X 
 
 & 
 
 
 
 
 ^v 
 
 
 
 
 
 .^T 
 
 
 ra 
 
 
 
 i? 
 
 
 1c 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 (0 
 
 
 
 -»*-. 
 
 
 1£ 
 
 I 
 
 
 r-*» 
 
 t-3 
 
 Q. 
 
 
 
 # W 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 M— 
 
 
 
 § 
 
 fc 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 £> 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 *** 
 
 & 
 
 <u 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 t» 
 
 o 
 
 bfl 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 En 
 O 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 & 
 
 £ 
 
 .*o 
 
 
 «•> 
 
 M 
 
 (0 
 
 *k£ 
 
 
 <^ 
 
 tf 
 
 CO 
 
 & 
 
 
 
 P4 
 
 2 
 
 <3 
 Oh 
 
 
 <3* 
 
 
 SI 
 
 Si 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 -a 
 
 c 
 
 8 
 
 
 £ 
 
 
 en 
 
 a 
 S 
 
 
 \» 
 
 CL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE 
 
 TRIAL OP MR. PEDOBAPTIST 
 
 AN INQUIRY 
 
 CONCERNING THE SCRIPTURAL ACTION 
 
 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 By A/SWARTZ, 
 
 HARRISBURG: 
 
 A. BOYD HAMILTON, 75 MARKET STREET- 
 1856, 
 
Entered according to an Act of Congress, in the year 1858, by 
 
 A. SWAETZ, ' 
 In the Clerk's Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 
 
T<5> 
 
 TZi. 
 
 PREFACE. J? 
 
 The following pages, prepared with the hope of con- 
 tributing, in an humble way, toward the settlement of a 
 question which has long disturbed the Christian Church, 
 were originally intended for publication in the columns 
 of a religious newspaper. By the solicitation of many 
 friends, the author has been induced to consent to their 
 publication in book form, and now sends them forth, 
 with the hope that the words of encouragement which 
 have been spoken by those who have perused the manu- 
 script, may not fail of endorsement by some who may 
 read these pages. 
 
 The reader will discover that many of the thoughts 
 which are here presented 3 are familiar, and that in many 
 instances, the language of other writers is largely em- 
 ployed. If any excuse, other than the fact that the main 
 features of the subject are becoming familiar, is deemed 
 necessary for the pursuit of this course, the author hopes 
 it will be found in the fact, that the present manner of 
 treating the subject is such as calls for extensive quota- 
 tions from those who have preceded him, and who ere 
 considered as? authorities upon the question under dis- 
 eussion. 
 
IV F&EPACE, 
 
 In excuse of faults beyond those incident to a first 
 attempt at authorship, all the usual pleas might be pre» 
 sented, with more than usual truth. But he feels that 
 the good wishes of friends will render such a eourse 
 unnecessary with them, and that the criticisms of oppo- 
 nents could hardly be softened by any statements which 
 could here be made. He, therefore, commits the work 
 to the public as it is, hoping it will give no just occasion 
 of offence to any one, and that it may prove a help to 
 many inquirers after the right ways of the Lord. 
 
 To give .fair representations of both sides of the 
 question in dispute, and to promote harmony among 
 Christians, has been honestly meant 5 and the effort is 
 humbly commended to the blessing of God, 
 
 Mount Joy, Pa., Oct. 1, 1856 
 

 w 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 TRIAL OF MR. PEDOBAPTIST. 
 
 THE ORIGIN OF THE TRIAL. 
 
 Mr. Pedobaptist had long been suspected for alter- 
 ing two fundamental laws of Christian society, and the 
 usage under their first appointment. This alteration is 
 said to have been the primary cause of the injurious 
 division, that has existed among the citizens of this 
 great Commonwealth for a long time, to the detriment of 
 the public peace. The friends of Mr. Baptist published 
 him on the wings of every wind, as guilty of these sac- 
 rilegious acts. The friends of Mr. Pedobaptist, on the 
 contrary, declared everywhere as zealously, that he was 
 entirely innocent, and that the charges preferred by Mr. 
 Baptist were false. There were many citizens who jus- 
 tified the conduct of Mr. Pedobaptist, on the ground of 
 expediency. The citizens who were not identified with 
 either of the above parties, took no part in the contro- 
 versy, and therefore expressed no judgment. 
 
 To test his innocence, which he openly and boldly de- 
 clared to all, an appeal to the highest legal tribunal in 
 the land was necessary. Its judgment alone could settle 
 
D THE TRIAL OF 
 
 this mooted question finally. Mr. Baptist professed to 
 be exceedingly glad that an opportunity was offered to 
 bring him before this tribunal, in order to have the con- 
 troversy settled by its decision. He said that often be- 
 fore this time he had urged an investigation 5 but Mr. 
 Pedobaptist (as he declared) placed himself beyond the 
 jurisdiction of the Court, 
 
 LEGAL PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED AGAINST MS. PEDOBAPTIST. 
 
 Mv. Baptist commenced legal proceedings against the 
 aliened offender, by preferring the charge of High. Trea- 
 son against the goveriwient. Mr. Pedobaptist was ai rested 
 by the officer of the law, and by him returned to the 
 Court fur trial. When the fact of his arrest was made 
 known to the public, it rocked the whole nation with 
 more than earthquake violence. The excitement it crea- 
 ted appeared ominous of a fearful calamity to the public 
 weal. But the return of the second sober thought of 
 the people, calmed down the fevered excitement of his 
 friends, and they looked forward to his triumphant ac- 
 quittal for a complete refutation of all that Mr. Baptist 
 and his friends had circulated against him. And further. 
 they determined that upon his acquittal he should seek 
 a full legal remuneration from Mr. Baptist, for the injury 
 his character had suffered by these reports. 
 
 As the time for the meeting of the regular session of 
 the Supreme Court drew near, the excitement in the pub- 
 lic mind was renewed with unabated interest. The trial 
 was the topic of exciting conversation throughout the 
 
MR. PEDOBAPTlST. 7 
 
 country. The reason of this overwhelming interest 
 manifested by the parties implicated, may be found in 
 the nature of the issue to be tried, and the result of the 
 judgment upon the public well-being. 
 
 THE COURT IN SESSION AND ITS ACTION ON THE CASE. 
 
 The long expected day arrived for the meeting of the 
 Court. The people were found in crowds about the 
 place of meeting, long before the appointed hour for the 
 opening of the Court ; and when the hour was announced 
 by the ringing of the bell, the room was soon filled to over- 
 flowing. The announcement was made, as soon as the 
 Judges had taken their seats, that the Court was prepared 
 to proceed to business. At this moment, a death-like 
 silence reigned throughout the mighty concourse assem- 
 bled. The public heart beat heavily, when in delivering 
 his charge to the grand jury, the President Judge spoke 
 concerning the nature of the crime with which the Pri- 
 sioner was charged in the return made to the Court. — 
 After thfc close of the charge, all present waited with 
 palpitating interest until the grafid jury would pass upon 
 the bills sent to them against the Prisoner, and report to 
 the Court their judgment. 
 
 After hours of painful suspense to the multitude, the 
 crier of the Court announced the coming of the jury. 
 Breathless silence brooded over the assembty, when the 
 bills were handed to the Court and read. The presiding 
 Judge announced in a clear and distinct tone of voice, 
 that two true bills were found against the Prisoner 
 
JT THE* TRIAL OF 
 
 This announcement was hailed with signs of joyful tri- 
 umph by the friends of Mr. Baptist. The friends of 
 the Prisoner stood appalled, when the action of the jury 
 was declared to the crowd assembled, for they had ex- 
 pected the bills to be returned to the Court ignored. 
 However, they still congratulated each other with the 
 hope of a final verdict in his favor. 
 
 The first bill charged the Prisoner at the bar with the 
 crime of High Treason against the government, for 
 changing the action of Christian Baptism from immersion 
 of the subject in water, in the name of the Trinity, as it 
 was commanded by the Author of our institutions, to 
 sprinkling and pouring water on the subject, in the same 
 name. 
 
 The second bill charged him with the crime of admin- 
 istering this ordinance to Infants, contrary to the funda- 
 mental law of this Commonwealth, as found in the 28th 
 chapter of the Constitution as recorded by Matthew : — 
 " 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 
 1 have commanded you ; and lo ! I am with you always, 
 even unto the end of the world." 
 
 THE PRISONER PUT ON TRIAL. 
 
 "VThen the day to arraign the Prisoner had arrived, the 
 entire population, with the multitude that had come from 
 all parts of the country to witness the trial, were found 
 bending their way to the place where the trial was to be 
 
MR. PEUOBAJPTIST. 9 
 
 conducted. Many of them were deeply interested in 
 the issue of this case, for it involved their own and the 
 loyalty of many of the most respectable citizens to the 
 government. 
 
 The court room was crowded to excess. A deep 
 silence prevailed throughout the throng assembled, when 
 the Prisoner was called upon to plead to the first indict- 
 ment, for he was to be tried on each bill separately — this 
 privilege the law permitting him to claim. With a 
 trembling voice he entered the plea of 'Snot guilty." 
 The Prisoner's manner on tiiis occasion betrayed symp- 
 toms of uneasiness, and a feeling of danger. That 
 boasted confidence of his innocence, which had sustained 
 him up to this moment, forsook him in the crisis, and 
 the public were left to conjecture the cause of the sud- 
 den change in his conduct. 
 
 Before a jury to try the case was called, the following 
 question was ordered by the Court to be proposed to each 
 juryman, previously to his being sworn: "Have you 
 formed or expressed an opinion, as to the guilt or inno- 
 cence of the Prisoner at the bar 1" 
 
 After considerable trouble and delay in finding a suffi- 
 cient number of jurors, who were not committed against 
 or for the Prisoner, the following gentlemen were em- 
 panneled to try the case : 
 
 Messrs. Impartiality, Sincerity, Honesty, Truthful, 
 Charity, Landmark, Confidence, Hopeful, Steadfast, Jus- 
 tiee, Mercy and Fairplay. 
 
 All parties expressed their satisfaction with and con- 
 
10 TILE TK1AL OF 
 
 fidence in the persons selected to determine the impor- 
 tant subject they were to pas& their judgment upon. All 
 felt sure, from the positions these persons occupied before 
 the public, that the controversy could not have been left 
 in safer hands for a settlement. 
 
 The Court ordered the counsel for the prosecution to 
 be prepared to open the case to the jury, after the meet- 
 ing of the Court in the afternoon. 
 
 On the re-assembling of the Court, the counsel for the 
 prosecution arose, and opened the case with the following 
 address: 
 
 If the Court please, gentlemen of the jury, you are now 
 called upon, on your oaths and affirmations, to determine 
 a case which has been the subject of angry controversy 
 between the plaintiff and defendant for a long time. — 
 Their warm and bitter contentions have greatly disturbed 
 the peace of society, by creating hostility between the 
 father and the son — brother opposing brother and arraying 
 citizen against citizen. If this state of violence and dis- 
 cord is permitted to continue among us, it will endanger 
 the perpetuity of our time honored Christianity, as we 
 have received it from its Author. The day has come, 
 when this tempest-tossed community demands the removal 
 of these premonitions of coming dissolution . The eountry 
 looks to you with confidence for a sufficient antidote. — 
 Shall it look in vain 1 The remedy for these evils is at 
 your disposal, and your verdict will be an answer to this 
 momentous question. In this answer is bound up the 
 liope of our people 
 
US,. PBDOBAl'TIST. 11 
 
 Gentlemen, the Prisoner at the bar stands before you 
 charged in the indictment, with one of the highest crimes 
 known to our Jaws. This charge involves his honor, 
 character and life. Its investigation demands at your 
 hands the most enduring patience and impartial attention, 
 to all that shall be offered on this occasion for his inno- 
 cence or against it. You have placed yourselves under 
 the obligation of an oath to decide as to the guilt or 
 innocence of the Prisoner, from the evidence we shall 
 offer as proof of the charge alleged against him, and the 
 application of the law as laid down to you by the Court. 
 To the result of your judgment you have no right to 
 look forward ; it is the business of the law and its admin- 
 istrators to attend to the result of your verdict. 
 
 It will now be your duty, to dispossess your minds of 
 all prepossessions on the subject upon which you are to 
 pronounce a judgment, and look at the case as if you had 
 not, before the present occasion, been to any extent 
 acquainted with it. I am satisfied from your well known 
 characters and intelligence, acknowledged by all the peo- 
 ple, that you will do the Prosecutor and the Prisoner that 
 justice which you would like dealt out to yourselves, were 
 you in their positions. 1 am also satisfied you will render 
 a verdict, from the evidence offered, which all honest 
 men in our country will approve, and that they will 
 secure its execution by the administrators of the 
 Jaw. 
 
 The importance of the result of this trial to the country, 
 has collected together, at this place, a vast concourse of 
 our people, who express a deep interest in the decision 
 
12 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 of the grave question which is now committed to you. 
 The whole nation looks to you at this time as the only 
 anchor of its present safety, for the weal or woe of our 
 country depends upon the decision you will make on this 
 occasion. A more important question was never left to 
 a jury to determine. We are satisfied you realize the 
 weight of the responsibility which rests upon you. I 
 have no doubt you have sufficient courage to act when 
 the time for action arrives, let that action be for the 
 Prisoner or against him. 
 
 Gentlemen of the jury, the purity and the honor of the 
 law must be maintained and vindicated by an impartial 
 verdict. Justice must be measured out with an even 
 hand, let the stroke it inflicts fall where it may. Chris- 
 tian institutions must be maintained unmutilated by a 
 foreign hand, or the whole framework of Christian 
 society will fall to pieces. Unless you sustain the law 
 of Christian Baptism, in its original import, anarchy, 
 rebellion and treason will flourish in open day. What 
 then will become of that venerated system of government 
 for which our fathers periled their fortunes, honors and 
 lives 1 It will soon be buried in ruin by these agitations, 
 and only be remembered with painful regret by coming 
 generations. An event of this kind we all should depre- 
 cate as a direful calamity ; for it would be the darkest 
 page upon the annals of history. This burning page of 
 shame, would live forever as a memorial of the folly of 
 the guardians of the law, in forsaking justice in the hour 
 of peril and danger. 
 
MR. PKOOBAPTIST. 13 
 
 Gentlemen, before a calamity of such a heart-sickening 
 character shall, by your verdict, fall on this great Com- 
 monwealth, the light and hope of all nationalities, it will 
 be well for us to recall the number of lives and fortunes 
 which this government cost, that it might be transmitted 
 to us as the birth-right of humanity. Our ancestors well 
 knew it to be the ark of our safety — the citadel of our 
 strength — the temple of our proudest hopes, and that 
 around its spires would play the glory of Jehovah, in 
 hopeful expectation to all coming time. They trusted 
 that our sons and daughters, with rejoicing hope, would 
 be found worshipping at its altars through coming ages, 
 and enjoying its manifold blessings. Can you, in your 
 action on this case, blot out forever these invaluable 
 immunities, so dearly purchased by our fathers? Even 
 infidelity is not so unbelieving, as to cherish for a single 
 moment, an apprehension so appalling to our patriotism. 
 
 Christian institutions, preserved from human contami- 
 nation, would always be to us a pillar of cloud by day 
 and a pillar of fire by night, conducting us to that high 
 destination in the scale ©f moral being that will make us 
 equal with the angels of God. 
 
 Into your hands are now committed the well-being 
 and happiness of this country, and the hope of coming 
 generations depends on the judgment you will render. 
 You will patiently indulge me with a careful hearing of 
 the principles of law, applicable to this case, and the 
 evidence we shall offer. Let us approach a subject so 
 grave and important to us all, with all sincerity and 
 ' - ,; =!;hr whereby this day's proceedings may be- 
 
14j THE TRIAL OF 
 
 come an honor to ourselves, to our country and to our 
 laws. 
 
 THE PRINCIPLES OF LAW APPLICABLE TO THIS CONTROVERSY. 
 
 We shall now proceed to lay down some incontestible 
 facts, that shall be to us a beacon-light to guide us in the 
 investigation of this case. We invoke your particular 
 attention to their presentation, and we do also most 
 earnestly challenge the counsel of the defendant to invali- 
 date their soundness and application to this dispute. If 
 they cannot be contested successfully by him, we shall 
 claim for them a power to determine the weight of the 
 evidence to be offered, and also the judgment to be formed 
 of this controversy. 
 
 If the Court please, (addressing the Court,) your careful 
 attention is called to the following facts, or principles of 
 law, applicable to the issue joined by the parties now 
 before you, calling for a legal adjudication: 
 
 1. The word used in the Constitution of this Common- 
 wealth, to designate the act in Christian Baptism, is not 
 Bapto, but its derivative Baptizo. On the meaning of this 
 last word, hinges the whole controversy now before us. 
 To show that this distinction is well founded, we will read 
 from two reliable authorities, whose testimony will place 
 the fact beyond dispute. Professor Stuart, himself a friend 
 of Mr. Pedobaptist, says on this point: "In the New 
 Testament, however, there is one other marked distinc- 
 tion between the use of these verbs. Baptizo and its 
 derivatives are exclusively employed, when the rite of 
 baptism is to be designated in any form whatever 5 and in 
 
MR. PEDOBAPTIST. 15 
 
 this case, Bapto seems to be purposely, as well as habitu- 
 ally, excluded." — Stuart on Baptism, p. 51. Carson says, 
 p. 18, "this difference is, Bapto is never used to denote 
 the ordinance of baptism." An examination of the New 
 Testament use of these words, will be an unanswerable 
 confirmation of their testimony. We shall hold this 
 distinction to be settled beyond dispute, until an excep- 
 tion shall be found. 
 
 If we are compelled by the counsel for the Prisoner, to 
 go into the investigation of the use of Bapto, we are 
 prepared to show, by unexceptionable authorities, that its 
 literal acceptation is to dip and dye. To undertake to 
 prove this, by incontestible examples from its use in the 
 language, is, we think, at this time unnecessary, because 
 the word is never found in the law of baptism. We 
 wish it distinctly understood, once for all, that these 
 words, Bapto and Baptizo, are not confounded when this 
 institution (baptism) is named or spoken of. 
 
 2. Baptism, as commanded by the Saviotir, is a Positive 
 Institution, and not a Moral one. There is a plain dis- 
 tinction, recognized by theological writers of the highest 
 authority in this kingdom, existing between positive 
 and moral duties. In moral duties we can see the reason 
 why they are commanded, because they are suited to our 
 nature, and to the relations which we sustain to the 
 Author of our being and to others around us. The 
 necessities of our being demand their performance. In 
 positive duties we observe not the reason of their per- 
 formance, previous to their enactment. They rest entirely 
 upon the express will of the Lawgiver. In confirmation 
 
It) THE TKIAL OF 
 
 of this distinction we shall read from Booth? 's Pedobaptism 
 Examined, vol. 1, a number of authorities selected from 
 among the friends of the Prisoner, who will be found 
 teaching this distinction plainly. 
 
 Dr. J. G. King: "Positive duties having no obligation 
 in the reason of things, can have no foundation but in 
 the express words of the institution, from which alone 
 they derive their authority." — Rites and Cerem. of the 
 Greek Church. 
 
 Dr. Doddridge: " Those are called positive institutions 
 or precepts, which are not founded upon any reasons 
 known to those to whom they are given or discoverable 
 by them, but which are observed merely because some 
 superior has commanded them," — Lectures, Definit. lxxi. 
 p. 23S. 
 
 Dr. Owen: "Positive institutions are the free effects 
 of the will of God, depending originally and solely on 
 revelation, and which, therefore, have been various and 
 actually changed." — Discourse — Holy Spirit, Yl. 1. Chap- 
 ter iii. 
 
 Dr. Jonathan Edwards : " Those laws, whose obligation 
 arises from the nature of things and from the general 
 state and nature of mankind, as well as from God's posi- 
 tive revealed will, are called moral laws. Others, whose 
 obligation depends merely upon God's positive and arbi- 
 trary institution, are not moral: such as the ceremonial 
 laws and the precepts of the Gospel about the two sacra- 
 ments." — Sermons, p. 232. Hartford, 1780. 
 
 Bp. Butler : " Positive precepts are precepts the reasons 
 of which we do not see. Moral duties arise out of the 
 
MR. PEDOBAPTIST. 17 
 
 nature of the case itself, prior to external command ; 
 positive duties do not arise out of the nature of the case, 
 but from external command ; nor would they be duties 
 at all were it not for such command." — Analogy of Reli' 
 gion, Part II. Chap. i. 
 
 Bp. Taylor : " All institutions sacramental, and posi- 
 tive laws, depend not upon the nature of the things them- 
 selves, but they depend wholly on the will of the Law- 
 giver." 
 
 Bp. Burnet: "Sacraments are positive precepts, which 
 are to be measured only by the institution, in which there 
 is no room left for us to carry them any further." — Ex- 
 posit. 39 Articles. 
 
 Dr. Goodman : " The term Institution implies a setting 
 up de novo, or the appointing that to become a duty 
 which was not knowable, or at least not known to be so 
 before it became so appointed. For this word, Institu- 
 tion, is that which we use to express a positive command 
 by, in opposition to that which is moral in the strictest 
 sense and of natural obligation." — Preserv. against Popery, 
 Title 8, p. 7. 
 
 To these names we could add a host of others of equal 
 learning and authority, who are found also teaching this 
 distinction between moral and positive institutions, and 
 declaring baptism to belong to positive precepts and not 
 to moral ones. All theological authorities we have con- 
 sulted, acquiesce cordially in the doctrine of the above 
 writers. 
 
 3. All we can know of the will of the Lawgiver, when posi- 
 tive duties are required, is to be found in the xnords employed 
 
fS THE TRIAL OY 
 
 to designate the act or acts to be done. The words in the 
 law, about which this dispute finds its origin, are, as 
 announced by Peter, Acts, n. 38, " be baptized everyone 
 of you." From these words only can we learn our duty, 
 for they are the only mediums of knowledge to us of the 
 Divine will. This is to us self-evident. There is no 
 other process within our reach for the acquisition of this 
 knowledge. Deny this to be self-evident and you place 
 a knowledge of the Divine will beyond our power. The 
 distinction ascertained between moral and positive pre* 
 cepts, imperatively demands the adoption of this process 
 to ascertain God's will when positive duties are required. 
 The enacting word in baptism, which designates the act 
 to be performed, is baptizo, and its meaning, like that of 
 all the words associated with it, is to be determined by 
 a common sense process, and this process alone will show 
 its true import. We shall proceed to elucidate it: 
 
 4. The mind of the Lawgiver, when positive duties are 
 required, can only be learned by ascertaining the literal or 
 popular meaning of the words in the laic. This must be 
 his meaning of necessity, unless the Lawgiver in the 
 law teaches another signification. That he does employ 
 the words in an unusual sense, may not be inferred but 
 must be plainly announced. Without this authority for 
 an unusual interpretation, we are compelled to abide by 
 the literal meaning. In the law of baptism, we have 
 not the remotest intimation that a different meaning from 
 the literal is to be given to the w T ords employed. Until 
 there is some veritable evidence offered to support another 
 meaning, the christian public is bound to take only the 
 
?.IR, PEPOBAPTIST. 19 
 
 common signification of the words to be the Lawgiver's, 
 We shall now read from the best authorities in the land 
 in support of this law of interpretation. 
 
 Sir William Blackstone says : " It is with the pro- 
 per and unfigurative, and not with fanciful and rhetorical 
 meaning of words, we have to do in all positive institu- 
 tions." Also: " The words of a law are generally to 
 be understood in their usual and most known signification / 
 not so much regarding the propriety of grammar as their 
 general and popular use ; but when words bear either 
 none or a very absurd signification, if literally under- 
 stood, we must a little deviate from the received sense 
 of them."— Corn. vol. 1, sect. 2. 
 
 Baron Montesquieu : "The style (of laws) should be 
 plain and simple ; a direct expression being always better 
 understood than an indirect one. It is an essential arti- 
 cle that the words of the laws should (be adapted to) 
 excite in every body the same ideas. The laws ought 
 not to be subtle ; they are designed for people of com- 
 mon understanding." — Booth, p. 105. 
 
 Bishop Taylor: "in all things where the precept is 
 given in the proper style of laws, he that takes the first 
 sense is the likeliest to be well guided, in the interpre- 
 tation of the laws of Christ, the strict sense is to be 
 followed." — Campbell's and Rice's Debate, p. 108. 
 
 Dr. Jonathan Edwards: "In words capable of two 
 senses, the natural and proper is the primary ; and, there- 
 fore, ought, in the first place, and chiefly to be re- 
 garded." — Ibid. 
 
 Vitringa : " This is accounted bv all a constant and 
 
20 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 undoubted rule of approved interpretation, that the ordi- 
 nary and most usual signification of words must not be 
 deserted, except for sufficient reasons." — Ibid. 
 
 Turretine : " It is acknowledged by all, that we should 
 never depart from the proper and native signification of 
 words, except for the weightiest and most urgent rea- 
 sons." — Ibid. 
 
 Dr. Benson : " What can be more absurd, than to 
 imagine that the doctrines or rules of practice which 
 relate to men's everlasting salvation, should be delivered 
 in such ambiguous terms, as to be capable of many 
 meanings." — Ibid. 
 
 Bp. Home: "By historical interpretation, we are to 
 understand that we give to the words of sacred authors 
 that sense, which they bore in the age when they lived." 
 Hornets Introdu. to the study of the Scrip. , p. 177. 
 
 Dr. G. Hill : " Greek words passed with the univer- 
 sal language of ancient Greece to other nations, and 
 particularly to the authors of the septuagint translation 
 of the Old Testament, and to the writers of the New 
 Testament, in whose works every sound critic must un- 
 derstand them, unless some notice is given of a different 
 acceptation, according to that which he knows to have 
 heen their received sense in the country from which they 
 came." — HUP s Divinity, p. 445. 
 
 President Dwight : " Of course, the terms in which 
 they are revealed, are used in such a manner as these 
 (uneducated) men can understand. They are, therefore, 
 used according to their plain, customary, obvious mean- 
 
MR. FEDOBAPTIST. 21 
 
 incr, the meaning which they have in the usual intercourse 
 of mankind." — Dwight's Theology, vol. 1, p. 520. 
 
 Professor Stuart : " The primary or literal signifi- 
 cation of a word must always be taken, unless the con- 
 text obviously demands a secondary signification." — 
 Stuart on Baptism, p. 12. 
 
 Arch. Bp. Whately : " But again, there is hardly one 
 of these passages which can be thus explained away, 
 without violating the maxim above laid down, viz : — 
 That we should consider, not any interpretation what- 
 ever, that such words can bear, but what notion they 
 conveyed, and must have been known to convey to the 
 hearers at the time. For if this were a mistaken notion, 
 an untrue sense, it follows inevitably that Christ and his 
 Apostles must have been teachers of falsehood, even 
 though their words should be capable of a different and 
 true signification." — Kingdom of Christ, p. 33. 
 
 These authorities are sufficient to settle beyond a rea- 
 sonable dispute, the law of interpretation to be applied 
 to words found in positive institutions. Its application 
 to the subject now before us in controversy, the meaning 
 of the enacting word in baptism, an institution acknow- 
 ledged to be a positive enactment, will enable us to come 
 to a satisfactory conclusion, when the evidence is before 
 the Court. To adopt any other law of interpretation, will 
 be to leave us in doubt forever about the will of the Law- 
 giver, when he commands positive duties. To tolerate 
 for a moment a departure from this undoubted law of 
 interpretation, is to make void, practically, our obligation 
 to the acknowledged bead of this o-o vera men t. This rule 
 
SS Till' TIUAL OF 
 
 recognizes a universal law of communicating tlie will of 
 one person to another. To contest it, is impossible. 
 The exigence of all forms of government depend upon 
 it. it is the application of this principle that constitutes 
 this Court, and governs ail our proceedings. All our 
 action would be treated as a nullity without it. ? 
 
 5. The figurative application of a. icord, enters not within 
 the pale of the interpretation of positive precepts. This is so 
 evident to all, that all authority consulted cordially con- 
 firms it without objection. The authorities already in 
 evidence that speak on this point, only speak to attest 
 its authority, i presume it will be cheerfully acknow- 
 ledged by the counsel for the Prisoner. If he wishes to 
 contest it, we cordially invite its investigation' by hint, 
 and we will then promise to show it is an undoubted 
 law of interpretation, sanctioned and sustained by the 
 best authorities in and out of the church. The reason 
 why there is such unanimity among reliable authorities, 
 may be found in the fact, that it is necessitated by the 
 laws of language. 
 
 6. Jlti intelligent legislation contemplates a specific ob- 
 ject in its enactments. That object can only be ascer- 
 tained by the words employed to express it, and these 
 are to be taken in their usual signification. This is true 
 of human legislation. How much more true it is of 
 Divine legislation. The soundness of this principle is 
 palpable to all v/ho have any discernment, and to deny 
 it, would be to make ail legislation a nullity, and human 
 responsibility a nameless thing. Who is prepared for 
 this conclusion] All men act according to thisprinclnle^ 
 
MR. PED0BAPT1ST. 23 
 
 and the Divine conduct is regulated by it. Therefore, 
 our obedience becomes a reasonable service. 
 
 7. The usus loquendi of a word in the language, is the 
 supreme tribunal to determine its meaning. This is a self- 
 evident law of approved interpretation. I look for no 
 objection to be offered to it. It points out the only in- 
 telligent process that can be adopted, to ascertain the 
 meaning of any ancient author. Its application to bap- 
 tizo, in the law, and the words associated with it, will 
 meet the hearty approval of the Court, and lead us all to 
 a conclusion worthy of our position and relation to the 
 country. 
 
 Let these facts be applied to this case, as they must be, 
 if we wish to come to an intelligent and impartial judg- 
 ment of the controversy between the parties. They will 
 lead us, I think, to a satisfactory conclusion, when the 
 evidence is placed at. our command, They are intended 
 to show what act was required of us in the Constitution, 
 when baptizo was incorporated in it by the Lawgiver. I 
 am sure that the evidence, under the control and guid- 
 ance of these principles, will afford no justification for 
 the conduct of the Prisoner, but condemns it entirely. 
 
 The evidence we shall present to the Court and jury, 
 will be classified in the following order: 
 
 1. The literal meaning of baptizo, in the law of bap- 
 tism, is only immersion in water. This proposition will 
 be sustained by a host of witnesses, and nearly all of 
 them shall be the personal friends of the Prisoner. 
 
 2. The evidence of this fact found in the New Testa- 
 ment fnnn the person?, places and circumstances eon- 
 
24 THE TB1AL OF 
 
 nected with the first administration of the act under the 
 law. 
 
 3. We shall prove the fact of immersion heing the 
 action of baptism, by the design of the institution, as a 
 symbolic representation of the burial and resurrection of 
 the Author of Christianity. 
 
 4. We shall also prove this meaning of baptizo from 
 the history of the administration of the ordinance for 
 many years after its institution. 
 
 5. We will undertake to prove, that the Prisoner at 
 the bar did change Christian Immersion, and did substi- 
 tute sprinkling and pouring in its place, contrary to the 
 words of the law, to the design of the institution, and the 
 practice under its first administration. 
 
 If we can prove to your satisfaction that these facts 
 are well founded, we have bo doubt you will agree with 
 us that the Prisoner is guilty in manner and form as he 
 stands charged in the indictment. It will then be your 
 duty to say so in your verdict. A verdict of this kind 
 will restore this institution to that honorable position 
 which it occupied at the formation of this government, 
 and also will heal that dangerous division among our 
 citizens, which has threatened for some time the perpe- 
 tuity of our national existence. All our people are bound 
 to abide by your judgment. Let it restore the land- 
 marks which our fathers set on this subject, and it wil 
 accomplish all we desire. 
 
 After all, if the evidence we offer, with the instruction 
 of the Court, will not clearly warrant a verdict of guilty, 
 it will be your duty to acquit the defendant. If it can be 
 
so, after hearing the law and evidence, we will rejoice in 
 the belief that Mr. Baptist had altogether mistaken the 
 Prisoner's character, and the weight of the evidence on 
 which he relied for a conviction. We shall now pro- 
 ceed to call the witnesses. 
 
 CLASSICAL USE OF THE WORD " BAPTIZO." 
 
 Mr. Classic was called and qualified. 
 
 Question by the Counsel for the prosecution.— Is the 
 Greek language your vernacular tongue 1 
 
 A. — Yes sir. 
 
 Q. — Are baptizo, and its cognates, Greek words'? 
 
 A. — Yes sir. 
 
 Q. — Has the word baptizo necessarily a reference to 
 water, in its signification l 
 
 A. — No sir. This is evident to all who consider its 
 use in the kvng-uajre. It is there used with reference to 
 any substance that can be penetrated. 
 
 Q. — What is its popular or literal meaning in the 
 language! 
 
 A. — The literal or common meaning of baptizo and its 
 cognates, is to dip or immerse into something that is 
 penetrable. I will read a sufficient number of authorities, 
 from among our best writers, to confirm my answer. 
 
 Pindar, Pyth. II. 139, " describes the impotent malice 
 of his enemies, by representing himself to be like the cork 
 upon a net in the sea, which does not sink : As when a net 
 is cast into the sea, the cork swims above, so am 1 unplunged 
 (abaptistos;) on which the Greek scholiast, in comment- 
 ing, says: 'As the cork,o« dunei, does not sink, so I am 
 
26 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 abaptistos, unplunged, not immersed. * * * The cork re- 
 mains abaptistos, and swims on the surface of the sea, be- 
 ing of a nature which is abaptistos ; in like manner I am 
 abaptistos.' In the beginning of this explanation, the scho- 
 liast says: 'Like the cork of a net in the sea, ou bap- 
 tizomai, I am not plunged or sunk. 11 " — Stuart, p. 52. 
 
 Heraelides Pontieus, a disciple- of Aristotle, Allegor, 
 p. 495, says: "When a piece of iron is taken red hot 
 from the fire, and plunged in water, (udati baptizetai,) the 
 heat, being quenched by the peculiar nature of the water 
 ceases." — Ibid. p. 53. 
 
 Polybius, III. 72. "The foot soldiers passed through 
 (the water,) sear.cely immersed to the papa" — Ibid. p. 55.^ 
 
 The same author gives as another example equally 
 decisive; "They are of themselves immersed, (baptizo- 
 ?nai,) and sunk in the marshes." 
 
 Plutarch, PatS'll. Graee. Rom. p. 545, speaking of the 
 stratagem of a Roman General, in order to ensure vic- 
 tory, says : M He set up a trophy, on which, dipping his 
 hand into blood, (eis to airna, baptisas,) he wrote this 
 inscription," etc. In Vol. VI. p. 680, (edit. Keiskc,) he 
 speaks of iron plunged (baptomenon,) viz : into water, 
 in order to harden it. — Ibid. p. 633, ' Plunge (baptison,) 
 yourself into the sea,' Vol. X. p. 118, 'Then plunging 
 (baptison,) himself into the lake Copais.' " — Stuart, pp. 
 53-4. 
 
 Lucian, Vol. i. p. 139, represents Timon, the man- 
 hater, as saying : " If a winter's flood should carry away 
 any one, and he, stretching out his hands, should beg 
 for help, 1 would press down the head of such an one 
 
MRi PEDOBAPTIST. 27 
 
 when sinking, (baptizonta,) so that he could not rise up 
 again." — Ibid. p. 54. 
 
 Strabo, Lib. VI. p. 421, speaking of a lake near Agri« 
 gentum, says : u Things that elsewhere cannot float do 
 not sink (mee baptizesthai) in the water of this lake, but 
 swim in the manner of wood." XII. p. 809, " if one 
 shoots an arrow into the channel (of a certain rivulet in 
 Cappadocia,) the force of the water resists it so much, 
 that it will scarcely plunge in, (baptizesthai.") XIV. p. 
 982, " They (the soldiers,) marched a whole day through 
 the water, plunged in (baptizomenon) up to the waist." 
 XVI. p. 1108, u The bitumen floats on the top (of the 
 lake Sirbon,) because of the nature of the water, which 
 admits of no diving; nor can any one who enters it 
 plunge in, (baptizestha,) but is borne up." — Ibid. p. 55. 
 
 Epictetus, III. p. 69, ed. Schwiegh. in a fragment of 
 his work, says: "As you would not wish, sailing in a 
 large ship adorned and abounding with gold, to be sunk 
 or immerged, (baptizesthai,) so, etc." — Ibid. 
 
 Themistius, Orat. IV. p. 133, as quoted by Dr. Gale, 
 says : " The pilot cannot tell but he may save one in 
 the voyage that had better be drowned, sunk (baptisai) 
 into the sea." 
 
 Dio also affords evidence decisive of the same mean- 
 ing : "They are entirely baptized, (baptizontai) sunk, 
 overwhelmed or immersed," XXXVIII. p. 84. — Carson, 
 p. 65. 
 
 ^He applies it to the sinking of ships : " So great a 
 storm suddenly arose through the whole country, that 
 
28 THE TRIAL Oi- 
 
 the boats were baptized or sunk in the Tiber." XXXVII.— 
 Ibid. 
 
 He applies it in the same way, i. 492 : " How could it 
 escape sinking from the very multitude of rowers'?" — Ibid. 
 
 The sinner is represented by Porphyry, p. 282, as 
 " baptized (baptizetai) up to his head in Styx, the famous 
 lake in hell,"— Ibid. 
 
 "The Sibylline verse concerning the city of Athens, 
 quoted by Plutarch, in his life of Theseus, determines 
 the meaning of baptizo : 'Thou mayest be dipped, 
 (baptizei,) O bladder ! but thou art not fated to sink.' " — 
 Ibid., p. 61. 
 
 Hippocrates, p. 532, edit. Basil : " Shall I not laugh 
 at the man who sinks (baptisonta) his ship by overload- 
 ing it, and then complains of the sea for engulphing it 
 with its cargo V 
 
 Again, p. 2:H, Hippocrates says : " Dip (baptize) it 
 again in breast-miik and Egyptian ointment." — Carson, 
 p. 64. 
 
 The same writer gives xis the clearest insight into the 
 meaning of this word, by twice comparing a peculiar 
 kind of breathing in patients, to the breathing of a per- 
 son after being immersed : " He breathed as persons 
 breathe after being baptized. " p. 310. The same com- 
 parison occurs again, p. 357, in the following words : 
 " He breathed as persons breathe after being baptiz- 
 ed."— Ibid. 
 
 Dionysus " observes that, ' the poet (Homer) ex- 
 presses himself with great emphasis, representing the 
 sword to be so baptized (baptisthentos) as to become 
 
MR. FfiDOUAPXIST. 29 
 
 warm with blood.' The same may be said respecting 
 the swords and helmets baptized in the marches after 
 the battle of Grchomenus." — H&nton. 
 
 " The example given by Hammond is also irresistible. 
 It is said of Eupolis, 'that being thrown into the sea, 
 (ebaptizeto,) he was immersed all over.' " — Carson, p. 62. 
 
 " The expression quoted by Hendericus from Heliod. 
 b. 5., is equally decisive — 'to baptize into the lake.' 
 And that from Esop, ' the ship being in danger of sink- 
 ing, (baplizing).' " — Ibid. 
 
 Q. — Did you ever use baptizo or its cognates, to de- 
 note the action of sprinkling or -pouring ? 
 
 A. — Not in a solitary instance, for they belong to two 
 different families of words in our language. 
 
 Question by Prisoner's Counsel. — Have you not used 
 some of this family of words, to denote the state of 
 objects overwhelmed! 
 
 A. — TJjis may be considered their meaning, (not pro- 
 perly) in the following occurrences of baptizo: 
 
 Aristole, De Mirabil. Ausc, "speaks of a saying 
 among the Phenicians, that there were certain places 
 beyond the pillars of Hercules, < which, when it is ebb- 
 tide are not overflowed, (baptizesthai,) but at fulltide are 
 overflowed, (katakluzesthai,) which word is here used 
 as an equivalent for baptizesthai.'" — Stuart, p. 60. 
 
 Diodorus Siculus, Tom. I, p. 107 : " Most of the land 
 animals that are intercepted by the river (Nile) perish, 
 being overwhelmed, (baptizomena)." Tom. VII., p. 191. 
 " The river, borne along by a more violent current, over- 
 w/iclmed (abaptise) many," — Ibid, 
 
30 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 Q. — Did you not sometimes use baptizo to denote wash 1 
 
 A. — No, sir. They are not synonymous, because 
 wash belongs to another family in the language. Bap- 
 tism may be used to denote a mode of washing, when it 
 is done by immersion. 
 
 Q. — You do not profess to give the sacred use of this 
 word 1 
 
 A.-^-No sir. 
 
 Q. C. Pro. — Would those quotations which you read 
 from Stuart, which substitute the words " overflowed" 
 and "overwhelmed," in place of baptizo, not have been 
 better translated by substituting the word immersed for 
 baptizo ? 
 
 A. — Yes sir, for that is the action which really took 
 place in those passages. The things said to be baptised 
 were immersed. 
 
 Q. — Is not the figurative meaning of baptizo, in har- 
 mony with its primary signification, to immers^e 1 
 
 A. — Yes sir. The primary meaning being to immerse 
 literally, the figurative use of baptizo is founded upon 
 this fact. We will read you a few authorities from Pro- 
 fessor Stuart, in proof of this fact. 
 
 " Evenus XV., in Jacobs' Anthol, I., p. 99, says : ' If 
 (Bacchus) breathe strongly, it hinders love,' i. e., if a 
 man becomes thoroughly intoxicated, it hinders the grati- 
 fication of amorous passions ; ' for he (Bacchus) over- 
 whelms (baptizei) with sleep near to death.' 
 
 "Heliodorus, Ethiop. Lib. IV., p. 192: ' When mid- 
 night has overwhelmed (ebaptizon) the city with sleep.' 
 Lib. II., 3, overwhelmed (bebaptismenon) by misfortune.' 
 
MB, rKOpiSAPTIST. 31 
 
 ** Clemens, Alex. Paed. 11, p. 182. 'By intoxication 
 overwhelmed (baptizomenos) unto sleep.'' 
 
 "■Pluto, Conviv. p. 176 'I myself am one of those 
 who were overwhelmed (bebaptismenonV In another 
 place: 'Having overwhelmed (baptisasa) Alexander 
 with much wine.' 
 
 " Lucian, Tom. III., p. 81 : 'He is like one dizzy and 
 overwhelmed.' 
 
 "Justin Martyr, Dialog. Cum Tryphone, p. 313: — 
 'Overwhelmed (bebaptismenos) with sins.' 
 
 *' Plutarch, Tom. VI., p. 30 : ' The soul is nourished by 
 moderate labors, but is overwhelmed (baptizetai) by ex- 
 cessive ones.' In his Moralia, Tom. III., p. 150-t s he 
 speaks of Galba as ' bebaptismenon, overwhelmed with 
 debts.' In Opp. VIII., p. 345, he says: ' Overwhelmed 
 (baptizomenous) with business.' 
 
 " Chrysostorn, as quoted by Suicer, Thes. Ecc. I., p. 
 623 : ' To be overwhelmed (baptisthenai) with wine ;' 
 
 * overwhelmed (baptizmenos) with innumerable cares ; 
 
 * overwhelmed (baptizomenoi) with a multitude of cares ;' 
 'immerged (bebaptismenos) in malignity.' " — Stuart on 
 Bap., pp. 61-2. 
 
 He said, these authorities are sufficient to show the 
 figurative use of baptizo. Professor Stuart, in these 
 translations, would have given the original better by sub- 
 stituting immerse, for overwhelmed. I read from his 
 translations, to prevent any suspicions being excited in the 
 minds of any present, of partiality. Overwhelmed con- 
 tains the idea of immersion so strikingly, that it will 
 
32 THE TMAL OF 
 
 point directly to the literal meaning of baptizo, viz: i& 
 immerse. 
 
 Q. — Do the words that are used to denote wash m 
 your language, for instance, louo, nipto and plwio, belong 
 to this family of words 1 
 
 A. — No sir. They belong to another family. 
 
 JEWISH t/SE OF THE WORD BAPTIZO. 
 
 Mr. Josepheus was called and qualified. 
 
 Q. C. Pro. — Did you live in the days of the Apostles % 
 
 A. — Yes sir. 
 
 Q.- — Did you write the history of the Jews, in the Greek 
 language 1 
 
 A. — Yes sir. 
 
 Q. — What act was signified by the Word baptizo and 
 its cognates, at the time in which you wrote 1 
 
 A. — It was used to denote the act of immersion. The 
 following places in my work will justify my answer: 
 
 Ant. ix. 10, speaking of the ship in which Jonah was, 
 I say: "the ship being about to sink, (baptizesthai.") In 
 the history of my own life, speaking of a voyage to 
 Rome, during which the ship that carried me foundered 
 in the Adriatic, i say : " Our ship being immersed, or 
 sinking, (baptisthentos) in the midst of the Adriatic." 
 Speaking of Aristobulus as having been been drowned 
 by command of Herod, Bell. Jud. 1, I say: "The boy 
 was ssnt to Jericho, and there, agreeably to command^ 
 being immersed in a pond (baptizomenos,) he perished.' 7 
 Bell. Jud. 11, "As they (the sailors) swam away from a 
 sinking (baptizomenees) ship. 1 ' B^ll. Jud. Ill, " Th*> 
 
MR. PEDOBAPTIST. 33 
 
 wave being raised very high, overwhelmed or immersed 
 (ebaptise) them." 
 
 Speaking of the purification from defilement by a dead 
 body, I say: "And having dipped (baptized) some of 
 the ashes into spring water, they sprinkled," &c. 
 
 Describing the death of one Simon by his own hands, 
 i say : " He baptized, or plunged his sword up to the hilt, 
 into his own bowels," p. 752 
 
 Again : " They were baptized, or sunk, with the ships 
 themselves." p. 792. 
 
 Q — Did you ever use baptizo and its family, for 
 sprinkle or pour 1 
 
 A. — No sir. They belong to two different familh , 
 therefore they are not synonymous or convertable. 
 
 Q. C Pri, — Did you ever use this word to denote a 
 religious washing 1 
 
 A. — Yes sir, in the case of John the Baptist.— Josep. 
 p. 367. 
 
 Q. — Does not the passage in Numbers, 19 c. 17, (''And 
 for an unclean person they shall take of the ashes of the 
 burnt heifer of purification for sin, and running water 
 shall be put thereto in a vessel :") teach that the water 
 was applied to the ashes ! If so, do you in that place, 
 where you describe the mode of preparation, apply the 
 word baptize to denote this mode of application 7 ? 
 
 A. — No sir. The passage in the Scriptures directs the 
 water to be applied to the ashes. I describe a manner 
 of preparation by another mode, by dipping the ashes 
 into water, 
 
 B 
 
34 THE trial or 
 
 TESTIMONY OF LEXICONS AS TO THE MEANING OF BAPTIZO. 
 
 Mr. Lexicon was called and qualified, 
 Q. C. Pro. — Please, sir, give us your knowledge of 
 baptizo and its family. 
 
 A. — 1 shall do it cheerfully, by reading from among 
 the most eminent men in our brotherhood; 
 
 Scapula, a foreign lexicographer, of 1579. Of baptizo — 
 "To dip, to immerse; also submerge or overwhelm, to 
 wash, to cleanse." 
 
 Henricus Stephanus, of 1572. Bapto and baptizo — " To 
 dip or immerge, as we dip things for the purpose of dye- 
 ing them, or immerge them in water." 
 
 Thesaurus of Robertson, edition 1676, defines baptizo' 
 "to immerse, to wash." 
 
 Schleusner, 1. " Properly it signifies, I immerse, I dip, 
 I immerse in water. 2d. It signifies, 1 wash or cleanse by 
 water — because for the most part, a thing must be dipped 
 or plunged in water that it may be washed." 
 
 Pasor, bapto et baptizo. " To dip, to immerse, to dye ; 
 because it is done by immersing. It differs from dunai, 
 which means to sink to the bottom, and to be thoroughly 
 submerged. " — Ed. 1650. 
 
 Donegan, baptizo — " To immerse repeatedly into a 
 liquid, to submerge, to sink thoroughly, to saturate ; 
 metaphorically, to drench with wine, to dip in a vessel. 
 Baptismos — immersion, submersion, the act of washing 
 or bathing." 
 
 Rev. Dr. John Jones of England — baptizo — " 1 plunge, 
 I plunge in water, dip, baptize, bury, overwhelm." 
 
MR. PEDOBAI'TIST. 35 
 
 Bretschneider, said to be the most critical lexicographer 
 of the New Testament, affirms : " That an entire immer- 
 sion belongs to the nature of baptism." " This is the 
 meaning of the word; for in baptizo is contained the 
 idea of a complete immersion under water, at least so is 
 baptisma in the New Testament. In the New Testament 
 baptizo is not used, unless concerning the sacred and 
 solemn submersion which the Jews used, that they might 
 oblige an individual to an amendment of life. In the 
 New Testament, without any adjunct, it means : ' I bap- 
 tize in water in the solemn rite,' (as the Latin Fathers 
 use it.) Actively, I baptize one, passively, I am immersed 
 into water in the solemn ordinance — I am initiated by 
 baptism, Matt. 3, 16 ; Mark 1, 4> ; Rom. 6, 2. Baptizma, 
 immersion, submersion. In N. T. it is used only con- 
 cerning the sacred submersion, which the Fathers call 
 baptism. It is used concerning John's baptism." 
 
 Bass, an English lexicographer for the New Testament, 
 gives baptizo u to dip, immerse, plunge in water, to bathe 
 one's self, to be immersed in sufferings or afflictions." 
 
 Stokius, on the New Testament, deposes as follows : 
 "Generally, it obtains the sense of dipping or immersing, 
 without respect to water or any liquid whatever. 2d. 
 Specially, and in its proper signification, it signifies to 
 dip or immerse in water. This is the New Testament 
 sense. 3d. Tropically, and by a metalepsis, it means to 
 wash, to cleanse, because a thing is usually dipped or 
 immersed in water that it may be washed, that it may be 
 cleansed." — See, as above, in Campbell's and Rice's De- 
 bate, pp. 58-59. * 
 
36 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 Pickering, Baptisma — " immersion, dipping, plunging, 
 metaphorically, misery or calamity, with which one is 
 overwhelmed." 
 
 Con&tantinus, Baptismos, baptism — "The act of dye- 
 ing, that is of plunging." — Ed. 1592. 
 
 Schoettgenus, Baptizo, from Bapto, properly — " To 
 plunge, to immerse j to cleanse, to wash." — Lex. in N. T. 
 1765. 
 
 Alstedius, "Baptizein, to baptize, signifies only to im- 
 merse, not to wash, except by consequence." — Chap. xii. 
 p. 221. 
 
 Mr. Wilson, "To baptize, to dip into water, or to 
 plunge one into the water." — Chris. Diet. Ed. 1678. 
 
 Mr. Baily, "Baptism, in strictness of speech, is that 
 kind of ablution, or washing, which consists in dipping; 
 and when applied to the Christian institution, so called, 
 it was used by the primitive Christians in no other sense 
 than that of dipping, as the learned Grotius and Casua* 
 bon well observe. But as new customs introduced new 
 signification of words, in process of time it admitted the 
 idea of sprinkling, as in case of clinical baptism." 
 
 Q. — Can there be a Lexicon found, that says baptizo 
 signifies to sprinkle or pour, for 1800 years from the 
 commencement of the Christian era 1 
 
 A. — None, as far as 1 know. 
 
 Q. C. Pris. — The most of the authorities you have 
 read, give to this family of words wash, cleanse, &c, as 
 definitions, do they not 1 
 
 A. — Yes sir — and you must have noted that some of 
 them assign the reason, because it is done by dipping. 
 
MB. PEUOBAPTIST. 37 
 
 Q. — You are aware that words may have different 
 meanings; when this is so, connection must determine 
 the meaning l 
 
 A. — That is true. 
 
 Q. — Baptizo, as employed by the Greeks, was used 
 not in reference to religious washings, but to the com- 
 mon occurrences of life % 
 
 A. — That is so. 
 
 Q. Were not those authorities which you have read, 
 that give to baptizo other meanings besides dip or im- 
 merse, as capable as any others in your family to ascer- 
 tain its meanings 1 
 
 A — Yes sir ; but they do not sustain these definitions 
 by authorities from the language. 
 
 Q. — Is not this word used by the Jews, to denote their 
 religious washings 1 
 
 A. — Yes sir; but they used a number of other words. 
 Q. — May not the Jews have attached a distinct mean- 
 ing to this word, different from that of the Greeks 1 
 
 A. — Yes sir ; but those Lexicons of the New Testa- 
 ment, which we have read, seemed to think differently. 
 
 Q. — Have not some of them given several meanings to 
 the word baptizo 1 
 
 A. — Yes sir. 
 
 Q. — Do you not know that this word was generic in 
 its character among the Jews % 
 
 A. — We have not judged so from its use, and the prac- 
 tice of the church under it. 
 
38 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 Q. — Have not the largest number of you, with a host 
 of other men of equal learning, practiced with the Pri- 
 soner, sprinkling and. pouring, as Christian baptism % 
 
 A. — Yes sir. 
 
 Q. C. Pro. — Are you not practically Pedobaptists % 
 
 A. — Yes sir. 
 
 Q. — Does this not account for you, or some of you, 
 giving the effects of dipping, as subordinate meaning to 
 the word baptizo, without authority from the language \ 
 
 A. — We are all of one mind as to the literal meaning 
 of the word being to dip. The other meanings may be 
 the effects of the action — as some of the authorities read, 
 say "figurative meanings." 
 
 Q. — Are there not in the Greek language words to 
 denote wash, pour, sprinkle, cleanse, purify, &c. 1 
 
 A. — Yes sir. Louo, cheo, ratio, katharizo, Sfc. 
 
 Q. — Are they not all found in the New Testament 1 
 
 A. — Yes sir. 
 
 TRANSLATION OF BAPTIZO IN ORIENTAL VERSIONS. 
 
 Mr. Translator was called and qualified. 
 
 Q. C. Pro. — Please, sir, give us a brief account of the 
 use of baptizo, in ancient and modern oriental versions 
 of the Scripture, with the authorities to determine the 
 meaning of the words substituted for baptizo ? 
 
 A. — I will give you as brief an answer to your ques- 
 tion as I can. You will permit me to read my answer 
 from the Appendix to Professor Stuart on Baptism — pub- 
 lished by Graves and Marks, Nashville, p. 245. 
 
BIR. PEBOBAI'TIST. 39 
 
 Sysiac. — " The old Syriac, or Peshito, is acknowledged 
 to be the most ancient, as well as one of the most accu- 
 rate versions of the New Testament extant. It was made 
 at least as early as the beginning of the second century, 
 in the very country where the Apostles lived and wrote, 
 and where both the Syriac and the Greek were constant- 
 ly used and perfectly understood. Of course it was exe- 
 cuted by those who understood and spoke both languages 
 precisely as the sacred writers themselves understood 
 and spoke them. Michaelis, whose competency to judge 
 of its merits, will not be disputed, pronounced it to be 
 very best translation of the Greek Testament, which he 
 ever read. This version renders baptizo and its deriva 
 tives uniformly by amad, and its corresponding deriva- 
 tives. All authorities agree in assigning to this word, 
 the primary and leading signification of immersion. — 
 Prof. Stuart, so far as I know, is the first whoever sug- 
 gested a doubt of this meaning. ' The Syriac,' he ob- 
 serves, ' has a word, tzeva, like the Chaldee tzeva, and 
 the corresponding, Hebrew tava, which means to plunge, 
 dip, immerse, etc. Why should it employ the word 
 amad, then, in order to render baptizo ? In the Old Tes- 
 tament it is employed in the like sense, only in Numbers 
 31 : 23. There is no analogy of kindred languages to 
 support the sense in question of the Syriac amad. The 
 Hebrew, Chaldee and Arabic all agree in assigning to 
 the same word the sense of the Latin stare, perstare, ful- 
 cire, roborare. It is hardly credible, that tne Syriac 
 word could vary so much from all these languages,' as 
 properly to mean immerse, dip, etc. We come almost 
 
4fO THE TRIAL OF 
 
 necessarily to the conclusion, then, inasmuch as the Sy« 
 riac has an appropriate word which signifies to dip, 
 plunge, immerse, (tzeva,) and yet it is never employed in 
 the Peshito, that the translator did not deem it impor- 
 tant 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 with- 
 out being at all expressed. ' 
 
 " 1. I would observe, in reply to this," says the au- 
 thor of the Appendix, " that it is contrary to the ca- 
 nons of criticism, to make the meaning of the Syriac 
 word entirely dependent on the usage of the kindred 
 languages, even though these several words were 
 proved to be identical. Michael is, however, in his 
 Syriac Lexicon, under the word amad, remarks that, in 
 his opinion, it is evidently derived, not from the Hebrew 
 amad, to stand, but from the Arabic ghamat, to submerge. 
 The signification to stand, he says he does not find at all 
 in the Syriac, unless it be contained in the derivate, 
 amud, a pillar ; which usually occurs in the phrase, ' a 
 pillar of cloud,' or ' a pillar of fire.' 
 
 " 2. Though the Syrians had a score of words signify- 
 ing immersion, it would not follow that amad has not a 
 similar meaning. The Greeks have several words to 
 express this act, as bapto, baptizo, dupto, etc., of which 
 baptizo alone is used to designate the rite of baptism j 
 and yet Prof. Stuart admits that baptizo signifies immer- 
 sion. But amad, though the Peshito happens to employ 
 
MB. FEDOBAFTIST. 1! 
 
 ?t exclusively, is not the only word used in the Syriac to 
 translate baptizo. The very word (Izcva) which Profes- 
 sor Stuart mentions as properly signifying imnersion, is 
 often used to designate the ordinance of baptism. Pro- 
 fessor Stuart, with Michaelis in his hands, cannot be 
 ignorant of this. See Mich. Lex. Syr., under the word, 
 and authorities there referred to. 
 
 "3. The assertion that amad evidently appears to mean. 
 confirm, establish, etc., is entirely gratuitous. Where is 
 the evidence of this meaning ? Is it in usage? Not in 
 the usage of the New Testament, surely. It is not credi- 
 ble that Prof. Stuart, upon mature reflection, would be 
 willing to read, Luke 11 : 38. 'And when the Pharisee 
 saw it, he marvelled that he (Jesus) had not first confirmed 
 himself (amad) before dinner.' Mark 7 : 4. 'And when 
 they come from the market, except they confirm them~ 
 selves, (amadin,) they eat not. And many other things 
 there be, which they have received to hold ; as the con- 
 firmation, (maamuditha) of cups and pots, and brazen 
 vessels, and tables,' &c. Such an interpretation, if it 
 does not make nonsense of these (and other) passages, is 
 an entire perversion of their meaning * * *. -The idea of 
 4 confirmation,' or 'establishment' is introduced in the 
 New Testament some scores of times, but never in a 
 single instance is it expressed by amad. The word does 
 not occur in this sense in the Old Testament, nor indeed 
 in any author whatever. Is any evidence of this mean- 
 ing to be derived from the Lexicons'] Not one of them 
 acknowledges it. Castell defines the word ablutus est, 
 baptizatu? est, immersit: to b?the, baptize, immerse — 
 
42 TI1R TRIAL OF ' 
 
 See Castel. Lex. rieptaglot, sub, vc. London, 1K69. 
 Michael is defines it, ablutus est, baptizatus est, immersit : 
 to bathe, baptize, immerse ; and adds, as has been observed, 
 that it comes from the Arabic ghamat, to immerge. — See 
 Mich. Lex. sub. vc. Gottingen, 1788. Schaaf defines it 
 ablutus se, ablutus, intincus, immersus in aquam, bapti- 
 zatus est : to bathe one's self, to bathe, dip, immerse into 
 water, baptize. — See Schaaf Lex. Syr. sub. vc. Lyons 
 1708. Guido Fabricus defines it baptizavit, intinxit, 
 lavit: to baptize, dip, bathe. — See Lex. Syro. Chal. ac- 
 companying the Antwerp Polyglot, sub. vc. Antwerp, 
 1592. Schindler assigns baptizatus, in aquam, immersus, 
 tinctus, lotus fuit : to baptize, immerse into water, dip. 
 bathe. — See Schind. Lex. Panteglot, sub. vc, Hanover, 
 1612. Buxtorf gives baptizari, intingi, ablui, abluere 
 se : to baptize, dip, bathe erne's self. — See Buxtorf Lex. 
 Chal. est Syr. Basle, 1622. Beza, after remarking that 
 baptizo properly means to immerse, and never to wash, 
 except as a consequence of immersion, says: ' JVor does 
 the signification of amad, which the Syrians use for bap- 
 tize, differ at all from this.' — See Beza Annot, Mark 7, 4. 
 
 " Against this array of authorities, 1 apprehend it will 
 require something more than mere conjecture to set 
 aside the established and acknowledged meaning of this 
 word. 
 
 " Ethiopic, or Abyssinian. — It is generally agreed that 
 the ancient Abyssinian version in the Gheez, or dialect 
 appropriated to religion, should be dated as early as the 
 introduction of Christianity into that empire ; that is, 
 rather earlier than the middle of the fourth century. 
 
MS. 1'EUOBAi'TlST. 4-3 
 
 This version translates baptizo by tamak, which Castell 
 says agrees (convenit cum) in signification with tava ; 
 and this he defines, immersus, demersus, submersus, fixus, 
 infixus fuit ; to immerge, demerge, submerge, fix, mfix. 
 
 " Amharic. — The version in the Amharic or common 
 dialect of Ethiopia, renders baptizo by the same word as 
 the ancient Ethiopic, or Gheez. The Amharic version, 
 published by the British and Foreign Bible Society, in 
 1822, was made by Mr. Abraham, a learned Ethiopian, 
 under the superintendence of M. Asselin, the French 
 Vice Consul at Cairo. 
 
 " Armenian, Ancient. — The ancient Armenian version 
 is universally ascribed to Miesrob, the inventor of the 
 Armenian alphabet, and to the patriarch Isaac, at the 
 end of the fourth, or early in the fifth century. — See 
 Home's Introduction, vol. ii. p. 208. This version trans- 
 lates baptizo uniformly by Mugurdel, which is also em- 
 ployed in 2d Kings, 5, 14, where Naaman is said to have 
 dipped himself in the Jordan. This word, according to 
 Father Pascal Aucher, signifies 'to baptize ; to wash by 
 plunging into water;' and it is applied to both persons 
 and things. — See Dictionary of Armenian and English, 
 by Father Pascal Aucher, D. D., Venice, 1825. Also, 
 Dictionary of the Armenian language by Mekitar Varta- 
 bed, Venice, 1749. 
 
 Armenian, Modern. — The modern Armenian version 
 employs the same word as the ancient Armenian in 
 translating baptizo, and its derivatives. The Russian 
 Bible Society, and the British and Foreign Bible Society, 
 
44 THE TK1AL Of 
 
 have printed and circulated editions of both the ancient 
 and modern Armenian Scriptures. 
 
 " Georgian. — The Georgian version, which, according 
 to the tradition of the Greek Church, was originally- 
 made in the eighth century, by Euphemius, the Georgian, 
 and founder of the Ibirian or Georgian Monastery, at 
 Mount Athos, employs the word nathlistemad, as a trans- 
 lation of baptizo. For the meaning of this word, I have 
 no access to the appropriate Lexicons, but would refer 
 the reader to the authority of the learned Mr. Robert 
 Robinson, who states that all the ancient eastern versions 
 render the Greek word baptizo in the sense of dipping. 
 See Rob. Hist. Bap. p. 7, London, 1790. 
 
 " Coptic. — The Coptic was the ancient dialect of Lower 
 Egypt. The Coptic version has been supposed by some 
 to have been executed in the second century. This, how- 
 ever, is not certain. This version translates baptizo by 
 tornas. For the meaning of this word, the reader is re- 
 ferred to the authority of Mr. Robinson, as above, and 
 also to that of the Baptist Mission Committee, who, in 
 a recent official document addressed to the committee of 
 the British and Foreign Bible Society, and relating to 
 the subject of translations, expressly mention the Coptic 
 as rendering baptizo in the sense of immersion. — See 
 Annual Report of the English Bap. Miss. Society, for 
 1844-, p. 32. 
 
 " Sahidic. — TheSahidic version, or that in the dialect 
 of Upper Egypt, appears from the arguments adduced by 
 Dr. Woide, to have been executed at the beginning of 
 the second century. It is unquestionably one of the 
 
Mii. PfiDOBAPTIST. 4«5 
 
 oldest versions in existence. This version I have not 
 seen. For the manner in which it renders baptizo, the 
 reader is referred to the authority of Mr. .Robinson, as 
 above. 
 
 "Arabic— There are several versions of the Arabic New 
 Testament, supposed to have been principally executed 
 between the seventh and the eighth centuries, after this 
 language had supplanted the Syriac and Egyptian. The 
 Arabic versions render baptizo usually by amad, tzabag, 
 or gatas. ' Amad,' according to Schindler, ' signifies the 
 same in Arabic as in Syriac, baptizatus, in aquam immer- 
 sus, tinctus, Jotus fuit :' to baptize, immerse into water, 
 dip, bathe ; Castell, ' ut Syr. baptizavit,' the same as the 
 Syriac: to baptize; Schaaf, 'tinxit, baptizavit :' to dip, 
 to baptize. 'Tzabag,' according to Castell, is 'tinxit 
 partem, imbuet, (lsa. 63, 4,) immersit manum in aquam, 
 baptizavit (per immersionem :) to dip as bread in sauce, 
 to due, to immerse as the hand into water, to baptize by 
 immersion.' l Gatas, 1 according to Schindler, is 'natavit, 
 urinavit, mersit, submersit, immersit sub aquam, baptiza- 
 vit:' to stvim, to dive, plunge, submerge, immerse under 
 water, baptize. 
 
 " Persian. — The Persian translations of the New Tes- 
 tament are all quite modern. The Persian designates 
 the ordinance of baptism by shastanah, ghusl, and the 
 derivative of amad. The two former express ablution ; 
 the last has the same meaning in the Persian as in the 
 Arabic. 
 
 "Turkish. — A Turkish version of the New Testament, 
 by Dr. Lazarus Seaman, was published at Oxford, in 
 
46 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 1666, and in the same year a translation of the whole 
 Bible into the Turkish language was completed by Alber- 
 tus Boboosky, interpreter to the Porte. This manuscript 
 remained at Leyden unpublished, till Dr. Pinkerton, 
 having ascertained its value, recommended it to the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society, at whose expense the 
 New Testament was published in 1819. This version 
 designates the act of baptism by the derivative of amad, 
 the same word that is used in the Arabic and Persian, 
 and expressing the same sense." 
 
 The witness said he had read sufficient from the Ap- 
 pendix of Stuart on Baptism, in relation to Eastern trans- 
 lations of the Scriptures, to show the mind of the trans- 
 lators concerning the import of baptizo. 
 
 TRANSLATION OF BAPTIZO IN WESTERN VERSIONS. 
 
 Q. — Please give us a short account of the Ancient and 
 Modern Western versions, except the English. 
 
 A. — " Latin. — Numerous translations of the Scriptures 
 were made into the Latin language, at the first intro- 
 duction of Christianity, while the Greek was yet per- 
 fectly understood, although it was being gradually sup- 
 planted as a general language. The most important of 
 these, and the one which appears to have acquired a 
 more extensive circulation than the rest, was usually 
 known by the name of the Itala, or old Italic, and was 
 unquestionably executed in the early part of the second 
 century. This version adopts the Greek word baptizo. 
 Let it be remarked, however, that the Greek, although 
 
IUK. PEUOBAPTIST. 47 
 
 the Latin was gradually supplanting- it, was at this time 
 understood and used as a general language over Italy, 
 Persia, Syria and Egypt, and indeed throughout almost 
 the whole world. Add to this, that the earliest ecclesi- 
 astical writers, and perhaps the very authors of this ver- 
 sion, were of Greek origin. Under these circumstances, 
 it cannot be thought surprising that this word should 
 have passed from one language into the other. Its mean- 
 ing, however, was as definitely settled and as well un- 
 derstood in Latin as in Greek usage; and the construc- 
 tion that they employed shows most conclusively that it 
 was accepted in the sense of immersion * * * *. Al- 
 most all the Latin interpreters, whether Catholic or Pro- 
 testant, have followed the earlier translators in the adop- 
 tion of the Greek word. Some of the most recent and 
 be*t, however, translate bcvptizo by an appropriate Latin 
 word. Jaspiz, an eminent German scholar and critic, 
 in his version of the epistles, renders it either by immerge, 
 to immerse, tingo, to dip, or some equivalent expression. 
 Prof. H. A. Schott, in bis critical edition of the Greek 
 Testament, accompanied with a Latin translation, ren- 
 ders the word in all cases by immergo, whether relating 
 to the Christian rite or not. • 
 
 "Gothic. — The Gothic version was made from the 
 Greek, about the middle of the fourth century. This 
 version, as far as appears, renders baptizo in all cases by 
 daupyan, to dip. Cases not relating to the Christian 
 rite, exhibit the same principle. Thus, Marc. 7: 4, is 
 rendered : 'And when they came from market, ni dau- 
 pyand, unless they dip they eat not ; and many other 
 
4s use xaiAi. oj- 
 
 things there be, which they have received to hold, as 
 daupeinins, the dippings of cups and pots,' &c. 
 
 German. — Luther's inestimable and much admired 
 translation was published in detached portions at various 
 intervals, from 1522 to 1532. The Catholic versions, 
 by Detemberger and Emser, appeared soon after that of 
 Luther, and in 1630, that by Casper Ulenburg. All these 
 versions translate baptizo by taufm, a dialectical varia- 
 tion of the Gothic daupyan, and signifying to immerse. 
 
 " German Swiss. — The versions in this language trans- 
 late baptizo by taufen, signifying to immerse. 
 
 " Belgian. — The Belgian versions translate baptizo by 
 doopen, which is a dialectical form of the word tan-fen^ 
 and signifies to dip . 
 
 " Danish. — The earliest Danish version was made from 
 the Latin vulgate. The next was executed from Luther's 
 German version. The Danish translate baptizo by dobe t 
 which is a dialectical form of the Goth, daupyan, and the 
 German, taufe?i, and signifies to dip. 
 
 "Swedish. — This version was originally made from 
 Luther's German translation. The Swedish renders bap- 
 tizo by dopa, a dialectical variation of lobe, and signify- 
 ing to dip. . 
 
 " Welsh. — The Welsh translation of the New Testa- 
 ment was originally made by order of Parliament, and 
 first published in 1567. The Welsh translates baptizo 
 by bedyddio, to immerse. This signification is sustained 
 by Edward Lhuyd, A. M., a learned Welshman. His 
 language is: ' Bedydd, the Welsh word for baptism, is 
 derived from suddiant, a British word, which is well 
 
MR. PEDOBAPTIST. 49 
 
 known to signify dipping or immersion, and the verb of 
 which is soddi or suddo." See Article Baptisma, in 
 Lhuyd's Arch. Brit. 
 
 " Sclavonian. — The Sclavonian or old Russian trans- 
 lation of the New Testament, was made from the origi- 
 nal Greek in the ninth century. The Russians, being 
 a branch of the Greek church, practice immersion in 
 all ordinary cases; but the ceremony of making the 
 sign of the cross upon the candidate in connection 
 with immersion, had come to be regarded in the time of 
 Cyril and Methodius, as the more important ceremony 
 of the two, and absolutely essential to the ordinance. — 
 Their version, therefore, does not in fact translate bap. 
 tizo at all, but substitutes the term krestit, to cross.'''' 
 
 These authorities (said the witness) are a sufficient 
 answer to your question. 
 
 THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION. 
 
 Q. — How often do you find baptizo in the Greek Scrip- 
 tures, transferred or translated in the English translation % 
 
 A. — There are more than a hundred instances, in 
 which the verb baptizo and the noun baptismos occurs. 
 
 Q. — Why did you not translate baptizo, when the ordi- 
 nance of Christian Baptism was named or spoken oil 
 
 A. — We were ordered by King James to retain the old 
 ecclesiastical words, of which baptism was one. — Hist. 
 Eng. Tran. p. 317. 
 
 Q. — Does not baptizo occur in the Greek translation 
 of the Old Testament, and have you not rendered it 
 " dipped" in our version, (2 Kings, 5 : 14,) where it says: 
 
DO 1IIE TRIAL OF 
 
 "Naamah went down and dipped himself (ebaplisato) 
 seven times in Jordan 1" Why did you not so render it 
 in the JS'ew Testament '? 
 
 A. — Instructions from the King and our practice for- 
 bade it, 
 
 Q. — Did not Professor Stuart translate the only two 
 occurrences of the word in the Oid Testament 1 
 
 A. — Yes sir. The first by " plunged" in 2 Kings 5:14; 
 the second by " overwhelmed," as its figurative meaning 
 in Isa. 21 : 4. — Stuart on Bap. p. II. 
 
 Q. — Did you ever translate baptizo by sprinkle or 
 pour, for 1800 years from the commencement of the 
 Christian eral 
 
 A. — Not in a solitary instance. 
 
 Q. C. Pri. — Did not Dr. Rice, in his debate on baptism 
 •with A. Campbell, prove that the Authors of the Peshito 
 Syriac version, did translate bebammenon, a passive parti- 
 ciple of bapto, in Rev. 19 : 13, by " sprinkled with blood V 
 
 A.- — I had understood the only question to be testified 
 to at this time, was, how baptizo was translated and not 
 bapto. My answer is still well founded, that there was 
 no translation of baptizo by sprinkle or pour for eighteen 
 hundred years; and it is also true of the Peshito Syriac 
 translation; for in that translation you will find no book 
 of Revelation. This fact is supported by the following 
 Pedobaptist authorities ; 
 
 Bp. Home: "For the Apocalypse was not translated 
 into Syriac until the middle of the sixth century." — In 
 tro. Stud. Scrip, vol. 4, p. 483. 
 
 Dr. A. Clark: "The second and third of John are 
 
MR. PEDOBAPTIST. 51 
 
 wanting, the second of Peter, and the epistle of Jude, and 
 the Kevelation. None of these are acknowledged by any 
 copy of the ancient Syriac version. This version (Peshito) 
 was made probably between the second and third centu- 
 ries."— Intro. JV*. T., p. 10. 
 
 Professors Storr and Flatt : « The Kevelation of St. 
 John is wanting in the Peshito or old Syriac version. "— 
 Bib.Theol. p. 68. 
 
 Professor Schmucker: "It, (Peshito,) however, does 
 not embrace all the books of the New Testament, but 
 contains only the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, 
 all the epistles of St. Paul, the first epistle of St. John 
 and St. Peter, and the epistle of St. James." 
 
 Q. — Why was not this statement of the case made to 
 Dr. Rice at the time l 
 
 A. — I cannot tell 
 
 Q. — Did not Jerome translate baptizo by wash 1 
 
 A. — In one solitary instance, to be found in the Latin 
 Vulgate. — 2 Kings, 5 14>. 
 
 Q. — Have you not, in the English translation, given 
 wash where baptizo is found in the Septuagint 1 
 
 A. — In the following places, Judith 12: 7. Sirach 31: 
 25. Mark 7: 3, 4. Luke 11: 38. Heb. 9: 10. 
 
 Q. C. Pro. — Does wash belong to the family of baptizo 1 
 
 A. — No sir — It belongs to a different family of words. 
 
 Q. — Does the use of baptize and wash, in the language, 
 make them convertable 1 
 
 A. — I know of no such authority. 
 
 Q. — Why did you, in the cases named, translate bap- 
 tizo by wash ? 
 
0% THE TRIAL OF 
 
 A. — We were practically opposed to immersion. 
 
 Q. — Is baptizo any where in the Scriptures used, when 
 Wash is commanded % 
 
 A. — No where. The words used are luou, nipto, and 
 pluno. 
 
 Q. — Were not the English translators the particular 
 friends of the Prisoner, and did they not do all they 
 could, consistently with their duty as translators, to clear 
 him of the charge we have preferred against him 1 
 
 A. — His conviction will implicate them for a want 
 of loyalty to the Constitution of the country." In this 
 fact, may be found the reason of their conduct. 
 
 PROSELYTE BAPTISM. 
 
 The Counsel for the prosecution said he would now 
 offer a few witnesses to show how the Jews understood 
 Baptism, when they used it for introducing proselytes 
 into their communion : 
 
 Professor Stuart : " The baptism of proselytes, among 
 the Jews, was by immersion. To cite authorities to this 
 purpose is needless. They may be seen in Lightfoot, 
 Hor. Heb. p. 269 ; in Danz. (Meuchen Nov. Test, etc.,) 
 p. 283,"— Stuart Bap. p. 142. 
 
 Bp. Home : "The Jews had two sorts of washing; 
 one — of the whole body, by immersion, which was used 
 by the priests at their consecration, and by the prose- 
 lytes at their initiation." — Hor^s. Intro, p. 335. 
 
 Professor Mill : " We apply the word ordinances or 
 sacraments to baptism and the Lord's Supper ; the first, 
 a rite borrowed from the Jewish custom of plunging 
 
MR. PED0BAPTIST. 53 
 
 • 
 
 into water the proselytes from heathenism to the law of 
 Moses." — Hill's Divinity, p. 186. 
 
 Mr, Marchant : "The form of baptism among the 
 Jews was plunging the whole body under water." — 
 Booth, p. 248. 
 
 Dr. Lightfoot : " The baptism of John was by plunging 
 the body, (after the same manner as the washing of un- 
 clean persons, and the baptism of proselytes.") — davit's 
 Com. Mark 16th. 
 
 Dr. A. Clark: "But as the Jewish custom required 
 the persons to stand in the water, and having been in- 
 structed and entered into covenant to renounce all idola- 
 try, and take the God of Israel for their God, then plunge 
 themselves under the water.'" — Com. John 3: 23. 
 
 Bp. Hoadly : " Proselytes, (in baptism) were first 
 covered with water, and in a state, as it were, of death 
 and inactivity ; and then arose out of it into a sort of a 
 new state of life and action." — Booth, p. 170. 
 
 Dr. Brown : " To instruct them (proselytes) in the 
 nature of baptism, and to see that it was legally per- 
 formed: for their tradition required that they should 
 be dipped completely in a confluence of water, or in a 
 vessel." — Brown's Antiquities of the Jews, p. 629. 
 
 The counsel said he would next offer a class of wit- 
 nesses, whose independent testimony would confirm that 
 of the former witnesses. 
 
 INDEPENDENT WITNESSES. 
 
 Dr. Charles Anthon, (of Columbia College, New York,) 
 was called and qualified. 
 
54 
 
 THE TRIAL Oh' 
 
 Q. C. Pro. — Let us hear from you on the meaning of 
 baptizo ? 
 
 A. — The primary meaning of the word (baptizo) is, 
 to dip or immerse, and its secondary meaning, if it ever 
 had any, all refers, in some way or other, to this lead- 
 ing idea ; sprinkling, &c, are entirely out of the ques- 
 tion." — Intro. Stuart, on Bap., p. 7. 
 
 Witsius, (a very learned and eminent divine of North 
 Holland.) " It cannot be denied, that the native signi- 
 fication of the word baptein and baptizein, is to plunge, 
 to dip. So that it is, doubtless, more than epipolazein, 
 which is to swim lightly on the surface ; but less than 
 dunein,- which is to go down to the bottom and be de- 
 stroyed." — Booth, p. 44. 
 
 Salmasius, (an eminent French scholar.) "Baptism 
 is immersion, and was administered in ancient times, 
 according to the force and meaning of the word. Now 
 it is only rhantism, or sprinkling, not immersion, or dip- 
 ping." — Ibid. 
 
 Mr. Selden : "In England, of late years, 1 ever 
 thought the parson baptized his own fingers, rather than 
 the child."— Ibid. 
 
 Vitringa: "The act of baptizing, is the immersion 
 of believers in water." This expresses the force of the 
 word. Thus also it was performed by Christ and his 
 apostles." — Ibid, 47. 
 
 Trommius : "Baptizo, to baptize j to immerse, to 
 dip."— Ibid, p. 62. 
 
 Grotius: (an eminent scholar of Holland.) "Buried 
 with, him by baptism. Not only the word baptism, but 
 
bUl. i'EJUOBAI'TIST. 55 
 
 the very form of it intimates this. For an immersion 
 of the whole body in water, so that it is no longer be- 
 held, bears an image of that burial which is given to 
 the dead. — So Col. ii. 12. There was in baptism, as 
 administered in former times, an image both of a burial 
 and of a resurrection, which, in respect of Christ, was 
 external ; in regard to Christians, internal — Rom. 6: 4." 
 Booth, p. 156. 
 
 Dr. Porson: "Not long before the death of Profes- 
 sor Poison, I went," states Dr. Newman, " in company 
 with a much respected friend, to see the celebrated 
 scholar at the London Institution. I inquired whether, 
 in his opinion, baptizo must be considered equal to bapto, 
 which, he said, was to tinge, as dyers. He replied to 
 this effect: That if there be a difference, he should 
 take the former to be the strongest. He fully assured 
 me that it signified a total immersion.'''' — Carson, p. 20. 
 
 .Richardson : (a learned English Lexicographer.) " He 
 defines the word ' to dip or merge frequently, to sink, to 
 plunge, to immerse.' " — Debate C. and R., p. 173^ 
 
 " Dr. Johnson argued in defence of some of the pecu- 
 liar tenets of the Church of Rome. As to giving the 
 bread only to the laity, he said, ' they may think that 
 in what is merely ritual, deviations from the primitive 
 mode may be admitted on the ground of convenience ; 
 and I think they are as well warranted to make this 
 alteration as we are to substitute sprinkling in the room 
 of the ancient baptism.' " — BoswelL 
 
 Sir Peter King: " To me it seems evident, that their 
 (the Primitive Christians) usual custom Was to immerse 
 
56 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 or dip the whole body." — Constitu, Prim. ChwcA,$&it> 
 11. Chap. IV. 
 
 GERMAN WITNESSES. 
 
 The Counsel for the Plaintiff next called the name of 
 Martin Luther. All eyes were immediately directed 
 to the spot, where the venerable Reformer would emerge 
 from the crowd and be open to the observation of all. 
 Quite an excitement was created when he made his ap- 
 pearance on the witness stand. He looked as bold and 
 daring as he did when he stood before his enemies at 
 the Diet held at Worms. After being qualified, the ex- 
 amination commenced. 
 
 Q. C. Pro. — We wish you to give your knowledge of 
 the meaning of baptizo, and its use when applied to the 
 institution of Christian Baptism. 
 
 A.- — " Baptism is a Greek word, and may be translated 
 immerse, as when we immerse something in water, that 
 it may be wholly covered. And although it is almost 
 wholly abolished, (for they do not dip the whole children, 
 but pour a little water on them,) they ought, neverthe- 
 less, to be wholly immersed and immediately drawn out, 
 for that the etymology of the word seems to demand.'* 
 " The Germans call baptism tauff, from depth, which in 
 their language they call teeff, because it is proper that 
 those who are baptized be deeply immersed." In the 
 Smalcold articles, (drawn up by him,) " Baptism is no- 
 thing else than the word of God with immersion in 
 water," Again — u Washing from sins is attributed to 
 baptism; it is truly, indeed, attributed, but the s%nifi- 
 
MR. I'EDOBAPTIST. 57 
 
 cation is softer and slower than it can express baptism, 
 which is rather a sign both of death and resurrection. 
 Being moved by this reason, I would have those who are 
 to be baptized, to be altogether dipt into water, as the 
 word doth sound and the mystery doth signify." — Luth. 
 Op. vol. 1, p. 336. — Hinton, p. 52. 
 
 Q. — Did you not, in a letter called for by John Fritz 
 and other ministers, seeking your judgment about sprink- 
 ling being used as baptism at Hamburgh, declare it to be 
 an abuse of baptism 1 
 
 A. — Yes sir. Crosby's His. of the Bap. p. 21. — Ibid. 
 
 Q. — Did you not wish to restore immersion to bap- 
 tism \ 
 
 A.— Yes sir. Opp. Lip. 1792, vol. 17, pp. 272,536— 
 Storr # Flatt, p. 5 14. 
 
 Q. C. Pri. — You are aware that the Lutheran Church 
 follows the practice of the Prisoner. Is she not keeping 
 the spirit of the law % 
 
 A. — She is of age, and is able to answer for herself. 
 
 Q. — Did you not consider sprinkling and pouring in 
 baptism valid I 
 
 A. — I did, under the circumstances. 
 
 Q. C. Pro. — Will you please to give some German 
 authorities in confirmation of your position on the action 
 of Christian Baptism 1 
 
 A. — The following will answer all you desire: 
 
 Melancthon: " Baptism is an entire action, to wit: a 
 dipping and pronouncing these words, I baptize thee," 
 &c. — Remington on Bap. p. 8. 
 
 Buddeus: "The words baptizein and baptismos, are 
 
58 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 not to be interpreted of aspersion, but always of immer- 
 sion."— Theol. Dog. L. V. C. Booth, p. 45. 
 
 Zanchius : (Professor of Divinity at Heidleburg.) " The 
 proper signification of baptizo is to immerse, plunge 
 under, to overwhelm in water." Mr. de Courcy tells us 
 the opinion of Zanchius is worth a thousand others. — 
 Booth, p. 48. 
 
 Professor Fritsche, a disciple of Herman, in his Com. 
 on Matt. 3: 6, says: "That baptism was performed not 
 by sprinkling, but by immersion, is evident, not only 
 from the nature of the word, but from Rom. 6: 4."— 
 Hinton, p. 55. 
 
 Augusti, vol. V. p. 5 : " The word baptism, according" 
 to etymology and tisage, signifies to immerse, submerge, 
 &c. i and the choice of the expression betrays an age in 
 which the latter custom of sprinkling had not been intro- 
 duced." — Ibid. 
 
 Brenner, p. 1 : " The word corresponds in signification 
 with the German word, taufen, to sink into the deep." — 
 Ibid. 
 
 Bretschneider, in his Theology of 1828, vol. ii. pp. 
 673 and 681. "An entire immersion belongs to the na- 
 ture of baptism. This is the meaning of the word." — 
 Ibid. 
 
 Paullus, in his Com. vol. i, p. 278, says: "The word 
 baptize signifies, in Greek, sometimes to immerse, some- 
 times to stibmerge." — Ibid. ^ 
 
 Rheinhard's .Ethics, vol. V. p. 79. " In sprinkling, the 
 symbolical meaning ©f the ordinance is wholly lost." — 
 Ibid, 
 
MR. PEDOBAI'TIST. 59 
 
 Schleusner, in his Lex. on baptisma: "Those who 
 were to be baptized were anciently immersed" Indeed, 
 the three New Testament lexicographers, Schleusner, 
 Wahl and Bretschneider, limit baptism as a sacred ordi- 
 nance to immersion. — Ibid, p. 56. 
 
 Sholz, on Matt. iii. 6 : " Baptism consists in the im- 
 mersion of the whole body in water " — Ibid. 
 
 Professor Lange, on Infant Baptism', of 1S34-, p. 81 : 
 "Baptism in the apostolic age was t propel baptism — 
 the immersion of the body in water." — "As- Christ died, 
 so we die (to sin) with him in baptism. The body is, 
 as it were, buried under water, is dead with Christ ; the 
 plunging under water represents death, and rising out of 
 it the resurrection to a new life. A more striking sym- 
 bol could not be chosen." — Ibid. 
 
 The author of the Free Inquiry on Baptism, p. 36, 
 says : " The baptism of John and that of the apostles 
 were performed in precisely the same way," i. «., the 
 candidate was completely immersed under water. Speaking 
 of Rom. 6 : 4, and Gal. 3 : 27, he says : " What becomes 
 of all these beautiful images, when, as at the present 
 day, baptism is administered by pouring or sprink- 
 ling V y —Ibid. 
 
 Rosenmuller, Koppe and Bloomfield, all hold the same 
 strong language on this subject. We will quote only the 
 last, as he includes the others. In his Critical Digest 
 on Rom. 6: 4, he says : " There is here plainly a reference 
 to the ancient mode of baptism by immersion ; and I 
 agree with Kopp and Rosenmuller, that there is reason 
 to regret it should have been abandoned in most Christian 
 
60 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 churches, especially, as it has so evidently a reference 
 to the mystic sense of baptism." — Ibid, p. 57. 
 
 Storr and Flatt, in their Biblical Theology, p. 513, 
 say : " The disciples of our Lord could understand his 
 command in no other manner, than enjoining immersion ; 
 for the baptism of John, to which Jesus himself submit- 
 ted, and also the earlier baptism (John 4< : 1) of the dis- 
 ciples of Jesus, were performed by dipping the subjects 
 into cold water; as is evident from the following pass- 
 ages: Matt. 3: 6, John 3: £3. And that they actually 
 did understand it so, is proved, partly by those passages 
 of the New Testament, which allude to immersion — 
 and partly from the fact, that immersion was so cus- 
 tomary in the ancient church." 
 
 JNeander, in his letter to Mr. Judd, says : "As to your 
 question on the original rite of baptism, there can be no 
 doubt whatever that in primitive times it was performed 
 by immersion, to signify a complete immersion into the 
 new principle of the divine life which was to be imparted 
 by the Messiah." — Hinton, p. 57. 
 
 Q. C. Pri. — Did you not consider the practice of the 
 Germans, to be valid baptism % 
 
 A. — Yes sir, for the alteration had taken place in the 
 action of baptism long before our day. 
 
 PRESBYTERIAN WITNESSES. 
 
 The Counsel for the Commonwealth next arose and said 
 he would offer his second class of Pedobaptist witnesses, 
 known as Presbyterians. 
 
 John Calvin was called and qualified. 
 
MR. PED0BAPTI8T. bi 
 
 Q. C. Pro. — Will you please to inform us what is the 
 meaning of baptizo in the Constitution, and what was 
 the practice under its first appointment 1 
 
 A. — " The very word baptize, however, signifies to im- 
 merse; and it is certain that immersion was the practice 
 of the ancient church." — Insti. vol. 3, p. 343. 
 
 Again : " He as truly and certainly performs these 
 things internally on our souls, as we see that our bodies 
 are externally washed, immersed and enclosed in water — 
 Ibid, p. 337. 
 
 Q. C. Pri. — Did you not teach and practice sprinkling 
 and pouring of water upon a suitable subject, in the name 
 of the Trinity, as a fulfilment of the command in the 
 Constitution 1 
 
 The C. for the Pro. arose, and objected to this kind of 
 evidence being offered as admissable. For (he said) we 
 are not here to inquire into the opinions of the witness. 
 His opinion cannot be evidence when a question of fact 
 is before the Court and jury. The guilt or innocence of 
 the Prisoner can only be made out by the facts elicited 
 from the witnesses, and not by their opinions. This 
 objection to this kind of testimony is sustained by all 
 good authority. For us to receive his opinion, and 
 likewise of all others, as evidence, will be to put an end 
 to all judicial proceedings, and constitutional law will 
 become a nameless thing. I wish to throw no obstacles 
 in the way of the acquittal of the Prisoner, but those 
 that the law and evidence place in his way. My duty 
 to my client, and the obligation I have taken before my 
 country, compel me to object to this kind of evidence. 
 
62 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 The C. for the Pri. arose and said : We think the 
 Court ought to permit this question to be answered, and 
 the answer to go to the jury as evidence. For a man so 
 learned as the witness and so faithful to the government, 
 would not depart from the spirit of the law. Many of 
 our most eminent citizens, entertain a common senti- 
 ment with the witness and the Prisoner. Will not their 
 judgment, of what is a fulfillment of the law of baptism, 
 be admitted as evidence ] Are they not as competent to 
 determine this question as any others in the land % To 
 refuse their judgment, will be a great wrong done to the 
 Prisoner, and it will be a practical impeachment of the 
 loyalty of the witness to thejgovemment. It is due to 
 the Prisoner, whose all is at stake in the issue of this 
 trial, to permit the question to be answered. 
 
 I was astonished to hear the counsel object to the 
 question being answered. To facilitate this trial, 1 
 suspended the discussion of bapto in its relation to baptizo. 
 This favor of mine ought to have been reciprocated, by 
 affording every means accessible to us for a clear under- 
 standing of this controversy. I hope the Court will 
 take this view of the question and permit it to be an- 
 swered, and the answer go to the jury. 
 
 The Court replied : We are here to ascertain the 
 meaning of the Lawgiver, when he incorporated baptizo, 
 in the Christian Ordinance. All the facts that will put 
 us in possession of this knowledge, will clearly be 
 admissable. If the opinions of the witnesses are to be 
 admitted as testimony, and what they think will answer 
 the claims of any law be taken as its just meaning, we 
 
MR. PEDOBAPTIST. 63 
 
 will be establishing a principle which will practically- 
 lead to the abrogation of all law. The Prisoner's plea, 
 according to this principle, would be equivalent to an 
 acquittal. Judicial examinations must cease after the 
 plea is entered. Are we all prepared for the alternative 
 which follows the adoption of "this principle for our 
 guidance! I think not. Government is too valuable to 
 us all for us to sell it at such a price. 
 
 How could a jury on their oaths decide as to the vio- 
 lation of any of our laws, if the opinions of Prisoners 
 and their friends were to be taken as legal evidence 1 
 We could not, according to this principle, convict a sin- 
 gle violator of the law. 
 
 If the witness can testify that the word haptizo in the 
 law of baptism does signify to sprinkle, pour or wash, 
 or that the Lawgiver in selecting this word, intended to 
 command no particular action in baptism, it will be ad- 
 missable. 
 
 Q. — I will propose the question in another form, that 
 will not be liable to the objection of the Court. Do you 
 not consider baptism by sprinkling, &c, valid and good 1 
 
 A. — Yes sir. 
 
 The counsel for the prosecution said, we offer the fol- 
 lowing Presbyterian authorities to confirm Mr. Calvin's 
 testimony : 
 
 Theodore Beza, (the successor of Calvin at Geneva.) 
 " On Mark 7. 4 : Christ commanded us to be baptized ; 
 by which word it is certain immersion is signified ; bap- 
 tizesthai, in this place, is more than niptien ; because 
 that seems to respect the whole body, this only the hands, 
 
64 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 Nor does baptizen signify to wash, except by conse- 
 quence; for it properly signifies to immerse for the sake 
 of dyeing. To be baptized in water, signifies no other 
 than to be immersed in water, which is the external cere- 
 mony of baptism. Baptizo differs from the verb dunai, 
 which signifies, to plunge in the deep and to drown." — 
 Epistola II., ad Thorn. Til. Anno. — Hinton, p. 53. 
 
 Turretine (also of Geneva) says : " The word bap- 
 tism is of Greek origin, and is derived from the verb 
 bapto, which signifies to dip and to dye : Baptizein, to. 
 baptize ; to dip into, to immerse." — Booth, p. 55. 
 
 Casaubon (Greek Professor at Geneva) says: "This 
 was the rite of baptizing, that persons were plunged into 
 the water; which the very word baptizein, to baptize, 
 sufficiently declares. Which, as it does not signify 
 dunein, to sink to the bottom and perish ; so, doubtless, it 
 is not epipolazein, to swim on the surface. For these 
 three words, epipolazein, baptizein and dunein are of 
 different significations. Whence we understand it was 
 not without reason, that some, long ago, insisted on the 
 immersion of the whole body in the ceremony of bap- 
 tism ; for they urge the word baptizein, to baptize." — 
 Ibid, p. 49. 
 
 Dr. G. Campbell, (Principal of Marischal College :) 
 "The word baptizein, both in sacred authors and, classical 
 signifies to dip, to plunge, to immerse, and was rendered 
 by Turtullian, the oldest of the Latin fathers, tingere, 
 the term used for dyeing cloth, which was by immersion. 
 It is always construed suitably to this meaning." — Campi- 
 beWs Dissert,, vol. 4, p. 128, and p. 24. 
 
MR. I'EDOBAPTIST. 
 
 Dr. J. M'Night (an eminent Scotch divine and critic) 
 says : " In baptism, the rite of initiation into the Chris- 
 tian church, the baptized person is buried under the \va" 
 ter, as one put to death with Christ on account of sin, 
 in order that he may be strongly impressed with a sense 
 of the malignity of sin, and excited to hate it as the 
 greatest of evils, ver. 3. Moreover, in the same rite, 
 the baptized person being raised up out of the water, 
 after being washed, he is thereby taught that he shall be 
 raised," &c. 
 
 " Christ's baptism was not the baptism of repentance, 
 for he never committed any sin ; but, as was observed, 
 Prelim. Ess. 1, at the beginning, he submitted to be bap- 
 tised, that is, to be buried under the water, by John, and 
 to be raised out of it again, as an emblem of his future 
 death and resurrection. In like manner the baptism of 
 believers is emblematical of their own death, burial and 
 resurrection." — See on Col. 2, 12. 
 
 Dr. George Hill, (Principal of St. Mary's College, St. 
 Andrews.) " We apply the word ordinances or sacra- 
 ments to baptism and the Lord's Supper ; the first, a rite 
 borrowed from the Jewish custom of plunging into water 
 the proselytes from heathenism to the law of Moses, but 
 consecrated by the words of Jesus, and the universal 
 practice of his disciples, as the mode of admitting mem- 
 bers into the Christian church." — HilVs Divinity, page 
 186. 
 
 M. Stuart (Professor of Sacred Literature in the Theo- 
 logical Seminary, Andover) says : " Bapto and baptiza 
 moan to dip, plunge or immerge, into any thing liquid. 
 
THE TRIAL OF 
 
 All lexicographers and critics of any note are agreed in 
 this." — Stuart Bap., p. 51. 
 
 President Beecher says : " 1 fully admit in innumera- 
 ble cases it clearly denotes to immerse, in which case 
 an agent submerges partially or totally, some person or 
 thing. This is so notoriously true, that I need attempt no 
 proof." — Hinton, p. 18. * 
 
 Dr. Chalmers (Professor of Theology in the University 
 of Edinburg) says : " The original meaning of the word 
 baptism, is immersion. We doubt not that the prevalent 
 style of the administration in the Apostles' days, was 
 by an actual submerging of the whole body under water." 
 Lectures, Pom. 6. >. 
 
 The counsel for the Prisoner said he would like to ask 
 some of the last witnesses a few questions, before any 
 more witnesses are brought forward. 
 
 Q. C. Pri. — President Beecher, have you not in your 
 work on baptism, made boptismos synonymous with kath- 
 arismos, which signifies purification! 
 
 A. — Yes sir. 
 
 Q. — Professor Stuart, have you not thought that bap- 
 tizo, in the New Testament, signifies to wash, in some of 
 its occurrences 1 
 
 A. — Yes sir. 
 
 Q. — Have you not all considered baptism, administered 
 by other modes than immersion, valid baptisms 1 
 
 A. — In the language of Dr. Chalmers, we Avouid say : 
 "And we regard it as a point of indifference, whether 
 the ordinance so named be performed in this way (by 
 immersion) or by sprinkling." 
 
MK. rCDOBAl'TlST. 67 
 
 Q. C. Pro. — Professor Stuart, have you authorities 
 from the language, for saying baptizo signifies to wash 
 in a few of its occurrences in the New Testament 1 
 
 A. — This I gave to be its meaning, because I thought 
 it most suitable. 
 
 Q. — Let us hear what more you say of the use of 
 haptizo in the New Testament 1 
 
 A. — " For myself, I cheerfully admit, that baptizo, in 
 the New Testament, when applied to the rite of bap- 
 tism, does in all probability, involve the idea, that this 
 rite was usually performed by immersion." — Stuart on 
 Bap., p. 154. 
 
 EPISCOPAL WITNESSES. 
 
 The Counsel said, he would now call to the Avitness 
 stand a few English Episcopal witnesses, of undoubted 
 character and learning. 
 
 Dr. Hammond : " The word here used, Baptizesthai, 
 (as it differs from niptesthai, verse 3,) signifies not only 
 the washing of the whole body, (as when 'tis said of 
 Eupolis — that being taken and thrown into the sea, 
 ebaptizeto, he was immersed all over, and so the baptism 
 of cups, &c, in the end of this verse, is putting into 
 water all over, rinsing them,) but washing any part as the 
 hands here, by way of immersion in water, as that is 
 opposed to affusion or pouring water on them." — Annot. 
 on Mark 7:4. 
 
 Bp. Davenant : " In baptism, the burial of the body of 
 sin, or of the old Adam, is represented, when the person 
 to be baptized is put down into the water ; as a resur- 
 
68 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 rection, when he is brought out of it." — Expos. Epis. ad 
 Coloss. 
 
 Bp. Hall: "Ye are, in baptism, buried together with 
 Christ, in respect of the mortification of your sins, repre- 
 sented by lying under the water; and in the same bap- 
 tism, ye rise up with him in newness of life." — Hard 
 Texts, on Col. 2: 12 Edit. 1633. 
 
 Abp. Seeker : " Burying, as it were, the person bap- 
 tized in the water, and raising him out of it again, with- 
 out question was anciently the more usual method." — 
 Lectu. on the Catec. Sect. xxxv. 
 
 Bp. Taylor: "The custom of the ancient churches 
 was not sprinkling, but immersion ; in pursuance of the 
 sense of the word (baptize) in the commandment, and 
 the example of our blessed Saviour." — Ductor Dubitan- 
 Hum, B. Ill, Chap. IV. 
 
 Mr. Bingham : " The ancients thought that immersion 
 or burying under water, did more lively represent the 
 death, and burial, and resurrection of Christ; as well as 
 our own death unto sin, and rising again unto righteous- 
 ness ; and the divesting or unclothing of the persons to 
 be baptized, did also represent the putting off the body 
 of sin, in order to put on the new man, which is created 
 in righteousness and true holiness. Persons thus divested, 
 were usually baptized by immersion, or dipping of their 
 whole bodies under water. There are a great many 
 passages in the Epistles of St. Paul, which plainly refer 
 to this custom ; as this was the original apostolic prac- 
 tice, so it continued to be the universal practice of the 
 church many ages, upon the same symbolic reasons asjt 
 
MR. PEDOBAPTIST. C9 
 
 was first used by the Apostles. It appears from Epipha- 
 .nius and others, that almost all heretics, who retained 
 any baptism, retained immersion also. The only heretics 
 against whom this charge (of not baptizing by a total 
 immersion) is brought, were Eunomians, a branch of 
 the Arians." — Origin. Ecles. B. XI, Chap. XI. 
 
 Dr. Whitby : " It being so expressly declared here, 
 (Rom. 6 : 4, and Col. 2 : 12,) that we are buried with 
 Christ in baptism, by being buried under water ; and the 
 argument to oblige us to a conformity to his death, by 
 dying to sin, being taken hence; and this immersion 
 being religiously observed by all Christians for thirteen 
 centuries,' 1 '' fye. — Note, on Horn. 6 : 4. 
 
 Dr. Cave : " The party to be baptized was wholly 
 immerged, or put under water, which was the almost 
 constant and universal custom of those times ; whereby 
 they did more notably and significantly express the 
 three great ends and effects of baptism." — Primitive 
 Christianity, Part I, Chap. X. 
 
 Dr. Barrow: " The action is baptizing, or immersing 
 in water. The object thereof, those persons of any 
 nation, whom his ministers can by their instruction and 
 persuasion render disciples ; that is such as do sincerely 
 believe the truth of his doctrine, and seriously resolve to 
 obey his commandments. The mersion also in water, 
 and the emersion thence, doth figure our death, (to 
 worldly defilements,) and receiving (receiving to) a new 
 life."— Works, V. I, p. 518. Edi. 1722. 
 
 Bp. Hoadly : " This latter expression (buried with 
 Christ and rising with him) made use of by St. Paul, 
 
70 THE TRIAL Of 
 
 with relation to baptism, is taken from the custom of 
 immersion in the first days] and from the particular 
 manner of baptizing proselytes : by which they were 
 first covered with water, and in a state, as it were, of 
 death and inactivity ; and then arose out of it into a 
 sort of a new state of life and action. And if baptism 
 had been then performed, as it is now amongst us^ we 
 should never have so much as heard of this form of ex- 
 pression, of dying and rising again in this rite." — Works, 
 vol. III. p. 890. 
 
 Dr. Clark: "In primitive times, the manner of baptiz- 
 ing was by immersion, or dipping the whole body into 
 water. And this manner of doing it, was a very signifi- 
 cant emblem of the dying and rising again referred to 
 by St. Paul." Rom. 6 : 4. — Expos, of Church Catech. 
 
 Dr. Wall : " Their (the Primitive Christians) general 
 and ordinary way was to baptize by immersion, or dip- 
 ping the person." — His. of Inf. Bap. part II, chap. ii. 
 
 Bp. Burnet : "They (the primitive ministers of the gos- 
 pel) led them into the water, and with no other garments 
 but what might cover nature, they at first laid them down 
 in the water, as a man is laid in the grave, and then they 
 said these words : c I baptize thee,' &c. Then ihey raised 
 them up again, and clean garments were put on them ; 
 from whence came the phrases, of being baptized into 
 Christ's death ; of our being buried with him by baptism 
 into death" &>c. — Expos. XXXIX Articles. 
 
 Abp. Tillotson : " Anciently, those who were baptized, 
 put off their garments, which signified the putting off 
 the body of sin, and were immersed and buried in the 
 
MR. PED0BAPT1ST. 71 
 
 water, to represent their death to sin ; and then did rise 
 up again out of the water, to signify their entrance upon 
 a new life. And to these customs the apostle alludes, 
 Kom. 6, Gal. 3: 27."— Works, vol. I, serm. VII. 
 
 Q. C. Pri. — Did you not all consider baptism by sprink- 
 ling and pouring a valid baptism 1 
 
 A. — Yes sir. 
 
 BOMAN CATHOLIC WITNESSES. 
 
 The counsel said he would now call another class of 
 witnesses, viz : Roman Catholics. 
 
 Bossuet, (Bishop of Maux.) " To baptize signifies 
 to plunge, as is granted by all the world." In Mr. Sten- 
 nett, against Mr. Russen, p. 174. 
 
 Calmet : " Generally, people (speaking of the Jews) 
 dipped themselves entirely under the water ; and this is 
 the most simple and natural notion of the word baptism." 
 Dictionary of the Bible. 
 
 Rt. Rev. Dr. Treverne, (Bishop of Strasburg.) u The 
 word baptizo, employed by the Evangelists, strictly con- 
 veys this signification, (immersion,) as the learned are 
 agreed, and, at the head of them Casaubon, of all the 
 Calvinists, the best versed in the Greek language. Now 
 baptism by immersion has ceased for many ages, and 
 you (Protestant clergy) yourselves, as well as we, have 
 received it by infusion. It would, therefore, be all over 
 with your baptism, unless you established it by tradition 
 and the practice of the church. This being settled, I 
 ask you from whom you have baptism, (by sprinkling.) 
 Is it not from the church of Rome % Do you not con- 
 
72 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 sider her as heretical, and even idolatrous 1 You cannot, 
 then, according to the terms of Scripture, prove the 
 validity of your baptism, (by sprinkling,) and, to pro- 
 duce a plea for it, you are obliged to seek it with Pope 
 Stephen and the councils of Aries and Nice, and in 
 Apostolic tradition." — La Discussion Amicale, 1847. 
 
 F. Brenner : " Thirteen hundred years was baptism, 
 generally and ordinarily, performed by the immersion of 
 man under water; and only in extraordinary cases was 
 sprinkling or affusion permitted. These latter methods 
 of baptism were called in question, and even prohibited." 
 Stuart on Baptism, p. 152. 
 
 Petavius, the celebrated Jesuit, speaking of the power 
 of the church to alter, or impose, says: "And indeed 
 immersion is properly baptismos, though at present we 
 content ourselves with pouring water on the head." — 
 Carson, p. 245. 
 
 " Simon the Jesuit, on Matt, 3: 11, in his translation 
 from the Vulgate, observes : " To baptize literally signi- 
 fies to dip, and to this day, throughout the east, baptism 
 is performed no other way, according to the ancient 
 practice of the Christians." — Cam. and M^Call Debate, 
 p. 167. 
 
 Q. C. Pri — You all hold baptism by sprinkling to be 
 valid, do you not 1 
 
 A.— Yes sir, the church so teaches us. 
 
 TESTIBIONY OF ARMENIAN PROFESSORS. 
 
 The counsel for the Commonwealth said, we will now 
 offer several of the Professors of the Armenian College at 
 
M&, rEDOBAPTI?T. 73 
 
 Amsterdam, a Pedobaptist school. Limborch was called 
 and qualified. 
 
 Q. C. Pro. — Will you please to give us the meaning of 
 baptizo, as employed with reference to the Christian rite 
 of baptism 1 
 
 A. — " Baptism is that rite, or ceremony, of the New 
 Covenant, whereby the faithful, by immersion into wa- 
 ter, as by a sacred pledge, are assured of the favor of 
 God, remission of sins, and eternal life ; and by which 
 they engage themselves to an amendment of life, and an 
 obedience to the divine commands." — Compl. Syst. Div. 
 B. V. 
 
 G. J. Vossius : Baptizein, to baptize, signifies to 
 plunge. — It certainly, therefore, signifies more than epi- 
 polazein, which is, to swim lightly on the top ; and less 
 than dunein, which is, to sink to the bottom, so as to be 
 destroyed.'''' — Disputat. de Bap. Disp. 
 
 Le Clerc : " He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit. 
 As I plunge you in water, he shall plunge you, so to 
 speak, in the Holy Spirit. — Remar. Sur. JVeiv Test., a 
 Matt. 3. 
 
 Curcellus: "Baptism was performed by plunging the 
 whole body into water, and not by sprinkling a few 
 drops, as is now the practice. For John was baptizing 
 in Enon, near Salim, because there was much water ; and 
 they came and were baptized, John 3 : 23. Nor did the 
 disciples that were sent out by Christ, administer bap- 
 tism afterwards in any other way ; and this is more 
 agreeable to the signification of the ordinance, Rom. 6 : 
 4. 1 am therefore of opinion, that we should endeavor 
 
74 THE TRIAL OT 
 
 to restore and introduce this primitive rite of immersing', 
 if it may be done without offence to the weak; other- 
 wise it seems better to tolerate this abuse, than to raise 
 a disturbance in the church about it. They are now 
 ridiculed who desire to be baptized, not by sprinkling, 
 but as it was performed by the ancient church, by an 
 immersion of the whole body into water." — Relig. Christ. 
 Insti. L. 
 
 Q. C. Pro. — Did you not consider baptism, by sprink- 
 ling, &c, also valid 1 
 
 A. — Yes sir. 
 
 The counsel, at this stage of the proceedings, said he 
 would offer another class of witnesses. 
 
 ENCYCLOPEDIAS, ETC. 
 
 Magdeburg Centuriators : '< The word baptizo, to bap« 
 tize, which signifies immersion into water, proves that 
 the administrators of baptism immersed, or washed, the 
 persons baptized, in water." " The Son of God was 
 dipped in the water of Jordan, by the hand of John the 
 Baptist. — Philip baptized the Eunuch in a river, Acts 8 : 
 38."— CW. I. L. U. C. 6, p. 3S2. 
 
 Chambers : M In the primitive times this ceremony 
 was performed by immersion ; as it is to this day in the 
 Oriental churches, according to the original signification 
 of the word." — Cyclopedia, Article, Baptism. Ed. 7th. 
 
 Edinburgh Ency. — " In the time of the Apostles the 
 form of baptism was very simple. The person to be bap- 
 tized was dipped in a river or vessel, with the words 
 which Christ had ordaine<l, and to express more fully his 
 
XlR. PED0BAPTI3T. 75 
 
 change of character, generally assumed a new name. 
 The immersion of the whole body was omitted only in 
 the cases of the sick, who could not leave their beds. 
 In this case sprinkling was substituted, which was called 
 clinic baptism. The Greek church, as well as the schis- 
 matics in the east, retained the custom of immersing the 
 whole body 5 but the Western church adopted, in the 
 thirteenth century, the mode of baptism by sprinkling, 
 which has been continued by the Protestants, Baptists 
 only excepted." — Debate of C. and R. y p. 183. 
 
 Monthly Review of England : " We acknowledge there 
 are many authorities to support it (immersion) among 
 the ancients. The word baptizo doth certainly signify 
 immersion, absolute and total immersion, in Josephus 
 and other Greek writers." — Ibid, p. 174;. 
 
 FRIENDS OR QUAKERS. 
 
 The Counsel said he would call another class of wit- 
 nesses in addition to those already examined, to clearly 
 show that the word in the Constitution is understood by 
 nearly all classes of men, to signify to immerse ; and 
 has so been understood, from the time of its adoption 
 by the author of our government, down to the present 
 hour. The class of witnesses (he said) we shall now 
 call upon the stand, are the Friends or Quakers, from 
 whom we may expect an independent testimony. 
 
 Robert Barclay was called and qualified. 
 
 Q. C. Pro. — Will you please give us the meaning of 
 baptizo, as found in the Christian ordinance of baptism % 
 
 A. — Baptizo signifies immergo, that is, to plunge and dip 
 
76 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 in ; and that was the proper use of water haptism among 
 the Jews, and also by John and the primitive Christians, 
 who used it. Whereas, our adversaries, for the most 
 part, only sprinkle a little water upon the forehead, 
 which doth not at all answer to the word baptism. So 
 that if our adversaries will stick to the word, they must 
 alter their method of sprinkling." — Apology, Propos. 
 12, 10. 
 
 John Gratton : "John did baptize into water, and it 
 was a baptism, a real dipping or plunging into water, and 
 so a real baptism was John's." — Life J. Gratton, p. 231. 
 
 William Dell : Speaking of baptism, he calls it, " the 
 plunging of a man in cold water." — Sel. Works, p. 389. 
 
 Thomas Ellwood : ". They (the Apostles af the feast 
 of Pentecost) were now baptized with the Holy Ghost 
 indeed ; and that in the strict and proper sense of the 
 word baptizo, which signifies dip, plunge or put under." 
 Sacred Hist, of the JV*. T., part II, p. 307. 
 
 Samuel Forthergill : " By which (baptism of the 
 Holy Spirit) I understand such a thorough immersion 
 into his holy nature, as to know him, the only begotton 
 Son of God, to conform the soul to his own image." — 
 Rem. on Add. Qua., p. 270. 
 
 Joseph Phipps : " The baptism of the Holy Spirit is 
 effected by spiritual immersion. The practice of sprink- 
 ling infants, under the name of baptism, hath neither 
 precept nor precedent in the New Testament." — Dissert, 
 on Bap , p. 25, 30. 
 
 William Penn : " I cannot see why the Bishop (of 
 Cork, in answer to whom he wrote) should assume the 
 
MR. PEDOBAPTIST. 77 
 
 power of unchristianizing us, for not practising of that 
 which he himself practises so unscripturally, and that 
 according to the sentiments of a considerable part of 
 Christendom ; having not one text of Scripture to prove 
 that sprinkling in the face was water baptism — in the 
 first times. Then it was in the river Jordan ; now in 
 the basin." — Defence of Gospel Truths, p. 82, 83. 
 
 George Whitehead : " Sprinkling infants 1 deny to be 
 baptism, either in a proper or scripture sense. For 
 sprinkling is rhantism, and not baptism ; coming of ran- 
 tizo, i. e. aspergo, to sprinkle, or to be sprinkled, Heb. 9 : 
 13, 19, compared with Heb. 10 : 22 ; rantismos, a be- 
 sprinkling ; and Chap. 12: 24, and 1 Pet. 1: 2. But 
 baptizo, is to baptize, to plunge under water, to over- 
 whelm. Wherefore, I would not have these men offended 
 at the word rhantism, it being as much English as the 
 word baptism. And also^baptismous is translated wash- 
 ing ; i. e. of cups, pots, bVazen vessels and tables, Mark 
 7: 4. Now if washing here should be taken in the com- 
 mon sense, cleanly people use not to do it only by sprink- 
 ling some drops of water upon them, but by washing 
 them clean ; so that rhantism can be neither baptism nor 
 washing, in a true or proper sense." Truth Prevalent, 
 Chap. 9, p. 116. 
 
 Thomas Lawson : " Such as rhantize, or sprinkle in- 
 fants, have no command from Christ, nor example among 
 the Apostles, nor first primitive Christians, for so doing. 
 The ceremony of John's ministration, according to di- 
 vine institution, was by dipping, plunging or overwhelm- 
 ing their bodies in water 3 as Scapula and Stephen?, Hvn 
 
 4 
 
78 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 great masters in the Greek tongue, testify ; as also Gro- 
 tius, Pasor, Vossius, Minceus, Leigh, Casaubon, Bucer, 
 Bullinger, Zanchy, Spanhemius, Rogers, Talor, Ham- 
 mond, Calvin, Piscator, Aquinas, Scotus. As for sprink- 
 ling, the Greeks call it rhantismos, which I render rhan- 
 tism, for it is as proper to call sprinkling rhantism as 
 dipping baptism. This linguists cannot be ignorant of, 
 that dipping and sprinkling are expressed by several 
 words, both in Latin and Greek, and Hebrew. 'Tis very 
 evident, if sprinkling had been of divine institution, the 
 Greeks had their rhantismos; but as dipping was the 
 institution, they used baptismos ; so maintained the 
 purity and propriety of the language. To sprinkle young 
 or old, and call it baptism, is very incongruous; yea, as 
 improper as to call a horse a cow ; for baptism signifies 
 dipping. However, rhantism hath entered into and 
 among the professors of Christianity ; and, to gain the 
 more acceptance, 'tis called baptism.''' 1 — Bqpti.,]). 118, 119. 
 
 Anthony Purver : " Baptized is but a Greek word 
 used in English, and signifying plunged." Note, on 1 
 Cor. 15: 29. — " Such is the harmonious and united tes- 
 timony of those impartial Friends : nor do I suppose 
 that any sensible portion of the same denomination would 
 for a moment scruple to subscribe the preceding declara- 
 tions." — Booth, p. 66-9. 
 
 Q. C. Pri. — You have no faith in any outward bap- 
 tism. 
 
 A. — We believe in a spiritual baptism. 
 
 The Counsel arose, and said he would defer the argu- 
 ment founded on the use of baptizo in the Constitution, 
 
MR. PEBOBAPTIST. 79 
 
 and the circumstances connected with its action in bap. 
 tism, until his address to the Court and jury, at which 
 time he would unfold its character. He would, also, 
 postpone the argument on the design of baptism until 
 the same time. 
 
 MEANING OF BAPTIZO GATHERED FROM THE HISTORY OF THE 
 CHURCH. 
 
 It will then be our duty, at this time, to proceed to 
 call witnesses to prove the Practice of the Church under 
 the law of Christian baptism. We will, in the first 
 place, give the testimony of the early fathers. Our 
 selection of their testimonies shall be from Pedobaptsts. 
 In the second place, we shall give the testimonies of 
 Pedobaptists in proof of the Church's understanding of 
 baptizo signifying the action of immersing in the ordi- 
 nance. Our first authorities shall be selected from Pro- 
 fessor Stuart's work on baptism. 
 
 " In the Pastor of Hernias, (written in the first century) 
 however, occurs one passage, (Coteler. Pastr. Apostol. 
 I, p. 119, sq.,) which runs as follows : ' But this seal (of 
 the sons of God) is water, into which men descend who 
 are bound to death, but those ascend who are destined 
 to life. To them that seal is disclosed, and they make 
 use of it that they may enter the kingdom of God.' 
 
 "Justin Martyr, (lived in the second century,) in his 
 Apology, (Opp. Part 1, p. 210, ed. Oberthur,) a passage 
 occurs which deserves our attention. Speaking of con- 
 verts to Christianity, or those who become believers, he 
 says : ' They are led out by us to the place where there 
 
SO THE TRIAL OF 
 
 is water, * * * and in the name of the Father of the 
 universe, the Lord God, and of the Saviour Jesus Christ, 
 and of the Holy Spirit, they wash themselves with 
 water, * * * leading him who is to be washed to the 
 bath or washing place.' I am pursuaded that this pas- 
 sage, as a whole, most naturally refers to immersion ; for 
 why, on any other ground, should the convert, who is to 
 be initiated go out to the place where there is water. There 
 could be no need of this if sprinkling or partial affusion 
 only, was customary in the time of Justin. 
 
 " Tertullian, who died A. D., 220, is the most ample 
 Avitness of all the early writers. In his works is an 
 essay in defence of Christian baptism, which had been 
 assailed by some of the heretics of his time. Passing 
 by the multitude of expressions which speak of the im- 
 portance of being cleansed by water, bom in the water, 
 etc., I quote only such as are directly to the point. In 
 section 2 he speaks of a baptized person, as l in aquam 
 demissus, let down into the water, i. e., immersed, and 
 inter pauca verba tinctus, i. e., dipped between the utte- 
 rance of a few words.' 
 
 "In section 4 is a passage which seems to convey a still 
 more definite sense. He is speaking of the original 
 waters at the time of creation having been made a sanc- 
 tified element by the influence of the Spirit of God upon 
 them, from which he goes on to argue the sanctifying 
 influence of baptismal water. But some will object, he 
 says, that 'we are not dipped (tinguimur) in those wa- 
 ters which Averc at the beginning,' His reply is, that all 
 water is h species of th;U genus, and that the species 
 
i\in. PKboiurrisT. 81 
 
 must have the same quality with the genus. He then 
 proceeds: 'There is, then, no difference whether any- 
 one is washed in a pool, river, fountain, lake, or chan- 
 nel, alveus, (canal) nor is there any difference of conse- 
 quence between those whom John immersed (tinxit) in 
 the Jordan, or Peter in the Tiber.' 
 
 " In section 6 he says : ' Not that we obtain the Holy 
 Spirit in aquis (i. e., in the baptismal water,) but being 
 cleansed in the Water, (in aqua emundati,) we are 
 prepared for the Holy Spirit.' Section 7, ' Afterwards, 
 going out from the ablution or bath, (lavacro,) we are 
 anointed,' etc. 
 
 " In his book against Praxeas, section 26, sub fine, he 
 says: 'Not once, but thrice, according to the several 
 names (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,) are we baptized 
 (tinguimur) into the several persons.' The reader is de- 
 sired to note here, and in other passages which will be 
 cited, that the practice of trine immersion, i. e., of plung- 
 ing three times into water, in correspondence with the 
 names of the Godhead as they occur in the formula of 
 baptism, was usual at so early a period as the time of 
 Tertullian ; how much earlier we have no certain testi- 
 mony, at least none I am acquainted with. Tertullian 
 himself, however, seems to have regarded this trine im- 
 mersion as something superadded to the precepts of the 
 gospel ; for thus he speaks in his book De Corona Militis, 
 section 3 : e Thence we are thrice immersed, (ter mergi- 
 tamur,) answering, i. e., fulfilling something more (aui- 
 plius aliquid respondentes) than the Lord has decreed in 
 the gospel,' 
 
 D 
 
82 THE TRIAL 0? 
 
 " Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople, who lived fa 
 the fourth century, says in Homil. 40, in 1 Cor. i : 'To 
 be baptized, and to submerge (kataduesthai,) then to 
 emerge, (ananeuein,) is a symbol of descent to the grave? 
 and of ascent from it.' 
 
 " Ambrose, who was Bishop of Milan and lived in the 
 fourth century, says in Lib. II, ch. 7, de Sacramentis : 
 4 You were asked, Dost thou believe in God Almighty % 
 Thou saidst, I believe j and thus thou wast immerged. 
 (mersisti,) that is, thou wast buried.' 
 
 "Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, in Africa, says in Homil. 
 IV : ' After you professed your belief, three times did 
 we submerge (demersimus) your heads in the sacred 
 fountain.' 
 
 "Dionysius Areop. de Eccles. Hierarch., ch. 2: ' Pro- 
 perly the total covering by water % is taken from an image 
 of death and burial out of sight.' 
 
 " The Council of Toletan : ' For immersion in the 
 water is like a descent to the grave ; and again, emer- 
 sion from the water (ab aquis emersio) is a resurrec- 
 tion.' " 
 
 Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, who lived in the fourth 
 century, says : " Candidates are first anointed with con- 
 secrated oils ; they are then conducted to the laver, and 
 asked three times if they believe in the Father, Son, and 
 Holy Ghost ; then they are dipped three times into the 
 water, and retire out of it by three distinct efforts." — 
 Lupin's Ec. This., ch. 4, 5, ii, p. 109-113. 
 
 Again, he says, in Catech. 17 : " For as he that goes 
 down into the water and is baptized, is surrounded on all! 
 
MR. PEDOBAPTIST. 83 
 
 sides with water, so the Apostles were baptized all over 
 by the Spirit. The water surrounds the body exter- 
 nally, but the Spirit incomprehensibly baptizes the soul 
 within." 
 
 Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, who lived in the fourth 
 century, says : " That the regeneration wrought in bap- 
 tism ought not to be attributed to the water, but to a 
 Divine virtue ; that by dipping the person under water 
 three times, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ 
 is represented ; that without baptism no man can be 
 washed from sin." — Dupin, ch. 4, p. 178. 
 
 Gregory, Bishop of Nazianzen, who lived in the 
 fourth century, says : " We are buried with Christ by 
 baptism, that we may also rise again with him ; we as- 
 cend with him, that we may also be glorified together." 
 Stennefs Ans., p. 144. 
 
 Basil, Bishop of Caesarea) de Spirtu., ch. 15 : "By the 
 
 three immersions (- ,) and by the like number of 
 
 invocations, the great mystery of baptism is completed." 
 Stuart. 
 
 Damascenus, Orthodox. Fides IV. 10 : " Baptism is a 
 type of the death of Christ; for by three immersions 
 (kataduseoon) baptism signifies," etc. — Stuart. 
 
 The Apostolical Constitution (probably written in the 
 fourth century,) Lib. Ill, c. 17: "Immersion (katadu- 
 sis,) denotes dying with him (Christ ;) emersion (anadu- 
 sis,) a resurrection with Christ." — Ibid. 
 
 Photius (apud Oecumenium) on Rom. 6 : " The three 
 immersions and emersions of baptism, signify death and 
 resurrection." — Ibid. 
 
84 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 It is not necessary for us to give more testimony from 
 the Fathers, to ascertain their sentiments on the action 
 of baptism. Let us close this part of our investigation 
 by the language of Professor Stuart : " But enough. 
 'It is,' says Augusti (Denkw. Vli, p. 216) 'a thing 
 made out,' viz : the ancient practice of immersion. So, 
 indeed, all the writers who have thoroughly investigated 
 this subject, conclude. 1 know of no usage of ancient 
 times, which seems to be \nore clearly made out. I can- 
 not see how it is possible, for any candid man who ex- 
 amines the subject, to deny this." — Sttiart, p. 149. 
 
 Q. C. Pri. — Prof. Stuart, please tell us, whether excep- 
 tions to the practice of immersion were not allowed in 
 the ancient church 1 
 
 A. — "That there were cases of exceptions allowed, 
 now and then, is no doubt true. Persons in extreme 
 sickness, or danger, were allowed baptism by affu- 
 sion, etc. Cyprian pleads strongly and conclusively for 
 this in his epistle to Magnus, Ep. 76. The Council of 
 Neo-Ca3sarea, Euseb. Lib. VI, c. 43 ; and so the Council 
 of Laodicea, Can. 47, sanction such baptisms. The Acta 
 Laurentii, apud Surium Tom. IV, mention a JRoman 
 soldier who was baptized by Laurence with a pitcher of 
 water ; and the same person also baptized Lucillus, by 
 pouring water on his head. But all such cases were 
 manifestly regarded as exceptions to the common usage 
 of the church." — Stuart, p. 149. 
 
 Q. C. Pro. — Professor Stuart, you cannot trace up this 
 practice of exceptional baptism, to an earlier date than 
 about the middle of the third century 1 
 
MR. PEDOBAPTIST, 85 
 
 A. — At that time we have it recognized and sanctioned 
 by Cyprian of Carthage. 
 
 We shall proceed, said the Counsel, to confirm the 
 view we have taken of the History of the Church, by the 
 testimonies of Pedobaptist witnesses. 
 
 1. THE PRACTICE OF THE EASTERN CHURCH. 
 
 " The mode of baptism by immersion, the Oriental 
 church has always continued to preserve, even down to 
 the present time. The members of this church are ac- 
 customed to call the members of the western churches 
 sprinkled Christians, by way of ridicule and contempt. 
 They maintain that baptizo can mean nothing but im- 
 merge ; and that baptism by sprinkling is as great a 
 solecism as immersion by aspersion ; and they claim to 
 themselves the honor of having preserved the ancient 
 sacred rite of the church, free from change and from cor^ 
 ruption, which would destroy its significancy." — Stuart, 
 p. 151-2. 
 
 Dr. Wall : " All the Christians in Asia, all in Africa, 
 and about one-third part of Europe, are of the last sort, 
 (i. e. practice immersion ;) in which third part of Europe, 
 are comprehended the Christians of GraBcia, Thracia, 
 Servia, Bulgaria, Rascia, Walachia, Moldavia, Russia, 
 Nigra, and so on ; and even the Muscovites, who, if cold- 
 ness of the country will excuse, might plead for a dis- 
 pensation with the most reason of any." — Hist, of Inf. 
 Bupt. 477. 
 
SO THE TRIAL OF 
 
 2. THE PRACTICE OF THE GENERAL CHURCH, AS GIVEN BY 
 PEDOBAPTISTS. 
 
 1. German Authorities. 
 
 Mosheim : " The exhortations of this respectable mes- 
 senger, (John the Baptist,) were not without effect; and 
 those who, moved by his solemn admonitions, had form- 
 ed the resolution of correcting their evil dispositions, 
 and amending their lives, were initiated into the Kingdom 
 of the Redeemer by the ceremony of immersion, or bap- 
 tism." — Church History, p. 2(5. " The sacrament of bap- 
 tism was administered in this century, (the first) with- 
 out the public assemblies, in places appointed and pre- 
 pared for that purpose, and was performed by an immer- 
 sion of the whole body in the baptismal font." — Ibid, 
 p. 46. 
 
 Again, he says of the second century : — " The persons 
 that were to be baptized, after they had repeated the 
 creed, confessed and renounced their sins, and particu- 
 larly the devil and his pompous allurements, were im- 
 mersed under water, and received into Christ's Kingdom 
 by a solemn invocation of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." 
 Ibid, p. 69. 
 
 Neander : tl John's followers were entirely immersed in 
 water — the Messiah would immerse the souls of believers 
 in the Holy Ghost." — Life of Christ, p. 50. 
 
 In his Church History he says, page 310: — "In re- 
 spect to the form of baptism it was in conformity with 
 the original institution, and the original symbol perform- 
 
MR. PEDOUAFTlST. St 
 
 ed by immersion as a sign of an entire baptism into the 
 Holy Ghost, being entirely penetrated by the same." 
 
 Bretschneider, Theology, vol. I, p. 684 : " The Apos- 
 tolic Church baptized only by immersion." 
 
 Guericke, Ch. Histo., p. 100 : « Baptism was origi- 
 nally administered by immersion." 
 
 Hahn, Theology, p. 556 : " According to Apostolical 
 instruction and example, baptism was performed by im- 
 mersing the whole man." 
 
 Rheinwald, Archazology, of 1830, p. 303, n. 1 : " Im- 
 mersion was the original Apostolical practice." 
 
 2. Presbyterian Authorities. 
 
 Calvin: "And it is certain that immersion was the 
 practice of the ancient church." — Inst., vol. 3, p. 343. 
 
 Dr. Chalmers : " Yet we doubt not that the prevalent 
 style of the administration in the Apostles' days, was by 
 an actual submerging of the whole body under water." — 
 Lect., Rom. 6. 
 
 Professor Stuart : " In what manner, then, did the 
 churches of Christ, from a very early period, to say the 
 least, understand the word baptizo in the New Testament 1 
 Plainly they construed it as meaning immersion." — > 
 Stuart, p. 153. 
 
 3. Episcopal Authorities. 
 
 Dr. Whitby: "It is expressly declared here, (Rom. 6 i 
 4, and Colos. 2: 12,) that we are buried with Christ in 
 baptism, by being buried under water ; and the argument 
 to oblige us to a conformity to his death, by dying to 
 
88 THE TRIAL or 
 
 sin, being- hence ; and this immersion being religiously 
 observed by all Christians for thirteen centuries." — Note 
 on Rom. 6 : 4. 
 
 Dr. Wall : " Their (the primitive Christians) general 
 and ordinary way was to baptize by immersion, or dip- 
 ping the person, whether it was an infant, or grown man 
 or woman, into the water. This is so plain and clear 
 by an infinite number of passages, that one cannot but 
 pity the weak endeavors of such Pedobaptists as would 
 maintain the negative of it." — Hist, of Inf. Bap., p. 462. 
 
 Bingham : " There are a great many passages in the 
 Epistles of St. Paul, which plainly refer to this custom ; 
 (of immersion) as this was the original Apostolic prac- 
 tice, so it continued to be the universal practice of the 
 church for many ages." — Origin. Eccles. 
 
 Dr. Cave : " The party to be baptized was wholly im- 
 merged, or put under water, which was the almost con- 
 stant and universal custom of those times." — Prim. 
 Christ. 
 
 4. Roman Catholic Authorities. 
 
 Bossuet : "I find we read not in the Scriptures that 
 baptism (by immersion) was otherwise administered ; 
 and we are able to make it appear, by the acts of Coun- 
 cils, and by the ancient Rituals, that for thirteen hundred 
 years baptism was thus administered throughout the whole 
 church, as far as possible." — Mr. Stennett, against Rus- 
 sen, p. 175, 176. 
 
 In an other place he (Bossuct) says : "It is a fact 
 most firmly believed by the Reformed, (though some of 
 
Mli. PEDOBAl'TIST. S9 
 
 them at this time wrangle about it,) that baptism was in- 
 stituted to be administered by plunging the body en- 
 tirely ; that Jesus Christ received it in this manner ; 
 that it was thus performed by his Apostles ; that the 
 Scriptures are acquainted with no other baptism ; that 
 antiquity understood and practised it in this manner ; 
 and that to baptize, is to plunge ; — these facts, I say, are 
 unanimously acknowledged by all the Reformed teachers ; 
 by the Reformers themselves ; by those who best under- 
 stood the Greek language, and the ancient customs of 
 both Jews and Christians ; by Luther, by Melanchton, by 
 Calvin, by Casaubon, by Crotius, with all the rest, and 
 since their time by Jurieu, the most ready to contradict 
 of all their ministers. Luther has even remarked, that 
 this sacrament is called tauf, in German, on account of 
 the depth ; because they plunged deeply in the water, 
 those whom they baptized. If then there be in the world 
 a fact absolutely certain, it is this, (immersion in bap- 
 tism.)— This, des Eg. Prot., II, p. 469, 470. 
 
 F. Brenner : " Thirteen hundred years was baptism 
 generally and ordinarily performed by the immersion of 
 a man under water ; and only in extraordinary cases was 
 sprinkling or affusion permitted. These latter methods 
 of baptism were called in question, and even prohibit- 
 ed." — Stuart on Bap., p. 152. 
 
 5. Authorities not Classified. 
 
 Mr. T. Wilson : " Baptism was performed in the primi- 
 tive times by immersion," — Jlrclwolog, Diet., Article, 
 Baptism. 
 
90 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 Mr. Stackhouse : " Accordingly, several authors have 
 shown, that we read nowhere in Scripture of any one's 
 being baptized, but by immersion ; and from the acts of 
 Councils and ancient Rituals have proved, that this man- 
 ner of immersion continued (as much as possible) to be 
 used for thirteen hundred years after Christ." — History 
 of the Bib., B. VIII. 
 
 Venema : " It is without controversy that baptism in 
 the primitive church was administered by immersion 
 into water, and not by sprinkling." — Booth, p. 212. 
 
 Bp. Nicholson : " The sacrament of baptism was an- 
 ciently administered by plunging into the water, in the 
 Western as well as the Eastern part of the church ; and 
 that the Gothic word *###*• t j ie German 
 word taufen ; the Danish word dobe, and Belgic doopen, 
 do as clearly make out that practice, as the Greek word 
 baptizo." — Ibid, 219. 
 
 THE CHANGE FROM IMMERSION IN BAPTISM.. 
 
 The Counsel arose and said, we are now prepared to 
 prove by Pedobaptist witnesses, our last proposition, 
 which charges the Prisoner with the crime of altering 
 Immersion, in Baptism, to Sprinkling and Pouring. 
 
 1. We will show that the Prisoner taught the Church the 
 right to make this change. 
 
 Richard Watson (Methodist) says: "Even if immer- 
 sion had been the original mode of baptizing, we should, 
 in the absence of any command on the subject, direct or 
 implied, have thought the church at liberty to accommo- 
 
MR. PEDOBAPTIST. 91 
 
 date the manner of applying water to the body, in the 
 name of the Trinity, in which the essence of the rite 
 consists, to different climates and manners." — Theolog. 
 Insti., p. 445. 
 
 Calvin : " But whether the person who is baptized be 
 wholly immersed, and whether thrice or once, or whether 
 water be only poured or sprinkled upon him, is of no 
 importance; churches ought to be left at liberty in this 
 respect, to act according to the difference of countries." 
 Inst. vol. 3, p. 343. 
 
 Professor Stuart : (t Calvin, Instit. IV, c. 15, §19, says : 
 4 It is of no consequence at all (minimum refert) whether 
 the person baptized is totally immersed, or he is merely 
 sprinkled by an affusion of water. This should be a matter 
 of choice to the churches in different regions ; although 
 the word baptize signifies to immerse, and the rite of im- 
 mersion was practised by the ancient church.'' To this 
 opinion I do most fully and heartily subscribe ; not be- 
 cause it is Calvin's, nor because the great majority of 
 Christians have adopted it. 1 have other, and I trust 
 better, reasons than either of these." — Stuart, p. 157. 
 
 Dr. Bogue, (Calvinist) : " As it is but a ritual ob- 
 servance, and quantity of water can be of no efficacy, 
 allowance is to be made for difference of climates and 
 usages, as if the mode by immersion be not agreeable to 
 cold climates, and decency, and alteration in mode is 
 suitable," — Bogue's Theolog. Led., p. 313. 
 
 Dr. Hill : « The greater part of Christians have found 
 themselves at liberty, in a matter very far from being 
 essential, to adopt that practice which is most covenient, 
 
92 • THE TRIAL Or 
 
 and most suited to the habits of colder climates." — Hill's 
 Divinity, p. 659. 
 
 Piscator : ''Whether the Avhole body be dipped, and 
 that thrice, or once ; or whether water be only poured or 
 sprinkled on the party ; this ought to be free to the 
 churches, according to the difference of countries." 
 Jiphor. Doct. Christ. 
 
 Rich.. Baxter: "We grant that baptism then (in the 
 primitive times) was by washing the whole body ; and 
 did not the difference of our cold country, as to that hot 
 one, teach us to remember, / will have mercy and not 
 sacrifice, it should be so here." — Paraphrase on Matt. 
 3: 6. 
 
 Bp. Burnet: "The danger of dipping in cold cli- 
 mates, may be a very good reason for changing the form 
 of baptism to sprinkling." — Exposition of XXXIX Art. 
 p. 436. 
 
 2. That the change did take place from the action of Bap- 
 tism as commanded by Christ, to Sprinkling or Pouring. 
 
 Turrettinus : " Immersion was used in former times 
 and in warm climates, as we are taught by the practice 
 of John the Baptist, Matt. 3:6, 16 ; of Christ's Apostles, 
 John iii: 22, and vi : 1, 2; and of Philip, Acts 8: 38. 
 But now, especially in cold countries, when the church 
 began to extend itself towards the north, plunging was 
 changed into sprinkling." — Institut. hoc. XIX. 
 
 Mr. W. Perkins: "The ancient custom of baptizing 
 was to dip, and as it were, to dive all the bodies of the 
 bnptizcd in the water, as may nppcar in Paul, Kom. 6, 
 
MR, PEDOEAPTIST. 93 
 
 and the Councils of Laodicea and Neocesarea ; but now, 
 especially in cold countries, the church useth only to 
 sprinkle the baptized. We need not much to marvel at 
 this alteration, seeing charity and necessity may dis- 
 pense with ceremonies." — Works, vol. I, p. 74j. 
 
 Dr. Wetham : " The word baptism signifies a wash- 
 ing, particularly when it is done by immersion, or by 
 dipping, or plunging a thing under water, which was 
 formerly the ordinary way of administering the sacra- 
 ment of baptism. Not only the Catholic church, but 
 also the pretended Reformed churches have altered this 
 primitive custom in giving the sacrament of baptism, 
 and now allow of baptism by pouring or sprinkling 
 water on the person baptized." — Anno. JV. T., Matt. 3 : 6. 
 
 Von Coelln : " Immersion in water was general until 
 the thirteenth century ; but among the Latins it was dis- 
 placed by sprinkling ; but retained by the Greeks." — 
 Hist. Theol. Opin. vol. 1, p. 203. 
 
 Heckermanus : " Though the term baptism properly 
 signifies immersion, and though also in the ancient 
 church, through the eastern countries, when baptism was 
 administered, it was not by sprinkling, but by immer- 
 sion j yet in the colder parts of Christendom, aspersion 
 is used instead of immersion, on account of infants; 
 because charity and necessity may dispense with cere- 
 monies, and temper them with gentleness." — System. 
 Theolog. 
 
 JBossuet : "Baptism by immersion, which is as clearly 
 established in the Scriptures as communion under two 
 kinds can possibly be ; has nevertheless been changed 
 
94- THE TRIAL OF 
 
 into pouring, with as much ease and as little dispute as 
 communion under one kind has been established." — Hist, 
 des Egl. Proft. Tom. II. 
 
 Gurtlerus : " The action in the element of water, is 
 immersion ; which rite continued for a long time in the 
 Christian church, until, in a very late age, it was changed 
 into sprinkling." — Institut. Theolog. Chap, xxxiii, Sect. 
 117, 118. 
 
 Chamierus : " Immersion of the whole body was used 
 from the beginning, which expresses the force of the 
 word baptize — whence John baptized in a river. It was 
 afterwards changed into sprinkling." — Panstrat. Cathol. 
 
 Sir John Floyer : " The church of Rome hath drawn 
 short compendiums of both sacraments. In the Euchar- 
 ist, they use only the wafer, and instead of immersion 
 they introduced aspersion. I have now given what 
 testimony I could find in our English authors, to prove 
 the practice of immersion from the time the Britons and 
 Saxons were baptized, till King James's days; when the 
 people grew peevish with all ancient ceremonies, and 
 through the love of novelty, and niceness of parents, 
 and pretence of modesty, they laid aside immersion ; 
 which never was abrogated by any Canon, but is still 
 recommended by the present Rubric of our church, which 
 orders the child to be dipt discreetly and warily." — 
 Hist, of Cold Bathing , p. 15, 61. 
 
 Bloomfield : " I agree with Koppe and Rosenmuller, 
 that there is reason to regret it (immersion) should have 
 been abandoned in most Christian churches." — Critical 
 Digest on Rom. VI, 4. 
 
MR. FED0BAPT1ST. 95 
 
 H. Altingius: "The baptismal washing, in warm 
 countries and ancient times, was performed by immer- 
 sion ; but now, especially in cold countries, it is perform- 
 ed by only sprinkling. The cause of the alteration is, 
 that immersion, which was used in the warm eastern 
 and southern countries, is less convenient in the cold 
 westeM and northern climates ; where there is danger 
 of health from immersion, especially of infants. And 
 therefore, that rule is here in force ; I will have mercy and 
 not sacrifice." — Loci Commun Pars, I. 
 
 Dr. Hill: "In one circumstance respecting the mode 
 of administering baptism, the greater part of Christians 
 have departed from the primitive practice." — Hill's Di- 
 vinity ', p. 459. 
 
 3. The Origin of this Change, and its Progress. 
 
 It must be distinctly remembered that after the intro- 
 duction of this change, it was exclusively confined to 
 cases of extreme necessity. The reason of this is to be 
 found in the doctrine held to be sacred, viz : that bap- 
 tism was for the remission of sins. The third century 
 marks its introduction and approval by Cyprian. 
 
 Dr. Wall could find no instance of the kind, prior to 
 the case of Novatian ; which is thus described in Euse- 
 bius : " He fell into a grievous distemper, and it being 
 supposed that he would die immediately, he received 
 baptism, being besprinkled with water on the bed where- 
 on he lay, if that can be termed baptism." — Ecclcs. Hist., 
 13. VI, chap. 43. 
 
 Dr. Wall : " In case of sickness, weakness, haste, 
 
96 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 want of quantity of water, or such like extraordinary 
 occasions, baptism by affusion of water on the face, was 
 by the ancients counted sufficient baptism. I shall, out 
 of many proofs of it, produce two or three of the most 
 ancient : Anno Dom. two hundred and fifty-one, Nova- 
 tian was, by one party of the clergy and people of Rome, 
 chosen bishop of that church, in a schismatical way, and 
 in opposition to Cornelius, who had been before chosen 
 by the major part, and was already ordained. Cornelius 
 does, in a letter to Fabius, Bishop of Antioch, vindicate 
 his right : and shows that Novatian came not canonically 
 to his orders of priesthood, much less was he capable of 
 being chosen bishop ; for that all the clergy and a great 
 many of the laity, were against his being ordained pres- 
 byter, because it was not lawful (they said) for any one 
 that had been baptized (perikuthenta) in his bed in time 
 of sickness, as he had been, to be admitted to any office 
 of the clergy." " France seems to have been the first 
 country in the world, where baptism by affusion was 
 used ordinarily to persons in health, and in the public 
 way of administering it. It being allowed to weak 
 children (in the reign of Queen Elizabeth) to be bap- 
 tized by aspersion, many fond ladies and gentlewomen 
 first, and then by degrees the common people, would ob- 
 tain the favor of the priest to have their children pass 
 for weak children, too tender to endure dipping in the 
 water. Especially, as Mr. Walker observes, if some in- 
 stances really were, or were but fancied or framed, of 
 some child's taking hurt by it. Calvin had not only 
 given his dictate in his institution, that the difference is 
 
MR. PF.BOBAPTIST. 97 
 
 of no moment, whether he that is baptized be dipt all 
 over, and if so, whether thrice or once ; or whether he be 
 only wetted by the water- poured on him ; but he had 
 drawn up for the use of his church at Geneva, and after- 
 wards published to the world, a form of administering 
 the sacrament ; where, when he comes to order the act of 
 baptizing, he words it thus : l . then the minister of bap- 
 tism pours water on the infant, saying I baptize thee,' 
 and so on. There had been some synods in some dio- 
 cesses of France, that had spoken of affusion without 
 mentioning immersion at all, that being the common 
 practice ; but for an Office or Liturgy of any church, 
 this is, I believe, the first in the world that prescribes 
 aspersion absolutely. And for sprinkling properly call- 
 ed, it seems it was, at sixteen hundred and forty-five, 
 just then beginning, and used by very few. It must have 
 began in the disorderly times after forty-one. But then 
 came the Directory, and says : ' baptism is to be admin- 
 istered, not in private places, or privately ; but in the 
 place of public worship, and in the face of the congre- 
 gation,' and so on. And not in the place where fonts, 
 in the time of Popery, were unfitly and superciliously 
 placed. So they reformed the font into a basin. This 
 learned Assembly could not remember, that fonts to bap- 
 tize in, had been always used by the primitive Chris- 
 tians, long before the beginning of Popery, and ever 
 since churches were built : but that sprinkling, for the 
 common use of baptizing, was really introduced (in 
 France first, and then in other Popish countries) in times 
 of Popery. And that accordingly, all those countries 
 
f»S THE TRIAL OF' 
 
 in which the usurped power of the Pope is, or has foi^ 
 merly been owned, have left off dipping' of children in 
 the font : but that all other countries in the world, which 
 had never regarded his authority, do still use it; and 
 that basins, except in cases of necessity, were never used 
 by Papists, or any other Christians whatsoever, till by 
 themselves. What has been said of this custom of pour- 
 ing or sprinkling water in the ordinary use of baptism, 
 is to be understood only in reference to these western 
 parts of Europe : for it is used ordinarily no where else." 
 History of Inf. Bap., part II, chap. IX. 
 
 "The custom of sprinkling children, instead of dip- 
 ping them in the font, which at first was allowed in case 
 of the weakness or sickness of the infant, has so far pre- 
 vailed that immersion is at length quite excluded." — 
 Encyclo. Brit., Article, Baptism. 
 
 Dv. Towerson : " The first mention we find of asper- 
 sion in the baptism of the elder sort, was in the case of 
 the clinici, or men who received baptism upon their sick 
 beds; and that baptism is represented by St. Cyprian as 
 legitimate, upon account of the necessity that compelled 
 it, and the presumption there was of God's gracious ac- 
 ceptation thereof because of it. By which means the 
 lawfulness of any other baptism than by an immersion, 
 will be found to lie in the necessity there may sometimes 
 be of another manner of administration." — Sacra, of 
 Bap., part III, p. 59, 60. 
 
 Storr and Flatt : "Even in the third century, the bap- 
 tism of the sick, who were merely sprinkled with water, 
 was entively neglected by some, and by others wa* 
 
MU. PEDORAPTlST. 99 
 
 thought inferior to the baptism of those who were in. 
 health, and who received baptism not merely by aspersion, 
 but who actually bathed themselves in water. This is 
 evident from Cyprian (Epist. 69, ed. Bremae, p. 185, 
 ect.) and Eusebius (Hist. Ecclles., L. VI, chap. 43,) where 
 We find the following extract from the letter of the Ro- 
 rnah Bishop Cornelius: 'Novatus received baptism on a 
 sick bed, by aspersion, (perikutheis,) if it can be said 
 that such a person received baptism.' No person who 
 had, during sickness, been baptized by aspersion, was 
 admitted into the clerical office." — Theology, p. 5, 13-4. 
 
 Winer in his Lectures on Archaeology, in manuscript, 
 says : " Affusion was at first applied only to the sick, but 
 Was gradually introduced for others after the seventh- 
 century, and in the thirteenth became the prevailing 
 practice in. the west. But the Eastern church has re* 
 tained immersion alone as valid." — Hinton, p. 202. 
 
 Neander, vol. I, p. 361, remarks : " Only with the sick 
 was there an exception, in regard to immersion." 
 
 Stroth's Eusebius, vol. I, p. 506 : " Baptism was ad- 
 ministered to those on beds of sickness by sprinkling and 
 pouring j in other cases, it was at that time by immer» 
 sion." 
 
 Geiseler's Ch. Hist., Ger. Ed., vol. II, p. 274: "For 
 the sake of the sick, the rite of sprinkling was intro- 
 duced.'''' 
 
 Bp Taylor : " It was a formal and solemn question, 
 made by Magnus to Cyprian, ' whether they are to be 
 esteemed right Christians, who were only sprinkled with, 
 water, and not washed or dipped V He (Cyprian) an- 
 
100 THE THIAL OF 
 
 swers, ' that such baptism was good, when it was done in 
 the case of necessity ; God pardoning, and necessity 
 compelling.' " — Buctor Bubitantium. 
 
 Edinburg Ency. — " The immersion of the whole body 
 was omitted only in the case of the sick, who could not 
 leave their beds. In this case sprinkling was substi- 
 tuted, which was called clinici baptism. The first law 
 for sprinkling was obtained in the following manner: 
 Pope Stephen II, being driven from Rome by Adolphus, 
 king of the Lombards in 753, fled to Pepin, who, a short 
 time before, had usurped the crown of France. Whilst 
 he remained there, the monks of Cressy, in Brittany, 
 consulted him whether in case of necessity, baptism 
 poured on the head of the infant, would be lawful. 
 Stephen replied that it would. But though the truth of 
 the fact be allowed — which, however, some Catholics 
 deny — yet pouring, or sprinkling, was admitted only in 
 cases of necessity. It was not till the year 1311, that 
 the legislature, in Council held at Ravenna, declared 
 immersion or sprinkling to be indifferent. In Scotland, 
 however, sprinkling was never practised in ordinary 
 cases, till after the Reformation (about the middle of the 
 sixteenth century.) From Scotland, it made its way 
 into England, in the reign of Elizabeth, but was not 
 authorized in the established church." — Jirt. Baptism. 
 
 4. This change in the action of Baptism was opposed, even 
 for the sick. 
 
 See quotation from Dr. Wall, page 96. 
 
 Valesius observes : "This word, perihutheis, Rnfinus 
 
MR. PEDOBAPTIST. 101 
 
 very well renders perfusus, besprinkled. For people 
 which were sick and baptized in their beds, could not 
 be dipped in water by the priest, but were sprinkled 
 with water by him. This baptism was thought imper- 
 fect, and not solemn for several reasons. Also they who 
 were thus baptized, were called ever afterwards, clinici ; 
 and, by the twelfth canon of the Council of Neocesarea, 
 these clinici were prohibited priesthood." — Eccles. Hist. 
 B. VI. 
 
 F. Brenne, (Roman Catholic) : — " These latter methods 
 of baptism (by sprinkling in cases of necessity) were 
 called in question, and even prohibited." — Stuart on 
 Bap., p. 152. 
 
 5. The Reason of the introduction of Sick-bed Baptism as 
 a substitute for Immersion. 
 
 Campbell : (i If we go back to the old creeds, the 
 Nicene and the Athanasian, they put us to shame. The 
 Nicene was a symbol, an exponent of the faith of the 
 whole world, at the beginning of the fourth century. It 
 says: 'We believe in one baptism for the remission of 
 sins.' The Athanasian, says : ' We confess one baptism 
 for the remission of sins.' " — Debate, p. 472. 
 
 Cyprian's answer to Magnus: " You ask me, my dear 
 son, what I think respecting those who have become 
 subjects of divine grace, in a state of languor and sick- 
 ness ; viz : whether they are to be regarded as lawful 
 Christians, when they have not been bathed with saving 
 water, (immersed by baptism,) but pcrfusi, bedewed, af- 
 fused. So far as my humble opinion goes, I think the 
 
102 TI1E TRIAL Oi' 
 
 divine benefits (of the ordinance) are in no degree di- 
 minished or cut short." — Stuart, p. 179. 
 
 Origen : "They are rightly baptized who are washed 
 unto salvation. He that is baptized unto salvation, re- 
 ceives the water and the Holy Spirit." — Homily on Ezek. 
 16 : 4., and on Rom. 6. 
 
 Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa: " That the regeneration 
 wrought in baptism ought not to be attributed to the 
 water, but to a divine victue ; that by dipping the person 
 under water three times, the death and resurrection of 
 Jesus Christ is represented ; that without baptism no 
 man can be washed from sin." — Bap. Hist., p. 44. 
 
 The Council of Mela in Numidia, in Africa, enjoined 
 Christians to baptize their infants for forgiveness of sin." 
 Rob. Bap., p. 216. 
 
 Let us, said the Counsel for the Prosecution, close 
 with the language of Dr. Mosheim : — " It was the cus- 
 tom of many in that century, (fourth) to put off their 
 baptism till the last hour ; that thus immediately after 
 receiving by this rite the remission of their sins, they 
 might ascend pure and spotless to the mansions of life 
 and immortality." — Church History. 
 
 OPENING ADDRESS OF THE PRISONER'S COUNSEL. 
 
 By the permission of the Court, gentlemen of the jury, 
 the time has arrived in the progress of this case, when 
 it becomes my duty, to state to you the ground of our 
 defence for the Prisoner's conduct, on which we shall 
 rely with confidence for his triumphant acquittal of the 
 charge found in the indictment against him. The 
 
MJi. 1-U.UOBAl'TlST. 10.3 
 
 strength of the position which we shall establish by 
 evidence, gives us strong hope of the final issue of this 
 controversy. 
 
 The charge in the indictment against the Prisoner, is 
 of the most serious character to him and his friends; 
 for it involves in it their loyalty to the government, and 
 places the life of the Prisoner in jeopardy. We had, 
 with great confidence, expected from the grand jury, 
 .such a disposition of the accusation against him, as 
 would have restored my client to that position which he 
 occupied before the public, w r ith honor to himself and 
 liis friends, before these proceedings were commenced 
 against him. 
 
 The jury by its conclusion, brought about by some 
 influence made to bear upon its action, has lamentably 
 disappointed our hopeful expectation, and that of a large 
 number of our friends. It is not our right to impeach 
 the motives by which its members were influenced in 
 their conduct; but we have a right to say, that in a case 
 no well understood by most of our citizens, it would 
 have been prudent for the jury to adopt the popular 
 judgment of the Prisoner's innocence iii its action. A 
 judgment of this character, would have been a lasting 
 honor to their patriotism. They have chosen to adopt 
 the alternative of returning Mr. Pedobaptist to the Court 
 for trial. We must submit and abide the result. 
 
 The judgment of the grand jury, as embodied in their 
 presentment to the Court, should not exercise any influ- 
 ence over your judgment of this case, when you come 
 to render a verdict. You arc under the obligation of 
 
304 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 an oath, to determine this controversy only by the lavr 
 and the evidence before you, and not by any outside 
 influence that may be brought to bear upon your judg- 
 ment. The position you all occupy in the Common- 
 wealth, is to us all, a sure guarantee that you will ad- 
 minister impartial justice to the parties. This is all we 
 shall invoice at your hands, and its exercise will surely 
 acquit the Prisoner. We have no doubt, your honor, 
 character and relation to this country, will lead you to 
 settle this controversy only by law and evidence. We 
 have abiding confidence in the patriotism of our people, 
 that they will fully appreciate a settlement of this con- 
 troversy by law and evidence, approved by this Court. 
 
 You must not forget, for a single moment, during the 
 whole consideration of this case, the acknowledged loy- 
 alty of Mr. Pejdobaptist and his friends, to the honor 
 and perpetuity of this government. Can they not always 
 point with pride to the many noble and generous sacri- 
 fices they have made for this country, to subserve its 
 weal in the eyes of other nationalities, as an undenia- 
 ble proof of their fidelity 1 The annals of history un- 
 fold many bright pages, that record their daring deeds 
 for its defence, in the hour of peril and danger. Are 
 nil the^e memorials of sterling worth and fidelity, to be 
 blotted out from your memory l We answer never — no 
 never. This patriotic character, so full of joyful inter- 
 est to our people, is claimed by the Prisoner and his 
 friends ; and it is cheerfully acknowledged by the masses 
 of our people. We had thought this character would 
 have been to them a sure palladium in every emergency. 
 
ji!I» I'EpOBAl'TfSf. 103 
 
 We have been more than sadly disappointed in our ex- 
 pectations. 
 
 The origin of this trial, and its history up to this time, 
 prove clearly to our minds, that excited feelings and pre- 
 judice overleap the sacred protection which character 
 ought to give to all men. In this light, 1 regard this 
 case in its origin and progress, and also the end its seeks 
 to consummate. 1 may be mistaken j but the facts so far 
 developed place a mistake of judgment almost beyond a 
 possibility. 
 
 Gentlemen of the jury — after you shall have give an 
 impartial hearing to all the facts that will be offered to 
 you, we believe you will come to the same conclusion 
 which we have expressed in relation to the origin and 
 progress of this trial, and that you will so express your- 
 selves in the judgment you shall offer to the Court and 
 public. A verdict of this character will blot out forever 
 the claims of Mr. Baptist and friends, of being the only 
 persons loyal to our country's Constitution. For this is 
 their high profession, revealed in the charge alleged 
 against Mr. Pedoeaptist. 
 
 We have always labored as zealously as others can do, 
 to maintain inviolate the spirit of the Constitution. We 
 have also been ready at any moment, when called upon, 
 to unite with all good citizens to arrest the sacrilegious 
 hand that would destroy the sacred institution of bap- 
 tism, from the Magna Charta of Christianity. Yet, in 
 view of this fact, they tell us we are guilty of one of the 
 highest crimes known to our laws — the practical abroga- 
 tion of Christian Baptism, as taught in the Constitution I 
 
10G THE TRIAL OF 
 
 The impeachment of our conduct with this crime, we 
 meet with indignant scorn, and shall hold the prosecu- 
 tor, in this case, responsible for all that law will permit 
 us to claim et his hands. 
 
 The general sympathy of our people for the Prisoner, 
 is witnessed by the multitude of our citizens who have 
 come to this place from all parts of the Commonwealth, 
 to attend the trial, and, many of them 3 to give aid to the 
 Prisoner. This general sympathy ought to be to us all, 
 significant of the popular pulsation. If the question 
 now before us for a legal decision, was left to the vox 
 pojpuli for determination, we are not left to conjecture the 
 judgment that would be rendered. The word "Acquit- 
 tal" would be proclaimed in a voice of triumph that 
 would make these walls tremble by the power of its 
 notes, and drown all opposition. 
 
 The reason of this popular sentiment, is to be found 
 in the conviction of the Prisoner's entire innocence of 
 the crime of high treason against the government. For 
 many of the multitude present, have been taught that his 
 modes of baptism can be traced up to an early period in 
 the history of this government ) and the antiquity of 
 these modes is to them a pledge of their divine authority. 
 
 You must also remember this fact, a verdict of guilty 
 at your hands, will implicate the most venerated men of 
 this country, in ancient and modern times, with the 
 Prisoner's crime. This momentous fact, should make 
 you ponder long before you pronounce a judgment of this 
 kind. We cannot for a moment entertain the thought, 
 that your action will be of the character above contem- 
 
Mil. TEDOBAI'TiST. 107 
 
 plated, because the Prisoner has only walked in the light 
 of many illustrious examples revered in the annals of 
 our history. 
 
 You must also remember this fact, during the hearing 
 of the evidence and coming to a final conclusion of the 
 whole case, that the burden rests upon the prosecution, 
 to prove the fact alleged in the indictment against the 
 Prisoner. Our only duty is to show that the proof offer- 
 ed does not sustain the allegation. It is this duty that 
 compels us at present to make a defence of our client's 
 conduct, and in this way show the entire impossibility 
 of the Commonwealth, to make out the charge in the 
 indictment beyond a reasonable doubt. I am satisfied 
 we shall show the entire insufficiency of the testimony 
 in evidence by the prosecution, to prove what it is bound 
 to do according to the forms of law. 
 
 PRINCIPLES OF LAW. 
 
 We will now proceed to lay down a number of con- 
 siderations that are well founded, and which ought to 
 guide us in the investigation of this controversy. There 
 is nothing of such importance to a judicial investiga* 
 tion as the knowledge of the strength of evidence, and 
 the amount of influence it should exercise over our judg» 
 ment. To a careful consideration of these facts, we 
 now call your attention. 
 
 1. That baptizo, in the law is a Greek word, and not 
 an English word. This fact is fully testified to by Mr. 
 Classic, one of the principal witnesses of the prosecu- 
 tion* 
 
108 THE TRIAL Or 
 
 2. We find that baptizo was used by the Greeks, only 
 in reference to common occurrences in life, and not to 
 their religious washings. This is clearly in evidence 
 from all the examples given in the testimony of Mr. 
 Classic. This limitation of its use is significant. Its 
 sacred acceptation cannot be legitimately ascertained by 
 its use among the Greeks, because they do not give it 
 such an appropriation. 
 
 3. This word is used by the Jews to denote some of 
 their religious washings. This fact is placed beyond a 
 doubt, by the testimony of Mr. Translator. This fact 
 signifies that the Jews used baptizo in a sense adapted 
 to these washings, and not as adapted to common things 
 in life as used by the Greeks. 
 
 4. It is a common occurrence for words to depart from 
 their primary meaning, and assume, by use, a new signi- 
 fication. In support of this principle, we shall read the 
 following authorities. 
 
 Ernesti, as published with notes by Professor Stuart, 
 p. 14. " The question as to the idiom of the New Testa- 
 ment, turns on the use of such words and phrases as 
 designate those objects that the Greeks are accustomed 
 to designate ; and the question here must be whether 
 such words in the New Testament are used in the same 
 sense which the Greeks attached to them ; and whether 
 phrases not only have the same syntax as that of the 
 classic Greek, but also the same sense as in the Greek 
 authors: for this is essential to the purity of language," 
 &c. 
 
 " The question being thus stated and defined, we deny, 
 
MR. rEDOBAPTlST. 109 
 
 without hesitation, that the diction of the New Testa- 
 ment is pure Greek, and. contend that it is modelled after 
 the Hebrew, not only in single words, phrases and fig- 
 ures of speech; but in the general texture of the lan- 
 guage. This can be established by clear examples, more 
 numerous than those who agree with us in opinion have 
 supposed." 
 
 Dr. George Campbell, says : " Those words in particu- 
 lar, which have been in most familiar use with the old 
 interpreters, and have been current in the explanations 
 given in the Hellenistical synagogues and schools, have 
 with their naturalization among the Jews, acquired in 
 the Jewish use, if I may be allowed the expression, ' an 
 infusion of the national spirit.' Classical use, both in 
 the Greek and in the Latin, is not only in this study, 
 sometimes unavailable, but may mislead. The sacred 
 use and the classical are often very different." 
 
 5. That the acceptation of baptizo by Christ and his 
 apostles, is the only tribunal to us, that can determine 
 what was intended to be done in the constitutional law 
 of baptism. No one dares to doubt their authority in 
 this country, because it is made the supreme tribunal in 
 this land, to infallibly determine all constitutional ques- 
 tions that may arise among our citizens. This principle 
 of law is fully confirmed by the counsel's opening ad- 
 dress. On this ground, 1 would remark, the decisive bat- 
 tle must be fought on this occasion. 
 
 6. The manner of doing anything commanded, is a 
 matter of indifference, unless the manner of perform- 
 ance is commanded. This is a self evident principle, 
 
1 10 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 because the Lawgiver only seeks the thing commanded 
 to be done — this all the law contemplates in its termi- 
 nology. To this principle of action, the counsel can 
 file no reasonable objection. He will not become so 
 exceedingly insane to assume the manner of baptizing 
 is commanded. If not, then all are free to use what 
 manner of baptizing is most suitable and convenient. 
 We shall on this point content ourselves until it is con- 
 tested by the counsel. 
 
 If the Court and jury will give to these incontestable 
 considerations that weight they imperatively demand, 
 Ave shall not entertain any fears as to the result that will 
 follow. That conclusion will bring our labors to an 
 honorable close, which our consciences and our country 
 will approve. 
 
 The proposition in way of defence of the Prisoner's 
 conduct, which we shall prove, is the following : That 
 baptizo at the time of its incorporation into the Constitu- 
 tion, signified a thing to be done, and not the manner of 
 doing it. We shall prove this proposition by the fol- 
 lowing authorities : 
 
 1. By the testimony of the Lexicons. They will prove 
 a variety of meanings to baptizo, and necessarily over- 
 turn the foundation on which rests the argument of the 
 prosecution. 
 
 2. By the testimony of Mr. Translator. He will teach 
 you plainly that he has regarded baptizo to be indefinite 
 in character, and so translated it. 
 
 3. By men of undoubted learning in this Common- 
 wealth, Their testimony will fully justify the Prisoner's 
 
mi. PEDOBAP'ilS'I. lit 
 
 conduct, and place its honorable character beyond a 
 question. 
 
 4. By the baptism of the Holy Ghost. This being 
 the real baptism of which water baptism is only an em- 
 blem — its action being by pouring the other must be so 
 likewise. 
 
 5. By the history of the church in its administration 
 of baptism. Here we will find a variety of modes of 
 baptism practised. This will account for the church 
 understanding the law of baptism to be a thing to be 
 done — the manner of execution left to the discretion of 
 all to decide. 
 
 From all these classes of witnesses, we expect to prove 
 to your satisfaction, that baptizo had not, at the time of 
 its adoption by the Lawgiver in the ordinance of baptism, 
 a determinate or single signification, but was used with 
 a variety of acceptations to designate a common object, 
 which could be performed by a variety of modes. This 
 fact suggests the reason of its adoption (taking our view 
 of this subject) by the institutor of baptism, because 
 only a word of this generic character would be adapted 
 to various climates and countries, to denote the thing to 
 be done to all the subjects of baptism. 
 
 One of the leading objects of governmental institu- 
 tions is, to nourish and foster a spirit of loyalty among 
 all its subjects. It does not so much seek after a uniform- 
 ity of custom, as a uniformity of spirit among its loyal 
 subjects. We have this principle practically exemplified 
 in the conduct of the parties in controversy, except the 
 prescriptive policy of Mr. Baptist, 
 
I 12 TIJfi TRIAL OF 
 
 We hope before we are done with this case, to make 
 the view we have taken of it, so clear to you all, that 
 you will cordially agree with us in our conclusion of the 
 whole subject. And after the whole testimony is in evi- 
 dence, with our argument therefrom, we will not be 
 placed in a position, we think, that will lead us to claim 
 the benefit of a reasonable doubt. We wish to secure 
 a verdict that will triumphantly justify the Prisoner. — 
 We now invoke your attention to the evidence we shall 
 offer. 
 
 MR. LEXICON. 
 
 Mr. Lexicon was again called to the witness stand. 
 
 Q. C. Pri. — Will you please to give us the testimony 
 of Messrs. Groves, Wahl, Greenfield and Parkhurst, on 
 the meaning of baptizo ? 
 
 A. — Cheerfully. 
 
 Groves: "To dip, immerse, immerge, plunge; to 
 wash, cleanse, purify — Baptizomai, to wash one's self, 
 bathe," &c. 
 
 Wahl defines it, first : " To wash, perform ablution, 
 cleanse ; secondly, to immerse," &c. 
 
 Greenfield : " To immerse, immerge, submerge, sink > 
 and in the New Testament, to wash, perform ablution, 
 cleanse ; to immerse." 
 
 Parkhurst: "To immerse in. or with water in token 
 of purification." 
 
 Q. — Have we now a fair representation of baptize, 
 from your family 1 
 
 A. — Yes sir. 
 
JIK. I'EDOBAPTIST. 113 
 
 Q. C. Pro. — Have you not confounded the effects of 
 baptizo, in your definition of this word 5 and can the 
 effects of an action belong to its definition'! 
 
 A. — The use of the word in the language will deter- 
 mine whether we are right or not. 
 
 Q. — Have you sustained these definitions by authori- 
 ties from the language 1 
 
 A. — You can clearly see, our family with one voice 
 declare that immerse is the primary meaning of baptizo. 
 It is true, that some members of the family, place the 
 effects of dipping in connection with this primary mean- 
 ing, and that for this they have given no reliable authori- 
 ties, from its use in the language. 
 
 MR. TRANSLATOR. 
 
 Mr. Translator was next called to the witness stand. 
 
 Q. C. Pri. — Will you please to read those passages in 
 the Old and New Testaments, where wash is given as sy- 
 nonymous to baptizo ? 
 
 A. — I will do so very willingly. 
 
 Judith, in c. 12: 7: "Then Holofernes commanded 
 his guard that they should not slay her : thus she abode 
 in the camp three days, and went out in the night into 
 the valley of Bethulia, and washed (ebaptizeto) herself in 
 a fountain of water by the camp." 
 
 Sirack, c. 31 : 25 : " If any one who is washed (bapti- 
 zomenos) from a dead body toucheth it again, what is he 
 profited by his bath." 
 
 Mark 7 : i> : " And when they (Pharisees) come from 
 the market, except they wash, (baptisontai) they eat not, 
 
1 14 THE TitlAL OF 
 
 And many other things there be, which they have re- 
 ceived to hold, as the washing (baptismous) of cups, and 
 pots, and brazen vessels, and of tables." Also in the 8th 
 verse, " the washing (baptismous) of pots and cups." 
 
 Lake 11: 38: "And when the Pharisee saw it, he 
 marveled that he had not first washed (cbaptisthee) be- 
 fore dinner." 
 
 Heb. 9 : 10: " Only in meats, and drinks, and divers 
 washings (baptismous.)" 
 
 Q. C. Pro. — Why have you not given some authority 
 for rendering baptizo by wash in these places 1 
 
 A. — We were practically opposed to Mr. Baptist. 
 
 The Prisoner's Counsel said, as the other side has 
 paraded before you a large number of Pkdobaptists as 
 witnesses, with an air of triumph, we shall meet them 
 with men of equal learning and authority. Their testi- 
 mony you will find fully sustains the conduct of the Pri- 
 soner. We offer them to prove that immersion is not 
 the exclusive mode of baptism. 
 
 Dr. Owen was called and qualified. 
 
 Q. C. Pri. — What is your understanding of baptizo, in 
 the law of baptism 1 
 
 A. — "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 Scrip- 
 tures, JVJark 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. ' 1 baptize you with wa- 
 ter, but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost ;' which 
 is the accomplishment of that promise, ' that the Holy 
 
ME. PED0BAPT1ST. 115 
 
 Ghost shall be poured on them.'" Again — "No one 
 place can be given in the Scriptures, wherein baptizo 
 doth necessarily signify either to dip or plunge." 
 Again — " In this sense, as it expresseth baptism, it de- 
 notes to wash only, and not to dip at all : for so it is 
 expounded, Tit. 3: 5," &c. Again— " Wherefore in 
 this sense, a&it is applied unto the ordinance, the sense 
 of dipping is ; utterly excluded."-^— Owen's Works, vol. 21. 
 
 Dr. John Dick, Professor of-TheoIogy to the United 
 Session Chureh, says: "We here see that nothing cer- 
 tain as to mode can be learned from the original term 
 baptizo, because it has different meanings, signifying, 
 sometimes to- immerse, and sometimesto wash." — Dick's 
 Divinity. - . ; . .. 
 
 Dr. Thomas- Scott, says: "The word was adopted 
 from the Greek authors, and a sense put, upon it by the 
 inspired 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, which stood 
 related to it. Some indeed contend zealously, that bap- 
 tism always signifies immersion ; but the use of the 
 words baptize and baptism in the New Testament, can- 
 not accord with this exclusive interpretation." 
 
 Dr. Dwight says : "T have examined almost one hun- 
 dred instances, in which the word baptizo and its deriva- 
 tives are used in the New Testament, and four in the 
 Septuagint ; and these, so far as 1 have observed, being 
 all the instances contained in both. By this examina- 
 tion, it is to my apprehension evident, that the following 
 things are true : That the primary meaning of these 
 
116 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 terms is cleansing ; the effect, not the mode of washing. 
 That the mode is usually referred to incidentally, where- 
 ever the words are mentioned, and this always the case, 
 wherever the ordinance of baptism is mentioned, and a 
 reference made at the same time, to the mode of admin- 
 istration. That these words, although often capable of 
 denoting any mode of washing, whether by affusion, 
 sprinkling or immersion, (since^cleansing was familiarly 
 accomplished by the Jews in all these ways,) yel in many 
 instances, cannot without obvious impropriety, be made 
 to signify immersion; and in others cannot signify it at 
 all."— Bwight's Theology, vol. 4, p. B 338. 
 
 Dr. Adam Clarke says: "In what form baptism was 
 originally administered, has been deemed a subject 
 worthy of serious dispute. Were the people dipped or 
 sprinkled \ for it is certain baplo and baptizo mean both." 
 Comment on Matt. 3 : 6. 
 
 Mr. Kichard Watson (a theological writer of note in 
 the Methodist Church) says: "The verb with its deri- 
 vatives, signifies to dip the hand in the dish, Matt. 36 : 
 23; to stain a vesture with blood, Rev. 19: 13; to wet 
 the body with dew, Dan. 4: 33; to paint or smear the 
 face with colors ; to stain the hand by pressing a sub- 
 stance ; to be overwhelmed in the waters as a sunken 
 ship; to be drowned by falling into water; to sink in 
 the neuter sense ; to immerse totally; to plunge up to 
 the neck; to be immersed up to the middle; to be 
 drunken with wine; to be dyed, tinged and imbued ; to 
 wash by effusion of water ; to pour water upon the hands, 
 
MR. PED0EA?TI3T. 117 
 
 or any other*part of the body ; to sprinkle." — Institutes, 
 p. 442. 
 
 Q. C. Pro. — Mr. Watson, have you in your Institutes, 
 given the authorities on which you ground such a variety 
 of meaning % 
 
 A. — I give authority for the Scriptural acceptation of 
 bapto, in what I have said. As to baptizo, I have not 
 named the authorities. 
 
 The Counsel said before any others are called, he would 
 ask Dr. Clark a question. 
 
 Q. C. Pro. — Dr. Clark, as you have given us your un- 
 derstanding of baptism on Matt. 3 : 6, will you please to 
 give us your understanding of baptism as found in 1 
 Cor. 15: 291 
 
 A. — " The baptism which they received, they consid- 
 ered an enblem of the natural death and resurrection. 
 This doctrine St. Paul most pointedly preached, Rom. 6 : 
 3, 4, 5. The sum of the Apostle's meaning appears to 
 be this : If there be no resurrection of the dead, those 
 who, in becoming Christians, expose themselves to all 
 manner of privations, crosses, severe sufferings, and a 
 violent death, can have no compensation, nor any motive 
 sufficient to induce them to expose themselves to such 
 miseries. But as they receive baptism, as an emblem of 
 death, in voluntarily going under the water ; so they re- 
 ceive it as an emblem of the resurrection unto eternal 
 life, in coming up out of the water ; thus they are bap- 
 tized for the dead, in perfect faith of the resurrection."- — 
 Com. 1 Cor. 15: 29. 
 
 Counsel for the Prisoner next called Dr. Schmucker. 
 
118 • THE T1UAL OF 
 
 S. S. Schmucker, D. D., Professor at Gettysburg, Pa., 
 says : " But the question is, whether immersion is en- 
 joined in the Scripture, and consequently is one essen- 
 tial part of baptism, so that without it no baptism is 
 valid, though it contain every other requisite. On this 
 subject the Lutheran church has always agreed with the 
 great majority of Christian denominations, in maintain- 
 ing the negative, and in regarding the quantity of water 
 employed in baptism, as well as the mode of exhibiting 
 it, not essential to the validity of the ordinance." — 
 Popular Theology, p. 263. 
 
 Dr. Bogue, in his Theological Lectures, says, p. 312,: 
 " Baptism, according to its original etymology, signifies 
 to tinge, to stain. To wash, or to wet in order thereto. 
 Used with water, oil, blood ; Lev. 8 : 6, 12, 14. It is 
 used in the Scriptures as a generic word or term to de- 
 note dedication and purification. It appears from the 
 use of the word, that baptism consists in applying water 
 to the body for a religious purpose, but it does not par- 
 ticularly express how, or in what quantity. It is not 
 certainly known, by any express declarations, what mode 
 of baptism, whether by washing, plunging, or affusion 
 was used in the New Testament. The word baptism is 
 used in the New Testament, not only for applying a 
 thing to water by immersion, but also for applying water 
 to a thing by affusion or washing." — Mark 7:4; Luke 
 11: 38." 
 
 Dr. George Hill, principal of St. Mary's College, St. 
 Andrews, says : "Both sprinkling and immersion are 
 implied in the word baptizo ; both were used in the reli- 
 
MP.. PEDOBAPTIsff. 1 19 
 
 gious ceremonies of the Jews, and both may be con- 
 sidered as significant of the purpose of baptism/' — 
 HilPs Divinity, p. 659. 
 
 C. Pro. — How was baptism performed at the time of 
 its introduction 1 
 
 A — "A rite borrowed from the Jewish custom of 
 plunging into water the proselytes from heathenism to 
 the law of Moses, but consecrated by the words of Jesus, 
 and the universal practice of his disciples, as the mode of 
 admitting members into the Christian society." — Ibid 7 
 p. 189. 
 
 Q. — Mr. Hill, will you inform us what was the an- 
 cient action of baptism 1 
 
 A. — "The Apostle Paul, Rom. 6: 4, 5, 6, illustrates 
 this connection by an allusion drawn from the ancient 
 method of administering baptism. The immersion in 
 Water of the bodies of those who were baptized, is an 
 emblem of that death unto sin, by which the conversion 
 of Christians is generally expressed : the rising out of the 
 water, the breathing the air again after having been for 
 some time in another element, is an emblem of that new 
 life, which Christians by their profession are bound, and 
 by the power of their religion are enabled to lead. The 
 time during which they remained under the water is a 
 kind of temporary death, after the image of the death of 
 Christ, during which they deposited under the stream 
 the sins of which the old man was composed." — Ibid, 
 p. 660. 
 
 Again — " There is reason to believe that immersion 
 was more commonly practised in the beginning." — Ibid, 
 
120 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 Q. — Do you not teach, that the church has a liberty 
 on the action of baptism % 
 
 A. — u The greater part of Christians have found them- 
 selves at liberty, in a matter very far from being essen- 
 tial, to adopt that practice which is most convenient, 
 and most suited to the habits of colder climates." — Ibid, 
 p. 559. 
 
 The Counsel said he would suspend the argument he 
 intended to offer on the baptism by the Holy Ghost, until 
 his address to the Court and jury. He said he would 
 now proceed to call witnesses to prove the historical 
 view of this subject. 
 
 Origen was called and qualified. 
 
 Q. C. Pri. — Will you please to state how you described 
 the transaction at Mount CarmaH 
 
 A. — "How came you to think that Elias, when he should 
 come, would baptize, who did not, in Ahab's time, bap- 
 tize the wood upon the altar, which was to be washed 
 before it was burnt, by the Lord's appearing in fire % 
 But he ordered the priests to do that, not once only, but 
 says : Do it the second time ; and they did it the sec- 
 ond time ; and, do it the third time ; and they did it the 
 third time. He, therefore, that did not himself baptize 
 them, but assigned that work to others, how was he likely 
 to baptize, when he, according to Malachi's prophecy, 
 should come." — WalVs Hist, of Inf. Bap., vol. ii, p. 
 332. 
 
 Clemens Alexandrius, speaking of a backslider whom 
 John the Apostle was the means of reclaiming, says: 
 " He was baptized a second time with tears." 
 
MR. PEDOBAPTIST. 12 J 
 
 Athanasius reckons up eight several baptisms: "1. That 
 of the flood. 2. That of Moses in the sea. 3. The leg 1 
 baptisms of the Jews after uncleanncss. 4. That ci 
 John the Baptist. 5. That of Jesus. 6. That of tears. 
 7. That of martyrdom. And 8. Of eternal fire." 
 
 Gregory Nazianzen says : " I know of a fourth bap- 
 tism, that by martyrdom and blood ; and 1 know a fifth, 
 that of tears." Basil tells us of a martyr that was " bap- 
 tized into Christ with his own blood." — Pond on Bap., 
 p. 34. 
 
 Cyprian says in answer to a question propounded to 
 .him on baptism: " You inquire, also, dear son, what I 
 think of such as obtain the grace in time of their sick- 
 ness and infirmity, whether they are to be accounted 
 lawful Christians, because they are not washed all over 
 with the water o*f salvation, but have only some of it 
 poured on them. In which matter I would use so much 
 modesty and humility, as not to prescribe so positively, 
 but every one should have the freedom of his own 
 thoughts, and do as he thinks best. 1 do according to 
 the best of my mean capacity, judge thus : That the 
 divine favors are not maimed or weakened, so as that 
 any thing less than the whole of them is conveyed, 
 where the benefit of them is received with a full and 
 complete faith, both of the giver and receiver." — WalVs 
 Hist, of Inf. Bap., 5, ii, pp. 357, 358. 
 
 "And no man, need, therefore, think otherwise, be- 
 cause these sick people, when they receive the grace of 
 our Lord, have nothing bi.it an affusion or sprinkling, 
 when as the Holy Scripture, by the prophet Ezekiel, 
 
122 TtfF, TRIAL OF 
 
 says '. < Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and 
 ye shall be clean,' &c. " If any one think they obtain 
 no benefit, as baring only an affusion of the water of 
 salvation, do not let him mistake so far, as that the par* 
 ties, if they recover of their sickness, should be baptized 
 again."— Ibid, pp. 386-7. 
 
 Aurelius Prudentius, who wrote A. D., 390, speaking 
 of John's baptism, says : " I'erfundit Suvio — he poured 
 water on them in the river." 
 
 Walafried Strabo, abbot of the convent of St. Gall, 
 says: "It should be noted, that many have been bap- 
 tized, not only by immersion, but by affusion (non solum 
 mergendo, verum etiam de super fundendo) and they 
 may be baptized in this manner, if there be any neces- 
 sity for it ; as, in the passion of St. Lawrence, we read 
 of a certain person baptized by water brought in a pitcher 
 (urceo allato.") So Thomas Aquinas, in Summa Theoh 
 III, ques. 66, art. 7, says : " It is safer to baptize by the 
 mode of immersion, because this has common usage in 
 its favor." But these words show that a different usage 
 was coming in, and that Aquinas did not look upon it 
 with any strong disapprobation. In the Statut. Synod. 
 Leodiens., anno 1287, c. 2, the mode of baptism is pre- 
 scribed, and it is there said, " That danger in baptizing 
 may be avoided ; let not the head of the child be im- 
 mersed in water, but let the priest pour water three times 
 upon the head of the child, with a basin, or some other 
 clean and decent vessel, still holding the child carefully 
 with his hand." The synod at Cambray says : "That 
 danger in baptizing may be avoided ; let not (the priest) 
 
MR. PEDOBAPTJST, 123 
 
 immerse the head of the child in the water, but, when 
 he baptizes, let him pour water thrice upon the top of his 
 head, with a basin or other clean and decent vessel."— 
 Stuart. Bap.,]). 171. 
 
 The Counsel for the Prisoner, at this stage of the pro- 
 ceeding, said, he would close his defence, not calling wit- 
 nesses, until the gentleman on the other side would give 
 a definite view of the two arguments which he had post- 
 poned till his closing address. It is justice to the Pri- 
 soner, said he, that makes me take this coarse. Unless 
 I have all the points on which he relies before I close, I 
 shall be unable to do my duty to the Prisoner. 
 
 The Court said the gentleman was correct in the posi- 
 tion he had just taken. It is the order of the Court, 
 that the Counsel for the prosecution proceed to give his 
 understanding of the two arguments, not yet presented, 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT BAPTISMS. 
 
 The Counsel for the Commonwealth said, that in obe- 
 dience to the order of the Court, he would now proceed to 
 unfold the arguments, the discussion of which he had 
 suspended until his closing address. The demand (he 
 said) of the Prisoner's Counsel, was reasonable, and 
 should be cheerfully met at this time. He said, he 
 wished to give the Prisoner every legal opportunity to 
 justify his conduct before the Court, Jury and Country. 
 The first point to be noticed is, the persons, places, and 
 circumstances, connected with the baptisms mentioned in 
 the New Testament, plainly refer to immersion as the 
 action performed. 
 
124 THK TRIAL OF 
 
 The baptism of John will claim our attention first ; be» 
 cause it is first in order of time, and so noted by the 
 Sacred Historians. The design of his ministry was to 
 prepare the people for the reception of the promised 
 Christ, when he should be introduced to the Jewish pub- 
 lic. The rite of baptism practised by him as a divine 
 institution, and as a preparatory measure to all that re- 
 ceived his testimony concerning the promised Messiah, 
 will now demand our attention. This will lead us to 
 note the following particulars, concerning his baptism of 
 the multitude : 
 
 1. The charade?' of the persons he baptized. — This is 
 clearly settled by Matthew and Mark, when they declare, 
 the persons he baptized to be those "confessing their sins.^ 
 Matt. 3:6. Mark 1:5. 
 
 2. The places where he baptized. — The Evangelist notes 
 in the first place, " in the river Jordan." — Mark 1 : 5. 
 Matt. 3 : 6. Secondly, " in Enon, near to Salim, be- 
 cause there was much water there." — John 3: 23. In 
 this language we have the divine reason for baptizing 
 at this place, " because there was much water there." 
 Thirdly, it is said he baptized " in the wilderness," and 
 " beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing." In the 
 wilderness, denotes that part of the river that passed 
 through it, and in the other passage we have the place 
 named where the baptizing was done. In all the places 
 named where he baptized, there is no indication that he 
 baptized in a house, or place, where there was no stream 
 of water. 
 
 3. The baptism of our Saviour by John. — We note the 
 
MR. VEDOBAPTIST. 125 
 
 following particulars connected with this baptism : 
 (1) "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto 
 John, to be baptized." (2) He demands baptism at his 
 hands, and John consented. (3) The place in which 
 John baptized Him — " in Jordan." (4) His coming up 
 out of the water after his baptism. 
 
 The preposition that gave Him a position in the water, 
 is en, and the one that brings Him out of it, after his 
 baptism, is apo. 1 am aware that it is said that apo sig- 
 nifies from and not out of. With this signification of it 
 here, it would of necessity designate the place in the 
 river where He was baptized, and this the starting point 
 from which He came ; for en places Him in the river, 
 and apo designates the point from whence He came after 
 the baptism. The facts in regard to these two preposi- 
 tions, in their relation to Christ's baptism, make out all 
 we demand for this baptism. 
 
 4. The baptism of the Eunuch. — The following things 
 are found in relation to this baptism: (1) The person 
 baptized was a believer in Christ. (2) The place of his 
 baptism, " a certain water." (3) The circumstances 
 connected with this baptism. (1) They came unto a 
 certain water. (2) His application to Philip for baptism. 
 
 (3) " And they went down both into the water." 
 
 (4) Philip baptized the Eunuch. (5) They came up out 
 of the water after the baptism. 
 
 The prepositions found in this case are epi, that 
 brought them to the water, eis took them into the water, 
 and ebaptisen designates what Philip did to the Eunuch, 
 and ck denotes their conduct after this action was per- 
 
126 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 formed — coming up out of the water. The prepositions 
 found in this case shadow forth immersion alone as the 
 baptism performed in this instance. Are they ever all 
 associated with the actions of sprinkle or pour'? We 
 answer, not in a solitary case found in the Scriptures. 
 
 In the history of these baptisms, we have many of the 
 circumstances minutely detailed, which may assist us in 
 ascertaining the action performed, by inquiring into the 
 essential circumstances each one of these actions im- 
 peratively demands. Immersion in water requires (1) the 
 subject to be in the water. (2) The application of the 
 subject to the element by the act of immersion. (3) 
 The coming out of the water after the action is performed. 
 These circumstances are always necessary to this action, 
 whenever it is done. 
 
 Let us now take pouring and sprinkling as the action 
 of baptism, and inquire what are the essential circum- 
 stances always demanded. (1) Water. (2) The ap- 
 plication of the element to the subject in the manner the 
 words indicate. We may distinguish these different ac- 
 tions expressed by immerse, pour and sprinkle, by the 
 following essential circumstances: (1) The place for the 
 performance of baptism — immerse as the action of bap- 
 tism requires its subjects to go in or into the water — 
 sprinkle and pour make no such requirement ; because 
 not essential to their performance. (2) Immerse re- 
 quires its subjects to be placed under the water — sprinkle 
 and pour make it essential to apply the element to the 
 subject and not the subject to the element. (3) Coming 
 up out of the water follows as essential to the act of ha- 
 
MB.. rEDOBAPTIST. 127 
 
 mersion in baptism — sprinkle and pour as the actions of 
 baptism make no such demand of their subjects. Let 
 these essential circumstances, connected with these ac- 
 tions, which claim to be baptism, be compared with the 
 cases we have examined, and see whether the essential 
 circumstances of immerse, or pour, or sprinkle are found. 
 This comparison will lead you at once to identify the 
 likeness between immerse and baptizo, in all that is es- 
 sential to their performance ; and will show that there 
 is no likeness between the essential circumstances con- 
 nected with the action of baptism, and the circumstances 
 connected with the actions of pour and sprinkle. This 
 single fact must exclude the claims of sprinkle and pour 
 to be the actions commanded in baptism. 
 
 The prepositions found in connection with the word 
 must be taken in their popular acceptation. The usual 
 significations of en and eis are in and into. To depart 
 from these usual significations, without a reason found 
 in the context, is warranted by no reliable authority.™ 
 We have only to consult the English translation of the 
 Scriptures, to find the popular signification of these pre- 
 positions to be that which we haye given. It is equally 
 true that ek, when it refers to a movable object, has for 
 its signification, out of. We have already notieed apo. 
 We expect to notice these prepositions again, when we 
 close our address to the Court and jury. 
 
 Let the Counsel for the defendant inform us, what 
 other prepositions can be used in their literal acceptation 
 in connection with immerse, but those that are named in 
 these baptisms. He never will undertake to show that 
 
128 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 these prepositions are not essential to immerse in Greet? 
 as well as in English. 
 
 To give additional strength (if that can be done) to 
 this argument, apply this test to the word baptize, as 
 found in these baptisms: substitute in its place immerse, 
 sprinkle, and pour, for they all claim to represent in 
 English what baplizo does in Greek. You will find in 
 substituting sprinkle or pour in place of baptizo, that it 
 will be a gross violation of propriety and of language ; 
 because the prepositions refuse the unnatural relation. 
 Lei immerse be substituted in place of baptizo, and you 
 will faid it always makes good sense; because the pre- 
 positions are at home in its companionship. Such a 
 trial ought to show the impropriety of offering any other 
 meaning to baptizo than to immerse. 
 
 DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 
 
 The Counsel proceeded to unfold the second argument 
 pof t poned, which is, Baptism in its Design, is a symbolical 
 i {•.presentation of the death, burial and resurrection of 
 Jesus Christ. This symbolical meaning of the institu- 
 tion is drawn from the Apostle's allusions to it in Rom. 6, 
 and Col. 2. Paul in these passages contemplates the 
 immersion of a believer in water, and the resurrection 
 out of it, as a commemorative institution of the burial 
 and resurrection of Christ. We shall note the following 
 pai iculars suggested by these passages of Scripture : 
 
 1. The doctrine of abounding grace taught in the 
 previous chapter, is met in the first verse of Romans- 
 
MR. rEDOBAPTIST. J 29 
 
 sixth, with a common objection to the doctrine of grace ; 
 " shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound 1" 
 
 2. The answer he gives to this objection: (1) By 
 showing it to be impossible to continue in sin, because 
 "we that are dead to sin (cannot) live any longer there- 
 in." It is certainly impossible to be alive and dead to 
 sin at the same time. This death unto sin can only be 
 produced in us, by what is called spiritual baptism. This 
 baptism, the cause of this death to sin, is clearly distin- 
 guished by this fact, from the baptism named in the 
 following verse, it buries or plants us in the likeness of 
 his death. It does not produce death unto sin, but de- 
 clares the facts in which this death to sin finds its origin 
 and power. It will not do, to confound the cause of 
 death and the declaratory act — they cannot be the same. 
 (2) In the third verse he shows how this death unto sin 
 was declared : "Know ye not that so many of us as 
 were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his 
 death." This is an appeal to their baptism, as a public 
 declaration of their death to sin by Christ's death. It is 
 far from teaching the doctrine, that this death to sin 
 was produced in this baptism ; but simply a declaration 
 of this fact in water baptism. (3) Paul's conclusion 
 as found in the fourth verse : " Therefore, we are bu- 
 ried with Christ by baptism into death ; that, like as 
 Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the 
 Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." 
 The Apostle clearly makes this burial and resurrection of 
 the believer by and in baptism, a symbolic representation 
 of Christ's death, burial and resurrection, Paul's expo- 
 
130 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 sition of this passage, makes water baptism a symbolic 
 representation of these facts. We find a confirmation 
 of this in the fifth verse : " For if we have been planted 
 together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also 
 in the likeness of his resurrection.". This planting and 
 being buried with Christ, were done in their baptism as 
 a likeness. Immersion alone, as the action of baptism y 
 can be a likeness and representation of the facts designed 
 to be illustrated in this institution. 
 
 That we have not mistaken the primitive design of 
 baptism, let us invite your attention to the testimony of 
 two classes of witnesses in proof of our position. 
 
 1. Christian Fathers. 
 
 Crysostom, Horn. 40, on 1 Cor. 1 : " To be baptized, 
 . and submerge, then to emerge, is a symbol of descent to 
 the grave, and of ascent from it." 
 
 Council of Toletan : " For immersion in the water is 
 like a descent to the grave ; and again emersion from the 
 water (ab aquis emersio) is a resurrection." * 
 
 Gregory Nyssen : " Coming into water, the kindred 
 element of earth, we hide ourselves in it, as the Saviour 
 did in the earth." 
 
 Damascenus Orthodox, Fides IV, 10 ; tc Baptism is a 
 type of the death of Christ : for by three immersions 
 baptism signifies," &c. 
 
 So the Apostolic Constitution, (probably written in 
 the fourth century,) Lib, III, c. 17: "Immersion de- 
 notes dying with him, (Christ,) emersion a resurrection 
 with him." 
 
MR. PEDOBAFTIST. 131 
 
 These Fathers' testimony is sufficient to show the un- 
 derstanding of the early churches, concerning the de- 
 sign of baptism. 
 
 2. Pedobaptist Witnesses. 
 
 Calvin : " Are you ignorant 1 The Apostle proves that 
 Christ destroys sin in his people from the effects of bap- 
 tism, by which we are initiated into the faith of the 
 Messiah. For we, without controversy, put on Christ in 
 baptism, and are baptized on this condition, that we may 
 be one with him. Paul thus assumes another principle, 
 that we may then truly grow into the body of Christ 
 when his death produces its own fruit in us who believe. 
 Nay, he teaches us that this fellowship of his death is 
 chiefly to be regarded in baptism, for washing alone is 
 not proposed in this initiatory ordinance, but mortifica- 
 tion, and the death of the old man : whence the efficacy 
 of Christ's death." 
 
 Luther : " That the minister dippeth a child into the 
 water, signifieth death ; that he again bringeth him out 
 of it, signifieth life. So Paul explains it, Eom. 6. Being 
 moved by this reason, I would have those that are to be 
 baptized, to be entirely immersed, as the word imports 
 and the mystery signifies."! 
 
 Bp. Hall : « Ye are, in baptism, buried together with 
 Christ, in respect of the mortification of your sins, re- 
 presented by lying under the water j and in the same 
 baptism, ye rise up with him in newness of life, repre- 
 sented by your rising up out of the water again." — Hard 
 Texts, on Col. 2, 
 
132 THE TRIAL Of 
 
 Locke : " We did own some kind of death by being 
 buried under the water, which, being buried with him, i. e. 
 in conformity to his burial, as a confession of our being 
 dead, was to signify, that as Christ was raised up from 
 the dead into a glorious life with his Father, even so we, 
 being raised from our typical death and burial in baptism, 
 should lead a new sort of life." 
 
 Wall : " As to the manner of baptism then generally 
 used, the texts produced by every one that speaks of these 
 matters, John 3 : 23 ; Mark 1:5; Acts 8 : 38, are un- 
 deniable proofs that the baptized person went ordinarily 
 into the water, and sometimes the Baptist too. We should 
 not know from these accounts, whether the whole body 
 of the baptized was put under water, head and all, were 
 it not for two later proofs which seem to me to put it out 
 of the question : one, that St. Paul does twice in an allu- 
 sive way of speaking, calls baptism a burial ; the other, 
 the customs of the Christians, in the near succeeding 
 times, which, being more largely and particularly de- 
 livered in books, is known to have been generally, or 
 ordinarily, a total immersion." 
 
 Archbishop Tillotson : " Anciently, those who were 
 baptized, were immersed and buried in the water, to 
 represent their death to sin ; and then did rise up out 
 of the water, to signify their entrance upon a new life. 
 And to these customs the Apostle alludes, Rom. 6 : 2-5." 
 
 Archbishop Seeker : " Burying, as it were, the person 
 baptized in the water, and raising him out again, with- 
 out question, was anciently the more usual method : on 
 
31K-. PEDOBAPTIST. 133 
 
 account of which St. Paul speaks of baptism as repre- 
 senting both the death, burial and resurrection of Christ." 
 
 Samuel Clark: "In primitive times, the manner of 
 baptizing was by immersion, or dipping the whole body 
 into the water. And this manner of doing it was a very 
 significant emblem of the dying and rising again, referred 
 to by Paul, in the above mentioned similitude." 
 
 Doddridge : " Buried with him in baptism. It seems 
 the part of candor to confess, that here is an allusion to 
 the manner of baptizing by immersion." 
 
 John Wesley : " Buried with him — alluding to the 
 ancient manner of baptizing by immerson." — Notes on 
 Rom. 6. 
 
 Rosenmuller, Koppe and Bloomfield, all hold the same 
 strong language on this subject. We will quote only the 
 last, as he includes the others. In his Critical Digest on 
 .Rom. 6 : 4, he says : " There is here plainly a reference 
 to the ancient mode of baptism by immersion ; and I 
 agree with Koppe and Rosenmuller, that there is reason 
 to regret it should have been abandoned in most Chris- 
 tian churches, especially as it has so evidently a reference 
 to the mystic sense of baptism." 
 
 The Counsel said, you have the testimonies of Drs. 
 Hill and Clark, on the design of baptism, in their ex- 
 amination, in chief, by the Counsel for the defendant. 
 We could add to the above witnesses a host of others, 
 of equal learning and authority among the friends of the 
 Prisoner. Let us close this branch of our subject with 
 one more witness. 
 
 Dr. Chalmers : " Jesus Christ by death underwent 
 
134.- THE TKJAL OF 
 
 this sort of baptism — even immersion under the surface 
 of the ground, whence He soon emerged again by His 
 resurrection. We by being baptized into His death, are 
 conceived to have made a similar translation. In the act 
 of descending under the water of baptism to have re- 
 signed an old life, and in the act of ascending to emerge 
 into a second or a new life — along the course of which 
 it is our part to maintain a strenuous avoidance of that 
 sin." — Chalmers's Led. on Rom. 6. 
 
 We shall now close this argument for the present, and 
 wait until the Counsel shall take his position on the de- 
 sign of baptism as taught by the Apostle in Rom. 6. 
 
 We now have our whole evidence before him, in proof 
 of the allegation in the indictment against the Prisoner. 
 We shall listen patiently and earnestly to his closing 
 address in defence of the defendant's conduct, and in 
 reply to our various classes of witnesses, whom we have 
 offered to prove the truthfulness of the charge preferred 
 against Mr. Pedobaptist. 
 
 The Court said, we are prepared to hear the Counsel 
 for the Prisoner close his defence. We assure him, that 
 an opportunity will be offered to him, to reply to any 
 new matter, which may be introduced by the Counsel of 
 the Commonwealth in his closing address. 
 
 The Counsel for the Prisoner then arose, and com- 
 menced his closing address. By the permission of the 
 Court, Gentlemen of the Jury, i arise (he said) to ad- 
 dress you for the last time on the momentous question 
 which you are called upon to decide. To you the Pri- 
 soner can only appeal for justice, and the protection it 
 
ME. PBDOBAFfiS'f. 135 
 
 always promises to the innocent, in the hour of calumny 
 and persecution. 1 know we shall not look in vain. The 
 question you are sworn to try by the evidence, becomes 
 one of infinite moment to us all, by the circumstances 
 that are now thrown around it. These circumstances 
 seek to fasten on my client, one of the darkest crimes 
 known to our laws. 
 
 You are aware that it is the duty of the Common- 
 wealth, to make out the charge in the indictment, to your 
 minds, beyond a reasonable doubt, before the Counsel 
 can with any show of reason or law, demand at your 
 hands a verdict of guilty. That he has done so, I have 
 no apprehension that the evidence offered, will warrant 
 this conclusion by you, or myself. With confidence in 
 the strength of our position, and convinced of the imbe- 
 cility of the prosecution, we approach the examination 
 of the evidence offered, in support of the charge preferred 
 against my client, with hopeful assurance, of showing 
 its entire insufficiency to fasten the crime charged in the 
 indictment, upon the Prisoner. 
 
 PRINCIPLES OF LAW EXAMINED. 
 
 Let us now call the attention of the Court to some of his 
 " incontestable facts," as he chooses to denominate them, 
 in his opening address to the Court. We wish to show 
 in our review of them, that they are not as incontestable 
 as he woultl have you believe. To those that have a 
 bearing on this case we will now call your attention. 
 
 The first fact is, " that the word used in the Constitution 
 of this Commonwealth, to designate the act in Christian 
 
136 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 Baptism, is' not bapto, but its derivative baptizo." We 
 cordially admit that baptizo only is used when this ordi- 
 nance is named. With this fact clearly before us, we 
 must also remember in this connection another fact of 
 equal moment, that is, that bapto is admitted to be the 
 root of baptizo, and that this root does signify dye as well 
 as dip in any manner. We now will read from Mr. Car- 
 son, a leading friend of Mr. Baptist ; he says, p. 46, 
 "bapto signifies to dye by sprinkling, as properly as by 
 dipping, though originally it was confined to the latter;" 
 again, "they (the examples) relate to dyeing wholly 
 without reference to dipping; nay, some of them with 
 an expressed reference to another mode." According to 
 this testimony, sustained by examples, the word denotes 
 a thing done, and this by any manner. It is reasonable 
 to expect that its derivative would not be more definite 
 in its signification than the parent stock. The testimony 
 we have offered, clearly establishes the fact, that bap- 
 tism as a Christian ordinance, contemplates a thing 
 done — the manner is a subject of indifference. 
 
 His second fact is, "that baptism is a Positive Insti- 
 tution, and not a Moral one." Who disputes this 1 We 
 do not. As an ordinance of Christianity, it requires cer- 
 tain essential prerequisites. (1) A suitable subject. — 
 (2) A lawful administrator. (3) The element used — 
 water. (4) To be done in the name of the Trinity. 
 These are essential to the ordinance. These are all em- 
 braced in this Positive Institution. For these Mr. Pedo- 
 baptist contends as zealously as Mr. Baptist, and still 
 he stands before you charged with the crime of treason ! 
 
Alii. PEDOUAPTIfiSr. 137 
 
 In the ligiit of this single consideration, it is impossible 
 to convict him. 
 
 His third fact is, " that the meaning of the words used 
 in positive duties, is the only rule of action." This is 
 our principle as well as his, the difference between us is 
 concerning the meaning of the words employed in this 
 ordinance. Our position is, they contemplate a thing 
 done, and not its manner. This is (we think) fully sus- 
 tained by the testimony of many of his witnesses, in 
 connection with ours. Their examination will take place 
 at the proper time. 
 
 We pass over his fourth fact, because it is included in 
 the third, and notice his fifth, which is, that the " figura- 
 tive application of a word enters not within the pale of 
 the interpretation of positive precepts." This is only 
 sustained by authorities, when the literal meaning is 
 current among the speakers and writers of the language. 
 It is also true that the figurative meaning of a word in 
 the course of time becomes the literal meaning. This 
 can be demonstrated by the history of many words. — 
 Because language, like everything else, is mutable : 
 therefore, this transition is constantly going on. This 
 fact is confirmed by the most reliable authorities. 
 
 His sixth fact is, that " all intelligent legislation con- 
 templates a specific object in its enactments." This is 
 generally true ; but it is not well founded to say the 
 manner of executing these objects is commanded. The 
 manner is seldom command. When it is not, all are 
 left to adopt that manner of performance which they 
 think best. This is our view of baptism, and it is sup- 
 
138 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 ported by other divine commands. (1) In the Mosaic in- 
 stitute, where it imperatively requires persons to bathe or 
 wash themselves — the word used is generic — any manner 
 of performance was a fulfilment of this law. The same 
 principle is elucidated by the command of the Saviour, as 
 found in John 9 : " Go wash in the pool of Siloam." No 
 manner of observance is required in these commands. — 
 These instances are intended to make good the fact, that 
 divine legislation does sometimes, at least, require a thing 
 to be done, without requiring how it shall be done. 
 
 In this connection, the Court should take into consid- 
 eration the facts we laid down in our opening address. 
 They are the following: (1) Baptizo is a Greek word. 
 (2) That this word is used by the Greeks only in re- 
 ference to common occurrences in life, and not to their 
 religious washings. (3) As used by the Jews, it had 
 respect to their religious washings. (4) That it is a 
 common occurrence for words to depart from their pri- 
 mary meaning and assume a new import. (5) The ac- 
 ceptation of baptizo by Christ and the apostles, is the 
 only tribunal to determine what was intended to be done 
 by this word. (6) The manner of baptizing is not 
 commanded. These principles of the law are sustained 
 by the testimony. It becomes your duty to apply them 
 in your instruction to the jury. Their application will 
 clearly justify Mr. Pedobaptist, and prove Mr. Baptist 
 to be a restless disturber of the peace of society. 
 
 The Counsel said, we will now proceed to the exami- 
 nation of the testimony offered by the prosecution, to 
 sustain the charge in the indictment. The testimony 
 
MR. PEDOBAPTIST. 139 
 
 necessary to determine this question in your minds, 
 must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, this proposition : 
 " That the Lawgiver, by the use of the word baptizo, in 
 the Constitution, designed to show that only the immer- 
 sion in water of every lawful subject was valid baptism." 
 Does the testimony place the truthfulness of this propo- 
 sition beyond a doubt 1 It must do this, or you are bound 
 by your oaths to acquit the Prisoner. If we can show 
 that the testimony will not sustain this essential feature 
 of the prosecution, their whole defence must fail. If I 
 understand the character and bearing of the testimony 
 on the issue joined by the parties, we shall be able fully 
 to satisfy your minds of its entire insufficiency, to sup- 
 port the only thing on which the Commonwealth can 
 rely. This is the only duty that law and evidence re- 
 quire of us, and we shall now proceed to its perform- 
 ance, with your indulgence. 
 
 EXAMINATION OF CLASSICAL TESTIMONY. 
 
 The first witness called upon the stand was Mr. Clas- 
 sic. His testimony was entirely confined to the classi- 
 cal acceptation of the word baptizo. From the authori- 
 ties he read as his testimony, we make the following 
 classification of the use of this word: Baptizo signifies 
 sink, thirteen times — plunge, seven times — immerse, par- 
 tially, three times — smear, once— overwhelmed, four times — 
 total immersion, once — used twice by Hippocrates indefi- 
 nitely. From this enumeration of the use of baptizo in 
 his testimony, you can clearly observe a variety of mean- 
 ing in its classical acceptation. This variety of mean- 
 
140 THE .TRIAL Of 
 
 ing destroys the entire object of his testimony, and 
 makes void the proscriptive ground on which the prose- 
 cution entirely depends to convict the Prisoner. 
 
 You will find in looking over his testimony in its com- 
 pleteness, we have fairly made out our classification of 
 the applications of this word from his authorities. In 
 the light of this representation by his own witnesses of 
 the use of this word, what now becomes of the oneness 
 of meaning so essential to Mr. Baptist's accusation, pre- 
 ferred against Mr. Pedobaptist 1 Without this oneness 
 of literal meaning throughout the whole testimony, the 
 prosecution must fail. 
 
 We must remember, in testing the weight of this tes- 
 timony, to apply a fact we laid down in our opening 
 address, in connection with what we have already shown 
 of its character, viz : That the use of baptizo by the 
 Greek classics is not the proper tribunal to determine its 
 sacred acceptation. The reason of this is made obvious 
 by the testimony, and is this, that the Greeks use baptizo 
 only in reference to things in common life, the Jews to 
 their religious washings. The counsel on the other side 
 will not dare to claim for this word in its sacred use, 
 more than he claims for it in the classical. If so, the 
 classic use does not sustain the charge announced in the 
 indictment, because the classics give a variety of mean- 
 ing to this word. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF JOSEPHUS. 
 
 The next witness is Mr. Josephus, a Jew, who also 
 wrct? c'assic Gie;k, a; is evident from the single fact, 
 
ME. PEDOBAPTIST. 141 
 
 that he uses baptizo in the same way as the Greek au- 
 thors. We sura up his applications of this word in the 
 following manner — sink, three times — immerse, once — ■ 
 plunge, twice— overwhelmed, twice. We have in his testi- 
 mony the same variety of meanings attached to baptizo 
 which we found in the testimony of Mr. Classic. Both 
 of these witnesses depose to the same thing, and yet they 
 are far from making good the cause of the Common- 
 wealth in that essential fact, so vital to the maintenance 
 of this prosecution, and which law and evidence impera- 
 tively demand at its hand — a uniformity of meaning. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF ME. LEXICON. 
 
 The next witness examined .was Mr. Lexicon, who 
 professes to give us authoritatively the meanings of 
 Greek words. His testimony on the meaning of this 
 word may be summed up in the following enumeration : 
 baptizo, to immerse ; to wash ; to bathe ; to overwhelm ; 
 to cleanse. We find also in his testimony, the same va- 
 riety of meaning given to the word in dispute. The 
 reason of the selection of this word by the Lawgiver, 
 may be found in this variety of its meaning, and its 
 adaptedness to designate a thing to be done in all coun- 
 tries and climates. It wisely leaves the manner of per- 
 formance to the judgment of all the subjects of this 
 ordinance. 
 
 His testimony is a confirmation of the testimony of 
 the witnesses already reviewed. They all strike a death 
 blow at the doctrine of the oneness of the meaning of 
 baptizo, and sustain our position- of a variety of meaning. 
 
142 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 This position clearly shows that baptism is a thing that 
 may be done by a variety of manners; because the word 
 ; in the light of this exhibition represents no specific mode 
 of performance. 
 
 It should always be remembered by you, during this 
 whole trial, that the prosecution is bound by law to 
 prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that baptizo has but one 
 literal meaning, and no more, and that that meaning was 
 immerse, at the time when Christ commanded baptism 
 as an ordinance. The Commonwealth has certainly 
 taken a strange way to prove this essential proposition, 
 necessary to sustain the allegation found in the indict- 
 ment. Its witnesses prove too much, by testifying to a 
 variety of meaning belonging to this word. 
 
 MR. TRANSLATOR'S TESTIMONY. 
 
 * 
 
 The testimony of Mr. Translator comes next in order. 
 We classify his testimony on the meaning of baptizo, in 
 the following order : dipped, once ; wash, seven times ; 
 affrighted, once. In the Greek translation of the Seventy, 
 we find baptizo used in four of these cases, in two of 
 which the English translation has wash, and in the other 
 two, dip and affrighted. We have also in this testimony 
 wash used seven times in place of baptizo, in the Greek, 
 and dip used only once. This forcibly illustrates his 
 view of the meaning of baptizo. It also proves that im- 
 merse is far from being its invariable meaning. Wash 
 here might with more show of reason claim an absolute 
 right of possession from its number. According to the 
 view of the subject, as we are presenting it, it would be 
 
MR. PEDOBAPTIST. 143 
 
 a good substitute in English, as denoting a thing to be 
 done in a variety of ways. This is our defence, and it 
 is sustained by his testimony. 
 
 1 do not think it necessary to say any thing on that 
 part of his testimony, that relates to the various trans- 
 lations of the Scriptures. The translations have all been 
 made on this principle — the mode of baptism adopted 
 by the people influenced the translation. The matter of 
 mode being left free in the original law, for all to 
 determine, it is no marvel that a variety of ways exists 
 in the manner of baptizing. 
 
 The whole controversy is to be determined by the 
 meaning of the original law. This is the point to which 
 your attention has, and will be called by us. Our ex- 
 amination thus far, of the principal witnesses of the 
 Commonwealth, proves fully our position. 
 
 PEDOBAPTIST WITNESSES REVIEWED. 
 
 The next witnesses called upon the stand by the Com- 
 monwealth, were (as the Counsel called them) learned 
 Pedobaptists. The first inquiry would be to ascertain, 
 what makes a person a Pedobaptist. The answer is, 
 " one who believes in the baptism of infants." He may 
 believe, like the Greek church, that a trine immersion is 
 baptism, or believe with others, that other modes of bap- 
 tism are equally valid. This distinction, founded upon 
 facts, will help us to discriminate between these wit- 
 nesses, and the weight that ought to be given to their testi- 
 mony. To the latter class of these witnesses, we shall 
 at present confine our attention, 
 
l-i4 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 It will not be necessary for me to scrutinize their indi- 
 vidual testimony ; for they are all founded on a common 
 principle — that no particular mode of baptism was com- 
 manded. Their action on this subject is the true expo- 
 nantof their sentiments. Their action also incontestably 
 demonstrates the position of the Prisoner. Luther, Cal- 
 vin, and all the others of this class called to the witness 
 stand, held and practised other modes of baptism besides 
 immersion, and they did so with the conviction, that 
 the modes they adopted were as Scriptural as immersion. 
 
 Had they held the exclusive position found in the in- 
 dictment, it would have compelled them to renounce 
 their mode of baptism as contrary to the constitutional 
 law. This they never did, but all who turn Baptists are 
 found doing so. The position of these witnesses, as 
 shown in their practice, clearly proves that in their minds 
 baptism as an ordinance, contemplates a thing to be clone 
 in all the ways practised by all Evangelical Christians. 
 The Counsel never can prove from these witnesses that 
 immersion is essential to Christian Baptism. Unless 
 they do prove this to be a fact, their testimony is of no 
 benefit to the prosecution, but must work its entire de- 
 feat. For it is a rule in law, that when a witness is 
 called to testify for a party, the party is bound to receive 
 his whole testimony. This must be done in this case, 
 and 1 know the Court will so instruct you. 
 
 The concessions of these Pedobaptists will, I expect, 
 be paraded before you by the Counsel on the other side, 
 as sufficient proof of the charge in the indictment. Let 
 him reconcile their practice on this subject, with the use 
 
MR. PEDOBAPTIST. I Lj 
 
 he wishes to make of their testimony ! This he can 
 never do, and I judge he will not make the trial. 
 
 Have we not clearly proven, by men of undoubted 
 character and learning, that baptism, as a Christian ordi- 
 nance, contemplates a variety of modes 1 The adoption 
 of sprinkling, pouring, or immersing, as a mode of per- 
 formance, is a matter of indifference, for the thing cm 
 be done in these various ways. On this important point, 
 the witnesses on both sides agree. This is all we plead 
 for, to justify the conduct of the Prisoner. 
 
 We have a full solution of their conduct and testimony, 
 in the review we have made of the former witnesses, for 
 they teach that baptism can be performed in a variety of 
 ways. Under the influence of this conviction of the de- 
 sign of the Lawgiver in commanding baptism, these de- 
 voted and loyal men labored for the advancement of 
 Christianity as man's birthright. Shall their labor and 
 sacrifice be branded with burning infamy, by a verdict of 
 guilty at your hands, and that, too, by a perversion of 
 their solemn testimony 1 The annals of history would 
 be consulted in vain to find a parallel for your judgment, 
 under the same circumstances. 
 
 But to sum up the whole testimony of this class of 
 witnesses, it proves this fact beyond a doubt, that they 
 did not believe that baptizo, in the Christian ordinance, 
 signified only the action of immersion, in all times and 
 under all circumstances. Unless their testimony clearly 
 proves this fact, it will not be of any use to the prosecu- 
 tion. For on the proof of this fact hinges the whole 
 7 
 
146 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 controversy between the parties. To use their testimony 
 for this purpose is impossible. 
 
 Gentlemen of the jury, can you say by a verdict of 
 guilty, that all these men were traitors to the Constitu- 
 tion of our common country, and for all coming time 
 brand them as such \ How could you reconcile this 
 verdict with the good character these men have always 
 sustained for loyalty to the government 1 Their under- 
 standing of its institutions is more reliable than that 
 of Mr. Baptist, and his friends, because of their num- 
 ber, learning and official positions in this Commonwealth, 
 as the expounders of its laws for centuries. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF FRIENDS REVIEWED. 
 
 The next witnesses offered by the Commonwealth are 
 the Friends or Quakers. What right have they to appear 
 before this Court and jury in this case, when they, in 
 sentiment and practice, deny the constitutional obliga- 
 tion of water baptism 1. This position of theirs is a 
 sufficient bar to their competency as witnesses, concern- 
 ing a duty which they entirely ignore. Again, their 
 want of learning and of sympathy for water baptism, is a 
 sufficient reason why their testimony should have no 
 bearing on this controversy. 
 
 Their evidence amounts to a dogmatic assertion of 
 the meaning of baptism. They give no authorities on 
 which these assertions are founded, for it is impossible 
 for them to give any other authorities than those we 
 have already scrutinized. These, we have already 
 
MR. PEDOBAPTIST. 141 
 
 shown, fail to make out the case of the Commonwealth. 
 Can we rely on their mere assertions without authori- 
 ties, and against authorities, and this, too, in the light of 
 their position in opposition to a plain constitutional law 1 
 For these reasons Ave have not made a classification of 
 the application they give to baptizo, and we will dismiss 
 them without further remarks. 
 
 The Counsel for the defendant next proceeded to the 
 examination of the sacred use of baptizo, and the circum- 
 stances connected with the performance of the ordinance, 
 as given in the New Testament. 
 
 He said he would read an argument from Professor 
 Schmucker's Popular Theology, (p. 262-8,) and adopt it as 
 his own on this occasion. The reason why he would 
 give Prof. S.'s view of this argument was, because it was 
 a more convincing representation of it than he himself 
 would be able to give. He said he would now commence 
 to read, and hoped the Court and jury would give the 
 argument their particular attention : " But the question 
 is, whether immersion is enjoined in the Scriptures, and 
 consequently is one essential part of baptism, so that 
 without it no baptism is valid, though it contain every 
 other requisite. On this subject the Lutheran church 
 has always agreed with the great majority of Christian 
 denominations, in maintaining the negative, and in re- 
 garding the quantity of water employed in baptism, as 
 well as the mode of exhibiting it, not essential to the 
 validity of the ordinance. The argument may be briefly 
 stated thus : 
 
 K JVo circumstance can be necessary to the validity of a 
 
148 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 divine ordinance, excepting those which God has com- 
 manded in his word : 
 
 "But God has not commanded immersion in his word; 
 therefore, it is not necessary to the validity of the ordi- 
 nance of baptism. 
 
 " The first of these propositions is admitted by all Pro- 
 testant denominations, and cannot be denied by any one 
 who does not hold the following absurd positions : 
 (a) That the word of God is an insufficient guide for 
 man ; (b) that uninspired men may add to this revela- 
 tion, and (c) that whatever any uninspired men may 
 choose to add, all other men must subsequently observe, 
 on pain of eternal perdition. The second proposition, 
 therefore, alone needs investigation ; namely, ' that God 
 has not commanded immersion in his word.' 
 
 " The friends of immersion do not contend, that there 
 is any specific command ; but allege, that the word 'bap- 
 tize' itself does, in the New Testament Greek, neces- 
 sarily imply immersion. The fallacy of this opinion is' 
 evident from all the passages, in which the word is used 
 in such a way as to throw light on its precise meaning. 
 
 " (a) Heb. 9 : 10. « Which (the Jewish) service stood 
 (consisted) in meats and drinks, and divers baptisms 
 (baptismois.') A reference to the Old Testament, where 
 these baptisms, or, as our English version renders it, 
 washings, are described, proves that they were performed 
 by sprinkling and pouring 5 but it is not mentioned in a 
 single case, that the object must be put under the 
 water. 
 
 "(b) Mark 7: 3. <And when they (the Pharisees) 
 
MR. PEDOBAPTIST. 149 
 
 come from the market, except they wash (baptize them- 
 selves) they eat not.' Now it certainly was the custom 
 of the Jews to wash their hands before eating, but what 
 author ever contended that they entirely immersed them- 
 selves in water, before every meal 1 Yet, this application 
 of water, to a very small part of the body, is called bap- 
 tism, (c) Again : ' and many other things there be, 
 which they have received to hold, as the baptisms of cups 
 and pots, brazen vessels and tables, (beds, couches.') The 
 cups and pots might indeed be immersed in water, yet 
 of this we are not certain. But will it be contended, 
 that the beds or couches were carried to some often dis- 
 tant river, to be immersed 1 or that every Pharisee had 
 a cistern provided in his yard, for this purpose 1 Luke 
 11 : 38. It is therefore evident that many of the purifi- 
 cations, termed baptisms in the New Testament, were 
 certainly performed by sprinkling, and (as in the case of 
 the tables) by pouring ; whilst it is not certain that they 
 were performed by immersion in a single case. Hence 
 there is much more Scripture authority for sprinkling 
 and pouring, than for immersion. 
 
 "2. Nor do the circumstances, related in the New Tes- 
 tament as attendant on baptism, prove the practice of im- 
 mersion. 
 
 " (a) The baptism of the three thousand converts on the 
 day of Pentecost, was performed at Jerusalem, where 
 there was no river or creek ; at a time, when it was 
 summer in Judea, (close of March,) and rains were scarce, 
 and the brook Kedron dry, and nothing remained near 
 Jerusalem but the single pool of Siloam. How could 
 
150 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 the apostles, under these circumstances, have found 
 places to baptize such a multitude in one day by immer- 
 sion 1 Suppose, that the apostles went into the pool al- 
 ternately, relieving each other, and one was constantly 
 engaged in the act of baptizing, it is utterly impossible 
 that the three thousand could have been baptized, in a 
 day. But a large part of the day had elapsed before the 
 baptisms began: the effusion of the Holy Spirit; their 
 preaching to persons from different countries, in their 
 own languages ; the accusations against the apostles ; 
 Peter's defence from the Scriptures; the convictions of 
 multitudes, and their inquiries what they must do to be 
 saved — all these things had occurred beforehand, so that, 
 at earliest, the work of baptizing did not begin before 
 noon. Admitting that the six remaining hours of the 
 day were all devoted to this business, and that by fre- 
 quent changes one of the twelve was incessantly in the 
 act of baptizing, he would have to baptize five hundred 
 persons in one hour, or eight every minute ! Or suppose, 
 what is indeed very improbable, and contrary to the tenor 
 of the narrative of Luke, that when the work of bap- 
 tizing had been resolved on, the apostles divided the 
 whole multitude into twelve equal parts, and each one, 
 at the head of his division, marching straightway in 
 quest of some bath-house or cistern, all spent the re- 
 mainder of the day laboriously engaged in this work ; 
 would it not still be impossible that they should have 
 baptized that number 1 An hour at least would be con- 
 sumed in dividing the multitude and inquiring for the 
 baths, in repairing to them and placing them in order. 
 
MR. PED0BAPT1ST. 151 
 
 Can it be believed, that each apostle could have baptized 
 two hundred and fifty in five hours, averaging yery nearly 
 one for every minute of the whole time, even if they 
 were all standing naked, ready to leap in as soon as the 
 apostle could lay his hands on them 1 But surely it will 
 not be contended that all these persons of different sexes 
 bathed naked in each other's presence. Yet where could 
 the three thousand suddenly have found bathing dresses'? 
 And to bathe, with their ordinary clothes on would have 
 been certain disease or death to multitudes of them." — 
 (At this part of the argument, there Were symptoms of 
 applause by the multitude present, which, however, was 
 checked by the Court. The counsel commenced again 
 to read — ) " Is it not infinitely more reasonable to be- 
 lieve, that the multitudes remained together, and after 
 having been baptized by sprinkling according to the 
 Jewish custom, (Num. 19: 18,) which could have been 
 done in less than an hour, continued to listen to the words 
 of eternal life 1" 
 
 During the entire reading of the Counsel, the friends 
 of the Prisoner manifested great satisfaction, and showed 
 at times, by audible signs, their approbation. At its 
 close they pronounced it unanswerable. 
 
 The Counsel continued to read from the same author : 
 " (b) The language of Peter, when he baptized the 
 Gentiles at the house of Cornelius, does not favor im- 
 mersion. When they believed and received the Holy 
 Ghost, Peter said : ' Can any man forbid water, that 
 these should not be baptized V that is, forbid water to 
 be brought. Had he intended to baptize them by im- 
 
152 THE TRIAL OP 
 
 mersion, it would have been much more natural for him 
 to say, s can any man forbid us to go out to the water, 
 and baptize these,' 
 
 " (c) The circumstances of the jailer's baptism, Acts 
 16 : 19-39, imply that he was not baptized by immer- 
 sion. He was baptized in the night, when it would have, 
 been very inconvenient to go to a suitable place for im- 
 mersion. The rite was evidently performed in the prin- 
 cipal room of the prison; for nothing is said of their 
 leaving the house, we are only told that they had been 
 thrust into the dungeon or inner prison, and that they 
 were brought out of that apartment to where the family 
 of the jailer were, whom they taught. And when he 
 professed his faith, we are told he was baptized immedi- 
 ately j not, he immediately started off with his family, 
 and with Paul and (Silas, in the night, to a suitable place 
 to be immersed. 
 
 " (d) Matt. 3 : 16. When Jesus was baptized of John 
 in the Jordan, 'he went up straight way out of the water :' 
 and Acts 8 : 38. * They (the Ethiopian Eunuch and 
 Philip) went down both into the water, and he baptized 
 him.' In these passages the prepositions eis and apo, may 
 with equal propriety be rendered to and from. Thus the 
 former is translated in John's gospel: 'John came first 
 to (eis) the sepulchre' of our Lord, l but he went not in.' 
 And again: 'He sent forth his servants to call them 
 that were bidden to (eis) the wedding, (feast,') and many 
 ether passages; and the latter is thus rendered in the 
 passages : ' And forthwith the angel departed /row (apo) 
 him,' and ' the angel came and rolled the stone/row? (apo) 
 
Wit. rEDOBAl'TIST. 153 
 
 the door,' and others. These prepositions do, therefore, 
 not with certainty, prove anything more, than that these 
 persons went to the water to be baptized and afterwards 
 came from it. But even if it were certain that they 
 went into the water, this would by no means determine 
 the manner in which they were baptized. They might 
 have gone in to the depth of their ankles or knees, and 
 baptized according to the Jewish baptism, described in 
 Numbers, by pouring the water on with a vessel, or with 
 the hand, or by sprinkling it over the subject. 
 
 " (e) Nor does the fact, that ' John baptised in Enon, 
 because there was much water (polla udata, many springs) 
 there,' determine the mode of baptism, because whatever 
 be the object, sacred or profane, for which large multi- 
 tudes assemble, to spend one or more days together, it is 
 a notorious fact, that the vicinity of a spring or creek or 
 river is always preferred, for water is indispensably ne- 
 cessary to their subsistence. Are not such places always 
 preferred for fourth of July orations, military parades 
 and camp meetings ? yet who would infer that the Metho- 
 dists baptize by immersion, because they hold their camp 
 meetings in the vicinity of water. And as thousands 
 followed John, what is more natural than that he should 
 select a place where there was abundance of water for 
 their subsistence 1 Indeed, at no other place eould such 
 crowds remain with him more than half a day, or even 
 that long, in the warm season. Moreover, we are told 
 that there were 'many waters' at Enon. % Now, it is geo- 
 graphically certain, that there are neither many rivers 
 nor many creeks at any supposed sites of Enon, for its 
 
lai THE TRIAL Ol 
 
 location is not fully ascertained. At most, then? there' 
 were several springs there ; but are springs the most 
 suitable places for immersion 1 Certainly not." 
 
 This author, said the Counsel, in his exposition of the 
 sacred use of baptizo, and the circumstances connected 
 with the performance of the rite of baptism, shows the 
 impossibility of immersion being the exclusive manner 
 of baptizing, under the first institution of this ordinance* 
 This is all we claim to justify the conduct of the Pri- 
 soner. 
 
 The Counsel on the other side, expressed great confi- 
 dence in his argument founded on the circumstances 
 connected with the ordinance of baptism. In making 
 this argument, he forgot to make good the foundation 
 on which it rests. For he assumes as his premises, that 
 the prepositions signify what he takes them to mean. 
 Here is the disputed ground. That they have in the 
 Scriptures a variety of signification, is already in proof. 
 If denied, there is ample evidence at hand to show that 
 prepositions alone will not afford a substantial ground 
 for his argument. 
 
 We will now give an additional specimen of the 
 character of the prepositions. I will read from the Debate 
 of Campbell and Eice, page 203. " But let me read a 
 few passages of Scripture, translating the word eis, into, 
 and ek, out of, as the gentleman wishes ; that the audi- 
 ence may judge of the soundness of his criticisms, 2 
 Kings 6 : 4. ' When they came into (eis) Jordan, they 
 cut down wood.' Did the persons go literally into Jor- 
 dan in order to cut wood 1 Isa. 36 : 2. 'And the king of 
 
MR. 1'EDOBAPTIST. 1S5 
 
 Assyria sent Kabshekeh out of (ek) Lachesh into (eis) 
 Jerusalem, unto Hezekiah with a great army.' John 6 : 
 23. ' Howbeit, there came other boats out of (ek) Tibe- 
 rias.' John 8 : 23. 'And he said unto them, ye are out 
 of (ek) beneath ; 1 am out of (ek) above ; ye are out of 
 (ek) this world 5 1 am not out of (ek) this world. Ch.' 
 9 : 1 . 'And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man blind out 
 of (ek) his birth.' Verse 7. 'And (Jesus) said unto him 
 go wash into (eis) the pool of Siloam.' Verse 11. 'And 
 (Jesus) said unto me, go into (eis) the pool of Siloam 
 and wash.' Ch. 11: 31. 'She goeth into (eis) the grave 
 to weep there.' Verse 38. ' Jesus cometh into (eis) the 
 grave. It was a cave and a stone lay upon it.' " This 
 exhibition of these prepositions shows they do signify to 
 and from. We have said sufficient in reply to this argu- 
 ment, to satisfy all candid men of its unsoundness. It 
 will help to present Mr. Baptist as not very enviable 
 for Christian charity. (Applause manifested by the crowd 
 in attendance.) We are now prepared to proceed to reply 
 to the next argument offered by the prosecution. 
 
 BAPTISM IN ITS DESIGN. 
 
 The Counsel said, we will now proceed to examine 
 the argument for immersion, founded on the declaration 
 that baptism is a symbolic representation of the death, 
 burial, and resurrection of Christ. He said he was ex- 
 ceedingly glad to see the increasing interest manifested 
 by the people in this trial. He welcomed with cordiality 
 such a large increase of the principal citizens, as are 
 found in the audience to day. Their influence ought to 
 
156 HIE TRIAL OP 
 
 be potent when this question is to be determined. (The 
 Court here stopped the Counsel and said, " he would not 
 permit either of the Counsel to appeal to the passions 
 of the multitude present, nor would he suffer those au- 
 dible marks of applause, that had been manifested here- 
 tofore.") The Counsel resumed and said, he was thank- 
 ful to the Court for these suggestions; but he could not 
 refrain from saying, that tha majesty of the people in 
 their sympathy ought not to-be treated with indifference 
 when shown in favor of innocence. 
 
 I will now read (he said) the two passages of Scripture 
 On which this argument is founded. The first one is to 
 be found in Romans 6 : 3, 4. " Know ye not that so 
 many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were bap- 
 tized into his death 1 Therefore we are buried with him 
 by baptism into death 5 that, like as Christ was raised up 
 from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also 
 should walk in newness of life." 
 
 Col. 2: 12. "Buried with him (Christ) in baptism, 
 wherein also ye are risen with him through faith of the 
 operation of God." 
 
 1. Let us inquire where is the evidence of literal bap- 
 tism, being a symbolic representation of Christ's death, 
 burial, and resurrection, exclusive of these two Scrip- 
 tures in which it is said to be taught. I answer there is 
 none. Without the proof of some general understand- 
 ing by Christ and his apostles of this design of baptism, 
 no one has a right to presume this to be its design. — 1 
 But this understanding is essential to the argument, and 
 the failure of the prosecution must follow the want of it. 
 
3IK. EED0BAPM3T. 15? 
 
 This fact should excite our suspicion, of their legitimate 
 use of these two passages of Scripture. The appropria- 
 tion of these passages of Scripture (without this under- 
 standing) to the use they make of them, cannot be war- 
 ranted by the forms of law, or the rules of evidence. 
 
 2. We conclude they have misunderstood the design 
 of these Scriptures, from the figures found therein, and 
 in their connections, "dead" "buried," "resurrection," 
 " crucifixion," &c. These figures ought to teach us a 
 different design contemplated by the Apostle. The death 
 unto sin without doubt is a spiritual death— the resur- 
 rection is spiritual, because it is produced, as one of these 
 passages says, by faith, and newness of life follows as its 
 consequence. We cannot, with any show of consistency, 
 say the death and resurrection is spiritual and the burial 
 is literal or symbolical. To do so, with the opposing evi- 
 dence found in the passages, is exceedingly perverse. 
 
 The spiritual design contemplated in these Scriptures, 
 is again evident, from the planting and the crucifixion of 
 the old man, verses 5, 6. If the burial is immersion, 
 what is the planting, or engrafting, as some render it % 
 Are we accustomed to plant seed in water % The mean- 
 ing (if planting is the correct rendering of the word) is 
 this : The seed is put into the earth and it dies ; but a 
 new stalk springs up from it. So the old man is put, as 
 it were, into the earth ; and a new man rises up, like a 
 new stalk, to live a new life. But if both burying and 
 planting express the mode of baptism, what mode is in- 
 dicated by crucifixion, which we find in the same con- 
 nection to express the same idea % It will not answer to 
 
158 THE TKIAL Oil 
 
 select one of these figures to express mode, and exclude 
 the others. 
 
 3. The antithesis found in the passages, confirms our 
 view of their import, and shows the mistaken application 
 of them by the Counsel for the prosecution. The an* 
 tithesis shows itself in this form, by the death and resur* 
 rection being spiritual, it of necessity requires of all the 
 other figures in the passages a like import. The an- 
 tithesis would be lost, if we take the ground that the 
 death is spiritual, and the resurrection to be symbolical. 
 This resurrection is declared to be the result of faith, 
 and resulting from faith it must be moral or spiritual. 
 
 4. The whole scope and design of the passages contem* 
 plate a moral subject, and not a symbolic representation 
 of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. I think we 
 have clearly proven the spiritual intention and expres- 
 sion found in these Scriptures, applicable only to the 
 conversion and sanctification of those addressed. They 
 only find an easy interpretation from this view of their 
 meaning. The Counsel's use of them, for a symbolic 
 object, cannot be well reconciled with all they teach in 
 relation to the object they contemplate. 
 
 It is not reasonable for us to suppose these passages 
 will give an arbitrary construction to the mode of bap- 
 tism, when the primary proof of the prosecution fails to 
 make one out. In the light of this last fact, the Coun- 
 sel has no right to presume it. We claim additional 
 strength to the position we have taken of the symbolic 
 design of baptism, from the Counsel's failure to prove 
 immersion to be the only mode of Christian baptism. 
 
ttll. VKDOiiAl'TlSf . 159 
 
 We will now give a few learned authorities, in support 
 of our general representation of the doctrine which these 
 passages contain. 
 
 Dr. Rice : " What, then, are we to understand by the 
 death, burial, resurrection and crucifixion 1 The death to 
 sin, and resurrection to newness of life, certainly signify 
 the change of heart and life from sin to holiness, that is, 
 sanctification. The planting and crucifixion of the old 
 man, that the body of sin might be destroyed, evidently 
 express precisely the same idea. — Debate, p. 242. 
 
 Professor Stuart : " indeed, what else but a moral 
 burying can be meant when the Apostle goes on to say % 
 "We are buried with him (not by baptism only, but) by 
 baptism into his death X Of course it will not be con- 
 tended, that a literal, physical burying is here meant, but 
 only a moral one. And although the words into his death,, 
 are not inserted in Col. 2: 12, yet, as the following 
 verse there shows, they are plainly implied, in fact, it 
 is plain that reference is here made to baptism, because 
 when the rite was performed, the Christian promised to 
 renounce sin, and mortify all his evil desires, and thus 
 to die unto sin, that he might live unto God. i cannot 
 see, therefore, that there is any more necessary reference 
 here to the modus of baptism, than there is to the modus 
 of the resurrection. The one may as well be maintained 
 as the other." — Stuart on Bap., p. 104. 
 
 REVIEW OF CHURCH HISTORY. 
 
 The Counsel for the Prisoner proceeded to reply to the 
 argument founded on the history of the Church, What 
 
HO THE TRIAL Of 
 
 do the facts of history warrant, as found in evidence on 
 both sides of this controversy 1 We answer most em- 
 phatically the following - things are true : 
 
 1. For some years after the Apostles' days, we have no 
 reliable facts on the manner of baptizing, which have 
 come down to us, unfolding the practice of the primitive 
 Christians. Their practice you will not find in the evi- 
 dence before us. We conclude the manner of baptizing 
 to have been what the church thought suitable and con- 
 venient. The reason for this conclusion may be found 
 in the fact proven — the law of baptism required no par- 
 ticular manner. 
 
 2. At a later period in the Church's history, we find, 
 as the testimony on both sides shows, a variety of modes 
 of baptizing, these were trine immersion naked, pouring, 
 &c. It is true that trine immersion naked became more 
 general than pouring in the third and fourth centuries. 
 No one will dare (1 hope) to plead, that the reason of its 
 prevalence was divine authority. This trine immersion 
 naked, is at present repudiated by the Baptists. This 
 eccentricity, with others, in relation to Christian bap- 
 tism, we are compelled by the Scriptures to conclude 
 was the offspring of the times, and is not to claim autho- 
 rity from the original institution. During the practice 
 of trine immersion for baptism, Ave do not find an abso- 
 lute denial of the validity of baptism by other modes. 
 Cyprian in the most express terms gives his cordial 
 approbation to pouring, and so testify other authorities 
 in evidence. 
 
 3. The history of the church as a whole proves that 
 
MR. PEDOBAPTIST. 161 
 
 a variety of modes of baptism was practised, and ac- 
 counted valid baptism. The reason for this variety of 
 modes of baptism, can only be found in the original 
 ordinance not requiring any particular manner of per- 
 forming the rite. It cannot be accounted for on the 
 ground that baptizo invariably calls for immersion. 
 
 4. We do not find in the history of the Christian 
 Fathers that proscriptive policy on the mode of baptism, 
 that is to be found among the Baptists. They are found 
 denying the validity of any other mode of baptism than 
 immersion. This striking and singular difference of 
 conduct between the Fathers and the Baptists, can only 
 be accounted for by the different positions occupied by 
 the parties. The Fathers, who had the best means of 
 knowing whether there was an original manner of bap- 
 tizing commanded or not, are found refusing to occupy 
 the position of the Baptists. The conclusion becomes 
 inevitable, that the Baptists are wrong, and that the doc- 
 trine of a variety of modes of baptism has the sanction 
 of the Fathers. Their testimony being contemporaneous 
 with the establishment of this Government in its practical 
 operation, must forever be a death blow to the proscrip- 
 tive policy of the Baptists in our day, and to the idea 
 that immersion is the only mode of baptism. 
 
 Gentlemen of the jury — it will not be necessary for 
 me to pursue this argument any further. You can see 
 upon its face sufficient evidence fully to justify the Pri- 
 soner's conduct, and remove every implication of his 
 guilt of the charge contained in the indictment. The 
 argument fails in that essentia! ingredient, of an inva- 
 
162 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 riable mode of baptism designated by baptizo, on which 
 alone the prosecution can rest. Without this proof the 
 whole defence of the Commonwealth falls to the ground. 
 I have, from the evidence offered by the other side, shown 
 you, that it fails in all those essential features necessary 
 to make good the charge preferred with so much confi- 
 dence against the Prisoner by Mr. Baptist. 
 
 ACCOUNTING FOR THE CHANGE FROM IMMERSION. 
 
 I will now proceed to answer the last argument on 
 which the prosecution relies for a conviction. It is the 
 one that charges my client with the crime of changing 
 the original action in baptism from immersion to pour- 
 ing, &c. It will not be necessary for me to go into the 
 examination of the witnesses in detail — because their 
 testimony is founded on certain general principles. When 
 these are understood by the Court and jury, there will 
 be no trouble in our way, to place a just estimate on the 
 weight of the testimony in evidence and its application to 
 this trial. The testimony of these witnesses is, we think, 
 invaluable to the Prisoner, and fatal to the prosecution. 
 
 Let us now classify the principles applicable to the 
 testimony on this part of the case. (1) All the authori- 
 ties offered in evidence by Mr. Baptist, fail to make out 
 for baptizo an invariable mode. This we have all per- 
 ceived by this time, and so did the witnesses. (2) The 
 Scriptures do not determine the mode of baptism. (3) In 
 warm climates, where bathing is a luxury, we find bap- 
 tism by immersion more common than any other mode ; 
 but in colder climates we find sprinkling, &c, more usual 
 
MR. PEDOEAPTIST. 163 
 
 in the after history of the church. (4) The Christian 
 Fathers did account baptism by pouring, valid. (5) The 
 variety in the manner of baptizing was not a change in the 
 thing originally contemplated by the ordinance. These 
 principles are all in evidence, and their application to 
 the testimony on this point will make entirely void the 
 charge preferred, of a change in the original institution. 
 
 Is it not clearly made out impossible for a change to 
 take place in the original institution, when in it no man- 
 ner of baptizing is determined 1 That there was a dif- 
 ferent manner of baptizing is in evidence. But a change 
 in the manner of baptizing does not in the least affect 
 the original ordinance. That there was a change from 
 one manner to an other is also in evidence. For us to 
 say a change in the manner of baptizing affects the origi- 
 nal command, which contains no manner, would be sup- 
 ported by no authority recognized by this Court. 
 
 This development of the argument of the prosecution, 
 founded on the facts in evidence, would warrant us to 
 dismiss it altogether, as unworthy of the defence of the 
 learned Counsel for his client. Before we dismiss it, 
 however, let us say, that the argument is a confirmation 
 of the practice of the Prisoner — that manner is not essen- 
 tial to baptism. 
 
 We will next present a few more rebutting arguments, 
 and we believe that when all our arguments are taken 
 together, they will amount to a demonstration of our 
 position taken in relation to this controversy. I know 
 we have already done more than the law demanded of 
 us in this case ; but we have cheerfully performed a 
 
164 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 work which we were not required to perform, for the 
 purpose of hereafter placing Mr. Baptist in no enviable 
 light in the eye of the nation. 
 
 The Counsel proceeded to offer some additional argu- 
 ments in confirmation of his position, and for the justi- 
 fication of the Prisoner. 
 
 He said he was prepared to call the attention of the 
 Court and jury to a few positions, the consideration of 
 which had been deferred on a former occasion. 
 
 1. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit. This baptism was 
 promised by the ministry of John the Baptist, in these 
 words : " He (Christ) shall baptize you with the Holy 
 Ghost, and with fire." The pouring out of the Holy 
 Spirit on the day of Pentecost was a fulfilment of this 
 promise. The Apostle referring to the events of that 
 day, says : " For John truly baptized with water ; but 
 ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days 
 hence." Let us note: (1) That this baptism was to the 
 disciples a real one, and not a figurative one. This is 
 certainly evident from the promise and its fulfilment 
 on the day of Pentecost. (2) The manner of this bap- 
 tism was by the pouring out the Holy Ghost. Pouring 
 here is made the mode of that more important baptism, 
 of which water baptism is only an emblem. The real 
 baptism being by pouring, the other ought to show a re- 
 semblance. (3) We have in this baptism divine authori- 
 ty for pouring, as its mode. This should settle the mode 
 of the ordinance ; because, supported by divine authority. 
 (4) This baptism is by the application of the spirit to 
 the subject, and not the person to the spirit, as immer- 
 
MR, PEDOBAPTIST, 165 
 
 sion imperatively requires. (5) From this baptism, we 
 may also learn the idea of the Evangelist, when he says 
 of John's baptism, that it was to be "with water;" that 
 is, the application of the element to the subject. (6) If 
 the words, " pour," and " shed forth," as used in refer- 
 ence to the Spirit's bestowment on the day of Pentecost, 
 are to be taken in a figurative acceptation, the figura- 
 tive use of these words cannot in any possible way, come 
 from literal immersion ; but the foundation of their figu- 
 rative use, must be found in their literal meaning. In 
 their literal import we find no resemblance to immersion. 
 
 If we look at all the facts and circumstances together, 
 as they are connected with this baptism, they place im- 
 mersion, as the invariable meaning of baptism, beyond 
 a possibility. 
 
 A confirming argument for this manner of baptising, 
 may be found in this fact, that the inspired writers con- 
 stantly represent sanctification by sprinkling and pouring. 
 This is clearly taught by Ezekiel 36: 25, in these words : 
 " 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." If Ezekiel was right in represent- 
 ing sanctification by the sprinkling of clean water, can 
 we be wrong in copying this divine example in baptism, 
 as an emblem of sanctification 1 Certainly not. Divine 
 authority, such as this, is authoritative. 
 
 Again, Isaiah speaking of the advent and work of 
 Christ, says: "So shall he sprinkle many nations," 53: 
 15. This promise contemplates many nations to be 
 sprinkled under the gospel dispensation. If immersion 
 
166 THE TUIAL OF 
 
 is the invariable mode of baptism under this dispensa- 
 tion, how can this prophecy ever he fulfilled 1 In the 
 adoption of sprinkling as a mode of baptism, we have 
 this prophecy literally fulfilled. This fact makes this 
 argument significant, and should make it potent in its 
 influence on your judgment of this case. 
 
 Again, we find an additional confirmation of this po- 
 sition, from the fact, that the washings of the Old Tes- 
 tament, the mode of which was prescribed, were required 
 to be performed by sprinkling. The only exception was 
 in regard to vessels. Look at Levit. 14. Again at Num. 
 19 : 17, 20. The significant mode in these places was 
 sprinkling, as emblematical of purification. We find, 
 this to be the divine mode adopted in the application of 
 water, as an emblem of purification ; and to practice after 
 it in baptism, where no particular mode is required, is 
 following divine authority. Is it not strange we are 
 blamed by Mr. Baptist for this divine conformity, and 
 this, too, when he has no divine example to warrant the 
 mode of baptism so dear to him ! Consistency is said to 
 be a jewel in the character of men ; unfortunately it is 
 not to be found in the conduct of Mr. Baptist. 
 
 2. Our second additional argument is, that no Apostle 
 or Christian minister, so far astheJVeiv Testament informs 
 vs, ever went a single step after water to baptize. The 
 only apparent exception to this, is the case of Philip 
 and the Eunuch. This case is no real exception, for they 
 were not in pursuit of water ; it was met by them on 
 their journey. Is not this fact unaccountable, if immer- 
 sion was the only mode of baptism 1 
 
MR. PEDOBAPTIST. 67 
 
 You may note all the baptisms in the acts of the Apos- 
 tles, and you will find theve the same unaccountable 
 silence. For instance, the baptism of the three thousand 
 on the day of Pentecost. These were the first to receive 
 Christian baptism. Now, if immersion was the only 
 mode of baptism, that was the time to set the example 
 and leave a precedent for all coming baptisms. The rea- 
 son it was not done is to us easy of solution, because 
 immersion was not essential to Christian baptism. Look 
 at the baptism of Paul by Ananias. The same state of 
 facts is to be found — no water sought after — baptized 
 forthwith in the house where the scales fell from his 
 eyes. All the other baptisms are of like character. This 
 single fact presents an insuperable difficulty in the way 
 of the success of the prosecution. 
 
 This incontestable fact shows beyond a reasonable 
 doubt, that immersion was not the only mode of baptism 
 in the days of the apostles ; but that other modes of bap- 
 tism were adopted, that were suitable and convenient. 
 This great truth should not be passed over in silence, 
 when it shadows forth so much influence in favor of the 
 Prisoner. 
 
 RECAPITULATION OF THE ARGUMENTS OF DEFENDANT'S 
 COUNSEL. 
 
 We will now commence to recapitulate our arguments 
 before we close our address, that you may better under- 
 stand the defence we oner for the conduct of the Pri- 
 soner, and see the insufficiency of the grounds on which 
 the prosecution claims any indulgence at your hands. 
 
168 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 1. The principles of law laid down to the Court and 
 jury remain undisputed. It is not necessary for me to 
 repeat them in this place. You have them before you, 
 and I expect the Court to endorse them in its charge. 
 
 2. The evidence we offered, and the replies made to 
 the various classes of witnesses offered by the Common- 
 wealth, may be summed up in the following order: (1) 
 The testimony of Mr. Classic shows a variety of mean- 
 ings to baptizo. (2) The testimony of Mr. Josephus 
 corroborates that of Mr. Classic. (3) The testimony of 
 Mr. Lexicon is of the same import. (4) Mr. Translator 
 teaches wash to be the popular signification of baptizo. 
 (5) The Pedobaptist witnesses justify the conduct of„ 
 the Prisoner. (6) The sacred use of baptizo, from the 
 testimony, signifies the application of water, by any of 
 the modes of baptism in evidence. (7) The symbolic 
 meaning of baptism is altogether different from that 
 which Mr. Baptist teaches it to be. (8) The historical 
 understanding of baptism is a variety of modes, approved 
 by the ancient church. (9) The change said to have 
 been made in the action of baptism was simply a change 
 from one mode to an other. 
 
 This is the state of the evidence before the Court and 
 jury, from which this case must be determined. Have 
 we not a right, from this view of the testimony, to claim 
 at your hands a triumphant acquittal 1 This conclusion 
 of the case, justice to all parties imperatively demands. 
 I make this demand with confidence ; because it is my 
 right from the evidence. To deny it at this crisis, will 
 be to trample under foot all the forms of law and evi- 
 
MR. PEDOBAPTIST, 169 
 
 dence. Are you by this denial, prepared to exile jus- 
 tice from our beloved Commonwealth 1 If this is done 
 by your refusal to acquit the Prisoner, you will hear a 
 response from all parts of our land in tones of grief, that 
 will execrate forever the conduct of those who, when 
 the law placed the power in their hands, refused to shield 
 innocence in the hour of calumny and danger. 
 
 These dark shadows, so ominous of danger to our 
 country's weal, excite in me no appalling apprehensions 
 of a coming desolation ; because I know the place you 
 occupy is the palladium of the nation's safety, and you 
 realize your responsibility to this, and coming genera- 
 tions. I know your action on this case, will secure un- 
 impaired, the perpetuity of our nationality. We see in 
 the future, after this angry controversy shall have been 
 determined by your action, a clear sky and a welcome 
 haven into which we expect to enter by your permission. 
 There shall you and I receive the congratulations of a 
 loyal people. To secure an end so noble, generous and 
 patriotic, we have labored during this trial With unceas- 
 ing fidelity to our client, and our country. 
 
 Gentlemen of the jury ; I know the Court will lay 
 down to you the law with impartiality, and in its just 
 application I am sure you will acquit the Prisoner, and. 
 thereby brand forever the conduct of Mr. Baptist with 
 infamy. 1 leave the case with you, with the abiding 
 conviction you will do the parties that justice which you 
 would desire administered to yourselves, if ever you 
 should be placed in their situations. This is all we in- 
 voke at your hands to justify the Prisoner. I have done. 
 8 
 
170 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 The close of this address was received by the friends 
 of Mr. Pedobaptist with audible expressions of joy and 
 triumph. 
 
 After the adjournment of the Court, which took place 
 at the close of the address of the defendant's Counsel, 
 there was much exciting conversation between the two 
 parties interested personally, in the issue of the trial. 
 The friends of Mr. Pedobaptist boastingly declared, the 
 defence made was unanswerable, and they said the tri- 
 umphant acquittal of the Prisoner was certain. The 
 friends of Mr. Baptist bore these taunting announce- 
 ments without complaining, only making this reply to 
 the party — not to shout victory until the battle was won; 
 
 The excitement was kept up throughout the city, until 
 the meeting of the Court in the afternoon. After the 
 Court was called to order, the Counsel for Mr. Baptist 
 commenced his closing address to the Court and jury. 
 
 CLOSING ADDRESS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PROSECUTION. 
 
 If the Court please, gentlemen of the jury, I stand 
 before you and our common country, to vindicate the 
 majesty of the law, as guaranteed by the Constitution. 
 It proclaims to all our citizens a common birth-right. 
 We are called upon to correct a flagrant violation of one 
 of the most cherished provisions of our Constitution. 
 This violation makes practically void the action of 
 Christian baptism, as it is expressed in the language of 
 that instrument. The history that comes down to us, 
 from those Fathers who lived at the time of its adoption, 
 and after it had gone into practical operation, declares 
 
MR, PEDOBAPTIST. 171 
 
 the practice of the Prisoner to be a daring innovation 
 upon the constitutional law of baptism. 
 
 The question you are called upon to decide at this 
 time, is, who is guilty of this bold sacrilege 1 ? or, who 
 has been faithless to his constitutional obligation 1 The 
 answer that comes in way of response, from the testi* 
 mony before us, declares the Prisoner at the bar alone 
 is implicated, as the author of the innovation, which 
 makes void the law of baptism. Let us now proceed to 
 examine the defence the Counsel offered for his conduct. 
 
 1. Let us notice the Counsel's representation of our 
 " incontestable facts," as they are found in our opening 
 address to the Court and jury. The Counsel professed, 
 but only in appearance, to contest the soundness of some 
 of them. In reality he sought to divert your attention 
 from the weight of influence they should exercise over 
 your judgment, in estimating the force of the evidence 
 before you. We will now undertake to prove, that from 
 his admissions he becomes a confirming witness, of the 
 soundness of the principles of law and evidence, which 
 he sought by his ingenuity to evade. 
 
 Let us hear him speak in relation to our first fact, 
 which teaches that bapttzo, and not bapto, is used exclu- 
 sively when Christian baptism is named or spoken of. 
 " We cordially admit," said he, " that baptizo alone is used 
 when the ordinance (of baptism) is named." We knew 
 this fact was so well sustained by authorities, that for 
 him to have doubted it, with Stuart and Carson at his 
 hand, would have been a blunder against which Pedo- 
 baptists would have protested. 
 
172 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 After making this admission, he opens a fire from a 
 battery, which he well knew, was only a useless waste 
 of ammunition. He says, Carson teaches that "bapto 
 signifies to dye in any manner." We have fairly stated 
 the distinction between bapto and baptizo, in their rela- 
 tion to Christian baptism. Bapto does not legitimately 
 come within this debate, because it is never, in a soli- 
 tary instance, used to denote the action of baptism. It 
 is a fact, fully sustained by Stuart and Carson, that 
 bapto, in its primary meaning, signifies to dip, and, after 
 its use in dyeing, it came to signify to dye, because 
 things were usually dipped, that they might be dyed. 
 Let us hear again Professor Stuart : " The idea of im- 
 mersing or plunging, is common to both the words bapto 
 and baptizo, while that of dyeing or coloring belongs 
 only to bapto," p. 43. In Carson's and Stuart's works 
 on baptism, you will find numerous examples from the 
 language, fully confirming this statement of Stuart. We 
 have not transcribed these examples, because the whole 
 controversy between the parties, must hinge upon the 
 meaning of baptizo in the law. This evasion by the Coun- 
 sel, of the only point in our first fact, will not avail him 
 any thing in building his house of sand. 
 
 2. To our second fact, which teaches baptism to be a 
 positive duty, and not a moral one, he replies, " who dis- 
 putes it." After making this admission, he adopts a 
 cunning evasion, by giving, what he conceives to be, the 
 essential prerequisites of baptism. What have they to 
 do with this " incontestable fact V f Nothing at all. The 
 prerequisites of baptism are not at present properly be- 
 
MR. FEJDOBAPTIST. 173 
 
 fore us. The question under this head is, is baptism a 
 positive or a moral duty 1 He has admitted it to he a 
 positive institution, and this is all we demand at present. 
 When the prerequisites of baptism are before us, we 
 shall point out the mistakes into which he has fallen on 
 that point. 
 
 3. To our third fact, which avers that only the popu- 
 lar meaning of words in positive duties are to be taken, 
 as expressive of the will of the Lawgiver, he replies by 
 saying, *• this is our principle as well as his." This is 
 all we demanded of the Counsel. To oppose this prin- 
 ciple of interpretation was impossible, in view of the 
 testimony offered to sustain it. 
 
 4. He passes by our fourth fact, by saying it was in- 
 cluded in the third. This is a practical admission of its 
 soundness, and is all we have a right to ask at his hands. 
 He proceeds to notice our fifth fact, which, teaches, that 
 the figurative acceptation of words is not within the 
 pale of legislation. He does not undertake to invalidate 
 this law of interpretation ; but makes remarks, which do 
 not in the least affect the principle laid down. This is 
 certainly meeting more than my expectations led me to 
 anticipate. 
 
 The only well established law of figurative language 
 is, that the figurative meaning of a word is founded on a 
 likeness to its literal meaning. The manner of the literal 
 word in its action, is not to determine its figurative ac- 
 ceptation, for the figurative use is not founded on the 
 manner of the literal. For instance, a man is said to be 
 immersed in debt. The manner in which the debts were 
 
174 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 contracted, is not to be found in the word immerse. The 
 figurative use of the word immerse here, represents what 
 the debts of the man do to him. This is shadowed forth 
 by the literal meaning of immerse, because there is a 
 likeness between his state, and that of a man immersed 
 in water. This principle is invaluable in its application 
 to the figurative use of baptizo. 
 
 5. Our sixth fact, which refers to the object of intelli- 
 gent legislation, comes next under his review. Here he 
 makes some appearance of contesting the principle upon 
 which this " fact" is founded, by saying, " this is gene- 
 rally true, but it is not well founded, to say the manner 
 of executing these objects was commanded." His prin- 
 ciple here laid down, is not disputed, viz : — That the 
 manner of executing a command is not always required. 
 For this reason we say, the manner of immersing is not 
 required in the law of baptism. But immersion is the 
 thing commanded, and it alone can meet a leading object 
 in the ordinance — a symbolic representation of Christ's 
 burial and resurrection. No other action in baptism can 
 meet the demand of this object. 
 
 The Counsel assumes, without evidence, that immer- 
 sion, sprinkling, &c, are only different ways of baptizing, 
 and that we are left to conjecture what baptism is in its 
 action, of which all these are only modes. His reply to the 
 question — What is baptism % amounts to this, that bap- 
 tism is an application of water, to a suitable subject, in 
 the name of the Trinity. 
 
 His answer is wholly gratuitous, because he offers no 
 evidence to support it. He relies too much upon our 
 
MR. rEDOBAPTlST. 175 
 
 credulity — our willingness, to believe without testimony. 
 The time has come in this discussion to undeceive him, 
 by demanding the proof of his definition of Christian 
 baptism. Until offered in a veritable form, we are bound 
 to pass it by unnoticed. 
 
 We learn from the examples of baptizo given in evi- 
 dence by the testimony of Mr. Classic, that there is no 
 water in the meaning of the word baptizo, for it is used 
 to denote an action into any thing, that can be pene- 
 trated. (See page 25.) And when used in relation to 
 water or any other thing, that can be penetrated, the 
 object said to be baptized, is applied to the water or thing 
 penetrable, and not the water or thing penetrable, ap- 
 plied to the object baptized. The examples of baptizo 
 in evidence clearly prove this, and this fact makes void 
 entirely the Counsel's definition of baptism — " an appli- 
 cation of water to the subject of baptism." This fact, 
 also, will show how groundless is the conceit, of the 
 manner of baptizing as the Counsel represents it, because 
 all these examples teach the thing done was immersion. 
 The manner in which it was done is not expressed by the 
 word baptizo — all it demands is an immersion ; with the 
 manner of immersion it has no concern. It is like the 
 command to walk, or to read. The manner of walking 
 or reading is not imported in the words. Their manner 
 is represented by other words, for instance, fast, slow, 
 well, and badly. The command to walk, to read, only 
 contemplates these acts and leaves them to be performed 
 in any manner. Let the command in connection with 
 the acti" require a manner of walking and reading, and 
 
176 THJ5 TRIAL Of 
 
 the command could only be fulfilled by the act performed 
 in the manner found in the command. In the law of 
 baptism, we have only the act of immersion required, the 
 manner or mode of doing it, is not required. If it was, we 
 would be bound to immerse persons in the way required. 
 This elucidation of the distinction between an action and 
 its manner of performance, will fully expose the Coun- 
 sel's ingenious argument, concerning the manner of bap- 
 tising ; because it is just here he throws dust in o-ur eyes, 
 and then assumes an air of triumph, when in fact he only 
 shows the defenceless character of his position. 
 
 To help to keep up the deception of manner he calls to 
 his assistance, "bathe" and "wash." He says these two 
 words as used in commands "have no manner of observ- 
 ance required." The bathing he refers to, belonged to 
 the law of Mosesi The object in the law that required 
 bathing, was a specific one — physical cleansing, as you 
 can see in Num. 19 : 8, 17. The word bathe required a 
 thing to be done — " to bathe the flesh in water," — the 
 manner of doing it is not required in the word. To 
 sprinkle or pour a little water upon the person com- 
 manded to bathe himself, would not have been a fulfil- 
 ment of the law, because the law required him to " bathe 
 his flesh in water." He also introduces the command 
 of the Saviour to the blind man in John 9, to wash 
 in the pool. The word wash here does not signify that 
 the command could have been fulfilled by sprinkling or 
 pouring some of the water of the pool upon him, because 
 they are not included in the command given. The com- 
 mand required of him "to wash in the pool of Siloam." 
 
MR. I'EfcOBAPTIST. J 77 
 
 The object of the command was intelligent and specific. 
 " He went his way, therefore, and washed and came see- 
 ing." It does not say he went and sprinkled or poured 
 water upon himself, and "came seeing." You have here 
 as well as in the case of bathing, an exact fulfilment of 
 the law. 
 
 The real distinction between the two commands just 
 examined and the action of Christian baptism is, the 
 former contemplated two specific effects— physical cleans- 
 ing and the seeing of the blind man j the latter a spe- 
 cific action for a specific object — the putting on Christ by 
 respresenting our faith in his death, burial and resurrec- 
 tion. So Paul teaches. It is an equally baseless axiom to 
 say, when we find a generic word representing a specific 
 effect of a specific action in a law, that all words in law are 
 generic. This false principle is without authority or prece- 
 dent to sustain it ; but this is the foundation of the Coun- 
 sel's whole argument. It is the general character of the 
 Divine laws to be specific in their commands and inter- 
 dictions. This fact is the basis of our responsibility. 
 The nature and object of a law certainly give a charac- 
 ter to its enacting words, and these words must unfold 
 in a common light its nature and object, to those who 
 are to be its subjects. For this reason we must regard 
 baptizo as signifying the act of immersing; for without 
 this action being done, the design of the ordinance can- 
 not be met according to its original appointment. So 
 Paul understood it, and so did the Christian Fathers and 
 Reformers, although the latter kept up the innovation of 
 the Prisoner, with their exceptions filed against it. 
 
178 THE TRIAL Of 
 
 The Counsel called our attention to those principles of 
 law which he laid down, in his opening address to the 
 Court and jury. It will not do for us to pass them by 
 in silence, for fear there may be capital made of our 
 neglect to notice them. 
 
 1. The first consideration is, that baptizo is a Greek 
 word. This certainly is no new discovery. There has 
 not been intimated a doubt of this fact. If it was an 
 English word instead of a Greek one, we would not be 
 here contesting its meaningo 
 
 2. His second consideration is, that this word is used 
 in the Greek only in relation to common occurrences in 
 life, and not to denote their religious washings. Does 
 a word lose its specific meaning because it is not used 
 in relation to every thing % There is no such principle 
 recognized by the laws of language. A word does not 
 become sacred or common, because of its use in relation 
 to the one or the other. If the Counsel wishes to make 
 the impression in reference to the use of words, that they 
 are common or sacred by use, (so I understand his second 
 consideration,) I must tell him he is lamentably mistaken 
 in this conception, for all men recognize the principle, 
 that a word does not lose its meaning when applied to 
 common or sacred things. Words do not become sacred 
 or common by use. This is self-evident. 
 
 3. His third consideration is, that the Jews used bap- 
 tizo in relation to their religious washings. This fact 
 does not alter its meaning. If they used baptizo with 
 a different acceptation from the Greeks, then this con- 
 sideration would be of moment. Until this supposed 
 
MR. PED01MPTIST. 179 
 
 fact is in evidence, we have no right to presume a differ- 
 ent meaning. The Counsel has not attempted to prove 
 another meaning. The evidence in testimony from 
 Greeks and Jews is, that baptizo has a common meaning 
 among them both, viz : to immerse. 
 
 4>. His fourth consideration is, that words change their 
 meaning in the course of time. What has this to do 
 with baptizo ? Nothing at all, unless he undertakes to 
 prove that baptizo had lost its primary meaning, and as- 
 sumed a new meaning before it was introduced into the 
 Constitution. Without evidence to prove this assump- 
 tion, this law of language will afford him no relief in 
 this controversy. He has made no regular effort to prove 
 this baseless assumption. Without evidence to support 
 it, even in appearance, you are bound to take no notice 
 of it. 
 
 5. His fifth consideration is, that the meaning of bap- 
 tizo is to be determined by its use in the language, be- 
 fore, and at the time of its appropriation to the ordinance 
 of baptism.. In this consideration, he adopts one I have 
 laid down in my opening address. This fact presents 
 the issue before the Court and jury in a plain light— 
 the meaning of baptizo at the time of its adoption in the 
 Constitution. Our testimony points directly to this 
 period, and determines its meaning at that time. On 
 this single point we are willing to rest the issue of this 
 controversy in the light of the testimony in evidence. 
 
 6. His sixth consideration is, the manner of baptizing 
 is not commanded. We have so often been called to 
 notice the deception he here again presents, that we have 
 
180 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 concluded you do not demand its exposure, every time 
 the Counsel chooses to introduce it. Baptizo signifying 
 to immerse, from the evidence before us 3 we have no ob- 
 jection to him saying the manner of immersing is not 
 commanded. We do most seriously object to his view 
 of baptism, because he makes it some indefinite thing 
 not to be comprehended, and gives immersing, &c, as 
 modes of this indefinite thing. Why did he not make a 
 logical effort to prove, that baptism, as commanded, 
 could be legitimately performed by these variety of modesi 
 This he knew to be a hopeless task. You never hear 
 the New Testament writers speaking of modes of bap- 
 tism. If they understood baptism as Pedobaptists do 
 now, how shall we account for their entire silence'? It 
 is impossible for Pedobaptists to find a similarity of con- 
 duct existing between the writers of the New Testament 
 and themselves. 
 
 THE PRISONER'S COUNSEL'S REVIEW OF THE TESTIMONY 
 ANSWERED. 
 
 We will proceed to an examination of the argument of 
 the Prisoner's Counsel, in his review of the testimony of 
 the witnesses. Before we enter directly upon this scrutiny, 
 it will be proper for us to notice the state of the contro- 
 versy, as presented by him in the following language : 
 " That the Lawgiver designed in the Constitution of this 
 country,by the word baptizo, to show that only immersion 
 in water of a lawful subject, was valid baptism." We 
 cheerfully admit this to be a just representation of the 
 issue joined by the parties now in controversy before the 
 
MR. PEDOBAFTIST. 1S1 
 
 Court. The law demanded of us the proof of this pro- 
 position. We cordially recognized our obligation, and 
 have, by the testimony offered, fully met the law's ut- 
 most claim upon us. The evidence of this fact will be 
 clear to all your minds, after we have examined the sup- 
 posed arguments offered by the Counsel, in his partial 
 examination of the witnesses. 
 
 MR. CLASSIC. 
 
 It must be remembered that the testimony of Mr. Clas- 
 sic is confined to the use of baptizo in the Greek lan- 
 guage. All the examples he gives of its use, place its 
 signification to immerse beyond a reasonable doubt. — 
 This can be fully verified, by reading over all the ex- 
 amples found in his testimony. With all the learning 
 and ingenuity of the Counsel, he has failed to find an 
 example of baptizo, not having the controlling idea of 
 the object of the action being under the element. This 
 is essential to the action and its meaning. What capital 
 would the Counsel have made of a solitary example of 
 baptizo, without the controlling idea of being under the 
 element, or covered over by it % 
 
 Let us look at what would have been our position, if 
 the Counsel had succeeded in finding several exceptions 
 in which baptizo could not signify to immerse, or to cover 
 over by the element, where its object is said to be bap- 
 tized. This supposed fact, did it exist, would not in the 
 least militate against our position in this controversy, 
 sustained as it is by unimpeachable testimony, because it 
 is a common occurrence for all words to be used in an 
 
182 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 unusual sense. This principle can be exemplified by ex- 
 amples of a thousand words. Who would be so far for- 
 getful of the laws of language as to say, the unusual 
 meaning of a word must be taken when you interpret 
 positive enactments 1 Under these circumstances we 
 would appeal, with confidence, to that approved law of 
 interpretation, which teaches that the common or popu- 
 lar meaning of words is to be taken, when we interpret 
 positive duties. This law of interpretation we have 
 placed beyond a cavil, by Pedobaptist witnesses. 
 
 Let us now look a few moments at the fearful conse- 
 quences that would follow a departure from the law we 
 have named. The will of the Lawgiver would be shrouded 
 in mystery to the largest portion of our race, because 
 they are not acquainted with the unusual meaning of 
 words. This knowledge would be limited to men of 
 learning and extensive reading. Again, it would make 
 the Bible no revelation to the multitude. Its meaning 
 would be hid from them forever, for want of knowledge. 
 A doctrine that would confine the knowledge of God's 
 will to only a few persons, because of their learning and 
 reading, finds no authority in God's Bible, or among the 
 standard Theological writers of this Commonwealth. 
 
 Our position in this controversy, does not call upon us 
 to plead the benefit of this approved law of interpreta- 
 tion, because the Counsel has failed to find exception in 
 Mr. Classic's testimony of the use of baptizo, that would 
 in the least justify any other action in baptism, than im- 
 mersion, or being covered entirely by the element. 
 
 We are now prepared to attend to his classification, of 
 
MR. I'EDOBAI'TIST. 183 
 
 the meanings of baptizo in the witness's testimony. 
 The Counsel says in his classification, it signifies "to sink, 
 to plunge, to immerse partially, to overwhelm, total im~ 
 mersion, and is used twice, by Hippocrates, indefinitely." 
 The Counsel deserves a patent for this admirable classi- 
 fication. This classification proves the following things: 
 1. The controlling idea in all the words is, the object 
 baptized is put under the element, or is entirely covered 
 over by it. What stronger evidence could be demanded 
 to prove that immerse is the meaning of baptizo, when 
 the Counsel was compelled to select words necessarily 
 containing this idea, for to "sink," "plunge," "im- 
 merse," " overwhelm," &c, all contain it 1 
 
 All the words found in his classification of baptizo, 
 do beyond a doubt, prove that the object said to be bap- 
 tized, is buried under the element, in which he would 
 say they are "sunk," "plunged," &c. This compelled 
 homage paid to the ruling idea in baptizo by his classi- 
 fication, shows unanswerably how invulnerable is the 
 testimony of Mr. Classic. 
 
 2. This classification of baptizo by the Counsel con- 
 tains its own refutation, because baptizo is not used in 
 the Greek language to express " sink," definitely. The 
 word used in the language to express this idea distinctly 
 is, says Beza and Witsius, « dunein, which is to go down 
 to the bottom and be destroyed." They also teach, that 
 baptizo contemplates that the object sunk shall emerge 
 again, and for this reason these two words ought not to 
 be confounded in their meaning. They have, it is true, 
 a common idea of being put under the element, but at 
 
184- THE TRIAL 01' 
 
 this point they lose their identity. Sink remains under 
 the element by the necessity of meaning, baptizo has the 
 liberty of emerging again. Baptizo sustains the same 
 relation to all the other words in this classification that 
 it does to " sink," except to " plunge" or " immerse." 
 The principle unfolded in this relation of baptizo to the 
 other words in this false classification, is simply this, 
 each of these words has its specific province, into which 
 the other cannot enter ; while there is a common pro- 
 vince in which either of them may serve. They all ex- 
 "press the idea of being covered over by the element, into 
 which the object is said to be sunk, &c, but they do not 
 all contemplate an emerging out of the element, because 
 their meaning gives them no such right. Baptizo claims 
 this right whenever it chooses to exercise it. 
 
 3. The classification is unsustained by the use of 
 baptizo in the language, and was only made by the Coun- 
 sel to impose a false idea upon the jury, of a variety of 
 meanings to the word. This variety in the classification 
 is made in order to sustain the Counsel's idea of a variety 
 of meanings. But in fact you detect a uniformity of 
 idea in the words selected, and that uniform idea is only 
 clearly expressed by immerse. But for him to have en- 
 closed it with its native costume, would, on his part, 
 have been to give up entirely, as far as this witness was 
 concerned, his defence of the Prisoner's conduct. This 
 argument of a variety of meanings is founded on a false 
 classification ; and yet the classification does not warrant 
 the argument, for the thing done to the object baptized 
 in the light of his own classification, required a unifor- 
 
MR. 1'EVOBAPTIST. 185 
 
 mity of action to all the subjects of baptism. If you 
 wish to sink, plunge, or overwhelm them, they must all 
 be put under the element. This shows his argument of 
 variety of meanings to be deceptive and fallacious and 
 only designed to deceive. 
 
 4. His own classification of baptizo fails to furnish a 
 single word containing an idea, that looks by way of 
 implication toward the practice of the Prisoner. The 
 fact, that all the examples of baptizo in the witness's 
 testimony, did not afford to sprinkle and pour a hearing 
 even when this classification was made, is an unanswer- 
 able argument against the Counsel's position. 
 
 5. This classification says that Hippocrates used baptizo 
 twice indefinitely. The father of medicine, were he liv- 
 ing, would meet this imputation with indignation. But 
 to meet the Counsel fairly, we say, those two examples 
 of baptizo, of which he speaks, can have no other mean- 
 ing than the examples that are definite, found in his 
 writings. To these we will now invite your attention. 
 He says: " Dip (baptizo) it again in breastmilk and 
 Egyptian ointment." Again : " Shall I not laugh at the 
 man who immerses (baptisonta) his ship by overloading 
 it, and then complains of the sea for ingulfing it with its 
 cargo." These examples plainly show how Hippocrates 
 understood baptizo. To him it had no other meaning 
 than immersion. The two examples of baptizo, referred 
 to in the classification, are expressed in the same lan- 
 guage. " He breathed as persons breathe after being 
 baptized." The peculiarity of breathing after being bap- 
 tized, is ihe striking feature noted as following the im- 
 
186 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 mersion of a person. This singularity of breathing' be- 
 longs exclusively to baptism by immersion, and not to 
 the baptism practised by the Prisoner. 
 
 Hippocrates, in his use of bapto and baptizo, in numer- 
 ous and undoubted examples, demands immersion as 
 their only action. What right has the Counsel then to 
 say, that he uses baptizo at any time indefinitely, when 
 he is clear and unquestionable on the meaning of the 
 word % One thing is obvious to us all, that the Counsel 
 feared to conjecture a meaning for these two occurrences 
 of baptizo. His failure to do something here, is a tacit 
 admission, that they could afford him no assistance in 
 making up his case for the Prisoner. 
 
 6. The conclusion drawn from this classification, is~ 
 not warranted by it, or the facts connected therewith. 
 We shall let the Counsel speak for himself: "This va- 
 riety of meaning destroys the entire object of his (Mr. 
 Classic's) testimony, and makes void the proscriptive 
 ground on which the prosecution entirely depends to 
 convict the Prisoner." He assumes, in this conclusion, 
 the whole question in controversy, and does this, too, 
 without the appearance of a tittle of evidence to support 
 it. Before he has a right to this conclusion, he must 
 prove clearly, that the idea of immersion is not a legiti- 
 mate one, belonging to baptizo in the examples in evi- 
 dence. Without this proof, his doctrine of a variety of 
 meanings for baptizo, is only a wild conjecture, called 
 into being for the occasion. You will remember he 
 failed to make an attempt to prove a variety of meaning, 
 and his own classification of baptizo will forever make 
 
MR. PEJJOBAPTIST. 187 
 
 void his conclusion ; for it proves an invariable idea be- 
 longs to baptizo, namely, to be covered all over by the 
 element into which the object is baptized. See how an- 
 tagonistic the Counsel's premises and conclusions are. 
 The premises, as expressed in his classification , teach 
 that an invariable idea belongs to baptizo. His con- 
 clusion teaches that a variety of ideas belong to baptizo ! 
 This single fact, so glaring in its character, surely 
 proves that no reliance can be placed upon the Counsel's 
 argument ; for we are compelled to believe, that if his 
 premises are supported by facts, his conclusion there- 
 from is madly false. Examine the testimony of Mr. 
 Classic fully yourselves, and see whether the scrutiny it 
 has passed through, has injured its uniformity and availa- 
 bility for the prosecution. 
 
 THE FIGURATIVE USE OF BAPTIZO IN THE CLASSICS. 
 
 We are aware the figurative acceptation of baptizo, as 
 found in the testimony of Mr. Classic, is not to be con- 
 sulted when the positive institution of baptism is to be 
 interpreted as to its action. But the inquiry that leads 
 to the knowledge of the figurative use of baptizo, is 
 legitimate, when the object of pursuit is its literal mean- 
 ing. Professor Stuart, in the numerous examples se- 
 lected by him, and many of which are in testimony of- 
 fered by Mr. Classic, gives overwhelm as the figurative 
 meaning of baptizo. This figurative acceptation is 
 founded on this law of figurative language, that the figu- 
 rative use of a word depends alone on the likeness there 
 is to its literal meaning. Overwhelm being the figurative 
 
188 THE TRIAL Ol* 
 
 meaning of baptizo, that word must literally signify im- 
 mersion, or it could not be the foundation of this figu- 
 rative acceptation. Because this is its meaning, we find 
 in the figurative use a likeness to this signification of 
 the literal word. Is it not impossible to find in literal 
 sprinkling or pouring, the foundation of " overwhelm" 
 as their figurative meaning! Why is it sol Because 
 these actions, with their likeness in figurative use, find 
 no congeniality with overwhelm. We are compelled, 
 by the force of circumstances, to trace the origin of this 
 figurative use of baptizo to its literal use, signifying to 
 immerse. 
 
 How Pedobaptists can reconcile their literal definitions 
 of baptizo, to this acknowledged figurative use, I have 
 yet to learn. To my mind it is beyond a consistent re- 
 conciliation, because their literal definitions afford no 
 ground for such a figurative acceptation. 
 
 This figurative use of baptizo as given by Pedobaptists 
 themselves, we claim affords us an argument for immer- 
 sion, as the literal meaning, that can never be met or an- 
 swered. Its light will always point back to immersion 
 as the foundation that gave it origin and likeness.— 
 Their practice will never afford the one or the other. 
 Let them give a justifiable reason if they can. 
 
 J0SEPHEI7S. 
 
 The next witness reviewed by the Counsel, is Mr. Jo- 
 sepheus, a Jew. His testimony on the import of baptizo 
 is clear and unquestionable. We lay great stress upon 
 his declaration that the word signifies immerse, because 
 
MR. PEDOBAPTIST. 189 
 
 he lived and wrote in the days of some of the apostles 
 of Christ, and from his learning and acquaintance with 
 the classic and sacred use of baptizo, he must have known 
 its meaning beyond a doubt. Baptizo, in his history of 
 the Jews, would have deceived his countrymen, if it was 
 used by him in a sense not common among the Jews. 
 We have no right to presume an unusual use by him, 
 until the fact is proven, or that the Jews used the word 
 with a different signification from the Greeks. This 
 supposed fact is no where in evidence, but is contrary to 
 the fact in evidence, that both Jews and Greeks used 
 baptizo to signify to immerse. This deserves our serious 
 consideration from the fact, that during his lifetime our 
 Constitution went into practical operation among Jews 
 and Gentiles. His position among his countrymen gave 
 him every opportunity of knowing the existence and 
 character of our government, and his use of baptizo at 
 this important period in our government's existence, 
 shows unmistakably its received meaning by the Jews. 
 The Counsel is found following his classification of 
 the meaning of baptizo in the testimony of Josepheus. 
 We have already shown that his system of classification 
 is arbitrary and without foundation in the language, nor 
 is it to be found in the witness's testimony. Let us look 
 a moment at his classification of this witness's testimony. 
 It is the following, " to sink, to immerse, to plunge, and 
 to overwhelm.'''' Every one of these words contemplates 
 a total immersion ! His own classification, false as it is 
 in principle, proves conclusively that baptizo in the testi- 
 mony of Josepheus, contains the invariable idea of im- 
 
190 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 mersion, and it offers not the appearance of an apology 
 for sprinkle or pour. 
 
 When the testimony of this witness is taken in con- 
 nection v/ith Mr. Classic's, it places immerse as the 
 meaning - of baptizo beyond an honorable contest. The 
 evasions adopted by the Counsel to neutralize the force 
 of this testimony, have not the appearance of even an 
 apology for an argument. His effort to invalidate the 
 definite character of the testimony on the acceptation of 
 baptizo, is a confirming argument of this fact, as found 
 in his classification — a uniformity of idea. It may ap- 
 pear strange to you, that we hold the Counsel's supposed 
 argument to be confirmatory of the witness's testimony. 
 Strange as this may appear, it is too true to be doubted, 
 because his classification, with all the words it contains, 
 demands of subjects to be put under the element in 
 which they are said to be " sunk," &c. 
 
 MR. LEXICON. 
 
 We find the Counsel adopting the same kind of false 
 logic that he employed in reviewing the testimony of 
 the former witnesses, in examining that of this witness. 
 We will note the following things to be found in his testi- 
 mony, which will be an ample refutation of the logic 
 thrown around it by the Counsel : 
 
 1. All the members of this family were Pedobaptist, 
 as far as their denominational character has been ascer- 
 tained. From this fact, we must expect the testimony 
 of Mr. Lexicon, to do all it can to justify the conduct 
 of the Prisoner, because on the subject of this contro- 
 
MR. PED0BAPT1ST. 191 
 
 versy their interests are identified. How far their de- 
 nominational prejudices controlled their judgment, will 
 be developed during our examination of the Counsel's 
 review of their testimony. Many of them we are com- 
 pelled to honor for their honesty and fidelity, to their 
 profession a9 lexicographers. 
 
 2. That the meaning of baptizo in Mr. Lexicon's evi- 
 dence, to make it reliable and certain, must be sustained 
 by examples of its use in the Greek language. Any defi- 
 nition offered by any of this family, not sustained by 
 clear examples, must be discarded ; for the only legiti- 
 mate business of a lexicographer is, to give the meaning 
 of words as understood by those who spoke and wrote 
 the language. This self-evident principle for the govern- 
 ment of all lexicographers teaches us plainly, that all 
 their definitions of words must be supported by use. 
 Unless they are, we are bound to reject them ; because 
 to countenance the reception of gratuitous meanings of 
 words without the authority of use, is to open a wide 
 door for all forms of unbelief. It is the abuse of this 
 self-evident law for the ascertainment of the signification 
 of words, that has led to all the corruption of Christian 
 doctrine. This fact should make us watch with a jealous 
 eye every departure from this sound principle, and repu- 
 diate it with all our hearts as hostile to the purity of 
 Christianity. 
 
 3. These Lexicons are made up of two classes, Classic 
 and New Testament. They all give, without exception, 
 the primary or popular meaning of baptizo, to be immerse, 
 and they support this meaning by many undoubted ex- 
 
192 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 amples of its use. All these Lexicons agree without ex- 
 ception to immerse as being the meaning of the word. 
 This fact ought to settle the controversy forever, hut still 
 Pedohaptists refuse to submit, notwithstanding their men 
 of learning depose to all we demand, and place the mean- 
 ing of baptizo in the constitutional law beyond a question. 
 4. The Counsel seeks refuge in his argument from im- 
 merse as the popular meaning of baptizo by resorting to the 
 effects of baptizing or immersing ; because these effects are 
 found associated with immerse in some of the classifica- 
 tions of baptizo by some of the Lexicons. These effects are 
 "to cleanse," " to wash," and "to purify." First, all 
 these words denote the object of immersion when it is for 
 cleansing, washing, and purification. To say all these 
 effects of immersion are proper meanings of the word, is 
 to say what insanity alone could believe. Secondly, these 
 effects of baptizo find no support as meanings of the 
 actions from the use of the word in the language. Without 
 they have this support, they have no claim to a hearing 
 in this controversy. Thirdly, the positions which these 
 words do occupy in their relation to baptizo, are those of 
 effects and not of legitimate significations ; because they 
 are designated in the Greek language by words which 
 show that they belong to different families not related to 
 baptizo. You cannot confound these families with bap- 
 tizo in the language. The argument must ever be false, 
 that makes baptizo absorb these families into its own, 
 and yet permits them to occupy their native territory. 
 Fourthly, some of the most learned of these lexico- 
 graphers tell us the reason why " to cleanse," " to wash" 
 
MR. PEDOEAPTIST. 193 
 
 a~nd "to purify," are found at the end of some of the 
 classifications, " because a thing is usually dipped or im- 
 mersed in water, that it may be washed, that it may be 
 cleansed." Let us now give you a few of the authori- 
 ties that fully support the distinction we have made be- 
 tween baptizo and its effects. Schleusner says : " Pro- 
 perly it (baptizo) signifies I immerse, I dip, I immerse 
 in water. 2d. It signifies, I wash or cleanse by water — 
 because, for the most part, a thing must be dipped or 
 plunged into water, that it may be washed." Thus he 
 gives the reason why baptizo, figuratively, means to wash, 
 because it is frequently the effect of immersion. Slokius, 
 on the New Testament, says : " Tropically, and by a 
 metalepsis, it means to wash, to cleanse, because a thing 
 is usually dipped or immersed in water, that it may be 
 washed, that it may be cleansed." Alstedius says : " It 
 signifies to immerse, not to wash, except by conse- 
 quence." These testimonies are all in evidence. Let 
 us add to these the testimony of Beza, the successor of 
 Calvin, at Geneva, He says : " Nor does baptizo signify 
 to wash, except by consequence ; for it properly signifies 
 to immerse." These Pedobaptist witnesses, fully estab- 
 lish all we have said about these effects of dipping, not 
 being proper significations of baptizo. Remember these 
 witnesses clearly show the reason why, " to wash, to 
 cleanse and to purify" are given in some of the classi- 
 fications of baptizo, by some of the members of this 
 family. — because they are the effects of immersion. 
 To assume that a word designating a specific action, as 
 
 baptizo does, is responsible for all the effects it produces, 
 
 9 
 
184 TEE TKi.iL OF 
 
 is altogether gratuitous, and without a tittle of authority. 
 You may take the word " immerse," as an example in 
 our language. Its effects are numerous and contradictory ; 
 for instance, cooling, heating, cleansing, washing, staining, 
 &c. To say that all these things are included in the 
 word immerse, would show a state of madness incurable 
 by evidence or logic. The whole force of Pedobaptist 
 arguments for their practice, is found in these effects of 
 immersion, and then they labor, as the Counsel has done, 
 to make them proper significations of baptizo. His argu- 
 ment on this point is worth nothing, until he proves 
 these significations by examples in the language. This 
 oortant undertaking is essential to his position, but he 
 it unsustained. The reason is, because it was im- 
 possible for him to make it good. We think we have 
 fully shown and proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that 
 the whole argument founded on the effects of baptizo, is 
 without authority, and contrary to the facts in relation 
 to its use. 
 
 5. It is evident, also, from the testimony of this wit- 
 ness, that no Lexicon, for eighteen hundred years from 
 the Christian era, gave to baptizo the signification of 
 sprinkle or pour. This fact closes the door against a 
 successful defence of the Prisoner's conduct, because his 
 own friends, in this witness's testimony, gave no sanc- 
 tion to his practice. If these men of acknowledged 
 learning and authority in his own party, failed to find 
 any use of baptizo in the language justifying his conduct, 
 the Counsel's effort will meet with no better success. 
 
 6. We are now prepared to hear the Counsel's conclu- 
 
MR. PEDOBAPTIST, 195 
 
 3ion, concerning 1 Mr. Lexicon's testimony. We will let 
 him speak for himself: " This position (of a variety of 
 meaning) clearly shows that baptism is a thing that may 
 be done by a variety of manner." We have in this 
 language the old evasion — the manner of baptizing. We 
 have exposed this evasion several times during our ad- 
 dress, by showing that we are not disputing about the 
 manner of baptizing, but about the action commanded by 
 the word baptizo in the constitutional law. The manner 
 in which this action is performed, is a question left to all 
 to determine. The action being immersion — the manner 
 in which you immerse a proper subject is a question with 
 which we have nothing to do at present. Mr. Lexicon's 
 testimony places any other action of baptism, than im- 
 mersion, out of the question. This testimony in. no way 
 teaches, that a variety of actions constitute what we call 
 baptism, or belong to baptizo in the ordinance. 
 
 MR. TRANSLATOR'S TESTIMONY, 
 
 We are now called upon to look at the review which 
 this witness's testimony received from the Counsel : 
 
 1. The Counsel failed to notice the facts stated by the 
 witness, in relation to the ancient translations of the 
 Scriptures, and therefore he offered no particular objec- 
 tions to this part of his testimony. The exhibition of 
 the ancient translations proved clearly, that the transla- 
 tors understood baptizo in its sacred acceptation to signify 
 to immerse, and so translated it. They are not found 
 in a solitary instance translating it by sprinkle or pour. 
 These two things in this part of his evidence are sigmfi- 
 
196 THE TRIAL ©F 
 
 cant, and show that the translators found nothing in the 
 Scriptures relating to baptizo, that would justify or coun- 
 tenance the conduct of the Prisoner. You will find in 
 reading over this part of the testimony, a united under- 
 standing of baptizo in the law of baptism, and that by 
 the words by which they translate baptizo they show 
 forth unanimously that its meaning is to immerse. It 
 also gives you the authorities by which we ascertain the 
 meaning of the words they use to translate baptizo. We 
 shall say no more on this part of his testimony, because 
 the Counsel, by his silence, signified it was all against 
 the Prisoner, and in favor of the prosecution. 
 
 2. We are more particularly invited to that part of 
 the testimony that refers to the English translation of 
 the Scriptures. To estimate it justly we must take the 
 following facts into consideration : (1) The translators 
 selected for this work by king James, were all Pedobap- 
 tists. (2) They were commanded by the same authority 
 not to translate the old ecclesiastical words, among 
 which was baptizo. (3) They are found, for the reason 
 stated, refusing to translate baptizo when connected with 
 the Christian ordinance. (4) We must expect them, as 
 Pedobaptists, to favor the practice of the Prisoner if they 
 can. (5) Under no circumstances do we find them trans- 
 lating baptizo by sprinkle or pour, whether connected 
 with the ordinance or not. These considerations are all 
 in evidence, and they must be taken into account when 
 you pass your judgment on this part of the testimony. 
 
 3. These translators did translate the first occurrence 
 of baptizo in the Scriptures found in 2 King, 5 : 14, by 
 
MR. FEDOBAPTIST. 197 
 
 dip: "And JVaaman went down and dipped himself 
 (ebaptisato) seven times in Jordan. In Hebrew Scrip- 
 tures this act of Naaman is designated by taval, its 
 usual word for dipping or immersing. The Greek trans- 
 lation by the Seventy, translate taval by abaptisato, both 
 of these words having the signification of dipping. — 
 The German translation of this word by Luther is tauff, 
 which he in his testimony in evidence says signifies to 
 immerse. Professor Stuart translates abaptisato by 
 "plunged." All these translations of this passage agree, 
 that baptizo signifies to dip or to immerse. This agree- 
 ment can only be accounted for on the ground that the 
 obvious meaning of the word is to immerse. This should 
 be evident from this fact, that the English translators, 
 the German translator, and Professor Stuart, were Pedo- 
 baptists, and their denominational interests demanded of 
 them an indefinite translation of baptizo instead of a 
 specific one. But the force of the passage and the specific 
 character of baptisato overcame all their denominational 
 predilections, and therefore we have this translation. — 
 If abaptisato must have this specific meaning in this pas- 
 sage, the same law must demand the same signification 
 to be given to it wherever it is found in the Scriptures ; 
 unless it can be shown that the connection it sustains to 
 other words, demands a departure from this meaning. 
 This supposed necessity can never be proven by them ; 
 for wherever you find baptizo in the Scriptures, you can 
 always substitute immerse in its place, and it will always 
 make good sense. This incontestable fact warrants and 
 justifies the above translation. You may try any word 
 
198 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 offered by Pedobaptists, and used by them as a transla- 
 tion of baptizo to justify their practice, by this law of 
 substitution, and you will find that their substitution will 
 faii to make good sense, and, therefore, cannot be legiti- 
 mately employed. There is a self-evident principle 
 governing all languages, that authorizes the substitution 
 at all times of words of the same import, one for the 
 other, and when substituted they always make good sense. 
 It is also self-evident that if you substitute words of 
 different families in one language representing certain 
 ideas, for words of another family in another language 
 representing different ideas, that they will not agree, and 
 the conclusion is unavoidable, that in this relation they 
 will not make good sense. It is by the power of these 
 principles we test all the words offered as translations of 
 baptizo. The only words offered that meet the approval 
 of their judgment are those presented by Mr. Baptist — 
 immerse, plunge, and dip. These are approved, be- 
 cause they are significant of a common idea. All the 
 words offered by Mr. Pedobaptist are condemned, be- 
 cause they cannot be substituted for baptizo, and make 
 good sense. These words are sprinkle, pour, purify, 
 wash, and cleanse. It would be well for you at your 
 leisure to make all these words pass through the trial 
 which these principles demand, and thus test their sound- 
 ness. We are willing to abide the issue of such a trial. 
 4. The Counsel relies with confidence upon that part 
 of this witness's testimony, where you find he translates 
 baptizo by the word wash, in several instances where it 
 is unconnected with the Christian ordinance. For this 
 
MR. FEUGBAi'TIST. 199 
 
 translation he gives no authority, without which it can 
 have no claim upon our attention. We know this trans- 
 lation of the word in the places named in his testimony- 
 is without authority, and contrary to authority. This 
 fact is evident from the following considerations in evi- 
 dence. First. The word baptizo, per se. has not the 
 idea of water in it. The examples of its use in evi- 
 dence, conclusively prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. 
 Secondly. The authorities in evidence teach, that wash is 
 only an effect of baptizo when it is used for washing. 
 This effect can never be a proper meaning of the word. 
 Thirdly, it is opposed to the law of substitution, because 
 you cannot uniformly substitute "wash" in the Scrip- 
 tures, as a translation of baptizo, and with it make good 
 sense in the relations it is thus compelled to sustain to 
 other words. You may test this substitution in its ap- 
 plication to that passage of Scripture in which Christ's 
 sufferings are represented by baptizo. These sufferings; 
 find no relation to the idea of washing, which follows 
 its substitution here. You may try it again by substi- 
 tuting wash for baptizo in Rom. 6. These trials will 
 show you that wash is not a translation of baptizo. 
 Fourthly. It is an undoubted fact found in the Greek lan- 
 guage, that wash forms a distinct and separate family 
 from bapto, and at the head of its family is luou. And 
 this family of words is used to express a distinct class 
 of ideas in the language peculiarly its own, and which 
 do not belong to baptizo. In their use in the Scriptures 
 they are not confounded. Luou is never used in the 
 Scriptures where baptizo is demanded to express the ac 
 
200 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 tion. These two words are found in the same verse ex~ 
 pressing two separate and distinct things, for instance 
 where it reads, " he washed their stripes ; and was bap- 
 tized, he and all his, straightway." The two things here 
 said to be performed are expressed by these two words 
 and are not confounded, because the words are not the 
 same in meaning or convertible. All that can be made 
 out by evidence in relation to luou and baptizo in their 
 intercourse with each other, is this : there is a common 
 province into which they both may enter, when immer- 
 sion is the action, and there is a native province that is 
 peculiar to each, into which the other dare not enter. 
 Luou is essentially generic in its character, and baptizo is 
 essentially specific in its aetion. The use of these two 
 words in the language proves this statement. To test 
 its truthfulness examine all the examples of their use 
 in the language, and they will fully demonstrate the 
 above distinction. Fifthly. This translation in these 
 few occurrences of baptizo, will not warrant the practice 
 of the Prisoner, because the washing refers to the whole 
 person, and the manner of its performance is illustrated 
 in the conduct of Naaman by dipping himself in Jordan. 
 All know that sprinkling and pouring are not usual modes 
 (or modes at all) of washing, according to the use of 
 this word in the Greek language, because luou refers to 
 the whole body, and not as do those actions to only a 
 partial application. 
 
 5. The Counsel's conclusion, drawn from this wit- 
 ness's testimony, is, that wash would be a good substi- 
 tute in English for baptizo in Greek. This substitution 
 
mr. rsDOBAriisT. 201 
 
 we have already shown to be incorrect. If the Saviour 
 ntended wash to be the action performed in the ordi- 
 nance which He appointed, He would have selected luou, 
 which all know signifies in English, to wash. The 
 name of the ordinance would then have been washing, 
 instead of baptism. Or if He desigsed only a partial 
 application of water to the subjects, then nipto would 
 have been selected as the word to denote the thing to be 
 done. The fact that the Saviour passed by the words 
 that denote washing, and those that denote sprinkling 
 and pouring, and selected baptizo to indicate the act in 
 baptism, is significant, and can only be accounted for by 
 the fact, that its action alone could denote the design of 
 the institution. 
 
 JEWISH PROSELYTE BAPTISM. 
 
 We offered, said the Counsel, a number of Pedobaptist 
 witnesses to prove the manner in which the Jews bap- 
 tized their proselytes. Their testimony places beyond a 
 cavil or doubt the practice of immersion by them, when 
 they introduced proselytes into their fellowship. The 
 Counsel passes by the evidence of this fact without no- 
 tice. His death-like silence, can only be interpreted as 
 admitting that the practice of the Jews in baptism, was 
 only immersion. 
 
 His testimony refutes completely, the cavil that baptizo 
 among the Jews had a different signification from that 
 which it had among the Greeks. Pedobaptists are ready 
 to admit it signifies immerse among the Greeks, but not 
 among the Jews. This testimony proves their assump- 
 
202 TtfE TRIAL Of 
 
 tion to be baseless and unsupported, by showing a Com* 
 mon understanding among Jews and Greeks. There is 
 no resisting this testimony. There is nothing offered to 
 oppose it. It fully accounts for Mr. Josephus's em- 
 phatic declaration that baptizo signifies only to immerse* 
 Until there is found in the Jewish practice of baptism, 
 something favorable to the practice of the Prisoner, we 
 are bound by every law of evidence, to believe that they 
 understood baptism in no other sense than that of im- 
 mersion. 
 
 INDEPENDENT WITNESSES. 
 
 We offered a class of independent witnesses, whose 
 denominational character we did not inquire into. They 
 were men of undoubted learning and authority. Their 
 testimony proves two things. First. That baptizo sig- 
 nifies to immerse in the classic and Jewish acceptation of 
 the word. Secondly. That immersion in baptism was 
 the practice of the ancient church. These two facts are 
 more than our defence demands^ and they accord then* 
 to us with a cheerful cordiality. In consulting the his- 
 tory of these witnesses, you will find they had no inter- 
 est to subserve in giving this honest testimony. It fully 
 illustrates the force of truth and evidence over the hu» 
 man mind, making it to rise above party feeling. 
 
 PEDOBAPTIST WITNESSES. 
 
 We called this class of witnesses to the stand, to prove 
 that the meaning of baptizo in the constitutional law is 
 to immerse. These witnesses were Reformers, Common 
 
Mft. I'EDOBHTlST. 203 
 
 tators, <fec. We classified them in the following orders 
 1. German witnesses, commencing with Luther, and 
 closing with the most learned Germans of this genera* 
 tion. 2. Presbyterian witnesses, beginning with Calvin^ 
 and closing with Chalmers. 3. Episcopal witnesses of 
 eminent ability, and of high official position in the 
 church of which they were members. 4. Roman Catho- 
 lic witnesses of character and authority in their commu* 
 nion. 5. Armenian Professors of notoriety and learn- 
 ing. 6. Miscellaneous witnesses of undoubted charac= 
 ter and influence. These, in number, constitute a host 
 of the friends of the Prisoner, but stand to all We have 
 demanded at their hands on the meaning of the word 
 in dispute. To estimate justly the weight of their testi* 
 mony, the following things must be taken into considera^ 
 tion. (1) That these witnesses lived when sprinkling and 
 pourings as actions of baptism, were popular in their sev- 
 eral communions. (2) They were the friends of the 
 Prisoner, and opposed to Mr. Baptist. (3) We only 
 called upon them to testify to a fact — the meaning of 
 baptize- in the Constitution. (4) Their opinions con* 
 cerning what would answer as well as immersion in bap- 
 tism, do not legitimately come before this tribunal for a 
 decision. The Court you remember refused to admit 
 the opinion of Calvin on this subject, and placed that 
 refusal upon a ground that is unanswerable. (5) The 
 evidence necessary to overcome their educational preju= 
 dice and denominational interests against immersion, as 
 the baptism commanded in the Constitution, must have 
 been invulnerable^ otherwise they Would not have been 
 
'204 THE TRIAL ol- 
 
 found testifying against their own practice. (6) The 
 reason offered by some of them for their present practice j 
 find for a change from the practice authorized by the con- 
 stitutional law, is that the difference of country and 
 climate demands it. All these important facts, with 
 others we shall name, ought to be taken into account, 
 when we come to ascertain the force of their testimony. 
 There is another aspect of their testimony to be con- 
 templated ; that is, it is the testimony of opposers and 
 not of friends in this trial. This fact proves that their 
 testimony is a voluntary tribute to truth, and not called 
 forth by any interest they had in the triumph of the 
 prosecution. The fact that their testimony meets all 
 the demands of Mr. Baptist's charge against Mr. Pedo- 
 Baptist, should be to us all the surest guarantee of the 
 Prisoner's guilt. If these were the only witnesses called 
 to testify for the Commonwealth, their evidence, in the 
 judgment of the law, would be sufficient to place the 
 acquittal of the Prisoner beyond a reasonable expectation. 
 
 KEPLY TO THE COUNSEL'S REVIEW. 
 
 The Counsel's review of these witnesses' testimony, 
 is so indefinite in its character, that it is almost impos- 
 sible for us to join a fair issue with him. His remarks 
 are altogether declamatory. We shall, however, seek to 
 meet his most prominent assumptions. 
 
 1. That their testimonies "are based on a common 
 principle — that no particular manner of baptizing was 
 commanded." He signifies here by " manner of bap- 
 tizing" what we have repeatedly exposed as an evasion 
 
Mft. PED*i3APTiST. 203 
 
 Or deception designed to teach that baptizo in the law sig* 
 frifies immersion, sprinkling, and pouring. The truth is, 
 the common principle unfolded ii> the testimony of these 
 witnesses is, that baptizo in the constitutional law signi- 
 fies to immerse, and therefore it can never by any show 
 of reason he a manner of itself. The Counsel's princi- 
 ple adapted to deceive us, finds no support from the tes- 
 timony, but is made void by it. Did we not call them 
 to testify to the meaning of baptizo in the law! They 
 met the question with an honorable answer. That an- 
 swer supports not the principle of the Counsel, but 
 meets it with an indignant repudiation. 
 
 Why did not the Counsel make a fair issue by saying, 
 that immersion was not commanded when baptizo was 
 incorporated in the institution, and that so the witnesses 
 testified 1 This he knew too well to be a hopeless under- 
 taking in the light of the facts in evidence, and the 
 character of these witnesses' testimony. We could have 
 refuted his whole position by merely reading over what 
 Luther and Calvin said on the meaning of baptizo in the 
 Constitution. He knew his evasive mod& of argumenta- 
 tion gave him his only hope to deceive the jury and 
 public. The fact that his cause affords him no better 
 defence of his client, ought to be conclusive evidence to 
 all of the hopeless weakness of the position he is striving 
 to defend. 
 
 2. The Counsel's next assumption is his law of evi- 
 dence, expressed in the following words : " That when a 
 witness is called to testify for a party, the party is bound 
 to receive his whole testimony." This is what we are 
 
^06 THE TRIAL Of 
 
 doing with this class of witnesses. We called them to 
 the stand to testify to a fact — the signification of haptizo 
 in the Constitution, and this is the extent of their power 
 to testify. 
 
 We do not receive their opinions of baptism, because 
 it is not competent to receive the opinions of witnesses 
 as evidence, when the question is one of fact and not of 
 opinion. See the injustice and fearful results that would 
 follow the admission of witnesses' opinions as evidence. 
 One class would teach that water baptism was not to be 
 practised under the Constitution 5 another class would 
 teach that water baptism is for the remission of sins 5 
 another class, that you have a right to change the action 
 of baptism, to suit your views of country and climate! 
 Are all these opinions on baptism to be received as 
 evidence! They are repudiated singly by a majority of 
 most of the denominations of Christians. Try by this 
 principle any other Christian doctrine — for instance, the 
 divinity of Christ 3 the duration of future punishment ; the 
 existence of the soul in an intermediate state after death, 
 until the resurrection ; the form of church govern* 
 ment, &c. To place the climax on this absurdity, its ap- 
 plication admitted, would subvert the divine authority of 
 Christianity. This lamentable result would necessarily 
 follow the admission of the opinions of witnesses as evi* 
 dence, when a simple question of fact is the subject of 
 inquiry. We repudiate all opinions, when we inquire 
 after constitutional facts. Facts alone have to do with 
 our government in this country. This elucidation of 
 our conduct, will prove that we have rigidly complied 
 
ftii. FMboMpfl&r. 2"0f 
 
 With this rule of evidence during our examination of 
 these witnesses ; and it will also prove, that the Coun- 
 sel in his questions to these witnesses, violated this rule 
 of evidence flagrantly, and his mode of argument only 
 seeks to walk in this interdicted pathway. 
 
 You find him laboring to make capital out of a law 
 of evidence, which we have observed to its letter, by 
 making the impression that we rejected material facts in 
 their testimony. Did not the Court decide, that any 
 fact could be admitted which related to the meaning of 
 baptizo in the law 1 Under the operation of this decision 
 we have been conducting the whole trial. 
 
 Let us notice the rebutting testimony offered by the 
 Counsel to that of these Pedobaptist witnesses. Why 
 offer rebutting testimony from other Pedobaptist wit- 
 nesses, if those we offered did not meet the demand of 
 the prosecution, as the Counsel was found urging zeal- 
 ously in his address 1 This fact throws around his con- 
 duct a suspicion, that his argument and conduct are an- 
 tagonistic. It is not for me to reconcile them. He de- 
 scribes the character of his witnesses in the following 
 language : They are " men of undoubted learning and 
 character." This may all be true of them, and yet prove 
 nothing. Let us now hear the conclusion he draws from 
 their testimony : " They say that baptism, as a Christian 
 ordinance, contemplates a variety of manner." A variety 
 of manner of baptizing does not touch our position, if 
 they mean a variety of ways of immersing. But this is 
 not his meaning. He holds that a variety of distinct 
 and different actions are modes of baptism. The follow- 
 
2QS tlf£ TRIAL Of 
 
 ing things are important to be noticed in relation to 
 their testimony. 1. They are all modern Pedobaptists> 
 who have made themselves active partisans in this con- 
 troversy. The Counsel might just as well have called 
 the Prisoner upon the witness stand, to testify, as these 
 witnesses. 2. These witnesses fail to sustain with 
 authorities any other meaning to baptizo, than to im- 
 merse. Read their testimony over carefully, and you 
 will find what we say to be a certain verity. Without 
 authorities sustaining their significations of baptizo, they 
 have no claim upon our attention. 3. Their testimony, 
 if we dare give it that name, amounts to nothing more 
 than their opinions offered to subserve the cause of Pe- 
 dobaptism. 4. You dare not receive their opinions as 
 evidence, and reject the fact testified to by those Pedo- 
 baptists, whom we have offered to testify to a fact op- 
 posed to their own practice. They honestly testified to 
 the truth, and gave their reasons for their practice. The 
 real character of this rebutting testimony is, a dogmatic 
 assumption of a meaning for baptizo, unknown to the 
 classic or sacred use of the word. The object sought to 
 be subserved thereby is, to hide the guilt of the Prisoner, 
 and offer a defence for their own disloyalty to the law of 
 baptism. 
 
 Let us note a fact that came to light during the cross- 
 examination of two of these witnesses. Drs. Hill and 
 Clark, both testify to the fact, that baptism was a sym- 
 bolic representation of Christ's death, burial and resur- 
 rection. We introduce the language of one of them as 
 proof of this. " But they (believers) receive baptism 
 
MB. PEDOBAPTIST. 200 
 
 as an emblem of death in voluntarily going under the 
 water ; so they receive it as an emblem of the resurrec- 
 tion unto eternal life, in coming up out of the water 5 
 thus they are baptized." The symbolic character of 
 baptism demands, as the witness teaches, immersion in 
 water as its action. This action being designated by 
 baptizo, it must of, necessity signify to immerse. With 
 all the perverseness manifested by these deeply interested 
 witnesses, we haye extorted from some of them the un- 
 willing fact, that immersion was baptism in primitive 
 times. This is all we need, to make our defence good. 
 
 4. The Counsel's appeal to the jury, in relation to the 
 loyalty of his witnesses to the Constitution of the coun- 
 try. This is the very subject we are called upon to try. 
 Until the verdict of the jury is made up and proclaimed 
 to the nation, his appeals are untimely and out of place. 
 It is also in vain for him to appeal to you about the effi- 
 ciency of their substitution of sprinkling and pouring as 
 modes of baptism, in place of immersion as its only 
 action originally commanded. The only question pro- 
 perly before us at this time is, what did the Lawgiver in 
 the Constitution intend to be done in the ordinance of 
 baptism, when he employed baptizo to designate its ac- 
 tion. On this single inquiry turns the whole controversy. 
 Do not our witnesses fully meet this single inquiry 1 
 We answer, fully. 
 
 FRIENDS OR QUAKERS. 
 
 The Counsel in reviewing the testimony of these wit- 
 nesses? treats them with indignity, and their authority 
 
210 - THE TKIAL OF 
 
 with contempt. He asks the following grave question in 
 relation to tbem. "What right have they to appear here 
 before the Court and jury to testify V 3 We answer in 
 the language of our law, they have the same rights which 
 are common to all our citizens. There is a feature in 
 their character, that should recommend them to us all as 
 witnesses. They are not committed in their sentiments 
 and practice to either of the parties in this controversy. 
 Witnesses of this character are always reliable in the 
 judgment of the Court. Let us now hear the Counsel's 
 reason for the rejection of their testimony. " They, in 
 sentiment and practice, deny the constitutional obliga- 
 tion of water baptism." This fact does not affect their 
 competence as witnesses to a fact, the meaning of bap- 
 iizo in the law. This is the only fact they were called 
 to testify to. As to their faith and practice referred to 
 by the Counsel, they are not as injurious to our country's 
 weal, as the sentiments and practice of some of his most 
 reliable witnesses. For these latter, like the Prisoner, 
 with the profession of obedience make void by their tra- 
 dition the action of baptism commanded. The reason that 
 would reject the one ought to reject the other. The dif- 
 ference between these two class of witnesses is this : 
 The Friends testify to the meaning of the word in the 
 law ; the other class, to what they suppose ought to be 
 its meaning, to suit their practice. 
 
 The Counsel admits their testimony to be unanswera- 
 ble in this language, " the testimony amounts to a dog- 
 matic assumption of the meaning of baptism being im- 
 mersion." The authorities they offered to sustain it, 
 
M». PEPOBAPTIST. 211 
 
 make it as truly dogmatic as any other fact proven. It 
 was impossible for the Counsel to meet it. In this fact 
 is to be found the reason of his indignation. 5fou will 
 give their testimony an honest estimate, and that is all 
 we ask. 
 
 REPLY TO DR. SCHMUCKER. 
 
 Now will properly come under our review the argu- 
 ments of the Counsel on baptizo in the New Testament, 
 with the circumstances connected with its action. He 
 read and adopted the argument of Professor Schmucker 
 on this subject, found in his Popular Theology, p. 263. — 
 The adoption of the argument as his own, was a tacit 
 admission of the Counsel's inability to manage this part 
 of the defence of the Prisoner's conduct plausibly. We 
 will proceed to an examination of the Professor's argu- 
 ment. 
 
 1. The question proposed by the Doctor — "Whether 
 immersion is enjoined in the Scriptures, and consequently 
 is one essential part of baptism." This question can only 
 be legitimately answered by making this inquiry, What 
 was the received meaning of baptizo at the time the 
 Saviour employed it in the institution of baptism 1 This 
 point must first be settled by competent witnesses, before 
 we can form an intelligent judgment, and offer a proper 
 answer to the question proposed. Had the Doctor sus- 
 pended his judgment of the meaning of baptizo, until he 
 placed before his readers the authorities on which he 
 claimed the right to answer the question, we would have 
 no just ground of complaint, For want of these author!- 
 
212 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 ties in evidence, it is our province to protest against his 
 answer. Answer the question he will. Patience on our 
 part demands submission. 
 
 2. The answer he gives to this question may be found 
 in the following language: " On this subject the Luthe- 
 ran church has always agreed with the majority of 
 Christian denominations, in maintaining the negative." 
 Before his negation is worth a single straw in this con- 
 troversy, he is bound to show that the authorities relied 
 upon to prove that baptizo in the Constitution only signi- 
 fies to immerse, are defective and insufficient. This de- 
 fence of the meaning of baptizo is passed by in silence. 
 This authorized mode of proceeding is not adopted by 
 him, but he is found adopting one that in our judgment 
 is calculated to mislead the public mind, that is, to argue 
 from a supposed impossibility of this meaning. This 
 mode of argumentation, adopted by him, will be attended 
 to when we arrive at that part of his argument where it 
 is introduced. 
 
 Without an ascertained meaning of baptizo in the 
 Greek language, how is he prepared to determine its 
 signification in the New Testament 1 He may plead a 
 sacred acceptation of the word, different from that which 
 it had among the Greeks. But this can only be admit- 
 ted when sustained by unquestionable authorities. The 
 position and authorities are wanting as the basis of his 
 answer. He goes to the New Testament in his argument 
 without an ascertained meaning for baptizo, and there 
 seeks to give it any meaning that suits his convenience 
 and practice. 
 
MR. PEDOBAr-TIST. 213 
 
 3. We are now prepared to hear his conclusion ex- 
 pressed in the following language: "And in regarding 
 the quantity of water employed in baptism, as well as 
 the mode of exhibiting it, not essential to the validity of 
 the ordinance." The argument upon which this conclu- 
 sion is supposed to rest, is stated in the form of a syllo- 
 gism. To its examination we now call your attention. 
 
 1. His major proposition is, "that no circumstance can 
 be necessary to the validity of a divine ordinance, except 
 those God has commanded.'''' The truthfulness of this pro- 
 position depends upon what he signifies by a " circum- 
 stance." It can never, with any show of reason, be said, 
 the thing commanded to be done in an ordinance is a 
 circumstance. Those things that attend the performance 
 required, may be called circumstances. To show the 
 force of our position, let us strike out baptizo from the or- 
 dinance of baptism. Will not this removal make the ordi- 
 nance void 1 Certainly, because the most important word 
 in the law is stricken out. In view of this fact we ask 
 how can the thing in the ordinance commanded and desig- 
 nated by baptizo be a " circumstance 1" For to make it 
 such seems to be the design of the argument. To illus- 
 trate our position and to show the essentiality of some 
 circumstances, let us look again at the command to bap- 
 tize. This word alone designates the thing to be done 
 to the subjects of baptism. Are not the place where it 
 is done, and the element in which it is done, essential 
 circumstances % These two things are not necessarily 
 included in the command to go and baptize, but as cir- 
 cumstances they are essential to the existence of the 
 
2 14) THE TRIAL OF 
 
 ordinance. Again, we are commanded in the Lord's Sup- 
 per, to eat bread and drink wine for a certain object. 
 This is the extent of the command as found in the insti- 
 tution. Is not the provision of the bread and wine essen- 
 tial to its performance! Are not the posture and place 
 essential to its observance *? All these things are essen- 
 tial circumstances to this ordinance. No one can say to 
 provide the bread and wine, and also a place with sub- 
 jects, that this would constitute the ordinance, because 
 then the eating and drinking, which are commanded, 
 would be wanting. But what would be the character of 
 the logic that would call the eating and drinking in the 
 ordinance for a certain object, only circumstances 1 If 
 the principle is just in its application to baptism, it also 
 must be so when applied to the institution of the Lord's 
 Supper. We have said sufficient to expose the design 
 of an argument, which seeks to confound the thing com- 
 manded with those things necessary to its execution. 
 
 2. His minor proposition is, that " God has not com- 
 manded immersion in his word." This is the assumption 
 of the whole question in debate ! This proposition can 
 have no logical connection with his major, unless im- 
 mersion is by him considered a circumstance connected 
 sometimes with the thing commanded to be done in the 
 ordinance ; and then the thing designated by baptizo in 
 the law signifies something, which he fails to inform us. 
 The unsoundness of his position is evident from the 
 fact, thabhis want of knowledge of the thing commanded 
 by baptizo in the institution, places beyond his judgment, 
 the determination of his supposed fact that immersion 
 
Mft. PEDQBA] - 215 
 
 is a circumstance of an unknown something denoted by 
 baptizo. Until this is ascertained, no man can tell what 
 are circumstances connected with it. This failure to 
 communicate this essential knowledge makes his own 
 position void, because without it he is unable to decide 
 anything concerning it. His assuming it to be true, 
 without facts to warrant it, is asking too much of his 
 readers. 
 
 Let us inquire whether the facts in evidence, and at 
 the hand of any person who will take a little trouble to 
 inform himself, will warrant the statement that immer- 
 sion is only a circumstance sometimes connected with 
 baptism 1 First, the testimony in evidence assures us 
 that baptizo signified to immerse, before, at, and after 
 the time it was incorporated into the law of baptism. — 3 
 Secondly, the early history of the church in her practice 
 as given by Pedobaptists, shows this to have been her 
 understanding of its signification. Thirdly, Pedobap- 
 tists, by scores, declare without equivocation, that im- 
 mersion was the thing commanded by baptizo in the law. 
 Take the united testimony of these witnesses, not in the 
 least interested for the Baptist view of this subject, and 
 it proves beyond dispute that the command in the law 
 was immersion. We ask by what supposed possibility 
 it could become a circumstance of itself? We sustain 
 our position by evidence that cannot by Pedobaptists be 
 disputed with the hope of success, because they offer a 
 willing testimony against their own practice. 
 
216 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 REPLY TO THE ARGUMENT ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 We are now prepared to proceed to an examination of 
 his arguments offered in proof of his minor proposition, 
 that " God has not commanded immersion in his wordy 
 Before we enter into this examination, it is desirable 
 that we should learn the meaning of baptizo from those 
 who wrote and spoke the language of the New Testa- 
 ment. To presume that the New Testament uses bap- 
 tizo in different senses, without incontestable authority, 
 is to dictate to it a meaning, and to regulate our inter- 
 pretations accordingly. This principle, in its applica- 
 tion, would practically make void revelation, as a medi- 
 um of communicating God's will to mankind. It be- 
 comes a necessity to interpret the Scriptures by the re- 
 ceived meaning of its words, unless connection or notice 
 teaches us otherwise. The subject of our inquiry was 
 so well understood by all the parties concerned in the 
 beginning of our government, that by them no questions 
 were proposed in relation thereto, or explanations given. 
 
 Heb. 9 : 10 : " Which stood only in meats and drinks," 
 &c. This is the first passage of Scripture referred to by 
 Dr. Schmucker, in proof of his position. These "divers 
 washings" (baptismois) referred to by Paul, took place 
 under the administration of the law of Moses. The 
 Doctor assumes " they were performed by sprinkling 
 and pouring." He offers not a single tittle of veritable 
 evidence, to support this bold assumption. How can 
 this assumption be made with the knowledge of the fact, 
 that sprinkle or pour is not in a solitary instance called 
 
MR, PEBOEAPTIST* ±] % 
 
 baptism 1 Does he believe a mere statement like this 
 will be believed in a controversy, that can be determined 
 only by evidence! If he does, he is greatly mistaken. 
 Precedents for its reception as evidence, would be hard 
 to find. This must prove to the impartial, the exceeding 
 weakness of a cause that can only be sustained by as- 
 sumptions. Paul says there were " divers baptisms" as 
 well as sprinklings, under the law. This should be suffi- 
 cient authority. If Paul does not confound them, what 
 right have we \ Let the Doctor, if he can, prove that 
 these "divers baptisms 1 ' were included in the sprinklings 
 under the same administration. This we know he never 
 can do. Until it is done by him, we are bound to con- 
 clude there is no support for his practice here. 
 
 We are willing to do more than can possibly be de- 
 manded of us, to show the nature of these "divers bap- 
 tisms," though we are aware that Paul's testimony is 
 sufficient, if received as evidence. The command to 
 "bathe their flesh in water," under the law, included im- 
 mersion. Naaman's conduct, in obedience to this law, 
 when he dipped himself in Jordan, is sufficient proof of 
 this fact. The command for bathing in Numbers 18th, 
 required the washing of their flesh in water, and the 
 most reasonable and easy way of compliance was by 
 immersion. We shall now cite two Pedobaptists, to 
 show that the immersion of persons was practised under 
 the law. Bp. Home : " The Jews had two sorts of 
 washing; one, of the whole body, by immersion, which/ 
 was used by the priests at their consecration, and by the 
 
 proselytes at their initiation," — Home's Intro,, p, 335. 
 10 
 
21 S T-HF. TRIAL OF 
 
 Dr. Brown : " t''ur none might go into the Court of the 
 priests to serve (not even those who were ceremonially 
 clean) who had not previously washed their bodies in 
 water; evidently denoting, that those should be hoty, 
 whose office it was to bear the vessels of the sanctuary. 
 But this immersion of the whole body in the morning, 
 was not repeated through the day." — Brown's Antiqui- 
 ties of the Jews, p. 354. Let me add the testimony of 
 Dr. Lightfoot, endorsed by Dr. A. Clark : " The baptism 
 of John was hy plunging the body, (after the same man- 
 ner as the washing of unclean persons, and the baptism 
 of proselytes was.) — Clark's Com. These are sufficient 
 to prove the immersion of persons under the law, which 
 we may suppose to be included in these "divers bap- 
 tisms." 
 
 Under the law, you will also find the immersion of 
 things: "But his inwards and legs shall be washed in 
 water." See also Lev. 11 : 32, and Num. 31 : 23, &c, 
 where the immersion of things is plainly taught. These 
 "divers baptisms" include all the immersions under the 
 law, whether of hands, feet, persons, vessels, clothing, 
 &c, because Paul does not make any specifications, but 
 includes all. 
 
 That this passage of Scripture a'flbrds, even by impli- 
 cation, any ground for sprinkling or pouring in baptism, 
 is not to be found here. Who can suppose that Paul 
 here, would contradict his meaning of baptism as found 
 in Rom. 6th, where he teaches it to be "burial." This 
 absurdity must be admitted to be a fact, to give a re- 
 spectable character to the assumption which teaches, 
 
WE. PEDOBA-PTIST. 219 
 
 that these divers baptisms embrace the sprinklings of the 
 law. Who is prepared to adopt a principle in the eluci- 
 dation of this passage, that can be used with a tremen- 
 dous force against Christianity 1 Infidelity would say, 
 your Bible is no intelligent document, if one thing is 
 made to embrace another, whenever your argument de- 
 mands it. With this principle, as a weapon, employed 
 against Popery, the battle would be all on one side, and 
 we would be sure of defeat. It is one of the boldest as- 
 sumptions to say, that baptizo includes raino and cheo, 
 when there is not a solitary occurrence to justify it, and 
 when it comes in direct conflict with the fact, that each 
 of these words is the representative of a distinct and 
 different idea in the language. Open your Concordance 
 and examine these words, and see whether what we say 
 is not demonstrated by their use in the Bible. 
 
 Mark 7: 4. — The second passage of Scripture intro- 
 duced by the Doctor, may be found in Mark 7 : 4. " And 
 when they (the Pharisees) come from market, except they 
 wash (baptize themselves) they eat not." This passage 
 and his use of it, will warrant the following considera- 
 tions : 
 
 1. Let me give his proof that baptizo here does not 
 signify to immerse. " Now it certainly was the custom 
 of the Jews to wash their hands before eating, but what 
 author ever contended that they entirely immersed them- 
 selves in water before every meal." The conclusion he 
 draws from this statement, created by his own fancies, 
 is, " yet this application of water to a very small part of 
 the body (to their hands) is called baptism." If this 
 
220 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 proof and conclusion do not form a logical curiosity, I 
 am much mistaken. That the argument is entirely false 
 is evident from the fact, that it is founded on two things 
 not in the document. First. " That the Jews entirely 
 immersed themselves in water before every meal." There 
 is no such statement found any where in the passage. 
 The statement of the writer and that of the Doctor are 
 as distinct and different propositions as any two can be. 
 The statement of Mark is, that when they come from 
 market they immerse themselves before eating. He does 
 not say they immersed themselves before every meal. 
 This fact given by Mark, makes entirely void the false 
 premises of the Doctor. They both cannot be found in 
 this, or any other Scripture. Secondly. His conclusion 
 cannot be better than his premises, that the "application 
 of water to a small part of the body is called baptism." 
 This conclusion finds no authority in the document. 
 The washing of hands referred to here, is not in this 
 Scripture, nor in any other, called baptism. If there was 
 such a passage in the Scriptures, why did he not present 
 it 1 For without something like it, his assumption is 
 false. The washing of the hands is designated by ni- 
 pesthai, a word belonging to another family, and no 
 where confounded with baptizo. If this was not the 
 fact, the contrary would be offered as conclusive proof 
 of their position, but up to this time, this essential thing 
 has not been found. 
 
 2. The Doctor's argument on this passage confounded 
 two things that are different — the washing of hands be- 
 fore meals, and the immersing of their persons after re- 
 
MR. PEDOBAPTIST. 221 
 
 turning from market, before taking their meals. The 
 one practice was of daily occurrence, designated by ni 
 pesthai. The other was a special occurrence after tbey 
 visited the market, and is designated by baptisontai. 
 These two customs differ as to the occasions that demand- 
 ed them — the one before every meal — the other only 
 after they came from market. Again, the one custom 
 only related to their hands — the other to their persons 
 And, further, the things said to be done are designated 
 by two different words that do not belong to the same 
 family. These facts, so visible in the document, ought 
 to put his assumption to shame. 
 
 3. Let us notice the historical confirmation which Dr. 
 Schmucker demands, for a custom although it is said to 
 exist, by the writers of the New Testament. He declares 
 it impossible that it was the custom of the Jews to im- 
 merse themselves before meals, because such a custom 
 is not confirmed by the testimony of a contemporaneous 
 historian. But you must remember that he states a cus- 
 tom for them not found in the passage — immersion be- 
 fore every meal. Is it not sufficient authority for Chris- 
 tians, that the Evangelist says the Jews immersed 
 themselves after returning from market, before they 
 would eat % This is his testimony, if we believe that 
 the ascertained meaning of baptizo is to immerse. We 
 have no authority to say it has here a different significa- 
 tion, from that which the testimony of Greeks and Jews 
 gives to it. The writer gives us no intimation of an unu- 
 sual meaning. To say it has a meaning here to suit 
 the convenience of the Doctor's argument, is taking the 
 
222 THE TRIAL Of 
 
 wildest license. If no fact in the Gospel is to be believed, 
 because it is not confirmed by some historian of the 
 times, we will by the mandate of this false principle of 
 interpretation, have to reject Christ's resurrection, and 
 many other facts in the gospel. What can stand before 
 a principle of this kind 1 It is only used here to ac- 
 complish a purpose, after which its soundness will no 
 longer be defended. 
 
 4. We will now present two reliable Pedobaptist au- 
 thorities to confirm our statement of this passage of 
 Scripture. 
 
 Dr. Hammond: "The word here used, baptisthai, (as 
 it differs from nipesthai verse 3,) signifies not only the 
 washing of the whole body (as when it is said Eupolis 
 being taken and thrown into the sea, ebaptizato, was im- 
 mersed all over, and so the baptism of cups, &c, in the 
 end of this verse, is putting into water all over, rinsing 
 them,") &c. — Annotations on Mark 7 : 4. 
 
 Beza : " Christ commanded us to be baptized ; by 
 which word it is certain immersion is signified. Bap- 
 tizesthai, in this place, is more than kerniptein ; because 
 that seems to respect the whole body, this only the 
 hands. Nor does baptizein signify to wash, except by 
 consequence : for it properly signifies to immerse for the 
 sake of dyeing — to be baptized in water, signifies no 
 other than to be immersed in water." — Booth, p. 46. 
 
 It should be no source of surprise that these authori- 
 ties, with others, understand baptizo here to have the 
 same signification which it has in other places ; because 
 
5tfc. I'EDOBAPTIST. 223 
 
 the whole construction of the passage with the facts it 
 contains, warrants no other meaning. 
 
 5. We will next show what superstition will lead per- 
 sons to do, after they have contracted some supposed de- 
 filement. It was under the influence of this supposition, 
 that tradition demanded of the Pharisees, the immersion 
 of their persons after returning from market. The fol- 
 lowing cases will be sufficient to elucidate the principle. 
 Herodotus, in Eurterpe, speaking of an Egyptian who 
 happens to touch a swine, says: "Going to the river 
 (Nile) he dips himself (ebapse) with his clothes." 
 
 Mr. Bruce informs us that in Abyssinia, the sect called 
 Kemmont, " wash themselves from head to foot, after 
 coming from market, or any other public place." 
 
 The Essenes, Josephus informs us, (p. 723) "after 
 working for some hours in the morning, assemble in one 
 place, and girding themselves with linen veils, bathe be- 
 fore dinner." 
 
 How can we tell that they did things reported of 
 them, the result of their superstition, except by the 
 words found in the reports, and these taken in their re- 
 ceived acceptation 1 If we can believe the facts reported 
 in the above documents, without urging the impossibility 
 of the things reported, what right have we to dispute 
 the custom of the Pharisees designated by buptizo on the 
 ground of improbability 1 The principle which you 
 apply to them, you are bound to apply to all the above 
 • cases, and thereby abrogate these facts of history, be- 
 cause you think their superstition would not lead them 
 to do these things. To adopt this as a sound principle 
 
22M THE TRIAL Of 
 
 will be to set aside every strange historical fact reported^ 
 simply because it looks improbable to us. 
 
 The principle that seeks to set aside a custom reported 
 by the Evangelist, because founded in superstition, can 
 find no authority to support it. We are bound to be- 
 Yieve the Evangelist reported the customs among the 
 Jews correctly, and that the received significations of 
 the words employed to communicate them r must be taken 
 in their received acceptations, as in the above eases. 
 
 6. There is another part of this passage of Scripture 
 yet to be noticed : "And many other things there be f 
 which they receive to hold, as the washing (baptism) of 
 cups and pots, brazen vessels and tables." The Doctor 
 admits the " cups and potss might indeed be immersed ire 
 water, yet of this we are not certain." We are certain 
 they were immersed, by the word employed to denote 
 what was done to them j because this meaning is estab- 
 lished by numerous and undoubted examples in the lan- 
 guage. There being no other meaning in evidence,, or 
 reason offered why we should depart from this ascer- 
 tained signification, we can have no reason to doubt it. 
 
 Let us illustrate our position by a supposed case, simi- 
 lar in many respects to those we have already cited. If 
 It was published that a certain sect in this, or any other 
 country, immersed themselves after returning home from 
 the place of public intercourse with others not belonging 
 to their sect, and that the law of their society also re- 
 quired of them the duty of immersing their cups, pots 
 and lounges, would any sane person believe that the word 
 mmcrsc, in this account, in to be taken in a signification 
 
Ma. rEboBAi'Tis'r. 225 
 
 altogether different from what it is known to have among 
 us 1 I answer not. We would rather deny the facts iu 
 the statement, than to say that immerse, in this report, 
 signifies to sprinkle or to pour. We have described the 
 natural and general conviction that would follow a re- 
 port of this kind. Let us now ask, what must be the 
 weakness of a cause that demands a departure from the 
 well known meaning of a word, and the substitution of 
 one unknown to the document, and altogether different 
 in its signification, to justify a practice unknown to the 
 word in the report 1 This departure and substitution 
 form the argument of the Doctor in relation to the cus- 
 toms reported by Mark. I will believe Mark's account, 
 and reject the Doctor's. 
 
 Let us here introduce the testimony of the well known 
 Jewish writer, Maimonides. He says : " In a laver which 
 holds forty seeks of water, they dip all unclean vessels. 
 A bed that is wholly defiled, if he dips it part by part, is 
 pure. If he dips the bed in the pool, although the feet 
 are plunged in the thick clay at the bottom of the pool, 
 it is clean. What shall he do with a pillow or a bolster 
 of skin % He must dip them, and lift them up by the 
 fringes," Hinton, p. 35. This Jewish witness fully con- 
 firms Mark's report of this custom. 
 
 7. Ail these customs, says the passage, of baptizing 
 persons and things, were in compliance with the tradi- 
 tions of the elders. It was the tradition of the elders 
 that gave them a singular character ; and this singularity 
 exhibits the strength of their superstition. Super stition, 
 as we have already shown, considered it no hardship (o 
 
226 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 immerse its votaries, when they suffered from a supposed 
 contamination, though it is considered a hardship and are 
 "indecency" for Christianity to ask as much from her 
 followers ! 
 
 The argument from " impossibility" finds no real foun- 
 dation here, because all the persons and things said to 
 be immersed, were susceptible of this action. Until an 
 impossibility is clearly in evidence, we are bound by 
 every legitimate law of interpretation to maintain the 
 things were performed, as imported in the words by 
 which they are designated. 
 
 8. Let us notice next his conclusion, drawn from this 
 passage : " That many purifications, termed baptisms i ti- 
 the New Testament, were certainly performed by sprink- 
 ling, and (in case of the tables) by pouring." If it is a 
 " certainty" that baptism in the JNew Testament was per~ 
 formed by sprinkling and pouring, why not give us a 
 solitary proof of it I That would decide the whole contro- 
 versy forever. When we ask him for bread, he gives us- 
 a stone. When we demand proof, we are met by as- 
 sumptions. This "certainty" of his turns out to be & 
 fiction, when you look for the proof to make it a cer- 
 tainty. 
 
 The Doctor's whole effort upon this Scripture, is made 
 up of positive statements, instead of proof, and conclu- 
 sions in harmony with the statements. You will observe 
 he has no fixed meaning for baptizo ; but it has signifi- 
 cations to suit his arguments. Sometimes it may be 
 sprinkling, and again it may be pouring, and it may pos- 
 sibly be immersion. All these things cannot be true of 
 
MK. l'EDOBAI'TIST. 227 
 
 baptizo, because, thus you would make it include wash- 
 ing, sprinkling, pouring and immersing. JNo word can 
 specifically signify all these ideas. Yet this absurdity 
 must be adopted, to help the cause of Pedobaptism. 
 
 It must be remembered, the burden of proof rests upon 
 Dr. S., because he introduces this Scripture to prove his 
 practice of sprinkling or pouring in baptism. All we 
 were bound to do, was to show that the evidence he 
 offered failed to prove his proposition. The fact is, he 
 offered no evidence that would bear much scrutiny, and 
 for this reason you find us showing the negative to be 
 well founded. 
 
 PENTECOST. 
 
 The third passage of Scripture that Dr. S. calls to his 
 support, in way of objection to immersion in baptism, is 
 the baptism of those on the day of Pentecost. We will 
 proceed to examine his effort made in relation to this 
 baptism. 
 
 1. His opening assumption is, that ic three thousand" 
 converts were baptized on this day. This assumption 
 is not susceptible of proof from the document. It is no 
 wonder to us that he takes this to be granted without 
 evidence, because without this given, his whole effort on 
 this passage would not have the appearance of plausi- 
 bility. We remark in the First place, that the docu- 
 ment no where teaches that three thousand were baptized 
 on the day of Pentecost. Secondly, the only number said 
 to be baptized on that occasion, were those " that gladly 
 received the word." We ean find no facts in the record 
 
228 THE TRIAL Oi-" 
 
 by which the number baptized can be estimated with 
 any degree of certainty. We must abide by the lan- 
 guage of the historian. Thirdly) the historian does 
 plainly say, that "three thousand were added to their 
 number." Fourthly, there is a material difference be- 
 tween the statement of the historian and the one made 
 by Dr. S.— the one says, three thousand were baptized 
 on this day — the other says, three thousand were added 
 to the number of disciples. I believe the historian re- 
 ported the fact correctly, and I am thereby compelled to 
 reject Dr. S.'s account of the matter. By removing the 
 foundation of the Doctor's argument, as found in this 
 assumption, our work is done ; because his whole argu- 
 ment depends upon the admission ©f the assumption, that 
 three thousand were baptized on the day of Pentecost. 
 But as this case is a somewhat famous one among Pedo- 
 baptists, let us examine it a little further. 
 
 2. It is a fact, that John the Baptist baptized a large 
 number from Jerusalem and its vicinity, and that also 
 Christ "made and baptized more disciples than John." 
 Is it not reasonable to suppose, that some of those bap- 
 tized by John and Christ's disciples, were on this occa- 
 sion recognized as disciples by their public fellowship 
 with the Church at Jerusalem, and by its acknowledg- 
 ment of them as such 1 Here only was there an or- 
 ganized Christian assembly, the existence of which was 
 brought to light on this occasion, to those scattered dis- 
 ciples who lived beyond the vicinity of Jerusalem. The 
 feast of Pentecost collected the Jews from all the sur- 
 rounding countries, and to many of them, disciplcd be- 
 
Mil. FtiDOBAPfiST. 220 
 
 fore this occasion, an opportunity of organized Christian 
 society had not been offered. If this suggestion is not 
 received, we shall hold the rejectors of it, to the proof 
 from the Scriptures of these propositions, essential to 
 their argument. 1. That three thousand were baptized 
 on the day of Pentecost. 2. That they were not bap- 
 tized by immersion. These two things we know are not 
 susceptible of proof from the document, and from this 
 necessity their argument must fail. 3. Let us now in- 
 quire what the result would be if we should admit, for 
 argument sake, that three thousand were baptized on 
 this day. The result must be determined by the follow- 
 ing facts : 1. The number of disciples on this occasion at 
 this place, was a hundred and twenty. 2. The promise 
 of the bestowment of the Holy Ghost was made to them 
 all, Acts 2:4. 3. " They were all filled with the Holy 
 Ghost" on this occasion. 4. " They all spoke with other 
 tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance." 5. These 
 disciples, all enjoying the gifts of the Spirit, and the 
 publication of the facts of the Gospel to those that assem- 
 bled, all had the right to baptize those that received 
 the word. 6. The baptism of those that gladly received 
 the word, is no where in the document confined to the 
 apostles. What right then have Pedobaptists to confine 
 the baptism of those that gladly received the word to 
 the apostles, without the authority of evidence 1 This 
 they fail to furnish, because it is not to be found in the 
 passage. 
 
 Supposing that we admit that three thousand were 
 baptized in one day, and that only the apostles were ad- 
 
230 THE TRIAL Oi- 
 
 ministrators, still those who claim these admissions as 
 facts, forget that their estimates of the number baptized 
 by the twelve, according to their own assumption, will 
 work with equal force against the baptizing of the sup- 
 posed three thousand, by sprinkling or pouring ; for it 
 would take the same time, personally, to sprinkle or pour 
 water upon them, that it would to immerse them in 
 water. Experiment has proven this fact. If their ob- 
 jection is good against their immersion personally, it 
 will be equally valid against their sprinkling individu- 
 ally. If they would say they were sprinkled in crowds, 
 we would answer, in the language of an eminent Pedo- 
 baptist, Dr. Lightfoot, endorsed by Dr. A. Clark, they 
 could all plunge themselves under the water at the com- 
 mand of the administrators. On this score the time 
 would be the same. The right to do the one thing, 
 ■would authorize the other. 
 
 But the whole argument we have been combating, is 
 altogether founded on assumptions, and therefore worth 
 nothing. If the truth of history is to be made void, on 
 the ground of a supposed improbability, we will be as- 
 suming a common ground, with infidelity, in its opposi- 
 tion to the Bible, for this is its most potent argument 
 offered to invalidate its Divine authority. No Christian 
 man can occupy this ground, without endangering that 
 priceless jewel, the Bible. 
 
 6. We will now show that the baptism of large numbers 
 in one day, is not such an uncommon occurrence, or so 
 impracticable as the argument we have been opposing, 
 would lead us to suppose. 
 
MR. PEDOBAPTIST. 231 
 
 Mr. Marchant says: "Baptizing in one day three 
 thousand by immersion, need not be wondered at, since 
 we read in the authentic life of Gregory, the Apostle of 
 the Armenians, that he baptized twelve thousand together 
 by immersion, in the river Euphrates ; which Isaac, the 
 patriarch of that nation, confirms in his first invective." 
 Exposi. on Matt. 3. 
 
 Bingham : t{ Palladius observes, in the life of St, 
 Chrysostom, that at Constantinople three thousand per- 
 sons were baptized at once, upon one of their great fes- 
 tivals." — Origin Eccles. B. XI. 
 
 Dr. 3, G. King: Wolodimes, a Russian prince, was 
 baptized by the name of Basilius j and it is said twenty 
 thousand of his subjects were baptized the same day." 
 Rites and Cerent. 
 
 J. R. Peyrin's Def. of the Vaudois, p. 362 : " It is said 
 Liberius, Bishop of Rome, in 360, baptized eight thou- 
 sand eight hundred persons on a Saturday." 
 
 "One (baptistry) was prepared for the baptism of 
 Clovisj king of France} and his majesty, with three 
 thousand of his subjects, were plunged, says Mezeray, 
 on Christmas-day, 496." — Mezeray, French History, p. 15. 
 
 Are we to deny these historical facts, on the ground 
 of improbability, because we are not informed of all the 
 circumstances connected with their performance % These 
 numbers are said by the historians to have been im- 
 mersed. Are we then to say, they were only sprinkled, 
 and thus make void the facts reported by the historian 1 
 The cause that would demand this use of the reports of 
 historians, deserves no favor at the hands of a reasonable 
 
'2'6-Z Till* TRIAL ot 
 
 public. We are sure from the fact of their immersion 
 being reported, that all the agencies necessary to its per* 
 formance, were employed, although the details are not 
 recorded. Apply the same common sense judgment to 
 those said to have been baptized on the day of Pentecost, 
 and you will never be troubled (I think) with a doubt 
 concerning their immersion. 
 
 Before we dismiss the te*t under consideration let us 
 present one or two other cases, from Scripture, which 
 are equally open to Dr. S.'s doctrine of improbability. 
 It is said of Abraham that he circumcised over three 
 hundred persons in one day. Are we to deny this re- 
 ported fact, because we think it improbable, that he cir- 
 cumcised so many in one day, and that therefore he did 
 something less than that which the law of circumcision 
 imported 1 This is the kind of argument we have been 
 exposing. Again, the historian says that king Solomon, 
 at the dedication of the temple, " offered two and twenty 
 thousand oxen, aud a hundred and twenty thousand 
 sheep." The argument from improbability would say, 
 that it is not possible that Solomon possessed and gave 
 this large number of oxen and sheep, and, therefore, you 
 must interpret it, by greatly reducing the number here 
 reported. And further, that there could hardly be a 
 sufficient number of priests to offer them as sacrifices, if 
 the number was admitted to be correct. What a Bible 
 and history we would have in the light of this argu- 
 ment ! 
 
 We have sufficiently exposed the unsoundness of the 
 argument founded on improbability, and have clearly 
 
HK. PEDOBAPTIST. 233 
 
 shown that it cannot be applied to this Scripture, even 
 if its soundness was admitted, because the passage is 
 altogether silent about the number baptized. In view of 
 these two facts, (the unsoundness of the principle and 
 the uncertainty of the number baptized,) we have a right 
 to say that this passage affords not the shadow of a 
 shade of evidence in favor of the cause of Pedobaptism. 
 
 CORNELIUS. 
 
 Doctor Schmucker next introduces to our consideration 
 that what he calls " the language of Peter, when he 
 baptized'the Gentiles at the house of Cornelius." Does 
 he in this extract report the fact in the document cor- 
 rectly 1 1 answer he does not. It is no where to be 
 found in the tenth chapter of Acts, that Peter "baptized 
 the Gentile converts at the house of Cornelius." This 
 assumption he considers material to his argument, in 
 order to maintain a practice unauthorized by the plain 
 facts found in the Scripture. It is sufficient for us that 
 it cannot be proven, and, therefore, cannot be used to de- 
 termine any thing in relation to this baptism. Let us 
 permit the historian to speak for himself " Can any man 
 (Peter said) forbid water, that these should not be bap- 
 tized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we." 
 This statement is not the same in language or import 
 with that of the Doctor. In the whole record the place 
 of their baptism is not named, nor who were the bap* 
 tizers. The action of baptism performed at this time, 
 can only be determined by the previously ascertained 
 meaning of the word. Peter commanded the converts 
 
234 TMK TKIAL OF 
 
 to be baptized in the name of the Lord, and we must be- 
 lieve that the ordinance was administered in accordance 
 with the meaning of the word, and the invariable custom 
 of those clays. 
 
 THE JAILOR'S BAPTISM. 
 
 The fifth passage introduced by Dr. S. may be found 
 in Acts 16th. He thinks, there may be some support 
 for his practice, from " the circumstances of the jailor's 
 baptism." Let us note the material circumstances con- 
 nected with this baptism. I. The jailor's conversion. 
 2. His kindness toward the prisoners — he " took them the 
 same hour of the night and washed their stripes," be- 
 fore his baptism. 3. After their stripes were washed, 
 "he was baptized, and all his, straightway." 4. After 
 his baptism he " brought them into his house," &c. — 
 These circumstances prove the following things : 7. 
 Their stripes were washed and the jailor was baptized 
 outside of the jailor's dwelling house. 2. There was 
 water outside of his dwelling, to which the apostles were 
 taken to have their stripes washed, and sufficient for the 
 baptism of the jailor. 3. Not one of the circumstances 
 connected with the jailor's baptism, can in any way mili- 
 tate against the fact of his immersion. And there being 
 no other baptism practised by the apostles, we have no 
 right to presume another until it is proven. 
 
 With what precision the historian notes the things 
 that were done on this occasion ! This is evident, from 
 the fact, that he does not say their stripes were baptized 
 and the jailor was washed j because the two things done 
 
MR. FEDOBATTIST. 235 
 
 were different, and so were designated by two different 
 words. A washing can be done without an immersion, 
 but a baptism cannot be performed without an immer- 
 sion. The historian does not confound these two words, 
 as do some modern Pedobaptists. The latter party, by 
 confounding the two words in their significations, find 
 a ground to oppose immersion in baptism, but the histo- 
 rian, having no such object, only tells what was really 
 done. 
 
 We have now replied to the arguments of Dr. Schmuck- 
 er, as introduced by the Counsel for the Prisoner, in sup- 
 port of his views of baptizo in the New Testament. You 
 will find on a re-examination of both sides of this part 
 of the controversy, that the Doctor manages his argu- 
 ment by the contingencies which occur in the Scriptures 
 selected by him in opposition to immersion. Baptizo, 
 to him, has no definite idea, and, therefore, it can bo 
 made to signify any thing which he chooses. This mode 
 of investigation is repudiated by evey good law of in- 
 terpretation. If it was not, the will of God would re- 
 main in obscurity forever. His conduct, and that of 
 all others who walk in the same pathless way, in their 
 investigation of the action of baptism, signifies the en- 
 tire weakness of the cause which they seek to defend, 
 and demands a defence that would be met with indigna- 
 tion, were it offered for any form of infidelity. Proof, 
 they would cry out, is the only palladium of any pro- 
 position. 
 
236 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 THE FIGURATIVE MEANING OF BAPTIZO. 
 
 The figurative uses of baptizo in the New Testament 
 will reflect back to its literal signification. We shall 
 now introduce them. 
 
 Mark 10 : 38, 39 : « Can ye drink of the cup that I 
 drink of, and be baptized with the baptism that I am 
 baptized with 1" 
 
 Professor Stuart : " Can ye, indeed, take upon you to 
 undergo patiently and submissively, sufferings like to 
 mine — sufferings of an overwhelming and dreadful na- 
 ture 1" — Stuart on Bap., p. 72. . 
 
 Dr. A. Clark : " Baptism among the Jews, as it was 
 performed in the coldest weather, and the persons were 
 kept under water for some time, was used to not only 
 express death, but the most cruel kind of death." — 
 Comm. on Malt. 20 : 20. 
 
 Dr. Doddridge thus paraphrases the place : " Are you 
 able to drink of the bitter cup of which 1 am now about 
 to drink so deep, and to be baptized with the baptism, 
 and plunged in that sea of sufferings with which I am 
 shortly to be baptized, and, as it were overwhelmed for a 
 timet" — Paraphrase on Matt. 20: 22. 
 
 Witsius : " Immersion into water is to be considered 
 by us as exhibiting that dreadful abyss of Divine Justice, 
 in which Christ for our sins, was for a time, as it were, 
 absorbed ; as in David, his type, he complains, Psl. 69, 2, 
 " / am come into deep waters, where the floods overflow me.'''' 
 
 1 Cor. 10: 2: "And were all baptized unto Moses, 
 in the cloud and in the sea," 
 
MR. PEDOEAPTTST. 237 
 
 Witsius expounds the passage to this effect: "How 
 were the Israelites baptized in the cloud, and in the sea, 
 seeing they were neither immersed in the sea, nor wet- 
 ted by the cloud 1 It is to be considered, that the Apos« 
 tie here uses the term baptism in a figurative sense ; 
 yet there is some agreement to the external sign. The 
 sea is water, and a cloud differs but little from water. 
 The cloud hung over their heads, and the sea sur- 
 rounded them on each side ; and so the water in regard 
 to those that are baptized." 
 
 Dr. Whitby : " They were covered with the sea on 
 both sides, Exod. 14* : 22, so that both the cloud and the 
 sea had some resemblance to our being covered with 
 water in baptism. Their going into the sea resembled 
 the ancient rite of going into the water ; and their com- 
 ing out of it, their rising up out of the water." 
 
 This passage makes immersion essential to baptism, 
 because, as Professor Stuart says, they were surrounded 
 on all sides. It was only when they were in this state 
 that they are said to be baptized. If immersion was not 
 baptism, how could the Apostle, who knew all about the 
 action, call it such in this passage 1 
 
 You do sometimes hear from Pedobaptists that the 
 cloud sprinkled rain upon them, or, they were made wet 
 by the spray of the sea. But there is nothing in the 
 Scriptures to countenance these wild assumptions, and 
 if the ideas did exist, they would never have been called 
 by the name of baptism ; because in all the occurrences 
 of these things, baptizo is never used to denote them. 
 
 There are several other passages of Scripture where 
 
238 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 baptizo is used figuratively, but as they are of like im- 
 port to the two which we have given above, we will not 
 take up time by introducing them. It is an established 
 fact in evidence, that baptizo, in its figurative use, sig- 
 nifies overwhelm. This accounts for its use in relation 
 to objects in the New Testament, that can only be under- 
 stood with this meaning. 
 
 Let us close our remarks on this subject by adopting 
 Professor Stuart's conclusion : " To Hebrews and Greeks 
 both, the idea of an overwhelming flood offered a very 
 obvious image to designate great sorrow and affliction. 
 Both, therefore, employ it. Thus David : ' Save me O 
 God, for the waters come into my soul ! I sink in deep 
 mire, where there is no standing ; I am come into deep 
 waters, where the floods overflow me.' — Ps. 69 : 1. 
 Again, Ps. 18:16: ' He sent from above, he took me, 
 he drew me out of many waters.' Ps. 32 : 6 : ' Surely 
 in the floods of great waters, they shall not come nigh 
 to him.' Inasmuch now, as the more usual idea of bap- 
 tizo is that of overwhelming, immerging, it was natural 
 to employ it in designating severe calamities and suffer- 
 ings." — Stuart, p. 73. 
 
 PREPOSITIONS CONSTRUED WITH BAPTIZO. 
 
 We are now prepared to meet the Counsel's reply to 
 my argument offered on the New Testament baptisms, 
 containing the circumstances connected with their per- 
 formance. The leading facts in my argument, concerning 
 the persons, places, and circumstances related to these 
 baptisms, are not disputed. The reason why they were 
 
3IR. PEDOBAPTTST. ,239 
 
 not contested may be found in the fact, that they are all 
 in the passages of Scripture referred to. The only dis- 
 puted point in the argument is, the meaning of the pre- 
 positions employed in connection with these baptisms. 
 
 In relation to the preposition construed with baptizo, 
 raino, and cheo, the following things are true: (1) Baptizo 
 in its use has connected with it en, eis, apo, and ek. (2) 
 With raino and cheo these prepositions are not construed, 
 but you will find epi, upon. (3) In these prepositions 
 there is no common property claimed by these three words. 
 The obvious reason for it is, because they denote three 
 different actions. What is suitable to baptizo, is not 
 suitable to sprinkle or pour. (4) The usual meaning of 
 these prepositions must be the true one, unless their 
 connection forbids it. This principle we have established 
 by the highest authority on the interpretation of words. 
 See my opening address, pp. 18, 21. 
 
 Let us now inquire whether these distinctions are well 
 founded, in the ordinary use of these words with the 
 prepositions. We will read on this subject an extract or 
 two from A. Campbell on this point in our discussion. 
 " Peri-raino epi ton katharisthenta — sprinkle the blood 
 upon {epi) him to be cleansed, Lev. 14. 7: 2. Peri-ranei 
 epi teen oikian — sprinkle upon the house, Lev. 14 : 51 j 3. 
 Ranei epi hUasterian — he shall sprinkle it upon the mercy 
 seat, Lev. 16 : 14. This phrase oecurs a second time in 
 the same verse — Peri ranei epi ton oikon — he shall 
 sprinkle it upon the house ; epi ta skeua ; epitas psuchas, 
 upon the persons. The same idiom is here found three 
 times in one verse, Num. 19 : 18; again, in the 19th 
 
24'0 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 verse, Peri rami epi ton akatharton—\\e shall sprinkle it 
 upon the unclean ; again, Eze. 36 : 25, Ranei epi humas 
 katharon hudoor — I will sprinkle upon you clean water. In 
 construction, then, with the person upon whom water is 
 sprinkled, the verb raino is followed by epi; never by 
 en or eis. A. sprinkles water, blood, oil, dust, or ashes 
 upon B., but never sprinkles B. in blood, oil, dust, &c. ; 
 whereas baptizo, in such cases is followed by en or eis, 
 never by epi. A. immerses B. not upon, or with, but in 
 water. This is a most convincing fact, that baptizo, 
 occorring eighty times in the New Testament, is never 
 construed with epi, nor raino with en or eis. Baptizo is 
 frequently construed with en and eis, and raino with 
 epi i but they never interchange their particles. A shadow 
 does not more naturally accompany an object standing 
 in the sunshine, in this latitude, than does epi accompany 
 raino, and en baptizo, in the cases described. 
 
 " All this is equally true in the case of cheo, to pour. 
 The object on which water or anything is poured, is 
 designated by epi, never by en. The thing poured or 
 sprinkled always follows the verb to pour or sprinkle ; 
 the person is always preceded by upon. Neither of 
 these facts ever occurs in the case of baptizo. In that 
 case the person always follows the verb, and the mate- 
 rial in which the action is performed, is always preceded 
 by en expressed or understood. Hence the uniform con- 
 struction in the one case is, • immerse B. in water ;' in 
 the other case the construction is, ■ I pour or sprinkle 
 water upon B.' Not more clearly different are these two 
 constructions in English than they are in Greek, In* 
 
Jig. FEtK'.fi.U i T£ST, 24! 
 
 u>ed, the object immersed is never governed by a pre- 
 position — the object sprinkled or poured is always gov* 
 erned by a preposition. The actions, then, in the 
 original are just as distinct as the words, baptizo, cheo y 
 raino, and their respective constructions." 
 
 As to the popular acceptation of these propositions in 
 their construction with these words, said to be actions of 
 baptisms, Mr. Campbell says : " On counting the actual 
 occurrences of en in the New Testament I find it is found 
 2,660 times. Of this immense number of times, though 
 these learned doctors tell you of its two and twenty 
 meanings, it is translated in your common Testament 
 2,045 times by in. Yet such critics as Dr. Miller, when 
 they put on their Pedobaptist spectacles, will have it 
 with always where baptism is alluded to, John baptizes 
 with water ; but, when the phrase comes, en to Jordunee, 
 he passes it by. He does not say he baptized them with 
 Jordan ; but, passing it by, he says that eis means at or 
 to, in such cases. Well, not having time to count over 
 the whole book, I found in the four gospels that eis oc- 
 curs 795 times. Of these, it is translated by into 372 
 times, and by to for into, more than one hundred times ; 
 for, to the temple, to the house, to the city, to Jerusalem, 
 Bethany, Nazareth, &c, means into; and of 273 times 
 unto, it might have been very often into; thus making, 
 in all, 500 out of 795 occurrences." 
 
 ** As for ek and apo, frequently rendered out of and 
 from, it is, on two accounts, unnecessary to speak par- 
 ticularly ; because, first, whether they are more com-, 
 monly rendered from, or out of, avails nothing, seeing 
 11 
 
2±~ THE TBI At Or 
 
 lhat from, nine times in ten, is out of, in sense. For ex* 
 ample, from Heaven, from the temple, from the city, 
 from the grave, means out of these places, and not from 
 the boundaries of them. In the second place, it being 
 evident that baptizo, with en and eis, must certainly place 
 the subjects in the pool, in the river, or in the bath, ek and 
 apo must bring them out of it." 
 
 This development of the character of the prepositions 
 employed in connection with baptizo, raino and cheo, is 
 an ample refutation of the objections offered by the 
 Counsel in noting our argument. This development 
 also shows the importance of the fact elucidated by us, 
 of the essential circumstances demanded by the actions 
 of baptizo, raino and cheo, and that what is essential to 
 baptizo, is not essential to raino and cheo. This fact 
 made it necessary that the construction should be dif- 
 ferent. 
 
 We will now give a few Pedobaptist authorities, who 
 teach that these baptisms were performed by immersion, 
 and who must have understood the construction of the 
 prepositions with the verb baptizo. 
 
 Calvin: "From these words, John 3: 23, it may be 
 inferred, that baptism was administered by John and 
 Christ, by plunging the whole body under water. Here 
 we perceive how baptism was administered among the 
 ancients; for they immersed the whole body in water. 
 Now it is the prevailing practice for a Minister only to 
 sprinkle the body or head." — In John 3 : 23. Comment 
 on Acts 8 : 38. 
 
 Witsina : u It is certain that both John the Baptist, 
 
MR. FEDOBAPTIST. 244 
 
 and the disciples of Christ, ordinarily practised immer- 
 sion 5 whose example was followed by the ancient church, 
 as Vossius hath shown, by producing many testimonies 
 from the Greek and Latin writers," — -Disp. I de Bap» 
 tismo. 
 
 Vitringa : " The act of baptizing, is the immersion of 
 believers in water. This expresses the force of the word. 
 Thus also it was performed by Christ and the Apos- 
 ties." iph. Sanct. Theolo. 
 
 Zanchius : " The ancient church used to immerse 
 those that were baptized. Thus, Christ went down into 
 Jordan and was baptized 5 as also others that were bap- 
 tized by John. Of this thing, and of immersion, the 
 passage of the people through the midst of the sea 
 was a type, concerning which the Apostle speaks, 1 Cor. 
 10: 2."— Opera. Tom. VI, p. 217. 
 
 Grotius : " That baptism used to be performed by im. 
 mersion, and not by pouring, appears both from the pro- 
 per signification of the word, and the places chosen for 
 the administration of the rite, John 3 : 23 ; Acts 8: 38. 
 And also from the many allusions of the apostles, which 
 cannot be referred to sprinkling, Rom. 6 : 3; 1 Col. 2 
 12." — Zpud. Solum. 
 
 G. J. Vossius : " That John the Baptist and the Apos- 
 tles immersed persons whom they baptized, there is no 
 doubt. For thus we read : ' And they were baptized in 
 Jordon. And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up 
 straightway out of the water,' Matt. 3: 6, 16. It is 
 also written, John 3 : 23 : ' John baptized in Enon, near 
 to Salim, because there was much water there.* And, 
 
244 THE TSUL GF 
 
 Acts 8 : 38, it is said : ' They both went down into the 
 water, both Philip and the Eunuch.' And that the an- 
 cient church followed these examples, is very clearly 
 evinced by innumerable testimonies of the Fathers." — 
 Disputat. de Bap. Disp. 
 
 Bossuet : " The baptism of St. John the Baptist, 
 which served for a preparation to that of Jesus Christ, 
 was performed by plunging. In fine, we read not in 
 Scripture, that baptism was otherwise administered ; and 
 we are able to make it appear, by the acts of councils 
 and by the ancient Rituals, that for thirteen hundred 
 years, it was thus administered throughout the whole 
 Church, as far as possible." — Stennet against Russen, p. 
 175. 
 
 Venema : " It is without controversy that baptism, in 
 the Primitive Church, was administered by immersion 
 into water, and not by sprinkling." 
 
 Dr. A. Clark : " That the baptism of John was by 
 plunging the body, (after the same manner as the wash- 
 ing of unclean persons, and the baptism of proselytes 
 was,) seems to appear from those things which are related 
 of him, namely : That he baptized in Jordan j that he 
 baptized in Enon, because there was much water there, 
 and that Christ, being baptized, came up out of the water, 
 to which that seems to be parallel, Acts S : 38." — Com. 
 at the end of Mark. 
 
 Mosheim : " The exhortations of this respectable mes- 
 senger (John) were not without effect, and those who, 
 moved by his solemn admonitions, had formed the reso- 
 lution of correcting their evil dispositions, and amending 
 
MR. PEUOBAPTIST. 245 
 
 their lives, were initiated into the kingdom of the Re- 
 deemer by the ceremony of immersion, or baptism." — 
 Char. Hist. p. 25. 
 
 We might add Neander, and a host of other Pedobap- 
 tists, to confirm our view of the New Testament bap- 
 tism. These willing concessions to the fact of immersion 
 in New Testament times, when all their denominational 
 interests forbid it, show the strength of the evidence in 
 its favor, which ought to be irresistible to the candid 
 inquirer after the truth. And by thus testifying to im- 
 mersion in New Testament times, they fully confirm the 
 meaning we have given to the prepositions construed 
 with the verb baptizo. 
 
 BAPTISM AND BURIAL. 
 
 We have only a few remarks to make, in reply to the 
 argument of the defendant's Counsel, against the sym- 
 bolic character of baptism. 
 
 1. This new theory of baptism, in its design, as pre- 
 sented in his argument, deserves some consideration at 
 our hands, because he offers it to us with confidence. It 
 must be remembered by us, that this new theory was 
 generated in modern ti?nes, to invalidate the symbolic 
 character of baptism, as it is taught by the distinguished 
 Apostle to the Gentiles, in Rom. 6th, and Col. 2d ; and 
 to make void the support given to his symbolic repre- 
 sentation of baptism by the Christian Fathers and the 
 Reformers of the sixteenth century. A theory that con- 
 templates the sacrifice of all their testimony concerning 
 the symbolic character of baptism, must bear its truth 
 
246 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 fulness upon its face. That it does so, is amply refuted 
 by the fact, that many Pedobaptists, whose cause it 
 seeks to subserve, reject it in their interpretation of these 
 Scriptures. Its want of reception by those whose in- 
 terest it is to adopt it, and its want of favor in the best 
 ages of the church, is an ample bar to its admission by 
 us. We are certainly warranted in our conduct, by Drs. 
 Hill, Clark, Chalmers, and others of equal notoriety 
 among Pedobaptists. 
 
 This new theory, as found in the Counsel's argument, 
 is a plain perversion of the language of the Apostle ; for 
 it says, " the burial must be spiritual, for the resurrection 
 is spiritual." This statement finds no authority from 
 these Scriptures, but they do teach plainly, that those 
 baptized, were buried and planted in the likeness of 
 Christ's death and burial, and it was done in, and by 
 baptism. The resurrection out of the water to them, 
 was a likeness of Christ's resurrection out of the grave. 
 The great matter in these passages of Scripture is that 
 of likeness exhibited in baptism. This fact must make 
 void this ingenious theory, for you know it teaches that 
 this baptism is a spiritual one, noting a reality in itself, 
 and not a likeness. As a reality, marking the introduc- 
 tion of those persons into Christian life, it can not with 
 propriety be said to be only a likeness to a death, burial, 
 and resurrection, because in spiritual baptism these are 
 contemptated as realities in this moral transition, and 
 not a mere resemblance to them. 
 
 3. Admitting this new theory to be the true interpre- 
 tation of the Scriptures, it will follow necessarily that 
 
mk. r-EDOBArmr. 24T 
 
 literal baptism is a burial and resurrection. Spiritual 
 baptism from a necessity must find its origin and name 
 in literal baptism, because without a literal baptism we 
 could have no knowledge of the spirit's operations under 
 this name. If there is no burial in literal baptism, there 
 could be none in spiritual baptism ; because, as their ar- 
 gument teaches a burial in the spiritual, it must also be 
 in the literal. Baptizo imports the action in both of 
 these baptisms. The spiritual holds only the idea of 
 immersion as its action, because it contemplates a burial ; 
 and the literal baptism only makes the same claim for 
 its action, and it gave authority to the spiritual to exer- 
 cise the same right, in virtue of its native power to im- 
 part it. 
 
 4>. Let us notice the witnesses whom he read in sup- 
 port of this new theory — Dr. Rice and Professor Stuart. 
 Their testimony should have no influence on the minds 
 of the jury, when they come to decide the weight of the 
 evidence for the symbolic character of baptism, because 
 it is unsupported by our most learned interpreters of our 
 laws, and is designed to foster disloyalty to the Jaw 
 of baptism as originally commanded. The single fact, 
 that their testimony stands confronted by the undis- 
 turbed understanding of baptism being a burial, for 
 centuries after the Apostle Paul described It in the 
 Scriptures referred to, is sufficient. Until this new 
 theory is supported by veritable authority, we are bound 
 to submit to the uninterrupted exposition of the doctrine 
 of these passages, by the administrators of the law for 
 sixteen hundred years. 
 
SiS THE TBIAL OF 
 
 5. We could add a large number of PecEobaptist wit- 
 nesses to those we offered under this argument. You 
 can eon suit the testimony of Drs. Hill and A. Clark, as 
 it may be found in their cross-examination by us, when 
 they were offered as witnesses far the Prisoner. See p» 
 317 and H9. It is not necessary for me to detain you 
 any longer in elucidating this argument of the symbolic 
 meaning to baptism, because we have for its support the 
 meaning of the word, the practice of the church, and the 
 light of sixteen hundred years to illuminate its pathway 
 from Paul the Apostle down to the information, and 1 ,. 
 with few exceptions, from the Reformation down to Bt. 
 Chalmers. 
 
 CHURCH HISTORY- 
 
 We will now call your attention to the CounsePs rep- 
 resentation of the history of the church, on the subject 
 of the action of Christian baptism. 
 
 !. Ke commences to unfold this history with this 
 assumption, " for some years after the apostles' days, we 
 have no reliable facts on the manner of baptizing." This 
 assumption plainly admits there is no evidence offered 
 during this period that supports his views of baptizing. 
 This is practically giving up the question m controversy 
 so far as this age of the church is concerned. After 
 making this admission, which is death to his cause, he 
 dares to come to this conclusion, "the manner of bap* 
 tizing was what the church thought suitable and con- 
 venient." This is a conclusion without premises, be- 
 gaueej he gays, there are no reliable facts from iheehurcb 
 
MR* riiUOBAPTlST. '2i^ 
 
 of that age ! This certainly puts logic to shame, There 
 is another item equally obnoxious: that the church 
 adopted a practice " suitable and convenient." Who 
 gave the church this authority, for it is not to be found in. 
 her constitution 1 It would in its exercise supersede the 
 authority of Christ. It will not do to brand the church 
 with conduct so infamous, without evidence. But this 
 must be done to give color to his assumption. Its self, 
 refutation, however, is sufficient for us on this occasion. 
 
 In relation to this early period in the church's history, 
 we have the Epistle said to be written by Barnabas. I 
 know the authorship is disputed, but its antiquity is not 
 contested as far as 1 know. The document bearing this 
 name comes down to us from an early age, informing us of 
 some of the essential characteristics of baptism in its 
 action. Let us hear now what it says, " we go down 
 into the water full of sins and pollution, but come up 
 again bringing forth fruit in our hearts." The two cir- 
 cumstances here related to the action of baptism, do 
 essentially belong to immersion alone. It is made very 
 obvious here that when the second century set in, there 
 was a common understanding that the action of baptism 
 was only immersion. Bead the authorities reported by 
 Fedobaptists in evidence, and see if they do not fully 
 sustain our conclusion. 
 
 2. His next assumption is, " at a later period in the 
 church's history we find a variety of modes of baptism. 
 These were trine immersion naked, pouring," &c. This 
 statement of the after history of the church is not a fair 
 one, as we shall now show. 
 
£50 THE TRIAL Oi 
 
 The evidence which we have from church history ifl 
 the testimony offered, teaches us that the subjects of 
 baptism were not left to decide the manner of their bap- 
 tism, as the Counsel concludes. That trine immersion 
 naked was practised! in the days of Tertullian, will not 
 Be disputed; but he himself says that three times was 
 more than the Lord commanded. How can this be recon- 
 ciled with the statement of the Counsel, that the ancients 
 enjoyed the privilege of choosing between this trine im- 
 mersion naked and pouring 1 This conclusion of his is 
 self-destructive, for it is unreasonable to suppose they 
 would refuse the "suitable and! convenient baptism," and 
 choose the one " revolting to humanity." The two could 
 not on his principle co-exist in the same age. 
 
 We are taught by the evidence, that there was no 
 other baptism but immersion throughout the whole 
 church, until the third century, when pouring all around 
 on a person on a sick bed was introduced, as an innova* 
 tion, and contrary to the established and universal prac- 
 tice of immersion. The reason for introducing this in- 
 novation for cases of supposed necessity, where immer- 
 sion could not be practised, may be found in the doctrine 
 then held — baptismal regeneration. In the Eastern 
 church this innovation found no countenance, but was 
 opposed, and also by many in the .Roman church. This 
 whole subject will more properly come under our con- 
 sideration, when we come to that part of our address in 
 which we will prove the Prisoner guilty of the crime of 
 supplanting immersion in baptism. 
 
 The church knew of no baptism but immersion, until 
 
MR. PEDOBAFTIST. 251 
 
 the introduction of the innovation named, and this was 
 limited by their action, which compelled all in health to 
 be immersed without exception. But the right of choice 
 was unknown to the Fathers between the innovation and 
 the baptism that claimed Scriptural authority. 
 
 4»j His last assumption is, " we do not find in the his- 
 tory of the Christian Fathers, that proscriptive policy on 
 the mode of baptism now common among Baptists." — 
 We have already refuted this assumption. The fact is, 
 as we have said before, they knew of but one action in 
 baptism ; and at first they refused in the Western church 
 to call the innovation introduced for cases of necessity 
 by this name. And this fact accounts for the opposition 
 to the innovation, and their refusal to recognize it as a 
 legal baptism. So important was baptism in their judg- 
 ment, that they refused to recognize the baptism of a 
 church not of their own communion, and for this reason 
 you find them re-baptizing those that passed from one 
 communion to another, although there was no difference 
 in their administration of baptism. 
 
 We would have been pleased if the Counsel had pre- 
 sented the evidence^ upon which he relies to prove the 
 supposed fact, that the Fathers understood baptism to in- 
 clude the actions of immersion, sprinkling, and pouring, 
 as its legitimate modes. There is no such testimony 
 hefore us, and it is not likely to be found. Their sen- 
 timents and conduct on the subject, differ materially 
 from those of modern Pedobaptists, because they are 
 never found talking of the modes of baptism. That dis- 
 covery was not yet made, but remained for a later 
 
25 '2 itiE miAL of 
 
 period and the Western church to unfold. Let Pedo- 
 baptists come back to the standard of the Fathers on 
 baptism, and then you will find them always immersing, 
 except in cases of necessity. When they come up to 
 this standard, there will be no trouble in bringing them 
 up to that of the New Testament, by abrogating the in- 
 novation for cases of necessity : because this standard 
 makes no distinction, in the action of baptism com- 
 manded, for any of its subjects. 
 
 Let us now call your attention to the facts which the 
 evidence of history fully establishes. 
 
 1. The uniform practice of immersion continued in 
 the whole church for thirteen hundred years, except in 
 cases of necessity in the Western church. 
 
 2. The cases of necessity were limited by the charac- 
 ter of the innovation — never designed to be general in 
 the church, because it laid no claims to Divine autho- 
 rity. 
 
 3. The Roman church practised only immersion as 
 baptism until the innovation named, and continued to do 
 so as a general practice for thirteen hundred years. 
 
 4. The Eastern church, which was established by the 
 apostles, has maintained the invariable practice of im- 
 mersion in baptism, from its origin down to the present 
 time. 
 
 5. The facts which support the above conclusions are 
 reported to us by Pedobaptists, whose interests called 
 for any other representation of the practice of the 
 church. 
 
 6. The facts of history will remain forever a living 
 
MR. rEBOBAPTlBT. 253 
 
 and undeniable proof, that the church 'understood the 
 meaning of baptizo, in the Constitutional law, to be im- 
 merse. 
 
 Let us close this branch of our subject in the language 
 of Professor Stuart : " It is a thing made out, viz : — The 
 ancient practice of immersion. So, indeed, all the writers 
 who have thoroughly investigated this subject conclude. 
 I know of no one usage of ancient times which seems to 
 be more clearly made out. I cannot see how it is possible 
 for any candid man who examines the subject to deny this." 
 Stuart, p. 49. 
 
 We are now prepared to invite your attention to the 
 Counsel's reply to the evidence we offered, to sustain the 
 charge made against the Prisoner, of changing the action 
 of Christian baptism. His reply is founded upon several 
 assumptions, which, if they were true, would invalidate 
 the evidence we offered, and prove the doctrine he teaches 
 in relation to this part of our discussion — "a change 
 from one manner of baptizing to another." His whole 
 premises being false, his conclusions can be no better, as 
 we shall show. Let us note his assumptions. 
 
 ]. "All the authorities offered in evidence by Mr. 
 Baptist, fail to make out for baptizo an invariable mode." 
 He means here by " mode," what we denote by " action." 
 This judgment expressed by him, is only a baseless as* 
 sumption. Does not all the testimony offered by us, 
 teach immersion to be the only original action of bap- 
 tism 1 A mode of immersion has nothing to do in this 
 controversy ; because no mode is commanded. This 
 assumption does not deserve a respectful hearing, until 
 
&f)4 tHE TRIAL oh 
 
 it is supported by something like evidence. Nothing of 
 this character is found supporting it. If there was proof 
 at his hand, why did he not present it, for he is too 
 learned and intelligent not to know, that it was essential 
 to his proposition 1 Have we not presented our witnesses 
 in classes to prove the factj that immersion was the thing 
 commanded in the ordinance! Their testimony remains 
 unimpeached by all that the Counsel has said or done to 
 the contrary* 
 
 2. " The Scriptures do not determine the mode of 
 baptism." If he means by " mode of baptism," a mode 
 of immersion, we have no objection. His real meaning 
 is, that immersion, sprinkling, and pouring are modes of 
 baptism. This assumption is without a tittle of evidence 
 from the Scriptures to support it, and it is contrary to 
 the facts in testimony. He must conclude we are bound 
 to believe without an apology for evidence. This may 
 be convenient for Pedobaptists, but not for a legal inves- 
 tigation. Immersion as the action of baptism in the con- 
 stitutional law, is the only fact in evidence, and, from 
 necessity, must be the action commanded by Christ. 
 Sprinkling and pouring, as actions of baptism, find no 
 countenance from Him, in anything He said or did. For 
 this reason, the church for two hundred years knew no 
 such actions of baptism. It is no wonder, then, when the 
 innovation was introduced in the third century, that it was 
 noted as a novelty and opposed. And its being confined 
 to the Western church, speaks in volumes against the 
 Divine authority of sprinkling and pouring as actions of 
 baptism. 
 
3. "In warm climates, where bathing is a luxury, we 
 find baptism by immersion more general; but in cold 
 climates we find sprinkling," &c. The historical facts 
 in evidence are a complete refutation of this assumption. 
 They teach beyond a doubt, that immersion only as bap- 
 tism, was known throughout the whole church until the 
 third century, when pouring around the sick was intro* 
 duced as an exception without Divine authority. And 
 further, immersion continued to be the general practice 
 down to the thirteenth century. This exceptional bap* 
 tism was confined to the Western church. The Eastern 
 church knew no other baptism, from its origin down to 
 the present time, but in immersion in water. Climate 
 had nothing to do with the introduction of this innova- 
 tion of pouring in cases of necessity as a substitute for 
 immersion. The testimony on this point proves that the 
 false dogma of baptismal regeneration was the primary 
 cause of its introduction, and not the one offered by the 
 Counsel. The facts in evidence prove the Counsel's 
 proposition is only fiction, called into being by the neces- 
 sities of his position, to deceive the jury and lead the 
 public mind astray. 
 
 4. "The Christian Fathers did account baptism by 
 sprinkling, &c, valid baptism." This needs evidence to 
 sustain it. Without proof of the statement, it is worth 
 nothing. The fact is, the Fathers knew of no Scriptural 
 baptism, but immersion in water. The introduction of 
 sick bed baptism as a substitute, in one part of the church, 
 as an exceptional baptism, confined to cases of necessity, 
 was opposed, and those who were its subjects, were held 
 
SSfi THE TRIAL Ql 
 
 to be doubtful Christians. This was done;, because their 
 accounted baptism was not a scriptural one. After the 
 church was reconciled to this innovation as an exceptional 
 baptism, why did she still require all in health to be 
 immersed, if pouring was scriptural 1 The Counsel's 
 statement of their conduct, and their real conduct, are 
 antagonistic. Did the Fathers in the Eastern church 
 ever sanction and practice, in connection with immer- 
 sion, this exceptional baptism 1 There are no facts of 
 this kind in evidence. We have already noticed his 
 positions in relation to the change of immersion in bap» 
 tism, as testified to by Pedobaptist witnesses; but let 
 us examine their testimony somewhat in detail. This 
 examination will show how bold the Counsel's assump- 
 tions are. The following are found in their testimony : 
 
 The right to change from immersion, which was the 
 original action of baptism commanded. Their apology 
 is, it is only a circumstance, or, that climate demands an 
 action in the ordinance suitable to it. This is the mod- 
 ern Pedobaptist apology, but anciently the reason as- 
 signed was baptismal regeneration. The right is clearly 
 assumed, on whatever ground they place it. All the wit- 
 nesses on this point fully testify to the fact, that the 
 church possesses the right to change immersion as prac- 
 tised by Christ and his Apostles. Is not this the strong- 
 est kind of evidence, in favor of our position 1 Those 
 whose denominational interests forbid them to testify in 
 our favor, yet give their testimony in opposition to their 
 own practice being divinely appointed and they do this, 
 too, with the knowledge that it will be used against 
 
rut. pEoosArnsT. 2&7 
 
 them in the discussion of this subject. With these con- 
 siderations before them, they testify to the fact, that the 
 change was made in conformity with the right assumed. 
 If, as some modern Pedobaptists teach, their practice is 
 to be found in the original law, a change was impossible ; 
 and to testify to a change, when it did not take place, is 
 not a possibility. We are bound by ail the laws of evi 
 dence, to believe the party that testifies to a change 
 founded on the apologies offered ; because the evidence 
 clearly proves that baptizo in the law only signifies to 
 immerse, and in the language of Calvin, " it is certain 
 immersion was the practice of the ancient church." We 
 reject the opinions of modern Pedobaptists, because, 
 unsupported by the meaning of the word in the language, 
 and the practice of the church Under its first appoint- 
 ment. 
 
 2. We have the origin of this change noted and 
 named by Dr. Wall. The case recorded and found in 
 the evidence given by the Doctor, was that of Novatian, 
 who, in the third century was poured around with water 
 on his sick bed. Wall says of him, after his restoration 
 to health, " he was elected by one pait of the clergy and 
 people of Rome to be their Bishop. Cornelius (his 
 opposing and successful candidate) in a letter to Fabius, 
 Bishop of xlntioch, vindicated his own right, and showed 
 that Novatian came not canonically to his orders of 
 priesthood, much less was he capable of being chosen 
 Bishop, for that ail the clergy and a great many of the 
 laity were against his being ordained presbyter, because 
 it was not lawful (they said) for any one that had beer* 
 
258 THE TRIAL Otf 
 
 baptized (poured around) in his bed in time of sickness, 
 as he had been, to be admitted to any office of the clergy." 
 From this extract from Wall, we learn the following 
 things : 
 
 1. It was a novelty to baptize by pouring water around 
 a person on a sick bed. This is evident from the doubts 
 entertained of the person's Christianity. Cyprian under- 
 takes to settle this question, in reply to a question from 
 Magnus, whether such were " lawful Christians." The 
 question and answer could never have been proposed, 
 and transmitted to us, if pouring per se, was a scriptural 
 action of baptism. You can never account for it on Pe« 
 dobaptist professions, that pouring is one of the actions 
 of baptism commanded by Christ, and practised by the 
 church. Let them try it. 
 
 2. The opposition it met with, proves it to have been 
 an innovation. Cornelius, Bishop of Kome, says in the 
 above extract, that "all the clergy, and a great many of 
 the laity, where against his being ordained Presbyter, 
 because it was not lawful for any one that had been bap- 
 tized (poured around) on his bed in time of sickness, as 
 he had been, to be admitted to any office of the clergy." 
 Brenner, the Roman Catholic historian, says: "These 
 latter methods (sprinkling and affusion) of baptism were 
 called in question, and even prohibited." Is it not un- 
 reasonable to suppose that a common practice, sanctioned 
 by the Divine law, and approved by the church, would 
 meet such violent opposition at first, and afterwards be 
 interdicted by a Christian Council, if the position of 
 modern Pedobaptiets was well founded 1 The only 
 
mr. r£DosArrisT. 259 
 
 answer that can consistently be given, is, that the suppo- 
 sition is not possible. 1 know it may be said that they 
 were only prohibited the office of the clergy, if their 
 baptism unfitted them for this office, in the eyes of a 
 Christian Council, I am sure there is not a solitary in- 
 stance of a baptism that was acknowledged to be scrip- 
 tural, which ever was a ground of interdiction. This 
 opposition and prohibition are conclusive evidences of 
 its human origin, and that it was an unauthorized inno- 
 vation. 
 
 3. That this practice was an innovation is evident, 
 from the question proposed to Cyprian by Magnus. We 
 shall give our quotations from Stuart's translation of 
 Cyprian's reply. The question was : " Are they to be 
 regarded as lawful Christians, when they have not been 
 bathed with saving water, (immersed by baptism.)" — 
 Could a question of this kind be proposed concerning 
 those poured around for baptism, if Christ commanded 
 it, and the church followed the command 1 These two 
 things Pedobaptists teach to be true, but they are never 
 found proposing a question of this kind. What is the 
 reason 1 It may be found in the fact, that the ancients 
 differed widely from them concerning the origin of the 
 practice, and the cause that introduced it. This fact 
 shows the propriety of the question, and suggests the 
 reason of the silence of the others. Are we not com- 
 pelled, from the question proposed, to accept the conclu- 
 sion, that the practice was unknown in the earlier history 
 of the church 1 To come to any other conclusion seems 
 to be impossible ; because Magnus would have known it 
 
260 THE TIUAL OF 
 
 to be a practice that came down to them, sanctioned by 
 the church, if it had existed in his day as a common 
 practice. How could he, with this supposed fact before 
 him, have doubted that they were " lawful Christians'!" 
 When this practice was received into favor by the 
 Western church, and was extended in after times to those 
 in health, we hear no questions like that Magnus pro- 
 posed. His question can only be accounted for by the 
 novelty of the practice, and not on the supposition of its 
 previous existence. It must not be forgotten, that his 
 question does not give the least apology for the practice 
 of this baptism by those in health. It only concerned the 
 sick and dying. 
 
 4- This may be proven to be an innovation from Cy- 
 prian's reply to the question proposed by Magnus. His 
 answer will show how this baptism was viewed in his 
 day. His reply suggests the following things: 
 
 1. Whether those poured around on their sick beds 
 were " lawful Christians " was a mere matter of opinion. 
 Let us hear him speak for himself: "In regard to this, 
 let not our diffidence and modesty hinder any one to think 
 according to his own opinion, and practice as he thinks." 
 He in this language gives all the liberty to judge of this 
 matter as they think best, and to act in conformity with 
 their judgment. If it was a Divine institution, no such 
 liberty of opinion could have been sanctioned or tolera- 
 ted. He proceeds to give his view of this baptism, in 
 these words : " So far as my humble opinion goes, I 
 think the Divine benefits (of the ordinance) are in no 
 degree diminished or cut short, nor that any thing of the 
 
MR. PEDCB.VPTItST. 20 1 
 
 Divine bounty is at all diminished." He only proposes 
 to give his own judgment of it, and this finds no higher 
 authority than his position and learning. That in itself, 
 cannot give Divine authority to a human innovation, be- 
 cause it would subvert the great principle, " the Bible 
 and the Bible alone, teaches the religion of Protestants." 
 
 2. His judgment of this baptism, is not founded on 
 the meaning of baptizo in the Constitution. This is ob- 
 vious to all who will read his reply in evidence. It is 
 also true that he lived within two hundred years of some 
 of the apostles, and with his position in the church, hia 
 learning as a Father, and with superior facilities of 
 knowing the meaning of baptizo in the law, and its use 
 in his own times, he could not have failed to know (if 
 knowable) that which Pedobaptists teach in these days, 
 viz : that the practice of pouring, as an action in baptism, 
 was authorized in the constitutional law. This Pedo- 
 haptist idea is neither suggested nor named in his reply*! 
 To him, pouring around, under the peculiar circumstances 
 named, was only allowable as a matter of opinion, and 
 not authorized by the baptism of the New Testament. 
 
 3. His opinion of this baptism is not supported by an 
 appeal to the practice of Christ or his apostles to justify 
 it. This is the only legitimate appeal in support of any 
 Christian institution. Without their sanction, it is called 
 a human institution, and all men may receive or reject 
 at their pleasure. Indeed, they are bound to reject it, if 
 it comes in conflict with a Divine institution. These are 
 Protestant axioms. But had he lived in our day, he 
 could have learned from Pedobaptists, that sprinkling and 
 
2$3 THE TRIAL OV 
 
 pouring, as actions of baptism, were more common in 
 their day than immersion ! Poor Cyprian ! how ignorant 
 you would appear on this subject, were you to come 
 back and associate with some of your modern brethren ! 
 You certainly understood the history of the church in 
 your own day on the action of baptism, and also its his- 
 tory on the same subject before your ministration as a 
 bishop, and yet you appeal not to it, to sustain this ex- 
 ceptional baptism. If this practice was sanctioned by 
 the church in his day, or before him, an appeal to its 
 sanction as authoritative would have been natural. The 
 reason he did not make this appeal is evident from his re- 
 ply — the practice was new and unknown to the churches, 
 and therefore was a matter for all to decide for them- 
 selves. 
 
 4. His appeal to the sprinklings of the law to justify 
 his opinion, and to recommend the practice to the ac- 
 quiescence of the church, is in itself, indisputable evi- 
 dence, that pouring around in baptism was a human in- 
 novation — unsupported by the authority of the New Tes- 
 tament and the early practice of the church. To pass 
 by the only legitimate authority that originated and 
 sanctioned Christian baptism, and to seek support from 
 a source where Christian baptism is unknown, must be a 
 self-convincing fact of its human origin. If he could 
 have found authority from the New Testament and the 
 early practice of the church, and offered it in reply to 
 Magnus, this would have silenced the scruples of any 
 Christian man, for it was the only source of legitimate 
 authority acknowledged by all. 
 
MR. PSDOBAPTIST. 3G."J 
 
 The truth seems to be, if such convincing evidence 
 had been at his command, he would, from the nature of 
 the question proposed to him, have offered it. It is also 
 true, if this evidence was common, Magnus himself had 
 opportunities of knowing it. It is not reasonable to 
 suppose, that he was ignorant of a common practice in 
 the church, or whether it was sanctioned by Divine 
 authority. 
 
 5. Notice his effort to quiet the opposition to this 
 practice, and to reconcile the church to it. Let us hear 
 him speak for himself: "Nor should any be troubled, 
 because sick persons are affused (poured round) since they 
 obtain the favor of God." How could persons be in 
 trouble about it, and oppose it, if it was as scriptural as 
 immersion'? There is no solution of this difficulty, ex- 
 cept by acknowledging it to be an innovation. He seeks 
 to reconcile the church to this novelty, by assuring 
 them, these persons, who are poured around in their 
 sick-beds, obtain the favor of God. This was only his 
 opinion, unsupported by any promise made concerning 
 baptisms of this kind. The reason there is no promise 
 made to such baptism, is, because they were not pro- 
 vided for in the New Testament. It never contemplated 
 them. 
 
 6. That it is an innovation, is evident from the fact, 
 that it was instituted for cases of necessity, for the sick 
 and dying. Why was it confined to these cases, if it 
 had a joint right with immersion as of Divine authority 1 
 The New Testament knows no such distinction and 
 diversity — one baptism for the sick, and another for 
 
'iOfc TEE TRIAL OF 
 
 those in health. This is all human in origin^ and 
 human in practice. This conclusion is unavoidable 
 from the facts found in Cyprian's reply. 
 
 Notice next the cause that called into being this prac- 
 tice — baptismal regeneration. This dogma, like the 
 practice in question, finds no Divine authority for its 
 support. The practice was a natural effect from a cause 
 of this character. The conclusion was natural, after it 
 became an article of faith, that those dying without bap- 
 tism would be lost. The next question of moment natu- 
 rally was, how shall we dispose of those in sickness, 
 who demand baptism, and yet are in a state that would 
 make immersion impossible 1 They were led in the sub- 
 stitution adopted to imitate immersion as nearly as pos- 
 sible, by pouring water all around the person, for this is 
 the meaning of the word used, to designate this kind of 
 baptism. The imagined importance of baptism, in all 
 cases for forgiveness of sins, led Cyprian to legalize this 
 baptism. The cause of the practice being a mere human 
 opinion, the practice can claim no higher origin. 
 
 8. The judgment of Cyprian, in relation to this bap- 
 tism, gives no plea for pouring, as the action of baptism 
 to those in health. His whole reply teaches, that it is 
 to be confined to the sick and the dying. The authority 
 of pouring, in baptism, to those in health, finds its origin 
 in a later day, when it passed from cases of necessity over 
 to those in health. This fact is found fully sustained in 
 the historical evidence in testimony. 
 
 We are now prepared to continue to give those general 
 specifications, warranted, as we think, from the testi- 
 
MR, PEDOBAPTIST, 265 
 
 Ittiony We have given, concerning this change made 
 without Divine authority. 
 
 3. This baptism, by pouring around, in cases of neces- 
 sity, was made an exceptional baptism. Before its in- 
 troduction we read of no other baptism than by immer- 
 sion. That it can only have this character, is evident 
 from the fact, that it was confined to cases of necessity. 
 Beyond this boundary it had no right to go. Why does 
 it receive this singular character, if authorized by Di- 
 vine authority 1 The New Testament knows nothing 
 of an exceptional baptism. Clinic baptism rinds its ori- 
 gin and authority some where else, and this fact ought 
 to be conclusive evidence of its being a human innova- 
 tion. 
 
 4. The fact of the change having taken place, is fully 
 testified to by the friends of the Prisoner. This must 
 confound all the arguments offered by modern Pedobap- 
 tists to prove the origin of their practice in the law and 
 the early practice of the church. It is no source of sur- 
 prise that Dr. Whitby, is so clear and explicit in his 
 testimony, when he says it was done without any " al- 
 lowance from the author of this institution, or any license 
 from any Council of the church." Why do Pedobap- 
 tists speak in such unmistakable language of the fact of 
 the change, if none ever took place 1 It is for the Pri- 
 soner to reconcile it with his profession. Has his Coun- 
 sel done so 1 1 answer no — never. 
 
 5. Consider the plea offered by these witnesses for 
 
 their practice of pouring in baptism. 
 
 1. The plea of the ancients for its introduction, and 
 12 
 
2tM> THE TRIAL OF 
 
 their departure from the primitive practice in cases of 
 necessity, was baptismal regeneration. Their practice 
 affords an apology founded on a necessity. This sup- 
 posed necessity did not in fact exist, if the New Testa- 
 ment view of baptism be received as authority. If their 
 view of the essentiality of baptism be taken, in contra- 
 distinction to the New Testament representation, they 
 were thereby compelled to adopt an innovation, adapted 
 to their mistaken faith in relation to the virtue of bap- 
 tism. Take this away, and the practice could not have 
 been introduced among them. 
 
 2. The plea offered for pouring in baptism, by some of 
 the witnesses, is the difference " of climate and country." 
 This plea is a confirming fact of a change having been 
 effected. How could the plea be offered in way of justi- 
 fication of their conduct, if their practice is authorized 
 by the constitutional law, which all admit supersedes all 
 other authority on a question of Christian obedience 1 
 The two grounds assigned cannot co-exist at the same 
 time, as the foundation of pouring in baptism. The 
 pleading of ''climate and country" for pouring, is a 
 practical rejection of its Divine authority. The Eastern 
 church in all her history, has held, without faltering, to 
 immersion only as Christian baptism. She has yet to 
 learn the doctrine of the Western church, set up in these 
 days, to justify pouring. The reason is, the Scriptures 
 knew no such action in baptism, and this faith they have 
 transmitted from one generation to another unimpaired. 
 
 The ancient and modern Pedobaptists do at least agree 
 in one thing ; that they find no Divine authority to sup- 
 
MR. PEDOBAPTIST. 267 
 
 port it, and that a human cause led to its introduction 
 in the third century. 
 
 We have fully (I think) elucidated the argument that 
 charges the Prisoner with the guilt of this change ; and 
 that it was introduced in the Western church without 
 authority from the Scriptures. This single argument 
 will make void all the arguments of modern Pedobap- 
 tists, for sprinkling and pouring as actions of baptism. 
 
 We have fully answered all the Counsel's perversions 
 of the arguments and evidence offered to sustain our 
 position ; and we have also shown the insufficiency of 
 his supposed opposing evidence and arguments. We are 
 now prepared to enter upon the refutation of those argu- 
 ments offered by the Counsel, independent of those that 
 related directly to the meaning of baptizo in the law. 
 To the consideration of these we now invite your atten- 
 tion. 
 
 THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST. 
 
 This baptism is made a strong plea for the practice of 
 Pedobaptists. When they are found discussing this bap- 
 tism, they do it with apparent confidence of their suc- 
 cess. To its scrutiny we invite your impartial attention. 
 
 I. The scriptural view of this baptism.— This is important 
 to an intelligent judgment, in relation to so important a 
 subject. 
 
 1. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is so called, because 
 it is a figurative one, and not a literal action as the word 
 baptism imports. This seems to be evident, because its 
 action refers to that operation of the Spirit about which 
 
268 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 we can have no knowledge, only through the medium of 
 a reality of which we have knowledge, selected to com- 
 municate the fact of its operation to us. Is not this pro- 
 cess the adopted law by which spiritual knowledge is 
 communicated by Jehovah to his creatures'? It is impos- 
 sible for us to receive spiritual knowledge through any 
 other medium, than by literal things already known. 
 Who would dare to plead that spiritual things are like 
 literal things, to which they are compared, in the reality 
 of their substance and the mode of their operation 1 
 Surely none who entertain sound scriptural sentiments; 
 and with any other class of persons our development of 
 the law, by which spiritual knowledge is communicated, 
 has very little to do. We can find in this development 
 the reason why Professor Stuart, R. Watson, and other 
 leading Pedobaptists, call this baptism a figurative one. 
 2. The New Testament clearly teaches the baptism of 
 the Holy Spirit to have been one of promise to the dis- 
 ciples, and not a law of obedience for them. Baptism 
 in water, as a duty, was well understood by the disciples, 
 and for this reason you never find them confounding it 
 with the baptism of promise. Nor do you find them 
 making the baptism of promise the ground for an argu- 
 ment, to teach the action of literal baptism. In this im- 
 portant respect, the disciples of Christ and modern Pedo- 
 baptists materially differ in their conduct. The striking 
 difference manifested in the conduct of these parties, 
 should excite our suspicions of the soundness of the 
 argument, which finds for its foundation a ground un- 
 known to the disciples. The reason they are found dif- 
 
MR. PEDOBArTIST. 269 
 
 fering in their conduct in relation to baptism, may be 
 found in the object sought to be gained by it — the dis- 
 ciples saw their duty in a plain law — Pedobaptists seek 
 to shroud this duty in a mystery, by appealing to the 
 baptism of the Spirit to find the action in literal baptism. 
 In this may be found the reason why Pedobaptists 
 chiefly rely for a foundation for their practice in modern 
 times on this baptism, because of the mystery of Divine 
 operations. The weakness of this effort may be seen in 
 its antagonism to the conduct of the disciples. This is 
 sufficient for its rejection by us. 
 
 3. The New Testament teaches generally, that of the 
 manner of the Spirit's operations we have no knowledge. 
 This fact is fully and unanswerably confirmed by all 
 sound theology concerning the Spirit's divinity. Let us 
 quote the language of the Saviour as found in the third 
 chapter of John, in way of confirmation of this principle. 
 " The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest 
 the sound thereof, but can'st not tell whence it cometh 
 and wither it goeth. So is every one that is born of the 
 Spirit." The Spirit in this Scripture adopts the manner 
 of the resembling object, the likeness is to be found in the 
 certainty of the effects produced by the Spirit in its ope- 
 ration, and the effects produced by the resembling object. 
 We may have a knowlege of the manner of the resemb- 
 ling object to which the Spirit's operations are com- 
 pared ; but it is a lamentable mistake to suppose, that 
 this knowledge reveals to us the Spirit's manner. This, 
 from a necessity, founded in the nature of the Spirit, 
 must remain a profound mystery to us ; for of its manner 
 
270 THE TfilAL Of 
 
 'we can have no knowledge. It would be blasphemy in 
 Us to make the profession of this knowledge. 
 
 4. The certainty of the Spirit's operation is repre- 
 sented to us, by it adopting the manner of a number of 
 objects to which its operation is compared. It is likened 
 to a " well of water springing up into everlasting life," to 
 ''rivers of living water" flowing ; to "rivers whose streams 
 make glad the city of God," " like a rushing mighty 
 wind," to fire j to annointing of oil ; to " drinking into 
 one spirit ;" to breathing ; to falling, to " descending 
 like a dove," to " pouring out," and to an immersion 
 into the spirit. All these things are used to elucidate 
 the certainty of the effects of the Spirit's operation. 
 Who would be so insane as to say, these actions and 
 things in their manner are all scriptural modes of bap- 
 tism 1 This no Pedobaptist would dare to affirm, because 
 it would make so many modes of baptism for him, that 
 would make him blush with shame at the result of his 
 affirmation. What right has he to select the manner of 
 one of these resembling objects, out of all contained in 
 the above enumeration, and claim for it the right to 
 determine the action of literal baptism 1 And yet he 
 does this without the least authority for his conduct, 
 and against the remonstrance of all the rest which he 
 passed by. The principle that authorizes the selection 
 of "pouring," from all the actions to which the Spirit's 
 operation is compared, will give them all a joint right to 
 the title of scriptural baptism, because the principle of 
 action is only the choice of the party. This joint right 
 principle can never be successfully contested by Pedo- 
 
mr. rEDoB-vrmr. -27 1 
 
 baptists, because it rests on the same foundatiou upon 
 which they build their argument for pouring in baptism. 
 In repudiating the right of all these to be baptism, you 
 necessarily destroy pouring as the action of baptism, be- 
 cause they are all founded on the principle that the Spirit's 
 operation is compared to them. 
 
 5. For Pedobaptists to lay hold of pouring, as one of 
 the motions of water to which the Spirit's operation is 
 compared sometimes, and exclude all other motions of 
 water, to which it is likened, and to do this, too, with 
 the professed object of making pouring the action of 
 literal baptism, is to assume a position unsupported by 
 the Scriptures and sound reason. This process is adopted 
 for their argument, apparently because more deceptive 
 and plausible than a fair issue on the meaning of the 
 word by authoritative evidence. The argument adopted 
 by them must be unsound ; for the evidence in testimony 
 comes in conflict with its conclusion, and it authorizes 
 too many modes of baptism, as we have already shown. 
 
 6. The argument of Pedobaptists, founded on the pour- 
 ing out of the Holy Ghost, as the foundation of 
 literal pouring in baptism, of necessity makes God ma- 
 terial ; because they, in their argument, have the Holy 
 Ghost literally poured out. A conclusion so revolting 
 in its character, which yet is the result of their argu- 
 ment, must show the desperate position of their cause. 
 How irreconcilable is their argument here with their 
 views of the Spirit's divinity ! One or the other must 
 be given up. When Pedobaptists deny this legitimate 
 conclusion, necessitated by their promises, they will 
 
272 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 make void their argument; because pouring literally, m 
 rclalion to the Holy Spirit, Avill be given up. 
 
 Every person knows that the only thing that can be 
 poured out is matter. When the spirit is said to be 
 poured out, from the nature of spirit it must be figura- 
 tively. It is the abuse of this figurative nse of "pour," 
 in relation to the Spirit's operation, that leads to the 
 frightful conclusion of the materiality of God. 
 
 When Pedobaptists deny this legitimate conclusions, 
 necessitated by their premises, they will make void their 
 argument ; because pouring literally, in relation to the 
 Holy Spirit, will be given up. 
 
 7. Literal baptism is made the resembling object to 
 which the Spirit's operation is compared, and therefore 
 the latter is called baptism.. We are called upon by 
 every good law of interpretation to determine first what 
 literal baptism is in its action, from which this figurative 
 baptism receives its origin and name. This has been 
 our mode of proceeding r and it brings with it the unmis- 
 takable result, that baptizo signifies only to immerse. But 
 Pedobaptists, in their mode of proceeding, seek to deter- 
 mine the action in spiritual baptism that is beyond human 
 apprehension, and then their conception of some sup- 
 posed action belonging to it, must be the action of literal 
 baptism I This mode of proceeding is set aside by them- 
 selves, when they are found inquiring after other forms 
 of spiritual manifestation, because the principle applied 
 to this baptism is notoriously unsound — to seek the 
 meaning of a figure before we ascertain its foundation. 
 It is an axiom, that no figure can exist without a litera 
 
Mil, PE1J013APTIST. 273 
 
 foundation. Who will dare to deny this axiom to be 
 self evident 1 It refutes the whole course of Pedobap- 
 tists, adopted for the solution of spiritual baptism, be- 
 cause they are found seeking the action of the spiritual 
 to determine the literal. 
 
 The Spirit's manifestation on the day of Pentecost will 
 in its effects, also help to show the foundation upon 
 which the gift of the Spirit on that occasion was called 
 a baptism ; the room was " filled where they were 
 sitting," and they were also " filled with the Holy 
 Ghost." The disciples in the chamber were surrounded 
 on all sides by the influence of the Spirit, because it is 
 said the room and themselves also were filled. Does not 
 the language import fully a surrounding, physically and 
 morally"? We answer it certainly was such a surround- 
 ing. The only literal baptism corresponding to all that 
 is said of the spiritual on this occasion, is immersion ; 
 for only in immersion is there a literal surrounding on 
 all sides of its subjects. Let us see whether there is a 
 resemblance between this spiritual baptism and one of 
 literal pouring or sprinkling. In these literal baptisms 
 there is not even a partial surrounding or covering, and 
 for this reason they offer no resemblance to the baptism 
 of the Spirit. Without a resemblance in the literal to 
 the figurative baptism, it can show no claim to its foun- 
 dation. On the ground of this want of resemblance, 
 you are bound to reject pouring in literal baptism. 
 
 8. The baptism of the spirit finds its origin literal 
 immersion as baptism ; to which, according to the law 
 of figurative language, there must be a resemblance. It 
 
21'4 THE TftUL OF 
 
 is designed to represent the believer's interest in Christ. 
 To be immersed in the Spirit, in the language of figura* 
 tive speech, is no more impossible than it is to be " in 
 Christ," " in God," " in the Spirit" and " to walk in the 
 Spirit." This same relation is represented under another 
 form of speech, when the bodies of believers are said to 
 be " temples of the Holy Ghost," and again, M Christ will 
 dwell in them," &c All these forms are used in way 
 of accommodation to our capacities, and to communicate 
 to us spiritual knowledge. To deny that the Spirit's 
 baptism does figuratively denote immersion, will, for the 
 same reason, require the denial of the representations 
 above named of the believer's interest in Christ, because 
 all these relations and things are founded on the common 
 principle which we have sought to unfold. 
 
 9. In the Spirit's baptism, there cannot be a litera? 
 pouring, sprinkling, or an immersion as its action, as we 
 have already shown, for the reason that the Spirit is not 
 material, or subject to these actions. What a frightful 
 result would follow the application of this literal princi- 
 ple, to the development of the Divine character I Jeho- 
 vah is said to have eyes, hands, feet, and to come down 
 from Heaven. Now the application of it to these things 
 said of God, would make him have a body like unto ours, 
 and must lead to the denial of His Spirituality and Uni- 
 versality. The fact that it would establish such baseless 
 absurdities, and God dishonoring representations, com- 
 pelled us to turn from it with utter disgust, and leave 
 those who use it, to reconcile it with these things if they 
 pan. 
 
MR. I'EJDOBAPTIST, 21'5 
 
 10. The argument of Pedobaptists, applied to spiritual 
 baptism, confounds things that are different. The pour- 
 ing out of the Holy Ghost, is no where in the Scriptures 
 called baptism. They take the very point in dispute to 
 be granted. This is certainly begging the question. 
 Until they can make this essential point in their argu- 
 ment good, it must remain a baseless assumption. This 
 I know they never can do, because the proof can no 
 where be found in the Scriptures. The baptism of the 
 Spirit, on the day of Pentecost, took place after the 
 pouring out, for it was effected after the disciples were 
 surrounded on all sides by the gift of the Spirit. This 
 state of the disciples alone is called a baptism, and with- 
 out it, there could be no baptism in fact or in figure. 
 
 11. The words " poured out," when used in relation 
 to the Spirit's manifestations, are employed figuratively, 
 and in compliance with a common usage. For instance, 
 it is said God pours out his indignation, wrath, anger, 
 blessing, curses, &c. If these latter uses of "poured 
 out" are figurative, because they relate to God's conduct 
 towards men, the former must be so for the same reason. 
 Let us apply the argument of Pedobaptists to these latter 
 uses of " poured out." Then desolation, affliction and 
 death, will be the meanings of " poured out," for these 
 were the things promised and expressed. The argument 
 is as sound in the one case, as it is in the other. It 
 proves too much, and therefore is worth nothing. 
 
 II. Answer to the argument of the Counsel in relation 
 to this baptism. The defendant's Counsel said :— 1. 
 H This baptism was a real and not a figurative one." He 
 
276 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 signifies in this language, that there was a literal action 
 made known to us in this baptism. This we have al- 
 ready shown to be impossible, because the Spirit is not 
 a material substance, and of its manner of operation we 
 have no knowledge. 
 
 2. " The manner of this baptism was by pouring." — 
 This is an assumption without a tittle of evidence to sup- 
 port it, and contrary to the evidence before us. The sum 
 of the evidence is this: (1) To pour out the Spirit liter- 
 ally is impossible, or all theology, teaching the Spirit's 
 divinity, is a fable. (2) The word used to denote the 
 pouring out of the Holy Spirit is not baptizo, but ekkeo, 
 to pour. (3) There is not a solitary instance in the 
 Scripture where baptizo is used for pouring out. 
 
 3. " We have in this baptism Divine authority for 
 pouring." Such authority is all that we demand of him 
 to establish his practice. Why not give it, if it is at 
 hand 1 It would settle the controversy forever ! He 
 fails just at this essential point. When we ask for evi- 
 dence, he gives us assumptions. 
 
 4. " We are taught plainly, that the application was 
 of the Spirit to the person, and not the person to the 
 Spirit." The application (as he calls it) of the Spirit, 
 neither here nor any where else is called baptism. This 
 spiritual baptism is the result of what he calls the appli- 
 cation of the Spirit — when immersed in its influence. 
 
 His whole effort here is a complete failure, as is evi- 
 dent from the fact, that his proposition contains two 
 different words from the one that expresses the baptism 
 
MR. PEDOBAPTIST. 277 
 
 of the Spirit. His contains "poured out" and is so 
 found in the passage in Acts 2d. In the other propo- 
 sition, it is "baptized in" and not poured upon. This 
 representation is true in Greek as well as in English. 
 The two verbs, and the two prepositions in these pro- 
 positions, belong to two different families, and are con- 
 strued with prepositions of the kind which you find 
 here. The Counsel confounds these verbs and preposi- 
 tions in his argument, without the authority of a single 
 example to justify him. To call such a mode of argu- 
 mentation sound or logical, is to make void the end of 
 language altogether. For if two distinct and opposing 
 propositions are made to signify the same thing, when 
 the contingency occurs for it in our argument, human 
 speech ceases to be the -vehicle of intelligent communi- 
 cation. 
 
 111. We shall now call a number of Pedobaptist wit- 
 nesses, to confirm our position, and refute that of the 
 Counsel. 
 
 Neander : " John's followers were entirely immersed 
 in water ; the Messiah would immerse the souls of be- 
 lievers in the Holy Ghost." — Life of Christ, p. 50. 
 
 Gurtlerus : " Baptism in the Holy Spirit, is immersion 
 into the pure waters of the Holy Spirit; or a rich and 
 abundant communication of his gifts. For he on whom 
 the Holy Spirit is poured out, is, as it were, immersed 
 into him." 
 
 Bp. .Reynolds : " The Spirit under the Gospel is com- 
 pared to water; and that not a little measure, to sprinkle, 
 or bedew, but to baptize the faithful in; (Matt. 3: 11. 
 
278 THE XSIAL Of 
 
 Acts 1 : 5,) and that not in a font, or vessel, which grows 
 less and Jess, but in a spring of living water." 
 
 Le Clerc r "He shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost. 
 As I plunge you in water, he shall plunge you, so to 
 speak, in the Holy Spirit." 
 
 Casaubon : " To baptize is to immerse, and in this 
 sense the apostles are truly said to be baptized; for the 
 house in which this was done, was filled with the Holy 
 Ghost, so that the apostles seemed to be plunged into 
 it, as into a fish pool." 
 
 Grotius : " To be baptized here, is not to be slightly- 
 sprinkled, but to have the Holy Spirit abundantly poured 
 upon them." 
 
 Mr. Leigh: "Baptized; that is, drown you all over, 
 dip you into the ocean of his grace; opposite to the 
 sprinkling which was in the law." 
 
 Abp. Tillotson : "It (the sound from Heaven, Acts 2: 2,) 
 filled all the house. This is that which our Saviour 
 calls baptizing with (in) the Holy Ghost; so that they, 
 who sat in the house, were, as it were, immersed in the 
 Holy Ghost, as they who were buried with water, were 
 overwhelmed and covered all over with water, which is 
 the proper notion of baptism." 
 
 Bp. Hopkins : " Those that are baptized with the 
 Spirit, are, as it were, plunged into that heavenly flame, 
 whose searching energy devours all their dross, tin, and 
 base alloy." 
 
 Mr. H. Dodwell : " The words of our Saviour were 
 made good, ye shall be baptized (plunged or covered) 
 
MR. PBDO&APTIST. 27# 
 
 with the Holy Ghost, as John baptized with (in) water 3 
 without it." 
 
 Cyril of Jerusalem, who lived in the fourth century, 
 speaks in. the following manner : " As he who is plunged 
 in water and baptized* is encompassed by the water on 
 every side j so are they that are wholly baptized by the 
 Spirit." 
 
 How can the Court and jury give any countenance to 
 the argument of the Counsel, on the baptism of the Holy 
 Ghost, when it is brought to the light of the arguments 
 which we have presented, and weighed by the testimony 
 of these Pedobaptist witnesses 1 These two considera- 
 tions must make void all his defence on this point. 
 
 The Counsel next proceeded to answer the confirming 
 argument of the Prisoner's Counsel, for pouring being 
 the action of literal baptism, founded on the pouring out 
 of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 The first passage of Scripture he referred to, may 
 be found in Ezekiel 36 : 25. " 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." 
 What has this Scripture to do with Christian baptism % 
 He says, a good deal, because the inspired writers did 
 constantly represent sanctification by sprinkling and 
 pouring." There is no evidence offered by him, that 
 these actions alone are so used; in what he has said upon 
 this passage. He takes it to be granted, that sprinkling 
 here is the proper action for Christian baptism ; because 
 the word sprinkle happens to be found in this promise. 
 His duty is to show the relation of this promise and its 
 
280 THE TRIAL OF ' 
 
 action, to baptism and its action. This he does not 
 attempt to do. 
 
 The following things are suggested by this passage : 
 
 (1) The persons addressed — " the Jews in captivity." — 
 
 (2) The promise made to them — "I will cleanse," &c. 
 
 (3) The means to be employed — " 1 will sprinkle clean 
 water upon you." (4) To determine the process here 
 contemplated, we must go to the law under which they 
 lived. We learn from the law, the following things were 
 laid down: (1) How the water of purification should 
 be prepared. JNumb. 19, &c. (2) If a leper, the water 
 was to be sprinkled upon him. (3) The oil of olive was 
 poured upon his head. (4) The whole person of the 
 leper or polluted one was to bathe in common water. 
 This whole process was required to secure the desired 
 result — their cleansing. 
 
 Baptism cannot be the anti-type of all these things. 
 It can be of the bathing in common water after the pre- 
 vious process required had been accomplished. So Paul 
 seems to contemplate it, when he says : " Having our 
 hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies 
 washed with pure water." Paul makes the sprinklings 
 of the law typical of the blood of Christ, and the bath- 
 ings under the law typical of baptism, whose action is 
 to cover the whole body. Surely Paul's exhibition of 
 this subject, is more reliable than the Counsel's. 
 
 The Counsel's argument is based on three assumptions : 
 (1) Baptism for sanctification. (2) The act of its ad- 
 ministration is by sprinkling. (3) That this passage 
 refers to gospel days and to its baptism. It is impossi- 
 
iffk. r£jjOBAi"rrsx. 28>1 
 
 blc for him to prove these three things, for they arc no 
 where to be found in the document. Without these 
 things being in evidence, you are bound to reject his use 
 of this passage. 
 
 The second confirming passage he referred to may be 
 found in Isa. 53: 15. "So shall he sprinkle many na- 
 tions." He assumes that this passage refers to baptism 
 under the gospel administration, for he gives no evidence 
 to support it. If it were true, then Christ would have 
 selected raino, to sprinkle, as expressive of the action of 
 the ordinance which he commanded. The fulfilment of 
 this prophecy imperatively demands it. The fact that 
 Christ selected baptizo, which never signifies to sprinkle, 
 as the action of baptism,, shows that Christ understood 
 this prophecy altogether differently from the Counsel. 
 "We are bound to believe Christ, and refuse submission 
 to a fancy of the Counselproposed to us as a fact. 
 
 To make this Scripture of any available importance for 
 the Prisoner's conduct, two things must be proven : — 
 1. It refers to baptism as commanded in the New Testa- 
 ment. 2. That baptizo signifies to sprinkle. Without 
 these two things in the proof offered by him, we are 
 bound to reject his use of this passage. 
 
 His third confirming argument for pouring being the 
 action of baptism, may be found (he says) in this fact, 
 that the inspired writers did constantly represent " the 
 washings of the Old Testament, the mode of which was 
 prescribed, as performed by sprinkling." " The only 
 exception was in regard to vessels." He refers to the 
 following passages of Scripture to confirm this principle. 
 
282 THE TRIAL 01' 
 
 Levi. 14, and Num. 19 : 17, 20. You will find in read- 
 ing these two Scriptures, that the washings required were 
 not performed by sprinkling, but by the bathing of the 
 persons in water. The sprinklings in the passages are 
 not called washings, nor are they substituted for the 
 washings required. His argument proves too much for 
 him, for the passages demand the sprinklings first, and 
 the bathing of the whole persons in water last. 
 
 His whole superstructure reared to suppoi't pouring as 
 the action of baptism, is founded on unsound principles, 
 viz: to determine the meaning of a positive institution, 
 by a promise, or by another institution under another 
 dispensation. In this fact you will find the cause of his 
 a complete failure. Why did he appeal to the Old Tes- 
 tament, to prove the action of a New Testament ordi- 
 nance 1 It was not because the same word was used to 
 denote the action in both. No fact of this kind can be 
 found. He first made up his mind what the action ought 
 to be, and then the places where this action is desig- 
 nated appeared to him to afford an argument. What a 
 wild and baseless theory! Sufficient to startle insanity 
 and make reason blush with shame. You will not ask 
 us to argue against an absurdity so exceedingly absurd. 
 We have exposed it. No more can be demanded of us. 
 
 The last argument of the Prisoner'' s Counsel considered. 
 We will now take notice of his last argument, expressed 
 in the following language: "You find that no Apostle 
 or Christian minister, so far as the New Testament in- 
 forms us, ever went a single step after water to baptize." 
 f{ this was true, it would not in the least affeut theques- 
 
MR. PEDOBAfTlST. "283 
 
 tion in debate. Are we not plainly taught that Christ 
 came from "Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized 
 of him 1" If it was necessary for Him to go in pursuit 
 of a place to be baptized in water, the same must be 
 true of all cases. Did not Philip and the Eunuch con- 
 tinue their journey until they came unto a certain water 1 
 Why stop just at that place if it was not a necessary 
 object 1 They are found going into it, and the baptism 
 follows. The same fact is implied in the conduct of 
 Paul, Silas, and the jailor. A place of water is sought 
 for two purposes, to wash the stripes of Paul and Silas, 
 and to baptize the jailor. The water was as necessary 
 for the one purpose as it was for the other. These cases 
 are sufficient to meet this argument and make it void. 
 
 This argument seems to be based on this false prin- 
 ciple, that we are under obligation to show that all the 
 essential circumstances of an ordinance must be found 
 connected with every case of its performance. The in- 
 stitutions of the Old and New Testament repudiate a 
 principle so false. All history and the current languages 
 of the day brand it with utter unsoundness. For instance, 
 when it is said they were circumcised, or eat the Lord's 
 Supper, have we a right to deny these facts, because that 
 in their connections all the circumstances essential to 
 these acts are not detailed 1 No one would think of 
 doing it. In history, we may read that a man was shot, 
 stabbed, or drowned. Who doubts that all essential to 
 these things existed 1 . Otherwise the statement could 
 not have been made. For this reason, in the New Testa- 
 ment, we have not always detailed the essential circum- 
 
284 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 stances connected with the baptism. We know that a 
 baptism, like the above, could not take place without its 
 prerequisites. We have examined the case where these 
 circumstances are named. Let him give us a case where 
 they did not exist. 
 
 We have now followed the Counsel through his de- 
 fence of the Prisoner's conduct, and feel that we have a 
 right to the following conclusions: 
 
 1. The whole defence of the Prisoner is based on as- 
 sumptions and inferences, which cannot be admitted as 
 evidence by a legal tribunal. 
 
 2. For want of evidence to sustain these assumptions 
 and inferences, the Counsel's defence must fail. 
 
 3. The pretence set up for the Prisoner's conduct, 
 arising from the differences of country and climate, with 
 the ambiguity of baptizo in the law, are practical ac- 
 knowledgments of his guilt of the crime charged in the 
 indictment. 
 
 4>. The argument founded on the number who practice 
 after the Prisoner's conduct, and contrary to the consti- 
 tutional law, does not in the least mitigate the crime 
 charged, or justify the change of the law without autho- 
 rity. For the same argument would establish idolatry, 
 and a host of other evils which could plead numbers in 
 their favor. 
 
 Gentlemen of the jury, before we recapitulate the law 
 and evidence offered by us to sustain the charge in the in- 
 dictment, and close our address, we will invite your at- 
 tention for a few moments, to several general arguments, 
 suggested by a view of the whole evidence before us. 
 
MR. PEDOEAPTIST, 'i50 
 
 I. The Christian Church, both real and nominal, from 
 its origin down to the present time, cordially endorses the 
 immersion in*water of a believer in the name of the Trini- 
 ty, as Christian baptism. This general admission by the 
 church, makes immersion the only undisputed baptism in 
 evidence. It must hold this position until another bap- 
 tism is proven, for all others claiming to be actions of 
 baptism, are denied to be such. To make sprinkling and 
 pouring also actions of baptism, in connection with im- 
 mersion, they must be proven. Without such evidence, 
 they have no claim upon your consideration. 
 
 It is just as impossible to have a baptism by sprink- 
 ling, and one by immersion, as it is to have two Lords — 
 two faiths— two spirits — two Saviours — two hopes — two 
 Heavens — two hells ; when there is only one of each in 
 evidence. Until those disputed are proven, there can 
 only one of each of the above be received. This is self- 
 evident. To deny this principle, is to admit all the 
 corruptions of Christian doctrine and practice to be 
 legitimate. 
 
 The Counsel for the Prisoner was bound in his defence, 
 to prove, from the New Testament, that sprinkling and 
 pouring are legitimate actions of baptism. Until this is 
 done you are bound to hold the Prisoner guilty of prac- 
 tising what he calls a baptism, but which is unknown to 
 the New Testament. 
 
 Let us elucidate the principle upon which this argu- 
 ment is founded, by referring to the disposition of an 
 estate by law. Mr. Immerse is admitted by every one to 
 be a legal heir to the estate, or to baptism. His right to 
 
380 TEE TRIAL OF 
 
 the estate is not disputed by Messrs. Pour, Sprinkle, &e. 
 They all acknowledge him to be an undoubted heir. At 
 the time of the disposing of the estate by the Court, as 
 the law directs, there are found to be other claimants. 
 Messrs. Pour, Sprinkle, &c, claim to be joint heirs with 
 Mr. Immerse. The Counsel for Mr. Immerse would say 
 to the Court, my client's heirship is not contested by 
 any one, and those claiming joint heirship concede his 
 undoubted right. We deny that these gentlemen are 
 legitimate children of his father, and we are unwilling 
 to share the estate, or Christian baptism, with them. — 
 Let them now prove that they are legitimate children 
 of his father. Until this is done, their claim is only 
 founded in a fiction created for a purpose. To show the 
 Court that it is impossible for these gentlemen to make 
 good their joint heirship to the estate, or to baptism, the 
 father of Mr. Immerse in his will says there is but "one 
 baptism," or immersion. The language of the will 
 makes it very clear and undoubted, that he contemplated 
 in the language of the will but one heir, and not many. 
 How can they all be heirs of the estate, when there is 
 only one named and designated in the will 1 The Court 
 under the circumstances is bound to put these disputed 
 claimants to the proof of their heirship ; for the only 
 heir known to the Court and the will, up to this time, is 
 Mr. Immerse. Now it is impossible for them to prove 
 their joint heirship without making void the will ; be- 
 cause the will knows only one heir, and not many. The 
 Court, under these circumstances, would order the estate 
 to be given to Mr. Immerse. There is only one other 
 
MR. ?ED0BA.PTI9T, 287 
 
 possibility that seems to us could occur, that is, for the 
 Court to order all the claimants to prove their title to 
 joint heirship, and until their professed relation to Mr. 
 Immerse was in evidence, the Court would be bound to 
 hold Mr. Immerse as the only heir known to the law. 
 
 This case illustrates the state of the parties in this 
 controversy. We claim at the hands of the jury the 
 whole estate, or Christian baptism, because our right is 
 not disputed, and the Counsel for the Prisoner has en- 
 tirely failed to prove another baptism. There is but 
 " one baptism" known to the Constitution. This correct 
 view of the controversy between the parties, places the 
 burden upon Pedobaptists, to prove another baptism to 
 be scriptural as well as immersion. Until this is done 
 by them, our work- in this debate is completed by the 
 general admission, of immersion as a scriptural baptism. 
 All we do more than this is a work of supererogation ; 
 because our position to the opposing party makes no such 
 demands of us. When they offer what they call proof 
 of another baptism, we are then only bound to show that 
 the evidence offered does not prove another baptism. 
 
 II. God never commanded the sprinkling or pouring of 
 common or unmixed water upon any person for a religious 
 purpose. This fact is fully evident from the testimony 
 offered, and in itself must make entirely void all the 
 supposed arguments of the Counsel for the Prisoner. 
 Under the administration of the law, you read of the 
 water of purification. This was not unmixed water, but 
 a compound, Num. 19. This Divine ordinance unfolds 
 the following things : (1) The composition of the water 
 
288 THE TRIAL OP 
 
 of purification, as found in the 17th verse. (2) The or> 
 ject of its application — 9 v. Heb. 9 : 13. (3) Its sub- 
 jects — unclean persons and things, 13-18. (4) Admin" 
 sstrator — a clean person, 18 v. (5) The mode of appli- 
 cation — by sprinkling, 13 v. (6) The consequence to 
 an undean person who neglected it — cut of from Israel, 
 13 v. This law of purification from uncleanness, makes 
 the sprinkling or pouring of unmixed water on a person 
 for a religious purpose, under the law, an impossible 
 thing. This accounts for the Counsel's death-like silence 
 in relation to on institution demanded by our argument. 
 There is none in the Scriptures. 1 know we are met with 
 God's promise in Ezekiel — " I will sprinkle clean water 
 upon you." We have already examined the application 
 of this promise, and proved that it had no relation to a 
 Divine law requiring the sprinkling of unmixed water ) 
 for there is no such law to be found among the Divine 
 enactments. We have also ascertained the law of puri- 
 fication, and found that this law imperatively required 
 the ashes of a red heifer to be mixed with water. With- 
 out this ingredient, water alone was of no avail. Again : 
 this passage contains only a promise and not a law of 
 obedience ; and therefore cannot be a legitimate offset 
 to the sweeping character of my argument. If this pas- 
 sage be taken spiritually, it can have no reference di- 
 rectly to a law administered by men, but to God's favor 
 promised. He then would be the only administrator of 
 this promise. Let this passage be taken as you please, 
 still it does not in the least invalidate the power and 
 force of my argument, 
 
STTt. PEDOBAPTTST. 28$ 
 
 Tliis single argument unrefuted, takes the foundation 
 from the superstructure reared in support of sprink- 
 ling and pouring by Pedobaptists, and leaves them no 
 support from the Scriptures. In view of this important 
 fact, they should cease to plead Divine authority for their 
 practice, for they find only the influence of human. 
 authority for its support. 
 
 But suppose they could find that God did command the 
 sprinkling or pouring of unmixed water upon a person, 
 for a religious purpose, this per &e, would be of no avail 
 to them, unless they could prove it to be the action com- 
 manded in Christian baptism. It might be the action 
 and thing commanded in a number of institutions, and 
 yet not in baptism. It is true, this argument would lose 
 its force, if these things were in evidence. It is also 
 true, that institutions containing these things would not 
 in the least affect the arguments, which prove immersion 
 to be the action commanded in baptism, because baptism 
 is a distinct institution from all others commanded. 
 
 111. Consider a common sense argument, founded upon 
 a comparison drawn between the practice of Pedobaptists 
 and the practice of the New Testament, in relation to bap- 
 tism. The following striking contrarieties may be ob- 
 served : (1) The place of administration. The New 
 Testament practice was in the water ; Pedobaptist prac- 
 tice is not in the water. (2) The New Testament teaches 
 that the administrator and subjects of baptism, went 
 down into the water, in order to the baptism of the sub- 
 jects. The other practice teaches, that to go down into 
 
 the water, is not necessary for its baptism. (3) The one 
 13 
 
290 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 practice teaches that the baptism take? place in the 
 water; the other practice teaches, the baptism takes 
 place out of the water. (4) The one teaches, that after 
 the baptism was performed, they came up out of the 
 water ; the other, that there is nothing of this character 
 required in baptism. In all these essential character- 
 istics, found in these two baptisms, you cannot but ob- 
 serve a striking dissimilarity. The cause of this want 
 of uniformity in the two must be sought, and found in 
 the diversity of their origin. The one has a Divine 
 origin ; the other a human. The practical question is 
 after all, do Pedobaptists appear to have copied after the 
 Divine example 1 You should find no trouble in coming 
 to an intelligent judgment, whether these baptisms are 
 the same in their character. If not, you are bound to 
 receive the one, and reject the other. There is no 
 other alternative that can be adopted by Christians, and 
 our profession dictates the only choice to be made. 
 
 If you will note carefully the analogy between the 
 practice of the Baptists and that of the New Testament, 
 you will find a striking likeness in all the essential 
 features of their baptisms, which will prove their identity 
 beyond a reasonable doubt. The reason of this identity 
 is, that the one is copied from the other. That this is 
 well founded, may be easily ascertained by comparing 
 the essential features of the two baptisms. We have no 
 fears of the result of such comparison, because the 
 features of each are moulded by the same law. 
 
 IV. We found an argument on the conflicting positions 
 occupied by learned Pedobaptists, in defending their pruc- 
 
MR. PEDOBAPTIST. 291 
 
 tice. President Dwight says, baptizo signifies "cleans* 
 ing." President Beecher says, it signifies "to purify." 
 Dr. Miller says, it signifies "to wash, to sprinkle, to 
 pour on water." Dr. Scott says, it signifies " the use of 
 water in the sacrament of baptism." Dr. Owen says, 
 it "signifies to wash." Dr. Bogue says, it signifies 
 " water applied to the body of the person baptized." 
 Kev. Mr. Hibbard says, it means "to purify and to con- 
 secrate." Dr. Peters says, it signifies "to sprinkle," &c. 
 These and other definitions are given to baptizo, as 
 the foundations of the practice of sprinkling and pour- 
 ing in baptism. Is it possible to make common sense 
 believe that baptizo signifies all these actions, designated 
 by these Doctors of Divinity 1 To-us it seems to be im- 
 possible. God's will could never be ascertained under 
 the operation of this law of interpretation. It would 
 convert light into darkness. Is it not a fact, that baptizo 
 cannot have all these significations! There are words 
 in the Greek language, which definitely express all these 
 actions, said to be signified by baptizo, and until the as- 
 sumptions of these authors are supported by examples 
 of the use of baptizo, from the language, they have no 
 claims upon our indulgence, for a single moment, in 
 this debate. If you will consider what they say in favor 
 of their assumptions, you will find it destitute of all 
 reliable authority beyond their own opinions. 
 
 A complete refutation of these assumptions may be 
 found in this fact, that each one of these authors claims 
 his own definition of baptizo to be the true one. If you 
 believe any one of them to be correct in the premises, 
 
THE TRIAL OF 
 
 upon which he rests his meaning of baptizo, you are, 
 from the necessity of your faith in his judgment, bound 
 to reject all the opposing meanings offered by the other 
 authors. All these authors practically show in their con* 
 duct, one towards another, that all have failed to find the 
 true meaning of baptizo, except themselves ; for all of 
 them claim to be correct in their supposed ascertained 
 meaning of the word. The natural question is, who 
 among them has the true meaning, or whether they have 
 it at all 1 They have not as yet settled among them- 
 selves this first question, nor will they ever be able to do 
 so, unless all, except one, relinquish their opinions to 
 the significations of baptizo. Who would be the suc- 
 cessful claimant, remains a profound uncertainty. But 
 until they become reconciled among themselves, they 
 have no claim to public favor. 
 
 Is it not a well settled principle in law, when witnesses 
 disagree as to a material fact in controversy, that we are 
 bound to reject all their testimony concerning this ma- 
 terial fact 1 Apply this principle to the testimony of 
 these interested witnesses concerning the meaning of 
 baptizo. Are we not by its just mandate, as honest men, 
 bound to reject all they say upon the subject ! This will 
 only be doing to them, what they are practically doing 
 one to the other, by each one claiming his meaning of 
 baptizo to be the true one. 
 
 If you look at the foundation upon which all Baptists 
 build their argument for immersion, you will find they 
 all occupy a common ground—the use of baptizo in the 
 language, and the practice of the primitive church. This 
 
MR. TED0BAPTI8T. 293 
 
 mode of proceeding is the only legitimate one on all 
 questions of inquiry. Here we all stand united. 
 
 This diversity of sentiment shows how many shifts 
 are adopted to justify a practice unknown to the consti- 
 tutional law and early practice in this government. The 
 object of this prosecution is to restore the primitive 
 practice of baptism throughout the whole Common- 
 wealth. This, we are satisfied from the evidence, you 
 will do by your verdict. 
 
 RECAPITULATION OF THE ARGUMENT FOR THE PROSECUTION. 
 
 Gentlemen of the jury, we are now prepared to reca- 
 pitulate our argument in support of the charge in the 
 indictment, after which we will close our address for the 
 Commonwealth. 
 
 I. The principles of law and evidence applicable to this 
 controversy.— We unfolded and confirmed them by wit- 
 nesses not challenged, because they were the friends of 
 the Prisoner. They have remained unimpeached by the 
 Counsel, from the time of my opening speech, until he 
 closed for his client. These principles are in law, for 
 the guidance of judicial proceedings, what the granite 
 rock is to the earth — the foundation of its solidity and 
 endurance. I shall look to the Court so to instruct the 
 jury. We ask this of the Court, because these principles 
 overspread the whole case with light, so that all can dis- 
 cern clearly their duty, as well as the best way to execute 
 it. The fair fame of our country among the other na- 
 tions, demands the application of these principles, to 
 
294 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 quiet the premonitions of coming ruin that now so fear- 
 fully threaten our national existence. 
 
 II. The proof offered to show that baptizo, in the law, 
 signifies to immerse. — This fact is essential to sustain the 
 charge in the indictment. We are sure we have fully 
 made it out beyond a reasonable doubt, by the testimony 
 of the following witnesses : 
 
 1. Mr. Classic. In his testimony, we find the use of 
 baptizo in the language in which our Constitution was 
 written. This testimony becomes invaluable to us all, 
 because it furnishes the occurrences of the word in the 
 language. In all the places it is used, it is found to de- 
 note only immersion. What more evidence do we want 
 of a fact than this array of examples affords 1 A more 
 convincing fact cannot be found, in relation to any word 
 in the Greek, or any other language. Another convinc- 
 ing fact which you will also find associated with this 
 one, is, there is not a solitary instance in all these ex- 
 amples, where baptizo, even by implication, signifies to 
 sprinkle, or to pour. This speaks volumes against the 
 Prisoner, and affords to him not the remotest plea for his 
 conduct. 
 
 2. Mr. Josephus, a Jew, who lived in the days of the 
 apostles, tells us the same story about baptizo. In his 
 testimony concerning the uniform meaning being to im- 
 merse, the Counsel has failed to find an instance that 
 could be tortured to speak any other language. 
 
 3. Mr. Lexicon and his family, who were all Pedo- 
 baptists, are compelled to give to baptizo the primary or 
 common meaning, to immerse. It is true, that some of 
 
MR. PED0BAPT13T. 295 
 
 the members of this family are found giving the effects 
 of immersion, in the end of their classification of the use 
 of the word. We might expect conduct of this kind 
 from them, because they were interested in the issue of 
 the case, as its determination might involve their fidelity 
 to the country. In their classification of the following 
 effects of immersion, " to cleanse," " to purify," and " to 
 wash," you will find that they give no veritable authori- 
 ties from the language to support their classification. 
 Without authority from use, the classification must be 
 fabulous, it is a consolatory fact, however, that they all 
 find undoubted authority for immerse, as its meaning. 
 
 A fact of grave consideration here must not be for- 
 gotten. A number of these lexicographers, with Beza, 
 tell us the reason why these effects are found in some of 
 their classifications of the meaning of baptizo, is, because 
 they are usually produced by immersion, therefore they 
 become figurative acceptations of the word. It must be 
 remembered that this solution of the difficulty is not 
 manufactured for the occasion, but is the one given by 
 some of these Pedobaptist lexicographers. That this 
 solution is well founded, may be fully ascertained by 
 consulting the use of the word in the language. The use 
 of baptizo does not afford a single clear example of its 
 signifying " to cleanse," " to purify," or "to wash." 
 
 It must be obvious to all who will reflect a few mo- 
 ments upon this subject, that when we immerse for puri- 
 fication, cleansing, or washing, these three things cannot, 
 under any circumstances, be proper meanings of immerse. 
 Yet on this absurdity is built the argument of Pcdobap- 
 
TIFE TRIAL OF 
 
 lists, that the effects of an action are proper significations- 
 of the word. There cannot be found any reliable au- 
 thority sustaining a principle which appears so exceed- 
 ingly false when exposed to public gaze. It is the 
 sophistry thrown around it by its friends, that deceives- 
 many honest inquirers after the truth. 
 
 There is one more remarkable fact which we must 
 notice in relation to the lexicons. It is this i In all their 
 classifications of the meaning of baptizo, they give no- 
 authority for sprinkling or pouring as meanings of bap- 
 lizo. These witnesses, all friends of the Prisoner r give 
 no countenance to his practice. 
 
 4v The testimony of Pedobaptists in relation to the 
 practice of the Jews, when they baptized proselytes. — 
 We have not undertaken to ascertain the origin of this 
 practice, but to ascertain the thing done by them at the 
 baptism of proselytes. The entire testimony on this 
 point is, that it was by immersion in water. I have not 
 observed a single exception to this way of introducing 
 proselytes among the Jews. 
 
 What surer way could be adopted to ascertain the 
 meaning of the word in the law of baptism, than by the- 
 mode we have adopted — by consulting the Greeks and 
 the Jews ] They both agree in their testimony that 
 baplizo signifies to immerse* 
 
 5. We offered a class of Learned Witnesses, whose 
 denominational character was not inquired into. Their 
 testimony is clear and unquestionable. From this w® sup- 
 port the following axiom: if baplizo in the Greek lan- 
 guage signifies to immerse, it never can with this »iea»- 
 
MR. PKDOCArTlST, 297 
 
 ing usurp authority over raino, and ckeo, the acknow- 
 ledged heads of the families of sprinkle and pour, by 
 supplanting them entirely by the substitution of bapto, 
 nor can it likewise be the root of these two additional 
 families. But we are compelled to adopt this absurdity, 
 to give character and strength to the argument of Pedo- 
 baptists on the subject of baptism. Their argument 
 blots out the individuality of the families of sprinkle 
 and pour in the language, and incorporates them into 
 the family of bapto. The families of sprinkle and pour 
 deny to bapto this power of absorption, and also deny 
 the existence of a single marriage relation. Because of 
 this protest, these families, all represented in the lan- 
 guage by a numerous posterity, in their intercourse with 
 the family of bapto, pay to it the compliments which the 
 Jews paid to the Samaritans. 
 
 6. We offered a large number of Pedobaptist witnesses 
 to prove the constitutional meaning of baptizo. They 
 all agreed that it signifies to immerse. These witnesses 
 were men of understanding, learning and authority in 
 their several communions. We classified them in the 
 following order : 1. German witnesses. 2. Presbyte- 
 rian. 3. Episcopalian. 4. Roman Catholic. 5. Ar- 
 menian Professors. The weight of their testimony in 
 favor of the position of Mr. Baptist, ought to be esti- 
 mated by their friendship for the Prisoner, and the power 
 of truth which compelled them to testify against their 
 interest and in condemnation of their own practice. 
 
 7. The testimony of the Friends or Quakers, which 
 was only a confirmation of those witnesses previously 
 
£8S HIE TRIAS OF 
 
 examined. Their religious sentiments place their testiv 
 mony above suspicion, beeause their views of baptism 
 will not be affected by your decision. 
 
 8. We offered a class of unexceptional witnesses, em- 
 bracing English Lexicographers, &c. They all fully 
 make out the charge in the indictment against the Pri- 
 soner, and prove the practice of the ancient church to 
 have been immersion. 
 
 All these several classes of witnesses in their testimony 
 placed it beyond a reasonable doubt, that the meaning 
 of baplizo in the Constitution, is to immerse. Can wc 
 find a stronger array of testimony deposing to the same 
 fact, and yet that the fact shall be doubted % We answer 
 no, never. To doubt the meaning of baptizo in the light 
 of this united testimony,- is to impeach the learning 
 and varacity of these witnesses, nearly all of whom 
 are the personal friends of the Prisoner. You will be 
 unable to find a parallel in the annals of judicial pro- 
 ceedings to justify such conduct, and by your verdict 
 will justify a practice unknown to the Constitution and 
 contrary to all the facts in testimony. In truth, it would 
 be one of the most fearful outrages ever attempted by a 
 
 jury- 
 Ill. The scriptural use of baptizo, and the circum- 
 stances connected with its action in the ordinance. It was 
 under the terms of this argument we replied to Profes- 
 sor Schmucker, as read by the Counsel for the Prisoner. 
 We so dissected his arguments, and showed their entire 
 imbecility and insufficiency to help the cause of the 
 defendant, that when the sophistry, by which they were 
 
MR. *Ei>OftiPTIST. 299 
 
 supported was exposed, they only gave additional strength 
 to our chief argument. 
 
 IV. That the Apostolic baptism was a burial in water 
 for an object. This fact was sustained by the testimony 
 of the illustrious Apostle to the Gentiles, and confirmed 
 by the Christian Fathers and Reformers. This design 
 of Christian baptism, makes immersion as its action^ 
 essential to its existence. 
 
 V. The History of the Eastern and Western churches, 
 affords an unanswerable argument in favor of baptizo in 
 the Constitution, signifying to immerse. Their practice 
 fully meets her claims, as you will observe in the testi- 
 mony on this point, and affords no countenance for the 
 conduct of the Prisoner. Their history comes from the 
 pens of Pedobaptist writers. 
 
 VI. That Mr. Pedodaptist did abandon Christian im* 
 mersion as commanded, and substituted sprinkling and 
 pouring in its place. We have fully developed this argu- 
 ment, which in itself is sufficient to condemn the Pri* 
 soner. We hope the Court and jury will give it that 
 attention which its importance imperatively demands. 
 It brings this whole contest to a single point, and trium- 
 phantly determines it. 
 
 VII. Our four arguments founded on the general aspect 
 of the whole testimony in evidence. 
 
 1. The general consent of the real and nominal church, 
 that immersion is Christian baptism. 
 
 2. That God never commanded the pouring or sprink- 
 ling of unmixed water upon a person, for a religious 
 purpose. 
 
300 THE T1UAL oi 
 
 3. An argument founded upon a comparison of the 
 baptisms of the New Testament, with those of Pedo* 
 baptists in their essential characteristics. 
 
 4. From the conflicting claims of Pedobaptists in their 
 endeavors to settle the meaning of baptizo. 
 
 How strong are all the arguments we have offered in 
 proof of a single fact, the meaning of baptizo in the 
 law ! We are sure their power must be felt by the Court, 
 jury and country. 
 
 CONCLUSION OF THE SPEECH OF THE PROSECUTING COUNSEL. 
 
 The hour has arrived for congratulation in this case. 
 Toward this hopeful period, we have looked with a long- 
 ing eye of expectation. It has come to us all at last, 
 with the pleasing and encouraging reflection, that we 
 have all, up to this time, performed our duty. The close 
 of the whole controversy is upon us — a few more duties, 
 by others interested, will soon be performed, and the 
 work will then be completed for our country and our 
 cause. To a kind Providence we owe our heartfelt grati- 
 tude for its protection and preservation. My work is 
 done. To you, gentlemen, is left the judgment of this 
 case. The fate of our nationality is bound up in your 
 verdict. Our people are waiting with palpitating inter- 
 est for your decision. You dare not falter in this trying 
 emergency. The hour for your action has come. Let 
 it be firm and decisive. Your country and consciences 
 will commend you. I submit the case into the hands 
 of the Court and jury. 
 
MR. riuoMrfffT. 301 
 
 After the Counsel had closed his address, the Court 
 ordered silence, and proceeded to deliver the following 
 
 CHARGE TO THE JURY. 
 
 Gentlemen of the jury, I can congratulate you, that 
 we have arrived at a point in this case, when your labors, 
 with ours, will soon be terminated. It is seldom a jury 
 is called upon to give so much of their time as you have 
 done for the public good. The present case imperative- 
 ly demanded this inconvenience of you, and your pat* 
 riotism has led you to respond with a cheerful cordiality, 
 which will not soon be forgotten by your countrymen. 
 The personal sacrifices you have made in obedience to 
 our call, are fully appreciated by the Court. There is 
 another consideration which we all appreciate, the parties 
 in this controversy have expressed their confidence in 
 your intelligence and impartiality. It now becomes our 
 duty to lay down the law, and it is yours to apply it to 
 the evidence before you. After this application you will 
 give your judgment to the Court and country. 
 
 I. The importance of this trial must be estimated by 
 its relation to the Commonwealth, and the parties per- 
 sonally engaged in the controversy. It is a question of 
 no small moment to the country, to know in these times 
 of violent agitation, what was commanded to be done by 
 the Lawgiver, when he instituted Christian baptism. Its 
 original meaning was intended to be immutable. If the 
 perversion of one of His institutions is tolerated and 
 sanctioned, the same reason that suspended it will apply 
 with equal force to all others that are found in the or* 
 
302 IKK TJlfAL OF 
 
 ganic instrument of our government. The adoption of 
 a principle of this fearful character, by the Court and 
 country, would work the abrogation of all the landmarks 
 which our Fathers appointed. 1 know the jury and coun* 
 try are not prepared for a calamity of such a heart- 
 sickening character. We all deprecate it with indigna- 
 tion. This consideration gives an importance to the issue 
 of this trial which is incalculable. 
 
 The conviction of this important fact rests heavily 
 upon the public heart, whose agitated and irregular throb- 
 bihgs are felt throughout the entire body politic. It ac 
 counts for the great multitude of people that has assem- 
 bled from all parts of the land to witness this trial. They 
 act as if they felt a nation's weal or woe was involved in 
 its determination. 
 
 There is another consideration that increases the im- 
 portance of this trial in the public judgment — the charac- 
 ter of the parties directly concerned in this controversy. 
 Your judgment will determine whether the allegation 
 of Mr. Baptist is truthfully made or not, or whether Mr. 
 Pedobaptist has been loyal to the government or not. 
 Your judgment, from necessity, will forever brand with 
 infamy the conduct of one of the parties, in the eyes of 
 the public. 
 
 These momentous considerations should awaken in 
 all our minds the nature and extent of our responsibility 
 to all the parties interested in the judgment of this case. 
 Let us enter upon a review of the law and evidence, ap- 
 plicable to the issue joined by the parties, with an honest 
 
MR.- rED'OBAfTl'sf. 303 
 
 impartiality j and with a determination to administer jus- 
 tice to all concerned. 
 
 II. The principles of law and evidence applicable to 
 this case will now claim our attention. It is a console 
 tary fact found in the discussion of this case by the 
 Counsel on both sides, that they agree in their interpre- 
 tation of the law applicable to the evidence offered. 
 They are found differing about the application of some 
 of the principles, and about the character of baptizo, 
 whether it is generic or specific. You will look to the 
 Court for its understanding of these principles, and how 
 they are to be applied to the evidence. 
 
 1. Baptism is a Positive Institution of the New Testa,' 
 ment. The distinction made by the Counsel between 
 positive and moral institutions is well taken and sustained 
 by our best authorities. 
 
 2. The words in this institution must be taken in their 
 literal or popular acceptation, unless the Lawgiver, in the 
 law, or somewhere else, signified a different meaning. 
 This principle has been cordially accepted by the Coun- 
 sel. 
 
 3. It is clearly and fully settled by Stuart and Carson, 
 that the word employed to designate the act in Christian 
 baptism, is baptizo, always, and not bapto in a solitary 
 instance. This fact will save us a great deal of trouble 
 in summing up the case. The only legitimate inquiry 
 will be to ascertain the meaning of baptizo in the law. 
 On this single point the whole controversy turns for, or 
 against the parties. 
 
 <!'. The meaning of baptizo at the time it was incorpo* 
 
304 the trial ot 
 
 rated in the law, must be the only meaning received by its* 
 The application of this principle will be better under- 
 stood, when we call your attention to the duty of the 
 parties in the controversy, and the weight due to the 
 testimony offered. Until this branch of the case comes 
 before us in its order, we will suspend its application, 
 because it relates to the heart of the whole subject be- 
 fore us, for a judicial determination. 
 
 5. Baptizo, if a specific word denoting an action, can- 
 not, by any law of interpretation, be made to signify three 
 distinct actions. For the words that claim to be the 
 actions of baptism are all specific words. Dip, sprinkle, 
 and pour, are of this character from necessity. If bap- 
 tizo signifies any one of these actions, it cannot signify 
 the other two. This is true in Greek as well as in Eng- 
 lish. These words constitute the roots of three distinct 
 and separate families, and the one can never be truth- 
 fully substituted for the other. 1. If baptizo is a generic 
 word, designating the effect of a specific action, or actions, 
 it can never be said to properly signify the actions by 
 which it may be effected — it per se only denotes the 
 thing to be done — the manner of doing it is designated 
 by other words suited to the manner. The evidence in 
 testimony must determine whether baptizo is a specific 
 or a generic word. 
 
 6. The contemporaneous history of the action of the or- 
 dinance, will help us to determine the thing done — desig- 
 nated by baptizo in the law. This is always a subject 
 of legitimate inquiry, to ascertain how an institution 
 was understood at, and about the time of its adoption, 
 
mi. 1'EDOSAPTiST . 305 
 
 and the practice that followed. It is an undoubted fact 
 that the primitive church had more opportunities for 
 knowledge of this litigated point, than we have. Their 
 testimony is an important auxiliary to us in estimating 
 this case. 
 
 7. It is a fact that this subject was so well understood 
 by the first ministers and their hearers, that no definition 
 of the action of Christian baptism was called for, nor 
 was there one given. This fact apprizes us of an under- 
 standing existing in those early times concerning this 
 much mooted subject ; and we should carefully see, 
 whether the testimony points it out to us, and if it does,, 
 to let our action in this case so declare. 
 
 8. The design of the institution ought to reflect back to 
 the thing done in it. The only thing here debated was, 
 what baptism in its design contemplated. This con- 
 tested point you can settle only by consulting the light 
 the New Testament, and the subsequent history of its 
 administration, will throw upon this subject. You must 
 look at the arguments and evidence on this point, and 
 make the inquiry, what was the design of baptism ia 
 the light of this evidence! and what action, if any, was 
 necessary for this design 1 
 
 9. The weight of evidence must be determined by the 
 character, learning, and interest of the witnesses in the is." 
 sue joined by the parties. It is well settled by the laws 
 of evidence, that a party testifying who is interested in 
 the issue, is not equal to one who has no interest at stake,, 
 m one who testifies against his interest. The reason of 
 this well recognized distinction in estimating the teitj- 
 
306 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 mony of three witnesses of the character we have named 
 is obvious — the one is liable to he blinded by his interest 
 involved in the issue, the other two of necessity are im- 
 partial in their statements, because there are no induce- 
 ments to lead them to color them. Agaiu, when an 
 opposite party of equal learning and authority, testifies 
 to the truthfulness of the opposing party's position, his 
 testimony is invaluable to the party, and is of tenfold 
 more weight than the testimony of an interested witness 
 in the judgment of a jury ; because truth compels him 
 to testify at the sacrifice of interest. You must apply 
 this principle in estimating the weight due to the wit- 
 nesses' testimony. 
 
 10. Witnesses can only testify to facts in a legal inves- 
 tigation, and facts only can be received by you as a legal 
 evidence. The opinions of witnesses are to have no influ- 
 ence over your judgment of this case. For you are called 
 upon to determine a question of fact, and not of opinion. 
 This is certainly a plain law of evidence, and it cannot 
 be departed from, without endangering the whole sci- 
 ence of jurisprudence. It will therefore be your duty to 
 make up your minds in this case by the facts in the tes- 
 timony. 
 
 11. Consistency, in testimony, is essential to its weight 
 and influence over the judgment of a jury. This prin- 
 ciple bears upon its face its importance and necessity. 
 By its mandate we are compelled to reject all that is 
 conflicting. This is a reasonable law of evidence, and has 
 always been approved of by this Court. 
 
 You have often observed a blind inconsistency devel- 
 
MR. PEDOBAPTIST. 307 
 
 oped by a class of witnesses in their testimony for a 
 party. This inconsistency always excites a suspicion 
 of the truthfulness of their testimony. But when you 
 find a large number of witnesses agreeing in their testi- 
 mony, it gives a moral certainty to the fact, or facts tes- 
 tified to. The application of this principle to the testi- 
 mony offered by the parties, will help you to determine 
 on which side of this controversy the truth is to be 
 found. 
 
 It becomes the duty of the jury to apply these prin- 
 ciples of law and evidence, to the arguments and testi- 
 mony offered to you by the parties. You are not to con- 
 sult the consequence that follows their application. Your 
 judgment of the result of the application is alone de- 
 manded by your oaths, and the Constitution under which 
 you are acting. 
 
 111. Consider the duty of the parties in controversy 
 according to the forms of law. 
 
 1. They require of Mr. Baptist to prove clearly, that 
 baptizo in the law signifies to immerse. You have before 
 you all the testimony on which he relies for the proof of 
 this proposition. You are to judge whether it sustains 
 the charge in the indictment or not. 
 
 2. The duty of Mr. Pedobaptist is to show that the 
 proof does not sustain the allegation of Mr. Baptist. 
 This plea alone is sufficient until some veritable evidence 
 is offered. Until then he has no other duty to perform. 
 
 3. There is a striking conflict between the parties, as 
 to the meaning of baptizo. Both cannot be correct. You 
 
308 THE TRIAL OF 
 
 are to determine on which side the testimony is to be 
 found. 
 
 IV. Observe how this whole case can be brought to a 
 conclusion. 
 
 1. By keeping constantly before you that the question 
 is one of fact and not opinion. 
 
 2. The fact can only be ascertained by reliable testi- 
 mony. 
 
 3. You are, under the law, judges of the weight to be 
 given to testimony. To let no fear of consequences de- 
 ter you from an impartial examination and a disinterested 
 judgment. 
 
 This mode of proceeding on your part, will enable 
 you to come to an intelligent conclusion. 
 
 Before I close, it may be justifiable in me to notice the 
 outside influence, that has been made to bear upon the 
 judgment of this case. You witness here an excited 
 multitude, giving the weight of their influence for or 
 against the Prisoner. And further, from all parts of the 
 land come here inflammatory addresses at this time, from 
 the friends of the parties. Their power may appear 
 potent and appalling, and their influence may deter you 
 from rendering an impartial verdict, because of the con- 
 sequences that would follow, as you may be led to sup- 
 pose, to the country. 
 
 You must not forget that a true verdict is the only 
 safe-guard of our Constitution in perilous times. There 
 are loyal men of sufficient number in this Commonwealth 
 to maintain the honest decision of any constitutional 
 question. They would look with scorn and contempt 
 
MS. PEDOBAPTIST. 309 
 
 upon a jury that would sacrifice justice in the hour of 
 danger. They hold that the purity of our institutions 
 must be maintained at any price. Unless the jury, the 
 palladium of our safety, maintains in its verdicts our 
 laws unmutilated, the country will hasten to ruin. 
 
 When this crisis in our country's history is past, your 
 position in this trying hour will be fully appreciated, 
 and coming generations will commend your sterling in- 
 tegrity. The founder of this government, and its first 
 administrators, look down upon this scene of strife with 
 anxious eyes. To you is entrusted this God-like work 
 of removing the apple of discord from among the people. 
 Disappoint not the confidence reposed in you. The 
 hope of the nation is committed to your hands. Illus- 
 trate in your judgment the virtues of our ancestors, who 
 periled their all for the existence of this government. 
 It is a source of pleasure to me to say that I believe you 
 are prepared for the emergency. Your action, I know, 
 will not disappoint my hope. 
 
 Gentlemen of the jury, I have performed my duty to 
 you and the country ; all that yet remains is to afford 
 you an opportunity fully to discharge yours. This will 
 now be given you. 
 
 A constable was sworn, and he conducted the jury to 
 their room to deliberate upon a verdict, after which the 
 Court adjourned. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Address, prosecuting counsel's opening, 10; closing, 170. Defendant's 
 
 oounsel's opening, 102 ; closing, 134. 
 Amharic version, translation of baptizo in, 43. 
 Arabic " " " 45. 
 
 Armenian " " " 43. 
 
 " professors' version, translation of baptizo in, 72. 
 
 Baptism, as practised in the Eastern church, 85. In the General 
 church, 86. Change of, from immersion, 90 — 162, 256. Change was 
 opposed, 100. Christian, is expressed only by baptizo, 14. Design of, 
 128, 155. Its resemblance to Durial, 245. Is a Positive Institution, 
 15. Of the Holy Spirit, 164, 267. Proselyte, 52, 201. Professor 
 Schmucker on N. Testament, 147, 211. The N. Testament, was by 
 immersion, 123, 216. 
 
 Baptizo alone used to express Christian baptism, 14. How translated 
 in Oriental versions, 38, 113, 195. Its classical use, 25, 187, 294. Its 
 Jewish use, 32, 188, 294. Meaning given by Lexicons, 34, 112, 190, 
 294. Not translated by sprinkle or pour for 1800 years, 36, 50. Its 
 figurative use, 187, 236. Testimony of independent witnesses con- 
 cerning, 53. Testimony of various witnesses, 56 — 79. Its translation 
 in Western versions, 46 — 49. 
 
 Burial, resemblance of baptism to, 245. 
 
 Calvin's use of baptizo, 61. His view of the design of baptism, 131. 
 
 Catholic, Roman, use of baptizo, 71. 
 
 Chalmers's view of design of baptism, 133. 
 
 Change from immersion, 90, 256. 
 
 Charge to the jury, 301. 
 
 Church History, use of baptizo in, 79, 159, 248. 
 
 Church's practice of baptism, 85 — 90. 
 
 Classical use of baptizo, 25, 139, 181. 
 
 Clinic baptism, origin, &c, 95 — 102. 
 
 Coptic version's translation of baptizo, 45. 
 
 Cornelius, baptism of, 233. 
 
 Episcopal testimony concerning baptizo, 67. 
 Encyclopedia's use of baptizo, 74. 
 
3 1 2 INDEX, 
 
 English version's translation of baptizo, 49. 
 Ethiopic " " " 42. 
 
 Figurative use of baptizo, 187, 236. 
 
 " " words not taken in Positive Institutions, 22. 
 
 Georgian's version translation of baptizo, 44. 
 German testimony concerning " 66. 
 
 Holy Spirit, baptism of, 164, 267. 
 
 Immersion, change from, 90 ; N. Testament baptisms were by, 123. 
 Independent testimony concerning baptizo, 53. 
 
 Jailor, baptism of the, 234. 
 Jewish use of baptizo, 32, 140, 188, 
 Josephus'a " " 32, 140, 188. 
 
 Legislation contemplates a specific object, 22. 
 
 Lexicon's definitions of baptizo, 34 ; examination of definitions, 141, 190. 
 
 Luther's view of the design of baptism, 131. 
 
 Opinions not to be received as testimony, 62. 
 Oriental version's use of baptizo, 38. 
 Origin of the trial, 6. 
 
 Pedobaptist charged with high treason, 8. Changed the action of bap- 
 tism, 8, 90—162, 256. 
 
 Pentecost, baptisms on day of, 227. 
 
 Positive duties learned from literal meaning of words, 18. Not learned 
 from figurative use, 22. 
 
 Prepositions construed with baptizo, 239. 
 
 Presbyterian testimony concerning baptizo, 60. 
 
 Principles of law applicable to the controversy, 14, 303. Examination 
 of, .135. 
 
 Proselyte baptisms, 52, 201. 
 
 Quaker testimony concerning baptizo, 75, 209. 
 
 Sc-hinueker, Prof., on the baptisms of the N. Testament, 147. Review of 
 
 his argument, 211. 
 Sprinkling not given as a translation of baptizo for 1800 years. 36. Of 
 
 pure water, never commanded for any purpose, 287. 
 
 Translators, their testimony examined, 142, 195. 
 Versions, translation of baptizo in different, 38 — 52. 
 Western versions, translation of baptizo in different, 46.