AN EXPOSITION
of the
pretensions of baptists
to antiquity;
as
iietottr torn saipto anir j} isicrg.
BY
JAMES A. CLEMENT,
of the alabama conference.
" There be some that trouble you, aud would pervert the gospel
of Christ."—Gal. i. 7.
NASHVILLE, TENN.:
PUBLISHED FOR THE AUTHOR.
1860.
Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1860, by
JAMES A. CLEMENT,
in the office of the Clerk of the District Conrt for the Mid¬
dle District of Tennessee.
STEREOTYPED AND PRINTED AT THE
SOUTHERN METHODIST PUBLISHING HOUSE, NASHVILLE, TENN.
CONTENTS.
Preface vii
Explanation of Diagram xiii
PART I.
BAPTIST ANTIQUITY EXPOSED, AS TO THE MODE
OE BAPTISM, FROM THEIR OWN WRITERS AND
THE BIBLE.
CHAPTER I.
the mode of baptism.
Section 1. Preliminaries 15
" 2. Baptist views of John's baptism 18
" 3. John's baptism as to his name and
mode—Lexicons—Dr. Carson and his
admissions 23
" 4. The subject continued—Dr. Carson's
position stated and exposed by his
own illustrations, and by applica¬
tion to the Scriptures—Why Baptists
cannot retort on us........ 80
(iii)
iv
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER, II.
BAPTISM CONTINUED.
Section 1. "In Jordan," does not prove immer-
1 sion, as seen from Mark i. 4: Jolin
i. 28; x. 40, and from Dr. Carson's
admission
" 2. The phrase "in Jordan," etc., settled
by the Word of God: Joshua iii., iv.
—Dr. Carson for us again—R. Ful¬
ler and Luke iv. 1 45
CHAPTER III.
THE CHARACTER AND MISSION OF JOHN.
Section 1. Who is he?—His duties 54
" 2. The above view strengthened from
several scriptural facts—Dr. Camp¬
bell—Conclusions—And answer to
the numbers baptized by John 61
" 3. John's baptism not the Christian bap¬
tism—Baptist admissions—Import¬
ant questions 69
" 4. Clap-trap phrases—Christ's baptism not
for an example—not John's, not the
Christianas baptism — Christ's bap¬
tism different from ours—The design
of baptism not easily determined
from their views, of which sixteen
are given 75
" 5. The design of Christ's baptism: to
qualify him for the great work he
came to do—Pretensions answered—
Jones's admission 85
CONTENTS.
V
CHAPTER IV.
APOSTOLIC BAPTISMS.
Section 1. Pentecost—Three thousand 1,06
" 2. Philip and the Eunuch Ill
" 3. The baptism of the Jailor 123
" 4. Buried with Christ — Baptism of the
Holy Ghost 133
CHAPTER V.
IMMERSION THE PRACTICE OP .THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH.
Section 1. Males and females immersed naked 143
-" 2. Trine immersion—Superstitious rites—
Baptismal regeneration — Baptists
not in the line—Who baptizes the
feet and legs ? 156
" 3. Conclusion of the "dip" question—
Baptists wrong—They only " dip"
half the subject 180
PART II.
INFANT BAPTISM.
CHAPTER I.
PRELIMINARIES. ARGUMENT COMMENCED.
Section 1. "Infants cannot comprehend the ordi¬
nance" 189
2. " Faith indispensable to baptism" 194
" 3. Positive institute considered 198
" 4. Baptism a covenant 201
" 5. " Baptism can do an infant no good"... 206
" 6. Have nothing to do with the Abrahamic
covenant—Admissions of A. Fuller—
R. Fuller—A. Campbell—A. Fuller—
Dr. Carson—Scriptures 208
vi
CONTENTS.
Section 7. The commission not in conflict with the
Abrahamic covenant — never was,
never can be 230
CHAPTER II.
THE SUBJECT continued.
Section 1. Sustained by the first gospel sermon... 245
'• 2. The above view sustained by the bap¬
tism of households 255
" 3. Children addressed as Church members 269
" 4. " Infant baptism an innovation" ;... 275
" 5. Testimony of some of the ancient
fathers.. 281
PAET III.
LINKS IN THE CHAIN*OP SUCCESSION—SECTS.
Section 1. Their position stated—Montanists 297
" 2. The Novatians 306
" 3. The Donatists 314
" 4. The Paulicians t 321
" 5. The Paterines 326
" 6. The Arnoldists 330
" 7. The Waldenses 333
" 8. Anabaptists and Mennonites 344
" 9. English Baptists 356
" 10. American Baptists.... 364
CONCLUDING CHAPTER.
REPUBLICANISM OF BAPTISTS
381
Infm,
The writer of the following work has not
the vanity to say that he has written " for the
million," as did the Rev. Dr. Howell, in his
" Evils of Infant Baptismfor we suppose no¬
thing like that number ever read the Doctor's
work, neither will that niimber ever read this.
Yet we do presume that a great many of those
for whom it has been especially prepared will
be led to peruse it with profit to themselves,
and advantage to others.
In the first inception of this work, the writer
only intended to notice the pretensions of Bap¬
tists to antiquity from the days of the apostles
to the present; but in the prosecution of this
part of the work, and the investigation of Bap¬
tist authors, he found that they had attempted
to fortify themselves behind New Testament
usages, and that, should he succeed in showing
the fallacy of their pretensions subsequent to
(vii)
viii
PREFACE.
that time, they would still persist in claiming
as a surer foundation the customs and acts of
the more immediate disciples of Jesus Christ.
Therefore we were forced to take up, or go back
and notice the points discussed in the first part
of what here follows. And this will account
for any discussion we have given of the inter¬
minable question of the mode and subjects of
baptism. We had designed not treating of these
questions at all; but, from the objects in view,
and from what has already been announced, we
were not left to our own discretion in the
matter.
It is hoped, however, that these subjects will
not be unacceptable to the reader, when the
manner especially of their presentation is taken
into the account. In the discussion of these
trite subjects, we have taken Baptists upon their
own grounds, and used their oum authors' ad¬
missions against them, and in our favor, as
proving every thing essential to the point in
hand.
In reference to the style in which we have
here written, we have only this to say: We
have designedly written just as we have. We
have endeavored to write in as familiar a style
as if we were speaking to the common people,
PREFACE.
ix
the very persons for -whom we halve prepared
the work. We say the common people, those
whose early advantages havejbeen limited, who
have to labor for their living, and have not time
and patience to investigate or follow out an in¬
tricate argument. We have found that these are
the people among whom Baptists more frequently
succeed in gaining proselytes than any others.
Hence it is to this class we have turned our at¬
tention, with an earnest desire to rescue them
from the sad mazes of error into which they are
liable to be drawn.
We can assure the reader that we have been
as strictly honest in all our quotations as we
knew how to be. We have gone to some trou¬
ble and expense to get books of different kinds,
especially for the preparation of this work.
And hence, let no Baptist say we have taken
them at second-hand, or garbled their authors.
We have, to shun such a charge, frequently
given longer quotations than were otherwise
essentially necessary.
We have not written for the critic. His criti¬
cisms we shall care nothing for. We have con¬
ceived that there are many works in the world
already suited to the taste of such. And this
has been a great difficulty in the way of the
X
PREFACE.
success of our works generally upon tlie subjects
involved. They^have been written for tbe more
enlightened and critical, and tbe consequence
bas been, tbe great mass of tbe people have not
been reached. The people will not read them.
" We speak that we do know, and testify that
which we have seen." Now, as there are gifts
differing as the Holy Spirit willeth, that all may
be profited thereby, the present work is sent
forth in all honesty of heart and religious pur¬
pose, to aid the minister in his great work of
teaching the people, and relieving the doubts of
those who are harassed interminably about
water, water; the only true Church; following
the Saviour into the liquid grave, etc., etc.
The writer flatters himself that he has here
presented many things upon the subjects in¬
volved in a new light; for which he will doubt¬
less receive the gratitude of many brethren in
the ministry who are destined to labor success¬
ively among a people troubled by the sect this
work is intended to meet. 'And just here, we
wish it distinctly understood, that it is not Bap¬
tists, as a portion of God's great family on
earth, that we here attack; it is the pretensions
they set up, by which they would make the
world believe—if they could—that none others
PREFACE.
xi
but themselves are right, are Christians, are the
people of God.
In sending forth this work to the world, and
especially to the common people, we do it solely
on our own responsibility, hoping, trusting, and
praying that it may accomplish that whereunto
it is sent.
James A. Clement.
Glennville, Ala., 1860.
A DIAGRAM,
EXPOSING AT A GLANCE THE PRETENSIONS OF
BAPTISTS TO ANTIQUITY.
(See Explanation.)
John the Baptist.
Jesus Christ.
The Apostolic Age.
Novatians. 250.
First Pope.
Arnoldists. 1140.
Anabaptists.1536.
171. Montanists.
310. Donatists.
©
© sr
5 o
606.
W
Q
§*8
653. Paulicians.
945. Paterines.
1450. Waldenses.
About 1500. C'b of England.
o
<*5.
(12)
td
W
A BRIEF EXPLANATION OF THE
DIAGRAM.
We have given but a narrow space to Jobn
the Baptist, as he exercised his ministry hut
six months, when the entrance of our Saviour
upon his closed up John's. For about three
and a half years Jesus Christ preached among
the people, and then demonstrated the Divinity
of his mission fully to the world. The Apos¬
tolic Age continued about one hundred years,
to the death of St. John, during which period
" the people of God" were styled " the Church
of God."
After this period, and until aboui^ A. D. 482,
by uninspired historians it was called "the
Catholic Church," or " Church Catholic," when
it was divided into what was called the Greek
or Eastern Church, and Latin or Western
Church. The former, or Eastern Church, still
is known by that name; and it was from this
Church the Paulicians broke off, and set up for
themselves.
About the year 606 the Bishop of Rome, or
of the Latin Church, had perpetually entailed
upon him and his successors the title of " Uni¬
versal Bishop" by the Emperor, which is the
(xiii)
xiv EXPLANATION OF DIAGRAM.
beginning of Popedom, or what is called " the
Roman Catholic Church."
From this Church, all the various sects men¬
tioned in the Diagram sprang or broke off, and
had, of course, Roman Catholic baptism, except
the first three and last two. The former broke
off from "the Catholic Church," and formed
societies after their own notions. The last two
broke off from the Established Church of Eng¬
land, but rejected their baptism received in the
Church, and were both baptized by laymen,
and assumed the right to found a Church, or
Churches rather, the one in England, the other
in America, and " dubbed" them " The only true
Church or Churches of God upon earth."
By letting the eye glance along down the
Diagram, the reader will see at once that there
is a perfect impossibility of a regular succession
of baptisms from John the Baptist, so much
spoken of by immersionists. Then, when the
eye reaches the time of English and American
Baptists, he will discover a break in the lines,
which signifies that their former baptisms were
rejected or disowned by them, and baptism from
laymen obtained in lieu thereof. But we refer
to the body of the work in your hand for con¬
firmation.
EXPOSITION
op
baptist |jrttottstotts to ^tttoptiig.
PART I.
their antiquity exposed as to the mode op
baptism prom their own writers and the
bible.
CHAPTER I.
the mode of baptism.
Section I.— 'Preliminaries.
It is the ever-prevailing custom of Baptists,
in all their preaching, conversation, and hook-
making, to lay claim, with a great deal of osten¬
tation and self-complacency, to a regular descent
from John the Baptist, and the ancient Chris¬
tian Churches. They are perfectly welcome to
all the comfort that can be derived from such a
course—if comfort there can he—in denying that
others, not of their way of thinking and acting,
(15)
16 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
are " fellow-citizens" and members of " the
household of God" with themselves, but are
" aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and
strangers from the covenants of promise, having
no hope, and without God in the world."
Such a course may well befit the dark ages of
the world, and " Babylon the Great, the mother
of harlots and abominations of the earth," but
it is by no means calculated to beautify and
adorn the temple of God, the true and humble
disciples of the meek and lowly Jesus. It may
do for one living where no ray of heavenly light
arises to dispel the gloom and thick darkness
of his mind and soul, to arrogate to himself all
blessings of a superior Power; but for one breath¬
ing the atmosphere of heaven, illumed by the
written word of God, to stand up and declare,
" The temple of the Lord, the temple of the
Lord are we, and heathens all beside," is the
climax of bigotry and consummate folly, which
alike merits the reprobation of the pious and in¬
telligent, and the severe rebuke of our common
Lord, who once said to a party of bigots that
desired their Master to prohibit others from cast¬
ing out devils, " Forbid them not; for he that
is not against me is for me."
It does appear strange that any one enlight-
TO ANTIQUITY.
17
ened by the Holy Spirit should assume that
none others but himself are entitled to the
blessings of heaven. Yet so it is; there are
those now, all over our land, who have set up
such assumptions, and who discard from the
pale of God's Church all who do not act and
think as they do.
Such as the Papists,'who contend that out of
the Roman Catholic Church there is no salva¬
tion. Episcopalians assume, likewise, that with¬
out priestly ceremonies and confirmation by one
in a regular line from the apostles, we must be
turned over to the " uncovenanted mercies of
God." Baptists pretend that they alone have the
right to administer the sacraments, assuming
four things as essential to constitute the people
of God: First, that they be regularly de¬
scended from John the Baptist; secondly, a be¬
lief and practice of " believers' baptism" alone,
so called; thirdly, an utter rejection and con¬
demnation of infant baptism, as the most dam¬
nable of all heresies; and fourthly, that such peo¬
ple have the maledictions and persecutions of
the whole world.
All these points they assume, laud, magnify,
and continually present as the evidences of their
peculiar favoritism with the Almighty. Among
18 baptist pretensions
the intelligent, such pretensions are all consid¬
ered as " for Buncombe." But it is astonishing,
in one view of the case, what an influence is
exerted by them over the uninformed. Now it
is to contribute our mite to the rescuing of this
class from such delusions and abominable stuff,
that we take our pen in hand, and seat us to the
task.
And that we may not misguide and deceive
the reader in the positions of Baptists, we shall
freely use their own authors whenever we shall
judge it necessary; advertising beforehand, that
we shall not be responsible in the least for any
severe but faithful deductions we may make from
their own assumptions and admissions.
Sec. II.—Baptist views of John's baptism.
Baptists are very fond, as the reader well
knows, of claiming John the Baptist as their
great ancestor. Thus, for instance, " He is not
called John the Episcopalian, John the Presby¬
terian, nor John the Methodist, but John the
Baptist." Now as silly and foolish as is this,
there are thousands who believe that he stands
as the great prototype of Baptist Churches,
merely because he is scripturally styled " John
the Baptist." And the whole of them believe
TO ANTIQUITY.
19
he was an immerser, from the fact that he is
said to have "baptized in Jordan;" and hence
assume immersion as the only mode—believers
the only subjects. And that it may be seen that
we are not misrepresenting them on this subject,
we shall here give them a morsel for their meal
from Mr. Orchard's " History of Foreign Bap¬
tists," pp. 1, 2. He says : "Among those duties
clearly revealed, and which the New Testament
enjoins on the disciples of our Redeemer, be¬
lievers' baptism holds a very conspicuous place."
" Its scriptural character has been observed and
perpetuated by one class or branch of the pro¬
fessing Church, while other sections degenerated
into the most unscriptural customs and heathen¬
ish rites." "By the great body of disputants,
it has been diverted from the subject to which
the Scriptures assigned it, (Acts viii. 37; xviii.
8,) from various motives, all which have made it
-to convey the essentials of purity a/nd spiritual
life. Yet it has a scriptural aspect and import
for which we [Baptists] contend; and our de¬
sire is to be found succeeding in spirit, views,
and practice, those Christians who, under differ¬
ent names, and in various parts of the world,
contended earnestly from apostolic days. [ISP3]
Our design is to trace and record the existence
20 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
and practice of those Christian Societies which
scripturally administered the ordinance, and this
we hope to do from the Jewish Jordan to the
British Thames."
We shall see in the course of this exposition
whether believers' baptism only is " clearly re¬
vealed," and how- " one class or branch of the
professing Church" has " observed and perpetu¬
ated" it; and how or whether " other sections"
have " degenerated into the most unscriptural
customs and heathenish rites'." We shall also
see whether Baptists alone have preserved its
" scriptural aspect and import:" whether they
be able " to trace and record" their " existence
and practice" "from the Jewish Jordan to the
British Thames." We had thought from their
unceasing tirade against Jewish customs, prac¬
tices, and places, that they held them in such
utter abhorrence that no Jewish type or cleans¬
ing priest could find a place for even a foot¬
hold amongst them; but lo! wonderful to tell,
Mr. Orchard is going to trace Baptist Churches
right to the heart of Judaism. Surely, then,
he will let us have a little footing in Judaism
for infant baptism. But we shall see.
Mr. Orchard sets out by claiming John the
Baptist as the Jirst Baptist, and says, " The way
TO ANTIQUITY.
21
of Jolm's administering the ordinance occasioned
his being called the Baptistand a note at the
foot of the page deposeth thus: " The word
Baptist, as distinguishing now a class of Chris¬
tians, was given to express the act of John in
administering the ordinance, and this term left
by the Holy Spirit, without translating, is the
only scriptural cognomen for that sacrament,
and which has been, through all ages, used to
distinguish those who followed the first exam¬
ple." And yet, after the Holy Spirit has left
this word without translating it, on the very
next page the author translates it himself by
the word " immerse." How dare the man
translate a word the Holy Spirit has thus left
"without translating?" Then, if Baptist, or
baptize, is " the only scriptural cognomen" for
baptism, it follows that immerse is not. So it
follows that the Holy Spirit does not recognize
immerse as belonging to the ordinance of bap¬
tism. So neither should we.
But was John the Baptist, the son of a Jew¬
ish priest, a Baptist after the modern style?
Baptists think so, from what is stated of his
baptizing in Jordan. "We shall examine this
position to see if there he any weight or fact in
it. The argument runs somehow thus, I sup-
22 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
pose; John the Baptist baptized in Jordan;
but modern Baptists baptize in rivers, lakes,
pools, and ponds; therefore, Baptists are fol¬
lowers or descendants of John the Baptist.
Or thus: Immersion is performed in rivers, etc.
But John baptized in a river; therefore, John
immersed. But let us be sober. Sober we are,
for we are just talking the way Baptists talk,
and you know they talk only soberly—whether
logically and scripturally or not, we shall see.
Now, reader, let us inquire a little into John's
baptism, to see if there be any foundation for
the Baptist idea of paternity. They assume
three things as evident: First, Because John
was denominated the Baptist, and themselves
called Baptists, therefore they are regularly
descended from John, and hence John was a
Baptist in the modern acceptation of that term.
Secondly, They assume that baptize means " to
dip, and nothing but dip." Thirdly, That as
John baptized "in Jordan," therefore he im¬
mersed, and as they immerse, they are regularly
and legitimately John's descendants.
All this, when interpreted according to their
mode of argumentation, amounts to just the
following: " Baptist" means an immerser; bap¬
tize means to immerse, and "in Jordan" means
TO ANTIQUITY.
23
immersion. So, when thrown together, it reads,
"John the immerser immersed immersion:"
"John the dipper dipped dipping!" 0, what
marvellous beauty! Reader, do not laugh or
sneer at such foolish reading and nonsense, for
by just such rendering of the word of God,
Baptists lay claim not only to your faith,
but implicit and unqualified obedience. They
will not deny the positions we lay down. If
they do, then that moment they surrender their
cause. And, to prove what we here assert, just
lay down this little Exposition, and step into
the sanctum of your Baptist pastor, and ask
him if Baptist means immerser, and if baptize
means immerse, and then if " in Jordan" does
not signify immersion, or its equivalent, and
you will soon be satisfied whether or not we
are correct.
Section III.—John's baptism as to his name
and mode—Lexicons—Dr. Carson and his
admissions.
Suppose we now examine the name of John
the Baptist, to see if there be any truth in their
assumption. Was he called the Baptist sim¬
ply because he immersed ? Or did he immerse
at all 1 We assume the negative of these ques-
24 baptist pretensions
tions, and will here present the reader with some
of the reasons why we do so.
They assume that the only meaning of baptize
is to dip or immerse, while all the authorities
are against them in such a position. A few of
which we here present.
It is known to persons any way conversant
with the "baptismal question," that Baptists lay
a great deal of stress upon bapto, the root of
baptizo, to sustain their view of the subject—
dip only.
For the reader's satisfaction, let him read and
ponder the following:
Hesychius, the oldest native Greek lexi¬
cographer, gives antleo as a meaning of bapto.
"With Groves's Greek Dictionary now before us,
we read, "Antleo, to draw, pump; to empty,
exhaust; to spend, waste, shed, spill; to linger,
drag, or draw out."
Gases, another native Greek lexicographer,
and of considerable renown, essays as follows :
Bapto means brecho, which Groves defines
thus : to wet, moisten, bedew; to steep, drench ;
to rain, drop, etc. Pltjno, to wash. Gemizo,
to fill, to load. Buthizo, to plunge, dip, im-
merge; to sink, drown. Antleo, the same as
Hesychius, to draw, pump; to shed, to spill.
to antiquity.
25
Schrevelius defines it, mergo ; i. e., to put
under water, dip, sink, immerse, drown; in-
tingo, i. e., to dip in, wet, moisten; lavo, i. e.,
to wash, bathe, moisten, besprinkle, bedew, etc.
Groves gives, " to dip, plunge, immerse; to
wash; to wet, moisten, sprinkle; to steep, im¬
bue ; to dye, stain, color," as meanings of
bapto.
A host of others might be adduced, all hear¬
ing the same undoubted and clear testimony;
but to the inquirer after truth these will he
sufficient.
As to baptizo, the word used in the New
Testament to set forth the ordinance under con¬
sideration, Gases, heretofore quoted, defines it
by brecho, to wet, moisten, bedew; to steep,
drench; to rain, drop. Pluno, to wash; louo,
to wash, bathe; antleo, to draw, pump; to
shed, spill.
Schrevelius, among others, gives the fol¬
lowing as meanings: abluo, to wash, to wash
off, to make clean, to purify ; lavo, to wash,
bathe, moisten, besprinkle, bedew.
Schleusner says: to plunge, immerse,
cleanse, wash, to purify with water.
Parkhurst. : " to immerse in or wash with
water in token of purification."
26 baptist pretensions
Groves defines it: "to dip, immerse, im-
merge, plunge; to wash, cleanse, purify
Scapula also defines it: " to dip, immerse; to
cleanse, to wash."
Agreeing with these, you will find Hedericus,
Stephanus, Robinson, Bretschneider, Suidas,
Wahl, Greenfield, etc., etc.
Now turn to Carson on Baptism, page 19, and
read the following: " The learned Dr. Gale,
in his Reflections on Mr. Wall's History of In¬
fant Baptism, after giving ns a copious list of
quotations, in which bapto and baptizo are used,
says: ' I think it is plain, from the instances
already mentioned, that they are exactly the
same as to signification.' As far as respects an
increase or diminution of the action of the verb,
I perfectly agree with the writer. That the one
is more or less than the other, as to mode or
frequency, is a perfectly groundless conceit."
Mark now, that these Baptist doctors say that
bapto and baptizo " are exactly the same as to
significationthat the action of both verbs is
precisely the same; and that it " is a perfectly
groundless conceit" to say that, " as to mode or
frequency," " the one is more or less than the
other"—that is, whatever one means, so does
the other.
TO ANTIQUITY.
27
Dr. Carson, however, does set himself to
work to maintain a position assumed on page
55, that baptizo " always signifies to dip; never
expressing any thing but mode." Yet, on page
19, he says : " The primitive word bapto has two
significations; the primary, to dip, the secondary,
to dye." And then, on page 44, he says : "Now
while I contend that dyeing is the secondary
meaning of this word, I contend also that this
is a real literal meaning, independent of con¬
sequence. Although this meaning arose from
the mode of dyeing by dipping, yet the word
has eome by appropriation to denote dyeing
[BP"] without reference to mode." "Bapto sig¬
nifies to dye in any manner."
Then, if bapto and baptizo " are exactly the
same as to signification," and bapto " denotes
dyeing, without reference to mode," and dyeing
"is a real literal meaning;" if we show that
bapto means to sprinkle, will it not follow that
baptizo also means to sprinkle ? Certainly.
And Dr. Carson, as you have already seen,
admits that "as to mode or frequency," "the
one is not more or less than the other."
Now turn to Dr. Carson's work on Baptism,
pp. 44, 45, and read as follows:
Hippocrates employs bapto " to denote dyeing
28 baptist pretensions
by dropping the dyeing liquid on the thing
dyed: ' When it drops upon the garments, they
are dyed.' This surely, says he, is not dyeing
by dipping." What say Baptists of the pre¬
sent day to this ?
Again: "Nearchus relates that the Indians
dye their beards. It will not be contended that
they dyed their beards by immersion." Nay,
Doctor, it would scarcely be presumable that one
would stick his beard into a pot of dyeing liquid,
yet Baptists will still persist in having it dip, or
immerse. How would a man appear, standing
over a pot of dyeing liquid plunging his beard
into it 1
On page 45, he says : iElian, speaking of an
old coxcomb, who endeavored to conceal his age
by dyeing his hair, says: " He endeavored
to conceal the hoariness of his hair by dyeing
it." " Baphe, here," says the Doctor, " denotes
dyeing in general; for hair on the head is not
dyed by dipping." There now, the word does
not always convey the idea of dip.
Other instances might be given, but the reader
can consult them by turning to the above pages.
But we cannot refrain giving in this connection
an admission made by the Doctor in reference to
Nebuchadnezzar, mentioned in Daniel v. 21.
TO ANTIQUITY.
29
" Daniel does not say that Nebuchadnezzar
should lie in dew, and he covered with it all over.
Had this been his expression, it would have
been quite literal. Dr. Gale absurdly supposes
that hapto means to cover with water, without
reference to mode, and at the same time meta¬
phorically alludes to dipping. Neither Daniel
nor his translators say that Nebuchadnezzar
should he as wet as if he were dipped ; for if that
had been the expression, there could have been
no dispute about it." Well, Doctor, tell us what
you think. See page 47, where he says, " Ne¬
buchadnezzar was said to be immersed in dew,
[13^] though literally the dew FELL on him."
Then haphe here literally means to fall, and
hence means something else besides to dip and
to dye. For he says the king was not dipped,
and would he say that he was dyed ? Gome,
honor bright, Doctor. " Certainly, sir," for " in
a controversialist nothing can compensate for
candor; and facts ought to he admitted, even
when they appear unfavorable." "To force
through difficulties, employ insufficient evi¬
dence, refuse admissions that integrity cannot
deny, and by rhetorical artifice cut down what¬
ever opposes, is the part of a religious gladiator,
not of a Christian contending earnestly for
30 baptist pretensions
Divine institutions." Page 45. Hence he is
constrained to admit that " bapto signifies to dye
by sprinkling, as properly as by dipping."
Page 46. Mark that admission.
Section IV.— The subject continued—Dr. Car¬
son's •position stated, and exposed by his own
. illustrations, and by application to the Scrip¬
tures— Why Baptists cannot retort on us.
How Doctor Carson, the eminent Baptist
writer, notwithstanding his admission as above
stated, that bapto and baptizo were " exactly
the same as to signification," lays down on p.
55 this assumption: " My position is, that it
[baptizo] always signifies to dip, never express¬
ing any thing but mode. How, as I have all
the lexicographers and commentators against
me in this opinion, it will be necessary to say a
word or two with respect to the authority of
lexicons." And on p. 57 he says, " The mean¬
ing of the word is always the same."
Well, he maintains its meaning as dip, and
nothing but dip. Turn over now to pp. 58, 59;
quoting from Diodorus Siculus this passage,
"Many of the land animals, immersed [baptized]
in the river, perish," he says, "This baptism
also is immersion." The animals " would at first
TO ANTIQUITY.
31
swim; but they would soon sink, and be en¬
tirely immersed.—The sinking of animals in
water is here called baptism. What, then, is
baptism but immersion ?" And upon the same
principle, he says, "Drown might be giyen as an
additional meaning to baptizo."
Again: " Speaking of the lake near Agri-
gentum, a town on the south shore of Sicily,
now called Gergenti, he says, things which
otherwise will not swim do not sink in the
water of the lake, but float like wood. And
there is a rivulet in the south parts of Oappado-
cia whose waters are so buoyant, that if an
arrow is thrown in, it will hardly sink or be dipped
into them." In another place, ascribing the
fabulous properties of the Asphaltic to the lake
Sirbon, he says, " The bitumen floats a-top,
because of the nature of the water, which ad¬
mits no diving; for if a man goes into it, he
cannot sink, or be dipped, but is forcibly kept
above." " Now," says the Doctor, " in these
several passages, the modal meaning of the word
is confirmed in so clear, express, and decisive a
manner, that obstinacy itself cannot find a plau¬
sible objection." Then the reader will not pre¬
sume us obstinate when we charge upon the
Doctor these several meanings of the word bap-
32 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
tizo : that is, to sink, to drown, to dire. For he
assures us " the modal meaning of the word is
confirmed in so clear, express, and decisive a
manner, that obstinacy itself cannot find a plau¬
sible objection." Then, for fear of being
thought "obstinate," we shall have to "give
in," and admit that it is a clear case, expressly
declared by decisive evidence, that baptizo not
only means to dip, but to sink, drown, and
dive.
Now, notwithstanding Dr. Carson sets out
with the position that baptizo, in all the history
of the Creek language, has but one meaning,
yet is he constrained ere he far proceeds to pre¬
sent us with its variations. "What can bap¬
tism be but an operation of the same nature with
sinking or diving, which are used here as nearly
synonymous terms with that which signifies to
baptize ?" •
Our way is now clear to apply the positions
of Baptists of the dip creed only to the word
of God for its verification. If we are not mis¬
taken, it is a rule in language that the meaning
of a word, when substituted in its place, will
give sense. Let us try some of the above.
"Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall
drink of, and to be dipped with the dipping that
TO ANTIQUITY.
33
I shall be dipped with ? Ye shall drink indeed
of my cup, and be dipped with the dipping that
I shall he dipped with." Matt. xx. 22, 23.
" Repent and he drowned, every one of you."
Acts ii. 38.
" I thank God that I dipped into none of you
but Crispus and Gaius. And I also dived into
the household of Stephanas. Besides, I know
not whether I drowned, any other." 1 Cor. i.
14, 16.
" Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jor¬
dan, to whom thou bearest witness, behold the
same drowneth, and all men come to him." John
iii. 26.
"Arise and dive, and wash away thy sins."
Acts xxii. 16.
" He that believeth and is sunk shall beNsaved."
Mark xvi. 16.
Matt. iii. 1: "In those days came John the
Dipper, Immerser, Plunger, Diver, Sinker,
Drowner." Beautiful—very !
Reader, just take either one, or all of these in
a lump, if any suits you. If you can abide
such "tantalization" of the word of God, you
are welcome to its beauty and glory.
We could readily enlarge this catalogue of
Baptist interpretations, but suppose the -reader
2
34 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
is now fully prepared to proceed in the applica¬
tion to all the passages in the Bible where the
word baptize occurs.
But Baptists essay to retort upon us by sub¬
stituting pouring and sprinTcling for baptize;
as, for instance, " In those days came John the
Pourer, Sprinkler," etc. But they should re¬
member that we propose to do no such thing.
"Pis not the mode that we are after so much, in
determining the meaning of the word baptize,
as the great end to be accomplished. Once de¬
termine this, and ike mode is settled. We con¬
tend that baptize is not a specific, but a generic
word, and hence cannot be translated by a spe¬
cific term, such as pour, sprinkle, bedew, distil,
plunge, dip, immerse, dive, sink, drown, etc.,
but must of necessity be translated by a generic
word or words, according to its connection, such
as cleanse, purify, consecrate.
For the benefit of the reader who may not at
first view be able to apprehend the difference be¬
tween a specific and generic word, we will give an
illustration: Suppose we were to state to you that
we travelled to New York, and returned home
in thirty days. The word travd is generic, and
not specific, because it does not tell you how or
the mode in which we travelled. We might
TO ANTIQUITY.
35
have walked, run, ridden a horse, gone in a buggy,
wagon, railroad-car, steamboat, or ship. Now, for
the life of you, you could not determine the
mode of our travelling, unless by antecedents or
express explanation. But should we tell you
that we walked, rode a horse, or otherwise, then
that would be specific. But suppose some
would-be-wise one were to rise up and say that
he knew we travelled to New York on the back
of a camel, for that was the ancient method of
travelling; then travel, according to such a
one, would always mean to .ride on the back of
a camel. This would be a very ridiculous way
of interpreting the word, or any word. You
see the difference now between a specific and a
generic word.
Let us look at the commission given to the
apostles: "Go ye therefore and teach [disciple,
or make proselytes of] all nations, baptizing
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to ob¬
serve all things whatsoever I have commanded
you." Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. Here the word
"go" is a generic word. How were they to
go ? The ancient way of going amongst the
disciples was walking. But shall all ministers
now walk ? If we can go to our appointments,
36 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
or to all the world, better in some other way,
shall it be contended that we are not fulfilling
the commission because we do not walk ?
Again: " Teach them to observe all things,"
etc. Here the word " teach" is not a specific,
but a generic word. What mode shall they use
in teaching ? Teaching at that time by the
disciples was done by the living voice. Must
this be the mode of teaching ever afterward?
But we find the apostles not only taught the
people by " word of mouth," but also with the
pen. Hence we have the four Gospels, the
Epistles, etc., which compose our New Testament.
Now as these two prominent words in the com¬
mission are generic, so is the other, " baptizing
them." Row shall they baptize ? " By im¬
mersion," cries a Baptist. But we say nay,
because the word is generic, and a determination
as to its meaning cannot be so summarily reached
as that you have adopted. You have to inquire
into the design of it before you can arrive at
its meaning. Then take this view of the sub¬
ject : the design was to mahe disciples to Christ.
Then, what is that? Simply, a setting them,
apart as belonging to Christ—distinguishing
them from the world. That is, purifying, cleans¬
ing, or consecrating them to the service of God.
TO ANTIQUITY.
37
How this is to be done must be determined by
the Divine method or mode of purifying, conse¬
crating to his service; which we shall see, ere
we come to the end of this Exposition, was al¬
ways done, not by immersion, but by sprinkling
and pouring.
Now, if the reader will take the time to stop
just here, and apply a generic term to baptize
wherever found in his Bible, we will guarantee
he will discover a beauty and force in those
passages never before dreamed of by him. As
for example: " I indeed purfy you with water,
but he that cometh after me shall purify you
with the Holy Ghost and with fire." What
marvellous beauty and force, and how congenial
with the nature of Christianity, and the entire
teachings of the Bible !
So also : " In those days came John the Puri¬
fier ," etc.; which we will presently see was in
accordance with prophecy, the expectations of the
Jews, and the facts in the case. The word con¬
secrate is equally as good, both as to sense and
the facts in the case. But this truth will be
more fully developed as we proceed.
Thus we see " the pretensions of Baptists to
antiquity," as derived from the use of the word
baptize, exposed in few words by men of learn-
38 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
ing, both ancient and modern, as well as also by
their own writers, and the application of their
own dip creed only to the word of God.
to antiquity.
39
CHAPTER II.
baptism, continued.
Sec. I.—"In Jordan," does not •prove immersion,
as seen from Mark i. 4: John i. 28; x. 40,
and from Dr. Carson's admissions.
The phrase " in Jordan" is also used by them
to prove immersion. Why in Jordan, if not to
express the mode ? That is, immersion. Then,
the coming up out of the water is certain de¬
monstration that John did immerse. They can¬
not see why or how these phrases are used, if
they were not to establish beyond a doubt the
mode of John's baptism. And upon such ex¬
pressions they lay the greatest stress.
To satisfy ourselves upon this subject, let us
attend to the following facts—facts, too, of a
stubborn character:
In Mark i. 4, it is said that" John did baptize
in the wilderness." " Wilderness," says Mr.
40 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
Webster, comes from the word "wild," and
means " a desert, a tract-of land or region uncul¬
tivated and uninhabited by human beings, whe¬
ther a forest or a wide barren plain." Mr.
Home, in his " Introduction to the Study of the
Bible," says: " The wilderness or desert of
Judea, in which John the Baptist abode till the
day of his showing unto Israel, and where he
first taught his countrymen, was a mountainous,
wooded, and thinly inhabited tract of country."
Now, we ask any candid man, if there had been
a good supply of water, after the Baptist fashion,
in such a country as this wilderness, why did
John remove to Jordan ? Is it probable there
was in this wilderness any stream of water large
and deep enough to immerse in ? Nay, there
was not. Yet Mark asserts that " John did bap¬
tize in the wilderness." Be it remembered this
wilderness is not Jordan—it is entirely a differ¬
ent place. Does the word wilderness convey the
idea of water—much water, from which to draw
the favored immersion % Where would they get
the water ? But they are very imaginative, and
maybe they would here prefer a " dry dip,"
rather than miss a dip at all. Now, if " in Jor¬
dan" proves immersion, what does " in the wil¬
derness" prove ? Can they tell us 1 Will they
TO ANTIQUITY.
41
do it ? Surely there is no immersion here, for
there is no river, lake, or pond in all this wil¬
derness where immersion could he performed.
But, nothing daunted, they say, " there might
have been ' a bathing-tub' carried out there for
the purpose." Well, well; that's a bright idea,
very. But a drowning man will catch at a
straw.
In John i. 28, it is said: " These things were
done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John
was baptizing." Now, if "in Jordan" means
that John plunged the people in Jordan, then
will it not follow that he plunged them in Betha¬
bara? But it will be found that where John
was baptizing, was the place where John held a
colloquy with certain Jews in reference to the
question, " Who art thou ?" Then if the pre¬
position in means immersion, or refers to the
mode of baptism at all, then are we driven to
the position that this interview of John with the
Jews was under the water. Which who can
receive ?
Again, if in here determines the mode to he
immersion, where was it performed? Not cer¬
tainly "in Jordan," for the text says, it was
" beyond Jordan"—not in Jordan at all, but " in
Bethabara," a place distinct from Jordan, he-
42 BAPTIST PRE TE NSIONS
cause it is "beyond Jordan." Can anybody
prove that Bethabara was a stream, lake, pool,
or pond ? It matters not to say that Betbabara
means " the place of the ford." For whatever
it is, it cannot mean any part of the water of
Jordan; for we reiterate the plain words of the
text, it was a place where John was baptizing
"beyond Jordan," and not Jordan itself.
But again: In John x. 40, it says, "And
[Jesus] went away again beyond Jordan, into
the place where John at first baptized, and there
he abode." This was the same "Bethabara"
"beyond Jordan." Did he go into the water?
It was into the place where John at first bap¬
tized. If he did not go into the water, then
John did not baptize in the water. And then
it is said, " there he abode." "Where ? Cer¬
tainly in the place where John baptized. Will
any one have the audacity to say " he abode"
in the water ? " He abode" in Bethabara, but
not in the water. John then baptized some¬
where else other than "in Jordan" and in the
water, a place where a living man might reside
without being always " as wet as if he had been
immersed." These facts, then, establish the
point that "in Jordan," "in Bethabara," "in
the wilderness," refer, not to the mode of bap-
to antiquity.
43
tism at ail, but simply to the place of John's
baptizing. And so the same may be said of his
baptizing " in Enon." Did he plunge them into
Bethabara, and into Enon 1 No use to say there
was " much water therefor it is not said he
plunged or dipped them into the " much water,"
or even water at all, but "was baptizing in
Enon. Enon and the much water are different
things. It is said he baptized in Enon, but it is
not said that he baptized in the " much water."
Dr. Carson, a Baptist writer of " critical acu¬
men," and who " always saw to the bottom of
any subject which he undertook to handle," ac¬
cording to his biographer, has made the follow¬
ing admissions upon this subject. On pp. 130,
131, of his great work on baptism, he says :
" Since we are not otherwise informed that John
and He [Jesus] went into the water previously
to baptizing, as we are informed with respect to
Philip and the eunuch, I think there is no reason
to believe that John the Baptist usually went
into the water in baptizing. The striking differ¬
ence between the accounts of these two baptisms
leads me to conclude that John chose some place
on the edge of the Jordan, that admitted the
immersion of the person baptized, [i^3] while
the baptizer remained on the margin."
44 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
Again: When pressed with the difficulty of
John's having to remain so much and so long
in the water, he candidly acknowledges that,
" Instead of keeping John the Baptist ten hours
every day in the water, I will not oblige, him to
go into the water at all: he might have stood
on the brink. Philip and the eunuch, indeed,
went both into the water, and in many cases this
may he still necessary; but it is not essential to
the ordinance." Pp. 336, 337.
In perfect keeping with these admissions, he
gives us another on p. 339. Speaking of Ulys¬
ses, as related by Homer, who escaped from ship¬
wreck, and lay on the hank of the river, he says,
" He has only the choice whether to watch all
the rueful night en potomo—in the river—or to
ascend the acclivity. But why in the river?
Is he not out of the river ? . . . It is not at
the river, but in the river that he supposes him¬
self to watch. On the hank he could have no
shelter; in the river he would have the shelter
of the hank. He might be in the river, yet not
in the water: all within the hanks is the
river."
What will Baptists nowadays say to this?
Where is their argument then for immersion in
the expression " in Jordan ?" A person may be
to antiquity.
45
in Jordan, and yet not in the water at all. That
is just what Pedobaptists have contended for all
the time. Dr. Carson supposes John the Bap¬
tist did not go into the water at all. That is
what we say too. The Doctor thinks John
" might have stood on the brink" of the river.
So we think also. The Doctor says " it is not
essential to the ordinance of baptism" for the
administrator to go into the water. So we say.
But Baptists in these days contend that it is.
In reference to Ulysses, the Doctor says, " It is
not at the river, but in the fiver," " yet not in
the water" he watches. This is all we ask of
any Baptist to grant. For when this is conceded,
the entire argument from "in Jordan," and the
like expressions, is surrendered—must he given
uPi.
Section II.— The phrase "in Jordan," etc.,
settled by the word of God: Joshua iii., iv.—
Dr. Carson for us again — R. Fuller and
Duke iv. 1.
While we lay great stress upon the above
facts and concessions of Dr. Carson, there is
another fact to which we now advert, which is
found in the supreme arbiter of our faith—
facts as found in the word of God. We shall
46 baptist pretensions
show the reader, from the Bible itself, that " in
Jordan" does not signify either in or under the
water, and that one can "come up out of Jor¬
dan" without ever having been even in the
water at all.
Beader, open now your Bible at Joshua iii.
and iv., and read as follows, an account of the
passages of the children of Israel across the
Jordan and the Bed Sea:
" When ye are come to the brink of the water
of Jordan, ye shall stand still in Jordan." Josh,
iii. 8. "Behold the ark of the covenant of the
Lord of all the earth passeth over before you
into Jordan."—Yerse 11. "And it shall come
to pass as soon as the soles of the feet of the
priests that bear the ark of the Lord shall rest
in the waters of Jordan."—Yerse 13. "And
the priests stood firm on dry ground in the midst
of Jordan."—Yerse 17. "And the Lord spake
unto Joshua, saying, Command the priests that
bear the ark of the testimony, that they come
up out of Jordan. Joshua therefore commanded
the priests, saying, Come ye up out of Jordan."
"And it came to pass when the priests that bare
the ark of the covenant of the Lord were come
up out of the midst of Jordan, and the soles of
the priests' feet were lifted up unto the dry land,
TO ANTIQUITY.
47
that the waters of Jordan returned to their
place, and flowed over all his hanks as they did
before." "And the people came up out of Jor¬
dan on the tenth day of the month," etc. Josh,
iv. 15-19.
What need we any plainer witness? Can
any one for a moment entertain a doubt after
these express declarations ? For here we have
those who were "in Jordan," "into Jordan,"
" in the waters of Jordan," who are said in the
sacred record to have " stood firm on dry
ground," even " in the midst of Jordan." And
furthermore, the much - mooted expression,
"Come up out of Jordan," is here used as
many as four times without ever teaching the
Baptist notion of being in or under the water.
For the text itself informs us that the priests and
all the people were on dry ground, dry land," in
the midst of Jordan."
The same fact is taught in the account of the
passage of the children of Israel through the
Bed Sea. Paul says, "All our fathers were
under the cloud, and all passqd through the sea;
and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud
and in the sea." And yet if any reliance is to
he placed in the history of its record, they were
not in the water at all; for the "strong east
48 baptist pretensions
wind made the sea dry land, and the waters
were divided. And the children of Israel went
into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground."
" The Lord your God dri^fl. up the waters of
Jordan from before you, until ye were passed
over, as the Lord your God did to the Red Sea,
which he dried up from before us until we were
gone over." 1 Cor. x. 1, 2: Exod. xiv. 21, 22 :
Josh. iv. 23.
Now it is clearly evident from these pas¬
sages that while the children of Israel were " in
the midst of Jordan," and in the Red Sea,
they were on dry land. That fact the Divine
record states emphatically. Then it follows
that the expressions, "in the midst of Jordan,"
and "in Jordan," "in the sea," do not convey
the Baptistic idea of immersion. Nothing can
be plainer. Yet the record states that they
were " all baptized." How was it done ? By
immersion, say Baptists; for the cloud was
above them, and the sea upon either side—
" surrounded by water;" therefore they were
immersed. But not quite so fast, if you please.
There was no water under them. They were
on dry land. Who ever saw an immersion
where there was no water beneath the subject ?
The whole person must be wet. But here is a
to antiquity.
49
baptism where the subjects were not wet, under¬
neath, at least, for all was dry. But if we will
let the Bible be its own interpreter, all will be
clear and plain to be understood. The Psalm¬
ist, speaking of this same passage of the chil¬
dren of Israel, says : " The waters saw thee, 0
God, the waters saw thee; they were afraid:
the depths also were troubled. The clouds
poured out water: the skies sent out a sound:
thine arrows also went abroad.—Thy way is in
the sea, and thy path in the great waters, and
thy footsteps are not known. Thou leddest thy
people like a flock by the hand of Moses and
Aaron." Psalm lxxvii. 16-20. Here, then, is
the mode of the baptism of the children of
Israel, given by God himself. " The clouds
poured out water" upon them as they passed
through the sea; and this pouring out of the
water is by Paul called baptism; and he says
these things are our examples. If so, then we
should pour water when we baptize. This
matter, then, is settled by the "Bible itself. Let
us believe it.
Baptists are ever harping upon the expression
used in Matthew iii. 16 : " Jesus, when he was
baptized, went up straightway out of the water"
as infallible evidence of immersion. But does
50 baptist pretensions
it prove it? Does it necessarily follow that
because be came up out of the water, be went
down into it, and was put under after tbe Bap¬
tist fashion ? Tbe cases already adduced show
that it does not. And, in conclusion upon this
point, we submit another of Dr. Carson's admis¬
sions. Tbe reader will remember that in tbe
passage—Matt. iii. 16—that speaks of our
Saviour's coming up out of tbe water, tbe Greek,
preposition is apo, translated out of in our
Bibles. Pedobaptists have always contended
that it would be more properly rendered from
tbe water. But this Baptists strongly contest.
Now bear tbe immortal Baptist Carson. On p.
337 be says, " It never has been argued by me
that in tbe cases that refer to baptism apo must
signify out of "When tbe writer, then, grants
that tbe preposition rarely has this signification,
he grants me more than I will accept. I deny
that it ever signifies out of. I shall not force
tbe word to do more for me than what it can do
honestly." On p. 126 be thus declares : " It is
said that Jesus, when be was baptized, went up
straigbtw ay from tbe water. I admit the proper
translation of apo is from, and not out of and
that the argument from tbe former is not of tbe
same nature with that which is founded on eh,
TO ANTIQUITY.
51
out of. I perfectly agree with Mr. Ewing, that
apo would have its meaning fully verified if they
had only gone down to the edge of the water. I
shall not take a jot more from a passage than it
contains."
In keeping with this, on page 130, he says:
" For any thing to be found in apo, our Lord
might have been baptized in the middle of Jor¬
dan ; yet since apo necessarily implies no more
than the edge as the point of departure, since we
are not otherwise informed that John and he
went into the water previously to baptizing, as
we are informed with respect to Philip and the
eunuch, I think there is no reason to believe
that John the Baptist usually went into the
water in baptizing."
There now, the great Dr. Carson will not ac¬
cept out of as a meaning for apo, but contends
that it always means from. He will " not take
a jot more from a passage than it contains." Apo,
then, does not contain out of as a meaning at
all. 0, what will Baptists of less ability say to
this 1 It cannot mean " honestly" out of, there¬
fore the Doctor will not force it.
Now, if the argument for immersion is in
anywise predicated upon this apo, out of in the
case of our Saviour, then it falls to the ground
52 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
for apo never signifies out of, but " necessarily
implies no more than the edge" of the water "as
the point of departure." And then, where do
you read, in all the hook of God, about Jesus
and John going down into the water ? There
are thousands of people at this day who fully
believe that the Bible speaks of Jesus going
down into the water to be baptized. It only
consists in the watery imaginations, writings,
exhortations, and preachings of small Baptist
preachers. Dr. Carson, who " saw to the bot¬
tom of any subject he undertook to handle,"
says, "We are not otherwise informed that J ohn
and he went into the water previously to bap¬
tizing." So he concludes John did not go into
the water at all, but " chose some place on the
edge of the Jordan." And just so we conclude
John did not immerse at all.
In conclusion, the Rev. Richard Fuller, an¬
other Baptist writer, in his book on " Baptism
and Terms of Communion," page 69, says: "In
the baptism of Christ the preposition is apo, and
may mean from" Luke (iv. 1) also says, " Je¬
sus returned from Jordan," which makes it agree
with Matthew (iii. 13) who says: " Then cometh
Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be
baptized of him." " Truth is mighty and must
TO ANTIQUITY.
53
prevail." Can Baptists contend then with any
show of plausibility for immersion—their gos¬
pel in water—from the above terms ? What
says the Bible 1 Truly, that " in Jordan" does
not mean immersion, or even wet with water.
What declare their own writers in reference to
apo meaning out of? Verily, that it does not
mean out of, hut from:. To what agreeth all
this ? Answer, the Bible. Then abide by it.
Verily, then, all their pretensions from this quar¬
ter for their comfort and succor are vain. These
props and stays all fall before the majesty of
truth, common sense, and the Bible.
54
baptist pretensions
CHAPTER III.
the character and mission of john.
Sec. I.— Who is he ?—His duties.
Let us inquire into the character and mission
of John the Baptist, and see if these points do
not throw light upon the subject before us.
The first question that here arises is, Who is
John ? By reference to Luke i. you will find
him to have been in the regular line of the
Aaronic priesthood. Luke informs us his father
was Zacharias, a priest, " of the course of Abia,'
who was of Aaron's descendants, and that his
mother, Elisabeth, " was of the daughters of
Aaron." This son, John, was given to them
when "they both were now well stricken in
years." And hence a child of jniracle.
We wish th^ reader to bear in mind who
John's parents were, as given above, as we shall
find use for it a little farther on in the course of
to antiquity.
55
this argument. And answer, if you can, why
his genealogy is so particularly related by the
Evangelist, if there was not an important reason
for it.
In the next place, it is impressed upon us hy
the sacred writers that he was a 'prophet. "And
thou, child, shalt he called the prophet of the
Highest." Luke i. 76. "What went ye out
for to see 1 A prophet 1 Yea, I say unto you,
and much more than a prophet." Luke vii. 26.
"All hold John as a prophet." Matt. xxi. 26.
Now, the duties of a prophet, among other
things, were to declare the will of God to the
people—that is, to preach, to reprove the wicked,
and exhort to repentance, faithfulness, and con¬
stancy in God's service; to predict, or foretell
things to come; and to anoint or consecrate, set
apart divinely designated ones, to the priesthood
and regal throne. These were the prerogatives
of all the prophets, and their distinguishing
characteristics. But our Saviour declares that
John was " more than a prophet." He was em¬
phatically the messenger of Christ—"My mes¬
senger"—he that should in an especial manner
go before Christ—proclaim, make him known to
the Jews, and prepare his way. Hence, he is
said emphatically to be " my messenger, and he
56 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
shall prepare the way before me." Mai. iii. 1.
Again: John " came for a witness, to hear wit¬
ness of the Light, that all men through him
might believe." John i. 7.
We now inquire, How did John fulfil his mis¬
sion? Matthew (iii. 1,2) tells us he "came
preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and say¬
ing, Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at
hand." To whom, was he sent to preach ?
Amongst whom did he confine his ministrations ?
Malachi (iv. 5, 6) says: " Behold, I will send
you [Jews] Elijah the prophet." See also
Matt. iii. and parallel passages, where it will he
clearly demonstrated that his mission was to the
Jews, and through them to " all men."
As a prophet, he foretold constantly the im¬
mediate coming of Christ. "There standeth
ONE among you, whom ye know not. He it is
who, coming after me, is preferred before me."
John i. 26, 27. Also, Matt. iii. 11,12,. contains
not only the prophetic declaration concerning
Christ's advent, hut that Christ should " tho¬
roughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat
into the garner," and " burn up the chaff with
unquenchable fire."
As a messenger, or herald, he was to prepare
the way before him. But how did John exe-
TO ANTIQUITY.
57
cute this part of his office ? Surely not simply
by telling the people that Christ was coming, or
had come. Nor yet merely by preaching re¬
pentance unto them. These two things by them¬
selves, or together, could not and would not
fulfil the design of his mission. For how could
these things demonstrate even to John, much
less the great multitude of the Jews to whom
he preached, that Jesus was the Messiah so
anxiously looked for by them ? Other prophets
than John had preached and foretold of these
days. John's was to be signalized by something
of a different character. By referring to the
following scriptures, his peculiarity may be
seen: "The word of God came unto John the
son of Zacharias in the wilderness. And he
came into all the country about Jordan, preach¬
ing the baptism, of repentance, for the remission
of sins; as it is written in the book of the
words of Esaias the prophet, saying, The voice
of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the
way of the Lord, make his paths straight."
Luke iii. 2-4.
Here, then, we ask any unprejudiced mind to
analyze this passage, and see what it teaches.
Just one "or two thoughts we will here drop to
aid you in your investigations of it. First,
58 BAE-TIST PRETENSIONS
What Was it that came to John1? Answer:
"The word of God." What then did John do ?
Answer: " He came into all the country about
Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance,"
etc. Was this course of preaching in accord¬
ance with any prophecy relative to him ? An¬
swer: It was; for the evangelist, to justify*
John, and to show his authority for so preach¬
ing, quotes the words of Esaias, prefacing the
quotation by saying, "As it is written in the
book of Esaias." Well, now, how is it written
there by that prophet that John was to preach
" the baptism of repentance ?" Answer: "Pre¬
pare ye the way of the Lord." Now, howso¬
ever hard it may be for some to believe that this
same " baptism of repentance" was foretold by
Isaiah, yet it is nevertheless true, if there is
any confidence to be placed in the statement of
Luke. He says J ohn came preaching the bap¬
tism of repentance, as it is written in the book
of Isaiah, where he says, John was to prepare
the way of the Lord. But more of this after
a while.
Again: "And I [John] knew him [Christ]
not; but that he should be made manifest to
Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with wa¬
ter." John i. 31. Here is the reason, then,
to antiquity.
59
•why John baptizes with water: that he should
make Christ manifest to Israel. How plain is
the word of God when made its own interpreter!
In perfect keeping with these things is the
fact that cannot be successfully denied, or ex¬
plained upon any other hypothesis, that the
Jews expected both the messenger and the Mes¬
siah, when they came, would baptize. For how
else can we account for the reason of the Jews
sending priests and Levites to inquire of John,
"Who art thou?" "And they asked him, and
said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou
be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that pro¬
phet ?" John i. 19, 28. Why send the priests
and Levites? Does not this fact mean some¬
thing? They saw John executing some of the
duties of the priesthood, and thought he was
entrenching upon the prerogatives of the Le¬
vites, who had been set apart by God for the
priesthood. Hence they were sent to inquire
into the matter, as the most suitable persons.
Then why did the Jews have any expecta¬
tion that John would baptize? Is there any
thing in their prophecies or usages that would
give them any intimation that such would be
the case ? Unless there be, the fact is altogether
unaccountable.
60 baptist pretensions
In view of this matter, let the reader ponder
the following facts, and he will clearly see why
such a question was asked.
By reference to the account as given in Mala-
chi (third and fourth chapters) of John, as the
messenger of Christ, he will see that the mis¬
sion of John was to he attended with purifica¬
tion. He was to he a purifier. And this will
give the reason of the expectation -of the Jews
that John—or the messenger, or Elijah, or
Christ—would baptize when come, as forcibly
set forth in John i. 19-27. For "Why bap-
tizest thou then, if thou he not that Christ, nor
Elias, neither that prophet ?" And that the Jews
understood baptism in the sense of purification
is evident from John iii. 25, 26 : "Then there
arose a question between some of John's dis¬
ciples and the Jews, about purifying. And they
came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he
that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou
barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and
all men come to him." How if there be no con¬
nection between baptism and purification, why
did these contending parties in the. subject of
purifying allege the fact that Christ baptized ?
The controversy arose from the fact " that Jesus
made and baptized more disciples than John,
to antiquity.
61
(though Jesus himself baptized, not, hut his dis¬
ciples.)" John iv. 1, 2.
Here, then, the matter is for ever settled, that
the Jews expected that when the " Messenger,"
" Elijah," or " that Prophet" should come, he or
they would purify; and that when they beheld
John and Jesus baptizing, they immediately
attached the idea of purifying to said baptism.
The question about baptizing was a question
about purifying. This is irresistible, and cannot
be gainsaid.
Section II.— The above view strengthened from
several scriptural facts—Dr. Campbell—Con¬
clusions—And answer to the numbers baptized
by John.
The above view of the question is greatly
strengthened by the universal custom of purifi¬
cations amongst the Jews from their earliest
history to the coming of our Saviour. The
application of water always carried with it
one of two or three ideas, according to the
subject and circumstances of its application:
defilement, purification, consecration, or prepara¬
tion.
Take only a few of many instances, for it
would require too much time and space to note
62 baptist pretensions
all the instances upon this subject as given in
the Bible.
When the Levites were consecrated to the
priesthood, it was done by water. " Take the
Levites from among the children of Israel, and
cleanse [purify, consecrate] them. And thus
shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them: Sprin¬
kle water of purifying upon them," etc. "And
the Levites were purified, and they washed their
clothes." Num. vii. 6, 7, 21.
In the case of a person having the leprosy,
and a leprous house, the water into which had
been poured the blood of a living bird had to be
" sprinkled" upon him and it, that they might
be cleansed. Lev, xiv.
So also Israel was consecrated, or prepared,
before the receiving of the Law. Ex. xiv. 10.
Likewise the Tabernacle, etc. This whole mat¬
ter is put at rest by St. Paul in his letter to the
Hebrews, ix. 18-23. "Whereupon neither the
first testament was dedicated without blood.
For when Moses had spoken every precept to
all the people according to the law, he took the
blood of calves, and of goats, with water, and
scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both
the book, and all the people, saying, This is the
blood of the testament which God hath enjoined
TO ANTIQUITY.
63
unto you. Moreover, lie sprinkled with blood
both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the
ministry. And almost all things are by the law
purged with blood; and without shedding of
blood is no remission. It was therefore neces¬
sary that the patterns of things in the heavens
should be purified with these." This text
speaks for itself.
It was also a law (Deut. xxi. 1-9) in Israel,
that when a dead body was found, and the mur¬
derer unknown, the elders of the city nearest
the place were required to wash their hands
over a slain heifer, in token of their purity and
innocency. So David also says: " I will wash
my hands in innocency." Ps. xxvi. 6. Like¬
wise Ezekiel, (xxxvi. 25 :) " Then will I sprin¬
kle clean water upon you, and ye shall he
clean." So Paul: " The blood of bulls and of
goats, and the ashes of an heifer, sprinkling the
unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the
flesh." Heb. ix. 13.
In Mark vii. 2 : " When they [the scribes and
Pharisees] saw some of the disciples eat bread
with defiled [that is to say, with unwashen\
hands, they found fault." In like manner, they
esteemed as unclean all unwashen cups, pots,
brazen vessels, and tables.—Yerse 4.
64 baptist pretensions
How hands were washed in olden times may
be seen by reference to 2 Kings iii. 11: " Here
is Elisba, the son of Sbapbat, which poured
water on the hands of Elijah."
John the Baptist himself held the same idea:
" I indeed baptize you with water—he [Christ]
shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with
fire : whose fan is in his hand, and he will tho¬
roughly purge [make clean or prepare] his floor,"
etc. Matt. iii. 11, 12.
- How put all these facts together, and tell us
your conclusions. John was the son of a Jew¬
ish priest, his mother being also of the lineage
of Aaron. He was a messenger and prophet to
the children of Israel. To them he came, to
them he confined his ministrations, to prepare
them to know and acknowledge Christ, when he
should he made manifest to Israel. The Jews
were in the highest expectations of the Great
Purifier. The Jews universally attached the
idea of purifying to the application of water.
In the days of our Saviour they looked upon
the baptism of water as a purification. In
Jewish times the people were made ready, or
prepared for consecration, for the reception of
all great things from God, by water. The uni¬
form custom, according to the command of God,
to antiquity.
65
among the Jews was to sprinkle the water of
separation, which separation was a purification
and consecration. Num. xix.
Now is it at all reasonable to conclude that
John the Baptist would inaugurate a new cus¬
tom amongst them ? Did he have any authority
to go beyond the duties of a priest, he being
one 1 Authority and universal custom he
had to sprinkle, and thus to purify, hut none
to immerse. It is of no use to say, as Baptists
are ever wont to say, that baptize means to im¬
merse, for we have seen that the very people to
whom John preached understood it to refer to
purification, and they never immersedAmt used
water either by pouring or sprinkling. It does
seem, then, that if any question can he settled,
this is, that John never immersed any one whom
he baptized.
Dr. Campbell says : " The analogy that sub¬
sists in phraseology between the rites of the old
dispensation and those of the new ought, in my
opinion, to he more clearly exhibited in transla¬
tions of Scripture than they generally are. It
is evident that first John's baptism, and after¬
wards the Christian, though of a more spiritual
nature, and directed to a more sublime end, ori-
3
66 baptist pretensions
ginated in the usages that had long obtained
among the Jews."
If, then, John's baptism originated in Jewish
usages of long continuance, and they never im¬
mersed by Divine command, but always puri¬
fied by sprinkling and pouring, who can resist
the conclusion for a moment that John, as the
expected purifier of " the sons of Levi," would
follow on in the old Divine requisitions of the
Levitical priesthood, and whenever any one was
'to be consecrated to God, or prepared for the
coming of Christ, would, according to that Di¬
vine law, " sprinkle the water of separation," or
consecration, upon him. Indeed, John would
have transcended his bounds, had he acted other¬
wise. No law, human or Divine, authorized
him to immerse the people, but he was author¬
ized and required " to sprinkle."
Now if these things be so—and can any one
dare gainsay them ?—what becomes of all the
boasted pretensions of Baptists to antiquity
from John the Baptist? Orchard, you will re¬
member, says he will trace their origin to John
in the Jewish Jordan. We trow, by this time,
the reader will begin to think there is most too
much of Judaism about John the Baptist to be
palatable to our modern Baptists.
to antiquity. 67
Considering John, then, as a Jewish priest,
which we have seen he was, and the mode of
purification, sprinkling, all difficulty vanishes
about the numbers baptized by him. Not so,
however, in regard to immersion. He never
could have accomplished the work he did in so
short a period. For he it remembered, John
exercised his ministry hut about six months.
Being just that much older than our Lord, and
Jesus being among the last he baptized, set¬
tles the period of his ministry. So says Orch¬
ard, the great Baptist historian, on page 4:
"John having exercised his ministry about six
months," etc. Now, it is said by the Evangelist,
" Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Ju-
dea, and all the region round about Jordan, and
were baptized by him," etc. Matt. iii. 5. "Now
when all the people were baptized, it came to
pass that Jesus also being baptized," etc. Luke
iii. 21.
From the best authority we can gather, at this
time there were about three millions of persons
in the above specified places. Now, if any one
will make a calculation in figures, based upon
this amount, allowing John one hundred and
fifty days in which to do his work, he will find
that in order to baptize the people who came to
68 baptist pretensions
his baptism, he would have to baptize^ twenty
thousand every day; two thousand every hour;
over three hundred every minute, and over fifty
every second. But this is utterly impracticable.
Give the Baptists, however, one million for the
Scribes and Pharisees, who rejected the counsel
of God against themselves, and one million more
for impenitent sinners, and that will leave just
one million. In this case, he would then have
to baptize seven thousand every day, allowing
ten hours to the day ; seven hundred every hour;
ten every minute; and over one every six se¬
conds. Can it be done ?
We know some Baptist preachers boast of
having plunged a great number in a short time,
but we reckon they could not quite come up to
these figures. The fact is, on " Baptistic bu¬
rner sional" grounds he never -could have per¬
formed the work. But upon the grounds we
have assumed above, and demonstrated from the
Bible, he could as easily have accomplished it as
did Moses when he consecrated—baptized—the
tabernacle, books, and all the people in one day,
the latter numbering nearly two millions.
Baptists try to make sport at the idea of John
standing on the banks of Jordan, sprinkling the
people with a hyssop-branch wet with water.
to antiquity.
69
"Whether John used a hyssop-branch after the
Jewish manner, we are not able to determine.
But this- we will say, from all the lights before
us, we are satisfied he purified them after the
Jewish manner, whatever that was; and that
it is much easier for a person to make fun of
that which he cannot answer, than to meet the
argument; and that they might as well make
sport of Moses for using a hyssop-branch in
consecrating the children of Israel, as of the
idea that John used the same method va. purify¬
ing or baptizing the people who came to his
baptism.
Section III.—John's baptism not the Chris¬
tian's baptism—Baptist admissions—Import¬
ant questions.
But suppose it can be proved that John im¬
mersed, does it follow that we must be immersed
also 1 Is John's baptism or its mode obligatory
upon us 1 Is John's the Christian baptism 1
Baptists now-a-days very frequently contend that
they are identical.
Let us look at this point a moment. Was the
design of the one the same as the other 1 J ohn
tells us expressly what his baptism was for:
70 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
" That he [Christ] should be made manifest to
Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with
water;" John i. 31; and to "prepare the way
of the Lord." This is clear and emphatic. Do
Baptist preachers now baptize or immerse in
order to make Christ manifest to Israel, to the
the Jews, and to prepare the way of the Lord ?
Does Christian baptism, as it is called, answer
the same end as the above-stated design of
John's 1 Baptists say, baptism is a representa¬
tion of the death, burial, and resurrection of
Christ. Did John's baptism show forth these
things 1 John never thought of such things.
Then they are not the same.
Again: if baptism represents the Spirit's in¬
fluence upon the heart, then John's disciples
were entirely ignorant of it; for some told
Paul, at Ephesus, that they had " not heard
whether there be any Holy Ghost." Acts xix.
But immediately upon receiving Christian bap¬
tism at the hands of Paul, they received the
Holy Ghost, and spake with tongues, and pro¬
phesied.
In the consideration of this subject we are not
at liberty to overlook the name by which it is
designated. Especially, as Baptists are so fond
of harping upon the name of John the Baptist—
TO ANTIQUITY.
71
not John the Methodist, etc. The Scriptures
call things and persons by their appropriate
names. This, then, is emphatically called
"John's baptism." Acts xix. "Why John's
baptism ? Simply because he administered it 1
Nay. For with the same show of reason and
propriety we nlight say Peter's baptism, Paul's
baptism, and so on to the end of the chapter. It
could not, then, have been the Christian bap¬
tism; for the Scriptures give no such misno¬
mer as this.
The time of its institution is also important
for us to notice. We have seen that John com¬
menced his ministry and mission six months be¬
fore our Lord did his, and hence just that length
of time before Christ did any official act. Be¬
sides, John tells us himself that he received his
commission from the Father. John i. 33. But
Christ Jesus himself instituted Christian bap¬
tism after Ms resurrection. There is no use
saying that the Father and the Son are one, and
therefore Christ instituted John's. They are
one, but, in the economy of Divine redemption,
their acts are peculiar, and not to be confounded
one with the other.
Thus, we see, he that instituted the one did
not institute the other. The Father gave John's;
72 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
Jesus Christ tlie other. The one was given six
months previous to our Lord's entering upon his
official work; the other some three years later,
and after the resurrection.
The faith required of John's disciples was
not the same as that now required of persons to
he baptized. John did not require faith in the
Trinity—the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
Such, however, is required now. John did not
baptize even in the name of Jesus ; that was
reserved for Christian baptism. John required
faith in a Messiah to come : do Baptists require
this of the people ? If not, then they have not
John's baptism.
Finally, some of John's disciples at Ephesus
were rebaptized by Paul. Acts xix. We know
there have been efforts made to shun this power¬
ful fact, but to no avail. We shall only ask the
reader to turn to the passage and see for him¬
self, and then read in conclusion the following
admissions from staunch Baptists.
Professor Ripley says : " Some writers have
contended that these men did not receive bap¬
tism after Paul met with them. But as to the
simple inquiry whether they were baptized anew,
an affirmative answer seems unavoidable if we
follow the most obvious and natural meaning of
TO ANTIQUITY.
73
the passage as conveyed both in our translation
and in the original G-reek."
Professor Curtis, another Baptist author, says:
" The former baptism of these persons was not
an avowal of their personal faith in the funda¬
mental principles of Christian doctrine—it was
not a credible profession to the world of faith in
Jesus or the Holy Ghost. Paul, therefore, pro¬
nounced it invalid in toto. They were rebap-
tized."
Dr. Carson says : " I know this [their rebap-
tism] is disputed; but for my part I never doubted
it. I cannot see how this can be denied without
torturing the word of God, which I will never
do for any cause whatever." Page 372.
Robert Hall, another eminent Baptist minis¬
ter, in speaking of the attempts to evade the
force of these rebaptisms, says : "In the whole
compass of theological controversy, it would be
difficult to assign a stronger instance of the force
of prejudice in obscuring a plain matter of
fact."
Now, if John's disciples were rebaptized by
Paul—and they were, as seen above—does it not
follow that his was not the Christian baptism ?
Alexander Campbell admits, " John's baptism
was not Christian baptism—it was a preparatory
74 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
institution." On Baptism, page 219. Likewise
Robert Hall says: " No rite celebrated during
the ministry of Jobn is entitled to a place among
Christian sacraments." Works, vol. i., 372.
What then becomes of the boasted pretensions
of Baptists to antiquity from John the Baptist?
John says, Christ "must increase, but I must
decrease." What meaneth this, but that his
mission and dispensation, having served their
great designs, would fade away before the rising
Sun of Righteousness, as the day-star gradually
disappears before the luminous king of day ?
Is this the foundation upon which Baptists so
confidently rest the origin of their Churches ? It
is as "the baseless fabric of a vision." Will
they continue to dig up the last expiring groans
of Judaism, and essay to rebuild a system of bur¬
dens too heavy to be borne ? If so, they are
welcome to all the toil and inconveniences there¬
to appended, but we trust they will let us " stand
fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us
free," and not require us to bear " the yoke of
bondage" with them, in " the Jewish Jordan,"
according to Orchard.
to antiquity.
75
Sec. IV.—Clap-trap phrases—Christ's baptism
not for an example—Not John's nor the Chris¬
tian's baptism — Christ's baptism different
from ours—The design of baptism not easily
determined from their views, of which sixteen
are given.
Much ado is made amongst Baptists about
" going down into the liquid grave"following
Christ into the water being "buried with the
Saviour beneath Jordan's rolling waves," and a
great deal more of such " clap-trap" phraseology.
Such will answer their purposes to gain mem¬
bers among the young, ignorant, and uninformed,
but it is looked upon with disgust by the more
intelligent part of mankind.
" Jesus Christ was baptized in Jordan, there¬
fore must we he immersed." Let us examine
this point a little. Was he baptized as an ex¬
ample for us 1 Was he immersed ? These are
important questions. We take the negative of
both. The first, Was he baptized as an ex¬
ample for us 1 Now, an example is a pattern
set to be followed just as it is marked out by the
exemplar. Will this hold good in the case he-
fore us 1 We shall see.
In the first place, the exemplar, in the case
76 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
before us, deferred baptism, until he was thirty
years of age. If we are to follow him in this,
no one should be baptized until that age. And
can they assign any reason why we should not
defer it, if so be we are to follow the example ?
Do Baptists do this? Certainly not. "Why so,
if we are to follow him ? Why do they baptize
some very young persons ? yea, even little chil¬
dren ? According to their theory, they most as¬
suredly do wrong.
But Christ was circumcised when only eight
days old. Why do not they follow him in this,
as they are such sticklers for following him ?
But you beg to be excused from this Jewish cus¬
tom. Then excuse us, if you please, from the
waves of "the Jewish Jordan."
From the record we learn that Jesus was one
of the last that John baptized. " Now when all
the people were baptized, it came to pass that
Jesus also being baptized," etc. Luke iii. 21.
Now, is it possible or probable that if he intended
to set us an example in this matter, he would
let " all the people" be first baptized, and then
be baptized himself as an example ? Is that the
way in which examples are set ? It would seem
from this that Christ was following the people,
instead of the people following him. So here
TO ANTIQUITY.
77
again is a radical defect. Again : Was the design
of his baptism of the character of an example ?
Look at it a moment. Did he receive John's
baptism ? John required " repentance" of the
people. Repentance supposes sin and guilt.
Was Christ a sinner, and guilty of violating the
law of God ? He was " without sin," and hence
had no guilt, and no need of repentance.
John not only " baptized with the baptism of
repentance," but required of all "the people
that they should believe on him which should
come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." Acts
xix. 4. How could Christ believe on himself?
Does not every one here see an impossibility ?
And does not the very impossibility subvert the
Baptist notion of his receiving John's baptism ?
Why should Christ receive such baptism, or be¬
lieve on himself, even if he could ? Did John
exhort Christ to believe on a Messiah to come,
as he did all the guilty people? Nay; for when
Jesus presented himself for baptism, John " for¬
bade him," knowing full well he needed no re¬
pentance, no faith.
Again : we have seen that the design of John's
baptism was to " prepare the way of the Lord."
How could the baptizing of Christ subserve this
end ? " To make Christ manifest to Israel,"
78 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
was the great end in view. Not to prepare
Christ as an example, but to prepare the people
for the reception of the Messiah when he should
be u made manifest to Israel." In all these
points the matter fails.
Neither does the baptism of Christ comport
with what is termed Christian baptism ; that is,
baptism as it ha3 been administered since
the resurrection of our Saviour. In the last
commission given to the apostles of our Lord,
he told them to baptize in the name of the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Was Christ bap¬
tized in his own name ? Did John baptize at
all in the name of Christ? How could he,
when h§ expressly says, " I knew him not ?"
John i. 33. Moreover, he did not receive his
commission from Christ, but from the Father.
Then the Holy Grhost was not given. So none
of John's disciples were baptized in the name of
the Son, or the Holy Grhost. For they emphati¬
cally declared that they had never " heard whe¬
ther there be any Holy Ghost."
Baptists now-a-days baptize in the name of the
Trinity; i. e, in the name of the Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost. Why do they thus act ? If
Christ is to be an example for us, and we are to
follow the example, then they teach us falsely.
TO ANTIQUITY.
79
They preach one thing, but practice another.
Jor, though a man run, he may read very dis¬
tinctly that Christ was not baptized with the
Christian baptism, or with a baptism where the
sacred name of the Trinity is used.
Then, again, bear in mind that there was no
commission at all to baptize in the name of the
Trinity until after the resurrection of our Lord,
and no one was ever baptized in this name until
the day of Pentecost. If Baptists deny this
position, let them adduce the instance. This
they cannot do, from the simple fact that there is
no such instance upon record.
Again: Christ's baptism could not have been
an example for us, from the fact that the design
of his baptism and that of ours is quite differ¬
ent. First, what is the design of our baptism ?
It is rather difficult, we must confess, to arrive
at any just or certain conclusion what Baptists
do claim upon this subject. Their views are so
different, and when they do approximate each
other there is such confusion in their ranks, that
no definite view can be determined. To illustrate
this position, we will here give a few specimens
of the agreement of Baptists in reference to the
design of baptism.
80 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
Dr. Howell says, " The design for which bap¬
tism was instituted, to represent the death, burial,
and resurrection of Jesus Christ, cannot be ef¬
fected unless the mode he immersion." " The
substance of [Paul's] reasoning [in 1 Cor. xv.
29] is this: You have.been taught that your
baptism is a representation of the burial and
resurrection of Christ; but if there is no resur¬
rection of the dead, as the Sadducees contend,
then is not Christ risen, and the ordinance has
no significancy, one-half of it being based upon
an event which never occurred." On Commun¬
ion, pp. 193, 195.
Prof. Ripley says, " It is a symbolical burial
in respect to sin, and a symbolical resurrection
to a new and holy life. . . . It is a token
of our recognizing Christ's death and burial and
resurrection on account of sin." Review of
Stuart, p. 94.
Dr. Carson holds, " Immersion is an emblem
of the believer's communion and oneness with
Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection."
And "represents the whole spiritual body of
Christ as dying with him, buried with him, risen
with him." "The ordinance of baptism is an
emblem of cleansing." " Baptism is a rite em-
TO ANTIQUITY.
81
blematical of purification." " Baptism emblem¬
atically cleanses from sin." Baptism, pp. 336,
439.
Jewett, on Baptism, pp. 94, 95, says, "Bap¬
tism is considered the solemn initiatory rite of
admission into the Christian Church. As Won
as a person was baptized, he was called a ' saint,'
a 'disciple,' a 'believer.' So, by baptism, we
sacredly bind ourselves to believe the doctrines
of the Saviour, to obey his precepts, to lead
pious, godly lives, after his example." " The
idea of the apostle [1 Pet. iii. 21] is, by baptism
we take upon ourselves the sacred obligation, in
the presence of God, to maintain a good con¬
science, to be watchful against sin, and to strive
after holiness." It " is an oath of allegiance to
him as a Sovereign, it is a 'devotement' to him,
an oath of entire consecration to him, a volun¬
tary yielding up of the whole body and spirit a
' living sacrifice' to his glory." " Is—emblemati¬
cal of the death and resurrection of Christ."
"Also significant of the belief of the subject
of it in the resurrection of the body."
P. 96.
Bichard Puller says, " Baptism is a personal,
individual act, by which we confess Christ."
" Baptism is a prerequisite to admission into a
82 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
visible Church properly organized." Baptism
and Communion, pp. 225, 229.
Let the reader now turn back and review these
extracts, and he will find as many as sixteen dif¬
ferent views put forth on the design of baptism
by these Baptist writers.
Baptism is said at one time to represent the
death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Then
the simple burial and resurrection of Christ:
the resurrection of the dead: a symbolical
burial in respect to sin: a symbolical resurrec¬
tion to a new and godly life : a tolcen of recog¬
nizing Christ's death, burial, and resurrection:
an emblem of the believer's communion and
oneness with Christ in his death, burial, and
resurrection: representing the whole body of
Christ as dying with him, buried with him,
raised with him: as emblematical of cleansing—
purification: as the initiatory rite of admission
into the Christian Church—as a prerequisite to
admission into a visible Church properly organ¬
ized : as binding us to believe the doctrines of
the Saviour, to obey his precepts—to lead pious
and godly lives : to maintain a good conscience—
to watch against sin—to strive after holiness:
as an oath of allegiance to Christ as a Sovereign :
as a denotement to Christ: as a voluntary yield-
TO ANTIQ (JIT Y.
83
itig up of the whole body and spirit a living
sacrifice : as a personal act by which we confess
Christ.
An example must show forth the design. But
how, in the case before us, is the design of bap¬
tism shown forth in our Saviour's act of bap¬
tism ? Will any of the designs, as given by
these Baptist writers, agree .with the design of
our Lord's baptism at the hands of John ? Let
the reader, for his own satisfaction, take either
one or all of the designs as given above, and
make an effort to apply them to our blessed Sa¬
viour, and he will soon be convinced of their
utter inappropriateness, and, consequently, the
falsity of Baptist pretensions in this matter.
For instance, Fuller says, " Baptism is a per¬
sonal act, by which we confess Christ." How
can this apply to our Saviour ? Did he in his
baptism confess himself? Did his baptism initi¬
ate him into his own Church ? Did it refer to
any cleansing or purification ? Will Baptists
make our Lord a bona fide sinner merely to sus¬
tain a sectarian theory ? Did it enable him to
maintain a good conscience ? Did he have to be
watchful against sin, and strive after holiness ?
Was he not infinitely holy? If so, why or how
did his baptism signify that he was to do these
84
BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
things ? Was it emblematical to him of his
own death, burial, and resurrection ? And how
could it be to him an oath of allegiance to him¬
self as a Sovereign ? How a " devotement" to
himself ?
So we might go on to the end of the entire
sixteen designs of baptism, and not one of them
would agree with the true design of our Lord's
baptism. How then could he have been bap'
tized as an example for us, when in not one
point, according to their own showing, does their
baptism, apply to Christ ? Yerily, such preten¬
sions are vain, and must b'e urged more to gain
proselytes than to properly instruct the people.
We maintain that baptism is the initiating
rite into the Christian Church; is a badge of
discipleship; a sign and seal of God's mercies
to us, and an emblem of purification; but in
none of these respects will it apply to our Sa¬
viour. The design of our baptism is one thing,
the design of his quite another, and in no way
an example for us, only in the prompt discharge
of duty, whenever incumbent on us. And what
that duty was, in regard to Christ, we shall now
consider.
to antiquity.
85
Section Y.—The design of Christ's baptism:
to qualify him for the great work he came to
do—Pretensions answered — Jones's admis¬
sion.
Why was Christ baptized, if not to set us an
example ? We wish the reader to bear fn mind
that it is nowhere said or even intimated iiy the
Bible that he was baptized as an example for
us. But the reason is assigned why he was bap¬
tized, and it is astonishing that any one should
misapprehend that reason.
"Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan
unto John, to be baptized of him. But John
forbade him, saying, I have need to be baptized
of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus
answering, said unto him, Suffer it t'o be so now,
for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteous¬
ness. Then he suffered him," etc. Matt. iii.
13-15.
In this account, we have several particulars
worthy of observation. As, for example, Why
did Jesus come to Jordan to receive baptism at
the hands of John ? John's refusal to baptize
him, and astonishment that Christ should ask it at
his hands—" Comest thou to me ?" The reason
assigned by our Lord why John should baptize
86
baptist pretensions
him: that reason was satisfactory to John. John
did baptize him : upon going from the water,
the heavens were opened, and the Spirit descended
upon him: a voice proclaimed from heaven,
" This is my beloved Son," etc.—-Terse 17.
All these points will be duly noticed in the
course of this Exposition, though we shall not
bring them up in the order in which we have
stated them. We are after finding out the true
design of our Lord's baptism, and this we desire
the reader to keep distinctly in view.
Why did Jesus come to John to receive bap¬
tism ? And why did he come to Jordan ?
Would not some other person have done as well
as John? Would not some other place have
done as well as Jordan ? If we will let John
himself tell the reason of his baptizing at all,
and then listen to the declaration of Christ, we
will be led to the truth why John should bap¬
tize him.
John was sent by special appointment of Hea¬
ven, as we have already seen, to prepare a
people for the Lord. Luke i. 17, etc. This he
has done by preaching and baptizing. Then,
after he has them all ready—i. e. prepared—his
last work was to make Christ manifest to them.
For to this end he was sent: "But that he
to antiquity.
87
[Christ] should be made manifest to Israel,
therefore am I come baptizing with water."
John i. 31.
To manifest is to show a thing clearly, to render
it visible. Now this was the very thing John
was to do : to show Christ Jesus, clearly, to
make him visible to Israel. Now, should the
great and foretold design of John's mission not
be accomplished ? Christ was to be made known
to the Jews as "that prophet like unto Moses,"
whom God was to raise up to them, like their
brethren; Christ was to appear and be made
visible as the Lawgiver from Judah's line; Christ
was to appear as the end of the entire ceremonial
law, which, Paul says, was " a pattern of good
things to come"—and as " Priest over the house
(Church) of God." In all these respects he was
to come and be made visibly manifest to Israel.
Now who more proper to introduce or manifest
him to Israel than John ? All reverenced and
admired him; he had a strong hold upon their
confidence and affections, and they looked upon
him as " a man sent from God" for some great
purpose. And what place more suitable than
the Jordan, where the people were gathered to¬
gether to submit to his baptism, in view of a
Messiah to come; and where, just as the last
88 baptist pretensions
of the people were baptized, up conies the
Son of God to John, as his messenger, specially
appointed to make him known to the vast multi¬
tudes that had waited upon his ministry, and who
were looking out for the speedy appearance of
him that was suddenly to come to his temple,
"purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the
garner." Therefore says the Evangelist, "Then
—after all the people were baptized—cometh Je-
sus from Galilee to Jordan—where John and
the multitude were—unto John, to he baptized—
set apart to the priestly office—of him. But
John forbade him, saying, I have need to be
baptized of thee, and comest thou to me ? And
Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so
now—at this time and place, as you have here
at Jordan finished preparing the people by
baptizing them, and thus consecrating, bringing
them all under obligation to believe on me, when
I should come manifested, made known to them;
and as you have baptized all that would receive
"the counsel of God," now I ask baptism at
your hands ; for thus—by baptizing, consecrat¬
ing me to mine office, according to the law of Is¬
rael, in the presence of them all, for it is unto
them I have come—it hecometh us—it is fit,
right and proper for John as a regular Jewish
TO ANTIQUITY.
89
priest, and so acknowledged, and Christ, now to
be set apart as the great Teacher of Israel, and
Priest over the house or Church of God—to ful¬
fil—to perfect, complete, consummate, answer,
or obey—all righteousness—required by the law
of God.
We have given this running paraphrase of this
text as being perfectly legitimate, so that the
reader may at a glance have the whole matter
before him. We shall now proceed to give such
explanations and illustrations of this subject as
will be thought necessary to a better understand¬
ing of the points involved.
" Righteousness" is a term that has regard to
law—is obedience to law. The question before
us now is, To what law does our Saviour here
refer? We suppose all law binding upon man
may be termed either moral or ceremonial, or
both. If so, can the " righteousness" under con¬
sideration be brought within the purview of the
moral law ? ' Can we imagine any period in our
Lord's history, in which he had not fulfilled,
completed, or obeyed that law ? If we attribute
the "righteousness" here spoken of as recog¬
nized by the moral law only, then it follows as
irresistibly as effect follows cause, that there was
a time when our Saviour was a veritable sinner;
90 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
hence under guilt, and consequently totally un¬
qualified to redeem the world.
But there was no point in the moral law re¬
quiring his baptism, and had he not been bap¬
tized at all, he would have been as " holy, harm¬
less, and undefiled" as his supreme Divinity could
have made his immaculate nature.
It would derogate entirely too much from our
Lord's sinless character to say that it required
baptism to complete his personal righteousness.
We had thought that every Christian conceded
that Jesus Christ was born pure and holy, and,
from his transcendent nature, could not have been
otherwise. Then the " righteousness" here does
not refer to a personal righteousness, bounded by
the moral law. It must then refer to a " right¬
eousness" of a ceremonial character, and one, too,
in which it required some one else to participate
with him; a " righteousness" that he could not_
fulfil by himself. For the Lord Jesus himself
says, " it becometh us"—John and Christ—11 to
fulfil all righteousness.®' Neither did this have
any reference to any of those impurities or de¬
filements under the ceremonial law. For Christ
cannot in anywise be reckoned amongst the
unclean, any more than as a sinner. Either
one would be wholly derogatory to him as
to antiquity.
91
the Saviour of the world, and Messiah of
God.
Waiving all these points then that involve a
righteousness of a personal character, having for
its basis depravity of nature, there is or was a
law that required water to be applied to him,
and that was the ceremonial law, and this ap¬
plication of water to our Saviour is called bap¬
tism. And we here affirm, without fear of suc¬
cessful contradiction, that our Saviour's baptism
cannot be accounted for upon any other hypo¬
thesis ; but upon this it is entirely and satisfac¬
torily explicable. That law is that which refers
to the priesthood. And we here ask, by way
of preface to what we shall say upon this sub¬
ject, Why should not th^e Lord Jesus have re¬
garded this law, as well as other points in the
Jewish ritual, of seemingly less importance ?
Aaron and his sons were separated unto the
Lord for this office, and after them the Levites,
and this was to be " a perpetual statute" among
them. How they were separated or consecrated
to this office may be seen by reference to Ex.
xxix.; xxx.: Lev. viii.: Num. viii. We wish
it noted especially that the " laver of brass" that
was placed " between the tabernacle and the
altar," with " water put therein," was for Aaron
92 baptist pretensions
and his sons to "wash their hands and feet there¬
at" before entering to do the priest's office, and
that this was to be "a statute for ever unto them."
This washing of the hands and feet was a dis¬
tinct thing from the anointing and consecration
to office. The one implied that no unwashen or
impure feet were to tread the temple of the Lord,
and nothing unholy touch or handle the vessels
and sacrifices of the altar and house of God;
whilst the other—the consecrating—pointed out
that none but such as had been set apart from on
high should offer sacrifices as a sweet-smelling
savor unto the Lord. Now observe, that the
consecrating oil was to be poured upon them, and
the water of cleansing for consecration to the
-office was to'be " sprinkled upon them." This
also was an ordinance or law of righteousness,
that was to be perpetually and strictly kept among
them. And no person could execute the office
of a priest amongst them without it.
This law was in force when our Saviour en¬
tered upon his ministry; and as he says that he
" came not to destroy the law or the prophets,
but to fulfil," to perfect or complete all its de¬
signs and requisitions, so we judge he fulfilled
this law also. But this will appear the more evi¬
dent if we attend to the following considerations:
to antiquity.
93
The word dikaiosunen, rendered righteousness
in Matt. iii. 15, is rendered by the same trans¬
lators, " ordinances" in Luke i. 6 and Heb. ix.
1, and many other places where it most une¬
quivocally refers to ceremonial observances. In
Romans viii. 4, the apostle uses the same word,
" That the righteousness of the law might be
fulfilled in us;" that is, that the preceptive
claims of the law might be answered or obeyed
in us. The idea is, that the expression points
to an existing statute of ordinances binding upon
us, but, through the weakness of the law in re¬
gard to our sinful nature, to "make the comers
thereunto perfect," " God sent his own Son in
the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin con¬
demned sin in the flesh." For there could be
no perfection by the Levitical priesthood, which
" served unto the example and shadow of
heavenly things," " the Holy Ghost this signi¬
fying, that the way into the holiest of all was
not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernar
ele was yet standing: which was a figure for the
time then present, in which were offered both
gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him
that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the
conscience." Hence, there was " a disannulling
of the commandment going before, [by Jesus
94 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
made a surety of a better testament,] for the
weakness and unprofitableness thereof." " But
Christ being come an high-priest of good things
to come," " that by means of death, for the re¬
demption of the transgressions that were under
the first testament, [the Levitical economy,] they
which are called might receive the promise of
eternal inheritance," and that we, "having—
such—an high-priest over the house of God,"
might " enter with boldness into the holiest by
his blood." Heb. vii., ix., x.
Thus were " the claims of the law obeyed in
us," by our "Surety," the Lord Jesus, who
came as the High-priest to perfect all its de¬
mands, as he said to John: "Thus it becometh
us to fulfil all righteousness," every claim of the
law, that I might be to the Jews a regular con¬
secrated priest, and to all the world a living wag
into the presence of God the Father.
When did he become this High-priest ? How
was it signified to the Jews, of whom he was
one, and to whom he came, that he was indeed
the Great Antitype of all their ritual? When
and how, we ask, was this signified to John and
the Jewish nation, if not at his baptism ? John
says, " He that sent me to baptize with water,"
to "make Christ manifest to Israel," "the.same
to antiquity.
95
said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the
Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the
same is he which baptizeth with the Holy
Ghost." John i. 33. And this occurred at his
baptism. "Jesus, when he was baptized, went
up straightway out of the water ; and lo, the
heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the
Spirit of God descending like a dove, and light¬
ing upon him; and lo, a voice frffm heaven,
saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am
well pleased." Matt. iii. 16, 17. A similar
Divine declaration is quoted by Paul, in Hebrews,
first chapter, in vindication of the priesthood of
Jesus^Christ. Then it was the ceremonial law
which he completed, "fulfilled;" that law he
honored.
We here reiterate, that it may be constantly
kept in mind, our Saviour's own declaration to
John about the propriety and fitness of being
baptized by him, then and there. "For thus it be-
cometh us to fulfil all righteousness." What
meaneth this expression, "becometh," if not
that it is proper, suitable, and fit? Then, he
limits the persons to whom it is suitable and fit.
Us: John and Christ. John, we have seen,
was the first-born of a Jewish priest, specially
sent by God to make Christ manifest to Israel.
96
BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
Christ himself, of regular Jewish descent, hav¬
ing been sent especially, first " to the lost sheep
of the house of Israel," and just now, at this
precise moment, going to enter upon the great
duties of his mission, preparatory to the con¬
summation of the plan of redemption—that of
offering himself without spot to God, that he
might, as our great High-priest, enter into heaven,
there to make intercession for us.
These declarations of the Saviour confine
the whole transaction to himself and John,
rendering it wholly unintelligible if his con¬
secration to the priesthood be not intended.
There was a law to he fulfilled by himself and
John; if not this law, what law was it ? It was
one, too, that no other person or persons could
then, nor at any other time, perfect or fulfil.
Also, it must he done just then, "now," and in
the prescribed way: "Thus it becometh," etc.
No other time, no other way, no other person
will answer the demands of the law. John must
baptize him; must apply water to him, then and
there. Will Baptists be so kind as to tell us
why t It will not do to say, " for an exam¬
ple." We exploded that idea some time
ago. The Scriptures never say, either proxi¬
mately or remotely, that it was for an example.
TO ANTIQUITY.
97
Then, what business has any one attempting to
do that which was legitimately confined for ac¬
tion to two others—John and Christ: not you
and Christ, or the preacher? We have no busi¬
ness at all meddling with the prerogatives, affairs,
and duties of others. Let " every man hear
his own burden," and he will have enough
to do.
This view of the subject is further confirmed
by the fact of Christ's conformity to Jewish law
and custom prior to this time. After his birth,
his parents presented themselves with the child
Jesus in the temple at Jerusalem, to do after the
manner of the law of Moses, "to present him
to the Lordto offer a sacrifice according to
that which is said in the law of the Lord; and
to circumcise and name the Child. After this,
we hear very little of him until he attained the
age that was set by Heaven, under the ceremonial
law, for a- priest to enter upon the duties of his
office. See Numbers iv. and 1 Chron. xxiii.,
where the age of thirty years is established as that
from which a priest should be counted, to over¬
see the house of the Lord. So, in accordance
no doubt with this law, our Saviour deferred his
consecration by baptism until he was thirty years
of age. If this be not so, why was the evangel-
4
98 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
ist (Luke iii. 23) so particular in making men¬
tion of the fact ? Every point in our Lord's
history, he it great or small, must be in illustra¬
tion of some grand end of his reception amongst
his own people, and confirmatory of the fact that
he was the great High-Priest, the Messiah of
God.
In further proof of this, why was it that the
evangelists (Matt. i. and Luke iii.) have given
us so exactly the genealogy of Christ ? No
doubt the reader has often wondered why all this
string of names was placed in an evangelical his¬
tory. To us they may be of little moment, but
to a Jew, and for the success of our Lord's
mission, they are of exceeding value. There
was a jregister kept of the Levites, and whoso¬
ever could not be reckoned by genealogy was ac¬
counted polluted, and put from the priesthood;
and the law further required that the stranger
who came nigh should be put to death. Neh.
vii. 64; Num. iii.
So, when the Jews inquired, "Is not this the
carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of
James ?" (Mark vi.,) that he should essay to
teach in their synagogues, he could assure them
that he was a prophet, though without honor in
his own country and among his oivn people;
to antiquity.
99
intimating, though you do reject me, yet I am
one of you. Hence they never directly called
in question his Jewish extract. He was enabled
to produce their own register, and show there¬
from his legal right as a prophet and as a priest.
This is a point of no mean importance, and
should be carefully noted.
Another thought of magnitude in regard to
this subject is, that our Saviour himself alludes
to his baptism as authority for his official minis¬
trations, which he would not have done, had he
not been satisfied of its entire legality. When
he went to Nazareth, the city where he had been
brought up, and entered the synagogue, he
opened to the place in the Book, and read, " The
Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath
anointed me to preach the gospel/' etc. Luke
iv. Why is the Spirit of the Lord upon him ?
"Because he [the Father] hath anointed me."
When did the Father anoint, consecrate, or set
him apart for the duties about which he was
now engaged ? For, remember, it had already
been done, and to that anointing, that consecra¬
tion, he now appeals for his authority in the
premises. Now we here confidently assert, with¬
out the fear of successful contradiction, that no
man can show any other time when this was
100 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
done than at Jordan, when he was baptized by
John. With our view of his baptism, as here¬
tofore expressed, his appeal is warrantable;
otherwise it is not.
Again: Upon his last visit to Jerusalem, he
entered the temple, and purged it of those who
were making it a " den of thieves." Where¬
upon the chief priests and scribes " spake unto
him, saying, Tell us by what authority doest thou
these things ? or who is he that gave thee this
authority ?" Did he tell them that he was God,
and therefore had a right within himself thus to
act ? Nay. For they would not have believed
him. Did he claim God as his Father as the
reason of his conduct? Not a bit of it. For
the Jews were as unbelieving upon this point as
the other, and hence it would have had no
force with them. He appealed not, then, to any
of his relations with Divinity, but, as he spoke,
his infinite wisdom shone forth. Says he, " I
will ask you one thing, and answer me. The
baptism of John, was it from Heaven, or of
men ? And they reasoned with themselves, say¬
ing, If we shall say from Heaven, he will say,
Why then believed ye him not ? Hut and if ye
say of men, all the people will stone us; for they
be persuaded that John was a prophet. And
TO ANTIQ.UITY.
101
they answered that they could not tell whence it
was/' Luke xx. 2-7.
Why this appeal to John's baptism, when in¬
terrogated about his authority for doing the work
of a priest in the temple ? And see how dexter¬
ously they reason to ward off his authority as
received by his baptism. If they granted that
John's baptism was from Heaven, they knew
full well that they were under solemn obligation
to believe John's right and prerogative to induct
into the priest's office; and, as Christ had received
baptism at J ohn's hands, it would have been-a
tacit acknowledgment that Christ was legally
what he professed to be, a priest over the house
of God.
Then, if they should say that John received
his commission from men, they were fully per¬
suaded that all men counted John as a prophet.
This was a fully conceded point. They knew
that John was entirely competent to judge of the
propriety of our Lord's consecration to the priest¬
hood, and to consecrate him to the same. Be¬
sides, they knew full well of the universal popu¬
larity of John as a prophet, and the hold he had
upon their minds, and that to have asserted it
was of men, would have been so degrading in
their estimation, the people would have become
102 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
so indignant they would have been stoned. So,
to avoid tbe force of trutb upon the one band,
and tbe wratb of the people upon tbe other, they
said, We cannot telL
The baptism of Christ, then, gave him
authority, as a priest, to purge the temple, to
preach the gospel, etc.
Other scriptures appear to attest the same
important truth. Paul, to the Hebrews, says,
" Unto which of the angels said he at any time,
Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten
thee ?" " Thy God hath anointed thee with the
oil of gladness above thy fellows." "So also
Christ glorified not himself to be made a high-
priest ; but he that said unto him, Thou art my
Son, to-day have I begotten thee." Heb. v. 5.
Now, when were these things said and done ? It
is true these were declarations of the prophets,
and are so recorded. But then these prophecies
must have a fulfilment, and Paul quotes them as
having had a fulfilment. So there must have
been a time when they were actually fulfilled.
The time is given by Matthew, iii. 16, 17. As
Jesus came from the water, and the Spirit de¬
scended and lighted upon him, " a voice [in ful¬
filment of prophecy] from heaven said, This is
my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
TO ANTIQUITY.
103
Thus it was that " Christ glorified not him¬
self to be made a high-priest; but he that said
unto him, Thou art my Son," etc. • So says Paul,
and we suppose, with his inspiration of the Holy
One, he knew more about the matter than Bap¬
tists of any age or nation. Unless Baptists pre¬
sume to know more than Paul, and can attest
their superior wisdom, we must be thought sim¬
ple enough to coincide with the apostle. For if
it were not at his baptism, as recorded by Mat¬
thew, that those prophecies found their fulfil¬
ment, then we are utterly at a loss to locate them.
If they were fulfilled then and there, then it
follows as a settled fact, that at our Saviour's
baptism he was consecrated a Priest over the
house or Church of Cod.
Indeed, the whole of Paul's letter to the He¬
brews is in vindication of the atonement made
by Jesus Christ as having been typed by the
entire Jewish economy. There the reader will
find a beautiful and forcible contrast of the
" figure for the time then present," and " Christ
being come a High-Priest of good things to
come."
We are aware that our Baptist friends assert
that our Saviour did not come of the tribe of
Aaron or Levi, but of Judah, as saith the apostle,
104 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
and hence had nothing to do ■with the rites and
ceremonies of the levitical code. It is all true
that Christ did spring from Judah, concerning
whom Moses spake nothing concerning priest¬
hood •, yet it is also true, upon the other hand,
that Judah, although the lawgiverf was bound by
the priesthood of the levitical tribe, and that
no one of any tribe could wrest the priesthood
from Aaron and his sons under the severest pen¬
alties. Num. xvi. *40; 2 Chron. xxvi. 18. And
it is also true that the apostle, in vindicating the
priesthood of Christ, declares expressly that "No
man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that
is called of Grod, as was Aaron: so also Christ
glorified not himself to be made a high-priest;
but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to¬
day have I begotten thee." Heb. v. 5. Now,
as Aaron was called and appointed to the priest¬
hood, so was Christ. Determine the one, and
you determine the other, such is the intimacy
between them.
The reader is now prepared to adopt the fol¬
lowing admission of Mr. Jones, a Baptist histo¬
rian : "When Jesus had attained the age of
thirty, the period of life at which the priests
entered upon their ministrations in the temple,
and was about to commence his public ministry,
TO ANTIQUITY.
105
he was solemnly inaugurated in his sacred office
by means of the ordinance of baptism, adminis¬
tered by the hands of his forerunner." Church
History, p. 30.
If all these things be true, and who can gain¬
say them, what becomes of the pretensions of
Baptists in regard to them ? John was not a
Baptist, in the modern acceptation of that term.
He did not immerse any of the people. He did
not immerse our Saviour. Our Lord was not
baptized as an example for us, but to induct him
into the office of the priesthood. We have
nothing to do in our conduct with either John's
or Christ's baptism. John baptized the people
in view of a certain end. He baptized Christ
with another view still, and our baptism is differ¬
ent from both.
So we conclude Baptists will have to go some¬
where else to find a foundation for their Churches
and their immersional proclivities.
106
baptist pretensions
CHAPTER IV.
apostolic baptisms.
Section I.—Pentecost—Three thousand.
We have not time nor space to examine their
pretensions fully to all the cases recorded in the
"Acts of the Apostles" and Epistles. We will,
however, give a specimen or two, which may
serve as representatives of all the others.
The first we notice is the baptism of the three
thousand on the day of Pentecost. Baptists
have two ways of getting over difficulties pre¬
sented from this case. The first is, that to the
twelve apostles are to be added the seventy dis¬
ciples whom our Lord sent out to preach before
his sufferings and death. The second is, that
there was plenty of water in Jerusalem to sub¬
serve the cause of immersion.
Let us look.at these points a moment. Where
is the record showing that the seventy disciples
TO ANTIQUITY.
107
had any authority to baptize? Were they not
appointed for a special business ? And when that
business was done, their mission ceased. They
were expressly told by their Master not to go to
the Samaritans, but to the Jews only. The
commission to baptize was not given until after
the resurrection, and then first and only to the
apostles, eleven in number, and their successors
in the ministry. We never again hear of the
seventy after that their mission had been fulfilled,
and their return to their Master. There is not
a word of their being present on the day of Pen¬
tecost, much less of their assisting in baptizing
the three thousand. Upon what ground, then,
can Baptists claim them as present ? Just
none at all. It is all presumption, every
word of it. Then why do they insist on
their having assisted in these baptisms ? For
the simple reason, they know full well the apos¬
tles could not have performed the work. Thus,,
3000 divided by 12, is equal to 250. Now, al¬
lowing 12 hours to the day, they would have to
immerse 20 every hour; that is, one every three
minutes. Go into the water at six o'clock in the
morning, and stay in there until six in the even¬
ing, allowing no time to rest, eat, preach, or
hear experiences, as Baptists do in these days.
108
BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
Can any man believe it but such as has his head
and imagination filled with water, as immersion-
ists have ? But if there is allowed any time to
eat, rest, preach, and hear experiences, (for Bap¬
tists must have experiences,) would it be saying
too much to allow six hours for these things ?
Then the twelve would have to immerse over forty
every hour. Does the reader believe there are
any twelve men that could do it ? That is, say
the ceremony, " put 'em in, and take 'em out,"
in about one minute and a third. Can it be
done ? And if it could in a solitary instance,
where the baptizer was making a farce of a
sacred ordinance—if immersion be a sacred or¬
dinance—does any one believe the twelve in¬
spired apostles would run a race with each other
to see who could immerse the most? How
beautiful and impressive it would appear in the
opening of the Christian dispensation to have
heard Matthew bantering Mark, and John ban¬
tering Bartholomew, etc., etc.! Very imposing
spectacle—very! The heart turns with disgust
from it.
But "there was plenty of water in Jerusalem
to baptize them." How do they know this?
Where is the authority for such a pretension ?
There was no stream of water in the city. But
TO ANTIQUITY.
109
Baptists in this case, as in all other cases, are
very imaginative. So they have the citizens,
who had be6n bitter enemies, and were still,
to Christ and his religion, to get very kind
and obliging all at once, offerihg their baths,
cisterns, etc., to the apostles to immerse three
thousand people in. Was it not exceedingly
good in them to do so ? But where is the au¬
thority for such an as^timption? There is no
warrant for it in the text. Would these people,
who were such opposers of the Christian reli¬
gion, be so benevolent ? Is it reasonable ?
Were they better than Baptists? Instances
might he pointed out where Baptists in our own
country have not only refused or objected to
Methodists preaching in their houses of worship,
but also objected to our using their pools to im¬
merse in. So we cannot think these " stiff-
necked Jews" were more charitable in this re¬
gard than Baptists now. But if Baptists think
so, why, then, be it so, provided they can
prove it.
But, nothing daunted, " if there is not water
in the city, surely there is outside of it." 0
yes; certainly. But where is it ? How far is
it from Jerusalem to a stream large enough to
immerse so many in? Could all these people
110 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
have heard preaching, given in their experiences,
and then marched off to a river, lake, pool, or
pond, and been baptized in one day ? If Bap¬
tists say they could, let them demonstrate it. It
is too preposterous for any sensible man to be¬
lieve, or even entertain for a moment. Then,
where is the authority for saying they went to a
river, etc. ? Where is it said they even left the
place where Peter preached, much less the city,
to receive baptism ? From the record before us
in the Bible, the baptisms were performed where
the preaching had been done. All beyond this
is mere conjecture.
Then, when Baptists contend for a sufficiency
of water in Jerusalem to immerse in, that mo¬
ment they surrender the argument, from the
fact that John baptized in the Jordan on account
of having enough water. "Why did John,"
say they, "leave Jerusalem and go to Jordan, if
not for immersion ?" One or other or both of
these pretensions must be wrong. If there was
water enough in Jerusalem, then there was no
necessity to go to Jordan. If they did go to
Jordan to get a sufficiency of water, then there
was not water enough in Jerusalem. Two gen¬
tlemen in the State of Alabama, the one a Bap¬
tist, the other a Methodist minister who had
to antiquity.
Ill
once been a Baptist preacher, but who, for suffi¬
cient reasons, had left them and joined us, were
in conversation with some others about this same
matter of water sufficient in Jerusalem to bap¬
tize the three thousand, for which the Baptist
brother strongly contended; and, to have some
one on his side, and knowing this minister had
once been a Baptist, he appealed to him if it
were not the fact that there was water enough in
the city 1 The minister simply replied,(t 0 yes,
I could baptize a great many with a pitcher-
full." And so he could, if he would baptize by
pouring, as the Almighty had just baptized the
disciples with the Holy Ghost, and as Isaiah had
prophesied the Lord would do, "sprinkle many
nations;" and as Ezekiel foretold of these days,
saying, " Then will I sprinkle clean water upon
you" etc.
Section II.—Philip and the Eunuch.
The next case we notice is that of Philip and
the Eunuch: Acts viii. 38, 39. They pretend
that, because it is said, " They went down both
into the water, and he baptized him," and
" they came up out of the water," therefore the
eunuch was immersed. They contend that
" went down into the water" is immersion, that
112
BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
" baptized him" is immersion, and that " come
up out of the water" is immersion. So here
they claim three chances. Surely they think
this a case not only formidable to Pedobaptists,
but a demonstration that immersion is the only
mode of baptism.
By way of exposition, we remark, is it possi¬
ble that the Holy Spirit would be guilty of using
such tautology as this ? If " going down into
the water" is immersion, why also use the words
"baptized him?" and vice versa? Then, if
" going down into the water" implies immersion,
by what process of reasoning can any one make
its opposite, " coming up out of the water," im¬
mersion ? Strange that things so opposite in
expression and meaning should signify the same
thing ! Will Baptists refer us to the rule by
which such reasoning is sustained ?
Cannot any one see at a glance that these
three expressions are altogether different ? The
going down into the water is one thing, the bap¬
tism is another, and the coming up out of the
water another still. And have we not proven
conclusively that " going down into the water,"
"in Jordan," etc., not only do not prove immer¬
sion, but also do not prove, or even imply, being
in the water at all? and that "coming up out
TO ANTIQUITY.
113
of Jordan" does not necessarily imply being in
the water? And then we have also shown from
the Bible and Baptist authors that " baptism"
means something else besides immersion; yea,
does not necessarily imply immersion at all, but
something very different. " But the word bap¬
tize does mean to dip, and dip only; to put into
the water." Well, be it so for a moment. Now,
you say it means to put in: now, we ask by
what authority you take the subject out of the
water. This is no idle question, especially when
viewed from the prominent stand-point Baptists
have given this word. Does the word mean to
talce out, as well as to put in ? Nay, verily.
Dr. Carson says, " The word has no reference to
what follows the immersion; and whether the
thing [person] immersed lies at the bottom or is
taken up, cannot be learned from the word, but
from the connection and circumstances. It is a
childish error to suppose that we must have a
model for Christian baptism in the meaning of
the word that designates it." P. 62. Then
baptize is a word that does not "designate" "the
model for Christian baptism," a Baptist author
being judge. This word, according to the Doc¬
tor, gives only half of the process. The word
will " put in," but it will not "take out." Then
114 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
we seriously ask, by what authority they take out
the subject? Authority "to put in" they say
they have, but say, also, they have no authority
" to take out." Now, do they not ADD to the or¬
dinance? "We would recommend them to read
Rev. xxii. 18, 19.
But to return. If the first and third expres¬
sions prove immersion, then it is irresistible that
Philip was immersed, as well as the" eunuch;
for the very things stated of the one are also
stated of the other. l5id the eunuch go down
into the water ? and does this prove his immer¬
sion ? Then Philip was immersed, for he went
down into the water too. Did the eunuch come
up out of the water ? and does that prove he
was under the water ? Then Philip was under
the water also, for it is said they came up out of
the water. " No twisting and screwing here,"
my Baptist friend. You must stand square up
to the question as you have always stated it.
We hold you to it. But how you will be con¬
sistent in it, is not my business to determine.
If you run into inconsistencies to sustain your
preconceived theory, it is no part of my duty to
extricate you therefrom. We are appealing to
the common sense of both the text and the
reader, and we ask him to look at this common-
TO ANTIQUITY.
115
setose view of tlie question, and say whether the
terms under consideration have any thing of
being under the water in them.
All the immersionist's pretensions in this case
are but guesses at best. He guesses that Philip
immersed the eunuch. Then, to sustain that
guess, he guesses that " going down into the
water" means or was for the purpose of immer¬
sion. Then he thinks to make a sure guess by
guessing that they could not have come up out
of the water unless they had first gone down into
or under it; and then he guesses this is a de¬
monstration of immersion. Then he must guess
there was a river, lake, pool, or pond sufficient
for the purpose, while geography, history, and
tradition inform us of no such place or places.
He must then guess that Philip exposed his
nakedness to the eunuch, and the eunuch his
nakedness to Philip; or he must make another
guess, that Philip, walking on foot, came pre¬
pared with a change of raiment, or that he went
to Azotus dripping wet, and that the eunuch
entered his carriage and pursued his journey to
Gaza all saturated with water. Now do all these
guesses amount even to a probability, much less
a demonstration, that the eunuch was immersed ?
Now, as the reader has heard the guesses of
116 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
immersionists about the baptism of the eunuch,
he will listen for a moment to the guesses of their
opponents. In the first place, then, we guess
that going down into and coming up out of the
water do not necessarily imply being in, much
less under the water. And this guess is founded
on the facts already heretofore adduced, where
the Baptist notion was altogether out of the
question. We guess that as Philip was immedi¬
ately caught away by the Spirit, and carried to
Azotus, where he was soon found preaching, it is
scarcely presumable he was wet all that time, which
he must have been, unless he pulled off his clothes
to keep them dry. We guess, again, he was not
immersed, for the want of a river, lake, pool, or
pond (unless he had a bathing tub along) suffi¬
cient for tbe purpose. If there was one, it de¬
volves upon them to adduce the proof. Our
next guess is, that water was very scarce along
that way, from the exclamation of seeming as¬
tonishment, at least of the eunuch: "See, here
is water," or See, water ! as it is in the original.
He evidently is surprised to see it. And we
guess,' had it been a pond or river, he would
likely have known of it, and not been astonished
when he pointed it out to.Philip.
We guess, again, that as Luke, the author of
TO ANTIQUITY.
117
the Acts of the Apostles, was a good Greek
scholar, he would have adhered to a rule in that
language, which was and is universally true, and
observed by the Greeks: That when entrance
into a thing is intended, the preposition is used
both before the noun and verb. As, for exam¬
ple, " They entered into the house of- Lydia"—
"-Kselthon eis ten Ludian." Acts xvi. 40.
Again, in chap. ix. 17, "Ananias entered into
the house"—"eiselthen eis ten oikian." This
is plain. The common reader may understand
it. In either example, you see eis used before
the verb, " elthen," and before the nouns, " Lu¬
dian," Lydia, and "oikian," house. Now this
rule is universally applied in the Greek language.
So, upon the other hand, as a counterpart to this,
when voluntary motion out of a place is intended,
ex or eh is used before both the verb and noun.
See Matt. ii. 6; vii. 5; viii. 28, and many others
too numerous to mention. Now, as Luke has
not thus doubled the preposition, or used it before
the verb in the case of the baptism of the
eunuch, we guess he never intended to intimate
in the least that he was immersed.
We guess, from the place where this baptism
took pUce, it was not an immersion. It was
" unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem
118 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
to Gaza, which is desert." " Desert, in Scrip-
ture, sometimes means a barren waste, and some¬
times a country-place, in contradistinction to a
city." Whether we take one or the other, im¬
mersion is out of the question. According to
the most creditable maps, the city of Gaza
stands in the valley of Gerar, where Abraham
and Isaac were obliged to dig wells for the
watering of their flocks. And it could not have
been far from this place that the eunuch was
baptized. And so we guess water was very
scarce, and that they did not go down into a well
for baptism.
But the Bible speaks of " springs in the de¬
sert," and it might have been, for ought we know,
at such a place the baptism took place. Je¬
rome, who lived several years at Jerusalem, and
was well acquainted with the country, reports
that about twenty miles from Jerusalem, in the
road toward Hebron, there is a village called
Bethsoron, near to which, in a mountain, at the
bottom or foot whereof is a spring, where the
Acts of Apostles relates that the Ethiopian was
baptized by Philip. Eusebius reported the
same. Beda, some hundred years afterwards, re¬
ported the said village then remaining, consent¬
ing with Eusebius and Jerome as to the baptism
to antiquity. 119
of the eunuch in the spring. A modern travel¬
ler, Sandys, mentions this passage by Bethsoron,
where, he says, "We saw the fountain whose
pleasant waters are forthwith drunk up by the
earth that produced them. There they say
Philip baptized the eunuch; whereupon it re¬
tains the name of the Ethiopian fountain."
Now take either one of these views, and immer¬
sion is out of the question. For it is not pre¬
sumable they went down into a well to baptize,
and there could not be much of a "spring"
" whose waters were forthwith drunk up by the
earth."
We make another guess, and then submit the
question to the common sense of the reader;
that is, in the place where the eunuch was read¬
ing, he there learned that Christ would " sprin¬
kle many nations." Isa. lii. 15. " The Hebrew
word here used has uniformly the meaning in
Scripture, " sprinkling." [See Exod. xxix. 21;
Lev. iv. 6; v. 9; xiv. 7.] The idea is purely
evangelical, to be alone explained by the mys¬
tery of the gospel, and economy of the kingdom
of Jesus Christ; in this place of most easy and
appropriate interpretation, which, that it should
not be understood by the Jews, who study with
a diversified but fruitless effort to twist its mean-
120 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
ing into something else, I do not vjonder 3 but
that Christian interpreters, and those who love
the gospel, when they distinctly see that nothing
can now be spoken more truly of Christ, nor
more in agreement with his discipline, should
yet assign other senses to the passage, I greatly
wonder. Is it that we deny Isaiah to have been
so perfectly illuminated by the Spirit as to havei
fully unveiled the whole mystery of the gospel ?
God forbid! The next sentence will teach us
that he saw all that the history declares befell
Christ Jesjus, however paradoxical the events
were. The sense of this passage is clear, plain,
certain, that Christ Jesus will apply the virtue
of the blood shed by him, as the great High-
Priest of the house of God, to the purification
of the consciences of many and great nations,
and to their illumination and sanctification; and
that he will afford them the justification obtained
for them by his obedience unto blood, as he in¬
terprets his meaning afterwards in chap, lviii. 11,
but that these nations who believe in him shall
receive the sign of this benefit, and profess their
faith in baptism, to be instituted by the com¬
mand of Jesus Christ, and to be administered
by his apostles and servants 3 this baptism seal¬
ing, to those who profess Christ, the same which
TO ANTIQUITY.
121
was formally signified by the various purifica¬
tions under the ancient economy, made by wash¬
ing or sprinkling', for those modes are equivalent
each to the other. So in Ezek. xxxvi. 26:
"And I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and
ye shall be clean." But Peter, in his Pirst Epis¬
tle, chap. i. 2, and the apostle to the Hebrews,
x. 22; xii. 24, use the very word sprinkle, and
the phrase, " sprinkling of the blood of Christ,"
which is the idea in Isaiah. For the word here
rendered sprinkle, and which is used in Lev. iv.
6, and in Num. viii. 7, refers chiefly to the act
of a high-priest, who sprinkles upon the people
the blood of a victim offered for them, in order
to purify them, since to sprinkle any thing with
blood is to apply its virtue for purification.
Compare Ephes. v. 26 with Titus ii. 14. Thus
the glorifying of Jesus Christ among the Greft-
tiles, given to him for an inheritance, was to be¬
gin. The justification by the Messiah was to
be furnished and applied to them for illumina¬
tion, purification, righteousness, and life. Vi-
tringa, as quoted by Dr. Jenks.
Is it probable that, after reading this account
of the kingdom of Christ Jesus, which was, no
doubt, fully explained by Philip, the eunuch
would desire to be immersed ? Or is it likely
122 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
Philip would do a thing not represented, neither
required in the text ?
Now, we wish to ask every Baptist in the land
just one fair, direct question upon this subject,
which we trust he will answer as fairly, openly,
and directly. The question is this: " If the
word 'sprinkle' in this passage had been ren¬
dered ' immerse,' so that the passage would have
read, ' So shall he immerse many nations,' would
you not consider its authority as final in settling
the mode of baptism?" You cannot, you dare
not deny it. You know you would, and you
would judge and decide, no doubt correctly,
provided the original would have warranted it.
But it comes to pass that the word is " sprinkle,"
a translation only which the original will justify,
and not immerse, and so we decide, not ex cathe¬
dra, but from the evidences before us, that
sprinkling is the Divine mode, and all your
twisting cannot make it otherwise. Here we
have Divine authority for sprinkling; you have
no such authority for immersion. Which, now,
shall we receive, the word and promise of the
Lord Jesus Christ, or the word of Baptists?
In conclusion, Prof. Ripley, p. 139, holds this
language upon this text in Isaiah : " Was the
prophet, I ask, speaking of any particular out-
to antiquity.
123
ward observance to be performed, or did he sim¬
ply convey the idea that God would purify his
people from their iniquity ? And did he not
represent this moral purifying by the emblem of
sprinkling, to which their ritual had accustomed
them as significant of purification ?"
Now mark, Prof. Ripley, a prominent Baptist
minister, here admits that the Jews were accus¬
tomed by their ritual to use sprinkling as signifi¬
cant of purification. He further admits that
their ritual accustomed them to this. Sprinkling
was then their mode of purifying. Is it not
probable, then, as we have said, that Philip
would so instruct the eunuch, and nothing more
natural than that Philip would apply the water
just as the Jews were accustomed to by their
ritual, and as the passage before him at this time
so powerfully suggested and required ?
Go back, if you please, and bring up all the
guesses of Baptists, and the facts and guesses
we have presented, and say honestly upon which
side truth preponderates.
Section III.—The baptism of the Jailer.
We proceed to the examination of the baptism
of the jailer, as reported in Acts xvi. An im¬
mersion must be had at all hazards. Sometimes
124 baptist pretensions
they contend for a bathing tub in the jail; then
the next you hear of them, they are in search
of some riyer, lake, pool, or pond outside of the
city, or in great haste returning, satisfied that
there is a bath or pool in the jail for the special
comfort and accommodation of prisoners. They
claim the privilege to invent and guess a way for
immersion, hut will not allow others opposed to
their views to suppose at all. Dr. Carson says,
" Had there heen no conveniences for immersion
in the prison, what would prevent them from
going to the Strymon, on which the city was
situated ? But where they were baptized, I nei¬
ther know nor care." P. 360. Quite cool and
pedantic, is it not ? " But while I have provided
a bath in the house, I am inclined to think that
the document proves that the baptism was with¬
out. . . . But I care not where the baptism
took place, and I pledge myself for nothing on
this head." P. 378. He does not care where
the baptism was performed. Surely the Doctor
has great faith in his position that baptizo al¬
ways signifies to dip, and nothing but dip, even
if he does have " all the lexicographers and
commentators against him in this opinion."
"We have neither to prove nor suppose any
thing with respect to the way in which immer-
TO ANTIQUITY.
125
sion was possible. If the word is proved to
mean immersion, whenever there was a baptism,.
there must have been a way for immersion. . .
Granting that the baptism was performed in the
jail, without any mention of a bath, I should
have every confidence of immersion, equally as
if I had been told that there was a bath or reser¬
voir." P. 377. Yerily the Doctor is bent on
immersion at any price. Why would or could
he be so confident of immersion if there was no
bath in the jail? He certainly has the opinion
that baptism ought to be performed in water.
And yet, on p. 24, he positively affirms " that the
idea of water is not in the word at all. The
nature of the fluid is not expressed in the verb
and then adduces examples where the baptizing
elements are honey-comb, wax, fire, ointments,
etc. Notwithstanding the Doctor's dogmatism,
he is in many things a candid man; for he will
acknowledge " that the idea of water is not in
the word [baptize] at all," and that all the lexi¬
cographers and commentators are against him in
his position that baptizo always means to dip.
But " the legs of the lame are not equal."
He will not pledge himself to say where the
jailer was baptized. But he is positively certain
that there was an immersion. Is not this some-
126 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
what singular ? When John goes to Jordan, to
Enon; when the eunuch descends to the water,
etc., etc., these very facts of location are adduced
as direct demonstrations of immersion; hut so
soon as one is spoken of as being baptized not
near any stream, lake, pool, or pond, he changes
his tactics, and says he will not pledge himself
where the baptism was performed, though he is
equally confident it was by immersion.
Again: he seems, nevertheless, to flounder
about as if there were some difficulties in the
case, for he thinks that if there were no con¬
veniences in the jail, there was nothing to pre¬
vent them from going to the Strymon. Yet he
will invent a bath in the jail, though he is in¬
clined to think the baptism was performed with¬
out. Then, what business or authority has he to
invent a bath in the jail? How did he invent
it ? Baptists are great people, you discover, at
inventions. If you pin them up in one corner,
they find no difficulty in flying to another. If
you press them about a bath or pool in the jail,
they can easily get the apostles and the jailer, at
midnight's hour, all in a heavenly hurry, wend¬
ing their way to the Strymon, outside the city.
Truly, Baptists have a queer way of proving im¬
mersion, though " water is not in the word."
TO ANTIQUITY.
127
We have not done with this case yet. Rev.
Richard Fuller, an eminent Baptist minister,
thinks the jailer was not baptized in the jail,
but " at some spot away from the house, probably
at the river mentioned in verse 13. The history
shows that the jailer and his family resided in
the jail. So it is clear from verse 34 that they
went out for baptism. In verse 32, the apostles
1 spake the word to him and to all that were in
his house.' Then follows the baptism, (verse
33,) for which they went out, since, after the bap¬
tism, they returned to the house. (Yerse 34.)"
Fuller on Baptism and Communion, p. 82.
Again : Jewett on Baptism, p. 49, says of the
order of events that " Paul and Silas were thrust
into the inner prison; an earthquake occurred;
the jailer sprang in and fell down before Paul
and Silas; he brought them out, [of the prison;]
they speak to him and to all that were in his
house; he then washed their stripes; baptism
was next performed; and after baptism, the com¬
pany returned to the house, (verse 34.) After
instruction, then, had been given in the hoiise,
baptism was performed; and after baptism, the
company returned to the house. Did they not
leave the house in order that baptism might be
administered ? And why did the administration
128 baptist pretensions
of baptism require them to leave the house, if
it were not that they might go to a hath or other
place convenient for immersion ?"
Does the reader discover that these writers
endeavor to fix upon our minds the idea that they
first went out of the house, and, secondly, that
they returned to the house? and upon these
two assumptions they base their idea that it
was to find some bath or other place convenient
for immersion ? If the reader will turn to the
text in Acts xvi., he will find the following to be
the order of events : The apostles were cast into
prison by their enemies; (v. 23;) the jailer
thrust them into the inner prison for safe keep-
ing; (v. 24;) at midnight, an earthquake shook
the foundations of the prison, which opened all
the doors, and loosed the prisoners' bands; (v.
26;) the jailer, awaking out of sleep, and seeing
the prison doors open, supposed the prisoners
had been fled, and was about to kill himself; (v.
27;) but Paul cried unto him and said, "Do
thyself no harm, for we are all here." (Y. 28.)
[Where were these prisoners? Just where the
jailer had put them, viz.: in the inner' prison
still.] The jailer "sprang in"—that is, into the
inner prison—and fell down before Paul and
Silas; (v. 29;) then the jailer brings them out.
to antiquity. 129
(V. 80.) [Ow£ of where f Mr. Jewett says,
" out of the prison." Nay, verily; but out of
the inner prison, into the jail proper, for we
have not had as yet any intimation of their hav¬
ing left the place where the jailer had " thrust
them" until now. And of course the bringing
of them out must of Necessity refer to the place
where he had put them.] Upon his inquiry, the
apostles preach to him the way of salvation; (v.
30, 31;) the jailer then takes them the same
hour (at midnight) and washes their stripes; (v.
33;) then follows in quick, succession the bap¬
tism of the jailer and all his: (v. 33 :) "And
was baptized, he and all his straightway;" that
is, immediately. No account of any waiting;
no account of their going after water, or in
search of it. For, no doubt, if they had, the
circumstance would have been mentioned. But
upon this subject all is as silent as the grave.
Now, after the baptism, the jailer "brought
them into his house," etc. (Y. 34.) So says
the text. Now, upon what authority does Mr.
Jewett say, "after baptism, the company returned
to the house ?" And upon what authority does
Mr. Fuller say, " Then follows the baptism, (v.
33,) for which they went out, since after baptism
they returned to the house ?"
5
130 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
Is there any thing to be seen in the history
of this matter that says one word about any of
the parties ever having left the jail ? or one
word about " returning to the house ?" And
yet it is upon these two points that Mr. Jewett
bases the immersion of the jailer. There
is no question that'Messrs. Jewett and Fuller
have added to the word of God in this instance,
as may be clearly perceived by any one who will
compare their statements with the account as
given by Luke. No doubt, in their watery
imaginations, they could see the jailer and the
apostles, all in a great hurry, running about
the streets of Philippi in search of some lake,
pool, pond, or river, in the dead hour of the
night, where he might take up his cross, and "be
buried beneath the rolling wave."
The administration of baptism did not require
them to leave the house, as Mr. Jewett supposes.
And if the history of the account be correct,
they never left the house at all. Every thing
transpired in the jail and inner 'prison, and from
the jail proper they went immediately into the
jailer's house.
The most of Baptist authors, we think, con¬
tend for this baptism as having taken place out¬
side the jail, somewhere in the city. But when
to antiquity.
131
they find they cannot get out of the jail, their
imaginations are very inventive, and hence they
see standing in the jail a bathing tub, trough,
pool, or something of the kind, which is used
for the purpose, in this case, at least, for immer¬
sion.
But, we ask again, where is the authority for
such a bathing apparatus ? Does the Bible say
there was such a thing in the jail ? Not at all.
But " history tells us of baths in Eastern jails."
It does? Well, where is the history that tells
us of one in the jail at Philippi when this bap¬
tism took place within its walls ? No flinching,
or dodging, my good friend; nor exhibition of
bad temper. All we want is the authority. We
know some people do not like to be called upon
to give proof themselves, but yet are ever de¬
manding it of others. Go by the book. Bap¬
tists profess to go by the book, the Bible only.
Now, stick to it in the case before us. Where
does it ever say there was a pool or bath in the
jail ? Where that they ever left the jail ?
Where that they ever went out of the jail pre¬
viously to the baptizing ? Where that they^ ever
returned to the house ? Only stick to the book,
we say, sink or swim, survive or perish, immer¬
sion or no immersion. Then where are you
132 baptist pretensions
going to show us water sufficient for immer¬
sion ?
Or are you like Dr. Carson, who says, " Bap¬
tize means to dip only j, hut in this every lexi¬
cographer and commentator is against me; but
it does mean to dip only, and I do not care where
the water is to come from, the jailer was im¬
mersed. But whether he was immersed in the
jail or in the river Strymon, I do not know; or,
whether he was immersed in honeycomb, wax,
fire, or water, I do not know or care, for (water
is not in the word' at all; but one thing I do
know, and that is, he was immersed." This is
the Baptistic way of proving this question. But
we would remind them that their dogmatisms
are not arguments. Let them give the argu¬
ments that the jailer was immersed, and not
merely their bare assertions.
We might linger yet awhile with the other
baptisms mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles,
but we are fearful of detaining the reader too
long. Therefore, we dismiss them with this re¬
mark, that the circumstances related as attending
those baptisms all preclude the idea of immer¬
sion. Then, after all that is said, Baptists fall
back upon Dr. Carson's position, that baptizo
always means to dip, which, we trust, has been
TO ANTIQUITY.
133
shown altogether an error, inasmuch as " all the
lexicographers and commentators are against"
them in that opinion. And as we prefer to defer
to such authorities, rather than to the dogmatic
dictum of men who have not such authorities on
their side, they will have to excuse us from ad¬
mitting them to be infallible.
Section IY.—Buried with Christ—Baptism, of
the Holy Ghost.
Two passages from the writings of St. Paul
wijl close this part of our exposition.
The one, in his letter to the Romans, (ch. vi.,)
reads as follows: " 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 into death: that
like as Christ was raised up from the dead by
the glory of the Father, even so we also should
walk in newness of life." The other, in Colos-
sians, (ch. ii.,) reads thus: "Buried with him in
baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him
through the eaith of the operation of God, who
hath raised him from the dead."
These texts seem to be the very stronghold of
Baptists. Hence so much singing, rhyming,
preaching, exhorting, proselyting, and praying
134 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
too, for aught we know, about being " buried
with Christ," " rising with him," " liquid grave,"
and a great deal of such nonsense and unscriptural
jargon, merely to serve a denominational purpose.
But to the case before us. Let but the reader
apply their single and specific meaning of bap¬
tize, viz., to dip, where the word occurs in these
passages, and see how beautifully it sounds, and
what sublime sense it makes. "Dipped into
Jesus Christ," " dipped into his death," "buried
with him by dipping into death." Did you
ever ? Ugh!
In the next place, it was contrary to the Apos¬
tle's design of argument to show the mode of
baptism. It is the design of baptism ; and if the
passage proves any mode at all, it is that of
sprinkling or pouring, as we shall presently
show. Paul is answering the question pro¬
pounded in the second verse, " How shall we,
that are dead to sin, live any longer therein ?"
and, among other things, adverts to baptism in
its design, to show that it was inconsistent with
Christian character to "live in sin," as by
baptism a solemn obligation was entered into to
renounce sin, and live for God, just as those who
were circumcised were brought under obligation
to do the whole law.
TO ANTIQUITY.
135
That the reader may have a clearer view of
the design of the apostle in presenting, not the
mode, but the spiritual import of baptism, let
him read the context, and he will find the apos¬
tle using several terms setting forth the spiritual
character of those who had been baptized. As,
for example, death, burial, resurrection, plant¬
ing, and crucifixion. Now if one of these ex¬
pressions be literal, so are all; if one be spirit¬
ual, so are the rest. For one cannot be literal
and the other spiritual: this would be contrary
to all rules of biblical interpretation. If, then,
we can find out the meaning of one of .them,
we have the meaning of all.
Take the term death. What does it mean ?
To what does it refer ? Any one with a grain
of common sense can see that the apostle refers
to a death to sin. He says the Christian is
"dead to sin." "He that is dead is freed from
sin." Not naturally, but spiritually dead. " If
we be dead with Christ." " .Reckon ye also your¬
selves to be dead indeed unto sin." Consult the
whole of this chapter, and it will be found that
it is a spiritual death of which Paul is speaking.
That point is settled.
Now take the resurrection alluded to. Is it a
rising up out of the water ? "Ye are risen with
136 baptist pretensions
him." "If ye, then, he risen with Christ."
Col. ii. 12; iii. 1. And the entire of Romans
vi. unmistakably shows the resurrection to be to
a new spiritual life in Christ Jesus. Here, then,
are two of the expressions as used by Paul, most
assuredly applied in a spiritual sense. Then, to
preserve his meaning, all the other terms must
so be understood. For how can there be & phys¬
ical burial, and a spiritual death and resurrec¬
tion ?
But do not the very expressions of the text
preclude the idea of a burial in water ? The
apostle does not say the first time that we are
buried in water. But he does say we are " bap¬
tized into Jesus Christ," "into his death," "into
death." Here the baptismal element is not
water at all, but "Jesus Christ," "his death,"
and " death." Now, what baptism effects this?
Not water, surely. For we will not here assert
that Baptists claim all who are baptized by them
as regenerated, or born again. But if they do,
then it so turns out that their other favorite doc¬
trine, " Once in grace always in grace," is not
true, for some of them do most woefully back¬
slide.
But the apostle himself informs us how the
resurrection is accomplished. "That like as
to antiquity.
137
Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory
of the Father, even so we also should walk in
newness of life." v The " newness of life" here
refers to the resurrection from sin, already
alluded to, into a life of righteousness. Now,
then, the points of correspondence are between
the power that raised Christ from the dead, and
the power that raises us from the power or do¬
minion of sin to a life of holiness. The Agent,
then, of Christ's resurrection is the Agent in the
other. Let the following, upon this point, suf¬
fice : " If the Spirit of him that raised
up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that
raised up Christ from the dead shall also
quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that
dwelleth in you." Rom. viii. 11. "By one
Spirit are we all baptized into one body." 1
Cor. xii. 13. "Buried with him in baptism,
wherein [that is, in the baptism of the Spirit]
also ye are risen with him, through the faith
of the operation of God, who hath raised him
from the dead. And you, being dead in your
sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath
he quickened [raised up to a life of holiness by
his Spirit] together with him, having forgiven
you all trespasses." Col. ii. 12, v13. Here you
see the resurrection is accomplished by the Spi-
138 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
rit of God as the great efficient Agent, and faith
as the instrumental or conditional cause, " through
the operation of God."
The baptism, then, spoken of in this psssage,
effecting a resurrection to a new life in Christ
Jesus, is not water baptism, but that of the Spi¬
rit of God, promised in the prophets, and real¬
ized fully in the apostolic age. John had fore¬
told that " ye shall be baptized with the Holy
Ghost." Christ directed his disciples to " tarry
in Jerusalem till ye be endued with power from
o^high." " Behold I send the promise of my
Father upon you," which was the Holy Ghost.
In Acts ii. we have an account of the fulfilment
of these prophecies and promises, in which
Peter says, "This is that which was spoken by
the Prophet Joel. And it shall come to pass in
the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my
Spirit upon all flesh," etc.
Digress here a moment. Dr. Carson says, "As
respects the transactions on the day of Pente¬
cost, there was a real baptism in the emblems of
the Spirit. The disciples were immersed into
the Holy Spirit by the abundance of his gifts;
but they were literally covered with the appear¬
ance of wind and fire. They were, then, com¬
pletely covered by the emblems of the Spirit."
TO ANTIQUITY.
139
P. 107. They were immersed into the Holy
Spirit; but this immersion into the Spirit is no¬
thing but an immersion into the emblems of the
Spirit, that is, fire and wind. Who ever heard
of such a thing but a Baptist ? Making the
Spirit synonymous with wind^nd fire is an out¬
rage upon the text and our common perceptibili¬
ties. Dr. Carson contends that it is not the
Spirit that is poured out, but only his influences.
But does the text say so ? Does that not say
expressly, 111 will pour out my Spirit ?" God
does not say he will pour out the influences of his
Spirit; he does not say, Ye shall be baptized in
the wind, as an emblem of the Spirit; nay, but
immediately and directly, ye shall be baptized
with my Spirit, and that I will your this Spirit
upon, not immerse you in its influences or em¬
blems. Which, then, shall we believe, the Lord
Almighty, who says, I will pour out my Spirit
upon you, or Dr. Carson, and the generation of
Baptists, who say that it is only ai^ immersion in
the Spirit's emblems and influences ?
Now, to return. Here, then, was the baptism
of that Spirit spoken of, which is usually spoken
of as producing a clean heart, and delivering
from the dominion of sin. In its communication
to man's heart it is spoken of as coming down
140 baptist pretensions
upon him. Again : read the passages just cited
above, in connection with the following: "And
suddenly there came from heaven, and appeared
unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it
sat upon each of them." Acts ii. 2, 3. Jesus
said they should he endued with power from on
high. Luke says it came from heaven. Is there
any plunging here ? When Peter opened the
gospel to the Gentiles, he says, "As I began to
speak, the Holy Ghost feel on them, as on us at
the beginning. Then remembered I the word
of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed bap¬
tized with water; but ye shall be baptized with
the Holy Ghost." Acts xi. 15, 16. How did
the falling on them of the Holy Ghost remind
Peter of the baptism of the Spirit if the latter
was not poured out upon them ? Here we have
the meaning of haptizo settled by Divine author¬
ity. The falling and pouring out of the Holy
Ghost is synonymous with the baptism of the
Holy Ghost. If, then, the falling of the Holy
Ghost is a baptism, it follows that the fall¬
ing or pouring out of water is baptism likewise.
And all the Baptists in Christendom cannot suc¬
cessfully gainsay it.
Again: "Jesus having received of the Pather
the promise of the Holy Ghost, hath shed forth
TO ANTIQUITY, 141
this, which ye now see and hear." Acts ii. 33.
" The Holy Ghost which he shed on us abun¬
dantly." Titus iii. 5, 6. Consult the parallel
passages, together with those already given, and
it will he found that the baptism of the Spirit is
always spoken of as descending, giving, falling,
coming upon, poured out, sitting upon, shed forth,
anointing, abiding upon, sealing, etc., and which
are ^11 given in God's divine lexicon as mean¬
ings of the word baptizo.
Now, shall we pass by these meanings of this
word, as given by the Allwise God, and take up
with one which he has never recognized ? God
forbid! Let God 'be true, and let all the people
say, Amen, and baptize with water, as he bap¬
tizes with the Holy Ghost.
From what has been said, we learn that the
apostle was not alluding to the mode of baptism
in Horn. vi. 3, 4, but to its design and effects;
viz., a dominion over sin, and a new life to uni¬
versal righteousness, produced by the Spirit of
God, through the faith of the operation of God.
And we learn, furthermore, that if the passages
illustrate any mode rather than •another, it is that
of pouring and sprinlcling.
In conclusion, what a wide difference is seen
in immersion, as practiced by Baptists, and the
142
BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
teachings of Paul in these texts. Paul says we
are "baptized into Jesus Christ," and "buried
with him by baptism into death," and into
Christ's death. But Baptists say we are buried
in water. Paul says, " we are raised" from this
death into which we have been buried by bap¬
tism, 11 through the faith of the operation of
God," and " by the glory of the Father." Bap¬
tists, when they bury a person in the water, do
not wait for him to be raised through faith, and
"the glory [the Spirit] of the Father"—the
poor fellow might drown—but take him up out
of the watery grave by main strength as soon as
possible. Reader, do you think the Apostle
Paul ever thought of immersion when he penned
those texts ? We do not. And from these plain
scriptural facts and common-sense views we find
all their pretensions vanish into nothing, and ask
them the same question they are ever accustomed
to ask, especially the common people, "What
grounds have" Baptists " to stand upon ?"
to antiquity.
143
CHAPTER Y.
immersion the practice of the primitive
church.
Section I.—Males and females immersed naked.
Another pretension is, that "immersion was
the practice of the primitive Church." This 'pre¬
tension of theirs we shall examine in the light
of history, and let the reader see what force, if
any, is to be attached to it. " Mosheim," Bap¬
tists tell us, " says that immersion was the prac¬
tice of the Church in the second century." For
the present, we shall not call this in question,
but permit them to have the advantage, if there
be any, of said historical fact. But there are
some things in connection with this matter which
we desire presenting, and shall hold them strictly
to the facts in the case; and should we present
things unquestioned that would bring the blush
to a sensitive cheek, we must not be blamed, for
144 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
we are forced to it by those who would and do
unchurch and unchristianize all who do not follow
them in their high and bold pretensions of being
the people of God on earth, and sole possessors
of God's only Church in this world.
They take the position that as the primitive
Church—or the Church in the second century
—immersed, therefore, John the Baptist and the
apostles immersed; and as Baptists now immerse,
therefore, they are in a regular line of descent
from the said apostles and John the Baptist.
This, to them, is a demonstration. If this, then,
is so satisfactory and conclusive, what will they
say should we push this course of argumentation a
little further, and show that the primitive Church
immersed every one, both males and females,
naked? and in view of baptismal regeneration?
and, furthermore, in view of the great efficacy
of water baptism, had foisted upon it many sw-
perstitious rites ? Let not the reader swerve
until he has calmly and patiently read and di¬
gested the facts we shall present.
Is it a fact that the primitive Church did
immerse males and females in a state of naked¬
ness? "Surely not," says one. Not quite so
fast, if you please, my Baptist brother. "We will
give you the special benefit of your ancient his-
TO ANTIQUITY.
145
torical fact of immersion yet, before we are
through with you. Suppose you read the fol¬
lowing items of history:
"If you take your stand on the ancient "prac¬
tice of the Churches, in the days of the early
Christian fathers, and charge me with departure
from this, in my turn I have the 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, in puris naturalibus, (in a state of pure
or entire nakedness,) naked as Adam and Eve
before the fall. [J®"] The most tender, deli¬
cate, and modest females, young and old, could
obtain no exception, where immersion must be
practiced. The practice was pleaded for and in¬
sisted upon because it was thought to be apostolic.
At all events, it began very early in the Christian
Church." Stuart on Baptism, p. 97.
And that this primitive naked immersion shall
"admit of no contradiction," and that "the most
tender, delicate, and modest females, young and
old, could obtain no exception," as Prof. Stuart
says, we will prove by authorities which Baptists
themselves will be forced to believe.
" They'—the primitive Christians—observed
the way of baptizing all persons naked and di-
146 bap tic t pretensions
vested, by a total immersion under water, except
in some particular cases of great exigency, wberein
they allowed of sprinkling, as in the case of
clinic baptism, or where there was a scarcity of
water. That persons were divested in order to
be baptized is evident, partly from what has
been said before of unction, which was adminis¬
tered not only on the head, but on other parts of
the body; partly from express testimonies which
affirm it; and also from the manner [or mode]
of baptizing by immersion, which necessarily
presupposes it. St. Chrysostom, speaking of
baptism, says: Men were as naked as Adam in
paradise, but with this difference: Adam was
naked because he had sinned, but* in baptism
a man was naked that he might be freed from
sin; the one was divested of lys glory which he
once had, but the other put off the old man,
which he did as easily as his clothes.
" St. Ambrose says: Men came as naked to the
font as they came into the world. Cyril, of Je¬
rusalem says: As soon as ye come into the inner
part of the baptistery, ye put off your clothes,
which is an emblem of putting off the old man
with his deeds; and being thus divested, ye stood
naked, imitating Christ that was naked upon
the cross, who by his nakedness spoiled princi-
TO ANTIQUITY.
147
palities and powers, publicly triumphing over
them in the cross. 0 wonderful thing! Ye
were naked in the sight of men, and were not
ashamed, in thus truly imitating the first man
Adam, who was naked in paradise, and was not
ashamed.
" So also Amphilochius, in the Life of St. Basil,
speaking of his baptism, says: He arose with
fear, and put off his clothes, and with them the
old man. And Zpno Yeronensis, reminding per¬
sons of their baptism, bids them rejoice, for they
went down [Lydia and her household looked sig¬
nificant (did they not ?) going down] naked into
the font, but rose again clothed in a white and
heavenly garment, which if they did not defile,
they might obtain the kingdom of heaven.
Athanasius, in his invectives against the Arians,
among other things, lays this to their charge,
that by their persecutions the Jews and Gentiles
broke into the baptistery, and here offered such
abuses to the catechumens as they stood with
their naked bodies, as was shameful and abomin¬
able to relate. And a like complaint is brought
against Peter, Bishop of Apamea, in the council
of Constantinople, under Mennas, that he cast out
the neophytes, or persons newly baptized, out of
the baptistery, when they were toiihout their
148 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
clothes and shoes. All which were manifest
proofs that persons were baptized naked, either
in imitation of Adam in paradise or our Saviour
upon the cross, or to signify the putting off the
body of sin and the old man with his deeds."
St. Chrysostom says, in writing about the bar¬
barous proceedings of his enemies against him
on the great Sabbath, or Saturday before Easter,
among other tragical things which they commit¬
ted he reports this for one: That they came
around into the church, and by violence expelled
the clergy, killing many in the baptistery, with
which the women, who were at that time divested
in order to be baptized, were put into such a ter¬
ror that they fled away naked, and could not
stay in the fright to put on such clothes as the
modesty of their sex required.
But to preserve something like decency in this
matter, and shield them from the scorn and con¬
tempt of mankind, there were deaconesses ap¬
pointed, among other things, to attend to the
preparation of female candidates for this naked
baptism. "One part of their office was to assist
the minister at the baptizing of women, where,
for decency's sake, they were employed to divest
them, (the custom then being to baptize all
adult persons by immersion,) and so to order the
TO ANTIQUITY.
149
natter that the whole ceremony might be per¬
formed with all the decency becoming so sacred
an action." With this agree Epiphanius, Jus¬
tinian, the Author of the Constitutions, etc.
Bingham's Christian Antiquities, Book xi., ch.
xi., sec. 1, 2, 3. Book ii., ch. xxii., sec. 8.
Again: Robinson—a Baptist—says in his His¬
tory of Baptism: "The primitive Christians
baptized naked. There is no ancient historical
fact better authenticated than this." P. 85.
Dr. Wall, an immersionist, declares: "The
ancient Christians, when they were baptized by
immersion, were all baptized naked, whether
they were men, women, or children. They
•thought it better represented the putting off the
old man, and also the nakedness of Christ on
the cross. Moreover, as baptism is a washing,
they judged that it should be the washing of
the body, not the clothes." History of Inf.
Bap., ch. xv., pt. ii.
The great Baptist historian, Mr. Benedict,
thus essays upon this subject: " That this was an
ancient and long-continued practice is beyond all
dispute. Mr. Robinson, in his History on Bap¬
tism, observes that there is no aneient historical
fact better authenticated than the practice of
baptizing naked. He ascribes it to the primi-
150 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
tive Christians; by which, however, he could not
have meant those of the apostolic age, as there is
nothing that looks like it in the New Testament
©
accounts of administering this rite; and the au¬
thors which he quotes in proof of the nudity of
the persons to be baptized were Ambrose, Basil,
Cyril, and Chrysostom, all of whom flourished
near the close of the fourth century." [No use
to say this, for these very writers ascribe it to
apostolic origin.] Mr. Benedict also quotes
Coleman as sustaining "this strange infatuation
of that superstitious age, when every thing per¬
taining to the plain principles and institutions
of the gospel was perverted and abused. From
the third century baptism became one of the
mysteries of the Church. Such it continued to
be until the middle of the fifth century, when
Christianity became so prevalent, and the prac¬
tice of infant baptism so general, that the in¬
stances of adult baptism were comparatively
rare. T>ut during that period of time it was
administered privately, in the presence of be¬
lievers only; and the candidates, without respect
to age or sex, were divested of all covering in
order to he baptized, and in this state received
the ordinance" He continues: "Vossius, in
his book de Baptismo, maintains that this ptac-
TO ANTIQUITY.
151
tice of denuding all candidates for baptism, men,
women, and children, continued from the time of
Austin to that of St. Bernard, a period of be¬
tween seven and eight hundred years. The
authorities quoted by him, in justification of a
superstition which all parties now look upon with
ineffable disgust and contempt, are Cyril of Je¬
rusalem, Amphilochus, Elias, Cretensis, Bernard,
Alcuinus, Anselm, etc."
Again: " Though the upper and lower parts
were uncovered, yet something was wrapped
around the middle. Bigoted priests may make ■
foolish and absurd laws, and urge their ridicu¬
lous homilies on the people in favor of put¬
ting off the old man—of laying aside their
glory as our Saviour did, etc.; but when their
childish fancies led to a violation of the decen¬
cies of life, it was more than priests and monks
could do to continue them in practice in their
literal sense. Mankind always did, and always
will, find out ways to modify or avoid such
inconvenient and indecent canons.
" To make the best of a bad case," he contin¬
ues, "we must bear in mind that while this
unnatural practice was in vogue, the great
national Church was regarded as a secret society,
whose operations, especially in the reception of
152 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
members, were kept as much, as possible from
public view. Strong efforts were made to throw
a charm around the process of initiation, and
instead of baptizing as all immersionists now do,
at all times and in all places, where convenien¬
ces could be found, all was done in baptismal
•buildings on great festivals, retired from public
view." Benedict's History, pp. 299, 300.
We have introduced this long array of testi¬
monies for a twofold purpose: first, to show
conclusively, especially Baptists, that it was tbe
•practice of the ancients to baptize—when done
by immersion—the candidates in a state of na¬
kedness; and secondly, to afford others the proofs
of the fact, not circumstanced to obtain them.
And yet this is but a tithe of what we might
give.
From all of which it will be seen that all
these authorities are unanimous in saying that
it was the practice to immerse naked; that
there is no ancient historical fact better estab¬
lished; and notwithstanding Mr. Benedict is
constrained to admit the fact itself, he calls it
"a superstition which all parties now look upon
with ineffable disgust and contempt." Yet some
of these very writers contend for its apostolic
origin.
TO ANTIQUITY.
153
Again: These writers of ancient times tell us
that the subjects were as naked as Adam and
Eve before the fall; yet Mr. Benedict, in mak¬
ing "the best of a bad case," contends that
"something was wrapped around the middle."
How does Mr. B. know this to be a fact? Where
is his authority for so saying? He does not
even hint that there is such authority. It is
his own declaration. No, no, Mr. B., please
sir, take it as you find it; as Prof. Stuart says,
"in a state of entire nakedness."
Again: Baptists talk about Pedobaptists alter¬
ing and changing the laws and ordinances of
Heaven; yet here, while they claim immersion
from its antiquity as being the apostolic rule
and usage, and when we show this "unnatural
practice," according to Mr. Benedict, to be the
rule and usage of the ancient Christians, he will
have "something around the middle," and calls it
"a violation of the decencies of life," and "will
find out ways to modify or avoid such incon¬
venient and indecent canons." Nay, my friend,
call it not indecent or inconvenient; for thereby
you may impeach the Almighty. And so you
do, upon your own grounds. Por if it be apos¬
tolic from the fact that it was practiced by the
ancient Christians, then you must take it accord-
154 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
ing to the pattern laid down ; and we insist upon
it that Baptists do not now baptize according to
the ancient plan, unless they baptize all men
and women perfectly naked. If the history of
the Church be true, and these Baptist writers
admit the fact, then no Baptists now-a-days are
baptized, for they are immersed with clothes on.
No matter if it is " indecent and inconve¬
nient/' you must submit to it; especially, as you
contend for the antiquity of the practice, prov¬
ing it Divine, you must not seek to " modify or
avoid such inconvenient and indecent canons."
Ah! no. You "must take up your cross," and
follow yotir ancient brethren and sisters. You
must "make the best of a bad case," and do
not, if you please, bemean, as Mr. Benedict does,
your good old immersion by calling it an " un¬
natural practice." "Unnatural" it is, we grant;
but Baptists are the last people on earth to call
it so. " What God hath cleansed [ordained]
call not thou common, or unclean," "unnatural,"
"indecent," or "inconvenient."
No wonder Baptists talk about immersion
being a cross. If they were to endeavor to
keep up this "indecent" practice, how many, we
ask, would now be Baptists? And, notwith¬
standing, there are indecencies and inconve-
TO ANTIQUITY.
155
niences attending even their present mode of bap¬
tizing, they cry out vehemently that we are de¬
crying and abusing an ordinance of the gospel,
and think we commit sacrilege when we make this
same charge, and for aught we know wonder why
the Almighty does not consume us with fire and
an earthquake as he did Nadab and Abihu.
Can any man with refined feelings believe for
one moment that the Lord Jesus Christ, the
Great Head of the Church, ever ordained an
ordinance offending the decencies and common
proprieties of life ? That Baptists do look upon
immersion as carrying along with it certain inde¬
cencies, and "ineffable disgust," as-Mr. Benedict
would say, is seen in their attempts to " avoid
and modify" them by having "baptismal pants"
of rubber, and goyons for females with lead or
stones as sinkers, and then a second gown, cloak,
or shawl, to throw around them as they come up
out of the "liquid grave." Why such attempts
to " modify or avoid " the indecencies of immer¬
sion, if it be ordained of God ? Why not sub¬
mit to bear the entire cross ? If God ordained
immersion, did he not also think of its indecen¬
cies and inconveniences ? and if so, why did he
not ordain a way to avoid them ? If he did not
ordain such a way to avoid them, then he either
156 baptist pretensions
did not think of them, or he intended that all
such "ineffably disgusting" "indecencies and
inconveniences" should be quietly and meekly
submitted to. Why not, then, go the whole
figure at once, and be immersed naked? That
was the ancient plan: now stick to it, and you
are welcome to all its results, be they good or
evil, decent or indecent, refined or ineffably dis¬
gusting.
Section II.—Trine immersion—Superstitious
rites—Baptismal regeneration—Baptists not
in the line— Who baptizes the feet and legs ?
We have a few more things to say about this
ancient practice of immersion. The ancients
not only immersed naked, but immersed three
times, and nsed milk and honey and other cere¬
monies, and considered it essential to forgiveness
of sins and eternal salvation. VA11 these points
we shall bring out just here, regardless of any
particular order, but so palpably that the reader
can clearly see the truth of our assertion.
Dr. Wall, an immersionist himself, though a
Pedobaptist, sets it forth thus : "What was just
now mentioned of the Muscovites baptizing stark
naked, and dipping three times, is perfectly
agreeable to the ancient practice in both the
TO ANTIQUITY.
157
iusages." " The way of trine immersion, or
plunging the head of the person three times into
the water, was the general practice 0/ALL anti¬
quity. Tertullian, [whom Baptists lay great
claims to as a progenitor,] in a dispute against
Praxeas, who held but one person in the
Trinity, uses this among other arguments Our
Saviour commanded the apostles that they should
baptize unto the Father, and unto the Son, and
unto the Holy Spirit; pot unto one person, for
we are not plunged once, hut three times, once at
the naming of each name."
Again: Tertullian says, " When we come to
the water, . . we renounce the devil and his
pomp and his angels. Then we are three times
plunged into the water; and we answer some
few words more than those which our Saviour
in the gospel has enjoined. When we are taken
up out of the water, we taste a mixture of milk
and honey ; and from that day we abstain a whole
week from bathing ourselves, which otherwise we
use every day." " Whatever business we have,
we make on our foreheads the sign of the cross."
" In an epistle of St. Hierome, in form of a
dialogue, one of the parties makes the same use
of the same instance of trine immersion as Ter¬
tullian does here, saying, * If there were no au-
158 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
thority of Scripture for it, the consent of the
whole world in that matter would obtain the
force of a precept; for many other things which
are by tradition observed in the Church have
got authority as if they were written laws, as, in
the font of baptism, to plunge the head thrice
under water,' etc. St. Basil speaks just after
the same manner of the same thing. And Chry-
sostom says, ' Our Lord has delivered to us one
baptism by three immersions.' "
" Yossius says : ' Besides, at present, the trine
immersion is used in all countries; so that the
customs cannot be changed without an affectation
of novelty, and scandal given to the work.' He
means all countries where immersion is used."
Wall's History of Infant Baptism, Part II, ch.
ix., sec. 1, 3, 4.
Mr. Bingham says, We may observe also, in
the forementioned authors, how the baptisteries
were commonly called places of illumination;
that is, baptism; for baptism itself, in ancient
writers, is very usually styled illumination, and
hence the place of baptism called illuminatory,
from the administration of baptism there, which
was always attended with a Divine illumination
of the soul, whence persons baptized were also
called the illuminati.
TO ANTIQUITY.
159
" Baptism was always esteemed the most uni¬
versal absolution and grand indulgence in the
ministry of the Church, as conveying a general
pardon of sins to every true member of Christ
when he first entered into his mystical body by
the laver of regeneration."
" The stewards of Christ's mysteries were
always supposed to have the ministerial powers
of conveying remission of sins to men by the ad¬
ministration of baptism, and so far as they were
intrusted with the administration of it, so far
they had power to bind or loose, to admit the
worthy into the Church, or keep the unworthy
otit of it; that is, in the ministerial way, to re¬
mit men's sins by admitting them to baptism, or
retain their sins by keeping them from it, accord¬
ing to the rules of Christ's institution and ap¬
pointment. The ancients, upon this account,
commonly give baptism the name of indulgence,
or remission of sins, or the sacrament of remis¬
sion." "Sacerdotal absolution in general ex¬
tends much further than is commonly apprehend¬
ed, for it includes the whole transaction of
baptism, whereby remission of sins is ministerially
granted to every true member of Christ when he
is first admitted into his Church."
Among the ceremonies attending these trine
160 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
naked immersions, may be noted, as above, the
giving a mixture, of milk and boney, putting on
of white garments after the immersion, carrying
of lighted tapers, the kiss of peace, washing of
feet, exorcism to drive the devil away, imposition
of hands, etc., etc. Bingham's Antiquities of
the Christian Church, Book viii., ch. vii.; Book
xix., ch. i.; Book xxi.; Book xii., ch. iv.
We cannot well dispose of this subject without
giving the reader one or two more quotations.
Hermas, a writer often quoted by Baptists,
who we suppose is good authority with them,
says: " It was necessary, said he, for them to
come up by (or through) water, that they might
be at rest, for they could not otherwise enter
into the kingdom of God than by putting off the
mortality of their former life: they, therefore,
after they were dead, were sealed with the seal
of the Son of God, and so entered into the
kingdom of God; for before any one receives
the name of the Son of God, he is liable to
death; but when he receives that seal, he is de¬
livered from death, and is assigned to life. Now,
that seal is water, into which persons go down
liable to death, but come out of it assigned to life.
For which reason, to these also was- this seal
[water baptism] preached; and they m.ade use
TO ANTIQUITY.
161
of it that they might enter into the kingdom of
God." Wall's History of Infant Baptism, Part
I., chap. i.
Let us now turn aside for a moment, and see
" this great sight" of " baptismal regeneration,"
set forth in unmistakable terms in their own
authors.
Benedict, in his History of Baptists, p. 286,
thus essays : "Baptismal Regeneration.—This
doctrine is the ne plus ultra, the very summum
honum of the baptismal rite. This theory makes
it amount to something worth contending for.
It clothes the ceremony with an importance
which is calculated to give life and energy to the
efforts of all who sincerely believe it, to have it
applied to the largest possible number of the
ruined race of man. A ceremony which by its
mysterious power in an instant changes the des¬
tiny of an immortal being for time and eternity,
and brings him, whether old or young, from the
ruins of the fall into the glorious liberty of the
sons of God, is certainly of a momentous char¬
acter, and should by no means be neglected by
those who have this view of its sacramental effi¬
cacy and saving power."
In what stronger terms.could he have written
it? "The -ne plus ultra, the very summum
6
162
B A*P TIST PRETENSIONS
bonum of the baptismal rite." "This theory
makes it amount to something worth contending
for;" " its mysterious power in an instant changes
the destiny of an immortal being for time and
eternity;" "should by no means be neglected,"
etc.
And is this not the reason why Baptists so gen¬
erally and so strenuously insist upon it? If there
were not some virtue and efficiency attached to
it, why so unremittingly insist upon it ? Scarcely
do they preach without insisting upon "following
the Saviour in the liquid grave." Why, again,
are such strong efforts made to proselyte mem¬
bers of other Churches ? Is it not simply be-
because they endorse the view that it—immer¬
sion—is " a ceremony which by its mysterious
power in an instant changes the destiny of an
immortal being for time and eternity, and brings
him, whether old or young, from the ruins of
the fall into the glorious liberty of the sons of
G-od," and, hence, "should by no means be ne¬
glected ?"
This is the way they reason: No one can be
a son, or child of Glod, but such as obey the
commands of the Lord Jesus Christ; but im¬
mersion is a command of the Lord Jesus Christ;
therefore, none but such as are immersed are
TO ANTIQUITY.
163
children of God. Again : None but such as obey
the commands of Jesus Christ can get to heaven;
hut immersion is a command, of Jesus Christ;
therefore, none but such as are immersed can
get to heaven.
We presume no Baptist will deny the above
mode of argument. It is very common, yea, so
much so, that it is almost universally looked for
whenever a Baptist preaches. And it makes no
odds what text is taken, water is almost sure to
be found in it before the conclusion is reached;
and if it is not legitimately in the text, a journey
away round in search of Jordan, or at least of some
lake, pool, or pond, is taken. Why is this, we
ask, if immersion is not essential to salvation,
according to their views? A certain Baptist
preacher in Florida, a few years ago, was in con¬
versation with a Methodist brother upon this
same subject, when the Methodist asked the
preacher this question" Suppose a man were
to give in his experience, and you were to pro¬
nounce him converted, but had to go ten miles
to immerse him, and on the way to the water
his horse were to throw him and kill him, would
he he saved?" The Baptist preacher replied,
"I have no authority to say he would." So
immersion is essential to salvation, in the es-
164 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
timation of Baptists. And so it lias ever been
held by those who exclusively teach and prac¬
tice it.
We wish these remarks specially noted, as
they are always harping upon it, that "Bap¬
tismal regeneration and infant baptism were intro¬
duced at the same time; and that infant baptism
is predicated upon the regenerating effects of
water," when the fact is, all history concurs in
establishing the fact that immersion and bap¬
tismal regeneration go hand in hand, as is abun¬
dantly seen in the above extracts, which might
be readily increased.
Mr. Bingham, as you have seen, says that the
immersed were styled " the illuminati," and the
places of immersion, " illuminatories," from the
supposed effect of water upon the subject, in
changing, or raising him from the ruins of the
fall to the glorious liberty of the sons of God.
We must be borne with, while we seem so often
to traverse the same ground. It is truth we are
after, and the reader must have it also, even at
the expense of reading over again the same
things.
Mr. Jewett, a Baptist minister, says: " While
they [BaptistsJ'do not regard the ordinance [of
baptism] as essential to salvation, they do believe
TO ANTIQUITY.
165
it to be essential to obedience to the law of Christ
respecting the introduction of members into the
visible Church. They believe the ordinance of
baptism should be observed in the way of
Christ's appointment. True, it is only an exter¬
nal rite, but it is a rite enjoined by Christ him¬
self—it is a rite full of meaning. And as any
rite is but a form, if we do not preserve the
form, we do not practice the rite. Hence, im¬
mersion is essential to baptism. Hence,
baptism by immersion is essential to obedience to
Christ; essential to the highest instruction and
comfort of believers; essential to the best moral
impressions on believers; essential to the purity
and stability of the Church of Christ." Bap¬
tism, pp. 122, 123.
Just see how he wriggles and twists! He
will ignore outright that Baptists believe bap¬
tism, immersion, to be essential to salvation j yet
he will endeavor to impress you with the idea
that it "is essential to obedience to the law of
Christ." But no man can be saved, unless he
obey the law of Christ. How, then, can he
escape the charge that Baptists believe immersion
essential to salvation ?
Again: note the passages at which a hand
points in the above extract. Mr. Jewett there
166 baptist pretensions
makes it essential to four things. First, " Im¬
mersion is essential to obedience to Christ."
Just what we have said all the time. If essen¬
tial to obedience to Christ, how can any one be
saved, either in time or eternity, without it?
Does he not, then, make it essential to salvation?
Secondly, immersion " is essential to the highest
instruction and comfort of believers." Then
there can he no higher instruction or comfort
given to a believer than is given in immersion.
He that is immersed has gained "perfection's
height." If so, then there can be no growth in
grace, or knowledge of Christ. No further need
of reading God's holy Word, for when the be¬
liever was immersed, he obtained the highest in¬
struction. No further use of hearing the gospel
preached, for he has been fully taught; yea,
obtained a higher instruction than can be ob¬
tained from that source. No further use of
searching the Bible, or waiting upon God in his
holy temple, to obtain comfort, for that was found
in the highest degree when "laid beneath the
liquid grave." Thirdly, immersion is "essen¬
tial to the best moral impression on unbelievers."
Why, then, preach to sinners about "the love
of God in Christ Jesus ?" Why tell of God's
wrath on the impenitent ? Why preach repent-
TO ANTIQUITY.
167
ance at all? If immersion makes "the best
moral impression on unbelievers," then preach¬
ing any thing else is a superfluous work. Is it
here we find the true reason why Baptists get
water out of every text from which they preach ?
Does not this writer derogate from the Scriptures
when he says that immersion makes, or is " es¬
sential to, the hest moral impression on unbe¬
lievers ?" Fourthly, immersion is " essential to
the purity and stability of the Church of Christ."
Is this the reason why Baptists consider them¬
selves so much better, holier, purer than others
professing godliness? Does immersion make
one pure ? Header, have we not told you all
along that Baptists held to " baptismal regenera¬
tion ?" and that immersion and "baptismal re¬
generation" were twin sisters? According to
the above assertion, no member of the Church
of Christ can be pure without being immersed.
For immersion is essential to his purity, says Mr.
Jewett. Then, as no one can enter heaven with¬
out purity, and as immersion is essential to purity,
then it follows, as clear as noonday, that immer¬
sion is essential to salvation.
But is it a fact that Baptists are purer, any
better, than members of other branches of the
great Christian family ? That there are a great
168 baptist pretension?
many Baptists just as good, if not better, than
others, we will not call in question', but to say
all immersed persons are better, merely because
they have been under the water,, is a point we
do strongly contest, and call upon them for the
proof. ■ The negative of this we could very easily
establish, but we shall not now stop to do it, as
this is not the place for it. If any one of them,
however, of sufficient importance calls for the
proof, it will be forthcoming.
Again : Mr. Jewett says above that immersion
"is essential to the stability of the Church."
We were not aware, ere this, that Christ had
founded his Church on immersion. We had
always read that he had founded it upon a
"Bock," which RocJc was Christ himself, and
not upon the element of water. We have heard
of buildings founded upon the sand, but this is
the most preposterous of all—water, water. Do
Baptists imagine that because they immerse, their
religious fraternity will always last, and can
never be moved ? Founded upon water! Well,
well, that will do! Paul said the Church was
built upon the apostles and prophets, Jesus
Christ being the chief Corner-Stone. Eph.
ii. Yet Mr. Jewett makes immersion essential
to the stability of the Church. As for our part,
to antiquity.
169
we had much prefer belonging to the Church
spoken of by Paul than that spoken of by Mr.
Jewett. We want a sure foundation to stand
upon. In the water we cannot have it; on the
Rock we can. No wonder, then, they give such
prominence in all their ministrations, both public
and private, to immersion. If this is not placing
"the gospel in water," according to Alexander
Campbell's notion, we are very much deceived,
indeed.
Next, hear Rev. Richard Fuller, another Bap¬
tist minister: " Do not talk to me about the
quantity of water; Christ commands you to be
immersed; have you obeyed him ? You now
perceive that the question is not about the form,
but the thing itself. I care not in what mode
you are immersed,* so that you are immersed;
* Some of my readers might be puzzled at this ex¬
pression—mode of immersion. Dr. Carson says, "Any
way of putting the person under water is equally an
immersion." "Whether the person is immersed on his
back, or on his face, or by sinking directly downwards,
is perfectly the same as to baptism. The easiest way is
preferable; Vnd, in deep water, to press the person
down or forwards, may be done with the greatest con¬
venience." P. 336. He is after " the easiest and most
convenient way." Again, one may be immersed by a
shower of rain, or dew, as Carson contends NebGchadr
170 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
but, without immersion, there can be no baptism.
And do not say we lay too much stress on bap¬
tism. Is this so ? Or is it not that our brethren
lay too little stress on it ? Upon this point, I
adjure you not to upbraid us, but to obey Christ.
The question about what is essential to salvation,
is unworthy of a Christian, for it betrays a dis¬
position to disobey every precept where there is
a prospect of impunity. I will not, therefore,
touch that question. This examining with ac¬
curacy how far a man may go on the verge of
hell, is to me a terrible calculation. This trying
how close one can graze the edge of damnation,
is an experiment which alarms, frightens, appals
me. I will have nothing to do with a specula¬
tion so perilous, a casuistry belonging not to the
religion of love, which bides and yearns for the
test, but to a mercenary religion, the religion of
a selfish soul. I will have nothing to do with
this conspiracy against the sovereignty of Jesus
Christ; but I leave with you two subjects, and
I beg you to ponder them seriously :
nezzar was. Yes, an immersion by pouring or sprinkling.
Then, if it is easier and more convenient, you may take
him by the nape of the neck and heels, and pitch him
in. "Any way" will do, so you are sure he is in.
Modes of immersion!
to antiquity.
171
" First, listen to the language of pious men of
different ages.- [We give only one or two.]
"Barnabas.—'We go down into the water
full of sins and pollutions, hut come up again
bringing forth fruit, having in our hearts the
fear and hope which are in Jesus by the Spirit.'
"Tertullian.—'Let them be made Chris¬
tians when they can know Christ. What need
their guiltless age make such haste to the for¬
giveness of sins f
" Origen.—' The baptism of the Church is
given for the forgiveness of sins.' "
His second "subject" is in reference to the
following scriptures: " He that believeth and is
baptized, shall be saved." "The like-figure
whereunto baptism doth now save us, nor the
putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the
answer of a good conscience towards Glod by the
resurrection of Jesus Christ." "Men and
brethren, what shall we do ? Then Peter said
unto them, Repent and be baptized, every one
of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the re¬
mission of sins." "Arise and be baptized, and
wash away thy sins."
Again, he says, " I regard baptism just as I
do any other command, and I dare not trench
upon God's prerogative, and decide what is to
172 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
be the consequence in eternity of disobedience
to any command." "The matter before you,
however, is not an abstraction; it is a plain duty,
which meets you at the very threshold of the
Christian course, and which you may not evade
without insult to the Saviour and peril to your
soul." Baptism and Terms of Communion, pp.
101-105.
We ask, What means all this language ? Can
any one come to any other conclusion than this,
that immersion is held by Baptists as es¬
sential to salvation ? Let us look at it just one
moment. He says that immersion is a command
of the Saviour; that, without immersion, there
can be no baptism. Then he quotes the sayings
of certain men, as you see above, in which they
set forth baptism as given for the forgiveness of
sins. He then cites the above scriptures as
maintaining the doctrine of " baptismal regene¬
ration" and forgiveness, and thinks it "a terrible
calculation" for one to ask whether immersion is
essential to salvation; and thinks such a calcu¬
lation, or, at least, questioning the essentiality
of immersion to salvation, is going quite " on the
verge of hellthat it is " grazing the edge of
damnation." At the question, " Is immersion
essential to salvation ?" he seems to become
to antiquity.
1TB
alarmed, frightened, yea, appalled, that any
orf^ should dare thus to- " trench upon God's
prerogative."
He says immersion "is a plain duty,.which
meets you at the very threshold of the Christian
course, and which you may not evade without in¬
sult to the Saviour and peril to your soul."
There, now, if you do not submit to immersion,
you insult the Saviour, and more—you thus peril
your soul. If, now, a man insults the Saviour
because he will not be immersed, and endangers,
perils his soul by not being immersed, is not
immersion, in such cases, made essential to sal¬
vation ? Reader, turn this question as you will,
look at it from any stand-point you please, and
the fact will force itself upon you that Baptists
do hold immersion essential to salvation.
Have we not said enough upon this subject to
show to your mind the truth of the charge we
make upon them ? If not, let us know, and you
shall have a few more of the same sort.
Let it no longer, then, be said that infant
baptism was instituted because it was thought
necessary to salvation. If it was, the idea
originated from the great importance and promi¬
nence given to immersion in the Church. If
there be a fault here, it lies at the door of im-
174 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
mersionists; and they are to blame, not we, if
their high pretensions be true.
This doctrine, as held by Baptists, is the very
thing that drove the great Alexander Campbell to
form a new sect, known amongst us as " Camp-
bellites." Mr. Campbell holds the identical
doctrine of " baptismal regeneration " as shown
above to be held by Baptists, and as coeval with
immersion, as will be seen by the following quo¬
tations from his pen:
" This [baptism for the remission of sins] has
in all past time, and will in all future time, im¬
part to this institution [of baptism] a solemnity,
a significance, and an importance which no art
or ingenuity of corrupted Christianity can long
obscure or successfully deface. It will give to it
an authority and a claim upon the understand¬
ing, the conscience, and the affections of the
humble and the devout, which no sophistry or
hardihood can weaken or destroy. To associate
faith and baptism as antecedents, whose consequent
is salvation, no matter what the connection may
be, will always impart to the institution a pre¬
eminence above all other religious institutions in
the world." " When commanded to wait for a
message from the Lord, Ananias waited upon
him, [Saul,] and, after a very short introduction,
TO ANTIQUITY.
175
he said to Saul of Tarsus, 'Arise, brother Saul,
and be baptized, and wa$h away thy sins, invok¬
ing the name of the Lord.' A most unguarded
and unjustifiable form of address, under the
sanction of a Divine mission, if baptism had not
for its DESIGN the formal dnd definite remission
of sins, according to the Pentecostian address."
Baptism, pp. 257, 258.
Again: " The water of baptism, then, form¬
ally washes away our sins. Paul's sins were
really pardoned when he believed; yet he had no
solemn pledge of the fact, no formal acquittal,
no formal purgation of his sins, until he washed
them away in the water of baptism." " What
made the eunuch go on his way rejoicing ? Was
it because he had some difficult text explained,
or was it because he had some distant hope or
remote prospect of enjoying pardon and accept¬
ance after death, or after the lapse of certain
years of travail and of trial? No, indeedj he
had found what thousands before'him had expe¬
rienced—peace with God, from a conviction that
his sins had been actually forgiven in the act of
immersion. Indeed, the preaching of all the
apostles, as well as all their writings, embrace
this as a fact never to be called in question."
" That such was the universally received sense
*176 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
of immersion amongst the teachers and preachers
of Christianity, is most .certain from express de¬
clarations and incident. For example: When
Paul was immersed, it was declared and under¬
stood by the parties, that all his previous sins
were washed away in the act of immersion."
Once' more: " I say it is quite sufficient to
show that the forgiveness of sins and Christian
immersion were, in their first proclamation by
the holy apostles, inseparably connected together.
Peter, to whom was committed the keys, opened
the kingdom of heaven in this manner; and
made repentance, or reformation and immersion,
equally necessary to forgiveness. . . . I fim
bold, therefore, to affirm that every one of them
who, in the belief of what the apostle spoke,
was immersed, did, in the very instant in which
he was put under the water, receive the forgive¬
ness of his sins, and the gift of the Holy Spirit.
If so, then, who will not concur with me in say¬
ing that Christian immersion is the gospel in
waiter?" Debate, Campbell and Rice, pp. 524,
443.
We wish the reader to note here, that Mr.
Campbell says that repentance and immersion
are equally neccessary to forgiveness of sins;
that immersion and forgiveness are inseparably
to antiquity.
17*7
connected by the apostles; that the instant a
man was immersed he was forgiven; that no one
has a formal purgation or washing away of sins
until he is immersed; and that this immersion
is the gospel in water, which we have seen
is purely Baptist doctrine. From what has been
said, it is clear as a sunbeam that the idea of
forgiveness of sins and regeneration has ever
been attached to the act of immersion.
See now, how the matter stands: Baptists say
that immersion was the apostolic practice, and
the practice of the ancient fathers; that bap¬
tismal regeneration came in, or was introduced by
infant baptism; that infant baptism was intro¬
duced about the middle or latter part of the
second century; yet they attach the idea of for¬
giveness and regeneration to the act of immer¬
sion long before that period, even in apostolic
days. What, then, is the result at which we
arrive 1 It is emphatically twofold: First, bap¬
tismal regeneration did not originate with infant
baptism; and, secondly, Baptists themselves being
judges, "baptismal regeneration" did origi¬
nate, and is inseparably connected with immer¬
sion, and is considered by them as -containing
the gospel in the water.
It is true they will not at all times come out
178
BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
boldly and plainly, and assert this position, yet
they do it indirectly and designedly, upon this
wise; "Immersion/' they will say to you, "is es¬
sential." But "essential" to what? To duty,
is the reply. Duty of what? That of being
baptized. Immersion, then, is a duty. That
point is clear. Stick a pin just there, and hold
still a moment more. Ask now, " Can any
man's sins be forgiven who does not do his
duty?" The answer is, an emphatic "No."
Then, is it not plain to every one's mind that im¬
mersion, as held by Baptists, is essential to par¬
don of sins, and consequently necessary to an
entrance into heaven ? They cannot possibly
escape the charge, turn and twist it as they may.
So we conclude that they are the very last
people of all others that should ever charge
Pedobaptists as introducing " baptismal regenera¬
tion into the Church." We believe this attempt
of theirs to be merely an act or species of Jesuit-
ism upon their part, to kick up a dust in the
face of the people about infant baptism having
introduced " baptismal regeneration," to screen
themselves from the charge (to whom of right it
belongs) that they may continue on more suc¬
cessfully in their 'proselyting course.
For, why do they so assiduously watch every
TO ANTIQUITY.
179
opportunity—and even when an opportunity does
not afford itself, they make one, to unsettle the
minds of members of other Churches of God
upon the subject of immersion ? It seems they
had rather proselyte one member of another
Church to their own, than to get half a dozen
sinners from the world. Hence, they talk more,
brag more, preach more, print more in glaring
letters in their newspapers of one proselyted from
another Church, than- over all the sinners gained
from the world. Yes, poor fellow, he has-long
wandered in darkness, and been "bamboozled"
by those Pedobaptists all his life; but now he
has seen his error at last, and been rescued from
ruin and death by the holy, soul-saving ordi¬
nance of immersion. Yes, "in the very instant
in which he was put under the water, he received
the forgiveness of his sins, and the gift of the
Holy Spirit," and the gift of tongues, too, proba¬
bly, for he went forth declaring, "Now, I know
that baptizo means immerse, and immerse only."
Hid the reader never notice how learned certain
ones get, after having performed their duty of
immersion ? Having closed their eyes upon the
world, and " sunk beneath the yielding wave,"
dirty and muddy it may be, they come up all
clothed in white, besmeared with mud, crying,
180 baptist pretensions
"Baptizo, baptizo, means immerse, and immerse
only." "01 see it now." Wonderful disco¬
very ! But ah ! the whole matter was spoiled,
for he was immersed with clothes on, while the
ancient pattern was, to he immersed as naked as
one comes into the world.
Section III.— Conclusion of the " dip" ques¬
tion—Baptists wrong—They only 11 dip" half
the subject.
What, then, do they gain by an appeal to the
antiquity of immersion ? Was it practiced then
as now ? The veriest tyro in ecclesiastical his¬
tory knows it was not. Then, immersion, when
administered at all, was given in a state of entire
nakedness, and three times at that; once at the
naming of each person in the Trinity. But
Baptists have sought in later times to improve (?)
upon the practice of their ancient brethren. Is
it because they do not need as much washing
or dipping in water as they did in olden times ?
Baptists are satisfied now-a-days with being
dipped with their clothes on, and only one dip at
that. Does the reader see their beautiful consis¬
tency ? They will charge us with " changing
the ordinances of God somewhat," when we bap¬
tize by sprinkling, and yet they are guilty of a
TO ANTIQUITY.
181
greater changing the ordinance of baptism tban
we, should we even~admit that we change, which,
however, we do not. But here, by their own
admissions of the primitive mode, and their
present practice, they evince the fact beyond a
doubt that they do change, "avoid, and modify"
the ordinance. Thus: anciently, they im*
mersed naked; now, it is done with clothes on.
Anciently, they immersed the subject three times;
but now, one dip will answer. Anciently, they
used a goodly number of superstitious rites and
ceremonies—such as giving milk and honey,
signing with the cross, and exorcism to drive the
devil away; but now, all these are laid aside,
and a mere wetting is sufficient.
Now, we are free to confess we are not in
love with any such mummeries as all these,
from the fact that we see no sense or use in
them, neither are they justified by the word of
G-od any more than a single dip in the water.
But we contend that as Baptists have appealed
to the ancient practice of immersion, they should
abide by it. If they do not, then are their
claims of no avail. The fact is, this immersing
three times was kept up until about three hun¬
dred years ago—maybe not quite so long as
that—when two dips were laid aside, and one
182 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
thought sufficient. Now, if they have a right to
lay aside two out of the three dips, have others
not as good a right to lay aside the other dip,
and thus have no dip at all in baptism ?
It comes then to this: If the ancients were
right in having the three dips, the Baptists are
wrong now in having only one dip, For it is cer¬
tain both cannot be right. Then, all the preten¬
sions of Baptists in claiming to be in a line of
descent from the ancient Churches, are of no
account whatever—both futile and childish.
Again: If the ancients were right in immersing
every man, woman, and child nahed, then Bap¬
tists are wrong now, when they immerse with
clothes on. Both cannot be right. Between the
twain, which will you choose ? If the ancients,
then you must take the three dips, and go it
naked. If the latter, you put yourself out of
the regular line of descent, and make yourself as
hut of yesterday. So it is a bad case any way
you look at it, and the best thing to be done
under the circumstances, that we can see, is to
abandon such ineffably disgusting practices, as
Mr. Benedict calls them, and take the ordinance
in an orderly, decent, scriptural way, as the
Almighty administered it himself to the Israel¬
ites in their passage through the Bed Sea, when
TO ANTIQUITY.
183
he made " the clouds pour out the water " upon
them, and as he gave the baptism of his own
Spirit on the day of Pentecost, which was also
by POUKING.
Before concluding this subject, we will notice
as a finale, another pretension of theirs. It is
generally known that Baptists make a considera¬
ble triumph in urging the following question in
favor of immersion, and against affusion in bap¬
tism. Say they: " Is sprinkling a little water
on the face or head of an individual, baptizing
the person or body ?" They hold that the whole
person must be wet with water—wet by immer¬
sion—or, at least, the body must be wet as if it
had been immersed. Immersion they must have
at any cost.
The head is not the body; no, no, never can
be, say they. Well, let us turn to the law and
testimony, and, if that be against us, we will
calmly submit; if against them, they should yield.
Will they inform us what Solomon meant by
the term " head " when he said, " Blessings are
upon the head of the just?" And Isaiah,
when he exclaimed, "The ransomed of the Lord
shall return and come to Zion with songs and
everlasting joy upon their heads?" Or the
apostle : "If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if
184 baptist pretensions
he thirst, give him drink; for in so doing thou
shalt heap coals of fire upon his head ?" Does
not "head" in these passages, and in many
others, stand for the whole man ? Certainly;
and there are a great number of such texts that
can be explained only upon this interpretation.
Let us come a little closer to the point, and
ask, when the anointing oil was poured upon
Aaron's head, was he—his entire person, body—
not consecrated to the high-priesthood ? And
when Mary poured the ointment upon our
Saviour's head, did she not anoint his body by
so doing ? Let us see. The law said: "And
thou shalt anoint Aaron and his sons, and conse¬
crate them." Ex. xxx. 30. But how shall
they be consecrated ? Thus : " Then shalt thou
take the anointing oil, and pour ii upon his head,
and anoint him." Ex. xxix. 7. Now, when
the oil was poured upon his head, was not his
whole person, body, consecrated to the priest¬
hood ? His entire body, you discover, was not
immersed in the oil, and yet his entire person
was anointed. Again: We are not left to any
deduction as to the truth of the matter under
consideration. It is settled by the Lord Jesus
Christ himself. For, when Mary took the box of
ointment and broke it, and poured it on his head,
TO ANTIQUITY.
185
the Lord interprets it thus : " For in that she
hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it
for"—in reference to—"my burial." See Matt,
xxvi. 6-12. Mark xiv. 8-8. Then, to pour
oil on the HEAD of one, is to anoint his body.
And so, the face likewise represents the
whole man. As when Jacob says to Esau, "I
had not thought to see thy face," he means, " I
had not thought to see thee." So many other
passages, among which Gen. xliii. 3; 2 Sam. iii.
13; xiv. 24, 28, 32, may he consulted. The
head and face are both frequently used as repre¬
sentatives of the whole man; but not so with
the other members of the body.
Now, admitting sprinkling and pouring to be
baptism—as we have clearly demonstrated them
to be—when the water, instead of the oil, is
poured on the head, is not the whole man bap¬
tized ? Common sense would say so. Why,
then, do Baptists endeavor to ridicule baptism
thus performed ? Simply because they cannot
answer the arguments in favor of the Divine
mode of baptizing by pouring and sprinkling,
and because they know full well that that course
of theirs has more power to gain them prose¬
lytes among a certain class of persons, than a fair
and honest presentation of truth.
186
BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
But we could retort very justly upon them in
the following manner: They hold that baptism is
dipping,plunging, etc., and nothing but dipping,
plunging, etc. Now, who ever saw a Baptist min¬
ister plunge or dip a man or woman ? Why,
say you, "I have seen it many a time." You
have, have you ? Well, let us see. The preacher
led the subject down into the water until it was
about waist-deep. Then he plunged or dipped
him. Just so. But stop a moment. Did he
dip or plunge the lower part of him, say from
the waist down to the feet ? Maybe you had
never thought of that before in all your life.
Did the preacher dip the feet ? plunge the legs ?
But, say.you, "The person was wet all over."
" Wet all over!" There now, is that another
meaning of baptizo? "Wet all over." Well,
let us try this meaning to baptize as it~~occurs in
the Bible. " He that believeth and is wet all
over, shall be saved." "Arise, and be wet all over,
and wash away thy sins." " I thank God that I
wet all over none of you, but Crispus and Gaius,"
etc. 1 Cor. i. 14. That is the sublimity of
beauty!
"Wet all over." Then, admitting for a mo¬
ment that wetting all over is baptism, who wet
the lower part of the person ? the preacher or
TO ANTIQUITY.
187
the subject? Not the preacher. The subject
himself went down into the water, and of course
was then wet. Was that wetting a part of the
baptism ? It must be, or the person is only half
baptized. Then that will not do, because Bap¬
tists say, before a man is authorized to baptize,
he must be immersed by a regular administrator,
one who has already been baptized, which, in
the case before us, is not so. So the subject,
according to Baptist doctrine, is not authorized
to baptize or wet even half of himself, even if it
be but the lower parts. Then, from the waist
down he is not baptized at all. Why do they al¬
ways dip the wpper part of the person—the
head and face ? Why not give the feet and legs
a fair chance at a dip ? Why this partiality ?
Why this distinction ? Do not the lower part
of the subject need the dip, as well as the upper ?
How would it do to transpose the matter a lit¬
tle—dip the lower part and wet the upper ?
But, then, how would you go about it ? Who
can tell ? As Baptists are good at inventions,
let them try their heads and hands on this.
But who does baptize the lower half of the per¬
son ? That is a fair question. We have asked
an answer to it for a long time, but have received
none as yet. We much desire an answer to it;
188
BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
and until it is answered scripturally, at least, we
must be permitted to have our own private opin¬
ion, thus publicly expressed, that the subject, ac¬
cording to all the lights and benefits we can derive
from Baptists themselves, is only HALF immersed—
wet, but not scripturally baptized.
to antiquity.
189
PART II.
infant baptism.
CHAPTER I.
preliminaries. argument commenced.
Section I.—uInfants cannot comprehend the
Ordinance
Conceiving that we have detained the reader
sufficiently long to convince him that Baptists
are not entitled to claim or monopolize by their
iinmersional proclivities the entire heritage of the
Lord, and conceiving that our exposition of their
jpretensions to antiquity, so far as regards the
mode of baptism is concerned, is sufficiently
clear and satisfactory, we proceed to inquire, in
the next place, into their pretensions as to the
subjects of this ordinance.
In the first place, they pretend that none but
those comprehending or capable of understand•
190 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
ing the ordinance are to he baptized. But none
but adults can comprehend the ordinance; there¬
fore, none but adults are to be baptized.
This is their mode of reasoning. Let us aslr,
in reply, Do all adults baptized or immersed by
them comprehend this ordinance ? Do they
know its design? its intent? If they do not,
then, according to their position, they have no
right to immerse them; that is clear. And that
they do not understand its design, is quite evi¬
dent. Just ask this man why he is immersed.
He will tell you, "I must follow my Saviour
into the liquid grave." And this is about all he
seems to recognize in the matter." He has so
frequently heard that he must follow the Saviour
into " Jordan's swelling tide," that he has been
led to believe that there is really such a com¬
mand in the Bible, and that our Lord did go
down into the water, and that it is at the peril
of his soul that he desists or refuses; whereas,
if he had only read his Bible with a little care,
he would have discovered that it never says one
word about Christ going down into Jordan, much
less under its waters; and never are we com¬
manded to be baptized because he was, and never
do the Scriptures say that he was baptized as an
example for us.
to antiquity.
191
But ask that man there why he prefers im¬
mersion. He will tell you, " Baptism means
immersion only, and nothing else is baptism/'
Ah! and how comes he so wise ? Why, " all
the learned world says so." Is it possible ?
When did they say so ? It must have been very
recently. For just a few years ago, Dr. Carson
took the position that baptizo means to dip, and
nothing but dip, and he said then, boldly and
fearlessly, that " all the lexicographers and com¬
mentators were against" him. Now, how hap¬
pens it that all at once the learned world, both an¬
cient and modern, turns a complete summersault,
and testifies to a thing now they did not then?
In keeping with the Doctor's position, he never
once quotes a " lexicographer or commentator"
in justification of his views, for he says they are
all against me.- But this man we now have
under review has heard his preachers so often
say, and so often read it in their books, that " all
the learned world," " all the lexicographers and
commentators," are in their favor, and that
they do say that " baptizo means only to im¬
merse," that his only idea is that he must be
immersed; just because they are represented as
saying the word means to dip. Well, they do
say it means to dip; but they do not say that this
192 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
is its only meaning. They all give other mean¬
ings to it of just as equal force and binding na¬
ture as dip.
But no doubt many of this class are led away
like an old Baptist preacher in Alabama some
few years ago. In his preaching upon this sub¬
ject, says he, "Brethren, I don't know anything
about Greek myself, but my son does, and he
says, 'Bap means to put 'em in, and tism to take
'em out.'" Now, who could resist such a plain
case as this? Is it not overwhelming? Is it
not enough to convert my reader to the dipping
school ? How can you, after such a display of
learning, keep out of the water ? But, seriously
now, has this man any just conception of the de¬
sign of baptism? Surely not. Then Baptist
ministers should not baptize him.
We might go on for a length of time in this
manner, showing that thousands baptized by
Baptist preachers have no more idea of the true
nature of baptism than infants. We will refer
the reader back to pages 75-84 of this exposi¬
tion, where he will see for himself that some of
the brightest lights in the Baptist denomination
have given as many as sixteen different meanings
to the design of baptism. And yet they contend
that none but such as comprehend its design
TO ANTIQUITY.
193
should receive the ordinance, Yerily, if we are to
judge from the evidence before us, very few of
their ablest men are agreed as to the precise
design of baptism. When doctors, priests, and
leaders disagree amc^ngst themselves, what can
the people do ? Talk about comprehending the
ordinance, indeed!
Is man never required to do any thing he does
not comprehend—understand ? Did our father
Abraham comprehend the nature of the com¬
mand to go and offer up Isaac as a sacrifice to
God? Did the "unconscious babes" of eight
days old comprehend the command of God to
have them all circumcised ? And do we under¬
stand the nature of every duty incumbent upon
us ? I trow not. Why, then, do Baptists insist
that none shall be baptized but those who under¬
stand the nature of the ordinance ? If they
immersed none but those who rightly understand
the ordinance, then very "few would ever be im¬
mersed. For we are free to confess our total inca¬
pability to see any great or small truth in the
religion of the Bible set forth by an immersion,
and we suppose there are thousands in Baptist
churches as incapable as ourself of any such
perception.
7
194
baptist pretensions
Section II.—Faith indispensable to baptism.
They pretend that faith is an indispensable
pre-requisite to baptism. None hut adults can
believe; therefore none hut adults are entitled
to baptism. None but believers, say they, ought
to be baptized. Well, now, give us the author¬
ity. Can they do it ? Do they baptize none but
believers ? They say they baptize none except
on aprofession of faith. "Profession of faith!"
There, now, see the change of tactics again!
At first, it was none but believers ; now it is only
a profession of faith. Is there no difference be¬
tween a man's having faith and merely professing
to have it ? A man may make very loud profes-
sions of faith, and yet be entirely devoid of it.
Such has been the case in thousands of instances.
Many a man has been immersed by Baptists who
has afterwards acknowledged that he had never
been converted. And yet none but converted
men are entitled to baptism! Suppose a man
professing faith, yet devoid of it, is baptized by
them, afterwards comes to a knowledge of the
truth, should they not baptize him over again ?
Most assuredly, if they would be consistent; for
if faith is indispensable, and he was baptized
before he had this indispensable pre-requisite,
TO ANTIQUITY.
195
then they cannot escape the truth that, accord¬
ing to their theory, he was not rightly baptized.
But will they rebaptize him ? They will not.
If, then, Baptists baptize persons without faith,
what harm do others, who do the same thing ?
If it is admissable in the one case, it surely is in
the other. And if they baptize adults who do
not comprehend the import of the ordinance,
and baptize persons without faith, how much great¬
er is the sin of others, who do the same things ?
If the objection is valid against the latter, it
most surely is against the former. How can
they escape the result of their own position and
reasoning ?
But again: Many are received and baptized
by them upon a " leetle hope," and others upon
mere dreams. This Ziope-religion is perceptible
amongst them at all their protracted and revival
meetings. They dare not deny this. Listen at
the invitations given to join the Church. "If
you have but a little hope, come and obey the
Saviouri. e., be baptized. Now, where is the
authority to baptize on a mere hope? And
where is the sinner that has not some hope ?
Will they baptize all such sinners 1
Then those dreams. How often are their
experiences interlarded with foolish and sinful
196 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
dreams I The writer remembers, several years
ago, being at a Baptist protracted meeting in
Perry county, Alabama, when the minister—one
of the most prominent in the State—in giving
an opportunity for persons to join the Church,
insisted on their coming forward, even on the
very slightest grounds, stating that "a certain
man once offered himself to the Church, and re¬
lated a dream of once passing a beautiful tree,
upon which was growing a grape-vine, all hung
with most delicious-looking grapes. Halting to
view it, he espied a man up on the boughs of
the tree eating the fruit, whereupon, he requested
him to let fall a hunch to him. ' No/ said he,
* not a hunch, but one grape/ " That was the
experience. Now, said the officiating minister,
"just follow your Saviour; be baptized, and you
will get another grape."
Does the reader see any faith in Christ in
this ? And yet this is a sample of many expe¬
riences given in by them, as the ground of bap¬
tism. And yet these are the people to say they
only are the true Church. We had a thousand
times prefer to baptize an "unconscious babe"
at once. Of these latter it is said, " Of such is
the kingdom of heaven." But of the former
they are doubly deceived—deceived by the min-
to antiquity.
197
ister, and deceived themselves by their own
hearts and dreams.
But, in reality, we should be gratified to learn
the chapter and verse in the Bible that requires
faith—faith that brings pardon to the soul—as
an indispensable pre-requisite to baptism. Can
it be shown ? If so, let us have it.
The text quoted in vindication of this preten¬
sion is, " He that believeth and is baptized, shall
be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be
damned." Now, say they, faith is placed before
baptism, hence it must precede it. All must
believe before they are entitled to baptism. But
infants cannot believe, therefore they must not
be baptized. But now go just one step further
in this text, and upon the very same reasoning
we prove infant damnation. Thus, faith, in this
text, as well as baptism, is placed before salva¬
tion—" shall be saved." But infants cannot be¬
lieve ; therefore, infants cannot be saved. This
is logical reasoning from Baptistic principles, as
laid down above. The horrible doctrine of in¬
fant damnation cannot possibly be escaped
from this Baptist stand-point. Reader, have you
a loved little one that has been taken away from
your kind embrace ? Bid you not console your¬
self with the reflection that it was at rest with
198 baptist pretensions
God in heaven ? But here, from this Baptist
stand-point, you must for ever mourn its irre¬
parable loss; for, as it cannot believe in order to
baptism, because the faith is placed before the
baptism, so neither can it be saved, because, in
the order, faith is placed before salvation. So,
then, as it cannot be saved, because it cannot
believe, therefore it must be lost. The one rea¬
soning they confide in to prove their point about
baptism, the other, which is precisely the same
reasoning, they reject. The argument, then,
proves too much ; hence, is good-for nothing.
How true is it, " The legs of the lame are not
equal I"
Section III.—Positive institute considered.
They pretend there must be & positive institute
or law, requiring or admitting children to bap¬
tism. We are willing to be tried by this rule,
provided they will consent to be tried by it
themselves. We are aware, Baptists are wont
to lay down rules and criteria to jiidge and mea¬
sure others, but will not admit the same when
brought to bear upon themselves. Is the reader
aware that they require of us a positive warrant
—that is, a direct " Thus saith the Lord "—for
every thing we do, while they must be left free
TO ANTIQUITY.
199
to their own discretion ? Yes, we must show
the exact verse where it authorizes us to baptize
our children, but they must be left to infer their
positions and practices. Thus, for instance,
they say with a great deal of triumph, Where
does the Bible say, "Ye shall baptize your
children ?" That is, requiring an express war¬
rant in just so many words. Now do they act
upon that rule? Do they do nothing without
this express warrant? We retort upon them,
and say unto thetn, Where does the Bible say,
" Believe and be baptized ?" They reply, " He
that believeth and is baptized," etc.; but is
that the same as " believe and be baptized ?"
Surely not. Any tyro in grammar will tell you
there is a great deal of difference in commanding
or requiring a thing to be done, and the simple
announcement that a thing is done. And that
is just the difference between the two cases be¬
fore us. Then again, where is the command, or
" Thus saith the Lord," to baptize females ?
Is there any'such requisition in the word of
God ? The text above upon Baptistic grounds
will not do. " He that believeth " is not " she
that believeth." He is not she, neither is " she
he." There is no such command. And if it had
not been that we have it recorded that women
200 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
were baptized, we never should have known that
they were entitled to the ordinance at all. In¬
fant baptism we shall see stands upon equal, if
not stronger grounds than even female baptism.
Then, again, where is the " Thus saith the
Lord," requiring experiences of grace before
admission into Church fellowship ? Where is
the authority for any body of men, in or out of
a Church capacity, to sit in judgment on my
faith, and decide whether I am a believer in
Christ Jesus? They have no "Thus saith the
Lord " for it. Where is the command for fe¬
males to come to the Lord's Supper? That
they have a right there, we know full well, and
can prove; but upon Baptistic grounds they are
not entitled, for there is no such command.
Then, where is the command to keep the first
day of the week as the Sabbath of the Lord ?
According to the above Baptist tenet, there is no
such authority. Yet we believe and can prove
that this is the Christian Sabbath, but not ac¬
cording to the pretension of Baptists, that we
must have a positive law. Where does the Bible
say that u>e~must be immersed ? That we must
"follow the Saviour into the liquid grave?"
And a great many other questions of vast im¬
portance to Baptists, we might here ask, for
to antiquity.
201
their direct authority, but we forbear, remarking
to them-the old adage, " They that live in glass
houses should mind how they throw stones."
Section IY.—Baptism a Covenant.
Baptists pretend that baptism is a covenant,
and, therefore, none but adults can enter into
covenant with God. To expose this pretension,
it is only necessary to appeal to a stubborn and
reliable fact recorded in the word of God.
Hear it: "Ye stand this day all of you before
the Lord your God; your captains of your
tribes, your elders, and your officers, with all the
men of Israel, your little ones, your wives,
and thy stranger that is in thy camp : that thou
shouldest enter into covenant with the Lord thy
God, and into Ms oath, which the Lord thy God
maketh with thee this day: that he may estab¬
lish thee to-day for a people unto himself, and
that he may be unto thee a God, as he hath said
unto thee, and as he hath sworn unto thy fathers,
to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. Neither
with you only do I make this covenant and this
oath; but with him that standeth here with us
this day before the Lord our God, and also with
him that is not here with us this day." Deut.
xxix. 10-15.
202 baptist pretensions
Note here, 1. The contracting parties. God
upon the one hand, and captains, elders, officers,
all the men of Israel, little ones, women,
strangers in the camp, and those " not here with
us this day"—that is, generations, children yet
to come, (as in verse 22)—upon the other hand.
2. Observe the nature of the covenant into which
they entered. It was that they—little ones in¬
cluded—the children of Israel, might he estab¬
lished for a people unto God, and that He
might be unto them a God, as he had sworn
unto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ; and that they
might bind themselves with an oath to keep the
statutes and judgments of the covenant.
What! an infant take an oath ? An infant
enter into covenant with God ? Ought not the
Lord to have had some Baptist of the pre¬
sent day, to have informed him that little ones—
infants—were "unconscious," and hence could
not enter into covenant with Him, and that it
would do them no good to bind them in such cov¬
enant—that it was taking away their liberty of
choice—that it was sacrilegious to bring child¬
ren to those holy things they did not, and could
not, understand—and that "baby" covenanting
and swearing would bring a long train of in¬
terminable evils upon the Church and the world ?
to antiquity.
203
Reader, is it any wonder, according to Baptist
pretensions, that so many and sore evils befell
the Israelites ? 0! had they but had some
u Baptistic principles" to guide them in the
formation of their ecclesiastical economy, instead
of the wisdom of the Most High, how much
and many sad disasters and persecutions might
have been spared the world !
Infant baptism is nothing more nor less than
carrying out the great principle of this covenant
with the children of Israel; and yet Baptists
would make you believe it has been the cause of
all the evils and bloodshed in Christendom.
Now, if the Almighty Jehovah conceived in¬
fants capable of entering into covenant with
himself—and he certainly did—on which side
are we the safer—the side of the Lord, or the
side of Baptists ? Do we, then, err in conceiv¬
ing infants capable—yes, capable—of entering
into covenant with God by baptism, when God
himself not only conceived them capable, but
actually brought them into his covenant, and
bound them with an oath ? Give us, then, the
wisdom, knowledge, and conduct of the Al¬
mighty in preference to a whole world of Bap¬
tists.
But again: Have we not ah express example
204 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
in the "baptism of the children of Israel of infant
baptism ? For, does not Paul, in 1 Cor. x., say
they " were all baptized 1" Will Baptists de¬
mand of us direct and positive proof that there
were at this time little children, infants, amongst
this mighty multitude ? By reference to Num¬
bers, first chapter, you will see that there were
numbered, from twenty years old and upwards,
six hundred and three thousand five hundred
and fifty that were able to bear arms; and we
suppose there were as many women; for in every
census that has been taken of the various coun¬
tries of the world, as a general fact, the females
have outnumbered the males. Now, take into
the account the Israelitish proclivity and Divine
promise for increase, and the vast number of
them, and the fact that none were to be num¬
bered in this instance under twenty years of age,
and then the fact that soon after—say three
months—in their crossing the Bed Sea, we see
the whole host, including their little ones,
gathered together to enter into covenant with
God—and then the fact that soon after the first
numbering, as above given, God commanded
Moses to number the children of Levi, and the
first-born of the males of the children of Israel
from a month old and upwards, and of the former
TO ANTIQUITY.
205
there were "seven thousand and Jive hundred"
and of the latter, " twenty and two thousand two
hundred and threescore and thirteen." Num.
iii. Take all these facts into the account,
and does it not follow that there were little
children—yes, "unconscious babes"—in their
midst ?
And yet Paul says " they were all baptized."
And, more than that, he avers that " all these
things," which were done unto them, "were our
examples." "Examples.!" Yes, so says Paul.
"Were these infants baptized? So says Paul.
Who administered this baptism ? None other
than the Almighty himself. What! God him¬
self baptize infants ? If the Almighty, then,
baptized infants, "unconscious babes," do we
err, following his " example ?" 0, that some
would-be-wise immerser had been there to in¬
form the God that baptized these poor little
"unconscious babes" that it was sacrilegious;
that it would take away their liberty, and bring
untold evils upon our world !
But why were these Israelites, with their little
ones, " all baptized ?" Was it hot to bring them
into covenant relationship with God, through
" Moses, who was faithful as a servant in his—>
God's—house, or Church ?" Yerily, then, the
206 baptist pretensions
pretension of Baptists tliat infants cannot enter
into covenant with God, is surely and sufficiently
hereby exposed. Give me the "example" of
God to follow in preference to all the Baptist
pretensions and Churches in the world. And
will not the reader say, Amen?
Section Y.-—Baptism can do an infant no good.
They pretend "baptism can do infants no
good," hence, they should not receive the ordi¬
nance. How they can assert this, we are not
able to determine. How do they know there is
no good accruing to infants upon their baptism ?
True, if we are to be governed by their unwar¬
rantable determinations of the many designs of
the ordinance, we freely grant it would be hard
for us to tell what good it would do them. But
is it not sufficient to such a question for us to
ask them, "Are we never to do any thing until
we first find out 1 what good it will do' us ?" Is
it not enough for us to know that God requires
and sanctions it? Will we debate a question
with the Almighty whether there be good aris¬
ing from it ? Abraham might, upon " Baptistic
principles," have questioned whether there was
any good arising from his ciTcumcision. With
still more propriety he might have asked, " What
to antiquity.
207
good" in circumcising a child only eight days
old?
And so, in a thousand places, we might
stop and make the same inquiry. But maybe
the reader has never thought a moment about
the administration of circumcision to Abraham
and his family. Mark it: to Abraham circum¬
cision was administered after he believed; to his
children, before they believed. Now, Abraham,
upon Baptistic principles, might have urged,
God gave the rite to me after I believed; there¬
fore, circumcision must in all cases be given
after faith; for a grown-up person only can
comprehend its meaning; to such only it can do
good, and such only should receive it. But no;
God tells him, notwithstanding you have received
it, as a sign and seal of my covenant, and
a seal of the righteousness of faith, and I have
given it you after you have believed, you must
also circumcise your "unconscious babes" at
eight days old. Now, how would it have looked
for Abraham to have stood up and urged, "Lord,
what good will it do an 'unconscious babe' to
circumcise it, seeing it cannot comprehend the
rite as a sign and seal of thy covenant, and of the
righteousness of faith ? Lord, had I not better
wait until the child be grown up, and leave him
208 baptist pretensions
free to choose for himself? Lord, it will take
his liberty away."
But we answer the pretension by asking
another question : What good does baptism do
an adult? a grown-up person? We are serious
in this question. Let any one of them tell us
what good he has received from his baptism.
Tell us what good you have derived from it, and
we will then tell you what good there is in infant
baptism. What good did it do the little ones of
the Israelites that God baptized in the Bed Sea ?
There must have been good, or the Lord would
not have done it. L'et the opposers of infant
baptism take care that they impeach not the
wisdom and conduct of the Most High.
Section VI.—Have nothing to do with the
Abrahamic Covenant—Admissions of A. Ful¬
ler—R. Fuller—A. Campbell—A. Fuller—
Dr. Carson—Scriptures.
Having shown that children can be, and have
been, brought into covenant relationship with
God, and the presumption of other pretensions
of Baptists, we come now to show the fallacy of
that other • pretension of theirs, that we have
nothing to do with the covenant made with
Abraham, as recorded in Gen. xvii.
TO ANTIQUITY.
209
They pretend that it was carnal, and has
passed away, and that circumcision was only a
national distinction. "Anational distinction!"
That is, a Jewish distinction. But were none hut
Jews circumcised ? Bid not the very words of
the covenant make provision for others than the
national descendants of Abraham to receive cir¬
cumcision ? Not only "he that is born" unto
Abraham, but "he that is bought with money
of any stranger," "must be circumcised." Other
nations, also, circumcised. Herodotus says,
"The Colchians, Egyptians, and Ethiopians,"
used circumcision. So, likewise, the Phoenicians
and Syrians. So do the Arabs. How, then,
can it be a national, or Jewish distinction ?
If, when they say, it is carnal, they mean it is
in the flesh, then it is true in part, but not in
whole. For we have Divine testimony that "he
is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is
that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh;
but he is a Jew which is one inwardly; and
circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit,
AND NOT IN THE LETTER." Rom. ii. 28, 29.
And so it was understood under the Jewish
economy, as is evident from many scriptures.
As, for example: " Circumcise, therefore, the
foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiff-
210 baptist pretensions
necked." "And the Lord thy God will circum¬
cise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love
the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with
all thy soul, that thou mayest live." Deut. x.
16; xxx. 6. So the apostle, in alluding to the
completeness of Christians in Christ, says: " In
whom also ye are circumcised with the circum¬
cision made without hands, in putting off the body
of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of
Christ." Col. ii. 11. See, also, Jer. iy. 4;
Phil. iii. 3.
From which it is evident that there was a
spiritual significance in the rite; namely, an
inward purity. How, then, can any one say it
was only a carnal ordinance ? Just here, read
the following from the Kev. Andrew Fuller, an
eminent Baptist minister. He says: " This ordi¬
nance [circumcision] was the mark by which
they [Abraham and his seed] were distinguished
as a people in covenant with Jehovah, and which
bound them by a special obligation to obey Him.
Like almost all other positive institutions, it was
also prejigurative of mental purity, or putting
off the body of the sins of the flesh." Works,
vol. v., p. 155.
Hence, the apostle also says: " I testify to
every one that is circumcised, that he is a debtor
to antiquity.
211
to do the whole law." G-al. v. 3. From which
we learn that there was a great moral or religious
significance in this carnal rite, as Baptists are
wont to call it. By circumcision, they were
brought under sacred obligation to observe the
whole law; not only the outward forms and
ceremonies, but all its spiritual requirements.
For we have already seen that the people were
required to he holy in heart, as well as strict in
the performance of the mere ritual part of the
law, and that this spirituality was prefigured by
circumcision.
But we desire to show up the pretensions of
Baptists in reference to the carnality and limi¬
ted character of the Abrahamic covenant, so
that there shall be no dodging the point.
Rev. Richard Fuller, a prominent Baptist
minister in the United States, says: " In the
first place, what did God promise to Abraham ?
Truth requires me to differ from those Baptists
who deny that there is any spiritual import in
these promises. There is plainly a spirit and
a letter. Spiritually, the promises are these:
(1.) That Christ should spring from Abraham,
and that he should thus be the father of the
faithful. (Now, to Abraham and his seed were
the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds,
212
BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
as of many; but. as of one, And to thy seed,
which is Christ.' Gal. iii. 16. (2.) The
second spiritual promise was, that in Abraham
'all nations should be blessed;' viz., as Abraham's
faith was counted to him for righteousness, so
all, in every nation, who believe, shall inherit
the same blessing, and have their faith ac¬
counted for righteousness. 'He received the
sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness
of the faith which he had, yet being uneircum-
cised; that lie might be the father of all them
that believe, though they be not circumcised;
[viz., the Gentiles;] that righteousness might be
imputed unto them also; and the father of cir¬
cumcision [i.e. might bequeath the spiritual
blessings of the covenant] to them who are not
of the circumcision only, [not only Jews out¬
wardly,] but who also walk in the steps of that
faith of our father Abraham, which he had, being
yet uncircumfeised.' 'So, then, they which be
of faith, [Jews or Gentiles,] are blessed with
faithful Abraham;' viz., the spiritual blessing
is, that faith, wherever found, is imputed for
righteousness. . 'And if ye be Christ's, then are
ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the
promise;' viz., your faith, like Abraham's faith,
receives spiritual blessings, by uniting the soul
TO ANTIQUITY.
213
to Christ. Rom. iv. 11, 12; Gal. iii. 9, 29.
(3.) The last spiritual blessing was, that, in a
gloriohs sense, God would he a God to those
that were thus by faith the children of Abra¬
ham. A promise this more fully expressed in
Jer. xxxi. 33 : 'But this shall be the covenant
that I will make with the house of Israel: after
those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in
their inward parts, and write it in their hearts;
and will be their God, and they shall be my
people.'" Baptism and Communion, pp. 163,
J. 64.
Such is the language of this Baptist minister;
and yet, although the covenant thus made with
Abraham contained all these spiritual blessings,
he contends that it is not the covenant of re¬
demption by which we are saved. P. 165.
"The covenant of salvation was with Christ
from eternity/' he says. Where did he get
that ? We have often heard of a covenant with
Christ from eternity, but we have never yet read
of it in the Bible. Whenever Baptists will show
us this covenant in the word of God, and not
solely in their Calvinistic creed, we will believe
it, and heartily receive it, but not till then.
Thus they try every shift to get rid of the per-
214 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
petual obligation of the Abrahamic covenant.
Reader, do you know why this is done? Simply
because, when once it is admitted that the Abra¬
hamic covenant is the Christian covenant, infant
membership is inevitably true.
Again : He and all Baptists contend that cir¬
cumcision was to Abraham only a sign and seal,
but not such to his posterity. They know that
Paul has expressly said it was a sign and seal to
Abraham; that they cannot deny. Now, if it
was such to him, how could it be any thing else
to his posterity ? If it was not the same to his
posterity, what use was it to them ? It was not
a national distinction, for we have seen that
other nations circumcised, as well as the Jews.
Besides this, the Almighty has never said it was
to distinguish them from the rest of the world.
What was it for, then ? No rational answer can
be given to this than that whatever it was to
Abraham, that it was to his posterity. This
view of the subject is confirmed by the con¬
tinued reference of righteousness, purity, faith,
etc., under the type, viz., circumcision, through¬
out the entire Scriptures; all of which is em¬
braced in a passage already quoted: " I say unto
you, he that is circumcised is debtor to do the
TO ANTIQUITY.
215
whole law which view of the question is also
endorsed by Elder Fuller in the quotation above
given.
But let us proceed. The great champion of
immersion only, Rev. Alexander Campbell, says
the covenant of God with Abraham contained
two promises: the one that he should be they
father of the Jewish nation; the other, "spirit¬
ual and universal." Thus, "The second promise
is, 'And in thee shall all the families of the earth
be blessed.' This blessing is spiritual and eter¬
nal. Paul regarded it as the gospel in embryo.
He preached the gospel to the descendants of
Abraham, saying, ' In thee, or in thy seed, shall
all the families (i. e., nations) of the earth be
blessed.' Thesq two promises—one for a nation,
and one for all nations; one for fleshly, and one
for spiritual blessings; one for time, the other
for all time, and for eternity, too—embrace
within them the entire destinies of humanity.
The universal history of man is but a develop¬
ment of the import of these two most sublimely
comprehensive promises. They are the fountains
of two streams of promises, prophecies, and his¬
tories, which from that moment began to flow,
and whose waters meander through all ages, and
disembogue themselves at last into the vast ocean
216
BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
of eternity." " The second is that which con¬
cerns us, because Paul calls it 1the gospel in its
origin,' and the first indication of Gentile justi¬
fication. Gal. iii. 8. [fJSI"] This is the gospel
covenant, called by the same apostle and in the
same epistle, { the covenant concerning Christ.'"
Again, he says : " I have not said that the cove¬
nant with Abraham has become old. The ulti¬
mate and final development of that covenant in
its national form at Mount Sinai, has become old
and vanished away; but the covenant, pregnant
with blessings to the Gentiles, through Christ,
yet lives'' Debate, Campbell and Rice, pp.
289, 290, 806, 316, 317.
Hear another Baptist minister of no mean re¬
pute—Rev. Andrew Fuller. " This promise [to
Abraham] has been fulfilling ever since. All
the true blessedness which the world is now or
shall hereafter be possessed of, is owing to Abra¬
ham and his posterity. Through them, we have
a Bible, a Saviour, and a gospel. They are
THE STOCK ON WHICH THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH
IS GRAFTED."
" The first promise in this covenant is, that he
shall be the father of many nations; as a token
of it, his name in future is to be called Abraham.
He had the name of a high or eminent father
TO ANTIQUITY.
217
from the beginning; but now it shall be more
comprehensive, indicatiifg a very large progeny.
By the exposition given of this promise in the
New Testament, (Rom. iv. 16, 17,) we are di¬
rected to understand it, not only of those who
sprang from Abraham's body, though these were
many nations, but also of all that should be of
the faith of Abraham. It went to make him the
father of the Church of God in all future ages ;
or, as the apostle calls him, the heir of the world.
In this view, he is the father of many, even of a
multitude of nations. All that the Christian
world enjoys, or ever will enjoy, it is indebted for
it to Abraham and to his seed. A high honor
Ahis, to be the father of the faithful, the stock
from which the Messiah should spring, and on
which the Church of God should grow." Works,
vol. 5., pp. 115, 158.
Dr. Carson says, " The Church of Israel was
the type of the Church of the New Testament,
containing, no doubt, the body of the people of
G-od at that time on earth, and, in this point of
view, may be called the same." "As the Church
of Israel was the Church of God, typical of his
true Church, and containing in every successive
age a remnant of the spiritual seed of Abraham,
according to the election of grace, the New Testa-
\
218 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
merit Church is spoken of in the Old under the
figure of Israel, Zion, Jerusalem, God's holy
mountain, the tabernacle of David, etc."
We desire the reader to bear these admissions
of Baptist doctors in mind. They are important,
and should not be forgotten. We like to have
Baptists occasionally to help us along, for with a
certain class of people they have more weight
than the Bible itself. This ought not so to be;
but so it is, and we cannot help it.
We see, then, that we have something to do
with the Abrahamic covenant, and that, too, of a
very important character. Not only our pre¬
sent, but eternal interests are involved in it.
It is this covenant that secures to us a Bible, a-
Saviour, and a gospel. If so, then was not Mr.
Campbell justified in saying it was the gospel
covenant? Then, when these Baptist doctors
admit that the Abrahamic covenant was fraught
with such mighty blessings to the world, and
that upon this covenant with these promises was
founded the Church of God in all after ages,
and as this Church of God, from the days of
Abraham, had infants guaranteed membership
therein, and as their membership, as to right,
has never been annulled by the authority of
Heaven, and as these Baptist doctors admit the
to antiquity.
219
Church of God to be the same now as then, how
can they deny the right and title of infants
now to membership therein ?
But, to end this controversy, let us hear the
Divine word itself. And a few of many pas¬
sages must suffice; for we would have to tran¬
scribe a great portion of the Bible to give all
here that is said there upon the subject.
David says, in Psalm cv.: "0 ye seed of
Abraham his servant, ye children of Jacob his
chosen. He is th^ Lord our God: his judg¬
ments are in all the earth. He hath remem¬
bered his covenant for ever, the word which he
commanded to a thousand generations : which
covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath
unto Isaac; and confirmed the same unto Jacob
for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting cove¬
nant." And, after giving an account of the pro¬
mises and deliverances they had experienced and
enjoyed, he says, God "remembered his holy'pro¬
mise, and Abraham his servant. And he brought
forth his people with joy, and his chosen with
gladness; and gave them the lands of the hea¬
then ', and they inherited the labor of the peo¬
ple : that they might observe his statutes, and
keep his laws. Praise ye the Lord."
220 baptist pretensions
In reference to this very covenant, the Virgin
Mary, when met by her cousin Elizabeth, mag¬
nified the Lord, and said, among other things,
that God "hath holpen his servant Israel, in re¬
membrance of his mercy; as he spake to our
fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed, eor
ever." So Zacharias spake by the Holy Ghost
at the circumcising of his son : " Blessed be the
Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and re¬
deemed his people, and hath raised up an horn
of salvation for us in the house of his servant
David; as he spake by the mouth of his holy
prophets, which have been since the world began:
that we should be saved from our enemies, and
from the hand of all that hate us; to perform
the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remem¬
ber his holy covenant; the oath which he sware
to our father Abraham, that he would grant unto
us, that we, being delivered out of the hand of
our enemies, might serve him without fear, in
holiness and righteousness before him, all the
days of our life." Luke i. 54, 55, 68-75.
St. Paul says : "And the Scripture, foreseeing
that God would justify the heathen through
faith, preached before the gospel unto Abra¬
ham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed."
TO ANTIQUITY.
221
Gal. iii. 8. And, further down in the same chap¬
ter, he says, that this " covenant was confirmed
before of God in Christ." Yerses 13-17.
Here, then, the Abrahamic covenant contained
the gospel, and this covenant made with Abra¬
ham was confirmed—settled and fixed—by
Christ. fIf, then, it was confirmed in Christ, is
it not now the covenant tinder which we live, and
enjoy blessings? The Baptist writers above
quoted, affirm its truth; the scriptures already
adduced settle the matter beyond controversy.
Paul's letter to the Hebrews may be studied with
great profit upon this head, and we are reluctant
to pass it by without more special notice, but we
are driven for want of space to omit it.
"We might readily adduce other passages to the
same point, but what need have we of further
witnesses? If one will not believe the pas¬
sages already brought forward, neither will he be¬
lieve though one should rise from the dead.
Who does not see, with the- above facts before
him, that the Abrahamic covenant occupies a
very prominent place in the economy of man's
salvation ? It is only through this covenant that
we can have any hope at all of heaven. Bap¬
tists in general may deride and scoff at it, but
there are some amongst them who are honest
222 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
and religious enough to acknowledge the truth
in the premises.
Just here, note, they ridicule the idea of this
Covenant with Abraham being the gospel cove¬
nant, because God made promise to him of the
land of Canaan. Hence, they seem to think it
supremely improper and foolish that a spiritual
covenant should contain temporal blessings. Let
us just mention two facts as given in Scripture
in reference to this matter, which we much de¬
sire they should explain, for we are free to con¬
fess we cannot, upon their "Baptistic" prin¬
ciples.
The first is, though God solemnly made pro¬
mise to Abraham of the land of Canaan, yet
he never inherited the promise. So says St. Ste¬
phen : "And he gave him none inheritance in it,
no, not so much as to set his foot on ; yet he pro¬
mised that he would give it to him for a posses¬
sion, and to his seed after him, when as yet he
had no child." Acts vii. 5.
The second fact is that stated by Paul in these
words : " By faith Abraham, when he was called
to go out into a place which he should after re¬
ceive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went
out not knowing whither he went. By faith he
sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange
TO ANTIQUITY. 223
country, dwelling in |tabernacles with Isaac and
Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise.
For he looked for a city which hath foundations,
whose builder and maker is God." " These all
died [Abraham also] in the faith, not having re¬
ceived the [fulfilment of the] promises, but
having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of
them, and embraced them, and confessed that
they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
For they that say such things, declare plainly
that they seek a country. And truly, if they
had been mindful of that country from whence
they came out, they might have had oppor¬
tunity to have returned. But now they desire
a better country, that is an heavenly: where¬
fore God is not ashamed to be called their God;
for he hath prepared for them a city." Heb.
xi. 8-10, 18-16.
Now, then, what becomes of all their noise
about a temporal covenant, and temporal bless¬
ings ? Even these temporal blessings are held
up as hut typical of great and glorious good.
Canaan, the promised temporal rest and posses¬
sion, is made by faith the representative of a
heavenly country, and a city in the skies. If the
covenant only regarded in its promises temporal
blessings, and temporal blessings to Abraham
224 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
and his natural descendants, the J[ews, then those
promises have signally failed, so far as their
fulfilment is concerned; for these texts most as¬
suredly teach us that God " gave him [Abraham]
none inheritance" in Canaan; and that they to
whom the promises were made, " confessed that
they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth,"
which they would not have done had they con¬
sidered themselves in possession of the fulfil¬
ment of the promises, as regards temporal bless¬
ings only. Furthermore, the texts emphatically
teach that they viewed them as pertaining prin¬
cipally to spiritual blessings, to be obtained " by
faith." Hence, " by faith they obeyed " by
faith they sojournedby faith they " looked for
a city;" by faith they "saw them [the pro¬
mises] afar off," etc., etc.
So, then, whichever way the subject is viewed,
spiritual and eternal blessings stand prominently
in view. And yet, notwithstanding all these
things, upon Baptistic principles, "we have
nothing to do with the Abrahamic covenant!"
No wonder they strive so hard to nullify the
extent and spiritual character of this covenant.
And why? Simply, as we have before stated,
if it be admitted that the Abrahamic covenant
is the gospel covenant, they know full well that,
to antiquity. 225
as "unconscious babes" were placed in tbat
covenant by express command of God, they are
still entitled to all its blessings, and, as such,
should be regularly inducted into its pale, and
consequently entitled to its signing and sealing
ordinance, baptism. If they did not know this
to be a fact, you would not hear of such abuse and
ridicule of said covenant. For children, having
been put in the covenant by the " express, positive
institute," or law of the Almighty, and that cove¬
nant being for "a thousand generations," even
"for ever," and "confirmed of God in Christ,"
their right in that covenant for ever, " even to the
end of the world," is not to be disputed with impu¬
nity, even upon Baptistic grounds. God put them
in the purview of the covenant—has never taken
them out of that purview, but still proclaims,
" creation round," " The promise is to you and
to your children," even as it was of olden time.
This same fact, of the Church of God as es¬
tablished in Abraham's family, and among the
Jews, is clearly recognized by our Saviour and
the apostles: Take, for instance, the parable of
the householder who planted a vineyard, as re¬
corded in Matthew xxi. 33-43. Examine that,
and you will find that the kingdom of heaven—
the Church of God—is likened unto a vineyard,
8
226 baptist pretensions
which was at the first—at its planting—given to
the Jews. But, on account of their unfaithful¬
ness and wickedness, it was talc en away from
them—not destroyed—and " given to a nation
bringing forth the fruits thereof;" that is, to
the Gentiles. Answer the question fairly and
squarely, What was it that was taken from the
Jews, and given to the Gentiles? Answer it
honestly: "The kingdom of heaven." Well,
what was this "kingdom of heaven" but the
Church of God?
Our Saviour, also, says : " Other sheep I have,
which are not of this fold: them also I must
bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there
shall be one fold and one shepherd." John x.
16. "This fold"—the Church of God, under
the Jewish dispensation; "Other sheep"—
people of God, among the Gentiles; "One
Shepherd"—one Christ, Mediator, and Ruler;
"One fold"—one Church. Now, the "other
sheep," from the Gentiles, are to be brought
into the same fold, or Church of God, with
the Jews, and " one Shepherd" shall rule and
guide them; " for He is our peace, who hath
made both one, and bath broken down the
middle wall of partition between us"—the Jews
and Gentiles; " having gathered together in one
to antiquity.
227
fold or Church, all things in Christ." Eph. ii.
14; i. 10.
The same truth is taught by Paul, under the
similitude of the "olive tree:" concerning which
he says, the natural branches—the Jews—were
broken off, because of unbelief; and the Gentiles,
which "were wild by nature, were graffed, con¬
trary to nature, into the good olive tree." Not
that the olive tree—the Church of God under
the Jewish dispensation—was destroyed: no,
that was preserved; but the Jews, to whom it
was first given, proved themselves unworthy,
and, hence, were cast or broken off, and the Gen¬
tiles were graffed IN; not made into a new or
different Church, but put into the very same,
out of which the Jews had been cast. As clear
as a sunbeam in a clear sky. The Church of
God, according to our Saviour and St. Paul, is
the very same now that it was in the days of old.
For there is but one Church of God, and that
Church has run through all time, since the first
promise of a Saviour was made to fallen man.
Hence, says the apostle, "there is one body,"
which is the Church of the living God and his
Christ, "of whom the whole family in heaven
and earth is named." Epis. to the Eph.
Now, hold right still, and look the facts square
228 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
in the face. Here, you see, the Church of God
has been the same in all ages; that is, God has
never had but one Church. This Church was
organized thousands of years before John the
Baptist was born. Besides, John had no com¬
mission to organize a Church, much less to or¬
ganize one in Jordan. Jesus Christ never or¬
ganized a Church while on the earth. He never
came in the flesh to do that thing—he came for
another purpose. He found his Church already
in existence on earth, when he came. He came
to give his blood for it, and to purify it, " that in
the dispensation of the fulness of times, he might
gather together in one, all things in Christ, both
which are in heaven, and which are on earth."
Again : in the first visible organization of it
that we have, we find " unconscious babes"
placed there by Divine authority. We never
hear of that right of membership being disputed,
until some years after the apostolic age. Jesus
Christ and all the sacred writers constantly speak
of the Church of God as a unit—as being the
same in all ages. If, now, the Church is the
same, and no man who believes the Scriptures
can consistently or conscientiously deny it; and
if infants were put into it by Divine command,
which is too plain to be denied; and if that
TO ANTIQUITY.
229
command has never been abrogated, does it not
follow as a matter of course, plain and clear, that
infants belong to it now by Divine right? We
defy the whole Baptistic world to gainsay the
plain and palpable declarations of the word of
God. God says they belong there, for he put
them there. Jesus Christ says, "Of such is
the kingdom of heaven •/' either the kingdom of
final glory, or his kingdom, Church, on earth.
If they are fit for one, they are for the other.
No man can deny this. It is self-evident, and
needs no proof. And Peter says, "The pro¬
mise is to you and your children."
Children, then, are entitled to membership in
the Church of God, and, if entitled to member¬
ship, they are entitled to the signing and seal¬
ing ordinance of the Church, whatever that may
be. Children were considered part and parcel
of the Church of God—of His people—up to
the days of the ministration of the Lord Jesus
Christ. And as he dealt with the Church as he
found it, and never did organize one himself
whilst on earth, and never did abrogate the right
of infants to membership, as secured under the
Abrahamic covenant, so he thereby sanctioned
their Divine right to membership, and, conse¬
quently, to the initiatory rite into the Church.
230
baptist pretensions
Section VII.— The commission not in conflict
with the Abrahamic covenant—never was,
never can be.
Passing over any further considerations of our
Lord's teachings before his death, all of which
recognized the Jews as his own peculiar people,
his own Church, set apart for holy purposes, we
call the reader's attention to the commission
given the apostles just as he ascended to heaven:
" Go ye therefore and teach [disciple, or prose¬
lyte] all nations, baptizing them in the name of
the Pather, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost; teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever I have commanded you." Matt,
xxviii. 19, 20.
Let us look this commission calmly in the face,
and see what it does and does not teach, noting
a few antecedents prior to this.
In the first place, we have seen that God has
always had a Church in the world, a people set
apart for himself, to whom were committed the
great interests of man's salvation. We have
seen that in the process of the development of
this plan of salvation, God saw fit to establish
his law and word in the family of Abraham and
his descendants, with certaia rights and preroga-
TO ANTIQUITY.
231
tives, in which were included the rights of infant
membership. These infants he considered as
capable of entering into covenant and solemn
oath with himself, holding them peculiarly sacred,
requiring their parents to instruct them at a very
early age in his laws and statutes.
Secondly, children were put into this Church
by positive enactment, and neither this Church
nor this positive law of infant membership has
ever been annulled, and consequently is of obli¬
gation until repealed.
In the third place, infants enjoyed this right
of membership until the giving of the commis¬
sion to the apostles. This no one, we presume,
will call in question. If any do so, let them
produce their reasons.
These points being premised, we remark, in
the first place, that the commission gives no
authority to organize a Church. God has ever
kept to himself the prerogative to found his own
Church. Hence, he gave no commission to any
mortal man to organize a Church. All the au¬
thority he gave the apostles, or any one else, was
to carry out what he had ordained. Secondly,
the commission does not, either directly or indi¬
rectly, by positive law or implication, exclude
children from their original grant to Church
282
BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
privileges and ordinances. If the Great Head
of the Church had intended to make any
change in the .subjects of Church membership,
now would have been the time to do so. He
was himself going away, and was now commit¬
ting the management of his Church to men, and
giving them his last directions. But does he
tell them to receive only believers, and exclude
children? Not a word of it. Thirdly, he does
not specify- either infants or believers. Nor
was it necessary; for they had all been trained
up as Jews, and taught by the law and the
prophets, and, lastly, by Jesus Christ, that they
were still under the gospel covenant as given to
Abraham, and knew full well whom to admit as
members of the Church of God. And it would
have been singular enough had they put any
other interpretation upon their instructions re¬
ceived from their own Scriptures and the teach¬
ings of Jesus Christ, which had always been in
perfect accordance with those Scriptures. Some
of them, it is true, at one time did entertain
" Baptistic" notions about excluding children
from the Church, but the Master immediately
corrected that notion, saying unto them, " For¬
bid them not; for of such is the kingdom [or
Church] of God." Mark x. 14. Never after
to antiquity.
233
tills was there any more contention about the
relation of children to the Church during the
apostolic age.1 Fourthly, the commission does
not say that teaching must precede baptism, as
Baptists strenuously contend. Neither the com¬
mission, as given by Matthew, nor by Mark, teach¬
es the Baptist doctrine. We know they rely mostly
upon Mark's account to prove their position;
but, when looked at logically and seripturally, it
proves no such thing; but, by their course of
reasoning, proves too much.
Mark says, " He that believeth and is baptized,
shall.be saved; but he that believeth not, shall
be damned." Here Baptists lay the stress upon
" believeth," in the first sentence, and contend
that that is evidence for " faith" before baptism.
. But now we ask the reader to lay the stress upon
the verb, "is baptized," and say, will not it make
it immaterial whether the faith or baptism comes
first ? Or, if it does make a difference, it is in
favor of the baptism coming first. " Instead of
faith being an arbitrary pre-requisite to baptism,
the commission reverses it; and, both in the
original and in the English translation, baptism
is placed first in order, and should be eirst
in practice. A pareful analysis of the lan¬
guage employed, I think, will satisfy the impar-
234
baptist pretensions
tial reader of this fact. The word baptistheis is
in the aorist passive form, and the sentence
literally and properly means, ' He that believeth,
having been baptized, shall be saved/ And this
is the sense our English translation now gives.
The verb/ ' is,' is a neuter verb, present tense.
It describes not an action or passion received or
endured in the present time, but a relation which
the subject sustains at the time he believes:
' he is baptized and, to sustain a baptized re¬
lation at the time he believes, the subject must
have been baptized previously; and, if previously,
it must have been done in infancy. If we con¬
nect 'is baptized,' as most grammarians are
inclined to do, we then have a passive verb, in¬
dicative mood, present tense, the subject, 'he,'
becoming a neuter nominative, and the verb re¬
taining its neuter form, so that it still describes
a state of being in which the subject exists at
the time he believes. Or, if we call 'is bap¬
tized' a perfect participle, it still describes a
neutral relation, in which the subject exists, and
the action that placed him there perfected at the
time he believes. The sentence is so construed
in both the Greek version and the English trans¬
lation of the Scriptures as to give a decided pre¬
ference to baptism before belief, and, conse-
TO ANTIQUITY.
235
quently, to infant baptism" Inf. Ch. Mernb.,
pp. 249, 250.
But does this commission speak of the proper
subjects of baptism or of salvation? The answer
must be, the proper subjects, not^of baptism,
but of salvation. Then, if Baptists make " faith"
an indispensable pre-requisite to baptism, then it
is an indispensable pre-requisite to salvation;
but infants cannot believe in order to receive the
one or the other; therefore, they cannot be
saved. It is plain, then, that if they persist in
their course for the order in which the matter is
laid down in this text, they make baptism, as
well as faith, a pre-requisite to salvation; so that
none but those who first believe, and are then
baptized, can be saved. For it is faith, baptism,
salvation. And, from the stress they lay upon
baptism, we are not so sure but they do make it
necessary to salvation. Listen: None but true
disciples of the Lord Jesus can be saved; none
but those who keep the commandments of the
Lord are his disciples : baptism—immersion—is
a command of the Lord Jesus; therefore, none
but those baptized—immersed—can be saved.
Do they admit this reasoning? They cannot
deny it. It is their every-day business to talk
236
BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
just that way. But the argument proves too
much, and hence is good for nothing.
We might continue this course of exposition
of their pretensions on this text, hut we dis¬
miss it thus: Baptists say faith must precede,
or go before, baptism; and if it does not, the
individual is not a proper subject for baptism;
that is clear, and admitted. Again: The Bible
makes a deal of difference between hope and
faith; that is clear, and admitted. Again: The
Bible never says "hope and be baptized," but
Baptists say, "express a hope, and follow your
Saviour into the 1-i-q-u-i-d g-r-a-v-e;" that is
clear, and admitted. Again, still: Baptists do
immerse numbers of persons whom they after¬
wards pronounce unbelievers; and the persons
themselves frequently acknowledge they were
not converted, or had not believed, until they
had been in the Church for years. This is clear,
and admitted. Now, answer the question: Ac¬
cording to Baptist pretension, that faith must
precede baptism,- should not these persons be re-
baptized when, or after, they believe ? And if
they baptize adults before believing, and will not
baptize them again, when they have believed—
and if this is right in them—tell us by what
TO ANTIQUITY.
237
authority they will condemn us, who baptize
infants be'fore they believe, and who entertain it
wrong to re-baptize them ? " Happy is he that
condemneth not himself in that thing which he
alloweth."
Again: The truth here is, that baptism is not
essential to salvation, as is evident from the last
member of the sentence, "He that believeth not,
shall be damned;" which would have read,
" He that believeth not, and is not baptized, shall
be damned," had baptism occupied such a con¬
spicuous place in the"plan of salvation.
Lastly, the text in Matthew asserts the plan
of making disciples. In our version, we have
" teach " twice in the text. By reference, how¬
ever, to the original, the words are found to be
entirely different. The first word translated
"teach," is matheteusate, from matheteuo, to dis¬
ciple, or proselyte. So say the lexicons, which
is admitted by Kev. Alex. Campbell, Mr. Jewett,
and others of the Baptist school. The other
word is in the 20th verse, and is entirely dif¬
ferent: didaskontes, from didasko, to teach, to in¬
struct. These two words are frequently used in
connection with each other in the New Testa¬
ment, and stand in the relation of teacher and
pupil.
238 baptist pretensions
The command, then, is, to disciple, proselyte,
or bring under instruction, " all nation's." The
manner of doing this is next commanded and
authorized: " baptizing them, and teaching them
to observe all things whatsoever I have com¬
manded you." How plain and simple is the
thing required. This baptizing and teaching are
the two things required to make all nations disci¬
ples of Jesus Christ. Elder K,. Fuller attempts
to ridicule the idea of making disciples by bap¬
tizing. We have not said disciples are to be
made by baptism merely; it is by baptizing
and teaching. So said the Lord Jesus, and if
Mr. Fuller will ridicule that process of making
disciples, we envy him not his boldness.
In conclusion, hear Mr. Alex. Campbell's ad¬
mission on this subject: " Have you, my dear
brother, ever adverted to the import of the par¬
ticiple in the commission, (Matt, xxviii.) ' Disci¬
ple or convert the nations, immersing [baptizing]
them?' I need not tell you that this is the
exact translation. Let me ask you, then, Does
not the active participle always, when connected
with the imperative mood, express the manner
in which the thing commanded is to be per¬
formed ? Cleanse the room, washing it; clean
the floor, sweeping it; cultivate the field, plough-.
TO ANTIQUITY.
.239
ing it; sustain the hungry, feeding them; fur¬
nish the soldiers, arming them; convert the na¬
tions, baptizing them, are exactly the same forms
of speech. No person, I presume, will controvert
this. If so, then no man could be called a dis¬
ciple or convert; no man could be said to be dis-
cipled or converted, until he was immersed,"—
baptized. Christian Baptist, p. 630. Now, if
the participles "baptizing and teaching," here
" express the manner in which" the world is to
be discipled or proselyted to Jesus Christ, may
not infants thus he discipled ? They may be bap¬
tized easy enough, but Baptists object that they
cannot be taught. Well, if they cannot be
taught, we will show< that they can do something,
perhaps, a little more difficult. " In the number
of all the males, from a month old and upward,
were eight thousand and six hundred, keeping
the charge of the sanctuary." Now, it seems
that if infants but a month old could keep the
charge of the sanctuary, they could be made
disciples. Then, in a passage heretofore quoted,
we find that " they entered into covenant witlT
God, and into his solemn oath." Thus are the
sacred writers accustomed to speak of children,
when writing under the direction of the Holy
Ghost. Surely Baptists will not ignore these
240 baptist pretensions
things that are said of little ones, even infants,
by God himself.
It seems there can be no question upon but
one point in this entire commission; and that is,
Can children—little ones—be taught ? At what
age are they capable of hearing, or at what age
should, or can, they be taught? Upon this
point we shall let the Almighty decide, and we
presume he knows as much about " unconscious
babes" as Baptists do.. Hear Him from heaven:
" Gather the people together, men, and women,
and children, and thy stranger that is within thy
gates, that they may hear, and that they may
learn, and fear the Lord your God, and ob¬
serve to do all the words of this law; and that
their children which have not known any thing,
may hear, and learn to fear the Lord your
God." Deut. xxxi. 12, 13.
" There was not a word of all that Moses
commanded, which Joshua read not before all
the congregation of Israel, with the women, and
the little ones, and the strangers that were con¬
versant among them." Josh. viii. 35.
Here, then, is the indisputable fact that, ac¬
cording to the command of God himself, the
law was read, not only to the men and women of
Israel, but also to the children—children who
TO ANTIQUITY.
241
liad not known any thing—"unconscious babes/'
if you please; yes, "the little ones" of Israel.
And here is another stubborn fact: God had
his law read to them, that they might learn, and
observe to do the things commanded. These, we
repeat, are stubborn facts, and we desire the
reader to bear them in mind.
" But how can a little child that knows not any
thing, hear and learn to observe these things?"
If we say we cannot tell, it is nothing in your
favor. Our knowledge is too limited^to fathom
it, but God, whose knowledge is infinite, knows
that they can do it, and, hence, requires it. If
you please, in charging us with folly, do not
charge folly upon the Almighty, in saying little
children cannot be taught the principles of salva¬
tion. It is not for us to explain these things
that God has kept to himself. It is enough for
us to know of the fact. That fact God has told
us, and with it we should be content.
"Blind unbelief is sure to err,
And scan his work in vain;
God is his own interpreter,
And he will make it plain."
If, then, infants, under the Jewish economy,
242 baptist pretensions
could be taught, and were required to be taught
to observe the law of Jehovah, are they less
capable of such instruction under the full reign
of grace? Under the Jewish law, infants were
brought into covenant relation with God by
circumcision, and being taught to observe the
law of Heaven. Under the New Testament law,
a disciple is to be made by baptizing him, and
teaching him to observe all things commanded by
Christ Jesus. If infants were capable of com¬
plying with those under the Jewish law, what
renders them incapable of complying with those
under the Christian dispensation ? Does being
born under a Christian law render them less ca¬
pable of hearing, learning, and being taught to
observe to do |hat law, than if born under a
darker dispensation? God has told us the truth,
in our humble estimation, about little ones, and we
much prefer deferring to Him than to Baptists,
who think so lightly of them, and who suffer
them to roam off on the " commons of the world,"
until they be of full age, for fear, they say, of
" taking away their liberty." And while they
sleep, waiting for them to use their liberty, the
devil very often slips in and takes it away, and
" leads them captive at his will."
TO ANTIQUITY.
243
Besides all this, look at the expression, "all
nations." Are not infants included in the
terms, " Glo disciple all nations ?" What means
that comprehensive term, " all nations ?" By
what right do Baptists exclude infants from
it ? Does not the Bible explain itself upon this
point? We are told that "all nations shall be
gathered before the throne of G-od." The Bible
teaches us that both small and great, young and
old, shall all stand before the judgment-seat of
Christ. Why will all little ones be brought up
in judgment ? Grod sees fit so to do. Even so
He sees fit to give them a place in His Church on
earth, as well as a place in His Church in heaven,
which, in fact, is hut a continuation and perpetu¬
ation of that on earth. The family in heaven
and on earth is the same—it is one.
But why not object to infants being judged
in the last day ? and why not object to their
being in heaven, or anywhere else? Are they
capable of being judged ? How ? Why ? What
for? Are they capable of receiving either joy
or pain ? Are they not " unconscious ?" If
Grod can bless them, taken to heaven in infancy,
what makes it impossible for Him to bless them
on earth, in the use of His own ordinance ? Is
244
BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
not eternity only a continuation of time? What
great change takes place upon the passage—of
but a moment—from earth to eternity, that ren¬
ders them so much more capable then of being
blessed than now ?
to antiquity.
245
CHAPTER II.
the subject continued.
Section I.—Sustained by the first gospel ser¬
mon.
That the commission was so understood by
the apostles as embracing infants, is clearly
enough seen in the opening sermon preached
by Peter on the day of Pentecost. " Repent,
and be baptized, every one of you. . . For
the promise is unto you, and to your children, and
to all that are afar off, even as many as the
Lord our God shall call." Acts. ii. 38, 39. In
this text, there are only two questions to be set¬
tled : first, what promise is it to which the apostle
here refers? secondly, what is the meaning of
the term children ? If, now, we can settle these
questions, then we understand what Peter means.
It is contended by Baptists that "the pro¬
mise" here alluded to, is that referred to by
Joel, ii. 28, 29, and not to the Abrahamic cove-
246
BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
nant or promise. And well they may reject
its allusion to the promise made to Abraham;
for the very moment it is established as belong¬
ing to the Abrahamic covenant, then it is estab¬
lished that children—infants—have a right to
the initiating ordinance of the Christian Church.
Let us look at this subject a few moments.
In the first place, that the apostle does not refer
this " promise" to the prophecy of Joel, is evi¬
dent from the fact that he adverts to the
prophecy of Joel to explain the reason of their
being able to speak with many tongues, and not
as a reason of repentance and baptism at all.
"How hear we every man in our own tongue,
wherein we were born ?" In answer, Peter re¬
plies, " This is that which was spoken by the
prophet Joel," etc. Acts ii. 1-17. Secondly,
this prophecy is too restricted to cover the de¬
clarations of Peter in the 38th and 39th verses.
In that of Joel, there are two promises; one
that the Holy Spirit should be poured out upon
them, and the other, a miraculous effect produced
thereby, viz., that their sons and daughters
should • prophesy, etc. Whereas, " the pro¬
mise" alluded to by Peter in the 39th verse,
embraces repentance, baptism, remission of sins,
and the gift of the Holy Ghost
to antiquity.
247
But that he did understand and apply it to the
Abrahamic covenant, is evident from the follow¬
ing considerations: First, his address is to the
Jews, upon the great subject-matter of the pro¬
mise made to Abraham, viz:, Christ Jesus.
Thus, "Ye men of Israel, hear these words:
Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God
among you by miracles," etc., v. 22, whom he
contends was risen from the dead, and ascended
unto heaven, according to the prophecies and
" sure mercies of David;" " Therefore let all the
house of Israel know assuredly that God hath
made that same Jesus whom ye have crucified,
both Lord and Christ." Then, after " they
heard this, they were pricked in their hearts. . .
and said, What shall we do?" Y. 36, 37.
Whereupon, he utters the language of the text,
" Repent and be baptized," etc., etc., assigning
as the reason why they should do these things,
that " the promise was unto them and their child¬
ren." The only promise of salvation ever made
to man was secured in the covenant with Abraham
and his descendants, the Jews. Jesus Christ,
then, of this covenant, he here preaches to them
as having fulfilled the promise, and that promise
he assigns as reason of duty. So, in chapter iii.
25, 26, he does the same thing, with a little
248 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
change of phraseology. "Ye are the children
of the prophets, and of the covenant which God
made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham,
And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the
earth he blessed. Unto you first, God having
raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you,
in turning away every one of you from his ini¬
quities." Here, as in the other passages, Jesus
Christ is seen to be the subject of the covenant
and promise upon which the apostle bases dis¬
charge of duty.
Secondly, the similarity of expression and
intent of this passage with those of the Abra-
hamic covenant, evinces the fact that the apostle
had that covenant in view when he spoke. The
one says, " unto thee and thy seed," the other,
" unto you and your children." Will any Bap¬
tist tell us the difference between "seed" and
" children ?" It seems that any person of un¬
prejudiced mind, and with common sense, would
say that seed means children, and that children
are seed, and that they are precisely the same.
But here comes a would-be wise Baptist, with a
Greek lexicon in his hand, and tells you " child¬
ren" means "descendants, or posterity." Well,
suppose it does, are not "children" descendants—
posterity ? Does the term always mean grown-
to antiquity.
249
up or adult persons? That it does mean or
embrace such, no one disputes; but not always.
For instance, " God said to the woman, In sorrow
shalt thou bring forth children." Surely not
grown-up or adult children—men and women!
Nay, but little ones: children, as we use the term
in common conversation. The word in the Greek
text is teknois, children, from tikto, to bring forth.
Then, "the promise" would be "to you, and
those brought forth of you," or your little ones.
(Query: If the word signifies " descendants,* or
posterity," as alone applicable to adult or grown¬
up persons, according to Baptistic doctrine, will
they be so kind as to inform us at what precise
time at the growing-up process in the posterity
the promise first becomes applicable? Again:
If their doctrine be true, does it not follow that
there was or is a period in the lives of these
" posterity and descendants" to which " the pro¬
mise" is not applicable ?) So in the promise to
Abraham, "Unto thee and thy seed." The
Greek text here has sperma, seed, from speiro,
to sow, to scatter seed, to originate, to propagate.
See, then, the similarity. Is not smallness the
idea conveyed by both words—teknois, children,
that have been brought forth, and as brought
forth; and sperma, seed that have been sown,
250 baptist pretensions
and as sown, as propagated? Will it require a
philosopher of Newtonian intellect to see the same
idea in seed and children ?
Again : Inquire into the intention of the cove¬
nant made with Abraham, and you will find one
point was to bring those with whom the covenant
was made, under obligation to obey its precepts.
" I will establish my covenant between me and
thee, and thy seed after thee—to he a God unto
thee, and to thy seed after thee....Therefore thou
shalt keep my covenant. This is my covenant...
every man-child among you shall be circum¬
cised. And the uncircumcised man-child...shall
be cut off from his people : he hath broken my
covenant." Hence, the apostle says, "Who¬
soever among you is circumcised, is debtor
to do the whole law." If then, this he true,
and infants were circumcised, were they not
hound to do the whole law? Then, again,
saith the Almighty, every uncircumcised man-
child "hath broken my covenant," and was
punished, child as he was: because his parents
would not circumcise him, he was cut off from
h is people.
Just so, we believe, all entertain the idea that
present gospel ordinances are to bring us under
obligation the greater to the observance of duty.
TO ANTIQUITY.
251
So the apostle is to be understood in explaining
the plan of salvation under the commission given
by his Master, enforcing the same principle as
contained in the Abrahamic covenant: " Repent
and he baptized, etc., for, because, the promise
is to you and your children." So thus, if pa¬
rents and children were intended in the one, they
certainly were in the other.
" When a positive institute is connected with
a promise, all who are contained in the promise
have a right to the institute. If parents must,
therefore, be circumcised because they are in¬
cluded in the promise, then, as infants are in¬
cluded in the promise, they, too, must he cir¬
cumcised. All this is evinced by the history of
circumcision, and is, indeed, a self-evident case;
because, if a promise give a right to an institute,
th& institute must belong to all who are intended,
in the promise. And, therefore, we reason thus:
If parents must be baptized because the promise
belongs to them, then must their infants be bap¬
tized, because the promise belongs to them, also.
This mode of reasoning is the more certain, as it
is confirmed beyond all doubt by the Divine pro¬
cedure; for if you ask, Who are the circum¬
cised ? the reply is, Those to whom the promise
was made. If you inquire, again, To whom was
252 baptist pretensions
the promise made? we answer, To adults and
infants. Again, if you ask, Who are to be bap¬
tized ? the answer is, Those to whom the promise
is made. But to whom is it made ? The apostle
says,1 To you and to your children.' Now, what
proof more direct can be made or desired for
infant baptism?"
In the third place, the only promise made of
the blessings and duties enjoined and spoken of
by Peter in this text, are found in the covenant
made with Abraham. All the blessings and
benefits the world enjoys, it enjoys only through
the covenant. A Bible, a Saviour, pardon,
peace, sanctification, resurrection, and eter¬
nal life, all are through this covenant. Peter
knew it, and so contended for it. These things
were not mentioned in the prophecy of Joel,
neither are they implied to that extent sufficient
for Peter to have made it the basis of enforcing
those duties mentioned.
Lastly, That the apostle did have the promise
made to Abraham in view, is evident from the
fact that no promise is so characterized by way
of distinction as this: "the promise." See
how St. Paul speaks of it: " For the promise
that he should be the heir of the world, was not
to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but
to antiquity.
253
through the righteousness of faith. For if they
which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void,
and the promise made of none effect... .There¬
fore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to
the end the promise might be sure to all the
seed : not to that only which is of the law, but
to that also which is of the faith of Abraham,
who is the father of us all." Rom. iv. "Now
to Abraham and his "seed were the promises
made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many;
but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
And this I say, That the covenant that was con¬
firmed before of God in Christ, the law, which
was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot
disannul, that ,it should make the promise of
none effect. For if the inheritance be of the
law, it is no more of promise ; but God gave it
to Abraham by promise. Wherefore then serv-
eth the law ? It was added because of trans¬
gressions, till the seed should come to whom the
promise was made....If ye be Christ's, then are
ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the
promise." Gal. iii.
Here, then, the expression, " the promise," is
used by Paul to denote blessings bestowed under
the covenant made with Abraham. In exactly
the same way Peter uses the expression, 11 The
254 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
promise is to you and your children." For no
other promise included these.
Now, add to all these things that the apostles,
to a man, were Jews, and the persons to whom they
preached were Jews, who had been very tena¬
cious, and were still, of always having their child¬
ren, from earliest infancy, dedicated to God,
and especially being brought into covenant rela¬
tion with him by circumcision; add these things,
we say, and does it not appear they must have
entertained the opinion that children were still
proper subjects of Church relation to God?
Add, also, this other fact, that they were taught
by Christ himself, and the apostles afterwards,
Hhat their same Church was yet in existence, was
not destroyed or annulled, and that they had
never heard as yet of any change being effected
in reference to their children. How could they,
then, believe otherwise than that their little ones
still had a place with them in Church privileges
and blessings? Add, also, that amongst the
varied objections the Jews brought against the
Christian system, so-called, they never once held
or urged that children were excluded, as Bap¬
tists maintain, which doubtless they would have
done, had there been no provision made for them.
This of itself would have been an insuperable
to antiquity.
255
obstacle in their way of receiving the gospel.
Their silence, then, in not mentioning any such
objection, gives additional force to the fact that
children were still held as proper subjects of
Church relation, and, consequently, to the
signing and sealing rite of the same, viz., bap¬
tism.
Section II.— The above view sustained by the
baptism of households.
That the apostles understood the commission
given them by their Master as embracing child¬
ren, is further ^established from the fact that
they baptized entire households. We are aware
of the attempts that Baptists make to escape this
argument, but we have seen nothing as yet from
them to lessen our faith in its truth and force.
All their high-sounding requirements of us to
prove that Lydia had a husband; that she had
infant children; that they were with her at
Philippi \ and that they were actually baptized,
and all such, is intended, no doubt, to throw a
mist over the mind of the reader, to keep out of
his sight the plain and obvious meaning of the
terms household and house. For what in the
name of common sense have we to do with such
questions if the record be sufficiently plain ?
256 baptist pretensions
which we think we can show to every unpre¬
judiced mind. That the apostles baptized entire
households, we presume none will deny. This
the Bible declares. The question, then, is,
What is meant by households ? Who are em¬
braced in this term ?
Mr. Webster defines household to be, " Those
who dwell under the same roof, and compose a
family; those who belong to a family." House
he thus defines: "A family of ancestors; de¬
scendants and kindred; a race of persons from
the same stock; a tribe." A household, then,
may take in not only children of every age, but
also servants, hirelings, and adopted ones. A
house can only embrace descendants, kindred of
every age hnd sex.
This view of the question is very forcible in
the Greek language; for here we find two words
used embracing these same ideas, and which are
never used interchangeably. Thus, oihia in¬
cludes not only the family proper, but also the
dwellings, slaves, servants, and attendants of the
family. " When they were come into the house,
[oihian,] they saw the young child." Matt. ii.
11. "He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner,
whose house \oikia] is by the sea-side." Acts
x. 6. No doubt, then, about the term here; it
to antiquity.
257
means a dwelling. But what means it here ?
"All the saints salute you, chiefly they that are
of Caesar's household \oikias~\." Phil. iy. 22.
"Not one of Caesar's family was at this time
converted to Christianity, while some of his
household servants, attendants, or courtiers
were." " Here oikia is used, and does not in¬
clude children."
But have the Greeks no word of. a specific
character that could be used to embrace the little
ones ? They have; and that very word is used
by the inspired historian relative to this very
matter before us.
Oikos is the word always used in the sacred
writings to set forth the true idea of a family
containing children. This word is used by them
in the sense of family, from which we cannot
separate the idea of children, or little ones.
Thus, " The house of David, the house of Jacob,
the house of Judah;" that is, the family, de¬
scendants, children of David, Jacob, and Judah.
Says David, " Who am I, 0 Lord God ? and
what is my house [oi&os] that thou hast brought
me hitherto 1 .... . Thou hast spoken of thy
servant's house [oikos, family] for a great while
to come." " Now let it please thee to bless the
9
258 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
house [oikos", family] of thy servant; and with
thy blessing let the house [oikos, family] of thy
servant be blessed for ever." 2 Sam. vii. Can
children be excluded from the term here?
These passages carry the mind backward to
scenes in the past, and forward to blessings for
eyer. Are there no children to come on to per¬
petuate the family, and will they not in infancy
share the blessings of Grod, even for ever ?
Again : " Then shall his brother's wife . . .
spit in his face, and say, So shall it be done unto
that man who will not build up his brother's
house"—oikos, family. "Rachel and Leah . . .
did build the house [oikos, family] of Israel."
Ruth iv. 11; Deut. xxv. 9. What, now, say you
to the term oikos, in these scriptures, which
might be easily multiplied ? How can an oikos
[family] be built up without children ? yea, Utile
children ? Even " unconscious babes ?" How
did Rachel and Leah build the oikos [_family]
of Israel, but by bringing forth children ? little
ones f
Again: The apostles used this term as em¬
bracing children. Paul says a bishop, among
other things, must be " one that ruleth well his
own house [oikos, family] having his children
TO ANTIQUITY.
259
in subjection, with all gravity; for if a man
know not how to rule his own house, [oikos,
family, children,'] how shall he take care of the
Church of Grod ?" So, the deacons were di¬
rected to rule well their children—oikon, their
houses.
Furthermore, says Paul, "I will, therefore,
that the younger women marry, bear children-,
guide the house," oikodespotein, despotize the
family; that is, guide, rule, direct, according to
their own wills, their children, infants, sucklings,
and babes. For what else can it mean ? Could
it refer to any but this class of a family ? Could
they despotize any other branch of a household?
Common sense would say, every time, it was
their own little ones.
In keeping with this, is the declaration in re¬
ference to Dathan and Abiram, and their fami¬
lies: "And the earth opened her mouth, and
swallowed them up, and their houses"—oilcous,
families. ■ And who they were that were con¬
sumed, is "told us in a preceding verse: "Dathan
and Abiram came out, and stood in the door of
their tents, and their wives, and their sons, and
their little children." Num. xvi. 32, 27. " For
I know him [Abraham] that he will command
his children and his household \oikos, family of
260 baptist pretensions
little ones] after him, and they shall keep the
way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment."
Gen. xviii. 19.
Now, let us apply the above to the household
baptisms spoken of in the New Testament.
Take, first, that of Lydia, as given in Acts xvi.:
"And on the Sabbath we went out of the city by
a river, side, where prayer was wont to be made;
and we sat down, and spake unto the women
which resorted thither. And a certain woman
named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of
Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us;
whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended
unto the things which were spoken of Paul.
And when she was baptized, and her household,
she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me
to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house,
and abide there; and she constrained us."
Now, reader, say who were baptized? Was
it not Lydia and her householdf Certainly,
Whose heart was opened ? No account of any
but Lydia's. I)o you read here of any "journey¬
man dyers" belonging to her eatablishment ?
Any servants ? No, not one.
Baptists tell us that she came on a trading
voyage from Thyatira to Philippi, to sell purple.
Yet the text does not say so. The text says
10 ANTIQUITY. 261
she was from or of Thyatira, and was a seller of
purple. And, now, to get into her family some
one else besides her children, they say she had
"journeyman dyers." Now, look at the contra¬
diction—error is always contradictory. She
comes from Thyatira to sell purple, yet she must
needs bring her goods from that city to Philippi,
and put up a " dying establishment," to prepare
her cloth for sale. Only on a trading excur¬
sion to Philippi, yet putting up a dyer's factory!
Does it look reasonable ? Reconcile those two
points, who can ? Baptists are great people to
require others to stick to the text as it is in the
Bible; so we require them now, and here, to
stick to this text, and show us where it is said that
Lydia was on a trading excursion; and where is
the pj£>of that she put up a "dyer's establish¬
ment ; and where is the proof that she had any
journeyman dyers.
But they are not agreed amongst themselves
who those persons were that were baptized with
Lydia. Some suppose them to have been jour¬
neymen ; others, the brethren spoken of in the
41st verse of the same chapter. Now, the Bible,
as we have seen, says not one word about any of
these persons belonging to Lydia's household.
When the Bible does not read to suit their
262
baptist pretensions
notions, they try to improve, as they think, upon
the Divine diction.
Again: No "journeymen" or "brethren" are
said to have been baptized with Lydia; no one is
said to have had a heart opened but Lydia; no one
is said to have believed but Lydia. Now, upon
her faith she is baptized, but no other adult
person; and, then, immediately, upon her faith,
she and her household, her family, doubtless her
children—"unconscious babes." Then, directly,
she says, "If ye have judged me to be faithful
to the Lord," [in having my family as well as
myself brought into covenant with God,] "come
into my house, and abide there." Not, " if ye
have judged me" and my journeymen "worthy;"
for of these there is no record, only in Baptist
authors; but "me," who am the head and^epre-
sentative of a family consecrated to God by
baptism.
All this parade about Lydia's husband, etc.,
is for "buncombe." If the sacred historian had
told us about her husband, we then could have
known something about him. If she had child¬
ren, she had a husband, or he was dead; or she
was not what she ought to have been. The Bible
says, Lydia and her household were baptized.
The Bible speaks only of her faith. If her house-
TO ANTIQUITY.
263
hold believed, WHY did not the sacred historian
mention that fact, as well as that Lydia believed ?
If her household believed, was not their faith of as
much importance, and as worthy to be noticed,
as hers ? Now, take all the foregoing facts
into the account, with the fact that the Greek
word oikos, family, as used here, is used in the
Bible to express children, yea, little children, and
never used interchangeably with oilda, a word
embracing otithouses, family attendants, domes¬
tics, etc., and the fact is established beyond the
shadow of a doubt, to every unprejudiced mind,
that those baptized with Lydia were her children.
Again: Baptists make a great ado over the
fact that, after Paul and Silas were released
from the Philippian jail, they " entered into the
house of Lydia; and when they had seen the
brethren, they comforted them." And, hence,
they conclude these brethren were the houshold
of Lydia, whom Paul baptized. But, we ask in
all candor, does the Bible say one word about
these brethren being of the household of Lydia ?
It does not even say these brethren were in the
house of Lydia at all; much less being of her
family. How came these brethren to belong to
the family of Lydia ? Let Baptists prove these
things ere they essay to require us to believe
264 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
them. We have no account of the baptism of
these brethren." If there is such an account,
let Baptists produce it. If they were of the
household of Lydia that Paul baptized, then they
were baptized on Lydia's faith, and not on their
own. Would it not be more easy and natural
to say that her household were her children, and
that these brethren were visiting or resident
brethren at Philippi? For we find Paul, a
very short time after this, writing in this strain:
"Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus
Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus, which
are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons."
And so with the whole of Paul's letter to the
Philippians. And yet, for "Baptistic princi¬
ples," we are to surrender every principle of
common sense, and make these "brethren,"
Lydia's "journeymen dyers," who ^>nly have an
existence in the watery imaginations of Baptists.
Again: Let us note the case of the jailer.
When the inquiry was made by him, What
must I do to be saved ? the reply was, " Believe
on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be
saved, and thy house"—oilcos, family. Why
"thy house?" Are domestics and servants
saved upon the faith of the head of the family ?
Yet, Paul says to the jailer, not he only should
TO ANTIQUITY.
265
be saved, but bis house. Who are embraced in
the term house here ? Surely Baptists would
not baptize a household upon the faith of its
head. Yet the historian says the jailer "and
all his" were baptized. The apostle preached to
all that were in the jailer's house, but he does
not intimate that any of them believed or were
baptized; but the jailer and all his house were
baptized. Who besides the jailer were baptized?
His house, or family, of course. And there
must have been "little children/' for there is no
account of their ever having exercised faith.
No, nor any one but the jailer. For the verb
"believe," in the 31st verse—pisteuson—and
the participle in the 34th verse—pepisteukos, be¬
lieving in God with all his house—are both in the
singular number in the original Greek text, and
prohibits the idea entirely of any other person
believing in God at this time. But others were
baptized. Did they believe ? If Baptists say
they did, let them give us the proof. But the
34th verse says, The jailer rejoiced, believing in
God with all his house—panoiki, all his family
—agreeing with what the apostle had said in the
31st verse: " Thou shalt be saved, and thy house"
—oikos, family. And to show that the word
panoiki, as used here in the case of the jailer,
266 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
is a word embracing little children, we refer to
only one circumstance. In Exodus, i. 1, it
says : " These are the names of the children of
Israel which came into Egypt; every man and
his household" —panoiki. "And all the souls
that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy
souls." 5th verse. "And Jacob rose up from
Beersheba; and the sons of Israel carried Jacob
their father, and their little ones, and their
wives, and came into Egypt; Jacob and all his
seed with him." Gen. xlvi. 5, 6.
Here little ones are included in the term
panoilci, "all his"—the precise word used in
reference to those baptized of the jailer's family.
If we admit little ones going down into Egypt,
because Moses uses the word panoiki, "all his"—
his house—why not admit " little ones," when
baptism is used in connection therewith, as in
the case of the jailer?
" One of the following statements must be
true : the reader can take his choice. First, the
jailer's dwelling-house was to be saved by his
faith; or, second, adult persons living in his family
were to be saved by his faith; or, third, his 1 house'
is to be understood, metaphorically, for his child¬
ren, who were to be saved by the faith of their
parent. We confess ourselves incapable of
TO ANTIQUITY.
267
seeing any scriptual and spiritual sense in which
the faith of the jailer could save either his
dwelling-house or adult persons dwelling with
him; while it is certain that there is a very im¬
portant sense in which the faith of a father con¬
verted from heathenism does save his little
children. He saves them from the darkness,
idolatries, and crimes peculiar to a heathen
state; he saves them by placing them in a so¬
lemn covenant relation with God, in which He
has promised to be a 'God to them' for ever; he
saves them by bringing them into the Christian
Church, where there are secured to them all the
instruction, watch-care, and other religious privi¬
leges of the gospel; he saves them by govern¬
ing, instructing, and praying for them, according
to the direction of the gospel. And if the
word of God can be relied upon, there are but
few children thus ' trained/ that, when ' old,'
will 'depart from it.' Now, till our<jpposers can
show that the faith of one adult person will thus
save other adult persons, we shall consider the
point established, or, at least, rendered quite
probable, that the jailer's 'house' was composed
of 'little children/ which the apostle wanted
him to bring with him to Christ." Inf. Ch.
Mem,., by Gregg., 270, 271.
268 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
Once more: Baptists endeavor to evade the
force of the principle drawn from the use of
oikos, as given above, when applied to the bap¬
tism of the household of Stephanas. They say
that the baptized were old enough to be addicted
to the ministry of the saints. But such a pre¬
tension is of no avail, for Paul says he "baptized
also the household, \oikos, family] of Stephanas."
1 Cor. i. 16; "but he speaks of the oikia, the
household, of Stephanas as addicting themselves to
the ministry of the saints;" that is, performing
the duties of hospitality toward them. Such ser¬
vices would not, of course, be restricted to Stepha¬
nas with his wife and children—the oikos of Ste¬
phanas—but would be rendered, also, by the ser¬
vants of the family; in which case the word oikia
is proper to be used, and it is used accordingly.
1 Cor. xvi. 15. Summers on Baptism, p. 82.
Again : " It is not said that this service was
rendered the oikos, the family, of Stepha¬
nas ; nor is it said that the oikia, the house¬
hold, of Stephanas was baptized by the apos¬
tle." Ibid., p. 32.
Why this distinction in the use of words?
Does it not show conclusively, if words are the
signs of ideas, that those baptized and those given
to hospitality were not the same ? Then the
to antiquity.
269
family, embracing children, of Stephanas, were
baptized by Paul.
Section III.— Children addressed as Church
members.
That Paul understood children to be members
of the Church, is evident frqna the manner in
which he addresses them in his Epistles to the
Ephesians and Colossians. "Children, obey
your parents in Me Lord; fqr this - is right.
Honor thy father and mother, (which is the
first commandment with promise,) that it may be
well with thee, and that thou mayest live long
on the earth. And, ye fathers, provoke not your
children to wrath; but bring them vp in the
nurture and admonition of the Lord." Eph. vi.
1-4. " Children, obey your parents in all things,
for this is well-pleasing unto the Lord." Col.
iii. 20.
The Epistle to the Ephesians is addressed "To
the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the
faithful in Christ Jesus." That to the Colos¬
sians, "To the saints and faithful brethren in
Christ whjch are at Colosse."
The question, then, is, Whom does Paul
consider himself addressing in these letters?
He says, "the saints and faithful in Christ
270 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS'
Jesus." But who are these " saints and faith¬
ful" ones "in Christ Jesus?" Evidently those
whom he addresses by relations, composed of
husbands and wives, masters and servants, pa¬
rents and children. Then, if these husbands
and wives, etc., were members of the Church,
does it not follow that the " children" were,
also? For, be it particularly noted, he here
classifies the saints and faithful who belong to
the Church, and .among them fie mentions " child¬
ren," never making or marking any distinction
in their Church relation. By what authority,
then, can Baptists say these husbands and wives,
masters and servants, and parents, were Church
members, but children not ? He writes to the
Church, the members thereof, and among the
membership he finds " children," and hence ad¬
dresses them also. " There is no shade of differ¬
ence indicated. They coi e in as complete com¬
peers with the classes which precede and follow.
Included thus in the Church, without the slightest
note of distinction, what can be more evident
than that they made a part of the Church in the
mind of the includer ?
"Once more. Let the address of St. Paul to
the Ephesian children be specially noted. How
could they obey in the Lord, if they themselves
TO ANTIQUITY.
271
were not in the Lord? In every instance, this
expression marks incorporation into the Chris¬
tian body. For example, when St. Paul dis¬
tinguishes those of the family of Narcissus, who
were Christians, his language is, " which are in
the Lord." 'Philemon was in the Lord,' a
fellow-Christian with his master. Onesimus was
in the Lord. So was Amplias, Paul's beloved,
in the Lord. The equivalent expression, in
Christ, occurs in the same sense in Paul's
salutation of Andronicus and Junia. Rom.
xvi.
Now, the very expressions that set forth the
relation of these grown individuals, are used to
set forth that of children. Were Narcissus,
Onesimus, and Philemon in the Lord? So were
these " children" at Ephesus and Colosse in the
Lord. What does that expression mean in
reference to the former ? What in reference to
the latter ? Does it mean^one thing in the first,
knd another in the last ?
The design of the apostle's argument in his
Epistle to the Ephesians seems to set this matter
for ever at rest. He is showing that the Church
under the Jewish and Christian dispensations is
the same; for he says Christ " abolished in his
flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments
272 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
contained in ordinances; for to make in himself
of twain [Jews and Gentiles] one new man, so
making peace; and that he might reconcile both
[Jews and Gentiles] unto God in one body
[Church] by the cross." "So we being many
are one body [Church] in Christ, and every one
members one of another." "And are built upon
the foundation of the apostles and prophets,
Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner¬
stone; in whom all the building fitly framed
together groweth unto an holy temple in the
Lord."
The apostle here clearly contends that the
Church is one. And as children were members of
the Church under the Jewish dispensation, and as
they have never been expelled by any only Bap¬
tists, the apostle very naturally recognized them as
still having a place in the Church by Divine ap¬
pointment, and so addresses them, as in ch. vi.
of Ephesians.
" Kespecting the age of the persons designated
(Eph. vi. 1, etc.) by the term ta lekna, ('children,)
there can be no question, as a subsequent verse
distinctly states them to be such children as
were subjects of discipline and mental instruc¬
tion : £ Bring them up in the nurture and admo¬
nition of the Lord" that is, "Nourish them in
to antiquity.
273
the discipline and instruction of the Lord"—
words evidently referring to children of a very
tender age 5 similar, no doubt, to those men¬
tioned in Deut. xxix, and Josh. viii. 34, to whom
the law was read, and who entered into covenant
with God and his oath, even " those who knew
not any thing," so young were they.
" But it must not escape attention how exactly
the sequel of the apostle's address accords with
the commencement, the injunction being given
as to those in express covenant. 'Honor thy
father and thy mother, for this is the first com¬
mandment with promise.' Had those addressed
been out of the Christian pale, this language
would have been inapplicable. Jn that case,
they would have been aliens from the common¬
wealth of Israel; therefore, not within the range
of the Divine commandment, and strangers from
the covenants of promise; consequently, not war¬
ranted to assume an interest in the promise. As,
then, the pressing of the sacred injunction sup¬
poses the persons on whom it is urged to be
fellow-citizens with the saints, their acknow¬
ledged interest in the promise proves them to be
of the household, family, or Church of God."
Eph. ii. 12, 19. And if of the Church of
God, they have a right to baptism, as Baptists say
274 BAPTISJT PRETENSIONS
none are members of tbe Church but tbose bap¬
tized.
The membership of children appears so clearly
from the address of Paul to them, that it seems
strange any man with common sense should
doubt any longer. If not members of the Church,
why class them with members of the Chuich ?
Can any reasonable solution be given of this
question, other than that we have given above ?
" I cannot, therefore, but conclude," says a
certain writer on this point, "that this single
passage, if even it stood alone, ought to set the
tedious and troublesome controversy respecting
infant baptism for ever at rest."
Paul recognizes children as members of the
Church: so should we, unless we follow a cer¬
tain Baptist preacher, who, in discoursing on
apostasy, remarked that "it was true, Christ and
his apostles did speak as if there was some dan¬
ger, but he begged leave to differ with them!"
Just so. Paul may address children in the
Lord—in the Church; Christ may say with all
solemnity, " Of such is the kingdom of heaven"
—or of the Church; and "Feed my lambs"—
the little children in my Church; yet Baptists
beg leave to differ with them. Well, we envy
them not their great presumption.
to antiquity.
275
Section IV.—"Infant baptism, an innovation
Baptists are continually urging, "Infant bap¬
tism is an innovation, a relic of Popery." If
so, it would seem they could easily show it.
But can they? They have never as yet been
able to show satisfactorily when and where it was
brought into the Christian Church. We shall
presently give some of their admissions of this
matter, which we shall show are against their loud
pretensions that " infant baptism fs a relic of
Popery," etc. All this noise about its being the
offspring of Popery, is used as a cover under
which to shield themselves from the shafts of
the Divine word, and to prejudice the minds of
the uninformed.
In answer to this pretension, we call the
reader's attention to the admissions of theirs,
and facts from history.
Mr. Judson admits that infant baptism " com¬
menced the latter part of the second .century."
Baptism, p. 79.
Mr. Chapin says: " No mention is made of
infant baptism in the second century, unless it
be just at its close." Letters, p. 99.
Pendleton declares: " It appears that infant
baptism was not practiced until about the close
27G BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
of the second century." Bap. and Com., p.
21.
The Baptist Library (three vols. in one, p. 10)
says: "No evidence of infant baptism, before
the latter end of the second, or the beginning
of the third, century."
Mr. Jewett says: "It is admitted, however,
that the practice [of infant baptism] was com¬
menced near the close of the second century, and
gradually gained ground in the third." Bap¬
tism, p. 78.
So says, also, Elder Broaddus, of Virginia, in
controversy with Mr. Slicer: " The baptism of
infants was invented as early as the close pf the,
second century." Slicer on Baptism, p. 199.
Elder D. C. Haynes says: " The first that
mentions the practice [of infant baptism] at all,
was Tertullian, A.D., 204. It was named next
by Origen, A.D., 230. But the first writer that
defended the practice was Cyprian, A.D., 253."
History of "The Baptist Denomination," p. 184.
Alex. Campbell says: " We have no objection
to admit that infant baptism is 1500 years old,
or perhaps a few years older." Debate with
McCalla, 1824, p. 365.
Again, he says: "I admit that from St. Cy¬
prian's times, infant baptism, and infant commu-
TO ANTIQUITY.
277
nion, "were very common." Debate, Campbell
and Rice, p. 410.
Here, tben, are admissions from as many as
eight staunch immersionists, that infant baptism
was practiced within at least 80 or 100 years
from the days of the apostles. For it is a gene¬
rally conceded point, that St. John was one hun¬
dred years old when he .died; which will bring
infant baptism very nearly in sight of the apos¬
tolic age, Baptists themselves being judges.
Now, we ask, will they contend that in that
age, near the apostles, there was any thing
like the Roman Catholic Church ? Was there
any Pope at that time ? How, then, could in¬
fant baptism be a relic of Popery, when there
was no such thing in existence ? To give the
reader an idea of the preposterous character of
this pretension of theirs, and to show their hon¬
esty to the people in this matter, we will give
here a word or two from history, in regard to the
Popedom, over which Baptists make such an ado:
"The usurpations of the Papacy, therefore,
were effected by gradual innovation." The
" ecclesiastical tactics, [of Leo the Great,] though
well concerted, were in the main unsuccessful;
and Papal usurpation made little progress through
any part of Christendom, till the accession of
278
baptist pretensions
Gregory, in the end of the sixth century." "Dur¬
ing Gregory's reign, the Constantinopolitan
patriarch, actuated by a silly vanity, and coun¬
tenanced by the Emperor Mauricius, assumed
the title of universal bishop. This appellation,
noisy and empty, was unattended by any new
accession of power." " The usurper of this ap¬
pellation, according to Gregory, was the harbin¬
ger and herald of antichrist." " The infernal
JPhocas, indeed, according to many historians,
wrested the title of universal bishop from the
Byzantine patriarch, and entailed it in perpetu¬
ity on the Roman pontiff." But this, says our
author, is doubted. But he continues: "Pho-
cas, if he did not bestow the title of universal
bishop on the Roman pontiff, conferred some¬
thing which, if belief may be attached to Anas-
tasius, Bede, and Paul the Deacon, was equiva¬
lent, or even superior. The primacy, claimed
by the Eastern patriarch, this emperor, according
to these historians, transferred to the Western
pontiff."
But " Nicholas and John, in the ninth cen¬
tury, laid the foundation, and Gregory, in the
eleventh, raised the superstructure. The latter
completed the outline which the two former had
begun. The skeleton which Nicholas and John
to antiquity.
279
had organized, Gregory clothed with flesh, sup¬
plied with blood, and inspired with life and ac¬
tivity." Edgar's Variations of Popery, pp. 183,
186.
" If, indeed, we are to give credit to Anasta-
sius and Paul the Deacon, something like what we
have now related was transacted by Phocas; for
when the bishops of Constantinople maintained
that their Church was not only equal in dig¬
nity and authority to that of Rome, but also
the head of all the Christian Churches, this
tyrant opposed their pretensions, and granted
the preeminence to the Church at Rome; and
thus was the papal supremacy first intro¬
duced/' Mosheim's Church History, cent, vii.,
ch. ii. See, also, cent, si., where he gives sub¬
stantially the same as we have given from Ed¬
gar's Variations of Popery.
Here, then, is the answer to all the blustering
of Baptists about infant baptism being the off¬
spring or relic of Popery. Popery, you see, was
not, as such, until the beginning of the seventh
century, and was not fully organized until about
the eleventh century. And, according to the
admissions of Baptists themselves, infant baptism
was practiced in the second century, eighty or
one hundred years after the apostolic age, or
280 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
after the death of St. John. How, then, can it
be a relic of Popery, which was not until six
hundred years afterward? Facts are stubborn
things. See how these facts are against all such
boasted ■pretensions I How, then, can any man
among them dare assert that it is a relic of
Popery? He must presume largely upon the
credulity of mankind, or wilfully and knowingly
intend to deceive, or is basely ignorant of facts
in history.
It was not, then, introduced by any pope, for
there was no pope, as such, until the beginning
of the seventh century ; and, Baptists themselves
being judges, infant baptism was practiced in
the second century, near the times of St. John.
They tell us it was an innovation. Well, now,
let them prove it. They cannot tell how, when,
where, or by whom it was introduced, or " in¬
vented/' as one of the above Baptist writers
says. Well, who "invented" it? Some say
Pope Sylvester. Well, where is the proof?
Give it to us from undoubted history, and we
will acknowledge the same. But, until they do
this, they must permit us to have our own pri¬
vate opinion in reference to why they make this
allegation against infant baptism; which is, when
publicly expressed, but an attempt to prejudice
to antiquity.
281
the minds of people against infant baptism, by
making it appear as the spawn of corrupt "Baby¬
lon the Great, the mother of harlots/* knowing
that people generally have a great antipathy to re¬
ceive or embrace any thing allied to the Papacy.
We trust, however, the facts from history, and
admissions from Baptists, as above given, will
for ever put this pretension of theirs at rest.
Section V.—Testimony of some of the ancient
fathers.
Having shown that infant baptism, instead of
being " a relic of Popery," antedates it by sev¬
eral hundred years, we will pow add a few testi¬
monies from some of the ancient fathers, showing
that it was practiced even before the dates as¬
signed it by Baptists. Before doing this, how¬
ever, we call attention to the following testimony
of St. Austin, who flourished about the year of
our Lord 388.
He says : "And if any one do ask for Divine
authority in this matter; [of infant baptism;]
though that which the whole Church practices,
and which has not been instituted by councils, but
was ever in use, is very reasonably believed to
be no other than a thing delivered [or ordered]
by authority of the apostles; yet we may, be-
282
BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
sides, take a true estimate how much the sacra¬
ment of baptism does avail infants by the cir¬
cumcision which God's former people received."
Infant Baptism, Wall, vol. i., ch. xv., p. 255.
Here note : this Austin lived about the fourth
century, centuries before Popedom; and he says
that infant baptism was practiced by the whole
Church; that it was not instituted by councils;
but was ever in use, and was reasonably believed
to be by authority of the apostles.
Now, we ask the question, with all serious¬
ness, Who has the best right to know whether
infant baptism was instituted by councils—Bap¬
tists or St. Austin ? Every one, verily, would
answer, St. Austin, of course. Then Baptists
are wrong in saying it is a relic of Popery, or
was instituted by councils.
Having now been aided so much by Baptist
authorities in settling a question of so much
moment, and one, too, mooted by themselves
alone, our task becomes comparatively easy in
tracing up infant baptism to the days of the
apostles.
We have seen by the above admissions of
Baptists, that it was practiced say about A. P.
167, which would be, at least, a part of the
latter end of the second century. Well, just
TO ANTIQUITY.
283
about this time, Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, in
France, flourished. He was the disciple of
Polycarp, who had been chosen by St. John as
Bishop of Smyrna, and was probably the angel,
or bishop, of the Church of Smyrna commended
in Rev. ii. 8. This, Irenaeus says, he remem¬
bers, and " could describe the place where he
sat, and his going out and coming in, his manner
of life, his features, his discourses to the people
concerning the conversation he [Polycarp] had
had with John, and others that had seen our
Lord; how he rehearsed their discourses, and
what he had heard them that were eye-witnesses
of the Word of life say of our Lord, and of his
miracles and doctrines, all agreeable to the
Scriptures." Infant Baptism, by Wall, vol. i.,
p. 81.
We have introduced this item to show how
close Irenaeus was to the apostles, and what
means he had to know of the doctrine and
practice of the apostles. Now, this father says:
"As he [Christ] was a Master, he had also the
age of a master; not disdaining nor going in a
way above human nature, nor breaking in his
own person the law which he had set for man¬
kind, but sanctifying every several age by the
likeness that it has to him; for he came to save
284
BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
all persons by himself; all, I mean, who by him
are regenerated [baptized, as we shall presently
show] unto God—infants and little ones, and
children and youths, and elder persons. There¬
fore, he went through the several ages; for in¬
fants being made an infant, sanctifying infants;
to little ones he was made a little one, sanctify¬
ing those of that age, and also giving them an
example of godliness, justice, and dutifulness;
to youths he was a youth," etc. Wall, vol. i.,
p. 73.
The whole issue is upon the term, " regene¬
rated/' as here "used by Irenaeus. What does
he mean by it? We say he means baptism.
And, for this opinion, we give the following rea¬
sons : First, Irenaeus himself uses it as synony¬
mous with baptism; "where he is producing
testimony of Scripture concerning the Holy
Spirit, he has this: 'And again, when he [Christ]
gave his disciples the commission of regenerating
unto God, he said unto them, Go and teach all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father/ etc., where the commission of regene¬
rating plainly means the commission of bap¬
tizing."
Secondly, if he does not mean baptism by the
use of the word regenerate, what does he mean
to antiquity.
285
by it ? We mean water baptism, " as it is ac¬
companied witb tbat grace or mercy of God
whereby he admits them into covenant, though
without any sense of theirs."
Thirdly, this term, regenerated, as used by
the ancient fathers for baptism, is so admitted
by Alex. Campbell, the most learned of the im-
mersionist school. He says: "All the apostol¬
ical fathers, as they are called; all the pupils of
the apostles, and all the ecclesiastical writers of
note, of the first four centuries, whose writ¬
ings have come down to us, allude to and speak
of Christian immersion, [he means baptism,]
etc., as the regeneration and remission of sins
spoken of in the New Testament." "In my de¬
bate with Mr. Walker and Mr. McCalla, I ob¬
jected to the substitution of the word regenerated
for immerse, [baptize,] in the extract from Ire-
nseus, and other of the primitive fathers, as they
are called, on the ground of their not being exactly
representatives of the same ideas universally.
I admitted thai; sometimes they used the word re¬
generated for baptized, but not always; and, in¬
deed, not at all in the popular sense of regene¬
rated. [0®*] Well, now it comes to pass, that I
represent all the primitive fathers as using the
term regenerated as equivalent to the term bap-
28G baptist pretensions
tized. All this is true; and what then ? Why,
at that time I used the word regenerated as ex¬
pressive of a spiritual change, and found that
these fathers spoke of a spiritual change as well
as we. I could not, therefore, reconcile this to
the exclusive application of the term regenerated
to the act of immersion; [baptism;] but on a more
accurate and strict examination of their writings,
and of the use of this term in the New Testa¬
ment, I am assured that they used the term
regenerated as equivalent to immersion, [bap¬
tism,] and spoke of the spiritual change under
other terms and modes of speech," etc. Debate,
Campbell and Rice, pp. 416, 430.
Fourthly, Justin Martyr, who wrote about
forty years after the death of St. John, uses the
term regeneration to signify baptism. When he
is discoursing about the manner of being made
new by Christ, among other things, he says: "We
bring them to some place where there is water,
and they are regenerated [baptized] by the same
way of regeneration [baptism] by which we were
regenerated; [baptized;] for they are washed
with water in the name of Glod, the Father and
Lord of all things, and of our Sayiour Jesus
Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. For Christ says,
Unless ye be regenerated, ye cannot enter into
to antiquity.
287
the kingdom of heaven." " There is invoked,
over him that has a mind to be regenerated,
[baptized,] the name of God, the Father," etc.
"And this washing is. called the enlighten¬
ing" etc. Wall, Hist. Inf. Bap. vol. i., p. 68,
etc.
What need we any further witnesses to estab¬
lish the fact that Irenaeus used the word re¬
generated for baptized ? According to his own
use of the term, and that of Justin Martyr, the
case is clear as noonday. Then, Mr. Campbell,
with all his immersional proclivities and heavy on¬
slaughts on infant baptism, is constrained himself
to admit all we ask on this subject. Mr. Camp¬
bell, who has forgotten more than thousands of
Baptist preachers ever knew, or ever will know,
and who bring a tirade of abuse upon us for pro¬
ducing this passage from Irenaeus, candidly ad¬
mits, First, that all the apostolic fathers;
Secondly, all the pupils of the apostles j
Thirdly, all the ecclesiastical writers of note
of the first four centuries; as well as Ire¬
naeus, do use the word regenerate as equiva¬
lent to baptize; and, Fourthly, that they
speak of a spiritual change under other terms
and modes of speech.
Ascending a little higher the stream of time,
288 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
and nearer the apostles, we find Justin Martyr,
who wrote ahout the year of our Lord 148, say¬
ing: "We have not received that carnal cir¬
cumcision which Enoch and those like him ob¬
served. And we have received it by baptism,
through the mercy of God, because we were
sinners-; and it is incumbent on all persons to
receive it in the same way/' "We are circum¬
cised by baptism, with Christ's circumcision."
Dialogue with Trypho.
Again : " Several persons among us, of sixty
and seventy years old, of both sexes, who were
discipled [or made disciples] to Christ in or
from their childhood, do continue un corrupted,"
or virgins. Wall's History of Inf. Bap., vol. i.,
p. 70.
Here note, that Justin Martyr makes baptism
answerable to circumcision. Then, if baptism
he answerable to circumcision, and succeeds in
its room; then, as infants were admitted to cir¬
cumcision, so they were to be admitted to bap¬
tism. He declares unto us, also, that in his
time there were those among them, who were
sixty and seventy years old, who had been made
disciples to Christ in or from their infancy.
How, then, were they made disciples? Justin
here uses the indentical word that is employed by
to antiquity.
289
our Saviour in the commission to the apostles:
"Go ye, therefore, and teach [make disciples of,
or proselyte] all nations/' etc. And, says this
ancient father, they were cliscipled, or proselyted,
from their childhood, or infancy. Let us ask
any well-minded person if there be any other
way of making disciples to Christ, than by bap¬
tizing, to say the least, as a part of the process ?
Do not Baptists themselves acknowledge, in all
their teaching and preaching, that none are the
disciples of Christ but such as have been bap¬
tized ? So, out of their own mouths, they shall
be judged.
Take, now, into the account that Justin wrote
but about " ninety years after St. Matthew, who
wrote about fifteen years after Christ's ascension;
and they that were seventy years old at this time,
must have been made disciples [baptized] to
Christ in their childhood, (as he says they were,)
about thirty-six years after the ascension; that
is, in the midst of the apostles' times, and within
twenty years after St. Matthew's writing."
Baptists, we all know, as already stated, make
baptizing an indispensable pre-requisite to mak¬
ing disciples. Justin says some amongst them, at
the time of his writing, were even seventy years
old, who were made disciples in their infancy.
10
290 BAPTIST PRETENSION S
If, then, baptism he a part of the process of
making disciples, Baptists will have to change
their terms or grounds of discipleship, to evade
the force of Justin's testimony in favor of in¬
fant baptism.
We have now to show that infants were bap¬
tized long prior to any Roman Catholic Church, or
the existence of a pope, by the admissions of Bap¬
tists themselves ,• and that infants were baptized
even before the time they concede, (the second
century,) by the testimony of Irenseus and of
Justin Martyr.
Notwithstanding all this, however, Baptists
will still persist in saying, with a great deal
of triumph, that " Tertullian, who wrote about
-A.D. 192, was the first who mentions infant bap¬
tism." For the sake of argument, grant it a
moment. What then? Does he essay against
it as an innovation or as a relic of Popery?
Nay, not a bit of it. Does he speak of it as
just having been introduced into the Church ?
Not at all. He only advises the delay of it.
And why delay it? Simply because hejield
baptism as essential to salvation, and, hence, ad¬
vised the delay of it until they could understand.
Therefore, he says, " Let them know how to de¬
sire this salvation, that you may appear to have
TO ANTIQUITY.
291
given to one that asketh. For no less reason,
unmarried persons ought to he kept off, who are
likely to come into temptation, as well as those
that never were married, upon account of their
coming to ripeness, as those in widowhood for
the miss of their partner, until they either
marry or be confirmed in continence. They
that understand the weight [the necessity] of
baptism, [to salvation,] will rather dread the re¬
ceiving of it than the delaying of it."
Here, then, he placed unmarried persons and
widows in the same position, in regard to bap¬
tism, with infants. If Tertullian be authority
for Baptists against infant baptism, why not
authority against them for baptizing unmarried
persons and widows ? This retort is fully appro¬
priate, we think. Tertullian did not inveigh
against infant baptism upon Baptistic principles
at all, unless they believe' baptism essential to
salvation, which, by the way, we are inclined to
believe they do, from what has already been
shown heretofore in this exposition.
Tertullian advocated the opinion that baptism
was for the forgiveness of sins, and hence should
be delayed as long as possible. This was the
reason he advised the delay of infant baptism,
as well as that of unmarried persons and widows,
292 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
inasmuch as he thought these latter were more
subject to sin in those conditions than others.
Hence, as remission of sins was through baptism,
it should be delayed, so that the risk of salvation
might not be made. Now, we ask in all sincer¬
ity, do Baptists refuse to baptize infants upon
the same grounds that Tertullian advised its de¬
lay ? If so, then, do they believe it essential to
salvation, as we have shown they do ?
Tertullian never opposed infant baptism because
he believed it unscriptural, or an innovation upon
apostolic practice, or because he believed it to
be a relic of Popery. None of these things does
he ever urge against it. Then, his opposition
to it is of no avail in the hands of Baptists.
Having disposed of these matters, we think it
altogether unnecessary to trace the practice of
infant baptism through the successive ages of the
Church down to the present. This is not denied
by Baptists. We shall, therefore, close this part
of our subject with two quotations, one from Br.
Wall, the other from Dr. Gale, a decided Bap-
iist.
Dr. Wall says, "The sense of all modern
learned men that do read these ancient books,
except those few specified, is, that these books do
give clear proof that infant baptism was custom-
to antiquity.
293
ary in the times of those authors, and from the
apostles' times." " Lastly, as these evidences
are for the first four hundred years, in which
there appears only one man [Tertullian] that
advised the delay of infant baptism in some
cases, and one, Gregory, that did perhaps prac¬
tice such delay in the case of his children,
but no society of men so thinking or so practicing,
nor no one man saying it was unlawful to bap¬
tize infants; so, in the next seven hundred years,
there is not so much as one man to be found that
either spoke for or practiced any such delay;
but all the contrary. And when, about the year
1130, one sect arose among the Albigenses de¬
clared against the baptizing of infants, as being
incapable of salvation, the main body of that
people rejected that their opinion; and they of
them that held that opinion quickly dwindled
away and disappeared, there being no more heard
of holding that tenet till the rise of the German
Antipedobaptists, anno 1522." "Wall, History
of Infant Baptism, vol. ii., pp. 501, 502.
Dr. Gale, who wrote a reply to Dr. Wall's
History of Infant Baptism, says, on pp. 420,
421, "J will grant it is, however, probable, that
what all or most of the earliest Churches prac¬
ticed immediately after the apostles' times had
294 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
been appointed or practiced by the apostles them¬
selves, AND WAS DERIVED PROM THEM, for it is
hardly to he imagined that any considerable body
of those ancient Christians, and much less that
the whole, or a great part of the Church, should
so soon deviate from the customs and injunctions
of their venerable founders, whose authority they
held so sacred. And, besides, new opinions or
practices, we see, are usually introduced by de¬
grees, and not at once, nor without opposition;
therefore, in regard to baptism in particular, a
thing of such universal concern and daily prac¬
tice, I allow it to be very probable that the primi¬
tive Churches kept to the apostles' pattern
However, I am to suppose here, (as, indeed, I
verily believe,) that the primitive Church main¬
tained, IN THIS CASE, AN EXACT CONFORMITY
TO THE PRACTICE OP THE APOSTLES, which,
doubtless, ENTIRELY AGREED WITH CHRIST'S IN¬
STITUTION."
What better admission do we want? "The
primitive Church maintained, in this case, [of
baptism,] an exact conformity to the practice of
the apostles, which, doubtless, entirely agreed
with Christ's institution." Well, we have shown
that the primitive Church did baptize infants;
therefore, according to Dr. Gale, it conformed to
TO ANTIQUITY.
295
the practice of the apostles, and agreed with
Christ's institution.
" New opinions or practices," says this Bap¬
tist, are not introduced "without opposition."
Whoever opposed the introduction of infant
baptism into the Church? Will any Baptist
show us authority from any of the ancient fathers
as opposing its introduction ? But we leave the
reader to compare the above facts and admissions,
and then answer the question, " How do Bap¬
tists appear coming up and saying, Infant bap¬
tism is an innovation, or a relic of popery?"
Viewed from this stand-point, then, Baptists
cannot boast of much, or any antiquity. For " the
memory of man runneth not back to the time"
when infant baptism was introduced into the
Church, so ancient is it; but it has been but a
few hundred years since, that the society of men
arose, which denied little children baptism, and
a place in God's Church. Now, as those deny¬
ing baptism to infants are of recent origin, and
the Church from the days of the apostles did
practice infant baptism, and as Baptists are of
those wlio refuse baptism to infants, it follows
that they are not of the ancient Church, founded
upon the apostles and prophets, of which Jesus
Christ is the chief corner-stone. Reluctant
296
BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
though, we may be, and are, to pen this conclu¬
sion, ^yet we are forced to do it, from their own
•pretensions. When men will force to severe
conclusions, they must not blame those who see
and publish the folly of their course.
to antiquity.
297
PART III.
links in the chain of succession—sects.
Section I.—Their position stated—Montanists.
Haying seen that their pretension of being
derived from John the Baptist, as the highest
point of antiquity, is baseless, and without the
shadow of truth, we turn us now to another pre¬
tension of theirs, to show the same result. That
pretension is, that all "the Churches, during
this early period, [from the apostles down,] were
strictly Baptist in their practice and constitu¬
tion." And that we shall not misrepresent them
in this matter, we give their own words.
Mr. Orchard, a standard Baptist historian, in
his work on " Baptist History," essays thus:
"Our design is, to trace and record the exist¬
ence and, practice of those Christian societies
which scripturally administered the ordinance,
[of baptism, of course,] and this we hope to do,
from the Jewish Jordtiti to the British Thames."
298 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
P. 2. Which Mr. Benedict, another Baptist
liistorian, sums up thus, and endorses after a
manner: " Waldenses and Picards, 1450; Hus¬
sites, 1420; Waldo ancL his followers, 1176;
Waldenses and Albigenses, 1150; Arnoldists,
1140; Henricians, 1135; Petro-Brusians, 1110;
Berengarians, 1049; Gundulphians, 1025; Pa-
terines, 945; Yaudois, in Prance and Spain,
714; Paulicians, 653 ; Donatists, 311; Nova-
tians, 250; Montanists, 171." History of Bap¬
tists, p. 47, etc.
Dr. Brown, author of the " Encyclopedia ol
Religious Knowledge," and also a Baptist, who
is endorsed by Elder D. C. Haynes, in his "His¬
tory of the Baptist Denomination," p. 24, says:
"The Baptists have no difficulty whatever in
tracing up their principles and Churches to the
apostolic age."
"They did not," says Prof. Duncan, of the
Louisiana University, " however, originate with
the Reformation; for long before Luther lived,
nay, long before the Roman Catholic Church her¬
self was known, Baptists and Baptist Churches
existed and flourished in Europe, in Asia, aqd
in Africa." " The Baptists may be considered
the only Christian community which has stood
since the days of the apostles; and as a Chris-
TO ANTIQUITY.
299
tian society which has preserved pure the doc¬
trines of the gospel through all ages." Baptist
Denomination, pp. 24, 25.
Such are the assumptions and pretensions of
Baptists. Yet there are a few among them who
dissent from such views. For instance, Rev. D.
Benedict, on page 51, declares: " I shall not at¬
tempt to trace a continuous line, of Churches,
as we can for a few centuries past, in Europe and
America. This is a kind of succession to which
we have never laid claim, and, of eourse, we
make no effort to prove it. "We place no
kind of reliance on this sort of testimony" to es¬
tablish the soundness of our faith, or the validity
of our administrations." Yet Mr. Benedict ran¬
sacks history, even to " the remotest depths of
antiquity," to find Baptists in all ages, from the
apostles.
A Baptist writer in the Christian Review, of
January, 1855, says: " Though Baptists, and
attached for the time in which we live to this
division of our Lord's followers, we must yet say
that we know of no assumption more arrogant,
and more destitute of proper historic support,
than that which claims to be able to trace the dis¬
tinct and unbroken existence of a Church -sub-
300 baptist pretensions
stantially Baptist, from the time of the apostles
down to our own."
We shall see which of these opinions is cor¬
rect, in the course of our investigation of this
pretension. Let us commence up near the apos¬
tles, and come down the history of the Church,
towards our own times. And all we shall ask
of the reader is, to listen attentively to the
testimony we may adduce, and then decide
whether Baptists have any right to such claims
as they assert.
We shall go a little back of Mr. Orchard's
line of succession as given above, and mark a
link in the chain, supplied in the body of his
work, and which is approved by Elder Haynes,
in his " History of the Baptist Denomination,"
page 41.
The Montanists are there claimed as the
first in the regular line of succession from the
apostles. And who are the Montanists? Mr.
Haynes says they " were Baptistswhich, says
he, "is evident from the fact that Tertullian
joined them, and became eminent among them."
This, surely, is a magnificent reason to show that
they were Baptists : " Tertullian joined them."
Yes, "Tertullian joined them," and this makes
TO ANTIQUITY.
301
them Baptists. Well, well, that is one way,
surely, to prove their Baptistic proclivities.
Who would ever have thought of such a reason
but Elder Haynes, a Baptist,?
Mr. Benedict also claims them, as may be seen
in his History, p. 4, where he also calls them
" Dissenters." They are also claimed by Mr.
Orchard, p. 66, who also says of Montanus, the
founder of the sect, that he " declared himself a
mortal enemy of philosophy and religion." Fur¬
ther on, Mr. Orchard, on pp. 114,115, says that
Montanus "undertook a mission to restore Chris¬
tianity to its native simplicity," and was "prompt¬
ed" uto attempt a reformation, or rather a re¬
storation of the primitive order of things;" and,
" being destitute of classic lore himself, he re¬
quired it not in others who were willing to fur¬
ther his designs."
Rev. Dr. Brown, a Baptist, in his " Religious
Encyclopedia," says the Montanists were " a sect
which sprung up about the year 171;" that
Montanus "embraced Christianity, in hopes of
rising to the dignities of the Church. He pre¬
tended to inspiration; and gave out that the Holy
Ghost had instructed him in several points which
had not been revealed to the apostles." He was
soon joined by two wealthy and enthusiastic
302 baptist pretensions
women, Priscilla and Maximilla, who pretended
to the same inspiration. " Finding themselves
exposed to the censure of the whole Church, they
formed a schism, and set up a distinct society,
under the direction of those who called them¬
selves prophets." " These sectaries denied the
doctrine of the Trinity; but held that the Holy
Spirit made Montanus his organ for delivering a
more perfect form of discipline than what was
delivered by his apostles. They suffered women
to preach and to baptize/' They also allowed
the dissolution of marriages, and condemned
second marriages. "According to Robinson, the
practice of Pedobaptism [infant baptism] origin¬
ated with this sect." We have been thus par¬
ticular in quoting from Dr. Brown's Encyclo¬
pedia, because he is a Baptist himself, and
should be good testimony amongst Baptists.
He draws a beautiful picture of them, does he
not ?
Not only did Montanus pretend to inspiration,
but also to have authority to make or give laws
transcending those of the apostles, and to write
books by inspiration. This sect corrupted the
old form of baptism, and, instead of baptizing in
the name of the Trinity, they baptized in the
name of the Father, Son, and Montanus, or Pris-
TO ANTIQUITY.
303
cilia, or Maximilla. St. Jerome has proved that
they were Sabellians—those who believed there
is but one person in the Godhead. Bing¬
ham's Christian Antiquities, Book XI., eh. iii.,
sec. 7; Book XIY., ch. iv., sec. 5; Book XXI.,
ch. iii., sec. 5.
Mosheim represents the Montanists as a sect
" in which ignorance reigned, and which was the
mortal enemy of philosophy and letters. It was
formed by Montanus, an obscure man, without
any capacity or strength of judgment." That
he " was foolish and extravagant enough to take
it into his head that he was the Paraclete, or
Comforter, which the Divine Saviour, at his
departure from the earth, promised to send to
his disciples to lead them to all truth." He calls
him "an enthusiast," an "ignorant fanatic," one
whose teachings were of such nature as to excite
the resentment of the Boman Kepublic against
the Church. He was, " therefore, first by a de¬
cree of certain assemblies, and afterwards by the
unanimous voice of the whole Church, solemnly
separated from the body of the faithful."
" Hence, it became an easy matter for Montanus
to erect a NEW Church, which was also, in effect,
first established at Pepuza, a# town in Phrygia,
and afterwards spread abroad through Asia,
304 baptist pretensions
Africa, and a part of Europe." Church His¬
tory, Century II., Part II.
" It should he remarked," says Elder Haynes,
"that in forming the connection between the
New Testament Baptists and the Montanists, a
period of only fifty years is unprovided for, as
the Montanists appear (about the middle of the
second century.' This is the only defect in the
chain, if, indeed, this can be called one." Bap.
D.enom., p. 41.
Here, then, is the first link in the chain, as
claimed by Baptists, for a succession from the
apostles. A man at its head, an ignorant fanatic,
an enthusiast, pretending to higher inspiration
and position than even the apostles and prophets,
mercilessly banishing from the Church philoso¬
phy, arts, and all polite literature. Such a man!
0, such a man! Then, baptizing in his own
name, and thus ignoring the Holy Ghost from
the Godhead, and substituting himself or his fe¬
male associates instead thereof. Himself a
member of the Catholic Church, being expelled
therefrom, sets up a new Church. Do Baptists
claim this man as a "Simon-pure" Baptist ? We
have shown that they do. Why, do they not
contend that theif Churches were set up by John
in Jordan? Certainly they do. Was the one
TO ANTIQUITY.
305
set up by Montanus after his expulsion from "the
Church the same as that set up by John the
Baptist, (as they say,) or the one that is built
upon the apostles and prophets, and of which
Jesus Christ is the chief corner-stone? Will
they jpretend this ? Does not one of their own
writers admit that there is a period of fifty years
unprovided for, from the apostles to Montanus,
and that this is a defect in the chain ?
If there is a period of fifty years unprovided
for in the chain, then is the chain broken, and
hence is of no account in their scheme of suc¬
cession. For who baptized Montanus ? What
Baptist of the accredited stripe did it? It is
candidly confessed by (the above Baptist writer
that there is a period of fifty years unprovided
for. So, out of their own mouths wd condemn
them, and show the fallacy of all their boasted
glorying of a regular descent.
Then, in what respect do they resemble Bap¬
tists of the present day ? Is it in setting up a
Church of their own, as did Montanus ? Is it
in ignoring all philosophy and polite literature,
for which the primitive Baptists are so pro¬
verbial, and in which they so much glory ? Was
their excommunication from the Church because
of their profane heresies the persecution that
306
baptist pretensions
Baptists laud them for ? Is excommunication a
persecution ? Then, do Baptists persecute some
of their very best members, as we shall show
before we close this book. Thus much for a
commencement in the line of succession. Reader,
how does it look 1
Section II.—The Novatians.
Next come the Novatians, which are placed as
taking their rise about A. D. 250. And why do
Baptists claim these ? Why, forsooth, they were
persecuted, say they; held to immersion and be¬
lievers' baptism. Orchard's History, pp. 53-63;
87, 123.
A#few facts from history we will now present
in regard to them. And, first, Mr. Orchard
himself says, on page 53, that " one Novatian, a
presbyter in the Church of Rome, strongly op¬
posed the readmissions of apostates," etc., and
that he "was the first to begin a separate
interest with success." "There was no differ¬
ence in point of doctrine between the Nova¬
tians and other Christians." P. 54. Again:
" These sealed witnesses, (Rev. vii. 3,) were the
first Protestant dissenters from assuming hierar¬
chies; and it is most gratifying to be able to
prove ourselves the successors of a class of men
TO ANTIQUITY.
307
who first set the example o£ contending for the
purity and simplicity of Christian worship, and
a firm adherence to the laws of the King of
Zion." P. 63.
" Novatianists," says Mr. Benedict, p. 51,
" broke off from the Church of Rome in 250."
And, on page 4, he says: "As this is the first
party of importance who were acknowledged to be
sound in doctrine, which withdrew from the estab¬
lished Church, it is proper to give a full account
of the reasons which led to the separation," etc.
Elder Haynes also says "Novatian" was "an
elder in the Church of Rome." Bap. Denom.,
p. 42.
Mr. Jones, another Baptist, says that "Nova-
tian was the first instance of those who withdrew
from the Church of Rome." " Church History,
pp. 151, 152.
Mosheim informs us that Novatian was ant
elder in the Church Of Romethat he " enter*
tained the most unfavorable sentiments of those
who had been separated from the communion of
the Church;" that "he indulged his inclinations
to severity so far as to deny that such as had
fallen into the commission of grieypus trans¬
gressions, especially those who had apostatized
from the faith, under the persecutions set on
308 baptist pretensions
foot by Decius, were to be again received into
the bosom of the Church." Cornelius, among
others, was of a different opinion. And when
Cornelius was elected bishop instead of Nova-
tian, "Novatian, upon this, separated himself
from the jurisdiction of Cornelius;" whereupon
Cornelius, with a council at Rome, cut him and
his partisans off from the Church. " This
turbulent man, being thus excommunicated,
erected a new society, of which he was the
first bishop." "They considered the Christian
Church as a society where virtue and innocence
reigned universally, and none of whose mem¬
bers, from their entrance into it, had defiled
themselves with any enormous crimes; and, of
consequence, they looked upon every society
which readmitted heinous offenders to its com¬
munion, as unworthy of the title of a true Chris¬
tian Church. Hence, they assumed the title
of Cathari, i. e., the Pure; and, what showed
still a more extravagant degree of vanity and
arrogance, they obliged such as came over to them,
from the general body of Christians, to submit
to be baptized a second time, as a necessary
preparation for entering into their society,"
and considered the baptism in other Churches
as null and void.
TO ANTIQUITY.
309
By consulting Wall's History of Infant Bap¬
tism, vol. ii., p. 386, etc.; and Bingham's An¬
tiquities of the Christian Church, Book xi.,
chap, xi., sec. 5, the reader will find another
fact worthy to be remembered just here; which
is, that Novatian was baptized by POURING;
which Elder Haynes endeavors to soften, or
apologize for, by saying " it was on a sick-bed,
and wa^ before his views had matured, and forms
an exception to their general rule." Bap. De-
nom., p. 42.
Take a view of this link in the chain, reader,
and tell us what you think of it? Bear in mind,
the positions of Baptists are, that baptism can
only be administered, properly and scripturally,
by one who has been immersed by one who has
himself also beqn immersed, and so on up the
stream of time; and that Baptists have existed
as a body of such regularly immersed ones from
the days of John the Baptist. But does the
case of Novatian look very Baptistic in this re¬
gard ? He was baptized by pouring, and that,
too, by a minister in the Church of Home. He
was an elder or presbyter in the Church of
Rome, and, Baptists themselves being judges,
separated from that Church, and set up one of
his own.
810 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
Do these things agree very well with all theii
boasted line of succession ? Is here not another
link broken, or at least wanting, in the chain ?
Who baptized Novatian, and who baptized his bap-
tizer ? Ministers undoubtedly in the Church of
Rome. Then, were the persons baptized by No¬
vatian scripturally baptized, according to Baptisfc-
ic notions? If the baptisms performed by Nova¬
tian were valid, why are the baptisms performed
" by others than Baptists now-a-days invalid ? Can
they answer that question ? Will not the same
reason that establishes the validity of Novatian
baptisms establish ours ? If one be valid, why not
the other ? Can Baptists answer that question ?
But, Elder Haynes says, it " forms an excep¬
tion to their general rule," though he does "not
deem it necessary to prove that in the different
periods there were no exceptions to the general
rule, though ordinarily any exception cannot be
proved." History Bap. Denom., pp. 42, 43.
Yet, we would say to Mr. Haynes, here is an ex-
ception to the rule, by your own admission, and
this one exception overthrows all your boasted
theory of a regular line, or chain of succession,
even if it be but an ordinary exception. Succes¬
sion indeed ! Verily, this is a great humbug, to
humbug the illiterate.
TO ANTIQUITY.
311
But are there no points of resemblance be¬
tween these Novatians and Baptists ? Cer¬
tainly there are; a few of which we will note.
In the first place, Baptists re-baptize those who
go from other Christian communions to them,
not considering their baptism valid; so did the
Novatians. Then, the Baptists look upon them¬
selves, above all others, as the purest people on
earth; so did the Novatians, and, hence, called
themselves Cathari, or the Pure, by way of pre¬
eminence. Baptists profess to receive n^ne into
the Church but those that are truly converted
to God—those regenerated of the Holy Ghost;
so did the Novatians "consider the Christian
Church as a society where virtue and innocence
reigned universally." If such is to be the char¬
acter of God's visible Church on earth, how is
it to be brought about ? Who can tell or discern
the spirit that is in man ? Can we read the
hearts of the children .of men ? Are all those
who are members of Baptist Churches pure and
innocent ? Are they all truly converted to God ?
Will they be so vain and arrogant as to make
such a presumption? But, replies a Baptist,
" persons have to profess conversion before we re¬
ceive them." True enough. But does th.&t pro¬
fession constitute conversion? Will they dare
312 baptist pretensions
/
say so? If so, then, when any one of them
commits a flagrant act, why expel him ? Can
he fall from, grace ? For their position amounts
to this: if they are converted, and then do a bad
act, in such case a Christian may fall from grace.
Here is a dilemma; which horn of it will they
choose ?
Another point of resemblance, in so far as we
can see it, is, Novatian assumed the right to set
up a new society and call it the only true
Church of God. So, according to the admis¬
sions of Baptists themselves, as we shall show the
reader, they have assumed to erect a new organi¬
zation—if organization it can he called—and
entitled it the only Church of God on earth.
But again: "Novatian broke off from the
Church of Rome." So did Roger Williams,
when he founded the Baptist Church in Provi¬
dence, Rhode Island, brealt off from the Es¬
tablished Church of England. Speaking of
this subject, we are led to inquire, Which is the
true Church, the one from which Novatian broke
off, and which was already in existence, and con¬
sequently the oldest, or the one—the new one—
that he set up ? Then, which is the true Church
amongst Baptists, the Missionary Baptists, or
the Primitives, or HaVdshells ?
TO ANTIQUITY..
313
But we will desist from such analogies, and
close with an extract or two on the character of
Novatian. Mosheim tells us, notwithstanding
he was a man of eloquence and intelligence, he
was a turbulent man. Cyprian says " Novatian
was no bishop, since there could not be a second
after the first; [Cornelius having then been
made Bishop of Rome;] but he was an adulterer,
and a foreigner, and ambitious usurper of another
man's Church, who had been regularly ordained
before him." And the whole African Council
replied to his "communicatory letter," "that
he was an alien; and that none of them could
communicate with him, who had attempted to
erect a profane altar, and set up an adulterous
chair, and offer sacrilegious sacrifices against
Cornelius, the true bishop; who had been or¬
dained by the approbation of God, and the
suffrages of the clergy and people." Bingham's
Antiquities, Book II., ch. xiii., sec. 1.
The Novatians " condemned second marriages,
and for ever excluded from their communion all
those who, after baptism, had fallen into this
sin. They affected very superior purity; and
though they conceived a sinner might possi¬
bly hope for eternal life, they absolutely refused
to readmit into their communion any who had
314 baptist pretensions
lapsed into sin} and separated from the Church
of Rome, because the members of it had ad¬
mitted into their communion many who had,
during a season of persecution,' rejected the
Christian faith." Gregory's Church History,
Century iii., ch. iii.
Such was Novatian and the Novatianists, as
claimed by Baptists as bona fide Baptists, and
as their ancestors. We will freely give them all
the benefits, if any there be, accruing therefrom,
if they will just explain that exception in the
case of Novatian, having been baptized by pour¬
ing ; and how it comes that a baptistic immer¬
sion could be properly derived from pouring?
But the link in the chain here is broken, which
spoils all their line of succession, and throws a
damper on all their joy.
Section III.—The Donatists.
The next link in the chain is that of the
Donatists, who derived their name from one
Donatus, an African bishop, who "fomented
fresh discords" concerning a certain vacant bish¬
opric in the Church, which was supplied with¬
out his having been consulted. The controversy
ran very high, and resulted, as we shall see, in
civil tear. This sect arose about A.I). 311, as
TO ANTIQUITY.
315
Mr. Orchard has said. The Donatists were se-
ceders from the Church, and maintained nearly
the same opinions as the Novatians; re-bap¬
tizing all who came over to them from the
Church, considering their baptism invalid, and
themselves the pure and only Church.
" The schism of the Donatists was an impetu¬
ous torrent, which inundated and desolated the
adjacent country." Gregory's Church History,
Century iv., ch. iv. Mosheim says it was "a
new and much more formidable faction started
up in Africa, which, though it arose from small
beginnings, afflicted most grievously both Church
and State for more than a century." " These
unhappy commotions gave rise, no doubt, to a
horrible confederacy of desperate ruffians, who
passed under the name of Circumcelliones. This
furious, fearless, and bloody set of men, com¬
posed of the rough and savage populace who em¬
braced the party of the Donatists, maintained
their cause by the force of arms, and, overrun¬
ning all Africa, filled that province with slaughter
and rapine, and committed the most enormous
acts of perfidy and cruelty against the followers
of Csecilianus. This outrageous multitude con¬
tributed to render the sect of the Donatists an
object of the utmost abhorrence." They "con-
316 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
tinued to support the cause of the Donatists by
assassinations and massacres, executed with the
most unrelenting fury." Church History, cen¬
tury iv.
Here, then, is another divergence from the
Church. Who baptized Donatus ? and how was
he baptized ? Can Baptists show ihat he was
baptized in a regular line from the apostles ?
No use to say, " We take it for granted he was."
Nay, sir, we take nothing.for granted, in this
matter. The facts, and the proofs of those facts,
must be given, before we concede the assump¬
tions and pretensions set up.
Cannot any one see that Donatus was a min¬
ister in the Church, and that he brohe off from
it, and set up a new party ? Had Donatus a
right to do this ? and is this legal and scriptural
with Baptists ? What, then, is the matter with
all other Protestant denominations of Christians,
that renders them unchristian and unecclesias-
tical, and Baptists alone right? Who can tell?
History, it is seen, testifies that he was a
schismatic; that he set up a new Church, which
became quite a formidable faction, etc. And yet
this man is held up as being in the regular line
of descent from John the Baptist. Wonder if
John ever baptized anybody that baptized Dona-
TO ANTIQUITY.
317
tus ? Until Baptists prove this point, all their
'claims to him will be of -no avail.
But Baptists make a great ado about their
having been persecuted in all ages. Were the
Donatists persecuted ? Call you that persecution
when the civil arm is used to put down strifes,
commotions, tumults, treachery, rapine, and
bloodshed? See ye not that it was the Donatists,
or a party of them, that was waging a warfare
upon the Church of a most desperate character ?
and that the State was constrained by force to
repress it ? These are Baptists, are they ? And
are these the ancestors of those who boast so
much of liberty of conscience ? It is an old
saying, "Like parent, like child." We leave
the reader for the present to make the applica¬
tion. But more anon.
Dr. Wall, in his " History of Infant Baptism,"
shows clearly, after a strict examination of the
sect called Donatists, that they were Pedobap-
tists) that is, those who baptized infants. After
giving his authorities, he says: " This shows
plainly that the Donatists, as well as. Catholics,
baptized in infancy." "The account that is
given by all the rest that write histories of the
several sects in particular, viz., that among all
that vast number of sects, and their several
318
BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
opinions which they recite, they mention none
that denied baptism to»infants." History of In¬
fant Baptism, vol. i., pp. 311, 498, etc.
Next hear Mr. Benedict: "Although some at
least of all parties of these ancient dissenters, as
we shall soon see, were so often accused of re¬
jecting infant baptism, yet it is by no means im¬
probable that a portion of them held on to the
system after renouncing most of the ceremonies
of the Church of Home, and that Baptists and
Pedobaptists lived together without any very
distinctive lines of demarcation between them."
"Those who came out from old ecclesiastical
establishments, generally throw off their doc¬
trines by slow degrees." History of Baptists,
pp. 60, 61.
Mr. Orchard says: " The Donatists did not
differ from the Catholics in doctrine, but in
morals; and they seceded on the grounds of dis¬
cipline from the community." History, p. 86.
Mark these admissions of Baptists. Mr. Ben¬
edict says, " Baptists and Pedobaptists lived to¬
gether without any very distinctive lines of de¬
marcation;" that these persons, or sects, came
out of the old ecclesiastical establishments; and
that the sects threw off the doctrines of the es¬
tablishment by slow degrees. The inference is,
TO ANTIQUITY.
319
then, beyond all doubt, that th^e Donatists, if
they ever rejected infant baptism, did so after
some considerable length of time, and by slow
degrees. And we think this inference is con¬
firmed by Mr. Orchard's admission, that "the
Donatists did not differ from the Catholics in
doctrine, and that they seceded on the grounds
of discipline," and not doctrines.
From wbat we have said heretofore, we have
seen that the doctrine of the Church was to
baptize infants Take all the above historical
facts into the account, then, as admitted by Bap¬
tists themselves, and how can they evade the
point that the Donatists were not Baptists who
rejected infant baptism 'I What becomes of their
claim, after this, to this ancient sect ? If, after
all that has been said in reference to them, they
still persist in claiming them, they are hesfTtily
welcome to them.
In conclusion, bear what Dr. Wall says again
upon this point: " The Novatians and Donatists
are also brought in by the same writer as ad¬
versaries of Pedobaptism, [infant baptism.]
Though both these parties of men were schis¬
matics, and forsook the communion of the estab¬
lished Churches in those times, yet their differ¬
ences having been rather in points of discipline
320 ba"ptist pretensions
than of faith, and they having heen at some
times of the Church very numerous, and the
time of their flourishing within our limited
period of four hundred years, an argument from
their practice of keeping infants unbaptized
would be considerable. But it would be withal
a very strange discovery, since there are so many
books extant, written at the same time by Cyp¬
rian, Eusebius, Optatus, Austin, etc., containing
a ventilation of all disputes between the Catho¬
lics and these men, in which nothing has ever
been observed that should intimate that they had
any such practice or opinion. For among all the
reasons that the Donatists (who rebaptized such
as, having been baptized by Catholics, came
afterward over to them) gave why the baptism
of the Catholics was null, there is none that lays
any blame on their giving it in infancy. But,
on the contrary, St. Austin does often make use
of the instance of infant baptism, as granted by
them, to overthrow some other errors that they
had about baptism." History of Inf. Bap., vol.
ii., pp. 129, 130.
This is an important matter brought out by
Dr. Wall, which we desire particularly noted by
every one. It clearly sets forth the facts that the
Donatists were schismatics, and withdrew from
to antiquity.
321
the Church, not on account of doctrinal, but dis¬
ciplinary differences; and that they practiced
infant baptism—though we almost fear to men¬
tion this, for Baptists might tell it—that their
practice of infant baptism was the cause of all
the bloodshed and civil and ecclesiastical troubles
that they brought upon the world; yet we will
say, from the lights before us, these Donatists
were not Baptists such as we have in our day—
quite a difference in some things, while a striking
resemblance appears in others.
Section IY.—The Paulicians.
The Paulicians present themselves as the next
link in the chain of Baptist succession. Mr.
Haynes says, "Of the Baptist element in this
people there can be no doubt." Bap. Denom.,
p. 44. (See also Orchard and Benedict.)
He also says: " This sect appeared about a. D.
653, in Greece. In A. D. 1017, they appeared in
Europe, at Orleans." Ibid, 44. Mr. Benedict
says the Paulicians " were a very important com¬
pany of Greek Dissentersand, quoting from
Orchard, says : " It was about the year 653 that
a new sect arose in the East under the name of
Paulicians." History, p. 11. Dr. Brown, <n
his Religious Encyclopedia, article, Pauliciansy
11
322 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
says they were " a numerous body of Greek Pro¬
testant Dissenters."
We have given these extracts to show the
reader tjie origin of this sect. The year 653 is
given as the time of their appearance. They are
said to be "Dissenters"—Protestant Dissenters—
a new sect, which sprang up in the Greek
Church. The reader will bear in mind that
Baptists nowadays will not admit that they are
Dissenters, Protestants, sects, etc., for that im¬
plies there were those before them in existence,
and that they themselves were not the first
Church, which would be humiliating to acknow¬
ledge. But we see the above Baptist authors
do tacitly acknowledge that the Paulicans are
younger than others.
Now we desire to know who baptized the
founder of the Paulicans. Did he receive it
from a presbyter, or priest, in the Greek Church?
Will Baptists be so good as to prove up their
line of baptism through this sect ? If they can¬
not, then is here another link broken, and the
chain worthless.
Mark again the tangent here presented. The
other sects we have noticed as claimed by them
broke off from the Church of Rome; this sect
from the Greek Church : the one from the Past-
TO ANTIQUITY.
323
em, the other from the Western Church. These
are opposite the one to* the other; yet the one
is as regular a link in the chain as the other.
Strange that things so opposite should prove a
matter requiring a direct line of argument and
facts.
That some of them were good people we may
readily grant, hut that they held some very erro¬
neous doctrines is quite evident. Mosheim says,
" They deny that this inferior and visible world
is the production of the Supreme Being, and
they distinguish the creator of this world and of
human bodies from the Most High God, who
dwells in the heavens." This was a tenet of the
Gnostics, and hence the Paulicians were looked
upon as Manicheans by the Greeks, which ren¬
dered them odious in their sight. Again: " It
is evident," says Mosheim, "beyond all contra¬
diction, that the Paulicians, in imitation of ori¬
ental philosophers, from whom the Gnostics and
Manicheans derived their origin, considered
eternal matter as the seat and source of all evil;
but they believed at the same time, like many of
the Gnostics, that this matter, endued from all
eternity with life and motion, had produced an
actiye principle, which was the fountain of vice,
misery, and disorder. This principle, according
324 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
to them, is the author of all material substances,
while God is the Creator and FatheT of spirits."
" They refused to celebrate the holy institution
of the Lord's Supper." " They rejected, after
the example of the greatest part of the Gnostics,
the books of the Old Testament, and looked upon
the writers of that sacred history as inspired by
the creator of this world, and not by the Su¬
preme God."
Furthermore, "In explaining, however, the
doctrines of the gospel, they often departed from
the literal sense and the natural signification of
the words, [which is very common in these days
among a certain class of Baptist preachers, in
which there is a great resemblance—quite a
" Baptist element,"] and interpreted them in a
forced and allegorical manner when they opposed
their favorite opinions and tenets; [quite Bap-
tistic again;] and such more especially were
the delusive and erroneous explications which
they gave of what is said in the gospel concern¬
ing the institutions of baptism and the Lord's
Supper, and the Divine authority of the Old
Testament, all which they obstinately rejected.
Beside the books of the New Testament, they
treated with a particular veneration certain epis¬
tles of -Sergius, the most eminent and illustrious
TO ANTIQUITY.
325
doctor of their sect." Church History, vol. ii.,
pp. 60-71.
After they appeared at Orleans, in Europe,
they " looked with contempt upon all external
worship, rejected all rites and ceremonies, and
even the Christian sacraments, as destitute of
any, even the least, spiritual efficacy or virtue;
placed the whole of religion in the internal con¬
templation of God," etc. "They considered
marriage as a pernicious institution, and ab¬
surdly condemned, without distinction, all con¬
nubial bonds." Ibid, pp. 222-224.
Again: " Instead of confessing the human
nature and substantial sufferings of Christ, they
amused their fancy with a celestial body, which
-passed through the Virgin, like water through a
pipe; and with a fantastic crucifixion that eluded
the impotent malice of the Jews. Their unphi-
losophical creed extended also to the eternity of
matter." Ruter's Gregory's Church History, p.
154.
" Some of them entered into a league with the
Saracens, and, choosing for their chief an officer
of the greatest resolution and valor, whose name
Was Carbeus, they declared against the Greeks a
war, which was carried on for fifty years with
•326 baptist pretensions
the greatest vehemence and fury." Relig. Ency.
And so attest Gregory and Mosheim.
Does the reader find much " Baptist element"
amongst this sect? He finds some, it is true.
But, then, in producing this people to prove
their point, they prove too much. The Pauli-
cians ignored all external worship and the sacra¬
ments. But Baptists do not so. These lay a great
deal of stress on water and the Lord's Supper.
Take them all in all, we would beg to be excused
from following them; and candidly we must con¬
fess that this link in their chain would be the
better if left out. But, if they will persist in
their choice of them, then they will let us be
free to say, that we are not disposed at all to re¬
ceive baptism or the ^Lord's Supper coming
through such a channel, [gggf] Talk of Popish
errors and corruptions, will you! Are there such
errors and corruptions among the Roman Catho¬
lics? Yet Paulicians are Baptists, "true-blue,"
are they ? What think ye of this link in the
chain ?
Section Y.—The Paterines.
The Paterines went by different names, such
as Manicheans, Gazari, (the German for Cathari,)
TO ANTIQUITY.
327
Josephists, and Passigines. In France, they
were called Bulgarians and Albigenses; in Italy,
Paterini and Cathari, (the Pure.) Their date is
set down by historians from the tenth to the thir¬
teenth centuries. See Benedict's History, pp.
16, 17.
Here they are called "Dissenters" from the
Church of Rome. Now, we would not detract
an iota from the purity of any sect; yet, when
any such sect sets itself up for the only people of
God upon earth, it will he well enough to exam¬
ine a little into its doctrines and practices.
" They rejected baptism, and in a more especial
manner, infant baptism, as a ceremony that was
in no respect essential to salvation. They re¬
jected for the same reason the sacrament of the
Lord's Supper." "Among the sects that troubled
the Latin Church during this century, the prin¬
cipal place is due to the Catharists. . . . This
numerous faction, leaving their first residence,
which was in Bulgaria, spread themselves
throughout almost all the European provinces,
where they occasioned much tumult and disorder.
But their fate was unhappy, for wherever they
were caught, they were put to death with the
most unrelenting cruelty. Their religion resem¬
bled the doctrine of the Manicheans and Gnos-
328 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
tics, on which account they commonly received
the denomination of the former, though they
differ from the genuine and primitive Maniche-
ans in many respects. They all, indeed, agreed
in the following points of doctrines, viz,, that
matter was the source of all evil; that the creator
of this world was a being distinct from the Su¬
preme Deity.} that Christ was not clothed with a
real body, neither could be properly said to have
been born, or to have seen death; that human
bodies were the production of the evil principle;
and that baptism and the Lord's Supper were
useless institutions, destitute of all efficacy and
power, They exhorted all who embraced their
doctrine to a vigorous abstinence from animal
food, wine, and wedlock. . . . They, moreover,
treated with the utmost contempt all the books
of the Old Testament, but expressed a high de¬
gree of veneration for the New, particularly for
the four Gospels; and to pass over many other
peculiarities in their doctrine, they maintained,
that human souls, endued with reason, were shut
up by an unhappy fate in the dungeons of mortal
bodies, from, whence they qould only be delivered
by fasting, mortification, and continence of every
kind." Mosheim's Church Histpry, Cent, xii.,
chap. v.
TO ANTIQUITY. 329
"The Paterines knew their discipline could
not possible be practiced in the Church; they,
therefore, withdrew, constantly avowing. . . the
competency... of women to teach. . . . The wis¬
dom of the Paterines in separating wholly from
the Roman Church appears in a striking light
when contrasted with the weakness of those who
continued in that communion, and endeavored to
incorporate the morality of the Paterines into
the established Church, in order to reform the
community/' Orchard's History, pp. 156, 157.
Here it is seen clearly that the Paterines orig¬
inated in the Roman Church, and endeavored to
reform it. They may be styled Reformers. But
Baptists contend that they (the Baptists) are not
reformers, inasmuch as they claim to be older
than all other Churches. How, then, can they
lay claim to the Paterines, who 'separated from
the Roman Church ? They certainly were mem¬
bers of that Chureh before they Separated from
it. For they could not separate from that with¬
out having been connected with it. If so, from
Whence did they derive their baptism ? Home,
honor bright, all ye Baptists who eontend for a
regular succession, can ye show who first bap¬
tized the Paterines ? And can ye trace yout line
back to them ? Have ye been baptised in a regip
330 baptist pretensions
lar line from'them ? If so, then does not your
baptism come through corrupt Romanism ? How
can ye escape this conclusion ?
Then look back on the doctrines they taught.
Do Baptists in these days entertain the same
opinions ? Do they believe it right for women
to teach, in contradiction to the doctrine of St.
Paul to the Corinthians ? Do they believe with
the Paterines in those Manichean doctrines, above
alluded to ? And yet these are the people whom
Baptists hold as the only true followers of Christ,
and themselves as regular descendants from them.
Section VI.—The Arnoldists.
In this connection we cannot well pass by a
sect known as the Arnoldists, from Arnold, of
Brescia; and because this man, who, as we are
told by Baptists, was opposed to infant baptism,
is claimed by them as a regular link in their
chain of succession. And he is canonized by
them because he " was crucified, and afterward
burned to ashes." But why was such a persecu¬
tion raised against him ? and why did he meet
such an unhappy end ? Mosheim informs us that
he " seems not to have adopted any doctrines in¬
consistent with the spirit of true religion; and
the principles upon which he acted were chiefly
TO ANTIQUITY.
331
reprehensible from tbeir being carried too far,
applied without discernment and discretion, and
executed with a degree of vehemence which was as
criminal as it was imprudent." " He was per¬
suaded that the interests of the Church, and
the happiness of nations in general, required
that the clergy should be divested of all
their worldly possessions, of all their temporal
rights and prerogatives/' and these things he
" maintained publicly." " This violent reformer"
as Mosheim terms him, was " also of a turbulent
and impetuous spirit," and "excited new troubles
and commotions, both in Church and State."
And upon the death of Innocent II., "he re¬
turned into Italy, and raised at Rome, during the
pontificate of Eugenius III., several tumults and
seditions among the people, who changed, by his
instigations, the government of the city, and in~
suited the persons of the clergy in the most disor¬
derly manner" History, Cent, xii., Part II.,
ch. v., sec. x.
Can it be possible that Baptists are descend¬
ants of this man ? They say they are. A beau¬
tiful picture, is it not, for one of their ancestors ?
Ah, but he was persecuted ! That is the old cry.
Persecuted ! Well, how was he persecuted ? and
what for? History, as seen above, informs us
332 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
he "maintained publicly" "that the clergy should
be divested of all their worldly possessions, tem¬
poral rights, and prerogatives j" that he was a
violent man, turbulent and impetuous, and " ex¬
cited new troubles in Church and State j" that
he changed the government of the city, and in¬
sulted. the clergy.
We do not say that he merited crucifixion;
but should any person arise in these days and
treat Baptist ministers and people thus, change our
laws, excite troubles and commotions in Church
and State, would Baptists themselves let him go
unpunished in some way or other ? It is con¬
trary to the laws of the human mind, contrary
to all the history of the past, contrary to the
genius of all ecclesiastical and civil economy to
suppose that such a one should be let go free,
and never called to account in some way for
his turbulent, violent, and impetuous course.
We leave the reader, however, to his own re¬
flections upon this link in the Baptist chain,
merely asking him how he likes it, and what he
thinks of being in this line of Popish descent?
For Popish it is.
to antiquity.
333
Section YII.—The Waldenses.
We need not detain the reader with noticing,
singly, every one of those sects which Baptists
claim as their ancestors* The result would be
the same in such cases as has been in those
already noted; namely, that the chain is so evi¬
dently broken up, that no trace of succession can
be seen. We will, however, make a few remarks
upon a sect very much depended upon by Bap¬
tists in their efforts to mkintain a regular line of
descent.
The Waldenses are great favorites with them.
But we shall not detain you with an inquiry into
their origin. The learned have not agreed upon
this question in any satisfactory manner, and we
could only give the conflicting results of their
inquiries. What we desire' just now, to expose
their pretension to this people, is to show, by in¬
troducing two points, that they will avail Baptists
nothing.
Mosheim represents this people as being Dis¬
senters from and ' Reformers of the Church of
Rome. History, Cent, xii., Part II., chap, v.,
sec. xi., xii. Agreeably to this are the admis¬
sions of Baptists of no mean note. Dr. Brown
says they, were " the most celebrated body of
334 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
Protestant Dissenters during the Middle Ages."
Rel. Ency., article, Waldenses. Mr. Jones de¬
clares as follows : " In the first plac$, they were
Dissenters — Protestant Dissenters — Dissenters
upon principle, not only from the Church of
Rome, but also from all national establishments
of religion." Preface to the fifth edition of his
Church History, p. xxv. Mr. Benedict, on pp. 60,
72, 73, calls them "the largest and most import¬
ant branch of all Dissenters and Protestants in
the dark ages." " The if aldenses, with their va¬
rious branches, embraced the sum and substance
of all the evangelical Dissenters from the great
Churches of the Greeks and Romans for many
centuries, and ipere 'properly the ante-Lutheran
Protestants."
If, now, they were "Dissenters and Protest¬
ants," then it follows that those from whom they
dissented, and against whom they protested, were
at least as old, or older than they. Then, what
is gained to Baptists from them so far as anti¬
quity is concerned? And, if we take another
statement of Baptists as true, it will ruin their
cause. That is, it is held by some of them that
Claude, Bishop of Turin, in the ninth century,
was their first pastor. A Bishop in another Church
pastor of the Waldenses! Well, that will do.
TO ANTIQUITY.
335
The next point we wish to mark in reference
to them is, that infant baptism was practiced
amongst them. This is the more important, be¬
cause Baptists nowadays would make you believe,
if they could, that such a practice was altogether
unknown among them.
We suppose Mr. Benedict to be good authority
among Baptists; therefore we shall introduce his
testimony first, and that will prepare the way for
what we shall afterwards adduce. He says:
"Those who contend that 'the Waldenses, as a
whole, always baptized their children/ and those
who maintain that the practice was not known
among them, mutually place themselves in an
extremely awkward position, since facts in his¬
tory are continually coming up which most cate¬
gorically disprove both these statements. I would
as soon attempt to affirm or deny the practice
of Pedobaptism among the Dissenters and Non¬
conformists of England, of all classes, for many
centuries past, as to establish either of the above
theories." " This view of the diversified cha¬
racter of this great people enables us, as Bap¬
tists, to meet our opponents in an open field
which we may range all round, and, if we can
prove, as we certainly can, that a portion of them
rejected infant baptism, our maiu position is
386 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
established. No writer on our side should lay
claim to all who passed under the general names
of Waldenses, Albigenses, Paterines, Picards,
etc.) all Protestants, to be sure, have generally
done so, and 1 have become so ineffably disgusted
with their sweeping pretensions, in opposition to
so many facts of history, and especially to Catho¬
lic impeachments of the A ntipedobaptist heresy
of some of them, that I am sorry to see any of
our people follow their example." History of
Baptists, Preface, p. iii.
Again : "Although some at least of all parties
of these ancient Dissenters, as we shall soon see,
were so often accused of rejecting infant bap¬
tism, yet it is by no means improbable that a
portion of them held on to the system after re¬
nouncing most of the ceremonies of the Church
of Rome, and that Baptists and Pedobaptists
lived together without any very distinctive lines
of demarcation between them, much as they did
in England for a long course of years after Bap¬
tist sentiments began to prevail in that kingdom."
Particularly note the whole of the above quota¬
tion. Then " it is equally unwise for either Bap¬
tist or Pedobaptist to claim them all. The same
may be said of most other large parties. That
some of them rejected infant baptism, and that
to antiquity*.
337
others held on to the system, is as clear to my
mind at that they were all persecuted by the
Church of Rome."
" The infant system is about the last thing that
is given up by those who withdraw from the old
corrupt establishments) and they recede from it
with slow reluctant steps, one after another."
"All reformations are apt to be partial and im¬
perfect in their outset, and the currents of re¬
form, like those of natural streams, which have
long been pent up in impure reservoirs, are gen¬
erally turbulent and muddy in their beginning,
but gain in clearness and purity as they proceed."
" Many, and probably most of the old reformers,
-did not begin with infant baptism in their-attacks
on the overwhelming and debasing corruptions of
the Church of Rome; but they laid down prin¬
ciples which carried their followers forward by
progressive steps on to gospel ground, and led
them, like an army of Samsons, to put their
shoulders against what Dr. Grill has denominated
the main post and pillar of popery." "My main
object in the beginning of this article was not to
claim the whole body of old Dissenters of the
better class, but to exhibit a series of facts which
would go to show to the minds of candid men of
all parties that we have good reason to believe
338 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
that Baptist sentiments have lived in every age,
from the apostles to the- present time." History,
pp. 61, 72, 73."
"Mr. Tombes says: 'As for the Albigenses
and Waldenses, it might be true that some might
be against infant baptism, yet others not; or it
may be that they all at the beginning held so,
but after left it.' And Mr. Danvers: 'Neither
would I be thought to assert such an universal
harmony amongst the Waldenses in this thing,
[of infant baptism,] but that it is possible there
might be some difference among some of them,
even in this particular.'" Baptist authors, quoted
by Dr. Wall, vol. ii., p. 248.
We shall give a few extracts from John Paul
Perrin, a historian of the Waldenses, who was
of that faith and order himself, and a descendant
of the Waldenses also. He says: " The fourth
calumnie was touching baptisme, which, it is
said, they [the. Waldenses] denied to little in¬
fants ; but from this imputation they quit them¬
selves as followeth : The time and place of those
that are to be baptized is not ordained, but the
charitie and edification of the Church and con¬
gregation must serve for a rule therein, etc.; and,
therefore, they to whom the children were nearest
allied, brought their infants to be baptized, as
TO ANTIQUITY.
339
their parents, or any other whom God hath made
charitable in that kind." "King Lewis XII.,
having been informed by the enemies of the
Waldenses, dwelling in Provence, of many griev¬
ous crimes which were imposed [charged] upon
them, sent, to make inquisition in those places,
the Lord Adam Fumee, Maister of Bequests, and
a doctor of Sorbon, called Parme, who was his
confessor. They visited all the parishes and
temples, and found neither images, nor so much
as the least show of any ornaments belonging to
their masses and ceremonies of the Church of
Rome, much lesse any such crimes as were im¬
posed [charged] upon them; but rather that they
kept their Sabbathes duely, causing their child¬
ren jp he baptized according to the order of the
primitive Church, teaching them the articles of
the Christian faith and the commandments of
God."
"Touching the matter of the sacraments, it
hath been concluded by the Holy Scriptures,
that we have but two sacramental signes, the
whieh Christ Jesus hath1 left unto usj the one
is baptisme, the other the eucharist, which we re¬
ceive to shew what our perseverance in the faith
is, as wee have promised when wee were baptized,
being little infants: as also in remembrance of
34Q BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
that great benefit, which Jesus Christ hath done
unto us, when hee died for our redemption, wash¬
ing us with his most precious blood,"
"Amongst others there appeared a poore, sim¬
ple, laboring man, whom the president com¬
manded to cause his child to be RE - baptized,
which had lately been baptized by the minister
of St. John, neere Angrongne. This poore man
requested so much respite, as that hee might pray
unto God before hee answered him, which being
granted with some laughter, hee fell downe upon
his knees in the presence of nil that were there,
and his prayer being ended, hee said to the pre¬
sident, that hee woukl cause his childe to be re-
baptized upon condition that the said president
would discharge him by a bill signed witb^his
owne hand, of the sinne which hee should com¬
mit in causing it to be re-baptized, and beare one
day before God the punishment and condemna¬
tion which should befall him, taking this iniquity
upon him and his. Which the president under¬
standing, he commanded him out of his presence,
not pressing him any farther."
Furthermore, speaking of the Waldenses and
Albigenses, hq, says: " Now, this baptisme is visi¬
ble and materiall, which maketh the partie neither
good nor eyile, as it appeareth in the Scripture, by
TO ANTIQUITY.
341.
Simon Magus and Saint Paul. And, whereas,
baptisme is administered in a full congregation
of the faithfull, it is to the end that hee that is
received into the Church should be reputed held
of all for a Christian brother, and that all the
congregation might pray for him, that hee might
be a Christian. Antl for this cause it is that wee
present our children in baptisme; which they
ought to doe to whom the children are nearest,,
as their parents, and they to whom God has
given this charitie." Campbell and Kice, De¬
bate, pp. 405, 406, as quoted from Perrin.
These extracts are sufficient for our purpose.
We do not presume that infant baptism was uni¬
versally the custom, to the exclusion of the bap¬
tism of any adults. That the latter were bap--
tized we do. not call in question. But infants?
were baptized as well as they. And this fact we ■
have established beyond the shadow of a doubt,,
and that, too, by Baptist testimony. We have
shown, also, from the same kind of testimony,
that the Waldenses broke off from the Church
of Rome, and were not originally a separate and
distinct people. What advantage, then, are the
Waldenses to the Baptists ?
It is of no use to say that some of them prac¬
ticed "believer'sJbaptism" only, unless Baptists.
342 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
can show that the Waldenses existed as a distinct
people from the apostles, and derived their suc¬
cession unbroken from them, and then show their
own unbroken succession from the Waldenses.
For, unless they can do this, it is all a humbug
about their own regular descent from antiquity.
Mr. Benedict admits thai some of the Wal¬
denses did practice infant baptism, and that
others did not. Is it not just as reasonable to
suppose that the party practicing infant baptism
derived the practice from the apostles, as that
the other party derived adult baptism only from
that source ? But Mr. Benedict seems to think
that, if he can show that one party opposed in¬
fant baptism, then it follows that Baptist senti¬
ments prevailed. If that reasoning be valid, will
it not show as much for us ? Thus, if we can
show that one party of them practiced infant
baptism, then Pedobaptist sentiments prevailed.
But we have shown that such a practice as in¬
fant baptism was common, at least, not to say
prevalent; hence, Pedobaptist sentiments were
held by them.
"The present Waldenses, or Vaudois in Pied¬
mont, who are the posterity of those of old, do
practice infant bap>tism; and they were also
found in the practice of it when the Protestants
TO ANTIQUITY.
843
of Luther's Reformation sent to know their state
and doctrine, and to confer with them; and
they themselves do say thai their fathers never
practiced otherwise. And they gave proof of
it from an old book of theirs, called the Spirit¬
ual Almanack, where infant baptism is owned;
and Perrin, their historian, gives the reason of
the report that had been to the contrary, [that
is, did not baptize infants,] viz., that their an¬
cestors, ' being constrained for some hundred'
years to suffer their children to he baptized by
the priests of the Church of Rome, they de¬
ferred the doing thereof as long as they could,
because they had in detestation those human in¬
ventions that were added to the sacrament, which
they held to be the pollution thereof. And, for¬
asmuch as their own pastors were many times
abroad, employed in the service of their churches,
they could not have baptism administered to their
infants by their own ministers. For this cause
they kept them long from baptism; which the
priests perceiving, and taking notice of, charged
them with this slander.' There are many other
confessions of theirs of like import, produced by
Perrin [their own historian] Baxter, Wills, etc.
This is the account the WaldenseS give of them¬
selves in those confessions, some of which seem
344 baptist pretensions
to have been published about two hundred years
ago. One of the Bohemian Waldenses is dated
1508." Wall's History, vol. ii., pp. 240, 241.
From the above statement of Perrin, one of
their own number, is clearly seen why they de¬
ferred or kept infants long from baptism, which
We need not here repeat, and that they were
charged with slander for so doing.
So thus, by their own writers and method of
reasoning, is this link in the chain broken, and
their boasting of being descendants of this peo¬
ple shown to be unfounded. Farewell, then, to
the Waldenses being Baptists. Waldenses Bap¬
tists, are they? Bo Baptists baptize infants?
The Waldenses and Albigenses did. Who, then,
has the best right to them, Baptists or Pedobap-
tists ?
Section, YIII.—Anabaptists and Mennonites.
Let us now examine the case of the Anabap¬
tists and Mennonites. And just here Baptists
scarcely known what to say or do. They will
claim them, and then they will not. It is none
of our business to attempt to reconcile their pre¬
tensions ; but it is ours to set them forth and ex¬
pose them.
The editor of Orchard's History of Baptists,
to antiquity.
345
who is also endorsed by Baptists all through the
country, on page xvi. of his Preface to that work,
ignores the Anabaptists of the times of the Re¬
formation ; and yet, on the very same and next
pages, he hugs them to his bosom, and rejoices
in their descent from them.
Here him, as he quotes from D'Aubigne's His¬
tory of the Reformation: "One point it seems
necessary to guard against misapprehension.
Some persons imagine that the Anabaptists of
the Reformation and the Baptists of our day are
the same. But they are as different as possible,"
etc., etc. Now mark—he says " they are as dif¬
ferent as possible;" The Baptists of out day a$e
not the same as the Anabaptists of the times of
the Reformation. Stick a pin there, and hold
still a moment, and hear hinTagain, as he quotesf
approvingly and triumphantly from Mosheim
concerning this very people. Listen :
" The true origin of that sect which acquired
the name of Anabaptists, by their administering-
anew the rite of baptism to those who came oyer
to their communion, and derived that of Men-
nonites from that famous man. to whom they owe
the greatest part of their felicity, is hid in the
remotest depths of antiquity, and is, conse¬
quently, extremely difficult to be ascertained."
346 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
Quoting from Zuingulius, lie says : " 'The in¬
stitution of Anabaptism is no novelty, but for
thirteen hundred years has caused great disturb¬
ance in the Church, and has acquired such a
strength that the attempt in this age to contend
with it appeared futile for a time. This carries
our history back to A. D. 225.' " Tell us, then,
does he not in the first quotation ignore, and in
the latter claim them ? When it suits his pur¬
pose they, are of the same " kith and kin;" but
when it does not, then they are shunned. There
is many a man in this world that has " shabby"
kindred, who, in times of necessity, would gladly
receive a helping hand, but who, in times of
prosperity, and before the 61ite, would doggedly
disown them. And we suspect such people are
not all dead yet.
But who are the Anabaptists ? and when did
they originate ? In answer to the first question,
Who are they? Mosheim must tell us. The
modern Mennonites not only contend for descent
from the Waldenses, " but pretend, moreover, to
be the purest offspring of these respectable suf¬
ferers." Others represent them, says Mosheim,
" as the descendants of those turbulent and fu¬
rious Anabaptists, who, in the sixteenth century,
involved Germany, Holland, Switzerland, and
TO ANTIQUITY.
347
more especially the province of Westphalia, in
such scenes of blood, perplexity, and distress."
Neither of these accounts, this historian thinks,
is exactly correct. He places the great peculi¬
arity in their doctrine thus : " That the kingdom
of Christ, or the visible Church he had estab¬
lished upon earth, was an assembly of true and
real saints, and ought, therefore, to be inaccessi¬
ble to the wicked and unrighteous, and also ex¬
empt from all those institutions which human
prudence suggests to oppose the progress of ini¬
quity, or to correct and reform transgressors."
Such was the doctrine of Menno and the Ana¬
baptists. Now, if it be meant that others ante¬
rior to them held this same doctrine, and that
because they of a later date hold the same doc¬
trine that shows a succession and constitutes
a regular descent, then we will agree for a
moment that they are descendants of some be¬
fore them. But upon the very same ground we
would and could show that we, as Methodists,
have descended, not only from St. Paul, but
even from the Church of God in the days of
Abel and Adam.
It avails nothing for Baptists to assert that, be¬
cause they hold the same doctrines as ancient
sects, therefore they are the true Church, and
348 BAPTIST PRE TENS TONS
all others else without God and hope in the
world, when they cannot prove a .regular chain
of baptisms. For, be it remembered, their pre¬
tension in these days is, that a person to take the
sacrament of the Lord's Supper must have been
immersed by one who has Jbeen immersed, and so
on, in a regular line of descent from John the
Baptist.
But to return. Baptists would make you be¬
lieve that, as they are descendants from these
ancient sects, they are the true Church of Christ.
But does this at all follow as a legitimate conse-
•quence? Then, upon the same grounds, may
Boman Catholics argue that they, are the true
'and only Church. And so they do.
Again: Baptists, when presenting their claim
to antiquity, and presuming to come through the
Anabaptists, would make you believe that this
sect was almost coeval with the apostles; for'
they are ever quoting these words of Mosheim
in reference to them: The origin of the Ana¬
baptists " is hid in the remotest depths of an¬
tiquity, and is, of consequence, extremely diffi¬
cult to be ascertained." One would think from
these words that " the memory of man runneth
not back" to the time, nor history records the
period, when they sprang up. And so Baptists
to antiquity.
349
would have you believe. That is the impression
they ever seek to make.
But does Mosheim intend to convey any such
impression ? That the reader may see that he
does not, we will quote a little more than our
Baptist friends do. The sake of truth must
atone for the length of the quotation. "The
true origin of that sect which acquired the de¬
nomination of Anabaptists, by their administer¬
ing anew the rite of baptism to those who came
over to their communion, and derived that of
Mennonites, from the famous man to whom they
owe the greatest part of their present felicity, is
hid in the remote depths of antiquity, and is, of
consequence, extremely difficult to be ascertained.
This uncertainty wiW not appear surprising when
it is considered that this sect started up, all of a
sudden, in several countries, at the same point
of time, under leaders of different talents and
different intentions, and at the very period when
the first contests of the reformers with the Roman
pontiffs drew the attention of the world, and em-
-ployed the pens of the learned in such a manner
as to render all other objects and incidents al¬
most matters of indifference/'
Here, then, is Mosheim's " remote depths of
antiquity" illustrated. He tells you this sect
350 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
started up, all of a sudden, in several countries,
at the same point of time; and this "point of
time" was "when the first contests of the Reform¬
ers with the Roman pontiffs drew the attention
of the world, and employed the pens of the
learned." Then "the remote depths of an¬
tiquity" are not so remote after all. If the time
can be ascertained when the first contests of the
reformers with the Roman pontiffs occurred—
and it certainly can—and when the subject at¬
tracted the attention of the world, and engaged
the pens of the learned, then the point is gained
when they started up. The items furnished by
Mosheim settle the date of their origin about the
time of the beginning of the Reformation under
Luther. Then he places them—the Anabaptists
—in the sixteenth century.
Goodrich, quoting from Bogne", says of the
Anabaptists that, " as a distinct community, they
appear not to have existed till about the time of
Luther." " But, however the antiquity or origin
of the sect may be settled, it appears probable
that, as a distinct communion—a regular sect—
it may he dated about the year 1536, and is in¬
debted to that 'famous man,' Menno Simon,
mentioned above." Church Hist., p. 266. Bene¬
dict says he will " give them [the Anabaptists
TO ANTIQUITY.
351
and Mennoriites] a place among tlie reformers,
where they properly belong." History of Bap¬
tists, p. 49.
Do not these additional testimonies corroborate
the statement of Mosheim, and place them in
antiquity and origin about the time of the Re¬
formation, "when the first contests of the Reform¬
ers with the Roman pontiffs drew the attention
of the world, and employed the pens of the
learned ?"
But who was Menno Simon that reduced them
to any thing like order ? Mosheim tells us he
" had formerly been a popish priest, and, as he
himself confessed, a notorious profligate. This
man went over to the Anabaptists, at first, in a
clandestine manner, and frequented their assem¬
blies with the utmost secrecy; but in the year
1536 he threw off the mask, resigned his rank
and office in the Romish Church, and publicly
embraced their communion." Mosheifh's Church
History, Cent, xvi., ch. iii., sec. iii.
The father of the Mennonites, then, of whom
Baptists boast so much, was a Roman Catholic
priest. Yet they claim him in the regular line of
succession. It is all right and well enough for
Baptists to claim him as well as others, who im¬
mersed and rejected infant baptism, as "simon
352 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
pures," in a regular line; but if we should do
such a thing, you would hear the long and loud
cry raised, "An offspring of Popery; and cor¬
ruption doubly to be rejected; therefore, ye are
not the true Church"—yea, no Church at all.
Cannot any one with one grain of common sense
see clearly the fallacy and foolishness of Baptist
pretensions in reference to these Anabaptists ?
The Mennonites soon separated into two par¬
ties^ The one contended fpr an ecclesiastical
discipline to be miraculously founded by Jesus
Christ on the ruins of civil government—the de¬
struction of all human rulers—an extraordinary
effusion of the Holy Spirit to reform the Church
—-the lawfulness of polygamy and divorce—pre¬
tended to miracles, predictions, dreams, and
visions of various kind—contended for the ex¬
clusion of magistrates from the Christian Church
—the abolition of war—the prohibition of oaths
enjoined bjjour Saviour, and the vanity as well
as well as the pernicious effects of human science
—-expelled from their communion, without any
warning or admonition, any transgressor, and
even went so far in their audacity as " to pretend
to exclude the persons thus excommunicated
from all intercourse with their wives, husbands,
brothers, sisters, children, and relations. The
TO ANTIQUITY.
353
other party was, however, somewhat more lenient
and moderate." Mosheim, Cent, xvi., ch. iii.
These are the people whom Baptists claim as
belonging to and constituting the only true
Church of Christ on earth, and from which they
sprang. The Anabaptists held to adult baptism,
and ignored that of infant baptism, accounting it
no baptism at all, re-baptizing all such who might
come over to them. So do Baptists. Therefore,
according to their logic, they are of the same
"kith and kin." Well, it is true, we do see a
little family likeness. The Anabaptists of old,
and the Baptists of the present day, hold that
the visible Church of God is an assembly of real
saints: those only who have been converted,
sanctified. That none but such are entitled to
membership—that no " wicked and unrighteous"
person, that is, no one unconverted is ever to find
access into it. Then the dreams and visions of
those of old are of the same stripe as those fre¬
quently given in as experiences by Baptists of
the present day. Other points of similarity might
be noted, but these are sufficient to show the
family likeness.
They may be able to prove that they received
their right to baptize from them, but we have
seen no effort to do so. We judge that would
12
354 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
be a difficult matter to do. Yet, unless they can
show that they derived their baptism, through
them, all these other family likenesses will avail
them nothing.
Again: Will Baptists still persist in claiming
them as their ancestors and brethren ? Then we
envy them not their pedigree. They do claim
them, as we have seen, and as may be seen from
all Baptist historians. Mark that as you pro¬
ceed, for we shall have a use for it a little farther
on.
But see how ungrateful Baptists were in Eng¬
land : " In 1608, however, some of the -Inde¬
pendents in England appear to have separated
from their own communion, and to have sent one
of their number to Holland to be immersed by
the Dutch Anabaptists, that he might be quali¬
fied to administer the ordinance in England. By
him all the rest of the society, about fifty, were
baptized. From this time they rejected the name
of Anabaptists and Mennonites, and ^adopted that
of Baptists, claiming to be the only true Church;
and, through the Waldenses, to have descended
directly from the Churches planted by the
apostles." Goodrich's Church History, p. 267.
After the Dutch Anabaptists had been good
enough to give them their baptism, and thus
to antiquity.
355
brought them into their communion, they turn
round and ignore the name and family into which
they had been baptized, and adopted another
name; namely, that of " Baptists." Here, then,
is the first time in the history of the world that
the name Baptist turns up as attached to any
sect of Christians, and yet they would make the
ignorant and uninformed believe that that name
has been attached to them ever since the days
of John the Baptist; whereas, they adopted that
name themselves about the year 1608. So, then,
Baptists, instead of being as old as John the
Baptist, are only about 250 years old. One
would think this was dwindling the thing down
to " a mere frazzle." Well, such is the truth,
if there be any reliance given to history.
In conclusion, the Anabaptists and Mennonites
looked upon Luther's reformation "as far be¬
neath the sublimity of their views, and, conse¬
quently, undertook a more perfect reformation,
or, to express more properly their visionary en¬
terprise, they proposed to found a new
Church, entirely spiritual, and truly divine."
Mosheim. Quite sublime views of a Church!
Entirely spiritual—truly divine ! This was the
character of the new Church they proposed to
found—to establish. Then it was not the Church
356 baptist pretensions
of Jesus Christ which had been in existence so
long; but a new one, another one founded in the
sixteenth century, only about 250 years ago.
And yet these are Baptist ancestors, u hid in the
remote depths of antiquity f' that is, about 250
years since, and sixteen hundred years after John
the Baptist. This looks very much like descent
from John the Baptist, does it not ? It is a de¬
scent sure enough, of sixteen hundred years
along the track of time, without even touching
bottom, or scraping the sides of real existence.
For they started up all of a sudden, in different
countries, through different men, and from dif¬
ferent intentions. Wonder how they got their
baptism. Can Baptists inform us? Which bap¬
tism was the legitimate one of all those different
persons that sprang up so suddenly in different
countries ? Unless this small matter be strictly
settled, all their pretensions to be the only people
of Grod and true Church are worse than vanity.
Do tell us which is the true succession baptism.
Section IX.—English' Baptists.
The same result will follow as before, if we
trace up their origin in England. Dr. Wall, in
his History of Infant Baptism, written about
A. D. 1705, holds the following language con-
TO ANTIQUITY.
357
cerniug them: "In England there were now
and then some Dutchmen found of the Antipedo-
baptist opinion ever since the time that it had
taken footing in Holland; but none of the Eng¬
lish nation are known to have embraced it in a
long time after." " In the beginning of Queen
Elizabeth's reign, as there were no English Anti-
pedobaptists, so there were very few left in Hol¬
land." And, quoting from Bishop Jewel, he says,
" They have no acquaintance with us, neither in
England, nor in Germany, nor in France, nor in
Scotland, nor in Denmark, nor in Sweden, nor
in any place else where the gospel of Christ is
clearly preached." " But yet, about the six¬
teenth year of Queen Elizabeth, a congregation
of Dutch Antipedobaptists was discovered with¬
out Aldgate in London." Quoting from Fox's
letter to the Queen, he says : "As for their errors,
indeed, no man of sense can deny that they are
most absurd; and I wonder that such monstrous
opinions could come into the mind of any Chris¬
tian. . . . And there is great reason to give
God thanks on this account, that I hear not of
any Englishman that is inclined to that madness,"
etc. Mr. Fox was the author of the Book of
Martyrs, and it seems reasonable to conclude
that, had their opinions taken any root among
358 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
the English, he would certainly have known it;
and spoken of it.
"At what time/' continues Dr. Wall, "it be¬
gan to be embraced by any English I do not find
it easy to discover. But it is plain that no very
considerable number in England were of this
persuasion till about sixty years ago. The first
book that ever I heard of that was set forth in
English, upholding this tenet, was a Dutch book,
called, A plain and well-grounded Treatise con¬
cerning Baptism. This was translated and
printed in English anno 1618, the sixteenth
year of James the First. But neither in that
king's reign, nor in that of his son, King Charles
the First, till toward the latter end of it, have
we any account of any considerable number of
people of this way; very little mention of them,
or of that question, in any English books."
" To speak of the case of England in particu¬
lar : They know themselves that it is a separa¬
tion begun less than eighty years ago, as I show
at ch. viii., § 6. Any very ancient man may re¬
member when there was no Englishman, or at
least no society or Church of them, of that per¬
suasion. They at first held the opinion without
separating for it. Their eldest separate Churches
are not yet of the age of a man, viz., seventy
TO ANTIQUITY.
359
years. I mean, the ancient men, or men of
reading among them, know this. The young
and vulgar, who will talk right or wrong for a
side, do not own it; but the others own it, and
they justify it by pleading that their opinion is
the truest." History of Infant Baptism, vol. ii.,
pp. 306, 313-315, 557, 558.
So much, then, for Dr. Wall. He wrote about
1705. Now, deduct the age of a man as referred
to by him, seventy years, and that will run it
back to about 1635. What say Baptist writers
to this ?
We shall now prove the same thing by their
own writers. For instance, Elder Haynes says :
" It is sufficient to add, that of the present Bap¬
tist Churches in England, at least seven of them
date back to the period to which Dr. Williams
alludes. . . . They are, 1. Little Prescot St. ch.,
constituted 1633," etc. "The oldest Baptist
Church in Britain, continuing to the present
time, bears date A. D. 1633."
Mr. Backus, a Baptist historian, says: "A
number of people near the borders of the coun¬
ties of York, Nottingham, and Lincoln, were so
much convinced of the corruptions of the Church
of England, that they withdrew from her in 1602,
and formed another Church, in which they cove-
360 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
nanted together to walk in all the ordinances and
commandments of God, according to the light
he had given, or should give them out of his
holy word." Bosser on Bap., p. 186.
Next hear Mr. Benedict, another of their his¬
torians, whose authority, we presume, will not be
called in question. He says: "John Smyth
went over to Holland in the beginning of the
reign of James I. ;" that "he was a clergyman
of the established Churchthat "he resigned
his station, his emoluments, and his prospects in
the establishment, and joined those persecuted
people whom he had formerly opposed." " In a
short time, several were converted to his senti¬
ments; and*their numbers increasing rapidly, he
formed them into a distinct Church, chiefly, if
not wholly, composed of exiles from his own
country. This appears to have been the first
Baptist Church composed .of Englishmen after
the Reformation. It was formed about 1607 or
1608, above twenty years prior to 1633, when
the Church under the care of Mr. Spilsbury,
which Mr. Crosby reckons the first Baptist
Church, was organized. It seems that Mr.
Smyth and his friends were put to some diffi¬
culty in reviving the practice of immersion. He
and all his disciples had been sprinkled in their
TO ANTIQUITY.
361
infancy j and therefore, according to their new
views, were unbaptized. There were, indeed,
many Churches in Holland who practiced im¬
mersion; hut, as they differed widely in senti¬
ments from him, he did not choose to receive bap¬
tism from them. This completely refutes Dr.
Mosheim's supposition that the English Baptists
derived their origin from the German and Dutch
Mennonites, and that, in former times, they
adopted their doctrine in all its points. On the
contrary, we see that the first English Baptists
of which we have any regular account after the
Reformation, although living in the midst of the
Dutch Mennonites, declined receiving baptism
from them on account of their difference of
opinions* in many important points. ' The foreign
Anabaptists,' says Crosby, ' were such as denied
Christ's having taken flesh of the Virgin Mary,
the lawfulness of magistry, and such like, which
Mr. Smyth and his followers looked upon as
great errors; so that they could not he thought
by him proper administrators of baptism. This
obliged Mr. Smyth to consider of some other
means of reviving the ordinance. What method
he took is not very clearly stated. It is most
probable that those who were convinced of the
duty of believers' baptism first formed themselves
3G2 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
into a Church, and then appointed two of their
number (perhaps Mr. Smyth and Mr. Helwisse)
to baptize each other, and afterwards to baptize
the rest.' ... A similar difficulty occurred at the
formation of the original Baptist Church in
America by Boger Williams, who had recourse
to the same expedient; and we shall find in the
sequel of this history that the good men iu
Leicestershire, in the middle of the last century,
when placed in similar circumstances, adopted
the same method." History, pp. 327-330.
What need we any further witness ? Mosheim
would have them, as we have seen, receive their
baptism from the G-erman Anabaptists. But Mr.
Benedict informs us that Mr. Smyth repudiated
their baptism, and would not have it, but was
baptized by one who had not been immersed; and
that this Mr. Smyth formed a NEW Church out
of those who were baptized 'by himself and co¬
adjutor, Mr. Helwisse, who, as one good turn
deserved another, was baptized by Mr. Smyth.
If, then, Mr. Smyth was authorized by this pro¬
cedure to baptize and form a new Church, and
if this is the origin of Baptists in England,
which, according to Mr. Benedict, is true, and
if "this constitutes them Churches of Christ, we
ask, in the name of common sepse, did not
TO ANTIQUITY.
363
Mr. Wesley, or any other man, have the same
right ? What constitutes the difference ? If it
was right for Baptists thus to act, what makes it
wrong for Methodists or Presbyterians? Can
they tell? What, then, becomes of their boasted
antiquity ? They assume to have been in exist¬
ence ever since the days of John the Baptist.
But, as Mr. Benedict, Elder Haynes, and others
say English Baptists did not derive their baptism
from the Anabaptists, but that Mr. Smyth and Mr.
Helwisse baptized each other, and that this was
their origin in England, about the year 1633, it
follows, then, as clear as a noonday sun, that
they are only about two hundred and fifty years
old in that country. Antiquity, indeed ! Has a
Methodist any right to baptize ? Baptists say,
No. Why not? Because he has never been
immersed by a regular administrator, say Bap¬
tists. Then be so good as to inform us if Mr,
Smyth was baptized by a regular administrator ?
Answer, No. For Mr. Benedict, a Baptist, says
he was immersed by A LAYMAN. Then Baptists
should cease that foolish and nonsensical parade
about themselves only having a regular baptism.
364
baptist pretensions
Section X.—American Baptists.
Antiquity will be further out of the question
when we take a view of American Baptists.
They talk about having crossed the Atlantic in
regular order, or line of succession. Well, we
shall see. Elder Haynes, a Baptist historian,
says :* " The two oldest Baptist churches in the
United States, namely, first Providence and first
Newport, Rhode Island, who still dispute the
honor of being the older, bear date, the former
A. I). 1639, and the latter A. D. 1644." Bap.
Denom., p. 51.
Again: Roger Williams " studied law, but
finally received orders in the Episcopal Church:"
came to America about 1631, and " in March,
1638-39, he was baptized, [immersed,] and was
honored with being the apostle of the Baptists
in America." Ibid, pp. 300, 52.
Goodrich, in his Church History, page 268,
says : " The first Baptist church in America was
formed about the year 1639, at Providence,
Rhode Island, by the famous Roger Williams."
Mr. Benedict will give us the following facts
in reference to Roger Williams and the first
Baptists in America. He says : "All who have
given any items of his [Roger Williams's] his-
TO ANTIQUITY. 365
lory, agree in asserting that, in early life, he was
regularly admitted to orders in the Church of
England, and preached for some time as a min¬
ister of that Church." " In 1639, he was bap¬
tized [immersed] by Ezekiel Holliman, a lay¬
man, who was appointed by the little company
for the purpose. Then he baptized the rest of
the company, and thus laid the foundation for
the first Baptist church in Providence, and on
the American Continent." "This church, which
[was founded by a layman] is the oldest of the
Baptist denomination in America, was formed in
March, 1639. [Here he gives the names of the
twelve who composed the denomination.] As
the whole company, in their own estimation,
were unbaptiaed, and they knew of no adminis¬
trator in any of the infant settlements to whom
they could apply, they, with much propriety, hit
on the following expedient: Ezekiel Holliman, a
man of gifts and piety, by the suffrages of the
little company, was appointed to baptize Mr.
Williams, who, in return, baptized Holliman and
the other ten."
" Some of our writers have taken no little pains
to apologize for this unusual transaction, but, in
my opinion, it was just such a course as all com¬
panies of believers who wish to form a Church
366 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
in such extraordinary circumstances should pur¬
sue. Any company of Christians may commence
a Church in gospel order,, by their own mutual
agreement, without any reference to any other
body; and this Church has all power to appoint
any one of their number, whether minister or
layman, to commence anew the administration of
gospel institutions.
"This is the Baptist doctrine of apostolical suc¬
cession, which they prefer to receive from good
men, rather than through the polluted channels
of the papal power. In ordinary cases, this is not
advisable, and is seldom done; but in such a
state of banishment and exile, or in any condi¬
tion of a similar nature, none need to hesitate to
follow the example of the founders qf this ancient
community."
" It would be difficult at this day to make a
complete list of all the Baptist communities
which have sprung from this ancient and pro¬
lific mother. [The church in Providence, B. I.]
From it probably originated, in early times, all
which arose in the northern part of the State....
This church shot out into divers branches as
the members increased, and the distance of their
habitations made it inconvenient to attend the
public worship in the town." "In 1743, a
TO ANTIQUITY.
367
church was formed at Greenwich, partly of mem¬
bers from this body." " In 1805-6, the Second
Church, Providence, and those at Pawtucket and
Pawtuxet, were formed of members from the
parent stock; and large draughts have been
made from it in the formation of a number of
the city churches which have arisen since that
period."
We have designedly given these long extracts.
They are important. We wish to deal fairly
with our Baptist friends in this matter, and we
trust none will complain of us; and yet we know
they will complain, because they dislike to hear
of their origin. They do not wish to hear^of
" the pit from which they were digged." This
Roger Williams affair is a perfect "eyesore" to
them. For, if this account of the rise of Bap¬
tists in this country be true—and all their intel¬
ligent writers do admit it—then it follows that
they are not regular descendants of John the
Baptist and the ancient Christian Churches.
What right had Ezekiel Holliman, a layman,
to give baptism to Roger Williams, a minister in
the Episcopal Church, he being unbaptized him¬
self ? And, then, as Roger Williams did not re¬
ceive immersion at the hands of one who had
been regularly immersed, his baptism was not
308
baptist pretensions
valid—Baptists themselves being judges—and
hence the immersions he gave to Holliman and
the other ten, or to any one else, were of no
account at all. But Mr. Benedict says the com¬
pany appointed Ezekiel Holliman to baptize Mr.
Williams. Well, suppose they did, does this
give the matter a Divine sanction, and constitute
them the only keepers and dispensers of the or¬
dinances of the Church of God ? Was it not a
bold assumption in this dozen of men to ignore
their former baptism and Church, and presume
to set up one of their own, and then claim it as
the only Church of God on earth ? Yet this
was the case. And Baptists have the same
kind of bigotry down to this day in all our land.
They the only true Church, indeed—set up by
Ezekiel Holliman and Roger Williams, and not
by any ancient sect of Christians at all—baptiz¬
ing one another!
But Baptists would make you believe that they
did not descend from that link, and that this
Providence Church soon died out and left no
heirs. But Mr. Benedict informs us above that
it was a "prolific mother," and gives several
churches that were offshoots or branches of it,
even down as late as the years 1805-6; and it
seems that we should give some credit at least to
TO AN TIQUITY.
369
tis statements in this matter, for he says "all the
churches mentioned above are in what was his
bishopric for many years, and where he per¬
formed much itinerant service in connection
with his pastorship at home." History, p. 459.
"We know that Eaptists nowadays, when pressed
with the Roger Williams and Ezekiel Holliman
affair, contend that the church at Newport was
the oldest. But the above Baptist writers, and
others we could mention, piace them thus : Prov¬
idence Church, 1639; Newport, 1644. And of
the two, the one at Providence was the more
" prolific." There is no use " twisting and
screwing here" to get out of this lay-baptism
affair. Better far just "own up" the matter,
and throw" themselves upon the mercy of the
people, and not attempt to "gull" them any
longer.
Look a little further into " this unusual trans¬
action." "All power" is claimed for it by Mr.
Benedict. Truly, this is unusual, indeed. For
even a dozen men to get together and baptize
one another, or appoint one who had never been
baptized to baptize the other, and then for that
one to turn round and baptize the others, and
thus " commence anew the administration of gospel
institutions," is truly unusual ^ and then for such
370 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
men to have the presumption to say nobody else
is baptized but themselves, is indeed quite an
"unusual transaction," for men generally are not
so impudent and presumptuous.
Upon such " doctrine of apostolical succession"
there might rise up ten .thousand Churches. Yet
this is Baptist doctrine. For if a dozen men,
with Roger Williams and Ezekiel Holliman at
their head, had a right to " commence anew the
administration of gospel institutions," so has any
body else, and so every dozen men in the uni¬
versal world might, upon the same grounds,
" commence anew," and have as many Churches
as -there are dozens of men in the world.
Now this first dozen, entering into this very
"unusual transaction," laid the foundation for
the first Baptist church in America by baptizing
each other, and then endeavored to enforce their
baptism, or immersion rather, upon all men as
the only true baptism; and Baptists are highly
offended frequently if any of us dare to call it
in question.
But is this a regular succession of baptisms ?
Broken in England and America too. Is there
not a strange coincidence here ? In England,
the Baptist Church commenced with ?ay-baptism;
so did it in America, and about the same time
to antiquity.
371
also. Wonder they had not noticed these coin¬
cidences, and canonized Mr. Smyth, of England,
and Roger Williams, of America, as the "two
witnesses" spoken of in the Book of Revelation !
For their -special benefit, then, we here propose
placing them as having come under the prophetic
vision of St. John. If it will do them any good,
they are welcome to it.
Lay-baptism! That's the thing. Keep it
before the people, that the baptism which Bap¬
tists desire all the world to submit to is lay-bap¬
tism. We repeat, are these the people who claim
the sole right to baptize and administer the
Lord's Supper? and claim to be the true and
only Church in the world ? Then we ask every
sensible, man, with the facts which we have ad¬
duced before him, if they are not very presump¬
tuous indeed in claiming for themselves the en¬
tire "heritage of the Lord," and bold in refusing
any others a place in " the household of faith,"
unless there'is a submission to their Zay-baptism ?
Does it not savor very much of Popish intoler-
ance and vain arrogance ? Regularly descended,
indeed ! when we have shown by history itself
that the chain has been broken in every link;
or, rather, has never been united in any two of
them I
372 baptist pretensions
Baptists, as every one in these days knows, lay
a great deal of stress on such a regular succes¬
sion, yet Mr. Benedict, knowing full well the
stock from which they derived their origin, en¬
ters a disclaimer, as we have already seen, but
which we here partly reiterate.
Hear him: " I shall not attempt to trace a
continuous line of Churches, as we can for a few
centuries past in Europe and America. This is
a kind of succession to which we have never laid
claim, and of course we make no effort to
prove it. We place no kind oe reliance on
this sort of testimony to establish the soundness
of our faith, or the validity of our adminis¬
trations." Why not, Mr. Benedict? Your
brethren now do lay claim to that very kind of
"testimony" to prove the validity of their ad¬
ministrations. Why do you not make an effort
to prove it, Mr. Benedict ? Why place no reli¬
ance upon it?- Simply because it cannot be
proved. If it could have been done, Mr. B.
would most assuredly have attempted it. The
whole of such boasted succession is not worth a
fig.
Dr. Wayland, one of the greatest men amongst
them in America, says : " It is convenient, as a
matter of Church order, that there should be
to antiquity.
873
some general rule, and that this rite [of baptism]
be administered by a clergyman; and it would
be naturally performed by one who had himself
been baptized by immersion. But if those things
be absent from necessity or ignorance, they alter
not the fact that the person who has been im¬
mersed on profession of faith is, as I understand
it, a baptized believer. This is a very common
case with us in this city. Congregationalists,
Episcopalians, and Methodists here frequently
baptize persons on profession of their faith. We
consider them as baptized believers, and, when
they request it, admit them upon a simple rela¬
tion of their experience. Indeed, were not this
admitted, 1 hnow not to what absurdities we
should be reduced. If the obedience of Christ
depends upon the ordinance [of baptism] being
administered by a regularly baptized adminis¬
trator, where are we to stop, and how shall we
know who is regularly baptized, or who has
obeyed Christ ? All this looks to me absolutely
trivial, and wholly aside from the principles
which, as Protestants and Baptists, we have
always considered as essential to Christian
liberty. It seems to me assuming Puseyism [a
species of Popery] under another name; or, in
fact, going back to the ecclesiastical errors of
374
BAPTIST ERETENSIONS
the Catholic Church. Such are my views. How
they meet the views of others I know not, hut
to me these principles of Christian freedom are
above all price." Rosser on Baptism, pp. 198,
199.
Let the reader weigh every sentence here. It
is worthy of his regard. Yes, "Where would
they stop ?" "And how shall they know who is
regularly baptized ?" It savors of Popery—so it
does, Doctor. A " going back to the ecclesiasti¬
cal errors of the Catholic Church." "Assuming
Puseyism under another namethat is, under
the name of Baptists. Those baptized by Con¬
gregation alists, Episcopalians, and Methodists, are
validly baptized, says the Doctor.
Here is another " clincher" from Elder R.
Fuller, of Baltimore, another great man among*
them. It appears that a certain Baptist minister
had married a Methodist lady, and the question
was put to Dr. Fuller, "Whether her immersion
by a Pedobaptist minister was valid ?" to which
he gave the following reply:
" Now there is one argument, which, of itself,
goes far to settle this question. It is, that if no
baptism be valid without an administrator whose
baptism is regular, then there can be no valid
to antiquity.
375
baptism. The validity of baptism would depend
on an unbroken succession of regularly baptized
administrators from the days of the apostles;
and if there be a defect in this chain, the defect
vitiates all the subsequent baptisms. The oft-
exposed fiction of the apostolic succession is ridi¬
culous enough, but the baptistical succes¬
sion is even more puerile.
" It may be replied, however, that this argu¬
ment, though a reductio ad absurdum, [that is,
reducing to an absurdity,] only demonstrates that
there can be no valid baptism : it does not prove
that baptism by a Pedobaptist minister is valid.
Let us, then, look at the point. I think such a
baptism, though irregular, yet valid. If the can¬
didate is dissatisfied, the ordinance .may be cor¬
rectly administered. 1 Baptism is the answer of
a good conscience towards God.' If the disciple
have not this answer, let him have it. But in a
case like that of your wife, the party should not
be compelled to repeat the act. Such is my
opinion, and my reasons are these :
" 1. The commission says: ' He that believeth
and is baptized shall be saved.' The party has
believed and been baptized. Here are two per¬
sonal acts, one internal, the other external. A.
defect in the administrator of baptism can no
B76 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
more invalidate baptism, then any imperfection
in the preacher can nullify the faith.
" 2. Consider the use and design of baptism.
It is a public profession of allegiance to Christ.
It is 'putting on Christ.' 'Were ye baptized in
the name of Paul ?' viz., ' Did you confess your¬
selves as saved by Paul, and devoted to him V
Now, the party has made this public profession
of loyalty to Jesus.
"3. Reflect upon the metaphors by which bap¬
tism is represented, such as 'buried,' 'planted,'
etc. Has not all this been realized ?
"4. In the New Testament, baptism is always
mentioned as a personal duty, like repentance
and faith. The administrator is never referred
to as at all affecting the validity of the act. This
idea that a minister confers any virtue on an
ordinance, whether Baptism or the Supper, is a
remnant of Popery. Por while the Church of
Rome contends rigorously for the power of the
priest to consecrate every thing, it yet admits the
validity of baptism by a layman. In referring
to baptism, the inspired writers lay no sort of
stress On the administrator. They never allude
to him, except as a matter of history. They
simply mention the fact of baptism as they do
of conversion. The ennuch was baptized by a
TO ANTIQUITY.
377
deacon. As soon as converted, the most conve¬
nient water and administrator were employed.
The reference to the 'baptism unto Moses in the
cloud and in the sea/ shows how little the Holy
Spirit regards the administrator. For there the
only ministry was that of the elements.
" 5. Where would the requirement of qualifi¬
cations in the minister terminate ? Suppose he
had been immersed, but not with the same formula
used by us, say, ' in the name of Jesus/ and not
'in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy
Grhost.' Would this invalidate all baptisms per¬
formed by him? If so, the ordinance by the
apostles was void; for they had only John's bap¬
tism, which was certainly not the formula pre¬
scribed in the commission. Suppose a minister
had been immersed, but holds some doctrine
which we regard as erroneous. Hoes this vitiate
the baptism he administers ? Surely, heresy as
to truth is at least as fatal an error as to an ordi¬
nance. But where would the scheme lead us ?
Who shall decide what error vitiates and what
not ? I fear some Churches would not be satis¬
fied to receive a member from another Baptist
Church because he had been baptized by a min¬
ister who did not hold election, or perseverance,
or limited atonement, or close communion. And
378 baptist pretensions
how monstrous would this he! Lastly, suppose
a minister proves an apostate, are the baptisms
he administers all void ? This has never been
pretended; and shall we he so bigoted and super¬
stitious as to attach more importance to an error
about an ordinance than we do gross immorality
or downright hpyocrisy ?
" These, my dear brother, are my sentiments.
They are written in haste, but were formed
after much thought and deliberation. The mat¬
ter has often disturbed the Churches, but I
hope the day is at hand when these controversies
will for ever cease. Yours in the Lord Jesus,
" R. Fuller."
There, now, see how he " fires hot shot" into
the doctrine of a regular succession of im-
mersers ! And yet many Baptist ministers, who
never knew and never will know half as much as
Dr. Fuller has forgotten, still contend for that
same regular succession to which the Doctor
gives such a heavy blast! Yes, "if no baptism
be valid without an administrator whose baptism
is regular, then there can be no valid baptism
simply because there is no " administrator" who
has been regularly baptized. Again : " If there
be a defect in this chain, [of regularly baptized
TO ANTIQUITY.
379
administrators,] the defect vitiates all the subse¬
quent baptisms." This is Baptist doctrine, as
we have seen; and then we have seen that at
every link there is " a defecthence it follows
all their baptisms are vitiated and good for no¬
thing, themselves being judges.
Let" the Doctor give them " a few more grape"
of this sort, and it will cause greater commotions
and wailings among them than even this. For
one of their own men says: "We could weep
over the positions of some of our learned breth¬
ren, were tears availing: we pray God to counter¬
act the pernicious influence of their advice, and
we raise our voice in loud, long, and earnest pro¬
testation against the position taken by Elder
Fuller, and the certain confusion and ruin it will
bring upon our denomination."
" Pernicious influence!" O yes, it will bring
" certain confusion and ruin upon our [Baptist]
denomination." Truly, the man speaks. For
once admit, and let it be clearly seen, that this
regular succession of administrators cannot be
proved, and their " denomination" will totter to
its fall.
It is a fact too clear to be denied, that as
Roger Williams received only lay baptism, he
was not capable of handing down a "regular
380 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
baptismand as Baptists are from the line of
Roger Williams, therefore, according to their
own theory, they have not a " regular descended
baptism through regular administrators." Hence,
again, according to their own theory, they have
no regular Church—no regular sacraments.
Here let the reader stop and review what we
have said upon this regular succession of im-
mersers, and then answer the question, Have
Baptists alone the sole right to administer the
ordinances of God's house ? If their own theory
and mode of reasoning cut them off from being
even a branch of God's Church, they and not
we are. responsible. We have given the above
in reply to their pretension of being the true
Church. The reader now has it before him; let
him judge of the success of our reply. Here
we leave him to his own private reflections, with
this question, Did Roger Williams and Ezekiel
Holliman found with their lay baptism the only
true Church of God on the American continent?
O presumption and bigotry, how great are ye !
to antiquity.
381
CONCLUDING CHAPTER.
republicanism op baptists.
How often is it heard from the lips, pens, and
pulpits of Baptists that they have ever been first
in the inculcation of civil and religious liberty!
This point we should not have noticed at all,
were it not for the fact that they actually
mafie their boast of their adherence to and
practice of such liberty, which, doubtless, is done
for effect upon a eertain class of hearers and
readers, to make them believe that they (the
Baptists) stand above all others in the mainte¬
nance of such liberty.
We have not space to enter largely into a dis¬
cussion of this subject) therefore, we shall only
give a few facts to be noted, with a promise,
should we deem it necessary in future, to give a
more extended consideration of such a pretension.
One would be led to believe, to hear them tell it,
that nobody ever thought of civil and religious
382 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
liberty but themselves, much less " fought, and
bled" for it.
The reader must, then, be content, for the
present, with but a tithe of what we could give
in reference to this subject. And we assure him
that we shall give only what we find in history
and Baptist pretensions.
We have seen that Baptists claim the Dona-
tists, a sect which started up, or broke off from
the Catholic Church, in. the early part of the
fourth century, as their ancestors. Were they
liberal, and did they allow of civil and religious
liberty? Mosheim informs us that fhey "afflicted
most grievously both Church and State for more
than a centurythat " the emperor endeavored,
hy embassies and negotiations, to allay these dis¬
turbances, but his efforts were without effect.
These unhappy, commotions gave rise, no doubt,
to a horrible confederacy of desperate ruffians,
who passed under the name of Circumcelliones.
This furious, fearless, and bloody set of men,
composed of the rough and savage populace, who
embraced the party of the Donatists, maintained
their cause by the force of arms, and, overrunning
all Africa, filled that province with slaughter and
rapine, and committed the most enormous acts
of perfidy and cruelty against the followers of
TO ANTIQUITY.
383
Caecilianus. This outrageous multitude, whom
no prospect -of sufferings could terrify, and who,
upon urgent occasions, faced death itself with
the most audacious temerity, contributed to rem
der the sect of the Donatists an object of the
utmost abhorrence." Church History, vol. i.,
pp. 308-10.
" Constantine, hoping that time might be more
conducive than force to calm these disturbances,
abrogated the laws against the Donatists; and
his son, Constans, labored earnestly to heal the
divisions of the African Church. But these
efforts were in vain: Donatus the Great, (who
had succeeded Majorinus, and from whom the
party derived its name,) with the other factious
prelates, opposed every attempt toward a recon¬
ciliation. The whole party rose in arms, and
were defeated by the imperial army: numbers
fled, a considerable party were sent into banish¬
ment, and many were punished with extreme
severity. ... The schism of the Donatists was
an impetuous torrent, which inundated and deso¬
lated the adjacent country; but its limits were
prescribed, and its mischief confined to the Afrh
can provinces." Ruter's Gregory, p. 81.
Did such outrageous conduct and bloody deeds
arise, in the first place, from a love of liberty,
384 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
civil and religious ? Was it from a prime ad¬
vocacy of such civil and religious freedom that
brought on such troubles as stated above ? Have
we not seen that the emperor abrogated the laws
against the Donatists, and endeavored, by em¬
bassies and negotiations, to conclude a peace
with them, but was strenuously opposed by Do-
natus, their leader, and other prelates of their
party? No, gentle reader, it was not for any
love of civil or religious liberty they possessed
that induced them to such deeds of violence,
which resulted^ in such terrible judgments on
themselves. The whole matter, as a first cause,
lay in the ideas they had conceived of their
neighbors and what constituted the true Church
of Christ on earth.
Such notions as they had taken up alpout these
matters have always resulted—and we think we
say not too much, always will result—in strong
opposition, if not bloodshed, if there be an op¬
portunity. They had taken the following posi¬
tions : That the African Church had fallen from
its dignity of a true Church because it had elected
Caecilianus bishop, instead of one favored by
Donatus and others; that every Church which
held communion with this African Church was
corrupt and polluted; that they only had kept.
to antiquity.
385
themselves pure in faith and discipline; that the
sanctity of their bishops gave their community
the sole right to be considered the only pure and
holy Church—hence they avoided all communion
with other Churches, for fear of contracting
their impurity and corruption ; that the rites and
institutions of all other Churches—which were
not precisely of their way of thinking—were
void of all virtue and efficacy; re-baptized all
who came over to their party from other
Churches, and went so far as to reordain minis¬
ters of the gospel, or deprive them of office.
These were the points which they desired and
endeavored to enforce upon other Churches and
the world. And not only with the pen and
tongue did they seek to carry those points, but
with the sword also. They were not content to
spread their principles as becometh the gospel
of the Lord Jesus Christ, but took up the wea¬
pons of this world's warfare. Is this the true
method of promulgating Republicanism,? Is
this the thing Baptists would have us believe is
Republicanism? Why, what is it? "We be¬
lieve thus and so; and thus and so everybody
must believe and act"—not as he chooses, but as
they choose and dictate. Thus it was with the
Donatists. Does any one, then, wonder that
386 - BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
they were met by the imperial forces, and made
to know their places ? Call you this persecu¬
tion ? Let us ask any Baptist just here : Sup¬
pose Methodists were to attempt to enforce their
opinions and system of doctrines upon the world
by force of arms, and the civil government were
to send out its troops to keep them in due
hounds and to prevent bloodshed, and there
should be a war between the two, and great num¬
bers of Methodists were slain and the rest put
to flight, would you call that persecuting the
Methodists ? " Certainly not." Then, " thus
saying, thou condemnest thyself." And yet the
Donatists were lovers and practicers of civil and
religious liberty ! A nice sample, truly.
No. Wherever such exalted opinions of one's
own purity and uprightness, with such bigotry,
exist, a depreciation of others, with a desire to
force into measures, will inevitably, sooner 01^
later, develop itself. God save us from such Re¬
publicanism as this, which is just none at all, but
is a dogged submission to the arbitrary opinions
of others, who will not allow any thing to be a
matter of choice. This is liberty, civil and re¬
ligious, with a vim and vengeance, is it not ?
Another favorite among .Baptists, as having
suffered severely, and finally death, by being
TO ANTIQUITY.
387
" crucified and afterwards burned to ashes/' is
Arnold of Brescia, the father of the Arnoldists.
One, to listen at the 'story as told by Baptists,
would be led to believe they were guilty of no
crime, and that they suffered merely on account
of purity of motive and sanctity of life. But
what was the cause of their sufferings ? If any
reliance is to be placed in history, the following
is true : Arnold, seeing the opulence of the pon¬
tiffs and bishops of the Church, set himself to
divest them of all their worldly possessions, tem¬
poral rights, and prerogatives; and this he did
in such a manner, and to such an extent, " with¬
out discernment and discretion, and executed
with a degree of vehemence which was as crimi¬
nal as it was imprudent."
It was by this "reprehensible" conduct that
he " excited new troubles and commotions both
in Church and State." It was by his " turbu¬
lent and impetuous spirit" that he "raised at
Borne, during the pontificate of Eugenius III.,
several tumults and seditions among the people,
who changed, by his instigation, the government
of the city, and insulted the persons of the
clergy in the most disorderly manner." Mos-
heim, vol. ii., p. 313, 314.
Such were the causes of his sufferings and
388 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
death. Does the reader see any Republicanism,
of which Baptists so much boast, in the conduct
of this man Arnold and his followers, whom they
claim as their ancestors? Is this the kind of
liberty for which they contend ? If in their
power, would they seek "to divest the clergy"
of all other denominations of their temporal
rights and prerogatives? Would they seek to
"insult the persons of the clergy in the most
disorderly manner?" Would they instigate a
change in the civil government, and raise sedi¬
tions and tumults among the people to effect
these designs ? This conduct is all irreprehen-
sible when on their side of the question, and the
sufferers canonized as persecuted, and held up to
the gaze of the uninformed as pure Baptist suf¬
ferers for the cause of truth; though we hold it
naught but consummate bigotry and enthusiasm.
Are these the people concerning whom Mr.
Orchard says his " desire is to be found succeed¬
ing in spirit, views, and practice ?" It seems so,
for he places them in the line of succession.
Then, shall we write it here, that these United
States of America may look out for an attempt to
change its government, and the clergy to be in¬
sulted in the most disorderly manner, whenever
Baptists shall presume they may have the power to
TO ANTIQUITY.
389
do so ? Baptists must not blame us for making
this deduction; for it is perfectly legitimate from
their own premises. If they do not wish us to
make the deduction, let them retreat from their
bold and daring presumptions, heralded forth
on every occasion when they would lessen respect
for other denominations of Christians, equally as
good as themselves. Let truth fall, and cut
where it will. And this is the spirit of the Re¬
publicanism for which they contend! Yes, if
every person will do as they say, that is the whole
amount of civil and religious liberty. We do not
say that they are attempting to overthrow our civil
and religious freedom, but we do say, such an in¬
ference is perfectly deducible from their premises.
They and notwe, then, if any, are censurable. The
character of parents and ancestors is very apt to
attach itself to " descendants" and relations down
the stream of time. It is true, in all cases, this
probably should not be so j but when those " an¬
cestors" are continually upheld, and praises of
them shouted forth upon the wings of every
wind, what can we do other than we have done
in the above inference ?
Mr. Orchard and other Baptist writers lay
claim also to the Beghards, or Picards, calling
them Baptists, placing them in the line of sue-
390 BAPTIST PltETENSIONS
cession; and vaunting largely upon their suffer¬
ings, speaking highly of their purity. Now,
while we would not deny that many of them
might have been good men and true, and wrong¬
fully suffered, yet it cannot be denied that many
of them deserved severe punishment; for we are
informed that it was " one of the leading prin¬
ciples of this sect that the tender instincts of
nature, with that bashfulness and modesty that
generally accompany them, were evident marks
of inherent corruption, and showed that the
mind was not sufficiently purified nor rendered
conformable to the Divine nature from whence
it derived its origin. And they alone were
deemed perfect by these fanatics, and supposed
to be united to the Supreme Being, who could
behold without any emotion the naked bodies of
the sex to which they did not belong, and who,
in imitation of what was practiced before the
fall by our first parents, went stark naked, and
conversed familiarly in this manner with males
and females without feeling any of the tender
propensities of nature. Hence it was that the
JBeghards, whom the Bohemians, by a change in
the pronunciation of that word, called Picards,
when they came into their religious assemblies,
and were present at the celebration of Divine
TO ANTIQUITY.
391
worship, appearing absolutely naked, without
any sort of veil or covering at all. They had
also constantly in their mouths a maxim which
indeed was very suitable to the genius of the
religion they professed, viz., that they were not
free, i. e., sufficiently extricated from the shackles
of the body, who made use of garments, par¬
ticularly such garments as covered the thighs
and the parts adjacent. These horrible tenets
could not but cast a deserved reproach upon this
absurd sect; and though nothing passed in their
religious assemblies that was contrary to the
rules of virtue, yet they were universally sus¬
pected of the* most scandalous incontinence and
of the most lascivious practices. . . . Among
the various titles by which these extravagant
enthusiasts were distinguished, that of Adamites
was one; and it was given them on account of
their being so studious to imitate the state of in¬
nocence in which the first man was originally
created." Mosheim's Ch. His., vol. ii., pp. 564,
565.
And these are some of the ancestors of Bap¬
tists ! Well, is this the civil and religious free¬
dom for which they contend ? Shall a man or
woman, under the pretence or garb of religion
or civil rights, be unrestrained in giving offence
392
BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
to common modesty and propriety? And in
case religious restraint be not sufficient to stop
it in its career, is it wrong to apply the arm of
civil coercion ? These people used their liberty
under the garb of religion. Was it persecution
upon the part of the State to interfere and put
it down by force of arms? Why, then, this
great hue and cry amoDg Baptists of the suffer¬
ings of this people for these things ? These
things I Ah! they will not tell you of these
things, offensive to modesty and propriety, com¬
mon with this people. These things they keep
in the background, and throw dust in the eyes
of people uninformed, to elicit their sympathies,
and to gain them as proselytes-to their school of
water. 0 yes, " Brethren, we know, we are the
people of God, for we have been persecuted in
all ages of the world." " See how our brethren
the Beghards, or Picards, were persecuted."
Just one question: Was it persecution for the
civil authorities to try to make these people be
decent by putting on clothes ? But, then, we
are not sure that there is much difference in
one's going stark naked through life, as these
Beghards did, and being immersed naked, as
males and females used to be in ancient times.
We think they are of the same "kith and kin."
TO ANTIQUITY.
393
But Baptists are great advocates for Republican¬
ism ; and if they prefer the way of these Picards,
why, if we raise a voice or arm against it, then
the cry of persecution goes booming long and
loud through all the land.
They claim to be foremost in the cause of
civil and religious liberty; that this has ever
been their aim. "We have seen that they claim
the Anabaptists of old as their brethren, and
laud their sufferings as persecutions for the
cause of Christ. Yet we»have shown that one
of their principal tenets was, that civil magis*
tra.tes were absolutely useless, and that they aimed
at the overthrow of such functionaries.
Here is a bit more, quite specific upon this
point. Mosheim represents them as a " seditious
and pestilential sect," "whose tumultuous and
desperate attempts were equally pernicious to the
cause of religion and the civil interests of man¬
kind." " They gathered together congregations
in several places, foretold, in consequence of a
Divine commission, [given 1 by dreams and
visions,' which they professed to have of,] the
approaching abolition of magistracy, and the
downfall of civil rulers and governors; and,
while they pretend,ed to be embassadors of the
Most High, insulted, on many occasions, the ma-
394 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
jesty of Heaven by the most flagitious crimes.
Those who distinguished themselves by the
enormity of their conduct in this infamous sect
were Lewis Hetzer, Balthazar, Hubmeyer, Felix
Mentz, Conrad Gebrel, Melchior Hoffman, and
George Jacob, who, if their power had seconded
their designs, would have involved all Switzer¬
land, Holland, and Germany in tumult and
bloodshed." Yol. iii., pp. 324-6. And yet these
were " true-blue" Republicans !
Here is another picture of the same kind,
drawn of them by Gregory, the historian. He
says : a They first made their appearance in the
provinces of Upper Germany, where the severity
of the magistrates kept them under control.
But in the Netherlands and Westphalia they ob¬
tained admittance in several towns, and spread
their principles. The most remarkable of their
religious tenets related to the sacrament of bap¬
tism, which, as they contended, ought to be ad¬
ministered only to persons grown up to years of
understanding, and should be performed, not by
sprinkling them with water, but by dipping them
in it: for this reason they condemned the bap¬
tism of infants; and, re-baptizing all whom they
admitted into their society, the sect came to be
distinguished by the name of Anabaptists. To
TO ANTIQUITY.
395
this 'peculiar notion concerning baptism, they
added other principles of a most enthusiastic as
well as dangerous nature. They maintained that
among Christians, who "had the precepts of the
gospel to direct and the Spirit of God to guide
them, the office of magistracy was not only un¬
necessary, hut an unlawful encroachment on
their spiritual liberty; that the distinctions oc¬
casioned by birth, or rank, or wealth, being con¬
trary to the spirit of the gospel, which considers
all men as equal, should be entirely abolished;
that all Christians, throwing their possessions
into one common stock, should live together in
that state of equality which becomes members
of the same family; that, as neither the laws of
nature nor the precepts of the New Testament
had imposed any restraints upon men with re¬
gard to the number of wives which they might
marry, they should use that liberty which God
himself had granted to the patriarchs.
"Such opinions, propagated and maintained
with enthusiastic zeal and boldness, were not
long without producing the violent effects natu¬
ral to them. Two Anabaptist prophets, John
Matthias, a baker of Harlem, and John Boccold,
or Benkels, a journeyman tailor of Leyden, pos¬
sessed with the rage of making proselytes, fixed
396 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
their residence at Munster, an imperial city of
Westphalia of the first rank, under the sove¬
reignty of its bishop, but governed by its own,
senate and consuls. As neither of these fanatics
wanted the talents requisite in desperate enter¬
prises, great resolution, the appearance of sanc¬
tity, bold pretensions to inspiration, and a con¬
fident and plausible manner of discoursing, they
soon gained many converts. Among these were
Rothman, who had first preached the Protestant
doctrine in Munster, and Knipperdoling, a citizen
of considerable eminence. Emboldened by the
countenance of such disciples, they openly taught
their opinions; and, not satisfied with that liberty,
they made several attempts, though without suc¬
cess, to become masters of the town, in order to
get their tenets established by public authority.
At last, having secretly called in their associates
from the neighboring country, they suddenly
took possession of the arsenal and senate house
in the night, and, running through the streets
with drawn swords and horrible howlings, cried
out alternately, 'Repent and be baptized,' and,
'■Depart, ye ungodly.' The senators, the canons,
the nobility, together with the more sober citizens,
whether Papist or Protestant, terrified at their
threats and outcries, fled in confusion, and left
TO ANTIQUITY.
397
the city under the dominion of a frantic multi¬
tude, consisting chiefly of strangers. Nothing
now remaining to overawe or control them, they
set about modelling the government according to
their own wild ideas; and though at first they
showed so mueh reverence for the ancient con¬
stitution as to elect senators of their own sect,
and to appoint Knipperdoling and another prose¬
lyte consuls, this was nothing more than form;
for* all their proceedings were directed by Mat¬
thias, who, in the style and with the authority
of a prophet, uttered his commands, which it was
instant death to disobey. Having begun with
encouraging the multitude to pillage the churches
and deface their ornaments, he enjoined them to
destroy all books except the Bible, as useless or
impious; he ordered the estates of such as fled
to be confiscated and sold to the inhabitants of
the adjaeent country; he commanded every man
to bring forth his gold, silver, and other precious
effects, and to lay them at his feet. The wealth
amassed by these means he deposited in a public
treasury, ajnfl named deacons to dispense it for
the common use of all. The members of this
commonwealth being thus brought to a perfect
equality, he commanded all of them to eat at
tables, prepared in public, and even prescribed
398 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
the dishes which were to be served up each day.
Having finished his plan of reformation, his next
care was to provide for the defence of the city;
and he took measures for that purpose with a
prudence which betrayed nothing of fanaticism.
He collected large magazines of every kind; he
repaired and extended the fortifications, obliging
every person, without distinction, to work in his
turn; he formed such as were capable of bearing
arms into regular bodies, and endeavored to add
the stability of discipline to the impetuosity of
enthusiasm. He sent emissaries to the Ana¬
baptists in the Low Countries, inviting them to
assemble at Munster, which he dignified with
the name of Mount Zion, that they might set
out to reduce all the nations of the earth under
their dominion. . . .
" While they were thus employed, the Bishop
of Munster, having assembled a considerable
army, advanced to besiege the town. On his
approach, Matthias sallied out at the head of
some chosen troops, attacked one quarter of his
camp, forced it, and, after great slaughter, re-'
turned to the city loaded with glory and with
spoils. Intoxicated with this success, he ap¬
peared next day, brandishing a spear, and de¬
clared that, in imitation of Gideon, he would go
TO ANTIQUITY.
399
forth with a handful of men and smite the host
of the ungodly. Thirty persons, whom he named,
followed him without hesitation in this wild en¬
terprise, and, rushing on the enemy with a frantic
courage, were cut off to a man. The death of
their prophet occasioned at first great consterna¬
tion among his disciples; but Boccold, by the
same gifts and pretensions which had gained
Matthias credit, soon revived their spirits and
hopes to such a degree that he succeeded the
deceased prophet in the same absolute direction
of all their affairs. As he did not possess that
enterprising courage which distinguished his
predecessor, he satisfied himself with carrying on
a defensive war; and, without attempting to an¬
noy the enemy by sallies, he waited for the suc¬
cors he expected from the Low Countries, the
arrival of which was often foretold and promised
by their prophets. But, though less daring in
action than Matthias, he was a wilder enthusiast,
and of more unbounded ambition. Soon after
the death of his predecessor, having, by obscure
visions and prophecies, prepared the multitude
for some extraordinary event, he marched
through the streets, and proclaimed with a loud
voice, ' That the kingdom of Zion was at hand;
that whatever was highest on earth should be
400 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
brought low, and whatever was lowest should be
exalted.' In order to fulfil this, he commanded
the churches, as the most lofty buildings in the
city, to be levelled with the ground; he degraded
the senators chosen by Matthias, and, depriving
Knipperdoling of the consulship, the highest
office of the commonwealth, appointed him to
execute the lowest and most infamous, that of
common hangman, to which strange transition
the other agreed, not only without murmuring,
but with the utmost joy; and such was the des¬
potic rigor of Boccold's administration, that he
was called almost every day to perform some duty
or other of his wretched function. In place of
the deposed senators, he named twelve judges,
according to the number of tribes in Israel, to
preside in all affairs, retaining to himself the
same authority which Moses anciently possessed
as legislator of that people.
" Not satisfied, however, with power or titles
which were not supreme, a prophet, whom he
had gained and tutored, having called the multi¬
tude together, declared it to be the will of God
that John Boccold should be king of Sion, and
sit on the throne of David. John, kneeling
down, accepted of the call, which he solemnly
protested had been revealed likewise to himself,
TO ANTIQUITY.
401
and was immediately acknowledged as monarch,
by the deluded multitude. From that moment
he assumed all the state and pomp of royalty.
He wore a crown of gold, and was clad in the
richest and most sumptuous garments. A Bible
was carried on his one hand, a naTced sword on
the other. A great body of guards accompanied
him when he appeared in public. He coined
money stamped with his .own image, and ap¬
pointed the great officers of his household and
kingdom, among whom Knipperdoling was nomi¬
nated governor of the city, as a reward for his
former submission.
" Having now attained the height of power,
Boccold began to discover passions which he had
hitherto restrained, or indulged only in secret.
As the excesses of enthusiasm have been ob¬
served in every age to lead to sensual gratifica¬
tions, the same constitution that is susceptible
of the former being remarkably prone to the
latter, he instructed the prophets and teachers to
harangue the people for several days concerning
the lawfulness and even necessity of taking more
wives than one, which they asserted to be one of
the privileges granted by God to the saints.
When their ears were once accustomed to this
licentious doctrine, and their passions inflamed
402 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
with the prospect of such unbounded indulgence,
he himself set them an example of using what
-he called their Christian liberty by marrying at
once three wives, among whom the widow of
Matthias, a woman of singular beauty, was one.
As he was allured by beauty, or the love of
variety, he gradually added to the number of
his wives until they amounted to fourteen,
though the widow of Matthias was the only one
dignified with the title of queen, or who shared
with him the splendor and ornaments of royalty.
After the example of their prophet, the multi¬
tude gave themselves up to the most licentious
and uncontrolled gratification of their desires.
No man remained satisfied with a single wife.
Not to use their Christian liberty was deemed a
crime. Persons were appointed to search the
houses for young women grown up to maturity,
whom they instantly compelled to marry. To¬
gether with polygamy, freedom of divorce, its
inseparable attendant, was introduced, and be¬
came a new source of corruption. Every excess
was committed of which the passions of men are
capable when restrained neither by the authority
of laws nor the sense of decency; and by a
monstrous and almost incredible conjunction,
voluptuousness was grafted on religion, and
TO ANTIQUITY.
403
dissolute riot accompanied the austerities of
fanatical devotion.
" Meanwhile the German princes were highly
offended at the insult offered to their dignity by
Boccold's presumptuous usurpation of royal
honors; and the profligate manners of his fol¬
lowers, which were a reproach to the Christian
name, filled men of all professions with horror.
Luther, who had testified against this fanatical
spirit on its first appearance, now deeply lamented
its progress; and having exposed the delusion
with great strength of argument as well as acri¬
mony of style, called loudly on all the States of
Germany to put a stop to a phrensy no less per¬
nicious to society than fatal to religion. The
emperor, occupied with other cares and projects,
had not leisure to attend to such a distant ob¬
ject ; but the princes of the empire, assembled
by the King of the Romans, voted a supply of
men and money to the Bishop of Munster, who,
being unable to keep a sufficient army on foot,
had converted the siege of the town into a
blockade. The forces raised in consequence of
this resolution were put under the command of
an officer of experience, who, approaching the
town toward the end of spring in the year 1535,
pressed it more closely than formerly; but found
404 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
the fortifications so strong and so diligently
guarded, that he durst not attempt an assault.
It was now above fifteen months since the Ana¬
baptists had established their dominion in Mun-
ster : they had during that time undergone pro¬
digious fatigue in working on the fortifications
and performing military duty. Notwithstanding
the prudent attention of their king to provide
for their subsistence, and his frugal as well as
regular economy in their public meals, they be¬
gan to feel the approach of famine. Several
small bodies of their brethren, who were advanc¬
ing to their assistance from the Low Countries,
had been intercepted and cut ta pieces; and,
while all G-ermany was ready to combine against
them, they had no prospect of succor. But such
was the ascendency which Boccold had acquired
over the multitude, and so powerful the fascina¬
tion of enthusiasm, that their hopes were as san¬
guine as ever, and they hearkened with implicit
credulty to the visions and predictions of their
prophets, who assured them that the Almighty
would speedily interpose in order to deliver the
city. The faith, however, of some few, shaken
by the violence and length of their sufferings,
began to fail; but, being suspected of an inclina¬
tion to surrender to the enemy, they were pun-
TO ANTIQUITY.
405
ished with immediate death as guilty of impiety
in distrusting the power of God.
" By this time the besieged endured the utmost
rigor of famine ; but they chose rather to suffer
hardships, the recital of which is shocking to
humanity, than to listen to the terms of capitu¬
lation offered them by the Bishop. At last, a
deserter whom they had taken into their service,
being either less intoxicated with the fumes of
enthusiasm, or unable any longer to bear such
distress, made his escape to the enemy. He in¬
formed their general of a weak part in the forti¬
fications which he had observed, and assuring
him that the besieged, exhausted with hunger
and fatigue, kept wateh there with little care, he
offered to lead a party thither in the night. The
proposal was accepted, and a chosen body of
troops appointed for the service, who, scaling
the walls unperceived, seized one of the gates
and admitted the rest of the army. The Ana¬
baptists, though surprised, defended themselves
in the market-place with valor heightened by
despair; but, being overpowered by numbers,
and surrgunded on every hand, most of them
were slain, and the remainder taken prisoners.
Among the last were the king and Knipperdol-
ing. The king, loaded with chains, was carried
406 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
From city to city as a spectacle to gratify the
curiosity of the people, and was exposed to all
their insults. His spirit, however, was not broken
or humbled by this sad reverse of his condition;
and he adherred with unshaken firmness to the
distinguishing tenets of his sect. After this he
was brought back to Munster, the scene of his
royalty and crimes, and put to death with tor¬
tures, which he bore with astonishing fortitude.
This extraordinary man, who had been able to
acquire such amazing dominion over the minds
of his followers, and to excite commotions so
dangerous to society, was only twenty-six years
of age. Together with its monarch, the kingdom
of the Anabaptists came to an end." Ruter's
edition of Gregory, pp. 345—49.
How Baptists will like this picture, as drawn
of their recognized ancestors by the pen of faith¬
ful history, is not for us to inquire just now.
They claim them most assuredly. Now, if they
were Baptists of the true stripe, and Baptists of
the present day have descended from them, at
what other conclusion can we arrive than that
which is true alike in philosophy and nature,
that like will beget like. That is, if Anabaptists
preached and practiced the abolition of all civil
magistracy and government, what more can be ex-
to antiquity.
407
pected of the s3.in6 kindred? do not, wo
shall not say that Baptists in these days are
working for the overthrow of our civil institu¬
tions, yet, if they still persist in claiming the
Anabaptists as blood relations, we cannot resist,
for the life of us, remembering, in close con¬
nection, the case of "poor Tray" and the old
adage, " Tell me the company you keep, and I'll
tell you who you are." Baptists must not blame
us for pushing this matter to its legitimate con¬
clusions.
If these Anabaptists have given us a true
specimen of their attachment to civil and reli¬
gious freedom, then we beg to be excused from
joining their party, and pray, "From such, Grood
Lord deliver us."
It is frequently stated, with a great deal of con¬
fidence by ^Baptists, that our American liberty
and our form of republican government were
cradled- in the Baptist Churches. ' They argue
in this way: Boger Williams was the first man
openly and earnestly to urge a republican form
of government j and he was a Baptist; there¬
fore, Baptists originated a free and independent
government. To one not read in the history of
our country, this, argument, with its kindred illus¬
trations, might pass very readily for a sound state-
408
baptist pretensions
ment of facts. But we shall now proceed to show,
not only that Baptist principles had nothing to
do with it, hut that liberty of conscience was pro-
mulged before there was even a Baptist society
in the Colonies, and that to another party is
due, if to any, the honor and glory of originating
the freedom of conscience.
If the reader will go a little farther hack in
ages prior to the settlement of the Colonies, he
will find a party called Puritans struggling and
contending for this same principle of freedom of
conscience. These Puritans were first separated
as a party about the year 1550. "When Hooper,
who had gone into exile in the latter years of
Henry VIII., was appointed Bishop of Glouces¬
ter, he, for a time, refused to he consecrated in
the vestments which the law required; and his
refusal marks the era when the Puritans first
existed as a separate party" " The precious
spark of liberty," says an historian, who was
never accused of favoring the Puritans, "had
jbeen kindled and was preserved by the Puritans
alone." Bancroft's History of the United States,
vol. i., pp. 280, 291.
Mr. Alex. Campbell, speaking of this same
Hooper, says: " This great man's stern and
unbending integrity was the first occasion,
TO ANTIQUITY.
409
rather than an actual cause, of our own glorious
Revolution. He was, indeed, the grand proto¬
type of that noble race of mighty men, the patri¬
archs of civil liberty, the original fathers of the
illustrious sisterhood of American republics. . . .
Such was the man, Mr. President, who, with the
immortal Rogers, of Smithfield memory, roasted
in the fire of papal cruelty, gave the first grand
impulse to the cause of liberty, civil and re¬
ligious. At their smouldering embers was lit
the torch of American liberty. From their altar
was borne across the seas the sacred fire that has
warmed and illuminated the New World, and
given to us our free and liberal institutions."
Debate with Rice, p. 768.
We have given these authorities to show that
the inception of civil and religious liberty ante¬
dates the time of Roger Williams near eighty
years, and of course could not have been first
promulged by him. We now give a few more,
showing somewhat of the progress of these prin¬
ciples before the times of Mr. Williams.
"A new feature in the controversy was de¬
veloped [1565] in the introduction of political
principles; and, in the language of Hallam, the'
battle was no longer to be fought for a tippet
and a surplice, but for the whole ecclesiastical
410 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
hierarchy, interwoven, as it was; with the tem¬
poral constitution of England. . . . The prin¬
ciples of civil liberty that thus began to be pro¬
mulgated, so totally incompatible with the exor¬
bitant prerogatives hitherto exercised by the
English sovereign, rendered the Puritans, in a
peculiar manner, the objects of the Queen's
aversion."
Again : u The Puritans brought with i them
and established in the New World important
principles of civil liberty, which it would be
unjust here to pass unnoticed. Before they
effected a landing at Plymouth, they embodied
these principles in a brief, simple, but compre¬
hensive compact, which was to form the basis
of their future government. In this instrument
we have exhibited a perfect equality of rights
and privileges. In the cabin of the Mayflower,
the Pilgrims met together as equals and as free¬
men, and, in the name of God whom they wor¬
shipped, subscribed the first charter of liberty
established in the New World, declaring them¬
selves the source of all the laws that were to be
exercised over them, and promising to the same
due subjection and obedience. Mere was laid
the foundation of American liberty." "A band
of Puritans, [not Baptists,] dissenters from the
TO ANTIQUITY.
411
established Church of England, persecuted for
their religious opinions, and seeking in a foreign
land that liberty of conscience which their own
country denied them, became the first colonists
of New England." Willson's American History,
pp. 158, 159, 179.
Mr. Benedict, a Baptist historian, whom we
have several times quoted, speaking of Boger
Williams, says: "All who have given any items
of his history agree in asserting that in early life
he was regularly admitted to orders in the Church
of England, and preached for some time as a
minister of that Church. . . . Possessing an ar¬
dent love for truth and liberty, he was led by his
convictions to join the Puritans, and, like others
of them, emigrated to New England, which had
become famous abroad as the home of piety and
freedom. He arrived at Nantucket in Pebruary,
1681." " He was born in Wales in 1598," and
" in 1639 he was baptized [immersed] by Ezekiel
Holliman, a layman, appointed by the little com¬
pany for the purpose. Then baptized [im¬
mersed] the rest of the company, and thus laid
the foundation for the first Baptist Church in
Providence and on the American continent."
Benedict's History, pp. 426, 441, 442.
Our way is now historically clear for the argu-
412 BAPTIST SPftETENSIONS
ment in refutation of the 'pretension of Baptists,
that our civil and religious liberties are the re¬
sults of Baptist principles, as such. In the first
place, we learn that years before Roger Williams
was born the Puritans sighed, struggled, and
emigrated eventually to the colonies for this
liberty; that they signed in the cabin of the
Mayflower the first charter of liberty. In the
next place, we learn that Roger Williams came
to the colonies a Puritan, having been ordained
a clergyman in the established Church of Eng¬
land, in which he remained for some seven years
after coming to this country, and it was during
these seven years that he advocated so boldly the
'rights of -conscience and liberty. And next, in
1639, he was immersed by a layman, there be*
ing no Baptist preacher in the country, and he
in turn immersed some ten others, " and thus
laid the foundation for the first Baptist Church
in Providence and on the American continent.
If these things be so, and their truth none
can doubt, how, then, can it be possible that we
owe our civil and religious liberties to Baptists ?
If history be true, there was not a Baptist in the
colonies until 1639. Then it was not. Roger
Williams the Baptist, but Roger Williams the
Puritan, a clergyman of the established Church
TO ANTIQUITY. 413
of England, that advocated so boldly the cause
of liberty; but not even then, until it had had
precedence of him here for nearly eighty years,
having been lit, as Mr. Alex. Campbell says, at
the smouldering embers of Hooper and Rogers in
the plains of Smithfield. This it was that " gave
the first grand impulse to the cause of liberty,
civil and religious," and not Baptist senti¬
ments.
u Baptist sentiments" indeed! Why, they
scarcely had an existence. In proof, hear a
word from the great and good Dr. Hall, an emi¬
nent Baptist minister of England. He says, in
speaking of distinct and separate Baptist Churches
in the early ages of Christianity: "Of_this not
the faintest trace or vestige is to be found in
ecclesiastical history; and the supposition is
completely confuted by the concurrent testimony
of ancient writers to the universal incorporation
of orthodox Christians into one grand commun¬
ity. Not the shadow of evidence can be pro¬
duced to prove the existence, during that long
1 tract of time, of a single society of which adult
baptism was the distinguishing characteristic."
" Indeed, we read of the separate existence of
no Baptist Churches anywhere upon the conti¬
nent during the whole period of the Middle
414 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
Ages, and until the time of the Reformation."
Works, vol. i., pp. 481-3.
" But whatever may be the truth," says an¬
other Baptist minister, " respecting the existence
of Baptist sentiments in England before A. D.
1370, it is certain that their prevalence can be
distinctly dated from that time; and yet they
found no embodiment in Baptist Churches, as
such, till several years after the beginning of the
seventeenth century." " Crosby, in his History
of the English Baptists, says that they began to
form themselves into separate societies in 1633."
Whitney on Open Communion, pp. 153, 154.
There now, from Baptist authorities, we see that
it was not until the commencement of the seven¬
teenth century that there was even a beginning
of a formation of a distinct Baptist society.
And yet they would make you believe, if they
could, that all the blessings the world enjoys,
and especially civil and religious liberty, have
been the results of Baptist Churches, as such,
when their own writers inform us that they just
began to form separate communities only about
250 years ago. We could give "a few more
grape of the same sort;" but let this suffice, as
it is amply sufficient tq, show the utter futility
of the above pretension. We are not, then, in-
TO ANTIQUITY.
415
debted to Baptists for the idea, or hard strugglings
for our civil and religious liberties.
A few thoughts upon several subjects, and we
submit the matter to the reader. And, first,
Notwithstanding all their boasted pretensions
concerning liberty and republicanism, yet there
are none more dictatorial and monarchical. At
the very threshold of entrance among them, this
is clearly manifested. When any one makes ap¬
plication to join them, they do not allow the
said applicant any liberty of choice in his bap¬
tism. Baptists have determined the mode them¬
selves, and say to every one, This is the way, the
only way. And it makes no difference whether
the person has been baptized before by some
other orthodox minister or not; and whether in
infancy or adult years, whether satisfied or not
with that baptism, there is one thing certain, he
has to submit to a re-baptism to satisfy their dic¬
tatorial Spirit, or else tacitly acknowledge, as we
have seen Dr. Fuller has done, that their boasted
succession is all a mere figment, which, however,
would.be detrimental to their cause, and serve to
their final overthrow.
No, no. They will not let you say at all how
you will be baptized. No choice is left you in
416 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
this matter. They have as effectually determined
this matter for you, and for all their members, as
Roman Catholics have any of their dogmas for
their subjects. So, then, at the very threshold
of their society, they say, "You must not, or
have no right to choose in this matter; we will
do that for you."
As in the first step of Church relation, so in
the second, that of partaking of the Lord's Sup¬
per with others who are not worse, if not better
than themselves. Here they dictate to all their
members, and say with whom they may and shall
not commune. Is this democratic ? Is it leaving
their members free to say what they will do in
the premises, when an opportunity is offered them
by other Christians to commune? Nay, verily.
There are hundreds, not to say thousands, of
Baptists who would willingly and readily meet
others besides their own order around our Master's
table; but—yes, but, sure enough, they are not
left free to do so, for fear of expulsion.
We are aware of their position in answer to all
this. They say, others are not baptized, and
hence it is wrong to commune with them. But
is this not speaking as dogmatic and as papistic
as any Pope of Rome has ever done ? What
does the Pope more than Baptists ? He issues
TO. ANTIQUITY.
417
his doctrines and terms of communion, and his
subjects are bound to assent and comply with
them. Do not Baptists the same ? They issue
forth the doctrine that immersion by one of their
own administrators only is valid baptism, and all
are bound to assent to it. They say to their mem¬
bers, u You shall not take the Lord's Supper
with anybody except Baptists; if you do, you
will certainly be cited to appear before the
Church to answer for your sin." Is this the
democracy of which they so much boast ? Thus
are their members held in servile subjection to
their dogmatic pretensions, under fear of degra¬
dation by expulsion.
Again: Once a person joins them, there is no
way of getting out from them hut hy death or
expulsion. Their members are not allowed even
to withdraw. A letter of dismission is always
granted with the proviso that the bearer " is dis¬
missed from them whenever he joins another
society of the same faith and order." And
should he choose to change his Church relation,
and give his letter to a Church more democratic
and mere congenial to his own feelings and faith,
he becomes liable to expulsion, or at least to
Church castigation. And that we are correct in
this statement, we here subjoin a case that has
14
418
baptist pretensions
transpired within the bounds of the work of the
writer. We shall give the letters as nearly as
possible verbatim, et literatim, et punctuatim.
" the baptist Church at Elam this is to certify
that our beloyed Brother Thomas Moffett has
been dismissed from us by letter when Joined to
some other Church of the same faith and order
August 7 the 1858 M. B L BlNION
Moderator
G. Massey Ch Ck"
This letter was given to the Methodist Epis¬
copal Church, South, Enon Circuit, Alabama
Conference, soon after it was written, and re¬
ceived by the bearer. Almost with electric
speed, the news is carried back to Elam, Ga.;
and, with great promptness and decision, the
Church acts upon the case, and sends back the
following message, equalled only by a Roman
Catholic authority. Just read it.
"Stewart County Georgia Sept 6th 1858
"Dear Brother Thomas Moffett
"Report has Reached the Church at Elam that
you have insted of unighting with a church of
the same faith and order Unighted yourself with
to antiquity.
419
the Methodist church you therefore stand charged
in the church here as having acted contrary to
Baptist usage your letter holds you Responcible
to the church until joined to some other church
of the same faith and order, we whose names
are hereunto anexed have been appointed to
notafy you of these things and we do it in the
best of feelings that if you continue in your
Recrerant way the Church here Requires you to
return your letter which is your duty to do. but
Dear brother we hope you will consider the mater
over and act otherwise that is unight yourself
with the Baptist church we hope you will think
over those things and send us or come to the
church and make your apoligey or send back your
letter by next meeting
If these are not a beautiful clique of disciples
to set themselves up as being the only true
Church, then we know nothing about the mat¬
ter! We dare say, this "commita," with such
" larnin" as they here discover, would strenu¬
ously contend against such men as Chalmers,
Clarke, Calvin, Henry, Luther, and "all the
done by order of the church
John Talbot 1
David Trammel J 0
Commita"
420 baptist pretensions
lexicographers and commentators," that baptizo
means nothing but immerse. O, yes, their eyes
were couched when they were " laid beneath the
yielding wave," probably of some muddy lake,
pond, or creek ! But, laying aside all such strict¬
ures, these ungrammatical papers prove the posi¬
tions as set forth by us in a very clear and
forcible way.
First, Baptists only give a letter to be put into
another Church of the same faith and order;
secondly, that letter holds the bearer responsible
to the Church which gave it, until placed in a
Church of the same faith and order; thirdly, that
it is contrary to Baptist usage to allow their
members to join any other Church; fourthly,
that should the bearer join any other than a
Baptist Church he stands charged before the
Church; and, fifthly, should he continue in his
recreant way, he is to return his letter to the
Church, or, of course, he being charged, must be
expelled, if he refuses, or does not choose to
return it and make his apology for this enormous
crime.
This, then, is Baptist doctrine, Baptist usage,
and Baptist democracy! They cannot deny
these things. And yet they would have the
world believe that of all other people they are
TO ANTIQUITY.
421
the greatest advocates for civil and religious tole¬
ration or liberty. It looks very democratic] in¬
deed, does it not, when a man is not at liberty
to quit one Church and join another, if he
chooses so to act ?
The writer, some two years ago, received into
the Methodist Church an aged couple who had
been members of the Baptist Church some thirty
years. And yet this aged pair were arraigned
before the" Church of which they had been mem¬
bers so long, and expelled for no other crime, no
other sin, but that of choosing to leave it and
join the Methodist Church; while others, guilty
of flagrant transgressions of God's holy law, were
passed over without a notice. Is it not true that
they will expel a member for joining another
Church and communing with other Christians,
and still hold on to others who are living in daily
infractions of the laws of Heaven? We ask
any man to institute the inquiry and he will see
its truth.
Again: Suppose " the aged pair" above al¬
luded to were to present themselves at the com¬
munion-table, would Baptists give them the
sacrament ? Certainly not. But why not ?
Have they not been regularly immersed after
422 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
the Baptist fashion? This no one can call in
que'stion. Then, why refuse them the sacra¬
ment ? Ah ! " they are out of order." " Out
of order?" What do they mean by that ? Just
simply this—they are not members of the Baptist
Church. Then, the reason, true and clear, why
persons are not admitted to the sacrament
amongst Baptists is, they are not members of
the Baptist Church.
Where, now, in all. the book of God, has the
good Lord ever made it requisite for one to be¬
long to the Baptist Church to partake of his
holy sacrament? This, then, is a man-made
law among them.
" But a person must be baptized before he can
partake of the sacrament." Is it possible ? How
did they learn that ? Not from the Bible surely,
for that book says no such thing. Who baptized
the apostles, to whom our Saviour gave it the
night before his betrayal? Baptists say they
were baptized: now, we call upon them for the
direct evidence in the premises. We shall take
no inference upon the subject. The proof must
be positive and direct. Let them bring forth
their evidence from the Book itself. Does that
say they were baptized ? Upon this subject it is
TO ANTIQUITY. 423
as silent as tlie grave. Nay, reader, there is no
account of any one of the apostles ever having
been baptized hut Paul, and he was not one of
the original twelve; besides, he was baptized in
a house, in a standing position at that, and hence
was not immersed, and he afterwards declared
that he was " not sent to baptize, but to preach
the gospel and we judge Baptists will not
claim him as being in a direct line of Baptist
ancestry, inasmuch as they spem by their words
and actions to entertain the notion that the.
Almighty has given them a title clear and ex¬
plicit to guard and defend the water. Quite
a difference, you see, between Paul and Bap¬
tists.
And, yet, this is Baptist democracy I Yes;
if you will believe as they believe, and do as
they do, and choose as they choose, why, then,
you are in a glorious state of liberty. The fact
is, if you do not believe as they believe, do as
they do, choose as they may dictate, they be¬
come petulant, out of patience with you, and
raise the loud, whining cry of persecution—'per¬
secution! and boldly assert from hence that
they are the only people of God upon earth;
in which they try to gain the sympathies of
424 BAPTIST PRETENSIONS
mankind, and get them to conclude that they
are indeed what they profess to be, the only
temple of Grod among men.
This exposition is now before you: how far
it shows Baptist pretensions to. be fallacious and
absurd, we leave the reader to decide.
THE END.