V m^iL -^.z.w ^ PRINCETON, N. J. ^ Presented by A. G^. Cc^•vr^e-ror\; PWju. BV 811 .HA62 Hendrick, John Thilman, b. 1811. Letters on the subjects and mode of baptism LETT ON The Subjects and mode ^r Baptism: IN TWO PARTS. BY J. T. HENDRICK, JPastor of the Presbyterian Church at Millershurgh and Carlisle^ K^, MILLERSBURGH; 1842. PKEFACE, The following Letters contain the substance of a '-:ourse of Lectures delivered by the author to his own congregations. Most of them have appeared, also, in the "Protestant & Herald,"' in a series signed "H." — They appear in their present form at the earnest and repeated requests of many of the original hearers and readers. The design of the writer was to be simple, plain, and pointed, so as to adapt the work to the wants o^ the people , v/ho are not so much disposed to criticisi: and find fault with the style, as to know the real facts of the case. He has prefered, in all cases, to give the language of others, when it could be done to advan- tage, rather than state the facts in his own v/ords. All the works on the subjects discussed that arei kncrwn to the author have been fully and carefully examined on both sides. He has left out no fact, which he is aware of, that had an important bearing on either side. To the following authors the writer is particularly indebted: Dr. Wall, Dr. Campbell, Prof. Pond, Dr. Miller, Peter Edwards, Drs. Dwight and Rice, on the one side; and Drs. Gale, Carson, Cox, Robinson ond "Stuart, with Boothe and A.Campbell, on the other* He has had, however, to consult many other author^. as will appear in the course of the Letters. e To those with whom he may differ he would say, that whatever they may think of his arguments and style, he hopes they will concede to him honesty and candor, and find neither unkindness in language nor the spirit of denunciation in these pages. He asks all to read the work through carefully before they pass sentence on it. THE AUTHOR, MlLLERSBURGH, Mai/ 1842. PART FIRST. THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTIS9f LETTER I. THE QUESTION STATED COMMISSION—- JEWISH HOUSEHOLD BAPTISM, Although the subject of Baptism has been so re- peatedly discussed, it is still far from being finally settled. Much of the difficulty arises from not dis- tinctly Stating the real points of difference. The only two points of importance are these, viz: The subject, and 7node of the ordinance. 1. Is Infant Baptism a human tradition? The advo- cates of immersion say it is, we say it is not; so here is a fair, plain point of issue: they take the affirma- tive, and the burden of proof lies upon them; but we take the negative and so stand on the defensive. 2. Is immersion essential to Christian Baptism? They take the affirmative again, and we the negative; so here is a second point on which we join issue. The question, whether believers are proper subjects for baptism, is not in the contest; for we believe as firmly in the baptism of all penitent believers as they can. So there is no issue here; yet nothing is more com- mon, than for the immersionist to spend his time to prove that believers are fit subjects for baptism. Bur does tliat prove infants are not fit subjects? Not at all. If you prove a man is ratioiia I ^ does it follow that an iiifaiif is not rational? The simple, and the whole '8 question is about itvfants; for we agree as to adults, — Then why will you apply what the Bible says of adults to the case of infants? The commission of Christ contains our authority for baptism. We believe it includes infants — our oppo- nents believe it does not; we are both honest~my opinion is worth no more than his, but truth lies some- where, and how shall we decide the difficulty? Why, let us gain all the information we can as to the cir- cumstances under which Christ said, "Go, disciple, proselyte, all nations, baptizing them.." Was it custo- mary then to baptizo Jewish children? Did those holy men, called Apostolic Fathers, understand Christ to include infants? Do the Apostles, in the book of Acts and the Epistles, so practice? We say they do: and this fully confirms our view of the commission. The commission reads thus, Matt. 28: 19. "Go. teach all nations, baptizing them in the name, &c." The word teach here, as all will admit, literally means ^'proselyfe,'^ "make disciples,''^ "christianize^^^ as we shall find all the Fathers using in due time. Suppose we substitute the word 'circumcising' them, lor 'baptizing' them in this commission; would not all understand by it that infants were to be circumcised? Certainly. And why? Because it was then customary to circumcise all Jewish infants. Suppose the Presby- terian church should say to their missionaries to India: ^Go, disciple, teach, proselyte that nation;' would not these men understand that they were to baptize chil- dren? Certainly. Why? Because that is the cus- tom of the Presbyterian church. Then, suppose the Baptist church should say to their missionaries to Chi- na: — ^'Go, disciple, christianize that nation;' would they not understand, that they were not to baptize infants, without being told positively, 'Thou shalt bap- tize no children?' Certainly they would. But why so? Simply, because it is not the custom of the Bap- tists to baptize infants. Suppose the Governor should proclaim thus: — 'Let every one, on the Lord's day, attend church.' Would not the man be simple, in- deed, who 20 years hence would conclude, that there w^ere no sermons, prayers, or hymns used at church on Sabbath, simply beca.use no mention was made of such things in the Goveniour's proclamation? — For, such things are so common in the church, that the Governor must most positively and explicitly forbid them, unless he intended their use. Just so stood the case of bap- tism, when Christ gave his last commission: — 'Go, christianize, disciple, proselyte all nations, baptizing them,' as the original word (matheteusate) and the mar- gin of all our Bibles read. For, as Dr. Lightfoot says, "It was as well known before the gospel began that men, women and children were baptized, as it is known that the sun is up, when shining. The whole nation knew well enough, that infants were wont to be bap- tized. There Avas no need for a precept for that which was always settled by common use. On the other side, it WTtS necessary that there should have been an express and plain order, that infants and little children should not be baptized, if the Saviour had meant that they should not. For, since it w\as custo- mary, in all ages before, to have infants baptized, if Christ had wished that usage abolished, he would have expressly forbidden it. So that his and the Scriptures' 10 silence in this matter does confirm and establish ini fant baptism forever." Again: — "The baptizing of infants was a thing as- well known in the Jewish church, as ever it has been in the Christian church." That the Apostles so understood Christ, is evident from their common practice of household baptism, recorded in the Acts. And the christian Fathers so understood this commission also; as a specimen, Justin Martyr, Apol. 1, says, 'Several persons among us, of sixty and seventy years old, of both sexes, who were discipled or made disciples, (emathatdnthasan, the very word that Christ uses. Matt. 28: 19,) to Christ in, or from, childhood, do continue uncorrupted.' Here, then, we find Christ's word, rendered 'teach,' explained 'to disciple children,' in the midst of the Apostles' times; for those, 60 or 70 years old when Justin wrote, and discipled when children, must have been baptized about thirty six years after Christ'^s commission was given at his ascension. But many persons do not know, or believe, that in- fant baptism was in common use in the Jemsh church, before the coming of Christ, and therefore we shall devote a little time to show that fact. This is a point of great importance to be known, before we begin to examine the New Testament on the subject of chris- tian baptism. Because, it helps us greatly in under- standing many passages of Scripture property; for we must put ourselves as nearly in the circumstances of those whom Christ and the Apostles addressed as possi- ble, to understand them fully. It would seem, that after what Ligiitfoot, and the learned Selden. (whom n Grotius pronounces 'Hhe glory of the English yiatton,''- and most of foreigners, "the dictator of learning in the English nation/') had written on this point, that none could hesitate. But many never read "a large book," and we must be short and pointed in our quotations to be read. Paul, I Cor. 10: I, says "all our fathers were bap- tized to Moses in the cloud and in the sea." There are some who deny all Jewish baptism, and yet quote this passage to prove immersion. They can find full evidence for immersion in a circumstance that took place a thousand years before they believe bap- tism was in existence. How is tliis? They say there was no baptism ever instituted till the days of John, and yet bring up this circumstance, that occurred hun- dreds of years before, to prove what, they say, was never instituted till long afterwards. Now they must admit Jewish baptism to have existed, or never quote this passage. So of the 19th verse of Hebrews, 9th chapter, where Paul speaks of Moses baptizing all Israel at the Mount. Then we have New Testament evidence for Jewish baptism, as well as evidence from the Fathers and Rabbles, Who can question such evi- dence? The advocates of immersion all try to deny Jewish baptism, for they know, if they admit it they are bound to admit our infant baptism. The evidence, however, is as clear as for circumcision. Maimonides, the Jew, quotes this, and Ex. 19: 10, "Go unto the people, and sanctify them to-day and to- morrow, and let them wash their clothes, and be read) against the third day;" and says, "by three things did Israel enter into covenant — circumcision, baptism, and Sacrifice. And so in all ages, wheh a proselyte enters the Jewish church, he must be circumcised, baptized^ and bring a sacrifice." The Talmud says, ^^Israel does not enter into cove- nant, but by these three things, circumcision, baptism, and a peace offering, and the proselytes in like manner." So, II Ch. "Neither do p?-05e/t//e5 enter into covenant, but by circumcision, baptism and sprinkling of blood." So, Rabbi Solomon, "Our fathers entered into cove- nant by circumcision, baptism and sprinkling of blood." So, St. Gregory, "Moses gave a baptism, but it was with water only, and before that they were baptized in the cloud, and in the sea. But these were but a figure or type of ours, as Paul also understands it." — Orat. 39. Paul declares the same fact, Heb. 9: 19, 20 — "For when Moses had spoken every precept (Ex. 24: 6) to all the people, according to the law, he took the blood of calves, and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all THE PEOPLE, saying, this is the blood of the Testament which God hath enjoined unto you." In verse 10 he calls it baptism or 'washings.' That they always baptized the children, see Gama- ra, chapter 1 : "If with a proselyte, his sons or his daugh- ters be made proselytes, that which is done by their father redounds to their good." "Any male child of a proselyte, under the age of thirteen years and a day, and females under twelve years and a day, they bap- tize as infants, at the request, or by the consent of tlie father or court. If above that age, they consented for themselves." Rabbi Joseph says,.'^This is to be understood of little children, who are made proselytes with their fathers.'' ^' An Israelite that takes, or finds a little heathen in- fant, baptizes him, for a proselyte. And behold he i:^ a proselyte." — Maimonides, ch. 8.. Gyprian, Epist. 73, says,, "The case of the Jews, who were baptized by the Apostles, was different from the case of the Gentiles, for the Jews had already, and long ago, the baptism of the law and of Moses, and were now to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ." Then, Paul, all the Rabbies, Maimonides, Gregory, Cyprian, and most learned men who have read the Jewish writings, agree,.that they always baptized their PKOSELYTES and their children also, so that house- hold baptism was perfectly famiUar to Christ's disci- ples, when he gave his commission, and so we shall find them practicing. Dr.. Jahn, in his celebrated book on "BibHcal Arr chaeology," says of Jewish Proselyte baptism, "The other class of Proselytes, called the righteous,wero united with the great body of the Jewish people, not only- by circumcision, but by baptism also. The Jews assert that the baptism of Proselytes is mentioned in Exodus, 19; 10, 14—24: 8, and Gen. 35: 2.- They not only mention that it is a necessary ceremony, but assert it is so efficacious, that it puts an entire end to the con- nexion with his kindred, according to the flesh, so much so, that he is at liberty, if he chooses, to marry his own mother, as the case refered to in I.. Cor. 5: 1 — "That one should marry his father's wife." Again, he says, "Christ speaks of baptism in such a way, as to imply that it was well known; John 3: 10,. 14 *Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?' And the only point that Nicodemus did not understand was, that the Jews also, who were already the children of Abraham, were to be born again by baptism." The truth of this custom is also evident from what the Jews said to John, when the Piiests and Levites sent men to ask John, "Who art thou?" He said, "I am not Christ." They said, then, who art thou ? "Why baptizest thou, then? if thou be not the Christ, nor Eli- as, neither that prophet?" — John 1 : 25. They seemed to expect Christ and EHas would baptize. They speak of baptism as common — do not ask, what means this new thing, baptism? They only ask, by what author- ity it was done. Baptism was no strange thing to the Jews, when John began his ministry. They seem to have been fully acquainted with it. Then the Old and New Testaments, the Fathers and all the Rabbms fully declare proselyte baptism to have been then in practice. We wish, however, to be fully understood, as not founding infant baptism upon Jewish proselyte baptism, but as founding it upon the command of Christ alone^ and the word of God — but to explain the language of the commission, by the then common custom of the Jews, as familiar to the Apostles. So that tliose, who now attempt to show that we should never baptize a child -of a baptized parent, or that we are bound to follow out the Jewish baptism, only beat the air, and foam out their own shame. Our baptism is taught alone with authority in the Bible, and from that alone can inferences and consequences be drawn. LETTER IL THE APOSTLES PRACTICED HOUSEHOLD BAPTISM CHRIST RECOGNIZED IT. That the Apostles understood Christ's commission to embrace the infants of believers, is evident from their practice. They either did or did not perform house- hold BAPTISM. If they did practice it, it is right to baptize infants now — if they did not, then it is wrong. The Acts of the Apostles is the only inspired church history we have of their times, so that book must set- tle this point. On the day of Pentecost, Peter preached his first sermon under Christ's last commission, and shows how he understood it, thus: — "The promise is unto you and your children, and to all afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."— Acts 2: 39. This he gives as the reason why they should turn to Christ, and be baptized. What promise does he here mean? Doubt- less, a part of the promise he had just quoted from Joel; but was it not the great covenant engagement of God to his church, that included all church privi- leges? Isaiah 44: 3 — "Fear not, O Jacob, my servant, and Israel whom I have chosen: For I will pour water up- on him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground — I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring." Isaiah 59: 21 — ^"This is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; my spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart 16 out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed;, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord^, from henceforth and forever.^'^ Genesis 17: 7, 10 — "I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an. everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. This is my cov- enant, that ye shall keep between me and you, and tliy seed after thee:. Every man child among: you shall be circumcised."* This was "the promise" Peter taught in his first ser- mon, when the church was organized, at Jerusalem. — Was either of these promises applicable ? Were they not very pertinent? For the Jew would ask, what must be done with my children, if I join yom- church? Taken in or left out? Taken in by all means, says Pe- ter — "For the promise is to you and.to your children." But turn to the 10th of Acts, when Peter opens the door of the church to the Gentiles, as here to the Jews. There you find CorneHus and his household (33) "all present before God." Peter preached unto them words, "whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved," and the Holy Ghost descended, or fell, on them, "and he said, can any man forbid water, (to be bro't) that these should not be baptized, which. have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord?" Does not this look like household baptisji? But the matter is still much plainer. Acts 16: 15. — The Lord opened Lydia's heart to attend to the things spoken of Paul — "And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, &c." This is an unr 17 equivocal instance of the practice of liouschould bap- tism, as it was practiced among the Jews. Again ; in this same chapter, verse 33, there is ano- ther case of it: "And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his (household,) straightway." This is sta- ted just as familiarly, by the writer, as if he had been accustomed to it all his life; for it was universally cus- tomary in the Jewish church. But would not a writer now be very apt to note it as a new thing under the sun, if a Baptist minister were to preach in a man's house, and the man, the head of the fcimily, were to believe and be baptized, he and all his household, im- mediately? Did — or Vvdll such a case ever, among the Anti-pedobaptists, take place? Then, of course, they do not follow Peter and Paul, or the Acts of the Apos- tles, in "household baptism." Turn now to Acts 18: 8. Paul, we are told, enter- ed into a certain man's house, named Justus, near the synagogue — "And Crispus, the chief ruler of the syna- gogue, believed on the Lord with all his house, and many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were l)aptized." Here is another plain case of household baptism, given in the house of Justus. And Pa,ul, I. Cor., 1: 14, 16, says — "I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gains. And I baptized the household of Stephanas." Here is another instance of household baptism. Is it not plain, then, that tiie Apostles understood Christ to include household bap- tism, as the Jews ever had done, in the case of prose- lytes, as shown in my first letter. Or is it true, that Christ misled them, by the use of the word that should 18 have been rendered, 'proselyte,' 'disciple,' all nations? Let us now examine the Gospels, and see what Christ did and said, in reference to children. Did he cast them out of the church? Or did he not say, plain- ly, "of such is the gospel church," or kingdom of heav- en? As we have given all that is said of household baptism in the Acts, v/e shall give all that is said about children, in the Gospels also. Mat. 19: 13, 14, 15 — "Then were there brought un- to him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray; and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, suffer little children, and forbid them not (do not fail to bring them) to come unto me; for of such is the kingdom of heaven. And he laid his hands on them." What is the meaning of kingdom of heaven here? The kingdom of grace, or gospel church, or the kingdom of glory? We suppose all will say, the church on earth. But hear what Mark, 10: 13, 14, 15, 16, says— "And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them; and his disciples rebuked those who brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said, suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of heaven. Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, (receives it) shall, in no wi?c, enter therein. And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them." What an opportunity for Christ to show wliether lie intended children to be received into the Christian church; or for him to exclude them, if he did not in- 19 tend them to be received. Which did he do? Does he say they must he received or rejected? Let any candid man say. 1. They were really infants; he took them in his arms, put his hands on them, and blessed them. Just so, we put our hands upon them, and ask God to bless them, when we baptize them — the only question is, shall we take locder in our hands, and put it on them also? Then we do not err in putting our hands on, and asking God to bless them — it is only in taking water in the hand. 2. '^Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child," does what? Will any one parse 'little child,' and tell me what it is nominative to, if it be not, ''receives it,^'' understood ? Then little children do . receive the kingdon of God, or are to be received into the gospel church* But how can any one be received into the church, or kingdom of God, any other way than by baptism? Christ says, John 3: 5, "Except one (edin met tis, any one) be born of water, (baptized) and of the spirit, he, (or they) can not enter into the king- dom of God." That is, without baptism no one caii enter the church on earth, and without regeneration or a change of heart, no one can enter the kingdom of glory. Dr. Wall declares that all the Fathers explain this verse in John to mean infant baptism; "except one (that is, every one) is born of the water and of tlie Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." The word man ought not to be in the verse; the original is, ti^^ one. any one, every one, and so it fully applies to infants. It never was explained otherwise till recently; and, to 20 111}' mind, no verse in the Bible is more pointed and conclusive. Then we are bound to baptize children or disregard this command of the Saviour. If we should refuse to baptize them, might he not 'be greatly displeased' with us, as with his mistaken disciples of old? Again: Luke, 18: 15, 16, 17, records the same fact in the ver} same words, only he calls them 'infants' — Mark says 'little children.' So that we need not repeat the same words. Then all that the Gospels say is fully and decidedly in favor of infant baptism. But it may be the Epistles are against it. If so we shall find it in our next. Thus we conclude that Christ's own conduct, and the prac- tice of his disciples, in household baptism, in the book of Acts, correspond with the language, and implication of his last commission, to make proselytes of all nations* baptizing them, as it had long been customary in the Jewish church. Household and infant baptism are the same. LETTER III. INFANT BAPTISM TAUGHT IN THE EPISTLES, AS EXPLAINED BY THE FATHERS. As the Gospels and book of Acts are both in favour of household or infant baptism, as shown in the last letter, the presumption is that the Epistles are like- wise, as they ail mutually corroborate, strengthen, and explain each other. One thing may be here noted, that whenever any- thing is said or refered to, in any part of the New Testament, about children, it is in favor of their bap- tism, rather than against it. Paul says, I Cor. 7: 14, *^For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife; and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean ; but now are they ho- ly." We need not stop here to notice what some have said about ^'domestic holiness," and ^'civil holiness," or "spiritual holiness ;" the simple question is, how docs an unbelieving pareik become "sanctified'^ by the be- lieving one, so as to make the children '•''holy?'^ All know the word "holy" means consecrated^ set apart ^ as well as intrinsically pure; so of "holy people," "holy mountain," "holy vessels;" so Peter calls the Gentiles "common," "or unclean," because not consecrated to God. That Paul means here baptismal holiness, con- secration to God, i. e., that children of such parents are to be baptized, is evident fix)m all the Fathers, and most especially from Tertullian, the great favorite with all Anti-paedobaptists, as the only one who ever ques- tioned infant baptism. He says, "The Apostle says, 22^ that when born of a sanctified (baptized) parent of either sex, children arc holy as from seminal preroga- tive; so from the instituted discipUne, (or baptism) else v/ere they born unclean, but now are they designed for holiness, (to be baptized) and so for salvation — otherwise, he knew well enough what our Lord had determined, 'except one be born of water, (baptized) and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,' that is, he shall not be holy. Thus every soul is reckoned in Adam, so long, till it be anew enrolled in Christ, and so long unclean, till it be so enrolled, by baptism." No opposer of infant baptism can question this authority, for Tertullian is their champion, as we i^hall find in due time. Augustine or Austin says of this text, "For there were then Christian children, or infants, that were t-anctified, (baptized) some by the authority of one of their parents, some by the consent of both." These fathers all used the term "sanctified" to express bap- tism. So again Austin says, "But this is to be held without any doubt, that whatever that holiness may be, it is not available to making them christians, or to the pardon of sin, unless they be made faithfully by the christian and ecclesiastical institution and sacra- ment" of baptism. "For neither are unbelieving hus- bands or wives, how holy and just partners soever they have, cleansed from the iniquity which keeps them from the kingdom of God. Nor are infants, of how* holy and just parents soever they come, pardoned the guilt of original sin, unless they (i. e. the one and the other) be baptized in Christ." So, he says, "now arc your children holy, that is, now are they baptized."-~» 23 8o all the early Fathers understood this passage, a? Ilierome, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Origcn, Athanasius, Theodoret, Paulinas, and Jerome. This then seems not only the most natural, but most ancient, and generally received interpretation of tlie passage: That children are to be baptized, if on- ly one parent believes. To make this more plain, the learned Seiden has conclusively shown, (as all the learned will now acknowledge,) that the Jews consid- ered all their children as clean, or holy, when born, because all their fathers were once baptized to Moses ; and so when a proselyte father joined the Jewish church he and all his children, then born, were baptized, and circumcised, but if he had any other children, after his baptism, they were considered holy, and were not baptized, but only circumcised. This being the Jew- ish custom, when the Corinthians became Christians, and were all to be baptized to Christ, the question arose, must our children be baptized? Yes, says the Apostle, "the promise is to you and your children.'' — Well, what shall become of those children, who have but one baptized and beheving parent? Why, they must be baptized, for "they are holy," that is, fit sub- jects for baptism. This passage, says Dr. Mason, "es- tabhshes infant church-membership in another form; for it assumes the principle, that when both parents belong to the church, or are beUevers, their children belong to the church of God (i. e. are the subjects of baptism) as a matter of course. For if the faith of both parents could not confer on the child member- ship, the faith of one of them certainly could not." — So, unless this be assumed, the case never would have 24 been mentioned. Thus, both the origin and the ex- planation of the difficulty establish fully Infant Bap- tism. We do not refer to the host of commentators and learned men of modern times, who so explain this verse; we prefer the ancient Fathers, because there was no favorite theory to bias them, for all, every body, admitted infant baptism, unless we except the heretical Tertullian. Another passage in the Epistle to the Collossians, 2: 11, 13 verses, refers to infant baptism, as in the room of circumcision, and of course it is to he applied to all zcho zDcre circumcised. Hear Paul, himself, declare this truth: "In whom also ye are circumcised, v/ith the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumxcision (bap- tism) of Christ. Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye arc raised with him, through the faith of the operation of God who hath raised him from the dead." Tha,t Paul here docs teach that Christian baptism has come in the room of circumcision is most plain, from the very connexion, saying "which are shadows of things to come, but Christ the substance," verse 17. — That the Paschal lamb was a type or shadow of Christ's Supper is not more conclusively asserted, than that circumcision was a type of baptism. If not, what was it a type of? But this matter is fully settled by those men that knew the Apostles. The first Fathers all understood Paul to refer in this passage to baptism as coming in the room of circumcision. If this can be established, then of course infant baptism, in the Chris- tian church, stands on the same foundation and au- thority that circumcision did in the Jewish church. But 25 now for tlie proof of it, refering to the Fathers below. Justin Martyr says, "We are circumcised by bap- tism, with Christ's circumcision. We also, who by him have access to God, have not received this carnal cir- cumcision, but the spiritual circumcision Vv'^hich Enoch and those like him observed. And we have received it by baptism, and it is enjoined upon all persons to receive it by the same way." — Dialog, sec. 43, then quotes the text. Cyprian, with sixty other Bishops in council, one hundred and fifty years after the Apostles, in their let- ter to Fidas, about baptizing children at eight days old, all say that "the eighth day, observed in the Jew- ish circumcision, was a type going before, in a shadow and resemblance, but on Christ's coming was fulfilled in the substance," (baptism:) — "Which type ceased when the substance came, and the spiritual circumci- sion (baptism) was given us. So that we judge that no person is to be hindered from obtaining the grace, (of baptism) by the law that now appoints it. This, therefore, dear brother, was our opinion in the Assem- bly; that it is not for us to hinder any person from baptism, and tlie grace of God. Which rule, as it holds for all, so we think it is more especially to be observed in reference to infants and persons newly born." Does not this council of the whole church un- derstand Paul to say, baptism is "the circumcision made without hands?" and is, therefore, to be given to in- fants? How often they call baptism circumcison, and the one a type of the other. But as Lord Chancellor King says, (Inquiry, part 2, ch. 3,) this fully "deter- mines the common practice and usage of the zvhole church. 26 The unammaiis determination of a whole Synod of sixty' six members. Here is a sjnodical decree for infant baptism, as formal as can possibly be expected; which, being the judgment of a Synod, is more authentic and correct than that of a private father." It also shows they understood baptism to be in the room of circum- cision. Basil says, speaking of the Jews not delaying cir- cumcision, "and dost thou put off the circumcision made without hands in putting off the sins of the flesh, which is performed in baptism, when thou hearest our Lord say, 'veiily, verily, I say unto you, except one be born of water, and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'" Ambrose says, ''Neither a proselyte that is old, nor an infant born in the house, is excepted. Therefore^ both Jew and Gentile, and all that believe, must learn to circumcise themselves from sin, that they may be saved; for no person comes to the kingdom of heaven but by the sacrament of baptism. Both the home-born and the foreigner, the just and sinful, must be circum- cised, for the forgiveness of sins." Peter says, bap- tized. Chrj'sostom says, "But our circumcision, I mean the grace of baptism, gives cure without any pain and con- fers a thousand benefits; and it has no determinate time as that had, but one in the very beginning of his age, or one in middle life, or one that is in old age, may receive this circumcision made without hands." Austin says of Chrysostom, "Even he, as well as the JMartyr Cyprian, teaches that the circumcision in the flesh was commenced in the way of a type of baptism." 27 Again, Austin says, "yet we may besides take a true estimate, how mucli the sacrament of baptism docs avail infants, by the circumcision God's former people received. Therefore, a.s in Abraham the righteous- ness of faith went before, and circumcision the seal came after it, so in CorncKus, the spirit went before, and the sacrament of baptism came after. So in in- fants baptized, the sacrament of regeneration goes be- fore, and conversion of the heart comes after." Could language be more unequivocal, to show baptism to be in the room of circumcision, and that to be given to infants? Once more: Epipha,nius sajs, "the law had the pat- tern of things in it; but the truth of them is the Gos- pel. The law had circumcision in the flesh, serving for a time, till the great circumcision came, that is, baptism; which circumcises us from our sins, and seals us unto the name of God." Thus we see from Paul to Justin Martyr, and from Justin to Austin five hun- dred jears, all believed baptism to be in the room of circumcision, and so construed the a.bove text, and never, till the rise of anabaptism in the sixteenth cen> tury, was it denied. Then, if all understood baptism to be in the room of circumcision for the first 1500 years, and if infants were circumcised, of course infants must be baptized. And the objection sometimes made, that no female in- fant was circumcised, and therefore no female should be baptized, is answered, fully answered, by the fact that females were bajjtized by the apostles, and thus wc have a full example for female baptism; while our oppo- sers have no command for nor example of female com- 28 mnnion half as clear* "In Christ, male and female^ bond and free, are all one.*' It is but a mere quibble to make such an objection. The male always repre- sents the female^ and the Gre.ek word anthropos, ren- dered ma7i, means the race, or is a generic term, and of course includes woman. Thus, Mr. Boothe, the great Baptist, proves yf'??ia/e communion^ and so may wc, far more easily, prove that female infants should be bap- ti.^?d. LETTER IV. THE TWO OBJECTIONS TO INFANT BAPTIS3I FULLY AN- SWERED IN CONTRAST WITH TWO SOUND ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF IT. Before we proceed to our next general argu3ient. we shall here obviate an objection that many make against all we can say on this subject. "The Scriptures require fa,ith and repentance, u\ order to baptism; but infants have not faith nor repen- tance, therefore infants are not proper subjects ot baptism." This is the great argument against infant bapti-n], and, with multitudes, weighs more tha,n all the rest. Ask an Anti-paedobaptist, is an infant a proper subject for baptism? he says no. Why? Because he cannoi repent, be taught, or believe. But is it an answer, or any reason, at all, why an infant is not^ to say tha,t an adult person is a fit subject? I ask, is an infant a ra- tional being? Is it any ansv^^er to say an adult person is a rational creature? Suppose he bring up ever\ passage in the Bible to prove that repentance and faitli are requisites for baptism. The question is, of icJiorn are these duties required? All must say o{ adults; foi- the Bible never requires either repentance or faith of infants now, any more than it did of Jewish children, in order to circumcision. State the argument truly, thus: The Scriptures require faith and repentance of all adults, in order to baptism: but it fonts cannot have faith and repentance; therefore infants arc not fit sub- jects for baptism. So the Scriptures require faith and 30 repentance of adults^ in order to salvation: but infants cannot have these; therefore infants cannot be saved* The Bible says, that he (an adult person) who will not work, shall not eat: but an infant cannot work; there- fore an infant shall not eat. The Bible says, circum- cision verily profitcth, if thou keep the law; but infants cannot keep the law; therefore their circumcision is unprofitable, i. e., a mere nullity. Yet God gave it to infants, and says "it profiteth much." This is the Baptist argum.ent, but is it not a mere sophisyn? This same argument would prove that Christ's baptism was wrong, and that no Jewish infant eVer enjoyed the good land of Canap.n. Thus, the Bible requires faith and repentance of all persons, in order to baptism: but Christ could not have repentance, nor that faith re- quired for baptism; therefore Christ could not be bap- tized. But Christ rvas baptized, and that properly, and therefore the argument is false. So Isaiah 1: 19— ''If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:" but infants could not be willing nor obe- dient; therefore infants could not eat the good of the land. But infants did eat the good of the land, there- fore this argument is false and unsound. But Presby- terians reason on the same words conclusively, thus: Faith and repentance are required of all adults^ in order to be baptized: but some adults have not these graces; therefore, some adults are not fit subjects for baptism. We believe as firmly in requiring faith and repentance of adults^ in order to baptism, as do the Baptists. We fully agree with them, in believing that faith and repentance are required of adults^ and all the passages they bring, we admit, as fully as they nan. 31 Then we do not differ about believers being proper subjects for baptism. But why bring up what we fully admit to be true, in relation to adults^ to disprove infant baptism? Does it follow that infant baptism is wrongs because believer's baptism is right? any more than, that believer's baptism is wrong, because I prove infant baptism right. Would any man in his senses say that infants would be lost^ because I prove that believers would certainly be saved? So, away with you sophism. The question is about infants. Then never again bring up that argument to prove infant baptism wrong, which all admit proves adult baptism right. If you do, your answer is about as wise as this: I ask you, is an infant a human being? You reply no, because an adult is a human being. This main argument or ob- jection is, then, a mere evasion. There is one more objection, or argument, if you please to call it so, against infant baptism. Our oppo- nents say, "whoever has a right to a positive ordinance must be expressly mentioned as having that right: but infants arc not so mentioned, with respect to baptism: therefore, infants are not to be baptized." This, in connexion with the first named objection, constitutes the whole ground of the arguments of the opposers of infant baptism. Take away these two, and what have they more ! But do not our opponents destroy their own argument in their daily practice of female communion ? Where is an express command for female communion ? Yet do we not all know that they have a right to commune. Let us state the argument: Persons who have a right to a positive ordinance must . be expressly mentioned as havijig that right: but infantas 32 arc not expressly mentioned as having a right to bap- tism, one of God's positive ordinances; therefore infants have no such right to baptism. Just so, persons who have a right to a positive ordinance of God's house must he expressly mention as having that right; but females are not expressly mentioned as having a right to the Lord's supper, the other positive ordinance oi God's house, and therefore females have no right to the supper. But does not every Cliristian admit they have a right to commune? Yes. Then the argument is false, a mere sophism. When you show me one express command for female communion, I will show you two for wfant baptism. The greatest opposer of infant l^aptism proves that females should commune, because they are disciples, as follows: ''Disciples should com- mune: but females are disciples; therefore females should commune." So we prove that infants should be baptized in the same way. Christ says, "Go make DISCIPLES of all nations, baptizing them:" but infants are disciples, (Mark, 10: 13;) therefore, infants should [)e baptized. Is not this a command as express as the former? But. again: No person can be a member of the church or kingdom of God on earth without baptism: but Christ says of infants, "of such is the kingdom of God," oi' church on earth; therefore infants must be baptized. This rule will do our opponents but little good. It had better not l)e meddled with, for we may turn the tables on them to their sorrow. Try it thus: To all mentioned in a covenant or promise, the seal of that covenant or promise may, and should be applied: but children are mentioned m the S3 promise to Abraham, (Gen» 17: 7;) '^I will establish m} covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee;" and in the promise at Pentecost, (Acts 2: 39.) "the promise is to you, and to your children, &c;-^ therefore the seal of the covenant or baptism should be applied to children since the day of Pentecost. Will any one deny this truth? The only question in this reasoning is this — has baptis:^! be- come the seal of the covenant in the place of circum- cision? This was shown in our third Letter. But here we will add a word more on that point. Ilcrmas, Paul's companion, says, "Alt nations under heaven; have heard, and believe in the same one name of the son of God by whom they are called ; wdierefore, hav- ing received his SEAL^they have, &c.— Now that seat, is BAPTIS3I." * Baptism and circumcision arc, then, but two FORMS of the same seal; as under the old dis- pensation, CIRCUMCISION w^as the for.m in which the SJCAL was applied, so is baptism now the form of tfie same seal. The Fathers all called it "a figure of" Baptism:" Austin, "a pattern," "a type;" Cyprian, "a type," "a shadow,"^ "a resemblance;" Epiphaniu-, ^*the truth of it." 1, CirciimcisioiL was the seal of initialion into the .Tewish church, and all admit haptism is the same in tfic CijRisTiAN church. Then baptism is certainly in the room of circumcision here. 2. Circumcision was a sign and seal o^ pardon and Justification in the Jewish church, Rom. 4: 11 — "j\bra- * This passage Mr. Campbell quotes and fully admits to be true, and thus determines thivS point. u iiam received circumcision, a seal of the righteousness (Justification) of the faith he had yet being uncircum- riscd; tha.t he might be the father of all them that be- lieve, though they be not circumcised:" i. e., Jews and Gentiles baptized for pardon and remission of sins in the Christian church. Peter declares, Acts 2: 38, "Re- pent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, /o>' the remission of sins.'' Then, baptisrrt is in the room of circumcision here, also, as a seal. 3. Circumcision was a sign of justification in the Jew- ish church. vSec Dcut. 30: 6. x\gain: "He is a Jevv who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the lieart, in the spirit, and not in the letter.*' "The Lord v,ill circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thv soul, that thou mayest Hve?" So Baptism is a sign and means of Sanctification in the Christian church also. "He sanctifies and clean- ses by the washing of water, by the word," &c. — Then, here Baptism is a seal in place of circumcision ac-ain. Mark, a seal of initiation into the church — of Justification^ and Sanctification. This is enough; admit it to be in the room of Circumcision so fn\ and :hc li'hole matter is settled. For this is as far as it need f'O. My syllogism above, then, is true. Infants are in tlic promise or covenant, and, therefore, must have the sEvii of Baptism. Here it would be in place to show the identity of the Christian and Jewish church, and the full force of that whole argument, but we shall sum up all we have to say on this point under the two following remarks: I. The identity of the Christian and Jewish church 35 is manifest to all who will carefully examine the Bible. That Abraham and his seed were divinely constitu- ted a visible church of God, is declared in Genesis 17: 9, 21, and has been over and again fully proven, (see Peter Edwards,) which fact I believe all our opponents will admit; and that the Christian church is a branch of the Abrahamic church, i. e., the Jewish society be- fore Christ and the Christian society after Christ are one and the same church, in different dispensations. Peter declares in his first sermon, Acts 2: 39 — ^-The promise is to you and your children, and to all afar otf. even as many as the Lord our God shall call." 1. The theology or doctrine of the Old Testament church and that of the New are substantiaily one and the same. This Dr. Gill, the great Baptist divine, fully shows in expounding Gal. 3: 9. 2. The morality of both are the same, says Christ, Mat. 5: 17. 3. The worship is one and the same — Passover nnC\\vhi^ foundation? Then Jews and Gentiles are built upon this foundation, "fellow-citizens with' the saints, and of the household of God."- — Eph. 2: 19.. Time would fail me to give all such evidence. But some say, Christ destroyed the Jezvish, when he estab- lished the Christian church. Then he did not "thor- oughly cleanse his ^oor" (church) and burn up the chaff] but he burnt the floor foo and the wheat. Then he did= not give "the vineyard to others," but destroyed the vineyard with the husbandmen, and planted a new vineyard. Christ has destroyed his bride^ (the church,)) and now has created another new one. How awfully absurd ! Then we conclude, if the Scriptures call the Jewish and Christian societies by the same names, we are to believe that they are the same,. II. The second general remark is: That God es- tablished the membership of infants in the Jewislr church by a positive ordinance, that of Circumcision — this our opponents admit; that infant church-member- ship has never been done away but confirmed under the New Testament; that what is once granted and /lever revoked remains still a grant, especially, when the grant is fully recognized and confirmed in various other ways. But as infant church-membership cannot exist without subjection to a. positive ordinance, and as Circumcision, the first positive institution, is now done away with, still infants must be received by a positive ordinance of God into the church : but Baptism is the positive ordinance of God by which persons can be 37 received into the church; therefore, infants must of ne- cessity be baptized. There is no escaping the conclu- sion, but by saying infants may be received into the church without baptism— which none but Quakers will admit. This argument amounts to a demonstration, and the foregoing sophisms of our opposers set it off to great advantage. We shall resume our second argument in the next Letter. LETTER V. HISTORY OF INFANT BAPTIS3I FROM ST. JOHN TO ORIGEN, A. D. CCX. The history of Infant Baptism confirms ail my posi- tions, and shows most conckisively that we understand Cliiist and his Apostles correctly. That the immedi- ate successors of the Apostles did so understand them and practice Infant Baptism is evident from their wri- tings. That Infant Baptism was imiversallij practiced in all Christian churches, without so much as one ex- ception, for five hundred years after Christ, we think can be abundantly proved from a regular chain of evi- dence connecting with the Apostles and ending with Augustine, And that there never was but one inati, and his little handful of followers, who questioned or denied Infant Baptism, until the rise of the x\nabaptists in the 1 6th century, we think can be demonstrated to all intelligent minds. So that the history of Infant Baptism commences in the Jewish church, when bap- tized to Moses and sanctified to God when they en- tered into covenant in the wilderness, and extends on till the time of Christ without any intermission, (it only being the more confirmed ;) that it prevailed while he li\ ed, and was continued by his disciples and their suc- cessors from one generation to another, till denied by Peter Bruce, and later but more fully and incon- sistently by the Anabaptists, and that it has always, and does at this ti3ie prevail in every Christian and e\ en Jewish church in the known world, save the dif- ferent kinds of Baptists. This may seeni high ground, 39 but we jjledge ourselves to show It to every candid reader of these Letters. 1. The Fathers, acquainted with the Apostles, who say any thing on the suhject of baptism, testify of in- fant BAPTISM. John the Apostle lived till tlie end of the first century, so that we shall follow Dr. Wall in dates, making the second century after Christ the first after the Apostles. Hermas, a man Paul mentions, (Rom. 16:14,) sayi, "All infants are in honor with the Lord," and '-the BAPTIS3I of WATER is ncccssary to all;" i. e., of sucti are the kingdom of God, says Christ, (Lib. 3, SiniL U, Ch. 29.) Justin Martyr, A.pol. 1, says, "Several persons among us, of both sexes, some sixty, and some seventy years old, who were made disciples of Christ (expaidon) from their childhood or infancy, do continue true disciples." These persons, then, were baptized before the death of John, and while the Apostles were in the midst of their labours, and before some parts of the New Tes- tament were written — i. c., about 3G years after Christ's ascension. But mark, again; Justin uses the very words of Christ's commission, (cmalhateuihasan) and applies it to children, [ex paidon,) Compare Mat. "28: 19 with this passage of Justin, and none can deny In- fant Baptism. Again; Dialog. Try., sec. 43. ••^V'e also, who by him have access to God, have not received this carnal circumcision, but the spiritual circumcision which Enoch, and those like liim, obsci-vc. And we have received it by baptis.m, by tlie mercy of God, be- cause we are sinners: and it is allowed to all persons 40 • to receive it in the same way." This not only shows BAPTISM to he in the room o/circu3icision, but that '*all kinds of persons" should be baptized; i. e., infants, male and female, as well as believers, are proper sub- jects for baptism. If infants were tircumcised, then of course Justin means they should be baptized, when lie says, "all persons." Thus Justin and Hermas form the link between the Apostles and the long chain of Fathers that follow. Irenius lived 67 years after the Apostles, A. D. 167, so he is the next link. He says of Christ, "For he came to save all persons by himself — all, I mean, who ])y him are baptized, (regenerated) unto God, infants and little ones, and children, and youth, and elder persons." This testimony is clear, and is really almost Apostolic, for Irenius was brought up, in a measure, under Polycarp, St. John's disciple, whom he calls ^'•the angel of the church of Smyrna." — Rev. 2: 8; Iron, ad Heres, Lib. 2, Ch. 39. Clemens Alexandrinus lived in the same century with Irenius, 92 years after John. He, speaking of tlie rings, and seals engraven on them, to be worn by the early Christians, says, "Let your seal be a dovej or a fish, or a ship under sail, or a harp, or an anchor, (which Saleneus made his choice;) and if any one be a fisherman, let him think of an Apostle and the chil- dren taken from the water," of baptism. Thus he re- commends the figure of an Apostle baptizing a little child, as suitable to be engraven on a ring for the hand of Christians. Dr. Wall, vol. 1, ch. 3, mentions an en- graving of this kind in Bridekirk, one of the oldest churches in England, where "a person in a longsacer- 41 tiotal habit is baptizing a chiM, and a dove, the emblem of the Holy Ghost, hovering over the infant." This is engraven on the font-stone in the church. The seal of Clemens shows that the Apostles might have or did baptize infants. TuRTULLiAN Hvcd 100 ycars after John, A. D. 200. He was the most heretical Father, and licld that one MoNTANus was the promised comforter or Holy Spirits He says — "But they whose duty it is to administer bap- tism, are to know that it must not be given rashly." Therefore, according to every one's condition, and disposition, and also, their age, the delaying of baptism is more profitable, especially in the case of little chil* dren. For what need is there that the sponsors incur danger. For they may fail of their promises by death, or may be disappointed by a child's proving to be of a wicked disposition. Our Lord, indeed, says, 'forbid them not to come to me.' Then to baptize children in the days of the writer was a general custom, and founded on the above command of Christ, Mark 10: 14. Again: Turtullian, Ch. 39, says, "So there is al- most no being born clean, (free from sin) that is, of heathens. For hence the Apostle says, that if either parent be sanctified, the children that are born are holy, by reason of the prerogative of that seed, and also, the instruction in their education. Else, he says, were they unclean. But yet meaning to be under- stood thus, that the children of the faithful (i. e., be- lievers) are designed for holiness, (i. e., baptism,) and so for salvation. That by a pledge of such hope, he might plead for those marriages which he would have to be continued. Otherwise, he knew well enough what our Lord had determined: Except o>e he horn of water and the spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God; i. e., he shall not he holy." A child is ONE and so must he baptized. Is it not strange that any persons should quote Turtullian as denying Infant Baptism? Read the above over, for this is the only author for 500 years after Christ that can he found, who even advised the delay of Infant Baptism. But does he deny it? No, hut speaks of it as then the com- mon practice of the church, and explains, I Cor. 7: 14, just as we do. Then remember, this champion of Anti-paedohaptists proves unequivocally Infant Bap- tism. He advised adults to put off baptism till just be- fore death, but was that denying baptism altogether? In cases of necessity he would not advise the delay of baptism, but in all others till just at death. This was just like all Turtullian's wild notions. Let those who wish follow him in this, but let them not deny that liis writings prove fully and conclusively Infant Baptism to have been the general custom of the churches in those days. Origen vv^as cotemporary with Turtullian, 110 years after John, A. D. 210, the most learned man of his day, aaid was descended from Christian parents. His grand- father must have lived in the days of the Apostles, as he vras born 85 years after John. He says: "Ac- cording to the usage of the church, bai'tis3i is given also to infants, where, if there was nothing in infants that wanted forgiveness and mercy, baptism would he needless to tliem." "Because, by baptism, native pol- lution is taken away, therefore, infants are baptized.*' Again: "For this reason it was, that the church re- 43 ceived an order from tiie Apostles to give baptism to infants." — Wall, vol. 1, ch. 5. Could language be plainer than this, by a man born 85 years after the Apostles? Then the greatest and most learned man in the church, 110 years after John, says the Apostles had given orders for Infant Baptism. Now, bear in mind, all this is before the days of Cyprian, when the council of sixty-six Bishops met, as we shall find in our next. But I wish here to say, that we have Infant Baptism thus most unequivocally proven in the first two centu- ries after Christ; yet you will hear men, professing to be men of sense and veracity, say that Infant Baptism was brought into the church by a council that met, A. D. 253, to decide whether or not infants should be baptized. The full history of that council shall be given in my next Letter. LETTER VI. THE FIRST COUNCIL ON INFANT BAPTISM UNDER CYPRIAN, A. D. CCLIII. Cyprian was contemporary with Origen, the last Father mentioned in my fifth letter. He was Bishop -of Carthage, in which city, A. D. 253, a council of sixty-six Bishops, of which Cyprian was moderator, met to attend to church affairs, when one Fidus, a ■country minister, sent up a letter, with two cases, to he decided. One was in relation to Victor, who had been restored too soon after some crime; and the oth- er was, "Whether it was necessary, in baptism, as in the case of circumcision, to wait till the eighth day, (so prevalent was the idea, that baptism had come in the room of circumcision,) or whether a child might be baptized at an earlier time?" The question was not, whether infants should be baptized, for all seemed to take that for granted, but at what time? Must the vule, as in the case of circumcision, be rigidly adhered to? The council decided unanimously as follows in a letter to Fidus: '^Cyprian and the rest of the bishops, who were present at the council, sixty-six in number, to Fidus, our brother, greeting: As to the case of infants, whereas you judge that they should not be baptized within two or three days after they are born; and that the rule of circumcision is to be observed, so that none shall be baptized and sanctified before the eight day after he is born; we were all in our assembly, of the contrary opinion. For, as for what you thought fitting 45 to be done, there was not one that was of your mihcf^ but all of us, on the contrary, judged that the grace and mercy of God is to be denied to no: person that is born. That the eighth day observed in the Jewish church circumcision was a type going before in a shadow and resemblance, but on Christ's coming was fulfilled in the substance, which type ceased when the substance (baptism) came, and the spiritual circumci- sion was given to us. So that no person is to be hin- dered from obtaining the grace (of baptism) by the law that is now appointed. This, therefore, dear broth- er, was our opinion in the assembly — that it is not for us to hinder any person from baptism and the grace of God, who is merciful, and kind, and affectionate to all.. Which ruh^ as it holds for all^ so we think it more especi- ally to be observed in reference to infants^ and persons newly born? Dear brother, we wish you,, always, good health."' No honest man can misunderstand this letter — it proves Infant Baptism to be taken for granted, both by Fidus who put the question, and the whole council who decided it. This is what a great Baptist writer calls Hhe spring-head of Infant Baptism,' the starting point of it in the church. So Mr. Gale admitted, that from this time Infant Baptism was tlic j)ractice of the church, i. e., after Cyprian, and did not ev^cn attempt a reply to Dr. Wall's history. Indeed, this is the com- mon plea. One of the most learned opposers of Infant Baptism in the State, said in this place tlie other da> . that when the church became corrupt and heathenish, and supposed that all unbaptized children went into. MMBO and not to heaven, in the days of Cypi'ian, In- 46 faiit Baptism was brought into the Christian church by the act of a council. Is not this passingly strange for intelligent men? The only evidence for the assertion we have given in the above letter, and let any one read it over and see whether it is not wholly untrue, without even a shadow of proof. Augustine and Jerome quote this same letter of the council and declare it genuine, saying: "Blessed Cyprian decreed, with a number of his fellow bishops, that a child, new born, might be properly baptized, not thereby making any iiew decree, but retaining the faith of the church be^ fore most firmly established." — Epis. 28, to Hieron.— 80 again, Lib. 3 — "Holy Cyprian was asked, wheth- er an infant might be baptized before the eighth day, beca,use in the law it was not lawful to circumcise but on the eighth day. The question was of the day of baptizing," &c. Thus, all the Fathers understood this letter as we do, and say that it was a 'question of the r/r/^,' not a- bout the fad; and that this decision was nothing new, but only declaring "tlic practice or faith of the church most firmly established before." How can any candid man say, then, it was a new decree, bringing infants into the church, who were before out? That the poini may be clear, notice: 1. The council all took Infant Baptism for granted, and so did Fidus, who put the question simply about the day, or time of it. The decree settles simply the question as to time. And thus shows the practice. 2. Augustine says, this was 'no new decree,' but only declaring the cstabhshed practice of the church, I0 be Infant Baptism% 47 3. We have also fully proved this practice (letter fifth) to have hcen common in the church, by Hermas, Justin, Irenius, Clemens, Tertuliian, and Origen, ail of whom lived and wrote before Cyprian. 4. This letter settles the practice of the whole church at that time, and is evidence as conclusive as could be recorded in words, and that without one dissenting voice, only one hundred and fifty-two years after John. The man, with these facts before his mind, (and this is ail the evidence.) who can cither assert or believe that this council did introduce Infant Baptism into the church for the first time, could believe in 'extracting sun-beams from cucumbers,* and is rather to be pitied than reasoned with. Dr. Milner says of this council, '•Here is a whole assembly of sixty-six pastors, men ot approved fidelity and gravity, who had stood the fiery tiial of some of the severest persecutions ever known; vv'iio liad testified their love to their Lord Jesus in a more striking manner than any Anti-paedobaptists have had an opportunity of doing in our days, and who seem not to be wanting in any fundamental of godli- ness. Before this assembly a question is brought — not whether infants should be baptized — (none contradic- ted this — ) but whether they sliouid be baptized im- mediately or on the eiglith day. To a man, they de- termine to baptize them immediately: Let the reader consider.'- — Ec. His. vol. 1, p. 402. Among ail these pastors, doubtless, there were some advemced in age, whose ancestors lived witii the Apostles, and knew Vf-Q\\ their practice. If Infant Baptism was an innova- tion, would they not liavc known it, and if they knew it, Vy-Quld they not have opposed it as an error? Let 4S 'the reader answer. Lord Chancellor King, part % ch. 3 of his Inquiry of the primitive church, quotes thi:^ decree, and says, "Here, then, is a synodical decree for the Baptism of Infants, as formal as can possibly be expected; which, being the judgment of a Synod, is more authentic and cogent tlian that of a private father, it being supposable that a private father might write his own particular judgement and opinion only:, but the determination of a synod [of 66 bishops] de- notes the common practice and usage of the whole church."' I have been thus particular on this evidence of Cyprian, because it is so plain that no opposer oC Infant Baptism ever could deny it, hence their great efforts to prove that it was the very commencement oi' the practice; and because they all admit, that after this time Infant Baptism was the general practice ef the churcli, till the I2th or 16th century. I conclude this letter with the reflections of the cel- ebrated Mr. Gale, (a Baptist,) in answer to Dr. Wall: "I will grant it probable, that what all or most of the churches practiced immediately after the Apostles' time had been appointed a practice by the Apostits themselves, for it is hardly to be imagined that any considerable body of these ancient Christians, and much less that the whole, should so soon deviate from the customs and injunctions of their venerable founders, whose authority they held so sacred. New opinions or practices are usually introduced by degrees, and not without opposition. Therefore, in regard to bap- tism, a thing of such universal concern and daily prac- tice, I allftw it to be very probable that the primitive churches kept to the Apostolic Pattern." Poos liot 49 this apply, with great propriety, to the letter of this council, and show it to have been the Apostolic order to baptize children? How could the practice come in "by degrees,'' in so short a time, and no one say a word against it? Mr. Gale's own testimony, then, decides fully in favor of Infant Baptism, as being Apostolic, or it could not have become universal in 150 years. LETTER VII. HISTORY OF INFANT BAPTISM FROM CYPRIAN TO AUGUSTINE, A. D. CCCC. In Hhe Apostolic Constitutions,' ascribed to Clement of Rome, and known to all to have existed in the earliest ages of the church, it is said, 'Baptize your in- fants,' and bring them up in the nurture and admoni- tion of the Lord. For he says, 'Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not.' — Wall, part 1, ch. 23. Again: 'Our divine guides, (the Apostles of Christ) or instructors, considering this, have thought fit that children should be admitted after this holy manner,' of baptism. Again: "Inasmuch as our Lord says, 'Suf- fer little children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of Heaven,' and the Apostle says, 'now are your children holy,' it is plain that the children of be- lievers do, if they be baptized, go as spotless and faith- ful into the kingdom of Heaven." In 'Questions and Answers to the Orthodox,' ascribed to Justin Martyr, it is said, "The difference between those infants that have been baptized, and those that have not, will be, that the baptized will be made par- takers of the blessings granted by baptism, and the unbaptized not; and these blessings are granted for the sake of the faith of those that bring them." About 260 years after the Apostles lived Optatus, who compares Christ's baptism to a garment, quoting the words of Paul, "as many of you as have been baptized into the name of Christ, have put on Christ," and adds, 51 **0, what a garment is this, that is always one, and never renewed; that decently fits all ages and shapes! It is neither too big for infants, nor too little for men, and, without any altering, fits women." This is plain. Basil, the great, was cotemporary with Optatus. Theodoret says of him, "That he, coming into the pal- ace (of Valens, the Arian,) and seeing tlie Emperor's child at the point of death, undertook that he would recover, if he had baptism given him by the hands of the godly; and having said this, he went away. But the Emperor gave order to some who were present, to baptize the child." Gregory Nazianzen, says, "Basil was earned to the baptismal font, and consecrated to God from his infan- cy." Also in his oration on Baptism, Wall, p. 1, ch. 9, he says, "Hast thou an infant child? Let not wick- edness have the advantage of time; let him be sancti- fied (i. e. baptized) from his infancy. Thou, as a faint- hearted mother, and of little faith, art afraid of giving him the seal, because of the weakness of nature. Give liim (baptism in the name of ) the trinity, that great and excellent preservative." Again: "Some may say, suppose this to hold in the case of those that can desire baptism, what say you to those that are yet infants, and are not in a capacity to be sensible, either of the grace or the miss of it? Shall we baptize them too? Yes, by all means, if danger make it requisite. For it is better that they be sanctified without their own sense of it, than that they die unsealed and uninitiated. And a ground of this, to us, is circumcision," &c. ^Wall, ch. 9. Basil, A. D. 260, says, "And those little boys who m have left their books at school, &:c., and the infants that have no sense, nor any guilt, they also are brought thick and in crowds to the public confession," i. e. to be dedicated to God. — Wall, part 1, ch. 12. Ambrose lived 274 years after the Apostles. He says, "Those infants, that are baptized, are reformed back again from a wicked to the primitive state of their nature." "For, unless any person be born again of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." You see he excepts no person, not an in- font, not one that is hindered by any unavoidable ac- cident. Chrysostom, in 280, says, "But our circumcision, I mean the grace of baptism, gives cure without pain, and procures to us a thousand benefits, and fills us w ith the grace of the spiiit; and it has no determinate time, as that had; but one that is in the very beginning of his age, one in middle life, or old age, may receive this circumcision made without hands." "For this cause, also, we baptize infants, though they are not defiled with (actual) sin, that there may be added to them saintship, and those that are baptized of them, foras- much as they were children when they received it, and some in a fit of sickness," &c. — Wall, ch. 14. Jerome was cotemporary with the last named Fa- thers. He says, "The children of Christians arc not themselves, only, under the guilt of sin, if they do not receive baptism," but "the wickedness is also imputed to those w ho would not give it to them." Augustine, the most learned and pious of the Fa- thers, lived about 310 years after the Apostles, A. D. 410, till the fifth century. He had to contend with 53 the famous heretic, Pelagias, and both before his con- troversy, and during its continuance, he speaks deci-^ dedly in favor of Infant Baptism, saying, ''The custom of our mother, the church, in baptizing infants, must not be disregarded, nor be accounted needless, nor be- lieved to be any thing else than an ordinance delivered to us hy the Apostles. If any one asks for divine author- ity in this matter, although that which the whole church practices, which was not instituted by councils but was ever in use, is very reasonably believed to be no other than a thing delivered by the authority of the Apos- tles; yet we may, besides this, take a truQ estimate, how much the sacram.ent of baptism does avail infants, hy the circumcision which God's ancient people re- ceived." Again: "The whole body of the church holds, as delivered to them, in the case of little infants baptized, who certainly cannot beheve with the heart unto righteousness, nor confess with the mouth unto salvation; nay, by their crying and noise, while the sa- rra.mcnt is administered, they disturb the holy myste- ries; and yet, no Christian man will say that they are baptized to no purpose.'' Once more, he says, ''/ do not remember that I ever heard any other thing (than In- fant Baptism) from any Christiein that received the Old and Xeio Testaments; neither from such as zvere of the Catholic Churchy nor from such as belong to any sect or schism. I do not remember that I ever read otherivise in any rcriter^ that I could find treating of these matters, v>ho followed the canonical scriptures or pretended to do so, i. e. to say that infants are not baptized for that reason, viz: — for the remission of sins." Thus the most learned man of all antiquity says, he never heard, nor read of, nor saw a man, nor sect of people^ that ever denied Infant Baptism*^ Wall, ch* 15, 16* Pelagius and Celestius were accused of denying it, but they repel the charge as an infamous slander. The former says : — "Men slander me, as if I denied the sacra- ment of baptism to infants* Inever heard of any, not even the most impious heretic, who denied baptism to iyfants. For, zvho can be so impious as to hinder inf ants from being baptized and born again in Christ, and so make them miss of the kingdom of Heaven." So, Pelagius, in his celebrated creed to Innocent, has this article: — "^'c hold one baptism, which we say ought to be administered zvith the same sacramental words to infants, as it is to el- der 2^crso7is.^^ — Wall, ch. 19. So, Celestius, in his creed, says: — We own that infants ought, according to the rule of the universal church, and according to the sentence of the gospel, to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, be- cause our Lord has determined that the kingdom of heaven cannot be confered upon unbaptized persons." Then, Pelagius, v^^ho was born in England, and had travelled very extensively, had never heard of any — not even an impious heretic — who denied Infant Bap- tism. Tlius, we have given a regular chain of evidence, from the days of the Apostles down to Augustine in the 5th century, and there is no flaw in the links. Now, mark one thing — that during these first four centuries, the catalogues of all sects of Christians were carefully written by Irenius, Epiphanius, Philostratus, Augustine and Theodoret, and these accounts are still extant. In these catalogues, the differences of opin- ion which obtained in those days respecting baptism 55 are particularly recounted and minutely designated. Some sects are mentioned which made no use of water baptism at all. And, the different ways in which bap- tism was administered by different sects are distinctly described, yet there is no mention of any, not even one, except such as denied all water baptism whatever, who did not consider Infant Baptism as a divine institution. So that it was universal in the church for four hundred years after Christ. And we need go no farther with these proofs — for, during the next seven hundred years the matter is clear, says Wall, ch. 22, or till the year 1150 — when the Petrobrusians, denying that infants go to heaven at all or were "incapable of salvation,-' also denied Infant Baptism — but they soon died away, and we hear no more of its denial till after the Refor- mation, or till 1522. These facts shall be shown in our next Letter. Letter viii. HISTORY OF INFANT BAPTISM FROM AUGUSTINE TO THE RISE OF ANABAPTISM, MDXXII. That Infant Baptism did universally prevail in the church, from the fourth during all following ages till the eleventh century, all the intelligent Anti-pa^do- baptists admit. The most celebrated of their writers, Mr. Tombes, says; — "The authority of Augustine carried the baptism of infants in all the following ages, almost without control.'' And all the writers of those times, refered to by Dr. Wall, ch. 22, speak of Infant Baptism as a thing un- controverted, and in general use. In 1050, in a letter written by Deodwins, of Liege, to Henry I, King of France, it is said: — "There is a report, come out of France and v/hich goes through all Germany, that these two (Bruno and Berengarius of Angers) do mention that the Lord^s body the host is not the body, but a shadow and figure of the Lord's body. And that they disannul lawful marriages, and as far as they can, or in them lies, over- throw the Baptism of Infants." But we never hear of Bruno again. And Gaitmand, who wrote against Berengarius, says: — 'Berengarius, finding his two opinions of marriage and baptism would not be endured by the cars of even the worst of men that were, and that there was no pretence in Scripture for them, betook himself wholly to the other," [viz: that against transubstantiation.] And thus continued. 57 In the twelfth century, the Waldenses and Albigen- ses began to appear in the northern part of Italy and the Alps.— The Enghsh called them by the general name of Waldenses, from Waldus, 1130, and in the south of France, they were called Albigenses. There were many others of less note, who have been very im- properly and confusedly blended, of late, with then). The present descendants of these true Waldenses, who n©w live in Piedmont, practice Infant Baptism, and declare that their ancestors did the same in "all past time." But, to begin at the first. Wickliffe was the first of all these people, and the opposers of Infant Bap- tism claim him cis a Baptist. But, that he and all his followers, likewise, did believe in and teach Infant Baptism, I shall now show. In 1155, he says: — "When an infant is brought to church, that, accor- cording to Christ's rule, he may be baptized, and the water is wanting, and the people's intention being good, he dies, in the meanwhile, without Baptism, naturally, by the will of God, it seems hard to define, positively, the damnation of such an infant." Again: "But we hold it to be without doubt that infants, which- are rightly baptized with water, are baptized with the third baptism, also, when as they have the baptismal grace." Then, he teaches Infant Baptism to be "according to Christ's rule, or command." Can any one question this? But, when the council of Constance, in 1315, drew up against him 45 articles of heresy^ they do not charge him with denying Infant Baptism. And is it reasonable to suppose they would have let such a de- nial pass without condemning it? 58 Wickliife's disciples practiced Infant Baptism. Fox cites a declaration of faith, drawn up by Walter Brute, a scholar of WicklifFe, examined before the Bishop of Hereford in 1393, which says: — "I greatly marvel at that saying of the decrees, as- cribed to Austin, that little children that are not bap- tized shall be tormented with eternal fire, though born of faithful parents who wished them, with all their hearts, to have been baptized. How shall the infant be damned, that is born of faithful parents who do not despise, but rather wish or desire to have their chil- dren baptized," &c., if they can. The same is true of the Hussites, in Bohemia, and the Lollards, who believed that though baptism was important and to be given to children, yet it was not essential to salvation, as the CathoHc church taught — that God would accept the desire and wish of those believing parents, who could not get their children baptized, for the deed. That all the real Waldenses baptized infants, is most evident to all who will read the following language from their creeds and their own histories. Their confession says: — "We believe, also, that no person is saved, but what is baptized; and that infants are saved by baptism," and "we bring our children to baptism, which they ought to do, to whom they arc most nearly related, such as their parents." The Catholic church charged them with the neglect or denial of Infant Baptism; but they repel the charge as untrue, and Perrin, their Historian, gives the rea- sons, thus; lib. 1, ch. 4: — "That their ancestors, being constrained, for some 50 hundreds of years, to suffer their childcen to be bap- tized by the Romish priests, defered the performance as long as they could because they detested the human inventions annexed to it, which they looked upon as so many pollutions of it. And, because their own pastors were many times abroad, employed in the service of the churches, they could not have baptism administer- ed to their infants by their own ministers, which, the priests perceiving, charged them with this slander. To which charge, not only their adversaries have given credit, but also many of those who have approved of their lives and faith in all other respects." — Wall, ch. 7. They then say: — "Baptism is administered, in a full congregation of the faithful, to the end that he that is received into the church may be reputed and held of all as a Christian brother, and, that all the congregation may pray for him, that he may be a Christian in heart, as he is out- wardly esteemed to be a Christian. And, for this cause it is, that we bring our children in baptism." Soon after the Reformation, these same people sought intercourse with Luther and the reformed churches of Geneva and France; held communion with them, re- ceived ministers from them, and showed the greatest affection for them, as ''Christian brethren." Now, all know that the churches of Geneva and France always practiced Infant Baptism. And when Luther sent to know "the state and doctrine" of the Waldenses, they were found in the practice of Infant Baptism, and they say, their "fathers never practiced otherwise," and show the proof from an old book called "the spiritual Alma- nac." — Perrin, lib. 1, ch. 4, This same author says^ 60 page 31, speaking of the inquisitors whom King Lewis XII sent to spy out the crimes of the Waldenses: — "They visited all their paiishes and temples, and found neither images nor the least shadow of ornaments belonging to the masses aVid ceremonies of the church of Rome, much less any such crimes as v, ere charged upon them. But rather, that they kept the Sabbaths holy, causing their children to he baptized^ according to the order of the primitive church, teaching them tlie articles of the Christian faith, and the commandments of God." Mr. Jones, the Baptist historian, page 331 — 8, pre- tends to quote this passage from Perrin, but leaves out the baptism of their children wholly, saying — ^-They observed the ordinraice of baptism, according to the ])rimitive church.'' Can such a writer be trusted — who will thus suppress the truth, and misrepresent an author, to carry a point? Let any one compare I^en- nard's London Edition of Perrin, 1021, with 1st Ame- rican Edition of Jones, an^ they will see a specimen of the attempts to prove the Waldenses, Baptists, who always practiced Infant Baptism. The fact, that tlie Waldenses have ever practiced Infant Baptism, is con- firmed by their descendants of the present day. In 1825, the Rev. S. E. Dwight writes from Rome a let- ter dated March 12. Speaking of the Waldenses, he says: — *'These are the only people that preser\'ed, uncor- rupted, the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles through the darkness of the middle ages. They inhabit the deep valleys, quite at the northern part of Italy, and open only to the south. Population nearly 20,000, and 61 chiefly resident in thirteen villages. They are a very plain, industrious and pious people, bearing a very strong resemblance, in their character and manners, to the fathers of New England." He had letters of introduction to Rev. Mr. Bert, one of their godly ministers, who received him witli great kindness. He attended a meeting with Mr. Bert, and was much delighted with their honest sim- plicity. In answer to a question, Mr. Bert said, that '•the Waldenses had always baptized their infants, and had always done it by alfusion." The Waldensian Catechism, written A. D. 1100, says: "There are two sacraments, one of water, and the other of aliment, i. e. of bread and wine. The first is called baptism^ or, in our language, a zvashing ii:ith water, (the true definition,) whether from a river or a fountain; and it must be administered in the name of the Father, of the 8on, and of the Holy Ghost. Children are to be presented for baptism; and this should be done by them to whom they are most nearly re- lated, such as parents," &c. This language is really just like old-feishioned Pres- byterians', and shows who the Waldenses really were. It is, moreover, evidence quite sufficient to satisfy any unprejudiced mind of the practice of the Waldenses, in relation to Infant Baptism. That Peter Bruce, and the Pctrobrusians, who have been called a sect of the Albigenses, did deny Infant Baptism, is certainly true, and that this has led some to think that all the Waldenses did the same, may be possible. But a very little attention to their history will show all their mistakes. In the year 1 140, Ever- vines mentions them in a letter to St. Bernard, say- ing:— "They do not believe Infant Baptism. All marriage they call fornication;" and in 1146, Peter, Abbot of Clugny, writes against Peter de Bruis and his disciples^ charging them with six errors. 1. The denial of Infant Baptism. 2. No churches should be built, but all pulled down. 3. Crosses ought not to be worshiped. 4. That the sacrament is no more to be administered, since Christ's time. 5. That prayers cannot benefit the dead. 6. That it is a mocking of God to sing in the church. They, also, he says, renounced all the Old Testa- ment, and all the New, likewise, but the Gospels. St. Bernard mentions many other errors among them, while he confirms the above — "That infants could not go to heaven, because incapable of faith and repent- ance, they also held." But none of these writers ever called them by the name of Waldenses. And the Lat- eran Council, under Pope Innocent II — 1139 — did condemn Peter Bruis and his follower, Arnold of Bres- cia, for denying Infant Baptism. There were, also, some others who denied all water baptism, and held the baptism of fire and spirit, as the Quakers may ful- ly claim. — See Wall, part 2, ch. 7. So that we con- clude, that no sect of the Waldenses ever did deny Infant Baptism; but, that the Petrobrusians, also called Henricians, were the only people that ever did, till after the Reformation. If the Anabaptists, who com- menced in Germany in 1522, and their followers think proper to reject Infant Baptism for the same reason, they (the Petrobrusians) did, let them be as consistent, and say, "Infants are incapable of salvation, because they cannot believe," and because Christ says, "he that believeth not shall be damned," t^ LETTER IX. INFANT BAPTISM THE ONLY TRUE BAPTISM; ALL CHURCH- ES DEPENDANT ON IT FOR THE VALIDITY OF THEIR baptism; 3IUNZER, BLOUNT, ROGER WILLIAMS. Many Anti-paedobaptists say, Infant Baptism came into the church after Cyprian, in the third century. — Mr. Robinson tells us, page 291, "when adult bap- tism fell into disuse," but gives no proof, save his own assertion. Then, page 309, he tells us: — "Baptism rose pure in the east; it rolled westward, diminished in lustre, often beclouded with mists, and sometimes under a total eclipse; at length it escaped the eye, and was lost among attenuated particles, shades, non-entities and monsters." This is the sublime account of the chief Baptist. Baptists, generally, agree with him, that adult baptism ceased, altogether, in the third or fourth century. They also declare Infant Baptism to be no baptism at all, and d^^^l^re such churches, as baptize infants, no churches. Then mark the argument, that in about one hundred years after the Apostles, when adult bap- tism ceased, baptism was lost, and Christ had no church on earth. So, from the beginning of the third to the six- teenth century, a period of thirteen hundred years, there was no visible church of God on earth. This is the dilemma into which their own arguments throw them who deny Infant Baptism. But the ordinance of baptism, itself, was thus irrecoverably lost, unless it be restored by a miracle. And then, if none but baptized persons are capable of administering baptism, there is 05 no true baptism now in the world. Is this true ? Is it possible, that God would permit one of the ordinances of his house to be wholly lost, and suffer his church to die out from the earth for ages? Is it not quite as pos- sible, that Anti-paedobaptists may be wrong, and the Baptism of Infants right and Scriptural? It is not possible to trace up the ordinance of bap- tism, in the Christian church, any other way than through Infant Baptism. No man can tell me of a church, now in existence, that did not obtain baptism,, and their ministry to baptize, through the line of In- fant Baptism. The Baptists deny it. So, we will try to see, if we can find a suceession of adult baptisms. x\fter Constantine, all the world were Catholics, that belonged to the true church, and that church always baptized infants; after the schism, and the Greek church left the Catholic, still the Greeks all baptized infants; thus all the world did, till the Reformation, save Peter Bruce, and as none will claim him, we leave him out* In 1522, soon after Luther commenced the Refor- mation in Saxony, there arose some men who wished to refine upon him. 'K>ne Nicho^las Storch, Thomas Munzer, and Baltazar Hobmeier, began to preach that the baptism of infants was also an abuse that must be reformed, and began to baptize over again such as be- rame their disciples."^ — Wall, ch. 8, part 2. This Munzer called himself "the sword of the Lord of Gi- deon." At last, in 1534, they became a strong party^ mostly from Holland, with John Beeold, of Leyden, for their King; they seized the city of Munzer and kept it for a time. All will remember their history. These were the first Anti-paedobaptists, or Anabaptists. This, «6 is Hhe spring-head of it.' The question is, where did they get any authority to baptize infants or adults? If they were baptized at all, it was in their infancy 5 but Infant Baptism is no baptism, say our opponents. Then, the very first Baptist preachers in the world were either baptized in infancy, or not baptized at all. Can an unbaptized person give lawful and valid bap- tism? But try again: in England, when Mr. Jessey, an Episcopal minister, turned Baptist, and with hini many of his friends who believed in immersion and in baptizing only believers, Neal (Vol. 3, page 347,) says ; ^•But as this (immersion) was not practiced in England, they were at a loss for an administrator, to begin the practice. After often meeting together, to pray and confer about the matter, they agreed to send over to Holland, Mr. Richard Blount, to a Baptist church there. He was kindly received by the society and their pastor," was immersed, and returned, "and upon his return he baptized, or rather immersed, Mr. Samu- el Blacklock, a minister — these two immersed the rest of the company, to the number of 53." This was the first Baptist church in England, in 1650. But where did they get their baptism? from Holland, through Munzer, who was not baptized at all, or in his infancy? No, Messrs. Jessey, Blount, and Blacklock were all baptized in infancy, and that made it good. But once more, let us turn to America; as they have improved in government, may they not also in religion? Roger Williams was a settled Pa^.dobaptist minister, in Salem, Mass., but for peculiar circumstances he left iliat colony, and went to Providence, Rhode Island, ^nd took witli him eleven of his members: there they 67 became Anabaptists. (See Clinton's History, p. I;j9.) Ezekiel Holyman, a layman, baptized in his infancy by yprinkling, immersed Mr. Williams, and then Mr. Will- iams immersed Mr. Ilolyman and the other ten per- sons. Thus was formed the first Baptist church in America, and as all the churches in this country cam<' or received their baptism or immersion, directly or indi- rectly, from this mother church, it is a question of some importance to settle — Have they any valid baptism at all? If so, does it not come through Mr. Williams' Infant Baptism? But Infant Baptism is no baptism at all, and churches that sprang from it are no churches, say Anabaptists; therefore, Mr, Williams' church, anrf all the Baptist churches, in this country, that sprang fron? it, are no churches^ unless Infant Baptism is the true and Scnptural baptism. But I believe the Baptist churche-: of this country are churches of Christ, and, therelbre, I believe that Infant Baptism is true and Scnpturiii. Then, we see, that Munzer, the first Anabaptist in Germany, and Blount, the first in England, and Roger Williams, the first in America, were all baptized id their infancy, if at all, and that, therefore, they could. if ministers, give lawful baptism^ but not lairfd immersion. And, moreover, if Infant Baptism be not true baptism. there is now no church in the world, nor has theic been a church in the world for the last 1600 years. But again: if Infant Baptism ])e not true and 8cn]>- tural, then nineteen-twentieths of all the generations «>{' men since Chiist, who have professed his religion. ha\ e never entered into the kingdom of God, but died un- baptized; and what has become of them who died in de- liberate disobedience to this command? ]\foreovor. f*J ont of every 50 of the Christians, or churches, now on the earth, practice Infant Baptism, (as I shall show in my next,) and if it be not true, then the great mass of these churches are wrong — are no churches at all, and must be excluded from heaven. But do not our Bap- tist brethren call us brethren, sometimes, at least; ask us to preach with them, pray with them, hold union meetings, &c.? But is it possible, that they are so in- consistent., as to ask m to pray^ or preach, c^c, who are not baptized, and who do not belong to the church of Christ, at all? The answer is found in their practice of close communion. They say, none but baptized persons have a right to commune; but Infant Baptism, and sprinkling, are no baptism; therefore, persons baptized in infancy, and by sprinkUng, have no right to com- munion. This is their practice. Then, do they not, for the mere mode of a ceremony, shutout from heaven all Pc^obaptists? Mark — it is not for a neglect of it, but for the mode of the thing, we are debarred from heaven — not on principle, but for a mere form of an ordinance. Might it not, with equal propriety, be con- tended that the mode of the Supper was the Lord^s Supper, and, unless you take it in his mode, (viz: re- cUning as Christ did,) you cannot obey his command? But did we ever hear the mode of the sacrament made the sacrament, or a sine qua non to it, by any Protest- ants? Then why make the mode of one ordinance in the church so much more essential than the other? Why not be consistent, and make the mode of taking the sacra- ment as important as the mode of baptism? We are con-^ sistent, making the mode of the one just as essential as the other.. But this comes under the mode of baptism.. LETTER X. ALL CHURCHES IN EUROPE, ASIA, AFRICA AND AMERICA, SINCE THE RISE OF THE ANABAPTISTS, DO NOW PRAC- TICE INFANT BAPTISM, SAVE THE BAPTISTS. That the great majority of Christian churches, even since the rise of the Anabaptists, have continued to practice Infant Baptism, and do now continue the prac- tice, is too plain a matter to require proof. We shall state the facts which all reading and intelligent loen know to be true. In Europe this is notorious. The Roman CatlK)lic church not only baptize infants, but hold that infant*^, dying unbaptized, cannot enter the kingdom of Heav- en, and there is scarcely an Anti-paedobaptist in that whole church, which includes one half of professing Christians. The Greek church of Constantinople and all other parts of Europe are known to baptize infant?, and Sir Paul Ricaut gives (ch. 7) a full account of their manner of baptizing, and how their ceremonies differ from the Latins. The same is true of the Muscovites, who were a part of the Greek church, but now choose their own patriarch; Dr. Crull says, "now they baptize children as soon as they are born." Thus the largest and oldest churches in the world still continue Infant Baptism without exception. Thus one half, or two thirds, of the world of professing people act^ The church of England says, "the baptism of young children is, in any wise, to be retained in the church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ," and have always baptized Infants. The same is true of all 70 Episcopal churches throughout the world. That the church of Scotland, and the Preshjterians throughout nil the world, have always, and do still baptize chil- dren, is too well known to need proof. In Asia, the different Christians, scattered under various names, do the same. The Armenians have f*Mi.<^tantly baptized infants, as Ricaut, ch. 8, "On the present state of the Armenian church," shows, and Ileylm and Brewood, likewise. The Maronites bap- tize infants, thus: "The males at 40 days old, and fe- males at 80, according to Levit. 12." The Christians of St. Thomas, who live between the coasts of Mala- bar and Coromandel, were wholly unknown to us, till 1500, when discovered by the Portuguese; they were then estimated at about 15 or 16,000 famiHes. "They were found in the practice of Infant Baptism, wheii the child was forty days old." — Osorius, Lib. 3. About one hundred years after that, they were bro't over to the conmiunion of the church of Rome, as Mr. Geddes shows. The practice of these Indian Christians fully shows how mistaken our opponents are, who suppose Infant Baptism commenced but recently. These Chris- tians had never even heard of such a part of the world as Europe. So that, the practice could not have been con^municated to them from that quarter. These peo- ple show Infant Baptism to be of very great antiquity. The people of the ancient Iberia, and of Colchis, now railed Georgia and Mungralia, or Circassia, who were converted in the days of Constantine, by means of a Servant maid who cured the Queen of Iberia, as related l)y Rufinus and Socrates, held communion with t\\(i C^reek church, and practiced Infant Baptism, as we hare shown that church did. Sir John Chardin says of them, page 85 : — *'They anoint infants as soon as they be born, in the forehead. The baptism is not administered till alon^ time after. No man baptizes his child, till he has the means to make a feast at the baptism. Hence it come- to pasSj that many infants die without receiving bap- tism." He was present at two baptizings — 'One was a little boy of five years old.' The same manuscript, says Wall, part 1. ch. 8, gives a full account, both of the Mungralians and Georgians, as receiving the Gospel, in the 4th century, and as ever continuing to practice Infant Baptism. Thus all Christians of Asia, as well as of Europe, baptize infants. In Africa there are but two sorts of Christians, the Cophti, of Egypt, who are the remains of the old Chris- tian church tiiere — and the Abassans. Both of these baptize infants — the Cophti none till 40 days old. The Abassans, the males at 40, and the females at 80 days after circumcision, for they use both. This is plain from all Historians, such as Brerewood, Heylyn, &c. Then, all Christians in Europe, Asia and Africa, bap- tize infants, except the Anabaptists of Germany, and some small sects who have since branched out from them of late years. — See Dr. Wail, part 2, page 291, where you will also find an account of Munzer, and others. In America, all Christians, of all churches, except the different kinds of Anabaptists, have, from the be- ginning, practiced Infant Baptism, and do so at this time, as the Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterian?,, 72 tlie old and the new side, as well as the Cumberlands, the Lutherans, Dutch Reformed, Congregationalists, Associate Reformed, Seceders, Covenanters, and Rad- ical Methodists. Then all Christian churches, in all parts of the world, practice Infant Baptism, except the Anabaptists and their branches, who commenced in 1522, under Munzer. There never was a church be- fore him who denied it, nor even a sect, but the Petro- brusians. So that, no historical fact is plainer or bet- ter established than this, viz: — That infant baptism has been the constant and universal practice of the church of Christy in all its branches^ from the Apostles doivn to the present time^ except the Petrobrusians and different sects of Anabaptists, We shall conclude this part of the subject, by a re- capitulation of the points in the preceding letters. We have in these letters shown — 1. That Infant Baptism was common in the Jewish church when Christ came and gave his «^ommission, taking it for granted, and the practice perfectly famil- iar to the minds of his Apostles, all being Jews, and accustomed to proselyte baptism. 2. That Hhe Acts of the Apostles' fully show that the Apostles did give household baptism, as it had always been done in the case of proselytes and their households when they became Jews; and that 'the Gos- pels' fully declare that Christ received, laid his hands on, and blessed infants, declaring them to be of, or to belong to, the gospel church, or 'kingdom of Heaven,' and was much displeased at those who wislied to hinder them from coming to him; so that Christ did not reject, but received infants, and so commanded us to do. 73 3. That 'the Epistles' correspond with 'the Gospels and Acts,' in showing baptism to be in the room of cir- cumcision; (Col. 2: 11, 12,) and that the children of ^either believing parent, (I Cor. 7: 14,) are holy, i, e. fit subjects for baptism. That these two passages were so understood and expounded by all the Fathers. 4. That the only two arguments against Infant Bap- tism worth naming^ are unsound and sophistical, viz: — ^They can't believe and repent — there is no express command for Infant Baptism.' [See them fully stated in Letter Fourth.] 5. That Infant Baptism was practiced by all those holy men who lived immediately after the Apostles, -some cotemporary with them, as Hermas, Clement, Irenius, Justin Martyr, Turtullian and Origen, i. e. for 150 years, or A. D. 200. [See Letter Fifth.] G. That Cyprian and the council of the wlioic church, A. D. 253, did declare what the church had always practiced since the days of the Apostles in re- lation to Infant Baptism, when they decided the case of Fidus as to the day or time of baptism, as stated in letter 6th. That there never was a difficulty in the church, about whether infants should be baptized — no one ever questioned it for a moment; but this coun- cil settled the case as to time, i. e. whether it should be on the eighth day, or on the third or fourth day after they were born. 7. That from the days of Cyprian, 253, down to the beginning of the 5th century. Infant Baptism is fully, frequently, and constantly spoken of by all writers as the general practice of the churches. So says Opta- tus, Gregory, Nazianzen, Basil, Ambrose, Chrysostom, 174 Augustine, Pclagius and Celestius. Then all tbe church, and even all heretics, practiced it. 8. That, for the next seven hundred years after Au- gustine, i. c. till A. D. 1150, there is no dispute about it — all practiced Infant Baptism, no one denied it till Peter Bruis; and he and his followers soon died. 9. That Wickliffe, and all the Waldenses and Albi- genses, did practice Infant Baptism, as their creeds and Historians fully show. That they united with the re- formed diurches of Geneva and France who practiced it; and that Luther's delegation found it in use among them, and so did the Pope's inquisitors; and that their descendants, who now live in Italy and the valleys, do practice Infant Baptism, and say their ancestors always did the same. 10. That all Christians in Europe, (England and Scotland inclusive.) Asia, Africa and America do, at this day, practice Infont Baptism, except the different parties of Anabaptists. The history of Infant Bap- tism, then, is clear, and amounts to a demonstration. Dr. Wall has written it in full, in 2 volumes, and Mr. Gale has attempted to reply to a part of it. Let all, who wish, read these works as now found together in 4 volun:res, and they will be fully satisfied as to this matter. Permit me to add a little more evidence, showing the practice of the Greek church of the present day, and of the Muscovites. Our opponents are very fond of refering to the Greek church, as the largest and oldest in the world, as favoring immersion ; but never tell, at the same time, that the Greeks all baptize their chil- dren. One of their papers asks : — 75 ^Was immersion the practice of the ancient church ? If not, why docs the Greek church, to this day, iai' merse?"' I would ask, was Infant Baptism the practice of the ancient church? If not, why does the Greek church, to this day, practice Infant Baptism? A gentleman of this State, who travelled among the Greeks, and stayed some time at Constantinople — a man of great learning and veracity, says: — "I resided upwards of three years in the capitoi of the Grand Seigniors dominions, in a Greek family of the first respectahility. During my stay, I was present at four baptisms — two in the family, and two in the immediate neighborhood. It is the custom of the Greeks, either to have their children baptized pubHcly in the churches, or else in their houses; in which latter case, the parents invite the nearest relations and neigh- bors; and after the ceremony, while refreshments are passed round, the father gives to each person present a token of witness-ship, consisting of a small piece of Turkish money, either of one para or ^Yeparas^ through which a hole is pierced, and a piece of narrow ribband is inserted. I was thus invited to attend the four above mentioned baptisms; and I still have in my possession two tokens, — the other two may be seen in Mrs. Mc- Dowell's Museum in Danville, Ky.*' '•The company," he continues, "were all seated in the sofas round the room. A table stood in the middle of the room, with a basin of water on it. The Papa or priest was then sent for, Vrho, upon entering the room, was received by the father of the infant, and led to the baptismal water, which he consecrated with 76 a short prayer and the sign of the cross; then the moth- er presented to him her babe, which he laid on his left arm, and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, he thrice dipped his hand into the water, and dropped some of it on the child's forehead, giving it a name. I may here remark, that I never heard, during my stay in Constantinople, of adult baptism, nor of the ordinance being performed by immersion, in a single instance. Most generally, infants are baptized in the churches. Before the altar stands a tripod, holding a basin of consecrated water, for baptisms." Here we find the Greek church of our own day, in the good old practice of the Apostolic church, baptiz- ing infants, and that by sprinkling. This church, says the Magnus Apollo for immersion, contains "one half of the Christian world," and this one half baptize in- fants, and that by sprinkling. But this fact is still far-^ ther confirmed, by Rev. Pliny Fisk, iate Missionary to Palestine, who says: — "I went, one morning, to the Syrian church, to wit- ness a baptism. When ready for the baptism, the font was uncovered, and a small quantity, first of warm wa- ter, and then of cold water, was poured into it. The child, in a state of perfect nudity, was then taken by the Bishop, who held it in one hand, while with the other he annointed the whole body with oil. He then held the child in the font, its feet and legs being in the water, and with his right hand he took up water and poured it on the child, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." — Memoir, page 357. Again: Mr. Fisk says of a learned Jew among the Greeks, page 195: — 77 "We have often read the Scriptures together. After reading the account of Philip and the Eunuch, I in- quired whether such a thing as baptism was known among the Jews. He said, that in ancient times, when a stranger embraced the Jewish reUgion, he and his wife and children were all baptized. The ceremony was performed by sprinkling or pouring a cup of water on the head, and this was done seven times." This proves that children were baptized — and that the mode was pouring or sprinkling. The Russian church had their own Patriarch, till Peter the Great assumed that otfice himself. In the life of Peter, as written by Barrow, Family Library, No. 65, p. 1 — 15, it is said of him: — "It was his custom, frequently, to visit, in their hum- hie abodes, his subjects of the lower classes — and he never refused to hold their little ones at the baptismal font; a condescension for which he had perpetual calls, from one class or another of his subjects. To the first born of the officers and soldiers of his own regiment of guards, he, almost always, was called upon to stand god-father." The Empress Elizabeth says of him: — "My father, who stood sponsor to as many as wished, and who refused none, contented himself with kissing the mother, and putting a ducat under the pillar, and the parents were alt satisfied." Again, page 228, it is said of young Peter: — "This young Prince was, also, baptized (immediate- ly after his birth) by the name of Peter, with the ad- junct of Petrovitz, the kings of Denmark and Prussia being his god-fathers." Thus, we find the Kings of all these northern pow- 78 ers of Europe, all at one time, engaged in the practice of Infant Baptism, and they still continue it, through- out these Kingdoms. This practice we also find men- tioned as common in Prussia, in the days of Frederick III, or the Great, and from the earliest times. — See Life of Frederick the Great. Thus we have the most conclusive evidence that the Muscovites, as well as Greeks, still practice Infant Baptism. And whenever I hear a man say, does not the Greek church immerse ? I can't help hut ask him — but does it not baptize in- fants? and if your argument is good for immersion, mine is still better to prove Infant Baptism. No man ran deny that the Greeks and Muscovites have always baptized Infants. I shall conclude this piece, in the words of an able and learned writer on Mark 10: 14: — "These little children, whom you would hinder from being brought to me, for my blessing, are objects of my kindest regard. They, and such as they, stand in a near relation to my church. The kingdom which I am setting up is not to overlook them, but to embrace and cherish them. Peculiar favor was shown to them under the former dispensation. Think not, that less is to be shown under my reign. Look not upon thenu therefore, with feelings of inditTercnce. Strive not to deprive tliem of my blessing — but suffer them to come unto me, yea bring them — for to such children the privileges of my church, oi- kingdom, belong." This is a true paraphrase, llovr will those, who deny Infant Baptism, settle this passage? Do they not for- bid children to come to Christ? Is he less angry witli them, than with his mistaken di':riplcs of old ? 79 Dr. Grant, in his account of the Nestorians, or lost tribes of Israel, says: — "On the eighth day the child may be baptized, as the Nestorians are of opinion that baptism comes in the place of circumcision."' — Bib. Rep., Jan. 184*2, page 77. The followers of St. John the Baptist, in Mesopota- mia, also baptized infants. So says the great Mission- ary, Wolfe, Vol. 2, page 311:— "They carry the children, after thirty days, to the liver; the Priest says a prayer; the god-father holds the child near the surface of the water, while the Piiest sprinkles the element upon the child, giving it a name." This was the account given Mr. Wolfe, by their CAvn high Priest, in two instances. These two church- es of Nestorians and of St. John the Baptist are very ancient, and this testimony is very conclusive. It also shows baptism in, or at the river, and yet by sprinkling. This is the mode, they say, St. John used. For, when Mr. Wolfe inquired why they went to the river to sprinkle or baptize, they answered — "Because St. John the Baptist baptized in the river Jordan." Of course it was by sprinkling. One thing may be here remarked — once for all — that Infant Bap- tism, and pouringor sprinkling, have generally gone to- gether, and vv^hcre you find the one, you do the other; on the otlicr hand, nearly all, who immerse, refuse bap- tism to Infants. Keep this in view, and you may see the mode of baptism, in all past ages, from the lii^^torv of Infant Baptism. Still there are exceptions. PART SECOND. THE mODE OF BAPXISifl. LETTER XI, THE QUESTION STATED KING JAMEs' VERSION BAPTIZO NOT A WORD OF MODE. There are two modes of Baptism. The one is ap- plying water to the persofi, by pouring or sprinkfing^? (they are really the same) — the other is applying the per- son to the water^ or putting him into or under the water, called immersion. The Bible always speaks of the former.^ but never of the latter mode, as we shall see in due time. There are four elements or essentials, all necessary to Christian baptism* 1. A proper subject. it» The use of the sacred form of words, "In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." 3. A regularly authorized minister of the GospeL 1. The use of water as the liquid applied, called the seal. Where either of these are wanting, there can be no Christian baptism. The mode of applying the water is not one of the essential elements in Baptism much less is the mK)de of the thing, the thing itself. The im- mersionist generally assumes too much, when he •say s^ ^AU admit our mode to be scriptural, and if you do that much, it is aM we ask." But I say, we do not admit imm,ersion to be the Scriptural mode of Baptism; wc fully and unequivocally deny that it is taught in the Bible; and 81 it IS not because of the mode^ that we receive a person who has been immersed as baptized, without baptizing him over, but because he has the four essentials above named independent of his immersion, which act of su- pererogation does not destroy his baptism. When a gentleman repKed to this the other day, he said, "Well, if I have all the essentials of a Jiorse^ or the elements of a coat^ I have a horse, or a coat, and what more do I want? So of immersion,'''^ But why did he not say, the colour of the horse, and the shape, cut, or colour of the coat, was essential to the coat, or horse. Why not say, if your horse and coat are not zcater-colour, they are neither horse nor coat. The colour of the coat is the coat; the colour of the horse is the horse; and unless the horse and coat are of ofie peculiar colour they cease to be either. Is the colour all that is essential in a horse or coat? So, is immersion, the mere mode, all that is essential to true baptism? "Yes," says the advocate of it, "you may have all the four things, a true subject, the name of the trinity, a true minister, and water applied to the person, but if it is not immer- sion it is no baptism — immersion alone is baptismJ''' Then we may as well say that colour alone is a horse or coat. I had thought that colour was but an accident in such cases, and that a horse might exist either as white, or black, or gray; so might not a coat be of various modes or shapes, and other colours besides water-colour? Am I mistaken? Or is the mistake in the immersionist'l The mode of baptism has, within the last few hundred years, become, in the estimation of some, every thing — a sine qua non to it. It shuts men even out of heav- en for want of it. My neighbour says to me, "you 6 S'2 caiiH commune with us." "Why/"' I ask. ^'Because you are not baptized," he replies. "But have I not had water appHed to me, in the name of the trinity, by a regular minister." "Yes, but you have not been im- tnersed, and nothing else is baptism." Is not this really making the m.ere 7node the whole thing, and erecting a barrier between all other Christians and heaven? Is this charitable? Is it kind? Is it the spirit of the Gospel? Then we are here on the defensive again, and the question for discussion is simply this: Is immersion essential to Christian Baptism? Immer- sionists say it is — we say it is not. They must prove that baptism never was, nor can be administered in any other way. The point to be decided, then, is a very plain one, but the burden of proof that lies upon our opponents is most diflicult, not to say impossible or insupportable. Is it not somewhat remakable, that the mode of one ordinance of Religion should be made so much more essential than that of the other. No one pretends that the MODE or manner of taking the Lord's Supper is so essential to it, as that none can obey this last command of Christ, unless in a particular posture. Yet the mode of Baptism, with many, is a sine qua non to the ordi- nance, and thus they make the mode of the thing, the thing itself, than which nothing can be more absurd. While we fully reject the idea of the mode being ess*ii- !:al to Baptism, still we believe, that whatever mode is laught in the word of God should be strictly observed by all Christians. Many good people beUeve that the \Vib\c teaches immersion to be the only proper mode of Baptism; but the great majority of the Christian 83 world believe sprinkling or pouring to be the proper mode* Those who believe in immersion take their stand on the meaning of the original word haptizo^ which, they say, is a word of 3iode — never signifying any thing but mode. Mr. Carson, p. 79, says, "/f/y position is, that it ahuays signifies to dip; never eocpressing any thing hut mode, jA'ozy, as I have cdl the lexicograph- ers and commentators against me in this opinion, it idll be necessary to say a zcord or tzco zvith respect to the authoriiy of Lexicons.''^ The celebrated Mv, Gale takes about the same position. So does Mr. Campbell. They say that baptizo should always be translated by the word immerse; that the word baptize is no translation at all, as it is only an English verb formed from the Greek baptizo. And pray what is immerse, but an English word formed from the Latin verb, immcrgo ? Is it not strange that such intelhgent men attempt to blind the eyes of common readers by such evasions? Is it not as good English to say baptize as to say immerse? and is it not as true that the word, baptize, is the literal, true translation of the Greek word baptizo, as that immerse is the literal of immcrgo ? But, on the other hand, it is not true that to immerse is the true, literal transla- tion of the word baptizo. There are but two words in our language that express the literal meaning of bapti- zo — viz: Baptize and Wash. And the word baptizo is translated, in every instance in the ^Ycz« Testament, by one of these zvords, and never, in a solitary instance, by the Latin word immerse. Is it reasonable that the transla- tors of the Bible would have been so very careful as never, in one instance, to have given baptizo its true 84' meanings if it always signifies to immerse? Can any man in his senses believe, that 47 of the most learned men in England, would have rendered the Greek verb haptizo^ by the word baptize or wash, in every instance in the Bible, (one hundred times,) and never have given it its true signification one time, and yet knew it to be a word signifying "to dip, never express- ing any thing but mode ?" Credat Judceiis, non ego. But Mr. Campbell and others say — "King Jam.es would not let them translate it." But still they say im- mrrsion was in the church till after his day. To show how false this assertion is, I will give you King James' own instructions to these translators, and you may judge for yourself. — In Neal's History of the Puritans, vol. 1, page 453, we read as follows: "King James appointed anew translation of the Bi- ble, to be executed by the most learned men of botli Universities under the following regulations: 1. That they keep as close as possible to the Bish- ops' Bible. 2. That the names of the holy writers be retained according to vulgar use* 3. That the old ecclesiastical words be kept; as CHURCH, not to translate congregation, &c. 4. That when a word has divers signijications^ that be kept which has been most commonly used by the Fa- thers!! 5. That the division of chapters be not altered. 6. No marginal notes, but for the explication of Greek or Hebrew words. 7. Marginal references may be set down. The other regulations relate to the translators com^ 85 paring notes, and agreeing among themseives. They were to consult the modern translations of the Frencli, Dutch, German, &:c.;as Tyndall, Matthew, Coverdale, Whitchurch, and Geneva. The commission is dated 1604; the work was not begun till 1006, and finished and printed in 1611, after being revised by Bishop Bilson and Dr. Miles Smith, who wrote the preface." These are the rules of King James, and the fourth ■one, if any, applies to the use of words like haptizo. Now will our opponents admit that these m,en followed the Fathers stnctli/, in always translating haptizo to WASH or to BAPTIZE? If they obeyed King James, they certainly did so. But mark, again; these translators (who were so ser- vile as to obey all King James said, say our opponents.) have given us the words, to wash and to baptize, as the true rendering of baptizo in all the modern versions they consulted, as Tyndal's Bible, Coverdale, Matthew, Whitchurch, Geneva, &c. The English version of the Bible is perhaps the best translation ever made in any language, and doubtless the best that ever will be made into the English lan- guage. And no one need fear being led astray, who will humbly follow our plain English Biblco "No man having drunk old wine straightway desireth new, for he saith the old is better." All the attempts at new translations into our language have proven worse than failures. Wesley^s Bible is scarcely known now. Campbell's Testament never would have been, but for its crudities and false title-page. The smooth, chaste and flowing version of Rodolphus Dickenson, the Epis- copal South Carolinian, has met with the same fate 86 tliat awaits the forth-coming new Baptist version, un- der the auspices of the Foreign Baptist Bible Society^ [This version shall be fully noticed in No. 25 of these Letters.] We are contented with our own English Bible: it is Presbyterian enough for us to take as 'the only infalli- ble rule of faith and practice.' With this in our hand., we join issue with our opponents who say 'baptizo^ is a word of MODE — never meaning any thing but to dip! We deny both positions. We say it is not a word of mode, nor does it ever signify to dip or immerse in the Bible. That it does signify to immerse in classical authors, we admit; but that it always does — even in the classics — we deny, and will show in due time. Tlie word baptizo also means to sprinkle, in the classics^ but not in the Bible; and I should be as dishonest in saying it was rendered to sprinkle, in the Bible, as you would to say it was ever rendered to immerse. 1. Baptizo is not a word of mode. And this is one reason why it is never rendered in the Bible to im- merse, which is a word of mode. 'To wash' is not a T^ ord of mode — therefore we use some other word to express the manner or mode of washing: see an in- stance, Hebrews 9: 10 — 'Divers washings and carnal ordinances;' then verse 19 — 'He took water, and sprin- kled all the people.' The word baptizo is rendered in the 10th verse 'to wash' — the manner or mode of wash- ing is expressed in the 19th verse by another word, rantizo to sprinkle. This is the true way throughout the Bible. 2. Baptizo — say our opponents — is a word of 77iode, and therefore it is a wrong translation; and for that 87 reason they are so anxious for a new Bible to substi- tute the word immerse. But notice; they admit that our AYord baptize is formed from the Greek baptizo^ and yet say baptize is not a word of mode. What! does putting a Greek word into English change it from be- ing a word of .mode, so as to make it not a word of MODE? How is this? Then of course they must admi: that bapiizo is not a word of mode; for baptizo is angia- cised baptize: but baptize is not a word of 3iode; there- fore baptizo is not a word of mode. Then would it not have been a gross imposition, and corruption of the language of the Bible, for our translators to have ren- dered baptizo by the word immerse ? And is it any less criminal in men now to do so? 3. To purify is not a word of mode: tho manner of purifying is always laid down in the Bible. Thus, John 3: 25 — ''There arose a question between John's disci- ples and the Jews about purifying;" i. e. about bapti- zing, evidently ; and they came to John to settle it. All will admit this question was about baptism. Now turn to Numbers 8: 7 — ^'•And thus thou shalt do unto the Levites, to cleanse or purify them — sprin- kle zvater of purifying upon them.'"' The manner of purifying is here expressed by the words 'sprinkle wa- ter upon them.' What then is the sense, but this — to purify or set apart the priest — as Christ was by John — is the general idea expressed by the word to purify, the mode or manner is expressed by the words 'sprin- kle water of purification upon him.' Now, notice; by these three words — to Wash, to Baptize, to Purify, the word baptizo is expressed in our Bible, and never by any word signifying mode. — 88 When you find the word dip in the New Testament, remember it is bapio, and not baptizo. Mr. Carson, the Baptist, says: "That bapto is never appHed to the ordinance of baptism, any one can veri- fy who is able to look into the passages of the Greek Testament, where the ordinance is spoken of. Bapto is never used to denote the ordinance of baptism,'''' 80, whenever you come across the word dip in our Bible, remember it is bapto^ but not the word applied to bap- tism — that is another word altogether. Keep this in view, and you cannot be imposed on. Perhaps there is one exception, II. Kings, 5: 10. Then to say that baptizo is a word of mode, is to beg the question at issue. No person has ever proven it to be so. We deny it, and if what we say does not disprove it, let those who assert it, on whom the bur- den of proof lies, make it good. Immersionists often say, there is a word that mean? to sprinkle^ (rantizo ;) why not use that, if the Apostles really meant sprinkling? So we say, there is a word that always means to dip down, to dip deep, and that is its only meaning; if baptism meant im3iersion, why did not they use katabapto ? compounded of kata^ down, and bopto^ to dip. Mr. Carson the Baptist, p. 71, says of this word, "it signifies literally to dip down, i. e. to DIP DEEP or THOROUGHLY. Tlic prepositiou is design- ed to increase the action of the verb.*' This is the word for immersion, then, of course. But this word never occurs in the Bible in reference to baptism; if it did, it would be decisive. There is another word that always means to dip — embapto. Why is not this used in the Bible in reference to baptism? We answer, 1S9 Ijecause baptizo was the most appropriate, and peculiar word in the Greek language to express the whole idea of baptism, and therefore God chose it for that pur- pose. Just so, BAPTIZE is the most appropriate and peculiar word,- in our language, to express the same idea, and we can no more exchange it for dip and I3i- MERSE, than tlie Greeks could baptizo for katabapto^ and embapto. If we drop the word baptize, we must seek another name for one of God's ordinances, and destroy the most happj, and appropriate, and expressive word in our language — one which has been sanctified by use for hundreds of years, is familiar to all, and incorpora- ted into all our literature, and millions of volumes. All for what? Why, we must give up a Greek generic word for a Latin specific term. Suppose some Bota- nist should take it into his head to destroy or put out of use our word tree, v/hich is a generic term, and substitute oak or walnut, a specific term, in its stead. INIight not the simplest child ask — "Is not ash, or hick- ory, a tree as well as oak or walnut?'' So of baptizo and baptize; they never can be given up for either sprinkle, dip or immerse. The new version will •not take: men say the old is better. The English lit- erature has received stamp and tinge from the English Bible. It is therefore stereotyped. We have proved that neither the word wash, bap- tize, nor purify, are words of mode, and that by these baptizo is rendered in our Bible. To illustrate the case, let us examine the words used in the Supper. Are the words, eat, and drink, words of mode? Do we ever think of ascertaining the mode of taking the Sup- per from these words? Now, Christ uses these two 90 words, as he did the word baptizoj and a man may as^ well say that pino signifies the mode of drinking, and csfhio the mode of eating, as to say baptizo expresses the mode of baptism. But as no one can ascertain, from these simple words, the mode of eating or of drink- ing at the Supper, so no one can the mode of baptism from, the word, baptizo. Another woid is always used to express the mode of taking the Supper, viz: — ''Ana- pipto^ Ho recline at table.' Thus Christ came in and 'an-apcsen^ sat down to supper. The word to eat ex- presses the act, the word anapesen the manner — reclin- ing at the table; so baptizo^ the act of washing, purify- ing, baptizing; and rantizo^ the mode, by sprinkling. This position has never been overthrown, and from the Bible it never can be. To run off to all heathen au- thors, and bring up a thousand cases out of the clas- sics to show that baptizo does mean to dip, and that Christ did not know how to use words, is not to the point. We wish to know how the word is used in the New Testament, and that is sufficient for us. But we shall get to the classics in due time, and find that they prove all we say. LETTER XIL THE NEW TESTAJMENT EXPLAINS ALL THE OLD TESTAMENT POURING AND SPRINKLING TO BE BAPTISM, AND THUS SETTLES THE CASE; BAPTO NO- TICED ITS ORIGIN. The second point we wish to note is, that the mean- ing of Baptizo is explained in the New Testament, most conclusively, hy a reference to the Old. That is, whenever the word baptizo is used in the New Testa- ment, and any thing is said with reference to it in the Old, it is always explained by the word pouring or sprink- ling. This argument I think conclusive, and it settles fully, to my mind, that the Bible does reveal the mode of baptism to be pouring or sprinkling. 1. Begin with Christ's Commission. Mat. 28: 19— 'Go, baptize all nations;' Is. 5*2: 15, in the place the Eunuch was reading, 'so shall he sprinkle many na- tions.' That isj Isaiah's 'many Jiations'' are Christ's 'all 7iai ions' — Isaiah's 'sprinkling' is Christ's 'baptizing.* But it is still plainer in Ezekiel 36: 25 — "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean; a new heart will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you." This shows what shall take place under Christ; what did take place while the Apostles lived; and, more particularly, when the Jews shall be con- verted and brought into the church, they shall be bap- tized, here called, 'sprinkled with clean water.' Now these two prophecies have some meaning, and to what do they refer, if not to baptism? Have they been ful- filled, or are they not now daily fulfilUng as the nations 92 are "being 'sprinkled with clean water?' Christ's com- mission was to fulfil these prophecies, and where he uses the word baptize they use the word sprinkle. This shows not only the mode of applying, hut the quality of the water — 'clean water.' The quantity of water is never named in Scripture, hut the quality is. 2. Another case is Acts 1 : 5 — "For John truly bap- tized with water, but ye shall he baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." Now turn over t)ne page. Acts 2: 17, from Joel 2: 28 — "And it shali come to pass in the last days, (saith God,) I will pour ■out of my sjiirit upon all flesh." Thus, in the fifth \erse of the first chapter, he says ye shall be baptized, and behold, Peter, in the seventeenth verse of the sec- ond chapter, calls that same baptism, 'pouring out.* Now, let any person show, in the Bible, one verse that calls baptism, immersion, or dipping, or plunging, and I will then admit that mode to be Scriptural, but not sooner. 3. A third case is I Cor. 10: 2 — "Our fathers were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud, and in the sea." While Psalm 77: 17, says of it — "The clouds poured out the water." Thus, what David called pouring out water upon Israel, Paul calls baptism. Did Paul mis- understand David? If not, then, Paul calls baptism, POURING, or vice versa. 4. A fourth instance is refered to in John 3: 25. — A dispute arose between the Jews and John's disciples about purifying, and they came to John, and said of Christ, '^he baptizeth, and all men come unto him." Now, in Numbers 8: 7, it is explained "sprinkle water .of purifying upon them." And in Num. 19: 20 — "The water of purification hath not been sprinkled upon him:, he is unclean." Thus, what the Old Testament calls^ sprinkling water of purifying on them, the New calls BAPTISM. Can such language he misunderstood? 5. A fifth case is also mentioned in Heb. 9: 10, 19, as compared with Ex. 24: 6, where in the 10th verse Paul used the word baptizo rendered '^wash,' and in the 19th calls it 'sprinkle.' Thus, what Moses did, when Israel entered into covenant with God, called in Exodus SPRINKLING, Paul calls BAPTISM. Thcsc are sufiicient to show how the word is explained in the two. Testaments. The pouring or sprinkhng of the Old Testament is explained bj the New Testament wiiters to be baptism. But neither the Old or New Testa- ment ever so speak of immersion as baptism. Now, did the New Testament writers understand the Old, and did the J use baptizo so improperly as to deceive us? Unless they did, then, sprinkle or pour is its Sciiptu- ral mea,ning, as far as mode is concerned; i. e. baptizo means to wash, or to baptize or consecrate. The man- ner is always explained to be sprinkling, or pouring, and never by immersion. Third general point: The etymology of the word is what our friends contend for; but we contend that even that is against them, and in our favour. BaptizO' is derived from betpto which is the strong original word to signify immersion. We shall now attempt to show that even bapto itself does not always signify to immerse; and then that bap- tizo, being both a derivative and diimnutive of bapto,^ cannot always, if ever, signify to immerse. Scapula renders bapto to dye, to wash. 94 Coulon, to immerse, to dye, to cleanse by washing. Notice; this word, hapto^ is never used for the ordin- ance of baptism in the Bible; but a word signifying less, viz: haptizo, Ursinus renders it to wash, to sprinkle. Keekerman, to sprinkle — aspcrgo. The learned Baptists, who wrote letters to Bishop Hoadly, say ''bapto signifies to sprinkle.' Daniel, 5: 21, says of the King, 'His body was wet (cbapha) with the dew of heaven.' Does dew distil or sprinkle on, or is it likely he was immersed in it? Homer, in his battle of the frogs and mice, says: He fell and breathed no more, And the lake (ebaptcto) was tinged v/ith purple blood. Could this whole lake have been taken up and dipped in the blood of one frog's leg? Mr. Carson says, "What a monstrous paradox in rhetoric is this figure of the dipping of a lake in the blood of a frog! Never was there such a figure. Yet, Dr. Gale supposes the lake dipped.''^ I think with Mr. Carson. Is it much better to say, dip a man 7Dith Jordan ? — Or dip^ or baptize Jor- dan ii'ith a man? Then bapto here means to tinge, dye, pjid not to immerse. And so in thousands of cases. Now note; this is the strong old primitive word for dip. Let all candid men yield this point, or say the lake was taken up and dipped in the blood of one leg of a wound- ed frog. Is not the idea superlatively ridiculous ? But not more so, than to say that immersion alone is baptism. Hypocrates uses bapto to denote the dropping of tlic hcpiid on the thing dyed : — "When it drops upon the garments they are (baptctoi) baptized." This again is sprinkling! 95 Aerian says, 'Nearchus relates that the Indians {hap- ten) baptize their beards.' But do men immerse, or apply water to their beards in shaving. Alian says of an old coxcomb, 'He endeavoured to conceal the hoariness of his head by (hapha) baptizing it.' Did he dip his head, or apply the coloring Hquid to it? Six authors so use hapio, Aristophanes says, "Magnes shaved his foce, smear- ing it (baptomanos) with tawny washes." Aristotle speaks of a substance 'being pressed {hap- fci) staineth the hand.' Could the hand be immersed by the pressing of the substance inside of it? Walker: "He indeed (baptei) baptizeth the bottle., but it never goetk under the liquid icater,'"' Then it could not have been immersed. Rev. 19: 13, Christ is said to be 'clothed with a gar« ment (bebamenon) dipped in blood,' while Isaiah, 63: 3, explains it — 'Their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment.' Here, then, bapto means to sprinkle, without doubt. Thus, we have given fourteen cases, showing that even bap- to itself signifies to stain, wash, sprinkle, ifec, and we might cite as many more, if needed. Now, all say that baptize is derived from bapio. Then, if baptize is derived from bapto, and if bapto does not always signify to immerse, but often to sprinkle, of course baptizo does not always mean to immerse, if it ever does, in Scripture. This conclusion no reasona- ble man can question. But note: baptize is a diminutive from bapto; i. e. it means less, or less strongly implies immersion. Drs. Scott, Doddridge, Reed, Worcester, Mr. Busk^ and 96 multitudes of other learned men say, '•haptizo is a dimin- utive from bapto and means less.' Then this argument is two-fold, or 'is a double argument.' 1. Bapto often means to sprinkle as well as to im* merse: but haptizo is derived from bapto; therefore bap- tizo often means to sprinkle. 2. Bapto does not always mean to immerse, but often to sprinkle, yet its diminutive baptizo means still less often to immerse, and therefore baptizo implies SPRI^K- LiNG more conclusively than bapto^ so that the argu- ment from the word baptizo is decidedly in favour of sprinkling* LETTER XIII. ETYMOLOGY OF BAPTIZO, AND USE OF THE WORD IN THE BIBLE AND CLASSIGSV Having shown from the etymology of baptizo that it does not mean to immerse, in the Bible, but to wash or SPRINKLE, we shall now examine how the word is used in Scripture, and after that take up each pas- sage of the Bible that refers to baptism in order, be- ginning with the third of Matthew and ending with Revelation. Dr. Dwight says, 'I have examined almost one hun- dred instances, in which the word baptizo and its de-^ rivatives are used in the New Testament, and four in- the Septuagint; these, sO' far as I have observed, being all the instances contained in both. By this examina- tion it is my apprehension that the following is true: — That the meaning of these terms is cleansing, the ef- fect, not the MODE of washing; — that the mode is usu- ally refered to incidentally, wherever these words are mentioned, and that this is always the case, whenever the ordinance of baptism is mentioned^ and' a reference Ts made at the same time to the mode of administration.' — Vol. 4, p. 345i Few are so capable of making such investigations as Dr. Dwight, and his conclusion is most weighty. Dr. John H. Rice says^ of baptize and baptism, "These words occur 90 times in the New Testament; of these, sixty-five are wholly undetermined ; sixteen fa- vor the mode by SPRINKLING or affusion; two or three of these make it morally certain that the ordinance 98 was administered by sprinkling; and of the remaining nine passages, not one of them, nor all of them to- gether, prove that baptism was administered by im- mersion." — See Pamphleteer. Who can question the truth of such an author? We do not pretend to be able to add to what such men as Dwight and Rice have said — but still we shall notice every passage in the Bible, that has any bearing on the meaning and use of the word baptizo, for the satisfaction of our readers in general. The first instance we notice of baptizo in the Sep- tuagint is II Kings 5: 10, 14 — Elisha says to Naaman, 4go WASH {loused) in or at Jordan.' 'Then he went and baptized (ebaptisato) himself seven times in or at Jor- dan, according to the saying of the man of God.' Now, notice; the prophet told him to go and wash — he went, and baptized himself, so that here baptism is called A WASHING. And what is most remarkable, bap- tizo is used as synonymous with louo, to wash. And Mr. A. Campbell, in Mark 7: 4, in his version, uses these words: — "They eat not until they have washed their hands by pouring a little water on them." Then Elisha said, go {lousdi) wash — "he went and {ebaptisato) baptized himself, according to the saying of the man of God." Then of courSe he understood the man of God to mean by washingj, baptism. This only confirms our first definition, that baptizo was not a word of MODE, any more than wash, in English, is a word of mode. But to show the whole truth about the leper, turn to Levit. 14: 7, 8: — "And he (the priest) shall sprinkle upon him, that is to be cleansed from his leprosy, seven times: And he that is to be cleansed shall wash himself in water, that he may be clean." This is the full case, and to this EUsha refered, and so Naaman acted. So, this make? the case as plain as language can make it, viz: — That BAPTizo signifies to wash, and the mode implied is by sprinkling water upon the unclean leper. In Isaiah, 21 : 4, it occurs thus: — "My heart panteth: fearfulness {baptizei) baptizeth or afFrighteth me." Here the word is figurative, and is not definite; but, so far ns it goes, it is neither a word of mode, nor does it mean to ii\imerse, but rather the effect of fear is meant. vSo our opponents must at least give up this one. The Hebrev,^ word, translated by it here, means to startle, to affright. I do not find haptizo used again in the Septuagint, but bapAo is. Gale finds haptizo twenty-five times, but all happen to be bapto^ save one single case. And so it is with many; they mistake the one for the other, and thus violate the order of God. When they refer to authors or classics, how often is this the case! Let us now turn to the New Testament. In Matthew 3: II — "He shall baptize you with tlie Holy Ghost, and with fire." Could men be immersed in the spirit, and in fire ? But the meaning of the word here is settled by the fulfilment of the promise at Pen- tecost, Acts 2: 17 — 'I will pour out my Spirit.' Mnd there appeared cloven tongues as fire, and sal upon each of them.' Thus, this 'sheding forth," 'pouring out" of the spirit, is baptism. In Mark T: 3 — "For the Pharisees and all tlie Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not. And wlien they come from the market, except they wash, tlicy eat not. And many other things there be, which they 100 have received to hold, as washing of pots, brazen ves^ selsy and of tables or beds.'^ The word baptizo occurs twice in this fourth verse, aad is rendered wash both times — and is used as synonymous with (nipsontai,) to wash, in the third verse^ The Jews poured water on their hands to wash, says Mr. Campbell^ and a greater than he says, II Kings 3: II — 'Elisha, son of Shaphat.. poured water u^pon the hands of Elijah.' Thus, we find baptizo again does not mean to immerse — ^but to WASH by pmrmg.. tn Luke 1 1 : 38 — ^"He marvelled that he had not washed (ebaptistha^ baptized) before dinner."^ This is also the Latin. So in Hebrews 9: 10 — "Which stood in meats arwi drinks, and divers washings {diaphorois haptismois.) So, in Eplu 5: 26, baptism is called Hhc washing of water.^ In Tit. 3 : 5 — Hhe washing of re- generation.' Heb. 10: 22- — 'Having our hearts sprin- kled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.' Thus, in every part of the New Testament baptism is called a washing, and whenever the MODE is hinted at or mentioned, it is by sprinkling or pouring. No- man need deny this. Hence Br. Wall says, "The word, baptizo^ in Scrip- ture signifies to wash in general, without determining the sense to this or that sort of washing. The sense of a Scripture word is not to be taken from the use of it in secular authors,, but from the use of it in the Scrip- tures." So that I care nothing about how many secu- lar authors men bring up for immersion; I want the use of it in Scripture to determine its true senses. Dr. Jolm P. Campbell says, p^ 12 — "Christian Bap- tism is a washing with water in the name of the Path- 101 such a rite,, as that, either by the intinction of sprink- ling of water, they should receive baptism. Lyndwood, in 1322, speaks of some who dipped ihr fents,. and says — "But this (immersion) is not to be ae? 113 counted to be of the essence of baptism; but it may be given by pouring or sprinkling, especially, if the cus- tom of the church allows it." Danaus says — "At this day, they who are to be bap- tized are mostly sprinkled with water, and not dipped into it." The Synod of Aix says — "The pouiingof the water in baptism be not done with the hand, but with a la- dle or vessel kept in the font for that purpose." Zanchy says, Lib. 1 — "The three thousand (at Pen- tecost) w^cre baptized in no other way, than (aspersionc aqua) by sprinkling of water." So say Bonaventura, Lyndwood, Nicholas and Cha- mier. Peter Lombard says — "Baptism signifies intinction, i. e. a washing of the body with a prescribed form of words." Lyndwood: — "Dipping is not to be accounted to be of the essence of baptism, but it may be rightly given by sprinkling or pouring." Hemengius: — "As often as we see infants sprinkled with the water of baptism, we are reminded of their secret regeneration." Beza: — ^"They are rightly baptized, who are bap- tized by sprinkling." Dominions Sotus: — "In baptism, theie is something essential, as the washing; and something accidental, namely, the washing in this or that manner." Lightfoot: — "The application of water is of the es- sence of baptism; but the application, in this or that manner, speaks but a circumstance." Featly: — "Christ no where reqidretk dippings but only 9 114 baptizing, which word, Hesychius, Stephanus, Scapula and Buddeus, those great masters of the Greek tongue, make good by very many instances out of the classic writers, importeth no more than ablution or washing.*' Pond, page 27. Dr. Owen : — "Baptism is any kind of washings wheth- er by dipping or sprinkling" — But not as Mr. Camp- bell falsely quotes it. Luther, the great Reformer, says: — "Administeiing liaptism, by s^prinkling water upon the subject in connex- ion with the words prescribed by God." And '^sprink- ling it (the child) with water, according to the com- mand of Christ." "Inasmuch as there is neither orna- ment nor honor at baptism, and God does outwardly no more than apply a handful of water,'''' Hall says, p. 73 — "The Germans, and all Lutherans who use his translation, baptize by sprinklings as Luther practiced, and as Luther taught them." When a German min- ister takes water in his hand, and sprinkles or pours it on the person baptized, saying, "/c/i Taufe Dick,''' does he mean I immerse you? Do the people understand him so ? Most certainly not. When Luther took water in his hand, and poured or sprinkled it on the head of a person, saying, "/cA Taufe Dich^'' he said and meant, "/ baptize you^ Weber's German and EngHsh Dictionary says of this word — "Taufe,''^ ''bnptisms''ychrisieni)ig f ^'Taufcn^'^ "to baptize," "to christen." Then, when we find the word for immerse^ it is as different as our word sprinkle is from immerse: — read it. ^^Eintauchcn^'' ^hintcrtauchen^' ^'vertiefen,''' "To immerse." Then, im- mersion is called "untertauchioig^''' ''versunkung."' \et you will hear immersionists contend, that Taufcr and 115 Taufen mean to immerse, when the words are never so used. Burckhardt, in his German and English Lexi- con, gives the same significations as above. How can honest men attempt thus to deceive, by contending that Luther's version renders the word to immerse, when he uses "Tmifen,'''' to baptize, to zvash? As well might they contend that the Presbyterians of Geneva, or the Lutherans of the present time, immerse. Immersion is as unknown in the German version as it is in the English. The same is true of the Dutch, Danish, and Swedish versions. Yet you will hear many refering to these very versions for immersion. The ^'Peshito-syriac'^ version, made, says a learned Baptist, ••by the last of the first century," and which immer- sionists think so much of as favoring their mode, uses a word radically the same with the German Taufen, and the English word baptize. This Bible is the present Xcs- iorians^ who consider sprinkling a valid baptism. But this very old and venerable Syriac Bible will forever silence all opposers of Infant Baptism, for it says: ^•When she [Lydia] was baptized with her children,'^ <^t. It will not do any more to say "Lydia was a maiden lady;" it is useless to say "Infant Baptism was never heard of till the third century"' — your own good old Syriac version of the first century tells you that you are wrong, friends. What will you do? Will you ac- knowledge it, and have your children baptized? — and that by sprinkhng? Never say Syriac version again, unless you will. But the good old ''Coptic version gives the same reading," says Kurtz, p. 99. It is a danger- ous thing for Anti-p^edobaptists to refer to old versions, or the oldest of the Fathers. Yet nothino;is more com- riiou with many who go by hear-say. Then, the Syri- ac and Coptic versions make household "baptism and In- fant Baptism one and the same thing, and agree fully with our Bible in favor of sprinkling, Calvin : — "Then the minister of baptism pours water upon the infant, saying — 'I baptize thee in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.' " Again, in his In- stitutes, he says: — "But whether the person who is baptized be wholly immersed, and whether thrice or once, or whether wa- ter be only poured or sprinkled on him, is of no impor- tance; churches ought to be left at liberty to act, in this respect, according to the difference of countries. The very word baptize, however, signifies to immerse (as well as to sprinkle,) and it is certain that immer- sion was the practice of the ancient church," after the second century. — Lib. 4., ch. 15, sec. 19. Yet you will hear some would-be wise people say, that "Calvin invented sprinkling first, and from him it spread into England in the days of Elizabeth," and yet these very people will quote Calvin in favor of immersion : First quote him to prove immersion, and then say he invent- ed sprinkling! What beautiful consistency!! Walker; — '^ Baptism by pouring or sprinkling is true and lawful baptism^ and all ages of the chitrch have been of that opinion. ^^ Dr, Wall: — "The word baptizo^ in Scripture, signi- fies to WASH in generaly without determining the sense to this or that sort of washing.'' "On extraordinary occasions, baptism, by sprinkling water on the face, was by the ancients accounted sufficient baptism — of this, there are many proofs." Yet Wall was for immersion. 117 Robinson, the great Baptist author, says: — '^Before the Reformation, sprinkling was held valid baptism, in cases of necessity." — Page 116. The Author of Letters to Arch-Bishop Hoadly, a great Baptist, says: — "i^or thirteen hundred years suc- cessively, after the Apostles, sprinkling was permitted, oti extraordinary occasions,''^ Among the English exiles, in Queen Mary^s reign, the Book of Forms says: — "The minister shall take wa- ter in his hand, and lay it on the child's forehead, and say, 'I baptize thee, in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit.'" Mre Carson, the celebrated Baptist writer, attempts to show that baptize signifies to dip, but says, p. 79 — ^JVow, I have all the Lexicographers and Commentators against me, in this opinion.^^ Yet Mr» Campbell says — ^'Go to the Lexicons,''' Mr. Gale, the English Baptist, who attempts to re- ply to Dr. Wall, says — "The word baptizo does not al- ways, necessaiily, signify or imply, a total immersion, or dipping the whole thing, spoken of, all over, which I read- ily allow.^^ — 'Gale, page 147. Again: — What is said of any one part is true of the whole, complexly; though not of every part of the zvholr, separately. Thus, I dip or baptize the pen, meaning only the nib of it, though the whole pen is not dipped all over." This flatly contradicts Mr. Carson, the oth- er Baptist champion, who sa-js— ''Baptizo ahvays signi- fies to dip or immerse, never expressing any thing but 7node.^^ But if, when any part is dipped, it is as good as the WHOLE, then when water is put on the fore- head, and it is covered, it is bappized, says Gale. If ii8 this is all he means by immersion, I shall not dispute Ills MODE. And if this rule is true, that 'what is said of a part^ is true of the zchole,'' then when we baptize a part of the person, the forehead, we baptize the whole PERSON ; and this is just the truth, which we have al- ways tried to get our Baptist brethren to see and ad- mit, and as Mr. Gale, their greatest man, has fully adopted it, we hope they will follow him, and contro- versy here will end. Here we shall add a testimony, as to John's mode of baptism. Aurelius Prudentius, who wrote 290 years after the Apostles, represents John as 'baptizing by pouring' — 'Pefimdit fiivioJ^ Paulinus, Bishop of Nola, a little later, says of John — ''He washes away the sins of believers, by the pour- ing of water." Bernard says — "John baptized the Lord after this manner; infundit aquam capiti Creatoris creaturaJ^- — ^^'alker, ch. 10. Lightfoot says — "As it is beyond a doubt, that John took those, whom he intended to baptize, into the riv- er; so it is scarcely less certain, that he there sprinkled them with water." Numerous ancient paintings represent John as bap- tizing Christ, by pouring or sprinkling, as all admit. It is needless to add more to this long catalogue of authors who declare sprinkling or pouring to be true baptism, and all of whom declare the meaning of the word to be to wash. Not one of them make immersion essential to baptism, unless they are the few Baptist authors last named^ 119 We have thus given a Ust of the oldest of the clas- sics; the writers of the Old and New Testaments; the Apocrypha; a regular list of the Fathers, from the Apos- tles down till after the Reformation, even to our own day. We shall conclude this letter with a word on Psedo- baptist concessions. Nothing is more common than to hear the advocates for imm.ersion quote a list of Psedo- baptist authors, to prove that the word baplizo means to immerse. But what does that prove? Why, only that Pagdobaptists are too learned and honest men to deny what is true in the classics; but it is very seldom we find ingenuousness enough in immersiomsts to con- cede what is equally true, and declared so by these same men in theory and practice, viz — that baptizo signifies, also, to SPRINKLE. How shall we account for this want of liberality, for we cannot call it dishonesty? I will venture this assertion, that if Pagdobaptists were all quoted fairly and fully, there is not a distinguished man among them who would not say, that to wash was the true idea conveyed in Scripture by the word baptizo. And again, I will venture there is not a man of note among Paedobaptists, who admits immersion to be valid baptism, because of the mode^ simply. To say we silently admit it, is true, but not because of the MODE, as we shall show in due time. LETTER XVI. E\CH PASSAGE ON BAPTISJI IN THE NEW TESTAMENT TAKE^N Ur IN ORDER. We shall now take up each case of baptism men- tioned in the New Testament, in order. So take your Bibles, and see for yourselves. As Dr. Lathrop says — "The practice of the ancients proves all we contend for; we say, that immersion is not necessary, but that affusion is sufficient." Or as Glass says — "Immersion cannot be called bap- tism, any other wise than as it is a mode of washing with water." We shall now show as conclusively from Scripture, as we have from History, that to wash, by pouring or sprinkling, is the true baptism. The third of Matthew is the old song. Come read it once again — "And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins." — Verse 6. "And Jesus came up straightw^ay out of the water," &c. — "^^erse 16. This is all that is said about baptism, in this chapter. Where is the proof for immersion? Why, in the two httle words Hnto^ and 'out of.^ But suppose w^e let John ex- plain these words; he speaks of Christ's baptism, and these same things, chapter 1 : 28, saying — "These things were done in Bdhahara beyond Jordan^ zchcre John was haptizing,''^ Thus, he says, John baptized beyond, or on the other side of Jordan, in or at the town of Betha- bara. And in chapter 10, verse 40, he says of Christ ■ — "And he ^vent away again, beyond Jordan, into the place where John at first baptized, and there he abode." Then John baptized in a place beyond^ or on the other side of Jordan, but not in the river, as some say. Does John contradict Matthew? By no means; but he explains the matter more fully. We can reconcile them; but those who contend for immersion cannot, for the life of them. Just let John's words stand as they are, and render Matthew's as they should be, ^at Jordan^'' and 'from the water,' and the case is plain enough. But you cannot alter John's words — tbey are not susceptible of it. Again: Christ was baptized, '/o fiilfil all righteous- ness^'' or the law requiring it. Mr. Campbell, in his new version, renders it, 'ratify every iiistitution,'' What institution w^as Christ's baptism to fulfil? Then Christ was not baptized for the same end that we are, but to make good what the law required. But what did the law require? Turn to Numbers 7: 8 — "And thus thou shalt do unto them, to cleanse them; sprinkle water of purifying upon them." Thus Christ demanded of John baptism to fulfil this righteousness of the law, called Sprinkling water of purification,' or baptism. Then suppose they went into the Jordan, and came up out of it, John did not fulfil 'the righteousness' required by the law, unless he sprinkled the water of baptism upon him. This is believed by many of the most learned men to ha,ve been the true way in which John did baptize, as we showed in the last letter. Dr. I/ightfoot says, on Luke 3: 16 — "As it is beyond a doubt, that John took those whom he baptized into the river; so it is scarcely less certain, that he there sprinkled them with water,'^ So Aurelius: — '*Perfundit fuvio,' 'he poured water on them in the river, '^ 122 The followers of St. John the Baptist, who live in Mesopotamia, as mentioned bj Mr. Wolfe, the Mission- ary, volume 2, page 311, so practice now. Mr. Wolfe asked about their mode of baptism, and was answered — '•The Priests or Bishops baptize children thirty days old. They take the child to the banks of the river: a relative or friend holds the child near the surface of the water, while the Priest sprinkles the clement upon the child, and with prayers they name the child." Mr. Wolfe asked — "Why do they baptize in rivers?*' An- swer — "Because St. John the Baptist baptized or sprin- kled in the river Jordan." This we showed in Letter X, to be the custom of the Greeks and Muscovites. Then, all that is said in the 3rd of Matthew, the 1st (^hapter of Mark, and other parts of the Gospels, about John's baptizing, is plainly in favour of the m.ode of sprinkling, and there is not one word nor hint about immersion in all the Gospels. Is it not weakness, in the extreme, to infer the mode of baptism from two preprositions, 'into^ and 'out of and they rendered con- trary to their general meaning? As a specimen, apo, rendered, in Matthew 3: 16, 'out of occurs 423 times in the Gospels and Acts, and is translated from, 335 times; of, 92 times; out of 42 times. So that, from is the true general meaning of the word. Verse 7; 'flee from the wrath to come,' not 'out of So Matthew 1 : 17 — "All the generations, from Abraham to David — from David unto Babylon — ^rom Babylon unto Christ." So Luke 4: 1 — "Jesus returned /rom Jordan." Mark \\\from and to are corresponding words to express mo- tion to and from a place, a time, a circumstance, and such like. So John baptized Christ by 'sprinkling 123 water of purifying upon him,' and he went up straight- way, {apo toil hudatos) 'from the zvater.^ In Mark 1, it says: 'John baptized in Jordan.' So Matthew 3: 6. Now, this word (en,) rendered in, is, in these same chap- ters, rendered 'with water,' and 'with the Holy Ghost.' Verse 11 — "I indeed baptize you zcith water; but he shall baptize you, (en) rcith the Holy Ghost." 8o it is translated zvith 42 times in the Bible, and at 56 times. So to make Matthew* agree with John, we say, 'were baptized at Jordan.' 'Why should men be baptized with the Holy Ghost, and with fire,' and then baptized iii water, when 'the spirit, the water and blood' agree in one mode of ap- plication ? It is not the case, because John says, 'I in- deed baptize you wdth water, but he shall baptize you with, (not in) the Holy Ghost, and with fire.' — ^Mat. 3: 11. Then, Acts 2: 17, it was by pouring; so that the word with is as strongly in favor of sprinkling, as in is of I3IMERSION. But WO uccd uot Spend time on these plain prepositions. Another passage claimed to prove immersion, is John 3: 23. — "And John also was baptizing in Enon, near to Salim, because there was (udata polla) much water there; and they came and were baptized. Then there arose a question, between some of John's disci- ples and the Jews, about purifying, or baptizing." If you could render these words, 'deep waters^ instead of 'many nvulets or streams,' it would look something like immersion. But what is Enon? A river, a lake, or a town ? Mr. Robinson, the Baptist author, says, "Salim was 50 miles north, up Jordan, from w^here John be- gan to baptize. Enon, near to it, was either a natural spring or artificial reservoir, or a cavernous temple of ihc sun, [or a town.] It is difficult to say what is the precise meaning of the word Enon, and it is not cer- tain whether the plain meaning be not, John was bap- tizhig at tlie Dover Springs, near Salim, or at the sun fountain, near Salim.' " Then Enon is not a liver, as many liave supposed; and, even Mr* Robinson can only conjecture that 'John baptized at the fountain.' He knows not where; then, of course, he did not dip. In II Chronicles, 33: 3, 4, the little brooks and fountains that could be stopped, are called 'much wa- ter;' why not then be 'many small rivulets?' But how- ever much water there may have been, there is noth- ing said of the mode; yet in the question, between John's disciples and the Jews, about purifying or bap- tism, that arose here at this time, w^e may get some light on it. The mode or meaning of purifying, we have shown, over and again in these Letters, to have been, Numbers 7: 8, 'sprinkling water of purifying on them.' This was, doubtless, the manner here also. — All that can be infercd from this can never prove im- mersion. Leaving out the commission of Christ, which we have shown was only commanding what Isaiah had foretold, 52: 15, 'so shall he sprinkle many nations;' Christ says: 'Go baptize all nations,' — thus calling Isa- iah's SPRINKLING 'baptizing,' and his 'many nations,' 'ALL NATIONS,' that should be baptized and converted^ the next case in order is that of the 3000 at Pentecost- That the Apostles were baptized at Pentecost by the •pouring out of the spirit' is declared in Acts 1: 5 com- pared with 2: 17, as above shown. And John, in Mat- 1:25 thew 3: 11, says that he baptized in the same manner, and so should all be, by the Holy Spirit. Thus: "I indeed baptize you with water; he shall baptize (in the same manner) with the Holy Ghost." x\nd when it comes, behold it is pouring. It was the opinion and belief of the ancients, that these 3000 were all baptized by sprinkling or pouring. — Zinchy, Lib. 1, says: — "The three thousand were baptized no other way than by the sprinkling of water." Lyndwood, Bonaventura, Nicholas, Chamier and many others, say the same," says Pond, page 40. On the same page, he also says, "On the whole I cannot doubt that the three thousand were baptized by the Apostles the same day they believed, and that the ordi- nance 7ms administered by pouring or sprinkling. In this opinion I am happy to concur with many eminent and learned writers." But all the circumstances render it impossible that they could have been immersed. Dr. Miller says: "At that season of the year there was no liver or brook in the immediate neighborhood of Jerusalem, that would admit of immersing a human being." The river Jordan was 25 miles off, the two little brooks, GiHON and Kedron, (if even they had a suffi- ciency of water, were wholly unsuitable for this pur- pose, from the blood and filth of the city at that time,) are the only streams near the city; and all the baths and pools were in the possession of the Jews, the chief priests and scribes, who would never permit "this sect of upstarts," as they called them, to pollute them by baptizing in them. Where, then, could all twelve Apostles, much less the 120 disciples, have found water 126 and room sufficient to immerse the 3000 in the morn- ing, and the 5000 more in the evening, converted when Peter and John preached at the beautiful gate and cured the lame man ? The immersion of these eight thousand, under such circumstances, would have been as great a miracle as Chnst's feeding the 5000 with two loaves. Do our opponents contend it was done by miracle ? If so, we yield. We hear nothing of changing clothes and going to the water. It is moreover physically impossible, even if all twelve Apostles had officiated, for them to have immersed 3000 persons in the five or six hours that re- mained after Peter's sermon. To immerse a single person will require five or six minutes, so to immerse 100 would require nine or ten hours. But did the Apostles stand in the water for nine or ten hours at once, immersing all the time? No man on earth could endure such exhausting labor so long. A writer who saw 47 dipped at once, saw the first minister dip 25, when he was so exhausted and fatigued that he had to give up to another to finish the 22. And each one, was not only fatigued, but they were more than five minutes dipping each person or going through all the operations. vSo of John's dipping all Hhe 500,000 per- sons' as the Baptists say. But if he dipped one a min- ute, he must have been in the water for 15 hours daily, for one year and a half. During his whole ministry what time could he have had to preach? Can immrr- siojiists beUeve this? Who can behcve it? LETTER XVII. APOSTOLIC BAPTISM IN THE ACTS, ALL BY SPRINKLING, AND ALL IN HOUSES, BUT ONE IN THE DESERT. The case of Philip and the Eunuch— Acts 8: 26, 40 — comes next in order. This has always been relied on as the strongest proof in the Bible in favor of im- mersion, but to me it is conclusive in favor of sprink- ling. Philip comes to a man passing a desert, reading Isaiah 53: 7; the man asks him to ride with him, *and Philip began at the same Scripture and preached unto him Christ.' Now turn to Isaiah, and you will find in the same paragraph the Eunuch was reading, these words refering to Christ — 'So shall he sprinkle many nations.' This is the only part or word that says any thing about baptism, and from this, doubtless, the Eu- nuch took the idea of being baptized. Now, says the Eunuch, if Christ is to 'sprinkle or baptize many- nations,' see, here is some water, what doth hinder me to be baptized; and Philip said, if thou believcst with all thy heart thou may est. And he said, I be- lieve Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he com- manded the chariot to stand still, and 'they went down, both Philip and the Eunuch, into the water, and he baptized or sprinkled him.' Where is the proof for immersion? Why, they went down from the chariot to the water, and he sprinkled him, and they came up from the water. Suppose, however, they went actually into the water — which I can't believe — still he bap- tized or sprinkled him, if he acted Scripturally, for the text said he should 'sprinkle' him. Then, the Scrip- 1^ ture which prophecied, that Christ should sprinkle, is here fulfilled by baptism. For is it reasonable, that Philip dissented from his text, which taught sprinkhng, and immersed the Eunuch ? It is certainly very unfortu- nate for those who immerse, that the Eunuch was reading this very Scripture which so fully settles the mode of BAPTISM to be SPRINKLING — othcrwisc it would seem quite probable from our English Bible, that the Eunuch was immersed. But it is now too plain that he was baptized by sprinkling, or the prophecy was not fulfill- ed. And here remark, that all the prophets prophecy of BAPTis3f, and call it sprinkling or pouring, invaria- bly. Ezekiel, 36: 25, records the same with Isaiah — '^Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and yo shall be clean. A new heart will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you." Now, says the Eu- nuch, if he is to give me a new heart and sprinkle me, here is water, why may I not be baptized. But 'into* and 'out of,' are the strong holds of those who say our English Bible needs improving; then let us examine the oriirinal. The word eis rendered 'into' here, is rendered 'a^,' in the Gospels and Acts, fifty-six times — /o, one hundred and eighty-eight times, and is transla- ted by seventeen different words. The word cis occurs teM times in the 8th chapter of Acts, and is not render- ed 'into' but in one case, and that is the 38th verse. Thus, verse 40 — 'Philip was found at Azotus.' This is the same word, why not say, 'Philip was found mta Azotus?' 'The other disciple did out-run Peter, and came first to the sepulchre, yet went he not m.' — John 20: 4, 5. Here it expressly says the word means to come TO, but not to go into. So Philip and the Eu- 129 nuch went to, but not into the water. Suppose it had been said, as it is above — 'they went down to the water, vet went they not into the v/ater' — would that prove the Eunuch was not immersed? If so, then it is all we ask; for this is the truth, and the words might have been so rendered. IMr. Campbell, in his new version* renders e?"s, in this same chapter, to and at nine times, and into only in this one verse. And so he renders it in most cases where baptism is not concerned. See the 1st chapter of Matthew. But here bear in mind, that when eis signitics into a place, it is generally repeat- ed or twice used; but when it signihes to or at a place, but once, and this is always the case when in connex- ion with the verb, crchomai, Ho go or enter;' so that, if Philip and the Eunuch had gone into the water, c/v would have been repeated, but it is not so in the origi- nal, for it occurs but once. To illustrate it, sec Mat- thew 7: 21 — "Not every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter into (cisdthe cis) the Kingdom of God.'' So Matthew 12: 4 — 'David (ciselthen cis) entered into the house of God.' So cis occurs twice instead of once, and so in the following instances, out of hundreds that might be cited: Matthew QSv, Mark 1: 21, 45 — 2: 1 —5: 12; Luke 1: 9—8: 30, 33—9: 34—10: 38—18: 17. This may be called a general rule, though it has exceptions. See the 9th chapter of Acts where the same thing twice occurs in the case of Paul's baptism: verse 17, Ananias "entered into the house," (eisalfhon eis tan oikian. And in verse 6 — '-Eiselthe eis tan polin — {go into the cityy) Here cis is twice used, and so would it be in 8: 38 if the Eunuch had gone into the water; but it is not so — he only went to it. Tliis, then, fuily 9 130 determines the matter, that Philip and the Eunuch did not go down into, but simply, 'down from the char- iot (eis) TO THE WATER, and he baptized or spri?ikled him^ and they came up (ck) prom the water.' Then this great argument for immersion really proves sprinkling. The baptism of Paul, Acts 9; 18, and 22: 16— "He received sight forthwith, and arose {anastas^ stood up) and was baptized." So, in the 22nd chapter and 16th verse, it says; 'Arise and be baptized.' Here anastas is rendered arise: but notice; it was all done in the house, and they did not leave it to go off to hunt wa- ter. To show you that the word does mean to arise^ or stand still in a place, refer to the following pas- sages: — "Jesus stood up for to read." — Luke 4: 16. — 'Peter took him up, saying, stand i/jo.' — Acts 10: 26. * Jesus took him by the hand, and lifted .him up, and he i-tood np.^ — Mark 9: 27. 'And there stood up one of them, Agabus, and signified.' — Acts 11 : 28. The same word is used in all these cases, and should be rendered 'standing up.' None of these men rose up to walk away, but stood up to speak, to act, as Paul 'in the house of Judas' (Acts 9: 18) stood up and was baptized, This is a most conclusive proof, that Paul was bap- tized, standing up in the house, and that water was ap- plied to him, not he to the water. But some ask, why need he get up to be sprinkled? could it not be done as he sat or lay down? To this we may reply by the question, could he have been immersed, standing up? Standing or kneeling was the true posture of the body in prayer, as well as all other worship among the Jews. So Paul arose either to stand or to kneel down, the 131 most humble position. And so we say to men in the <:hurch, arise, stand, or kneel down, and be baptized, for all who are so baptized follow the great Apostle of the Gentiles. Is it likely that Paul, who was baptized standing up in the house, would teach immersion as true baptism under the figure of burying, m Rom. 6th? In the 10th of Acts we have the Gospel church open- ed by Peter to the Gentiles, and Cornelius and all his household baptized in the house vrhere the Apostle preached to them. Peter preached, and the Holy Ghost fell on them. ^Then Peter answered, can any man forbid water, [to be brought] that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Gliost a? well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.' — Verse 47. That the water was brought, and this man and his all baptized in the house, where the spirit fell on them, is more natural and probable. It is the only natural construction of the language — nothing could be plainer, than that the icci- ter was brought into the house, and this first of all Geii- tiles baptized by applying it to him and his family, as it was to the Jews first on the day of Pentecost. — There is not, in this case, the least evidence, what- ever, in favor of immersion, but conclusive evidence against it. The case of Lydia, Acts 16: 15, is also fiiUy in favor of sprinkling, or of baptism performed in the house of prayer, where Paul preached. "A certain woman named Lydia, whose heart the Lord opened tliat she attended to the things which were spoken of Paul: — And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us,*' &c. This case of household baptism, 132 which is the same as infant baptism, has alwa} s been- greatly in the way of immemonists ; because it is most conclusively against their practice, and in favor of our?;. 'For, if it proves infant baptism,' says one, 'then we admit it proves also sprinkling or pouring, because we admit these two always go together.' This is ad- mitting a great deal. That the above is a case of household baptism,^ is admitted by the two champions of immersion. Indeed, no one can deny it, unless they deny the language of the 15th verse. In the 33d verse of this same chapter, the Jailors baptism is mentioned, as taking place, in the outer pri- so)i, about mid-night. He had 'thrust them into the inner prison' — verse 24; and at mid-night he heard tlicm. sing, and after the earthquake, 'he sprang in and brought them out' of the inner prison — verse 30. "And he took them, the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.*' — verse 33. Do not all these circumstances make it plain, that this baptism took place in the outer prison, at mid-night? Just as St. Lawrence, 158 years after tins, says — -'One of the soldiers being converted, brought di pitcher of water into the prison^ — for Lawrence to bap- tize him with. Or as Eusebius says of Basilides in prisori — 'On this the ])rethrcn gave him the seal of the Lord,' (baptism.) Mark it; all in the prison. Here, then, are five cases more in the Acts of the Apostles, all of which arc strongly in favor of pouring or sprinkling, and all performed in the house, except one. which took place in the desert of Gaza; in which there is no stream for immersion, and but few rivulets at which water can be obtained. 133 The case of Crispus and his house, and the Coiin- ihians, Acts 18: 7, 8, all of whom were baptized in the house of Justus, is of the same nature, and, conclusively, in favor of baptism being performed in 'the house, join- ed hard to the synagogue or cluirch,' which is the pro- per place for it. These are all the cases in Acts, which is the only inspired Church History we have. Where, then, is the evidence for immersion? JVot here. Then we have ibund no immersion to the end of Acts. LETTER XVITL THE MODE OF BAPTISM IN THE EPISTLES SHOWN TO BE SPRINKLING. IIavinc found all the cases in the Acts of the Apos- tles against immersion, and in favor of sprinkling, we shall continue our investigations on through the Epistles, Tiic 6th chapter of Romans is often quoted to prove immersion to be the iiK)de of baptism, but I must con- fess I am too blunt to apprehend it. Paul is showing that Christians cannot live in the habitual commission of sin, but must die unto sin and live unto holiness. — ^How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ [what! immersed into him?] were baptized into his death. Therefore, we are buried with him, by baptism, into death, [not into water,] that like as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we should walk in newness of life^ — not be raised up out of the water. Now, the paral- lel passage, in Colossians 2: 11, 12, shows this to be not WATER baptism, but spiritual baptism, or 'circumcis- ion made without hands.' — "In whom we are circum- cised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ. Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are raised with him through the faith of the operation of God." Water is never mentioned in either place, nor is water baptism even refered to. But it is contrary to all rules of interpretation to take one part of a passage 135 literally, and the other part figuratively. Then, if the 4th verse of vi. Romans means a literal burying in wa- ter, the 5th verse must mean a literal planting in the grave, and the 6th verse a literal crucifying with Christ, on the cross; for all these Words and figin-es are here used, and they must be put in their true order, thus: — 1. We must be literally crucified; 2, We must be literally planted; 3* Literally buried, and that in literal earth. Then, all who contend for this proving immersion must be crucified and planted, before buried in death; and, af- ter all, there is no water. But if you take the true meaning of the passage, it is beautifully figurative, and means that we must 'crucify the flesh with the affec- tions and lusts ;' and this is fully illustrated by the three strong figures here used. How strange, that any body could ever strain a figure so outrageously ! Who would ever understand Paul literally, when he says — 'we are dead to sin?' Does he mean so dead, that we cannot sin? Who understands him literally, when he speaks of 'the death of the old man, and life of the new man?' Do not all know, that such expres- sions are figurative? A late zealous advocate for immersion says: — "There is no allusion to immersion in the 6th chapter of Ro- mans — both the death and burial of the believer are figurative." If, however, our opponents will have it literally, then let them begin aright, and first be crucified be- fore buried, and then lie in the water three days, and I shall think them in earnest. But suppose the text means to be literally buried: 136 (hen the question returns, how? Why like Christ was. But Christ was not buried in the earth, as we now bury. The Romans, to whom Paul wrote, did not bury men in earth — they buried the bodies, or like the Jews, de- posited them in caves or sepulchres, like that new tomb of Joseph in which Christ was laid. Christ vras laid in the niche of a tornb, and a rock rolled to the door; ;ind any person might walk in this tomb, as the two young men or angels did, and see Christ all the time, as he lay in the tomb. Can we see a man when bu- ried in the earth, or one when immersed or wholJy put under the water? You may as well say, I am im- mersed, because I am in this room and the door is shut. Or that the Jailor was in the inner prison, when shut — as some wish to make us believe the Apostles were, ;it Pentecost, or the Israelites at the sea, when walking on dry ground. But I will not spend time upon a mat- ter that has no reference, whatever, to the mode of bap- tism, but is merely an illustration of our sanctification. Professor Stuart, who is quoted by immersionists on all occasions, says, "There is no more reference to the mode of baptism here than to the mode of the resurrection. The v/hole is a moral, spiritual, not litcj-al baptism." Will they believe their own favorite ? In the 10th of I Corinthians, it says: *'A11 our Fa- thers were under the cloud [not immersed in it] and all passed through the sea, and were all baptized unto Moses, in the cloud and in the sea." Now, Exodus 14: 22 — ''The children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon dry ground." And David says — "The waters saw thee, O God — the watei-s saw thee; the depths also were troubled — the clouds poured out the 137 water. "-^Psalms 77: 17. This pouring out of water* Paul calls baptism — and this baptism was performed as they stood or 'walked in the midst of the sea, on dry ground.' Could one be immersed on dry ground? This is an argument no one has ever answered, and all the attempts to show that the water on each side, and the cloud on the top, immersed them, only help to show off to a better advantage the argument for pour- ing. Is it not rather strange, that the advocates for immersion, who deny there ever was any baptism till 1:he days of John, should find in this occurence, which took place thousands of years before John was born and before the days of Christianity, the zvhole ordinance of baptism performed upon two or three millions of men, women, and children in mass, with their cattle, flocks, wagons, &c. 6z:c., and all immersed too in a cloud, and while upon dry ground? Were they all taken up and dipped or plunged into the water '''•upon dry ground i*" — ivas the zcater applied to them, or they to the water? Paul says they were not into the cloud but ^'widcr the cloud;" and David says, ''the cloud poured out ■water^'' which Paul calls their baptism. The immer- sionists ought never quote this passage — it is entirely too ancient for them. What is it, that imagination can- not do? What will those, who deny all Jezvish baptism, do with this passage? This was not written in the 12th century, nor by the Rabbies, yet they all quote it to prove Jewish and proselyte baptism. Paul, generally, calls things by their right names — so his calling this pouring out of water upon Israel, baptism, is satisfac- tory to me. 'One faith, one Lord, one baptism' — Eph. 4: 5 — is 138 an another argument for immersion. Paul tells them Ho endeavor to keep the unity of the spiiit in the bond of peace,' and shows them the seven cords to bind them together: 1. One body, or one church; 2. One spirit; 3* One hope; 4* One Lord; 5. One faith; 6. One baptism, for Jew and Gentile; 7* One God, the Father of Jew and Gentile. And then, in I Corinthians, 12: 13, Paul explains what this body is, and what this baptism is also. — 'For, by one spirit we are all baptized into one body, (one church,) whether Jews or Gentiles, bond or free.' Then, this is spiritual baptism that makes Jews and Gentiles, bond and free, members of one and the same church; showing that there is not one baptism for the Jew, and one for the Gentile. Yet you will hear some people cry out — 'one baptism'— 'one mode of baptism, and that immersion,' as if Paul ever dreamed of such bigotry as fills their small hearts. This has nothing to fo do, whatever, with the mode of baptism. _ Again : Galatians 3 : 27 — 'For, as many of you . as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ,' by profession. And some are so shrewd as to say this means 'we must put Christ on all over, as we do a suit of clothes, or we cannot be baptized.' That Paul means we should put on the temper, disposition, and spirit of Christ, as well as the profession^ is sufficiently clear from the parallel verse, Rom. 13: 14 — 'Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the 139 flesh.^ As to seeing any mode of baptism here, it remains for those who can see and find a mode whenever bap- tism is even hinted at. Without tediously dwelHng upon every irrelevant passage,! Peter 3: 21 is thought to prove immersion— ''The Hke figure whereunto baptism doth now save us, (not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the an- swer of a good conscience to God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." There is nothing said here in refer- ence to mode, but if baptism is the answer of a good conscience,' and we can ascertain how the good (i. e., purified, purged,) conscience is obtained, we may learn something of the mode of baptism. Now in Hebrews 10: 22 we read, 'having our hearts sprinkled from an evil [to a good] conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water;'— to sprinkle from an evil to a good conscience is to purify, to purge. The good conscience, then, is obtained by sprinkling, and so is the body washed with, or by 'sprinkling clear or pure water up- on it.' As the heart is cleansed by sprinkling, so must the body be purified; and as Mr. Gale says, 'what is true of any one part of the body is true of the whole,' _or as Christ told Peter, 'he that is washed [in one part] is clean every whit,' so, to sprinkle water on the forehead is to wash tlie body with pure water, which is the true baptism. In I. John 5: 8 it is said, "For there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the BLOOD, and these three agree in one." In one what? In one mode of application. The spirit is always POURED, the blood is always sprinkled, and must not the water be poured or sprinkled also? Can any 140 man say that this is not the truth of the word of God? The MODE of these three must agree or correspond: but do they agree in any other way than by sprinkhng or pouring? Baptism is called a seal, as was circumcision to Abraham. Now the seal of all the servants of God is put on their foreiieacs. Rev. 7: 3 — 'Hurt not the oarth — till w^e have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.' So God says, 'ye shall be called by a NEW NAME, which the mouth of the Lord has spoken?' And, 'I will write upon him my new name — the name t-)f my God.' — Rev. 3: 12. Now when water is applied to the forehead in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is not the person named, or the new name written upon him, the -seal placed upon the forehead? But is this the case with immersion? These expres- sions have a meaning, and to what do they refer, if not to baptism by sprinkling or pouring? All the Fathers call baptism 'Hhc seal of God,"'"^ Her- mas says "that seal is baptism." This was their com- mon name for baptism. They who saw the Apostles apply the seal ought to know what it was, and to what part of the body it was applied. A seal seldom covers all over. LETTER XIX. THE MENNONITES, THE FIRST BAPTISTS, HAVE OIVEN IP IMMERSION FOR PaURIISG; ANCIENT I3IMERSIONS, ALL. NAKED, AND GIVEN THREE TIMES, FOUNDED ON TRADITION^ It is a remarkable fact, that the first Anabaptists in the world, or their lineal descendants, have returned to the practice of pouring, in baptism, instead of im- mersion — I mean the Mennonites, a large body of the Baptists of Holland. They were ail, in that country,, called Mennonites at one time, who were in itivonr oi" immersion and opposed to the baptism of infants. The} were long the uncompromising advocates for immer- sion ; ""but for more than a hundred years past, the}" have given it up, in consideration of the many difficul- ties attending it,' 'and have been in the practice of pouring water on the head of the candidate by the liand of an administrator, while they baptize none but adults. They found that when candidates for baptism were Ij'ing on sick beds, or confined in prison; or in a state of peculiarly delicate health; or in various other unusual situations, which may be easily imagined; there was so much difficult}^, not to say, in some cases. II total impossibility in ba^izing by plunging; that they deliberately, as a denomination, after the death of their first leader, agreed to lay aside the practice of immersion, and substitute the plan of affusion or pour- ring.'— Dr. Miller, page 82. The difficulties^ not to say impossibilities, attending the mode of baptism by immersion, are^ conclusive to 142 my mind against its being even implied in the New Tes- tament by our Lord. Who does not know that in large districts of country, on various parts of the Globe, im- mersion would be impossible? Not only do the dry, sandy and parched deserts, where no streams or water can be found, make it so; but in the Polar regions, during a greater part of the year, the severe frost and cold seal up in solid ice every stream and fountain, and so make immersion utterly impossible. 'In besieged cities,' says Dr. Austin, 'where there are hundreds of thousands of people; in sandy deserts, like those of Africa, Arabia and Palestine; in northern regions, where the streams, if there be any, are shut up with impenetrable ice; in severe and extensive droughts, like that which took place in the time of Ahab; suffi- ciency of water for animal subsistence is scarcely to be procured. Now, suppose God should, according to his predictions, pour out plentiful effusions of his Spirit, so that all the inhabitants of one of those regions or cities should be born in a day; would there not be an absolute impossibility in the way of their immersion, while there was such a scarcity of water? And this scarcity might last as long as they lived.' — Page 41. To show this is no fiction, take two facts: I. The fact mentioned by Walker, chapter 10, of the Jew, 60 years after the Apostles, who was travel- ling with the Christians, in the time of Antonius. He- was converted, fell sick, and desired baptism. Not having water, they sprinkled him thrice with sand, in the name of the Trinity. He recovered, and when his case was reported to tlic Bishop, he decided that the man was baptized, if the water was poured on him 143 again.' There is a case of necessity, and it settles pour- ing to be the true baptism. 2. Here in Kentucky, in the fall of the year, I have known two instances, at least, of delay for some weeks, because of the scarcity of water; i. e. immersion could not be given in the ordinary streams, and when one case was attended to, it was in a pond, green on the surface, and almost thick with mud. That was not ^having the body washed with clean water — 'nor clean water sprinkled upon you,' as God says he will do by his ministers (Ezekiel 36; 25) at baptism. There are many other difficulties which might be mentioned, showing that immersion is not adapted to the genius of Christianity. Our religion is to spreaci over the world, 'to every nation, and kindred, and peo- ple, and tongue.' Shall we reflect upon the wisdom and goodness of God, • by saying he has attached to the Gospel an ordinance that cannot be attended to, in many parts of the world, and is so contrary to all other parts of his holy religion? No; the two simple ordinances are of universal xVPPlication. So baptism, by sprinkling or pouring, can be attended to, with the greatest convenience and ease, in all countries and at all seasons. In all situations of sickness or danger, or in health, there is no impediment. 'Baptism was made for man, not man for baptism,' and when it would be- rome 'a yoke of bondage' to any people, to be com- pelled to use sucli a mode as immersion, we must have an express command for it, as we have for sprinkling in Ezekiel 36: 25. When we contrast the difticulties and advantages of the two modes of sprinkling and immersion, we can 144 "but admire the candor and good sense of the Menno-^ nites in returning to the good old practice of pouiing or sprinkling. We hope to see the day when all our Baptist friends, even if they baptize none but adults, will turn to Hhe old paths, where is the good way, and widk therein,^ as Jeremiah 6: 16 directs, and follow their worthy ancestors in Holland. Another remarkable fact is, that immcrsioit was nrc- fv considered esscnlial to Cliristian baptism, till after the tilth century. That there Was such a thing as immer- sion in the church is not denied, but that it was essential to baptism, is the question. I v»ish it then to be borne in mind, 'as an indisputable fact,' says Pond, Hhat im- mersion never was considered as essential to baptism, till the rise of the Anabaptists, in the 16th century.' The conclusion is inevitable, that pouring or spiink- ling was required, in the primitive chujxh^ as valid baptism. The greatest advocates for immersion ad- mit that Clinics, or those who were baptized in sick- ness, were baptized by pouring or spiinkling. It is al- so admitted, that when they recovered they were ne\- er baptized over again. And the objections which >omc raise, that such as were baptized thus, in sickness,, could not enter the ministry, is fully answered by the council of Neocesarea, A. D., 313, which says: — 'He who is baptized wlien sick ought not to be made a Priest, unless his diligence and fidelity afterwards do- prove commendable, or the scaixity of men fit foi- the- oftice require it; for his coming to the faith is not volun- ijry, hut from necessity.'' This was the true reason, and not any defect in their baptism, whatever^ Wall, Rob- inson, and all candid writers in favor of immersion, ad- 145 mit this. How comes it to pass, then, that immersion became essential to baptism sixteen hundred years after Christ, when it never zvas before? Let those who say it is now essential show us an instance of it before the Reformation, if they can. It cannot be done. Nothing is more common, than for immersionists to refer to the early history of the church to prove immer- sion to be Scriptural baptism^ They often,, with an air, cite the Fathers of the second century, while they are very loth to let us quote the same chapters of the Fathers to prove infant baptism. Now we fully admit, that the Fathers speak often of immersion after the third century, but Mr. Campbell says he can find but tivo references to immersion till after "the year 140,'' and then quotes Justin, as we have above, who says nothing of immersion. So we are brought down to Tertullian, 200 years after Christ, before we come even to trine immersion, milk and honey, the sign of the cross, &:c., as we shall show in due time. Then all the passages cited out of the Fathei^ prove too much for our modern immersionists, for they prove that all their immersions were performed in a state oi perfect miditi/. The zealous and celebrated Mr. Robinson, the Baptist Historian, page 85, says: — "The primitive Christians baptized naked. Nothino^ is easier, than to prove this by quotations from the au- thentic writings of the men who administered baptism, and who> certainly knew in what way they perforn^ed it. There is no ancient historical ikct better authen- ticated than this. The evidence does not go on the single word naked- — for then the reader might suspect allegory — but on facts reported, and many reasons- 10 146 assigned for the practice." He then cites several ex- amples. Dr. Wall, Part 2, chapter 15, fully settles this point. '^The ancient Christians, when they were baptized by immersion, were all baptized naked, whether men, women, or children. The proofs of this I shall omit, because it is a clear case. They thought it better rep- resented the putting off the old man, and also the nakedness of the cross of Christ. Moreover, as bap- tism is a washing, they judged it should be the washing of the hody^ not of the clothes.'''' Another thing that the ancient instances of immer- sion prove, which is too much for modern ones, is, that it was repeated three times, or trine immersions, as Chrysostom says: — 'Our Lord delivered to us one bap- tism, by three immersions.' Or as TertuUian says: — '^We are three times plunged into the water, and when we arc taken up, we taste a mixture of milk and hon- ey, &c. ; when we go to meat — when we lie down, or sit down — and whatever business we have, we make on our foreheads the sign of the cross. If you search in the Scriptures for any command for these, and such like usages, you shall find none. Tradition will be urged upon you as the ground of them — custom, as the confirmer of them — and our rehgion teaches us to observe them." — Chapter 1 — 3, C. M. Here, then, we have the origin and source of immer- sion, from the famous TertuUian. It is tradition I ! ! This will be more fully shown in Letter 24 — the liis- tory of Immersion. Those who contend now for single immersion, with the clothes on, without giving milk and honey, making the sign of the cross, and exorcism, and 147 putting on white for so many days, find no examples of their mode in antiquity. The Eunomians, who im- mersed but one time^ and that naked and head foremost in a font, are the people condemned for single immer- sion by the council of Constantinople. They were thought, in those days, to be a strange people who im- mersed but once. LETTER XX. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE IMMERSION OF THE FA- THERS AND THAT OF THE PRESENT AGE SHOWN. As we cited from Tertiillian, in our last Letter, that IMMERSION was foundcd upon tradition, and not taugjbt in the Scriptures, we shall attempt to make that point rlear. I wish it to be fully and distinctly understood by all, that we admit the practice of immersion to have been in the church in the 2d and 3d centuries, and' of- ten afterward, and that it is often mentioned by the Fathers. But note ; not one of them ever declare that mode to be essential to baptism, ©r teach that it is taught in the word of God; but they refer to immer^ sion as founded on tradition, like all the other appen- dages to it, as eating salt, drinking^ mUk and honey, wearing white, and renouncing the Devil^ &c. &lc^ vSo that if immersion is found in aH the Fathers, it proves nothing for our opponents, unless they will take along all the other appendages to baptisna. brought in at an early time with it, as the sign of the cross, the trine immersion in a state of perfecl nakedness, the salt, milk, honey, and white robes. Now, as a specimen, read the following favorite au- thor with the Baptists. Tertullian says : — "Let us try, then, whetlier no tradition ought to be allowed, which is not written, &c. Now to begin with BAPTIS3I. When we come to the water, we do there,, (and we do the same also a little before in the congre- gation,) under the hand of the pastor, make a profes- sion that we do renounce the devil, and his pomp and 149 his angels. Then we are three times plunged into the vrater; and we answer some few words more than those which our Saviour in the Gospel has enjoined. When we are taken out of the water, we taste a mixture of milk and honey. And from that day, we abstain a whole week from hathing ourselves, which otherwise, we use every day. At every setting out, or entry on business; whenever we come in or go out from any place; when we dress for a journey; when we go in a bath; when we go to meat; when the candles are brought in; when we lie down or sit down; and what- ever business we have, we make, on our foreheads, the sign of the cross." Then the words quoted in our last come in thus: — »'If you search in the Scriptures for any command for these, and such like usages, you shall find none. Tra- dition will be urged upon you as the ground of them; custom, as the confirmer of them; and our religion teaches us to observe them." Could language be plain- er to show the practice was founded on tradition, con- firmed, and kept up by custom, with all their other appendages? The practice of immersion came into the church in the second century, when the Gnosti- cism of the east, teaching that all sin was in matter or in the body, and that the body must be washed or bathed before it could be free from sin, was so preva- lent. So common was this notion in that day, that all or nearly all these Fathers taught that baptism or batli- ing the body, naked in the water, was regeneration, as any may see by a reference to their writings. Hence we read in St. Hierome, as well as Tertulljan: — »^For many other things, which are by tradition observed in 150 the church, have got authority as if they were written luws^ as in the font of baptism to plunge the head thrice under water — Ter caput mergitare,^^ — Lib. 2. Tlie same says Chrysostom, Now put these together; 1. All the ancient iMMERsiaNs were performed naked, 2. They were all trine immersions ; once in the name of each person of the trinity, was the person dipped. 3. This practice was not taught in the Scriptures, but by TRADITION, say Tertullian, Hierome and Chrysostonir 4. They were all accompanied by various other rites, not now known. Do our modern immersionists practice these things? I behevenone of them. Then of course they have not the immersion of the Fathers of the sec- ond and third centuries, and I hope never may have. But let me ask my Baptist friends; 'Do you really be- lieve the Fathers of the third century had the Apos- tolic mode of baptism, when they immersed three times naked, tasting spittle, salt, milk and honey?' If you say yes, then how dare you, on your principles, depart one iota from their mode? It will not do to say you have the substance; you must have the express letter of the positive institution. One thing is certain; these Fathers and our present immersionists did not practice alike — they difler most widely from each other. Why then do the present advocates for immersion refer to the Fathers for their practice? They do not follow them. See the parallel, thus: The feathers immersed naked to cleanse the body from sin: Immersionists now dip with the clothes on, often four-fold. The former dipped the head three times: The latter the whole body but once. The for- mer gave spittle, salt, milk, and honey: The latter give 151 nothing, unless it be a little spirits to prevent cold. — The Fathers founded their immersion, not upon Scrip- ture, but upon unwritten tradition, says Tertuilian: The present immersionists saj they found theirs not upon tradition, but Scripture alone. The Fathers nev- er made immersion essential to baptism, says Cyprian to Magnus, and Origen of Elijah: But our present im- mersionists declare nothing else baptism, but immer- sion. Now, when they differ from the Fathers in these things about their immersion, can they with a good grace cite these very men to prove their practice ? They may cite them, but with thinking, intelKgent people they will prove too much, and thus really prove noth- ing. It will not do to go to the Fathers for immersion — we want a Hhus saith the Lord' from the Bible. If it could be found in the Bible first, and then in the Fa- thers, it would show it a valid mode of baptism; but then it would not follow of course that it vras essen- tial to baptism. One thing has ever been most manifest in every pe- riod of the church, that is, a disposition to overdo the thing — in ceremonials to put more stress, and attach more importance to outward ordinances, than the Bi- ble justifies. This has been true from the day that Peter said, *not my feet only, but my hands and my head,' to the present time. The languageof Christ to him should ever restrain from running into superstition thus, as thousands do. — '^He that is washed nccdeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit.' — That is, says one — ^It is not the physical ablution, but the symbolical meaning, to which I wish now to call your attention.' It is not the mode, nor quahty, but 152 the meaning of it. We see this superstition daily in the Catholic sacraments. We see it in the various ad- ditions made to baptism in the few first centuries after Christ, as above refered to. Professor Pond says — "There is a disposition in men to OVERDO in the externals of religion, while they undo, and perhaps do little or nothing, in things more essen- tial. The Pharisees, not satisfied with the ceremonial law, must add to it 'the tradition of elders.' Peter, not satisfied with that degree of washing which his master judged to be sufficient, said, not my feet only, but my hands, and my head.' And Christians, in some past ages, not satisfied to be baptized by pouring, washing or sprinkling, which is as much, I think, as the Savior requires, must be plunged completely under water. — Indeed, at some periods they have not been satisfied even with this. They must be immersed three times. Then they must be immersed naked. Then they must have water applied to the face, and be marked with a cross, and anointed with oil subsequent to immersion. They must be robed in white a certain number of days after baptism, in token of their purity. I mention these facts to show the propensity there is in man to be su- perstitious, and to attempt more than is needful in the externals of religion." — Treatise on Baptism, p. 42. To insist upon immersion as essential to Christian baptism is superstitious. 'It is generally granted by enlightened Protestants,' says Dr. Miller, Ho be one of the mischievous errors of Popery, that baptism, and other appointed rites of our religion, when adminis- tered by authorized hands, have an inherent efficacy — a sort of self-operating power on those to whom they are administered. This we consider as a saperstitious and dangerous error.' This is the tendency of things at the present time in this country. One set of immersionists invert the or- der of the gospel, and put ceremonies first, and heart- work and principles second, and thus effectually destroy religion. Another set convert the mode and quantity of water in baptism into the essential thing, and though a man have every other requisite in baptism, if it lack a certain mode or quantity he is not baptized, and is declared out of the church, and unfit for the kingdom ef heaven. Is this not really superstition? LETTER XXI. IMMERSION IIA.S INVERTED, AND FULLY DESTROYED THE GOSPEL IN PAST AGES, AND THE TENDENCY NOW IS TO THE SA3IE SUPERSTITIOUS REGARD FOR IT. We hope in this numher to illustrate more fully two points mentioned in our last Letter. 1. That immersion came in with the other appen- dages to baptism, after the Gnosticism of the East be- came prevalent in the church, in the second century. 2, That it was superstitiously magnihed into a sine qua non to salvation. 'Ancient Christianity,' a masterly work by Isaac Taylor in answer to the 'Ox- ford Tracts,' would do our modern immersionists, who make the mode essential to baptism, great good, and throw much light on the above two points, and we take pleasure in refering them to it. We hope they will ALL read it, and doubt not but the thinking, in- telligent ones who may read it will renounce their er- ror. That Gnosticism did mislead, or leaven the teach- ing of all the Fathers of the second and third centuries after Christ, none can deny; and that the celibacy of the clergy, and other kindred notions, never taught in the word of God, did at that early time greatly per- vert the theological principles, the moral sentiments, and introduce superstitious usages and ceremonies into the church, is most evident from the best authors of those times, as Cyprian, Tertullian, Chrysostom, «&€► No one pretends to affirm that these Fathers speak of baptism in any such language as Peter, and Paul, and John, or Christ did. The difference is as great as 155 that between day and night. But what caused the dir- ference? Their notions of sin being in matter or in the BODY, and that purity was obtained by the sacra- ments alone. But we never hear any thing from Christ, Peter or Paul, of all this. The religion of Christ was a religion of principles, and ceremonies were but secondary matters that followed of course,^ but did not go before. The religion of the FxIthers, even in the second century, became 'a religion of sa- craments' or ceremonies, as the Catholic church now is. The first symptom of decay in religion at that time was, as it ever has been, a revival of the ritual or cer- emonial part, and the putting the rites first or foremost thus inverting the order of the gospel. Principles and sacraments in religion never can be kept abreast, the one of the other — they will not remain in a state of equipoise — the spiritual part will be thrown back, and retire, and the merest form.alities and grossest supersti- tions will follow. Whenever spiritual principles are put hindmost or secondary, and sacrments foremost, we see religion effectually destroyed. This was the case with the Jews. When Christ came, he inverted the order back, and placed spiritual principles first, and heart-work as the greater matter, while he threw rites and ceremonies into the back ground, and made them but secondary. But no sooner had he died, yea, even before his immediate disciples died, this same leaven of Judaism and Gnosticism began to work itself back again, and did leaven the whole lump, and continued down to the Reformation. And what was the Refor- mation but a giant effort to bring back the church from the inverted order of religion, and put ceremonies back 15t5 as secondary, and bring up principles and spiritualities as the greater matters? What is the tendency of things in these days, but to the same inverted order of cere- mony first, and heart-work second? It is to magnify a mode into the substance; it is to fall into the grossest superstition, of depending upon rituals. Here permit an extract from 'Ancient Christianity' p. 340, in answer to the question, why may we not keep the spiritual and sacramental part in religion a- breast, one of the other. The author says: — "1. The original constitution of the human mind for- bids the attempt to hold elements in equipoise, the very tenure of which is not to occupy one and the same level. "2. The actual condition of human nature, as per- versely disposed always to substitute the ritual for the spiritual in religion, renders such an attempt to place the tv^'o evenly before the mind, or otherwise than as the Scriptures place them, in the last degree unwise, nay mischievous. "3. God forbids this endeavor, bringing as it does his truth upon the very stage which all false religions have occupied. In attestation of these three answers, the whole course of history comes to our aid in one crowded mass." For a specimen of this tendency among the Fathers take the following from the very greatest of them, Chrysostom, Tom. 1, 269. — "Although a man should be foul with every vice, the blackest that can be named, yet should he fall into the baptismal pool, he ascends from the divine waters purer than the beams of noon — he is made just in a moment.*' Again; "They who approach the baptismal font, although fornicators, 157 &c., are not only made clean, but holy also, and just.'^ Once more; "As a spark thrown into the ocean is in- stantly extinguished, so is sin (be it what it may,) ex- tinguished, when the man is thrown into the laver of regeneration." Perhaps it was from this that Mr. Campbell took the following sentiment, [Debate with M'Calla, p. 137,] — "Thus coming up out of the waters, born again, they would enter the world a second time as innocent, as clean, and as unspotted as an angel." — Or in the Christian Baptist, vol. 5, p.. 160 — "In an.d by the act of immersion, as soon as our bodies are put under the water, at that very instant, our former sins arc washed away." What is the tendency of such language, but to make the person think more of the mode, the rite of baptism, the pool of regeneration, here made the turning point of salvation, than of Christ, or the spirit, and thus invert the order of religion? And what difference is there between such language, and the preaching of those who are always harping upon the mode of baptism, and declaring no one baptized unless after their pecul- iar mode? Who does not know that one point, or a mere mode, may be made to fill up the mind so com- pletely as to obscure and make the man lose sight of every thing else? 'Agitate the soul in any way; excite its fears, hopes, or any of its passions, and then instant- ly,, and just in proportion to the excitement, will the mind" lose its consciousness of all but the single exciting: object. Show a man the muzzle of a loaded cannon peeping from a thicket in the distance, and where he may every moment expect death; show him, on the broad bosom of a tumbling sea, an open boat in which 158 his wife and children are tossing between hope and despair, and what else will he see?' Now, apply this to the case in hand. You may tell the sinner of every thing else; you may set forth all the truth: what of it? on what point is his eye fixed? The mode of baptism, by immersion ! What else can he see? Christ is nothing, the spirit is nothing, the sup- per is nothing, without this mode of baptism first! — Who does not see the tendency to superstition, and thus wholly to invert and destroy religion, by making a mere shell, a mere mode, fill the whole horizon of the mind's eye? And who does not know that this is the tendency of human nature? But did Christ and the Apostles say that Hhe kingdom of God was meat and drink, or righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost?' Did they like the Fathers and modern immer- sionists make any one ceremony so prominent as to throw all the rest into the shade ? "Was it intended that Christians were to shift their position as soon as tlie Apostles died, and betake themselves to a point of view, whence every thing, spiritual, moral, ritual and ecclesiastical, would appear under a totally dilFerent aspect, and present to the eye a side that had never been seen before; and that these objects, severally, should subtend, on the field of vision, exchanged in magnitudes, the great seeming small and the small, great?" Is this to be believed? But until this can be shown to be true, the various additions made to the or - dinance of baptism by the Fathers, and the importance attached to immersion by many in this day, can never be sustained by an appeal to the Bibie, where Christ and his disciples taught the nature of baptism so sim- 159 ply, and as a matter to be attended to only as an out- ward ceremony. 8uch is the tendency of perverted human nature to what is visible, formal, and outward in religion, that, like multitudes of all ages, men now fix their minds upon the mere materials or instruments of the sacra- ments, as the Catholic upon the wafer, and thousands of others ''upon the glassy surface of the Baptismal pool as yet unruffled, and reflecting the marbled mag- nificence of the church, seeming the very mirror of eternity, and as if while intently gazing upon it the glories of heaven might be dimly discerned beneath.*' It was from this very inverting the order of religion and making the mode of baptism so important, that the practice of defering baptism till just before death took its rise. "The regenerating waters" would cover all defects, and give a certain passport to heaven. So that this one remedy was all powerful — it took the place of all other things. Men lived as they chose, and the Fathers of the Nicene age spent their powerful elo- quence against such a practice in vain — it went on from age to age. But we find no such idea in the Bible. I hope in- telligent Protestants will no longer attempt to sustain a practice founded on tradition, and brought into the church by men infected with the absurd notions of Gnosticism, but will return to the simple ordinance a? taught by Christ in the New Testament. On these points we might fill pages with quotations from the Fathers, but 'a hint to the wise is sufticient.' We hope in our next to come nearer our own time in the histo rical argument, or to the Reformation. LETTER XXII.. FAPTIS3I IN THE WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY, AND PROM THE TI3IE OF HENRY VIII TO ELIZABETH. It has been often asserted, that Infant Baptism an^i sprinkling were legalized and brought into the church by the Westminster Assembly, when they formed our Confession of Faith and Directory for public worship. This misrepresentation so often repeated, and so con- clusively refuted, almost for the tliousandth time, is still repeated by every ranter against sprinkling. In this county it has been repeated no less than four times within the last year, by four different men. One of them said 'sprinkling would never have been heard of among us, if it had not been for Dr. Lightfoot, who gave the casting vote in favor of it when the West- minster Divines were divided, 24 in favor of immersion, and 24 for sprinkling. This is the common version of the story, but every intelligent reader of the history of that Assembly knows it is wholly untrue. Robin- son, in his history of baptism, first repeated this slan- der in this country^ and from him all con it over. But is there one authentic history of the times, or a stan- dard work, that states it? Robinson is no authority. His evidence is ex park. NeaPs History of the Puri- tans, Volume 2, page 275, declares the assertion to be wholly untrue, saying: — ^^The directory passed the A.'*- sembly with great unanimity.' I.ightfoot's Works, volume 1, page 4, gives the whole history of the ease,, and also declares it untrue. Read the works above named, and Dr. Miller, pag*:^ 161 121, on baptismy and you will find the following to be the truth of the case, and I hope jou will read and memorize it, so as never again to misrepresent it. — "There was a committee appointed to prepare a direc- tory for the worship of God. Their report on the mode of baptism read thus: — 'It is lawful and sufficient to sprinkle the child.' To the word 'lawful' Dr. Light- foot objected, 'because it was improper to call sprink- ling lawful only, when no body doubted its being law- ful, but all believed it.' The Doctor went on to say, 'that to say pouring or sprinkling was lawful would be all one, as that it was lawful to use bread and wine in the Lord's supper.' When the clause, as above repor- ted, (but not whether sprinkling or immersio^n was t"he true mode of bap tism-^-that was not the question at all,) came to vote, on the word 'lawful' there were 24 votes in favor of it, and 24 against it — on which side was Dr. Lightfoot?" After this tied vote, a motion was made and carried to re-commit the whole matter. The next day, when the committee reported. Dr. Lightfoot, after the re- marks as above stated, moved that the clause in the directory be thus expressed — "Then the minister is to demand the nan>e of the child, which being told he is to say, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. As he pronounceth these words, he is to baptize the child with water, which for the manner of doing it is not only lawful but suffi- cient to be by pouring or sprinkling the water on the face of the child, without adding any other ceremo- ny." This is the way the directory reads, in Appen^ dix No, 2, Neal's History. And this, says Neal, 'passed 11 U2 with great unanimity,'^ This history of the whole trans- action is also given by Strjpe, in his life of Lightfoot, page 4. Now, where is the foundation for such a re- port? Is it not astonishing that men of sense, and ve- racity in other matters, should invert, misstate, and re- capitulate this slander — men, too, that should, if they do not, know better? If any man can disprove the truth of the above, we should be glad to have him do it, from standard authors, however. I shall now attempt to show, that so far from the Westminster Divines 'bringing infant sprinkling' into notice, it had been the practice in England since the Reformation, and all know that it was the custom of the Catholic Church before that time. The fact is, Anabaptism arose out of opposition to the Catholic Church. After Luther commenced reforming, Mun- zer,Storch &l Co., thought he did not go far enough, and they ran to the opposite extreme of opposing almost eve- ry thing the CathoUcs did and taught; 'that infant bap- tism and sprinkling,' as used by the Catholics from time immemorial, was an abuse to be reformed. This is its origin. Now if we show infant baptism, in our mode, to have prevailed from the days of Henry VIII. down to 1641, the time of the Westminster Divines, the histor- ical argument is settled. Neal's History, p. 26, vol. 1, says: — 'But notwithstanding the reformation of doc- trine, the old Popish forms of worship were continued till this year,' (1544) two years before Henry VIII died. So that no change took place while he lived, for he died January 28, 1547. But when his son, Edward VI, reformed the church in his reign, Neal says: — ^''^n the administration of baptism, a cross was made — with 163 water — on the child's forehead and breast, and the devil exorcised to go out and enter no more into him. The child was to be dipped three times in the font (a kind of basin) on the right and left side, and on the breast, if not weak. A white vestment was to be put upon it in token of innocence; and it was to be annointed on the head, with a short prayer for the unction of the Holy Ghost."— Volume 1, page 36. And the 28th ar- ticle of the church said — "The custom of the church for baptizing young children, is both to be commended and by all means to be retained in the church." This was left out of Elizabeth's articles afterwards. The bloody Mary succeeded Edward, with all her Catholic zeal and bigotry. So you may know what was her custom. "But the form of baptism, among the English Exiles and best Christians in the days of Mary, was for the minister to take water in his hand and lay it on the child's forehead, and say, 'I baptize thee, in the name of the Father,' " 4&c. — See Book of Forms. So about the same time, A. D. 1551, Sebastian, Arch- Bishop of Mentz, directs — "That the Priest, holding the child over the font in his left hand, shall take wa- ter out of the font with his right hand, and pour it upon the head of the child three times." Here, then, we find pouring or sprinkling in baptism, and that of infants, before 'John Calvin' could have 'invented it,' as some ignorantly have it. And in the days of Elizabeth, when the Puritans complained of the abuses in the church, to which did they expressly state their objection, but to the superstitious mode of baptiz-' ing children? — See Neal, vol. l,p. 157. They obje/:ted: ' "1. To the sign of the cross in baptism, which is no mi part of the institution, as recorded'in Scripture. They, , also, disallowed of baptism by midwives, or other wo- men, in cases of sickness," &c. '*2. They excepted to Godfathers and Godmothers,. to the exclusion of parents, from being sureties for the education of their own children." But they did not object to the mode of sprinkling,, nor to baptizing children^ for they practiced both. In this reign, the Puritans often consulted Calvin, Beza, and other foreign divines; and after this, all will admit that sprinkUng spread with the Reformation into Scot- land, England, and all the countries into which it reached. That all the Reformers practiced it will not be questioned, and that the Catholic church did liloi- wise, is equally true. Then we are thrown back upon the history of the people called Waldenses, as the only hope to disprove infant sprinkling, or pouring; or to sustain the claim,of the Anabaptists. In the Waldensian Catechism, written in 1 100, we read thus: '^There are two sacraments, one of water, and the other of aliment, that is, of bread and wine. The fir^t is called baptism, or, in our language, a wasliing witli water, whether of a river, or from a fountaifl. And it must be administered in the name of the Father, Son, and o£ the Holy Ghost. Children are to be presented for baptism; and this shall be done by those to whom they are most nearly related,, such as parents, or those to whom God has given this office of love." Is this Anabaptism? Dr. Murdock says, in notes ta Mosheim — "It is very 465 tfar from being true, that the Mentiomtes, or continen- tal Anabaptists, bore a nearer resemblance to the pro- per Waldenses — the Wicklifiites, and the Hussites — • than the other Protestants, or the Liithei'atis and Re- formed, or Calvinists. On the contrary, it is a well kriown historicalfact, that, in the sixteenth century, the genuine descendants of the Waldensians, Wicklifi- ites, and Hussites, who were numerous in France^ Eng- land, Bohemia, Moravia, &c., readily united with the ] iUtherans and Reformed, or Calvinistic churches, and at length became absorbed in them: and that very few, if any of them, ever ^manifested a preference for the Mennonites, or Anabaptists of that age. These Walden- sian Paedobaptists, moreover, declared that they held the same belief which their fathers maintained for several centuries, and appeal to their own old books to make good their assertions. No Ecclesiastical history disproves the truth of their assertions." Those v> ho live now in the same parts of the world, as we showed from Mr. Dwight's letter, and claim to be true descen- dants of the old Waldenses, ^baptize their children by sprinkling.' It is worthy of remark, also, that the above old Cathechism gives, expressly, our definition of baptism, viz: — 'a w^ashing with water.' I hope those who oppose infant baptism and sprinkling, will not lay claim again to the Waldenses, who were rigid Pa:- dobaptists. So we conclude, that as infant baptism, and that by sprinkling too, was in the Catholic church be- fore the Reformation spread over the world with it, antl was practiced by the good old witnesses, the Walden- ses, that neither the Divines at Westminster, nor Jo!in Calvin either, invented it.'' LETTER XXin. THE QUESTION FULLY YIELDED TO US, BY IMMERSIONIST» GIVING UP THE ENGLISH BIBLE FOR NEW VERSIONS* The Immersionists of this country are becoming very tired of the controversy on the mode of baptism. They seem to despair of success in fair discussion, and quite disposed to take the short method of gaining their points Utterly faiUng to prove that immersion is essential to baptism, they have assumed it and resorted to new ver- sions of their own fabrication, rendering baptizo by the term immerse, in every instance in the New Testament, as the last hope of their success. They seem to have a mortal hatred to our word baptize, and no hope of success while it remains in use, hence their mania for new Bibles with immersion substituted in its stead. Is not this really cutting the knot they have failed to un- tie? Is it not jumping to a conclusion, neither proven nor granted, the very opposite of which has been abun- dantly sustained by the great mass of the Christian world? Is it not really yielding the whole point to the Pffidobaptist? The whole argument of the advo- cates for new versions goes upon the supposition that our English Bible is fully and decidedly in favor of sprinkling and pouring, and against immersion; and, while this continues in use, immersion never can pre- vail, nor intelligent Christians generally believe it es- sential to baptism. Take the following sentence from the new Baptist Bible Society's report, page 33, as a specimen of what has occurred under the good old En- glish version: — 167 *'The Paedobaptist error of sprinkling has obtained the blind and almost universal suffrage of what is^^call- cd the Christian world." This is conceding to us the whole English Bible, and with it the very point in debate. It is all we want, I shall attempt, in this Letter, to show that both the Baptists and Reformers have taken this short method of substituting immersion for baptize, or baptism, as the onlj grounds of hope left them for success in this con- troversy. Thus they beg the question they have ut- terly failed to prove — they assume as true what has been triumphantly refuted and disproved, over and again. It is entirely too late for Christians to be thus gulled and imposed upon by every man or set of men who may have the temerity and presumption to think they can improve the Word of God, and neutralize the Bible and language that time and use have rendered sacred and familiar to all classes throughout Christendom. — Men have too much infonnation and judgment to give up our most appropriate word, baptize, or have it sup- planted by the Popish Latin word, immersion, which has no place in the Word of God. We say the old word is better. Whenever men begin to coin new WORDS and phrases, they are very apt to bring with them some new doctrine, and if we let new words creep into the Bible, we shall soon have another Gos- pel, as some are even now preaching. That Mr. Campbell has substituted the word im- merse for baptize, in every instance, is well known, and now too notorious to all this community, from his six editions of 'Living Oracles' — as he terms his new fangled Testament — for us to stop here to prove. This fact we take for granted. To this version of the Tes- tament our old Baptist brethren all demur, and some have gone so far as publicly to burn it, calling it an- other Gospel — a corrupted, unfaithful thing. But nov/ behold, a new 'Baptist Bible, for all the world,' comes out under the auspices of the 'American Foreign Bi- ble Society,' rendering every word, in this particular^ precisely as Mr. Alexander Campbell has done. Permit me here to give a little in detail the history of this matter, from the Baptist reports as now printed. And I hope all will read the reports to which I refer, and see for themselves this astounding transaction. In 1835, a Baptist INIissionary, from Calcutta, wrote to know if they could obtain money to print and circu- late a Bible — the Bengalee — translated on Baptist principles. When the Board of the American Bible Society met, in February 1836, they Resolved — ''1. That, by the constitution of the A. B. Society, it^ managers are, in circulating the Holy Scriptures, restricted to such copies as are without note or com- ment, and in the English language to the version in common use, and therefore, 2. That, in appropnating money for the translating, piinting, or distributing the Scriptures in foreign lan- guages, the managers feel at liberty to encourage only such versions as conform, in the principles of their trans- lation, to the common English version, at least so far, as that all religious denominations, represented in tliis {Society, can consistently use and circulate said version in their several schools and communities." The American Bible Society then appropriated .$5,000 to the Baptist Missionary Society, for distribu- 169 ting Bibles of the genuine kind, as they had ever done. The Baptists, in April 1836, refused to receive the mo- ney, unless it could be appropriated tq distribute their IMMERSION Bibles. See report of Baptist Board, p. '24, 1836. The Baptists immediately called a general con- vention of their whole denomination, to meet in New York, on the ISth of May, 1836, when it was Resolved, ''That it is the duty of the Baptist denomination, in the United States, to form a distinct organization, for Bible translation and distribution." They appointed a committee to bring in a constitu- tution and nominate officers, and on the next day was founded "The American and Foreign (Baptist) Bible Society." The second article in the constitution of the '-Bible Translation Society" reads thus: — "It shall be the object of this Society to encourage the production and circulation of complete translations of the Holy Scriptures, competently authenticated for ildelity, it being always understood, that the words relating to the ordinance of baptism shall be translated by terms signifying immersion." This is as plain as language could make it, that they are determined to have no other Bibles but Baptist versions. The Society has been in operation ever since, and its Agents, going all through the land, raising mo- ney to circulate this sectarian Bible, both at home and abroad, in our own as well as other languages. But what is worse, these very people are denouncing all other denominations, and slandering the American & British Bible Societies in the most unmeasured terms. Read the following specimens of their language:— 170 "Our brethren consider the course adopted by Bible Societies, in three quarters of the Globe, as an unholy league to suppress the eternal truth of God.*' — Appen- dix and Constitution, page 73. "To cast a veil of obscurity over any part of the Word of God must be a sin. It is known that the Brit- ish and Foreign Bible Society, and the American Bible Society, have virtually combined to obscure at least a part of the Word of God."— Third Report, page 44. This charge is repeated, reiterated, and variously made, in all their reports, speeches and documents, simply because two noble institutions would not give money to circulate an inwiersion, sectarian Bible; but prefered sending the true Bible, without note or com- ment. Again; page 18 — "They told them, that hapiizo sig- nifies to sprinkle, or pour, or christen. And so unhap- pily one of the important ordinances of the Gospel, de- scribed by the Holy Spirit as with a sun-beam, has been covered up and hid from the great mass of the people, by the Popish artifice of transfer." See Pro- ceedings of the Convention. It is truly very unfortunate for these people, that the Pope speaks Latin, and Paul and Christ used Greek: if they could invert the order of things, then immersion might serve their purpose ; but as it now is, immersion is 'the Popish' word, to which the Baptists have resort- ed to gain their point, and our word, baptize, is the true Scripture w^ord used by Christ; for all know that immerse is only a Latin w^ord, put into English, and that baptize is the Scripture Greek w ord, put into Eng- lish. We contend for the Scripture word, and the 171 Baptists for the Latin Popish word, immersion, whicii is as unknown in the Greek, as in our English Bible. Is it not also a little Unfortunate, that those who hate words transfered, and call it 'Popish,' should assume the transfered name, 'Baptists?' Do they not know, that the word Baptist is as really and as much a trans- fer, as the word baptize ? The whole Baptist denomi- nation, then, is no more nor less than 'a Popish artifice of transfer,' according to their own reasoning. Do they not know, that one of the positive institutions of God's house is called baptism, and will they nickname this solemn and important ordinance, 'a Popish artifice?' Christ never called it immersion, nor by the Latin word, IMMERGO, but always by the Greek word, baplizo, or baptisma^ which is, in English, baptize, or baptism. Yet they call the very language of Christ 'a Popish artifice.' To get rid of this artifice of Christ, they make new Bi- bles; hear their own reasons given for their new Bibles: "This is the first Bible Society formed, under the di- rection of the Baptist denomination, with the avowed intention of giving to the whole world a literal trans- lation of the Word of God." First Report, p. 21. The world, then, has never had a faithful translation before, I suppose. Again — "The Board of Managers are satisfied, that the providence of God has made it the duty of Baptists to give to the whole world a faithful translation of the whole Bible." — Ibid, page 51. Really, God has given these brethren a responsible work to do. The assumption here exceeds any thing of the kind I ever read — it takes for granted these two ideas : — 1. That the Baptists are the only people "in the world >vlio arc right, and that God calls them to set all others right — that their peculiar notions shall, certainly and tinally, prevail. 2. Tliat they ate the only people in the world, learn- ed and faithful enough to make a true and literal trans- lation of the Bihle for all nations to read; and that we have no true and faithful version now on the earth but theirs. But hear Mr. Maclay, in the same report, page 73, lie says of their Society: — 'Its object is to give faithful translations of the Bible to tlie nations of the earth, ^vithout any human addition, diminution, or conceal- ment, which cannot be affirmed of any other Bible Society in the world: for it would seem that they are more zealous to conceal from the nations the real meaijr ing of the ordinance of baptism, than to give the un- adultenited Bihle of God to men." This is the spirit of their reports and speeches, generally, on this subject. I will notice but one more point to show their spiiit. The managers of this new Society represent God as cutting off three good Missionaries, by a sort of judg- ment, for opposing their immer-sion Bible, and insinuate that he will treat all others in the same way wlio op- pose them. They say — "Some years since, say tlic Baptist Missionaries in Bengal, three Pcsdobaptist brethren unknown to us, though on the most friendly terms with us, wrote to the Bible Society in England., requesting them not to give assistance to any Indian version, in which the word haptizo was translated to i^nmerse. None oe these 3ien lived to see the re- ply TO THEIR APPLiCATiox. Whcu the refusal reached Calcutta, they had all been called to render an account of their stewardship to God." — Page 50. Solemn warn- ing indeed. God treated these men like Korah and his company, for telling the truth and opposing such error. But I must leave off such quotations — they are too bad to be cited.. The Baptists attempt to justify their conduct in thi.^ matter by saying, the Bible Society permitted versions of the Bible to be circulated, in which haptizo was ren- dered to WET, or SPRINKLE. But tliis is not correct, as has been fully shown by the Seci'etary of the A. B.. Society, who says: "A small edition of a Seneca Gos- ple was once published, where haptizo was translated to wet or sprinkle. But this was- wholly unknown to the Board, until years after the work was issued; and when known, was disapproved of by every member." But do not the Baptists know how many thousands of dollars were bestowed to assist in printing and distri- buting a Burmese Baptist version,, while its character was wholly unknown to the Board? They have cer- tainly had their share of such indulgences. I hope all who wish to see the full account of this strange and unparalleled phagnomenon of sectarianism will read tlie reports cited. And I refer,, likewise,, for able and cor- rect reviews of their proceedings, to the 'Methodist Quarterly Review, for October, 1841,' and the 'Prince- ton Review, or Biblical Repertory, for July, 1838.' In each of these Journals this whole matter is justly condemned. I am only astonished, that the Christian world have not more generally and extensively frowned upon it^ This, I say, is yielding to us the English Bibley as. 174 fully in favor of sprinkling, and against immersion — is virtually giving up the whole controversy — and is as much as saying, we cannot succeed in the argument, but we can change the Bible, and gull the ignorant. But in vain is the net spread in the sight of any bird. All people will see you at it — even the heathen will scorn it. I shall conclude this Letter by showing, very brief- ly, the excellency of our English version of the Bible. And I shall not quote a single Presbyterian author, as they all think our Bible so abundantly full of true Presbyterianism as to take it 'as the only infallible rule of faith and practice.' Nor shall we cite any Bap- tists, because they have also yielded this point to us fully, in leaving our Bible for a new one, as Mr. Camp- bell has done. Dr. Adam Clark, the celebrated Methodist Com- mentator, says of it: — "Those, who have compared most of the European translations with the onginal, have not scrupled to say, that the English translation of the Bible, made under King James the First, is the most accurate and faithful of the whole. Nor is this its only praise — the translators have seized the very spirit and soul of the original, and expressed this almost eve- ry where, with pathos and energy. Besides, our trans- lators have not only made a standard translation, but they have made their translation the standard of our language; the English tongue, in their day, was not equal to such a work, but God enabled them to stand, as upon Mount Sinai, and crane up their country's language to the dignity of the originals; so that, after tlie lapse of two hundred years, the English Bible is^. 175 with very few exceptions, the standard of the purity and excellence of the English tongue. The original, from which it was taken, is alone superior to the Bible translated by the authority of King James," — Volume 1, page 31. Dr. Geddes says: — "The highest eulogiums have been made on the translation of James the First, both by our own writers and by foreigners. And indeed, if accuracy, fidelity, and the strictest attention to the let- ter of the text, be supposed to constitute the qualities of an excellent version, this, of all versions, must in general be accounted the most excellent. Every sen- tence — every word — every syllable — every letter and point — seem to have been weighed with the utmost exactitude, and expressed, either in the text, or mar- gin, with the greatest precision. Pagninus, himself, is hardly more literal; and it was well remarked by Rob- ertson, above a hundred years ago, that it may serve for a Lexicon of the Hebrew language, as well as for a translation." — Prosp., page 92. Contrast this language of one of the most learned men of the M^orld with the following sentence from Mr. Cone, the President of the New Baptist Bible So- ciety: — "Who knows, that the forty-nine translators were such very learned men? [All, who know any thing of them, do.] Where are their learned works? [And where are yours to excel them?] Cannot breth- ren allow the possibility of forty-nine Baptists meeting together, and making an amendment in the version of the Scriptures." We say, emphatically, no. Nor 49 Presbyterians either, to substitute a Latin uninspired word, instead of an inspired Greek one, so well put in- 176 to English as our good old expressive, appropriate, sa- cred word, baptize. I might cite a volume of eulogies on our English version- Let any, who wisli more, look into. Home, volimie 2, page 254 — 8, and they will fmd, agreeing with the above, John Selden, Bishop Watson, Bishop Lowth, Middlcton, Horsley, Whita- ker, Drs. Doddridge, Taylor of Norwich, Beattie, and a- multitude of others. The English version, then,, is the best in tiie world. But the immersionists give it up as wholly in favor of sprinkling. Therefore, this, the best version — yea, the Bible — is wholly in favour of sprinkling, and against iramei"sion. And this settleS- the matter. LETTER XXIV. THE HISTORY OF IMMERSION. The history of Immersion, as given bj Mr. Campbell, we shall here notice. He saysy in ^Christianity Re- stored,' page 225: — "Having closely and repeatedly examined the epistles of Clement; of Polycarp to the Philippians; of Ignatius to the Ephesians; that to the Magnesians; that to the Trallians, the Romans, the Philadelphians, the Smyr- nians, and the Epistle to Polycarp, together witli the Catholic Epistle of Barnabas, and the genuine works of Ilermas, I can affirm that the following ex- tracts (only two) are the only passages^ in all these zvri- tings^ that speak of Immersion, The former (Clement) gives no testimony on the subject — nor does Ignatius, nor Polycarp — but Hermas, who wrote about the end of the first or beginning of the second century, speak- ing of a tower built upon water, by which he signifies the building of Christ's church, (the whole is but a fig- ure of taking stones from the water to build with,) thus writes: — 'Hear, therefore, why the tower is built upon the waters — because your life is saved, and shall be saved, by water.' In answer to the question, 'why did the stones come up into the tower out of the deep?' he says, 'it was necessary for them to come up by (or through) water, that they might be at rest, for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God; for before any one receives the name of the Son of God, he is hable to death; but when he receives the seal, he is deHvered from death, and assigned to hfc: now that 12 178 seal is 7t:ater, to which persons go, but from which they come assigned to life; for which reason, to these also was the seal preached, and they made use of it, that they might enter into the kingdom of God.' — Book of Similitudes, ch. 16." Now notice: — 1. He calls baptism Hhe seal of the Lord:' 'That seal is water," and is placed, of course, upon the Forehead, 2. This Book was written before John wrote his Gospel, and while he yet lived; so that we follow Her- mas and John too in sealing the Forehead with baptism. But Mr. C. finds no immersion here, not even baptizo. The other passage to which Mr. Campbell refers, is from Barnabas, ch. 11, who says: — "Let us inquire whether the Lord took care to mani- fest anything before hand, concerning water and the cross. Now for the former of these, it is written to the people of Israel, how they shall not receive that Bap- tism that brings forgiveness of sins, but shall institute another to themselves that cannot. For thus saith the Prophet — 'Be astonished, O Heavens, and let the earth tremble at it, because this people have done two great and wicked things. They have left me, the fountain of living waters, and have digged for themselves broken cisterns that can hold no water. Is my holy mountain, Zion, a desolate wilderness? For she shall be as a young bird, when its nest is taken away.' Consider how he hath joined both the cross and water together. For this he saith, 'Blessed are they, who, putting their trust in the cross, descend into [to] the water, for they shall have their reward in due time;' then saith he, 'I will give it them.' But as concerning the present time, he saith 'their leaves shall not fall,' meaning thereby, 179 that every word that shall go out of your mouth, shall, through faith and charity, be to the conversion and hope of many. In like manner does another Prophet speak, 'and the land of Jacob was the praise of all the earth,' magnifying thereby the vessels of the Spirit. And what follows? 'And there was a river running on the right hand, and beautiful trees grew up by it, and he that shall eat of them shall live forever.' " The significa- tion is this; that we go down into [to] the water full of sins and pollutions, but come up again, bringing forth fruit, having in our hearts the fear and hope which are in Jesus, by the Spirit; and-vvliosoever shall eat of them, shall live forever." We have given these two long extracts that all may see the whole evidence that Mr. C. gives, or says can be found, for immersion from all the Apostolic Fathers.' Hear his own words: 'Having closely and repeatedly examined the Epistles (of all the Fathers,) I can affirm that the preceding extracts are the only passages in all those writings that speak of immersion.' But do these say a word about immersion? Neither the word nor the idea can be found in either of them. The word haptizo is not even used in any of its forms, nor can the highly figurative language of Hermas and Barnabas be CERTAINLY made to mean, or refer to the mode of bap- tism at all. Yet this is all the evidence, for 150 years after Christ, in favour of immersion. Then it could not have existed. Mr. Campbell on the same page says : "Having heard the Apostolic Fathers, as they are called, depose to the views of the Apostles down to A. D. 140, I will sumr; mon a very learned Paedobaptist antiquarian, [Dr. 180 Wall] who can bring forward every writer and Father down to the fifth century." He then cites from Wall, to prove his notion of baptismal regExXeration, nearly all the passages in favor of Infant Baptism that I have quoted in the foregoing Letters; and, in his eilbrts to prove his water regeneration, has fully admitted all of Wall's quotations, and what is most remarkable, prov- en his position from the very passages of the Fathers that prove Infant Baptism: so that I hope all his follow- ers will believe my quotations from the Fathei-s, as Mr. Campbell has deckred them to be true. For instance ; he quotes the same passages I do from Cyprian, Ori- rren, Gregory, Basil, Ambrose, Chrysostom and Augus- tine. Now turn back to my quotations, which should have all the force of Mr. Campbell's authority. Then we can fmd but two- passages in favour of im- mersion, (and they say not a word of it,) m all' the Fa- thers; so that neither Polycarp, nor Ignatius, nor Cle- ment, the chief Fathers, say a word about it. So far. then, the matter is clear, — there was no immersion for 140 years after Christ. In the year 140, Justin Mar- tvr wrote his first apology to Antonius Pius, in which he speaks of baptism thus: — ^I will now declare to } ou also, after what manner we, being made new in Christ for baptized,] have dedicated ourselves to. God, lest, if I should leave out that, I might seem to deal unfairly in my apology. They who arc persuaded and do be- lieve that these things which are taught us arc true, and do promise to live according to them, are directed first to pray, and ask of God, with fasting, the forgive- ness of their former sins, and we also pray and fast to- gether with thena. Then we bring them to some place 181 *vhcrc there is water, and thej are regenerated after the same way of regeneration, by which we were re- generated, ybr they are zvashed zcith watery (c7i toucJatitoie ioiitron poiountai^m the name' of God, the F^.thcr and liOrd of all thing*, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Ghost. For Christ says, unless ye be re- generated ye cannot enter into the kingdom«of Heaven; and every one knows it is impossible for those that are once generated or born to enter again into their moth- ers womb. It was foretold by the Prophet Isaiah, as I said, by what means they who rcpcntof tlieir sins might escape them, and was written in these words: *wash you, make you clean, put away your ovik' 1. Thisis the most ancient account of baptizing, next to the Scriptures, we have on record, and sliows most clearly that Justin calls baptism just what we do, 'a washing zcith rvater in the name of the Trinity:'' and the ^WASHING,' notice, was made upon thcni-^iwt they in the water, 2. He explains John 3: 5, to mean baptism, called by Isaiah, 1 : 16, a 'washing;' so Hhe washing of regen- eration,' Tit. 3: 5, is Baptism. This most ancient doc- ument should be well remembered. Irenius, the next Father, speaks of Infant Baptism, but says nothing of the mode at all: nor does Clement of Alexandria. So we come on dow^n to the year 200c when we find Tertullian, the first man who speaks of the practice of immersion, which he declares 'not to be found in the Scriptures,' but 'uj;o:i tradition.' I shall cite the whole passage from Wall, part 2, chapter 9. Tertullian, in a dispute with Praxias, ch. 26, says : — "Not unto one person, for we are not plunged once, but three 182 times: once at the naming of each name." Then the fiftieth of the ancient Canons orders, that ^any Bishop or Presbyter^ that does not use the Trine immersion in baptism^ be deposed^* So that the first cases of immer- sion on record are all of the trine ijimersion. But now, let Tertullian tell where this immersion came from, and on what it is founded: — "Let us try then, whether no tradition ought to be allowed, that is not written. Now, to begin with baptism; when we come to the water, we do there, under the hand of the Pas- tor, make a full confession that we renounce the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Then we are three times plunged into the water, and we answer some few words more than those which our Saviour in the Gospel has enjoined. When we are taken up out of the water, we taste a mixture of milk and honey. And from that day, we abstain a whole week from batliing ourselves, w^hich otherwise we use every day. And w^hatever business we have, we make upon our foreheads the sign of the cross.*** If you search into the Scriptures for any command for these and such like usages, you shall find 7ione» Tradition will be urged to you as the ground of them — custom as the confirmer of them — and our religion teaches us to observe them,'''' — De Corona Militis, ch. 1 — 3. Could language declare more unequivocally the trine immersion of the third century to be founded on tradi- tion, and that there is no command for it in Scripture ? This is the first and only kind of immersion we find till 1522, except that of some heretics called Eunomians. St. Hierome, in his Dialogue Epistle, Sec. 8, says of Baptism : "For many other things which are by tradi- tion observed in the Church, have got authority as if 183 they were written laws, as in the font of Baptism. — ■- Tcr caput mergitare, to plunge the head three times Under water*'^ St. Basil says the same things^ and so does the great Chrysostora. Hence, Dr. Wall says: 'The way of Trine immersion.^ plunging the head three times under water, was the general practice of aU an- tiquity,^ after the second century. Robinson confirms all this, p. 466, quoting Daille to Bellarmine. — ^"He proves by unquestionable authority, that trine immersion^ first mentioned in the close of the sec- ond century^ or at the beginning of the third, Wcis the in- variable practice of the Catholic church, both Greek and Roman, till about the sixth century ; that although Gregory I. allowed the validity of single immersion in the case of the Spaniards, yet the Romans practiced trine immersion; that a Synod of Constantinople cen- sured the Eunomians for practicing single immersion in the name of Christ, and that trine immersion continued to be universally practiced till the fifteenth century." To show you that the immersion of the present day is quite a different thing from what you find in the Fa- thers, look at the case of tliose people who were con- dem.ned for immersing but once. I will cite the case, though some may blame me for so doing. Wall, ch. 9, sec. 4, says: — "The Eunomians had the oddest way of baptizing that ever was heard of. For besides that they differed from all other Christians in the words used at baptism, some baptizing in the name of Christ, &c. &c. &c., their mode of baptizing was to plunge the person but once into the water; and that not all his body neither. For they said, all the parts of the body below the waist are abominable, and must not touch the wa- 184 ter; so they used to uncover the person to the waist, and then holding his heels up, and his head downward, they dipped him in the font as far as the waist. They continued this custom till a ridiculous accident happen- ed ; a heavy, unwieldly man coming to be baptized, they that were to hold him with his head down let him fall, and he broke his head against the bottom of the font. To prevent which mischance for the future, they in- vented another way," &c. — Epiphanius, ch. 76 — The- odoret, ch. 4. This certainly was an odd way of baptising, but it v,-as condemned because it was but single immersion. Surely those who practice single immersion in these davs will not plead this example. Then they must go for the TRINE immersion, for that did prevail whereveiv and whenever sprinkling or pouring was not used. Here we should remark that we find from this time on, for several hundred years, immersion often spoken of as in practice, but it was always trine or three times given. But it was never considered essential to bap- tism by any writer, or sect,or church, till after Luther's time, when Munzer and Storch made it so in 15"22. To show this matter in a full and clear light, read what Cyprian says on this point, in the year 255. — Magnus writes to him to know whether persons bap- tized in bed by .sprinkling, were properly baptized, or whether they should be baptized over again. Cyprian answers, most certainly they are not to be re-baptized, ])ecause their baptism is Scriptural, and Ezekiel de- clares it so. — "You inquire, also, dear son, what I think of such as obtain the grace (of baptism) in time of their sickness and infirmity; whether they are to be account- VS5 ed lawful Christians, because they are not washed all over with the water of salvation, but have only some of it POURED UPON THEM. [Gnosticism had then entejcd. and trine immersion was very common, many really be- lieving that unless a person was immersed three times\ he could not be saved.] In which matter, I use so much modesty and humility as not [like maiiy now-a- days] to .prescribe so positively, but that every one should have the freedom of his own thouglit, and do ns he thinks best. I do, according t:0 the best of my mean capacity, judge thus, tliat the divine favors are not MAIMED or WEAKENED, SO as that any thing less than the whole of them is conveyed, where the benefit ei them is received with a full and complete faith, both oi the giver and receiver. For, the contagion of sin is n»ot,in the sacrament of baptism, washed off by the same measure that the dirt of the skin and of the body is washed off in an ordinary and secular bath, [as some think,] so as that there should be any necessity of soaj) a^id other helps, and a large fish pond or pool, by which the body is washed. It is in another way, that the breast of a believer is washed (or baptized) — after an- other fashion, that the mind of a man is, by faith, cleansed. If any one think they obtain no benefit, as having only a sprinkling of the water of baptism, do not let them mistake so far, as that if the parties should re- cover of their sickness, they should be baptized again. And if they must not be baptized again, that they have already been sanctified with the baptism of the Cliurch, [to-wit: SPRINKLING, hcrc called 'the baptism of the Church,'] why should they have cause of scandal given them concerning their religion, and the baptism (par- 186 don) of the Lord? What! shall we think they have granted to them the grace of our Lord, hut in a weak- er or less measure of the Divine and Holy Spirit, so as to be accounted Christians, hut yet not in an equal state with others? No; the holy Spirit is not given hy sev- eral measures, [so of baptism,] but is wholly poured on them that beheve* In the sacrament of salvation, when necessity compels, the shortest ways of transacting divine matters do, by God^s gracious dispensation, confer the whole benefit. And no man need, there- fore, think otherwise, because these sick people, when they received the baptism (grace) of our Lord, have nothing but an affusion or sprinkling; for the Holy Scriptures, by the Prophet Ezekiel, 38: 25, says: 'Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean.' "—Epistle 69. The same is true of Origen and many others of those times. See Letter XIV for a full catalogue of the Fathers. I say again, and wish it ever remembered, that no writer, till after 1522, makes even trine immersion es- sential to baptism. One more fact heret The Greek church, it is said, is one of the oldest, and they have ever immersed, and do so now — ^but is it not always three times ? Take a fact from Robinson, p. 454 : He says they cut a hole or orifice in the ice, and dip the infants under; then, quo- ting Richardson, adds, "All infants, who are baptized with the water of the sacred orifice, are supposed to derive from it the most peculiar advantages. Parents are, therefore, very eager, even at the hazard of their children's lives, to embrace this blessed opportunity. I have heard that a Priest, in immersing a child, let it 187 fall into the water — [under the ice.] The child was drowned; but the holy nmn suffered no consternation, but with the utmost composure said, 'Give me anotheh, for the Lord has taken this unto himself.' The Em- press, however, having other use for her subjects, and not desiring the Lord should have any more, in this way, at least, gave orders that all the children to be baptized, in the hole in the river, be let down in a basket." They, however, now practice in the good old way, by sprinkling, as was shown in Letter X. ThcDy we conclude that immersion was not known nor in practice for two hundred years after Christ. — None of the Apostolic Fathers mention it — Tertullian speaks of the trine immersion first in the third century. So, putting Campbell, Justin, TertulUan, Cyprian Ori- gen and Robinson together, the case is made out that trine immersion came in about the third century and prevailed, where sprinkling was not used, down to the Reformation, but was founded on tradition and unknown to Scripture. LETTER XXV. THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. %, As the adv^ocales of Immersion have given up the English Bible as wholl}^ in our favor; and as we have shown in our last, fiom the histoiy of immersion, that it is not possible for them to appeal to Church history with success, we shall conclude these Letters. It is surpassingly strange to me, that an}' person should fail to understand the true design of so simple and sig- nificant an ordinance. All denominations, I believe, agree in understanding the I^ord's supper to be a sym- bol or representation of the death and sulFerings of Christ. And nearly all believe that laaptism is design- ed to represent the cleansing, purifying influence of the spiritual baptism. The one is certainly as plain as the other, and where imagination and prejudice have not the sway, there is nto more difficulty in the one case than the other. Some have contended that baptism was designed to represent the death and resurrection of Christ. But on what grounds or authority, I cannot possibly conceive. Do they say that Christ gave grounds for this strange notion? None, whatever. He says nothing from which it can even be infered, but the very reverse. Do they contend that John gave any reasons to believe it true.? 'They certain!}^ cannot. For John most fully and expressly says, it was a type or sign of spir- itual baptism: — ^^'I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but he that cometh after me is mightier than I — he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and witli fire." — Mat. 3: 11. This is what John says of the matter- 180 But notice again: Our imniersionists contend that John''s baptism was Christian baptism, and that baptism was first iiistituted in the days of John; of course, then, Christ had not died, nor did John, or even Peter, the day before his crucifixion, beheve that he should die. Is it possible, then, that John baptized to represent the death and resurrection of Christ, when he did not be- rieve he was going- to die, or to be raised at all ! It is unreasonable, and is wholly an after-thought. That was never in the mind of man till immersion was in- vented, and then this strange id'ea originated as a prop to support a mode of baptism not known to the Scrip- tures at all, but foimded on tradition. Then the Gos- pels declare water baptism to be designed to point out and represent spiritual baptism. Now turn to the "Acts of the Apostles." Christ gave his commission. Mat. 28: 19; Mark 16; and in Luke 24, and added, "But tarry ye in Jerusalem till ye be endowed with power from on high."" Then in Acts, 1: 4, 5 — "But wait for the promise of the Father, which ye have heard of me; for John truly baptized with water, but ye shall be ])aptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence," which occurred at Pentecost, as recorded in the next chapter. Here we find the same connection between water and spiritual baptism, and this is kept up through- out the book of Acts, as in the case of Cornelius, ch. 10, and in the case of the twelve in chapter 19. So that we find not a word about baptism representing the death and burial of Christ to the end of Acts, but it is always designed to represent spiritual baptism. Before we come to the Epistles, notice two passages more in the Gospels; the one. Matt. 3r 16 — Christ's b-aptisn??.. 190 When he was baptized, immediately "the spirit descen- ded like a Dove" upon him. Was not this designed to show the union of the two baptisms? Or was there no meaning in it? The other case is in John 3: 5: "Ex- cept one be born of the water and of the spirit, he can- not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Now, if the water here refers to baptism, doubtless the spirit may also ; and as all the advocates for immersion contend that the water here means baptism, why will they not admit the spiritual to be represented by the water bap- tism? Does not the Saviour himself here unequivocal- ly declare it? But now turn to the Epistles. There are two pas- sages cited from these to show that baptism is design- ed to represent the death and burial of Christ. The one is Romans, 6: 2, 3 — the other. Col. 2: 11, 12. Be- fore we examine these, let us ask, "Does God make both ordinances, the supper and baptism, refer to or represent the same thing? That the supper refers to the death and sufferings of Christ, all admit. And why need baptism refer to what is fully shown in the supper? Is one ordinance of God so insignificant as to need the other to help it set forth the thing designed? The idea is preposterous. Again : is it Hkely that Paul, who was baptized "standing up" "in the house," would teach such an idea, as that he himself was not properly bap- tized? which he must do, if he means by the 6th chap, of Romans to teach that baptism represents the death and burial of Christ? It is too inconsistent for Paul. Professor Stuart, who is the champion and favorite with all the advocates for immersion in this country, and whom they boast of 'as the mos't learned Pa:dobap- 191 list in America,' says of the sixth chapter of Romans, "The resurrection thus spoken of is entirely a moral, spiritual one — so is the baptism." And, after a long course of reasonings and critical exegesis, he says: "I believe that the Apostle had in view only a burying, which is moral or spiritual; for the same reasons that he had a moral and spiritual (not a physical resurrec- tion) in view in the corresponding part of the antithe- sis. Indeed, what 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 ?' I cannot see, therefore, that there is any more necessary reference to the modus of baptism, than there is to the modus of the resurrection. The one may as well be maintained as the other. But my principal difficulty in respect to the usual exegesis of sunetaphe- men is, that the image or figure of immersion (in) bap- tism, is, so far as I know, no where else in Scripture employed as a symbol of burial in the grave. Nor can I think, that it is a very natural symbol of burial. The obvious import of washing with water, or immersing in water, is, that it is symbolical of purity, cleansing, and purification. But how will this aptly signify burying in the grave, the pkice of corruption, loathsomeness and destruction?" — Stuart on Romans, p. ^25^, Will immersionists believe these words of their own cham- pion? Can the}^ question what Professor Stuart says? I might cite from the most learned men of all ages sentiments of the same kind. No distinguished man, till recently, ever thought of making water baptism repro- sent the death and burial of Christ. The only two pas- gages in the Testament, that have words susceptible of m2 such a distortion, are in Paul's letter, neither of which have any more reference to the mode of baptism, than to the mode of dying, or living, or talking, or planting, or cmcifying, or rising. The last three of these tig- ures are used by the Apostle in the same illustration. Why not say, also, that baptism represents the cruci- fixion of Christ? The whole idea is too gross ever to have originated with Paul. But to settle the matter jorcver, Paul has told ut?, almost in so many words, that water baptism represents spiritual cleansing: — '■•But according to his mercy he saved us, by the wash- ing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly." — Titus 3: 5. Does not Paul here place water baptism, and the cleansing of the spirit, together, the one as the type or symbol of the other? Those who say the expression, "washing of regeneration," means baptism, must ad- mit it. But why need we dwell upon a point so plain? Why need we notice more fully theincongruity of bap- tism representing the death and burial of Christ? Per- mit me here to suggest to the advocates of this theory, an argument that their particular friend and favorite. Professor Stuart, gives in fuM, and ask them to read it carefully. It is this in substance — That all the cere- monies of the old Jewish dispensation were of two kinds, or all may be divided and set down under two heads, viz: — 1. Those typical of the atonement: 2. And those typical of purification, or cleansing. Under one or the other of these, all the rights and ceremonies of the old Testament may, with the strict- est propriety, be classed. Now that the Lord's supper 193 answers to all of the first class, or is our symbol of his atonement, all admit; and if our baptism does not also fully answer to all of the second class, or is not our symbol of purification, or the cleansing influence of the spirit, then will they tell us what is? What were all tlie cleansing ceremonies of the old Testament types of, if not of baptism? Is there any thing answering to them under the new dispensation, if it is not baptism? Paul settles this question: — "Which stood in meats and drinks, and divers washings, (or baptisms, as in the Greek,) and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." — Heb. 9: 10. Thus, he says these carnal or ceremonial cleansings, washings or baptisms of the Jews, were imposed un til Christ should come and bring in the great things signified — his atone- ment and spirit, signified by his supper and baptism. That this is the true design of baptism is most mani- fest, therefore, from the language of Christ, of John, of Paul, of the whole old Testament, as expounded in the new by inspiration. Yet men will gravely speak of baptism, by immersion, as designed to represent the death and burial of Christ, when immersion is not in the Bible, and the two passages refered to are but mere figures of spiritual, not physical matters at all. Water is the Bible emblem of purity, not the grave; sprinkling is the mode of purification, not dipping; the water baptism is the beautiful emblem of spiritual baptism. TII£ END. 13 ERRATA. Several typographical errors escaped correction in the 'proofs' of this folume, of which the following are the most important. Some other joinor ones, including a few quotation marks incorrectly placed or omit- ted, mistakes in punctuation, &c., none of which, it is believed, mate- Tralif affect the sense, are passed over: Page 31, line 9, read "your" instead of "you." Page 34, line 10, read ^'Sanrtification'''' instead of ^^justification." Page 45, line 3, read "are" instead of "is." Page 70, line 9, read Brerewood" instead of "Brewood." Page 80, line 9th from bottom, read "is" instead of "are." Page 86, line 3, read "23" instead of "25." Page 95, top line, read "Arrian" instead of "Aerian." Page 95, bottom line, read "Buck" instead of "Busk." Page 104, read '■^loutron''^ instead of ^'"loutio" and '■^loution.''^ Page 104, bottom line, read "Apology" instead of "Apologue." Page 110, line 19, read "Aurelius" instead of "Auselius." Page 112, line 4th from bottom, read "or" for "of." [copy-right secured.] TABLE OF CONTENTS. PART FIRST. THE SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. FACE LiTTEE I. The question stated— Commission— Jewish Household Baptism - - - Letter II. The Apostles practiced Household Baptism —Christ recognized it - - - - ^^' Letter III. Infant Baptism taught in the Epistles, as explained by the Fathers - ^ 2i Letter IV. The two Objections to Infant Baptism fully answered, in contrast with two sound Arguments in favour of it Letter V. History of Infant Baptism from St. John to Origen, A. D.210 ..----- 38 Letter VI. The first council on Infant Baptism under Cyprian, A. D. 253 ^-^ Letter VII. History of Infant Baptism from Cypnan to Augustine, A. D. 500 ^ Letter VIII. History of Infant Baptism from Augustine to the rise of Anabaptism, 1522 ^^ Letter IX. Infant Baptism the only true Baptism-ail churches dependent upon it for the validity of their Baptism— Munzer, Blount, Roger Williams . - - tJ4 Letter X. All churches in Europe, Asia, Africa and America, since the rise of the Anabaptists, do now practice Infant Baptism, save the Baptiets - - - - 6;} PART SECOND. THE MODE OF BAPTISM. Letter XL The question stated—King James' version — Baptize not a word of mode -----.. go Letter XIL The New Testament explains all the Old Testament pouring and sprinkling to be Baptism, and thus settles the case; Bapto noticed— its origin - - 91 Letter XIIL Etymology of Baptizo, and use of the word in the Bible and classics 97 Letter XIV. History of the Mode of Baptism from John to the twelfth century - - . 104 Letter XV. History of Baptism from the twelfth cen- tury to the Reformation - - 112 Letter XVI. Each passage on Baptism in the New Testament taken up in order ------_. 120 Letter XVII. Apostolic Baptism in the Acts— all by sprinkling, and all in houses, but one in the desert - 127 Letter XVIII. The Mode of Baptism in the Epistles shown to be sprinkling 134 Letter XIX. The Mennonites, the first Baptists, have given up immersion for pouring; ancient immersions, all naked and given three times, founded on Tradition 141 Letter XX. The difference between the immersion of the Fathers and that of the present age shown - - 148 Letter XXI. Immersion has inverted, and fully de- stroyed the Gospel in past ages, and the tendency now is to the same superstitious regard for it - - - 154 Letter XXII. Baptism in the Westminster Assembly, and from the time of Henry VIII to Elizabeth - - 160 Letter XXIII. The question fully yielded to us, by immersionists giving up the English Bible for new versions jgg Letter XXIV. The History of Immersion - ... 177 Letter XXV. Tho Design of Baptism 188 nnceton Theological SertKnary-Speer Library 1 1012 01021 3553 y^^" -T /' r^^"'"* X.it^ i >^ "a