i ftt Wtdtfat jr (£? PRINCETON, N. J. *» Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. Agneiv Coll. on Baptism, No. SOB A9 23/ BAPTISM DESIGN, MODE, AND SUBJECTS. BY N. L.*&ICE, D. D., PASTOR OF THE SECOND PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, ST. LOUIS. SAINT LOUIS: KEITH & WOODS, 88 MARKET ST 1855. Entered according to A.ct of Congress, in the year 1855 } by KEITH & WOODS, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States, for the District of Missouri. KEITH & WOODS, PRINTERS. 88 Market street. CONTENTS. Preface • 7 DESIGN OF BAPTISM. Nature of True Religion — Ordinances Generally — Design of Baptism, how learned — Errors of Rome and Camp- bellism — "Born of Water" — '-Remission of Sins" — Prof. Stuart's Criticism — Our Relation to the Church . . 9 MODE OF BAPTISM. ELEVEN LETTERS TO ALEXANDER CAMPBELL. Let. I. — Proposition to be Proved — Points of Agree- ment — Difference between John's Baptism and Christian Baptism — General Argument — Ground occupied by Pedo-baptists — Two Questions 35 Let. II. — A Priori Argument Answered — Baptism not an Action — Unwarranted Assumption — Facts — Conse- cration of Aaron and his Sons. etc. — How much Immer- sionists must prove — Original Meaning of Words — Carson, Campbell, Ernesti, Stuart — Pagan Usage Un- certain Guide — Dr. Campbell 48 Let. III. — Meaning of Baptizo — Important Admission — Carson, Gale, and Campbell— Lexicons — Rule for Ascer- 4 CONTENTS. taming the Meaning of Words — A. Campbell — "Word Tropical — Blackstoue — Stuart endorsed by Campbell . . 60 Let. IV. — Classic Usage in regard to Bapto — Homer, Aristotle, and Aristophanes — Admission of Carson, etc. Bible Usage — Baptism in Dew — Rev., 19 : 3 — Syriac and JEtkiopic Versions — Latin Vulgate — Origen 74 Let. V. — Classic usage respecting Baptizo — Strabo, Hip- pocrates, etc. — Gale's Admission — Bible Usage — Apoc- ryphal Books — Campbell's Translation of Mark, 7: 3, 4 — Divers Baptisms 84 Let. VI — Translations — Syriac, Arabic, JEthiopic, etc. . . 99 Let. VII. — Early Christian Writers, Greek and Latin — Origen — Baptism of the Altar — Touring in cases of necessity 107 Let. VHI. — Scripture accounts of administration of Bap- tism — How John baptize 1 — Professor Stuart's criticism on poll 'a hudata — Examples of Christian Baptism — Pen- tecost — Paul's Baptism — Cornelius — Eunuch 114 Let. IX. — 1 'repositions — Opinion of the Ancients — Prof. Stuart's Criticism— Dr. Dick— Dr. Scott 126 Let. X. — Examination of Romans, 6 : 1-4 — Mr. Camp- bell's argument from legal sprinklings — Personal Im- mersions not in the Law of Moses Sprinklings com- manded — Holy Spirit poured out 134 Let. XI. — Argument from Convertible Terms considered — Baptism of the Spirit and Water — Conclusions 143 INFANT BAPTISM. Chap. I. — Its importance — Mr. Pendleton's extreme posi- tion — Presumptive argument — How the majority of wise CONTEXTS. 5 and good men have understood the Scriptures — God has owned Pedo-baptist Churches — Baptist Divisions 159 Chap. II. — Commission to Apostles — Real points of dis- cussion — Definition of a Church — Identity, in what it consists — Points of difference — Same religion — Mr. Campbell's argument on "Jews' Religion" — Three points in Religion — Jewish church not secular organi- zation — -Differences between Church and State — Abra- ham and ( 'hristian Church — Good olive tree — Christian church not a new church — Apostles not baptized — Objections — Campbell and Carson 168 Chap. III. — Baptism in place of Circumcision — Mr. Campbell's sixteen arguments 213 Chap. IV. — Onus proband! on antj-pedo-baptists — Apos- tolic Commission examined — Law of membership not changed — Positive proof — Luke, 18: 15, 1(6 — 1 Cor., 7 : 14— Household Baptisms 227 Chap. V. — Historical argument — When Infant Baptism began — Language of Irenaeus — Tertullian opposed to Infant Baptism — Value of his testimony — Origcn — Cy- prian and the Council — Augustine, Jerome, and Pela- gius — Infant Communion 257 Chap. VI. — Waldenses Pedo-baptists— They are Pedo- baptists now — Were so at the Reformation — Testimony of Jones — Of Papists — Luther's endorsement of their Confessions — Declaration in 1608 — In 1535 — 156S — Testimony of Messengers of Louis XII — Jones' cor- ruption of Perrin — "Waldenses condemned superstitious additions to Infant Baptism, but not baptism itself — Book of Anti-christ, A. D. 1120 — Testimony of ene- t mies — Conclusions of Dr. Wall — Value of the histor- ical argument 286 6 CONTENTS. Chap. YIL — Practical uses of Infant Baptism — Its in- fluence on parents — On children — On the church — Ap- plication 301 PREFACE, The baptismal controversy is one of long standing. That much that is new can be said upon it, is not to be expected. Yet, as the exclusive claims of anti-pedo-baptists are still urged with as great zeal as ever, and as older boohs are gradu- ally disappearing, it is necessary that others be published, adapted to the ever-varying phases of error. The following work has been prepared, and, is now published, in compliance with prom- ises made to ministers and laymen, in different parts of the coun- try, for some years past. Having paid much attention to the subjects discussed, I have thought the views here presented, may contribute to the advancement of truth. The mode of discus- sing the different points, which I have adopted, may possibly strike some minds, as calculated to present them in a clear light. The letters addressed to Alexander Campbell, on the Mode of Baptism, were published in the Presbyterian of the West, several years ago, on the appearance of his book on Baptism. Mr. Campbell, at that time, desired to reply to them through the columns of the same paper ; but as his propositions were regarded as entirely unfair, they were promptly declined. These 8 PEEFACE. letters, with the notes appended, it is hoped, will prove a satisfactory defence of Baptism by pouring or sprinkling. I have not attempted to say all that might he said on the subjects discussed. Yet I have not left unanswered any argu- ment against our views, which seems to deserve refutation. It has been my object to give a brief, clear, and satisfactory discussion of each point, and to aid Christians in the discharge of the duties and in the improvement of the privileges con- nected with the ordinance of Baptism. How far I have succeeded, I cheerfully leave each reader to determine for himself. My prayer is, that God will bless it to the edifica- tion of his people. The Author. DESIGN OF BAPTISM. I. True religion is holiness of heart, manifested in obedience to the commands of God ; or, in other words, it is love supreme to God and love to men, manifested in the discharge of our duties to God and to men. " Love is the fulfilling of the law." This love, in a regenerated soul* begets repentance for past sins, a heartfelt faith in Jesus Christ, our Saviour from sin, and obedience to all the com- mandments of God. Peter could say, "Lord, thou knowest all things ; thou knowest that I love thee;" and, therefore, when reminded of his sin, "he went out and wept bitterly." True faith "worketh by love;" and such a faith produces corresponding works. " Faith without works is dead." Such, briefly, is true religion. II. The efficient agent in begetting and perfecting true religion in the hearts and lives of men, is the Holy Spirit ; and the principal means employed in 'this work are the word and the ordinances of the Gospel. "Of his own will," says James, "begat he us with his word of truth." God begat us ; but he did it by means of his word. 2 10 DESIGN OF BAPTISM, Ever since God has had a people in the world, he has not only made to them revelations of his will? but has appointed ordinances for their observance, ' 6 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain ;" and that sacrifice, which could sot have been offered by faith unless Divinely ap- pointed, consisted "of the firstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof." So far as the Scriptures inform us, there were no ordinances, except bloody sacrifices, and perhaps thank-offerings, instituted, until the calling of Abraham. Then circumcision was instituted, "a seal of the righteousness of faith/" a seal of the covenant between God and his people. At Mount Sinai, many more ordinances were ap- pointed, chiefly of two classes — bloodv sacrifices and ablutions. At the close of the Old Dispensation, the burdensome ritual of the Jewish church gave place to two simple, significant ordinances — the Lord^s Supper and Baptism. III. Ordinances, though the observance of them as Divinely appointed, is important and obligatory as mean5 of grace, were never designed to be effi- cacious in imparting saving grace, or, under all circumstances, essential to salvation. He who, hav- ing the opportunity, refuses to observe ordinances appointed of God, gives clear evidence that he has no piety, and cannot therefore be saved ; and he who relies for salvation upon the observance of ordi- nances, mistakes the shadow for the substance. DESIGN OF BAPTISM, U Under the Old Dispensation., it was the duty of pious men to offer sacrifices ; but Samuel said to Saul : " Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams." * And David said, "For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it ; thou delightest not in burnt- offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit : a broken and a contrite heart, God, thou wilt not despise. ?? f And so far was circumcision from beino; regarded as essential to salvation, that for forty years, during the sojourn of the Jews in the wilderness, it was omitted, t It was "the duty of the Jews to tithe mint, anise and cumin ; but judgment, mercy and faith were " the weightier matters of the law.' 5 In every age there has been a strong tendency in men to attribute to ordinances an efficacy and an importance they never possessed, and, consequently, to depend upon them for salvation to the neglect of vital godliness and good works. In this respect, multitudes of professing Christians have erred as egregiously as did the Jews. It has been too com- mon to see them neglectful of sound morals, just in proportion to their zeal for outward observances. The church of Rome presents a striking confirmation of this statement. Yet we may run to the other extreme, and under- value ordinances. The fact that God has appointed * 1 Sam. 15 : 22. f Ps. 51 : 16 ; 17. $ Josh. 5 : 5. 12 DESIGN OF BAPTISM. them, is sufficient evidence that his blessing will attend the proper observance of them, and that those who willfully neglect them forfeit that blessing. We are under obligation to observe them, because God commands it ; and we need them, because they impress truth on our minds, impart a stronger sense of our obligations, and encourage us in the midst of trials and temptations. On this general subject, the following three truths are clear and most important : 1. The mere observance of ordinances will never save a sinner. They are in their nature material, and touch only the body ; but true religion belongs to the mind, and is seated in the heart. So far, then, as ordinances impress truth on the heart, and so far as that truth is attended by the Holy Spirit, they become means of growth in holiness. " Sanc- tify them through thy truth." 2. No one ever was or will be lost for lack of or- dinances, which he had not the opportunity to observe. That is a glorious truth announced by Peter, when he saw that God had accepted Cornelius the centu- rion : " Then Peter opened his mouth and said, Of a truth, I perceive that God is no respecter of persons ; but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted of him."* Cornelius was " a devout man, and one that feared * Acta 10 : 34, 35. DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 13 God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always ; " and his purity of: heart and exemplary life were as truly acceptable to God before his baptism, as afterwards. 3. No one who willfully neglects ordinances di- vinely appointed, can rationally hope for salvation ; for such persons openly rebel against God, and treat with contempt his wisdom and his grace. True piety prompts us cheerfully to obey every command of God, and to prize and improve every means of grace he has appointed. Its language is: "Therefore, I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right ; and I hate every false way." * With these general remarks, I proceed to a careful examination of the design, the mode, and the sub- jects of baptism. We place the design of baptism first in the order of discussion, for two reasons. In the first place, the value of the ordinance is in its design — the end or ends it is intended to accomplish in the plan of salvation. Mistakes on this point may render the ordinance worthless or injurious ; for instead of im- pressing truth on the mind, it may thus mislead it. For example, he who regards baptism as a regenera- ting ordinance, will think himself regenerated, be- cause he has been baptized ; and he who regards it as securing remission of sins, will imagine himself par- * Ps. 119: 128. 2* 14 MSIGN OF BAPTISM. cloned, for the same reason. In the second place, a knowledge of the meaning and design of baptism will aid us in determining the mode and the subjects. Those who insist on immersion, and reject infant bap- tism, differ from Pedo -baptists as much, or nearly so, as to the design of the ordinance. The design of baptism may be learned — I. From the name into which we are baptized. The apostolic commission says: " Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." * The preposition here translated in is eis, which many prefer, and perhaps correctly, to render into. The same preposition is used in 1 Cor. 10 : 2, where the Jews are said to have been 6 'baptized unto {into') Moses in the cloud and in the sea." To be baptized in the name of the Father, etc. , says an eminent writer, is to be consecrated to him for worship, so that the baptized person is called after him as his Lord. To be baptized into any one, or in the name of any one, says the learned Poole, is to subject and devote one's self to him, and to be willing to be called by his name. Dr. Gill, the Baptist commentator, explains the expression to mean " by the authority of three divine per- sons" and adds : " And as they are to be invocated in it, so the persons baptized not only profess faith in each divine person, but are devoted to their service * Matt. 28 : 19. DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 15 and worship, and are laid under obligation to obe- dience to them." The late Professor Stuart says, the word baptize, " when it is followed by a person, means, by the sacred rite of baptism, to bind one's self to be a disciple or follower of a person, to re- ceive or obey his doctrines or laws.'' We may, then, safely conclude, that baptism sig- nifies consecration to the service of God in the Gosjjel of Christ. It is to be administered to those who are separated from the world for that service. In receiving this ordinance, they covenant to be faithful in it, and express their faith in the divine promises, without which they cannot serve God ac- ceptably. This is all we mean, when we say, baptism is a seal of the covenant of grace. God says to sinners: " Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David." * Those who accept this invitation, re- ceive baptism, thus accepting the terms of the cove- nant. Whether believing parents are authorized and required to enter into covenant for their infant chil- dren, and have them baptized, will be subject of inquiry in another part of this work. II. The design of baptism may be learned, second- ly, from the element used in the administration. It is water. No other fluid was ever used by the * Isaiah 55 : 3. 16 DESIGN OF BAPTISM. apostles. And as water cleanses the body, so it is a suitable emblem of spiritual cleansing. Under both the Old and the New Dispensation, it was so used. Thus, God said to the Jews : " Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean ; from all your filthiness and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you," etc.* So Paul said to the believing Corinthians: " And such were some of you: but ye are washed," etc.f And Ananias had said to him " Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins," etc. J God is holy; his service is a holy service ; and, therefore, it is spe- cially proper that the element by which those who have been sinners, are consecrated to that service, should be significant of purity. Dr. Carson, the Baptist controvertist, agrees with us, that "washing away sin is the thing which it always signifies," though he says this is not the whole of its meaning. § Dr. Gill says, the grace of the Spirit in regeneration, ' 'both in the Old and in the New Testament, is frequently signified by water, and called a baptism, or a being baptized." || Baptism, then, seals our consecration to the ser- vice of God in the Gospel, and signifies that holiness by which only we can render acceptable service. * Ezekiel 36 : 25, 26. f 1 Cor. 6:11. % Acts 22 : 16. § On Bap. p. 266. || Com. on 1 Cor 12 : 15. DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 17 III. But inasmuch as holiness is obtained only by the influence of the Holy Spirit on the heart, bap- tism points to the Spirit's work. Therefore, the two things — the sign and the substance — are con- stantly connected in the Scriptures. Accordingly Paul teaches, that God saves us " by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ."* For this reason, regeneration itself is called baptism. John the Baptist said: " I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance : but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear : he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." f For though the bap- tism on John was only a ceremony introductory to the Christian Dispensation, and not Christian bap- tism, it had the same significance, as indeed all the Jewish ablutions had. Paul says: "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free ; and have been all made to drink into one spirit." J The union of believers to Christ is effected, not by water, but by the baptism of the Holy Ghost, as Dr. Gill says: "By which spiritual baptism, or by whose grace in regeneration and conversion, they are brought into one body ; the mystical body of Christ, the universal and invisible church." Strange- * Tit. 3 : 5, 6. f Matt. 3: 11. % 1 Cor. 12 : 13. 18 DESIGN OF BAPTISM. ly enough, some Baptists, in the heat of controversy, have convinced themselves that the baptism of the Holy Ghost was confined to his miraculous gifts, and has long since ceased. The passage under consi- deration is a clear refutation of this notion. Here, again, men have run into fatal error, mis- taking the shadow for the substance — the outward sign for the inward grace. This is true of the church of Rome. The Catechism of the Council of Trent defines baptism as i ' the sacrament of regene- ration by water in the word." It tells us, that our Lord, when baptized by John, " gave to the water the power of sanctifying" — " the power of re- generating to spiritual life." It further declares, "that such is the admirable efficacy of this sacra- ment, as to remit original sin, and actual guilt however enormous ; " and that those regenerated by baptism " become innocent, spotless, innoxious, and beloved of God." * Very nearly the same efficacy is ascribed to this ordinance by High- church Episco- palians. The erroneousness of this doctrine is clear from the following considerations : 1. It is chargeable with the gross absurdity of ascribing the production of holiness in the mind to a material agent applied to the body. 2. It is contrary to the uniform teaching of the Bible, which represents regeneration as the work of * pp. 114, 116, 127. design ;? bapti^v 19 tlie Holy Spirit on :im hmm. -An -I 7:1 iifi V quickened, who were r: . in ::*m times 11 r.ns ' 4 Even when we were dead m sins? hath quickened us together with Christ " * It -m :m In::: :: me :n- spired writers to connect the significant ordinance with the thin ^ ::::n:: mi nn :n: ~:=t mm - neously eonclnded, that the former is essential to the latter. Thus, when onr Lord said to Niebc "mim : •• Vmiim -rr:>. I = :m: :iim. Iimm i mm ":e horn of ~mm :m:i :: :m mmm it :~im: mm: into the Kingdom :: m i ." :: is ismmmi :'.: : me water refers to baptism, and that it is a regenerating ordinance. 2~ ~. 11: 1 : mie i ; r:i:i:: In the first place, it is assumed that :: me n:rn :: — m is :•: ' : \: : " "_m mimme :: mere m :ms : When mm ;::rir":::: : mmm ' ' :" : n :ir vm:ur and Mehodemos, Christian, bar hnm ha 1 1 : : been in- stituted : and if he referred to it, Mehodemas coold not possibly hare understood him. Yet the Sam 1 m censured him for his ignorance: " Art thou 1 mm- ter of Israel, and knowestnot these things t n Be- sides, in no other instance in which the new bkth is spoken of in the Xew Testament, is wider men- tioned. The simple truth seems to be 7 that Jesus Christ was explaining to a Jewish te 1 ii the if bcs- sity and the nature of the newbirm : :m I he flhs- trated it, as the iismiiei -writers mien i:. :y * I:i. : 1 :. 20 DESIGN OF BAPTISM. reference to water, the emblem of spiritual purity. To be born of water and of the Spirit, is to experience that renewal of heart which is the fruit of the Spirit, and of which water is the appropriate emblem-. But suppose the reference in this passage Were to the ordinance of baptism, what reason is there to suppose that persons are regenerated always and only in connection with baptism? The fact, that an out- ward ordinance stands associated with the inward grace, does not prove that both are equally neces^ sary, or that they are always, in fact, connected. 8. The doctrine I am opposing is liable to the very serious objection, that it makes the salvation of the soul depend, in many instances, upon mere cir* cumstances, or upon the faithfulness of other per^ sons. A dying infant must perish, only because its parents neglect to have it baptized, or because it is left to the care of strangers Who care not for its soul, or do not believe in the baptism of infants. "Infants," says the Catechism of Trent, "unless baptized, cannot enter heaven, and hence we may well conceive how deep the enormity of their guilt, who, through negligence, suffer them to remain without the grace of the sacrament, longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless causes of death." To avoid, as far as possible, this difficulty, Rome allows " even the laity, men and women, to whatsoever sect they may be- long," and even " Jews, infidels, and heretics," to DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 21 administer the ordinance, " provided, however, they intend to do what the Catholic church does in that act of her ministry." * The very fact, that a license so general and so unscriptural is given in the ad- ministration of baptism, is sufficient proof of the falsity of the doctrine which made it necessary. But not infants only suffer, if this doctrine be true ; for adults are very often placed in circum- stances in which, however truly penitent and believ- ing, they cannot receive baptism. Those dying in such circumstances must, of course, be lost. Yet our Saviour says: " He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life." f No, baptism signifies regeneration ; but it does not regenerate. It impresses on us the necessity of sanctification ; but it does not sanctify. It is the shadow ; the Spirit's agency on the heart is the sub- stance. The two stand associated in the Bible, as a man and his shadow. 4. But since sinners can approach God only through the mediation of Christ, and since the Holy Spirit is given through his intercession, and his me- diation is bused upon his death; baptism visibly iden- tifies us with Christ, and especially with his death. We are, therefore, said to be " baptized into Christ," and thus to " put on Christ;" and also to be " baptized into his death." As Christ died to de- * Cat. of Trent, pp. 124, 140. 1 1 John 3 : 36, 3 22 DESIGN OF BAPTISM. liver his people both from the condemnation and the dominion of sin, baptism into Christ signifies and requires death to sin and a life of holiness, or sanc- tification through him ; and it stands intimately asso- ciated "with remission of sins. Here, again, human nature has exhibited its char- acteristic infirmity ; for some who are not chargeable with the absurdity of ascribing to baptism a sancti- fying efficacy, hold that it is a justifying ordinance, This is the doctrine of Alexander Campbell and the sect to which he has given rise. He says : " From the time the proclamation of God's philanthropy was first made, there was an act of obedience proposed in it, by which the believers of the proclamation were put in actual possession of its blessings, and by conformity to which act a change of state ensued. * * * Whatever the act of faith may be, it ne- cessarily becomes the line of discrimination between the two states before described. On this side, and on that, mankind are in quite different states. On the one side, they are pardoned, justified, sanctified, reconciled, adopted, and saved; on the other, they are in a state of condemnation. This act is some- times called immersion, regeneration, conversion."* There are two principal grounds on which this doc- trine is defended : 1st. The language of Christ to Nichodemus is ap- * Chris. Sys. pp. 200, 201. DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 23 pealed to: " Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." The new birth, according to Mr. Campbell, is not a change of heart , as commentators have generally supposed, but a change of state — a passing from a state of con- demnation to a state of justification. But as we have already shown, there is no evidence that this passage has any direct reference to baptism. Besides, if it had, it would not sustain the doctrine of Mr. Campbell ; for the new birth is most evidently a change of heart from sinfulness to holiness — not a change of state. This is clear, first, from the reason assigned, why the new birth is necessary, viz : " That which is bom of the flesh, is flesh ; and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit." The word flesh, as contrasted with spirit, in the New Testament, signifies depravity, as is evident from Rom. 8 : 1-9, and Gallatians 5 : 19-25. The works of the flesh are only evil, the works of the Spirit are good. The Saviour, then, teaches that men must be born again, because being born of depraved parents, they are themselves depraved. Being born of the Spirit, makes them like the Spirit, holy. That the new birth is a change of heart, is further proved by its fruits. " Whosoever is born of God," says John the Apostle, M doth not commit sin ; for his seed remameth ia him ; ami he cannot sin , be- 24 DESIGN OF BAPTISM, cause he is born of God." * The new birth leads men to turn from sin, and work righteousness ; most evidently, therefore, it is a change of heart. But we observe, that in his late book on baptism, Mr. Campbell seems entirely to abandon this passage on which he had so much relied. 2d. The second ground on which the doctrine of baptismal justification is defended, is the force of the Greek preposition, eis. Peter said to the anxious inquirers, on the day of Pentecost, " Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for {eis) the remission of sins." The word eis, here translated for, as Mr. Campbell insists, means in order to ; and, therefore, Peter commanded men to be baptized in order that their sins might be remitted. In his Christian System, he says : " Immersion for the forgiveness of sins, was the command addressed to these believers, to these pen- itents, in answer to the most earnest question, and by one of the most sincere, candid, and honest speakers ever heard. This act of faith was presented as that act by which a change in their state could be effected ; or, in other words, by which alone they could be pardoned." f In his late book on baptism, he says : ' ' The form of expression is exceedingly familiar and intelligible; and, were it not for the imaginary incongruity between the means and the * 1 John, 3:9. f p. 203. DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 25 end, or the thing done and the alleged purpose or result, no one could, for a moment, doubt that the design of baptism is ' for the remission of sins.' >' * But there are two very conclusive objections to this argument, viz : The first is, that men are not commanded to be baptized for the remission of sins. There is no such command in the New Testament. Wherever baptism is mentioned in connection with remission, repentance is also mentioned. Thus, John the Baptist did not preach baptism for the remission of sins, but " the baptism of repentance for the re- mission of sins." f Peter did not command the anxious inquirers, on the that our Lord, in insti- tuting the ordinance of baptism, did, in the plainest and most unequivocal language, command his minis- ters to perform the specific action of immersing, and that no other action can be regarded as obedience to that command. " Baptism," you have asserted,, " is a specific action, and the verb that represents it is a verb of specific import," etc. In the year of our Lord, 1820, you claim the honor of having dis- covered and exposed the mischievous sophistry which lay concealed in the apparently harmless word mode, the very use of which secured to the Pedo -baptist at least half a victory over his unsuspecting oppo- nent. " Since 1820," you have said, " the word action is being substituted for mode." I now state a general argument, which is of great weight against your doctrine, that immersion is the only Christian baptism, viz : The whole Christian world, in all ages, so far as history can inform us, with the exception of a mere handful, stand arrayed against you. Either they or you have misunderstood the language of Jesus Christ. The late learned Professor Stuart, whom you have honored with the title of your " American Apostle," makes the fol- lowing statement: "From all that has been said * p. 90. 40 MODE OF BAPTISM. above, it is manifest that the great body of Chris- tians have long come to the full conviction, that no one particular mode of baptism can be justly con- sidered as essential to the rite itself." * This is not true simply of the more ignorant classes, but of men of the most eminent learning. It is not true of those who have given the subject but a passing notice, but o£ those who have given it the most patient and thorough examination. They have not taken the ground, that although Jesus Christ commanded im- mersion, men may venture to substitute pouring or sprinkling; but they have deliberately denied that he did command immersion. They have said, with Professor Stuart, u that no injunction is anywhere given in the New Testament, respecting the manner in which this rite shall be performed." This ground has not been taken only by those who believe that the apostles baptized by sprinkling, but by those who have favored the opinion that immersion was gen- erally practiced in the apostolic age. Calvin was disposed to make this admission ; and yet he says : "It is of no consequence at all (minimum refert) whether the person baptized is totally immersed, or whether he is merely sprinkled by an effusion of water. This should be a matter of choice to the churches in different regions." t He did not say, as he has been represented, that the church has a right • Mode of Bap. p. 92. f Inst. B. iv., chap. 15, sec. 19. MODE OF BAPTISM. 41 to change the ordinances so as to do something different from that which Jesus Christ commanded ; but he denied that he gave any command respecting the mode of administering baptism.* His language is as follows : u Pro ipsa quidem baptismi ceremonia, quatenus nobis a Christo tradita est, centies potius ad mortem usque digladiandum, quam ut earn nobis eripi sinamus : sed quum in aquae symbolo testimo- nium habemus tarn ablutionis nostrae, quam novae vitae : quum in aqua, velut in speculo, sanguinem nobis suum Christus repraesentat, ut munditiem inde * Mr. Campbell, in his debate with McCalla, most singularly and grossly misrepresented the language and the sentiments of Calvin, and, at the same time, equally misrepresented the senti- ments of other learned Pedo-baptists. This misrepresentation was exposed in the Lexington Debate, (p. 323,) and Mr. OL made little or no effort to defend himself. Let the reader com- pare the following, which is copied from the debate with Mc- Calla, with the following language of Calvin, as given above : " But because I have quoted Calvin, Luther, and many other Pedo-baptists as declaring that baptizo signifies to immerse, to dip, to plunge literally, Mr. M. and Mr. R. are exceedingly ex* asperated and would have such concessions construed into insig- nificant words, seeing those men practiced sprinkling. But why did they practice sprinkling? Most certainly, not be- cause they supposed this to be either the meaning of the term, nor the ancient practice. Why then? I will let Calvin declare, Hear him. Hear him, my friends : ' The church did grant liberty to herself since the beginning TO CHANGE THE RITES SOMEWHAT, excepting the substance.' This is the reason, then, why they tolerated sprinkling; and their concessions are unimpaired by this declaration. Some 42 MODE OF BAPTISM. nostrum petamus : quum docet nos Spiritu sno re- fingi, ut mortui peccato, justitige vivamus ; nihil quod ad baptismi substantiam facial, deesse nobis certum est : Quare ab initio libere sib permisit ecclesia, ex- tra hanc substantiam, ritus habere paululum dissim- iles: nam alii, ter, alii autem semel tantum mergebant." That is, " As regards the ceremony itself of bap- tism, as it was delivered to us by Christ, it were f a hundred times better that we perish by the sword than permit it to be taken from us : but when in the symbol of water we have the testimony, as well of our cleansing as of our new life : when in water, pages of Mr. R.'s illnatured criminations, for quoting those concessions, assume the gaseous form in the presence of these words of Calvin. The fact is, those learned Pedo-baptists conceded the points at issue now, but pleased themselves with the supposed power the church had, from the beginning, of < CHANGING THE RITES SOMEWHAT.' Hence they changed immersion into sprinkling, and a river or a bath into a basin. For ' Calvin, Arctius, Piscator, Grotius, and Macknight declare that the reason why John baptized at JEnon, was because the water was deep enough to immerse.' The only question between those learned Pedo-baptists and us, is not about the meaning of baptisma, for in this we agree, but about c this right the church granted herself. We allege the essence of popery is contained in this right or assumption, those men did not see this, or if they did, did not think proper to abandon it. I fearlessly affirm that the Presbyterian church is founded on the very principle assumed in those words of Calvin. They have granted unto themselves the liberty of changing the rites somewhat, sometimes scarcely retain- the substance.' " MODE OF BAFTISM. 43 as in a mirror, Christ represents to us his blood, that thence we may seek our purification : when he teaches us to be renewed by his Spirit, that being dead to sin, we may live to righteousness, it is cer- tain that we lack nothing which pertains to the substance of baptism. Wherefore, from the be- ginning, the church has freely allowed herself, beyond this substance, to have rites a little dis- similar ; for some immersed thrice, but others only once," Jesus Christ, Calvin contended, delivered to us the ordinance, and that we must preserve it in its purity. Concerning the mode of administering it, he gave no command. Therefore, the church has, " from the beginning " — from the days of the apostles — felt perfectly at liberty to practice different modes. The same ground is taken by the learned Turrettine, who has so long been regarded as amongst the very first standard writers on theology. He contends, that aspersion as well as immersion was practiced in the apostolic age ; and amongst the reasons in favor of the former, is the following : " Because the word baptisma and the word baptizesthai are used not only concerning immersion, but also concerning aspersion" * Many other men of eminent learning • Dr. Doddridge favored the idea, that in the apostolic age, baptism was generally performed by immersion, which he thought not remarkable, " considering how frequently bathing was used in those hot countries ; " yet he said : " I see no 44 MODE OF BAPTISM. hold the same view. Indeed, it is the prevailing view among Protestants* But this view of the subject is not confined to modern times. It was universally held, so far as we can learn, by the aneient church. In the third and immediately succeeding century, it is true that trine immersion was extensively practiced, with the candi- date divested of his garments, and with the sign of the cross, milk and honey, and other supersti- proof that it was essential to the Institution." Corneilius and his family he believed to have been baptized by pouring. Commenting on Acts 10: 47, he says: "But it seems most natural to understand it, (as Dr. Whitby does,) ' Who can for- bid that water should be brought ?' In which view of the clause, one would naturally conclude they were baptized by pouring water on them, rather than by plunging them into it." That baptism, by pouring or sprinkling, is valid and scrip- tural, was held by such men as Martin Luther, Theodore Beza, Witsius, Owen, Lightfoot, Scott, Henry, Watts, Flavel, Dr. Adam Clarke, Dr. Timothy Dwight, Dr. Chalmers, Dr. Dick, etc., etc. All either deny that immersion was at all practiced by the apostles, or hold that, there being no command as to the mode, it is a matter of indifference. Dr. Owen, whose eminent learning no one will question, says: il Baptizo signifies to wash ; as instances out of all authors may be given — Suidas, Hesychius, Julius Pollux, Phavorinus, and Eustachius. It is first used in the Scripture : Mark 1:8; John 1 : 33 ; and to the same purpose in Acts 1:5. In every place, it either signifies to pour,or the expression is equivocal. 'I baptize you with water, but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost;' which is the accomplishment of that promise, 'that the Holy Ghost shall be poured on them.' Again, " No one place can be given in the Scriptures, wherein baptizo doth MODE OF BAPTISM. 45 lions. Stuart states, " that all candidates for bap- tism, men, women, and infants, were completely divested of all their garments, in order to be bap- tized. Revolting as this custom was, yet it is as certain as testimony can make it." * But it is a remarkable fact, that even in those days of supersti- tion, when so great efficacy was attributed to the ordinance, and When trine immersion "was the pre- vailing practice , none ventured to maintain, with Mr. necessarily signify either to dip or plunge.' Again, e In this sense, as it expresseth baptism, it denotes to wash only, and not to dip at all; for so it is expounded — Titus 3: 5, etc.' Again, ' Wherefore, in this sense, as the word is applied unto the ordinance, the sense of dipping is utterly excluded."" — Owen's Works : vol. 21, p. 557. Dr. George Hill, Principal of St. Mary's College, St. An- drew's, a very learned man, says : " Both sprinkling and im- mersion are implied in the word baptizo ; both were used in the religious ceremonies of the Jews, and both may be con- sidered as significant of the purpose of baptismj etc.''— Hill's Divinity, p. 659. Dr. John Dick, Professor of Theology to the United Session Church, says : " We have seen that nothing certain as to mode can be learned from the original term baptizo, because it has different meanings, signifying sometimes to immerse, and some- times to wash, etc." — Divinity, pp. 470, 471. Dr. Adam Clark, an eminent linguist, says : " In what form baptism was originally administered, has been deemed a subject worthy of serious dispute : Were the people dipped or sprink- led ? for it is certain that bapto and baptizo mean both." Dr. Thomas Scott, the Commentator, quotes Bishop Leigh- ton, as saying: "It (baptizo) is taken more largely for any * Mode of Bap., p. 75, ■5 46 MODE OF BAPTISM. Campbell and other immersionists of modern times, that baptism is the action of immersing. In eases of sickness or of imminent danger, it is certain that effusion or sprinkling were permitted. Cyprian, who lived in the third century, and who was one of the most eminent of the fathers, decidedly maintained the validity of baptism thus administered, and for- bade re-baptizing such persons. The Council of kind of washing, rinsing, or cleansing, even where there is no dipping at all;" and then remarks: " The word was adopted from the Greek authors, and a sense put upon it by the in- spired writers, according to the style of Scripture, to signify the use of water in the sacrament of baptism, and in many things of a spiritual nature that stood related to it. Some, in- deed, contend zealously that baptism always signifies immer- sion ; but the use of the words baptize and baptism, in the New Testament, cannot accord with this exclusive interpretation." This he gives as a conclusion resulting from "many years' consideration and study." Dr. Timothy Dwight, who stood prominent amongst the most learned men in the United States, says : " I have examined almost one hundred instances in which the word baptizo and its derivations are used in the New Testament, and four in the Septuagint, and these, so far as I have observed, being all the instances contained in both. By this examination, it is, to my apprehension, evident, that the following things are true : That the primary meaning of these terms is cleansing — the effect, not the mode, of washing ; that the mode is usually re- ferred to incidentally, whenever these words are mentioned, and that this is always the case, whenever the ordinance of baptism is mentioned, and a reference made, at the same time, to the mode of administration ; that these words, though often capable of denoting any mode of washing, whether by affu- sion, sprinkling, or immersion, (since cleansing was familiarly MODE OP BAPTISM. 47 Neo-Csesarea and the Council of Laodicea sanctioned such baptisms.* Now, I have two questions to ask, viz : 1st. If the Bible is a plain book, easily understood on all points of great importance ; and if, as Mr. Campbell affirms, our Lord did, in the most specific accomplished by the Jews in all these ways,) yet, in many instances, cannot, without obvious impropriety, be made to signify immersion ; and in others, cannot signify it at all." Theology, vol. 5, p. 331. Dr. Samuel Hopkins, one of the most eminent divines of New England, says : " As to the mode of baptism, and the form and manner of applying water in this ordinance to the person bap- tized, it does not appear to be decidedly fixed in the Scripture, whether it be by plunging, pouring on water, aspersion, or sprinkling. Each of these ways has been embraced and prac- ticed by different churches ; and some do insist, that plunging the person wholly under water is the only scriptural mode of baptism, and that none are really baptized, who are not thus plunged. But when the Scripture is carefully examined, it will not appear that this form of baptism was instituted by Christ, or practiced by the apostles ; or that the word in the original, translated baptism, or to baptize, invariably signifies plung- ing the whole body in water. This has been particularly con- sidered* and proved over and over again, by writers on this subject : therefore, their opinion and practice, with regard to baptism, seems to be most agreeable to Scripture, who think no particular form of applying water in baptism is prescribed there, by precept or example, or by anything that is there said on this point," etc. — Hopkins' System, vol. 2, p. 261. Authorities from the most eminent theologians might be mul- tiplied indefinitely j but these are sufficient to show the general opinion of learned Protestants. * Euseb. B., vi, ch. 43. 48 MODE OF BAPTISM. manner, command immersion ; Low shall we account for the fact, that all the ancient church and the over- whelming body of Christians in modern times, have so strangely misunderstood him ? Certainly, on this supposition all those professing Christians must be charged with a most amazing stupidity or perverse- ness. 2d. Is it not far more probable that modern im- mersionists have been misled by that common frailty of human nature which attaches undue importance to modes and forms, than that the whole Christian world besides, embracing multitudes of the eminently wise and good, should have failed to understand one of the plainest precepts ever given ? Mr. C. admits that such a prejudice induced Drs. Gill and Fuller, with multitudes of Baptists, to misunderstand and pervert an exceedingly plain historical narrrative in Acts, 19 : 1-5. I leave these questions for the reflection of the candid reader. LETTER n. Dear Sir : Immersionists, as we have seen, make very large demands upon our credulity, leaving us in doubt whether most to wonder at the amazing blind- ness which has prevented all other Christians from understanding one of the plainest precepts, or to MODE OF BAPTISM, 49 admire the perfect clearness with which, without any perceptible reason, they see what all the world besides never could see. The probability evidently is, that they are laboring under mistakes. Unwilling to rely, in defence of your views, upon the interpretation of the language of Inspiration, you have advanced what you call an a priori argu- ment. Baptism, you tell us, is " a positive ordi- nance," and, therefore, a specific action. Conse- quently, it was to be expected that it would be expressed by a specific term, which term is baptizo. Now, it is true that baptism is a positive ordinance ; but it is not true that every positive ordinance is an action. No ordinance, I admit, can be administered without the performance of one or more actions ; but it does not follow, either that an ordinance is an action, or that the same actions precisely must be in- variably performed in the administration of an ordi- nance. A watch cannot be made without the per- formance of certain acts ; but a watch is not a series of actions. The Passover was a positive ordinance, and so is the Lord's Supper, but who ever read or heard of the action of the Passover, or the action of the Lord's Supper ? Yet such language would be quite as proper as the action of baptism. Again, if baptism were an action, whenever that action is performed, baptism would be administered. Conse- quently, if any man, woman, or child, should plunge another into water, milk, oil, or any other fluid, 5* 50 MODE OF BAPTISM. whether in sport, anger, or in religious zeal, such individual would receive Christian baptism! You answer, no, the action must be performed by a proper person, upon a proper subject, in a proper fluid, in a proper name. So then it appears, that there are several other things as essential to baptism, to say the least, as the action ; and these things are the constituent parts of baptism. How absurd, then, to say, that baptism is an action ! It would be just as true to say, that baptism is water, or that baptism is the repetition of the prescribed formula, " in the name of the Father," etc. But you are confident that Jesus Christ " must have intended some particular action to be performed by his ministers, and submitted to by his people, in the command to baptize them ; " and you further think, that he must have expressed that action by one specific term. Therefore, you say, " It follows that he did select such a word, or that he could not, or would not, do it." Either of the last suppositions, viz : that he could not, or would not, select such a word, you are sure, would reflect injuriously upon the character of our Lord. In reply to this, let me inquire — 1st. How do you know that Jesus Christ must have intended some particular action to be performed ? Are you, or any other finite being, capable of decid- ing what Infinite Wisdom must have intended ? We can know his intentions only so far as he has ex- MODE OF BAPTISM. 51 pressed them ; and all such reasoning is both incon- clusive and dangerous. Let us remember "who has said, " My thoughts are not your thoughts ; neither are your ways my ways." If the opinion of the overwhelming majority of wise and good men be true, that the mode of applying the water in baptism is not of essential importance ; then, there is no reason to suppose, our Lord intended one particular action to be performed. You very quietly assume, without proof, one of the main points in debate, viz : that the mode of applying the water is essential ; and from this assumption you reason in favor of immer- sion ! 2d. But your reasoning is directly in the face of facts. It is a fact, that God has appointed positive ordinances, in the administration of which no par- ticular action was required — ordinances which might be administered in different modes. He said to Moses : " Aaron and his sons thou shalt bring unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and wash them there." * The word here translated wash, is rahatz, in the Septuagint, ouo , and you have said, " Washing is a generic term, under which sprinkling, pouring, dipping, may be specific terms." f You must admit, therefore, that Moses might have obeyed the command by using water in either of these modes. And yet, why may we not apply your logic here, and * Exod., 29 : 4. f Debate, p. 99. 52 MODE OF BAPTISM. say, God must have intended Moses to perform some particular action, and would, therefore, choose a word definitely expressing such action ; and, consequently, rahatz (wash) is a specific, not a generic term? The logic would be quite as good in the latter case, as in .the former ; but it would prove what you admit not to be true. Another positive ordinance very similar to this, is found in Num., 19: 19, where a man ceremonially unclean is commanded to " bathe himself in water." The word translated bathe, is rahatz, the literal translation of which is ivash ; and you will not pre- tend that either bathe or ivash expresses any definite action. Nor will you deny that bathing or wash- ing may be performed in different ways. In Deut. 21: 6, we find the following language: "And all the elders of that city that are next unto the slain man, shall wash their hands over the heifer," etc. You will not pretend that any definite action is here expressed by the word wash. Here, then, we have three positive ordinances (and others might easily be mentioned) in which no par- ticular action is commanded — ordinances in the ap- pointment of which God employed a generic term, expressing the thing to be done, but not the mode of doing it — ordinances which might be administered by sprinkling, pouring, or dipping. Why may not the same be true of baptism ? Who shall venture to assert, in the face of such facts, that every positive MODE OF BAPTISM. 53 ordinance is a definite action, which must be ex- pressed by a specific word ? 3d. But are not the probabilities in the other direc- tion? Baptism, you acknowledge, is constantly presented in the Scriptures as an ablution, a wash- ing. I have been quite interested in reading the following statement, which I find in your Christian Baptist for January 7th, 1828 : " In the outer court of the Jewish Tabernacle, there stood two important articles of furniture of most significant import : the brazen altar next to the door, and the layer between the brazen altar and the sanctuary. In this layer, filled with water, the priests, after they paid their devotion at the altar, as they came in, and before they approached the sanctuary, always washed themselves, etc. Paul, more than once, alludes to this usage in the Tabernacle in his epistles, and even substitutes Christian immersion in its place ; that is, Christian immersion stands in rela- tion to the same place in the Christian temple or worship, that the laver, or bath of purification, stood in the Jewish." etc. And in the succeeding number, you prove " that frequent allusions to baptism in the sacred epistles, represent it as an ablution ; " and you refer correctly to Eph. 5 : 26 ; Tit. 3:5; Heb. 10 : 22 ; 2 Peter 1 : 9. Now, if baptism is an ablution., a ivashing — if such is the meaning of the ordinance, is it not very probable that in instituting it, our Lord would 54 MODE OF BAPTISM. select a word expressive of its meaning ? He did so in appointing other ordinances. The word passover does not express any action to be performed, but the meaning of the ordinance. The word wash, and the word laver, as connected with the purification of the priests, express the meaning of the ordinance — a cleansing — not any action to be performed. And if baptism takes, in the Christian temple, the place of the washing in the Jewish temple ; and if it is constantly represented as a washing, is it not ex- ceedingly probable that the word baptize*, as used by the Jews in relation to their religious ablutions, sig- nified ivashing, cleansing, and that in this sense, it was employed by Christ and his apostles ? Thus we find the a priori argument decidedly against you. Let us now inquire more directly into the meaning of the word baptizo. And let our readers note particularly how much the immersionist must prove, before he can sustain his doctrine. 1. Suppose him to prove that the primary or original meaning of baptizo was to immerse, will it follow that such was its ordinary meaning when our Saviour was on earth ? No ; for words are con- stantly changing their meaning. Mr. Campbell him- self says : " A living language is continually chang- ing. Like the fashions and customs in apparel, words and phrases, at one time current and fashion- able, in the lapse of time become awkward and obsolete. But this is not all. Many of them, in a MODE OP BAPTISM. 55 century or two, come to have a signification very different from that "which was once attached to them. Nay, some are known to convey ideas not only differ- ent from, but contrary to, their first signification." * Mr. Carson, a learned and zealous Baptist, says : " A word may come to enlarge its meaning, so as to lose sight of its origin. This fact must be obvious to every smatterer in philology." f This rule is laid down by all writers on interpretation. When, there- fore, the immersionist has proved by the Lexicons, that the original meaning of baptizo was to im~ merse, he has done Tery little toward establishing his doctrine ; for the word had been long in use when our Saviour was on earth, and may have entirely changed its meaning. For instance, suppose an individual should insist that the word prevent, found in a book written half a dozen years ago, means to precede, or to come before', he might turn to all English Dic- tionaries, and triumphantly prove that such is its primary meaning. If he would turn to Johnson's large Dictionary, he would find to hinder given as the fifth meaning. What would be thought of such a man, if he should insist that the word, as used by a writer in our day, must be understood in its pri- mary sense? Mr. Campbell himself admits that, although two hundred years ago this word meant to precede, " now it is commonly used as equiv- * Pref. to N, Test., p. 1. f Mode of Baptism, p. 62. 56 MODS OF BAPTISM. alent to hinder." * (Preface to New Testament, p. 5.) 2. Suppose the immersionist to prove, that even in our Saviour's day, the word baptizo was used by pagan Greeks ordinarily in the sense of i?nmers- ing; would it follow, that the Jews employed it, with reference to religious ablutions, in the same sense? No ; for multitudes of Greek words are used in the Septuagint and in the New Testament in a sense in which they are never found in classic authors. On this point, the following declarations of Prof. Stuart are pertinent : " New Testament usage of the word, (baptizo,) * Ernesti, a learned linguist, says : " The primitive or proper signification, strictly understood, often becomes obsolete, and ceases, for a long period, to be used. In this case, the second- ary sense, which originally would have been the tropical one, becomes the proper one. This applies especially to the names of things. Hence, there are many words which, at present-, never have their original and proper sense-^such as etymology would assign them— but only the secondary senses, which may, in such cases, be called the proper sense," etc. In like manner, the tropical sense of certain words has become so common, by usage, that it is better understood than the original sense. In this case, too, we call the word proper; although, strictly and technically speaking, one might insist on its being called tropical. If one should, by his last will, give a library (bibliothecam) to another, we should not call the use of bibliotheca tropical ; although, strictly speaking, it is so, for bibliotheca originally meant the shelves or place where books are deposited." Professor Stuart says : " The literal sense (of words) is the MODE OF BAPTISM. 57 in cases not relevant to this rita, clearly does not entitle you (immerszonists) to such a conclusion with any confidence. If you say, ' The classical usage of the word abundantly justifies the construc- tion I have put upon it," my reply is, that classical usage can never be very certain in respect to the meaning of a word in the New Testament. Who does not know that a multitude of Greek words have received their .coloring and particular meaning from the Hebrew, and not from the Greek classics. Does theos, (God,) ouranos, (heaven,) sarx, (flesh,) pistis, (faith,) dikaiosune, (righteousness,) and other words almost without number, exhibit meanings which conform to the Greek classics ; or which, in several respects, can even be illustrated by them? Not at all. Then, how can you be over confident in same as the primitive or original sense ; or, at least, it is equiv- alent to that sense which has usurped the place of the original one. For example, the original sense of the word tragedy has long ceased to be current, and the literal sense of this word now, is that which has taken place of the original ." — Notes on Ernesti, p. 8. One of the chief defects in the arguments of immersionists, is the entire disregard of this most important principle of lan- guage. "When they have proved, as they suppose, that the primary meaning of baptizo is to immerse, they imagine them- selves entitled to the conclusion, that such was its meaning at the time when our Saviour and the apostles used it. And they quote Greek writers, without the slightest reference to the period in which they wrote. I have not observed a similar pro- ceeding in regard to any other word. 6 I 58 MODE OF BAPTISM. the application of £be classical meaning of bapttzG f when the word is employed in relation to a rite that is purely Christian ? Such a confidence is indeed common ; but it is not the more rational, nor the more becoming on that account." Dr. Campbell, of Scotland, who was favorable to immersion, lays down the same principle. He says :- " Though the New Testament is written in Greek, an acquaintance with the Greek classics, (that is, with the writings of profane authors in that tongue, m prose and verse,) will not be found so conducive to this end, [the understanding of its language,] as an acquaintance with the Hebrew Scriptures. I am far from denying that classical knowledge is, even for this purpose, of real utility. I say only, that it is not of so great utility as the other." Again : u How many meanings are given to the word sarx, flesh, in that sacred volume, for which you will not find a single authority in any profane writer." And after pointing out six meanings of the word, he adds : " Now, for any of the six meanings above men- tioned, except, perhaps, the first, as to which I will not be positive, we may defy those critics to produce classical authority." * Now, it is a fact, that the word baptizo was used by the pagan Greeks, not only with reference to water, but to any other fluids ; whilst the Jews never * Prelim. Dis. to Gospels, V. 1, pp. 3, 22, 23. MODE OF BAPTISM. 59 used it but with reference to water. It is likewise a fact, that the pagan Greeks never used the word with reference to any religious washing ; whilst the Jews, in their sacred writings, did constantly so use it. The usage of the word amongst pagan Greeks, therefore, proves nothing conclusively concerning its meaning amongst the Jews. If, then, the immersionist expects to prove his doctrine by this word, he must prove it by Bible usage , not hj pagan usage. If these positions are tenable, (and no scholar will controvert them,) a large part of the evidence relied on by immersionists will not avail them. If they prove by lexicons, that immerse was the pri- mary meaning of baptizo, the answer is, that words are constantly changing their meanings, so that but few are now used in their original sense. If they prove that pagan Greeks used it in the sense of im- mersing, the answer is, that they also used it in other senses ; and, moreover, the pagan usage proves nothing conclusively concerning its Jewish and Chris- tian usage. We must come to the Bible usage. But in our next, we propose to notice the lexicons and classics. 60 MODE OF BAPTISM. LETTER HI. Dear Sir : Let us keep in view the doctrine you have attempted to prove, viz : Not that immersion is the better or more Scriptural mode of administering baptism, but that immersion is the only Christian baptism. Against this doctrine, I have offered two arguments, viz: 1. That the whole Christian world, in ancient and modern times, with the exception of a comparative handful, are arrayed against it ; and it is far, very far, more probable that Immersionists have been mis- led by a very common weakness of human nature, than that all other Christians, even those who pre- ferred and practiced immersion, should have wholly misunderstood one of the very plainest precepts. 2. That the claims of exclusive immersion are defended upon the false assumption, that baptism ia a specific action. The very fact, that its advocates have felt obliged to take a position so glaringly un- Scriptural, is evidence of the weakness of the cause. Let us now examine your argument, founded upon the force of the word baptizo. This word, as you Correctly state, is a derivative from bapto. These two words, Dr. Gale, the learned Baptist contro- versialist, contended, " are insodunamai y exactly the same as to their signification." * Carson agreed • Wall's Hist. V. 3, p. 230. MODE OF BAPTISM, 61 with him, that, "as to mode or frequency, 5 ' they are identical in meaning.* But he contended, that while bapto has two meanings, viz: to dip and to dye, baptizo ha3 but one.f You agree with Mr. Carson, that bapto has two meanings — the one spe- cific, and the other generic. J We have here a very important principle conceded, viz : that a word which was originally specific — expressing a specific action — may become generic— expressing the thing done, without regard to any particular action, Bapto, you and Mr. Carson tell us, originally signified simply to dip. In process of time, it came to be commonly used to signify to dye in any mode, even by sprinkling. Mr. Carson says : *' From signifying to dip, it came to signify to dye by dipping, etc. And afterwards, from dyeing by dipping, it came to denote dyeing in any man- ner. A like process," he adds, " might be shown in the history of a thousand other words." Nay, he goes so far as to say: u Bapto signifies to dye by sprinkling, as properly as by dipping \ though originally it was confined to the latter." He goes farther, and denies that such applications of the word are metaphorical, as Dr. Gale asserts. " They are," says he, " as literal as the primary meaning. It is by extension of literal meaning, and not by * Mode of Bap., p. 13. f p. 13. | p. 130. 6* 62 MODE OF BAPTISM. figure of any kind, that words come to depart so far from their original signification." * From these admissions, the following important conclusions may be fairly drawn, viz : 1. If bapto, from signifying to dip, came to sig- nify to dye in any ?node, even by sprinkling ; and if this latter meaning is as proper and as literal as the former ; then by the same law of language, it might signify first, to dip in water, then to wet or ivash by dipping, then to wet or wash in any mode, even by sprinkling. We propose hereafter to prove that it has these latter meanings. 2. On the same principle precisely, baptizo, if it originally signified to dip, might come to signify to id ash by dipping, and to wash or cleanse in any mode ; and this latter meaning might be as proper and as literal as the former. We propose to prove that such is the truth in this case. 3. Thus we easily dispose of your rather amusing effort to prove, that the syllable bap always carries with it the idea of dipping. Hippocrates, speaking of the dropping of a coloring liquid on garments, says: "When it drops upon the garments, {bap- tetai,) they are dyed." Mr. Carson says: "This surely, is not dyeing by dipping." f We have seen that the overwhelming mass of Chris- tians differ from exclusive immersionists, concerning * pp, 60, 62, 64. f P- 60. MODE OF BAPTISM. 63 the ordinance of baptism, denying that it is a specific action, and holding that it may be validly adminis- tered in different modes. We now present a still more formidable fact, viz : All lexicographers are arrayed against their position, in relation to the words bapto and baptizo. You and Mr. Carson contend that bapto has only two meanings, viz: to dip and to dye. The lexicons all assign to it at least three meanings, and some give it four. Heder- icus, Scapula, Coulon, and Donnegan, give it three, viz: to dip, to dye, and to ivash, or cleanse. Schrivellius gives it these three, together with a fourth, viz : to draiv water. Ursinus gives it, to dip, to dye, to cleanse, to sprinkle. Groves gives it, to dip, to dye, to wash, to wet, moisten, sprinkle, steep, etc. Stephanus defines it, to dip, to dye, to ivash, cleanse. Schleusner defines it, to dip, to wash or cleanse by water.* * I copy from the Lexington Debate, the following definitions of the word bapto. I do so, because the lexicons here quoted are admitted to be of the highest authority, and because Mr. Campbell did not call in question the fairness of the quota- tions : Hedericus defines bapto thus : 1. Mergo, immergo. 2. Tin- go, intingo. 3. Lavo, etc. — to immerse, to plunge, to dye, to wash, etc. Scapula — Mergo, immergo — item tingo — inficere, imbuere— item lavo — to immerse, to plunge j also to stain, dye, color $ also to wash. Coulon — MergOj tingo, abluo — to immerse, to dye, to cleanse. 64 MODE OF BAPTISM. These lexicons you have have pronounced u the most learned and most competent witnesses in this case in the world." Of their authors, you have tes- tified, that " these gentlemen are, and of right ought to be, inductive philosophers." You have even said, " There is no opposing these lexicons." * Yet they, with entire unanimity, testify against Mr. Carson and you, that bapto has more than two meanings. They, doubtless, are in the right, and you in the wrong. But I must not omit to notice the testimony of Professor Stuart, your " American Apostle," whom you quote as " the highest source of American the- ological authority." f He assigns to bapto the fol- Ursinus— To dip, to dye, to wash, to sprinkle, (abluo, as- pergo.) Schrivellius — Mergo, intingo, lavo, haurio, etc. — to dip, to dye, to wash, to draw water. Groves— To dip, plunge, immerse, to wash, to wet, moisten, sprinkle, to steep, imbue, to dye, etc. Ponnegan — To dip, to plunge into water, to submerge, to wash, to dye, to color — to wash, etc. These lexicons all agree in assigning to bapto three mean- ings, viz: To to immerse or dip, to dye or color, to wash. One of these is specific, the others are generic, expressing the thing done, but not the mode of doing it. Some of these lex- icons give additional meanings, such as to moisten, to wet, to sprinkle. How can the action of immersion be prroved by the force of a word which has such a variety of meanings ? Im- mersionists are at war with all the lexicons. • Debate, pp. 58 3 78. t P- 126. MODE OF BAPTISM. 65 lowing meanings, viz : 1. To dip, to plunge. 2. To dip out. 3. To dye. 4. To smear, bathe by the application of liquid to the surface. 5. To wash, i. c, to cleanse by the use of water. 6. To moisten, wet, bedew. Here are six meanings ; and yet you allow only two! You will find it no very easy task, Mr. Campbell, to sustain your cause against all the lexicons and your " American Apostle!" Their testimony, fairly presented, is strongly against you. But the lexicons are equally clear in their testi- mony against the immersionist view of baptizo — the word used by our Saviour in instituting the ordinance of baptism." " Baptizo," you say, " indicates a specific action, and, consequently, as such, can have but one meaning. For if a person or thing can be immersed in water, oil, milk, honey, sand, earth, debt, grief, affliction, spirit, light, or darkness, etc., it is a word indicating specific action, and specific action only." * Mr. Carson says : " My position is, that it always signifies to dip, never expressing anything but mode." But he had the candor to say further: " Now, as I have all the lexicographers and commentators against me in this opinion, it will be necessary to say a word or two with respect to the authority of lexicons." f Here we have before us an edifying discrepancy between two learned cham- *pp. 118, 119. tP-79. 66 MODE OF BAPTISM. pions of immersion — Mr. Carson defending the cause against all the lexicographers, and Mr. Camp- bell triumphantly appealing to the lexicographers in support of it! How happens this? Did Mr. Car- son misunderstand the lexicons ? or has Mr. Camp- bell perverted their testimony ? We shall see. We may, however, say in advance, that it is not probable that Mr. Carson, whilst searching for testimony, mistook the advocates of his cause for opponents. You begin your quotations from lexicons with "the venerable Scapula." He, as you admit, defines baptizo to dip, to immerse ; also to submerge ; also to wash, to cleanse. Stephanus agrees with Scap- ula. The Thesaurus of Robertson, which you pro- nounce the most comprehensive dictionary you have ever seen, defines baptizo by two words, viz : mergo and lavo — to immerse and to ivash. Schleusner defines it, first, to immerse in water ; and secondly, to wash, or cleanse with water, {abluo, lavo, aqua pur go.) Pasor, whose testimony Mr. Campbell does not give fairly, defines it both to immerse and to wash — abluo, lavo. Hedericus gives the same definitions. Bretschneider, who, as you justly say, is " said to be the most critical lexicographer of the New Testament," gives the general meaning thus : Proprie, saepius intingo, ssepius lavo; deinde 1) lavo abluo, simpliciter, etc. — cum sig. med : lavo me, abluo me, etc., 2) immergo in aquas, etc. — Properly often to immerse, often to wash ; then to MODE OF BAPTISM. 67 wash, cleanse, simply ; in the middle voice, I -wash, I cleanse myself, etc., 2.) To immerse in -water, etc. Suidas not only defines it to immerse, but to wet, wash, cleanse, (madefacio, lavo, abluo, purgo, mundo.) Stokius defines it both to immerse and to wash. Robinson defines it to immerse, to sink ; but in the New Testament, first, to wash, to cleanse by washing.* * The following definitions of baptizo, by the most cele- brated lexicons, I copy from my first speech in the Lexington Debate : Scapula, one of the old lexicographers to whom Mr. C. ap- pealed, thus defines the word baptizo : " Mergo, seu immergo ; Item tingo : ut quae tingendi aut abluendi gratia immergimus — Item mergo, submergo, obruo aqua ; Item abluo, lavo, (Mark 7, Luke 11,) — to dip or immerse ; also to dye, as we immerse things for the purpose of coloring or washing them ; also, to plunge, submerge, to cover with water ; also, to cleanse, to wash." (Mark 7, Luke 11.) Baptismos, he thus defines: " Mersio, lotio, ablutio, ipse immergendi, item lavandi seu abluendi ac- tus." (Mark 7, etc.) Immersion, washing, cleansing, the act itself of immersing; also of washing, or cleansing,. (Mark 7, etc.) Hedericus thus defines baptizo : 1. " Mergo, immergo, aqua abruo. 2. Abluo, lavo. 3. Baptizo, significatu sacro" — To dip, immerse, to cover with water ; 2. To cleanse, to wash ; 3. To baptize in a sacred sense. Stephanus defines it thus : " Mergo, seu immergo, ut quae tingendi aut abluendi gratia aqua immergimus — Mergo, sub- mergo, obruo aqua; abluo, lavo" — To dip, immerse, as we immerse things for the purpose of coloring or washing ; to merge, submerge, to cover with water ; to cleanse, to wash. Schleusner defines baptizo, not only to plunge, immerse, 68 MODE OP BAPTISM. What, then, is the amount of the evidence from the lexicons ? With remarkable unanimity, they give to baptizo at least two meanings, viz : to immerse and to wash. Some of them give a third — to wet. One of these meanings expresses specific action, the other two, viz : to wash and to wet, are generic, expressive of the thing done, and not of the mode of doing it. How much do the lexicons prove in favor of the exclusive claims of immersion ? Most of them favor the opinion, that immerse was the -primary or original meaning of baptizo. But since it is acknowledged, not only that almost all words have more than one meaning, but that mul- titudes of words have entirely lost their original meaning, the question arises, (and this question the but to cleanse, wash, to purify with water ; (abluo, lavo, aqua purgo.) Parkharst defines it : " To immerse in or wash with water in token of purification." Robinson defines it : " To immerse, to sink ; for example, spoken of ships, galleys, etc. In the New Testament, to wash, to cleanse by washing; to wash one's self, to bathe, perform ablution," etc. Schrivellius defines it: " Baptizo, mergo, abluo, lavo — to bap- tize, to immerse, to cleanse, to wash." Groves: "To dip, immerse, immerge, plunge; to wash, to cleanse, purify — Baptizomai, to wash one's self, bathe," etc. Bretschneider : " Propria? sepius intingo, sepius lavo ; deinde (1) lavo, abluo simpliciter — medium, etc ; lavo me, abluo me : " properly often to dip, often to wash; then (1) simply to wash, to cleanse ; in the middle voice, " I wash or cleanse myself." Suidas defines baptizo, not only to sink, plunge, immerse, but MODE OF BAPTISM. 69 lexicons do not settle,) whether the Saviour and the apostles used this word in its original sense. The lexicons all give to baptizo another meaning, which is generic, viz: to wash or cleanse^ without regard to mode. How are we to ascertain the meaning of a word in any particular case ? Mr. Campbell gives the following rule: "If it have but one meaning, testimony or the dictionary decides it at once ; but if it have more meanings than one, the proximate words used in construction with it, usually called the context, together with the design of the speaker or writer, must decide its meaning."* The lexicons tell to wet, wash, cleanse, purify, etc., (madefacio_ lavo, abluo. purgo, mundo.) Wahl defines it, first : To wash, perform ablution., cleanse j secondly, to immerse, etc. Greenfield defines it : To immerse, immerge, submerge, sink | and in the New Testament, to wash, perform ablution, cleanse 5 to immerse. In his first speech. Mr. Campbell quoted the Thesaurus of Robertson, of which he said : " It is the most comprehensive dictionary I have ever seen;" and again : "His definitions are generally regarded as the most precise and accurate." Mr. Campbell says : f: He defines baptizo by only two words — ■ mergo and lavo." One of these words is specific, signifying to immerse; the other is generic, signifying to wash, ex- pressing the thing done, but not the mode of doing it. For it is admitted that washing may be performed by pouring, as well as by immersion. So that " the most precise and accurate lexicographer" is against immersionists, who assert that eaptizo has but one meaning. * Chris. Restored, pp. 24, 25, T 70 MODE OF BAPTISM. us, contrary to the assertion of Mr. Campbell, that this word has more than one meaning ; and Mr. Campbell himself tells us, correctly, that in all such cases the context, etc., must determine which of its meanings any word has in any given case. For example, when it is said, that " the feet of the priests who bore the ark in crossing Jordan, were dipped in the brim of the water," * the context leaves no doubt in what sense the word bapto is used. And when Hippocrates says of a coloring fluid, " when it drops upon the garments, (baptetai,) they are dyed," the meaning is equally plain. Just so, we must ascertain from the passages in which baptizo occurs in the Bible, in what sense it is used. But Mr. Campbell says: "We have, then, the unanimous testimony of all the distinguished lex- icographers known in Europe and America, that the proper, and everywhere current signification of bap- tizo, the word chosen by Jesus Christ in the com- mission to his apostles, is to dip, plunge, or immerse; and that any other meaning is tropical, rhetorical, or fanciful." This statement is wholly incorrect. The lexicons, most of them, give immerse or plunge as the original meaning of the word : but they do not say that this is the " everywhere current signifi- cation." On the contrary, they assert, that it has other meanings, and most of them find those other * Josh. % : 15. MODE OF BAPTISM. 71 meanings in the Bible. They do not say that any other meaning is " tropical, rhetorical, or fanciful." Almost every lexicon defines the word to wash in a literal sense. The word tropical, as used by critics with reference to the meaning of words, means merely secondary. Thus, the tropical meaning of the word prevent is to hinder ; its original or literal meaning, to come before. In this sense, to wash may be the tropical meaning of bajitizo. But as a man would make himself ridiculous by contend- ing that the word prevent, in a legal document writ- ten a few years since, must mean to come before, simply because such was its original meaning ; so does Mr. C. render himself equally ridiculous, when he contends, that because the original meaning of baptizo was to immerse, therefore our Saviour used it in that sense. He here very quietly assumes, what every scholar knows to be untrue, and what he him- self has elsewhere declared untrue, that the orig- inal meaning of the word must, of course, be its true meaning in all time and in all cases. But he says : " It is with the proper and unfigura- tive, and not with the fanciful and rhetorical mean- ing of words, we have to do, in all positive institu- tions ; " and he quotes Blackstone as follows : " The words of a law are generally to be understood in their usual and most known significations — not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use," etc. All true ; but what 72 MODE OF BAPTISM. is " the proper and unfigurative meaning of words ? " Is it uniformly or commonly their original or literal meaning ? Mr. Campbell shall answer the question. He quotes, with approbation, the following from Professor Stuart: "The literal sense (of a word) is the same as the primitive or oiginal sense ; or, at least, it is equivalent to that sense which has usurped the place of the original one. For example, the original sense of the word tragedy has long ceased to be current ; and the literal sense of this word now, is that which has taken the place of the original one. 5 '* The proper and literal meaning of a word, therefore, is that meaning which is most commonly assigned to it; and, accordingly, Black- stone does not say, that words are to be understood in their original or primary sense, but in " their usual and most known signification."' Now, we maintain, and are prepared to prove, that to ivash, cleanse , was the usual and most known signification of baptizo among the Jews, when our Saviour in- stituted baptism. But suppose we try Mr. Campbell's precept of adhering to the " proper, original, and primitive sense " of words in the interpretation of laws. Blackstone mentions a law, which forbade any man " to lay hands on a priest;" and another, which enacted, " that whoever drew blood in the streets, *Chris. Restored, p. 26. MODE OF BAPTISM. 73 should be punished with the utmost severity." There was a long debate, whether this latter law extended to a surgeon who opened the vein of a person that fell down in the street in a fit. According to Mr. Campbell's principle of interpretation, the doctor must have suffered. Or perhaps he might have escaped on the ground that the original meaning of the word draw is to pull along ; and then the man who hauled a load of slaughtered hogs through the streets, would have incurred the penalty ! There was a law in England, forbidding " all ecclesiastical persons to purchase provisions at Rome." Now, since the primary meaning of the word provision is, " the act of providing beforehand," what would be the meaning of the law, interpreted according to Mr. Campbell's principles ? Usage, as all interpreters maintain, must determine the meaning of words. The lexicons, then, not only afford the cause of immersion no assistance ; they actually contradict the position which exclusive immersionists have felt constrained to take, viz : that haptizo is a specific word, and has but one meaning. They declare, that though it sometimes expresses the act of immersion, it also expresses cleansing without regard to mode. They prove nothing in favor of immersion. 7* MODE OF BAPTISE LETTER IV. Dear Sin : We have offered three arguments against the doctrine, that immersion is the only Christian baptism, viz : I. The utmost universal voice of Christendom, in ancient and in modern times, is against it. Almost all those who have practiced immersion, and those who have practiced pouring or sprinkling, have un- derstood the Scriptures to teach, that the ordinance' of baptism is one thing, and the mode of adminis- tration another ; and that the latter is not essential to the former. II. The unscriptural position to which exclusive immersionists have been driven — that baptism is an action-^ — affords presumptive evidence against them. The defense of the truth is not likely to drive its advocates into serious error. III. The lexicons, admitted to be very high author- ity, with remarkable unanimity testify against the position of immersionists — that baptizo has but one meaning, and expresses specifically the action of immersing. They give to bapto, the root, three or four meanings, only one of which expresses specific action, the others being generic ; and to baptizo, they give two, three, or more meanings — to dip, sink, plunge — to wash, cleanse with water — to wet, etc, Of these meanings, only the first is specific ; MODE OP BAPTISM. 75 the others express the thing done, but not the mode of doing it. If the lexicons give dip as the pri- mary or original meaning of the word, this proves nothing for immersion, because it is admitted that words are constantly changing their meaning ; and very many of them have entirely lost their original meaning. The testimony of the lexicons, therefore, is decidedly unfavorable to the exclusive doctrine you advocate — inasmuch as they make baptizo a generic term, expressing washing or cleansing in any mode, as well as a specific term, expressing immersion. Immersionists affirm that this word has but one meaning ; and, therefore, it definitely requires the action of immersing. The lexicons declare that it has more than one meaning, and is often a generic term. Now, the question arises : In which of these senses did our Saviour employ it ? Did he use it in the specific sense of dipping, or in the generic sense of washing, cleansing ? As we have stated hereto- fore, baptism is represented in the Scriptures as an ablution ; and this fact you have not only admitted, but asserted. It is probable, therefore, that our Lord used the word baptizo in the sense of washing, thus expressing the design of the ordinance. But it has been proposed to settle this question by ascertaining what meaning the pagan Greeks assigned to the words bapto and baptizo. We are prepared to go into this inquiry, and to prove that what is 76 MODE OF BAPTISM. called classic usage does not sustain the claims of exclusive immersion. 1. As to bapto, Mr. Carson admits that it signi- fies, not only to dip, but to dye in any manner, even by sprinkling, and that this latter meaning is as literal and proper as the former. He gives the fol- lowing amongst other examples : Homer, in his Battle of Frogs and Mice, says — " He (the frog) breath- less fell, and the lake (ebapteto) was baptized with his blood." Strangely enough, Dr. Gale ear- nestly contended that the literal sense is, " the lake was dipped in blood; 55 but he adds, "the figure only means, it was colored as highly as anything that is dipped in blood. 55 This perversion was too glar- ing ; and, therefore, Mr. Carson went so far as to give up the idea of dipping in this passage. But unwilling to admit anything in favor of pouring or sprinkling, he placed the passage on the neutral list, contending that it " favors neither the one party nor the other, 55 but signifies u dyeing without refer- ence to mode. 55 It is impossible, however, to evade the conclusion, that bapto expresses the application of a fluid by dropping or sprinkling. Aristotle speaks of a substance which, being pressed, {baptei) baptizes the hand. "Surely, 55 says Carson, "there is no reference to dipping here. 55 Aristophanes says : " Magnes, an old comic of Athens, used the Lydian music, shaved his face, and baptized (baptomenos) his face with tawny washes. 55 " Now, surely," says MODE OF BAPTISM. 77 Carson, " baptomenos here has no reference to its primary meaning. Nor is it used figuratively. The face of the person was rubbed with the wash. By anything implied or referred to in this example, it could not be known that bapto ever signifies to dip." * The word bapto also signifies to wash with water, without regard to mode. Aristophanes says : ''First, they wash (baptousi) the wool in warm water, according to the old custom." The lexicographers — Suidas and Phavorinus — says Professor Stuart, in- interpret the word here, by plunoicsi, they wash or wash out. He adds: " This shade of meaning is not unfrequent in the sacred writers, though seldom, so far as I have been able to discover, to be met with in profane writers." Bapto is also used frequently by profane, as well as sacred writers, in the sense of partial dipping or wetting. Suidas speaks of a person scourged before the tribunal — " and flowing with blood, hav- ing wetted (bapsas) the hollow of his hand, he sprinkles it on the judgment seat." This can scarcely be regarded as even a partial dipping. iElian speaks of dipping (bapsas} a crown of roses into ointment. The idea of immersion here is out of the question. An odoriferous ointment was put upon the crown to increase its fragrance. Jamblicus, in his life of * Mode of Baptism, p. 64. 78 MODE OF BAPTISM. Pythagoras, speaks of one of his directions to his disciples, not to dip or wash in the perirantarion, (embaptein.) Mr. Carson admits, that the peri- rantarion was too small for dipping the body ; and he would save the cause of immersion by supplying a very lengthy elipsis, as follows : " Do not dip the sprinkling instrument, in order to purify ! " That j?urification is the thing referred to, Mr. Carson acknowledges ; but he insists on a most extraordinary elipsis to avoid the plain truth, that bajjto is here used in a generic sense, without reference to mode. Mr. Carson quotes from Hippocrates the following : " Taking lead and the magnetic stone, rub them smooth, and tie them in a rag ; then having dipped (embapsas} them in breast milk, apply them." Can any one doubt that what was required, was simply to wet the rag containing the lead and stone with breast milk? But as we have seen that the usage of pagans is a very uncertain guide in determining the meaning of a word amongst the Jews, which was used to express a religious truth, or designate a religious ordinance, let us examine the word bapto, as it is used in the Bible. It occurs frequently in the Old Testament, but very rarely in the sense of immers- ing — more generally in the sense of partial dip- Jiing, moistening, wetting. In Levit. 14: 6, in the law concerning the cleansing of the leper, it is directed that two birds shall be taken, one of which MODE OF BAPTISM. 79 shall be killed in an earthen vessel over running water: " xis for the living bird, he shall take it 5 and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hys- sop, and shall dip them (bapsei) and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water." Here immersion was absolutely impossible. In several instances, the preposition (apo) which follows bapto, proves that it is not used in the sense of dipping. " The priest shall moisten (bap set) his finger apo ton aimatos — from or by means of the blood of the bullock." * " And he shall mois- ten (bapsei) his right finger with (apo) the oil." f " And moistening (the bundle of hyssop) with the blood, (bapsantes apo tou aimatos" J) When the reader remembers that the word apo is the same which in Matt. 3: 16, is translated " out of" — a translation quite pleasing to immersionists — he will be satisfied that the idea of immersion cannot be admitted. Things may be immersed into a fluid ; but certainly they cannot be immersed from or out of a fluid. But the most difficult passage with which immer- sionists have to contend, is in Dan. 4: 25-33, where it is said, Nebuchadnezzar was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet ivith (ebaphe apo) the dew of heaven. Two very stub- * Lev. 4: 17. f Lev. 14 : 16. f Exod. 12 ; 22. 80 MODE OF BAPTISM. born difficulties here present themselves, viz : 1st. To discover how a man could be plunged or im- mersed into dew ; and 2d. To see how such immer- sion could be expressed by the words ebaphe apo— immersed from dew. Drs. Gale and Cox contended that the inspired writer referred to the copiousness of the dews in that country, and that he intended to say, that Nebuchadnezzar was as wet as if he had been dipped in deiv. u It does not," says Dr. Cox, " imply the manner in which the effect was produced, but the effect itself — not the mode by which the body of the King was wetted, but its con- dition, as resulting from exposure to the dew of heaven. 5 ' But Mr. Carson thought that, in giving such an interpretation of the word, the point was given up in favor of the Pedo-baptist. " Without doubt," says he, " the verb expresses mode here as well as anywhere else. To suppose the contrary, gives up the point at issue, as far as mode is con- cerned. This, in fact, makes bapto signify simply to ivet, without reference to mode."* He pleads for poetic license, in order to make Daniel say that Nebuchadnezzar was immersed in dew. " A soul- less critic," says he, u will reply, ' there was here no literal immersion ; the word cannot, then, be used in that sense.' Were we to pass through the poets, conforming their language to this observa- # p. 45, MODE OF BAPTISM. 81 tlon, what havoc should we make of their beauties: How dull and lifeless would become their animated expressions ! " * Mr. Campbell agrees with Mr. Car- son in regarding the expression u as rhetorically, poetically, or, if you please, symbolically, pictur- esque, and graphic;" and he thinks the immortal Milton " caught his bold and beautiful flight from this passage, in which he sings— * A cold shuddering dew dips me all over.' '' Now, unfortunately for these gentlemen, Daniel was not writing poetry ; neither was he making any display of rhetoric; nor was he talking symboli- cally ; nor yet was he telling, in hyperbolical lan- guage, how very ivet Nebuchadnezzar was, whilst exposed to the open skies. He was giving a per- fectly plain narrative of facts in the history of that king. The attempt, therefore, to sustain the cause of immersion by converting simple narrative into one of the boldest flights of poetry, only proves the more clearly how impossible it is to sustain it at all. To the unprejudiced mind, it is clear, beyond a doubt, that the word bapto is here used in the gen- eral sense of wetting, and of wetting by the gentle distillation of dew. Another passage has presented serious difficulty in the way of immersionists : " And he was clothed | pp. 42, 43, 82 MODE OF BAPTISM. with a vesture dipped (bebammenon) in blood. 55 * The idea is that of a warrior whose garments have been, in the conflict, sprinkled or stained with the blood of his enemies. It is a remarkable fact, that Origen, the most learned of the Greek fathers, citing this passage almost verbatim , has the word errantismenon, sprinkled, instead of bebamme~ non. It is a fact of even greater importance, (and it is stated by Dr. Gale,) that the Syriac and iEthiopic versions, " which for their antiquity/ 5 says Dr. Gale, " must be thought almost as valuable and authentic as the original itself, being made from primitive copies, in or very near the times of the apostles, 55 translated tne word bapto here by a word signifying to sprinkle. The Latin Vulgate also has it aspersa, sprinkled, with blood. There are but two ways of accounting for these facts, viz : 1st. By supposing that the word rantizo was the true read- ing, and that the text was afterwards corrupted by inserting the word bapto, and, therefore, Origen quoted it thus, and the authors of those versions gave a corresponding translation. 2. By admitting that Origen and those translators understood the word bapto, in this passage, as meaning to sprinkle. The first supposition is adopted by Dr. Gale and Mr. Campbell ; but there is not one particle of evidence in support of it. It is not pretended that a single * Rev. 9 : 12 MODE OF BAPTISM. 83 copy of the Greek Testament, ancient or modern, has the reading which these gentlemen have imag- ined. It may be noted as an evidence of the burning zeal of some of the leading advocates of immersion, that they have been willing to alter the word of God, in order to sustain their peculiar views ! Mr. Carson, however, could not venture on a step so desperate. After noticing Dr. Gale's reasons for believing the text corrupted, he says : li These reasons, however, do not, in the least, bring the common reading into suspicion in my mind, and I will never adopt a reading to serve a purpose." * It is evident, then, that Origen and the translators of the Syriac, the iEthiopic and Yulgate versions, did believe that in this passage bapto means to sprinkle. And they, let it be noted, lived in an age when, if we are to believe the advocates of immer- sion, all Christians were decided immersionists. Be- sides, they lived when the Greek was a living language, which they were accustomed to read and hear constantly. We may -admire the prudence displayed by Mr. Campbell, in his late work, in passing these two very difficult passages without remark. In the Lexington Debate, they gave him trouble. In the work we are now reviewing, he has thought it wise not to attempt to meet the difficulties again, but rather to keep them out of view. p. 37 84 MODE OF BAPTISM. We may now leave the candid reader to decide, whether the action of immersion can be proved from the force of bapto — a word signifying sometimes a complete submersion ; sometimes a partial dipping ; sometimes dyeing in any mode ; sometimes wetting or moistening ; sometimes sprinkling. It is some- times specific; oftener it expresses that which is done, either dyeing, or wetting, or washing, without regard to mode. In our next, we propose briefly to examine the usage of Pagan, Jewish, and Christian writers, in regard to the word baptizo. LETTER Y. Dear Sir : The cause of immersion gains nothing by the authority of the lexicons, or by general usage of the word bapto. Let us now inquire into the meaning of baptizo, as used by the profane Greeks and the Jews. 1. It is frequently used in the sense of sinking. Strabo, speaking of a lake near Agrigentum, says : " Things that elsewhere cannot float, do not sink?* (baptizesthai.) Again, he says of a certain river: " If one shoots an arrow into it, the force of the water resists it so much, that it will scarcely sink?* {baptizesthaL) Hippocrates > says Carson, applies MODE OF BAPTISM. 85 it to a ship sinking by being overburdened — " Shall I not laugh at the man who baptises or sinks his ship by overburdening it," etc., (baptisonta.) Dio- dorus Siculus applies it to the sinking of beasts carried away by a river — < ' The most of land animals being caught by the river, sinking, perish," (bap- tizomena.) Josephus frequently uses the word in the same sense, as, for example: " After this mis- fortune of Cestius, many of the Jews of distinction left the city, as people swim away from a sinking ship," (baptizomenes .) Again, speaking of the storm that threatened the destruction of the ship which carried Jonah, he says : " When the ship was on the point of sinking" etc., {baptizesthai.} Indeed, in much the larger number of examples quoted by immersionists, the word means, and is translated, to sink. 2, Baptizo is used to signify the overflowing of land by the tide. Aristotle says : " The Phoenicians, who inhabit Cadiz, relate, that sailing beyond Her- cules' Pillars, in four days, with the wind at East, they came to a land uninhabited, whose coast was full of sea- weeds, and not baptized (baptizesthai) at ebb ; but when the tide comes in, it is wholly covered, 5 ' etc. This passage will not suit Mr. Camp- bell ; for he is laboring to prove, that baptizo expresses the specific action of immersing; but even he will scarcely contend that the land was plunged into the water. He, therefore, sets this a* 86 MODE OF BAPTISM. down as an example of the figurative use of the word, and translates it overflowed! Now, Mr. Campbell, by what principle of language do you make the overfloiving of land figurative plunging or immersing ? Dr. Gale tried to escape in ano- ther way. He says: "Besides, the word baptizo, perhaps, does not so necessarily express the action of putting under water, as in genera] a thing's being in that condition, no matter how it comes so, whether it is put into the water, or the water comes over it," etc.* Now, this admission is fatal to the great argument on which immersionists rely for the support of their cause, viz : that baptizo is a specific word, definitely expressing the action of putting under water. For, if Dr. Gale is right, then if a person were covered with water by pouring, he would be baptized. But Mr. Carson says of Nebuchad- nezzar : " If all the water in the ocean had fallen on him, it would not have been a literal immer- sion." t He, therefore, admires the beautiful figure which he finds in this passage, whilst the equally learned Dr. Gale contents himself with the remark,, that u the place makes nothing at all for our ad- versaries." 3. Bajjtizo is used in the sense of wetting, by the application of a fluid to the substance. Hippo- crates directed that a blister plaster should be mois- * Wall's Hist., V. 3, p. 122. t PP> U» 44. MODE OF BAPTISM. 87 tened (bapsas) with the oil of roses; and if it should be too painful, it should be baptized again (baptizein) with breast milk and Egyptian oint- ment." No one can believe that the word is here used in the sense of immersing. The blister plas- ter was simply to be moistened or wetted with breast milk. In the Lexington Debate, we tried in vain to get the attention of Mr. Campbell to this passage ; and in his late book, he prudently omits all reference to it. In Num. 19: 17, 18, we find the following law: " And for an unclean person, they shall take of the ashes of a burnt heifer of purifica- tion for sin, and running water shall be put thereto in a vessel ; and a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip in the water, and sprinkle it in the tent," etc. Josephus, giving an account of this ceremony, says, they baptized {baptizantes} the ashes with the spring of water. * Mr. Carson says, by way of saving the cause of immersion, " The Septuagint directs that the water shall be poured upon the ashes into a vessel. Josephus relates the fact, as if the ashes were thrown into the water ! " f A case somewhat similar to these is found in Homer's Iliad, where Ajax is described killing Cleobulus : " He struck him across the neck with his heavy sword, and the whole sword became warm with the blood." Pseudo-Bydimus says, the sword was bap- * Antiq.,B. 4,c. 4. \ p. 92. 88 MODE OF BAPTISM. tized (ebaptisthe) with the blood; and Dionysius says: " Homer expresses himself with the greatest energy, signifying that the sword was so baptized (baptisthentes) with blood, that it was even heated by it.'" The action of immersing is not found here. Plutarch relates, that a Roman general, a little before he died of his wound, " set up a trophy, on which, having baptized (baptisas) his hand with blood, he wrote this inscription,-"' etc. Every reader can judge for himself, whether he immersed his hand in his blood, in order to write. So far, then, as classic usage is concerned, bap- tizo evidently has the following meanings, viz : to sink, to immerse, to moisten or wet in any man- ner. Let us now inquire how this word was used by the Jews, in relation to religious ordinances. Let it be noted, 1st. That in the sacred writings of the Jews, baptizo is never used with reference to any fluid but water. 2d. That it is used exclusively with reference to religious washings or purifications, never in relation to ordinary matters ; and 3d. That according to the unanimous opinion of interpreters and critics, the meaning of the word, as used to designate Christian baptism, must be learned chiefly from the usage of the Jews. As we have already shown, classic usage is no certain reliance on such a question, inasmuch as the Jews did not speak or write classic Greek, and inasmuch as they certainly appropriated the word baptizo to designate those MODE OF BAPTISM. 89 religious ablutions of which the Pagan Greeks knew nothing. The first instance in which the word is used in the Bible, is in 2 Kings, 5 : 14. In this instance, the meaning, it is possible, is to immerse. Elisha directed Naaman, the Syrian leper, to " go and wash in Jor- dan seven times ; and he went down and dipped himself seven times." The Hebrew word is tabal. But even here, Jerome, who will not be suspected of any leaning toward pouring or sprinkling, trans- lates it by the word lavo, to wash — " Descendit, et lavit in Jordane," etc. Uaptizo is twice found in the Apocryphal books. These examples serve to show in what sense it was used by the Jews, in rela- tion to religious ablutions. Of Judith, 12 : 5, it is said : < ' She went out by night and washed (ebaptizeto) herself in the camp at the fountain of water." Did Judith immerse herself ? The following evidences are conclusive against such a supposition, viz : 1. She was a Jewess ; and no law of Moses required immersion, in order to purifica- tion. That law, in some instances, required wash- ing, but not immersion. The Hebrew word used is rahatz, to wash, which is sometimes translated bathe, but never dip. 2. It is most improbable that a chaste female would immerse herself in a military camp. 3. She baptized herself at a fountain or spring. To suppose that she immersed herself in a spring, is simply ridiculous. 4. Besides, the Ian- 90 MODE OF BAPTISM. guage forbids the idea. It is not said she baptized herself in or into the spring, but at {epi) it. The preposition epi never means in or into. Mr. Car- son, however, not discouraged by these difficulties, escapes them all, by simply guessing that there were " stone troughs or other vessels," usually pro- vided at fountains for washing clothes and bathing ! Mr. Campbell more prudently connects with this another passage, and hurries away, with the general remark, that " these instances constitute no excep- tion from the established meaning of the word in classic and common use ! " A figure of speech, a bold conjecture, or a prudent silence, is quite suffi- cient to deliver our immersionist friends from all their troubles ! Baptizo is used in Eccl. 31: 25 : " He that is baptized after touching a dead body, {baptizome- nos ajjo nekrou,') if he touch it again, what is he profited by his washing?" (Zontro.) The reader will immediately notice the fact, that the word bap- tizomenos is here used in precisely the same sense as loutro ; and no one denies that this latter word signifies washing in any mode. Now, if he will turn to Num. 19: 16, where the law is instituted to which reference is here made, he will find sprinkling required, but not immersion. Mr. Campbell, in- deed, says, according to this law, " the unclean was never cleansed until he bathed himself in water." But he cannot be ignorant of the fact, MODE OF BAPTISM, 91 tliat the word translated bathe {rahatz) signifies to wash in any mode ; and, consequently, no immer- sion was required. How was it possible, for exam- ple, that immersion could have been practiced during the forty years sojourn in the wilderness , during which time this law was in full force ? In the New Testament, bapiizo and baptismos are used several times with reference to the religious washings of the Jews, and in every instance in such connection as to forbid the idea of immersion. In Mark, 7: 3, 4, we read: " For the Pharisees and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market, except they wash, (or baptize — eanme bajitisontai) they eat not." Dr. Gale earnestly insisted that both in this passage and in Luke 11 : 38, the word baptizo means " wash the hands by dipping.' 5 This seems to have been the opinion of Mr. Campbell in years past ; for his translation of the New Testament gives the follow- ing rendering of Mark, 7: 3, 4: " For the Phari- sees, and indeed all the Jews who observed the tradition of the elders, eat not until they have washed their hands by pouring a little water upon them ; and if they be come from the market, by dipping them." This we are constrained to regard as one of the most reckless perversions of the word of God with which we have ever met. In the first place, the Greek word pugme, translated in the 92 MODE OP BAPTISM. common Bible oft, is here made to mean, " by pour' ing a little water upon them" What a prolific little word ! But it means no such thing ; and no lexicon ever gave it such a signification. In the second place, the words ean me baptisontai, liter- ally translated, unless they baptize, Mr. Campbell translates, by dipping them ! Was ever such liberty taken with the Bible, in order to support any cause ? * But Mr. Carson could not agree with Dr. Grale and Mr. Campbell. He says : " It is evident that the word does not here refer to the hands ; ' J and he would, in the face of history and of all probability, make the inspired Writer say, " Except they dip themselves, they eat not!" He is not deterred by the undeniable fact, that no trace of any such cus- tom amongst the Jews can be found, and that it is impossible that such a thing should have been gen- * This singular translation, I took occasion to expose in the Lexington Debate. I then spoke as follows : Ci By what author- ity the phrase, ( by pouring a little water on them, 5 is here introduced, I know not. Can it be, that the little adverb, pugme, contains all this? If so, it is certainly the most remarkable adverb I have ever seen ! I assert, that this is no translation at all ; it is not akin to a translation. In the orig- inal Greek, the expression, ' they eat not,' occurs twice. One of these expressions, the gentleman has thrown out, in order to get in the phrase, ' by dipping them ! ' For if he had not rejected part of the Greek, he could not have thus translated the passage. Having got part of the Greek out of his way, he MODE OF BAPTISM. 93 erally practiced. " There is no need," says he, " to refer to the practice of the time, nor to ran* sack the writings of the Rabbins, for the practice of the Jews. We have here the authority or! the Holy Spirit for the Jewish custom. He uses the word baptizo, and that word signifies to dip, and only to dip." * It is impossible to head such men. We are looking for the usage of an Important word, for the purpose of ascertaining its meaning ; and when we find It used in a connection which demon- strates that it signifies simply the washing of the hands, we are told that the word does always mean to dip, and, therefore, it must so mean in this case, whether the evidence is decidedly against it or not! Strangely enough, Mr. Campbell has become a convert to Mr. Carson's opinion. He has learned that the little word pugrhe, which he so strangely mistranslated, means ih&Jist, and that the word bap* tizo expresses the immersion of the whole body! makes a most singular reading of what remains J The Greek phrase, ean me baptieontai,, (literally, unless they baptize,) fee translates, 'by dipping them 5' that is, he takes a Greek Conjunction, an adverb, and a verb, in the third person, plural number, and translates them by a preposition by, a par- ticiple dipping, and adds the word them, which is not in the Greek!! Such a translation, or rather such a perversion of Scripture, I do not remember ever to have seen ; and all to sus- tain the claims of immersion ! " To this severe exposure of his translation, Mr. Campbell attempted no reply ! * pp. 100, 101. 9 94 MODE OF BAPTISM. " Hence," says he. " they dip or bathe themselves , after being to market ; whereas ordinarily they wash their hands only up to the wrist ! " * He seems to think it unaccountably strange, that in the two passages under consideration, baptizo should have been translated to wash, although he himself so translated it in Luke 11 : 88 ! It is not at all sur- prising, that those who can imagine the custom of immersing before dinner, should find no difficulty in the equally improbable, not to say impossible, idea of immersing cups and pots, brazen vessels, and tables.f The evidence that, in these two instances, baptizo d!oes not signify to immerse, is absolutely conclu- sive. For if there was any part of their traditions, in regard to which the Jews were specially attentive, it was their ablutions. If, then, the custom had prevailed of personal immersion before dinner; if this custom had been so general, that a Pharisee wondered that Jesus, whom he had invited to dinner ? did not first immerse himself, it is impossible that in all the Jewish writings, no trace of such a custom should be found. Yet anti-pedo-baptists, with all their zeal and research, have confessedly failed to discover anything of the kind. Indeed, it is absolutely impossible that such a custom should have prevailed. How could each Mark, 7:4, t P- 166. MODE OF BAPTISM. 95 family, in a dry country like Palestine, be supplied with sufficient water for each member of the family to immerse himself before dinner, and also when he had been to market ? And then at a public feast, what would be done to enable each of the company to im- merse himself before eating ? Happily, we are in- formed by an inspired writer, how they managed the matter of purification on such occasions. At the wedding in Oana, we learn that " there were set there six water-pots of stone, after the manner of the puri- fying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece." * These small water-pots were sufficient for all the purifications observed on such occasions. Mr. Carson says : " The water-pots were, no doubt, for the purifications usual at a wedding. * * * The hands and the feet of the guests were washed, and, very likely, the vessels used at the feast," etc.f Certainly, the guests were not immersed in the pots. But the zeal with which our Baptist friends have sought evidence in favor of personal immersion to sustain their cause, is evident from the following fact, brought forward by both Gale and Carson, and from the argument founded upon it : u Mr. Bruce informs us, that in Abyssinia the sect called Kem- mont, 6 wash themselves from head to foot after coming from the market, or any public place, where they may have touched any one of a different sect * John, 2:6. f On Bap., p. 115. 96 MODE OF BAPTISM. from their own, esteeming all such unclean.' Is it strange, then, to find the Pharisees, the superstitious Pharisees, immersing their couches for purification, or themselves after market?' 5 '* But, in the first place, Bruce does not say, the Abyssinian sect im- mersed themselves on coming from a public place. There is a great difference between washing the whole body, and immersing it. A. man might wash his whole body with -a basin of water, but if he were about to immerse himself, arrangements must be made on a much more extensive scale. Now, we do not deny the possibility of the Jews washing their whole bodies twice or thrice each day, but to immerse themselves would be a very different af- fair. But it is vain to infer from the conduct of an Abyssinian sect the practice of the Jews. We have full accounts of all the ceremonial observances of the Jews, and amongst them do not find any such custom as that of immersing on coming from the market, and before dinner. But it is argued that there were evidently two wash- ings observed by the Jews, the one expressed by the word niptoy to wash the hands ; and the other, when they came from the market, expressed by baptiz- omai, which relates to the whole body. Let us admit ? though all the evidence from Jewish cus* * CarsojQ on Baptism, pp. 115., 11$, MODE OF BAPTISM. 97 toms is against it, that the Jews, on coming from the market, washed their whole bodies ; will it fol- low, that they plunged themselves ? Remember, you have undertaken to prove, not that baptizo expresses the Washing of the whole body, but that it expresses the action of immersing ! If it were demonstrated, as it never can be, that the Jews were accustomed, on coming from the market and before dinner, to wash their whole bodies, it would not be made even probable that they performed the action of immersing themselves. The simple truth, how- ever, is, that they washed their hands. This is the whole that they did, as is evident from the complaint made by the Pharisees against Christ and his dis- ciples, which was, not that they did not immerse themselves, but that they ate bread with " an- washen hands."* By this neglect, and this only, they were charged with transgressing " the tradition of the elders. 5 ' Most evident it is, therefore, that in these instances persons are said to have been bap- tized, when their hands were Washed. And as no one will deny that the hands may be, and amongst the Jews were constantly washed by pouring water on them, the conclusion is inevitable, that baptizo ex- presses the application of water by pouring* The only other instance we notice in which this disputed word is used in the New Testament, * Mark, 7 : 1, 2 j Matt., 15 : 1, 2. 9* 98 MODE OF BAPTISM. in a literal sense, without reference either to John's baptism or to Christian baptism, is inHeb., 9: 10, where we read of " divers washings," {baptis- moi.) The Jewish law had a number of ablutions, but no personal immersions ; and inasmuch as the divers baptisms evidently include all their ablu- tions, they must include the sprinklings, as well as the washings. From the preceding discussion, we arrive at the following conclusions, viz : 1st. That in the classics, the word baptizo has some three or four shades of meaning, one or two of which are specific ; the others, such as moistening, wetting, etc., are generic. Classic usage, therefore, does not enable us to decide in what sense it was used by our Saviour. 2d. In the Scriptures and Apocryphal writings, there is no single instance in which it can be proved to mean to immerse, whilst there are several in- stances in which it is most manifestly used in the sense of washing, cleansing. Indeed, this is its prevailing signification, as used by the Jews and by the inspired writers in their sacred books. And inasmuch as our Saviour found the word in use with this signification, there is very strong reason to be- lieve he used it in the same sense. MODE OF BAPTISM. LETTER VI. Dear Sir : In the Scriptures and in the religious writings of the Jews, the word baptizo, as we have seen, is used in such connection, when not designa- ting the ordinance of baptism, as to forbid, in almost every instance, the idea of immersion. The appli- cation of water to the person by pouring or sprink- ling, for the purpose of purification, is evidently meant ; and in this sense, it is fair to conclude, our Saviour employed it. Let us now turn to the different translations of the Scriptures into other languages, both in ancient and in modern times, and see what light they throw on the meaning of the word, and the mode of ad- ministering baptism. 1. The Peshito, an old Syriac version, is the old- est translation of the New Testament in the world. This, together with the JEthiopic, Dr. Gale considers " almost as valuable and authentic as the original itself, being made from primitive copies, in or very near the time of the apostles." Professor Stuart says: " In all probability, it should be dated during the first half of the second century ; " and he adds, " withal, it is admitted by those who are able to consult it, to be one of the most faithful and authen- tic of all the ancient versions." This version, then, is a most important witness in this controversy ; and 100 MODE OF BAPTISM. we would be perfectly safe in agreeing to decide the controversy upon this single authority. Our immer- sionist friends cannot object to it ; for it was made at a period when, if their exclusive views are correct, immersion was universally practiced as the only Chris- tian baptism. Such being confessedly its importance, we cannot but wonder that they have passed it with so slight notice. Dr. Gale, though he quotes it on another point, and gives it the highest commenda- tion, does not at all refer to its translation of bap- tize* ; and Mr. Carson observes the same significant silence. Mr. Campbell, less praderit, exposes the weakness of his cause by a superficial attempt to compel this version to testify for him. 1st. It is a remarkable fact, that the primary meaning of the word amad, which is uniformly em- ployed in the Syriac version to translate baptizo, is to stand, and then to cause to stand, or confirm. This is the meaning of the word m Hebrew, Chal- daic, and Arabic, which are very near of kin of the Syriac. The Lexicons all give the word this deriva- tion. " It is hardly credible," says Professor Stuart, " that the Syriac word could vary so much from all these languages, as properly to mean immerse, dip" etc. 2d. Besides, the Syriac has a word {tseva) which properly means to dip or plunge ; and this word is used in every case in the New Testament, where the idea of dipping occurs. But it is not used in trans- MODE OF BAPTISM. 101 lating bajitizo. How shall we account for the fact, that instead of using the word signifying to immerse, in translating baptizo, the Syriac translator uni- formly employs a word meaning to confirm ? u We come almost necessarily to the conclusion, then," says Stuart, " inasmuch as the Syriac has an ap- propriate word which signifies to dip, plunge, im- merse, (tsevaf) and yet ic is never employed in the Peshito, that the translator did not deem it important to designate any particular mode of baptism, but only to designate the rite by a term which evidently appears to mean confirm, establish, etc. Baptism, then, in the language of the Peshito, is the rite of confirmation simply, while the manner of this is apparently left without being at all expressed." 3d. The lexicons, whilst they derive the word amad from the Hebrew word meaning to stand, give its ordinary meaning to wash, purify. You and your principal authority, Mr. Gotch, admit that Castel, Buxtorf, and Schaaf, the most celebrated Syriac lexicographers, are perfectly agreed in defin- ing this word. Schaaf , whose lexicon is now before me, defines it — Jlbluit se, ablutus, intinctus, im- mersus in aquam, baptizatus est; he ivashed himself, ivas ivashed, stained, immersed in iva- ter. Here to id ash is given as the leading signifi- cation in the New Testament ; and he refers to no passage where it means immerse, except Num., 31 : 23 ; and if the reader will turn to that passage, he 102 MODE OF BAPTISM. will be satisfied, that to go through water is to be purified with water. 4th. That the word a?nad does not mean immerse, is evident from the fact that it is used in translating the Greek word photizo, which means to enlighten.* Baptism was administered to those who professed to have been enlightened, and it was regarded as con- firmatory ; therefore, amad was used with these shades of meaning, together with the sense of wash- ing, thus expressing the meaning of baptism, not the mode. 5th. Mr. Gotch himself, on whom Mr. Campbell chiefly relies, bears a testimony which is fatal to the argument for immersion. He says : s ' We are, moreover, warranted in concluding, that though the term was peculiarly appropriated to the rite of Chris- tian baptism, as is manifest from its being used as the translation of photisthentes, (^enlightened ,) it was, nevertheless, regarded by the Syriac translator as synonymous with baptizo, in all the senses in which that word is used in the New Testament, and not as simply expressive of the Christian rite. See e. g., Mark, 7: 4, and Luke, 11: 38, where the word is used in reference to Jewish ablutions. * * * But the fact seems clear, that it had acquired, in the time of the Syriac translation, the meaning which the lexicons give — abluit se." * Thus, Gotch MODE OF BAPTISM. 103 not only admits, contrary to the assertion of Mr, Campbell, that baptizo has different meanings, but that the word amad did have the general meanino' of washing or cleansing. Now, then, when we remember, that the Syriac has a word which signifies properly to dip, how shall we account for the fact that the translator rendered bap- tizo by a word meaning to confirm, to purify, to enlighten, and which does not express mode ? Ic will not be pretended that he Was swayed bv Pedo* baptist influence ; since it' our immersionist friends are in the right, there were then no Pedo-baptists in the world. Most evidently, the Syriac translator did not understand baptizo as meaning to immerse, or he would have chosen a Syriac word which has this meaning, 1. This version furnishes an unanswerable argu- ment against the doctrine of immersionists, and a stern rebuke to those who, losing sight of the mean- ing and design of the ordinance of baptism, insist on a new translation of the Scriptures, for the pur- pose of sustaining their notions as to the mere mode of its administration. It was made before the ordi- nance became corrupted, and when not only the meaning of baptizo , but the practice of the apos- tles, was well known; and it is a fact of immense value, that it translates baptizo by a word which, * Append, to Bib. Quest, pp. 164, 165. 104 MODE OF BAPTISM. Mr. Gotch, who is Mr. Campbell's only witness on this point, testifies, means to wash or cleanse, (ab- lidt se.) Why did not the primitive immcrsionists cry out against such a translation? Simply because there were no suck people. 2. The oldest Arabic version, which dates back as far as the seventh century, together with others of later date, translates bapiizo by amada, which is identical in form and meaning with the Syriac word just examined. Of course, these versions are with us, and against immersionists. 8. The iEthiopie version, Mr. Gotch admits, translates baptiso by a word signifying to wash, as well as to immerse ; and since it is certainly gen* eric in its meaning, it affords the cause of iranier* sion no aid. 4, The Persic version, as Mr. Gotch and Mr. Campbell admit, translates bapiizo by a word signi- fying to ivash. It, therefore, is against the imnier* sionist view oC baptizo. And, then, it is a fact, of no small importance, that this version wa3 made, not from the original Greek, but from the Syriac, which proves, beyond doubt, that the Syriac word arrtad Was then understood to mean, not to immerse, but to Wash. 5. The Sahidic and Basmuric versions, as Mr. Gotch and Mr. Campbell admit, do not translate baptizo, but transfer it, just as our English Bible does > and yet both these gentlemen set these ver- MODE OF BAPTISM. 105 slons down as translating the word by words mean- ing immerse ! Now, Mr. Campbell, since you have set down the versions which transfer the word, among immersionist translations, why did you not, for the same reason, place King James' trans- lation on the same side ? We earnestly ask, why not ? The simple truth is, these versions prove nothing either way, since they do not translate the Word at all. 6. The old Italic version, made in the early part of the second century, and in high authority until after Jerome's translation, (the Latin Vulgate,) transferred, and did not translate bajitizo ; and in the only instance in which the Vulgate translates it, it renders it by the generic word lavo, to wash. Now, these versions, like the Syriac, were made when, it immersionists are to be believed, all Chris- tendom practiced immersion; and since the Latin language has several words which definitely signify to immerse, (such as mergo, immergo, intingo, etc.,) how happened it, that the authors of these versions never once translated the word baptizo by either of these? The true answer to this question is easily given, especially when it is remembered that Cyprian, one of the most eminent of the Christian fathers of the third century, declared baptism by effusion or sprinkling valid, and forbade the rebaptizing of those who had received the ordinance in this manner ; whilst Aurelius Prudentius, in the fourth century, 10 106 MODE OF BAPTISM. held that John's baptism was administered by pour- ing, {jperfundit jluvio.) 7. The French, the Geneva Bible, the Italic, and Arias Montanus, all either transfer the word bap- tize* , or translate it by a generic term signifying to wash, cleanse, but never translate it by a word meaning to immerse. And yet Mr. Campbell places these versions on his list, not at all deterred by the plain undeniable fact, that the Christians by whom they are used, have always baptized by pouring or sprinkling 1 8. That the German does not favor immersion, is perfectly clear from two facts, viz : 1st. It uses the phrase mit wasser — I baptize you with water, not into or in water ; and 2d. Those by whom and for whom it was made, have generally practiced pouring or sprinkling. The same is true of the Dutch, Danish, and Swedish translations. 9. The Anglo-Saxon, as Mr. Gotch admits, trans- lates baptizo by a word signifying to cleanse. Here are some nineteen of the principal transla- tions of the Scriptures, both ancient and modern, to which it would be easy to add many more, not one of which translates baptizo by a ivord meaning immerse; every one of which either transfers the word just as our Bible does, or translates it by a generic word, signifying the nature and design, not the mode, of baptism. The truth is, there is not, in the world, one respectable translation of the MODE OF BAPTISM. 107 Scriptures that renders this word as immersion- ists insist it should be rendered ; and this fact, especially when it is remembered that a number of the versions were made by men who were prejudiced in favor of immersion, is an overwhelming argument demonstrating that baptizo does not express the specific action of immersion, and that it does not express the mode by which baptism is to be ad- ministered. We cannot but remark the fact, that much atten- tion as Mr. Campbell professes to have paid to the translations of the Scriptures, the only author he quotes to show that some translations favor im- mersion, is Mr. Gotch — a man of no reputation as a Biblical scholar — and even his testimony is nofc fairly presented ! LETTER VIL Dear Sir : We have appealed to five classes of evidence, and found eaeh of them to bear strongly against your doctrine of exclusive immersion, viz : The almost universal sentiment of Christendom, in all ages ; the unscriptural view of baptism, as an action, to which immersionists have been driven; the testimony of the lexicons ; the usage of the classic Greeks ; the usage of the Jews in their sacred 108 MODE OF BAPTISM. writings ; and the translations, both ancient and modern. We now proceed to inquire whether the early Christian writers, Greeks and Latins, under- stood baptizo as expressing definitely the action of immersing. We begin with Origen, the most learned of the Greek fathers. That he understood his native tongue, will scarcely be questioned. His language is as fol- lows : '<■ How came you to think that Elias, when he should come, would baptize, who did not, in Ahab's time, baptize the wood upon the altar, which was to be washed before it was burnt, by the Lord's ap- pearing in fire, etc. But he ordered the priests to do that; not once only, but says, Do it the second time ; and, Do it the third time; and they did it the third time. He, therefore, that did not himself bap- tize then, but assigned that work to others, hoy?* was he likely to baptize, when he, according to Malichi's prophecy, should ecme? ?> * Origen says, the altar was baptized at the command of Elias. Now, if the reader will turn to Kings, 18: 33, he will see that this baptism certainly was by pouring water upon the altar. Mr. Campbell thinks Origen was in error in thus using the word baptizo. He says : 6 ' We are all in the habit of carrying figures too far, as well as Origen. ** f When immersionists, in order to sustain their cause, find it necessary to * Wall's. Hist., v. 2, p. 33.2. | Lexington Bebate s p. 164, MODE OF BAPTISM, 109 correct the language of the most eminent Greek scholars, it must be desperate. But what figure, is there f Or how can pouring water be figurative immersing into water? It will not do to say, the altar was overwhelmed $ for this is not true in any proper sense of the word overwhelm. Besides, Mr, Campbell's doctrine requires him to prove, that bap- lizo definitely expresses a particular action, not the effect produced by a different action. Here, then, we have an example of baptism by pourings which goes far to settle the meaning of baptizo. Clemens Alexandrinus, speaking of a penitent backslider, says : "He was baptized a second time with tears.' 5 It requires no great learning to determine the mode of this baptism. Athanasius reckons eight several baptisms : That of the flood ; that of Moses in the Red Sea ; the legal baptism of the Jews for uncleanness ; that of John the Baptist ; that of Jesus ; that of tears ; that of martyrdom ; that of eternal fire. The reader can decide for himself, whether all these baptisms are immersions. Gre- gory Naziauzen says : " I know of a fourth baptism, that by martyrdom and blood ; and I know of a fifth, that of tears." Bazil speaks of a martyr who was baptized into Christ with his own blood. Did these learned fathers understand the Greek language — their vernacular tongue? If they did, the pouring of water on the altar, the flowing of the tears of a penitent over his face, and the flowing of 10* 110 MODE OF BAPTISM. a martyr's blood over his body, are all properly ex- pressed by the words baptizo and baptisma. Most certainly, then, these words do not express the action of immersion. It is a fact of great importance in this argument, that those of both the Greek and Latin fathers, who practiced immersion, were accustomed, in cases of sickness, or where it was inconvenient to immerse, to baptize by pouring or sprinkling ; and the validity of such baptisms was never disputed. Wall states, that " in the case] of sickness, weakliness, haste, want of quantity of water, or such extraordinary occasions, baptism by effusion of water on the face was, by the ancients, counted sufficient baptism. The baptism of Novatian, A. D. 201, is an example of the kind. One Magnus wrote to Cyprian, to inquire, among other things, whether those baptized in bed, as Novatian was, should be baptized again. Cyprian answered in the negative ; and to prove such baptisms valid, he quoted the language of Ezekiel — ' Then will I sprinkle clean ivater upon you? etc. He quoted also Num., 19: 13, and 8: 7, and said, ' If any one think that they obtain no benefit, as having only an effusion of the water of salvation, do not let him mistake so far as that the parties, if they recover of their sickness, should be baptized again.' The Acts of St. Laurence, who suffered martyrdom about the same time as Cyprian, do tell how one of the soldiers that were to be his execu- MODE OF BAPTISM. m tioners, being converted, brought a pitcher of water for Laurence to baptize him with." * Now, what would be thought of a young immersionist minister, who should inquire of an older or more able minister of the same faith, whether persons immersed by pouring or sprinkling are validly immersed ? And what would be thought, if the latter should answer the question affirmatively, and should advise his young brother not so far to err as to immerse such persons again ? Yet such precisely was the question of Magnus, and the answer of Cyprian, if immer- sionists are to be believed. For as the Greek was then a living language, and as Cyprian, at least, must have known both the meaning of baptizo and the practice of the church ; if it be true, that this word was then understood definitely to express the action of immersing, the question of Magnus and the answer of Cyprian, were just such as we have stated. Who can possibly believe it? Besides, how could Cyprian answer the question as he did, with- out exciting warm controversy, if it was then gen- erally believed that baptism must be administered by immersion. But the undeniable fact is, that both Greeks and Latins did often baptize by pouring and sprinkling. Now, if the word baptizo signified to immerse, how could they go to a man on a sick bed, and say, Wall, v. 2, p. 389. 112 MODE OF BAPTISM. baptizo se or baptizo te, I baptize thee, and pour or sprinkle water upon him ? How supremely ridic- ulous would a minister make himself, if he should go to a sick person, and say, " I immerse thee in the name,'' etc., and pour or sprinkle water on him. Would any sane man do so ? Yet precisely this ridic- ulous thing the Greek and Latin fathers often did, if the word baptizo does mean to immerse. That the primitive church did not understand bap- tizo to express definitely the act of immersing, is further evident from the fact, that when they wished definitely to express this action, they employed the word kataduo. Professor Stuart says : " The Greek words kataduo and katadusis were employed as ex- pressive of baptizing and baptism; and these words mean going down into the water or immersing" Basil says : " By the three immersions , {katadu- sesi,) and by the like number of invocations, the great mystery of baptism is completed." Damas- cenus says : " Baptism is a type of the death of Christ ; for by three immersions, (kataduseon^) bap- tism signifies," etc. The Apostolic Constitutions, written probably in the fourth century, say: ''Im- mersion (katadusis) denotes dying with Christ; emersion (anadusis) a resurrection with Christ." Photius says : " The three immersions and emersions (kataduseis kai anaduseis) of baptism signify death and resurrection." Chrysostom says : " We, as in a sepulchre, immersing (Jeataduonton) our MODE OF BAPTISM. 113 heads in the water, the old man is buried, and sink- ing down, (Jeatadus kato,) the whole is concealed at once," etc. These writers, it should be observed, make a dis- tinction between baptism and immersion. If in these passages, just cited from their writings, you substitute immersion for baptism, you will make nonsense : and yet this is precisely what immersion- ists would have us do ! With those writers, baptism was one thing, and the mode of administration ano- ther. Immersion was not baptism, but one of the modes in which it was administered. The Latin writers followed the example of the Greeks, transferring the word baptizo when they spoke of the ordinance, and using mergo, immer- go, mergito, intingo, etc., when they spoke of one of the modes of administering it, and p erf un do or aspergo, when they spoke of the other mode. Thus, Praxeas says: "Not once, but thrice, according to the several names, etc., are we baptized," {tin- gimur.) Tertullian says: "Thence, we are thrice immersed^ {mergitamur. ) Now, if it be true, as immersionists affirm, that baptizo does definitely express the act of immersing, how shall we account for the fact, that the Greek and Latin writers did substitute other words to express immersion, and did use baptizo in baptizing persons by pouring or sprinkling ? The truth is, the usage of the word amongst the Greek and Latin 114 MODE OF BAPTISM. fathers proves, beyond cavil, that it has not the meaning which immersionists insist on giving it. With them, it expressed generally the idea of wash- ing, cleansing, wetting ; and they familiarly use it in such connection as to forbid the idea of immer- sion, either literal or figurative. This is the more remarkable, since, in the third and fourth centuries, trine immersion, and that with the candidates wholly unclad, prevailed. The prejudice was strongly in favor of immersion ; and yet the word baptizo was used with as great variety of meaning, as Pedo- baptists have ever claimed for it. In our next, we propose to inquire how far the Scripture accounts of baptisms administered, and of the meaning and design of the ordinance, throw light on this subject. LETTER Yin. Dear Sir : The result of our investigations thus far, is as follows : 1st. The lexicons give to bapto and baptizo sev- eral meanings, only one of which expresses the idea of immersion. Consequently, their authority is against you. 2d. The Greek classics employ these words in different senses, expressive of dipping, wetting, washing, even of sprinkling. They, there- MODE OF BAPTISM. H5 fore, are against you. 3d. The Jews, in their sacred writings, canonical and apocryphal, use these words in the sense of dipping, wetting, moistening, washing, cleansing ; and in almost every case "where bajjtizo is used, the circumstances and the context prove, that the application of water by pouring or sprinkling is intended. 4th. All the most valuable translations, ancient and modern, either transfer the word baptizo, or translate it by a generic word, expressive of the meaning and design of baptism, but not the mode. 5th. The Christian fathers, Greek and Latin, used baptizo constantly to signify the application of water or blood by pouring or sprink- ling ; and when they wished definitely to express the idea of immersion, they employed other words, as kataduo, mergo, etc. Thus, from five important sources of evidence, we find your declaration, that baptizo definitely ex- presses the action of immersion, entirely disproved. We turn now to the Scripture account of the ad- ministration of baptism. 1. Immersionists have long been accustomed to refer to John's baptism, in support of their exclusive claims. They find two reasons, as they think, for affirming that John's baptism was by immersion, viz : 1st. He baptized in Jordan. 2. He baptized "in Enon near Salem, because there was much water there." Now, we may admit, that John baptized either at or in Jordan ; but the question still recurs, how did he 116 MODE OF BAPTISM. baptize ? Did he apply the persons to the water, or the water to the persons ? There were other reasons why John both preached and baptized, where there was abundance of water. Great multitudes attended him — ' ' all Judea and Jerusalem ; ' ? and thev needed water for other purposes, especially since they could not eat, after being in a public place, without bap- tizing themselves.* Moreover, it was a matter of no inconvenience for the Jews to step into the water, But supposing them to be in Jordan, did John im- merse them ? If it be said, their being in Jordan, is presumptive evidence that they were immersed, we answer — 1st. If we admit this, there are also presumptive evidences on the other side. In the first place, it is not very probable that John could have immersed so great multitudes, during his ministry. Secondly, we read of no preparation for immersion — no bap- tisteries and no changing of garments. But when immersion did become prevalent in the church, these necessary fixtures are particularly mentioned by his- torians. Is it likely, if such a custom had prevailed, that neither of the four evangelists would have alluded to any of these very necessary arrange- ments ? 2d. But let us admit, for argument's sake, that John must have baptized by immersion, because he * Mark. 7 : 4 ; Luke, 11 : 38. MODE OF BAPTISM. 117 baptized in Jordan, and where there was much wa- ter; is not the inference even stronger that the apos- tles did not immerse, because they did not baptize in Jordan, or where there was much water, but often in houses, jails, etc. ? He might have baptized in Jordan by pouring, and he might have needed the " much water" at Enon for other purposes ; but it is most improbable, if not impossible, that they should have immersed in a private house in Jerusalem, or in Damascus, or in a jail at Phillippi. The conclusion, then, would be, that if John practiced immersion, the apostles did not ; or they, like him, would have gone to Jordan or to Enon. And since Mr. Camp- bell admits that John's baptism was not Christian baptism, he will not deny, that it is more proper to learn the mode of baptism from the practice of the apostles, than from that of John. Yet it is a little remarkable, that although Mr. Campbell makes a distinct argument and a distinct chapter in favor of immersion, from " the places where baptism was anciently administered,'' he mentions not one place where Christian baptism was administered ! Is this not a rather unaccountable and inexcusable omission ? If it were true that baptism was always or generally administered in large streams, such a fact might be quite favorable to immersion. But this is not true ; and especially it is not true of Christian baptism — the very ordinance about which we are concerned. Why did not Mr. C. , in speaking of the places where 11 118 MODE OF BAPTISM. baptism was anciently performed, mention that where the three thousand were baptized in Jerusalem, the jail in Phillippi, and the private dwelling of Simon, the tanner, in Damascus ? Did he omit the mention of these places, through a vague apprehension that the argument for immersion would be a little weak- ened, if they were named? * 2. We now affirm that the Scriptural account of baptism, as administered by the apostles, is de- *Professor Stuart, after stating that great multitudes of people flocked to John, says : " Nothing could be more natural than for John to choose a place that was watered by many streams, where all could be accommodated." And he goes into a critical examination of the phrase polla hueata, translated much water, to show that these Greek words being in the plural number, ought to be translated many waters or rivulets. After a careful examination of the usage of the New Testa- ment, he thus concludes : i: No example, then, can be brought in the New Testament of the application of hudata, to desig- nate merely quantity of water, simply considered as- deep and abounding. It is either the vast waters of the sea or lake, as agitated by the winds and broken into waves, or the multiplied waters of numerous springs and fountains, which are here designated by the plural of the word in question." The general usage of the Septuagint, as he shows, is the same as that of the New Testament. He says : lt I do not deny that in the Septuagint, for example, hudor and hudata are sometimes promiscuously used, without any perceptible differ- ence of meaning. In most cases, however, this is not the fact j but the plural hudata is used to designate great bodies of water, or numerous bodies or streams of it, e. g. in Gen., 1: 10, 20, 21, 22 ; Exod., 2: 19, and 8 : 6, and 15 : 27, and 20 : 4, and often so elsewhere. The promiscuous use, in some cases, MODE OF BAPTISM. 119 cidedly unfavorable to immersionists. Look at the facts. 1st. In no single instance do we find the apostles either going to streams of water, or going out of their way in search of water, or delaying the baptism of any one, or of any number of persons for lack of water. Converts were uniformly baptized at the time, and at the place of their conversion. The first example worthy of attention, is the bap- of hutjob. and httdata, in the version of the seventy, seems to be the result of imitating the Hebrew ; for the Hebrew has only a plural form to designate the element of water." The evidence that there were many rivulets — not a deep stream in Enon — Stuart thinks, is much strengthened by the use of the word polla, many. He says : " Why should the epithet polla be added to hudata, in John 3 : 22-24, if merely deep water, or a quantity sufficient for immersing, was intended ? The natural and primary meaning of polltjs, is many, in oppo- sition to few. It has merely a secondary meaning, especially so when in the plural number, if at anytime it designates large- ness of quantity, intensity of degree, etc. On the whole, I cannot divest myself of the impression, that there seems to be something extravagant in the supposition, that not only the plural htjdatAj which naturally designates a large quantity, or many streams of water, but also polla should be employed, in order to designate a quantity of water sufficient for baptizing by immersion, when any small rivulet would furnish abundant means for such a purpose. I cannot avoid the belief, therefore that hudata polla is designed, as Beza says, to designate many streams or rivulets. John chose a place abounding in these, when removed from the banks of the Jordan, in order that the multitudes who flocked to him might be accommo- dated." 120 MODE OF BAPTISM. tism of the three thousand on the day of Pentecost. These were the first Christian baptisms ever adminis- tered ; and, of course, they would be looked to as an example to be followed. Consequently, the inspired historian might be expected to give a full history of all that was of importance. In reading the re- cord in the Acts, our attention is turned to several particalars: 1st. The place. The disciples were together in a house in Jerusalem. It is not possible that three thousand persons were immersed in that house in one day ; and no intimation is given that they left the place where they were assembled to go after water. 2d. The water. Where did the apostles find sufficient water for the immersion of so many ? Did they leave the house where they were assembled ? The historian does not intimate anything of the kind. If they left the house, could they find any stream of sufficient depth? There is no such stream in or near Jerusalem. Did the Jews, who had so recently crucified our Saviour , open to them their public or private baths, cisterns, etc? Who can believe it r And if they had, would not a fact so remarkable have been mentioned? 8d. The number. Could the twelve apostles baptize three thousand persons in that day ? Immersiomsts have made precise cal- culations of the rapidity with which persons might be immersed ; but they have omitted several very im- portant items, as, for example, how long Peter was preaching, before the converts were ready for bap- MODE OF BAPTISM. 121 tism. Luke gives a very brief: outline of his discourse, and says: "With many other words did he testify and exhort." Then how long were the apostles in determining who were proper subjects for baptism? What time did it require to find places for baptizing ? Some, seeing the serious difficulties attending the immersionist theory, have supposed that others be- sides the apostles, assisted in baptizing. But what other persons there were authorized to baptize? Others have ventured to guess that the whole number were not baptized on that day ; but this conjecture is directly in the face of the inspired record — "Then they that gladly received the word were baptized ; and the same day there were added to them three thousand souls." 4th. But how, on the theory of immersionists, are we to account for the profound silence of Luke concerning all these matters ? Not a word does he say about going to any water, or about any delay or difficulty for want of water. Now, if these baptisms were administered by pour- ing or sprinkling, every difficulty disappears, and the whole account is both credible and perfectly natural. But the supposition that the three thousand were immersed, is attended with insuperable difficulties. We cannot but commend the prudence of Mr. Camp- bell in passing by these first Christian baptisms without a single remark, or the slightest notice ! 2d. In the Acts of the Apostles, we read of multi- tudes added to the church from time to time ; but in 11* 122 MODE OF BAPTISM. no instance do we find the apostles or their fellow- laborers going out of their way for water, or delaying the administration of the ordinance for want of it. In this same country, our immersionist friends assure us, it was necessary for John the Baptist to go to Jordan and to Enon, to find water to immerse ; but the apostles, it would seem, found abundance of water to immerse very far greater numbers ! Truly, the cause of immersion draws rather largely upon our credulity. 3d. In every instance where a particular account of the administration of baptism is given in the Acts, the circumstances are most decidedly against the idea of immersion. If the baptism of the eunuch be considered an exception to this general statement, we will presently notice it particularly. Paul received baptism in the right mode. Where was he, when baptized ? He was in the house of Judas, in the city of Damascus. Did he leave the house to be baptized ? Nothing of the kind is in- timated ; nor was his condition very favorable for a walk to a stream of water. In what position was he baptized? Ananias said to him: "Arise, (anas- / 9 : 15 - 188 INFANT BAPTISM. Witt equal clearness was the doctrine of sanctifi- cation, by the Holy Spirit, taught under the Old Dispensation ; so that our Saviour censured Nicho- demus for being a teacher in Israel, and. yet being ignorant of this doctrine. " Art thou a master in Israel, and knowest not these things ? " * How could the doctrine be more clearly taught, than by Ezekiel, 36: 25, 26 ?— " Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean : from all your filthiness and from all your idols will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you ; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes," etc. It was in view of the same doctrine, the Psalmist prayed — " Create in me a clean heart, God ; and renew a right spirit within me." t Since, then, these two great doctrines of the Gos- pel are taught in the Old Testament, all the other important doctrines must be there ; for they are inseparably connected with these. There is a neces- sary connection between the atonement and justifica- tion by faith ; and accordingly Abraham's faith and justification are represented as identical with Christian faith and justification. Read the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, and the third chapter of * John, 3 : 10. f p s., 51 : 10. INFANT BAPTISM. 189 the Epistle to the Galatians. So there is an insepara- ble connection between regeneration by the Holy Spirit and " the fruits of the Spirit." Under the Old Dispensation, as now, men were convinced of sin, repented, believed, loved, rejoiced. The reli- gious experience of pious people, being the fruit of the Holy Spirit, must be substantially the same. And what Christian ever read the Old Testament, especially the Psalms, without feeling that such is the fact ? It is scarcely necessary to show, that the Old Testament saints rejoiced in the hope of eternal life, as do Christians. " These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things, declare plainly that they seek a country." * The doctrine of the resurrection of the body is also taught in the Old Testament. Indeed, all the doc- trines of the Gospel are taught there with more or less plainness. The evidence, therefore, is conclu- sive, that under both dispensations the church has received the same Gospel, and trusted in the same plan of salvation. Mr. Campbell's evasion of this argument shows the weakness of the anti-pedobap- tist cause. He said "He (Rice) argues the identity *Heb.,ll: 13,14. 17 190 INFANT BAPTISM. of the ancient and modern churches, because they have the same Gospel. But this is not strictly true, unless upon the principle that France and England have the same language, because they have the same alphabet. The Christian Gospel is not that the Messiah is to come ; yet that was the Jewish Gos- pel." * Mr. C. acknowledges that the only differ- ence between the Christian Gospel and the Jewish Gospel is, that the latter proclaimed the Messiah to come, and the former proclaims the Messiah as hav- ing come. Through types and prophecies, the Jews looked forward to the advent of the promised Mes- siah and his atonement, and trusted in him ; whilst through the inspired record and the Lord's supper, Christians look back to the Messiah as having come and offered the one efficacious sacrifice for sin. But, confessedly, both Jews and Christians trusted in the same Saviour, and, therefore, had the same faith, the same religion. Is there, then, any such differ- ence as between the French and English languages ? It is, then, clear, beyond all question, that in the three points which constitute the substance of reli- gion — the object of worship, the moral code, and the plan of salvation — the Abrahamic church had the same religion which the Christian church has. If, then, the identity of the church consists, as we have proved, in its continuing to hold the same * Lexington Debate, pp. 333, 334. IXFAXT BAPTISM. 191 religion, the identity of the church, under the Old and New Dispensations, is demonstrated. But it may be said, that though pious Jews had the same religion which Christians have, yet the Jewish church, as a body, was a secular organiza- tion, not professing, nor requiring, individual mem- bers to profess religion. The opposers of infant baptism, as I have before remarked, constantly con- found the Abrahamic church with the Jewish state, although the Scriptures represent them as quite dis- tinct. The following differences between the church and the state have already been pointed out. 1st. The church existed four hundred years before the state — before the descendants of Abraham had any civil code. 2d. A civil code was enacted for the church, be- cause it was to be kept separate, until the advent of Christ, from all other nations. It was, therefore, absolutely necessary that a civil government should be organized. 3d. The terms of citizenship in the state, and of membership in the church, were quite different. Gentiles might become citizens, without becoming members of the church. They might be "prose- lytes of the gate," observing the civil law, without becoming " proselytes of righteousness," and sub- mitting to circumcision. 4th. Proselytes from the Gentiles might become members of the church, without becoming citizens 192 INFANT BAPTISM, of the Jewish commonwealth. There were many such, who continued to reside in their own countries , but attended the festivals at Jerusalem. 5th. A Jew might become the subject of another civil government, without forfeiting his standing as a member of the church. Many such were at Jeru- salem on the day of: Pentecost, when the Spirit was poured out in his converting and miraculous powers. 6r-h. It may be added, that the officers in the church were entirely different from those in the state. In the former, priests, Levites and prophets officia- ted ; in the latter, judges and kings ruled. But a civil officer could not minister at the altar ; nor an ecclesiastical officer administer the civil law. In some instances, as in the case of Samuel, the two offices were filled by the same man, just as we some- times see a minister of the Gospel a member of the Legislature ; but they were never confounded. It is most evident, then, that the church and the State, though in large part composed of the same persons, were quite different organizations. The church was strictly a religious body, professing the only true religion. This is evident from the follow- ing considerations : 1st. The church entered into a covenant with God, which required its members truly to worship and serve him ; and of this covenant, circumcision was the seal. " This ordinance," says Rev. Andrew Fuller, INFANT BAPTISM. 193 a very able Baptist writer, " was the mark by which they (Abraham and his descendants) were distin- guished as a people in covenant with Jehovah, and which bound them by a special obligation to obey him. Like almost all other positive institutions, it was also prefigurative of mental purity, or putting off the body of the sins of the flesh." * That the covenant between God and the Jews required piety, is further evident from the following language : " Now, therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people : for all the earth is mine. And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." f 2d. All the ordinances of the church were strictly religious ; and the proper observance of them re- quired true piety. Circumcision was a religious rite. Since it was the seal of a covenant between God and his people, how could it be otherwise ? To Abraham it was " a seal of the righteousness of faith." J And Paul pronounces it worthless, with- out regeneration and true piety. u For circumcision verily profiteth if thou keep the law ; but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncir- cumcision. * * * For he is not a Jew which is one outwardly ; neither is that circumcision which is * Lect. on Gen., 17. f Exod., 19 : 5, 6. £ Rom., 4 : 11. IT* 194 INFANT BAPTISM. outward in the flesh : but he is a Jew which is one inwardly ; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God." * It is amazing, that any one acquainted with his Bible, should regard this ordinance as merely or chiefly a national sign. It secured to its subjects no national privileges. To the Gentile proselyte and his family, residing in their own country, it secured none but religious priv- ileges, and required none but religious duties. It will not be denied, that the bloody sacrifices and ablutions, and the entire temple service, were strictly religious. The bloody sacrifices pointed to the atone- ment of Christ, and the ablutions, to the work of the Holy Spirit. And the entire service was designed to beget and cherish true religion ; and over and over again are we taught, that the wickedness of the peo- ple rendered their attendance upon the ordinances wholly unacceptable. Read, for example, the first chapter of Isaiah. 3d. The relation between God and the Jewish church is represented, just as that between Christ and his church, by the marriage relation. " For thy Maker is thy husband ; the Lord of Hosts is his name ; and thy Redeemer the Holy one of Israel."! And the idolatry of the Jewish church is compared to the unfaithfulness of a wife to her husband. J * Rom., 2 : 25-29. f Isaiah, 54 : 5. % Jer., ch. 3. INFANT BAPTISM. 195 Mr. Carson says: " God is everywhere in the Old Testament considered as the husband of Israel." * Will any one pretend, that God could represent him- self as the husband of a body of people, who did not even profess to be pious ? These facts and others that might be mentioned, demonstrate, not only that the religion of pious in- dividuals amongst the Jews was identical with that of Christians ; but that this true religion was professed by the Jewish church as a body. Most certainly it was, at times, exceedingly corrupt ; but the same charge must be made also against the Christian church. But departures from the path of truth and righteousness do not prove that a contrary profession was not made. We come, then, to the clear and unavoidable con- clusion, that the church under both dispensations professes the same religion ; and, consequently, that the Abrahamic church is identical with the Chris- tian Church. There are several other ways in which the same truth is established. Consider the following : 1. The relation between Abraham and Christians* is that of a father to his children. lt And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." f " And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness * On Baptism, p. 355. f Gal., 3 : 29. 196 INFANT BAPTISM. of the faith which he had, being yet uncircum- cised ; that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised." * Let the fact be noted, that Christians are never called the children of Enoch, of Noah, of David, or of any other eminent believer ; but they are called "Abraham's seed." Evidently, therefore, they sustain to him a peculiar relation. What con- stitutes this relation ? I answer, the covenant into which God entered with Abraham, to which Paul refers, when he says, in the passage just quoted, Christians are " heirs according to the promise." This covenant, which is mentioned in the twelfth chapter of: Genesis, repeated in the fifteenth, and ratified by circumcision in the seventeenth, contained three promises, viz : of a numerous natural seed ; that that seed should inherit the land of Canaan ; and that in his seed all the families of the earth should be blessed. This last, which is the great promise, is declared by Paul to contain the Gospel. Two of these promises have received their fulfill- ment. The third is now being fulfilled. The Scrip- tures make a distinction between the Abrahamic cove- nant and the covenant made at Sinai, four hundred and thirty years after. The latter, which is called " the law," Paul says, " was added [to the Abra- hamic covenant] because of trangressions, till the INFANT BAPTISM. 197 seed should come to whom the promise was made."* It was a temporary addition, designed to serve a par- ticular purpose, till Christ should come. This law or covenant of Sinai, is compared in the Epistle to the Hebrews, to an old garment or article which is worn out. " Now that which decayeth and waxeth old, is ready to vanish away." f But the covenant with Abraham is never called old, or represented as passing away. On the contrary, it is declared to contain the Gospel itself, which cannot pass away. Dr. Gill, commenting on Gal., 3: 16, says : " The promises design the promises of the covenant of grace, mentioned in the next verse, which are ex- ceeding great and precious, better than those of any other covenant ; and which are all yea and amen in Christ, and are chiefly of a spiritual nature," etc. This covenant is called new, not as to the substance of it, but only as to the mode of administration under the New Dispensation. Dr. Gill, in expound- Heb., 8:8, says — the new covenant is "so called, not because new-made ; for, with respect to its orig- inal constitution, it was made from eternity ; Christ, the Mediator of it, and with whom it was made, was set up from everlasting ; and promises and blessings of grace were put into his hands before the world began ; nor is it newly revealed, for it was made known to Adam, and, in some measure, to all the *Gal., 3: 19. fHeb.,8: 8-13. 198 INFANT BAPTISM. Old-Testament saints, though it is more clearly re- vealed than it was ; but is so called in distinction from the former administration of it, which is waxen old and vanisheth away," etc. Some anti-pedo-baptists have been quite unwilling to admit that the covenant of circumcision, recorded in Genesis 17, is the covenant of grace, or contains the promise of spiritual blessings ; for if this cove- nant made Abraham the father of the visible church of God, under both dispensations, it would be im- possible to escape the proof: of the identity of the church before and after the death of Christ. But Rev. Andrew Fuller, one of the ablest Baptist writers, in his lecture on this passage, says : " The first promise in this covenant is, that he shall be the father of many nations; and, as a token of it, his name in future is to be called Abraham. He had the name of a high or eminent father, from the beginning; but now it shall be more comprehensive, indicating a very large progeny. By the exposition given of this promise in the New Testament, (Rom., 4: 16, 17,) we are directed to understand it, not only of those who sprang from Abraham's body, though these were many nations ; but also of all that should be of the faith of Abraham. It went to make him the father of the church of God in all future ages ; or, as the apostle calls him, the heir of the world. In this view, he is the father of many, even of a multitude INFANT BAPTISM. 199 of nations. All that the Christian world enjoys, or ever will enjoy, it is indebted for it to Abraham and his seed. A high honor this, to be the father of the faithful, the stock from which the Messiah should spring, and on which the church of God should grow." * Mr. Carson tries to evade the force of this argu- ment, by saying, " the promise — 6 I will be a God to thee,' etc., has a letter and a spirit." f And Mr. Campbell thought, it promised only temporal bless- ings. \ But, as Fuller shows, the promise that Abra- ham should be a father of many nations, makes him the father of the Christian church, and this promise was sealed by circumcision. Now, would it not be a singular proceeding to contend, that the father and part of the children were in one church, and the rest of the children in another church of a radically different character ? — to have two churches, the one carnal, and the other spiritual, built upon the same covenant? — to have the spiritual father, and part of his spiritual children, live and die in the carnal organization, and the rest of his spiritual children placed in a spiritual church ? To such inconsistencies are those driven, who deny the identity of the church under the Old and Xew Dispensations. * Fuller's Works, vol. 5, p. 153. f On Bap., p. 354. % Lex. Debate, p. 345. 200 INFANT BAPTISM. 2. Christians sustain to the church which existed before Christ came, the relation of the branches of of a tree to the tree; and no one denies, that the branches are part of the tree. Will the reader take his Bible, and read carefully in the eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, from the sixteenth to the twenty-fourth verse? The first question that arises concerning this Scripture, is respecting the good olive tree; what is it? This question, Mr. Campbell answered as follows: "A portion of the Jews believed — they became the nucleus of the New Dispensation. They are the first fruits, and the root of the Christian church. They hold by faith, and not by flesh, all the spiritual blessings promised Abraham. Paul compares them to a good olive tree, of which, in one sense, Abraham was the root — standing as a spiritual father to the believing Jews, and as containing in the covenant, made with him concerning Christ, all these blessings."* Now,i£ Mr. Campbell means, as he evidently does, that a neiv church, organized of the first converts to Chris- tianity, radically different from the previously exist- ing church, was the good olive tree, he is met by two insurmountable difficulties. In the first place, the unbelieving Jews were not broken off from those first converts ; for a branch cannot be broken from a tree with which it has no connection. But the * Lex. Debate, p. 397. INFANT BAPTISM. 201 apostle says, the Jews were broken off from the good olive tree. That tree, then, must be the church of which they were members. In the second place, the unbelieving Jews could not be called " the natural branches " of the first Christian church ; nor could it be called u their own olive tree." For anti-pedo-baptists insist, that the Christian church is established on principles as different from those oE the Jewish church, as spirit and flesh. " The two principles of flesh and spirit, natural and supernatural birth," says Mr. Campbell, " are now clearly shown to be the differential character of the two institutions. We have, then, two communi- ties, under two very distinct constitutions, of very different spirit, character, and circumstances. " * Now, the puzzling question is, how could the mem- bers of the fleshly institution be " the natural branches" or members of the spiritual institution ? How could Paul, speaking of the fleshly members, call the spiritual institution " their own olive tree" — their own church ? It is impossible to avoid the con- clusion, that the good olive tree is the Jewish church ; for the Jews were the natural branches of no other ; and they could claim no other as " their own." But two important truths are stated by the apos- tle. The first is, that the Gentile converts were graffed into the same olive tree from which the Jews * Lex. Debate, p. 332. 18 202 INFANT BAPTISM. were broken off; and the second is, that the Jews, when converted to Christianity, shall be again grafted into their own olive tree — the same tree from which they were broken off. Now, it is admitted, of course, that the Gentile converts were received into the Christian church ; and that all converted Jews are received into the same church. I declare solemn- ly, I do not see how prejudice itself can evade the conclusion, that the church existing before the cruci- fixion o£ Christ, is identical with the Christian church. If a tree and the branches growing on it, constitute one tree, then the church, under the Old and New Dispensations, is one and the same church. 3. The Christian church is represented in the Scriptures, not as a neiv church, but as the same church which previously existed, enlarged for the reception of the Gentiles. Isaiah thus addresses the church : " Sing, barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child : for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the Lord.* Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thy habitations : spare not, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes ; for thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left ; and thy seed shall in- herit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be ♦Isaiah, 54: 1-3. INFANT BAPTISM. 203 inhabited." Read this entire chapter, and it "will be perfectly clear — 1st. That the prophet addresses the Jewish church in her barrenness and affliction ; 2d. That he predicts a time when her children shall wonderfully increase by the conversion of the Gen- tiles ; and 3d. That preparatory to their reception, suitable changes should be made in her ordinances and worship, which is called lenthening her cords, enlarging the place of her tent, etc. Now, let me ask the candid reader, when did the Jewish church, here addressed as barren and afflicted, increase the size of her habitations, and receive the Gentiles ? Never, until the New Dispensation. The Gentile converts entered, not into a new church, but into the old church prepared for their reception. And when were the glorious promises, made in this chapter, to the Jewish church, fulfilled ? It is absolutely cer- tain that they were not fulfilled under the Old Dispensation ; and they are not completely fulfilled even yet. The same truth is plainly taught in the sixtieth chapter of this same prophecy: " Arise, shine ; for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee. For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people ; but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee. And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising. Lift up thine eyes round about and see ; all they 204 INFANT BAPTISM. gather themselves together, they come to thee ; thy sons shall come from far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side. Then shalt thou see, and flow together, and thy heart shall fear, and be en- larged ; because the abundance of the sea shall be converted unto thee ; and the forces of the Gentiles shall come unto thee." Read this entire chapter and the following chapter, and say whether these glorious promises, made to the Jewish church in her afflic- tions, were ever fulfilled under the Old Dispensation. Most certainly they were not. Then if they be fulfilled at all, the same church to which they were made, must have continued under the Xew Dispensa- tion, and must continue even to the present day. The same truth is confirmed by the apostle James, in his address to the council at Jerusalem. " Simeon hath declared how God, tt the first, did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written, After this, I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down ; and I will build again the ruins thereof ; and I will set it up : that the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, ,? etc.* Dr. Gill, the Baptist commentator, says : " The tabernacle of David designs the spirit- ual kingdom or church of Christ, who is here called * Acts, 15: 13-17. INFAXT BAPTISE. 205 David;" and that " the raising up and rebuilding of the tabernacle must design the reviving of true religion, the doctrine and practice of it, the enlarge- ment of the church of God, by the conversion both of Jews and Gentiles." It is, then, perfectly clear, that at the introduction of the New Dispensation, a new church was not organized, but the existing church, which had become dilapidated, was built again, and the Gentiles received into it. 4. The argument for the identity of the church under both dispensations, is greatly strengthened by the fact, that the apostles and the one hundred and twenty disciples* did not receive Christian baptism. In times past, our Baptist brethren con- tended earnestly that John's Baptism was Christian baptism ; but this ground is now, I believe, gene- rally abandoned. In his Christian Baptist, Alex- ander Campbell has demonstrated the radical differ- ence between them, f Mr. Carson says: " The baptism of John was in two points essentially differ- ent from the baptism of the apostolic commission." These points, he thus states : " John did not baptize unto the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost : he did not baptize into the faith of Christ as come, but as about to be made mani- fest.'' Again, " John's baptism did not serve for Christ's." On Bap., pp. 281, 284. * Acts, 1 : 1.3. f PP- 647, 648. 18* 206 INFANT BAPTISM. John's ministry and baptism really belonged to the Old Dispensation, and were only prejoaratory to the New. His work was " to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."* The Old Dispensation, with all its ceremonies, continued until the crucifixion of Christ ; and, therefore, one of his last acts, before suffering death, was to partake, with his dis- ciples, of the Passover. The baptism of John, which was identical with that administered by the disciples of Christ, was administered to those who professed repentance and a willingness to receive the Messiah. But it was not an initiatory rite, and was not administered in the name of the Trinity. That John's baptism was not Christian baptism, is demonstrated by the fact, that his disciples were re- bap tizecl by Paul. At Ephesus, he found certain disciples, and asked them — " Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed ? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said said unto them, Unto what then were you baptized ? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him, which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." t Dr. Gill comments on this last * Luke, 1 ; 17. f Acts, 19 : 1-5. INFANT BAPTISM. 207 verse as follows: " When they heard this — that is, the people to whom John preached, his hearers ; when they heard of the Messiah, and that Jesus was he, and that it became them to believe in him, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus; not the disciples that Paul found at Ephesus, but the hearers of John." But Alexander Campbell, after asserting that all the disciples of John were required to receive Christian baptism, says : " I know to what tortures the passage has been subjected by such cold, cloudy and sickening commentators as John Gill. But no man can, with any regard to the grammar of language, or the import of the most definite words, make Luke say, that when those twelve men heard Paul declare the design of immersion, (baptism,) they were not baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Nothing but the bewildering influence of some phantasy, of some blind adoration of some favorite speculation, could so far becloud any man's mind as to make him suppose for a moment, that those twelve persons were not immersed (baptized) into the name of the Lord Jesus." Robert Hall, one of the most eminent Baptists of England, says : Ci In the whole compass of theological controversy, it would be difficult to find a stronger instance of the force of prejudice in obscuring a plain matter of fact." It is, then, perfectly clear, that John's baptism was not Christian baptism. The question, then, 208 INFANT BAPTISM. arises, when did the apostles of Christ receive Chris- tian baptism ? And by whom was it administered to them ? That they did not receive Christian baptism, was admitted by Mr. Campbell, in the Lexington Debate; but he said, " When a person is appointed by God to set up an institution, he is not himself to be regarded as a subject of that institution. * '* Some one must commence the institution — there must be some one to commence Christian baptism ; that could not be done till Jesus had died, was buried, and rose again," etc.* But this evasion of the difficulty will not answer. Abraham set up the institution of circumcision, and yet he was himself circumcised. Aaron, the first Jewish high priest, was consecrated just as were his successors. Why, then, did not the apostles receive Christian bap- tism? But the argument is vet stronger. Let anv un- prejudiced person read the account given in the Acts of the Apostles, of the baptisms on the day of Pen- tecost ; and he will be satisfied, that not only the apostles, but the disciples associated with them, amongst whom was the mother of Christ, were mem- bers of the Christian church, without receiving Chris- tian baptism. Not an intimation is given, that any but the new converts received baptism. " Then they that gladly received the word were baptized ; and the * p. 356. IKFAXT BAPTISM. 209 same clay, there were added unto them about three thousand souls."* No new church was organized ; but the young converts were added to the existing church. The apostles and the disciples associated with them were the branches of the good olive tree, that were not broken off because of unbelief. They, therefore, did not receive the new initiatory rite. Being already in the church, they did not come in by the new door. Those who had rejected Christ, and had been rejected by him, as were the great body of the Jews, when converted, were graffed again into the good olive tree ; they came in by the existing door. For no body would acknowledge and use two initiatory rites at the same time, especially when one of these had become the badge of apos- tates and enemies. The fact, that those who did not reject Christ, but associated themselves with him and his disciples, were members of the Christian church by virtue of their circumcisio??, demonstrates, beyond cavil, the identity of the church under both dispensations. The very fact, that anti-pedo-baptists have felt constrained to deny a truth so abundantly taught in the Scriptures, as the identity of the church under both dispensations, affords strong reason to suspect that infant baptism is scriptural. Opposition to an unscriptural doctrine, could not drive men into the * Acts, 2 : 41. 210 INFANT BAPTISM. denial of important truths, plainly taught through- out the Scriptures. Some of them are willing to admit similarity between the Jewish and Christian church, but not identity. Mr. Campbell says : c< Mr. Rice argues that the Jewish and Christian churches are identical. But he seems to confound similarity with identity. They are, indeed, very different predicaments." * But what are the points of similarity between two institutions as different in their nature as flesh and spirit ? The Bible says nothing of similarity ; but it does present identity. Under both dispensations, the church worships and serves the same God, not a similar God ; obeys the same moral law, not a similar one ; rejoices in the same, not a similar, Gospel. It has the identity of one family receiving its blessings through the same covenant. It has the identity of a tree and its branches, the identity of a house repaired and en- larged, the identity of membership — the apostles and earlier disciples being the connecting link between the two dispensations. Mr. Carson and others, who deny the identity of the church under the two dispensations, regard the Jewish church as a type of the Christian church. Carson says: " The church of Israel was the type of the church of the New Testament, containing, no doubt, the body of the people of God at that time * Lex. Debate, p. 333. IXFAXT BAPTISM. 211 on the earth, and in this point of view, may be called the same. Both are called the kingdom of God, and both were such, but in a different sense. The one was a kingdom of this world ; the other is a kingdom not of this world." Again : " As the church of Israel was the church of God, typical of his true church, and containing, in every successive age, a remnant of the spiritual seed of Abraham, according to the election of grace, the New Testa- ment church is spoken of in the Old, under the figure of Israel, Zion," etc.* Truly, Here are some strange things. In the first place, we are told, that God has, or has had, two kingdoms — one of this world, and the other not, and that yet they are, in a sense, the same kingdom ! And then we are told of the church of God and the true church of God ; the " church" being typical of the " true church." So that there have been two churches of God, one which was a true church, and the other not ! We read here of a church of God which was " of this world ; " and yet it had a holy temple service, priests and prophets to conduct the worship of God, and to teach his truth ; and in it, multitudes were trained for heaven ! But what a confusion of ideas. Abra- is the father of the Christian church ; and yet he and a large portion of his spiritual seed were typical of the rest ! — one part of the family typical of the * On Bap., pp. 374, 375. 212 INFANT BAPTISM. other ! The good olive tree is typical of the branches grafted into it! The typical church is called upon to lengthen her cords, and strengthen her stakes, that she may receive the true church ! Since, then, the church remains the same under the two dispensations, it is clear that in our inquiries respecting the law of membership, we are not to begin with the New Testament. The ordinance of baptism, it is true, is a New Testament ordinance ; but since it is an initiatory rite, to be administered to all who are entitled to a place in the visible church, the great question is — who or what characters are entitled to membership ? Baptism was instituted by Jesus Christ, after his resurrection ; but it was in- stituted for a church which had long been in exist- ence, and which was now to be placed in new circum- stances, and to commence a great work extending to all nations. It, therefore, required new ordinances. Two questions, then, claim attention, viz : 1st. What was the law of membership before the death of Christ ? 2d. Did Christ and his apostles, in intro- ducing the New Dispensation, make any such change in that law, as would exclude the children of believers from the place they had hitherto occupied ? These questions we now proceed to discuss. INFANT BAPTISM. 213 CHAPTER III, That professed believers and their children were placed, by the express command of God, in the Abrahamic church, cannot be questioned. Before the call of Abraham, the church of God had existed in the patriarchal form. Every pious family was a little church, of which the father was the officiating priest. By him the morning and evening sacrifices were offered ; and he led the family devotions. Thus, we find, that Abraham, wherever he spent a night, built an altar, and called upon the name of the Lord. And as every pious family was a little church, so were the children members of that church, trained by the father for God's service. In some instances, men, celebrated for their wisdom and piety, became to some extent public instructors and priests of God. Such was Melchisedek. But the time came, when God saw it best to begin to gather his people into one body. For this purpose, he entered into a cove- nant with Abraham, and appointed circumcision as the seal of that covenant. This became thencefor- ward the ordinance which distinguished those in cove- nant with God from the world. It was administered to Abraham and to all the males of his household, who were afterwards called God's people. " For thus saith the Lord God, My people went down aforetime into Egypt to sojourn there ; and the 19 214 EST ANT BAPTISM. Assyrian oppressed thern without cause." * And to Pharoah, Moses said — " Thus saith the Lord God of the Hebrews, Let my people go, that they may serve me."f Here we find a people called out of the world, for the service of God, with ordinances of divine ap- pointment, and an initiatory rite. This is an organ- ized church ; and, as I think I have proved, it is identical with the Christian church. Into this church, God did, by positive law, put professed believers and their children. Abraham was circumcised, and so was his infant sen Isaac. Henceforth, circumcision was to be administered to all the male children of professed believers, on the eighth day after their birth. Parents and children occupied their places together in the church, until the death of Christ. When, we ask our Baptist friends, were the children of believers excluded ? But it is objected, that baptism has not taken the place of circumcision ; and it has been thought, that by proving this objection, a triumph would be gained over Pedo-baptism. I answer : 1st. It is a matter of no importance, so far as the baptism of infants is concerned, whether baptism has taken the place of circumcision, or not. It cannot be denied, that baptism is an initiatory rite, and must be administered to all who have the right to * Isaiah, 52 : 4. f Exodus, 9 : 1. INFANT BAPTISM. 215 membership in the church; and, therefore, when I establish the right of the children of believers to be in the church, their right to baptism, the initiatory ordinance, follows of necessity. 2d. But it is a truth, clear as light, that baptism has taken the place of circumcision ; and the labored efforts which have been made to disprove it, only expose the weakness of the opposite doctrine, and exhibit the strength of the doctrine of infant bap- tism. What do we mean by saying, that baptism has taken the place of circumcision ? We mean simply, that it answers the same purposes in the church, under the New Dispensation, which circum- cision answered under the Old. Those purposes were the following : In the first place, circumcision was the door into the Abrahamic church. No Gentile could become a member of the Abrahamic church, without submit- ting to circumcision ; and no descendant of Abraham could be recognized as a member, unless circum- cised. " The uncircumcised man-child, whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people." * Precisely so, baptism is the door into the Christian church. No adult can enter it without baptism ; and no child, though born of believing parents, can be recognized as a member, unless baptized. * Gen., 17: 14. 216 INFANT BAPTISM. In the second place, circumcision and baptism have the same significance; and, therefore, baptism impresses on the mind the same truth which circum- cision formerly impressed. This, Mr. Carson, though an extremely zealous Baptist, acknowledges. He says: "Circumcision and baptism correspond in meaning. They both relate to the renewal of the heart." * Indeed the Scriptures so abundantly teach the identity of the meaning of these two ordinances, that few will dispute it. In the third place, circumcision was the seal of the covenant of grace ; and so is baptism. Speaking of circumcision, Rev. Andrew Fuller says : " This ordi- nance ^vas the mark by which they [Abraham and his seed] were distinguished as a people in covenant with Jehovah, and which bound them by a special obligation to obey him." f And is not the same thing true of baptism? Is it not the ordinance which distinguishes Christians from the world, as a people in covenant with God ? And does it not bind them by a special obligation to his service ? Does it not seal to the believer the remission of sins, according to God's gracious covenant ? It is, then, clear, that baptism answers the same ends in the church now, which were answered by cir- cumcision formerly ; and this is all that is meant by saying, it has come in place of circumcision. * On Baptism, p. 367. f Lect. on Gen. 17. INFANT BAPTISM. 217 In the Lexington Debate, Mr. Campbell adduced sixteen arguments to prove that baptism has not come in the place of circumcision ; and although not at all necessary to the defence of infant baptism, a brief notice of these arguments may do good. 1st. The first argument is, that " males only were the subjects of circumcision." Jlnswer. Fe- males, both adults and infants, entered the Jewish church in connection with males ; therefore, the initiatory rite was administered only to the latter. But under the New Dispensation, it constantly hap- pens, that females enter the church alone; there- fore, the initiatory rite is administered to them also. Under both Dispensations, infant females entered the church in the same manner as adult females. But will any one seriously pretend, that the more 1 extensive application of baptism is inconsistent with its taking the place of circumcision ? The second argument is, that " adults circumcised themselves ; 95 and the fourth, which involves the same principle, is, that "infants were circumcised by either parent." Both these arguments proceed upon the assumption, that one ordinance cannot take the place of another, unless the administrators are the same. But this is not true. Before the appoint- ment of the Levitical priesthood at Sinai, the bloody sacrifices were offered by the father of each family. After that time, this duty was confined to the priests. But no one has ventured to contend, that this change 19* 218 INFANT BAPTISM. of administrators made any change in the nature of the sacrifices. If, then, a change of administrators makes no change in the nature of an ordinance, how can such a change prevent one ordinance from taking the place of another? Moreover, this argument comes very inconsistently from Mr. Campbell, who teaches, that " there is no law in the Christian Scriptures authorizing any one class of citizens in the Christian kingdom to immerse, to the exclusion of any other class of citizens ; " and that even females may administer baptism.* The third argument is, that " infant males were to be circumcised the eighth day." Answer. The time of administration was not an essential point ; for circumcision was postponed for forty years, dur- ing the passage of the Jews through the wilderness. t How, then, can it be pretended, that one ordinance cannot take the place ol another, unless the time of administration be precisely the same ? May not the changed circumstances of the church justify a change in the time of administering ordinances ? The fifth argument is, that " a Jew's property in a man or child, constrained his circumcision. Abra- ham's servants, adults and all, because his prop- erty, were circumcised." It is true, Abraham's servants were circumcised ; but it cannot be proved * Millen. Harb., v. 3, pp. 236, 237. \ Joshua, 5th ch. INFANT BAPTISM. 219 that he had a single adult servant, who did not pro- fess to be a worshipper of the true God ; nor is there the slightest evidence, that any adult servant of the Jews was circumcised, until he professed faith. The law of Moses says : " But every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof." * (7. e., of the Passover. ) But it does not require that every such servant shall be circumcised. " It does not appear," says Dr. Scott, " that any servant or stranger was compelled to be circumcised ; but, till he was circum- cised, he must not be allowed to eat the Passover." There is something extremely revolting in the idea, so much urged by anti-pedo-baptists, of administer- ing the seal of God's covenant to servants, simply as property. "What could be the meaning or design of such administration ? Why not administer religious ordinances to other property? The idea is profane ; and Mr. Carson carries it out to the extreme, when he says: " Abraham would have been justified in circumcising his slaves, had every one of them sub- mitted with reluctance, or had endeavored to re- sist." f To such errors does opposition to infant baptism drive men. The sixth argument is, that " circumcision was not the door into any church or religious institution. It was no initiatory rite into any moral institution. # Exod., 12 : 44. f Ou Bap., p. 561. 220 IXFAXT BAPTISM. The Ishmaelites and Edomites, and many other na- tions by Keturah, were circumcised. Into what church did they enter ? The Jews were members of the politico -ecclesiastical church by natural birth. Circumcision was no initiatory rite or door to them." Here are certainly some strange assertions. The Ishmaelites and Edomites were apostates from the religion of Abraham. And will it be pretended, that the abuse of circumcision by apostates, proves that it was not an initiatory rite ? Why not argue, that since Mormons practice baptism, and yet do not enter into the Christian church, baptism cannot be an initiatory rite ? Such arguments are almost too weak to admit of refutation. But circumcision, we are told, could not be an initiatory rite to the Jew, because he was a member of the church by birth ; and yet the Scriptures declare plainly, that the uncir- cumcised man-child should not be a member of that church.* Desperate, indeed, must be the cause which drives its advocates to such assertions. When a Gentile desired to enter the Jewish church, and partake of the passover, he was directed to be cir- cumcised, f Beyond all controversy, circumcision was an initiatory rite. The seventh argument is, that " the qualification for circumcision wasyfesA." This assertion is utterly untrue. If it had been so, how could a Gentile * Gen., 17: 14. f Exod., 12: 48. INFANT BAPTISM. 221 proselyte have been circumcised ? What flesh, quali- fication had he ? The Gentile was not a descendant of Abraham according to the flesh. What, then, was the qualification necessary to admit a Gentile to circumcision ? There were amongst the Jews two classes of proselytes, viz : the proselytes of the gate and the proselytes of righteousness. These last re- ceived circumcision on professing their faith. The Jews, in the clays of Paul, agreed with the view maintained by Mr. Campbell — that the qualification for circumcision was flesh ; but he was careful to correct the mischievous error. He said : " For cir- cumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law : but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. For he is not a Jew which is one outwardly ; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh : but he is a Jew which is one inwardly ; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God." * How could the apostle more strongly assert, that circumcision requires true piety, and is useless without it ? How can any man keep the law of God without piety ? The eighth argument is, that " circumcision was not a dedicatory rite." Circumcision was the seal of a covenant which required the circumcised person to serve God, and which required the parents of cir- * Rom., 2 : 25-29. 222 INFANT BAPTISM. cumcised children to train them up for that service. In this sense, it was a dedicatory rite, and in this sense only is baptism a dedicatory rite. The ninth argument is, that " circumcision, re- quiring no moral qualification, communicated no spiritual blessings." But circumcision, as we have just proved, did require moral qualification ; and it did communicate spiritual blessings, just so far as an external ordinance ever communicates such blessings. For Paul says, in the passage just quoted, " Cir- cumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law ; " and in the following chapter, in answer to the ques- tion, "What profit is thereof circumcision?" — he answers, " Much every way." * Circumcision sealed the covenant which contains the precious promise — " to be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee." t Those who kept that covenant received abundant spiritual blessings. The same, precisely, is true of baptism. The tenth argument is, that " idiots were circum- cised." This is a mere quibble. The law of cir- cumcision says not a word about idiots. But why should not a Christian parent have an idiotic child baptized? It has a soul, and must be saved by the blood of Christ. Why should not the afflicted parents place upon it the seal of God's covenant, and plead his promise ? *Rom., 3: 1,2. t Gen., 17: 7. INFANT BAPTISM. 223 The eleventh argument is, that circumcision "was a visible appreciable mark, as all signs and seals are. Is sprinkling so, or any use of water ? " The argu- ment is, that circumcision was a sign and seal ; and baptism cannot take the place or* circumcision, be- cause it is not " a visible, appreciable mark, as all signs and seals are." And yet, in his late book on baptism, Mr. Campbell uses the following language : " Circumcision is said to have been, in one case at least, a sign and a seal. Baptism, in the same sense, and in a similar case, is also both a sign and a seal," etc. Again, " Baptism, according to the apostolic church, is both ' a sign' and ' a seal"* of remission of all former sins." * Is it not strange, that such a man should so flatly contradict himself on such a subject ? But the argument now is all on our side. Baptism, said Mr. Campbell, cannot take the place of circumcision, because it is not " a visi- ble, appreciable mark," and, therefore, not a sign and seal, as was circumcision. I answer, baptism has taken the place oi circumcision, because it is, as Mr. C. confesses and maintains, both a sign and a seal, " in the same sense ! " The twelfth argument is, that " circumcision was binding on parents, not on children. The com- mandment was, ' Circumcise your children.' But the Christian word is, 'Be baptized every one of * p. 272. 224 INFANT BAPTISM. you. 5 " Answer. The command to adults was, u Be circumcised ;" and so is the command to adults, " Be baptized.'' But it was the duty of parents to have their children circumcised ; and it was the duty of circumcised children, when old enough to under- stand their obligations, to keep the covenant of the Lord, engaging in his service. The same is true of baptism. Therefore, it has taken the place of cir- cumcision. The thirteenth argument is, that " the right to circumcision in no case depended upon the faith, the piety, or the morality cf parents. The infant of the most impious Jew had just as good a right to circumcision as the son of Abraham, David or Dan- iel." This is a bold assertion; but it is not true. Not a passage in the Bible can be found to sustain it. God commanded Jewish parents to keep his cove- nant ; and he commanded them to place the seal o£ that covenant upon their children ; but he did not intimate that apostates had the same rights as the truly pious. The fourteenth argument is, that " circumcision guarantied certain temporal blessings to the Jews. Query — what temporal blessings does baptism secure to infants ? " Answer. Circumcision did not guar- antee any special temporal blessings. The Gentile proselyte, though circumcised, had no inheritance amongst the Jews. A Jew had certain temporal blessings, not simply because circumcised., but be- INFANT BAPTISM. 225 cause lie belonged to one of the twelve tribes. The Gospel promises to the Christian the same temporal blessings which circumcision promised to the prose- lyte, viz : the providential care of God. The fifteenth argument is, that circumcision "was not to be performed into the name of any being whatever, neither in heaven nor on earth." Answer. Circumcision was performed by the command, and, therefore, in the name of the true God. Whether precisely the same words were spoken in the adminis- tration of it, as in the administration of baptism, is of no importance ; for certainly no man in his senses will maintain that an ordinance cannot take the place of another, unless the very same words are repeated in the administration of it. The sixteenth argument is, that u the subject of circumcision, was a debtor to keep the law of Moses in all its institutions. Query— Are those infants baptized, debtors to keep all the Jewish ordinances? If not, how does baptism fill the place of circum- cision ? " Answer. The circumcised person was bound to observe all the existing laws and ordi- nances of God, not to observe any that had been repealed ; and the baptized person is bound to ob- serve all existing laws and ordinances, but not those that have been repealed. How perfectly absurd to say, that one ordinance cannot be substituted for another, unless it require the observance of repealed 20 226 INFANT BAPTISM. I have now done a work of supererogation, so far as infant baptism is concerned. For when I have proved the right of children to membership in the church, as before remarked, their right to baptism follows necessarily, whether it came in the place of circumcision or not. But I have given proof, which seems to me conclusive, that baptism has taken the place of circumcision ; and a brief examination of Mr. Campbell's sixteen arguments has served fully to expose their utter weakness. Each argument is founded upon a false assertion, or is a mere quibble. But let me now further say, that the whole sixteen arguments rest upon a false and flimsy assumption. The assumption is, that if one ordinance take the place of another, it must answer in every particular to the other. This would be true, if this were the only change made. For instance, if baptism had been substituted for circumcision during the con- tinuance of the Old Dispensation, it must have conformed, in all respects, to the law of circum- cision. But when a New Dispensation takes place of the Old, and all the ordinances are changed to prepare the church for new circumstaces and new labors, then baptism must conform to this new state of things, not to that which has passed away. It is not simply true, that baptism has taken the place of circumcision, but that all the ordinances of the Old Dispensation have been supplanted by those of the New. Nothing, certainly, but the dire necessities of IXFANT BAPTISM. 227 anti-pedo-baptism could have induced its advocates to offer such arguments as we have just been con- sidering. CHAPTER IY. Two most important points, I think, are fully established by the preceding discussion, viz : 1st. That the Christian church is identical with the Abra- hamic ; 2d. That the law of membership in this church did embrace believers and their children, from the ratification of the covenant with Abraham to the crucifixion of Christ. Or, in other words, the cove- nant with Abraham, upon which the church was organized, embraced believers and their children ; and, therefore, both received the same initiatory rite, the same seal. Now, it devolves upon the opposers of infant bap- tism to prove, that Christ or his apostles did so change the covenant and the law of membership, as to exclude from the church the children of believers. For unless such a change was made, they are still embraced in the covenant, and in the law of mem- bership, and, consequently, have the right to the initiatory ordinance. We prove, that when the church was organized, God did put believers and their chil- dren into it, and that they both remained together, 228 INFANT BAPTISM. till the advent of Christ. Then let those who pro- pose henceforth to exclude children, produce Divine authority for so doing. The burden of proof rests upon them. 1. The first proof on which they rely, is the com- mission given by our Lord to the apostles : " Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you : and, lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world. Amen." * So confident was Mr. Carson that this commission excludes infants from baptism, that he said, "I am willing to hang the whole controversy on this passage ; " and he adds, u If I had not another passage in the word of God, I will engage to refute my opponents from the words of this commis- sion alone." t Mr. Campbell says: " Now, I will stake the whole cause for which I now plead, upon a fair, grammatical, and logical construction of this single document." J Let us look carefully at this formidable evidence. It presents several points for careful consideration. 1st. It will be perceived at a glance, that this com- mission says nothing about the organization of a new church. It simply sends the apostles to prose- * Matt., 28 : 19, 20. f On Baptism, p. 278. t On Baptism, p. 278. INFANT BAPTISM. 229 lyte all nations, baptizing and teaching them. It is certainly remarkable, if a new church, on entirely new principles, was to be organized, that the com- mission gives no intimation of it. 2d. It is equally plain, that the commission men- tions neither infants nor adults. It sends the apos- tles to " all nations. 5 ' I am aware, that Mark, 16 : 15, 16, is appealed to in this connection ; but the language of Christ, as given by Mark, simply en- joins the duty of preaching the Gospel, and fixes the terms of salvation for those capable of hearing and understanding the Gospel. " He that believeth -and is baptized, shall be saved." Here, say our opponents, baptism is confined to believers. But there is another declaration in the same sentence, viz : " but he that believeth not, shall be damned." Why not say, here salvation is confined to believers, and, therefore, infants and idiots cannot be saved ? If the first part of the sentence excludes infants from baptism, the last part must exclude them from salvation. "Certainly," says Mr. Carson, u if there were no way of saving children but by the Gospel, this conclusion would be inevitable. The Gospel saves none but by faith. But the Gospel has nothing to do with infants, nor have gospel ordi- nances any respect to them." * Whether the Gos- pel has anything to do with infants or not, it is * Lex. Debate, p. 368. 20* 230 INFANT BAPTISM. certain that the Author of the Gospel, when on earth, had something to clo with them. And when he took them in his arms and blessed them, saying, " Of such is the kingdom of heaven," he very clearly intimated, that the plan of salvation had something to do with them. And since the apostles of Christ gave the same directions with regard to the training of children, which Moses gave, it is quite probable that, as in the days of Moses, ordinances had respect to them, so they may have now. But this is not the point. A passage of Scrip- tore is adduced to prove, that baptism is confined to believers, and cannot be administered to infants. If, however, you apply the passage to infants, so as to exclude them from baptism, it necessarily excludes them from salvation. The truth is, the language of our Saviour has reference exclusively to per- sons capable of understanding the Gospel; and, therefore, neither settles the question of the baptism, nor of the salvation of infants. 3d. Our opponents agree with us, that the first word translated teach, in the commission, signifies to disciple, or make disciples. " It is well known," says Carson, "that the word corresponding to teach, in the first instance in which it occurs in this passage, signifies to disciple, or make scholars." * The duty, then, enjoined upon the apostles was to make * On Baptism, p. 274. INFANT BAPTISM. 231 disciples of all nations. We are agreed also, that a disciple, in the Scripture sense of the word, is a true learner — one who loves to sit at the feet o£ Jesus to learn heavenly wisdom, that he may obey the truth. But now the question arises — How were the apos- tles to make disciples of all nations ? What means were they to employ ? The answer is, by baptizing them and teaching them the whole will of God. Alexander Campbell has contended, that u the ac- tive participle always, when connected with the im- perative mood, expresses the manner in which the thing commanded is to be performed." And he gives several examples, as the following : " Cleanse the room, washing it ; clean the floor, sweeping it ; cultivate the field, ploughing it ; sustain the hungry, . feeding them ; furnish the soldiers, arming them ; convert the nations, baptizing them, are exactly the same forms of speech." * Whether this criticism of Mr. Campbell is correct or not, is of no importance, since the truth is admitted, that ministers of Christ can make disciples only by using the means embraced in the terms baptizing and teaching. The duty enjoined in the commission is to make disciples ; and it is certain they could do this work only by baptizing and teaching them. Whatever additional influence was necessary for their conversion, God himself must exert. * Chris. Bap. p. 630. 232 INFANT BAPTISM. So far all is clear. But liere arises another ques- tion, viz : Does the commission require that teach ing shall, in all cases, precede baptizing ? Our opponents affirm ; we deny. It is contended, that the word {imatheteuo) translated teach, necessarily implies instruction — that no one can be called a disciple, until he is instructed in the first principles of the Gospel. Admit it. The question is not whether, in making disciples, it is necessary to teach, or how much instruction must be given. The com- ioB requires two things to be done, viz : baptiz- ing and teaching ; and the question is as to the order in which these duties are to be performed. Does the language of the commission settle this order? It does not. It says, make disciples by baptizing and teaching ; but whether teaching must, in all cases, be first in order, it does not say; this question must be settled by other parts of the Bible. In the case of adults, the minister will, of course, teach both before and after baptism. In the case of infants, he will teach after baptism. But in both cases, he will make disciples by baptizing and teaching ; and this is all the commission requires. But let us go further than the language requires, and admit, that the passage under consideration refers exclusively to adults, or to persons capable of understanding the Gospel ; yet if we find, in the word of God, evidence that the children of believers are to be baptized, the language here used cannot be IKFANT BAPTISM. 233 so interpreted, as to exclude them. For the lan- guage of the commission does not express the whole of the duties of the ministry. The utmost that can be maintained from the commission is, that, taken by itself, it does not authorize the baptism of infants. But the command to baptize adult believers, cannot exclude infants. We are seeking now for a law excluding the children of believers from the place in the church, which they had, for centuries, occupied. Anti-peclo-baptists profess to find such a law in the passage under consideration ; but on ex- amination, we discover that, even admitting more than the language proves, it simply sends the apos- tles among all nations to baptize those who profess conversion, but says nothing directly or indirectly concerning infants. And is this a law excluding them from the church ? It cannot be. But it is affirmed, that the law of membership has been changed — that flesh was the sole qualifica- tion for membership in the Abrahamic church ; whilst faith is the qualification in the Christian church. It is not true, that flesh was the sole qualification for membership in the Abrahamic church. So far from it, that it was not a necessary qualification at all. Proselytes from the Gentiles were constantly received on the sole ground of faith. They were not descend- ants of Abraham, but, professing the faith of Abra- ham and Moses, they were admitted to full mem- bership. I have said, flesh or natural descent from 234 INFANT BAPTISM. Abraham, was not a necessary qualification. I go further, and affirm, that it was not a qualification at all. The Ishmaelites and Edomites were natural descendants of Abraham ; they had, therefore, the flesh qualification ; yet they were not members of the Abrahamic church, or even of the commonwealth of Israel. Besides, a Jew migrht forfeit his right to membership in the church by improper conduct, though he had the flesh qualification. This is evi- dently what is meant generally by the expression, " cut off from his people." Thus, the man who ate leavened bread during the festival of the Passover, was to be " cut off from Israel."* A man who, after touching an unclean thing, should eat of the flesh of a peace-offering, was to suffer in like man- ner.! I am aware that some commentators have regarded this expression as the denunciation of some awful judgment of God ; but it seems to me clear, that they have not rightly interpreted it. The sins to which this punishment is annexed, are not gene- rally of a character so heinous, as to justify this interpretation. I agree, therefore, with Dr. Clarke, that the punishment " appears to have been nearly the same with excommunication among Christians." Certain it is, that flesh was not the qualification for membership in the Abrahamic church. If it had been, how could the Jews have been broken off from *Exod. ; 12: 15. f Levit.,7: 21 INFANT BAPTISM. 235 the good olive tree, and rejected, because of un- belief? If faith was not required, how could unbelief exclude them? Even in the case of infants, flesh was not the qualification, but the professed faith of the parent. If Jewish parents became pagan idolaters, their children, -though the flesh qualification continued unaltered, would have had no right to membership ; and the profession of faith by Gentile parents, though there was no flesh qualifica- tion, placed their children, so far as the church was concerned, upon as perfect equality with the children of Jews. The truth is, anti-pedo -baptists have utterly failed to find a law for excluding the children of believers from the visible church. They, therefore, have the right to remain where God originally placed them, and there to be trained for the service of God and for heaven. They, consequently, are entitled to the initiatory rite. But we take stronger ground. We undertake to find, in the New Testament, authority for baptizing the infants of believers. " And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not : for of such is the kingdom of God." This interesting occurrence is related by three of the evangelists in 236 INFANT BAPTISM. very nearly the same language.* In examining the language of our Saviour, the first question that arises, is concerning the " kingdom of heaven. 55 Here, happily, both parties are agreed. Anti-pedo- baptists admit that " the kingdom of heaven" here means the Gospel church. The whole controversy, then, turns upon the words of such, (Joiautou.) Does this expression mean, that the church of Christ should be constituted of persons who have spiritual dispositions resembling or analogous to the disposi- tions of little children ? Or does it mean that the privileges of the church of Christ belong to children such as these ? Dr. Gill explains it as follows : " And it is as if our Lord should say, don't drive away these children from my person and presence ; they are lively emblems of the proper subjects of a Gospel church-state, and of such that shall enter into the kingdom of heaven : by these, I may in- struct and point out to you, what converted persons should be, who have a place in my church below, and expect to enter into my kingdom and glory above ; they are, or ought to be, like such children, harm- less and inoffensive — free from rancor and malice," etc. The same explanation is given by Mr. Carson. " Every way," says he, " in which the words can be understood, imports that the heirs of the kingdom are such as children — not that they are children. * Luke, 18 : 15, 16; Matt., 19 : 13, 14 ; Mark, 10 : 13, 14. INFANT BAPTISM. 237 The term such does not signify identity — cannot signify identity — but likeness." Again, " It is the temper of children to which our Lord gives his approbation, and the things referred to are in all children." Again, " Indeed, the dispositions of children are not considered here in reference to God, but in reference to men. Children believe their parents implicitly ; and they are comparatively un- ambitious. But they are no more ready to believe God than adults are." * To this explanation of our Saviour's language there are insuperable objections. Indeed, the fact that anti-peclo-baptists have felt compelled to resort to it, in order to defend their doctrine, affords de- cided evidence against it. For, 1st. The word (Joi- outos) translated such, uniformly signifies same- ness of kind, not resemblance. The following examples will enable the unlearned reader to decide upon the meaning of the word, as well as any critic could: " Whom he called together with the work- men of like occupation," (toiauta.') The meaning evidently is, of the same trade. " Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things, (toiauta^) are worthy of death," etc. Here such things mean crimes of the same kind. " But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, * On Baptism, pp. 321, 322, 323. 21 238 INFANT BAPTISM, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunk- ard, or an extortioner; wit-li such a one (toiouto) no not to eat." Here such a one means one of the sam character. u Of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they "which do such things (Joiauta) shall not inherit the kingdom of God." "From such (Jon toioutori) withdraw thyself." * In every one of these instances, the word in dispute signifies sameness of character or kind, not partial resemblance. It has the same meaning in the following passages : " And with many such (Joiautais) parables spake he the word unto them." " But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such (toiou- tous} to worship him." 4e TVho having received such a charge, (Joiauten) thrust them into the inner prison." " But now ye rejoice in your boasting : all such rejoicing (Joiauta) is evil." f In all these passages, it is perfectly evident that the word sig- *Acts, 19: 25; Rom., 1 : 32; 1 Cor , 5 : 11; Gal., 5 : 21; 1 Tim., 6: 5. f Mark, 4 : 33 ; John, 4 : 23 ; Acts, 16 : 24 ; James, 4 : 16. The reader may examine the following passages ; and in all of them, he will find the meaning of the word to be sameness of kind or character : Matt., 9:8; Mark, 6:2; John, 9:16: Luke, 9 : 9, and 13 : 2 ; Heb., 12 : 3 ; 2 Cor., 12 : 2, 3, 5 ; Acts, 22: 22; 2 Cor., 2 : 6; Rom., 16 : 18 ; 1 Cor., 16: 16, 18; 2 Thess., 3 : 12 ; Titus, 3 : 11 ; Acts, 21 : 25 ; Eph., 5 : 27 ; Heb. , 11 : 14 ; Acts, 26 : 29 ; Heb., 7 : 26, and 8 : 1. INFANT BAPTISM. 239 nifies, not mere resemblance, but sameness of kind or character. Indeed, this is the uniform meaning of the word. The only apparent exception in the New Testament, is in Matt. 18 : 1-5. "At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven ? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, and said, Verily, I say unto yon, except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whoso shall receive one such little child in my name re* ceiveth me." But here the word toiouton {such} relates, not to the little child, but to the true convert whom the Saviour had just compared to a child. Whoever shall receive a person of such a character, receives Christ. So that the word is here used in its ordinary sense. It is a most significant fact, that anti-pedo-baptists have been obliged to assign to this word a sense it rarely, if ever, has, in order to escape the force of the argument drawn from it in favor of infant baptism.* 2d. The anti-pedo- baptist interpretation or this * " Toiotjtos," says the late Dr. Woods, of Andover Theo- logical Seminary, " the same as talis in Latin, properly sig- nifies the nature or quality of the thing to which it is applied, and not the resemblance which something else bears to it. Ae- cordingty, the real import of ton gar toiouton estin he basileia ton ourauou, ' of 3ach is the kingdom of heaven,' is the same as of these and such as these is the kingdom of heaven, includ- 240 INFANT BAPTISM. passage destroys the sense of our Saviour's lan- guage, and makes him talk absurdly. They make him say, " Suffer little children to come to me, because pious adults do, in some respects, resemble them." Now, let it be remembered, that those chil- dren were brought to Christ, that he might put his hands on them, and bless them. Can any man bring himself to believe, that the resemblance between little children and believers, (confessedly not a moral resemblance, so far as the children are concerned,) constitutes any reason why they should be brought to Christ, that he might bless them? Might not lambs, or sheep, or doves, have been brought to him for the same reason? For believers are called Christ's lambs and his sheep ; and they are to be " harmless as doves." But why should children, because they are emblems of humility, be brought to Jesus Christ? " For," as Whitby well remarks, " this they are as much when they come not, as when they come.'' And why should the fact, that children are emblems of humility, make it proper that our Saviour should put his hands upon them, and bless ing, of course, the children themselves, as having a right to the blessings of Christ's Kingdom. * * * This appears to be the sense of toioutos, except when it is employed in a peculiar, unusual manner. Accordingly, the phrase, { of such is the kingdom of heaven,' must mean of such children as these, the very children that were brought to Christ being included." Lect. on Infant Baptism, pp. 62, 63. INFANT BAPTISM. 241 them ? Is it not evident, that the anti-pedo-baptist interpretation of this passage of Scripture, makes him reason most absurdly ? It cannot, therefore, be correct. Indeed, some of the ablest opponents of infant baptism have felt this difficulty, and have attempted to escape it in different ways. Dr. Gill thought the children were not infants, but were probably capa- ble of "going alone; yea, of receiving instruc- tions, of understanding the Scriptures ; *' and he added, "Nor is it probable that infants just born, or within a month, should be had abroad." * But unfortunately for this conjecture, Luke calls them infants, (brephe) ; and Mark says, " He took them up in his arms, put his hands on them, and blessed them." f How could the inspired writers more plainly tell us, that they were babes ? The state- ment concerning the public appearance of infants just born, or within a month, is a quibble which shows how hardly the text under examination presses the opponents of infant baptism. Who does not know, that infants are many months old, before they are capable of understanding the Gospel? " More- over," says the Doctor, " these were such as Christ called unto him. Luke, 18 : 16." This is an # Commentary on Matthew, 19 : 13. t Luke,, 18 : 15 ; and Mark, 10 : 16. 21* 242 INFANT BAPTISM. entire "mistake. Christ did not call the children, but he called those who brought the children. Dr. Gill was evidently not satisfied with his proof, that the children were of sufiicient age to receive instruction. He, therefore, resorts to another con- jecture, viz : that " probably some of those infants, if not all of them, were diseased, and brought to be cured ; otherwise, it is not easy to conceive what they should be touched by him for." Kow, if the Saviour had said, " Suffer these little children to come to me, that they may be healed," all would have been plain. But can any one conceive what the healing of these diseases had to do with their being emblems of Christian character ? Dr. Gill evidently felt that the reason for their coming to Christ, which his interpretation made him assign, was no reason at all; and, therefore, he labored to find other reason;?, such as their diseases or their capability of receiving ..instruction. -/•Mr; Carson also felt the difficulty which pressed his interpretation of this passage. He saw the ab- surdity of representing Christ as taking infants in his arms and blessing them, just because they were emblems of humility. He, therefore, says: "That children are capable of being brought to Christ and blessed by him, is clearly established by this pas- sage ; and in this light, it is of inestimable value."* On Baptism, pp. 323, 324. INFANT BAPTISM. 243 Very true : and this was a good reason why those children should be brought to him ; but it is not the reason which Mr. Carson makes our Saviour assign. They are capable, it is admitted, of being brought to Christ and blessed by him. Then they are capa- ble of enjoying the blessings of his kingdom. In the name of reason, then, why should they be ex- cluded from that kingdom, as it is organized in the world ? And if there was propriety in our Saviour's laying his hands upon them, and blessing them, though they understood not what he did, who will venture to assert, that there is impropriety in ad- ministering to them an ordinance they cannot yet comprehend ? It is perfectly clear, then, that the anti-pedo-bap- tist interpretation of our Lord's language, labors under two insuperable difficulties. It puts upon one of the most important words in the passage, a sense which it never has, or, at least, is very extraordinary ; and it makes the reason assigned why little children should be brought to him, perfectly absurd. Our interpretation, on the contrary, is perfectly natural and obvious. Let little children come to Christ; for to them belong the privileges and blessings of his church and kingdom. But our anti-pedo-baptist friends are still unwilling to give up the argument. They say, after all, Christ did not baptize those children. No ; for Christian baptism was not then instituted; and " the baptism 244 INFANT BAPTISM. of repentance" was not intended for infants. But instead of intimating that they were to be henceforth excluded from his church, he did plainly declare, that they were still to occupy their place in his visible kingdom; and, if so, all admit that they are entitled to the initiatory rite. They have the right to be in the church ; and, therefore, they must receive that ordinance by which this right is recognized. The argument seems to be absolutely conclusive. " But," says Mr. Carson, " to argue that children must be baptized, because they may be blessed by Jesus, has no color of plausibility." And he adds, " The whole argument may be reduced to a single sentence. Children may be blessed, wtthout being baptized, therefore, the blessing of the children by Jesus, is no argument for infant baptism." * It is true, that the blessing of the children by Jesus is not an argument for infant baptism ; nor do Pedo-baptists rely on any such argument. But the language of Christ, teaching that to such children belong the privileges of his church, does prove their right to membership, and, consequently, their right to the initiatory ordinance. ' ' But," says Mr. Carson, " let this passage be ever so finely wiredrawn, it cannot include infant baptism. It applies to children in general, and not merely to the children of believers." This is a mis- * On Baptism, 324. INFANT BAPTISM. 245 take. Our Saviour said, " Of such is the kingdom of heaven." Those were children of Jews who were by profession believers ; and it is to such children the right of membership belongs. I think I have now examined and refuted every argument and objection by which anti-pedo-baptists have sought to escape the force of this most inter- esting passage of Scripture ; and, so far as I am capable of seeing the force of a plain argument, it appears to me perfectly satisfactory. Thus, we find, in the New Testament, authority for baptizing the children of believers. The language of Paul, in 1 Cor., 7: 14, has been very generally understood to authorize the baptism of infants, one or both of whose parents are professed believers. The apostle directs the wife of an un- believing husband not to separate from him. "For," says he, " the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband : else were your children unclean ; but now are they holy." This passage has been one of great difficulty to anti-pedo-baptists. It is per- fectly clear, that there is a sense in which the chil- dren of believers, and they only, are clean, holy. Dr. Gill understood these words as expressing legiti- macy and illegitimacy. He thus paraphrases the declaration: " Else were your children unclean," etc. " That is, if the marriage contracted between them, in their state of infidelity, was not valid. 246 INFANT BAPTISM. and, since the conversion of one of them, can never be thought to be good, then the children begotten and born, either when both were infidels, or since one of thera was converted, must be unlawfully begotten, be base-born, and not a genuine legitimate offspring ; and departure upon such a footing would be declaring to all the world that their children were illegitimate ; which would have been a sad case in- deed, and contains in it another reason why they ought to keep together ; whereas, as the apostle has put it, the children are holy in the same sense as their parents are ; that they are sanctified, or law- fully espoused together, so the children born of them were, in a civil and legal sense, holy, that is, legitimate." Drs. Gale and Carson take the same view. The great objection, however, to this inter- pretation, is, that the words holy (Jiagia) and un- clean (akatharta) are never used to express legiti- macy and illegitimacy. Lexicons attribute to them no such meaning ; and anti-pedo-baptists refer to no instances in which they are so used. These words have; in the Scriptures, two meanings. They sig- nify moral qualities — personal holiness or tmholi- ness ; and also consecration, or the opposite. Thus, when God says, u Be ye holy ; for I am holy ;" the word holy expresses moral qualities. But when we read, that the firstling of a cow, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat, was " holy," we understand that those animals were consecrated to IXFAXT BAPTISE. 247 the service of God in sacrifice. And when we read of holy ointment, holy linen, holy crown, etc., as connected with the temple service, we understand the word in the sense of consecration. And so the Jews were a holy nation, and their children a holy seed.* The words clean and unclean are similarly used. In Isiaiah, 35: 8, the latter word expresses moral qualities. In Leviticus, 5: 2, and in a multitude of passages, it is used to signify ceremonial impurity. In these two senses, the words in question are con- stantly used, hut never in the sense of legitimacy or illegitimacy. Dr. Whitby says : " The word used for a bastard by this apostle being nothos, Heb., 12: 8, and the word gnesios being the proper word for a legitimate offspring, had the apostle intended such a sense, he would have used the words, which in the Greek writers are generally used in that sense, and not such words as in the Septuagint, and in the Jewish language, always have a relation to federal holiness, or the want of it ; but none at all to the legitimacy or spuriousness of the birth." He, therefore, ex- plains the passage thus: "He doth not say, else were your children bastards, but now they are legit- imate ; but else were they unclean, that is, heathen children, not to be owned as a holy seed, and, there- * Num., 18 : 17 ; Deut., 7 : 6, and 14: 2 ; Ezra, 9 : 2. 248 INFANT BAPTISM. fore, not to be admitted into covenant with God, as belonging to his holy people. That this is the true import of the words akatharta and hagia, will be apparent from the Scriptures, in which the heathens are styled the unclean, in opposition to the Jews in covenant with God, and, therefore, styled an holy people." Dr. Doddridge says: " On the maturest and most impartial consideration of this text, I must judge it to refer to infant baptism. Nothing can be more apparent than that the word holy signifies persons who might be admitted to partake of the distinguishing rites of God's people. And as for the interpretation which so many of our brethren, the Baptists, have contended for, that holy signifies legitimate, and unclean, illegitimate; (not to urge that this seems an unscriptural sense of the words,) nothing can be more evident, than that the argument will by no means bear it ; for it would be proving a thing by itself, idem per idem, to argue that the converse of the parents was lawful, because the children were not bastards ; whereas all who thought the converse of the parents unlawful, must, of course, think that the children were illegitimate" Dr. Scott, the commentator, explains the passage thus : " If this had not been so appointed, and if Christians had been commanded to put away their unbelieving partners, as the Jews did their idolatrous wives ; the children of such marriages would have been accounted relatively ' unclean,' and so excluded IXFAXT BAPTISM. 249 from baptism, even as those of the Jews in the above-mentioned case were from circumcision : but on the contrary, they were accounted holy in the Christian churches, and thus admitted among them, as a part of the visible kingdom of Grod." In relation to the meaning attached to the words unclean and holy by anti-pedo-baptists, he says : " But in all the places where these words are found in Scripture, there is not one which will admit of this sense. No doubt, the children of the heathen, who were law- fully married, were as legitimate as those of Chris- tians, yet they were never said to be • holy.' Some- thing more must be meant, ~hy the believer ' sancti- fying ' the unbelieving party, than merely legalizing their marriage ; for that would have been valid and lawful, if both had been unbelievers : and the children would not really be more ' holy, 5 in respect of their nature, if one parent was a believer, than if both were unbelievers. But as the word 6 unclean' is fre- quently used in a relative sense, denoting unfit to be admitted to God^s ordinances , and ' holy,' the contrary, as in this sense the male children of the Jews were 6 holy,' and so partakers of circumcision ; while those of the Gentiles, and even such as had one idolatrous parent, were ' unclean? and excluded from circumcision ; I cannot but conclude, after long attention to the subject, that the baptism of the infant offspring of Christians is here evidently re- 22 250 INFANT BAPTISM. f erred to, as at that time customary in the churches,' 5 etc. Such are the views of the ablest commentators and critics, respecting the meaning of this passage of Scripture. It is certainly remarkable, that the op- ponents of infant baptism, in order to evade its force, have been compelled to assign to the words holy and unclean, meanings which they never have. But if such liberties are taken with the language of the Scriptures, there is nothing which they may not be made to teach. Alexander Campbell saw the difficulty of sustain- ing the interpretation of this passage, so long adopted by the opponents of infant baptism. Declaring both Baptists and Pedo-baptists in error, he gives a new interpretation. He says: "It is not, then, legit- imacy of wives, husbands, and their children ; but whether believing and unbelieving parties might, according to the law of Christ, continue together. Paul's response is briefly thus : They may live toge- ther — they are sanctified or clean persons, as to one another, in this relation. If you may not do so, you must put away your children also ; for all your children stand to you as do those unbelieving, un- holy persons. If you must reject your unchristian, unprofessing husbands and wives, you must, for the same reason, reject all your unprofessing, unbeliev- ing children." * A very brief notice of this in- * Lexington Debate, p. 384. INFANT BAPTISM. 251 terpretation, will be quite sufficient to expose its weakness. 1st. The very fact, that Mr. Campbell could pro- duce no commentator, theologian, or critic, who adopted this interpretation, is very nearly sufficient to condemn it ; for it is most improbable that the ablest men, repeatedly and carefully examining the passage, should all have entirely failed to get the true meaning of it. 2d. Paul was never chargeable with the absurdity of reasoning from the conjugal to the parental rela- tion, as if they were identical. If it were true that a Christian wife might not continue to be the wife of an idolater, it would not follow that Christians must exclude their children from their presence. The two relations are so totally different, that no reasonable man would place them on the same footing. 3d. According to this interpretation, when Paul says, " Else were your children unclean, but now they are holy," he means that parents may lawfully live in the same house, and eat at the same table with their children ! Why, in this sense, every pagan in the world is holy ; for in this same epistle, Paul allows Christians to attend feasts prepared by their pagan friends. * u If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go, whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no ques- *1 Cor., 10: 27. 252 INFANT BAPTISM. tion for concienee 5 sake." Verily, this interpreta- tion gives to the word holy a sufficiently comprehensive meaning ! It is scarcely necessary to say, that the word never has any such meaning. Such liberties taken with the language of inspiration, by the ablest opponents of Infant baptism, show how extremely diffi- cult it is to evade the clear evidence found in the New Testament in favor of the doctrine. But why, it is asked, do we find no distinct men- tion of the baptism of infants in the New Testament? Several reasons may be given : 1st. Christian baptism was not instituted until after the resurrection of Christ ; and, therefore, there could not be, in the four Gospels, any mention of the baptism of infants. 2d. The Acts of the Apostles contains, in twenty- eight chapters, a very brief and rapid sketch of the success of the Gospel, and of the history of the church, for a period of about thirty years. Indeed, Lake, the writer of the Acts, confines himself mainly to an account of the journeyings and labors of one of the apostles. Necessarily, therefore, many things done by the apostles must have been omitted : and, of course, those things would be omitted, which are made sufficiently plain in other parts of the Bible, and about which there was no controversy. Thus, for example, there is no specific mention of the change of the Sabbath from the last to the first day of the week, or of the appointment of the Christian INFANT BAPTISM. 253 Sabbath. All we learn in the New Testament, on this subject, we get indirectly and inferentially. Yet the Sabbath is quite as important to the church and the world, as the most ardent Pedo-baptist would con- sider the baptism of infants. And it is worthy of remark, that not a few have rejected the Christian Sabbath on precisely the same grounds en which infant baptism is rejected. 3d. This is a subject respecting which there was not likely to be any controversy during the apostolic age, unless, indeed, infants had been excluded from baptism. The converted Jews clung, with remark- able tenacity, to all their former observances. They did not give up circumcision, until the council at •Jerusalem had commanded them to do so ; and they still insisted on the distinction between meats, and on the the observance of the Jewish holy days. Now, it is indeed most marvellous, if, whilst thus tenacious of Jewish rites and observances, they quietly gave up infant membership, without a word of controversy. But if, in this respect, no change was made, but the children of believers sustained to the church the same relation they had so long sus- tained, there was no more reason for particularly mentioning the baptism of infants, than the change of: the Sabbath. Indeed, this silence of the inspired writers is strong presumptive evidence that no change was made in the law of membership. 4th. But we do find the inspired historian, in 9.9,* 254 INFANT BAPTISM. recording the baptisms administered, using language which precisely accords with the practice of Pedo- baptists, but does not suit that of our opponents. He does record the baptism of a number of fami- lies. Two of these are recorded in the sixteenth chapter of Acts. Of Lydia, it is recorded, that the Lord opened her heart, that she attended unto the things that were spoken of Paul. " And when she was baptized and her household, she besought us," etc. The other family mentioned as baptized, is that of the jailor. Several others are mentioned. Now, we do not undertake to prove, that there were infants in these families. We simply call attention to the remarkable fact, that the inspired historian mentions the conversion of the head of the family, and says nothing of the conversion of the family, but does say they were baptized. If he was a Pedo- baptist, and if the infants of those families were bap- tized, he wrote just as he might have been expected to write. The fact is truly remarkable, that amongst anti-pedo-baptists we find no such records of the baptism of families. Some years ago, I took occa- sion to present to the consideration of some Baptist editors this singular discrepancy between the manner of recording baptisms adopted by Luke, and that adopted by Baptists, and called on them to produce amongst their accounts of baptisms, a record like that in the case of Lydia. They succeeded in find- ing a few baptisms of whole families ; but they had INFANT BAPTISM. 255 been so unfortunate as to mention the conversion of the members of the families, as well as their bap- tism. They, therefore, failed to find any record like that of Luke. This argument was urged in the debate with Alexander Campbell, and no attempt was made to reply to it. I then said, what I now repeat — " One thing is certain, we write as Luke wrote, and our anti-pedo-baptist friends do not. Would it not be truly wonderful, should it turn out to be true, that those who ivrite like Luke, do not act like him ; whilst those who do not write like him, are the very persons who act like him ? " On this point, the late Dr. Woods, of Andover, uses the following language : "It will be observed, that when- ever the apostles speak of baptizing households, they speak of it without any restriction. They do not say that Lydia was baptized, and those of her family who believed ; or that the jailor was baptized, and as many of those who belonged to him as believed. There is no such limitation as this. Lydia ivas baptized, and her family. The jailer teas bap- tized, and all his. And, considering how succinct the history of baptism is, the number of household baptisms particularly mentioned, must be allowed to be considerable, and to be quite a noticeable circum- stance in that history. Now, is this a circumstance ever to be met with in histories written by those ministers who do not baptize infants ? For them to speak familiarly, and without restriction or explana- 256 INFANT BAPTISM. tion, of baptizing families , would be inconsistent with their views and their practice." But, says Mr. Carson, in reply to this argument, ' ' There are not now any examples of the abundant success that the Gospel had in the apostles' days. We do not find that men believe by households, more than they are baptized by households. I sup- pose that the Baptist missionaries have a baptized household as often as they have a believing house- hold." * Just so. But the apostles had household baptisms in cases where, so far as the record shows, there were not believing households. This, precisely, is the difference between the apostles and the Bap- tists. The latter, it is true, have baptized families ; but then, in giving an account of these baptisms, they always mention the faith, not only of the head of the family, but of all the members. The apos- tles baptized families ; aud in their account of them, they mention the faith of the heads, but not of the members. Mr. Carson entirely fails to account for this difference. If the apostles were Pedo-baptists, all is plain ; if not, the fact that they wrote so little like Baptists, and so much like Pedo-baptists, is unaccountable. * On Baptism, p. 305. IXFAXT BAPTISM. 257 CHAPTER V. There are two methods which. Christians have been accustomed to adopt, in order to reach a satis- factory conclusion in regard to a controverted doc- trine. 1st. They have inquired how wise and good men, who have made the Scriptures their study, have gen- erally understood them. For as it is agreed amongst Protestants, that all important doctrines are clearly taught in the Scriptures, it is far more probable that a comparatively small number of persons of some one denomination, have been misled by prejudice or party spirit, than that the great body of Christians of different denominations, in different ages and countries, have misunderstood the obvious teaching of the Bible. So far as this principle has weight, (and it is admitted to have much,) it is decidedly in favor of infant baptism. For it is an indisputable fact, that the overwhelming majority of the readers of the Bible, embracing the most eminent critics and commentators, ministers and laymen, in every age and country, have understood the Bible to teach this doctrine. The number of those who have rejected it, has been, and now is, comparatively a mere handful. 2d. The second method adopted to aid in deciding a controverted doctrine, has been to inquire into its 258 INFANT BAPTISM. history, and to ascertain how nigh to the apostolic age it can be traced. For as it is certain, that the apostles promulgecl none but sound doctrines, and as great errors could prevail in the church only by gradual progress ; the nearer any important doctrine can be traced to the apostolic age, the greater the probability of its truth. Thus, we can trace the Sabbath back to the earliest ages of Christianity. The doctrine of the divinity of Christ, is sustained by similar testimony; and so are all the leading doctrines of the Gospel. But we can go back in the history of the church, to a period when no mention is made of the Pope, of the worship of saints and angels, of the veneration of relics, of the sacrifice of the mass, of auricular confession, of purgatory, of prayers for the dead, of the celibacy of the clergy, etc. And then we can trace the gradual rise of all the leading errors of popery. But can we go back, by the light of history, to a period, when no mention is made of infant baptism ? If it is an error, which arose after the apostolic age, it could not have commenced simultaneously in all countries. It must have been introduced in some particular part of the church ; and as it would have been a novelty calculated to arrest attention, it must have excited some controversy. It is not like the power of the Pope, which was of very gradual growth, and, therefore, excited little attention ; nor like the worship of pictures and images, which were INFANT BAPTISM. 259 first placed in churches, without any purpose of hav- ing them so used, and which grew by imperceptible degrees. On the contrary, the baptism of the first infant would have been an innovation so remarkable as to have arrested attention, and produced a strong sensation. Reflect for a moment. Up to the time when the first infant was baptized, all the churches everywhere, we are to suppose, held the doctrine, that none but believers should be baptized. Now, either all of them passed precisely at the same time from Baptist to Pedo-baptist sentiments, or the doc- trine that infants ought to be baptized, was first embraced in some one place, and gradually spread over the entire church. The first supposition is so improbable, not to say impossible, that no one will advocate it. If, then, the doctrine was advanced in some one place, whilst everywhere else Baptist senti- ments prevailed, it is impossible that there should have been no controversy respecting it, nor the slightest intimation as to the time of its rise, and as to its progress among the churches. Suppose the attempt made now to introduce infant Baptism or baptism by sprinkling into the Baptist churches, in this and other countries. Would it be possible to succeed without warm opposition and earnest contro- versy ? And how was it with regard to other inno- vations upon the doctrines of the church ? When Montanus, in the second century, introduced serious doctrinal errors, the result was controversy and 2.60 INFANT BAPTISM. division. When Origen, in the third century, introduced new doctrines, drawn from the Platonic Philosophy, again the church was agitated with con- troversy. When Arius, in the beginning of the fourth century, denied the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, the whole church was violently agitated and divided. In a word, through all those early ages, we meet with warm controversies on many points of far less importance, and less adapted to excite atten- tion, than infant baptism. Now, can any one tell us in what age infant bap- tism commenced in the church ? We confidently assert, that no one can. Indeed, our anti-pedo- baptist friends, with all their zeal and investigation, throw no light on this subject. No writer has chron- icled the rise of infant baptism, and not one word of controversy, as to whether it is scriptural, appears in the writings of the Christian fathers. On the con- trary, when we first find it mentioned, it is spoken of as if universally prevailing, and as by all regarded as scriptural. Certain questions did, indeed, arise at an early day, respecting unimportant circum- stances connected with infant baptism ; but none were found to advocate the sentiments of anti-pedo- baptists. Let us now examine carefully the testimony of the early Christian writers. The first writer, whose tes- timony I give, is Irenaeus, who was born in the apostolic age, or about the year 97, four years INFANT BAPTISM. 261 before the death of the apostle John.* He was chosen Bishop of Lyons, in the year 167, sixty- seven years after the apostolic age. His language is as follows : " Therefore, as he (Christ) was a Master, he had also the age of a Master. Not disdaining nor going in a way above human nature, nor breaking, in his own person, the law which he had set for mankind, but sanctifying every several age by the likeness that it has to him. For he came to save all persons by himself : all, I mean, who by him are regenerated unto God — infants and little ones, and children and youths, and elder persons. Therefore, he went through the several ages ; for infants being made an infant, sanctifying infants/* 5 etc.f The argument from this passage depends upon the meaning of the phrase, " regenerated unto God." Did Irenaeus mean by this phrase Christian baptism ? If he did, the passage is a clear proof, that the doctrine of infant baptism prevailed in the church in the age immediately succeeding that of the apostles. Dr. Wall says : " Irenaeus himself uses it so in all other places of his book that I have ever observed." J Alexander Campbell, in his debate with McCalla, many years ago, denied that by the word regenera- * Some date his birth, a few years later -, but the difference is too small to be of any importance. f Adv. Haeres. Lib. 2, ch. 39. ± Vol. 1, ch. 3, p. 73 23 262 INFANT BAPTISM. ted Irenaeus meant baptized ; but lie afterwards changed his opinion. In the Millen. Harb. Extra, y. 2, pp. 28, 29, he writes as follows : 6 i In my debate with Mr. McCalla., I objected to the substitution of the word regenerated for im- mersed, in the extracts from Irenaeus, and the other primitive fathers, as they are called, on the ground of their not being exactly representatives of the same ideas universally. I admitted, that sometimes they used the word regenerated for baptized, but not always ; and, indeed, not at all in the popular sense of regenerated. Well now, it comes to pass, that I represent all the primitive fathers as using the term regenerated as equivalent to the term bap- tized. All this is true ; and what then ? Why, at that time, I used the word regenerated as expressive of a spiritual change, and found that these fathers spoke of a spiritual change, as well as we. I could not, therefore, reconcile this to the exclusive application of the term regenerated to the act of immersion ; but on a more accurate and strict ex- amination of their writings, and of the use of this term in the New Testament, I am assured that they used the term regenerated as equivalent to immer- sion, (baptism,) and spoke of the spiritual change under other terms and modes of speech, 53 etc. Now, if Dr. Wall and Mr. Campbell are right as to the use of the word regenerated by the Christian fa- thers, the testimony in favor of infant baptism is INFANT BAPTISM. 263 conclusive. For it will not be pretended, that it could have prevailed at so early a period, unless taught and practiced by the apostles. This point was pressed upon Mr. Campbell, in the Lexington Debate, and the passage just quoted was read. His only answer was the following : " Suppose I admit that all the fathers from Justin Martyr down to Theodoret, 423, used baptism and regeneration as synonymous, and Irenaeus generally with the others, though he lived A. D. 178 ; what does it prove in the case before us ? That infant baptism is a divine institution, because it is probable, even certain, that Irenaeus referred to it, under another name, at the close of the second century ? " * Observe, Mr. Campbell here admits, that Irenaeus did refer to infant baptism ; but he seeks to place him, as far as possible, from the apostles, by saying, he lived A. D. 178, as \i he had lived but a single year ! But the truth is, he was a disciple and friend of Poly carp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John. Eusebius speaks of an epistle written by Irenaeus to Florinus. " In that epistle, indeed," says he, " which we have already mentioned, he again speaks of his intimacy with Poly carp." Irenaeus says to Florinus, " For I saw thee when I was yet a boy in the lower Asia with Polycarp, moving in great splendor at court, etc. I remember the events of those times better * p. 430. 264 INFANT BAPTISM. than those of more recent occurrence. As the studies of our youth growing with our minds, unite with it so firmly, that I can tell also the very place where the blessed Polycarp was accustomed to sit and dis- course ; and also his entrances, his walks, the com- plexion of his life and the form of his body, and his conversations with the people, and his familiar intercourse with John, as he was accustomed to tell, as also his familiarity with those that had seen the Lord. How also, he used to relate their discourses, and what things he heard from them concerning the Lord. * * * These things, by the mercy of God, and the opportunity then afforded me, I atten- tively heard, noting them clown, not on paper, but in my heart ; and these same facts I am always in the habit, by the grace of God, to recall faithfully to mind." * Now, if the Apostle John taught anti- Peclo-baptist principles, it is certain that Polycarp held and taught the same ; and as Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp, and held him in great venera- tion, he certainly agreed with his teacher. Since, then, Irenaeus taught the doctrine of infant baptism, both Polycarp and John the Apostle must have taught the same. As the testimony of Irenaeus is of especial im- portance, we think it proper to appeal to the learned Neander, to ascertain the meaning of his language. * Easeb. Eccl. Hist, ch. 20, pp. 205,205. INFANT BAPTISM. 265 He says : " Irenaeus is the first church, teacher in whom we find any allusion to infant baptism, and in his mode of expressing himself on the subject, he leads us, at the same time, to recognize its connec- tion with the essence of Christian consciousness." And after quoting the passage on which we are remarking, he says : " It is here especially import- ant to observe, that infants {infantes) are expressly distinguished from children {par villi) whom Christ could also benefit by his example ; and that they are represented as capable of receiving from Christ, who had appeared in their age, nothing more than an ob- jective sanctification. This sanctification becomes them in so far as they are regenerated by Christ to God. Regeneration and baptism are in Irenaeus intimately connected ; and it is difficult to conceive how the term regeneration can be employed, in reference to this age, to denote anything else than baptism." * Without adopting the sentiments of Wall, Campbell, or Neander, respecting the design of baptism, we cannot but think there is strong evidence that Ire- naeus refers to infant baptism. Dr. Wall is quite confident that Clement Alex- andrinus refers to the same thing, when giving direc- tions to Christians respecting their ornaments, he advises to the use of such pictures and engravings as are innocent, modest, and useful. " Let your seal," * Hist, of Church, vol. 1, p. 311. 23* 266 INFANT BAPTISM. says he, " be a dove, or a fish, or a ship under sail, 5 ' etc. And if any one be by trade a fisherman, he "will do well to think of an apostle, and the children taken out of the water." * Wall says : " An apos- tle's taking, drawing, or lifting a child out of the water, cannot refer to anything that I can think of, but the baptizing of it. And infantem de fonte levare, is a phrase used by the ancients, denoting the baptizing of it, almost as commonly as the word baptizing itself. And as the emblem of an an- chor, or of a ship under sail, used for the impress of a seal-ring, does suppose those things to be com- monly seen, known, and used ; so St. Clement's advising the emblem of an apostle baptizing an infant, to be used by the Christians in his time (which was but about ninety years after the apostles) for the sculpture of their seals, does suppose it com- monly known by them, that the apostles did perform that office." It is difficult to refute this argument ; and for this reason, probably, Dr. Gale, in his reply to Dr. Wall, passed it unnoticed. Would a Baptist advise his brethren to use a seal with such a device on it ? The argument for infant baptism, derived from the language of Tertullian, who lived within about one hundred years of the Apostle John, is very strong. His testimony is the more important, be- • Vol. 1, p. 84. INFANT BAPTISM. 267 cause he opposed the baptism of infants. He says : " But they whose duty it is to administer baptism, are to know that it must not be given rashly. Give to every one that asketh thee, has its proper subject, and relates to alms-giving ; but that command rather is here to be considered, Give not that which is holy to dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine ; and that, lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's faults. * * Therefore, according to every one's condition and disposition, and also their age, the delaying of bap- tism is more profitable, especially in the case of little children. For what need is there that the godfathers should be brought into danger ? Because they may either fail of their promises by death, or they may be mistaken by a child's proving of wicked disposi- tion. Our Lord says, indeed, Do not forbid them to come to me. Therefore, let them come when they are grown up ; let them come when they under- stand, when they are instructed whither it is that they come ; let them be made Christians, when they can know Christ. What need their guiltless age make such haste to the forgiveness of sins. Men will proceed more warily in worldly things ; and he that should not have earthly goods committed to him, yet shall have heavenly. *Let them know how to * Wall's Hist., v. 1, pp. 93, 94. 268 INFANT BAPTISM. desire this salvation, that you may appear to have given to one that asketh." In this language of Tertullian, there are several things worthy of special notice : 1. Tertullian was an opposer of infant baptism ; and, therefore, so far as his testimony favors the doctrine, it is the more conclusive. Yet he was not sound in the faith, but was led astray by the heresies of Montanus. Whilst, therefore, his testimony to a fact is unobjectionable — especially when that testi- mony was against his opinions — his views of Scrip- ture doctrine are of little worth. 2. The fact that he writes against infant baptism, is proof conclusive, that it then existed in the church. It cannot be imagined, that he would oppose a doc- trine which had no existence. Dr. Gale felt com- pelled to admit that the language of Tertullian may prove " there were some persons at that time, who among many other vile notions, were about to intro- duce this of the necessity of baptism to the salvation of infants." 3. The grounds on which he opposes the baptism of infants, prove the general prevalence of the doc- trine, and the general belief, that it was scriptural and valid. Every man, when opposing a doctrine, of course, employs against it the strongest argu- ments with which he is acquainted. Doubtless Ter- tullian did so. But observe : 1st. He did not say the practice of baptizing INFANT BAPTISM. 269 infants is unscriptural. And his evasion of the argument, which he knew to be founded on the language of Christ, is puerile. " Our Lord," says he, " says indeed, Do not forbid them to come to me. Therefore, let thern come when they are grown up." Precisely this ground was taken by the dis- ciples ; and, therefore, the Saviour rebuked them, and allowed the children to come immediately. But why did not Tertullian pronounce the baptism of infants unscriptural and invalid ? Evidently, because he did not helieve it to be so. 2d. He did not oppose infant baptism as a novelty, which errorists were attempting to introduce into the church, and which had not been generally adopted. Why did he intimate nothing of the kind ? If he could have pronounced it unscriptural and a novelty, these would have been the most conclusive argu- ments against it. Will it be pretended, that he designedly omitted to adduce the very arguments which would have had most weight, and which were constantly used with reference to other doctrines ? But, says Dr. Gale, " Had it been the settled practice and judgment of the church, and what they thought was supported by the authority and tradition of the apostles, etc., it cannot be imagined that Ter- tullian should venture to oppose it ; or, if he did, that he should employ no more pains to excuse what seemed to contradict the practice of the apostles and the whole church." A similar argument is used by 270 INFANT BAPTISM. Neander. But this reasoning goes much further than its author designed ; for it is certain, that Tertullian did, in the same connection, oppose the baptism of unmarried persons, those never married, and widows and widowers, until old age. He said — " For no less reason, unmarried persons ought to be kept off, who are likely to come into temptation, as well as those that never were married, upon account of their coming to ripeness, as those in widowhood for the miss of their partner, until they either marry, or are confirmed in continence. They that understand the weight of baptism, will rather dread the receiving it, than the delaying of it. An entire faith is secure of salvation." Now, let us borrow the logic of Dr. Gale, and argue thus : "Had it been the settled practice and judgment of the church, and what they thought was supported by the authority and tradition of the apostles, that young or unmarried persons, and widows and widowers should be baptized, it cannot be imagined that Tertullian should venture to oppose it," etc. Is not this argument just as good as Dr. Gale's ? Is it not precisely the same argument, applied to a different class of persons ? The argu- ment, reduced to a syllogism, is as follows : Tertullian would not have opposed a doctrine sus- tained by the settled judgment and practice of the church, and, as they believed, by the authority and tradition of the apostles. INFANT BAPTISM. 271 But he did oppose the doctrine of infant bap- tism. Therefore, the doctrine of infant baptism was not supported bj the settled judgment and practice of the church. Now, let us try another syllogism on the same principle. Take the following : Tertullian would not have opposed a doctrine sustained by the settled judgment and practice of the church, etc. But he did oppose the baptism of young and un- married persons, and of widows and widowers. Therefore, the baptism of such persons was not sustained by the settled judgment and practice of the church. This syllogism is just as good as the other. It stands on precisely the same principle. Yet it proves what all admit untrue. The major proposition is un- true ; for Tertullian did oppose a doctrine admitted to be sustained by the practice of the church and by apostolic authority. 3. The language of Tertullian necessarily implies, that he himself believed the baptism of infants to be both scriptural and valid. The " godfathers," he says, are brought into danger. How? By the pro- fanation of a sacred ordinance ? >To ; but because they may fail to fulfil their promises. Is this anti- pedo-baptist doctrine? And then he asks — "What need their guiltless age make such haste to the 272 INFANT BAPTISM. forgiveness of sins ? ?? If he did not believe infant baptism to be of divine authority, how could he regard it as efficacious in securing remission of sins ? If he had been an anti-pedo -baptist, would he not rather have asked — " What propriety is there in so gross a profanation of a sacred ordinance?" The truth evidently is, that Tertullian ascribed a super- stitious efficacy to baptism, as securing the remission of all sins ; and he regarded sins committed after baptism as more dangerous than those committed before. On this ground, and not because he held anti-pedo-baptist views, he advised the delay of baptism, not only in the case of infants, but of others. This argument, then, stands thus : Tertullian was opposed to infant baptism. His writing against it proves its existence in the church in his day, which was within one hundred years of the apostolic age. He did not venture to oppose it as unscriptural^ or as a novelty. We are, therefore, warranted in the conclusion, that at that time infant baptism was universally practiced, and was universally regarded as derived from Christ and his apostles, and, there- fore, as scriptural. Now, is it credible, is it possi- ble, that within one hundred years after the death of the last of the apostles, it had been introduced into the church, without the least controversy, and had continued so long, and had become so universally practiced, that Tertullian ventured not either to 1XFANT BAPTISM. 273 condemn it as unscriptural, or to assail it as a nov- elty? Verily, Tertullian, though an opposer of infant baptism, is a most important witness in favor of it, The next witness we shall call, is Origen, who was the most learned of the Christian fathers. Jones, the Baptist historian, quotes with approbation, the following language of Dr. Priestley, respecting him : " He was a man so remarkable for his piety, genius, and application, that he must be considered an honor to Christianity and to human nature." Origen was born in the year 185, or about eighty-five years after the death of John the apostle. His grand- father, or, at least, his great grandfather, says Wall, " must have lived in the apostles 5 time." And he acids, " As he could not be ignorant whether he himself was baptized in infancy, so he had no further than his own family to go for incmiry how it was practiced in the times of the apostles." And this information he could obtain the more accurately, because his ancestors were Christians. His father died as a martyr in the persecution under Severus, m the year after the apostles, 102." Eusebius says : " The Christian doctrine was conveyed to him from his forefathers." * He was a man of eminent learn- ing. He traveled extensively, and was consulted on religious subjects by persons in all parts of the * Eccl. Hist., Lib., vi, ch. 19. 24 274 INFANT BAPTISM. world. It is, therefore, impossible that he could he ignorant, either of the practice or of the faith of the church, from his own age to that of the apostles. In his Homily on Luke 14th, he says : 64 Having occasion given in this place, I will men- tion a thing that causes frequent inquiries among the brethren. Infants are baptized for the for- giveness of sins. Of what sins ? Or when have they sinned ? Or how can any reason of the law in their case hold good, but according to that sense that we mentioned even now ; none is free from pol- lution, though his life be but of the length of one day upon the earth ? And it is for that reason, because by the sacrament of baptism the pollution of our birth is taken away, that infants are bap- tized." Again, in his commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, he says : " For this also it was, that the church had from the apostles a tradition to give baptism even to infants. For they to whom the divine mysteries were committed, knew that there is in all persons the natural pollution of sin, which must be done away by water and the Spirit." This testimony is clear and conclusive. The manner in which Origen mentions infant baptism, in connec- tion with original sin, shows, that it was universally practiced in the church, and that it was believed to be sustained by the authority of the apostles. Is it probable, is it possible, that a man born within eighty-four years of the apostles, whose ancestors INFANT BAPTISM. 275 were Christians — a man of so great learning and general information — could have been mistaken as to the practice of the church in his day, and as far back as the apostolic age ? Is it possible, if the primitive Christians were anti-pedo-baptists, that their faith and their practice could have undergone so great a change in a few years, and so quietly that the best informed men in the church believed there had been no change at all? Dr. Gale, in his reply to Wall, sought to invalidi- date this testimony of Origen, on the ground that his writings have been interpolated and corrupted. But in the Lexington Debate, Mr. Campbell at- tempted no such defence. In this he was wise ; for in addition to the testimony of his writings, we have that of Jerome, a constant reader of his works in the original Greek, that he held to infant baptism. The next witness in favor of infant baptism, is C} r prian, Bishop of Carthage. In the year 253, he, with sixty-six bishops, were assembled in council; and Fidus, a country bishop, wrote to them, in- quiring whether an infant might be baptized before it was eight days old. To this inquiry, they replied as follows : " We read your letter, most dear brother, in which you write to one Victor, a priest, etc. But as to the case of infants, whereas you judge that they must not be baptized within two or three days after they are born ; and that the rule of circumcision is to be 276 INFANT BAPTISM. observed, so that none should be baptized and sanc- tified before the eighth day after he is born ; we were all in the assembly of the contrary opinion. For as for what you thought fitting to be done, there was not one that was of your mind, but all of us, on the contrary, judged that the grace and mercy of God is to be denied to no person that is born. 5 ' * Dr. Grale, who sought to deprive us of the testimony of Origen, confesses that Cyprian " does plainly enough speak of infant baptism, as practiced in Africa in his time.' 5 Here, then, within one hundred and fifty years of the apostles, we find infant baptism universally practiced in Africa, and regarded as of divine authority, by Cyprian, one of the greatest men in the church. Observe the character of the question put by Fidus — not whether infants should be baptized — a matter about which there was no dispute, but whether their baptism should be delayed till the eighth day. Let it be remarked, too, that Cyprian and Origen were cotemporaries, the former having become Bishop of Carthage, A. D. 248, and the latter having died about the year 254. So that as infant baptism certainly pre- vailed in Africa A. D. 253, Origen was undoubtedly a Pedo-baptist. But if infant baptism had prevailed in Africa, and not in other parts of the church, this difference * Wall's Hist., v. 1, p. 129. INFANT BAPTISM. 277 must have been noticed by the winters of that age ; and some controversy must have resulted. It is not pretended, however, that this decision o£ the coun- cil caused any controversy ; nor have anti-pedo- baptists been able to find the slightest trace of difference of sentiment in the church in the third century. We appeal now to the testimony of Jerome and Augustine, two of the most learned and eminent ministers in the church, in the latter part of the fourth and beginning of the fifth centuries. I will first quote a passage from the writings of Jerome. " This is said of those that have understanding of such as he was, of whom it is written in the Gospel, ' He is of age, let him speak for himself.' But he that is a child, and thinks as a child, (till such time as he come to years of discretion, etc.,) his good deeds, as well as his evil deeds, are imputed to his parents. Unless you will think the children of Christians are themselves only under the guilt of the sin, if they do not receive baptism : and that the wickedness is not imputed to those also who would not give it them, especially at that time, when they that were to receive it, could make no opposition to the receiving of it." Augustine says : " Men are wont to ask this ques- tion also : < What good the sacrament of Christ's baptism does to infants ? Whereas, after they have received it, they often die before they are able to 24* 278 INFANT BAPTISM. understand anything of it. As to which matter, it is piously and truly believed, that the faith of those by whom the child is offered to be consecrated, pro- fits the child. And this the most sound authority of the church, does command, etc. Tor how could the widow's son be holpen by his own faith, whereof being dead, he could have none ? And yet his mother's faith was useful for his being raised to life again." In his book against the Donatists, he says : " And as the thief, who by necessity went without baptism, was saved ; because, by his piety he had it spiritually; so when baptism is had, though the party, by necessity, go without that [faith] which the thief had, yet he is saved. Which the whole body of the church holds, as delivered to them, in the case of little infants baptized : who certainly cannot yet believe with the heart unto righteousness or confess with the mouth to salvation, as the thief could; nay, by their crying and noise, while the sacrament is administering, they disturb the holy mysteries : and yet no Christian man will say they are baptized to no purpose. And if any one do ask for divine authority in this matter ; though that which the whole church practices, and which has not been instituted by councils, but was ever in use, is very reasonably believed to be no other than a thing delivered by authority of the apostles : yet we may, besides, make a true estimate, how much the sacra- ment of baptism does avail infants, by the circum- cision which God's former people received. INFANT BAPTISM. 279 1 'For Abraham was justified before he received that, and Cornelius was indued with the Holy Spirit before he was baptized ; and yet the apostle says of Abra- ham, that he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith, by which he had in heart believed, and it had been counted to him for righteousness. Why, then, was he com- manded thenceforward to circumcise all his male infants on the eighth day, when they could not yet believe with the heart, that it might be counted to them for righteousness ; but for this reason, be- cause the sacrament itself is of itself of great im- port? Therefore, as in Abraham, the righteousness of faith went before, and circumcision, the seal of the righteousness of faith, came after, so in Cor- nelius the spiritual sanctification by the gift of the Holy Ghost went before, and the sacrament of re- generation by the law of baptism came after. And as in Isaac, who was circumcised the eighth day, the seal of the righteousness of faith went before, and (as he was a follower of his father's faith) the righteousness itself, the seal whereof had gone before in his infancy, came after: so in infants baptized, the sacrament of regeneration goes before, and (if they put in practice the Christian religion) conver- sion of the heart, the mystery whereof went before in their body, comes after." Again, commenting on Rom., 5: 12-14, he says the language of Paul i ' can have no other sense but 280 INFANT BAPTISM. such an one by -which it has come to pass, that the whole church has from of old constantly held that fidel (or baptized) infants do obtain remission of original sin by the baptism of Christ." He then quotes the letter of Cyprian to Fidus, and proceeds in the following language : u And now some people, by the boldness of I know not what disputing humor, go about to repre- sent that as uncertain which our ancestors made use of as a most certain thing, whereby to resolve some things that seemed uncertain. For when this began first to be disputed, I know not ; but this I know, that holy Jerome, whose pains and fame for excel- lent learning in ecclesiastical matters is at this day so great, does also make use of"' this as a thing most certain, to resolve some questions in his book," etc. Then, quoting some passages from Jerome, he says : " K we could with convenience come to ask that most learned man, how many writers of Christian dissertations and interpreters of holy Scripture in both languages could he recount, who from the time that Christ's church has been founded, have held no otherwise, have received no other doctrine from their predecessors, or left any other to their successors ; for my part, (though my reading is much less than his,) I clo not remember that I ever heard any other thing from any Christians that received the Old and New Testament — neither from such as were of the Catholic church, nor from such as belonged INFANT BAPTISM. 281 to any sect or schism. I do not remember that I ever read otherwise in any writer that I could ever find treating of these matiers, that followed the canonical Sciptures, or did pretend to do so. From whence this trouble is started up upon us, I know not; but a little while ago, when I was there at Carthage, I just cursorily heard some transient discourse of some people that were talking, that infants are not baptized for that reason that they may receive remission of sins, but that they may be sanctified in Christ," etc. Wall's History, v. 1, ch. xv. The testimony of these two eminent men, Jerome and Augustine, proves beyond all question, not only that in their day the doctrine and the practice of in- fant baptism prevailed universally amongst all sects, but that it was not known or believed that there had ever been any anti-pedo-baptists. The testimony of Pelagius is, if possible, still more conclusive. He denied the doctrine of orig- inal sin ; and as the doctrine of infant baptism was conclusively urged by Augustine in proof of original sin, it was his interest, if possible, to prove infant baptism to be an innovation. In his letter to Innocent, of Rome, he says : u Men slander me, as if I denied the sacrament of baptism to infants, or did promise the kingdom of heaven to some persons, without the redemption of Christ, which is a thing that I never heard, no not even any wicked heretic, say." 282 INFANT BAPTISM. I have not appealed to these early Christian wri- ters, either as interpreters of Scripture, or to ascer- tain their views of the nature and design of baptism. I have simply called them up as witnesses to prove a fact, viz : that in their time, and as far back as their information extended, infant baptism was prac- ticed universally, and was as universally believed to be sustained by apostolic authority. Their tes- timony proves, beyond all question, the following facts, viz : 1. That for the first four hundred years after Christ, not one writer or one individual could be found, who held that infant baptism is unscrip- tural. 2. That during the same period, not one individ- ual denied that infant baptism had been practiced by the entire church from the time of the apostles. 3. That it was common for the most distinguished Christian writers to adduce the universally admitted doctrine of infant baptism, as a conclusive argument in favor of the doctrine of original sin. Now, let us suppose that the apostles were anti- pedo-baptists, and all the churches planted by them, of the same faith. Those churches were planted in countries widely separated from each other, speaking different languages, and having little intercourse, in Asia, in Greece, in Gaul, in Africa. The Apostle John lived to the close of the first century. Until his death, the churches, of course, must have con- INFANT BAPTISM. 283 tinued to be anti-pedo-baptist. Let us suppose, that at the close of the first century, there began to be tendencies toward infant baptism. Now, let me ask the candid reader two questions, viz : 1st. How long a time would have been required for all the churches, in all countries, to have been converted to the belief and practice of infant baptism? Remember, inter- course between the different parts of the church was necessarily limited. 2d. Would it have been possi- ble for a change so important and so palpable to have taken place in the faith and practice of the churches, and to have become universal, without the least controversy, and without leaving the slightest trace of any disagreement? If such a thing did happen, it stands as a miracle in history, having nothing else to match it ! It does seem to me, that the only rational conclusion to which we can come from the testimony of history, is, that infant bap- tism was taught and practiced by the apostles of Christ. But it is objected, that there is the same evidence in favor of infant communion, as of infant bap- tism. But this is not true. This argument was urged by Alexander Campbell, in the Lexington Debate ; and it is reasonable to believe, that on that occa- sion he brought foward the strongest evidence that can be found. He quoted from Cyprian the fol- lowing: "I will tell you what happened in my own presence. The parents of a certain little girl, run- 284 1NFAOT BAPTISM. ning out of town with flight, had forgot to take any care of their child, whom they left in the keeping of a nurse. The nurse had carried her to the magis- trates : they, because she was too little to eat the flesh, gave her to eat, before the idol, some of the bread mixed with wine, which had been left of the sacrifice of those wretches. Since that time, her mother took her home. But she was no more capable of declaring and telling the crime committed, than she had been before of understanding or of hindering it. So it happened that once when I was adminis- tering, her mother, ignorant of what had been done, brought her along with her. But the girl being among the saints, could not, with any quietness, hear the prayers said, but sometimes fell into weeping, and sometimes into convulsions, with the uneasiness of her mind ; and her ignorant soul, as under a wreck, declared by such tokens as it could, the con- science of the fact in those tender years. And when the service was ended, and the deacon went to give the cup to those that were present, and the others received it', and her turn came, the girl, by a divine instinct, turned away her face, shut her mouth, and refused the cup," etc. Now, it is truly remarkable, that this passage should be cited to prove the practice of infant communion ; for Cyprian speaks of a little girl, old enough to hear and understand prayers, not of an infant. It is impossible to determine how old she IXFAST BAPTISE. 285 was, when she partook of the pagan sacrifice, or how long after that it was that the occurrence here narrated took place. Dr. Wall concludes, with good reason, that she was not less than four or five years old, And he states this important fact, that " before the year 412, there is no author produced but St. Cy- prian" in favor of infant communion. Tertullian, though he opposed infant baptism, said not a word against infant communion. If such a thing had existed, would be not have opposed it even more strongly than he opposed the baptism of infants ? The learned Origen testifies to the universal preva- lence of infant baptism, but says nothing of infant communion. The matter, then, stands thus : 1. The evidence is conclusive, that within one hundred years after the death of the Apostle John, infant baptism not only existed, but was universally believed to be of divine authority. 2. There is no evidence for the practice of infant communion for four hundred years after Christ. It is easy to see how this last practice originated in connection with the doctrine of the saving efficacy of the sacraments ; but it seems to me impossible that infant baptism could have originated so early, and have become so uni- versal as we find it in the church, unless it is of divine authority. It would be easy to multiply evidences to any extent, that from the fifth century down to the Reformation, infant baptism was universally prac- 25 286 INFANT . BAPTISM. ticeci ; but it is unnecessary, since the fact will not be denied. I propose to inquire particularly into the faith of the "Waldenses, who were the witnesses for the truth in the dark ages. For some anti-pedo- baptists have been disposed to deny that they were in favor of infant baptism. CHAPTER VI. The value of the testimony of the Waldenses in favor of infant baptism, does not arise from any extraordinary learning possessed by them, but from the fact that they rejected the errors of Popery, and received the Scriptures as their only rule of faith ; and from the additional fact, that their piety was uncommonly deep and pure. During a long period of darkness and superstition, they bore a suffering testimony to the pure doctrines of the Gospel. The most cruel and protracted persecutions could not drive them from the cross of Christ, or induce them to connive at the errors of Popery. Anti-pedo- baptists have been fond of representing infant bap- tism as a Popish error, even as the prolific cause of all the corruptions of Rome. But here we find a people, whose history runs back many centuries beyond the Reformation — a people adopting the Protestant rule of faith, and fearless in their denim- INFANT BAPTISE. 287 ciations of the errors of Popery — a people regarded by all evangelical denominations as witnesses for the truth in the dark ages. It is interesting and import- ant to inquire how they understood the Scriptures on the subject of infant baptism. Whether they arose under the preaching of Peter Waldo, an eminently pious merchant of Lyons, in the twelfth century ; or whether, as some think, they may be traced to the apostolic age, I shall not now inquire. That they were pedo -baptists, is clear be- yond question, from the following considerations : 1. It is admitted that all the Waldenses are now Pedo-baptists, and that they believe their ancestors always to have held the same faith. Rev. Robert Baird, D. D., who has repeatedly visited this inter- esting people, says : " On the subject of baptism, these churches are, as has already been intimated, Pedo-baptist. And their pastors have assured us, that it is their belief, founded on their histories and traditions, that they have ever been such from their earliest times. * They stated to usjhat if ever there was a time in which they did not baptize their children, it was in those ages of oppression, when they were not permitted to do it themselves, and they would not suffer the Roman Catholic priests to ad- minister that ordinance, inasmuch as they added to it several superstitious practices, which they utterly * Prot. in Italy, pp. 397, 398. 288 INFANT BAPTISM. reject. 3 ' If there ever was a time when they were anti-pedo-baptists, every trace of such sentiments has been lost, and every evidence of a change from Baptist to Pedo-baptist views, has been obliterated. It has been strenuously contended, that at the time of the Reformation of the sixteenth century, through the influence of the reformers, and in order to escape persecution, they adopted Pedo-baptist sentiments. But at that time the eyes of all Chris- tendom were turned upon them ; and it is impossible that such a change, if it had occurred, could have escaped the notice of the writers of that age. Yet no historian and no writer mentions anything of the kind ; nor does any historian of modern times pre- tend to have found evidence of such a change. Even Jones, the Baptist historian, gives not the slightest intimation, that their faith had undergone any such change. It is, therefore, certain, that the alleged change never occurred. 2. That the Waldenses were Pedo-baptists at the time of the Reformation, is clear from their entire agreement in faith with the reformers. Jones says : " An impartial review of the doctrinal sentiments maintained by the Waldenses, the discipline, order, and worship of their churches, as well as their gen- eral deportment and manner of life, not to mention their determined and uniform opposition to the church of Rome, affords abundant evidence of the similarity of their views and practices to those held by Luther, INFANT BAPTISM. 289 Calvin, and the other illustrious characters, whose labors, in the sixteenth century, contributed so emi- nently to effect the glorious reformation. Most of the Catholic writers, who lived about the time of the Re- formation and in the age which succeeded it, clearly saw this coincidence between the principles of the Waldenses and those of the reformers, and remarked it in their works." The same historian says : " Lin- danus, a Catholic bishop, of the see of Ghent, who wrote in defence of the tenets of the church of Rome, about 1550, terms Calvin the inheritor of the doctrine of the Waldenses." He also quotes Meze- ray, the celebrated historiographer of France, in his abridgment of Chronology, as saying : " They held nearly the same opinions as those who are now called Caivinists." He says further, Gualtier, a Jesuitical monk, in his chronographical tables, drew up a catalogue consisting of seven- and- twenty particulars, in which he shows that the principles of the Wal- denses and those of the Caivinists, coincided "with each other." * Now, it is impossible, if the Wal- denses had rejected infant baptism, and held that it is not valid baptism, that a difference so important between them and the reformers should have passed unnoticed. But the evidence is yet stronger. Jones says: " Luther, in the year 1530, published the Confes- * Church History, p. 357. 25* 290 INFANT BAPTISM. sions of the Waldenses, to which he wrote a preface. In that preface, he candidly acknowledges, that in the days of his popery he had hated the Waldenses, as persons who were consigned over to perdition. But having understood from their confessions and writings the piety of their faith, he perceived that those good men had been greatly wronged, whom the Pope had condemned as heretics, for that, on the contrary, they were rather entitled to the praise due to holy martyrs. He adds, that among them he had found one thing worthy of admiration, a thing un- heard of in the Popish church, that, laying aside the doctrines of men, they meditated in the law of God, day and night ; and that they were expert, and even well versed, in the knowledge of the Scriptures. * * * Moreover, having read the Walclensian Confessions, he returned thanks to God for the great light which it had pleased him to bestow upon that people, rejoicing that all cause of suspicion being removed which had existed between them and the reformed, they were now brought together into one "sheepfold, under the Chief Shepherd and Bishop of souls." f The Confessions to which Luther wrote a preface, and which he so fully endorsed, showed, of course, not only the faith of the Waldenses at the time he wrote, but in preceding generations ; for it is not pre- t Church History, p. 353. INFANT BAPTISE. 291 tended, that they had adopted any neiv Confessions differing from those of their forefathers. And it is certain, that Luther never would have given such an unqualified endorsement to anti-jiedo-bajitist con- fessions ; nor could he have said, that " all cause of suspicion" was removed, and they were " brought to- gether into one sheepfold," if the "Waldenses had not acknowledged the validity and scriptural character of infant baptism. It is, there' ore, certain that in the beginning of the sixteenth century, they were Pedo- baptists, and that their Confessions and writings, endorsed by Luther, proved them ever to have been of this faith. That the Waldenses were Pedo-baptists, is further proved by a declaration of their faith, published by the Waldenses of the Valleys of Maties and Meane, and the Marquisate of Saluces, made in the year 1603. In this, they declare their agreement in faith with the reformed churches of France, Switzerland, Germany, Geneva, England, Scotland, Denmark, etc ; and they say: u Beseeching, in the meantime, (in the middle of our exile and calamity,) the re- formed churches to hold us, and acknowledge us, to be true members thereof, being willing to seal with our blood (if God will have it so) the confessions of faith made and published by them ; which we ac- knowledge in all things, and throughout, conformable to the doctrine taught and written by the holy apos- tles, and therefore truly apostolical." And they 292 INFANT BAPTISM. declare, that this faith had been held and taught by their forefathers " time out of mind, and from father to son." * In the year 1535, the Waldenses of Provence and Dauphine assembled at Angrongne, and after hear- ing read the letters from the reformers, sent by George Morell and Peter Masson, whom they had sent to confer with them, they adopted a confession of their faith, which, they declare, was " conform- able to the doctrine, which hath been taught them from the father to the sonne for these many hundred yeeres, and taken out of the word of God." The seventeenth article of this Confession is as fol- lows : " Touching the matter of the sacraments, it hath been concluded by the holy Sciptures, that we have but two sacramental signs, the which Christ Jesus hath left unto us ; the one is Baptism, the other the Eucharist, which we receive, to show what our perseverance in the faith is, as we have promised when we were baptized, being little infants ; as also in remembrance of that great benefit which Jesus Christ hath done unto us, when he died for our redemption, washing us with his most precious blood."t " In the year 1508," says Jones, " about ten years before Luther began the Reformation, and * Perrin's History, B. 2, ch. 5. j Perrin's History, B 2, ch. 4. INFANT BAPTISM. 293 during the reign of Ladislaus, King of Hungary and Bohemia, a dreadful persecution broke out against that class of his subjects, who held the principles of the Waldenses. The latter, to justify themselves from several charges erroneously imputed to them by their adversaries, drew up an apology addressed to the King, which was still extant in the time of Perrin, and as he handed down to us the substance of it, I shall here extract a few of the more inter- esting particulars." * The apology here mentioned by Jones, is contained in Perrin's history of the Waldenses ; and it settles the question, whether they were Pedo-baptists. " The fourth calumny," says Perrin, " was touching baptism, which, it is said, they denied to little infants ; but from this imputa- tion, they quit themselves as followeth : ' The time and place of those that are to be baptized is not ordained, but the charity and edification of the church and congregation must serve for a rule there- in, etc. And, therefore, they to whom the children were allied, brought their infan f s to be baptized, as their parents, or any other whom God had made charitable in that kind." t It is to be regretted, that Jones did not think proper to publish this inter- esting part of the apology. It proves, that before the days of Luther, the Waldenses were firm believers in the doctrine of infant bantism. * Church History, p. 341. f Book 1 ; ch. 4. 294 IXFAXT BAPTISM. They were sometimes charged with rejecting infant baptism ; and, as we have seen, they treated the charge as a calumny. Louis XII, King of France, hearing many severe charges made against them, sent Adam Fumee and a doctor of Sorbon to visit those of Provence, and inquire into the truth of the charges. " They visited all their parishes and temples, and found neither images, nor so much as the least show of any ornaments belonging to the Masses and ceremonies of the church of Rome, much less any such crimes as were imposed upon them, but rather that they kept their Sabbaths duely, causing their children to be baptized according to the order of the primitive church, teaching them the articles of the Christian faith and commandments of God."* Jones, the Baptist historian, in quoting this lan- guage of Perrin, strangely alters the phraseology, and instead of the phrase, " causing their children to be baptized," he has it, " observed the ordinance of baptism, according to the primitive church." t This is taking a most unwarranted liberty with his- tory. We might suppose that Jones had quoted some other author, but he refers directly to Perrin as his authority. Certainly, if the Waldenses had been anti-pedo-baptists, sufficient evidence could have been found without resorting to such means. * Perrin's History, B. 1, ch. 5. f Church History, p. 348. INFANT BAPTISE. 295 In addition to the testimony already given, I need only state the two following facts, viz : 1. The Yv T aldenses, whilst they boldly testified, as their writings show, against all the corruptions of Popery, never mentioned infant baptism amongst those corruptions. If they had believed, with modern anti-pedo-baptists, that infant baptism is not only a Popish corruption, but the chief of the corruptions of Rome, would they have passed it in silence ? But it is remarkable, that they bore a distinct testimony, not only against the corruptions of bap- tism, but against the additions made by Rome to in- fant baptism. In the Doctrine of the Waldenses and Albigenses, as given by Perrin, we find the follow- ing : " The things that are not necessary to baptism, are the exorcisms, the breathings, the sign of the cross upon the infant, either the breast or the fore- head, the salt put into the mouth, the spittle into the ears and nostrils, the unction of the breast, the monk's cowl, the anointing of the chrism upon the head, and divers like things, consecrated by the bishop, as also the putting of the taper in his hands, clothing it with a white vestment, the blessing of the water, the dipping of it thrice in the water : all these things used in the administration of the sacra- ment, are not necessary, they neither being of the substance, nor requisite in the sacrament of baptism, from which things many take occasion of error and superstition, rather than edification to salvation. 296 INFANT BAPTISM. Now, this baptism is visible and material, which maketk the party neither good nor evil, as it ap- peareth in the Scripture, by Simon Magus and St. Paul. And whereas, baptism is administered in a full congregation of the faithful, it is to the end that he that is received into the church, should be reputed and held of all for a Christian brother, and that all the congregation might pray for him, that he may be a Christian in heart, as he is outwardly esteemed to be a Christian. And for this cause it is, that we present our children in baptism, which they ought to do, to whom the children are nearest, as their parents, and they to whom God hath given this charity." * In the " Book of Anti-christ," which, according to Perrin, dates back as far as A. D. 1120, we find the following: " The third mark of Anti-christ con- sist eth in this, that he attributeth the renewing by the Holy Ghost to an outward dead faith, and bap- tizeth children into that faith, and that by it, we have the baptism and the regeneration," etc. This passage has been strangely relied on to prove the Waldenses opposed to infant baptism ; but it is per- fectly evident, that the objection is not to baptizing infants, but to the " dead faith," and to the sanc- tifying efficacy ascribed to the ordinance. And accordingly, in the fourth chapter of this same Book 1, ch. 6. IXFAXT BAPTISM. 297 book, we read as follows : " The tilings that are not necessary in the administration of baptism, are the exorcisms, breathings, the sign of the cross upon the forehead and breast of the infant, the salt put into his mouth," etc. These passages from their writings, prove that the Waldenses believed in the doctrine of infant baptism, and objected only to the superstitious addi- tions oc the church of Rome, 2. Those of their enemies who were best acquainted with them,, never charged them with rejecting infant baptism. Jones, who was most likely to find such charges, if made by credible writers, gives the testi- mony of " two noted authors who have left us a parti- cular account of the faith and practices of the Wal- denses in Bohemia, during the 14th century, at which time their numbers had increased very considerably, and they had to sustain the fire of papal persecu- tion." The first is an inquisitor of the church of Rome, who professed to have " exact knowledge of the Waldenses, at whose trials he had often assisted, in several countries." His testimony is very import- ant. He says: " Concerning the sacrament of bap- tism, they say, that the catechism signifies nothing, that the absolution pronounced over infants avails them nothing, that the godfathers and godmothers do not understand what they answer the priest. That the oblation which is called Al wogen is nothing but a mere human invention. They reject all exorcisms 26 298 INFANT baptism. and blessings."* Most certainly, the Waldenses witn whom this inquisitor was acquainted, were Pedo- baptists ; for they made no objection to the baptism of infants, but only to those superstitious additions to it, which all evangelical Pedo-baptists condemn. The second witness brought forward by Jones, is Claudius Seisselius, Archbishop of Turin, who wrote a treatise against the Waldenses towards the close of the fifteenth century, a little before the time of the Reformation. " His residence in the very heart of the valleys of Piedmont," says Jones, " must have furnished him with the best opportunities of becom- ing acquainted with the principles and practices of his non- conformist neighbors, and he has transmitted to posterity a narrative sufficiently circumstantial and explicit, to enable any impartial person to form a tolerably correct judgment of them." This import- ant witness gives not the slightest intimation, that the Waldenses rejected the doctrine of infant bap- tism, which, most certainly he would have clone, if such had been the fact. It is clear, then, beyond all controversy, that the Waldenses were Pedo-baptists. Dr. Wall thought it possible that a small sect from amongst them, called Petrobrussians, rejected infant baptism, on the ground that infants are incapable of salvation. But if there was such a sect, they soon passed away. * Church History, p. 324. INFANT BAPTISM. 299 Dr. Wall, after gathering together the evidences from history on this subject, comes to the following conclusion : " Lastly, as these evidences are for the first four hundred years, in which there appears one man, Tertullian, who advised the delay of infant baptism in some cases, and one Gregory, that did, perhaps, practice such delay in the case of his chil- dren, but no society of men so thinking, or so prac- ticing, nor no one man saying it was unlawful to baptize infants ; so in the next seven hundred years, there is not so much as one man to be found, that either spoke for, or practiced any such delay. But all the contrary. And when, in 1130, one sect among the Albigenses, declared against the baptizing of infants, as being incapable of salvation, the main body of that people rejected their opinion ; and they of them that held that opinion, quickly dwindled away and disappeared, there being no more heard of holding that tenet, till the rising of the German anti- pedo-baptists, anno 1522." * The argument from history, then, stands thus : 1st. It has all the weight which human testimony can give it. Commencing from the present day, we trace it distinctly up through every age almost to the very days of the apostles. Not to insist upon anything that can be regarded as doubtful, we are safe in saying (for all admit it) that Tertullian * History of Infant Baptism, v. 2, ch. 9. 300 INFANT BAPTISM. speaks of infant baptism. It, of course, then ex- isted; and since he does not intimate, either that it was a novelty, or that it was unseriptural, but speaks of it as if he regarded it as valid, it is clear, that within one hundred years after the death of the last apostle, it prevailed universally in the church, as of divine authority. It does seem utterly impossible that at so early a day, it should have become so universal thoughoat the church, without the least controversy, unless it was practiced by the apostles. We can go back in the history of the church to a period when there was no Pope, no prayers to saints, no auricular confession, no celib- acy of the clergy ; but we cannot get back to the period when infant baptism commenced. 2. It has all the weight of the testimony of that people who, for so many centuries, resisted the errors of Popery, and preached the Gospel in its purity. Evidently, they held and practiced infant baptism, because they found it, as they believed, in the sacred Scriptures. 3. It has all the weight which is due to the judg- ment of the overwhelming body of the wise and good in every age, concerning the meaning of the Scriptures. At the end of a discussion of three centuries, the opponents of infant baptism are in an exceedingly small minority, and have against them the very great majority of the wisest and most faithful students of God's word. INFANT BAPTISM. 301 CHAPTER VII. Aftee all, it will be asked, of what practical use is the baptism of the children of believers ? The question is an important one, not only for the satis- faction of those who doubt or deny the truth of the doctrine, but that Christian parents and baptized children may reap the benefits of the ordinance. 1. In the first place, it is certain that the blessing of God attends the proper administration and recep- tion of every ordinance which he appoints. Some have imagined, that the baptism of both adults and infants is an unnecessary ceremony ; but God knows what is in man, and He knows how important ordi- nances are to growth in grace. It should be enough for 'us, that He has instituted baptism, even if we were unable to see its necessity or importance. 2. The advantage of infant baptism may be seen in the influence it exerts upon the minds of parents. There are two difficulties which pious parents expe- rience in the religious training of their children. The first is their proneness to neglect it ; the second is the discouragements that attend their efforts to train them aright. Infant baptism, to a considerable extent, removes these difficulties. As to the first, it cannot be doubted that if a truthful man solemnly promises to attend to a duty, he is more likely to do it, than if no promise had 26* 802 INFANT BAPTISM. been made. The duty itself creates one obligation, and his promise creates another. His promise he regards as sacred. Now, God commands parents to train up their children in the nurture and admo- nition of the Lord ; and natural affection, together with divine grace, prompts them to obey. Yet it is a sad truth, that there is, on the part of many pro- fessedly religious parents, great neglect of this most important duty. But God brings them under a most solemn promise to himself, that they will be faithful ; and this promise is sealed by the ordinance of bap- tism. The ordinance itself reminds parents of the depravity of their children, and of their need of the atonement of Christ and of the sanctifying influence of the Holy Spirit. Now, will any one pretend, that a promise made to the great God, and sealed in the most solemn manner, will exert no influence in inducing parents to be faithful in the use of the divinely appointed means for the conversion and salvation of their children ? If a promise made to men exerts an influence, how much more a promise made to God ? But pious parents often feel discouraged by the thoughtlessness and waywardness of their children. Their instructions are unheeded ; and their admo- tions and exhortations seem to fall powerless on the ear. Their hearts are deeply depraved ; and the world is full of temptations, which the enemy of man and his children well know how to present. INFANT BAPTISM. 308 How often the hearts of pious parents sink within them, as they think of the difficulties in the way of the conversion of their children. But as God excites them to faithfulness by exacting from them a solemn promise ; so he encourages them in the discharge of their difficult duties by the promise of divine assist- ance. "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their genera- tions for an everlasting covenant ; to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." The precious promise of the covenant-keeping God has sustained the sinking heart of many a believing parent, has stimulated them to perseverance, and given earnest- ness and faith to their prayers ; and it has encour- aged them to hope in the darkest hour, even though the blessing be apparently long withheld. There is thus a double advantage derived from infant bap- tism — an advantage to parents, who are excited and encouraged to discharge their duties, and an advan- tage to the children, who thus receive a more faithful training and more earnest prayers, and are, con- sequently, more likely to be converted. Alexander Campbell, years ago, expressed, in the Millennial Harbinger, the decided opinion, that there is a greater probability of the salvation of the children of Presbyterians, than of the children of Baptists, because of the greater fidelity of the former in the religious training of their children. This is an important concession, especially in view of the great 304 INFANT BAPTISM. importance attached by Mr. Campbell to baptism. No ordinary difference could have forced upon bis mind such a conviction. Now, bow are we to account for the greater fidelity of Presbyterians in the train- ing of their children? The only answer is, they have entered into covenant with God to train them up for his service ; and they are encouraged by his precious promise to bless them in their efforts. If there were no other advantage derived from infant baptism, this is of incalculable importance. 3. Another advantage o£ infant baptism is its effect upon the minds of children. When they arrive at an age to understand their relations and obligations, let the parents explain to them, that in the days of their infancy they entered into covenant with God to train them up for his service — that they had the seal of his covenant and the emblem of sanc- tification placed upon them. Let them feel, as they grow up, that their parents are acting under cove- nant engagements in restraining and instructing them. Let them understand their obligation to take upon themselves the duties of the covenant, and avail themselves of God's promised blessing. Let them understand the advantages they enjoy as children of the covenant, and the responsibilities that rest upon them. Will considerations such as these have no influence in arousing their consciences, in encouraging them to struggle against temptation, and in urging them to an early consecration of INFANT BAPTISM. 305 themselves to the service of God ? It is evident that infant baptism presses upon the minds of chil- dren powerful motives to early piety ; and there is reason to hope, that the Holy Spirit will give efficacy to those motives. 4. Infant baptism is of great advantage, because of its influence on the church in the religious train- ing of the young. The church is a school of Christ, in which disciples are to be instructed and trained for the service of God. Infant baptism recognizes the children of believers, as entitled to the special watch and care of the church, whose duty it is to see that they be properly instructed and brought early and constantly under the influence of the means of grace, and to make them the subjects of constant prayer. To baptized children, this care of the church is a blessing of inestimable value. Some, indeed, have supposed that as the children of believers are members of the church, they ought, when arrived at the period of accountability, to be required to come to the Lord's table ; and, in case of refusal, they should be subjected to discipline, as other members. But this is a serious error, and, if carried into practice, would be followed by unhappy consequences. Discipline is either admonition, sus- pension, or excommunication. That children should be instructed, and kindly exhorted and admonished to discharge all duties, is certainly true ; but such means will prove far more effectual, we cannot but 306 INFANT BAPTISM. think, when employed otherwise than as ecclesiastical discipline. Suspension would only restrain them from the Lord's table; but as, in the case supposed, they have not partaken of: the supper, and do not propose to do so, it would have no meaning. Few, it is presumed, would urge excommunication. Discipline is to be exercised for the neglect of duties volun- tarily assumed, or for the violation of obligations voluntarily acknoivledged. Its design is either to bring back-sliders to repentance, or to protect the church from the reproach of having, in her bosom, members who disgrace their profession, or for both of these ends. It is not, therefore, applicable to those who have not professed conversion. 5. The history of the church demonstrates that the blessing of God has attended the baptism of the children of believers. In the inquiry how far God has blessed the children of the church, we put out of view those churches in which the ordinance of bap- tism has been corrupted, or its nature and design have been misunderstood. The church of Rome regards baptism as possessing a sanctifying efficacy, whether administered to adults or to infants. She, therefore, administers the ordinance, not as the em- blem of the Spirit's influence, and as the seal of the covenant of grace, but in order to regenerate the soul in the very act of administration. High- church Episcopalians fall into the same error. The blessing of God, of course, will not attend the perversion of the ordinance of baptism. INFANT BAPTISM. 307 But with the history of the Presbyterian church, we are so well acquainted, as to be able to affirm, that the blessing of God has, to a remarkable extent, rested upon the baptized children. In the revivals with which this church has been blessed, a large pro- portion of the converts, often the great majority, have been the children of the covenant. The same thing has been true of the conversions under the regular ministrations of pastors. We have constantly witnessed the fulfillment of the precious promise — " I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them. And their seed shall be known among the Gentiles, and then off- spring among the people: all that see them shall acknowledge them, that they are the seed which the Lord hath blessed. '>* Again, "For they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and then offspring with them." f Still again, " For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground ; and I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring. And they shall spring up as among the grass, as willows by the water- courses." J And now the great majority of the most able and efficient ministers and mem- bers of the Presbyterian church are the baptized children of the church — the children of the covenant. * Isaiah, 61 : 8, 9. t Isaiah, 65 : 23. Isaiah, 44 : 3 ; 4. 308 IXFAXT BAPTISM. It is vain, then, for opposers of infant baptism to declaim against it as tending to corrupt the church, and to fill it with unconverted members. The history of the Presbyterian church in its different branches, and of every other Pedo-baptist church, in which infant baptism has been practiced, with the exceptions already mentioned, disproves the charge, and proves it an unspeakable blessing. 6. Finally, infant baptism offers strong consola- tion to pious parents, both in the early death of their children, and when called to die, and leave their children at an early age. In the first part of this volume, on the Design of Baptism, I have disproved the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, and I utterly repudiate the doctrine, held only by the church of Rome and those of kindred faith, that any infants are lost. Yet it is a great consolation to sorrowing parents, when they weep over their infant children sink- ing into the grave, to be able to commit them to the hands of their Heavenly Father, pleading the unfail- ing promise of his covenant. And when parents are called to leave their children in this world of temptation, of sin and sorrow, it is an unspeakable consolation to be permitted to commit them to the care of Him who has promised to be a God to them and to their children. Again and again, have we witnessed the " strong consolation" which dying parents have drawn from God's gracious covenant in behalf of their children. Who would be willing to be deprived of it ? INFANT BAPTISM. 309 These are the principal advantages of infant bap- tism. The subject makes a strong appeal to pious parents. Two important questions I desire to press upon them, viz-: 1. Have you had your children baptized? I do not ask, whether you have had them christened. I dislike the word. The sooner it goes entirely out of use, the better. But have you had them bap- tized? In too many instances, pious parents delay the discharge of this duty, and quiet their con- sciences with trivial excuses ; and then, if one of their children is likely to die, they send off in great haste for their pastor to administer the ordinance. All unnecessary delay is the neglect of an important duty, and arises from undervaluing one of the most precious privileges. It looks very much like tramp- ling under foot God's gracious covenant. If God has committed to you a young immortal, bound to you by the tenderest ties, delay not to give it to him in the everlasting covenant, and humbly claim his promised grace in the momentous and difficult work of training it up in his nurture and admo- nition. 2. Are you conscientiously and faithfully dis- charging the duties which stand connected with the baptism ol your children ? Too man}', it is to be feared, think little of qualifying themselves to dis- charge the sacred duties imposed upon them and recognized by them in the covenant. There is no 310 INFANT BAPTISM. virtue in the mere administration of an ordinance. It is worse than useless to enter into covenant with God, and to have the seal of that covenant applied to our children, unless we are careful to keep the covenant — to discharge the duties it enjoins. What kind of example do you set before your children? Do they see, in your daily walk, an exemplification of the Christian spirit? Do you faithfully instruct them in the truths of God's holy word? Do you gather them, morning and evening, around the family altar ? Or if you are the wife of an unconverted husband, or a widow, do you pray with and for your children? Do you exercise over them a firm and affectionate discipline? In a word, is it your daily prayer and effort, so far as your instrumentality can, to make them true and devoted disciples of Christ? Do they see that you are far more anxious that they should be disciples of Christ, than shine in the fashionable circles of society? — that you are much more concerned that they be " rich in faith," than that they possess earthly treasures ? Examine yourselves ; for God has, in large part, committed to you the future happiness ol your children, in this life and in the life to come. Your example will inspire them with respect for the religion you pro- fess, or harden them against it. Your prayers, accompanied by faithful efforts, will call down the blessing of God upon them ; as your unfaithfulness INFANT BAPTISM. 311 will be followed by bis judgments. May God, in mercy, help you to be faithful. This subject appeals to the officers of our churches. Baptized children are placed under their watch and care. They are solemnly bound to see to it. as far as possible, that they have suitable religious instruc- tion — that they be brought under the influence of the means of grace. It is to be feared, that whilst, in some respects, the children of the church enjoy a greater variety of religious instruction, than in pre- ceding generations, there is less care taken to have them taught in the doctrines of the Gospel. One of the unhappy consequences is, that they oftener wander from the church of their fathers, and are carried away with dangerous error; and another is, that the piety of those who remain, is of: a less healthy and vigorous growth. It becomes the officers of the churches to look after the spiritual interests of the children committed to their oversight. This subject appeals to baptized children of the church. The seal of God's covenant of grace is upon them. From earliest infancy, they have been the subjects of parental prayers, and have received parental instructions. They have enjoyed precious privileges. The parents who gave them in covenant- to God, may now be in heaven ; but their prayers are remembered by the God of Abraham. The question now arises — Will you ratify what jojai pious parents have done for you ? Or will you thrust from 312 INFANT BAPTISM. you the blessings of the everlasting covenant, and thus incur aggravated guilt? To trifle with that cove- nant made in the blood of Christ, is no slight matter. Hasten, thee, to make your peace with God, and humbly to claim his precious promise. THE END.