*. 
 
 '
 
 JOHN K. GOTT
 
 s 
 
 * Sfc 
 
 UCSB LIBRARY 
 
 
 ''&.* 

 
 
 
 
 ^ i 
 
 
 *j * 
 .* 
 
 
 .
 
 SUBJECT OF BAPTISM: ' 
 
 DESIGNED PRINCIPALLY TO 
 
 GUARD THE SERIOUS INQUIRER AFTER TRUTH, 
 
 AGAINST THE 
 
 SOPHISTRY OF CAMPBELLISM. 
 
 BY ANDREW McDOWELL. 
 
 " Great men are not always wise; neither do the aged understand 
 judgment. 
 
 " Therefore I said, hearken to me, I also will shew mine opinion." 
 Job xxxii : 9, 10. 
 
 RICHMOND: 
 
 P. D. Bernard, Printer, Museum Building 
 
 1844.
 
 * 
 

 
 TO THE READER 
 
 ' . * 
 
 IN presenting the following sheets to the public, it may be proper, in 
 conformity to the custom of the age, to detain the reader with a long 
 apology : but as I have only discharged my duty, as I conceive, I have 
 therefore no apology to make. I have thought that the doctrines which 
 are advanced in this, our day, and especially in the vicinity in which 
 I reside, calls aloud for something on the subject of baptism different 
 from what has heretofore been published, therefore I have made the 
 effort, feeble as it is, in the name and fear of God. 
 
 I have not been so anxious to elicit original matter in these sheets, 
 but rather to collect and arrange that which, in many instances, I find 
 made ready to my hand; and, for this reason, I have given many ex- 
 tracts from the pens of various authors. In quoting Mr. Campbell, I 
 have, in some instances, confided in the veracity of those authors from 
 whom I have quoted ; but these instances are but few, for I have 
 quoted the major part from his own pen. All I want in this matter 
 is for the reader to weigh impartially the arguments herein presented, 
 having the bur of prejudice removed from the mind; and when this 
 is done, my object will be accomplished. 
 
 May the God of all grace lead both the reader and writer into the 
 way of truth and light, and ultimately to glory, is the prayer of 
 
 THE AUTHOR.
 
 . 
 

 
 A TREATISE 
 
 ON THE 
 
 SUBJECT OF BAPTISM, &e. 
 
 T^W 
 ** 
 
 CHAPTER. I. 
 
 The authority upon which ice are to rely in the fottaicing treatise. 
 
 I MUST here admonish the gentle reader in the commencement, not 
 to suffer his astonishment to overwhelm him at the sight of the cap- 
 tion of our first chapter. I know that such a chapter is not common 
 in a treatise of this kind, but you may not be aware that there are 
 many nowadays, who cannot with confidence rely on such authority 
 as was relied upon some eighteen or twenty years since. I have no 
 doubt but that you think the Bible (the Old and New Testament scrip- 
 tures) is the great source of information on all religious subjects, and 
 the authority upon which we are to rely in the discussion of the sub- 
 ject now before us, and we would not have troubled you with a chap- 
 ter of this kind, if we did not believe it would be necessary. It may 
 not be necessary to many who may read this treatise, yet to many 
 others it is necessary, I am sure. So far as scripture testimony in the 
 discussion of this subject is concerned, it is knowi that many rely on 
 Mr. Campbell's translation as the only correct translation now extant ; 
 and, consequently, when you hear them preach or converse on the 
 subject of baptism, they always quote Mr. Campbell's version; and 
 to one not familiar with the old version, every thing appears correct, 
 and all that the preacher says is scripture ; or what is the same thing, 
 he proves it all by scripture. Now for my own part, I cannot admit 
 Mr. C's. version to be referred to or relied upon in this treatise, be- 
 cause I believe his version is incorrect, and therefore cannot trust it. 
 But before it is rejected as authority, you may think it but right for 
 us to show good cause why it should be thus rejected, and it is for this 
 reason I will call your attention to its merits for a few moments. 
 
 1st. In order to know whether we can trust Mr. C. to translate for 
 us, I will give you a quotation from his preface to his foutth edition. 
 !: If the king's translators found reasons to justify themselves for 
 shunning the obscurities of the Papists, we will, for the same reasons, 
 be allowed to shun the obscurities of the Protestants, if this can be 
 done by a fair translation." 
 
 In this extract you have more than an intimation of what one ot 
 the objects of the translator is. You have only to know what relation 
 he sustains to the Protestant churches by which he is surrounded, and 
 1*
 
 6 * ' % 
 
 then you can understand what he means by the words " shunning the 
 obscurities of the Protestants." And in order that you may form a 
 correct idea of this point, I will favor you with an extract from his 
 Extra Harbinger, JNo. 4, page G7 : 
 
 "Qes. What, then, is the duty of all Christians found in these 
 communities Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, &c. 1 
 
 "Ans. They are commanded to come out of them. Rev. xviii: 
 4. Come out of her, my people, that you be not partaker of her sins, 
 and that you receive not of her plagues. 
 
 "Ques. From whom are they commanded to come out! 
 
 "Ans. From Babylon, the Apostacy. 
 
 "Qjies. Do all sects constitute Babylon V 
 
 'Ans. Yes." 
 
 In relation to the creeds of those churches, he says: "They are 
 known to have produced hypocrisy, false swearing and prevarication, 
 for the sake of livings strife, envy, hatred, and indeed every evil 
 work." Extra Harbinger, No. 4, p. 346. 
 
 From the above extracts you will be able to get an idea of Mr. C's. 
 relation to the Protestants. You will observe that they are all in Baby- 
 lon, while he (Mr. C.) is out of her. Having escaped from the smoke 
 which perpetually ascends from her idolatrous altars, his eyes after 
 awhile became clear, for he himself, was once a seceder, then joined 
 the Regular Baptists; after which, he being quite a man among them, 
 brought about a division in the church which resulted in his being the 
 head of a party. And now in this situation, young in party strife and 
 small in numbers, he cries out, Come over to us on the Lord's side 
 lest the curse of God fall on you, ye mystic sons of Babylon. And 
 in order that you may know whether or not you belong to Babylon, it 
 is only to ask, Have you been immersed, for the remission of sins^ 
 And if not, " Come out from her, my people, that ye be not partakers 
 of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." 
 
 I ask, can any infidel whatever, say more against these churches to 
 bring them into disrepute and drive back the influence of the gospel, 
 and more effectually promote infidelity, than these remarks of Mr. C.1 
 If they are good for any thing, they are calculated to do but little to- 
 wards helping Christianity to combat theslander, detraction and abuse, 
 which infidelity has hurled against the church of God. Now I ask 
 you, friendly reader, do you think the Protestant world can trust Mr. 
 C. to translate the Bible for them, when he has avowed in his preface 
 that he will "shun the obscurities of the Protestant, if possible T 
 You can but see that, according to his own showing, his position to 
 the Protestant world is hostile. 
 
 Do you not think that this very fact, viz: Hostility to the Protes- 
 tants, is at least one cause of his attempting to translate the scriptures 
 so as to avoid the "obscurities" of these churches, and lay a platform 
 on which to rear his own favorite dogmas shall I call it ? perhaps 
 this may not be applicable, but it is the best name I can give it at 
 present. You must keep in mind that his favorite dogma was ad- 
 vanced and strongly recommended by him. to all the world ; first to 
 the Regular Baptists and then lo the Greek?, or Protestants, for the 
 Regular Baptists were not in Babylon when he was among them. It 
 was only when they forsook him (as in the case of the Dover decrees) 
 that they returned to the old lady, the mother of harlots. This doc- 
 trine, taught and recommended by Mr. C. was not likely to be re- 
 ceived, unless it was shown to coinport more closely with the word 

 
 of God. To avoid this difficulty Mr. C. immediately begins to trans 
 late the word of God, and declares that he will give you the meaning 
 of the word, if he should fail in a literal translation. 
 
 3d. Our argument against Mr. C's. version is, that he does not 
 give a literal translation. But his design is, to give the meaning of 
 the word as he understands it ; and in order to convince you that this 
 is his design, it is only necessary to give you his own language. In 
 his preface, page 7, he says: "And the king's translators have fre- 
 quently erred, in attempting to be, what some would call, literally 
 correct. They have not given the meaning in some passages where 
 they have given a literal translation." From this you perceive that 
 Mr. C. sets himself up as one who knows the meaning of the sacred 
 word; and having advanced all of his high positions on the subject of 
 theology, in accordance \yith his conceptions of God's word, calls ou 
 all the world to embrace them. The Christian world, all with out- 
 voice, refuses to accept them, on the* ground that they do not comport 
 with the word of God. Then it is that he undertakes to clip and 
 stretch, bend and twist the sacred word to suit the standard which ht 
 has erected, and thus make it appear that the scriptures, when rightly 
 tran;-lated, are in close accordance with his doctrine. In this he is 
 stimulated, no doubt, by the cheering hope that Should I succeed in 
 this, then all the controversy about the mode of baptism and the mean- 
 ing of that word, will be at- an end; and it will be I even 1 that 
 have brought about this desirable end. That we may not be looked 
 upon as making an impression on the mind of the reader which has 
 no foundation, I will quote Mr. C's. own words, in answer to Doctor 
 Cleland, who Mr. C. says, "would not have translated it (baptize) 
 at all, but would have left it in the Greek, for every one to quarrel 
 about. Is this controversy about the mode of baptism and the mean- 
 ing of the word, ever to terminate 1 If it is destined to come to an 
 end, the sooner the better; and nothing, w imagine, will so expedite 
 such a desirable issue as the course we have pursued." M. Har. vol. 
 iv. p. 531. I ask, can you, gentle reader, be at a loss, from these quo- 
 tations, to see what the design of Mr. C. is in the translation he has 
 published'? I am confident that you must conclude with me, that it is 
 in order to give currency, publicity and support to his own peculiar 
 views. His design appears to be, 
 
 1st. To " avoid the obscurities of the Protestant" world; and there- 
 fore the divinity of Jesus Christ, the regenerating influence of the 
 Holy Ghost, the witness of the Spirit, and the inexpressible joy, filled 
 wiih glory, consequent thereupon, are all obscure doctrines to Mr. C 
 and are such as he intend* to " shun" in his translation. It is to avoid 
 these obscurities and others of a similar kind, that he intends to give 
 the meaning instead of a literal translation. Who is to give the mean- 
 ing and decide the question which has so long divided the Christian 
 world! Why, A. Campbell. 
 
 Will he give us a literal translation of the New Testament which 
 he publishes, and then act as other commentators, give us in a sepa- 
 rate column the meaning as he understands ill Oh, no! This would 
 not give sufficient weight and importance to his views. You could 
 then, from the word of God, form your own opinions and discern the 
 difference between Mr. C's. notions and the word; but now he has 
 given the meaning in the translation so intermingled with the truth, 
 that his opinions and the word itself will both be received as inspira-
 
 tion, by the unsuspecting reader. Thus Mr. C. has exhibited his supe- 
 rior intellect and ingenuity, in selecting a mode so successful to give 
 publicity to his opinions, by which he inscribes them as " The Sacred 
 Writings of APOSTLES and EVANGELISTS of Jesus Christ, com- 
 monly styled the New Testament." Thus he "shuns the obscurities of 
 Protestants," by giving the meaning instead of a literal translation. 
 
 3d. To put an end to all disputes and quarrels about the mode of 
 baptism, and the meaning of that word, so that he may have the 
 credit of bringing about this " desirable issue." For if his translation 
 should be gene rally received, then it will read, "Go and immerse j' 
 instead of "baptize all nations," &c. The remarks of Doctor Jennings 
 may not be amiss at this point. He says : 
 
 "This bold step it will become the Bishop of Bethany to take; 'it 
 is not the only instance in which, like the Bishop of Rome, he ha:- 
 assumed infallibility to himself. Can any thing be conceived of more 
 arrogant 1 A man who, as an author, professes to be nothing more than 
 an humble compiler of a version of the New Testament, from the 
 works of three translators, yet, in opposition to their authority, and by 
 his own individual authority, hesitates not to make an alteration," in- 
 volving a decision of a question, for the whole of that part of Pro- 
 testant Christendom who speak English, upon which they have long 
 been divided, and for a satisfactory decision of which, the united wis- 
 dom of Christians could neither devise any method, nor erect any tri- 
 bunal. And yet this is not all; nor have we yet arrived at the sum- 
 mit of this man's arrogance. If the views of Mr. C. concerning the 
 nature and effect of baptism, accorded with those of the various sects 
 of evangelical Christians, the alteration made by him, in his version 
 of the New Testament, so as to make baptism conclusively to mean, 
 and to be valid only when performed by immersion, would still have 
 been bold, unprecedented, and unwarrantable, but still it would not 
 have so high a degree of presumption and bigotry, as it now has, 
 when it is considered that, according to his creed, there is no forgive- 
 ness for such as have not been immersed, and that immersion is the 
 ONLY MEANS of washing away our sins. It is then fearlessly 
 asked, if the Bishop of Bethany could have acted more in the style 
 of a Pope 1 
 
 " HE DE: IDES, without hesitation, a question that has for many 
 ages divided the Christian world, and then suspends the salvation of 
 the soul, or which is the same thing in substance, the forgiveness of 
 sins and acceptance with God, upon an implicit acquiescence in HIS 
 DECISION." 
 
 Again I ask, my friendly reader, if you think that the Protestant 
 world can trust Mr. C. to translate the scriptures for them, or rely 
 with any confidence upon his translation 1 
 
 3d. When we take a look into the translation which Mr. C. fur- 
 nishes us with, I think the least doubt (if there be one remaining on 
 your mind) will vanish forever, and leave the settled conviction that 
 Mr. C. cannot be trusted as a translator. Take his first and second 
 editions and read them for yourself, and see the changes made by him 
 in two short years, and then answer the question. How many altera- 
 tions you will find in this short time, I am not able to say; but a gen- 
 tleman of veracity who has compared them carefully, reports that in 
 the single book of Matthew, there are more than five hundred altera- 
 tions in phraseology, and many in doctrine ; and, as a specimen, has 
 given the following:
 
 
 ' Matthew iv : 3. Whereupon the tempter accosting him said, if 
 thou be a soft of God, command that these stones become loaves. 
 First Edition, 1826. 
 
 Whereupon the tempter accosting him, said, if you be God's son. 
 command. &c. Second Edition, 1828. 
 
 Matthew xiv : 33. Thou art assuredly a son of God. First Edi- 
 tion, 1826. 
 
 You are assuredly the son of a God. Second Edition, 1828. 
 
 Once more. 
 
 Matthew vii : 22. Many will say to me on that day, master, mas- 
 ter, have we not taught in thy name, and in thy name expelled de- 
 mons, and in thy name performed many miracles 1 First Edition, 
 1826. 
 
 Many will say to me on that day, master, master, have we not 
 taught in your name, and in your name performed matoy miracles ! 
 Second Edition, 1828. 
 
 Thus you perceive that Mr. C. cannot receive his own translation 
 as first published, consequently it suits his purpose better to alter it 
 in the second edition. 
 
 But having examined the first and second editions, let us take the 
 third, and see if it is in accordance with the second. The third edition 
 was published four years after the second. In this edition the first 
 three chapters of Romans contain more than one hundred alterations 
 in phraseology, involving many in doctrine. At this ratio, there would 
 be more than five hundred alterations in this epistle. Many changes 
 are to be found in this edition ; and as a specimen of what kind many 
 of them are, I will arrange a few of them in separate columns, for 
 your examination. 
 
 Second Edition. 
 
 Romans ii : 13. For not the 
 hearers of the law are just before 
 God, but the doers of the law shall 
 be justified. 
 
 Romans viii : 1. There is then 
 no condemnation now to those in 
 Christ Jesus, who walk not ac- 
 cording to the flesh, but according 
 to the spirit. For the law of the 
 spirit of life, by Christ Jesus, has 
 freed me from the law of sin and of 
 death. For God sending his own 
 son in the likeness of sinful flesh, 
 and of a sin offering, has con- 
 demned sin in the flesh, (the thing 
 impossible to the law, because it 
 was weak through the flesh.) 
 
 Romans xi : 6. And if by fa- 
 vour, it is no more of works, other- 
 wise favour is no more favour: 
 but if of works, it is no more fa- 
 
 Tkird Edition, 
 
 Romans ii : 13. For not those 
 who hear the law, are ju*t before 
 God; but those who obey the law, 
 shall be justified, in the day when 
 God will judge the hidden things 
 of men by Jesus Christ, according 
 to my Gospel. 
 
 Romans viii : 1. There is, then, 
 no condemnation, now, to those 
 who are in Christ Jesus. For the 
 law of the spirit of life, by Christ 
 Jesus, has freed me from the law 
 of sin, and of death. For what 
 the law could not accomplish, in 
 that, it was weak, through the 
 flesh ; God, sending his own son, 
 in the likeness of sinful flesh, ac- 
 complished; and by an offering 
 for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. 
 
 Romans xi : 6. And if by fa- 
 vour, it is no more of works ; other- 
 wise favour is no more favour.
 
 tft 
 
 10 
 
 Second Edition* 
 
 
 Third Edition. 
 
 vour, otherwise work is no more 
 work. 
 
 Matthew vi : 10. Our Father, 
 who art in heaven, thy name be 
 hallowed; thy reign come; thy 
 will be done upon the earth, as it 
 is in heaven ; give us to-day our 
 daily bread; forgive us our debts 
 as we forgive our debtors; and 
 abandon us not to temptation, but 
 deliver us from evil. For thine 
 is the kingdom, and the power, and 
 the glory, forever. Amen. 
 
 Matthew xx : 22. Can you 
 drink such a cup as I must drink; 
 or undergo an immersion like that 
 which I must undergo 1 They said 
 to him, we can. He answered, 
 you shall indeed drink such a cup, 
 and undergo an immersion like 
 that which I must undergo. 
 
 Matthe w xx vii : 35. After they 
 had nailed him to the cross, they 
 parted his garments by lot; thus 
 verifying the words of the prophet, 
 they shared my mantle among i 
 them, and cast lots for my vesture, j 
 
 Markvi : 11. But wheresoever i 
 they will not receive you, nor hear 
 you, shake off the dust under your 
 feet at your departure, as a pro- 
 testation against them. Indeed I 
 say to you, the condition of Sodom 
 and Gomorrah shall be more tole- 
 rable on the day of judgment than 
 the condition of that city. 
 
 Luke xi : 2. Our Father, who 
 art in heaven, thy name be hal- 
 lowed ; thy reign come ; thy will 
 be done upon the earth, as it is in 
 heaven; give us each day our daily 
 bread ; and forgive us our sins, for 
 even we forgive all who offend us ; 
 and abandon us not to tempta- 
 tion, but preserve us from evil. 
 
 Acts viii : 37. And, as they 
 went along the way, they came to 
 a certain water, and the Eunuch 
 said, behold here is water; what 
 should hinder my being immersed 1 
 And Philip said, if you believe 
 with all your heart it may lawfully 
 be done. And he answering, said, 
 
 Matthew vi : 10. Our Father 
 who art in heaven, thy name be 
 hallowed; thy reign come; thy 
 will be done upon the earth as it 
 is in heaven ; give us to-da\ 
 our daily bread; forgive us our 
 debts as we forgive our debtors ; 
 and lead us not into temptation, 
 but preserve us from evil. 
 
 Matthew xx : 22. Can you 
 drink such a cup as I must drink? 
 They said to him, we can. He 
 answered, you shall indeed drink 
 such a cup. 
 
 Matthew xxvii : 35. After they 
 had nailed him to the cross, they 
 parted his garments by lot. 
 
 Mark vi : 11. But wheresoever 
 they will not receive you, nor hear 
 you, shake off the dust under your 
 feet at your departure, as a pro- 
 testation against them. 
 
 Luke xi : 2. Father, thy name 
 be hallowed; thy reign come; give 
 us each day our daily bread; and 
 forgive us our sins, for even we 
 forgive all who offend us; and 
 lead us not into temptation. 
 
 Acts viii : 37. And, as they 
 went along the way, they came to 
 a certain water, and the officer 
 said, behold, water; what hinders 
 my being immersed 1 And he 
 ordered the chariot to stop.
 
 11 
 
 Second Edition. 
 
 I believe that Jesus Christ is the 
 son of God. And he ordered the 
 chariot to stop. 
 
 1 John v : 7. Farther, there are 
 three who bear testimony in hea- 
 ven: the Father, the Word, and 
 the Holy Spirit ; and these three 
 are one. And there are three who 
 bear testimony on earth : the spirit, 
 and the water, and the blood; and 
 these three agree in one. 
 
 Third Edition. 
 
 1 John v -. 7. Indeed, there are 
 three who bear testimony; the 
 spirit, and the water, and the 
 blood; and these three agiee in 
 one. 
 
 These few texts exhibit but a faint specimen of what you will find 
 upon a close examination of the several editions of his Testament. 
 And, I ask, does it require any comment to set these changes before 
 you more palpably 1 I think not. Now if Mr. C. shall continue this 
 practice, what resemblance there will be between his first and last 
 edition, supposing some ten or fifteen should be made, who can con- 
 jecture 1 It is likely that if Mr. C. had commenced this work a little 
 sooner, we should have Seceder, Regular Baptist, and Reform Testa- 
 ments, all now extant ; for he was first a Seceder preacher, then joined 
 the Regular Baptists, and at this time, I believe he is what might be 
 called a Reformer ! Always always reforming. So he is not this 
 year what he was last, nor will be next year what he is this, if we 
 are permitted to judge his future course by the past. 
 
 But I may be told that Mr. C. in his preface, has informed the 
 reader of those changes, consequently he does not impose upon the 
 reader. Very good, and so he has ; but, at the same time, he asserts 
 that he has not altered them so as to change the sense, but in "all 
 cases where changes appear the sense is the same." Now, I ask, is 
 this a fact 1 ? Let us look at a lew of the passages referred to above, 
 and see if the sense is the same. 
 
 Matthewxiv : 33. Thou art assuredly a son of God. First Ed. 
 You are assuredly the son of a God. Second Ed. 
 
 The first implies a plurality of sons; the second, a plurality of 
 Gods. Now does it require any argument to prove that the sense, in 
 this alteration, is materially changed? 
 
 Again, in Matthew vii : 22. In which, " in thy name expelled 
 demons," is left out. I ask if this omission does not change the sense 
 so as to leave us ignorant of what kind of miracles were wrought by 
 the unworthy disciples 1 The changes and omissions in the Lord's 
 prayer, as given by Mr. C. in both Matthew and Luke, 1 think change 
 the sense materially; and it is only necessary to call the attention of 
 the reader to those passages, and he can decide for himself. 
 
 Please refer to the passage in Acts viii : 37, as it stands in the 
 column above, and see if you think the omission there changes the 
 sense. If I were to ask, was there any condition upon which Philip 
 proposed to baptize the Eunuch, where would you find an answer in 
 Mr. C's. stereotyped edition'? If you answer at all, you must say 
 there is none, for this edition gives no account of any. Does it look 
 like good sense to have the officer ask a solemn question and Philip, 
 his instructer, give him no answer] I ask, would Mr. C. do as he 
 has represented Philip to have done baptize a man without requiring
 
 of him faith in Jesus Christ 1 It is likely we may find a reason for 
 this omission, in the circumstance of Mr. C's. notion of faith. 
 
 He defines faith to be, a simple assent of the mind to any truth ; or 
 a persuasion that the sacred historian makes a true record of facts. 
 Therefore, when believing with all the heart, is required, Mr. C. 
 wishes to be excused; consequently, such faith is ejected from his 
 version. Surely we need not extend our remarks on this passage any 
 farther. 
 
 Once more, the passage which has been cited. 1 John v : 7. 
 Where the "three who bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the 
 Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one," is left out, I 
 think does, surely, change the sense, and also the doctrine of the pas- 
 sage. What is ihe doctrine in the secWd edition! It is this: That 
 the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, do bear testimony in heaven, and 
 that these three are one. Thus the doctrine of the trinity is brought 
 to light, and strongly affirmed by the apostle. 
 
 But the third edition Mr. C. makes to speak no such thing; for in 
 this edition*it is stricken out, and the testimony alone of spirit, water, 
 and blood, is permitted to stand alone in the court of inquiry. Mr. 
 C. has so cross-examined the threefold witness, as finally to prove 
 his testimony spurious, consequently he is ejected. This matter will 
 appear in its proper light, when you consider Mr. C. had denied the 
 doctrine of the trinity, and said it was not in the Bible. Now this 
 is one of the obscure doctrines of ihe Protestants, which he has avowed 
 that he will shun in his translation ; or what is the same thing, he 
 says he will shun the obscurities of the Protestants, if it be possible. 
 So if he believes, as he has avowed, that the doctrine of the trinity 
 is not in the Bible, then he must believe it to be an obscure doctrine, 
 and must therefore shun it in order to be true to his promise; and I 
 know of no belter way to shun it than to eject it from the version. 
 This he has done, and thus his promise is fulfilled. Now I ask, how 
 can the sense of the passage be retained when the larger part is left 
 out, and in many instances whole sentences are ejected 1 
 
 Before I close my remarks on this point, I will give the reader one 
 passage more, found in John iii : 8. The wind blows where it pleases, 
 and you hear the sound thereof, but know not whence it comes, or 
 whither it goes; so it is with every one who is born of the spirit. 
 Second Edition. 
 
 The spirit breathes where he pleases, and you hear the report of 
 him, but know not whence he comes, or whither he goes ; so is every 
 one who is born of the spirit. Third Edition. 
 
 Now I ask, once for all, does Mr. C. retain the sense in this pas- 
 sage 1 ? I am confident that no one in his right mind, can think so. 
 The second edition represents the blowing of the wind as illustrative 
 of the operation of the spirit on the soul of man. As the blowing of 
 the wind was felt and heard, we could know certainly; but as for the 
 manner of this fact, whence it comes and whiiher it goes, no one can 
 tell. So is the birth of the spirit. We know the fact that we are born 
 of the spirit, but how this birth or change is effected, we cannot tell. 
 But the third edition . represents the spirit as breathing, and our hear- 
 ing a report of him, and know not whence he is, &c. So is every one 
 that is bom of the spirit. According to my apprehension, this is per- 
 fect nonsense. 
 
 Now, gentle reader, if you can make good sense of it, you have the 
 advantage over me. And if, after these instances given above, you
 
 can say Mr. C. has retained the sense of those passages thus altered 
 and ejected, I must confess that I need other optics than these through 
 which 1 am now looking. They are a little dim by use, but I cannot 
 think that would make a difference so great. 
 
 Again. I might be told that Mr. C. does not profess to translate the 
 word, but simply to compile the work ; and that this work is compiled* 
 from Messrs. Campbell, Macknight, and Doddridge, of the Church 
 of Scotland. All this, 1 know, Mr. C. professes. But what does all 
 that avaiH Does not Mr. C. make many emendations'? This he 
 profesess in the title page of his third edition. Now who can tell 
 the number of these emendations, and to what extent they go, in 
 giving the meaning, as he calls it 1 But. we are told that these emenda- 
 tions of his are placed in italics, so that the reader may know them. 
 But I should like to know if Mr. C. does not go beyond what he pro- 
 fesses. That is, he professes to compile frOm Messrs. Macknight, 
 Doddridge and Campbell, but does he confine himself 10 those authors'? 
 No, far from it. He begins with them, but. where will fee end, is the 
 question. Hear him in his preface to the third edition: 
 
 "Six years have transpired since we published the first edition of 
 this work. During this period we have been receiving criticisms, sug- 
 gestions, and queries relative to farther improvements in the version, 
 and in the mode of exhibiting it. We also solicited and obtained from, 
 some learned and pious men, their assistance in perfecting this trans- 
 lation. To all criticisms and suggestions, from all quarters, both from 
 friends and foes of new versions, we have, according to our opportu- 
 nities, paid a diligent attention ; and have very carefully examined, 
 compared, and revised the whole version." 
 
 From this you perceive since the first edition was published, he has 
 been gleaning from all quarters, materials of which to compose the 
 third edition of his work; and that, too, from friends and foes of a 
 new version. I ask, does not Mr. C. represent himself as the judge 
 of such suggestions and criticisms'? Thus Messrs. Macknight, Dodd- 
 ridge and Campbell are corrected, revised, and improved, as Mr. C. 
 thinks, by his host of learned and pious men. Now, reader, do you 
 think that Messrs. Macknight, Doddridge and Campbell would know 
 their own works as corrected, revised, improved and stereotyped, by 
 this learned vendor of forthcoming editions of the New Testament 
 scriptures, A. Campbell 1 Mark, he says the whole work has been 
 revised. 
 
 Mr. C. says : "Aware of the prejudice and scrupulosity on the sub- 
 ject of any new version, we attempted little or nothing on our own 
 responsibility, in the first edition." 
 
 But pray where is the "prejudice and scrupulosity" now, that once 
 existed 1 Why Mr. C. thinks they are now gone, and he hesitates no 
 longer to attempt things on his "own responsibility," but loudly calls' 
 on his host of " learned and pious gentlemen" to assist in this matter; 
 intimating, you shall not be hurt I will be judge of all your "criti- 
 cisms, queries," &c. 
 
 You must know that Mr. C. had been writing and preaching a good 
 while before this time, and it was not a hard matter to obtain sug- 
 gestions and criticisms from many learned men, whose minds had 
 been cast in the mould which he (Mr. C.) had been so long pre- 
 paring. 
 
 While on the merits of Mr. Campbell's translation, before closing 
 2
 
 14 .'^ ^ 
 
 I would give the reader an extract from Doctor Cleland's strictures, 
 as found copied by Mr. Jamieson, in his Treatise on Baptism: 
 
 " Where now is that exactness, uniformity, and beauty, so exult- 
 ingly ascribed to this new translation, by its author 1 ? When he 
 ascribes this translation, exclusively and unreservedly, to ' George 
 ' Campbell, James Macknight, and Philip Doddridge, Doctors of UK 
 CliiiTch of Scotland' has he not insidiously hung out false colors, to 
 decoy the ignorant and deceive the unwary 1 Though he has declared 
 to the contrary, yet its peculiar, distinctive, sectarian mark is most 
 glaringly prominent. 'If (says he) the mere publication of the in- 
 spired writings requires, as we believe it does, the publisher to have 
 no sectarian object in view, we are happy in being able to appeal to 
 our whole course of public addresses, and to all that we have written 
 on religious subjects, to show that we have no such object in view.' 
 ' The whole scope, de-ign, and drift of our labors- is to see Christians 
 intelligent, united and happy.' Can any candid man read all the 
 volumes of the ' Christian Baptist,' the ' Millenial Harbinger,' and 
 this famous Testament, without having his credulity and charity both 
 severely tried, on hearing such a declaration from the greatest theo- 
 logical pugilist and partizan in all the landl But even should credu- 
 lity and charity sustain themselves under this first trial, they will 
 hardly survive the next, as follows : 'We have no aversion or um- 
 brage against any one (sect) more than another' [Presbyterians ex- 
 cepted.J ' We oppose them most who oppose and depart from the 
 simplicity that is in Christ.' [Not Unitarian allies, but Presbyteri- 
 ans.] ' I do most solemnly declare, that as far as respects my (eel- 
 ings, partialities, reputation, and worldly interest, as a man, 1 would 
 be a Presbyterian, a Methodist, a Quaker, Universalist, a Socinian, 
 or any thing else,' [Pagan, Mahometan, or Atheist,] 'before the sun 
 would set to-morrow, if the Apostolic writings would, [|dr] IN MY 
 JUDGMENT, authorize me in so doing.' Pref. p. 13. Thus snugly 
 retreated and fortified within himself, see what splendid, attractive, 
 fascinating colors he can extend by 'Apostolic' hands, to an admiring 
 world, from behind the impregnable rampart ol his own infallible 
 judgment. Candid reader, how much do you think such a fine decla- 
 ration as this is worth 1 
 
 "We shall now, as before intimated, pay a little attention to the 
 comparative claims of this new, above the old version, made in the 
 lofty tone of exultation. 'We would only say,' says this sapient re- 
 former, 'that the edification and comfort of a Christian maybe greatly 
 promoted by a minute examination of this version, and a diligent com- 
 parison of it with the common one.' Having thus established, at least 
 in his own mind, the superiority of his reformed Testament, with 
 great confidence and self-complacency, no doubt, he makes the follow- 
 ing declaration: ' That translation will be universally received which 
 has the strongest claims on an intelligent, united, and happy Christian 
 community.' We join issue here, and put this matter to the test. We 
 have men of 'illustrious name' of gigantic stature, in respect of in- 
 tellectual character, and in comparison wjth whom, A. Campbell is 
 as a glow-worm to the meridian splendor of noonday, who testify, 
 most positively, to the superior claims of the common version. We 
 will introduce a few of them, selected from a large number, as a spe- 
 cimen. And we will set in front two of our author's main authorities, 
 on which he pretends to found this new translation. 
 
 " 1. Dr. GEORGE CAMPBELL. ' The agreement of all the transla-
 
 15 
 
 tions, as to the meaning, in every thing of principal consequence, 
 makes their differences, when properly considered, appear as nothing.' 
 
 "2. Dr. DODDRIDGE. ' On a diligent comparison of our translation 
 with the original, we find that of the New Testament, and I might 
 add that also of the Old, in the main, faithful and judicious. You 
 know, indeed, that we do not scruple, on some occasions, to animad- 
 vert upon it; but you also know, that these remarks affect not the 
 fundamentals of religion, and seldom reach any further than the 
 beauty of a figure, or at most the connection of an argument.' 
 
 "3. JOHN SELDEN. 'The English translation of the Bible is the 
 best translation in the world, and renders the sense of the original best.' 
 
 "4. BISHOP WALTON. 'The English translation made by divers 
 learned men at the command of King James, .... may justly con- 
 tend with any now extant in any other language in Europe.' 
 
 "5. BISHOP LOWTH. ' The vulgar translation of the Bible, is the 
 best standard of our language.' 
 
 "6. Dr. MiDDLEToS. 'The style of our present version is incom- 
 parably superior to any thing which might be expected from the finical 
 and perverted taste of our own age. It is simple, it is harmonious, it 
 is energetic; and, which is of no small importance, use has made it 
 familiar, and time has rendered it sacred.' 
 
 " 7. Dr. GEDDES. ' The highest eulogiums have been made on the 
 translation of James the First, both by our own writers and by foreign- 
 ers. And indeed, if accuracy, fidelity, and the strictest attention to 
 the letter of the text, be supposed to constitute the qualities of an ex- 
 cellent version, this of all versums must, in general, be accounted the most 
 excellent.' 
 
 "8. Dr. WHITTAKER. ' The highest value has always been attached 
 
 to our translation of the Bible It may be compared with any 
 
 translation in the world, without fear of inferiority; it has not shrunk from 
 the most rigorous examination , it challenges investigation ; and, in spile of 
 numerous attempts to super cede it, has hitherto remained unrivalled in the 
 affections of the country.' ' Let us not, therefore,' he continues, ' too 
 hastily conclude that they (the translators) have fallen on evil days 
 and evil tongues, because it has occasionally happened that an indi- 
 vidual [such as Alexander Campbell, for instance,] as inferior to (hem 
 in condition as in talents and integrity, is found questioning their motives, 
 or denying their qualifications for the task which they so well performed.' 
 
 "9. Rev. C. BUCK. 'The divines employed by King James to 
 translate the Old and New Testaments, have given us a translation 
 which, with very few exceptions, can scarcely be improved. These 
 divines were profoundly skilled in the learning as well as in the lan- 
 guages of the East ; whilst some of those who have attempted to im- 
 prove their version, [A. Campbell, for instance,] seem not to have 
 possessed a critical knowledge of the Greek tongue, to have still less 
 of the Hebrew, and to have been absolute strangers to the dialect 
 spoken in Judea in the days of the Saviour, as well as to the manners, 
 customs, and peculiar opinions of the Jewish sects.' 
 
 "10. Dr. JOHN TAYLOR Author of the excellent Hebrew and En- 
 glish Concordance, and so far as philology is concerned, a first rate 
 witness, says: 'You may rest fully satisfied, that as our English trans- 
 lation is, in itsdf, by far the most excellent book in our language, so it is a 
 pure and plentiful fountain of divine knowledge, giving a TRUE, 
 CLEAR, and FULL account of Hie divine dispensations, and of the gos- 
 pel of our salvation: insomuch that whoever studies the Bible, the EN-
 
 16 
 
 GLISH BIBLE, is sure of gaining thai knowledge and faith, vAich if 
 dull/ applied lo the heart and conversation, WILL INFALLIBLY 
 GUIDE HIM TO ETERNAL LIFE. 1 
 
 " 11. Dr. ADAM CLARKE.' Those who have compared most of the 
 European translations with the original, have not scrupled to say that 
 the English translation of the Bible, made under the direction of King 
 James the Firsr, is the most accurate and faithful of the whole. Nor 
 is this its only praise : the translators have seized the very spirit and soul 
 of t/ie original, and expressed this almost every where, with pathos inimita- 
 ble. Besides, our translators have not only made a standard transla- 
 /?'0?i, but they have made their translation the standard of our language? 
 the English tongue, in their day, was not equal to such a work but 
 God enabled them to stand as upon Mount Sinai, and crane up their 
 country's language tc- the dignity of the originals, so that after the 
 lapse of two hundred years, the English Bible is, with very few ex- 
 ceptions, the standard of the puriiy and excellence of the English 
 tongue. The original, from which it was taken, is alone superior to 
 the Bible translated by the authority of King James.' 
 
 " 12. Rev. T. H. HORNE. ' When we consider the very few REAL 
 faults, which ihe most minute and scrupulous inquirer has been able 
 to find in our present translation, ..... we cannot but call to mind, 
 with gratitude and admiration, the integrity, wisdom, fidelity and 
 learning of the venerable translators, of whose pious labors we are 
 now reaping the benefit ; who, while their veneration for the sacred 
 scriptures induced them to be as literal as they could, to avoid obsce- 
 nity, have been extremely happy in the simplicity and dignity of their 
 expressions, and who, by their adherence to the Hebrew idiom, have 
 at once enriched and adorned our language. And instead of being 
 impatient for a revision of the present text, we shall (to adopt the en- 
 ergetic expression of Mr. Toddj " take up THE BOOK, which from, 
 our infancy we have known and loved, with increased delight ; and 
 resolve not hastily to violate, in regard to itself, the rule which it re- 
 cords FORSAKE NOT AN OLD FRIEND, FOR THE NEW 
 IS NOT COMPARABLE TO HTM." For a full account of our 
 common English version, and for further reference to the most of the 
 foregoing extracts, the reader is referred to " Home's Introduction,'' 
 vol. 2, pp. 217258.' 
 
 "And now judge ye all, who can impartially weigh this subject, 
 and say which translation, having the strongest claims on an intelli- 
 gent Christian community, is entitled to universal acceptance'? Our 
 ' old friend' the common version, or ' the new,' with its pretended tri- 
 paternity from Doctors Campbell, Macknight, and Doddridge, with 
 ' emendations,' and attempts ' to modernize the style,' and the like disin- 
 genuous, unlicensed privileges, by Alexander Campbell 1 Was there 
 any immediate or pressing necessity for such an attempt to palm upon 
 the community a work of this character a work specious and im- 
 posing in its pretensions, hypocritical and sectarian in its features, 
 and an enormous tax on the public, established by ' copy right secured,' 
 to favor the ' worldly interest' of the author ; and in no respects equal, 
 much less superior, to the common version, made familiar by use and 
 rendered sacred by time ; and so much better calculated to edify and 
 comfort the humble and candid Christian, who, upon this brief re- 
 view, will more than ever adhere to the rule which it records, 
 ' forsake not an old friend, for the new is not comparable to himf " 
 
 I have been longer on this chapter than I contemplated in the out-
 
 17 
 
 set, and will now draw to a close by appealing to the reader's calm 
 judgment- >on the subject. Can you think, friendly reader, that the 
 Protestant world can be safe in trusting Mr. C. to translate the Bible 
 for them'? With all the light you now have, I ask, ought we to ad- 
 mit Mr. C's. version of the New Testament as authority in the dis- 
 cussion of the subject contemplated in this treatise 1 ? Or can we be 
 safe in allowing them a place in any religious controversy whatever 1 ? 
 
 Mr. C. professes to have no design in this translation but to benefit 
 the world by a "more correct reading" of the holy book. It is not 
 to his design that I call your attention in these remarks, but to his 
 words and works. You may read them, and draw your own inferences 
 as to his design. I know you may form a very correct idea of a man's 
 design, by seeing his acts and hearing him speak.^ This is the best 
 way of discovering a man's design ; and, judging after this manner, 
 the Bible will bear you out, for Christ says, ye shall judge a tree by 
 its fruits. And in doing this, you will hardly pronounce a thorn busk, to 
 be a fig-tree. 
 
 What impression Mr. C's. version and. other writings on religious 
 subjects, may have made on your mind, I am not able to say ; but for 
 my own part, having read his Testament, subjected to all the changes 
 which I have discovered, as well as his other works, I am irresistibly 
 led to the conclusion, that infidelity has had but few successors to 
 Voltaire, Hume, and Paine, who have done more than Mr. C. to con- 
 firm the skeptic and lead the youth, as well as the aged, in the path 
 which leads to error and eternal death. Infidelity appears under no 
 mask of religious pretensions, and therefore her uncomely form has 
 struck many with terror and alarm, so they follow not her dictates. 
 But error, clothed with the sheep-skin of virtue and religion, has in- 
 clined many to mistake the wolf for the sheep, so have they followed 
 in her walk, down to eternal death. Therefore I am compelled to say 
 that this treatise must be tried, and judged of, by the old version, as 
 published by King James. This is good authority, and by it I intend 
 to present the subject of baptism to your careful attention. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 John's Baptism. 
 
 THE baptism as administered by John, has long been a matter of 
 controversy between Pedo-baptists and Baptists; the former con- 
 tending that John's baptism and the Christian baptism, are two 
 separate and distinct institutions; the latter avowing them both to be 
 but one and the same thing therefore they look upon John as their 
 great founder, being the first who proclaimed, behold the Lamb of God, 
 who taketh away the sin of the world daily practising an institution 
 which pointed to his burial and resurrection as future, inasmuch as 
 they contend that baptism was designed to represent the burial and 
 2*
 
 18 
 
 resurrection of Christ. Now if this be a fact, then we think that John's 
 baptism should have ended with the burial and resurrection of Christ; 
 for if its design was accomplished in that event, surely we have no 
 longer use for the figure when we have the thing prefigured ; the sign 
 should be laid aside when we have the thing signified. Of course John's 
 baptism must be different from that NOW obligatory on all Christians. 
 
 Many arguments might be brought to bear on this point, but as I 
 find all the important items made ready to my hand in Mr. Jameison's 
 Treatise on Baptism, I Avill give his remarks on this point: 
 
 " The first baptism noticed in the New Testament, is that of John. 
 Between this and the Christian baptism, Pedo-baptists consider there 
 is a very plain distinction. Baptists regard them as one and the same 
 institute of Heaven. On the decision of this point, one important 
 branch of the controversy turns. We therefore proceed to show, that 
 John's dispensation, his baptism, and all his services in the church, 
 preceded, and were preparatory for the Christian dispensation. We 
 say John's dispensation, because the period of his ministration had 
 its peculiarities and distinguishing features; partaking, in some de- 
 gree, of the nature of the Jewish and Christian dispensations, and 
 thus connecting them both in the most beautiful gradation. Nothing 
 could be more unreasonable than to have administered a Christian 
 ordinance before the Christian era ; and that John's services preceded 
 the present dispensation, is very clearly taught in man)- passages of the 
 Holy Scriptures. 
 
 " 1. John himself proclaimed the near approach of the elevated and 
 peculiarly glorious services of the church in the present dispensation, in 
 the following language: ' Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at 
 hand. For this is He that was spoken of by the Prophet Esaias, say- 
 ing, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the icay of 
 the Lord, make his paths straight.' This passage most clearly teaches 
 us that a new dispensation was yet to usher in, and that John's min- 
 istry was to prepare the way for its reception. The declaration of 
 Malachi, as alluded to by St. Mark, is in perfect unison with the pas- 
 sage just noticed. ' Behold I send my messenger, and he shall pre- 
 pare the way before me.' Mai. iii:l. Mark i : 2. This corresponds 
 with John's record of himself. ' I am the voice of one crying in the 
 wilderness, make straight the way of the Lord.' ' I said, I am not 
 the Christ, but that I am sent before him.' John i : 33. Every reflect- 
 ing mind must discern from these quotations, that John's ministry was 
 designed to open the minds and prepare the hearts of the people for 
 the new dispensation just about to usher in. And without some such 
 preparation for the transcendent light, and glorious privileges of the 
 gospel da} r , the whole Jewish church would have been in arms against 
 the astonishing change from Judaism to Christianity. 
 
 "2. The manner of John's preaching proves most clearly, that he 
 was not a gospel minister according to the present dispensation. He 
 did not preach a crucified, risen, ascended, and interceding Saviour, 
 which is the sum and substance of the gospel of Christ. 
 
 " He preached a kingdom at hand. He said, ' That he (Christ) 
 might be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with 
 water.' John i : 31. ' He that cometh after me will baptize you with 
 the Holy Ghost and with fire.' 
 
 "How very different such preaching from that which proclaims a 
 crucified, risen, ascended and interceding Saviour, to the Jews first,, 
 and also to the Gentiles,
 
 19 
 
 "3. The character and epithets given to John the Baptist, most 
 clearly teach us that he never was considered a minister of the new 
 dispensation. How strong and expressive are the terms used by Zacha- 
 rias on this subject. 'And thou, child, shall be called the prophet of 
 the Highest, for thou shall go before the face of the Lord, to prepare 
 his ways.' Luke i : 76. 
 
 " This beautifully corresponds with a passage in Matthew xi. 
 Speaking of John, Christ says : 'What went ye out for to see 1 A 
 prophet 1 Yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet. For this is 
 he of whom it is written, Behold I send my messenger before thy face, 
 which shall prepare thy way before thee.' ' Verily I say unto you, among 
 them that are born of women, there hath not arisen a greater than 
 John the Baptist, notwithstanding lie that is least in the kingdom of 
 Heaven is greater than he.' 
 
 " In these passages we are taught, that John was not only a prophet, 
 in a prophetic dispensation, but that he was superior to the prophets, 
 inasmuch as no one but himself was distinguished as the messenger 
 the forerunner of Christ; who would point out ihe Saviour, and pro- 
 claim the near approach of his kingdom. He could, like Moses, look 
 over to the promised land, but was not permitted to enter it. For, 
 most certainly, we are here taught, that there are privileges and pre- 
 rogatives in the Christian kingdom, to which John was a stranger ; 
 privileges that angels desired to look into ; after which, prophets (John 
 as one) ' inquired and searched diligently, searching what, or what 
 manner of lime the spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, 
 when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that 
 should follow:' privileges, however, that are well known to, and glo- 
 riously realized by, the least in the Christian kingdom, or church; 
 consequently, the least in this dispensation is greater than John. To 
 tell them that the least in future glory would be greater than John, 
 would have been telling just what all know; but to tell them, that the 
 least in the new dispensation would be greater than John, was devel- 
 oping to them a most glorious prospect of an uncommon effusion of 
 the Holy Ghost. 
 
 " 4. The geographical line in which Christ, John the Baptist, and 
 the Disciples labored, is sufficient to testify to us, that the long looked 
 for gospel day had not yet ushered in ; instead of the broad commis- 
 sion, ' Go teach all nations' ' Go preach the gospel to every creature' 
 it was, ' Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of 
 the Samaritans enter ye not? But go rather to the lost sheep of the 
 house of Israel.' Mat. x : 5, 6. Yea, Christ himself, personally, was 
 'A Minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the 
 promises made unto the fathers.' Rom. xv : 8. Therefore he asserts, 
 ' I. am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.' Mat. xv : 
 24. John labored in the wilderness of Judea, and says, ' That he 
 might be made manifest to Israel, (the Jews.) therefoie am I come 
 baptizing with water.' John i : 31. 
 
 " We cannot misconceive the extent of the commission couched in 
 these terms. No intimation in all the above, that the full glory of the 
 gospel had ushered in. 
 
 " 5. The epitMs given the baptism administered by John, are to the 
 same point. It is called John's baptism. It is also called the baptism 
 of repentance. 
 
 " 6. The re-baptism of many of John's disciples, should forever 
 set this controversy at rest. In Acts xix. we have the following :
 
 20 
 
 ' And it came to pass, that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul, having 
 passed through the upper coasts, came to Ephesus : and finding cer- 
 tain disciples, he said unto them, have ye received the Holy Ghost 
 since ye believed 1 And they said unto him, we have not so much as 
 heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, 
 unto what then were ye baptized 1 And they said, unto John's baptism. 
 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, 
 saying unto the people that they should believe on him which should 
 come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they 
 were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.' Most assuredly, this 
 passage teaches a distinction of baptisms ; and that those who were 
 baptized unto John's baptism, should be again baptized with the Chris- 
 tian baptism, in the name and by the authority of Christ ; with refe- 
 rence to the gift of the Holy Ghost, whose purifying influence on the 
 heart, is most significantly represented by water poured upon the body. 
 Christian baptism is to be administered but once to the-same person; 
 but these disciples were baptized twice; once they were baptized unto 
 repentance, and the other was a Christian baptism. 
 
 " In Acts xviii. the inspired writer, speaking of Apollos. says : ' This 
 man was instructed in the way of the Lord ; and being fervent in the 
 spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing 
 only the baptism of John.' (Does not this intimate there was another 
 baptism necessary to be known 7) 'And he began to speak boldly in 
 the synagogue : whom, when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they 
 took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of the Lord 
 more perfectly.' May we not justly infer, that those pious persons 
 taught him the difference between John's and the Christian baptism, and 
 that he was baptized accordingly! 
 
 " 7. It is presumable that no man will attempt to prove from the 
 scriptures, that John baptized in the name of the Trinity; and this, 
 every man acquainted with the gospel, knows full well, is essential 
 to the Christian baptism. This is forever settled by our Lord himself, 
 in the following words of the great gospel charter : ' Baptizing them 
 in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' 
 
 "John's disciples said: 'We have not so much as heard whether 
 there be any Holy Ghost;' consequently, they had not been baptized 
 in the name of the Holy Ghost. If he used any ceremony whatever, 
 it is presumable it was this: 'I baptize you unto repentance.' 
 
 "8. In he very nature of things, the Christian dispensation could 
 not have commenced, until the rights of the old dispensation were 
 abolished by the sacrifice of the Son of God. 
 
 " The passover was continued until Christ instituted the Lord's sup- 
 per. The Temple worship was hallowed until its vail was rent asun- 
 der; its precepts were obligatory until be entered into the sanctuary 
 by his own blood Its Sabbaths demanded observance until He rose 
 from the dead on the first day of the week. Then it was, that the 
 legal or Jewish dispensation gave place to a brighter and more glo- 
 rious dispensation, called ' The Kingdom of God.' 
 
 "9. Finally, if we must go to Jordan, or Enon, to find the origin 
 of the Baptist Church, we find it in the Jewish, and not in the Chris- 
 tian dispensation its rites must therefore be Jewish, and not Christian 
 
 " From what has been said, we are safely brought to the following 
 conclusions : 
 
 " I. That John's ministry ceased before the Christian era.
 
 21 
 
 " 2. That his baptism and ministrations were preparatory for the 
 Christian dispensation, and made no part of it. 
 
 ' : 3. That the Apostles, from the time they received their grand 
 commission to disciple the nations, baptizing them in the name of 
 the Trinity, considered it their duty to baptize the disciples of John, 
 as well as others; and this obligation John's disciples acknowledged, 
 when they submitted to baptism at the hands of the Apostles. 
 
 "4. That, therefore, Christian baptism was never instituted until 
 Christ met his disciples in the mountain of Galilee, after his resur- 
 rection, and commanded them to ' Go teach all nations, baptizing 
 them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Ghost.' 
 
 "5. That neither Jesus Christ, nor any other, could have received 
 Christian baptism in John's day. 
 
 " 6. That John most assuredly lived and died a member of the 
 Jewish church, having never administered any of the ordinances of 
 the new dispensation. 
 
 " Let the foregoing argurSents be weighed, and we hope this part 
 of the controversy is decided." 
 
 CHAPTER HI. 
 
 Baptism as Administered to Christ. 
 
 THE baptism of Christ by John, has been a matter of great solici- 
 tude with many, and our Baptist friends seem to think that it is in this 
 circumstance that we are to look, for one of the most important ex- 
 amples which Christ has ever left on record ; which example was 
 intended for all Christians to follow therefore we are frequently 
 told to read the third chapler of St. Matthew, and there learn our 
 duty. This chapter has been the means of making as many prose- 
 lytes to the Baptist Church, as any other part of the New Testament, 
 for young converts are generally referred to this chapter as a guide to 
 teach them what to do ; but for my own part, I can see no good reason 
 why any man should attempt to follow Christ in his baptism, when in 
 fact it is as impossible for him to do so as it would be for him to fulfil 
 any other ordinance or righteousness which Christ alone was compe- 
 tent to fulfil. As this matter is fully and fairly set forth by Mr. Jamie- 
 son, from whom we made the above extract on John's baptism, I will 
 favor the reader with his remarks on this subject: 
 
 " Were we not to add a single word to what we have said in the 
 preceding chapter, with regard to the baptism administered to Christ, 
 it must appear very evident to the attentive reader, that our Baptist 
 brethren nave greatly erred, in zealously contending that he was bap- 
 tized in the Christian dispensation, with the Christian baptism, and as an 
 example for Christians to follow. 
 
 " However, as this is a matter of great solicitude with many, we
 
 22 
 
 will show from other important considerations, that the baptism ad- 
 ministered to Christ, by John, will not answer to the Christian bap- 
 tism. 
 
 " 1. When Christ gave the grand gospel commission, the first autho- 
 rity ever given under Heaven, to administer the Christian baptism, 
 he couched it in terms that cannot be misunderstood, and terms that 
 teach us most unquestionably, that no application of water whatever, 
 can be considered Christian baptism, unless it be done in the name of 
 the ' Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' Consequently, 
 none but such a baptism, can be considered an example for Christians 
 to imitate. Now, I think it presumable, that no man will undertake 
 to say, that Christ was baptized in the name of the Father, in his own 
 name, and in the name of the Holy Ghost ; therefore, his was neither 
 Christian baptism, nor an example to be followed by Christians. In- 
 deed, he has absolutely prohibited such an imitation, by expressly 
 commanding us to be baptized for a different purpose. 
 
 " Does not the reception of baptism in the name of the Trinity, 
 imply 
 
 " 1. An acknowledgment of the claims of the Holy Trinity to our 
 services 7 
 
 " 2. A dedication of the subject to the service of the Trinity 1 
 And 
 
 " 3. Does it not say to the world, that we are the disciples of the 
 divine Jesus 1 
 
 " Now we ask, could Jesus Christ thus acknowledge his own claims 
 to himself, or thus be dedicated to his own service, and become his 
 own disciple 1 
 
 "4. It is very clear that Christian baptism has respect to the par- 
 don of sin, and gift of the Holy Ghost, in a sense which could not 
 apply to Christ. ' Can any man forbid water, that these should not 
 be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we 1' 
 Acts x : 47. 'Arise and be baptized, and wash (emblematically) 
 away thy sins.' Acts xxii : 16. 5. If Jesus Christ received baptism 
 merely as an exampk, why did he delay his baptism until thirty years 
 of age ? Why not at twelve, twenty, or twenty five, and thus by ex- 
 ample, as well as precept, enforce an early dedication to the service 
 of God 1 
 
 "6. None will contend that Christ was baptized unto repentance 
 and faith, in a coming Saviour, as was every disciple of John. 
 
 " Having shown that the baptism administered to Christ, neither 
 answers to John's nor the Christian baptism, we will now show that 
 his baptism was a necessary consecration to office, as God's High 
 Priest: 
 
 "1. He was born a Jew, circumcised, lived and died a member of 
 the Jewish society. 
 
 "2. He was God's High Priest. Heb. v. 
 
 " 3. To this office he was ' called of God, as was Aaron.' Heb. v : 4. 
 
 " 4. The law under which he was called to this office, acknowledged 
 none as High Priest until they were thirty years of age were washed, 
 or baptized with water, and anointed with holy oil. 
 
 " ' And Aaron and his sons thou shall bring unto the door of the 
 tabernacle of the congregation, and shall wash them with water.' Ex. 
 xxix : 4. ' Take Aaron and his sons with him, and the garments, and 
 the anointing oil.' ' And Moses brought Aaron and his sons and 
 washed them with water.' 'And he poured of the anointing oil upon
 
 . 23 
 
 Aaron's head, and anointed him, to sanctify him.' Lev. viii : 2, 6, 12, 
 : From thirty years old and upwards,' '&c. Num. iv : 3. 
 
 " The above legal requisitions are fully answered in the case of 
 Christ's consecration : 
 
 "1. Christ was washed or baptized at thirty years of age. 'And 
 Jesus himself (at the time of his baptism) began to be about thirty 
 years of age.' Luke iii : 23. 
 
 "2. Immediately after his baptism, he was anointed with the Holy 
 Ghost, who was typically represented by holy oil. ' Thy God hath 
 anointed thee with the holy oil of gladness above thy fellows.' Heb. 
 i : 9. ' That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout 
 all Judea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John 
 preached, how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost 
 and with power.' Acts 10 : 37, 38. 
 
 " 3. Christ himself has settled the design of his baptism. On an 
 occasion when he had been exercising his authority, regulating the 
 service of the temple, and correcting misconduct among its officers 
 the priests and rulers came to him, and demanded ' By what authority 
 doest thou these things ; and who gave thee this authority V Matt. 
 xxi : 23. They knew that to the tribe of Levi, this service had been 
 divinely committed, and therefore without special authority derived 
 from the head of the church, that no one of another tribe had a right 
 to interfere. 
 
 " Christ, therefore, immediately suggested that his authority was 
 indisputable, being ' Called of God (to the priesthood) as was Aaron.' 
 This we have in the following question : ' The baptism of John, 
 whence was ill from Heaven or of men V As much as to say, was 
 John a priest of the Aaronic order 1 had he a right to inaugurate into 
 the priest's office 7 If so, did not my baptism by him, confer on me 
 divine authority 7 This reply seems to have settled the opposition, 
 being so understood. 
 
 " 4. When we consider that our Lord was circumcised kept the 
 passover the feast of tabernacles the Jewish Sabbath, &c. all in 
 obedience to the righteousness of the law, we need not wonder that, 
 when he was about to take the office to which he was ' Called, as was 
 Aaron,' he should have demanded a legal consecration to that office, 
 at the hands of John, 'to fulfil all righteousness.' Before we close, 
 we will notice two objections to our arguments, which seem to be re- 
 lied on by the opposition. 
 
 " 1. ' Priests were washed before the door of the tabernacle, and 
 not at Jordan.' Let it be observed, that the Jewish ceremonials were 
 about to pass away, and that Jesus Christ was not the priest of the 
 Jews only, but of the whole earth. Consequently, his inauguration 
 should have taken place in view of the wide world, with only the 
 broad canopy of Heaven for a covering. 
 
 "2. The second objection frequently urged is: 'Christ was not a 
 priest until after he ascended to Heaven.' So says Alexander Camp- 
 bell. Are we then to understand, that to be a "priest after the order 
 of Melchisedec,' is to be made priest in eternity 1 And 'to be called 
 (to office) as was Aaron,' is to be ' called' after death 1 St. Paul says : 
 ' For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in 
 things pertaining to God, that he MAY OFFER both gifts and sacrifices 
 for sins.' Agreeably to this, a priest is 'ordained' that he may offer 
 both gifts and sacrifices for sins; and not 'ordained' after he has 
 offered his 'gifts and sacrifices.' Heb. v:l. It was absolutely ne-
 
 cessary Christ should be made our great High Priest, in order to offer 
 the great sacrifice upon the cross, for the sins of our race. 
 
 " This is the doctrine of St. Paul. Heb. vii : 26, 27. ' For such 
 an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separated 
 from sinners, and made higher than the Heavens ; who needeth not 
 daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, 
 and then for the people's: lor this he did once, (possessing the full 
 prerogative of high priest,) when he offered up himself.' Here it ap- 
 pears that Christ was not such a priest as needed to offer a daily sacri- 
 fice, but he was such a priest as needed to offer ' once,' which he did 
 'when he offered up himself.' . Does not this teach us that he was 
 priest before he offered himself upon the cross, and was 'ordained' in 
 view of this great offering < 
 
 " He was not ordained priest to a daily sacrifice, according to the 
 law, because such a priesthood was already established, but to ' offer 
 up himself for sin, and remain our great high priest forever. Hence 
 it is said, ' For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing 
 there are priests that offer gifts according to the law.' Heb. viii : 4. 
 This shows that it would have been inconsistent with his priesthood, 
 to have remained on earth, seeing he was ordained .priest to offer up 
 himself as the great sacrifice typically represented in all former dis- 
 pensations. The same is clearly taught in Heb. ix : 24 28. Also, 
 v : 414. 
 
 " 9. It now only remains for us to show the mode in which the priests 
 were baptized, or washed, in order to determine the mode in which 
 Christ was baptized. This is strikingly exhibited in Num. viii : 6, 7. 
 'Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse 
 them. And thus shall thou do unto them, to cleanse them : sprinkk 
 water of purifying upon them,' &c. Also in Ex. xxix : 4. 'And 
 Aaron and his sons thou shalt bring unto the door of the tabernacle 
 of the congregation, and shalt wash them with water.' This corres- 
 ponds with the language of John : ' I baptize you with (instead of 
 under) water.' Although they were at, or in Jordan, the act of bap- 
 tism was WITH and not under; Christ may have washed his feet 
 and hands in Jordan, in obedience to the command in Ex. xxx : 19 ; 
 yet, in the consecration to office, by the hands of John, he was evi- 
 dently ' sprinkled.' " 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 The Design of Christian Baptism. 
 
 THE design of John's baptism, and also the baptism administered 
 to Christ, having been noticed in ihe preceding chapters, we are brought 
 to consider in the next place, Christian baptism. 
 
 The Jewish types and shadows having all been fulfilled in Christ. 
 and now about to retire from the church, to give way for institutions
 
 25 
 
 more significant of the glorious privileges and blessings of the Chris- 
 tian dispensation. Thus the law and the prophets were until John 
 and John with them being, as he declares, not the true light, but only 
 sent to bear witness of the true light, that lighteth every man ; that 
 cometh into the world all retire, having lost their moon and twilight 
 brightness in the increasing glory of the rising sun Christ Jesus. 
 Christ having conquered death and the grave, and being now about 
 to ascend to his Father, calls his disciples and gives to them their 
 high commission, "Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name 
 of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and lo I am 
 with ye always, even unto the end of the world." From this passage 
 it is clear that Christ commissioned the apostles and preachers of the 
 gospel, and them only, to baptize the nations of the earth ; and that 
 this baptism was to be administered in the name of the Father, and 
 of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Christian baptism is, therefore, 
 an application of water to a proper subject, by a proper administra- 
 tor, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 
 This we conceive is a full, and a fair definition of the term Christian 
 baptism ; and as this ordinance is enjoined on all of the disciples of 
 Christ, it is to them a matter of no small importance to know its sig- 
 nification and use in the church of Christ, and it is to this point that 
 we call the careful attention of the reader. 
 
 Thefts are but few subjects in theology, about which men differ 
 more widely, than about this. Some of the leading opinions of others, 
 it may be proper to give, before we give what we conceive to be the 
 proper design of this ordinance. 
 
 1. The first to which we invite attention, is that, of our Baptist 
 friends. A short quotation from Mr. Jamieson will at once present 
 their views before the reader. 
 
 " There is another opinion with regard to the signification of bap- 
 tism, which we think equally inconsistent with the word of God ; this 
 is, that baptism was instituted to represent the death, burial and resurrection 
 of Christ. Nothing can be more absurd than to suppose that God in- 
 stituted two rites in the church, as different as baptism and the Lord's 
 supper, to signify the same thing. Every man knows the Lord's sup- 
 per is a memorial of the death of Christ ; ' For as often as ye eat this 
 bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come.' 
 I Cor, xi : 26. It would be altogether superfluous to have baptism 
 ' shew' the same thing, 
 
 " The opinion we here oppose is predicate^n Rom. vi : 3, 4, and a 
 parallel passage in Galatians. As these passages are investigated in 
 another part of this book, the reader will there find a development of 
 the absurdity of the sentiment. Immersionists very generally seem to 
 think baptism is nearly every thing that belongs to religion. One 
 says, ' When we are put beneath the wave, it represents the death 
 and burial of Christ ; when we are taken up, it represents the resur- 
 rection of Christ, in doing which, we have a good conscience.' 
 Another says, ' Baptism by immersion, represents that abyss of di- 
 vine justice into which Christ was plunged, in consequence of his 
 undertaking for our sins. It represents likewise, the death of Christ, 
 his burial, and deep humiliation while in the grave ; coming out of 
 the water, gives us the semblance of his resurrection, or victory over 
 death and the grave. Baptism signifies those benefits believers ob- 
 tain in Christ, both present and future. Among the present, the prin- 
 'Cipal is fellowship in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, and 
 3
 
 
 26 
 
 the consequence of it, viz: 1 the mortification and burying of the old 
 man, and the raising of the new, by the spirit of Christ; even in such 
 a manner, that it can neither stand in judgment to condemn us, nor 
 exercise dominion over our bodies, that we should obey it in the lusts 
 thereof; the former appertain to justification, the latter to sanctifica- 
 tion, &c. But further blessings are signified by baptism; for as in 
 baptism we are immersed in, and directly taken out of the water in 
 safety, so it shall be with respect to the afflictions of this life ; we shall 
 not be overwMJmed by them, but at last shall be delivered from them 
 and translated into everlasting joys. We may learn from our bap- 
 tism, that after being buried in water, we directly rise out of it: so in 
 the last day, we shall be raised out of our graves.' Another, to sum 
 up all in few words, says, 'immersion is the gospel in water.' Such 
 is the superstition and nonsense that seems to go hand in hand with 
 immersion; to all which we would just say, 'if the light that is in 
 thee be darkness, how great is that djfrkness !' " 
 
 2. The second opinion to which we invite attention, is that held 
 and taught by A. Campbell. He maintains that water baptism is a 
 saving and regenerating ordinance, by which sin is really washed 
 from the human soul, the only way of access to the blood of Christ 
 and gift of the Holy Ghost, from -which the baptized arise as innocent, 
 as clean, and as unspotted as an angel. See debate with Mr. M'Calla, 
 given by Campbell, page 137. To use the language of Mr. Jamieson, 
 "this opinion is the most dangerous, the most mischievous, and 
 fraught with the most runious consequences, of any with which we 
 are acquainted. Many, we fear, who adopt it, will rest short cf the 
 ' spirit of adoption,' and ' renewing of the Holy Spirit,' without which, 
 into God's kingdom they cannot enter. Every Bible reader knows 
 well, that in the apostolic age, some had ' a form of godliness, but 
 denied the power,' others a 'name to live while they were (spiritually) 
 dead.' 
 
 "The sentiment we here oppose, is chiefly predicated upon the fol- 
 lowing passages: 'Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, 
 calling on the name of the Lord.' Acts xxii : 16. ' Repent and be 
 baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remis- 
 sion of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.' Acts ii : 
 38. If these passages were to be received in a literal and unqualified 
 sense, there would be some plausibility in the views of our opponents. 
 They might then say with truth, that every baptized person is, (from 
 that fact,) a child of Go^, washed from sin, and made partaker of the 
 Holy Ghost. But such*n interpretation is in opposition to universal 
 experience, common sense, and the word of God. The case of Simon 
 of Samaria is, to all intents and purposes, a refutation of this idea. 
 Inspiration says, he 'believed and was baptized,' immediately after 
 which, Peter thus addressed him: ' Thy money perish with thee, be- 
 cause thouhast thought that the gift ol God may be purchased with 
 money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter; for thy heart 
 is not right in the sight of God : For I perceive that thou art in the 
 gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.' If water baptism 
 washes away sin, is the infallible way to the gift of the Holy Ghost, 
 and renders its subjects ' as innocent, as clean, as unspotted as angels,' 
 why was it deficient in this case 1 Alas, how many thousands who 
 have been baptized are in a similar condition ! ' In the gall of bitter- 
 ness and bond of iniquity,' while they proclaim themselves ' as inno- 
 cent, as clean, as unspotted as the angels of Heaven.' Equally erro-
 
 27 
 
 neous is the idea, that water baptism is the only way of access to the 
 blood of Christ and gift of the Holy Ghost. How plainly is this con- 
 tradicted by the language of Peter ' Can any man forbid water that 
 these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as 
 well as we 1 ?' Acts x : 47. Here we have an account of disciples who 
 had access to the blood of Christ, having received the gift of the Holy 
 Ghost, previous to receiving water baptism. 
 
 " Our opponents may try to avoid the force of such plain declara- 
 tions of fact, by a thousand stratagems, which, however, are only cal- 
 culated to exhibit the weakness of a bad cause. It is certainly need- 
 less to offer any other reason why we are not to understand the pas- 
 sages Acts ii : 38, xxii : 16, in an unqualified sense. 
 
 "A man may with equal propriety, contend for the literal meaning 
 of ' this is my body,' ' this is my blood.' Mat. xxvi : 26. ' Except ye 
 eat of the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no 
 life in you.' John vi : 62. Although the bread and wine are called the 
 'body' and ' blood' of Christ, none but a Romanist will contend for a 
 a literal interpretation; all contended for, in all the Protestant world, 
 is, that the bread and wine emblematically represent the body and 
 blood of Christ. Why not submit to a similar interpretation of the 
 language of Ananias'? 'Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy 
 sins.' To take this text in a literal and unqualified sense, is to ascribe 
 to water baptism EFFECTS which can only be produced by the thing it 
 represents, namely, the baptism of the Spirit. 
 
 "Again : Peter said, ' Repent and be baptized every one of you, in 
 the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall re- 
 ceive the gift of the Holy Ghost.' It is asserted that every baptized 
 person is, from that fact, fitted for Heaven. Suppose we were to make 
 a similar unqualified use of the following 'Ask. and it shall be given 
 you ; seek, and ye shall find' ' Whosoever shall call on the name 
 of the Lord shall be saved' and say, every man who ever asked or 
 sought a preparation for Heaven, obtained it, and all who ever ' called 
 on the name of the Lord' shall infallibly 'be saved;' we would then 
 come in contact with other parts of the book that beautifully qualify 
 and show the true meaning of these passages ; such as, ' Ye ask, and 
 receive not, because ye ask amiss.' James. ' For many, I say unto 
 you, will seek to enter in and shall not be able.' Luke xiii : 24. This 
 may suffice, as this subject will be taken up in another part of this 
 book." 
 
 Having stated, in short, what the Baptist Church believes on this 
 point, and also what the opinion of Mr. C. is, we will, in the next 
 place, give you what the Pedo-baptists teach. They teach that water 
 baptism is designed to represent the baptism of the Holy Ghost ; there- 
 fore it is called the sign of regeneration, or the new birth. And as 
 such it is used first, as an initiatory rite second, as a means of grace 
 and third, as a "pledge or seal of the faithfulness of God to his pro- 
 mises. That this teaching is in close unison with the word of God, 
 the following extract, I think, will abundantly prove : 
 
 " That water baptism is significant of spiritual baptism, we will 
 make evident from several important considerations. 
 
 " 1. The application of water to the body, and that of the spirit to 
 the soul, are both called by the same name, 'baptism.' The one is 
 outward, the other inward one visible, the other invisible. From 
 that which is visible, the attention is directed to that which is invisi- 
 ble.
 
 28 
 
 " 2. The application of water, and that of the spirit, are both called 
 'seals.' ' Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit 
 in our hearts.' 2 Cor. i : 22. 'And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, 
 whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.' Eph. iv : 30. 
 ' Saying, hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have 
 sealed the servants of our God in the foreheads.' Rev. vii : 3. 
 
 " Dr. Benson and Bishop Newton teach ' that this expression seal- 
 ing in the forehead, is used in allusion to the ancient custom of mark- 
 ing servants on their foreheads, to distinguish what they were, and to 
 whom they belonged ; and that, as among Christians, baptism was 
 considered as the seed of the covenant between God and believers, so 
 the sealing here spoken of, signifies the admitting them into the visi- 
 ble church of Christ by baptism.' (Benson's Com.) According to Dr. 
 Watts, 'water seals the blessing now, that once was sealed with 
 blood.' 
 
 "3. Water baptism is expressly used to represent the cleansing 
 influence realized by the baptism of the Holy Ghost. 'Arise and be 
 baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.' 
 Acts xxii : 16. That water baptism does not actually wash away sin, 
 but only symbolically represents the washing away of sin, is demon- 
 strable from the following: ' The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us 
 from all sin.' 1 John i : 7. ' How much more shall the blood of Christ 
 purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God!' Heb. 
 ix : 14. ' Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his 
 own blood.' Rev. i : 5. So it seems we are ' cleansed,' ' purged,' and 
 ' washed' from ' all sin,' by the ' blood of Christ,' and from none by 
 water. But the question is, when does this take place"? Unquestion- 
 ably, when we are made God's ' elect children through sanctification 
 of the Spirit (not water) unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood 
 of Jesus Christ.' 1 Peter i : 2. So in Titus v : 5 ' Saved by the 
 washing of regeneration, (not water) and renewing of the Holy Ghost, 
 which he shed on us (not plunged us into) abundantly, through Jesus 
 Christ our Lord.' ' For by one SPIRIT (not water) are we all bap- 
 tized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles,' &c. 1 Cor. xii : 
 13. Then, and not till then, are our sins washed away by the ' blood 
 of Christ' through the eternal Spirit.' Hence it is said, ' Unto HIM 
 (not unto water) that loved us and washed us from our sins in his 
 OWN BLOOD,' (not in water.) 
 
 " Many baptized with water, are still in their sins, (like Simon Ma- 
 gus,) as must be acknowledged by every man. But when baptized by 
 the Spirit, our sins are actually washed away in every case, as none 
 can deny. This, then, is the 'thing to be represented by water bap- 
 tism: ' Arise, be baptized, a?id wash (not actually but symbolically) 
 away thy sins." 
 
 " 4. ' Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized, 
 who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we V Acts x : 47. Upon 
 their having ' received the Holy Ghost,' Peter predicates the plea for 
 water baptism. Because they had the thing signified, none should 
 ' forbid' the sign. When this important event transpired, Peter said, 
 ' Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John 
 indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy 
 Ghost.' Acts xi : 16. The Apostle not only connects the two things 
 together by the same name, and in the same verse, but also in a way 
 to show clearly that one represents the other. 
 
 "5. Water baptism is used as an initiatory rite. ' Go disciple all
 
 
 29 
 
 nations, baptizing them ;' that is, introduce them as scholars into my 
 school by baptism, that you may teach them all that is contained in 
 the science of salvation. 
 
 " This fact goes to strengthen the idea, that water baptism is the 
 sign or symbol of spiritual baptism. 
 
 " Water baptism unites us to the visible church as professors of 
 Christianity. Thousands, like Simon Magus, have been initiated into 
 the visible church by baptism, who were still destitute of true Christi- 
 anity. 
 
 " Spiritual baptism makes us members in the highest and most im- 
 portant sense ; that is, it constitutes a living, spiritual membership. 
 ' That which is born of the spirit is spirit.' ' To be spiritually minded 
 is life and peace' ' For by one spirit are we all baptized into one 
 body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles' ' If any man have not the 
 spirit of Christ he is none of his' ' The spirit itself beareth witness 
 with our spirit, that we are the children of God.' This is the true 
 state of the case in regard to membership in the most important sense; 
 whilst, concerning such as have been initiated into the visible church 
 merely by water baptism, without the spirit, it is said they are ' car- 
 nal' are still in the ' gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity,' having 
 a name to live while they were (spiritually) dead ; and others, it is 
 said, had ' a form of godliness, but denied the power.' 
 
 " 6. Water baptism is used as a means of grace and pledge of the 
 faithfulness of God, to his promises ; ever keeping in view the fact, 
 that it always is significant of spiritual baptism. 
 
 " 7. There are but two sacraments in the church, namely : Baptism 
 and the Lord's supper. The Lord's supper represents the 'body' and 
 blood of Christ, as the meritorious grounds of salvation from sin. 
 Baptism represents the act or baptism of the divine spirit, which ap- 
 plies the merits of Christ to (he washing away of sin. One great 
 abuse of the sacrament of the Lord's supper, complained of by the 
 Apostle, was, the Corinthians received it without reference to the thing 
 signified by it.. ' Not discerning the Lord's body.' 1 Cor. xi : 29. So 
 one great abuse of the sacrament of baptism, is the administration 
 and reception of it, without reference to the thing signified, namely: 
 the baptism of the Spirit. 
 
 "8. Several other considerations may "throw light on this subject. 
 
 " 1. The action of water is cleansing, purifying, &c. ; so is that of 
 the Spirit. 
 
 "2. Water is calculated to refresh and comfort; so is the appli- 
 cation of the Spirit. 
 
 "3. It quenches thirst; so does the Spirit. 
 
 "4. We are sealed with water; so with the Spirit. 
 
 "5. We are baptized "WITH" (not under or into) "water;" so 
 are we baptized " WITH" (not under or into) the Spirit. 
 
 " 6. The Spirit is " poured out," the " blood sprinkled" (pouring 
 and sprinkling are frequently used synonymously) the water poured 
 or sprinkled. 'And there are three that bear witness in earth, the 
 Spirit and the water, and the blood, and these three agree in one.' 
 (Mode of application.) 1 John'v : 8. The reader now has the three 
 leading opinions, in regard to the signification and use of water bap- 
 tism. 
 
 " 1. That it represents the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. 
 All of which, so far as is necessary, is represented by the sacred 
 supper. 
 
 3*
 
 30 
 
 "2. That it regenerates us, Avashes away all our sins and renders 
 us as innocent, as clean, as unspotted as an angel. 
 
 " 3. That it is the visible sign or symbol of the baptism of the 
 Holy Ghost ; and as such, is used 
 
 " 1. As an initiatory rite. 
 
 "2. As a means of grace. 
 
 " 3. As a pledge or seal of the faithfulness of God to his promises." 
 
 The question now before the reader, is this : Which of the opinions 
 above stated, is most in accordance with the word of God! The im- 
 portance of the subject calls on you for a decision ; and, with my 
 present feelings, I cannot dismiss this part of the subject without urg- 
 ing you to a decision. And to this end, I beg your indulgence while 
 I take the liberty of examining into these opinions more closely. 
 
 As the opinions of our Baptist friends will be noticed in our re- 
 marks on the mode of baptism, I will defer farther remarks on that 
 point, until that part of our subject is approached. The opinion we 
 now wish to examine, is this : That baptism is a saving, regenerating 
 ordinance, by which sin is really washed from the human soul, the 
 only way of access to the blood of Christ, and the gift of the Holy 
 Ghost, from which the baptized " arise as innocent, as clean, and as 
 unspotted as an angel." Lest some might think that I misrepresent 
 Mr. C. in this statement, I will give a few quotations from his own 
 pen. " He (God) appointed baptism to be to every one that believes, 
 the record he has given of his Son, a formal pledge on his part of 
 that believer's personal acquittal or pardon, so significant and so ex- 
 pressive, that when the baptized believer arises out of the water, is 
 born of water, enters the world the second time, he enters it as inno- 
 cent, as clean, as unspotted as an angel." Debate with McCaua, p. 137. 
 " In, and by the act of immersion, so soon as our bodies are put under 
 the water, at that very instant our former, or old sins, are all washed 
 away: provided only, that we are true believers." Christian Baptist, 
 vol. v, p. 100. " It is quite sufficient to show that the forgiveness of 
 sins and Christian immersion were, in the first proclamation by' the 
 holy apostles, inseparably connected togeiher." Christian Baptist, vol. 
 v, p. 160. " For obtaining this (the holy spirit in the pardon of sin 
 and purification of the heart) there must be some appointed way ; and 
 that means or way is immersion." Christian Baptist, vol. v, p. 223. 
 " The actual enjoyment of forgiveness, acceptance, adoption, and 
 gift of the Holy Spirit, are, by a gracious necessity, made consequent 
 on a believing immersion." Christian Baptist, vol. v, p. 269. " Remis- 
 sion of sins cannot in this life be received and enjoyed previous to 
 immersion." Millenial Harbinger extra p. 34. " Immersion alone, 
 was that act of turning to God." Millenial Harbinger extra p. 35. 
 " Do you believe that Jesus is the Messiah, that he died for our sins, 
 that he was buried, that he rose again, that he ascended up on high, 
 that he has commanded reformation and forgiveness of sins, to be 
 proclaimed in his name among all nations I say, do you believe these 
 sacred historic facts 1 If you do believe them, or are assured of their 
 truth, you have historic faith you have the faith which Paul and the 
 apostles had and proclaimed. Paul was no more than assured these 
 facts were true ; and if you are assured they are true, you have the 
 same faith arise and be immersed like Paul, and withhold not obe- 
 dience, and your historic faith and obedience will stand the test of 
 heaven. You will receive the Holy Spirit, too, for it is promised by 
 Him that cannot lie, through this faith. Schoolmen may ridicule your
 
 31 
 
 faith, but there is no other."' Christian Baptist, p. 186. " No man has 
 any proof that he is pardoned until he is baptized and if men are 
 conscious that their sins are forgiven, and that they are pardoned be- 
 fore they are immersed, I advise them not to go into the water, for 
 they have no need of it." Christian Baptist, p. 188. " One reason 
 why we would arrest the attention of the reader to the substitution of 
 the terms convert and conversion, for immerse and immersion, in the 
 apostolic discourses, and in the sacred writings, is not so much for 
 the purpose of proving that the remission of sins, or a change of state, 
 is necessarily connected with that act of faith called Christian im- 
 mersion, as it is to fix the minds of the biblical students upon a very 
 important fact, viz : that immersion is the converting act." MiUenial 
 Harbinger extra p. 16. These extracts are but a few out of many, 
 for his works abound with expressions of this kind, and it is only 
 necessary to quote a few that the reader may judge whether or not 
 we do justice to Mr. C. 
 
 From the above extracts we think that the following positions are 
 clearly deducible : 
 
 1. That under the gospel dispensation, the pardon of sin cannot be 
 received previous to immersion. 
 
 2. That immersion is the only way or means of pardon. 
 
 3. That immersion is the only way or means of obtaining the gift 
 of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 4. That the faith which Paul and the apostles had and preached, 
 and that which will stand the test of heaven, is nothingmore than his- 
 toric faith, or an assurance that Christ is the Messiah, that he died for 
 our sins, that he arose again, and ascended up on high, and commanded 
 reformation and remission of sins through his name, to be preached 
 to all nations. 
 
 5. That whosoever believes historically, that Jesus is Messiah, 
 &c. arid is immersed, is infallibly and absolutely saved, regenerated, 
 born of God, and made as clean, as innocent, as unspotted as an 
 angel. 
 
 6. That all those who are not immersed, whatever may be their 
 faith, repentance, prayer, or love for God, are in an unpardoned, un- 
 justified, unreconciled, unsanctified, unsaved, and lost state. That 
 these positions are the legitimate deductions from the above extracts, 
 we think no unprejudiced man will doubt; we will therefore under- 
 take to examine into the truth of them, and hear what the Lord and 
 his apostles have to say in reference to them. 
 
 The texts of scripture generally relied upon in proof of these po- 
 sitions, are such as the following : "Repent and be baptized every 
 one of you, in the name of the Lord Jesus, for the remission of sins, 
 and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Actsii : 38. "Arise, 
 and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling upon the name of 
 the Lord." Acts xxii : 16. " Except a man be born of water, and of 
 the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." John iii : 5. 
 " He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved." These few texts, 
 I think, are more relied upon than any other in the book of God, to 
 support the above positions ; many others, however, are made subser- 
 vient to the same end for which these are pressed into service, and 
 therefore it may be necessary to notice them as we progress in our 
 remarks. Before I enter upon an exposition of these texts and the 
 positions they are supposed to sustain. I will make a few general ob-
 
 serrations, by way of presenting before the reader what I conceive to 
 be Mr. C's. first and great error upon this point. 
 
 Ever since God has had a church or people on earth, there have 
 been, and now are, what may be properly called, a form and a power 
 of Godliness ; a drawing nigh to God with the lips, and also with the 
 heart ; a sacrifice outwardly upon an altar of stone, and a sacrifice of 
 a broken and contrite heart, which the Psalmist says, God will not 
 despise ; a circumcision which was outward in the flesh, and a cir- 
 cumcision of the heart by the Spirit ; in a word, there are a body and 
 a soul to religion ; there is an external or visible part, and there is an 
 internal or invisible part, in the religion of the Bible ; whether the 
 subject lived in the Patriarchal, Jewish, or Christian age or dispen- 
 sation of the church. This fact being admitted, as we presume it will 
 be by all, (Mr. C. and his followers excepted,) then it must follow that 
 Christianity is divisible into two parts, the form and the power, the 
 outward and inward work of religion. That Christianity may be thus 
 divided, is made clear by Paul's caution to Timothy: " Having a form 
 of Godliness, but denying the power thereof; from such turn away." 
 2 Tim. iii : 5. Paul remarks in another place, that there is such a 
 thing as being a Jew outwardly in the flesh, and yet he is not a Jew 
 unless his heart be circumcised. Rom. ii : 28, 29. " For 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 cir- 
 cumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, and not in the letter ; 
 whose praise is not of man but of God." Therefore if we would have 
 a correct view of religion, we must always keep this distinction in 
 our minds, and know that unless we are Christians in heart, our out- 
 ward acts will avail nothing. In this I think Mr. C. is greatly in 
 error, for the distinction which he makes between the form and the 
 power of religion is scarcely discernible in all his writings ; and even 
 where it does seem to appear I think he errs greatly, for the vital or 
 inward part is made to depend upon the outward form for its ex- 
 istence. 
 
 Therefore, with Mr. C. faith is a mere assent of the mind to a 
 historic fact, or a simple persuasion that certain historians made a 
 correct record of facts. This you will find in the extracts above, to 
 be saving faith with him, or that which will, in connection with im- 
 mersion, " stand the test of heaven." Repentance with Mr. C. is 
 merely a reformation of our life or conduct ; thus he translates the 
 word, and to this end he argues the point with Protestants. With Mr. 
 C., to be bom of God, is to be born of water ; so he teaches in all his 
 writings, for he says: When a man is born of water he is born of 
 God ; just as when a child is born of its mother it is born of its father. 
 To be regenerated, with Mr. C. is to be immersed; to turn to God, is 
 to be immersed; to know that we are the children of God, is to know 
 that we have been immersed. The witness, or evidence of our par- 
 don, consists in immersion: "No man has any evidence of his par- 
 don until he is immersed/' To receive the Holy Spirit we must first 
 be immersed: " For obtaining the Holy Spirit, the means or way, is 
 immersion." To be converted, is to be immersed: " For immersion 
 is the converting act." To be in Christ, is to be immersed : There- 
 fore we are " immersed into Jesus Christ." Even when we are said 
 to receive the Holy Ghost, what is it with Mr. C. 1 Why it is simply 
 receiving an impression from hearing the scriptures read, or preached, 
 just as we receive the spirit or feelings of a writer by reading his works,
 
 33 
 
 or the feelings of a friend by reading his letter to us. So God's Spirit, 
 which is' holy, being in his word, in receiving that word we receive a 
 holy spirit, and this is all the holy spirit that is received. And even this 
 cannot be received before immersion. Thus it seems to appear that 
 Mr. C. makes immersion well nigh every thing in religion. And with 
 him, it seems to be made the power of Godliness ; for it may be said 
 of immersion as it was once said of faith, for without it, it is impos- 
 sible to please God. I have always thought that baptism belonged to 
 the form of Godliness, and therefore it may be properly denominated 
 a work, and consequently an outward bodily act. But Mr. C. thinks 
 immersion far from being an outward bodily act. Hear him : " There 
 is no such thing as outward bodily acts in the Christian institution ; 
 and less than in all others, in the act of immersion." MiUenial Har- 
 binger, vol. ii. p. 12. 
 
 So it appears that immersion is not a bodily act, neither is it an 
 outward act. I wonder if Mr. C. can find another wise head in the 
 land that will join him in this sentiment 1 I think it likely we may 
 find a reason why Mr. C. holds that this is not a bodily act, by looking 
 into the Epistle of Paul to Timothy, where he says, " bodily exercise 
 (or acts) profiteth little." So if this is admitted to be a bodily act, it 
 cannot profit as much as Mr. C. would have us believe ; " it profiteth 
 little." Again. If it be admitted that this is a work, then it must be 
 among the first works to be performed by the seeker of religion, as it 
 is for the remission of sins ; and if so, the Lord says to the back- 
 sliden Ephesians, "Repent and do the first works." So Mr. C. would 
 have the subject to repeat the ordinance over and over again, as often 
 as he might backslide. This, however, Mr. C. thinks not necessary. 
 Why"? Because immersion is not an outward bodily act, or work, 
 therefore it may not be repeated. Reader, now what do you think im- 
 mersion is 1 ? Mr. C. says it is not an external, or bodily act; of course 
 it cannot be an internal, or spiritual act. Therefore it seems to me 
 that it must be an act of nonsense. 
 
 That Mr. C. looks upon immersion as well nigh every thing in re- 
 ligion, will farther appear from the following quotation: " Call im- 
 mersion, then, a new birth, a regeneration, a burial and resurrection, 
 and its meaning is the same ; and when so denominated, it must im- 
 part that change of state which is imparted in putting on Christ, in 
 being pardoned, justified, sanctified, adopted, reconciled, saVed." Ex. 
 Mil. Har. p. 42. So Mr. C. thinks that immersion, regeneration, new 
 birth, burial and resurrection, are all synonymous terms, and that they 
 all, individually and collectively, mean putting on Christ, and ex- 
 press a state at once pardoned, justified, sanctified, adopted, recon- 
 ciled, saved. Now I ask, if immersion does all this for us, what else 
 remains to be done 1 If all these high and holy privileges are attained 
 unto by this corporeal act, then I think that this act, whether it be 
 called bodily or not, may be called in religion, what panacea implies 
 in medicine, a cure-all. 
 
 These few extracts go to show, that Mr. C. makes little or no dif- 
 ference between the form and the power of religion. That this is an 
 error in Mr. C. will appear when when we carefully consider Paul : s 
 caution to Timothy : " Having a form of Godliness, but denying the 
 power thereof: from such turn away." This text shows that the form 
 may exist where the power is void, so that a man is not what he ought 
 to be in religion, although he may have the form of Godliness. 
 
 While we contend, that the form may exist where the power is
 
 34 
 
 void, we also contend, that where the power is warmly felt in the 
 heart, there you will find the form also, inasmuch as the power will 
 not long live without the form, for the form in religion, is to the power 
 what smoke is to fire the natural effect which, flows from its cause. 
 And just as fire on the hearth will naturally produce smoke in the 
 chimney, so will the power in the soul produce good works in our 
 life. If in this view I am correct, then it must follow that power of 
 religion in the heart, cannot depend upon the form for its existence. 
 For this would make the cause to depend upon the effect, the fountain 
 on the stream, and the fire on the smoke. 
 
 But one may be ready to say, if your reasoning be good, then we 
 may have an effect without a cause, for you prove the existence of 
 the form without the power. Very good. I would answer, will not 
 various causes produce the same effect! Death is the effect of hang- 
 ing men, and will not powder and ball produce the same effect 1 Some 
 men followed Christ for the instructions which they received, but 
 others for loavts and fishes. One man may watch the flock of Christ 
 for his sake, but another for the fleece. So you perceive that death 
 may result from various causes, and Christ may have followers and 
 flock-minders from causes equally different. Thus we may have the 
 form of religion and follow Christ, but loaves and fahes may be the 
 cause, or main spring of action. So some men preach Christ through 
 envy, and some may manifest great care for the little flock, but the 
 fleece may be the cause of this noble effect. 
 
 It is in this that we perceive Mr. C's. great error. 1st. That he 
 makes little or no difference between the form and power of Godli- 
 ness. 2d. Where this difference does seem to appear in his writings, 
 even then, with him, the power cannot exist without the form ; or in 
 other words, we must first possess the form in order to obtain the 
 power. Thus baptism, the form, puts us in possession of the power, 
 which is pardon, peace, love, joy, &c. With him, therefore, the cause 
 is made to be dependant on the effect. 
 
 With these remarks, we are prepared to enter upon a discussion of 
 the propositions above, and learn from the word of God what the-de- 
 sign of water baptism is. We will begin with the first proposition : 
 That under the gospel dispensation the pardon of sins cannot be re- 
 ceived previous to immersion. That this proposition is utterly false, 
 will appear, when we examine, with attention, Acts x : 43, 44. " To 
 him gave all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever 
 believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. While Peter yet 
 spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the 
 word. And they of the circumcision which believed, were astonished, 
 as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was 
 poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak 
 wich tongues and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man 
 forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received 
 the Holy Ghost as well as we 1 And he commanded them to be bap- 
 tized in the name of the Lord." This text, we conceive fully ex- 
 plodes the above position." The vision which Cornelius saw, so 
 strengthened his faith in God. that he sent for Peter, that he might 
 hear words " whereby he and his might be saved." Peter, in his ad- 
 dress to him, remarked : " To him gave all the prophets witness, 
 that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive re- 
 mission of sins." Just at this point of the discourse, I have no doubt 
 that the faith of Cornelius laid hold on Christ with all its power, for
 
 39 
 
 Christ had been declared by the apostle " to be Lord of all," and that 
 it was by him that God had preached peace to the children of Israel. 
 And now that God is no respecter of persons, you Gentiles (Cornelius 
 and family) by believing in him shall receive remission of sins, for 
 so the holy prophets taught; and thus while the words of the promise 
 were yet lingering on the lips of the apostle, " the Holy Ghost fell on 
 all them which heard the word." 
 
 If ever there was a man justified by faith it was Cornelius, for he 
 had every thing necessary to stimulate him to strong faith. And here 
 I would ask, did Cornelius receive the remission of sins before he 
 was baptized] Mr. C. would tell us no. I ask, again, for what was 
 he baptized"? Peter answers, Because he has "received the Holy 
 Ghost." Now can Mr. C. believe that God would send the Holy 
 Ghost on them while yet in their sins? Mind you, the manner in 
 which they received the Holy Ghost was like the manner in which 
 the apostles received it. Peter says, "as well as we." Peter remarks 
 on another occasion, Acts xv : 9, that he " put no difference between 
 us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Thus what Peter means 
 by saying, that they received the Holy Ghost as well as we, is, in 
 another place, called " no difference between us and them, purifying 
 their hearts by faith." Peter then being judge, the heart of Corne- 
 lius was purified by faith, not by water. With this testimony before 
 us, how can we have any confidence m the presumptuous proposition 
 of Mr. C., as above, that under the gospel dispensation, the remission 
 of sins cannot be received previous to immersion 1 This text will 
 stand in firm and uncompromising opposition to Mr. C's. patented,* 
 water, soul-regenerating machinery, as long as the word of God is 
 vouchsafed to man. Thus we dispose of the first proposition. 
 
 Second proposition : That immersion is the only way or means of 
 pardon. This proposition is equally false as the one just refuted, and 
 the text by which the above was exploded will as effectually prove 
 this to be false. Hear the apostle : " To him gave all the prophets 
 witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall re- 
 ceive remission of sins." There is, therefore, another way or means 
 of pardon other than immersion ; but Mr. C. would say that the re- 
 mission of sins is obtained through the name of Christ. When a man 
 is immersed, it is in the name of Christ, so it is through his name as 
 it is invoked in baptism, that a man is pardoned. This, I think, is 
 begging the question, and is a vain conceit indeed. Please let Peter 
 tell us what he means by the phrase, "in his name." In his address 
 to the poor cripple, he said: " In the name of Jesus Christ of Naza- 
 reth, rise up and walk, and he leaping up, stood, and walked." And 
 to the astonished multitude who wondered at this miracle, he said : 
 "And his name, through faith in his name, hath made this man strong, 
 whom you see." Acts iii : 6. 12 : 16. Thus Peter tells us what he 
 means by the phrase, "in the name of Jesus Christ." We are to un- 
 derstand by this phrase, the person of Christ, his character as Mes- 
 siah. Therefore, when the prophets "bare witness" to this fact, that 
 the believer (or one who trusts in Christ as God, both able to save 
 and strong to deliver, as having suffered for our sins and risen again 
 for our justification, and is therefore willing to save the sinner from 
 his sins.) shall be saved. This is what we are to understand by be- 
 believing or trusting in his name. I ask, was not the lame man made 
 
 * You must know that Mr. C. has secured a copy right for his Testament,
 
 36 
 
 whole through the name of Christ 1 The apostle says '. "And his name, 
 through faith in his name," &c. Now if the lame are made to walk 
 through the name of Christ, and the sinner is pardoned, or has his 
 sins remitted through the name of Christ, " faith in his name," is it 
 by immersion 1 ? If through the name means immersion, then the lame 
 man must have been immersed before he was healed ; but this you 
 know was not so ; therefore it is clear that, as the lame man was made 
 to walk through faith in the name of Christ without immersion, so 
 may the sinner obtain pardon through the .name of Christ, "by faith 
 in his name," without immersion; and if whosoever believeth in 
 him (Christ) does not receive pardon, or remission of sins, then the 
 prophets must have borne false witness. And does Mr. C. believe 
 that the prophets testified falsely 1 Let us see. If it is "by faith" 
 remission ot sins is to be obtained, it cannot be by immersion ; if it is 
 by immersion, then it cannot "be by faith;" the apostle says, "by 
 faith," &c. No, no! says Mr. C., it is by immersion ; for " remission 
 of sins cannot in this life be received and enjoyed previously to im- 
 mersion." Thus we see Mr. C. arrays himself against the apostles, 
 and by the act denies their testimony. Whom shall we believe 1 
 " Let God be true and every man (who denies his truth) a liar." 
 
 Let us, in the next place, hear Paul when at Antioch. in Pisidia. 
 In his address in the Synagogue. Christ and him crucifed, was his 
 theme. " Be it known unto you, therefore, men and- Tsrfethren, that 
 through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins ; and. 
 by him all that believe are justified from all things from which you 
 could not be justified by the law of Moses." Acts xiii : 38, 39. This 
 text, we think, must put the matter to rest, for here the apostle pre- 
 sents the subject in its clearest light. Is the inquiry started, through 
 what channel do we receive the remission of sins 7 The apostle 
 answers, " Through this man," (Christ.) Is it asked, upon what con- 
 dition is this great boon granted to man 1 ? The answer is, faith ; " they 
 that believe are justified," &c. Do you ask, are all believers justi- 
 fied, or only those which have been immersed 1 The apostle answers, 
 " By him all who believe are justified from all things." Thus, it ap 
 pears, Paul is as much opposed to Mr. C : s. views as his coadjutor 
 Peter. Paul says: "All who believe" in Christ " are justified from all 
 things." Mr. C. says, No, no! he must first be immersed, otherwise 
 he cannot be pardoned. 
 
 Let us hear Paul once more. " But now the righteousness of God 
 is manifest, being witnessed by the law and the prophets. Even the 
 righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ, which is unto 
 all and upon all them that believe ; for there is no difference, for all 
 have sinned and come short of the glory of God; being justified 
 freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. 
 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his 
 blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are 
 past, through the forbearance of God : to declare, I say, at this time, 
 his righteousness ; that he might be just and the justifier of him that 
 believeth in Jesus." Rom. iii : 21 26. Here Paul declares both Jew 
 and Gentile to be under sin, and guilty before God. Do you ask, how 
 is a guilty sinner to obtain pardon, or become righteous in the sight 
 of God 1 The apostle answers you: "The righteousness of God 
 without the law is manifest, being witnessed by the law and the pro- 
 phets. Even the righteousness which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto 
 all them that believe." Do you ask, is it just to forgive a sinner with*
 
 out his doing works of righteousness to commend him to God 7" his 
 answer is: "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through 
 faith in his blood that he might be just and the justifier of him which 
 believeth in Jesus."- If, therefore, the Lord does not justify him that 
 ''believeth in Jesus," then this apostle is also found to testify falsely, 
 as well as the law and the prophets. The apostle affirms that the law 
 and the prophets are witnesses of the fact that the righteousness of 
 God is " unto all and upon all them that believe, even the righteous- 
 ness of God which is by faith in Jesus Christ." Will Mr. C. say that 
 the law and the prophets, and also Paul, are false witnesses concern- 
 ing the great doctrine of man's justification 7 If justification is by 
 immersion, then is Mr. C. a true witness ; but if by faith, then are 
 Paul, the law and the prophets, the true witnesses. I leave the reader 
 to decide whose testimony he will receive. 
 
 Paul having presented his arguments in favor of justification by 
 faith, proceeds to give an instance, or case, in order to impress this 
 doctrine more forcibly upon the minds of the Jews. He asks, " What 
 shall we say concerning Abraham our father; was he justified by- 
 faith 1 What saith the scripture 7 Abraham believed God and it 
 (his faith) was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that 
 worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him 
 that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his 
 faith is counted for righteousness." Rom. iv : 3 5. This text needs 
 no comment. The apostle having established the doctrine of justifi- 
 cation, or pardon, by faith, concludes his argument in a most trium- 
 phant manner in the fifth chapter of Romans, by showing the glorious 
 effects of this -justification. " Therefore being justified by faith, we 
 have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ : By whom also 
 we have access into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope 
 of the glory of God," &c. It would be easy to multiply passages to 
 prove that a man is justified by faith in Jesus Christ ; that he is par- 
 doned by believing in Jesus : but these passages are sufficient to prove 
 that Mr. C's. proposition is utterly false, viz : "Remission of sins 
 cannot in this life.be received and enjoyed prior to immersion." 
 Again. " The actual enjoyment of forgiveness, acceptance, adoption 
 and the gift of the Holy Spirit is, by a gracious necessity, made con- 
 sequent upon a believing immersion." I ask, is immersion the only 
 way or means of pardon 7 
 
 Before Mr. Campbell's propositions can be sustained, the writings 
 of the prophets must be given to the four winds of heaven, and be 
 wafted where they may never be found, and from whence they may 
 never return to reveal the truth of God to the sons of men , and the 
 teachings of Christ and the writings of his holy apostles, must be 
 altered, clipped, amended, stretched, bended and twisted, after the 
 manner of Mr. C's. patented edition of the scriptures; and even then 
 it will require the Harbinger ef the Millennial Morn, monthly to lift 
 his voice, and thunder from Bethany, Virginia, to the uttermost parts 
 of the habitable globe, such expressions as the following : "Immersion 
 is regeneration! Immersion is the converting act!" &c. &c. 
 
 Third. Having disposed of this second position deducible from 
 Mr. C's. writings, we come now to notice the third, which is as void 
 of truth as the former. It is this : " Immersion is the only way or 
 means of obtaining the gift of the Holy Ghost." See his language 
 above quoted. " The gift of the Holy Spirit is by a gracious neces- 
 sity made consequent upon a believing immersion." Here I shall
 
 38 
 
 bring Mr. C's. uncompromising opponent once more before the reader. 
 Peter, in Acts x : 47, asks, "Can any man forbid water that these 
 should not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well 
 as we 7 ?" This text so clearly proves the utter worthlesness of Mr. 
 C's. doctrine, that I am ashamed and afraid for any man who has the 
 hardihood to maintain it; and we would tain leave him to his just 
 fate, the commiseration of every intelligent Christian ; for the text 
 most clearly shows (hat Peter emphatically stated that the Gentile 
 converts received the Holy Ghost before they were baptized. 
 
 Fourth. I will now approach the fourth proposition which we have 
 deduced from Mr. C's. writings ; this also, will be found rotten to the 
 very core. It is this : " Tire faith which Paul and the apostles had 
 and preached," and that which " will stand the test of heaven," is 
 nothing more than an " historic faith," or " an assurance" " that 
 Christ is the Messiah, that he died for our sins, that he arose again 
 and ascended up on high," and "commanded reformation and remis- 
 sion of sins through his name to be preached to all nations." 
 
 When we refer to the scriptures to learn what faith is, we there find 
 different kinds and degrees of faith described ; thus, St. James tells 
 us, that the devils have faith, and yet they are devils still. He speaks 
 of some who had a dead faith, which faith was of no benefit to its 
 possessor; he also speaks of a living faith which exhibited itself by 
 works. Thus we have three kinds of faith. Again. This living 
 faith, possessed by the apostle James, had its degrees ; hence the re- 
 buke of the blessed Saviour, " O! ye of little faith." It is said to be 
 strong faith when it is increased ; and the Saviour calls it great faith. 
 " O ! woman, great is thy faith." Again. " I have not found so great 
 faith, no not in Israel." Matt, viii : 10. From these quotations we 
 learn, man may have faith of different degrees, and of the right kind 
 also ; but the question is, will it always save him 1 If it be little 
 faith, I am persuaded it will not. Peter had faith when he said. 
 "Lord if it be thou, bid me come to thee upon the water." Christ 
 bade him come, and it is probable had he not found the waves bois- 
 terous, his faith would have been strong enough to have reached the 
 Saviour ; but seeing the tumult of the waters, he began to sink ; this 
 shows that the faith of Peter was weak ; for Jesus laid hold upon him 
 and said unto him, " Oh, thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou 
 doubt 1" In this passage we see that the faith which is strong enough 
 for a smooth sea, will not support the soul when the winds blow and 
 the waters roll, and the ocean of life heaving under the feet, mingles 
 its terrors with the storm that rages furiously around the affrighted 
 mariner. 
 
 Again. Christ had commanded his disciples to preach the kingdom 
 of God, and as they went forth, to cast out devils, heal the sick, &c. 
 We learn, in Matthew, chapter xvii, that a case came before the dis- 
 ciples which they could not manage, the case of the lunatic. The 
 disciples having failed to cast out the unclean spirit, the distressed 
 father brought him to Christ ; who, when he saw him, said, " O ! faith- 
 less and perverse generation, how long shall I be with youl how long 
 shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me, and Jesus rebuked the 
 devil, and he departed out of him." When the disciples saw this, 
 they inquired why they could not cast him out. "Jesus said unto 
 them, because of your unbelief." Now can Mr. C. say, the disciples 
 did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah 1 or that Peter did not believe 
 it was Christ that spoke to him, saying, " Come." Surely not. The
 
 39 
 
 disciples believed in Christ, and so did Peter; but the great difficulty 
 was, they did not have strong faith. In a word, they did not trust 
 wholly in Christ to do the work ; there was a disposition to look to self 
 to do, at least, a little ; the work cannot be wrought unless I do a little 
 towards its completion ; or, as Mr. C. says, by way of "perfecting it." 
 
 The truth stands thus : A man must have some degree of faith 
 before he can repent to divine acceptance ; therefore it is said, " he 
 that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder 
 of them that diligently seek him," and this is what may be called 
 "historic faith." But, before a person can be saved, 'he must have an 
 increased degree of faith, or strong faith, a believing with the heart, 
 with all the heart ; therefore it is said, " With the heart (not with the 
 head) man believethunto righteousness." And Philip told the Eunuch 
 " If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest."* And this was 
 what was wanting in Simon Magus ; for Peter told him, " thy heart 
 is not right in the sight of God." Faith is, therefore, a moral, as well 
 as an intellectual principle ; we are to assent intellectually to the truth 
 of God's word, and the person and office of Jesus Christ, just as we 
 believe the history of the United States, or the life of Gen. Washing- 
 ton ; but we must also embrace Christ with our hearts ; yea, with our 
 whole hearts. We may love God with the mind, but this is not suf- 
 ficient : we must love him with all the heart, with all the soul, with 
 all the mind, and with all the strength. Now as we can love God in- 
 tellectually, and also with the whole heart, so we may embrace Christ 
 intellectually, and with all the heart. Thus we see there is an intel- 
 lectual faith and a faith which lays hold upon Christ with all the heart. 
 This faith is called by the sacred writers, trust in Christ. Thus St. 
 Matthew declares, " In his name shall the Gentiles trust." Matt, ii : 
 21. St. Paul, writing to the Ephesians, i : 12, 13, speaks of the Jews, 
 together with himself and the other apostles, whom he says should be 
 " the praise of his glory who first trusted (believed) in Christ. In 
 whom ye (Gentiles) also trusted, (believed,) after that ye heard 
 the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation : in whom also, after 
 that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise." 
 From this we are led to conclude that the faith by which we are saved 
 is something more than a mere historic faith, or persuasion that the 
 scriptures are the word of God, and consequently true. There is one 
 thing which must not be forgotten, namely: that faith is the gift of God, 
 and by a fair inference we conclude that faith's increase is of God also. 
 Therefore, when the man brought his son to Christ to be healed he, 
 in answer to questions concerning his faith, cried out, " Lord, I be- 
 lieve ; help thou mine unbelief." Mark ix : 24. And when Christ 
 assured his apostles, that offences would come, they unhesitatingly said 
 to him, "Increase our faith." Lukexvii:5. Faith and faith's increase 
 being the gift of God, all men should follow the example of the apostles. 
 in praying, "Increase our faith;" and every penitent, or seeker of 
 Christ, should earnestly implore this strong, active, living, or justify- 
 ing faith of the " Father of lights," who alone can confer it. 
 
 St. Paul declares : " By grace are ye saved, through faith, and 
 that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God." We now believe the 
 reader has the definition of faith which is given by Christ and his 
 apostles, and in all confidence we ask him, if it conveys or justifies 
 the idea of Mr. Campbell, that faithsaving faith or that which 
 
 * To avoid the force of this passage, Mr .C. has ejected it from this patented 
 edition of his Testament.
 
 40 
 
 will " stand the test of heaven," is nothing more than historic faith, 
 or a persuasion that Christ is the Messiah 1 As for historic faith, the 
 devils believe, and tremble ; and the man who has nothing more than 
 this, must at last be associated with them, and be doomed, while he 
 thus believes, to tremble with them forever and ever. Saving faith is 
 thus defined by the apostle Paul : " Say not in thine heart, Who shall 
 ascend into heaven 1 (that is, to bring Christ down from above:) or, 
 Who shall descend into the deep! (that is, to bring up Christ again 
 from the dead.) But what saith it 1 The word is nigh thee, even in 
 thy mouth, and in thy heart : that is, the word of faith, which we 
 preach: That if thou shall confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, 
 and shall believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the 
 dead, thou shall be saved." Rom. x : 6 9. Yea, believe with thy 
 heart, with all thy heart, and then (not before") "thou shall be saved." 
 Faith, which is called saving failh, may be illustrated as follows : 
 
 Suppose a wayfaring man benighted, and wandering alone in a 
 mountainous region, at last, fatigued and faint, despairing of finding 
 his way, he sets himself down to rest as he believes at a point 
 of comparative security. But when the day dawns, and the first rays 
 of the sun gild the mountain tops, he starts up and shudders with hor- 
 ror, for he finds that, during the darkness of the past night, he had 
 slept upon an high pinnacle, on either side of which is an awful preci- 
 pice, while below him there yawns a dismal gulf. Seeing no way of 
 escape, and reduced to the greatest extremity, he cries aloud for help. 
 Presently one appears near him, and apparently standing upon air, 
 with outspread arms, he says lo the distressed traveller, " Leap tome, 
 and I will save you." This demands a trial of his faith ; his first in- 
 quiry is, who art thou? and he is speedily convinced thai he is one 
 whom he has greatly injured. The question now arises, will this 
 man save me? is he willing to do so, after all I have done to him? 
 Before he can venture, he must believe the person offering to save, is 
 willing to save. But still another difficulty is started, which must be 
 settled : is he able to save, if I leap tftjiim ? This requires an inves- 
 tigation of his character and ability, and when he has learned that 
 many, under similar circumstances, have been delivered by him, he 
 believes he is both able and willing to save him. Yet he halts and 
 asks himself, is he ready to embrace me now ? Yea, he is now look- 
 ing at me, and stands in ihe attitude of one ready to save. I hear 
 his voice saying, "Now is the accepted time, now is the day of sal- 
 vation." Then, despairing of all other help, with all his soul he ven- 
 tures, he leaps, and in an instanl finds himself in the arms of "one 
 mighty to save, and strong to deliver." In this manner ventures the 
 weary sinner on Christ. Seeing his situaton by nature and trans- 
 gression, he cries aloud for help. Then Christ, whom he has injured 
 much and hated in his heart, calls, " Come unto me, all ye thai labor 
 and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." He hesitates for 
 awhile, hoping for relief from some other source, till, disappointed 
 from everj r other quarter, and despairing of even* other help, he puts 
 all confidence in Christ, and cries, "Save Lord, or I perish!" And, 
 with the failh of good old Job. he exclaims, " Though he slay me, 
 yet will I trust in him." Pressing through the crowd of difficulties 
 which besel him, like the poor woman spoken of in the gospel, belays 
 hold upon his garmenl, and is made in an inslant to feel that he is 
 "every whit whole." He is then heard to shout the grateful praises 
 of a new bom soul: "Allelujah! the Lord God omnipotent reigneth."
 
 41 
 
 " Glory to God in the highest." "As far as the east is from the west, 
 so far hath he separated rny sins from me." 
 
 Now candid reader, do you believe there is nothing more than his- 
 toric faith in all this, where all the heart is required and unwavering 
 trust is demanded? Does all this imply nothing more than believing 
 historically 1 I awfully fear that this doctrine of historic faith and 
 immersion, as the condition of salvation, will destroy many thousands 
 of souls for which Christ died. 
 
 I would ask, is there a man or woman in Christendom, who does not 
 believe the history of Christ] There may be a few Deists; and I am 
 persuaded there are but few. I am honest in saying I always believed 
 Jesus was the Christ, from the time I was eight years old, and so do 
 my neighbors. Believing this, arise and be immersed, says Mr. C., 
 and this faith and immersion, will " stand the test of heaven." I am 
 confident that no man who has ever " tasted of the powers of the 
 world to come," and has been made a " partaker of the Holy Ghost," 
 can believe this doctrine of Mr. C's. O! that God may, by his spirit, 
 undeceive those who are in error on this most important subject! 
 
 Fifth. Having given what we conceive to be the scriptural doctrine of 
 faith, and thereby shown the fallacy and danger of Mr. C's. notion, 
 we proceed to discuss the fifth proposition : Whosoever believes his- 
 torically, that Jesus is the Messiah, &c. and is immersed, is infallibly 
 and absolutely saved, regenerated, born of God, and made as inno- 
 cent, as clean, and as unspotted as an angel. 
 
 Our preceding remarks concerning faith, explode this notion ; for if 
 historic faith is not saving faith, then it must follow that it cannot 
 effect what Mr. C. would have us believe it does. But to leave no 
 doubt on the mind of the reader, we refer to a circumstance recorded 
 by Luke, Acts viii : 13. " Then Simon himself believed also : and 
 when he was baptized," &c. Here we learn that Simon actually be- 
 lieved, (historically, no doubt, for we are sure faith of a lower grade 
 he did not possess,) and was baptized. But were his sins forgiven'? 
 Centainly not. He was still "in the gall of bitterness, and in the 
 bond of iniquity." Verse 23. Simon believed, and was baptized, but 
 not pardoned ; therefore pardon, and the gift of the Holy Ghost, are 
 not inseparably connected with a " believing baptism." But the ques- 
 tion is, why was he still " in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of 
 iniquity ]" Let Peter answer this question, verse 21. " Thy heart is 
 not right in the sight of God." Simon did not " believe with the heart 
 unto righteousness ;" he had not the faith that " works by love and 
 purifies the heart," but a mere historic faith, or belief; precisely that 
 description of faith which is taught by Mr. C. as the only gospel faith. 
 The believing, baptized Simon, was still unpardoned, and conse- 
 quently destitute of the joys consequent upon the new birth. Had 
 Simon lived in this day of wateiism, he would have been considered 
 " as innocent, as clean, and as unspotted as an angel." But this was 
 not the state of religious standing in the palmy days of religious light, 
 for this baptized believer was commanded to repent, and pray for the 
 forgiveness of his sins, lest God should smite him with a curse. Thus 
 you see, a man may believe historically, and be baptized, and yet be 
 unpardoned and unsaved. From the passage of scripture above quoted 
 and discussed, we draw the following inferences: 
 
 1. That the pardon of sins, and the new birth, are not inseparably 
 connected with historic faith and baptism. 
 
 2. That all persons who have simply believed historically the re- 
 
 4*
 
 cords of God, and have been baptized, and from these facts have been 
 taught that they were the children of God, have been grossly deceived, 
 and are still " in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of "iniquity." 
 
 3. That all such ought to repent and pray for forgiveness, as the 
 apostle directed Simon to do. 
 
 i. That, as it was possible for Simon to obtain pardon after bap- 
 tism, and that too, in the use of other means, so it is ppssible for 
 others, in a similar situation, to obtain pardon. Therefore baptism 
 is not the only " means or way" of pardon. 
 
 Mr. C. says: " Baptism is the only medium divinely appointed, 
 through which the efficacy of the blood of Christ is communicated to 
 the conscience. Without knowing and believing this, immersion is as 
 empty as a blasted nut; the shell is there but the kernel is wanting." 
 Christian Baptist, p. 160. If Mr. C. be correct in the above extract, 
 a man may believe the word of God and be immersed, and yet he 
 cannot be saved unless he believes, and knows, that this is the " only 
 medium through which the blood of Christ is communicated to the con- 
 science." Forwithout this, "immersion is as empty as a blasted nut," 
 &c. So that, according to Mr. C., " historic faith" and immersion 
 will not " stand the test of heaven," unless he not only believes, but 
 knows, that the blood of Christ cannot be " communicated to the con- 
 science" through any other medium. I wonder what Mr. C. will do 
 with many who have retired from the ranks of the Old Baptists and 
 have enlisted under his banner or, if you iike it better have become 
 Reformers ? I know many who were baptized some twenty years 
 since, who never dreamed, much less believed, or knew, that baptism 
 was administered for the remission of sins, or was the "only medium" 
 through which the blood of Christ could be " communicated to the 
 conscience." Does Mr. C. think that their baptism availed them 
 aught 7 Surely not ; for without this, "immersion is as empty as a 
 blasted nut." But does Mr. C. believe, that they did believe and know 
 this 7 Then I would ask, what meant their long experiences, in which 
 they related their dreams, their visions, and sometimes the voices 
 which they heard, &c. and why did they tell every person whom 
 the}' met, that Christ had pardoned their sins 1 Now many of these 
 became ministers, and received ordination from the Old Baptists; and 
 even now, they have in their pockets the credentials of their ordina- 
 tion by Elders of the Baptist Church, and these are all the authority 
 by which they administer the ordinances of the church of Christ. 
 They also solemnize the rites of matrimony by authority granted 
 them in consequence of their being in possession of these credentials. 
 Now, I ask, if immersion and faith are " as empty as a blasted nut," 
 without a knowledge of their efficacy, as is taught by Mr. C., if they 
 should not be dipped again ? Some of them have thought it essential 
 to their salvation to be re-immersed, and have submitted to a repeti- 
 tion of the act. I know a man well, who was a Baptist minister for 
 some years before he embraced Mr. Campbell's notions, who also 
 baptized many in the Old Baptist faith, and after he joined Mr. C. 
 proclaimed and baptized for several years ; but at last the "scales 
 fell from his eyes," and he found it incumbent on him to be immersed 
 again, and actually was re-immersed for the remission of sins by a pri- 
 vate member of his charge, thereby invalidating his previous baptism, 
 while, according to Mr. C., he had been preaching and baptizing for 
 many years, in an unpardoned state, and was, consequently, an un- 
 converted sinner.
 
 43 
 
 If it is necessary to believe, and know, that immersion is the only 
 way of pardon before faith and baptism will avail any thing, then 
 ought every Baptist who joins Mr. C. be re-immersed; without this, 
 their previous immersion is not worth a "blasted nut;" and Mr. C. 
 himself ought to be dipped again, for he was once a Baptist, and no 
 doubt told a long experience before they received him. From the pre- 
 ceding remarks we see that historic faith and immersion, will not 
 stand " the test of heaven," Mr. C. himself being judge. 
 
 Sixth. We now approach our last proposition : That all who are 
 not immersed, whatever be their faith, repentance, prayer, or love for 
 God, are in an unpardoned state. We shall again bring our faithful 
 witness and uncompromising opponent of Mr. C's. to the bar, that he 
 may answer to this proposition, deduced from the writings of Mr. C. 
 Question. Who shall receive remission of sins 1 Answer, by Peter. 
 " Whosoever believeth in him (Christ) shall receive remission of 
 sins." Were not the sins of Cornelius pardoned before he was bap- 
 tized 1 ? Surely they were ; for, as before remarked, he had received 
 the Holy Ghost previous thereto. Let us hear Christ : "As Moses 
 lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man 
 be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but 
 have eternal life." John iii : 14, 15. " Therefore being justified by 
 faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." Rom. 
 v : 1. I ask, was the thief on the cross baptized 1 and what did Jesus 
 say should become of him? From the foregoing quotations we are 
 forced to the conclusion, that a sinner believing in Christ remains no 
 longer in an unpardoned or unjustified state. But hear Paul again : 
 " Be it known unto you therefore men and brethren, that through this 
 man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins, and by him all that 
 believe are justified from all things." Acts xiii : 38, 39. A man is 
 not lost if he has evangelical faith, Christ being judge of the matter, 
 for whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting 
 life. Mnch more might be said upon this point, but what has been 
 adduced is sufficient to show that the dogmas of Mr. C. in reference 
 to this subject, are utterly false. That all the pious, in all ages, from 
 Christ down to the present 'day, who have not been dipped under 
 water are unsaved, and those of them who have died are lost for want 
 of immersion, and damned forever, are conclusions so repulsive to 
 reason and to common sense, and so inconsistent with fair deductions 
 from the word of God, that even Mr. C. when he sees them presented 
 in a plain manner, certainly will be ashamed of them. 
 
 Having discussed the propositions deduced from the writings of 
 Mr. C. and shown that they are absurd, and consequently dangerous, 
 we now proceed to comment upon the texts of scripture by which 
 they are supposed to be sustained. 
 
 We will begin with the address of Christ to Nicodemus, John iii : 5. 
 " Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be 
 bom of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of 
 God." With this text standing out in bold relief, Mr. C. feels no hesi- 
 tancy in denouncing all unimmersed persons as "lost to all Christian 
 life and enjoyment;" or, as expressed in another place, "lost in tres- 
 passes and sins." 
 
 In order to discover what Christ means in this passage, we must 
 consult the context. It appears from what Nicodemus heard of Christ, 
 his miracles, teachings, &c. that he became concerned upon the sub- 
 ject of religion, and came to Christ to learn of him the nature of that
 
 44 
 
 religion which he taught. Christ informed him of the necessity of a 
 new birth; this subject was mysterious to the Jewish ruler, for he re- 
 plied, " How can a man be bom when he is old ?" &c. According to 
 the custom of the blessed Lord, he illustrated the subject, and em- 
 ployed a figure familiar to Nicodemus, namely: the application of 
 water to proselytes and he, being " a master in Israel," could not be 
 ignorant of its design. The ceremony was so often performed upon 
 unclean persons, in order that they might be prepared to come into 
 the congregation and associate with their brethren, (see Num. xix : 
 19, 20,) that surprise might naturally be expressed at the dulness of 
 his apprehension. Christ teaches Nicodemus that all men are by 
 nature defiled, and that this defilement is a spiritual one ; therefore, 
 man to be clean, must be born again, and his defilement being spiri- 
 tual, his birth must be spiritual; he must be "born of the Spirit." 
 And this birth of the Spirit will cleanse the soul from moral defile- 
 ment, just as the water applied in the Jewish ceremony purified the 
 unclean person upon whom it was sprinkled from his derilement. The 
 water, therefore, is employed by Christ as a figure to bring to the 
 mind of Nicodemus, in a clear manner, the cleansing nature and 
 efficacy of the Holy Spirit. In order to see more clearly the meaning 
 of this passage, it may be proper to inquire, what our Lord means by 
 the phrase, " kingdom of God. :> The phrase "kingdom of God," or 
 " heaven," has three significations in scripture. 1st. It signifies the 
 glorious state in which angels dwell and enjoy the glory of the Fa- 
 ther's face. Matt, xviii : 10. 2d. The reign of Christ in the be- 
 liever's heart. Rom. xiv : 17. " For the kingdom of God is not meat 
 and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." 
 3d. It signifies the outward and visible church of Christ. Matt, xxi : 
 43. " Therefore, I say unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken 
 from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.'' 
 Now I ask, to which of these significations did the Lord allude in the 
 text in question] Surely not to the kingdom of glory above, for then 
 the thief on the cross had no prospect of getting there ; for it is a fair 
 inference to say, he was not baptized with water. Again : This would 
 put the salvation of the servant in the hands of a mastej, for an unbe- 
 lieving master might forbid the servant the ordinance of baptism; 
 this will hold good of the wife, and of the child. Many cases occur 
 where water baptism is prohibited by those who have authority. All 
 afflicted persons, also, would be excluded, whose afflictions were of 
 such a nature as to prevent their attending to the ordinance. With 
 the exiled and imprisoned, by circumstances beyond their control, the 
 same difficulty would arise. 
 
 These remarks are sufficient to convince us, that Christ did not 
 allude to the first signification of this phrase. To which then did he 
 allude 1 ? We answer, to the two last; the kingdom of God in the soul, 
 which requires the birth of the Spirit, and to the outward and viable 
 kingdom, which requires an application of water in holy baptism r for 
 to become a Christian inwardly, a man must be born of the Spirit, 
 and to be one outwardly, he must put on Christ by submitting to be 
 baptized with water. 
 
 This presents the kingdom of God to us in its two-fold nature : 
 first, outward and visible ; secondly, inward and spiritual. By being 
 baptized with water, and entering the visible kingdom, we assume 
 the form of Godliness, if we keep the ordinances of this kingdom ; 
 but to be baptized with the Holy Ghost, puts us in possession of the
 
 45 
 
 power of Godliness, or love, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost ; which 
 makes us Christians in deed and in truth, being now in possession 
 both of the form and power of Godliness. Thus we perceive, the 
 kingdom of God is made accessible by a two-fold birth : " of water 
 and of the Spirit." This view of the text presents, without obscurity, 
 the address of Christ, " Except a man be born of water and of the 
 Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." 
 
 From this text we farther learn, the importance and design of water 
 baptism. 1st. To signify the cleansing influence of the Spirit, which 
 is as the blowing of the wind. The fact that the wind blows we know, 
 but the manner of the fact, " whence it cometh and whither it goeth," 
 none can tell. So of the Spirit : the fact that we are " born of the 
 Spirit," and regenerated in our souls, we most assuredly know; but 
 the manner of this fact, how the Spirit of God operates in producing 
 this glorious change, who can explain 7 3d. To initiate us into the 
 visible church, and thereby give us access to all the privileges of the 
 same. Now reader, I ask you, if Mr. C. is justifiable in wresting this 
 text from the context, and so perverting the design or meaning of the 
 Saviour, as to make it favor his dogma, that " no man has any proof 
 that he is pardoned until he is baptized." The truth stands thus : A 
 man may enter the visible kingdom, and still know nothing of the 
 reign of Christ in the heart; as did Simon Magus, and as do many 
 in the present day. It is equally true, that a man may enter into the 
 spiritual kingdom of "love, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost," and 
 still not be in the outward kingdom ; as did Cornelius and his family, 
 and as do thousands of happy converls in these "latter times." O! 
 that Mr. C. and his followers, would as zealously insist in their teach- 
 ings and writings upon the necessity of the spiritual birth, as they 
 now do for the water change, for then they would, at least, be more 
 useful than they now are ; they would then seek that the moral image 
 of God might be impressed upon their hearts, which consists in righ- 
 teousness and true holiness. From the view of the text presented, we 
 are forced to the conclusion that it affords no support to Mr. C's. de- 
 structive doctrine, that without immersion there is no remission of 
 sins. The next text which requires consideration, is that found in 
 Acts ii : 38. " Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized 
 every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of 
 sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." This text is 
 universally quoted by Mr. C. and his followers, as the first and last 
 of every sermon ; and there is little doubt, but thrit many well mean- 
 ing-persons have been led to embrace the absurdities of Campbellism 
 because of the confident manner in which this text is quoted by Mr. 
 C. and his adherents, or those who try to imitate him in his specious 
 reasonings. A few plain thoughts will show his error in striving to 
 force this passage into his service. 
 
 Let us consider to whom this address was made. It was made to 
 those Jews who had formally renounced Christ as the Messiah, by 
 bringing him before their governor, and crying out en masse, "Away 
 with him !" " Crucify him ! crucify him ! His blood be upon us and 
 our children." These very Jews had not only formally renounced 
 Christ, but had, t: with wicked hands, crucified and slain" him. This 
 was charged home upon them by the apostle, in the twenty-third 
 verse, and afterwards he proved, by the mouth of prophecy, that this 
 same Jesus was the "Lord of glory," the promised Messiah, the 
 Shiloh which was to come. These truths caused them to fear and 
 
 v
 
 46 
 
 tremble before the servant of the Lord, and to cry out, " What shall 
 we (wicked Jews, who have crucified the Messiah) do V The apos- 
 tle replies, " Repent, and be baptized every one of you, (bloody mur- 
 derers,) in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and 
 ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." In this address, they 
 were taught to erase formally their names from the articles of formal 
 conspiracy against Christ; this was to be done in a formal manner, 
 by being baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ," for all sins, formally 
 committed, should be formally renounced. This course would have 
 a tendency to humble the proud heart of the Jews ; as by it they were 
 instructed : 1st. To confess their guilt before the world, and give 
 evidence of the sincerity of their repentance by being baptized in his 
 name. 2d. To forsake the company of wicked murderers, and unite 
 with the small company of disciples ; doing all with an eye single to 
 the glory of God, and with reference to this important point, the re- 
 mission of their sins. 3d. That, in faithfully using the means, they 
 might expect in its use, pardon, or the " gift of the Holy Ghost." 
 They had in a formal manner put Jesus to death ; they are now di- 
 rected to confess their guilt in like manner, and by submitting to a 
 solemn ordinance, performed in his name, they were formally and 
 publicly to take upon themselves the profession of Christ. Still we 
 are not told God would not have pardoned them without baptism. 
 This was a special case; they asked what they must do. Peter an- 
 swered, " Repent, and be baptized," &c. But is Mr. C. justifiable in 
 teaching, that there is "no other means or way of pardon," because 
 Peter advised these murderers to this course 1 Surely not. Had Peter 
 closed his mouth at this point, and spoken no more, then the conclu- 
 sion drawn by Mr. C. would have been an arbitrary one. This text 
 teaches us what was the duty of these Jews; but surely one will not 
 conclude, that God will tie himself down to this precise method with 
 the Gentile world, who have not been transgressors in the same sense 
 as these murdering Jews. Let us follow Peter a little farther, and 
 hear what he will say to the Gentiles in first announcing the gospel 
 to them. He does not charge them with the murder of Christ; but 
 in relating the story of his life and death, his language is, "him did 
 they (the Jews) crucify and slay." And in reference to the remission 
 of sins, he says : " To him gave all the prophets witness, that through 
 his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive the remission of 
 sins." Acts x : 43. And as he was yet speaking these words the 
 Holy Ghost fell on all them, as it did on the disciples at the begin- 
 ning. Seeing this display of the saving power of God, he speaks of 
 baptism, (not as necessary to the remission of sins, but because they 
 had been pardoned, and had received the Holy Ghost,) and trium- 
 phantly asks, " Who can forbid water that these should not be bap- 
 tized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as weT' Now it 
 appears to my mind, if we should conclude God did require the Jews 
 to be baptized as a condition of salvation, or upon which their sins 
 would be remitted, that even then we have no cause to preach to the 
 Gentiles the sermon which Peter preached to the murdering Jews, 
 since Peter did not do so himself: but with the sermon of Peter be- 
 fore us, and God's method of saving the Gentiles, we are highly cul- 
 pable if we declare God will not save the Gentiles upon any other 
 condition than that course pointed out to the Jews. 
 
 The plain conclusions to which we are led from our consideration 
 of the above quoted passage, are these: 1st. God did require the
 
 47 
 
 Jews who had rejected Christ, to be baptized in the name of the Lord' 
 Jesus, as a means of grace ; thereby looking to and figuring the bap- 
 tism of the Holy Ghost, or the remission of sins, and not as a con- 
 dition of salvation. 2d. That the Gentiles, who were not guilty ot a 
 like sin with the Jews, nor scrupulous to observe ordinances as a 
 means of remission, did receive the remission of sins, and the gift of 
 the Holy Ghost, upon repentance and faith, and subsequently were 
 baptized and initiated into the family or church of God. It is with 
 this view of the subject that the Methodist Episcopal Church has 
 always practised the baptism of penitents, who, though not in a situa- 
 tion precisely similar to that of the Jews, are nevertheless weary of 
 sin, and desirous to flee the wrath to come, and in this great struggle 
 the church throws her arms around them, inviting them to use and en- 
 joy her means of grace. When they are baptized the}' are still looked 
 upon as penitents, or seekers of religion ; and as such are entered 
 upon the church records, being from time to time exhorted, rebuked, 
 comforted, prayed for. and pointed to the "Lamb of God which taketh 
 away the sin of the world," until they are brought to know, by the 
 witness of the Spirit, that God, for Christ's sake, has pardoned all 
 their sins. So also she practises the baptism of believers ; those who 
 have obtained pardon through faith in Christ: such a baptism and 
 initiation into the church, as was that of Cornelius and his family. 
 I ask any man, whose mind is not biased by prejudice, if Mr. C. is 
 justified in drawing the conclusion he does from this passage: That 
 as Peter advised the Jews to be baptized as a means of obtaining 
 pardon and the " gift of the Holy Ghost," therefore God will not grant 
 remission of sins to any Gentile before he is baptized "\ There would 
 be as much truth in saying the Holy Ghost could not be received pre- 
 vious to baptism, as to say the remission of sins could not; both of 
 which dogmas are proved to be utterly false by Peter. Acts x. 
 
 Mr. Campbell's error consists in misunderstanding the phrase "re- 
 mission of sins." In the scriptures we learn there is a formal, or cere- 
 monial remission of sins, and also a real or absolute remission of 
 guilt. This existed under the Jewish economy; for we find ceremonies 
 appointed for the sinner to attend to in order to obtain remission of 
 guilt; but all who attended to these ceremonies did not receive remis- 
 sion, or but few of the Jews would have been guilty before God. As 
 under the Mosaic economy there was a figurative and real remission, 
 so under the gospel there is a nominal or ceremonial remission of 
 sins, as well as an absolute remission of guilt. Therefore when Peter 
 told the Jews to repent and be baptized, for the remission of sins, they 
 understood him as alluding to a ceremonial remission, and those bap- 
 tized Jews were nominally absolved in the eye of the church ; but the 
 actual absolution was a thing more permanent in its character. With 
 these remarks we conclude our comment upon Acts ii : 38. 
 
 The next text to which we invite the attention of the reader, is that 
 found in Acts xxii : 16. "And now why tarriest thoul arise, and be 
 baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." 
 But few remarks are necessary upon this text, inasmuch as its mean- 
 ing has been more than anticipated in our remarks upon the second 
 chapter of Acts. In this passage the penitent Paul is commanded to 
 arise and "wash away his sins;" this address conveys the idea of 
 cleansing or absolving the soul from its sins. If we take the passage 
 literally, we must conclude, water has virtue to reach the heart and 
 cleanse it from all its unholy stains; just as wate^r judiciously used,
 
 I- 48 
 
 will cleanse a filthy garment from all its filthiness and tincleanness, 
 This we cannot, believe ; fo, in the sacred scriptures, we are taught, 
 the blood of "Christ cleanseth us from all sin;" if the apostle John 
 wrote the truth, it cannot be by water and we dare not take the pas- 
 sage literally. We therefore affirm, if sins are washed from the soul 
 of man, the work is performed through the efficacy of the blood of 
 Christ : Mr. C. says, by water, in the act of immersion. We appeal 
 to any man in Christendom to say (if he is not biased by prejudice) 
 which of these statements is correct. Again: Two witnesses appear 
 in court to give testimony upon the same subject; the one deposes, a 
 certain garment was cleansed with water, the other testifies it was 
 cleansed with blood ; both could not testify truly. How would you 
 decide ihe case ? You would investigate the character of each ; and 
 if upon examination you discovered one to be ihe Infinite God and 
 the other a poor finite man, you would instantly reject the testimony 
 of that vain being who dared to contradict his Maker, and receive 
 the testimony of the Lord of Hosts. On this point of the discussion 
 we have the testimony of the Father of lights saying, " the blood of 
 Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanseth us from all sin," and the testimony of 
 Mr. Alexander Campbell of Bethany, saying ; Immersion in water is 
 the only medium of obtaining the remission of sins. Whom shall we 
 believe 1 " Let God be true." 
 
 The preceding remarks show us, that the text should not be under- 
 stood literally. Saul of Tarsus was a Jew, and one who had perse- 
 cuted the Christians unto death : this had been done in a legal, formal 
 manner, for he had authority from the Chief Priests to bring all he 
 found calling upon the name of Jesus, bound to Jerusalem. He having 
 been a formal persecutor of the followers of Christ, is, as were' the 
 Jews on the day of Pentecost, commanded to be baptized and wash 
 away his sins, in a legal, formal manner. By this act, he openly con- 
 fessed Christ and put on the profession of Christ, his baptism being 
 figurative of the baptism of the Holy Ghost. This is the only fair 
 construction of this passage, unless we transcend all reason and con- 
 clude, water can cleanse the soul from sin. Whosoever is prepared 
 for this conclusion, is prepared to join with the Papists, and avow 
 that the bread and wine used in the Holy Eucharist is converted into 
 the actual body and blood of Christ, when consecrated by the min- 
 ister; for Christ declares, " this is my body," " this is my blood," &c. 
 These expressions of our blessed Lord are interpreted by all Protes- 
 tants to be figurative; that is, the bread which we eat represents the 
 body of Christ, and the wine represents the blood of Christ. So in 
 the text, the sentence " wash away thy sins," means not that water 
 can cleanse the soul from sin, or literally wash away its guilt, but points 
 us to the cleansing efficacy of the blood whereby the Spirit actually 
 "cleanseth us from all sin ;" hence we believe Saul was baptized and 
 nominally washed away his sins, but the actual cleansing of the 
 heart was by the blood of Christ Jesus. Therefore Paul tells us in 
 his Epistle to the Hebrews, ix : 13, 14, " If the blood of bulls and of 
 goats and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to 
 the purifying of the flesh, how much more the blood of Christ, who 
 through the eternal spirit, offered himself without spot to God, purge 
 your conscience from dead works to serve the living God. The apos- 
 tle tells us the offerings of bulls, &c. were for the purification "of the 
 flesh," or a nominal purification ; but the purging of the conscience 

 
 49 
 
 must be by the " sprinkling of the blood of Christ," who offered him- 
 self " without spot to God," " through the eternal spirit." 
 
 The reader has Paul's own words to show that Mr. C. is greatly in 
 error, when he says the apostle's sins were washed away by watet 
 baptism. 
 
 Leaving Mr. C. and the apostle to settle the question whether his 
 (the apostle's) sins were washed away by water, or " the precious 
 blood of Christ," I call attention to one other passage, found in the 
 Gospel according to St. Mark, xvi : 15, 16. "And he said unto them, 
 Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He 
 that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth 
 not, shall be damned." In this passage the Saviour declares, " he 
 that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Mr. C. thinks this 
 sufficient authority to justify his uncharitable assertion, that no one 
 can be saved without baptism. The text has an allusion to the final 
 judgement, where each man shall be rewarded according to his deeds. 
 We will therefore suppose this text to be the comprehensive one by 
 which we shall all stand or fall in that day. There comes one before 
 the judge, and the question is asked, Do you believe 1 He answers, 
 Yes. Are you baptized 1 Answer. Yes. Stand on my right hand. 
 Another presents himself; he is questioned. Do you believe 1 An- 
 swer. No. Stand on my left hand, for " he that believeth not shall be 
 damned." Another comes forward. Question. Are you a believer? 
 Answer. Yes. Have you been baptized 1 Answer. No. The ques- 
 tion now arises, what shall become of this man'? Can you damn him'? 
 Certainly not. Why 7 ? He is a believer, and the law says, " he that 
 believeth not, shall be damned ;" and he not being an unbeliever, can- 
 not be damned. Can you save him'? Mr. C. would say, No! Why? 
 Because he has not been baptized ; and the law says, he must be bap- 
 tized, as well as believe, in order to salvation. This brings us to a 
 stand, for there are but two places to which he can go; heaven or hell 
 must receive him. But let us consult the law a little farther, and see 
 if it is said in any part of the law that he who is not baptized with 
 water shall be damned We have examined, and such a passage can- 
 not be found. But what is said of the man now before the judge- 
 ment 1 He is a believer; of such it is written, "He that believeth 
 on the Son hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemna- 
 tion, for he is passed from deaih unto life." Oh, no! says Mr. C He 
 has not been baptized, and therefore has not " passed from death unto 
 life." But stop, Mr. C.; I tell you, the good book says, "he that be- 
 lieveth on the Son hath everlasting life," &c. What think you, reader, 
 the judge will do in this case'? Can he damn him who hath ever- 
 lasting life 1 Certainly not. And although Mr. C., with all the water 
 bigots of Christendom, might whine and cant and swear he ought 
 never to be permitted to enter heaven with those who have had their 
 sins washed away with water, yet this subject standing before the 
 judgement seat, with his robes washed (not in water) but in the rich 
 blood of the Lamb of God, will be invited unto a throne on which he 
 will shout with loud acclamations, " Allelujah to the Lamb that loved 
 me, and washed me in his own blood, and made me a priest and king 
 unto God." That the text in question enjoins baptism, we freely ad- 
 mit; but that it justifies any person in making the presumptuous as- 
 sertion, that no one can have his sins forgiven without baptism, we 
 never can believe. The text also teaches us the true condition of 
 salvation. It positively declares, "he that believeth not, shall be 
 5 \
 
 50 
 
 damned." Now if unbelief is the .great soul-damning sin, then its 
 opposite must be the grace which will obtain the favor of God, and 
 bring salvation; hence we conclude, men are saved by grace, through 
 faith, as a condition. We might call attention to other passages, but 
 we deem those already noticed sufficient, they being those which are 
 generally, yea, wholly relied upon, to sustain the dogma we are opposing. 
 
 From our coasideration of these texts, we are led to the following 
 conclusions : 
 
 1st. That the church of Christ, or kingdom of heaven, is two-fold 
 in nature. First, outward and visible. Second, inward and spiritual. 
 
 2d. That, in order to enter into fhe spiritual part, we must be born 
 of, or baptized with the Spirit 
 
 3d. That, in order to enter the outward and visible part of this king- 
 dom, we must be born of, or baptized with water. All of which Christ 
 taught Nicodemus. 
 
 4th. That there is a nominal or figurative remission of sins, and 
 also a real or absolute remission or pardon of sin. To obtain the 
 former, men must be baptized with water. To obtain the latter, they 
 must be baptized with the Holy Ghost, as Peter taught on the day of 
 Pentecost. 
 
 5th. That St. Paul's sins were nominally washed away by baplism, 
 and really washed away by the blood of Christ, through the Holy 
 Spirit, as the apostle himself testifies. 
 
 6th. That all penitents are proper subjects for water baptism, as we 
 see recorded in Acts, second chapter. 
 
 7th. That all true believers, who have had their sins forgiven and 
 have received the Holy Ghost, are proper subjects for water baptism, 
 as we are taught by the apostle Peter when he baptized Cornelius and 
 family, Acts, tenth chapter. 
 
 I now leave it with the reader to judge, whether or not Mr. C's. 
 positions, as above discussed, are sustained by the passages of scrip- 
 ture we have been examining. Can any thing but sectarian bigotry 
 lead a man to affirm, that sins are really and literally washed from 
 the soul of man by water 1 That no man can be saved from sin here, 
 and saved in heaven hereafter, without water baptism'? 
 
 Having, as we believe, shown that Mr. Campbell's views concern- 
 ing the potency of water baptism to cleanse the heart of man from 
 sin, to be utterly false, we proceed to call attention to the subjects of 
 water baptism. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 Siibjeds of Christian Baptism. 
 
 1st. THAT true believers in Christ, who have received remission of 
 sins, and comfort of the Holy Ghost, are proper subjects for Christian 
 baptism, has been proved in the preceding chapter ; and I imagine no 
 
 '
 
 51 
 
 I 
 
 one, save Mr. C., will call in question their title to this ordinance.* 
 We therefore forbear any farther remarks concerning believers bap- 
 tism. 
 
 2d. That penitents are proper subjects for Christian baptism, has 
 been made apparent, also, in the preceding pages. We therefore need 
 spend no more time upon this subject. 
 
 3d. The great question between Baptists and Pedo -baptists is, 
 whether or not infant children are proper subjects for Christian bap- 
 tism. The Pedo-baptists affirm, and the Baptists deny their title to 
 this ordinance, and here they are at issue. We are jconfident that the 
 truth is on the side of the question advocated by the Pedo-baptists, 
 and that those who oppose infant baptism greatly err: we will call 
 the attention of the reader specially to the title of infants to this di- 
 vine institution. 
 
 Those who oppose the title of infants to the privileges of member- 
 ship in the church of Christ, and consequently baptism, are led into 
 the error by supposing that Christ in his mission to earth instituted a 
 new church, or kingdom -, and as infants are not commanded to be bap- 
 tized under this new institution, therefore they should not be baptized: 
 it is with this specious argument the Baptist will tell you, take the 
 New Testament and prove to me that infants were ever baptized, or 
 commanded to be, and then I will surrender the point. This course of 
 reasoning is adopted in order to avoid the force of argument drawn 
 from the Old Testament it is as though my friend were to say to me, 
 a certain law which existed some years ago, is abrogated and not now 
 in force ; while I affirm, he is mistaken that the law in question is 
 still in force and the transgressor still exposed to its penalties : being 
 at issue, we wish to decide the question. My friend places in my 
 hands a copy of the late acts of the Virginia Legislature, and trium- 
 phantly says, " Show me one word about it in this book, and 1 will 
 admit you are correct in your opinion." But I reply, This is not the 
 place to find it ; this law was passed some twenty years ago ; if you 
 refer to the acts of 1822, you will there find it. He readily replies, 
 " Oh, yesl I know in 1822 there was such a law passed by the two 
 houses of the Virginia Legislature; but before you can prove its ex- 
 istence at this time, you must find it in this book " I would answer, 
 No, sir; you say no such a law now exists, and it rests on you to prove 
 what you say. As for myself, I must show it existed in 1822. I 
 hand you all the acts from that time down to the present year, 1844, 
 and if you can find in any of these subsequent acts that this law has 
 been repealed, or altered in any way so as to destroy its force, then I 
 will confess I am wrong and you right ; but if yon fail to show these 
 facts, then you are wrong: for the law having been passed by proper 
 authority, must remain in full force on all whom it may concern, until 
 a subsequent act of the same authority repeals, or so alters it as to 
 destroy its force. I ask, what would you think of my friend should 
 he insist there was no such law, because he could not find it in the 
 late acts of the Legislature'? Just about as reasonable as my friend, 
 are the opposers of infant baptism who say, " Unless you can show 
 me in the New Testament the right of infants to church membership, 
 I will not believe it." The whole Bible is but a code of laws given 
 
 * Mr. C. says : "And if men are conscious that their sins are forgiven, and 
 that they are pardoned before they are immersed, I advise them not to go into 
 the water, for they have no need of it." Christian Baptist, p. 183.
 
 52 
 
 to man, passed from time to time in the history of the world during 
 the space of four thousand years; these laws are of different kinds, 
 and respect different nations and individuals. It is only from this code 
 of laws we can learn our duty to God, and to man. Again : It is 
 well known many of the obligations resting upon us were imposed 
 long, yea, hundreds of years before Christ. Now if we would know 
 our duty, we must not only read the New Testament scriptures, but 
 following the commandment of the Lord Jesus, we must " search the 
 scriptures," both new and old. We say, both new and old the new, 
 you say, you study : the old were the only scriptures in existence in 
 the days of Christ; in them we have the laws passed by God and im- 
 
 Eosed upon generations 'long since passed away ; many of these laws 
 ave been changed or repealed, and God has been pleased, in many 
 instances, to show us why these changes and repeals were made ; it 
 is impossible for us to arrive at a proper understanding of them, un- 
 less we read the whole consecutively ; thus, if a question arises con- 
 cerning any law, rite, or privilege, we refer to Qie laws of God and if 
 nothing can lie found in the Revelation of St. John upon the subject, 
 ^ \pe like my friend would pass to the next in order, and trace back 
 until the subject was found and the question settled: so finding nothing 
 in Revelation we pass to the Epistles, from thence to Acts, the Gos- 
 pels, and if the New Testament did not furnish the light we stood in 
 need of, we should not fold our arms and say, we had completed the 
 examination of the statutes of the Lord. No; but passing on to the Old 
 Testament we would examine that, until the information wanted was 
 found. Now the question is, are infants entitled to baptism and the 
 privileges of the church of God 1 Proceed, now, with my friend. If 
 it cannot be found in the last act, pass on to those which are more 
 ancient go to the Bible, the New Testament scriptures, thence to the 
 Old Testament and when you arrive at Genesis xii. and xvii. you 
 will find the act. There we find a covenant made between God and 
 Abraham, and all his children. In this covenant God formed what is 
 called a church, and commanded Abraham to set the seal of this cove- 
 nant on his infants ; they thereby were taken into the covenant, or 
 church of God. Now read the Bible consecutively through, and trace 
 the church, established when this covenant was made with Abraham, 
 through the patriarchal and prophetical dispensations, even up to the 
 coming of Christ, and we shall find, in every age and under all the 
 trying circumstances and vicisitudes through which it passed, that 
 children were members thereof. John the Baptist, when he entered 
 upon his ministry, found them in the church. Christ found them mem- 
 bers when he entered upon his work, and so he left them when he 
 ascended up on high. Now unless it can be proved that in some sub- 
 sequent act of God (the only legislator upon this subject) this law 
 found in the twelfth and seventeenth chapters of Genesis was re- 
 pealed, or so changed as to exclude infants from church membership, 
 the law must remain in full force unto the present day. But, as be- 
 fore remarked, the Baptists contend that this church, instituted in the 
 days of Abraham, was designed to exist only till the coming of the 
 Messiah ; and that, after he came, and abolished the old church and 
 established a new one, as he did not command infants to be baptized, 
 they should be rejected. 
 
 If it be a fact, that Christ did institute a new church when he came 
 to earth, there might be some reason in the objection; but even then 
 it would require more argument, and a better one than has yet been
 
 53 
 
 adduced, to debar infants from the privilege of membership. That 
 Christ did institute a new church when he came to earth, is a point, 
 we think, very difficult to prove. As the Baptists look upon this as 
 one Of their strong points, 1 will call the attention of the reader to some 
 scripture proofs upon the subject. If we shall succeed in proving that 
 the Jewish church was not abolished, and was the same of which the 
 apostles and early Christians were members, and that this same church 
 exists in the present day, then that infants have a title to church mem- 
 bership now, as they ha'd then, will be evident to all unprejudiced per- 
 sons ; unless it can be shown that Christ, or his apostles, did forbid 
 their admittance under the gospel dispensation. 
 
 That Christ did not institute a new church, we think we can prove 
 beyond successful contradiction. Let us turn our attention to the 
 book of God, and commence with the church instituted by him when 
 he formed a covenant with Abraham. See Genesis xii. and xvii. 
 This church embraced the family of Abraham, both old and young. 
 See xvii : 10, 11. The covenant formed on the institution of this 
 church, God saw fit to seal. The seal was circumcision. Here we 
 perceive the father and the son, the one ninety and the other thirteen 
 years old, (and at a subsequent period Isaac, when eight days old,) 
 circumcised preparatory to their entering into covenant with God. 
 This church thus instituted, is represented as being blessed; and the 
 descendants of the members, when passing through the wilderness, 
 are described as eating and drinking of Christ, the spiritual rock, 
 1 Cor. x : 2, 3, thus showing the church to have been a spiritual one. 
 This church is called by the martyr Stephen, " the church in the wil- 
 derness." Acts vii : 38. He says that Moses was in the church in 
 the wilderness. This church existed through every age to the coming 
 of Christ. ' The question now obviously is, if Christ instituted a new 
 church, when and where did he institute it7 Let us hear Christ speak 
 on this point. When addressing the Jews on one occasion, he repre- 
 sented them as a vineyard, which had been let forth to husbandmen 
 who did not give the lord of the vineyard the fruits thereof; and 
 when applied to for them, destroyed the servants, and finally killed 
 the son of their lord. Therefore the vineyard shall be taken from 
 them, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits of it. The Chief 
 Priests and Elders perceived that, this parable was spoken against 
 them : then said the Saviour, " The kingdom of God shall be taken 
 from you, and given to a nation (the Gentiles) bringing forth the fruits 
 thereof." Matt, xxi : 43. We ask, did Christ intimate that he would 
 destroy the vineyard, (which doubtless means the church, or kingdom 
 of heaven,) and plant a new one 1 Surely he did not. He did not 
 intend to tear down the hedges, nor dig up the vines, nor destroy the 
 wine press. We now ask the reader, when was this vineyard planted 
 if it was not in the days of Abraham 1 And we ask again, did not 
 the Gentiles receive the same vineyard unimpaired and unchanged'? 
 This being so, we enter the old church which Abraham and Moses 
 entered, and faith shall make us one. 
 
 Hear the blessed Lord, when addressing the Jews upon another 
 occasion. Comparing the church to a sheep-fold he tells them, all 
 that came before him were thieves and robbers ; but the sheep (the 
 pious Jews) did not hear them. " I lay down my life for the sheep, 
 and other sheep I have (the Gentiles) which are not of this fold, (the 
 Jewish church;) them also I must bring, and there shall be one Ibid 
 and one shepherd." John x : 16. Here Christ is called the shepherd ; 
 5*
 
 54 
 
 and we ask, into what fold could he take his sheep, if not into the 
 Jewish fold, or church 1 Thus we see the church is not a new insti- 
 tution, but that it existed long before the address in the wilderness. 
 
 Again : We refer the reader to what the apostle Paul has said upon 
 this subject. When addressing the Gentiles he compares the Jewish 
 church to an olive tree, and shows that the natural branches (the 
 Jews) were broken off because of unbelief; and comparing the Gen- 
 tiles to a wild olive tree, he represents them as being grafted into the 
 old stock, (the Jewish church,) and made partakers of the root and 
 fatness of the old stock; saying, at the same time, that the Jews 
 should again bear fruit by being grafted in, if they continued not in 
 unbelief. Rom. xi : 17 24. Does not this show the church to be the 
 same which was instituted in the days of Abraham 1 Yea, and that 
 we, the Gentiles, are grafted in, and that we partake of the root and 
 fatness of the old stock ; which is not taken up to make way for the 
 planting of a new tree, but the new branches are grafted in the old 
 stock. 
 
 Again : The same apostle, in his letter to the Ephesians, declares, 
 that those who were " afar off, are made nigh," and that the middle 
 wall of partition between Jew and Gentile has been broken down, 
 whereby both are brought into one: hence we enter the Jewish church, 
 there being no longer a wall of partition between us Gentiles and the 
 Jews. St. Paul, in another place, Eph. v : 25, says : " Husbands, love 
 your wives even as Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it." 
 Which shows the church to have existed prior to his dying for it. 
 
 Again : He tells us we are built on the apostles and prophets, Christ 
 being the chief comer-stone of the building. Which shows the prophets 
 are a part of the same building with the apostles and ourselves ; Christ 
 the foundation, the prophets next, then follow the apostles in order, 
 and we after them, until the building is finished, and the shout is 
 heard, "Grace, grace unto it!" See Eph. ii : 20. 
 
 In Acts xxii : 4, Luke tells us, there were added to the church three 
 thousand souls. Which teaches us that the church existed previously 
 to the day of Pentecost. If the church existed before that day, when 
 was it instituted, if it was not in the days of Abraham 1 It cannot be 
 said it was instituted on the day of Pentecost, for Luke tells us plainly 
 they were added ; and we all know there is a great difference between 
 adding to a church already instituted, and instituting a new one. From 
 this passage also, we conclude Christ did not institute a new church, 
 but enlarged greatly the privileges and blessings of the one then in 
 existence, and offered to those who had hitherto been debarred from 
 entering into its pale the privilege of entering into its fulness : hence 
 the commission reads, " Go into all the world, and preach the gospel 
 to every creature, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of 
 the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." 
 
 Now. we ask, if children were members of the church when it was 
 first instituted, and that too, by the order of God, who had the right 
 to reject or admit of his own good pleasure, surely none but God, or 
 his prophets, or apostles, or some one whom he might commission for 
 that purpose, has a right to debar them from church membership 
 now. Who will say any of the prophets or apostles ever did debar 
 infants from this privilege "? Surely there is no man to say it. Let 
 them speak for themselves on this subject. Isaiah, when describing 
 the coming in of the Gentiles, declares.: God shall stretch Ibrth his
 
 55 
 
 hand to the Gentiles, and set up his standard to the people: and they 
 shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters on their shoul- 
 ders. Isaiah xlix : 22. In this prophecy it is declared, the children 
 of the Gentiles shall be taken under the protecting arm of God, and 
 be brought to the standard he should erect. That he means little 
 children, is evident; lor they were to be brought in their arms, and 
 carried at their side. We ask, has this prophecy ever been lulfilledl 
 or did God intend it should be 1 Let the apostle Peter answer this 
 question. On the day of Pentecost he says: "Repent, and be bap- 
 tized, every one of you," &c. "for the promise is unto you, and your 
 children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our 
 God shall call." Acts ii : 39. Here, in this declaration, we see the 
 promise fulfilled. 
 
 This passage is worthy of note, for in this we have conclusive proof 
 that iniants ought to be baptized. The first question presenting itself 
 is : To what promise did Peter allude 7 We answer, to the promise 
 made to Abraham. Gen. xii : 2, 3. " And I will make of thee a great 
 nation, and 1 will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou 
 shall be a blessing : and I will bless them that bless thee, and curse 
 him that curseth thee : and in thee shall all families of the earth be 
 blessed." This is the promise : " In thee shall all families of the earth 
 be blessed." This promise is called a covenant made between God 
 and Abraham, in which God promised to be a God to him and his 
 seed. This covenant was sealed with the seal of circumcision, and 
 in the seventeenth chapter, God prescribes who shall be circumcised, 
 directing Abraham to be circumcised, with his children and servants; 
 Isaac being circumcised on the eighth day, and Ishmael at thirteen 
 years of age, thus embracing parent and children in the same cove- 
 vant. This promise, Peter says, is to you and your children. The 
 reader will please notice the sameness of the two passages. In Gen- 
 esis it reads, " to thee and thy seed ;" in Acts, "to you and your chil- 
 dren :" the term children, signifies seed. The next question is, What 
 are we to understand by the term children, or seed! The Baptists 
 would say, adult posterity ; but surely this is not meant, for the apostle 
 seems to borrow the expression from Genesis, and this text may be 
 looked upon as a quotation, or reference ; for he speaks as though the 
 Jews were familiar with the whole promise, consequently we must 
 determine the term children by that for which it stands ; which is seed. 
 How did Abraham understand the word seed 1 Surely to mean in- 
 fants such as were Ishmael and Isaac and so did all the Jews. 
 <: Therefore thy seed after thee shall be circumcised," they understood 
 to embrace infants. But why should Abraham and his seed be cir- 
 cumcised 1 Because the covenant was with him and his seed, and 
 this was the sealing act by which they entered into it. And why 
 ought the people, on the day of Pentecost, to be baptized 1 Peter 
 gives the reason : " The promise is unto you and your children." Thus 
 we see the reason in both cases is the same. Abraham and his seed 
 must be circumcised, because the covenant was with him and his 
 seed. The people must be baptized, because the promise is unto them 
 and their children. Now we ask, if the children ought to be circum- 
 cised because the covenant was with them, should not the children 
 be baptized because the promise is unto them'? Mind the reason 
 given for their baptism "for the promise is to you," therefore you 
 ought to be baptized " and to your children," theiefore they ought 
 to be baptized. We bring before the reader again, the prophecy
 
 56 
 
 of Isaiah, which is beautifully fulfilled in the case of certain persons 
 who brought young children to Christ. It is recorded by the Evange- 
 list, that " he took them up in his arms and blessed them;" then added, 
 " Suffer little children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of 
 heaven." Mark x : 13, 14. In this we see the word of the Lord, by 
 the mouth of his prophet, fulfilled in the days of Christ; for, if Christ 
 took them up in his arms, their parents must have brought them in 
 their arms. In all candor we ask, does this look like debarring chil- 
 dren from the church 1 Does the prophet intimate they shall be cut 
 off? Does the apostle Peter intimate such a thing! Surely not. 
 
 Let us hear what Paul has to say upon this subject. He tells us, 
 " the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife," &c. " else were 
 your children unclean, but now are they holy." 1 Cor. vii : 14. This 
 shows that the apostle thought children were, in some sense, holy. 
 The Jews looked upon the Gentiles as being in an unholy state, and 
 therefore were not to be associated with; just as one of their own 
 brethren who by any means had become unclean, was kept afar off 
 till his defilement was removed, nor was he permitted to enter the 
 congregation. As the cleansed and sanctified Jew was permitted to 
 enter the congregation, because he was holy, so ought the children of 
 believing Gentiles be permitted to associate with the people of God, 
 being holy ; that is, to enter into the kingdom, or church of God. 
 These reflections show, that both parents and children are looked 
 upon by Christ and the apostles as entering into the church together, 
 as the prophet had foretold. 
 
 The fact that the apostles baptized whole families, shows that they 
 understood the commission given by Christ to include infants : hence 
 we find Peter and Paul both engaged in this \vork, and no doubt the 
 other apostles were also in the habit of baptizing whole families. We 
 find the Philippian jailor and his household. Lydia and hers, Ste- 
 phanus with his, were all baptized by apostles of the Lord Jesus. 
 These facts all prove, that when Christ commanded his apostles to 
 " go into all the world" and preach the gospel, baptizing them, they 
 must have understood him to include infant children with their parents. 
 
 Again: When we remember who the first teachers of the gospel 
 were, it affords strong presumption in favor of infant baptism. Who 
 were they! They were Jews, with all the prejudices peculiar to that 
 people in favor of infant church privileges. Hence they continued to 
 circumcise their children long after the ascension of Christ, and 
 thereby brought them into covenant with God, according to the for- 
 mer dispensation. We find that the question arose in the church, 
 whether or not the Gentiles ought to be circumcised. This question 
 was carried to the Elders at Jerusalem, where, after much disputa- 
 tion, they determined that the Gentiles should not be troubled with 
 this burdensome rite. Acts xv. These facts prove that the rite of 
 circumcision was practised by the early Christian teachers (so jealous 
 were they of the privileges of their children) long after the gospel 
 dispensation had been ushered in, it being about the year fifty-two 
 when this council was held. Mark, this question is not concerning 
 the Jews, for they practised the rite, but concerning the Gentiles, who 
 were made proselytes to the Christian faith. We ask, had this coun- 
 cil determined that the Gentile parents should be circumcised, would 
 they not have circumcised the Gentile^also 1 And if the Gentile chil- 
 dren had been circumcised, would they not have been considered fit 
 subjects for church membership and privileges 1 And if they would 
 
 c Xa,w
 
 57 
 
 have entered into the church by circumcision, did not the Jews con- 
 sider them fit subjects for the gospel kingdom 1 These conclusions, 
 we think, no man will deny, who has given the subject a fair'investi- 
 gation. From them we are led to conclude, that the apostles and 
 early teachers of Christianity understood their commission to em- 
 brace both parents and children, infants as well as adults. 
 
 But an objection arises, which is this : The apostles were not only 
 to baptize, but to teach them to observe all things whatsoever Christ 
 had commanded, showing that the baptized subject is under obliga- 
 tions to observe, or keep Christ's commands, which infants not being 
 able to do, the inference follows that they are not included. We ask 
 the objector, if the rite of circumcision did not require the same thing"? 
 Hear St. Paul, Gal. v : 3. " For I testify again to every man that is 
 circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law." Because the 
 circumcised Jew was a debtor to do the whole law, was that good 
 reason why his children should not be circumcised? Surely the ob- 
 jection is as good in the one case as in the other. Just as a Jew was 
 brought under obligation by circumcision, so is the Christian by bap- 
 tism; and as it was the duty of the priest to teach both parents and 
 children, after circumcision, the law of the Lord, so is it the duty of 
 the gospel minister to teach, after baptism, both parents and children, 
 "all things whatsoever Christ has commanded." If parents and chil- 
 dren were proper subjects for circumcision and teaching, under the 
 old commission, so are parents and children proper subjects for bap- 
 tism and teaching under the new. 
 
 Another objector will say, " He that believeth and is baptized, shall 
 be saved." Children are incapable of faith; the subject for baptism 
 must believe. Very good : it is also said, the subject must believe in 
 order to salvation. Infants being incapable of faith, with this mode 
 of reasoning, cannot be saved; for "he that believeth not shall be 
 damned." If the objection is good against infant baptism, it is equally 
 strong against infant salvation. The truth stands thus : When the 
 scriptures require faith upon any subject, the requisition is of adults; 
 hence when the faith of any one, or of a class is spoken of, we under- 
 stand the writer to mean adults, as the case of the Eunuch, the Sa- 
 maritans, &c. 
 
 Upon this subject there is no controversy between ourselves and the 
 Baptists, for we contend as strong as they for believer's baptism ; and 
 when they multiply quotations to prove that believers are proper sub- 
 jects of baptism, it is all a work of supererogation ; for we admit and 
 maintain the validity of believer's baptism, and all the texts they can 
 quote to show that believers should be baptized, belong equally to the 
 Pedo-baptists, but do not touch the question of infant baptism. To 
 illustrate this matter, we will suppose a case. My neighbor tells me 
 that no person residing in the state of Virginia has a right to vote in 
 any election in said state, unless he be a freeholder, owning a certain 
 number of acres. I admit that such an one has the right of suffrage ; 
 but contend, that every man who is a housekeeper and pays a revenue 
 tax, and being twenty-one years of age, has the right of suffrage also. 
 He refers me to that clause of the constitution relating to the privi- 
 leges of freeholders, and contends, because in that clause there is 
 nothing said of other persons in other circumstances, therefore none 
 other than freeholders have a right to vote. This indeed would look 
 like insanity: the different clauses of the constitution pointing out the 
 privileges of different classes of persons, should be taken as a whole,
 
 58 
 
 and then the rights and privileges of every member of the Common- 
 wealth would be seen. In this same light stands the case between 
 the Baptists and Pedo-baptists. The fact that the apostles did bap- 
 tize adults, and require faith in Christ as a pre-requisite, is admitted, 
 and hence we practise it ; but this no more debars infants from bap- 
 tism, than the right of a freeholder to vote, debars the housekeeper 
 who pays a revenue tax. The right of the freeholder and the right 
 of the housekeeper to vote, depend on different clauses of the consti- 
 tution : so the right of Jaelievers and the right of infants to baptism, 
 depend upon different parts of the book of God. We are driven to 
 the conclusion that the objection that infants cannot believe and there- 
 fore should not be baptized, is entirely foreign to the subject, and will 
 fall with equal force against infant salvation as against infant bap- 
 tism. 
 
 Again : God has but one family, whether the members thereof live 
 in heaven or on the earth. Yea, if we imagine all the planets to be 
 inhabited, and believe God has faithful subjects in every twinkling 
 star, yet they compose but one family; they are different parts of the 
 great family of God. Hence saith the apostle, " For this cause I bow 
 my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole 
 family in heaven and earth is named " Eph. iii : 14, 15. So we may 
 say of the devil, he also has but one family. Christ says to the 
 wicked, " Ye are of your father, the devil," &c. We now ask, if the 
 whole human family are not divided into two classes the one part 
 belonging to the family of God, the other to the family of Satan! 
 This question must be answered in the affirmative by all believing 
 the truth of God. Then to which of these classes do infants belong 1 
 If in their infantile state they belong to the family of Satan, they 
 should not be baptized; for then we would separate to God that which 
 did not belong to him. But if they belong to the family of God, they 
 ought to be baptized and numbered among God's children. That they 
 do belong to the family of God, is clear, from the language of Jesus: 
 "Suffer little children to come unto me, and. forbid them, not, (mark the 
 sentence,) for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Mark x : 14. Con- 
 sider, these were infant children; for so Luke declares, xviii : 15. 
 "And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them," 
 &c. Does" this text not prove that infants belong to the family of God, 
 and as such are entitled to the mark of his ownership, (baptism,) and 
 to be numbered among his people 1 It appears to my mind, that upon 
 the ground of our Baptist friends, there would be a great disparity 
 between the church on earth and that in heaven. For, can the church 
 on earth resemble that in heaven, when one has myriads of infant 
 spirits flaming before her altar, while the other is entirely destitute of 
 such bright ornaments 1 And not only so, but lifting the strong arm 
 of her authority, she repels them from her gates, and vows in the 
 name of her Saviour, that none such shall approach unto her altar. 
 Surely the church, in this character, would better resemble the family 
 of Satan, where there is not an infant spirit to be found in all its wide 
 domain. But change the scene for a moment Is there a part of God's 
 family landed on the celestial shore 1 ? Do you ask, who are they! 
 Look yonder, and behold them standing hand in hand at the altar of 
 the eternal throne, both parents and children. Hark! They mingle 
 their voices while they sing, " Worthy, worthy is the Lamb 10 receive 
 power, and glory, and honor, for ever and ever!" Then cast your 
 eyes beneath, and behold the church or family on earth, travelling to
 
 
 59 
 
 that heavenly country; parents and children united heart and hand, 
 worshipping in the same church, bowing before the same altar, and 
 trusting in the same God, raising their voices together in anticipation 
 of their final entrance into that land where parents and children, in 
 one great family, shall praise God in harmony for ever and ever. I 
 ask, is not this church more like the heavenly family than the church 
 which has no infants in ill 
 
 That infants are entitled to baptism, will farther appear, when we 
 consider that Moses was a type of Christ. For Stephen testifies in 
 these words : " This is that Moses, which said unto the children of 
 Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your 
 brethreny lik^e unto me ; him shall ye hear." Acts vii : 37. This Moses 
 being a type of Christ, as all must admit, was the head and leader of 
 the great family of Israel through the desert to Canaan, their land of 
 promise. And as respects this family, Paul declares, that they were 
 all baptized unto Moses. 1 Cor. x : 1,2. "Moreover, brethren, I would 
 not that ye should be ignorant how that all our fathers were under 
 the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and were all baptized unto 
 Moses in the cloud and in the sea." Thus, you perceive, infants 
 were baptized many thousand years ago. Yes, long before Christ 
 came. And not only so, but God himself was the administrator of 
 the ordinance. Now I ask any candid man to look upon the type and 
 then upon the anti-type, and then answer this question : If Moses, 
 the type, had the whole family of which he was head and leader 
 baptized unto him, ought not Christ who is the anti-type, and head 
 and leader of God's spiritual Israel have all his family baptized unto 
 him"? Was it right to baptize the children with their parents unto 
 Moses, the type, and is it wrong to do the same with respect to Christ, 
 the anti-type 1 "I speak as unto wise men; judge ye what I say." 
 Can we not learn from God's own acts, what his will is concerning 
 us 1 If I am wrong in baptizing my children to Christ, the anti-type, 
 then has God set me the example in baptizing the infant children of 
 Israel unto Moses, the type of Christ. My Baptist friends may tell 
 me, that all these things were but shadows of good things to come, 
 and that the old dispensation is but the shadow of the new, or gospel 
 dispensation; all of which is very good. But then I would ask them 
 to show me in the new dispensation, (which is the substance,) that 
 which reflects infant church membership in the old, or shadowy dis- 
 pensation. It is a fixed law of nature, that the shadow correspond 
 to the substance. In truth, there can be no shadow without a sub- 
 stance; and, therefore, as in the old economy, (the shadow,) I find 
 infants of eight days old, standing before the altar of God, so that the 
 new (the substance) may correspond with the shadow, infanis must 
 be admitted into the Christian church, otherwise there is no agree- 
 ment between the shadow and the substance. 
 
 Once more: Christ says, "Except ye be converted, and become 
 as a little child, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven." 
 Now I ask, if children are given us as the standard according to 
 which we are to measure, and the converted man is as a little child, 
 what right have we to say that the converted adult is a proper subject 
 of baptism, and that the infant, who is the standard, is notl Surely 
 if the converted adult, who only measures to the standard and does not 
 exceed it, is a proper subject for baptism, then, in the nature of things, 
 the infant, who is the standard, is a fit subject, also. 
 
 From all that I have written, I am led to the following conclusions :
 
 <?^p 
 
 1st. That the covenant which Cod made with Abraham, as re- 
 corded in the twelfth chapter of Genesis, and which was confirmed 
 in the seventeenth chapter, in which covenant God promised Abra- 
 ham that in his seed all the families of the earth should be blessed, 
 is the great federal covenant in which all the families of the earth 
 are interested; and in which act God instituted a church, which 
 church has never ceased to exist from that time down to the present 
 day. 
 
 2d. That although there have been many changes, as respects the 
 ordinances of the church, (as Paul intimates in his letter to the Ephe- 
 sians, ii : 13 15. ''But now, in Christ Jesus, ye, who sometime were 
 far off, are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, 
 who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of 
 partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even 
 the law of commandments contained in ordinances ; for to make in 
 himself of twain one new man, so making peace ;") yet these changes 
 do not destroy the identity of the church, but she remains essentially 
 the same through all ages down to the present day; only " the middle 
 wall of partition is broken down," which is the " abolishing the law 
 of commandments contained in ordinances," whereby both Jew and 
 Gentile come together at the same altar. 
 
 3d. As infants received the seal of the covenant, (which was cir- 
 cumcision,) and entered into the church with their parents, and the 
 church has never been destroyed, nor the admission of infants forbid- 
 den by Christ nor his apostles, therefore infants are entitled to mem- 
 bership now, as they were then, being as capable now as formerly, 
 and as much benefitted by their membership. 
 
 4th. As the prophet, when describing the coming in of the Gen- 
 tiles, declares that they should bring their " sons in their arms and 
 their daughters on their shoulders," and this prophecy having been 
 fulfilled in the case of certain children that were brought to Christ, 
 and Christ declared that this practice should not be forbidden by any 
 of his disciples, at the same time giving his reasons why they should 
 be brought to him, ' ; For of such is the kingdom of heaven," therefore 
 infants have a right to be introduced into the kingdom by the same 
 initiatory rite by which their parents enter, viz : Baptism. 
 
 5th. As Christ was ranch displeased with those who forbade in- 
 fants being brought to him when he was on earth, so it must be dis- 
 pleasing to him now, and he who does thus forbid them, does it at the 
 peril of offending him who said "go baptize all nations," &c. and 
 "suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of 
 such is the kingdom of heaven," "and whosoever receiveth one such 
 little child in my name receiveth me, and he that receiveth me re- 
 ceiveth him that sent me." 
 
 6th. As Christ and his disciples do not forbid infants, but on the 
 contrary, Christ received them and Paul declares they are "dean" 
 and Peter says, "the promise is to you, and your children," and with 
 this view the apostles baptized whole families, therefore it is unwar- 
 rantable presumption in any one at the present day, to cast them off. 
 
 7th. As under the old economy, he that was circumcised was 
 thereby debtor to keep the whole law, and under the new economy 
 the baptized subject is bound thereby to observe all things whatso- 
 ever the Lord has commanded, and infants being as capable to dis- 
 charge the obligations of the new economy as they were of the old 
 economy, therefore the objections urged against infant baptism on
 
 61 I 
 
 the ground of their incapacity to discharge the obligations of baptism 
 is perfectly futile, and Jails with equal force against infant. cimmi- 
 rision and the wisdom of God in the institution of it. 
 
 8th. As the old economy is the shadow of the new, and under the 
 former, infants were embraced in its provisions, and as the substance 
 must necessarily correspond with the shadow, then children must be 
 embraced in the latter, otherwise there must exist an irreconcilable 
 disparity between the shadow and the substance. 
 
 9th. As Moses was a type of Christ, and his baptism in the sea a 
 type of Christian baptism, and infants were baptized unto Moses, SQ 
 ought they now be baptized unto Christ, otherwise how can Moses be 
 a type of Christ 1 
 
 10th. That God has but one family, whether the members live in 
 heaven or on earth, and as infants compose a part of that family, 
 they have therefore a right to be associated and identified with that 
 family, and consequently must be baptized, that being the initiatory 
 rite, otherwise the church on earth would more resemble the kingdom 
 of darkness, where there are no-infants, than that glorious kingdom 
 where infants in flaming ranks of glory stand shouting allelujah to 
 their king. 
 
 llth. Inasmuch as a man must be converted and become as a little 
 child in order to be baptized, or enter heaven, and as a converted 
 person is as a little child, therefore we ought to baptize a little child, 
 otherwise the example must be inferior to that which is only the.imi- 
 tation of the example. 
 
 l'2th. Finally, if the will of God should be done on earth as it is 
 in heaven, then those who receive infants into the kingdom on earth 
 do act according to the will of him who took little children up in his 
 arms and blessed them and said, of such is the kingdom of heaven, 
 and will finally gather all such into his kingdom of bright glory 
 above. 
 
 These conclusions, I think, are fairly drawn, and I fear not the 
 scrutiny, wit, clamor, and ridicule which the opposers of infant bap- 
 tism may hurl against them. I make these remarks, not because I 
 differ with my Baptist friends, or because they differ from me. No ; 
 men may differ honestly and innocently ; but when I think of what I 
 have seen in the church of God, and what I have heard from men 
 professing godliness, as well as what 'J have read touching the sacred 
 consecration of these dear little innocent, inoffensive lambs of the 
 fold, I can scarcely suppress my indignation to such unchristian con- 
 duct. When I see the fond father and mother presenting their little 
 offspring to the Lord, and at his altar offering it up- to him and his, 
 church, while the large tear flows from their eye and the solemn 
 prayer ascends to God for his blessing on the consecrated child, it is 
 then my soul catches the hallowed fire, and I think of my Saviour's 
 words, " suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not;" 
 and I ask, who that has the fear and love of God in view, could 
 laugh at and ridicule this solemn service] Strange as it may appear, I 
 have witnessed such things. Yes, some can sport with the feelings 
 of fond parents, and sneer at the solemn dedication. They speak as 
 though they had the keys of death and hell, so that they could shut 
 and no man could open, and open and no man could shut ; but to all 
 such 1 would just say, stay thy hand and keep thy lips as with a 
 bridle, lest it be found at the last day that thou hast fought against 
 God. 
 
 6
 
 Jefore dismissing this branch of our subject, it may be but proper 
 to call the attention of the reader to the antiquity of infant baptism, 
 and show what has been the practice of the church from the days of 
 ihe apostles up to this present time. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Antiquity of Infant Baptism. 
 
 IT is frequently said, that the testimony of history is against infant 
 baptism. This assertion is utterly false; for we are able to prove 
 from the history of the church, or the writings of those who lived in 
 or near the apostles' days, that infants were baptized in the age in 
 which they wrote. This testimony must give considerable weight in 
 favor of infant baptism, when we remember if infant baptism was 
 not practised by the apostles of the Lord Jesus, it must be an inno- 
 vation on the church ; and if so, then we ought to find something said 
 of it in the writings of the early Christians, for surely a practice so 
 novel must have been a matter of much opposition : some would have 
 said something about it, and it is but reasonable to suppose their 
 writings would show something of it. Having teen raised among 
 Baptists, I was taught to believe it was an innovation, and that there 
 was history to prove the facts, when, where, and by whom it was first 
 introduced. I had some curiosity to know the facts. Having heard 
 of the debate between Mr. Campbell and Mr. M'Caulla, (a Presbyte- 
 rian minister,) I obtained the volume containing the discussion, think- 
 ing surely I should there get all the information desired upon the sub- 
 t'ect, particularly as Mr. Campbell was represented to be a greatly 
 earned and extensively read man. I read the work carefully, and 
 frankly confess my astonishment when I found that all Mr. C. could 
 say on the subject was, " Infant baptism is an innovation on the church, 
 which was introduced some lime late in the second century, in the dark 
 age of the church, when superstition prevailed."* Finding this to be all 
 the great and learned Mr. C. could say upon the subject, I gave it up as 
 all talk, without any foundation in truth. That we can trace oppo- 
 sition to infant baptism to a very remote period of the church's his- 
 tory, is a fact which I am willing to concede. And suppose 1 could 
 trace it to within fifty years of the apostles, or even to the age in which 
 they lived, pray what would that prove? It would prove just this: 
 that the custom opposed must have existed previously to the opposition. 
 And when opposition to infant baptism has been traced as far back 
 as possible, it only proves infants were baptized at that time, but how 
 long prior, who can tell '? Then the Baptist gains nothing by the 
 antiquity of opposition to infant bapiism. With these remarks we 
 will introduce the witnesses upon the subject; and as I find some of 
 
 * I quote from memory, not having the book at hand.
 
 63 
 
 "W* 
 
 them enumerated by Mr. Jamieson, I will give the reader a quotation 
 from his treatise on this subject, with his remarks accompanying the 
 testimony. 
 
 " It is often said, 'the testimony of history is against infant baptism.' 
 
 " To prove this assertion untrue, we shall produce a few witnesses 
 among many. 
 
 "1. JUSTIN MARTYR, who wrote about forty years after the 
 apostles, says : ' Several persons among us of sixty or seventy years old, 
 of both sexes, were discipled lo Christ in of from their CHILD- 
 HOOD. As no unbaptized persons were considered "disciples," these 
 were baptized "in childhood." ' 
 
 " Seventy years reckoned back, will reach into the midst of the apos- 
 tles' time, consequently infants were baptized in the days of the apostles. 
 
 "2. HERMAS, who lived in the time of St. Paul, and is mentioned 
 by Paul, Rom. xvi : 14, after representing infants as members of the 
 church, he says : ' The baptism of water is necessary to ALL.' By 
 ' all,' he certainly means all persons, or all church members. In either 
 case infants are included, and this is another testimony for infant bap- 
 tism among the apostles. Dr. Wall's Hist. Inf. Bap. Chap. 1. Also, 
 Pond's Treatise on Bap. p. 96, also 126. 
 
 "3. ORIGIN, who was born in the eighty-fifth year after the apos- 
 tles, says : 'The church had from the apostles an ORDER TO GIVE 
 BAPTISM TO INFANTS.' See his commentary on the Epistle to 
 the Romans, fifth book. In his homily on Luke 14, he says : ' By the 
 sacrament of baptism the pollutions of our birth are put off, and there- 
 fore infants are baptized. 1 There is one circumstance that makes 
 Origin a more competent witness than most other authors of that age; 
 he was himself of a family that had been Christian for a long time. 
 His father was a martyr for Christ, in the persecution under Severus, 
 in the year 102. And Eusebius (in his history, book 6, ch. 19,) assures 
 us that his forefathers had been Christians for several generations. 
 
 " Now, since Origin was born, in the eighty-fifth year after the apos- 
 tles, his grandfather or at least his great grandfather (both of 
 whom, according to Eusebius, were Christians,) must have lived in 
 the time of the apostles. And as he could not be ignorant whether 
 he himself was baptized in infancy, so he had no farther than his own 
 family to go, to inquire what was practised in the time of the apostles. 
 
 " Besides, he was a very learned man, and could not be ignorant of 
 the practice of the churches, and in most of which he had also tra- 
 velled, for as he was bom and bred at Alexandria ; so it appears out of 
 Eusebius' history, b. 6, that he had lived in Greece, and at Rome, and 
 in Capadocia and Arabia, and spent the main part of his life in Syria 
 and Palestine. 
 
 "4. About one hundred and fifty years after the death of St. John 
 the apostle, there was an assembly of sixty-six bishops, who spake of 
 infant baptism, as a known, established, and uncontested practice. One 
 Fidus questioned the. propriety of baptizing infants before they were 
 eight days old, and proposed his scruples to the assembly. They ad- 
 dressed him as follows: 
 
 " ' Cyprian, and the rest of the bishops, who were present at the 
 council, sixty-six in number, to Fidus our brother, greeting : 
 
 " ' We read your letter, most dear brother, but as to the case of in- 
 fants whereas you judge that they must not be baptized within two 
 or three dans after they are born ; arid the rule of circumcision is to be 
 observed, so that none should be baptized and sanctified before the
 
 
 1 < 
 
 eighth day after he is born : we were all in our assembly of the CON- 
 TRARY OPINION wherefore, dearly beloved, it is our opinion, 
 that from baptism none ought to be prohibited by us which, as it is to 
 be observed and followed with respect to ALL; so especially with 
 respect to INFANTS and those that are but just horn.' Cyp. Eps. 59. 
 
 " From this piece of history it appears, that both the person who 
 moved the doubt, and all the persons who resolved it, unanimously 
 agreed in this, that infants were la be baptized, and that it was a settled 
 custom of the church to baptize them. If the assembly had been Bap- 
 tists, they would have answered : Children should neither be baptized 
 on the eighth, nor any other day, till they are of age to judge for them- 
 selves. But none of these bishops were of this sentiment. They all 
 looked upon it as a thing uncontested; that infants were to be baptized. 
 If v. r e look from this time to the space that had elapsed from the apos- 
 tles' time, which was but one hundred and fifty years, we must con- 
 clude, that it was easy then to know the practice of Christians in the 
 apostles' days, for some of these bishops may be thought to be at this 
 time, sixty or seventy years old themselves, which reaches almost 
 half the space: and at that time, when they were infants, there must 
 have been several alive, that were born in the apostles' age. And such 
 could not be ignorant whether infants were baptized in that age, when 
 the}' themselves were some of those infants. So it seems, there was 
 not' an opposer of infant baptism in all the church of God at that 
 early period. 
 
 " 5. CLEMENTINE CONSTITUTIOUS, a work of high antiquity, extant 
 almost in the earliest ages of the Christian church, says: 'Baptize 
 your infants, and bring them up in the nurture and admonition of God/ 
 See Towgood on Inf. Bap. p. 36. 
 
 "6. JEROME, who wrote about two hundred and fifty years after 
 the apostles, says: ' If infants be not baptized, the sin of omitting 
 their baptism is laid to the parents' charge.' See Reed's Apol. p. 277. 
 
 " 7. GREGORY NAZIANZEN, who wrote about two hundred and sixty 
 years after the apostles, says : ' Infants should be baptized to conse- 
 crate them to Christ in their infancy.' Lathrop's Dis. on Bap. p. 70. 
 
 "8. AMBROSE, who wrote 'about two hundred and seventy-four 
 years after the apostles, says : ' The baptism of infants was the PRAC- 
 TICE of the APOSTLES, and has EVER BEEN in the church till 
 this time.' Lathrop's Dis. on Bap p. 70. 
 
 " 9. CHRYSOSTOM, who wrote about two hundred and seventy years 
 after the apostles, says : 'Persons may be baptized either in their in- 
 fanai, in middle age, or in old age.' Reed's Apol. p. 277. 
 
 " 10. AUGUSTINE, or AUSTIN, who wrote about two hundred and 
 eighty years after the apostles, says : ' Infant baptism the whole church 
 practises: it was not instituted by COUNCILS, but was ever in use. 
 I have never read or heard of any Christian, whether Catholic or sec- 
 tar}', who held otherwise.' Wall's Hist, of Inf. Bap. pp. 187, 302. 
 
 " Infant baptism had not been enacted by any amncil, but had been 
 in use from the beginning of Christianity. They had but three hun- 
 dred years to look back to the times of the apostles. They had never 
 heard of an opposer of infant baptism. Consequently Augustine, who 
 was the 'Great Luminary' of his age, (according to Milner.) had 
 never heard of a Baptist in sentiment, on this subject. 
 
 " About this time he had his famous controversy with Pelagius, in 
 which both parties admitted that infant baptism was practised by the 
 apostles.
 
 65 
 
 ''11. PELAGIUS says: 'I never heard of ANY, not even the most 
 impious heretic, who denied baptism to infants.' 
 
 " 12. CELESTIUS says : 'As for infants, I always said they stand in 
 need of baptism, and ought to be baptized.' Both these men lived in 
 the time of Augustine, and were the founders and promoters of the 
 famous Pelagian heresy. Wall's Hist. Bap. p. 63. 
 
 "From the above testimony of history, we are fairly brought to the 
 following conclusions : 
 
 "1. That infant baptism was practised in the church of Christ from 
 the apostles. 
 
 " 2. That for the first four "hundred years, it never was considered 
 an imscriptwal or an unaposlolical practice. And as far as the testimony 
 of history can show, we confidently assert there was not a Baptist or 
 Campbellite in sentiment in the universe. Nor is the ease of Tur- 
 tullian an exception, as he only advised the delay of infant baptism 
 in some cases. It will hardly be contended by any man acquainted 
 with history, that infant baptism was opposed for the next six or seven 
 hundred years. Alexander Campbell says, 'During the long dark 
 night of Catholic ascendancy, the standing order of every day, for 
 MORE THAN A THOUSAND YEARS, M-as, to bring the whole 
 world into the church by the potency of infant dedication. All infants 
 were christened in the very act of receiving their names.' Millennial 
 Harbinger, Vol. 4, No. 9, p. 467. 
 
 " The Waldenses (of the 12th century) are claimed by the Baptists, 
 because a small party sprang up among them, who opposed infant 
 baptism. Upon the same principle they should claim the Presbyte- 
 rians, because the New Lights (who sprang up among them) oppose 
 infant baptism. 
 
 " The great Mr. Baxter says : ' I am fully satisfied that Mr. Tombs 
 cannot show me any society, (I think not one man,) that ever opened 
 their mouths against the baptism of infants, till about two hundred 
 years ago.' Mr. Baxter died December 8, 1691. 
 
 " Infant baptism is called by its enemies a ' Relict of Popery.' We 
 have proved this to be absolutely false. And besides, all those Bap- 
 tist writers who pronounce that infant baptism originated in the 
 second century, confess its falsehood. 
 
 " That infant baptism was not ' enjoined until the council at Car- 
 thage,' is another assertion we have proved to be untrue, as that coun- 
 cil acted upon the acknowledged 'prevalence of infant baptism. In this 
 investigation we have been unable to find a single Baptist urging his 
 peculiarities for the first eleven or twelve hundred years, unless the 
 absurdities of Turtullian (at the close of the second century) be 
 claimed as Baptist peculiarities. 
 
 " Let not opposers of infant baptism suppose that their mere asser- 
 tions, and the ' concessions of Pedo-baptists,' as they choose to call 
 them, unsupported by facts, can make the church of God believe ' the 
 testimony of history is against infant baptism,' while such a body of 
 evidence, from the first characters of the church, pronounce to the 
 contrary. See Watson's Inst. Art. Bap. ; Pond's Trea. on Bap. ; 
 Wall's Hist, of Inf. Bap.; Extr. by Wesley on Inf. Bap.; Jno. P. 
 Campbell, &c. &c."
 
 66 
 
 _ / 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 Mode of Baptism. 
 
 IN calling attention to this part of the subject, we think it the better 
 way to attend specially to the word of God, that being the final tri- 
 bunal by which all controverted points in theology must be settled. 
 But as our Baptist friends are very noisy and clamorous about the 
 original, and contend they have all the learned on their side of the 
 question that is, that the word used in the original to denote the ordi- 
 nance means immersion, and nothing else but immersion, the Pedo- 
 baptists declare it does not mean immersion exclusively, but that the 
 term signifies to pour, and to sprinkle, as well as to dip, or immerse ; 
 therefore, before we go into the investigation of scripture testimony, 
 we will call the attention of the reader to the meaning of the word in 
 the original by which the ordinance of baptism is denoted, then they 
 can judge whether there be truth in the assertion of immersionists, 
 that all antiquity and learning, both ancient and modern, are against 
 Pedo-baptists upon this subject. We wish the reader to bear in mind 
 this fact: all Christendom, save a few denominations of Baptists, 
 practise baptism by sprinkling and pouring, believing it valid Chris- 
 tian baptism ; in this practice are engaged at least nine-tenths of the 
 Christian world against immersion as the exclusive mode of baptism ; 
 and who that has three grains of common sense, does not know either 
 of the denominations composing this vast majority, has as muchkarn- 
 ing in it as the various sects composing the Baptist church. Our 
 limits will not allow us to go fully into this subject, we will therefore 
 close this chapter by inserting a few extracts from Mr. Jamieson's 
 treatise upon the subject, (finding them prepared to our hand,) with 
 his remarks accompanying the testimony. 
 
 " It will generally be admitted that the whole controversy respect- 
 ing the mode of baptism, rests very materially on the meaning of the 
 word that denotes the ordinance. The question is, does it exclusively 
 signify immersion ? 
 
 " Baptists say it does ; Pedo-baptists say it does not. This, then, is 
 the question to be settled. We ask not whether the word be applica- 
 ble in a case of immersion. But is it applicable in no other mode of 
 applying water 1 ? Does it signify immersion exclusively? Although 
 we rely upon the word of God for the decision of this important 
 question, yet from Mr. Campbell's frequent exhibition of human 
 authorities in a garbled form, in order to make false impressions upon 
 the public mind, it is but just to disabuse the public, by offering a few 
 of those authorities here ; more especially as Mr. Campbell and many 
 of his disciples tell us that all Ike antiquity, all the learned, ancient and 
 modern, $.c &c. are against Pedo-baptists on this subjec t. and prove 
 it by giving the sayings of his human authorities about as honestly 
 as he has the sayings of Jesus Christ and his apostles, in his deformed 
 Testament. How easy is it to make an author speak a language he 
 never intended, by leaving out particular clauses and qualify senten- 
 ces. Those learned Pedo-baptists, whose ' concessions' are so fre- 
 quently exhibited by Mr. Campbell and his followers, to bolster up
 
 67 
 
 Carnpbellism, had reasons perfectly satisfactory to them, for the prac- 
 tice of infant, baptism, and baptism by pouring or sprinkling. If they 
 had not, they were hypocrites and unworthy of confidence ; if they 
 had, why abuse those who have gone to their reward, by misrepre- 
 senting their views 1 And that many of them had satisfactory reasons 
 for their practice, we know to an absolute certainty, as they have 
 given them in sufficient detail. And in regard to others, why call a 
 man a Pedo-baptist when he has believed himself into any thing else 
 but a Pedo-baptist 1 But to the question. Does the word'signily IM- 
 MERSION EXCLUSIVELY? 
 
 "1. ALSTIDICS says, ' The term baptism signifies both immersion 
 and SPRINKLING.' Encyclop. Lib. 25, Sec. 3. 
 
 " 2. ZELENUS says, ' Baptism signifies dipping and also SPRINK- 
 LING.' Reed's Apol. pp. 112, 114. 
 
 " 3. J. WICKLIFF says, ' It matters not whether persons are dipped 
 once, or three times, or whether water were POURED upon their 
 heads.' ' 49 
 
 " 4. ,BEZA says, ' They are rightly baptized who are baptized by 
 SPRINKLING." 
 
 "5. WHITAKER says. ' The word signifies not only dip, but also to 
 TINGE or WET.' 
 
 "6. MASTRICHT .says, 'Baptism signifies WASHING, either by 
 SPRINKLING or dipping.' For the above authorities, see Reed's 
 Apol. pp. 112, 114; also, Pond's Treatise, p. 24. 
 
 " 7. LIGHTFOOT says, ' The application of water is of the essence 
 of baptism ; but the application of it in this or thai MANNER, speaks 
 but a circumstance.' Hore Hebraico in Math. 3. 
 
 " 8. DR. FEATLY says, ' Christ nowhere requireth dipping but only 
 baptizing; which word Hesychius, Stephanus, Scapula and Buddeus', 
 those great masters of the Greek tongue, make good by very many 
 instances out of the classic writers, importeth no more than AB- 
 LUTION or WASHING.' Contra Anabaptist in P. Clark's Candid 
 Reasons, &c. p. 130. 
 
 "9. DOMINICUS says, ' IQ baptism there is something essential, as 
 the WASHING; and something accidental, namely, the washing in 
 this or the other MANNER." Distinct. 3, duest. 1, Art. 7. 
 
 " 10. WITSIUS says, 'We are not to imagine that immersion is so 
 necessary to baptism, that it cannot be duly performed by POURING 
 water all over, or by ASPERSION.' Econ. Fedar. Vol. 3, p. 392. 
 
 "11. CALVIN. ' Whether the person baptized be wholly immersed, 
 and whether thrice or once, or whether water be only POURED or 
 SPRINKLED upon him, is of no importance." Inst. Vol. 3, p. 343, 
 Edit. N. Haven. 
 
 ' 12. DR. OWEN. ' Baptism is any kind "of washing, whether bv 
 dipping or SPRINKLING." In Heb. ix : 10. 
 
 " 13. FLAVEL. ' The word baptize, signifying as well to WASH 
 as to plunge ; a person may be truly baptized that is not plunged.' 
 Works, Vol. 11, p. 432. 
 
 "14. DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE. ' To baptize is to SPRINKLE 
 or WASH one's body sacramentally.'- Edit. 1661, Art. Bap. Def. 3. 
 See also Brown's and Calmet's Diet, of Bible, in Art. Baptism. 
 
 "15. GLAS. ' Immersion cannot be called baptism, any otherwise than 
 as it is a mode of WASHING ic-ith water.' Diss. on Inf. Bap. p. 25. 
 
 "16. AINSWORTII. 'To baptize is to WASH any one in the sacred 
 baptismal font, or to SPRINKLE (inspergere) ON HIM the conse-
 
 68 
 
 crated waters.' English and Latin Diet, in Art. Bap. See also Cole's 
 Lat. Diet, and Schrevelii Lexicon Greco-Latinum, in Art. Baptism. 
 
 " 17. DR. SCOTT. ' Some contend that baptism always signifies 
 immersion ; and learned men who have regarded Jewish traditions 
 more than either the language of scripture or the Greek idiom, are 
 very decided in this respect. But the use of the words baptize and 
 baptism in the NEW TESTAMENT. CANNOT ACCORD with 
 this EXCLUSIVE interpretation.' Comment in Mat. iii : 6. See 
 Pond's Treatise on the Mode and Subjects of Christian Baptism, pp. 
 24, 25, 26. 
 
 " 18. ADAM CLARK, on Mark xvi, at the close. ' To say that 
 SPRINKLING OR ASPERSION is no gospel baptism, is as incor- 
 rect as to say immersion is none.' 
 
 " ' To assert that infant baptism is unscriptural, is as rash and repre- 
 hensible as any of the rest.' Note Acts xvi : 32. 
 
 " ' It is therefore pretty evident that we have in this chapter very 
 presumptive proofs 
 
 " '1. That baptism was administered WITHOUT IMMERSION, 
 as in the case of the JAILOR and his FAMILY ; and 
 
 " ' 2. That children were also received into the church in this way.' 
 
 "Acts xix : 5. 'In my view, it is an awful thing to iterate baptism, 
 when it had been before essentially performed : by "essentially per- 
 formed," I mean administered by SPRINKLING, WASHING, or 
 plunging, by or in water, the name of the Father. Son, and Spirit be- 
 ing invoked at the time. Whoever has had this, has the essence of 
 baptism, as far as that can be conferred by man ; and, it matters not 
 at what period of his life he has had it ; it is a substantial baptism, and 
 by it the person has been fully consecrated to the holy and blessed 
 trinity; and there should not be an iteration of this consecration on 
 any account whatever. It is totally CONTRARY to the canon of 
 LAW; it is CONTRARY to the decisions of the best DIVINES ; it 
 is contrary to the practice of the purest ages of the church of God; it 
 is contrary to the NEW TESTAMENT, and tends to bring this 
 sacred ordinance into disrepute.' 
 
 " 19. WESLEY'S extracts say, ' With regard to the mode of bap- 
 tizing, I would only add, Christ nowhere, as far as I can find, re- 
 quires dipping, but ONLY BAPTIZING ; which word, many most 
 eminent for learning and piety, have declared signifies to POUR on, 
 or SPRINKLE, as well as to dip.' See Methodist Doctrinal Tracts, 
 published 1825. Tract 12, p. 36. Here Mr. Wesley and his author 
 says, ' Christ nowhere requires dipping, but only baptizing.' Wes- 
 ley's Notes, Mat. iii : 6. 
 
 " Of John's disciples he says, ' Such prodigious numbers could 
 hardly be baptized by immerging their whole bodies under water ; nor 
 can we think they were provided with change of raiment for it, which 
 was scarcely practicable for such vast multitudes. And yet they 
 could not be immerged naked with modesty, nor in their wearing ap- 
 parel with safety. It seems, therefore, that they stood in ranks cm the 
 edge of the river, and that John passing along before them, cast water 
 upon their heads or faces, by which means-lie might baptize many thou- 
 sands in a day. And this way most naturally signified Christ's baptizing 
 them WITH the Holy Ghost and WITH fire, which John spoke of, 
 as prefigured by his baptizing WITH water, and which was eminently 
 fulfilled whe-n the Holy Ghost, SAT UPON the disciples in the appear- 
 ance of tongues, or of flames of fire.' His notes on Acts viii : 38.
 
 69 
 
 " The case of the Eunuch. ' And they both went clown out of the 
 chariot. It does not follow that he was baptized by immersion. The 
 text neither affirms nor INTIMATES any thing concerning it.' 
 These evidently would have been- the places for Mr. Wesley to have 
 displayed his fondness for immersion if he had any; the reverse is, 
 however, clearly exhibited. But did he not say that immersion was 
 'the ancient apostolic model' We answer positively, No. Well, 
 what does, he say on Rom. vi : 4, and Col. ii : 12, ' Buried with him 
 by baptism V He says, 'Alluding to the ancient (no! the Christian 
 baptism just instituted, the apostle, could not allude to it as ancient, 
 but to Jewish bathings) manner of baptizing by immersion.' Rom. 
 ' The ancient (Jewish) manner of baptizing by immersion is as mani- 
 festly alluded to here, as the other manner (of course Campbellites 
 will say Jewish) of baptizing by sprinkling or pouring water is.' Heb. 
 x :22. ' 
 
 " ' Having our hearts SPRINKLED from an evil conscience.' Did 
 Mr. Wesley mean that sprinkling and immersion were both the ancient 
 apostolic mode 1 Certainly not. 
 
 " Dr. A. Clark refers to Num. xix : 18, 19, 20, for these 'ancient 
 modes' of baptism: 'And a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip 
 it in the water, and sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day, and on 
 the seventh day : and on the seventh day he shall purify himself, and 
 wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and shall be clean at even.' 
 Multitudes of quotations might be given from Clark and Wesley to 
 demonstrate that they would have been the last men that ever lived, 
 who would have said one word to bolster up a system so unclean and 
 ruinous as Campbellism. 
 
 "20. DR. WATTS says, 'The Greek word baptizo, signifies to 
 WASH any thing properly by water coming over it: now there are 
 several ways of such washing, viz: SPRINKLING water on it in a 
 small quantity, POURING water on it in a larger quantity, or dip- 
 ping it under water, either in part or in whole. 1 Besides, pouring or 
 sprinkling more naturally represents most of the spiritual blessings 
 signified by baptism, viz : ' The sprinkling the blood of Christ on the 
 conscience, or the pouring out of the spirit on the person baptized, or 
 sprinkling him with clean water, as an emblem of the influence of the 
 spirit ; all which are the things signified in baptism as different repre- 
 sentations of the cleansing away of the guilt or defilement of sin 
 thereby.' Wesley's Extracts, pp. 36, 37. 
 
 "21. DR. DODDRIDGE, (one of Mr. Campbell's authorities for his 
 Testament,) says, ' In this diminutive and derivative form, it (bap- 
 tize) may signify any method of WASHING.' Again : ' Our being 
 cleansed from sin seems the thing principally intended, (by baptism,) 
 which may be well represented by POURING on water: and as this 
 more naturally represents the pouring out of the spirit, the sprinkling 
 us with it, the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus, it may answer as valu- 
 able purposes as that mode which more expressly represents a death 
 and resurrection.' Dod. Lee. Vol. 2, p. 376. 
 
 "22. DR. CLELAND on this subject, says, 'To balance this (Mr. 
 Campbell's reliance on Simon the Jesuit, a Roman Catholic critic) 
 we will introduce St. Thomas Aquinas, commonly called "The An- 
 gelical Doctor," one of the most learned and ingenious Romanists 
 that ever lived. In 1255 he speaks thus: "Baptism may be given not 
 only by immersion, but also by effusion of water, or SPRINKLING 
 with it." Erasmus, another of the most learned men of that denomi-
 
 70 
 
 nation, and indeed of the age in which he lived, affirms "that in his 
 time it was the custom to SPRINKLE infants in Holland and to dip 
 them in England." Calvin and Beza are also introduced by our author 
 in support of his theory. Their words, however, are garbled and 
 their sentiments suppressed. Calvin is made to declare, " the very 
 imrd baptizing, signifies to dip; and it is certain that the rite of dipping 
 was observed of the ancient church." This is not the whole of Cal- 
 vin's sentimei^. on the subject, for he says, " But whether the person 
 who is baptizCTrbe wholly immersed, and whether three times or once, 
 orwhether water be only POURED OR SPRINKLED upon him, is 
 of no importance." ' Insl. Vol. 3, p. 343. 
 
 " Beza is treated after the same manner. Our author (Mr. Camp- 
 bell) quotes him thus: 'The word baptismos signifies to dye by dip- 
 ping or washing, and differs from the word dunai, signifying to drown,' 
 &c. But the real sentiment of this old Presbyterian is thus expressed 
 by himself: ' They are rightly baptized who are baptized by sprink- 
 ling.' Leigh, another learnH English Presbyterian, and one of Mr. 
 Campbell's ' Pedo-baptists of illustrious name;' appealed to for sup- 
 port, says : ' Baptism is such a kind of washing as is by plunging, 
 and yet it is taken more largely for any kind of WASHING, even 
 where there is no DIPPING at all.' Dr. Lightlbot, a most eminent 
 divine, an Episcopalian Doctor, and one of the most eminent men in 
 rabbinical learning England ever produced, says: ' The application 
 of water is of the essence of baptism ; but the application of it in 
 this or that manner, speaks but a circumstance.' And Dr. Featley, 
 another Pedo-baptist of illustrious name, and of the same school with 
 Lightfoot, unrivalled in his extensive knowledge of school divinity 
 and eloquence as a preacher, says: 'Christ nowhere requireth dip- 
 ping, but onli/ baptizing; which Hesychius, Stephanus, Scapula, and 
 Buddeus, tho'se great masters of the Greek tongue, make good, by 
 very many instances out of the classic writers, importeth no more 
 than ablution or WASHING.' 
 
 " I could add a host of such testimony as this, but it is unnecessary. 
 Indeed, we might call in witnesses from the other side, were it neces- 
 sary. The learned author of ' Letters Addressed to Bishop Hoadly,' 
 in defence of Baptist principles, expressly concedes, that tapto 'sig- 
 nifies to sprinkle,' and that it 'is not used in the Septuagint in any 
 one place, where the frequent ceremony of washing the whole body 
 occurs.' And a living writer of Edinburg, Alexander Ca^on, on the 
 same side, expressly admits that ' bapto signifies to dye by SPRINK- 
 LING, as properly as by dipping, though originally it was confined 
 to the latter.' Such admissions are not common with Baptist writers, 
 nor do I lay much stress on them in this discussion. And had A. 
 Campbell possessed the candor of Abm. Booth, from whose list of 80 
 Pedc-baptists and 11 duakers he can find men 'of illustrious name' 
 at pleasure, he would also tell the world, as Booth did, who desired 
 his reader 'to observe that no inconsiderable part of these learned 
 authors have asserted that the word baptism signifies pouring or 
 sprinkling, as well as immersion.' See Cleland's Periodical, No. 1, 
 pp. 38, 39. Hear another extract: ' For instance, Alexander Camp- 
 bell quotes Doctor Owen as saying, " that no honest man who under- 
 stands the Greek tongue, can deny the word to signify todip;" whereas 
 the Doctor's words are, " no honest man who understands the Greek 
 tongue, can deny the word to signify to WASH as well as to dip." r 
 Doctor Owen, who was confessedly a great critic and an erudite
 
 71 
 
 scholar, says, in the same place, that Hesychius, Julius, Pollux, Pha- 
 vorinus and Eusiachius, critics of high reputation, render the word 
 ' TO WASH' that Scapula and Stephanus render it by lavo or 
 abluo, which Latin words signify to wash also ; and that Suidas ren- 
 ders it by made/ado, Lavo, abluo, purgo, mundo, all of which signify to 
 wash by other means than by immersion. This same A. Campbell, 
 the great Baptist champion of the present day, makes Calvin, Beza, 
 Mastricht and Leigh, say that baptizo signifies to dtp. They have 
 said so ; but they say, likewise, that it signifies to SPRINKLE. Cal- 
 vin says, ' Whether the person baptized be wholly immersed, and 
 whether thrice or once, or whether water be only poured or sprinkled 
 upon him, is of no importance.' Beza says, ' They are rightly bap- 
 tized who are baptized by sprinkling.' Mastricht says, 'Baptism sig- 
 nifies washing, either by sprinkling or dipping.' Leigh says, ' Bap- 
 tism is such a kind of washing as is by plunging; and yet it is taken 
 more largely for any kind of washing, even where there is no dipping 
 at all.' These authorities can be given if called in question. To the 
 above list may be added other Pedo-baptist writers of great literary 
 eminence; such as Craddock, Casaubon, Pool, Grotius, Guise, Brown, 
 Scott, and Schleusner, with a number more, justly celebrated for bib- 
 lical erudition, who, if allowed to speak their own language, never 
 thought of giving an exclusive interpretation to the word baptize, as 
 though it meant to dip or immerse only. See Pedo-baptist, No. 1, 
 Vol. 1. pp. 37, 38. Mr. Pond gives the following note on p. 26, of his 
 treatise on baptism : ' The following authors I find also referred to 
 as testifying that immersion is not essential to baptism : Luther, Vos- 
 sius, Zanchius, Hesychius, Buddeus, Stephanus, Scapula, Passor, 
 Martin, &c. See also Hopkins' Sys. Divin. Vol. 2, p. 304, &c. &c.' 
 Again : Origin, speaking to the Pharisees, of the wood on the altar, 
 over which water was profusely poured at the command of Elijah, 
 (see 2 Kings xviii : 23.) expressly says that this wood was baptized. 
 This term, then, was used by Origin, one of the earliest Christian 
 fathers, to signify pouring. Eusebius mentions a fountain near the 
 church at Tyre, where the people washed, previous to their entering 
 the temple. This washing, he observes, ' resembled baptism.' See 
 Appen. to Doct. Watt's Hist. Ecc. Lib. 10, Chap. 4. 'It was a com- 
 mon expression of the ancient fathers, concerning the martyrs who 
 had shed their blood in bearing witness to the Christian faith, that 
 they were baptized with their blood.' Hemmenway, in Reed's Apol. 
 p. 165. Were they actually immersed in their own blood 1 or were 
 their bodies merely 'tinged or wetted imtkit?' We leave it with the 
 candid reader to say. Pond's Tr. Bap. pp. 29, 30. ' The word itself, 
 as it has been often shown, proves no:hing. The verb, with its deri- 
 vatives, signifies to dip the hand into a dish ; Mat. xxvi : 23 ; to stain 
 a vesture with blood ; Rev. xix : 13; to wet the body with dew ; Dan. 
 iv : 33 ; to paint or smear the face with colors ; to stain the hand by 
 pressing a substance; to be overwhelmed in the waters as a sunken 
 ship ; to be drowned by falling into water; to sink, in the neuter sense; 
 to immerse totally; to plunge up to the neck ; to be immersed up to 
 the middle; to be drunken with wine; to be dyed, tinged, and imbued; 
 to wash by effusion of water; to POUR water upon the hands, or any 
 other part of the body; to SPRINKLE. A word, then, of such large 
 application, affords as good proof for SPRINKLING, or partial dip- 
 ping, or washing WITH water, as for immersion in it.' Watson's 
 Inst. p. 442.
 
 "We have now before us numerous other authorities which we 
 could adduce, to establish the fact that the word does not exclusively 
 mean immersion. After these developments, what confidence can 
 the public have in the assertions ' all the wise, all the learned,' &c. 
 &c. ' are against the Pedo-baptists on this subject V 
 
 " From the above exhibition, all honest men must admit that whilst 
 immersionists can prove that baptism means immersion, Pedo-baptists 
 can equally prove, it means pouring or sprinkling. Consequently, if 
 immersionists from this authority have a right to say it means immer- 
 sion and nothing else immersion exclusively Pedo-baptists have an 
 equal right to say it means pouring or sprinkling, and nothing else 
 pouring or sprinkling exclusively. 
 
 "And here we would remark, that in all the above, where immer- 
 sion is admitted to be baptism, in a religious sense, it is understood 
 to be an immersion administered by a gospel minister to a proper sub- 
 ject, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Such an im- 
 mersion is essentially different from the Campbellite immersion ; as, 
 according to their own showing, there is no gospel ministry among 
 them. And one solemn truth which they every where proclaim 
 mixed with a great many errors is, ' That they are neither called 
 nor sent to preach the gospel.' This truth being universally believed, 
 we unhesitatingly affirm that their immersion is null and void, to all 
 intents and purposes ; and, to use the words of the Rev. Peter Acres, 
 ' the Campbellite immersion is not worth a groat.' " 
 
 CHAPTER. VIII. 
 
 Mode of Baptism Continued. 
 
 HAVING proved in the preceding chapter, by the best human autho- 
 rity, that water applied by sprinkling or pouring to a proper subject, 
 by a proper administrator, invoking the Holy Trinity, is baptism in 
 the proper and Christian sense of that term, we now proceed to ad- 
 duce scripture testimony upon the subject; and promise to show 
 sprinkling and pouring to be valid modes of baptism, according to 
 the testimony of Christ and his apostles. It may be proper at this 
 stage of the discussion to say, in reference to the mode of baptism, 
 we defy any man to take the English version of the scriptures, as 
 published by king James, and show in so many words the precise 
 mode of administering the ordinance. It does not any where say the 
 administrator immersed the subject, or poured or sprinkled water upon 
 the applicant. All that we can gather on this point, is by inference; 
 and as inferential testimony is the kind of evidence to be obtained, it 
 must follow that he who has the strongest inferences on his side, must 
 be on the right side of this controversy. 
 
 1. Our first argument in favor of pouring and sprinkling as valid 
 modes of baptism, is drawn from the fact that the words baptize and bap- 
 tized, are used by John the Baptist, Paul, Peter, and the Lord Jesus, as
 
 73 
 
 applicable to the reception of, or baptism of the Holy Ghost, as well 
 as to baptism with water ; and though the mode of applying the water 
 is not denned, the mode of applying the Spirit is clearly set forth. 
 Now if we ascertain in what manner the Lord administered baptism, 
 we the creatures should follow his example, for surely he under- 
 stood what he meant by his own expression. 
 
 A short quotation from Mr. Jamieson, will present this matter at 
 once before the reader : 
 
 " We now proceed to notice the bap'tism of the Holy Ghost, in order 
 to determine the meaning of the word when thus applied. Is this per- 
 formed by pouring or immersion 1 Are men dipped into the Holy 
 Ghostl Or is it 'poured out' upon them'? Let this be determined, and 
 we shall then have the standard scriptural use of the term baptism. 
 
 " John the Baptist first gives the name baptism, to the application 
 of the Spirit. (He gives the same name, in the same verse, to the 
 application of water.) 'I indeed baptize you with water He (Christ) 
 shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.' Mat. iii : 11. 
 Jesus Christ mentions the same baptism of the Holy Ghost thus : 
 ' For John truly baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the 
 Holy Ghost not many days hence.' Acts i : 5. These predictions were 
 frequently fulfilled at Pentecost. The event is thus described : 'And 
 when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one 
 accord in one place. And. suddenly there came a sound from heaven, 
 as of a rushing mighty wind, and it (the sound) filled all the house 
 where they were sitting; and there appeared unto them cloven tongues, 
 like as of fire, and it (the baptismal fire) SAT UPON each of them: 
 and they were all filled with (not dipped into) the Holy Ghost,' &c. 
 Acts ii : 1 4. To the astonished multitude Peter said, '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 : and your sons and your daughters shall prophecy, and your 
 young men shall see visions, and your old men dream dreams : And 
 ON my servants and ON my handmaidens I will POUR OUT in 
 those days of my Spirit,' &c. Verses 16 18. Again, he says : ' There- 
 fore, being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of 
 the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath SHED FORTH 
 this, which ye now see and hear.' Acts ii : 33. St. Peter, on another 
 occasion, giving an account of the baptism of the Holy Ghost amonp 
 the Gentiles, says: 'And as 1 began to speak, the Holy Ghost FELL 
 ON them (not dipped into it) as ON us (Jews) at the beginning. Then 
 remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed, 
 baptized WITH water, but ye shall be baptized WITH the Holy 
 Ghost.' Acts xi : 15, 16. Here it is capable of the clearest demon- 
 stration, that when the God of Heaven administered the baptism of 
 the Holy Ghost, it was 'POURED OUT,' 'SHED FORTH,' 'FELL 
 ON them,' and 'on the servants,' &c. 'was poured out,' &c. Here 
 then, we have the mode of the baptism of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 "To see the force of these passages in regard to the meaning of the 
 word, let us substitute water for the Spirit, and then read thus : ' Bap- 
 tized WITH water;' the water was 'POURED OUT' ' SHED 
 FORTH'' FELL ON them,' and 'on the servants,' &c. 'The water 
 was poured out.' Is there a man one single tittle remote from idiotism, 
 that could dream of an immersion in these cases 1 It would seem so. 
 However, there are some daring disciples that can triumph over all 
 scripture facts and illustrations, by their superior learning. A case in 
 7
 
 74 
 
 point. I was pot long since informed, that one of those learned dis- 
 ciples, (who seems to have studied Greek in Campbell's Millennial 
 Harbinger,) convinced a lady she ought to be immersed, because the 
 ' Greek word translated baptize, is GUMFOOSELEN, and should in 
 every case be translated immerse, as it means nothing but dip under, or 
 immerse.' Such profound erudition among those learned disciples, who 
 have such an extensive acquaintance with king James, his translators 
 translation, and ihe original, must be truly dangerous 1 Think the 
 Pedo-baptist world had better not surrender ? 
 
 " But to proceed. A passage from Dr. Cleland will show to an ab- 
 solute certainty, that Mr. Campbell's sectarian Testament, with all 
 its deformity, has not been able to triumph over the truth on this sub- 
 ject. Hear {he passage : ' We begin with the prediction of John, in 
 Mat. iii : 11. We shall use the words of the new version itself. ' I 
 
 indeed immerse you in water He (Christ) will immerse you in 
 
 the Holy Spirit and fire.' Now for the history of the completion of 
 this prophetic declaration. This we shall find, not only as to the fact 
 that Christ did indeed baptize his disciples with the Holy Spirit, but 
 also as to the mode of its performance. In Acts i : 5, we learn that 
 the event predicted is just at hand: ' For indeed John immersed ia 
 water, but ye shall be immersed in the Holy Spirit within these few 
 days.' We find the completion of these few days in Acts ii : 'And 
 when the day of Pentecost was completely arrived, they were all, 
 with unanimous affection, in the same place.' Now for the fulfilment 
 the immersion in the Holy Spirit and in fire. 'And on a sudden there 
 was a sound from Heaven, as of a rushing violent wind ; and it (the 
 sound) filled all the house where they were sitting: And there ap- 
 peared to them separated tongues as of fire, and rested upon each of 
 them ; and they were filled with the Holy Spirit.' Do you ask now, 
 'How were the disciples immersed in the Holy Spirit"?' The answer 
 will read most ' beautifully :' the Holy Spirit ' RESTED UPON each 
 of them'' where they were SITTING!' While silting in an erect 
 posture, they were immersed in the Holy Spirit ! ! But let us complete 
 our research. The effect produced, drew the following declaration 
 from Peter in his address on the occasion : ' This Jesus, God raised 
 
 up and having received the promise of the Holy Spirit from 
 
 the Father, he has SHED FORTH this, which ye now see and hear.' 
 Here is the mode of the Spirit's baptism 'shed forth' according to 
 this famous translation itself, which we quote on this subject exclu- 
 sively. Let us trace it a little further : ' While Peter was speaking 
 these words, (Acts x : 44,) the Holy Spirit FELL UPON all that 
 
 were hearing the word, and they of the circumcision were 
 
 astonished, that the gift of the Holy Spirit was POURED OUT upon 
 the Gentiles also.' Peter, in a subsequent address, at Jerusalem, vin- 
 dicating his conduct in the case of Cornelius, ' opened to them the 
 matter in order,' and relates the facts thus : 'And as I began to speak, 
 the Holy Spirit FELL UPON them, even as upon us at the begin- 
 ning,' i. e. on Pentecost; 'And I remembered the word of the Lord, 
 how he said, John indeed immersed in water, but you shall be im- 
 mersed in the Holy Spirit.' Now, gentle reader, summon all your 
 acumen and all your candor here ; and, being rid of all partiality, and 
 all prejudice and prepossession towards any sect or denomination, 
 independently declare your judgement respecting the mode of the 
 Spirit'? baptism. Was it by immersion? as this new translation de- 
 clares, or was it (in the ' modernized' style of the same book) ' shed
 
 75 
 
 forth' 'poured out' and ' fdl upon' ' rested upon* each of the disciples, 
 in an erect posture, in 'the house where they were sitting?' It is a fact 
 that none of the disciples of Christ, mentioned in the Acts of the 
 Apostles, ever received the Hoi}* Spirit but by effusion. But if bap- 
 tism necessarily and exclusively means immersion, and John baptized 
 by immersion, then it cannot be true that Jesus did baptize his disci- 
 ples with the Holy Spirit. Here, then, is the dilemma : allow the bap- 
 tism of the Holy Spirit and of fire was a descent UPON, and not an 
 immersion, or plunging INTO, and therefore is not in this passage 
 used for immersion, or deny that Jesus ever did baptize with the Holy 
 Spirit. The author of the Reformed Testament, which reads so ex- 
 actly, and even beautifully, is welcome to the choice of either horn 
 of the dilemma. 
 
 " I wish it to be particularly noted, that they on -whom the Spirit 
 was poured out, are most explicitly affirmed to have been baptized with 
 the Spirit. There is no getting over this. The bapiisma, baptism, is 
 effected by the ekkusis, effusion, and not by immersion. It will never 
 be affirmed that the verb ekhuo, I pour out, shed, &c. signifies to im- 
 merse ; and yet the apostle Peter declares ekhusis to have been the 
 accomplishment of the promise, captisthesisthe, ye shall be baptized with 
 the Holy Ghost. Acts i : 5. How the promise of the Holy Spirit's 
 baptism is accomplished, may be seen in chap, ii : 33 ' lie hath shed 
 forth, ezthee, this which ye now see and hear, so likewisepin chap. 
 x : 45 ' on the Gentiles was poured out, ekkehutai, the gift of the Holy 
 Ghost. 1 This is the same as to ' be baptized with the Holy Ghost? 
 Comp. chap, xi : 15, 16. So in Titus iii : 6, ' the Holy Spirit's bap- 
 tism which he (exeheen) sited mi us abundantly,' is very plainly effected, 
 not by immersion, but by effusion. I beseech the reader to keep this 
 point steadily in view, for I consider it very important. 
 
 " Our Reformer, in justification of himself for doing 'always 1 what 
 Doctors Campbell and Macknight did only 'sometimes' namely, trans- 
 lating bapiisma, $-c. immersion, says: 'We love uniformity when no 
 violence is offered to the sense.' We will try him by this rule in one 
 instance more. I allude to the apostle Paul's baptism, stated more 
 fully in the fourth number of these essays; not then with this famous 
 translation under our eye, but now with reference to it exclusive]}-. 
 It says that Paul ' arose and was immersed.' The word for arose is 
 anastas, literally and correctly standing again; or, as in other places 
 in his superior translation, standing up, stood up, having stood up. See 
 the .following instances: ' Then the High Priest standing tip (anastas) 
 in the midst, interrogated Jesus. 1 ' In these days Peter rising up 
 (anastas') in the midst of the disciples, spoke,' &c. r And Agabus stood up 
 (anastas^ ^.nd signified by the spirit,' &c. ' Then Paul stood up (anastas) 
 and waiving his hand, said,' &c. Now, guided by this ' lovely uni- 
 formity,' Alexander Campbell's translation of Saul's baptism ought 
 to read thus : 'And he recoveredJiis sight and stood up (anastas) and 
 was immersed? But how could rre be immersed standing vp? The 
 idea of an immersion of a person standing, is truly absurd enough ; but 
 not as much so as that of twelve men being immersed or plunged in 
 the Holy Ghost, SITTING. A more crazy conceit never entered a 
 crazy brain. But it is rejoined admitting the word anastas means 
 standing up, was not this necessary in order to Paul's moving off to 
 some stream, or pool, or tank, to be immersed 1 Surely it may be said, 
 he must have got up before he walked. That is true ; but in this case 
 it will not apply ; because the verb anistemi, of which anastas is the
 
 76 
 
 participle, has no locomotive character. In plain speech, it is a standing 
 not a walking verb. Take the following instance : "When Christ said 
 to Matthew ' follow me,' he immediately ' arose and tbllowed him,' 
 anastas, ekoloutheesen auto. Here aiiastas put Matthew on his feet, and 
 could do no more; it could not make him walk. It was therefore 
 necessary to employ another verb, ekoloutheesen, to remove him. There 
 is no such assistance, however, employed in Paul's case. He simply 
 arose, on the spot, and thus, standing up, was baptized. This case, 
 we think conclusive. It is notnecessary, therefore, to pursue it further. 
 Periodical No. 1, pp. 42, 43, 44. 
 
 " Now, from the facts exhibited, the God of Heaven being the ex- 
 ample as administrator of baptism Jesus Christ, Joel the Prophet, 
 John the Baptist, Peter the Apostle, and Paul the Great Apostle of 
 the Gentiles, deciding the meaning of the word baptism, and its most 
 proper and scriptural application, it means pouring or sprinkling, and 
 not immersion." 
 
 From the facts exhibited, it is evident when Christ, Paul and Peter 
 used the term baptize, they used it as synonymous with the terms 
 pour and sprinkle, and not immerse; hence we are led to infer, if 
 pouring out of the spirit be baptism, then pouring water upon the 
 subject is also baptism. This, we think, no reasonable man will deny. 
 And if a creature shall baptize his fellow man with water, in the pre- 
 cise mode in which his Maker baptized him with the Spirit, he then 
 imitates the example set him by his Maker. Paul declares all Chris- 
 tians to be baptized with the Spirit : " By one spirit are we all bap- 
 tized into one body, whether we be Jew or Gentile." Thus God bap- 
 tized all, "both Jew and Gentile," by pouring; therefore, God being 
 judge, pouring and sprinkling are valid modes of administering Chris- 
 tian baptism. If the reader is not convinced, let him re-read and re- 
 flect upon this argument. 
 
 2. Our second argument is taken from the baptism of the Israel- 
 ites, in which Jehovah was the administrator. If in this instance the 
 subjects were immersed, then is immersion baptism ; but if not, then 
 baptism is not immersion. This matter is also made very clear by 
 Mr. .Tamieson. He says : 
 
 " The case of the Israelites. St. Paul gives the name of baptism 
 to this case thus: 'Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be 
 ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed 
 through the sea: And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and 
 in the sea.' 1 Cor. x : 1, 2. Now the question to be settled is, were 
 the Israelites immersed in dipped into plunged under water of was 
 the baptismal water poured upon them in this case'? This matter is 
 capable of the clearest demonstration. Hear Moses relate the facts. 
 'And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea' upon the 
 DRY GROUND; and the waters were a wall unto them on their 
 right hand and on their left. And the waters returned and covered the 
 chariots, and the horsemen, and ail the hosts of Pharaoh that came 
 into the sea after them : there remained not so much as one of them. 
 But the children of Israel walked on DRY LAND in the midst of the 
 sea.'*Exod. xiv : 22, 28, 29. On ' DRY GROUND,' ' DRY LAND,' and 
 yet Campbell's translation makes St. Paul say 'immersed into Moses,' 
 &c. This was truly a novel thing if CambelPs translation be true, a 
 dry shod ifimersum a dipping, a plunging under water on 'DRY 
 GROUND' : DRY LAND.' Strange indeed ! It is well known that 
 there is not an immersionist in all the land, that will admit that any
 
 77 
 
 thing less than to be dipped, or plunged completely under water, is im- 
 mersion or baptism and that such a thing could happen on 'dry 
 ground? every man of common sense knows well, is out of the ques- 
 tion. St. Paul, who says they 'were all -baptized unto Moses,' &c. 
 says also, 'By faith they passed through the Red Sea as by dry land: 
 which the Egyptians essaying to do were drowned.' Heb. xi : 29. 
 
 " Here it must be clearly seen, that the waters of the sea were to 
 the Israelites ; a watt on their right hand and on their left.' And as St. 
 Paul says, ' they passed through the sea as by dry land.' How was it 
 possible to be dipped or immersed in such a passage on ' dry land 
 dry ground?' Of the Egyptians it is said, 'the waters COVERED 
 the chariots and the horsemen, and all the hosts of Pharaoh, there re- 
 mained not so much as one of them.' They were indisputably im- 
 mersed, because they had literally 'much water' instead of 'many 
 waters,' which could not be said of the Israelites on dry ground. But 
 some say, they were ' completely surrounded or shut in, with the walls 
 of water and cloud, which resembled immersion.' St. Paul says they 
 were 'baptized,' and not, they had a resemblance of baptism. Be- 
 sides, there is nothing, in all the circumstances, which has the least 
 resemblance to immersion. They were not dipped down into the 
 cloud but the cloud passed over them they were not plunged into 
 the walls of water, for they were oa the ' right hand and on the left' 
 they were not completely surrounded, for behind and before them 
 there was no water to the shore. And besides all this, a wilder con- 
 ceit never entered the crazy brain of a bedlamite, than that six hun- 
 dred thousand men, besides women and children, received water bap- 
 tism, without one drop of water touching them. And worse still, that 
 they were immersed on 'dry land,' without touching one drop of wa- 
 ter. This is truly changing sides, and making out with less water to 
 immerse six hundred thousand, than Pedo-baptists require to sprinkle 
 one infant. 
 
 "A witness in a court of justice would cut an odd figure, testifying 
 that he saw six hundred thousand men, besides women and children, 
 'IMMERSED on DRY GROUND,' and worse still to add, that the 
 thing happened without their touching a drop of water. 
 
 " Having now shown that the Israelites were not immersed, it only 
 remains to show how they were 'baptized,' for St. Paul says they 
 'were baptized.' Let the Psalmist be heard in his striking description. 
 of the Israelites' passage through the Red Sea, and the matter is set- 
 tled : ' The waters saw thee, O 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. 
 The voice of thy thunder was in the heaven : the lightnings lightened 
 the world : the earth trembled and shook. Thy way is in the sea, and 
 thy path in the great waters, and thy footsteps are not known. Thou 
 leadest thy people like a flock, by the hand of Moses and Aaron." 
 Ps. Ixxvii : 1620. 
 
 " Here we have the unequivocal and inspired word of God for it, 
 that the 'cloud poured cutwater,' and thus, according to St. Paul, they 
 were baptized on dry ground thus after the removal of the waters of 
 the sea, the ground it seems was only wet by the very act of bap- 
 tism. 
 
 " Here then we have the baptism of the Israelites. According to 
 St. Paul they were 'baptized' 'as on dryland.' Moses says, "-dry 
 ground, dry land.' The Psalmist says the 'clouds poured out water' 
 7*
 
 78 
 
 Hence the Lord of Heaven himself administered water baptism to 
 thousands of men, women and children, by pouring water from the 
 doudsoi Heaven. Consequently, when St. Paul said they were 'bap- 
 tized,' he meant they were wet or washed, by water falling from the 
 clouds of Heaven, and not plunged or immersed into water. And 
 when Campbell's watery Testament makes St. Paul say they were 
 'immersed/it makes out an absolute falsehood, which was never ut- 
 tered by St. Paul, and which is the clearest demonstration, that there 
 is an essential difference between the 'New Testament of our Lord 
 and Saviour Jesus Christ,' and this water machine of Alexander 
 Oauipbell, commonly called Campbell's Testament." 
 
 This extract very plainly shows that the Israelites were baptized, 
 but not immersed, consequently baptism is not immersion; the plain 
 inference is, (according to the Psalmist,) they were baptized by pour- 
 ing or sprinkling, and as a matter of course it follows, pouring and 
 sprinkling are valid modes of baptism. 
 
 3. Our third argument is taken from the term birth, or born, as 
 used by the Lord Jesus. He says, " Except a man be born of the wa- 
 ter, and of the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God." The 
 question is, what is it to be born of the Spirit"? Christ on another oc- 
 casion speaking of this birth, calls it the baptism of the Holy Ghost. 
 Acts i : 5. Consequently it is used as synonymous with baptize, and of 
 course signified to have the Spirit poured out upon them, as we find 
 he was, when they were baptized on the day of Pentecost. Hence we 
 conclude that, as to be born of the Spirit is to have the Spirit poured 
 out upon us, so to be born of, or baptized with water, is to have it 
 poured upon us. 
 
 4. Our fourth argument is taken from the use of the term wash. 
 Paul says, " Let us draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of 
 faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our 
 bodies washed with pure water." Heb. x : 22. In this text baptism 
 is called a washing with water. That this term signifies to pour or 
 sprinkle, no one will deny ; but that there may be no mistake, we refer 
 the reader to 2 Kings iii : 11: "And one" of the king of Israel's 
 servants answered and said, here is Elisha, the son of Shaphat, which 
 poured water on the hands of Elijah." This text shows that the wash- 
 ing of hands was performed by pouring water upon them. Again : 
 Luke vii : 44. " I entered into thy house, thou gavest me no water for 
 my feet : but she has washed my feet with her tears, and wiped them 
 with her hair." Here we learn, feet were washed with tears ; surely 
 there was no immersion in this case. 
 
 Again : Numbers xix : 20. :: But the man that shall be unclean, 
 and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among the 
 congregation, because he hath defiled the sanctuary of the Lord: the 
 water of seperation hath not been sprinkled upon him ; he is unclean." 
 In this text we have the mode of purifying the unclean persons. It 
 was by sprinkling. This illustrates the custom of the Jews in wash- 
 ing before meals, &c. ; indeed, it is clearly set forth. Why did the 
 Jews find fault with the disciples of Jesus'? It was for eating with 
 unwashed, or defiled hands. They (the disciples) did not follow the 
 traditions of the Elders, which was to wash oft, especially when they 
 came from market. This washing of hands was performed by sprink- 
 ling, or pouring water upon them. From these passages we conclude 
 the term wash, is used to represent the cleansing of that which is 
 unclean; as the sprinkling of the unclean person, and pouring of water
 
 79 
 
 upon the feet and hands. So when the apostle says, " Having our 
 hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with 
 pure water," we must understand him (especially as he was address- 
 ing Hebrews) to allude to the ancient method of applying water, by 
 sprinkling or pouring. Hence to be baptized, or washed with water, 
 is to have the water poured upon us, just as the water was poured 
 upon the hands of the Jew, when he washed them. But I may be 
 told, this washing was a washing of the body and not simply the head, 
 as is the case when the Pedo-baptist administers baptism. To this I 
 would answer, the head, in all cases, represents the body, and it is by 
 the head that we are able to identify the body; therefore, when Christ 
 sat at meat in the house of Simon the Leper, he said, (when his head 
 was anointed with a very precious ointment, by a woman, from an 
 alabaster box,) when his disciples complained of an act manifesting 
 great gratitude, " For in that she hath poured the ointment on my 
 body, she did it for my burial." Matt, xxvi : 12. In this case Christ 
 calls the pouring of oil upon the head, a pouring of oil upon the body ; 
 then if pouring of oil upon the head is pouring oil upon the body, 
 surely pouring of water upon the head is also pouring water upon the 
 body: for there is only a change of element and not a change of act, 
 as the act, pouring, is the same. 
 
 This circumstance is related by St. Mark, in different phraseology. 
 He states, the woman poured the oil on the head of Jesus ; and Christ, 
 when alluding to the circumstance, says: " She is come aforehand 
 to anoint my body to the burying." Mark xiv : 3 8. In this case 
 Christ calls the anointing of the head, an anointing of the body; hence 
 we conclude that the head represents the body, and that to wash the 
 head is to wash the body : therefore, when the apostle says, "having 
 our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed 
 with pure water," he means, as the blood is sprinkled or poured upon 
 the heart, so the water should be sprinkled or poured upon the body, 
 (the head.) For John tells us, " The Spirit, and the water, and the 
 blood," " agree in one ;" that is, in the mode of their application. I 
 ask the candid reader, if the inference in this case is not decidedly in 
 favor of sprinkling or pouring? 
 
 The sum total of what we have written upon this subject, is this : 
 We have shown the best human authorities agree that pouring and 
 sprinkling are valid modes of baptism, and that Christ and his apos- 
 tles used the terms born, wash, and baptize, as synonymous with pour 
 and sprinkle; and it appears to us, that any unprejudiced mind should 
 be satisfied with what Christ and his apostles say upon this subject. 
 But as there are some who are full of unbelief, and whose theory is 
 greatly endangered by such a conclusion, they must have line upon 
 line and precept upon precept ; we will, therefore, push this investiga- 
 tion to their hearts content.
 
 80 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 Mode of Baptism Continued. 
 
 IN this chapter we will call the attention of the reader to various 
 cases of baptism, as recorded in the sacred scriptures. 
 
 1. The case of the Eunuch we will consider first. In this case the 
 Baptists think they have an instance of immersion as clear as a sun- 
 beam. But all the evidence this text affords, is only of an inferential 
 character. We first notice the inference of immersionists ; it is this : 
 The Eunuch was immersed. Why? They both went down into the 
 water, and they both came up out of it. Let us see what this proves. 
 
 " They both went down into the water." Was this baptism 1 Surely 
 not, for it is said, that after this he was baptized. They both came up 
 out of the water. Did this constitute *ny part of baptism"? Surely it did 
 not ; for it is said, after he was baptized " they came up out of the 
 water," &c. Now the baptism took place between their going into, 
 and their coming out of the water ; and as going into, does not mean 
 under, and coming out of, does not mean from under the water, there 
 can be no immersion in the case. But the Baptists think their going 
 into, &c. is presumptive evidence of immersion. Very good. We 
 will suppose the case of the jailer, and also that of Cornelius, where 
 they did not go to the water, nor even out of the house! These in- 
 stances form presumptive evidence against immersion ; for if to bap- 
 tize a man in a river is presumptive evidence of an immersion, then 
 to be baptized in a house is presumptive evidence that there was no 
 immersion thus we perceive, the Baptist gains nothing by inference 
 in this case. A short quotation from Mr. Jamieson, will show the 
 Eunuch was baptized by sprinkling or pouring, and not by immersion": 
 
 " Many consider the baptism of the Eunuch a very clear case of 
 immersion; the contrary of which we shall now prove. 
 
 " The circumstances of this case are related in Acts viii : 26 39. 
 We are here told that Philip ' heard him (the Eunuch) read the prophet 
 Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest"? And he 
 said, How can I, except some man guide me,' &c. The place of the 
 scripture which he read was this : ' He was led as a sheep to the 
 slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not 
 his mouth,' &c. The Eunuch asked Philip ' Of whom speaketh the 
 prophet this 7 of himself, or of some other man 7 Verse 34. The 
 Eunuch asked an explanation of the prophecy he was reading; Philip 
 perfectly understood him, and the next verse says, ' began at the same 
 scripture and preached to him Jesus.' As the Messiah was the sub- 
 ject of prophecy in this part of the Book of Isaiah, he no doubt de- 
 veloped the prophecy concerning Christ its accomplishment in his 
 humiliation, and also the triumphs of his kingdom. When ' He shall 
 see his seed, prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall pros- 
 per in his hand.' Let the reader carefully note, that this prophecy con- 
 cerning Jesus Christ, read by the Eunuch, commences at verse thirteen
 
 81 
 
 of the fifty-second chapter, and ends with the fifty-third chapter.* [It 
 should not be forgotten that the scriptures were not divided into chap- 
 ters and verses for hundreds of years after the baptism of the Eunuch. 
 They were only divided by the nature of the subject.] 
 
 "The question is, 'Of whom speaketh the prophet this? (the matter 
 of prophecy) of himself, or of some other man?' ' He began at the same 
 scripture, (not at the same chapter or verse, as they were divided into 
 chapters in the year 1240, and into verses 1445,) and preached to him 
 Jesus.' The plain sense is, he explained the prophecy concerning Christ 
 Jesus.i Under Philip's development of this prophecy, the Eunuch re- 
 ceived sufficient instruction on the subject of baptism, to ask for and 
 receive it. 
 
 " Now, the important question is, what part of this prophecy led 
 Philip to unfold the subject of baptism, and the Eunuch to ask for and 
 receive it? Let the careful reader turn to this remarkable prophecy, 
 bearing in mind that Jesus Christ claims the NATIONS of the earth 
 as the purchase of his blood, and has commanded that they shall be 
 discipled, baptized, &c. Turn, I say, to this prophecy, and there read 
 this glorious proclamation : ' So shall he sprinkle many nations,' &c. 
 Isaiah lii : 15. How strikingly does this harmonize with ' Go disciple 
 all nations, baptizing them,' &c. Here the subject of baptism was 
 fairly before the Eunuch in the very commencement of the passage 
 explained by Philip. Upon this passage, ' So shall he (Christ) sprinkle 
 many nations,' and that in Ezekiel xxxvi : 25, 'Then will I sprinkle 
 clean water upon you,' &c. it is presumable the Jews predicated the 
 idea that Christ would baptize his subjects when he came as the Mes- 
 siah : hence their question to John the Baptist, 'Why baptizest thou 
 then, if thou be not the Christ,' &c. John i. If he were the Christ, 
 they expected him to baptize, (according to the above predictions.) 
 Now, as the Eunuch was undoubtedly baptized according to the 
 prophecy he read, and from which Philip preached to him his first 
 lessons (probably) on the subject of baptism. He was most certainly 
 baptized by sprinkling. But ' they went down both into the water, 
 both Philip and the Eunuch, and he baptized him.' Yes, they went 
 into the water; this was one thing ; and he baptized (or sprinkled) 
 him ; this was another thing altogether. Whether they went literally 
 into, or merely to the water, as many learned critics contend, is a cir- 
 cumstance, we conceive, of no great importance in this case, as it 
 was just as easy to have baptized him by sprinkling in the water as 
 on dry land: and as they were travelling in the desert, of course they 
 would be under the necessity of going to the water ' together.' This 
 prediction, ' So shall he sprinkle many nations,' &c. most evidently must 
 receive its accomplishment in the baptism of the 'nations,' agreeably 
 to the great commission, ' Go disciple all nati0ns-,~baptizing them,' &c. 
 
 "*The celebrated Mr. Benson, in his Note on Isaiah lii : 13, says : 'This 
 is the beginning of a new prophecy, continued from hence to the end of the 
 next chapter, which, as has been justly observed by many, both ancient and 
 modern interpreters, should have begun here.' " 
 
 "tOur friend Campbell and his disciples, will possibly agree with us that 
 Philip explained the prophecy; as a shorter text would have made him a 
 textuary, and it would have taken him 'too long to have gone through the 
 book, explaining only one or two verses in a discourse.' This, according to 
 those great men, would have been inconsistent with the character of a reli- 
 gious teacher."
 
 82 
 
 "VVe conclude, from every circumstance of the case, that the Eunuch 
 was baptized by sprinkling, and not by immersion ; as this is specifi- 
 cally the mode taught him by the prophecy, from which he learned 
 he ought to be baptized. Consequently, to ' sprinkle the nations,' 
 ' To sprinkle clean water upon them,' is to baptize them according to 
 the word of inspiration. Let it not be forgotten that the natimis to be 
 baptized, are composed of men, wometo and children." 
 
 2. The second case to which we call attention, is the baptism of 
 Paul. Upon this subject, we will quote a few plain thoughts from 
 Mr. Jamieson: 
 
 " ' How was this man baptized V We answer and can prove 
 that he was baptized in a private house, and in an erect posture. To 
 the law, and to the testimony. Let us go to Damascus, into the street 
 which is called Straight, arid inquire in the house of Judas for one 
 called ' Saul of Tarsus.' Acts ix: 11. Ananias, who baptized him, 
 is there seen ' coming in.' Verse 12. Yes, by the command of the 
 Lord, he ' entered into the house.' Verse 17. Not a word said, or even 
 hinted, respecting him and Saul going out. But on the spot in the 
 very place where Ananias found him there it was that 'he received 
 sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.' Verse 18. This ac- 
 count is short but plain, and sufficiently satisfactory to any candid, 
 unbiased mind. If we may not positively say how this man was bap- 
 tized, we may most assuredly say how he was not baptized. It was 
 not, it could not have been, by immersion. But we are not bound to 
 prove a negative. The burden of proof lies on the other side ; on 
 those who affirm that he was baptized in that mode. Such proof has 
 not, and we are bold to say, can never be produced. We proceed to 
 prove our position, from evidence that can neither be questioned or 
 controverted ; from the very language used by the Holy Ghost in 
 verse 18: 'lie arose (/wuzstes) and was baptized.' The Greek parti- 
 ciple anastas, partaking at once the qualities of the noun and verb, 
 will settle this matter beyond doubt or cavil. The literal and plain 
 rendering of anaslas ebaptisthe is, having stood up he was baptized. 
 Dr. Parkhurst, who was no yesterday critic, says the word signifies 
 'To stand again, to rise from a sitting or recumbent posture.' A few 
 examples will clearly show that this rendering is just. ' He (Jesus) 
 went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood vp (anaste} to 
 read.' ' But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him up, and he 
 'arose' (anaste,) or it should be, ' he stood up.' 'And there stood up 
 (anastas) one of them named Agabus,' &c. 'But Peter took him up, 
 saying, stand up' (anastethi.') Luke iv : 16. Mark ix : 27. Acts x : 
 26, xi : 28. The inquisitive critical reader ma) r further consult Mat. 
 ix : 9; Mark i : 35; ii : 14, and also in the chapter where Paul's bap- 
 tism is recorded, he will find this word six other times used to denote 
 an erect posture, viz : Verses 6, 11, 34, 39, 40. But we have reserved 
 one passage which settles the matter completely and fully, the trans- 
 actors themselves being judges. It is Mark xiv : 60. 'And the High 
 Priest stood iip (anastas) in the midst and asked Jesus,' &c. Here the 
 identical word anas f as, is used by the Holy Ghost to express the pos- 
 ture of the High Priest, when he 'stood i/p;' and the translators have 
 so rendered it in the verse just cited. Now let us read, compare, and 
 conclude. Mark xiv : 60. 'And the High Priest (anastof,') stood iip in 
 the midst, and asked Jesus,' &c. Acts-ix : 18. 'And (Saul) anastas, 
 stood up, and was baptized.' Now pul all these things together, and 
 the amount of the whole is this : ' On a certain day, in the city of
 
 83 
 
 Damascus, on a street of that city called Straight," and in the house 
 of Judas ' there was a man called Saul of Tarsus, who was three 
 days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink ;' ' that a certain dis- 
 ciple at Damascus,' by the command of the Lord Jesus Christ, the 
 great head of the church, ' entered into the house, 1 and there, ' in the 
 house of Judas,' putting his hands on Saul, ' he received his sight forth- 
 with-, and stood up, (anastas,) and was baptized.' Here the plain, sim- 
 ple narrative, the unvarnished detail of circumstances, bolh the origi- 
 nal and translation, the Greek and English, the posture of the body 
 in having been upright, all go to settle the question as to the mode of 
 baptism. It could not have been dipping, or plunging the body into 
 the water all over. 
 
 " The humble believer, therefore, who has stood up, and received 
 baptism like Paul, in the midst of a solemn congregation, in the 
 church, or in the house of a friend, need never be ashamed or alarmed, 
 should he hear his baptism censured and condemned a thousand times, 
 and himself proscribed as not belonging to Christ's visible kingdom ; 
 for if Paul was baptized, really and truly, so is he. And the honest 
 minister who officiates in baptism, like Ananias, when he baptized 
 his converts, male and female, standing up, or in an erect posture, 
 need never be confounded when he has such an eminent gospel ex- 
 ample before him as the case of Ananias' baptizing in the house of 
 Judas, and in an erect posture, such a man as Saul of Tarsus, after- 
 wards the great apostle of the Gentiles. 1 ' Pedo-baptist, No. 1, Vol. i. 
 pp. 11,12. 
 
 3. Our third case is that related in Acts, second chapter, where 
 three thousand were baptized in one short evening. We quote from 
 Mr. Jamieson, who, upon this subject, says: " Let it be remembered 
 that it was the third hour of the day, or nine o'clock in the morning, 
 when the multitudes came running together, to see and hear the occur- 
 rence which had taken place among the disciples ; that after this, 
 Peter and the other apostles spent a considerable time in preaching 
 to them, before any were baptized; and that the day must have been 
 far spent before the work of baptizing could possibly have been com- 
 menced. We cannot, therefore, suppose that more than one-half of 
 the day was employed in baptizing these three thousand persons. Add 
 to this that \ve have no evidence that any were employed in baptizing 
 on this occasion, except the twelve apostles. Here, then, were three 
 thousand persons to be baptized by twelve men, in the space of six 
 hours; that is two hundred and fifty to each administrator. This 
 would be less than one and a half minutes to each subject. Now is 
 it possible, unless they were specially assisted by a miraculous influ- 
 ence, that twelve men could have immersed this multitude in so short 
 a time? We think not. And as there is no intimation of any thing 
 miraculous in this part of the transactions of that day, we conclude 
 that it is altogether improbable that all these persons were immersed. 
 Besides, to have immersed so many in so short a time, would have 
 required many places where there was an abundance of water, which 
 could not have been so readily obtained in Jerusalem; especially in 
 that season of the year, when the springs in that country were gene- 
 rally very low. Add to this, that there is no intimation of their going 
 out in search of such places, or of any change of apparel ; both of 
 which would have been necessary, and from the circumstances of the 
 case, could not have been provided until the very time they were 
 needed. These facts being admitted and they cannot be readily con-
 
 84 
 
 tradicted there is every reason to think that the apostles baptized by 
 effusion or sprinkling, and not by immersion." 
 
 4. The fourth case to which we call attention, is the baptism of 
 Cornelius Acts, tenth chapter in which the inference is very clear 
 and conclusive, against immersion. Mr. Jamieson remarks : " In 
 respect to this case, it is worthy of remark, that Cornelius ' had called 
 together his kinsmen and near friends,' who, probably, were numer- 
 ous, and, when added to the family of Cornelius, composed a conside- 
 rable congregation. These persons were all Gentiles, and entirely un- 
 acquainted with the nature of the instructions which they were to re- 
 ceive, until they heard them from the lips of the apostle ; they could 
 not, therefore, be prepared with suitable changes of apparel for the 
 purpose of being immersed. As soon as Peter came to the house of 
 Cornelius, he was introduced to this assembly, and began to address 
 them in the name of Jesus Christ. While he was thus addressing 
 them the Holy Ghost fell upon them, the evidence of which was in- 
 dubitable ; insomuch, that the Jewish Christians who had accompa- 
 nied Peter, and who were present, though they 'were astonished,' 
 could not gainsay it. Then Peter, addressing himself to those Jewish 
 Christians, said: ' Can any man forbid water that these should not be 
 baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as weT It is 
 natural to understand these words to mean, Can any man forbid water 
 from being brought in here? For it was in the house of Cornelius, in 
 
 the presence of that assembly, at the very time of these transactions, 
 that Peter made this inquiry. We cannot, therefore, without a very 
 forced and unnatural construction of his words, and that in defiance 
 of the circumstances in which they were uttered, understand him to 
 inquire, can any man forbid our going out to some pond, river, or 
 fountain of water, to baptize these Gentiles 7 The subsequent verses 
 represent, that the baptism of these persons took place immediately in 
 the place where they were then assembled. Peter commanded them 
 to be baptized, which being immediately done, the religious services 
 were closed, and then these Gentile Christians entreated him to tarry 
 with them a few days. All the circumstances of the case, therefore, 
 seem to say that water was brought into the house of Cornelius, into 
 the very apartment where they were assembled, and that these persons 
 were baptized immediately on the spot; and, consequently, that they 
 were baptized by effusion, or sprinkling, and not by immersion. And 
 it would certainly be a matter of some surprise, on the presumption 
 that they were immersed, that no mention is made of looking or in- 
 quiring for a suitable place for the purpose of baptizing this company, 
 and that there is nothing said concerning a change of dress. There 
 is a strong presumption, therefore, in this case also, in favor of bap- 
 tism by effusion or sprinkling." 
 
 5. The case of the Philippian jailer we next consider, as recorded 
 in Acts xvi. In relation to this case, Mr. Jamieson remarks: "This 
 jailer had thrust Paul and Silas into a dungeon, and made their feet 
 fast in the stocks. In this situation these apostles prayed and sung 
 praises to God. While they were thus glorifying their Heavenly 
 Father, he interposed in their behalf. Instantly the bolts and bars 
 gave way, and the prison doors flew open. The jailer, discovering 
 that the prison doors were open, and supposing that the prisoners 
 were all gone and that he would be held accountable for their absence, 
 attempted to take his own life. This was prevented, by his being in- 
 
 onned by Paul that the prisoners were all safe. Then the jailer
 
 85 
 
 called for a light, hastened into the prison rooms, and finding every 
 thing as Paul had declared to him, was led to reflect on his own lost 
 and sinful condition when he came and prostrated himself before 
 these persecuted servants of Jesus Christ, anxiously inquiring what 
 he must do to be saved. The same hour of the night he took Paul 
 and Silas out of the ' inner prison,' washed their stripes^ and was bap- 
 tized, he and all his family, immediately. It is a rational conclusion, 
 from the circumstances here recorded, that the jailer's residence was 
 under the prison roof; that though he took the apostles out of the inner 
 prison, or dungeon, he did not take them beyond the confines of the prison 
 walls; that he and his family were baptized in the outer prison; and, 
 therefore, that they were baptized by effusion or sprinkling. 
 
 " The reader will particularly observe, 
 
 " 1st. They were ' cast into prison.' Verse 23. 
 
 "2d. < Thrust into the INNER PRISON.' Verse 24. 
 
 " 3d. When the doors flew open, the jailer ' sprang in (of course 
 ?o the INNER PRISON) and fell down before Paul and Silas.' 
 Verse 29. 
 
 "4. 'And brought them out' (of the inner prison) to the outer prison, 
 just where they were first lodged by the magistrates. Verse 30. 
 
 " 5. Here, in the outer prison, their stripes were washed, and they 
 administered baptism, at midnight. 
 
 "6. The jailer brought them 'into his house' verse 34 which 
 was another apartment connected with the prison, and under the prison 
 roof; for in this very apartment Paul considered himself in prison, 
 for it was here he learned that the magistrates sent to ' let these men 
 go.' Verse 35. To which Paul replied: 'They have beaten us 
 openly uncondemned, being Romans, and have cast us into prison; 
 and now do they thrust us out primly? Nay, verily; but let them 
 ooine themselves, and fetch us out.' Verse 37. This would have been 
 downright hypocrisy, if they had slipped out the night before to some 
 pond or river, and then back again to the prison, and then make their 
 persecutors believe they would not leave the prison until taken out 
 publicly.' Such a scene was never acted by an apostle of Jesus Christ; 
 and it must be a very bad cause that requires such hypocrisy to sup- 
 port it. 
 
 " In reviewing the circumstances already noticed, it is worthy of 
 remark, that there is no mention made in the New Testament of going 
 to any pond, river, stream, or fountain of water, for the sole purpose 
 of baptizing, except it be in the case of Philip and the Eunuch, and 
 they were travelling on the highway. It was in the Eunuch's car- 
 riage where Philip preached to him, in which no water could be had, 
 and he was baptized at the first water to which thev could have ac- 
 cess. Even this exception, therefore, will not at all affect the con- 
 clusion at which we wish to arrive. As it respects other cases, John 
 the Baptist preached and baptized at the same places, viz: At Jordan 
 and Enon, near to Salem. The apostles, on the day of Pentecost, 
 appear to have baptized at the place of their public assembly, as there 
 is no mention made of their going elsewhere for this purpose. Cor- 
 nelius and his friends were, probably, baptized in his house, where 
 Peter preached to them. The jailer and his family were baptized 
 under the prison roof, being the place where the apostles taught him 
 the way of salvation through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. To these 
 examples there is nothing of a contrary nature to oppose, as far as 
 scripture evidence is concerned; and, therefore, as far as we can de-
 
 86 
 
 rive information from the New Testament to direct our practice, we 
 conclude that the time and place of public worship, is the proper time 
 and place to administer Christian baptism." 
 
 This extract, we think, very clearly demonstrates that the jailer 
 was not immersed. We think the whole matter might be very safely 
 rested here, as it must be evident to every impartial mind the evidence 
 which the foregoing cases afford, are decidedly in favor of sprinkling 
 and pouring, and that baptism by immersion, cannot be proved by any 
 one text in the Bible. 
 
 Lest it should be supposed we have evaded one of the most impor- 
 tant texts in the Bible, we will call the attention of the reader to the 
 sixth chapter of Romans, beginning with the first verse, " What 
 shall we say then'? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound"? 
 God forbid. How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer there- 
 in 1 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," &c. This text is the stronghold of our Baptist 
 friends ; and, as we told the reader in our previous remarks, we would 
 defer farther remarks on the notion of (he Baptists as regards the de- 
 sign of baptism, until the mode of baptism was noticed, we now ask 
 your careful attention to what we will now present. 
 
 If ever a passage of scripture was wrested from its true meaning, 
 and tortured to suit the fancy of those who have a theory to support, 
 this is the one ; for it is wrested and tortured when brought to support 
 the theory of immersion, as the sign of Christ's burial and resurrec- 
 tion, in the holy ordinance of baptism for the Baptist will have it, 
 that baptism is designed to represent the burial and resurrection of 
 Christ. A notion this, truly! and as farfetched as ever entered a 
 crazy brain. As it respects the burial and resurrection of Christ, 
 there was but one sign given of it the sign- given by the prophet 
 Jonas being three days in the belly of the fish. The reader will please 
 hear the words of Christ upon this subject : " But he answered and 
 said unto them, an evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, 
 and there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of the prophet Jonas; 
 for as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so 
 shall the son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the 
 earth." Matt, xii : 39, 40. Now if baptism was a sign of Christ's 
 burial and resurrection, why did he not plainly tell the people it wasl 
 and why did he say that no sign should be given to it but the one 
 alluded tol Can any one be justifiable in believing any doctrine 
 so plainly contradictory of the words of Christ 1 This doctrine 
 says, another sign has been given. Christ says, no other shall be 
 given but the sign of the prophet Jonas. They may believe it who 
 will, but we will not believe any thing so positively contrary to the 
 words of the Lord Jesus. If 'baptism was designed to set forth the 
 burial and resurrection of Christ, how was it that the disciples, who 
 preached and practised it, and saw thousands baptized, did not under- 
 stand what the rising from the dead should mean"? for none of them 
 understood " this saying." Again : If this was the design of bap- 
 tism, it should have ceased wiih the resurrection of the Saviour. It 
 was instituted long before his death, and must have been a type of 
 the old dispensation to point to Christ's burial and resurrection, just 
 as the bloody sacrifices pointed to his death, and with them must have
 
 87 
 
 been laid aside after the end for which they had been instituted had 
 been accomplished for the sign must cease when the thing signified 
 is attained unto. But the practice of the Baptists is at war with their 
 theory. If, as they say, baptism does signify the burial and resur- 
 rection of Christ, they should require individuals to partake of the 
 Lord's Supper first, to show forth his death, and then to be baptized, 
 to show or set forth the burial and resurrection of their Saviour. But 
 they reverse the order of these acts, and baptize the subjects first, then 
 subsequently admit them to the table of the Lord. By this course, 
 they show forth the burial and resurrection of the Lord before his 
 death ; a thing inconsistent with itself, as error generally is. 
 
 Once more : What resemblance is there between a man's wading 
 into a pond up to his arm-pits, and then another to dip his head and 
 shoulders under and take him up again in a second, and placing the 
 body of Christ in a sepulchre hewn out of a rockl You must know 
 that the entrance was on the side of the sepulchre, like that to a 
 house; for it is said when Peter came to the sepulchre, "Stooping 
 down he looked into it, and saw the clothes," &c. Now we all know 
 that in looking into a grave in this country, (burying as we do,) no 
 man would stoop down to look into it, but stand up and look over into 
 it. Even if Christ had been buried as we bury in this country, we 
 know the burying is performed by placing the body in the tomb, and 
 then pour or sprinkle the earth upon the coffin, so that pouring or 
 sprinkling would better represent the burial of Christ than dipping. 
 We have seen many persons buried by pouring earth upon them, but 
 never saw one buried by dipping or plunging the body into the earth. 
 The text, when properly considered, forbids the construction put upon 
 it by immersionists. We would caution the reader against a practice 
 too common, which is this : To conclude whenever the terms baptism, 
 baptize, &c. is found, they mean water baptism and nothing else ; but 
 when the word of God is read, always look at what idea the writer 
 intends to convey by the use of the terms for they are frequently 
 used when there is no water meant in the text. 
 
 The scriptures give us a baptism to Moses in the wilderness, the 
 baptism of John at Jordan, the baptism of sufferings, as was that of 
 Christ when he said to his disciples, " I have a baptism to be bap- 
 tized with," &c. and, also, the baptism of the Holy Ghost "Ye 
 shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." This 
 baptism of the Spirit, has been perpetuated to the present day. But 
 if this be denied, (as it likely will be by Mr. Campbell,) it certainly 
 did last during the apostolic day. Hence when we read in their 
 writings of baptism, we should carefully inquire what baptism is 
 meant whether of water, or of the Holy Ghost. With this object 
 in view, let us approach Paul's writings, and see if he always means 
 water baptism when he uses the terms baptize, baptized, &c. In his 
 first letter to the Corinthians, twelfth chapter, he labors to show the 
 church at Corinth, that Christ is the head of the church, which he 
 calls the body. And, in showing how the members become united to 
 Christ, their head, he says: "For by one spirit are we all baptized 
 into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond 
 or free, and have been all made to drink into one spirit." Verse 13. 
 In this text a spiritual baptism is meant, for he thus expresses it : 
 " By one spirit," &c. In the letter to the Colossians, second chapter, 
 he guards the church against being deceived by enticing words. 
 Verse 4. He cautions to walk in Christ Jesus, as they had received
 
 88 
 
 him. Verse 6. He tells them they were then, complete in Christ, 
 who was the head of principalities and powers. Verse 10. And in 
 showing them how they were complete in their head, he tells them 
 they were circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, 
 which doubtless means the spiritual circumcision. That, he calls the 
 circumcision of Christ. " Buried with him in baptism, wherein also 
 ye are risen with him through faith of the operation of God, who hath 
 raised him from the dead." Verses 11, 12. The effect of this bap- 
 tism is stated in the following verse : "And you being dead in your 
 sins, and the uncircumcision of your flesh hath he quickened with 
 him, having forgiven you all trespasses," &c. From this quotation 
 we see what effect is ascribed to baptism and circumcision, namely: 
 A quickening from their dead and sinful state, and the forgiveness of 
 all sin. This effect cannot be ascribed to water baptism. In de- 
 scribing the baptism by which they were united to Christ, their head, 
 he says : " Wherein also ye are risen with him through faith of the 
 operation of God." That this, does not mean water baptism is clear, 
 for in that case they would have been raised by the hands of the 
 minister; but Paul says they were raised "by faith." And what is 
 said of circumcision in this passage, may be said of baptism that 
 is, the baptism made without hands for surely there was no need of 
 hands, if they were raised " by faith." So were they buried, by faith, 
 the same power that raised them up. If the reader will read these 
 passages for himself, he will find that the apostle is speaking of the 
 spiritual union of the members with Christ, and shows that this was 
 effected by the baptism of the Spirit. 
 
 Let us now examine the remarks of the same writer in his letter to 
 the Romans, and lei him interpret his own language; or, what is the 
 same thing, let his language above quoted be applied to this epistle 
 also. Different writers use different figures to represent the same 
 thing; but when we see a man writing many letters and using the 
 same figures in all of them, we may be at some loss to know the 
 meaning in the first us of the figures ; but when we see the same 
 figures and terms in succeeding letters, with their connection and 
 meaning more fully expressed, we are at no farther loss to know his 
 meaning. This is just the case with the text before us : "Know ye 
 not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were bap- 
 tized into his death." Here we perceive the apostle is showing that 
 the church at Rome, composed of Jews and Gentiles, were all one in 
 Christ; and that although sin had much abounded, grace did much 
 more abound ; and that although grace had thus abounded, it should 
 be no pretext for their sins the reason being this : they were united 
 to Christ as members of one body, and this union he says was accom- 
 plished by baptism. The question for us now to settle is, What bap- 
 tism does the apostle allude to 1 Does he mean water baptism, or 
 the baptism of the Spirit! To this question the Baptist answers, 
 Water baptism. Well, let us try and see if we can make good sense 
 of the apostle's remarks with this meaning of the term. To make 
 good sense for the Baptist, the text should read, " Know you not that 
 so many of us as were baptized into water were baptized into Jesus 
 Christ, therefore we were buried with him by baptism into water; 
 that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the 
 Father, even we also were raised up out of the water, to walk on dry 
 land." This surely would be literally the view which the Baptists 
 take of it.
 
 89 
 
 Again: To suit the Baptist it should read, " Therefore we were 
 buried by baptism into water;" showing the act of burying to have 
 taken place previous to the time of writing the letter. But the apos- 
 tle says we are buried, which shows the persons addressed were in a 
 buried state at the time of writing the letter: "Therefore we are 
 buried," &c. Surely they were not all then under the water at the 
 time of writing this epistle. 
 
 Once more: To suit the Baptist it slrould read, "For if we have 
 been planted together in the likeness of his death, we have been, also, 
 in the likeness of his resurrection." "Whereas, the apostle says, "For 
 if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall 
 also be in the likeness of his resurrection," which shows they had not 
 as yet been in the "likeness of his resurrection" which is not a fact 
 according to the Baptist theory, for they say their rising out of the 
 water is like his resurrection. And all of them will contend that they 
 have been "in the likeness of his resurrection." But Paul tells us, we 
 shall be also "in the likeness of his resurrection," provided they have 
 been conformable to his death, and do not permit ourselves to be 
 brought into bondage again by those things whereof we are " now 
 ashamed." 
 
 If we understand this text as alluding to water baptism, then we 
 must believe that water can kill sin, crucify the old man, and quicken, 
 or give new life. This, I say, we must do, to be consistent. There- 
 fore Mr. Campbell, with his penetrating eye, seeing that consistency 
 would drive all who contend for this interpretation to these conclu- 
 sions, with all his inconsistencies, vows he will be consistent in this, 
 and consequently calls immersion regeneration; and says it destroys 
 sin, unites to Christ, and makes us as innocent, as clean, and as un- 
 spotted as an angel. We will close our remarks on this text, by a 
 quotation from Mr. Jamieson. He says : 
 
 "Our Baptist brethren think they are here taught the design and 
 mode of water baptism ; whereas, we think it has nothing to do with 
 either. The baptism of the Holy Spirit, with its glorious EFFECTS 
 upon the human soul is undoubtedly the subject matter of these verses. 
 
 "To support the views of the Baptists, it should have read, 'Know 
 ye not that so many of us as were immersed into water, (not into 
 Christ) were immersed into his water, (not his death.) 
 
 " Therefore we are immersed with him by immersion into water, 
 (not into death,) that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the 
 glory of the Father, even so we also should be lifted up out of the water 
 and walk on dry land, (not in newness of life.) And to support Camp- 
 bellism it should have added at every point ; for the remission of sins.' 
 
 " Then as they go in for the literal meaning of the book, the matter 
 would be settled. But as it is, the passage is against them. 
 
 "A little greater liberty with this text, than Mr. Campbell has al- 
 ready taken, will possibly bolster up Campbellism in a future edition 
 of his Testament. 
 
 " This baptism is the very same that is mentioned by St. Paul, 1 
 Cor. xii : 13. ' For by one Spirit, (not one water) are we all baptized 
 into one body, into Christ, (not into water,) whether we be Jews or 
 Gentiles, whether we be bond or free.' 
 
 " The death, burial and resurrection, mentioned in the text, must 
 be understood in a moral, or spiritual point of view, or we must sup- 
 pose St. Paul was a very incoherent reasoner. In the context, he was 
 endeavoring to reconcile the converted Jews to the Gentile converts. 
 8*
 
 90 
 
 and gives them to understand, that, although the sin and degradation 
 of the Gentiles was very great, yet God's abounding grace was more 
 than equal to their degeneracy, therefore, they might be saved. And 
 lest the converted Gentiles should abuse this doctrine of grace, he 
 guards it by asking the question, (verse 1,) 'Shall we continue in sin 
 that grace may abound V He answered, ' God forbid ; how shall we, 
 that are dead to sin live an^ longer therein V He then proceeds, to 
 show, that it would be inconsistent with their character, and obliga- 
 tions to God, to live in sin ; as by the Spirit of God, they ' were bap- 
 tized INTO JESUS CHRIST: 1 (not into water,) were 'baptized into 
 his death;' (not into water,) were ' buried with him by baptism into 
 death;' (not into water,) that like as Christ was raised up from the 
 dead by the glory of the Father, even so, we also (having experienced 
 the 'power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, be- 
 ing made conformable to his death,' Phil, iii : 10,) 'should walk in 
 newness of life.' ' ' Yea, that they should 'reckon' themselves 'dead in- 
 deed unto SIN ; but alive unto God,' (verse 11.) All this perfectly cor- 
 responds with the passage quoted from the first letter to the Corin- 
 thians. ' For BY one SPIRIT are we all baptized into one BODY, 
 (Christ's mystical body,) whether we be Jews or Gentiles,' &c. Also, 
 Gal. iii : 27. ' For 'as many of you as have been baptized INTO 
 CHRIST, (not water,) have put on Christ.' Does it not clearly ap- 
 pear from the Holy Scriptures, that all who are baptized by the Spirit 
 of God, are in a moral or spiritual sense 'in Christ Jesus' 'made con- 
 formable unto his 'death,' 'burial' and 'resurrection?' And is not all 
 this effected by the same power that raised Christ from the dead? Why 
 then, wade ponds, rivers and lakes, to find the explication of this text, 
 rather than admit that it teaches the renovation of our natures by the 
 baptism of the Holy Ghost? The fact is, there is no man living that 
 can find in the inspired book of God, a single passage in which water 
 baptism is called a BURIAL, much less may he hope to find death, 
 burial, and resurrection,, mentioned as the effects of water baptism. 
 
 " Water baptism administered in any mode with which we are 
 acquainted, is unlike to burials of any nation of the globe. To make 
 a sudden pop under water, emblematical of a burial, is as farfetched 
 a conceit, and as great an abuse of language and common sense, as 
 any which adorns the pages of Alexander Campbell. Surely nothing 
 more can be necessary to convince the reader that St. Paul, in Rom. 
 vi. speaks of spiritual, and not water baptism, than carefully to con- 
 sider the glorious EFFECTS ascribed to that baptism. 
 
 "1. 'Baptized into Jesus Christ.' 'Therefore, if any man be in 
 Christ, he is a new creature : old things are passed away; behold, all 
 things are become new.' 2 Cor. v : 17. ' There is therefore now no 
 condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus,' &c. Rom. viii : 1. 
 'For we are his workmanship^ created in Christ Jesus unto g-ood 
 works,' &c. 'In whom. (Christ) all the building, fitly framed together, 
 groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded 
 together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.' Phil, iii : 10. 
 According to these declarations, to be ' baptized into Christ,' is to ex- 
 perience God's creative and renewing pawn', which forms a vital union 
 between the soul and Christ. It is not water, but spiritual baptism, that 
 effects this. 
 
 " 2. ' Baptized into his death.' As Christ really died for sin, so we 
 really die to sin, consequently are represented as being ' planted to- 
 gether in the likeness of his death,' that by 'newness of life' we may
 
 91 
 
 be 'in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old 
 man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed.' 
 Verses 5, 6. Hence says the apostle, ' Likewise reckon ye also your- 
 selves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus 
 Christ our Lord.' Verse 11. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live 
 any longer therein 1 Verse 2. Here then is the death/ produced by 
 this baptism, a death to sin; and it certainly does not require the wis- 
 dom of Solomon to know it must be a spiritual baptism, that produces 
 this effect. . But it is thought that immersion in water represents the 
 death of Christ. Can any man discern any possible similarity be- 
 tween dipping a man under water, and the hanging of Christ on the cross? 
 Certainly not. But there is reason in saying, when we are 'crucified to 
 the world,' and ' die to sin, we are planted in the likeness of his death.' 
 
 "3. 'Buried with him in baptism. INTO DEATH.' As Christ died and 
 was buried, so are his people not only ' dead to sin,' but buried out 
 of, or delivered from, the ' filthiness of the flesh and spirit. 1 2 Cor. 
 vii : 1. Christ's death and burial out of the natural wcnld, are here 
 represented by the death and burial of his people out of the pollutions 
 of the 'moral world. Here we have a burial corresponding to the death, 
 when the passage is understood in its connexion and spiritual light 
 whereas, if it be understood literally, the baptized must absolutely be 
 put to death by water. But it is thought that immersion represents the 
 'burial' of Christ. Now, I ask, is there any possible similarity in 
 plunging a man under water, and placing the body of Christ in a sepul- 
 chre that was hewn out of the side of a rock, which was closed by roll- 
 ing a stone to the door 1 Not one particle. 
 
 4. ' 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.' As 
 Christ after his death and burial, was raised from the dead by the glo- 
 rious energy or power of God, so God's people experience the resur- 
 rection power by the baptism of the Holy Ghost. ' For by one spirit 
 are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, 
 whether we be bond or free,' &c. 1 Cor. xii : 13. ' That 1 may know 
 him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his suffer- 
 ings, being made conformable unto his death.' Phil, iii : 10. ' If ye 
 then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above,' &e. 
 Col. iii : 1. These passages go to show, that rising with Christ to 
 NEWNESS OF LIFE does not mean, rising up out of the WATER, 
 to represent the resurrection of Christ ; but that the dead in sin, by the 
 pmccr of God, are brought to spiritual life. Hence the expression, ' we 
 know that we have passed/rom death unto life, (not because we have 
 been in the water,') but because we love the brethren,' &c. 1 John iii : 
 14. How forcible the following verse: ' Buried with him in baptism, 
 wherein ye also are risen with him (not from water by the hands of a 
 minister,) but through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised 
 him from the dead.' When 'buried' (as it is called) in water baptism, 
 \ve are raised by the hands of the minister; when buried, by spiritual bap- 
 tism, we are raised ' through the faith of the OPERATION OF GOD.' 
 Col. ii : 12. 
 
 " 5. 'Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, 
 were baptized into his death* Here our apostle appeals to their knowledge 
 of the relation they bore to God by baptism. Was it by water or the 
 Spirit, that they had knowledge of their death to sin? . Let the word of 
 God decide. 'Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but 
 the Spirit which is of God, that we might know the things that are
 
 92 
 
 fully given to us of God.' 1 Cor. ii : 12. ' The Spirit itself beareth 
 witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.' Rom. viii : 16. 
 
 " From these passages it seems that it is not the recollection of our 
 struggle in some pond or river, that ' beareth witness with our ^pirits, 
 that we are the children of -God,' but 'the Spirit itself.' And, accord- 
 ing to St. John, ' He that believeth on the Son of God, hath the wit- 
 iiess in himself,' Campbellism to the contrary notwithstanding. 
 
 " We have been more particular in the investigation of this text, as 
 on it is predicated the doctrine, that the death, burial, and resurrection 
 of Christ, are represented by immersion a doctrine it certainly does 
 not contain." 
 
 This chapter has been protracted farther than we had anticipated, 
 but we hope the reader will bear with us while we give in conclusion, 
 an extract from that celebrated divine, Rev. R. Watson : 
 
 " It is not probable, that if immersion were the only allowable mode 
 of baptism, it should not have been expressly enjoined. 
 
 " It is not probable, that in a religion designed to be universal, a 
 mode of administering this ordinance should be obligatory, the prac- 
 tice of which is ill adapted to so many climates, where it would either 
 be exceedingly harsh to immerse the candidates, male and female, 
 strong and leeble, in water, or in some places, as in the higher latitudes, 
 for a great part of the year impossible. Even if immersion were in 
 fact the original mode of baptizing in the name of Christ, these rea- 
 sons make it improbable that no accommodation of the form should 
 take place, without vitiating the ordinance. This, some of the stricter 
 Baptists assert, although they themselves depart from the primitive 
 mode of partaking of the Lord's Supper, in accommodation to the 
 customs of their country. 
 
 " It is still more unlikely, that in a religion of mercy there should 
 be no consideration of health and life in the administration of an ordi- 
 nance of salvation, since it is certain that in countries where cold 
 bathing is little practised, great risk of both is often incurred, espe- 
 cially in the case of women and delicate persons of either sex, and 
 fatal effects do sometimes occur. 
 
 " It is also exceedingly improbable, that in such circumstances of 
 climate, and the unfrequent use of the bath, a mode of baptism should 
 have been appointed, which, from the shivering, the sobbing, and other 
 bodily uneasiness produced, should distract the thoughts and unfit the 
 mind for a collected performance of a religious and solemn act of 
 devotion. 
 
 " It is highly improbable, that the threQ thousand converts at the 
 Pentecost, who, let it be observed, were baptized on the same day, 
 were all baptized by immersion; or that the jailer and ' all his' were 
 baptized in the same manner in the night, although the Baptists have 
 invented ' a tank, or bath, in the prison of Philippi' for that purpose. 
 
 " Finally, it is most of all improbable, that a religion like the Chris- 
 tian, so scrupulously delicate, should have enjoined the immersion of 
 women by men, and in the presence of men. In an after age, when 
 immersion came into fashion, baptisteries, and rooms for women, and 
 changes of garments, and other auxiliaries of this practice, came into 
 use, because they were found necessary to decency; but there could 
 be no such conveniences in the first instance, and accordingly we read 
 of none. With all the arrangements of modem times, baptism by 
 immersion is not a decent practice. There is not a female, perhaps. 
 who submits to it, who has not a great previous struggle with her deli-
 
 93 
 
 cacy, but that, at a time when no such accommodations could be had 
 as have since been found necessary, such a ceremony should have 
 been constantly performing wherever the apostles and first preachers 
 went, and that at pools and rivers, in the presence of many spectators, 
 and they sometimes unbelievers and scoffers, is a thing not rationally 
 credible." Watson's Ins. p. 641. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 History of the Mode of Baptism. 
 
 ALL that we wish to say upon this subject, we find made ready to 
 our hand by Mr. Jamieson and Mr. Langhorne; we will, therefore, 
 give the reader an extract from each of these gentlemen. 
 
 Mr. Jamieson says: "It is sometimes contended 'that baptism was 
 universally performed by immersion for the first 1300 years.' This 
 assertion we have proven to be essentially incorrect, as we have shown 
 that pouring or sprinkling, and not immersion, was practised by the 
 apostles of Jesus Christ in the first century. We admit that immersion 
 was practised in the second century, and so were many other super- 
 stitious appendages to baptism immersion three times, anointing with 
 oil, signing with the sign of the cross, imposition of hands, exorcism, eating 
 milk and honey, putting on of white garments, all connected with baptism, 
 and first mentioned by Turtullian ; the invention of men like himself, 
 who were superstitious to a degree worthy of the darkest ages. 
 
 " 1. Neither TDRTDLLIAN nor CYPRIAN denied the validity of bap- 
 tism by pouring or sprinkling, and even practised it among the sick, nor 
 did they immerse them if they afterward recovered health. Cyp. Epis. 
 69. Here then, we have immersion and effusion in the second century. 
 
 " 2. IRENEUS, in 67 years of the apostolic age, mentions a sect of 
 Christians who baptized by effusion. Advers. Herses, Lib. 1, c. 39. 
 
 "3. 'NovATrAN became a Christian about one hundred years after 
 the apostles, and was baptized by EFFUSION or SPRINKLING.' 
 Wall's Hist. Inf. Bap. pp. 353, 357. This, then, was in the close of 
 the second, or beginning of the third century. 
 
 "4. ' Sprinkling was' practised 'in Africa in the third century.' 
 Robertson's Hist. Bap. p. 402. 
 
 " 5. ' CONSTANTINE the Great, who died in the fourth century, (337,) 
 being clothed with a white garment, and laid upon his bed, was bap- 
 tized in a solemn manner by Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia.' Du- 
 pin's His. Ecc. vol. 11, p. 84. Also, Miller's Hist, of Prop, of Chris. 
 vol. 1, p. 392. 
 
 "6. GENNADIUS of Marseilles, in the fifth century, says that bap- 
 tism was administered in the Gallic church ia his time, indifferently, 
 by immersion or by SPRINKLING. Watson's Inst. p. 441. 
 
 " 7. DR. WALL says, ' In the fifth century, baptism was adminis- 
 tered in France indifferently, by immersion and ASPERSION.' His. 
 Inf. Bap. p. 357. 
 
 *>' *
 
 94 
 
 "8. 'POURING was anciently the established mode of adminis- 
 tering baptism in the Netherlands.' Pond on Inf. Bap. p. 48. 
 
 "9. The author of letters to Bishop Hoadly, (a learned Baptist,) 
 admits that 'for thirteen hundred years successively after the apostles, 
 SPRINKLING was permitted upon extraordinary occasions." Plain 
 Act, &c. p. 16. Here a learned and professed Baptist seems clearly 
 to concede all that is necessary in regard to the testimony of history 
 in favor of sprinkling. 
 
 " 10. W. STRABO, who flourished in the ninth century, considered 
 pouring a valid mode of baptism. De. Rebus. Ecc. chap. 26. 
 
 " 11. MR. ROBINSON, also a learned Baptist, admits that ' before 
 the reformation, SPRINKLING was held VALID in cases of neces- 
 sity.' Hist, of Bap. p. 116. 
 
 " 12. DR. REED says, ' We do know that dipping and SPRINK- 
 LING were both practised in the second century; and each practice hath 
 been continued from that period to the present time.' 
 
 " 13. ' ESTIUS, referring to times long before the year thirteen hun- 
 dred, witnesseth that pouring had been much in use. 1 Clark's Scrip. 
 Ground of Inf. Bap. pp. 128, 129. 
 
 " 14. In the thirteenth century THOMAS AQUINAS says ' that baptism 
 may be given, not only by immersion, but also by effusion of water, or 
 sprinkling with it.' And ERASMUS affirms, that in his time it was the 
 custom to SPRINKLE infants in Holland, and to dip them in England. 
 Of these two modes, one only was primitive and apostolic. Which that 
 was, we shall not just now consider. At present it is only necessary 
 to observe, that immersion is not the only mode which can plead anti- 
 quity in its favor; and that as the superstition of antiquity appears to 
 have gone most in favor of baptism by immersion, this is a circum- 
 stance which affords a strong presumption that it was one of those 
 additions to the ancient rite which superstition originated. This may 
 be made out almost to a moral certainty, without referring at all to the 
 argument from scripture. 
 
 " The ' ancient Christians,' the ' primitive Christians,' a ? they are 
 called by the advocates of immersion, that is, Christians of about the 
 age of Turtullian and Cyprian, and a little downward, whose prac- 
 tice of immersion is used as an argument to prove that mode only to 
 have had apostolic sanction, baptized the candidates NAKED. Thus 
 WALL, in his History of Baptism: 'The ancient Christians, when 
 they were baptized by immersion, were all baptized NAKED, whether 
 they were men, WOMEN, or children. They thought it better repre- 
 sented the putting off of the old man, and also the NAKEDNESS of 
 Christ on the cross. Moreover, as baptism is a washing, they judged 
 it should be the washing of the body, not of the clothes.' This is an 
 instance of the manner in which they affected to improve the emble- 
 matical character of the ordinance. Robinson (an able Baptist writer) 
 also, in his History of Baptism, states the same thing: 'Let it be ob- 
 served, that the primitive Christians BAPTIZED NAKED. There 
 is no ancient historical fact better authenticated than this. 1 They, 
 however, says WALL, ' took great care for preserving the modesty of 
 any woman who was to be baptized. None but women came near 
 hfer till her body was in the water; then the priest came, and putting 
 her head also under v:nter, he departed and left her to the WOMEN." 
 Now, if antiquity be pleaded as a proof that immersion was the really 
 primitive mode bf baptizing, it must be pleaded in favor of the gross 
 and offensive circumstance of Baptizing NAKED; which was considered
 
 95 
 
 of as much importance a the other : and then we may safely leave it 
 for any one to say, whether he really believes that the three thousand 
 persons mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles were baptized NAKED ; 
 and whether, when St. Paul baptized LYDIA, she was put into the 
 water NAKED by her -women, and that the apostle then hastened ' to 
 put her head under water also, using the form of baptism, and retired, 
 leaving her to the women' to take her away to dress. Immersion, with 
 ailits appendages, dipping three times, NAKEDNESS, unction, the eating 
 of milk and honey, exorcism, &c. bears manifest marks of that dispo- 
 sition to improve upon God's ordinances, for which even the close of 
 the second century was remarkable, and which laid the foundation, of that 
 general corruption which so speedily followed.' See Watson's Insti- 
 tutes, pp. 441, 44-2. 
 
 "From these authorities it seems evident that pouring and sprinkling 
 have been practised in every ageby the APOSTLES in the first cen- 
 tury, and churches of God ever since the assertions of immersionists to 
 the contrary notwithstanding." 
 
 We will next give the extract from Mr. Langhorne. Our principal 
 object in giving this extract, is to inform the reader of the origin of 
 the Baptist church in North America, and to show with what grace 
 tHe Baptist ministers of the present day can re-immerse a subject 
 which has been immersed by a Pedo-baptist minister, saying their 
 baptism is null and void, because the minister who immersed them, 
 was not himself immersed. 
 
 "It is well known that the Baptist church exists in America, and 
 that her conduct here is characterized by the same intolerance which 
 marked her course there that here, as well as in Europe, she claims 
 to be the only true church of Christ. But how came she here 1 And on 
 lohal foundation does she build her towering pretensions 1 I will tell 
 you, my readers: A Mr, Roger Williams, who was a settled Pedo- 
 baptist minister in Salem, Massachusetts, somewhere about the year 
 1634, was, for certain opinions, ejected from his living, and banished 
 from the colony. With some ten or eleven of his followers, he settled 
 in Rhode Island. Here Mr. Williams became dissatisfied with the 
 baptism which he had received, and turned Anabaptist, or Baptist, if 
 you please. But how was he made a Baptist ? Why, a Mr. Ezekiel 
 Holliman, a layman, who had been baptized in his infancy by sprinkling, 
 immersed him ; whereupon, he, the said Williams, by the authority of 
 his immersion, dipped Holliman and the rest of his followers ! ! 'Thus,' 
 says professor Knowles in his memoir of Williams, p. 165, ' was 
 founded the first Baptist church in America, and the second, as it is 
 stated, in the British empire.' Here is the origin of the Baptist church 
 in America!!! For the truth of this fact, I refer to Norton's History 
 of New England, published 1669. Wiiuhorp's Journal, and the Rev. 
 Mr. Bachus's Church History of N. E. 
 
 " But, says Mr. Finch, the baptism of Williams was a valid ordi- 
 nance. In reply to this, I will simply say, it was not so regarded by 
 Mr. Williams himself. Do you ask for proof! Here it is. Says 
 Gov. Winthorp, ' Mr. Williams and many of his company, a few 
 months since, were, in all haste, re-baptized, and denied communion 
 with all others; and now he has come to question his second baptism, 
 not being able to derive the authority of it from the apostles, other- 
 wise than by the ministers of England, (whom he judged to be ill 
 authority,) so as he conceived God would raise some apostolic power.' 
 Says Scott of Roger Williams, ' I walked with him in the Baptist
 
 way, about three or four months, (! !) in which time he broke from 
 the society, and declared at large the grounds and reasons of it, that 
 their baptism could not be right, because it was not administered by an 
 apostle.' Knowles' Memoir of R. Williams, pp. 170, 171. Poor Wil- 
 liams ! Alas for the Baptists ! ! 
 
 " But, says Mr. Finch, ' all the Baptists in this country did not 
 spring from the venerable church in Rhode Island; many of them 
 came from Europe.' I will suppose this to be true : and what then 1 
 Why, the European Baptists obtained their authority from the Menno- 
 nites, and the Mennonites derived theirs from the AiwJjapt-ists: and 
 pray w"here did Munzer and his associates get theirs from 1 Why, 
 from some one who had no authority at all. But I have another farci- 
 cal fact to communicate : ' The father of the General Baptists was 
 a Mr. Smith, who was at first a clergyman of the Church of Eng- 
 land; but resigning his living, he we n't over to Holland, where his 
 Baptist principles were warmly opposed by Messrs. Ainsworth and 
 Robinson. As Mr. Smith did not think that "any one at the time was duty 
 qualified to administer the ordinance of baptism, he baptized himself, and 
 hence was denominated a Re-baptist .' Religions Ceremonies, p~462. 
 
 "Verily, the early fathers of the Baptist church were a valiant 
 class of men ! It does not seem to me that their cause is very much 
 advanced by drawing on their trans-atlantic brethren ; because, if the 
 Rev. Mr. Smith could immerse himself, why could not the layman 
 Holliman, dip the Rev. Mr. Williams'? It strikes me that Mr. Wil- 
 liams' baptism was just about as good as Mr. Smith's, and Mr. 
 Smith's about the same as Munzer & Co. 
 
 " Having got through with the evidence in the case, I beg leave to 
 indulge in a few reflections on what has been said. Perhaps, on 
 viewing the rise and progress of the Baptist church, as delineated bv 
 the pen of historians, one may be disposed to exclaim, ' Can it be pos- 
 sible that the foregoing extracts furnish us a correct outline of the 
 Baptist church? To which I reply, if any confidence can be placed 
 in the writings of intelligent and upright men, if history is entitled to 
 credit, then the facts which have been adduced are clearly sustained, 
 [f, however, we proscribe all writings, and confide in the bare say-so 
 of prejudiced men, then we shall discredit all that has been said, and 
 suffer the testimony of responsible men to go for naught. But, history 
 must, and will have its influence on intelligent minds. Indeed, it cannot 
 be otherwise ; because, unto it we refer in order to learn the doings of 
 those whose places we now occupy in the world; and those who shall 
 succeed us on this busy stage of action, will have recourse to the 
 same source of information, to learn what we said and did. History 
 is the connecting link between the past and the present, and shall be 
 our response to the interrogations of the future : and through this me- 
 dium the living will converse with the dead, until the hand of Om- 
 nipotence shall reduce old earth to her original chaos. Referring to 
 the records of by-gone days, I have presented to my readers a series 
 of historical facts, which relate to the rise and advancement of the 
 Baptist church both in Europe and America; which facts irrefragi- 
 bly accomplish what I promised to do, viz: to prove that, according 
 to Baptist principles, they have no church: that all their exclusive 
 pretensions are without any solid foundation. I now appeal to the 
 sober candor ofhny readers,"and ask, have I not redeemed my pledge'? 
 
 ** It seems to me that a church which was originally produced in the 
 eastern hemisphere by the agitated elements of civil discord and insubor-
 
 97 
 
 dination, and in the western by dissatisfaction and mortification, should 
 not be so clamorous about exclusive privileges. But for the disquie- 
 tude and insurrection of the peasants of Germany, which, according 
 to Mr. Mosheim, were at the first ' altogether of a civil nature,' the reli- 
 gious world, in all probability, had never been disturbed with the un- 
 tiring cry of ' Water! water! follow your Lord and Master down into 
 the water!' 
 
 " I take no pleasure in performing a task which disfranchises any 
 individual, much less such a number of persons, from the spiritual 
 body of Christ. Yet, when an association of Christians arrogate to 
 themselves privileges and blessings so restrictive in thtlr application 
 as to exclude all but themselves from the only relation which affords an 
 antidote to human woes, they should be prepared to make good their 
 boast, or frankly confess that others have equal claims to the privi- 
 leges and blessings of the gospel as themselves. If our Baptist 
 friends would do this, I would lay down my pen, and most cheerfully 
 extend to them the hand of peace and brotherly love ; but, inasmuch 
 as they perseveringly refuse thus to act, it is but just and proper that 
 the rottenness of their foundation should be exposed, that the impar- 
 tial may see, and take warning. To my mind it appears to be only 
 necessary for this subject to be properly understood, to settle in the 
 minds of all thinking, unprejudiced people, the preposterous preten- 
 sions of our Baptist brethren. If it were consonant with the scrip- 
 tures and apostolic usages, for the fanatic Munzer and associates, 
 to immerse others, when they themselves had never been immersed ; 
 and if the layman Ezekiel Holliman, who had been sprinkled in his 
 infancy, could lawfully immerse Roger Williams, why may not any 
 and every man do the same, whenever inclination or dissatisfaction 
 prompts him to if? And, indeed, this point is conceded by Mr. 
 Broaddus, of Virginia, in this acknowledgment: 'I GRANT, SIR, THAT 
 
 IP A MAN HAS NOT BEEN IMMERSED, HE MAY IMMERSE OTHERS; AND HIS 
 NEGLECT OP HIS OWN DUTY MAY NOT DISQUALIFY HIM FOR ASSISTING 
 
 OTHERS IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIRS.' Slicer on Baptism, p. 308. 
 
 " In conclusion, allow me to say, that the Baptist church has no 
 right, on the grounds of ministerial qualification, to self-adulation. 
 But on the contrary, if she adhere to her avowed principles, she is 
 virtually undone ; and those who are drawn away by her from other 
 denominations, or otherwise, are deluded and mistaken." 
 
 CHAPTER XL 
 
 Regeneration Not Immersion. 
 
 Upon the subject of this chapter Mr. Jamieson has some very per- 
 tinent remarks in his Treatise on Baptism, chapter eighteen, which 
 we wish to lay before the reader, and hope they will not be unprofitable. 
 
 " ' Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but accord- 
 ing to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and re- 
 newing of the Holy Ghost.' Mr. Campbell, (in his remarks in regard 
 to his debate with Mr. Jennings,) says, " If (regeneration) was repre- 
 9
 
 
 98 
 
 sented by me as the act of being barn, and if my opponent (Mr. Jen- 
 nings) understood and regarded the import of his concessions on 
 Titus iii : 5, he must feel that he had decided the cause against him- 
 self: for if the washing of regeneration was equivalent to being born 
 again, and if the washing of regeneration was different from the re- 
 newal of the Holy Spirit, then, unless he could show some other use 
 of water than the baptismal, it must follow thai the only time the term 
 regeneration occurs in the New Testament applied to a person, it is 
 used as convertible with, or equivalent to immersion, which was the 
 only question before us.' " Har. Vol. 2, No. 3, p. 1 19. 
 
 We will here subjoin Mr. Jennings' remarks. " On the other hand 
 it was contended, that his (Mr. Campbell's) argument was nothing 
 better than a sophism ; that its chief fallacy consisted in two particu- 
 lars; first, in having untruly represented the scriptural import of the 
 term regeneration, to denote 'only the act of being born.' Second, in 
 having, contrary to the truth, assumed it as a point established, that 
 by 'the washing 1 spoken of by the apostle, in connection with regene- 
 ration, is meant immersion. In determining the scriptural import of 
 the term regeneration, as used by the apostle, (Titus iii : 5.) the 
 Bishop, (Mr. Campbell,) notwithstanding all his pretensions to learn- 
 ing, did not, as he frequently does, enter upon a critical examination 
 of the original term. This he carefully forbears to do, and no doubt 
 for the plain reason, that the import of the original v:ord is too olvious, 
 to admit of its being wrested from its true meaning, in snch manner 
 as to answer /its purpose. The original, (Paliggenesia) is a compounded 
 word ; it comes from Palin, again, and Genesis, a birth, or a being born. 
 And according to Parkhurst, a lexicographer cited by the Bishop 
 himself, as an aulhority in relation to another word in the same pas- 
 sage, and indeed according to the evident import of its roots, it means, 
 not as he has untruly represented, the mere 'act (or circumstance) of 
 beingborn,' but 'a being BORN AGAIN;' not merely afo>tft,but 'anew 
 birth,' or regeneration, which, from its root and formation, is evidently 
 in its application to this subject, the same thing: if the word generation, 
 as it is found in this compounded term, means production, as it cer- 
 tainly does, then regeneration as certainly means a re-production.- Thus 
 the term is sometimes used to denote the restoration of metals to their 
 primitive state, after having been decomposed and apparently de- 
 stroyed by a chemical process. Thus the term regeneration, as applied 
 (Titus iii : 5) to spiritual things, and 'with a reference to a personal 
 change, 1 in the true spirit or meaning of the original word it is designed 
 to translate, denotes the commencement of that spiritual renovation 
 of human nature, whereby man is in due time perfectly restored to 
 his primitive state, as it regards the image of God, in which he was 
 at first created, and which was really destroyed or lost by the fall ; or 
 in other words, to that ' holiness without which no man shall see the 
 Lord.' Yet Mr. Campbell, contrary to the evident meaning, as well 
 of the term regeneration as of the original words of which it is a true 
 translation, would have it believed that its scriptural meaning is simply 
 what he calls 'the act of being born.' Whether this be the result of 
 ignorance or design, let the candid and intelligent reader judge ; for to 
 every such reader, it is supposed it must evidently appear, that as in 
 fixing the meaning of the phrase 'born again,' he overlooks that most 
 important part of the explanation given by Christ, i. e. ' born of the 
 Spirit,' so in defining the term regeneration, he rejects that part of the 
 compounded word wliich signifies 'again,' and which renders it ex-
 
 99 ^ 
 
 actly equivalent, not to the (mere) act of ' being born,' but to being 
 'born AGAIN.' But, says Mr. C., 'Paul has associated the idea of 
 water with regeneration,' inasmuch as he speaks ' of the washing of 
 regeneration,' and he alleges that ' it is conceded by the most learned 
 Pedo-bapLists and Baptists,' that this phrase ' refers to [baptism] immer- 
 sion.' In reply, I observe, in the first place, upon the supposition that 
 in this passage there is an allusion to the application of, water in bap- 
 tism, as is conceded, according to the array of human authorities ex- 
 hibited by the Bishop, [Extr. p. 28,] by Dr. Macknight, Parkhurst, in 
 his Lexicon, and even Matthew Henry and others, what does the con- 
 cession amount to ] That it is only by the water of baptism that a per- 
 son can be born of God. or wash away kis sins, or obtain forgiveness, &C.1 
 No. But [and that even according to his chief Presbyterian authority, 
 Dr. Macknight.] the allusion is to the water of baptism as 'an EM- 
 BLEM of the purification of the soul from sin.' But let the point con- 
 tended for be conceded by whom it may, it furnishes no conclusive 
 reason why any should believe that in this passage or in that in John, 
 [chapter iii : 5,] there is any allusion to baptism, unless it can be shown 
 from the word of God. The direction of our Master in Heaven, is to 
 call no man master on earth." Debate on Campbellism, pp. 223 5. 
 
 " Great pains are frequently taken to impress the public with the idea 
 that the most learned and intelligent Methodist commentators agree 
 wuhCampbellites in the application of this text. Let us hear two of the 
 most learned and extensive commentators among the Methodists upon 
 this subject : 
 
 ' ' They who think baptism to be regeneration, neither know the scrip- 
 tures nor the power of God; therefore they do greatly err.' Dr. Clark's 
 Com. Titus iii : 5, [latter clause.] 
 
 " 'By the washing of regeneration, that is, by regeneration itself, the 
 thing signified, and not merely by baptismal water, the outward and visi- 
 ble sign; which regeneration cleanses the soul from the filth of sin, [as 
 water washes the body,] implying the renewing influences of the Holy 
 Ghost,' &c. Benson's Com. Titus iii : 6. 
 
 " Some time since we made the following remarks upon this sub- 
 ject, in the GOSPEL HERALD, Vol. 2, No. 4, p. 87: 
 
 'IMMERSION AND REGENERATION. 
 
 are . , 
 view." 
 
 "Proposition. I now proceed to show that immersion and regeneration 
 e two Bible names for the same act contemplated in two different paints of 
 ew." ' - '+ 4 
 
 'Regeneration and immersion are two names far the same thing" 
 
 " So says the learned Editor of the 'Millennial Harbinger,' in his 
 ' Extra,' No. 1, of July, 1830. 
 
 " If these propositions are true if the terms immersion and regene- 
 ration are in their scriptural sense synonymous then we may, with- 
 out doing violence to the meaning of the writers of the New Testa- 
 ment, substitute the one for the other, in all those passages in which 
 either term is used. Now let us try this interpretation. We must 
 not be understood, however, as conceding that the word in our com- 
 mon Bibles translated baptizing, means immersion only, or indeed im- 
 mersion at all. We apply the rule according to the interpretation 
 given the word by the Harbinger.
 
 " 'I indeed regenerate [baptize] you with water unto repentance: 
 but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not 
 worthy to bear: he shall regenerate [baptize] you with the Holy Ghost 
 and with fire. 1 Matt. iii. 
 
 " ' Then cometh Jesus from Gallilee to Jordan unto John, to be re- 
 generated [baptized] of him. But John forbade him, saying, I have 
 need to be regenerated [baptized] of thee, and comest thou to me.' Jb. 
 
 " 'And Jesus, when he was regenerated, [baptized,] went up straight- 
 way out of the water.' Ib. 
 
 " 'I thank God I regenerated [baptized] none of you, but Crispus 
 and Gaius; lest any should say that I regenerated [baptized] in mine 
 own name. Aod I regenerated [baptized] also the household of Ste- 
 phanus: besides, I know not whether 1 regenerated [baptized] any 
 other. For Christ sent me not to regenerate [baptize] but to preach 
 the gospel.' 1 Cor. i. 
 
 " 'And Paul said unto them, unto what then were ye regenerated? 
 [baptized.] And they said, unto John's regeneration, [baptism.] Then 
 said Paul, John verily regenerated [baptized] with the regeneration [bap- 
 tism] of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe 
 on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When 
 they heard this, they were regenerated (baptized) in the name of the 
 Lord Jesus.' Acts xviii. 
 
 " 'Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant how 
 that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the 
 sea; and were all regenerated (baptized) "unto" Moses in the cloud 
 and in the sea.' 1 Cor. x. 
 
 " ' Can any man forbid water, that these should not be regenerated, 
 (baptized.) which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we. And 
 he commanded them to be regenerated (baptized) in the name of the 
 Lord.' Acts x. 
 
 " We wish to try the following extract, p. 29, by this same rule, to 
 see if the doctrine it contains can be true : 
 
 " ' To call the receiving of any spirit, or any influence, or energy, 
 or any operation upon the heart of man, regeneration, is an abuse of 
 all speech, as well as a departure from the diction of the Holy Spirit, 
 who calls nothing personal regeneration, except the act of immersion.' 
 
 " 'John truly regenerated (baptized) with water, but ye shall be re-, 
 generated (baptized) with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.' 
 Acts i. 
 
 " 'I indeed regenerate (baptize) you with water unto repentance, but 
 he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not 
 worthy to bear: he shall regenerate (baptize) you with the Holy Ghost 
 and with Jire.' Matt. iii. 
 
 " ' For by one spirit are we all regenerated (baptized) into one body.' 
 1 Cor. xii." 
 
 "Equally curious with this rule of interpretation, is the following 
 wise sentence from the same essay, p. 29 : 
 
 " ' Persons are begotten by the Spirit of God, impregnated by the 
 Word, and born of the Water.' " 
 
 I cannot suffer this chapter to be closed without giving the reader 
 a specimen of Mr. Campbell's consistency. In his debate with Mr. 
 McCaulla on the subject of baptism, Mr. McCaulla. in proof of the 
 antiquity of infant baptism, introduced Ireneus and others as using the 
 word regenerate for baptize. Mr. Campbell in replying to this argu- 
 ment remarks, " That the ancients sometimes used the word regene-
 
 101 + 
 
 rate for baptize, I admit, but this was far from being common or gen- 
 eral." See debate with McCaulla, p. 367. In the Extra Millennial 
 Harbinger, on remission of sins, published some time subsequent to 
 this debate, we find the following language: Prop. xi. "All the apos- 
 tolical fathers, as they are called, all the pupils of the apostles, and 
 all the ecclesiastical writers of note, of the first four Christian cen- 
 turies, whose writings have come down to us, allude to, and speak of 
 Christian immersion as the regeneration and remission of sins spoken 
 of in the. New Testament." From these extracts the reader can 
 judge whether Mr. Campbell can be relied upon as an honest debater. 
 The intelligent reader can see how far conscience will suffer him to 
 go when hard pressed. When Mr. McCaulla introduces Ireneus, 
 (who was born about the time of St. John's death,) as testifying, in- 
 fants were regenerated as well as youth, and persons of riper years, 
 (this is carrying infant regeneration to the days of the apostles,) this 
 at once places Mr. Campbell in an awkward position, and he is forced 
 to admit that infants were baptized in the days of Ireneus, or to state 
 that Ireneus did not use the term regenerate for baptize. So to get rid 
 of infant baptism as the plague of the church, he taxes his conscience 
 .a little, and avows that Ireneus did not mean baptism by using the term 
 regenerate; and farther declares, that although the term regenerate 
 was sometimes used by the ancients as synonymous with baptize, yet 
 "this was far from being common or general." This does very well 
 while debating on infant baptism, (and,'by the way, a little pressed, 
 too,) but when the doctrine of immersion for the remission of sins 
 comes up, and he wishes to show that immersion regenerates the sin- 
 ner, and makes him " as innocent, as clean, and as unspotted as an 
 angel," he then relieves his conscience, or gives it another touch with 
 the "hot iron," and declares that "all the apostolical fathers, all the 
 pupils of the apostles, all the ecclesiastical writers of any note for the 
 first four Christian centuries, whose writings have come down to us, 
 allude to and speak of Christian immersion as the regeneration and 
 remission of sins spoken of in the New Testament." But a short 
 time since it was "far from being common or general;" but now, 
 when it suits his purpose, it is general; nay, it is universal; for ALL, 
 means every one. ' Fie ! fie ! ! What a creature is man. How for- 
 getful of words and events past. How bent upon his own way, 
 although he trample the highest authority under foot. In a word, 
 how guilty, how unclean, how spotted, and how little like an angel is 
 poor man, when left to the dictates of a corrupt heart. 
 
 
 * . 
 

 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 To the Reader, - 3 
 Chapter I. The authority upon which we are to rely in the 
 
 following treatise, - - - 5 
 
 Chapter II. John's Baptism, - 17 
 
 Chapter III. Baptism as Administered to Christ, - -21 
 
 Chapter IV. The Design of Christian Baptism, - - 24 
 
 Chapter V. Subjects of Christian Baptism, - 50 
 
 Chapter VI. Antiquity of Infant Baptism, - - 62 
 
 Chapter VII. Mode of Baptism, - - 66 
 
 Chapter VIII. Mode of Baptism Continued, '$". 72 
 
 Chapter IX. Mode of Baptism Continued, .> 80 
 
 Chapter X. History of the Mode of Baptism, . v 92 
 
 Chapter XI. Regeneration Not Immersion, - , 97 
 
 * 

 
 *t 
 
 i'W^ 
 >' 
 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 ... 
 On Page 3, fifth line from bottom, for "bur," read "bar." 
 
 Page 8, thirty-seventh line from top, for "DERIDES," read 
 
 " DECIDES." 
 Page 33, thirty-seventh line, for " impart," read "import." And, 
 
 also, for "imparted,' 1 read "imported." 
 
 Page 33, forty-fifth -line, fur "corporeal," read " n<rn-corporeal." 
 Page 56, fifty-third line, for "Gentile also," read "Gentile children 
 
 : \ also " ' 
 
 - - '
 
 WCSB LIBRARY 
 

 
 
 A 000 590 840 5