Oivls.on..,i3y^H Section » D.5~ ^*^ No ,/ THE BAPTISMAL QUESTION DISCUSSION BAPTISMAL QUESTION CONSISTING OF 1. HINTS TO AN INQUIRER ON THE SUBJECT- OF BAP- TISM. By Rev. Messrs. Cooke and Towse. II. REVIEW OF THE " HINTS." By Rev. William Hague. HI. REJOINDER TO THE REVIEW. By Rev. Messrs. Cooke AND ToWNE. IV. EXAMINATION OF THE REJOINDER. By Rev. William Hague. BOSTON : GOULD, KENDALL & LINCOLM 5 9 Wa shington Street. 1842. rUELISKERS' i\OTICE. Towards the close of last May, Rev. Messrs. Cooke and Towne published a pamphlet, entitled, "Hints to an Inquirer, on the subject of Baptism," in which the views and practices of the Baptists were so treated, that some reply, on the part of the denomination, seemed to be called for. On application to Mr. Hague, he immediately pre- pared a Review of that work, and this called forth a Rejoinder, from Messrs Cooke and Towne, which was published in one small vol- ume ; — first their " Hints," in a fair, legible type ; next IMr. Hague's Review, in type so fine and dim, that very few persons could read it without endangering their eyes ; and then their Rejoinder to the Re- view, in type laige and clear. Thus, while in their advertisement there was an appearance of candor, in publishing both sides, there was, in reality, a want of candor and fairness, in so publishing the Review, that very few could do it justice in the perusal. In the " JVote. " to Cooke and Towne's Rejoinder, it is said, "We learn that complaint has been made of our printing the whole of Mr. Hague's pamphlet with ours. His publishers, in putting it forth without securing the copyright, as they might have done for a trifle, virtually gave it to the public, and have no legal or moral right, and no right on the score of courtesy, to complain of any one for publish- ing it." Allowing that while omitting to take out a copyright (as is usual, in publishing a small pamphlet), we forfeited our claim of "legal right," we are unable to see that it can affect our " moral right," or annul all claim of "courtesy !" They were distinctly informed, that we objected to their publishing our work in the way they did. There is a "law of trade," in reference to republishing foreign works, not entitled to a copyright in this country, that he who first obtains a complete copy, secures to himself the right of publishing ; and in so IV PUBLISHERS NOTICE. high regard is this law of honor and courtesy held, that in some few instances, where it has been violated, the course has been condemned, on the part of the •' trade," by a refusal to purchase or sell copies of the edition thus published. How, then, must our surprise have been excited, to find this law of honor, and regard to moral right, so strictly adhered to by men of the world, unheeded by those who profess to be governed by the pure principles of the gospel ! It has been our wish, in issuing the «♦ Examination of the Rejoin- der," by Mr. Hague, to publish both sides fully — to put forth the whole discussion in one volume. But the copyright of the «' Hints " and «< Rejoinder " having been secured to the publishers, we have not been permitted to piit these works in our own type, so as to have the numbers of the pages to succeed each other in regular order, as would have been desirable. We have, however, purchased the right of printing from the stereotype plates of Messrs. Cooke and Towne's productions, and bound them up with our own publications; although, to accomplish our object, we have been forced to adopt type unlike our own, and to leave the paging without arrangement, which would give the whole an appearance of unity. JYevertheless, the public will see that we have done all that we could, under the circumstances of the case, to present to view the whole discussion in a form which shall be easy of perusal, and con- venient for the sake of reference. As we have not cared to secure for ourselves pecuniary profit, we may ask with the more confidence, that the whole may be read with a candid mind, *' an applying con- science, and a retentive memory." For the benefit of such as are already in possession of the previous works, and may feel indisposed to purchase the same again, Mr. Hague's Examination of Messrs. Cooke and Towne's Rejoinder hag been republished in a separate form, and may be had at a reduced price. THE PUBLISHERS. Boston, December, 1842. HINTS AN INQUIRER ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. FIRST PUBLISHED IN THE NEW ENGLAND PURITAN. PARSONS COOKE AND JOSEPH H. TOWNE. BOSTON: x'UBLISHED BY WASHINGTON CLAPP, AT THE OFFICE OF THE NEW ENGLAND PURITAN. 1842. Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1842, By Washington Clapp, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Massachusetts. STEREOTYPED BY GEORGE A. CURTIS, K. ENGLAND TYPE AND STEREOTYPE FOUNDRY, I HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. INTRODUCTION Those who practise immersion assume the position, that thev may lawfully debar from the Lord's table all who ad- minister baptism in other ways. This gives the question before us an importance which otherwise would not belong to it. If the exclusive principle advocated by this body of Chris- tians is defensible on scriptural grounds, the greater part of Christ's professed disciples are intruders at his table. But if, on the other hand, Immersers are wrong, they are guilty of exercising an usurped authority in the house of God, and of withholding the children's bread. The honest inquirer on this subject, therefore, in settling the question, whether he shall be immersed and unite with Immersers, must, at the same time, settle the question as to close communion. He cannot join them in church fellowship, without giving his sanction to their exclusive principle. This fact he should take along with him, through the whole argu- ment, and put every suggestion in favor of immersion to the test of the inquiry — 7s this sure and satisfactory ground on. which to base close communion ? As to the use of names, we must be excused from using the term " Baptists," for those who practise immersion. The application to them of this name, is equivalent to a concession, that we do not baptize. And there is a kind of charm attached 4 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. to the name, carrying- with it an impression, injurious to the force of opposite arguments. The influence of a name on this subject, has an illustration of this kind. A Campbellite, hold- ing forth to an uncultivated audience at the west, in favor of immersion, broke forth in the following eloquent appeal : — " Was it John the Methodist? No. Was it John the Epis- copalian? No. Was it John the Presbyterian? No. It was John the Baptist. ^^ And this was doubtless the end of all strife, for those who could be convinced by the sound of a name. But the sound of a name has its influence more or less with all ; and it is not fit that in this respect, an advantage should be conceded to either side. For any sect to claim the exclusive use of the term Baptists, is no more equitable than that they should claim an exclusive use of the name believers ; in a way to imply that no others believe in Christ but them- selves. But if they choose thus to beg the question, it is not wise in us to concede it. We take the liberty, therefore, so far as we have occasion to apply a name in these remarks, to use the term Immersers instead of Baptists — a term which need not be offensive to them, as it has no invidious intent with us. We are aware that immersion, unscriptural as we con- ceive it to be, is associated with the purest feelings of many devout disciples of our blessed Lord ; and far be it from us to trifle with such feelings. But the cause of truth requires it of all Pedobaptists, that they take special pains to break the force of a habit; and discard, entirely, the use of a term so injurious to themselves. And, furthermore, it is the duty of Immersers, themselves, to discard its exclusive use, and that for the sake of consistency. In their new translation of the Bible, they have substituted immerse, for baptize, under the idea that baptize is not a fit and proper word to express the thing, and thus have virtually expunged baptism from the Bi- ble. And now it is passing strange, if they, who are taking measures to deprive the Christian world of the very name of baptism, should assume the monopoly of that name, and style HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 5 themselves the only Baptists. Surely, after having blotted the vrord from the Bible, they will not deem it fit to retain it as the name of their sect. Though the sect in its infancy, was baptized by this name, yet now, having attained to ma- turer knowledge, and discovered that baptize does not express the true idea, they may be expected to secure a change of name, and conform to their riper knowledge. We wish the inquirer to mark in the outset that the nice and punctilious regard to the forms of outward rites, so much insisted upon in the Mosaic ritual, is not required of us. A divine simplicity characterizes the New Testament institutions. It is contrary to the genius of the gospel to lay great stress on outward rites. It rather invites the main solicitudes upon ordering the heart and life. The kingdom of God consisteth not in meats and drinks, but in righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. Neither circumcision availeth any- thing nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And much less does the gospel lay a stress on the mode of performing an external rite, and require the conscience to be burdened with the inquiry, whether it shall be done in this way or that. It has instituted two rites, as simple as it was possible to make them, and says nothing about a danger to be incurred, by failing to perform the simple ceremonies, precise- ly after a particular way. Let the inquirer take notice, that Immersers assume more responsibility than xoe do, and have more to prove. Their prin- ciples of close communion lay them under obligations to show to an absolute certainty, that inspiration fixes that their way, and no other way, of applying water is baptism. On the other hand, we need only show that there is no such certainty and we gain the question in dispute. For what intelligent and candid mind could ever feel justified in basing close com- munion upon an external ceremony of doubtful obligation? We expect, however, to show more than this. While we hold that the New Testament insists upon no particular way 1* 6 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER, of applying the water as essential, we contend that it favors sprinkling or pouring ; and that of all the conceivable forms of baptism, immersion is the most unnatural and improbable, and the farthest from the true design of the rite. CHAPTER I. MEANING OF THE WORD BAPTIZE. The argument for immersion is founded upon the assump- tion, that the words baptism and immersion convey the same idea. But this is a gross mistake. Baptism expresses the whole idea of the rite, including the invoking of the Trinity, the receiving of the candidate's implied profession of faith, the application of the water, and the like. Immersion expresses only a fraction of this idea. The Baptizer's Letter furnishes us with an apt illustration. " If I fall from a ship's side and am thoroughly immersed — is that baptism? No. Or if men immerse me by force — is that baptism? No. Or if I am immersed with my own consent, but not in the name of the Trinity — is that baptism? No. Well, then, neither immer- sion, nor the use of water in any way is baptism ; which is SOMETHING MORE." This is Sufficient to show that baptism and immersion are not synonymous terms. But it is said that the Greek words bapto and baptize (both of ihe same origin, and so nearly identical in meaning as to allow of our speaking of them as one word) decide the controversy. We should expect confident assertions in regard to these words ; for if they fail, a very material part of the Immerser's argument vanishes. Now we affirm that these words deter- mine nothing in this controversy, unless they have a fixed and invariable meaning, allowing water to be applied only in one way. If, on investigation, it be found that these words so much relied on, have different senses ; if in one connection they mean to plunge, and in another to wash, and in another HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 7 to tinge or color, and in another to sprinkle, the mere general command to baptize does not tell us how the water shall be used. The question, then, before us is — have these words a fixed and invariable meaning ? Even if we were to allow (as we do not) that to immerse is the prim.ary signification of these terms, it would not fix us to that way of applying water. Words very often lose their primary meaning. Instance the English word villain, primarily a servant; the word clerk, primarily a clergyman. Examples without number might be adduced, wherein the primary meaning is wholly superseded. And then many words which retain their primary meaning have also secondary meanings. The English noun, general, means the whole or totality, and then secondarily, a military officer. The word meal is primarily used of the flour of corn, and then of a repast. The word dowry, primarily means a price paid for a wife ; and secondarily almost the opposite, that is, a portion received with a wife ; and so of many others. Again : ivhen words go abroad and come into a foreign lan- guage^ they often change their meaning. Hence, if it could be shown that the Greeks used the word for immersion, and nothing else, it would not follow that the Jews, having adopted it as a foreign word, retained the same sense ; nor that it bears such a meaning in the New Testament, as Greek writers give it. These suggestions are sufiicient *to raise at least the suspicion, that it is hazardous to rest close communion upon the assumption, that the word baptize necessarily carries the force of immersion. The inquirer is now prepared to come nearer to the point, and see how these words are actually used. We will begin with uninspired writers. Callimachus and his commentators use bapto, to denote drawing up, &c. " To-day ye bearers of water draw up [baptize] none." Hippocrates, speaking of a certain liquid, says, " When it drops upon the garments they are dyed" [baptized.] Observe, the dropping of the liquid is 8 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. called baptism, -^sehylus says, "This garment, stained [baptized] by the sword of j:Egisth»^s, is a witness unto me." Here the flowing- of blood upon a garment is called baptism. Homer, in his battle of the frogs and mice, says, " He fell and breathed no more, and the lake was tinged [baptized] with the purple blood." Was the lake immersed in the blood of a MOUSE ? Aristophanes says, that Magnes, an old comic poet of Athens, used the Lydian music, and shaved his face, smear- ing [baptizing] it with tawny brushes." Here the lathering of his face, as when one shaves himself, is called baptizing. Aristotle speaks of a substance which being pressed, stains, [baptizes] the hand. When a man takes a sponge in his hand, and presses it, the water runs upon it ; but the hand is not immersed. yElian speaking of an old coxcomb, says, "He endeavored to conceal the hoariness of his hair, by coloring [baptizing] it." Another example : "You color [baptize] your head, but you can never color [baptize] old age." Aristo- phanes speaks of a "speckled [baptized] bird," as if we should call a Guinea hen a baptized hen. Marcus Antonius says, "The soul is tinctured [baptized] by the thought." The Sybilline verse, concerning the city of Athens, is as follows, " Thou mayest be baptized, O bladder, but it is NOT PERMITTED TO THEE TO GO UNDER THE WATER." Here we have Athens compared to a leathern bottle, or bladder, cast upon the agitated waters, but in spite of the agitation not immersed. This floating upon the water is called baptism. Aristophanes speaks of himself as having been baptized with wine. Here is no immersion ; the wine was poured into him ; and not he plunged into the wine. Josephus, speaking of puri- fication from defilement by a dead body, says, " Having bap- tized some of the ashes, with spring water they sprinkled, "&c. Numbers xix. 17, informs us how this was done. " Thou shalt take of the ashes of the burnt heifer, and running water shall be put thereto in a vessel, and a clean person shall sprinkle it." J^ow observe, the command is not to put the ashes into the HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 9 water, but the water to the ashes. This mode of applying water is called baptism by Josephus. Next we will show how the word is used by Old Testament and Apocryphal writers. Ecclesiasticus xxxiv. 30 — "He that is baptized from the touch of a dead body, and again toucheth it, what is he profited by his washing ?" Now the process of purifying from this defilement was by sprinkling, by washing the clothes ; and this is called baptism. In Judith xii. 7 — she is said to have gone out in the night, and baptized herself in the camp, at [not in] the fountain of water. This of course was not immersion. Ezekiel xxiii. 15 — " Exceeding in dyed [baptized] attire." Daniel v. 21 — " His body was wet [bap- tized] with the dew of heaven," It must have been a heavy dew, to have allowed of immersion ! Next follow examples //-om the Neio Testament. Paul says the Israelites were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea — 1 Cor. x. 2. How baptized? In Exodus xiv. 22, we are inform-ed that they went over on dry ground. But in what sense can men be said to be immersed, while walking on dry ground ! That they were not immersed is clear. How, then, were they baptized? One of the prophets, alluding to this, says — "And the clouds poured out water." The drop- pings from the cloud as they were passing, was their baptism, and the only way in which they were wet at all. In Heb. ix. 10, Paul calls the different ceremonial washings done in the tabernacle service, baptisms. Among them all there is not an instance of immersion by the priests. In all cases when the subjects bathed, there was no official administration. For these baptisms, see Lev. viii. 6, and Numb. viii. 7, Lev. xiv. 7, Numb. xix. 13, 17, 18, &c. Mark vii. 3 — " For the Pharisees and all the Jews, except they wash [baptize] their hands, they eat not, and when they come from the market, except they wash [baptize] they eat not." Here merely washing the hands is called baptism, and that was usually done by pouring water upon the hands. 10 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. Mark vii. 4 — "And many other things there be which they have received to hold, as the washing [baptism] of cups, pots, brazen vessels, and couches. ' ' These couches were long seats, or beds, on which they reclined ; and it would be extraordi- nary if they immersed their beds! Luke xi. 38 — "And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not washed [baptized] before dinner." Acts i. 5, &c. — "Baptized with the Holy Ghost." One is not immersed in the Holy Ghost, but it is poured, out upon him. You see, then, in what different senses the words are used, both by Greek and Jewish writers, ivhen not applied to a re- ligious rite. What is the conclusion ? Ncccssarihj that these words have not a fixed and invariable meaning — that they do not of themselves determine any one particular way of apply- ing a liquid. They are found to be as indeterminate as our word loash. When one informs us that he has washed, we suppose that he has made use of water in some way, but can- not tell, from the word employed, in what way. Men wash themselves in divers ways. From this investigation of the words, it begins to look as if the apostle was guilty of no im- propriety of language, when he spoke oi divers baptisms. Let the reader now glance at some suggestions, that will enable him to decide correctly as to the force of these words, when applied to the Christian ordinance. 1. Words taken from a common use, and applied in a spe- cial manner to express a religious rite, must necessarily have a special sense. They cover a new idea, created by the new institution, and consequently must have a new shade of mean- ing. The idea of Christian Baptism did not exist till our Saviour created it by instituting the rite. This institution gave necessarily a new meaning to the word. As a religious ceremony. Baptism is neither immersion nor sprinkling. It stands now for a religious rite — and that rite is water applied religiously in the name of the Trinity. The use of the word HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 11 supper confirms these remarks. Like baptism, this is a com- mon word used in a special sense. It has necessarily a new meaning-. Eating and drinking as men were accustomed to at supper in those days, would not express the meaning. Bear this in mind. The word supper denotes an ordinary meal ; but an ordinary meal is not the Lord's Supper. This Supper is bread and wine used religiously. The word bap- tism denotes washing in water in divers ways ; but washing in water is not the Lord's Baptism. This Baptism is water used religiously in the name of the Trinity. In these nine words you have the rite, and the whole of it. 2. That this is the meaning attached to the word, and that any particular way of applying water is not essential, may be made still more evident. We have already established the fact that the word baptism signifies the application of a liquid in divers ways. Now, then, the question comes — Why has the Holy Ghost made use of a word which designates no one way of using a liquid ? Plainly because the manner in which the water is applied, is not essential to the rite, any more than the manner of applying water is essential in a common wash- ing. 3. But further ; let the reader inquire whether something may not be gathered from our Saviour's instructions respect- ing the nature of ceremonial washings, which will throw ad- ditional light on the point before us. A single hiiit from his lips will have weight with every honest searcher after truth. Let Christ be our teacher. Let us value what he has aught us to value, and lay no stress on what he evidently regarded aa unimportant. Now when he was washing his disciples' feet, Peter desired him to wash not his feet only. But he replied, "He that is washed [i. e. spiritually cleansed] needeth not, save to wash his feet" — i. e. needs to have a ceremonial washing but partially applied. Here is a statement of a general principle, with respect to ceremonial washings. 12 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. It shows that our Saviour deemed the quantity of water, and the manner of its application, of no importance. We shall show, in the following chapter, that if any partic- ular way of applying water is more favored in the Bible than another, and more suitable to the design of baptism, it is sprinkling or pouring. CHAPTER II. MEANING OF THE WOUD CONTINUED. SIGNIFICATION OF BAPTISM. ♦ Inquirer. Well, Sir, your remarks on the subject of bap- tism shook my confidence in my former opinions ; and wish- ing to hear both sides, I sought an interview with Mr. , ■who made altogether a different impression on my mind. Teacher. Pray tell me in what manner he treated the subject. Inquirer. He gave me many examples from dictionaries of different languages, and from Greek writers, (for he is quite a scholar,) in which the word baptize signifies to im- merse. He quoted also certain distinguished Pedobaptists. Teacher. But did he give any cases where it has other significations 1 In other words, did he allude to any exam- ples where the word means to pour, or simply to wash ? Inquirer. He did not. Teacher. But ought he not to have done this? Inquirer. Certainly, if it is ever used in these senses. Teacher. We do not deny, my friend, that baptize in the original sometimes signifies plunging a substance into a liquid ; but we have proved that it also signifies pouring a liquid upon a substance. What then? — We have here a word which de- notes the application of water in divers loays. If the word therefore denotes the application of water in divers ways, it is indeterminate, like our English word wash, and does not de- fine any one way in which water shall be applied in the reli- 2 14 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. gious rite. This conclusion is immovable. We have sus- tained it by a multitude of examples cited before ; and that all lexicographers concur in it, no intelligent Immerser will deny. One vv^ord as to quotations from distinguished Pedobaptists. They admit that the word means immerse, just as we have ADMITTED IT IN THESE REMARKS. NoW, SUppOSC yOU should go and report our remarks, in such a manner as to leave the impression that we have conceded that baptize means to im- merse, and nothing else — would that be honest? No. It would be falsehood under the cloak of truth.* And^e have * As an illustraiion of the truth of this remark, a striking case has occurred while these sheets were going to press. The editor of the Christian Watchman has published an article to show that the word " baptize means immerse, and nothing' else." And how does he show it? He quotes lexicons to the number of twenty-two, after this fashion : — " ' Bapiizo, properly immergo ac intingo in aquam mergo ; to im- merse, to dip, to plunge into water.' — Sclileusner''s Lex. " * Baptizo, in its primary and radical sense — I cover Avith water. It is used to denote, 1st — I plunge or sink completely under water.' — JEwing's Lex. '" Bapto, to dip in, to immerse; Bapiizo, to submerge, sink.' — E. Robinson's Lex. " ' Bapto, to dip, to plunge into water; Baptizo, to immerse.' — J. Don eg an' s Lex." We have taken the trouble to examine the authors above named, and have been astonished at the glaring injustice which has been done to them. We suppose, that, were we to examine the v/hole list, we should find most or all of them used in the same way. Let the reader take notice that these authors are represented by the editor as saying that the onhj meaning of the word is to immerse, dip, or plunge. He will then be surprised to learn, that they all give olhei significations, as follows : — ScHLEUSNER says, the word means ahluo, lava, aquii purgo ; i. e. to perform ablution, to wash, to purge with water, and also imbue. Robinson says — "In the New Testament it means — to wash, to perform ablution, to cleanse — also to tinge, to dye," &c. DoNEQAN says, it means to wash, to dye — to dye one's hair. HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 19 been pained at this disingenuous dealing of many writers in favor of immersion. They have abused the minds of their EwiNG says — " In its primary and radical sense, it means to cover with water, or some other fluid, in whatever manner this is done ; whether by immersiori or aifusion, wholly or partially, permanently or for a moment. Hence the word is used in several different SENSES. It is used to denote to plunge, or sink completely under water — to cover partially with water — to wet — to cover with water flowing or pouring upon — to wash in general, without specifying the mode — to wash for the special purpose of symbolical, ritual, or cere- monial purification." He gives examples of the use of the word: — " ' He i}f0. is washed [baptized] from [the pollution of] a dead body, and again toucheth it, what profit hath he by his washing?' — Sirach XXXI. 25, or xxxiv. 25. When this passage is compared with Num. xix. 9 — 22, it will a^ear, that baptize is used by the apocryphal writer for the application of the water of sprinkling-. ***** It may here be observed that ceremonial purification by immersion was always performed by the unclean person himself, (and indeed decency required this ; as this kind of purification never appears to have been the immersing of persons with their clothes on,) but that the mode was ahcays different, when the purification was administered by another. It is in this sense that baptize, when employed in the New Testam.ent, is almost always used." He further says, that — " To main- tain, as some have done,, that baptize, when thus applied, ought always to be rendered plunge, dip, immerse, or wash, betrays inattention to its real force and import." Thus speak the lexicographers, whom the Watchman represents as saying that "baptize means immerse, and nothing" else." It will be seen that he makes them say that, by suppressing what they do say. After quoting his twenty-two lexicons, after this fashion, the Watch- man utters this remarkable sentence : — " These are but specimens of the unanimous testimony of scholars and lexicographers, not one ofi whom ever gave the word the dejinition of sprinkling, pouring, or keel-hauling." Mark it — he says not one of these " ever gave the word the defini Hon of sprinkling ;" whereas Ewing expressly says it is used, in a case referred to by him, for the application of the loater of sprinkling. He further says that to maintain what the Watchman does maintain, "betrays inattention to its ibrce and import." And yet the Watch- 16 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. unlearned readers, by a sort of false dealing which puts a part of the truth in place of the whole. Inquirer, It seems strange to me, that so many Christians who are sincere and honest, and many of them highly intelli- gent, should contend that this word signifies only immersion, if there is no more foundation for their opinion than what now appears. Teacher, And does it not seem equally strange, that a much greater number of good men, equally honest, sincere and intelligent, should so positively deity that assumption, if there is no foundation for their denial? Though we protest against the use of human authority in such a questioWas this, it is fair to meet human authority witli human authority. And let us ask, who were the translators of our English Bible 1 This translation was completed b^ galaxy of minds, read in the languages to an extent which 'few scholars now attain. And on this subject they followed the track struck man quotes him, as supporting what he thus expressly disclaims ! Now let us ask, in the fear of God, how do such mistakes, put forth by scores in a single article, occur? That the editor would wil- fully deceive the public, we may not believe. But we should not like to risk what little credit we have for scholarship, or moral probity, on such a declaration. It is a painful fact, that the Immersers' cause has for several generations been sustained by just such assertions, respect- ing authorities, right in the face of those authorities. We can well see why Immersers are so anxious to sustain such a declaration ; for their cause rests upon it. If the word has one other meaning, their whole fabric falls. They choose to appeal to lexicons. This is but a secondary source of evidence. But after having proved our point from original sources, we have followed them to the lexicons, which they have selected, and find that every one, so far as we have consulted, disagrees with them ; and that their quotations are per- versions. If, l)y saying that these authors agree with them, they mean that these authors say that immersion is one of the meanings; very well ; we agree with them. But*f4»appens that they bring the quotations to show that the word has no other meaning ; and as to this point, not one agrees with thcnvt- HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 17 out b)'- the martyr Tyndal, and by his successors equally worthy. Why did they not thus translate? Do you say, ^because they were Pedobaptists 1 But why were they Pedo- 'Ijaptists'? — were they so. against their honest convictions? And had not they the means of knowing ? They could use the Greek and Latin as.freely as their mother tongue. Tyn- dal was in fact the author, and his successors the endorsers, of this-tr'anslation of the word. Was Tyndal " afraid to take mp the cro55^'*i«and go down the banks of Jordan 1 He was rtot afraid to go to i^ie stake in defence of his translation; for he did it; *•- Tnqu^er.'^I have understood that the Greek church prac- tise' immersion ; andt are they not good authority on such a question ? " Teaci^pr. We^e not how they, in their deep ignorance, ^ave any tetter sources of l.nov, ledge, as to a rite established among Jews, than w^e have. They have vied with the Papal chiwch in corruptions, in superstitions, and in placing undue stres^flf Outward ceremonies. And as baptizing by immer- sion is one instance of departure from the simplicity of the Gospel, it is very natural .that they should have adopted it. Though they do not lay- as much stress on that mode as our Immersers do, for they -do not always practise it; and are therefore against the principle that it is essential to baptism. So that w^hile the Greek church immei-se, and sometimes immerse three times, they are against the principles of our Immersers. And if we are to suppose them to be better authority than others on* this subject, we see not w^hy we must not pay -them the same deference on other subjects. If we begin to copy their corruptions, we know not where to end. Our object is, to ascertain the meaning attached to the word baptize by the sacred loriters. Now, if it were true that its literal meaning wer^e^immerse, and that this was invariably its signification among the aneient Greeks, (whose authority 16 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. in this matter must take the precedence of their degenerate descendants,) it would not follow that it must necessarily be employed in this sense by the writers of the Bible. When words pass from one country to another, and from a profane vocabulary into the sacred, their signification is often very much modified, and sometimes entirely changed. The literal meaning of the word spirit, for example, is wind ; but who will argue from this fact that it has no other signification in the inspired writings ? Every scholar knows that the Scripture phraseology is pecuhar. Hence the Bible is the only safe interpreter of Bible words. When therefore it is remem- bered, that the word baptize has diflerent meaniupe in the •Greek classics, and is used by the writers of the bible WHEN THEY COULD NOT HAVE MEANT BY IT IMMERSION, We see nothing authoritative in the practice ^the modern Greek church — corrupt, superstitious, and plelsed with religious ■toys. Inquirer. My mind has been so long accustomed to asso- ■ciate immersion with the sound of baptism, that, even when •my understanding is convinced, it seems to me like a perver- sion of terms to call pouring baptism. Teacher. It is unquestionably difficult to rid the mind of €arly impressions. Nor, indeed, can we expect to do it in- stantly. The influence of erroneous views, once entertained, will be felt in the workings of the imagination, long after the higher powers of the mind have pronounced them false. But, my friend, did Homer pervert his own language, when •he spoke of a lake baptized with the blood of a mouse ? Did Plutarch pervert the word, when he called that a, baptized bladder, which he said did not and could not go under water? If such writers could call the pouring of a liquid on a sub- stance baptism, it is certainly arrogance in us moderns to op- pose our fancy to their knowledge^ And, furthermore, if this use of the word did not offend the taste of inspired men , if the apostle Paul did not scruple to call (Heb. ix. 10) the HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 19 typical cleansings of the Jewish economy, baptisms^ (Lev. iv. 6 ; xvii. 6 ; Num. xix. 18 ; Lev. vii. 14 ; Num. xix. 21 ; Lev. xiv. 7, 51, &c.) when ahnost every case was performed by sprinkling, why should you feel any difficulty ? Is not his authority to be relied on 1 Nay, if God himself speaka of the outpourings of his Spirit as baptism, and thereby teaches us that He is satisfied with this use of the term, why should you not be '? Inquirer. With whatever confidence immersion has been pronounced to be the only meaning of the word baptize, the evidence certainly preponderates in your favor. Never could I exclu^Je from the Lord's table Christian brethren, for ven- turing to use this word as God uses it ! But must I under- stand you to hold that our Saviour has left the mode of bap- tism wholly undefined ? Teacher. If the way of applying water in the rite consti- tutes the mode of baptism, he has left it undefined. But this is not the mode. Religious baptism is water applied reli- giously in the name of the Trinity. So much is essential — so much is defined. He who makes anything more essential to the ordinance, does it at his peril. He introduces an occasion of discord into the church of Christ. And by teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, he takes the responsi- bility of engendering strife and confusion in the house of God. To add to the commands of God, and to insist that our ad- ditions are God's commands, is as injurious to men and oflfen- sive to God, as to take away what he has commanded — as may be seen in the mammoth corruptions of the Romish church, which consist as much in additions as in subtrac- tions. Inquirer. But may we not suppose that some one way is better than another 1 And is it not more significant to plunge the subject into the water ? Teacher. That depends upon what baptism signifies. And this brings up an important principle. If we can dis- 20 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. cover what is the things signified by baptism, that will help us to determine the most significant way. And surely the Bible has not left this matter in darkness — for unless one knows what the rite signifies, he would not know what exercises of mind he should h$,ve when he presents himself for baptism; i. e. would not know how to obey the command to be bap- tized. Inquirer. This is a plain matter. If baptism can be shown to signify anything into which mea are immersed, that would go far to prove immersion to be the way ; and on the other hand, if it- signifies any influences that are uniformly spoken of as pOured out or sprinkled upon men, then pouring or sprinkling- would be more signiTicant. The type should correspond to the antitype*. ' Teacher. Baptism '^ an emblem of the work of the Holy Spirit on the human soul. So Paul seems to teach, Eph. v. 25 — " Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water [i. e. baptism, for Christ has no other washing of water] by the word." Here was the sanctifying and the cleansing, the antitype and the type. Again — "According to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost." That is, we are saved by that regener- ation, or sanctifying influence of the Spirit of God, of which the washing of water is ah emblem. Again — " Let us dravr near with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water." Here the washing of the body with pure water (or baptism, the 6nly religious washing) is joined with the thing signified by it — a heart sprinkled or purified. Again — " The like figure whereunto, baptism, doth now save us, not the putting off the filth of the flesh, [i. e. not the mere outward cleansing by baptismal water,] but the answer of a good . copscience," — that is, our being purified, so that we live with a good conscience. HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 21 Ag^ain — " Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Now why are water and the Spirit thus connected, if the water (i. e. baptism) be not an emblem of the Spirit"? Surely the water is not a co- agent with the Spirit in the new birth. Again, here is a passage still more decisive. Acts xxii. 16 — " Arise, be bap- tized, and wash aw^ay thy sins." How can baptism wash away sins? In no way, except it be as a symbol of washing, the thing to be proved. Further — the work of the Holy Spirit is called baptism in many places, which any one may see for himself. And what can be more decisive ? Prof. Stuart, on this subject, observes — " Under the ancient dispensation the rites were divided into two great classes, viz., those significant of 'purification, and those significant of atonement for sin. Nothing could be more appropriate than this. Man needed the one, and the other, in order to find acceptance with God : the one is the work of the Spirit, and the other of the Saviour who redeemed us by his blood. Is there any change in the essential conditions of salvation, under the new dispensation ? None, we must answer. Are not the significant symbols, then, under the new dispensation, a summary of those which existed under the old "? The belief of this spontaneously forces itself upon my mind. The work of the Spirit is still symbolized under the Gospel, and a Savior's blood is still represented — the one baptism signifies, the other is as plainly indicated by the Lord's Supper." Our object is here to show, in brief, the close connection between the baptism of the Spirit and baptism with water, and that the one is a symbol of the other. Now if baptism by water is an emblem of baptism by the Spirit, we have only to look into the Bible and see in what way we are brought into contact with the influences of the Spirit ? If we are currently represented as being put into the Spirit, or plunged into the Spirit, we concede the whole m.atter in question ; and if, on 29 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. the other hand, the Spirit is currently said to he poured out upon us, or sprinkled upon us, then you must concede that pouring or sprinkling is the more significant way. We pro- ceed, then, to quote some instances: — " I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground. I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring" — Isa. 44. "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean; and I will put my Spirit within you, [not put you into my Spirit] and cause you to walk in my statutes." " I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh" — Joel ii. 28. "Until the Spirit be poured out" — Isaiah xxxii. 15. "For I have poured out my Spirit" — Ezekiel xxxix. 29. Next take some examples from the New Testament. John saw the Spirit descending, and lighting upon Jesus — Matt, iii. 16. The Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word ; and Peter's friends " were astonished, because that on the Gentiles was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost" — Acts x. "And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning ; then remenihered I the words of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall he baptized with the Holy Ghosts We have thus given a few specimens, to show that the Holy Ghost is said " to fall " upon men, to be " poured out " upon them. And it is in reference to this subject, that God promises "to sprinkle clean water upon us," and that his grace shall " come down as rain upon the mown grass, and as showers which water the earth." It is of no consequence, however, as to the point before us, whether these things are said in connection with baptism or not. They are brought simply to show in what manner the Scriptures speak of the communication of the Spirit's influences. Now, then, if the thing signified is uniformly represented as sprinkled, or poured out, upon the subject, that which signifies it may be pouring or sprinkling. Indeed, " it is by no means probable that God HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 23 should speak of his own operations oneway, and symholically represent them in a different way ; that he should promise to sprinkle or pour out his Spirit upon us, and to confirm this promise would command us to be plunged into water. There would be no analogy, in this case, between the promise and the seal ; and the discrepance would give rise to a confusion of ideas. This I conceive to be an argument of considerable force in favor of our mode of administering baptism, and an objection against immersion which cannot be easily evaded." . Dick. Theol. CHAPTER III. BURIAL WITH CHRIST. ITS IMPORT. In our last chapter we set forth the design of baptism, and showed conclusively that it is to represent the work of the Holy Spirit upon the soul, and that his influences are invari- ably represented as coming down, either sprinkled or poured, upon the subject. And the inquirer will recollect the ad- mitted principle, that the type and antitype should correspond. We are aware that Immersers make baptism to be a sign of fellowship with Christ in his burial, and to be the main design. This view they found upon two passages — Romans vi. and Colossians ii. 12. A glance at these passages, in their connection, will show that great difficulties, at least, stand in the way of this conclusion. The first question is, whether these two passages more clearly teach that burial is the grand design, than those nu- merous passages which we have quoted teach that purifica- tion is the grand design. Let the inquirer look over those passages, and compare. And in this connection we will ob- serve, that the two ideas of burial in a grave and purification by water are incongruous. Both cannot be held. Purity contrasts with the corruption and filth of the grave. 2. But supposing this difliculty surmounted, another pre- sents itself. Before Immersers can draw their inference, it must be proved that the apostle in these passages refers to water baptism. Their whole argument rests on this assump- tion — and yet it is a mere assumption. And if it should turn out that the apostle means by baptism a spiritual purification, HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 39 (i. e. a spiritual baptism,) as most surely he does,nhen all semblance of an argument from these texts would vanish ; for we have seen how spiritual baptism is performed. 3. This difficulty being surmounted, another comes. It is a question not so easily settled, as to what the likeness shall be. If the reader will turn to the passage, he will see that there is a comparison with death, whh crucifixion, with burial, &c. Suppose we insist that baptism shall imitate the form of Christ's death, and not his burial, (for surely the two things are very distinct,) what would the Immersers say? Paul says, baptized into his death ; and if the passage is in any way decisive of the mode of water baptism — if this reasoning from it is conclusive — it concludes both ways : that baptism must imitate crucifixion, or at least, after the Papists' mode, bear the sign of the cross ; and must also imitate his burial. 4. This difficulty being surmounted, another comes. How shall we baptize in a way to imitate a burial? Nations have various modes of burial, but in no case do they bury by thrust- ing the body through the soil. The common modes of burial are more like pouring or sprinkling. The body is placed in an open grave, and the earth is poured or sprinkled upon it. The classical emblem has been (jacfus pulveris) a handful of earth tossed in the air. Our Episcopal friends represent a burial by sprinkling earth upon the coffin. 5. This difficulty being surmounted, another comes. If baptism must imitate the form of any burial, it must imitate that of Christ ; and Christ was not buried in the common way. His body was not sunk in the ground, but merely laid away on a shelf in a chamber of an excavated rock. These are some of the difficulties that meet any intelligent mind, on the first glance at the subject. In order to set this subject well before the mind, we will state the true meaning of the apostle, and then point out the sources of the Immersers^ 3 26 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER, error. The two passages are alike. Take the case in Ro- mans : what is the drift of Paul's remarks? He is showing that the doctrines of grace do not warrant one to continue in &in, that grace may abound. He is attributing to the baptism of which he speaks, effects which water baptism is inadequate to produce. His main idea is, that such is the nature of a union with Christ, — a union brought about by the purification of the heart, i. e. spiritual baptism, — that to speak of those thus baptized continuing in sin, is as great a contradiction as to speak of a living dead man. " Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound 1 God forbid. How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein?" Mark the effects which he attributes to the baptism of which he speaks. This baptism is followed necessarily by death to sin. It is not enough to say, such ought to be dead to sin ; the certainty that they will be is essential to the argument. Indeed, the argu- ment is good for nothing without absolute certaintv . Now does that certainty follow water baptism ? Far from it. It follows spiritual baptism, and no other. It is as if he had said — How shall they who have received spiritual baptism, (in other words, who have been brought into spiritual union with Christ,) continue in sin? They are united to Christ in his death to the world. Taking fire at the thought, he gives utterance to his feelings in a variety of strong expressions of the certainty of that death, and conse- quent insensibility to the inducements to continue in sin. "What is the effect of natural dissolution? Is it not the interruption of all our former appetites? What is the condi- tion of a man buried? Does he hunger or thirst any more? Will beauty move his love ? Will the tabret or the harp, the richest wines or the most luxuriant viands, entice him be- yond the bounds of temperance ? Load the coffin with gold , clothe the skeleton with scarlet and ermine ; will this awaken his avarice, or will these elevate his pride ? Surely, if the soul perceives at all the objects which surround her recent HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. SWT dwelling, she perceives them but to recog-nise their utter vanity, and to feel that these are not the things which can any longer contribute to her happiness!" Such are the effects of that death to sin which follows a union with Christ ; and in this sense the apostle says of true Christians, that they are crucified, dead, and buried. The above remarks make it clear, that the passage in Ro- mans refers to a spiritual baptism and purification, and can decide nothing as to the form in which water is to be applied. The passage in Colossians still more clearly bears this meaning. Read it. " In whom also ye are circumcised, with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ : buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him, through faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." Now here observe that the Colossians are said to have been circumcised in Christ, and to be buried with him in baptism, and in such a way, as to show that the circumcision and baptism refer to the same thing. That the circumcision imports a spiritual purification is certain ; for it is a circumcision made without hands, inputting off the body of sin. And if the circumcision is a purification made with- out hands, most surely is the baptism one made without hands ; for both are put in the same relations, and import the same thing. And, further, they are said to be buried with Christ in baptism, and then risen with him through faith of the operation of God. Now, as is the burial, so is the resur- rection. If it is a literal burial in the water, the resurrection is a literal rising out of the water. But they had risen through faith of the operation of God. Yet persons immersed do not thus rise by faith. The passage then, by necessity, imports a death to sin, and a resurrection to nev/ness of life ; and has no reference to the outward application of water, and deter- mines nothing as to the manner in which water should be applied. So HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. Now, havinor given the true meaning of the apostle in these passages, we are prepared to examine the sources of the Immersers' error, touching them. 1. The first source of error is the imagination. The per- son has heard these words so frequently repeated at the im- mersion of individuals, that they have made an impression upon his mind, and he fancies sume analogy between immer- sion and Christ's burial. Few are aware how much imagi- nation has to do with this subject, and how much impression has been made by pictorial representations. And as error has been promoted in that way, may not the friends of truth learn a lesson as to their duty of securing the imagination on the side of truth 1 And why should not our children be taught, by arguments addressed to the eye, the analogy between the falling drops of water and the influences of the Spirit, which are represented as coming down like the rain upon the grass 1 2. The second source of error is a literal understanding of the apostWs language. Now, if the burying is to be taken literally, so also the other phrases must be, such as death, crucified, planted, &c. Mark it, if the burial is literal, the death is literal also. If there must be a literal burial, there must be a literal death!!! Again, the effects, as we have ^ already seen, are such as water baptism cannot produce. These brief hints are sufficient to satisfy every intelligent reader that the literal interpretation cannot be maintained. 3. Among those who admit a figurative sense, there is another source of error. The figure must have a basis ; and some say, that, unless it is founded on some outward form, it can have no basis. Why use the figure buried, they ask, if the apostle had not in his mind's eye something which looked like burial? We answer: The mind, in framing figurative language, as frequently fixes on the effects produced, as upon any outward circumstance. For example, Cicero said of the conspiracy of Cataline, which he had crushed — "It is dead, m?JTS TO AN INQUlREft. 29 earned out, and buried.''^ His mind in framing that figure was not upon a funeral, or a grave, or a burial ; but upon the effects of the death, to wit, the utter cessation of all trouble from the conspiracy. So we say of a man condemned to the penitentiary for life, that he is dead to society, and buried. Why use thai figure? It has nothing that looks like a burial for its basis. This also is based on certain effects resulting from death and burial. While bishop Butler was living in an obscure village, one inquired if he was dead. " No," another replied, "but he is buried.^' Why use that figure? Why not contend here that there was something in the author's eye that looked like a burial ? The figure was based on one of the eflfects of a burial, in that he was forgotten by the world. By this time, the inquirer will see that figures of this kind may be used, with- out the most distant allusion to anything that looks like a burial. Now then, when Paul said of Christians, that they were dead, buried, and crucified with Christ, it is easy to see that he had only certain results in his mind. He meant only to say, that as Christ, when buried, was insensible to this world, so are those, who are spiritually in union with him, dead to the inducements to continue in sin. 4. Another source of this error lies in taking a fart for the whole of the apostle's comparison in these texts. The Immer- ser feels bound to imitate Christ in only one of the particulars of the figurative representation, while consistency would re- quire him to go through and to make the form of his baptism correspond to all the other particulars. If the form of bap- tism must imitate the burial of Christ, much more must it be a baptism into death ; for the text is even more strong in that particular. It says, "as many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death.'''' Now, the same rule that would require a literal burial , would require a literal death. And then, if in baptism we must imitate the form of Christ's burial, we must, for the same reason, imitate also 3* 30 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. the form of his death ; that is, his crucifixion. We must not only be actually put to death before our burial, but we must be put to death on a cross, since the text lays even more stress on the crucifixion and the death, than it does on the burial. And to carry faithfully out this mode of interpreting the passage, our baptism must imitate not only the mode of burial, but also that oi planting ; for the text also says, " we have been planted together in the likeness of his death." So we see the Immersers' error comes from fixing on one part of the comparison, and overlooking other parts quite as im- portant. 5. Still another source of error is a neglect of making the several parts of the comparison correspond ivith each other. For instance, in the passage in Romans, the resurrection following the burial is a spiritual one ; a resurrection to " newness of life." Of course, the death and burial preceding must be a death and burial to sin, and not a burial under water. So in Colossians, the resurrection is a rising "through faith of the operation of God," and not through the strength of the baptizer's arm. And yet the Immerser fails to see that that should be a spiritual burial that goes before and corresponds with such a spiritual resurrection. He fails also to make the baptism and the circumcision, both representing one efifect, to correspond with each other, as we have shown. 6. But the main source of error on this subject consists in overlooking altogether the main design of the rite of baptism. We have shown, in a former article, that its main design is, to represent the outpouring upon us of the purifying and the sanctifying influences of the Spirit. And though the Scrip- tures are so full on this point, as we have shown, yet Immer- sers are loth to allow this at all ; and if they do allow it, they will have it that the main design is to represent a burial. And yet, strange as it may seem, the Scriptures say no- thing OF any such design ; AND DO NOT EVEN HINT AT IT, unless these two passages contain the hint ; and these, as we HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 31 have shown beyond all ground for doubt, have no reference to water baptism at all. Another source of error touching these passages consists in overlooking the fact, that being buried cannot be made an act of duty ; while receiving baptism supposes an act of obe- dience; and supposes a mind apprehending the design of bap- tism, and recognising the truth symbolized by the rite ; and at the time of receiving the rite surrendering the heart to the sway of that truth. Now if the rite imports our need of the purifying influence of the Holy Spirit — if it be the sign and seal of our surrender of ourselves to God in the covenant of grace, and receiving the seal of the Spirit of grace, the mind may well correspond with this design, in the act of receiving the rite. And even if it imported our death to sin, the spirit of obedience while receiving the rite might go forth in a sur- render of ourselves to death, and in a pledge of dying to sin and living to God. But if the design is made to consist in a burial, the spirit of obedience cannot touch it. As one is sup- posed to be dead before he is buried, he cannot exercise obe- dience in submitting to a burial. Christ performed his highest act of obedience when he yielded to death on the cross ; but he did no act of obedience w hen his corpse was taken and laid away in Joseph's family vault. The martyrs have put forth a glorious spirit of obedience, when they have yielded to the stroke of the executioner ; but they had nothing to do in what concerned their corpses afterwards — they did not obey in being buried. The burial is supposed to be wholly the act of others ; ind in respect to it the person buried is wholly insensible. In what state of mind then must one receive the rite, in order to have his feelings at the time correspond to the design of the ordinance ? If the posture and treatment of the body must imitate a burial, what, we ask, must be the exercises of mind in the mean time, in order to conform to this? and the answer should be — none at all; since the person buried has no consciousness of his burial. S9 HINTS TO AN INQUIRSR. Yet it is very essential, when we come to the sealing ordi- nances, that the mind work in harmony with the design of the ordinance. When we come to the Lord's table, we are required by faith to discern the Lord's body. And why is it not as important in baptism, that the mind fasten on the design of the ordinance, and feel the promptings of a holy obedience in correspondence with it 1 Yet if burial be that design, a spirit of obedience cannot reach it, unless we sup- pose the absurdity of being buried alive. This consideration of itself is sufficient to determine that the design of baptism is not that of burial. So that the very first principle of the Immersers' theory, to wit, that baptism was designed to imitate a burial, is an assumption without a shadow of foundation. And not only has it a mere guess for its basis, and for its whole super- structure, but it involves the absurdity of supposing a spirit of obedience to animate a corpse in its burial. It Wi3uld protract this chapter to an inconvenient length, should we here commence the examination of the actual cases of baptism recorded in the New Testament, and show, as we intend, that there is no case in the New Testament in WHICH THE baptism MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN BY SPRINKLING OR POURING, AND MANY CASES IN WHICH IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN BY IMMERSION. CHAPTER IV. Inquirer. Your remarks on those passages which speak of a burial with Christ by baptism, presented the subject in alight which was new to me. That the apostle is speaking of spirit- ual baptism is clear from this fact alone, that he represents it as bringing the soul into sympathy with Christ in his indiffer- ence to the world ; which effect does not follow water baptism. Although this has been my opinion for some time, I have all along supposed that the figurative expression, " buried with Christ," must have its basis in something external, which looked like a burial. This I am now ready to confess was a childish fancy. We notice in Paul's writnigs a very frequent use of the figures of being dead, crucified, &c., in a way in which he could have had in his mind's eye only an effect of death, crucifixion, &c. And if any one will watch the work- ings of his mind when using this class of figures, I think he will be convinced, that the mind generally has before it some one or more of the effects of death, and very rarely anything which looks like a corpse, a funeral, or a grave. I remember that one of our missionaries, just as he was leaving his native shores never to return, said to a friend at parting, "I have buried my friends alive." Now evidently here was no allu- sion to any external mode of burying, but simply to one effect of being buried, viz., that he was never to see his friends again. This all seems plain so far. And as this has been the main point with me, I see not but that I must admit that the Scrip- tures are far from making it clear that immersion is essential to baptism. But as you say that the Scriptures lay no great 34 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. Stress upon the mode in which water is applied, would it not be best for all to practise immersion, in order to promote har- mony among Christians, by meeting tender consciences on their own ground? Teacher. We have many serious objections to immersion, which we could state if it were necessary. True christian harmony never can be promoted by departing from a mode evidently scriptural, to adopt one which has originated in the fancy of minds morbidly inclined to lay an undue stress on an external rite. This method of harmonizing with those super- stitiously inclined, gave rise to the corruptions of the Romish church. We object more to immersion than to any other mode of applying water, because it is further from the main design of baptism. The Scriptures, as we have seen, repre- sent baptism as an emblem of purification by the influences of the Holy Spirit, which influences are uniformly described as poured out upon us. Now when the Scriptures invariably represent the spiritual influences as sprinkled or poured upon the subject, for us to put the subject into the symbolic water ^ would seem to be too great a departure from the scriptural mode. We object to immersion, because it is a literal icashing. That is certainly the best symbol which strikes the mind at once as merely a symbol, and from its very simplicity compels it to pass beyond it to the thing signified. Not to multiply objections, we could not repeat our baptism to meet the de- mands of Immersers ; nor could we apply the screws of close communion, and unchurch those of our brethren who should not see fit to go with us. So that, even if we should allow those who have not been baptized to be immersed, w^e could not harmonize with the exclusive principle of Immersers. This principle constitutes the very basis of their denomina- tional existence. It is the ligament which binds them together. And you see it is one of very serious import and consequences. Inquirer. True — such a principle ought not to be adopted, but for imperious reasons. No one certainly can be justified HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. SS in adopting it, except on grounds which are set clear from every reasonable doubt. Teacher. How strange, then, appears their position, and how high the arrogance of their pretensions — how causeless the discords which they thrust into the house of God, when it is so evident that the entire basis and structure of their argument is composed of nothing but guesses! Inquirer. That is a strong expression. Teacher. But no more strong than true. When, for ex- ample, Immersers speak so confidently of the apostles im- mersing their converts, it is, to say the least, but a guess. Inquirer. But is it not more than a guess that John im- mersed his converts ? John's baptism. Teacher. You are a little too fast. John was not one of the apostles, nor was his baptism the Christian rite. And here, by the way, you see that a guess lies at the very founda- tion of the Immerser's argument. In order to get the sup- posed benefit of John's practice, it is guessed that John's baptism w^as Christian baptism. And one single passage of Scripture spoils this guess at once. Paul at Ephesus, (Acts xix.) " finding certain disciples," said to them, " Have ye re- ceived the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there bo any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism." After some instructions, showing the different intent of John's baptism, " they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." That the baptism which they received from John was not Christian baptism, appears from the fact that they never had heard of the Holy Ghost, and of course could not have been baptized in his name. And, furthermore, it is not to be sup- posed that John baptized in the name of Jesus, for he would 36 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. not have baptized Jesus in the name of Jesus. But to put the question beyond all doubt, the apostle did not consider them as having received the Christian rite, as is evident from the fact that he baptized them. It would be superfluous to give other reasons. Here is Scripture against a guess ! But suppose we give them the advantage of that guess, and, for the sake of argument, allow that John's baptism is to be taken as a guide for us : — how do they arrive at the cer- tainty that he immersed ? In every step of their argument they proceed by guesses. They say that he immersed, be- cause the word baptize means to immerse, and nothing else. But we have already proved that this word has various shades of meaning, and does not define any particular way of apply- ing water. Here then is one guess. They say that he im- mersed, because he went to the Jordan for this purpose. But were there no other reasons for resorting thither ? If we could conceive of no necessity for his seeking some such place as the region about Jordan, except for the convenience of im- mersing, then the inference which Immersers draw from this circumstance would appear more plausible. On the other hand, if there was an equal necessity for the selection of such a place, v)hether he baptized by affusion or immersion, then this circumstance proves nothing in favor of any particular mode of baptism. Let us now examine the facts. John was a field preacher, and we read that he came preaching in the wilderness. The immense muHitudes that flocked together to hear him, made it necessary for him to withdraw from the nar- row streets of the cities, to the open country in the neighbor- hood of Jordan ; and that, being the place of his preaching, would naturally be the place of his baptizing. You see, then, that necessity compelled him to select an open country, /or other purposes than immersion. Who can say that those other pur- poses were not the sole cause of his withdrawing from the cities and villages'? This is at least possible. And if it be only possible, the Immersei's certainty is instantly converted HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 37 into a guess. But we contend that it is highly probable. Nay, there are other circumstances connected with John's ministry, which we are bound to take into consideration, and which render the guess that he immersed perfectly incredible. We read that " there went out to him Jerusalem, and all Ju- dea, and oil the region round about Jordan, and tcere baptized of him.^' If in a papal country some new ceremony should come into vogue, attracting that absorbing interest which John's baptism did, few of the people would fail to rush forward with the multitude, to receive the advantage of it. The Jews were even more disposed to value outward cerenionies than the Papists It is therefore certain that immense multitudes flocked to John's baptism. The passage of Scripture which I have quoted, interpreted by the circumstances, cannot import less than 500,000. Suppose that he immersed one every minute — to have immersed 500,000, he must have stood breast high in the water, twelve hours every day, for nearly two whole years. But his ministry was little more than a year and a half, and during part of that time he was in prison ! Where is the man, however, who could remain in the water twelve hours every day successively, for even one year? or where is the man who could immerse sixty persons an hour, for twelve hours in succession, and repeat the process every day for a year? We read (John x. 41) that "John did no miracle." But if John did this, his entire life was one prodigious mira- cle ! Perhaps you may say that 500,000 are more, probably, than went out to him. Very well — take the smallest number which, in your opinion, the record will warrant, and you will not escape from this difficulty. When we consider the brief duration of John's ministry, the time he must necessarily have spent in preacliing, his imprisonment, the time needed to re- cruit his exhausted bodily powers, the days of the year when he could not have immersed, &c., we are fully satisfied that he could not have immersed 80,000. It is, therefore, wholly incredible, that the immense multitudes which he baptized 4 38 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. could have been immersed. If he baptized, however, aecorcf- ing to the custom of the priests, and took a bunch of hyssop and sprinkled the people as they passed him, he could have done it. Now, viewing all the circumstances in the case, where is the certainty that John immersed ? The confident assumption of Iramersers in regard to his practice, is a guess agamst, to say the least, the strongest probability. Inquirer. But did not John baptize in Enon, because there was much water there ? Teacher. It requires one guess to establish the conclusion that he went there ybr the sake of immersing. We say that there are other and more probable reasons why he chose that place. He would not need much water, or " many waters," i. e. many streams or springs of water, (as it is in the Greiek,) for immersing. For that purpose, one stream w^ould suffice. Why did he need many streams 1 why was it necessary for him to select a place watered with many springs 1 This is the question which presses upon us for an answer. Now it is certain that he could not have chosen such a place for immer- sion. The simple fact that the word is plural , {many streams or springs,) decides this point. One man could not immerse in many places at once, nor could he need many rivulets or springs for that purpose. Why, then, must this field preacher go to Enon, a place well supplied with springs'? Because it was no easy matter to find water in that region, to accommo- date the thousands that came to him, with their camels and other beasts. Enon, furnished with many springs, afforded rare conveniences for a camp-meeting, assembled to remain many days. So that, in whatever way he baptized, there were other and more important reasons, for his selection of that place j than the convenience of immersing. Inquirer. I see clearly, that to base the duty of immer- sion on such a foundation, is to base it on a guess. We surely cannot maintain that a man is influenced in the choice HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 39 of a spot by one particular reason, when other and letter reasons are known to exist. Teacher. And when, too, that particular reason, as in this case, does not answer the question why he needed many springs or streams. Inquirer. Very true. But is there not a better founda- tion for the assumption that our Saviour was baptized by immersion ? Christ's baptism. Teacher. It requires one guess to reach the conclusion that Christ is our example in baptism. John's baptism was a Jeioish rite, under the old dispensation. What have loe to do with it ? Before we oan feel bound ourselves to follow Christ in the observance of a Jewish ceremony, or at liberty to im- pose any such duty upon others, we must have at least some •proof that he designed this act for our imitation. But not the shadow of such proof exists. On the contrary, the guess of Immersers implies such a gross misconception of the design of our Saviour's baptism, — a misconception so plainly in the face of Scripture, — that when we hear them speak with so much confidence of " Jordan^ s floods," and of ^ ' following Christ into the water," we literally blush for them. Christ^ s hap- tism ivas his introduction into the friesVs office. The Mosaic law required every priest, when thirty years of age, (Num. iv. 3, 23, 30, 35,) to be consecrated to their sacred work by being washed with water. (Lev. viii. 6.) As a symbol of the anointing of the Holy Spirit, they were also anointed with oil. Now mark the coincidences. When Jesus came to John, he was about thirty years old, (Luke iii. 21, 23,) and was just about entering upon his office as priest ; — after bap- tism he was anointed by the descent of the Holy Ghost, and commenced immediately his public duties. The apostle Paul tells us, (Heb. v. 5,) that Christ did not glorify himself to be made a high priest, but he that said unto him, "Thou art 40 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. my Son ; this day have I begotten thee." Here it is ex- pressly said that the Father glorified Mm hy making him a high priest, when he said, " Thou art my Son ; this day have I begotten thee." And this was said at his baptism. (Matt. iii. 17.) An examination of Scripture compels us, either to admit that this VMS the design of Chrises baptism, or deny that he fulfilled all righteousness. His words to John (Matt. iii. 15) imply that some law then existing, and which he was bound to ful- fil, made it proper for him to be baptized. But what law? Not the law of Christian baptism, for the rite itself did not at that time exist. Not the moral law, for Christ was no sin- ner : and no violations of that code made it necessary for him to receive the baptism of repentance. To what law then did he refer? Unquestionably to the ceremonial law, which is nothing to us, but which he was born under, and bound to fulfil. There was something in that law, as his own words imply, which made it necessary for him to be baptized. To that law, therefore, we must go for instruction, if we would obtain scriptural views o^ the design of his baptism. Now in that code we find a statute requiring every priest to be con- secrated by the washing of water ; and as this is the only statute in the code, which made it necessary for him to be bap- tized, there is no room to doubt that this is the statute to which he referred. If he did not refer to this statute, he referred to nothing, and his reply to John was without any meaning whatever. And, furthermore, if he was not baptized in obedience to this statute, here was one statute wliich was not obeyed by him, and consequently he did not " fulfil all righteousness." We are, therefore, brought to this alterna- native, viz., either to admit that Christ our Priest was bap- tized in obedience to this statute, or to deny that he fulfilled all righteousness ! Inquirer. These considerations convince me that your views in regard to the design of Christ's baptism are correct HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 41 So far you have Scripture on your side, and Immersers nothing hwXfanaj. It is really matter of wonder with me, that intel- ligent Christians can be so positive, where their premises are so perfectly fanciful, and where Scripture is so decidedly against them. But admitting your views in regard to the design of Christ's baptism, was he not immersed"? And did not the apostles adopt the mode in v/hich he was bap- tized ? Teacher. On what do you base the certainty that he was immersed ? Inquirer. We read that " when he was baptized he went up straightway out of the water." Teacher. Observe, this was something which Christ did after his baptism, and was no part of that ordinance. The assumption of Immersers is founded upon a mistake of the import of the preposition ^^ out ofy The true sense of the Greek preposition is, from, not "out of;" and it marks the place from which he went up, without at all suggesting the idea that Jesus had been in the water. The following trans- lation gives the exact meaning of the original, — " he went up without delay from the water." Now what is there here so conclusive in favor of immersion 1 As John was preaching close by the Jordan, he would go of course to the river to baptize. And whether he performed the ceremony by immer- sion, sprinkling, or pouring, there was an equal necessity for descending the hanks to the stream, and of ascending the banks from the stream. Shall that, therefore, which our Saviour must have done, whether he was baptized by immersion or affusion, be taken as proof that he was immersed? The Methodist elder sometimes stands in the river, and pours the water upon the heads or faces of his converts. John might have taken his station in the river, for convenience, as the number to be baptized was very great, and have administered the rite in the same way. 4* 42 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. Inquirer. I see that this circumstance leaves the manneT of our Saviour's baptism an uncertainty ; — but still is it not more 'probable that he was immersed 1 Teacher. Probabilities will not answer the Immersers any good purpose. Surely that exclusive principle, which unchurches two thirds of the disciples of Christ, can never be justified, on the ground of a slender probability. In this instance, however, probabilities are against them. There is in fact the greatest degree of certainty that our Saviour was baptized by affusion. We have already proved that his bap- tism was introductory to his priest's office. The ceremonial law required that the washing of the priests, (Lev. viii. 6,) when consecrated to their office, should be performed by sprinkling. (Num. viii. 7.) According to the Scriptures, therefore, Jesus, our Priest, was sprinkled. Inquirer. If his baptism was designed as his consecra- tion to his priestly office, it is certainly more scriptural to believe that he was sprinkled. It would hardly benefit Immersers to appeal to Christ's example in this particu- lar. Teacher. His example, so far as it touches the mode of baptism, is wholly in our favor. And if the apostles copied the mode in which he was baptized, we need go no farther for proof that they practised affusion or sprinkling. As we are now about to leave John's baptism, carefully review the ground already travelled over, and in view of the argument thus far developed, decide whether such a degree of certainty belongs to the side of the question espoused by Immersers, that they can be justified in disowning numerous churches of Christ, and refusing to eat the Lord's Supper with thousands of their brethren in Christ, merely because they have not received the waters of baptism in their par- ticular way ! ! ! Remember that this controversy touches more than the HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 43 simple question of immersion. It is frequently said to the young convert, by those who practise immersion, "Join us, and you will be sure to be right ; if the way in which the water is applied is not essential, you will be right ; and if it is essential, you will be right." But stop — there is a deception lurking here. If you join with immersers, you countenance their exclusive principle; and are you sura that that will be right ? Are you sure that it will be pleasing to the great Head of the Church, for you to give the sanction of your example to a principle so contracted, so contrary to the spirit of the age, so withering to some of the best feelings of the regenerated heart — a principle which the light and the fire of an approaching day shall consume 1 Inquirer. I cannot but believe, that it is our Lord's will, that his table should be the place, where all his true followers should merge their minor differences in mutual love. It would seem as if this sacred spot should be com- mon ground. To give this table a sectarian character, or to make it an occasion of strife, is confessedly, a very serious matter. These are evils to he avoided if possible ; and, there- fore, we must have the most satisfactory proof XhdX we are acting in obedience to the commands of Christ, before we can lawfully embrace any principle manifestly tending to such results. Such proof I have not yet seen in favor of immer- sion. The evidence thus far preponderates on the opposite side. Teacher. We have the advantage of Immersers in this argument. They embrace an exclusive principle, on the ground that immersion is the only baptism. The burden of proof, therefore, is with them. They must prove con- clusively that it is the only baptism. K there remains any room for doubting the conclusiveness of their argument, it wholly fails ; for who can believe for a moment that he is bound to separate from his Christian brethren, to make the 44 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. Lord's table sectarian, and to countenance schisms, so long as there exists a reasonable doubt lohether the Lord requires him to do it ? Inquirer. True — ^very true. But I would inquire whe- ther the cases of Christian baptism in the New Testament are not clearly in favor of immersion ? c)aiuh/ aao tne (Pimum. CHAPTER V. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM BAPTISM ON THE DAY OF PENTECOST. Teacher. I see that you very properly make a distinction between John's baptism and Christian baptism. But not to detain the subject, what example of apostolic baptism shall we first examine ? Inquirer. If you please, the baptisms of the day of Pen- tecost. Teacher. Please read the account, (Acts ii.) and point out to me the proof \\val the converts were immersed. It is not found in any tendency of the apostles that way, for they had been educated to regard sprinkling as sufficient for cere- monial purification, and from early childhood had seen the leper, and the Levites, and indeed the vessels of the temple cleansed by sprinkling. Why should men so educated have deemed sprinkling or pouring an improper symbol of purifica- tion by the Spirit, under the gospel, especially when they could not have failed to notice that their scriptures uniformly described his influence as poured out upon wen ? Inquirer. If the influence of their Jewish education was not counteracted by some command of Christ, they baptized unquestionably by pouring or sprinkling. And that any such command was given to them, by the great Head of the Church, we are not obliged to believe without proof. Teacher. Do you find the proof that is needed in the Pentecostal baptisms? Inquirer. I admit that I see nothing which decides in 46 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. favor of immersion. The inspired record merely states that the converts vi^ere baptized : but it gives no intimation that they left the place where they were assembled ; nor tnat those preparations were made, which the immersion of a promiscuous multitude, consisting of males and females, always renders necessary. Teacher. This is a most decisive case, my friend, against immersion. On that memorable occasion, in the same day, (Acts ii. 41,) about 3000 persons were baptized and added to the church. Among the converts were Parthians and Modes, and Egyptians, &c. (vs. 9—11.) The assumption that they were immersed is not only a pure guess, but it hangs by a string of most absurd guesses ! Consider the facts. The 30oO must have been baptized in Jerusalem, or in some other place. If we suppose that they were baptized in Jerusalem, (the only supposition which the record warrants,) mountain- ous difficulties lie in the way of the Immersers' guess These events took place during the Pentecost, or about the latter part of the month of May, in Palestine a time of drought. In that country, from the middle of April to the middle of September, it neither rains nor thunders. In the beginning of harvest, a cloud is occasionally seen in the morn- ing but it vanishes away ; and hence the beautiful allusion of Hosea, where he compares the goodness of Ephraim to the morning cloud. (Hosea vi. 4.) Now the brook Cedron was dry, except in the rainy part of the year ; and, therefore, at this time the footman might have walked across its channel with unwet sandal. The city afforded no other brooks or stream suited to the purposes of immersion. If there were baths, the Jews would sooner have opened them to swine, than to the followers of the hated Nazarene. Where then did the apostles find a convenient place in Jerusalem, to immerse in one day 3000 converts? This question presents a serious difficulty. J3ut this is not the only difficulty. Suppose the HINTS TO AN INQUIREil. 47 apostles succeeded in obtaining a suitable place, how could tb.ey have immersed 3000 in so short a time? When the wonders of that memorable day began to attract notice, it was already nine o'clock. If we make some little allowance for prayers, preaching, conversation with the candidates, con- fessions of faith, and for making the preparations ivhich immer- sion, even on a much smaller scale, always demands, it must have been at least four o'clock, P. M., before they could have commenced baptizing. To be satisfied that this is not an ex- travagant calculation, we need only to ask ourselves, how many hours would be found necessary by Immersers in this city (where every convenience is near at hand,) for making decent preparations for the immersion of 3000 people, stran- gers foreigners, suddenly converted 1 It would require miraculous despatch, to get through with all the essential preliminaries in less than half a day ! Now the apostles had 250 persons each. If we suppose them to have continued immersing, without any cessation, and at the rate of one a minute, the day must have ended before their task was done ! But there is still another difficulty. As the converts were strangers, embracing loth sexes, where did they get changes of apparel? Who provided them with immersing gowns? Did they borrow them on the spot ? Or if obliged to search Jerusalem, running hither and thither, for these conveniences, how much of the day did this consume? Or were they plunged all over in water without any change of raiment? Or did they expose their naked persons to one another, and to gazing spectators, and thus violate the natural sense of shame ? In view of these difficulties, what monstrous guesses are necessary on the part of Immersers ! They must, in the first place, guess that the apostles immersed the 3000 ; and in order to maintain this guess, they must guess that they found a convenient stream or brook in Jerusalem for immersing this immense multitude, when, from the known geography and 48 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. climate of the country, it is evident that no such stream could have been found — or they must guess that they had access to baths, (when the very swine would sooner have gained ad- mittance,) and guess that there w^ere baths enough to ac- commodate 3000. And when they have guessed out a suitable place for immersion, they must guess that the apostles immersed 250 persons each, in a few hours, giving them at the same time aU needful instruction — and guess that they changed their apparel in the open air, men and women ; or guess that they were accommodated with dressing chambers ; or guess that they stripped themselves, and exposed their naked persons while going doivn to the water and coming from it; — or guess that they were plunged just as they were, and went about after the ceremony wdth their garments cleav- ing to their skin, and dripping upon the pavement of the city ! But suppose they were baptized in some other place. Ob- serve, this is itself a guess. The inspired narrative gives no hint of their leaving the city, or even the place where they were assembled. Such an army of converts leaving the city, is a circumstance which the historian could not have failed to notice. But w^hat is gained by this guess? The nearest river (the Jordan) was distant more than 20 miles. As it was not a day of omnibuses and railroads, how could that promiscuous host have reached the river in time for the cere- mony ? In whatever place we suppose the immersing to have been performed, we have the same guessing as to a change of apparel, &c. &c. And the farther we remove it from the city, and from the scene of the apostles' preaching, the greater the difficulty iji regard to time. Inquirer. I must confess that I am not prepared to em- brace a supposition which hangs by such a string of guesses ; and much less to consider others, who find it impossible to guess quite so much where the Scriptures give no favorable data, as aliens from the commonw'ealth of Israel, and as worthy of banishment from the Lord's table. HINTS' TO AN INQUIRER. 49 Teacher. And yet, on this shadowy basis, Immersers claim the exclusive right to that table ! One of their ministers in this city, concluded a series of discourses, which he has re- cently been preaching on immersion, in the following strain : — " I have a right to go to any evangelical church [meaning other than immersing churches] where the Lord's table is spread, and partake of the symbols, and no man may lawfully forbid me ; — nay more ; I have a right to say to the commu- nicants, you are intruders here ; — nay, more than this, I have a right to say to that minister who officiates at the table, Stand aside, — thou hast no right to administer this ordi- nance ! ' ' Such a peroration excites only our pity. 5 CH APTE R VI. BAPTISM OF THE ETHIOPIAN EUNUCH OF THE PHILIPPIAN JAILER OF SAUL — OF CORNELIUS. Inquirer. Previous to this examination, I have attached much importance to the case of the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch. Teacher. Please turn to that case, (Acts viii. 36,) and point out what you have considered as determining with cer- tainty that he was immersed. Inquirer. I find that this case wears a new aspect ; for I really can find nothing in it, except that it is said that both Philip and the eunuch went into the water. Teacher. It may be well still to examine this point a little. Mark this, that the phrase " went down," &c., does not de- note the baptismal act. They went down, both Philip and the eunuch, but both were not baptized. So that the going down was only a preparatory act, and the coming up out of the water was something done after the baptism, and not the baptism itself. This is what they ivould have done, whether they baptized by affusion or irmnersion. You must take into view the circumstances and customs of the country. It is well known that Orientals were accustomed to step into the water on all occasions, whether of washing, or taking up water in their hands to drink, or the like. Their dress about their feet was such as not to hinder the custom, and their warm climate made it pleasant. As they were moving on in a journey, they came to " some water" [for that is the literal rendering.] For baptism they must go to the water ; as that could be done more conveniently than water HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 51 could be brought to them. It was also natural and agreea- ble to the habits of the people. Now the question is, whether their doing what they naturally would do to baptize by pour- ing, proves that they baptized another loay, and by immersion ? If there were no occasion for stepping into the water, except the convenience of immersion, there would be some force in the Immersers' inference. But when there was an actual necessity for going into the water, in order to baptize in any way, their going into it can be no proof that they baptized by immersion. We have an actual occurrence, which capitally illustrates this point. A INIethodist minister and an Immerser, a few weeks since, in Charlestown, were baptizing at the same time and place, by the water's side. The Immerser took his can- didate, and while going down, said, "And they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch" — and after im- mersing him, he came out, saying by the way, "And they came up out of the water." Some of the spectators doubtless listened thus far, as to oracular proof of the necessity of im- mersion. Next the Methodist minister took his candidate, and went down into the water, repeating the same words — "And they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch," and then took water and poured it upon his candidate, (ac- cording to the frequent practice of that sect,) and came up repeating — "Anrf they came up out of the ivater, both Philip and the eunuch.^'' So it was seen that the words of Scripture were as pertinent to one case as the other, and that one may do all that Philip is said to have done, without immersing. As the Immersers' argument rests so much on the fancied import of the words " into" and " out of," it may be proper here to introduce the testimony of Prof. Ripley, of the New- ton Theological Seminary. In his note on Matt. iii. 16, he says: — "Ow^ of the water — The preposition here translated " out of,^"* has the more general signification of the wordyVom; and would be suitable, whether the sacred writer meant to 52 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. say that Jesus came out from the water, i. e. from within the river to the shore ; or, that he came from the water, i. e. retired from the bank of the river to another place. This preposition, then, in itself furnishes no decision in respect to the manner of the ordinance." Here is an Immerser's conces- sion, that the preposition fixes nothing. But the verb [av«^», *' went up"] does of itself settle the question. If immersion had been the way, that verb should have had the force of emerge. But it is incapable of such a meaning ; and we chal- lenge any one, out of the numerous instances of its use, to find one where it has this meaning. Inquirer. It is one of the plainest cases, that it is impossi- ble to make it certain that the eunuch was immersed. Teacher. That is enough for our purpose. If the Bible has left the mode of applying water in uncertainty, no man has a right to require me to act as though it were certain that immersion is the mode. No one is justified in shutting me from the Lord's table, because my guesses as to the mode will not run in the same line with his. But the probahilities are, in fact, against immersion in this case. They took the first water which they found. It was no river ; for if it was, the narra- tive would have said so. But it only says, they came to '^some water,^^ [n vS'ooq,] just as it would have said if it were the smallest quantity, and just as it would not have said if it were a river. Both geography and history show that it was not a river. Hierome, who lived several years at Jerusa- lem, and was well acquainted with the country, reports that about twenty miles from Jerusalem, in the road towards He- bron, there is a village called Bethsoron, near to which is a mountain, at the bottom or foot whereof is a spring, where the Acts of the Apostles relate that the Ethiopian was baptized by Philip. Eusebius reported the same. Beda, some hundred years afterwards, reported the said village then remaining, consenting with Eusebius and Hierome as to the baptism of the eunuch in the spring. A modern traveller, Sandys, men- HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 53 tions this passage by Bethsoron, where he says — " We saw the fountain whose pleasant waters are forthwith drunk up by the earth that produced them. There they say Philip bap- tized the eunuch ; whereupon it retains the name of the Ethi- opian fountain," Now on which side are the probabilities? Geography, his- tory, tradition and the inspired narrative are silent as to any river existing where they were. But that there was this spring, or fountain, standing alone in a dry and desert land, we have this positive evidence. In view of all the facts of the case, see how much the Immerser has to rely on guesses for the substance of his argument from this case, so much quoted by him. He guesses that Philip immersed the eunuch ; and to support this guess, he must guess again that there was a river where we know there was none. Then he must guess that the eunuch exposed his nakedness to Philip, and Philip exposed his nakedness to the eunuch — or he must guess that Philip, travelling on foot, had come provided with a change of garments, contrary to Christ's advice to his first missiona- ries, not to take two coats apiece — or he must guess that Philip went in for immersing with his only dress on. Inquirer. It seems clear, that either of these assumptions is a guess against probability. Besides, Philip was caught away ' ' immediately ' ' after the baptism ; and it is not likely that he was caught away either naked or dripping wet, and set down in the streets of the city of Azotus ; whence, we read, he went forth preaching the gospel. It is manifestly unjust to exclude one from the Lord's table because he cannot join in such a guess. But as this is an important case, can we not gather light from some other Scripture, which may indicate that Philip did or did not practise immersion ? Teacher. Yes. The very passage which the eunuch was reading, Isa. lii. 15, says — "He shall 5p-mZ;/e many nations."* * The Hebrew word, yazza, translated shall sprinkle, occurs in sev- eral other passages, in which it can mean nothing else than sprinkle. 5* 64 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. The eunuch was one of these many nations. This probably suggested a conversation on baptism, and led to his request to For instance, Exodus xxix. 21 : " And thou shalt take of the blood that is upon the altar and of the anointing oil and sprir.kle it upon Aaron," &c. Lev. iv. 6 : " And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times." Lev. v. 9 : " And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin-offering upon the side of the altar." Lev. xiv. 7 : " And he shall sprinkle upon him that is cleansed from the leprosy seven times." Indeed, aside from the Septuagint itself, we can get from no source any shadow of a warrant for trans- lating it as the Septuagint has done. Michaelis gives the word in this passage the sense of sprinkle, and thus renders the phrase in Latin — " Sic adsperget gentes multas et validas." The Rev. Dr. Jenks has favored us with the following note from Vitringa : " Isa. lii. 15 : ' So shall he sprinkle many nations.' This is a counter- part to the former clause, and exhibits the glorious state of the Messiah, as opposed to his humiliation. The Jews themselves confess and teach that the prophet here declares : ' As his degradation, or wretchedness and suffering, was in an extreme degree ; in an equally extreme de- gree will be his exaltation ;' forming thus a comparison between the two conditions. " The Hebrew word here used has uniformly the meaning, m Scrip- ture, of sprinkling. The idea is purely evangelical, to be alone explained by the mystery of the gospel, and economy of the kingdom of Jesus Christ, in this place of most easy and appropriate interpretation : which, tha. it should not be understood by the Jews,a^ who study with a " a In a note, Vitringa reviews the opinions of Grotius, L'Empereur, A bar- banel and Alex. More, chiefly following the Septuagint, and giving the idea of * affecting llie nations with wonder,' or of ' scattering them,' and adds : ' As to the first opinion, is it probable ? Wliy is darlcness coveted, in the midst of light ? Aa to the second, I say, that the version is absurd, whether you look at the idea, or the fact. The idea is uniformly given of a Hquid (water or blood) with which a thing or person is sprinkled. Has this anything in common with the dispersion of enemies conquered in battle? As to the fact: did Jesus Christ disperse the nations he camie to save ? Did he not rather collect them V Abar- banel is then quoted as referring to Isa. Ixiii. 3, to sustain his opinion, and Kimchi, the father and son, explaining the passage in the sense of distilling, ascribed to language, thus of indoctrinating. [As Moses, 'my speech shall distil as the dew.'] Then he subjoins, ' Reader, lament with me, that the pure and chaste word of God should be exposed so much to the sport of human im- agination, obscuring its glory and power: not indeed always because of igno- HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. -56 be baptized. Having- learned that Ctirist was to sprinkle many nations, he would not have been willing to be immersed, diversified but fruitless effort to twist its meaning into something else, I do not wonder ; but that Christian interpreters, and those who love the gospel, when they distinctly see that nothing can now be spoken more truly of Christ, nor more in agreement with his discipline, should yet assign other senses to the passage, I greatly wonder. Is it that we deny Isaiah to have been so perfectly illuminated by the Spirit, as to have fully unveiled the whole mystery of the gospel ? God forbid ! The next sentence will teach us, that he saw all that the history declares befel Christ Jesus, however paradoxical the events were. The sense of this passage is clear, plain, certain ; that Christ Jesus will apply the virtue of the blood shed by him, as the Great High Priest of the house of God, to the purification of the con- sciences of many and great nations, and to their illumination and sanc- tification ; and that he will afford them the justification obtained for them by his obedience unto blood, as he interprets his meaning after- wards, in ch. Iviii. II; but that these nations who believe in him shall receive the sign of this benefit, and profess their faith in baptism, to be instituted by the command of Jesus Christ, and to be adminis- tered by his apostles and servants — this baptism sealing to those who profess Christ, the same which was formerly signified by the vari- ous purifications, under the ancient economy, made by washing or sprinklings for these modes are equivalent each to the other. So in Ezekiel, ch. xxxvi. 26 : ' And I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean.' But Peter, in his first epistle, ch. i. 2, and the apostle to the Hebrews, x. 22, xii. 24, use the very word sprinkle, and the phrase, sprinkling of the blood of Christ, which is the idea in Isaiah. For the word here rendered sprinkle, and which is used in Levit. iv, 6, and in Num. viii. 7, refers chiefly to the act of a high priest, who sprinkles upon the people the blood of a victim offered for them, in order to purify them : since to sprinkle anything with blood is to apply its virtue for purification. Compare Eph. v. 26, with Tit. ii. 14. Thus the glorifying of Jesus Christ among the Gen- tiles, given to him for an inheritance, was to begin. The justifi.- rance, for this might plead an excuse, after diligent efforts had been made ; but because of prejudices arising from incredulity, or the wavering and unstable judgment of the multitude. It is loater, Viere, which creates a difficulty with Jewish expositors, as they cannot make the sprinkling of it agree with any of their hypotheses. But why do Christians avoid the light that here shines ! ' 56 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. but would choose to follow the way of Christ, as foretold by Isaiah. We are well aware that Immersers, in their natural anxiety to evade the point of this argument, find fault with our translators for following the original Hebrew in this place, and not preferring the translation of the Seventy. But that evasion is insufficient. Inquirer. Your argument, if 1 understand it, does not depend on that allusion, while, if that allusion be indeed a prophecy of baptism, it brings decisive confirmation to it. Teacher. We will turn now to the baptism of the Philip- pian jailer, Acts xvi. 33. Where did it take place"? Not in his own house — for we are told, that after the transaction he brought Paul and Silas into his house. If we follow the record, we find that it took place in the prison — where to sup- pose there was a bath, or other convenience for immersion, were against all probability. The narrative favors the suppo- sition that the washing of the stripes and the baptism were done at the same place, and by water procured by similar means. And we shall not be condemned at the day of judg- ment, if we are shut out from the Lord's table for not being able to guess that there was a bath in that prison, or to guess that they resorted to it, when the record hints nothing of the kind. If we suppose that the jailer was baptized with a por- tion of the same water brought to wash the stripes, we have only one supposition, and that natural, simple, and favored by the narrative. But they who contend that he was immersed, must first guess that he was ; and then prop up that guess by guessing again that there was a bath in prison, a luxury not usually granted to prisoners, especially by unmerciful pagans. And then they must guess that they left the inner prison and cation obtained by the Messiah was to be furnished and applied to them, for illumination, purification, righteousness, and life. ViTRiNGA, in loco. " It were well, perhaps, to ask, if the word ' sprinkle,' in this passage, had been ' immerse,' whether its authority would not have been final, insetthng the mode. W. J." HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 67 resorted to it — or they must guess that the jailer and his whole family, and Paul and Silas reeking with their wounds, went out at midnight to some river, expressly against the orders of the magistrate to the jailer to keep them safely. Now those who prefer to hang on such a string of guesses, may do it ; but let them banish none from the Lord's table for not taking their guesses for holy writ. Inquirer. I suppose you would dispose of the ease of the baptism of Saul much in the same way. Teacher. Not a circumstance in that case favors immer- sion, hut everything looks the other way, and shows that he re- ceived such a baptism as he might receive in the room where he was. He was sick and weak. And all that is told us is, that while confined to his room, blind, faint, and fasting, Ananias on entering the house said to him — " Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales, and he received sight forthwith, and arose and was baptized." Now we have'here one entire scene. The coming in of Ananias — the salutation — the re- moving of the blindness — his rising from his couch of sickness, and his baptism, are all one scene, occurring in the same time and place. These small particulars are given, and it is in- credible that a circumstance so important as going out or car- rying out a sick man for immersion is omitted. Lideed, where the Bible intimates no such thing, we have no right to say that they went out. But to maintain his position, the Immerser must guess that there was a river or a bath near at hand — guess that a sick man rose from his couch, after eating or drinking nothing for three days, and was yet able to bear the fatigue of walking the distance to and fro, and the exposure of the immersion. And do such guesses come near enough to certainty to justify the pernicious consequences of the close communion principle ! 58 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. The next case is that of Cornelius, Acts x. Here is an entire absence of any intimation of immersion. Peter says — " Can any man forbid water, that these should not be bap- tized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?*' He does not ask — Can any man forbid us going to the river? but, can any one forbid water, to be brought and applied to their baptism on the spot ? In his rehearsal of the affair to his brethren afterwards, he told them that as he began to preach, the Holy Ghost ye// on [mark the expression] the Gentiles as on the Jews at the beginning. This called to mind, he says, the word of the Lord, how that he said — John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Here you see that the pouring out and the falling on of the Holy Ghost is called baptism, and reminded Peter of baptism. And Peter, being thus reminded of the Lord^s baptism, would not go right away and baptize in a different way. And then he baptized " with loater^'' [i/tT^Ti, the dative of the instrument without a preposition] and not in the water. From an exam- ination of the case, all the probabilities are against immersion. That there was immersion here, is a guess without a shadow of a foundation. We have now examined all the passages which have any material bearing on the question. And we will here make two general remarks. (1.) The apostles were wont to baptize on the spot where the occasion for baptizing occurred. If they were in prison, they baptized in prison ; if on a journey, they used the water by the way-side ; if in a sick-room, they baptized there. And we never read of their going out to find a convenient place for immersing — a very singular fact if they always immersed. And neither do we ever read of a change of garments in baptizing. (2.) Those baptized were said to have been baptized not in but with water. The water is made the instrument with which, and not the element in which, they were baptized. We will next state a few objections to immersion : HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 69 1. It does not so well agree with the main design and im- port of baptism — i. e. purifying by an influence poured out. 2. It does not harmonize with the simplicity of the Gospel. 3. It cannot be administered in all times and places where baptism is desirable. 4. It is often cumbrous and inconvenient. 5. It favors the Popish conceit of the efficacy of penance, in that it lays stress on overcoming the natural repugnance to such a mode, in the idea that in it consists the taking up of the cross. 6. It is indelicate. We are aware that the mention of this objection is taken with offence. Yet it is one which ought to he urged, and will have influence with serious and unbiassed minds. It violates a natural and healthful sense of propriety, for females to expose themselves in water, with and before the other sex. Though modesty forbids the statement of this objection in all its force, it is enough to say, that the sacrifice of female modesty, in a religious rite, is an oflfering not re- quired at our hands. These reasons, since immersion is not commandedy would of themselves lead us to seek some other mode. CHAPTER VII. CONCLUDING REMARKS. The suggestion which is frequently made, that one had better be immersed at any rate, "/or then he will he sure to he right, ^'' deserves some notice. If by being right is meant the following of the scriptural mode, one hy heing immersed will he sure to he wrong. But the main objection to that suggestion is that it assumes that the question is only about the quantity of water needful to be applied ; whereas the doctrine of the Immersers involves a principle, which sunders the union of the church, and divides the house of God against itself. It is not with you simply the question whether more or less water shall be used in your baptism. But if you are immersed, you must adopt Immer- sers'' principles, to wit, that immersion only is baptism, and deny the baptism of all not immersed, and exclude them from the Lord's table. You must pronounce the act of your bap- tism in infancy a solemn farce, and trample on that covenant, which perhaps has been the cord of love, to bring you to Christ. Or, if you have not been baptized, and in that case prefer immersion, the inference is that you do it from prin- ciple, since that is not the mode which convenience suggests. And the principle on which you prefer it, is understood to be that another mode is not baptism. So that when you consent to be immersed, it is understood, unless some circumstances indicate the contrary, that you put your hand and seal to the avowal, that all churches, but those of Immersers, are walk- ing disorderly, making an unauthorized use of Christian ordi- HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 61 nances, and are virtually intruding, with unhallowed feet, where Korah, Dathan, and Abiram went. And you would not only unchurch a majority of the people of God, hut you loould unchurch yourself and your immersing brethren. For if immersion only is baptism, then the Im- mersers of this country have taken their baptism from the unbaptized ! The first person immersed here was Roger Williams. He was originally a Pedobaptist, and was im- mersed by a layman, Ezekiel Holyman, and then he immersed Mr. Holyman, and the rest of his church. Most of the im- mersions which have since Taken place in this country, trace their pedigree to these cases. But Mr. Williams soon made the discovery that he had unchurched himself, and frankly confessed to his church that he had misled them — and was not competent to administer baptism. And now what did he do ? Did he go to one who had been baptized by immer- sion in a true line of apostolical succession 1 Alas, he knew of none such in the world ! Learned man as he was, he could not find such a lineage of Immersers, though less learned men in later times pretend to find them ! He was driven, by his views of consistency to his immersing principles, to declare that Christian ordinances had been lost, and there was no church in the world, and could not be, till other apostles should come, with miraculous powers. For the rest of his life, therefore, he separated from all churches. Disguise it as you may, this is the necessary result of the close communion immersing principle. So that, so far from being sure of being right, in adopting this principle, you are sure to be wrong ; and avow a principle which makes all Christians wrong, and all churches no churches. Close communion and immersion, as usually held, are one and the same principle. And the consent to be immersed, takes a fearful sweep. It by necessary consequence makes one an assailant of the peace and unity of the church. It compels him to deny the validity of the baptism of most pro • 6 Oa HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. fessing Christians, and to bring his own into serious question. It involves the necessity of holding that all Pedobaptist churches are no churches, and their ministers no ministers ; and yet under such circumstances as compel most Immersera to waver in that denial. It compels one to take the ground that most of the Lord's children have no right to the Lord's table — that most of those who have spiritual communion with Christ, may not have sacramental communion with him — that most of those who feed on Christ, may not feed on the appointed emblems of him — that most of those destined to sit at the marriage-supper of the Lamb, must be driven from the sacramental supper. If you become an Immerser, you also take up a principle that wars against Christian love. The Immerser claims credit for consistency to his principles, in proportion as he drives the war of extermination against all other sects, which in his esteem are no churches of Christ. Though few Immers- ers fully act out their principles in this particular, this prin- ciple has given their sect a character, which is generally allowed to be, above all others, given to proselytism. The most odious forms and measures of proselyting have their justification in the close communion principle, which makes aU other churches no churches. If one pronounces all Pedo- baptists aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise — unbaptized , unfit to come to the Lord's table — if one feels prompted to use measures of prose- lyting, from which most others would shrink, to build his sect on the ruins of others — if he more than insinuates, where he may do it successfully, that one must be immersed or be damned, and thus carries his point by overmastering the fears of the weak and confiding — if one feels bound to do what Balaam dared not do, and pronounce accursed whom God has not cursed, he retreats behind his principle of immer- sion. Consistency to that requires it all. But that must be a pernicious principle, that engenders such pernicious HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 63 consequences. Is one so sure of being right if he adopts it? Then ivhat practical advantage does this principle offer, to compensate for all its evil. Does it give us better hopes of heaven 1 Does it lead to the formation of better Christian character? Does it foster a higher spirit of obedience? These are questions touching matters of fact, which each one can answer for himself. Were we to test the matter by- reference to the cause of Foreign Missions, we might, in one particular, get tangible results. The Immersers claim to be the largest denomination in the United States ; of course it must be larger than that of the Congregationalists, together with that portion of the Presbyterians which sustain the American Board of Missions. Yet how do the two boards compare? The Immersers' board raises and expends but about one fifth as much annually, as does that of the " un- baptized " Congregationalists and Presbyterians. If the spirit of benevolence is any test of principle, we see in this partic- ular no advantage from immersion. Or does immersion show its superior advantages, in its influence on civil society'? We take you to Rhode Island, a community whose infancy was cradled by the immersing prin- ciple. Its institutions and the early formation of its character were about as much affected by that principle, as the institu- tions and character of Massachusetts and Connecticut were affected by the contrary principle. And, to say the least, no powerful persuasive to immersion comes from Rhode Island. But it is said, that Immersers have been prosperous and suc- cessful ; and this is drawn into an argument in defence of their principle. What desirable prosperity they have had, however, may be more owing to the cardinal principles of the gospel in their hands than to their use of this party -shibboleth. Yet success in building up a sect is a doubtful test of the dis- tinctive principles of that sect. For Papists and Mormons 64 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. might use such an argument to good effect. All other things being equal, success in building a sect, should be in some proportion to exertions made; and if the exertions of Im- mersers to enlist recruits from other sects, outstrip those of all others, should not their success be in some proportion to their efforts ? They have also had special advantage for gathering the lambs from Pedobaptist flocks. A public sentiment has greatly prevailed among Congregationalists against publicly discussing the Immersers' errors ; and indeed against all efforts, even for self-defence, against proselytism. A large class among us are ready to frown upon all efforts of the kind. Their disgust at the proselytism of the Immersers, has made them over-scrupulous, lest we should imbibe their spirit, in attempting a defence against them. This has in a great measure paralyzed efforts on our part, and given Immers- ers an advantage which they have not been slow to use. But Immersers have no clogs of this sort. Who ever heard of an Immerser reproved by Immersers for defending the principles of his sect — or even for furious onsets on other sects ■? This difference leads to another. By this state of things it has come about that most Immersing ministers, however deficient in other particulars, have concentrated their main strength on the subject of baptism ; and so have their argu- ment at their tongue's end, and (what is more important) are familiar with all the little tactics of proselytism. But Pedobaptist ministers, taught to feel that they have less use for thorough knowledge on this subject, are in a way to cul- tivate that knowledge less. It is felt to be more important to preach so as to convert sinners, than to preach so as to pre- vent their running into Anabaptism. And because they have thus felt and acted, Immersers have seized on the fact, as an occasion to represent that Pedobaptists, generally, do not understand the subject ; and have not examined it — and do so HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. 65 and so merely because their fathers did : and whatever show of truth they are able to throw around this representation, is very useful to their sinister purpose. Hence, too, it is often, and with great confidence asserted, among Immersers, that Pedobaptist ministers are not sincere in their belief. There is, indeed, good reason for believing that the more general idea of Immersers, as to us, is, that we practise Pedobap- tism, and refuse immersion, against the convictions of our judgment and conscience. This persuasion, so potent for popular effect, has originated partly, perhaps, from the proselyting industry of the others, and partly from our com- parative indifference as to defending our principles. Our fear to err on the side of proselytism, has been construed into a disbelief of our principles, and an impression, highly mis- chievous, has been produced. Our ministers have been made to feel that it is next to a sin to resist aggressive efforts, and show any zeal in attachment to our distinctive principles. Some of our v/riters on the subject, from a desire to show a generous and liberal spirit, have made unwarrantable con- cessions. Preaching on the subject has been too much dis- couraged. In revivals of religion, ministers have given place to the grossest proselyting efforts, fearing to check the revi- val by restraining them. With all these advantages and exertions, the wonder is, that Immersers have not made more progress than they have. If our principles are worth defending, public sentiment among us should be so far correct as to allow of the labor of defence, and not to go into spasms at the occurrence of "controversy" on the subject. Our ministers, also, must make themselves familiar with the points of the argument, and the best modes of presenting them. It is not sufficient that they study the subject enough to satisfy their own minds. It is their duty to preserve their people from being seduced into a pernicious error ; and for this purpose they need to understand not only the truth, but also all the tactics by 6* 66 HINTS TO AN INQUIRER. which the truth is assailed. Disagreeable as the duty may be, he is an unfaithful servant who, in this day, shrinks from it. Private Christians, too, have duties in relation to this subject, the nature of which may be learned from the shape of the efforts put forth by many of the members of im- mersing churches ; and, uncongenial as they are, these duties must be done, unless we are willing to suffer "the way of truth to be evil spoken of." THE BAPTISMAL QUESTION REVIEW REV. MESSRS. COOKE AND TOWNE'S HINTS TO AN INQUIRER SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. BY WILLIAM Hague; Pastor of the Federal St. Baptist Church. BOSTON : GOULD, KENDALL & LINCOLN, 5 9 Wa shington Street. 1842. ADVERTISEMENT. The pamphlet to which I have here furnished a Reply, was issued yester- day. On Saturday' last, I first saw public notice given of the republication in this form of some numbers from the columns of the " Puritan." Of those numbers I had heard, but had not read them. A friend sent them to me ; I read them on that day, and have this week prepared an pnswer. I mention this to show the reason of my noticing only one of the two authors, whose names are on the pamphlet before me. It having been announced that the Rev. Mr, Towne was the sole author, I wrote under that impression. I have chosen to refer to him alone moreover, because I should not have noticed the book at all, had I not learned that it was from the pen of one of our city pastors j and as the matter now stands before the public, he is as responsible for one part of the production as the other. BuLFiNCH Street, > Tliursday, May 20, 1842. 5 REVIEW. There is one feature of this pamphlet which will certainly be pleasing to every reader; that is, the tone of sincerity which animates it. The author writes like one who not only feels an interest in his subject, but also a conviction of the truth of his own statements. He takes a clear and decided position, and risks his whole cause upon a single issue. This we like. It is coming to the" point. It exhibits the manliness inspired by sincere belief It is true, here and there, we are forced to pause, and ask, "Is it possible for an intelligent Christian and scholar to believe this?" Yet the language and spirit of the whole production set the question aside, and lead us to the conclusion that he has written from his heart as well as his intellect ; that he " believes, and therefore speaks." It is not for the sake of paying a compliment, that we make this remark, but because we are really pleased when com- mencing a discussion, to feel that we have to do with a sin- cere man. It is not always so. In reading controversial wri- tings, one's feelings are often ruffled by the impression con- stantly recurring, that this or that is said merely for effect, and rather from the spirit of " partiality and hypocrisy," than a deep conviction of its justness. We are aware that a man may be sincere in defending error as well as truth ; and that when through inadvertence, or prejudice of education, or want of sufficient knowledge, he has adopted one wrong principle, it may lead him into a thousand absurdities, yet it smooths the path of controversy, to believe that you have an honest oppo- nent. Frail as Mr. Towne's argument really is, untenable as his position appears to be when sound philology pours its light around it, he undoubtedly thinks it strong; and if he venture forth into this field of discussion with a bolder step and an air of greater confidence than many of his predecessors, it is be- cause he sees less clearly than they, the difficulties which are before him, and the perils which beset his path. A man's confidence that he is right, sometimes arises from the limita- tion of his views. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that this exhibition of a sincerity of belief, is blended with a strong glow of denom- inational antipathy. This appears at the outset, in refusing to apply to the Baptists the name by which they are usually designated. The reason assigned for this is, that it would im- 1* ply a concession that ihey alone properly baptize. Hence, he insists on calling them "Immersers." Now this denotes a morbid state of mind, which would be very likely to bias his judgment, and unfit him for an impartial investigation. He who cannot give to a denomination of Christians the name by which they have been long known in a community and among different nations, is ill prepared to do justice to their cause. If such a mode of attack were followed out, the mouths of dif- ferent sects would be filled with contemptuous epithets. With equal reason, the Baptists might say, we will not call the Con- gregationalists by the name which they have assumed, for we also are Congregationalists; and to do so, would imply a con- cession that they have an exclusive right to the name. With the same reason we might say it of the Independents in Eng- land ; as if yielding the name, implied that all other churches were in a state of subjection to a hierarchy. Just so too we might refuse to speak of the Episcopalians by their usual de- signation, on the ground that it involved a concession that they alone have bishops; and believing that in the scriptural sense, we have bishops as well as they, we might insist on calling them Diocesans. But what would be the consequence of all this? Nothing but strife, bitterness and niutual disrespect. Let us have nothing to do with such childish bickering. The apostle Peter places the practice of courtesy in the list of Christian duties; and if we have aught of his spirit, we will yield to each denomination tlie name by which it is usually known, and beware how we "strive about words to no profit." With Mr. Towne's "preliminary thoughts," we think the Baptists will cordially agree. He says, "a divine simplicity characterizes the New Te:stament institutions, and it is con- trary to the genius of the gospel to lay great stress on out- ward rites. It rather invites the main solicitudes upon ordering the heart and life." In such a sentiment, it might be ex- pected that the Baptists would heartily accord, since they have long been distinguished for maintaining the spirituality of the Christian religion, and showing that none have a right to baptism at all, until they have repented of sin, and yielded their hearts to God. For this they have been persecuted for ages past in Europe. In the reign of Henry VIIl., as Bishop Burnet tells us, a national creed was issued, approved by "the whole clergy of the realm," declaring that "infants must needs be christened, because they be born in original sin, which can- not be remitted without baptism, whereby they receive the Holy Ghost." The Baptists of that day could not assent to this, but defended the doctrine of infant salvation in all its breadth, and were exposed to the censure of all the Pa^dobap- tists of England, for declaring that there is no difl^erence "be- tween the infant of a Christian and a Turk," but that both might be saved without baptism. Equally ready am I to assent to anotlier preliminary remark, that the gospel does not "lay stress on the mode of performing an external rite." I have never contended for any particular mode of baptism, but for the rite itself; for that which is essen- tial to its very nature ; for that which the word used in the commission of our Lord positively enjoins. If sprinkling were a mode of baptism, I should never think of ])raciising immer- sion. It would be a gross absurdity to do it, and a sin to urge it on the conscience of a Christian convert, if sprinkling a few drops of water on the forehead, would really meet the demand of the word in the baptismal statute. If the word baptizo in the Greek Testament does not denote the act of immersion, or dipping, in distinction from other modes of applying a liquid, the foundation of the Bapiist argument is not laid in solid rock, but on a shifting quicksand. I am glad therefore that Mr. Towne has defined his position so clearly as he has done, in declaring that the word boptizo does not denote any particular use of water, but all possible ways in which it can be applied; that in the New Testament it evidently means to s|>rinkle ; and, (to quote his phrase with all the em])hasis with which he has printed it,) "THERE IS NOT THE SLIGHTEST GROUND TO SUPPOSE THAT ANY INSPIRED MIN- ISTER EVER BAPTIZED BY IMMERSION." Let him make this clear on the same princi})les on which we ascertain the meaning of other words in the English or any other lan- guage in the world, and I pledge myself at once to abjure im- rriersion forever, and to receive sprinkling at his hand. Meaning of the Word. It is evident at a glance, that the turning point in this con- troversy is the meaning of the Greek uord baptizo, which stands in our Bibles with an English termination. The cir- cumstances connected with the adujinistration of the rite, the places chosen, such as Jordan and Enon, the force of the Greek prer)ositions eis and ek, which express a descent 7/?/o and a rising up out of the v/ater as definitely as any prepositions in the Greek language can do it, are all strongly corroborative of our position that the act of baptism denoted by the term in Christ's commission, is properly and adequately translated into English by the word immersion which comes from the Latin, or by the word dipping of Anglo-Saxon origin. Nevertheless, if it can be clearly proved beforehand, that the active verb baptizo, the name of an action, is, when used with reference to water, so indeterminate as riot to denote any particular kind of action, but rather all possible modes of use of which water is susceptible, from that of a single drop to an ocean, then it follows, — that however much of doubt the circumstances and prepositions might occasion to tender consciences, the baptis- 8 mal law from the lips of Christ, contained in the commission, presents a great variety of modes to the choice of the individ- nal, or leaves it, as the Pope of Rome vvoiihl say, to be deter- mined by church authority. The common sense of mankind has always determined that the language of law should be definite; but this supposition attributes to the great Legislator of the church, language the most vague and indeterminate. The main question is, whether the word used by Christ, to en- join baptism, in the last exercise of his legislation on earth, in giving that commission which is binding "to the end of the world," denotes a specific act or not. ]f it does not, then there is no law which certainly holds us to immersion, or de- fines what act the Saviour nieant, whether it were the aj)j)li- cation of water to the iiead or tlie feet, the face or the hands. If it does, then all objections drawn from supposed difficulties, or improbabilities, or from the greater convenience of sprink- ling, are no more to be regarded as arguments, than those questions which skeptics sometimes ask in order to throw dis- credit on the very letter and spirit of revelation. Now this great question, " What sort of action does the word haptizo denote?" Mr. Towne approaches in a very curious way. It is worth while to mark it well, to see how sophistry may lead caj)tive a confiding reader, lie says, "All agree that bap- tism is water applied by a |)roper person to a proper person in the name of tlie Trinity. TIjis much is fixed and settled." "^Phis broad, vague definition of baptism is very unscholar- like in a discussion where the meaning of the chief term is to be settled. Baptism is the name of some kiufl of action or other, and has nothing to do, in itself considered, with the character of the adtninistiator or the subject, the invocation of the Trinity, or any particular element, whether it be oil or wine, or blood or water. After the meaning of the term is settled, then if the question should arise, what is involved in the performance of the Christian institute of baptism, the above quotation would be a just reply. What would be thought of the philology of a Jew, if he were asked, what is the meaning of the word sprifdile, and he should reply, it denotes the stri- king of the blood of a lamb, upon the door posts of a house by a proper person at a jjroper time, to commemorate a great deliverance? This would be a queer definition of a word which is the name of an action, but would do very well as an answer to another question, namely, "wliat is involved in God's ordinance of passover sprinkling?" Yet Mr. T. goes on to say, "You will settle it therefore whether immersion alone, is ba[)tism at all. Jf 1 fidi from a ship's side and am thoroughly immersed — is that baptism ? No. Or if men immerse me by force — is that baptism? No. Or if 1 am immersed by my own consent, but not in the name of the Trinity — is that bap- tism ? No. Well then, neither immersion, nor the use of 9 water in any way is baptism ; WHICH IS SOMETHING MORE." p. 6. Now what absurdity is here ! Why, if baptism be immersing, and especially if it be any application of water, then all this is baptism, though not Christ's ordinance of baptism. In the very same chaj)ter he speaks of the pharisaic washings of hands, cups and couches, as real baptism, in the New Testa- ment use of the term. And so they were, as we shall show, though not Christ's ordinance. Whence arises this confusion? whence this effort to confound the name of an action, with all the circumstances of an ordinance? Evidently from a disposi- tion to lead the inquirer's mind away from the point at issue, and to get scope enough to put into the word, bapiizo, all that vast variety of meaning which will subject the Saviour's rite to the caprice of every ai)plicant, and give the digjiity of its name to every way of applying water which the human imagination may suggest. This "is evident from the terms in which Mr. T. announces the ultimate conclusion at which he thinks he has arrived. "If the word therefore denotes the application of water in di- vei"S ways, it is indeterminate, like our word ivash,and does not define any one way in which the water shall be applied in the religious rite. Tbis conclusion is immovable. We have sus- tained it by a nndtitud« of examples cited before; and tJuU all lexicographers concur in it, no intelligent Immerser will deny.'" NOW THIS IS THE VERY THING WHICH I DO DENY. Here is a question of fact: Do all the lexicographers agree in saying that the word is indeterminate? I aver that the standard lexicographers of every country where Greek lite- rature is studied, agree in saying just the contrary in their lexi- cons. If Mr. Towne has had private communications from any •of them, reversing what they have printed, let him produce the documents or testimony. But if tJie question is to be settled by an appeal to the hooks, the proofs are now before my eyes. My assertion is, that the words bapto and baptizo, (which are, as Mr. T. observes, both from one lOot and so nearly identical in meaning as to allow of our speaking of them as one word,) are determinate as to mode, and in this the lexicograjihers generally agree. The first authority which I will produce is one which might be expected above all others to support Mr. Tovvne's position — the Lexicon of tite New Testament, by Doctor Robinson, Pro- fessor of Sacred Literatiu'e in the I'heological Setiiinary at Andover. I quote him first, because his work contains Eng- lish definitions, and is accessible to those who wish to consult it. Turn to the word bapto. The first meaning which occiu's, is "to dip in, to immerse." The first exam|)le to ilUistrate this meaning, is John xiii, 26, where Jesus is re|)resented as using the word to designate the act of dipping the sop into the dish before giving it to Judas. The next example is Leviticus iv. 10 6, where the Septuagint has this term. It is worthy of partic- ular notice by the reader of the Bible, because the three words, dip^ sprinkle and pour are brought into close connection. "And the priest sliall dip his finger in the bU)od, and sprinkle of the blood seven times before the Lonl ; and (verse 7,) shall pour all the blood of the bullock at the bottom of the altar." Here are three different actions expressed by their three appropriate names, and yet Mr. Towne would have us believe that the first word [hapto) means the same thing as the other two! Coidd any thing be more absurd? This quotation of itself shows that the first word is determinate as to mode. The second and last meaning in Robinson's Lexicon under hnpto^ is thus marked: "(b) by impl. to finffe, to c(?/e." That abbreviated word, denoting "by implication,''^ is very important in this case,'and involves the |)rinciple which Mr. T. from first to last has overlooked, and by overlooking it, he misunder- stands the lexicons, and his philology is entirely confounded. The word hapto incleed means to dye, but then it is by IMPLI- CATION. And why by implication? Because if any thing be dipped or baptized in coloring matter, staining, tinging, or dyeing is the effect. The first example to illustrate this mean- ing is Revelations xix. 13; a vesture dif)ped in blood. The word which the lexicographer has brought to prove that hapto means to dye is in the New Testament translated dipped. When therefore hapto means staining or dyeing, it only implies it, and denotes that it is performed by dipping instead of any other way. This indeed is the usual way of dyeing, as any one knows who has visited a dye-house. It is obvious too that a thing may be colored by being sprinkled, but hapto does not designate that act, and could never be used in connection with it in a literal sense, unless it were to express the idea that the substance had become thoroughly drenched, or as wet as if it had been dipped. The j)rineiple here developed in relation to hapto, applies of course to haptizo. There is not a lexicon in the world, which does not give as the primary, the leading meaning under 6a;)- hrase is "me baptete.^^ "To- day, ye bearers of water, dip not," that is, your pitchers in the river Inachus. Just so Aristotle says, (Qusest. Median, c. 29,) "the bucket must first be dipped — hapsai — and then draw up." Hence Donnegan's Lexicon says, under Bapto, "to draw out weter by dipping a vessel into it." Yet Mr. T. says, this exam- ple proves that 6a;?/o has a meaning short of immersion! It reminds me of the saying of a celebrated logician : " How few there are who know wiien a thing is proved!" His next example is from Hippocrates, who, speaking of a certain liquid, says, "when it drops upon the garments, they are dyed, (baptized.") Mr. T.'s comment is, "observe, the dro|)ping of the liquid is called baptism." To which I reply, "Observe, the dropping of the liquid is called — dropj)ing; but the ejfed of the process, which was to make a garment look as ifit had been dipped in coloring matter, is designated by a word, which by implication means to dye, as all lexicographers agree." To illustrate the fallacy of Mr. Tovvne's criticism, let us suppose for a moment that he were a Greek, studying Eng- lish, and wished to know the meaning of the word dip. First of all, he would naturally turn to a lexicon, and I will suppose him to use one as comprehensive as Richardson's English Dictionary, which 1 have now before me, in two quarto vol- umes. There he finds the history of the word traced. ^' Dip. [Anglo-Saxon — Dippan — mergere, immergere — to dip — to dive. Dutch, Dippen, Doppen. Sw. Dopa.] to siid?, to immerge, to put vmder water or other liquid, to depress, to sink below the surface, to enter or go superficially or slightly into any thing. Consequentially, to wet, to damp." Overlooking the principle involved in the word "con5e5i/ize means to immerse, and it is certain that immersion was the practice of the primitive church,"* yet plead for the change, since it is made on the ground of expediency or convenience. While these replies linger on my ear, my attention is roused by a few voices of the clergy of New England, denying what the learning of the old world has established, and making assertions in bold tones touching Greek literature, at which the learned Greeks, Italians and Germans, of different churches and opposite opinions in theol- ogy, alike profoundly marvel. Although the practice of immersion prevails so generally iti the countries of the Eastern chm-ch, where the Pope never swayed a sceptre, yet because it is different in those which are or have been papal, Psedobaptist writers often represent us as setting ourselves against the decisions of a vast majority of the learned of Europe. This is an entire mistake. Whatever may be the practice of churches, determined as it has been by kings and parliaments, popes and cardinals, the learning of the world is on our side in this question. On no point within the whole compass of theology, is there so great a union of opinion, though not of practice, among the really learned of different nations, as is justly observed by the Secretary of the Synod of Greece. What though Calvin did not practice immersion ? It is enough for me to know that he said " the word haptizo, means immerse, and it is certain that immersion was the prac- tice of the primitive church." What though Luther did not *Calvin's Institutes, Art. 'Bap.' 20 practice immersion? It is enough for me to know that he as- serted it to be the proper mode, as the only one " answering to the signification of baptism," and that he so rendered the Greek word in liis German version of the New Testament. What though Melancthon did not practice immersion ? I know that he gave it the suffrage of his judgment. I might say the same of Beza, Erasmus, VVitsius, Venema, Turrettein, Spanheim, Grotius and Mosheim, the first of whom says, " haptizo does not signify to ivash except by consequence," and the last of whom declares, "baptism was performed in the second cen- tm-y, without the public assemblies, in places appointed and prepared for that purpose, and was performed by immersion of the whole body in the bapitsmal font."(Eccl. Hist. Cent. I. 11.) All the learning of modern Europe, and of the most celebrated critics now living, Greek, Catholic and Protestant, utters but one voice on this point. If the clear and positive testimony of the leading scholars of the universities of Germany will have any weight with Mr. Towne or the reader, they may find it in an article from Professor Sears, in the Christian Review for March, 1838. The Catholic Church, too, speaking through such men as Bossuet of a former age, and of the present, Wiseman, now President of the English College at Rome, is strong in the assertion of the one meaning of the word, and of the ancient practice being in accordance with it, though her own is not so. Let it be remembered therefore, that the litera- ture of the world is with us, and then let it be asked, whether Mr. Towne can be justified in charging us with arrogance for maintaining a position which the wisest men of every age have proved to be right? Is assumption on our side, or on his? Nor is Tyndal, the father of our present English version, to be left out of this list. Mr. T. places the weight of his opinion on the side of sprinkling. Whatever may have been Tyndal's practice, we have his express testimony to the scrip- tural character of our view of baptism. In a comment on Eph. v. 26, after reprobating the conduct of the Romish clergy in using a Latin form of words, he says: "Now as a i)reacher in preaching the word of God, saveth the hearers that believe, so doeth the v.'asshinge, in that it preacheth and represenieth to us the promise that God hath made unto us in Christe; the wasshinge preacheth unto us that we are clensed wyth Christe's blonde shedynge, which was an oflTering and a satisfaction for the pynne of al that repent and beleve, cousentynge and sub- niittynge themselves unto the wyl of God.* The plungxjnge into So Covvper ; "There is a fountain filled with blood, Drawn from Immaniiel's veins; And sinners plunged beneath that flood, Lose all their guilty stains." 21 the ivaier signifyeih that we die and are buried with Christe, as conserning the old life of synne which is Adam. And the pulling out again, signifyeih that we rise again with Christe in a new Tife, full of the Holy Gooste, which shall teach us and gyde us, and work the wyl of God in us, as thou seest, Rom. vi." This passage occurs in a work, entitled, "The Obedience of all Degrees, proved by God's Worde," imprinted by William Copland, at London, 1561. Probably Mr. Towne was not aware of the existence of such a passage from the pen of Tyn- dal, or he would not have spoken as he has done. We may see then who, in this controversy, are Mr. T.'s real opponents. First, all the Greek nation, who are competent wit- nesses of the meaning of a term in their native tongue. Sec- ondly, all the learned of other nations in Europe, who feel that in their assertions they have any reputation to risk as scholars. Though these latter practiced sprinkling, yet they did not do it on the ground that the word baptizo meant sprinkle, or that such was the practice of the apostolic age. Like the Catho- lics, these Protestants plead for h on the ground of expediency, convenience, or church authority. Mr. T. knowing that a free community, educated like ours, will not ultimately hold to the practice on such grounds, feels himself bound to support it by the Bible, or give it up, and is thence driven to make the most daring and reckless assertions. He seems dissatisfied with the moderate statements of Dr. Woods and Prof. Stuart, and apol- ogizes for what he calls their "concessions," as arising from their liberality. But those venerable veterans in controversy have made the very best of their cause, and after all, it is the only point within the compass of theology on which they lose their wonted strength. See how Mr. T. arrays his scholarship against the leading men of every church. He says the word means to sprinkle and pour! Weigh the statement against that of Beza, the author of Latin poems, the Professor of Greek at Lausanne, the colleague of Calvin and the translator of the New Testament, yet not a Baptist in practice: "Baptizo does not signify to wash except by consequence, for it ])roperly sig- nifies to immerse for the sake of dyeing. To be baptized in water, signifies no other than to be immersed in water; which is the external ceremony of baptism." (Epistola II. ad Thorn. Silium, Amotat in Marc. vii. 4, &c.) So Dr. Wall, one of the "Lights of the English church," who wrote more largely than any man in England in favor of infant baptism, says tliat im- mersion was the primitive practice, and that ^'•this is so plain and clear, that one cannot but pity the weak endeavors of such Pse- dobaptists as would maintain the negative of it. 'T is a great want of prudence as well as of honesty, to refuse to grant to an adversary what is certainly true and may be proved so. It creates a jealousy of all the rest that one says." So I might mention Dr. Campbell, of the Scotch church, principal of Ab- 22 erdeen College, who made Hnrne actually ashamed of his ar- gument on miracles, and was indeed the greatest bihlical critic of the age in Great Britain, in one of his theological lectures, urging the exercise of candor on young ministers, cites as a ridiculous instance of the want of it, the case of those who deny that immerse is an adequate translation ofbaplizo, merely for the sake of party effect. And without going further, weigh the statement against that of Bossuet of the Catholic church, Bishop of Meux, who says, "John's baptism was performed by plunging. In fTne, we read not in the scripture that baptism was otherwise administered ; and we are able to make it ap- pear by the acts of councils and by the ancient rituals, that for thirteen hundred years, baptism was thus administered throus;h- out the whole church, as far as was ])ossible." Again I say, let the reader judge on which side is arrogance and assumption ; on mine or that of my oi)ponent. If what I have now advanced in regard to the lexicography of the word in question be true, then Mr. Towne's whole argu- ment is destroyed. It is not necessary for me to proceed fur- ther. All those trifling suggestions about the inconvenience of immersion, to the apostle and others, are swept away. The error must then die of itself. If 1 have crushed the head of the serpent, I may well let the tail alone. Nevertheless, a few words on Mr. T.'s treatment of several passages of scripture may meet the wants of some inquirers. I will proceed there- fore briefly to notice his objections to our views of the Baptisms of the New Testament. I. John's Baptism. It is useless in this connection to discuss the question whether John's baptism is to be called Christian or not. The New Testament has but one name for the ordi- nance, by whomsoever administered, and the act must have been the same. John's baptism came " from heaven." Jesus received it, and the disciples had no other. If, as we have proved, baptism means iujmersion, then John immersed. But Mr. T. cannot see how it was possible for John to immerse so many people as resorted to him, in a year and a half. "The passage of scripture cannot imj)ort less than five thousand." This reminds me of Voltaire's objection to the narrative of the slaughter of the infants, in the second of Mat- thew. Why, he says, Herod must have slain fourteen thou- sand ; and how was it possible that the other historians should not have noticed it ? This will do very well for a ske()tic, but it is absurd for a Christian to place h\s guess in such a case, against a plain statement of the Bible. No number is mention- ed ; but he guesses how many there were, and then guesses about John's amount of strength, and concludes by putting these guesses in print as an argument ! 23 It is said again tliat the phrase translated " niucli water, means ' many springs.' The ])lural form decides this point." Astonishing! And yet the same evangelist uses the same phrase in Rev. xiv. 2, to denote the "deep-sounding sea." By this we may judge of Mr. T.'s philology, and of the way in which he makes words, " by their own force," decide a point. II. The Baptism of Christ. Most young Christians would naturally feel an interest in their Saviour's baptism, and would wish, if it were possible, to be baptized as he was. And as the record in the third chapter of Matthew always suggests the idea of immersion, millions have hence believed that the Sav- iour was immersed. Special effort is therefore made to neutral- ize the force of this example. First we are informed that Christ's baptism was not Christian. It was only a " Jewish ceremony." The Mosaic law, he says, " required every priest to be consecra- ted to his work by being washed with water; Lev. viii. 6; and as this is the only statute in the code which made it necessary for him to be baptized, there is no doubt but this is the statute to which he referred." Now there is one passage of scripture which sweeps all this away. ]t is Heb. vii. 14, where Paul says, " it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah ; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concevn'u)^ priesthood." Here the apostle asserts, that no statute of the Mosaic law touched the priesthood of Christ, who (verse 13) "pertaineth to another tribe, ofivhich no man gave attendance at the altar^ Had Mr. T. never read this passage, or did he forget it ? He adds, that we must " either admit that this was the design of Christ's baptism, or deny that he fulfilled all righteousness." Only think of this! how dispassionate! We must either admit that Jesus was baptized as a Jewish priest under the law of Moses, or else deny the Saviour's words to John : "Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness." I must leave our au- thor and Paul to settle this. It was the Holy Spirit who indit- ed the seventh of Hebrews. The next statement on Christ's baptism is equally astound- ing. " The ceremonial law required that the washing of the priests, (Lev. viii. 6,) when consecrated to their office, should be performed by sprinkling. Num. viii. 7. According to the scriptures, therefore, Jesus our Priest was sprinkled." All I ask is, that the reader will peruse the law of consecration in the eighth chapter of Nunjbers, and then ask himself if Jesus fulfilled that at Jordan ? In what sense then did Christ fulfil righteousness by his bap- tism ? I answer, the term righteousness here denotes practical obedience, as in Luke i. 6. And baptism was a part of Christ's obedience " as a son," because it was an appointment of the Fa- ther, that thus he should be made " manifest to Israel." John knew not the Messiah personally, nor under what circumstan- ces or at what time he should see him. But he knew that the 24 circumstances were appointed. The event made it plain. Such is John's own account. See John i. 31, 33. "And 1 knew him not, but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come, baptizing with water. And I knew him not; but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw and bare record that this is the Son of God." In bap- tism, therefore, Christ is our example; and it is our duty for the same reason tliat it was his ; namely, it is an appointment of God. HI. The Baptism of the Three Thousand. Mr. T. thinks that the three thousand converts on the day of Pentecost could not have been immersed, because there ivas not ivater enough in the city ; the brook Cedron ivas dry, and no suitable place could be found. Is it possible that Mr. Towne should have allowed himself to write this, when Dr. Robinson's work on Palestine has been so long before the public ? In that the answer is complete. In vol. I. sec. vii. 9, there is an article of nineteen pages on the supply of water in Jerusalem. The extent of the cisterns, reservoirs, fountains and pools, for all the ])uri)oses of life, appeared truly amazing to the Doctor, who observes, "that in the numerous sieges to which Jerusalem in all ages has been exposed, we no where read of a want of water with- in the city." But Mr. T. says, "the Jews would sooner have admitted the swine to the baths than the disciples." See Acts ii. 46, 47. "They were daily in the temple, praising God, * * having favor with all the people." So I might proceed to mention all the little improbabilities and inconveniences which a fertile imagination hasthrovyn up, to discredit the obvious sense of the record of baptisms in the Acts of tlie Apostles. Proceeding in the same spirit, I could just as easily throw uncertainty and great doubtfulness over the records of some of our own missionaries in Bm-mah. If Dr. Judson had written some of his communications in Greek, I could show just as plausibly the great improbability that by the word baptizo lie always meant immerse. Just so in regard to Oncken in Germany ; in cases where he has baptized in great haste, and amidst great trials, I could suggest a multi- tude of difficulties of the same sort, against understanding his accounts always to involve the idea of iinmersion. One of the best attested facts in history, is, that on the 16th of April, 404, Chrysostom itnmersed three thousand Catechumens, young persons who had been instructed in Christianity at Constanti- nople. This he did with the assistance of none but the clergy of his own church. And yet there are as many improbabilities to be suggested against this statement as against any of the missionary accounts in the Acts of the Apostles. 25 Mr. T. well observes, that "this controversy touches more than the siniple question of immersion." Ay, — it does indeed. It touches the fundamental principles on which all languages are to be interpreted; for on those adopted here, there is not a page of the Bible which gives forth a definite meaning. No controversy can be settled, "shadovvs, clouds, and darkness rest upon the prospect," and skepticism becomes the dictate of wisdom, because faith can have no foundations. The number of instances in which this work betrays igno- rance, or forgetfulness of plain scripture facts, is quite startling. The writer speaks as if the Jews knew nothing of religious immersions. He says that the Apostles " had been educated to regard sprinkling as suffidtnt for ceremonial purification, and from early childhood had seen the leper and the Levites, and indeed the vessels of the temple cleansed by sprinkling." This is something like a statement which President Beecher, of Illinois, has ventured to make on the same subject. He says, " Nor is the washing of the clothes, so often spoken of, enjoined by a word denoting immersion." Now for the ref- utation of this, just turn to Numbers xxxi. 21, 23. "This is the ordinance of the law which the Lord commanded Moses. Every thing that may abide the fire ye shall make it go through the fire, and it shall be clean ; nevertheless it shall be purified with the water of separation ; and all that abideth not the fire, ye shall makeg-o through the ivater.^^ Now this passage has been in the Bible ever since these writers were boys, and how is it, that to all intents and purposes they never saw it? Very different from theirs is the statement of Calmet, as edited by Dr. Robinson. He says, " the priests and Levites before they exercised their ministry, washed themselves. (Ex. xxix. 4; Levit. viii. 6.) All legal pollutions were cleansed by bap- tism, or plunging into water. 'J'o touch a dead body, &c., re- quired purification. These purifications were not uniform; generally, people dipped themselves entirely under the water, and this is the most simple notion of the word baptize.''^ (See the article, Baptism.) It is asked with a tone of triumph, in relation to Mark vii. 4, whether the Jews immersed their beds. If any one doubt the possibility of this, let him read the article in Calmet on Beds; and as to the fact, the Jewish canon in Maimonides runs thus: "A bed wholly defiled, if he dips it part by part, it is pure." Their beds were not like ours. Again the Jewish rule is, " if any man wash himself all over, except the top of his little finger, he is still in his unclean- ness." Is not a Jewish Rabbi, from whom the learned have quoted seven centuries, better authority on Jewish customs than a New England clergyman ? Again. Mr. T. has insisted with some stress, that' when the eunuch read that passage quoted in the 8th of Acts from the 3 26 53(1 of Isaiah, he iriiist have just received an idea of sprinkling from the last verse of the 52dcha[)ter: "So shall he sprinkle many nations." Now in the septuagint version, published in Greek, two hundred and eighty-five years before Christ, this \vord rendered sprinkle is U'anslated astonish, {thaumasontai.) Then it would read, " So sliall he astonish many nations ; Kings shall shut their mouths at him." The y^arallelism so prevalent in Hebrew poetry confirms this version. Gesenius in his Hebrew Lexicon sanctions it and throws light on its origin. Mr. T. says that '-Inimersers, in their anxiety to evade the point of this argument, find fault with our translators for following the original Hebrew in this place, and not preferring the translation of the Seventy. But this evasion is insufficient." Strange assertion ! Here I ask, did not Mr. T. know that the version of the Seventy is the very one from which Luke quotes the passage in question? The Evangelist himself takes the text of the Seventy, word for word ! And well he might, for by that Greek version, foreign- ers became acquainted with the Old Testament, and as Rosen- muller says, "the Eunuch was undoubtedly reading that version, for he does not appear to Jiave been taught Hebrew." See then how the Greek text of Luke overturns JMr. T.'s ar- gument on this point, so that his labor is lost, and Jiis censure on us is shared by an inspired Evangelist! In theological discussion nothing has a more injurious influ- ence on the mind of a good man, than the yielding up of the feelings to the domination to a party si)irit. And nothing is a stronger indication of this, than the practice of warping scrip- ture to suit a purpose. I was struck with an instance of it a day or two since in looking at a little work of Rev. Mr. Winslow, on Baptism, who in quoting Leviticus xiv. 6, to establish his point, has left out the last three words, which materially af- fect the sense. I should be pained to think that he had done this by design, but am inclined to believe that he copied the quotation from another, inasmuch as I know the same thing to have been done by a previous writer. In taking leave of the work before me, I cannot but express the hope that whatever controversy this sid)ject may yet occa- sion here, all appeals to party prejudice may be avoided. Against this, the love of truth is the oidy safeguard. In such cases, nothing is more easy than a retort, but of what avail can itbe.^ The learned Dr. Wall professed himself ashamed of " the profane scoffs" of writers on his own side, against im- mersion ; iind deennng it most probable, as he did, that Jesus himself, that Mary the mother of our Lord, "the other Mary," 27 and the " holy women" who were much with Christ, received baptism in this way, his religion kept the door of his lips, and prevented him from uttering against it the charge of being in- decorous or unseemly for persons of either sex, or any rank. Harsh epithets and insinuations against one's motives do not require much research. As for myself, if I had written on this subject for mere party ends, I should own that I had com- mitted a great sin, and without repentance I should expect to meet the frown of my Judge in the final da}'. Let me but be convinced that our Saviour in his last command to his disci- ples did not enjoin "any particular way" of api)lying water in the initiatory rite which he appointed, and it would cost me no sacrifice openly to avow my belief For in taki^ng my position as a Baptist, I did not yield to the prejudice of education, or the current of sympathy, or the prevailing custom, but was "driven in spirit"" to do so from the light of truth and the dic- tates of conscience. Seeing Christ's command to be explicit, I saw that it was at my peril to disobey, since he had said, "he that loveth me not, keepeth not my sayings." Acknowledged as it is on all hands that baptism is an imtiaiory ordinance, that it precedes communion, just as an oath of office precedes all the acts peculiar to it, I perceived that it was no bigotry in any church to insist on the connection. The great question before me was this: What does the command of Christ mean? During the third year of my course in college, I spent days and nights in the investigation of it. If at any time a plausible ar- gument against immersion made a temporary impression, the simi)le study of the Bible would erase it, till at last I was con- strained to differ from a circle of most endeared associates, some of whom are now in heathen lands and some in heaven, and to go forth in baptism, "following the Lord fully," saying "thy word giveth light', and thy late is the truth.^^ Acquainted as I have been with a host of theological stu- dents of Piedobaptist denominations, I cannot but utter my sincere conviction, that if before committing themselves pub- licly to the ministry they would examine this suhject closely and prayerfully, their conclusions would be very different from what they are. How many commence an examination ap- parently in good earnest, and soon finding themselves sorely pressed to differ from their beloved friends, begin to falter; and ere long^coolly saying, " well, it is non-essential," abandon the matter entirely. Hence follows an indifference to the whole subject, or else a morbid sensitiveness, which renders the very mention of it painful. But if all candidates for the Christian ministry would at the outset adopt the maxim of Chillingworth, " the Bihle, the Bihie alone is the religion of Protestants," very soon would the unity of the primitive church be restored, and all'rejoice again in owning "o>e Lord, one Faith, one BaptisiM." APPENDIX It lias been my cliief design in the foregoing Rej)ly to show the true meaning of the word baptizo, on which this whole controversy turns; for if that be settled, all aiguments against immersion are utterly invalid, derived as they must be from custom, inconvenience, chin*ch authority, or mere conjecture. Hence 1 have omitted to notice several minor points connected with the subject, as of comparatively no im]Jortance. But as the printer informs me that there is a blank i)age at the end of his form, I subjoin one or two remarks. It is well known that Baptists have generally regarded Paul's expression in Rom. vi. 4, buried ivith him by baptism into death, S^c, as an allusion to the ancient practice of immersion. Mr. T. has written nearly nine pages to show that there is no such reference. 1 have already quoted Tyndal's opinion on that point, and might quote to the same effect, the opinions of the learned writers of every church and every age. But Mr. T. asserts that there is no allusion to the outward act of bap- tism at all. It relates, he says, to spiritual purification. His strong argument is one which he puts in italic, with two notes of admiration following. "Mark it, if the burial is lit- eral, the death is literal also. If there must be a literal burial, there must be a literal death! !" Now a few words will dispose of this. Let Paul himself answer it. He marks the point of similitude. He says, "we are buried with him by baptism into death, that LIKE AS CHRIST ivas raised up from the dead, so we should walk in newness of life." I sak then, was Christ's resin-rection a literal resurrection or not? Was that only a spiritual resinrection ? Why, this is neology. Some of the'Transcendentalists (so called) speak in this way, and the author of Charles El wood comes very near it; but I should grieve to think that such a man as Mr. T. had adopted a prin- ciple of interpretation that would lead to it. We believe thkt in the case of our Saviour, there was a literal bin-ial and a lit- eral resurrection, and that the initiatory rite of the church, sets forth this glorious fact in a visible emblem. Let any candid inquirer read 1 Pet. iii. 21, leaving out the parenthesis for the 29 sake of connecting the first and last parts of the verse together, and see if there the apostle does not assert that baptism ex- hibits in Q. figure the resurrection of Christ. On page 61, it is said that most of the immersions in this coun- try, were derived from Roger Williams. If Mr. T. had not the means of knowing the reverse of this to be true, his library ought to be better supplied; if he had the means of knowledge, he ought not to have made this assertion. Very few baptisms ill this land trace their j>edigree to this source.* When New England was settled, the Baptists abounded in our father- land, and many emigrated here who were Baptists, while Roger Williams was a priest of the Church of England. During the Commonwealth, the number and progress of the Baptists in England astonished all beholders. In 1663, a ichole church, with their pastor. Rev. John Miles, emigrated from Swansea in Wales to Wannamoiset, which now bears the name of Swansea, and is a town of Massachusetts. In Wales it is well known the Baptists have existed from the earliest times, whose history, as Mosheim says respecting the Dutch Baptists, "is hidden in the depths of antiquity." f On page 15, Ewing is classed with standard lexicographers He is a Congregational minister of Scotland, and has written with ardor in favor of infant baptism. His arguments should be fairly considered, but his authority as a lexicographer in this case, is worth nothing. Mr. T. might as well appeal to his coadjutor in the work before us, as philological authority. *Knowles' Memoir of Roger Williams. t Eccl. Hist. Cent. 16, Sec. 3, Chap. 3, p. 1. STRICTURES MR HAGUE'S REVIEW HINTS TO AN INQUIRER ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM BY PARSONS COOKE AND JOSEPH H. TOWNE. BOSTON: PUBLISHED BY WASHINGTON CLAPP. 1842. Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1842, By Washington Clapp, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Massachusetts. NOTE. We learn that complaint has been made of our printing the whole of Mr. Hague's pamphlet with ours. We know it is common in such discussions to bandy complaints of garbling. But a complaint for not garbling, that is, for publishing the whole with its answer, is a new thing under the sun. If the matter of complaint be, that in this series Mr. H. has not the last word, — he stands in the same position as the respondent in a court of justice, where the party opening makes the closing plea. Besides, that difficulty can be easily reme- died. If he will make out a reply, and print it in a page in uniform •with ours, so that the whole can be bound together, we will be happy, at reasonable rates, and at half the expense at which he can do it, to furnish him as many copies of the series as he may wish to bind •with his own, giving him in them the last word. If the complaint be, that our publishing his work curtails the sale by his publishers, we leave any one to judge, whether we curtail it as much as we expand it, by the mere fact of replying to it. Besides, his publishers, in putting it forth without securing the copyright, as they might have done for a trifle, virtually gave it to the public, and have no legal or moral right, and no right on the score of courtesy, to com- plain of any one for publishing it. STEREOTYPED BY GEORGE A. CURTIS, NEW ENGLAND TYPE AND STEREOTYPE FOUNDRY. STRICTURES ON REV. WILLIAM HAGUE'S REVIEW OF "HINTS ON BAPTISM." BY PARSONS COOKE AND JOSEPH H. TOWNE. Mr. Hague's Review of our Hints on the subject of Bap- tism, we have concluded to publish with our reply, and our first pamphlet ; that the scope of each may be understood at a glance. Since our immersing- brethren have thought that a reply to our pamphlet was called for, we are pleased that Mr. Hague should have become our respondent. If their cause is made to appear in a disadvantageous light, they will not be able to impute it to any incompetency of its advocate. We choose not to reciprocate the compliments so liberally bestowed by Mr. Hague in assertions of our ignorance. When commencing a discussion, we love to feel that we have to do with a man who understands his subject, and with whom it is reputable for us to contend. A good cause needs not the aid of disrespectful insinuations. Since, as Mr. Hague suggests, courtesy is on the list of Christian duties, one of his standing for intelligence and probity cannot fail to regret, that he has suffered many indiscretions to escape him. We are well aware, that whoever embarks in any controversy is in dan- ger of losing here and there his self-possession. The ability to dispute without any symptoms of irritation is a rare attain- m.ent. We shall endeavor, however, so far as we have any- 84 STRICTURES ON thing to do with the present controversy, to keep before us one simple object, namely, the illustration and defence of the truth. We fully agree with the learned Dr. Wall, that remarks designed merely to wound the feelings of an oppo- nent do not require much research. Mr. Hague takes exception to our use of the term " Im- mersers," and intimates it to be "a contemptuous epithet." That we had no invidious design, must appear from our seri ous disclaimer, and the reasons given in advance, why justice to ourselves demanded the use of the term. (See page 4.) Mr. Hague will not contend that the word itself does of its own force carry contempt with it, for it is a first principle in his theory, that immerse is the word by which baptize should have been translated ; and that the word baptize, and of course Baptists, do not rightfully occupy a place within the territory of the English language. So strong indeed has been the preference of his brethren for immerse as a substitute for baptize, that they have found it needful to rend the Bible Society, and to procure a new translation of the inspired volume, for the single purpose of introducing their favorite word. Surely they will not say that to call them Immersers is to speak of them contemptuously. Already has one of their newspapers announced the appearance of this new Bible in our city. We would ask Mr. Hague, if the new translation does not call John the Baptist, "John the Immerser?" If it does, or if it uses some equivalent phrase, we appeal from Mr. Hague, to the law and testimony found in that Bible, to prove that Immerser is by no necessity a contemptuous epithet. Mr. Hague says, " With equal reason the- Baptists might say — We will not call Congregationalists by the name which they have assumed, because we also are Congregationalists." If our calling ourselves Congregationalists were accompanied with a denial that they are Congregationalists, as their as- sumption of the name of Baptists is accompanied by a denial that we baptize, his statement would then be true. But is it so ? His allusion to the case of Episcopalians is equally unfortu- MR. Hague's review. 85 nate ; — for prelate and prelacy seemed to have been coined to avoid the implication that other sects have no bishops. See Milton's prose works, passim. To beg- the question in their very name, is the common artifice of sects. When Mr. Hague reproves us for " striving about words," he forgets that his main argument is about a word, to wit, baptizo. It seems that a ivord is all-important in the one case, and in the other not worth striving for ! But Mr. Hague really considers this change of his denominational name a serious affair, and evidently fears the consequences of it. He is too discerning not to see that the substitution of Immersers for Baptists would dissolve a charm by which multitudes are now so completely spell-bound that they cannot appreciate sound argument. In bringing under examination Mr. Hague's reply to ua, we shall first call attention to some important points of our argument, which he has passed over in silence. Important matters omitted by Mr. Hague. The reader will please to notice, that the points of our argument which he has omitted, are such, that, if they are conceded, the question is settled against immersion. In his appendix, he says, " Hence I have omitted to notice several minor points, connected with the subject, as of comparatively no importance." These points are, first, our whole argument drawn from the signification of the rite. This argument we consider of itself decisive of the whole question ; and notwithstanding what may be said on other points, while this argument re- mains unscathed, we hold firmly our ground against immer- sion. Verbal criticisms offset against the force of facts will not satisfy. Let then the reader turn back, and review our remarks on the signification of the rite, as a branch of our argument which Mr. Hague omits as ^^ of comparativehj no importance. ' ' 80 STRICTURES ON Another of these ^^ minor points'''' is our ichole chapter on Burial icith Christ in Baptism. Aware that Immersers are wont to place great stress on their argument from those figu- rative expressions, which represent believers as buried with Christ, we determined to make its fallacy apparent to e very- reader. We believed that we had succeeded ; and were con- firmed in that impression, when we found that our observa- tions on that subject were passed over by Mr. Hague with merely a brief notice. It is well known, that the argument derived from this source has been of all others the most pop- ular with Immersers. Let the reader then not lose sight of the fact, that, if Mr. Hague has not abandoned this argument altogether, he has placed it among those " of comparatively NO IMPORTANCE." He is also very willing to slide over our suggestions as to the presumptive evidence against immersion. He has indeed a more plausible excuse for this, in that this kind of evidence is not of itself proof against an express command of God, if such a command exist. Yet it is to the point, so far as to show, how clear and decisive a command should be made. If a rite is proposed for our adoption, which in form departs from its declared design — which conflicts with the simplicity of the gospel — w^hich is not fitted for universal practice — which is not suited to all times and seasons — which cannot be ad- ministered to persons under all circumstances — which is cum- brous and inconvenient — which makes the bearing of the cross to be of the nature of popish penance, and which violates modesty and decency ; we may for these reasons lawfully de- mand strong and indisputable proof that God has indeed com- manded us to observe such a rite. And although Mr. Hague has thought it best to slide over our suggestions on this point, his intelligent readers will not be so easily persuaded to fol low his example. Mr. Hague attempts no reply to what is said in our pamph ■ let respecting the degree of certainty which his cause de- mands. We gave prominence to the fact, that the principle MR. Hague's review. 87 of unchurching all Christians, who have not been immersed, lays Immersers under obligation to make out a certainty that our Lord has commanded immersion, and that they have no warrant to rend the church on the ground of a mere conjec- ture. This issue, so repeatedly tendered to him, he practi- cally evades. He is evidently anxious that his readers should consider the question one of balancing probabilities. He wishes them to peruse his pages with the impression, that he has no more to prove than his antagonists. We, therefore, call the special attention of the reader to this point. The close-communion theory, being necessarily based on a claim of infallibility, touching the subject of baptism, binds Mr. Hague to make out his case to a complete certainty ; while, on the other hand, as we hold no such theory, we have only to prove that there is no such certainty. If we can array against immersion only a slight probability, our cause is gained ; — for then Mr. Hague's certainty vanishes. Now let the candid reader take Mr. Hague's pamphlet, and, shutting all opposing arguments from his mind, read it by itself, and say whether he has made out more than a mere probability. If he has not, he is judged, out of his own mouth, to hold without a warrant (because without a certainty) an attitude of hostility to the peace and union of Christ's kingdom. What Mr. Hague has attempted to prove. He has judged it expedient to lay out his main strength in an attempt to prove, that the requirement for immersion in- heres in the very word baptize. In order to sustain his posi- tion, he labors to show that the word signifies IMMERSE, AND NOTHING ELSE. The reader will then understand that the question is not, whether the word sometimes means to immerse, hut whether it always has this signification, and no other. Hence, if Mr. Hague should multiply volumes of instances in which this word signifies to immerse, it would avail nothing, unless he should clearly show, at the same time, that it has NO OTHER MEANING. While, on the 8* 88 STRICTURES ON Other hand, if we can bring proof that the word has even one other meaning, his labor is lost. If the reader will run his eye over those instances which Mr. Hague adduces to prove liis point, he will immediately see that they go no further than simply to show that the word, in those cases, means to immerse. He will then not fail to notice the all-pervading defect of Mr. Hague's argument. Proofs that the word often means to immerse, multiplied to any extent, are only proofs that the word often means to immerse. This we have never disputed. Why should Mr. Hague trouble himself to prove that which we freely admit ? It is for him to show, not that the word often means to immerse, but that it has no other meaning. Hie labor, hoc opus est. Before we proceed more directly to point out the insufficiency of Mr. Hague's argument upon this word, we must call atten- tion to certain unfortunate and erroneous statements of facts and authorities. This part of our duty gives us no pleasure ; for some of these errors are of so grave and serious a nature, that the mere exposure of them may subject us to the impu- tation of being unreasonably hard upon our respondent. We charge him with no intentional misrepresentations, and would gladly spare his feelings. But the love of truth, and justice to our cause, will not permit us to shrink from the unpleasant duty before us. Mr. Hague's Erroneous Statements of Facts and Authorities. Error 1. We adduced the passage, "He shall sprinkle many nations," as proof that the mind of the Ethiopian eu- nuch had been directed, previous to his baptism, to sprinkling ; and hence we inferred a probability that he was sprinkled. To this Mr. Hague replies : " Strange assertion ! Here I ask, did not Mr. Towne know, that the version of the Seventy (in which the word sprinkle is rendered astonish) is the very one from which Luke quotes the passage in question ? The evan- gelist himself takes the text of the Seventy word for word !" MR. Hague's review. 89 Such is Mr. Hague's assertion ; and yet the evangelist does not quote word for word from the Seventy, but departs from that version in four instances in less than four lines, as will be seen by the note below.* Error 2. On page 76, he says, that Turretin agrees with him in opinion, as to immersion. Now what is it to agree with Mr. Hague on this subject? It is to maintain that the word has one signification, and one only. But scarcely a writer of equal note, since the days of the apostles, expresses himself more decidedly against this view than Turretin. We will quote the substance of his remarks, and give the reader his own words in a note below. f "Baptism (says Turretin De Bapt.) is a word of Greek origin, derived from bap to, to tinge, to imbue, and from baptizo, to dye, to immerse. Plutarch (on Superstition) says, baptize yourseM" in the sea, that is, plunge yourself in * The words in brackets are used by Luke, and not by the Seventy. 0-rcfXit [oLvtov.] El Til rATTitvcea-ii [auTOf] « ;^P'f^f aunou h^S/i tjjv {Ji] ytviuv. t Baptismus vox est origine Groeca, quae a verbo t2et7rTae deducitur, quod est ting-ere et imbuere, /^ATrri^uv intingere et inunergere. Plut. de Supersti., 'Bx-rri^ov as nc ()tKAirijuspo ^Avnta-rcoVf de qua Epiph. haer. 17. Q.ui quotidianum baptismum urgebant, et coiitendebant, sic ablntum A7roKovt(7^dLi »«/ ity- vi^io-B'Xi ct-rra 7rn(r>ig cttrisLc. Ex hac vero duplici significatione mer- gendi et abluendi, duae aliae metaphoricae deduclae sunt. Prior ut baptismus ponatur pro afflictione et calamitate. * * * * Posterior ut transferatur ad miraculosam donorum Spiritus Sancli effusionem, quia in animam efTundi solent ut earn imbuanl et abluant, Matt. iii. 1 1 , Act. i. 6, Tit. iii. 5, ex Veteri Testamento, ubi Spiritus communicalio per aqua- rum effusionem solet adumbrari. Isa. xliv. 3, Joel ii. 28. * * * Cere- moniale est, quod in ritu consistit, nimi ablutio, quae fit per aquam ; I Pet. iii. 21, sive per aspersionem, sive per immersionem. * * * 3.uod (sc. aspersio) institution! Christi minime repugnat ; itaexeinplis ecclesiae apostolicae et primitivae earn secutae confirmari potest. * * * Ita ubi magna fuit credentium multitudo, ut quum uno die ter mille baptizati sunt, aspersionem potius quam immersionem, quae vix ac ne vix quidem, tam exiguo temporis spatio, commode peragi potuit adhib- itam fuisse, dubitari potest. Item quum domatim administrabatur baptismus, ubi probabile non est, semper adfuisse aquae copiam suffi- cientem ad immersionem ; maxime si inopinato res ageretur. Act. xvi. 27, etc. In primitiva ecclesia baptismus clinicorum et aegroto- rum dabatur, qui sine dubio per immersionem fieri non potuit. Ra- t.ones etiam pro aspersione non desunt variae. 1 . Quia vox 0'j.7rTt(j-/uou et verbum ^ciTrTi^icrQui, non tantum de immersione dicitur, sed et de as- persione. Marc. vii. 4. 2. Quia res significata baptismi nomine aspersionis designatur. 3. Quiaaspersiosuflicit, ad analogiam ; nee a quantitate, sed a qualitate aquae pendet vis baptismi. 4. Quia sub. Vet. T. dabantur variae lotiones, et pavrKr/uci, tam aquae quam san- guinis, ad quas Christus respicit, in institutione baptismi ; unde sanguis Christi, qui est res significata, vocatur sanguis ^cLvrnrfxcu. 5. Quia aspersio longe commodior est, tum ad prospiciendum sanitati baptisatorum, quae detrimentum poterat pati ex immersione, in locis frigidioribus, maxime in tenellis infantibus, tum ut parcatur pudori, qui in adultis ex totius corporis nudationc, oriri poterat; cujus causa legimus olim adhibitas fuisse diaconissas, mulieribus nudandis. MR. Hague's review. 91 senls the church — ' Thou mayest be baptized, O bladder, but it is not permitted to thee to go under the water.' Hence it means more than lightly to float upon the surface, and less than to be overwhelmed or submerged. But because any- thing is usually merged and wet, in order that it may be washed, and those who are immersed are generally washed, it happens" that the Hebrew word, which the Seventy render baptize, 2 Kings v. 15, is equivalent to the word rendered wash in the same passage. Likewise with the Greeks bap- tize is used, tropically, to signify washing. (Mark vii. 4.) 'The Jews, when they come from the market, except they wash (baptize) they eat not.' In the same sense must we understand the washing of cups, pitchers and couches, cus- tomary with the Jews ; also ' the divers baptisms' commanded in the Jewish ritual, and referred to in Heb. ix. 10 ; and the superstitious washings received by tradition from the elders. On account of these washings, Justin calls the Pharisees Bap- tists. The sect of which Epiphanius speaks, as insisting on being washed everyday, expecting thereby to be purified from all sin, was called Every-day-Baptists. From this double signification of 'plunging and washing, two other metaphoric meanings are derived. The first, is that which puts baptism for afflictions. * * * * The second, is the application of the term to the miraculous effusion of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, because they are poured out upon the soul, to imbue and purify it. (Matt. iii. 11, Acts i. 5, Tit. iii. 5.) This manner of speaking is taken from the Old Testament, where the com- munications of the Spirit are shadowed forth by the pouring out of water. (Isa. xliv. 3, Joel ii. 28.) * * * * Baptism, viewed as a ceremony, consists in washing, which is done by water, (1 Pet. iii. 21,) either hy sprinkling or immersion. ***** As sprinkling is by no means repugnant to the institution of Christ, so it can be shown by examples that the apostolic and primitive church practised it." [He here very justly distinguishes between the apostolic and the primitive 92 STRICTURES 0:fT church.] The examples which he adduces are as follows : " Where there was a great multitude of believers, as when in one day three thousand were baptized, it is hardly possible to doubt that sprinkling was practised, rather than immersion, which could not have been administered in so short a time. Sprinkling too must have been practised when the rite was administered in private houses, where it is highly unreasona- ble to suppose that water was provided convenient for immer- sion, particularly in those cases in which they were called to perform the ceremony on sudden and unexpected occasions. In the primitive church, baptism was administered to the sick, on their beds, and of course not by immersion," "The reasons in favor of sprinkling, are, — 1. The words baptism and baptize are used to designate not immersion only, but also sprinkling. (Mark vii. 4, Luke xi. 38.) 2. The thing signified by baptism is designated by sprinkling. (1 Pet. i. 2, Heb. x. 22.) 3. Sprinkling answers all the purposes of analogy, the essence of baptism consisting not in the quan- tity of water, but in the use of that element itself. 4. Under the Old Testament, there were various washings and sprink- lings, both of water and blood, and upon these Christ had his eye in the institution of baptism ; whence the blood of Christ, which is the thing signified, is called the blood of sprinkling. (Heb. xii. 24.) 5. Sprinkling is far more suitable to health, which is liable to be injured by immersion, in cold climates, especially in the case of tender infants. It also spares the sense of modesty. The ancients felt the difficulty arising from the exposure of the whole naked body, and appointed deaconesses to disrobe the women." Such is the testimony of the learned and profound Turretin, whom Mr. Hague has summoned upon the stand as a wit- ness against us. When brought into court, and allowed to speak for himself, he not only gives his testimony in our favor, but most eloquently pleads our cause for us. We have quo- ted him, however, not for the sake of his arguments, but to show what little confidence we can place in Mr. Hague's cita- MR. Hague's review. 93 tion of authorities. Turretin does not allow that bapto, the radical word, means to immerse at all, and gives baptizo another signification before that of immerse. He sustains our use of the Sibylline verse. He affirms that the Septuagint and the New Testament writers give the word the meaning of to wash ; and says that the Pharisees were called " Bap- tists" on account of their superstitious washings. He gives the word the double sigmjication of plunging and vjashing He quotes examples to show that sprinkling was practised by the apostles and primitive Christians, and then argues strongly in favor of sprinkling. Now Mr. Hague, as an honest man, is bound to thank us for correcting his error. And let him not impute to us (as he did in a similar case, in respect to Ewing, page 82,) the pur- pose of quoting Turretin /or authority ; and declare his author- ity worthless, because he does not agree in sentiment with himself. We quote him, not for the value of his authority, hut to expose a misrepresentation. Error 3. Mr. Hague says, page 76, that Luther asserts immersion to be the only proper mode, as the only one an- swering to the signification of baptism, and that he so rendered the Greek word in his version of the New Testament. Now this is directly contrary to fact. In Mark vii. 4, Luther translates the word baptize by a word as near our own word wash as the two languages will admit, (waschen.) The word baptism, as applied to pots and couches, &c., in the same verse, he also renders by zu waschen. The same is true of Luke xi. 38. The German word which Luther uses when baptism stands for the religious rite, is not the word which means to immerse, if we may place any reliance upon the two German lexicons now lying upon our table. The word taufen, in Kiitner and Nicholson's Lexicon, has only the meanings which appear in the note below.* Immersion is * Taufen — To initiate into the church by the sacrament of baptism. To baptize or christen a child, Jew, or Turk, &c. To give a name. To 94 STRICTURES ON not among them. The only meanings given in Weber's Ger- man and English dictionary, are, — to baptize, to christen. The same dictionary puts down to the English word immerse, the German words eintauchen, untertauchen, versenken, ver- tiefen. The word taufen, by which Luther renders baptize, does not appear as one of the meanings of immerse, or of either of its synonymes, such as plunge, dip, sink or duck. Now all this is very strange, if that word so plainly means to immerse, and nothing else. And it is still more strange that Mr. Hague should have made such an assertion. Whatever may be said of Luther's sentiments as to immersion, his trans- lation of the word baptize is, in all the numerous cases which we have examined, just that which was most consistent with his practice. Error 4. On page 70, Mr. Hague says of Scapula, (whom he praises as " one of the most celebrated lexicographers of Europe,") that he gives to bapto and baptizo the meaning of immerse, (used in regard to those things which, for the sake of dyeing or washing, we wash in water;) likewise to dye, which is done by immersing ; and these, together with the application of the word to the Christian rite, he says are all the meanings given by Scapula. But Scapula does give other meanings. He tells us that the word signifies (8<}>aX5c yiviffBut) to be upon the sea — to draw up — to fill for drawing up. He also gives examples under the sense of to tinge, (which it is strange Mr. Hague did not see,) to wit, that of painting or staining the hair, and pointing a spear with poison, things not done by immersion. Error 5. Mr. Hague says that " Mr. Towne seems dissat- isfied with the moderate statements of Dr. Woods and Profes- sor Stuart, and apologizes for what he calls their concessions arising from their liberality." Now this is a fabrication of Mr. Hague's entire ! We neither said nor intimated any such give a name in a solemn manner. To mix with water, to dilute or sophisticate. MR. Hague's review. 95 thing, in relation to either of those distinguished men. We spoke of them with approbation, and quoted their language as sustaining our views. What reliance can we place on Mr. Hague's citation of authorities, when he quotes from our book what is not to be found in it? We did say, that " some of our writers on the subject, from a desire to show a generous and liberal spirit, have made unwarrantable concessions." The names of Messrs. Stuart and Woods, however, are not mentioned within many pages of this sentence ; nor are they here referred to by even the remotest implication. If Mr. Hague has seen fit to imagine that we had those gentlemen in our eye, we say that he takes too great liberties. He must not publish his surmises for facts. Error 6. On page 80, Mr. Hague says, " the writer speaks as if the Jews knew nothing of religious immersions ;" and then proceeds to tell us, as if he considered us ignorant of the fact, that in legal purifications " the people sometimes dipped themselves." Let the reader turn back to page 9, and he will find that we recognise the fact, of which Mr. Hague so gravely informs us. We there state that "Paul calls the different washings done in the tabernacle service, baptisms, and that among them all there is not an instance oi immersion hy the priests. In all cases where the subjects bathed, there was no official administration.''^ Now let the reader decide whether we spoke as if the Jews knew nothing of religious immersions. That Mr. Hague should aflirm that our " work betrays startling instances of ignorance or forgetfulness," and follow up that imputation with the above sentence, is some temptation to retort railing for railing. But we forbear. We take occasion to say, however, that when a person was required by the law of Moses to be immersed, the assistance of a priest, or crowd of spectators, was not a part of the cere- mony. We challenge Mr. Hague to point out a single instance of immersion by the hands of a priest. The person bathed himself. This, both nature and decency seem to ren- 96 STRICTURES ON der necessary. And from this fact, which Mr. Hague is very willing- that his readers should overlook, we might fairly infer, that the gospel, if it had required immersion, would have required each individual to immerse himself. Error 7. On page 71, Mr. Hague says, " The principle that baptizo by its own force determines the way of applying water, is clearly set forth by those three great lexicographers of the New Testament, Schleusner, Wahl, and Bretschneider." Astonishing! Schleusner defines baptizo, 1. to immerse in water; 2. to wash, sprinkle, or cleanse with water, (abluo, lavo, aqua purge ;) 3. to baptize ; 4. to pour out largely, (pro- fundo largiter, &c.) Only one of Schleusner's definitions restricts the meaning to immersion. Three of them denote the application of the fluid by affusion. Wahl defines bap- tizo, first, to wash, to perform ablution, to cleanse. Bret- schneider's lexicon gives no ground for Mr. Hague's asser- tion, for he defines baptize, to wash, to perform ablution, &c. We have never yet seen a lexicon which sustains Mr. Hague's position. We may well apply to him a remark which Pro- fessor Stuart applies to the great champion on his side of the controversy, Mr. Carson. "Mr. Carson,^'' says the professor, " lays down some very adventurous positions in respect to one meanings and one only, of words, which, as it seems to me, every lexicon on earth contradicts, and always must contradict.''^ Error 8. On page 71, Mr. Hague asserts that Hedericus, Stephanus, Suicer, Passow, and Post, "declare an entire immersion to belong to the nature of baptism." Of two of these we know nothing. Hedericus (see his lexicon) defines baptizo, immerse, wash, sprinkle. Stephanus defines it, im- merse, wash, cleanse. Passow defines it, immerse, wash, sprinkle. Error 9. On page 70, Mr. Hague asserts that there is not a lexicon in the world, which does not give as the primary, the leading meaning under baptizo, to immerse, to sink, to submerge, either two or all of them." This is not true. The lexicon of Flacciolatus and Forccllinus gives the meanings MR. Hague's review. 97 in the following order : Baptizo, abluo, lavo, i. e. to perform ablution, to wash. The lexicon of Constantius gives the meaning of bapto, the root of baptizo, thus : — Bapto, to tinge, trj wash, to color, to immerse, to tinge or tincture with oint- ment, to imbue, &c. Buck, in his dictionary, says, '■'■its radical, proper, and primary meaning is, to tinge, to dye, to wet, or the like ; which primary design is effected by differ- ent modes of application." Wahl, in his lexicon, defines it, first, to wash, to perform ablution, to cleanse ; secondly, to im- merse, &c. This is sufficient to show the incorrectness of Mr. Hague's statement. See Pres. Beecher's Letter, on Lexicons. Error 10. It is stated in our essay, that the word baptize denotes the application of water in divers ways; that all lexicographers concur in this fact, and that no intelligent im- merser can deny it. Mr. Hague is an intelligent Imraerser, and he denies it. Yet our statement is true ; for Mr. Hague's denial is neutralized immediately by his own citations. He appeals to Robinson's lexicon, as one which confines the meaning to immerse, and yet he quotes other meanings. The same is true of others named by him. Mr. Hague seeks in- deed to evade the point, by saying that all the other meanings are figurative, or derived, or come by implication. This will be more fully answered hereafter. It is enough to say here, that other meanings are other meanings, come from what source they may. And the denial in that form, though put forth in capitals, is virtually no denial ; for our assertion was preceded by a recognition of the principle, that several dis- tinct meanings of a word may be derived from one another. The reader is now prepared to estimate correctly the va- lidity of Mr. Hague's claim to all the lexicographers. We SOLEMNLY AVER THAT NO LEXICOGRAPHER WITHIN OUR KNOW- LEDGE, IN ANY COUNTRY, AGREES WITH HIM. DoCS Scapula agree with him? No. Do Flacciolatus and Forcellinus? No. Does Constantius ■? No. Does Hedericus ? No. Does Bretschneider ? No. Does Schleusner? No. Does Wahl? 98 STRICTURES ON No. Does Stephanus ? No. Does Parkhurst ? No. Does Ainsworth? No. Does Leigh? No. Does Cole? No. Does Passow? No. Do Suidas? Coulon? Greenfield? No. DoesZonoras? No. Does Gross? No. Does Sehre- velius, that great master and critic of the Greek tongue? No. Carson admits that the lexicographers are against him. But Mr. Hague does more than simply set his authority in the scale against the authority of lexicogra- phers, the most eminent the world has ever seen. They afl[irm that baptizo signifies affusion as well as immersion. But Mr. Hague contends that it signifies only iinmersion, and will have it that the lexicographers agree with him ! This is wonderful ! How shall we account for it ? Would Mr. Hague deceive his confiding readers ? Impossible. Has he never consulted the lexicographers for himself? — Confessedly there is here something of mystery which we cannot evolve. We must leave the task with our readers. Learned Critics and Theologians. With a little swell of language, Mr. Hague repeatedly asserts that all the learning in the world sustains his opinion as to immersion. " The literature of the world," he says, "is with us." This is comforting, if true. But our preceding examination of Mr. Hague's assertions will excite the suspi- cion, that this also must be taken with some grains of allow- ance. We have already seen what kind of support Turretin gave to the immersing principle, when called into court to testify. Perhaps it may be well to summon a few other learned critics and theologians upon the stand, as Mr. Hague has appealed to such authority. Flacciolatus, in illustrating the meaning of the word, gives an account of certain effeminate priests, at Athens, called Baptai, from hapto, to tinge, because like women they tinged, that is, painted their faces. He, of course, found something in the word besides immersion. MR. Hague's review. 99 Mr. Hague will probably admit, that Vossius was not desti- tute of some share of the learning of the world. He was one of the most distinguished scholars of the sixteenth century, and professor in two of the seminaries, then the most celebrated. In one place he says, that, "As in the purifications under the law, affusion or sprinkling was sufficient, so in the Chris- tian church, we esteem affusion sufficient for baptism." He says, in another place, "It is clear that the ancient church baptized naked ; and there are some who think the custom ought to be observed now, and deny that affusion is baptism. If we discover that the apostles immersed , it does not follow that they always observed this mode. Sometimes they must have baptized by pouring, on account of the multitude, as when they baptized three thousand in one day." He also gives an example of baptism by affusion, by one Laurentius, a martyr. " One of the soldiers," he says, " named Romanus, bringing a cup of water and offering it to him, seized the op- portunity to he haptized.^^ This case shows that, in the third century, affusion was so common a mode of baptism, that a soldier could offer himself for it, asking no questions. Vos- sius also objects to immersion. He quotes another example in which a person, even though baptized naked, was not im- mersed : — " and when he had stripped off his clothes, he poured ivater upon his head.'^* Walfried Strabo, in his work, De Rebus Eccles., says, " It is to be noticed that many were baptized, and are still baptized, not only by immersion, but by pouring water from above upon them."f Duns Scotus, Dis. 3. "In baptism the essential part is one thing, to wit, washing or purifying ; according to Ephes. v., where the apostle calls baptism the washing of water ; and * Et cum expoliasset eum, fudit super caput ejus, t Nclandum, non solum mergendo sed etiam de super fuadendo multos baptizatos fuisse, et adhuc posse baptizari. 9* 100 STRICTURES 0^ the accidental part another, namely, whether the ablution or purifying be perfornaed by this or that mode."* Thomas Aquinas declares, that as the purification of the soul is meant by baptism, it is not essential which way it is done. Calvin, in his commentary on Acts, (viii. 38,) after speak- ing of the former prevalence of the custom of immersing, says — " The custom now prevails, of the minister's sprinkling water only on the head or body. But so trifling a difference in a ceremony, ought not to be esteemed of such importance as, on account of it, to divide the church, or disturb it with controversy. For the ceremony indeed, AS FAR AS IT HAS BEEN COMMITTED TO US BY CHRIST JE- SUS, I would rather suffer death than it should be taken from us. But since in the symbol of water we have the tes- timony both of our purification and of our new life ; since in water, as in a glass, Christ shows us his blood, that we may apply it for our purification ; since he teaches us to be renewed by his Spirit, that we may be dead to sin and alive to righte- ousness, it is certain that there is nothing, which belongs to the substance of baptism, wanting in the prevailing practice. Hence, from the beginning, the church allowed itself to differ somewhat as to the form, while sure of retaining the substance.^' Again, he says, " Whether the person baptized be wholly immersed, and whether Ihrice or not, or whether water be only poured or sprinkled upon him, IS OF NO IMPOR- TANCE." Here is a comment on Mr. Hague's assertion that Calvin agreed with him in opinion, while he differed in practice. " We might well insert a note of admiration here, but we forbear." Did Calvin think that the command to bap- tize carried, of its own force, the command to immerse ? How then could he say, that the substance of that command * In Baptistno aliquid est de essentia, ut ahlutio ; juxta illud ad. Eph. v., ubi apostolus baptismum appellat lavacrum aquaj ; aliud vero accideiitium, nempe ut ablatio hoc vel ilio modo fiat. MR. Hague's review. 101 is realized in sprinkling? How could he affirm that in sprink ling we have the rite as far as it has been committed to us b\ Christ Jesus? (Quatenus nobis a Christo tradita est.) Is Mr. Hague ready to adopt as his own the sentiments and language of this illustrious reformer? Mr. Hague's quotation from Calvin is true; BUT NOT THE WHOLE TRUTH. It illustrates admirably our remarks on page 14. Calvin says that baptize signifies to immerse ; but he does not say that it means nothing- but immersion, nor that immersion is essential to Christian baptism, nor that it was the only mode practised by the ancient church. Probably Mr. Hague had never read Calvin, and cited him on the authority of some controversialist on his side of the question. The celebrated Wolf was a man of some learning. But he, in his Curee Philol., does not exactly chime in with Mr. Hague's opinions. In his remarks on the passage — "Go, and teach all nations, baptizing," &c., he says — " Baptizo de- notes not only immersion, but also sprinkling and affusion.''^ And again, on Acts viii. he says — " it signifies both to immerse and to tinge ; and both forms were practised by the ancient church, which is evident from ancient monuments described by Mabillionius." Athanasius, as Yossius informs us, did not censure the Arians for sprinkling, but for sprinkling in the name of the Trinity, when they did not believe it. His words imply that he considered sprinkling baptism. With an air of triumph Mr. Hague quotes Beza, "Me author of the Latin poems,'^ as agreeing with him, (page 77.) But if Mr. Hague will adopt Beza's sentiments, there will be no further need of controversy. This writer, after showing that the phrase " in the water" determines nothing, says, " I have noted this, lest any one should suppose there is any force in this particle, as those seem to persuade themselves, who think that children are not rightly baptized, unless immersed. ' ' A gain , he says, after admitting that baptizo signifies immersion, 102 STRICTURES ON " YET BAPTIZO IS TAKEN MORE LARGELY FOR ANY KIND OF WASHING, WHERE THERE IS NO DIPPING AT ALL." Here you see disclosed tlie true sen- timents of Beza. And yet Mr. Hague and the Watchman are proclaiming to the world that Beza was a close commun- ion immerser ! We are almost tempted to exclaim, shame ! where is thy blush? But it is said, " Beza says that baptizo signifies immersion." So do Messrs. Towne and Cooke. But does Beza say that it means nothing hut immersion? Does Beza say that immersion is essential to the rite ? Does Beza say that none are rightly baptized, unless they are immersed ? That he never intended to be so understood, is evident from the above quotations from his writings. Zanchius, the intimate friend of the famous Peter Martyr, was a celebrated scholar, and at one time read lectures both in divinity and in the Aristotelian philosophy in the seminary at Strasburg. He says, " Baptizo doth as well signify to dye, and simply to sprinkle, as to immerse." — Cultu Dei. lib 1. Chap. 16. Paraeus says, "Baptism, with the Greeks, imports any washing or cleansing, whether it be done by dipping or sprink- ling." Para?us was an eminent scholar of the sixteenth cen- tury, and made by prince Casimir a professor at Heidelberg. In 1589 he published the German Bible, with notes. Musculus was a distinguished scholar of tlie sixteenth cen- tury. In 1519 he was settled as professor of theology at Bern. He also wrote Latin poetry, and left many valuable commentaries on the Scriptures. Musculus says, " It is free for the church to baptize either by dipping or sprinkling." — Wall's Hist. Lynwood says, " Dipping is not to be accounted of the essence of baptism, but it may be given also by pouring or snrinkling." — Do. Trelactius says, " Baptism, according to the etymology of it, signifies commonly any kind of ablution or cleansing." — Lib. 2. de Baptismo. MR. Hague's review. 103 Tilenus says, "If we regard the etymology of the word baDtism, it signifies dipping and also sprinkling." — Disput. de Baptismo, p. 883. Let us next hear a few additional words from Luther, who seems to be a favorite with Mr. Hague. In his homilies on baptism, which v/ere not written with any reference to the mode, Luther throws out here and there a casual expression, which gives a clue to his opinions. In the passage — "He that believeth and is baptized,''^ &c., he uses tingo, a word employed frequently to designate simply to wet. He says, *' It must be known and believed that it (that is, the water of baptism) is such that by it we are purified and cleansed, and receive what the Scripture calls the washing of regeneration." This is not the style of speech common with Immersers. Again, he thus speaks of baptism : — " Concerning this ablu- tion and cleansing from sin, David says — ' Wash me from iniquities, and cleanse me from my sin. Sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be clean.' And the prophet — ' I will sprinkle clean water,' &c." It will be perceived that Lu- ther is here showing, that the true end of baptism is not accomplished, except the soul is cleansed from sin ; but the costume of the external rite is evidently alluded to. In another paragraph, preserving the same connection between the sign and the thing signified, he says, "Baptism is nothing else than to be washed and cleansed in the red and precious blood of Christ. Hence Peter says of those baptized, that they were sprinkled by the blood of Christ.^' (1 Pet. i. 2.) In his annotations, Luther calls the legal washings, commanded by Moses, various baptisms. In view of these quotations, the reader will see with what truth it is claimed, that Luther found in the word baptize the necessary and exclusive mean- ing of immersion. Erasmus ranks among the first scholars of modern times. He calls the sprinkling of the blood of Christ baptism. Jerome says, " The Lord Jesus declares, I have also anothet 104 STRICTURES ON baptism to be baptized with. You baptize me with water, that I may baptize you, as a witness for me, with your own blood.^^ This was incidentally said, and it shows that Jerome found something besides immersion in the word baptism. The mar- tyr surely was not immersed in his own blood. And yet Jerome calls the sheddi?ig of one's blood in martyrdom a bap- tism. There are no limits, however, to some men's ingenu- ity. Since Mr. Hague has contrived to immerse a lake in the blood of a mouse, he may attempt (and with equal success !) to make out a case of immersion here. In Marturologio Adonis, ad. 3. Cid. Majus, we read, " Whom the blessed Callistus, after enjoining fasting, cate- chised, brought water and baptized, (allata aqua baptizabit.) Here the water loas brought — of course not for immersion. But nevertheless it was brought for baptism. Bassilius, speaking of the forty martyrs, says — " They were baptized, not with water, but with their own blood."* They were not immersed in their own blood, and yet they were baptized with it. Peter Martyr, the celebrated reformer and theologian of the sixteenth century, at different times professor of divinity at Strasburg, Oxford, and Zurich, thus gives his testimony :— ■ '' Baptizo signifies not only to dip, but in any ivay to tinge or wet.'' Alstedius, another eminent scholar of the sixteenth cen- tury, professor of philosophy and theology, at Hesborn, in Nassau, and afterwards at Wettemberg, in Transylvania, says, " The term baptism signifies both immersion and sprink- ling, and of consequence ablution." And so say Wolledius, Doederlein, Danaeus, Ursinus, Lightfoot, Wickliffe, Yorri- long, Bonaventure, Mastricht, Kecherman, and a host of others. Mr. Hague will not dispute the authority of Tertullian, * E^'X7ni7bi) oux it IS ATI a.KKiv Tc icT/a ai/xATi. MR. Hague's review. 105 who lived within one hundred years of the apostles. This venerable father says, "that baptizo means not only to im- merse, but also to pour." (Mergere non tantum, sed et per- fundere.) Will Mr. Hague pretend that the most learned theologians and biblical critics of our own country are with him? Dr. DwiGHT says that " the inimary meaning of the word baptizo is cleansing.'''' Barnes says, "Baptizo signified originally to tinge, to dye, to stain." Professor Stuart, after stating that he could see no evidence that immersion was exclusively the mode of Christian baptism, affirms that " if any one main- tains the contrary, it must be either because he is unable rightly to estimate the nature or power of the Greek language ; or because he is influenced in some measure by party feeling ; or else because he has looked at the subject in only a partial manner, without examining it fully and thor- oughly." In view of these facts, in what light appears Mr. Hague's turgid boast, that all the learning of the world sustains his side of the controversy? He is confounded by his own wit- nesses. What is the testimony of Wolf ? Calvin? Athana- sius? Beza? Zanchius? Vossius? Parseus? Musculus? Lynwood ? Trelactius ? Tilenus ? Erasmus ? Jerome ? Bassilius? Peter Martyr? Alstedius? Tertullian? Wol- ledius ? Doederlein ? Lightfoot ? Danaeus ? Ursinus ? Wickliffe ? Bonaventure ? Kecherman ? Vorrilong ? Mas- tricht? Thomas Aquinas? Wall? Leigh? Lombard? Morus? Whitaker? Maldonet? Piscator? Walker? Pool? — ^but we forbear. Time would fail us to allude even by name to the numerous Greek scholars and biblical critics, in Europe and our own country, who give no countenance whatever to Mr. Hague's principles. Their united voice is against him. They may admit, indeed, that immersion is one meaning of the Greek word. But never do they contend for this meaning exclusively. Never do they maintain that with- out an immersion there is no baptism. These illustrious men 106 STRICTURES ON are made to support such principles — how ? By keeping bach a part of the truth, as in the case of Ewing, page 14. We ven- ture to affirm that, in almost every instance, where a critic of any notoriety is cited by the advocates for immersion, he would serve them no purpose, if permitted to utter his entire sentiments. There is one expedient adopted by Mr. Hague, in order to bring the learned on his side, which, if not original with him, is at least quite amusing. Apprehending some difficulty from the well-known fact that the great body of the learned of the present day practise sprinkling, and fearing that this might lead his readers to suspect the correctness of his statement, he ventures the presumptuous assertion, that, if they do not agree with him in practice, they do agree with him in senti- ment. What ! do Christian scholars universally believe im- mersion essential to the very nature of baptism, and yet prac- tise sprinkling ? This is a sweeping charge of insincerity. That they so generally practise sprinkling is, to our minds, satisfactory proof that they do not consider immersion posi- tively enjoined by the command of our Lord to baptize. Mr. Hague's assertion implies that they are acting hypocritically. We have now destroyed the whole force of Mr. Hague's Reply, and might lay aside our pen. But as w-e commenced with a purpose to leave no suggestion of his unanswered, we shall proceed briefly to notice his Principles of Piiilologv. The grand principle of Mr. Hague's philology seems to be this — that if all the various meanings of a word can be traced^ hy any relation, hoioever fanciful, to any one of those meanings^ that one embraces the ivhole in itself Such a principle, if ad- mitted, would lead directly to the conclusion, that no word in the language has more than one meaning. In his remarks on the several definitions given to the word baptizo in Robin- son's Lexicon, Mr. Hague says — "That abbreviated word, MR. Hague's review. 107 denoting hy implication, is very important in this case, and involves the princiole which Mr. Towne has overlooked, and by overlooking it, he misunderstands the lexicons."' It seems, then, that we have not yet learned to read the lexicons, be- cause we see not how to trace all the meanings, which branch off by implication, to one meaning, and make the whole family of significations attached to each word but one meaning. Upon this principle the whole controversy is in fact made to turn. Mr. Hague assumes it as a just principle of philology, and bases his reasoning upon it. Let us test this principle by some English word. Take, for example, the word spring. The first meaning which occurs, is a leap or jump. Then others follow — as, elastic power — an elastic body — motives — a fountain of water — a season of the year — a crack in a mast — the source of a thing. Let the reader now see if he cannot trace these vari- ous significations back to the first, to wit, a leap or jump. The idea of elastic power comes from the first by implication, because one jumps by means of elastic power ; and so with the rest. Now if Mr. Hague should say that a crack in a mast is the same by " implication^'' with motives of conduct, or a fountain of water the same with the spring of a watch, he would only be carrying out that favorite principle of phi- lology, which he complains that we overlook. He might just as-well say that spring, when used to designate a part of a watch, means the same as when used to designate a fountain of water, as to say that baptize, when used oi lather- ing one^s face, means the same as when used of Lathing in the sea. These surely are different actions, expressed by the same word. Let the reader apply Mr. Hague's principle of one meaning to the following sentence ; — In the spring of 1840, a man by the name of Spring, made a spring over a ditch, and fell into a spring on the opposite side, and broke the spring of his watch. Permit us to remind Mr. Hague that secondary meanings 108 STRICTURES ON shoot forth from the primarrj signification of almost all words ; a grand characteristic of lang-uage which he seems wholly to overlook. They proceed generally from cause to effect ; and it not unfrequently happens that the primary meaning is merged or lost in some remote secondary. For the sake of illustration, let us suppose that baptizo signified originally to immerse. As ivashing is sometimes the effect of immersing, the word might easily pass from its first specific signification, to denote simply the effect; and in process of time wholly displace the specific meaning. On the same principle, it might come to mean to dye, and to tinge, without retaining the idea of immersion. As purification is an effect of wash- ing, this meaning might engraft itself upon washing, and ex- press at last the whole force of the word : so that to baptize and to purify would be equivalent terms. This meaning the word might very naturally assume in standing for a religious rite, the main design of which was to symbolize the purifica- tion of the soul. If such is the nature of language, an attempt to chain words to one meaning is fruitless ; and to contend for the primary idea, in all the subsequent usages, is ridicu- lous. Mr. Hague says, that baptizo must determine the meaning by its own force, or there is no clue to the author's meaning. If Mr. Hague says this of some fragment of a sentence, we reply that it does not determine the sense by its own force, and there is no clue to the author's meaning. The example which he himself cites {lixmirAi « vclvc) is admirably in point. He says that the lexicons agree in saying, that this means, the ship sinks. But would he have known it, if the lexicons had not said it ? And could the lexicographers have discov- ered it, if they had not seen the word in connection with other words? That they could not, is clear ; — for those same lexi- cographers tell us that the word sometimes means simply {t^tKoi yivivbiti) to be on the sea. The ivord itself does not forbid our translating the phrase, the ship is washed with the MR. Hague's review. 109 waves, or the ship is launched, &c. The two words alone furnish no clue to the author's meaning. We will give another example, as ts cra,ast mt^u ii2ayaiva( xiyti Kt^p^o; on 0ct7rTa>v'Tcti IvcTo/ : " Nearchus relates that the Indians dye their beards." Mr. Carson admits that they did not di/e their beards by immer- sion. — Bib. R., Jan. 1840. Although the reader has before him sufficient proof, that the word is capable of denoting more than one mode of applying a liquid, we request him to peruse carefully the following Letter from Edward Beecher, D. D., President of Illi- nois College, Jacksonville, Illinois. Rev. Jos. H. Towne. Dear Brother, — With your request that I would notice the remarks of Mr. Hague on myself, and also that I would fur- nish you with certain facts and authorities, of which I spoke I cheerfully comply. The design of Mr. Hague's remarks on me is, to produce the belief that I have been inexcusably inaccurate in the state- 114 STRICTURES ON ment of plain scripture facts, through ignorance or forgetful- ness. His words are, — " This is something like a statement which President Beecher, of Illinois, has ventured to make on the same subject. He says, ' Nor is the washing of the clothes, so often spoken of, enjoined by a word denoting im- mersion.' Now for the refutation of this, just turn to Num- bers xxxi. 21, 23. ' This is the ordinance of the law which the Lord commanded Moses. Every thing that may abide the fire ye shall make it go through the fire, and it shall be clean ; nevertheless it shall be purified with the water of sep- aration ; and all that abideth not the fire, ye shall make go through the water.'' Now this passage has been in the Bible ever since these writers were boys, and how is it, that, to all intents and purposes, they never saw it?" To his concluding question I reply, that, to all intents and purposes, I had seen and thoroughly examined it, before I made the assertion, which he has ventured to controvert ; and of my position it contains no refutation at all : — for, 1. It does not contain the command to wash the clothes to which I refer ; — and, 2. If it did, it contains no word denoting immersion. 3. The command, to which I did refer, occurs in the very next verse, and fully sustains my assertion ; and yet this Mr. Hague did not venture to quote. 1. The passage refers to the purification of the spoils taken from an enemy. It does not relate to " the washing of the clothes so often spoken of." This was the washing of a person's own clothes. Moreover, it is not a specific com- mand to wash clothes at all, but a general command to cause that to pass through the water which will not stand the fire. If he says this includes clothes, I reply, it just as much includes books and parchment, for they will not stand the fire ; and will Mr. Hague therefore call it a command to wash books and parchment, &c. ? MR. Hague's review. 115 The plain fact is, it is not a specific command to wash any- thing- by name ; and yet I was speaking of a specific com- mand to wash clothes by name, and nothing else. Again, this command is not one oft repeated — it occurs nowhere else. The washing of the clothes to which I refer, I characterized as " often spoken of." How, then, does this passage refute my assertion? It does not even touch it. Again, if it were the command to wash clothes to which I refer, yet still it con- tains no word denoting immersion. Does the word "ISS", to pass, to go, denote immersion ? Does its Hiphil form, to cause to pass, denote immersion 1 Mr. Hague may reply, that the phrase to cause to pass through water denotes im- mersion. Very well, so it does ; and when I ever deny it, then let him quote this passage against me. But I have done no such thing. I spoke of a word in which an oft-repeated injunction is given, and mentioned the identical word, viz., DS^j and affirmed that it did not denote immersion. And is it a refutation of this, to adduce a complex phrase, implying immersion merely by an adjunct, but in which the leading verb does not mean to immerse at all, but only to pass 1 If we say that a bird passes through the air, it implies flying, by force of an adjunct ; does the word to pass therefore mean to fly'? But why did Mr. Hague omit the command to wash their own clothes, which occurs in the next verse"? Here would have been a case in point. It is a specific command to wash clothes, and not a general command to purify spoils. It is an instance of the command to which I referred as oft repeated, and it contains the word specified. And will Mr. Hague venture to deny the truth of my assertion concerning it? Af- ter all, it seems to me that the venturing is on his side, not on mine. He has ventured to assail a plain truth, which no man can disprove or reasonably deny. Of the authorities and facts to which I referred, there are many besides those which I have already adduced in my arti- 116 STRICTURES ON cles on baptism, and which I propose to employ in my conclud- ing article. But, at your request, I will adduce at this time a few. A passage in Clement of Alexandria deserves particular notice, as settling- beyond dispute the position that those to whom the Greek was vernacular did regard fiuTTTt^ce as sig- nifying to purify, irrespetive of mode. It occurs Strom, book 4, p. 531 : Paris, 1641. Speaking of the true gnostic, i. e., one who has the true knowledge of God, he is led to speak of purity as essential in order to see God ; and this leads, by a natural transition, to the rites denoting purification. He then remarks, that an idea of such modes of purification may have proceeded from Moses to the heathen poets, thus — Kui ^ that they had baptisteries be- low their couches, and an apparatus of ropes and pullies, for elevating and depressing men, couches, and all 1 and that they were in the habit of doing Xhis frequently in the course oi one meal ? 5. What then does the passage mean? Plainly, tliat they reclined on their couches, and often ivashed their hands during their meals. This is a matter of history and of fact. The other interpretation is ridiculous and absurd. Now the wash- ing of the hands is a purification. The Psalmist says, I will wash my hands in innocency. Pilate desired to declare his freedom from guilt by washing his hands before the mul- titude. But the washing of hands is no immersion. The conclusion is inevitable that /^-xTrTt^a) here denotes to purify, not to immerse. I will now state the general fact that both the Latin and Greek fathers, under the words ^X7ni 13). " It cannot be denied, that the native significa- tion of the word baptein and baptizein, is, to plunge, to dip. So that it is, doubtless, more than epipolazeiiij which is, to swim lightly on the surface ; but less than dunai, which is, to go down to the bottom and be destroyed." Apart from these authorities, speaking directly to the point, let the reader see for himself the fact, that in Exodus 15 : 10, where it is said of the hosts of Pharaoh, that " they sanl<: like lead in the mighty waters," the word translated '' sanJc,^' in the Sep- tuagint, is this very one, of which my opponents presume that I will not venture to say that it signifies to drown. The ancients applied the word to the setting of the sun, from the idea that the sun sunk in the ocean. As the word means to siiilc doivn, when it is affirmed of a man, or of Pharaoh's army, represented as being in the water, it must leave the mind with the idea of drowning, unless something be suggested in the context or the nature of the case, to show that this natural consequence of sink- ing down did not occur. But in the line before us, there is an antithesis, which causes the sense of drown- ing, or perishing at the bottom, to be marked with more than ordinary distinctness. It is true, if I wished simply to lay stress on the idea of covering with water, as being involved in mere dipping, I might use the word sinlk. If a man should say to me, " to dip means only to wet," I might reply. No, in order to dip any thing, you must sink it under water. But if I should form an antithesis, and say of an urn or any vessel, " I intended to dip it. 17 but it sunk down," every body would understand me to mean, that the thing went to the bottom and remained there. It is thus with this Greek word. If a Greek writer means to say emphatically that baptism involves the idea of covering in water, he will express that idea strongly by the word duno or its compounds. But if he intends to mark the real and proper difference between baptizing and sinking down, he will do it just as the oracle has in this celebrated line, or as Turretin has done in his comments upon it. Any reader, who will look closely at the passage, may satisfy himself, that in illustrating the proper sense of hapiizo, Turretin's declaration amounts to this ; that inasmuch as baptizo means more than floating upon the surface, and less than lying at the bottom, its distinctive import is, to immerse or dip, — that is, to put wider the surface. The line which he quotes is an admirable one to exhibit the native force of the word, because there the Greeks themselves have set it forth, contrasted with other terms in such a way, as to exhibit the beauty of an exact definition. With this illustration of the native and proper mean- ing of baptizo, Turretin leaves that point, and proceeds to speak of its figurative meanings, or the variations of the word when it is acted on by figures of speech. His remark at this transition point is as follows: "But because any thing is usually merged and dipped, in order that it may be washed, and those who are immersed are usually cleansed, it comes to pass, that, as with the Hebrews, tabal (which the Seventy translate baptizo, m 2 Kings 5 : 14) is taken for rahatz, which signifies to wash, in the same passage, — so with the Greeks, the word baptize is made, by means of a metalepsis, to signify washing. (Mark 7: 4.) The Jews, when they come from the market, except they wash (baptize) they eat not." Now in regard to this quotation, it is not necessary for me to stop here to inquire whether Mark, 2* 18 in the verse referred to, speaks of complete immersions among the Pharisees, or not. I believe that he does, because he says they followed the superstitious tradi- tions of the elders ; and there is ample proof from the rabbies, that those traditions enjoined frequent immer- sions. But that is not now the question. What I wish to draw attention to here, is this ; that if those washings were not real immersions, Turretin asserts that they came to be called baptisms, only by means of a figure of speech, denominated metalepsis. This word, it will be observed, does not appear in the translation of Messrs. Cooke and Towne. They have covered up the sense, by the word " tropically .^^ But Turretin is more spe- cific. He names the trope, by which he says baptize comes to be used for washing. He calls it a metalepsis. And what is this ? Of all tropes, it expresses most emphatically a change produced in the meaning of a word. The very name of the trope itself signifies "a changeJ^ According to him, those washings mentioned in Mark, came to be called that, which, properly speak- ing, ihey were not, by means of this figure. In rhetoric, the definition of a metalepsis is, " a continuation of a trope in one word, through a succession of significations '^ A metalepsis combines several tropes in one. And if, in the view of Turretin, a partial washing was called a baptism, by means of a metalepsis, what two tropes could be united to produce this result? Why (1), there is a synecdoche, according to which a part is put for the whole ; as when we speak of " the dip of oars," of the painter's " dipping his pencil," or of " dipping a pen in ink," when in reality we only mean the end or point. We speak thus of dipping the finger, when we only mean the end of it. The same thing is expressed in Luke 16: 24, without a figure, by the phrase, "that he may dip the tip of his finger in water." Here the same idea is expressed literally, which before was expressed by a synecdoche. But in Turretin's view, to form a 19 metalepsisj there must have been, not only this trope, by which a part is put for the whole, but he describes a metonymy, — that particular kind which the rhetoricians call a metonymy of the effect or end. In the use of this trope, the effect of a thing is designated by the same name as the thing itself. The effect is put for the cause. Thus, sweat is put for labor, which causes it : " in the sweat of thy brow shalt thou eat bread." Nevertheless, sweat and labor are different words, meaning different things. When the sons of the prophets, while eating their pottage, cried out to Elisha, there is death in the pot, they meant something which would cause death. Nevertheless, death, and a poisonous herb, are different things. Here is a metonymy. In the case of Naaman, cited by Turretin (2 Kings 5 : 14), we read that the direction was (v. 10), '' Go wash thyself in Jordan seven times. And he went down and dipped himself in Jordan seven times." As washing or cleansing is the effect of dipping in clean water, the act of dipping may be called, by a figure, washing or cleansing. But they are different words, properly meaning different things. The effect of dipping in mire, would be to defile, the effect of dipping in col- oring matter, to dye or stain. And by a metonymy, each of these may be put for dipping or immersion. So too, they may be put for sprinkhng, because washing, cleansing, defiUng, dyeing and staining, are often the effects of sprinkling. But who would reason hence, that the word sprinkle means to wash, cleanse, defile, dye or stain in any 3iode ? No man, in every day affairs, would do so ; yet my opponents reason thus, respecting the word translated, dip or immerse. Dr. Johnson defines sprinkling, to mean properly, " to scat- ter in drops," and then, " to wash, — to wet." These latter significations come into existence by means of the trope called metonymy ; bnt he wdio should hence infer that all these various terms are properly equivalent in 20 meaning, that washing or wetting in any way is sprink- ling, would seem to be making sport of the laws of language, or, if serious, would seem on common subjects '^to shock all common sense." Turretin proceeds to speak of other cases, in which rhetorical figures affect the sense of the word baptize. It might certainly be expected that the Professor of Theology at Geneva, connected with a church which practised sprinkling, would have something to say in its behalf. So indeed he has ; but reader ! as I quoted his authority on the signification of the word, be pleased to consider the fact, that Turretin does not attempt to justify sprinkling, as my opponents have done, on the ground of the proper meaning of baptize. His argu- ments are drawn from other sources. They arise from his speculations as a theologian, rather than from his principles as a philologist. They are such as we hear every day, but in answer to which we often plead that proper sense of the word which he fully declares. After considering the term itself, he makes a transition, to consider baptism as a ceremony ; and for the ceremo- nial form of his church, he makes as fair a defence as can be made, but it does not rest on the simple meaning of the words used in the commandment of Christ. His reasons are drawn from a regard to convenience, to expediency, the difficulty of immersion in certain cases, — the fitness of sprinkling to set forth the idea of the rite, which is cleansing, — to exhibit the thing signified, namely, the communication of the Spirit, or the appli- cation of the blood of Christ. He speaks indeed of the word baptize being applied to what he regarded as a case of sprinkling in Mark?: 4 ; but he has declared before, that in such instances, the word is changed by a rhetorical figure, and by means of a metalejjsis, loses its original signification. As our authors say, however, that they " have not quoted him for the sake of his arguments," we need not stop to discuss them here, as 21 they will pass under review in their proper connections. Suffice it now to say, that while Turretin marks the broad distinction that exists between the simple, the native, the proper meaning of the word, and that ever changing sense which is produced by tropes and figures, he seeks to build up some defence for sprinkling from the latter ; none from the former. As a classical scholar and a critic, he develops the meaning of the term with clearness and truth ; as a Psedobaptist theologian, he turns to its tropical or figurative changes, to raise some support for the practice of his church. But in conced- ing to us the former, he concedes in this arc^ument, all that is vital ; for, as in the commission of Christ, all acknowledge that the word baptize is not used in a figurative sense, it must of course have there its simple and proper meaning. My reviewers say, moreover, that they have quoted Turretin, to show how little confidence they " can place in Mr. Hague's citation of authorities," (pp. 91, 92). And perceiving, as they did, that I quoted Turretin's authority as a scholar, on the meaning of the word, and that he brings that out, chiefly in his criticism on the Sybilline verse, they add in the same breath, " He sus- tains our use of the Sybilline verse ! " This is coming to the test. I am sorry, for their salces, that they have not let this alone. As a matter of policy, it would have been wise. To their repeated declaration I reply, — if Turretin does not directly oppose their use of the Sybilline verse, and contradict their assertion, then I confess that I know nothing of the subject. Then I am altogether unable to understand his meaning, or to translate those simple and perspicuous Latin phrases in which he has expressed it. Then 1 am entirely incom- petent to the work I have undertaken, and deserve to be pronounced so by all parties. On this question, my reviewers and I are brought at once to a definite issue, and on this, will depend very much, the estimate which 22 our intelligent readers will form of the worth of our assertions and citations. I am willing to abide this issue. It is a fortunate thing in a discussion to have matters brought to a point. Here, nothing that is said, can be attributed to inadvertence. My opponents have repeated their declaration, that Turretin sustains their use of the Syhilline verse. I have taken this as a sum- mons to re-examine his words. If it had appeared that he really does sustain them, I could easily give him up, without injury to my cause, for, in the former reply, I just mentioned his name among those who have given immersion as the only proper meaning of the word baptism. His criticism on the Syhilline verse, shows whether he does so or not. And if it be true, that he understands by the word dunai in that verse, nothing more than what we mean by the English word dip, if his explanatory phrase '' pessum ire " means simply, " to go under the water," — if the words, " ad exitium fundum petere," denote merely a harmless submersion, from which a person or thing buoyantly rises, then I have not only mistaken Turretin, but I am so egregiously in the wrong, that I should not expect those who so under- stand the matter, to confide at all in my competency to investigate any perplexed moral question whatever. If, on the other hand, this Syhilline verse has the meaning which I assigned it, which Dr. Langhorne gave it in those quoted words which my opponents call a " loose translation " (in which he is sustained by those princes in sacred literature, Witsius, Beza and Casaubon), and especially, if that be the sense expressed by Turretin, then, in pertinaciously denying this, my opponents have inflicted a serious injury on their own standing as theo- logical teachers, and as competent interpreters of the books which they read. The THIRD ERROR, which the authors of the Rejoin- der say they find in ray reply to them, is in my claiming the authority of Luther in favor of immersion, as being 23 the only proper baptism. They thus express themselves, on page 93 : " Mr. Hague says, page 76, that Luther asserts immersion to be the only proper mode, as the only one ' answering to the signification of baptism,' and that he so rendered the Greek word in his version of the New Testament. Now this is directly contrary to fact." Contrary to fact ! Well, gentlemen, "■ to the law and to the testimony." The question can be easily decided. In my Review, designing to be brief, I did not quote Luther's words. Now I will do it. Let the old reformer speak for himself, and " he that hath ears to hear, let him hear." He says: ''The term baptism is a Greek word ; it may be rendered into Latin by mersio, — when we immerse any thing in water, that it may be entirely covered with water. And though that custom be quite abolished among the generality (for neither do they entirely dip children, but only sprinkle them with a little water), nevertheless, they ought to be wholly immersed, and immediately to be drawn out again ; for the etymology of the word seems to require it. The Germans call baptism tauff, from depth, which they call tieff, in their language ; as if it were proper those should be deeply immersed, who are baptized. And truly, if you consider what baptism signifies, you shall see the same thing required : for it signifies that the old man and our native character that is full of sin, entirely of flesh and blood as it is, may be overwhelmed by divine grace. The mode of baptism, therefore, ought to answer to the signification oj baptism, so that it may shoiv forth a sign that is certain and full.'' ^ What will our readers think of this ? Truly, there is no want of perspicuity here. " He that runs may read, and the wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err" in under- standing such plain language as this.* * As some may wish to compare the translation of Luther's words with the original, we give the passage in this note : Nomen, baptismus, Graecum est; Latine potest verti, mersio, cum immergi- mus aliquid in aquam ut totum tegatur aqua. Et quamvis ille mos jam aboleverit 24 " To make assurance doubly sure," I will here cite a few lines, to show how the doctors of the Lutheran church understand Luther's views of this subject. I do it the more readily, because the work from which I shall quote is easily accessible to those who wish to consult it for themselves. It is the Biblical Theology of two learned and orthodox German divines, Doctors Storr and Flatt, translated into English by Doctor Schmucker, Professor of Theology in the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. It was pub- lished at Andover, in 1826. In the article on baptism, it is said: "The disciples of our Lord could understand his command in no other manner, than as enjoining immersion ; and that they actually did understand it so, is proved partly by those passages of Scripture which evidently allude to immersion. Acts 8 : 36, &ic. Rom. 6 : 4. Col. 2:12. 1 Pet. 3 : 21. Moreover, the old custom of immersion was also retained a long time in the Western church, at least in the cases of those who were not indisposed. And even after aspersion had been fully introduced in a part of the Western churches, there yet remained several, who for some time adhered to the ancient custom. Under these circumstances, ii is certainly to he lamented, that Luther was not able TO ACCOMPLISH HIS WISH WITH REGARD TO THE INTRO- DUCTION OF IMMERSION IN BAPTISM, 05 he had doiie in the restoration of wine in the eucharist^ — (Vol. II, 290—291.) But as Mr. Cooke, and his younger friend, have pro- nounced my statement of the case to be " directly contrary to the fact," perhaps they will say, also, that apud plerosque (nequc enim totos demergunt pueros. sed tantium paiicula aqua perfundenl) DEBEBANT lamen prorsus immergi, et slatim retrahi. Id enim ety- molo^ia iinmiiiis postulare videtur. Et Germani quoqiie baplisnnim Tauff vocant, a profundi late, quain Tieff illi sua lingua vocant, quod profunde demergi conve- nial eos, qui bapiizantur. Et sane si spectes quid baptismus sigaificet, idem requiri videbis. Hoc enim significat ut vetus homo, et nalivitas nostra plena peccatis, quae ex carne et sanguine constat, totam per divinam gratiam demerga- tur, id quod copiosius iiidicabimus. Debehat igitur modus baptizandi respondere significalioni baptismi, et cerium ac plenum ejus edarel signum. — Opera, torn. 1, fol. 72. Witeberg, 1582 Or Walched., vol. 10, p. 25, 93. 26 these Lutheran doctors and German scholars, do not understand Luther's meaning so well as they themselves do. Indeed, they are morally bound to make this out, or else to retract what they have said. If they conclude to do the latter, we shall honor them for their candor ; if they attempt the former, we shall probably say no more on 'this point, but leave them " alone in their glory.'' In order to estimate, however, the degree of intelli- gence which my reviewers have brought to this discus- sion, let us notice their explanation of the word Taufen, of which we have already heard Luther himself speak. They say, " The German word which Luther uses when baptism stands for the religious rite, is not the word which means to immerse, if we may place any reliance upon the two German lexicons now lying upon our table." They then quote two modern dictionaries, which give such meanings as, to christen — to give a name, Sic. What an apt explanation is this of the sense in which Luther used the term ! We all know that since his day, the German word which he used to trans- late baptize, has been applied in his own country to that act of christening, which, he said, was not baptism. The church in Germany being established by law, and the practice of immersion being opposed by the govern- ment, the common modes of expression have thus been modified, and modern dictionaries, we know, must give the modern and prevailing usage. But did any German scholar ever maintain that this word, in its own etymo- logical and native sense, the sense in which Luther used it, meant merely to christen, to initiate in a church, or to give a name ? Never. Such an one knows that tauchen [to dip] and taufen were originally the same. And Luther himself sets aside all question here, by the manner in which he asserts the sense of the word. How absurd a thing it is, then, instead of letting Luther 3 26 himself explain a term which he used three centuries ago, to turn to a modern dictionary, which gives only the present, every-day usage. Is this to be called exegesis, criticism — or what is it? The FOURTH ERROR which my reviewers assign to me, is, in making the statement, that 1 inserted in my reply to them all the meanings of baptize given in Scapula's lexicon. They say, ^'But Scapula does give Other meanings." They mention what these are; and I will now examine their specification. (1.) They say, " He (Scapula) tells us, that the word signifies {tqaloq yiveadui) " to be upon the sea." To this, I reply, first of all, it would be strange indeed that Scapula should utter any such absurdity, as it would be to say that baptize means " to be upon the sea ! " Whoever says so, must be, I should think, quite out at sea, and "out of his latitude." The expression here referred to in Scapula, is an allusion to a passage in Euripides, cited to illustrate a certain application of the word. The meaning of the remark in the lexicon is this, that in Euripides a ship is said to dip (baptein), to denote its condition on the sea. A glance at the sentence cited from Euripides, will at once explain the whole matter. It occurs in Orestes, line 697, 8. Me- nelaus, speaking on the subject of the state, compares it to a ship, and takes occasion to say, that a vessel under full sail, "pressed by a violent wind, is woni to dip, but stands upright again, if one lessen the sail." If this be the meaning of the passage, we see what must have been the meaning of the lexicographer, in referring to it. And if the reader wishes the best authority in the world, to show that I have not mistaken the sense, let him refer to Major's school edition of Euripides, with Porson's notes ; and there he will see a note to the line, in which the word baptein is rendered, " is wont to dipP'' Whether my reviewers will admit that Porson knew any thing about this matter, I cannot say ; but even if they 27 should not, I presume they will not entirely destroy bis authority touching the sense of a line in Euripides.* (2.) They say, that Scapula declares that Uutiko means, *' to draw up — to fill for drawing up." Here, again, as in the case just mentioned, Scapula, having given the definitions of the word, is citing passages to illustrate them. 1 professed to give his definitions, not his illustrations. Greek literature is full of such illus- trations. I merely wished to exhibit the authority of the lexicon on the meaning of the term. The remark of Scapula is, that the commentator or scholiast on Nicander, in a certain instance, explains hapto as being put for draw up, or fill for drawing up. This is one of those comments, which may well be called " extremely true ;" a thing which any reader might have perceived, without having a scholiast to tell him. If I should say to a servant. Go, take your pitcher, dip it in the brook, and bring it here, — or. Go, dip some water from the spring, — he would not need to be informed that the word dip stands for " draw," or '• fill for drawing up." But if I should gravely give him this information, and add, that hence, the words dip, draw, and fill, were all one in sense, — exactly synonymous, — it is very likely that he would not believe it. There are very few, whose native tongue is English, who would not know better. Either word might be used, but each has a distinct meaning. Now, this is just the case, in regard to the passage referred to in Nicander. The phrase is, avri]v cxlu (iume — dip the sea-water itself. There is a similar case in Euripides (Hec. 607) : " But go, you old maid-servant, take a vessel, and dipping it (Buiijuau) * Kac: vavg ydig evradsiaa ngog Biav Tiodt iSonpev, tcrrri d' uvdig \v yu).a noda. — Orestes, 697. In Potter's Euripides, the idea is given in a free translation, thus : The gallant hark that too much swells her sails, Oft IS o'erset ; but let her pride be lowered, She rides secure, and glories in the gale. 28 bring some sea-water hither." On this, the scholiast remarks, that BuTiTetv stands for, to '^ let down into the water, or any liquid.''^ This remark of the scholiast, like the other, is " extremely true." Every body knows that dij)ping implies to let down into the water, and to draw up out of it. But does it hence follow, that the proper signification of the word dip, is to let down, or to draw up, simply, — either one, or the other, or both, without involving the idea of putting a thing into a liquid ? By no means. Why did not my reviewers refer their English readers to Donnegan's Lexicon, with English definitions, that they might see for themselves? There the matter is explained in a word, thus : BuTtico, to draw out water by dipping a vessel into it, to fill into another vessel. Bu7tti';o), to dip in a vessel and draw. Here, then, the reader sees, that when Scapula refers to the remark of the scholiast, he gives no new meaning to the word. (3.) The third instance of omitting a meaning is thus expressed : " He (Scapula) also gives examples under the sense of to tinge (which it is strange Mr. Hague did not see), to wit, that of painting or staining the hair, and pointing a spear with poison, — things not done by immersion." To this I reply, that I noticed these things, but noticed also, that Scapula sets them down as things which are done by immersion, inasmuch as these examples are brought to support the definition which I quoted, namely, " to dye, which is done by immersing." Any one may see this for himself, if he will take the trouble to look at the work. To illustrate the action intended, Scapula quotes under the same defini- tion, Luke 16: 24, where it is said, " that he may dip (intingat) the tip of his finger in water." How, then, can it be said that I omitted a meaning? The expres- sion betrays, to say the least, great inattention to facts. I should not have thought of occupying so much space in exhibiting the sense given in this lexicon ; but since 29 my reviewers have questioned my general statements, I have cheerfully embraced the opportunity to go into particulars. In this way, undoubtedly, my readers will in the end be more thoroughly satisfied that I have read the lexicons correctly, and that my testimony is sure. They will be pleased to observe, however, that in order to give all an opportunity to judge for themselves, I quoted an English classical Greek lexicon, which Pro- fessor Stuart quotes as a standard work, which is in a small compass comparatively, and is easily accessible. It is Donnegan's ; and as my reviewers have not attempted to tarnish my reports of that, by one breath of suspicion, I would ask every doubtful inquirer to consult it for himself. Before leaving this point, I must observe, further, that the gentlemen have misquoted me, in saying that I praised Scapula as " one of the most celebrated lexicog- raphers in Europe." This is a mistake. I praised the lexicon — not him whose name it bears ; for while the book itself is a standard work, it derives its value from the labors of Stephanus, whose production Scapula unjustly appropriated to himself. If my reviewers w^ere aware of this fact, they did a vesy great wrong in mis- quoting me : if not, the inadvertence is excusable. The FIFTH ERROR which my reviewers assign to me, is, in saying that they "seem dissatisfied with the mod- erate statements of Dr. Woods and Professor Stuart." They call this " a fabrication of- Mr. Hague's, entire," and remark, " we did say, that some of our writers on the subject, from a desire to show a generous and liberal spirit, have made unwarrantable concessions. The names of Messrs. Stuart and Woods, however, are not mentioned within many pages of this sentence ; nor are they here referred to by even the remotest implication,''^ Nevertheless, I could not avoid the impression, on reading the sentence on " unwarrantable concessions," that these distinguished writers were referred to by less 3* 30 than a remote implication. I have long known that they have been blamed in some quarters for allowing so much to the Baptists ; and if any other writers on the same side of the question have made more liberal con- cessions than Professor Stuart, I should be glad to know who they are. Why did not the gentlemen tell ■us to whom they did refer ? Published writings are public property, and there could have been no indelicacy in designating them. A little frankness, on their part, would have been better than a naked censure. The first impression of many minds will doubtless be, that the sentence quoted above was aimed at Professor Stuart. He is not far from us — he has been chief among those who have led our young ministers to avail themselves of the aids of German learning, to the intro- duction of which my reviewers are so bitterly opposed* — his writings are well known in this community, and they exhibit a strong contrast to those which the Rev. Messrs. Cooke and Towne have presented to us. For instance, Professor Stuart says, after an investigation of passages, " On the whole, however, the probability seems to be in favor of the idea of immersion, when we argue merely from the force of the words or expressions, in themselves considered"! — and then again, after objecting to a strict adherence to immersion, says, "On the other hand, to maintain that sprinkling or affusion is the only mode of baptism, or the only proper mode, seems to me to partake of the like sectarian spirit."{ But my reviewers say, they " do not allow that to immerse is the primary signification of these terms,"<§> declare that " immersion is one instance of departure from the simplicity of the gospel," and that, "if by being right is meant the following of the scriptural mode, one, by being immersed, ivill be sure to be ivrong." The contrast is very marked ; yet, if the gentlemen say they had no reference to the liberal statements of Professor * Rejoinder, p. 123. f Bib. Kepos., Vol. UI, p. 313. : lb., 373. § Hint3, p. 7. 31 Stuart, I will not at all insist on saying that they had, but am glad to find that those statements are to remain nnimpiigned, and that some others liave made concessions more ''unwarrantable" than his. Of course, with these latter writers, we should have little or no occasion for dispute. The SIXTH ERROR on our reviewers' list is thus stated. " On page 80,^ Mr. Hague says, ' the writer speaks as if the Jews knew nothing of religious immersions;' and then proceeds to tell us, as if he considered us ignorant of the fact, that in legal purifications ' the people sometimes dipped them- selves.' Let the reader turn back to page 9, and he will find that we recognize the fact of which Mr. Hague so gravely informs us." We turn to page 9, and all the recognition of the fact that we find there is in these words. "In Heb. 9 : 10, Paul calls the different ceremonial washings done in the tabernacle service, baptisms. Among them all, there is not an instance of immersion by the priests. In all cases where the subjects bathed, there was no official administration." If these words positively "recognize the fact," that immersions were in use among the Jews as i^eligioiis services, I trust the reader will see some ground for my saying that I did not so understand them. I supposed them to mean, that no immersions were considered sacred, but were regarded as common acts, like those of bathing among ourselves. This impression was confirmed by the assertions on page 45, where they say of the apostles, " they had been educated to i^egard sjprinkling as sufficient for ceremonkd 'purification^ and from early childhood had seen the leper, and the Levites, and indeed the vessels of the temple, cleansed by sprinkling." Again, "if the influence of their Jewish education was not counteracted by some command of Christ, they baptized unquestion- ably by pouring or sprinkling." If, however, our * Pase 31 of Gould, Kendall & Lincoln's edition. 32 authors intended to ^'recognize the fact " that reZi- gioiis immersions were practised by the Jews, I am sorry that I did not fully apprehend the force of their expressions; for I should wish their readers to understand this recognition clearly. I am glad, therefore, that they have now taken occasion to be more explicit in asserting that such immersions were habitual with that people. If they should speak of this point again, I trust they will not forget that the Jewish rule, as expressed by Maimonides (the Rabbi whom the Jews so much revered that they used to call him the lamp of Israel), runs thus : " Whereso- ever, in the law, washing of flesh or of clothes is mentioned, it means nothing else than the dipping of the whole body in water; for if any man wash himself all over, except the top of his little finger, he is still in his uncleanness."^ The SEVENTH ERROR, as they call it, is worthy of particular attention. It is expressed as follows: "On page 71, Mr. Hague says, 'The principle that baptizo, by its oivn force^ determines the way of applying water, is clearly set forth by those three great lexicographers of the New Testament, Schleus- ner, Wahl, and Bretschneider.' Astonishing ! Schleusner defines baptizo, 1, to immerse in water; 2, to wash, sprinkle, or cleanse with water (abluo, lavo, aqua purgo) ; 3, to baptize ; 4, to pour out largely (profundo largiter, &c.) Only one .of Schleusner' s definitions restricts the meaning to immersion. Three of them denote the application of the fluid by afl'usion. Wahl defines baptizo, first, to wash, to perform abliUion, to cleanse. Bret- schneider's lexicon gives no ground for Mr. Hague's assertion, for he defines baptize, to wash, to perform ablution, &c. We have never yet seen a lexicon which sustains Mr. Hague's position." I said that this paragraph is worthy of special attention ; for it contains a key to the mystery which * Lidnfovit on Matt. III. 33 has puzzled some inquiring minds. The question before these has been, — how is it, that those who are regarded as honest and Christian men, and who profess to be able to read the lexicons, should differ outright in their reports of what the lexicons say? I answer, that in this last quotation, we have the means of explaining it. Let the reader attend, and he will mark the principle which will enable him to unravel many such difficulties. My statement is, that Schleusner develops " the principle, that bapti- zo, by its own force, determines the way of applying water." This, Messrs. Cooke and Towne explicitly deny. In answering them on this point, I will do two things. First, I will quote an important expla- nation of Schleusner, which they have omitted ; and secondly, exhibit the process by which they make Schleusner say that baptize means to sprinkle. Schleusner's definition runs thus : '^ Baptizo, 1, PROPERLY, to immerse and dip in, to merge in water. It answers to the Hebrew word tabal. Now, because, not unfrequently, something is wont to be immersed and dipped into the water, so that it may be washed, HENCE, 2, it denotes to perform ablution, to wash, to cleanse with water. "^ Here is a very important remark. But this explanatory and restrictive sen- tence, which gives the i^easons why wash and cleanse are subjoined to immerse, as meanings of baptize, was unseen by our authors, or else they regarded it as signifying just nothing at all. Otherwise, why did they omit it? It forms a part of the sentence from which they quoted. Schleusner says, first, that the word means properly to immerse, and then that it is used to denote washing, because immersion is a common mode of washing. But is this the same as to say, that it means to wash in any mode? No. It is saying just the reverse. It restricts the sense of * We give Schleusner's definition in his own Latin words: BanTl^Ci), 1, pro- prie, immergo ae inlingo, in aquam inergo. Respondit hebraico ^^J^. Jam quia hand rare aliquid imrnergi ae intingiin aquam solet ut lavetur, hunc, 2, abluo, lavOj aqua purgo, notat. 34 washing to those cases where immersion is the mode. It would have been difficult for Schleusner to express himself more guardedly. Having given the proper meaning of the word, his restrictive clause was designed to show, that though it may denote wash- ing, it does, '-by its own force, determine the way of applying water." Yet this clause our authors omit, and tell their readers that Schleusner says the word means to wash in any mode! Now I ask the reader, with his eye on that clause, to say for him- self, what shall be thought of the accuracy of my reviewers, as reporters of the lexicons ? (2.) But this is not all. We must observe the process by which they make Schleusner say that baptize means to sprinkle. They do it thus. That Latin word, 'Mavo," which they quote as one of his definitions, and which properly means to wash or lave, they translate, '' to sprinkle." But that Latin word is found also in the clause which they have omitted, and if their translation be correct, the whole sentence will read thus : " Now, because, not unfre- quently, a thing is wont to be immersed or dipped into water, so that it may be sprinkled, hence, it means, 2, to perform ablution, sprinkle, or cleanse with water." What an absurdity to attribute to the author of a lexicon, to say that a thing is wont to be dipped into water, in order to be sprinkled ! Alas, poor Schleusner ! thou art to be pitied, if thou couldst speak thus, and if not, hard is thy lot to have it spoken in thy name ! But the reader sees at once that no sane lexicographer ever uttered such a thing. And yet, one of two conclusions is unavoidable; either Schleusner did say it, or else my revieivers have mistranslated him. But again, on what ground do they translate lavo (which means, wash), by the word sprinkle? The context does not demand it. No, it is directly against it. Will they say that sprinkling is a mode of wash- ing, and therefore, inasmuch as baptism denotes 35 washing, it must also mean sprinkling? Yes, this is the smn and substance of their reasoning. And what is it worth ? It proves too much, and therefore proves nothing. It would prove that to immerse means to sprinkle, and that to sprinkle means to immerse. liCt us state the several cases more formally : 1. Baptism means washing; Sprinkling is a mode of washing; Therefore, baptism means sprinkling. But then it is evident, also, that immersion denotes washing. My reviewers themselves say, on page 34 of their "Hints to an Inquirer,*' ^^we object to im- mersion, because it is a literal washing." But when they open the lexicons which call baptism washing, they translate the word by sprinkling ! and then proceed to say, that tlie lexicons are on their side ! Doubtless, it is easy to bring all the authors in the world on their side, at this rate ! In this way, they could show that even now, I am myself an advocate of their views, without being aware of it ; for by this process, they could make it out, that the very word immerse means to sprinkle, as will appear in a second formulary like the first : 2. Immersion is washing; Sprinkling is washing; Therefore, immersion is sprinkling. So, too, it may be said again : 3. Sprinkling means cleansing; Immersion means cleansing; Therefore, sprinkling means immersion. Such is the amount of discrimination, of order and arrangement of meanings, which the process of our authors involves. Who that has one particle of mental independence, would not say within himself, by whatever names such interpretation may be sus- tained, I trample it under foot as false reasoning, I abjure it as devoid of the least glimmering of sound sense, justness or consistency. 36 In Johnson's dictionary, we find that wet, and wash, are given among the definitions of sprinkle. Following in the path of our authors as safe guides, we would be led to such positions as these : 4. Sprinkling means wetting; Immersion means wetting; Therefore, sprinkling means immersion. Or, 5. Sprinkling means washing; Immersion means washing; Therefore, sprinkling means immersion. So we might form other cases, to show that im- mersion and sprinkling are identical, for sprinkle is sometimes defined, to dye, color, or stain. It is true, Dr. Johnson does not say that sprinkle means to wet or wash in any onode^ but only in a certain way. He defines the 'proper meaning of the word to be, "to scatter in drops or small masses." These other meanings come by implication, or by figures of speech. But according to our authors, this last par- ticular is unworthy of notice, for "it is. enough to say, that other meanings are other meanings, come from what source they may." (p. 97.) As the word sprinkle, therefore, means wet, wash, color, and stain, and as these acts ^nay be performed in various modes, how obvious it is, that, according to Johnson and other lexicographers, sprinkling means, the application of water in any ivay ! I know that my reviewers will recoil from this conclusion ; but I know, also, that they cannot avoid it, without retracting the reasoning by which they make it out, that baptize means to sprinkle. If the reader will look closely at the subject, he may see for himself, that they must adopt this absurdity, or abandon their position. They have their choice ; but if they choose to continue on the ground where they are, the sharp point of this conclusion will constantly pierce them, and render them uneasy. There is only one way of escape. 37 The remarks which apply to the case of Schleus- ner, apply equally to the other lexicographers men- tioned in this connection. They all give immersion as the proper meaning of the word, and by that, all the applications of the word are modified and limited. They may cite passages where the word suggests the means of immersion, or the effect of it, but they give no meaning mconsistent with that primary idea. If I should say of a man, that the pouring forth of waters from a bursting reservoir immersed or over- whelmed him, would any sensible child suppose that I intended to say that to immerse means to pourl Yet there would be a case of immersion by pouring. The pouring, however, would not be the immersion, but the thing which produced it. And it might be truly said, the waters poured forth upon the man, or they overwhelmed him, or covered him, or immersed him; all these words would harmonize in their application to the case, though each has its ^wn proper meaning. Such cases are pointed out by the lexicographers, when they cite passages wherein the word baptizo stands for pouring forth largely (pro- fundo largiter, &c.), so as to cover any object, to inundate or overwhelm. Like instances occur in English writers. Thus, Burke says, that the Baby- lonian and Assyrian empires " poured out seas of blood." That was a pouring which merged and buried nations, — which administered to them "a baptism of blood." Yet, because in certain passages to '' pour forth" may be interchanged with merge or bury, who would say that each word properly has the same meaning? In other passages they may develop their own force, and be set in direct contrast, as they are in that sentence of Leviticus 4 : 6, 7, which I have before quoted. Unless a man under- stand the proper sense of words, how is it possible that he should see the true meaning of an author, or at all apprehend the beauty and strength of his expressions 7 38 In supporting their claim to the lexicons, Messrs. Cooke and Towne observe, " Bretschneider's lexicon gives no ground for Mr. Hague's assertion, for he defines baptize, to wash, to perform ablution, &c." The fallacy of such remarks is now sufficiently apparent; but how strikingly it appears in the case of Bretschneider ! He seems to desire particularly not to be misunderstood, for he says, "in the New Testament, the ivord is not nsed^ except in relation to that appointed and sacred siihnersion^ which the Jews practised in order to pledge one to a reforma- tion of life, or to take away the guilt of his sins."=^ As to Wahl, in his lexicon of the New Testament which I have consulted, he gives to bajjio^ the root, no meaning, except to dip in, to immerse. He does not even mention to dye, — the sense which Dr. Rob- inson says comes by implication, in Rev. 19: 13; because Wahl saw, that when we are told of a ''garment dipped in blood," a child will know that dyeing or coloring is a consequence im.plied, without a lexicon to announce it. Under baptizo, Wahl gives no meaning or example, which is not in consistency with the proper sense of immersion. But strange to tell, m}^ reviewers utter two things most inconsistent with each other; for they say, first, "we object to immersion, because it is a literal washing," and then, because Wahl says, baptize denotes washing, they exclaim, — ivell^ then^ that expresses our viev;, ex- actly ! The reader will see, that in replying to the re- marks which occur under the head of Error 7, I have effectually answered those which aire made under the heads. Error 8, 9 and 10. They repeat what has been said before, and our authors get other lexicographers on their side, in the same way they did Schleusner, Wahl and Bretschneider. It is *In N. T. non dicitur nisi de submersione solenni et sacra, que utebantur Judaei, ut vel ad vitae eraendationem aliquem obstringerent, vel peccalorum eiua culpam delerent. 39 curious to observe, however, that, as if sorely pressed for authorities, in this case where the appeal is to Greek lexicographers, my reviewers quote Buck, one of their own denomination, and author of an English theological dictionary. Did they consider this quite apposite? I might as well have quoted the Biblical Cyclopaedia of Jones (which is now before me, on the same shelf with Buck's dictionary), and which says, "Many writers of respectability maintain that the Greek verb baptizo^ as well as its Hebrew synonym, sometimes denotes sprinkling ; but the various passages to which they appeal, will lead every candid mind to a different conclusion." But it is not in place here to quote English diction- aries. When the point in question is the lexicogra- phy of a Greek word, we must appeal to Greek lexicons. My reviewers, however, have quoted also Latin dictionaries, in such a connection, as would lead one who had never seen them, to suppose they were Greek lexicons. Thus, they mention the names of Facciolatus and Forcellinus, two learned Italians, who composed a large Latin dictionary, in their list of lexicographers. And although these writers were members of the Romish church, which practises sprinkling or pouring, yet they do not give either of these, as meanings of the Greek word. They define it simply, immerse, wash ; and if, as we have seen, Messrs. Cooke and Towne " object to immersion, because it is a literal washing^^ (p. 34), on what ground can they claim the authority of these Italians in their favor? As the name of the first of these authors is wrongly spelt, each time that it is mentioned, that fact suggests a doubt whether my reviewers have very carefully read them. In the closing paragraph on the subject of errors, the gentlemen present a list of lexicographers, whom they claim as on their side, touching the meaning of this Greek word. I doubt whether such a classifica- tion of names was ever published before, or ever 40 shall be again. We see the names of Greek lexicog- raphers, known throughout the world, associated with those of compilers of Latin dictionaries, and of persons scarcely known at all. We happened to show the list to the President of a literary institution, who is much interested in the subject of lexicogra- phy. He was both astonished and amused, and inquired, •' Have not Ainsworth and Cole got out of their latitude? Did Facciolatus and Forcellinus write a Greek lexicon ? Did these men's names ever chance to come in juxtaposition before ? 1 think not." What an association of a?/^/ion7ie5 .' Schleus- ner, Stephanus, Ainsworth, Cole, Passow, Gross ! ! This sort of order, or rather disovder, looks like chance-work; it bears not the marks of intelligent design. The paragraph closes with the name of Schreve- lius, Avhom it designates, ''that great master and critic of the Greek tongue." Alluding to this sen- tence, a friend remarked to me, with some emphasis, '' Here we have a key to the literary estimates of these gentlemen." Compared with some others already mentioned, "Schrevelius is notorious as a poor lexicographer." Wolf, surely a competent judge, expresses the common sentiment of Greek critics, when he says, "the Manual Lexicon of Schrevelius is not good; for he could not conjugate; he gives the forms falsely ; he did not understand Greek."^ It was said in England, half a century ago, that Schrevelius's editions of ancient authors were "more elegant than correct;"! and it is ob- served of him in the Encyclopaedia Americana, that he exhibited " more industry than taste or judgment." We do not mention these things because Schrevelius says any thing on the meaning of the word in ques- tion, with which we disagree, but to show the discrimination of my reviewers in estimating authors and books. We remember well, when in the days * WolPs AUerthunswissenschaftj Vol. Ij p. 193. t Encyclopedia Briltanica. 41 of boyhood, Schrevelins's lexicon was our daily companion at school, for years in succession. Our teacher, in those days, obliged us to commit to mem- ory Schrevelius's Latin definitions of Greek Avords, and we shall always remember, that all the render- ings he gives to haptizo are mergo^ abluo^ lavo^ — to merge, perform ablution, and to wash; but as merg- ing is washing, we never thought that the word Avhich means to merge, means to wash by sprinkling! We never extracted that idea from Schrevelius, nor do we believe that it ever entered into his mind.=^ Quite in keeping with their way of reporting lexicons, is our reviewers' mode of reporting other books. They publish in an emphatic manner the declaration, "Mr. Carson admits that the lexicogra- phers are against him." But the truth is, that in regard to the point which we are now examining, — whether the lexicons give to baptize the sense of sprinkle, — Mr. Carson makes no such admission, but asserts exactly the opposite. It would seem as if my reviewers had never read Mr. Carson's work. He never read in the lexicons what they have dis- covered, that sprinkle is given as a meaning of baptizo. The great question which he is discussing is this, — whether the two words, bapto and baptizo^ are "exactly the same as to signification" {laobwaimC), He speaks of those who say that they are so. He says (p. 13), "Writers in general have argued from the one word to the other, as if they perfectly cor- responded in meaning." The difference he asserts to be this ; that bapto is never used to denote the ordinance of baptism ; that for this baptizo is always * The manner in which my reviewers have treated this whole subject of lex- icography, is very singular. The lexicons which ihey quote, do not sustain them. Many of tlieir oZ/jer authorities fail. Mr. Leigh, however, an English writer, to whom they refer, in his work entitled, " Crinca Sacra," does make' some remarks on the word, which are apposite to their purpose ; but he quotes as authority Dr. Daniel Featley, a healed and violent controversialist, who wished to employ the civil povver^to exterminate the Baptists in England ; the persecutor against whom Milton employed his pen, and who entreated "the most noble lords" that the poet "might be cut off as a pestilent Anabaptist." Yet, even Leigh acknowl» edges, at the close of his article, that ihQ proper meaning of the word Is immerse. 4# 42 employed; and that while the first word often denotes dyeing, the second is never used for that purpose. In regard to this distinction^ Professor Stuart has declared that Mr. Carson has proved it incontrovertibly, and says, that from personal exam- ination, he has come to the same conclusion. From this it would follow, that all the passages in which hapto is cited to illustrate the ordinance of baptism, are irrelevant, as that word is never applied to the rite. Touching the primary meaning of either word, Mr. Carson says (p. 80), "I have no quarrel with the lexicons;" and adds, "Baptist writers have always appealed with the greatest confidence to the lexicons even of Psedobaptist writers. On the con- trary, their opponents often take refuge in a supposed sacred or scriptural use, that they may be screened from the fire of the lexicons." (p. 80.) The fault which Mr. Carson finds with the lex- icons, is in relation to their defect^ in not marking well the difference between borrowed and figurative meanings, and those which are literal and proper. He says, "I maintain, that in figures there is no different meaning of the ivord. It is only a figurative application. The meaning of the word is always the same. Nor does any one need to have a figura- tive application explained in any other way than by giving the proper meaning of the word. When this is known, it must be a bad figure which does not contain its own light. It is useless to load lexicons with figurative applications, except as a concord- ance." This is the amount of Mr. Carson's criticism on the lexicons. He expressly declares, " I admit that the meaning which they take out of the word, is always implied in the passage where the word occurs. But I deny that this meaning is expressed by the word."=^ Here ^ve see that Mr. Carson's * A remark precisely in accordance with Mr. Carson's position, occurs in the preface of Richardson's Dictionary, London edition, p. 39. The writer is speak- ing of Dr. Johnson's want of care in not adhering more closely to the principle he ■faad laid down, respecting the development of the proper meaning and the conse- 43 accurate and discriminating mind insists on a just distinction between the proper and the borrowed, as well as figurative meanings of a word (a point, on which he has had much controversy witli the ^ath- ohcs) — censures the lexicons, and English diction- aries, too, for not marking it — says that the real difference between bapto and baptizo they have over- looked ; but is this admitting that they sanction what he deems the enormous error, of saying that baptize means to sprinkle ? Far from it. To what cause, then, shall it be attributed, that Messrs. Cooke and Tovvrne have left their readers with the impression, that Mr. Carson concedes as to the lexicons, what they are endeavoring to maintain ? Let the reader decide. In summing up their remarks on the lexicons (p. 97), our authors say, "The reader is now pre- pared to estimate correctly the validity of Mr. Hague's claim to all the lexicographers. We sol- emnly AVER, THAT NO LEXICOGRAPHER WITHIN OUR KNOWLEDGE, IN ANY COUNTRY, AGREES WITH HIM." I am sorry that they use that word "solemnly" here. It seems to indicate in the mind more heat than light, considering the occasion. What light have they given the reader, that by its aid he might be "pre- pared to estimate correctly " those testimonies which I presented ? Strong assertions^ frequently repeated, that those scholars whom I referred to, and many others also, define the word in question, to sprinkle. Why did they not include Donnegan in their list ? Do they not know him? Did I not point him out? At Princeton and xlndover, and by men of all creeds, his work has been acknowledged to be of standard character. Did they omit it, because it is in Eng- lish, and easy of access ? I have not now met their quential APPLICATION of words, and says, "There is one general error pervading the explanations, imputable to interpreters in general, who, 'seeking the meaning of a word singly from the passages in which it is found, connect with it the mean- ing of some other word or words in the sentence.' This is to interpret the import of the CONTEXT, and not to explain the individual meaning of the word," 44 assertions by mere counter-assertions. I have ex- hibited to the reader the grounds on which I deny their statements. (1.) I have shown, that in quoting the l^icons they have omitted important explanatory clauses. (2.) That if their version of the Latin definitions is just, the lexicographer is made to utter palpable absurdity. (3.) That in claiming the lexicographer as on their side, for such a reason as they give, they contradict themselves. (4.) That the j)rocess by which they bring the lexicons on to their side, would prove equally well, that to sprinkle means to immerse. (5.) That their reasoning, by confounding important distinctions in defining words, could be used to prove that any Baptist writer is on their side, as easily as the lexicographers. The grand, the fatal mistake of my reviewers in reading and reporting the lexicons, in all that they say connected with philology, is expressed in a short sentence on page 97: " It is enough to say, that other meanings are other meanings, come from what source they may.^^ This is very different from the opinion of Dr. Johnson, who considered it to be of vast importance to mark very closely different kinds of meanings, and from what sources they came. He thought that it was the great business of a lexicog- rapher to do this. In his " Plan of an English Dic- tionary," he says, " In explaining the general and popular language, it seems necessary to sort the several senses of each word, and to exhibit, first, its natural and primitive signification, and then to give its consequential meaning." This is a principle of immense importance. We have already noticed, for instance, that "to wet" is a consequential meaning of such words as dip, swim, float, sink, immerse, pour, and sprinkle ; but it is not a definition of either of them. If a man should assert that it was, should reason on it as such, saying, that it was annexed to one or all of those words in a dictionary, what would be thought of his perspicacity? If a servant, when 45 directed to dip his pitcheij should sprinkle water over it, and then maintain that he had obeyed the direction, because he had found in a dictionary that dip means " to wet," and therefore dip must mean to apply water in any ^node, what would be thought of his aptness? And if his employer should patiently reason with him, and tell him that the proper mean- ing of dip is not simply " to wet," and that the proper meaning of sprinkle is not simply " to wet," but that those words denote specific acts, of Avhich ^' to wet" is the consequence, — that therefore it is a meaning which only comes by implication^ — what i he should reply, ' Well, that does not alter the case, ^^ other meanings are other meanings^ come froin what soin^ce they may /" ' What comment would be heard on his spirit of obedience, and on the use which he had made of his learning? Would it be said that his knowledge had aided him to explain or to explain aioay his master's commands ? Would it be said that he had properly understood the dictionaries which he had read ? If he would truly have under- stood them, in such a case, then our authors have understood the lexicons ; but if otherwise, then they have misread them as egregiously as he would have done, for their mode of interpretation is precisely the same. Having thus minutely examined their charges of error, and shown the proofs and grounds on which I pronounce them to be utterly fallacious, I proceed to consider the next most important section of their Rejoinder, which is entitled, PRINCIPLES OF PHILOLOGY. We have already been led to some development of these, but a further consideration of several points appears to be desirable. I regard this subject as important, because it involves the turning point of the controversy. If I have succeeded in this part of the argument, my success is complete j if I have 46 failed here, my failure is irretrievable. If the word baptize, in the commission of Christ, really means to sprinkle or to pour, there can be no argument to sustain immersion. The practice of all antiquity would not avail to set aside the supreme law ; and to persist in the practice of immersion, would be rebellion against the Head of the church. That the meaning of the word is the hinge of the question, our authors virtually declared in their '' Hints to an Inquirer." In commencing that chap- ter entitled, "Meaning of the word Baptize," they say, " The argument for immersion is founded upon the assumption that the words baptism and immer- sion convey the same idea. But this is a great mistake." This statement of the ground of the argument for immersion is undoubtedly correct, and I proceeded to show that it was no mere " assump- tion " or "mistake." At the outset, I commended the author of the Hints, for narrowing the field of discussion. Many other advocates of sprinkling or pouring as baptism, have admitted all we ask touch- ing the meaning of the word, but have pleaded for their various modes, on the ground of ancient cus- tom, prevailing practice, or convenience; and some have insisted, that literal conformity to the primitive practice is not essential to obedience. The article of Professor Stuart, in the Biblical Repository, Vol. Ill, has in it much that I approve. But when he advo- cates the doctrine, that all modes of Christian rites may change with circumstances, — that, in case of necessity, the Lord's supper may be celebrated with "fish and water" (p. 367), — that "the external matters pertaining to religion" may be "modified by time and place, by manners and customs" (p. 373), then I feel obliged to express my dissent, simply on the ground, that Jesus has said, "If ye love me, keep my commandments.^^ When the same author declares (p. 313), " that the predominant usage of the words bapto and bapiizo is, to designate 47 the idea of dipping, plunging, or overwhelming," — "that Christians began somewhat early to deflect from the ancient practice of immersing" (p. 376), I am pleased with his openness and candor ; but when he urges the adoption of that mode of baptism which is the^most msiructive, and says that "in the East, where bathing is so common, and where religious rites especially have required ablution, it may be more significant in some cases to i7mnerse; but in the west and north, where sueh rites have long ceased, immersion can have no more significancij than affusion or sprinkling," I cannot but feel that he has turned his eye away from the true standard of prac- tice, and substituted a varying principle of expe- diency for God's law and testimony. When, there- fore, the authors before us seemed ready, in opening their discussion, to abide by the true meaning of the word baptize^ and to let their cause rest on their success in showing the fundamental position of thfe Baptists touching that word to be a mistake, I was encouraged to write, with the hope that the contro- versy would soon be brought into closer quarters, and possess a character of more definiteness and certainty. For these reasons, on opening this second pam- phlet of my opponents, I was particularly desirous to see how they would dispose of the reasonings, facts, and testimonies on " the meaning of the word," which I had laid before them. I passed by other sections, to notice that entitled. Principles of Philol- ogy^ and found that it commenced with a statement of what was called " the grand principle " of my philology. Now it is an important thing to state a fundamental principle. The perspicacity and fair- ness Avhich enable one to do this well, are essential qualifications for a competent advocate of any cause. I had hoped, therefore, in this case, to see a state- ment which I could pronounce a just one. Instead of this, I find the following: " The grand principle 48 of Mr. Hague's philology seems to be this, — that if all the various meanings of a word can be traced, by any relation, however fancAfiil^ to any one of those meanings, that one embraces the whole in itself." This report of the subject is about as correct as that which was once given of Paul's speech on Mars' Hill, by some philosophers who had heard it, and who said, " he seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods." This strange principle was no more a part of my philology, than were the strange gods a part of Paul s theology. In both cases the reporters said, ''it seems to be so;" but this arose from the want of close attention. Having made a definite statement of my principles, no extraordinary effort was required to discover them. What were these principles ? If the reader will turn to page 19 of my pamphlet, he will find them laid down in the words of Ernesti, quoted from Professor Stuart's translation of that writer on "the principles of interpretation." They are these : 1. " The literal meaning is not to be deserted, without reason or necessity." 2. " liet not the translator commute genus for species, nor antecedent for consequent." These canons are self-evident, and of vital impor- tance. Neglect them, and all language is uncertain. The whole system of interpretation is " without form and void," and darkness covers the face thereof. Let us look at these rules more closely. According to the first, the literal sense must always have precedence over the figurative. "The literal sense of words," says Ernesti (p. 7), "is the sense which is so connected with them, that it is first in order ^ and is spontaneously presented to the mind, as soon as the sound of the word is heard." If any one were asked the meaning of the word " e«^," he would say, " to devour food with the mouth." But when we speak of " a man's vices eating up his health and money," the plainest man would see that 4& the word borrowed a meaning from the context, and that, departing by necessity from the literal sense, it must be understood figuratively, to mean consume. But if he should understand it figuratively, when the literal sense would apply, as in the phrase, "cannibals eat human flesh," he would act absurd- ly. Ernesti observes, again (p. 21), that "the first important distinction or division of words, in respect to their meaning, is into proper and tropical, that is, literal and figurative. A proper word is a definite name^ given to a certain thing ; a tropical (or figura- tive) word, is one used out of its proper, that is, original sense. And the first duty of an interpreter, in respect to tropical language, is, to rightly distin- guish it from language not tropical, so as not to mistake the one for the other." In the chapter on the meaning of words, it is said : " There can he 7io certainty at all in respect to the interpretation of any passage, unless a kind of necessity com-pcls us to affix a particular sense to a word ; which se?ise, as I have said before, must be one ; a7id unless there are special reasons for a tropical meanitig, it must be the LITERAL sensed This is the leading principle of the philology advocated in my Review, — a self-evident rule, laid down in a standard German work, and published as a text-book at Andover, years ago. The other self-evident rule, which I have quoted from the samQ work, is equally important: "Let not the translator commute genus for species, nor antecedent for consequent." How remarkably my reviewers have neglected this rule, has already appeared. A striking instance of it occurred in their translation of the Latin extract from Turretin (which, however, contained the words of Vossius, adopted by Turretin), where they rendered the specific name of a figure, which is metalepsis, by the generic name, trope. If this mode of translation were allowed, inextricable confusion Avould follow. The most essential distinctions, as to the sense of 50 words, would be covered up. As words have vari- ous senses, it is very necessary to observe "from what sources they come." The meanlxg of a word is one thing; the figurative or the consequential APPLICATION of that meaning is another thing. The consequential meaning of words comes hy impUcatmi^ but it must be distinguished from the jproper mean- ing. For instance : to consume is a consequence of eadng ; the word eat^ therefore, implies consuming. But to say a thing is consumed, does not involve, by implication, the idea of its being eaten. These meanings are distinct, and, as the rule says, must not be confounded. There is a vast, an essential difference, therefore, between denoting the idea of consumption, by a word that literally means con- sume, and one that only involves that idea by impli- cation. Plain as this distinction is, our authors are blind to it, or. at any rate, openly deny it. Speaking of my appeal to the lexicons, they say (p. 97), "He appeals to Robinson's lexicon, as one which confines the meaning to immerse, and yet he quotes other meanings. The same is true of others named by him. Mr. Hague seeks, indeed, to evade the point, by saying that all the other meanings are figurative, or derived, =^ or come by implication. This will be more fully answered hereafter. It is enough to say here^ that other meanings are other meanings, com^e from what sow^ce they may.^'' . This last sentence, as I have said, involves their fatal mistake. It is a key, to unlock what has been a mystery to some, that the reverend gentlemen should be so bold in asserting that the standard lexicons are with them. Confounding as they do, things which differ, blind to these clear and important distinctions, they trample on the plainest laws of language, without seeming to be aware of it, and draw from the lexicons what their authors never thought of inditing. Afterwards (on p. 106), they refer to this point * The word derived our authors have inserted for me. 51 again, and furnish new proof that T was right, in saying that they did not read the lexicons correctly. They observe, " In his remarks on the several definitions given to the word baptizo in Robinson's lexicon, Mr. Hague says, ' That abbreviated Avord, denoting by implication^ is very important in this case, and involves the principle which Mr. Towne has overlooked; and by overlooking it, he misun- derstands the lexicons.' " This grave charge, which I was under the necessity of bringing against their philology, they ought to have met very fully, if they could have done it. But what is their reply ? As follows: "It seems, then, that we have not yet learned to read the lexicons, because we see not how to trace all the meanings which branch off by impli- cation, to one meaning, and make the whole family of significations attached to each word but one meaning. Upon this principle, the whole controver- sy is in fact made to turn." Now, any reader can see that this reply does not touch the case in hand. No, gentlemen, turn not your attention away from the real point at issue. I have not complained of any inability in you to make all meanings only one, but of your confounding figurative applications, and those senses which exist only by iinplication. with the literal meaning, placing them on the same level, reasoning from them as if they were the same thing, and saying, no matter from ichat source they come ! This is my indictment, for which, certainly, there is just occasion ; but, overlooking it entirely, you plead "not guilty" to another, of which I had said or thougVit nothing. Here, while I write, I am constrained to pause a moment, seriously to consider the question, whether the authors of the Rejoinder never noticed such obvious principles of interpretation, as those which I have quoted. Or, if they have noticed them, have they never so felt their worth, as habitually to remember them, and apply them in practice ? Have 52 they never, in their elementary studies, learned to distinguish between the meanings which words have as simple names of objects, and when used as tropes or figures; between meanings which are called native, proper, or literal, and those which co-exist with them simply by implication, and on that account are modified by them? Unless such dis- tinctions be observed, it is in vain to talk of the principles of philology, or the science of interpreta- tion ; we have no better means of ascertainiiig with certainty the meaning of language, than have the aborigines of the forest. Lexicography can then present us with nothing but a chaos of usages, and the best lexicographers are those against whom Dr. Gregory Sharpe launches a censure, when he speaks of those " who remove the primary sense out of its place, and break that chain of significations, so necessary to preserve consistency, and relieve the burthen of remembrance." ^ But as our authors speak of principles of philology, it is natural to ask, on what principle they profess to justify their mode of interpreting words. This they intended to give us, in the following sentence : " Per- mit us to remind Mr. Hague, that secondary mean- ings shoot forth from the primary significations of almost all words — a grand characteristic of language which he seems wholly to overlook. They proceed generally from cause to efi'ect : and it not unfrequent- ly happens, that the primary meaning is merged or lost in some remote secondary." This sentence contains a statement of two things; first, of a prin- ciple^ secondly, of an historical /ac^. (1.) As to the principle, there is no dispute about its truth. I never knew it to be denied, " that sec- ondary meanings shoot forth from the primary sig- nifications of almost all words." Every man knows it, who has thought a moment on the subject. It would be very difficult for me to "overlook this * See Preface to Richardson's Dictionary, Section H. 53 grand characteristic of language." The difference between the views of my opponents and my own, is not on this point, but on the importance of the ques- tion, HOW these " secondary meanings shoot forth." They say. No matter hoiv^ — no matter from what source they come. That question, they think, need not be looked at, — it may as well be covered up. I say, it is a great matter to see how they come ; for if they come only by metaphor, or by some other figure of speech, or consequentially, or by implica- tion, then they co-exist with the primary meaning, and are explained and limited by it. (2.) As to the historical fact stated here, that it "not unfrequently happens, that the primary mean- ing is merged or lost in some remote secondary," that is a thing to be made out only by historical proofs, in the case of each word whereof it is assert- ed. My reviewers state, as a fact^ what sometimes happens, and then reason from it, as if they had laid down a fixed and universal prijicvple. This state- ment can avail them nothing in this discussion, unless they can prove historically, that before the gospels were written, — before the commission was given, — the primary meaning of haptizo had been "nierged and lost^^ in some secondary. Let them do this, if they can. In that effort, they would have all the lexicons against them, without any mistake. If they should succeed, they would gain immortal honor, not merely as theologians, but as philologists; because it would be bringing to light what was unknown to Stephanus, or Schleusner, or even to Schrevelius. It is quite remarkable, however, that while our authors state as a fact, that primary meanings of words are sometimes lost, they do not sustain their statement by any instance of it. If they suppose that they have done so in the case of the word SPRING, their mistake is very great indeed. My assertion of the modifying power of the primary 54 meaning, they designate ''Mr. Hague's principle of one meaning;" and say, let the reader apply it to the following sentence: "In the spring of 1840, a man by the name of Spring, made a spring over a ditch, and fell into a spring on the opposite side, and broke the spring of his watch." This is a capital example, and I thank the reviewers for not being deterred from printing the sentence by any scruples touching its inelegance. I unite with them in asking the reader to apply to it the principle which I have exhibited, — the modifying power . of the primary meaning. The word spring is of Saxon origin. The verb gives rise to the noun, and its meaning is, " rise — arise — or raisey^ This meaning has various applications. 1. It denotes the rising up of seeds or plants from the ground; as in Joel 2: 22, "the pastures of the wilderness do spring." Hence, it is .applied as a name to that season, in which vegeta- tion, springing forth afresh, exhibits the aspect of a general resurrection ; and its primary meaning so limits it, that it could not be given as a name to that season in which vegetation decays, or that in which it lies enshrouded in its wintry tomb. 2. It denotes the rising up of water from the earth, and is applied as a name to a living fountain ; but its primary mel&.n- ing, far from being lost^ so governs it, that it could not be applied to a stagnant body of water, a cistern, or a reservoir. 3. It may denote the rising up of a man from the ground, and thus may stand for the word leap, or jump ; but its primary meaning so rules its application, that it cannot be made to designate a slow, horizontal motion, such, for instance, as follows from one's being dragged or propelled along. 4. It is applied, also, to any thing elastic; that is (says Richardson), " to any thing which, when stretched or pressed, rises or returns again ;" and its primary meaning so guides it, that while it may point out the source of motion in a watch, it cannot be made to * Richardson's English Dictionary. 55 designate any other part. 5. It is used to indicate the rising of a plank from its place, or a sudden motion in a thing from its own elastic force, and hence may denote a crevice, a crack, start, or leak ; but its primary meaning so rules it, that it cannot denote an aperture made by cutting, wearing, burning, or corrosion. 6. It is applied, by a metaphor, to denote a motive of conduct, which is called a " spring of action" in man; but its primary meaning still lives and reigns, sways the sceptre over it, defines the bounds of its application, commands it to designate that which gives rise to action, and forbids it to point out the mere consequence or the effect which follows action. 7. Lastly, the word spring may be transferred as a name to an individual, and so may the names of other seasons ; but then, " a man's name " is not ja meaning either of spring, summer or winter. Now, then, I have accepted my reviewer's chal- lenge. I have applied the general principle which I advocate, to the sentence which they have construct- ed for the sake of trying its strength; and what is the result? I have shown, that in no instance is the primary meaning merged or lost, — that it not only exists, but "lives in state," rules like a king over all its secondaries, and says to each, "thus far shalt thou go, and no farther." It will not allow them to forget from what source they come^ but makes them mindful of their origin, and the limits of their power. Such philology as that of my opponents, would teach them rebellion, and urge them to throw off their allegiance; but "order is Heaven's first law," and they are bound by a sway which they cannot break. The facts of the case show that our authors' criticism is false. I lay it in the dust, where it belongs, and, passing the very test which they propose, come forth with the clearer proof that their principles of philol- ogy are erroneous. In regard to this point, my reviewers could not do themselves a greater service than to ponder the truth m contained in the following sentence, from the preface of Richardson's EngUsh Dictionary. It directs at- tention to the difference between the meaning of a word, and the appUcation of that meaning. The writer says, " While investigating the meaning and consequent usage or application of words, 1 have considered it a duty incumbent upon the lexicogra- pher, to direct his view, — 1st, to the etymology and literal meaning ; 2d, to the metaphorical application of this meaning ; 3d, to the application consequent or inferred from the literal meaning; and 4th, to the application consequent or inferred from that which is metaphorical." Again, he exhibits it as the duty of a lexicographer, to give '-the intrinsic meaning of the word, and thence to trace the applications in which it has been employed." Had they duly con- sidered this, they would have written diflerently from what they have in the following sentences : " For the sake of illustration, let us suppose that baptize signified originally to immerse. As washing is sometimes the effect of immersing, the word might easily pass from its first specific signification, to denote simply the effect, and in process of time, wholly displace the specijic meaning.'''' Here we see, that our authors admit as a snppositioji, what Professor Stuart states as a fact, that the original meaning of the word is immerse. Well, if, when immerse was an adequate rendering of the word, it would naturally denote washing, because this is implied in immersion, we can see at once, that bap- tize may mean "wash" by implication, without the original meaning being displaced. The two senses would co-exist, and the one woukl limit the other. This supposition, then, while it intimates a loss of the original meaning among the Greeks, which can- not be proved, sets forth the original state of the word exactly as the lexicons declare it. It directs our eye to a time, before the transition was cftected, when the word meant both immerse and wash, at 57 once, — the latter by implication^ and modified by the former. It therefore illustrates the lexicons, which now exhibit both meanings, the second, however, in subordination to the^r^^. The case, as here stated, touching the former condition of the two meanings, meets all the demands of the word, as it occurs in Greek writings. Why, then, should the gentlemen urge so fondly the idea of a change? Why so un- willing to allow the second meaning to live, unless it shall crowd the first out of existence, to occupy its place, and even when it is dead and buried, leave it no monument or epitaph, to tell the time and man- ner of its decease 7 Must Greek literature bend to the practice of our Western churches, and provide changes to correspond with our changes of times, circumstances, and habits ? The condition of our architecture in this country, has suggested to some writer the thought, that as we are an original ^eo'^le^ we ought to have an origirial order ^ neither Ionic, Doric, nor Corinthian. This might be comparatively pardonable, considering that that is a mere matter of taste; but to recast Greek literature into a modern mould, to give it a dress suited to our manners, and to make it familiar with our changes of custom, — why this would be achieving more than the mightiest scholars of the old world ever dreamed of So clear is the evidence in regard to the original meaning of the word baptize, that when Professor Stuart comes to speak of its meaning in the New Testament alone, he goes as far as he possibly can, in sustaining our views, without abandoning the last inch of ground, in the scriptural defence of the prac- tice of his own church. After saying that the Greek fathers, and the Latin ones who were familiar with Greek, understood the word to mean immersion, and felt themselves sustained by the classics, he proceeds to say: "For myself, then, I cheerfully admit, that baptizo in the New Testament, when applied to the rite of baptism, does in all probability involve the 58 idea, that this rite was usually performed by immer- sion, but not always."^ Here, that learned writer states the broad r^vle of scriptural baptism to be immersion. Why, then, does he provide for some exceptions^ by the phrase, " not always^^'' as opposed to '■^usually 7^'' Simply because the cases of Corne- lius, of the jailer, and the converts on the day of Pentecost,-|- suggest difficulties in the way of immer- sion. But against such a mighty array of evidence as the professor brings in favor of immersion, these supposed inconveniences are lighter than the "small •dust of the balance." Actual impossibilities would determine those cases against immersion, of course ; but inconveniences can effect nothing against a positive statement of inspired apostles. When we are told that Jesus went from Galilee to Jordan, to be baptized of John, we might as well let the incon- venience of so long a walk deter us from understand- ing that simple statement in its obvious sense. Of all the words in the Greek tongue, there was never one whose history gave firmer proof of its having retained its original meaning. In the article to which I have referred. Professor Stuart says "(p. 359), speaking of immersion, "I know of no one usage of ancient times, which seems to me more clearly and certainly made out." He quotes Dr. Brenner, a learned Catholic (p. 361), acknowledging this, though contrary to the practice of his own church, and says, moreover, "the mode of baptism by immersion, the Oriental church has always con- tinued to preserve, even down to the present time. The members of this church are accustomed to call the members of the Western churches sprinkled Christians^ by way of ridicule and contempt. They maintain that baptizo can mean nothing but immerge, and that baptism by sprinkling is as great a solecism a,s 'anmersion by asjyersion ; and they claim to them- selves the honor of having preserved the ancient, * Bib. Rep., Vol. Ill, p. 362. t Acts 10 : 47, 48. IG : 32, 33. and 2 : 41. 59^ sacred rite of the chnrch, free from change and from corruption, which would destroy its significancy." Reader, consider this testimony of Professor Stuart, for which he refers to the best European authorities. The Oriental church charges the CathoUcs with having changed immersion into sprinkHng. The Catholics own the charge, and confess that the Oriental Christians have retained the ancient rite. Remember that these two classes of Christians are quite jealous of each other, because Orientalists will not bow to the authority of the pope ; yet, in regard to the history of baptism, they both agree ! There is not a single point in the evidences of Christianity better sustained. He who denies this, with his eyes open to the extent of the evidence, would be ill pre- pared to defend the authenticity of the Scriptures against the attacks of infidelity. In reference to my remarks on the force of the word in question, we read (p. 108), "Mr. Hague says, that baptizo must determine the meaning by its own force, or there is no clue to the author's meaning." My remark was, that we may cite mayiy cases^ in which the word, by its own force, must determine the meaning of the sentence; (see my pamphlet, p. 13, or Mr. Cooke's edition, p. 71 ;) and then, again (p. 14), "I could fill pages with such citations^ if it were necessary or desirable, showing that if the word does not determine mode, there is no clue to the author's meaning." What was the object of these citations? It was to ascertain the real, native force of the term, in accordance with an observation of Tholuck, that zV z5 one thing to give the true meaning of a loord^ and another thing to give a tneaning lohich it borrows from the context. How then shall we ascertain its own legitimate meaning, except by selecting cases where the word influences the context more than it is affected by it ; where it is a principal term, and becomes the point on which the meaning of the sentence turns ? For instance, in 60 the case which T quoted from Josephns, wherein, speaking of Jonah, he says the seamen would not throw him overboard, until the ship was about to be baptized; if one supposed that baptize properly means to sprinkle, or wash, or apply water in any mode, he would be quite at a loss to translate the sentence. He might wonder whether the pagan sailors were about to perform some religious rite, by sprinkling, or ablution, and, would not have a Jew on board. Yet, if he knew enough of the manners and customs of the men to see the improbability of this, he might be disposed to doubt the veracity of his author, or charge him with uttering an absurdity. If, however, from other sources, such as the inspired writings, he had known the facts of the case, he would at once perceive, as we do, that Josephus relies on the word baptize to denote the fact of the vessel's going under water. Sometimes we find writers, describing facts with which we are already familiar, giving certain acts a name ; and thus we learn the force of words. For instance, when Homer says (Od., I, 392), "As v/hen a smith dips or plunges (baptei) a hatchet or huge pole axe into water, viz., to harden them ;" here, we are taught the literal meaning of the word as clearly as it would be done to a child, if the action were performed before his eyes, and he were taught to call it dipping. Such instances often occur; and, thus becoming possessed of the literal meaning of the word, we quickly see what is involved in it by implication^ and learn all its applications in meta- phors, and other figures. Then, when we find such a phrase as this, the ship is baptized (^danreiai ij ravg)^ far from being left in doubt whether it means that the deck was sprinkled, or that the vessel went under water, we are led by the laws of language to take the simple, literal sense, and see at a glance that the vessel was submerged. Whether it occur in the ^^ fragment of a sentence," or a " complete sentence," 61 the rule is the same; and unless there is some proof that the author is using the word in a figurative sense, or giving it some pecuUar signification, we are obHged to interpret it Hterally. This we will always find in the end to accord with the design of the writer; and if, in any particular case, the meaning should happen to be doubtful, the rule stated for it by Ernesti is (p. 37), that we must "regulate the interpretation of the more obscure passage by that which is more perspicuous." But in this Rejoinder (p. 108), it is said, the word itself does not forbid our translating the phrase, " the ship is washed with the waves, the ship is launched," &c. There are very few men in the world, able to read Greek," who would say that; and those few are men quite warm with zeal in pressing Greek litera- ture into the service of their church. Probably our authors would be joined in this remark by the Rev. Greville Ewing, whom they have quoted as author- ity^ but touching whom. Professor Stuart says, '' that Dr. Ewing should gravely proffer to the public the word jpop^ as a translation of haptizo^ might tempt to sarcasm a graver man than Mr. Carson." In sup- port of their assertion, however, our reviewers say, that " lexicographers tell us that the word sometimes means simpfy {ecpalog yivsu^ai) to be on the sea." This, as I have shown, is quite a mistake. What suggests it, is a remark of-Scapula, made to illustrate one -of his definitions. It is this : "A ship is, in a neuter sense, said to dip, to denote its condition on the sea." Such language is common, now. When a ship plunges heavily, she is said to dip. I remem- ber once to have heard a commercial gentleman, comparing two vessels with which he was acquaint- ed. " The one," he said, " went over the water, the other, through it." The one skimmed the waves like a duck, the other buried herself in them. A captain of a ship once told me, that being heavily laden, and having very bad weather, he crossed the 6 62 Atlantic with his vessel under icater. Such is the import of the phrase to which Scapula refers ; and I think every reader will see, that the explanation contains internal evidence of iDeing true. But to say- that the word haptize means "to be on the sea/' — why, it would be a solecism, — a strange, uncouth expression, which even a Dean Swift could not account for. To sustain their last remark about being on the sea, our reviewers turn for help to the case of Nebu- chadnezzar (Dan. 5: 21), "whose dwelling was with wild asses, and who was fed with grass like oxen." They quote from the Septuagint the phrase (to aomw avrov eBacf.rj^^ his body was baptized. They say, "Will Mr. Hague give us the precise miCaning of the Greek verb here? " I answer, certainly. May I first, however, ask them a plainer question? Once, on a voyage to Nova Scotia, a long line of fog lay before us, so thick that when the sun shone on it, it resembled somewhat a bank of snow. Into it our vessel plunged, and we could scarcely see her length. " Here we arc," says one, " dipped in fog." " Yes," replies another, "thoroughly buried." Erelong we emerged into sunlight again, and it seemed like the rolling up of a curtain from before us. Will the gentlemen please to tell us the meaning of the Eng- lish words " dipped " and " buried," in this instance? The use of them was most simple and natural. In a dense dew, like that which is common in the East, and to which, in the Scriptures, there is frequent allusion, there may be as real an immersion, consid- ering that it completely surrounds and covers one, as if a man were standing on the bottom of a lake. The difference is, that in the latter case, immersion, if long continued, would be droivning; and in the former, the watery particles are so rare, as to allow of breathing. For a king to be driven from his palace, to pass the night with the beasts of the field, amidst cold Eastern dews, would be near akin to 63 dying. His suffering from the dew which enveloped him, is several times spoken of; and he would doubtless use a strong expression to denote its sever- ity, but not dro2viimg, which my reviewers seem so constantly to associate with immersion. I reply, therefore, unhesitatingly, that tlie phrase quoted above, means, that after being driven from his pal- ace, where he had been surrounded with luxuries, the king's body was immersed in chilUng dews. To him Milton's phrase would apply strongly, — " a cold shuddering dew Dips me all o'er." But then, our version renders the phrase in ques- tion, "'his body was ivet with the dew of heaven." Our authors add, " or sprinkled." This last is gra- tuitous, and not the specific meaning of the sacred writer. If immersed in dew, he was of course wet ; but "sprinkling" is another thing. The first is involved by implication, and limited by the literal^ meaning of bapto ; the second is not in the word. This case admirably illustrates what I have said above, touching the limitation of those meanings which exist only by implication. The reviewers verify a statement which I made before, that if a foreigner were learning English, and would follow out their principles of interpretation, he would say, that the word dip^ in the above line from Milton, means to '• sprinkle!^'' If that meaning be given to the Greek word, in the same way it must be given to the English ; and this, to such men as Johnson, Webster, and our mighty host of English lexicogra- phers, would have been a new and remarkable discovery. In closing their remarks on Principles of Philology, the authors state another principle, as being involved in what I have said. They present this more accu- rately than they did the first. Still, it needs a little modification, in order that it truly represent my 64 view. They say, " The principle of philology, then, involved in his assertion, is this, that words must dqtermine their sense by their own force, or there is no clue to the author's meaning." It should be rather expressed thus : The native force, the literal sense, of ivords {it nb or voiced from the context^, Qiiust be distinctly understood, before there can be any cer- tainty of obtaining an author^ s meaniiig. This prin- ciple strikes at the root of their mode of interpreta- tion. Tliey say, " let us bring this principle to the test. Take the English word bar, which means, a rail thrown across a passage, — an enclosure in a tavern, — any obstruction, — an enclosure in a court, — an association of lawyers, — a line in music, &c. All these meanings attach to the word. Now read the folio wijig line, and say whether the word deter- mines the sense by its own force : ' Must I new bars to my own joys create?' " Their position is, that there is no difficulty in getting at the author's meaning, and yet that i\\Q force of the u'ord does not show which of all these meanings to select ! What an extraordinary statement is thi^, — as it seems to me, directly in the face of self-evident truth. We admit that there is no difficulty in getting at the meaning; but it is because the mind sees instantly the true literal sense of the word bars, which in this line borrows no new meaning from the context. The instance admirably suits my purpose; for though new senses may have been added to the word, and many more may be added in the course of centuries, yet the original, literal sense of the word has never been displaced. To this, therefore, the mind always recurs first, and, if the word is not changed by the context, always adheres to it. The literal sense is the light to guide us in all new appli- cations of the term. AYithout knowing this, we cannot get along. This always involves the idea of an obstruction. Johnson's first definition is, "a piece 65 of wood laid across a passage, to hinder entrance." 2j a boltj — 3, any obstacle. Having the literal sense, we need no dictionary to enable us to understand the figures which arise from it. These explain them- selves. Now suppose, that what our reviewers say has happened to the word baptism among the Greeks, had happened to the word bars among ourselves ; that is, that the original and literal meaning had been '•'• displaced^ ^ by another, and in that way '-'lostP Well, which of the other meanings shall we take to fill the place of the original, the primary meaning, which is gone, dead and buried? Suppose, then, that the "enclosure in a tavern" comes to be first in order. The word bars suggests that idea, as its leading meaning. As the place referred to is one of hilarity, where men generally resort, to obtain what they consider the means of enjoyment, the first thought of a reader, in looking at the line before us, would be, that by "new bars" the author meant neio aids to mirth^ and spoke of creating new means of enjoyment. This would be just the reverse of the real meaning, as we now understand it. Or suppose, in place of the old literal meaning, others which are mentioned, such as an enclosure in a court, or place of justice, or an association of lawyers, came to be enthroned. Then the first idea which the line before us would suggest, as the author's meaning, would be, must I new means of protection to my own joys create? Or take another case, and let a line in music come in place of the primary- meaning; the reader then would at once conclude that the author meant to ask, whether he must add new acquisitions in music to the joys which he already possessed. Such would be the effect of destroying th'e literal meaning, or keeping it out of sight. The word bars, in the quoted line, by its own force^ determines the sense. How do we know, without any difficulty, that it means obstacles'? Sim- 6* 66 ply because we know that the original, literal sense has never been lost. That has the precedence, and to violate the rule which I have quoted from Ernesti concerning it, is to turn order into confusion, and the beautiful classifications and arrangements of science, into an indiscriminate ruin. To show this, let us make an On the principles of philology advocated by our authors, how easy it would be to prove that our Lord enjoined no specific act in the Lord's supper, when he said of the bread, " Take, ea^." Suppose a man should say, that like the ancient shew-bread, it was designed to be beheld by the people, and to be set on the table before the Lord, but not to be re- ceived into the mouth ; he could defend himself by as good an argument as that which sustains "any use of water" as baptism. Like our authors, he might begin by descanting on the slight stress which the gospel lays on rites and forms. Having thus pre- pared the way to demand a good deal of latitude,' he might proceed with a criticism on the meaning of the word eat, and say, "the question before us is,^ has this word a fixed and invariable meaning?" To this, he would answer in the negative, observing first, that words often change their meaning, and proceed, secondly, to show, by quotations, in what various senses the word is used, in all writings, both sacred and profane. Here he would get the lexicog- raphers on his side, with equal ease. Li Webster's dictionary, the fourth meaning given, is, to enjoy; but evidently, there are different modes of enjoyment practicable, in this case. Enjoy is a generic term, and leaves us at liberty to do with the bread what we may deem convenient or instructive. We may enjoy it by touching it, or beholding it, or both, without receiving it into the mouth. Besides, this would be more in accordance with the liberal genius 67 of the Christian dispensation, and also with the sacramental meaning of the rite. The rite itself signifies our reception of the atonement, and this is often expressed by looking or beholding. The lan- guage of the Scriptures is, ^^ Look unto me, and be ye saved;" and faith is explained as look big unto Christ, as the Israelites looked for healing to the brazen serpent set upon a pole. Then, again, as a seventh sense, Webster states believing to be the Scripture meaning of the word eat. From all this, it must be evident, that this term "has not a fixed and invariable meaning," — that it is used in numer- ous senses, — that enjoying the bread in any mode answers the end of the precept, — that merely behold- ing agrees with its spiritual signification, — that this bears an analogy to the manner in which the shew- bread was used in divine worship of old, — that the process of eating by receiving food into the mouth is less in keeping with the " purely spiritual character" of our religion, and less adapted to the sick chamber, where a person may be too weak to obey such a command with composure and profit. He who insists that the bread must be chewed and swal- lowed, makes it a earned ordinance ; and he must prove tiiat the word eat means this, and nothing ELSE, which cannot be done. So, following in the track of our authors, and enlarging on every point, with ample proofs and citations, we could make it as plain that the enacting terms, in the command to celebrate the supper, enjoin no specific act, as they have, that the baptismal law enjoins no specific use of water. The principles of reasoning are precisely the same, and accomplish as much in one case as they do in the other; and lie who cannot see their fallacy, as our authors have urged them, would be prepared, if circumstances were favorable, to follow his teachers in sweeping away tlie Lord's supper out of the church, as they fain would the primitive baptism. History justifies me in saying, that this 68 last expression is no mere assertion, made for the occasion; for Romish writers have used this same sort of reasoning, to draw from Christ's words at the tahle a sanction for turning the supper into an offer- ing unto God, and presenting the elements as a sacrifice^ by the hands of a priest. Dr. Brett takes the verb 7:^0/0 (tto/oj), which our Saviour used in the command, '' Do this in remembrance of me," — a verb used in a great many applications, — and shows, from the Greek classics, and various texts in the Greek version of the Old Testament (from which the evangelists usually quoted), that poio has the sense of offerings — presenting an oblation to God. He says that Dr. Hicks, in his book on the Christian priesthood (p. 58), exhibits this in a very satisfactory manner. He quotes Herodotus (lib. I, c. 132), say- ing, '' without one of the magi, it is not lawful for them TioiEiadai^ — to offer a sacrifice." So, Ex. 29: 36, Thou shalt offer {nonjasig) a bullock. So also, in vs. 38, 39, Lev. 4: 20, and other places, " the word is used for offering a sacrifice." Now, how shall we treat the argument of these doctors'? I would treat it precisely as I have that of Messrs. Cooke and Towne. I would lay down such plain principles as I have quoted from Ernesti, on which we are obliged to act, in interpreting the language of every-day life ; I would show the folly of departing from them, and call upon the Romish writers to abjure the maxims of common sense, by which they expect other people to interpret their words, when they wish to be understood, or else to abjure their false interpreta- tions. But how would Messrs. Cooke and Towne treat these writers in an argument? Ay, "there's the rub." I doubt not, however, they would come to the same philological grounds which I now occu- py, but in the meanwhile, would wish to lay these "Hints to an Inquirer" on the shelf But what if the doctors should find it, take it down, sift it tho- roughly, and use the authors' principles against 69 themselves? That would be ''turning the tables" mightily, and I only hope that if our friends ever get into such a controversy, their antagonists will not be reminded of " the Hints," or of this Rejoinder. Convinced as I am that the practice of sprinkling was introduced by the Latin church, knowing as I do that her learned historians and teachers aver that she did it by authority committed unto her, and not on the ground of scriptural precept or precedent, asserted as this is by all the Oriental church, who retain immersion, conceded as it is by the most intel- ligent Protestants of Western Europe, it certainly is no mere assumption, to say that sprinkling as a mode of baptism is a relic of Popery. The earliest of the Reformers knew it, for Luther wished to RESTORE IMMERSION, BUT FAILED. I Spcak this with emphasis, because T have shown, that it is not I who say this, but that it is uttered by the best possible authorities. If so, this is the weak point of Protest- antism. It is a token of remembrance which she has accepted from Popery. And in a close contest with the Papists, it becomes a rock on which the Protestant must fall and be broken. The signs of the times indicate that this momentous controversy will wax warm in tliis country ; and if the younger clergy are not driven to occupy the firm ground of the Baptists, one of two things will follow. Either they will embrace Puseyism (as many are now do- ing), which is essentially Romanism, setting church- authority above the Bible, or else will embrace Rationalism, the opposite extreme, which sets reason above the Bible, and proclaims an utter indifference to all rites and ordinances. Here the Baptists stand on solid rock. They do not, in any point, admit the supremacy of the church, or the supremacy of un- aided reason, but of the " Bible alone." They accept no rites except what are commanded, and they administer these in exact conformity with the enacting terms, "immerse — eat — drink." They 70 have in ages past resisted unto death the least addi- tion^ when made by law, as binding on the con- science; and on the other hand, they refuse to admit the least diminution. Church-authority has added, and Rationalism has diminished, but they say with the Prophet of God, "thy law is the truth." Re- move the sanctions of divine command, and they care nothing for the ordinances themselves. They would not accept them from church authorit^r on the ground of venerableness, nor from Rationalism on the ground of fitness, and v/hether civil government be the organ of the one or the other, they will not accept them from it as things of expediency. But when an observance bears the seal of Heaven, they place obedience among the moral duties, as springing from that love, which the spiritual and eternal law enjoins. " Here is firm footing — all is sea besides." Hence, as 1 see the elements gathering for a keen moral trial of every church and every system, I feel truly sorry for that Protestant ministry, which pro- claims the Bible as the only rule of faith, and yet feels obliged to defend the practice which is the chief memorial of a power that early arose within the church itself, rivalling the authority of Christ, assuming his prerogatives, wresting the sceptre from his hand, and changing the times^ seasons^ and laws of his sovereign appointment. Having now examined the most prominent and important parts of the Rejoinder, I proceed, in. To review the other sections in the order of their occurrence. THE INTRODUCTION is chiefly occupied in defending the refusal of the writers to designate the Baptists by their accustomed name. I did not regard this as a matter of any im- portance, except as the indication of a hostile feeling, quite uncongenial with the nature of that charity which does much to "clear the mental eye," and to 71 sweeten the tones of controversy. It is in vain to say, that the word '' Immersers," used instead of the common appellation Baptists, does not " of its own force carry contempt with it." The same might be said of the term " sprinklers," if apphed to Congre- gationahsts, as it exactly designates their practice; but would they not regard it as an uncourteous thing in us to substitute this in common speech for the name which they have chosen ? Undoubtedly, ordi- nary feelings of propriety would forbid it, and on the ground of courtesy, we follow usage in denomi- nating them Fedobapiists, although we do not be- lieve that such a name properly belongs to them. A pedagogue is a teacher of youth, and a Pedobaptist is a baptizer of youth. Many youth who are capa- ble of faith and conversion, are baptized among our- selves, but, in our view, the sprinkling of infants is notVedobapiism. The Greeks would call it brep>ho- rantism. Strictly speaking, we are Pedobaptists our- selves, as is often most touchingly shown, when we publicly dedicate to Christ those interesting youth who give evidence of having been born again, and ask for baptism from a sense of love and duty. Nevertheless, as the application of names is not the turning point of this discussion, Ave choose in this, to follow prevailing custom, and to make no unneces- sary change. What good can the authors before us expect to gain by the course they are pursuing in the change of denominational names? To convince us of our error? Impossible; they know that a want of cour- tesy does not tend to conviction. To excite amongst their own churches sectarian antipathies against us? This they may do ; it is the effect most likely to fol- low; but whether in the end that would prove to be a real good may admit of a doubt. Over such a result the more candid and pious amongst tliem- selves would be the chief mourners. But where piety has only a feeble influence, a common manli- 72 ness of character should snfTice to guide one in the selection of appellatives for large bodies of men. Even to Unitarians, Avho differ from ns in a more important point than is involved in this question, we yield the name they choose for themselves, although it implies that we do not hold the true doctrine of the divine unity. But in addressing them, we reason about the doctrine itself, not the merits of the name. When the word Congregation alist was assumed as the designation of a sect, it implied that Episco- palians and Presbyterians had not just notions of church government, yet the name was generally conceded. Nothing but a spirit of bigotry could in- duce an opposite course, and we should ever obey the precept, "in malice be ye children, but in under- standing be men." In their defence, the writers say of the Baptists, " so strong indeed has been their preference for im- merse as a substitute for baptize, that they have found it needful to rend the Bible Society, and to procure a new translation of the inspired volume, for the single purpose of introducing their favorite word," It becomes me to admit, that, from their connection with an editor's office, my F.eviewcrs have more means of learning the ncics of the day than I possess; but if this last statement about a new English translation be a fact, I am quite unfor- tunate in never having heard of it from any other source than this Rejoinder. Although extensively acquainted in my denomination, I have never heard of a council or convention of any kind being called to deliberate on such a project. The Rejoinder speaks of the " appearance of this new Bible in our city." Here I plead ignorance. If any such book is in Boston, I can only say, I have not yet had the advantage of reading or seeing a copy. Moreover, if it be here, it is a book formed by individuals with- out any concurrence of the denomination as such; and whoever the translators may be, they have 73 doubtless as good a right to publish their version, as Doddridge, Campbell, Macknight, or Professor Stuart had to publish theirs. In a free country, there can be no limitation of such works, except the want of readers and purchasers. The reason why a large number of Baptists seceded from the American Bible Society, and formed a new association in New York, called the American and Foreign Bible Society, was the decree of the Board of Managers of the former institution, direct- ing all missionary translators who should receive their patronage, to make the English version their standard, so that all denominations of evangelical Christians who use the English version, might be satisfied with the translation. The American Bap- tist Board of Foreign Missions had long before di- rected their missionaries to have no standard excejit the inspired original^ and to transfer into Pagan lan- guages no Greek or Hebrew words, which would admit of being plainly translated. In the formation of the English version, king James commanded " the old ecclesiastical words to be kept." In the forma- tion of new versions for heathen millions, the Bap- tists said, "let the translator be competent, and let not his conscience be fettered." This difference caused the difficulty, and the Baptists took their position in the spirit of Christian love, declaring that the whole world ought to have the Bible " unmuti- lated and undisguised." Although in the English version, important im- provements might be suggested, yet since it has become venerable by age, identified with our na- tional literature, and especially, since in this land we enjoy abundant aids to lead us to a knowledge of its meaning, the Baptists at large would doubtless prefer to let it stand as it is, than to lack the benefit of a national Bible, a book of common reference in every sanctuary and every family. But is this any reason why we should carry its imperfections into 7 74 those new versions made for millions who have never seen the Scriptures ? And as to the Greek word baptizo^ is it not a fact that the greater part of the Christians of Asia and of Africa, and nearly half of the Protestant Christians in Europe, have always used versions in which it is translated hy a word signifying immerse 1 Is it not so rendered in the Arabic, Etliiopic, Egyptian and Armenian versions, in the old Gothic of the 4th century, and in the Ger- man, Danish, Swedish, and Dutch Bibles of modern times? It is acknowledged without controversy. With such a powerful array of precedents, why should the Baptists be blamed for not being wiUing to make their new translations conform to the Eng- lish standard, while the Catholics are not exempt from censure for pronouncing the Latin Vulgate in- fallible ? After their introduction, the gentlemen proceed to speak of the "important matters in their book which I have left untouched." I proceed, therefore, to no- tice what they say on ARGUMENTS OMITTED IN THE FORMER REPLY. They say, " the reader will please to notice that the points of our argument which Mr. Hague has omit- ted, are such, that if they are conceded, the question is settled against immersion. These points are, first, our whole argument drawn from the signijication of the rite. This argument we consider of itself deci- sive of the whole question ; and notwithstanding what may be said on other paints, while this argu- ment remains unscathed, we hold our ground firmly against immersion." The only reason of my devoting so large a pro- portion of my Review to a discussion of the meaning of the word baptize.^ was the obvious fact, that on that meaning the argument turns. If that word means what my Reviewers say it does, the question is settled, there is no law for immersion, and I need 75 no further reasoning to lead me to practise sprink- ling. If the word has the meaning which I attribute to it, there can be no sound argument for sprinkling. If I am correct in philology, the question is virtually decided. This, I think, must be evident to my Re- viewers. They had commenced the discussion by a chapter on " the meaning of the word," saying, " the argument for immersion \s founded upon the assump- tion that the words baptism, and immersion, carry the same idea." On page 10, they say, " what is the conclusion ? Necessarily, that these words {bapto and baptizo) have not a fixed and invariable mean- ing — that they do not of themselves determine any one particular way of applying a liquid." In con- nection with this, they had referred to the testimony of the Greeks (page 17), declaring that they do noi always practise immersion, and are " against the principle that immersion is essential to baptism." In opening my Review, I commended the author for " coming to the point " '• because he takes a clear and decided position, and risks his whole cause upon a single issue." There were the best of reasons, then, for my laying the chief stress on that point. But in the first notice of my Review, which a friend pointed out to me in the Puritan, it vvas said, '' thks contro- versy does not^ as Mr. Hague observes, turn upon the meaning of the icord^ but upon the signification of the rite." This looked as if the gentlemen were not willing fully to trust their own arguments on the meaning of the word. If those arguments had been sound, they would have been decisive. There would have been no need of shifting their position from them to any other ground. But they are not willing to rest their cause on them. Yv'^eil, let us take them at their word. They consider their argument " from the signification of the rite, decisive of the whole question." I will show that this argument is invalid, that it amounts to nothing, and that they are forced back to rest, after all, on the meaning of the word. 76 As the authors deem this matter so important, let ns look closely at their own statement of their posi- tion. The3^ say on page 21, " Our object is here to show, in brief, the close connection between the baptism of the Spirit, and baptism with water, and that the one is a symbol of the other. Now if bap- tism by water is -an emblem of baptism by the Spirit, we have only to look into the Bible, and see in what way we are brought into contact with the influences of the Spirit. If we are currently represented as being put into the Spirit, or plunged into the Spirit, we concede the whole matter in question ; and if, on the other hand, the Spirit is currently said to be poured out upon us, or sprinkled upon us, then you must concede that pouring or sprinkling is the more significant way." Having quoted several passages of Scripture, on page 22, they proceed to say, "We have thus given a few specimens, to show that the Holy Ghost is said 'to fall' upon men, to be 'poured out' upon them. And it is in reference to this subject, that God promises ' to sprinkle clean water upon us,' and that his grace shall ' come down as rain upon the mown grass and as showers which water the earth.' It is of no consequence, however, as to the point before us, whether these things are said in connection with baptism or not. They are brought simply to show in what manner the Scrip- tures speak of the communication of the Spirit's influences. Now, then, if the thing signified is uni- formly represented as sprinkled or poured out upon 'the subject, that Avhich signifies it may be pouring or sprinkling." Now it need not take a much longer time to dis- play the weakness of all this, than to state the argu- ment itself Nevertheless, I will pay it due respect, by giving it ample space. (1.) The argument assumes what is not true. (2.) Besides this assu.mption, the principle of the argument is fallacious. 77 • I. The argument assumes, that the Spirit '' is uniformly represented as sprinkled or- poured out, upon the subject;" and as it is said, in order to as- certain the mode of baptism, " we have only to look into the Bible, and see in xohat icay ice are brought into contact loith the influences of the Spirit^ let us follow out this plan. If we are now on the right road, let us see where it will lead us. 1. In the first epistle to the Corinthians, 12: 13, Paul says to the church, For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free ; and have been all made to d?^ink into one Spirit. Here we see that the way in which ''we are brought into contact with the influences of the Spirit" is by drinking. This expression is in exact accordance with the words of our Lord, John 7 : 37 — 39 ; " If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink. This spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive." See also John 4: 13 — 14. If, therefore, the candidate, receiving from the minister a glass of water, should drink it, that would be bap- tism. As the word baptize itself does not determine mode, we are as much at liberty to select this as any other. As it suits the signification of baptism so well, as it is mentioned by Paul in the above verse, in connection with the word baptize, it could not be objected to as unscriptural, and perhaps by many would be regarded as an agreeable improvement on all the modes at present practised. As it is common even now for Pedobaptists to leave the choice of mode to the subject, if any one should think of taking a cup of water as baptism, the principle here proposed would certainly warrant his doing so. In this case, we must give up the idea, that religious baptism is to be performed but once, and only with water ; we are baptized with wine every time we receive the eucha- rist. But if a baptism oiivaier is to be received but once, then to drink of a cup of water is, on this prin- 7# 78 ciple of interpretation, perfectly allowable. T appeal now to the good sense of every reader of the Scrip- tures — Is drinking baptism 7 If it is, may it not be practised when preferred 7 If it is not, what shall be thought of the principle of interpretation which sanctions it 7 2. In the gospel of John (20: 22), when the risen Saviour appeared among his disciples, " he breathed on them and saith unto them. Receive ye the Holy Ghost." Here, the bringing of the disciples "into contact with the influences of the Spirit," is repre- sented by BREATHING. A similar expression is found in Ezekiel 37 : 9, " Thus saith the Lord God ; Come from the four winds, O breath ; and breathe upon these slain that they may live." This repre- sentation has doubtless much of beauty in it, for as God breathed into our first parent the breath of natural life, so he breathes into his new moral crea- tion the breath of spiritual life. When the Catholic church deemed herself at liberty to choose various modes of baptism, breathing on the subject was con- nected with the ordinance as an appropriate emblem. If the mode of baptism is now to be ascertained by only looking into the Bible, to " see in what way we are brought into contact with the influences of the Spirit," then we see presented to us here a mode re- markable for its simplicity and convenience, adapted to all times, to all places and conditions, as well to the wayside, the desert, and the sick chamber, as to the river, the pool, or the sanctuary. It can be prac- tised at once, in all circumstances wherein men can draw the breath of life. Nothing could be more significant of the influences of the Spirit. It agrees exactly with the word commonly used by the church in her prayers and songs in relation to it. ** Inspire our souls with life divine." If we are at liberty to select modes of baptism, the most numerous arguments drawn from expediency 79 may be urged in behalf of this. To speak in the style of our authors, the presumptive evidence is strongly in its favor. It is true, the apostles were not so much struck with its ease and convenience as to be inclined to adopt it, — Philip and the Eunuch waited till " on their way they came to a certain water," but then the principle of interpretation now in view allows it. Again I appeal to the conscience and judgment of the reader, while I ask, is breathing baptism ? If it is, why should it not be practised 7 If it is not, what must be thought of the principle which establishes it as a scriptural mode? 3. The Holy Spirit is represented as '^ a mighty wind," and the fact of the disciples being "brought into contact with the influences of the Spirit," is represented by "blowing;" for it is said (in Acts 2: 2, 4), when the disciples were together, " suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing, mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting — and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost." There may be said to be an obvious agree- ment between this description and that saying of Christ touching the Spirit's influence, " the wind hloioeth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh and whither it goeth ; so is every one that is horyi of the Spirit.^'' In accordance with this figure is that aspi- ration in Canticles 4: 16, "Awake, O north wind, and. come thou south, bloiv upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out." Thus, too, a Christian poet prays, ** sweet Spirit come, Celestial breeze, no longer stay." As "contact with the Spirit's influences" is repre- sented by blou'i?ig, it follows, according to the prin- ciple in question, that blowing is baptism. If, there- fore, a candidate were placed by the minister, where a current of strong wind could rush upon him, that m would be baptizing him in a way as truly significant of the coming of the Spirit, as any other suggested in the Bible. The baptismal law contained in the commission does not expressly mention water as the element; and as the word baptizo itself " determines nothing as to mode," but leaves us to infer the man- ner of baptism from the emblems of the Spirit's in- fluence, then to place one in the way of receiving the force of ''a rushing, mighty wind," would be to baptize him according to a scriptural precedent. I appeal again to the good sense of the reader, can the bloiving of wind confer Christian baptism 1 With your eye on Christ's baptism and on apostolic prac- tice, you answer, No, it cannot be. What then must be thought of the argument which involves such an idea? 4. Another way in which the Scriptures represent our being '' brought into contact with the influence of the Spirit " is by anointing. Under the old econ- omy, the unction or application of oil to the person, as a sign of consecration or purifying, was highly esteemed. Hence arose the frequent and happy allusions to anointing, as a symbol of the graces of the Holy Spirit. In the 61st of Isaiah, the prophet cries, " the Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, be- cause the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek." Using the same figure, Paul says (2 Cor. 2 : 21, 22), " Now he which es- tablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God, who hath also sealed us and given us the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts. Another apostle says to Christians at large (1 John 2:20), "Ye have an unction from the Holy One^ and ye know all things." Anointing, having been of old a sign of purifying, is thus alluded to as expressive of the soul's contact with the Spirit's purifying influences. These are the true " oil of gladness." Correspond- ing to this, is the expression, familiar to every reader of the Scriptures, I will ^^z/^ my Spirit upon them. 81 In Numbers 11 : 17, it is said, for instance, "I will take of the Spirit that is upon thee and put it upon them." Now when anointing was an appointed sign of purifying, the manner of applying it to the person was not left indeterminate. In all the annals of the world was there never such a thing heard of, as a legislator leaving a people to infer the proper sign, from his expressing what he wished to be signified. In the commands of God, perspicuity is a distinguishing feature. In Leviticus 14: 26, &c., it was said, " The priest shall pour of the oil into the palm of his own left hand ; and the priest shall sprinkle with his right finger some of the oil that is in his left hand seven times before the Lord. And the priest shall put of the oil that is in his hand upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot, upon the place of the blood of the trespass offering. And the rest of the oil that is in the priest's hand he shall put upon the head of him that is to be cleansed, to make an atonement for him before the Lord." Behold what clearness ! Every essential act is specified. This is the fitting style for legislation. The Jewish priest was not left in doubt about the manner of applying the holy unction. He was not told that the rite sig- nified purifying, and that he might select any mode which he, or the subject, pleased. But if this sort of indefiniteness appears in the legislation of Christ, and we are left to infer the mode of baptism from the figures which exhibit the communication of the Spirit's influences, then we see that another way in which "we are brought into contact" with those influences is by anointing. The Romish church has long connected unction with baptism ; but I ask the Protestant, who has the Bible in his hands, is anoint- ing baptism? You unhesitatingly answer, in view of the conduct of the apostles, No ; they knew of no such ordinance, neither the churches of God, " nei- 82 ther came it into their mind." What, then, shall be thought of the argument that would give to an unauthorized Romish rite, as being so significant^ the sanction of Christ? We begin to see, now, how much was taken for .granted, in that stately assumption which we find on the twenty-second page of our authors' " Hints:" " Now, then, if the thing signified is uniformly rep- resented as being sprinkled or poured out upon the subject/' &c. xly, — ?/it is ; but, on the other hand, if it is not, the whole argument from the signification of the rite is destroyed. The condition of the writer would then resemble that of a celebrated geologist, who, having put forth a theory, based on the facts observed in a certain section of the country, won some favor to his opinions, at the first ; but when it was found out, by subsequent observers, that the facts were not there^ the case was materially changed. The beautiful theory passed away, like "the base- less fabric of a vision." We proceed to observe, 5th. That another way in which the Scriptures represent our being " brought into contact with the influences of the Spirit," is by the emission of sounds or PUTTING FORTH THE VOICE. When the prophet Eli- jah stood in the mount, it is said (1 Kings 19), the Lord passed by, and was manifest, not in the wind, nor the earthquake, nor the fire, but in the'still, small voice. " When Elijah heard it, he wrapped his face in his mantle." Here, the Spirit is represented, not as water, fire, or air, but as an invisible, yet a living and audible agent. Hence, David, says, " The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue." 2 Sam. 23 : 2. The apostle John repeat- edly says, •' He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches." If, now, it be true, that the figures which represent the mode of "contact with the Spirit's influences," point out the mode of baptism, then, speaking to the ear, 83 uttering with the voice, is baptism. If so, the bap- tismal formulary pronounced over a candidate would suffice, without any other action. This mode would be peculiarly adapted to all climates and conditions, on account of its ease and convenience. Somewhat m the vein of our authors, it might be added, the design of baptism is to express purification, without reference to mode ; but the words of the Spirit are said to have a purifying influence,^ and, of course, to pronounce them in solemn form over a candidate, would be significant of purification. If so, it would answer the end of baptism. If my reader should see any thing absurd about this, let him consider to whom it appertains. On page twenty-second, our authors say, after having quoted a number of passa- ges, in which sprinkling and pouring are mentioned, "It is of no consequence, however, as to the point before us, whether these things are said m connection with baptism or not. They are brought simply to show in what manner the Scriptures speak of the communication of the Spirit's influences." Well, sprinkling and pouring, it is said, are called baptism, because they represent the communication of the Spirit's influences. But "putting forth the voice" represents the communication of the Spirit's influ- ences. Of course, then, putting forth the voice is baptism. The principle of our authors' argument leads to such a conclusion. If the conclusion be absurd, the principle must be false. 6. Another mode in which the Scriptures represent the Spirit as communicating his influences, is by "shining forth as the light." This is strikingly expressed by Paul, 2 Cor. 4:6; "God, who com- manded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined into our hearts." To the Ephesians, he says, "I do not cease to make mention of you in my prayers, that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ would give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in * John 15: 3. Ps. 119: 9. 84 the knowledge of him, the eyes of your understand- ing being enhghtened." Christ promised the Spirit, as the Spirit of conviction or ilkimination. (John 16 : 8, &c.) He reveals, teaches, enlightens, quick- ens, sanctifies, and is called the Spirit of wisdom, understanding and knowledge, of all of which, light is a common symbol. In these aspects his abun- dant influences were the theme of prophets, who rejoiced to think of his " going forth being prepared as the morning," and of his filling the world with the knowledge of the truth. In the passage first quoted, Paul represents his going forth over the new creation, to be as at the beginning, when light broke forth from darkness. This emblem of the Spirit's coming is different from all the rest; and it really seems as if all the grand objects of creation were laid imder contribution to illustrate the variety and extent of his influence. How, then, can it be said, that those influences are uniformly represented by sprinkling and pouring? ^\\q facts are assumed. 7. But, then, the gentlemen say (p. 21), "If we are currently represented as being put into the Spirit, or plunged into the Spirit, we concede the whole matter in question." In the Rejoinder (p. 88), they admit that those instances which I have adduced, prove "that the word baptize, in those cases, means to immerse. That it ofte?i means to immerse," they say, they "have never disputed." Well, let us look at the bearings of these remarks. It is granted, that in the cases which I quote, the word mitst have a determinate meaning, — immersion. It is granted that the word has this meaning often. But, then, it is evident that the meaning of a word which is clear and undisputed, which in specific instances it must have, and which occurs, not rarely, but often, is the eminent meaning of the word. An obvious, undis- puted, necessary and frequent meaning, is the "cur- rent " meaning, — not one which may occur, which is doubtful and disputed. It follows, therefore, that 85 in those cases where men are simply said to receive a BAPTISM of the Spirit, they "are currently repre- sented as being put into or immersed into the Spirit." The more closely the reader looks at this, the more clearly will he see, that the whole matter in question is virtually conceded, however unwittingly it may have been done. But not on this ground, alone, will I claim the concession. Apart from the current meaning of bap- tizo, the language of Scripture touching the influ- ences of the Spirit is often in exact accordance with this representation. When the apostle John speaks of his own state in relation to the Spirit, while in the isle of Patmos, does he say that the Spirit was njyon him, or in him? No, he says, " I was m the Sjnrit on the Lord's day." Rev. 1: 10. So,. also, when he saw a door opened in heaven, he says (Rev. 4 : 2), "Immediately 1 was in the Spirit." He speaks also of "being carried away in the Spirit" into the wil- derness, and to a high mountain (Rev. 17: 3. 21: 10) ; just as Ezekiel was, when, as he said, " the Spirit took me up, and I heard behind me the voice of a great rushing;" " so the Spirit lifted me up and took me away." Ezek. 7: 12, 14. 11: 24. As we are said, in a natural sense, to live and move in God (Acts 17: 28), who is above, beneath and around us as an all-pervading presence, so, in a spiritual sense, when we pass from death unto life, we are said to move in a new element, to "live in the Spirit," and to " walk in the Spirit." When the Spirit of life from God enters into us, to dwell in us, we are as those who enjoy the light and air of a new creation. So, John says (1 Epis. 4: 16), "He that dwelleth in love dwelleth IN God, and God in him;" and Paul says (Rom. 8: 9), "Ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit^ if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you." To the Galatians, he says (5 : 16, 17), "Walk in the Spirit:" "if we live in the Spiiit, let us also walk in the iSpirit.^^ As the mind of a man intox- 8 86 icated is figuratively said to be steeped or immersed in wine, so Paul expresses the proper extent of our subjection to the influences of the Spirit, when he says (Ephes. 5: IS), "Be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess, but he filled with the Spirit." So far is it from being true, that the Spirit is uniformly represented as being sprinkled or poured upon us, that even in one of the graces of the Spirit, we are commanded to be enveloped; for it is said, "be clothed with humiUty."' When, on the mount of transfiguration, Peter, James and John "entered into" that bright cloud of glory which came and oversliadowed them (Luke 9 : 35), no doubt they were baptized in the cloud, — surrounded and covered with it; and certainly, if the influences of the Spirit may be represented as " a river of water of life," as the air of tieaven, as a celestial breeze,, as a " mighty wind filling the whole house," as " floods upon the dry ground," as pools filled with rain, as "a cloud of dew in the heat of harvest," how accordant it must be with the genius and style of the Scriptures, to speak of an immersion into the influences of the Spirit ! How wonderful it is, that those who profess to believe in the Spirit, as a divine and pervading pres- ence, should find any difliculty with such expres- sions, — should seem not to understand them, or to feel their force. When David thought of God as the light and life of the natural creation, he cried, '' Whither shall I go from thy presence, or whither shall I flee from thy Spirit?" But when men are converted, pass from the kingdom of Satan into that of Christ, "from darkness to light," from their nat- ural state into a new moral creation, they are said to "put on the new man," to be "new creatures," and are justly regarded as being surrounded with, and enveloped in heavenly influences. Yet, so narrow are our authors' views of this subject, that they say (pp. 13S, 139), " Indeed, to employ it (immersion) 87 in representing the effects of the Holy Spirit's opera- tions upon the human soul, seems to be a monstrous perversion of language. Those effects are purity, joy, peace, &c. Now, it is very common to speak of being immersed in care and trouble, of being immersed in debt, of being immersed in sloth, (&c. The term is frequently used to denote something disagreeable and oppressive. But who ever thinks of describing that which is pleasant and joyous by such a term ? Immersed in purity — immersed in joy — immersed in peace — immersed in humility — it is barbarous phraseology !" And yet, how often do the lips of those who sing the songs of Zion utter similar expressions ! Have our authors forgotten AYatts's hymns ? Let them turn to the 65th hymn, book 2d. " There shall I bathe my weary soul, In seas of heavenly rest; And not a wave of trouble roll Across my peaceful breast." Many of their readers must have sung that verse, without thinking of any thing "disagreeable and oppressive." Could these critics really wish that the poet had altered his phrase, and sung of a mere sprinkling of heavenly rest? Then, again, have they forgotten Cowper's hymn, touching the "foun- tain filled with bloodj" in which he says, *' And sinners, plunged beneath that flood, Lose all their guilty stains ?" If their taste regards this as "barbarous phraseol- ogy," they may well inquire whether the songs of heaven would not need equal improvement; for therein the redeemed are described as those who have "come out of great tribulation, and washed their robes, and made them white, in the blood of the Lamb.''' From what we have said on this point, which is regarded as "decisive of the whole question," it is abundantly evident that our authors have mistaken 88 the facts of the case, — those facts which are the basis of their reasoning. Their views are too hmited. Their conchision is founded on the assumption, that in "the communication of the Spirit's influences," they are " imiformly represented as sprinkled or poured out npon the subject." (p. 22.) This as- sumption, we have seen, is baseless. The Scriptures contradict it. The simple statement of the fact is, that all the realms of nature are laid under contribu- tion, to furnish emblems to illustrate the influence of the Holy Spirit, who is represented by a vast variety of figures; as a well of water springing up, as a river, a running stream, oil, air, breath, rushing wind, fire, light, dew, rain; and that in each case, the language which expresses the communication of the Spirit, corresponds with the object to which he is compared. So far is pouring from being appro- priated to the communication of the Spirit's influence, that it is often applied to the dispensation of wrath and punishment; as in Hos. 5: 10, "I will pour out my wrath like water upon them;" in Ezek. 7: 8, '' Now will I shortly pour out my fury upon thee;" in chap. 22 : 31, " Therefore have I poured out my indignation upon them." In' Revelation, we read of angels commissioned to pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth (16: 1); and in many other places we find the same figure employed. If, then, the facts on which the argument is built, are sliown to have been falsely assumed, what becomes of the argument itself? Then, again, our authors have overlooked the fact, that where a baptism of the Spirit is really spoken of, the pouring out of the Spirit is never called the baptism, but is antecedent to it, and in order to accomplish it. AVhenever I administer baptism in the church, pouring always precedes it; it. is the pouring of the water into the baptistery; but we never call that the baptism. It is only the means of baptism, and, however necessary, is not to be 89 confounded with it. Water is poured into a bath, in order to bathing; but the pouring is not the bathing. Unless the skies poured down water, we could not immerse in brooks, pools or rivers, for all would be dried up. But though the one of those is necessary to the other, the two things are not identical. On the day of pentecost, the disciples were surrounded and covered with the emblems of the Spirit; for '' there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house," accom- panied with cloven tongues, hke as of fire or ''lam- bent flame;" so that, while the event fulfilled the prediction of Joel, touching the Christian age, that the Spirit should be poured out on God's servants and handmaids, the pouring out is never called baptism, but was undoubtedly the means of that baptism, which John had promised, and for which Jesus had bidden his apostles to wait ; saying (Acts 1: 5), "For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence." They had received the Spirit before this, in their conversion and sanctification ; but, that all-pervading influence, that large and extraordinary impartation, involving miraculous powers, which is called the baptism of the Spirit, they were led to expect as Christ's ascension-gift. And when it came, it seemed as if the Saviour had '' not given his Spirit by measure" unto them. Its eflects and extent could not be denoted by sprinkling or pouring water on the face, for their "whole spirit, soul and body" were bathed in the celestial influence. Pouring went before that baptism, but it was a pouring, in gran- deur like that which Job speaks of, when he says (29: 6), "The rock poured out rivers;" or which Isaiah expressed, when he said of the Lord (30: 28), "His breath is as an overflowing stream." In the statement of facts, then, our authors have confound- ed the means with the end, the antecedent with the 8=^' 90 consequent, and have departed from all Scripture usage, in calling pouring, baptism. II. But I have said, that, apart from their mis- taking the facts before them in the Scriptures, their principle of reasoning from the signification of the rite is enth'ely fallacious. This argument, which is said to be ''decisive of the whole question," rests on the assumption, that in a positive institution^ which depends on the loill of the lawgiver, the thing to be done is not to be learned from the terms of the law, bnt by ascertaini?ig the Qnoral meaning of the rite, a7id choosing for ourselves the most appropriate man- ner to express it. For a candid inquirer, a little cool reflection will sufiice to show the absurdity of such a statement. It contains a principle which is prolific of evil. It is the essential element of that Jesuitical spirit of the Popish church, which enables it to explain away, in the view of the multitude, all God's explicit commands. No religious observance that was ever enjoined in any law, human or divine, could endure for a day, if such a principle were admitted. Think of it, for a moment. The baptis- mal law, contained in the commission, enjoins some one particular action, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, on every Christian. I say, some one action, because no one contends that the same person should undergo three or four modes of bap- tism. But the law, instead of making the action plain, uses an enacting term, which is uncertain., equivocal, determines nothing as to ma?i7ier, and leaves the inquirer to infer what ought to be done, from the spiritual meaning of the rite ! Was ever such a law heard of before? No, never, except on the ground stated by Dr. Samuel Johnson, when he says, respecting the interpretation of law, ''a man accustomed to satisfy himself with the obvious and statural meaning of a sentence, does not easily shake oflfhis habit; but a true bred lawyer never contents himself with this sense, when there is another to be found." 91 I pronounce the principle of interpretation involved in this whole argument from the signification of the rite, to be fallacious and dangerous, 1. Because it sets aside the xcords of the law of Christy as i7isiifficie?it, and not adapted to explain the ivill of the Laivgiver. It says that Christ has used words which do not expound the duty enjoined ; and now, when the question is before us, "what is that duty?" it says, this question " does not turn on the meaning of the word" found in the law. This is degrading the legislation of Jesus Christ, and casting a stain upon its character that would be "felt like a wound" by any human legislator. As was observed by that eminent jurist. Sir William Blackstone,=^ the words of a law "are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use." In accordance with this, is the remark of Dr. Sherlock, in his Preservative against Popery,f wherein, speaking of the exposition of law, he says, " When there is no such reason as makes one sense absurd and another necessary, the law must be expounded according to the most plain and obvious signification of the words, though it should condemn that which we think there may be some reason for, or at least no reason against; for otherwise it is an easy matter to expound away all THE LAWS QF GOD." A principle which tends to such a result, must be false ; and none that was ever broached, tends to it more directly and siirely than that which is the life of the argument before us. 2. I object to it, because lit sets aside that plain law of language^ which forbids us to give a figura- tive meaning of a icord precedence over the literal and the proper. I have stated it in the words of Ernesti; and with these agree the words of President Edwards, when reasoning against Socinianism : " In words capable of two senses, the natural and the * Commentaries, Vol. I, Int., Sec. IL t Vol. II, App., p. 11. 92 proper is the primary, and therefore ought in the first place and chiefly to be regarded." 3. I object to it, further, that it annihilates a pos- itive rite of Christ. Rejecting the very word which Christ has chosen as the exposition of his will, it seizes the abstract idea of which his institution is said to be an emblem, and then makes neio rites, as emblems of that idea. Immersion is one rite, sprink- ling is another, pouring is another. There is as much diflerence, in form and meaning, between immersion and sprinkling, as between baptism and the Lord's supper. Any abstract idea, or any spirit- ual truth, may be represented by various outward signs or emblems. Yet, who but God has the authority to exalt one of these into an emblematic RITE, and make the observance of it binding on the conscience ? And if he selects one, impresses on it his own seal, invests it with the dignity of an ordi- na7ice, and commands it to be regarded as his ap- pointment, who has the right to set it aside, and substitute another, on the plea that it will do as well, and answer the same end? For instance : a rent garment, a dress of sack- cloth, ashes on the head, a piece of crape, or a black seal, are emblems of grief But among us, no one of these is an emblematic rite. But suppose, for a moment, that clothing one's self in sackcloth had been made so by divine appointment, and that on the loss of relatives, we were commanded to observe it, as a sign of humiliation and sorrow. We would naturally expect that the obedient mourner, when he should wish to ascertain his duty, would look to the ivo?^ds of the law for direction. '^The command- ment is a lamp." How plain is the precept! "It giveth understanding to the simple." It says, " thou shalt clothe thyself in sackcloth." Nothing can be more lucid. But he meets with a professed inter- preter of the law, who tells him of his mistake, and teaches him the principle, that the question of his 93 duty is not to be settled by the icords of the law^ but by the signification of the I'ite. " This rite," the teacher says, "signifies grief; but grief may be signified in various modes. Pouring or sprinkling ashes on the head, or wearing a small piece of crape, will express it equally well. Especially the former, for grief itself is often represented by 'pouring: as, in Job 16: 13, ' he poureth out my gall upon the ground ;' 3:24, 'my roarings are poured out like waters;' 30 : 16, 'my soul is poured out upon me, the days of afl3.iction have taken hold upon me.' Now^ if the thing signified is represented as poured out, that which signifies it may be ^pouring. Besides, this is more easy, cheap and convenient than clothing in sackcloth, more adapted to all climes and conditions, to all times and seasons. It is contrary to the genius of the gospel, to lay great stress on outward rites. In respect to these commands, God is not very par- ticular. He regards the letter less than the spirit ; and as pouring ashes has the same signification as clothing in sackcloth, either will be a fulfilment of the command. Only let us beware of that which is most 'cumbrous and inconvenient.'" This exposi- tion might be new to the inquirer; but, imless he were quite predisposed to surrender his judgment to that of his teacher, he could scarcely fail to see its fallacy, — that it was actually annihilating the rite of God's appointment, and placing another in its stead. Fallacious, however, as it may be, it is an exact illustration of the principle adopted by our authors, which leads them to confound figures of speech with emblematic rites, to base an ordinance of God upon a class of metaphors, and, instead of turning to the law, and letting the proper sense of the enacting term make known his will, to reject that law, in order to select, from a wide range of emblems, one more significant than that which his command, by its own force, enjoins. O, what a bearing has an expression of the celebrated Charnock 94 here ! " If laws may be interpreted according to our humors, the power of the law would be more in the interpreter than the legislator." 4. I object to it, again, because it is a principle which opens a wide scope for the vagaries of super- stition. Our authors observe, speaking of the early- ages (p. 135), "It is a fact, incontrovertibly estab- lished, that on no subject did superstition so luxuri- ate, as upon baptism." Never was there a statement more true to history than this ; and while they print i\\Q fact in capitals, in order to draw attention to it, let the reader mark it, that their theory of iyiterpreta- Hon is the very one ichich adeqnately accounts for the fact. If, as we aver, the very words of the baptis- mal law determine mode, and' confine us to a single act as baptism, there is no room given for supersti- tious fancies to breathe a moment. A clear, ex- plicit law settles every thing, forbidding addition or diminution. But if, as the gentlemen say, the enact- ing term in the commission of our Lord is of uncer- tain import, if it enjoins no particular mode, if nothing in the gospel "requires the conscience to be burdened with the inquiry whether it shall be done in this way or that," if nothing is said " about a danger to be incurred, by failing to perform the simple ceremonies, precisely after a particular way" (p. 5), but if we are left to infer the manner from the spiritual sig7iification of the rite, — then, indeed, is a broad and rich field open, in which superstition may luxuriate^ to its heart's content. Reader, do you not see that from this baleful principle would nat- urally spring all those significccnt emblems, which the gentlemen enumerate as accompanying baptism in a less enlightened age and land than ours 7 Whence, but from this, arose the anointing with oil, the signing w/ith the sign of the cross^ eating milk and honey ^ putting on of white garments^ and other absurd observances, which they have not noticed? Our authors' theory of baptism, and this mass of ' 3§ superstitions, hold to each other the relation of cause and effect. The rite was said to signify purification, and any thing that could be a sign of purification was thought to be appropriately identified with bap- tism. And why not, if we are left to the signification of the rite, to infer the proper sign, and the Bible is not particular as to manner'? Certainly, "where there is no law, there is no transgression ;" and those things which our authors call "fooleries" in the ancients, were, on their own principle, mere matters of taste, and ought to be treated very gently by men who deny that there is any clear ^ definite and binding statute on the subject. What inconsistency, to utter such a sentiment as that, and in the same breath to denounce those, who introduced various baptismal rites, on the very ground of their signifi- cancy^ as emblems of the blessings of the Holy Spirit! Cherishing in their own system the germ from which such fruits proceed, they ought to have large charity for those of other times, who allowed it to have its proper growth, — a natural and full development. 1 proceed to notice the second " important matter,'"' which our authors think has been unduly neglected in my Review, which is, their objections to the argument for immersion, drawn by us from BURIAL WITH CHRIST IN BAPTISM. They seem to wonder that I should have passed by their " whole chapter " on this subject, and placed the argument among the "minor points" of the discussion. But theu, it is evident, that if I had shown that the word baptize means immersion, and nothing short of that, — if I had invalidated their arguments to the contrary, and laid down principles Avhich apply to all such arguments, — the question was settled ; the declaration of Paul, " we are buried with Christ by baptism," is in such striking corre- spondence with that view, as to render it clearer to the mind of an inquirer ; and if the attempts to 96 • explain away that correspondence seemed rather trifling, it was well to pass them by, in a work designed at first to touch only the main point on which the controversy turns. But as they attach much importance to their argument, let us examine it. First of all, they endeavor to raise difficulties in the way of receiving that obvious and natural inter- pretation of the passages before them (Rom. 6, and Col. 2 : 12), which strikes at once the eye of the plain reader, which has been acknowledged, by the best commentators of all denominations, to be an allusion to the primitive practice of immersion, and which, stated by Baptists themselves, has carried conviction to the minds of millions. The first difficulty is this. Assuming that they have proved that the grand design of baptism is to teach purification by the Spirit's influences, it ap- pears to them impossible that its design should also be to represent a burial. ^^ Both cannot he held. Purity contrasts with the corruption and filth of the grave." To this, my answer is two-fold. 1st. Baptism is designed to furnish a lively representation of the means of our salvation^ by the burial and resurrec- tion of Jesus Christ. Paul brings this to view, in the passage before us: " Like as Christ was raised UP FROM THE DEAD, by the glory of the Father, so we also should walk in newness of life." That such was the design of baptism, is explicitly asserted (1 Pet. 3: 21), "the like figure whereunto even bap- tism doth also now save us, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.^' Now, whatever else is doubtful, this end and aim of baptism is clear. No words could make it plainer. If baptism can be the memorial of only one idea, this last must be received above all others, it is so distinctly taught. Most of the pas- sages quoted by our authors touching purification, have no reference to baptism at all ; of which they are well aware, when they say (p. 22). "it is of no 97 consequence as to the point before us, whether these things are said in connection with baptism or not." But the passages now before us have this advantage, that their express design is to teach the meaning of the rite. And as far as the emblem points to the burial and resurrection of Christ, it involves no idea of corruption; for he, the Holy One, was not left in the grave, ^^ neither did his flesh see corruption^ 2. As far as baptism sets forth our own hope of salvation by Christ, the gentlemen forget that it represents a resurrection as well as a burial. They speak as if Ave had remained always under the water, and see nothing but the emblematic grave. Paul speaks of more. He says we are raised up to walk IN NEWNESS OF LIFE. Thcrc is purification ! We put off the old ma??, a?id p?it on the ?ieio man. So, at last, when the voice of Christ shall call these bodies from their tombs, fashioned like unto his own glorious body, this corruption shall have put on incorruption, this mortal shall have put on immortality, and we shall have passed through a ptirifyi?ig process, to fit us for the bliss of heaven. Since this is the Chris- tian's peculiar hope, which the wisest of the heath- ens never knew, how fitting that the initiating rite of Christianity should loudly proclaim it ! But it is said (p. 23), this difficulty being sur- mounted, another comes. We must prove that the passage "refers to icater baptism, V^ Here we are landed into Quakerism, at once. It is as easy to get rid of all the passages about water baptism, as of this. They say, the argument of the Baptists " rests on this assumption, — yet it is mei^e assu??iptio?i.'''' Bold and startling assertion, this, to come from such a source ! Do not the gentlemen know that this idea is no peculiarity of the Baptists at all, but that most of the Pedobaptist writers, throughout the world, teach the very same? It is very strange, if they did not know it; and if they did know it, it is "passing strange " that they should allow themselves to speak 9 98 thus. Ay, more. Standard Pedobaptist writers generally allow that the passage refers to the prim- itive practice of immersion ! I have before me the well-known commentary_and notes of Dr. McKnight (a Presbyterian) on the epistles, who says, in his preface to tlie sixth of Romans, "To show that the apostles, who taught the doctrine of justification by faith, without works, did not mean to set their disci- ples free from the obligations of morality, Paul ob- served, that in baptism, the rite of initiation into the Christian church, the baptized person is buried under THE WATER, as ouc put to death with Christ on account of sin, in order that he may be strongly impressed with the malignity of sin, and excited to hate it, as the greatest of evils. Moreover, in the same rite, the baptized person being raised vp out of the water ^ after being washed, he is thereby taught that he shall be raised from the dead with Christ, by the power of the Fatherj to live with him for ever in heaven." This view, McKnight, who was one of the most learned writers of the Scotch church, illus- trates more fully in his paraphrase. I might quote a host of other critics, of all countries, who say the same thing; and, of course, I cannot but marvel greatly, that any intelligent man should assert this view of the passage to be a mere assnmjjtioii of the Baptists. It would be almost as near the truth, to say that the doctrine of regeneration is an assump- tion of the Baptists. 3. "This difficulty being surmounted," it is said, "another comes. It is a question not so easily settled, as to what the likeness shall be. If the reader will turn to the passage, he will see that there is a comparison with death, with crucifixion, with burial, &c. Suppose we insist that baptism shall imitate the form of Christ's death^ and not his burial (for surely the two things are very distinct), what would the Immersers say?" Why, gentlemen, we should say that you had adopted a Popish practice, 99 without the least scriptural warrant or authority. The Catholics have long insisted on imitating the crucifixion, and have instituted an observance for the purpose; but who hath required this at their hand? If Christ had instituted a rite to commemo- rate his scourging^ we should certainly observe it. If he had instituted another, to memorialize the manner of his deaths we should also observe that. But as he has chosen that baptism should represent only his burial and resurrection, we bow to his will. Who but he, has authority to prescribe an act of ritual worship 7 In the selection which he has made, we see his wisdom ; for burial and resurrection imply death, but mere death does not imply burial and resurrection; and without the latter, Christ's death would have availed us nothing. The sign of the cross would have been a stigma, and not an honor. 4. "This difficulty being surmounted," we are told, "another comes. How shall we baptize in a way to imitate a burial?" We answer, — as you please, only let it be with becoming reverence, "de- cently and in order." It is said, "nations have various modes of burial, but in no case do they bury by thrusting the body through the soil." We an- swer, — the body of Christ was thrust through a small aperture into a rocky tomb, and then the entrance was closed. The body was thus covered, and hidden from sight. Jesus was pleased to com- pare his own burial to that of Jonah ; "for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth." The circumstances and the manner of these two burials were very different; yet none but a caviller would fix on the points of difference, because the design of the comparison is to mark the points of resemblance. A cavil is not an argument; and all emblems furnish occasions for cavils of this kind, because they only fix on one or more prominent points of resemblance, beyond which they do not 100 apply. In the Lord's supper, the broken bread is an emblem of Christ's body broken for us ; but we know that of that body " not a bone was broken." The breaking of bread has nothing in it to suggest the idea of a crucifixion; but when any ask, "What mean ye by this service? " we can tell them what the points of resemblance are. All we have to do, is to preserve the ordinance as it was delivered unto us; and any attempt to improve it would be as sacri- legious as an attempt to destroy it. What we have said is a sufficient reply to the fifth and last "difficulty" suggested, drawn from the fact that "Christ was not buried in the common way. His body was not sunk in the ground, but merely laid axoay on a shelf ^ in a chamber of an excavated rock." Nevertheless, he speaks of it as a real burial, saying of Mary's anointing, " she did it for my burial;'''' and if he wished both that and his resurrection to be commemorated in the initiating rite of his religion, no emblem could possibly be selected, more expressive than an immersion, fol- lowed by an immediate rising from the water. Now, what do all these difficulties, in the way of the obvious interpretation of the passage in the sixth of Romans, amount to? Labor spent in vain. A person indisposed to examine them one by one, might be impressed by the mere show they make, when numbered, and standing together. He might take it for granted, without examination, that if some were invaUd, one might be sound. But at the first touch, they all crumble. They are like a tract, entitled, " One hundred Arguments for the Infallibility of the Pope." A hundred cyphers in a row, amount to nothing. SUBSTITUTE FOR THE COMMON INTERPRETATION. But what is the interpretation which our authors substitute for the common one? Why, they aver, that when Paul says (Rom. 6: 3), "Know ye not 101 that so many of you as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death?" he had no reference to that baptism by which the Romans had professed faith in a risen Saviour, but used the term figuratively, to denote their reception of the Spirit's influences. Yet, nothing is more evident than that the apostle recalls to their memory some familiar facts, obvious to the view of an objector to Christian doctrine, and adapted to meet his cavil. The cavil is brought to view in the first verse, and is to this eftect : if, as you say, Christianity teaches that we are not saved by good works, but by mere grace, the practical inference is, let us have nothing to do with good works, and grace will abound the more in our pardon. ('' Let us continue in sin, that grace may abound.") The question between Paul and the objector is, whether this is a just practical inference from what had been said, — wJiether this is the real teaching of Christianity. And what, from " the drift of Paul's remarks," is his object in alluding to baptism? It is, to bring some clear proof that the practical teaching of Christianity is contrary to the objector's inference. And for this, would Paul assume that the Romans had all received the Holy Spirit from heaven, and present that as proof to an objector against the apostolic doctrine? No. He takes what was palpable and obvious to every objector, the initiating rite of Christianity, and appeals to its teachings, — appeals to the holy nature of those doctrines of which it is the emblem and memorial. This would fully meet the case. An ordinance, known to proclaim a fundamental doc- trine of our religioUj that Christ was "delivered for our oflences, and raised again for our justification," that all his disciples profess at the outset to be dead and buried to the world, and to rise up to a "new- ness of life," v/ould present a most eflective argument, an ocular demonstration, to the objector, that the teachings of Christianity were against the conclusion, 9^ 102 let us "continue in sin." The true inference, then, would be, if Christians cherish the principles pro- fessed in their baptism, they will '-^reckon themselves (v. 11) to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God, through Jesus Christ their Lord." Our authors object, that water hcfptism is inade- quate to produce such an effect as death to sin. Very true ; but the principles which water baptism teach- es, always do, with ''^absolute certairity,^^ produce death to sin, when they take effect upon the heart ; and, therefore, none ought to be baptized, but those who, in this moral sense, have died to sin. And those who have been baptized, ought to '^reckon themselves dead indeed unto sin." They remark, again, "it is not enough to say, such ought to be dead to sin ;" but this is just what Paul does say ; " There- fore we are buried with him by baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also should walk in NEWNESS OF LIFE." That iu the passage before us, the apostle speaks of literal baptism, is as evident as that he speaks of it any where. He compares our rising in baptism to Christ's resurrection, saying, ^^ Like as Christ ivas raised fro7n the dead?'' Was not his a litercd burial and resurrection 7 IS THE LANGUAGE LITERAL OR FIGURATIVE, IN ROM. 6:3? The great question which our authors have seen fit to discuss, touching the passage before us, is, whether the baptism spoken of is literal or figurative. They say that a literal baptism is entirely out of view. We say that the apostle had it in view, and is setting forth its spiritual or emblematic meaning. Now, is there any rule, to aid us in determining whether language is literal or figurative? Is there any thing in the science of interpretation? If so, let us avail ourselves of it. In Professor Stuart's translation of Ernesti on the Principles of Interpre- tation (3d edit., p. 74), the following rule is laid m down for this purpose: ''Words are tropical (or figurative) where the subject and predicate disagree." Where the thing spoken of in a sentence, and the thing asserted of it, are incongruous in their nature, the language must be figurative. For instance, the fields smile, the stones cry out, the trees clap their hands, &c. So, when men are spoken of as receiv- ing a baptism of the Spirit, the language must be figurative, because it is impossible that the Spirit can be literally appUed to a human body, by sprinkling, pouring, immersion, or any other way. But when baptism "in the river Jordan" is spoken of, or bap- tism in any other water, the language is known to be literal, because the subject and predicate of the sentence are congruous in their nature. We may say at one time, that a man is buried in sleep, in amusement, in care, — immersed in business, in study, — "dipped deeply in philosophy;" at another, that he is buried in the sea, in the ruins of a city, or in a shady grove, — without causing confusion of ideas to the plainest peasant; because the principle here stated by Ernesti, strikes the mind at once, whether it be recognized in form or not. So, too, if you speak of a man being buried by a storm of snow, by a flood of waters, or by immersion in a lake, the subject and predicate of the sentence are seen to be congruous in their nature, and therefore the language is knoion to be Utercd. But if you should speak of one being buried by a gentle sprinkling, or a slight pouring, any mere man might be excused for con- fessing his ignorance of what to make of such lan- guage. He would be fairly puzzled, to know whether he should call it literal or figurative. There might be no incongruity between the subject and predicate of the sentence, as to their nature, — the substance spoken of might be adapted to burial, as dust, or water; but how a gentle sprinkling or a slight pour- ing could amount to burial, Avould be the puzzling query. This would be the incongruity of contradic- 104 tion. Now, as my opponents have conceded that I have proved that the word baptize means immersion in some cases, moreover, that it often means immer- sion,, and as between immersion and burying there is no incongruity^ they must admit, in view of the rule just cited, that when Paul speaks of being buried by and in baptism^ either that he refers to literal immersion, or utters a literal contradiction. Keeping in mind the rule just mentioned, we pro- ceed to observe, that when Paul (in Col. 2: 11) speaks of "circumcision made without hands," he evidently uses figurative language ; for circumcision, the subject spoken of, and the thing predicated of it, " made without hands," present ideas incongruous in their nature. To interpret that language literally, would be to assert an impossibility, a contradiction. But when, in the next verse (12th), the apostle speaks of a burial performed by baptism (which "q/5fe?2" means immersion), the two ideas are con- gruous, and the language must be literal. To this, our authors suggest (p. 27), that the Colossians, in their baptism, ^^ had 7-iscn through faith of the opera- tion of God. Yet j)ersons immersed do not rise by faiths Yes, in our baptism, all our fellowship of spirit, all our sympathy of feeling, with Jesus in the design of his baptism, is by faith; and this is the apostle's idea, for he says, ye are "buried with him in baptism, wherein ye are risen with htm, through faith of the operation of God, who raised him from the dead." He pursues the thought in the third chapter, saying, "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth at the right hand of God." As it is in the Lord's supper, we literally cat bread and drink wine, this is not by faith. But our communion luith Christ and the church in those acts, is by faith; for, "the cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the com- munion of the blood of Christ? the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" In that holy feast, we do spiritually, by faith, "open 105 the door," and he comes in to sup with us, and we with him. The fact that this figurative circumcision is spoken of in the verse preceding that wherein baptism is mentioned, is no proof at all that the latter is figura- tive. For in the seventh verse of the same chapter, we have figurative and literal language in the closest possible connection : " Rooted and built up in him, and established in the faith." We see it also in connection with baptism, in Acts 22: 16; "Arise and be baptized, and icash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Another important rule, stated by Ernesti in con- nection with this subject (p. 77), is entitled, ^^ Method of determining luhether a trope is adequately under- stoodP He says, "Tt is one proof that you under- stand tropical language, if you can substitute proper words for tropical ones. Not that a person who can do this always understands the words ; but if he cannot do it, he certainly does wo^ understand them." If, then, in the passages before us, baptism be used only in a figurative sense, let our authors substitute their favorite literal words for it, and see how appo- site they would be: ''Therefore we are buried with him by sprinklbig into death — buried with him in sprinkling — buried ivith him by pourings wherein ye also are risen with him — buried with him by purifi- cation.^ Really, this would be verifying Paulas supposition addressed to the Corinthians (I Cor. 14 : 11), "If I know not the meaning of the voice, he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me." But substitute immersion, and all is lucid : ^buried with him by immersion into death — buried with him in immersion^ wherein ye also are risen with him.' "Planted together (by immersion) in the likeness of his deaths' ^ &c. On this last verse, McKnight beau- tifully observes, "The burying of Christ and of believers, first in the water of baptism, and after- wards in the earth, is fitly enough compared to the 106 planting of seeds in the earth, because the effect in both cases is a reviviscence to a state of greater perfection." We might apply the same rule to Peter's declara- tion (1 Pet. 3: 21), touching the meaning of the figure by which baptism represents our salvation : "The like figure, whereunto even baptism doth also now save us, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Can sprinkling or pouring be the figure of a resur- rection ? Evident as it is, that the common and obvious interpretation of these passages which speak of burial with Christ in baptism, is not an error, it is interest- ing to see hoAV gravely the gentlemen proceed to exhibit the "sources" of what they call "the Im- mersers' error touching them." Here, they chiefly repeat what they have said before. One suggestion, however, at this point, seems quite original. That is, that " the first source of error is the imagination.^^ The Tmmerser ^^ fancies some analogy between im- mersion and Christ's burial." Now, this remark exhibits "the source" of our friends' failure in their argument. The meaning of these passages lies low and level to the eye of common sense ; but they have followed out their plan of shooting high, as at " an airy fancy on the wing," and so have gone quite over the heads of plain readers of the Scriptures. But what is very remarkable, is, that the gentlemen did not know, or have forgotten the fact, that this fancy has nestled in the heads of most of the stand- ard Pedobaptist writers, in every age. Men who have practised sprinkling, have freely testified, as scholars and interpreters, that these passages took their rise in the primitive practice of immersion. McKnight, whom I have quoted, alludes to Beza, who certainly teaches this, in the most explicit manner. Grotius, of the Dutch church, says on these passages, " Not only the word baptism, but the very form of it, intimates this. For an immersion 107 of the whole body in water, so that it is no longer beheld, bears an image of that burial which is given to the dead. There was in baptism, as administered in former times, an image both of a burial and a resurrection." Dr. Hammond, of the Church of Eng- land, says, on Rom. 6:3, "It is a thing that every Christian knows, that the immersion in baptism refers to the death of Christ ; the putting the person into the water, denotes and proclaims the death and burial of Christ." Burkitt says, on the same pas- sage, " The apostle alludes, 7io douht, to the ancient manner and way of baptizing persons in those hot countries, which was by immersion, or putting them under the water for a time, and then raising them up again out of the water; which rite had also a mystical signification, representing the burial of our old man, sin in us, and our resurrection to newness of life." Precisely the same idea is stated by Witsius, Whitby, Bishop Patrick, Bishop Taylor, and Bishop Hoadly, the last of whom has used language fully as strong as I could wish to com- mand, saying of the times of the apostles, "7/" bap- tism, had been then perforTned as it is ?iow amongst us, we shoidd never have so 7mwh as heard of this form, of ex2:>ression, of dybig and rising again in this rite:' (See Hoadly's Works, Vol. Ill, p. 890.) Why should I go on to quote these, and a host of others, more largely? They all unite in the same view of these texts. Those quotations which I have made, though brief, are of so decisive a character, as to show for themselves that they do not misrepresent the opinions of their authors. And in what a pitiful plight do they place the assertion, that this view is a mere fancy and a peculiar error of the Baptists. How clearly do they show, that if the Baptists err, they err with the learning of the world on their side; and that if the leading writers of various churches and different ages practised sprinkling, it was not at the sacrifice of scholarship and candor. 108 Among '-'important matters omitted," our authors place next in order their presumptive arguments against immersion. But why should I notice these? If the baptismal law is clear and explicit, these have no force against it ; and if that law is not explicit and determinate, our liberty to do as we please, touching baptism, follows of course, without any such array of reasons. Suppose a Papist should "present to me presumptive arguments in favor of withholding the wine from the people in the eucha- rist, drawn from convenience, cheapness, simplicity, sobriety, indifference of outward forms, the superior decency of the priest taking the cup alone in behalf of the people, instead of passing it from lip to lip, — would I answer these in detail ? It would be use- less. I would bring to bear upon him the plain command, " Drink ye all of it." If he should tram- ple on this, and continue to urge his presumptive arguments, I would only adopt the psalmist's prayer, "Lord, keep back thy servant from presumptuous sins." As to the remarks (p. 86) on my omitting to notice the suggestions touching "the degree of certainty" which my cause demands, I cannot see any occasion for them. It is evident, from my Review, that I took the ground that the Scriptures set forth immersion as the only apostolic baptism, with as much certainty as any subject can be exhibited by means of words as signs of ideas. In regard to the section on page 87 of the Rejoin- der, designed to give a general statement of what I have attempted to prove, sufficient has been said on pages nine and ten of this Examination. I proceed to notice the s.ection, entitled, learned critics and theologians. This consists of sentences from the writings of learned Pedobaptists, men who practised sprinkling, containing the expression of opinions in favor of that 109 practice. No doubt, in this way a long chapter might easily be made. No doubt, all Pedobaptist theologians have been disposed to defend the custom of their church, on some ground or other. But whether those of them who are really eminent schol- ars, have made the proper meaning of the word the basis of their argument, is a distinct and an impor- tant question. Having presented a number of quota- tions, my reviewers say, "In view of these facts, in what light appears Mr. Hague's turgid boast, that all the learning of the world sustains his side of the controversy ? He is confounded by his own wit- nesses." In connection with this remark, they exhibit a list of names, to which I made no reference at all, — the names of men whose works are almost entirely inaccessible to the American public, and whose writings the gentlemen have not quoted, with those references to the edition and the page, which would enable a reader to examine them for himself Was it expected by our authors, that only those would read their book who would take every thing on trust, nor cherish one wish to verify their assertions? Out of a list of thirty-seven names, there are only three whom I summoned as " witnesses." These are Luther, Calvin and Beza. They are names of note, and my claims to their testimony on the mean- ing of the word baptize, the only point on which I appealed to them, may be easily vindicated. (I.) As to Luther, the reader has seen how ample and clear is the testimony which I have cited on pages 22 — 25 of this pamphlet. Let him ponder that soberly. He may consider, also, this which I now add from Luther's works: "The other thing which belongs to baptism, is the sign or the sacrament, which is the dipping into the water, from whence also it hath its name. For to baptize, in Greek, is to dip, and baptizing is dipping." " Baptism is a sign both of death and resurrection. Being moved 10 110 by this reason, I would have those who are to be baptized, to be altogether dipt into the water, as the word doth express, and the mystery doth signify." ^ Neither of these remarks of the reformer is a mere "casual expression, which gives a clue to his opin- ions," as our authors designate some expressions which they quote; each one is a bold, simple, decisive expression of the truth. Will the gentlemen meet what I here bring forward fairly, and invalidate these citations, or else concede my claim to Luther's testimony? (2.) As to Calvin, I quoted him as a scholar on the meaning of the word, declaring that on that ground he founded no defence of sprinkling. If he draws an argument from convenience, or the fitness of sprinkling as a symbol of a spiritual truth, that is quite another thing, and each one, for himself, may judge of its worth. But my opponents have quoted nothing from him which really affects my position. Their last citation has some appearance of doing this, but then, they have taken only half of the sentence; the other half and the succeeding one explain Calvin's views. T will quote them in con- nection, placing the quotation of the Rejoinder in smaller print, so as to mark it distinctly. " But, whether the person baptized be wholly immersed, and whether thrice or not, or whether water be only poured or sprinkled upon him, is of no importance." Here Messrs. Cooke and Towne's quotation ends, and some exulting expressions follow. Calvin pro- ceeds, "Churches ought to be left at liberty to act according to the difference of countries. The very word baptize, however, signifies to immerse, and it is certain that immersion was the practice of the ancient church. "t Here, we see, the word however marks the transition from Calvin's expressing a theological opinion, to his asserting the real force of * Works, Wittenburg edit,, Tom. II, Fol. 79. t Institutes, Book IV, Chap. 15. Ill the word. On this point, his declaration is expHcit, his concession is ample. Although this reformer did not, Hke Luther, endeavor fully to restore immersion, yet they both agree as to the import of the term. What an unfortunate remark my reviewers have littered, when they say, "Probably, Mr. Hague had never read Calvin, and cited him on the authority of some controversialist on his side of the question." This places me under the necessity of assuring them, that I have a manuscript, containing this extract from Calvin, penned by my own hand, long before I had the pleasure of knov/ing either of their names. Before I received ordination to the ministry, I con- sulted Calvin on this point, and this concession made a strong impression on my mind. ^ (3.) My third witness on this list is Beza. They say that I quote him '' with an air of triumph," and add, "but if Mr. Hague will adopt Beza's sentiments, •there will be no further need of controversy." There is a little sophistry in this, — an evasion of the point. I spoke of Beza among the adherents of the custom of sprinkling, and cited his testimony, as a scholar, on the meaning of the word baptize. This testimony I urged as a concession. His practice of sprinkling rested on other grounds. His assertion of the mean- ing of the word is explicit. He declares what it does mean, and what it does not. (1.) He says it means more than /e^rtTtrefr (to v/ash hands), because this has respect only to the hands; baptism, to the whole body. (2.) He says, "To be baptized in water, signifies no other than to be immersed in water, which is the external ceremony of baptism." He declares, "nor does haptizein signify to wash, except by consequence." This is positive and exclusive. Besides the quotation in my Review, let the reader notice that on the 15th page of this Ex- amination. Our authors quote Beza as saying, "yet baptizo is taken more largely for any kind of wash- ing, where there is no dipping at all." Well, Lutlier 112 said it is so taken, but declared that it could not be done properly, and therefore he wished immersion to be restored. That it is so taken now-a-days, is a fact which all admit; but whether it ought to be so, is an important question. That it was so taken in Beza's day, and had been long before, is evident. But Beza denied that this usage, introduced by the Latins, was in accordance with j;he proper meaning of the term. Our authors ask, " But does Beza say that it means no^Ai??^ but imme?'sio7i7^^ I answer, yes; his position is p^recisely that which 1 maintain in relation to it. Can any words be clearer than those which I have quoted? They ask, again, "Does Beza say that immersion is essential to the rite?" That is a different question. If Beza had been asked, what is the meaning of the words bread and whte, in the institution of the Lord's supper, he would undoubtedly have given the same answer that I should to that question. But whether he would agree with those who say that these elements are not essential to the rite, and that, under some circum- stances, "fish and water" would answer the pur- pose, would remain to be seen. A man's assertion about the sense of words is one thing ; his specula- tive opinions about the nature and importance of rites, is another thing. For instance, the Quakers do not hold to the necessity of water baptism at all ; but they are strong in their assertion of the meaning of the term. Barclay, one of their leading writers, says, the Greek word baptizo signifies immerse, that is, to plunge and dip in; and that was the proper use of water baptism among the Jews, and also by John and the primitive Christians who used it; whereas our adversaries only sprinkle a little water on the forehead, which doth not at all answer to the word baptism." =^ William Penn and other Friends assert the same thing; and as they set aside all * Works, Provulence edit., p. 4-10. 113 outward modes, they may be considered impartial umpires on this question. In perfect keeping with the editorial style of writ- ing, and that tact in controversy recommended in the columns of the Puritan, our authors roundly assert, that I have been "proclaiming to the v/orld that Beza is a close-communion Immerser !" And yet, on page 26 of my Review, I was particular to state his character and position, and to add, that he was not a Baptist in practice. I would not censure my opponents for cherishing some warmth of feeling in defending their sentiments ; but this statement seems to glow with a spirit somev/hat malign. They add, " we are almost tempted to exclaim, O shame ! where is thy blush !" If this expression followed the discovery of some mistake on my part, I should not object to it, even though it were severe^ for truth is sometimes severe. But connected as it is with an assertion so obviously unfounded, I deplore it as seeming like the eftervescence of a ruffled mind, the expression of a feeling which it ill becomes Christian teachers to indulge. Having established my claim to the testimony of the witnesses whom I cited, I would remark respect- ing others whom my reviev/ers have alluded to, that where they express their sentiments in favor of sprinkling on account of convenience, custom, the indifference of Christianity to all outward forms, on the fitness of sprinkling as a symbol of some spiritual truth, that quotations touching these arguments, are not at all to tlie point, when the great question is, what is the meaning of the v/ord ? If the principle, that "the Bible alone is the rule of faith," be that TRUTH which is the life of Protestantism, and if the v/ord baptize, in Christ's commission,' properly means immerse, as Luther, Calvin and Beza declare, then, we have no resort but to obey that command, or prove untrue to the vital spirit -of the Reformation. The inconsistency of the. early Protestants on this 10^' 114 point, was often urged against them by Catholic writ- ers with very great effect. Here we see on what side of the controversy stands the general LITERATURE OF THE WORLD. Referring to my remark, that the literature of the world is with us on this point, my Reviewers say, " this is comforting, if true." I assent to this, and add, it is true as it is comforting. When we leave the realm of dogmatic theology, and turn to those works which represent the literature of the world in history and philology, what do we find? All that we wish, to establish our position. Does such a work as the Edinburgh Encyclopedia represent any part of European literature ? The very sentence which I have quoted on page 39, from Jones' Biblical Cyclopedia, and refused to urge it on the attention of my reader as authority, because that author was a Baptist, may be found, word for word, in the Edin- burgh Encyclopedia, and as coming from such a source, I now ask the reader to re-peruse it as a por- tion of the world's literature. Does the Encyclopedia Britannica deserve to be named as a standard work of British literature? It takes the same ground on this point as the Edinburgh, and asserts that sprink- ling was introduced into England from a regard to convenience, and that immersion was " at length quite excluded," through the influence of the church of Geneva in the days of queen Elizabeth. Is the Encyclopedia Americana a work of any literary note? It takes a similar position, speaks of the custom of sprinkling having been received from the Romish church by Protestants, and being now practised by all of them except the Baptists. The Encyclopedia Ecclesiastica, published under the sanction of the highest literary names in England, states the same thing, and declares, that when in ancient times, sprinkling was admitted in be- 115 half of persons, in great necessity, " at the point of death on a bed of sickness, it was considered in- deed as not giving the party the full privileges of baptism." Such men as Porson, Neander, and Au- giisti, speaking as literary men, use the strongest expressions, the last of them saying, " the word bap- tism, according to etymology and usage, signifies to immerse, submerge, &c. ; and the choice of the word betrays an age in which the later custom of sprink- ling had not been introduced." Most of these great works our readers can consult for themselves; and if these things be so, and the Protestant principle be just, that the Bible alone is the rule of faith, it evidently follows that the com- mission of our Lord binds us to immersion. THE CITATIONS FROM THE CLASSICS, were shown in my Review, to have been falsely ap- plied by the authors of the "Hints." I selected the strongest, especially the one printed in capitals, showed the fallacy of their application and the prin- ciple on which all the rest may be set aside. There are two important facts, however, connected with these cases, which I did not mention. I will now state the facts, and the reason why I did not men- tion them. (1.) The first fact is this : those Greek sentences on which my opponents rely, to show that the word baptize does not define any way of applying water, contain a word which is never used in the New Tes- tament to designate the ordinance of baptism. That ' word is bapto ; the word used in the New Testa- ment is baptizo. (2.) Between these words there is a marked difference. The latter is a consecrated term, uniformly applied by Christ and his apostles to his ordinance. The first (bapto) is never used to denote the ordinance, and the second (baptizo) is never used to denote the act of dyeing or coloring. 116 Of course, all those examples quoted by my oppo- nents, containing only the word hapto^ fail to answer their purpose. They are not to be regarded as 'proof s ; for how can we prove the import of a rite, by means of a word which is never applied to it ? The reasons of my not mentioning these facts in my Review were these. When I wrote that brief pamphlet, I was aware that Dr. Carson had brought out this distinction clearly. But I had resolved at the outset to quote no Baptist writer as authority; knowing that among the Pedobaptists themselves, professed scholars somewhat removed from the din of controversy, had furnished ample means of con- futing my opponents. And not having read the arti- cle of Prof. Stnart since the year 1833, when jt was published, and then, with an eye to the main points only, it did not occur to me that he had also marked this distinction, and expressed his full agreement with Dr. Carson on this point. Prof. Stuart read Dr. Carson's work, while his own article was going through the press, and refers his reader to it for more copious illustration. Not remembering this at the time, I refused to avail myself of the distinction pointed out by Dr. Carson. It was not necessary for me to do it, because to me it is evident, that the primary meaning of bapto has never been lost, but that it lives and modifies all the applications of the word ; or as Dr. Carson himself declares (p. 74), " These two meanings, dip and dye, are as parent and child." But since I find, on re-examining Prof. Stuart's treatise, that he also is clear and decisive in stating the difference, and that it cannot bo called a pecuharity of the Baptists, I am ready to propose it, and call on all our readers to observe, that my oppo- nents, in order to prove their point, rely on the sec- ondary meaning of a word, which is never used in the Bible to denote the ordintmcc of baptism. As the inspired writers carefully avoid the application of the shorter word used by dyers to the sacred rite, 117 there must have been in this, some design of the di- vine Spirit ; and our authors have not pleaded one instance in their own favor, in which the word used in the New Testament occurs at all 7 In their exam- ples, however, they cover up this fact from the eye of the English reader, by putting the English word (baptize) in a parenthesis, instead of spelling the Greek word, so as to show which of the two they employ. As I said, I did not intend to avail myself of this distinction, until I found that Prof. Stuart stands up with Dr. Carson as a witness, to all Pedobaptists, of the important fact. Although apart from this dis- tinction, it may be proved most clearly, that Christ enjoined immersion in the commission, yet the state- ment just made, is a mighty stride towards settling the controversy. All who look closely at the subject see it to be so, and when Dr. Carson defies all the Greek scholars in the world to produce an instance in which (baptizo) baptize means to dye or color, if his position be maintained, they well know the ultimate result, in a land where intelligence is dif- fused, where conscience is free, and the Bible exalted as the rule of faith and practice. They see the wisdom of Prof Stuart, in placing his adherence to sprinkling, not so much on the ground of scriptural evidence, as on the indifference of all modes. In the preceding remarks, the reader will see the reason why Dr. Carson manifests so little interest in contending for those examples in which the word ba])to occurs. His mind is filled with the importance of the fact, that this word is never used to designate the Christian rite, and that it is not the turning point of the controversy. He feels strong, too, in his posi- tion, that the word which is applied to the ordinance, is never used by dyers, nor applied to the act of coloring. He is desirous to narrow the ground of controversy, and is prepared to say to all his oppo- nents. Now, brethren, what will you do 7 Your 118 arguments for different modes are built on the secon- dary use of hapio^ and are not apposite to this case. Even if I should concede all that you wish as to that word, you will not have touched the main point in question. And I defy you to prove, that in Greek literature, the word baptizo must necessarily have any secondary meaning at all. In connection with their remarks on the classical use of the words, our authors introduce a letter from Rev. Edward Beecher, D. D,, called forth by a refer- ence which I made to one of his statements on the 31st page of my Review. The criticisms here pre- sented are worthy of note, and I would ask the read- er's particular attention to PRESIDENT BEECHEr's LETTER. The occasion of this letter, addressed to Rev. Mr. Towne, was an aUusion which I made to the follow- ing remark of Pres. Beecher, on the Jewish ritual : " Nor is the washing of clothes, so often spoken of, enjoined by a word denoting immersion." Against this statement, I quoted a law of purification recorded in Numbers 31 : 23, — ' and all that abideth not the fire, ye shall make go through the water? In regard to this law, President Beecher says, '4t is not a specific command to wash clothes at all, but a general command to cause that to pass through the water which will not stand the fire." In reply to this suggestion, I would respectfully ask, if the Avord raiment does not mean clothes 7 If it does not, then Dr. Beecher's remark is just : if otherwise, then it is erroneous, because in the context >«/me?i^, is specified as one of _lhe articles to be purified by water. In verse 20th, it is said, ' purify all your raiment, and all that is made of skins, and all work of goats' hair, and all things made of wood !' Now if raiment de- notes clothes, and raiment is specified as an article to go through the water, then this is a specific com- mand to wash clothes. 119 Dr. Beecher observes, moreover, that '' the passage refers to the purification of spoils taken from an enemy. It does not relate to the ' washing of the olothes so often spoken of This was the washing of the person's own clothes." I did not think, that he would fix on a distinction like this ; for what rea- son in the world can we have to imagine that their mode of washing clothes taken from an enemy, would differ from their usual mode of washing their own clothes when unclean ? Did any Jew ever suppose, that his own clothes could be washed or purified by sprinkling ? Again ; Dr. Beecher says, that if this passage did contain the command which he refers to, " it con- tains no word denoting immersion." To this I an- swer, it contains a phrase which involves necessarily the idea of immersion, and is adapted to explain \vhat Moses meant, and what the Jews understood to be the proper way of washing clothes. Again, Dr. Beecher says, " The command to which T did refer, occurs in the very next verse, and fully sustains my assertion." — '' I spoke of a word in Avhich an oft-repeated injunction is given, and mentioned the identical word, viz. Dsa, and affirmed that it did not denote immersion," and will Mr. Hague venture to deny the truth of my assertion concerning it 7" (p. 114 — 115.) In answer to this, I would ask, in return, does not President Beecher know that the Hebrew word in question truly and properly denotes, to tread or press doxon somethings namely clothes, in a trough or other vessel 7 And -if water was used for washing, that the act of treading or pressing down the clothes in the vessel involved their immersion, of course 7 Can clothes be trodden down in a vessel of water, and not be immersed? Now, that this is the TQdl force of the word, there can be no doubt. It is directly asserted by G^senius, in his lexicon ; and, if the reader would fain be satisfied, I would ask him to turn to the word in Dr. Robinson's edition of that 120 work. Let not Dr. Beecher say, then, that it is I who venture to deny his statement ; I only assert that it is denied by the best Hebraists in the world. The question, whether his assertion of the native'' force of the word be right or wrong, turns on the answer to another, namely, whether, if clothes are trodden down in a vessel of water, it necessarily follows that they are immersed, or not 1 While President Beecher's pen is in his hand, he takes the opportunity to present Mr. Towne with several ''authorities and facts," to show -'that those to whom the Greek was vernacular, did regard baptizo as signifying to purify, irrespective of mode." The first passage is from Clement of Alexandria (Strom,, Book lY). In this, that learned writer asserts two things, an opinion and a fact. (1.) The opinion is, that a resemblance of hajptistn proceeded from Moses to the Greek poets. " He illustrates it by two instances: Penelope washed herself, and put on clean apparel, and went to her devotions. Te- lemachus ivashed his hands in the ocean, and prayed to Minerva." For the first case of washmg, Homer uses the word udraino ; for the second case, nipto. President Beecher's question is, whether these wash- ings, which were a resemblance of Mosaic baptisms, are expressed by words denoting immersion. His first question is this: "Is not udraino a generic word, to denote washing or purification ? Is it not as generic as katharizol^'' 1 reply, it is not as ge- neric as katharizo^ to denote purification, for this latter applies to purification by fire or by expiation, as well as by water. The former word is confined to water. It means wetting and washing, and is often applied to the act of bathing. (See Donnegan's Lexicon.) We know that bathing was among the sacred rites of the Greeks, and this fact would inter- pret to them the idea of Homer as to the case of Penelope. An act of bathing among the Greeks would resemble an act of bathing among the He- 121 brews, sufficiently to suggest to Clement the thought, that the one people derived the rite from the other. So in regard to washing hands. President Beech- er asks, "Dare any one say that nipto denotes immersion? Is washing of the hands immersion?" I answer, the hands may be washed without their immersion; but the declaration of Homer is, " Te- lemachus washed his hands m the ocean.'''' That was undoubtedly immersion. What Clement de- clares is just this ; that such was the resemblance between the Jewish and the Grecian rites, that the latter might have been taken from the former. Such was his opinion. (2.) The FACT which Clement states, is, that " this was the custom of the Jews, that they should be often baptized" — how? in what circumstances? " Upon their couches," 5ays President Beecher. I have the best authority in the world, for saying that Clement asserted no such thing. This last phrase is a wrong translation. His expression is, they were baptized, — stti xoni] ("post concubitum") ; that is, afte?^ the use of the bed. The word in Clement is the same as that used by Paul in Romans, where it is rendered "ch amber in g."=^ The best edition of Clem- ent's works, is that of Archbishop Potter, published in England in the year 1715, and re-published at Venice in 1757, under the sanction of the Doge and several Italian scholars. The latter edition is the one which I have consulted,— an edition more highly respected in Europe for the sake of reference, than any other. The learned editor has a note on this very phrase, em, xomj • and referring to a certain writer, who had rendered it in Latin by the words, " in lecto," — on the couch, — pronounces it to be a corrupt translation.! *Rom. 13: 13. tThe note ia as follows: CTTt XOtTJy— Hoc est post concubitum. Herretus perperam vertit, in lecto. 11 122 It is probable that this Latin version was the source of President Beecher's mistake. As to its merits. Archbishop Potter says, " The translation of Hervetus, which is the one most used by learned men, although often altered for the better, neverthe- less in many things, even yet, is so foreign from the author's meaning, in others so lame and imperfect, in very many cases so ambiguous and obscure, that often in Clement's own work, there is nothing more wanting than Clement himself; and not unfrequently the Latin needs to be explained by the Greek, more than the Greek by the Latin. And, finally, he who should undertake to correct this as much as the case requires, would evidently be cleaning an Augean stable." What now becomes of President Beecher's asser- tion, that, according to Clement, the Jews were bap- tized on their beds 1 It is seen to be founded on an error. The best editions of Clement, published in Europe a century ago, would have furnished him the means of avoiding it, if he had carefully con- sulted them. But it is evident that he has been hasty. If this is a specimen of his way of reading the Greek fathers, his citations from them will not possess a very high authority. The letter before us presents two instances of the use of bapto, which are said to be " quite decisive " against the idea of immersion. The first is from the Argonautica of Apollonius Rhodius (Book 4, lines 156, 157), where, it is said, ''occurs the most re- markable case of immersion or dipping on record, if it be true that bapfo always means to dip." Others, however, who are well acquainted with the work just mentioned, and who have no theological theory to support, have found nothing remarkable in this case of dipping. It was such a dipping as occurs every day. It was not, as President Beecher thinks, the baptism of a serpent. The facts are these. A HUGE SERPENT lises up before Medea and Jason, — 123 " with uplifted head seeking to devour them. Medea then resorts to a soporific mixture in a cup or goblet, and, in the words of the poet," /?' de liitv agxevdoio veov iSTfisoit, Oalloi Banjovg ex. itvxea)vog axriQuiu cpag/itux' aoidaig ^FaiP6 %ax OifdalfJLov. That is ('-if bapto -means dip"), she, with a newly- cut juniper bough, dipping out of the cup the strong poisons, sprinkled them, with songs, upon his eyes. Now in this case, the dipping was not ' remarkable.' It is natural enough to dip a bough in a liquid, in order to sprinkle the liquid. Just as in Numbers 19 : 18, Moses commands that one should " dip hyssop in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent." The difference between one and the other act, is distinctly marked in both cases. Apollonius does not say that the serpent tvas baptized at all; but that the leafy rod of juniper was dipped, and with it, the serpent was sprinkled about the eyes. That my statement of the meaning of the poet in this passage is correct, may be more evident to the reader, by looking at the following translation of it, from a celebrated work. It was made by Fawkes, who published translations of Apollonius, Sappho, Bion, Moschus, and other Greek poets. It may be found in Anderson's British Poets. It runs thus : A branch of juniper the maid applies, Steeped in a baneful potion, to his eyes; Its odors strong the branch diffused around. And sunk the enormous beast in sleep profound. Lond. Edit., 1795. Certainly, the translator saw both dipping and sprink- ling here : the first, of the bough, the second, of the beast. But President Beecher remarks, " the Greek scho- liast sees no immersion here." On what ground does the President say this 1 Simply because the Greek scholiast declares that " in these and the following 124 words the poet says, that Medea, sprinklmg the poi- son with the juniper branch, put the dragon to sleep.' Very true. That is evident enough. But does the schoUast say, that Medea did not dip the bough 7 Not at all. Unfortunately for Pres. Beecher's ver- sion of the passage, he has thrown in the remark, that " the editor illustrates it by a reference to the passage in Virgil, in which the god of sleep shakes a bough, moistened with Lethean water, over the tem- ples of Palinurus, aud puts him to sleep." But did it not occur to our author, that Virgil speaks of that bough as having been soaked in the river Styx, — " vique Stygia soporatam 7"^ The reader may see how distinctly this is expressed by the translation of Dr. Trapp, professor of poetry at Oxford : — Wet with Lethean dew, and steeped in Styx. In our school-i)oy days we read the passage over and over again, but never imagined that a bongh had the power of scattering drops of Stygian water, without having first been put into it. I am much obliged to Pres. Beecher for alluding to this passage in Virgil, it is such a capital example, so exactly to the point. The bough was dipped, and then the water was sprinkled with it. As Potter observes in his Grecian Antiquities, it was customary with the Greeks to dip a torch in sacred water, and then sprinkle surrounding objects. For a torch, they often substituted a bough. f This is just what was done by Medea. According to Pliny, a juniper bough was deemed particularly etfectual against ser- pents.J We see, at a glance, from the nature of the case, that the bough must have been dipped in the poisonous drugs, in order to smear the serpent's eyes. The version in some sense speaks for itself The mention of the dipping of the leafy rod, was neces- * ^neid, v. 854. t Potter's Gr. Ant., lib. ii, chap. 4. t Pliny, lib. xxiv, c. 8. 125 sary to a complete description of the act of Medea. Without this, an important circumstance would have been omitted. With this, every thing is natural and in its place. And with this, the passage presents no difficulty at all. It is only necessary to look at it closely in its connection, in order to be convinced. Time was, when in the court of Pharaoh, Aaron threw down a rod upon the ground, and it became a serpent; but in this case as put by Pres. Beecher, when we set clearly in the light the subject of Me- dea's baptism, behold another wonder; — the serpent becomes a rod ! A SECOND Example. To show that bapto has lost its primary meaning of immersion, another passage is cited from Lucien. The writer does not tell where his quotation occurs ; but the reader may find it in the dialogue between Lycinus and the Cynic. We are told by Pres. Beecher, that \i bapto means to dip, the sentence is, " the flesh of the sllell-fish (called noQcpvga) can not only be eaten, but can also dip or immerse." He adds, " dip or immerse what? And how can flesh dip or immerse any thing?" To this 1 answer, that Lucien himself has told how, in the preceding sentence, which our author has omit- ted to notice. Lucien has told precisely what he means, and his meaning is entirely consonant with the idea of immersion. Look at the preceding sen- tence. The Cynic asks Lycinus, if those who use the shell-fish not only for food, but for dyeing, by m,annfacturing the flesh into dye-stuff liquids ^^ do not act contrary to nature ? Lycinus answers. No : that nature had rendered the flesh of the fish fit not only to be eaten, but also {bapteiii) to dye. Now, although Lucien has just explained the manner of this dyeing, that it is done by making a dye-stuff liquid out of the fleshy Pres. Beecher overlooks this ♦ Ba(p(xg fiTjxrjvojjuevoi. See Donnegan's Lex. on Sa(p