1 1 
 
 # 
 
 c£ 
 
 
 .•* 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 i? 
 
 
 IE 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 .in^ 
 
 
 -J^ 
 
 
 •5* 
 
 •-a 
 
 Q. 
 
 .; i 
 
 ^X* 
 
 
 
 ; 1 
 
 *S:> 
 
 Jzi 
 
 "^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 $ 
 
 
 
 "^ 
 
 (D 
 
 
 o 
 
 C 
 
 
 "C^ 
 
 o 
 
 bfl 
 
 rs* 
 
 •25 
 
 &H 
 
 <: 
 
 :| 
 
 m 
 
 o 
 
 13 
 
 g- 
 
 
 1^ 
 
 £ 
 
 .«^ 
 
 <c.* 
 
 M 
 
 <T3 
 
 *»>» 
 
 ^ 
 
 Ph 
 
 CO 
 
 ■&■ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 p^ 
 
 >> 
 
 SI 
 
 
 % 
 
 
 c 
 
 s 
 
 ^ 
 
 0) 
 
 1 
 
 ^ 
 
 CL 
 
 ^0 
 
 
 
EXAMINATION 
 
 " SPRINKLING THE ONLY MODE OF BAPTISM 
 
 MADE KNOWN IN THE SCRIPTURES, &c. ; 
 BY ABSALOM PETERS, D. D." 
 
 REV. J. TORREY^'SMITH, A. M. 
 
 I said, days should speak, and multitude of years should teach 
 wisdom. Great men are not always wise : therefore I said, Hearken 
 to me : I also will shew mine opinion.— Job xxxii : 7, 9, 10. 
 
 BOSTON: 
 
 JOHN PUTNAM, 81 CORNHILL, 
 
 1849. 
 
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1849, 
 
 BY JOHN PUTNAM, 
 
 in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Massachusetts. 
 
>.* 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Introductory, .... 5 
 
 Unfortunate representations and statements — 
 " Industrious ignorance " — "Grand error of 
 the Baptists " — " Close Communion " — " A 
 concession " — Greek Church — Modes of 
 sprinkling — Translations of baptizo — Robin- 
 son on Taylor, .... 7 
 Meaning of baptizo — " Heathen Greek," 25 
 "The true question" — Pneuma — Angelos — 
 
 Arotron, ..... 37 
 
 Jewish and sacred use of baptizo, . . 43 
 
 Is baptism purification 1 . . . 46 
 
 New Testament meaning of baptizo — Incidental 
 use of the word — Baptism of the Holy Ghost 
 — Symbolical import of baptism. Rom. 6 : 3, 
 4. Col. 2 : 12. 1 Cor. 15 : 29. 1 Pet. 3: 21. 
 — Other figurative allusions to baptism — Bap- 
 tism in the cloud and in the sea, . 57 
 " All questions on the mode of baptism reduced 
 to one," ..... 88 
 
IV 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 Construction of baptize — Greek preposition en, 
 John's baptism, .... 
 Baptism of Christ — Greek preposition apo, 
 Baptism of the>3000 — Several similar examples, 
 Baptism of the Eunuch — Greek prepositions eis 
 and eli — " Desert" — Isaac's " springs in the 
 desert," .... 
 Paul buried " in a water-pot of stone," 
 Baptism of Cornelius and his friends. 
 Baptism of Lydia and her household, 
 Baptism of the jailer and his household. 
 Baptism in the early church, 
 Jewish proselyte baptism, . 
 Alleged impracticability of immersion. 
 Remarks on Part II — Covenants — Jewish and 
 Christian Church — Alleged testimony of Jus- 
 tin Martyr, .... 
 " Origin of the Baptists " — Historical sketch. 
 Conclusion — Hint to Pedo-baptists, 
 
 91 
 
 99 
 
 108 
 
 111 
 
 115 
 
 126 
 126 
 
 127 
 127 
 129 
 13S 
 146 
 
 150 
 164 
 
 179 
 
"</^- 
 
 DEDICATION 
 
 To th^ Faculty and Students of Williams College, 
 my revered Alma Mater ; — to the esteemed Pastor of 
 the First Congregational Parish in Williamstown, to 
 whose sanctuary parental faithfulness directed my 
 early steps ; — and to the People of Williamstown, the 
 place of my birth, the home of my childhood and 
 youth, the following pages are dedicated, with every 
 feeling of respect and interest. 
 
 By their friend and servant. 
 
 In the ministry of the gospel, 
 
 J. T. Smith. 
 Sandisfield, Mass., Oct. 1848. 
 

 
 EXAMINATION. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 The circumstance that Dr. Peters' work on 
 Baptism was written and published, not only in 
 the county of my residence, but also in the 
 place of my birth and education, has very nat- 
 urally awakened in my mind an interest suffi- 
 cient to prompt me to a careful reading of it. 
 This interest is not at all diminished by a per- 
 sonal respect which I have ever cherished for 
 its author. In childhood and early youth I 
 knew him as a minister of the gospel, and not 
 unfrequently heard him preach in the pulpit 
 which he now fills, so much to the gratification 
 and profit of his people, when he was settled in 
 a neighboring town. The opportunities I have 
 had of occasionally hearing him in my riper 
 ]* 
 
6 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 years, and the reading of the very able period- 
 ical of which he was for a considerable time 
 the senior editor, have only strengthened those 
 early favorable impressions. I could, there- 
 fore, have willingly been spared the necessity 
 I feel of animadverting upon this work. My 
 personal regard for its author would prompt 
 me to silence; a greater regard which I owe 
 to our common Lord and to the cause of truth, 
 equally dear I trust to us both, impels me to 
 write. 
 
 In making these animadversions, I must 
 speak freely. No merely personal considera- 
 tions ought to prevent my doing it. Still I 
 trust I shall not lose sight of the fact that Dr. 
 Peters had grey hairs upon his head when I 
 entered manhood, nor forget what is due to his 
 mature experience from my comparative inex- 
 perience. And I here, once for all, disclaim 
 any feelings towards him but those of sincere 
 respect, both as a man, a Christian, and a min- 
 ister of the gospel. 
 
 The book, I am bound to believe, contains 
 his well considered opinions on the subject of 
 which it treats, which he cherishes for reasons 
 unquestionably satisfactory to himself. Yet I 
 feel obliged to say — and I say it in all candor 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 7 
 
 — it abounds with assumptions and unproved 
 assertions. Some of these appear to me so 
 destitute even of ijlausihility , that the reader 
 must not be surprised if I speak of them in a 
 tone of decisiveness, bordering upon abrupt- 
 ness. As my object in writing is the defence 
 of what I believe to be truth against important 
 error, I cannot do otherwise than write with 
 plainness and decision. 
 
 I regret to find some expressions which be- 
 tray an apparently uncandid and unkind feel- 
 ing towards those against whom the doctor is 
 writing — exceptions perhaps to the general 
 tenor of the book. Some of these, in connec- 
 tion with several miscellaneous topics, will now 
 be noticed. 
 
 UNFORTUNATE REPRESENTATIONS AND STATE- 
 MENTS. 
 
 The Doctor, in the appendix, quotes with an 
 expression of approbation, a passage from the 
 editor of Calmet's Dictionary, beginning with 
 the following sentence: — "Before we can dis- 
 cuss a theological subject, we must clear away 
 those perversions in which industrious igno- 
 rance and criminal presumption involve it." I 
 give the italics as I find them. Now the least 
 
8 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 I can say about this sentence is, that it was in 
 bad taste, both for Mr. C. Taylor to write it 
 and Dr. Peters to quote it. Perhaps if hr had 
 not quoted it, we should not have noticed the 
 following on p. 18. "Learning andignorance, 
 simple piety and sectarian zeal, have all been 
 deeply and perseveringly engaged in its inves- 
 tigation." 
 
 It is an old and common proverb, " It is hard 
 twitting upon facts." That Baptists are " ig-- 
 norant " enough, I am not going to deny. But 
 I say it is not very fraternal for our more highly 
 favored brethren to twit us of it. Is it not a 
 little in the spirit of the elder brother in the par- 
 able? It is still worse when they allow that we 
 are '' industrious.^' The wise man says, 
 •' there is more hope of a fool, than there is of 
 him who is wise in his own conceit.''^ There 
 surely is some hope of the Baptists, if they feel 
 their "ignorance" enough to be "industri- 
 ous." And we surely ought to expect that our 
 brethren who are favored with "learning," 
 would rather encourage our " industrious " at- 
 tempts to be relieved from the charge of " ig- 
 norance." But if they meet us with the taunt 
 of ''industrious igiiorance," they must not be 
 surprised if we use that industry in a very tho- 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 9 
 
 rough canvassing of their condescending at- 
 tempts to enlighten us. 
 
 Dr. P. says, (p. 128,) "The grand error of 
 our Baptist brethren, after all, is this: not that 
 they prefer one mode to another; nor that they 
 have adopted the most impracticable and one- 
 rous of all modes, which on that account they 
 call the 'cross of Christ,^ when, in fact, it is 
 only a cross of their own making; nor that they 
 practise a mode for which there is no direct 
 authority in the scriptures — but it is that they 
 make the mode the essential thing in bap- 
 tism." Now I pronounce this, at once, a most 
 disreputable begging of the whole question, 
 and a gross calumny upon us. The grand 
 charge is preceded by three others. First, we 
 "prefer one mode to another." Again and 
 again have we disclaimed all controversy about 
 modes. We have a greater work to do. Bap- 
 tism ITSELF is at stake; and shall we stop to 
 differ about modes? Show us that sprinkling 
 IS a MODE of baptism, and we differ no longer. 
 Again, we "have adopted the most impracti- 
 cable and onerous of all modes, which on that 
 account," &c. Is this candid? Have we se- 
 lected the most onerous among several equally 
 allowable modes, and insisted upon it? Do we 
 
10 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 not insist on immersion, not because it is a 
 MODE of baptism, but because it is baptism it- 
 self, and THE THING required? Admit that 
 we are in error here ; still so long as it is our 
 candid belief, religiously held, we are not open 
 to the astounding charge here attempted to be 
 fastened on us. Again, we " practise a mode 
 for which there is no direct authority in the 
 scriptures." The very point in dispute. "But 
 it is that they make the mode the essential 
 THING IN BAPTISM." Can Dr. P. have read a 
 single book on baptism by a Baptist writer, and 
 make this statement.'* Again I say, we have 
 no dispute about the mode ; all we ask is the 
 THING. Our position is, that immersion is not 
 a mode, but the thing itself. Whether we 
 are right or wrong in this position, so long as 
 this is our position, to say that we make the 
 mode the essential thing in baptism, is an un- 
 founded calumny. 
 
 This alleged pertinacity of ours about the 
 mere mode of baptism, is illustrated on p. 120, 
 by the ordinance of the supper. It is said, 
 that when this ordinance was institued, the 
 apostles " met in the mg-/i^ — on Thursday — in 
 an upper chamber, of a private dwelling; they 
 used unleavened bread, and the pure juice of 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 11 
 
 the grape, and received it half sitting, 3.nd half 
 lying. ^^ Does not the reader see, that there is 
 no comparison between these two cases? All 
 that is commanded in this ordinance, is that 
 bread and wine be eaten, and drank, with 
 prayer, and in a devout spirit, in grateful re- 
 membrance of Christ's death. This is all that 
 is expressed or implied in the words which con- 
 tain the account of the institution of this ordi- 
 nance. But now, suppose some Christians 
 should claim that the use of bread and wine in 
 this ordinance, is only a mode of observing it, 
 and that the use of apples and milk is another 
 mode, and suppose these Christians should say 
 that Dr. Peters, in contending for bread and 
 wine, is contending for a mere mode; would he 
 admit that charge .'' He would say, these ele- 
 ments are commanded; so far as relates to the 
 external act in this ordinance, the use of these 
 is not a mode, but the thing. This is a parallel 
 case. This is what we say about immersion. 
 If sprinkling were a mode of baptism — if the 
 laws of language would allow us to admit that 
 haptizo may be translated sprinkle, we should 
 have no controversy on the outward form of 
 baptism. 
 
 Dr. P. uses the expression on p. 22, '' close 
 
12 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 communion Baptists. ^^ Similar expressions are 
 found elsewhere. Is this candid? Did he sup- 
 pose that this expression would give his reader 
 a particle of light on any subject whatever, or 
 that it would have any effect whatever except 
 to excite groundless prejudice against us? As 
 painful as such a conclusion is, have we not 
 good reason to conclude that he used it pre- 
 cisely for this purpose? 
 
 The term close communion, if it have any 
 meaning at all, (and it can hardly be said to 
 have,) means restricted communion. And what 
 evangelical denomination is there, that does 
 not restrict its communion? We invite to the 
 communion none whom we deem unbaptized; 
 does Dr. Peters invite to his communion those 
 whom he deems unbaptized? and does not every 
 evangelical denomination restrict its commun- 
 ion as far as that? Dr. Griffin says, " Should 
 a pious Quaker so far depart from his princi- 
 ples as to wish to commune with me at the 
 Lord's table while he yet refused to be bap- 
 tized, I could not receive him; because there 
 is such a relationship established between 
 those two ordinances that I have no right to 
 separate them.'' He adds, "The only question 
 then is, whether baptism by sprinkling is valid 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 13 
 
 baptism." He then does just what we should 
 expect Dr. Griffin would do; not to rail at us — 
 for he always cherished a warm regard for 
 Baptists — but to give reasons for believing 
 sprinkling to be valid baptism. Now will Dr. 
 Peters object to this principle as stated by Dr. 
 Griffin? But this is precisely our principle. 
 In our hands indeed, it cuts off more christians 
 from our communion than it would in Dr. Grif- 
 fin's or Dr. Peters' hands; but the principle is 
 the same. We exclude Pedo-baptists from our 
 communion, for the same reason that they ex- 
 clude Quakers or any body else whom they 
 consider unbaptized; viz. because we think 
 them unbaptized, and because we consider that 
 "there is such a relationship established be- 
 tween these two ordinances, that we have no 
 RIGHT to separate them." 
 
 I contend that so far as closeness goes, our 
 brethren are more ^^ close " than we are. We 
 exclude from our communion all whom we deem 
 unbaptized. They exclude all whom they deem 
 unbaptized, and cry " close communion! " upon 
 us. But is that all .'' No. They exclude from 
 their communion a large class of persons whom 
 they claim to have solemnly baptized into the 
 church, in the name of the Father, Son, and 
 2 
 
14 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 Holy Ghost! Dr. P. (p. 158,) in common 
 with Dwight, Miller, Stearns, and most other 
 Pedo-baptist writers, claims that baptized chil- 
 dren are members of the church. Here then 
 is a large and interesting class of baptized 
 church members, whom their pastors and breth- 
 ren will not admit to the communion! See 
 Matt. vii. 3, 4.* 
 
 On p. 124, after stating the fact that Baptist 
 missionaries in their versions of the scriptures 
 into heathen languages, translate the words 
 baptizo and baptisma, instead of transferring 
 them, the Doctor adds, "They eschew the 
 very words baptize and baptism, in all their 
 translations." A new idea truly ! Translating 
 a word is eschewing it! When missionaries of 
 all denominations translate the word metanoeo, 
 (repent) on the supposition that they are giv- 
 ing that word to the heathen, it seems they 
 thereby eschew the word. The christian 
 world have been congratulating themselves 
 on their success in giving the Bible to the 
 heathen, because it is translated into so many 
 
 * For a full elucidation of the subject of communion, so 
 far as it is a controverted subject, see " Remington on Com- 
 munion," a tract published by L. Colby & Co., New Fork. 
 It is the best and most conclusive treatise that I know of on 
 that subject. 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 15 
 
 languages. But now it turns out, that in 
 doing this, they havo eschewed the whole Bible! 
 
 But now as to this matter of " eschewing," 
 let us see how the case stands between Bap- 
 tists and Pedo-baptists. Baptists translate 
 these words, therefore they eschew them. 
 Pedo-baptists do not translate these words, 
 therefore they do not eschew them. But they 
 translate all the rest of the Bible, except these 
 words. Now since translating a word is es- 
 chewing it, it follows indisputably that our 
 brethren eschew the whole bible, except the 
 words baptize and baptism! 
 
 He adds, "I name this fact as a concession 
 on the part of our Baptist brethren, perfectly 
 satisfactory, that they do not regard our present 
 translation of the Bible as justifying, or even 
 favoring immersion"! Is not this profound 
 reasoning? Such Baptist ministers as defend 
 their views simply from the English Bible are 
 "ignorant.''^ "Our best philologists have 
 abundantly proved," &c. But when we take 
 him up on the testimony of those philologists 
 and follow him into the original — what then? 
 "A concession! '' "Perfectly satisfactory!" 
 " They admit that the English Bible is entirely 
 against them! " 
 
16 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 If I chose to descend to it, I could produce 
 many such concessions from Dr. P's book. 
 For example : — On p. 13, the Doctor tells us 
 that he uses the word sprinkling in his book in 
 preference to aspersion, affusion, or pouring, 
 (and of course in preference to immersion,) be- 
 cause it is a better translation (not of baptizo, 
 let the reader mark, but) of rantizo ; and 
 that he uses the word sprinkling according to 
 the original signification (not of baptizo, but) 
 of rantizo, which is, to pour all over; to wet; to 
 besprinkle. Of course, it must follow, that he 
 always reads the words baptize and baptism in 
 the Bible, rantize and rantism; and if he could 
 have a Bible which fully met his views, the 
 words rantize and rantism would always be 
 used, where the words baptize and baptism now 
 occur. " I name this fact as a concession on 
 the part of" Dr. Peters, " perfectly satisfac- 
 tory, that he does not regard our present Bi- 
 ble," either in the original or the translation, 
 " as justifying or e\ en favoring^ ^ sprinkling. I 
 name it also as a concession on his part, that 
 instead of the name Baptist being an appropri- 
 ate one for him, (see p. 124) his proper appel- 
 lation would be Rantist. Now I appeal to the 
 reader, if I have not fixed a concession upon 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 17 
 
 him, as clearly sustained, to say the least, as 
 the one he attempts to fasten upon us. 
 
 On p. 21, Dr. P. tells us that the Greek 
 church cannot be claimed as the exclusive sup- 
 porters, of either immersion or sprinkling, be- 
 cause they, after immersing the subject three 
 times, sprinkle him with water. 
 
 As this matter of sprinkling in the Greek 
 church was entirely new to me, I addressed a 
 letter to Rev. H. T. Love, of North Adams, 
 who, having been for several years a mission- 
 ary in Greece, is well acquainted with the 
 usages of that church. I received a letter 
 from him in reply, of which the following is 
 the essential part. 
 
 JVorth Adams, Sept. 13, 1848. 
 Rev. and dear Brother : — 
 
 You say that the Rev. Dr. Peters, of Wil- 
 liamstown, in his book entitled, " Sprinkling 
 the only Mode of Baptism made known in the 
 Scriptures," makes the statement that the 
 Greek church sprinkle the candidate, after 
 they have immc7^sed him, and that, therefore, the 
 practice of that church cannot be clairded as the 
 exclusive supporter of either mode. You inquire 
 for the correctness of this statement. 
 2* 
 
18 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 In reply I would say, that during my resi- 
 dence of something more than six years in 
 Greece Proper, and in the Ionian Islands, I 
 was familiar with all the modes of worship of 
 the Greek church, and I never saw any sprink- 
 ling, either ecclesiastical or secular, which in 
 the Greek language was called baptism. I 
 have witnessed the ceremony of baptizing their 
 children, and never saw any sprinkling what- 
 ever on the occasion. I have frequently ex- 
 amined the service of the Greek church in re- 
 ference to the ordinance of baptism, as con- 
 tained in their ecclesiastical books. There is 
 no mention whatever of sprinkling there. It 
 is uniformly immersion. Dr. Peters would 
 certainly have done well, if he had given us 
 his authority for this most remarkable state- 
 ment. 
 
 I am, my dear brother, 
 
 Yours affectionately, 
 
 Horace T. Love. 
 
 Dr. P. adds, " The Roman Catholic church, 
 whose example is quite as worthy of imitation, 
 practice only sprinkling so far as water is 
 used." True, but the Roman Catholic church 
 admits that the primitive baptism was immer- 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 19 
 
 sion, but that she, by the authority with which 
 Christ has invested her, has changed it. If 
 any body thinks that an example worthy of 
 imitation, let them follow it. For ourselves, 
 we have nothing to do with imitating either of 
 those churches. All we ask of the Greek 
 church is its testimony as to the meaning of 
 the Greek word bapiizo ; and we have the 
 testimony of both that and the Catholic in our 
 favor. 
 
 The Doctor on p. 21 speaks somewhat com- 
 placently of the unanimity of opinion in refer- 
 ence to the mode of sprinkling, among those 
 who practice it, in contrast with an alleged 
 diversity of opinion in reference to the mode of 
 immersion among those who practice that. 
 Now I presume that our brethren have too 
 much sense to make a diversity of practice in 
 sprinkling a matter of dispute, still it will not 
 be denied, that there is as great a diversity 
 among them as can be shown among the ad- 
 vocates of immersion. Sometimes the " sprink- 
 ling " is done by pouring water from a bowl 
 upon the head of the candidate; sometimes it 
 is done by the administrator dipping his hand 
 thrice in a basin, and giving the subject a 
 trine sprinkling; sometimes the candidate is 
 
20 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 sprinkled but once ; and sometimes the "sptinJc- 
 ling " is done without any sprinkling at all, — 
 the minister dipping the ends of his fingers 
 and laying them on the forehead or head ; or 
 again dipping the fore finger, and making the 
 sign of the cross. Still there is no dispute 
 among them, and I do not know of any among 
 Baptists about the mode of immersion. Tunk- 
 ers are not Baptists; and we have no dispute 
 with them about triple forward immersion. 
 Campbellites are not Baptists; we neither con- 
 cede them the name, nor do they claim it. If 
 Campbellites and Tunkers choose to dispute, 
 it concerns us as little as the disputes between 
 Old and New School Presbyterians. That 
 Campbellites agree with us in the outward 
 form of baptism, is to us a mere trifle in com- 
 parison with the damning error which they 
 hold in common with the Episcopal church, 
 and such other Pedobaptists as will send for a 
 minister in the night, to sprinkle a child lest it 
 should die without baptism, — the saving efficacy 
 of baptism. 
 
 Dr. P. in giving the meaning of rantizo, on 
 p. 13, 1 infer quotes from Donnegan's Lexi- 
 con, because he gives the meanings as they 
 are laid down there, verbatim, et literatim, et 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 21 
 
 punctuatim. Now I certainly shall not dispute 
 those definitions. I would simply ask, if Don- 
 negan is good authority on the meaning of 
 raniizo, why is he not, also, on the meaning of 
 bajitizo ? If he is to be believed, when he 
 says rantizo means to pour all over; to wet; to 
 besprinkle; why should he not be when he 
 says baptizo means to immerse repeatedly into a 
 liquid; to submerge, — to soak thoroughly, — to 
 saturate ? 
 
 It is moreover worthy of notice, that the 
 Doctor labors to show that baptizo and ran- 
 tizo are synonymous words. But did any 
 mortal ever see a lexicon which defined those 
 two words in the same terms? or which de- 
 fined baptizo in the terms in which Donnegan 
 defines rantizol Never. But if they are sy- 
 nonymous, they ought to be defined in the 
 same terms. Every lexicographer who re- 
 garded them as synonymous, would so define 
 them. But that lexicographer is yet to be 
 found. 
 
 Dr. P. has very appropriately dedicated his 
 book to the Faculty and Students of Williams 
 College; and it might be interesting to some 
 who have graduated at that college, to know 
 how far the gentleman who now fills the Greek 
 
22 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 chair, concurs in the philological principles of 
 this book. In Professor Kellogg's day the 
 meaning of baptizo, in so much of the Greek 
 classics as was then read, meant nothing 
 but immerse; and to those who enjoyed the 
 rare privilege of his instructions, his opinion 
 would outweigh (begging pardon) that of Dr. 
 Peters, and his friend of Calmet's Dictionary 
 both. I can speak with confidence on this 
 point, for I believe I read every word that be- 
 longed to the Greek course while I was there ; 
 and the fact is as I have stated. 
 
 Dr. P.'s principles of translating Greek par- 
 ticles would have sounded strange in those 
 halls in Prof. Kellogg's day. That thorough 
 linguist was particular to a proverb, in rela- 
 tion to translating Greek particles. They al- 
 ways had a clear and precise meaning with 
 him. So well understood was this among in- 
 dolent and superficial students, that one of 
 this class, and something of a wag withal, 
 used to say that " Prof Kellogg was prepar- 
 ing for the press a bock on the Greek particle 
 ge, as large as Donnegan's Lexicon." 
 
 On p. 43 Dr. P. says, ''The transfer of this 
 word baptism into the English Bible was only 
 calling the thing by its right name. It had no 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. W^ 
 
 other name in any language. ^^ He could 
 not have made a very particular inquiry as to 
 the facts in this case before he penned this 
 statement, and for the reader's benefit I will 
 state them. Rev. F. W. Gotch, of Trinity 
 College, Dublin, published a few years since 
 a pamphlet, showing the rendering of the 
 word baptizo in the ancient and modern ver- 
 sions of the New Testament. From this it 
 appears that the ordinance of baptism had 
 some other name than that, in every language 
 in which the New Testament had been trans- 
 lated previously to the appearance of our ver- 
 sion, except seven. In seventeen versions, 
 made earlier than ours, the word is render- 
 ed immerse; including the Syriac, Arabic, 
 Ethiopic, Coptic, Armenian, Gothic, German, 
 Danish, Swedish, Dutch, Belgic and Welch. 
 In the Sahidic, Basmuric and Latin Vulgate, 
 baptizo is transferred; and also in the earlier 
 English, French, Spanish and Italian; com- 
 prising in all eight versions. Six of these, 
 however, may be reduced to two, because 
 they were made in languages which may be 
 regarded as dialects of the Latin, and were 
 translations from that version. Besides these, 
 in two versions it was rendered wash, and in 
 three, cross. So that in all the languages in 
 
24 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 which the Bible had been translated, this or- 
 dinance had some other name than baptism, 
 except the Latin, French, Spanish, Italian 
 and English, and two eastern languages; and 
 in the most of them that name was immersion. 
 In the Appendix, p. 189, Mr. C. Taylor 
 gives us a rare definition of immerse, " A 
 man is immersed who stands on his toes, or up 
 to his knees in wafer." This must be new to 
 "plain men." As Mr. T. calls the term 
 "bad Latin," we will inquire what it is in 
 Latin. Leverett's Lexicon defines immergo, 
 to plunge into, imme7'se, dip in, sink. Webster 
 defines the English word immerse, to put under 
 ivater or other fluid, to plunge, to dip. Ac- 
 cording to these authorities, a man cannot be 
 immersed in water, without being put under 
 water. If his toes are covered with water, his 
 toes are immersed; if he stands up to his 
 knees in water, his feet and legs are immersed; 
 but the man is not immersed. A man who 
 makes so self-evident a blunder the starting 
 point of his argument, cannot, in his own eyes, 
 have much difficulty in proving any thing.* 
 
 * After observing the high commendation which Dr. Peters 
 has given to this Mr. C. Taylor, it might be interesting to 
 the reader to understand the estimate which Frot\ Robinson, 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 25 
 
 MEANING OF BAPTIZO. 
 
 Dr. Peters is not quite accurate in giving 
 the position of the Baptists. He says (p. 20) 
 that we "strenuously maintain that the pri- 
 mary classical meaning of baptizo is to im- 
 merse or dip," and that " on this ground, prin- 
 cipally," we ''contend that immersion and 
 nothing else is baptism.^' We maintain that 
 the primary and proper meaning of baptizo, 
 
 the editor of the American edition of Calmet's Dictionary 
 places upon him. He says in his preface : — " The character 
 of Mr. Taylor as an editor, and the value of his additions to 
 Calmet's work, may be given in few words. Acquainted 
 with oriental philology only through the meagre system of 
 Masclef and Parkhurst3 as an expounder of etymologies, 
 outstripping even the extravagance of the latter 5 and as a 
 theorist in the ancient history of nations, overstepping the 
 limits which even Bryant had felt himself constrained to ob- 
 serve 5 — his remarks on these, and many collateral topics, 
 may be characterized as being in general fanciful, very often 
 rash, and sometimes even involving apparent absurdity. 
 They must ever be received by the student with great cau- 
 tion." With the specimen before us which Dr. Peters has 
 given of Mr. C. Taylor, no one can doubt the perfect accu- 
 rarcy of Prof. Robinson's estimate of him. It is indeed with 
 much truth that Dr. Peters has said that his book does not 
 depend on great names; Mr. C. Taylor is his greatest. He 
 must search a good while to find great names to sanction 
 the proposition that sprinkling is the only mode of baptism 
 made known in the scriptures. 
 3 
 
26 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 both in classical, Jewish and sacred Greek, — 
 in any and every kind of Greek that has any 
 title to be quoted as authority, is to immerse; 
 and it is on this ground we contend that im- 
 mersion and nothing else is baptism. 
 
 Baptists believe that the " command to bap- 
 tize has a dejinite meaning, — a meaning which 
 was understood by those to whom it was pri- 
 marily addressed, and which ought to be under- 
 stood by us;" (p. 15,) — that *'the single word 
 baptizo defines the ordinance." (p. 17.) Our 
 first inquiry therefore is, What does this word 
 baptize mean? And since it " is not with us 
 vernacular," (p. 17,) since this word is Greek, 
 not translated but only transferred into the 
 English Bible, (pp. 42, 123,) we conclude the 
 surest way to ascertain its meaning, is to re- 
 sort to those who used this language, and to 
 whom this word was vernacular. And when 
 •Dr. Carson on the side of the Baptists, and 
 Prof. Stuart on the side of the Pedobaptists, 
 have each for himself, and independent of the 
 other, made a thorough exploration of the 
 whole range of classical literature, and per- 
 fectly agreed as to the results of that exami- 
 nation, that this word never means in classical 
 Greek any thing else but immerse or over- 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 27 
 
 whelm, we conclude that one important step 
 has been taken towards settling the meaning 
 of the word baptize, in the commission of our 
 Lord. But now Dr. Peters tells us, that is all 
 labor lost! Dr. Carson and Prof. Stuart sup- 
 posed that they were doing the Christian 
 world a service, in establishing the meaning 
 of baptizo in the classics. Simple men, they 
 might just as well have been rummaging the 
 Hindoo shasters, so far as doing any thing to 
 settle this controversy is concerned! The entire 
 agreement of two such men on this point, is of 
 no importance whatever! All their labor was 
 on the " mistaken assumption tha.t it is in point," 
 for " in fact it has little or nothing to do with 
 the subject!" It is "heathen Greek!" (p 22.) 
 It is a pity that Dr. Carson and Prof. Stuart 
 could not have been told of this in season, and 
 so have been saved those hours of painful 
 poring over old Greek books. 
 
 Now it must be allowed that this is a very 
 summai^, if not conclusive way of disposing 
 of an argument. Classical Greek is "heathen 
 Greek!'' — "has little or nothing to do with 
 the subject!" I venture to say that if classi- 
 cal Greek made any show of proving that bap- 
 tizo means sprinkle, we should hear nothing 
 
28 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 about the irrelevancy of heathen Greek. On 
 such an artifice comment is unnecessary. 
 
 This again would have been a queer sound 
 within the walls of Williams College eight or 
 ten years ago. Heathen Greek! It is true we 
 were well aware that Homer, Herodotus, Xen- 
 ophon, Sophocles, Thucidides, Demosthenes 
 were heathens, but it never once occurred to 
 us that their elegant pages were heathen Greek. 
 Some of us were looking forward to the work 
 of the ministry, and supposed, and our instruct- 
 ors encouraged us to believe, that we were 
 doing something to prepare ourselves for the 
 sacred office. Poor dupes! We were merely 
 studying heathen Greek! 
 
 Had the Doctor been content with affirming 
 that the classical meaning of baptizo is wholly 
 irrelevant, I might have taken him as conced- 
 ing that its classical meaning is solely im- 
 merse, and so have been spared the necessity 
 of proving it. But he devotes half a page to 
 the assertion that it means in the classics, to 
 tinge, to dye, to smear, &c., as well as to im- 
 merse. Now I shall be obliged to spend as 
 much time in proving that his assertion is un- 
 founded, as if he had attempted to prove its 
 truth; for I think its classical meaning does 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 29 
 
 have some bearing upon its meaning in the 
 New Testament. 
 
 He says, "The Editor of Calmet's Diction- 
 ary quotes some 80 examples, in every one of 
 which, the word in question implies less than 
 submersion, and in most of them, no more than 
 sprinkling, moistening, pouring, or staining. ^^ 
 Without seeing any more of the book referred 
 to than the specimen given us in the appendix, 
 I venture the assertion that the word baptize 
 does not occur in a single example which has 
 any show of proving what is here affirmed. 
 Mr. C. Taylor, in the passage in the appendix, 
 undertakes to show by divers examples the 
 meaning of baptize in the New Testament. 
 And how does he do it .'' By citing several in- 
 stances of the use of the verb bapto, and the 
 noun baptismos, neither of which are employed 
 in the New Testament to designate the ordi- 
 nance of baptism. And that is the way that 
 Pedo-baptists always manage this controversy. 
 They prove that bapto means to tinge, to dye, 
 or to smear, and then triumphantly exclaim, 
 that baptize does not always mean immerse! , 
 In all their books which contain passages cited 
 from Greek author's designed to shew that bap- 
 Tizo means something short of immePvSE, the 
 
30 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 word is not baptizo but bapto. This I know 
 from an examination of many of those books. 
 But BAPTO is not the word used to designate this 
 rite; it is ahcays baptizo. 
 
 Now I will prove from Prof Stuart, what the 
 classical meaning of both these words is, es- 
 tablished by a great number of passages cited 
 by him. And I suppose I need not inform the 
 reader that Prof Stuart is a Massachusetts 
 Congregationalist, for a long time the virtual 
 head of Andover Seminary, the father of bibli- 
 cal learning in this country, and of a world- 
 wide reputation for varied and extensive learn- 
 ing. I shall give the results only of his inves- 
 tigation, and in his own words. 
 
 "1. Bapto and baptizo mean to dip, plunge, 
 or immerse into any thing liquid. All lexicog- 
 raphers and critics of any note are agreed in 
 this. 
 
 "2. The verb bapto means to plunge or 
 thrust into any thing solid, but permeable, so 
 as to cover or enclose the thing plunged. This 
 is exclusively employed in such cases. 
 
 "3. The yevh bapto, only, is employed to 
 convey the meaning to dip out, to dip up, by 
 plunging in a vessel and drawing it up. 
 
 *'4, The verb bapto, qnlv, (and its deriva- 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 31 
 
 tives in point of form,) signifies to tinge, dye, 
 or COLOR. In this respect it seems plainhj to 
 differ from baptizo. I find no instance in ivhich 
 the latter is employed in this waij. 
 
 "5. The word baptizo means to overwhelm, 
 literally and figuratively, in a variety of ways. 
 
 "6. Bapto is employed in the sense to 
 SMEAR, to BATHE, by the application of a liquid 
 to the surface. 
 
 "7. A shade of meaning kindred to the 
 above, viz. to wash, is sometimes attached to 
 bapto in the classics." 
 
 He adds, " The Greek writers made a dis- 
 tinct and DIVERSE use of the ivords bapto and 
 
 baptizo, NEVER CONFOUNDING THEM." The 
 
 reason why Dr. Peters says that baptizo means 
 to tinge, to dye, to smear, Slc. in the classics, 
 is that he confounds it with bapto. The 
 reader will see that Prof Stuart gives but two 
 definitions to baptizo. 1. To dip, plunge, or 
 immerse into any liguid. 2. To overwhelm, 
 literally and figuratively. 
 
 While Prof Stuart was writing this essay, 
 Dr. Carson in England, was publishing his 
 work on baptism, in which he arrives at pre- 
 cisely the same results as to the meaning of 
 those words that Prof Stuart does. He shows, 
 
32 EXAMINATION OP 
 
 in entire agreement with Prof. Stuart, that the 
 primary meaning of bapto is to dip or immerse, 
 but because in dyeing, the substance to be col- 
 ored • is ordinarily dipped into the coloring 
 liquid, this word has the secondary significa- 
 tion of tinge, dye, smear, Sec; and he also 
 shows, in perfect agreement with Prof. Stuart, 
 that baptizo in the classics never has that sec- 
 ondary signification, but always means immerse 
 or overivhelm. 
 
 Now I put it to " plain men," whether it is 
 candid and honest in Pedo-baptist ministers to 
 represent that baptizo means to tinge, dye, 
 smear, moisten, wet, because bapto may admit 
 those significations, after two such men on both 
 sides have so conclusively settled the clear dis- 
 tinction between those words, and proved that 
 baptizo in the classics never has those significa- 
 tionsl Dr. Peters may perhaps say, he is not 
 bound by Prof Stuart's admissions. But he is 
 bound by what Prof Stuart has proved, unless 
 he proves the reverse. If not, how is this con- 
 troversy ever to be settled.'' If important 
 points, admitted and proved by two such wri- 
 ters on both sides, are to be brought up again 
 in the form of naked assertion, and reiterated 
 again and again, how shall we ever come to 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 33 
 
 agree upon any thing? I must say to my 
 Pedo-baptist brethren, it requires a great 
 stretch of charity to believe that they have any 
 desire to settle this controversy, from the man- 
 ner in which they conduct it. 
 
 I here say, once for all, I shall spend no 
 time disputing with any man about bapto. It 
 is not the word in question, and has nothing to 
 do with the subject. 
 
 Dr. P. refers to "our best philologists," 
 which I suppose means Pedo-baptist philolo- 
 gists. I have quoted from one, Prof Stuart, 
 and to show the utter groundlessness of his as- 
 sertion, I will add the testimony of a few others 
 — all Pedo-baptists. 
 
 My second citation shall be from Dr. Robin- 
 son, acknowledged to be among biblical scho- 
 lars and critics in this country like Saul among 
 his people — head and shoulders above them. 
 He is referred to by Dr. P., and quoted as 
 high authority, on p. 29. In his Greek and 
 English Lexicon of the New Testament, a 
 work absolutely without a rival in the lan- 
 guage, the following are the only definitions 
 given of baptizo: "To immerse, to sink. In 
 the New Testament, 1. To wash, to cleanse 
 by washing. 2. To administer the rite of bap- 
 
34 EXAMINATION OP 
 
 tism. Metaphorically and in allusion to the 
 sacred rite of baptism, to baptize in the Holy 
 Ghost and in fire, to overwhelm, richly furnish 
 with all spiritual gifts, or overwhelm in un- 
 quenchable fire." 
 
 Prof. Patton, of Princeton College, edited 
 an American edition of Donnegan's Greek and 
 English Lexicon, in which baptizo is thus de- 
 fined: "To immerse repeatedly into a liquid, 
 to submerge, to soak thoroughly, to saturate, 
 hence to drench with wine. Metaphorically to 
 confound totally ; — to dip in a vessel and draw. " 
 
 So far American philologists. Passing be- 
 yond the ocean, I will refer to the following. 
 Greenfield's New Testament Lexicon: "To 
 immerse, immerge, submerge, sink; in the 
 New Testament, to wash, to perform ablution, 
 to cleanse, to immerse, to administer the rite 
 of baptism." 
 
 Scapula, author of a very celebrated Euro- 
 pean Lexicon, defines baptizo thus: " Mergo, 
 seu immergo; ut quae tingendi aut abluendi 
 gratia aqua immergimus. Item mergo, sub- 
 mergo, obruo aqua. Item abluo, lavo;" — 
 which I translate thus: "To plunge or im- 
 merse ; as things which for the sake of dyeing 
 or washing, we immerse in water. Also to 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 35 
 
 plunge, submerge, overwhelm with water. 
 Also to wash off, to bathe." 
 
 Schleusner's, another celebrated New Tes- 
 tament Lexicon, a standard work both in Eu- 
 rope and America, gives the following dejfini- 
 tions ofbaptizo: "1. Proprie: immergo ac in- 
 tingo, in aquam mergo. Respondit Hebraico 
 tabal. Jam quia baud raro aliquid immergi 
 ac intingi in aquam solet ut lavetur, hinc, 2, 
 abluo, lavo, aqua purgo, notat. 3. Hinc 
 transfertur ad baptismi ritum solemnem. 4. 
 Imbuo, large et copiose do atque suppedito, 
 largiter profundo. 5. Calamitatum fluctibus 
 obrui, mergi miseriis, mala perferre, etiam 
 sponte se periculis vitse ofterre, mortem adeo 
 ipsam sibi inferre pati." Translation: "1. 
 Properly to immerse and dip in, to plunge into 
 water. It answers to the Hebrew tabal* 
 Now BECAUSE not unfrequently a thing is wont 
 to be immersed and dipped into water in order 
 that it may be washed, hence, 2, it denotes to 
 perform ablution, to wash, to cleanse with wa- 
 ter. 3. Hence it is transferred to the rite of 
 baptism. 4. To imbue, to give and supply 
 largely and copiously, to pour out largely — 
 
 * See Dr. P., p. 48, 
 
36 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 (spoken of the baptism of the Holy Ghost.) 5. 
 To be overwhelmed with the waves of calami- 
 ties," &c. 
 
 Dr. George Campbell, Principal of Maris- 
 chal College, of Aberdeen University, author 
 of the profound Philosophy of Rhetoric, Dis- 
 sertations, Translation and Notes on the Gos- 
 pels, the successful antagonist of Hume in his 
 famous argument on miracles, to whom Dr. P. 
 refers with approbation, on p. 29, says, " The 
 word baptizo, both in sacred and classical au- 
 thors, signifies to dip, to plunge, to immerse, 
 and is always construed suitably to this mean- 
 ing." 
 
 Beza, who, says Prof. Stuart, is one of the 
 most acute judges of Greek idioms, says, 
 "Baptizo does not signify to wash, except by 
 consequence. To be baptized in water signi- 
 fies no other than to be immersed in water; 
 which is the external ceremony of baptism." 
 The German critics who give the same testi- 
 mony in relation to this word are too numerous 
 to mention; all Pedo-baptists, let the reader 
 remark. Bretschneider, declared by Pres. 
 Sears to be confessedly the most critical lexi- 
 cographer of the New Testament, says, " An 
 entire immersion belongs to the nature of baptism. 
 This is the meaning of the word." 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 37 
 
 I will only add to this list, Dr. Anthon, the 
 great classical scholar of New York, who says, 
 * ' JVo scholar could, without injuring his reputa- 
 tion, give the signification of sprinkle to baptizo.** 
 
 Now whether the classical meaning of bap^ 
 tizo has any thing to do with this question op 
 not, I think I am entitled to say, I have proved 
 that it is solely immerse, or overwhelm. 
 
 THE TRUE QUESTION. 
 
 After affirming that the classical meaning of 
 baptizo has no bearing upon the subject, Dr. 
 P. proceeds to state, (p. 23,) what the true 
 question is. And here, where we should ex- 
 pect great precision, there is either an extra- 
 ordinary looseness of language, or a still more 
 extraordinary intimation. *' The true question 
 is: what was, and is, the meaning of the word 
 baptizo, as used in the New Testament, to 
 designate the religious ordinance of baptism.'"' 
 " What was, and is.'' Does the Doctor mean 
 to insinuate that the meaning of baptizo is any 
 different from what it was"? Has it changed 
 since the commission to baptize was given ? If 
 not, then its meaning is what it tvas when that 
 4 
 
38 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 cornrnission was given. Omitting the phrase 
 " and is," I accept the statement. 
 
 The Doctor proceeds by labored, though 
 most unfortunate illustrations, to show what no 
 mortal could be simple enough to deny; viz. 
 that if any Greek word used by Christ had 
 changed in its signification between the time, 
 say of Homer and the time of Christ, Christ 
 used it, not in its Homeric sense, but in the 
 current sense of his day. Dr. Campbell and 
 Prof Robinson are brought in (p. 29,) to prove 
 this self-evident proposition. But now the im- 
 portant question of fact arises, does the word 
 baptizo fall within the range of this self-evident 
 proposition? In classical Greek this word ex- 
 pressed a definite physical act; did it express 
 any different physical act in the time of Christ? 
 or did it express that same physical act with 
 any less distinctness? And it so happens that 
 these two witnesses have not only testified as 
 to the principle in question, but also as to the 
 question of fact arising under the principle. 
 Dr. Campbell testifies that " ihe sacred use 
 and the classical, are often very different." 
 Agreed, say I; but, Dr. Campbell, are the sa- 
 cred and the classical use of baptizo different"? 
 No, promptly responds Dr. P.'s witness — 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 39 
 
 *' The ivord baptizo, both in sacred and clas- 
 sical AUTHORS, signifies to dip, to plunge, to 
 immerse, and is always construed suitably to 
 this meaning. Had baptizo been employed in 
 the sense of raino, I sprinkle, which, so far as 
 
 I know, it NEVER IS IN ANY USE, SACRED OR 
 
 classical," &c. Will Dr. P. and his breth- 
 ren accept Dr. Campbell's testimony on the 
 fact as well as on the principle"^ Prof Robin- 
 son testifies to the same principle. Agreed as 
 before. But now how is the fact in relation to 
 the word baptizo"^ and Prof Robinson's lexi- 
 con tells us all about this, as we have seen 
 already. 
 
 The Doctor, in unfolding this principle of 
 interpretation, introduces an illustration that 
 we must call windy, if not worse. He tells 
 us, (p. 25,) " The wovA pneuma, spirit, in the 
 most ancient Greek, meant wind or breath, and 
 nothing further." Is he willing to stake his 
 reputation, as a learned man, on the declara- 
 tion that the word prieuma, in classical Greek, 
 means nothing but wind? Stephanus, in his 
 thesaurus, says that it means spirit as well as 
 ivind, and quotes examples from Aristotle, 
 Sophocles and Plutarch. It was used then by 
 " heathen " Greek writers, hundreds of years 
 
40 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 before the New Testament was written, in 
 precisely the same manner that it is used in 
 the New Testament — to signify ivind and 
 SPIRIT. This Greek word is precisely equiva- 
 lent to the Hebrew ruach, and the Latin spirit- 
 us, and all of them primarily mean breath, but 
 were employed by those who used those lan- 
 guages to express the metaphysical idea of 
 spirit. I suppose it is well understood by all 
 men who make any pretensions to learning, 
 that all metaphysical ideas are expressed by 
 words, that, in their primary import, express 
 physical ideas. 
 
 The illustration on the word angelos, is as 
 little to the point. Its classical meaning is 
 messenger, and this is precisely its meaning 
 in the New Testament. It is applied to Angels, 
 who are God's messengers, sent forth to minis- 
 ter to the heirs of salvation. It is applied to 
 John the Baptist — to the messengers sent by 
 John to Christ — to the spies concealed by the 
 harlot Rahab — and to Paul's thorn in the 
 flesh ; and the instances in which it occurs in 
 the Greek of the Old Testament are too numer- 
 ous to mention. It is the word usually em- 
 ployed where the word messenger occurs in 
 our version. 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM, 41 
 
 But the crowning illustration is on the word 
 arotron, the Greek for ploiv. If the " plain " 
 reader will look into Webster, he will find the 
 following definition of ploiv: " An instrument 
 for turning up, breaking and preparing the 
 ground for receiving the seed. It is drawn by 
 oxen or horses, and saves the labor of dig- 
 ging." Now I suppose that if the first Greek 
 who invented and used an arotron^ had been 
 asked to describe what he called by that name, 
 he would have done it just as Dr. P. defines it; 
 but if he had been asked to define it, he would 
 have done it much as Dr. Webster defines the 
 English word plow. That would be the pre- 
 cise and proper definition of arotron, when the 
 " old Roman plow " was first invented. But 
 just look at the Doctor's definition of arotron: 
 "A straight stick of timber, sharpened at one 
 end, with a clevis at a suitable distance from 
 the sharpened point, by which it was drawn, 
 while it was steered by a man at the other end 
 of the stick." That is as philosophical as it 
 would be to define man, — a corporeal being, 
 six feel or more high, with an aquiline nose, 
 and a bald head, because that would partially 
 describe the outer man of an eminent divine, 
 well known to both Dr. P. and me. But that 
 4# 
 
42 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 would be as unfortunate as the Doctor's defini- 
 tion of arotron, since it would leave both him 
 and me out of the category of men ! The sim- 
 ple truth is, the word arotron will apply to the 
 old Roman plow and to the modern Yankee 
 plow, without the least modification of its mean- 
 ing. 
 
 So conclusive is Dr. P. in his attempt to 
 prove what nobody would think of denying. 
 If he, or anybody else, will prove that the word 
 BAPTizo expressed to those who used the Greek 
 language, whether in the synagogue or the hea- 
 then temple, any different physical act, or any 
 less definite physical act, when the commission to 
 baptize loas given by our Lord, than it did ivhen 
 used by Homer, Herodotus, or Sophocles, we 
 yield the point at once. The physical act im- 
 plied in the ordinance of Christian Baptism 
 must be that which the word expressed when the 
 command was given. The Doctor's proof that 
 there is such a change in the meaning of bap- 
 tizo, is about as follows : 
 
 The classical and sacred use of some Greek 
 words are different. Baptizo is a Greek word. 
 Therefore the classical and sacred use of bap- 
 tizo are different. That is like the following : 
 
 Some men died in Sept. 1848. Zachary 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 43 
 
 Taylor is a man. Therefore Zachary Taylor 
 died in Sept. 1848. Q. E. D.! 
 
 JEWISH AND SACRED USE OF BAPTIZO. 
 
 Dr. P. quotes from Prof. Robinson, (on p. 
 22,) a principle recognized by all Biblical 
 scholars, that Jewish writers employed some 
 Greek words, and some forms of construction, 
 in some respects different from their classical 
 use. But where do we find evidence of this 
 principle ? We find it by an examination of 
 the Jewish-Greek writers, and a comparison 
 of them with classical Greek. These writers 
 are the Translators of the Old Testament, in 
 the Septuagint, (referred to by Dr. P., p. 25,) 
 the authors of the Apocrypha and Josephus. 
 Now nobody pretends that all Greek words are 
 modified in this Jewish-Greek dialect. All 
 admit that some words are, and Dr. P. claims 
 that baptizo is. If baptizo, in the Jewish- 
 Greek dialect, has any different meaning from 
 what it has in classical Greek, should we not 
 be likely to find it in the Septuagint, Apocry- 
 pha and Josephus? But Dr. P. has not cited 
 a single passage from either of these, proving 
 such ^ fact, Does the reader ask why ? I can 
 
44 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 give no better reason than that he could not. 
 It is used both literally and figuratively. When 
 used literally, the physical act expressed is im- 
 mersion; when used figuratively, it means to 
 overwhelm. Says Dr. Carson, "the language 
 of no writer can have more authority on this 
 subject than Josephus. A Jew, who wrote in 
 the Greek language in the apostolic age, must 
 be the best judge of the meaning of Greek 
 words employed by Jews in his own time. Now 
 this author uses the word frequently, and al- 
 ways in the sense of immersion.' ' He shows 
 this by numerous examples. 
 
 The reader will see that this question is 
 now reduced to a narrow point. When our 
 Saviour gave the command to baptize, the word 
 BAPTizo, wherever and by whomsoever spoken or 
 ivritten, ^t'hether by Greek or Jeiv, in Athens, in 
 Alexandria, or in Jerusalem, meant neither less 
 nor more than immerse. Would he, in insti- 
 tuting a positive ordinance, use a word in a 
 sense different from any use then known, with- 
 out the least intimation of it? Is that credi- 
 ble? He commands us to be baptized; that 
 is the law; but Dr. P. tells us he does not 
 mean baptize in that law, he means rantize. 
 (Note p. 13.) He labors to show that purifi- 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 45 
 
 cation by sprinkling is the idea intended to be 
 conveyed. If our Saviour meant this, why did 
 he not say it"? Had he said katharizo, instead 
 of baptizo, we should have known that he 
 meant pMri/*^; and then that long discussion of 
 Dr. P.'s on Jewish purifications, introduced 
 on a " mistaken assumption that it is in point, 
 when, in fact, it has little or nothing to do with 
 it," would have been relevant. Had he said 
 rantizo, then we should nave known that 
 " sprinkling is the only mode of baptism made 
 known in the Scriptures." Had he said brecho, 
 (to wet) instead of baptizo, we should have 
 known that we are at liberty to sprinkle or im- 
 merse, at our pleasure. But he used neither 
 of these words. He used baptizo, a word 
 that, by the universal consent of the learned, 
 expressed to all who used the Greek language 
 at the time the command was given, the phy- 
 sical ACT OF IMMERSION. 
 
 Now if the words employed by our Saviour, 
 in giving the law of baptism, do not inform us 
 what is commanded, we have no means of 
 knowing. A law not expressed in definite lan- 
 guage, is no law. If the word used in the 
 historical accounts of baptism do not inform 
 us what physical act was performed in baptism, 
 
46 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 we inquire in vain. But Dr. P., abandoning 
 "heathen^' Greek, abandoning the Septuagint 
 and Apocrypha, abandoning Josephus, has en- 
 trenched himself in the New Testament. 
 There let us follow him. 
 
 IS BAPTISM PURIFICATION ? 
 
 Dr. P. (p. 36,) lays the foundation of his 
 scriptural argument in an assumption for which 
 not a particle of proof is offered. He refers 
 to Heb. 9: 10, where the expression <iia/)/iorois 
 baptismois , (divers baptisms — in our version, 
 washings) occurs. He proceeds to remark, 
 **the reader should here possess himself of 
 definite impressions as to the true nature of 
 these Jewish purifications or baptisms.^' Hav- 
 ing thus assumed that " baptisms " in this verse 
 means purifications, and that therefore purifi- 
 cation is a proper synonyme of baptism, he 
 proceeds to reason upon it as if it were a thing 
 settled and proved. Now the apostle declares 
 that the legal dispensation consisted " in meats 
 and drinks, and divers baptisms (immersions) 
 and carnal ordinances." But does he say 
 those immersions were purifications.'' No; he 
 says nothing about it. We know, by reading 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 47 
 
 the law, that the effect of these baptisms was 
 ceremonial purification; but the baptisms them- 
 selves were not purification, and it is a gross 
 confusion of language to say they were. But 
 that is nothing to the purpose. Paul does not 
 say this was their effect; he says nothing 
 about their effect. He leaves us to find this 
 out as we can best. 
 
 From this assumption a therefore follows, p. 
 38. " The true meaning, therefore, of the 
 ' divers baptisms ' under the law, and of 
 Christian baptism — the main idea, the thing 
 commanded — is purification, or consecration. 
 This is the thing signified by the external 
 symbol ; and the mode of applying the sym- 
 bol is comparatively unimportant. This is 
 especially the case in Christian baptism. 
 Hence no particular mode is prescribed in 
 our Saviour's command to his disciples to bap- 
 tize; and the only thing upon which the mind 
 can fasten, in this command, as of divine ob- 
 ligation, is the thing signified by the word bap- 
 tize, which is to purify, or to consecrate, by 
 the application of water in some mode!" 
 George Fox himself could not have desired 
 nor produced any better Quakerism than that 
 passage. Baptism consists, as the reader 
 
48 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 must see, of two parts; the external symbol, 
 and the thing signified . The thing signified is 
 purification. Now "the only thing upon 
 which the mind can fasten, in the command to 
 baptize, is the thing signified." If the thing 
 signified is all that this law commands, then 
 there is no external symbol commanded ; and 
 consequently, no warrant for outward, or 
 WATER BAPTISM. But perhaps my reader will 
 suggest, that the Doctor says the thing signi- 
 fied is to purify by the application of water in 
 some mode. True; but how can he say it, 
 after saying what he has above.'' If baptism 
 consists of an external symbol and the thing 
 signified, and if there is nothing in the com- 
 mand on which the mind can fasten, except 
 the thing signified, the command cannot reach 
 the external symbol. But what is the " appli- 
 cation of water in some mode," if it is not an 
 external symbol.'' If the external symbol is 
 not commanded, then there is no command for 
 the application of water in some mode — or in 
 any mode. Quakerism, full blown. 
 
 He proceeds: " And not only is no precise 
 mode of applying the symbol prescribed in the 
 command, no mode is spoken of afterwards, 
 as binding, or as commanded." I need not 
 
PETERS Oi\ BAPTISM. 49 
 
 say again, Baptists do not contend for any 
 mode of baptism. Dr. P.. however, intends to 
 say, that the command to baptize does not 
 prescribe any definite physical act, to the ex- 
 clusion of all others. But does not the com- 
 mand to baptize, prescribe " the thing " which 
 the word baptize means? And if the word 
 baptize did express a definite physical act whe^ 
 the command was given, (which I have 
 proved,) does not that command prescribe that 
 definite physical act? And has Dr. P. a right 
 to declare as positively as he does here, that 
 that word did not express any definite physical 
 act when that command was given, on his 
 naked assumption, without a word of proof ? 
 
 He says further : *' And these names (bap- 
 tism and purification) are synonymous. They 
 mean the same thing. Both in the New Tes- 
 tament, and in the writings of the Christian 
 fathers, they are used interchangeably, the one 
 for the other." 
 
 As to this reference to the Fathers, if he 
 will take their instructions on baptism, he will 
 go beyond us, on immersion. He will find that 
 the '* regeneration," '* remission," "illumi- 
 nation," or "purification" (for the Fathers 
 used each of these names, and several others, 
 5 
 
50 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 interchangeably with baptism) will require not 
 less than three immersions. 
 
 Two passages are cited from the New Tes- 
 tament, Luke 11:38 — 41. Christ sat down 
 with a certain Pharisee to meat. " And when 
 the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had 
 not washed (ebaptisthe, baptized himself) before 
 dinner. And the Lord said unto him, Now 
 do ye Pharisees make clean {hatharizete, puri- 
 fy) the outside of the cup and platter," &c. It 
 is evident from this verse, that the supersti- 
 tious Pharisees immersed themselves when- 
 ever they came from any public place, for the 
 sake of purifying themselves from any defile- 
 ment they might have contracted. The trav- 
 eller Bruce describes a similar custom as still 
 prevailing among a Jewish sect in Abyssinia. 
 But does this passage prove that baptize is 
 synonymous with purifyl The sacred historian 
 described precisely the physical or outward act 
 that the Pharisee wondered Christ did not per- 
 form, just as we should expect a faithful his- 
 torian would; and Christ did just what we 
 should expect the omniscient Saviour would 
 do; directed his answer to what was in the 
 Pharisee's mind, viz: his superstitious notions 
 on the subject of ceremonial defilement and 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 51 
 
 purity. The Pharisee evidently observed this 
 custom, for the sake of ceremonial purifica- 
 tion, as an effect of the baptism (i. e., immer- 
 sion). But still bapiizo is one word, and kaih- 
 arizo is another, and each has its own mean- 
 ing. But suppose Dr. P. has established all 
 that he asserts in this paragraph, what has he 
 proved? Why, that in the mind of that Phari- 
 see, these two words were synonymous. Are 
 we then to take Pharisaical superstitions as 
 our guide in Christ's ordinance of baptism? 
 
 The second example cited, is from John 
 3: 25, 26. Let the reader carefully observe 
 the facts there stated. John was baptizing" in 
 Enon, near to Salim. A question arose be- 
 tween some of John's disciples and the Jews 
 about purifying. The disciples of John came 
 to their Master with the information that Christ 
 was baptizing. Now before Dr. P. can make 
 this piece of history serviceable to his theory 
 of baptism, he must prove four things. First, 
 that the subject of debate between John's dis- 
 ciples and the Jews, was the same with the 
 conversation between John's disciples and 
 their Master. The narrative says the one was 
 on purification, the other on baptism ; the one 
 a question, the other a statement of a fact. If 
 
52 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 this be proved, then it will be necessary to 
 show that when the Jews confounded the bap- 
 tism of John and of Christ with Jewish purifi- 
 cations, they had a correct conception of it. 
 If it should turn out that John's and Christ's 
 baptism was a very different observance from 
 Jewish purifications, their erroneous views 
 would not help Dr. P. any more than the 
 superstitions of the Pharisee in Luke 11. If 
 these two positions shall be made out, then it 
 will be necessary to prove that John's baptism 
 was Christian baptism. If, as Dr. P. main- 
 tains, John's baptism is not Christian baptism, 
 though he were to prove that John's baptism 
 was the Jewish rite of purification, that would 
 prove nothing in relation to Christian baptism. 
 And lastly, though it should be proved that 
 both John's disciples and the Jews had cor- 
 rect views of baptism, and whatever they 
 thought of baptism would apply to Christian 
 baptism, the most that would follow would be 
 that purification is an effect of baptism, not that 
 it is baptism. It would be far from proving 
 that baptize and purify are synonymous words. 
 The careful reader of Dr. P.'s book will 
 see that his whole argument to prove that 
 '* sprinkling is the only mode of baptism made 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 53 
 
 known in the scriptures," rests on this as- 
 sumption that baptize means to purify; while 
 not a scripture does he adduce to prove it, 
 but these two to which I have just referred. If 
 he has failed to prove this point, his fabric 
 falls. Whether he has proved it, I leave for 
 the candid reader tojudge. 
 
 The most extraordinary declaration on this 
 point is on p. 41. " Baptize is the word which 
 is more frequently used thsin purify, in the Greek 
 of the New Testament, to denote this ordi- 
 nance." More frequently used ! Dare any 
 man say that purify is ever used, in one 
 solitary instance, in the Greek of the New 
 Testament to denote the ordinance of baptism? 
 If any man dare say it, he has more daring 
 than I wish to have, in view of such a declara- 
 tion as that contained in Rev. 22: 18, 19. 
 
 The next step in Dr. P.'s argument would 
 be an obvious one. Some of the legal purifi- 
 cations were performed by sprinkling. Bap- 
 tize, therefore, means to sprinkle. After citing 
 again Heb. 9: 10, (p. 44,) "divers baptisms," 
 he affirms that Paul calls two examples of 
 sprinkling referred to by him, baptism! Now I 
 beg the reader to bear in mind that the word 
 baptismos, in any writer of Greek before 
 5# 
 
54 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 Paul's time, whether heathen or Jewish, never 
 means any thing but immer'sion ; have we any 
 right to suppose that Paul uses that word here 
 in a new and unheard of sense? Then read 
 the chapter for yourself, and see whether Paul 
 calls those sprinklings baptisms, or whether 
 that is a naked assertion of Dr. P.'s. Do you 
 say the sprinklings are specifications under 
 the general head of clivers baptismsl I answer, 
 no. The general heads in verse 10, are three: 
 meats and drinks, divers baptisms, and carnal 
 ordinances. Under these three heads he 
 places the whole legal dispensation. And the 
 specifications which he adduces, must come 
 under the last mentioned of the three heads, 
 viz: carnal ordinances. That is the division 
 which he proceeds to illustrate by examples. 
 We have no right to make baptismois in this 
 passage, mean sprinklings, except in the 
 emergency that there were no immersions un- 
 der the law to which the word can be referred. 
 No matter how many sprinklings the law re- 
 quired; if it required divers immersions, dia- 
 phorois baptismois means the immersions for 
 all the sprinklings. 
 
 But says Dr. Peters, (p. 49,) "no immer- 
 sions of persons were enjoined, and the whole 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 55 
 
 Mosaic ritual as to personal ablution, could be 
 fulfilled to the letter without a single immer- 
 sion." Now I would just observe to the 
 ** plain " reader, since we have the law-book 
 in our hands, it might be best to examine this 
 point for ourselves. The following passages 
 may throw some light upon the subject: Ex. 
 29:4. 40:12. Lev 14:7,8. 15. 16:4,24, 
 26,28. 17:15, 16. 22:6. Num. 19: 7, 8, 
 19. Deut. 23: 11. 2 Chron. 4: 6. No less 
 than twelve cases of personal ablution are 
 specified in Lev. 15, in which the persons are 
 required to bathe themselves in water; and 
 wherever the word ivash occurs, it is the same 
 that is translated bathe, and according to 
 Maimonides, whom Dr. P. styles "the great in- 
 terpreter of the Jewish law," it requires a com- 
 plete immersion. His language is, " Wherever 
 in the law, washing of the flesh, or of clothes, 
 is mentioned, it means nothing else than the 
 imme7'sion of the ivhole body in a bath." 
 
 This whole argument of Dr. P.'s in relation 
 to purification rests on assumption, and on an 
 unwarrantable confusion of language. Cere- 
 monial purification ivas the effect of the im- 
 mersions and the sprinklings practised by the 
 Jews under the law; but the words immersion, 
 
56 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 or washing, or sprinkling and purification, 
 were not therefore synonymous. But when 
 he says that Christian baptism is purification, 
 what does he mean? Does he mean that it is 
 ceremonial purification? Are we then, in the 
 gospel church, practising the old Jewish or- 
 dinances? He cannot mean that. Then he 
 must mean inward or spiritual purification. It 
 must be one of these two. It cannot be the 
 first. Can it be the last? When he says 
 that baptize and purify are synonymous 
 words — that all that the mind can fasten on in 
 the command to baptize is purification, does 
 he mean to say that outward baptism is spirit- 
 ual purification? Does he even mean that 
 spiritual purification is the effect of outward 
 baptism? Has Dr. P. turned Campbellite? 
 
 " But I turn away from this scene of human 
 error and confusion. The Bible, and NO- 
 THING BUT THE BIBLE, is the creed of 
 "Protestants."* On the direct declaration of 
 the word of God, I deny that baptism is purifi- 
 cation, or that purification is even the effect of 
 baptism. In 1 Pet. 3: 21, we are told in so 
 many words, that " baptism is not the putting 
 away of the filth of the flesh." Now I sup- 
 
 *p. iiy. 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 57 
 
 pose every reader understands filth of the flesh 
 here, to mean moral defilement, i. e. sin. 
 The putting of that away is spiritual purifica- 
 tion. But the apostle says baptism is not the 
 putting that away; i. e. it is not spiritual 
 purification. 
 
 Baptism, as I shall show hereafter, is a sign 
 of entire separation from sin, and that in- 
 cludes purification. But because baptism is 
 a sign of purification, it by no means follows 
 that it is purification. It would be a rare ab- 
 surdity to say that baptism is what it is a sign 
 of. Circumcision was a sign of regeneration; 
 will Dr. P. say that it was regeneration.? 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT MEANING OF EAPTIZO. 
 
 We have followed Dr. P. through his effort 
 to prove that baptizo in the New Testament 
 means to purify. 1 shall now show that the 
 New Testament proves the meaning of bap- 
 tizo to be immerse, or overwhelm. In doing 
 this we must, for the present, leave out of 
 view the historical accounts of baptism, be- 
 cause the object of this investigation is to 
 settle the meaning of that word in the historical 
 accounts. Our sources of information will be 
 
58 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 the following: The incidental mentions of the 
 words baptize and baptism — the baptism of 
 the Holy Ghost — the symbolical import of 
 baptism — and the figurative allusions to bap- 
 tism. The reader will bear in mind that I 
 have proved, mostly by the declarations of 
 Pedo-baptists, that the word baptize, both in 
 classical and Jewish Greek, up to the ivriting 
 of the JVew Testament, meant immerse only. If 
 I prove what I now affirm, I shall then have 
 established the meaning ofbaptizo in the com- 
 mission, to be immerse, and nothing else. 
 
 1. The incidental mentions of the words bap- 
 tize and baptism. 
 
 One of these has already been considered, 
 viz: Heb. 9: 10, where I have shown the 
 meaning to be immersion. 
 
 Another is in Mark 7: 3, 4. "For the 
 Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash 
 their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition 
 of the Elders. And when they come from the 
 market, except they baptize themselves, they 
 eat not. And many other things there be 
 which they have received to hold, as the bap- 
 tism of cups, pots, brazen vessels and 
 couches." 
 
 Dr. P. admits that the cups, pots and brazen 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 59 
 
 vessels may possibly have been immersed all 
 over in water. But he thinks it improbable. 
 *' And to suppose that the beds or couches were 
 immersed would be preposterous, especially if 
 we consider the superstition of the Jews, which 
 led them to practice these purifications many 
 times a day." But where do we learn this.'' 
 Not surely in this account in Mark; and I 
 know of no authority whatever for the state- 
 ment. 
 
 To what Dr. P. says on pp. 61 and 62, and 
 his friend of Calmet's Dictionary on p. 181, I 
 will oppose the testimony of Maimonides, a 
 celebrated Jewish Rabbi of the 12th century, 
 styled by Dr. P. (p. 135) " the great interpre- 
 ter of the Jewish laio.'^ He says, " Wherever 
 in the law, washing of the flesh or of clothes 
 is mentioned, it means nothing else than the 
 immersion of the whole body in a bath." " In 
 a bath, containing forty seahs of water, (100 
 gallons) every defiled man," (except in certain 
 special cases) "immerses himself; and in it 
 they immerse all unclean vessels." The re- 
 quisition to immerse vessels before using them, 
 extended not only to those " bought of the 
 Gentiles," but also to those manufactured by 
 Jews: ''care is to betaken about them, lo! 
 
60 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 these must be immersed." Particular direc- 
 tions are given respecting the immersion of 
 cups, pots, kettles, glass and molten vessels, 
 couches, &c. "Abed that is wholly defiled, 
 if one immerses it part by part, it is pure." 
 "If the Pharisees but touched the garments 
 of the common people, they w^ere defiled, and 
 needed immersion.'"* 
 
 The reader is desired to notice that Maimo- 
 nides is here giving the traditions of the Jews; 
 and that the evangelist declares that the things 
 mentioned by him were done according to the 
 tradition of the Elders. And the proof which 
 I have presented here applies with equal force 
 to Luke 11: 38. Baptize, in all these places, 
 means immerse and nothing else. 
 
 2. The baptism of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 Dr. P. justly observes, (p. 81,) "The 
 scriptures represent the baptism of the Spirit 
 and the baptism with water as analogous. The 
 one is the sign or emblem of the other." If, 
 then, outward baptism is a symbol of the bap- 
 tism of the Spirit, we may with propriety 
 reason from the outward symbol to the spiritual 
 fact. But would it be safe to reason from the 
 spiritual fact to the outward symbol.'' 
 
 * Cited in Turney on Baptism, p. 189. 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 61 
 
 I know of no writer who has more effectu- 
 ally exposed the grand fallacy of Dr. P., and 
 of all other Pedo-baptist writers, in regard to 
 the baptism of the Holy Ghost, than his friend 
 of Calmet's Dictionary, quoted in the Appen- 
 dix. One has only to read p. 183 to see the 
 perfect absurdity of arguing that baptize 
 means to sprinkle, from the pouring out of the 
 Holy Spirit. That writer gives the following 
 words as synonymous with baptize, because 
 all those representations are given of the com- 
 municating and receiving of spiritual influ- 
 ences, viz: Sending down; Coming; Giving; 
 Falling ; Shedding ; Pouring ; Sitting or Abi- 
 ding , Anointing ; Filling ; Sealing. To which 
 the following may be added: Sprinkling; (Ez. 
 36 : 25. Breathing ; (John 20 : 22. ) Blowing ; 
 (John 3:8, Acts 2: 2, 4.) Emission of sound, 
 or pidting forth of the voice; (1 Kings 19: 12, 
 13.) Shining as the light; (2 Cor. 4: 6.) 
 Drinking; (1 Cor. 12: 13, John 7:37, 39.) 
 Now the proposition is, that baptize is synony- 
 mous with all these words, because all these 
 words are used to describe giving or receiving 
 spiritual influences! If this is so, the widest 
 latitudinarian could not desire a greater variety 
 of modes of baptism than this would give us 
 6 
 
62 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 The difficulty with Dr. P. would be, that it 
 would fail of proving that "sprinkling is the 
 ONLY mode of baptism made known in the 
 
 SCRIPTURES." 
 
 The " plain " reader will feel a desire by 
 this time, I apprehend, " to turn away from 
 this scene of human error and confusion." 
 He cannot help exclaiming, Has God given 
 any foundation in his word for such an absurd 
 medley as this, in the form of instructions in 
 relation to an ordinance which ought to be so 
 plain that the wayfaring man, though a fool, 
 need not err therein.'* 
 
 The grand fallacy of Dr. P. and his friend 
 of Calmet's Dictionary, which has given rise 
 to all this absurdity and confusion, is the con- 
 founding of distinct and separate facts. They 
 represent the pouring out of the Spirit to be 
 the baptism of the Spirit; whereas it needs 
 only a little discrimination to see that the pour- 
 ing out is one thing, and the baptism another, 
 which follows it. The Doctor tells us about 
 certain water pots containing two or three fir- 
 kins apiece, where the Jews washed their 
 hands, and performed certain purifications. 
 Obviously, before any purifications could be 
 performed by means of those water pots, they 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 63 
 
 must have water put into them. Was the 
 pouring of water into those pots purification? 
 Many persons, for their comfort or health, 
 have a bath in their house where they daily 
 bathe their entire persons. Now before they 
 bathe they must pour water into the bath. Is 
 this pouring, the bathing? The reader, I trust, 
 can now see that whatever words may be em- 
 ployed to designate the giving of the Spirit, 
 none of them would affect the meaning of bap- 
 tize, because the baptism is a separate fact, 
 which folloivs the giving. 
 
 And now let us look at that separate fact — 
 the baptism of the Spirit, which followed the 
 pouring out of the Spirit — and inquire whether 
 sprinkling would be any adequate emblem of 
 it; whether, if that extraordinary manifesta- 
 tion of the Spirit shall be symbolized by any 
 application of water to the outward man, any 
 thing short of an entire immersion would be 
 an adequate symbol? In Acts 2, we are told 
 " suddenly there came a sound from heaven, 
 as of a rushing, mighty wind, and it filled 
 ALL THE HOUSE whcrc they were sitting." 
 "And they were all filled with the Holy 
 Ghost." The physical idea on which the fig- 
 ure is founded, is that of a substance immersed 
 
64 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 in some fluid which immediately penetrates and 
 fills it. 
 
 A scientific writer in the (British) Monthly 
 Review, speaking about the different applica- 
 tions of electricity for the cure of diseases, 
 says: "The first is the electric bath; so 
 called, because it surrounds the patient with 
 an atmosphere of the electric fluid, in which 
 he is plunged, and receives positive elec- 
 tricity." Probably most readers would prefer 
 the word immerse here to the word plunge. 
 Still I presume that no scientific reader would 
 think this language even unnatural. But if it 
 would not be unnatural to say a person is 
 plunged in an electrical atmosphere when he 
 is so entirely surrounded with the fluid that he 
 is charged and filled with it, can it be un- 
 natural to say the apostles were immersed in 
 the Holy Spirit when they were said to be sur- 
 rounded and FILLED with those influences.^ 
 Prof Robinson judges not; he calls it a bap- 
 tism IN the Holy Spirit. Says Cyril of Jeru- 
 salem, "As he who goes into the water and is 
 baptized (immersed) is encompassed on all 
 sides by the ivaters, so were they completely 
 baptized (immersed) by the Spirit. The water 
 envelopes externally; but the Spirit baptizes 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 65 
 
 (immerses, envelopes) also, and that perfectly, 
 the soul within." This is in accordance with 
 the representations of scripture elsewhere. 
 " I was IN the Spirit." " Ye are in the Spirit." 
 " If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in 
 the Spirit." 
 
 3. The symbolical import of baptism. 
 
 (1.) Baptism is, to the believer, a sign of 
 his entire separation from sin, and union with 
 Christ. As it is a sign of this entire change in 
 all its particulars, so it is sometimes put far 
 those several particulars. Thus separation 
 from sin includes a removal of its guilt. Hence 
 Peter says, " Repent and be baptized, for the 
 remission of sins;" i. e., receive the sign of 
 the remission of sins. Hence Annanias says 
 to Saul, *' Arise and be baptized and wash 
 away thy sins;" i. e., receive the sign of the re- 
 moval of guilt. Again, separation from sin 
 includes deliverance from its power over the 
 soul, and hence involves repentance; hence 
 John says, " I indeed baptize you in water, 
 into repentance;" i. e., the sign of repentance. 
 But this whole idea of separation from sin and 
 union with Christ, including all its parts, is 
 presented by Paul in Rom. 6: 3, 4. The 
 whole argument of the apostle in this chapter 
 6* 
 
66 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 rests on this great fact, that baptism is a sign 
 of an entire separation from sin. "How 
 shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer 
 therein?" If they were true Christians, they 
 were dead to sin ; and that they professed by 
 having received baptism, the appointed sign 
 of separation from sin, as is shown in the next 
 verse: " Know ye not that so many of us as 
 were baptized into Jesus Christ, were bap- 
 tized into his death?" To be baptized into 
 Christ is to make a profession of the name of 
 Christ, of the reception of his doctrines, of 
 submission to his authority, and of a complete 
 union with him. Consequently when baptism 
 is properly administered, (and Paul is reasoning 
 here on the supposition that it was, in the case 
 of those whom he addressed,) it implies faith 
 in the subject; and he who is thus baptized, 
 "is baptized into Christ's death." Faith 
 makes him one with Christ, and thus he be- 
 comes, as it were, a participant in the death 
 of Christ; as the apostle expresses it, he is 
 " dead with Christ." But faith not only im- 
 plies a union with Christ in his death, it also 
 implies a union with him in his resurrection. 
 Not only is the believer " dead with Christ," 
 he is also " risen with him." He is thus un- 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 67 
 
 der most solemn obligation to be dead unto 
 sin, and alive unto God. I need not remind 
 the reader how often these and kindred ex- 
 pressions occur in the apostolic writings. 
 
 On these premises is based the conclusion 
 expressed in the next verse: "Therefore 
 we are buried with him, by baptism into [his] 
 death; that like as Christ was raised up from 
 the dead by the glory of his Father, even so 
 we also should walk in newness of life." That 
 is, because faith implies all that is expressed 
 in the preceding verse, therefore God has 
 ordained that believers shall be baptized; and 
 when believers are buried by baptism, they 
 express by that visible act their union with 
 Christ in his death, in his burial, (hence 
 buried with him) and in his resurrection; and 
 hence are laid under the strongest possible 
 obligation to " walk in newness of life." The 
 same truth is expressed in Col. 2: 12: ^^ Buried 
 with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen 
 with him, through faith," &.c. It is only those 
 who have faith, who are united with Christ 
 in his burial and in his resurrection. And 
 that union with Christ is symbolized in bap- 
 tism. Those who " through faith are buried 
 in baptism," are "buried with Christ in 
 
68 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 baptism," and "therein also they are risen 
 
 WITH HIM." 
 
 The reader will at once see what conclusion 
 will follow, if I have given a correct view of 
 this text. New Testament baptism cannot be 
 any thing but the immersion of believers. 
 Though it could be demonstrated that baptizo 
 has fifty meanings, of which only one repre- 
 sents a burial, the forty-nine ought to be re- 
 jected, and the one chosen; for Paul here de- 
 clares that a BURIAL IS expressed in baptism 
 for the reason that nothing else is an adequate 
 sign of our separation from sin, and our 
 union with Christ. " THEREFORE we are 
 
 BURIED WITH HIM IN BAPTISM." 
 
 Dr. P. says, — let the " plain " reader mark 
 it — jcZP " There is no allusion in these pas- 
 sages to the mode of water baptism!" These 
 *' are expressions concerning spiritual baptism 
 which have really no bearing on the subject!" 
 " The resurrection spoken of, is plainly spirit- 
 ual. It is to newness of life. Consequently 
 being buried with Christ must be spiritual." 
 (p. 110.) Again, on p. Ill, he says on Col. 
 2: 12, " The person plunged in water ibises by 
 the muscular strength of the man who plunges 
 him, or at least by physical power. But Paul 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 69 
 
 says, ' Ye are risen with him through faith.' " 
 All this is true. I have expressly stated that 
 the union with Christ in his death, burial and 
 resurrection is by faith. But that is not all 
 the truth. Paul says that it is not only by 
 faith, but it is also "by baptism" and "in 
 baptism," that we are buried and risen with 
 Christ. And what can that mean except that 
 baptism symbolizes this union with Christ? 
 When Annanias says to Saul, " Arise and be 
 baptized, and wash away thy sins," will Dr. 
 P. claim that water baptism cannot be meant 
 here, because water baptism cannot wash 
 away sins, and therefore he must mean spirit- 
 ual baptism? When Peter says, "Repent 
 and be baptized, in the name of Jesus Christ, 
 for the remission of sins," will he claim that 
 because water baptism cannot be a ground of 
 remission of sins, therefore Peter meant spirit- 
 ual baptism? Every reader must see that 
 there are just as good grounds for denying 
 water baptism in these passages, as in the one 
 under consideration. And they are to be 
 taken in the same way, viz: as speaking of 
 baptism as a symbol of the facts and truths 
 mentioned. If I were a Quaker, I could wish 
 no better ground to plant myself on, to prove 
 
70 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 that no water baptism is required in the New 
 Testament, after the resurrection of Christ, 
 than Dr. P. gives me on this passage. 
 
 The following expression is calculated to 
 awaken some surprise in the mind of " indus- 
 trious ignorance/^ ''Must Baptist writers in- 
 sist on it that these passages have reference 
 to the mode of water baptism!" The "plain " 
 reader undoubtedly infers from this that nobody 
 but Baptists ever dreamed of so wild an in- 
 terpretation! As a piece of information which 
 I conceive he is entitled to have, I will just 
 remark that of all the fathers, Greek and 
 Latin, all the Catholic interpreters, all the 
 reformers, all the Genevan, and Dutch, and 
 German theologians, all the German com- 
 mentators and critics, all the English and 
 Scotch theologians and commentators, and all 
 American commentators, not more than three 
 or four can be found who do not agree that 
 these passages refer to " the mode of water 
 baptism." I do not believe that more than 
 two can be found; but to be " within bounds," 
 I will say three or four. " Most Baptist wri- 
 ters " indeed!* 
 
 * Of course the reader will not understand me as including^ 
 under the head of " commentators/' controversial writers 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 71 
 
 After saying that " most Baptist writers in- 
 sist &c.," he adds, "There are some ex- 
 ceptions to this statement. Dr. Judson, the 
 Baptist missionary, and Robinson, the Baptist 
 historiaTi, both admit that these passages are 
 misapplied when used as evidence of the mode 
 of baptism. " On what authority Dr. P. makes 
 this statement in relation to Robinson, he does 
 not inform us. He certainly could not have 
 made it on the authority of a personal ex- 
 amination of his work. After a careful ex- 
 amination of his "History of Baptism," I 
 feel safe in affirming that there is nothing in 
 that work which furnishes a foundation for his 
 statement, Robinson refers to that passage in 
 Romans several times, and always as proving 
 immersion to be the scriptural and apostolical 
 baptism. As a specimen of the manner in 
 which he refers to it, I quote the following 
 from p. 76. He is here giving an extract from 
 a homily of Basil, in which the following oc- 
 curs: "It is necessary to the perfection of 
 
 on baptism. I mean writers whose direct object was the 
 exposition of the scriptures; as Scott, Doddridge, Henry, 
 Clark, Gill, Macknight, Stuart, &c. I will only add that I 
 have not made the declaration above without particular in- 
 quiry. 
 
72 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 a Christian life that we should imitate Christ, 
 not only in his life, but also in his death. How 
 can we be placed in a likeness to his death? 
 By being buried with him in baptism. How 
 are we to go down with him into the grave? 
 By imitating the burial of Christ in baptism; 
 for the bodies of the baptized are, in a sense, 
 buried in water. The water exhibits an image 
 of death, receiving the body as into a sepulchre; 
 the spirit renews the soul, and we rise from a 
 death of sin into a newness of life. By three 
 immersions therefore, and by three invocations, 
 we administer the ceremony of baptism." 
 
 Mr. Robinson adds: " A translation of the 
 Lent homilies of the ancient Greek bishops 
 could not be read to any congregation of 
 modern Christians without great absurdity, 
 except to Baptist assemblies, and there they 
 would be heard in raptures, for their singular 
 
 PROPRIETY AND BEAUTY." 
 
 I do not happen to possess Dr. Judson's 
 sermon on baptism, though I read it several 
 years since, and remember nothing like what 
 Dr. P. has stated. I will leave it for the 
 reader to judge how far he is entitled to credit 
 in this naked statement, without quoting a 
 word to prove it, or referring us to any book 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 73 
 
 or page, especially after it is so clear that he 
 has misstated the fact in relation to Robinson, 
 and as that too, is not a solitary case of mis- 
 statement. 
 
 (2.) Baptism is a symbol of the burial and 
 resurrection of Christ. This is evident from 
 the passages already considered, Rom. 6: 4, 
 5, Col. 2: 12. Baptism could not be a symbol 
 of the union of the believer with Christ in 
 his burial and resurrection, if it were not also 
 a symbol of the burial and resurrection of 
 Christ. How expressive immersion is as a 
 symbol of these great facts — how utterly un- 
 meaning sprinkling is in this point of view, 
 every person must see. Bishop Hoadly well 
 observes, " If baptism had been performed 
 by the apostles, as it now is amongst us, we 
 should never have so much as heard of this form 
 of expression, of dying and rising again in this 
 rite." 
 
 As a specimen simply of the manner in 
 which different writers, both ancient and mod- 
 ern, speak of these passages, in contrast with 
 the remarks of Dr. P., I will quote two or 
 three. I might fill a volume with similar 
 citations. 
 
 Chrysostom says, " The symbol of baptism 
 7 
 
74 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 refers at the same time to burial and death, 
 and to resurrection and life. For our heads 
 being immersed in the water, as in a sepul- 
 chre, the old man is buried, and sinking down, 
 the whole is concealed at once; then as we 
 emerge, the new man rises again." 
 
 Cyril. "As Jesus, taking the sins of the 
 whole world, died, that, having put to death 
 sin, he might raise thee up in righteousness; so 
 thou also descending into the water and being 
 in a manner buried as he was in the rock, art 
 raised again, walking in newness of life." 
 
 The expression of Doddridge is quite re- 
 markable. We are not to suppose that that 
 great and good man was possessed of the gift 
 of prophecy; but had he in the exercise of 
 such a power foreseen the issuing of some late 
 Pedo-baptist books on baptism, could he have 
 expressed himself more to the purpose than he 
 does in the following: " It seems the part of 
 CANDOR to confess that here is an allusion to 
 the manner of baptizing by immersion as most 
 usual in those early times." I leave the 
 reader to make his own reflections. 
 
 The great Chalmers whose praise is in 
 every body's mouth, expresses himself as 
 follows: "Jesus Christ by death underwent 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 75 
 
 this sort of baptism, — even immersion under the 
 surface of the ground, whence he soon emerged 
 again by his resurrection. We, by being bap- 
 tized into his death, are conceived to have 
 made a similar translation; in the act of de- 
 scending under the water of baptism, to have 
 resigned an old life, and in the act of ascend- 
 ing, to emerge into a second, or new life." 
 
 My next quotation shall be from the last 
 writer on the subject, Dr. P., p. 110. " Dead 
 bodies are not plunged into the earth "! How 
 many steps are there from the sublime to the 
 ridiculous! "Nor is the mode of burying 
 the dead alike among all nations." No; but 
 it is reserved for Dr. Peters, of all men in 
 the world, to find any nation that buries the 
 dead by sprinkling. " Christ was not buried;'' 
 so Dr. Peters — Paul says he ivas buried; 
 (1 Cor. 15: 4,) so says Christ himself; (Mat. 
 ^6: 12,) "but laid in a tomb hewn out of 
 a rock, probably above ground." So Dr. 
 Peters; Christ says he was "three days and 
 three nights in the heart of the earth.'" Is not 
 the reader almost ready to " turn away from 
 this scene of human error and confusion " ? 
 
 After these miserable cavils, unworthy the 
 name and reputation of Absalom Peters, 
 
76 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 need I say to "plain men," that the body of 
 Christ was surrounded, covered, with the sub- 
 stance of which his sepulchre was composed, 
 whence Chalmers, with perfect propriety of 
 language, calls his burial an immersion; and so 
 in the rite of baptism, the subject is surrounded, 
 covered, with the baptismal water, whence it 
 is, with great beauty and force, called a.burial. 
 Need the reader be also reminded that the 
 comparison in the passages under considera- 
 tion is not with "burning the bodies" of the 
 dead, nor with "hanging them up till the 
 flesh decays," but specifically with the burial 
 of Christ. 
 
 But we must have one more quotation from 
 Dr. P., (p. 112.) "Christian baptism is a 
 symbol of moral purity, of being cleansed 
 from sin, and renovated by the influences of 
 the Holy Spirit. It signifies that we are both 
 dead and risen at the same time; dead to sin, 
 but alive to holiness." I could scarcely ex- 
 press my own view with more force and clear- 
 ness than Dr. P. has done it here for me. If 
 Dr. P. will stand by this declaration, he must 
 agree with me on this passage. He cannot 
 avoid it. If Christian baptism signifies that 
 we are both dead and risen at the same time, 
 
PETERS ON BAPTIS3I. 77 
 
 may it not signify that we are both buried and 
 risen at the same time ? Witliout insisting on 
 the fact that the expression of the apostle is 
 *' BURIED and risen," instead of dead and 
 risen, does not the expression dead and risen 
 imply burial? and has not Dr. P. conceded the 
 whole argument? As to what is said of "dead 
 men's bones" and "natural corruption," if it 
 has any force, it applies against himself, and 
 not against us. He says that baptism signi- 
 fies that we are "dead and risen." But being 
 dead certainly suggests the idea of "physical 
 decomposition, and natural corruption, and 
 dead men's bones." But ive say it signifies 
 being buried and risen: — the burial having an 
 allusion specifically to the burial of Christ, 
 who was laid in a "new tomb, wherein never 
 man was laid," and where consequently there 
 were no "dead men's bones;" and he, it is 
 said, "saw no corruption." The only way 
 therefore for Dr. P. to escape from himself, is 
 to say " Christiai\ baptism signifies that we 
 are both buried arid risen, '^ instead of " dead 
 and risen;''^ bearing in mind that burial implies 
 death, I should then have no controversy 
 with him about this passage. 
 
 The reader, I trust, will now see that these 
 7* 
 
78 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 passages (Rom. 6: 4, 5, Col. 2: 12,) contain 
 express reference to the ordinance of Christian 
 baptism. If he sees this, he cannot fail of 
 seeing that the following inferences necessarily 
 follow. 
 
 1. Baptism in the time of Paul was uni- 
 versally immersion. " So many of us as were 
 BAPTIZED," &c. "Therefore we are buried 
 with him by baptism." It is positively uni- 
 versal. It admits no exceptions. 
 
 2. The subjects of baptism at that time 
 were always presumed to be believers. " So 
 many of us as were baptized into Jesus 
 Christ, were baptized into his death." 
 ** Like as Christ was raised up from the dead 
 by the glory of his Father, we also should 
 walk in newness of life." " Buried with him 
 in baptism wherein ye are also risen with 
 him through faith." 
 
 (3.) Baptism is a symbol of the resurrection 
 and glorification of the believer. 
 
 Inasmuch as the resurrection of Christ is 
 the assurance and pledge of the resurrection 
 of all his followers, whatever is a symbol of 
 the first, is to a like extent a symbol of the 
 last. Dr. Macknight* judges, — I think with 
 
 * A Presbyterian. 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 79 
 
 good reason — that the resurrection of believers 
 is included in those expressions of Paul in 
 Rom. 6, " walk in newness of life " — " being 
 planted in the likeness of his resurrection." 
 
 The passage in 1 Cor. 15: 29, is quoted on 
 p. 108,* with an exposition from Dr. Schmucker, 
 referring it to an early custom of vicarious 
 baptism, of the existence of which in apostolic 
 times, the New Testament gives us no intima- 
 tion. Dr. P. thinks its signification somewhat 
 obscure. He would translate huper (for) over', 
 which is its more usual signification. Still /or, 
 
 * Prof. Robinson rejects entirely the notions advanced by 
 Dr. Peters on this passage, as unfounded and absurd. He 
 gives two modes of explanation of the passage, both of which 
 he says " are natural, and give an easy and satisfactory 
 sense. The one sets out from the literal, and perhaps 
 original meaning of haptizo, to immerse, immerge, i. e., so 
 as to be entirely immersed, or sunk in any thing ; as to be 
 immersed in calamities. The argument then is, ' If the 
 dead rise not at all, of what avail is it to expose ourselves to 
 so many dangers and calamities, in the hope of a resurrection, 
 and a future reward ? in the hope that we shall rise again, 
 and enter into rest ? Since if the supposition be true, we 
 are dead, a.nd are never to rise.'" The other method o' 
 explanation which he gives, is the one I have given above 
 and which I incline to adopt. He says this view is adopted 
 by Neander and Wetsteinj Barnes also adopts it. The 
 reader will see that whichever of these we take as the true 
 explanation, it is a clear proof that haptizo, in the New 
 Testament, means to immerse, or overwhelm. 
 
80 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 or in behalf of, is not an unusual signification 
 of it, with the genitive. The declaration will 
 then be, that baptism is in behalf of the dead. 
 Whenever a person is baptized, he presents 
 in symbol the resurrection of Christ, and with 
 it the resurrection of all who are by faith 
 united with Christ in his burial and resurrec- 
 tion. It is thus a most beautiful ordinance; 
 pointing the believer to most precious truth. 
 Am I sorrowing for dear friends who " have 
 fallen asleep," and who, unbelief would say, 
 have " perished " ? I see in this most signifi- 
 cant ordinance a symbol and pledge of their 
 glorious resurrection. Instituted by Christ 
 for this purpose, every time I administer, or 
 witness it, I have in effect a fresh assurance 
 from the Saviour himself of the precious 
 reality of this truth. 
 
 I have no doubt that this is the import of 
 the passage in 1 Pet. 3: 21, quoted by Dr. P., 
 p. 66. I will quote this from the translation 
 and paraphrase of Macknight. "To which 
 water, the antitype baptism now saveth us 
 also — gives us the assurance that ive shall be 
 saved out of the grave — through the resurrec- 
 tion of Jesus Christ, emblematicalhj rejjresented 
 in baptism.'' He calls baptism the antitype of 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 81 
 
 the waters of the flood, in opposition, as the 
 reader will see, to the view of Dr. P. His 
 reason is that the relative pronoun agrees in 
 gender with the noun rendered water, but does 
 not with arh; water, therefore, must be its an- 
 tecedent. From his note I extract the follow- 
 ing: "The water of baptism is here called 
 the antihjpe to the water of the flood, because 
 the flood was a type of baptism in the follow- 
 ing particulars: 1. As by building the ark 
 and by entering into it Noah showed a strong 
 faith in the promise of God, concerning his 
 preservation by the very water which was to 
 destroy the antediluvians, so by giving our- 
 selves to he buried in the water of baptism, we 
 show a like faith in God's promise, that though 
 we die and are buried, he will save us from 
 death, by raising us up from the dead at the 
 last day. 2. As the preserving of Noah 
 alive, during the nine months he was in the 
 flood, is an emblem of the preservation of the 
 souls of believers while in the state of the 
 dead, so the preserving of believers alive 
 while buried in the water of baptism, is a pre- 
 figuration of the same event." 
 
 If this exposition of this very critical and 
 learned commentator is correct, the reader 
 
82 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 will see that the remarks of Dr. P. on p. 66, 
 are quite irrelevant. If, however, here is an 
 allusion to the position of the ark, the proper 
 meaning of baptize is still fully retained. The 
 ark was as truly immersed as if it had been 
 submerged in the deep. Beneath it were the 
 waters which bore it up; above and around it 
 was the deluge pouring through the opened 
 windows of heaven. To say that "the ark 
 was sprinkled with the rain that fell from 
 heaven," must be a weak conception indeed 
 of the deluge. 
 
 I have now shown what is the symbolical 
 import of baptism. I have shown that it is a 
 sign of the believer's union, by faith, with 
 Christ, in his death, burial and resurrection, 
 and consequently of his entire separation 
 from sin ; including hence the washing away 
 of sin, or spiritual purification; — that it is 
 also a symbol of the burial and resurrection 
 of Christ, and of the believer's future and 
 glorious resurrection. Not one of these truths 
 can be expressed without representing the 
 burial and resurrection of Christ. And no 
 external rite, involving the application of 
 water, can express these great truths, but im- 
 mersion. The symbolical import of the or- 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 83 
 
 dinance decides that baptize, so far as it ex- 
 presses a physical act, means only immerse. 
 
 4. Other figurative allusions to baptism. 
 
 The remaining figurative allusions to bap- 
 tism are two. The first is expressed in Luke 
 12: 50, and Mat. 20: 22. " I have a baptism 
 to be baptized with." "Are ye able to be 
 baptized with the baptism that I am baptized 
 with .'"' Dr. P. is wisely silent in regard to 
 these passages; whether candidhj silent, I 
 leave for the reader to judge. Christ is here 
 speaking of his sufferings; and he calls them 
 a baptism. Now I ask the Christian to take 
 his Bible and first read the prophetic descrip- 
 tions of the sufferings of Christ in Ps. 22 and 
 69, Isa. 53, and then read the history of those 
 sufferings in the garden and on the cross; and 
 while you read, and weep, and adore, ask 
 yourself whether the word sprinkle describes 
 those sufferings! Dr. P. says the word bap- 
 tize means sprinkle in the New Testament; 
 what does the Savior say it means.'' No finite 
 being could conceive of his sufferings as he 
 himself could; and of all words in the Greek 
 language, he employs the one which he used 
 when he gave the command to baptize. He 
 did not mean sprinkle now; nothing less than 
 
84 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 immerse could he mean; what, on the clearest 
 principles of interpretation, could he have 
 meant when he gave the command to baptize? 
 I do not speak disparagingly of the book I am 
 now examining, when I say that myriads of 
 such books would be nothing to me, in com- 
 parison with this one expression from the lips 
 of our blessed Lord and Master. 
 
 The other figurative allusion to baptism is in 
 1 Cor. 10: 2, quoted by Dr. P. on p. 63. The 
 Israelites " were all baptized unto Moses, in 
 the cloud and in the sea." Dr. P. says " The 
 reference is to Exod. 14 : 19, &c., where it 
 is most manifest that water was poured or 
 sprinkled on them from the cloud " ! Most 
 manifest! It is fortunate that we all have 
 Bibles. He adds, "Prof. Stuart says — I 
 know not on what authority — ' the cloud on 
 this occasion was not a cloud of rain ' " ! On 
 what authority ? Is there a Sabbath scholar 
 in New England that needs to be told that 
 the cloud on this occasion was the cloud of 
 the Divine presence that constantly at- 
 tended the Israelites — the pillar of cloud by 
 day, and the pillar of fire by night ? It is 
 said that on this occasion (as always in the 
 night,) it was light to Israel; how could that 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 85 
 
 be if rain was falling on them so violently that 
 it might be said, "The clouds poured out 
 water " ? The pouring out of water and the 
 dashing of the spray, the creations of Dr. P.'s 
 imagination, would have been a serious hin- 
 drance to the Israelites, and are in direct con- 
 tradiction to the historian, who says they went 
 through on " dry land.^^ But does not Asaph 
 say, "The clouds (not cloud — the pillar of 
 cloud) poured out water".'' Yes; and we 
 have every reason to suppose they did on the 
 Egyptians. They doubtless had blackness, 
 rain, thunder and lightning — every thing that 
 could annoy or terrify them. They were the 
 sprinkled party. As for the other showers of 
 rain, referred to by Dr. P., they are not in 
 point, for the baptism in the cloud was at the 
 same time with the baptism in the sea. 
 
 It is strange that good men will put God's 
 word to the torture to make it say something 
 which it does not say. What does Paul say? 
 "All our fathers were under the cloud, and 
 all passed through the sea, and were all bap- 
 tized unto Moses, in the cloud and in the sea.''"' 
 Not in the cloud alone; nor in the sea alone; 
 "in the cloud and in the sea;" it required 
 both at once to make a baptism. They " passed 
 8 
 
86 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 through the sea;" hence the sea was on each 
 side of them; they were at the same time 
 " under the cloud;" and thus, between them 
 both, -they were completely surrounded or 
 immersed. A sprinkling or pouring here, is 
 totally out of the question. They are said to 
 have been baptized, because in that ordinance 
 the baptismal water surrounds the individual 
 immersed. And if immersion were not the 
 meaning of the word baptize, there would be 
 no force in this allusion. 
 
 An expression occurs in this connection, 
 (p. 65,) which seems to demand a passing re- 
 mark. *' The Egyptians were truly immersed; 
 they were 'buried in immersion unto death,' 
 as our Baptist brethren are so fond of say- 
 ing." Had Dr. P. contented himself with 
 saying, "The Egyptians were truly im- 
 mersed," I should have nothing to say. It 
 would be much in the style of my expression, 
 "The Egyptians were the sprinkled party." 
 But to apply to them that expression of Paul's, 
 "Buried by baptism unto death," seems to 
 me to border upon irreverence, if not profane- 
 ness. True, he may say the word there is 
 baptism, not immersion; but what if it should 
 turn out that the word baptism does mean im- 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 87 
 
 mersion? Then he will be found to have used 
 the very expression. Nay, I think if he ad- 
 mit that there is any reference to outward 
 baptism at all, in that passage, he must admit 
 that it is immersion, since it is a burial. 
 
 I have now shown, I trust to the reader's 
 satisfaction, that the New Testament proves 
 the meaning of baptize to be immerse, or 
 overivhelm. I have shown it from its use of 
 the word in every situation m the New Tes- 
 tament except the historical relations of bap- 
 tism ; and those will be in due time consid- 
 ered. I will now ask the reader to consider 
 what ground we have gone over, and where 
 we now stand. It has been shown by the tes- 
 timony of some of the ablest Pedo-baptist 
 philologists, that the word baptizo in the clas- 
 sics always means immerse. It has been 
 shown by similar testimony, admitted also by 
 the silence of Dr. P., that the same thing is 
 true of the Septuagint, and the Jewish-Greek 
 writers, down to the writing of the New Tes- 
 tament. I have shown it of the New Testa- 
 ment, excepting of course the passages which 
 describe the administration of baptism, which 
 are the ones whose import we wish to settle. 
 And now I ask, am I not entitled to claim. 
 
88 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 that the word baptizo always means to im- 
 merse? If, in every other case except when 
 it relates to the ordinance of Christian bap- 
 tism, in the whole range of Greek literature, 
 classical and sacred, it means immerse, can 
 its meaning be any thing else when it relates 
 to that ordinance? 
 
 We will now inquire where Dr. P. is. 
 
 REDUCED TO ONE." (p. 59.) 
 
 It would at first sight seem to be a happy 
 circumstance, if all the questions on baptism 
 could be reduced to one. We might hope to 
 settle that one, and so close the controversy. 
 But I fear the one will be found to contain all 
 the rest; so that if all=one, one=all. But 
 what is the one question ? " Shall the water be 
 poured or sprinkled on the person, or must the 
 person be dipped or immersed into the water?" 
 I hope the reader does not suppose we have 
 any new question here. If he consider it a 
 moment, he will see that it is only another 
 form of stating the original question with 
 which Dr. P. started, and which he then 
 called "the true question:" "What is the 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 89 
 
 meaning of baptizo, as used in the New Tes- 
 tament, to designate the ordinance of bap- 
 tism?" When " the true question " is settled, 
 *' the one " will be. 
 
 But we will follow Dr. P. into the " one." 
 His position is, "The water must be applied 
 to the person, and not the person to the 
 water." 
 
 But how is this position proved.'' First, by 
 declaring, what surely no one would deny, 
 that in the sprinkling-s under the law, the 
 water was applied to the subject, and then re- 
 peating the old assertion, that Paul called 
 these sprinklings baptism. I have shown that 
 Paul did no such thing. So much for this 
 proof. The second proof, from the baptizing 
 before dinner, and the baptism of cups, pots, 
 brazen vessels and couches, I have considered 
 and proved that all those were immersions. 
 The third proof, under the head of " figurative 
 allusions," has been considered. Omitting 
 for the present the baptism of John, the next 
 proof is the " prophecies intimating the mode 
 of Christian baptism." p. 78. These proph- 
 ecies are " So shall he (Christ) sprinkle 
 many nations." " Then will I (God) sprinkle 
 clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean." 
 8# 
 
90 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 Now perhaps Dr. P. supposed that some of 
 the " plain men " for whom he designed his 
 book, would be taken by such a palpable mis- 
 application of scripture as that; and because 
 the word sprinkle is here used, conclude it 
 must be that Christian baptism is here spoken 
 of. But is it not possible that they may notice 
 that the prophecy describes what Christ and 
 God would do, not what ministers would do? 
 Ministers administer Christian baptism; God 
 and Christ will do the sprinkling referred to. 
 Bishop Hughes never imposed upon Irish 
 Catholics a more palpable perversion of scrip- 
 ture, than the application of those prophecies 
 to Christian baptism. 
 
 The next argument is on the baptism of the 
 Holy Ghost. That has been considered. 
 
 Such are the arguments which Dr. P. advan- 
 ces to settle the "one" question to which all the 
 rest may be reduced. But is it not apparent 
 to the reader that such a course of reasoning 
 can do nothing towards settling it ? 
 
 There are two principles on which this 
 question may be settled; and in no other way 
 can it be done. The first is to ascertain the 
 meaning of the word baptize. If it be proved 
 that it means sprinkle, then every body allows 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 91 
 
 that the water must be applied to the subject. 
 In no other way can a sprinkling be performed. 
 If, on the other hand, it means immerse, in 
 administering the rite of baptism, the subject 
 must be applied to, or rather into the water. 
 An immersion may be effected by applying the 
 ^¥ater to the subject; but it could not be in a 
 religious ordinance. And after having proved 
 that baptizo uniformly means immerse, in 
 classical Greek, in Jewish Greek, and in the 
 New Testament, (excepting only the passages 
 in question) am I not entitled to affirm, that 
 so far as this principle goes, this " one " 
 question is settled, and it is proved that in 
 baptism the subject is applied to the water 
 rather than the water to the subject? 
 
 CONSTRUCTION OF BAPTIZO. 
 
 The other principle which may aid in set- 
 tling the " one " question is, How is baptizo 
 construed? What is its position in the sen- 
 tence, its relation to the nominative case, to 
 the object, and what prepositions follow it? 
 I hope no *' plain " reader will suppose I am 
 putting a case that nobody but Greek scholars 
 can understand. I trust I shall set this point 
 
92 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 in a light that shall make it intelligible to the 
 plainest common sense of every reader of the 
 English Bible. 
 
 Suppose the word baptize means pour; 
 every body sees that we could have no such 
 expressions as these in Greek, or any other 
 language: "I indeed j^our you in water;" 
 "They were all poured of him in Jordan," 
 &c. Every body sees that that is absurd; and 
 that if baptizo is the word employed in those 
 passages where I have put jjour, that word 
 cannot mean pour. 
 
 Again, suppose it means sprinMe; every 
 body sees that such expressions as the follow- 
 ing would never occur: " I indeed sprinkle 
 you in water;" "They were all sprinkled of 
 him m Jordan;" " He was sprinkled of John 
 into Jordan. " Nor would it be strictly correct 
 to say, " I sprinkle you.ivith water." Custom 
 has indeed sanctioned it. But it is contrary 
 to the proper use of language. The word 
 sprinkle means properly, to scatter in drops 
 or small particles, water, blood, ashes, or 
 whatever the substance may be. We should 
 then say, " I sprinkle water on you." Water 
 is the immediate object; the person besprinkled 
 is the remote object, following the preposition 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 93 
 
 on. If we examine the Bible we shall find 
 that this is the more usual construction of the 
 word sprinkle. 
 
 Again, suppose the word baptize means im- 
 merse; every body sees that we should have 
 no such expressions as "I baptize water on 
 you." It would be, " I baptize you m water;" 
 "They were baptized of him in Jordan;" 
 "He was baptized of John into Jordan." 
 Every body sees that we could use the word 
 immerse here and make perfect sense, while 
 the words pour or sprinkle would be nonsense. 
 
 Now this is the way the word baptizo is al- 
 ways used. Vflienever the word baptizo occurs 
 in a full expression — i. e., when we have the 
 nominative, the verb, the person baptized and 
 the element — the person baptized is the immedi- 
 ate object of the verb, and the element follows 
 the preposition en=in, usually expressed, rarely 
 understood. The preposition eis=into, is some- 
 times used. Thus, " I baptize you in water." 
 I have no hesitation in affirming positively this 
 proposition; for I am certain that no person 
 who has any pretensions to Greek scholarship 
 will dispute it. And every reader will see 
 that no English word but immerse can be sub- 
 stituted for baptize in such a sentence. We 
 
94 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 cannot say, " I pour you in water;" nor "I 
 sprinkle you in water;" it must be " I immerse 
 you in water." 
 
 That profound scholar, Dr. George Camp- 
 bell, referred to by Dr. P., p. 29, expresses 
 these same sentiments in his note on Mat. 3: 
 11. I quote from him to show that I am not 
 singular in the statement I have made, and 
 perhaps the fact that Dr. Campbell was a dis- 
 tinguished Presbyterian may add weight to 
 what he says. "The word baptizo, both in 
 sacred and classical authors, signifies to dip, 
 to plunge, to immerse, and is ahcays construed 
 suitably to this meaning. Thus it is in water, 
 in the Jordan.^' 
 
 "Ezekiel 36: 25, is in the Septuagint, 'I 
 will sprinkle upon you clean water,' and not 
 as baptizo is always construed, ' I will sprinkle 
 you in clean water.' Had baptizo been here 
 (i. e., Mat. 3: 11) employed in the sense of- 
 raino, I sprinkle, (which so far as I know, it 
 never is in any use, sacred or classical,) the 
 expression would doubtless have been, ' I 
 indeed baptize upon you, water;' agreeably 
 to the examples referred to." 
 
 If this principle is correct, (and I do not 
 believe it can be successfully controverted) it 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 95 
 
 settles, beyond controversy, that the true 
 meaning of baptizo is to immerse. It settles 
 too Dr. P.'s " one " question, and shows that 
 in baptism the subject must be applied to the 
 water. 
 
 And how will Dr. P. escape this conclusion? 
 By claiming that the preposition en (in) em- 
 ployed in Mat. 3, and Mark 1, does not mean 
 in. (p. 68.) It is true he admits more than we 
 ask. He says that " into is the more common 
 meaning of this particle." He is the first 
 man I ever heard admit, or claim, that this 
 particle ever means into. It almost always 
 means in; it is very rarely translated by any 
 other preposition when its meaning in does 
 not clearly appear. In every passage which 
 Dr. P. has quoted on p. 68, where ivith oc- 
 curs, it is en and means in. *' I am come 
 baptizing in water." " I indeed baptize you 
 in water into repentance; he shall baptize 
 you in the Holy Ghost." Dr. P. says, "It 
 would be a plain perversion of the passage to 
 say, ' he shall immerse you into the Holy 
 Ghost.'" It would be a mistranslation, be- 
 cause it is in and not into. Prof. Robinson, 
 who has been introduced to the reader as the 
 most celebrated biblical critic in America, 
 
96 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 quoted as indisputable authority by Dr. P. on 
 p. 29, does not think it a plain perversion of 
 language to say " He shall baptize you in the 
 Holy Ghost;" for so he translates it. Dr. 
 Campbell does not; he translates it "m 
 water," and " mi the Holy Ghost," and ad- 
 ministers the following rebuke to those who 
 translate it ivith' "It is to be regretted that 
 we have so much evidence that even good and 
 learned men allow their judgments to be 
 warped by the sentiments and customs of the 
 sect which they prefer. The true partizan, 
 of whatever denomination, always inclines to 
 correct the diction of the Spirit by that of the 
 party." The reflecting reader can think of 
 this; bearing in mind that the learned Doctor 
 is speaking of this specific point — the transla- 
 tion of Mat. 3: 11. The reader can see too, 
 after what I have shown in regard to the bap- 
 tism of the Holy Ghost, that so far from " He 
 shall immerse you in the Holy Ghost," being 
 a " plain perversion," it is precisely what the 
 sense requires. 
 
 It may aid the unlettered reader, to know 
 that the preposition en occurs eight times in 
 Mat. 3. If haptizo means immerse, it has its 
 natural and proper meaning in, in every in- 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 97 
 
 stance. But how does Dr. P. prove that " the 
 water must be applied to the subject " ? When 
 he reads this chapter he gives this preposition 
 its proper meaning till he comes to the sixth 
 verse, where he calls it at — then it is in again, 
 till he gets to the eleventh verse, and there he 
 calls it ivith — then it is in to ihe close. I will 
 leave it for the candid reader to judge who is 
 guilty of the " plain perversion " of the word 
 of God. 
 
 But, as if to hedge the way against any 
 such perversion, Mark is still more explicit. 
 He says, "were all baptized i/i the river of 
 Jordan.'' Can any thing be clearer? If the 
 Evangelist wished to teach that baptism im- 
 plies the application of the subject to the wa- 
 ter, and not the water to the subject, how 
 could he do it with more explicitness.? Again 
 Mark says (1: 9,) that Christ was baptized 
 "into the Jordan" — (eis ton lordanen); ex- 
 pressing still more strongly the same idea. 
 
 Now let the reader mark — Dr. P. will ad- 
 mit, that the more common meaning of these 
 prepositions is in and into — indeed no man has 
 the hardihood to deny it. But that is prima 
 facie evidence that they have tljat meaning 
 here. It is a universal rule of interpretation 
 9 
 
98 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 that every word shall have its proper meaning 
 unless there is clear necessity for changing it. 
 But what is the necessity here? wCT' The ne- 
 cessity of Dr. P.'s theory of baptism; not a 
 shadow of necessity else. Let every word in 
 the record have its proper and usual meaning, 
 and baptism is proved to be immersion; and 
 it cannot be made sprinkling without torturing 
 the record. Nay, it is not made then; the 
 torture will not extort it; after all it is naked 
 assumption. 
 
 I have now gone over the most essential 
 points in Dr. Peters' first part. I have shown 
 that the meaning of the word baptize, when 
 our Saviour gave that command, was im- 
 merse — that was its meaning as settled by 
 uniform usage, in classical, Jewish, and the 
 New Testament Greek. I have shown, both 
 from the meaning of the word, and its uniform 
 construction, that the idea of baptism cannot 
 be the application of water to the subject, 
 rather than the reverse. And here I might 
 stop. After this is shown there cannot be 
 much weight in what remains untouched. Still 
 the reader may desire that some of the dust 
 which the Doctor has thrown around the New 
 Testament accounts of baptism should be 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 99 
 
 brushed away. And this we will proceed to 
 do, with as much brevity as the case admits. 
 We will first address ourselves to the extra- 
 ordinary conclusions touching 
 
 John's baptism. 
 
 In Sect. IV, Dr. P. makes some remarks in 
 reference to the nature and design of John's 
 baptism. He labors at some length to prove 
 that John's baptism was not Christian bap- 
 tism. And what if it was not? It surely was 
 baptism, and Christian baptism is baptism; and 
 when we have ascertained what the one was, 
 we have learned all that in our present in- 
 quiry relates to the other. John's baptism 
 unquestionably differed in some particulars 
 from that administered by the apostles. Still 
 that the gospel dispensation opened with John's 
 ministry, is evident from the following passa- 
 ges: Markl:l. Mat. 11: 12,13. Luke 16: 
 16. That the gospel dispensation was not 
 fully set up till after the resurrection of Christ, 
 is equally evident. Still I do not see what 
 bearing that has upon our present inquiry. 
 
 Dr. P. makes some singular statements on 
 this point. He says " John's baptism was ad- 
 
100 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 ministered on profession o? repentance ; Chris- 
 tian baptism, on profession of regeneration.^ 
 TJiis is proved (?) by reference to Acts 2: 38, 
 where Peter says " Repent and be baptized " ! 
 He says, "As to any recognition of the Holy 
 Ghost in John's baptism, some whom he had 
 baptized, themselves affirmed, We have not 
 so much as heard whether there be any Holy 
 Ghost." I will just refer the reader to Mat. 
 3: 11, John 1: 32, 33. To account for the 
 ignorance of those disciples in regard to the 
 Holy Ghost, described in Acts 19, we may re- 
 mark that it is not said that John baptized 
 those disciples. They said they were bap- 
 tized " unto John's baptism." Their very ig- 
 norance furnishes a reason for believing that 
 he did not baptize them; and it is probable 
 
 * This distinctioa of the Doctor's is a remarkable one for 
 a Calvinistic writer to make. Dr. P. has as good a right to 
 be an Arminian as I have to be a Calvinist, though I suppose 
 he is generally understood to be a Calvinist. Calvinists 
 usually maintain that repentance is one of the first eviden- 
 ces that regeneration has alrtady taken place; and that con- 
 sequently a profession of repentance is a profession of re- 
 generation. So Baptists hold ; and they administer baptism 
 on precisely the same principles that John and the apostles 
 did 5 viz, to those who, by professing repentance, give evi- 
 dence of having experienced regeneration. 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 101 
 
 that it was done by some one of John's dis- 
 ciples. 
 
 He says, Paul rebaptized those twelve dis- 
 ciples. That is by no means clear. Some 
 Baptists admit that he did; some Pedo-baptists 
 do not admit that he did. Suppose he did; it 
 will not prove the invalidity of John's bap- 
 tism. The twelve apostles were baptized by 
 John; we have no account that they were 
 rebaptized. Apollos knew only John's bap- 
 tism, but Paul did not rebaptize him. 
 
 But the most extraordinary representation 
 is as to the number baptized by John. (Sect. 
 VI.) "To be within bounds (!) respectable 
 and learned (!) writers, have supposed that 
 John baptized only one-half the people of Pal- 
 estine, say three millions " ! " He must then 
 have immersed more than one every two 
 seconds " ! 
 
 But we are spared the necessity of replying 
 to this, for the supposition " is perhaps ex- 
 travagant." Perhaps it is. It seems quite 
 probable that it may be! He contents himself 
 with supposing it to be "only one-twelfth 
 part." That would be 500,000, requiring him 
 to baptize " six every minute " of his minis- 
 try ! 
 
 9# 
 
10^ 
 
 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 Now perhaps all this looks very imposing to 
 Dr. Peters' " plain men." But let us scan it 
 a little. 1. Dr. P. himself admits that the 
 expressions "All Jerusalem and Judea, and 
 all the region round about Jordan," no more 
 prove that John baptized one-half, than that 
 he baptized the whole. To which I add, they 
 just as much prove that he baptized the whole, 
 as that he baptized one-twelfth. They only 
 prove that a large number iveoit out. 2. If we 
 allow for the aged and infirm, and children, 
 probably not more than one-twelfth part of the 
 population could have gone out if they wished 
 to. 3. It is on all hands allowed that the 
 majority of the Jews belonged to the sect of 
 the Pharisees. But the Pharisees, it is ex- 
 pressly said, were not baptized of John. (Luke 
 7: 30.) The Sadducees also were rejected. 
 (Mat. 3: 7.) 4. John baptized none but pro- 
 fessed penitents. 5. Christ made disciples 
 in* a greater ratio than John. (John 3 : 26. 
 4: 1.) If John made 500,000, since Christ's 
 ministry was twice as long as his, there could 
 not have been, at the time of Christ's death 
 less than a million and a half! And yet Christ 
 calls them a little flock! 6. Every represen- 
 tation in the New Testament, and every con- 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 103 
 
 sideration, would go to show that but a very 
 small proportion of the Jewish people were 
 even professed penitents. It was because they 
 had filled up the iniquities of their fathers by 
 rejecting both John and Christ, (Mat. 11: 16, 
 24,) that wrath came upon them to the utter- 
 most. Ten righteous would have saved 
 Sodom. That proportion would doubtless 
 have saved the Jewish nation. 2000 would 
 probably be a small estimate of the popula- 
 tion of Sodom, and ten would be the two hun- 
 dredth part. 6,000,000-^200=30,000. That 
 I have no doubt is a large estimate of the 
 number of all of John's, and Christ's, and the 
 apostle's disciples among the Jews up to the 
 destruction of Jerusalem. Of those, John 
 could not have made and baptized more than 
 one-third; say 10,000. John's ministry was 
 a year and a half instead of nine months. 
 This I could prove if it were necessary. I 
 shall, however, content myself with saying 
 that every writer that I have seen, except Dr. 
 Peters, makes it not less than that. Deduct- 
 ing the Sabbaths, and we have 470 working 
 days. 10,000-!-470=22; a very easy day's 
 work, as most Baptist ministers can testify. 
 Now I do not wish the reader to understand 
 
104 EXAMINATIOxV OF 
 
 me as affirming that John did not baptize 
 more than 10,000. I do affirm, however, that 
 it is as easy to prove that he baptized less than 
 that, as it is to prove that he baptized more. 
 
 The truth is, all such estimates are idle. 
 The historian says that John did immerse. He 
 employs a word that uniformly meant immerse 
 when the history was written. He says that 
 his baptism was " in water, '^ " in the Jordan," 
 "in the river of Jordan." He baptized in 
 Enon near to Salim because there was much 
 water there. 
 
 But Dr. P. says there is no intimation in 
 scripture that John was at Enon for the con- 
 venience of baptizing! A bold assertion 
 truly. What is the declaration? " John also 
 ivas baptizing in Enon near to Salim, because 
 there was much water there." Because has 
 reference to baptizing and nothing else that is 
 mentioned. But he says there was more water 
 in the Jordan; why did he not stay there.'* 
 Well, that is a question of his own asking. 
 The historian gives no reason. If it were my 
 business to conjecture, I should say, because 
 Christ was baptizing in Judea, and as it was 
 not necessary that two such preachers should 
 be so near, John went farther north. But 
 
TETERS ON BAPTISM. 105 
 
 that is nothing here nor there. I take the 
 history as it stands. That says John was 
 baptizing there because there was much 
 water there. Bloomfield, Doddridge, and a 
 dozen other Pedo-baptist commentators that 
 might be named, assign this as the special 
 reason. 
 
 But Dr. P. says he went there because it 
 furnished " accommodations " for the " en- 
 campment of the thousands and tens of thou- 
 sands that attended on his ministry." What 
 intimation is there of all this? Great multi- 
 tudes followed Christ; but they never en- 
 camped; he always "sent them away" the 
 same day they came. So Dr. P. finds camels, 
 horses, asses — but where ? It must be in his 
 imagination. The multitudes that followed 
 Christ " ran afoot. ^' Again, " he was attend- 
 ed by the greatest multitude that ever assem- 
 bled around a human being for instruction." 
 We have no means of determining how great 
 the multitude was that attended him at Enon; 
 but we find his disciples complaining that all 
 men were then following Christ (verse 26). 
 It would seem that the multitude must then 
 have been comparatively small. Then it was 
 "many streams,^' instead oi " much ivater,^^ 
 
106 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 Well, be it so. It is true the Doctor is op- 
 posed here by almost all of his own commen- 
 tators. But it is of little importance. I have 
 no doubt that either of them were large 
 enough to immerse in. The simple declara- 
 tion of the historian, that John was baptizing 
 there because there was much water there, is 
 good against all the fanciful conjectures that 
 can be named. The history gives us no ac- 
 count of camels, horses, asses, or camp meet- 
 
 It seems to have occurred to Dr. P., that 
 possibly the " plain " reader would perceive 
 that if John sprinkled 3,000,000, or 500,000, 
 in the way it is ordinarily done by Congrega- 
 tional ministers, it would be as impossible for 
 him to sprinkle so many, as it would be to im- 
 merse them. He concludes, therefore, that 
 John (and also the apostles on the day of Pen- 
 tecost) '' took a bunch of hyssop, and made 
 it sufficiently large for his purpose, and dipped 
 it in water, and sprinkled the people as they 
 came to him in large numbers at a time " ! If 
 the reader has a tolerably active imagination, 
 he can conceive what sort of an exhibition this 
 would be. And to help his imagination, I will 
 relate the following fact, which may be relied 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 107 
 
 on as perfectly authentic. Some years since, 
 several young and devoted Congregational 
 ministers went to a foreign station as mission- 
 aries. God blessed their labors to such a de- 
 gree that it became necessary for them to bap- 
 tize several hundred converts at one time; so 
 many that sprinkling them one by one would 
 be quite "inconvenient." Taking their cue, 
 therefore, from such books on baptism as the 
 one we are now reviewing, they, on the ap- 
 pointed day, arranged their converts "in 
 ranks," and with a white-tvash brush for a 
 " bunch of hyssop," sprinkled them " in large 
 numbers at a time." Feeling some misgivings 
 afterwards, they wrote a letter to the Pro- 
 fessors of the Theological school where they 
 graduated, in relation to it. The Professors, 
 as was their custom with missionay corres- 
 pondence, read the letter to the students then 
 in the seminary, and took the opportunity to 
 charge those students, never, in any circum- 
 stances, to he guilty of such a perversion of 
 Christ^s ordinances. 
 
 These young missionaries must have been 
 stupid indeed, to suppose that these books on 
 baptism are written for theological students 
 or ministers, or with any expectation that the 
 
108 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 ''bunch of hyssop " would ever be put in 
 practice. They were written for " plain men " 
 with no practical design, except to keep con- 
 verts from uniting with the Baptists. The 
 " bunch of hyssop " will doubtless prove very 
 effectual for this purpose. 
 
 THE BAPTISM OF CHRIST. 
 
 Dr. Peters, (pp. 57, 93,) reiterates the old 
 Pedo-baptist hypothesis that Christ was bap- 
 tized as an induction into his priestly office, 
 according to the law of Moses in Ex. 29: 4. 
 Num. 8: 7. But he admits that these wash- 
 ings and sprinklings were "purification." 
 Paul speaks of them as "purifying of the 
 flesh;'' and hence calls them " cania/," that 
 is fleshhj "ordinances." (Heb. 9: 10, 13.) 
 Hence he says that the Levitical priests were 
 made "after the law of a carnal command- 
 ment;" i. e., a law which required a carnal 
 or fleshly purification. But Christ, he says,^ 
 was a priest, " nut after the order of Aaron," 
 but "after the order of Melchisedek;" that 
 " the priesthood being changed, there is of 
 necessity a c/wng-e also of the law; that "Christ 
 sprang out of Judah, of which tribe Moses 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 109 
 
 ke nothing concerning priesthood." It 
 must therefore follow that what Moses spoke 
 concerning the consecration of Levitical 
 priests, could have no application to Christ. 
 '* And this," says Paul, "is far more evident; 
 for that after the similitude of Melchisedek 
 there ariseth another priest, who is made, not 
 
 AFTER THE LAW OF A CARNAL COMMANDMENT, 
 
 but after the power of an endless life." (Heb. 
 7: 11, 16.) But after Paul has said this, Dr. 
 Peters persists in saying that Christ ivas made 
 a priest, after the law of the carnal command- 
 ment, in Ex. 29: 4, Num. 8:7! 
 
 But Dr. Peters says Christ exercised the 
 office of priest during his personal ministry, 
 and in that character purged the temple. But 
 Paul says " Christ came a high priest of good 
 things to come, by a tabernacle not made with 
 hands'/^ (Heb. 9* 11,) and that "if he were 
 on earth he should not be a priest;" as Dod- 
 dridge expresses it, "he could not, in any 
 consistence with the Jewish institutions, have 
 been a priest to ofUciate at the temple of God in 
 Jerusalem." Now I leave it for " plain men " 
 to judge, whether Dr. Peters' and Mr. Hib- 
 bard's conjecture of what Christ would have 
 said, if the Jews had said something which 
 10 
 
110 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 they did not say, ought to weigh against these 
 explicit declarations of Paul. 1 take it the 
 authority on which Christ did the act referred 
 to, was his being the Son of God, i. e., the 
 Messiah; and that he intimates as much when 
 he says, ' 'Make not my Father's house a house 
 of merchandize;" and that he designed to show 
 to those priests that their authority, founded 
 on the law of the carnal commandment in Ex. 
 29 : 4, was fast giving way to the power of an 
 
 ENDLESS LIFE. 
 
 But at all events, Christ was not immersed! 
 Who says he was not? R. W. Landis in 
 "Kabbah Taken"! On what evidence? 
 Why, at this day, Jewish pilgrims kneeling 
 in the Jordan sprinkle themselves! The ques- 
 tion is settled. Let no man hereafter say that 
 Christ was immersed! 
 
 But the preposition apo, translated out of, 
 does not necessarily mean more than from. 
 That is freely admitted. But still it does not 
 exclude the idea of out of. The preposition 
 from in English does not mean out of but still 
 it may be used instead of oid of. The account 
 states that John baptized Jesus into the Jordan ; 
 and when he was baptized he came up straight- 
 way/row the water. Could he have been bap- 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. Ill 
 
 tized into the Jordan, and come up from the 
 water, without having been m the water? 
 Suppose I were to say, " On my return from 
 Pittsfield, I called on a friend; and after I had 
 dined, I went immediately from his house to 
 my home;" would any body attempt to prove 
 that I was not in Pittsfield, and that I did not 
 enter my friend's house? Do you say that 
 the circumstance of dining proves that I was 
 in the house ? I answer, the fact of Jesus 
 being baptized into the Jordan, proves that he 
 was in the water. 
 
 Dr. Whitby, a well known Pedo-baptist 
 commentator says, "A doubt whether John 
 immersed Jesus, must arise from ignorance." 
 
 BAPTISM OF THE THREE THOUSAND. 
 
 Dr. Peters has restated and magnified the 
 difficulties usually urged by Pedo-baptist 
 writers, in the way of immersing the 3000 on 
 the day of Pentecost. Two and a half pages 
 are devoted to showing that there was no 
 water for their immersion! Dr. Gill answered 
 this objection in his day. Every Pedo-baptist 
 writer since then has brought it up again, and 
 every Baptist writer has answered it. But 
 
112 EXAMINATION OP 
 
 Dr. P. brings it up without taking the least 
 notice of those answers, and as if it \yere not 
 only unanswered, but unanswerable. Now let 
 me remind the reader that the 3000 might have 
 been immersed without going out of the tem- 
 ple. There were ten brass lavers, each con- 
 taining over nine barrels of water, and the 
 great brazen sea, that contained over five 
 hundred barrels of water. But Dr. P. says, 
 "The implacable opposition of the priests and 
 of the Jews in general, must have prevented 
 their using them." The historian, however, 
 intimates no such thing. He says, (Acts 2: 
 46, 47,) " They continued daily, with one ac- 
 cord, in the temple, praising God, and having 
 favor with all the people.^' It does not appear 
 from this that their movements were at all in- 
 terfered with, or interrupted, at this time, by 
 priest or people. 
 
 It is carrying controversy a little too far, to 
 urge this objection about want of water, after 
 the publication of Prof Robinson's book on 
 Palestine. Jerusalem abounded in cisterns, 
 reservoirs, fountains and pools. Prof. Robin- 
 son devotes nineteen pages to a description of 
 the abundant means of supplying Jerusalem 
 with water. 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 113 
 
 But this difficulty surmounted, a greater re- 
 mains. There were only eleven administra- 
 tors; for " only ten days had intervened since 
 the apostles had received their own commis- 
 sion from the Saviour, and we have no ac- 
 count of their having ordained any person 
 during that time " ! Have we not a very 
 circumstantial account of the ordination of 
 Matthias? Then " after the close of Peter's 
 sermon, there were only five hours of the day 
 remaining." How long does he suppose 
 Peter preached? It was only nine o'clock in 
 the morning, after he began to preach. (Acts 
 2: 15.) One hour, I apprehend, would be a 
 large estimate of the time of his sermon, and 
 that will leave eight hours for the baptism. In 
 that case, the apostles would only have to 
 baptize less than thirty-two every hour. Be- 
 sides, if they had to baptize " fifty every hour, 
 and five every six minutes," that would not 
 have been "impossible." That has often 
 been done, by Baptist ministers in America. 
 But how does Dr. P. know that the seventy 
 " took no part in the services " ? There were 
 one hundred and twenty disciples there, as we 
 are expressly informed, who took part in the 
 ordination of Matthias; why may they not all 
 10* 
 
114 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 have taken part in this baptism? Is baptism 
 any more a peculiarly ministerial work, than 
 ordination? If the seventy took part in this 
 baptism, there would have been less than forty 
 persons for each minister. 
 
 It might be instructive to the reader to men- 
 tion in this connection some things which have 
 been done in the way of baptizing. The fol- 
 lowing facts are related by Pres. Sears, in the 
 Christian Review, vol. 3, p. 91, where the his- 
 torical authorities are stated. 
 
 On the great Sabbath of the Easter festival, 
 April 16, 404, Chrysostom, Bishop of Con- 
 stantinople, with the assistance of the clergy 
 of his own church, baptized 3000 catechu- 
 mens. And he immersed them ; for Chrysostom, 
 who in innumerable instances in thirteen folio 
 volumes speaks of baptism, never alludes to 
 it as a sprinkling, but on the contrary, defines 
 it to be "a plunging into the water, and a 
 raising out of it;" and says that "we enter 
 into water as into a grave," and that "the 
 whole man is concealed by the immersion." 
 
 In 496, according. to several French histo- 
 rians, (one of them the successor of Remi- 
 gius,) Remigius, Bishop of Rheims, assisted 
 by his Presbyters, baptized in one day, Clo- 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 115 
 
 vis, the French king, and 3000 of his subjects. 
 As to the mode, the historians say that the 
 "Bishop raised the king out of the water. ''^ 
 
 Otho, the apostle of the Pomeranians, in a 
 short stay at one place, baptized 7000 of the 
 Pomeranians. And the account renders it 
 more than probable that they were all bap- 
 tized in two days. It is related by an eye 
 witness, who describes minutely the construc- 
 tion of the baptisteries used, calling them 
 *' great vats sunk into the earth," and says 
 expressly that the ordinance was administered 
 by a " trine immersion" — ^' trina immersione.^^ 
 
 These facts are sufficient to settle the possi- 
 bility of immersing the 3000 on the day of 
 Pentecost. 
 
 BAPTISM OF THE EUNUCH. 
 
 Dr. p. in his remarks on this account, de- 
 scends to the usual trifling of Pedo-baptist 
 controversialists, by affirming that if the ex- 
 pressions "They went down both into the 
 water, both Philip and the Eunuch — they M^ere 
 come up out of the water," prove that the Eu- 
 nuch was immersed, they prove also that 
 Philip was immersed. Now if he or any body 
 else supposes that Baptists claim these ex- 
 
116 EXAMINATION OP 
 
 pressions as describing the baptism, I beg 
 leave to inform them better. We claim no 
 such thing. First they came to a certain 
 water; then they both loent down into the 
 water; then Philip baptized the Eunuch; then 
 they came up out of the water. And we say 
 there is no reason in the world why they should 
 both go down into the water, for the purpose 
 of sprinkling, which might have been done 
 better on the bank, or even without alighting 
 from the chariot. Dr. Doddridge, with his 
 usual candor and good sense, expresses him- 
 self on this verse as we should expect a can- 
 did Pedo-baptist would. He says, "Consid- 
 ering how frequently bathing was used in those 
 hot countries, it is not to be wondered that 
 baptism was generally administered by immer- 
 sion, though I see no proof that it was essen- 
 tial to the institution. It would be very un- 
 natural to suppose that they went down to the 
 water, merely that Philip might take up a 
 little water in his hand to pour on the Eunuch. 
 A person of his dignity had, no doubt, many 
 vessels in his baggage, on such a journey 
 through so desert a country, a precaution ab- 
 solutely necessary for travellers in those parts, 
 and never omitted by them." 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 117 
 
 The account of this baptism, by the inspired 
 historian, is so plain and circumstantial, that 
 all comment seems superfluous. Let the read- 
 er mark that the Eunuch says nothing about 
 being baptized till they come to water. But 
 if sprinkling had been in his mind, we may 
 be certain, from our knowledge of the customs 
 of travellers in the east, in all ages, (as re- 
 ferred to by Dr. Doddridge,) that he had water 
 enough in his chariot for that. When they 
 come to the water, the Eunuch does not send 
 one of his retinue to bring water to them; he 
 commands them to stop the chariot, and they 
 both alight. They not only go to the water, 
 where they might have stopped if sprinkling 
 was all; they go down iiito the water. Again, 
 the historian is careful to tell us twice over 
 that they both went down. If he only said 
 that one of them went, there might be some 
 plausibility in the assertion that the Eunuch 
 was not immersed; why should both go down 
 into the water, for a sprinkling.'' Then after 
 the baptism they came up out of the water; 
 could they come out of the water, if they had 
 not been in it.^ Now whether the water was 
 " little " or much, there was enough for both 
 to go down into it, and for the Eunuch to be 
 
118 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 baptized in it. And what ought any man's 
 fancies and conjectures to weigh against an 
 inspired narrative so explicit? 
 
 But the prepositions eis and ek only mean to 
 and/rom. What must the unlettered reader 
 think of the Bible, if words can be made to 
 mean just what the exigencies of every man's 
 religious system demand? I would say, in all 
 kindness to my Pedo-baptist brethren in the 
 ministry, use your knife a little more sparingly 
 when you are dealing with God's word. There 
 are some other doctrines besides baptism that 
 we wish to defend and enforce. When Dr. 
 Peters wishes to preach on future punishment, 
 he will need to prove that the wicked will be 
 cast into hell, into the fire that shall never be 
 quenched; into everlasting fire — into ever- 
 lasting punishment, and not merely to hell, to 
 everlasting fire. But he cannot. In attempt- 
 ing to destroy our weapons, he has destroyed 
 his own. He has wrested into out of this pas- 
 sage; but is that all? No; he has wrested it 
 out of all the passages of the class that I have 
 mentioned. Their construction is precisely 
 the same. Every philological reason for say- 
 ing [that eis means into in these passages, 
 proves that it means into in the passage under 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 119 
 
 consideration. Wresting God's word is serious 
 business, whether it is done by good men or 
 by bad men. 
 
 But does not eis mean to, sometimes? Yes, 
 sometimes; but rarely in comparison with the 
 times when it means into. And the construc- 
 tion will always determine. And I speak ivhat 
 I know, when I say, if the construction does 
 not prove that it means into here, it cannot be 
 proved in any case in the New Testament. 
 But though eis may mean to in some cases, 
 ek never means less than out of. Dr. P. has 
 given no instance of its meaning from, and I 
 hesitate not to say he cannot.* 
 
 In all my reading of controversial writings, 
 I do not remember to have met with a more 
 palpable example of a writer's throwing dust 
 to blind the eyes of his reader, and keep him 
 from discerning the real point at issue, than 
 the Doctor's discussion of the meaning of the 
 prepositions here employed. He cites from 
 examples of the use of eis where it may be 
 rendered to. But how does he prove that ek 
 means/rom? He quotes Dr. Carson as ad- 
 
 ^ It is worthy of remark, that Doddridge, while he trans- 
 lates eis in this verso to, renders ek, otit of. A clear confir- 
 mation of what I have said above. 
 
120 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 mitting that " the proper translation of apo is 
 from.^' Does proving that apo means /rom, 
 prove that eA: means /rom? Why did he, when 
 he professed to be discussing the meaning of 
 ek in Acts 8: 39, take a sudden turn to Mat. 
 3:16, where not ek but apo is used, if not to 
 blind the eyes of the " plain men for whom his 
 work was designed " ? Let me repeat to 
 these " plain men," that he has not produced 
 a single example in which ek mea.ns from, and 
 he cannot. Though eis may, in comparatively 
 few instances, mean to, (exceptions to its usual 
 meaning, which its construction invariably 
 shows,) ek never means less than out of. And 
 the use of ek here is a plain proof that eis, in 
 this place, means into. They could not have 
 come up out of the water, without first having 
 gone ijito it. 
 
 As further proof that in the 38th verse eis 
 means into instead of to, I will observe that in 
 the 36th verse, " As they went on their way, 
 they came unto a certain water," — where the 
 sense obviously requires unto, or to, the prepo- 
 sition is not eis, but epi. This is the prepo- 
 sition which properly means to. When the 
 historian clearly and obviously meant to, he 
 used epi. If he intended to tell us that Philip 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. l21 
 
 and the Eunuch only went to the water, (in 
 the 38th verse,) why did he not use epi as he 
 did in the 36th verse? Or, on the other hand, 
 if he intended to have us understand him as 
 meaning only to when he used eis in the 38th 
 verse, why did he not use eis in the 36th verse, 
 where the sense obviously requires tol Perhaps 
 as Dr. Peters is a "learned man," he can 
 answer these questions; I cannot, on any other 
 supposition than that one of these prepositions 
 means to, and the other into. According to 
 him, Greek prepositions are a perfect chaos, 
 and mean any thing or nothing, just as the 
 translator chooses. I challenge any man to 
 produce from the whole range of Greek litera- 
 ture, a passage where prepositions are used 
 with more perfect accuracy of meaning, than 
 they are in this passage. 
 
 Dr. P., referring to the 26th verse, says the 
 place where Philip and the Eunuch were trav- 
 elling was a desert, where there could have 
 been no stream, in which the Eunuch might 
 have been immersed. It is not necessary for 
 me to prove that there was a stream, in order 
 to prove that he was immersed. If the history 
 does not inform us that he was immersed, no 
 language can do it. But I will inform the 
 II 
 
122 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 reader, that such biblical scholars as Home, 
 Hug, and Robinson, one an Englishman, 
 another a German, and the third an American, 
 all preeminent in this department, and all 
 Pedo-baptists, refer the word desert, in the 
 26th verse, not to the country through which 
 they were travelling, but to the city of Gaza. 
 I quote the following from Home's Intro- 
 duction, Vol. H, p. 425, and will also refer 
 the reader to Robinson's Lexicon, under the 
 word Gaza. "The city of Gaza is mentioned 
 in Acts 8: 26, with the parenthetical remark, 
 that it (or the same) is desert, which has greatly 
 exercised the ingenuity of commentators. A 
 passage, however, in Josephus, which has es- 
 caped the researches of most of the learned 
 men, clears up the difficulty, and shows the 
 minute fidelity of the sacred historian. A 
 short time before the siege of Jerusalem, in 
 consequence of a massacre of the Jews at 
 Cesarea, the whole nation became greatly en- 
 raged, and in revenge, laid waste many villa- 
 ges and cities; and among these were Gaza, 
 which they utterly demolished. Gaza was 
 therefore actually a desert at the time St. Luke 
 wrote." The reader will see that the words 
 *' which is desert " are a parenthesis, referring 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 123 
 
 not to the loay, but to the state of the city at 
 the time Luke wrote. 
 
 There is another fact that I will inform the 
 reader of Gaza was about sixty miles from 
 Jerusalem. Prof Robinson lays down on 
 his map four considerable streams running 
 into the Mediterranean sea between those two 
 cities. The route which Messrs. Robinson 
 and Smith travelled between these cities, 
 crosses these streams and their branches, not 
 less than fifteen times. 60-^15=4, giving us 
 a stream large enough to be laid down on a 
 map of the country, to be crossed on an aver- 
 age of once in four miles through the whole 
 distance. The Roman road, which probably 
 the Eunuch followed, crosses these streams 
 ten times, an average of once in six miles. A 
 desert country and no water! 
 
 To make out that this was a desert country, 
 destitute of water, the Doctor refers us to the 
 sojourn of Abraham and Isaac there. The 
 reader, if he will consult Gen. 26, will find 
 that Isaac went into this country to escape a 
 famine that was raging elsewhere. Would he 
 have gone into a desert with his flocks and 
 herds to escape a famine? Besides, we are 
 told that Isaac sowed in that land, and re- 
 
124 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 ceived the same year an hundred fold; that he 
 waxed great — became very great, and had 
 possession of flocks and possession of herds, 
 and a great store of servants; and the Philis- 
 tines envied him. (Gen. 26: 12— 14.) That 
 must have been a desert country indeed! He 
 says, "It was not far from this place that 
 Philip baptized the Eunuch; and the water 
 was probably one of those ' springs in the 
 desert' of which we read, (Gen. 26: 19.)" 
 "Of which ive read " ! Perhaps Dr. Peters 
 reads of a desert in that verse; but we read 
 of no such thing. In the English Bible we 
 read, "And Isaac's servants digged in the 
 VALLEY, and found there a well of springing 
 water." If we turn to the Hebrew Bible, we 
 find the word for valley, nachal, which is thus 
 defined in Robinson's Gesenius: "A valley 
 icith a brook or torrent, a low place with water, 
 Gen. 26: 19." Dr. Peters is a "learned" 
 man writing for "plain men. "Industrious 
 ignorance " must feel vastly indebted to him. 
 One other fact I will remind the reader of. 
 Philip, after the baptism, was first found at 
 Azotus. We have then a right to believe that 
 the baptism took place nearer that city than 
 any other. Dr. Robinson lays down on his 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 125 
 
 map two considerable rivers a few miles from 
 that city, one to the north and the other to 
 the south, and the Roman road crosses both 
 of them. " The presumption, then, that there 
 was a river in the desert, in which the Eunuch 
 might have been immersed, is all a fancy " ! 
 (p. 97.) 
 
 Dr. Peters tells us on p. 95, what it was 
 which led the Eunuch to think of being 
 *' sprinkled " at that time. It was because he 
 had just read the prophecy in Isa. 42: 15, " So 
 shall he sprinkle many nations," which Philip 
 had doubtless explained to him as meaning 
 baptism! Is it not enough for men to pervert 
 God's word themselves, without conjecturing 
 that inspired men perverted it.'* In the 32d 
 verse it is said, " The place of the scripture 
 which he read was this;" and then follows the 
 quotation of Isa. 53: 7, 8, following, says 
 Bloomfield, "the Septuagint version exactly; 
 the verbal discrepancies which occur, not 
 being found in the Alexandrian and other good 
 MSS. of the Septuagint." The Eunuch then 
 was reading from the Septuagint. Now in 
 this version the word sprinkle does not occur 
 in Isa. 52: 15. It is " iSo shall many nations 
 wonder, or admire because of him. ^^ So even 
 11* 
 
126 EXAMINATION OF ^ 
 
 this absurd conjecture is utterly destitute of 
 foundation. 
 
 Paul's baptism. 
 
 Dr. P. tells us that Paul was baptized out 
 of a " water pot of stone," which stood in the 
 house where he had been three days fasting! 
 If Paul himself had said that he was immersed, 
 would Dr. Peters believe it? Paul did say he 
 was immersed. "Know ye not that so many 
 of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were 
 baptized into his death .^ Therefore we are 
 BURIED with him by baptism. ^^ Buried in a 
 water pot of stone! 
 
 baptism of CORNELIUS AND HIS FRIENDS. 
 
 Dr. Peters thinks Peter's question, " Can 
 any man forbid water that these should not be 
 baptized?" means "Will some one be kind 
 enough to bring in some water, that these may 
 be baptized " ! If this were the meaning, 
 should we not expect the remainder of the 
 verse would read, "And he commanded a 
 servant to bring in a water pot of stone " ? 
 Peter's question plainly means. Can any man 
 forbid baptism to these persons? This is 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 127 
 
 shown by what follows, "And he commanded 
 them to be baptized.'^ 
 
 BAPTISM OF LYDIA AND HER HOUSEHOLD. 
 
 Dr. p. thinks it improbable that Lydia and 
 her household were immersed, because we are 
 not told whether she changed her raiment or 
 not. As I do not wish to be wise above what 
 is written, I will not undertake to say. On 
 the express declaration of the record, I affirm 
 they were immersed. The word baptize we 
 have seen always means immerse; is it rea- 
 sonable to suppose that it means any thing 
 else here? Besides, they were not by a "water 
 pot of stone," but by a river side; a good 
 place for immersion. 
 
 BAPTISM or THE JAILER AND HIS HOUSEHOLD. 
 
 Dr. p. says the jailer and his household 
 were baptized in the prison: the historian says 
 the contrary. Verse 30 tells us the jailer 
 *' brought them out; '^ out of what.^ They 
 were in the prison; he must then have brought 
 them out of prison. Where did he bring 
 them to.'' Plainly, into his house: verse 32; 
 **They spake unto him the word of the Lord, 
 
128 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 and to all that were in his house. '^ But he 
 says the house was in the prison. That is 
 easier said than proved. But suppose it was; 
 they were baptized neither in the prison nor 
 the house. After the sermon, the jailer 
 washed their stripes; and after this was done, 
 the jailer and his household were baptized; 
 and after the baptism, (verse 34,) '' he brought 
 them into his house.'' They went somewhere 
 out of both prison and house, to administer 
 the baptism. When a Pedo-baptist minister 
 wishes to baptize a household at home, does 
 he take the family out of the house .'' When 
 a Baptist minister wishes to baptize a house- 
 hold, what does he do.^ Just what the apos- 
 tles did here; he goes out of the house to 
 doit. 
 
 But he thinks that because Paul and Silas 
 would not be thrust out of prison privily, they 
 would not go out privily m the night to baptize 
 the jailer and his family. Undoubtedly they 
 would not. Paul and Silas would not have 
 been guilty of any thing that had the least 
 appearance of a stealthy disobedience to law 
 or regular authority, though that authority had 
 treated them unjustly. And had their preach- 
 ing or baptizing in the night been an act of 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 129 
 
 this character, they would not have done it. 
 They did not come out privily; but the jailer 
 who was responsible for their safe keeping 
 brought them out. They were still under his 
 keeping, and he felt entirely safe that they 
 would do nothing to render him liable to dis- 
 grace or punishment. 
 
 BAPTISM IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 
 
 That immersion was the practice of the 
 church, in the age immediately succeeding 
 the apostles, is as well substantiated as any 
 other fact in Ecclesiastical history. I present 
 the following as specimens of the manner 
 in which the early Christian writers speak 
 of it. 
 
 Hermas, who was cotemporary with Paul 
 and whose name is mentioned by him in Rom. 
 16: 14, says: "The seal of the sons of God 
 is water, into which men descend who are bound 
 to death, but ascend out of it sealed to life." 
 Augusti, after quoting the passage at length, 
 says it "contains distinct evidence of the cus- 
 tom of immersion." 
 
 Justin Martyr, who lived within fifty years 
 of the time of the apostles, says: "Those 
 who believe are led to some place where there is 
 
130 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 water, and there bathe in the water.^^ In another 
 place he says: "We represent our Lord's 
 sufferings and resurrection, by baptism in a 
 pool.'^ Clemens Alexandrinus, who lived a 
 little later, says: "You were led to a bath, 
 as Christ was conveyed to the sepulchre, and 
 were thrice immersed, to signify Christ's three 
 days' burial." 
 
 "Tertullian," says President Sears, "makes 
 no allusion to sprinkling, but expresses im- 
 mersion by every Latin word that could be 
 used." As examples: "We are immei^sed in 
 water. ^^ " We are led doivn into the water 
 and dipped.^' "Peter immersed in the Tiber." 
 "It is indifferent whether one is baptized in 
 the sea, or in a pool, in a river or fountain, in 
 a lake or channel.'' 
 
 Dr. Peters admits (p. 114,) that "there is 
 evidence sufficient to show that, as early as 
 the second century, immersion was generally 
 practised;" but he adds, "it was not then 
 claimed by any, as the exclusive mode." But 
 Mosheim and Neander, the two standard his- 
 torians of the church, both affirm that in the 
 two first centuries, baptism was uniformly ad- 
 ministered by an immersion of the whole body 
 in water. He says, (p. 115,) that " Origen 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 131 
 
 and Tertullian, who both lived within one 
 hundred years of the apostolic age, testify to 
 the practice and validity of baptisnn by affusion 
 or sprinkling, and recommended it in cases, 
 where, on account of sickness or other causes, 
 immersion was inconvenient or dangerous. 
 The same may be said of Clemens Alexandri- 
 nus, and Ireneus." He refers to Prof. Stuart 
 as his authority for these statements. Now I 
 am sorry to be obliged to call in question Dr. 
 Peters' accuracy on a matter of fact, and that 
 so simple as the reading of Prof. Stuart's 
 essay, written in plain English. But I feel 
 bound to say, that after a careful reading of 
 that article, I find nothing of the kind said by 
 him in reference to either Origen, Tertullian, 
 Clement, or Ireneus. Prof. Stuart does not 
 inform us of any intimation of sprinkling, by 
 any Christian writer earlier than Cyprian, in 
 the middle of the third century. He says that 
 "Tertullian is the most ample witness of all 
 the early writers," quotes numerous examples 
 from him, all of the character I have adduced, 
 and adds: " I do not see how any doubt can 
 remain, that in Tcrlullian's time, the practice 
 of the African church, to say the least, must 
 have been trine immersion.^' 
 
132 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 He then adds, " Subsequent ages make the 
 general practice of the cliurch still plainer, if 
 indeed this can be done." Then follow quota- 
 tions from Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine, 
 Dyonisius, &.C. He then says, " The passa- 
 ges which refer to immersion are so numerous 
 in the fathers, that it would take a little volume 
 merely to recite them." Then he gives 
 another page of quotations, and concludes with 
 the following emphatic language: "But 
 enough. * It is,' says Augusti. ' a thing made 
 out,' viz. the ancient practice of immersion. 
 So indeed all the writers who have thoroughly 
 invesstigated this subject conclude. I know of 
 no one usage of ancient times, which seems 
 to be more clearly and certainly made out. I 
 cannot see how it is possible for any candid 
 man, who examines this subject, to deny this. 
 
 He adds, " That there were cases of ex- 
 ception allowed now and then, is no doubt 
 true. Persons in extreme sickness or danger 
 were allowed baptism by affusion. Cyprian 
 pleads strongly and conclusively for this." He 
 quotes four other authorities on this point, but 
 none earlier than Cyjrrian, the middle of the 
 third century. "But," he concludes, "all 
 such cases were manifcsthj regarded as ex- 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 133 
 
 ceptions to the common usage of the church." 
 Summing up the whole matter, he says, — 
 " From the earliest ages of which we have 
 any account, subsequent to the apostolic age, 
 and downward for several centuries, the 
 churches did generally practise baptism by 
 immersion ; perhaps by immersion of the whole 
 person; and the only exceptions to this mode 
 which were usually allowed, were in cases of 
 urgent sickness, or other cases of immediate 
 and imminent danger, where immersion could 
 not be practised. Aspersion and affusion, 
 which in particular cases had been now and 
 then practised in primitive times, were gradu- 
 ally introduced. These became at length 
 quite common, and in the western church, al- 
 most universal, sometime before the Reforma- 
 tion." 
 
 "In what manner, then," he adds, "did 
 the churches of Christ, from a very early 
 period, to say the least, understand the word 
 baptizo in the New Testament .'' Plainly they 
 construed it as meaning immersion. They 
 sometimes even went so far as to forbid any 
 other method of administering the ordinance, 
 cases of necessity and mercy only excepted." 
 
 I have been full in these quotations from 
 12 
 
134 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 Prof. Stuart, because they are to the point, 
 and because he is a Massachusetts Congrega- 
 tionalist, whose reputation is world wide, for 
 varied and extensive scholarship, and ardent 
 devotion to biblical learning. 
 
 While I am on quotations, I cannot forbear 
 adding the following from Dr. Wall, whom 
 Dr. P. (p. 171,) ranks among ''our best his- 
 torians.'' "The usual way of baptizing in 
 the early ages, was by immersion, or dipping 
 the person in water. This is so plain and 
 clear, from an infinite number of passages, 
 that one cannot but pity the weak endeavors of 
 such Pedo-baptists as would maintain the neg- 
 ative of it. It is a great want of prudence as 
 well as of honesty, to refuse to grant to an ad- 
 versary what is certainly true, and can be 
 proved so. It creates a jealousy of all the 
 rest that one says." In another place he 
 says: " We ought to disown and show a dis- 
 like of the profane scoffs which some people 
 give to the English Anti-Pedo-baptists, (Bap- 
 tists,) merely for their use of dipping. It is 
 one thing to maintain that that circumstance 
 is not absolutely necessary to the essence of 
 baptism, and another to go about to represent 
 it as ridiculotis or foolish, or as shameful and 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 135 
 
 indecent, when it was, in all probability, the 
 way by which our blessed Saviour, and for 
 certain was the most usual and ordinary way, 
 by which the ancient Christians did receive 
 their baptism." 
 
 The above extracts from Dr. Wall require 
 no comment. The reflecting reader can pon- 
 der upon them and make his own applica- 
 tions. 
 
 Dr. P. says, (p. 116,) " Our Baptist breth- 
 ren are fond of claiming this history of the 
 early practice of Christians as wholly in their 
 favor. But if they take it as authority in re- 
 spect to immersion, they ought to take the 
 other things that I have named along with it," 
 (i. e., exorcism, unction, giving salt and milk 
 to the candidate, clothing him in a snow-white 
 robe, crowning with evergreen, and baptizing 
 the candidate in a state of entire nudity.) 
 Most certainly we ought, if we took this his- 
 tory as AUTHORITY. We do not. THE BI- 
 BLE, nothing more and nothing less than the 
 Bible is our authority. Our question is. 
 What does that word baptize, whose meaning 
 contains the Saviour's command, meanl We 
 find, from an examination of that word, that 
 by universal usage in all Greek literature 
 
136 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 both classical and Jewish, up to the time when 
 that command was given, it meant immerse. 
 We find the New Testament baptisms to have 
 been immersions; and here we feel authorized 
 to say, the point is settled. We understand 
 the law of baptism and apostolical practice, to 
 require immersion. But as our brethren ve- 
 hemently dispute us, we ask the early Chris- 
 tians immediately after the apostles, how they 
 understand that law? and they unanimously 
 cry IMMERSION. But we see those same 
 Christians immersing three times. We inquire, 
 Do you suppose the law requires that? No, 
 responds Tertullian; "in being thrice im- 
 mersed, (ter mergitamur) we fulfil somewhat 
 more (amplius aliquid respondentes) than the 
 Lord has decreed in the Gospel." Then as 
 to unction, exorcism, baptizing naked, &c., 
 does the law require these? No, they re- 
 spond, tradition is our only authority for these. 
 Their testimony is explicit, that the law, as 
 they understand it, requires simply immersion. 
 So far, we hear them with confidence and re- 
 spect. When they talk of " fulfilling some- 
 what more " than the law requires, on the au- 
 thority of tradition, we demur. 
 
 But does not Dr. P. claim the practice of 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 137 
 
 early Christians in favor of sprinkling? (with 
 how much reason I have shown.) Does not 
 he quote Cyprian as justifying it? Why then 
 does he not receive all these practices? These 
 questions are pertinent; for it can be proved 
 that contemporaneously with the introduction 
 of these practices, (viz. exorcism, unction, 
 8lc.,) came the practice of sprinkling in ex- 
 treme cases; (and I may add also infant bap- 
 tism,) and nobody defends the validity of such 
 baptism before Cyprian, in the middle of the 
 third century, when these other practices 
 were firmly established. Nor does Cyprian 
 justify it except in those extreme cases; nor 
 yet does he defend it either from the laiv of 
 baptism, or apostolical usage, or even tradition. 
 He defends it by such arguments as Dr. P. 
 has given a specimen of; arguments worthy 
 of Bishop Cyprian and his age, but unworthy 
 of Dr. Peters and his age. It is then for Dr. 
 P., and those who receive sprinkling, a prac- 
 tice having the same origin, and at the same 
 time with exorcism, unction, and naked bap- 
 tism, and who receive it on the same argu- 
 ments by which Cyprian defended it, who at 
 the same time defended all these other prac- 
 tices, to adopt and practice these ceremonies; 
 12* 
 
138 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 not for us, who abjure and renounce the whole 
 together, and for the same reason — not one 
 OF THEM HAS A THUS SAITH THE LORD 
 for it. 
 
 jewish proselyte baptism. 
 
 The careful reader of Dr. Peters' book 
 cannot fail to see that he makes great depend- 
 ence on the supposed existence among the 
 Jews, before the coming of Christ, of a cus- 
 tom of baptizing the proselytes which they 
 made from among the Gentiles. That sup- 
 posed fact is the main pillar of his argument 
 for infant baptism in Part H, although he 
 studiously keeps it out of sight in Part I. His 
 course of argument is this: When our Saviour 
 gave the apostles the command to make dis- 
 ciples among all nations, baptizing them, they 
 would interpret the command in conformity to 
 the method of making disciples among the 
 Jews, with which they were familiar; and that 
 method was, as he alleges, when the head of 
 a household became a disciple, (to Judaism,) 
 to baptize him, and his household together; 
 and accordingly the apostles would understand 
 the commission to be, when they made a dis- 
 ciple to Christ of the head of a household, 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 139 
 
 that he and his household were to be bap- 
 tized. The reader cannot fail to notice that 
 this supposed fact is interwoven with the 
 whole of Dr. P. 's reasoning on infant baptism; 
 and if it is not a fact, there is but little left to 
 his argument in Part II. Now for sake of the 
 argument, I will for the present admit that the 
 fact did exist as he supposes; and we will in- 
 quire a little more definitely what that would 
 teach us in regard to Christian baptism. 
 
 Prof. Stuart, after an elaborate examination 
 of the whole subject of Proselyte baptism, 
 extending through seventeen octavo pages, 
 concludes his examination as follows: "But 
 what has all this to do with the question, 
 What was the ancient mode of Christian bap- 
 tism? Much; for i^ is on all hands conceded j 
 that, so far as the testimony of the Rabbins 
 can decide such a point, the baptism of 
 proselytes among the Jews was by immersion.* 
 To cite authorities to this purpose is needless. 
 They may be seen in Lightfoot, in Danz, and 
 elsewhere. It is therefore a matter of no little 
 interest, so far as our question is concerned, 
 to inquire whether Christian baptism had its 
 
 * Dr. Peters tacitly admits thig on p. 31, tiiough he is care- 
 ful not to say it. 
 
140 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 origin from the proselyte baptism among the 
 Jews." 
 
 If, then, the apostles interpreted the com- 
 mission to baptize from the Jewish proselyte 
 baptism, the first thing that follows is, that 
 they understood it to be immersion. It "is on 
 all hands conceded,^' says Prof Stuart. 
 
 So much it proves in regard to the "mode 
 of baptism," and Dr. P. cannot escape it. He 
 has planted himself on Jewish proselyte bap- 
 tism, and that is precisely what it does for 
 him. 
 
 Now, secondly, what does it prove in regard 
 to the subjects of baptism? Prof Stuart says, 
 " when a proselyte was once baptized and re- 
 ceived, this rite was at an end. His children 
 born after his reception, were no more re- 
 quired to be baptized, than the children of 
 native Jews." Pres. Sears states the same 
 fact. If, then, the apostles understood the 
 commission according to the Jewish proselyte 
 baptism, when a parent was converted and 
 baptized all the children would be baptized 
 with him; but if he had children born after 
 his baptism, they would not be baptized. If, 
 for example, a parent at his conversion and 
 baptism had one child, that one child would be 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. J41 
 
 baptized; if he afterwards were to have ten 
 more, the ten would not be entitled to baptism. 
 Is that the Pedo-baptist rite of infant baptism ? 
 
 So much it proves in regard to the subjects 
 of baptism, and Dr. P. cannot escape it. He 
 has planted himself on Jewish proselyte bap- 
 tism, and this is what it does for him. What 
 less can be expected, when men forsake the 
 plain directions of God's word, and give them- 
 selves up to fancies, conjectures, and empty 
 traditions.'' 
 
 But admit that all that Dr. Peters supposes in 
 regard to proselyte baptism is true — admit 
 that it did exist as a regular Jewish usage be- 
 fore, and at the time the commission to bap- 
 tize was given — admit also that it was in all 
 respects analogous to the Pedo-baptist rite of 
 infant baptism — is Dr. Peters' argument even 
 plausible? Dr. Peters admits that Jewish 
 proselyte baptism was of men; (p. 51,) he 
 also admits that John's baptism was from hea- 
 ven, (p, 55.) He also admits that John's bap- 
 tism was solely adult baptism, (p. 137.) Now 
 if the apostles derived their conception of the 
 baptism required in the commission from any 
 baptism that had previously existed, would they 
 not have been likely to have derived it from 
 
142 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 John's baptism, with which they were familiar, 
 which ihey had themselves received, and which 
 they knew was from heaven, rather than from 
 a Rabbinical custom, which they knew was 
 from men, as utterly destitute of Divine au- 
 thority as the Pharisaical traditions denounced 
 by Christ? It is absurd enough to suppose 
 that the Christian ordinance of baptism had 
 its foundation on the legal institutions, that in 
 so many places in the New Testament are de- 
 clared to be superseded by the Christian dis- 
 pensation; to found it on a mere Rabbinical 
 custom, is the very climacteric of absurdity. 
 But it cannot be proved that any such in- 
 stitution as a Jewish proselyte baptism had any 
 existence in the time of Christ. Prof Stuart 
 examines the whole subject, through seven- 
 teen octavo pages, and arrives at the conclu- 
 sion that it "was practised, at, or not long 
 after the time when the second temple was de- 
 stroyed.'' He examines all the authorities Dr. 
 P. refers to, and shows that they entirely fail 
 of proving it. President Sears (in Chr. Rev. 
 vol. 3, p. 203,) says, "it is settled by the 
 great critics of Germany, that the existence 
 of proselyte baptism as a Jewish institution in 
 the time of Christ cannot be proved." He 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 143 
 
 quotes Dr. Neander as saying in his lectures, 
 " since the elaborate work of Schneckenbur- 
 ger has appeared, no one will pretend that he 
 can prove the existence of a proselyte baptism 
 in the time of Christ." 
 
 Dr. Peters can have his election between 
 the two horns of this dilemma. He can main- 
 tain his stand on the Jewish proselyte baptism, 
 in which case he loses the whole of his Part 
 I, and still gets no infant baptism that will 
 justify the practice of Pedo-baptist churches. 
 Or he can give it up, in which case he loses all 
 of Part II, that is of any value to his argu- 
 ment. 
 
 Prof. Stuart (after Owen, Carpzov, and 
 others,) thinks it not improbable that the 
 Rabbins introduced proselyte baptism in imi- 
 tation of the baptism of John. Since it is on 
 all hands admitted that the Jewish proselyte 
 baptism was immersion, if it is true that it 
 was introduced in imitation of John's baptism, 
 here is an irrefragible argument that John's 
 baptism was immersion. 
 
 Again, since the Jewish proselyte baptism 
 was immersion, if, as Prof. Stuart thinks, it 
 was introduced about the time of the destruc- 
 tion of the second temple, which was during 
 
144 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 the lifetime of the apostles, it will follow that 
 the Jews in the time of the apostles under- 
 stood the word baptizo to mean immerse. Is 
 it not a just conclusion from this, that the 
 apostles understood the word to mean im- 
 merse? Would they, being Jews, have been 
 likely to use the word in a different sense 
 from its current use among Jews in their time? 
 And if this custom was in existence, in the 
 time of Christ's ministry, as Dr. P. supposes, 
 here would be an absolute demonstration that 
 when the commission to baptize was given, 
 that word was understood by the Jews to mean 
 uniformly immerse. 
 
 Again, Dr. P. carries the idea through his 
 whole first part, (though he nowhere proves 
 it,) that the apostles took their notion of the 
 outward form of the Christian ordinance of 
 baptism, from the sprinklings of the Jewish 
 law. But here we see Jewish Rabbins cotem- 
 porary with the apostles, familiar with all those 
 sprinklings, and constantly using them, who 
 yet when they introduce baptism, which they 
 designate by the same word which the apos- 
 tles employed to designate their ordinance, 
 always administer it by immersion. Now if 
 it is probable that the apostles would use 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 145 
 
 sprinkling for baptism, because they were 
 familiar with Jewish sprinklings, it is vastly 
 more probable that Jewish Rabbins would. 
 And if the Jewish Rabbins did not, but used 
 immersion, we may set it down as certain that 
 the apostles would use immersion. 
 
 Again, Dr. P. maintains that Christian bap- 
 tism is founded on the Jewish notion of purifi- 
 cation; and because some of their purifications 
 were effected by sprinkling, therefore Chris- 
 tian baptism is sprinkling. But it is proved 
 by both Prof Stuart and Pres. Sears, that 
 the Jewish proselyte baptism was designed as 
 a purification. Still it was performed by im- 
 mersion. Can we have a clearer proof that 
 immersion met the Jewish conception of puri- 
 fication in the time of Christ and the apostles, 
 more nearly than sprinkling? and that if their 
 conceptions of Christian baptism were founded 
 on Jewish purifications, they would have been 
 at once led to the practice of immersion.'* So 
 that, if any argument in relation to Christian 
 baptism can be founded on Jewish purifica- 
 tions, it would be that Christian baptism is im- 
 mersion. 
 
 And lastly; if Jewish proselyte baptism 
 were introduced about the time of the destruc- 
 13 
 
146 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 tion of Jerusalem, it was introduced at the 
 time when the New Testament was writing. 
 It was uniformly immersion. Hence the Jews 
 understood the word baptism to mean immer- 
 sion. Just about this time, then, Mark, Luke 
 and Paul were writing those texts, Mark 7: 
 4, Luke 11: 33, Heb. 9: 10, of which Dr. 
 Peters makes so much in Sections 3 and 5 
 of Part L Can stronger proof be given that 
 the writers and readers of those texts under- 
 stood those words to mean immei^se and im- 
 mersion? And if proselyte baptism had so 
 early an origin as Dr. P. supposes, the proof 
 is still stronger. Demonstration itself could 
 not be stronger. 
 
 I commend this section to the careful 
 attention of my Pedo-baptist friends. 
 
 ALLEGED IMPRACTICABILITY OF IMMERSION. 
 
 Dr. p. tells us (on p. 126,) that immersion 
 is not practicable in all climates. He specifies, 
 under this head, cold climates, and perhaps he 
 may also refer to desert countries, as Arabia, 
 where, it is frequently urged, immersion is im- 
 practicable, for want of water. To the ob- 
 jection of cold climates, it is sufficient to say 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 147 
 
 that immersion is uniformly practised by the 
 Oriental church, through every parallel of 
 latitude, from the Frozen Ocean almost to 
 the Equator. And what is every day done, 
 may doubtless be considered jjracticable. And 
 as to the deserts of Arabia, those who urge 
 this objection doubtless forget that the Arab's 
 camel frequently drinks at one time almost as 
 much water as would suffice to plunge his 
 master in. 
 
 He says, " If immersion were the only bap- 
 tism, then God would require of all believers 
 what some believers are unable to perform. 
 Persons in delicate health, or converted in 
 sickness and near to death, could not, on that 
 supposition, profess Christ before men in the 
 only appointed way." He thus lays down 
 the principle that God would not require of 
 all believers, what any believer in some given 
 circumstances might be unable to perform. 
 Now I suppose Dr P. will allow that the ob- 
 servance of the Lord's supper by believers is 
 required by a law as imperative as that of 
 baptism. And I presume he will allow that, 
 so far as relates to the outward form of that 
 ordinance, the eating of bread and the drink- 
 ing of wine by the communicant is essential 
 
148 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 to its observance. Christ requires this of all 
 believers. But is it not obvious that cases 
 may occur in which this is impracticable? 
 May not persons be afflicted with particular 
 forms of disease, in which the swallowing- of 
 any substance whatever, whether solid or 
 liquid, is utterly impossible? Dr. P. has put 
 the case of a certain woman who could not 
 be immersed, and as she believed in no other 
 baptism, she could not be baptized. I will 
 put the case of another woman, who was in 
 circumstances precisely similar in relation to 
 the ordinance of the Lord's supper. In 1837, 
 the wife of the well known Rev. John Leland, 
 of Cheshire, died. The disease of which she 
 died was a difficulty in her throat, which for 
 some months previous to her death prevented 
 her swallowing any thing but liquids. At 
 length it became impossible for her to do this, 
 and she literally starved to death. She was a 
 woman eminent for piety, and as she was re- 
 ligiously attached to the ordinance of baptism, 
 it may be presumed that she was equally so to 
 that of the supper. But her observance of it 
 was utterly impracticable. For months she 
 could not obey that command. "And thus, 
 for a long and dark period, she walked alone, 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 149 
 
 till God called her to his table above." Now 
 God has indisputably " required of all be- 
 lievers " what this believer was indisputably 
 "unable to perform." Nor is this case a sol- 
 itary one. In attacks of quinsy, it not un- 
 frequently occurs that the patient is unable to 
 swallow anything, solid or liquid. What then 
 becomes of Dr. P.'s principle? 
 
 The truth is, when the law of Christ re- 
 quires a definite physical act, (as it does in 
 both the ordinances of the church,) and there 
 is a physical impossibility of performing it, 
 the law is virtually obeyed, and it is so accept- 
 ed of God, when the desire is felt and ex- 
 pressed of performing it. God requires saints 
 to assemble together on the Sabbath for pub- 
 lic worship. And yet if there is a physical 
 impossibility of any saint's doing it, while his 
 heart is there, God accepts his desire as an 
 actual performance. God accepted David's 
 purpose to build the temple, and accounted it 
 to him as if he really did it; and so he does 
 the humblest saint in obeying the least of his 
 commandments, when the external act is im- 
 possible. Such arguments as this of Dr. 
 Peters may have weight with those who are 
 so superstitiously wedded to outward forms, 
 13* 
 
150 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 that they would send for a minister in the dead 
 of night to sprinkle a child, for fear it should 
 die without baptism; but volumes of them 
 would have little influence on those who have 
 consistent views of the true relation of the be- 
 liever to Christ's ordinances. I have no doubt 
 that Dr. Peters' " woman " was a person of 
 vastly more sense and piety than her son, who 
 felt so confident that immersion does not 
 belong to the gospel. She certainly exhibited 
 more. 
 
 REMARKS ON PART II. 
 
 Dr. P. gays, (p. 131,) " Of the 3,000,000 
 who profess religion in the United States, 
 more than three quarters consider infant bap- 
 tism as valid." If he includes Catholics and 
 Unitarians, there are more than 3,000,000, 
 and including those, probably the members of 
 Pedo-baptist churches may be set down as 
 about three-fourths of all church members. 
 Omitting those, they are not more than two- 
 thirds. And the one-third is rapidly gaining 
 on the two. 
 
 But stating the aggregate of church mem- 
 bers, is far from presenting the real facts in 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 151 
 
 the case. Multitudes of Pedo-baptist mem- 
 bers have no more faith in infant baptism than 
 Baptists have. It is a well known fact that in 
 Congregational churches generally in New 
 England, the article of infant baptism is a 
 dead letter. I have been credibly informed 
 that in some churches the article is suppressed 
 or expunged; and it is well known that in all, 
 members do as they choose about presenting 
 their children for baptism. I know well a 
 member of a church with which Dr. P. has 
 some acquaintance, who united with it with 
 that exception to the articles publicly ex- 
 pressed. I know another who lived for a long 
 time without professing religion, because he 
 had no faith in infant baptism; and the reason 
 why he had not, was his witnessing a " house- 
 hold baptism " in the public congregation, 
 when one of the ''infants," a youngster of 
 ten or twelve years, came rushing out of the 
 church " swearing mad." Whether he thinks 
 better of it now, I know not, but doubt, 
 Methodist churches have still less uniformity. 
 I have known their members to declare pos- 
 itively they believed in no baptism but immer- 
 sion, and had no faith whatever in infant bap- 
 tism. It is a fact too well known to be denied, 
 
152 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 that the enforcement of the article of infant 
 baptism in Pedo-baptist churches would be 
 the signal of disbanding. 
 
 The burden of Sect. 2, Part II, is, that in 
 all the covenants of God with men, children 
 are included with their parents. That this 
 was so in the covenants with Noah, Abraham, 
 &c., is freely admitted; that it is not so in the 
 covenant of grace, I need only refer to Heb. 
 8: 10, the promise of which is, " I will put 
 my laws into their mind, and write them in 
 their hearts." All who are interested in that 
 covenant will certainly be saved; and if 
 children are included with parents in that, the 
 children of believers are certain of salvation. 
 
 The precise point of the section, however, 
 is, that when a believer makes a profession of 
 religion, he makes formal covenant with God, 
 and in that covenant his children are included. 
 In a sense that is undoubtedly true; and in 
 what sense? When a man dedicates himself 
 to God, that dedication includes a// that is his; 
 his talents, his influence, his possessions, and 
 his children too. And that dedication implies 
 an obligation, so far as parental influence can 
 go, to train up those children for God. Still 
 those children are creatures of God, distinct 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 153 
 
 from their parents, and have an accountability 
 separate from their parents. They have in 
 infancy the germs of an understanding, will, 
 and affections of their own; and as those fac- 
 ulties become developed, if they are truly 
 joined to the Lord, they must make their own 
 dedication. The dedication, therefore, which 
 a parent makes of a child to God, is a quali- 
 fied one; it is only so far his propriety in him, 
 and his influence is concerned. Now is that 
 dedication a reason for the baptism of the 
 children? If it is, why is it not as good a rea- 
 son for the baptism of all his possessions.'' Of 
 his children, the dedication is necessarily 
 qualified; of his possessions, it is absolute. If, 
 therefore, the qualified dedication of children 
 is a reason for their baptism, why is not the 
 unqualified dedication of a fine horse, a reason 
 for his baptism.^ or of a dairy of any number 
 of cows? or of a flock of sheep? The reader 
 sees that this is absurd; but it is a just conclu- 
 sion from the argument. The simple truth is, 
 the dedication of property to God implies cer- 
 tain duties with reference to that property; 
 and so the dedication of children implies cer- 
 tain duties in reference to them. But it is no 
 argument for their baptism. If God has 
 
154 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 COMMANDED their baptism, do it, though ten 
 thousand objections were brought against it; 
 if not, you have no more right to baptize them, 
 than you have to baptize your horse or your 
 sheep. 
 
 But it is said (p. 160,) it is unreasonable to 
 ask an express command for baptizing chil- 
 dren. "Why," it is asked, "do those who 
 raise this objection attend public worship from 
 Sabbath to Sabbath, as a thing of religious 
 obligation?" Because, first, it is expressly 
 commanded: "Forsake not the assembling of 
 yourselves together." Secondly, we have 
 clear apostolical precedent. When either of 
 these can be shown for infant baptism, we 
 will receive it. " Why do they observe the 
 first, instead of the seventh day of the week 
 as the Sabbath.^" Because we have apostoli- 
 cal precedent; just what we want for infant 
 baptism. " Why do they administer the 
 Lord's supper to females?" Because it is 
 given to the church as such; and in Christ 
 Jesus, there is neither male nor female. Show 
 that infant baptism is given to the church, and 
 we accept it. " Why do they pray with their 
 children and families, or teach them to read?" 
 By express command: " Bring them up in the 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 155 
 
 nurture and admonition of the Lord;" just 
 such a command as we have not for infant bap- 
 tism. Yes, show us command or example, and 
 we yield at once. 
 
 In Section 3, it is attempted to be proved 
 that the visible church is the same, under both 
 the Jewish and Christian dispensations. Now 
 here is a most remarkable fallacy. That God 
 has had a spiritual people in all ages of the 
 world, from Adam down, is unquestionably 
 true; and the conditions of being one of God's 
 spiritual people have ever been the same; 
 viz., repentance, faith, obedience. The invisi- 
 ble church, then, has always been the same. 
 But it will by no means follow, that the visible 
 church has always been the same. It was one 
 thing under the patriarchal dispensation, 
 another under the legal, and another still un- 
 der the Christian. 
 
 What is it that constitutes a visible church? 
 Will the reader think of this question a mo- 
 ment? Is it that its members are visible men 
 and women? But have we not reason to hope 
 there may be many visible men and women, 
 who are children of God, but who still are 
 not members of the visible church? The visi- 
 bility of the church, then, does not consist in 
 
156 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 the visible corporeity of its members. Does 
 it then consist in its being simply an organ- 
 ized body of Christians? But Dr. P. would 
 not call the unbaptized members of a Metho- 
 dist class, members of the visible church. 
 But still they may be Christians, and are cer- 
 tainly an organized body. Turn this question 
 over and over, and you can find nothing in 
 which the visibility of the church consists, ex- 
 cept that it has visible ordinances. From 
 this obvious truth it follows indisputably, that 
 to establish an identity between the Jewish and 
 the gospel churches, it must be shown that 
 the visible ordinances under both were the 
 same; which surely no one will pretend. 
 
 The Jewish church the same with the gospel 
 church! It was designed expressly, with all its 
 ritual, as a type of the spiritual church to be 
 set up in the gospel day, with its spiritual 
 facts and requirements. The type identical 
 with the antitype! To call them so is confu- 
 sion worse than the jargon of Babel. Nay, it 
 was this very confusion which turned Christ's 
 spiritual church into Babylon the Great; which 
 converted the chaste virgin into the Mother of 
 Harlots. The Jewish church was a national 
 church, its membership hereditary. Its mem- 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 157 
 
 bers were born into it after the flesh; its or- 
 dinances were expressly called by the apostles, 
 " carnal ordinances," and a "burthen which 
 neither they nor their fathers were able to 
 bear." The gospel church, on the other hand, 
 is spiritual; holiness of heart is required of 
 its members; its ordinances are few, simple, 
 highly expressive, serving at once to give visi- 
 bility to the body, and to set forth the great 
 truths which lie at the very foundation of 
 Christianity — the sufferings, death and resur- 
 rection of her great Redeemer. 
 
 Not less remarkable is the confusion which 
 Dr. P. displays in applying the ancient proph- 
 ecies. Such prophecies as " Arise, shine, for 
 thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is 
 risen upon thee," he says were addressed by 
 the prophets to the church of their own time! 
 Did Isaiah, then, tell the church of his own 
 time, that its light was come, and the glory of 
 the Lord had risen upon it? Most clearly this 
 is not addressed to the church of his own time, 
 but to the church of the time when the proph- 
 ecy should be fulfilled. 
 
 The same confusion is apparent in his ap- 
 plication of New Testament scriptures. ' 'Many 
 shall come from the east and west, and shall 
 14 
 
158 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, in 
 the kingdom of heaven." This, he says, was 
 the visible church from which the Jews, for 
 their unfaithfulness, should " be cast out." 
 I answer, no; it is heaven from which the 
 Jews, for their rejection of Christ, should be 
 excluded; "should be cast out into outer 
 darkness," i. e., into hell, " where shall be 
 weeping and gnashing of teeth." The Jews 
 were called the "children of the kingdom," 
 i. e., of heaven, because the offer of salvation 
 was first made to them. "The kingdom of 
 God shall be taken from you, and given to a 
 nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." Here 
 it means, not the Jewish church, but the gos- 
 pel church, which was set up among the Jews. 
 The gospel was first preached to them, but 
 the apostles, by the divine direction, told them, 
 "Seeing ye judge yourselves unworthy of 
 eternal life, lo we turn to the Gentiles;" and 
 thus was fulfilled this solemn declaration of 
 our Lord. 
 
 In Section 6, under the head of " Testimony 
 of early Christians " to infant baptism, (on p. 
 169,) occurs this remarkable passage: "Jus- 
 tin Martyr, who lived in the first half century 
 after the death of the apostle John, says that 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 159 
 
 * Infants are washed with water, in the name 
 of the Father, and Son, and Spirit.' " Dr. P. 
 has not told us on what authority he makes 
 this extraordinary statement; and I do not 
 hesitate to affirm that neither this declaration, 
 nor any thing similar to it can be found in the 
 writings of Justin. It is due both to Dr. 
 Peters and the reader, that I state the reasons 
 for this explicit contradiction of him, on a 
 question of fact. 
 
 And first, being somewhat familiar with this 
 controversy on both sides, I have never seen 
 such a testimony as this produced from Justin, 
 by any Pedo-baptist writer before Dr. Peters. 
 Dr. Wall and Dr. Woods, who have both en- 
 deavored to make as strong a historical case 
 as possible for infant baptism, have not cited 
 this passage. Is it possible that so decisive a 
 testimony as this, in favor of infant baptism, 
 could have been given by a writer so near the 
 apostles, and the world not have known it long 
 ago? 
 
 Secondly, the very critical and thorough 
 ecclesiastical historian, Neander, while he 
 claims that Ireneus, in the very obscure pas- 
 sage referred to by Dr. P., makes an allusion 
 to infant baptism, says expressly, " there is no 
 
160 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 allusion to it before Ireneus." But Ireneus 
 was later than Justin. Could such a testimony 
 as this — so conclusive if it existed, have es- 
 caped the eagle eye of Neander, with whom 
 such writers as Justin Martyr are as familiar 
 as his own mother tongue? 
 
 Thirdly. In the year 1833, Pres. Sears, of 
 Newton Theological Institution, published in 
 the Christian Review (Vol. 3,) a ^very able 
 and conclusive article, canvassing the histori- 
 cal evidence in favor of infant baptism. He 
 there cites from Justin a decisive testimony 
 against infant baptism. Prof. Emerson, of 
 Andover, perceiving at a glance the important 
 bearing that such a testimony from the earliest 
 Christian father would have on this contro- 
 versy, furnished for the same periodical a reply 
 to Dr. Sears, (on that specific point only,) in 
 which he endeavored, by an exegetical and 
 philological argument, to invalidate that testi- 
 mony of Justin's. This, of course, brought 
 out Dr. Sears in a rejoinder, in which he de- 
 monstrated that the integrity of Justin's tes- 
 timony against infant baptism remained un- 
 affected by Prof Emerson's philology; and 
 then, by way of a clencher, he adduced 
 another from Clement, of Alexandria, (who 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 161 
 
 lived later than Ireneus,) equally decisive 
 against it. Now I say, if Justin had given 
 such a testimony as Dr. Peters has cited in 
 favor of infant baptism, Prof. Emerson, with 
 all necessary facilities for examining Justin's 
 writings at his hand, must have known it; 
 and if he had known it, he could not have 
 failed to have quoted it against Dr. Sears. 
 For it would have been a most decisive answer 
 to Dr. Sears's argument. I need not add that 
 I have too much confidence in Dr. Sears's 
 learning, to suppose that he would be ignorant 
 of such a passage, if it existed; and in his 
 candor to suppose that he would be silent in 
 regard to it, if he knew of it. On the author- 
 ity, then, of Prof. Emerson, of Andover, and 
 Pres. Sears, of Newton, I express my belief 
 that no such passage as Dr. P. has quoted 
 from Justin Martyr can be found in his wri- 
 tings; and I say that in such a state of facts, 
 the public, in the absence of any authority 
 given for such a statement, have a right to 
 refuse their credit to it, till the authority be 
 given. And the most decisive authority will 
 be the original Greek, of Justin, and a refer- 
 ence to the place where it can be found. 
 
 I will close these remarks upon Dr. P.'s ar- 
 14* 
 
162 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 guments for infant baptism with a single ob- 
 servation. The great discrepancy of views 
 among Pedo-baptist writers, on the nature of 
 the rite of infant baptism, and the evidence 
 by which it should be sustained, is a great 
 reason for doubts as to the propriety of prac- 
 tising it, and the validity of any of the argu- 
 ments by which it is sustained. To say nothing 
 of Catholics and Episcopalians, who make it 
 regeneration, and who wish no better author- 
 ity than that of the "Church" for it, the 
 discrepancies among American Congregation- 
 alists and Presbyterians is remarkable. Within 
 the memory of some now living and active, 
 Dr. Worcester, of Salem, published a book 
 on infant baptism, founding his argument on 
 the Abrahamic covenant; Dr. Emmons follow- 
 ed him, with the declaration that such a mode 
 of reasoning is entirely inconclusive — that 
 New Testament ordinances must be supported 
 by New Testament authority; Dr. Wilson, of 
 Cincinnati, followed him with the declaration 
 that the New Testament is full of proof for 
 infant baptism; Dr. Woods, and Prof Stuart 
 follow after, the one affirming that "there is 
 neither precept nor precedent for it in all our 
 holy writings, and the proof must be made 
 
PETERS OjV baptism. 163 
 
 out some other way," — and the other, " Com- 
 mands, or plain and certain examples in the 
 New Testament, relative to it, I do not find." 
 Dr. Bushnell, of Hartford, has set all Con- 
 gregationaldom in a ferment, by declaring 
 that infant baptism, as held by them, is only 
 *' a dead tradition, separated from any rational 
 meaning or use " — that Congregationalists 
 " are all Baptists in theory, which is the 
 same as to say they ought to be in fact,"- — 
 and that a modified baptismal regeneration is 
 the only rational or firm foundation for the 
 rite; and lastly. Dr. Peters tells us he finds 
 abundance of precept and abundance of ex- 
 ample, both in the Old and New Testament, 
 although he seems after all to have some mis- 
 givings in regard to the clearness of the proof 
 they afford, for he says, " the demand for a 
 text of scripture expressly commanding the 
 baptism of children is unreasonable." Dr. 
 Bushnell seems to feel painfully the force of 
 these discrepancies. He says "that, there is 
 something like a covenant in this matter, we 
 all agree. But what it is, and what force it 
 has, we have never agreed, and do not now. 
 The Baptists have pushed us for an answer; 
 we have given them many ansioers, but never 
 
164 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 any single answer in which we could our- 
 selves agree." Is it strange that " industri- 
 ous ignorance " thinks it best to withhold its 
 assent to infant baptism, at least till "learn- 
 ing " can agree with itself? 
 
 " ORIGIN OF THE BAPTISTS." 
 
 Dr. Peters, in his last section, devotes two 
 or three pages to the origin of the Baptist de- 
 nomination. After affirming, on the authority 
 of "our best historians," that no body of 
 Christians were ever found who denied infant 
 baptism before the 13th century, he asserts 
 that the Baptist denomination, properly speak- 
 ing, commenced in Germany in 1522, with the 
 "fanatical Anabaptists.''^ Now I could say 
 that all that Dr. P. states on those three pages 
 is false, in as few words as he has that it is 
 true. But as nothing would be gained by as- 
 sertion and counter-assertion, I must beg the 
 reader's attention to a few authentic historical 
 facts on this subject. I will state them as 
 briefly as possible. 
 
 Our distinctive sentiments on baptism are 
 these two. First, that immersion is the only 
 baptism authorized by scripture; and secondly, 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 165 
 
 that it is to be administered only on a pro- 
 fession of faith. As to the first of these points, 
 I have already shown, from Prof Stuart, that 
 immersion was the sole practice in the age im- 
 mediately succeeding the apostles — that in 
 Cyprian's time, sprinkling was introduced for 
 persons in sickness, or extreme danger. I 
 will now quote from him in reference to the 
 mode of baptism in succeeding ages. 
 
 "The mode of baptism by immersion, the 
 Oriental church have always continued to pre- 
 serve, 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. 
 
 " F. Brenner, a Roman Catholic writer, 
 has recently published a learned work, which 
 contains a copious history of usages in respect 
 to the baptismal rite. The result of them, re- 
 specting the point before us, I present as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 "'Thirteen hundred years was baptism 
 generally and ordinarily performed by the 
 immersion of a man under water; and only in 
 extraordinary cases, was sprinkling or affu- 
 sion permitted. These latter methods of bap- 
 
1€6 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 tism were called in question, and even pro- 
 hibited.' 
 
 ''These results will serve to show what a 
 Roman Catholic writer feels himself forced 
 by historical facts to allow, in direct contra- 
 diction to the present practice of his own 
 church; which nowhere practises immersion, 
 except in the churches of Milan; it being 
 every where else even forbidden. 
 
 "In the work of John Floyer on Cold 
 Bathing, it is mentioned that the English 
 church practised immersion down to the be- 
 ginning of the 17th century, when a change 
 to sprinkling gradually took place." To this 
 I will add that the English historians of the 
 time of Henry YIII, describe minutely all 
 the circumstances connected with the baptism 
 of his two children, Edward and Elizabeth. 
 (King Edward VI, and Queen Elizabeth.) 
 They were both carried to ehurch, and bap- 
 tized publicly by a bnne immersion. Dr. Wall, 
 (one of " our best historians," the reader will 
 remember,) ascribes the change from immer- 
 sion to sprinkling in England, to the Presby- 
 terians of the time of Oliver Cromwell — 
 chiefly to the Westminster assembly. He 
 says somewhat tartly, " They who are in- 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 167 
 
 clined to Presbyterianism, are hardly pre- 
 vailed to leave off that scandalous custom of 
 having their children, though never so well, 
 baptized out of a basin or porringer, in a bed 
 chamber; hardly persuaded to bring them to 
 church, much farther from having them dipped, 
 though never so able to bear it." Dr. Wall, 
 the reader will see, was a sturdy defender of 
 the rubric of his own church, which to this 
 day requires the priest " to dip the child dis- 
 creetly and warily, ^^ except its nurse testify 
 that it is weakly, in which case he may "pour 
 water" upon it. The "children of the 
 church " at this day, are all " weakly." 
 
 The Edinburgh Encyclopedia says in refer- 
 ence to Scotland: " In this country, sprink- 
 ling Vv'as never used in ordinary cases till after 
 the Reformation. During the persecution of 
 Mary, many persons, most of whom were 
 Scotsmen, fled from England to Geneva, and 
 there greedily imbibed the opinions of that 
 qhurch. In 1556, a book was published at 
 that place, containing ' The Forms of Prayer, 
 and Ministration of the Sacraments, approved 
 by the Famous and Godly learned man, John 
 Calvin,' in which the administrator is enjoined 
 to ' take water in his hand and lay it on the 
 
168 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 child's forehead.' These Scottish exiles, who 
 had renounced the authority of the Pope, im- 
 plicitly acknowledged the authority of Calvin; 
 and returning to their own country, with Knox 
 at their head, established sprinkling in Scot- 
 land." 
 
 I have now given historical testimony suffi- 
 cient to show that sprinkling, in the ordinary 
 administration of baptism, is altogether of 
 modern date; only about two hundred years 
 old. And this, I trust, will be sufficient to 
 justify our claim to antiquity, as regards the 
 first part of our distinguishing sentiments. 
 
 I will now make some historical citations in 
 respect to our views of the subjects of bap- 
 tism. I shall show that there has been, from 
 the earliest ages of the church, through all the 
 darkness of Popery down to the Reformation, 
 a succession of men, called by different names, 
 who, through obloquy, reproach and bloody 
 persecution, have maintained a constant testi- 
 mony against infant baptism, as well as other 
 corruptions of the truth. And in all these 
 citations, the reader will remember that the 
 persons described held to immersion, in com- 
 mon with all the rest of Christendom. 
 
 The first authentic mention of infant baptism 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 169 
 
 in the church, is by Cyprian, in the middle of 
 the third century. It did not, however, be- 
 come universal till nearly two centuries later. 
 In the same century, (i. e., the third,) before 
 infant baptism was received at Rome, Nova- 
 tian, a Presbyter of that church, seceded 
 from it on the ground of its departure from 
 apostolical simplicity, and established a new 
 sect, which was called Cathari or Puritans. 
 There is the clearest evidence that these 
 people opposed infant baptism. 
 
 We find these Puritans existing through 
 several succeeding centuries, under different 
 names, in different places; as, Donatisis, 
 Luciferians, and Jierians. Osiander says that 
 modern Anabaptists are the same with the 
 Donatists of old. Fuller, an English church 
 historian, says that the English Baptists are 
 the Donatists ^' new dipped.'^ Augustine ac- 
 cuses the Luciferians of refusing to baptize 
 infants. 
 
 In the seventh century, these people were 
 called in Italy, Paulicians. In the eighth, 
 they were called Paterines. They were 
 charged by the Catholics, says Dr. Allix, 
 "with abhorring baptism." Their answer 
 was, " A strange will, a strange faith, and a 
 15 
 
170 EXAMINATION GT 
 
 strange confession, do not seem to belong to 
 a little child, who neither wills nor runs, and 
 from whom no confession of faith can he ex- 
 pected.^^ They flourished in Milan for two 
 hundred years, where they were protected by 
 the rulers, and were called by the Catholics, 
 Anabaptists. 
 
 In the eleventh century, appear two famous 
 reformers in France, Bruno and Berengarius, 
 whose heresies are described in a letter stilt 
 extant, written hy the Bishop of Leige to 
 Henry I, of France. Among other things 
 charged, he says, "As far as in them lies, 
 they do overthroiD the bajjtism of infants.^^ 
 
 In the twelfth century, we find a Catholic 
 writer, by the name of Egbert, describing a 
 numerous body of heretics, caHed Cathari, or 
 Puritans, descendants, according to Mosheim, 
 of the ancient Puritans (i. e., Novalians,) of 
 Italy, This fact the reader will particularly 
 notice. "They are," says Egbert, "a sort 
 of people very pernicious to the Catholic 
 faith, because they maintain their opinions by 
 authority of scripture ''^ ! Among other here- 
 sies, he says, " they deny the idility of baptism 
 to infants, maintaining that baptism ought to 
 be delayed till they come to years of discretion. 
 
 I 
 
PETERS ON BAP^TISM. 171 
 
 and even then, those only ought to be bap- 
 tized who make a profession of faith and de- 
 sire it." Egbert adds, " They are increased 
 to great multitudes throti<^hout all countries. '' 
 Evervinus, another Catholic priest of that 
 time, describes these same people in a letter 
 to St. Bernard, and represents them as very 
 numerous. He says of them, *' They do not 
 hold to thebaptism vf infants, alleging, in proof 
 of their doctrine, ' He that believeth and is 
 baptized,' &c," 
 
 In the same century, Peter de Bruys and 
 his followers, Henry and Arnold, appeared in 
 France and Italy as zealous reformers. Mo- 
 sheim says expressly of both Peter and Henry, 
 that they denied infant baptism. St. Bernard 
 writes of Henry to the Count of St. Giles as 
 follows: " How great are the evils which we 
 have heard and known to be done by Henry 
 the heretic! He wanders up and down in 
 your country, in sheep's clothing, being a 
 ravenous wolf! The life of Christ is denied 
 to infants, by refusing them the grace of bap- 
 tism, nor are they suffered to draw near to 
 salvation, though our Saviour tenderly cried 
 out in their behalf, Suffer little children to 
 
172 EXa.MINATION OF 
 
 come unto me, and forbid them not! O most 
 unhappy people!" 
 
 This is the " small sect " that Dr. P. speaks 
 of as denying infant baptism because they 
 held that infants were incapable of salvation. 
 The reader can see what foundation there is 
 for this calumny, which Dr. Peters, after his 
 "best historians," is laboring to fix upon those 
 whom Mosheim expressly ca\\s "the witnesses 
 of the truth in the times of universal darkness 
 and superstition." Baptism with the Catho- 
 lics was salvation. To deny baptism to infants, 
 was, therefore, in their estimation, to deny 
 salvation to them. To say that faith was a 
 prerequisite to baptism, and that infants were 
 incapable of faith, was to say that they were 
 incapable of baptism; which in the mind of a 
 Catholic, was to say they are incapable of 
 salvation. The Catholics, therefore, fastened 
 this calumny upon them. Dr. Wall, who 
 writes his history for the purpose of defending 
 infant baptism, eagerly catches up the calumny, 
 to fasten odium upon those who deny infant 
 baptism, and Dr. Peters as eagerly repeats it! 
 
 The Waldenses began to attract public at- 
 tention in the twelfth century. Reinerius, a 
 Popish inquisitor, and an apostate from the 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 173 
 
 Waldenses, wrote a work on these people. 
 Among other reasons for their extermination 
 as highly injurious to the Catholic faith, he 
 gives these two — their antiquity, and their 
 universal diffusion. From what he says of 
 them, it is clear that they are the same with 
 the Puritans, Donatists, Paulicians, Petro- 
 brussians, and Henricans, who have already 
 been shown to have opposed infant baptism. 
 Mosheim says expressly of the Paulicians in 
 France, in the eleventh century, that they re- 
 jected the baptism of infants. That all the 
 Waldenses opposed infant baptism cannot be 
 proved; that many of them did, is indisputably 
 true. In the thirteenth century, we find the 
 Bishop of Aries writing to Pope Innocent III, 
 complaining that his diocese was troubled with 
 a great many Waldensian heretics, who said 
 it loas to no -purpose to baptize children. Cassa- 
 nion, in his history of the Waldenses, says, 
 " Some writers have affirmed that they ap- 
 proved not of the baptism of infants; and I 
 cannot deny that the greater pari were of that 
 opinion." Merringus affirms, on the authority 
 of a confession of faith in his possession, that 
 they were opposed to infant baptism. 
 
 Dr. Mosheim says that the origin of the 
 15* 
 
174 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 Dutch Baptists, (called in his day Anabap- 
 tists,) *' is hid in the r^emote depths of antiquity.'' 
 " They are not," says he, " entirely mistaken, 
 when they boast of their descent from the 
 Waldenses, Petrubrussians, and other ancient 
 sects, tvho are usually considered as witnesses 
 OF THE TRUTH, in the times of universal 
 darkness and superstition. Before the rise of 
 Luther and Calvin, there lay concealed, in 
 almost all the countries of Europe, many 
 persons who adhered tenaciously to the 
 following doctrine, which the Waldenses, 
 and the followers of John WicklifTe, and 
 John Huss, had maintained, viz. 'That the 
 kingdom of Christ, or the visible church he 
 had established on earth, was an assembly of 
 true and real saints, and ought, therefore, to 
 be inaccessible to the wicked and unrighteous, 
 and also exempt from all those institutions 
 which human prudence suggests, to oppose 
 the progress of iniquity, or to correct and re- 
 form transgressors.' " This proposition, I 
 cannot help remarking, deserves to be printed 
 in letters of gold. It was for maintaining this 
 principle, that Roger Williams was banished 
 from Massachusetts. It is a most admirable 
 summary of the principles of church organi- 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 175 
 
 zation which the Baptists have ever maintained, 
 and for maintaining which, they have met ob- 
 loquy, reproach, stripes, imprisonment, ban- 
 ishment. It meets and cuts off every error 
 in relation to church organization which all 
 Pedo-baptist churches have at one time or 
 other maintained — as the universal one of 
 infant baptism — the partial ones of prelacy, 
 hierarchies, union of church and state. It 
 has achieved wonders, and it has yet greater 
 wonders to achieve. And who held it.'' Let 
 the reader mark it; gCJ^ The Waldenses, 
 and the followers of John Wickliffe, and John 
 Huss. 
 
 Dr. Mosheim further says that this maxim 
 (which he calls a "fanatical principle,") is 
 the true source of all the peculiarities in the 
 religious doctrine and discipline of the people 
 whom he is describing. " It is in consequence 
 of this," says he, " that they admit none to the 
 sacrament of baptism, but persons that are come 
 to the full use of their reason.^ ^ 
 
 This statement of Dr. Mosheim's needs no 
 comment. The reader can see that he identi- 
 fies the Dutch Baptists of his day with the 
 Waldenses and the other ancient sects that 
 opposed Popery — that he expressly identifies 
 
176 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 the Waldenses with the Petrobrussians-, who 
 Dr. Peters admits opposed infant baptism — 
 and that he identifies all the others mentioned 
 with the followers of John Wickliffe and John 
 Huss; and finally he ascribes to them all, the 
 fanatical Roger Williams principle — THE 
 GREAT BAPTIST PRINCIPLE. 
 
 The Waldenses spread themselves all over 
 Europe. They abounded in England before 
 the Reformation, and laid the foundation of 
 many of the English Baptist churches. Eng- 
 land, in the time of Cromwell, was full of 
 Baptists. Their number and progress aston- 
 ished all beholders. Many of them emigrated 
 to this country, and laid the foundation of 
 Baptist churches here. 
 
 Besides the evidence which I have given of 
 a succession of men from the early corruptions 
 of Christianity down to the present time, hold- 
 ing the essential points maintained by Bap- 
 tist churches, a similar succession can be 
 shown on the island of Great Britain. Chris- 
 tianity was introduced into Britain in the first 
 century. In the fifth century, the Saxons, 
 who. were Pagans, conquered the island, and 
 drove the original inhabitants into the moun- 
 tains of Wales. At the close of the sixth 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 177 
 
 century, St. Austin was sent into England 
 with forty monks, to convert the Saxons from 
 Paganism to the religion of Rome. Such was 
 their success, that they are said to have bap- 
 tized 10,000 Saxons in one day, in the river 
 Swale; another example of what can be 
 done in the way of immersing. After he had 
 converted the Saxons, his next attempt was to 
 subject to his master, the Pope, the Welch 
 Christians, who had never acknowledged 
 Rome, or received any of her corruptions. 
 He demanded of them three things; one of 
 which was that they should " give Christendome 
 to their children.^' From this, it is clear that 
 the ancient British, or Welch Christians, had 
 never practised infant baptism; and the ad- 
 vent of St. Austin was the introduction of that 
 and Popery, at once, into that island. These 
 Christians had the temerity to refuse both 
 "Christendome for their children," and Popery 
 from St. Austin; for which crime his saint- 
 ship set upon them the murderous arms of the 
 Saxons, who slaughtered without mercy great 
 numbers of them. Since that time, Wales 
 has never been without witnesses for the truth. 
 Baptist churches have always flourished there, 
 very similar in doctrine and discipline to those 
 
ITS EXAMIi\ATION OF 
 
 at present existing. In 1663, an entire church, 
 with their pastor, emigrated from Swansea, in 
 Wales, and settled the town of the same 
 name in Massachusetts. 
 
 I have not presented this historical sketch 
 because it is of the least importance as to the 
 real issue between us and our Pedo-baptist 
 brethren. If it were true that not a Baptist 
 ever existed, from the time of the death of the 
 apostle John up to this present year, 1848, yet 
 if Baptist principles are scriptural, all Chris- 
 tians ought to receive them. Still the fact 
 that almost every Pedo-baptist book, or ser- 
 mon on baptism, makes the grand climacteric 
 of the argument, the assertion that Baptists 
 never had any existence before the mad men 
 of Munster appeared, in the sixteenth century, 
 seems to require some notice; and I do not 
 see how less can be done than to make a 
 statement of the real facts in the case. If " I 
 am become a fool in glorying," I can say ta 
 our brethren, " Ye have compelled me.'* 
 
 COXCLUSION. 
 
 In taking my^ leave of Dr. Peters*^ book, I 
 wish to address a word to any of my Pedo- 
 
PETERS ON BAPTISM. 1'3'9 
 
 baptist friends who may have thought it worth 
 their while to follow me through these pages. 
 Baptism is declared by the Holy Ghost to be 
 *' the answer of a ^ood conscience toivard God."" 
 Now a good consGience, in relation to any re- 
 ligious duty, implies a correct understanding 
 of that duty. And a correct understanding 
 implies a fair examination. Has the subject 
 t)f baptism ever received a candid examination 
 at your hands? Hearing your pastor preach 
 upon it, is not an examination of it; reading 
 Dr. Peters's book, or mine, or both, is not an 
 examination of it. All this is well, but action 
 on this alone will not be entitled to be^ called 
 the answer of a good conscience toward God. 
 Reading the word of God even, is not an ex- 
 amination of it, if yoti read with a determina- 
 tion not to sacrifice your preconceived opin- 
 ions and prejudices. Hear our Saviour: '^ If 
 any man will do his will, he shall know of 
 the doctrine." It is only by coming to the 
 word of God with a prayerful spirit, and with 
 a firm purpose to do the duty you may find 
 taught there, that you can hope to learn what 
 duty is. Have you ever done this? If not, 
 can your baptism be, in any sense whatever, 
 the answer of a <?ood conscience toward God? 
 
180 EXAMINATION OF 
 
 Can you be said to have any conscience at all 
 in relation to it? 
 
 I make these suggestions in a spirit of bro- 
 therly kindness. And I trust I shall be par- 
 doned for saying, they are worthy of your 
 serious attention. Baptism is a command of 
 our blessed Saviour — of Him who has said, 
 " If ye love me, keep my commandments." 
 "Hethslt hath my commandments and keep- 
 ETH them, he it is that loveth me. He that 
 loveth me not, keepeth not my sayings.'* 
 •'Whosoever shall break one of these least 
 commandments, and shall teach men so, he 
 shall be called the least in the kingdom of 
 heaven.'* 
 
 Note. — In the preceding pages the author has given but a brief 
 space to Dr. Peters' Part II. When he undertook this review he 
 had already prepared for the press a treatise containing a concise, 
 but complete examination of the whole subject of infant baptism, 
 including a full exposition of the covenant of circumcision, and an 
 examination of all the historical arguments usually advanced in 
 support of infant baptism. He flatters himself, that in these two 
 particulars, his forthcoming tract will be found more full and satis- 
 factory, than any work now in general circulation, on the Baptist 
 side of this question.