■ '.
IMAGE EVALUATiON
TEST TARGET (MT-S)
1.0
III I.I
liii
u 8^ "
2.2
1^ 12.0
;.8
my
1
1.25 1 ,.4
1^
-•
6" -
►
0>
f
c?
/
w
w
Hiotographic
Sciences
Corporation
23 WEST MAIN STREET
WESSTER.N.Y. MS80
(716) S72-4S03
II
CIHM/ICMH
Microfiche
Series.
CIHM/ICIVIH
Collection de
microfiches.
o
Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques
Technical and Bibliographic Notas/Notas tachniquat at bibliographiquafl
Tha Inttituta haa attamptad to obtain tha baat
original copy availabia for filming. Faaturaa of thia
copy which may ba bibliographically uniqua.
which may altar any of tha Imagaa in tha
raproductlon, or which may Significantly changa
tha uauai mathod of filming, ara chaclcad balow.
□ Colourad covars/
Couvartura da coulaur
□ Covara damagad/
Couvartura andommag^a
□ Covars rastorad and/or lamlnatad/
Couvartura rastaurte at/ou paEliculAa
□ Covar titia missing/
La titra da couvartura manqua
□ Colourad maps/
Cartas gAographiquas an coulcur
□ Colourad ink (La. othar than blua or black)/
Encra da coulaur (i.a. autra qua blaua ou noira)
□ Colourad piatas and/or illustrations/
Planchas at/ou illustrations 9n coulaur
D
D
D
□
Bound with othar matarial/
Rali6 avac d'autras documents
Tight binding may causa shadows or distortion
along intarior margin/
La reliura sarrAe paut causar da I'ombra ou da la
distortion la long da la marga intAriaura
Blank laavas addad during rastoration may
appaar within tha taxt. Whanavar possibia, thasa
hava bean omitted from filming/
11 se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutAes
lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans la texte.
mals. lorsque cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas At6 filmias.
Additional comments:/
Commentaires supplAmentaires:
L'Institut a mIcrofilmA la mallleur exemplaire
qu'll lul a «t4 poaalbia de aa procurer. Lea details
da cet exemplaire qui aont paut-ttre uniques du
point de vue bibliographiqua, qui peuvent modifier
une image raproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger une
modification dans la mAthode normala de fiimage
sont IndlquAs cl-dessous.
D
D
D
D
D
D
□
Coloured pages/
Pages de couleur
Pages damagod/
Pages endommag^as
Pages restored and/or laminated/
Pages restaurtes at/ou paiiiculAes
Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/
Pages dAcolor6es, tachatAes ou piquAes
Pages detached/
Pages dAtachies
Showthrough/
Transparence
Quality of print varies/
Qualit* in6gale de I'impression
Includes supplementary material/
Comprend du material supplimentaire
Only edition available/
Seule MItion diaponibla
Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata
slips, tissues, etc.. have been ref limed to
ensure the best possible Image/
Les pages totalement ou partiallement
obscurnles par un feuiilet d'errata, une pelure.
etc.. ont «tA filmAes A nouveeu de fapon h
obtenir la melileure image possible.
This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/
Ca document est film* au taux de reduction indiqu* ci-dessous.
10X
14X
18X
22X
2IX
30X
y
.
12X
16X
aox
24X
28X
32X
The copy filmed here hee been reproduced thanks
to the generoaity of:
D. B. Weldon Library
Univartity of Wenern Ontario
L'exemplaire film* fut reproduit s'Ace A la
gAnArositi de:
D. B. WaldoM Ubrary
Univartity of Wattarn Ontario
The images appearing here are the best qua'ty
possible considering the condition and legibility
of the original copy and in keeping with the
filming contract specifications.
Les images suivantes ont At6 reproduites avec le
plus grand soin. compte tenu de la condition et
de la nettetA de l'exemplaire filmt, et en
conformity avec les conditions du contrat de
filmage.
Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed
beginning with the front cover and ending on
the last page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, or the back cover where appropriate. All
other original copies are filmed beginning on the
first page with a printud or illustrated impres-
sion, and ending on the lajt page with a printed
or illustrated impression.
Les e.(emplaires originaux dont la couverture en
papier est imprimie sent film6s en commen^ant
par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la
derniAre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration, 8oi2 par le second
plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires
originaux sont film6s en commenpant par la
premidre page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par
la dernidre page qui comporte une telle
empreinte.
The iast recorded frame on each microfiche
shall contain the symbol —^^ (meaning "CON-
TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning "END"),
whichever applies.
Un des symboles suivants apparaltra sur la
dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le
cas: le symbols — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", le
symbols V signifie "FIN ".
Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at
different reduction ratios. Those too large to be
entirely included in one exposure are filmed
beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to
right and top to bottom, as many frames as
required. The following diagrams illustrate the
method:
Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre
film6s A des taux de r6duction di/firents.
Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre
reproduit en un seul ciichA, 11 est fiimA A partir
de I'angle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite,
et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre
d'images n6cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants
illustrent la m^tfiode.
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
IMMERSION
PBOVBD TO BB
NOT A SCRIPTURAL MODE OF BAPTISM
BUT A ROMISH INVENTION;
*
r
AND
IMMERSIONISTS
SHEWN TO BB
DISREGARDING DIVINE AUTHORITY IN REFUSING BAPTISE!
TO THE INFANT CHILDREN OF BELIEVERS.
BT
REV. W. A. McKAY, B.A.,
Potior of Chalmert' Church, Woodstock, Onktri:
{ t
TEffiD EDITION (SEVENTH THOUSAND) REVISED AND ENLARGED.
WITH APPENDIX :
A REVIEWER REVIEWED."
TORONTO:
THE CANADA PUBLISHING COMPANY.
1881.
I really do not know any heresy ^vlnch word T use in its proper
ori«,n.l sense, ^. e.,' opinion ') in ,l,o Christinn Cl,.ncl, tl.at 1,L less
to bus-e itselt on t ban tbat ot ' innnersion,' yet its a.lvocates are
usins the most reckless statements, whieb have .aine.l jjround amon<.
cnt,cs and lexicoKraphers-wbo ..nerally follow ,.ach other like a
flo.-k 01 Hheev-enHrdy by the hoblness of the assortion."_From
Lai>t>sm.«.« Immersion,'- by Kou.rt Young, LI. D., author of
the "Greek and Hebrew Analytical Concordance," " Bib leal Note
and Queries," etc. x^uits
^ ^^C^o
-^-ig>CpC
The logic of this theory (Immersion) as declared by its friends
IS this :-OutsKle of this theory there is no h.pti^f „„ LoTd'
Supper, no Chr,sti„n ministry, no Christian Church-and, by the
same inexorable logic, no Christian man.'WAMEs W. Dale, D D
in " Christie Baptism," p. 21.
THE BAPTISM OF CHRIST.
This plate is copied from the centre-piece of the dome of the
baptistery at Ravenna, which was built and decorated A.D. 454.
John the Baptist is standing on the brink of the Jordan, holding a
vessel from which he pours water on the head of the Saviour, who
is standing in the water. Over His head is the descending dove, a
symbol of the Holy Ghost. The mythological figure to the left of
our Saviour represents, according to the custom of the ancients, the
river Jordan. The Catacombs near Rome, which were the hiding-
places of Christians during the early persecutions, contain many
representations of our Lord's baptism similar to the above. Rev.
W. H. VVithrow, in his recent and excellent work on the Catacombs,
gives a number of these figures, and on page 535 he says : *' The
testimony of the Catacombs respecting the mode of baptism, as far
as it extends, is strongly in favour of aspersion or affusion. All
their pictured representations of the rite indicate this mode, for
which alone the early fonts seem adapted ; nor is there any early
art evidence of baptismal immersion. " Mo picture in the world older
than the sixteenth century represents our Lord as being baptized
by ''dipping." (See pp. 44-47. )
t
PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION.
i
I
»
The sale of two editions — consisting of four thousand
(;o])ies — of this little volume, within one year, is a
sulficient proof that there was a call for a work on
Jlaptism, which would not be apologetic in its tone, or
merely defensive in its matter, but which would faithfully
and fearlessly exhibit tlie Komish origin, the unscriptural
cliaracter, and dangerous tendency of the views held
by Immersionists on this sul)ject. I am no lover of con-
troversy, yet 1 dare not give way to that spirit of modern
liberalism which sacrifices the truth of God to the cour-
tesies of religious intercourse Liberality to error is
treason to the truth. It is possible to be so much opposed
to controversy as to have no controversy with sin or
Satan. The error a*'ainst which we contend is a danger-
ous one. It dilutes tlie pure milk of Ood's Word with
"much water"; it, not unfrequently, puts the river or
the tank in place of tlie cross ; and it compels multitudes
of its adherents to separate themselves from the great
Church of God, and to stigmatize their fellow-Christians
as " Communion-Table liars " (see p. 9). The ancient
fathers, the noble martyrs, the great reformers — devoted
and Christ-like men such as Knox, Wesley, McCheyne,
Bickersteth, Edwards — were, according to tlie Immersion
theoiy, never baptized, never a part of the Church of
Christ on earth, and they never partook of the Lord's
Supper without profaning it.
PKKFACK.
PlnncjiniT Into wfih'r for hjijilisin orii^nnnted in tho dia-
posiiinn, too manifest in evtMy jii,'e of the Church, to
nia;^inTy the externiil imd ritualistic at the expense of the
real and sj)iritual. The siiiue parties who vitiated and
l)rostitiited tlie Lord's syndtol Sup])er into a physical
sacrilice — Transubstantiation — prostituted the ordinance
of lia])tism from a syndx)! ('h*iinsin,<]j by spriidvling to a
water-dip])in,L(; or, a-^ its early advocates were wont to
term it, a " soaking out of sin," and a " soaking in of
grace."
1 take this opportunity to express ray deep sense of
ohligjition to many ministerial brethren in the Preshy-
teiian, Mctiiodist, and Kpiscnjinl Church, for the kind
words and valuable suggestions M'ith which tho»y have
encouraged and assisted me. The work lias been again
revised and somewhat enlarged ; and, being now stereo-
tyi)e(l, MO further ehnnges will be made in it. It has
been wi-itten, not to wound feelings, or to stir up strife,
but to save those who aiv. willing to read and think on
this subject from being drawn iuto the toils of eiTon ; ard
it is sent forth with tlu^ prayer that the blessing of the
CJod of Truth may attend it.
W.A.M.
Woodstock, Ont., July, 1881.
«
IMMEESION
PROVKD TO BJC
NOT A SCRIPTURAL MODE OF BAPTISM,
BUT A ROMISH INVENTION.
PART I.
We are deeply imprer^sed with the fact that the ordinance
of Christian baptism in its natnre, design, mode and sub-
jects, does not receive the attention in our Presbyterian
pulpits, tliat its importance demands, especially in view of
another fact, that our people are being constantly assailed
as to the scriptural warrant of our practice.
Many of our people have been twenty or thirty years
listening to sermons, and yet have never heard this sub-
ject clearly and impressively brought home to the mind.
This lack in the pulpit is, we fear, but very imperfectly
siipplied by Bible-class, Sabbath school, or home instruc-
tion.
Our ministers and teachers are so fully occupied in
teaching the great doctrines of grace and enforcing the
supreme claims of the Lord Jesus, that whatever savours
of controversy is ruled out. But a little reflection will
put this matter in another light. The Lord's Supper, set-
ting forth tlie 9vork of Ghristfor its, with all the comforts
and corresponding obligations connected with it, are, by
exposition, exhortation and sacramental acts, frequently
pressed upon all. But of not less importance is the ordi-
nance of Christian baptism, which impressively symbolizes
the equally significant fact of the Spirit's work in us.
8
Both ordinances wore instituted by the same Divine
Authority, and botli are V)eautit'nlly representative of vital
and iinidamcntal truths in the plan of human redemption.
The first holds fortli the <,m)und of our justitication ; the
second the nature of our sanctiti(\ation. The atoning death
of the Lord Jesus, and the (juickening, sanctifying power
of the Holy Spirit are co-onhnate facts in our redemption,
and therefore the two ordinances symbolizing these great
truths should liold a place of equal and vital interest in
all the instructions of the Church.
CoiToct scriptural views of the sacraments lie at the
very foundation of all satisfactory experience and correct
Christian conduct; and th(! want of clear, distinctive
tyacliing on Baptism, and the vital truths it symbolizes,
is rapidly produciin^ a deplorable ignoninee of the use and
benedts of this ordinance, and an alarming and culpable
neglect of covenant duties and blessings.
It is sometimes asked, "Why dispute as to the mode
of baptism ? What difference whether the element be
'^.pplied to the person, or the person put into the element ?"
They who thus speak cannot have given much considera-
tion to the matter. First, this subject possesses an inci-
dental importance. Let me illustrate. At present no set
of Christians seem to attach very much importance to the
mode or posture of the body in the observance of the
Lord's Supper. Some partake of that ordinance sitting,
some standing, and some kneeling, and no one, on this ac-
count, charges another with any impropriety. But suppos-
ing a denomination should arise who would adopt reclining
as their posture, and who would declare that this being
the original mode of observance none other was valid,
and they who adopted any other posture did not really
observe the ordinance • at all, but mocked the Almighty,
and were guilty of a great sin. And supposing this de-
nomination should acquire considerable strength, and
manifest an extraordinary zeal in seeking to lure the
young and unin.^tructed of other clmrehcs within its own
folds, would it not then be the bouuden duty of every
intelligent Cliristian, and especially of every reli^^ions
instructor, to contend earnestly for Christian liberty on
this mptter, by upholding the truth, as well as by expos-
ing the errors of these zealots, and warning of their prose-
lyting efforts.
Now, if this language be transferred from the mode in
the observance of the supper to the mode in the observ-
ance of baptism, we have before us a description of the
Baptist denomination, the only difference being that,
while "reclining" was undoubtedly the original mode
in which the supper was observed, immersion was just
as undoubtedly not the original mode of baptism Bap-
tists have made immersion the corner-stone of their
denominational structure. According to their theory,
there is, outside of their own circle, no baptism, no Lord's
Supper, no Christian ministry, no Christian Church —
and of course, therefore, no Christian man. Here is how
some of their teachers write : " Christian baptism is im-
mersion of a believer in water, in the name of the Father,
Son and Holy Ghost — nothing else is. Baptist Churches
are the only Christian Churches in existence. Pedobap-
tists have no right to the Lord's Supper. Whenever they
partake of the Lord's Supper they partake unworthily,
and eat and drink damnation to themselves." — J. T.
Lloyd (Religious Herald). " For Baptists to call Pedo-
baptist bodies Churches having the right to adminis-
ter the Lord's Supper, is logical insanity and idiocy." —
J. M. R. (Western Recorder). "Cur system unchurches
every Pedobaptist coniuumity." — EoBi*:iiT Hall. " If oi.e
with full knowledge of the impovc of the rites begin with
the Communion {i.e., partakes of the Lord's Supper b3for.i
he is immersed), he does act a lie." — Prof. Pepper, on "Bap-
tism and Communion," p. 8-. The italics are mine. Such
quotations from representative men in the Baptist Church
might be multiplied to any extent. I know there are mul
titudes in that Church better than their cieed; but as a
Church tney hesitate n^^t to declare anything else than im-
mersion no baptism, and to debj»r as an xvih nt^z'^v! ^'Wor.iy
(^ ■
i
h
u
I
),
10
the ministers and members of non-immersing Churches
from all Church fellowship. The most insulting language
is frequently applied to the conscientious convictions and
practices of their fellow-Christians, and the most offen-
sive charges of want of candour and " common Christian
honesty " brought against them. Here, for instance, is a
sample of the language of a sermon by a leading Baptist
minister of Ontario, pMished by request of the Church,
and widely circulated through the denomination; the
language is applied to Presbyterians, Methodists, and all
Pedobaptist Churches : — " There are periods in the history
of man when corruption and depravity have so debased
the human character, that man yields to the hands of the
oppressor, and becomes his abject slave. He bows in
passive obedience to the hands of despots, and in this
state of servility he receives the fetters of perpetual
bondage." Thus all ministers of the Gospel, who do not
immerse, are " oppressors " and " despots," and all Chris-
tian people who have not been immersed, are "abject
slaves " in " a state of servility," and wearing " the fetters
of perpetual bondage ;" and this immersing clergyman, in
the largeness of his heart, cries out to his "undipped"
and therefore " debased " fellow-Christians as follows : —
" Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of
her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." And
yet this sermon was " published b> request of the Church."
The unscrupulous zeal with which Baptists urge their
peculiar tenets, the unworthy charges they bring against
other Churches, the intense proselyting spirit which
pervades the body generally, and the schismatic policy so
largely prevalent in unchurching other evangelical de-
nominations, is a wrong done our common Chnstianity,
which ought not to be endured in silence.
But, secondly, the mode of Baptism possesses a very
great intrinsic importance. Immersion involves essen-
tial error. Pressed by the exigency of their theory,
immersionists have really subverted the ordinance of
baptism. From its scriptural signiiicance as a symbol of
11
a
St
ill
the Spirit's work in purifying the soul by applying " the
blood of sprinkling," they, by seizing upon a mere figu-
rative expression of the Apostle Paul, have made it a
symbol of the "death, burial and resurrection" of Christ.
They have, therefore, two ordinances setting forth the
work of Christ, and none to set forth distinctively the
work of the Spirit. This leads to a belittling and dispar-
aging of the Spirit's work. The " Burial Theory," as it is
called, has caused multitudes of those who have adopted
it to repudiate the work of the Spirit in the regeneration
and sanctification of the soul. Campbellism, for instance,
which embraces about one-half the Baptist denomination
in the Western States of America, is nothing else than
this theory carried out to its logical consequences. In it
" Baptism becomes regeneration or conversion, experimen-
tal religion and all spirituality are rejected and ridiculed,
and Christianity appears as a stark, gaunt, grmning
skeleton, as destitute of spiritual life and power for good
as Romanism in its most degenerate days." The history
of Campbellites,Tunkards,ChristadelphianS; Mormons and
other immersionists proclaims, as with trumpet tones of
warning, the ruinous tendency of the " burial theory;" and
calls loudly upon all evangelical Christians to testify
against that theory and its consequences. " If," says Dr.
Stuart Robinson, " men may at pleasure substitute for, or
add tO; the meaning of Christ's appointed symbols, why
may they not add a paragraph to the Scriptures repealing
or amending his sacraments ? If these theorists may
modify the sacrament of baptism, and make it symbolize
the burial of Christ instead of the work of the Holy
Spirit, why complain of Rome for modifying the Lord's
Supper into the sacrifice of the mass ? Oar Lord arranged
two sacraments — one to symbolize his own work in the
sacrifice for sin, the other to symbolize the work of the
Holy Spirit in applying the benetit oi his atonement in
the purification of the soul. Bug these theorists change
Christ's arrangement and will have both sacraments to
represent the work of Christ- -p^ni no saciament at all
r
♦«(
12
i
!•■
distinctly to symbolize the work of the Holy Spirit." A
dark dav will dawn on the followers of Jesus, should
they who are "set for the defence of the Gospel " ever fail
to realize the vital importance of maintaining and defend-
ing right views concerning the ordinance of Baptism ; its
design, mode and subjects — or sliould the Church generally
become indifferent to the obligations and duties involved
in this ordinance. I proceed therefore to inquire,
WHAT IS THE BAPTIST DOCTRINE
MODE OF BAPTISM?
ON THE
It is of the utmost importance that we clearly understand
the Baptist position. They claim that in every case of
baptism the person or thing baptized is moved and put
into and under the baptizing element. We emphatically
deny this, and maintain that in every case of Scripture
baptism, so far as the mode can be ascertained, the baptiz-
ing element or instrumentality is moved and put upon the
person or thing baptized. The Greek word, Baptizo, they
say, wherever it occurs, denotes to dii^ and from this
meaning it never in the slightest degree departs. "In the
classics it denotes to dip, in the Sci iptares it denotes to
dip, and in the Fathers it denotes uothing but to dijp."
I have before me a large work on baptism by Dr. Carson,
published by the Americnn Baptist Publication Society.
Dr. Carson was th? Goliath of the Baptist denomination.
His Baptist biogi apher says of him, " A Carson is not to
De found once in a thousand years." On page 55 of this
work he says, "My position is tliat Baptizo afways filgnifies
to dip ; never expressing anytlting hut Qiiodc." Again he
says, "To dip, and notlivtg Imtdip, through all Greek lit-
evatare." Since the time of Dr. Carson, Baptists have fre-
quently been driven from this position but only to return
to it again .tccording to the necessities of the occasion.
And Dr. Carson's words are in full accordance with the
Baptist Confession of Faith, which says, "The way or
manner of dispensing the ordinance, the Scriptures hold
out to be dipping or plunging. '
13
Nor is this a mere theory with the Baptists. With un-
faltering pertinacity they adhere to the exigency of their
creed. Here is a case in illustration. Within a few miles
of where I am writing, a few years ago a young lady was
immersed by a minister of the Baptist Church. After
some time she began to doubt whether she had really been
totally under the water on the occasion of her immersion.
A certain portion of her face, she complained, had not been
touched with the \^ater. She communicated her doubts
to others. They tenderly sympathized with her. And
the result was that a deputation of Baptists waited upon
a worthy dignitary of their church in this town, laid the
whole case before him, and he at once consented to supply
the lack of the former dipping by re-dipping the young
lady, which was accordingly done.
This case is instructive as illustrating the Baptist posi-
tion. The first immersion was in the name of the Holy
Trinity, there was no doubt as to the authority of the
immerser, nor yet does it appear that there was any doubt
as to there being faith on the part of the young woman.
Every condition, it seems, was perfect but one. A "proper
subject;" "proper element;" "proper form of words;"
** proper administrator ;" but there was not a " total immer-
sion in water," — a " burial " — a " complete envelopment "
— a "perfect covering," and therefore no baptism; and a
distinguished minister of the Baptist church hesitated not
again in the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost to
re-immerse.
This case shews how tenaciously Baptists hold to their
creed, that nothing is baptism but a dipping or plunging
under water. The exclusive and offensive aspect of this
theory seems only to commend and endear it all the more
to its advocates.
A man may be as evangelical in his views, and as holy
in his life, as were Owen, or Edwards, or Wesley, or
Fletcher, or Guthrie, cr Chalmers, or Hodge, but he could
not become a member, much less a minister of the Baptist
church, because he was not put upon his back under water.
II'
i:;l
I':
f'.i ill
!.; ( )l
h II
*\\
14
'(
On the other hand it would seem from late occurences
in this Province, that a man may hold very loose views
indeed on vital Scripture truth and Christian morals, but
if lie takes to the water he will be welcomed, not merely
as a member but as a pastor, into the Baptist fold. Mr,
Brookman is sound on the "dipping" question and that is
enough to make him a good Baptist, even if he does deny
the punishment of the wicked, and the immortality of the
natural man, and repudiate the Sabbath and the law of
God. But suppose tliis gentleman had repudiated the
(lipping theory, would that council of liberal Baptists
have received him ? Certainly not. Does it not then
appear that dipping is, in the estimation of these Baptists,
of more vital importance to Christianity than the Sabbath,
the moral law of God, or the teachings of the Bible
regarding the immortality of the natural man and the
]uinishment of the wicked ?*
♦ Lest any one might think this lan£»nage too strong T subjoin my evi-
dence. Let the reader carefully consider it, and then say whether ray
language is ttrong enough. The following communication from Rev. J.
Denovan, Baptist minister, of Toronto, recently appeared in the Canadian
Baptiit. I give it verbatim et literatim. He says :
" By special request last Thursday evening I took part in the recognition
of the Rev. Wm. Brookman as pastor of Yorkville Baptist Church, in a
short address to the church. But it is due to the Church of J esus Christ in
Toronto, and to myself as a minister of the Gospel, that my position in this
matter be perfectly understood by the community.
" I opposed the action of the council, because in the examination of Mr,
Brookman it appeared that he denies :
" 1 . The obligation of the Decalogue upon the unbelieving Gentile world
and the believer.
••2. The moral obligation of the sauctifioation of the weekly Sabbath,
'*3. The natural and inherent immortality of man.
"4. The eternity of the future conscious punishment of the wicked.
' ' The council, which was a large one, professed to ' recognize ' Mr.
Brookman because :
"1. His position in regard to these points of orthodojcy was apparently
more negative than positive.
'* 2. He was a go»d man and transparently honest.
"3. The Baptist bcdy could not afford to drive him away to another
denomination.
** 4. A number of nhe council (all regular Baptist) indulged his views, espe-
cially on the 3rd and 4th points."
Any one who wishes to see more evidence of the same kind may read the
reports of the "lively discussion," in the Assembly of the "Baptist
Mmisterial Institute" at Toronto, on October 23rd, 1880, over the ques
tion, ' ' What constitutes a regular Baptist Church ? "
16
Is it not a sight that may well sadden one to see a large
denomination, containing many good and zealous mem-
bers, so carried away with the mere outward mode
of observing an ordinance that they magnify that
mode out of all due proportion in the system of doctrines.
I am not speaking too strongly, I know what I say to
be true. I have known a Baptist husband, bound in the
fetters of his iron creed, deny to the wife of his bosom
communitm in the Church of Jesus Christ, because she
happened to be a Presbyterian. I have known the Bap-
tist son to assume the same attitude towards his Presby-
terian mother ; and the Baptist father the same attitude
towards his IVesbyterian son. Baptists in this country
tell us that without close communion their system cannot
stand. Let it perish then. Let it no longer act as a
wedge to split the Church of the living God asunder,
separating believing parents from believing children, the
believing wife from the believing husband, and commit-
ing to the uncovenanted mercies of God nine-tenths of
the body of Christ. Well might Robert Hall, himself an
eminent open-communion Baptist, declare of his close-
communion brethren : " They have violated more maxims
of aatiquity, and have receded further from the example
of the apostles, than any other class of Christians on
record" (See R. Hall " On Communion," page 74). And
Spurgeon who, although a Baptist, has too much head and
heart to believe in close communion, thus speaks of his
close-communion brethren: "They separate themselves
from the great body of Christ's people. They separate
from the great universal Church. They say they will not
commune with it ; and if any one come to their table who
has not been baptized (immersed) they turn him away.
The pulse of Christ is communion ; and woe to the
church that seeks to cure the ills of Christ's Church by
stopping its pulse."
Having considered what the Baptist doctrine is, and
having seen some of the unhappy consequences necessarily
and logically resulting from it, we are prepared to in-
1!:
; • i
Hi
■H
16
I
quire on what Scripture evidence does tliis doctrine stand.
If indeed it is clearly and unmistakably taught in the
Word of God we are bound to accept it, whatever be the
consequences. But let us see.
It is only indirectly that it falls within our present de-
sign to discuss
THE CLASSIC USAGE OP BAPTIZO.
This, although referred to so frequently and with so much
confidence, by Baptists, really affords no support for their
theory, that baptizo means to dip and never has any other
meaning. In classic Greek the word baptizo is never
used in the modern Baptist sense of putting a body into
water or other element and then immediately withdraw-
ing it. Here, however, let me observe that the strength
of my argument which is designed to shew the Scripture
meaning of the word, is by no means dependent on the
classic usage. Even were Baptists able to shew (which
however they never have been) that in heathen or secular
Greek baptizo always means to dip, it would not at all
follow that in the sacred Scriptures it must mean the
same thing.
The Gospel was a neiv thing among the Greeks in the
time of the apostles. Its mysteries,doctrines, rites, hopes,
were novelties to Grecian thought (Acts 17 : 19). Now
words are the offspring of ideas. They are contrived to
meet the exigencies of thought, and exist only as
the revealers of thought. We could not, therefore,
resonably expect to find in heathen Greek pre-existing
words exactly adapted to the expression of Christian
thought. What kind of a Bible woiikl we have were we
to take all Scripture words in a strictly classic sense ? Take
for instance the following w^ords : Theos (God), ouranos
(heaven), angelos (angel), pneuma (spirit), sarx (flesh),
pistis (faith), dikaiosune (righteousness).
Baptists themselves freely acknowledge the distinction
between the .secular and sacred meaning of words ; Pres-
huteros, for instance, in classic Greek means " an old man."
17
but in the Scriptures means "a ruler in God's "house " —
an " elder,"' who might be a very young man, as was Timo-
thy, to whom Paul (even in the same connection in which
he calls him an " elder ") says : " Let no man despise thy
youth." The word ehJdesia, in classic Greek means " an
assembly," even though it be a tumultuous one, but in the
Scriptures it means the Church, a holy and orderly body.
The word deipnou, in classic Greek means " a banquet,"
and in the New Testament it is used in this sense no less
than nine times. But in the Scriptures it also means the
Lord's Supper, between whose sip of wine and fragment
of broken bread and the profusion of a Grecian feast the
contrast is scarcely less, as even Baptists will allow, than
that between our little bowl of water and Jordan's " swol-
len flood." And if all these words and many others have
a secular meaning in classic Greek which is one thing, and
a sacred meaning in the Scriptures which is an entirely
different thing, why may not the same be true of the pre-
cisely similar word baptizo ? Even if Baptists could pro-
duce hundreds of instances from heathen Greek writings
where the word means to dip, and we were not able to
produce a single exception to this usage, it would no more
follow that Christian baptism must be by dipping than
that the Lord's Supper (deipnon) must be observed as a
physical feast.
But although the Scriptural mode of baptism is not to
be determined from the heathen meaning of baptizo we
nevertheless firmly maintain that the Greek classics are
just as free from baptism by dipping as the Scriptures.
Dr. T. J. Conant, who stands at the head of the Baptist
Bible Revision movement, and who is undoubtedly one of
the best scholars at present in the Baptist Church, has
published a book (Baptizein) in which he gives one hun-
dred and seventy-five instances of the use of the word in
Greek literature. These instances are selected for the
avowed purpose of proving the Baptist theory. Collected
by such a man, and for such a purpose, we may safely
assume they are the most favourable to that theory that
k
k
Ik,
I*'
'►c
* l
1
in
1«
can be found. And yet what is the result ? Why when
Dr. Conant comes to translate these passages he gives the
word baptizo seven ditHrcnt meanings, using seven differ-
ent English words.^ What then even on their own shew-
ing becomes of the Baptist statement, that baptizo means
" to dipy and nothing hut dip, through all Greek litera-
ture ?" Nay more, of the one hundred and seventy-five
instances quoted to prove dipping, no less tlian sixty-four
(more than one- third of the whole) are translated by Dr.
Conant himself by the English word overiuhehn, that is a
word which clearly implies that the overwhelming (bap-
tizing) element comes upon the person or thing over-
whelmed (baptized). Rev. T. Gallaher, in his "Short
Method/' after a thorough examination of every sentence
containing baptizo written before the time of Christ, and
quoted by Dr. Conant, says, ''In every instance the bap-
tizing element or instrumentality is moved and put upon
the person or thing baptized, never is the person put into
the element"
Dr. Dale in his great work on Baptism has virtually
demolished the Baptist theory. It may continue a strug-
gling existence for a while, but it will in time die out of
all intelligent minds. Already Baptists have been com-
pelled to acknowledge that the Greek word baptizo does
not imply " the taking out of the water." (See Conant,
p. 88.) In the whole range of Greek literature no instance
occurs where baptizo is used in the modern Baptist sense
of putting a body into a foreign element and then imme-
diately withdravnng it. The word expressing the action
of the Baptist " dipping " is hapto, not baptizo ; but bapto
is never, in the Word of God, applied to the ordinance of
baptism. " Baptists," says Dr. Dale, " put Christian disci-
ples under the water, and are, then, under the necessity
of saving them from their " watery tomb " by changing
baptizo into hapto. We do not object to men being taken
out of the water after they have been improperly put into
* See Appendix, p. 10 1,
19
it ; but we object to men being dipped into water and
then claiming to have received a Greekly baptism." Dr.
Dale's position is that haptizo is not a modal term, that it
does not prescribe any specific act, hut that it denotes a
condition or result altogether irrespective of the "mode or
act by which it is brought about. In the Greek language,
a ship was baptized when it was sunk in the depths of
the sea ; the coast was baptized when the tide flowed in
upon it ; a wave rolling over a vessel, and sinking it, bap-
tized it with its content'^ ; a man was baptized when he
was drowned, or baptized by his tears when he wept over
his sins, or when he drank water from the fountain of
Silenus, or drank an opiate or liquor, or fell into a heavy
sleep. But with clinching force Dr. Dale shews that
" dip " will not answer in a single one of these instances.
The coast is not taken up and " dipped " in the sea which
rolls back upon it. Drowned ships and drowned men are
not " dipped," i.e., plunged beneath the watery element,
and then immediately withdrawn. A man is not " dipped "
into his own tears, nor " dipped " when he drinks a liquid.
On page 274 of " Classic Baptism," Dr. Dale says : " If
anything in language can be proved, it has been proved
that haptizo does not express any definite form of act,
and therefore does not express the definite act to dip."
Dr. Hodge — the Nestor of modern theology — endorses
this view, and illustrates as follows: "It (haptizo) is
analogous to the word to bury. A man may be buried
by being covered up in the ground ; by being placed in
an empty cave ; by being put into a sarcophagus ; or even,
as among the Indians, by being placed upon a platform
elevated above the ground. The command to bury may
be executed in any of these ways. So with regard to the
word haptizo, there is a given effect to be produced, with-
out any specific injunction as to the manner, whether by
immersion, pouring or sprinkling." But if this be true
what then becomes of the Baptist theory, " dip and noth-
ing but dip through all Greek literature ?" It is buried,
never to rise again. And yet immersionists tell us that
I.
M
I;
it': '■■
I
I
20
dipping Alone is bapti>^ii, and that they alone are baptized,
and the only worthy communicants on earth.
We must not close this part of our discussion without
A WORD ABOUT THE LEXICOGRAPHERS.
Thess men have made the Greek language their special
study; they write as scholars, and not to uphold any
theory of baptism. What, then, is their verdict on this
question ? I wish the reader to mark it. Ko lexicographer
in thi world gives "dip and nothing but dip" aa the
classical meaning of haptizo. Even Dr. Carson, the
greatest scholar by far that the Baptist Church has yet
produced, acknowledges this. On page 55 of his work,
having said, " My position is that haptizo alvjays signifies
to dip ; never expressing anything hut mode" he adds,
''As 1 have all the lexicographers and commentators
against me in this opinion, it will be necessai ^ to say a
word or two with respect to the authority of lexicons."
On the immersionist side of this question we have Dr.
Carson; on the other side, even as acknowledged, we
have " all the lexicographers and commentators " in the
world. Intelligent and impartial judges will not have
much difficulty in deciding on which side the truth is
most likely to be found.
But as many of Dr. Carson's less learned, though equally
zealous, brethren are not willing to admit with him that
they are opposed by all the lexicographers, the following
list may l3e consulted: Scapula, Hedricus, Stephanus,
Groves, Schleusner, Parkhurst, Robinson, Schrevelius,
Bretschneider, Wahl, Greenfield. These lexicons are ad-
mitted to be of the highest authority, and were allowed
in court by Alexander Ciimpbell himself, in his famous
debate with Dr. Rice. And they all testify that it is not
true that haptizo has but one significatitm. They all
agree in giving three meanings, viz., to dip, to wash, to
cleanse, and some of them a fourth, to dye or to colour.
Tb dip may necessitate an immersion; but to wash, to
cleanse, to colour, ceitainly do not. When a servant
21
washes the floor she does not immerse it in water, but
pours water upon it. When she cleanses the window -
glasses, she does not dip the sash in water, but applies
water to the sash. When a painter colours a house, he
does not dip the house in paint, but he spreads paint
upon the house. As to cleansing, Dr. Carson tells us that
"Never since the creation of the world was a man cleansed .
by sprinkling." If by this he means physical cleansing
we observe that such cleansing is not a part of the ordi-
nance of baptism ; and if it were, who will say that the
modern dipping with water-proof garments on is a physi-
cal washing. "Never since the creation of the world"
was a man cleansed physically by being dipped with a
water-tight india-rubber bag tied around him. Dr. Car-
son must go back to the naked immersions of Rome. But
if he means a symbolic cleansing, then we reply that
sprinkling is as adequate, and infinitely more appropriate
than dipping. Eveiy case of such cleansing recorded in
the Word of God was by sprinkling, and none by putting
into and under the water. Against Dr. Carson I put an
inspired prophet, who tells us that sprinkling of clean
water is cleansing : " I will sprinJcle clean water upon you
and ye shall be clean" (Ezek. 36:25); and an apostle:
"Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience"
(Heb. 10 : 22). Believers are " cleansed from all sin "
(1 John 1:7); but how ? The Word of God says " by
the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 1:2 ;
Heb. 12 : 24).
We see then that no lexicographer gives "dip and
only dip" as the classic meaning of baptizo, and therefore
none endorses the Baptist theory. But more than this
no good lexicographer ever gives "dip" as a New Testa-
ment meaning of hap)tizo. Many do not give the New
Testament meaning at all. Those who do, are careful
to distinguish between it and the classic usage. Thus
Schleusner, one of the very highest authorities, gives as
classic meanings of baptizo, "to immerse, to dip in, to
plunge into water," and gives illustrations from Greek
»
I
h
K
v' ^
I
•>",r
! 1
:)|
22
authors, to sns(niii (as he thou;^ht) these definitions; but
he then adds tlx'se words, clear and ringing, "In this sense
it never occurs in the Nf")o Testamenty He gives the
Now Testament moaninirs, "to wash, to cleanse, to purify."
And yet, Avitli a strani,^e sense of honour and Christian
truthfulness, Baptist writers very frequently claim this
ujreat scholar as endorsing the "dip and only dip" theory I
And notliing is rjore common than for these writers to
(juote from h^xicoiis what was intended merely as classic
meaninjjfs, and impose these upon the English reader as
including the sacred usage. Ihe truth, however, is, that
no lexiconrji]»]ier — whose opinion is entitled to any weight
— gives "dip," "plunge," or " immerse " as the meaning
of hfcptizo in tlie New Testament, much less the only
moaning. No Pedohaptist scholar in the world ever
helieved the exclusive immei'sion tlu.'oiy, viz. : t\\?it haptizo
means "dip, and nothing hut dip." If IJaptists deny this,
let them produce the names. J.)r. Ditzler, in his recent
work on Baptism, .after a most thorough examination of
no less than thirty-one of the best Greek lexicons and
authors, says (p. lOl), "every one of the thirty-one
authorities sustain affusion as baptism."
We next come to
THE SCRIPTURE USAGE OP BAPTIZO.
This, let me obseive, is a far more important part of our
subject than that which we have hitherto been discussing.
The ultimate appeal in all matters of faith must be not
to human authorities, heathen or Christian, but to the
Word of God.
Here I would put the reader upon his guard against a
mistaken view of our opinion. We do not hold that the
word bapfizo signifies to pour or to sprinkle. This has
been explained a thousand times to our opponents, but all,
it would seem, to no purpose. Next day they are back
again to their old charge, "Presbyterians say that to bap-
tize means to sprinkle." "If," say they, "baptize means to
sprinkle, why don't you substitute sprinkle for the word
23
baptize?" I reply, anointing was by pouring, as even
Baptists will acknowledge ; and yet "to anoint" does not
mean "to pour." Why then may not baptism be by sprink-
ling, although to baptize does not mean to sprinkle ?
Presbytei.ians or any others do not hold that baptize
means to sprinkle any more than it means to dip, or
immerse. They believe that it always expresses a con-
dition or result irrespective of the mode or act by which
it is brought about, and that in the Scriptures it denotes
a thorough change of spiritual condition effected by the
Holy Ghost applying the "blood of sprinkling" to the
soul. And this spiritual baptism of the soul is "made
manifest" or signified by an external rite in which pure
water is "sprinkled" or poured upon the person. But in
all this the word baptize has no reference to mode.
To ask us therefore to prove that to baptize means to
sprinkle, is asking us to prove what we never believed or
affirmed. And yet this is what Baptists are constantly
doing, and then ignorantly exulting as if they had obtained
a triumph because we decline to prove what we have al-
ways denied. Baptists alone have fallen into the absurdity
of making baptizo indicate " mode and nothing but mode."
They say baptize means " to dip and nothing but to dip,"
and their action in baptism is in perfect keeping with this
definition. But the absurdity of the "theory" will at
once appear if we apply it to some passages of Scripture.
How, for example, would our Lord's commission to his
disciples read, were it rendered, " Go, teach all nations,
dipping them into the name of the Father," etc. ? Dipping
all nations ! and dipping them into a name ! ! And what
sense could be made of such expressions as, being " dipped
with the Holy Ghost and with fire ? " " dipped into one
body," or " into one Spirit ? " " Unto what then were ye
dipped? and they said, unto John's dipping. Then said
Paul, John verily dipped with the dipping of repentance,"
etc. "In those days came John the i)^pper, . . an('
they were dipped in Jordan, confessing their sins." Agaii
if baptize always means to dip and nothing else, why d
It
»»
i
'si
• •' I
24
they not always render it dip and nothing else 1 Why
Jo they not call themselves " Dippers," instead of taking
shelter under the alias " Baptists ? " Why do they speak
of the Baptist Church, Baptist denomination, Baptist
Sabbath school, rather tlian the Dippers' Church, the
Dipper denomination, the Dippers' Sabbath school, the
Dippers' newspaper, etc.? Why, just because they in-
istictively feel the absurdity of carrying out their theory,
"mode and nothing but mode," "dip and nothing but
dip."
Here I will propose a question for Baptist scholars to
answer. If to baptize means to immerse or dip, as you
say, why is it that those excellent scholars of the second
century, who could speak both Greek and Latin, and who
translated the Greek Scriptures into the Latin while both
Greek and Latin were living languages, did not translate
the Greek word " baptizo " by the Latin word " Immergo"
which signifies to immerse, but transferred the Greek
word into the Latin or Vulgate just as our translators
have done into the English ? In that venerable transla-
tion, the Greek verb is never rendered by any form of the
Latin immergo (to immerse).
" In the earliest Latin versions of the New Testament,"
says Dr. Ed ward Robinson, the lexicographer and eminent
Biblical scholar, " as for example the Itala, which Augus-
tine regarded as the bost of all, and which goes back
apparently to the second century and to usage connected
with the Apostolic Age, the Greek verb is uniformly
given in the Latin form baptizo, and is never translated
by immergo, or any like word ; shewing that there was
-something in the rite of baptism to which the latter did
not correspond." And so all the translations of the Scrip-
tures in all languages ever since, with the exception of
the recent Baptist sectarian version, which was still-born,
have followed the example of the early Latin translation,
and transferred, without translating, baptizo. All the
scholars for seventeen hundred years, failed to see that
the word means " dip and nothiniaZe portion of the three thousand
— their dipping, rohing and disrobing? Let me quote
fi'om Dr. Dale: "Wo deny the dipping altogether; and
sustain the denial by the absence of fact and precept,
and the pronounced impropriety of the age as to the dip-
ping of females into water, publicly, by men. It will not
do to say, that those wlio practise the dipping of females
by men into water see no impropriety in it. Females
were dipped naked iifco water for a thousand years, and
they who did it ' saw no impropriety in it.* All see the
impropriety now ; and the feeling of the million to-day
is against the becomingness of the public dipping of
women into water by men."
BAPTIZING BEFORE MEALS.
In Luke 11 : 87, 38, we read that a Pharisee, who had
invited Jesus to dine with him, wondered that he had not
first washed (ehaptif^the, "did not baptize himself") be-
fore dinner. Did this man expect our Lord to plunge
himself under water, d la Baptist, before every meal?
In Mark 7:4 we read of the " Pliarisees and all the Jews,"
that except they wash (haptisontai, baptize) on return-
ing from the market, " they eat not." But if the Pharisees
and all tlie Jews took a total immersion head and ears
under the water, before every meal and on every return
from the market, it is evident they must have been under
the water a good part of their time.
The meaning doubtless is, that the Jews on these occa-
85
sions were accustomed to perform some ceremonial wash-
ing of the hands and face ; and this, although far from
being a total immersion of the body, the Holy Ghost calls
baptizing themselves (not mor(.ly baptizing their hands
or face). And it must here be observed that the Jews, in
ancient as in modern times, washed tlieir hands or feet,
not by dipping them into water, but by having water
drawn from the water pots (John 2:0) poured v pon
them. (See Josephus' "Ant. of the Jews," Bk. 3, ch. C,
sec. 2.) The Greek of Luke 7 : 44 says, " water iijioii my
feet;" and the same verse represents the Saviour's feet
as washed with tears falling upon them. The Syriac
version says, " baptized with tears." From 2 Kings 3:11
we learn that the customary, if not invariable, mode of
washing the hands, was by pouring. The description
there given of a servant is, " Elisha which poured water
on the hands of Elijah." This defines his office. The
Jews could not wash ceremonially in a basin of water, for
the first dipping of the hands or feet would render that
water defiled.
It is evident, then, that a person is baptized in the
Scripture sense, not by being plunged into the water, but
by having the water applied to a small part of his body.
And if so, then the exclusive immersion theory is proved
to be nothing better than the " baseless fabric " of Bap-
tist, Campbellite, Christadelphian and Mormonite visions.
il I
l ,
■k
THE BAPTISM OP VESSELS AND TABLES.
In Mark 7:4* it is stated that the Pharisees observe
the baptisms (it is " washings" in the English translation,
but in the original it is haptismous, i.e., baptisms) of cups
and pots, brazen vessels and tables. The word here trans-
lated tables is kXiviov (klinon), and properly signifies beds
or couches. It is so translated in the 30th verse of this
♦ Tho Sinaitic and Vatican Manuscripts (the two oldest and best in the
world), and seven others, read rantizontai (sprinkle) instead of haptisontai
in the beginning of this verse — thus clearly shewing that the copyists deemel
sprinkling and baptizing as synonymous.
I,'
I* l"
.! ,«
'if'
til
'M
36
chapter, and in ei^ht other places where it occurs in the
New Testament. Here, then, we find the word baptism
applied to utensils which we cannot suppose for a mjuient
were dipped or immersed in water. Tiiuy might contrive
to immerse their cups and pnts , hut can it be imagined
tliMt they would imnuirse their tables, their couches, and
T)fMls ? Tln'se wore very cumbrous articles ot* furniture,
" being a kind of sofa or divan on which they were accus-
tomed to sit, usually about twenty feet long, four feet
wide, and four feet high." Rather large, one would think,
to be conveniently immersed ; and yet Dr. Cavson de-
clares he will i-ather believe that they immersed their
beds, couches and tables in water, than yield that baptism
signifies anything but immersion! And he would father
this absurdity u[)on the Spirit by whom the Scriptures
were inspired. " To maintain," says Dr. Hodge, " that
these beds or couches were immersed is a mere act of
desperation." But to such "desperation** Baptists will
go rather than abandon their " pet theory " that nothing
is baptism but dipping. All who are not hopelessly given
over to that theory will havo no difficulty in believing
that tables were baptized then as they are now, in a com-
mon-sense way, by having water applied to them with
the hand.
BAPTISTS' SO-CALLED PROOF-TEXTS.
There is a class of passages which Baptists are fond of
calling their " proof-texts. To a consideration of these
we now come, and we will find that not one of them, fairly
and honestly interpreted, gives the least countenance to
immersion, much less proves it. These passages are, Bap-
tists themselves acknowledo-e, the strono-est to be found
in their favour. If, then, it can be shewui that even these
repudiate the claims of " the theory," it will be evident
that " dipping " finds no support in the Word of God, and
we must look elsewhere for its origin and authority.
Let me preface wdiat I have to say on Baptist " proof-
texts " by two quotations, Tlie tirst is from Dr. Owen,
V
one of tho greatest tlieoloo^Ian.s anrl bt^st men tf>o world
has ever seen. lie snys: " No one instnnec' cnn be driven
in Scripture, in wliich tlie word whicli we rcud'jr liaptizo
does necessarily sii^nify either to dip or plunjTe." Tho
other is from Dr. Hodge of Princeton, tlian whom Anicrica
has never jiroduced a higher authority on any Biblical
question. He says : " So far, therefore, as the ^«ew Testa-
ment is concerned, tliere is not a single case where bap-
tism necessarily implies immersion." Will Baptists sny
that Owen and Hodge did not study their Bibles, or that
they ^v ere hypocrites, or that, as they were not Baptists,
they were not capable of forming any impartial judgment ?
In the examination of the following passngcs the reader
will clearly bear in mind that the object is not to prove
baptism by sprinkling, or by pouring, or by effusion, or
by any other mode, but simply to shew how these passages
utterly fail to prove inmiersion. We are referred to
NAAMAN's seven-fold baptism in JOPwDAN.
In 2 Kings 5 : 14 we read : " Then went he [Naaman]
down and baptized (e^WTtVaTo) himself seven tiinos in
Jordan, according to the saying of the man of GodT
"Stop, stop," shouts some Baptist, "does not the Bible
say that he dipped himself ?" Baptists are ready enough
to appeal to what "the Bible says," when, through the
blunders of our English translators, they find an expres-
sion which seems to favour dipping. But of all people
immersionists are the most dissatistied with our Enolish
Bible, and for years they have been at work trying to get
out a sectarian Bible of their own. One edition after
another of that Baptist Bible has been issued, each edition
differing from the preceding; but Baptists are either too
wise or too timid to use it in their churches. Besides, it
might not serve so well for proselyting purposes as even
the ordinary version, especially so long as the lattei' con-
tains such blundering translations as "dipped himself,"
"bathe in water," "went down into the water," "came
up out of the water," " much water." etc
Hi
» I
i
■ I
t ■
4
i
Mi
i M
1 'VbP
88
Our English translation was begun in 1607, and com-
pleted in 1611. It was made by forty-seven scholars of
the Church of England, whose Liturgy at that time en-
joined trine immersion, that is, three immersions for each
baptism. Baptist writers sometimes represent our trans-
lators as being themselves "infant sprinklers," but as
compelled by the force of the original Greek to use certain
expressions which favour immersion. But this is one of
those perversions of the facts of history for which Baptists
have become so unenviably notorious. Each one of the
forty-seven translators of our Bible had been " dipped "
himself, and that three times ; for this was the faith and
practice of the Church of England at the time. Even A.
Campbell, founder of the Campbellite Baptists, admits
tliis, and says that the translators " on no occasion favoured
sprinkling by any rendering or marginal note." (See
" Chris. Bap.," p. 140.) No wonder, then, that they mani-
fest a bias to immersion in their translation of the passage
before us and a few others.
Our translation is, on the whole, an excellent one ; but
in any dispute as to the meaning r»f Scripture, the appeal
must be made not to a translation but to the original
words as dictated and inspired by the Spirit of God.
Applying this to the passage before us, we observe that
the Bible, as given by God, either in the Hebrew or Greek,
does not say that Naaman dipped himself. The Hebrew
word is ^253 (taval) which does not necessarily mean
"dip." According to some of the best lexicographers,
such as Stokius, Schindler, Leigh, and Furstianus, the
meaning of the word is exhausted, " if an object merely
touches the liquid or is touched by it" The last named
scholar deiines the word as meaning to moisten, to sprinkle
as well as to dip. The Greek word is i/SairTLaaTo (baptized
himself). And it will not do for Baptists to assume the
whole question and say dipped himself, especially when
^he accompanying circumstances are all against that
theory. Look at some of tliese circumstances :
S9
1. Naaman was commanded to %uash (v. 10). The He-
brew word is yn*^ (rahats) which never means dip.
Joseph washed his face, his brethren luashed their feet,
the priests washed their hands. Gcsenius says, " To wash,
to lave, the human body or its 'parts!'
2. Naaman's lej^rosy was local and not all over his
person. This we learn from verse 11, which announces
his expectation that Elisha " would strike his hand upon
the place, and recover the leper." The direction, there-
fore, to wash, without anything more specific, would on
the principles of reason and common sense apply only to
the part affected — the w^ashing would be limited to the
diseased part. Dr. Wall attaches great w^eight to this
consideration.
3. This was a "symbol washing." Water could not
wash away leprosy any more than it can wash away sin.
But it was then a symbol of cleansing 'rom leprosy, just
as now, in baptism, it is a symbol of cleansing from sin.
But we have already shewn that symbol washings under
the law, were performed, never by the total iuimersion of
the person in water, but by the sprinJcling of the cleans-
ing element upon the person cleansed. We are told that
Naaman baptized himself according to the saying or com-
mand of the man of God (v. 14). And the man of God
would command him to do what the law of God prescribed ;
this was sprinkling seven times. Lev. 14 : 7 — " He shall
sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed [of the leprosy]
seven times." And as Naaman was not a Jew and was
not to associate with the Israelites, the " washing " and
" shaving " and " sacrifice " which ordinarily followed the
cure, were omitted.
In view of all these considerations the intelligent and
impartia,! reader can, without much difficulty, decide
whether this is a clear case of dipping.
ir ;
m
(.'iff.
n \
m\
I' I
■-s.n
; \
iiM
*;4'i!i
40
ijpi-
* ■; •
i, ■!
JOUN BAPTIZING AT THE JORDAN.
Matfc. 3:6; Mark 1:5. — Baptists generally assume,
without any argument whatever, that John baptized by
immersion. Even if he had it would not follow that
Christian baptism must be administered in the same
manner, for John's bai)tism was not Christian baptism.
A sufficient proof of this is that some who were baptized
by John, afterwards received Christian baptism (Acts 19 :
1-6). But there is not the slightest proof that John im-
mersed, but a probability, amounting almost to a certainty,
that he did not.
1. John belonged to the priestly order. His father was a
priest, and his mother was of the daughters of Aaron; and
we have already seen that the priests invariably baptiv :^d
by the sprinkling of water. It is reasonable to suppose,
therefore, when nothing is said to the contrary, that John
baptized in the same way, and according to the prediction
of the prophet (Ezekiel 36:25), "I will sprinkle clean
water upon you."
2. Takinc: the words as we have them in our En^rlish
translation, " in Jordan " does not imply being under it.
Many go into a river without going head-and-ears under it.
" John baptized in the wiklerness " (Mark 1 : 4). Did he
plunge the people under the sands of the wilderness ? He
was "baptizing in Bethabara, beyond Jordan." Did he
plunge the people into or under the town ?
3. The Greek word en, here translated m, has a variety
of significations. In the Gospel of Matthew alone, it is
translated b}^ ten different English words, namely, on, tuith,
by, for, among, unto, through, because of, in, and at. In
Epii. 1 : 20, we read, " When He raised Him from the
dead, and set Him at his owji right hand." This could
not be rendei-ed in or under his own right hand. But if
it be ai in Eplicsians, why may it not be at in Matthew ?
And where then is immersion ?
4. The expressions " in Jordan" " in the river of Jordan,"
do not necessarily indicate more than a district or locality,
41
witliout any reference to water for dippincr purposes. A
few instances will make this clear, in 1 Kino-s, 2 : 8, we
read that Shimei came down into the Jordan to meet
David. Did he wade into, or plunge under the water, to
do homaoje to the Kinor ? 2 Kino-s, G : 4 — " And when
they [sons of the prophets] came into the Jordan they cut
down wood." Rev. Mr. Gallaher asks the immersionists
somewhat provokingly, " Did they work under diving-
bells or did they wear water-proof 7'ubber pants ? " Ac-
cordino; to Baptist logic they would require these, i'oi
other instances see 2 Kings 2 : 6, 21 ; 1 Kings 18 : 40 ;
Judj^es 4 : 7. (See Dale's "Johannic Baptism," p. 386. et scq.)
b. i'he mode of John's baptism seems clearly indicated
by his own words (Matt. 3:11), "I indeed baptize you
with (en) water, but He . . . shall baptize you with (en)
the IJoly Ghost and with fire." Let it be observed that
John uses the same word (en) to denote his own use of
water and Christ's mode of baptizing with the Spirit.
But we have already seen that in the baptism of the
Spirit, the Holy Ghost is " poured out," " shed forth," and
" falls upon " the persons baptized. (See Acts 2 ; 17, 33 ;
and 11 : 15)
6. Even Baptists will acknowledge that anointing was
not by immersion, but by pouring. Well, the Greek form
of expression (en with the dative) here used by John to
denote his mode of baptism is precisely the same as is
used in Old Testament Greek to express anointing. John
says en hudati (with water), and to express the mode of
anointing we have no less than five times the expression,
en elaio (with oil). The passao^es are, 2 Sam. 1:21; Ps.
89 : 20 ; Ps. 23 : 5 ; Ps. 92 : 10 ; Ezek. IG : 9. Anoint (en)
with oil, and like expressions, where oil was poured, occur
OVQV forty times in the books of Moses in Greek. Accord-
ing to Baptist reasoning the anointed must have been
immersed in oil !
7. We learn fi'om John 3:25, 26, that John's baptism
was a legal purification or cleansing. And we have
already shewn that these purifications were always per-
! '1
ill
42
formed by water sprinlded on the mclean. John, we
have every reason to believe, baptizei^ the people in the
same manner in which Moses consecrated all the people,
namely, he took a bunch of hyssop, or something else that
answered the purpose, and dipped it in the water and
then sprinkled the people by thousands.
8. The numbers that flocked to John's baptism made it
pliysically impossible that he could have baptized them
by dipping. It is said that all Jerusalem, all Judea, and
all the region round about Jordan came and were baptized
of him. We need not, of course, take the expression " all "
in its most literal sense as meaning all without exception ;
but it undoubtedly means a very large proportion of the
people. It is probable that the entire population of the
district was about five millions, and if we suppose that
even one-fifth of these were immersed, and that John's
ministry lasted for a whole year, then he must have im-
mersed 2,700 each day, which is an impossibility. Nor
could any man live, standing day after day for a year, up
to his waist in water. If on the other hand John baptized
by sprinkling or pouring the thing was possible and easy.
9. The unseemliness of the sight makes it morally cer-
tain that John did not baptize by dipping. Baptists will
admit that John's followers did not come prepared with
gutta percha garments to be dipped in. How then could
they be immersed ? Either in a state of nudity, or in
their ordinary garments. Decency would forbid the for-
mer, and a due regard to health the latter.
The Scriptural mode of baptism is such as can be prac-
tised in all seasons, in all climates, in all countries, on all
persons, at all times, in all places, in all conditions, and
under all circumstances. But this cannot be said of im-
mersion, which is often impracticable, indecent, dangerous,
and impossible. It cannot therefore be the Scriptural
mode of baptism.
43
JOHN BAPTIZING AT ;ENON.
John 3:23-— "And John also was baptizing in ^non,
near to Salim, because there was much water there." Wliy,
say the Baptists, should John choose such a place " because
there was Tnuch water there,'' if it was not for the purpose
of dipping ? No one will deny that the " much water " of
this passage has been of immense service to the immer-
sionists during the past two hundred years. They have
rung the changes upon the " much water " until many of
the more ignorant of them regard this as the great thing
in religion, and think more of the river than of the cross.
It does not, however, require very great labour to let some
of the water escape.
While the translators of the Eevised Version still tolcviite
the old reading of tliis passage, they are careful to point out
in the margin that the Greek {vSara TroUd) means " many
waters." Any one who knows even the rudiments of ( J reel:
Grammar knows that " polla " is a word of number and
not of quantity. This is evident even from its meaning
in English composition ; e.g., poly vesia (not much island,
but many islands) and about one hundred and fifty other
English words in which 2'^oJla is found in composition.
Tischendorf, the ackn^nvledged prince of Biblical critics,
translates the passaged into the following Lntin words,
" Quia> aquoe multce erant illic " (because many waters
were there). The expression " polla hndifta" occurs fifteen
times in the Scriptures, and this is the only place where
it is rendered "much water." In all the other fouiteen
instances it is rendered " many waters." The New Testa-
ment instances are Rev. 1:15; 14 : 2 ; 17 : 1 ; 19:6. and
the text. That " hudata," rendered water, means springs,
is capable of demonstration, and will not be denied by
any scholar.
The name JEnon, I may observe, is a Chaldee word, sig-
nifying " a place of springs." Dr. Robinson, who travelled
extensively in the east and who visited this very spot, says
of it, " the place is about six miles north-east of Jerusalem.
!
il
!|ll
'!i;:
id Christ the great example lead
In Jordan's swelling flood i "
What proof is there that Christ's baptism was by im-
mersion ? None — none whatever. We hn.ve aln-ady said
enou^cjh of John's baptism to shew the stronocst probabil-
ity that it was administered by spnnldiihj. '• but,"
cries a Baptist, " He came up out of the initer." That, I
I reply, is not coming from under the water. Besides, if
He had been immersed He would require to have been
taken out of the water, instead of coming out of it by his
own action.
Would not these words he quite appropriate to describe
our Lord's baptism if He had only stepped a little distance
into the river, and then John liad taken up water and
poured or sprinkled it on Him, according to the mode
which we lind represented on the most ancient Christian
monuments. (See plate 1.)
But the language of the original implies nothing more
than that our Lord went down to the banks of the Jordan,
and after his baptism came up from the water's edge. The
preposition in Mark 1 : 9, and translated in, is eis, and in
not a few instances it would make an absurdity to trans-
late it by in or into. In the Septuagint, 2 Kings, 2 : 6,
we read, "The Lord hath sent me to (eis) tlie Jordan."
*' They came," we read, " unto (eis) the Jordan." The eifi
brouo'ht them to the banks but not into the river, much
less under it. Elisha and the sons of the prophets surely
did not go into or under the waters of the Jordan to fell
trees. In 1 Kings, 1 : 33, 38, 45, we read that Solomon
was anointed eis Gihon (a river, 2 Chr 32 : 80 ; 33 : 14) ;
and in Mark 1 : 9, we read that Jesus v/as baptized eis ton
Jordanen (a river). No one will say that the anointing
was by " immersion " (I Kings 1 : 30) ; why then contend
that the baptism must have been by immersion when it is
precisely the same form of expression that is used ? In
ii
( '
i:ii
:[!■
h
1
ti
' t
iii^! ■■
46
11 .'I
\4 ■
both cases the persons were "at" or "near" the stream,
but there is not a word to indicate that they were under
it.
The Greek word in Matt. 3 : 16, translated "out of* is
apOj and primarily signifies from. It is found in the
seventh verse of this chapter, and is there translated /rom,
" Flee from the wrath to come." It occurs in Matthew's
Gospel just one hundred and nine times, and is rendered
sixty -Jive times /rom and only ten times out of.
Dr. Carson, with all his love to the nothing-but-dip
theory, says on this verse, " I admit that the proper trans-
lation of apo is from, not out of, and that it would have
its meaning fully verified if they had only gone down to
the edge of the water" (p. 200.) That its usual meaning
is not given to it in Matt. 3 : 1(5, shews the strong partial-
ity of the King's translators to immersion. Even the
Baptist Bible Revision Committee, and 7Jr. Conant at the
head of it, translates it from. No scholar to-day will
deny that the proper translation is, " And Jesus when He
was baptized went up straightway /rom the water"
Here are some passages in which the same verb and
preposition occur in the Greek :
Luke 2 : 4 — " And Joseph also went up from Galilee."
Did he emerge from under the soil of Galilee ?
Song 3 : 6 — " Who is she coming up from the wilder-
ness ?" Did the spouse emerge or ascend from under the
sands of the desert ?
Gen. 17:12 — "And God went up from Abraham."
Comment is here unnecessary.
John 11 : 55 — '' And many went out of the country up
to Jerusalem." Did they emerge out of the earth ?
In view of all this the reader can easily judge the des-
perate resort to which immersionists are driven when
they maintain that Christ was immersed, and fill their
hymn-books with gushing effusions about "the holy
stream," " the swelling flood," " the sacred wave," and the
Redeemer " bowing his head " beneath these.
This " proof-text," like all its predecessors, declines to
"'';!
47
do service for the " Theory." N«xy, it testifies very clear! v
against it, and points us to another mode of baptism, in
which the baptizing element comes upon the ])erson bap-
tized, as practised by nine-tentlis of the CliristianChureh
to-day. For, in addition to what we have already said,
let it be observed that, after being baptized with water
by John, our Lord was bai)tized with the Holy Ghost by
God. But how ? In what raode ? Let the Word of
God tell us. " The Spirit of God descended like a dove
— the symbol of purity — and ligJded upon him." And
Luke says, in Acts 10 : 38 — " God anointed Jesus of Naz-
areth with the Holy Ghost." Anointing was performed,
not by dipping the person into oil, but by pouring or
sprinkling the oil upon the person.
Christ was baptized with water by John, and with the
Holy Ghost by God, but we read nothing of immersion in
his case.
THE BAPTISM OP THE ETHIOPIAN EUNUCH.
Acts 8:38, 39 — 'And they went down both into the
water, both Philip and the eunuch ; and he baptized him ;
and when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit
of the Lord caught away Philip." The Baptists regard
this as their sheet-anchor in the controversy. Dr. Carson
says, " Had I no more conscience than Satan himself, I
could not as a scholar attempt to expel immersion from
this account." This, like a good deal more on the same
side of the question, is a strong statement but a weak
argument.
Where is the evidence that the eunuch was dipped ?
** Why," cries the Baptist, " he went with Philip into the
water and came out ao^ain." But is not such reasoninf]:
trifling with common sense ? Do not thousands go into
the water and come out again without going under the
water ? Is it not said that Philip went into the water
and came out of it as well as the eunuch ? They " both "
went. If then the prepositions prove that the eunuch
was immersed they prove also that Philip was immersed.
'
i:|
III' '<')i
I
'■I ,11
'f jH
48
Observe also that the eunuch came out of the water,
whereas if he had been clipped Philip would require to
have taken him out. He aUo went on his way rrjoicivg,
which he scarcely could have done if he had gone with
dripping garments.
Kveiy scholar knows also that the Greek words hero
translated, respectively, "into" and "out of," may bo
rendered in equal harmony with the original "tj" and
"fruni." Indeed the word eis, rendered into, occurs
eleven times in this very chapter, and this is the only
case where it is translated into. The following are a few
instances, out of many, where it must mean to and cannot
mean into :
Matt. 17:27— "Go thou (els) to the sea." Did the
Saviour mean that Peter should plunge himself into the
sea?
John 11:38 — "Jesus therefore cometh (eis) to the
tomb " of Lazarus, not into the tomb.
John 20 : 4, 5 — " So tliey ran both together (Peter and
John), and tliat other disciple did outrun Peter, and came
first {eis) to the sepulchre." Did he go into the sepul-
chre ? What says the Word of God ? " Yet went he "not
in" He went (eis) to the grave, but yet he went not
into it. And so we may read of Philip and the eunuch,
" They both went down (eis) to the water, yet went they
not into it."
We may observe that this preposition eis is translated,
in our New Testament, no less than five hundred and
thirty times by to or unto.
The other pre j position translated " out of," is eh. It oc-
curs in the single form as in this passage, no less than
sixty-four times in the Acts of the Apostles. And how
often, think you, is it translated "out of ?" Only ^I'ye
times, and one of these is the case before us ! This will
shew how much truth there is in the oft-repeated Baptist
statement that the translators were favourable to sprink-
ling and opposed to dipping. A most unusual meaning is
given to the word in order to countenance as far as pos-
49
'^
Bible the (trine) immersion theory, without actually com-
mitting themselves to it.
The preposition ek is translated in our New Testament
one hundred and eighty-six times by from. The follow-
ing are a few passages where it must mean from and caii-
not be rendered out of .
Romans 1 : 27 — " Herein is the righteousness of God re-
vealed, {eh) from faith to faith." What sense would out
of make here ?
Matt. 12 : 23 — "The tree is known (eh) from its fruits."
Who would render it out of its fruits ?
John 10 : 22 — " Many good works have I shewn you
(eh) from my Father." Not out of my Father.
Immersionists, instead of dwelling upon unusual or
doubtful translations to sustain tlioir tottciiing theory, would
do well to follow a better way. If they will examine their
Bibles they will see that the eunuch was on this occasion
reading a passage of Isaiah (there was no division into
chapters and verses then), in which it is predicted of
Christ, among other things, that " He shall sprinkle many
nations!* As Philip was explaining this scripture to him
they came to a certain water, and the eunuch said, " See !
water (the words indicate that the quantity was small,
and that Philip was likely to pass it by unnoticed), what
doth hinder me to be baptized {i.e., sprinkled), since this
great Saviour has come who was to sprinkle many nations,
and I am one of those He was to sprinkle ? " The reader
can now judge if this is a clear case of immersion. And
yet this passage immersionists themselves claim as their
strongest proof-text ! Well may the learned Robert Young,
LL.D., say : " I really do not know any heresy (which
word I use in its proper original sense, i. e., 'o))inion') in
the Christian Church that has less to base itself on than
that of Immersion, yet its advocates are using the most
reckless statements, which have gained ground among
critics and lexicographers — who generally follow each
other like a flock of sheep — entirely by the boldness of
the ass^^rtion."
:^l:
tl"
60
We come now to the examination of
80MB FIGURATIVE EXPRESSIONS CONCERNING SPIRITUAL
BAPTISM.
Two passages in the writings of the Apostle Paul have
been strangel^y and strenuously pressed to do service for
immersion. The passages are Romans : 3, 4, " 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 iniv-^ death, that like as Christ was
raised up from the dead, by the glory of the Father, even
so we also should walk in newness of life " ; and in Col.
2 : 12, we have a similar expression, " Buried with Him in
baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him through the
faith of the operation of God." Baptists say that these
passages clearly teach us that baptism is equivalent to
immersion — that as burial and resurrection are a going
down into the earth and coming out of it, so ba' sm is a
going down into the water and coming out of i . .e per-
son being completely covered according to the one figure
by earth, and according to the other by water.
This interpretation is commonly called the "burial
theory." It was never heard of till after the Council of
[Nice, in A.D. 325, and it was adopted by the Church of
Rome as a prop for the immersion theory. The ancient
Waldenses never accepted it. The first mention we find
of it is in those popish documents called " Apostolic (?)
Constitutions," Bk. 3, sec. 2 ; and its superstitious associa-
tions clearly indicate its Romish origin. Here are the
words employed: — "The water is used instead of the
sepulchre, the oil instead of the Holy Ghost, the seal in-
stead of the Cross, the anointment is instead of the Con-
firmation, the dipping into luater (katadusis, not baptizo)
is the dying with Christ, and the rising out of the ivater
(anadusis) is the rising again with Him." So says
Rome, and so practise the immersionists.
The best scholars during and since the Reformation
have repudiated the Romish and Baptist interpretation of
^
51
Romans 6 : 3-5; and Col. 2 : 12. Melancbhon, the most
learned and accurate Greek scholar of the sixteenth cen-
tury, utterly rejected it. So also did Matthew Henry and I )r.
Thomas Scott, the most devout and popular Commenta-
tors on the New Testament since the Apostolic aL,^e. 8o
also did Dr. Charles Hodge, of Princeton, U.S., the most
learned, judicious, and profound theoloi^qan and connnen-
tator to be found on two continents, in the ninctcontli ct'n-
tury. Indeed, candid Baptist scholars, such as Dr. Judson,
the great Baptist missionary, and Robinson, the learned
Baptist historian, frankly admit that these passages are
misapplied when used as evidence of the mode of bnptism.
Rev. Isaac Errett, Cincinnati, and Prof. J. G. Fee, of
Kentucky, both strong immersionists, deny any reference
in these passages to outward physical water baptism. We
are not disposed to settle a question of faith like this, by
a citation of authorities but as Baptists seem particularly
fond of this mode of settling disputed points, and some of
their books contain little else than an ostentatious parade
of names, we give the above to shew how easy it is to
produce names, and those of good men and eminent
scholars, on both sides of most questions. And we under-
take to increase the above list by scores, if necessary.
A careful examination of these passages will, we believe,
convince most readers that the apostle is not here refer-
ring to water baptism, but to the baptism of the Holy
Ghost.
1. The Romish theory adopted by the Baptists, that
baptism is a burial, is founded on an entire mis-
conception of the mode of burial practised in the East.
We bury our dead under the earth, and this, by a stretch
of the fancy, may be conceived as something like putting
a person under water; but there was no such custom
known to the Apostles or those to whom they preached or
wrote. The Greeks and Romans who were numerous in
Judea, and almost the sole inhabitants in the other coun-
tries where the Apostles laboured, always burned the
dead bodies of their friends, and collected the ashes and
:■}
'\
t /
i
52
bones that remained into an urn. Such a burial had
surely no resemblance to a dipping in water. And so
also with the mode of burial practised by the Jews. It
had not the most distant resemblance to dipping. How
was Christ buried ? Not in our manner, by being put
into a coffin, and covered up with ea; fch, but by being
carried into a cave cut out of the face of a perpen-
dicular rock, and laid on a niche in the wall. Many such
tombs are still to be seen around Jerusalem. If four men
took up a dead body, carried it into a room, and laid it
on a table, would there be any likeness between that and
immersion ? Yet just this was the burial of Christ.
Neither Paul, nor any Jew or Gentile of his time coi;ld
perceive any resemblance between the dipping of €, per-
son in water and a burial.
2. The Komish and Baptist theory very conveniently
overlooks the fact that the Apostle does not say that
burial is baptism, or that baptism is burial. He says,
" We are buried with Him by (dia) baptism into (eis) his
death." Here observe that the burial and the baptism
are not the same as immersionists make them, but the
" baptism " is the cause, and the word " buried " describes
the effect; and unless a cause and its effects must resemble
each other in respect to mode, it cannot be conluded from
these scriptures that there is any resemblance between
baptism and a burial. If a man buries with a spade,
the spade does not become the burial, nor has it any
necessary resemblance to the mode of the burial. Yet
this absurdity the Romanists and Baptists would force
upon the Word of God by confounding the baptism here
spoken of with the burial.
3. The popish inventors and first propagators of the
" burial theory," and its ablest defenders for sixteen hun-
dred years, taught explicitly that " emersion " (taking out
of the water) was as much a part of the act of baptism as
immersion (putting into the water). Such Romish
writers as Basil, Cyril, Chrysostom, Gregory Naz. Pho-
tius, Theophylact (see Conant, pp. 102-110), distinctly af-
¥:
53
^fl
firmed that " taking out of the water" was as certainly
a part of the word "hvptizo " as " the putting in."
So also with later writers: "In Scriptural l>.Tptism
there is a literal going down into the water, and there is
a literal rising up from the water." — Ingham, p. 252.
"To emerge out of the water is like a birtb." — Carson,
p. 476. " The external act of baptism is a symbol of the
burying of the old man, and the rising u|) of the new
man." — Christian Quarterly, July, 1872, ]). 4()o. Quota-
tions might be multiplied to any extent. Since the pub-
lication of Dr. Dale's " Classic Baptism " Baptists have
abandoned their old position, and now they tell us that haj)-
tizo never takes out of the water what it puts in. In
other words, the taking out of the water is no pait of the
act commanded by God. Dr. Conant in " Baptizein," p.
88, says, " The idea of emersion is not included in the
meaning of the Greek word." Dr. Kindri<^k, of Rochester,
N.Y., (in th3 Baptist Quarterly of April, 1809,) affirms
that " It is not a dipping that our Lord instituted. He
did not command to put people into the water and take
them out again, but to put them under the water." This
same position has been adopted by all the lesser lights in
the Baptist communities of this country.
It seems to me that this torced acknowledgment that
baptizo never takes any person or thing out of the water,
is most fatal to the Baptist theory. For if the withdraw-
ing from the water be a mere act of humanity and not a
part of the act of baptism, what, we would ask, is there
in Christian baptism to play the part of " birth from a
womb," or " resurrection from a grave," of which Baptists
talk so much. And why will Baptists go on adding to
the Word of God by interpreting a resurrection into the
taking out, when they themselves now acknowledge that
God no longer commands a taking out of the water ?
Baptists, on their own confession, have now nothing
left but the " burial " of their people in their " liquid
graves," with no hope of a resurrection till the Judgment
day. Eov more than two hundred years Baptists have
; M
I i
I: !ii
;i
■ \-\
lii't
I :.:
ill V
54
been declaring that if God spoke the truth haptizo meant
" dip and nothing but dip " — that is, to put into the water
and immediately withdraw. And right stoutly they
charged all who did not adopt their theory as " living in
wilful disobedience to a command of God." And now
they acknowledge that they were wrong all this time, and
they say that if God speaks the truth haptizo does not in-
clude "emersion," or a taking out of the water ; and they are
as brave as ever in charging all who do not embrace the
new theory with " wilful disobedience to a divine com-
mand." Most persons will, however, conclude that if
haptizo means putting into the water and leaving there,
it cannot be the act commanded by Christ, for Christ
never commanded one man to drown another.
4. In Rom. 6 : 3, 4, and in Col. 2 : 12, there is no refer-
ence whatever to water baptism, but to the baptism of the
Spirit. " Know ye not," says the Apostle, " that so many
of us as were haptized into Jesus Christ were baptized
into his death." Now, I ask, can a man be baptized by
water into Jesus Christ 1 Will Baptists knowingly bap-
tize a man who is out of Jesus Christ ; and if they do,
will that make him in Jesus Christ ? It will be admitted
that water baptism, whatever the mode, cannot baptize
into Jesus Christ, but the Holy Spirit can. "By one
Spirit are we all baptized into one body" (1 Cor. 12:13).
The believer is one with Christ, so that what Christ did
the believer did, what Christ suffered the believer suffer-
ed. By the baptism of the Spirit, the believer is so united
to Christ, that when Christ was crucified the believer was
crucified with Him (Gal. 2 : 20 ; Rom. 6:6); when Christ
was dead the believer was dead with Him (Rom. 6:8);
when Christ was buried the believer was buried with Him
(Rom. 6 : 4). So when Christ was quickened, raised, glori-
fied, the believer was quickened, raised, glorified with Him
(Eph. 2: 5,6; Rom. 8:17). The believer, united to Christ by
a living faith, is viewed from a divine standpoint, as identi-
fied with the Lord in all He did and suffered in behalf of his
people. Such a one, the Apostle reasons, cannot live in
!li
65
sin for he is a new creature. This reasoning is clear and
logical, and worthy of Paul. But how would it sound to
hear the Apostle reasoning after the Baptist fashion, that
believers could not live in sin because they had been im-
mersed ? Simon Masjus was duly baptized with water
(according to Baptists, immersed), but did he therefore
rise to "newness of life?" '•' li:," says Prof. With erow,
" Paul is here speaking of water-baptism, h*^ was one of
the weakest reasoners that ever tried his hand at logic."
The baptism oi which Paul speaks is tliat which produces
in believers a death unto sin, or a change from sin to
holiness, but the baptism of the Holy Ghost alone and
not water-baptism, can do this. To be consistent with
their interpretation of these passages all immersionists
should hold the soul -destroying doctrine of '' Baptismal
Regeneration." Many ot them do hold it. Bede, as
quoted by Cramp (Catechism, p. 2G), says of a person im-
mersed, " He descends a child of wrath, but he ascends ;i
child of mercy , he descends a child of the devil, but he
ascends a child of God." Campbell, the founder of the-
Campbellites, says : " So significant and so expressive,
that when the baptized believer rises out of the water, is
born of water, enters the world a second time, he enter-^
it as innocent, as clean, as unspotted as an angel."
Thus far we have examined the Old Testament and the
New, but we have not been able to discover a single case
of immersion that will stand the slightest examination.
The passages we have examined, although some of them
are not unfrequently called "proof-texts" by Baptists,
have all been found to repudiate the service wjiich Bap-
tists require of them.
As to other cases of Scripture ba]>tisra, Baptists act on
tho principle tliat the less said about them the better for
immersion. They all indicate very clearly some other
mode than immersion. The baptism of Paul by Ananias
(Acts 9: 17, 18; 22: 12-lG) was in the solitary c^hambor
where the penitent man was fasting and praying, and
was received standing. The baptism of Corneliu,^ anri
^.f
PPM
PiPH
■M
56
hi.s family (Acts 10 : 43-4S) was administered in the Cen-
turion's uwn house, upon the descent of the Holy Ghost,
the Apostle saying, •' Can ^ny man forbid wator," i.e.,
that it should be brought. The baptism of the jailer
and his I'.ousehold at Philippi (Acts .l5:;32-44) was at
the dca-d hour or night and in a jail, and by one ot his
prisoners — at a time, and in a place and by a person,
which forl^aJ'j the use of other mode than that of sprmk-
ling or pouring. Every one of these ic stances is strong
evidence ao'ainst immersion.
Seeing Uien that T-ho Bible knows nothing of immer-
sion, wiiere, it may be asked, are we to look for its
origin? I reply, just in the same fertile Romish brains
that, as we have sven, invented the " burial theoiy.*'
Fidlen humanity has always been disposed to exalt the
outward and ritualistic in religion, at the expense of the
inward and spiritna.1. And Rome, that niother of abomi-
nations, has never hesitated to gratify this disposition, by
adding to, or taking from, the Word of God. We know
how very soon after the time of the Apostles the ordinance
of the Supper was perverted, till, instead of being a symbol
feast as Christ desiGfnt.'d it it came to be reijaided as a
real sacrifice, in which the " body and blood " were really
and physically present. Every essential principle and
fundamental doctrine of what is now called popeiy, ori-
ginated and made considerable progress during the second
and third centuries. The doctrine of the '' Invocation of
th(; Saints," *' Baptismal Regeneration," " That there is no
Salvation out of the Visible Church," "Purgatory," "The
Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome," " That the Supper was
a Vicarious Sacrifice," "The Virtue of Work of Penance
and Supererogation," etc., etc., can all be found in germ or
fully fledged before the end of the third century. Dip-
ping into Ava'tcr for baptism grew out of a perversion of
the ordinance from its original symbolic design into a
real spiritual cleansing. It came to be believed that just
as the " body and blood of Christ " were really and phy-
sically present in the supper, so the Spirit was really,
I 'i^i-
57
though mysteriously, present in the water, so that it
cleansed from sin. Theie was what was called a "vis bap-
tismatis" in the water which, applied to the body, r3ached
to tlie soul, and cleansed it from all past sins. It there-
fore became the ;:;'oncral practice to immerse both infants
and adults, males ar.d females, in a state ol entire nudity,
because it was i'(',;i.rod that their garments might prevent
the watei' from reaclnng every part of the body, and thus
the regencraiion would be imperfect.
The very lirst distinct, mention of dipping, as a mode
of baptism, is l)y TertuUian, who lived about the beginning
of the third century, and he mentions it as associated with
such Romish practices as those indicated above, — " in a
nude state " — for the purpose of " washing away the sins
of the soul," accompanied by the " sign of the ci-oss,"
" anointing with oil," " blessing the water/' etc. ; and Ter-
tuUian himself acknowledges that all these (dipping in-
cluded) are '' based on tradition, and are destitute of
scriptural authority." (See " De Corona Militis," chaps.
3 and 4.)
Baptists are fond of claiming the practice of the early
centuries as wholly in their favour. But if they take
this as authority foi* immersion they must take the other
superstitions mentioned above along with it. There is the
very same evidence in favour of immersing, divested of
all clothing, and accompanied with numerous Eomish
rites, that there is for immersing at all ; so that tliese
practices must stand or fall together. Robinson, a Baptist
historian, speaking of the nude baptisms of the ancients,
says, '* There is no historical fact better authenticated
than this."
It took a great deal more than dipping into water to
constitute baptism in the estimation of " the ancients," to
whose practice Baptists are constantly ap]iealing as au-
thority. *' Tell us," says Dr. Dale in " Christie Baptism,"
p. 24, " of one man who, during a thousand years after
the institution of baptism, wrote or said, or believed, that
dipping into water was Christian baptism?" "To dip,"
t
58
¥\&
i'M
l!
was in the estimation of these persons, only a small part
of the meaning of baptizo. Nor was the dipping practised
by Rome and the Eastern churches required to be total.
The head was not necessarily put under the water, and
frequently there were severe laws against so doing. This
dipping would not therefore be lecoi^nized by modern
Baptists as baptism at all. Where then is ^'te sense or
honesty of appealing to it as precedent and authority ?
Dipping, as now practised by Baptists, Tunkards,
Campbellites, Mormons, etc., cannot be traced further
back in the histv)ry of the past than September 12th,
1633, when John Spilesberry and a few others began the
first regular Baptist church on earth — and the first
exclusive dip jjers on eirth.. Prior to that date, immersion
was regarded only as a mode, not the only Tnode of bap-
tism. The theory of exclusive immersion is a modern
novelty, it thrusts " much water " between the soul and
Christ, and its tendency is to make its advocates bitter
and intolerant.
It ought here to be mentioned that the Waldenses of Pied-
mont, those pure Apostolic churches that never became
corrupted with the abominations of Rome, always bap-
tized in the scriptural wa}^ by sprinkling : — (1) They
say so in so many words. (2) They put down dipping
as among the superstitions of Rome. (See Perrin, ch. 3, p.
231.) (3) No trace of the "burial theory" can be found
in their writings, but their Confessions make baptism an
external sign of internal grace — the sprinkling of the soul
by the blood of Christ, (4) It was through the influence
of these pure Apostolic churches that Rome, during the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries, was compelled to aban-
don her heathenish dipping, and come back to the scrip-
tural mode of baptism, by affusion or sprinkling.
There is no baptism by immersion in the Bible, nor
in any ancient version of the Bible — not one case.
From Genesis to Revelation, there is no example, pre-
cept or luarrant for plunging people into water and calling
that baptism. God never, so far as the record tells us
T '• ■,:
1:"--
69
commanded one man to put another into and under
water for any religious purpose whatever. It has pleased
Him in his wisdom and grace to appoint pure water as
the element, by the application of which to the person, is
set forth the spiritually cleansing power of the blood of
Christ applied to the soul by the Holy Ghost, who regen-
erates and gives repentance and faith. Additions have
in late times been made to this simple, clear, and precious
teaching of the V/ord of God ; but God's revelation was
finished eighteen hundred years ago, and if any one thinks
that He has had a dream, or a vision, or a revelation, in
these last times, which He would add to our Bible, our
answer is, God has left no room in our Bible for the com-
mandrnents of men. Shew us one word, in any neglected
corner of our Bible, which God has spoken as to the use
of water in baptism beyond that of a symbol of the spirit-
ual purification of the soul by the blood of sprinkling,
and we will engrave it in gold, and write it as a frontlet
between our eyes, but until then we shall be satisfied with
the Word of God as He has given it, willing to endure
the questioning of ou. Christianity, the denial of our sac-
ramental rights, and our assignment to a lower place in
the kingdom of heaven. Nevertheless, the foundation
of God standeth sure, having this seal, " The Lord know-
eth them that are his"
i
I:'
'! 1
'■m
IMMEESIONISTS
SHEWN TO BE
DISREGARDING DIVINE AUTHORITY
m
BEFUSINC E/LPTISM TO THE INFANT CHILDREN OF BELIEVERS.
PART II.
SECTION I.
The question, "To whom is baptism to be administered?*'
is one of the very greatest importance. It concerns the
"little ones," whom the Saviour so tenderly loves. It
concerns every Christian parent who wishes to know
whether his children, over whom his heart yearns with
so much anxiety, are provided for in the covenant of his
God and have a right to the privileges of the visible
Church, or whether they must be regarded, even by their
own parents, in no other light than as heathens and pub-
licans, aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and
strangers to the covenant c " promise. This question in-
timately concerns every professed follower of Christ on
earth, for the constitution and character of the visible
church are determined very much by the answer.
It will greatly facilitate our inquiry if we endeavour
at the very outset to ascertain how far all Christians are
agreed as to who are proper subjects of Christian baptism.
We can then lay aside our points of agreement and fix
our attention upon those on which Baptists differ from
Christians generally.
■ ,,»,-
'I;?.''.
'•(
i* f
I'
ii
62
I'lfe:-
We observe, then, all evangelical Christians are agreed
that adults, who have not been baptized in their infancy,
ought to bo baptized upon their making a creditable
profession of faith and obedience. The Westminster
Catechism teaches that "baptism is not to be administered
to any that are out of the visible Church till they profess
their faith in Christ and obedience to Him." This is the
doctrine not of Presbyterians alone, but of Methodists,
Episcopalians, Congregationalists, as well as of Baptists.
We all alike say to such persons^ "Repent and be bap-
tized." There is no difference of opinion here. All who
acknowledge the ordinance as binding at all, are perfectly
agreed. It is very necessary to remember this, for Bap-
tists not unfrequcntly speak and write as if they alone
maintained adult or believer baptism. And having thus
stated the question, they proceed to bring forward
the numerous cases of adult baptisms, recorded in the
New Testament, as so much evidence for them and
against us.
But this is exceedingly dishonest. Every case of adult
baptism in the new Testament is a case where we, as
well as Baptists, would baptize. Every case in the New
Testament where a profession of faith is required, as a
pre-requisite to baptism, is a case were we would require
a profession of faith. The apostles were publishing the
Gospel and erecting churches where they had never pre-
viously existed, and in such cases they naturally baptized
many adults on making a profession of faith in Christ:
and are not our missionaries, in heathen countries, doing
the same at this day ? Yet this prevents them not, in the
case of a parent being received, from baptizing his
children along with him. And do not ministers of all
denominations at home baptize believing adults who were
not baptized in their intar^r? Baptists might just as
consistently reason that because Presbyterians, Method-
ists, and others baptize believing adults, therefore they
never baptize infants, as to argue that because the apos-
tles baptized adults, they did not also baptize infants.
06
J'
ist:
Proving adulfc baptism is simply proving what no one
ever denied.
The question in dispute between Baptists and other
Christians is not, "Ought adults ever to be baptized,"
but, "Ought the infant children of believers to be bap-
tized?" Baptists contend that baptism cannot be law-
fully administered to any but adult believers. On the
other hand, the great mass of professing Oliristians have,
in all ages, maintained, and do now hold, that believers
are entitled to this ordinance both for themselves and
their children. Or to put the same thing in other words,
Baptists contend that children have no right to baptism,
while we believe that it is their God-fjiven ricfht and
privilege; and that it is our duty to bring our infant
seed, in the arms of faith and love, and present them be-
fore the Lord in this blessed ordinance.
Baptism is both a sign and a seal. As a sign, it
signiiies "the washing of regeneration," or that cleansing
which is effected upon the soul by the Holy Ghost, and
through the blood of Christ, which is the "blood of
sprinkling." This blessing we and our children equally
and indispensably need. As a seal, baptism binds both
the promises and conditions of the covenant of grace.
On God's part it is a visible pledge, confirming the
promises he has graciously made to his people and their
offspring. On our part it is a pledge or seal by which
we bind ourselves, or are bound, to the service of God.
It does not constitute church niembcirship, but it is an
acknowledgm'nt or recognition that the person baptized,
infant or adult, belongs to the number of God's covenant
people. It does not introduce the child of the believer
into the visible Church, but it is to him a sii^n and seal of
covenant blessings and duties implied in his church-
membership.
Let these considerations concerning tho nature of bap-
tism be clearly borne in mind and then the reader will be
prepaied to accompany us, as we proceed tu shew why
we believe that the infant children of God's professing
people should be baptize
Git
]' I'*
'■'it!
CHILDREN HAVE ALWAYS BEEN A PART OP GOD'S CHUROH.
God has in his Church, fi'om the hcf^inning, included
the children in his covenant with the parents; and He has
recognized tlieiu as members of his Church hy the same
religious rite that was ajhninistered to their parents.
The word ekJdesia {iKK\r]rr\a) sii^aiifies the "called out
from " — called out from what ? From the apostate, cor-
rupt, lost race of man, And we find that whenever God
" called out " parents he has also invariably called out their
children with them for his service and worship. He
claims the children of his people as his " heritage." (Ps.
127:3.) Children are particularly specified in the coven-
ant which God made with Abraham, " I will establish my
covenant between me and thee anrl thv seed after thee
in their generations, for an everlasting covenant to be a
God unto thee, and to thy seed, after tliee." (Gen. 17:7.)
God dealt fUvouvably with the children of Lot for their
father's sake. (Gen. 19: 12.)
In speaking to Noah God said, "Come thou arul all thy
house into the ark, for thee have 1 seen righteous" (Gen,
7:1). Mark the words, — "Thee have J seen righteous;"
therefore come, not only tl;ou, but all thy house.
"The Cliurch in the wilderness" consisted of six hun-
dred fchoijsand men besides women and chiUlren. (Acts
7:38, Num. 1:46.)
Children are mentioned in the renewal of the Church's
covenant engagements just befbr(i the death of Moses.
In strains of fervid jiathos, tha,t man of God, on tlie bor-
ders of Canaan and of eternity, thus addressed the as-
sembled tribes of Israel, " Ye .stand this day all of you
before the Lord your God ; your captnins . . your
little ones . , your wives . . that thou shoiddst
enter into covenant ivith the Lord thy God and into his
oath, which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this
day" (Deut, 29:10-13). " The captain-, .Iders. and offi-
cers were all there, — the wives, and strangeiv ni- pi*«>selytes
formed part of the vast congregation. Jlut were tho
'I-
65
il
ch's
OSes,
bor-
le as-
you
your
dcUt
Ids
this
offi-
ytes
\ho
children excluded ? Baptists would say they could not
understand, they could not tell what a covenant was, and
even if they did assent to its conditions, no dependence
could be placed on the promises of sucli"liltle ones."
But Baptist notions and Bible truths are two very diifer-
eut things. The *' little ones " are here expressly men-
tioned as a portion of God\s protessinG^ people, and com-
prehended in the terms of the covenant. These little
ones belonged to the kingdom of heaven, and their title
to a place in th(3 covenant and in God's sanctuary was as
valid as that of Moses himself.
When God commanded his Church to be cfathered to-
gether the children were included ; — " Gather the people,
sanctify the Church (Gr. chlde.nan), assemble the elders,
gather the ch'Udren and those that suck the breasts" (Joel
2:16). All these classes, we learn from ver. 17, belong to
the heritage of the Lord, and were therefore embraced in
the covenant.
And so also in the time of Jehoshaphat, " All Judah
stood before the Lord, with their little ones, their wives,
and their children'* (2 Chron. 20 13). From Abraham to
Christ, no case occurs of parents joined to the Lord in
covenant, and their children, as such, excluded from that
sacred relation. The man who can read his Bible, and
fail to see that the infant offs[)ring of God's believing
people constituted a component and indispensable part of
the Church of God under the former dispensation, must
be in bondage to a preconceived theory of his own, and
blinded by prejudice.
THE CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP OP CHILDREN HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED
BY AN EXTERNAL RITE.
Having seen that God has in his Church, from the be-
ginning, included the children in his covenant with the
parents, we are prepared to advance to the second part of
our proposition, viz., that God has recognized thet^e chil-
dren as members of his Church by the same religious rite
that was administered to their parents. That rite, under
[.■
1 '
mm
■r
' 1 ■<(rf ,■■ I
i I
66
the old dispensation was circumcision, which was admin-
istered to every male child when eight days old. " This
is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you,
and thy seed after thee ; every man child among you shall
be circumcised" (Gen. 17:10). "And Abraham circum-
cised his son Isaac, being eight days old, as God had com-
manded him" (Gen. 21 : 4).
Circumcision was not, as Baptists sometimes tell us, a
ceremonial observance. Like the Sabbath, it was insti-
tuted ages before the ceremonial law was given to Moses.
It originated, as we have just seen, in the family of
Abraham, who is expressly declared to be "the father of
all them that believe," whether Jew or Gentile, Circum-
cision was spiritual in its nature, and was connected with a
covenant, which, though it guaranteed temporal benefits
to the descendants of Abraham, mainly held out to the
faithful spiritual blessings. We have already seen that
under the Gospel dispensation baptism is both a sign and
seal ; as a sign, representing the regenerating, cleansing
work of God's Spirit upon the heart ; and as a seal,
confirming both the promises and conditions of the
covenant of grace. And just this circumcision was
under the former dispensation. The inspired apostle,
exalting it far above a mere temporary ratification to a
spiritual and significant symbol, tells us that Abraham
"received the sign of circumcision, a sea? of the righteous-
ness of the faith which he had while he was uncircum-
cised " (Rom. 4:11). Here then circumcision was a sign.
Like baptism, it represented the circumcision of the
heart, or regeneration. For the real "circumcision," says
Paul again, "is of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the
letter, whose praise is not of men but of God " (Rom.
2:29). It was also, like baptism, a seal. It testified to
"the righteousness of the faith which he had," and to his
acceptance of the conditions of that everlasting covenant
in which Jehovah Jesus said to him, " I will be a God to
thee and thy seed after thee."
Baptism and circumcision are, therefore, of the same
67
1. i-
'I ;
general import, both being divinely appointed signs and
seals of the s<.me great covenant promises and obligations,
and of the same great truth of the necessity of the
Spirit's work upon the soul. The Apostle Paul speaks of
baptism being substituted for circumcision, — "Beware,"
he says, "of the concision; for we" — we who have been
baptized — "are the circumcision, who worship God in the
spirit " (Phil. 3 : 2, 3). Again, "Ye are circumcised wHh
the circumcision made without hands, in putting o^i tae
body of the sins of the flesh by the Christian ci»''uin-
cision, buried with Him in baptism " (Col. 2:11,12). In
other words, those who are baptized have what Paul in
this passage calls Christian circumcision.
We say, then, that what circumcision was under the
Old Testament, baptism is under the New Testament.
But circumcision, as all acknowledge, w\*\s administered
not only to believing parents, but to their children also.
And we reason the same, therefore, concerning baptism.
And no objection can be advanced against the baptism of
infants, which might not, with equal force, have been
brought ao^ainst their circumcision.
Is it any wonder that those who not only neglect and
ignore, but repudiate and sneer at this public recognition
of the Lord's claim upon their children, many times find,
by sad and painful experience, that they have forfeited
the blessings of the Lord in behalf of their children, and
ai'c compelled to see them grow up in irreligion and un-
godliness, and go off in the ways of the wicked. Every
believer who, for any reason, refuses to have the sign md
seal of God's covf»nant upon his child, and then and
there pledge himself to nurse, train, and educate such
child for the service (/f the Lord, here and hereafter, doea
virtually ignore and repudiate the Lord's claim to the
heart and service of the child, and by such repudiation
does certainly forfeit God's bles-^ing for such child. Bap-
tists sometimes say that tliey can " consecrate their chil-
dren to the Lord without baptism;" and they have been
known in some places to bring their children to the house
d8
■H«-.-,.ji
"!i
^'^^\
^i^-^
of God, and go through the outward form of consecrating
them. But is not this putting man's wisdom above
God's, and substituting a mock ceremony for a divine
ordinance? "Who hath required this at your hand?"
SECTION II.
THE CHURCH SUBSTANTIALLY ONE AND IDENTICAL UNDER BOTH
' DISPENSATIONS.
The Church of God is substantially the same under both
dispensations, and therefore the infant children of be-
lievers, being once a part of the Church, are still a part,
unless God himself hath cast them out from among his
people, or thrust them from the pale and privileges of
his Church.
The opponents of infant baptism, conscious of the force
of the reasoning from the Abrahamic covenant in favour
of the church membersnip of children, have laboured hard
to shew that that transaction was merely a national
covenant, including only the national descendants of
Abraham, and that it held forth only temporal privileges,
such as the possession of Canaan, and outward prosperity.
Indeed, some of them hesitate not to tell us that the
ancient Church was a mere "political organization," for
temporary and political purposes, and that until the com-
ing of Christ — a period of 4,000 years — God had no
Church upon the earth. Seldom, I venture to say, have
any set of professed Christians undertaken such poor
work as the opponents of infant baptism, when, for the
sake of depriving the children of God's believing people
of their God-given nghts, they zealously labour to belittle
and disparage the Church of Christ under the former dis-
pensation, and sneer at its high and holy privileges.
Most earnestly do I invite the reader's attention to the
proofs that there was a real, true, spiritual, visible Church
of Christ in the family of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and
their descendants, just as certainly as there is a real,
true, spiritual, visible Church of Christ in the world to-
69
day. In Acts, 7 : 38, we read of the "Church in the wil-
derness," and we find in the Word of God that that
Church possessed all the characteristics and differentia
then that the visihle Church of Christ to-day posses,^.es.
Examine Paul's language in Rom. 9 : 4-5, and Rom.
8:1-3.
1. The Lord was with this Church in the wilderness.
All the revelations that ever came to man from heaven
carae by Christ (Exod. 3:14 compared with John 8 : 58;
see also 1 Cor. 10 : 14). This will not be denied.
2. The Holy Spirit was with this Church of Christ
(xVcts .51; Num. 11:25-29; Nehem. 9:20; Isa. G3:7-ll;
2. Chron. 20:13-14). God's people constitute the '' Ec-
clesia" or Church to-day. But they are also called an
"Ecdesla" (Church) in 2. Chron. 20 : 14 (B.C. 89G); and in
Ps. 22 : 22-25 ^B.c. 1011); and in Acts 7 : 38 (B.C. 1500).
3. This Church ot Christ had a place of Divine ap-
pointment for their Divine worship (Acts 7 : 44).
4. It had laws direct from the mouth of the Lord
Jesus (Neh. 9 : 12-14).
5. It had services — reading of God's Word (Neh. 9:3);
singing his praises (Ps. 22:22); prayer both public and
private.
6. It had public teachers of Divine appointment.
7. It had f((Ath (Exod. 4 : 31 ; 2. Chron. 20 : 20) and re-
pentance taugi / and practised. Compare the old with
the new in this respect (Heb. 11; Ezek. 33 : II).
8. It had external, visible ordinances, with internal
spiritual meaninii-s, — circumcision and the passover (Rom.
2:28-29; Rom. 4:11; Deut. 10:16; Acts 7:51). No
uncircumcised person was to eat the passover (ExocL 12 :48).
Females in families where the males were circumcised
were not called uncircuninsed. but were considered as
circumcised in the males, the man beinsr the head of the
woman (1. Cor. 11 :S); but females uf heathen nations
were so called (Judges 14 : ?>),
So we have a Church of Christ under the former dis-
peiisation. The Lord Jesus loved that Church (Deut. 7 :
1
M
i .
i"^
'
■ 1 ■
!'• '
.
70
6-8). The Holy Spirit in his regenerating, sanctifying
and miraciilona power was in that Church. Divinely
appointed teachers and ministers were there. Rites, cere-
monies, sacraments, appointed by the Lord were there.
The Word, worship, and service of life and heart, were
there. Faith, repentance, prayer and good works were
there ; all organized and directed by the Lord Jesus, it
was a visible, true, spiritual Church of Christ, but we have
seen (Sec. I.) that it had infants (sucking babes, Joel 2 :
16) in it, as a component part, and that by the Lord's ex-
press commandment. Their membership was recognized
by a divinely appointed rite. Circumcision did not make
the child a member of the Church, for the uncircumcised
was to be cut off (Gen. 17 : 14), but it recognized the fact
that the child was a member.
The incarnate Lord was born in this Church and was
recognized as a child of the covenant, and under obliga-
tion to keep the whole law, by being circumcised on the
eighth day. Much of his teaching was in the synagogues
of Israel, and in the temple which he called His own
House.
This wa.s the only visible Church of Christ on earth.
John the Baptise did not organize a new Church. Christ
in person did not ; and his apostles did not. If any one
says they did, we ask for chapter and verse. If there was
no real spiritual Church under the former dispensation
there is no real spiritAial Church to-day.
Both dispensations have been under the same Lord and
the same Holy Spirit.
The Lord put the children iii go his Church by express
command. When did He put them out ? When did He
authorize any one else to put them out ?
Baptism is the rite by which disciples of Christ —
learners or scholars in the school of Christ — that is the
Church, are to be recoguizod. Water baptism does not
regenerate. It does not introduce the children of God's
people into the Church. They are already there (Ps.
127 : 3). And they are baptized in recognition of that fact.
71
The lambs of your jflock are " marked " because they are
yours, not to make them yours.
This, in fine, is our argument. The Church of God re-
mains substantially the same under both dispensations.
The religion of the Old Testament is not distinct from
that of the New, as if it were another sj^stem. On the
advent of Christ there was an enlarging, a beautifying,
an improving of the Church, but this surely is not the
destruction of it in order to raise another upon its
ruins.
The prophet Isaiah, looking forward to Gospel times,
plainly declarc^^ tliat the Zion of the Old Testament, the
Church of that time existing in Israel, instead of being
abolished by the advent of the Messiah, should thereby
be gloriously strengthened and enlarged, so as to embrace
the Gentiles. It was to the Church of his own time that
he addresses the following glowing words of proph(!cy :
" Arise, shine for thy light is come, and the glory of the
Lord is risen upon theer " And the Gentiles shall come
to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising
. . . they come to thee ; thy sons shall come from far,
and thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side." (chap. GO :
I, 3, 4, etc.) And so the prophecies generally.
So also when we come to the New Testament, Paul
declares that the Church of God was not destroyed, but
that the unbelieving Jews were broken off from their own
olive tree, and the Gentile branches grafted in their place ;
and he foretells the time when God will graft the Jews
back again, into their own stock, and not into another
(Romans 11 : 18-2G). The olive tree, as acknowledged by
all, means the Church in covenant with God ; and, observe,
the apostle speaking of the change that took place when
the present dispensation was set up and the Gentiles
admitted, says, not tliat the old tree was cut down and a
new one planted, but merely that the natural branches
(the Jews) were cut off and otiiers (Gentiles) grafted in,
the tree still ren\aininfj^ the same. In another place he
«peaks of the alien Gentiles, not as having been brought
[■
ri
72
fy'^W
into a new city and built on a new foundation to the
Lord, but as having been made fellow- citizens with believ-
inij Jews in the old household of faith, and built on the
old foundation of the apostles and prophets (Eph.2 : 11-22).
And Christ never speaks of destroying the Old Testa-
ment Church. No, he "thoroughly purged his floor"
(Matt. 3:12). He purified his Church. He gave it en-
larged privileges, removing shadows and in their place
giving us the substance, breaking down the middle wall
of partition, and admitting Gentiles to worship in the
same court with the Jews, rending the veil inthetemple,
and admitting both into the holiest of all. The bloody
token of circumcision under the old dispensation gave
place to the more simple token of baptism under the
Gospel. But the change in the external form of the token
cannot in any manner or in any degree a^ect the right of
children to receive it.
We argue, therefore, that since the Church of God is
substantially one under both dispensations, and since
God has once recoQ:nized the infant children of believing
parents as a part of that Church, they are in his Church
still unless He Himself has thrust them out, or authorized
some one else to do so. Will Baptists point us to chapter
and verse authorizing them to cast the children of believ-
ers out of the Church ? We have a right to demand this.
A law once passed is considered as in force until it is
repealed. If God has once conferred this privilege upon
believing parents and their children, and has never with-
drawn it, who or what is man that he should take from
them a grant which their Maker has made them.
i|J(i ^;.!i
SECTION III.
THE COMMISSION INCLUDES CHILDREN.
Our Saviour's final commission to his apostles, properly
understood, clearly enjoins the baptism of infant children.
That commission was in these terms " Go ye, therefore,
73
and make disciples oi {matheteusate) all nations, baptizing
(haptizontes) them, . . teaching (didaskontes) them," etc.
(M -tt. i>8:10).
In this commission we have three things solemnly en-
joined : matheteuein, baptizein. dldaskein. 1. To disciple.
2. To baptize. 3. To teach. The participle "baptizing"
indicates the manner in which the discipling is to be per-
formed ; and the expression, " teaching them to observe
all things whatsoever I have commanded you," shews the
end or design of discipling. The apostles were to make
disciples. Of whom ? AH nations. How ? By baptiz-
ing them. For what purpose ? Th-^t they might be
taught to observe all things, etc. Nations, therefore — •
and infants as a component part of nations — are to be
discipled by baptizing them. They are to be enrolled in
the school of Christ, with a view to their receiving in-
struction from the " Great Teacher" who has condescended
to be an instructor of babes.
This is the view of the commission taken by nearly all
the best commentators. Aiford says, " It will be observed
that in our Lord's words, as in the Church, the process of
ordinary discipleship is from baptism to instruction — i.e.,
admission in infanc}" to the covenant, and gvoiuing up
into the observance of all thin^^^s commanded by Christ
— the exception being, what circumstances rendered so
frequent in the early Church, instruction before baptism^
" in the case of adults/' Lange uses nearly the same words.
Let us now inquire how would they to whom this com-
mission was first given, naturally and necessarilij under-
stand it. This is surely a good rule of interpretation ;
how would those to whom our Lord first gave the com-
mission, understand his words ? The answer will put it
beyond all reasonable doubt, that when our Lord said.
"Go disciple all nations, baptizing them," the disciples
would understand Him, and He meant them to understand
Him, as commanding them to administer the ordinance to
the infant children of believing parents as well as to the
parents themselves. The apostles were Jews, brought up
r}m
u
under the Jewish economy, and accustomed to see the
same visible external rite which recognized believing
parents as the disciples of the Lord, administered also to
the infant children of these parents. From the days of
Abraham to Christ, no case had ever occurred of parents
joined to the Lord in cover nnt,, and their children, as
such, shut out from that sacre^l relation and refused
tlie sign and seal of discipleship. Consequently when
the Saviour gave the command, " Go disciple," or prose-
lyfce " all nations, baptizing them," etc., his disciples must
necessarily have understood Him to intend that kind
of " discipling " to which both He and they had been
accustomed, viz., the " disoipling " of children with their
parents. When, in prosecuting their commission, they
received the head of a family into the Church of Christ
by baptism, the idea of refusing to put the seal of Chris-
tianity on his children also, would never occur to their
minds. This would have been a new thing in the earth.
They had never seen or heard of a religion which re-
ceived parents, and refused by any visible sign to inti-
mate the duty of the parents to educate their children in
the same religion, and dedicate them to their God. We
argue therefore, with entire certainty, that the apostles
would understand their commission as including the infant
children of believers. And if our Lord had intended them
to understand it otherwise He would have said so in the
most explicit terms. He would have said, " Go disciple
all nations, baptizing them," but remember this particu-
larly, that in making disciples now, you are not to go on
as you have been accustomed, and as all my people have
been accustomed, since the days of Abraham, putting the
visible seal upon children along with their converted
parents. See that ye suffer not their children to be brought
unto me by any visible token whatever.
.Such words were never uttered. Such words would
not be worthy of Him. The Great Shepherd has ne\er
forgotten the lambs ; He gathers them in his arms and
carries them in his bosom, and the disciples could not have
76
Id
^e
understood Him as commissioning them to thrust them out
from the fold, and from the privileges of his flock.
SECTION LV.
THE BAPTISM OF FAMILIES.
Our Lord's commission to his disciples, which we have
just considered, naturally leads us to expect that the
apostles, in tlie discharge of their duties under that com-
mission, would not unfrcquently baptize families. We
will expect when a parent is baptized to hear somothiiig
of the baptism of his children. And such is invariably
the case. We never once read of a parent being baptized
in the presence of his children without the children also
being baptized.
In the New Testament we have the record of ten sepa-
rate instances of Baptism.
1. Three thousand baptized on the day of Pentecost.
(Acts 2:41.)
2. The Ethiopian eunuch. (Acts 8 , 27-38.)
3. Saul of Tarsus. (Acts 9 : 1-lS.)
4. The baptism of the Samaritan converts. (Acts 8:1^.)
5. The baptism of the disciples of John at Ephesus.
(Acts 19:5.)
6. The baptism of Lydia and her family (oihos). Acts
16:15.)
7. The baptism of the Philippian jailer : " he and all his
straightway." (Acts 16 : 32, 33.)
8. The baptism of Crispus with all his family (oiJcos).
(Acts 18:8.)
9. The baptism of the family of Stephanas {oihos).
(Cor. 1 : 16.)
10. The baptism of Cornelius. "Thou and all thy
family" (oikos). Acts 11 : 14).
Of these ten separate instances of New Testament bap-
tisms, two were those of single individuals, Paul and the
Ethiopian eunuch, who had no children to be baptized ;
one was the baptism on the day of pentecost wken fami-
I.
<;
I
I
76
■■I
m:
lies as snch were not ])resent, the vast congregation beinp
composed of persons from difForent places, many of them
coming from a great distance. Still, though not present
as families, the hearers are reminded that the promise is
unto them and their children. (Acts 2 : 39.)
There are still seven instances left, and now mark this
very significant fact, in no less than five of these seven
inst (oices, ^vo have a clear inspired affirmation of family
baptism. Does not this clearly evince that the baptism
of families was a common practice in apostolic times ?
when the apostles baptized a parent, they always baptized
his family also, if the family was within reach. Never
once do we read, in the New Testament, of parents acting
on the modern Baptist principle — leaving their children
unbaptized after they th<'mselves had become membeis of
the Church of Christ. Baptists cannot produce from the
New Testament one solitary c 'tmple of such baptism as
they practise — that of a child of a professed Christian
parent allowed to grow up to adult age without baptism,
and then baptized on the profession of his own faith in
Christ.
Baptists may tell us that we are not able to prove that
there were children in the families referred to. One thing
is certain, they can never prove that there were not chil-
dren in them. And on which side lies the probability ?
Would it not be a most extraordinary thing that there
should not be a sinole child in one of those five families.
Go to any city, town, village or district of country, and
enter into the first five houses you come to, and if you
will not find a child in any one of them it will be some-
thing very extraordinary indeed. But if there was a
single infant in any one of those ^ve families, then infant
baptism is proved, and the whole Baptist theory falls to
the ground.
Then again, provided all the members of these five
families were adults, as Baptists contend, would it not
be a very extraordinary thing that every one of them
should profess faith just at the vry time when the head
77
of each family believed. How often docs such an event
happen, in the experience ot' modern ]-5a])tists ? I have
before me the work of the great Teter Edwards. He
was for ten or twelve years a Baptist minister in Enc;-
land. Havino; been led to give serious attention to the
subject of infant baptism, he was thorougldy convinced
of the falsity of the Baptist system, lie immediately
left the Baptist denomination, and in explanation to liis
congregation he emphasized this fact : — " That in all the
Baptist missionary reports we never read of the baptism
of whole households at one and the same tim'\"
Now how does it come that the baptism of whole fam-
ilies was so common in apostolic times but a thing rarely
if ever heard of in the experience of modern Ba|)tist mis-
sionaries ? The reason is evident. The apostles, acting
upon the well recognized principles of God's Church from
the beginning, and carrying out the well-understood mean-
ing of the commission they had received, went forth
" discipling " the nations by applying the seal of diseiple-
ship not only to believing parents, but to their inlant chil-
dren as well, while modern Baptists, seeking to improve
upon the apostolic and divine plan, refuse to recognize by
any outward rite, God's proprietorship in their little ones.
And here, be it observed, that the word used by the Holy
Gho" is not oihia, which signifies a man's household or
o^, ^'^Mts, but oikos, which, when relating to persons, means
" family," and has special reference lo infant children.
Taylor, editor of "Calmet's Dictionary of the Bible," gives
no less than lifty examples of oikos in the sense of family.
The word oikos, relating to persons, always includes little
children. See Gen. 34 : 30 ; Num. 16:27, 32 ; Deut. 25:9;
Ruth 4 : 12 ; Psa. 113 : 9 ; 1 Sam. 2 : 33. When tL- Jews
then read that Lydia and her house (oikos), the ja jr and
his house (oikos), and the house (oikus) of Stephanus were
baptized, would they not attach the same idea to the word
Oi^'os that their sacred writers had done for upwards of
two thousand years, and undeistand it to mean a man's or
a woman's children — infants included ?
■1-,.
78
Indeed Baptists tliiMnsclves, when reasoning on another
matter, maintain stoutly that oikos inclu(J(^s little children.
In thii^i they are rii^lit ; but in this we have one of many
instanctis of their glarini^ inconsistency, in adopting a
principle and putting it forward as an argument on one
subject, and then n^nouncing it and setting their faces
against it on another. Are they so blind that they can-
not see that if oikoa (family, including little children) ate
of the passover, olkos (family, including little children)
were baptized ? Or are they so perverse as to continue
including children in the former case, and then for the
sake of their " Peculiar Piinciples " excluding them in the
other case.
Lydia was the only believer, but she was baptized and
her children {pikos). Maik well the inspired narrative,
" The Lord opened her heart." " She attended to the
things spoken by Paul, and she was baptized and her
children!' and ''she besought the apostles," saying, "if ye
have judged me faithful to the Lord." She was the only
believer, but she and her children were baptized.
So also with the Philippian jailer — he believed, Ae re-
joiced but he and all his were baptized straightway. The
record in the original says not a word about any one else
either " believing " or *' rejoicing." The verb for " rejoiced "
is in the singular number, and agrees with the jailer and
no one else, while the participle for " believing" is in the
masculine gender and singular number, and agrees with
and depends on no one but the jailer. The word " with "
is not in the original at all ; the expression " with all his
house " is one single word — panoJci — an adverb, modifying
the verb " rejoice." He rejoiced " domestically " or over
his family, just as any Christian parent would do on a
similar occasion, — seeing his children with himself within
God's covenant and the Lord's mark put upon them.
The baptism of families is in accordance with the in-
variable practice of God's Church under the ancient
economy ; it is a faithful carrying out of our Lord's part-
ing commission ; it is in perfect harmony with the whole
79
of revelation ; and it demolisht^s the unscriptural, narrow,
repulsive theory of the Baptists.
Ith"
his
dng
in-
lent
irt-
lole
SECTION V.
CHILDREN WEHK IN THE APOSTOLIC CHUKCH.
Children are addressed by the apostles as members of
the Church. John says, " The elder unto the elect lady
and her children, v/hom I love in the truth " (2 John : 1).
He addresses not only fathers and younif men, but also
little children (1 John 2:13). Paul, writing to the
Churches of Ephesus and Colosse, addresses himself to
''saints and faithful in Christ Jesus," terms never applied
to any but baptised persons, and then he specifies chil-
dren sunong the iieveral classes addressed. (Eph. 1:1, com-
pared with Eph. (j : 1-3 , Col. 1 : 2, com{)ared with Col
3 : 20.)
SECTION Yl
THBRB IB THE SAME REASON FOR BAPTIZING CHILDREN AS FOR
BAPTIZING ADULTS.
Peter's discourse on the day of Pentecost, which may
be called the first sermon under the Gospel dispensation,
teaches us that there is the same reason for baptizing
children as there is for baptizing adults. His words are,
" Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus
Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall re-
ceive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto
you, and to your children " (Acts 2 : 38, 39). The reader
will observe that the last sentence, which I have put in
italics, is given by the Apostle as the reason ivhy his
hearers should he baptized. The parent's interest in the
promise is stated as a reason why he should be baptized ;
and the assertion that the promise pertains to the
children also, certainly proves that there is as good a
reason why they too should be baptized. To say other-
wise is, in effect, to make the apostle declare, "The
i'
HI' ,i(.*'-- HjH
f'wm
■:r
80
promise is to yon," therefore 3^011 should be baptized;
and the same promise is "to your children," but they
must noo be baptized. The Spirit, however, does not
thus speak incoherently and absurdly. We have already
seen tliat the promise, "vvhen first given, included chil-
dren with their believing parents ; and to confirm it
both were circumcised. And now Feter tells us that un-
der the Gospel dispensation, the promises are still unto
the children as well as to their parents. Children are de-
prived of no privilege which they formerly enjoyed.
Nay, under t^ Gospel, their privileges are enlarged, and
the outward seal thereof simplified, so as to be capable
of being administered to all irrespective of sex.
SECTION VII.
CHRIST DECLARES THE CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP OP CHILDREN.
Our Saviour's welcome to little children, in the days of
his flesh, implies their church membership, and, conse-
quently their right to baptism. " Suffer the little chil-
dren" (Matthew iraiSia, Luke [3pc(j>yj, infants) " to come
unto Me, .... for of such is the kingdom of hea-
ven." (Matt. 19 ! 14; Luke 18 : 16.)
These are precious words from the lips of Jesus. How
many a sorrowing heart have they comforted 1 The
phrase, " kingdom of God," or "kingdom of heaven," is
by f:ome understood to mean the Church in heaven; others
understand it as ineaninsf the Church on earth. It does
not materially affect our argument in which of these
senses it is taken, for if children are fit for tlie perfect
Church in heaven, they certainly are for the very imper-
fect Church on earth; and if in the judgment of Christ
they are fit for the Church on ea"th, they undoubtedly
are also for the Church above. That this phrase includes
the visible Church is beyond all question. (See Matt.
6:33; 13:47.)
It is poor quibbling for Baptists to tell us that our
Lord only means that of persons like children in moral
81
character, the kingdom of heaven is composed. If chil-
dren themselves are not tit to be members of that king-
dom, how can others be so because they are like children ?
The words, "of such," imply "a right" or "possession."
It is the same form of expression which our Lord uses
in Matt. 5:3 — "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs
is the kingdom of heaven;" and again in ver. 10.
Our Lord, therefore, in this passage, expressly declares
that the children of believing parenij are numbered with
his disciples, and form a part of the visible Church, It
is not to the purpose for Baptists to tell us that Christ did
not baptize these infants. Neither, we reply, did He ever
baptize adults (John 4:2), but He declares that these in-
fants form a part of his Church or " kingdom." What
more than this do we need? Are Baptists wiser than the
Great Head of the Church? Have they a right to repu-
diate his authority, and deny the sign and seal to those
whom He has declared entitled to the thing signified and
sealed ?
SECTION VIIL
How
The
I," is
Others
does
Ithese
irfect
iper-
jhrist
jtedly
hides
Latt.
our
loral
CHILDREN AEE SUBJECTS OF THE REAL BAPTISM OP THE SPIRIT.
Children are capable of receiving the Holy Ghost, and
of being regenerated and sanctified thereby, and are,
therefore, entitled to the sign thereof. Of the child
Abijah it is said, "In him is found some good thing
toward the Lord God of Israel " (1 Kings 14 : 18). "Oba-
diah feared the Lord from his youth" (1 Kings 18:12).
"Samuel was called of the Lord while he was yet a
babe " (1 Sam. 1 : 22). John the Baptist was "filled with
the Holy Ghost even from his mother's womb" (Luke
1:15). And of Jeremiah God says : " Before thou earnest
forth from the womb I sanctified thee" (Jer. 1 : 5).
The experience of God's people furnishes many instances
of children dedicated to God being regenerated in their
infancy, and whether removed by death, or spared for
usefulness, giving no doubtful indications of that won-
82
derful change* Christian parents have the assurance
that the Holy Spirit will be given to their children in
answer to prayer (Luke 11 : 18), and they have the cer-
tain promise of the Lord " to be their God and the God
of their children after them." So assured are we of the
truth of God's promises, that, having complied with our
part of the covenant, we regard our 'children no longer
as *•' aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel and strangers
from the covenants of promise (Eph. 2 : 12), but as al-
ready in possession of the promised blessing. And we
ask, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not
be baptised, who have received the Holy Ghost as well
as we ?" Modern Baptists alone presume to do so.
SECTION IX.
THE CHILDREN OP BELIEVE]IS ARE DECLARED FEDERALLY HOLY.
The Word of God makes a clear distinction between
the children of believers and those of unbelievers. We
read; "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the
wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the hus-
band; else were your children unclean, but now are they
holy." (1 Cor. 7 : 14.)
To translate these words as Baptists do, "Else were
your children bastards," is the height of desperation,
and shews lament ble bondage to a theory. Marriage is
valid and the cliildren are legitimate, all over the world,
whether the parents are believers or not. It has, more-
over, been shewn that the word harjla (dyta), here trans-
lated "holy," although occurring more than seven hundred
times in the Septuagint, Apocrypha, and New Testament,
never in one soittari/ instance means legitimate.
The apostle is here dealing with a case of frequent
occurrence in the first planting of Christianity, viz.,
where one parent was a believer and the other an un-
* See President Edwards' "Narrative of the Revival of Religion in
Northampton;" also Janeway's "Token for Children;" and the "Life of
Dr. Payson."
ranee
en in
e cer-
3 God
)f the
h our
on O'er
mgers
%s al-
id we
Id not
3 well
HOLY.
tween
. We
by the
le hus-
they
were
ration,
lage is
world,
more-
trans-
ndred
iment,
iqnent
viz.,
a un-
ligion m
'Life of
83
believer. And the question before his mind was, how are
the children of such a union to be regarded by the
Church? The answer is clear and unequivocal. Children
who have even one believing parent, are "holy." Not
that they are naturally purer or better than others, for
by nature they are "the children of wrath even as
others" (Eph. 2:3). It is federal or covenant holiness
that the apostle speaks of. Children of a believing pa-
rent are holy, as the people of Israel were holy (Lev.
20: 2G; Ezra 9: 2; Dout. 7:0; Deut. 14: 2, 21, etc), be-
cause they are separated from the world and stand in
covenant relationship to God.
The other word, akatharta {uKaOapra), rendered "un-
clean," means the unconsecrated, undedicated state of the
Gentiles or Pagans as contrasted with the Jewish or
Christian state,. Calvin, in his Institutes (Lib. iv., cap.
10), makes this distinction clear : " The children of the
Jews, because the}'- were made heirs of the covenant, and
distinguished from the children of the impious, were
called a holy seed; and, for the same reason, the children
of Christians, even when only one of the parents is pious,
are accounted holy; and, according to the testimony of
the apostle, differ from the impure seed of idolaters."
SECTION X.
TESTIMONY OP EARLY CHRISTIANS AND OF HISTORY.
The appeal throughout this investigation lias been made
to the Word of God, and we have seen that the Scriptures
give no uncertain sound on the subject of infant baptism.
In confirmation of the Scripture argument we now
adduce the constant usance of the Christian Church from
the earliest acres, and of the whole course of ecclesiastical
history. I have before me the old Syriac version of the
New Testament, the date of which is assigned by Walton
and other scholars to the ^irst century of the Christian
era. In this very early version, I find the word children
substituted for oiko8, household (Acts 10:15), and for
IN
t
ni
'I'm*
1!
Mi
. Iff
|r'
«
84
** all his" (Acts 16: 38); so that the reading is, 'Lydi/i
and her children!' the jailer " and his children." This is
at once a correct translation of the original, and a valu-
able testimony, as to the understanding of these passages
in the very region where the apostles laboured, and btinp
given while some of them were yet alive, it ought to be
conclusive on this subject.
Irenceus was born about the close of the first century.
He was a pupil of Poly carp, who was a disciple of John
the Evangelist. His writings shew that infant baptism
was an ordinance of the Church in his day. He says.
** Infants a,nd little ones, and children, and youth, and the
aged {ivfantes, at parvulos, et pueros, et juvenes, et sen-
iores), are regenerated to God {renasciintur in Deum)
The term regenerated was at that time constantly referred
to baptism, and it is plain that Irenaeus so uses it, for he
afterwards quotes Matt. 28 : 19, and says in relation to it,
** Our Lord gave to his disciples this commission of regen-
erating," that is, of baptizing.
Justin Ma/rtyr wrote about forty yer"^'' after the apos-
tolic age. He says, " Such persons amon^^, s, of sixty and
seventy years old, who were made disciples to Christ from
their childhood, do continue uncorrupt." The term here
employed is the same as is employed in the apostolic com-
mission, " Go ye into all the world, disciple all nations."
Justin Martyr had a dialogue with a celebrated Jew, and
in it Justin compares baptism with circumcision. He
declares that " they ofre alike in their nature and use/'
Origen lived within a hundred years after the apostles.
He was a man of great learning and extensive acquaint-
ance with the churches of his time. He says, " Little
children are baptized agreeably to the usage of the Church ;
who received it from the apostles, that this ordinance
should be administered to infants." See his eighth Homily
on Lev. 12 ; and his Commentary on the ^^p' 'Uo to the
Bomans, Book 5.
A council of sixty-six bishops or pastori, held at Car-
thage, A.D. 254, "unanimously decreed that it was not
ss
This is
a valu-
)assagos
id btinp
lit to be
:eiitury.
of John
baptism
le says.
and the
et sen-
Deum)
referred
t, for he
ion to it,
)f o^e gen-
he apos-
xty and
ist from
rm here
lie com-
ations."
ew, and
n. He
use.
postles.
quaint-
Little
hurch ;
idinance
omily
to the
lat Car-
raj not
lecessary to defer baptism to the eighth day (the time of
.'ireumcision). There was no question whether infanta
iihould be baptized, but only, whether baptism, having
taken the place of circumcision, should not be adminisj
tered at the same age.
The celebrated Augustine, who wrote in the fourth
century, frequently refers to infant baptism as the stand-
ing practice of the Cliurch. In one place Ije declares that
this " is a doctrine held 1)V the Church uiii versa], and that
not as instituted by councils, but as delivered by the
authority of the apostles alone." (See Wall, p. 15.)
Felagius, who carried on a long and bitter controversy
with Augustine on the doctrine of original sin, and whose
denial of original sin was a great temptation to deny also
infant baptism, yet never attempts to do so. On the con-
trary, he says, " Men slander me, as if I denied the sacra-
ment of baptism to infants." And again, " I never heard
of any, not even the most impious heretic, who denied
baptism to infants."
Baptists not unfrequently tell us that Tertullian (A.D.
200) opposed infant baptism. This is not true. Tertul-
lian was not a Baptist, but he imbibed the notion that in
baptism all past sins were washed away, and that all sins
after baptism were well nigh unpardonable. Hence he
advised the delay of baptism, not only in the case of
infants (except when there was danger of death), but in
the case also of widows, widowers and unmarried young
men and women, until they were confirmed in continence
and were thus beyond the reach of sin. (See De Bap.,
chs. 1 and 18.) This is surely not Baptist doctrine. Tertul-
lian is a witness against the practice of the Baptists.
His advice is a plain proof that infant baptism was then
practised, or else how could he have recommended its
being postponed.
Baptists are constantly ■Celling iis that infant baptism
originated in the doctrine o2 baptismal regeneration, and,
almost in the same breath, iiiey tell ns that Tertullian.
the originator of the doctrine, of baptismal regeneration,
1
r
1
1
1
In U
1 '
1
i
i
:
ii^sig
S6
and the ablest advocate it has ever had, 'opposed and re-
jected infant baptism." This is not vexy consistent, but
"the legs of the lame are not equal." The opposition of
Tertullian was on the ground of a supposed expediency.
Never does he say that infant baptism was contrary to
Scripture, or that it was not apostolic.
The Waldenses, those brave and noble witnesses for
Christ before the Reformation, throughout all periods of
their eventful history dedicated their infant children to
God in Bapfcisn:. Indeed our best historians, as ITa^^ and
Mllner, who liave investigated this subject thoroughly,
assure us that they can find no account of any body of
professing Christians who denied baptism to infants un-
til the thirteenth century. Then there arose a small sect,
called Fetrohriisians, who maintained that infants oucfht
not to be baptized because i-hey considered them incap-
able of salvation. This sect soon died out.
For 1500 years after the coriimand to baptize luas
given, no man, or set of men, can he found in the history
of the Church, tuho rejected or opposed infant baptism
on the grounds that the Baptists of this age oppose and
reject it. The very first body of people, in the whole
Christian world, who den^'ed baptism to infants, for the
reasons urged by modern Baptists, wore a wild fanatical
sect, called Anabaptists, who arose in Germany in 1522.
Here commenced the Baptist denomination. Here the
communion of the Church was first sundered on the
ground of baptism.
All the boasting, therefore, of Baptists, about tracing
the origin of their denomination to John the Baptist, or
to the day of Pentecost, is mere declamation. Neither
Scripture nor history furnishes the slightest evidence in
support of such a claim. The Church of God, under the
former dispensation, included the children with their be-
lieving parents. Under the new dispensation the Church
IS not less liberal. Everv f]rreat branch of the Church of
Christ to-day — Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian and
Congregationalist — recognizes the children as a portion of
nd re-
it, but
;ion of
liency.
ary to
les for
iods of
Iren to
lU and
.ughly,
lody of
its un-
11 sect,
; ouijht
incap-
ze ivas
history
iptism
se and
whole
for the
Qatical
1522.
e the
)n the
tracing
iist, or
cither
ince in
ler the
iir be-
phurch
Irch of
in and
Lion of
87
Christ's covenant people. "There are," says one, in words
as terse as they are true, "but two j)]ace8 in God's uni-
verse from which children are excluded, — hell and the
Baptist Church."
SECTION XL
BAPTIST OBJECTIONS ANSWERED,
1. " Ko Command." — It is frequently said, there is no
command in the New Testament to baptize children. This
objection can only weigh witli tlie ignorant. Admitting
that there is no command in which the words " baptize
children " occur, docs it follow, therefore, that there is not
sufficient divine autliority ? Let us see. There is no com-
mand in the Bible for attending public worship, nor for
family prayer, nor for admitting females to the Lord's
Supper, nor for observing the first day of the week,
instead of the seventh, as the Christian Sabbath. Why
then do those who raise this objection attend public wor-
ship from Sal^bath to Sabbath, as a thing of religious
obligation ? Why do they pray with their children or
teach them to read the Bible ? Why do they administer
the Lord's Supper to females ? Why do they observe the
Lord's day as the Sabbath ? There is not in all the Bible
a command expressly enjoining these duties. Yet who
that embraces the Bible as the rule of his faith, does not
believe and practise them, as matters of divine require-
ment, and of reliii'ious oblii>-ation. So the dedication of
our children to God in baptism may be as solenm a
duty as any of tli(.)se above mentioned, even though tlu;re
were no single text, which, in so many words, commands it.
The argument for infant liaptism, like that for the ob-
servance of the Christian Sabbath, is inferential, cumula-
tive, and conduHive.
Christian parents who recognize God's claim u|)on the
iicart and life of their infant diildrcn, and dedicate them
to God in baptism, have tlie liighest of all testimonies —
that of the Spirit Himself, that the ordinance is indeed of
88
|:fy«l|
God. This is liow the Rev. J. McDonald, of Calcutta, son
of Rev. Dr. McDonald—" the Apostle of the North "—
speaks of the baptism of his infant child : — " This day,
in the kind providence of God, I have been permitted and
enabled to dedicate my little offspring to my covenant
God in baptism. And for this I give thanks. 0, what a
privilege it is ! I trust I have had communion with
the Lord in this deed if ever I had it. Many encourage-
ments have I felt ; and no misgivings as to infant bap-
tism in its faithful form. Yea, I praise God for such an
ordinance. I know God's willingness to bless infants. I
know that of old He did receive them into his covenant
by seal. I know also that infants are capable of enjoying
the blessings of the covenant of grace ; that the want of
faith in those who are incapable of faith is just as applic-
able to salvation as baptism, and therefore constitutes no
argument against it. I believe that the seal of the coven-
ant will be just as valid to the child when it afterwards
believes, as if baptized when an adult ; that it is a great
privilege to have it externally united with the Church,
and for a parent to say, * this my child has been solemnly
and publicly given to God ; it is federally holy.' I believe
that the commission of Christ included the children of
believers, and that the apostles baptized such ; and I
know that the holiest of men in all ages have had com-
munion with their God in this ordinance. But why en-
large ? 0, my Lord ! I bless Tliee for saving me from
falling into the cold and forbidding doctrines of Anti-psedo-
baptistn I give me grace to improve thine ordinance !
Look in mercy on May little Catlierine ! Spirit of the
Lord! inliabit her, regentjate her ! I have given her to
Thee ; make her tljine own ! Bless mother, father, and
daughter. O bless us ! All gh^ry be to God !"
2. " Cannot believe" — Baptists tell us that as inf£"its
cannot believe therefore they ought not to be baptized.
They refer us with much confidence to Mark 16 : 16 — " He
that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved ; but he that
believeth not, shall be damned." But this passage, even
89
Ized.
He
that
Iven
if it were certainly authentic Scripture, furnishes not a
condition of baptism but a condition of salvation. And
if it proves that none but those who believe can he l)ap-
tized, it just as certainly proves that none but those who
believe can be saved. And then what comes of the mil-
lions who die in infancy ? According to Baptist looic
they are, every one of them, damned. That this awfid
conclusion is deduced, by inexorable logic, from the Baptist
reasoning on this passage, the reader may judge from the
following syllogisms in parallel columns : —
Baptist reasoning concern-
ing thehaptis'in of infants.
He that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved.
(Mark 16 : 16.)
But infants cannot be-
lieve ;
Therefore
Infants are not to be bap-
tized.
The saw r reasoning a,pplicd
to infant salvaiion.
He that believeth not
shall be damned. (Mark
16:16.)
But infants cannot be-
lieve ;
Therefore
Infants shall be damned.
Both these conclusions are " utterly and awfully false,"
but both are the logical conclusions of Baptist reasoning
on this passage.
Christians of other denominations find no difficulty hi
this verse, for they believe that it refers to adults, and
does not include infants at all. God is not unreasonable
that He should require of infants what they cannot
render.
This same objection might, with equal force, be brouij^ht
against the circumcision of infants under the former dis-
pensation. A profession of faith was required of every
adult before he could receive circumcision; but were his
children therefore excluded from that ordinance ? Bv no
means. The proselyte (if a parent) and his children were
circumcised on the self-same day. It was necessary in
the case of Abraliam himself, that he should have faith
\W !
f I
((
90
before he received circumcision, a "a seal of the ri<]^hteoiis-
ncss of that faith," but tliis did not prevent the rite being
adnunistered to his child Isaac when ei^fht days old.
The Bible tells us that "if any will nut work, neither
shall he eat" (2 Thess. 3:10). This is a o^eneral rule;
but wdll Baptists apply the same loijic to this that they
do to Mark IG : IG, and tell us that because infants cannot
work we ai-e wrong in giving them food !
Baptist logic, if carried out, would leave infants aban-
doned to misery
" in both worlds,
First starved in this, then damned in that to come."
In holding that there can be no baptism unless there
is faith in the person baptized, Baptists are guilty of a
glaring inconsistency. For in their practice they quite
ignore this principle. Here is a case in illustration: —
Mr. A. comes to a Baptist minister and makes ])rofession
of faith. He is " dipped," or, as they say, baptized. After
a few weeks Mr. A. returns to the minister and acknow-
ledges that he had no faith on the occasion of his dip-
ping — that he wilfully and consciously acted the hypocrite.
But now he says he is truly converted, and he wishes to
know what to do. It is quite clear that, to be consistent,
his minister must put him under the water again. For,
according to Baptist principles, his first dipping, not being
accompanied with faith, was no baptism; and consistency
demands that he should, after the Mormon fashion, be re-
dipped, — and that as often as he desired. Are the
" Regular Baptist " ministers of this country prepared to
learn consistency of Mormon preachers, and dip their
disciples whenever requested to do so ?
If there can be no baptism without faith, what a host
of unbaptized communicants there are in Baptist churches;
for A. Campbell, the great advocate of immersion, says,
"In nine cases out of ten, throuo^h error of iudcrment, we
(immersionists) admit unbelievers." Verily, the less they
91
I host
jhes;
?avs,
, we
bhey
say about "filling churchos with mere professors/* the
better for tb(!inst'lves.
3. 'W/tatgoodr' — Baptists sav/'WIiat .cfoodcan bapHsm
do a child when it docs not undorstand the nature of it."
What a profound c»bj(;ction ! And yet none is more fre-
quently urged.
If a friend shoidd propose to invest valuable property
for the infant child of a Baptist and should wish the
parent to sign certain pa[>fM' , would that Baptist say,
Of what l)eneiit can tins ceremony bt to an unconscious
child ? Would he indulge in exi)ressions of ridicule at the
thou,Li;ht of doing such a thing for a "senseless V)al>y?"
Ba|)tists might as well ask in r 'gard to the children of
God's ancient Church What good will circumcision do ?
for little children, eight days old, could not undei-stand
the nature of it. Indeed, there were some who asked
this very questi(»n. And the apostle, with a holy indig-
nation, made reply, "IVIuch eveiy way." (Rom. .3 : 1-2.)
In the days of his flesh our Lord blessed little children.
These children were "infants." They could understand
no more than infants can now understand; but yet Christ
blessed them. Was that blessing "no good?" Will Bap-
tists say that our Lord's blessing was "a mockery," "a
meaningless form," "a farce?" Tliey dare not. Then I
aro^ue that if Christ could bestow a blessim? — a real
• • • n
spiritiLcd blessing — on unconscious infants, in the days of
his flesh, He can bestow a blessing — a real spiritual
blessing — on unconscious infants still. And who can
say that He will not do it if they are dedicated to Him
in solemn ordinance by believing, praying parents? Hear
the testimony of the great and good Matthew Henry on
this point: — "I cannot but take occasion to express my
gratitude for my infant baptism ; not only as it was an
early admission into the visible body of Christ, but as it
furnished my parents with a good argument, and I trust,
• through grace, a prevailing argument, for an early dedica-
tion of myself to God in my childhood. // God has
wrought any good work upon my soul, I desire with humble
IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)
A
^
1.0
I.I
11.25
■^ 1^ |2.2
H: ks IIP
- 6"
9p
9^ ^
c^.
^
r
t
y
Photpgraphic
Sciences
Corporation
23 WIST MAIN STREET
WEBSTER, N.Y. MSSO
(716)872-4503
^^ 4^'
"^^
6^
'■■■■"""■I
I
92
thankfvlness to acknowledge the influence of my infant
baptism upon it"
The benefits of infant baptism are many and great.
Tt is a sign of important truths, and a seal of inestimable
blessings. Christ will honour his own institution ; and
when He suffers little children thus to be brought to Him,
it is, that He may bless them. The ordinance recognizes
and ratifies their right of membership in the visible
Church, and introduces them to the special care and in-
struction of the Church. It speaks to the parents and
bids them be faithful ; it speaks through the parents to
the children, reminding them of their early consecration;
it speaks directly to the children in after life, and by the
power which a solemn act of dedication has upon the
mind, it claims them as the Lord's. Even Alexander
Campbell has acknowledged that "it is more likely that
the children of Presbyterians, who practise sprinkling,
will be pious, and will be saved, than that the same will
be true of the children of Baptists, who practice immer-
sion." (See the Rice-Campbell Debate, p. 376.)
SECTION XIL
BAPTIST MISREPRESENTATIONS.
If, as we have seen, the Word of God gives no counten-
ance to the dipping anti-Pedobaptist theory, we will na-
turally expect that tlie advocates of that theory in their
support of it, will have recourse very much to the opinions
of men. And such we find is the case. The " stock in
trade" of most Baptist writers consists of quotations
from Pedobaptist writers. And what we have chiefly
to complain of is that these quotations are wrenched from
their original connection, and invariably misrepresent the
views of their authors, No honest man can believe the
Baptist theory, and yet preach and practise infant bap-
tism and baptism by affusion. But these writers are ac-
knowledged to have been honest men, and all the world
knows that they preached and practised Pedobaptism by
93
-•^i]
affusion or sprikling. They did not therefore believe
the Baptist theory, and they are misrepresented when
quoted as doing so. The misquotations and perversions
of fact and history, found in some Baptist books are a
disgrace to our common Christianity. To expose them
all would require volumes. Our limits permit us to cite
only a few instances.
1. The Westhii^tster Assembly. — The statement is fre-
quently made in Baptist newspapers and books that the
" Westminster Assembly, in 164*3, came within one vote
of adopting immersion as the Presbyterian mode of bap-
tism, instead of si>riMkling." This can easily be proved
to be a gross misstatement. From the journal kept by the
great Dr. Lightfoot, a leading member of that Assembly,
under the date of August cS, 1044, we learn that the vote was
unanimous for sprinkling or pouring, and the only dis-
puted question was whether iunnersion should be recog-
nized as baptism at all. " Sprinkling being granted, shall
dipping be tolerated with it?" On this the vote stood
twenty-four to twenty-five. So that it was only by one
vote that " dipping " was saved from being declared no
baptism. And yet the ill-informed are told that, but for
one vote, the Presbyterian standards would have pro-
scribed dipping! (See Appendix, p. 107.)
2. Moses Stuart. — Prof. M. Stuart is q.. >ted by Baptist
writers as saying " Baptizo means to dip, plunge, or im-
merse into anything liquid All lexicographers and
writers of any note are agreed in this." The last sen-
tence is usually printed in italics, and the design of tho
whole quotation is to lead the uninformed reader to con-
clude that this great scholar, although himself a Pedo-
baptist, yet endorsed the Baptist theory of exclusive dip-
ping. How much ground there is for such a statement
the reader can judge from the following. Tho above quo-
tation is given in answer to the question, " What are tlio
classical (not sacred) meanings of Bapto and Baptizo V On
page 308 Stuart gives the meanings of Bapto and Bap-
tizo, tn the Old Testament, a* " to wash, to bedew, to moia-
r
ri:
94»
ten/* On page 313 he says " There is no absolute cer-
tainty from usage, that the wo^-d hnrptizo, when applied
to the rite of* baptism, means to immerse or plunge." On
page 38S he says, " My belief is that we do obey the com-
mand to baptize when we do it by affusion or sprinkling."
On page 381 Stuart, addressing the Baptists, says "if
you take your stand on the ancient practice of the
churches in the days of the early Christian fathers, and
charge me with a departure from this, in my turn I have
a like charge to make against you. It is notorious and
admits of no contradiction, that baptism in those days of
immersion, was administered to men, women and children,
inpuris natuirdibus, naked as Adam and Eve before the
fall. The most delicate and modest females, young or
old, could obtain no exception where immersion must be
practised. This practice was pleaded for and insisted on
because it ivas thought to be apostolic" So speaks Prof.
M. Stuart, and yet Baptists say that Stuart believed as
they do ! Could the most unscrupulous followers of
Loyola go furtlier than this in misrepresentation and per-
version ?
3. John Calvin. — Baptists quote Calvin as saying, "The
word baptize itself means immersion, and it is certain that
the rite of immersing was observed by the ancient Church."
They are careful to omit the words immediately preceding
this quotation. The reader will know why, when I quote
them. Here they are : " It is not of the least consequence
(minimum refert) whether the person baptized is totally
immersed, and that once or thrice, or whether he is merely
sprinkled by an affusion of water. This should be a matter
of choice to the churches in different regions, though," etc.
Then follows the garbled quotation noticed above. (Inst,
iv., ch. 15, sec. 19.) Let Baptists take Calvin's words as he
wrote them, and the exclusive immersion theory is annihi-
lated, and there will not be a close communion Baptist
Church on earth.
Elsewhere Calvin says on the mode of baptism, " Then
the minister pours water on the head of the infant, saying
95
*I baptize thee in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost,' " and soon after he adds, " It cannot by any
means be denied but that we hold tlio same form and
method of baptism which Christ prescribed and apostles
followed." (Calvin's Catechism, pp. 92, 93 — Note.)
On the proper subjects of baptism, Calvin is quoted as
usinff the followintr lanjruajre in reference to the commis-
sion in Matt. '2H : 19 — " But since Christ orders to teach
before baptizing, aiul wills that believers alone be admit-
ted to baptism, baptism seems not to be rightly adminis-
tered unless faith has preceded." What must the reader
think of the honesty of those who quote these words as
expressing Calvin's own mind, when I inform him that
the words are used by Calvin as expressing not his own
judgment at all, but the opinions of Baptists ! This is
sufficiently clear from the words which imraediately follow
the quotation above given. They are these, " Un this
pretence the Anaha'ptists have stormed greatly against
infant baptism. , But the reply is not difficult " etc.
4. John Wesley — This great Methodist preacher and
leader fares no better than others at the hands of im-
mersionist garblers. He, too, is represented as a believer
in the " much water " theory. Dr. Cramp, the great
Baptist historian, in his correspondence to the Christ uf7i
Messenger, February 22nd, 1805, and March 28th, 18G(3,
says, "John Wesley was an immersionist, and has again
and again confessed that every record of baptism in the
New Testament is an instance of dipping." A more
bare-faced statement of unti'uth than this of Cramp's
was never penned. When John Wesley first left Oxford
University, he was like all other churchmen of his time,
an extreme ritualist, and had not yet cast off the com-
mon traditional notions about dipping. And hence in
his earlier writings one or two expressions, transcribed
from former writers, may be found favorable to dip-
ping (not however as th<' mode of Baptism, but only as
a mode). But after John Wesley learned to reject
Romish superstitions, and to take the Word of God as
M
II
I
his " only rule of faith and practice," he never wrote one
syllable in favor of iiiiiiiersion, but on the contrary, for
the last ihirtij-five years of his life he tau<:yht by word
and pen that there was no immersion for baptism in the
Word of God.
I have before mo " A Treatise on Bnptisvi " published
by Wesley in iTOfJ, (ho died in 1791.) This treatise
v.'ill be found bound up with his " Works," vol. 6, p. 12.
In it he says : —
" As nothing can be determined from Scripture pre-
cept or example, so neither from the force or meaning
of the word. For the words baptize and baptism do not
necessarily imply dipping, but are used in other senses
in several places. Thus we find that the Jews were all
baptized in the cloud and in the sea (1 Cor. x. 2) ; but
they were not plunged in either. Christ said to two of
his disciples, * Ye shall be baptized with the baptism
that I am baptized with.' (Mark x. 38) ; but neither
he nor they were dipped, but only sprinkled and washed
with their own blood. Again we read (Mark vii. 4) of
the baptism of pots and cups, and tables or beds. Now,
pots and cups are not necessarily dipped when they are
washed — the Pharisees washed the outside of them only.
And, as for tables or beds, none could suppose that they
could be dipped. Here, the word baptism, in its natural
sense, is not taken for dipping, but for washing or cleans-
ing. And, that this is the true meaning of the word
baptize is testified by the greatest scholars and most
proper judges on the matter. It is true we read of
being * buried with Christ in baptism.' But nothing can
be inferred from such a figurative expression. Nay, if it
held exactly, it would make as much for sprinkling as
for plunging ; since, in burying, the body is not plunged
through the substance of the earth, but rather, earth is
sprinkled upon it."
Wesley then speaks of the baptism of the jailer and
bis family in the prison, Cornelius and his friends at
home, three thousand at one tizne, and five thousand at
P-
T
97
another, baptized at Jerusalem, and adds, " Tlie place,
therefore, as well as the nuDiber, makes it highly prob-
able that all these were baptized by sprinkling or pour-
ing, and not by immersion."
Thus wrote Wesley in 175G, and thus he taught and
practised during the last thirty-five years of his life,
and yet Baptist writers hesitate not to tell their readers
that " John Wesley was an immersionist, and has again
and again confessed that every record of baptism in the
New Testament is an instance of dipping ! "
We nave given but a few examples of the misrepresenta-
tions with which Baptist papers and books are crammed
full. But these are enough, " Ex uno disce omnes." How-
ever necessary, it is not pleasant work to expose such
lishonesty. And we cannot but ask, would a cause which
was of God require such a defence, and would men who
were conscious of the righteousness of their cause have
recourse to such a defence ? " If," says one, " the magni-
tude of an error is to be determined by the tyranny it
exercises over its defenders, and the dishonesty it requires
of them in its support, then the Baptist system deserves
to be ranked among the first and worst of rc!;g!nr.s errors
of modern times "
APPENDIX.
m
A REYIEWER REVIEWED.
From the numerous " replies " and criticisms evoked
by the first edition of this work, I select, for a brief
review, a pamphlet of fifty pages, by Rev. Calvin Good-
speed, M.A.
Mr. Goodspeed was until very lately a Theological
Professor in the Baptist College at Woodstock, Ontario.
He tells us that he wrote " at the request of quite a
number of friends." From the high position he occu-
pied in the denomination, and from the fact that he was
selected to do this work, we may fairly assume that his
" reply " is the best that, under the circumstances, could
be made, and we may regard it as possessing a certain
amount of denominational authority.
I regret exceedingly that I cannot speak in high terms
of commendation of Prof. Goodspeed's production. As
one whose personal friendship I esteem, it would be a
pleasure for me to do so were it in my power.
The Professor gets very angry ; at times he strikes out
wildly and blinrlly, and says some very unprofessorial
things. And this, perhaps, is not to be wondered at :
*• Error, wounded, writhes in pain."
When the mob at Euhesus felt that their favourite srod-
dess was in danger, tlnongh the preaching of the apostle,
they raged around frightfully, and for the space of two
hours, cried out " Great is Diana of the Ephesians ; " and
my Reviewer, as destitute of fact and argument to
establish his "peculiar theory" as were the frantic
Ephesians, rages exceedingly because "an unknown
90
villaj^e prcRchcr of Ontario " has blaspliemod against his
water godflcss, and throu<^h the space of some fifty pages,
cries out right histily, Great is the water-dipping of
Baptists, Oainpbellites, Mormons, Tunkards, and Christ-
aclelpliians.
The Professor tells us that "appeal to prejudice is
misomble work with which he will have nothing to do."
And yet the veiy tiMe of his pamphlet is as unworthy
an ai)pLal to i;,'norance and prejudice as can well be
conceived: — Baptism versus Rantism" — "Baptism, im-
racfsion — Pantisin, sprinkling." *
In this way he wishes to convey to his readei'S the
idea that Pedobaptists hold sprinkling as the meaning of
haptizo, just as Baptists hold dip or immerse to be its
meaning. I have elsewhere shown (pp. 22, 23) that
Pedobaptists have never held sprinkling as the meaning
of haptizo. They hold that hcvptizo is not a modal word
and never dtmotes a specific act, such as dip>, iin?nerse,
pour, or sprinkle. Like the verbs anoint, purify, cleanse,
and many others it does not make demand for a definite
act to be done, but for an effect, a state, or a condition
to be accomplished (Dale's Classic Baptism, p. 106.)
Again Dr. Dale says, (Judaic Baptism, p. 400), Judaic
Baptism is a condition of ceremonial purification
(effected by the washing of the hands or feet, by the
SPRINKLING of sacrificial blood or heifer-ashes, by the
POURING upon of water, by the touch of a coal of fire,
• I do not like to characterize the spirit which makes merry over a
word of such frnqueut occurrence and precious Scriptural import as the
word " sprinkling." I give the followinfj extract from a letter 1 had tho
honour of receiving from the late James W. Dale, D.D., only a few weeks
before he was called to his eternal rest : —
" You do well to show that there is no dipping into water for baptism
in the Word of God ; that the only authorized way for using the water in
symbol baptism is by sprink'iai. If any one rantingly calls this
* Rantism,' you need not be troubled. It was by * Rantism ' the blood
of the atoning Lamb was shed for a perishing world ; and it is by
'Rantism,' the Holy (ihost declares, that blood is applied to the hearts
of His redeemed. ' immersion va.
Immersioii vs. The bleeding Laii\Jb :
fight under ! "
Kuutisni ' (jomes perilously near
-a poor banner for a Christian to
100
Mr
by the waving of a flainina: sword, and by divers other
modes and ac^cncie^, dependiMifc in no wise on any form
of act or on the cover Irig of the ohjcct" It is just as im-
possible to determine from the vorb baptho the mode in
which the efi'oct indicated by tliat Avord is produced as
it is to determine from the verbs anoint, purify, cleanse,
hurt, destroy, kill, &c., &c., tlio mode in wliich the effects
respectively indicated by these words are produced. All
these, and such like words, are non-modal, i.e., they in-
dicate effect regardless of the mortake to ut it is just to get
" th(^ ground idea common " to those seven words I have
mentioned, and I can only say, the nearest that comes to
the meaning in my opinion, is — ' im-merse.' "
This riddle, on the solution of which the favour of
God is suspended, and which is left unsolved by its
originator, Rev. Prof. Goodspced (sympathizing with the
sheep thus left to their own wanderings and guessings
after what this baptism may be) courageously under-
takes to solve, and with bold outcry proclaims, " any
one can see that all these words convey the one meaning
of covering in an element, which is all that Baptists
now claim." Touching this solution of the enigma, it
needs only to be said, that if this be the "perfectly
fitting " meaning of Baptizo, then it is the first time that
it has been found out since the days of John the Baptist,
and the lexicographer is yet to be born who shall echo
this discovery and print, Bapttzo : a rumple word, easy
to be understood, without difficulty in translating, once
thought to mean, just no more, to dip, to plunge, to im-
merse, but after learned and laborious investigation, its
remarkable simplicity, ease of understanding, and lack
of all difiiculty in translating, has been found justified
by the true, just, and no more meaning — "ground idea
common to immerse, and immerge, and submerge, and
dip, and plunge, and imbathe, and whelm," which any
body can see means to cover, which is cdl that Baptists
NOW claim ! Oh word, how simple ! Oh claim, how
indisputable ! ! Oh theory, unstable as water, thou shalt
not excel. It will be interesting to observe the success
this new meaning of baptize (to cover) may meet with
— " all that Baptists no^u claim."
In order to sustain his baptism by covering, and to
sweep from the ages all record of baptism without a
covering, Prof. Goodspeed says he quotes the following
104
words from Dr. Dale's Classic Baptism, p. 129: "An
objecb baptized is completely invested by the baptizing
element." No such words are on page 129 of Classic
Bap. ; and the sentiment as it stands, without the con-
text, is in flat contradiction to the w^hole teaching of
Dr. Dale. "It is in proof," says Dale, Johannic BaptisTn,
p. 397, "both by Classic and Inspired •writings that
oaptizo is largely used in cases where there is no phj'sical
envelopment." According to Dale, " Baptizo expresses
any complete change of condition by whatsoever agency
effected, or in whatsoevrr tvay ap2)lied" (Classic Bap.
p. 21). And on page 20 of the same book. Dr. Dale
gives numerous instances of baptism luithout a covering
— baptism by swallowing an opiate — baptism by drink-
ing wine — baptism by bringing into a state of bewilder-
ment. And elsewhere he mentions the baptism of the
altar of Carmel by pouring ivater on it — baptism by
drinJdng w^ater from the fountain of Silenus — and John
the Baptist is said to have been baptized by touching
the head of his Divine Master. Can the Reviewer's
imagination not rise equal to the occasion, and manu-
facture " a covering " in each of these instances ?
In view of the above instances of baptisni, the reader
may deterniiiie how much confidence to place even in a
Baptist Professor who says (p. 10) that " Pedobaptist
scholars have been seeking for years to find any passage
where anything but an immersion is termed a baptism,
and have failed." Pray where is the immersion in drink-
ing water, or wine, or an opiate, or in touching the head
of another ?
On page 10, the Professor quotes Schleusncr as defin-
ing baptizo, " to immerse, to dip in," etc. But he pur-
posely leaves out the following clause of that lexicon —
*' But in this signification it never occurs in the Aew
Testament" for he knew this would ruin his Baptist
dipping. I leave the reader to characterize the moral
character of the omission. But Prof. G.'s own words
(page 19) suggest themsclvcri to us : — "Sach a resort to
105
half-truths which teach a lie, is despicable, if it is
through any other cause than ignorance, and then it is
blameworthy ; for no one should make assertions when
ignorant."
And what is the "half-truth which teaches a lie," of
which my Reviewer so generously accuses I'^e ? Let the
gentle reader mark it well. On page 45, I showed that
the very first mention in the world's history of baptism
by dipping was by Tertullian, about the beginning
of the third century, and uncer the following cir-
cumstances : — 1. This baptism was by three dips. 2.
It was in a nude state, and for superstitious purposes —
" to soak out sin and soak in grace " — accompanied with
" anointing," " blessing the water," and numerous other
Romish rites. 3. It was admitted that this way of bap-
tizing had not Scripture authority, but was founded on
''unwritten tradition." I also gave the place in tho
works of Tertullian where this admission can be found,
viz., " De Corona Militis," cap. 3, 4. " Half-truth "
shouts my critic because " sprinkling is not mentioned
until half a century later, and besides sprinkling was
repeated three times " and 1 did not say so. The first
part of this statement is a mere assumption on the part
of my critic, and an assumption that is quite contrary
to fact. There is a well authenticated case of baptism by
effusion in the second century. The case of a person who
was baptized in a desert, having sand sprinkled upon
him, was brought before the Greek bishop at Alexandria.
The bishop decided that the person " was baptized, pro-
vided only that he should anew be perfused or sprinkled
with water (aqua denuo perfunderetur). See '* Magde-
burg Centuries," Cent. IL, ch. G, p. 110. If the Prof, will
consult " Wall's Hist, of Bapt.," he will find several
instances of baptism by sprinkling, at least as early as
Tertullian's baptism by three dips while naked, »S:c.
As to sprinkling being repeated three times, I give my
critic credit for his candor in acknowledging that it was
practised at all ; and as to its being repeated I would
106
have him hear in mind that Preshyterians, Mcthorl'sts,
and others do not support sprinkling as a mode of bap-
tism by the practice of the Romish or Greek churches,
but by the authority of God's word.
We quote the sprinkling of these ancient Churches to
show that, while they commonly put tlieii people into the
"blessed water," they did not teach or believe, like
modern Baptists, that baptism was dipping, or that mere
dipping into water ever constituted baptism. They be-
lieved and taught that baptism could be Scripturally
performed by sprinkling or pouring. (See plate 2.)
But the most amusing thing in this " Reply " is the
way in which my critic undertakes to prove that Ter-
tullian did not acknowledge " dipping " as based on
tradition, and destitute of Scripture authority. I pointed
out the place in Tertullian where such an acknowledg-
ment is made. Does my Reviewer show, or attempt to
show, that I am wronff in mv reference ? Not at all.
But he refers (p. 19) to another part of the works of
Tertullian, viz. : " Adversus Praxeam," Cap. 20. Surely
this is a new way of disproving a statement. Proving
that Tertullian does not make a certain admission in one
place is not proving that he does not make it in another.
Proving that a man did not commit theft in Ontario
would scarcely prove that he never committed the act
anywhere else. I would remind my Reviewer of the
old Scotch proverb: — "Ye may putt' lang at Stranraer
ere ye winnow grain at John-o'- Groat's."
The reader can judge of the unscrupulousness of
Reviewer, when he is informed that in the sentence from
Tertullian, "Adv. Prax.," — translated by Reviewer to
suit his purpose "immerse," — the Latin " meo'go" or
" imTYiergo" does not occur at all, but only " tingo " (from
the Gr. nyyw), to wet, to moisten, to touch, to stain, but
neve7 to immerse. Tertullian uses the verb " tingo " just
as we use the verb baptize, indicating effect or condition
but nob mode. But in " De Corona Militis," Cap. 3, he
uses the verb " mergitare" which does mean " to dip or
107
immerse," and he puts down this " dipping or immers-
ing" as based on tradition, and witliout Scripture
authority.
However unpleasant the task, I cannot pass by with-
out exposing the gross immorality of which the Re-
viewer is guilty in the quotation which he professes to
give from page 27 of my pamphlet. Let the reader
observe it closely and then say whether any language
can be toe strong in denouncing such dishonesty in one
who is piofessedly "seeking to advance the truth."
The following are the words used by me : — " After a
thorousch examination of every sentence containing:
baptizo, written before the time of Christ, and quoted by
Dr. Conant, Mr. Gallaher says : — In every instance the
baptizing element or instrumentality is moved and put
upon the person or thing baptized, never is the person
put into the element." (ISee present edition, p. 18.) The
Reviewer quotes this sentence and leaves out the words
— "wHtten before the time of Christ." This omissijn
was not accidental ! It was intentional ! For he
immediately gives two instances from Josephus, a writer
who lived many years after Christ, to di.sprove, as he
thought, my statement. (He is careful, however, not to
mention that his examples are from Josephus.) Now
the reader will observe that these examples could never
have been introduced had my sentence been correctly
quoted. And so, in order to make room for them and
thus appear to obtain a triumph, he hesitates not to
falsify my statement, by omitting an important clause.
And yet this is the man who talks of "half-truths which
teach a lie," and who casts out nine-tenths of God's
people as unworthy of church -fellowship with him.
*' CANST THOU SPEAK GREEK ? "
For one thousand six hundred years after the com-
mand to baptize was given, no man or set of men, of
whom we have any account, ever denied the validity of
baptism by sprinkling. After the time of Tertuilian,
'1^;
«ii;
I
108
immersion, accompanied Avitli many other Komisli inven-
tions, was the general mode, but the Scriptural authority
of sprinkling or pouring as a mode of baptism was
never questioned. Prof. Goodspced, however, gives us
what he calls a translation of a passage in Eusebius, in
which that writer is represented as doubting (not deny-
ing) the baptism of Novatian because he was baptized
by sprinkling. Here is the Professor's translation :
'' Ho (Novatian) fell into a grievous distemper, and it
being supposed that he would die immediately ho
received baptism, being besprinkled with water on the
bed whereon he lay, if that can be termed baptism."
The important words are those in italics. And what
will the reader say when I tell him that these words
arc a forged trandation I — a 'pure fabrication ! Here
is the original (Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. vi. cap. 43):
Ei xpv '^^^"'^ '<>v TolnvTov elXTjcpEvai" The words are thus trans-
lated in Bohn's Eccles. Lib. " If indeed it be proper to
say that one like him did receive baptism." And Dr.
Gale, for many years leader of the English Baptists,
thus renders the passage : " If such a one may be said to
be baptized." (See Gale's Reflections on Wall's History
of Infant Baptism, p. 221.) From these real transla-
tions it will be seen that Eusebius doubted the baptism
of Novatian, not because of the mode of that baptism,
but because of the un worthiness of the man who was
baptized. And the context clearly shows this to be his
meaning. But this would not make a point for Prof.
Goodspeed, and so ho hesitates not to give a forged
translation. I do not, however, hold the Professor
directly responsible for the forgery. I have been en-
abled to trace the trarislation verbatim ct literatim to
an illiterate, scurrilous publication by some Campbellites
in Toronto. From this publication, I doubt not, tho
Professor got it. But a Professor ought to be able to trans-
late tor himself, and not require to bo dependent on
Tom, Dick, or Hairy, honest or dishorcst, ignorant or
learned.
109
r
it
on
or
Prof. Goodspccd's pamphlet is cvamTncd full of per-
versions, misquotations, and garbled statements. I shall
give, however, only one or two other instances. On
page 42, ho tells us that he gives the references, except
in a few cases, so that the reader can verify his quota-
tions. At the top of page 33, he pretends to loivo a
quotation from the " Work on the Sacraments" by Pres.
Hailey (which he prints Holley), in these word's, viz.,
"I cannot deny that the Pharisees, as early as the time
of our Saviour, practised immersion after contact with
the common people." Now the Reviewer pretevdfi to
give references so that his quotations can be verified —
but here he gives no "page," or " chapter," or "book"
— but in spite of his effort to cover his track in this
mean way of quoting a " half truth and making a whole
lie," I have been enabled to trace him to his hiding-place,
and will now unearth him. On page 29S, Part 1, of
Hailey 's work, I find what lie has garbled into the above
quotation beginning thus : " But conceding what I
care not to deny," etc., he proceeds to show that the
Baptist interpretation of Luke 11 : 38 is unreasonable
and false. On page 32 (at the bottom), Reviewer quotes
from the same author these words, viz., " I cannot rely
so confidently upon these baptisms of furniture as do
many of my brethren." Then he stops as if Pres.
Hailey had ended the sentence. What will the reader
think of the honestv of the man that talks of " half
truths and whole lies" when he opens Pres. Halley's
Part 1, page 302, and finds only a comma where Re-
viewer makes a jDerlod, and that Halley's sentence goes
on thus : — " yet I think the ' divers baptisms* of the
Jews, mentioned in the Epistle to the Hebrews, include,
if they do not exclusively denote the purificdions by
sprinkling performed in the Jewish temple." Then
Hailey goes on to show from Hcb. 9: IS, 14, that "if
ej)rinklinrj iiiivify the flesh, how much more shall the
blood of Christ purify the conscience?" Reviewer's
other quotation from Hailey is on still a difiercnt pacjc,
110
and is but littlo better or more fairly quoted tban the
two I have exposed.
Prof. Goodspeed, following in the wake of other im-
mersionist writers, represents the
WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY OF DIVINES
as almost persuaded to be Baptists. I have elsewhere
shown that there is no truth in the allegation. Facts
ean be produced to prove that the learned Assembly
at Westminster, instead of looking with favor upon
the views of the Baptists, or rather the Anabaptists as
they were then significantly and properly called, re-
garded the very existence of that sect as a cause of
grief and humiliation. Gillespie, who was himself a
member of that body, in his " Notes of Proceedings
of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster," makes
certain memoranda which are quite decisive.
The Parliamentary army had been defeated in the
west of England, and the Scotch had suffered a reverse,
near Perth, at the hands of the Irish. The Assembly
felt that the coinciding of so many great evils was a
cause for humiliation. A committee was appointed to
draw up a statement of causes of humiliation. They,
according to the manner of the times, entered into the
matter minutely, and reported a statement of causes
under four kinds : " 1. The sins of the Assembly. 2.
Of the Parliament. 3. Of the armies. 4. Of the
people." The sins of the Parliament were enumerated
under twelve head^. "1. In not pressing the covenant ;
many have not seen it, the breakers of it are not
pimished. 2. In not suppressing Anabaptist and Anti-
nomian ministers." ! ! ! Page 69.
There are repeated references in these notes to the
duty on the part of the Parliament to suppress Ana-
baptists. See pages 65, 67, 68.
From this the reader will see that the Westminster
Assembly (right or wrong, that is not the question) had
petitioned the Parliament to suppress Anabaptists and
[
Ill
i
the
na-
Antinomians, and judged that that body should give
themselves to humiliation and fasting, because tlioy had
failed in such a manifest duty. And yet, in the face of
this, we are coolly told that " but for one vote the West-
minster Assembly would have declared in favor of
dipping." I trust none of the friends of the " theory,"
however desperate for ars^ument, will ever again refer to
the Westminster Assembly. In exposing such gross
misrepresentations we feel that we ajce only "slaying the
slain."
It were an almost endless work to follow the Reviewer
in his pretended quotations, which are, in reality, no quo-
tations at all, from Moses Stuart and John Calvin (p. 13),
Wall (p. 15), Dean Stanley and P. Schaff (p. 17), and
Tertullian (p. 19). With respect to Stuart and Calvin,
the reader will see a sufficient explanation in the body
of this work under the heading, " Baptist Misrepresenta-
tions" (p. 92). Every one of the quotations above
referred to is so garbled as to teach almost the very
contrary of what the writers intended. What must be
said of a cause that needs such a defence, and demands
such dishonesty on the part of its advocates ?
I proceed to notice a few things advanced by my
Reviewer: — Why is he so particular on page 11 against
me using " Bapto'' when finding instances of baptism in
the classics ? I find Dr. Gale and all the old Baptist
authors use more examples containing bapto than con-
taining baptizo. Here are Dr. Gale's words : " I think it
is plain from the instances already mentioned, that they
(bapto and baptizo) are exactly the same as to significa-
tion" Dr. Carson quotes these words, and adds, " That
the one is more or less than the other, as to mode or
frequency is a. perfectly groundless conceit " (p. 19). Dr.
Cox is equally strong in identifying the two words. The
translator of the Baptist Version of Mark and Luke says :
" There is no difference as to signification between bapto
and baptizo." The translator of the Baptist Version of
Acts says : " They can have but one literal and proper
f.
i
:if
i
M \
1 SI '
s
112
mea-nincf." Ha<5 my Kevicwer fliscovcvecl the blunders oT
Ga!e, Girsoii, Cox & Co. ? And if lie hns learned to
repudiate the teachings of the leaders of his denomina-
tion, those "men of vast learning and research," why-
should he get out of temper and scold away more in the
style of a lish-wife than that of a theological professor,
about " arrogance " and " swelling airs " and " an unknown
village prea(iher," and say other '' gentlemanb/, scholarly,
and Chrip,tian" things, simply because Presbyterian
scholars of to-day refuse to accept the blunders of such
men as Luther, Barnes, Schaff, and Dean Stanley ? Ba2>
tizo, the Reviewer acknowledges (p. 13), does not "always
put the object into the element ; " nor does it ever " take
the object out of the baptizing element ; " it only " buries
the candidate in water" (i. e., drowns him), "which is all
that Baptists noiu claim." When, therefore, Christ com-
manded to " baptize," he did not command " to put any
one into water," nor to " take any one out of the water "
— even a Baptist Professor of theology being the witness.
But since neither the " putting into water," nor the " tak-
ing out of water " is (as now acknowledged) a part of
the commanded act, why do the Reviewer and his
" friends " still go on " putting into water " and " taking
out of the water," and thus adding to the Word of God ?
I would remind them of the warnino: in Rev. 22 : 18.
The Jews were often " baptized " while reclining on a
couch. It could not, therefore, be a dipping. Bub my
Reviewer says "it was a baptism of the hands only."
Again I ask, " Canst thou speak Greek ? " Here is tho
original, and a Professor should be able to read it —
(Clem. Alex. Stromre, B. 4, ch. 22, sec. 144) : " idoc tovto
*lov6aiuv 6g nai to '!ro?i?Aiac £7zt koIttj (3aTrTil^f:cdaL For thc Sake Ot
those who are not Professors, I wdll translate : " So also
the baptizing of themselves often upon the couch was a
custom of the Jews," or, " This was a custom of the Jews,
in like manner also to be often baptized upon the couch."
So much for " Baptism of hands only"
Prof. Goodspeed, on page 5 of his " Reply," claims the
113
" theory " of the Roman Catholic Church, and the "prac-
tice " of the Greek Church as on the side of immersion-
ists. Of these Churches he says : "They are with us in
the view that baptism was originally immersion." Surely
these corrupt Churches, given over to every species of
abomination, superstition, and human invention, con-
stitute but poor authority for any practice in a Christian
and Protestant Church ; and Prof. G. would never appeal
to them but for the utter lack of better evidence. But
even this frail support must be knocked from beneath the
dipping theory. It is true, the Romish Church origin-
ated immersion as associated with baptism, and practised
it for many centuries. This I have already proved, and
I am glad to see that my argument has not been alto-
gether lost upon the Professor. But it is not true that
the Romish Church ever, by word or act, taught that
dipping into water was baptism, or that it was even a
necessary part of baptism. It was only one of many
superstitions, such as, " anointing," " blessing the water,"
stripping the person of all clothes, using milk, honey,
spittle, &c., &c., which was, for many centuries, practised
by that Church as loart of the ceremony of baptism.
(See Dale's "Christie Baptism," p. 24.) And Prof. G.
might as well quote Rome as saying that the " anoint-
ing," or "the blessing," or the " nudity," constituted the
baptism as to (mote her as saying that the dipping was
the baptism. Each of these foolish superstitions con-
stituted in the opinion of that corrupt Church, a part,
though not a necessary part, of baptism.
As to the mode of baptism practised at the present
day by the Greek Church the Prof, is equally astray.
That Church does not regard dipping as baptism, though
she frequently practises dipping as preparatory to bap-
tism, and sometimes as a part of the ceremony. Huber,
who lived upwards of three years among the Greeks,
and resided in a Greek family, saw the ordinance admin-
istered four times ; and he thus describes it : — " The
company were all seated on the sofas around the room.
8
^
A taWe stood in the middle, with a basin of water on it.
The priest was then sent for, who, upon entering the
room, was received by the father of the infant and led
to the baptismal water, which he consecrated by a short
prayer, and the sign of a cross. Then the mother pre-
sented to him her babe, which he laid on his left arm,
and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, he
thrice dipped his hand in the water and dropped some
OF IT ON the child's forehead, giving it a name. . . .
Most generally the infants are baptised in the churches.
Before the altar stands a tripod, holding a basin of con-
secrated water for baptism." Sometimes there are im-
mersions preparatory to the baptisms proper. At these
the priests are not required to be present. Sometimes,
also, there are partial immersions, as a part of the cere-
mony, but pouring usually accompanies these. And,
from the medals usually distributed to the guests on the
occasion of a baptism, bearing an inscription of John
baptizing by pouring, it is evident what the Greeks
regard as the original and Scriptural mode of baptism.
The New YorJc Independent, of March 17, 1881, con-
tains a letter from Bev. M. D. Kalopothakes, missionary
at Athens, Greece. Mr. Kalopothakes is a native Greek,
and studied many years ago at the Union Theological
Seminary in New York. The occasion of his writing
the letter was to remove the false impression made by a
recent statement of Dean Stanley, of that old, exploded
fiction reiterated by Prof. Guot) ipeed, viz. : that " in
the Greek Church immersion alone is regarded valid."
This well-known Christian missionary writing from
Athens, a few months ago, says, "As to the mode
of baptism, I think Dean Stanley mistaken in affirm-
ing that the branch of the Greek Church included
within the kingdom of Greece maintains the exclu-
sive validity of entire immersion as baptism ; for I
cannot find it corroborated by any of the catechisms
in use, nor sustained by practice." He then goes on
to define the mode, substantially confirming the quota-
115
con-
tt
in
ralid."
from
mode
ffirm-
;luded
ixclu-
for I
ihisma
tion above criven from Rubor. He adds, "T er.olose
fl baptismal tf)kon, in cDinmon use in Oroecc, ^vlnch, by
its reprcRontation of tlio baptism by John, shows that
he (John), at least, Impiizod by pouring. (See Plate I.)
Those little tokens arc distributod to the f^ucsts present
at the ceremony." In explanation of this token the
editor of tlie Independent says, " The medal represents
John as pourinir water from his hand on the Saviour's
head, as he stands in a very shallow stream of water."
From this letter we may see what native Greeks think
about haptizo, and how they practise in administerinir
the ordinance. The putting of the head, or even a largo
part of the body, under tlie water, is not essential to
Greek baptism. I can produce Greek records of baptism,
as old as the 5th century, where the priest is forbidden
to allow the head of the child to cro under the water.
This is the kind of ''immersion'* that John Calvin said
" was praciiced in the ancient (not apostolic) Church,"
and this is the kind of " immersion " that all the eminent
scholars since the Reformation have found in the writings
of the Greeks and Roman Catholics. Where is the sense
or honesty of quoting such " immersions " to substantiate
the modern "dipping-submersion" of the Baptists since
the year 1G33.
On page 14 my Reviewer gives me credit for being
the first who discovered the Romish origin of " dipping "
for baptism. I cannot claim the honour. The ancient
Waldenses, the noblest witnesses for the Truth that God
has ever had upon this earth, rejected dippinfj as no
baptism at all ; such men of world-wide reputation for
Biblical scholarship as Owen, Hodge, Miller, and Dale,
have shown that there is no dipping into water for bap-
tism in the Word of God ; and I have elsewhere, in this
work, shown that many of the best scholars and com-
mentators since the Reformation have rejected the
Romish interpretation of Rom. 6 : 4, upon which the
Baptist theory is founded.
I have made no discovery. My labour, however, has
116
not linen in vain, if T have in any small measure aided
Prof. Goo'Is^jcchI and iiis " friends " in their search after
truth, and helped thoni to the conchisinn that baptizo
neither "puts into the water" nor "takes out of the
water" ("Review," p. l.S); that there may be baptism
which is "not innnersion," but only "near an immer-
sion" (p. 23) and "e(|uivalent to imrneision " (p. 30);
and that there are even " one or two instances of sprink-
ling for baptism" (p. 13). My friend is evidently mak-
ing goodspced towards letting " much water " escape out
of his theory. May he be prospered on his journey until
he finds that water-baptism is not the " putting away of
the filth of the flesh," but an outward visible symbol of
the "blood of sprinkling" applied to the heart by the
Holy Ghost.
My Reviewer tells us that " in the year 1311 a council
held at Ravenna declared immersion or sprinkling to be
indifferent. It is unfortunate for this statement that
there was no General Council held at Ravenna in the
year 1311 — the Baptist Robinson, to the contrary, not-
withstanding. It is true, however, that during the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the Church of Rome
was compelled by the force of the example of the Pres-
byterian Waldenses of Piedmont and parts adjacent, to
abandon her superstitious dipping and return to the
simple and Scriptural Baptism by afiusion.
My Reviewer charges me with inconsistency, because
I have received members from the Baptist Church with-
out baptizing them. I fail to see the inconsistency. The
Word of God, never by precept or example, enjoins or
sanctions dipping a person into and under the water for
baptism, but I have never made the outward form essen-
tial to the validity of the ordinance. This would be to
incur the guilt of that uncharitableness towards Baptists,
which they practise to all other Christians. Their bap-
tism, thojgh unwaiTantcd in the form of it, is adminis-
tered in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost, and I, therefore, see the essence of the
117
ordinance there, anc! will not limit the Holy One of
Israel, but believe that in their churches as well as in
others, He may pardon the imperfections of men, and
bless his own ordinance, even in its unseemly and un-
warranted form. This may be ** unthinkable " to Prof.
Goodspeed, and to many more in his Church, but they
should not, therefore, conclude that it is "unthinkable"
to other Christians differently educated.
Instead of troubling himself about my consistency, let
me council my Reviewer to look to his own. The Lord's
Supper, he will acknowledge, is a divine ordinance as
well as Baptism. And he will admit that the original
mode in which it was observed was in a reclining posture
— that of nearly lying down. Now, to be at all con-
sistent with themselves, Baptists should adhere as
rigidly to this mode of celebrating the Lord's Supper as
to what they assume to be the mode in baptism, and they
should never administer or receive it in any other
position than reclining on a wide couch.
Or again, as he maintains that there can be no bap-
tism unless preceded by faith in the recipient, why does
he not re-dip those who confess their lack of faith on
their first dipping, but who are now penitent and be-
lieving, and wish to unite with the Baptist Church ?
Be consistent, we say, even if it should increase, to an
uncomfortable extent, the amount of washing to be done.
As to my Reviewer's theory of Naaman's baptism, let
me refer to what is said elsewhere in this work (p. 37).
On page 26 the Reviewer has found a new baptismal
element, i.e., "the audible accompaniment" — and then
with the help of a superstitious Catholic (Cyril), he
transmutes " the audible accompaniment" into " spiritual
water." But the Word of God knows of no such thing
OS " baptism into water " of any kind, or into " audible
accompaniments" either. The Baptism of the Spirit
here spoken of (Acts 2) is referred to in Acts 11 : 15, IG,
and we are told that " the Holy Ghost fell on them " and
thus they were baptized. Prof. Goodspeed has aban-
118
donedhis own Q^finition of baptism, viz., "a coverivg of
the person with water," and has repudiated all Baptist
practice by admitting a baptism by " audible accompani-
ments " (sounds) coming upon the people ; and his argu-
ment is all sound and no seiise.
His remarks on the " divers washings," or baptisms of
the Old Testament are a literary curiosity. On page 28
he defines *' carnal " as " of the flesh." And then on the
next page, having forgotten his own definition, more
than one-half the illustrations he gives are, as he him-
self tells us, the " washings of clothes" Are " clothes "
" flesh " ? And most of his quotations for the washing
of "clothes" are connected with the cleansing of the
leper, and other sprinklings, which he had already
eliminated from the " divers baptisms " ! In his " wash-
ings of the whole body" his quotations are equally
unfortunate. In every one of them, with a single excep-
tion (Lev. 14: 8), there is no preposition "ev" — but the
naked instrumental dative "Wan" (with water), and very
few of them make any mention of being washings of
all the flesh, most of them were connected with the
leprosy in its cleansing. These washings were not
"physical scrubbings" but "symbolic cleansings," and
they were very far from the " dippings " and " immer-
sions" of modern Baptists. Washing all over with a
sponge or shower bath is not an " immersion." We have
no evidence whatever that God ever commanded one
man to put another into and under loater to wash,
cleanse, purify, or baptize him. All administrators of
all rites of divine appointment, whether with blood, oil,
water (pure or mixed), without exception, sprinkled or
poured out, the element used — the person was never
moved and put into the blood, water, or oil.
When, on page 33, Prof. Goodspeed identifies Armin-
ianism and the doctrine of "justification by works," our
Methodist friends have no reason to thank him. It is
needless, I hope, for me to say that Methodists teach no
such doctrine.
119
!i
On page 35 the Professor wonders if I am so unin-
formed as not to know that in Judea " to be left with
dripping garments is a luxury!' and that " persons of
ordinary health might plunge into the water and sit
down in their wet clothes with safety, and often with
great comfort and pleasure. (The italics are mine.) I
cannot of course say how fond some people may be of
" plunging into water " and consequently cannot judge
how great a " luxury," " comfort," or " pleasure," it may
be to them ; but this I feel assured of, that in many
climates, " plunging into water " cannot be practised but
at the expense of the health, and sometimes the lives of
the people. Here is a quotation which many of us can
verify from what we ourselves have seen : — " When all
the shivering group stood upon the frost-bound shore,
muffled in their dovhle envelope, her slender form,
exposed to the keen arctic winds, was let down through
the ice into the cold liquid element below. She after-
wards stood upon the shore, clad in her icy garments,
until several more were immersed; and then, wiih a
body benumbed with cold, was conveyed to her chamber,
whence, after a few weeks of rapid decline, she was
removed to the lonely domicile of the dead. Her friends
regarded her death as the consequence of her exposure ai
baptism." (See Dr. Hibbard, page 155.) Would the
Reviewer, though in " ordinary health," regard an im-
mersion under the foregoing circumstances, as a "luxury,*
" a great comfort," or a " pleasure " ? After getting such
an immersion would he, like the Ethiopian treasurei
(Acts 8 : 39), go on " his way rejoicing " ?
My Reviewer has no doubt but the washings of the
priests at the laver were immersions. And Gale (Baptist)
calls them baptisms (See Gale's Reflections on Wall, Vol
2, p. 107). So also A. Campbell says they were baptisms
(p. 167). Now let us see what must have been the mode
Taking the most noted of the lavers (Solomon's) we find
(2 Chron. 4 : 2-6) that it was placed " upon twelve oxen,'*
was eight feet nine inches deep, and twenty-one (twelv«
120
cubits) feet his^h in all, from the floor. Ti held at least
one thousand barrels of water. The laver was made
this high and placed in the clear open way, so that noth-
ing could defile its waters. To have immersed in it
would then have required people to leap twenty-one
feet high, catch on its brim, roll in, then, if not good
swimmers, they would drown, as the water was eight
feet nine inches deep in it. Then they would have to
leap down twenty-one feet on stone pavement — not a
very safe operation. Immersion here was an infinite
absurdity and impossibility. But there was baptism
even as Baptists have to admit. But how ? In what
mode ? Josephus, who often baptized out of the laver,
and knew all about it, tells us the mode. He says,
"sprinkled Aaron's vestments, himself and his sons."
(Ant. iii., ch. vi., s. 2). Besides the command both in
Exod. SO: 18-22, and 40:30-32, was that the priests
should wash (eh autou) out of it, not in it.
We are positively informed that the Levites were
consecrated by sprinkling. " Thus," saith the Lord,
" shalt thou do unto them, to cleanse them, sprinkle
water of purifyim/ upon them" We may, therefore,
fairly infer that Aaron and his sons were thus con-
secrated.
In regard to all the Church historians quoted by my
Reviewer a single remark is sufficient. The immersions
of which they speak were so different from the "dip-
pings" of modern Baptists that Prof. Goodspeed and
his friends would not accept them as baptisms at all.
The head was not necessarily put under ; it took three
dips, in a state of absolute nudity, accompanied with
the sign of the cross, with oil, spittle, exorcism, insuffla-
tion, etc., to constitute a baptism. These are the " im-
mersions " spoken of by Church historians, such as
Mosheim, Neander, Schaif, and Stanley. How much of
those " ancient immersions " will my Reviewer say was
Scriptural ? Will he admit any part of them to be so ?
He will not. Where then is the sense or honesty in
121
appealing to tliem as authority for hm single backward
'lip, with ordinary jo-arments on. No instance of baptism
by a single bachuard dip occurs in history prior to
September 12th, 16SS, Mark this. If Baptists deny it
let them give names, time, and place.
I would remind my Reviewer that the " pools " about
Jerusalem were fo." drinking and cooking purposes.
Does he think that multitudes might be soaked in such
cisterns and reservoirs ? Would the people of Wood-
stock allow him to immerse his disciples in their wells
and cisterns of drinking water ?
THE GREEK PREPOSITIONS.
In order to sustain their " immersion " theory, Baptists
are compelled to assume that the prepositions eis and en
always mean " under!' and the prepositions ek and apOy
" out of" Now, even the English reader, though alto-
gether unacquainted with the Greek, can understand
how much ground there is for this assumption, when he
is informed that our translators have rendered
Eis, to or unto, 538 times.
En, at, on or with, 313 times.
Ek, from, 186 times.
Apo,from, 374 times.
When, therefore, it is said in our English version that
Philip and the eunuch went down into (eis) the water,
no more is said in the original than that they went to
or unto the water. When it is added they came up out
of {eh) the water, we can learn no more than that they
came up from the water's edge.
The Reviewer thinks {]). 40) that "baptized en the
Jordan " can have no other meaning than being immersed
under its water. Would he be surprised to learn that
Greek writers speak of fire burning " en the Jordan ? "
Did they mean that it burned under the surface of the
water ? In Justin Martyr, Dial. s. 88, p. 185, he will
find this expression, " ttD/j avii(pOrj ev t(^ 'lopddvy " " fire wp*s
122
burning in the Jordan." John baptized "en to lordane"
and lire was burning " en to lordane" and there is as
good reason for saying that the one was under the water
as the other.
The professor has failed entirely to distinguish be-
tween the force of the single preposition, and the same
preposition reduplicated. This will explain his blunder
on page 41, that eh (occurring as Acts 8 : 39, i.e^ in the
single form) is translated " out of " eighteen times in the
Acts. It is so translated only jive times.
A PARTING COUNSEL,
In conclusion, I would recommend to Baptists the
Apostle Paul's reasoning to the Corinthians about the
Lord's Supper. The Corinthians insisted on having a full
meal for their bodies at the Lord's table. Forgetting
the symbolic nature of the ordinance, they wanted
a great quantity of the outward element, so as to realize
it in a corporeal and carnal manner. The apostle re-
proves them for this, and tells them that they ought to
take their full meals in their own houses, at home, but
in the Church of God, and in the observance of the
sacred ordinance they ought to take a small quantity of
the material elements, and by faith contemplate and
enjoy the things signilied thereby. (1 Cor. 11 : 21, 22.)
Now Baptists have fallen into the very same mistake
respecting the other ordinance — baptism. Forgetting
that the water is a mere symbol, they insist on having
a great quantity of it, and on having the whole body
immersed in it, as if baptism was an outward and
physical washing. Now we say to them, this is not the
Lord's baptism, but let every one attend to his own
physical washing at home. Have ye not houses ? Have
ve not our beautiful streams and lakes, and the solitary
extent of the resounding shore to wash your bodies in ?
Or despise ye the Church of God when ye do it in this
public manner, and put to shame those who would rather
wash more privately ? In this we praise you not. You
f.
1
i
123
>i
I
look too much to the " putting away of the filth of the
flesh," but this is not the Baptism of Christ. In it, as
in the Supper, a small quantity of the material element
is sufficient, while our faith should contemplate, and seek
to realize, the fullness of blessings there represented and
sealed to us. Let us all pray that God would fulfil to
us his gracious promise (Ezek. 36 : 25, 27) : " Then will
I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean
. . and I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you
to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments,
and do them."