find one. How then with this law given to the baptized, and without one solitary precept or one single example contra- vening it, can it be pretended that it was ever permitted to any other. Well might Eld. Fuller ask, as he does, (page 230 of his invaluable book on baptism and communion.) '^ WHAT WOULD BE THOUGHT OF A MINISTER WHO SHOULD GO ABOUT PREACHNG THE COMMISSION AND "BAPTIZING, AND YET HIMSELF REMAIN UNBAPTIZED ? Yet in the letter before us he talks as though the commission left it an open question as to whether the men who preached and baptized should be themselves baptized or not. Eld. Fuller says, page 117 of his book, " 27ie only authority to baptize any body is the commission." This is true ; and if so, it must be equally true that the commission is the only authority to any body to baptize, and that, as he himself admitS; was given to the baptized. REVIEW OF FULLER. 77 2. Eld. Fuller says, " consider the design of baptism." I have considered it, and am com- pelled to the conviction that the great practi- cal object which baptism was intended to ac- complish could only be accomplished w^hen administered by one already in the kingdom and acting under the legal authority of the kingdom. The design of baptism, so far as it affects the relation which the baptized sustains to the churches is initiation into the body of Christ's visible people. It makes him a mem- ber of Christ's visible kingdom. A particular church, as the executive body in the kingdom, must be composed of those who are members of the kingdom. He who has professed his faith in Christ and has been baptized, is regar- ded by the churches as iriitiated : and it is on this ground alone that he is regarded as eligi- ble to membership in any church. But it is evident that this ceremony of initiation to be a valid one, must be performed according to the law of the kingdom, and by those properly authorized to administer that law. Now if baptism be the door of entrance, it is certain that the unbaptized have not come in. They being out of the kingdom can have no authority in it. They cannot stand outside of the king- dom and thrust others in. No organization in the world would be so silly as to leave the work of making and initiating its members to those who refused, themselves, to be initiated. There 78 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. must be a profession of faith, and this not made to the world, not to some priest of Jupi- ter, not to some lodge of Odd Fellows, or Di- vision of the Sons of Temperance : not to a class-leader or even to a society of good men. It must be made to a ChurcJi of Christy or to some one duly authorized by a church to receive it, and him, in consequence of it. Then there must be immersion, performed, not by a Jewish priest, or a disciple of Joe Smith, or a mere pious man without legal authority ; but it must be by one authorized under the laws of the kingdom to administer it. Any act of baptism which is not a recognition of the person bap- tized as henceforth one of the members of the visible kingdom, is deficient in the very thing which is essential to the design of baptism. If it does not initiate him, it has failed of its ob- ject, and he is no more ready to be received into a particular church than if it had not been peiformed. Now when a baptism is performed by a Pedobaptist, it is designed to initiate him into a Pedohaptist society. It is so understood, both by the administrator and the subject of it. It does what it is intended to do and nothing more ; and when a Baptist Church recognizes it as a valid baptism, she of necessity recognizes that society as equally ioith herself a part of the visible kingdom. They stand on the same ground and possess the same authority. This design is^ of itseLf^ enough to invalidate REVIEW OF FULLER. 79 tlie performance. So mncli so that if Eld. Ful- ler himself — a regular Baptist minister, and, as he thinks, tivice baptized — if even he should baptize a person with the express understanding that the ceremony was performed for the pur- pose of making him a member of a Methodist society, I would nol, nor do I believe that any Baptist church in all the land would recognize it as valid baptism. Thus much for " the design." It was not as Eld. Fuller seems to suppose, merely to sym- bolize a burial or a washing away of sins. The Lord selected and commanded a ceremony of initiation which did indeed most beautifully set forth the fact that the initiated was now un- der the most solemn obligations to live a new life, by representing his former self as dead and buried, and to be pure in heart, by representing him as free from all defilement. But these were not the practical result to be accomplish- ed ; that was to take him into the visible kingdom of Christ, and make him externally and formally a fellow-citizen with the saints of Christ. It was just the equivalent of the oath of allegiance by which a foreigner becomes a citizen among ourselves. He may be a good man : he may love his adopted country ; he may be ready to lose his life in her defence, but he is not legally a citizen : he can exercise no privileges of citizenship ; he cannot vote or be entrusted with the management of public af- 80 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIOIJS. fairs, until he has been formally invested with the citizenship according to law. Now suppose in his ignorance he should apply to another for- eigner to make him a citizen, and this other through ignorance or design should administer to him the oath in the very form, and words required by the law. Would this make him a legal citizen ? Would the judge of the election permit him to vote / Not at all. He must take the oath, not by himself alone ; not before another stranger like himself, not even before a native born citizen, but it must, to be a valid initiation, be administered by a citizen properly qualified and duly authorized to re- ceive his declaration of allegiance and to receive him as a citizen in consequence of his having made it. 3. But here is another thought : No Baptist Church could consistently receive and sanction as valid any official act performed even by one who had been a Baptist minister, after such minister had been deposed from his office and excluded from the Church. This, I presume, will not be disputed even by Eld. Fuller. But if the church cannot sanc- tion the official act of a hcqytlzed man who is no longer a Church member, how can she sanc- tion the same act performed by an 2^7ibaptized man who never has been a Church member ? Now she would at once depose and exclude a Baptist minister for sprinkling babies as bap- REVIEW OF FULLER. 81 tism, and if the Methodists or Preshyterians, whose official acts she is required to sanction, had been within her jurisdiction, she would long ago have disowned them and repudiated their acts ; yet merely because they have been beyond the reach of her disciplinej she is to receive as valid and sanction their official work as though it had been done by a minister in good standing in her own communion. I say, No ! never! never! never! What a baptized man may not do when he has been excluded from the Church, an -wnbaptized man habitually guilty of the same acts for which the other was excluded, cannot do. We have, therefore, first the fact, that tho commission which Elder Fuller says contains the only authority to baptize, was given only to the baptized. Second, we have the fact that in the whole Scripture record there is no ac- count given of any others but the baptized performing the ordinance. There is not even ground for an inference that they did so. Third, /we have the fact that baptism was the initiating ordinance by which one was brought within the kingdom ; and unless the initiatory ordinance — the oath of allegiance of the kingdom — could be administered by those who were not in it themselves, the necessary inference is, that those who gave it must have first received it. Fourth, we have the fact that if a baptized minister were guilty of such acts as Pedobap- 62 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. list ministers habitually perform, no Baptist Church would think of sanctioning his of&cial acts, or could do it without the sacrifice of all regard to order ; and unless the fact that these ministers are unbaptized gives v^alidity to acts which could not be recognized as valid if done by a baptized minister of the same character and holding the same sentiments, we must con- clude that the act is not only irregular, but null and void. Now, what does Eld. Fuller present against this array of facts and arguments. He says that if a man should chance to be informally or illegally married, it would be a ead thing to count the marriage null, and so bastardize the children. To this I have only to answer, that if the laiv requires marriage to be performed by one possessing certain qualifi- cations, and I shall discover that the man who married me did not possess them, or that from any other cause I have not been legally mar- ried, I will, with my wife's consent, get inar- ried over again, and be sure to have it rightly done. So I think would Eld. Fuller, or any other honest man, who meant to obey the laio concerning matrimony. But the Commission says, " He that believ- eth and is baptized shall be saved." True enough, and the same Commission says to the baptized preachers, Go ye and baptize them. Did Peter, when he executed thia REVIEW OF FULLER, 83 commissioDj and said, Kepent and be baptized, leave them to go to the Jewish priests, or to the priests of Jupiter for the performance of the ceremony ? It seems most likely that the apostles understood the Commission almost as well as Eld. Fuller, and if they did not send candidates out of the church for baptism, or receive those who had been immersed by un- baptized priests or privates, the Commission cannot give authority for us to do so. Here seems to be the great difficulty in Eld. Fuller's mind. Baptism is commanded as a joerso^zaZ duty, and nothing is said of the administrator. " The administrator is never referred to as af- fecting the validity of the ordinance." But yet he admits that the Commission — the sole authority to baptize was given to those who had been baptized themselves. He clearly proves in his book that all who w^ent about preaching the Commission and baptizing must have been baptized ; and neither he, nor any one else, that I have ever heard of, pretends that the authority to baptize was scattered promiscu- ously over the world, and that one was as com- petent to do it as another. No one pretends that there is either precept or example to au- thorize its administration by any but the bap- tized, while he and all admit, that by both precept and example, it is plain as any fact can be, that it was to be done, and was done hy the baptized. What more does he- want ? 84 PEDOBAPTIST IMMEKSIONS. What more can lie have to show who were to be the administrators ? And yet in view of all this he intimates that to insist that he who administers baptism must have been himself baptized, is " superstition going beyond popery itself." If so, then the Lord himself was thus superstitious, for it is certain by Eld. Fuller's own showing that he insisted on this. If so, then each of the apostles was as superstitious as his Master, for it is evident they never re- cognized the baptism of the uubaptized. And for myself, while I can stand with them, I do not care a straw whether I have the approba- tion of the Pope or not. But if the qualifications of the administra- tor of baptism cannot affect the validity of the ordinance, no more can the qualifications of the administrator of the Lord's Supper aflect its validity as a church ordinance, for there is less said of the administrator of this ordi- nance than of the other. If one, not a church member, may administer baptism, he may sure- ly with equal propriety administer the Supper, though he cannot partake of it ; and when any Baptist Church is without a pastor, and desire to celebrate the Supper, they may send to the Methodist or Presbyterian minister to come and officiate for them. The Pedobaptist preacher cannot eat, but he can break the bread for them — he cannot drink, but he can pour the wine for them ; and such participa- REVIEW OF FULLER. 85 tion, though irregular, would be valid, and should be sanctioned by all tJie churches, if the parties are satisfied, forsooth. Nay, more, if it be true that the qualifications of the admin- istrator cannot affect the validity of baptism, then Baptist ministers may call on those of Pedobaptist Churches to take the labor of im- mersion off their hands, or at least assist in its performance, and the churches must sanction the act. For surely, if an immersion by a Pe- dobaptist to initiate one into a Methodist socie- ty is valid baptism, an immersion by the same person would be equally valid, if done to make one a Baptist. Yet I apprehend that even Eld. Fuller, with all his persuasive eloquence, would find it impossible to induce even his own church to sanction such a baptism performed at his request. He would not dare even to sug- gest it. And again, if a Pedobaptist minister, in the opinion of Baptist churches can administer the ordinances in a scriptural and valid manner, why should they be ordained on becoming Baptist ministers ? If they can confer scriptural bap- tism without baptism or membership, they can Burely confer it without ordination ; and as there is less said of the administrator of the Supper than there is of the administrator of baptism, they can equally administer that ordi- nance. It follows that there can be no neces- 8 86 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. sity for their ordination, and tlie churches should not insist upon it. And further still, if it be true that the quali* fications of. the administrator cannot at all af- fect the validity of the ordinances ; if he need not be a Baptist minister, or a Baptist church- member, no more need he be a member or a minister in any religious society. A member of a division of the Sons of Temperance can con- fer it with the same propriety as a member of a Methodist society, or a priest in a Masonic chapter, as well as a Methodist bishop. Nay, baptism conferred by the veriest infidel in all the land would be as valid, and must be sanc- tioned by the churches, as though it had been done according to Christ's commission, and un- der his authorityj as exercised through hia churches. Surely Elder Fuller did not think what he was saying. It is true, baptism is a personal duty, and so is the profession of faith that goes before it, and when the candidate has found the proper persons to listen to his profes^ sion, he will have no difficulty in learning who is to baptize him. But if, says Elder Fuller, we require that the minister shall have been baj^tized, *' Where will our reqv/ireinents cease ?" Must he be sound in faith.^ Must he be this, or that, or the other thing.? I wonder that any one should be em- barassed by such difficulties as these. We surely ought to know that for a Baptist Church REVIEW OF FULLER. 87 to recognize ones official acts he must be a Bap- tist minister in good and regular standing in some Baptist church. It is not because he has been baptized that we recognize his official acts, but because he is a member and a minister duly authorized to perform them ; and when he ceases to be either the one or the other, those churches who know the facts, must and will, if they be ftiithful to their duty, disown him as a brother, and repudiate his official acts if he ehould continue to perform them. The validity of his official acts does not depend on his hap- tis7n, or on his piety, or on his orthodoxy, but on the authority tvhich he has received from the Church. So long as he retains this authority, therefore, his acts are valid, and when it is with- drawn the churches must regard them as in- valid, as they must the official acts of one who has never received such authority.'''" But one thought more and I have done. If that alone be valid baptism, says Elder F., which is administered by one who has been himself baptized, there is no such thing as valid bap- tism. For who can say that somewhere in the lapse of eighteen hundred years there may not a link be wanting in the chain of our baptismal succession. And so because there may have been such irregularities in the past as he is ad- • If any say that every male member has autboritjr to bap- tize by virtue of his membership, it will still hold good that no one can have it, who is not a member. -^ •. 88 * PEDOBAPTIST IMMEKSIONS. vocating, we must sanction them now. Because some church may at some time in past ages, ignorantly or inadvertently have given her sanction to an irregular and invalid baptism ; does Elder Fuller think, or can any Baptist think, that therefore, every church ought now knowingly and wilfully to sanction every such case that may come before her ? To this argument of his I have first to say that lightly as Eld. Fuller talks of the baptis- mal succession, it will be hard for him to show that it does not exist. As he makes the want of it the basis of his argument, it devolves on him to prove the fact, (if it be a fact,) that it is wanting. As his argument hangs on that broken link it is for him to find and show that broken link. The presumption is that the chain is perfect. If baptism is essential to church membership, and Christ declared his church as an institution, should continue to the end of time, and the gates of hell should not prevail against it, then it is to be taken for granted, in the absence of proof to the contra- ry that baptized churches have continued in regular succession from that day to this, and any particular baptized church must be regarded in the absence of proof to the contrary, as in the succession. Elder Fuller may doubt it, but for myself I cannot help believing that the Lord has kept his word, and conse- quently there have been all the time, as there KEVIEW OF FULLER. 89 are now, regular churches of baptized believers. It does not matter whether I can trace them all the time or not, I will take their existence for granted upon the Savior's promise that they slioidd exist until some one will show the day in which it could be said that they were all de- stroyed, and that either by violence or craft the gates of hell had prevailed. And while I take this for granted, I take for granted also, that ih.Q church that baptized Eld. Fuller, and that to w^hich I belong, and every other of the same faith and order, with those established by the apostles, have received valid and scriptural baptism by a scriptural administrator. I am entitled to do so until the contrary shall be shown. God in his providence has preserved his churches in all that was essential, and one essential is right baptism. He can perhaps ehow here and there an irregular baptism, but he cannot show that these irregularities have been perpetuated. Roger Williams' little so- ciety, claiming to be a Baptist Church, but without regular baptism, died out in two or three years, and no one can show that any ' Baptist minister or church received baptism from them or by their authority. There were those in England after the so called reforma- tion, who contended that it luould he right and lawful to bajjtize themselves, and so begin anew. But there is no proof that they did so, for we know they sent to the Continent to receive a 90 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. baptism which would have no suspicion con- cerning its validity. And thus, I do not doubt, it has ever been. God has preserved the scrip- tural baptism in all that is essential. And if a baptized administrator is essential, (as we have proved it is,) then he -has never permit- ted the children of his visible Kingdom to be thrust into it by those who would not enter in themselves. But while I might take this ground, I need not, and will not do it for the purpose of meet- ing Eld. Fuller's argument. I am willing that he should have it all his own way. And I fiimply ask him, as one who loves the peace, and purity, and order of the Christian Churches to answer this one question. If a church be now from the necessity of the case, obliged to regard as valid and regular some baptismal act performed in the long gone past, and about which there may now be good reason to doubt whether it was every way cor- rectly done, must she in consequence, regard as valid, and sanction those baptisms performed in her own time, and which she knows to be illegal and unscriptural, concerning which there is not even a pretence that the administrators were qualified, as Brother Fuller says the first ad- ministrators were ? If so what is church order worth ? If so there is an end to order. The church may just as well yield all her claim to the divinely appointed guardian of Christ's or- REVIEW OF FULLER. 91 dinances. And any one, whether in the churcb or not, whether authorized hy church authority or not, may take it on himself to perform Christian baptism, and the church must recog- nize and sanction the act, and treat him in this particular as though he were a member and a minister, because, forsooth, some hundred or some thousand years ago the like thing had been done. Surely if Elder Fuller had not ^^ written in haste" he could not have failed to see this consequence of his argument. And had he seen it he surely must have felt that it was a most important duty of every Church of Jesus Christ to take the same course to " cor- rect this irregularity" which he thought it so essential for himself to take when he became a Baptist. I am glad that the author prefaced his letter by his personal history. If " actions speak louder than words" as the old proverb says, then Eld. Fuller, rehaptized, presents a stronger argument against his letter than I can do. Let the churches hear him, not as he sits and theorises in his easy chair, writing this let- ter to his friend, but let them hear him as he calls out to them from beneath the waves of Jordan, acting out the earnest faith of an hon- est heart, and saying in trumpet tones, '' THIS IS THE WAY TO CORRECT THE IR- REGULARITY OF PEDOBAPTIST IM- MERSIONS." ^ 92 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. CHAPTER V. THE VALIDITY OP BAPTISM ADMINI8TEP.ED BY AN UN- BAPtlZED EVANGELIST. BY ELD. JOHNSON, OF S. C. In my fourth number on the Evangelists, two ques- tions came up for consideration. The first was answered in the same number. The second was postponed, which is as follows : " Has the unbap- tized Evangelist authority to baptize believers V* In discussing this subject, I shall necessarily re- peat some things that I have said before. The Savior said unto his apostles, in the solemn hour of his leaving them — **All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth ; Go ye, therefore, and make disciples in all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of tlie Son, and of the Holy Ghost." In conformity with these directions, Peter preached on the day of Pentecost, and made about three thousand disciples, who were baptized, and added to them, the hundred and twenty who were all with one accord, in one place, on that memorable day. They were not added to them by baptism, but were Jirsi baptized, and then added. Philip, the evangelist, went down to Samaria, preached and bap- tized those that believed. Shortly after, we read of a church jp. Samaria. A ^reat persecution arose against the church of Jerusalem, which dispersed all the members, except the apostles. They that were REVIEW OF JOHNSON. 93 scattered abroad, went everywhere preaching the word ; and the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number turned to the Lord. In a little time, Paul and Barnabas were sent upon a mission- ary tour, through those regions, and found many churches, over whom they ordained elders. Peter went to Cornelius* house, where a company was as- sembled, and preached to them. The Holy Spirit fell upon them all, and he commanded them to be baptized, and a church was formed at Ceesarea, the residence of the centurion. Paul baptized believing Corinthians. We thus see that apostles and evan- gelists — Preachers of the Gospel — are the baptizers of believers. But these were themselves baptized. How, then, can a baptism by one, himself unbaptized, be valid ? Light will be thrown on this subject by first ascertaining whether one can be an evangelist, or a preacher of the gospel, who has not been bap* tized. This is a question of fact. It is too obvious to need proof, that Jesus Chiist makes the evangelist or preacher, and not man. It is equally obvious, that the only mode in which we ascertain a preacher is by his qualification and de- sire for the office. John the Baptist did no miracle to prove his appointment to the ministry, yet he was a preacher of Christ, though he did not as fully preach the gospel of Christ, as it was preached after His resurrection. We know that John was not bap- tized, and yet, by his qualifications he was recog- nized and received. Martin Luther, John Knox, George Whitfield, Jonathan Edwards, preached the gospel of Christ with a power and success, unsurpassed by any preach- ers since the Apostle's day. Who made them such preachers ? Who blessed their labors so wonderful- S4 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. ly ? Not man, but the Lord Jesus, the King in Zion. And there have been thousands of unbaptized preachers in Pedobaptist societies, who have faith- fully and successfully preached the gospel of Christ. Can we say that they are not preachers of the Lord's making ? Surely not. Have we not endorsed men as preachers, though unbaptized, by asking them into our pulpits, and receiving persons for baptism, and afterward into our churches, who were awaken- ed and converted to God through their agency or instrumentality ? Did we so endorse them as made by man ? No. But as made by the Spirit of the Lord Jesus and His Father. Now if our King has dispensed with the baptism of these preachers or evangehsts, whom He has put into the ministry, and has blessed their labors in doing His work, on what ground can we object to this exercise of His sover- eign will ? And if He commands His preachers to baptize believers upon a profession of their fai?h in Him ; and those whom He has made such, preach and baptize believers though themselves unbaptized, on what ground can we refuse to receive their work in baptizing, as well as in preaching, and in conver- sion, since it was by his Spirit's influences that they did both ? That Paul regarded baptizing as a work inferior to preaching, is obvious, as he says, "I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius, and the household of Stephanus. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel." That baptized and unbaptized evangelists do preach the gospel, and that by means of their preaching, souls are alike savingly converted to God by his blessing on their labors, cannot be doubted. If one converted by the preaching of an unbaptized Evan- REVIEW OF JOHNSON. 95 gelist, should apply for baptism to a baptized Evan- gelist, would be not, if satisfied of his fitness for the ordinance, administer it to him ? And would not this one, upon applicaUon for admission into a Bap- tist church, be received upon his faith and baptism ? Most assuredly. Now surely conversion is a greater work than b>iptism, Well ! The Lord, not man, makes the evangelist, and commissions him to make and baptia*^ disciples. If the work in conversion be ralid, why not the v/ork in baptism also ? Especial- ly as the work in conversion is ihe greater of the two, and the same authority commands the same officer to do both. Tht:^re is another view of this subject worthy of atfention. A distinction is made by our Lord be- tween His kingdom and His churches on this earth. To Pilate He said : " My kingdom is not of this world If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be dehv- ered to the Jews." The Savior evidently meant, that his kingdom, though extending ov<-r this whole earth, was not of a worldly nature, being governed neither by worldly principles, nor sustained by world- ly mea.sures. To the apostles He said, *' All power h givnn unto me in heaven and in earth." And then with kingly authority he commanded them to go into all tbe wo»ld, and make, and baptize disci- ples, adding. ** And lo 1 I am with you always to the end of the world." Both the language to Pil-ite and the commission to the apostles w re spoken betore any churches existed ; and therefore the kingdom of Chrii't and his churches are not identical. Of the kiiitrdom the apcsik^s were the chief officers ; next, the seventy disciples, and now the evanajelists. The world is their field. Itinerating, as heralds of the 96 PED0BAPTI3T IMMERSIONS. cross, as they go, they preach the Lord Jesus, and wheresoever any become his disciples, they immerse them into the name of the Triune God ; and these immersed disciples are the materials of which the churches are formed. It thus evidently appears that evangelists are officers of the kingdom of Christ. When a sinner is truly converted to God, he is a spiritual subject of Christ's kingdom. By baptism he becomes visibly such. As Christ only makes and appoints the evangelist, if He is pleased to dispense with his submission to the ordinance of baptism, it is His sovereign act ; and we have no right to ob- ject to His act. The evangelist, who comes bearing the broad seal of his Master's appointment in the qualifications by which he is to be known, should be received, and his work also, when done in obedience to the commission of his Lord. Hence the immer- sion of a professed believer in Jesus Christ, adminis- tered by an unbaptized evangelist is a valid bap- tism. It is urged as an objection against the validity of 8uch a baptism, that the baptizer would have a right to administer the Lord's Supper to believers also, and hence we should have such administrators brought into the. churches as partakers, likewise of the ordinance, and thus mixed communion would be introduced amongst us. Let it be observed in re- ply, that a right to baptism and the Lord's Supper, stands upon different grounds. Faith in Christ gives the right to baptism. Church membership — the right to the Lord's Table. The evangelist is com- manded to baptize, but not to administer the Lord's Supper. Baptism is committed to ministerial hands — the Lord's Supper is not. Baptism is a personal, individual ordinance ; the supper is a social church KEYIEW OF JOHNSON. 97 ordinance. The one is the ordinance of the king- dom of Christ ; the other, of the churches of Christ. The evantjelist is an officer of the kingdom, not of a church of Christ. An evangelist may become a bishop of a church, and thus be her presiding officer. An unbaptized evangehst cannot become an officer of a church of Christ, for he cannot be a member of a church. He, therefore, can neither preside at the table of the Lord, nor be a partaker of its rich fare. There is, then, no danger of the introduction of mixed communion into our churches, on the ground of the validity of a baptism under the hands of an unbaptized evangelist. The only objecdon against the validity of a bap- tism by an unbaptized evangelist, that has any force, is, that he himself is unbaptized. But this objection lies ^ith equal force against his authority to preach, ■which is a much higher work than to baptize. It lies also with equal force against the claim of any unbaptized professor of religion to be a Christian ; so that, to carry out the principle, we should not re- ceive an unbaptized evangelist as a preacher of the Go?pel into our pulpits, or recognize bim in any way as a minister of Christ ; neither should we recognize any unbapiized person as a Christian. Are we pre- pared for such a course of treatment to all other de- nominations of professed believers in our Lord Jesus Christ ? After all, the essence of true spiritual gospel baptism consists in the immersion in water, of a spiritual believer, upon a profession of fai'.h in Christ, by whomsoever the ordinance may be administered. After such an immersion, its repetition would be another baptism, for which there is no authority in the scripture. The requirement of an immersed ad- 9 98 PEDOBAPTIST IMMEKSIONS. Kiinistrator as indispensable, then, throws us back upon the apostolical succession, so that no Baptist could prove the validity of his own baptism, unless he could go back through a line of baptized admin- istrators to one of the apostles. And let me ask — through what line of ministerial ancestry will he undertake bis task ? Roger Williams was ordained in the Church of England. He afterwards embraced Baptist princi- ples. Banii^hed from Massachusetts for his peculiar views, he settled in Providence, Rhode Island. There he baptized Mr. HoUiman, who had embraced the same views, and then Mr Holliman baptized Mr. WilLams, who afterwards founded a Baptist Church in that city. And the extraordinary and blessed results that have followed, will be fully understood in eternity only. What Baptist would go back some two hundred years, and undo the rai^^hty work that followed the labors of Roger Williams, on the ground, that though a preacher of the gospel, he had no right to bHp'ize, because he was himself unbaptized, and therefore his baptism of Holliman and all other bapdsms resulting from that, were null and void. W. KEVIEW OF THE ABOVE. In the discussion of questions of this kind it is essential that we have some settled and ad- mitted principles upon which we may base our arguments. If there be at the bottom of our reasonings only the loose and ever-shifting sand, it matters not how firmly our conclusions may be built upon our premises, for the prem- EEVIEW OF JOHNSON. 99 ises themselves have no stability, and the whole fabric will tumble together into ruin. It will avail us nothing to tie our vessel to a floating wreck. If we should, we will not know where we are and whither we are drifting. Our first object, therefore, must be to fix upon some settled and admitted truths which we can make the basis of our reasonings. Such truths I take to be the following, viz. : 1st. All the author- ity lahich any one can have to baptize must he derived fom the Word of God. To the Bible, and the Bible only, we must all appeal. Whether baptism be regarded as an ordinance of the Church, or of the Kingdom of Christ, it is equally an ordinance of the New Testa7nent. To this, and this alone, we go to learn what baptism is. To this, and this alone, we go to learn who are to be baptized ; and it is from this, and this alone, that we must learn who are authorized to confer baptism. If we leave the written Word, and permit ourselves to be decided by the dictates of uninspired reason, uninspired tradition, or uninspired conjectures as to what is right and authoritative in the Kingdom of Christ, we are, at once, at sea with- out a pilot or a compass, and know not whither we may float. 2d. If the above be admitted (and we do not think that " W." or any other Baptist will think of disputing it), it follows, that if the New Testament has not given authority to 100 PEDpBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. ^^ uribaptized Evangelists" to baptize, then ^^un- baptized Evangelists" have no such authority. The question before us, therefore, is reduced to this : Does the New Testament any where, by precept or by example, or by any fair and legitimate inference, confer on ^'unboptized Evangelists" the '' authority to baptize believ- ers T And here, it seems to us, the whole discussion might be, at once, cut oft by asking one simple question : Is there any such a being as an " un- baptized Evojigelist" recognized in the New Testament ? Is he ever described ? Is he ever mentioned ? Is he ever alluded to as hav- ing either a present or a prospective existence ? If he is not known to the Scriptures, it fol- lows, of course, that he has received no author- ity from them. Now let '' W.," or any one else, take his Bible and his Concordance, English or Greek, and make diligent search from the first of Matthew to the last of Revelations, and if he can find the slightest allusion to any unbap- tized Evangelist, in the sense that " W." uses the terms, he will, in our opinion, be entitled to take rank with the discoverers of things before unknown. This unbaptized Evangelist, the reader will observe, to accord with " W.'s" de- scription of him, must be "a?i officer in the [visible] Kingdom of Christ ;" yet he is one who " can not be a member of a Church of Christ" and can ^^ neither preside at the table of EEVIEW OF JOHNSON. 101 (he Lordj nor be a partaker of its rich fare." He is one who is authorized to preach to others that believers must he baptized accordiDg to Christ's law, yet he himself claims to be a be- liever, and will not be baptized. He is author- ized to make disciples, and teach them to ob- serve all that Christ commanded, yet he himself will not observe the very first of all the things which Christ commanded to a believer : " Be- lieve and be baptized." But for the fear that we might be thought unwilling to do full justice to all the arguments by which '' W." has attempted to sustain his positions, we would stop here and wait with patience until some one shall show us the chap- ter and the verse where this strange compound of faith and disobedience, having authority from Christ to preach what he will not practice, may be found. If he himself can not be discovered in the Word, we surely need not waste our time in looking for his " authority to baptize be- lievers." But if we should discover the " unbaptized Evangelist" to be a veritable existence, clearly recognized as having life and breath, and hold- ing office in Christ's Kingdom, as that King- dom is described and bounded in the Word of God, then we will have this other question to decide, viz. : What are the duties which the New Testament imposes upon this " officer of iJte Kingdom" or which it authorizes him to 102 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. perform ? He may be an officer, and yet not have, by virtue of his office, any authority to baptize. Deacons are officers, yet it does not certainly appear that it was any part of the duty of their office to administer baptism. Here, therefore, is the burden which devolves on " W.'' before he can make good his position. He says that unbaptized Evangelists have authority to baptize believers. We simply deny. It then devolves on him to show that there is in the Kingdom of Christ an " officer'* called an ^' unbaptized Evangelist ," who is not known to the Scriptures, and who, of course, has no scriptural authority ; or else that this '^unbap- tiztd Evangelist" is known to the Scriptures, and DID receive '' authority to baptize" from Christ, as the source of all authority in his Kingdom. As we regard the Kingdom of Christ as a scrip- tural kingdom, concerning which we have no other source of information as to who are mem- bers of it, or who are officers in it, or what are the privileges or duties of members or officers, we must confine our investigations to the teach- ings of THE WRITTEN WoRD ; and if he will not open the flood-gates to all manner of error and su])erstition, he must submit to meet us on the Bible Platform, and be content to abide by the decisions of the Word of God. He must therefore show us in the Word where his un- baptized Evangelist is found, and where, and KB VIEW OF JOHNSON. 103 when, and how he received his commission from the Lord of the Kingdom to baptize be- lievers. " To the Law and to the Testimony ; if he s'peak not according to this Wordy it is be- cause there is no light in him." Let us then inquire, is there any '^ iwecept" any command- ment in the Word requiring " unbaptized Evan- gelists" to baptize believers ? Was the great commission, which is commonly thought to. contain the only authority which any person has to baptize any body, given to " unbaptized Evangelisis ?'' " W.'' makes no pretension that it was. Unbaptized Evangelists can not act under this commission, for, if they be believ- ers, it requires them to be baptized. With whtxt face can they preach, " believe, and be bap- tizedj' when they despise and repudiate the ordinance ? But ^' W." says ''''John was not baptized, and yet by his qualiji cations he was recognized and. received." Excepting only this case of John, he does not present from the Scriptures, any shadow of authority conferred on any unbap- tized man to baptize believers. There was no command given to any such to do it. There is no example of any such who did it. No other dared to do it ; nor would John, had Christ not given him a personal commission. As an unbaptized baptizer, John stands alone. This is an admitted fact. It was impossible but that some unbajitized man should begin 104 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. the work. And Christ sent John to do it. He had a special commission to introduce the rite, and make ready a people prepared for the Lord. And if " W.'s" " nnbaptized Evangelists" have a similar commission from Christ to introduce the rite wliere it does not exist, his case may he referred to as a precedent for their's ; but certainly not otherwise, The previous sub- mission to baptism could not be required as a qualification in John — because there was no one who could confer it upon John. After it became possible to receive it however, Christ would not exempt even himself from its recep- tion. When John began to baptize there was no Jaiu requiring Mm to be baptized. He was no rejector of Christ's ordinance, as every un- baptized Evangelist now must be^ and must then have been, had he existed. The com- mand, therefore, which authorized John, is no authority to any other unbaptized person to bap- tize believers. But failing of precept or example, have we any fair and reasonable inference. Here " W.'" makes a better showing, " Baptism'' is of less importance than "preaching," and hence we may infer that all who are authorized to preach are also authorized to baptize. We might grant this, and the question would still be undecided. For it would still remain to be determined whether, acccording to the scriptures^ any unbaptized man is authorized REVIEW OF JOHNSON. 105 to preach. But it is not true that the right to baptize is of necessity included in the right to preach, even though preaching may be more important than baptizing. The greater does not include the less, except the less be a con- stituent part of the greater. A man may be authorized to act as Governor, and yet have no authority to receive taxes, although his office is more important than that of Tax-Collpctor. Christ might have authorized thousands of people to preach whom he did not authorize to baptize. Some people think he did They say that all who hear the gospel are duly au- thorized to preach it. ^^ Let him that heareth, say come.'* But they do not pretend that ev- ery man who hears the gospel is authorized to " baptize believers." Some people say that preaching the gospel is giving religous instruc- tion, and that it is the privilege and the duty of every one who is competent to do so, to give religious instruction. Yet they do not pretend that every one who has the capacity to teach another something about religion, is on that account authorized to " baptize believers." If, however, it be said that the commission to preach and to baptize was given to the same persons, and that consequently all who are au- thorized to preach, are by the same commission authorized to baptize. We grant it. But then, this joint commission was not given to the unbaptized. It conferred on such, no au- 106 PEDOBAPTIST IMMEESIONS. thority eitlier to preach or to baptize, or do any thing else but to believe and he baptized. If this commission, therefore, is the only au- thority for preaching, it is certain that they have no authority either to preach or to bap- tize. It is not enough for " W." to show that some preachers baptized, and that an unbaptized man might preach. He must show that n7ibap- tized preachers were authorized to baptize. Let him show in the Word of God, a commission au- thorizing one who would not himself be bap- tized, to go and baptize others. Until he has done this, his argument stands thus : Baptized preachers are authorized to bap- tize believers. Unbaptized Evangelists are preachers. Therefore, unbaptized Evangelists are au- thorized to baptize believers. A school girl would laugh at such logic, un- less it were given as an example of false rea- soning. If unbaptized Evangelists have any scriptural authority either to preach or to baptize, they certainly must derive it from some other pas- sage besides the commission, since this, it is admitted by all parties, was given only to the baptized. We come now to " W.'s" great argument. The Evangelist is an officer, not of a church, but of the Kingdom of Christ. The churches are one thing, and the Kingdom is another. REVIEW OF JOHNSON. 107 " Of the Kingdom, the Apostles loere the chief officers next the seventy Disciples, mid noio the Evangelists." Let us admit all this, and what will follow ?" The Kingdom of Christ, as he established it, was designed to have a set of officers called " Evangelists." What of it ? These Evangelists could preach and baptize. Well, what of it ? We freely grant all this. But then we ask, 'were they " vmbaptized Evan- gelists ?" If they ivei^e, then the case is decided. Then he has found the thing we have been looking for. Then we have an tmhaptized Evangelist in the scriptures, and learn what he was authorized to do. But until it is deter- mined that these Evangelists were unbaptized, we have made no progress whatever. Till then, our argument stands thus : Baptized Evangelists were officers in the visible Kingdom of Christ, who were author- ized to, baptize believers, and are so recognized in the scriptures. Therefore, unbaptized Evan- gelists who were not officers in that Kingdom, and had no authority to do any thing, are now authorized to baptize believers. The very point upon which his whole conclusion rests, he does not even attempt to decide. He does not so much as try to prove that Philip, the only example of these Evangelists whom he mentions, was an unbaptized preacher of the gospel. He does not pretend that Philip ^^ could not be a member of a church" presidt 108 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. at the tahle of the Lord, or partake of its rick fare. It is a matter of no consequence at all to tlie argument "before us, wlietlier baptism is an or- dinance of the church or of the Kingdom, or whether the Evangelist is an officer of the church or^of the Kinodom- — unless it shall first he proved that baptism was not just as much a prerequisite to membership and office-holding in the Kingdom as it was in the church. And " W./' so far from attempting to do this, ex- pressly recognizes haptism as the initiatory rite, the door of entrance into the Kingdom — though not into the churches. And now if it he true, that haptism is the initiatory rite of Christ's visible Kingdom, and if it be true that the members of Christ's visible Kingdom are all ha]itized persons, and that the '' unhaptizcd Evangelist" is an officer in that Kingdom, then it follows that he is an officer of a Kingdom in whuh he is not a men)ber. It follows that Christ has placed the great initiatory ordinance of his Kingdom in the hands of those who have so grt^at a contempt for it^ or so little re- gard for hini^ that they will not suhmit to it th('mselves. He has given the door of entrance into his Kingdom into the hands of those who will not enter it. He has the right to do such things if he should choose, hut " W." has not shown us in the recoid, any testimony that he has done so. REVIEW OF JOHNSON. 109 But some one may say the " imbaptized Evangelist'' is a member and an officer in the ^^ invisible Kingdom." But the invisible has no organization, no ordinances and no officers. But if we suppose that he is the officer of the invisible Kingdom, we shall only be driven back to the Word, to see when, and where, and how it was that Christ appointed him and gave him authority to " baptize believers." But " W." says No. We need not go to the Scriptures at all. We find the evidence of their authority in their tooi'Jc. If Christ is willing to dispense with their baptism, why need we be troubled ? And Christ shows that he is pleased to dispense with their baptism by blessing their labors. His Spirit calls them to preach the gospel. They do preach it, and souls are saved. Witness Whitfield and Knox, Wesley and Edwards, Calvin and Luther, and a host like them. Who will deny that Christ has sent them ? Who will deny that Christ, the King, is pleased to dispense with baptism in such holy men as these ? We only reply, that although Christ may see fit to dispense with their baptism, he has not authorized hia churches to do so. He is sovereign ; He doe« what He will. We are His subjects, and must be ruled by His law. The churches are the exe* cutive in his Kingdom, and they must execute the law. They have no rule for their official con- duct AS HIS CHURCHES BUT HIS WRITTEN 10 110 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. WOED. And if tliey can not find there, that they are to receive the baptisms of all those -who may be instrumental in converting souls, then they are not at liberty to receive them. If '' W." will show us such instructions in the Word, we yield the case. To the Law and to the Testimony — shov/ us the commandment. But let us, for a moment, grant all that ^' W." contends for on this point. What will be the logical result ? The argument stands thus : The conversion of a sinner is more im- portant than his baptism. These men have converted sinners, and therefore they are au- thorized to baptize them. " If their work in conversion be valid," says ^'W.," why not the work of baptism also," and " especially as the work of conversion is the greater of the two, and the same authority commands the same officer to do both ?" We have been accustomed to regard conver- sion as God's work, and have supposed that when the churches received it, they received it as his work, and not the preacher's, and we suppose that '^ W." means only to say that they were instruments in the hand of God in the conversion of these men. — And now the question is, whether, according to the Scrip* tures, any person who is the means of anoth- ers' conversion, or of the conversion of many persons, has on that account the '^ authority to baptize believers V Has he even the authority REVIEW OF JOHNSON. Ill to baptize his own converts ? Grant that he has and see where we will stand. That gentle prl who plead so earnestly with her father to turn and live, is authorized, if her sex do not forbid, to lead him into the water and bury him in baptism, and the church must receive her work in baptism as it would her work in conversion. That young man, just now him- self converted, and who has yet made no pro- fession of religion, but has gone to his former companions in sin and warned them of their danger, and they have turned to God, is an authorized administrator of baptism. No church would refuse to receive his work of conversion, this is a greater work than baptism; how, then, can they refuse to regard him as one author- ized by the Scriptures to baptize believers. Nay, more. There is a wicked wretch, who prays God to damn his own soul. His com- panion is struck with wonder at the prayer — feels that there is danger in such companion- ship — prays God to save his soul, and he is saved. Now is not this swearer authorized to baptize believers. The church will receive his v/ork in conversion. Why not in baptism ? And ^' after all," in the language of '• W.," the essence of true spiritual gospel baptism consists in the immersion in water of a spiritual believer upon a profession of faith in Christ, by tvhomsGever {he ordinance may be administered.'* " \y." doubtless thinks so, or he would not 112 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. have said it. But genuine cliurches of Jesus Christ will be very slow to admit that every one whose efforts have been blessed of God to the conversion of souls is on that account au- thorized to ''baptize believers/'' God may bless his Word in the mouth of a child or an infidel to the conversion of men, but in doing so he does not commission them to administer the ordinances of his Kingdom. And so he may bless it largely in the mouth of an Edwards, a Whitfield, or a Wesley, and yet, by doing so, confer on them no authority to ad- minister a rite v/hich they will not receive, or give his churches any permission to lay aside nis loritlen iyistrtictions in regard to the recep- tion of members. To say, as '' W." does, that any objection to receiving one's baptism, lies with equal force against his authority to preach, is simply to as- sert, that none are by the Scriptures authorized to 2yreach but those who are also authorized to baptize. If this be true, it only proves that the churches of Christ should no more recognize the unbaptized as preachers than they should aa baptizers. And it must be true, if the commis- sion were given only to the ba])tized, unless there be so7ne oilier authority for them to preach. Whether there be or not, we do not now inquire. To say that " it lies equally against the claim of any unbaptized person to he a Christianj is REVIEW OF JOHNSON". 113 simply to assert, that if we deny that Christ has authorized any one to baptize believers before he has himself been baptized as a believer, wo must also deny that he has authorized any one to believe on him before he has been baptized as a believer. It is strange that any one who thinks should write such a sentence, Christ says, believe, then be baptized, then preach and baptize, as you were baptized, those who believe as you believed. In regard to Roger Williams and his Church, *• W." asks, '^ What Baptist would be willing to go back two hundred years and undo all the mighty work that followed [its organization], on the ground that, though a preacher of the Gospel, he had no right to baptize ?" Wo answer that nothinor of the sort is necessary. The mighty result which has followed, has had no official connection w4th Roger Williams or his Church. That so-called Church lived a sickly life for a short time, and died. Other Baptist churches existed before it, and others have been formed since, without the slightest connection, direct or indirect, with that little anomalous affair which the Pedobaptists are so fond of designating the Mother of the Baptist denomination in America, but which every Baptist ought to know was an accidental and temporary organization, disconnected with the regular Baptist churches. We may freely ad- mit that their baptism was null and void, with- 114 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. out any serious detriment to our denominational order.'"' But granting that "baptism conferred by the unbaptized, and without church authority, is invalid, that is, unscriptural and illegal, must not every Baptist be able to trace his baptismal pedigree back to the Apostles before he can be assured that he has valid baptism. This ques- tion we have treated of in another chapter ; and will here only say, that if this were necessary we had rather undertake to do it than to recog- nize the official authority in the Kingdom of Christ of men who are not in that Kingdom, and to whom Christ in his Word has given no authority. I dare not change Christ's laws for the sake of avoiding difficulties. If Christ, in HIS Word, authorized those who would not obey his law and be baptized, to baptize others in obedience to his law, although it would look very strange to me, I would not utter a word of dissent or remonstrance. He is the Lord. Let him do what seemeth him good. But since he has given them no such authority, I will not hioivingly receive their baptisms, even though I may not be quite certain that they have not imposed them on me. They may put them upon me in the dark, but I will not receive them with my eyes wide open in the broad day- * See " Trials end Sufferings for Eeligious Liberty," ■wliich.by aijihentic documents, forever sfttles this questioi), and should be understood by every Baptist.— Ec. REVIEW OF JOHNSON. 115 light. If it be true that some time or other, nobody knows just when or how, somebody or other, no one can say just who, in some place or other, nobody can say just where, conferred illegal baptism on some one now forgotten, and by bare possibility my baptism may have been derived from this illegal source, I will rest un- der the uncertainty which this implies, rather than satisfy my doubts by admitting that any man has authority to baptize believers to whom Christ gave no such authority in the Scriptures. Must a Free Mason admit that initiation into Masonry, whether conferred in a Lodge or not, whether authorized by the Lodge or not, is a valid initiation, on the ground that there have been some spurious initiations and some illegal Lodges, and he cannot therefore knoiv that either he himself or any one else has been truly initiated, unless upon the supposition that all who claim to confer the degree really do confer it. Will a member of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows feel that he is under the neces- sity of conceding that the initiatory rites of that order may be lawfully conferred by one not a member of it, because he cannot trace the of- ficial pedigree of those who were concerned in his initiation back to the founders of the order. Does a Son of Temperance feel that he must be able to trace the official pedigree of tliose concerned in his initiation back, step by step, to the founders of the order in New York, and 116 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. prove that there has not been an illegal or irreg- ular link in the succession, before he can be as- sured that he is a Son of Temperance ? When will men learn to use their common sense in matters of religion as they do in other things ? But for a full examination of this point, see the Eeview of Waller in the next chapter, page 134. Mi^- WALLER AGAIN. 117 CHAPTER YI. Elder Waller again. Since writing the foregoing reviews, we have seen another article from Ekler Waller, pub- lished in the third volume of the Western Bap- tist Review, page 267. We should feel that we had failed to do what we desire, that is, to place before our readers the best and the most conclusive arguments that have been or can he offered in favor of the reception of Pedobaptist immersions, did we withhold thj^s one. We eeek for truth. We trust we are willing to embrace it wherever found, or by whomsoever presented. We wish our readers to have the truth, and are more than willing they should learn it from others if we have failed to find it or present it. The article is as follows : the validity of baptism by tedobaptist ministers. to elder j. l. waller. TuscuMBiA, Ala., Feb 25, 1848. Will you give your views on the following question, viz : I.^ the immersion of a persoti in water into the name of the Trinity, upon a credible profession of faith in Christ, ly a Pedobaptist minister who has not 118 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. been immersed, a valid baptism ? This question is agitating the Muscle Shoals Association very much, and unless some judicious plan can be devised to eettle the difficulties amicably, no one can divine what T^ill be the consequences. Your views on this subject, published in the Review, will be much val- ued. Yours in Christ, Richard B. Burleson. This question, substantially, has hitherto received an answer in the Review. Our views then express- ed, by brethren to whose judgment we have ever been accustomed to bow with deference, were va- riously received — some condemning and some warm- ly approving them. It is a subject that has been mooted for centuries, and upon which much has been eaid and written — churches have been rent, the dearest ties of brotherhood have been sundered, and the blood of holy men has been shed — and still the naind of Christendom is as much unsettled as in the beginning. Recently it has called forth much dis* cussion and elicited much feeling in certain porfions of our country, especially amoni^ Baptists and Epis. copalians. Knights of the quill have entered the lists with dauntless courage and fiery zeal. That confidence in their prowess and that anticipation of victory which they mani'est, are amusing exhibitions of self conceit — 'he empty vaporing of those unin- formed respecting the skill and resources of the opposing combatants. Several times we have wit- nessed these redoubtable heroes, after a protracted rencounter with an imaginary foe, exiending through the moiety of a dozen new-paper columns, rise in true warrior pomp, shake what they supposed their crimsoned steel, and proclaim that the conflict was WALLER AGAIN. 119 ended, for, lo ! they had laid the last enemy pros- trate ill the dust ! Full often, during the p!\si twelve calendar months, have we been asked to look and behold victory perched upon the lances of the war- riors upon either side of this controversy. But we have seen nothing of the kind. The contest still rages. The clash of resounding arms stiil grates like harsh thunder upon onr ' ears. For ourselves, we disclaim emphatically all pretensions to such skill in polemic warfare. We are enca^^ed in no such in- vulnerable armor. We frankly confess, that it is a field in which we e:spect to win no laurels. We see difficulties and dangers too thick and threatening to hope to pass through them uninjured. To speak plainly : — we have given this subject much attention, and have very carefully examined the arguments on every side, and hesitate not to say, that honest, up- right and intelligent brethren may entertain different opinions. Hence we are disposed to distrust our own judgment. At least we cannot break fellowship with any who may entertain views differing from our own. Where honest differences of opinion may ex- ist, every consideration of religion prompts to kind- ness and forbearance. Bigotry alone can, in such cases, excite strife and di?:union. We have ever maintained, that the question sub- mitted by our correspondent should be left to the decision of the individual church, to be determined whenever a person, baptized as supposed above, pre- sents himseU' for membership. Not many so baptized offer to unite with our churches. The q'lesiion, therefore, is more hypothetical than practical. As- socia'ions certainly have nothing whatever to do with it. It is purely ecclesiastical, and associations have no jurisdiction ia such cases. Our churches being 120 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. independeni; and supreme, should not be molested in their adjudications upon such points. But unfor- tunately there are too many amongst us who have a disposition to disturb the peace of Zion — who will not admit in practice what they grant in theory — that the church is above the association, and respon- sible for her acts to no earthly tribunal. In the bounds of our acquaintance, we know churches in correspondence with the same association, who act differently on this question — one receiving and oth- ers rejecting such baptism — and there is no discord and dispute on the subject We know churches in the same vicinage, and whose members constantly intermingle, acting in opposition in the case, and yet the most perfect fellowship exists. This is as it should be everywhere. Less than a year ago, we were in company with almost a score of the most able Baptist ministers in Kentucky. This matter was the subject of free and friendly conversation. The company were about equally divided in senti- ment. But no one thought it ought to disturb the kind feelings of brethren towards each other ; and we are sure that the brethren diflFering on this occa- sion as cordially esteem each other, as the brethren agreeing. Brethren imbued with the spirit of Christ will ever esteem such burdens the least and the lightest they have to bear for one another. But to come directly to the matter in hand. The question presented by our correspondent may be simplified thus : — Is the administrator necessary to the validity of baptism ? Those who assume the affirmative maintain, that in order to valid baptism, three things are necessary, viz: the subject, the mode, and the administrator. The administrator, gay they, must be a minister in good standing in a WALLER AGAIN. 121 gospel church, who has himself been immersed : or rather, he must be a regular Baptist minister. 1 hia is a fair and plain statement of the case. The ques- tion submitted above supposes a proper subject and mode ; the bone of strife relates to the administra- tor. The question thus cleared of all unnecessary obscurities, should be calmly met, and all the con- sequences flowing from the positions assumed by those on the affirmative, should be dispaccionately examined and prayerfully embraced or rejected. An(t the first consequence claiming our attention is, tbat if the administrator be necessary to the va- lidity of baptism noiu, he was always necessary. This is a plain, common-sense deduction, which we pr J ,v-;j. of this as of the other, Elder Yv^aller ehall himself furnish the materials for the de- Btructioii of his own argument. Y/e perfectly agree with him in the conviction tliat differences of opinion upon this subject should cause no estrangement between brethren of the same faith and order. We hope and trust it will be no cause of non-fellowship between brethren 126 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. or cliu relies. And we also agree with him most perfectly in the opinion that it is a question of church duty which must in each case be decided by the Church to which application may be made to receive euch a baptism ; and that fi-om the decision of that Church there can be no appeal to any earthly tribunal. The ques- tion simply is, what ought the Church to do m such a case ? Hoio ought she to decide ? By what rule is she to determine whether she must receive or reject f If the Word of God has de- cided who are proper administrators of bap- tism, the Church mu3t, be governed by its di- rections. If it have not, then the whole con- troversy is of no consequence at all. We make no issue with the author until he " comes directly to the matter in hand," and, instead of discussing the question as presented by his correspondent changes it to this — " Is the administrator necessary to the validty of hai)- tisni ? We do not think the change is calcula- ted to aid in reaching the true answer to the question asked by Richard B. Burleson. But v/e will answer it by asking the reader to turn to Elder Waller's position in his first article, and see to whom according to the Scriptures, he contends the right to administer baptism belongs. He there contends most strenuously, that this right was given to the churches, and that the churches cannot without proving re- creant to the trust committed by Heaven to "WALLER AGAIN. 127 their keeping, transfer it to any others. But they, the churches, can appoint their ministers or others, to confer it for them. Now who can fail to see, if these things are so, then the " ad- ministrator" is ^^ necessary/' And that ho must be an administrator apj^ointed hy a true cliurcli — by a church to which Christ comrcitted the ordinance. This is all we contend for. If this be granted, then it must follow that the baptism conferred by one who was not author-^ ized hy such a church, is of necessity invalid. To suppose the contrary is to suppose that Christ gave the right to confer baptism exclu" sively to his churches. And yet, those who are not merabers of those churches, and who have no avihoi'ity from those churches, of whom those churches have no knov/ledge, and over wliom they have no control, have the same right to baptize, which those churches have to which Christ committed the sole and only authority in the case. But this is an absurdity, and a contradiction in terms, and cannot possibly be true. Whatever difficulties lie upon the other side, they must be less than this. Elder Waller represents us as contending that "/7«e administrcdor must he a minister in good standing in a gospel church, or rcdher, he must he a regidar Baptist minister. We do not take this ground. We say that the validity of the act, so far as regards the administrator, does not depend upon his hap- 128 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. tism, or upon his ordination, but upon the authority to haptizej which he has received from the GJmrch. If these Pedohaptist Churches are tyue churches of Christ, then their immer- Bion is valid baptism. They have the same right as Baptist Churches, and their ministers the same right as Baptist ministers. If they are 7iot true churches, then, upon Elder \Valler's own showing, Christ did not give to thejn the authority to administer bap- tisu), and they could not confer such authority upon their ministers. They, or their ministers could only receive it from those to whom Christ gave it in charge — that is from some true cliurcli— but this authority, we contend, has not been ecnfe red on them or their ministers, by any true church, and therefore, if they bap- tize, they do it without authority, and against eiuthority — and thus the act is illegal and un- scriptural, which is what we mean by saying it is invalid. We do not base our argument upon 'the as- sumption " that a man can not .give what he has 7iot received," as the author seems to thiuk. Our position is that a man can not perform in the Kingdom of Christ an o^i-cial act for which he has no authority from the King. It is not because he is not baptized, but because he is not authorized, that his work is invalid. An immersed minister of a Pedohaptist Church, ha.s no more right to baptize than one who is WALLER AGAIN. 129 nnimmersedj no more than an excluded Baptist minister would have. But now if we contend, as Elder Waller does, that all authority in the premises, was given in charge to the true church- es of Christ — that the churches may authorize their ministers, or other members, to perform it as their servants, and on their behalf, and that the churches cannot go outside their member- ship, and authorize strangers to do it for them, as we think toe have clearly proved, how will we dispose of that fearful array of difficidtieSy or those tremendous " consequences" which must flow from our position ? These, we are told, " shoidd he disjKcssioJiately exawined and jprayerfidly embraced or rejected. They are three. The first is, that if r. perfectly authorized " administrator is necessary now he was always necessary." We will presently admit the fact. And will now only vary the expression, by say- ing that if a properly qualified administrator was ever necessary, he is necessary noio. And therefore, if baptism confers d by Jewish priests, or any other rejectors of the ordinance of Christ, was not ^^jalid baptism in the Apostle's days, it is not now — never has been since their day, and never can be. And further, if the Lord ever determined who should adminster baptism, he did it in full view of all the difficulties and consequences which would grow out of his instructions. The ex- 130 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. istence of societies claiming to be his churclies, yet rejecting his baptism, was perfect!}'- foreseen hy the Lord v/hen he gave the authority to ad- minister baptism to his chm-ches. If, therefore, he made no exception in their favor, it would eeem to be certain that he intended none ever should be made. He knew that Antichrist would claim to bo the ruler in his stead, and would change laws and ordinances. He knew that good men would receive through ignorance or prejudice, the baptism of the Pope, instead of nis. He knew all the disorder and confusion which would ensue, and must have seen how very easily all this might be rectified, (as some think,) by sim.ply giving authority '^to baptize to those" who would not be baptized, or to those who v^ere baptized in infancy and unbelief. And yet according to Elder Waller's ov/n show- ing he gave this authority only to his own true churches, and was willing to risk all these con- sequences, hov7 terrible soever they may now appear. We feel disposed upon this question, to stand upon the same ground that Elder W. stands on, in regard to ordination. "V-, e will abide by the practice of the primitive church. In his review of Wajdand, on the ordination of ministers, [Western Bap. Review, Vol. 3, p. 140,] he asks emphatically: "i^nd where shall we go, if Vv'c cut loose from the primtive church.? If we must not follow the apostles, who are to bo our leaders.? If the New Testament has WALLER AGAIN. 131 committed the duty of setting men apart to the ministerial office to no one — if this is a matter wholly governed by men's ■ varying circum- stances—why then the ordinations by the Pope of his swarm of emissaries, is just as right and valid, and divine, as those recommended in the essay before us. ^' To adopt a different course,'^ he thinks, '^would strike fatally at the very foun- dations of all that is essential to Protestantism, and if admitted, will force us to surrender the fortress so long defended against the assaults of the Papists — that the Bible ia the only rule of our faith and practice in matters of religion.'^ — P. 136. Like him, we ar« determined to abide by the practice of the primitive church. And this, he said in his first essay, '"was clear.'' *'The path in which the holy men of old v^alk- ed, is so plain, that a wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein." We fully agree with him when he says, in the answer to Way- land, quoted above, " The last commission of our Lord was certainly designed to be executed by some one. It was not a mere blank. It was not couiposed of mere words of empty sound. It was addressed to somehodi/.*' He is speaking of it as a commission to preach, but it is equally a commission to baptize. If, as a commission to preach, it was addressed to somebody, and was designed to designate somebody by divine appointment to the duty of j)reaching, it must equally have designated some one to the duty 132 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. of baptizing. The two were united. And what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. ^'It imposes a duty/' he goes on to say, "which clearly implies an obligation resting somewhere. If so, then it creates an office, or recognizes one already in existence. Hence we find in the Scriptures, the names of many who were engaged in the work enjoin- ed by the great commission. Nor was their office esteemed then merely of human expedi- ency, adapted to the changeful circumstances of man. It was regarded as divine." If these things be so, it follows that God did designate certain persons to baptize. The great commission was addressed to soniebody, and it was intended that it should be the special duty of some one to execute it. Was it addressed to the baptized, or to those who would not obey its requisitions ? Here is the Scripture teach- ing. Here is the primitive practice. This is^ the way in which, according to our author, ^Hhe holy men of old were accustomed to toalJc." And when ha turns from this, we say of him, as he of Wayland, "He has thrown away our flag and deserted the tower of our strength. The Bible has ever been the stronghold and the tower of the Baptists — our glory and our en- sign. In all things, we have professed to be governed by.it. Deprive us of this, and we are as powerless as the strong man shorn ol his locks. If we must not walk in the footsteps WALLER AGAIN. 153 of the holy men of old, then we are in a vast howling wilderness without a light or a path- way." He is talking of church organization, but every word is just as true of church ordinances, as it is of organization. Let us beware how we are driven from the ^^ primitive practice,'^ and the ^^ old paths," by fear of difficulties and terrible ^^consequences," which will, he thinks, inevitably follow a strict construction of the sacred word. But what are these *Hhree consequences ?" Let us approach more closely to them. Let us at least venture to look them fairly in the face. They may not, after all, be so terrible as they look, while they stand like three grim giants, parraded one behind the other, in this essay. 1st. The first is, that if a properly qualified administrator is needful now, he always was. We see nothing very fearful in this. We freely grant it all. Nor do we urge the plea of neces- sity. We agree with him in saying that what cannot be done, is not required. And that if a man cannot find a right administrator — one au- thorized according to the Scriptures — he is not bound to be baptized. He may not baptize him- self, or call upon an alien to introduce him into the kingdom. When the deed cannot be done, God will accept the will for the deed. 2nd. But the second consequence, which gives the first all the importance that it can possess, 12 134 PEDOBAi'TIST IMMEBSIONS. looks at first view more serious. It is, that noio, no one can know tliat he has been baptized. And why ? Simply because he cannot be assur- ed that there is not somewhere in the long gone past, a false or broken link in the baptismal chain. I was baptized bj a baptist minister, but I do not know whether he^vas rightly bap- tized or not. He may hav3 been baptized by a Mormon, by a Pedobaptict, by a Keformer; or for aught I can certai'iil;; know, it may be that he forged his papers, and imposed himself upon the church as a baptised man, when in fact, ho had not been baptized at all. Now, if anything had occurred in his case, or in the case of any of his predecessors, in the succession, as I traco it back towards the apostles, would it not vitiate his baptism — render it null and void, the same as though he had not been, and as one not baptiz- ed, he could not have rightly baptized me. This is the difficulty — what can be done with it ? Shall we not quietly retreat from before its frightful visage, and confess that we were wrong in our determination to follow the "primitive practice," and walk in the " old paths," since they lead us into such a labyrinth of uncertain- ty ? Let us at least take' one more look at i^ before we turn. It may be, that what seems a real giant, all arrayed in bloody armor, will prove to be a harmless phantom. First, therefore, I remark that this difficulty grows out of a mistaken view of our position, ■WALLER AGAIN. 135 whicli is not that the want of baptism invali- dates the act. hut the want or authority from him who commanded it. This authority, Elder Waller says, was given not to the unbaptized, but to the churches ; and that the churches cannot transfer it to their ministers, or any body else. By which he evidently means, that they cannot so divest hemselves of it and so invest others with it, that these others will be competent to administer baptism independently of them, and without direct authoiity delegated to them by the churches. It follows that un- less baptism todmlnistered vvithout Christ's au- thority, and against his authority is legal and valid baptism, no br.ptism can be legal and valid unless it was thus aiithcrized by a true church of Christ ; and if Pedcbaptist societies are not true churchsS; then baptism adniinister- ed by them or by their authority, is not legal and valid baptism. And this would be equally true, even though they should essay to confer the authority upon a baptized man. What, then, is the real difilculty in the case ? It is not to ascertain whether my baptizer was himself baptized, but whether he had authority from a true church to baptize me. The baptism con- fered by an excluded or deposed baptist minis- ter, would be no more valid than that conferred by an unbaptized or Pedobaptist minister, be- cause such a one would have no authority to administer baptism. To hioio if I have been 136 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. baptized, therefore, it is only necessary for me to know that I have been immersed in the man- ner required by the commission, and by the au- thority of a true church of Jesus Christ. I do not need to ask a single question about the ad- ministrator, but only this : Was he authorized by the church ? And of this I had the evi- dence of my senses. Since the church which received my profession of faith, and upon whose determination I was baptized, would not per- mit the rite to be performed for her, by one whom she did not approve. I have therefore no baptismal pedigree to trace — no apostolic succession of the ministry to establish. The whole thinp: is before my eyes. Is this a true church of Christ ? Does it authorize this man to baptize me ? If it be not a true church, I do not desire connection with it. If it be, it has authority from the King to administer his ordinance. But some one may say : ''This is not getting rid of the difficulty. It simply transfers it from the minister to the church. You do not indeed have to trace the baptismal pedigree of the administrator, but you do have to trace that of the church, for which he offi- ciates. For if this church have been constitu- ted of unbaptized members, or if it be the off- shoot of one that was so constituted, it cannot be a true Church, since a true church must consist of baptized believers. And an unbap- tized church could never give origin to a bap- WALLER AGAIN. 137 tized one. Nor, is it any easier for churches to trace their pedigree, than- for individuals.'^ So here we have the giant in another shape, and with another name — but none the less a giant. Well, let us not be disheartened. Let us call in our common sense, and look at this case as we are used to regard other matters of com- mon life. If a man and woman are living together as husband and wife, and we see noth- iDg in their family affairs that contradicts the Bupposition, we are justified in taking it for granted that they are married according to law. We do not feel called upon to go back and Bcarch the records of the court, to see if license were granted in due form. We do not demand the certificate of the minister or ofdcer, who united them, and then go back and enquire if he were in fact a minister or a duly qualified officer". If this were needful, not one child in fifty could ascertain with certainty, whether his parents wore born in lawful wedlock or not. Or, to make .the case more completely parallel, let us suppose that the laws of the country re- quire that he who performs the marriage cere- mony must be himself a married man. W^ould it follow of necessity that no one could possibly knov>^ that he was married ? Would we then, when we found men officiating under the law, and having a commission from the legal author- ities, feel bound to visit their dwellings and see with our own eyes that there was a woman 138 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. there, and then go to the records and ascertain that this very man had been married to that very woman, and then go back and learn who married them, and make a similar investigation in regard to him — and then in regard to his predecessors, back to the day when the law was enacted ? Not at all. We should as now, be justified in taking it for granted that they had a legal commission from the proper authorities, were every way worthy and well qualified — un- til the contrary was alleged and ])roved. And even then our marriage would be legal, if the officer was acting by authority of the law, and held his commission under the law. We found our parents living as man and wife. They were in possession of all the privileges and immunities of married persons. There was nothing in their opinions, nothing in their be- havior, which could create a doubt that they were not what they seemed to be. We there- fore take it for granted, that they were, until some one shall bring positive proof to the con- trary. So when we find a church holding the doc- trines of Christ, and "walking in all the stat- utes and ordinances of the Lord, blameless," constituted to all appearance upon the heavenly model, we are justified in taking it for granted that it is a true church, until some one can, and does, show evidence to the contrary. We are under no necessity of going back to ask by whom WALLER AGAIN. 139 it was constituted, much less to trace its pedi- gree in all past ao:es. If it looks like a true church, believes like a true church, and acts like a true church, we will take it for granted that it is a true church, as it believes itself to be, until some one shall present some ground of doubt. And • u-h ground must not be vague and uncertain conjecture, founded on bare pos- sibilities, or even upon probabilities — it must be something true and reliable. I might say to any man : '^ 8ir, you have no reliable evi- dence that you are the descendant of the family whose name you bear. For, even now, some people live as man and wife who are not truly married, and in past generations such things were much more common than they are now. The chances are that some time or other, nobo- dy now, knows when, at some place or other, nobody now, knows where, in the case of some one of your ancestors, nobody now knows which, the marriage covenant was violated, and you may be the offspring of shame and sin. Such irregularities have been innumerable, and it would be strange indeed if some of them had not by some means crept into your family." He would probably knock me down for my insolence, and yet I would have quite as good ground for my dishonorable imputations as those have who say that there is now no Baptist church that can be sure that it is a true church by regular descent from Christ and the apostles. 140 PEDOBAPTIST IMMESRSIONS. I say again, when we find a "body of professed believers which has the ordinances and the doc- trines of Christj we are justified in the absence of proof to the contrary in taking it for granted that it came honestly by them. If it looks like a true church, believes like a true church, and acts like a true church, to me, it is, and must be a true church, until the contrary has been established. The burden of proof falls upon the adversaries. We do not need to es- tablish our pedigree. It is for them to invali- date it ; and that, not by suppositions, but by facts, not by suggesting what was possible, or even probable, but by showing what most cer- tainly was true. \V^henever this is done, in re- gard to any particular church, it will become its duty at once to correct the vvTong by seeking a new organization at the hands of those against whom no deficiency has been established. But until this is done, such a church is to be regar- ded as a part of the great visible kingdom of Christ, and authorized by him to administer liis ordinances. And he who says it is no church and has no such authority is to be regarded as a traducer and slanderer until he has made his assertion good. When we say of pedobaptist societies that their pedigree is false we promptly specify their origin. We show at once, and by indis- putable records, that they are the adulterous progeny of her, who in the Word, is called the WALLER AGAIN. 141 Mother of Harlots. We do not base our accusa- gion upon possibilities or probabilities. We show the time, the place, the agencies, all in minute detail. We trace their history, too, not in the records of their enemies, but in those made by themselves. From such sources as these, Elder YV'aller, in his essay on the '' Ke- formation," draws an argument of tremendous force to prove that they are not true churches and have no true ministry, and shows that the Baptist churches have from the first been the true successors of those established by Christ and the apostles. In that article he proves that , " Upon the suppogition that the Komish was the church of Christ, then it persecuted itself — wore out itself — overcame itself, and was deliv- ered into the hands of itself twelve hundred and sixty years!! And besides, the christian or Romish church, by the above exposition, did not begin for several centuries after the chris- tian era ! It was not established by Jesus and his apostles ; but sprouted on the head of the Koman beast, and grew into greatness and strength by fraud, stratagem, persecution, and horrid blasphemy ! And the church of Christ is to continue forever. The gates of hell will not prevail against it. But the Romish church, according to the prophet, as explained above, is to be destroyed before the millenium can come. 142 PEDOAAPTIST IMMERSIONS. ' Tlie judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and destroy it unto the end/ Destruction, utter and forever, and not reformation, is the portion of the Eomish church. It is not represented as the church of Christ in a state of apostacy, but as an antichristian establishment, founded in hu- man pride and wickedness — arising long after the foundations of the true christian church ' were laid — among another people and under far different circumstances — and whose mission w^as of Satan, to worry and to wear out the saints of the Most High." And having shown that the reformed churches, that is to say,, those commonly called Protest- ant churches, came, by their ov/n confession out of Eome,and have no ether ministry, and no other baptism, than those tliey brought v/itli them from a body that was " neither the church nor a branch of the church ;" but v/hich, ''by both prophets and apostles, was regarded as anti- christian in its origin and progress, waging un- remitting and unrelenting warfere upon the in- stitutions of the gospel and upon the saints of the Most High." He asks : '" "Did God then leave himself without a wit- ness.? Did the gates of hell prevail against his church ? Were the foundations of his king- dom laid in sand, that it yielded to the storms WALLER AGAIN. 143 of porsGCution wliicli befell it during tlie reign of the Man of Sin ? Or did the church exist and stand^ as firm as the rock of its foundation? And if so, where was it in that long and dreary night, from the revelation of the Son of Per- dition until the Beformation of the sixteenth century ? These inquiries demand serious con- sideration and satisfoctory answers. "It will not do, by way of response, to urge the existence of an * invisible church.' This is to evade and not to meet the difficulty. The Savior did not build an ^ invisible church' upon the ' rock' confessed by Peter. The church of Christ on earth is visible. The light of the gos- pel was not given to be put under a bushel. The church of the Kedeemer is as a city set up- on a hill, whose light cannot be hid. It stands upon Mount Zion with the ceaseless and ex- haustless effulgence of the gospel day pouring perpetually upon its glittering and glorious tur- rets. And he is wonderfully endowed, to whose vision that is visible which is invisible ! Be- sides, it is certain from the positive testimony of the Scriptures, that the adherents of Popery from the beginning, saw, and hence pursued and persecuted the saints of the Most High — the people or church of the Bedeemer — those who followed the Lamb whithersoever he went — who would not worship the beast, neither his image — and who refused to receive his mark upon their foreheads or in their hands. The Pres- 144 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. byterian Confession of Faith (Chap, xxv., pas- Bim) tells lis truly, that ^ The visible church is Catholic under the gospel, not confined to any one nation/ 'Unto this Catholic visible church/ contiues the same instrument/ ^ Christ hath, given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of Grod, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world. . , There shall always be a church on earth to w^orship God according to his will/ These positions are abundantly sustained by the Bi- ble. And yet it has been too common, even with the most acute and accurate observers, when casting their eyes back through the gloom of the dark ages, to conclude, at the first glance that the altars of Grod were then all cast down, and that none were left as witnesses of the trath and worshippers of the Most High. But upon a more prolonged and careful examina- tion, they have been enabled to discern, in the fastnesses of the mountains and in the recesses of the wilderness, the altar fires of our holy re- ligion burniug undimmed in the hearts of mul- titudes who remained unterrified by opposition and unpolluted by surrounding corruption. These were the people of God — his church in the wilderness — vanquished but not subdued, cast down but not destroyed. Like the bush in the vision of the patriarch, they were enveloped in flames but not consumed. They had never worshipped nor wondered after the beast, and WALLER AGAIN. 145 hence they were cast in the furnace of persecu- tion, heated seven times hotter than its wont ; but like the three Hebrew children, they had been wonderfully preserved, and the smell of fire was not foun§ upon their garments, " The church of Christ, if always visible and if always obedient to the will and word of God, as taught in the Scriptures and asserted in the Presbyterian Confession of Faith, was not iden- tified with the Papal or antichristian church, but was distinct from it, and persecuted by it. That there have been true friends of Jesus within the precincts of the Papacy — men who, in spite of the darkness by which they were surrounded, loved and longed for the light, and rejoiced in the truth — is am|)ly attested by the records of the past. The most purblind can see on the sky of Papal dominion, here and there a star twinkling through the gloom, re- vealing more palpablv the dark and dreary night upon which they shed unavailing splendor. These lights were the exceptions ; the darkness was the rule. They were not parts of the Papal system ; they existed and sparkled in spite of it. But the friends of truth, whether few or many, within the gates of Mystical Babylon, and of necessity polluted to some extent by contact with her abominations, were not regarded by * holy men of old, as those who, when the Man of Sin reigned and rioted over the deluded and downtrodden nations, refused him allegiance and 13 146 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. endured the consequences of his fierce indigna- tion. While, therefore, there were doiihtless ma/ny, identified with the Komish church, whom God regarded as his people, and whom he warned by his prophets to mme out of her, lest they should he made partakers of her pLagues in the hour of her doom and desola- tion ; yet it is clear that they were not repre- sented as tJie church of the Eedeemer, which never was a part and portion of the Papism — which never sustained any relationship to the Mother of Harlots. To deny this, is to dis- card the visibility of the church, and' render the promise of God of none effect. But the history of the true church is obscure and exceed- ingly difficult to trace. The Scriptures so inti- mate. She was to be concealed in the wilder- ness ; and the world was to be filled with the admiration of her cruel and unrelenting foe. The world would wonder after the beast, and reel, intoxicated with the wine of the foruica- tion of Mystical Babylon. Thus teaching us, in symbolical language, that the true church of Christ should attract little of the world's attention ; and that even the historian would find more to admire and record in the career of her persecutors, than in her own quiet, unpre- tending, and despised existence. This was the prophecy, — how exact and wonderful its fulfill- ment ! " The Scriptures have foretold the preserva* WALLER AGAIN. 147 tion of the true church during the world's mid- night, when Popery was the world's despot, it is our own business to prove from history the fulfillment of the prediction. Were there pro- fessed Christians during that period, then, pos- sessing the characteristics of the church of Christ, and existing distinct from the Papism, and persecuted by it .^ And if so, xolio were, they / In answering this question, we shall assume for the present the existence of such Christians ; and shall proceed, in the first place, to show who they ivere not." And after showing that " they were not Lu- therans," '^not Presbyterians," nor yet Episco- palians of the Church of England, and that, in short, " no Protestant or reformed denomina- tion can be regarded as the witnesses of the truth during the dark ages ;" that " the reform- ed churches were not those with whose blood the Whore of Babylon was drunk ;" that, " like their mother, they have broken dowm the bar- riers betv/een the church and the w^orld ;" and that " they too must fall, before the world can be converted or mankind can be free." He thus continues the argument : '^ The Baptists are not reformed Papists. They claim no kindredship with mystical Bab}-^ Ion. They are not Reformers or Protestants in the historical import of those terms. None 148 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. of their distinguishing tenets are of Komish origin ; and, of course, cannot be reformed, as that word is ecclesiastically used. They never wore the yoke of the Roman pontiff, and hence never felt it necessary to protest against its continuance upon their necks. None of their denominational peculiarities are derived from the Papal church ; or tend in the least to prove that they are the children of ^ the mother of harlots.' Their j^ractices and principles, for which they have been so much persecuted, and on account of which they are now everywhere denounced, are clearly anti-papal, and claim an existence anterior to the time when the Man of Sin, the Son of Perdition, was revealed. The Baptists never received ^ the mark of the beast' uporj their foreheads. They never acknowledged the usurped authority of the Pope ; but bore testimony against him with their blood, when he ruled in all the plenitude of his wickedness. " This is no idle fiction — no arrogant claim set up to minister to denominational vanity. It is conceded to us by the most eminent and dis- tinguished of our opponents. That thechurches of the first and second centuries were Baptist churches, is confessed by the learned and the candid of the Pedobaj)tists.'' Having established this by quotations from the most reliable autliorities — such as Mosheim, Barrow, Benton, Riddle, and Neander — he says : WALLER AGAIIT. 149 ** This is enough. It is the testimony of emi- nently learned men and opponents, that the churches of the first ages of Christianity, were Baptist churches. We might trace the exis- tence of these churches, step by step, through every successive age from that time to the pres- ent. But it is not necessary. It vi^oulcl re- quire more time and space than we can now bestow. Besides, the existence of the Baptists since the apostolic age, has been also conceded by our enemies. The Baptists are not of yes- terday. Their's is no ephemeral existence. They did not come into being in the sixteenth cen- tury ; nor are they the result of the Keformation. ^' Mosheim tells us, that long before the days of Luther and Calvin, there lay concealed in almost all the countries of Europe, persons maintaining Baptist sentiments. And elsewhere he says : " ' The true origin of that sect which acquired the denomination of Anabaptists by their ad- ministering anew the rites of baptism, and de- rived that of Mennonites from the famous man to whom they owe the greatest part of tlieir present felicity, is hid in the depth of antiquity, and is, of consequence, extremely difficult to be ascertained.' ^' But v^^e have more specific testimony than even this. ^' Zuingulius, a cotemporary of Luther, and a bitter opponent of the Baptists, says : 150 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. " ^ Tlie institution of Anabaptism is no novel- ty, but for tliirteen Imndred years lias caused great disturbances in tlie church, and has ac- quired such a strength that the attempt in this age to contend with it appeared futile for a while/ ^' Cardinal Hossius, president of the Council of Trent, says : " ^ If the truth of religion were to be judged of by the readiness and cheerfulness which a man of any sect shows in suffering, then the opinion and persuasion of no sect can be truer and surer than that of the Anabaptists, [Bap- tists ;] since there have been none, for these twelve Imndred years past, that have been more grievously punished, or that have more cheerful- ly and steadfastly undergone, and even offered themselves to the most cruel sorts of punish- ment, than those people. The Anabaptists are a pernicious sect, of vvdiich kind the Waldensian brethren seem to have been. Nor is this heresy of modern origin, for it existed in the time of Austin.' " These concessions were written in the first part of the sixteenth century — about the year 1525. Up'to that time, the dawn of the Befor- raation, for thirteen Imndred years, the Baptists had caused ^ great disturbances in the church ;' for tioelve Imndred years there had been none more grievously punished. These numbers are significant. Daniel (chap. vii. 25) had foretold WALLER AGAIN. 151 that the j^eople of God should he given into the hands of their enemies, and he persecuted ^ until a time and times, and the dividing of times ;' which expositors have shown to mean, tv/elve hundred and sixty years. x\nd John (Rev. xi. 4) says the two witnesses woukl prophecy ^ a thousand two hundred and three score [12 CO] days, [or years,] clothed in sackcloth." xignin, (xii. 6,) he says : ^ The woman [the church] lied into the wilderness a thousand two hundred and three score [12C0] days,' or years. Again, (xiii. 5,) he says, power was given unto the heast [the persecuting anti-christian estahlishments] to continue ' forty and two months' — 1260 pro- phetical days, or years. If these prophecies have heen correctly interpreted hy reformed commentators, how exactly have they heen ful- filled in the history of the Baptists, according to the testimony of Zuingulius and Hossius ! And yet these men wrote in no friendship to the Baptists, and vv^ith no intention of showing that the gates of hell had never prevailed against the church. '' The reader will remark, too, that the time of the persecution of the Baptists as fixed hy these writers, takes our history hack to that period, near the apostolic age, when, as we have shown, it is conceded hy all candid, competent judges, that the sentiments of the Baptists almost univ'.rsally ohtained. [See Orchard's Church History.] 152 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. ^' Witli one other cjuotation and vv'e will biing this article to a close. '^Dr. Ypeig, Professor of Theology in the University of Groningen, and the Kev. J. J. Dermout, chaplain to the King of Netherlands, the highest authority in the Dutch Reformed church, in their ^Account of the origin of the Dutch BajjtistSj says : " ^ We have now seen that the Baptists, who were formerly called Anabaptists, and in later times Mennonites, were the original AValdenses ; and who have long in the history of the church received the honor of that origin. And on this account, the Baptists may be considered as the only Christian community that have stood since the days of the apostles j and as a Christian society have preserved j9wre the doctrines of the gospel through cdl ages. The perfectly ct)rrect external and internal economy of the Baptist denomination tends to confirm the truth, dis- puted by the Romish church, that the Reform- ation brouglit about in the sixteenth century was in the highest degree necessar}^, and at the same time goes to refute the erroneous notions of the Catholics, that their comnrunion is the most ancient.' " Here we rest our cause. The case is made out. The doctrine of refoi-ming the Papal church is unwarranted by Scripture and unsup- ported by history. The church of Christ wag WALLER AGAIN. 153 persecuted, but never overthrown ; cast down, but not destroyed. It was built upon a rock, against which neither the powers of darkness nor the seductions of Satan transformed into an angel of light, could prevail. Poor, perse- cuted, obscure, and despised ; still the true friends of the Bedeemer maintained the great truths of our holy religion, unterrified by op- position and unseduced by corruption. And the honor of being the witnesses for the truth and the word of God, when the civilized nations of the earth had bowed in blind and servile obedience to the authority of the Koman pon- tiff — in sustaining in undiminished radiance and splendor the altar-fires of our holy religion du- ring the long and dreary darkness of the world's midnight — belongs to the Baptists. This is confessed by their enemies ; and thus, in them, is fulfilled the predictions of prophets, and illus- trated that promise of the Savior, that the gates of hell should not prevail against his church." Whatever, therefore, other men may say. Elder Waller, if he were still alive, could never say that there has not been a literal fulfillment of the Savior's promise to sustain his church. Amidst all the thick darkness there has ever been liglitr in the dwellings of Israel. True, the stream of our church succession seems sometimes to be almost dammed up by the dead bodies of those who were slain for the testimony of Jesus, and sometimes almost dried up by the flames 154 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. that consumed them ; but j^et it can be traced, according to his own showing, all the way from the apostles down. But, as I explained before, this should not be required of us. The bur- den of proof does not devolve on us. If we are now right, let those who allege that we have once been wrong, show when and where. Let them prove it, not from the published slanders of our enemies and persecutors, but from our own historians, as we prove what they have been. Till this is done, though there might be a dark historical abyss of many hundred years where I cannot discover a single Baptist cliurch, I would maintain such churches must have been, for He who rules the universe declared that they should be : He would build it, and, against it all the powers of hell should not pre- vail. If I could not prove it, I v/ould still be- Heve it on his word. But I am not bound to show to him who presents the objection which v/e have been considering, even the Savior's promise, much less the evidence of its fulfdl- ment. I simply show a church which, to all appearance, and, for aught that he or any one can show, is a true church of baptized believ- ers, invested by the Word of God, with the au- thority to baptize other believers, and thus introduce them into his visible kingdom. Such a church has authorized a member, or a min- ister, to baptize me. That person so author- ized by Christ, through this church as his exec- WALLER AGAIN. 155 utive, has baptized me, and, therefore, I know that I am baptized, as truly as I know, or now have any means of knowing, that my parents or my grand-parents were legally mar- ried. If any man shall charge that this is not a true church, it does not in the slightest de- gree affect my confidence until he shall have proved it — and it is no proof to say that it possibly, or even probably may be that it is not a real and genuine church, any more than it would be proof that my Uncle Joe had stolen a horse and was sent to the Penitentiary, for some one to say that horses had often been stolen, that many horses had been stolen in the country where he lived, and that some men had been convicted and sent to the Penitentiary for this offence, and that there was upon the mind of the accuser an indistinct impression that there was one of them whose name was Joe or John, or, at any rate, that it began either with J or G. When will men learn to reason upon subjects connected with religion with the same common sense that they do about other things. We have now examined this terrible conse- quence. No. two, and find it to be no bloody giant after all, either in its first or second form, but only a fearful phantom, which, like other phantoms, disappears before the light of calm investigation. The third and " last consequence/' our au-' 156 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. thor says, is that *^ it makes baptism an anomaly among dirine institutions — it makes it a duty which no one knows that he has performed. Baptism is thus rendered useless and nugatory." But this is only a different way of saying what he said before — viz., that no one could know whether he had been baptized. In removing that objection we have answered this, by show- ing that we can know, and do know, whether we have been baptized, just as certainly as we can know that there is any true church ol Christ upon the earth. Thus has Elder V/aller himself, as we prom- ised he should, furnished the artillery with which to batter down his own fortifications. ELDER A. P. WILLIAMS. 157 CHAPTER YII. ELDER A. P. WILLIAMS. While the foregoing matter was in press some one sent me a number of the Western Watchman containing the following article. It deserves onr particular attention. It is evi- dently the production of a candid and logical mind. The argument ranks among the very- best that we have seen upon that side of the question, and it has this special recommenda- tion: that it makes the Scriptures the sole stand- ard of our duty in regard to this matter. The position of this writer seems to be, that as the candidate is responsible for himself, and the administrator for himself', the church has no right to inquire into the qualifications of the administrator, although it must enquire into those of the candidate. If the candidate must not answer for the wrong-doing of the adminis- trator, then he thinks the Church cannot reject the administration. But lest we seem to prejudge the argument, we lay it before the reader : 14 158 PEDOBAPTIST IMMEKSIONS. VALIDITY OF BAPTISM. Warrensburg, January 6, 1858. My views on the question, whether Baptist churches should receive the immersions administered by Pedo- baplisls and Campbellites, have been again and again called for. I have deferred until now writing on the Bubjf^ct, because my ovvn mind was not fully satisfied, arid because it is a question on which I fc;el a great delicacy in expressing an opinion. It is a question on which Baptists have ever been divided, and upon which I presume they ever will be divided, until we fret more light than we now have. Some will be sat- isfied with the reasoning on one side, and some on the other. In reasoning on the subject, great candor and in- genuousness of spirit should be exercised. The points at issue ought to be well and clearly defined and understood. I hope that my brethren who may differ from me, and may see cause to controvert what I shall say, will treat me with that same spirit of Christian candor and courtesy that I hope to main- tain. These things beiog premised, I shall proceed : I. To notice the points of agreement ; and then, II. The points at issue. 1. In respect to Pedobnptist and other organiza- tions, we entertain the same views. We do not re- gard them as Scripturally organized churches of Jesus Christ, though embracing in their communion many sincere Christians. 2. We agree that their ministers do not receive their ordination from Scripturally organized churches. ELDEK A. P. WILLIAMS. 159 This is self-evident. If the foregoing is true, this must be true. Hence, 3. We view their administrations as irregular, so far as they are concerned. And now, the only re- maining question is how are we to treat their admin- istrations ? This brings us to the points at issue. Some of our brethren tell us v/e canDot receive any one who has been immersed by Pedobaptists, etc., into our membership, upon his immersion, without declaring by that act that Pedobaptist churches are regularly organized churches "of Christ, and that their ordinations and administrations are S ;nptural and valid. We, or I, on the other hand, think we may. My reasons are as follows : 1. In that transaclioa we call baptism there are three parties. Our Lord Jesus Christ, on the one hand, and the administrator and recipient on the other. So far as the administrator is concerned, it is an act performed by him in obedience to the com- mand of Jesus Christ, and for the performance of which he is amenable to Jesus Christ. And, so far as the candidate is concerned, he receives the rite in obedience to the command of Jesus Christ, and is amenable to him for a right performance of it. And now, as each is responsible to the Savior for himself, the one is not responsible for the other. If this is true, then the Savior may accept of the act as performed by the candidate, while he disapproves of the administrator. And what he may ao, his chtirch may do. Now, the question v/ith me is, Does the Word of God directly, or by implication, make the candidate re^^ponsible for any unknown disqualification in the administrator ? I think it does not, any more thfin it makes the administrator responsible for any un- 160 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. known disquafification in the candidate. In this, as in everything else, " every one must give an account of himself to God. " Rom. 14 : 12. Now let us get all the light we can from the Scrip- tures. 1. What do they say about the adrainislrator '? The first administrator they introduce to our notice is John the Baptist. His commission was directly from heaven. Malt. 21 : 25 ; John 1 : 33. It au- thorized the baptism of those wl>o brought forth fruits suitable to repentance, Matt. 3 : 8, and pledo;ed themselves to believe on the coming Messi- ah, Acts 19: 4. But many of them did not believe on him, and thus proved recreant to their plighted obligations. Was John amenable for this ? I pre- sume not. He could only look at the outward ap- pearance. It was for them, not for him, to account for the reality of their profession. The next passage that says any thing about the administrators of the rite is in John 4 : 2. This passage simply tells us Jesus' disciples baptized. It is to be presumed that they baptiz«-:d some who af- terwards proved themselves to be insincere. See John 6 : 66. But were they responsible for having thus administered the rite to unqualified persons? Not if they were unapprised ol" the disqualifica- tion. The next passage wortliy of notice is Matt. 28: 19: *'Cto teach all nations, baptizing them," etc. We all regard this as the low of baptism, especially so far as *' all nations" are concerned. Baptism, like the Gospel, had before been confined to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel. " But now it, like the Gospel, was extended to all nations. This law, therefore, makes no change either in administrator ELDER A. r. WILLIAMS. 161 or subject. Before, the Savior's disciples baptized the discipled. They must still do so. And hence, though these words were spoken to the Apostles, the authority to teach or to baptize was not confined to them. The example of Philip (Acts 8 : 35. 38) fully shows ihis. And it is this fact, I presume, that has caused the seeming neglect to tell u?, in so many instances of baptisra, who the adrainistrators were. Acts 2 : 41, tells U-, "As many as gladly leceiyed Peter's word were baptized," but it does not tell us by whom they were baptized. So Acts 10: 48, tells us Peter conDrnanded Cornelius and his friends who received the Holy Ghost with hiiLn, to be baptized, but it does not specify by whom. And in Acts 19 : 3, Paul inquires of the twelve disciples he found at Ephesus, ''unto ivhat were ye baptized," but not by lohom were ye baptized. All this goes to show to me that more stress is to be laid upon i\iQ fact of the baptism than the administrator of it. The following passage contains direct injunctions wi*h respect to the recipients of the rite. Acts 2 : 38: " Then Peter said unto them, repent and be baptized, every one of you," etc. Now, can you infer from this passage that these persons were to be concerned abcuL any thing but their own qualiiicatioas in the caf-e? Must they go about invesiigating the ques- tion of administratorship? Or were they concerned simply with the thing commanded— be bip-ized ? Acts 10: 48: ''And he commandfd them to be baptiz-d in the name of the Lord. " Now what was the thing commanded here? To investigate the question of administratorship ? l^o \ he baptized. Now 1 think that as tivo commands are giv^en, the one having respect to the administrator, and the other having respect to the subject, it is the business of the 162 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. administrator to see to it tLat he is doing his duty, and it is the business of the candidate to see toit, ihathe is doing his, while each is not responsible for the other. If the administrator assumes an office that does not belong to him, as does every unconverLtd, uncalled preacher to God, he is responsible. Or if a Pedobap- list minister baptized without being himself baptized, or without really believing the Bible, enjoins immer- sion, to God he is responsible. If a candidate pre- sents himself for baptism, while still in his sins* — knowing his heart not to be right in the sight of God — to God he is responsible. But if the administrator is really converted — called of God to the ministry and regularly set apart by the Church, and baptizes the professedly taught disciples, he does his duty, and God accepts of his service. Philip obeyed the Lord Jesus Christ as much in baptising Simon as he did in baptizing ■ the other believing Samaritans, because he regarded Simon at the time as being a believer as much as he did them. Still, Simon was very culpahU in receiving the rite, because he knew him- self to be insincere. So, if the candidate is converted — has just views of the symbolical import ond obliga- tions of the rite — and through a sincere desire to obey the Lord Jesus Christ, receives it — though di>quali- fication mv\y attach to the administrator — the Savior accepts of the act. The man is really baptized, thoucrh the administrator is culpable. This, it does seem to me, is a proper and Scriptu- ral view of the subject. Hence I am in favor of the reception of immersed persons coming to us from other denominations, provided they give evidence of having been converted — true believers at the lime of their baptism, and of their soundneis in the faith. It seems to me that this view of the subject cannot ELDER A. r. WILLIAMS. 163 be gainsayed, unless the position can be maintahied that the candidate raust answer for the administrator. And let that position be once established, and the most fearful consequences must follow. It is impos- sible fur one to knoio that the man who is about to bapiize, or who has baptized him, was really cnlled of God to the work. It is impossible for him to know that there is not a link wanting in the chain somewhere. And hence, after all, none of us may be validly baptized! Besides, it seems to me that the validity of the rite, so far as the candidate is coucerned, depends upon his qualification for it, and the view he had of its na- ture and obligations at the time of receiving it. Suppose one who has been immersed comes before the Church for membership and gives satisfaction on the following points : i . That previous to his baptism he was led as a pen- itent tojrust in Jesus Christ for salvation, and real- ized in his own consciousness the joys of his salva- tion. 2. That he had been'immersed because he felt it to be Ids duty to declare in that act his death to sin, his union with Christ in his death, burial and resur- rection. 3. That he felt bound by that act henceforth to walk in newness of life ; that his baptism was thus to him the " answer of a good conncier.ce toward God." 4. Thatafteripvesiigating our views of Church or- ganization, doctrine, discipline, etc., and comparing them with the Wprd of God, he felt that we are established on the true foundation of Christ and his Apostles. Bu'. suppose he felt ihat he could not repeat the act of immersion, being conscious of having already 164 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. obeyed the Lord Jesus Christ in ifc, shall we fall back on the administrator and say: '* Brother, you seem to have been qualified for the rite — you seem to have entertained Scriptural views of its import, and you seem to be fully sensible of the obligations it imposes upon its recipient, but you were baptized by an un- qualiiied administrator, and we cannot receive you." He answers : ** Brethren, as to the question of qual- ified administratorship, I do not know that I thought of it. My great concern was with myself. If the man who baptized me was not what lie professed to be, I cannot help it. I cannot account for him. I had to do not with his qualifications, but my own ; and I feel that Jesus Christ has received me ; and now, if I should be baptized again, I could assuri^e no obligation I do not now feel that I have already assumed, I could declare no fact that I do not feel that I have already declared. It would be a mere repe- tition of an act, without any mofal effect ; p<,nd you would not have me, would you, to perform the mere duplicate of an action having no additional meaning or force, not because you find any fault wirh me, but with iinothtr man ? If you would, I cannot submit.'* What should|we do in this case ? Doom the man to seek membership in what we declare to be ao/ un- scriptural on^aniz ition or live in the world ? This is holding him to a fearful account. No ; I would £ay, receive him ; and in dqing so, h.'^ve it understood that the act of reception goes not beyond the individ- ual. It neitlier pronounces for or against the aclmin- is'rator. He may or he may not have been qualified. The act only speaks for the person received. " It hath thi^ extent, no more." A. P. Williams. REVIEW JOF WILLIAMS. 165 P. S. — Bro. R.'s questions are, in tliis article, vir- tually answered. By and by, they may receive more direct attention. This article is too long to •How of addiiionai remarks. A. P. W. We like the spirit of this argument. The writer, we think, is one who seeks for truth, and knows the place to look for it. To the law and to the testimony. Here is the ground on which we loVe to meet a fair and honest opponent. The question must ever he, ^' What saith the Scrip- ture ? How readest thou.?" And what we have now to ask is, whether this writer has shown any Scriptural authority for a Church of Christ to recognize as true and valid haptisra, an immersion conferred by one not a Church member — not baptized, and without any au- thority from any Church? He admits that these " Pedobaptists and other organizations" are not true Churches,^ and that their ministers have no authority from any true Churches, and this beino; the case, he asks, " how are we to treat their administrations ? We would have answered ; if they are not true Churches of Jesus Christ, and have no authority from Plim to administer his ordinance we must treat these administrations just as we would those of societies that did not claim to be Churches — ^ust as we would treat 166 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. adDiinistrations conferred by authority of an Odd Fellows' Lodge, or a Masonic Chapter, just as wo would treat those of a man who laid no claim to being a Scriptural administrator. But Bro. Williams thinks not so, and gives his rea- sons. Let us consider them fairly and give them all the weight to which they are entitled. ^'The question" with him is, does the Word of God directly or by implication make the can- didate responsible for any vnhioivii disqucdijlca- tion in the administrator ?'' This is not precisely the question tvith us. It is to US a question of Church duty. It is, whether the Word of Grod, directly or by im- plication authorizes a Church of Christ to re.^ ceive that as true baptism which was conferred without the authority, express or implied, of any true Church. But we meet our author upon his own ground. We answer, 1st. If want of Church mem- bership is a disqualification, and the admin- istrator is notoriously not a Church meiQ- ber, this is not an unhiotvn disqualification ; But the administrators of whom he is speaking, he admits, are not members of scripturaily orga- nized Churches of Christ. 2d. If want of Church authority conferred in ordination is a disqualification, then this is not an unhioion disquahfication, for these administrators lay no claim to any authority conferred by what this writer recognizes as a t^ue Church of Christ. EEVIEW OF WILLIAMS. 167 We will meet him upon his own gronnd, and he shall himself furnish the weapons for the de- molition of his own defences. The candidate, he says, is no more responsihle for unknown dis- qualifications in the administrator than the ad- ministrator is for unknown disqualifications in the candidate. This is the basis of his very ingeni- ous and plausible argument. Now, let us look into this matter. How is the administrator to know whether his candidate is qualified ? Is he atliberty to immerse without any examination or enquiry, every one who applies .^ By no means, he goes to the Word of God for instruc- tions. He must have satisfactory testiniony that his applicant is a believer in Christ, and desires and intends to conform in all things to the laws of His kingdom. Why must he require this.? Simply, because the Word of the Mas- ter requires that they, and they alone, shall be baptized who have believed, and who do thus submit themselves to be governed by His laws, professing themselves to be dead to sin and alive to new obedience. The administrator is not indeed responsible for any unknown ,and concealed deficiencies in the candidate. — He may be a hypocrite or self deceived, but he must give the Church or the administrator satisfactory evidence, that he is a sincere and pious Z>e/{ewr. K baptized without this, he is not scripturally baptized, and the Church cannot receive his baptism as valid. 168 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. Now if the same law which designates the qual- ifications of the candidate designates those of the administrator, then the candidate is just as much hound to know that the administrator is qualified, as the other is to know that the can- didate is qualified. They are both equally subject to the same law. The qualification re- quired of the candidate is a credible profession of his faith in Christ. But here comes up the difficulty. Has that Jaw designated any class of 2^e7'sons as administrators? Does that law require any speciiic qu.Jifications whatever of those who are to confer this ordinance ? It either does or it does not. If not, then any man and every man is just as much an authorised administrator of Christ's ordinance as a Pedo- baptist or Campbellite ramister. The candidate may choose any one in the Church or in the World, professor or non-professor, baptized or unbaptized, infidel or Christian. He believes — he desires to be baptized. He is not to baptize- himself Somebody must put him in the w^a- ter, but it is of no consequence who it shall be. No set of people claiming to be Christians, and regarding baptism in any form as an ordinance of Clirist, have ever taken a position like this. Baptists and Pedobaptists of all classes and names admit, and contend that some qualifi- cations are required of the administrator, and all except certain }v3rsons among the Baptists, we believe^ contend that baptism and Church REVIEW OF WILLIAMS. 169 niembership, if not ordination, are essential qualiiications. Whether they are or not, must be decided by the Scriptures. And the writer of this article very properly goes to the Word to learn " >vhat the Scriptures say of the ad- ministrator." He introduces us first to John the Baptist. " His commission was directly from HeaA^en." Tliose who received his baptism, professed their faith in this fact. They received it of him, be- cause they believed him to be authorhed by God to confer it. And just so, every one who receives baptism an an ordinance of Christ at the hands of any man, does by that act recog- nize that administrator as one authorized by Christ to adviiinister his ordinance. But what if John baptized some who, un- known to him, were unqiyiiified, was he resp on- sible ? Our author presumes not, and so do we. What of it ? " John could only look at the outward appearance." Very true. But what of it.? Does it follow that because John was not responsible for the unknoion disqualifi- cation of his candidates, that the candidates for Christian baptism are to make no enquiry at all in regard to the qualifications of those to whom they apply to confer on them Christ's or- dinances .^ And if Christ has limited the au- thority to confer it to those persons possessing certain qualifications, are candidates at liberty to receive it of those w^ho are openly and notori- 15 170 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. ously destitute of those qualifications? If to have been baptized themselves, be a qualifica- tion for Christ's administrators — and immersion only is true baptism — then the administrators of whom our author is speaking are knoivn to be disqualified. They do not pretend to have been immersed. If Church membership be a necessary qualification, and these organizations be not true Churches, then the disqualification is not unlcnoivn. It is as ope?iand notorious, as is the fact that they are members of those socie- ties. ^^ The next passage '' referred to is Jol^n iv. 2, which simply tells us that the disciples of Jesus baptized, "xlndwhat,'' our author asks, "if they baptized some who were insincere, were they responsible.?'' " Not if they were unapprised of the disqualification." We cannot go quite so far as this, for we be- lieve they -ivould leave been responsible for bap- tizing any one of whose disqualifications they might as readily have known, as any one can know the disqualifications of these administra- tors, provided want of Church membership and Church authority are such disqualifications, and the societies for which they officiate are no true Churches, all of which this article concedes. The next passage mentioned is the great com- mission, which our author truly says, ^* we all regard as the laio of baptism." " This law," he says, " made no change, either in administra- REVIEW OF WILLIAMS. 171 tor or subject." " Tlie disciples" were still "to baptize the cliscipled." It was not confined to the Apostles, for Philip the Evangelist bap- tized, and there were many baptized, we knov/ not by ivhovi. Sundry persons were commanded to be baptized, but nothing was told them as to who should administer the rite. No one was charged " to investigate this question of administratorship." All very true, but what of it ? Does it follow that it was of no consequence who administered the rite ? If they were not enjoined to seek for baptism of a Christian Church or an authorized minister of such a Church, are we to infer that they might receive it of a Jew^ish synagogue or a heathen priest? Does it follow that no one was designated to the office of baptizing. Does it not rather appear that this point had been settled by the commis- sion itself, and was so well understood that no further injunction w^as needed. They would surely not apply to those who were not among the baptized for the ordinance of Christ's bap- tism. They would not expect those to confer it, who luould not themselves receive it. What if there are here tivo commands, one to the candidate, and the other to the administrator ; one to be baptized, and the other to baptize him.^ Does it follow, as our author seems to think, that it is a matter of indifference to the Church J whether the rite is conferred by the person commanded to give it, or by some one 172 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. else ? True, tlie ma.n who, inicalled , unqiialifiod and unauthorized, takes on himself this respon- sihility to confer Christ's ordinance without His authority is responsible to Christ. And he who is baptized without the faith that should prepare hirn for the act, is also responsible to Christ, but we do not see how this releases the Cliurcli from the responsibility to see that tlie ordinance is both rigidly conferred and right- ly received. The duty of the Church is 'some- thing separate and distinct from that of the administrator or the subject of this ordinance, and as much connected with the one as the other. As she cannot recognize a baptism which was not properly received, no more can she recognize one which was not properly con- ferred. So far as she has any authority in the case, she must see to it, that the will of the Master is equally obeyed, both in regard to him who administers and him who is the recipient of the ordinance; if by receiving him as baptiz- ed she recognizes him as a Scriptural believer , that is, as one qualified to receive baptism, she equally recognizes the other as a Scriptural administrator, that is, as one authorized to con- fer baptism. The candidate may be very hon- est, and the administrator very conscientious, they must each answer to Christ, He may ac- cept not only one, but botli, and yet his Churcli may be bound to reject the baptism. Christ as a sovereign, does what Pie will. His Churchy REVIEW OF WILLIAMS. 173 as His executive, can only obey tlie written lo.w wliicli He has left for her instructions. She is not to ask, what would the Master probably say, if this or that case should come before Him — or what He will say, to this or that man in the Day of Judgment, but what do our instructions Avhich He left on record in His Word require us, as His Church and the guardian of His ordinances, to do ? K he authorized none but believers to be baptized, then His Church would violate her duty in every case id which she should receive a person as baptiz- ed, or retain him as baptized whom she has sat- isfactory reason to believe was immersed in un- ' jli<: f He was baptized not only without His .uthority, but against His authorit}^ So if He 'esignated any class of persons to administer the rite, the Church violates her duty every time she receives as His baptism a rite confer- xl by one not belonging to this class, and con- . C'cpiently -vi'^TOMt any authority from Him to confer it. Here tlien is, after all, the true issue in re- , ;ird to. this question. To this point every argument must come which touches it at all. Is the administration of baptism limited by the Word of God to any class of persons, or is it ^pen to all who have the physical strength to ■ ip a person in the water and lift him out again? If litaited at all, liow and towltomhii limited? If any persons are designated rather than others 174 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. to "be the administrators, then Cliurcli mem- bers, candidates for baptism, and everbodj else, are just as much boijnd to know who are to baptize as they are to know who are to be baptized, or what is baptism. The law is in their hands. They must obey it in regard to the one point as well and as willingly as the others. And they are to learn its re- quirements in the same way. If we baptize none but believers, because none others but be- lievers are commanded to be baptized, and the Church must reject as no baptism an immer- sion conferred in infancy orunbelief, so if certain persons and no others are commanded to con- fer the rite, it must follow, that it conferred by others without authority from Christ in viola- tion of the law limiting it to those entrusted with its administrations, the Church must re- ject it as no baptism. Now, in look nig over all the Scriptures to which our author refers, do we find so much as one which intimates that baptism is to be con- ferred by any one who pleases, whether he is a believer or an unbeliever ? The utmost that he discovers is, that " more stress is laid upon the fact of the baptism than upon the adminis- trator of it." Bat neither he nor any one else will venture to say, that there was no limita- tion, or, in other words, that it is not a duty which some persons may lawfully perform and others may not. But if it be restricted at all, REVIEW OF WILLIAMS. 175 tlie restriction must be definite, some may and some may not. But tlie argument on this point we will give in another place, when we will show how certainly it was limited, and v/ithin what bounds. '^ But suppose one who has been immersed comes before the Church for membership and gives satisfaction in regard to the following oints :" 1. He was a penitent believer in Christ. 2. He was inmiersed because he felt it his duty thus to declare his death to sin, and his union with Christ in His death, burial, and re- surrection. 3. That he felt bound by that act hence- forth to walk in newness of life. 4. That after examination he was convinced that we are the true and only Church of Christ, and therefore he desires admission. And suppose further, that he could not feel that it was right for him to be immersed by the authority of this true and only Church, as he now considers it to be, because he had been formerly immersed witliout authority by one not appointed by the Church or recognized as a Church member, but whom in his ignorance, he at the time, believed to be as fully authoris- ed as any one to administer Christ's ordinance; what shall we say to him.^ Let the reader turn back, and look again at Elder Williams' very forceful statement on page,i 176 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. 163 and 164, and then let him read the follow- ing little story : There was a very intelligent and conscientious Welchman w^ho came to this country some years ago. He had an Irish friend, who, like himself, was legally an alien, though long a re- sident among our people. Just before the last Presidential election, they both felt that it was a duty which they owed to themselves and the ountry to become legally and formally true Itizens of the republic, so that ihej might en- )j the privileges and pcr-form the duties of citi- ; ?ns. They found the laws concerning natur- lization, and read, that before they could be iiivested with the privilege of citizenship, they nuist take the oath of allegiance. This the ^ Yelchman was very willing to do. His friend j.id it over to him, and with his hand upon the Bible he swore all that it required. The Irishman gave him a certificate stating that he had done so. With this he proceeded to the :)lls and presented his vote. Are you a native of this country? asked the ' idge of elections. No, sir, I was born in AY ales. Have you been naturalized ? Certainly, your honor. Here is the certificate gned by my friend Patrick O'Donoly, a man that loves this country as weU as if he had been born in it. But the certificate does not show that Pa- EEYIEW OF WILLIAMS. 177 trick was an officer authorized according to the law to administer the oath and receive you as a citizen. Oh, as to that your honor, Patrick is no more a citizen than I am myself, hut we both love the country and are ready to spill our blood for it. But the law does not recognize the official acts of one not a citizen. Patrick cannot stand outside the pale of citizenship and push you in. You should have gone to a magistrate duly ap- pointed by the government. No one else has any authority to make you a citizen. True enough, your honor, but then how wai? I to know all that.? My concern was only with v/hat I had to do. My part of the business was to take the oath, I could not be expected to enquire into the duties of magistrates. If Pa- trick has done wrong in administering the oath when he had no right to, he is accountable to the government for himself. I have done my dutv, I have taken the oath and mean to keep it. " But the oath given by a foreigner and with- out authority is in vieiu of the law no oath at all. We know nothing about Patrick O'Don- oly ; he is not even a citizen ; he has never himself taken the oath he administered to you ; we cannot entrust the right of making citizens to those who are not citizens themselves, and ^-ave no shadow of authority from the gov- 178 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. ernment. If you wish to vote you must be naturalized according to laiv. Well, your honor, but that is very hard. Patrick told me he could read the oath as well as a native, and so he did, I am sure I swore the very words, if I should do it fifty times over before a magistrate, " it would be a mere repetition of an act without a moral ef- fect," I would be no more bound than I feel myself to be now. If Patrick had no right to give me the certificate, that is his matter not mine. I hope your honor will not hold me re- sponsible for another man's sins. I took the okth, and that is all that I had to do. But you forget, my friend, that the same aii- tliority ivMcli required you to take the oath, ajo- pointed j^'i^oj^er 2^ersons to adininister it. No doubt you love the country, and really oneant to become a citizen, and thought you had done so, but it was your misfortune not to know that a foreigner cannot lawfully make aaother a cit- izen of this countrv, so \on% as he himself re- fuses to be made one, nor even afterwards un- less specially authorized by the government. Well, your honor, I am very sorry for it. I wanted to be a citizen, I did the best i knew, and now you drive me back among the aliens; I never can have the privileges of citizenship. Oh no, my fiiend, not at all, just go to 2l proper officer duly qualified and legally authorized, and he will at once admit you. KEVIEW OF WILLIAMS. 179 But that, may it please your honor, I can't do, I have taken the oath once, and I have con- scientious scruples about '' performing the mere duplicate of an action having no additional meaning or force, not because you find any fault with me," but because my friend, Patrick O'Donoly, took it upon him to administer the oath, when he had no right at all to do it. I do not ask you to sanction his administration of it, but only my taking of it, by receiving me as a citizen. You do not go beyond myself, yon say nothing at all about Patrick or his cer- tificate. That may be all wrong, but surely you will not deny that I took the right oath, and I never can take it again. Would it be a responsibility from which any judge of elections would shrink, to forbid this man the privilege of citizenship, and thus compel him to remain among the unnatur- alized until he knows enough of the laws of the country to understand that an act required by law is not performed at all, unless it is performed according to the law which requires it. Now the Church of Christ is the executive of His laws and the guardian of His ordinances. It is her province not to decide whether His laws are right or wrong, but faithfully to carry out His instructions. Among the most impor- tant, all the duties imposed upon her are those which pertain to the reception of members into His kingdom. It has pleased the King to re- 180 PEDOBAPTIST IMMEKSIONS. quire that those who become members shall iirst believe and then shall be baptized. Faith is the essential qualification for membership, and baptism the ceremony by which they are initiated. In this they take and seal the oath of consecration to Him, of allegiance to His government. This is a positive enactment, a legal requisition designating the form and order of admission to His kingdom. If the believer is to profess his ftdth, this supposes some au- thority in somebody to receive and judge of his profession. If he is to be baptized, this sup- poses there is somebody who is to administer the baptism — just as the requirement of a for- eigner to take the oath of allegiance supposes somebody authorized to administer it and certify that it has been taken. Now the authority to administer this ceremony of ini- tiation into Christ's kingdom is either limited by Him to those within the kingdom or it is not. If not thus liniitcd, then Christ has placed the most important of His ordinances in the keeping of His enemies. He has authorized those who will not obey, and who ofttim.es mock at His ordinances to be the rightful ad- ministrators of it, and requires His Churches to receive their work as thou2;h it had been done by themselves. If limited to those within the kingdom, and baptism be the rite of initiation into that kingdom, then, of necessity, it is limit- ed to the baptized, as no others can be reckoned REVIEW OF WILLIAMS. 181 as initiated. If this gives rise to difficulties, the Church cannot help it; if this leads to hard feel- ings, she is not responsible. If some men are too conscientious to receive the ordinances of those whom Christ a-ppointed, she may pity their errors, she may seek to convince them of their wrong, but she may not receive that as Christ's b.iptism which was administered by those to whom He gave no authority to act for Him in regard to this matter. 16 182 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS, CHAPTEB YIIL THE CONCLUSION OF THE WHOLE MATTER. Having now presented in their own j;in,ufunor(? the best of all the [)leadin;j;s which we have h<^en able to discover upon the one siile of this ques- tion, and our replies upon tlie ttihcr, we pr(>pose to make a condensed, but fair and honest ab- stract, of the main arguments on both sid<^s. This is the more necessary, because of the vari- ous side issues which litive been j)resented in the ])learlings and the mass of matter which really had no direct bearing uj)on the real ques- tion under consideration — so iha,t the atten i>'n of the reader has often been for ])ages to'iether entirely diverted from the point about v.ddch we are at issue. But before we proceed, let us distinctly under- stand what ques'ions we have not attempted, anri do no-t expect to d cide, in this litile book. 1st. We do n(»t expect to detenninehere wh^t baptism is. We think we liave setth d that question in the first volume of Theod<»sia IvDesfc. We here take it for granted that it is immersion only. CONCLUSION. 183 2(1. We do not expect to determine here what are the essential features of a true Church of Christ, or wliat is necessary for mcinbershi[) in the vibihh Kiugdoni of Christ. Tutse quesiions, we think, are conchisively answered in the sec- ond volume of Theodosia Ernest ; and we here take for granted that as baptism is the initia- tory rite of the visible kingdt»u), no one is or can be regarded a.s a member of that kingdom or as having any rights, privileges or authority in that Kingdom, iclio has not been baptized. 3d. We have not attempted to ascertain whether a man mayor mwy not hiwfulfy preach the Gospel without being baptized. This was not necessary for the answering of the question before lis — which was not whether he nn*L:ht preach but wht^ther he might baptize. If the reader wishes to investigate tins question, he will find a ver}^ forcible statement of the argu- ments on one side of it in The OKI Landmark Re-set, by Elder J. M. Pi-ndleton, and The Ques- tion of the Age, by Elder Jus. Baker. No tbr- mal argument upon the other side has, to our knowledge, yet been given in a permanent form. We once began to make one, but found the task too hard. In this vo^wwe, however, wo have taken it for granted that any one in the Church or out, ba))tized or unba})rized, Christ- ian or inHdel, might Jawfully/_>nat7i as much as he tnay clioose — we have only questioned his right to administer the ordinances. 184 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. 4th. We have not, in this volume, attempted to determine whether baptism administered by- one who is u7iordained as a minisUr or evange- list would be valid. We may have incident- ally given our personal o] anion upon this point, but this was not the question before us. If any one feels interested in its decision, he wall find in the first article of Elder Waller a very able argument upon it. We have, on our part, taken it for granted that the Church may appoint any member slie pleas'^s to administer the rite. We only contend that she shall not go outsicle the Church and outside the Kingdom and take a man who is not a mcember of either^ and invest him with the right to administer for her an ordinance wdiich he will not receive for himself — or if he has taken it upon himself to do so without her authority that she shall not recognize and sanction the act as though it had been authorized by her. THE TRUE QUESTION, And the only one, we have endeavored here to set- tle at once and forever is, whether a Baptist Church ought under any circumstances to recog- nize and receive as Christ's baptism, an immer- sion administered by an unbaptized adminis- trator, and tvithout any authority, express or implied, from a true Church of Christ. The question is one of Church duty, and that CONCLUSION. 185 vs the form in whi(^li it must come np. Our own position may be briefly stated thus. Christ has established in the workl a visible kinixdom, A visible kingdom supposes' visible subji^cts. There is, thtrefore, some visible and detinite line of demarcation between those who are in, and those who are not in, this visible kingdom. 'J here must be some means by whirh one visi- bly leaves the world and enters this Kinirdom — like the oath of allegiance by which an alien be- comes a citizen. This step, by which one passes from vathout this visible kingdom to a ])lace with- in it, is taken in baptism. This is the rite or ce . e- mony of initiation. lie who is rightly haptized is in it. He who is not, is ou. of it. Now, that none may come in but those who are qual- ified for citizenshi]), the King has given the charge of the door to those who have gone in — and requires that they admffc no one till they are satisfied that he has first been made a citizen in his htao't. They must have assurance that he is a pernfent believer. Upon being eatisfied of this, they baptize him as they were baptized, and he is then a member as they are members. Thus, and only thus, can any one enter in. But now, as the King has gone to Heaven, whom has He left to attend to the business of (he kingdom in His absence ? Who shall appoint the otUcers ? Who shall receive nev/ members ? W ho shall depose or ex- 186 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. elude the unwortliy ? Who shall provide and do all that is needful for the i>urity, the permanence and the e\:tension of the kingdom? He provided for all this hefore he went, hy direct- ing as many of the citizens of the kingdom as could conveniently meet together, to assemble and organize themselves into a " Churchy "'which should in its corporate capacity attend to all these matters. It is this Church which must receive the profession of faith, determine on its genuineness and administer the baptism. It is the Church, as a Church, that has charge of the door of entrance into the kingdom. This is equally true whether she acts by herself in the asserahly of the saints, or by her ofiicers, as elders or evangelists. They have no authority which she has not conferred. If they may bap- tize, it is because she has authorized and ap- pointed them to Ifeptize, and thu^ receive into the kingdom such as give evidence of living faith; But of whom is each Church to be coniposed.^ It must consist of those who are members of the kingdom, that is of those who have b(dieved and been baptized. When a person ap}>lies for Church membershi}) with her, she inquires whether he is in the kingdom, if not, she must receive him into the kingdom by baptism be- fore she can receive him into her s} ccial "cccle- sia," or assembly, as a Church member. But if a sister Church has received, him into the king- CONCLUSION. 187 dom, Biie only asks to be certified of that fact. He must be in th«^ kingdom before he can come into a Church within the kinre he enters it, must make much less nse of his common sense when investigating religious matters than he is accus- tomed to do in examining other things. What relation has a true member of the invihible kingdom to the visible ? He is a fit ])f^rson to be made a subject of it — simply this, and nothing more. Ee trusts the King. He loves the King. He has determined to obey the King. He wishes to declare this openly, in the way the King conmianded, and thus be- come a mendoer and a subject of the vi«ible kingdom. But suppose he never does it ! Is he any more a member than if he were not pre- ] tared to do it, and never had desired to do it? The foreigner who ad()]>ts a new country as his own, may love the country, approve its laws, underistaad its government, desire citizenship, 192 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. and be in all things qnalified to become a citi- zen, but he is not a citizen until he has been made one by the i)rocess prescribed by the laws. He may be a citizen in his heart, but before he can exercise any of the peculiar privileges of citizenh'.hip, he must be made one by the legal, and formal, and visible renunciation of his old allegiance, and taking on himself the new. A man may L)ve a woman tenderly, and there may be no good reason why he should not make her his wife. He may feel that he is espoused to her in his heart as much as though they had been actually and formally united according to the requirements of the law of matrimony, but he is not her husband, and has no right to act as though he were her husband until the mar- riage rite has been performed. Till then, he is not a married man. And just so, it matters no- thing how much a man may love the Lord of this kingdom, it matters nothing how well* qual- ified he may be for citizenship or office-h(dding in the kingdom, if the King has specified a par- ticular way of becoming a citizen, if he has prescribed a particular form or ceremony of ini- tiation, he cannot become a citizen without observing the form. Till this is done, he is no citizen, any more than a man's love makes him a woman's husband bef)re he is married to her. That the reader may be able the better to judge of the value and force of this argument, we reduce it to the syllogistic form. If the CONCLUSION. 193 premises are sound, the conclusion is inevitable. 1. If baptism is the initiatory rite of Christ's visible kingdom, then no one is or can be a member of that kingdom lulio has not been hap- tized. This is self-evident. 2. The Pedobaptist administrators of whom we have been speaking, have not been bajttized. 3. Therefoi'e they are not members of Christ's visible kingdo:in. Thus far, "all is certainly very plain. / And now the question arises whether one can lawfully act as an officer in the kingdom while he is not so much as a member of it.^ Vv hether in the absence of all proof that he has done so, we are at liberty to suppose that the King has authorized men wdio will not so much as be themselves initiated to perform the most important of all the offices of the kingdom, that which admits to and certifies the membership of its subjects. No other king entrusts the ceremony of re- ceiving strangers and making citizens of them to foreigners. Even our own government, liberal as it is in all such things, never dreamed of au- thorizing one foreigner to naturalize another, and confer on him the privileges of citizenship. Ko society or organization of any sort now ex- isting among men, and having any particular form of initiation or admission to membership, ever entrusted the administration of that form and the reception and initiation of members to 17 194 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. those \vlio viere not menjbcrs themselves. They do not authorize men who ^yill not be initiated to stand outside and thrust others in. Now we admit that it does not follow of necessity from all this that he who is the King in Zion may not have done such a thing. His ways arc not as ours. And if there were in His Word satisfactory proof that he had given sueh au- thority to the unbaptized, we must believ(> that it would not be so silly as it seems But no one of all those who have reasoned upon that side, lias yet found the chapter or the verse in the Old Testament or in the New in which any such authority was conferred. It can no more be found than that to make meiubers of little infants " mewling and puking in their mothers' arm.s." Yv^e do not remember that any one has pretend- ed to have found it. We are asked to suppose its existence, ))ecause to deny it would, in their opinion, involve us in a world of trouble, as we sliall see hereafter. But can good, sound, com- monsense suppose any such thing .^ Here is tlie syllogism. Let it be cautiously examined, and if it be false in either of its pre- mises, or its conclusion, let the error be shown. 1 The administration of baptism as the ini- tiatory rite of the Kingdom of Christ is on the part of the administrator not a personal but an official act. 2. No official act is valid unless duly aiifhor' ized by him to whom the authority belongs. CONCLUSION. Vji) 3. Tlie autliorlty in this case belonp^s to Clvrist as Kin-jf, and he has conferred no official azifho7ity in His Kingilom upon those tvho are not members of it. These men, according to onr ])revious argument are not members of it, and therefore they have no authorit}^, and tlieir baptism is, of consequence, invalid. SOME ARGUMENTS FROM CONSISTENCY. AVe are writing this little book for Baptists. The question discussed is a question oi Baptist polity, or rather of Ba[)tist duty. What is the duty of Baptist Churches in certain s})ecial cases ? We, consequently, may here take it for granted, that whatever course will if fol- lowed out, lead a Baptist to abandon his peculiar sentiments and the cherished practices of his den.'mination, is a wrong course. Whatever is inconsistent with the known and admitted faith and practice of Baptist Christians, we may, in our reasonings with Baptists, take to be false. We cannot take this ground in reasoning with Pedobaptists or the world upon such a question as the one before us, for they will say, it is nothing to us how contradictory to Baptist fairh, or how inconsistent with Baptist ])rofes- sions or Baptist practices, the recognition of /he oliicial acts of the unbaptized may be. Baptist faith. Baptist profession, and Baptist -{jractice are all wrong together^ and the more inconsts- 196 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. tent with tliem any course may be, the moie likely is it to be right. But in reasoning with a Baptist, we may take it for granted, that he believes the Baptists are right, and that what- ever is plainly and palpably unbaptistic must be WTong. Now, I propose to show that, iftlie immersions administered by Pedohaptist ministers are good amd laivful valid haptism according to tlie. Scrijytiires, TREi^ Baptist Churches, a.sswc/i, hate no authority in the kingdom of Christ, and ought to have no existence. TREY ABE VILE USURPEBS OF AU- THORITY WHICH CHRIST NEVER GAVE THEM. They have tak^en away from their own memibers the li])erty Vvdiich they had in Christ. They have deceived themselves and endeavored to impose upon the world by claim- ing to be the true and Scriptural Churches of Jesus Christ, when they were something very different. These are very serious charges. One should not make them, unless he is very sure that he can make them good. But, we are willing to take the responsibility; we have carefully counted the cost; we have earnestly and consistently explored all the ground; we have weighed well the facts and arguments, one by one, and we have deliberately come to the conclusion, that the Baptist who yields this one point, may by logical necessity be driven to yield all. Let every Baptist ponder well CONCLUSION. 197 the arguraciit wliich we are now about to pre- sent, and if it does not make this proposition p^lain, let him. show where it iails. If it does m-ike it ])lain. let him decide whether he will abiindon the cherished principles of the denom- ination to which he belongs — the very exist- ence of Baptist Churches Jis such — for the sake of recognizing as valid baptism an unau- thorized immersion. Here is the ARGUMEKT. NUMBER THEEE. The administration of baptism is not a per- sonal, but an offlcial act. It is so regarded by all Baptist Churches. It is an act which the individual performs not as a man but as a miii- isttr, as the servant of the Church. The Church claims and exercises the right to deter- mine who shall be baptized and who shall bap- tize them. Some thiidv that the Church must decide In evei^y jjarticular case as it presents itself, by application for baptism; and some think, that when she confers ordination upon one as an elder or evangelist, she therein in- vests him with the right to baptize, and w^hen she caunot be conveniently consulted to deter- mine u])on the propriety of baptizing any par- ticular applisant. Bi'it in any case, the author- ity is deriv^ed from the Church to the adniinis- trat«)r. The fict, that the Church gives it, fehows that she claims to have authority to give 198 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIO^^S. it. Tlie fact that slie gives it to some and not to all, shows that she claims the right to deny it; and does deny it, even to most of her own members. Now the Churches are either right in this, or they are wrong. They either have this author- ity or they have not. If they have it, it must have been conferred by Christ, the Head and King. The Church is His executive, and acts by His authority and in His name. If HE did not confer on her the authority to a^^point the administrators of baj)tism, she has certainly usurped it ; she has come between Christ and the convert who desires baptism. Those who contend for the validity of these immersions do it on the ground that the administrator is not designated by Christ or his authority, see Wayland (p. 17.) " The only command is, to be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Grhost.'' "This is the whole of the command, there is no direction given be- yond, nor have we a right to make any!' To the question, whether baptism administered by a Pedobaptist, &c., is a fuliiUment of tlie com- mission, Eld. Waller, (page 46,) answers "that the baptism is ^strictly in accordance with the commission unless it prescribes the administra- tor^ as absolutely as it does the mode and tlie subject." And Elder Johnson, (p. 97,) says, "After all, the essence of true spiritual Gospel baptism consists in the immersion in water of a CONCLUSION. 199 spiritual believer upon a profession of faith in Christ hy ivhomsoever the ordinance maybe ad- ministered.'*' Now what I say is this, if Christ has not designated the administrator, or given authority to the Churches to do it, then Bap- tist Churches are vile usurpers of this authori- ty to the extent they have been accustomed to exercise it. They have no more right to give or deny the right to administer baptism, than they have to make a pope. If Christ said to the convert " Be Baptized,'' and made no pro- vision for the baptizer, tlien the new convert must choose a baptizer for himself. Then, as we showed, page 35, every man, and every wo- man, and every child, who has the physical strength to put another in the water and take him out again is an authorized administrator of baptism. And since Grod has authorized every convert to choose his own administrator, by what authority can any Baptist Church claim the right to say who may or who may not bap- tize ? How dare she come between her , member s and their duties or their privileges, forbidding brothers to baptize their sisters, and husbands their wives, and each and every one, to adminis- ter Christ's ordinance to all who may desire his services ! How dare slie come between the convert and his duty by saying to him, you have indeed been ordered by the Savior to submit to baptism, but before you do so, you must come to us and proless your mltii, and be baptized by 200 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. one wliom we may appoint ! Who does not see that on the ground assumed by the defenders of the valiuily of these immei^ions, that Ba[itist Churches are vile usm^pers of au^ tlioritij which Ghirst never conferred U))()n them. S) ffir from beinj^ the executors 0/ HIS laios^ they d^vQrivalsViivi rebels, set tinpj up their own authority above their Masters. Brethren, let us not continue thus to sin against Ged. Let ua at once repent and go bacj?: to the simrJicity of the Gospel. Let us nppoint no mure adminis- trators of baptism! Let us require no m.re professions of faith to be made to the Church. Let us acknowled;^'e our fault! Let us say to the other denominations and to the woild, that we, as Baptists, lune been laboring from the time of the Ap >s ties under a-most grievous error. We have ahvays thou<;ht that Christ gave the authority to confer his ordinance of baptism upon the Churches, and those whom the Churches miglit appoint. Our practice haa always been founded on this belief. But now we find this wasasad mistake; Doctors of Divini- ty, after eighteen hundred years of cnrel'ul stu- dy have discovered, that the adrninistiator is not r>rovidedfor at all. No one wms desi^c^nated by Christ, nor Wc^s the Church authoriz( d to designate any. '' Tlie whole conniunul 'is, be baptized. There is no direct ions given beyond, cind loe hove no right to make any." We are sorry we had not made this discovery at au CONCLUSION. 201 earlier day. It would have saved tlie lives of many thousands of our martyred brethren. But as we love the truth and wish to be con- sistent with ourselves, we now proclaim to all the world that we no longer claim the usurped authority we have so long been accustomed to exercise, and we hereby inform all members of Baptist Churches that each and every one of them has the same right and authority to ad- minister baptism which we have been accus- tomed to confer upon our ministers ; and we further notify all who may hereafter be con- verted to Christ that it is just as laivfiil^ ox- cording to the Scriptures J for them to apply for and receive baptism from those who are not Church members at all, as it is to seek it of a Baptist Church and receive it of a Baptist min- ister : for it has now been discovered by learned doctors that, ^^ after all, the essence of true" Christian " baptism consists in the immersion in luater of a true believer upon profession of his faith by lohomsoever the ordinance may be ad- ministered." liCt Churches which receive these immersions as true and valid Scriptural baptism do this and they will be consistent with themselves. AIlGUMENT NUMBER FOUR. CONSISTENCY — ■ CONTINUED. But, some Church may say, We receive these immersions as baptism, but not upon this ground. 202 PSDOBAPTIST IMMEESIO^S. We do not "believe -(liat Clirist made no pro- vision for the administrator. We do not be- lieve that every man, saint or sinner, professor or non-prufessor, minister or layman, in the CI lurch or out, is equally autliorized hy Christ to administer His baptism. Nor do we believe that baptism administered luithout authority from liim is His baptism, or to be received as , suuh bv «ny of His Churches. But we believe these Pedobaptist ministers are true mifiislcru of Jesus Christ, though labw con- tended that every moM has authority to baj/tize, but only true and actual ministers of Jesus Christ. But now let us see if this Church is any less inconsistent than the others. Must she not, like the others, re])udiate and deny tho faith and practice of the Baptist denominafion in all ages and places ? Let us see. Hjjs it not ever been, and is it not now the j^ractice of the Ba[)tists, vvlien one of these administrators is convinced of his errors and receives the true baptism from a Baptist Church, to ordain him to the ministry before we recognize him as a true niinister, authorized to administer the or- dinances? We think it is. But surely we have been very inconsistent in this thing. If CONCLUSION. 203 he was a rainister, and as a minister, ^vas really authorized to administer Christ's ordiiianceH, upon what ground would any Baptist Church have dared to take away his authority, or treat hiui as though it had never heen given ? A man is sometimes deposed from the ministry J or doing ivrovg, hut what Church would dare depose this man for doing right? Yesterday, while he was living in open disohedicnce to the Lord's command, he torts a good and lawjul minister, with full authority to conft-r the ordi- naijce which he vfould not receive. To-df^y. he has oheyed and heen haptized, and hy that act has forfeited his office. We have deposed Inm from the mini&tr?/, notjor any sin, hut for obey- ing the Lord. We treat him just as though he never had heen a minister. We ordain him just as we would a man who never had darined to be a minister. While he was living in open reheUitist Church, as having such authority, unless it lias heen con/erred ojb Mm by the Church. Now one of two things must be true. Either there is something in being Vi^-haptizcd which gives a man peculiar rights and authority in the Kingdom of Christ, or these men have received authority from some source as truly and as fully authorized to con- fer it as a Ba])tist Church. If nothing bat a Baptist Church can give this authority to a haptized man, to a Baptist Church member, it must require authority cqical at least to that of such a Church to confer it on the un-h^iiiUzed. This is self-evident. Some of these men have derived their authority as ministers from Epis- copal or Methodist Bishops, and it follows that Episcop^al and Metliodist Bishops have authority in Christ's Kingdom to appoint the administra- tors of bai)tism, equal or superior to that of any Baptist Church. The Churches can only appoint a baptized Church member, but these lords over CONCLUSION. 205 Gud's heritage are aclvDOwledged by Baptists to have the authority to appoint the unbaptized, and the scoffers at baptism, and Baptist Churches must recognize their official acts as of equal validity with those performed by a Baptist minister. And as we recognize these BISHOPS as having power in the kingdom of Christ to appoint the administrators of baptism. So we must recognize the power that makes the bisltopsas having the right to confer on them this authority, to appoint baptizers for Christ. The General Conference, therefore, takes rank in tJie visible kingdom of Christ, not only er|ual to, but far above a Baptist Church. — This, can only appoint, or ordain, a baptized Church member to administer Christ's ordinance : but the conference can appoint and authorize men not merely to baptize, biU to create baptizers among the unbaptized. But not to dwell upon this point, we will only ask of every Bap- tist Church to consider, whether it is prepared to recognize the authority of Episco])al and Methodist bishops, Lutheran synods or Presby- terian councils or presbyteries, in api)ointing men to administer the ordinances of Christ's kingdom, as equal to or above her oion. If she does not thus recognize it, she cannot receive these baptisms on the ground that they were conferred by ministers duly authorized, since these ministers received all their authority from these sources. Admit their official acts are 18 206 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. valid^ and tliey will drive us by logical necessi- ty to admit that they have mttliority from Glivist to jyerform tliem^ and as the only author- ity they claim comes through these channels, they drive us to admit that they are true Churches and true ministers of Jesus Christ, bishops, conference, and all. ARGUMENT NUMBER SIX. Once more. Baptist Churches have ever been accustomed to reject the official acts of even baptized men whom they have themselves or- dained to the ministry, so soon as they disco- ver that they are unsound in faith or practice. If therefore, these Pedobaptist immersers were members of Baptist Churches, and taught and practiced infant baptism as they are now accus- tomed to do, they would be deposed from the ministry and excluded from the Cburch, just as soon as the proper steps could be taken to ac- complish the object. Such has been the uniform practice of our Churches. But it must now be evident that it is very wrong, for so far from re- jecting the official acts of unbaptized men who teach and practice such things, we receive them as Scriptural and valid ; we recognize them as lawfully appointed administrators of the ordi- nances of God's House. Surely there is some- thing in not being baptized which recommends a man with great power to the Baptist heart. CONCLUSION. 207 If a hajjtizcd man should, as a Baptist minister, hut sprinkle a single infant in the name of Christ to make it a memher of His kingdom, liis brethren would disown him, and so far from recognizing hhn as a valid a-nd lawful admin- strator of Christ's baptism, they would at once depose him from all official station, and even exclude him from the communion and fellow- ship of the Churches. But an vi^hajjtked man may do this hahitually and even onoch at the immersion which he occasionally and with re- luctance confers on a believer, and yet these same Baptist Churches which were so hard upon their brother will cordially receive this man's work and thus recognize him as having author- ity to perform it. Is not this consistency in- deed ! ARGUMENT NUMBER SEVEN. But here is another inconsistency. Let those Baptist Churches which admit these immersions as lawful and valid baptisms, consider what they will do with it. Every Baptist Church is accustomed, when any one applies to her for admission into the kingdom of Christ' by bap- tism, to make a careful examination into the nature of his faith, his religious experience and the like, in order that she may determine whe- ther he is a lit subject for the kingdom or not. If she regards him as worthy and well qualified 208 PEDOBAPTIST IMMEESIOKS. she directs him to be baptized ; if not, she re- jects his application. Now, that fact, that she does this thing as a Gliurcli of Christ, shows that Baptists suppose that the Church is au- thorized by Christ to do it. She either is, or she is not. If not, she is a usurper of authority in the kingdom of Christ. She takes it on herself to decide who may and who may not become its visible and actual members, when Christ gave her no such right or power. If, however, she is authorized, raid does this in Christ's name upon His commandment and by His commis- sion, then every times he admits as valid, that is, lawful and Scriptural a baptism which she did not authorize, she admits that those who did authorize it had equal authority from Christ to decide this question, as she has herself, if this was done by a sister Baptist Church, she by receiving the act recognizes her sister as equally with herself empowered to determine who shall be baptized ; and it is precisely upon this ground that she is accustomed to receive the baptism thus conferred, as though it had been conferred by herself. But now it is self- evident that, upon the same principle, when she receives as Scriptural and lawful valid baptism an immersion conferred by the authority of a Freshyterian session, she recognizes that session as equally with herself, empowered by Christ to determine who ought to be baptized. When she receives one conferred upon the recommend- CONCLUSION. 209 ation of a Metliodist class leader, she acknow- ledges him as having from Christ equal author- ity with herself or a sister Baptist Church, to decide this question. When she receives one conferred upon his own responsibility by an Episcopal lyviesty she recognizes Ziz'm as having from Christ equal authority with herself to de- termine who may and who may not be baptized into the visible kingdom of her Lord. Receiv- ing him as baptized, she recognizes him as being lawfully within the kingdom, and of course, as having been lawfully introduced. There is no logical possibility of evading this conclusion. If Baptists think that this is true, if they believe that Christ lias thus divided the authority equally among all who claim the rio-ht to exercise it, let them be consistent with themselves. Let them no longer set uj) any claims to be tlie Churches of Christ; all others are as much entitled to the name and the authori- ty as they are. Let them no longer complain of the " session"' as a power unappointed and unauthorized in the Word. Let them no long- er speak of the class leader and the priest as claiming and exercising authority not granted to them in the Scriptures. They lay no claim to any higher or more important power than the power to determine who may and who may not become members of Christ's visible kingdom upon the earth. And this is granted them. They hold the keys of the kingdom. Why 210 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. contend witli them about trifles, when we have granted the o^reat and all controlling^ essen- tial of Church dominion. Let us come out like candid men and own our faults. Let us proclaim to all the world, that we have been for these eighteen hundred years deceived in regard to the teachings of the Word of God upon this point. Let us acknowledge that we have been usurpers in the kingdom of our Lord, claiming to our Churches the right to decide who were and who were not lit subjects for ad- mission, when in fact, we had no more authori- ty in the case than a Methodist class leader or a Presbyterian session, or a Popish priest, and these we have been accustomed to believe and teach had none at all. Let every Church that re- ceives as Scriptural and valid one of these immer- sions do this, and she will be thus far consis- tent. ARGUMENT NUMBER EIGHT. But there is still another inconsistency. It is this. After a Baptist Church has determin- ed that any applicant for baptism is a fit and proper subject for the kingdom and ought to be baptized ; if a Pedobaptist minister or any other unbaptized man were prq^iosed to her as a suitable person to administer the ordinance for her, she would reject the proposal with stern disdain. She would not so much as think COKCLUSIOX. 211 of such a thing as permitting him to baptize for the purpose of admitting hy her autlioritu into the Idngdom one whom she had herseli just counted worthy of admission. Tliat she would regard as an outrage upon all Baptist faith and practice. Such a thing has not been known. But yet when the person has been designated to baptism without her authority, by a classleader, session, priest, bishop, or some- body whom she denies to have any authority whatever, and when the baptism is to be con- ferred, not to introduce him into a Baptist Church, but into a body which she condemns af? being not a Church, and whose members, how- ever good and pious they may be, she cannot recognize as members of Christ's visible king- dom at all; then, strange to tell, she sees nothing illegal — nothing unscriptural — nothing more than a pardonable irregularity ! Then the ad- ministrator is amply authorized, and the tran- saction is lawfid and valid ! ! Surely Baptists are a wonderful people ! 1 ! OKCE MORE. The above eight arguments, from consid- erations of consistency, apply equally to those who are called Close Communion, and those who are called Open Communion Baptists. Most of the denomination in our country are, how- ever, strict communionists. I propose now to 212 PEnOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. make an argument wliicli will show that those who admit these immersions as valid baptisms, must of logical necessity also admit the utter fallacy of any plea upon which we have been accustomed to rest the defence of our practice, in regard to the observance of the Supper. ARGUMENT NUMBER NINE. Y/hat are the grounds on which we refuse to commune with Pedobaptist and Campbellite Churches at their Table, and why is it that we cannot invite them to commune at ours ? Whatever answers we may give to these ques- tions may be- resolved into this ojie, viz. : We do not regard tJiem as true and Scrip- tural Churches of Jesus Christ. Either because they have not been baptized, or because they hold and teach, or practice, what we r<»gard as contrary to the requirements of the Gospel. We need not go into the particulars. If they are unbaptized, we say they cannot be true Churches, for HIS Churches according to the Scriptures, were composed of baptized believers. If they yield submission to the rule of men in matters of religion or Church polity, they are not HIS Churches, for these, according to the Scriptures, have none above themselves but only Christ, their Head and King. If they teach, or liold, or practice, what is es- sentially at variance witli the great fundamental CONCLUSION. 213 doctrines of the Gospel, they are not HIS Churches, for they rejoice in the truth. If not His Churches, we, as His people, can have Avith them no Church fellowship. We can give them no official countenance. We thus protest against their perversion of the Gospel. It is not merely that they have not been bap- tized, and we regard baptism as a prerequisite to communion. It is because they are not Gospel Churches, not Scriptural Church mem- bers. We would no more invite a body of bap- tized persons who believed and practiced as they do, than we would them. We would at once refuse to commune with any of our own brethren, who should fall into the same errors. W^e would at once disown a Baptist Church which should thus deny the faith. We have always been accustomed thus to do. It is thus we fulfill the solemn injunction of the Apostle, ^' Now we command you brethren in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourself from every brother that walketh disor- derly and not after the tradition which he re- ceived from us," 2 Thess. iii. 6. Now, if these are true Churches of Christ, they have equal au- thority in the Kingdom of Christ with any other of His Churches. If they are true Churches, their members are as much entitled to all Church privileges as ours are. If they are true Churches, their ordinances stand upon the same ground with our own. We have no good reason 214 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. to reject either tlieir members or their ordi- nances. We must receive them both. If they are not true Churches^ we cannot in our Church ca- ]jacity recognize either the one or the other. Here, then, is the basis of our action in regard to this question of our communion. Eegarding it as a Church ordinance, something done and. observed in our official capacity as a Church of Jesus Christ, we are compelled to keep it separ- ate from those who are not true Church mem- bers. But now, mark this : When, as a Church, loe recognize, as valid and Scriptural, a baj^tism conferred by the authority of any one of these organizations ivhich claimto be his Churches, tue do by that act recognize that body as a true Church of Jesus Christ, and thus undermine and destroy the very foundations upon which we rest our arguments foi strict communion, the only foundation upon which we can build a re- liable and consistent argument. To say that we do not so recognize it, is to say that we can recognize as Scriptural and valid an official act, wliile we deny that those who performed it as such had any official authority to perform it ; or else that those who are not Churches of Jesus Christ have the same official authority to confer Plis ordinances, as those that are His true law- ful Cliurches according to the Scriptures, which would be equal to saying that Christ gave no authority to His Churches to determine who CONCLUSION. 215 sliould receive or who should administer His ordi- nances, and consequently, every Baptist Church that claims and exercises such authority in His name and as His Church, is a usurper and de- ceiver. Or, to reverse the process of the argument, we must admit that every Ba2:>tist Church is a usurper and deceiver : or else that it really has been invested by Christ with the authority which it claims and exercises when it decides who may be baptized, and who may be the administrators of baptism. If it have been thus invested as a ChurcJi, and none but true Churches are thus invested, then those other organizations, or those other individuals, who claim and exercise the right to determine who may be baptized, and who may administer baptism, are usurpers and deceivers. They do not possess the authority which they claim and exercise. Christ never conferred it on them. Every exercise of this power is an act of rebellion against Christ, an act of usurped, autliority in His kingdom and of deception to-^ wards the world. The Church that recognizes- the act, recognizes this deception as the truth, this usurped authority as legal, and this rebel- lion as obedience. Brethren, let us be consistent with ourselves. Let us not stultify and contradict our own reasonings. Let us not fear to carry out our positions to their legitimate and logical con- sequences. If we dare not do this, let us- 216 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. abandon the positions. Truth will always bear this trial. If we are right, let us be all right ; if we are wrong, let us give up all and begin anew. If we receive the official acts of these Pedobaptist sessions, class leaders, bishops and priests, as Scriptural and valid, let us no longer befool ourselves and the world, by pretending that they have no authority from Christ to per- form them. If they have the authority, then upon our own cherished principles, they are true Churches and true ministers, lawfully or- ganized and ordained, and there is no reason why we should not fellowship and commune with them as such. NUMBER TEN. While it is freely admitted that every par- ticular Church has full authority to manage its own affairs, and is responsible to Christ alone for the way in which she performs her part as the executive of His kingdom, yet it must also be conceded, that it is at least very desirable that no one Church shall so far depart ftom what her sister Churches are known to regard as right, as to cause any feelings of disapproba- tion of her course in their minds. The Baptist family should be one. This should especially be true in regard to the character of the mem- bership. It is surely a sad thing for some CONCLUSION. 217 Churches to receive and regard as Church members, persons whom other Churches do not and cannot regard as such, be- cause, in their opinion, they have not been baptized ; and all Baptists hold that bapiism is an essential prerequisite to Church mem- bership. Now every time that any Church re- ceives a member upon a Pedobaptist, Camp- bellite, or any other unauthorized immersion, she introduces into the Baptist family a person whom very many of the Churches, and probably a number of her own members, do not regard as having been baptized any more than if he had been sprinkled in his infancy for baptism. They are obliged to fellowship this individual or raise a disturbance. Now if this were neces- sari/ and unavoidable^ if the opposite course involved any violation of Church duty, it might be claimed that it must be endured. But since the most learned and earnest advocates of these immersions presents no Scripture that requires the Church to receive them. Since ihey con- tend for them rather as something pardonable and admissible, than something needful and es- sential, since Ekler Fuller, probably the most learned and eloquent of them all, could see good reasons why he should not ask the Churches to receive HIM upon such an immersion, however ready he may be to insist upon their receiving others — in short, since it is no sin to insist upon their being baptized in such a way and 19 218 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. by such authority, that no one can object to the vaUclity of the administration, we contend that it ought always to be done out of regard to the consciences of those who would be aggrieved and offended at a different course. . "If meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no meat while the world stands, lest I make my brother to offend/' Here is the great principle of Christian practice. In "things indifferent yield everything for peace. To those on one side of this question, this is a mat- ter of indifference — that is, they do not regard ^diat they would call a repetition of the bap- tism as, under such circumstances, sinful. It is only, they think, unnecessary. It may be dis- pensed with, but if performed, no harm is done. \Vhile on the other hand, to dispense with it, is looked upon as disobedience to Christ, as a neglect or refusal to obey His command to be baptized, as a recognition of the official author- ity in the visible kingdom of Christ, of those who do not so much as belong to that kingdom, as the giving up of all the distinctive peculiari- ;ties of Baptist Churches. Scarce any Church •can probably be found that would be unani- mous in receiving such a baptism, and if not, tlie minority, be it large or small, will be com- pelled to fellowship a person as a Church member whom they conscientiously believe has never been rightly baptized according to Christ's commandment. CONCLUSIOX. 219 If it be objected that to require the baptism might wound the conscience of the candidate, the question will arise, to whose conscience should a Church of Christ pay the most regard in matters of Church duty — xhat of a stranger not vet within the kimrdom, or that of her own established members ? Let him wait until his conscience has been instructed. And if it can never be so taught, that it will cease to regard an ordinance conferred without any authority from Christ to the administrator or those who appointed him, as the true ordinance of Christ, it may be a question, whether he will ever make a valuable member of a Baptist Church. Bujt suppose that a Church should be entire- ly united upon this subject, and the candidate shall be admitted. He afterwards desires mem- bership in another Church in which they are equally united in the opinion that he should not have been received. He presents his letter, and asks for membership ; the brethren mus?t show apparent discourtesy to the recommenda- tion of a sister Church, or else receive into their number one whom they all v/ith one accord be- lieve to be an unbaptized man. Why should Baptists continue to create such troubles for the Churches and such difficulties for the brethren, when there is confessedly no necessity for it ? When all that is contended for, may be yielded without sin. When such an advo- cate for it as Elder E. Fuller, of Baltimore, not 220 PEDOBAPTIcT IMMERSIONS. only grants tliat it may be done, but actually did it in liis own very remarkable and very in- structive case, [see page 66.] Why not do in every case as he did in his ? Let those who consider the baptism as invalid correct it as a wrong, and let those who regard as only irregu- lar, correct as irregular ; and let us all be, if not of one heart and one mind in regard to the reasons of our practice, yet all alike in the prac- tice itself. Are they not disturbers of the peace and unity of the Churches who insist upon forcing upon us these half-made Baptists. THE ARGUMENT FROM THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. Thus far we have reasoned the case upon general principles vdiich we have taken to be seU-evidont, admitted by those upon the other side, or which we have established by conclu- sive proof as we went along. We have seen, 1st. That every man's common sense would teach him that the same body which is desig- nated by the Scriptures to receive the profession of faith which Christ requires as preliminary to baptism and judge of its genuineness, must be authorized to determine who should be baptized, and who should baptize him. Baptists hold that this body is a true Church of Christ assem- bled in its Church capacity, and no one else. 2d. As baptism is the rite of initiation into the kingdom, common sense would teach that no CONCLUSION. 221 man can be in the kingdom wlio lias not been baptized. And common sense would further * teach, that it would be unnatural and unrea- sonable, simple and foolish, to invest with the most important of all the offices of the kingdom, (that of determining who should be members of it,) those who are not members themselves, who, while they claim to love the King, refuse, to be initiated according to His commandment. Common sense would take it for granted, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that the ofiicers of the kingdom must belong to the kingdom. To authorize or administer baptism is an official act. No official act is valid, unless it is author- ized by Him to whom the authority belongs. The authority, in this matter, belongs to Christ. Christ, as King, has conferred, no official au- thority on those who are not in His kingdom. These unbaptized baptizers are not in it, and, therefore, cannot be authorized, and consequent- ly their official acts must be invalid. 3d. We have seen by a succession of reason- ings, in which we invite the best logicians of all the advocates for the reception of these immer- sions to show any fatal fallacy that the recogni- tion of these immersions as Scriptural and valid baptism, must, of logical necessity, drive us to the conviction that Baptist Churches claiming and exercising authority in the kingdom oT Christ to decide who may be baptized or who shall be baptizers, are usurpers and deceivers, 222 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. and ought to have no existence, and that every time they recognize these immersions as valid baptism they virtually repudiate and deny all the cherished principles and practices of the denomination to which we belong. But after all, such a question as this cannot be ultimately decided upon such grounds as these. The ultimate appeal must be to the Word of God. "What saith the Scripture .? How readest thou.^" must be the questions earnestly asked, and candidly answered be- fore we can be ^sure of our standing. If common sense would determine our position, as certainly it might and must in the absence of Scripture teaching to the contra- ry, yet common sense itself, must yield to the Word of God, if the two should ever come in opposition. If regard for Baptist consistency would determine it, consistency itself must yield to the Word of God if they should come in op- position. Much as I love the Baptist name, proud as I am of Baptist history, thoroughly as I am convinced that we are right, yet if the Word of God can be found to condemn our faith and practice in any one particular, I will abandon that one thing. If that, like the mat- ter under consideration, is one that is so funda- mental, that to admit that we are wrong in it, Vill destroy the very foundations of our Churches and tumble into utter ruin all the frame work of our organization ; though I should CONCLUSION. 223 ponder well and study carefully, one by one each text and passage which was thought to bear the words of condemnation, yet once convinced, I would clasp my Bible to my heart and hurry away from the dissolving wreck, and as I ran, would call back to every one who loved the Lord, " Come out of her my people, that ye be not partaker of her plagues/' To the Law, then, and the Testimony, we must come at last. And now our inquiry is, whether we can find, recorded in the Word of Grod, any single text or passage which will require, or even justify us in thus denying the fliith of our fathers and repudiating the practice of our Churches. Is there a single precept which requires a man to baptize others who w-ill be himself bap- tized ? • Is there a single precept which so authorizes him to do it ? Is there a single precept which so much as loermits him to do it. Is there a single example in which any one but John who bore a special commission to in- troduce the rite and who could not be baptized because there was no one to baptize him. Is there, besides his, a single example of one bap- tizing in Christ's name who would not receive baptism by His authority. Or, in other words, is there a single example after baptism was introduced as the initiatory rite of Christ's 224 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIOXS. visible kingxlom of any one who had not been baptized administering the rite to others and pushing them into the kingdom they would themselves not enter, administering to others by Christ's command, the rite they would not receive by His command. If there is one such precept, if there is one such exam- ple, we yield the point at once. Let us not be found fighting against God. What, then, are the Scriptures upon which these "Doctors" and other learned and eloquent advocates of the practice we are opposing rest its claims. They surely will not ask us to receive a doctrine, which, if carried out, would be thus fatal, as we have seen, to the very existence of our denomination, without some Scripture authority. They know, or ought to know, that Baptists attach very great importance to Thus saith the Lord, while they care comparatively very little about what the " Doctors" say. It is reasonable, there- fore, to suppose they have done the best they can in finding Scrij^ture for the course they re- commend. They could hardly expect that Bap- tist Churches would be induced permanently ta follow any practice which the Scriptures do not require, or wdiich at the very least they do not authorize, as the Churches of Jesus Christ, the executive in His kingdom, they must be go- verned by His law. They know no other law than what is recorded in His Word. What is there, they are bound to obey. What is CONCLUSION. 225 not there, they will not have as a law for them. Now, let my reader pause, and deliberately turn back and carefully collect all the Scripture which each and all of the advocates of the va- lidity of these immersions have discovered and presented. Some of them have quoted Latin, but who has quoted Scripture ? Sustain^ this strange doctrine which they seek to impose upon the Churches of Christ ? " Doctor Wayland'' says, page 18, It is time that we, above all others, "should walk in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and not be entangled with any yoke of bondage," Gal. v. And what is this liberty.^ Is it the liberty to dispense with the requisitions which Christ im- posed upon His Churches, in that, He will have them withdraw themselves from every brother that walketh not according to the Gospel. Is it that his Churches shall be free to recognize as equal in authority to themselves, those to vrhom Christ gave no authority. Recognize as Churches those who will not be baptized. As administrators of baptism, those who mock at baptism ! As having authority from Him to execute the chiefest office in His kingdom. Is ilds the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free '^ Turn to the passage, and you will see that Paul was warning the Galatians against this very danger of being mixed up with, and made subservient to other people and other 226 PEDOBArTlST IMMERSIONS. teachers outside the true Churches of Christ. It was the Judaizino; teachers who sought to convince them that it was not enough simply to obey Christ, but they must also pay some regard to Moses, against whose yoke he was warning them, and not against a too strict ad- herence to the very letter of Christ's command- ments. Like them, these Pedobaptists go back to Moses and the Jews for the great arguments on which they found the doctrines and practices in which, as Baptists, we mainly differ from them, and does it indicate a case that we shall not be entangled with them, nor brought in any degree in bondage to them, regard our- selves as bound to receive their reluctantly con- ferred baptism, and recognize them thus as hav- ing authority in the Kingdom of Christ at least equal to, if not above, our own. To every Baptist Church, I say with Paul, be not entan- gled with any such yoke. He who can see in this any authority to Pedobaptist ministers or Pedobaptist Churches to confer the baptism they will not receive must have wonderful })0w- ers of vision. ^'Doctor Johnson" sa3^s, page 19, that ho •finds in 1 Cor. xiv. the nearest approach to a description of the manner in which a minister of the gospel is to be appointed. " The bretli- ren of a religious society are to exercise their gifts. Those who are blessed with the apti- tude to teach will show it, and its recognition CONCLUSION. 227 by the body is tlie authority to preach, and the authority to preach includes the authority to baptize. I therefore/' he adds, " receive those ^Yho are recognized as preachers by Episcopa- lians, Presbyterians, Methodists, and all ortho- dox believers, and receiving them as preachers, I receive them also as hapthersy This might do very well if the Corinthian Church had been a company of unbaptized or sprinkled Pedo- baptist believers. But was it such ? Was ii; a Methodist, or a Presbyterian, or an Episcopal Church, and were these brethren holding, and teaching, and practicing such errors as would exclude one from a Baptist Church ? If so, then Baptist Churches may possibly find in the 14th Chapter of 1 Corinthians some shadow of authority for the reception of the official acts of these modern preachers of false doctrines and Church-subverting practices. But if, on the other hand, the Corinthian Church was a Church of baptized Christians, nothing can be learned from it except how to make a Baptist minister. If any one will turn to the chapter and read it, he will see that if anybody was made a minister in this Corinthian assembly it was done hy the Church. It refers, v. 23, to what is done when the whole Church has come together into one place. But the Episcopal, the Methodist, or the Presbyterian Church never all came together, and never can all come to- gether into one place to make a minister or to 228 PEDOBAPTI&T IMMERSIONS. do any tiling else, and this would of itself show that they were not referred, even if such things existed in the Apostles' days. He who can see in the directions given to a local Church of hapthed believers for the de- veloping and recognition of their gifts of teach- ing among its own members any authority for Methodist class-leaders or Presbyterian sessions to determine who shall be baptized, or to Epis- copal bishops, or Methodist Conferences, or Presbyterian Presbyteries, none of which claim to be Churches at all to create preachers and appoint baptizers, must have wonderful powers of vision. Let any Baptist Church before whom this question is pending, have the whole chapter carefully read and see which verse con- tains the authority? We cannot find it. '^ Doctor Waller" (p. 43,) quotes the great commission, " Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baj)tizing them," &c. But he quotes it to prove just what we contend for, viz. : "That the primitive practice was clear — the path in which the holy men of old walked is so plain that a wayfaring man though a fool need not err therein. Then all who believed and were baptized were admitted into the Church." He also quotes John ix. 2, and Matt, xxviii. *L6 — but only to show that they were not rebels who would not be baptized, that in Christ's time were the administrators of bap- tism, but his own obedient disciples — made coNCLUsio:^. 229 and baptized other disciples. And lie also quotes, 1 Cor. xi. 2, ^' Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them unto you " — but he does not pretend that this gives any authority to the unbaptized to baptize be- lievers. — See page 50. '^Dr. Fuller" refers to 1 Pet. iii. 21, "The like figure ^hereunto baptism doth also now save us, not putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience to- wards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." He quotes, however, only part of the verse, and that as though it read ^^hcq^tism is the answer of a good conscience towards God," and from this he infers that if the candidate thinks he is bap- tized then he is baptized. We might question whether it is the baptism that is here called the answer of a good conscience. Is not the mean- ing rather that it is not the baptism itself, but " that answer of a good conscience" which the Christian has through the resurrection of Christ symbolized in the baptism by which we are now saved ? Such seems to us the sense of the apostle. But grant that baptism is symholicaUy the answer of good conscience, it is still in real- ity an immersion in water, and that immersion must be administered by somebody, and now the question is, whether the fact that baptism symbolizes the answer of a good conscience gives any authority upon those who have not 20 230 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. received it to confer it upon others. If baptism is the answer of good conscience, is the immer- sion on that account to be administered by those to whom Christ gave no authority in the commission ? In other words, does this text authorize unbaptized rejectors of Christ's bap- tism to baptize others and thus initiate them into the kingdom they vnll not enter? He who can see in it such authority must have wonder- ful powers of vision. We are blind to any such discovery. For a full examination of the question, whether the Church is to decide this matter by reference to the conscience of the applicant, see Keview of Fuller, page 71 — turn back and read it again. He also quotes the commission, "He that believeth and is baptized.'" '' The party," he says, " has believed and been baptized." And, like Wayland, he seems to think this is the end of controversy. But did he never ob- serve that the commission as recorded by Mat- thew and Mark contains no direct command to any one to be baptized, but only an implied one. There is a direct command to certain persons to baptize, and this implies tliat cer- tain other persons are to be baptized. But these " Doctors", refer to it as though the direct command was given to the new convert to be baptized without any reference at all by im- plication or otherwise to the baptizer. Let the Church that is about to take their CO^^CLUSION. 231 advice fo.indecl upon this commission just tm-n to it and read ifc once more — Matt, xxviii. 19 ; Mark xvi. 16 — read the whole in connection. Go YE, therefore, and teach all nation s, BAPTIZING THEM in the name of the Fath- er, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; teachin2:*them to observe all thing's whatsoever I have commanded yon. Go YE into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that helieveth and is baptized shall be saved. The whole record shows what the commission really was. And now let the Church decide whether it was a command. given directly to the new made disciples to be baptized or the Church- es to baptize them. Why the very fact that " Doctor Fuller" calls it a commission, shows that if he thought about it for a single moment he could not have failed to see that it was ad- dressed to the haptizers and not to the candi- dates. Those to whom this was addressed were '^ commissioned," that is, authorized and sent out to do some designated thing. This thing was to teach and to baptize. The per- sons to be taught and to be baptized were not commissioned to select their teachers and bap- tizers from whatever company they j)leased. Tlieij were not commissioned at all — they had no authority conferred upon them at all — they were not sent out at all. The only relation which they have to the commission is incidental, and arises from the fact that if those commis- 232 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. sionecl are to teacli, it supposes somebody to be tauglit. If those commissioned are to baptize, it supposes somebody to be baptized. Those to be taught are "all nations/' "every crea- ture/' Those to be baptized are those who have " been taught/' and "have believed." To see what is the real force of a commission and how absurd is the application of it sometimes made by Doctors of Divinity, let us suppose that certain persons are " commissioned " by the United States Government to collect a re- venue from a certain class of people, importers of foreign goods. The importer pays the Tar- iff promptly, not to the officer " commissioned," but to a fellow-merchant, and pleads that he has done all that the law required of him. Suppose this were done in every case — and it would be as right in every case as in one case — who does not see that the " commission" is nullified, repudiated, rejected and scorned. It has no more effect than if it had never been given — and yet if the men who thus reject and repudiate it should claim that they are authorized to do so hy tlie ''^commission" itself — that they are doing all that the "commission" requires of them, would not the government reply, the " commission ivas not addressed to you, but to our officer. He was commissioned to receive your money, and this made it your duty not merely to pay it, but to pay it to him. If you paid it to any other not "'commissioned" by us, CONCLUSION. 233 yon did not do what tlie '^commission " required. You were not required or authorized to pay it at all, except as you were required to pay it to 7ii?n. How could our "commission" to him to receive your taxes authorize you to pay them to some one else to whom we gave no authority at ail ? Or, again, to take a case more directl}^ par- allel to the one we have in hand, let us suppose t^at the Government is desirous to receive strangers and foreigners who have resided in this country a certain length of time, or who possess sufficient knowledge of our institutions, and profess their love for them, into the num- ber of its subjects, and invest them with all the privileges of citizenship — and let us suppose further, that every county in every State is di- vided into certain limited districts, all the qual- ified residents in which are authorized by law to meet at certain times, or as often as they may see fit for the transaction of certain official bu- siness committed to their charge by the Government, and the observance of certain ceremonies designed to keep alive the fire of their patriotism, '^o foreigner, however, is re- garded as qualified or permitted by law to take any part in these meetings until he has become a citizen. The Government designates the manner of becoming a citizen, prescribes a cer- tain f :)rmula and ceremonies, and '^ commissions'" certain persons to administer them. Now what 234 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. is the force of tliis commission — " Go ye?" It says to the persons addressed, who are already citizens, " and teach these foreigners the things they need to know, and then make citizens of them by receiving their profession of allegiance and administering to them the rite or ceremony of initiation. They who are thns qualified and received shall be entitled to all the privileges of citizenship/' What is the force of this " com- mission?''' Does it authorize the foreis-ner who thinks he knows enough, and is sure he loves the country, to go to any one he pleases, and be by him initiated, and then require the meeting of true citizens to receive him upon that un- authorized ceremony performed by an uncom- missioned man, and without any authority from the Government whatever? The commission was not to 7dm, to be initiated as he thought best and by whom he pleased. It did not touch him at all except through another. It was that other, the Government ofiicer, who was com- missioned, and the only force of it upon the candidate for citizenship is that it requires him to go to that officer and to no one else, to be in- vested with the rights of citizenship. Something like to this actually occurs every time a man is naturalized as a citizen of the United States of America. There are certain officers commissioned to administer the oath of allegi- ance, after having ascertained that he is duly qualified to take it. Now, is the commission CONCLUSION. 235 which gives these officers this authority a com- mission to the foreigner to go to another for- eigner, or to any one else who has not been com- missioned to administer it, and receive the formula of citizenship from anybody he thinks best? If so, the commission is a nullity — it confers no authority — it has no meaning — it is not a commission at all. And so in regard to this commission of Christ, it was addressed to somebody. It supposes that there will be somebody to be baptized, and it authorizes somebody to baptize them. If by commanding some to hajJtize, it commands some others by implication to he baptized, it by the same implication commands them to be bap- tized hy tJiose, and only by those, tvJiom it com- onands to baptize them. "Doctor Fuller '' says, (p. 68,) "The refer- ence to the baptism unto Moses in the cloud, and in the sea, shows how little the Holy Spirit regards the administrator, for there the only ministry was that of the elements.'^ This is wonderful! Why did he not give us another example to the same purpose, as when Christ says, I have a baptism to be baptized with, &g. Here the administrators were the wicked Jews. But was either the one or the other of these the baptism which Christ commanded in the commis- sion.? And if not, what has it to do with the question before us ? Something very like a baptism happened to the Jews in the Eed Sea — 236 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. and this baptism, or something that could at least be compared to a baptism, and spoken of as a baptism, was performed without any au- thorized administrator, and therefore the Holy Spirit is quite indifferent as to whether the bap- tism which Jesus commanded His Chui'ches to ad- minister, is administered by them or by any one who may choose or be chosen by the candidate, whether in the Church or out, authorized or unau- thorized ! When will people learn to use their common sense in reasoning about religious mat- ters, as they do in reference to other subjects? ^'Doctor Johnson" finds the authority for the reception of these baptisms in the fact that those who administer them are "unbaptized evangelists," and '^unbaptized evangelists" are ^' officers " in the " Kingdom of Christ." But, does he show us the chapter and the verse where they are appointed as such or alluded to in the Scriptures.^ He does not even attempt to do it. He says they are oflftcers — but we have only his word for it. I want a Thus saith the Lord. " Elder Williams," the reader will see by turning back to his essay, quotes quite a number of passages, more than all the others ; but has he presented a single one which gives authority to the unbaptized to administer Christ's ordinance, while the}^ refuse to receive it. Has he even quoted one for the purpose of shovv^'ng this, or with the claim that it did show tliis.^ Not one — not a solitary one. He goes CONCLUSION. 237 to the Word to ascertcain whether the candi- date is responsible for any unhnown disqualifi- cation in the administrator, and proves that " we must every one give account of himself io God. Kom. xiv. 12. We do not dispute this. He proves from the Scripture that John had his commission directly from Heaven, and that he was authorized to baptize those who had cer- tain qualij&cations. We do not question this. He thinks the Scriptures show that some who were baptized by Christ's disciples, John iv, 2, proved insincere and unworthy. John vi. ^ 6. It does not affect our argument at all, if this be true. Then he quotes the commission, and thus expounds it : " We all regard this as the laio of baptism, especially so far as ^all nations' are concerned. Baptism, like the Gospel had before been confined to the lost sheep of the House of Israel ; but now, like the Gospel, has extended to all nations. This law, therefore, makes no change either in the administrator or the subject. Before this, the Savior's discijoles baptized the dlscipled. They must do so still." This is just what we are contending for. We perfectly agree with him in all all this ; but he goes on to say, "Hence although those words were spoken to the apostles — the authority to teach and to baptize was not confined to them. The example of Philip, Acts vii. 35, 38, fully shows this." True enough ; but does it show that it was not confined to the baptized disciples. If 238 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. Philip, first a Deacon in the Church at Jerusa- lem and then an Evangelist, could baptize un- der this commission, does it follow that those who are not Deacons, not Evangelists, and ?io^ even members of a true Church, not even ini- tiated into the visible Kingdom, despisers and rejectors of Christ's ordinance, does it follow that they also may baptize under this commis- sion ? We cannot think so. ^nd then he re- fers to three j^assages in which persons are said to have been baptized, and yet we are not told by whom — and two others in which people were commanded to be baptized — and not informed who should baptize them. (Acts ii. 41 ; x. 48 ; xix. 3 : ii. 38 ; x. 48.) But what follows from all this.? What if there were a hundred or a thousand places in which baptism is mentioned without saying who was the administrator.? Would not the laio of haptisra referred to above determine in every case who, under that law, should be the baptizers.? And what says the laiVj according to Elder Williams' own exposi- tion of \i? It says, " The Savior's disciples must baptize the discipled." Does it follow because the administrator is not mentioned that he might have been a priest of Jujnter, or a Jew- ish Rabbi, or Grecian philosojiher.? Can Elder Williams, or any other man possessed of com- mon sense, imagine that because it is not here recorded who baptized them, or that they were not informed who should baptize them that they CONCLUSION. 239 were baptized by people who would not them- selves receive Christ's baptism? Certainly not. He had no such idea in his mind. He did not refer to the places for the purpose of proving any snch absurd and foolish theory. His ob- ject was to show that the candidate and the administrator was each responsible for himself — and that if the administrator is wo^- authorized, it is no concern of the candidate. We do not think, however, that the texts prove even this ; but if they did, it would not affect the question before us — that is a question of Church duty ; and whether the candidate is responsible or not, the Church most certainly is. The administration of baptism is an official act, done by authority of the Church, and the question is, whether she can, in her official ca- pacity as a Church of Christ, recognize as Scrip- tural and valid the ofiicial acts of those whom she does not and cannot, without yielding her own right to existence as a Church, recognize as having any authority to perform them. But even if the question were one between the candidate and the administrator alone, and in which the Church had nothing to say, we have shown distinctly that the candidate is re- sponsible. If the candidate is hound hy the commission to be baptized at all, he is bound to be baptized by those to whom the commission to baptize was given. Where, then, we ask again, is the Scriptural 240 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. author ity wliicli the Churclies must demand and receive before they can adopt the principle which requires them to receive these baptisms as authorized by Christ as lawful and valid, ac- cording to the Word of God? It has not been found. There is not even the shadow of it visi- ble. They have abundance of proof that thus saith ^'Doctor" A., and thus saith " Doctor" B., thus saith Doctor C, and thus saith " Doctor " D. But not the semblance of proof that '^ Tims saith the Lord!' And how is it on the other side.^ Can loc find any ^' Thus saith the Lord ?" Is there any Scripture which limits the administration at all, and if at all, to whom ? We have already seen, that if there were not — if in the Scriptures it were left an open question to be decided by considerations other than the expressed will of the Master, we have seen that even then, con- sistency and common sense would, of necessity, prevent every Baptist Church from receiving these immersions. And, therefore, having shown that there is no Scripture requiring their recej)- tion, our argument is complete and unanswera- ble without going any further. Our object is accomplished if we stop just here. Nothing but the fullest and plainest conviction that the Scriptures absolutely require Baptist Churches to receive such baptisms as valid, could, we think, in view of the considerations already pre- sented, induce them so to outrage all Baptist CONCL*[JSION. 241 consistency and the dictates of common reason as to admit them. "But now, if we can show by but one single precept, or one single example, or by any fair and neceiisaTy inference that the Scriptures not only do not require or authorize, but absohitely and positively /o?^&icZ ^w^proliihit the Churches of Christ to receive such immersions as valid, and those thus immersed as Church members, V7e shall have done thus much more than the, nature of the case requires of us. And if we fail to do it, our argument already constructed stands just as firmly as if we succeed. ^Ye will make the attempt. AKGUilE^'T NUMBER ELEVEN. WHAT SAITH THE SCRIPTUEE ? We do not expect to find any passage of the Word of God, which says in so many words, "You shall not regard that as true baptism which was conferred by Pedobaptist and Camp- bellite ministers without authority from any true Church of baptized believers.'" We no more look for this, than we look for the text which says " You shall not regard as true and valid baptism that which was conferred on one in open unbelief or in helpless infancy '' — or that which says, " You shall not baptize such helpless infants, or any others who have not be- lieved.'' Yet we think we can make the nrohi- 21 242 PEDOBAPTISI? IMMERSIONS. bition very plain, and that without the assist- ance of many words. 1st. We base our argument upon the words of the great commission so often quoted. " Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them." &c. Matt, xxviii. 19 : Mark xvi. 16. This is now our law for baptizing. Those whom this authorizes to be baptized, and only those, are to be baptized, unless there can be shown some other law for baptizing others. Those whom tMs authorizes to baptize them, and they alone, are authorized to administer the ordinance, unless there can be shown elsewhere some o^/^er authority for other persons to do the same thing. The question is, therefore, whether this com- mission, "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things which I have commanded you, and lo I I am with you always, even to the end of the w^orld. Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned.'* Does this commission " all the world and the rest of mankind '^ to administer the ordinance, or does it limit the duty of baptizing to a cer- tain class ? Was it a universal commission to all persons who might choose to become bap- tizers, or was it a commission only to such as CONCLUSION. 243 iJiose to ivhom it ivas addressed ? When Christ said, Go ?/e, and, Lo, I am with you, did he mean, Go every one ivlio lias the strength to put another m the tuater, and feels disposed to do it, and, Lo, I am with the^n. The case is too plain to need argument. No denomination or class oi persons, so far as I know, who have re- cognized this as having any present force, have ever heen so foolish as to imagine that it was intended to authorize everybody, believer or unbeliever^ baptized or unbaptized, whether preacher or private member, in the Church or out of it, to administer the ordinances to such as might desire their services. Even those Baptists who recognize it as extending to per- sons out of the Church, and who will not them- selves obey it by being baptized, have never pretended that it had no Ii7nit. Even they admit that it was not intended to authorize everyhody, and make any one who might choose to act in that capacity, a valid administrator of Christ's holy ordinance. But if limited at all, the limit must be definite. This commission was given to somebody. It conferred authority on somebody. It requir- ed this specific duty of baptizing believers to be performed by somebody. And that, "even to the end of the world.'' Now, who was it ? Not the infidel and the scoffer. Not the thought- less and impenitent. This, no one ever claim- ed. But did it not authorize all believers to 244 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. baptize all other believers ? Some people seem to think so. They plead the piety and sincerity of Pedobaptist ministers as their quali- fication. But those to whom the commission was addressed were something more than pious penitent believers. Here is the proof. Such people were recognized by the commission as the subjects to be baptized, but not as the persons to administer baptism. '^ Eepent and he haptized." " He that helieveth and is baptiz- ed." They were not the "Ye'' who were to baptize them. Something more was needful to a baptizer. What was it ? Could it be less than that he shc^ild himself have been baptized.? Must he not first obey the command, believe and be baptized, before he could set himself up as a preacher of faith and a baptizer of others ? It may have been more, but less than this it could not have been, and no man who is destitute of this qualification can ever claim to be a valid baptizer under this commission, on the ground that he has repented and believed, orj in other words, is a truly converted and pious man. But was there no further limitation.? Was this commission given to all believers ivho have been ba^^tized? Does it authorize every bap- tized believer, male or female, child or adult, to administer the ordinance when called upon to do so by any one who regards himself as a be- liever.? It will be observed that the same CONCLUSION. 245 persons are to baptize who are to preach and to teach. ''Go YE into all the world and PEEACH the Gospel.^^ " Go YE, therefore, and TEACH all nations, BAPTIZING them." The work of preaching and baptizing are com- mitted to the same hands, and it folloAvs that the commission is limited not only to baptized heNevers, but to hcqjtized preacliers of the Gos- pel. If all baptized believers are commissioned by it to go and preach, then all baptized believ- ers are commissioned by it to baptize those who believe their preaching with a saving faith. But as no UNbaptized believer was authorized by it to do any thing but " to be baptized," such were certainly not commissioned either to preach or to Ijaptize ; and unless there can be found some othei' commission conferring the au- thority to do either one or the other, they cer- tainly have no authority to do either. But that all baptized believers were not to be preachers and baptizers may be inferred from the fact that the same persons wdio were to preach and then to baptize were to continue ^^ teaching " those who had been baptized " all things which Christ had commanded them." From which it would seem evident that they were not cdl to take rank at once as teachers and baptizers with those who had preached the Gospel to them and baptized them. Thus have I made it plain from the very lan- guage of the commission itself that it could not 246 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. have been intended to authorize all believers, or even all baptized believers, to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. It limits the right and the duty to certain persons; and if Grod limits and confines the authority to them, he of course takes it away from all other Sj unless we will adopt the absurd conclusion that what Christ lias expressly confined and limited to some, is yet not limited at all, but is just as open and free to all as though he had made no limitation whatever. And thus also have I made plain, from the words of the commission itself, that the Churches of Christ must^as the executors of this commission, limit the administration within the same bounds, unless you will adopt this other absurdity that the Churches of Christ, acting under the au- thority of this commission, are at liberty to ap- 13oint or recognize as the administrators of bap- tism, the very persons whom the commission itself expressly excludes from baptizing. The argument is complete and conclusive, unless there can be found some other commis- sion given to the mihajotized believers and au- thorizing them to confer on others that baptism which they refuse tQ receive themselves, though it is expressly required of them, and is the only thing that is required of them in this commission. But agahi. We will be driven to the same conclusion by another process if we examine the words of this commission in connection with the CONCLUSION. 247 cxam2:>Ies of baptism as given in the New Tes- tament. This was, as we have seen, a Joint commis- sion to preach, baptize, and then to teach all that Christ commanded. It was, as we learn from both Matthew and Mark, given to the eleven sm'viving apostles ; but the addition to it of the words ''Lo I am with you always, even to the end of the tcorld/' shows that it was not intended exclusively for them as individuals — They were addressed as the representatives of the Churches which they should establish, and the successors of those Churches "to the end of the world." To the Churches, therefore, the commission says, Gro ye and preach my' Gospel to all nations, baptizing them," &c. But how was this to be accomplished? V/as ea,ch Church member, for himself or herself, to set up preach- ing and baptizing? ' The apostles did not so understand it ; and being Divinely inspired, they must have understood it truly. Their understanding of it we gather from their ]n'ac- tice and teachings in the Churches. From this source it appears that all the individual members of the Churches were not commis- sioned to become preachers and baptizers, each in his 0ZV71 person, but the Churches, as such, collectively, Avere charged with the duty of ap- pointing, setting apart* and sustaining faithful and competent men for this purpose. The commission itself, as we have seen, ex- 248 PEDOBAPTIST IMMESSIONS, pressly prohibits equally tlie unbelieving and the imhajJtized, hy commanding them not to preach or to hapike believers, but to believe and BE BAPTIZED themselves ; and the interpre- tation of it by the inspired apostles, shows that those who have believed and been baptized are not all to become preachers and baptizers, but are to appoint chosen meii not from among the unhelievers or from among the W2ha2:)iized, but of their otvn mimher^ to minister in these offices, and thus fulfil the Savior's command to preacli and to baptize. These |>ersons were called Bishops or Pastors when they had the charge or oversight of a Church — Elders when reference w\^s had to their official station — Evangelists when they travelled as missionaries from place to place., preaching and baptizing as Phillip did. That they were the preachers under this commission the narrative most clearly shows, and it is a fair^, an almost necessary infc-rence, that they w^ere also the haptizers, except the Churches might see fit, in any instance, to appoint some one to baptize and not to preach, or to preach and not baptize. The Churches were charged to do both. The appointment of chosen men from among themselves to preach, shows how the' apostles understood this part of the commis- sion ; and there is nothing in the narrative to show that they did not understand that part relating to hapti7d7ig in the same way. In the CONCLUSION. 249 absence of any proof to tlie contrary, we cannot help believing that the Churches apj^omted ths haptizers, and did not leave tlie office to be as- sumed by any one in the Church who might choose to officiate — ^much less to the priests of Jupiter, or Priests of Judaism, or any other unbaptized and uninitiated believer or unbe- liever out of the Church. And though not a circumstance had been given by which we could determine whether the baptizers were properly qualified, and duly au- thorized or not, I would feel sure that they must have been, since the apostles could not but regard the plain arguments of the commis- fsion under which they were acting. But let us look at theso examples. In no one of them is there any evidence that the baptism was con- ferred by any one who was not appointed and fidly authorized either by a commission from Christ himself or from a Baptist Church, or an inspired apostle. There is not the shadow of evidence that a-ny and every person was equally qualified or that any one was ever recognized as a proper administrator of the ordinance without being qualified. But, now, let us look at the eKamples of the administration of baptism which we can find in the Scriptures, and see if there is any one in which the administrator acted without autho- rity from Christ himself^ an inspired apostle, or 250 PEDOBAPTIST IMMEKSIOSTS. a Baptist Cliurcli acting as Clmst's executire under this commission. The first example of a baptizer was that of John. Did he take on himself the office with- out authority.^ No. He says, John i. 33. that he was expressly '* sent to baptize.'' The great King ^'sent" him to prepare a people made ready for his kingdom. John was ap- pointed — set apart to the work of preaching and baptizing believers — and the simple fact that HE alone was at that time commissioned is enough to show that he alone could at that time confer valid baptism. There is no record that in his day any one not specially appointed, whether baptized or unbaptized, took it upon himself to ^ administer the ordinance. The neod example is that of the disciples of Jesus. We read that Jesus went into a certain place, and there he tarried and baptized- — but that Jesus himself baptized not, but his dis- ciples, John iii. 22; iv. 2. These disciples were certainly cqjpomted by Christ to do this work, or their baptizing could not have been spoken of as though it had been done by himself. The j^/iiVd example is the first under the com- mission, that of the Day of Pentecost, (Acts ii.) The apostles were that day the preacJiers. They were acting under the commission, " go preach and baptize." Is not the inference a necessary one, that either they, or some one of those ^'dis- CONCLUSION. 251 dples who liacl been appointed baptizers by Jesus himself, or some one appointed by them- selves as liis apostles, having authority to set all things in order, were the baptizers ? Is there room for even a suspicion that any of these three thousand were baptized by Pedobaptist minis- ters, or without authority specially conferred ? The fourih example is that of the Samari- tans, both men and v/omen, who believed at the preaching of Phihp. Who baptized tliem^ Philip was the preacher under the commission. Was he not also the baptizer under the same commission? Is there room for a suspicio?i that any of these were baptized by a Pedobaptist minister who had not obeyed the commission by being baptized, and consequently could not act under it as a baptizer of others. The fifth example is that in which Philij:* im- mersed the eunuch, in the same chapter. Here Philip is mentioned as the baptizer as well as the preacher. He opened his mouth and preached Jesus unto him; and^ upon profession of his faith, he baptized him by authority of the same commission which appointed him to preach. The s{a:th example is in the next chajiter, (Acts ix.) — the baptism of Saul of Tarsus. Who baptized him ? One Ananias, a man inspired by the Holy Ghost, was sent to 2^r€ach to him, and to restore his sight, by the Lord Jesus himself; who had appeared to Saul in the 252 PEDOBAI'TIST IMMERSIOI^S. way as lie came to Damascus; and there is ererj reason to suppose that he, and not some unbap- tized heUever or unbehever in the cit}^, adminis- tered the ordinance^ when he said ''arise and be baptized." The seventh example is that in which Corne- lius, and those with him, who believed and re- joiced in Grod, and spake with tongues, were baptized, (Acts x.) Peter had done the^^reac/i- ing, and, though he did not administer the bap- tism himself, he, as the divinely inspired apostle^ had the right to appoint, and did appoint another or others to do it. But did any one ever suspect that he appointed one of the new converts to baptize the others, or did he com- mand them to be baptized by '^tlie brethren'^ whom he had brought vfith him, and whom he had consulted about the propriety of conferring the ordinance? The eightli example, which I find was that of Lydia, (Acts xvi.) Paul and Silas, both Bap- tist ministers, were i present. Paul had done the preaching, and one of them must have done the baptizing. They were put into the prison, and this led to the conversion of the jailor and his family. And, although their backs were sore from the scourging, and their legs lame from the bruis- ing of the stocks, no one has ever suspected that they called in some .unbaptized Jew or Gentile to confer the ordinance in this the oiinth case. CONCLUSION. 25 Oo The tenth I find in the 18th chaptei'j where we only read that many of the Corinthians he- lieved and were baptized. Paul was there, with Silas and Timothy. He says, in one of hi.s epistles, that Jie baptized but few of them ; but would he, while two baptized ministers were present, call upon the unbaptized newly-eon- verted heathen to baptize each other ? The eleventh example was the re-baptism, if indeed they were re-baptized, of the twelve disciples, discovered by Paul, who had received something as baptism from somebody, as ad- ministrator, but without so much as knowinp; whether there vrere any Holy Spirit, (Acts xix.) Paul was the preacher, and there is not the most distant intimation that some unbaptized man was the baptizer. These, I think, are all the examples one can find, and as no one of them furnishes any evi- dence that any but a duly qualified and properly appointed administrator executed the behest of Christ's commission to the Churches, we are compelled to believe that the apostles under- stood and taught the Churches that if certain persons w^ere required to be baptized, th^re wer*^ certain persons, and no others, whose duty it was to baptize them ; and, imless these first ministers were Pedobaptist or Campbellite preachers, Pedobaptist or Campbellite preach- ers were not of the number of those who wcru 22 254 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. appointed or recognized as qualified administra- tors under tlie commission '^go YE,'' &c. But there is yet another way in which we caD decide this question from the Scriptures. It will he conceded that whatever the Word said to the first Churches was intended for our in- struction. What would have been wrong for tlitm to do in view of the teachings of Chris-t and the apostles is now wrong for us to do, as the Churches of Christ. Let us, then, suppose this case to have come up in the life-time of the apostles, and see if we cannot find some genera) rules laid dov/n, by \^iich it must at once and easily have been decided. Those first Churches, we believe, were Ba'p- tlst Churches, both in regard to their organiza- tion, their doctrines and tlieir ordinances. Now, let us suppose that some preacher among them had begun all at once to sprinkle babies, and in- sist that this was the baptism that Christ com- manded, and that the neglect to have it done was a sin against God. What instructions would the Church find in the W^ord concerning such a man.? Would they not turn to 2d Thcss. iii. 6, and read : " Now, we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye loitlidran} yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly and not after the tradition which he received of us.'' And to Eomans xvi. 17 : ^^Now, I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses, contrary to CONCLUSION. 255 the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them." What duty does this impose upon the Church ? Must she not cast out of her com- pany such an one ? Must she not disown him and his official acts ? Yes 1 If he is a bro- ther, a memher of the Baptist Church, and does and teaches thus, she must depose him from her ministry and exclude him from her communion. No Baptist doubts this. But, now, suppose he gatliers a company of these people, sprinkled for baptism when they were little .babes, and organizes them into a society, and calls it a Church of Christ, and claims by its authority, as its minister, to confer the ordi- nance of baptism on believers, in the name of Christ, and then insists that the Churches which could not commune with him or fellowship his doctrines, the Churches who had deposed and excommunicated him, shall recognize as lawful and Scriptural his official administration of Christ's ordinance. Would not the same law which repudiated and condemned him as a bro- ther, trebly condemn him as the leader of another and a rival organization.^ Surely, what the Church could not countenance in a brother, she could not receive and endorse in him as a stranger! No man of common sense, who rea- sons about religious matters as he does about other things, would ever dream of doing it. If the Scriptures had required it, we v\'ould have thought the Bible a strange and contradictory 256 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. book. But no one claims that they require it. Some think they have found authority in the Word for unbaptized men to poxacJi without au- thority from any Church. " Let him that heareth say come/^ seems to be regarded by them as a second commission, more extended than the one we have been considering, and authorizing every man vi^ho hears the Gospel to officiate as a preacher of the Gospel. But no one has yet found any text which says "let him that hear- eth" baptize believers ; nor indeed any one which confers the authority to baptize on any but those who are duly qualified and properly ap- pointed by the true Churches, to whom, and to whom alone, Christ has committed the authority in his visible kingdom. And until such a text is found, the commission, the examples and the instructions to the Churches which we have just examined, will not permit a doubt as to the duty of such Churches to reject as unlawful and unauthorized, not only without law, but against law, all pretended baptisms conferred without such authority. Here we rest ; our task is done. Let any man or any Church that still will insist on re- ceiving as valid these immersions, take up our arguments, one by one, or altogether, and point out the errors, if any there be, in the process of our reasoning. If there be none, then, cer- tainly the question is decided both by Scripture and by reason. EIGHT CASES FOR ArPLICATION. 257 CHAPTEE IX. EIGHT CASES FOR APPLICATION. It yet remains to apply the principles above ^established to such cases as have actually been presented, or may be presented to the- Churches for determination. Such cases, however various in detail, may all be reduced to two classes- — those in which the baptism was directly or indi- rectly autliorized hy a true Church of baptized believers, and those in which it was not. Where it teas thus authorized, it may be received. Where it was fiot, it must be rejected. The First Case we will notice is that which lia.s been most frequently presented, and that is where the candidate was at the time of his pub- lic profession of religion so fully convinced that Christ's baptism was immersion^ that he insisted upon being immersed, although he did not unite with a Baptist church ; and, in com- pliance Avith his desire, the minister of a Metho- dist, or Presbyterian, or some other society, ad- ministered to him the so-called ])aptism, by which he became a member of that society. In regard to such a case nothing more need be 258 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. said. Tlie grounds upon which the Church should reject such a baptism have been made sufficiently plain by the whole tenor of our ar- guments. The Second CxYSe may not seem quite so clear. It is one in which the baptism w^as con- ferred by a minister then acting under the au- thority of some other body than a Baptist church, but who had once been baptized, and, it may be, ordained as a Baptist minister. Here it cannot be claimed that the baptism is invalid on the ground that the administrator is liimself unhaptized, but it must be admitted that it was performed toitJioiit autlwrity^ direct or indirect from any Baptist church, since no church can be supposed to confer authority to administer Christ's ordinances upon a deposed minister or an excluded member ; and no min- ister could be found officiating for a Pedobaptist society, and, in their name, administering the ordinances, who is not or ought not to be de- posed and excluded from a Baptist church, if he ever had any connection with one. We have said, and shown again and again, that it is not for want of baptism, but for want of church membership and authority, that these baptisms are to be regarded as invalid. The Third Case is where the immersion was administered by a Baptist minister in the name of a Baptist Church and by their authori- ty, but with the understanding that the bap- EIGHT CASES FOR APPLICATIONS 259 tized person was not to be received into the Church as a Baptist, but to unite with some of the Pedobaptist societies, or remain without any visible connection with any religious orga- nization. This is a case which may possibly ad- mit of doubt. It is certain that no Church should authorize, and no minister should admin- ister a baptism under such circumstances. But yet, having been done by Church authority and by a right adniinistrator, the administra- tion should, in our op)inion, be rejected, upon the grounds that the candidate was disqualified to receive it, as certainly in most, or all such cases, he must be ; and that the Church exceed- ed the constitutional limits of her authority when she undertook to baptize a member into a society of errorists, or with the intention to leave him in the sinful world with no Church connection. Baptist Churches should baptize only those who so far understand, and so design to obey Christ's laws, that they will not refuse association with Christ's visible people. Case Fourth, is where a Baptist minister, acting by authority of a Baptist Church, has baptized converts, but without having been himself properly baptized — that is to say, he was immersed by a Methodist, or a Presbyte- riaii, or a Campbellite, and by the authority of some of those organizaiions, and was received by a Baptist Church regarding that as true baptism, and by it ordained, and put into the 260 PEDOBAPTIST IMMEESIONS. ministry. Is a baptism conferred by liim a valid baptism ? We answer upon the prin- ciples already laid down, most certainly it is. 80 long as the Church regards him as a member and a minister, so long, for all official purposes, he is a member and a minister, and a want of right baptism no more invalidates his official acts performed in the name of the Church and by the authority of the Church than a want of right faith would have done. The Church re- ceived him in her ignorance, supposing him to have been truly baptized, and as such entrusted him with authority to administer her ordinances. When she discovers her mistake, she should correct it by at once regarding him as unbap- tized, but until she does, he is an authorized administrator. So in the Fifth Case, or that wherein a man destitute of saving faith, it may be, a base hypocrite, or one self-deceived. An anconverted man is re- ceived by the Church as a true convert, and elevated to the ministry. He baptizes scores or hundreds, and at length falls into open sin and is excluded. Does this invalidate the bap- tisms administered by him wdiile he remained a minister in good standing ? Not at all. So long as he was a member and a minister, his qfficicd acts were valid for all Church purposes, whatever his secret personal character before God may have been. The Church in her ig- norance "^believed him to be a true believer. EIGHT CASES FOR APPLICATION. 261 !^uch he professed to "be, as such she entrusted to him her ordinances. When she is unde» ceived, she must depose and exclude him ; hut till she does so, his official acts are valid. So long as she regards him as a believe r, he is for all Church purposes to he so regarded by others. The Sixth Case which presents itself to our mind, is one in which a Baptist minister, and a good and pious man, has, without any- sufficient fpvult of his, been excluded from the Church, or deposed from the ministry, and yet goes on baptizing, as though he had been the subject of no such action. Are such baptisms valid ? Clearly, they are not. The validity of the baptism, so far as the administrator is con- cerned, does not depend, as Ave have seen, upon his piety or upon his baptism, but upon the aiithoritij which he has received, directly or in- directly from a true Church of baptized believers to administer it. He could take no such au- thority with him out of the Church, and no Baptist Church could recognize any official act of his, however innocent she might believe him to be, unless he had first been restored to Church membership, and again authorized to administer the ordinances by the same Church that deposed and excluded him, or by some other of equal authority with it in the kingdom of Christ. The Seventh Case, is where a baptism 262 PEDOBAPTIST IMMEKSI02-^'S. has been administeredj as in tlie case of Boger Williams, by one not baptized or not author- ized by a true Church of baptized believers, in consequence of some alleged necessity, growing- out of a supposed impossibility to find any such Church, or minister of such Church. Some have thought, that in such an emergency, the regular law of baptism may be set aside, and some one may take it on himself to begin a new series of administrations without authority from any Church. But it seems more reasonable, that when an ordinance cannot be observed as it was commanded^ observance of it is not re- quired. Obedience to positive enactments is doing just what is commanded., just as it is com- manded to be done, and nothing more or less. We may not substitute or change God's ordi- nances. If we cannot obey, we are not required to obey. A Jew, or a family of Jews, cast on a desert island, might earnestly desire to keep the Passover, but if they had no lamh^ they would not be required to offer a goat, or a serpent, or any thing living which they might find upon the island, in its place. They could only observe the Lord's Passover by offering a onale lamb without spot or blemish, and of a certain age. 80 in regard to baptism ; if circumstances ren- der it impossible to do what God commands, we are simply to leave it undone, until in His providence the way is opened for its right per- formance. We are not to substitute somethinpj EIGHT CASES FOR APPLICATION. 263 else wliicli we can do, but wliich be bas 7iot re- quired. If Grod bas appointed or limited tbe administrators of baptism, tbereforc, and we cannot find snob as be requires, we are not to l)ut sucb as we may see fit to employ in tbeir places. Tbere is, bowever, no such necessity as we are speaking of. We do not believe tbere ever bas been. A little trouble and delay would bavc at any time secured an autborized administrator. But, whatever may bave been true of otber ages and otber lands, no one can now claim tliat be was not rigbtly baptized in this country for want of a Baptist Church to authorize, and a Baptist minister to confer the ordinance. The Eighth Case — and I mention it only because some seem to bave found in it a diffi- culty, is this : If the action of a Church is ne- cessary to authorize one to confer baptism, how can baptism be conferred by our missionaries in foreign lands, or by our Evangelists in our own.^ We answer, simply on the ground that the Church in ordaining, or setting one apart to tbe missionary work, or even to the work of a min- ister, is understood to confer authority to ad- minister the ordinances wherever there may be occasion for doing so. The missionary is acting by the authority conferred upon him by the Church who sends him, and to her he is ame- nable for his official and Christian conduct. Conventions, Associations, Missionary Boards, 264 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. and the like, may make provision for nis sup- port and comfort in his work, but they can give him no authority to preach or to baptize, nor can they come between the Church and the minister to interfere with the rights which the Church has conferred. When the Church chooses, and sets him apart by ordniation to the work of a pastor or Evangelist, she em- powers him in her behalf to ''go teach all na- tions, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. These cases, v/e think, will either include or parallel all that are likely to come before any Church, We do not give our opinion as hav- ing any, even the very slightest authority over the brethren. Grod forbid. We simply state what, after a careful investigation' of the sub- ject, we think to be the teaching of the Word of God. We have often been in error, and we ask no one to take our vv^ord or our opinion in these decisions, or in anything ; but let each one for himself " search the Scrijjtures/' to see whether these things are so. By them, and by them alone, each Church of Christ must be de- termined. If we have failed to find their mean- ing, it is not for want of an honest and earnest desire, nor for want of careful and patient study. But yet we do not claim to be the leader or the guide, but only the helper of our brethren in their attempts to understand the truth. The general rule to which our investigations EIGHT CASES FOR APPLICATION. 26*5 as liere laid dowOj have driven us, is tliis : A baptism is lawful and valid when it is conferred upon a believer in Christ by an administrator ap- pointed by a true Church of baptized believers. If there are any other cases differing materially from those mentioned above, the application of this rule will probably enable any one to decide them for himself. 206 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. CHAPTER X. SOME OTHER PRACTICAL QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO CHURCH DUTIES. Question First. — This we state substan- tially in the language of a correspondent in Virginia. Query. Shall a consistent Baptist continue to fellowship a Church which receives Methodist immersed believers without baptizing them? and if not, what course must he pursue? The question is a ver}^ natural one, and more difficult to answer than might at first glance appear. ■ The duty of the Church is plain. She ought not to receive such subjects ; but if a Church falls into some error of doctrine or prac- tice, shall any one member set up his opinion, against that of the assembly? Certainly he may, and give them kindly and in brotherly love, the reasons for his dissent. If the Church proposes to receive such a subject, every mem- ber who disapproves should present his objec- tions, he should vote agaist it, and then if over- ruled, he may ask leave to record his pro- test on the Church records with a brief state- PRACTICAL QUESTIONS. 267 ment of his reasons. Thus far he surely may go, and no one can find occasion of offence. But as the reception of such an unhaptized candidate through the error or ignorance of the Church, would no more destroy its claims to he a true Church of Christ, than the reception of an unbeliever through a similar mistake would do it, we do not see in the act any thing which calls for a disfellowshipping of the Church as a true Church of Christ. The brother who dis- approves of her course, may remain in her and lift his voice for the whole truth until his brethren shall be convinced, or until he can find some other Church convenient to him with which he can more perfectly coincide. Few, if any, Baptist Churches, will be willing to disre- gard a kind but firm and persistent protest from one who is a good and consistent member, for the sake of pleasing or securing the membership of one not a member, and who was not yet suf- ficiently instructed to know that baptism con- ferred without authority from Christ, is not Christ's baptism, and that Christ conferred no authority to baptize believers upon any but those who had themselves been baptized as believers. Question Second. — OugJd consistent Bap- tist churches to continue to felloiuship as true churches those ivhich persist in receiving these miatdhojnzed immersions as true and valid hop- tism ? The decision of this question depends upon 268 PEDOBAPTIST IMMERSIONS. another, and tliat is whether this is such an error in faith or practice as vitiates their claim to be accounted true and lawful churches of Jesus Christ, according to the Scriptures. If they are true churches, we should, it seems to us, continue to fellowship them as such, hut protest against their error, and with kind- ness and j)atience w^ait for the time which will probably soon come wdien we shall all see "eye to eye.'' But, as an honest mistake in any church as to wdiether an applicant for membership had truly believed would not unchurch the body, so an honest mistake as to whether one had been baptized w^ould not vitiate its claims to be a church. The utmost that other churches need to do is to adopt the means to make their own sentiments knowm, and publicly protest against such innovations upon the requirements of God's Word and the practice of the first churches. Each Church is by the Lord consti- tuted sole judge of who shall be its members, and of all matters relating to its internal polity and discipline. To its own Master it standeth or falleth. Let each Church, therefore, be careful for itself to conform to the teaching of the Word, and leave its sisters in peace to do the same. If w^e disagree about these teachings, let us not quarrel like enemies, anxious to cri- minate each other ; but, in love, let us bear eacli other's burdens — in brotherly affection, PRACTICAL QUESTIO:nS. 269 point out each other's faults — and by the faith- ful witnessing for the truth, we will soon drive out all error. We have been too ready to di- vide and too slow to unite. Nothing should be made the ground of disfellowship towards any brother which does not disqualify him to be a good member of a Baptist Church, and nothing should be made the ground of disfellowshij) to- wards a sister Church which does not impeach her claims to be a true Church of Jesus Christ, holding the faith, having the ordinances, the character of membership, and the organization which characterized the Jerusalem pattern. With less than this she is not a Church of Christ, and more than this we need not ask. Let us seek for union, not by complaining of others, but by seeking for ourselves, and pro- claiming abroad the whole Truth of God. We need not compromise the Truth — we need not conceal it. We need not, nay we must not hesitate to fully carry it out in all our practice. But we need be busy in searching out our neighbors' faults or failings. We are not calledt upon to sit in judgment upon those who chance to see things in a light differing somewhat from that which guides our action. Let us commend the right by our own obedience. Let us con- demn the vrrong by our own right-doing, and not by finding fault with others who are doubt- less as honest and as desirous to do right as we are, but have not yet been able to find the per- 270 PEDOBAPTIST IMJIERSIONS. feet path of entire conformity to the exact iv- quirements of our blessed Lord. He will bles.s the example of the careful and consistent fol- lowers of His Word to the correction of those who have been too easily led by a false charity, not merely to pity but practically to approve the errors into which so many who bear the name of Christ have fallen. The Lord hasten the time when all who love him shall rejoice to- gether m complete obedience to all the outioard as well as all the inward requirements of the glorious Grospel of the blessed God, THE EJs'P. DATE DUE k ..^-.^ m os^ 'f innn "T lUUo v) GAYLORD PRINTED IN U.S.A.